Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 4299020" data-attributes="member: 63214">Yeah, you pretty much ignored his point there. The freedom of 3.5 multiclassing lead to a huge variance in the end result. Those who didn't optimize but wanted to play a certain type of character, such as a core bard/core monk took a beating. Those who optimized, losing the original concept in a slew of dipping into classes and prestige classes, ended up being very powerful. Even in the core, there is a wide variance in power, like his bard/monk versus fighter/barbarian example. The fact is that a fighter/barbarian has a much higher chance to defeat monsters of his level than a bard/monk. If you disagree, please give examples. From what I can tell so far, the 4E multiclassing system is a step in the right direction for the overall wellbeing of D&amp;D. Whenever I tried to bring new players into D&amp;D, they definitely did not want to bother with getting the exact right skills and feats so they can dip into a prestige class later and have the right set of abilities to perfectly coincide with a level a certain class later on. I mean, I didn't even want to bother with it, but I had the willpower to do it a few times. 4E gives you narrower multiclassing choices that as a result do not deviate as strongly from the fragile line of power that exists in all editions of the game. This isn't to say that fun can't be had from making these multiclassed characters and playing them, because when it came down to it, it was fun to have an multiclassed character with tons of options. But, the problem is, I'm having more fun playing 4E as it is and spend way less time in preparation. Perhaps this will lead to a game even more shortlived than 3rd edition, but I am willing to take the risk.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fuzzlewump, post: 4299020, member: 63214"] Yeah, you pretty much ignored his point there. The freedom of 3.5 multiclassing lead to a huge variance in the end result. Those who didn't optimize but wanted to play a certain type of character, such as a core bard/core monk took a beating. Those who optimized, losing the original concept in a slew of dipping into classes and prestige classes, ended up being very powerful. Even in the core, there is a wide variance in power, like his bard/monk versus fighter/barbarian example. The [I]fact[/I] is that a fighter/barbarian has a much higher chance to defeat monsters of his level than a bard/monk. If you disagree, please give examples. From what I can tell so far, the 4E multiclassing system is a step in the right direction for the overall wellbeing of D&D. Whenever I tried to bring new players into D&D, they definitely did not want to bother with getting the exact right skills and feats so they can dip into a prestige class later and have the right set of abilities to perfectly coincide with a level a certain class later on. I mean, I didn't even want to bother with it, but I had the willpower to do it a few times. 4E gives you narrower multiclassing choices that as a result do not deviate as strongly from the fragile line of power that exists in all editions of the game. This isn't to say that fun can't be had from making these multiclassed characters and playing them, because when it came down to it, it was fun to have an multiclassed character with tons of options. But, the problem is, I'm having more fun playing 4E as it is and spend way less time in preparation. Perhaps this will lead to a game even more shortlived than 3rd edition, but I am willing to take the risk. [/QUOTE]

Verification