Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Warpiglet" data-source="post: 7462064" data-attributes="member: 6689161"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?650123-Multi-classing-as-good-as-it-seems" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?650123-Multi-classing-as-good-as-it-seems</a>Recently there was a discussion here about the relative power of multiclassing vs. Single classes.&nbsp; The argument seemed to go in two directions.&nbsp; First, some observed that multiclassing is/is not overpowered.&nbsp; But a second vocal group suggested multiclassing is all wrong much of the time for RP reasons.I have seen other such threads too.&nbsp; How can you have a paladin/warlock or a warlock/sorcerer or a warlock/cleric or a (fill in the blank).&nbsp; But most notably there seem to be more objections about clerics, warlock and paladins based on their supposed fealty to a particular being or cause.&nbsp; I am wondering why the lore of spellcasters is so sacred to some?&nbsp; My own history suggests when I play a paladin, it is LG and really hews closely to AD&amp;D ideals.&nbsp; If I play a cleric, I have been clear about religious affiliation as more than an afterthought.&nbsp; Never liked clerics without a power to pray to personally.&nbsp; But that is personal preference only!&nbsp; I can see cool concepts that deviate markedly as very valid.So this leads me to ask: of all the things we home brew and change, why are these seemingly sacred cows so sacred to some?&nbsp; Do we think the RP aspect is a balancing factor in some way?&nbsp; I observe that many who dislike multiclassing seem to dislike deviation from very traditional fluff elements in classes.On one hand I get it and on another it seems rather limiting.&nbsp; I know when I play a warlock, I like to imagine them being taught magic but also exploring and learning on their own from hints given.&nbsp; I don't like the idea of spells being granted.&nbsp; I take arcana skill and don't enjoy sub 10 intelligence for any caster.&nbsp; Does it matter that much that we stick with fluff as written? Last initial thought: many people seem to object to changing the fluff but also being inspired by some ability before a story.&nbsp; I have developed a number of concepts after flipping through the PHB and thinking an ability looks fun only then thinking about what kind of character would employ it.&nbsp; Admitting this may get me accused of ignoring fluff or not being traditional enough, I realize.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warpiglet, post: 7462064, member: 6689161"] [url]http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?650123-Multi-classing-as-good-as-it-seems[/url] Recently there was a discussion here about the relative power of multiclassing vs. Single classes. The argument seemed to go in two directions. First, some observed that multiclassing is/is not overpowered. But a second vocal group suggested multiclassing is all wrong much of the time for RP reasons. I have seen other such threads too. How can you have a paladin/warlock or a warlock/sorcerer or a warlock/cleric or a (fill in the blank). But most notably there seem to be more objections about clerics, warlock and paladins based on their supposed fealty to a particular being or cause. I am wondering why the lore of spellcasters is so sacred to some? My own history suggests when I play a paladin, it is LG and really hews closely to AD&D ideals. If I play a cleric, I have been clear about religious affiliation as more than an afterthought. Never liked clerics without a power to pray to personally. But that is personal preference only! I can see cool concepts that deviate markedly as very valid. So this leads me to ask: of all the things we home brew and change, why are these seemingly sacred cows so sacred to some? Do we think the RP aspect is a balancing factor in some way? I observe that many who dislike multiclassing seem to dislike deviation from very traditional fluff elements in classes. On one hand I get it and on another it seems rather limiting. I know when I play a warlock, I like to imagine them being taught magic but also exploring and learning on their own from hints given. I don't like the idea of spells being granted. I take arcana skill and don't enjoy sub 10 intelligence for any caster. Does it matter that much that we stick with fluff as written? Last initial thought: many people seem to object to changing the fluff but also being inspired by some ability before a story. I have developed a number of concepts after flipping through the PHB and thinking an ability looks fun only then thinking about what kind of character would employ it. Admitting this may get me accused of ignoring fluff or not being traditional enough, I realize. [/QUOTE]

Verification