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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6317836" data-attributes="member: 6689464">Two levels equivalent to roughly two sessions, and there is a thing called ranged fighting and another called dualwielding finesse weapons, I don't think it is outrageous to think a reasonably stated wizard will have a decent dex and con, so I fail to see how this compromises survivability.This would put down yet another reasonable use for multiclassing, a dex based fighter or paladin would be unable to multiclass at all, as a str based rogue,  a cha-dex based cleric or an int-str based bard. That despite them being very valid character variants. This heavy emphasis on only allowing walking stereotypes to multiclass goes counter to one of the points of multiclassing -having more unique and interesting characters- and does nothing to stop the more outrageous ones - the unhittable  druid/rogue/monk/barbarian.This is all good and dandy when your group is an actual group and not a random bunch of people who just happened to be playing at the same time the same game, as in a convention or in pbp or vtt. In such situations DMs hold a lot of power, as they are in a way doing a favour to players, and players have very few tools to influence the game they either adapt or don't get to play at all. That is what happens when you are basically expendable as opposed to a trusted friend of many years or at least a regular in a stable group. Say what you want of 4e and its philosophy, but it made for very open and amicable casual play. And this is the problem I have with next philosophy, it is very fine for actual groups, but outside home games group level decisions are basically DMs decisions, of course there are very open DMs out there and I think I'm very open when DMing, but I have found many instances of very intrusive DMs who force you to change character concepts on a whim, but at least had to be upfront on why they were banning something 'official', the smallest the pool of options with legitimacy, the more easy DMs get to be arbitrary. And it looks like an evergrowing attitude to label anything not in basic strictly optional, which is ok for groups, but for DMs not subject to peer consensus is an open invitation to be authoritarian and restrict things on a whim -and again I've met many DMs who hate sorcerers and bards already, but the unspoken agreement is for them to be upfront with it or at least come with a very good ingame reason for it, such an evocative setting that makes sense, without this legitimacy -this so called entitlement- there is not much hope for a phb to be anything but an expensive paperweight.</blockquote>

Verification