No Multi-Classing, Ultra-Classing.

 

Discussing Forton, the Monk, in another thread I came to the conclusion that instead of having Multi-Classing, we could have "Class Focus". Let try to explain:

 

You start off as a "Commoner Monk", basically, and then you develop and evolve into a "Flagellant Monk" or perhaps a "Chi Monk". Basically you create your Class Kit by playing, and in many ways you could "Multi-Class" by developing your class (e.g., your Monk becomes a "Fighter Monk" in essence).

 

Thoughts?

No Multi-Classing, Ultra-Classing.

 

Discussing Forton, the Monk, in another thread I came to the conclusion that instead of having Multi-Classing, we could have "Class Focus". Let try to explain:

 

You start off as a "Commoner Monk", basically, and then you develop and evolve into a "Flagellant Monk" or perhaps a "Chi Monk". Basically you create your Class Kit by playing, and in many ways you could "Multi-Class" by developing your class (e.g., your Monk becomes a "Fighter Monk" in essence).

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this? As long as it involves a great deal of customization options I don't particularly care about HOW that customization is implemented. I will say that many customization schemes tend to be highly ineffective at actually allowing customization, providing only superficial changes while still pigeonholing you into a very specific set of roles - this is only a half-step better than having no customization at all. Multiclassing tends to avoid this because each class has it's own theme already, and when you mix and match classes you also mix and match themes - allowing for a great deal of variation. The downside is that multiclass mechanics tend to be harder to balance (with MANY useless combinations, and the potential for overpowered combos - this matter less in single player games though, as if you play an overpowered combo you effect nobody but yourself).

I think 3/3.5E did multiclassing perfectly. Something like that would give the most freedom for customization.

 

It did NOT. They had to put in feats like "Practiced Spellcaster" to make martial/magic multiclasses viable and that just added ANOTHER penalty to multiclassing (a feat cost). Folks had to house rule passive caster levels into the rules to make 3E multiclasses worth a damn without resorting to using cheesy Prestige Classes or unfair feat costs (some d20 system out there is sold using those passive caster levels, don't recall the company or the name of the system at the moment).

 

First of all. you didn't address the freedom for customization that I stated I liked about 3/3.5E multiclassing. You went off on a rant on viability, something I did not even mention.

 

Anyways, multiclassing was quite possible(and to address your complaint viable) in 3/3.5E. Just because there is a disadvantage for multiclassing(like reduced caster level or less skill points or less bab or having to allocate precious attribute points sparingly or etc.) doesn't mean it is completely horrid and not worth a damn. A fighter/wizard can still be an effective character, even if they have a lower caster level or bab than one of the pure classes. While that fighter/wizard may not be able to out fight a fighter or out cast a wizard, he can use buff himself to fortify his ability in combat where a fighter could not(use haste, enlarge person, greater magic weapon, etc.), or deal with a foe that got close like a wizard could not(use a weapon effectively instead of hoping that he passes a concentration check). Add in prestige classes(similar to those cheesy kits) that are completely optional and(in most circumstances) do not require a specific class and you have a good system that allows quite a bit of freedom for customization.

 

BTW you don't have to take that Practiced Spellcaster to make a wizard/fighter work well. It is entirely possible to create an excellent build without one.

 

In 2E aDnD, exp levels were different. You could achieve Fighter (14)/Mage (14) with the same xp that it took to get to 20 in either. That made the multiclasses much more viable than just a typical 10/10 3E multiclass. This was not unbalanced because the attack/hp bonuses were done differently. There was THAC0 progression and front loaded HP progression (these systems, I might add, are just plain better - sure they can be confusing, but they make it so enemies of lower level remain a viable threat)

 

But in that system, you are forced into an "even-split" in regards to the level of classes. In 3E, I can make a Wizard(19)/Rogue(1) if I please. I can't do that in 2E. So 2E does not provide as much freedom of customization as 3/3.5E. Which is what I place the priority on, not viability.

 

As far as the lower level foes still remaining threats, in 3/3.5E any character has a 5% chance of landing a critical hit, and it is not unusual to be able to get hit(and take a fair bit of damage I might add) by foes 5 levels lower. So both systems can have low level foes that are still dangerous.

I think 3/3.5E did multiclassing perfectly. Something like that would give the most freedom for customization.

While I like the flexibility this system provides, creating a Deep Gnome Monk(5)/Rogue(1)/Dreadmaster of Bane(12)/Conjurer(12) in IWD2 makes me question it nevertheless.

 

Why?

 

Shouldn't the player be able to crate whatever character they desire, even if it is a little strange or nonviable ?

No Multi-Classing, Ultra-Classing.

 

Discussing Forton, the Monk, in another thread I came to the conclusion that instead of having Multi-Classing, we could have "Class Focus". Let try to explain:

 

You start off as a "Commoner Monk", basically, and then you develop and evolve into a "Flagellant Monk" or perhaps a "Chi Monk". Basically you create your Class Kit by playing, and in many ways you could "Multi-Class" by developing your class (e.g., your Monk becomes a "Fighter Monk" in essence).

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this? As long as it involves a great deal of customization options I don't particularly care about HOW that customization is implemented. I will say that many customization schemes tend to be highly ineffective at actually allowing customization, providing only superficial changes while still pigeonholing you into a very specific set of roles - this is only a half-step better than having no customization at all. Multiclassing tends to avoid this because each class has it's own theme already, and when you mix and match classes you also mix and match themes - allowing for a great deal of variation. The downside is that multiclass mechanics tend to be harder to balance (with MANY useless combinations, and the potential for overpowered combos - this matter less in single player games though, as if you play an overpowered combo you effect nobody but yourself).

 

I'm speaking of class focus/trees, let's say you start off as a Monk class and you develop it to your liking as you level up and explore the world. Not so much press a "Dual-Class" button and suddenly you are a Dual-Class poof. Same thing goes with the Multi-Class, instead of going for instantly having 2-3 classes you'd get 2-3 classes as you play. Not necessarily Level 2 Monk, Level 1 Thief, Level 4 Fighter etc. etc. as someone posted but you'd still be a Monk with traits and feats making him a hybrid Monk pretty much.

 

Let your gameplay define your class, not the other way around.

 

Basically you'd be a "commoner", a "noob" as a character (apart from your class) you start off in (as you usually do), but you'd be able to decide and choose how to "branch" out and grow.

 

A "Commoner Monk" or a "Commoner Fighter", this is not a suggestion, merely an idea that needs heavy polishing. And as you grow you could become the "Guardian Fighter" or "Flagellant Monk" etc. etc.

Edited October 14, 201213 yr by Osvir

I'm speaking of class focus/trees, let's say you start off as a Monk class and you develop it to your liking as you level up and explore the world. Not so much press a "Dual-Class" button and suddenly you are a Dual-Class poof. Same thing goes with the Multi-Class, instead of going for instantly having 2-3 classes you'd get 2-3 classes as you play. Not necessarily Level 2 Monk, Level 1 Thief, Level 4 Fighter etc. etc. as someone posted but you'd still be a Monk with traits and feats making him a hybrid Monk pretty much.

 

Let your gameplay define your class, not the other way around.

 

Basically you'd be a "commoner", a "noob" as a character (apart from your class) you start off in (as you usually do), but you'd be able to decide and choose how to "branch" out and grow.

 

A "Commoner Monk" or a "Commoner Fighter", this is not a suggestion, merely an idea that needs heavy polishing. And as you grow you could become the "Guardian Fighter" or "Flagellant Monk" etc. etc.

 

So are you sort of talking about a Elder Scrolls-esq system where what you use defines what gets better? I'm not against that, but I've yet to see it done well (Skyrim for instance, has rather bland options for customization). The quality and variability of the customizations, not what unlocks those customizations, is what matters to me.

