Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9879689" data-attributes="member: 29398">Increasing the level caps is fine - even removing them entirely - and IME doesn't really break anything.  I mostly got rid of 'em quite some time ago; though some species still flat-out can't be some classes (e.g. no Dwarf Mages), if you can be a class there's no limit as to how far you can advance in it. Essential tradeoff: gently toning down some of the race-based benefits given to demi-humans, especially Elves.  Even with that, Humans are still the most-played species in my games.The other change that's always been blindingly obvious to me is to make Human multi-classing work the same as it does for demi-humans.  The dual-class system for Humans, where you advance one class to whatever level then stop and advance another class, and can't advance the first class again until the second one catches up, has always made me wonder what they were thinking and-or smoking at the time as it makes not a shred of sense.A further change is to allow different combinations of multi-classes.  Some classes (in my game, Cavalier, Bard, and Monk) simply can't multi-class; and two subclasses within the same class group (e.g. Magic User and Illusionist, or Paladin and Ranger)) can't multi-class with each other, otherwise the options are fairly open - you can be a Druid-Assassin, for example (Druids in my game can be any alignment; their original Neutral-only restriction was another bit of nonsense).  The tradeoff is that some classes lose some of their benefits if multi-classed.  Again, hasn't really broken anything.</blockquote>

Verification