|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 5:54PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
The problem with 3e multiclassing was the class design itself. If the classes hadn't been so horribly unbalanced, the multiclassing wouldn't have been so bad.
exactly. 3.x multiclassing is actually the most realistic.
oh, i want to train as a fighter now, i will spend time practicing to become one (next level, takes L1 fighter) oh good, i now have the basic training of a fighter
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 8:18PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
The problem with 3e multiclassing was the class design itself. If the classes hadn't been so horribly unbalanced, the multiclassing wouldn't have been so bad.
exactly. 3.x multiclassing is actually the most realistic.
oh, i want to train as a fighter now, i will spend time practicing to become one (next level, takes L1 fighter) oh good, i now have the basic training of a fighter
Most realistic?
Player 1: I'm a wizard. I spent years studyingj and training to learn how to cast the basic spells of my craft. Finally, after years of study I'm a L1 wizard. Yay!
Player 2: I'm a fighter. I fight stuff. After a few levels of being a fighter, on a whim I decide to become a wizard. The next day I have the same set of skills as player 1 spent years to learn. Hmm...
It has advantages - nut realism is not one of them.
If you want realism - go with a hybrid class. You have two classes, you use the abilities of both classes and you advance in both classes at the same rate. That is the 'realistic' approach.
Not - I wake up one day and decide I want a new set of abilities - so I choose a new class out of the blue and suddenly have all of that classes starting abilities.
Carl
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 8:21PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
The problem with 3e multiclassing was the class design itself. If the classes hadn't been so horribly unbalanced, the multiclassing wouldn't have been so bad.
exactly. 3.x multiclassing is actually the most realistic.
oh, i want to train as a fighter now, i will spend time practicing to become one (next level, takes L1 fighter) oh good, i now have the basic training of a fighter
Most realistic?
Player 1: I'm a wizard. I spent years studyingj and training to learn how to cast the basic spells of my craft. Finally, after years of study I'm a L1 wizard. Yay!
Player 2: I'm a fighter. I fight stuff. After a few levels of being a fighter, on a whim I decide to become a wizard. The next day I have the same set of skills as player 1 spent years to learn. Hmm...
It has advantages - nut realism is not one of them.
If you want realism - go with a hybrid class. You have two classes, you use the abilities of both classes and you advance in both classes at the same rate. That is the 'realistic' approach.
Not - I wake up one day and decide I want a new set of abilities - so I choose a new class out of the blue and suddenly have all of that classes starting abilities.
Carl
Im really getting sick of this
you dont gain a new level "the next day"
you gain experience over time, thus Experience Points. You don't become a wizard the next day, instead what has happened is all the experience points you have gained have gone towards you learning the skills of a wizard
and how is training your spellcasting ability and being able to fight with weapons better than anyone else at the same rate REALISTIC? that makes even less sense
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 8:29PM
#14
|
|
|
For that matter, who says you have to train for years and years to be a starting wizard? You know a handful of crappy spells. You're practically on the short bus to Hogwart's.
It takes a long time to become a master (aka high level) wizard, but there's no reason it should take 'years and years' to learn the basics of 'say this word, make this gesture, stuff explodes'.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 8:35PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
For that matter, who says you have to train for years and years to be a starting wizard? You know a handful of crappy spells. You're practically on the short bus to Hogwart's.
It takes a long time to become a master (aka high level) wizard, but there's no reason it should take 'years and years' to learn the basics of 'say this word, make this gesture, stuff explodes'.
so we are in agreement then?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 8:43PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
For that matter, who says you have to train for years and years to be a starting wizard? You know a handful of crappy spells. You're practically on the short bus to Hogwart's.
It takes a long time to become a master (aka high level) wizard, but there's no reason it should take 'years and years' to learn the basics of 'say this word, make this gesture, stuff explodes'.
I dunno.
Maybe the 3.5 PHB?
These simple acts make magic seem easy, but they only hint at the time the wizard must spend poring over her spellbook preparing each spell for casting, and the years before that spent in apprenticeship to learn the arts of magic. Carl
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 8:53PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
For that matter, who says you have to train for years and years to be a starting wizard? You know a handful of crappy spells. You're practically on the short bus to Hogwart's.
It takes a long time to become a master (aka high level) wizard, but there's no reason it should take 'years and years' to learn the basics of 'say this word, make this gesture, stuff explodes'.
I dunno.
Maybe the 3.5 PHB?
These simple acts make magic seem easy, but they only hint at the time the wizard must spend poring over her spellbook preparing each spell for casting, and the years before that spent in apprenticeship to learn the arts of magic.
Carl
it only says they are an apprentice for years, it doesnt actually say years are required
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 8:54PM
#18
|
|
|
For that matter, who says you have to train for years and years to be a starting wizard? You know a handful of crappy spells. You're practically on the short bus to Hogwart's.
It takes a long time to become a master (aka high level) wizard, but there's no reason it should take 'years and years' to learn the basics of 'say this word, make this gesture, stuff explodes'.
I dunno.
Maybe the 3.5 PHB?
These simple acts make magic seem easy, but they only hint at the time the wizard must spend poring over her spellbook preparing each spell for casting, and the years before that spent in apprenticeship to learn the arts of magic.
Carl
Which is non-binding fluff text, not rules text, and thus easily alterable. In other words, irrelevant. If I want my character to learn Magic Missile in a week, he does.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 8:57PM
#19
|
|
|
For that matter, who says you have to train for years and years to be a starting wizard? You know a handful of crappy spells. You're practically on the short bus to Hogwart's.
It takes a long time to become a master (aka high level) wizard, but there's no reason it should take 'years and years' to learn the basics of 'say this word, make this gesture, stuff explodes'.
so we are in agreement then?
I think so, though I think we're looking at it from different directions. My view is more that simple (aka low level) magics aren't particularly difficult to master. It's not uncommon in my games for shopkeepers to know a few basic spells like Prestidigitation for doing basic housekeeping and such, or a spell that lets them instantly count or weigh something accurately.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:01PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
For that matter, who says you have to train for years and years to be a starting wizard? You know a handful of crappy spells. You're practically on the short bus to Hogwart's.
It takes a long time to become a master (aka high level) wizard, but there's no reason it should take 'years and years' to learn the basics of 'say this word, make this gesture, stuff explodes'.
so we are in agreement then?
I think so, though I think we're looking at it from different directions. My view is more that simple (aka low level) magics aren't particularly difficult to master. It's not uncommon in my games for shopkeepers to know a few basic spells like Prestidigitation for doing basic housekeeping and such, or a spell that lets them instantly count or weigh something accurately.
and of course, this is where the magic user feat comes in :P
|
|
|
