Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bard-of-all-trades 12-12-06, 10:41 PM	All over these forums and others, I have seen a personally upsetting trend in character creation, both for general play and optimizing, that involves only "dipping" levels of base and PrC classes for making an allegedly effective character. Marshal is only good for Cha builds and only a one level dip, Fighters should only take a 2 or 4 level dip, Divine Oracle a one level dip for the extra Domain, etc. Why don't players in general want to play a Wizard 15/ Archmage 5? Or heavens forbid a Fighter 20? Could anyone please explain this to me?? Update: So first I'd like to exlain my question a bit and then see if I can get a bit of clarification of some of the replies. I have been playing D&D now, in one carnation or the other for 26 or 27 years now. For the first 20 some years, I was happy as a clam to play my human Fighter up to 18th level. Yes, by his stats and mechanics, he was a "plain old, ordinary" Fighter, but he was far from it in the game. He had seen a BBEG who was a Pirate in A3 and did everything he could think of to become a Pirate for the good guys. But now there are classes and PrCs that are Pirates - Swashbuckler, Dread Pirate, etc. I don't see why there has to be so many other classes and PrCs. Is it because the game has changed mechanically that to have a good character you need to dip into other classes and Prcs? It has also not escaped my notice that the makers of the fastest changing and largest CCG in the world is now making D&D. Is it that Wizards of the Coast is gearing D&D to rival or at least equal Magic in speed of rules/mechanics changing? They make sets of Magic that have a few select cards that raise the bar of power and the rest are useless for competition level play. That the classes and Prcs have a few abilities that make it competitive early on and everything after is useless, so to continue to keep your character competitive, you need to dip into this, that, or the other class or Prc. Is that what I'm understanding? Off topic really, sorry. And what makes one class sucktastic in comparison to any other class out there, base or prestige? Is there one characteristic that pinpoints sucktasticness? Is it really a role-playing versus roll-playing standpoint? Let's hear what you have to say on this...
OneWinged4ngel 12-12-06, 10:50 PM	It's a result of bad design. Wizards designed many classes so that they have almost no benefit to taking more levels (such as Swashbuckler past level 3). If classes were better designed, people would be better encouraged to take more even builds, or rather... they could multiclass and build their character many, many ways without gimping themselves. Unfortunately, WotC has a tendency not to put much effort or playtesting into developing classes, be they base or PrC. Taking more than 4 levels of Fighter, for example, is going to give you a decidedly underpowered character with lots of dead levels, taking more than 3 levels of Swashbuckler gives you basically nothing at all, Marshal blows, etc etc. Meanwhile, some classes are topheavy, giving some very useful abilities near the start, while offerring very little for continuing to level in the class. These classes are useful for dipping, but not for investing levels in beyond getting that one ability they have that's actually useful.
Nephlite 12-12-06, 10:53 PM	All over these forums and others, I have seen a personally upsetting trend in character creation, both for general play and optimizing, that involves only "dipping" levels of base and PrC classes for making an allegedly effective character. Marshal is only good for Cha builds and only a one level dip Marshalls abilities get progressively subpar. They start out good but get worse in comparison to other clases benefits. Thus the "dip". The question is how far to dip. Fighters should only take a 2 or 4 level dip This nets you up to 3 feats, 3 bab, tower shield, etc. Nice. If you really need a Tower sh or feats, good. But other classes /Prc have better benefits. Divine Oracle a one level dip for the extra Domain, etc. Because the rest of class isn't that good mechanically?! Why don't players in general want to play a Wizard 15/ Archmage 5? Why did he go 15 Wiz before Arch? He could have gone Wiz 10/Arch 5/ Prc other 5 (what does one extra 5 really give you compared to class abilities?). You lose 1 feat and get 5 levels of clas abilities (from other Prc). Or heavens forbid a Fighter 20? Could anyone please explain this to me?? Oh joy, more feats...whose power goes rarely beyond 12th level value when I could qualify for each one (exceptions like Weapon Supremecy are rare). The reason is feats lose there steam so to speak. Class abilities are worth more. Evasion is worth more than 1 feat (maybe 2). Sneak attack about a feat. Trapfinding is equal to a feat. As is Uncanny Dodge. Heck, the Rogue has more feat value (if convert all class features into a feat), Granted Rogue has little reason to go Rogue 20 (no class features after 19th). taking more than 3 levels of Swashbuckler gives you basically nothing at all What I would do is make there dodge class ability count versus all opponents instead of 1 like the Dodge feat. This would increase AC so they have a marginal reason to stay Swash past that low tier mark.
Lotus Crane 12-12-06, 10:57 PM	The problem is that most classes offer too many of their better benefits at early levels, and very few at higher levels. Also, many class abilities aren't strictly tied to levels in the class itself; for example, spellcasters can advance their main ability (spellcasting) with levels of many PrC's as easily as they can with levels in their original base class. Lately however, there have been a few decent attempts to make classes that are worthwhile from 1-20, such as the duskblade in the PHB II.
Votan 12-12-06, 11:05 PM	All over these forums and others, I have seen a personally upsetting trend in character creation, both for general play and optimizing, that involves only "dipping" levels of base and PrC classes for making an allegedly effective character. Marshal is only good for Cha builds and only a one level dip, Fighters should only take a 2 or 4 level dip, Divine Oracle a one level dip for the extra Domain, etc. Why don't players in general want to play a Wizard 15/ Archmage 5? Or heavens forbid a Fighter 20? Could anyone please explain this to me?? Bad design? There are a couple of concepts that help enormously. In general, the classes that build power by staying in a single class are the full caster classes (Bard, Wizard, Cleric, Druid and Sorcerer). If these classes are able to enter Prestige classes without losing caster levels then there is not a lot of reason to stay in these classes. The simple solution (used by psionics) is to never allow the first level of a prestige class to progress caster level. This would require tough decisions on the part of the caster. For the skilled (Rogue, Ranger) and melee classes (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin), these classes are logical to "dip" for abilities. The bad design decision here is not not put "pinnacle" abilities that exceed the sum of cool abilities that you can get from combining classes. Plus, the power of these classes tends to be linear so the benefit from taking a level or two of another class can really push up the power of the class. Consider a Fighter 20 vs. a Fighter 18/Barbarian 2 (taken in that order to use the Weapon mastery Feat from PHB2). Or imagine a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Prestige Class with the Able Learner feat from Races of Destiny -- wouldn't this be a cool and interesting combination? Certainly much tougher than a pure rogue and way more skilled than a pure fighter would be. The last class is the special ability class (Monk). This does give cool things for a couple of levels in the class; however people rarely multiclass primary monks because the stacking abilities are too good. I think the Warblade shows potential to do this for the melee classes. As a secondary factor, there is the power creep of prestige classes. When the number of classes exceeds 100 there are bound to design mistakes (Anarchic Initiate for psions) and overpowered classes (Ur-priest is the classic although it is no longer what it once was). Exploiting these tends to make more effective characters overall.
Khan the Destroyer 12-12-06, 11:24 PM	I think it's because instead of expanding player options through feats, expanded skills, and variant class abilities, Wizards keeps pumping out classes. Base classes and prestige classes, in just about every book that comes out. In all honesty, we don't need a Swashbuckler/Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger/Knight/Hexblade/Duskblade class. We can just use the fighter, and mold him into whatever we want with feats and skills and variant class abilities. Likewise, we don't need a dozen caster core classes. They managed to have an option for specializing in the wizard without splitting it up into seperate classes, but here we have the Sorcerer, and then Warmage, and then the Dread Necromancer, and the Beguiler. I think WoTC should just focus on what they have and expand on it, giving players more options with the tools already provided in the PHB. Instead they come out with more classes, more spells, and more systems (Binding, Shadow Magic, Truenaming, Incarnum, Legacy Weapons, Maneuvers, etc.). Many of these don't and won't recieve much more support. And in the end, the base classes aren't recieving much support either, because there are always more and more options to choose over them. When you get down to it, each class has something that will be worthwhile to someone. But with so many options, you rarely have an incentive to progress the whole way. So, dipping occurs. Grab the best from each class. I think if the amount of classes was reduced, and abilities were represented better through feats and expanded class abilities, it would put a stop to it. I could just be rambling though.
Manyfist 12-12-06, 11:35 PM	Imo Base classes get the most support out of the tons of PrCs WotC pumps out. Only classes that should been core imo that isn't, would be the Warlock and Binder. The Warlock is unique, nothing WAS like it for along time. It was a fresh relief same with the Binder. Yet the Binder imo is the greater of the two evils, its just like WoTC wanted a person with Jack of all trades and master of a select few. Anyhow, if they went back with every little idea idea they had and rewrote the basic classes then most the books would just be conversions. I know several people who like to use the Swashbuckler past lvl 3, just for the RP.
nastynate 12-12-06, 11:48 PM	Class features have an alarming trend of being under- or over-valued and placed in the wrong places by designers. Level dips happen when a class offers something at a lower level that is better than anything that could be gained at higher levels. The swashbucker is a prime example. The class's best ability is gained at 3rd level, and insightful strike is static in power (it does not improve with more swashbuckler levels). Therefore, taking 3 levels of swashbuckler gets you something really good, and leaves plenty of room in your character build to explore other classes to cherry pick effective abilities. Conversely taking additional levels in Swashbuckler doesn't really give you any other exceptional abilities; the rest of their class features are pretty bland. Class features that scale in power as you gain more levels (a monk's unarmed strike damage for example) are good design because they encourage a player to take more levels in that class. Similarly really powerful static abilities granted at higher levels (like the swordsage's dual boost at 18th level) are also good design for the same reason. I believe that most low level abilities should be flavorful but not powerful; though they could scale with levels to become powerful over time. I also think that most static abilities need to be more thoroughly examined before they are assigned by the designers to a certain level so that things like a paladin's divine grace, a sacred exorcist's turning ability, and a marshal's auras don't encourage 1-2 level dips. The min/maxing aspect doesn't really bother me, but when a class has only 1-2 levels of worthwhile class features it's a pretty crummy class. Base classes in particular (like the sorcerer) need high level class features, so that it doesn't become a no-brainer on whether or not to take a prestige class. Players should have to give up something, in order to get something, at least when it comes to their PrCs. Why would someone play a wizard 15 / archmage 5, when they could play a wizard 5 / Incantitrix (or any other full-casting progression PrC) 10 / archmage 5? Those juicy class features are almost always better than the two feats you give up, or the prerequisites required to get into the second PrC. That's why it happens so often; its just better. EDIT Anyhow, if they went back with every little idea idea they had and rewrote the basic classes then most the books would just be conversions. I know several people who like to use the Swashbuckler past lvl 3, just for the RP. Does taking more levels of the swashbuckler class really make you more of a swashbuckler? A rogue 3 / swashbuckler 3 / scarlet corsair 10 seems every bit the roguish warrior that a single-classed swashbuckler 16 does. The class labels are largely metagame information used to describe the flavor and abilities of the class (for us the players), but my alternative build can still buckle the swash with the best of them (I love saying that), and his class features and abilities are better equipped to the job in game. The multi-classed character could certainly still consider himself a swashbuckler (since in game the character has no idea what his classes are called; he only knows what he can do). Meanwhile the player with the swashbuckler 16 is not the better role-player of the archtype; tying himself to the metagame label of his class is actually poor role-playing. How does he even know his character class or level? There needs to be a better reason than role-playing to stay with swashbuckler beyond level 3. Since classes/levels actually have almost nothing to do with role-playing (barring the PrCs that are tied to specific organizations or in-game concepts like the Red Wizard or the Green Star Adept respectively). -peace-
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 12:02 AM	Also, there has been a big shift away from class=character. Before, playing a Fighter 20 might have been the thing that your character would 'do', and going into Barbarian wouldn't make sense because "he never learned anything from a tribe". Today, people see things differently. With things like the Stormwind Fallacy and other schools of thought, mechanics are seen as distinctly different from what the character is. Thus, you can take those two levels in barbarian, and not have to worry about whether it is or isn't what your character would do, since taking classes isn't what they do: they just advance and learn. I, personally, find that trying to stick to a class from level 1-20 pretty boring. I enjoy multi-classing and finding new directions for my characters to go in. I aim for 5 level PrCs and the like, because that way, I get a solid package of abilities that help flesh out one side of my character concept as well as offer a boost in mechanical power, and then I'm off to explore another aspect of my character with another class or PrC.
SephDragoon 12-13-06, 12:25 AM	I haven't read about this stormwind fallacy, but I know why I don't do straight classes much anymore. I come up with a character before a class. Rarely does one class ever encapsulate what I want to do. So, I have to dip and build and mold my character. It is as much about power as it is about the direction. The idea is that you have to get to where your character wanted with good abilities. If you don't, the character doesn't last that long, and all your work is for naught.
Chimaera2000 12-13-06, 12:30 AM	I don't think that they're lost; it's just taken WotC a bit of time to figure out what good base class design looks like. Classes like the warlock and all of the Tome of Battle classes provide reasons to take all twenty levels of the class. I think that with the feedback that's been given for their work, they'll probably (hopefully) continue in that direction in the future.
Grimmsfeld 12-13-06, 01:05 AM	I don't think the problem is with the amount of supplements published. It's more or less the DMs that play fast and loose; allowing anything from anywhere from the get-go. It's the DMs job to regulate which supplements are available for use, and their are two perspectives to look at this from; the DM's and the PCs'. If you're the DM, and you've got a problem with there being too many classes, cut some of the options. I'm a part-time DM, and the next long term gig I run, I'm probably going to limit my players to Core material plus the XPH, and at least two, at most four, supplements to build their characters with. If you're a player, well, you pretty much have to run with what the DM allows. If you feel he's either too loose or two restrictive, too bad, find a new game, or adapt. If you agree to play with a DM that's running in Faerun, you shouldn't really be asking if you can port over Dragonmarks and Eberron specific PrCs. You can't go into a campaign knowing it's going to be mostly ship to ship naval battles and begrudge the DM because he allowed everything, and you chose to use material out of Sandstorm. Think of DMing like being a restaurant. You can be a Chili's, a Red Lobster, or a Burger King. The Chili's is kinda like the loose DM; you can go in there, and pick from a wide variety of things, like tex-mex, steak, sandwiches, salads; just like you could pick from Faerun material, Complete Mage, Races of..., and the Spell Compendium. Red Lobster, is somewhere in between. They've got seafood, pastas, and some chicken dishes, but no tacos or hamburgers; it's like the Naval campaign; you can use Stormwrack, Complete Adventurer, and you know what? The campaign takes place largely in the Lhazaar Principalities, so Eberron is fair game, but that's about it to choose from. Burger King...is entirely different. You go in there knowing they have a very narrow menu, focusing mainly on three part meals; sandwich, fry/ring, and drink. You can not demand they make you a foot long cold cut combo. This...this is the Core-Only Game. You've still got some options to choose from, but you pretty much know what to expect; PHB races and classes, DMG PrCs/Magic Items, and Monster Manual 3.5 critters. You can not demand the DM let you play an Incantatrix. To sum up that seemingly random analogy to restaurants, the DM should be in control of what additional supplements are available as player resources (AS SUGGESTED IN THE DMG.)
nastynate 12-13-06, 01:42 AM	I don't think the problem is with the amount of supplements published. It's more or less the DMs that play fast and loose; allowing anything from anywhere from the get-go. It's the DMs job to regulate which supplements are available for use, and their are two perspectives to look at this from; the DM's and the PCs'. If you're the DM, and you've got a problem with there being too many classes, cut some of the options. I'm a part-time DM, and the next long term gig I run, I'm probably going to limit my players to Core material plus the XPH, and at least two, at most four, supplements to build their characters with. If you're a player, well, you pretty much have to run with what the DM allows. If you feel he's either too loose or two restrictive, too bad, find a new game, or adapt. If you agree to play with a DM that's running in Faerun, you shouldn't really be asking if you can port over Dragonmarks and Eberron specific PrCs. You can't go into a campaign knowing it's going to be mostly ship to ship naval battles and begrudge the DM because he allowed everything, and you chose to use material out of Sandstorm. Think of DMing like being a restaurant. You can be a Chili's, a Red Lobster, or a Burger King. The Chili's is kinda like the loose DM; you can go in there, and pick from a wide variety of things, like tex-mex, steak, sandwiches, salads; just like you could pick from Faerun material, Complete Mage, Races of..., and the Spell Compendium. Red Lobster, is somewhere in between. They've got seafood, pastas, and some chicken dishes, but no tacos or hamburgers; it's like the Naval campaign; you can use Stormwrack, Complete Adventurer, and you know what? The campaign takes place largely in the Lhazaar Principalities, so Eberron is fair game, but that's about it to choose from. Burger King...is entirely different. You go in there knowing they have a very narrow menu, focusing mainly on three part meals; sandwich, fry/ring, and drink. You can not demand they make you a foot long cold cut combo. This...this is the Core-Only Game. You've still got some options to choose from, but you pretty much know what to expect; PHB races and classes, DMG PrCs/Magic Items, and Monster Manual 3.5 critters. You can not demand the DM let you play an Incantatrix. To sum up that seemingly random analogy to restaurants, the DM should be in control of what additional supplements are available as player resources (AS SUGGESTED IN THE DMG.) To continue with this analogy. Some people don't like Buger King and would much rather eat someplace else. Should the DM always get to pick the venue at which the gaming group dines? You seem to think so, but certainly I don't.
Grimmsfeld 12-13-06, 01:47 AM	Sometimes, the Burger King is closed for rennovations. Some people live in remote locations where a Burger King is 5 minutes away, while a Chili's is more than an hour. They could always choose to cook their own meals if they don't feel like driving an hour for what they want. On the other hand, though, Burger King frequently has limited time products, like the Bacon Cheddar Ranch sandwiches, they like to mix it up some times. Like Cheese Sticks. Or the Cheese Sauce they had for awhile around the same time they did the Simpons watch promotion. To quote Homer, "Only cheese makes it more cheesier."
DM Zoc 12-13-06, 02:12 AM	I believe that the base classes were designed back when prestige classes weren't guaranteed for every campaign. Back then, sure red wizards of thay are powerful, but you're almost never going to become one. By and large, the classes that have come out recently encourage players to take all twenty levels: duskblade, dragon shaman, warlock. Everything in between is pretty much in between in terms of whether you should multiclass or not. A big problem I see is when a new game starts and people create characters beyond first level. Sure, swashbuckler might be a three level dip for the tenth-level melee character you're building, but to someone starting at level one you have to wait two more levels before you even get the primary class feature! This is more of a design challenge than some people would like to admit, though I would have to agree with popular opinion that making the ability improve with time is probably the way to go.
SephDragoon 12-13-06, 02:14 AM	You people are making me hungry, and its 2am >_<. In short, base classes aren't dead, but with many more options, why simply settle for less? Think about it, sometimes you just want it simple, "Give me a number 3 combo." and other times, you want it your way, "Give me a number 3, no pickles, no mustard, a biggie drink and... can I substitute the fries for baked potato? Great!" In other words, you have more choices, and you are bound to choose something different. Geeze all this food talk *walks away grumbling, wondering what is open this time of night*
nastynate 12-13-06, 02:15 AM	Some people live in remote locations where a Burger King is 5 minutes away, while a Chili's is more than an hour. They could always choose to cook their own meals if they don't feel like driving an hour for what they want. On the other hand, though, Burger King frequently has limited time products, like the Bacon Cheddar Ranch sandwiches, they like to mix it up some times. Like Cheese Sticks. Or the Cheese Sauce they had for awhile around the same time they did the Simpons watch promotion. To quote Homer, "Only cheese makes it more cheesier." I know you don't like BK, but tough luck, that's all I am willing to eat or serve, and you have no right to object! The DM can adjust his menu ya' know ;). He's under no contractual obligations with BK to serve only their products; if he's just doing it because its easier and because HE likes it, its unfair to the Red Lobster loving PCs (who want to play swashbucklers and pirates). The preferances of the players should be accounted for, and the DM should run a game they will all enjoy. Force feeding BK down the players' throats will not result in a good game, no matter how you try to sell it. You need to understand that the DM is an abritrator not a dictator. He reacts to what the players want and mediates between them and their environment; he does not call the shots...period. -Peace- P.S. I know what you mean Seph Dragoon, now...I really do want a cheeseburger (not a metaphorical one either)...yummy
Grimmsfeld 12-13-06, 02:16 AM	Let me take the analogy off. Sometimes, the only DM in the area is on vacation. Sometimes, there's only one quality DM in the area, and driving an hour or more to play D&D isn't your bag. Sometimes, you can run your own campaign. On the other hand, the local DM frequently runs campaigns with additional supplements, like the Complete Series, they like to mix it up. Or plays in Faerun. Or even Eberron, when they were running that Eberron watch promotion. To quote Merrix "Only 'forged makes it more 'forgier."
Archangel62 12-13-06, 02:21 AM	Much of it also comes from the fact that certain class abilities are simply stronger when used in tandem. Also, it has to do with people looking for a certain kind of tactical design or concept that fits their build both conceptually as well as being able to focus itself mechanically. I know a useful build for a mage slayer that requires two base classes, 2 prestige classes, and 5 levels of whatever you want, though it is reccomended you be an illumian for it.
SephDragoon 12-13-06, 02:25 AM	Heh, I've done a mage slayer build once too... it ended up being 1 base class and 2 prestige. I only made for the just in case my player's casters started abusing spells or something. (Start doing something that destroys economies etc, and the mage slayers will be angry)
Archangel62 12-13-06, 02:44 AM	Heh, I've done a mage slayer build once too... it ended up being 1 base class and 2 prestige. I only made for the just in case my player's casters started abusing spells or something. (Start doing something that destroys economies etc, and the mage slayers will be angry) This one was from a player, he had an interesting concept and it worked really well in game 3 Hex/2Fighter/5 Occult Slayer/ 5 Witch Slayer/ 5? He took a few more levels in fighter and one more in hexblade
SephDragoon 12-13-06, 02:50 AM	This one was from a player, he had an interesting concept and it worked really well in game 3 Hex/2Fighter/5 Occult Slayer/ 5 Witch Slayer/ 5? He took a few more levels in fighter and one more in hexblade Ah... this one is duskblade 5/justiciar 2/occult slayer 2 with the mage slayer feat and practiced spellcaster to bring his duskblade abilities back up. This isn't a very high level character, since it is an enemy, and my PC's are only level 4 :P. The idea wasn't to kill them, but to bring them back alive for judgement, as per the justiciar class ability :P.
Nitan 12-13-06, 03:50 AM	Also, there has been a big shift away from class=character. Before, playing a Fighter 20 might have been the thing that your character would 'do', and going into Barbarian wouldn't make sense because "he never learned anything from a tribe". I used to think like this when I started playing. I thought "all Barbarians are crazy savages", all Dwarves were "drunken brawlers", and all Elves were "sissies". Later on in my D&D time, I thought to myself "hey, couldn't a Barbarian also be someone who learned to channel his inner-rage into destructive force during combat?" And so I grew and matured as a D&D players and stopped subscribing to foolish stereotypes. Today, people see things differently. With things like the Stormwind Fallacy and other schools of thought, mechanics are seen as distinctly different from what the character is. Thus, you can take those two levels in barbarian, and not have to worry about whether it is or isn't what your character would do, since taking classes isn't what they do: they just advance and learn. The Stormwind Fallacy is not a school of thought nor does it have anything to do with what you have just written. In my eyes, the idea of "classes" is flawed in and of itself.
Tokorona 12-13-06, 04:18 AM	I find that classes are a good idea, as they package a complete disparte set of elements and advance them all. It's just, sometimes, in exeuction.. Anyway, as one who rarely, if ever PrC's, I can tell you that I tend to get expaserated with weak classes, but .. I don't see anything wrong with supplements. My monk likes them, anyway.
Chie 12-13-06, 04:41 AM	Part of it is because the base classes don't fit everything you might want to do with a character.Also characters change over time,just like people do.A fighter that makes friends with the party mage might become interested in his friends craft.Or the fighter might offer to teach the mage a few weapon tricks so that he can defend himself better in case the fighter isn't around to protect him.A lot of people like to try new things and learn new skills,or sometimes just change careers.
nonsi 12-13-06, 09:18 AM	I think it's because instead of expanding player options through feats, expanded skills, and variant class abilities, Wizards keeps pumping out classes. Base classes and prestige classes, in just about every book that comes out. In all honesty, we don't need a Swashbuckler/Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger/Knight/Hexblade/Duskblade class. We can just use the fighter, and mold him into whatever we want with feats and skills and variant class abilities. Likewise, we don't need a dozen caster core classes. They managed to have an option for specializing in the wizard without splitting it up into seperate classes, but here we have the Sorcerer, and then Warmage, and then the Dread Necromancer, and the Beguiler. I think WoTC should just focus on what they have and expand on it, giving players more options with the tools already provided in the PHB. Instead they come out with more classes, more spells, and more systems (Binding, Shadow Magic, Truenaming, Incarnum, Legacy Weapons, Maneuvers, etc.). Many of these don't and won't recieve much more support. And in the end, the base classes aren't recieving much support either, because there are always more and more options to choose over them. When you get down to it, each class has something that will be worthwhile to someone. But with so many options, you rarely have an incentive to progress the whole way. So, dipping occurs. Grab the best from each class. I think if the amount of classes was reduced, and abilities were represented better through feats and expanded class abilities, it would put a stop to it. I could just be rambling though. nowadays, the main thing in the minds of WoTC's staff is...................... . . . . . M O N E Y !!! and a lot of it. every book that comes along gives you just a bit more power potential - the drug of power hungry players (the vast majority). they could've easily developed a balanced and much richer and simplified mechanism, buy what reason would people really have of buying extensions for a neatly organized system ? take the concept of PrC's for instance. A well organized system could easily do without them and still cover any folkloristic aspect you could imagine.
Archangel62 12-13-06, 09:43 AM	nowadays, the main thing in the minds of WoTC's staff is...................... . . . . . M O N E Y !!! and a lot of it. every book that comes along gives you just a bit more power potential - the drug of power hungry players (the vast majority). they could've easily developed a balanced and much richer and simplified mechanism, buy what reason would people really have of buying extensions for a neatly organized system ? take the concept of PrC's for instance. A well organized system could easily do without them and still cover any folkloristic aspect you could imagine. I doubt it, GURPS, Tri-Stat, and Palladium fantasy are the closest I can see to this and even in those systems there are a lot of issues. You might find a system that fits you better but that also has to do with how you view the system and what you want out of it.
Ghenesh 12-13-06, 09:59 AM	There are five main reasons about this happening IMO: WotC strategy: If you've been playing WotC games you should know better how their games evolve: Continuosly releasing new material, each with a few very good/overpowered options, the rest is filler material. Why is this? easy, this sells, power-hungry players want the best class/spell/feat/skill/card/pet/etc, if you offer a 5% of overpowered options in each book you can sell a lot of them to those who want to be uber. Power-hungry Players: Players are obviously the main reason here, if there weren't players who want uber material there wouldn't be any reason for WotC to develop new and more powerful material each release, cause it's mandatory for every book to have something more powerful than the earlier releases, if not the book won't sell. I think 60% of players surf through DnD books looking for optimization, 10% looking for flavor, 30% looking for both at the same time. Level based progression is awful: The Level package is the worst offender to the character concept, your character gets a whole package of benefits when it reaches a certain point, so designers must adjust this benefits to a level in each class progression... it's obviously gonna be poorly done and there are obviously going to be optimal choices for every level. Dipping becomes a must cause the whole features package wanted "belongs" to another class. Bad Design: Many Base Clases gains their best features at early levels so they scream MULTICLASS ME ASAP! Sorcerers and Swashbucklers are excelent examples for this, level based features and synergic skills are always appealing. Prestige Classes: PrCs idea are at fault here also, the idea of "legal dips" is what provokes the loss of identity of base classes, it gives a new and more specialized concept to the character, but is SO easily abused that concept gets relegated by optimization. Besides many PrCs offers the same benefits than the base classes (full spellcasting, feats, smite, etc) so they stack and it becomes so obviously better to multiclass (PrCing is multiclassing) that the character concept adapts to fit the search for power. My take on this is: * There's nothing wrong with multiclassing cause the system is so poorly done (level progression) that it's the only way to create your own concept, and to create this new concept you need features that "belong" to diferent classes. * There's no way to calculate how much a player want optimization and how much flavor for his character, and there's no point on accusing a player for being a munchkin for multiclassing like crazy. * It's a DM fault to let a character that breaks the game or makes it boring enter the game, but it's also the player fault for making a character that breaks the game or makes it boring for everyone else because it's egoistic, for example playing a Frenzied Berserker is egoistic cause the player can always play a Barbarian and roleplay his/her frenzy, and it's also the DM for not suggesting this and/or foreseen a TPK.
Fallenangel359 12-13-06, 11:56 AM	I'm currently running a character... 7 rogue, 1 shadow dancer, then 12 more rogue 1 level dip, in 1 class I'd definitely consider myself a rogue...
solbergb 12-13-06, 01:30 PM	Well, if the class doesn't offer the package of abilites that fits your character, you're not going to stay with it beyond what it provides that DOES fit your character. Even mechanically solid classes like druid which give nice abilities all the way up to level 20 still have people who don't pick pure druid. Because not all concepts fit the druid mold, even if they mostly do. (I have a char that will take 8 levels of druid because it's the way to get wildshape into a tiger. If there was a "tiger warrior" equivalent of "bear warrior" PRC I might have gone that way instead, but likely not, since she wants to actually spend most of her time as a sentient tiger that sometimes becomes human. Aside from those 8 levels though, she's taking more warrior-oriented-non-spellcasting classes that either expand on her wildshape abilites or her fighting abilities) There are some classes that are "back loaded" but are often "so far back" loaded that they are not especially popular choices. Barbarian 20 gives a really cool ability. Too bad you will be tempted away through levels 3-19, when the other two really good abiliites come at level 1 and 2. Arcane Archer is fantastic at level 11 (epic) because finally its signature ability is better than GMW and penetrates DR/epic for free. It's considered pretty weak before that, unless your party lacks a cleric or arcanist who can cast GMW. Warchanter is another very good PRC that is considered "backloaded". It really gives nothing much in the first few levels, then suddently gives a really good ability at level 3, and synergistic abilities every couple levels after that, to where a L10 warchanter can take a bunch of commoners and actually make them dangerous (he can give them +20 hitpoints, diehard, a BAB equal to his and +4 strength. They may die like popcorn but give them a +4 strength bow and they'll get 3 attacks a round at quite respectable attack mods even nonproficient, especially if he mixes in a little inspire courage. In melee they're even nastier, since they can dump their already miniscule AC for +BAB to hit...). But it's got kind of annoying feat requirements (stuff that doesn't synergize at all with the class) and your levels 6-8 are kind of unappealing. Classes like Paladin that seem to stop advancing at level 5 but actually have every single important ability (smite, mount advancement, spell advancement) improve every level or every other level also tempt people away, because people are stupid :) They don't see that these benefits are increasing, they only see that nothing appears on the "class feature list".
Khan the Destroyer 12-13-06, 01:59 PM	nowadays, the main thing in the minds of WoTC's staff is...................... . . . . . M O N E Y !!! and a lot of it. every book that comes along gives you just a bit more power potential - the drug of power hungry players (the vast majority). they could've easily developed a balanced and much richer and simplified mechanism, buy what reason would people really have of buying extensions for a neatly organized system ? take the concept of PrC's for instance. A well organized system could easily do without them and still cover any folkloristic aspect you could imagine. But, WoTC could have put those books out as expanded mechanics for already existing classes. Obviously, you won't fit everything into the PHB. But shelling out new classes and rules systems after in each book is too much. The old stuff sits on the backburner, and the new stuff won't get developed much beyond the intro book it's found in. EDIT: I realized that you may be agreeing with me. So, replace the 'But, ' at the beginning of my reply with 'Agreed.'
Ghenesh 12-13-06, 02:01 PM	As a DM i have found myself creating PrCs to fit the concept of a player, and i must say designing a PrC is not really hard, keep it balanced is the real work, you need a lot of experience with many diferent classes and situations, wich i don't have much to spare, to me it will be pretty much problematic if the character turns out to be overpowered compared to the other players. So, the books are supposed to give you good and balanced concepts! but it's disappointing to see how this is not true, what where they thinking when they created the Shadowadept? the class is worth the 1st level only! but hey, that's totally the min/maxing way of thinking.
nastynate 12-13-06, 02:11 PM	I'm currently running a character... 7 rogue, 1 shadow dancer, then 12 more rogue 1 level dip, in 1 class I'd definitely consider myself a rogue... That's just it though. You don't even have to consider yourself a rogue. Classes are rarely tied to the fluff in their descriptions (most don't even have any restrictions or commitments at all), with a few notable exceptions (like the knight's code or the red wizard's connections to Thay). You could build your rogue 19 / shadow dancer 1 as an assassin, a bounty hunter, a scout, an explorer, a ninja, or any other concept you envision. Neither the rogue or the shadow dancer are tied to a singular concept, guild, affiliation, or ideal, so the classes have no bearing upon your character concept other than the class features they provide. Classes like these are really no different than skills and feats; you just pick the one's that provide mechanics that help to best portray your character concept (whatever it may be) in game. The only thing the DM has to moderate are the in game effects of certain combinations of abilities that may or may not be healthy in his game. It's not the power of the characters in relation to the enemies that is an issue (you can just use more powerful enemies and award experienced based upon the actual difficulty of the challenges faced by the PCs, rather than the standard CR experience value); the DM only has to watch out for combinations that trump other PCs (like the fully optimized divine power cleric that makes his fighter buddy look and feel inferior, or the PC that is so much more effective than his adventuring companions that it becomes difficult to challenge him without destroying the other weaker characters). Strangely, I find that "core only" games are more difficult to run balanced games in, because the full BAB classes have almost nothing impressive to work with in the core system; they need the splat-book feats, PrCs, and level dips to make a difference at mid to high levels, while the core builds of any full casting class seem to do just fine without splat-book support. Such is my experience anyway. -Peace-
bitnine 12-13-06, 02:14 PM	Hm, there was a thread not too long ago that was unfortunately closed wherein I remember typing a bunch of stuff about classes. Ah, here we go:And a large part of this is a difference in what people take classes to represent. There have been long and numerous threads about this. I always put character and character concept before classes. Let's say that a character is a combat scout, part of a unit in the military that finds and quietly eliminates enemy forces that slip into friendly territory. What class is he? Is he a fighter? A rogue? I might peg him as a fighter/ranger/rogue. Taking each of those levels because of a singular well-founded character concept. Not because the character was saying: "Now I'm going to fighter school! Now I'm going to ranger school! Now I'm going to rogue school!" Another excellent example was someone describing their character, a swashbuckler. Both speaking in character and describing their abilities and the style with which they fight. And then challenging folk to name the specific classes that the character had. Pure fighter? Fighter/rogue? Feat rogue? Swashbuckler? Scout? Some folk have gone as far to say that introducing their character (IC) as their class is good roleplaying. That... Is something that I strongly disagree with. Don't get so hung up on the specifics of class levels, ability scores, or even alignment descriptions so that you're not thinking of your character as a character first and then as the rest as things that describe your character. If you do that, you won't make choices that don't make sense in the first place, and it won't matter what specific class, feat, or other ability your are selecting or specific numbers or values. When I think of a character, I try to think of them as a character first. Including the sort of traits and abilities that they possess. Mechanical specifics exist only to represent the character that I have in mind. And then I'll find whatever mechanical particulars best represent that character in their sum. There is, of course, a certain amount of 'give' in what the mechanics allow to be possible and portraying things within the scope of what traits are possessed by the character - I wouldn't make a character who supposedly had godlike charisma, have his charisma as high as possible (in this case an 18) and then try to play it as if he had a charisma of 24. Will the events of a campaign change a character of mine? Absolutely. However, if the mechanics are influenced, it's because the character changed during the course of the story such as to have them better described by such a specific mechanical selection. I've used the term 'describe' above, and that's how I view classes and feats, as things that are used to describe - as opposed to define - a given character in game terms. There is a certain amount of give in a character being believably synched and aware of the acts that he is capable of and traits he possesses in that context. I don't think there's a strong necessary connection between character development and specific level progression, particularly when the 'net sum' approach by its nature can be a superior translation. If I don't see my ranger character as having any sort of mystic connections, I'd try to avoid the spellcasting. Maybe with a ranger variant, maybe with multiclassing, maybe with a natural survivor-style PrC - but I rather wouldn't sit back and say that since I did ranger-y things for a level I take a level of ranger now. My character certainly doesn't know what levels he has - he might call himself a ranger IC and be a ranger/fighter/rogue. If you were to ask me at a given point why I'm taking a particular class, feat, or anything else, I'll probably shrug and seek to explain that that choice is the closest I've found for who the character is.Anyways, there shouldn't be certian combinations of classes and numbers on a page that prevent you from coming up with an interesting backstory and roleplaying a character. Maybe a ludicrous character, sure. Envisioning some types of characters will seem sort of silly and harder to roleplay with a straight face, But Dunghill Bob the 16th level commoner is just as ludicrous as a character as K'vlash the Half-Golem Antropomorphic Ballean Whale Frenzied Berserker. I could write a far-fetched story of how Dunghill Bob has managed to overcome the challenges that a 16th level character faces in defence of his dirt farm through perseverance and luck (run forest run!), just as I could come up with the story of a cult unlocking a primal force from the unspoken deep that shaped K'vlash, known to some as the Bladed Horror from the Deep. A character that makes absolutely no sense is hard to roleplay because it makes no sense. A character that makes no sense and is powerful is hard to roleplay. A character that makes no sense and is pathetically weak is hard to roleplay. Sure, people who don't care about roleplaying characters usually something in the game to be interested in other than roleplay. Maybe they like killing mobs, maybe they like talking about anime and showing off their laptop in the middle of a gaming session. That latter bit will develop a slight correlation between power-hungry players and those who don't care about roleplay, but certainly nothing categorical or causal. Yes, some character decisions can be random and illogical. However, this is not necessarily tied to training requirements and class exclusion. Let's look at the oft-used barbarian suddenly turning wizard example. Someone who chooses classes such as to describe their character first says, "This is the way in which my character has developed," and then "This is the way in which I represent my character's development." So, in one case, they would first say, "(1) My character randomly knows magic for no good reason," and then, "(2) I'm going to take a level in wizard to show that." Well... If 1 were acceptable, 2 would be just dandy. However, 2 is sort of a nonissue when it's 1 that's the problem. If you had instead said, "(1) My character recently made a deal with Beelzebob to channel unholy power in the game," and "(2) I'm going to take a level of sorcerer to show that," (see the that DMG passage for ideas on sorcerer levels representing power granted by planar entities) it'd might look a tad better. And really, you could see parallel examples for almost any character choices beyond classes.
