Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 7161412" data-attributes="member: 6855114">If you remember the vanician casting, we are far, far, far away from it. Not only are you not stuck with useless spell in your mind (I memorized sleep but we're up against demons...) but you can actualy prepare more spells than you can cast. The versatility that you get is simply something never seen in any of the editions. As for multiclassing...You seem to mistake character concept vs class concept. There is not a ton of class concept that can work or seem logical. Character concepts on the other hand can be as varied as you wish. Multiclassing,now more than ever allows that. Yes you can go the min max way. But if you go the RP way, you get more fun and way more variety than you can expect. Skills can do that, so does multiclassing. With both of these mecanics you can now do almost (if not all) character concepts you wish.Of course there are penalties for multiclassing. Afterall, focus brings something and versatility brings another. But the price is not as steep as it once were. Before multiclassing was reserved for demi-human races and it was very limiting. You want to be a rogue/wizard? Good. In 1ed you were stuck to be an elf or half elf and you were limited in your wizard class up to 9 depending on race. Wizard/Cleric? Stuck with half elf and you wouldn't go very high level. 2nd edition rose these max level a bit and 3rd finaly go rid of these with favored classes for races. Still multiclassing was not a realy good idea as the attack matrix was tied to your highest level. Now those days are gone. The evolution of multiclassing is something that broke all previous incarnations of it.Now You can go for the "mechanic" stealing part of multiclassing but you can go the other way and go for the character concepts. A Paladin/Monk could be something akin to a Shoei. An Arcane trickster/shadow monk could be quite interesting in both where you want to go and how high the character will be in each class. But the real question that should be asked is the following: "Do we absolutely need a character type for every character concept?" I, for one, surely hope not. I personnaly don't want to see PHB 1, 2, 3, 4. neither would I like to see the complete Monk, Paladin, Rogue and all the rest associated with that. We got these in 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition and it was not such a good way to go. We've seen it. We've been there. Let's get somewhere else. What I want, however, is class concept versatile enough that each character can be different. In 1ed a fighter was a fighter and so on with most of the other classes. Now there is no penalty to see your Berzerker Barb with a long sword and a shield or simply with a great battle axe. Both are viable and can hope to rise in level. You want to multiclass in an other class like rogue? Why not. Conan was a barb with a bit of rogue in him along with a good bunch of fighter levels mixed in. He is obiously a multiclassed character and yet, when you think of a barbarian, most people think of Conan, not Wulfgard. Conan is the epitome of the barbarian class and he is a multiclassed character (from the fiction anyways). This is the kind of characters I like to see in my games and in other games. Multiclassing is now actualy an option to do it with ease. Class wise, we are quite ok. For the others, multiclassing is there.</blockquote>

Verification