I think 3/3.5E did multiclassing perfectly. Something like that would give the most freedom for customization.

While I like the flexibility this system provides, creating a Deep Gnome Monk(5)/Rogue(1)/Dreadmaster of Bane(12)/Conjurer(12) in IWD2 makes me question it nevertheless.

 

What is wrong with creating a Deep Gnome Monk(5)/Rogue(1)/Dreadmaster of Bane(12)/Conjurer(12)?

Making those kind of crazy characters is part of whats fun with a system that gives you so much flexibility and freedom!

I would even like to see templates you could get in addition to your race. For example the standard "undead" template, in case you find a way to become undead.

Freedom in RPGs is something I am a big supporter of! The more freedom and options the better it is. One of the reasons I love pen and paper RPGs.

I refuse to vote in this poll. It seems to be written by a 7-year-old.

I refuse to vote in this poll. It seems to be written by a 7-year-old.

 

I alrady sad. SORRY for my english im useing google translator. If you what better poll create your own not complain on everything like a little baby. If you are so offendet then why the hell you are trolling here ?

 

Personaly if i don't like something i just don't participating in it and leave, You don't have your own life ?

Edited October 14, 201213 yr by ArchBeast

Just because there is a disadvantage for multiclassing(like reduced caster level or less skill points or less bab or having to allocate precious attribute points sparingly or etc.) doesn't mean it is completely horrid and not worth a damn. A fighter/wizard can still be an effective character, even if they have a lower caster level or bab than one of the pure classes. While that fighter/wizard may not be able to out fight a fighter or out cast a wizard, he can use buff himself to fortify his ability in combat where a fighter could not(use haste, enlarge person, greater magic weapon, etc.), or deal with a foe that got close like a wizard could not(use a weapon effectively instead of hoping that he passes a concentration check). Add in prestige classes(similar to those cheesy kits) that are completely optional and(in most circumstances) do not require a specific class and you have a good system that allows quite a bit of freedom for customization.

 

Thank you for the lecture on what a multiclass is. I think most of in this thread know that.

 

1. The penalties for MC in 3E are WAY more punative than 2E. Quite frankly, without cheesy PrCs like Arcane Trickster or Bladesinger, martial/magic multiclasses are completely useless. Your "arguements" do not address this. You simply define what a multiclass is. That definition you gave applies to 2E too but doesn't actually address how absolutely worse 3E multiclasses were.

 

2. Kits were not like PrCs (with a few exceptions - like the Swashbuckler getting fighter THAC0). Most offered a few mild/moderate onetime bonuses. In reality, they acted kinda like "feat packs" you would pick up as a benefit of being pureclass. Please do not use the example of BG2 "kits." Get a rulebook, read actual some 2E kits.

 

BTW you don't have to take that Practiced Spellcaster to make a wizard/fighter work well. It is entirely possible to create an excellent build without one.

 

You need practiced spell caster. Period. Denying this is foolish. In 3E, if you are a martial/magic MC and you do not take practiced spelcaster, then you are gimpiing yourself. 4 caster levels for one feat. Essentially, they are putting in a cost for having MC work like it should.

 

But in that system, you are forced into an "even-split" in regards to the level of classes. In 3E, I can make a Wizard(19)/Rogue(1) if I please. I can't do that in 2E. So 2E does not provide as much freedom of customization as 3/3.5E. Which is what I place the priority on, not viability.

 

3E encourages you to use classes as ingredients. "Oh, I'll take a couple levels of paladin, then I will become monk, then I'll turn into a fighter, then I'll..." Sorry, that is just crap. That "freedom" is just making some oddball munchkinized super class by cherry picking the best frontloaded abilities and working to create crazy synergies. Go ahead and make your Dwarven Paladin/Fighter/Dwarven Defender/Whatever-Other-Crap-PrC, I would rather have a Dwarven Fighter/Cleric with decent caster level.

