|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 7:59AM
#151
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
But you also get exclusive powers of the mixed class such as ranger only cleric only powers.
Free swag for specific MC mixes is a bad idea.
There's just too many to inclunde them all, and any new classes means too many more.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 9:33AM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Believe me, as a GM since the blue box days I can ensure you that I could write many long and boring dissertations on the various flaws with this choice. But this forum is neither the time nor place for a high minded discussion on the seen and unseen aspects of game design decisions.
So a discussion on the aspects of game design decisions is not time or place for a discussion of game design decisions.
Does that really make sense to you?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 9:46AM
#153
|
|
|
4e-style PHB1 multiclassing via feats won't work because it's very limited, and because there is no rigid AEDU power system to "swap" powers through.
Wrong; you just remove the power swap feats (they were rarely used anyway). The entry-level multiclass feats of 4e that give you a little splash of the class work just fine.
4e-style hybrids won't work because, again, there's no rigid AEDU system for alternating powers.
Wrong, and obviously wrong because they made such hybrids even for the 4e classes that didn't have AEDU.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 9:46AM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
....
That makes no sense at all. I don't mean this as a criticism on you, I think you've explained it well enough (maybe?), I just have no idea why anyone would have thought to include that in a rulebook as a good idea.
2e dual-classing was stinky poo. If you used your former abilities to stay, I believe you got no experience for the adventure. Suddenly, upon reaching your former level in your new class, you could suddenly use those abilities without penalty. Oh, and you had to have like 17's and 18's in all the prime stats for both classes you were engaging.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 9:48AM
#155
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
So, it's more of like "here's a massive temporary experience penalty, once you're done with it, you get to be a gestalt" thing?
Except your former class no longer goes up in levels, so it's not true gestalt.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 10:28AM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
I would like to have the opportunity to make character concepts that involve the mechanical support of more than one class. I can admit that some degree of flexible-character-classes can solve this manner of hybridization (rogue-mage? bard. fighter-cleric? paladin.) but that has the problem of coming up with flexible classes that can fit my character concept while retaining their own independant value, as well as being unable to fit the idea of the more distant concepts (I can think of no "combo class" that would reflect properly a rogue-wizard-cleric, although I also hesitate to say that the game should feel all that burdened to carry a character like that balanced with other characters).
What I do not want is a point-buy level system.
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 3:06AM
#157
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2006
|
....
That makes no sense at all. I don't mean this as a criticism on you, I think you've explained it well enough (maybe?), I just have no idea why anyone would have thought to include that in a rulebook as a good idea.
2e dual-classing was stinky poo. If you used your former abilities to stay, I believe you got no experience for the adventure. Suddenly, upon reaching your former level in your new class, you could suddenly use those abilities without penalty. Oh, and you had to have like 17's and 18's in all the prime stats for both classes you were engaging.
15 in the prime stat of your initial clas, 17 in the class you were going into. You're right that you got no experience if you used the abilities from your first class until you exceeded it in the second. And you couldn't do the switch at first level, either, for rather obvious reasons. I saw it done three times, iirc.
Once by someone who started as a Cleric, got to 3rd (4th?) level fairly quickly, and then switched to Mage. Eventually you got someone who was at the same level as any other Mage with the same total XP nearly all the time, but who had ezxtra hit points and could throw around a fair number of 1st and 2nd level cleric spells. The concept was a priect of a god of magic who finally unlocked their spellcasting potential but was still blessed by the god.
Second was someone who went Thief, then Cleric. Fast advancement for both classes meant that I think they were Thief 3/Cleric 4 at about the same time the Mage reached 4th level. The concept was of a god of thieves who wanted his clerics to be able to be able to perform like a thief, although personally I thought it would have worked better as a Speciality Priest - the GM didn't like those.
The last was a Fighter turned Cleric. A pious warrior who after a few years of fighting entered a religious order, and then was called to serve "in the field" again. He was a replacement character, and as the GM I hesitated about allowing up. In the end, since the other players were fine with it and he met the rules we had for replacement characters, I allowed it.
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling,
And took their wages, and are dead.
Playing: Mongoose Traveller
GMing: Barbarians of Lemuria
Planning: Reclaiming Neverwinter, a 4e D&D campaign
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 8:32AM
#158
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
The last was a Fighter turned Cleric. A pious warrior who after a few years of fighting entered a religious order, and then was called to serve "in the field" again.
This is really the most obnoxious issue with 2E dualclassing - it's forcefully dictating the character narrative.
Everything else is just a symptom of Gary's "Rare = Balanced, right?" mistake.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 10:32PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2013
|
I do love how people defend a system without knowing what it will be by trashing others for not knowing its specifics. Instead of acknowledging that the decision to forego the system because of WotC's poor choice in direction. Apparently the definition of hypocracy is lost here...
Do you know what the most important part of that statement is? The bolded part where you admit that you do not know what it will be. You have just admitted that you are making your claim about multiclassing without actually knowing how it will turn out. Thanks for that.
Not only that, he's also admitted to ignoring new information about how they want it to turn out.
I want 5E to turn out to be a 4.75 that is cleaned up and previous edition friendly, but by now we both know that isn't going to happen. Also what new information? vague promises made by the same people that sprang the broken vancian wizard and the almost a fighter rogue on us? Yeah, sure thing. You go ahead and believe those promises. I followed two edition changes so far and I've seen a road made of broken promises.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 10:37PM
#160
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I want 5E to turn out to be a 4.75 that is cleaned up and previous edition friendly, but by now we both know that isn't going to happen.
If Mearls can make a "4E, in 2E terms", he's automatically won.
|
|
|
