SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

5e: Multi-classing

Started by Marleycat, June 02, 2014, 10:51:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

Saplatt

#30
June 03, 2014, 06:39:45 PM
Back in the day, we mostly used multi-classing to cover the four corners of a typical party (F, MU, T, C) when we only had three players, or when we had too many people wanting to play the same class. That hasn't been a problem with my group for awhile now, so I'll probably just ditch the rule unless or until I find a better way to balance it.

This might be something the DMG will touch on.

Scott Anderson

#31
June 03, 2014, 07:34:14 PM
Not all 3.X multiclassing was bad. A lot of it was bad. But some character concepts needed multiclass.
With no fanfare, the stone giant turned to his son and said, "That\'s why you never build a castle in a swamp."

Brander

#32
June 03, 2014, 07:44:46 PM
Looking at it as someone who will likely be only a player, I hope there is multi-classing.  But, like others, I hope the classes aren't as front-loaded as they were in 3e.

I'd actually like to see unrestricted multi-classing, with no major penalties AND no rewards.  That said, I think that a character who has two classes probably should be slightly less able than one with one class.  Breadth instead of depth.
Insert Witty Commentary and/or Quote Here

Bill

#33
June 04, 2014, 02:18:19 PM
Sometimes multiclassing is appropriate, and other times it is not.
I personally think if the gm controls when it is allowed, there is no problem.

If a player explained why they wanted to be multiclassed, and in game events made it plausible, I would likely allow it.

But if I see a powergamed build lurking in the shadows, hell no.

Sacrosanct

#34
June 04, 2014, 02:27:49 PM
Quote from: Bill;755319Sometimes multiclassing is appropriate, and other times it is not.
I personally think if the gm controls when it is allowed, there is no problem.

If a player explained why they wanted to be multiclassed, and in game events made it plausible, I would likely allow it.

But if I see a powergamed build lurking in the shadows, hell no.

This is how it's usually handled.  By reasonable people ;)
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you\'re stupid, your PC will die.  If you\'re an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you\'re unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC\'s die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

Warthur

#35
June 04, 2014, 02:41:46 PM Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 02:47:56 PM by Warthur
Given that Mearls has said that he decided what to include in Basic D&D based on what was included in 1981 Basic (and I assume Expert too, since Basic is intended to run from 1-20 rather than just the levels in the original Moldvay Basic book), I think it's almost certain that multiclassing won't be in Basic - which effectively means it will be optional rather than core content. Which is how I like it.
I am no longer posting here or reading this forum because Pundit has regularly claimed credit for keeping this community active. I am sick of his bullshit for reasons I explain here and I don\'t want to contribute to anything he considers to be a personal success on his part.

I recommend The RPG Pub as a friendly place where RPGs can be discussed and where the guiding principles of moderation are "be kind to each other" and "no politics". It\'s pretty chill so far.

Marleycat

#36
June 04, 2014, 02:58:59 PM Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 03:03:32 PM by Marleycat
Quote from: Warthur;755328Given that Mearls has said that he decided what to include in Basic D&D based on what was included in 1981 Basic (and I assume Expert too, since Basic is intended to run from 1-20 rather than just the levels in the original Moldvay Basic book), I think it's almost certain that multiclassing won't be in Basic - which effectively means it will be optional rather than core content. Which is how I like it.

You are correct. It's not intended to be in BASIC it's one of those options that will be in the PHB. It wouldn't make any sense to put in there as a core conceit because it's not something that's absolutely required to run bog standard fantasy Dnd.
Don\'t mess with cats we kill wizards in one blow.;)
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions