Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7489665" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!Er...no? I mean, technically, if the DM always awards XP equally to all a MC characters classes, it may look that way, but it really isn't. I can't remember where (took a quick look in the 1e PHB and DMG in the likely spots) but I distinctly remember reading that the DM could/should award a MC characters XP "unequally" if it made more sense (e.g., a F/T who is in a gladatorial pit fighting his way to freedom gets 3000xp; the DM could say that 2k of it goes to Fighter, and only 1k to Thief, for example).But even if the DM doesn't do that, and lets the player divide XP evenly, just because one of the characters classes advanced a level doesn't mean the character didn't learn anything in the other(s). It's just that they didn't learn enough in the others. A Fighter/Thief who gets 500xp that bumps up his Thief a level but not his Fighter doesn't mean the PC didn't "learn anything about fighting"...because he did; he learned 250xp worth of fighting as indicated by the 250xp increase under his Fighter XP total. With 3.x onward, that doesn't happen. It's a lump sum of XP and when that total hits some amount, the character increases a level.For a perfect example of that just look at what is referred to as "level dipping". A PC adds a single level of Warlock so he can get one particular special ability. And that's it. He then continues to only level up his Paladin, or Cleric, or whatever class and never increases his Warlock one...even if he is constantly using the one or two Warlock abilities because he can combine it with one of his 'main' classes abilities in order to get a power boost. The character never really "learns" anything about being a Warlock. Well, until that time when he gains another level and the player just decides "Well, why not? I'll add another level of Warlock for fun".That's my main beef with MC'ing in 3.x+ editions.Uh, no again? In 5e you are never a "F/M/T". The player may conceptualize and have a written background history that tries to explain the whole F/M/T class 'training', but the rules don't support it. Once you get 300 xp you THEN can add one of those classes abilities to your character. After some more xp you can add the third. After more xp you can even add a fourth...which could have nothing to do with your background history. Or you could up one of your F/M/T classes...but only one. And no matter what you do, or how your do it, the player can always choose to just up a single one of those classes.This is fine for a lot of people who really enjoy the freedom that the 3.x+ editions of the game gave you. That's fine. But it's also not for me. As I said, my main beef with the MC system in 3.x+ editions has always been that it just doesn't feel like a MC character.Yes, completely agree with the overall sentiment of the above. But I don't like it as far as trying to use MC rules to accomplish it. I would rather the player and DM have some means of accomplishing that. As there are a thousand different ways to do it, that's probably why the writers didn't; it would end up becoming more of a "point buy based" game system...and, imho, that's not D&D. The old "2.5e" Skills & Powers book took a stab at this. Decent enough stab, but one that required a LOT of effort and restraint on both the Player and DM side of the screen. Played a campaign using those rules way back when. It was the Night Below boxed set; played for a few months until a TPK somewhere in the depths. I can, of course, "rationalize" why a 5e F/M/T gets good at one class and has no specific advancement towards the others. I can come up with backgrounds, special "Professions" or "Orders" that require a particular class-combo (basically, "prestige classes", more or less). And that's cool...I just wish it was more like 1e's MC where the PC could actually start and continue as a F/M/T. As I said; I just don't like the way 3.x+ MC feels.Yes, that is what 1e does. And I like it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I like that it makes demihumans seem distinctly different from humans. An Elf can be a F/M-U from day one. A Human has to have high stats, start as one class, then switch to the second and stick with it for the rest of their life. I don't see this as "bad", just like I don't see Race/Class restrictions or level-limits as "bad". I'm "old skool" in most of my preferences of RPG's. After this long, I've accepted that and embraced it as just who I am as a DM and Player. So, for me, 1e/2e MC is just a much better solution than the later iterations of the game. YMMV.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification