Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 8320155" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!My "problem" with how 3.x+ had handled Multiclassing is that you are never actually any of the classes you don't level in when you gain a level...in a manner of speaking, "experience-wise". Let me 'splain...In 1e/HM, you were a "Fighter/Magic-User". As a F/MU, you gained experience; typically whatever you got it was divided in half. This wasn't always the case as most DM's I knew (and me) would give 'more' of the XP Percentage Pie to one class that seemed to be the one the PC was 'favouring' that adventure. For example, the F/MU who cast Detect Magic and one Sleep spell, but otherwise just got into combat for the whole adventure I'd be inclined to give upwards of 75% to F, and the remaining 25% to the MU side. Eventually, one of those classes would crest into the next level. The "feeling" for the group and the Player in particular, is that the character was learning Fighting and Magic-User stuff 'at the same time'...because he may have gotten 1,000xp for Fighter, but he also got 250xp for MU. It could go the complete opposite way, or, often enough, 500xp/500xp (as our example).Bottom line...the Character was actually learning Fighting AND Magic-Using.Contrast that to 3.x+...you get your xp as a F/W...and it's a lump sum for the PC's "Total Level". He gets enough XP to crest to the next level...but...what Class? Does the Player choose Fighter, or does he choose Wizard? Or does he just up and choose Ranger because...you know...'reasons'? Lets say the Player does indeed choose Fighter. Ok, so now he's a Fighter 2/Wizard 3. He's a "5th level PC". Even though he has been fighting mostly, and casting a few spells here and there, he, effectively, learned NOTHING of the Fighter class. For me and my group...this is a 100% instant Wet-Fish-Of-Reality™ slap across the face. It completely sucks out out of any form of suspension of disbelief. It makes zero sense from a narrative point of view as well. Ergo, why we don't use MC'ing...and nobody has done it in 5e...ever...since it came out, what 6 years ago? "Technically" I guess we kinda sorta 'allow' it...but that's like saying we 'allow' poison as well; we do...but nobody ever uses it because...well...'consequences'. If someone ever DID want to MC, I don't think I'd give a Hard No...just a "No...unless you REALLY want to and have a good, in-game, campaign specific, roleplaying REASON for it".As always... ymmv. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification