Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5881804" data-attributes="member: 54877">As written, I've never seen anything as clear, easy to use, and reasonably well tied to the thing it attempts to model as Dragon Quest professions (its classes).&nbsp; You can advance in as many as you want, at whatever pace you want, independently, within the limits of your XP.&nbsp; (And if you practice it RAW, within the limits of practice--not having 1 day of practice per month per profession meaning that you are in peril of losing ground.)&nbsp;The problem with that model for D&amp;D is exactly why D&amp;D has always struggled on the multiclass issue:&nbsp; DQ doesn't imbed weapon or spell use into the professions, the professions being more concerned with &quot;skills&quot;.&nbsp; A &quot;ranger&quot; is a character that has all kinds of skills in the wild.&nbsp; Magic intersects with this, and some of the &quot;skills&quot; are explicitly called out as &quot;quasi-magical,&quot; but the main identify of a great warrior, rogue, or caster is not tied directly to the professions at all.&nbsp;I don't see how D&amp;D can use the DQ model more or less straight without sacrificing its D&amp;D-ness.&nbsp; But I don't see how D&amp;D can reconcile tying all the fundamental building blocks to class without encountering problems with multiclassing, either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5881804, member: 54877"] As written, I've never seen anything as clear, easy to use, and reasonably well tied to the thing it attempts to model as Dragon Quest professions (its classes). You can advance in as many as you want, at whatever pace you want, independently, within the limits of your XP. (And if you practice it RAW, within the limits of practice--not having 1 day of practice per month per profession meaning that you are in peril of losing ground.) The problem with that model for D&D is exactly why D&D has always struggled on the multiclass issue: DQ doesn't imbed weapon or spell use into the professions, the professions being more concerned with "skills". A "ranger" is a character that has all kinds of skills in the wild. Magic intersects with this, and some of the "skills" are explicitly called out as "quasi-magical," but the main identify of a great warrior, rogue, or caster is not tied directly to the professions at all. I don't see how D&D can use the DQ model more or less straight without sacrificing its D&D-ness. But I don't see how D&D can reconcile tying all the fundamental building blocks to class without encountering problems with multiclassing, either. [/QUOTE]

Verification