Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mike Sullivan" data-source="post: 992366" data-attributes="member: 9824">No, it's really not.Even if Fighter/Wizard multiclassing worked just fine, there would still be a point to a Spellsword -- it's a specific, flavourful implementation of a martial arcane caster.  Its existance is independent of whether or not there are other viable martial arcane casters.Yes.  And the third category is a new use for PrC's, and those new PrC's don't work the way that other PrC's do.Uh, stuff and nonsense.  Rogues have lots of abilities that are degraded by armor use.  Fighter/Rogue is a totally viable multiclass.  Second Edition Fighter/Mages couldn't use armor at all.  Second Edition Fighter/Mages were perfectly powerful -- in fact, many would argue too powerful.That two classes have bits that rub up against each other poorly doesn't mean that they can't effectively multiclass, nor that any potential blending of the classes must unify every last class feature.If you want a standard PrC (not a "patching a poor multiclass choice" one) that implements an ASF reduction at the cost of other abilities, you are welcome to that.  That doesn't mean that the EK should have it.Oh please.   Talk about making a mountain out a molehill.  The Mystic Theurge doesn't get ASF reduction, even though heavy armor is a Cleric class ability.  Is it "not really combining cleric and wizard"?I disagree -- in the ideal, every PrC should have a group (not necessarily a formalized organization, but a group).  Of course, sometimes we must bend the ideal to get the game to work at all.You're the one who's complaining incessently that something which is just a Wizard + Fighter can not possibly be flavourful enough, ad nauseum.  EK is demonstrably interesting in the same way that other classes (specifically, core classes) are.If I were smarter, I would.  But I can't find a good way to rewrite the multiclass rules in such a way as to elegantly, flexibly handle arcane caster multiclassing, and retain the elegence and flexibility of non-caster 3.0 spellcasting.The R&D team apparently feels the same way I do.I have no idea what this means.That said, I can understand why the R&D team didn't want to go with that concept -- it's a really clunky, difficult-to-explain concept to drop into the game.  I think it works better, but it's ugly.  The PrC route is more elegant, if less versatile.I take it you ban Fighters and Wizards in your games, then?</blockquote>

Verification