*peeks inside* 

Hm.  Well, then. You know, I'm just going to say a few things about the capstones and then leave. 

I don't really get the hate for the Ranger capstone. Putting aside the difficulty of picking Favored Enemies (or using the Favored Foe feature), I would think that being able to adjust your Attack roll by about+4 once per turn would be good. Generally, that's basically going to turn a miss into a hit. But the first post didn't even get that - they only talk damage. I mean, yeah, that's an option, but I figured its just there in case your attacks all land, and you don't want to waste it. 

A bit surprised that the warlock capstone was rated so high. Usually its in the "bleh!" bin with the bard, sorcerer and monk.

Clerics effectively gets a free Wish spell. Granted, its once a week, but its a free Wish spell. How is that not awesome? Well, I technically suppose that its rather the 5th edition version of the 3e Miracle spell, but still. 

I'm a bit tired of everyone only looking at the Druid capstone through the eyes of Moon Druid. We have a rather notable amount of druids who use their shapeshift ability to do other things now. No one talks about how unlimited shapeshifting is going to affect Shepherds, Star or Wildfire druids.  Well, not that its bad for them, and immunity to counterspells is always nice too, but I'm just tired of treating the capstone as if Moon is the be all, end all. 

Stroke of Luck is pretty awesome, imho. If you're proficient in something, and you use this? You can consistently succeed at DC 30+ checks, even if they're at disadvantage. And you're dealing with godly beings at this level, so those situations do show up with some consistency at this point.

All in all, I really don't get the hate for most of the capstones. With the exception of the four recharge classes, they seem rather good to me.  Plus, most of the time people talk about multiclassing because they don't like the capstones... we invariably get discussions about two level dips for Action Surge, Cunning Action or Agonizing Blast. That means two level dip, which involves more than just the capstone.  

If we talk about level 20 only... I don't see the appeal of level 1 abilities at this point in the game.  If we're talking about a two level dip, I don't see the appeal of most options, since you've likely won't be using cantrips and your bonus action should be occupied by other things at this point of the game. Action Surge is almost always going to be tempting, because breaking action economy is always powerful. But the rest? Not a fan.

So to comment on the original post, I think it's a useful list of things to think about and plan a character arc to higher levels. Which is not a bad thing to do, but some people don't like it, so it's only going to be useful to a certain portion of the audience.

As for multiclassing in general I find myself doing it more often than not. While I've been gaming since the mid 90's I "grew up" with rpg's that were not class based, so classes have always seemed restraining to me. Very rarely do I have a character concept that fits neatly into a class and so I use multiclassing to get a character closer to the concept that I want. I definitely do not hold class identities as sacred. They are great as rough archetypes, but blurring the lines between them does them no disrespect in my eyes.

Is multiclassing often used to optimize? Sure, but I don't have a problem with that. I don't think optimization is at odds with roleplay. I am an avid roleplayer and an optimizer both and here's where I think those two things meet: "Competence breeds confidence." It's a bit short and pithy, but basically the mechanics define a character's baseline competence at doing things, and doing things in certain ways, in the game world, right? Competence in a task shapes the personality of the character because of the feedback loop between success and repeated application. So as a roleplayer who has a certain character personality in mind, one wants the character abilities to reinforce that personality rather than detract from it. I know a lot of people think "optimization" is all about doing the most damage, but really it's just about competence. When I build a character, I want them to be competent in the things they should be competent in and not competent in other areas. Many of my characters tend to be somewhat specialized in about two areas and weak in others, because Mary Sue-ish omni-competence is frankly boring.

If you wanted a dashing swashbuckler who runs, jumps, and climbs over obstacles like Errol Flynn, but didn't know (as I didn't, since it was my first D&D character) that it was Strength and Athletics that governed those things rather than Dexterity and Acrobatics would you alter your character sheet or would you just sacrifice your concept? As a roleplayer I think the numbers on the character need to support the character concept rather than the other way around, but as a stickler I would rather find a legitimate way to make the character sheet fit my character than just handwave and houserule. The Athletics vs Acrobatics change is rather small and easily exchanged for most classes, but I feel the same way about class features and spells, too. This doesn't mean I won't flex my concept to work with the rules, but generally only in areas where the concept was more vague to begin with, the core competencies and style of the character should be supported or I would view it as a failure of the game system. Note that this doesn't mean I expect to be able to make a space pirate or an intelligent shade of blue in a typical D&D game, I understand how basic premises work.

