Quote from: hamstertamer;692452More condescending, what a surprise!

As a referee, I adjudicate according to how the person acts.

You do realize that I don't have to play next,  and I definitely don't have to buy it.

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

Just saying.

....

I am sure that will be a popular meme among some circles. But I am well aware that the current number of "grognards" is at best equivalent to a solid third tier publisher. That it is split among the many classic editions and various clones.

It is my opinion is that what Wizards learned that is the fact that the old school hobbyist managed to grow despite the general collapse is a sign that perhaps a char op oriented tactically detailed game is not the way to go for your headliner.

That returning to 3.5 is not a viable option due to Paizo's dominance and product quality. Rather what they should do is make an approachable game and grow a new audience out of novices, returning customers, and yes maybe a few grognards too. Something that easier to setup and get going than what they had in the past with 3.X or 4.0. But has the customization and detail that many of today's gamers have grown to like.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;692481It 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?

The fighter gets a lot more benefits between level 1 and 10, so no, your statement is false.  I'm saying that choosing to multi-class is still more powerful of an option than to get your feat/attribute bonus one level sooner than normal, and thus more powerful than a character who hadn't multi-classed at all.  The core level 1 benefits outdo any +2 bonus/feat choice.

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.

There are indeed some perverse incentives for 1-2 level dips, which is another problem.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692474You 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.

Pointing out your failed logic is not a fallacy.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;692483As 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?

Except that level 5 abilities are often weaksauce for level 10 characters.

Quote from: estar;692485As a referee, I adjudicate according to how the person acts.

But as a dumbass, you don't realize you started it.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692494Except that level 5 abilities are often weaksauce for level 10 characters.

Yes, that's the point.

You have two sets of weaker abilities instead of one set of stronger abilities.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692493Pointing out your failed logic is not a fallacy.

Man what?  Um, that's exactly what I just did to your logic, and showed why it is a fallacy.

Are you a teenager by chance?  because I'm really getting that vibe from your posts.

Quote from: Piestrio;692498Yes, that's the point.

You have two sets of weaker abilities instead of one set of stronger abilities.

Punishing people for building the character they want isn't a point worth having.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692501Punishing people for building the character they want isn't a point worth having.

For God's sake, that's not punishing.  You can't have a level 10 fighter/10 mage and have them be just as powerful as a 20th level fighter and 20th level mage.

That's the point.

I have an idea for a new System.  It's called No Choice Matters. As you level, you get a single stat called Awesome and you roll your Awesome to do anything. You'll never have to make another character choice again.

Quote from: JonWake;692507I have an idea for a new System.  It's called No Choice Matters. As you level, you get a single stat called Awesome and you roll your Awesome to do anything. You'll never have to make another character choice again.

That's flawed.  You shouldn't even have to roll.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692506For God's sake, that's not punishing.  You can't have a level 10 fighter/10 mage and have them be just as powerful as a 20th level fighter and 20th level mage.

That's the point.

Not at the cost of making a level 10 fighter/10 Mage too weak to function as a 20th level character. I'm not saying the character should benefit from 20 full levels of both classes, but the current system makes the multiclass character too much weaker.

Quote from: Bobloblah;692466Wait, 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.

I think TCO is saying that the problem is you should be allowed to play a dagger-wielding Fighter who is game mechanically as good as a sword-wielding fighter - in other words, you should have the option to play a dagger-wielding Fighter who isn't weaker than anyone else.

Which creates a situation where the only way to play a weak character is to specifically declare "I want to be weak", because all build options are equally strong and there's no such thing as a strong build or a weak build. Which goes even beyond the charop dreams of 3rd/4th edition (where at least the effort put in by min/maxers to identify weak and strong combinations highlighted interesting options for people to take if they wanted to play a weak or strong character) into some weird abstract realm of total mechanical equivalence.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692501Punishing people for building the character they want isn't a point worth having.

Can you not see a situation where the combination of two weaker ability sets can give you an advantage of someone who only has a single stronger ability sets?