Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7487048" data-attributes="member: 6919838">IMO what you are describing is a society, not &quot;classes of character building.&quot;Even in rigid caste systems there were outliers, outlaws, folks who developed in secret cross-caste efforts/experiences/professions etc. Additionally, there were in some caste systems quite a bit of leeway allowed depending on status. At some lower caste levels whether one was rogue or fighter or fighter-rogue or whether or not the witch was also a pickpocket etc... and at higher levels when one had enough money and privy and privacy one could still &quot;indulge&quot; other pursuits - as long as one was discrete.In short, the society acceptance of castes and such has little to do with the actual allowance in the game of multi-classing. All removing multi-classing entirely does is prevent certain options - that doesn't **add more story** that otherwise could not happen. if it did, the most storied game would be &quot;only fighters allowed&quot; cuz then we have the most clearly defined world of all.But basically, if the only option is single-classing, it isn't going to seem restrictive in the world... its just &quot;normal&quot;. the restrictive nature of &quot;caste systems of societies&quot; stand out in the presence of other more flexible alternatives. Without contrast their is only monochrome.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7487048, member: 6919838"] IMO what you are describing is a society, not "classes of character building." Even in rigid caste systems there were outliers, outlaws, folks who developed in secret cross-caste efforts/experiences/professions etc. Additionally, there were in some caste systems quite a bit of leeway allowed depending on status. At some lower caste levels whether one was rogue or fighter or fighter-rogue or whether or not the witch was also a pickpocket etc... and at higher levels when one had enough money and privy and privacy one could still "indulge" other pursuits - as long as one was discrete. In short, the society acceptance of castes and such has little to do with the actual allowance in the game of multi-classing. All removing multi-classing entirely does is prevent certain options - that doesn't **add more story** that otherwise could not happen. if it did, the most storied game would be "only fighters allowed" cuz then we have the most clearly defined world of all. But basically, if the only option is single-classing, it isn't going to seem restrictive in the world... its just "normal". the restrictive nature of "caste systems of societies" stand out in the presence of other more flexible alternatives. Without contrast their is only monochrome. [/QUOTE]

Verification