Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1215381" data-attributes="member: 151">But, isn't that how multiclassing is (or at least was) originally intended to operate, by design?&nbsp; The Fighter/Rogue is not more competent than that fighter at battle or the rogue at stealth, skills or other 'roguish' pursuits, except in certain cirumstances.&nbsp; His talents are broad, as opposed to focused...he's still viable as a playable character, but in a group with folks who share his talents, he'll be second fiddle in their chosen arena.&nbsp; He'll be tougher than a normal rogue, more skillful than a normal fighter.&nbsp;Now, I agree that D&amp;D doesn't model the swashbucker archetype well.&nbsp; Part of this is based on the core problem that the underpinnings of such characters are at odds, IMHO, with the conceptual underpinnings of others.&nbsp; The warrior-knights of King Arthur don't coexist with Dumas' Musketeers, and D&amp;D owes it's heritage much more to the former than to the later or Lieber's material.&nbsp; D&amp;D doesn't offer more swashbuckling combat options...there is no true option to parry in D&amp;D, for example (at least, not compared to GURPS, which is my point of reference).&nbsp; Dragon did offer some nice options in that regard, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 1215381, member: 151"] But, isn't that how multiclassing is (or at least [i]was[/i]) originally intended to operate, by design? The Fighter/Rogue is not more competent than that fighter at battle or the rogue at stealth, skills or other 'roguish' pursuits, except in certain cirumstances. His talents are broad, as opposed to focused...he's still viable as a playable character, but in a group with folks who share his talents, he'll be second fiddle in their chosen arena. He'll be tougher than a normal rogue, more skillful than a normal fighter. Now, I agree that D&D doesn't model the swashbucker archetype well. Part of this is based on the core problem that the underpinnings of such characters are at odds, IMHO, with the conceptual underpinnings of others. The warrior-knights of King Arthur don't coexist with Dumas' Musketeers, and D&D owes it's heritage much more to the former than to the later or Lieber's material. D&D doesn't offer more swashbuckling combat options...there is no true option to parry in D&D, for example (at least, not compared to GURPS, which is my point of reference). Dragon did offer some nice options in that regard, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification