Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6632176" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Given that you pay for multiclassing by delaying many of the juicy features most people don't want to live without (e.g. your ASIs), I agree that&nbsp; [MENTION=17152]Syntallah[/MENTION]'s rule seems a little too punitive as it is. That said, I understand the impetus--certain classes are great as a quick dip (Fighter, Cleric) or mere starting platform (Warlock), from which you then focus on some other class. To help deal with that while not punishing people who want a more &quot;dabble&quot; character, I'd suggest making multiclassing a temporary &quot;lock in&quot; instead.That is, let's say you're a 5th level Sorcerer, and you want to multiclass to Fighter. You meet the ability prerequisites easily. However, once you start the path of the Fighter, you cannot take levels in other classes until you have hit at least 3rd level. You cannot even take Sorcerer levels. This is because you don't really &quot;learn how to be a Fighter&quot; until you hit 3rd level.This encourages most people to go for four levels (to pick up that class's ASI, lest it get delayed even further), and outright prevents the one-level dip. Any character that multiclasses is--essentially--taking the burden of a new training regimen, for the benefit of a complete set of new skills rather than the still-unfortunately-front-loaded skills that most &quot;dippable&quot; classes give.And, besides, for the majority of games this will be very close to equivalent to your rule, assuming you allow characters to multiclass at (say) level 5 and focus on that new class until it reaches level 5/6 as well. Not many characters are going to make it past 15 anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6632176, member: 6790260"] Given that you pay for multiclassing by delaying many of the juicy features most people don't want to live without (e.g. your ASIs), I agree that [MENTION=17152]Syntallah[/MENTION]'s rule seems a little too punitive as it is. That said, I understand the impetus--certain classes are great as a quick dip (Fighter, Cleric) or mere starting platform (Warlock), from which you then focus on some other class. To help deal with that while not punishing people who want a more "dabble" character, I'd suggest making multiclassing a temporary "lock in" instead. That is, let's say you're a 5th level Sorcerer, and you want to multiclass to Fighter. You meet the ability prerequisites easily. However, once you start the path of the Fighter, [I]you cannot take levels in other classes[/I] until you have hit at least 3rd level. You cannot even take Sorcerer levels. This is because you don't really "learn how to be a Fighter" until you hit 3rd level. This encourages most people to go for four levels (to pick up that class's ASI, lest it get delayed even [I]further[/I]), and outright prevents the one-level dip. Any character that multiclasses is--essentially--taking the burden of a new training regimen, for the benefit of a [I]complete[/I] set of new skills rather than the still-unfortunately-front-loaded skills that most "dippable" classes give. And, besides, for the majority of games this will be very close to equivalent to your rule, assuming you allow characters to multiclass at (say) level 5 and focus on that new class until it reaches level 5/6 as well. Not many characters are going to make it past 15 anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification