Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7468808" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Unless we didn't like the concept in the earlier editions, perhaps?I don't have an issue with multiclassing, though, although I sometimes have an issue with the mechanics. Regardless, I can make any of them work. My primary issues are with the optimization approaches, dips into other classes, etc.Note that this isn't the only place that the "I'm 150 years old" doesn't necessarily make sense. In my campaign, the answer is to embody the "standard" multiclass options into a single class, such as an elven class that embodies both fighter and wizard (my campaign is still very largely based on the AD&D approach). However, we also modified the class rules across the board. At every other level you get a "good" benefit, and on the others a "better" benefit. So our progression goes like this: Feat, proficiency, ASI, field of expertise (which is a sub-category of a skill, such as climbing, jumping, running or swimming for athletics). At 1st level characters gain a class defining feature, and at 2nd level they gain an archetype/subclass defining feature. When you multiclass, you have to take two levels to gain all of the benefits of the class. To better mitigate dips, and at the same time allow more options, we have feats that provide sort of a "class lite" approach. So you can get some of the key options without having to multiclass. Yep. And we also know that it functions differently if you choose to multiclass later in your path. Then it's no longer a "1 level penalty" as you imply, it's just switching classes to something different that you haven't necessarily used or spent any time learning, which we know because we've been following your exploits for all this time now. However, we also put rules in place to address that "when the heck did you learn that?" other than it growing organically in the play. For example, if you know you want to multiclass into wizard in the future, or even just take a feat that allows spellcasting, you can start learning cantrips two levels before. In our campaign, when you're learning a spell, you can still try to use it, but something might go wrong. So you start with two cantrips and things might go wrong, then four cantrips, and they still might go wrong, to I've learned how to use magic (take a feat or multiclass) and now I have all cantrips and no chance of failure under normal conditions. In the meantime, we see the character growth as the game progressses.To which I would say a paladin is already a fighter, so might not be available to multiclass regardless. While your heritage might not affect your faith, it still could affect your abilities. If your religions is opposed to witchcraft, for example, then practicing witchcraft may very well result in the loss of your divine powers. And I can't stand the idea that as a "fallen paladin" you simply gain other powers. Loss of powers is loss of powers. That's quite different than changing fealty to another deity, but even that is something that a deity wouldn't take lightly. You'd probably have to prove your worth before you regain powers from me. For most, being a fallen divine character should be devastating, and usually an all-consuming drive to regain their deity's favor.So if you look at my original post, it was in response to why some DMs are against allowing certain multiclass combinations. To me there are a number that are not allowed for many of those reasons. But, like most rules in my campaign, that doesn't mean that I might not make an exception for the right character-based reasons. That is, not only is it an exception to the rule, but it's the same in the setting itself - a very rare occurrence. In general, like AD&D, dwarves cannot be arcane spellcasters in my campaign. Sure I could have gone along with the bandwagon in 3e and allowed all of them to be so. But my concern is more focused on the integrity of my setting, and continued to recognize (as I had already done before) that there are exceptions to that rule, perhaps because of some other unknown heritage in their blood.In my case, I'm not nerfing anything. I'm simply still not allowing something that hasn't been allowed in my campaign for 35+ years. Yes, the game itself has altered their design, but that's not my setting, nor is it my game. In my world, not all of those changes have happened. They can create as many new races as they'd like. It would be quite rare for one of the new ones to appear in my campaign, though. Much rarer than allowing normally unusual (in my campaign), multiclass options.My choices for what is allowed or not is always dependent on the setting and narrative, not arbitrarily stating, "I don't like these multiclass options, so they aren't allowed." In addition, I recognize that multiclassing is created, in part, because it recognizes that people do change, and may continue down a different path. So I look for alternative ways to allow that as well, rather than going all in with a new class.I wouldn't consider any reason "spurious" without being part of the campaign in question and understanding the DMs objections to a given rule. I can just as easily argue for either side in a forum like this. I'd need to see what other factors are at play, and for me it's entirely a question of what makes sense in the campaign. The DM is a player too, and if a given concept that another player will be using intrudes upon their sensibilities or isn't the sort of thing they like in their game for whatever reason, that has to be taken into account too. For example, warforged. A cool enough concept I guess, but closely tied to a specific setting. Even when running a public campaign where I'm playing by RAW in terms of race/class options, it just doesn't fit well in my campaign. In the AD&D era, there were all sorts of setting specific classes, races, monsters, etc. And I love that. Because it helps define the setting, and makes it different from others. So even if I'm running something in the homogonized version of the Forgotten Realms that has arisen over the years, I just don't feel that it fits and it's not a race I want in the Realms. You can come up with all sorts of justifications, refluff it, whatever. It still just bugs me. I have still had a couple of warforged pop up in my public campaigns, but in general I stick with the Realms-specific/not other setting-specific races and classes. I'm sorry if that ruins some people's fun, but it just doesn't fit my setting. I don't see it as any different than saying, "no, you cannot have a vulcan in this Star Wars campaign." So yes, I'm inflexible at times. I'm not apologizing for it. You'll know all of my restrictions and such before you join one of my games. I don't want to exclude anybody, and would love to have them join even if their cool character concept isn't allowed. I'm hopeful that they'd be able to find an alternative (and I'll help to make it as close as I can) and they'd really have fun.</blockquote>

Verification