Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 4639600" data-attributes="member: 50987">Threadromancy is afoot!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Wow, I thought this discussion thread died a long time ago...pity too, because it is one of our favorite house rules.&nbsp; (Come to think about it, this thread is probably better-suited to the 3.5E House Rules forum...)Hmm...the original thread must have gotten moved to another forum or something.&nbsp; Or imps have infested the database.&nbsp; I'll look for the thread, and fix it if I can.But waiting until 7th level isn't really a problem.&nbsp; Magic should be seriously hard to learn.&nbsp; And, you know, good things to those who wait...Seriously though, this is one of those situations where I would change some of the requirements to benefit the player.&nbsp; If this came up at my table, I would work with the player to come up with a work-around.&nbsp; I once waived the feat requirement for a rogue who had very specific plans for her feats...instead, I required her to complete a special mission to recover a stolen artifact.&nbsp; Her reward was an internship at the local wizard guild.It's not really, for most people anyway.&nbsp; But like any other rule in any other game, it can cause problems when exploited.&nbsp; This little house rule makes it harder to exploit multiclassing to an unfair advantage.Unfair according to me, of course.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />What is the Saga method?&nbsp; I've never played it.Sort of, yeah.&nbsp; We prefer a slower, more subtle approach to character building.&nbsp; I try to discourage multiclassing just for the sake of numbers, and encourage it to make the character interesting from the story's standpoint.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CleverNickName, post: 4639600, member: 50987"] Threadromancy is afoot! :) Wow, I thought this discussion thread died a long time ago...pity too, because it is one of our favorite house rules. (Come to think about it, this thread is probably better-suited to the 3.5E House Rules forum...) Hmm...the original thread must have gotten moved to another forum or something. Or imps have infested the database. I'll look for the thread, and fix it if I can. But waiting until 7th level isn't really a problem. Magic should be seriously hard to learn. And, you know, good things to those who wait... Seriously though, this is one of those situations where I would change some of the requirements to benefit the player. If this came up at my table, I would work with the player to come up with a work-around. I once waived the feat requirement for a rogue who had very specific plans for her feats...instead, I required her to complete a special mission to recover a stolen artifact. Her reward was an internship at the local wizard guild. It's not really, for most people anyway. But like any other rule in any other game, it can cause problems when exploited. This little house rule makes it harder to exploit multiclassing to an unfair advantage. Unfair according to me, of course. :) What is the Saga method? I've never played it. Sort of, yeah. We prefer a slower, more subtle approach to character building. I try to discourage multiclassing just for the sake of numbers, and encourage it to make the character interesting from the story's standpoint. [/QUOTE]

Verification