Community

EvilVegan wrote:

I thought I'd seen something saying it was a choice you made at 10 and 20 that refocused your archetype. A class would obviously do that, but so would a flavorful feat or ability chain (like a blood line from UA).I wouldn't hold your breath either. 2.3 months is a long time. . .

So taking abilities (who knows how many or at what power level?) from multiple classes isn't multiclassing? Interesting semantics.

You don't preogress in your hero levels after 10, you progress in your paragon and epic levels instead ala ragnorok online or lineage system. It was spelled out as much in the races and classes book.

As for using feats to cherry pick class abilities from other classes, yes that is not MCing. That is at best dabbling. It's the difference between having a major and a minor in school vs having a dual major.

But yes, it is pushing towards a less class-based system. I'm neutral on that issue, but I see your point.

Actually, I like classless system. They are generally better balanced then classed systems...but it's one more nail in the it's not D&D coffin.

If they got rid of the blood wars, it was only by creating a new campaign setting.

It's like saying the creators of Dark Sun got rid of the Blood Wars.

Dark sun still had the blood wars. The blood wars has been intergral in D&D in ALL the settings since 1st ed. It's a cosmology change. It had nothing to do with any setting in particular. There was no reason, zip zilch nada for this change other then to kill a sacred cow for the sake of it. It does not make the game any better or worse mechanically. It does however negatively impact the flavor of D&D. So WHY?!?

Oh no! I didn't know the exact level of a system I haven't used for 8 years!!!!!! Shame upon my head in all of my life...

You don't get split saves in 2nd ed multiclassing, you get "best of" saves.

Split hp. . . ((8d10 + 8d8 + 8d4) / 3) > (11d4)

But best of is STILL spliting. Okay so not quite...but your progression is slowed vs in 3rd ed, you usually end up getting better saves MCing due to front loaded saves and the additive nature.

Oh no, I have 33.3 hp vs 27.5 hp. For 3 spell levels. No really...wtf.

3e mystic theurge ignores 1/3rd of the character I mentioned.

So at most you've shown that the 2nd edition multiclass character is more powerful than one of the worst multiclass combinations in 3rd editions.

MT casts divine might and divine favor...no it doesn't.

Again, just so we're clear, I was asking "do you really think that the HP difference between a fighter 8/ cleric 8 / wizard 8 and a wizard 11 made the 2nd edition multiclassing system "balanced"

You didn't specifically answer this question, but you did mention that a 3 level spell loss made a mystic theurge less powerful than a higher level single class character, even if you ignored 1/3rd of the multiclassing combination, the 3 level spell loss is more than compensated for by spells per day and versatility.

Yeah having a little more hp, better melee attack and some healing spells vs 3 spell levels. We know where this goes. 2nd ed isn't that much different from 3rd ed. Spells are really REALLY good. Not 3rd ed good...but still better then non magic. And yes the MT by comparision to a straight cleric or wizard SUCK monkey balls.

So, while the Mystic theurge is poorly balanced in favor of a less powerful character, 2nd edition multiclass characters were more powerful than an equivalent XP character.

This is where your just wrong. A MC fighter cleric mage in 2ed is an AWEFUL fighter (no hp, can't wear armor). A poor cleric (has some spells...but once again no armor) and an okay wizard (3 spells levels HURT bad). However, this would not suck as bad as a if you were trying to do this in 3rd ed. The MT with divine favor and might to make up for the fighter aspect still sucks so bad compared to a cleric or wizard that it's almost laughable to try and use one in published adveentures. Go ahead, run a MT in the red hand of doom and tell me how it goes. I did...and even with my system mastery, it was hard not to feel useless. I never had that issue with MCing in 2ed. I never overshadowed the single classed characters, but I never felt useless either.

So which do you want you want more power, less power, or better balance?

I liked how 2ed was balanced. MC was weaker, you had verstility for it, but you never felt useless.

And since you keep insulting intellects, how would you handle the multiclassing issue?

You knew I would resort to personal jabs even though it was my first post directed towards you? What's more it was my first post in this thread. You are truly omniscient!

Purely mechanically speaking, going classless is the best and most elegant method. The 3rd ed's prestige class method works...but is just very cumbersome with all the combinations out there...along with suffering many levels of the suck. Although I suppose you could just streamline that into a couple dozen purely MCing option PrC and the rest as flavor PrC. But still cumbersome. Quite frankly, with a class system, pick like you did in 2nd ed at level 1 ALL your classes and then have the level up chart make it so your still useful to the group, but not overpowering the single classes characters. That will mean spliting the HP and saves amongst other things of course because using additive in this case wouldn't work. Yes that means player will have to do simple division...oh the horror I know, since it seems wizards thinks it's average players can't count or do subtractions.

Cold Napalm wrote:

And those games are not D&D. We aren't talking about other games, we are talking about D and bloody Fing D. I don't give a rats arse if other games don't have multi classing. I'm playing bloody D&D and I want to MC if I so choose. If I wanna play a game without MCing, I'll play something else. D&D has some sacred things. This is one of them. So is the vanican spell system (love or hate it). Another is the blood wars. 4th ed is getting rid of all of these it seems. Gygax chose a good time to die it seems. He can't be rolling is grave if he isn't dead yet after all. The blurb about 4th ed says it all. It's a game that feels like D&D. Well I don't want a game that feels like D&D, I want the REAL thing damn it...not some cheap imitation that feels like it.

Huh.
There could very well be plenty of people who would be just a valid being annoyed by the presence of many of your "core" D&D concepts.
When first published D&D only had 3 classes (fighter, wizard and cleric)...thief didn't come along till the first Greyhawk supplement, mind you. Multi-class? Not so much. Sure you could play an elf who could be either a warrior or a wizard, but only one for any given adventure.
It took 13 years from that original publishing to make the first Manual of the Planes, and all the engelic/demonic/crazy nonsense it had to offer...not that it was re-added to 2e until long after that had started.
The magic system? Sure that's old-school...but maybe their set-up is in fact better for a more versatile wizard.
Point being...get over your THAC0 and try it.

kedcoleman wrote:

Huh.
There could very well be plenty of people who would be just a valid being annoyed by the presence of many of your "core" D&D concepts.
When first published D&D only had 3 classes (fighter, wizard and cleric)...thief didn't come along till the first Greyhawk supplement, mind you. Multi-class? Not so much. Sure you could play an elf who could be either a warrior or a wizard, but only one for any given adventure.
It took 13 years from that original publishing to make the first Manual of the Planes, and all the engelic/demonic/crazy nonsense it had to offer...not that it was re-added to 2e until long after that had started.
The magic system? Sure that's old-school...but maybe their set-up is in fact better for a more versatile wizard.
Point being...get over your THAC0 and try it.

You know what, they can be annoyed all they want...but it is what D&D is. It's like going, well lets take world of darkness and remove vampires, werewolves and mages. Guess what, they did that...and they had the good sense to not call it world of darkness anymore but trinity and abberant.

As for the vancian magic system...yes I am aware that many people find it annoying (and I do find other magic systems much more elegant and streamlined and fun)...but that is D&D. Those other things that got slowly added since the red box D&D are all things that defined what D&D is. Hell even 3rd ed has added it's mark to D&D. 4th ed is taking that all away for a game that feel like D&D. I don't want a game that feels like D&D, I want the REAL thing damn it.

Oh and I tried the stuff after THAC0...sorry not impressed. In fact I gave them a second shot at it...and still not impressed. Their third attempt is making me very very sad.