Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6464229" data-attributes="member: 22779">Note, that would be &quot;disingenuous&quot;, sorry, English teacher, I can't help myself sometimes.&nbsp; If your players are more focused on their character sheets instead of their characters, MC'ing isn't the culprit.&nbsp; I would hazard a guess that it would be the exact same for single classed characters.&nbsp; They need to be shown that there is more to the game, but, &quot;You can't play with these toys until you eat your broccoli&quot; is not going to get the results you want.You need a valid reason?&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; For including a purely optional rule that is called out as being purely optional?&nbsp; I mean, if you don't want to include it, fine and dandy, don't.The question put forth was WHY should it be included.&nbsp; Well, there are many reasons - exploring a specific concept, it's fun for some players, it fills a need.&nbsp; If those reasons don't work for you, then fine.&nbsp; Cool.&nbsp; No problem.&nbsp; That's certainly your prerogative.&nbsp; But, don't come into a thread that is specifically asking why we should include multi classing and then bitch about people giving reasons for including mutliclassing.&nbsp; &nbsp;[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] came out with guns blazing, flatly stating that the only reason to MC was for pure power gaming and only power gamers would multiclass.&nbsp; He's then softened that stance to say that he follows a more traditional path of multi classing that models earlier editions of D&amp;D - I'm assuming combos based on race.&nbsp; Although, I guess my question would be, since AD&amp;D allowed humans to dual class in any combination, so long as they met the requirements, what's the issue with doing it in later editions?&nbsp; But, be that as it may, the rather serious amount of Big Daddy Pants Dming advice, telling all and sundry that anyone who allows MC'ing is doing it wrong is very prevalent in the early part of the thread and the majority of push back was the result of that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6464229, member: 22779"] Note, that would be "disingenuous", sorry, English teacher, I can't help myself sometimes. If your players are more focused on their character sheets instead of their characters, MC'ing isn't the culprit. I would hazard a guess that it would be the exact same for single classed characters. They need to be shown that there is more to the game, but, "You can't play with these toys until you eat your broccoli" is not going to get the results you want. You need a valid reason? Really? For including a purely optional rule that is called out as being purely optional? I mean, if you don't want to include it, fine and dandy, don't. The question put forth was WHY should it be included. Well, there are many reasons - exploring a specific concept, it's fun for some players, it fills a need. If those reasons don't work for you, then fine. Cool. No problem. That's certainly your prerogative. But, don't come into a thread that is specifically asking why we should include multi classing and then bitch about people giving reasons for including mutliclassing. [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] came out with guns blazing, flatly stating that the only reason to MC was for pure power gaming and only power gamers would multiclass. He's then softened that stance to say that he follows a more traditional path of multi classing that models earlier editions of D&D - I'm assuming combos based on race. Although, I guess my question would be, since AD&D allowed humans to dual class in any combination, so long as they met the requirements, what's the issue with doing it in later editions? But, be that as it may, the rather serious amount of Big Daddy Pants Dming advice, telling all and sundry that anyone who allows MC'ing is doing it wrong is very prevalent in the early part of the thread and the majority of push back was the result of that. [/QUOTE]

Verification