This is also influenced by exactly how competent you envision your character to be. I know I asked that we start out game at higher than level 1 because I wanted character who had a little bit of adventuring under their belt and had already developed a signature style. A character's style is very important for me in roleplaying and again competence come into play here, because unless I'm playing a comedic character, I want to lessen the chances of the character having silly pratfalls in what is supposed to be their main area of competence. In storytelling there are various types of conflict that make up dramatic conflict (character vs character, character vs environment, character vs self, etc) and I guess some of my personal preferences are that I'm just not that interested in character vs mundane annoyances, which is what I kind of feel comes up more often at level 1 and 2. Again I view the game system as a tool for me to have fun, not a video game where I must start at 1 and level up to 20. So why not have a curated experience of D&D? I'm the one who's going through the experience, right? Another note: I know this is a group experience and I am highly sensitive that everyone around the table including the DM is there to have fun. I think it is the responsibility of everyone at the game table to make the experience fun for everyone else. Sometimes I think players forget that they should also strive to entertain the DM.

That brings me to the issue of planning a character out to level 20. I don't know about you, but my DM does ask us "what kinds of adventures do you want your character do experience?" and "where do you want your character to end up?" For me rpg's are a storytelling device and I like having a planned progression in my storytelling. That's not to say that I want to dictate everything that happens to my character, but I do know that there are certain types of things I want them to do and certain plot types I want them involved in. I also have a vision for what I want their style to be at different "tiers." Meaning I know what I want them to be like after a lot more adventuring. This again has more to do with style then mechanics, but I want and need the mechanics to support the style I want. I'm also still responsive to the other player characters and the plot that the DM gives us. It's kind of like ... I want my character to still be my character, but which alternate multiverse version of them ends up happening depends on the plot. There's always some sort of essential essence that makes up any character and where that lies and which parts of the mechanical character sheet need to reflect that depends, from character to character.

Which brings me to my personal anecdote about my current character. I was a veteran roleplayer, but still pretty new to D&D. My DM had tried to run a game of 3.5, but it died after one session so when I recycled the character for his 5Ed game, I still thought of him as my first D&D character. I love bards and wanted to play a gish, someone who uses magic to enhance their swordplay rather than a spellcaster who occasionally swings a sword, so I chose to play a College of Swords Bard. I requested that we start at level 3 because I wanted everyone to have some sort of signature style inherent in their gameplay and I saw the subclasses as adding that, just my personal view. After half a dozen sessions and hitting level 4 I finally had gained enough knowledge about 5Ed to stop pulling out the books for basic stuff like attack rolls and spells and could think more critically about my gaming experience. I looked ahead and realized a bit glumly that Bards are full spellcasters and that I wasn't really going to be getting much better at swinging a sword than I already was, while my spells would far outstrip and outshine my martial skills. I could keep playing the same way I had been and start to look like a low level minion compared to my partymates, or I could switch my tactics and completely go against the playstyle that I wanted to play. Neither of these seemed fun for me, so I started looking around for options. My actually DM let me completely rebuild my character in another class for one session to try it out and I really enjoyed playing as a level 4 Swashbuckler Rogue, but I did miss all of the social utility that I had become accustomed to as a Bard, which was the other half of the playstyle I wanted, a charming gish. So after awhile I  came up with a plan to have my cake and eat it, too.

I had always been a fan of Eilistraee and her sword dancers and wanted that grace to be a part of this character's gish style, so I reverted my character back to the 4th level Swords Bard and when I hit level 5 I took 1 level of Hexblade, reskinned as Eilistraee's Moonblade. Now my Dex and Cha were even at this time so there was no sudden disparity in sword skill to smooth over. We had also just escaped from a foray into the Underdark. The session was unavoidably cut short due to a scheduling issue and my DM was forced to handwave and teleport us back to Waterdeep and I asked him if it was okay to say that the sound of mysterious hunting horns led us back to the surface, which allowed me to write a dream sequence where my bard met Eilistraee and received her blessing. This allowed me to pick up Shield as well as proficiency with shields, which I reskinned as a cloak wrapped around an arm so I could be a spanish style rapier and cloak fencer. Booming Blade rounded out my magical melee skill set.

Then I started taking levels of Rogue, becoming a Swashbuckler at level 8, and getting my second ASI at level 9, which I put into Charisma. This means I'm using Charisma for melee, for spellcasting, and as an initiative boost, which allows me to grow as a swordsman and a spellslinger at the same time. Plotting out my levels ahead of time I intended to end roughly at Swords 6/ Hexblade 3/ Swashbuckler 11 because that maintains a character who is mainly a charming swordsman (I love Panache and the idea of just being that silver tongued that I can do that without a spell) but also has enough magic tricks up his sleeve to make that swordplay flashier. I wouldn't have any spells higher than 3rd level, which I viewed as a benefit since I mostly wanted spells that were utility and enhancement and not spells that were huge game changers in and of themselves, that didn't fit the character concept I wanted. At level 9 (Swords 4/Swashbuckler 4/Hexblade 1) any level I took would result in meaningful growth, which allowed me to still be responsive to the plot in how I progress in my plan. I just hit level 10 in my game, for example, and we're currently in a plot arc that has open terrain and military leanings so I took that level in Bard, allowing me to better support my Fighter partymate in his quest to take over as warlord of the local orc horde.

In the end it's up to your group how you want to play this, of course. For me as a player or if I ever DM I 1) don't hold classes to be sacrosanct, 2) think the mechanics should be subservient to narrative, and 3) want characters to be optimized in order to support deep roleplay and will try and make the system give me both if at all possible.

Oh, I forgot to say that I do know players who prefer a much more emergent style of gameplay, where the point is to discover the character as part of the world through play. I respect this style of play, but it's almost diametrically opposed to how I like to play. I like to inhabit many levels of a character at once: Actor, Author, Director, etc. Different strokes, right?

Quote from Mephista >>

 I'm a bit tired of everyone only looking at the Druid capstone through the eyes of Moon Druid. We have a rather notable amount of druids who use their shapeshift ability to do other things now. No one talks about how unlimited shapeshifting is going to affect Shepherds, Star or Wildfire druids.  Well, not that its bad for them, and immunity to counterspells is always nice too, but I'm just tired of treating the capstone as if Moon is the be all, end all. 

 

 Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. 90% of the threads I see were Druids are mentioned, are about "Should I dip into Barbarian for Moon Druid?" or something similar. =/

I have a Lvl 7 Land Druid (Coast) and absolutely adore him ♥ I'd never multiclass him, because he's perfect the way he is. One of the basic concepts I had for him (aside of his race & personality) was that I wanted "a Mage who casts a lot of spells and can turn into animals that represent his personality at will", so the Circle of the Land subclass is perfect for him, with the additional subclass spells you get + at 4th level I took the Woodelf Magic feat to get even more spells that I have always prepared. His personal goal is to be able to turn into a Raven so he can fly, so he doesn't need higher CR beasts in his wildshape list anyway.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

I tend to find that multiclassing is best used to realize a character concept that doesn't fit cleanly into one, singular class (which is many, if not most, character concepts outside Tired Tolkien Tropes), when it's not a response to campaign events.  Alternatively, a particular multiclass combination might suggest a story to someone they're then super excited to play.  One of my favorite examples of that one is the Cursed Swordslinger, a Swashbuckler rogue with Hexblade levels.  Yurei-the-player is deeply intrigued by the idea of a not-super-Dexy rogue that focuses on panache, flair, and a silver tongue more than sneaky skullduggery and stabbings-from-the-shadows.  It's all the bombastic Jack Sparrow-esque fun of being a bard, but without the real-life performance skill requirement or all the shitty sex memes that make the actual bard class such a chore to play at so many tables, but it comes with the cost of being mostly terrible at combat.  A rogue with limited dex is a rogue that will never reliably land a weapon attack outside tier 1 play.

