Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8055624" data-attributes="member: 6987520">With MCing in 5E as it is, there aren't a lot of OP class combos (there are some of course, but they tend to be one-trick-ponies). But moving some of the class features to level 1 as I previously discussed, would make too many more single-level dips tempting.So, I understand why the 5E designers made certain class features at levels 2 or even 3. The choice, mechanically, means delaying your primary class features early on or costing much more experience to gain those levels later on.Overall, I love MCing in D&amp;D in general, and don't mind it in 5E despite the difficult choices it sometimes forces you to make. But a lot of the new UA feats we're talking about will never see use at my tables anyway because they are cheap ways to get prime features from other classes. Not a fan. For tables that don't use MCing, they are certainly a nice option if you don't mind the blending of class features.I prefer MY method (of course, right? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) for MCing in 5E, where you give up your subclass to gain core features of another class. This way you still continue to progress in your main classes levels and gain a bit of something from other classes. The only problem with this is the lack of balance in subclasses between classes. For instance, paladin's gain most of their power form the core class, not the subclasses (which add little IMO), so taking paladin as your &quot;subclass&quot; would give you more than taking something else. shrug</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8055624, member: 6987520"] With MCing in 5E as it is, there aren't a lot of OP class combos (there are [I]some[/I] of course, but they tend to be one-trick-ponies). But moving some of the class features to level 1 as I previously discussed, would make too many more single-level dips tempting. So, I understand [I]why[/I] the 5E designers made certain class features at levels 2 or even 3. The choice, mechanically, means delaying your primary class features early on or costing much more experience to gain those levels later on. Overall, I love MCing in D&D in general, and don't mind it in 5E despite the difficult choices it sometimes forces you to make. But a lot of the new UA feats we're talking about will never see use at my tables anyway because they are cheap ways to get prime features from other classes. Not a fan. For tables that [I]don't[/I] use MCing, they are certainly a nice option if you don't mind the blending of class features. I prefer MY method (of course, right? ;) ) for MCing in 5E, where you give up your subclass to gain core features of another class. This way you still continue to progress in your main classes levels and gain a bit of something from other classes. The only problem with this is the lack of balance in subclasses between classes. For instance, paladin's gain most of their power form the core class, not the subclasses (which add little IMO), so taking paladin as your "subclass" would give you more than taking something else. [I]shrug[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification