D&D Adventurer WIP Blog Pt. II

[Hl3_or_bust]

Matt is right about that, btw. Even with the Epic Level Handbook, there is this thing called "multiclassing rules", and you would need a veeeeeeery rewarding DM to do it at all.
Edit: Rewarding and impossibly lenient.

CA has more than enough stats to multiclass into everything whenever it wants to

 

[Qawsedf234]

Yeah but that's still of based on the 1991 isn't it. But let me rephrase the question is there a reason why these explanations are being used instead of the 5th edition ones since they seem contradictory or does the canon not change edition to edition with d&d?

Ah, so that's your question. Do note that we currently only cross scale two people to Mystara. The Luminous Being (who was hinted at existing in Mystara anyways) and the Lady of Pain. Everyone from Bambu to Azzy agreed that it would be a extremely bad idea to scale anyone else to it.

So we in no way shape or form scale a Adventuer/God/Whatever to Mysara's cosmology. That's why the Gods are 2A at best (baring Ao). The sole reason it's on the CA profile is that you can become one in Mystara.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Matt is right about that, btw. Even with the Epic Level Handbook, there is this thing called "multiclassing rules", and you would need a veeeeeeery rewarding DM to do it at all.
Edit: Rewarding and impossibly lenient.

CA has more than enough stats to multiclass into everything whenever it wants to

You say this as if this weren't immediate proof of the absurdity and innacuracy of such a profile concept.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

And yes, Composite Wizard was bad but that doesn't mean we can have good single class profiles.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Not really, no. I simply am planning a campaign with friends (we already started it, actually), and some of them have asked me for certain builds using the Epic Level Handbook.

I had to say no, precisely because of how, to put it this way, impossible it is to mesh all things in a class, because of the multiclassing rules.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Matt is right about that, btw. Even with the Epic Level Handbook, there is this thing called "multiclassing rules", and you would need a veeeeeeery rewarding DM to do it at all.
Edit: Rewarding and impossibly lenient.

CA has more than enough stats to multiclass into everything whenever it wants to

You say this as if this weren't immediate proof of the absurdity and innacuracy of such a profile concept.

what?

how does that mean anything?

a good roll of starting stats can do the same thing, so why is doing the same but through other methods so bad?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

CA has more than enough stats to multiclass into everything whenever it wants to

If you truly believe that, both:

1. You haven't DM'd a game.

2. Don't know the multiclassing rules.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

CA has more than enough stats to multiclass into everything whenever it wants to

If you truly believe that, both:
1. You haven't DM'd a game.

2. Don't know the multiclassing rules.

i haven't DM'd a game, but that's irrelevant

i do know the rules, just not to heart

i remember them, at least in 5e, being about need a 13 in a particular stat(s) to multiclass into a certain class

 

[Qawsedf234]

Wait I did forget something. We also scale the Far Realm to be 1-A due to Mystara, but that's because it has multiple statements backing that it touches the entire cosmology.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

From the multiclassing rules in the Player's Handbook 3.5e

"Class Features: A multiclass character gets all the class features of all his or her classes but must also suffer the consequences of the special restrictions of all his or her classes. (Exception: A character who acquires the barbarian class does not become illiterate.) Some class features don't work well with the skills or class features of other classes. For example, although rogues are proficient with light armor, a rogue/wizard still has an arcane spell failure chance if wearing armor. In the special case of turning undead, both clerics and experi- enced paladins have the same ability. If the character's paladin level is 4th or higher, her effective turning level is her cleric level plus her paladin level minus 3. Thus a 5th-level paladin/4th-level cleric turns undead as a 6th-level cleric. In the special case of uncanny dodge, both experienced bar- barians and experienced rogues have the same ability. When a barbarian/rogue would gain uncanny dodge a second time (for her second class), she instead gains improved uncanny dodge, if she does not already have it. Her barbarian and rogue levels stack to determine the rogue level an attacker needs to flank her. For example, a 2nd-level barbarian/4th-level rogue could only be flanked by a rogue of at least 10th level."

