Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6186928" data-attributes="member: 95493">Well, it is more that someone told him about it and he suddenly caught up. No surprise really. Sad, but not surprising.I found myself answering "Yes?" because it was my guess for who you were talking to.. which was not me. Thus "yes?" as I was not sure but took a guess.As far as why I would argue yes (and I guess why I was arguing for entitlement) followed. Did you read it? You aren't responding to anything I wrote so I would assume you didn't and somehow only took exception with the first word (and not the punctuation) of my reply.How old I am has nothing to do with my playstyle, ability, or maturity. It should have no relevence on the conversation we are having here. What is more, it is rather rude to ask someone that without reason - especially without giving your own age first <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />And, as far as entitlement goes, "choice" is a better word to use. Again, to back and read my first reply - the whole thing this time - that would help you figure out how incompatible our world views are. Rather, as it is right now, this is not a debate as it is you merely conceding without having stating you dislike "entitlement."As it happens, I do actually kind of agree about the proficiency argument you seem to be having (not related to "entitlement"). Isn't level dipping the point of multiclassing sometimes? Being stronger is the point many times, if you are multiclassing you should end up being stronger in the end, not equally strong. Makes sense to me. Just have to make sure you are giving something up in exchange and that it isn't a necessity. Ie. 3.5 first level rogue has 4x(8+int) skills, nice selection of class skills too. Second level (any other class) has maximum 6+int - that's a near necessity. Armor proficiency that you can get with simple racial + feat isn't huge IMHO.A. My objection was with "mechanically gimped" but I think that may have had to do more with your phrasing rather than the endpoint you were trying to make.B. What can't we use 3.5 material in PF? Why can't we count a simple prestige class designed to bridge the gap between the who classes? Would you call a wizard/cleric gimped without excluding mystic theurge? I mean they are underpowered, because it is best to have a full casting class in either but if you are looking to have as much casting potential as possible then MT is great and it is not "gimped.C. MAD? CHA is necessary for sorcerer. What others are suddenly crazy necessary? WIS for monk, with DEX or STR that's ... 3? 4 if you want STR and DEX. My fighter needs DEX for ranged, STR for melee, CON for survivibility. That's 3, are they MAD/gimped too? Not to mention needing INT so that they can have more than 2 skills per level. So, that's 4. MAD now?D. The monk player broke the game due to his build, the monk class, items and general combination that made him broken. He was a straight monk but I don't recall the race - I'm sure it didn't have a LA though. He did have a couple of great stats (couple 18s don't recall the rest). But then again, you want 18s to play a monk well so there is that. I don't understand your point I guess.E. Yes sorcerers are tier 2. Your argument is that multiclassing sorcerers aren't? Agreed. I don't understand the argument. A wizard/fighter is not a tier 1 wizard either because they are sacrificing their full casting. Heck, even wizard/druid isn't tier 1 in power anymore (and that's with 2 tier 1 classes). And?Oh, if you want to keep having this conversation in PM or another thread I'm game. I don't really have anything else to say but then again I don't find it all that much off topic.</blockquote>

Verification