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: 5434363" data-attributes="member: 4937">Huh?  Ok, point out where people in this thread have been concerned with overpowered via multiclassing.  I don't recall that being much of a theme, and to my knowledge nothing I've said nothing that suggests anything of the sort.  The easiest way to get overpowered in core rules is straight full spellcaster.  Multiclassing isn't much of a concern to me on that grounds, and my only comments about power have been to deflect charges that if you remove multiclassing and PrCs that you'll have removed all ways to near the power of full spellcasters by noting that so long as I was making changes I didn't limit myself to just banning a few things or even just banning a lot of things.No one opposed to massive multiclassing has stated that the primary reason that they are opposed to massive multiclassing has anything at all to do with power level.  I oppose some PrCs on power level grounds, but not multiclassing generally and I certainly don't oppose the example of 'good multiclassing' we've been given on power level grounds.Rather, I think there is a whole lot of projecting going on here.   The people defending fully open multiclassing and PrCs in particular are doing so on the grounds that they approve of the resulting power level, so they are assuming without any evidence whatsoever that those that object are objecting on power level grounds.  But that would be having a conversation with a straw man or someone else not present here. Who, what?  Show me the quote? I didn't say that.  Though I would say that the big four full spellcasting classes are so powerful that clearly any PrC that made them more powerful would be taking things in the wrong direction. This is nonsense.  The purpose of me readjusting the classes was to give the players more freedom to create what they wanted and giving them readier access to mechanics without jumping through PrC hoops, wierd prerequisites, fixed level progressions in order to get silo'd class ability X and Y, and so forth.  My purpose was to elimenate alot of arbitrary flavor baggage so that, yes, you could play a Chaotic Good 'paladin' or a Lawful Nuetral Barbarian, and yes, you could be a 'ranger' without having a deep attachment to the wilderness and dabbling in druidic magic.  And the intention was to let players do this 'out of the box' without them having to go, "Can I take the alternate base class from book X, because I want to progess and take the PrC from book Y, and then the PrC from book X.", and me having to say, "Have you looked at book J yet?"  Yes, obviously I'm also trying to create the game I want, but so is the DM who doesn't ban everything and allows every splatbook and I won't apologize for wanting to enjoy the game.  Some other DM can make his game to his taste, and more power to him.  All I'm saying is that I hear a lot of people unhappy with 3e especially at higher levels, and while some of those problems (complicated math) are inherent, a lot of the others aren't part of core and in fact only serve to make core's problems harder to address.</blockquote>

Verification