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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 3370528" data-attributes="member: 7211">Quite right, but I think because humans are so diverse and flexible we immediately tend to make other races "more simple" in contrast to ourselves. The fact is there are no other races with distinctly human abilities (like advanced language, advanced tool-making, culture and history). We can only speculate what 'demihumans' would be like. According to 2e, demihumans really were these narrowminded species that were rigid and stuck to a few classes. Not so in 3e. And really, how you flavor them is entirely up to you.The only problem I have with that is its narrow-minded 2e flavor. 2e had things like racial classes, racial level caps, and differing exp tables to balance the various characters. In 3e adventurers have a unique adventuring trait called "adaptability" that allows them to learn an entirely new set of skills whenever they want and barring some alignment restriction, everyone can be everything.Quite right <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I only want to know whether adventurers constitute the exception or the rule in your campaign. I'm fine with 90% of the people in a given campaign being boring and relatively not-multiclassed (or heck, classed with PHB classes at all). However, the whole point of playing a role-playing game is to take on a role and play it for fun. The rules and numbers just provide a system in which to adjucate various situations.OK, you weren't there. You're free to guess at however you think the game went, but when I say I didn't cast many spells, I mean in a given day I didn't have to memorize new spells because I usually only cast 1 spell a day (Mage Armor). In social situations I tried to be funny. I was playing a Chaotic Neutral character with a bunch of friends that were also playing somewhat a-typical heroes. We were rather mercenary about going about our adventuring, usually insisting on some form of payment up front. My character in particular was maddening about his contributions - after he dealt with 1/4 of the problems (mostly in combat) he would provide minimal effort to help the party (unless things were going badly).And 1st level wizards dont get that many spells at 1st level anyway. I didn't take a familiar, planning on getting improved familiar at some point (we were playing with the then-just-released Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting). Whoa, thats a giant paragraph. First, I don't appreciate being called a power-gamer. I consider myself a smart-gamer, but I play for the joy of playing a role, not the joy of getting the highest numbers. My elven wizard at level 1 bought a monk's outfit and did not go around advertising he was a wizard. He wasn't particularly proud of it and had left his elven wizard college, family, and friends to go adventuring. He shaved his head and learned to get by in the wild, and managed to craft his own clothing.As I said earlier, my characters often grow organically. The party at that time did not have a rogue (especially one that spent years and years practicing before he got level 1). My character was often hiding in shadows and generally slinking about. I was using my bow more often than my magic. I had a decent dexterity and had been thinking of taking Point Blank Shot as my third-level feat. The DM suggested I look into taking a level of rogue, based on my character's actions he felt it would be appropriate. In fact, he thought I wasn't practicing my wizard skill set enough to reasonably advance as a wizard, seeing as I wasn't interested in acquiring new spellbooks (in fact, over the course of the character's career 1-8, I didn't learn a single spell except by advancing as a wizard). I also never ended up maxing hide and move silently, eventually feeling he had reached a reasonable level of skulking - good enough to fool saps, not good enough to get by without spells. Eventually the character ended up eschewing all weapons save magic (another radical shift from his archery days).Now, based on how the character was turning out in-game, I decided to take the rogue levels. As I've said, if I wanted to make a rogue-wizard, it would have behooved me to take the rogue level first. But I didnt know what my character was going to do when I rolled some dice and came up with a backstory. All I knew is I wanted to play an elven male with a high intelligence who had come from a family line steeped in wizardry. And he was good at wizardry, but he didn't particularly care that he was good at it. It was just that kind of character.As I said, I had taken hide and move silently cross-classed at 1st level. Combined with a decent dexterity score and the nature of low-level adventuring, I wasn't getting seen too often. Had there been a feat called "Sneaky" I likely would have taken that. I never joined a thieve's guild. Being an intelligent elf, I simply got a few simple traps and a thieve's kit (which did require a side-mission) and taught myself. My desire, as a player, was to correctly project my character, which was acting like a rogue. Why then, could my multiclassing be considered powergaming? Or, a better question, how does ANYONE multiclass? The fact that we can both agree that waiting for more wizard levels, learning Invisibility and getting some Boots of Elvenkind is a better choice makes it seem more metagamey, and thus more power-gamey than what I did.Fair enough. I don't think multiclassing should be allowed with no questions asked or anything (barbarian toxa wizard, for emple, would require quite a bit of explaining. But honestly, upon just a few moments of reflection, seems like a very interesting character to role-play - along the lines of Martin Eden, if you're familiar with Jack London, who went from a happy-go-lucky sailor to a tormented scholar). However I'm against being put in a box with my characters. I've played monks who acted like bards (obviously without numerical bonuses) and most recently a druid who acts like a monk. Since my character isnt walking around in-game with a sheet of statistics strapped to his forehead, I dont appreciate anyone referring to them by class names. Call me by my character's name, not 'hey wizard'.Yes, evaluated in a vaccum. But at 6th level the fighter gets an extra feat the hybrid fighter/barb doesnt (and does the hybrid get another level of bard for the +10 movement? After all, it only applies when lightly armored...). And the fighter/barb can only rage 1/day, and is winded afterwards. If he doesnt time the rage correctly it could be a distinct disadvantage in a prolonged encounter (or an encounter in which the enemy has reinforcements). As I pointed out, the rifts become larger the higher level you evaluate them (which is assuming you are actually playing d&d, not just doing numbers-speculation). At 8th level the fighter can get Greater Weapon Focus and thus have a higher-chance to hit than the hybrid (when he's not in his one rage per day). You could point out the differing saves as levels increase (for instance, our Fighter 6 has a base 5/2/2 compared to the Ftr4/Brb2's 7/1/1). Eventually the barbarian catches up in saving throws, and always has a fortitude advantage, but its not really something to change the game about, imo.Especially concerning multiclassing spellcasters I think you would be hard put to find an example using core rules in which a multiclassed spellcaster has a distinct advantage over the single-class version.</blockquote>

Verification