Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JDillard" data-source="post: 4293812" data-attributes="member: 67649">Agreed!  It's time to redefine our terminology.  In 4e, "multiclass" means to take those extra feats that allow some dabbling in the other class's powers.  If you want a true 50/50 split type class, you need a whole class to accurately represent that.  The design goal looks like it was to make classes balanced and capable of performing their role duty despite what weird combinations of stuff players might come up with.  This takes the "accidentally sucky character" out of the mix, something that will help bring in new players.  You don't need system mastery to be able to make a character that's at least moderately effective in his role.  A new player who sees a feat or power that "sounds really cool!" can't accidentally screw himself and make his character basically unplayable.50/50 splits generaly either suck at both roles (ftr/wiz in 3.x) or are nearly just as good (sometimes as good or better) at both than their single class counterparts (high dmg ftr/thf).  Either you pick two classes with opposing roles and fail, or two classes with the same role and the synergy of the two makes either individually seem a waste.  Neither of these seems like a good way to handle multiclassing, to me, to lots of you, and to the designers it seems.So instead, if you want a 50/50 whatever, wait for them to make a class that does it.  Spellsword looks like it'll be our first.  And it'll work because instead of taking two classes with opposing roles or two classes with synergistic roles, you've only got one class.  And balancing a single class is thoroughly easy.</blockquote>

Verification