Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Intense_Interest" data-source="post: 4282440" data-attributes="member: 65904">But for those who have a problem with that, a feat analogous to Practiced Spellcaster or Empower Spell would be an easy fix, getting the shapeshifter better abilities in at least one form.</blockquote>In this edition, feats aren't used as an alternate cost to make a character exceptional, they're additional separate abilities, for one.Secondly, you're ascribing to the &quot;Level 1 means can't swing a sword.&quot;&nbsp; Sacred Cow.&nbsp; A level 1 Rogue is already doing 2d6 Sneak Attack damage, so we're really seeing a conflict between two distinct senses of scale here.&nbsp; What does a multi-class do that can't be made achieved by a well-designed base class already?&nbsp; Half-and-Half classes like the &quot;Arcane Avenger&quot; are good enough to be class concepts, and dabbling is well contained within the current Multiclass feats or a slight alteration within them.&quot;Fuzzy numbers&quot; are System Mastery dog whistles.&nbsp; You'd have to break the entire system down to take into account either the Do Everything Super-classes or the Behind The Curve partial classes.The exponential nature of the class-based system math (Magic Items, Powers) means that a Level 15 character has to be able to contribute equally across the entire spectrum, or else the Flat Number XP reward that is so brilliantly elegant goes out the window.PrCs in 3E give you the level 15 fighter level 1 Plaguelord instead of a level 16 Plaguelord, or the 7 levels of crap.&nbsp; It was never a good idea- This goes beyond Power Creep and Optimization Wormholes.&quot;Real multiclassing&quot; is either Dabbling or a Mashup, in a broad stroke.&nbsp; Dabbling we have, and Mashups are supposed to be actual classes anyway.&nbsp; There might be a third option between the poles, but I'm not seeing a distinction.&quot;Linear&quot; teaching mechanics vs. &quot;Exponential&quot; fad growth.&nbsp; The Old Forgotten Realms defense that the grognards taught the newbies didn't hold up: you have to have a game that advertises itself.Considering that the rule-set of the previous edition isn't being printed anymore, I think you're dropping the &quot;Longevity&quot; ball in a straight edition-to-edition comparison.Now if in 8 years the engine needs to be overhauled (not as in 3.5 style, which would be 4 years then), then we've got a comparison.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Intense_Interest, post: 4282440, member: 65904"] But for those who have a problem with that, a feat analogous to Practiced Spellcaster or Empower Spell would be an easy fix, getting the shapeshifter better abilities in at least one form.[/quote] In this edition, feats aren't used as an alternate cost to make a character exceptional, they're additional separate abilities, for one. Secondly, you're ascribing to the "Level 1 means can't swing a sword." Sacred Cow. A level 1 Rogue is already doing 2d6 Sneak Attack damage, so we're really seeing a conflict between two distinct senses of scale here. What does a multi-class do that can't be made achieved by a well-designed base class already? Half-and-Half classes like the "Arcane Avenger" are good enough to be class concepts, and dabbling is well contained within the current Multiclass feats or a slight alteration within them. "Fuzzy numbers" are System Mastery dog whistles. You'd have to break the entire system down to take into account either the Do Everything Super-classes or the Behind The Curve partial classes. The exponential nature of the class-based system math (Magic Items, Powers) means that a Level 15 character has to be able to contribute equally across the entire spectrum, or else the Flat Number XP reward that is so brilliantly elegant goes out the window. PrCs in 3E give you the level 15 fighter level 1 Plaguelord instead of a level 16 Plaguelord, or the 7 levels of crap. It was never a good idea- This goes beyond Power Creep and Optimization Wormholes. "Real multiclassing" is either Dabbling or a Mashup, in a broad stroke. Dabbling we have, and Mashups are supposed to be actual classes anyway. There might be a third option between the poles, but I'm not seeing a distinction. "Linear" teaching mechanics vs. "Exponential" fad growth. The Old Forgotten Realms defense that the grognards taught the newbies didn't hold up: you have to have a game that advertises itself. Considering that the rule-set of the previous edition isn't being printed anymore, I think you're dropping the "Longevity" ball in a straight edition-to-edition comparison. Now if in 8 years the engine needs to be overhauled (not as in 3.5 style, which would be 4 years then), then we've got a comparison. [/QUOTE]

Verification