 

The one thing that 3E did well was feats and they stole that from Fallout (perks).

 

As far as the lower level foes still remaining threats, in 3/3.5E any character has a 5% chance of landing a critical hit, and it is not unusual to be able to get hit(and take a fair bit of damage I might add) by foes 5 levels lower. So both systems can have low level foes that are still dangerous.

 

Umm, news flash, 2E had crits too. It just also had a superior method of determining to hit and HP.

Edited October 14, 201213 yr by Shevek

 

Thank you for the lecture on what a multiclass is.

 

You're welcome.

 

1. The penalties for MC in 3E are WAY more punative than 2E. Quite frankly, without cheesy PrCs like Arcane Trickster or Bladesinger, martial/magic multiclasses are completely useless.

 

No they aren't. Paladin/Sorcerers or Barbarian/Druids can be very powerful characters. Make a Sorcerer(16)/Paladin(4) then get back with me.

 

Your "arguements" do not address this. You simply define what a multiclass is. That definition you gave applies to 2E too but doesn't actually address how absolutely worse 3E multiclasses were.

 

Yes they did.

 

A fighter/wizard can still be an effective character, even if they have a lower caster level or bab than one of the pure classes. While that fighter/wizard may not be able to out fight a fighter or out cast a wizard, he can use buff himself to fortify his ability in combat where a fighter could not(use haste, enlarge person, greater magic weapon, etc.), or deal with a foe that got close like a wizard could not(use a weapon effectively instead of hoping that he passes a concentration check).

 

Bold is where I addressed the weakness of a 3/3.5E multiclass, Underline is where I addresses the strengths.

 

 

 

2. Kits were not like PrCs (with a few exceptions - like the Swashbuckler getting fighter THAC0). Most offered a few mild/moderate onetime bonuses. In reality, they acted kinda like "feat packs" you would pick up as a benefit of being pureclass. Please do not use the example of BG2 "kits." Get a rulebook, read actual some 2E kits.

 

They were in the sense that they gave the character access to abilities that the base class did not.

 

You need practiced spell caster. Period. Denying this is foolish. In 3E, if you are a martial/magic MC and you do not take practiced spelcaster, then you are gimpiing yourself. 4 caster levels for one feat. Essentially, they are putting in a cost for having MC work like it should.

 

No you don't. A caster level of 10 is quite useful for a character using 5-th level spells(whixh can be pretty damn useful. They have a full minute of Haste which can be quite a devastating buff. In 3/3.5E you don't need anything(with regards to feats, skills, attributes, etc.) to make an effective character. Would you like me to provide guidelines on how to build a martial/caster without that feat?

 

3E encourages you to use classes as ingredients. "Oh, I'll take a couple levels of paladin, then I will become monk, then I'll turn into a fighter, then I'll..." Sorry, that is just crap. That "freedom" is just making some oddball munchkinized super class. Go ahead and make your Dwarven Paladin/Fighter/Dwarven Defender/Whatever-Other-Crap-PrC, I would rather have a Dwarven Fighter/Cleric with decent caster level.

 

3/3.5E allows ​me to do that, it doesn't necessarily encourage anything. If people want to make some oddball munchkinized super class, why shouldn't they be able to? Why can't someone have a barbarian/druid, paladin/sorcerer, or monk/ranger/assassin, even if that character isn't supremely optimal? Player Freedom in a RPG should be more important than anything.

 

Umm, news flash, 2E had crits too. It just also had a superior method of determining to hit and HP.

 

Umm, news flash, that isn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing that 3/3.5E allowed for challenging fights with lower-level fores, not that 2E didn't have critical hits or which system handled hit or HP better. Nice strawman though.

Paladin/Sorcerers or Barbarian/Druids can be very powerful characters. Make a Sorcerer(16)/Paladin(4) then get back with me.

 

Great. I love the ROLLplaying there. So, you splash Paladin for CHA to saves and then go straight for Sorc. That is not a Fighter/Mage. That is just an example of the many problems and inbalances inherent in 3E frontloaded class design.

 

A fighter/wizard can still be an effective character, even if they have a lower caster level or bab than one of the pure classes. While that fighter/wizard may not be able to out fight a fighter or out cast a wizard, he can use buff himself to fortify his ability in combat where a fighter could not(use haste, enlarge person, greater magic weapon, etc.), or deal with a foe that got close like a wizard could not(use a weapon effectively instead of hoping that he passes a concentration check).

 

Bold is where I addressed the weakness of a 3/3.5E multiclass, Underline is where I addresses the strengths.

 

AGAIN, that is just how multiclassing works in GENERAL. That is not SPECIFIC to the flaws or strengths of 3E. All you did was describe what multiclassing is.

 

They were in the sense that they gave the character access to abilities that the base class did not.

 

Again, read a rulebook.

 

A caster level of 10 is quite useful for a character using 5-th level spells(whixh can be pretty damn useful. They have a full minute of Haste which can be quite a devastating buff. In 3/3.5E you don't need anything(with regards to feats, skills, attributes, etc.) to make an effective character. Would you like me to provide guidelines on how to build a martial/caster without that feat?

 

I don't need your tips man.

 

If people want to make some oddball munchkinized super class, why shouldn't they be able to? Why can't someone have a barbarian/druid, paladin/sorcerer, or monk/ranger/assassin, even if that character isn't supremely optimal? Player Freedom in a RPG should be more important than anything.

 

If player freedom is so important, this would be a purely skill based system. The WotC people themselves admit that 3E multiclassing is too munchkinized. They are not letting folks get signitaure abilities by splashing levels (like you did above with your "Paladin/Sorceror") in their next system. http://www.wizards.c...nd/4ll/20120917

 

Umm, news flash, that isn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing that 3/3.5E allowed for challenging fights with lower-level fores, not that 2E didn't have critical hits or which system handled hit or HP better. Nice strawman though.

 

A strawman is when you misrepresent an opponents position. If am guilty of this, my apologies - that was not myintention. It is difficult to address your position, however, when you do not make yourself clear. The original supposition I made referred to 2E doing a better job at maintaining lower level encounters as a threat. You responded with 3E having crits. I responded that 2E has crits as well as other systems to address this. Then you call my response a straw man. I dunno, I think arguing with you is a waste of my time.

I dont like concept of multiclassing as shown in Baldurs gate and others DND games.

 

I would like it to be something like specialization (eg. as you mentioned rouge and then assassin) but with option of reaching same specialization from another class (eg. assissin from warrior) that would have same trademark of assassin but little diferent core skills, tactics - so you will reach skills, but you will play assassin with different mindset

I'm speaking of class focus/trees, let's say you start off as a Monk class and you develop it to your liking as you level up and explore the world. Not so much press a "Dual-Class" button and suddenly you are a Dual-Class poof. Same thing goes with the Multi-Class, instead of going for instantly having 2-3 classes you'd get 2-3 classes as you play. Not necessarily Level 2 Monk, Level 1 Thief, Level 4 Fighter etc. etc. as someone posted but you'd still be a Monk with traits and feats making him a hybrid Monk pretty much.

 

Let your gameplay define your class, not the other way around.

 

Basically you'd be a "commoner", a "noob" as a character (apart from your class) you start off in (as you usually do), but you'd be able to decide and choose how to "branch" out and grow.

 

A "Commoner Monk" or a "Commoner Fighter", this is not a suggestion, merely an idea that needs heavy polishing. And as you grow you could become the "Guardian Fighter" or "Flagellant Monk" etc. etc.

