Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 5432094" data-attributes="member: 72317">It's funny you say that, the poster of that build made the very same admission (that his build was way weaker compared to a druid20). He knew his build would be weak, but he wanted it to be as optimized as it could be within the roleplaying constraints he set, which the CO boards delivered (sorta).<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I mean, you end up with +17bab and 9th lv spells at lv20. Good enough in my book, though the early game seems like a mess. I know it is extreme, but my point is basically that you don't have to multiclass to create a powerful character. Likewise, if your character backstory requires 2,3 or more classes to represent what it is capable of mechanics-wise, why not? It seems contradictory to claim that you support roleplaying, yet deny players the very tools they need to accomplish this. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Then again, I am one of those people who have sworn off core races and PHB classes after being enamoured with the monster class builds in savage species and can never go back to playing a &quot;mundane&quot; combination ever again. So perhaps I am an anomaly here. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :eek:"&nbsp; data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />After all, you are looking at someone who initially registered at Enworld precisely to lambast people for their anti-optimization stance...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :o"&nbsp; data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Runestar, post: 5432094, member: 72317"] It's funny you say that, the poster of that build made the very same admission (that his build was way weaker compared to a druid20). He knew his build would be weak, but he wanted it to be as optimized as it could be within the roleplaying constraints he set, which the CO boards delivered (sorta).:) I mean, you end up with +17bab and 9th lv spells at lv20. Good enough in my book, though the early game seems like a mess. I know it is extreme, but my point is basically that you don't have to multiclass to create a powerful character. Likewise, if your character backstory requires 2,3 or more classes to represent what it is capable of mechanics-wise, why not? It seems contradictory to claim that you support roleplaying, yet deny players the very tools they need to accomplish this. :p Then again, I am one of those people who have sworn off core races and PHB classes after being enamoured with the monster class builds in savage species and can never go back to playing a "mundane" combination ever again. So perhaps I am an anomaly here. :eek: After all, you are looking at someone who initially registered at Enworld precisely to lambast people for their anti-optimization stance...:o [/QUOTE]

Verification