Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6462985" data-attributes="member: 6786252">I was talking about arguing in the general.&nbsp; As in, something that might come up in casual conversation about the game.&nbsp; Player / DM agency and philosophy didn't fact in.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; If a player came up, I might talk about how I have story elements tied into each class in the world, and the repercussions of it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I generally do.In person before a game, I'm actually rather permissive.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, I've had bad experience with multiclassing, and I'm confident in my abilities to handle things like career changes on my own without the current multiclass rules.&nbsp; &nbsp;I generally run one game myself, starting at 5th level, and play in two others.&nbsp; We've been doing this since the playtest packet came out, with those multiclass rules.&nbsp; Its not hard to have several examples already.&nbsp;&nbsp; Perhaps I shouldn't have said extensively, but I have run into it on several occasions now.&nbsp;&nbsp; And I should note that this is an attempt at gestalt / hybrid multiclassing, not dipping.&nbsp;&nbsp; I won't deny my view isn't bitter from experience, but I still don't' like it.&nbsp; &nbsp; If more people do like it, then more power to them at their table.&nbsp; &nbsp; At mine, I shy away from it because my experience is that its just a headache.&nbsp; &nbsp; By that rational, I can ignore the entire fluff of the Patron for the warlock, and put it on any class.&nbsp; Its just a bunch of words in front of mechanics.&nbsp;&nbsp; Either we take the fluff of the class as a whole, or none of it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Since we're talking about Patrons being the reason for choosing warlock as the class ((ie class fluff)), then I'm going to have to assume that all the titles that refer to darkness, shadows, life drinking, cursing, and the like apply as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; Because, if you want to really scrub all the fluff away from all the classes, you can.&nbsp; &nbsp; Paladins can be described as just another warrior that happen to be able to use a form of energy necrotic creatures like undead are weak to, but little different from a, say, an eldritch knight.&nbsp; Clerics don't have to have gods.&nbsp; And so on.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't do that for my game, though I've been in some that had.&nbsp; &nbsp; I prefer taking all the fluff as a whole.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephista, post: 6462985, member: 6786252"] I was talking about arguing in the general. As in, something that might come up in casual conversation about the game. Player / DM agency and philosophy didn't fact in. If a player came up, I might talk about how I have story elements tied into each class in the world, and the repercussions of it. I generally do. In person before a game, I'm actually rather permissive. However, I've had bad experience with multiclassing, and I'm confident in my abilities to handle things like career changes on my own without the current multiclass rules. I generally run one game myself, starting at 5th level, and play in two others. We've been doing this since the playtest packet came out, with those multiclass rules. Its not hard to have several examples already. Perhaps I shouldn't have said extensively, but I have run into it on several occasions now. And I should note that this is an attempt at gestalt / hybrid multiclassing, not dipping. I won't deny my view isn't bitter from experience, but I still don't' like it. If more people do like it, then more power to them at their table. At mine, I shy away from it because my experience is that its just a headache. By that rational, I can ignore the entire fluff of the Patron for the warlock, and put it on any class. Its just a bunch of words in front of mechanics. Either we take the fluff of the class as a whole, or none of it. Since we're talking about Patrons being the reason for choosing warlock as the class ((ie class fluff)), then I'm going to have to assume that all the titles that refer to darkness, shadows, life drinking, cursing, and the like apply as well. Because, if you want to really scrub all the fluff away from all the classes, you can. Paladins can be described as just another warrior that happen to be able to use a form of energy necrotic creatures like undead are weak to, but little different from a, say, an eldritch knight. Clerics don't have to have gods. And so on. I don't do that for my game, though I've been in some that had. I prefer taking all the fluff as a whole. [/QUOTE]

Verification