Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grognerd" data-source="post: 7486890" data-attributes="member: 6968425">My preference is no multiclassing in 5e. So while I wouldn't outright ban it necessarily, I would dissuade it. My rationales, such as they are:1. The class supposedly represents more than a job or a bit of training. Supposedly - according to fluff text, sure - it represents and investment of years of training both skillsets and, far more critically, mindsets into a particular role. So there is that.2. By and large, the sub-classes within 5e eliminate the most of the old school, basic multi-class needs. Eldritch Knight covers the Fighter-Magic User. Clerics with War domains cover Fighter-Clerics (Arcana domain for multi- with Magic Users, Trickery for multi- with Thieves). Arcane Trickster for Thief-Magic User. Etc. 3. IF - and yes, this is a big if - the campaign did go into the upper levels, the best features in a class are the upper level ones. Why miss out on what is likely the primary appeal of class X for a dip in class Y, when generally speaking many of the functions of class Y are already covered by either sub-classes, backgrounds (skill selection options), or (I know you won't like this) Feats.Now, as I mentioned, those are simply my druthers. They aren't carved in stone. But I'll encourage them. The nice thing - in my opinion - about 5e is that generally speaking you don't need to have every class represented, as you often seemed to in 1e (or even in 2e). In one of my current games where I am a player, it is a two person team: a Paladin of Lathander (Devotion) and a Cleric of Lathander (Life). While we are decidedly not stealthy, we haven't had a major problem with many situations due to skill selections, careful spell-casting, complimentary tactics, and background abilities.Of course, YMMV. That's just my thoughts.</blockquote>

Verification