Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Warpiglet" data-source="post: 7465106" data-attributes="member: 6689161">In answer to the question, no, I don't hold to old combinations as restrictions.&nbsp; I just like to play some of them in the newer ruleset.I don't want to ban multiclassing at all.&nbsp; It is my preference that unless the desire or need to multiclass happens in emergent play (rare in my group), a character telegraph some skill or interest in the thing they will level into.I think backgrounds are great.&nbsp; Acolyte is perfect for the future cleric addition and sage is fun for someone who learns to cast (makes some sense if they were an apprentice in the early years).For me, that is the limitation really.&nbsp; I prefer telegraphing of intent and early adoption of a level in the second class when there is a desire to multiclass.&nbsp; The last point I would make about this is simple: sometimes people just want to play certain abilities in the context of the game.&nbsp; We might say you have to be single class so as to stay true to character and I call BS on that (for my games).&nbsp; The decision to take a single class fighter instead of a rogue is pretty straightforward and few people would suggest that the player is wrong for wanting to use heavy weapons!&quot;I don't see how that greataxe which is 1-12 does anything for your personality!&nbsp; You are just a min-maxer!&nbsp; You want better AC! or whatever....makes as much sense to me as you want to play a fighter wizard?!&nbsp; If you were a TRUE roleplayer (tm) you would take wizard and like it!&nbsp; You just want a few extra hit points!&quot;Uh...yeah.&nbsp; I prefer to play with more ability to be in close...its bad for me, but OK for the fighter's player?&nbsp; So I am down with a DM regulating what makes sense for his game, restricting what he thinks is &quot;off&quot; for his world or restricting combos he thinks mess up challenges.&nbsp; But I cannot swallow the argument of it being &quot;less&quot; to have a character with a less stereotyped abilities in an of itself.(this is coming from a person who despises cheese, struggles to stomach game dominating behavior, etc.).And to the other issue, prestige classes...if they were used to build a world or create variety in a way that meshes with the world, I have no issue.&nbsp; Stacking them up when the combination seems implausible ?&nbsp; Not good for me.&nbsp; I do not see 3 disparate and un linkable prestige classes to be similar to a fighter/rogue.&nbsp; And maybe we are defending against the former by banning the latter in some cases?&nbsp; It seems a little reactionary.&nbsp; But I very well could play in a game with no optional rules if I knew this to be the case from the outset.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warpiglet, post: 7465106, member: 6689161"] In answer to the question, no, I don't hold to old combinations as restrictions. I just like to play some of them in the newer ruleset. I don't want to ban multiclassing at all. It is my preference that unless the desire or need to multiclass happens in emergent play (rare in my group), a character telegraph some skill or interest in the thing they will level into. I think backgrounds are great. Acolyte is perfect for the future cleric addition and sage is fun for someone who learns to cast (makes some sense if they were an apprentice in the early years). For me, that is the limitation really. I prefer telegraphing of intent and early adoption of a level in the second class when there is a desire to multiclass. The last point I would make about this is simple: sometimes people just want to play certain abilities in the context of the game. We might say you have to be single class so as to stay true to character and I call BS on that (for my games). The decision to take a single class fighter instead of a rogue is pretty straightforward and few people would suggest that the player is wrong for wanting to use heavy weapons! "I don't see how that greataxe which is 1-12 does anything for your personality! You are just a min-maxer! You want better AC! or whatever....makes as much sense to me as you want to play a fighter wizard?! If you were a TRUE roleplayer (tm) you would take wizard and like it! You just want a few extra hit points!" Uh...yeah. I prefer to play with more ability to be in close...its bad for me, but OK for the fighter's player? So I am down with a DM regulating what makes sense for his game, restricting what he thinks is "off" for his world or restricting combos he thinks mess up challenges. But I cannot swallow the argument of it being "less" to have a character with a less stereotyped abilities in an of itself. (this is coming from a person who despises cheese, struggles to stomach game dominating behavior, etc.). And to the other issue, prestige classes...if they were used to build a world or create variety in a way that meshes with the world, I have no issue. Stacking them up when the combination seems implausible ? Not good for me. I do not see 3 disparate and un linkable prestige classes to be similar to a fighter/rogue. And maybe we are defending against the former by banning the latter in some cases? It seems a little reactionary. But I very well could play in a game with no optional rules if I knew this to be the case from the outset. [/QUOTE]

Verification