Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 9465476" data-attributes="member: 92511">Reads thread title: &quot; Multiclassing shouldnt' be treated as default.&quot; Correct. Full stop. However, since there are -at this point probably- multiple generations of players who think it is their birthright to pick and choose their way through a D&amp;D campaign (or at least &quot;double up&quot;), I think it is a losing battle to expect the &quot;official game&quot; is going to go that direction. Though 5e did explicitly say MCing was &quot;optional.&quot;&nbsp; As DM, you can just say, at Session 0 or before, &quot;Multiclassing is not an option here. &quot; That is totally fine and within game expectations to say.If you are so inclined, one could add &quot;conditions.&quot; Such as, &quot;If the story/character/campaign necessitates a change or evolution of abilities, then the character's class can/will change.&quot; That's also totally fine/&quot;in bounds.&quot;&nbsp; I have set my homebrew to try to curb the draw of MCing, that only two classes may be combined in the life of character. This could be from character creation or could be class abilities that are &quot;picked up&quot; along the line. At least ONE of those two classes MUST BE -what I define as - a &quot;base/default&quot; class; i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Mage, or Thief. There are also stipulated classes that are too involved/occupied/involve too much time or devotion to pick up a whole other class' array of abilities; e.g. Druid, Bard, &quot;Paladin,&quot; et al. This way, some (or &quot;most&quot;) classic combo's are available; the Fighter/Mage (if you'd rather that to a Ftr/MU homebrew class of mine), the Ranger/Cleric, the &quot;full-classed&quot; Illusionist/Thief (as opposed to an &quot;Arcane Trickster&quot; type). But certain things in the game are simply not going to be able possible: i.e., a &quot;Druid/Necromancer&quot; or &quot;Cavalier/Warlock,&quot; however thematically similar they seem; nor such things as would simply, culturally/internal consistancy, not appear in the campaign world; a &quot;Barbarian/Mage&quot; or &quot;Paladin/Assassin.&quot; Just no. Not an option. Can you be a character that hails from the barbarian people/tribe who leaves and becomes a magic-using class? YES! Absolutely. But you won't be/have &quot;Barbarian&quot; class abilities. Sabe?There will be options for building most character &quot;types&quot; - feats, themes, backgrounds, ways to acquire limited magic abilities, etc... - but you are not ever going to be permitted the entire suite of having their full class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 9465476, member: 92511"] Reads thread title: " Multiclassing shouldnt' be treated as default." Correct. Full stop. However, since there are -at this point probably- multiple generations of players who think it is their birthright to pick and choose their way through a D&D campaign (or at least "double up"), I think it is a losing battle to expect the "official game" is going to go that direction. Though 5e did explicitly say MCing was "optional." As DM, you can just say, at Session 0 or before, "Multiclassing is not an option here. " That is totally fine and within game expectations to say. If you are so inclined, one could add "conditions." Such as, "If the story/character/campaign necessitates a change or evolution of abilities, then the character's class can/will change." That's also totally fine/"in bounds." I have set my homebrew to try to curb the draw of MCing, that only two classes may be combined in the life of character. This could be from character creation or could be class abilities that are "picked up" along the line. At least ONE of those two classes MUST BE -what I define as - a "base/default" class; i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Mage, or Thief. There are also stipulated classes that are too involved/occupied/involve too much time or devotion to pick up a whole other class' array of abilities; e.g. Druid, Bard, "Paladin," et al. This way, some (or "most") classic combo's are available; the Fighter/Mage (if you'd rather that to a Ftr/MU homebrew class of mine), the Ranger/Cleric, the "full-classed" Illusionist/Thief (as opposed to an "Arcane Trickster" type). But certain things in the game are simply not going to be able possible: i.e., a "Druid/Necromancer" or "Cavalier/Warlock," however thematically similar they seem; nor such things as would simply, culturally/internal consistancy, not appear in the campaign world; a "Barbarian/Mage" or "Paladin/Assassin." Just no. Not an option. Can you be a character that hails from the barbarian people/tribe who leaves and becomes a magic-using class? YES! Absolutely. But you won't be/have "Barbarian" class abilities. Sabe? There will be options for building most character "types" - feats, themes, backgrounds, ways to acquire limited magic abilities, etc... - but you are not ever going to be permitted the entire suite of having their full class. [/QUOTE]

Verification