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree with Lephyr. Smaller, Single Class profiles would be a far more pleasing and logical solution.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

of course it's 3.5e kek

that really doesn;t prove anything

what are you even trying to say with it?

just quoting the rules at me means nothing

 

[Qawsedf234]

It would work. But do note that even if it was all split up there would still be enormous in terms of powers.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

@Hl3

Having DM'd a game is not irrelevant. The DM has the final say in everything, and can even go against the rules if he wants (as stated in every manual). The last thing is the only way to truly have a Composite Adventurer.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

what?

you're saying that because CA is overpowered, that we shouldn't make a profile for it because it wouldn't be allowed by a DM?

that logic is so abusable it's not even funny

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

of course it's 3.5e kek

what are you even trying to say with it?

That you can't have a true Composite Adventurer, as you would have to go against that rule to do it.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

how though?

at most you'd have some conflicting abilities (like unarmored stuff and Light Armor Proficiency)

i don't see how it's directly against the rules

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

"Class Features: A multiclass character gets all the class features of all his or her classes but must also suffer the consequences of the special restrictions of all his or her classes. (Exception: A character who acquires the barbarian class does not become illiterate.) Some class features don't work well with the skills or class features of other classes. For example, although rogues are proficient with light armor, a rogue/wizard still has an arcane spell failure chance if wearing armor.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Lephyr is just pointing out some of the issues with a multi-class. Like a Wizard-fighter has magic and can hit hard, but can't use heavy armor or risk spell failure. The current profile doesn't take that into account right now.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

why are we specifically using 3.5e rules anyways?

the same argument can be made for any edition, but i'd just like to know

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It would work. But do note that even if it was all split up there would still be enormous in terms of powers.

That's the least concern really.

 

[Qawsedf234]

why are we specifically using 3.5e rules anyways?

the same argument can be made for any edition, but i'd just like to know

We aren't. 3e is just a popular option to use. Also every edition with multi-class rules mentions the weaknesses. Though its not a hard thing to edit in or mention

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

5th ed. rules, they don't even get all profiencies in multiclass.

Edit: Bringing 3.5e was just an example. Every edition has different multiclassing rules, which further makes a CA impossible.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

pretty sure even if they don't they'd only lack proficiency in like unarmed combat or something pointless

 

[Qawsedf234]

So I'd like the interject now. Does anyone have any concerns with the suggested AP ratings (besides the Immortals/Old Ones). The profile itself is another subject, but I want to make sure the tiering is acceptable

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

pretty sure even if they don't they'd only lack proficiency in like unarmed combat or something pointless

Which proves "composite" is false.

I will repeat it 100% clearly: You can't have truly Composite Adventurer.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

you also can't have Composite Link but Matt has far less issues with that than with CA

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Another matter entirely, for another thread.

This thread is for CA.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

not really

it's relevant because Matt calls CA unmakable (when it's actually makable for the overwhelming majority of the time) but has no issues with CL, which is actually unmakable

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

And I've proven why CA is impossible. The multiclassing rule outright prevents it.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

the multiclassing rule for 3.5e outright prevents it

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

And the different rules in every edition further makes it impossible.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

not really
it's relevant because Matt calls CA unmakable (when it's actually makable for the overwhelming majority of the time) but has no issues with CL, which is actually unmakable

It is irrelevant as Composite Link is not the topic of this thread. Unless you are going to bring him up on a CRT drop it. Matt even stated that he is going to make a thread on Composites in general.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

can you directly prove that?

because it looked like 1: the rules only barely didn;t allow it in 3.5e and 2: the rules would easily accimodate it in 5e

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

First Edition Advanced D&D Multiclass rules. Composite is impossible.


Edit: Forgot Dual Class rules for Humans:

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Big Oof.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

unnecessary commentary Matt

 

[The_Tetromino_King]

Was that really necessary?

 

[DMUA]

That's 1 edition out of 5.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

1e =/= Every edition. Like I said above, if we're going with OG rules then no D&D profile is allowed as originally (prior to AD&D) you could only hit Level 3 max and were told to go get the other version if you wanted to go higher.