BalthazarDArgent 12-13-06, 03:11 PM	I suspect that the next version of D&D will be a point based system of building ala original Champions or current Mutants and Masterminds. It will provide the most flexibililty in character creation. Count on Mana Pools taking the place of spell-levels (like current Psionics - a much better system of magic). Fighter mages will much easier to build as they'll have mana pools with the right ability scores. Look to some of the Unearthed Arcana alt rules as the beginnings of v4.0. But so long as the current system keeps earning cash through supplements they won't head that direction for several years to come.
Tokorona 12-13-06, 03:28 PM	NO, it won't. For all of their faults, WotC realizes that class based systems are inherently more balanced (if written correctly) than point-buy systems. While manapools is an interesting idea, it's not part of iconic DnD. So they will most likely present as alternate rules in the PHB itself (hey, now THAT would be cool.) Anyway, to answer the general trend. No. SPlats often represent a concept much better, see threads in What's a Player to do about this.
SephDragoon 12-13-06, 05:15 PM	In my campaigns, I love the Unearthed Arcana. I have actually written up feats for nearly all of the caster classes that can change what kind of casting they use. From mana pools to recharge magic, spontanoius to memorized (though some of those feats already existed). I don't force my players to use any kind of casting system. It also makes interesting battles, having one caster who will nova, and another who saves spells much better by using recharge magic.
clannagh 12-13-06, 05:21 PM	Generally as stated over and over above once you have your base class its often possible to progress in that class abilities plus get extra's with a PrC. Why go straight wizard for a measly bonus feat every 5 levels when you get everything else a wizard gets plus more as a PrC .. same with barbarian. Secondly many people find the "mix and match" PrC thing fun ..... "wow !! a swashbuckler dervish with levels in corellan adds strength dex and int to its whirlwind attack damage .. etc etc " That said .. we are currently running a "PHB only" campaign with no PrC or other base classes allowed. It is surprisingly fun and my level 10 monk is doing very well.
Sleepwalker13666 12-13-06, 05:57 PM	IMO-The problem lies in the stacking, back in 1st and 2nd edition, classes had very few features, the only way to bring up those features was to level. Secound edition did have kits, which are simular to multible base classes like in 3rd, but the main difference was you could'nt take 2 rougish classes, or two warrior classes etc, in 3rd/3.5 you can take multiple classes from simular groups because they are no longer defined by groups. Also most classes have thier defining abilities at early levels, I'm sure the idea behind this was at low levels even though everybody is low powered, everybody is different. Back in 3rd you did'nt have a whole lot of multiclassing options, there was a total of 18 base classes (11 PHB, 5 N.P.C., 2 Psi-HB), so multiclassing was'nt overdone. In 3.5 however there is over 60 classes to choose from, not including the hundreds if not thousands of PrCs. And the problem with PrCs is: They have requirements. Why take a PrC for this ability when this class has a simular one? You get so few feats unless your a fighter and you want to make each one count, so playing up to a PrC generally means you may have to take non-optimul feats just to become that class. Also many prestigous classes are not that great, they are getting better, and there are several great ones out there, but most of them are junk. That being said I love the multiple options, I currently have a character who is a level 2 Cleric, level 3 Incarnate, level 5 Saphire Hierarch, level 1 Legacy Champion, I plan to take her to level 10 in Legacy Champion. It is possible to stick with one class and still have fun, but the role you have invisioned might be and most likly would be better fufilled by multi-classing. With some of the newer classes they are building it becomes harder to be optimized through multiclassing, most Incarnum Classes don't multi very well, The Shadow Caster and Truenamer from Tome of Magic are generally screwed if they multi (yes I know they are not that great of classes to begin with), And the Tome of Battle classes, while they can multi are meant to see it through for at least 10 levels, lastly, the Dread necromancer can multi with little problem, but the class is powerful enough throughout it's career I can't think of why you would want to. This shows me that Wizards of the Coast is starting to learn they need to make the classes an attractive choice for the long haul. But until it does I think it's better not to dwell on it, players who enjoy thier characters want them to be powerful, that way they can survive to play them again, and a good player knows when certain optimizing is overkill. For one of my Dms I could build far more powerful characters than I do, but it is'nt nessessary, When I DM, my group leans towards power gaming so I do make Min/Max villians for them to overcome. If a player is multi-classing to fullfill a role, then don't worry about it, if he's doing it just to throw fist full of dice then you should step in... or through a feral 1/2 fang dragon hydra at him.:D
Lecen_of_Mitran 12-13-06, 06:33 PM	All over these forums and others, I have seen a personally upsetting trend in character creation, both for general play and optimizing, that involves only "dipping" levels of base and PrC classes for making an allegedly effective character. Marshal is only good for Cha builds and only a one level dip, Fighters should only take a 2 or 4 level dip, Divine Oracle a one level dip for the extra Domain, etc. Why don't players in general want to play a Wizard 15/ Archmage 5? Or heavens forbid a Fighter 20? Could anyone please explain this to me?? Update: So first I'd like to explain my question a bit and then see if I can get a bit of clarification of some of the replies. I have been playing D&D now, in one carnation or the other for 26 or 27 years now. For the first 20 some years, I was happy as a clam to play my human Fighter up to 18th level. Yes, by his stats and mechanics, he was a "plain old, ordinary" Fighter, but he was far from it in the game. He had seen a BBEG who was a Pirate in A3 and did everything he could think of to become a Pirate for the good guys. But now there are classes and PrCs that are Pirates - Swashbuckler, Dread Pirate, etc. I don't see why there has to be so many other classes and PrCs. Is it because the game has changed mechanically that to have a good character you need to dip into other classes and Prcs? It has also not escaped my notice that the makers of the fastest changing and largest CCG in the world is now making D&D. Is it that Wizards of the Coast is gearing D&D to rival or at least equal Magic in speed of rules/mechanics changing? They make sets of Magic that have a few select cards that raise the bar of power and the rest are useless for competition level play. That the classes and Prcs have a few abilities that make it competitive early on and everything after is useless, so to continue to keep your character competitive, you need to dip into this, that, or the other class or Prc. Is that what I'm understanding? Let's hear what you have to say on this... I agree 100% with you. Before you could be a human Fighter and that would be just fine. Now? People wants to be a "half-fiend half-ogre Barbarian 4/Fighter 4/Frienzied Berseker 10/Exotic Weapon Master 1/ Ravager 1". Now, all people care it is "optimize". You go ask for a guy that play a barbarian and ask him why his character has only 2 Fighter lvls and he´ll answer the same thing as all other: "Well... because I want the 2 feats... Ow... you´re asking in terms of RP? Well... mnn... err... he has 2 lvls because he just went to civilized areas!!" "And why he has 2 lvls of Psy Warrior?" "Err.... Well, he get 2 feats and... well... my character just felt like he had some wird mental powers and that´s it!!!" They always have an excuse to make dips or waht I prefer to call: "Mutant Salad Fruits". This is D&D 3rd Edition... :( To say the truth, the biggest problem is the fact that to multiclass is just too easy. It SHOULD be different. Like: "Ok... if I become a Cavalier, I´ll be a great knight character, but I´ll loose other cool stuffs from my base class... should I really multiclass?" That dos NOT happen. The common is that you never loose something. Prestige classes should be something like "focuses classes". And more: the multiclass system should have more penalties. You should be able to take one or maybe two more prestige classes at the most, or something like that. It just doens´t look right when someone makes a dwarf Fighter 20 and think himself as a "true Dwarf warrior" and another guy becomes a salad fruit (see above)and says: "Well, I may have 6 different classes, but I feel myself as a dwarf warrior too." What?? :eek: :confused:
bitnine 12-13-06, 06:49 PM	This is D&D 3rd Edition... :(Wait, are you telling me that if your character had particular class or feat mechanics, you would find yourself unable to roleplay? That does sound like a very serious problem...
Cael 12-13-06, 07:05 PM	All over these forums and others, I have seen a personally upsetting trend in character creation, both for general play and optimizing, that involves only "dipping" levels of base and PrC classes for making an allegedly effective character. Marshal is only good for Cha builds and only a one level dip, Fighters should only take a 2 or 4 level dip, Divine Oracle a one level dip for the extra Domain, etc. Why don't players in general want to play a Wizard 15/ Archmage 5? Or heavens forbid a Fighter 20? Could anyone please explain this to me?? Update: So first I'd like to exlain my question a bit and then see if I can get a bit of clarification of some of the replies. I have been playing D&D now, in one carnation or the other for 26 or 27 years now. For the first 20 some years, I was happy as a clam to play my human Fighter up to 18th level. Yes, by his stats and mechanics, he was a "plain old, ordinary" Fighter, but he was far from it in the game. He had seen a BBEG who was a Pirate in A3 and did everything he could think of to become a Pirate for the good guys. But now there are classes and PrCs that are Pirates - Swashbuckler, Dread Pirate, etc. I don't see why there has to be so many other classes and PrCs. Is it because the game has changed mechanically that to have a good character you need to dip into other classes and Prcs? It has also not escaped my notice that the makers of the fastest changing and largest CCG in the world is now making D&D. Is it that Wizards of the Coast is gearing D&D to rival or at least equal Magic in speed of rules/mechanics changing? They make sets of Magic that have a few select cards that raise the bar of power and the rest are useless for competition level play. That the classes and Prcs have a few abilities that make it competitive early on and everything after is useless, so to continue to keep your character competitive, you need to dip into this, that, or the other class or Prc. Is that what I'm understanding? Let's hear what you have to say on this... In your 20 something years, how many was played using 3.5 rules? In case you have forgotten, there is *no* PrC in anything up to 2nd Ed (2nd Ed sort of have some with kits, but they are not really PrCs), and you generally *cannot* multiclass out. You are what you are for life. 3.0 introduced the modular class character design but nerfed it to the point that multi-class characters are virtually unplayable. 3.5 streamlined it to the point that multiclassing actually became a viable option. That is why you are seeing the proliferation. Not because people are becoming more munchkin-like, but because for the first time, there is an option to multiclass. The powergaming has always been there, but was hidden by the straight-jacket rules of engagement (i.e., character creation). Once that loosened up, it became easier and more obvious. Remember, the less options you have, the less visible is optimisation. The more options, the greater the visibility. There is all there is to it.
Templario 12-13-06, 07:28 PM	For me, the whole maneuver system could be used to be fighter-only tree feats... would be a nice way to specialize fighters and give some nice power. Of course, some maneuvers would be available for another classes by feats, but the really strong ones, only fighters :)
nastynate 12-13-06, 08:17 PM	Now, all people care it is "optimize". You go ask for a guy that play a barbarian and ask him why his character has only 2 Fighter lvls and he´ll answer the same thing as all other: "Well... because I want the 2 feats... Ow... you´re asking in terms of RP? Well... mnn... err... he has 2 lvls because he just went to civilized areas!!" "And why he has 2 lvls of Psy Warrior?" "Err.... Well, he get 2 feats and... well... my character just felt like he had some wird mental powers and that´s it!!!" They always have an excuse to make dips or waht I prefer to call: "Mutant Salad Fruits". This is D&D 3rd Edition... Wait a second...you want me to justify metagame information in character? I trained, practiced, and honed my body, mind, and spirit to be a better warrior. If anyone ever asks me how many levels I have in game, I'm going to smack them...character's don't know they have levels! The character sheet may say fighter 2 / psychic warrior 2 / barbarian 4 / frenzied berserker 10, and the player will tell you he wanted the 4 bonus feats in his build, but that has nothing to do with role-playing at all. Just because the player made a good character, does not mean he is a poor role-player; this is a baseless assumption also known as the Stormwind Fallacy. Everything you are discussing is metagame information. In game the character trained, adventured, and learned new skills and abilities along the way. he didn't have to join a fighter's guild to learn how to use heavy armor (though he may have), he didn't have to train under a psionic master to learn some rudimentary psionic abilities (though it is a possibility he did), he could have just learned how to be a better warrior by practicing on his own. Maybe you think that the character somehow changed professions...but again this is not true; the classes only represent what he can do in metagame terms, not who the character is in game. In the character's mind he has learned to be a better adventurer...he didn't drop out of barbarian school to go to frenzied berserker school; these class labels are for the players, not for their characters. You wouldn't introduce yourself as "Brent, fighter / psychic warrior / barbarian / frenzied berserker for hire." You would introduce yourself as "Brent, sword for hire." I'm beginning to think the self-proclaimed role-players have not yet learned to seperate the metagame rules from the in-game characters. Welcome to 3rd edition. We no longer refer to one another as "fighter," "acrobat," and "barbarian," like they did on the cartoon from the 80s.
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 08:43 PM	This is D&D 3rd Edition... :( And this is the Stormwind Fallacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338). This is the shift I was talking about. I'm pretty sure that, back in the 'olden days', most people played characters and took classes for RP reasons. Recently, what with people thinking hard about what it really means to metagame, we've realized that referring to yourself as a Fighter when you were a dwarven warrior serving in the Stonegard Brigade is inappropriate: you would more likely refer to yourself as a soldier, brigadier, or something else. No military man ever just called himself a 'fighter' especially because 'that's what's written on my character sheet'. However, I can kind of understand this argument. If I want to play a barbarian, and the kind that goes berserk in battle, I'll probably play a Barbarian. If I want to play a paladin, and the holy warrior type, I'll choose to play a Paladin. I will not really regard it as any sort of coincidence that Paladin happens to be on my sheet and what my character refers to himself as. While you can certainly play a character with mechanics aside from flavor, I don't think that you *must* play this way. I, personally, prefer to do a little of both. I don't take levels in a PrC without a justification as to why I went into it, but I don't follow the exact flavor-text of said class either. I see each new class I enter as a new facet of my character, and I must change in some new way or develop a new side of myself. You can play with the character sheet there to support only the mechanics, but I prefer to mix them, so that the mechanics combine with roleplaying, and thus you get the best of both worlds all the time.
polarcleric 12-13-06, 08:50 PM	Greetings-- Just like to say that the restauraunt analogy was quite thoughtful (very much true), well done sir. With that said, being new to the game certainly creates a sense of inferiority when you first join a new campaign only to see that your PHB & PHBII are but a few pages against some of your fellow players who own every supplement available and are all too willing to exploit their rich knowledge of all that is available to them (and why not if you wish to dole out the $$ to buy them all). However, this only adds to the intimidation and anxiety of the other new players who could quickly become turned off to the game... or they go out and buy all those accessories as well (which is often the case). I guess I just wish the authors wouldn't be so bent on rushing out new material that is 95% filler (as was mentioned early as well) to make a quick buck without more carefully thinking over what is actually placed in the book as well as adding (if at all) new classes that have been tried and true as classes that reward players for sticking with them for the long haul (so to speak). I am also one who feels that prestige classes ought to be just that, prestigious... I wish that the requirements necessary to join such a class are stringent enough that the character needs to make a concerted effort to become of those "prestige" classes while making it harder to join multiple classes. You'd think being a "Knight of the Chalice" (or any other prestige class) would push/force a character to actually sticking along that line. This would force players to be a bit more mindful of their decisions and overall add a sense of accomplishment by achieving on of those said prestige classes. I hope this didn't get too far off of what the original poster intended. Thanx
Ranger REG 12-13-06, 09:22 PM	I have been playing D&D now, in one carnation or the other for 26 or 27 years now. For the first 20 some years, I was happy as a clam to play my human Fighter up to 18th level. Yes, by his stats and mechanics, he was a "plain old, ordinary" Fighter, but he was far from it in the game. He had seen a BBEG who was a Pirate in A3 and did everything he could think of to become a Pirate for the good guys. But now there are classes and PrCs that are Pirates - Swashbuckler, Dread Pirate, etc. I don't see why there has to be so many other classes and PrCs. Is it because the game has changed mechanically that to have a good character you need to dip into other classes and Prcs? Well, their company motto is "tools, not rules." So what if you have a variety of classes (and prestige classes) of one concept (e.g., pirate)? It's up to the DM to decide which is most appropriate for his or her own group's campaign. It has also not escaped my notice that the makers of the fastest changing and largest CCG in the world is now making D&D. :uh-huh: Has this escaped my notice that you realized this after 8 years? :P Is it that Wizards of the Coast is gearing D&D to rival or at least equal Magic in speed of rules/mechanics changing? If they have, they certainly didn't do it with rules-heavy 3e. :smirk: They make sets of Magic that have a few select cards that raise the bar of power and the rest are useless for competition level play. That the classes and Prcs have a few abilities that make it competitive early on and everything after is useless, so to continue to keep your character competitive, you need to dip into this, that, or the other class or Prc. Is that what I'm understanding? Let's hear what you have to say on this... The only thing I realized is WotC putting out a revision of the rules just THREE years after the debut of 3e. I'm still concerned that we might see another revision if not another whole new edition (4e) before 2010. For now, I'm relieved there is no new revision nor edition of the rules this year (2006; three years after 3.5e). Though WotC assured that 3.5e is still backward compatible with 3.0e, not many believe them. I also notice a lot of base classes coming out of 3.5e supplements. I'm very resistant/reluctant to that because the 11 [generic] core classes in the PHB are more than enough. But as I have said before, "tools, not rules." What's not good for me doesn't mean it's not good for others.
Manyfist 12-13-06, 09:34 PM	I also notice a lot of base classes coming out of 3.5e supplements. I'm very resistant/reluctant to that because the 11 [generic] core classes in the PHB are more than enough. But as I have said before, "tools, not rules." What's not good for me doesn't mean it's not good for others. 11 Classes is NOT enough. 11 Classes, no matter what you call them are still the same. You want to be a Rogue, so you call your self a Theif, you steal. Yet you're still bound by the limits such as Skill list, HD...etc. So if you want to Stab Someone aren't you stepping on the shoes of the assassin? The Assassin PrC is for characters who want to kill more efficently. AKA Death attack, and have some spells that they would normally not get. With the Warlock I am more sorcerous than the Sorcerer and deal with Demons and Devils. This can be Role played out, while the Sorcerer can say he's dealing with Demons and Devils yet he has nothing OUTSIDE of RP to suggest this. More classes the better, more PrCs the better, MORE CHOICES THE BETTER (Sry for the caps). The only thing that must be said is: a.) Fire most your Editors and hire new ones. b.) Stop hiring crappy free lance artist and try to get hold of good free lance artists. c.) Fire most your design teams, they do a horrible job on designing most of the stuff. I.E who made the Soulknife, Sorcerer, Samurai, and Swashbuckler need to be shot. These classes are SO underpowered in mechanics. Also who made Wizards, Clerics, and Druids so overpowered needs to be fired. The most Balanced system, Psionics, needs to be supported more. d.) When you make a book, put effort into it. Make sure you're keeping with the fact of why should I pick X over X if I loose Y yet gain U for PrCs. The rest the stuff, don't put so much filler inside.
Nephlite 12-13-06, 09:45 PM	c.) Fire most your design teams, they do a horrible job on designing most of the stuff. I.E who made the Soulknife, Sorcerer, Samurai, and Swashbuckler need to be shot. These classes are SO underpowered in mechanics. Also who made Wizards, Clerics, and Druids so overpowered needs to be fired. The most Balanced system, Psionics, needs to be supported more. Now, Swashbuckler and Sorceror are good in theory are good: the desingers need to punished/do community service for not balancing them up enough but not fired. I mean, the flavor/idea/ a few of the abilities sound good...just they nerfed them at same time. Soulknife with Multiple Throw not till 17th level (how is throwing mindblade equal to bab too much?) or Swashbuckler...well, just nothing really great after 3rd.
