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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 6837108" data-attributes="member: 23716">No one is accusing you of BadWrongFun.  People enjoy different aspects of the game, and I daresay most of us enjoy playing an effective character, as well as one that meets our 'vision'.  That said, some people enjoy the 'build' aspects of the game that usually prizes feats and multi-classing more than others.  This can lead, IMHO, to a game with a 'pressure' in some groups where these options exist to make sure you're 'optimized' in your feat/multi-class choices.  There can be a sort of tread mill of ever advancing min/maxing choices that is not easy to get off of due to a keeping-up-with-the-Jones mentality.  Maybe we should be more disciplined, but some like to play in games that are free of such encumbrances. First, Multi-classing (and feats) are optional rules.  They are not part of the assumed standard, even though many (most?) games may play with them.  It is perfectly Okay for a particular group or DM to decide upfront that they will not be using these rules, for reasons over and above the added complexity they bring.  Personally, I think that D&D, as a class based game, is trying to have its cake and eat it too with multi-classing.  It leads to a certain amount of homogenization and dilution in character building, and 5e already does that quite a bit in the base game, particularly with regard to the spell casting classes with shared spells/cantrips and the ability to easily pilfer spells from one another's lists.  But this is, of course, a personal preference. This is a thread about not using particular optional rules, and how the game works without them.  I'm pretty sure the OP is not going to show up at your game to demand you comply; that is, unless you are in his/her game?  Then by all means, let your voice be heard.</blockquote>

Verification