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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldorian" data-source="post: 4703236" data-attributes="member: 10504">You're killing me here.  Fine.  I'll bite.It takes feats to do paragon multiclassing.  That was the point, plain and simple.  Smeelbo was saying that despite the fact he's never seen a paragon multiclass that he likes, even if there is one out there that he would like if he knew it, it's undeniable that paragon multiclassing uses up a lot of feats, i.e. is a feat sink.You strawman the argument that the feat is a bandaid fix for a problem inherit to the math of the system.  NOTHING that happens in DnD is going to make me think it's the end of the world, nor any other sane person.You seem to lack the concept of "relative".  The character with the 14 in his attack stat that takes expertise is still a crappy character.. relative to a guy with an 18 and the feat.  Crappy as in combat ineffective.  The DM, in order to provide a challenge for the guy who made the obvious choices for combat effectiveness (the PHB tells you which races are good for which classes, and how to allocate your stats in order to function as these classes), will make the game too hard for the character with the crappy attack stat.  If the crappy stat guy can take the feat, then the good stat guy can, and the problem remains.Every character should be considered relative to the sort of default build.  Make the character with an 18 starting in his primary stat (including racial bonus) pick feats which obviously improve his performance (such as superior weapons, expertise, weapon focus, backstabber or whatever). If the system allows you to make a character that is much more effective than that character, the system has failed.  If the system doesn't make it obvious how to make that character, the system has failed.  If the obvious choices are the same for every character, then the system has failed.  If there aren't viable alternative choices to the obvious, the system has failed ME.  EVERY race/class combo benefits from expertise.  It's usually in their top 5 choices for improving combat effectiveness.  The problem here is that it fails ME.  I don't want to take the same feat with every character I make, because it is such a good feat that I'd be severely limiting myself if I don't take it.  In fact, unless I desperately need an armor feat because I start with cloth or need to move up to heavy armor because my build lacks an AC stat, I'll probably take expertise at first level with 80%+ of my future characters.  I'm basically saying here that the only thing better than +1 to hit, is +2 or more to AC.And NO ONE should fool themselves into thinking DnD was ever a game that wasn't about killing things and taking their stuff.  There are few things other than combat I need rules about in an RPG.  Most of the rules are for combat, most of the feats too, and most of the feats and powers you choose are going to be for combat.</blockquote>

Verification