The key element of the class system is that it is an ordered list of abilities. It models advancement along a course from basic to advanced, making it especially suited for stuff like learning magic. You can imitate this in a classless system, sure, but to that extent you're actually fighting the classlessness of the design.
Whoever makes the most noise on the internet, apparently.
That's level. You can have one without the other. Class/level often go together thanks to D&D and the many games derivative of it, but they don't have to.
If you need the "1st-Level Spellcasting" ability to get the "2nd-Level Spellcasting" ability, and the "2nd-Level Spellcasting" ability to get the "3rd-Level Spellcasting" ability, and so on, then that ordered list of abilities is a class. It's basically all the wizard class was in D&D until 5E.
I dunno about "exclusive", but other than that I think we're saying the same thing.
Strawman, much?Hiya!
TL;DR the thread...but this is a quick "one main reason" why I don't like MC in 3.x+ editions.
You know that scene in the Matrix? The first movie?
[Neo laying in chair...Morpheus next to him]
Neo: [opens eyes] "I know kung-fu".
Same thing when the last thing the PC's did was stagger off to their rooms at the inn.
DM: You are all awoken in the morning by repeated caw'ing from the roosters outside in the back fields, and the smell of bacon and eggs from downstairs. I assume you each grab your gear and make your way downstiars?
Player: Well, I don't wear my scale-mail. I also want to leap over the bannister into the common room, with a sumersault in the air...for flourish.
DM: Uh...you're a hulking brute of a fighter. Are you sure?
Player: Oh, I gained a level of Monk. I know kung-fu now.
DM: ...er... ...and that makes sense how exactly?
Player: Multiclassing, ftw!
THAT is why MC sucks in 3.x+ editions, at least in my opinion. The second major culprit is...
Player: "Ok, I gained a level? Sweet! That makes me 12th now. I think I'll add another level of Wizard to my Assassin/Wizard".
DM: Huh? That makes no sense. At all. You've been assassinating things, sneaking around, picking locks, removing traps...I think you cast Flame Burst, like, three times in the last two months. I remember you casting Mirror Image once..other than that, I'm drawing a blank.
Player: Yeah, that's because I don't have any of the really good spells yet, like Fly or Invisibility. Once I gain enough levels in Wizard to get those, then you'll see a lot more spellcasting!
DM: So, basically, you assassinated, stealthed, and picked locks soooo much, that you understand more about magic?
Player: Yup. Pretty much.
Isn't that more a problem with the fundamentally discrete nature of the level system? Even a single-handed character doesn't "learn anything" on most days, because they didn't level up that day. But they're assumed to be accumulating knowledge in the background which will become visible later. Apply that perspective to a multiclassed character, and it makes sense. A day in which a fighter/wizard levels up as a fighter from the standpoint of their wizard class, just like any other day where they didn't level up at all.
Hero is likely the system i have the most years in, unless i fuse all the various travellers in one maybe and it was actually one of the class-less systems that make me really appreciate classed systems.MCing increases the complexity of the system and the system mastery required to use it, in exchange for that somewhat increased flexibility. Classless systems just cover more concepts without needing kludges and increased complexity.
Class-based systems do have their advantages: they can be evocative of a property or genre, can make character generation more of a broad-strokes process, and so forth. But they are innately poor at covering a broad range of concepts.
More slopes than speeds, but sure.
Well, this is a 5e forum, and 5e makes multi-classing explicitly optional, and is all about evoking the classic game, so, while they may have tested it some, it's not /assumed/ ...
...rather like Feats and Magic Items and powergaming in general.
But, even if you assume multiclassing, you're still fighting the class-based design with it. As a sort of thought experiment, take 3.5 multiclassing to the logical extreme, make it easier and easier to combine smaller and smaller elements of each class in more and more combinations: eventually the classes are gone, they're just arbitrary headings for lists of abilities.
Granted. My idea of reasonable is probably pretty unreasonable.
So if both the player and gm choose to not make the training an aspect of the narrative, you get annoyed the result doesnt match the narrative?Hiya!
TL;DR the thread...but this is a quick "one main reason" why I don't like MC in 3.x+ editions.
You know that scene in the Matrix? The first movie?
[Neo laying in chair...Morpheus next to him]
Neo: [opens eyes] "I know kung-fu".
Same thing when the last thing the PC's did was stagger off to their rooms at the inn.
DM: You are all awoken in the morning by repeated caw'ing from the roosters outside in the back fields, and the smell of bacon and eggs from downstairs. I assume you each grab your gear and make your way downstiars?
Player: Well, I don't wear my scale-mail. I also want to leap over the bannister into the common room, with a sumersault in the air...for flourish.
DM: Uh...you're a hulking brute of a fighter. Are you sure?
Player: Oh, I gained a level of Monk. I know kung-fu now.
DM: ...er... ...and that makes sense how exactly?
Player: Multiclassing, ftw!
THAT is why MC sucks in 3.x+ editions, at least in my opinion. The second major culprit is...
Player: "Ok, I gained a level? Sweet! That makes me 12th now. I think I'll add another level of Wizard to my Assassin/Wizard".
DM: Huh? That makes no sense. At all. You've been assassinating things, sneaking around, picking locks, removing traps...I think you cast Flame Burst, like, three times in the last two months. I remember you casting Mirror Image once..other than that, I'm drawing a blank.
Player: Yeah, that's because I don't have any of the really good spells yet, like Fly or Invisibility. Once I gain enough levels in Wizard to get those, then you'll see a lot more spellcasting!
DM: So, basically, you assassinated, stealthed, and picked locks soooo much, that you understand more about magic?
Player: Yup. Pretty much.
:fume: In effect, from my perspective, a MC character is NEVER actually multiclassed...they are just "adventuring" and when they gain a level then they decide what to add to. A Fighter/Wizard is never an actual Ftr/Wiz...because when they gain a level, and add it to Fighter or Wizard, it effectively means they didn't learn ANYTHING in their other class. Add it to Fighter, and all those spells you cast were for naught. Add it to Wizard, and all those toe-to-to battles with critical's and whatnot...pointless. Didn't learn a thing. Or, worse, my example; Ftr/Wiz doesn't cast a single spell...but still can add a level to Wizard. Because he killed a lot of orcs with his sword while decked out in Platemail.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
They didn't assume feats, MCing, items, or other opt-in sub-systems when balancing, pacing, or otherwise calibrating the game.
It is clear that they were trying to avoid some of the issues 3e had with 1-level dips and dead levels. In typical 5e fashion, the implementation was mixed. Avoiding dips erred on the side of hurting single-class builds, while avoiding dead levels erred on the side of hurting MC builds.
The proliferation of sub-classes that poach other classes toys I see as evidence of assuming no MCing.
