Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 7026447" data-attributes="member: 6787650">I meant exactly what I wrote, that both options are bad. You invented the "you're an optimizer and neither option would be ever be worth playing" part yourself. To me that seems like a gratuitous insult, moving from discussion of game design to an incorrect claim about playstyle.Sometimes even people who know better play bad combinations for the challenge, because they want to not overshadow other players, or just because they like the novelty of the theme.This isn't the case in your system. Your system makes the hybrid Barbarian/Wizard far better than the multiclassed Barbarian X/Wizard X. Unlike the Cleric/Druid, he's really not sacrificing anything from either class. He's not even very MAD.That's fine. I'm not trying to make you change your mind about your design goal.And yet, that is exactly what you have done with the Barbarian/Wizard, and arguably with the Paladin/Sorcerer as well (double ASIs without more MADness on a stat-heavy class = pure win).The most accurate way to phrase my position is that there will always be trap options, and I'm resigned to that fact--I'd rather spend my energy ensuring that multiclassing (1) doesn't create any dominant options (doesn't invalidate any existing viable pure class or combination), but still (2) is not dominated by existing options (has its own niche of things that it's good at).If a trap combination like Cleric 11/Druid 9 which is already dominated by other PHB combinations like Druid 15, also gets dominated by 11th level Cleric/Druid, that matters less to me than ensuring that all Barbarians don't turn into Barbarian/Wizards and Barbarian/Rogues. (I mean that from a game-design standpoint. From a roleplaying-at-the-table perspective, it's a given that not all Barbarians will want to be Barbarian/Wizards or Barbarian/Rogues.)</blockquote>

Verification