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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6322147" data-attributes="member: 87792">And even more powerful combinations of double spellcasting.This doesn't apply in 3.X, however (unless you are playing a sorcerer or bard).  If we imagine the standard battlemage to be Rambo then the hedge wizard who can't even fight is Rambo the Pacifist at the beginning of Rambo III - all he needs to turn into the engine of destruction Rambo that everyone knows is motivation and access to a small armoury (i.e. a few scrolls or a spellbook to learn combat spells from).  And a cleric or druid doesn't even need that; they just need to wake up cranky one morning and pick their spells for combat.And I consider this to be (a) sheer nonsense and (b) something that should have been offered to the martial characters as well (and was in both 4e and RC).In 4e, yes.  But that's because 4e was the third mainstream iteration D&D came up with.  Non-weapon proficiencies weren't a good skill system.  And as for the 3.0/3.5 skill system that meant that a fighter needed three skills for climb, jump, and swim, had skills ranging from the broken Diplomacy skill to Use Rope, and had so many skills that the skill list made you barely competent at most things, nope.The problem here is that D&D has never done classes very well since the addition of the thief in Supplement 1: Greyhawk, and 3.X multiclassing gave up all the good parts of having a class system.  4E classes were pretty good, but if you want to see a class system done right try to track down the old playtest version of Apocalypse World: The Dark Age (or just get your hands on Apocalypse World).  Those are what classes should be.</blockquote>

Verification