Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7468099" data-attributes="member: 6880599">I didn't ignore what was said, I echoed it. Way to be nasty and attack posters instead of arguments. I at least had a point but this statement is just vial and doesn't belong on the forums. ...why?... it discredits your talking points when you start off attacking people instead of points. Sure your are aware of it but your post didn't acknowledge that:As a threshhold issue, this ruling greatly privileges multiclassing over singleclassing. Especially those who multiclass multiple times (more than dual-class; in other words, there is no real detriment to "dipping" in many classes). By itself, that's no big deal. If a DM wants a campaign with a lot of multiclassing, that might even make sense to houserule.The reason it's poorly thought out is because of the Fighter. It doesn't make sense. You can't both say that it's tied into generic class level, and also a special fighter bonus. That doesn't work together.</blockquote>First you, if we acknowledge you know their are still costs you state that their are not then you ignore the where the OP clarified the Fighter in the first post.... So bring up the costs you specifically call out as not existing and stating the rule the OP posted the GM is using is a fair reply. IF they would get the level 8 ASI and the class extra ASI for level 6 Fighter and 2 of something else … yes... of course they would. Wouldn't they get any other class feature at level 6? The extra Feat actually does take the place of a class feature since most if not all other classes get some improvement at 6 and 7. If you for get separating it as an "ASI" and except that it is a class feature that duplicates the ASI their is not issue. It looks like your just ignoring this because you want to disagree....One at Character level 4, Character level 8, Character level 12, and Fighter level 6 so... 4 per the statements the OP made on how the GM is running it. It seems pretty clear and your reaching pretty hard to say otherwise. Sure. Your not making a point here and your initialed to your opinion.So this is my point about your known bias here on the forums. You state what I said in that even with this rule most multi-classes will still hurt a build more than help it due to class features but just like how you hate the rapier or paladins your assumption it that it will make some notable level of difference in choices.... I simply disagree. I use shortswords more than rapiers and I multi-class more because I like a design and flavor than because I am trying to be overpowered and I think the players that do … will because they always have and those who don't want because they never did. Using your point, Do you really think someone who picked the short sword with a D6 is going to change to a rapier instead when its a D12 instead of the already higher D8? I honestly don't think so and multi-classing can appear good up front but end up a disaster of in efficiencies and level limitations on key class abilities and known spell options where your example of increasing damage of a standard weapon does not have any drawbacks. I think people who try and fail will not be over powered and it will not matter, people who had not interest in trying still will not, and those who know how to successfully multiclass and were doing it will change designs very little because the 1 or 2 ASI they might get from this will not be the game breaking party of the builds that are or enough to make the build that aren't game breaking suddenly become so. Their is likely one or two... but its going to be so unusual it doesn't really matter and it will be the usual offenders who use them.So having broken down your posts a peace at a time to show I both understand your argument and have a reasonable reason for disagreeing and what I said, If you have something non-toxic to say as a counter point, I am more than willing to hear you out. I have noticed however that you seem to have become jaded on specific topics and I am suggesting that you take a step back, take a deep breath, and consider if your just replying to your rage instead of to the poster on the posters point. Your a smart guy who makes a lot of good posts but you have had the same or similar arguments too many times on this forum I am guessing and as a result you have jumped off the rails to toxic in our last few disagreements attacking me instead of my statements usually by proclaiming I am unable to read and comprehend your clear and simple arguments. That's not constructive though I can see that you take many disagreements with your opinion personally... I really don't have a problem with you, just your posts where you leave rational augments for personal attacks.[/QUOTE]

Verification