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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5445117" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, irritated then...Ok, most of the complaints were about the fluff which shall we say, is not for everyone.  But the mechanics were also discussed.  Ok, it was a discussion of that only in your own mind.  I don't think anyone on the side of banning things said that multiclassing was inherently bad (though, it wasn't in oD&D so I'm sure some would).The fact that the character in question had fluff which was ridiculous to many observers confused the issue, but no one - certainly not I - stated that the various mechanics you had used to build up the character had no in game justification or that they were useless for helping to characterize the character in question.  I'm quite certain that in 3.5, going the route you did was the only or at least most satisfying way to achieve a mechanical connection between the concept of your character and the things your character could in your imagination do.  Leaving aside the question of whether drunken monks are appropriate to every game, they are certainly appropriate to some (and I said so at the time), and lacking any better rules than 3.5, you are fully justified in building the character that way.What 'irritated' me at the time was you and others kept trying to turn it into a discussion of how I hated multiclassing, which isn't true.  I hate PrC's, which isn't the same thing.  What I was saying was, "A rules set doesn't need 600+ Prestige Classes to give players the ability to customize their character's abilities to match their roleplaying concept.   And, to the extent that a rules set does require that, it's evidence of not only poor design of the rules set but it will probably fail to a large degree in its goal."  You brought up Beardfist I think in an effort to show how cool the results of moderate levels of multiclassing could be.  But, I and others took your character, with its 2-3 levels of 5-6 classes as more illustrative of the ridiculous lengths that the 3.5 rules forced you to go to in order to achieve some particular not overly complicated effect, and therefore illustrative of one of the several reasons why at an early date - long before most of those PrC's existed - I banned PrC's and started looking for other solutions.You or others kept saying things like, "Well, if you ban PrC's X, Y, and Z will happen.  You must want spellcasters to dominate the game.  You must want no flexibility in character creation.  You must be a person who hates player freedom.  You must play boring games.  You are a bad person who just takes things away from people."  But as I said, I've always agreed that because of flaws in the core RAW X,Y, and Z will happen in those cases, but I have taken that into account and modified the game elsewhere as well to correct for that.  I never wanted to take things away without putting something back.  But when I say that, people say, "Well, if you are just going to house rule everything you shouldn't play D&D!" or "You can't cite house rules as a fix for the changes made by your house rules!" or just simply "Your way is badwrongfun."</blockquote>

Verification