Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gestalt Style Multiclassing (3.5e Variant Rule)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Foxwarrior (talk | contribs) (→Ratings) |
Foxwarrior (talk | contribs) (Added rating.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Ratings == | == Ratings == | ||
| + | {{Rating |rater=Foxwarrior | ||
| + | |rating=like | ||
| + | |reason=Although it probably becomes a mess when combined with homebrew classes that make their own assumptions about balance, it seems to do a nice job of making essentially SRD-like campaigns end up with more than just the 4 (or 6) good classes. | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Rating |rater=Ghostwheel | {{Rating |rater=Ghostwheel | ||
|rating=hate | |rating=hate | ||
Revision as of 02:58, 9 October 2012
Ratings
|
Foxwarrior likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Although it probably becomes a mess when combined with homebrew classes that make their own assumptions about balance, it seems to do a nice job of making essentially SRD-like campaigns end up with more than just the 4 (or 6) good classes. |
|
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Basically doubles your options (and thus potentially power) with very little drawback. You'll virtually never see someone going along a single path with this variant. Also, exacerbates problems between quadratic wizards and linear fighters. |
- It's probably more accurately described as exponential wizards and quadratic fighters. That said, this variant rule seems to be balanced specifically with Wizard-level style class designs, so it should probably be listed at that balance point. Also, why wouldn't you want to voltron together heaping handfuls of martial classes when playing a Tome martial character in this system? Those are still designed without enough exponential versatility progression, as far as I can tell. --Foxwarrior (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
