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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7168223" data-attributes="member: 996">In which case the game was just dominated be frikk'n elves all campaign long, and you'd want to play Talislanta just get away from them! You don't start with a combo, you start with an archetype, a concept.  If no one class can do it, MCing is an option.  You said 5e couldn't do the old cleric/magic-user 'archetype,' but as you've now pointed out, /that's not an archetype/, it's a mechanical choice.   So, that cleric/magic-users 'worked' in AD&D doesn't make them an archetype that 5e must make 'work' as well.  What would make an even combo something that should work in 5e would be an heroic concept or archetype that needs it.Say you want a Conan.  He was a barbarian who became a thief, a pirate, and a king.  Those are some heterogenous skillsets, there, and he maybe could do with more than one class... a lot of Giants in the Earth write-ups completely broke the rules to model characters from fiction, because 1e MCing wasn't remotely up to the challenge. They seem much less limiting and catch-22 - for casters, anyway - than they did in 3.5 (compared to 4e it's wild west), there's no favored class, no exp penalties, caster level is character level and determines save DC & cantrip scaling, combined caster level determines slots... compared to an evenly-advancing caster/caster in 3.5, who was like two casters standing next to eachother, taking turns, it's amazing.Now consider that as far as ASIs and Extra Attack go, 5e's every bit as bad as 3.5 was for casters...</blockquote>

Verification