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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7023235" data-attributes="member: 6777737">"Well, it's optional," is a really, really poor excuse for a broken rule.  It neither changes my opinion, nor renders the game immune to the criticism.  Warlock remains the primary source of multiclassing problems for us.To quote myself:The same argument applies to the multiclassing rules, and since one of the two problems I have with Warlock is multiclassing, the fact that multiclassing is an optional rule is irrelevant.  It's legal at every table I've sat at, and it's legal at Adventurer's League tables as well.  The only other problem we've encountered is that Fighter (Fighting Style, Action Surge), Rogue (Expertise, Cunning Action), and Life Cleric (Heavy Armor, Shields, Bless) are a bit more attractive for 1-2 level dips than anything else (save Warlock).  All four of these classes are more frontloaded than the rest, but only Warlock has really gotten to problem levels.Unless your argument is that we shouldn't complain about rules that we experience play problems with, in which case... well, I really don't have any interest in having such a conversation at all.Finally, the topic here is, "What do you want from UA for the Warlock?"  Why shouldn't I include my desires for the class in the context of the way I play the game?  Indeed, how can I do anything but that?  If you don't play that way, that's fine, but why should that inform my desires at all?And why is this stupid argument so common on these boards? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/rant.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rant:" title="Rant    :rant:" data-shortname=":rant:" /></blockquote>

Verification