Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 9043844" data-attributes="member: 6677017">My thoughts on multiclassing are complicated.On the one hand, I don't really care for 3e style multiclassing (and by extension, 5e style multiclassing). 3e multiclassing is usually a way to mechanically optimize for power builds, and I don't care to play that way most of the time. I discourage multiclassing, but I'm not sure I've ever forbidden it. In my current campaign our rogue eventually took a single level of sorcerer, though I think she might be considering re-training it away.On the other hand, I really love the concept of 1e/2e multiclassing. For those not familiar with it, you pick 2 or 3 classes and you advance in each simultaneously. Which classes were available were restricted by race (humans couldn't even do this--they had a different option), and combinations were restricted such that you couldn't have more than one from each group (warrior/rogue/priest/wizard). You split your XP between the classes, added together your class features, and took the best attack rolls and saving throws for each class. You got half (or a third with three classes) hit points from each class.The way the advancement tables worked, splitting your XP in half generally put you 1 or 2 levels behind a single class character. So (as a made up example), a single class fighter might be level 8, while a multi-class character could be a fighter 7/magic-user 6. The levels would often be different because each class had it's own XP table. But, due to being a lower level, you'd always be behind single class characters (of the same classes) in total hit points. Their were limits to the maximum levels you could obtain, but those inherent to your race, not to the multiclassing system. 2e has optional rules for increasing those limits, and apparently it was a pretty common house rule to just ditch that annoying rule and give humans +10% XP to compensate, since non-humans started the game with advantages that the max level limits were intended to balance.Now, I really, really do not like the way they balanced classes (including multiclassing) by having them advance at different rates. But I loved the concept of AD&D multi-classing, and what you could do with it. The idea was that you were following two paths at once. There really wasn't a lot you could to blend them together and synergize, other than having a warrior cast some buffs on themselves, but you could do multiple things--and do them at a high level of proficiency. For instance, you could cast high level wizard spells and high level cleric spells--something that just isn't possible with the 3e/5e style multiclassing.I attempted to come up with rules to enable the same sort of conceptual multiclassing using mechanics I liked better multiple times in the early 5e days. I wasn't satisfied with the results of any of my attempts.What I eventually realized, is that the vast majority of classic multiclassing combinations don't need rules to accomplish in 5e. To be a fighter/cleric, you just play a War domain cleric. To be an anything/rogue, you just take thieves' tools, the right skills from your background choices, and maybe grab a feat to give yourself Expertise with something. To be a cleric/wizard, take Arcana domain, pick up Magic Initiate: Wizard, Ritual Caster: Wizard, and call it good enough.The main one you really couldn't do that I wanted to do was fighter/mage. There is nothing that fully satisfied that itch for me. Eldritch Knight has very limited spellcasting. If I can't reach at least 7th level spells, I'm not feeling it. Bladesinger is a better attempt, but their weapons and armor are way too limited, and they start off as nothing more than a regular wizard at 1st level.How I eventually handled it, once I realized that fighter/mage is the only one that really needed help, was to make my own class. I ended up using Valor Bard and Bladesinger as the points of balance (there were spreadsheets involved), and it ended up as a full caster (meaning it got the wizard spellcasting advancement) with d8 hit points, all martial weapons, medium armor, and a few special abilities that were weaker versions of what fighters and wizards got.So basically, I do think multiclassing in concept is needed to represent classic D&D tropes that I want in my game, but I don't particularly like the 3e/5e style multiclassing, I think there are enough options in 5e to enable most classic tropes without multiclassing, and I made a class to represent the one I couldn't.</blockquote>

Verification