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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manabarbs" data-source="post: 6193631" data-attributes="member: 6717251">That seems strictly inferior from both a mechanics-accomplishing-what-you-want standpoint and from an understandability standpoint compared to just referring directly to the class features. What does the first rule get you that "when you multiclass into a class that grants heavy armor proficiency, you do not get heavy armor proficiency until you have three or more levels in classes that grant that proficiency", aside from a bunch of extra words and strange corner cases where things like taking levels in a non-heavy-armor warrior class suddenly lets you qualify for heavy armor?Magic items are similar. There's a reason that things in previous editions that require class features in order to make sense call out those class features as their prerequisites, and not less precise groupings of classes that aren't what you're really looking for. I don't think it's harmful to try to clump classes into groups based on... whatever criteria it is that they're using, but I'm not convinced that it buys you anything. "I dunno, maybe Boots of Speed or something could be limited to tricksters?" feels like a post hoc attempt to justify using that grouping, not a problem that's actually in need of solving. Has anybody, in the history of their D&D experience, ever felt like "boy, I really wish there was another, more arbitrary way to limit access to magic items based on class?" The idea that maybe rogue-y classes - but not ALL rouge-y characters, and a lot of characters who aren't very rogue-y at all - should have some magic items that ONLY they can use really feels like a solution in search of a problem.</blockquote>

Verification