Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7463979" data-attributes="member: 996">It's assuming characters can do that.&nbsp; But, such is only optional in 5e, so when that option is exercised, the statement is &quot;more true&quot; in the sense that exclusivity is more pronounced and applies to more featuers.&nbsp;A lot of people balked at 1e MCing.&nbsp; Not that demi-humans could do it, but that they could do it with only certain class combos, and had level limits, and/or that humans couldn't MC.&nbsp; In one of the basic sets (not the one I played c1979), there wasn't demi-human MCing, instead 'Elf' was essentially a Fighter/Magic-user class in itself - kinda like a 5e EK or Bladesinger.&nbsp; IDK when MCing made it into 0e.&nbsp; &nbsp;And not an issue for 1e non-/demi- human MCing, which was MC'd from 1st level on.&nbsp; It's long been an objection to 3e-style 'modular' MCing.&nbsp;I thought we'd long since been conditioned to accept multi-classing, too.&nbsp; <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=";)" />&nbsp;Classes are innately limiting, and being able to mix them opens up the possibilty of modeling more concepts without adding too many more classes...&nbsp; In an old Dragon mag, there was a &quot; 'Bandit' (Unofficial NPC) Class,&quot; that was essentially a Fighter/Thief, so a human could mix the skills of both (I played one through 8th level back in the day, fairly awesome, in large part because of magic items, and a little broken, because whoever designed Bandit kinda 'averaged' the two classes, so it advanced /faster/ than a fighter).&nbsp; That's an example of what more open MCing gains you (helps you avoid).Taken to the logical extreme, a 'pure' class-based system would need one class for each and every character concept out there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7463979, member: 996"] It's assuming characters can do that. But, such is only optional in 5e, so when that option is exercised, the statement is "more true" in the sense that exclusivity is more pronounced and applies to more featuers. A lot of people balked at 1e MCing. Not that demi-humans could do it, but that they could do it with only certain class combos, and had level limits, and/or that humans couldn't MC. In one of the basic sets (not the one I played c1979), there wasn't demi-human MCing, instead 'Elf' was essentially a Fighter/Magic-user class in itself - kinda like a 5e EK or Bladesinger. IDK when MCing made it into 0e. And not an issue for 1e non-/demi- human MCing, which was MC'd from 1st level on. It's long been an objection to 3e-style 'modular' MCing. I thought we'd long since been conditioned to accept multi-classing, too. ;) Classes are innately limiting, and being able to mix them opens up the possibilty of modeling more concepts without adding too many more classes... In an old Dragon mag, there was a " 'Bandit' (Unofficial NPC) Class," that was essentially a Fighter/Thief, so a human could mix the skills of both (I played one through 8th level back in the day, fairly awesome, in large part because of magic items, and a little broken, because whoever designed Bandit kinda 'averaged' the two classes, so it advanced /faster/ than a fighter). That's an example of what more open MCing gains you (helps you avoid). Taken to the logical extreme, a 'pure' class-based system would need one class for each and every character concept out there. [/QUOTE]

Verification