Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 6387651" data-attributes="member: 2167">For the simple reason that I have seen many times over the years that Multiclassing gets banned far more often than when someone is presented with a well done &quot;alternate&quot; (class, subclass, etc.). Multiclassing for many seems to have a stigma of &quot;cherry picking&quot; and &quot;power gaming&quot; thus that the only reason one multiclasses is to cheese a character. Additionally, a lot of people don't like to have to finagle a character with fiddling with MC to make a concept work. For instance someone who wants to play a Fisticuffs Heavy Armored Fighter archetype may not be happy with having to try and mash fighter and monk together when it is much simpler to simply gear a subclass to that role.On the subclass topic, WotC already opened the door and showed us the way to the MC concept prebuilt into a class's sublasses with things like Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Way of the Four Elements, etc.&nbsp; It could even be argued that they encourage the idea of making archetypes and themes that seem to require Multiclassing into solid subclasses where possible, rather than resorting to forcing multiclassing.Now on a personal note, I have always Loved multiclassing and have no issue with it. Unfortunately I have seen far too many times when people come looking for advice on how to make &quot;X theme&quot; and they are told multiclass A &amp; B, to walk away disapointed because their DM or game table doesn't allow it.&nbsp; However, while I may personally like multiclassing, now in 5E where the designers have opened the door the MC-esque Subclass concept, I will more than happily embrace that model. I also still feel that there are still some concepts that still require their own class to &quot;truly&quot; realize the concept, where multiclassing may only &quot;passably&quot; (if you look at it in the right light) realize a concept.JMHO (though I know I'm not alone). YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Khaalis, post: 6387651, member: 2167"] For the simple reason that I have seen many times over the years that Multiclassing gets banned far more often than when someone is presented with a well done "alternate" (class, subclass, etc.). Multiclassing for many seems to have a stigma of "cherry picking" and "power gaming" thus that the only reason one multiclasses is to cheese a character. Additionally, a lot of people don't like to have to finagle a character with fiddling with MC to make a concept work. For instance someone who wants to play a Fisticuffs Heavy Armored Fighter archetype may not be happy with having to try and mash fighter and monk together when it is much simpler to simply gear a subclass to that role. On the subclass topic, WotC already opened the door and showed us the way to the MC concept prebuilt into a class's sublasses with things like Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Way of the Four Elements, etc. It could even be argued that they [B]encourage[/B] the idea of making archetypes and themes that seem to require Multiclassing into solid subclasses where possible, rather than resorting to forcing multiclassing. Now on a personal note, I have always Loved multiclassing and have no issue with it. Unfortunately I have seen far too many times when people come looking for advice on how to make "X theme" and they are told multiclass A & B, to walk away disapointed because their DM or game table doesn't allow it. However, while I may personally like multiclassing, now in 5E where the designers have opened the door the MC-esque Subclass concept, I will more than happily embrace that model. I also still feel that there are still some concepts that still require their own class to "truly" realize the concept, where multiclassing may only "passably" (if you look at it in the right light) realize a concept. JMHO (though I know I'm not alone). YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification