Wik's Triumphant Return to 3e!

[Spatula]

In the mathosphere, perhaps.

But if someone wants feats and they happen to put the value of X at 20...well who am I to say that's bad? Besides, if you go to the optimizers, Druid or Cleric is better than either for any value, anyway. To which I say...So what?

So what, indeed. I was responding to your point about single-classed characters being better than multi-classed characters, as a justification for why multi-classing should suck for spellcasters.

I don't play an RPG to be better than my fellow players at playing D&D.

Neither do I!

I don't really get concerned that much about balance as long as what I'm playing makes me feel happy. Balance isn't what makes a RPG fun. Being able to make your PC do the cool things you want it to do is.

I agree. So why should a wizard/cleric concept be party deadweight, again?

So while optimizers scoff, I happily play Monks (DEX BASED!!!), Soulknives, and all sorts of things that they consign to the ash-heap.

Monks and soulknives are cool.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No, it means tat the character would have the skill, so they put the points into it. Much like a forensic anthropologist in Call of Cthulhu putting points into Storytelling. The points should be spent because the character can do these things.

If you think backing up the character decisions with the actual skills is a bad thing.... riiiggghhht.

A +2 circumstance bonus from having the background would arguably be just as good. It's what I'll likely do if we switch to C&C.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So what, indeed. I was responding to your point about single-classed characters being better than multi-classed characters, as a justification for why multi-classing should suck for spellcasters.

Not better, just better within their specialty.

The specialty of a fighter isn't fighting- lots of classes fight.

Their specialty is having buttloads of feats that make a particular syle of fighting better, all while wearing any kind of armor they want. They are combat generalists.

Barbarian's specialty is Raging and being a formidable combat monster while being lightly armored. Plus some Nature-y stuff.

Whether multiclassing makes you a better combatant or not depends on a lot of factors. For instance, the assertion that Barbarian/Fighter is always better simply isn't true: if you want an archer build, levels in Brb are not going to help you all that much for optimizing the build.

I agree. So why should a wizard/cleric concept be party deadweight, again?

1) My Geomancer would like to talk to you about being called deadweight.

2) The saying "jack of all trades, master of none" sprngs to mind. The costs of learning a valuable skill is always going to include the opportunity costs of not learning another skill. I'm an attorney and an MBA with some not insignificant skills in the arts. Had I made different choices, someone might be buying a ticket to my concert or pirating my music right now.

In a free multiclassing system- one without meaningful tradeoffs- not only would I be a lawyer and MBA, but a guitarist, jeweler, sculptor, painter and who knows, oceanographer and malacologist as well.

 

[HealTheSquad]

I like 4e, but the next game I GM will be 3.0 edition core books only with a lot of house rules (for example gold gives XP, declare actions before Init roll, random spells and other pre 3e chargen conceits, no magic shops, race/class restrictions).

I did enjoy previous editions of D&D (skipped 2nd) but for me the skill system introduced in 3e tips the balance in terms of how old school I will get. Caveat - I GM play-by-post, it takes time to make the maps requjired by 4e in ascii.

 

[Wycen]

I approve of this thread.