You will inevitably, with splat books, go back to these same broken combos, so best to simply put the default max # of classes to 2-3, and on a dial so that DMs can restrict it less or more, according to taste. I don't want my Barbarian, like in PF to have little point in levelling up more in Barbarian levels past 11 because fighter gave you more power, or you got your pounce beast raging ability and took your one level of Horizon Walker or the ridiculous crippled Oracle that can't be fatigued. As a powergamer myself, I want sticking to one archetype to be by default the best option. The big cheese with 3e/PF was taking class combos that made no sense in the story, or you really had to contort one into existence to justify it to your DM (or to yourself) merely because you wanted some uber powergaming combo. I'm totally down with fighters going down different archetype paths though, but they should really put a limit on ala carte multiclassing like 3 max (or even two! that'd work), I agree 3e was somewhat ridiculous and I don't want to spend 18 hours finding OP / optimal combos between classes where you can exploit their sub-classes fiddly / broken bits (where they might not be broken when taken on their own, but in conjunction were). The easy way to fix that is to, as they say, go "whole hog". There were some barbarian and summoner ones that were just clearly waaaaaaay better when pick can pick ala carte, and they seemed to have missed that aspect of balance in their compatibility matrix. I loved pathfinder archetypes, as a quick and effective way to hone in on specific, evocative characters, so this is terrific news IMO.īeing able to pick and chose specific components of the archetypes, however, led to many OP and broken characters, due to the difficulty in balancing all the options vs each other. Unfortunately, the announced changes to Fighter's subclasses (although they sound nice ideas by themselves) actually break that division, because "Gladiator" is a job, and so is "Knight" (albeit debatable). Sage) or at least that doesn't imply another job (even if it implies another job, you can still treat the Background as representing strictly your past, and you're fine). All you have to do is pick a Background that either reinforces the image of a Wizard (e.g. That said, if you want (especially in a high-fantasy setting such as FR), "Wizard" can also be a job even if you have Backgrounds. This way, your class doesn't define what you do when living in Waterdeep, it defines what tools you use when adventuring (after all, you advance in your class by gaining XP, and you gain XP while adventuring, not while teaching magic in the Arcane Order Academy!). Now as for "jobs", my opinion is that 5e started off with the great idea of using Backgrounds to separate your "job" in the fantasy world from your "role" in adventuring. subclasses will have the same problems as classes when multiclassing, thus if there is no problem with MCing classes there is also no problem with MCing subclasses. I wrote I don't see any problem to multiclassing coming from subclasses, in the sense that they don't change anything IMHO when multiclassing compared to how it already is with just classes (without subclasses), i.e. Ok, first one clarification on my previous post.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |