I agree with Machpants (and have mentioned before) that something like this probably doesn't need to be in the core book. It would be nice as a sidebar of "if you want to do something like this..." but I think it might be too much.Hamakto wrote:The problem with this is that one DM's idea of a good hybrid class (i.e Wizard/Thief) is not the same as a second DM's. If we can get a standard multi-class ruleset working, this will eliminate the need to either carrying around supplemental class books and/or the inability to easily jump groups.Machpants wrote:Having looked through this thread I am on board with the idea of 'alternate class features' ala PfRPG. But, to be honest, I think in the core book you shouldn't bother it should be something for a supplement or 3PP.
But I disagree about one DM's idea of a good hybrid class not being the same as another. If the classes are simple enough, it's really a no-brainer. There's very little to argue over in regards to making a hybrid Fighter/Thief or Thief/Wizard in LotFP. One could grouse over the XP progression, I suppose. But the math is so obvious and the other classes are so much in line with an explicit philosophy that each class suggests how it could be "hybridized" in itself.
And I think that's about the level of complexity of the classes we're talking about with DCC. I don't think it's like C&C or 3e where the class abilities muck things up so much that it becomes a high-wire act. I also don't think it's coincidental that it took TLG four editions to come out with multi-classing rules.
The more complex the classes, the harder any of this is. If the classes remain simple core archetypes, this is all much easier.
If the classes try to mush in all this flavor stuff via class abilities that are difficult to math out in terms of "class balance", this won't work. But multi-classing won't either. It's hard to say where DCC stands on all this until we can play it and read the rules.
I'm hoping that the classes are more in line with B/X and OD&D than 3e and C&C.
