Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 1123040" data-attributes="member: 10397">See myself, I just dont understand first off all why you would *want* to handle those classes through multiclassing and/or prestige classes. Nextly, I dont think many of them can really be accurately depicted...and more importantly depicted to many people satisfaction, through those means. And lastly, I feel those archtypes are common, important, and strong enough to warrant there own classes.&nbsp; Looking at DnD specficaly, and me as an example..I love the Bard. But lets say there was no Bard class but I still wanted to do the concept. In standard DnD the closest thing as far as multiclassing would be a Sorcerer/Rogue. That would get me skills, and spells, and a little combat ability. But it wouldnt get me the ability to create effects through music, and nothing like Bardic Knowledge. And I'd end up with things like Sneak Attack and Evasion which dont fit into my bard concept at all. Same with sorcerer spells although thats easier to get around since I get to pick my spells. It wouldnt be a bad substitute, but I dont really understand why there needs to be a substitute...why not just have the class?&nbsp; A lot of people seem to have a general feeling that a number of archtypes( Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Druid and others) are easily attainble through multiclassing, and seem not to think they are strong, improtant, or unique enough to warrant there own classes. Many just want to see them gone entirely. And if your discussing roleplaying in a braod sense then yes, many of them dont fit (or certainly the DnD versions of them) dont fit into many things. But if we're talking about DND itself, then to me all of those are viable and even neccesary, and I dont feel they can really be attained by multiclassing the existing classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merlion, post: 1123040, member: 10397"] See myself, I just dont understand first off all why you would *want* to handle those classes through multiclassing and/or prestige classes. Nextly, I dont think many of them can really be accurately depicted...and more importantly depicted to many people satisfaction, through those means. And lastly, I feel those archtypes are common, important, and strong enough to warrant there own classes. Looking at DnD specficaly, and me as an example..I love the Bard. But lets say there was no Bard class but I still wanted to do the concept. In standard DnD the closest thing as far as multiclassing would be a Sorcerer/Rogue. That would get me skills, and spells, and a little combat ability. But it wouldnt get me the ability to create effects through music, and nothing like Bardic Knowledge. And I'd end up with things like Sneak Attack and Evasion which dont fit into my bard concept at all. Same with sorcerer spells although thats easier to get around since I get to pick my spells. It wouldnt be a bad substitute, but I dont really understand why there needs to be a substitute...why not just have the class? A lot of people seem to have a general feeling that a number of archtypes( Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Druid and others) are easily attainble through multiclassing, and seem not to think they are strong, improtant, or unique enough to warrant there own classes. Many just want to see them gone entirely. And if your discussing roleplaying in a braod sense then yes, many of them dont fit (or certainly the DnD versions of them) dont fit into many things. But if we're talking about DND itself, then to me all of those are viable and even neccesary, and I dont feel they can really be attained by multiclassing the existing classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification