Quote from: Bobloblah;692451You fairly clearly don't.

I'm presuming that a condensed attitude is what, an att?

Quote from: hamstertamer;692452You know that I can spread the word that it's the gorgnard's revenge edition.

Just saying.

....

?
Is this some kind of threat...or something? Why would anyone even waste time on doing so, or worse, threatening to do so on an internet forum?

Invoking min-maxers is a strawman. A player making a choice for flavor reasons and ending up gimped is bad design. Choosing to play a weaker character is fine. Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not. The person wanting to play a Fighter Mage doesn't want to do so because it is weaker, but the system makes it so.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692439Dude.  You're getting a TON of class features by selecting a new class that far outweigh what you would have gotten if you just chose a feat or ability boost.

Seriously man, just stop whining for a moment and think first.

Sacrosanct, I don't even like Next, I was just building a Multi-classed PC as a theoretical exercise to see how much the ability minimums would affect multi-classing.  I then saw the sabotage design in multi-classing and just wanted to point it out.  If people here are fine with it, then good for them.

Multi-classing is one of the areas that 4e got right IMO.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Invoking min-maxers is a strawman. A player making a choice for flavor reasons and ending up gimped is bad design. Choosing to play a weaker character is fine. Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not. The person wanting to play a Fighter Mage doesn't want to do so because it is weaker, but the system makes it so.

The consensus is that a multi-classed character is MORE powerful, except for people like the lil' hamster, who clearly haven't even taken the time to look at it objectively.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Invoking min-maxers is a strawman. A player making a choice for flavor reasons and ending up gimped is bad design. Choosing to play a weaker character is fine. Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not. The person wanting to play a Fighter Mage doesn't want to do so because it is weaker, but the system makes it so.

Wait, what? So...if I choose to play a Fighter who uses only daggers...and end up "weaker" because of it...it's bad game design? I'm not choosing to play a dagger-wielding Fighter because it's weaker; I'm playing it because I think my conception of such a character is cool. Explain to me the difference between this:

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Choosing to play a weaker character is fine.

...when it's the dagger-wielding Fighter, and this:

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692465The consensus is that a multi-classed character is MORE powerful, except for people like the lil' hamster, who clearly haven't even taken the time to look at it objectively.

If it's "MORE powerful" then what were you talking about in your first post when you said " But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants."  You must believe the char op crowd does not want more powerful multi-classing. Weird.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692462Invoking min-maxers is a strawman. A player making a choice for flavor reasons and ending up gimped is bad design. Choosing to play a weaker character is fine. Choosing to play Fighter Mage and ending up weaker because the system punishes the combination is not. The person wanting to play a Fighter Mage doesn't want to do so because it is weaker, but the system makes it so.

Institutionalized specialization at its finest.

Quote from: Bobloblah;692434If you're a "basketweaver," what do you care if multi-classing is not mechanically optimal?

Quote from: hamstertamer;692468If it's "MORE powerful" then what were you talking about in your first post when you said " But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants."  You must believe the char op crowd does not want more powerful multi-classing. Weird.

I think the base assumption some people are using (taken from their familiarity with 3e, I suspect) is that multi-classed characters should be *more* powerful than (not balanced with) single class characters.

I refute that assumption; you gain a lot of advantages in increased available play options by being a different class. The loss of ability bonus increases and feats sounds very *balanced* to me - as much as these things can be.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: hamstertamer;692468If it's "MORE powerful" then what were you talking about in your first post when you said " But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants."  You must believe the char op crowd does not want more powerful multi-classing. Weird.

You seriously need to go look up what a list of common fallacies are, because your arguments always come down to one.

Not as char op friendly (or char op people pissing their pants)

and

Multi-classing is more powerful than not

are not in opposition of each other.  You can still have multi classing be more powerful than not, and at the same time not allowing the char op crowd to go nuts.

Let me try to put into simple terms.  A regular class is turned up to 5.  Multi-classed characters have that turned up to 8.  Char oppers want that bitch cranked up to 11.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692465The consensus is that a multi-classed character is MORE powerful, except for people like the lil' hamster, who clearly haven't even taken the time to look at it objectively.

It's not more powerful, because class abilities scale. The class features you get at level 10 are more powerful than what you get at level 5, and having two classes at 5 is weaker than one class at 10. Multiclassed spellcasters get locked out of spells, and outside of heavy micromanagement multiclassing screws up feat/attribute acquisition.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692475It's not more powerful, because class abilities scale. The class features you get at level 10 are more powerful than what you get at level 5, and having two classes at 5 is weaker than one class at 10. Multiclassed spellcasters get locked out of spells, and outside of heavy micromanagement multiclassing screws up feat/attribute acquisition.

A mage with one level in fighter can cast spells in heavy armor and is proficient in all simple and marital weapons.  That means that a level 10 mage/1 fighter can attack with a sword and long bow with the same effectiveness as a level 10 fighter.  And they are slinging spells around in full armor.

It's better than a feat or attribute choice that you might otherwise lose because you get that classes base abilities, which include not only the aforementioned proficiencies, but also second wind and a fighting style.  Certainly a much larger benefit than choosing a feat or increasing an attribute by 2 points.  Also, that only puts you 1 level delay in getting the attribute bonus/feat selection anyway.

Once again, just look at it for a minute outside of the box, on how things can be combined.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692478A mage with one level in fighter can cast spells in heavy armor and is proficient in all simple and marital weapons.  That means that a level 10 mage/1 fighter can attack with a sword and long bow with the same effectiveness as a level 10 fighter.  And they are slinging spells around in full armor.

It's better than a feat or attribute choice that you might otherwise lose because you get that classes base abilities, which include not only the aforementioned proficiencies, but also second wind and a fighting style.  Certainly a much larger benefit than choosing a feat or increasing an attribute by 2 points.  Also, that only puts you 1 level delay in getting the attribute bonus/feat selection anyway.

Once again, just look at it for a minute outside of the box, on how things can be combined.

It sounds like you're saying multi-classing is a Char-Oper's wet-dream in Next.  All the power of a 10th level fighter, with a single level of Fighter?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692475It's not more powerful, because class abilities scale. The class features you get at level 10 are more powerful than what you get at level 5, and having two classes at 5 is weaker than one class at 10.

As it should be. You get vesatility with 5/5 that you don't get with a single class at 10.

If a 5/5 combo character  was a purely powerful as a single classed 10 then they would effectively be a 10/10.

Under those circumstances what is the benefit of playing a single classed character? Why would anyone choose such a gimped option?