Quote from: Warthur;692512I 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.

The issue is transparency. A dagger is transparently a weaker option than a great sword. That it does less damage and is less powerful is obvious. That 5E's multiclassing generally results in making you a weaker character with the exception of a few perversely effective dips is not transparent. There is no reason that playing a character with two classes should be weaker overall than a single classed character. That character shouldn't be as powerful in both classes as the single classed character is in one, but it should add up to the same total. The multiclass system in 5E does not, because of scaling, the magic system, ect.

Quote from: Warthur;692514Can 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?

I'm sure there are corner cases. In general, the way scaling works in 5E it's not going to be the case.

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.

In earlier editions of D&D (prior to 3.x) a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 was roughly equal to a 15th level single-class character.  Since XP per level increased (to a point) you could even have a Class X 3/class Y 3 for the same XP as a single Class Z 4 or 5.  

Since 3.x, the designers have tried to say total class level is what matters (rather than experience point total).  They have tried to make a X 3/Y 3 the equvalent of a 6th level character; not noticeably weaker.  In 3.x, they mostly failed.  If Next doesn't 'fix' the issue, than score one more for 3.x - even if it's not better, it has the excuse of being based on a system released almost 14 years ago.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692492There are indeed some perverse incentives for 1-2 level dips, which is another problem.

Maybe that's why they included attribute minimums - to discourage multiple dips.

Quote from: Saplatt;692559Maybe that's why they included attribute minimums - to discourage multiple dips.

Multiple dips is a trap. They gimp your main class too much, you can only really afford 1-2 levels worth of dipping. The attribute minimums can be cheated. You can build a Str 8 Int 18 Mage who takes his first level as Fighter for 19 AC, then goes Mage for the next 19.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;692564Multiple dips is a trap. They gimp your main class too much, you can only really afford 1-2 levels worth of dipping. The attribute minimums can be cheated. You can build a Str 8 Int 18 Mage who takes his first level as Fighter for 19 AC, then goes Mage for the next 19.

Wait, are you complaining that the thing that people complained about for years is no longer overpowered?

Quote from: JonWake;692567Wait, are you complaining that the thing that people complained about for years is no longer overpowered?

Honestly, dipping into 5 classes was never really overpowered, not without Prestige Classes, and not outside of very specific corner cases. Dipping into 5 classes left a bad taste. My primary hatred of 3E-style multiclassing stems from the fact that it undermined D&D as a class-based system, not balance issues.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692421First, please stop telling that D&D is a role-playing game. I'm starting to think you have a mental illness.

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

Just saying.

:rotfl:

Comedy friggin' GOLD!


And by the way, all you dumb bitches replying to tco?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;330631I like arguing with people. I don't really care about winning the argument, and I don't really care which argument. I've argued with people over what Transformers line is superior, which American Idol contestant sucks, whether or not overfocusing on tournament play was ruining M:tG for those who played casually, I argued with people over whether the Fighter sucked and spellcasting was too powerful in 3E ect.  Posting on message boards without an argument is boring. I say I don't have an agenda, because I'm not here to promote one, I'm just here to join in the argument. I don't have a goal beyond that. If I were to win the argument and the argument would end, my reason for existence would end as well.

In the RPG world right now, 4E is the center of the storm. I'm here for the storm, not for 4E.

PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE SELF-PROCLAIMED TROLL.

TCO status: on ignore

To move this in a more constructive direction. Why do we need a multiclassing system they've never worked. There aren't enough multiclass combinations with actual traction that the game isn't better served just writing up a few "hybrid classes" and calling it quits.

Don't know about 4e; never played it.  But multiclassing in AD&D worked fine.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692595Don't know about 4e; never played it.  But multiclassing in AD&D worked fine.

I have no complaint about AD&D multiclassing, 3E's multiclassing is the only system I hate.

For 4E, it started with feat based multiclassing which generally sucked, didn't do anything, and was best forgotten. In PHB3 they introduced hybrid rules, which resembled AD&D multiclassing and was good system, though a bit demanding in system-mastery terms.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692499Man 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.

What are talking about dude?  Are you retracting what you said on the first post?  You said that the multi-class system was hosing min-maxers and that you loved it. Then later you said that the multi-class system actually was "more powerful."  When I pointed out that a min-maxer would want to have a "more powerful" multi-class system, you then attempted to change what you intended by "more powerful" as if people couldn't see what you did.  Now, you're out of cards and are trying accuse me of being a teenager because of your vibes. Really?  I guess you are hippie-shaman-surfer master or something.

Listen I don't give a fuck what Next's multi-class will ultimately become.  I disagree with you that the minimum ability score thing will be an impediment for min-maxers.  Some one else has already pointed that out here.  I just used the point buy system and was able to multi-class into three or more classes. People using a liberal random ability generation will have no problem either as I said earlier. But the big fuck you comes in with the ability improvement, but you seem to believe that won't be a big ol' deal.  I have a feeling (sorry I'm getting a vibe) that you are secretly snickering about that and know that it will be discouragement to multi-classing, which is what you want. And that's fine I say as long as we admit it was hard-coded into rules as such.

Genuine question - How is "gets thing every four levels" worse than "gets thing every four levels"?

In your 3/3/3 example, the next three level ups could ALL get the bonus.

What am I not seeing?

Quote from: hamstertamer;692613What are talking about dude?  Are you retracting what you said on the first post?  You said that the multi-class system was hosing min-maxers and that you loved it. Then later you said that the multi-class system actually was "more powerful."  When I pointed out that a min-maxer would want to have a "more powerful" multi-class system, you then attempted to change what you intended by "more powerful" as if people couldn't see what you did.  Now, you're out of cards and are trying accuse me of being a teenager because of your vibes. Really?  I guess you are hippie-shaman-surfer master or something.

Seriously dude, if you can't even get the most basic of reading comprehension right, how in the fuck is anyone supposed to even have a discussion with you?

Quote from: mcbobbo;692616Genuine question - How is "gets thing every four levels" worse than "gets thing every four levels"?

In your 3/3/3 example, the next three level ups could ALL get the bonus.

What am I not seeing?

He's just being an idiot, his example build sucks because he fails and minmaxing not because of anything in the system. It's obvious to any half decent minmaxer if you want to multiclass your break point should be just after you get a stat boost.

However the fact that this won't be obvious to the layman should be a major point against the system.