 

So are you sort of talking about a Elder Scrolls-esq system where what you use defines what gets better? I'm not against that, but I've yet to see it done well (Skyrim for instance, has rather bland options for customization). The quality and variability of the customizations, not what unlocks those customizations, is what matters to me.

 

Yes and no. In-Game you meet a Master Swordsman who can teach you how to begin your path towards being a Samurai (Ranger Class Kit), and it doesn't matter if you are a Fighter, Monk, Wizard and so on and so forth. By leveling up you'd put out perks, skill points and so on which defines your Class.

 

What I am trying to explain (I am horrible at explaining mind you) is some sort of system where you've got all abilities available in front of you regardless of Class.

 

Sure, you start off as a Fighter, but as you level up you can level up towards being a Wizard *shrug*

 

However I like the approach of Final Fantasy 2 (your weapon skill grows the more you use your weapons, same thing with Magic). The only problem with that in P:E is that we don't know how Wizard's exactly function yet, and it could end up with a Wizard end-game that is better with a dagger than casting Magic (which would feel weird).

I've stopped following P&P after 3E, so I have no clue what they're doing now, I have my ideas but I just don't know if it's done yet.

 

People mention front-loading the first class and having different progressions for the second, and I like that idea. Dual-classing may be better if it mostly adds flavor to the primary

 

Examples I'm thinking:

 

Barbarian/Warrior dualing into Mage/Druid-> wider range of Rage skills (blood rage, animal rage, etc)/Self-targeted regen, healing, and defense spells such as bark skin, enchants that allow dispel on melee or ranged attack, ignore armor bonus vorpal style enchants, etc

Rogue into Mage -> Invisibility/mirror image/haste

Monk into Mage -> all thouse wonderful touch skills

 

Actually, to back up a bit, I realize that this can simply be accomplished by giving different spells different armor and held weapon allowances, having passive offensive spells castable with armor up to plate and while holding a greatsword/sword & shield/bow, passive defense castable with armor up to hide and having the shield hand free/crossbow, and the OP ranged death skills on the usual unarmored archetype and only with weapons that can be comfortably held in one hand.

Edited October 14, 201213 yr by Gennadios

Multiclassing? Yes.

 

Overpowered multiclassing? Definitely no!

 

Under-powered multiclassing? Definitely no!

 

In my opinion, multiclassing only works well when it is as perfectly balanced as possible. And I don't agree with the fact that multiclassing in BG was overpowered, to me there were certain combinations which had even more drawbacks than advantages.

I would have liked 4 base classes with varied levelup choices and multiclassing.

But there's so many classes already I can't believe multiclassing could be implemented without a ton of serious issues popping up.

 

So I'd rather just see them try to make the base classes workable and leave it at that.

And I don't agree with the fact that multiclassing in BG was overpowered, to me there were certain combinations which had even more drawbacks than advantages.

 

Especially Hunter/Cleric. All cleric spells, all druid spells and same atack bonus as fighter + stat rolling at the begining (with you could gain even 16 or more to all stats)... yeah realy balanced.

Edited October 14, 201213 yr by ArchBeast

Ranger/Cleric with Druid spell progression was a bug. Sawyer fixed It in the IWD: HoW expansion.

I would have liked 4 base classes with varied levelup choices and multiclassing.

But there's so many classes already I can't believe multiclassing could be implemented without a ton of serious issues popping up.

 

So I'd rather just see them try to make the base classes workable and leave it at that.

 

Who says all classes have to be eligible for multiclassing? That wasnt the case for the 2E IE games. They can just make multiclasses for the core classes.

Edited October 14, 201213 yr by Shevek

Ranger/Cleric with Druid spell progression was a bug. Sawyer fixed It in the IWD: HoW expansion.

 

Mayby but in BG it was still working. So bug or not muliclassers where also overpowerd

 

Great. I love the ROLLplaying there. So, you splash Paladin for CHA to saves and then go straight for Sorc. That is not a Fighter/Mage. That is just an example of the many problems and inbalances inherent in 3E frontloaded class design.

