Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 2797178" data-attributes="member: 1465">I actually understand the Sorcerer, because it is required and you want to follow the published rules, and it actually has indeed a concept twist, although the twist could have been granted by the Dragon Disciple itself (e.g. it could have had its own minor spellcasting progression).But it's actually the Barbarian/Fighter combo which IMHO (please don't take offense...&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ) is a weak concept. Why did you choose this? IMXP combinations like Ftr/Barb, Ftr/Rang and Ftr/Pal are nearly always dictated by convenience, not by concept, UNLESS the character actually starts as one and the follows the second fully (like a Barbarian leaving his tribe and becoming a urban citizen, or a normal fighter embracing the Paladin path). But those classes like Barbarian or Ranger or Paladins are originally all spin-offs of the Fighter. They already ARE fighters in their own way. Choosing to take some fighter levels is 99% of the time (IMXP) a matter of wanting some more feats, and then AFTERWARDS trying to explain that in terms of concept.It's not that bad, it's been done all the time... but I wanted to point out that it is not truly necessary for the concept.Well I cannot really comment this, since I don't know what a Renshai is. It could be necessary to stack on core classes to get the exact set of abilities that the concept wants, but the problem could also be that (1) the player wants the abilities too soon or (2) the DM doesn't accept a possible minor modification to the core class that would solve the problem easily with no multiclassing needed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 2797178, member: 1465"] I actually understand the Sorcerer, because it is required and you want to follow the published rules, and it actually has indeed a concept twist, although the twist could have been granted by the Dragon Disciple itself (e.g. it could have had its own minor spellcasting progression). But it's actually the Barbarian/Fighter combo which IMHO (please don't take offense... :p ) is a weak concept. Why did you choose this? IMXP combinations like Ftr/Barb, Ftr/Rang and Ftr/Pal are nearly always dictated by convenience, not by concept, UNLESS the character actually starts as one and the follows the second fully (like a Barbarian leaving his tribe and becoming a urban citizen, or a normal fighter embracing the Paladin path). But those classes like Barbarian or Ranger or Paladins are originally all spin-offs of the Fighter. They already ARE fighters in their own way. Choosing to take some fighter levels is 99% of the time (IMXP) a matter of wanting some more feats, and then AFTERWARDS trying to explain that in terms of concept. It's not that bad, it's been done all the time... but I wanted to point out that it is not truly necessary for the concept. Well I cannot really comment this, since I don't know what a Renshai is. It could be necessary to stack on core classes to get the exact set of abilities that the concept wants, but the problem could also be that (1) the player wants the abilities too soon or (2) the DM doesn't accept a possible minor modification to the core class that would solve the problem easily with no multiclassing needed. [/QUOTE]

Verification