Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4439108" data-attributes="member: 19675">Yes, but to me, that is a failure not of multiclassing but class and spell structure.No, I don't think so.  I just reviewed that thread and couldn't find any instance of me saying "I never built a MT PC" in any form.The closest I came was:Which is absolutely true.  I've updated the PC for 3.5Ed, but have not as yet been able to play him- that campaign has been on hiatus for a few years, and even if it hadn't, I run multiple PCs within it, so he doesn't get used with every story arc.Again, incorrect.I chose to make the PC a MT because to do otherwise would have required a massive rewrite of campaign history- the conversion from 1Ed/2Ed wasn't seamless, and difficult decisions had to be made.The PC in question had 45 class levels distributed between his various classes.  To convert the PC 100% would have involved using the Epic Rules which 1) suck and 2) weren't printed yet.  So to avoid that kind of mess, we placed a campaign level cap of 20 levels (since reworked a bit higher for 3.5). Instead of giving up his ability to cast the spells that saved the party's bacon more than once, I sacrificed 15 levels of Ranger.  He had always been one of the party's top 3 casters, but he was seldom a major force on the front line.So the PC lost a lot in translation- durability, combat prowess, skills, spells, feats & followers to name a bit of it- but the party maintained most of its historical continuity.And of all the multiclassed spellcasters I have converted, that is the ONLY one who is a MT.</blockquote>

Verification