Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 5820951" data-attributes="member: 32164">Yes, and 3e &quot;multiclassing&quot; was the same as the dual-classing of earlier editions, except that you could go back and forth.I deliberately used the 2nd Edition Bard as an example of a well done jack-of-all-trades class. Because it was. Unlike the 1st edition bard, which had to grow into its role, the second edition bard started out as a versatile character class. And, as far as I can recall, it worked very well. It was unique, but in my experience was reasonably well-balanced with the other character classes (within the somewhat looser &quot;balance&quot; requirements of 2e). Even when playing a bard as the 5th member of the classic 4-man-band (cleric, fighter, mage, &amp; thief) adventuring group, you felt like a special snowflake, not a 5th wheel.The bard was effectively a core class that had shades of a &quot;multiclass&quot; - fighter weapons, thief attacks and hit points, armor up to chain, decent access to magic, and a variety of special abilities to draw on - some of them duplicating those of thieves, but others unique.The point I was making is that iteration of the bard class didn't seem to suffer from the problem of being either &quot;weaksauce&quot; or &quot;overpowered&quot; that seems to have played every jack-of-all-trades class since.And no, it wasn't as powerful or unusual as being a bard back in 1e. But it also seemed a lot more viable to use.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 5820951, member: 32164"] Yes, and 3e "multiclassing" was the same as the dual-classing of earlier editions, except that you could go back and forth. I deliberately used the 2nd Edition Bard as an example of a well done jack-of-all-trades class. Because it was. Unlike the 1st edition bard, which had to grow into its role, the second edition bard started out as a versatile character class. And, as far as I can recall, it worked very well. It was unique, but in my experience was reasonably well-balanced with the other character classes (within the somewhat looser "balance" requirements of 2e). Even when playing a bard as the 5th member of the classic 4-man-band (cleric, fighter, mage, & thief) adventuring group, you felt like a special snowflake, not a 5th wheel. The bard was effectively a core class that had shades of a "multiclass" - fighter weapons, thief attacks and hit points, armor up to chain, decent access to magic, and a variety of special abilities to draw on - some of them duplicating those of thieves, but others unique. The point I was making is that iteration of the bard class didn't seem to suffer from the problem of being either "weaksauce" or "overpowered" that seems to have played every jack-of-all-trades class since. And no, it wasn't as powerful or unusual as being a bard back in 1e. But it also seemed a lot more viable to use. [/QUOTE]

Verification