Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 7571036" data-attributes="member: 58197">The human version was called &quot;dual-classing.&quot; In 1E, &quot;multi-class&quot; meant the demi-human kind.No, but dnd4vr specified how proficiency bonus was handled in their 5E version.Yeah, I didn't feel like it was necessary to get into all the hairy details. Nothing was ever simple in 1E. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />True. This was part of 1E's &quot;balance across the level range&quot; principle: Being a powerhouse at low levels was balanced by suckitude at high levels and vice versa. If your campaign ran long enough to hit the cap, you would be a sad panda. Even if (as was common) the DM waived the cap, multiclassed PCs would fall behind once the XP table stopped being exponential and turned into a flat amount per level.Unfortunately, &quot;balance across the level range&quot; presumes that the typical campaign runs from 1st level into the teens, and that has never been the case, then or now.Not exactly gestalt, but the basic idea was the same: You advance simultaneously in two classes and meld their abilities, rather than advancing in each class separately. 4E did something similar with hybrid multiclassing. (I quite liked the 4E hybrid rules--I played a wizard/lazylord who was great fun--but I guess they never really caught on.)I've sometimes thought about trying to re-create the hybrid rules for 5E. I think it would be doable, although the lack of a unified class framework would make it a bit trickier. Basically cut all usage limits and spell slots in half, and then figure out how to handle the at-will abilities like Extra Attack and Sneak Attack.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 7571036, member: 58197"] The human version was called "dual-classing." In 1E, "multi-class" meant the demi-human kind. No, but dnd4vr specified how proficiency bonus was handled in their 5E version. Yeah, I didn't feel like it was necessary to get into all the hairy details. Nothing was ever simple in 1E. :) True. This was part of 1E's "balance across the level range" principle: Being a powerhouse at low levels was balanced by suckitude at high levels and vice versa. If your campaign ran long enough to hit the cap, you would be a sad panda. Even if (as was common) the DM waived the cap, multiclassed PCs would fall behind once the XP table stopped being exponential and turned into a flat amount per level. Unfortunately, "balance across the level range" presumes that the typical campaign runs from 1st level into the teens, and that has never been the case, then or now. Not exactly gestalt, but the basic idea was the same: You advance simultaneously in two classes and meld their abilities, rather than advancing in each class separately. 4E did something similar with hybrid multiclassing. (I quite liked the 4E hybrid rules--I played a wizard/lazylord who was great fun--but I guess they never really caught on.) I've sometimes thought about trying to re-create the hybrid rules for 5E. I think it would be doable, although the lack of a unified class framework would make it a bit trickier. Basically cut all usage limits and spell slots in half, and then figure out how to handle the at-will abilities like Extra Attack and Sneak Attack. [/QUOTE]

Verification