Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JonnyP71" data-source="post: 7465011" data-attributes="member: 6788862">Back to the OP, I've disliked every form of multiclassing since 3E because it has just been made too easy.&nbsp; It's a drug to the theorycrafters, a side of the game I'll admit I despise - every part of it, from the terms 'dip' and 'build' themselves, through attempts to 'break' the game, to the arms race style of game this type of approach tends to produce.&nbsp; I have to avoid playing with or DMing for this type of player as I'm afraid it will cause conflict.Whatever happened to the simplistic approach of &quot;I pick a fighter, I want him to be wild and barbaric so I'll give him Hide Armour and a massive axe, and roleplay him as such&quot;?&nbsp; It seems so many people nowadays are not happy unless they have special abilities to back up the concept... and often they multiclass to get those abilities.My ire lessens somewhat if it is clear the multiclassing is for genuine, believable and consistent story reasons. We had a flamboyant fighter take a level in Bard because it fitted the way the character had been portrayed from the very beginning, he was a flashy showman and wanted to learn a musical instrument, and he roleplayed him trying and failing to play it, then going to find someone to teach him the basics when he was next in a city.&nbsp; That feels organic and is not a problem to me.Of course multiclassing existed back in 1E days, but it was arduous and had strict limitations.&nbsp; Race/level restrictions, and the hoops Humans had to jump through to operate in 2 classes, and I LIKED THOSE RESTRICTIONS!&nbsp; You couldn't just wake up one morning and decide to gain a level in fighter so you could wear better armour!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JonnyP71, post: 7465011, member: 6788862"] Back to the OP, I've disliked every form of multiclassing since 3E because it has just been made too easy. It's a drug to the theorycrafters, a side of the game I'll admit I despise - every part of it, from the terms 'dip' and 'build' themselves, through attempts to 'break' the game, to the arms race style of game this type of approach tends to produce. I have to avoid playing with or DMing for this type of player as I'm afraid it will cause conflict. Whatever happened to the simplistic approach of "I pick a fighter, I want him to be wild and barbaric so I'll give him Hide Armour and a massive axe, and roleplay him as such"? It seems so many people nowadays are not happy unless they have special abilities to back up the concept... and often they multiclass to get those abilities. My ire lessens somewhat if it is clear the multiclassing is for genuine, believable and consistent story reasons. We had a flamboyant fighter take a level in Bard because it fitted the way the character had been portrayed from the very beginning, he was a flashy showman and wanted to learn a musical instrument, and he roleplayed him trying and failing to play it, then going to find someone to teach him the basics when he was next in a city. That feels organic and is not a problem to me. Of course multiclassing existed back in 1E days, but it was arduous and had strict limitations. Race/level restrictions, and the hoops Humans had to jump through to operate in 2 classes, and I LIKED THOSE RESTRICTIONS! You couldn't just wake up one morning and decide to gain a level in fighter so you could wear better armour! [/QUOTE]

Verification