Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Starting to Hate Hexblades
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8323679" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>I do the opposite, and actively encourage multiclassing at my table. I'll help to make sure all the characters are effective enough to be fun to play, but otherwise I'm fine with any combination of classes, including dips, even splits, and anything in between. </p><p></p><p>Whether or not the player wants to incorporate any of the default fiction of their character's classes I leave up to them. A fighter/monk could have been expelled from a monestary, a brawler who found a teacher for formal training, or just a character with an unusual self-taught fighting style. Similarly, I leave warlock pacts up to the player: it could be an ongoing relationship, a one-time deal, a carryover from an ancestor making a deal, unknowing siphoning of the patron's power, or anything else. (Hexblades can be as simple as the character possessing an eldritch weapon that they figure out how to use as they gain Warlock levels.)</p><p></p><p>As I see it, every character develops along their own, unique path. Sandy the Fighter/Wizard isn't, IC, erratically proceeding along two separate tracks, she's becoming increasingly powerful in her role as Sandy. That the progression happens to be granular rather than continuous doesn't bother me any more than it does for a single-class charater. (And even that isn't much--granular advancement is a necessary consequence of a level-based game.)</p><p></p><p>Why do I take this approach? I find it leads to more mechanically diverse characters at my table, which in turn reduces reliance on class identity to define who each character is. Even the players of single-class characters at my table tend to define their characters less by their class when sitting at a table of characters who can't be so easily pigeonholed.</p><p></p><p>And to address the inevitable question of why I don't choose a classless system, I find that flexible class-based systems tend to (ironically) produce greater mechanical character diversity than classless systems. In a point-buy system, the opportunity cost of taking a particular ability is generally similar for all characters. So, for example, all of the characters at the table are likely to use either the most powerful defensive ability (if they want to emphasize defense) or the most cost-efficient defensive ability (if they want to emphasize some other aspect of their character). So frequently most of the characters end up with one of two defensive abilities. By contrast, the opportunity cost of getting a particular ability in a class based system depends on how many levels a character already has in that class. This, for example, leads to the most efficient defensive ability usually being different for each character, so a greater diversity is seen in play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 8323679, member: 6802765"] I do the opposite, and actively encourage multiclassing at my table. I'll help to make sure all the characters are effective enough to be fun to play, but otherwise I'm fine with any combination of classes, including dips, even splits, and anything in between. Whether or not the player wants to incorporate any of the default fiction of their character's classes I leave up to them. A fighter/monk could have been expelled from a monestary, a brawler who found a teacher for formal training, or just a character with an unusual self-taught fighting style. Similarly, I leave warlock pacts up to the player: it could be an ongoing relationship, a one-time deal, a carryover from an ancestor making a deal, unknowing siphoning of the patron's power, or anything else. (Hexblades can be as simple as the character possessing an eldritch weapon that they figure out how to use as they gain Warlock levels.) As I see it, every character develops along their own, unique path. Sandy the Fighter/Wizard isn't, IC, erratically proceeding along two separate tracks, she's becoming increasingly powerful in her role as Sandy. That the progression happens to be granular rather than continuous doesn't bother me any more than it does for a single-class charater. (And even that isn't much--granular advancement is a necessary consequence of a level-based game.) Why do I take this approach? I find it leads to more mechanically diverse characters at my table, which in turn reduces reliance on class identity to define who each character is. Even the players of single-class characters at my table tend to define their characters less by their class when sitting at a table of characters who can't be so easily pigeonholed. And to address the inevitable question of why I don't choose a classless system, I find that flexible class-based systems tend to (ironically) produce greater mechanical character diversity than classless systems. In a point-buy system, the opportunity cost of taking a particular ability is generally similar for all characters. So, for example, all of the characters at the table are likely to use either the most powerful defensive ability (if they want to emphasize defense) or the most cost-efficient defensive ability (if they want to emphasize some other aspect of their character). So frequently most of the characters end up with one of two defensive abilities. By contrast, the opportunity cost of getting a particular ability in a class based system depends on how many levels a character already has in that class. This, for example, leads to the most efficient defensive ability usually being different for each character, so a greater diversity is seen in play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Starting to Hate Hexblades
Top