Now, there's a story there, to be sure.  The 'gifted swordsman' getting by on a reputation they've forged rather than earned, using their artful words and peacock swagger to convince people they're far more dangerous than they actually are.  The story of how such a charlatan would react when forced into a situation where they have to use the skills they've talked up but never acquired could be its own game, on top of the comedy of the Legendary Swordslinger who's actively awful at swordfighting.  But the version I like better is the version where the swordsman either stumbled into possession of a cursed blade or struck a deal they later regretted.  Now they're cursed, running from a debt they will not or cannot pay.  Their supernatural sword skills are exactly that - supernatural, bought with currency the rogue no longer has if they ever had it in the first place.  The character is operating under a ticking clock, but they can't see the clock's face.  All they can hear is the ticking, they have no idea how close that clock is to striking zero.

It's just a cool ass idea.  The combination of the Cursed Sword class and the Silver-Tongued Sword Scoundrel class writes its own story, and beyond that it offers a unique play experience neither the rogue alone nor the warlock alone can give you.  I like shit like that, where the combination of two or more classes produces a gestalt experience no single class by itself can replicate.  That's where a lot of the fun in D&D is for me - defying the shitty Tolkienesque archetypes and overplayed traditional-fantasy tripe and carving my own story out of the disparate pieces the game gives me to do so with.  Nor am I even remotely alone in that.

So not only is this exactly why I multiclass more often than not, but I'm also basically playing that Rakish Sword Caster you mention, with a bit more Bard. I am having a blast with him.

Thanks for that, Ophidimancer.

So many people, to this day, believe that taking any steps towards using the mechanics to create the character you want is nothing but rankest, foulest munchkinism.  That line of yours - "Competence breeds confidence" - is important, and I hope people take it to heart.  These characters are Heroes of the Land.  They're not Sven and Erkel nincomprods who only ever manage to succeed at a task through sheer luck and DM fiat.  All the "failure is more fun than success" people can shut their cake hatches.  OVERCOMING failure is more fun than easy, effortless success, but that "overcoming" word is a very important one.  Failing at something shouldn't be an excuse for drunken celebration, it should be a goad to do better in the future.

I appreciate you sharing your tale of how you chased the vision of your swordsman of Eilistraee throughout your experience of playing it.  I've always thought looser systems were best as well.  People keep telling me how godawful 4e was, with its emphasis on building your character out of various different pools of feats, abilities, powers and other options; I'm sitting here going "that sounds amazing, can you send me a 4e book so I can see how that worked?"  5e is so rigid that it can often be really hard to chase an idea rather than simply assign a name and a face to Galactic Standard Tolkien Trope #7 and decide that this somehow makes it "your" character instead of the most worn-out book at the library.

My Feywarden, Yferna, is similar.  If less refined as a character simply because I've never had the opportunity to play her (nor, sadly, likely ever will).  Yferna is a four-class multiclass that takes forever to start gelling and doing what she's meant to do, but that's honestly perfect for what she's supposed to be.  Were I ever to get a chance to play her, she would be outcast from her Grove for standing by her teacher when he committed some manner of transgression, struggling to teach herself how to be the consummate warrior her master was through painful experience and a book of teachings he managed to leave her.  Her struggles at lower levels while other kith are pursuing their monoclass plans is perfect for an elven super-commando that takes forever to train.  The 1 to 20 multiclass plan is laid out for her because that's the traditional way Feywardens are trained; if she ends up deviating from that plan because of experiences in the campaign?  That's a story beat, and a cool one, not a "Yurei is madd and will forever hate the DM" moment.  In that specific instance, deviating from the plan has an in-character cost associated with it - Yferna is corrupting/straying from her master's teachings and the lore of the title she aspires to.  That's the sort of thing that could really, deeply affect a character like Yferna.

I wish more people could see that sort of thing.  That 'The Plan' does not represent an evil iron railroad the player is trying to force the DM to follow, but instead as an aspiration.  A dream of the future, no more concrete than any other dream, but just like a dream it can propel the character and serve as their guide through strife and madness.  The dream is ephemeral and transitory, but chasing it gives the character purpose.  The 'Emergent Gameplay' folks who decide absolutely nothing about their characters until the moment it happens in a session can absolutely have their fun, but man.  I don't know if I could get invested in a campaign where my character has no goals whatsoever and is just sorta drifting along next to the plot because Yurei-the-player wants to play some D&D.  That sounds awful, honestly.

Well, I got mentioned a couple times...cool, I almost feel relevant, lol.  On the "abusing" folks are seeing/interpreting, I think a lot of it is more passion about crappy experiences, than blanket statements of "Anyone who multi classes sucks and should never play D&D!"

I think Lyxen is one who folks feel comes off as pretty harsh, to be honest.  I, too find his passion to be a little overbearing at times, having been part of a few heated threads.  I think the passion (on this one) comes from folks who are trying to do NOTHING more than optimize a character, getting the biggest BANG at the level as possible, and thus disregarding what I agree, is the BEST part of the game, the story.  The story is a collaboration of the DM's vision and effort, punctuated by the players actions and decisions.  To try and juggle stats/feats/classes to make yourself THEBADAZZ who crushes everything they face, detracts from the potential of a good story, I again, agree.  Lyxen says several times that people are ruining the game and destroying the game and I would agree, to a point, that strictly metagaming will ruin it for a lot of folks.

I think, if folks can present their OPINIONS of multiclass combos and such, saying this is what I would do, because X, instead of saying "You NEED to do this and this and this, otherwise you're doing it wrong" then it becomes advice, or guidance.  By stating that what someone is going to do, or wants to do is WRONG, flatly, is inconsiderate, egotistical and unwelcome by most.  Advice is fine, ie: "I see where you[re going, have you looked at Y, as opposed to X?  It might be a bit more useful."  If the person says no, they want X, then away they go, happy and perhaps not optimized for YOU, but ideal for THEM.  Unless you have to play the character, your opinion carries VERY little weight, at the end of the day.

Personally, I intend to one day create an ultra-UN-optimal character and multi class to something that seems idiotic, just to have fun with an uphill battle, every step of the way.

If it helps to place it in context, after we played for about a half a dozen sessions my DM wanted to open up his game to many more players. We went from a traditional 5 player group to around 15-17 players is a semi-Westmarches style game. We played in groups of 5 at a time, everyone was encouraged to have at least two characters so they could continue to play while one of them was engaged in a plot, and the world was shared and consistent between groups. Players were encouraged to drive their own plot and I took to that very eagerly. After I got more adept with the rules I also started being a rules helper for my DM.

All that to say that in this environment I was allowed and indeed encouraged to take more authorial control over my character because it took some of the workload off of the DM. My DM vetted my multiclassing before he allowed it, but as for IC reasons, he gave me the freedom to write that into his story. Again, I'm kind of greedy. I want mechanical optimization AND deep rp lore for my characters! Multiclassing allows me some of the freedom I want for that.

Siiiiiiigh.

OTL

I wish I knew why people assumed I was nothing more than an Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Metagamey Tryhard Powermonster every time I posted anywhere but the Artificer forum.  I've won half of DorkForge's Build Throwdowns through the power of storycrafting and engaging character building - hell, I've dragged people away from a simple bullet list of mechanical benefits the build entry gets at [X] level and towards creating characters for those contests.  The last few Throwdowns have been wonderful compilations of characters I'd mostly be glad to share a table with, most of whom avoid pure munchkinism in favor of creating the best character they can within the bounds of their story.

Hell, one of my two active characters at this point is a forty-inch youkai brat with exactly 10 Constitution and no plan to ever have more, playing as a monoclass Genie warlock whose patron is Magic Robin Williams.  One of only two characters I get to play for the next several years, and I went pretty far out of my way to ensure that Ms. Bitterclear was true to her nature rather than a crap-ass DPR chaser.  She's so new to her powers that she hasn't had time to do anything more than react to the circumstances of her empowering and subsequent escape from Hupperdook.  Nytra is doing exactly what all the 'Emergent Gameplay' wonks keep telling me the only correct way to play D&D is and figuring her shit out as she goes, driven only by her keen thirst for Storybook Adventure and the fact that she'll be arrested and possibly executed if she shows her face within fifty miles of her hometown for the foreseeable future. 

Hell, she's not even built for combat!  Her spell list is almost nothing but tricksy manipulation and prankster spells, she doesn't have Agonizing Blast (yet, at least), and she almost started her game without Eldritch Blast, either.  The DM for her game nearly had a heart attack at how non-fighty Nytra is; I had to reassure him that Nytrra would gain combat capability as the game progressed and it became clear to both her and her patron that she needed it.  Buuuut...because Nytra has high Dexterity as well as high Charisma for a tier 1 character, the one single time I tried to show her to my detractors as anecdotal proof that no, I am not an Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Metagamey Tryhard Powermonster, I was told to my face, and I directly quote:  "The problem is that you are doing what all the clever optimisers do, i.e., rationalise optimisez choices behind a veneer of role."

I gave Nytra high Dexterity because she's an agile, clever-fingered sneak and prankster who likes to get into mischief.  She has crap Con and worse Strength because she's a city girl who's never had to routinely exert herself in her day-to-day, and also because she's a forty-inch, thirty-pound foxkin with all the physical presence of a deflated punching clown.  Her spell list includes Hex only because Hex's ability to screw with ability scores (i.e. actually hex people) fits quite well with Nytra's general goal of sowing cheerful chaos wherever she wanders.  Elsewise she has spells most warlock players don't even remember are on the warlock spell list - Expeditious Retreat and Unseen Servant.  She has no Eldritch Blast invocations at all, and even her cantrips are focused as much on sneakery and mischief as they are being Good At Fyte.  Shocking Grasp is there almost solely as an escape mechanism - zotz an angry guard for a single point of shock damage and scoot.

Nytra's character-firsting even extends into her gear - she carries a sling and sling bullets despite her knowing Eldritch Blast and despite there being much better weapons, and when I rolled very well for starting gold and had over 130gp to my name to start with?  I spent almost all of it on jewelry, blowing over a hundred gold pieces on half a dozen low*-cost semiprecious stones set in various rings, earrings and necklaces.  She's got three sets of clothing despite me limiting her to variant encumbrance by my own choice, even though the DM stated that he's not going to care about encumbrance until the story says he has to (i.e. somebody is in the ocean and what they're carrying starts mattering bigly).  her customized background includes a completely pointless musical instrument proficiency despite her not being, and likely never being, a bard.  Simply because it was fun.

Nytra only just barely meets the absolute minimum bar for being a functional D&D character in a campaign the DM has promised will be run on the tougher side.  The DM for Shores has warned everybody in it that he's not going to cut us as much slack as he did in the last campaign, everybody needs to know their shit and use it properly.  Assclowns, village idiots, and Bohemian failure monkeys were all informed they need not apply - and I still built a fragile, low-damage trickster only just coming into her powers and without any notion of how to improve instead of a devastating combatant.

Only to be told that I'm just "rationalizing optimal choices behind a veneer of role."

I damn near punched my monitor when I read that line a couple of months ago.  I can't readily conceive of a way I could've built a character less like a soulless DPR-chasing combat monster without being a Bohemian Failure Monkey, and I'm still nothing but a "rationalizing optimizer"?

Uh-uh.  No.  Not standing for it this time.  I will see those claims retracted now please, gentlemen.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

I wish more people could see that sort of thing.  That 'The Plan' does not represent an evil iron railroad the player is trying to force the DM to follow, but instead as an aspiration.  A dream of the future, no more concrete than any other dream, but just like a dream it can propel the character and serve as their guide through strife and madness.  The dream is ephemeral and transitory, but chasing it gives the character purpose.  The 'Emergent Gameplay' folks who decide absolutely nothing about their characters until the moment it happens in a session can absolutely have their fun, but man.  I don't know if I could get invested in a campaign where my character has no goals whatsoever and is just sorta drifting along next to the plot because Yurei-the-player wants to play some D&D.  That sounds awful, honestly.

 

This is what I do not understand about your logic... you seem to consider that unless there is some clear mechanics supported 'route to power,' that your character therefore has 'no goals whatsoever.' 

That statement is completely at odd with your claim that players are not forced into such a mindset. You are offering the opinion that 'no they are not forced but if they choose any lesser path or worse, simply decide as they go, then you feel they should be dismissed as having no goals and as something that 'sounds awful.'

One can actually have goals other than direct, personal power. One can have a goal to end up leader of the land. Or to keep one's people safe. Or any of an infinite number of other goals that have nothing to do with ending up massively powerful. 

 At no point has Yurei ever said anything to that effect.  Please, stop putting words into her mouth that she never said.

Well this was a very different place when I popped my head in for a read last night. I'm glad to see it has *mostly* gotten better. There have been some really nice things shared.

You know, I honestly can't remember the last time I encountered someone that spoke the way anti-optimizers paint the picture. Where are all of these people that approach the subject with such callous fervor that they're telling people they're dumb and wrong for making certain decisions? Is it just me and my tremendous luck that doesn't run into them? It feels more like trying to summon the Baba Yaga than anything based in reality. 

Ophidimancer your "competence breeds confidence" line is really a gem. I like pithy shit like that, don't hide it. I find my own character building method to be quite fluid, yet planned, so I really connected with what you said. 

*some of these characters being discussed sound like a real joy* Feel like a thief stealing all this free inspiration. Suckers

I don't really think about the classes as classes anymore. They're all just a pile of mechanics to me. So the notion of being anti-multiclassing is just completely alien. You don't want your specific character to multiclass? Cool and good and good and stuff. I mono class too. But I just can't imagine cutting myself off from that world entirely, let alone feeling strongly enough about it to chastise other people for doing it.

My character inspirations come from any number of sources. I don't think I'm special for that. Pretty darn sure it's just impossible to plan where your inspiration comes from. Sometimes I look at a game feature and my eyes light up and I think "Yeah I'm building something that can use that today." Sometimes I'm on the toilet for way too long digging deep into a story arc I can't even remember the beginning of anymore. Sometimes I just want someone to look a certain way. It can be as involved or shallow of a process, but all of it is beautiful. And to me, the key to unlocking this was letting go of any boundaries I had about classes or rolls or archetypes. Because you can shape the game into anything you want when everything is a little building block with which to be touched and moved around. We're sculptors. Creating a character is like working in clay. Life starts springing from your work when it is considered and cared for at enough angles to make you forget where you started. 

No matter where I start my characters always end up with some mixture of motivations behind their choices. Mechanical, conceptual, whatever. Again, I don't think that's anything special. I'm having a hard time seeing how that isn't what just naturally happens once you've played the game for a bit even if you're one to hold onto class boundaries and such.

Well, Hermione Granger did seem very much a "five year plan" type and Malfoy did certainly give off the impression that he was taking steps to follow a family legacy ... though I'd say both blueprints were substantially altered by lived experiences ... so I'd say despite my quibble you're still right. 

Quote from Kotath >>

Possibly a misunderstanding,

 It's a misunderstanding.  Yurei is talking about her preferred style of play, which is to plan out mechanical progression in conjunction with story progression.  To her, free form development would be awful because that's not how she likes to play.  That's it.

Kotath, some people like to plan their story arcs out.  Sometimes it runs with the campaign, other times things happen that necessitate the plan changes.  If you have trouble understanding that, well, that's because you don't like to play that way.  If you were placed in a position to play a way that you don't like, similarly to how Yurei was speculating, then you might think it was awful too.  That's all she was saying.

She wasn't dictating, nor was she defining what is or isn't a practical playstyle for most campaigns.  She's just saying she has a certain way she likes to play, and that not playing that way sounds awful to her.  That's all.

This all seems to be stemming from a misunderstanding, so I suggest we just leave it at that-a misunderstanding-and move back to the topic of the thread.

This thread has devolved into a series of personal attacks and attempts to gatekeep the 'right' and 'wrong' way to play D&D. As such, the thread will be locked.