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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 3378122" data-attributes="member: 12460">I guess I didn't get the point across when I said I was old school. What I mean is, I am a referee DM. My job is twofold: challenge the players and enforce the rules of the game. Whether or not that creates a game that is entertaining for the players is up to them. As I said, I'm all about choice. I encourage them to vote with their feet if they don't like it, but I never have problems finding people who want to play my campaigns.I should point out here that once I begin a campaign, I don't change the ruleset I use for that campaign unless absolutely necessary. Usually a rule change only involves restricting one or two items that are problematic if it even comes up at all. And if I do make a change to an existing rule set, I ALWAYS consult my players first. When starting a new campaign however, I outline my house rules ahead of time so the players know what they are getting into. If the idea doesn't sound fun to them, I encourage them to join one of the many other local games around. I'm mature enough to realize that everyone has different tastes, and that is not a bad thing.Seriously? I saw no compelling evidence. But if you want me to lay it out:Fighter benefits at 5th- +1 BAB- 2 skill points- d10 hpBarbarian benefits at 1st- +1 BAB- +2 Fort- 4 skill points- rage 1/day- fast movement- d12 hpThey are tied at BAB, but the barbarian offers infinitely more otherwise. Except for the rare roleplaying-focused player who refuses to change his lawful alignment, this is a no-brainer. Even if he didn't get fast movement because he likes to wear heavy armor it would still be a no-brainer. Considering that most fighter builds aim at a prestige class at 6th, they never intended to take a 6th level of fighter anyway, so the argument that the character loses half a bonus feat is irrelevant.For characters who do not cast spells, multiclassing is usually a better option than not multiclassing. Even in a game without prestige classes, I imagine you would find a lot more fighter/rogue/rangers than rogues or fighters or rangers. Even the cleric or druid would often be multiclassed. One level of monk practically obviates the need for armor for such characters (Wis bonus plus bracers of armor is surprisingly effective and you keep your full movement) and improved grapple never hurt the wild-shaping druid. Bards often multiclass as fighters or rogues to gain more combat potency or inflate their saving throws.Multiclass characters should be the exception and not the rule, and such a build should involve a true sacrifice, not the opportunity cost of a dead level in another class.It is helpful to use systems that are simple and yet thoroughly playtested.  The 3e multiclass rules with the core classes fit this very well (and I'd love to have you tell me how, if you think this is untrue).</blockquote>Simple? Yes. Playtested? Yes. Balanced with only the core classes? Maybe, but the barbarian/fighter/ranger/rogue or the bard/fighter or the cleric/monk or druid/monk are still broken. Balanced with more than core base classes? No. And I like the alternate base classes. They are a better way of introducing flavor to the world than prestige classes are IMHO. I just do not feel like players should be able to cherry pick at will. The occassional multiclass build is fine, but the only way to ensure it is occassional is to make sure it is not ipso facto always a better option. Since I prefer a world that is internally consistent where the players follow the same rules as the NPCs, I would rather effect such a game by making a blanket rule, rather than letting each player use a "different system."[/QUOTE]

Verification