 

Or you can have a Champion of (a magic oriented deity) who crusades against evil with sword and spell. Or in the case of Barbarian/Druid, a savage who is devout to nature. That is just two examples of how 3/3.5E allows the player more options to create the character they want. I will agree that quite a few abilities in 3/3.5E do come in at too low of a level(if that is what you meant about frontloaded class design), but that is a class design problem, not a flaw with the concept of the multiclass system.

 

AGAIN, that is just how multiclassing works in GENERAL. That is not SPECIFIC to the flaws or strengths of 3E. All you did was describe what multiclassing is.

 

Because how multiclassing works in general is how multiclassing works in 3E. When you invest x amount of levels into a class, you will be as proficient as a level x of that class at what it does. Also like I have stated, 3E allows more freedom than 2E, and as I have already stated, I place the priority on freedom, not on how optimal every option is.

 

 

Again, read a rulebook.

 

Again, I have. Both kits and prestige classes provide different abilities than the base class. The difference is that prestige classes must be taken sometime after character creation, and are (generally) not available to only one class.

 

I don't need your tips man.

 

If you think it is impossible to create a multiclass that is viable(not optimal) without that one feat, then you do need some help.

 

 

If player freedom is so important, this would be a purely skill based system.

 

It should be.

 

The WotC people themselves admit that 3E multiclassing is too munchkinized. They are not letting folks get signitaure abilities by splashing levels (like you did above with your "Paladin/Sorceror") in their next system. http://www.wizards.c...nd/4ll/20120917

 

And 4E did an excellent job at that, which is why it is so loved by everyone and when I go to the comic shops 4E is displayed right at the register and 3.5E is stashed in the back. Oh wait, it isn't.

 

The original supposition I made referred to 2E doing a better job at maintaining lower level encounters as a threat. You responded with 3E having crits. I responded that 2E has crits as well as other systems to address this.

 

You forgot something......

 

 

As far as the lower level foes still remaining threats, in 3/3.5E any character has a 5% chance of landing a critical hit, and it is not unusual to be able to get hit(and take a fair bit of damage I might add) by foes 5 levels lower. So both systems can have low level foes that are still dangerous.

 

There was a bit more in there than "3E has crits". If you want me to clarify, I will. In 3E, lower level foes are still able to hit characters with spells, attacks, etc. that can make encounters with them challenging. The point was that i is entirely possible to design encounters using lower level foes that are challenging in both editions.

 

 

I think arguing with you is a waste of my time.

 

I'm thinking the same about now.

I'm thinking the same about now.

 

Great. Lets just agree to ignore eachother then.

 

Mayby but in BG it was still working. So bug or not muliclassers where also overpowerd

 

For ONE multiclass that was exclusive to ONE race. That is not true of ALL multiclasses. Therefore, by this reasoning, you would admit 2E multiclassing was NOT overpowered in IWD:HoW?

I'm all for extension or related specialization of what you've already chosen. But, traditional multiclassing has been done to death and always proves difficult for them to balance. Personally, I'd rather start a new game to try another path instead of trying to do everything with one play-through.

I'm all for extension or related specialization of what you've already chosen. But, traditional multiclassing has been done to death and always proves difficult for them to balance. Personally, I'd rather start a new game to try another path instead of trying to do everything with one play-through.

 

Trying to do everything in one playthrough has little to do with multi-classing (sure, it's one possibility... but it generally sucks). When I make a multi-class character it's almost always to emphasize some particular aspect of the character, not to generalize as much as possible. For example, my current NWN2 character is specifically built to to be an anti-undead assassin (think paladin/rogue, except without either of those classes...). Against anything but undead he's actually not very good, but against undead he does better than average (as in rogue vs anything not crit-immune). He's got 3 classes currently all focused towards this one highly specific role - I've not yet decided if the fourth class will further emphasize this specialty or increase his viability against non-undead.