NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5434006" data-attributes="member: 4937">- emphasis added.In my opinion, that is what feat and class ability choices do.  Multi-classing exists IMO to hybridize characters that want to do two unlike things, or to move into the grey zones between two classes.  Conceptually rogue and fighter are quite similar, but there is still some space between them not fully colonized by one or the other - call it 'Thug' or 'Swashbuckler' or any number of other concepts.  We shouldn't need a 'Thug' or 'Swashbuckler' PrC to occupy this unclaimed space IMO if the base classes are well designed and the feats suitably diverse, common, and powerful.  Multiclassing base classes and selecting flavorful and impactful feats should be enough, and if it isn't, then we need to be looking somewhere else than the PrC as a solution.They don't.  Because a character isn't defined by what they can do.  That's a D&Dism that annoyed to no end many of the first generation of role-players.   And so, you see things like Chivalry & Sorcery and Pendragon and so forth created to address that.  What a character can do is only a small part of truly having a 'character'.  You also must have beliefs, traits, values, personality, quirks, and relationships with the world.  A starting character should have all those things, and a true background addresses primarily those things.  D&D's starting assumption is that a new character has yet limited abilities, but that doesn't mean D&D assumes you start without character. With the exception that I have neither rangers nor monks, I would.  So, I'd be just as happy to allow a Hunter/Fighter character as any other combo.  My goal is to allow for freedom of multiclassing while making optimization as natural as possible.   I've argued in many places that 3.5 broke more than it fixed.I would focus on the concept, and not on the mechancs.  When I help a new player start a character, I start with his concept and then give him options of how to mechanically represent the concept.   So let's say I had a player who said, "I want to play a 'martial artist ranger', but I don't see either monk or ranger in your game.  How do I get there?"   And if we talked about the options he decided, "Ok, I see how that works, but now I'm probably going to end up being a multiclassed Hunter/Explorer/Fighter/Shaman, so what do I start as."  And again, you focus on concept not on mechanics.  I'm about to run my game, but I'd probably have them start as Explorer0/Shaman0, and then pick up Fighter and Hunter later to reinforce the concept.</blockquote>

Verification