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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6206482" data-attributes="member: 1465">Ah, that's different! I kept reading multiclassing as a concept, but they really mean as a mechanic...Well then I don't like it. I think it's wasted design time. It's a large effort for a small benefit, and it will indeed make for a very clunky result.When they said "blend" I really thought they were doing e.g. a Fighter subclass that granted Wizard spellcasting, and carefully balance it against both other core Fighter subclasses and the Wizard class. This for example could have meant a subclass that granted spells with the same spell level rate of a Wizard (or close) but smaller in quantity (daily slots, known spells, prepared spells) and with possibly additional limitations. This would allow such character to reach e.g. 3rd level Wizard spells at level 5, 5th level Wizard spells at level 7 etc. (just like the Wizard), which is something completely unaccessible via multiclassing.Maybe they will do that anyway by having such Fighter subclass say "you can count all your Fighter levels for determining your spells on the multiclassing spellcasting table". That would work, but it is such an unhygenic idea... It means that you would need to create a multiclass PC, then to reference a table that has a unique spell progression instead of looking at your class progression, then to modify how you actually address that table...Not to mention that the other example i.e. subclasses for spellcasters to "make them friendlier for weapon use" is truly a piece of cake: just make a subclass of Druid or Wizard or Cleric that grants them additional weapon and armor proficiencies! The proficiency bonus system takes care of everything then! Thinking about multiclassing here, and then creating a subclass that improves multiclassing, is total nonsense.</blockquote>

Verification