Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CruelSummerLord" data-source="post: 3760175" data-attributes="member: 48692">Again, some clarity is called for.&nbsp; I have nothing against multiclassing per se, it's just the idea of simply taking a level of cleric, rogue or ranger simply to min/max your character's killing capacity.&nbsp; If it's part of a character's organic development and evolution, and there are in-game reasons for doing it, then by all means.&nbsp; But I don't want any of the &quot;a little of this, a dash of that&quot; approach to character building, with no rhyme or reason.&nbsp; See, this is what upset me so much in the first place and led me to post my &quot;Does 3E dictate a certain style of play?&quot; thread several months back.&nbsp; Many people, such as MerricB, told me that it didn't, but Doug apparently disagrees.&nbsp; I intensely dislike this aspect of the 3E system-the idea that a certain amount of magical goodies are needed for play balance.&nbsp; That said, the oils of impact and sharpness (those are the 1E equivalents, I don't know their 3E counterparts) that temporarily enchant otherwise mundane weapons so they can damage perytons and gargoyles would make up for this to a certain extent.&nbsp; And when the PCs get a flametongue or ghost touch sword, that makes it all the more special.&nbsp; It cheapens magic, I think, to believe that an enchanted sword or shield could be disposable as soon as a better one comes along.&nbsp; I highly doubt Thorin or Gandalf would have discarded Glamdring or Orcrist, for example.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CruelSummerLord, post: 3760175, member: 48692"] Again, some clarity is called for. I have nothing against multiclassing per se, it's just the idea of simply taking a level of cleric, rogue or ranger simply to min/max your character's killing capacity. If it's part of a character's organic development and evolution, and there are in-game reasons for doing it, then by all means. But I don't want any of the "a little of this, a dash of that" approach to character building, with no rhyme or reason. See, this is what upset me so much in the first place and led me to post my "Does 3E dictate a certain style of play?" thread several months back. Many people, such as MerricB, told me that it didn't, but Doug apparently disagrees. I intensely dislike this aspect of the 3E system-the idea that a certain amount of magical goodies are needed for play balance. That said, the oils of impact and sharpness (those are the 1E equivalents, I don't know their 3E counterparts) that temporarily enchant otherwise mundane weapons so they can damage perytons and gargoyles would make up for this to a certain extent. And when the PCs get a flametongue or ghost touch sword, that makes it all the more special. It cheapens magic, I think, to believe that an enchanted sword or shield could be disposable as soon as a better one comes along. I highly doubt Thorin or Gandalf would have discarded Glamdring or Orcrist, for example. [/QUOTE]

Verification