Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4396537" data-attributes="member: 72317">I agree with Benly to some extent. You can't say that it is not a problem because no DM would ever allow it, since the fact that it requires a DM to have to fix it in some manner is essentially an outright admission that there is indeed something wrong with the rules, if they are indeed so ambiguous as to allow such an alternative interpretation which apparently cannot be disproven using the existing rules framework, and must instead be resolved via DM fiat.Likewise, while it does indeed seem to be a blatant attempt at abusing the rules as written, I am not so sure if it is as bad as it seems. It is no small secret that 4e multiclassing stinks. Very bad. And all the more for paragon multiclassing. Would allowing a PC to trade out his basic attack for another at-will attack power be such a henious sin if it did not break his character, but just served to make paragon multiclassing suck a little less?This is why I am so leery of people who use &quot;common sense&quot; to justify their stand. It seems like their replies are more of knee-jerk reactions, without even giving due consideration to what sort of impact this may have on game balance, if any. So, can anyone who opposed this so vehemently humour me and be so kind as to enlighten me about why this might be such a bad idea, or how it would break the game?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Runestar, post: 4396537, member: 72317"] I agree with Benly to some extent. You can't say that it is not a problem because no DM would ever allow it, since the fact that it requires a DM to have to fix it in some manner is essentially an outright admission that there is indeed something wrong with the rules, if they are indeed so ambiguous as to allow such an alternative interpretation which apparently cannot be disproven using the existing rules framework, and must instead be resolved via DM fiat. Likewise, while it does indeed seem to be a blatant attempt at abusing the rules as written, I am not so sure if it is as bad as it seems. It is no small secret that 4e multiclassing stinks. Very bad. And all the more for paragon multiclassing. Would allowing a PC to trade out his basic attack for another at-will attack power be such a henious sin if it did not break his character, but just served to make paragon multiclassing suck a little less? This is why I am so leery of people who use "common sense" to justify their stand. It seems like their replies are more of knee-jerk reactions, without even giving due consideration to what sort of impact this may have on game balance, if any. So, can anyone who opposed this so vehemently humour me and be so kind as to enlighten me about why this might be such a bad idea, or how it would break the game?:confused: [/QUOTE]

Verification