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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 5867221" data-attributes="member: 162">What is a combat-focused mage but, essentially, a fighter with a different approach to combat?I'll tend to agree with this. However there has to be a trade-off. Like I said, the base fighter - again, using your metrics - should be 100/0/0, and modifications to gain other things (be it through multiclassing or packages or whatever you want to call them) lose something from that "100" and put it elsewhere.It doesn't have to. You seem to be arguing against one particular take on multiclassing. I'll agree that 3.5 multiclassing did encourage extreme system mastery, but it doesn't have to be that way.You seem really insistent on the idea of class as a strait-jacket. That baffles me.If you view classes as things you invest in, rather than as things that define you, your issue goes away. If you want to be all gung-ho about combat, just be a fighter - chances are good you weren't going to be interested in the other aspects anyway, if you do that.You need to chill, man.I'm sorry if I misread what you wrote, but you don't need to be a prick about it. It's not my intent here to misinterpret and argue with strawmen. This only matters if you view class as a strait-jacket. I'd argue that it shouldn't be as such.I can see where you are coming from, but this still just seems unnecessary and muddies the waters a lot between classes.Funny. Sounds a lot like 3.5 to me.Again, you seem to be assuming a rather specific take on multiclassing and what it means to take levels in a class.Classes are archetypes. Archetypes basically are charicatures, at their most basic level. I don't see anything wrong with this sort of take on them.Here, let me put it out in the open for you: I hate classes. I think they are utterly ridiculous strait-jackets, even as open as they can be when you involve multiclassing and themes and all these other fiddly bits DDN seems to be introducing. Mechanically-convenient packages, yes, but their existence is unnecessary and, in my mind, conceptually-limiting for players of the game.However, D&D has them, and they're not going away. I'm sorry that we know next to nothing about the assassin, but it seems a reasonable place to put the face-stabbing aspects of the rogue.Why are we assuming well-rounded characters? That seems to be silly - why should we assume that people want to play characters capable in multiple areas? It's easier to make the baseline assumption that a class is good at X, and next to useless at anything else. Make multiclassing clean, simple, and effective, and then you can build characters that have a variety of good at X, by taking differing number of levels in the class.You don't ask the English major questions about Physics. You don't ask the Philosophy major questions about Computer Science. When you focus on something, you sacrifice the ability to focus on other things. If you want well-rounded, you give up mastery. The fighter who has been a fighter all his life will deal with combat situations like nothing, but will have little ability elsewhere because he has spent all his time training to learn how to fight. If you want to expand outside of fighting, you invest in a class other than fighter.</blockquote>

Verification