Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 7226862" data-attributes="member: 6689464">@Blue , @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6786252" target="_blank">Mephista</a>, I don't share  [MENTION=5890]Saeviomagy[/MENTION]'s view on that background doesn't matter. But the problem with the background is that background is stuff you don't get to play. It is there, in the past. Now the example given wasn't "Wizard academy reject that turned to something else" as a character concept, it was a case of "My character is not entirely conventional and cannot ever stop taking levels in the same class regardless of what happens in game". Let's try with something else, how about a dex paladin with low strength? One played by a thespian that barely ever speaks out of character? Now something happens in game that makes it natural for the paladin to shift paths -maybe the order did something unspeakable, maybe the god was evil all along, maybe someone dear by the paladin had to be sacrificed for grater good- whatever it is, it makes zero sense for the paladin to remain a paladin and keep getting good at being a paladin. But what now? It might take 8 levels for the paladin to gain enough strength to be allowed to multiclass out, and the campaign doesn't even lasts that long. Oh but Powergamer mcMunchkin planed a powerful paladin combo from first level up and he can liberally take levels in as many classes as he wants/needs for his toon with zero personality and is always metagamed. And Mephista, do you have any quote from Mearls, Crawford, et al., that supports this thing about Multiclassing in 5e being meant for dips and not for hybrids and path changing? Because traditionally it has been that, dualclassing meant there was no turn back, Ad&D multiclassing was hybridizing , and in 3e monk and paladin were explicitly changing paths without the chance for return.</blockquote>

Verification