Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7468809" data-attributes="member: 996">Yes, the spellbook has been a mechanical 'hardwired' part of the wizard since it was the magic-user, and yes, in every edition in some form, be it memorization or preparation, you could re-imagine or re-skin it, but it was class-defining.OTOH, 5e is all about taking a chainsaw to the rules to try to make 'em better, so why not just lop that sucker right off...?&nbsp;Nonsense!&nbsp; Everyone loves the classic game!&nbsp;Dual-classing was a tad obscure, but it did presage 3e style MCing, and the 1e Bard, which used dual-classing as a prerequisite, presaged the PrC.&nbsp; I just find that interesting.* in 3.0, out of luck, you'd have to wait until 2nd level.* in 3.5, you can use 0-level rules to start 'multi-classed' at level 1.* in 4e, you could start as a Fighter with the MC Wizard feat or vice-versa. * in 4e with the PH3, you could hybrid Fighter|Wizard.&nbsp; * in 5e, MCing is optional, but without it you can still start as a Wizard with the Soldier background, and choose the Bladesinger Tradition for the traditional elf fighter/magic-user (or, with a bit more difficulty, perhaps fighter with the sage background and go EK), (elven fighter/magic-user/thief?&nbsp; swap the Criminal background for the Soldier.&nbsp; half-elf fighter/cleric/magic-user?&nbsp; Acolyte.)* in 5e with MCing, just start at 3rd level, then you can play a traditional elf fighter/magic-user or even half-elf fighter/cleric/magic-user if you wanted.&nbsp; &nbsp;Reason can judge it a poor choice, though.&nbsp; In 3.x, for instance, giving up caster levels is a bad idea.&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;Better start with wizard, then. Your fighter training just needed some real battlefield experience to kick in.&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=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7468809, member: 996"] Yes, the spellbook has been a mechanical 'hardwired' part of the wizard since it was the magic-user, and yes, in every edition in some form, be it memorization or preparation, you could re-imagine or re-skin it, but it was class-defining. OTOH, 5e is all about taking a chainsaw to the rules to try to make 'em better, so why not just lop that sucker right off...? Nonsense! Everyone loves the classic game! Dual-classing was a tad obscure, but it did presage 3e style MCing, and the 1e Bard, which used dual-classing as a prerequisite, presaged the PrC. I just find that interesting. * in 3.0, out of luck, you'd have to wait until 2nd level. * in 3.5, you can use 0-level rules to start 'multi-classed' at level 1. * in 4e, you could start as a Fighter with the MC Wizard feat or vice-versa. * in 4e with the PH3, you could hybrid Fighter|Wizard. * in 5e, MCing is optional, but without it you can still start as a Wizard with the Soldier background, and choose the Bladesinger Tradition for the traditional elf fighter/magic-user (or, with a bit more difficulty, perhaps fighter with the sage background and go EK), (elven fighter/magic-user/thief? swap the Criminal background for the Soldier. half-elf fighter/cleric/magic-user? Acolyte.) * in 5e with MCing, just start at 3rd level, then you can play a traditional elf fighter/magic-user or even half-elf fighter/cleric/magic-user if you wanted. Reason can judge it a poor choice, though. In 3.x, for instance, giving up caster levels is a bad idea. ;) Better start with wizard, then. Your fighter training just needed some real battlefield experience to kick in. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification