Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 7167240" data-attributes="member: 2011">One could ask the question, what archetype it's modeling (however badly) with a 5E Dragonborn Warlock 2 / Paladin 10? That doesn't come off as modeling any type of archetype at all. But, a lot of players play something like that and they modify their character concept to match the D&D 5E rules. This archetype wasn't possible in 1E or 2E TMK.The point is that nearly every player (except maybe some newbie) filters their PC concept via the rules of the game they are playing. Playing GURPS? Your concept is as good as those rules. Playing Rolemaster? Ditto.I actually tried to model Sparhawk in 5E and was only slightly successful. The entire "unknown destiny" thing, for one, was impossible in 5E without the DM making up some house rule (like maybe permanent Nondetection spell up).The very mechanics of a game system dictate what works and what does not work in it. Even something like Invisibility changed from D&D version to D&D version, hence, changing what is possible for a PC to do hence changing at least some portion of a PC concept. Max duration: 1E: potentially very long, days, weeks; 2E: 24 hours; 3E: 1 minute per level; 4E: end of next turn or standard action to prolong a turn; 5E: 1 hour. The very concept and viability of having a sneaky invisible wizard changes from edition to edition.So yeah, I have no problem with Cleric X / Wizard Y in a 5E game where they are not heavily gimped because the player wanted to play a given concept.Multiclassing rules are extremely limited in 5E, rewarding front loaded classes and smacking down spell casting classes. IMO. And virtually nobody takes: spell caster class 1 X / spell caster class 2 X because it's extremely limiting. I see that as a weakness of the multiclass rules, not a strength.</blockquote>

Verification