Manyfist 12-13-06, 09:50 PM	Now, Swashbuckler and Sorceror are good in theory are good: the desingers need to punished/do community service for not balancing them up enough but not fired. I mean, the flavor/idea/ a few of the abilities sound good...just they nerfed them at same time. Soulknife with Multiple Throw not till 17th level (how is throwing mindblade equal to bab too much?) or Swashbuckler...well, just nothing really great after 3rd. Ya. I know :weep: I was just being sarcastic a bit. Anyhow, they do need to be punished for bad design.
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 09:58 PM	More classes the better, more PrCs the better, MORE CHOICES THE BETTER (Sry for the caps). The only thing that must be said is: a.) Fire most your Editors and hire new ones. b.) Stop hiring crappy free lance artist and try to get hold of good free lance artists. c.) Fire most your design teams, they do a horrible job on designing most of the stuff. I.E who made the Soulknife, Sorcerer, Samurai, and Swashbuckler need to be shot. These classes are SO underpowered in mechanics. Also who made Wizards, Clerics, and Druids so overpowered needs to be fired. The most Balanced system, Psionics, needs to be supported more. d.) When you make a book, put effort into it. Make sure you're keeping with the fact of why should I pick X over X if I loose Y yet gain U for PrCs. The rest the stuff, don't put so much filler inside. While I agree that 11 classes isn't enough (try creating a general. Paladin's don't have any real army-sized inspirational abilities, and generals are pretty much mostly lawful, which rules out Bard), I think you are putting all of WotCs mistakes under the lens, while ignoring some of their big successes. Besides, when 3.x came out, many people (I believe) did subscribe to the "mechanics=rp" deal. Times change, people change, gamers get their hands on stuff and start seeing how it can be broken in ways the design team simply didn't forsee. I've heard that, in 2.0, it was simply understood that high-level spellcasters were going to be more powerful than high-level warriors. Times change, and now gamers demand equality. WotC is adapting, you just have to give them time. Base classes are not a lost concept: they are an evolving concept, and WotC is trying to keep up in order to satify it's audience (in order to make money).
Ghenesh 12-13-06, 10:09 PM	Those last rants went a bit overboard, are you guys aware that it's impossible to make every class balanced? I know that it's possible to balance them a bit, i know that there are classes so incredibly overpowered that deserve a fix, i know there are classes so overpowered that deserve a nerf, but hey, no one said DnD 3.5 was going to be balanced. I was thinking for a moment in the Sorcerer... this poor guy has no Class Features... it has written: PrC me ASAP!!! all over his levels. But let's think about the context in wich it was made, when this Sorcerer was designed (3.0) there weren't many PrCs, multiclass madness wasn't even invisioned, so i guess the thought was: "The sorcerer can shoot so many spells per day that giving him class features such as free meamagic feats is gonna make him overpowered compared to the other 10 classes in the PHB" and they were probably right, Sorcerer is not such a bad class on it's own, yes it's very restricted compared to Wizard but when you know what spells to have it's not such a bad class. Now what's the point on having a pure Sorcerer? NONE! You can houserule that Sorcerer gain 5 metamagic bonus feats and +100 hp between levels 11 and 20 and it's not going to be overpowered cause it's more or less what the character would get power-wise by PrCing those 10 levels.
Lecen_of_Mitran 12-13-06, 10:15 PM	Wait a second...you want me to justify metagame information in character? I trained, practiced, and honed my body, mind, and spirit to be a better warrior. If anyone ever asks me how many levels I have in game, I'm going to smack them...character's don't know they have levels! The character sheet may say fighter 2 / psychic warrior 2 / barbarian 4 / frenzied berserker 10, and the player will tell you he wanted the 4 bonus feats in his build, but that has nothing to do with role-playing at all. Just because the player made a good character, does not mean he is a poor role-player; this is a baseless assumption also known as the Stormwind Fallacy. Everything you are discussing is metagame information. In game the character trained, adventured, and learned new skills and abilities along the way. he didn't have to join a fighter's guild to learn how to use heavy armor (though he may have), he didn't have to train under a psionic master to learn some rudimentary psionic abilities (though it is a possibility he did), he could have just learned how to be a better warrior by practicing on his own. Maybe you think that the character somehow changed professions...but again this is not true; the classes only represent what he can do in metagame terms, not who the character is in game. In the character's mind he has learned to be a better adventurer...he didn't drop out of barbarian school to go to frenzied berserker school; these class labels are for the players, not for their characters. You wouldn't introduce yourself as "Brent, fighter / psychic warrior / barbarian / frenzied berserker for hire." You would introduce yourself as "Brent, sword for hire." I'm beginning to think the self-proclaimed role-players have not yet learned to seperate the metagame rules from the in-game characters. Welcome to 3rd edition. We no longer refer to one another as "fighter," "acrobat," and "barbarian," like they did on the cartoon from the 80s. Of course I don´t roleplay saying "Hi, I´m Bob, the 13 lvl Fighter." What I meant was that people think on a concept, let´s say... Swachbuckler. And then they take 3 lvlv from Swachbucler, more 6 from Rogue, more 3 from Duelist, etc, etc... Not because the character thought on getting it, because that does not exist. But just because the player knows that mecanicaly the Swashbulker won´t make 10.000 points of damage per round as a Barbarian. So, he take all these classes thinking on numbers. Optmizing at most. That´s my problem. Ok, it´s obvious that, if you are playing with a Fighter, you won´t spend several "weapon focus" feats withe several weapons (like Tordek did, just go look at the Adventure path modules from 3.0), you´ll take feats that make you stronger. But what stronger or better means? Making 10.000 points of damage in one round? Or finding a way to apply int, dex, wis and str bonuses to damage? When optmizing is a good and health thing and when become dangerous? So, a DM must change his colossal red dragon to a pseudonatural half-field red dragon with class levels just because he has a player that is one monstrous mutant salad fruit that make 10.000 points of damage? That´s something to think about it...
Red_Rabbit 12-13-06, 10:17 PM	Only thing I have to say about PrC is Varity, That way no 2 people are the same fighter, wizard or rogue everyone is so very very different in what they can do. PrC are great it's just alot of people who Optimize there characters don't care about accually playing the game. They just want to be as bad as they wanna, but than comes 2 different DM to counter: the Restrictive and the thinkers. Only thing you can really do is say no PrC or show them how weak there uber design is, but PrCs are never a bad idea. Anyone who says otherwise has just been looking at these boards for to long and thinking about what if someone does this. The Rabbit
Cael 12-13-06, 10:19 PM	What you guys are missing from the OP's post is that he is suffering from Inmydays-ism. He is comparing his first 20 years of playing with 3.5, and that is like comparing apples with oranges because you *can't* make a fruit salad of classes in those days in order to get what you envision your character to be. You play a Fighter and you are a sucktastic Fighter for life. You play a Paladin and you basically cry for life. Modular character designing to create *concepts* rather than *stereotypes* is a 3.x thing. In many ways, it would take a *better* roleplayer to make an effective character in 3.5 than in the previous editions, simply because he has to see through all the chaff to stay true to his vision of his character, and he has the option to optimise his character to what he envisions it to be. Sure, it means that there are more choices for powergamers to choose from, but that does not mean they did not exist in the early days. I mean, haven't you seen all those Elven Fighter/Cleric/Mages running around in 1st Ed?
Cael 12-13-06, 10:22 PM	Of course I don´t roleplay saying "Hi, I´m Bob, the 13 lvl Fighter." What I meant was that people think on a concept, let´s say... Swachbuckler. And then they take 3 lvlv from Swachbucler, more 6 from Rogue, more 3 from Duelist, etc, etc... Not because the character thought on getting it, because that does not exist. But just because the player knows that mecanicaly the Swashbulker won´t make 10.000 points of damage per round as a Barbarian. So, he take all these classes thinking on numbers. Optmizing at most. That´s my problem. Ok, it´s obvious that, if you are playing with a Fighter, you won´t spend several "weapon focus" feats withe several weapons (like Tordek did, just go look at the Adventure path modules from 3.0), you´ll take feats that make you stronger. But what stronger or better means? Making 10.000 points of damage in one round? Or finding a way to apply int, dex, wis and str bonuses to damage? When optmizing is a good and health thing and when become dangerous? So, a DM must change his colossal red dragon to a pseudonatural half-field red dragon with class levels just because he has a player that is one monstrous mutant salad fruit that make 10.000 points of damage? That´s something to think about it... It becomes dangerous only when there is a whiny bad optimiser in the party. Otherwise, it is all good.
Sleepwalker13666 12-13-06, 11:54 PM	Off the top of my head these are the base classes currently available not including unearthed arcana variants and dragon magazine. Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Rouge, Ranger, Paladin, Sorceror, Wizard, Commoner, Adept, Aristocrat, Warrior, Expert, Mystic, Artificier, Archievist, Dread Necromancer, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder, Ardent, Eurodite, Divine Mind, Lurk, Marshal, Healer, Warmage, Favored Soul, Hexblade, Samurai, Samurai (OA), Swashbuckler, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman, Warlock, Wu-Jen, Ninja, Ninja (Rokugan Adventures), Scout, Spell Thief, Incarnate, Soul Born, Totemist, Warblade, Crusader, Sword Sage, Dragon Shaman, Beguiler, Duskblade, Knight, Sohei, Shaman, Courtier, Inkyo, Endolian, and Endoliancer. I count 60 with this list (if I missed anyone please let me know, and which source it's from) Now some wonder if this is enough, if it's too much, or somewhere in between. But currently the way I see, even with all these classes there is still a lot of untapped concepts, sure I can take any of these classes (AND FOR A LIMITED TIME YOU CAN TOO!!! FOR ONLY 12 EASY PAYMENTS OF 39.95 :D ) and build them into my role, but a lot of players new and old dont want to do that, for example niether Gypsy, Pirate or Giesha is up there, all of those existed as classes in 2nd edition, all of them could be made with bard/rouge, Rouge/Swashbuckler or bard/ninja combinations, but personally I would like a class written out, and even if it does'nt fullfill that role with it's write up, I always can multi. The Swashbuckler is one of the most perfect examples I can come up-When I first bought my complete warrior the first thing I wanted to play was a swashbuckler, 4 levels into it I really started to look over it and realized this was not what I wanted, so I multied into rouge, almost everybody multis into rouge after taking 3 levels of swashbuckler, simply because a rouge with those 3 levels of tools makes a better swashbuckler. I see the problem with multi classing only when the character is doing it to throw fistfulls of dice. The group I play with is 8 people, you see a lot of multi-classing amoungest them because everybody is trying to keep thier characters different. Sure we all want to build a bigger better burrito, but the choices we make are within reason. Someone playing a barbarian that decides to take a 2 level dip into ranger for two weapon fighting is making a reasonable decision that does'nt require a roleplaying explanation, the ranger and barbarian have simular roles as wilderness warriors, someone playing a barabian and taking 3 levels of swashbuckler should have a real good reason roleplaying wise to do so, it's not impossible to make a character like that, but should require some story. Another Note is PrCs: Prestigous Classes have made many different roles which a charcter can play, but not all of them need to be prestigous classes, many of them would work better as a class, take pirates, a normal pirate should not be a prestige class, a Pirate Captain on the other hand should, but perhaps a Pirate with levels of marshal might make a better pirate than taking a pirate captain prestige class, and if it does why should some make the effort to build up this pirate captain prestige class when a no-requirement class like the martial is available? And a player making decisions like that is perfectly justified in making that choice, nor does making such a decision make him a bad role-player/min-maxer/muchkin. When climbing your way to the top you want to take the shortest path.
clannagh 12-14-06, 12:09 AM	Off the top of my head these are the base classes currently available not including unearthed arcana variants and dragon magazine. Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Rouge, Ranger, Paladin, Sorceror, Wizard, Commoner, Adept, Aristocrat, Warrior, Expert, Mystic, Artificier, Archievist, Dread Necromancer, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder, Ardent, Eurodite, Divine Mind, Lurk, Marshal, Healer, Warmage, Favored Soul, Hexblade, Samurai, Samurai (OA), Swashbuckler, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman, Warlock, Wu-Jen, Ninja, Ninja (Rokugan Adventures), Scout, Spell Thief, Incarnate, Soul Born, Totemist, Warblade, Crusader, Sword Sage, Dragon Shaman, Beguiler, Duskblade, Knight, Sohei, Shaman, Courtier, Inkyo, Endolian, and Endoliancer. I count 60 with this list (if I missed anyone please let me know, and which source it's from) Depends what you count A brief look through the "base classes" pdf from here: http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/ reveals stacks of "variant" base classes ... Examples would include the Anarch and Avenger which are basically paladin variants from Dragon magazine. There are also un-named variants of PHB base classes in teh Complete and Races books. .. if you include Eberron base classes Magewright and psionics base classes from "Races of Eberron" Changeling Egoist Kalashtar Monk Kalashtar Soulknife Kalashtar Telepath Shifter Wilder Umbragen Soulknife
theotherdraxen 12-14-06, 12:10 AM	Those last rants went a bit overboard, are you guys aware that it's impossible to make every class balanced? I know it's not possible to make every class balanced, but I do think it's possible to make every class playable. It becomes dangerous only when there is a whiny bad optimiser in the party. Otherwise, it is all good. I answer with this quote from another thread: As for is your character too strong? Yes it absolutely is, FOR THE GROUP YOUR GAMING WITH! I'm cruising along at 110km/hour. Am I driving too fast? On the highway? Not really. How about through a school zone? Fact is you are stronger then most of your party put together. And when we compare you to them, yes you are imbalanced. Compared to the calaber of what we see on the boards, nope no strong at all. But are you playing with the poeple on the boards, or your group? Right, so witch would be more apropriate to messure you against, your group, or the standard of the almighty WOTC board. Honestly why does someone have to be playing a farel, half giant baluga whale before poeple say it is too strong. And really why are we wasting your time comparing someone characters to a vacum, or the fully optimized version? "Well it isn't as strong as a druid that is tricked out with green bound, and ashbound, and this crap from dragon, and the lasted thing from the CO boards. Nope not broken at all. Overshawdoing the group? Cuasing a problem for the DM? Bah, they are the wrong ones. They should be playing our standards. Even though you are the odd one out, your right, and they are all wrong." Seriousely its BS, and just plain stupid. Who cares what he could have choosen. Lets look at what he did choose, and then compare that to the power level of the group. And are their any idoits here who don't believe the druid is the strongest class in the game? Raise your hands, now slap yourself! Optimizing isn't fun for everyone, and it isn't how you have to play D&D.
Bard-of-all-trades 12-14-06, 12:26 AM	What you guys are missing from the OP's post is that he is suffering from Inmydays-ism. He is comparing his first 20 years of playing with 3.5, and that is like comparing apples with oranges because you *can't* make a fruit salad of classes in those days in order to get what you envision your character to be. You play a Fighter and you are a sucktastic Fighter for life. You play a Paladin and you basically cry for life. Modular character designing to create *concepts* rather than *stereotypes* is a 3.x thing. In many ways, it would take a *better* roleplayer to make an effective character in 3.5 than in the previous editions, simply because he has to see through all the chaff to stay true to his vision of his character, and he has the option to optimise his character to what he envisions it to be. Sure, it means that there are more choices for powergamers to choose from, but that does not mean they did not exist in the early days. I mean, haven't you seen all those Elven Fighter/Cleric/Mages running around in 1st Ed? OK. I'll take that. "In-my-day"ism. OK. However, no one complained about any class sucking or being overpowered. We were a party, team, cohesive unit where everyone had their role to play. The Fighter was the front line that kept melee away off the casters. The Cleric was the healer and second-line fighter. The Thief, now Rogue, was the one to sneak around the edges of the fight and take out casters. The Magic-User, now Wizard, was the artillery that supported the front line. And as far as the Elf Cleric/Fighter/Magic-User there was a big drawback there that there isn’t today—you had to average out all XP between the three classes for level advancement and average out each HD for your HP (i.e. you rolled a d4, d8, & d10 and then averaged them for HP per level and could only do that when all three classes went to the next level). This meant that you could have an Elf that had the XP of say a 15th level Fighter but was a Cleric 5/Fighter 5/ Magic-User 5 (of course, this is just an example, because each class had a different XP advancement chart, so it would be more realistic to say that it was a Cleric 5/ Fighter 6/ Magic-User 4). The Elf was also only allowed to go up to certain levels in most classes as well, thus capping there spiffiness. Humans were the only race that could take unlimited levels in every class and certain demi-human races weren’t allowed to play some classes at all. There were a lot of things that didn’t really make any sense in 1st and 2nd Edition (i.e. AC), but no one complained about any class being sucktastic or overpowered. By the by, just imagine how 1st Edition Rangers felt trying to convert to 3.5 when they went from 2d4 HD per level to d8 and lost Druid spells AND Magic-User spells. In my day, a high level Ranger was a force to be reckoned with.
Archangel62 12-14-06, 12:33 AM	If we restrict options because of bad players then the good players are being punished and are likely to get turned off to the game. My view on this whole thing is that what we need to do is to realize that 2nd edition was not some golden age of gaming. I played in it, and I miss some aspects but it was also rather counter-intuitive and there were rules loopholes that you could drive a semi through. For example, be a fighter/thief who specialized in darts and you could slaughter anything withing throwing range. Not to mention the fact that the fighter sucked even more back then and the casters were even more frightening. Game balance is difficult to define. My own belief is that of Palladium, somewhere someone decided that game balance was everyone being equal. Equality in characters is silly because it means that they would all need identical ability scores and abilities, that game would be stupid. What game balance means is each and every class should have a chance to contribute and shine in almost any gaming style.
Tha Sage 12-14-06, 12:38 AM	Because many character concepts cannot be accurately described by a single class. When I optimize it is to make my character's statistics most closely resemble the ones I imagine in my head.
Archangel62 12-14-06, 12:40 AM	OK. I'll take that. "In-my-day"ism. OK. However, no one complained about any class sucking or being overpowered. We were a party, team, cohesive unit where everyone had their role to play. The Fighter was the front line that kept melee away off the casters. The Cleric was the healer and second-line fighter. The Thief, now Rogue, was the one to sneak around the edges of the fight and take out casters. The Magic-User, now Wizard, was the artillery that supported the front line. And as far as the Elf Cleric/Fighter/Magic-User there was a big drawback there that there isn’t today—you had to average out all XP between the three classes for level advancement and average out each HD for your HP (i.e. you rolled a d4, d8, & d10 and then averaged them for HP per level and could only do that when all three classes went to the next level). This meant that you could have an Elf that had the XP of say a 15th level Fighter but was a Cleric 5/Fighter 5/ Magic-User 5 (of course, this is just an example, because each class had a different XP advancement chart, so it would be more realistic to say that it was a Cleric 5/ Fighter 6/ Magic-User 4). The Elf was also only allowed to go up to certain levels in most classes as well, thus capping there spiffiness. Humans were the only race that could take unlimited levels in every class and certain demi-human races weren’t allowed to play some classes at all. There were a lot of things that didn’t really make any sense in 1st and 2nd Edition (i.e. AC), but no one complained about any class being sucktastic or overpowered. By the by, just imagine how 1st Edition Rangers felt trying to convert to 3.5 when they went from 2d4 HD per level to d8 and lost Druid spells AND Magic-User spells. In my day, a high level Ranger was a force to be reckoned with. Don't say no one did, you likely weren't going to conventions or were never part of the RPGA. Psionics from 2nd edition were hideous then, not to mention the fact that the rules for them were so obscenely incoherent that it wasn't funny. And in your day we also had it where the martial characaters were almost all mechanically identical because without kits there was no way to mechanically customize a character or use advanced combat maneuvers. In darksun there were complaints about psionics being too strong, of shadowdefilers being absolute obscenity on acid, the Blade and Weapon master kits were despised in a lot of convention games. People routinely avoided clerics because they were sick of being a walking bandaid, the wizard had all the power after they got fireball, the fighter pretty much sucked then and did. Your experience may have been different but I'd also like to add that in our day we had rules sets that contradicted each other dozens of times. In our day we had the skills and powers book which was completely and totally moronic. In our day we had dozens of tables to memorize and because of floors and cielings for stats, AC, and THAC0 there were built in locks. The game had no sense of internal consistency and there were rules loopholes and horrific tricks. You remember it as being better because of nostalgia and because it was your first game with your first group and a bunch of old friends. Nothing beats your old memories, but that doesn't give you the right to be a crumudgeon who acts as though intelligent character design is some form of unforgiveable sin.
Krevon 12-14-06, 12:59 AM	It all falls back on what your game is about. I am playing a cleric of the silver flame in one game. I could be the insanely powerful caster/tank we all know it could be. But for concept, he upholds the law first is a teacher second (if applicable) then a destroyer of evil last. The philosophy is this, Through discipline and education the world can see evil for waht it truely is and thus avoid it's snare. The campaign I am in supports it, though an evil entity turned my philosophy against me and conned me into doing something tohelp its cause. Now I have a foe to track down, it is a very stimulatiing game.
Nitan 12-14-06, 01:05 AM	Optimizing isn't fun for everyone, and it isn't how you have to play D&D. It is fun for some people and even more importantly, it's not the wrong way to play D&D either.
Bard-of-all-trades 12-14-06, 01:06 AM	Nothing beats your old memories, but that doesn't give you the right to be a crumudgeon who acts as though intelligent character design is some form of unforgiveable sin. I never said intelligent character design was an unforgivable sin. Far from it. I converted a 2nd edition Fighter/Thief to a now Ranger 11/Rogue 7 because the Ranger has Hide and Move Silently as class skills unlike a Fighter. I was only asking why there are so many characters out and about that have 2 levels of this/3 levels of that/etc. as opposed to 15+ levels of this or that. The only exception I have seen to this is The Single Class Builds Thread on the CO forum that specifically is for optimizing a single class.
Archangel62 12-14-06, 01:10 AM	I never said intelligent character design was an unforgivable sin. Far from it. I converted a 2nd edition Fighter/Thief to a now Ranger 11/Rogue 7 because the Ranger has Hide and Move Silently as class skills unlike a Fighter. I was only asking why there are so many characters out and about that have 2 levels of this/3 levels of that/etc. as opposed to 15+ levels of this or that. The only exception I have seen to this is The Single Class Builds Thread on the CO forum that specifically is for optimizing a single class. Except classes are a metagame concept technically. Classes are collections of skills, if I were looked at in real life I might be heavily multiclasses, as might others in the real D&D world.
Sleepwalker13666 12-14-06, 01:20 AM	Don't say no one did, you likely weren't going to conventions or were never part of the RPGA. Psionics from 2nd edition were hideous then, not to mention the fact that the rules for them were so obscenely incoherent that it wasn't funny. And in your day we also had it where the martial characaters were almost all mechanically identical because without kits there was no way to mechanically customize a character or use advanced combat maneuvers. In darksun there were complaints about psionics being too strong, of shadowdefilers being absolute obscenity on acid, the Blade and Weapon master kits were despised in a lot of convention games. People routinely avoided clerics because they were sick of being a walking bandaid, the wizard had all the power after they got fireball, the fighter pretty much sucked then and did. Your experience may have been different but I'd also like to add that in our day we had rules sets that contradicted each other dozens of times. In our day we had the skills and powers book which was completely and totally moronic. In our day we had dozens of tables to memorize and because of floors and cielings for stats, AC, and THAC0 there were built in locks. The game had no sense of internal consistency and there were rules loopholes and horrific tricks. You remember it as being better because of nostalgia and because it was your first game with your first group and a bunch of old friends. Nothing beats your old memories, but that doesn't give you the right to be a crumudgeon who acts as though intelligent character design is some form of unforgiveable sin. Well I dont know how your 2nd edition group went but the 20+ people Iplayed with never complained about class balance. The rules where complicated, but back in 2nd thats what people had, I never heard complaints about the Thac0 system till 3rd, the d20 system is supier mechanically, RP wise 3rd edition is draggin behind because they focus more on raw mechanics. Now being from a 2nd edition background this is'nt a problem for me because i can put an enriching story for my players to go through, I can right up characters with extensive backgrounds and personalities, but the 3rd ed. books do very little to support these things. They do make attempts, DMG II certainly put foward the most effort I've seen in a long time. But back in 2nd edition the only reason to multi was either character concept from the begining or you hit max level in one class and need to put that exp somewhere. I still have all my first edition books and most of my secound edition books simply because 3rd has yet to replace all that history fluff. I still prefer the 3rd system as oppossed to 2nd, but secound was defintly more role-play friendly.
Archangel62 12-14-06, 01:28 AM	Well I dont know how your 2nd edition group went but the 20+ people Iplayed with never complained about class balance. The rules where complicated, but back in 2nd thats what people had, I never heard complaints about the Thac0 system till 3rd, the d20 system is supier mechanically, RP wise 3rd edition is draggin behind because they focus more on raw mechanics. Now being from a 2nd edition background this is'nt a problem for me because i can put an enriching story for my players to go through, I can right up characters with extensive backgrounds and personalities, but the 3rd ed. books do very little to support these things. They do make attempts, DMG II certainly put foward the most effort I've seen in a long time. But back in 2nd edition the only reason to multi was either character concept from the begining or you hit max level in one class and need to put that exp somewhere. I still have all my first edition books and most of my secound edition books simply because 3rd has yet to replace all that history fluff. I still prefer the 3rd system as oppossed to 2nd, but secound was defintly more role-play friendly. The complaint was more in the vein of players getting frustrated with the wizard dominating hundreds of encounters. Players getting frustrated because the kits created obscenity, and there were little in-jokes in my old darksun group (For example the table for converting party members to rations)
nastynate 12-14-06, 01:59 AM	Someone playing a barbarian that decides to take a 2 level dip into ranger for two weapon fighting is making a reasonable decision that does'nt require a roleplaying explanation, the ranger and barbarian have simular roles as wilderness warriors, someone playing a barabian and taking 3 levels of swashbuckler should have a real good reason roleplaying wise to do so, it's not impossible to make a character like that, but should require some story. Hmm...like say Conan? ;) I agree though in this regard: you shouldn't learn skills or abilities that you have not worked towards in character. It would be inappropriate for example, for a character that has never been on a boat to take ranks in Profession (Sailing). The complaint was more in the vein of players getting frustrated with the wizard dominating hundreds of encounters. Players getting frustrated because the kits created obscenity, and there were little in-jokes in my old darksun group (For example the table for converting party members to rations) Actually in 2nd edition it was easy to disrupt a wizard's spellcasting (compared to 3.5), and beating the magic resistance of some enemies was hit or miss at best (a flat 80% magic resistance was not uncommon), not to mention having the most difficult XP table, but the utility and defensive magic of a wizard was just as good as today (in some cases better...2nd edition stoneskin was awesome). Despite these weaknesses however, the wizards were still dominating high level play (I have no idea whay they were pumped up for 3rd edition...crazy developers). Kits were usually no big deal, but just like the PrCs of today there were some that were really broken. The swashbuckler kit was really sick, though I don't remember many others that caused me nightmares; I'm sure they were there, but my memory fails me at the moment. 2nd edition psionics were complex and most telepathy powers were extremely overpowered when used against other characters w/o psionic defense modes (aka anyone who wasn't a psionicist). Dual classing (not multiclassing) was pretty busted too. It was incredibly easy to take 9 levels of fighter (for the hit dice, specialization, and attack bonuses), then start over as a wizard and jump up several levels per session as you milked the benefits of group XP. Most of you modern day 3.5 players won't understand how broken this really was, but suffice to say, you could hit 9th level as a wizard in about 4 encounters when reaping the benefits of dragon and demon kills (which were well within the capabilities of a 10th level party to destroy). *somebody else must remember this right?* So um yeah, 2nd edition certainly had its own problems and powergaming was not invented in 3rd edition (its just easier now). :) -Peace- P.S. Oddly my group had a similar joke in Dark Sun... PC 1 to PC 2 in reference to PC 3 (badly injured): *Whispered tone* "If he drops, I'm eating him."
Ultimatecalibur 12-14-06, 02:24 AM	I see saves as being one of the main killers of strait base classing. The +2 save kickers when taking the first level in a class can cause unbelievable build up in saves, It is no lie that you could have a +40 or more for a save by properly multiclassing.
Marcotic 12-14-06, 03:01 AM	yeah man, wotc is just out fo da benjamins, and its sad, I think in mine, im just going to give super uber mega abilities to any one that is a level 20th somthing. Another thing is that "in the begining" of 3.5, the dm's guide DID say that the dm should STRICTLY LIMIT prcs, but what fun is that u ask? DM power! hell, that may be a good way to get a dm, say to him that he's the only one who can prc, go nuts!
Ghenesh 12-14-06, 08:57 AM	While base classes are a more open concept, Prestige classes are not, Prestige classes are an specialization, you cannot present your character as a simple Fighter, Rogue or Wizard, but when you take a surname you can surely say you're a Weapon Master, Acrobat or Mage of the Arcane Order. Base classes are limited by XP penalty, but Prestige Classes aren't, if you as a DM don't like the idea of players PrCing like crazy implement a new system of XP multiclassing penalty: - If a player takes a second Prestige class he gets 10% XP penalty, a third PrC would increase the penalty to 20% and a 4th PrC would increase it to 40%. No such thing of balanced levels, just for taking the PrC. Prestige Classes are supposed to fulfill a player's concept demands, if your player wants to play a character that needs abilities from diferent classes, just make a PrC just for him with the features he wants, remember to keep the PrC a bit underpowered.
nastynate 12-14-06, 09:24 AM	yeah man, wotc is just out fo da benjamins, and its sad. Correction...a business that is not concerned with profits is sad; a business that is concerned with profits, studies its consumer base (like WotC), reacts to the demands of its customers (like WotC), hires people with knowledge and devotion to the product (like WotC), produces products of high quality (like WotC...most of the time), and provides us with forums to discuss their products for good or ill (like WotC). Sure they want to make money, that's why they listen to us and produce books we generally enjoy; it could be much worse... Prestige Classes are supposed to fulfill a player's concept demands, if your player wants to play a character that needs abilities from diferent classes, just make a PrC just for him with the features he wants, remember to keep the PrC a bit underpowered. :confused: wait...don't let them take more than one PrC; instead create them a new underpowered PrC that does the same thing they want, only worse? That doesn't seem like a good incentive to play the homebrewed class at all. Am I missing something here?
lancean 12-14-06, 11:01 AM	Regardless, the PrC-optimized cat is well out of the bag now. But WotC could fix this AND still sell new rules by adding more abilities for high level single-class builds. For example, give every single class MORE bonus feats and abilities at level 11+ (some classes more than others), and then make new feats with prerequisites like "Wizard level 12+". In short, BACKload the base classes to give people a rules-based reason NOT to dive into a PrC. The whole reason people are diving into PrC's is to get more candy for their characters. Well if you reward a character for staying single classed past level 10, by giving them powerful candy that helps define their career path and choices, then staying single classed will become a viable option again. It'll be competitive with the PrC builds and simpler for many gamers to implement. (we can't all be rule-heads. ;) )
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-14-06, 11:02 AM	:confused: wait...don't let them take more than one PrC; instead create them a new underpowered PrC that does the same thing they want, only worse? That doesn't seem like a good incentive to play the homebrewed class at all. Am I missing something here? I think the poster meant to keep the PRC slightly less able to carry out a classes role than a straight class since you would be combining class abilities. This is hard with spellcasting classes unless you don't give them full progression and then they are deemed less than worthy of taking as anything without full progression is a huge drawback unless it gives mad abilities.
Lecen_of_Mitran 12-14-06, 11:55 AM	I know it's not possible to make every class balanced, but I do think it's possible to make every class playable. I answer with this quote from another thread: Optimizing isn't fun for everyone, and it isn't how you have to play D&D. I´m with you on this one! :D
Lecen_of_Mitran 12-14-06, 11:58 AM	I never said intelligent character design was an unforgivable sin. Far from it. I converted a 2nd edition Fighter/Thief to a now Ranger 11/Rogue 7 because the Ranger has Hide and Move Silently as class skills unlike a Fighter. I was only asking why there are so many characters out and about that have 2 levels of this/3 levels of that/etc. as opposed to 15+ levels of this or that. The only exception I have seen to this is The Single Class Builds Thread on the CO forum that specifically is for optimizing a single class. Ow, and I´m with you too on this one! :D
Ghenesh 12-14-06, 12:20 PM	I think the poster meant to keep the PRC slightly less able to carry out a classes role than a straight class since you would be combining class abilities. This is hard with spellcasting classes unless you don't give them full progression and then they are deemed less than worthy of taking as anything without full progression is a huge drawback unless it gives mad abilities. Exactly, when you build a class (Base or PrC) that has all the class features the player wants, it will be innately more useful than everything else for the player. The same ruling is applied to the so very popular flaws in UA, when you take a flaw you do it wisely, you know the flaw will mean little penalty to your character and the benefit will mean a lot of power, even if on paper they look the opposite. This was a recommendation to a DM that wants their players to be more "faithful" to their chosen concept, i have seen many times that a player changes the concept of their character because there is a more powerful PrC out there that synergizes better with the powers the character already has, you can argue a lot saying that Stormwind Fallacy here and there, but you, i and everyone else know that most players think on power first.
TroubleWolf 12-14-06, 12:45 PM	I think that, yes, base classes are an out of date concept. When I make a character, I think of the abilities I want him to have first. Am I making a TWF guy to go into Dervish? A Power Attack guy? Maybe a Fighter/Sorcerer? A Druid/Rogue-type? Then I have to build the character using the various classes and feats provided in the material that's allowed. I think it would be simpler to have the system move in another direction. Instead of more classes, simply assign everything a point value. Every class ability would cost a certain amount, and you'd just build your own class. Want a Fighter/Wizard gish? Spend points to get a d6 HD, 3/4 BAB progression, spellcasting as a Wizard, 2 skill points per level, and the ability to cast in light armor. As you progress, spend points on fighter bonus feats, ability to cast in heavier armor, etc. Complete customization.
Alucarddarkness 12-14-06, 12:45 PM	i think the problem doesn't fall on the development of the class as much as it does the character. I feel to many people have lost sight that their characters are not tools, but people. they lose sight that maybe the character might not have the personality to take a few levels in this or that. Perhapses that their character has been a simple farm hick his pre-adventuring life, so being a fighter was a good idea for him. Some thing simple and easy. Then suddenly he becomes very religious and becomes a paladin of palor? doesn't that seem a bit odd? People need to treat their character more like those of a story they are writing and not a mmorpg character. Also maybe the dm should step in and say no your lv7 rouge inst very likely to take a level in barbarian.:D
bitnine 12-14-06, 01:15 PM	I feel to many people have lost sight that their characters are not tools, but people. Its like why did that fighter take a level or rogue - why would a soldier suddenly start stealing stuff all the time? If only they kept roleplaying in mind.
Archangel62 12-14-06, 01:37 PM	Its like why did that fighter take a level or rogue - why would a soldier suddenly start stealing stuff all the time? If only they kept roleplaying in mind. Because the soldier was being trained for infiltration. They had to ensure that he was capable of moving carefully as well as getting through several trapped areas. It would make him a more effective commando and he knew that with it he could better serve his people or his mercenary company. Remember, rogues aren't just thieves.
SephDragoon 12-14-06, 01:43 PM	Because the soldier was being trained for infiltration. They had to ensure that he was capable of moving carefully as well as getting through several trapped areas. It would make him a more effective commando and he knew that with it he could better serve his people or his mercenary company. Remember, rogues aren't just thieves. Seriously, I freaking HATE that stereotype... as a ROgue/Wizard I can tell you, there are many reasons for going rogue. COmbine illusions with a rogue, and you have the truest sneakiest character you could ever want. (*sigh* too bad NWN2 killed it for me... playing an Arcane Trickster there is one hell of alot less fun. Stupid spells that don't sneak attack!)
bitnine 12-14-06, 01:50 PM	Because the soldier was being trained for infiltration.Are you sure? Because I thought that all rogues introduced themselves as such and are sneaky backstabbing kleptomaniacs, just like all barbarians are uneducated foul-smelling tribesman who hate magic. And it usually doesn't make sense for one class to suddenly become another. I mean, isn't that good roleplaying?
Nitan 12-14-06, 01:52 PM	Are you sure? Because I thought that all rogues introduced themselves as such and are sneaky backstabbing kleptomaniacs, just like all barbarians are uneducated foul-smelling tribesman who hate magic. And it usually doesn't make sense for one class to suddenly become another. I mean, isn't that good roleplaying? In other words, bitnine forgot to close his sarcasm tabs.
Kaiosama214 12-14-06, 02:00 PM	Certianly not. Some of the base classes, perhaps (I'm looking at YOU fighter!), but in general, no. Wizards has gotten much better about making their base clases playable without PrC's, if that's what you desire...it's just taken some time and some pain. Look at the early Complete stuff. Most of the classes are unplayable (I'm looking at YOU, samurai!) or just not decent enough to take for more than prereqs inmto PrC's. As things progressed, things got better. We got the Warlock, something that's very fun to play all the way up. We got the Duskblade, the Beguiler, and the Knight. We get the illustrious Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle, both of which have fantastic classes worthy of playing to twenty...it seems that wizards is getting the idea. And besides, with the advent of PHBII, things like Ftr 20 aren't really that much of a punishment anymore. I commonly run high level games, and several of my players still play pure fighters. They stack up next to everything the other's play, and have fun at the same time.
Kaiosama214 12-14-06, 02:04 PM	one last comment...the absolute most fun i've had playing a character as of late was my level 16 Crusader of Pelor. no funky multiclassing, just pure pelorian Beat-down. Hands down more fun than a paladin.
Archangel62 12-14-06, 02:16 PM	In other words, bitnine forgot to close his sarcasm tabs. Oh I knew he was being sarcastic, but it works nicely as a springboard for my own viewpoint. Classes are skillsets, I can even easily explain through RP a Fighter/Knight/Psychic Warrior/Incarnum Blade/Occult Slayer (horrificly dumb though it may be mechanically) Oligar lived most of his life being spat on, he was a half-orc often seen as a monster and a usual target for bullies and thugs in the town. He had his strength but he knew that it wouldn't be enough. He instead made a new decision he knew of several masters of arms in his nation, he would join their ranks, for then he would get the respect he deserved. He honed his martial skill simply at first, but he also knew a few useful tricks. He knew from experience the taunts he could use to get others blood to boil, also from having to fend off multiple attackers he knew how to block fast against his foes. In his travels he spent his nights focusing, concentrating, he had heard many warriors speak of the necessity of will to push themselves, the idea that force of will alone could win a battle. He sought to will himself through fights that would have otherwise crushed him either from injury or from simple overpower, but instead he learned to push his body to and past its limits, even to draw strength from each strike. As time passed in his travels he heard many tales of heroes and warriors, half-orcs were rarely seen positively. He made a decision then that he would be more than a mere master at arms, that he would be a true hero. He studied their stories and used them for inspiration, their souls were as his and he would be able to remember their greatness to augment himself. He also knew that he would likely face mages in his career and few things were more dangerous than a rogue mage, he learned to focus harder into his weapon, to hone his focus to battle those that manipulated magic, to sharpen his will further to a point where not only could he taunt a mage to assault him alone, but that he could even will their spells to turn on them.
Kursk 12-14-06, 02:16 PM	All over these forums and others, I have seen a personally upsetting trend in character creation, both for general play and optimizing, that involves only "dipping" levels of base and PrC classes for making an allegedly effective character. It's because role playing is being pushed to the back. Example. I'm a fighter, wizard (whatever) and after a few levels I want to take a "level" in Barbarian. Not really possible except under VERY unusual circumstances. A DM that allows that on a whim doesn't get what D&D is. That's what you are experiencing.
Archangel62 12-14-06, 02:17 PM	Seriously, I freaking HATE that stereotype... as a ROgue/Wizard I can tell you, there are many reasons for going rogue. COmbine illusions with a rogue, and you have the truest sneakiest character you could ever want. (*sigh* too bad NWN2 killed it for me... playing an Arcane Trickster there is one hell of alot less fun. Stupid spells that don't sneak attack!) Slightly off topic but how's the warlock in there?
Archangel62 12-14-06, 02:18 PM	It's because role playing is being pushed to the back. Example. I'm a fighter, wizard (whatever) and after a few levels I want to take a "level" in Barbarian. Not really possible except under VERY unusual circumstances. A DM that allows that on a whim doesn't get what D&D is. That's what you are experiencing. Well, levels are a metagame concept. And what's wrong with a fighter wanting to harness the rage they feel to amplify their personal abilities and augment their fighting maneuvers?
Kursk 12-14-06, 02:23 PM	Well, levels are a metagame concept. And what's wrong with a fighter wanting to harness the rage they feel to amplify their personal abilities and augment their fighting maneuvers? Your answer is exactly what I'm talking about. No offense intended. Like I said, a DM that would allow that without an in game justification doesn't "get" D&D as an RP game 1st and a war game a distant second.
itwasntme 12-14-06, 02:31 PM	In my option a Player isnt Allowed to multy class inless it followes a set of lines ... ill explain why it is in the games i play (That my DM States and i agree) It points out that each class has a starting age for a reason it takes them a While to learn how to become that class Note : It takes a wizard a long time to study in his spell book and train in the tower before being able to complete magic yes? so i dount see how some characters can suddenly become a Wizard the next time they level up and have all the benefits of it In short you can Multy class but there must be a reason how and why you multy classed into the class ... Example a Barbian isnt likly going to become a Wizard right? not likly considering Barbians are Rash they dount wanna sit down and learn magic ... however they can become Scor Scor powers are Inept staying hidden intill a time its one of the only class's Eveyone can learn to become right away So in our games it makes sense you have a hard time multy classing after all they did TRAIN for that class and thouse fertures and it took more then a week i can tell you that ... hell if all it did was take a week to learn how to cast magic like a wizard i would train a week just to get some lvl 0/1 spells and forget eveything eles about the wizard and continue on back with other class's allso in my games you useoly need to start leveling up in your other class more then one level however some class's you are allowed to only level up once (With a good reason) This is just the experince i have with this and i wounder ... How do you guys feel/think about that?
Archangel62 12-14-06, 02:32 PM	Your answer is exactly what I'm talking about. No offense intended. Like I said, a DM that would allow that without an in game justification doesn't "get" D&D as an RP game 1st and a war game a distant second. Um, so the fighter seeing the barbarian reach deep inside and call out something incredible couldn't intrigue the fighter enough for the fighter to want to do the same? And I suppose that the fighter couldn't interest the barbarian when the barbarian sees some of his more advanced tricks? RP doesn't mean that you stay one class forever, real people change and grow.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-14-06, 02:34 PM	Well, levels are a metagame concept. And what's wrong with a fighter wanting to harness the rage they feel to amplify their personal abilities and augment their fighting maneuvers? I have never had a problem as long as the class shift is in the flavor of the character. Like using the previous example: if the fighter WAS being trained in infiltration, that would be fine. If the player had always run his character as a agile fighter and at level 5 took a level of rogue I would have no problem there either.
SephDragoon 12-14-06, 02:37 PM	Slightly off topic but how's the warlock in there? I haven't really played it. I was wanting to though, since it would be the only way to "channel" spells as per the duskblade (a character design of mine was a duskblade, but since there isn't one...) but I kind of gave up on it. Arcane Trickster became useless, so I didn't hold out too much hope. How can you bring in the Warlock, a class from the SAME book as the sneak attack spells explanation, and not them? Meh, I know it is a really small thing, but when I saw Arcane Trickster on the lineup, it really got my hopes up.
Archangel62 12-14-06, 02:40 PM	I have never had a problem as long as the class shift is in the flavor of the character. Like using the previous example: if the fighter WAS being trained in infiltration, that would be fine. If the player had always run his character as a agile fighter and at level 5 took a level of rogue I would have no problem there either. The fighter doing the barbarian thing was also an idea for an ingame explanation. And yeah, you might have some strange multi-classing but most of it makes sense. A player won't be running in random directions for each new class level, they will build towards a strategy, a result of this is that most of their levels should make a certain kind of sense in game. I've seen a few exceptions but they're rare.
DaidojiTaidoru 12-14-06, 02:45 PM	Your answer is exactly what I'm talking about. No offense intended. Like I said, a DM that would allow that without an in game justification doesn't "get" D&D as an RP game 1st and a war game a distant second. Yeah..... Sure..... Tell me, which of the following is the work of a good roleplayer? "My Barbarian uses Instantainious Rage for the bonus against the dominate spell." "As Thagdar realizes his drowsyness comes from the wizards foul magics he strengthens his will with a loud battle cry. 'No man rules me, foul spellcaster!' he proclaims as he rushes to the fray." Ah yes, obviously the first discription is better roleplaying because the second character is a fighter/barbarian who just dipped for the bonus feats. /sarcasm There's a reason to want base classes to be good to level 20. "Roleplaying" isn't one of them. Edit: Not having lame base clases is. It would make my life as a GM much easier.
Lecen_of_Mitran 12-14-06, 02:49 PM	Um, so the fighter seeing the barbarian reach deep inside and call out something incredible couldn't intrigue the fighter enough for the fighter to want to do the same? And I suppose that the fighter couldn't interest the barbarian when the barbarian sees some of his more advanced tricks? RP doesn't mean that you stay one class forever, real people change and grow. Indeed! You´re right! And after finding the true anger inside and being able to use it to battle, your fighter just felt a little weird and started to do unusual things with his mind and... ta-dah!!! 2 lvs dip into the Psi Warrior!!!! The fact that it´s only 2 lvls, and getting those juicy extra feats easily doens´t matter!!! It has all to do with RP!!! :D Thank God of Munchikins for allowing Wizards to make such a broken multiclass system where being a rogue character doens´t mean Rogue 12, but instead, a rogue 6/ninja 4/Master of disguise 2/Warrior of Darkness 3/ Steelheart Infiltrator 2/Nightsong duelist 4. Best time I had was when I saw some people from the Optimizing Boards telling people to play as a "little rat-man" from MM2 and being a Druid. I opened my MM2, searched for this race, and I just saw some little and very ugly half-rat creatures but with a very HIGH wisdom. Well, Min/Maxers do anything to make the strongest character (and finding an excuse in RP), even that meaning playing with a ridiculous race. That´s D&D. ;) P.S.: Does someone remember the name of this rat-men race?
Kursk 12-14-06, 02:51 PM	Um, so the fighter seeing the barbarian reach deep inside and call out something incredible couldn't intrigue the fighter enough for the fighter to want to do the same? Of course it could. But that doesn't mean a week later when the fighter levels he can be a "barbarian" with all those hard won/learned skilla & abilities. Understand what I mean?
Archangel62 12-14-06, 02:59 PM	Indeed! You´re right! And after finding the true anger inside and being able to use it to battle, your fighter just felt a little weird and started to do unusual things with his mind and... ta-dah!!! 2 lvs dip into the Psi Warrior!!!! The fact that it´s only 2 lvls, and getting those juicy extra feats easily doens´t matter!!! It has all to do with RP!!! :D Thank God of Munchikins for allowing Wizards to make such a broken multiclass system where being a rogue character doens´t mean Rogue 12, but instead, a rogue 6/ninja 4/Master of disguise 2/Warrior of Darkness 3/ Steelheart Infiltrator 2/Nightsong duelist 4. Best time I had was when I saw some people from the Optimizing Boards telling people to play as a "little rat-man" from MM2 and being a Druid. I opened my MM2, searched for this race, and I just saw some little and very ugly half-rat creatures but with a very HIGH wisdom. Well, Min/Maxers do anything to make the strongest character (and finding an excuse in RP), even that meaning playing with a ridiculous race. That´s D&D. ;) P.S.: Does someone remember the name of this rat-men race? So how did he learn the psychic warrior stuff? The fact is that anything is technically a metagame decision when it comes to leveling but I would still love to know why you think that a reasonable multi-class is horrible. The multiclass system isn't a problem, if a player wants to break a game they will do it no matter what the rules. But hey, you guys seem to have these views preconcieved in your minds and don't want to be confused by inconvenient things like facts and logic.
Kursk 12-14-06, 03:15 PM	So how did he learn the psychic warrior stuff? The fact is that anything is technically a metagame decision when it comes to leveling but I would still love to know why you think that a reasonable multi-class is horrible. If it's reasonable it isn't horrible it's great. Don't know you are referring to. The multiclass system isn't a problem, if a player wants to break a game they will do it no matter what the rules. But hey, you guys seem to have these views preconcieved in your minds and don't want to be confused by inconvenient things like facts and logic. Umm, no, not in my game. Players can only break s/g if I allow it. Logic? Multi-classing can be very logical. A lot of the time the way it's done isn't logical though...
Cael 12-14-06, 03:35 PM	OK. I'll take that. "In-my-day"ism. OK. However, no one complained about any class sucking or being overpowered. We were a party, team, cohesive unit where everyone had their role to play. The Fighter was the front line that kept melee away off the casters. The Cleric was the healer and second-line fighter. The Thief, now Rogue, was the one to sneak around the edges of the fight and take out casters. The Magic-User, now Wizard, was the artillery that supported the front line. And as far as the Elf Cleric/Fighter/Magic-User there was a big drawback there that there isn’t today—you had to average out all XP between the three classes for level advancement and average out each HD for your HP (i.e. you rolled a d4, d8, & d10 and then averaged them for HP per level and could only do that when all three classes went to the next level). This meant that you could have an Elf that had the XP of say a 15th level Fighter but was a Cleric 5/Fighter 5/ Magic-User 5 (of course, this is just an example, because each class had a different XP advancement chart, so it would be more realistic to say that it was a Cleric 5/ Fighter 6/ Magic-User 4). The Elf was also only allowed to go up to certain levels in most classes as well, thus capping there spiffiness. Humans were the only race that could take unlimited levels in every class and certain demi-human races weren’t allowed to play some classes at all. There were a lot of things that didn’t really make any sense in 1st and 2nd Edition (i.e. AC), but no one complained about any class being sucktastic or overpowered. By the by, just imagine how 1st Edition Rangers felt trying to convert to 3.5 when they went from 2d4 HD per level to d8 and lost Druid spells AND Magic-User spells. In my day, a high level Ranger was a force to be reckoned with. Damn it! I wrote a huge post in reply and the Internet ate it. Well, summary: You have no idea what you are talking about XP tables were not linear. A 15th level Fighter would have the same Xp as a level 10/11/10 Fighter/Mage/Cleric (or even higher). Race caps were insignificant if you chose the right race. Elves can be triple class and get all the Fighter goodies before hitting the cap. They can also advance to max with both Mage and Cleric, so there is really no restrictions. Race caps and different XP tables balanced things out to a large extent. There were still combinations that were better than others. Fighter 6/Druid 10 dual class was, for example, strictly better than a Fighter 12 in Baldur's Gate, in terms of both hp, and abilities gained. Lack of options made everyone look the same, so the optimised people can lurk under the radar, but optimisation still existed. You can't have the variety of build like nowadays. A Ranger is a Ranger. There is no Ranger being a Seeker of the Misty Isle, or Wildrunner, or... Rangers had a problem with needing almost 1.5x the XP of Fighters to level, even though they were better. The only restriction to multiclassing without a Fighter is that other fighting classes have either very restricted multiclassing options or none at all (you can't multiclass a Paladin, for example). Racial restrictions were also in play (Dwarven Mages don't exist). Dual-classing took out some of the restrictions, but not by much, is only available to Humans and you lost the ability to advance the original class. Druids were strictly better in a high level game. For the same XP, you can be a couple of levels behind everyone else in your current class, but with 15 levels of Druid behind you which you dual classed from. It was the way the XP table was constructed.
Nitan 12-14-06, 04:13 PM	Druids were strictly better in a high level game. For the same XP, you can be a couple of levels behind everyone else in your current class, but with 15 levels of Druid behind you which you dual classed from. It was the way the XP table was constructed. But remember that Druids were also crazy back then; remember the "THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!" way they were? I find quite funny that the "Role Play" people are the one strictly adhering to stereotypes of classes. A Barbarian can be more than an uneducated, unwashed lout who came from the tribes. He could just be someone who normally keeps his emotions in check, until battle when he lets loose all that bottled up emotion.
Cael 12-14-06, 04:25 PM	But remember that Druids were also crazy back then; remember the "THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!" way they were? This I don't remember :) I do believe they become virtually immortal at a certain stage because the just stop aging, though... I find quite funny that the "Role Play" people are the one strictly adhering to stereotypes of classes. Because that is roleplaying. You play anything else, you are a "munchkin powergamer". Tall Poppy Syndrome and all that. You are not a powergaming munchkin are you? Are you????!!!!! (No one expects the RP Inquisition :D) A Barbarian can be more than an uneducated, unwashed lout who came from the tribes. He could just be someone who normally keeps his emotions in check, until battle when he lets loose all that bottled up emotion. Yep. That is why I changed the name to Berserker and took out the Illiteracy thing.
Neofish 12-14-06, 04:25 PM	A Barbarian can be more than an uneducated, unwashed lout who came from the tribes. He could just be someone who normally keeps his emotions in check, until battle when he lets loose all that bottled up emotion. That also can't read and is really fast for his race. :D
Nitan 12-14-06, 04:27 PM	That also can't read and is really fast for his race. :D It takes 2 skill points. Which would make him...still have, on average, 6 more skill points than the "civilized" Fighter. And Cael, I think that any Druid past level 12 was considered an Arch Druid...and there could only be one Arch Druid...
Cael 12-14-06, 04:30 PM	It takes 2 skill points. Which would make him...still have, on average, 6 more skill points than the "civilized" Fighter. And Cael, I think that any Druid past level 12 was considered an Arch Druid...and there could only be one Arch Druid... Great Druid, I think is what you are looking for? There is one per region, I think, but if you are travelling with a bunch of level 10s, people tend to leave you alone :D Especially in those days, Dragons were CR10 encounters...
DaidojiTaidoru 12-14-06, 04:30 PM	That also can't read and is really fast for his race. :D That's why you get 2 times the skill points of the fighter. To buy off that 'can't read' stupidity, then invest the rest in something fun, like forgery. Or actual class skills, your call. Unless your GM is a dick and likes exploding runes. In that case, illiteracy is a fine honed survival tool. Edit: Too slow. Need to take some Monk levels to boost speed....
Seeking_Knight_of_Graves 12-14-06, 04:34 PM	In my opinion I find that it has gotten a whole lot better with the addition of more base classes and PrCs. I have played both AD&D and 3.5. It goes without saying that there is vast improvements in the system. I had a broken half-elf back in the AD&D days that was just a super NPC. Now, with all the choices, I can make just about any npc or pc I could ever want. I admit at first I miss a lot of the flavor AD&D had, (Bless you Ravenloft) but the stuff now is more open to be put in any kind of setting without much huge changes. So, to the OP, base classes are not a lost concept they are great for exploring any avenue you wish. Of course I got a solution to people who complain about multiclassing and other stuff. One is to ban all npc and PrC classes. Make Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Sorcerer PrC which means they are banned. Only Races allowed are Human, Dwarf, and Elf because they are staples of any fantasy world. No bonus feats to any of the classes nor any special abilites ie Wizards only gets spells and a familiar, clerics turn undead and spells (which have a chance of failure), rogues only get sneak attack, and fighters only get BAB. Humans get no starting bonus feat nor additional skill points. Clerics can only use B type weapons and light armor; wizards only daggers, darts, and slings; rogues simple weapons; fighters remain the same. If you wish to multiclass or duel class you take a 50% xp penalty and are only allowed one class to multi to. Also no favored classes based on race. Only allowed alignments at LG, NG, CG, LN, N. Rogues can only be CG as can elves. Dwarves can only be LG. Fighters cannot be N. Wizards can only be N. Clerics have to the the alignment of their deity and MUST pick a diety no if, and, or buts. I can go on. Mind you all that I just suggested is ment to be seen as an example. I do not run my own games like this because it would not be any fun. Thank you.
Neofish 12-14-06, 04:40 PM	I dunno, some multiclassing just doesn't seem to fit, I mean, can one really learn to go berserk? Personally, I always saw the barbarian's rage ability as something innate and unique to the character, someone who could throw caution to the wind and fight like a demon for a short period of time. Can a trained soldier (fighter) really learn to give up his notion of being level headed in a fighter and start becoming a screaming madman? I mean, yeah it makes for a great character, a fighter would would struggle with this delima and it would be a memorable character i'm sure, until he takes 2 levels in psychic warrior aswell... How do you explain that? That he's not only getting really angery now, but has trained his mind to shape reality aswell? C'mon... Generally I really don't mind multiclassing, as long as their is a decent reason for it, and to be honest, i've never had a problem with it in my games. But looking at stuff on the CO boards can make your brain hurt from some of the crazy combinations they come up with and I wonder, do people actually play those sort of characters or is the CO boards just an exercise in what not to do and those builds are only for the sake of a good laugh?
itwasntme 12-14-06, 04:46 PM	the point in my games is we do ROLE playing a Little bit ... we try to Munkin a lot but not TO much we try to make it somewhat Realistic (On some games ... others we role play much more) After all i dount see how a Fighter could one day suddenly become a Wizard ... the Wizard had to wait (for example/at least) 6 years to be a level 1 wizard ... so the Fighter was able to become a level 1 wizard in 1 day? so unfair on his part ... But my games allow them to be a Wizard just not one day ... OK You want to be a wizard when you level up? ... It will take you X amount of time doing Y things to become the Wizard (X useoly being like a month just to make it easy on our game and Y is studing under a Powerfull Wizard mostly ... pure wizard for that time ... and sometimes for Roleplaying you dount get all the stuff the wizard dose)
Cael 12-14-06, 04:49 PM	I dunno, some multiclassing just doesn't seem to fit *snip* Your opinion and you are welcomed to it. Others may have a different one. Doesn't make it any less valid than yours. Generally I really don't mind multiclassing, as long as their is a decent reason for it, and to be honest, i've never had a problem with it in my games. But looking at stuff on the CO boards can make your brain hurt from some of the crazy combinations they come up with and I wonder, do people actually play those sort of characters or is the CO boards just an exercise in what not to do and those builds are only for the sake of a good laugh? Define "decent reason", please. It is nebulous. What you believe is not decent might be plenty enough for the next guy. It is too subjective a measure, and so it is useless as a measure. To be honest, few of the stuff at the CO boards are overly powerful, barring the likes of Pun-Pun, Hulking Hurler and the like, whom even the creators admit were thought experiments. Most of the time, the people go to the CO boards to ask who they can get the best out of a *concept*. That is roleplaying first and foremost. They have a concept and they want a character that is best for the concept. Even then, they usually have several choices to choose from. I find that it is the self-proclaimed roleplayers, with their fixation of class, stats, damage, numbers, feats, etc., that are the ones to violate the spirit of roleplaying because of that focus. The so-called powergamers are usually the ones with the interesting concept and finding ways to make the concept work. They are the ones that come up with the story first before getting the numbers to fit. The self-proclaimed roleplayers, on the other hand, concentrate on making their numbers look blandly average and then come-up with reasons why it is so (gimpy leg, cross-eyed, whatever). Who are the ones focused on numbers here? The "powergamers" or the "roleplayers"?
Nitan 12-14-06, 04:49 PM	I dunno, some multiclassing just doesn't seem to fit, I mean, can one really learn to go berserk? Personally, I always saw the barbarian's rage ability as something innate and unique to the character, someone who could throw caution to the wind and fight like a demon for a short period of time. Can a trained soldier (fighter) really learn to give up his notion of being level headed in a fighter and start becoming a screaming madman? Uh...yes? Why would you think otherwise? Simply giving in to rage is a great way to throw caution to the wind. I mean, yeah it makes for a great character, a fighter would would struggle with this delima and it would be a memorable character i'm sure, until he takes 2 levels in psychic warrior aswell... True. At second level Psychic Warriors get the "horrible role play" class ability. How do you explain that? That he's not only getting really angery now, but has trained his mind to shape reality aswell? C'mon... Psionic ability is spontaneous. It appears randomly and develops without rhyme or reason in the non-naturaly psionic races. And Psychic Warriors don't shape reality so much as they shape themselves. Generally I really don't mind multiclassing, as long as their is a decent reason for it, and to be honest, i've never had a problem with it in my games. But looking at stuff on the CO boards can make your brain hurt from some of the crazy combinations they come up with and I wonder, do people actually play those sort of characters or is the CO boards just an exercise in what not to do and those builds are only for the sake of a good laugh? Both. Most CO builds are interesting way to manage certain character concepts that are difficult to obtain otherwise like the Final Fantasy Dragoon for instance. The most famous builds though, the ones that the ignorant use to categorize all of the CO builds, are purely mathematical exercises. Pun Pun, for instance, the build that "role players" like to throw out, was just that.
itwasntme 12-14-06, 04:51 PM	I dunno, some multiclassing just doesn't seem to fit, I mean, can one really learn to go berserk? Personally, I always saw the barbarian's rage ability as something innate and unique to the character, someone who could throw caution to the wind and fight like a demon for a short period of time. Can a trained soldier (fighter) really learn to give up his notion of being level headed in a fighter and start becoming a screaming madman? I mean, yeah it makes for a great character, a fighter would would struggle with this delima and it would be a memorable character i'm sure, until he takes 2 levels in psychic warrior aswell... How do you explain that? That he's not only getting really angery now, but has trained his mind to shape reality aswell? C'mon... Generally I really don't mind multiclassing, as long as their is a decent reason for it, and to be honest, i've never had a problem with it in my games. But looking at stuff on the CO boards can make your brain hurt from some of the crazy combinations they come up with and I wonder, do people actually play those sort of characters or is the CO boards just an exercise in what not to do and those builds are only for the sake of a good laugh? i agree multy classing can work but there needs to be a Reason in my mind why ur multy classing besides "COZ I GET THIS!" ... Come on a Barbian all of a sudden becomeing a Wizard for example dosnt seem to work RIGHT off the bat ... first off the barbian cant read / Write! So his spell book ...? that brings up some questions ...
OneWinged4ngel 12-14-06, 04:54 PM	first off the barbian cant read / Write! Neither can you, apparently :rolleyes:
bitnine 12-14-06, 04:56 PM	It takes 2 skill points.Aw, I was hoping to find an example I had posted a while back. Character: Netan is the scion of a warrior house, just outside the city-state of Jolar. While he has had little in the way of formal martial training, he grew up accompanying family members in escorting caravans through the desert and fending off bandit attacks. He is more than a capable hand with his greatsword and buckler, and he prays to his ancestors, great heroes, believing that he can focus and channel their strength in battle. While very charming and talkative in most cases, Netan is quiet, singleminded, and focused in battle. Netan is well-read in the history of his family and the region, and far more comfortable along well-marked trails and the city than he is when venturing deeper into the desert. Mechanics: Character: Netan, NG Human Barbarian 2 Hit Points: 18 (12 + 1d12) Ability Scores: Strength 15, Dexterity 13, Constitution 10, Intelligence 14, Wisdom 8, Charisma 12 Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Greatsword Skills: Bluff 2 ranks, Diplomacy 2 ranks, Intimidate 4 ranks, Jump 4 ranks, Knowledge (local) 2 ranks, Listen 2 ranks, Ride 4 ranks, Speak Language 1 rank (literacy) If this is your character and the DM says that you're playing a barbarian wrong because you aren't from the woods, foul-smelling, and angry at books and magic, I do have a fundamental disagreement with him. In any event, while you might be able to accuse Netan of being less than optimal for some of his choices, a charge of 'not roleplaying' strikes me as pretty weak.
itwasntme 12-14-06, 04:58 PM	Neither can you, apparently :rolleyes: maybe you should read what Wizo Cat said on Rude players tread ...
Neofish 12-14-06, 05:08 PM	Uh...yes? Why would you think otherwise? Simply giving in to rage is a great way to throw caution to the wind. Perhaps I should have elaborated abit more, can someone learn to throw caution to the wind and gain inhuman vigor and strength as a result? Where would you learn such a thing? As you have to be rather free spirited and wild to do so, I don't really see to many schools lying around. But ah you say, it's not actually learning the ability as there are no actual class levels, it's just a character delving into himself and finding a new path in his life (a level 2 fighter with a burning temper finally loses it upon attaning 3rd level by becoming a fighter/barbarian). I can go with that except, how does he also learn to survive in the wild with almost perfound insight (upon gaining his 3rd level, the fighter pours all of his ranks into survival)? Now, how does one explain that? It is bad roleplaying on the player's behalf? Alot of arguements would say no, because it isn't wrong for a player be optimized and be the best at everything is it? So I ask, how does one explain it, for it's not only class abilities that cause problems when multiclassing, things like skills and saves and even BAB increases kinda throw things for a loop. Psionic ability is spontaneous. It appears randomly and develops without rhyme or reason in the non-naturaly psionic races. And Psychic Warriors don't shape reality so much as they shape themselves. You might wanna go check your EXH again, the potential is random, but most psionic characters require lots of training and self discipline (save for the wilders of course). It stats that psychic warriors are most likely trained by psions and other psy warriors. But again, with a little flare and imagination sure people could come up with ways to justify the spontanious manifestation of psychic prowess in a character, right? Also, i'm well aware of what the psy war can do, it was just an example (besides, isn't shaping your body also a way of warpinf reality? I mean, you weren't born with giant claws or fang filled maul, were ya?). Both. Most CO builds are interesting way to manage certain character concepts that are difficult to obtain otherwise like the Final Fantasy Dragoon for instance. The most famous builds though, the ones that the ignorant use to categorize all of the CO builds, are purely mathematical exercises. Pun Pun, for instance, the build that "role players" like to throw out, was just that. Yeah, figured as much. That's why I find most arguements that use things like pun-pun as a basis as which to argue the decline of D&D quite, well, unfounded and fairly ignorant, I mean, can anything on the boards be taken without a grain of salt?
Cael 12-14-06, 05:08 PM	maybe you should read what Wizo Cat said on Rude players tread ... Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. Have a nice day. Oh, by the way, some copyists in the old days don't know how to read. They just copy the text squggle for squiggle.
Sleepwalker13666 12-14-06, 05:09 PM	I dunno, some multiclassing just doesn't seem to fit, I mean, can one really learn to go berserk? Personally, I always saw the barbarian's rage ability as something innate and unique to the character, someone who could throw caution to the wind and fight like a demon for a short period of time. Can a trained soldier (fighter) really learn to give up his notion of being level headed in a fighter and start becoming a screaming madman? Thats why I was saying a barbarian taking levels of ranger would most likly be justified, a barbarian taking levels of swashbuckler would mostly lily not be. Now with the barbarian/Swashbuckler, it's still a possible option, perhaps a Barbarian spent some time on a ship of pirates fasciniated with thier swift fighting manuevers learned to fight like them, But a barbarian traveling with his party through the desert, never having seen a swashbuckler would have no reason to take such levels. A player might still want to do it, perhaps the rouge in the party uses a rapier and has the weapon finease feat and the barbarian while on watch decides to start trying to emulate it, and eventually he gets it. For whatever reason someone multis there can be a reason, as a dm you should just make sure there is a reason. As a dm I am all about options, but one day one of my players using a ninja wanted to pick up a level or sorceror for no reason, I did'nt let him, but while he was leveling I placed a black scroll in a treasure hoard which held a ritual for awaking magic in ones blood that way when he leveled again he could take a level of sorceror. As a Dm if your player wants to make an unreasonable multi-class decesion, you might want to step on his toes jusst long enough to make it work, I dont want to get in the way of a player making a great character, but even I have my limits. I myself often take 5 levels of one base class, 5 levels of a secound base class and 10 levels of a PrC when playing with my other group , so not allowing multi-classing in the game I run would be hypocritical.
Cael 12-14-06, 05:13 PM	Thats why I was saying a barbarian taking levels of ranger would most likly be justified, a barbarian taking levels of swashbuckler would mostly lily not be. Now with the barbarian/Swashbuckler, it's still a possible option, perhaps a Barbarian spent some time on a ship of pirates fasciniated with thier swift fighting manuevers learned to fight like them, But a barbarian traveling with his party through the desert, never having seen a swashbuckler would have no reason to take such levels. A player might still want to do it, perhaps the rouge in the party uses a rapier and has the weapon finease feat and the barbarian while on watch decides to start trying to emulate it, and eventually he gets it. For whatever reason someone multis there can be a reason, as a dm you should just make sure there is a reason. As a dm I am all about options, but one day one of my players using a ninja wanted to pick up a level or sorceror for no reason, I did'nt let him, but while he was leveling I placed a black scroll in a treasure hoard which held a ritual for awaking magic in ones blood that way when he leveled again he could take a level of sorceror. As a Dm if your player wants to make an unreasonable multi-class decesion, you might want to step on his toes jusst long enough to make it work, I dont want to get in the way of a player making a great character, but even I have my limits. I myself often take 5 levels of one base class, 5 levels of a secound base class and 10 levels of a PrC when playing with my other group , so not allowing multi-classing in the game I run would be hypocritical. Sorcerer is explicitly spontaneous appearance. What you did was unneccessary. Read the PHB again. Unless Sorcerers work differently in your campaign setting, but that begs the question of "How does that related to DnD as written"?
Roland the Crownbreaker 12-14-06, 05:13 PM	One: Many of the base classes need to be better designed. This doesn't mean they need to be bigger-better-stronger-faster. Take a look at the classes from the Player's Handbook 2 and the Tome of Battle. If you don't have those, take a look at the three best designed classes in PHB, the barbarian, druid, and monk. (I am not saying most powerful, just the best designed) Most of them gain abilities at a decent pace all the way up to 20, forcing a loss of some kind if a player dips into another class. Most classes should be built along these lines. They should include abilites that can't easily be duplicated by one or two feats and should have a "pinnacle" ability at level 20 that can only be achieved by taking that class all the way to the top. Two: Not all dipping, even for roll play purposes is munchkinny. A player might dip to increase a bad save, especially if that save has been targeted on a constant basis. Constantly being taken out of the combat on a single die roll or told you have to act a certian way due to charm/suggestion/domination isn't much fun. Three: The worst powergamers/munchkins/insert-whatever-name-you-call-them-here will find a way to break the balance in any game. It is part of who they are, not the system they are using. Granted, that has been mentioned already, but I figured it should be brought up again.
Neofish 12-14-06, 05:19 PM	Sorcerer is explicitly spontaneous appearance. What you did was unneccessary. Read the PHB again. Unless Sorcerers work differently in your campaign setting, but that begs the question of "How does that related to DnD as written"? Yeah, but again, soercery showing up is one thing, harnessing it is another, Sleepwalker13666 made a good call in my opinion, maybe the ninja had the potential and the black scroll is what helped him harness it. I mean, really, can you just wake up one day and shoot blasts of force out of your hands and create tangible fields of force around your body? Would you really have such control over it that rapidly?
the_rooster 12-14-06, 05:23 PM	Are base classes a lost concept? I hope so. The second you allow your class to define your character you may as well play an MMORPG. This is all my opinion obviously, but if you want to stay true to the idea of roleplaying and all that, you come up with a character concept and take the appropriate classes/feats to make your character fit the concept you had in mind. If that makes ihm a barbarian 3/fighter 2/rogue 2/psi-warrior 4 than so be it. If your concept was a person good in battle, who was sneaky and had some latent psionic abilities (perhaps driven by his bubbling rage) then there you go. All that as it may be, the idea behind D&D is too have fun...if fun for you and your campaign is muchkinning out some PCs and slaughtering everything with your +20 ub3r sword of deathy death..awesome! Enjoy! If it's playing a one legged half-elf fighter with a 12 strength. Cool! If it's being a purple elf with reeeeally long ears...sorry you got the wrong game :P
Cael 12-14-06, 05:37 PM	Yeah, but again, soercery showing up is one thing, harnessing it is another, Sleepwalker13666 made a good call in my opinion, maybe the ninja had the potential and the black scroll is what helped him harness it. I mean, really, can you just wake up one day and shoot blasts of force out of your hands and create tangible fields of force around your body? Would you really have such control over it that rapidly? That is what Sorcerers do. Says so right in the PHB. Some of them don't even have mentors. It can show up anytime. Class levels merely represent a threshold when it becomes enough for him to harness the ability. Just as a feat is a threshold where he can suddenly start using it, and levels are just a threshold where his increase in power becomes tangible enough to warrant a numerical increase. These are small, behind the scenes stuff that should never enter into the picture. If you want a seemless transition type of game, I suggest you try Whitewolf's World of Darkness. Any level based system would have thresholds, and class is merely one of those thresholds. If you cannot wrap your head around this simple concept of atomic processing, then DnD and similar games are not the games for you. You will only become frustrated at the level of unrealism and whine here about it.
Lecen_of_Mitran 12-14-06, 05:44 PM	I dunno, some multiclassing just doesn't seem to fit, I mean, can one really learn to go berserk? Personally, I always saw the barbarian's rage ability as something innate and unique to the character, someone who could throw caution to the wind and fight like a demon for a short period of time. Can a trained soldier (fighter) really learn to give up his notion of being level headed in a fighter and start becoming a screaming madman? I mean, yeah it makes for a great character, a fighter would would struggle with this delima and it would be a memorable character i'm sure, until he takes 2 levels in psychic warrior aswell... How do you explain that? That he's not only getting really angery now, but has trained his mind to shape reality aswell? C'mon... Generally I really don't mind multiclassing, as long as their is a decent reason for it, and to be honest, i've never had a problem with it in my games. But looking at stuff on the CO boards can make your brain hurt from some of the crazy combinations they come up with and I wonder, do people actually play those sort of characters or is the CO boards just an exercise in what not to do and those builds are only for the sake of a good laugh? Hey, and what happen when someon becomes a Fighter 2/Barbarian 2/PsiWarrior 2 and then Ranger 2 to get more feats? Speaking serious now, I trully agree with you. One thing is to become a Fighter 10/Cavalier 10, or even a Barbarian 10/Frienzied Berseker 10. Another one completely different is when someone says: "How can I kill that Great Red Wyrm in one round? at lvl 10" (Trust me, I saw a few of these on Optimizing Boards). Neither can you, apparently :rolleyes: Just wanted to thank you for that, it was very funny! :D :D
DaidojiTaidoru 12-14-06, 05:46 PM	I dunno, some multiclassing just doesn't seem to fit, I mean, can one really learn to go berserk? Personally, I always saw the barbarian's rage ability as something innate and unique to the character, someone who could throw caution to the wind and fight like a demon for a short period of time. Can a trained soldier (fighter) really learn to give up his notion of being level headed in a fighter and start becoming a screaming madman? I give you 3 examples of "Rage" 1 - Krung knew dwarfs comes soon. Krung hate dwarves. Thought of dwarves make Krung real mad. Draves kill Krung's father just for eating some dwarves. Not fair to Krung. Krung see dwarves now! Krungs hate give Krung strength! Krung SMASH! 2 - Elric Jorgen-son saw that the battle was lost. As the retreat sounded he and his squadmates began to chant. It was an anchent song, one that the gods had granted the cities founders in the earliest days. And one that every member of Elrics elite unit hoped they would die singing. As the song progressed time seemed to slow, and Elric's sight sharpened as the other senses faded away. He couldn't say why the technique was called 'Rage.' He had never felt this calm before. 3 - Sir Aldien reeled again from the demons mental assault. All around him he could hear the voices of his friends dispairing and his enemies rejoicing. There was no reason to keep fighting. Except hope in rightiousness. Gathering his faith Aldien rose up from the floor, through faith and zeal alone cutting through the demons illusions. The horrid thing struck at Aldien with it's spear, but the wound seemed meaningless next to the rightousness of his cause. With the surging power of his faith he sundered the beasts weapon. "Now foul creature, it is at an end." What do all of these stories have in common? The character in each gained strength, fortitude, force of will and the ability to ignore damage while focusing on offence. How would this be in game mechanics? +Str, +Will, +Hp , +Fort, which combines into +Con. In exchange for -AC, can't use Int, Wis, Cha skills. Now, what class do you take if you want a character able to perform such a feat? Barbarian. By the way here is the classes I was thinking of when I made those write ups. 1 - Pure Barbarian 2 - Fighter/Barbarian 3 - Paladin/Barbarian (I especially like #3 because it shows the must be chaotic thing to be a total waste of paper. Seriously without the fluff the Barbarian has no reason for alignment restrictions.)
Nitan 12-14-06, 05:56 PM	Perhaps I should have elaborated abit more, can someone learn to throw caution to the wind and gain inhuman vigor and strength as a result? I always thought of Rage as giving in to your anger and as of such learning to ignore wounds that could otherwise fall you as you beat your opponent to a pulp. And some people, in fact most people, if they start "raging" become quite dangerous. Normally weak and docile people can throw others around with the adrenaline rush. Where would you learn such a thing? As you have to be rather free spirited and wild to do so, I don't really see to many schools lying around. But ah you say, it's not actually learning the ability as there are no actual class levels, it's just a character delving into himself and finding a new path in his life (a level 2 fighter with a burning temper finally loses it upon attaning 3rd level by becoming a fighter/barbarian). I can go with that except, how does he also learn to survive in the wild with almost perfound insight (upon gaining his 3rd level, the fighter pours all of his ranks into survival)? Now, how does one explain that? It is bad roleplaying on the player's behalf? Alot of arguements would say no, because it isn't wrong for a player be optimized and be the best at everything is it? So I ask, how does one explain it, for it's not only class abilities that cause problems when multiclassing, things like skills and saves and even BAB increases kinda throw things for a loop. Everyone has anger. You're just tapping into it now. There's no school, there's no tradition. You can just flip out once a day now. If you changed the name and called it "Adrenaline Rush" would that be better for you? You might wanna go check your EXH again, the potential is random, but most psionic characters require lots of training and self discipline (save for the wilders of course). It stats that psychic warriors are most likely trained by psions and other psy warriors. But again, with a little flare and imagination sure people could come up with ways to justify the spontanious manifestation of psychic prowess in a character, right? Also, i'm well aware of what the psy war can do, it was just an example (besides, isn't shaping your body also a way of warpinf reality? I mean, you weren't born with giant claws or fang filled maul, were ya?). Those words are very important, in that it's not the only way to become a Psychic Warrior. Unless the world simply does not have Psionics, why reject the levels? Hey, and what happen when someon becomes a Fighter 2/Barbarian 2/PsiWarrior 2 and then Ranger 2 to get more feats? What does happen? Can you, as a DM, honestly say to a player "no, what you've been doing is not Barbariany enough or Psychic Warriory or Rangery enough"? I think you'd be hard pressed to explain that. I don't think so. Unless you think that good role playing is rigidly enforcing stereotypes. All that as it may be, the idea behind D&D is too have fun...if fun for you and your campaign is muchkinning out some PCs and slaughtering everything with your +20 ub3r sword of deathy death..awesome! Enjoy! Exactly. Neither can you, apparently :rolleyes: ICE BURN!
Neofish 12-14-06, 05:58 PM	That is what Sorcerers do. Says so right in the PHB. Some of them don't even have mentors. It can show up anytime. Class levels merely represent a threshold when it becomes enough for him to harness the ability. Just as a feat is a threshold where he can suddenly start using it, and levels are just a threshold where his increase in power becomes tangible enough to warrant a numerical increase. These are small, behind the scenes stuff that should never enter into the picture. If you want a seemless transition type of game, I suggest you try Whitewolf's World of Darkness. Any level based system would have thresholds, and class is merely one of those thresholds. Sorcerers create magic the way a poet creates poems, with inborn talent honed by practice. First sentence under the Sorcerer entry. I don't know where you get that Sorcerers wake up one day and can cast magic missile on a whim with a little practice and detication. But like I said, a player and DM, with a little imagination and flare, can come with all sorts of ways to justify character development. If you cannot wrap your head around this simple concept of atomic processing, then DnD and similar games are not the games for you. You will only become frustrated at the level of unrealism and whine here about it. Lol, my favortie posts, suggestions that I am playing the wrong game because I question certain trends rather simply accepting things at face value, oh what travisty, no? Thank you for the suggestion though, you have saved me from my plight, all those years (well, minutes pretaining to this thread anyway) wasted, but the answer was to simple, of course! I'm playing the wrong game....:rolleyes: Seriously dude, if you want to debate, add something to the arguement, give us your opinion as to why things should be taken at face value, don't give cop out answers that hint at your now painfully apparrent ego and ideals of elitism. In short, none of your "suggestions" were meritted nor called for, so please, spare me will ya?
Roland the Crownbreaker 12-14-06, 05:59 PM	Actually, if the character who suddenly picked up two level in Psychic Warrior was a Kalashtar from Eberron I'd have no problem with psionic class levels just showing up one day. But psionic races can easily explain at least rudimentary training as justification.
Cael 12-14-06, 06:02 PM	First sentence under the Sorcerer entry. I don't know where you get that Sorcerers wake up one day and can cast magic missile on a whim with a little practice and detication. But like I said, a player and DM, with a little imagination and flare, can come with all sorts of ways to justify character development. Lol, my favortie posts, suggestions that I am playing the wrong game because I question certain trends rather simply accepting things at face value, oh what travisty, no? Thank you for the suggestion though, you have saved me from my plight, all those years (well, minutes pretaining to this thread anyway) wasted, but the answer was to simple, of course! I'm playing the wrong game....:rolleyes: Seriously dude, if you want to debate, add something to the arguement, give us your opinion as to why things should be taken at face value, don't give cop out answers that hint at your now painfully apparrent ego and ideals of elitism. In short, none of your "suggestions" were meritted nor called for, so please, spare me will ya? You missed the point of atomic processing. It has nothing to do with face value. Sorry. Try again.
Neofish 12-14-06, 06:26 PM	DaidojiTaidoru- Those are all excellent examples of beautify and well developed reasons as to why a character could be a multiclassed barbarian. But again, i'm not against multiclasses, especially when it has thought put into it like you have done. No, i'm just curious as to when multicalsses is to much and when multiclassing has no reasonable justification. Like, given your first example, that character could be a ranger/barbarian, or even a fighter ranger barbarian. But what about a wizard/barb? or a Bard/barb? Try adding crazy classes to the mix, like what if Krung adds psy war to his list of classes? How does one explain that in an ongoing campaign? Trust me guys, i'm not missing the point that classes are not bound by their names and that neither are class abilities, i'm just saying sometimes things do get crazy and it's kinda accepted what's the norm, but should be this be considered the norm? Should one be persuaded into believing that the only way someone can achive greatness in combat is through multiclassing? Nitan- Another excellent post, and I do agree with you in every subject, like I said, a player and DM with a little imagination can come up with reasons for everything. I also agree with you about what it is to rage, it's just like the Crusader's abilities, it's a combination of blind rage and adrenaline that pushes a barbarian past his normal limits. I was just playing abit of devils advocate. But like much like I am stating about, where does one draw the limits on multiclassing? Is there no limits (besides the favored class xp penalty?). (I also agree with the_Rooster, it is all about having fun, I was going to post a new comment but at the time I had not one else to refute so I didn't do it, glad someone caught what he said). Crownbreaker- I agree, because it could be justified with little or no thought. I would feel the same with a shifter multiclassing in a barbarian (letting his wild side go, well, wild). Cael- What's to miss, I know there is no middle ground in leveling and by strict mecanics, sure, a player that takes 1 level in sorcerer can shoot magic missiles and create mage armor. But I was simply stating in Sleepwalkers case is that maybe, just maybe, its a neat or good idea to kinda dictate that a player may have to role play the discovery of his powers rather than them show up without nah an explanation? You know, playing D&D is more than a sheet of paper and a few numbers. Perhaps it you who should be playing another game, one without the tedious thought of imagination or one that places more thought past the aspect of button mashing. EDIT- Sorry bout that Nitan, fixed your name.
bitnine 12-14-06, 06:36 PM	or a Bard/barb?Wait, are you saying that you hate skalds?
Cael 12-14-06, 06:38 PM	Cael- What's to miss, I know there is no middle ground in leveling and by strict mecanics, sure, a player that takes 1 level in sorcerer can shoot magic missiles and create mage armor. But I was simply stating in Sleepwalkers case is that maybe, just maybe, its a neat or good idea to kinda dictate that a player may have to role play the discovery of his powers rather than them show up without nah an explanation? You know, playing D&D is more than a sheet of paper and a few numbers. Perhaps it you who should be playing another game, one without the tedious thought of imagination or one that places more thought past the aspect of button mashing. The powers should have been showing up in the background already, if he is to be a Sorcerer. It need not be painfully obvious such as the player declaring "I suddenly fart green gas that smells of lime" every so often. It need not even be mentioned. Just assume that it has and leave it at that. Seriously, you remind me of an idiot DM I had that wanted people to justify taking their skills, and during downtimes, you you don't list out everything you are doing, you are considered vegetating in front of the DnD equivalent of the TV for the entire period. Sheer madness. He wants to take it, let it slide. By hitting on him to come up with explanations only puts the player on the spot, and few people can think fast enough on their feet to come up with a good explanation instantly. And the next thing we know, we'd find a thread started in the DM forum complaining about lousy, no good, munchkin powergamers that can't make up a story to save their lives. Yet, whose fault was it? The person that couldn't think up of a story on the spot, or the idiot that put him in that position? What you missed was that wanting him to come up with a gradual increase in power is silliness in a game that measures everything by thresholds. You will only end up frustrating everyone, including yourself. Just play the game, and follow the suggestions in the PHB, which does include examples of people multiclassing, and they usually follow the format of "Player A wants his Fighter to be more sneaky, so he takes a level in Rogue". Guess whose side the PHB is on?
Neofish 12-14-06, 06:40 PM	Wait, are you saying that you hate skalds? :rofl: Yeah, I knew that one was gonna get a comment.
Manyfist 12-14-06, 06:49 PM	:rofl: Yeah, I knew that one was gonna get a comment. It's not easy to beat some one to a bloody plup while singing about it.
Neofish 12-14-06, 06:56 PM	The powers should have been showing up in the background already, if he is to be a Sorcerer. It need not be painfully obvious such as the player declaring "I suddenly fart green gas that smells of lime" every so often. It need not even be mentioned. Just assume that it has and leave it at that. Seriously, you remind me of an idiot DM I had that wanted people to justify taking their skills, and during downtimes, you you don't list out everything you are doing, you are considered vegetating in front of the DnD equivalent of the TV for the entire period. Sheer madness. He wants to take it, let it slide. By hitting on him to come up with explanations only puts the player on the spot, and few people can think fast enough on their feet to come up with a good explanation instantly. And the next thing we know, we'd find a thread started in the DM forum complaining about lousy, no good, munchkin powergamers that can't make up a story to save their lives. Yet, whose fault was it? The person that couldn't think up of a story on the spot, or the idiot that put him in that position? What you missed was that wanting him to come up with a gradual increase in power is silliness in a game that measures everything by thresholds. You will only end up frustrating everyone, including yourself. Just play the game, and follow the suggestions in the PHB, which does include examples of people multiclassing, and they usually follow the format of "Player A wants his Fighter to be more sneaky, so he takes a level in Rogue". Guess whose side the PHB is on? I dunno dude, this is a story driven game, heaven forbid someone wants to known why your (and by definition, you, the player) character does what he does and why he does it. I'm an idiot for asking why? Why would an accomplished ninja suddenly gain magic missile and mage armor awesomeness? Does the player have a notion as where his character is going? Or was it simply because he could gain a +8 to his AC in combat (mage armor and shield)? You know, you fight ignorance with curiosity, so is asking questions really that idiotic? And no, I didn't want a gradual increase in power, all I was looking was something along the lines of "I farted green gas and it smelled of lime" a few levels before his first level in sorcerer, that would show at least some actual thought in character development beyond the quest for mechanical combat supremacy. But your right, I guess i'm at fault for wanting to play the game abit more in depth than just rolling a few d20's. Seriously, would a single, small mention really be considered sheer madness? Also, what do care if some Dm rants about overpowered players? Or a player who rants about "jhonny on the spot justification" DM's? Are you losing sleep over it or something? Perhaps your far more rightious than I thought, and that your on a crusade to end all problems in D&D, setting everyone on the "right" path and whatnot. I wasn't aware that is was your responsibility to dictate what should and shouldn't be asked or expressed on these boards, my mistake.
DaidojiTaidoru 12-14-06, 07:02 PM	DaidojiTaidoru- Those are all excellent examples of beautify and well developed reasons as to why a character could be a multiclassed barbarian. But again, i'm not against multiclasses, especially when it has thought put into it like you have done. No, i'm just curious as to when multicalsses is to much and when multiclassing has no reasonable justification. Like, given your first example, that character could be a ranger/barbarian, or even a fighter ranger barbarian. But what about a wizard/barb? or a Bard/barb? Try adding crazy classes to the mix, like what if Krung adds psy war to his list of classes? How does one explain that in an ongoing campaign? Trust me guys, i'm not missing the point that classes are not bound by their names and that neither are class abilities, i'm just saying sometimes things do get crazy and it's kinda accepted what's the norm, but should be this be considered the norm? Should one be persuaded into believing that the only way someone can achive greatness in combat is through multiclassing? I'm glad you liked my work, and it seems you've also started to distance the sterotypes from the classes. Now here's the crux of my arguement. Should someones lack of roleplaying skills be a reason to prevent them from choosing a optimal class, or even a suboptimal class? I know several great roleplayers, who could piece together explinations like I gave previously in half the amount of time and add in explinations for their psy warrior crossover on top. They're also some of the best char op people I've ever met in person. On the other hand I've met people that can't talk their way out of a paper bag, whos entire character discription was 'I want to become a Duelist. The prestige one." That should also give you an idea about their optimization skills. As a GM I believe that the first player shouldn't recieve his very well written up character that can destroy the world as a hasted action. I also believe the 2nd player shouldn't be denied the right to try to get to prestige Duelist, though I'll suggest something similar but better every chance I get. I think that the GM should try to help the 2nd player become a better roleplayer by working with the character to make a good background, not just shooting down the concept. Oh, and wiz/barbarian? Rage Mage. Sorcerer's a little more thematic but I could see a school teaching the proper rituals to throw fire when angry. Or if you're going for dead eye beserkers, well, their minds are very focused....
Cael 12-14-06, 07:04 PM	I dunno dude, this is a story driven game, heaven forbid someone wants to known why your (and by definition, you, the player) character does what he does and why he does it. I'm an idiot for asking why? Why would an accomplished ninja suddenly gain magic missile and mage armor awesomeness? Does the player have a notion as where his character is going? Or was it simply because he could gain a +8 to his AC in combat (mage armor and shield)? You know, you fight ignorance with curiosity, so is asking questions really that idiotic? And no, I didn't want a gradual increase in power, all I was looking was something along the lines of "I farted green gas and it smelled of lime" a few levels before his first level in sorcerer, that would show at least some actual thought in character development beyond the quest for mechanical combat supremacy. But your right, I guess i'm at fault for wanting to play the game abit more in depth than just rolling a few d20's. Seriously, would a single, small mention really be considered sheer madness? Also, what do care if some Dm rants about overpowered players? Or a player who rants about "jhonny on the spot justification" DM's? Are you losing sleep over it or something? Perhaps your far more rightious than I thought, and that your on a crusade to end all problems in D&D, setting everyone on the "right" path and whatnot. I wasn't aware that is was your responsibility to dictate what should and shouldn't be asked or expressed on these boards, my mistake. Why ask? It is a base class in the PHB. Nothing wrong with it. In fact, I find there is nothing wrong with a majority of what is in print, no matter how overpowered it seems to be (the sole exception being the Planar Shepherd, but give me time and I will solve that one too). If I am the DM, it is easy for me to compensate. If I am not, I take notes and learn from my betters. Even in a story driven game, you cannot expect the players to tell the DM every aspect of what they do, unless you like descriptions of how they wipe their butts when they go to the bushes. In the interest of moving the game forward and engaging in more story *pertinent* activities, it would be far better to let it slide than to get into an argument over something as trivial as 1 level in Sorcerer, particularly if you are going to let him have it anyway. Why create an argument over something that you know he is going to have anyway? That is stupid, pointless and a waste of resources, both the player's patience and everyone else's time. That is just poor leadership.
DaidojiTaidoru 12-14-06, 07:04 PM	It's not easy to beat some one to a bloody plup while singing about it. That's what Perform(percussion) is all about. Sure you take a -2 to your checks for improvised tools (head, mace) but it's worth it in the long run.
Nitan 12-14-06, 07:12 PM	It's not easy to beat some one to a bloody plup while singing about it. Haven't seen Clockwork Orange have you? And...I have an "a" in my name too.
Neofish 12-14-06, 07:21 PM	Why ask? It is a base class in the PHB. Nothing wrong with it. In fact, I find there is nothing wrong with a majority of what is in print, no matter how overpowered it seems to be (the sole exception being the Planar Shepherd, but give me time and I will solve that one too). If I am the DM, it is easy for me to compensate. If I am not, I take notes and learn from my betters. Even in a story driven game, you cannot expect the players to tell the DM every aspect of what they do, unless you like descriptions of how they wipe their butts when they go to the bushes. I couldn't help but laugh like a dope at that last comment. Okay, you're right, to much detail is to much, but is it really wrong to want a player (and DM's) to put abit more thought into a character other than what give them the most modifiers? I guess we will never know why that player wanted to take a level in sorcerer, but (because I see waht I would do, perhaps i'm cynical) I don't believe it was because he wanted to play a character with a draconic ancestry (or celestial, or fiendish, or blah blah). And again, it's not wrong to want to become more powerful, but it does, well, to tell the truth, I don't what it does because in truth, i've never had a problem with multiclassing (myself and my players seem to be content with 2 or 3 base classes at the most and perhaps a PRC or two, guess i'm a hypocrit to some extent), At this point i'm pretty much bunked as far as having a stance goes. In the interest of moving the game forward and engaging in more story *pertinent* activities, it would be far better to let it slide than to get into an argument over something as trivial as 1 level in Sorcerer, particularly if you are going to let him have it anyway. Why create an argument over something that you know he is going to have anyway? That is stupid, pointless and a waste of resources, both the player's patience and everyone else's time. That is just poor leadership. Well, it could also be said that a leader that rushes in blindly is also not one with a good leadership qualities, but your right. I guess since the rules state as such one should just go with it and prgress the story, I mean a fighter/barbarian/psychicwarrior/ranger is still adventuring for a reason, be it not for heroics or fame, nah, at that point, he's just adventuring for power, guess that will just have to do.
Archangel62 12-14-06, 08:28 PM	If it's reasonable it isn't horrible it's great. Don't know you are referring to. Umm, no, not in my game. Players can only break s/g if I allow it. Logic? Multi-classing can be very logical. A lot of the time the way it's done isn't logical though... ANYTHING can be done to break a game. In a core game I can get infinite wishes at a very low level. I can create enough of something to wipe out economies. I can do dozens if not hundreds of broken things in core alone.
Cael 12-14-06, 09:20 PM	I guess since the rules state as such one should just go with it and prgress the story, I mean a fighter/barbarian/psychicwarrior/ranger is still adventuring for a reason, be it not for heroics or fame, nah, at that point, he's just adventuring for power, guess that will just have to do. I think you just ran into the Stormwind Fallacy in that you think a "fighter/barbarian/psychicwarrior/ranger" cannot roleplay. Sorry, man. That is just bunk.
Nitan 12-14-06, 09:30 PM	Well, it could also be said that a leader that rushes in blindly is also not one with a good leadership qualities, but your right. I guess since the rules state as such one should just go with it and prgress the story, I mean a fighter/barbarian/psychicwarrior/ranger is still adventuring for a reason, be it not for heroics or fame, nah, at that point, he's just adventuring for power, guess that will just have to do. That's what my current character is doing. Adventuring for power. Is there anything wrong with that goal that I am unaware about? Or does it go against the spirit of D&D or something to try to get more powerful for power's sake? I mean...people in real life certainly don't do that...
Bard-of-all-trades 12-14-06, 10:07 PM	Are base classes a lost concept? I hope so. The second you allow your class to define your character you may as well play an MMORPG. If it's being a purple elf with reeeeally long ears...sorry you got the wrong game :P Actually, this is one of the reasons I ask this. The characters being built have a definite "flavor", if you will, of something you would see online in your favorite MMORPG and not role-playing characters. Thank you for that comment.
Batshido 12-14-06, 10:25 PM	Actually, this is one of the reasons I ask this. The characters being built have a definite "flavor", if you will, of something you would see online in your favorite MMORPG and not role-playing characters. Thank you for that comment. All told, a Ranger/Fighter/Rogue is probably a much more developed character from an RP perspective than a straight Ranger, Fighter or Rogue. Assuming, that is, that there were in character reasons to for the multiclassing. A multiclass character moves beyond a simple "Hi, I'm a level X ________" and actually becomes something new and interesting to play. If on of your players has a character that has a legitimate motivation to pick up levels in other classes (not the least of which is probably getting better at something specific), then don't just let them; encourage them. Class levels are a means of showing a baseline for your characters in-game abilities. They do not define your character. If you think that they do, you should probably take a step back from the PHB and think about who you want to play as opposed to what. It's that type of closed minded thinking that eventually leads to munchkin-esque play styles. If you only think in terms of specific classes and roleplaying cliches then you are part of the problem, not the solution. Play a character, not a class. Stifling multiclassing and character individuality takes the best part of DnD, tears it out and throws it out the window. Character development (both numerical and otherwise) is what keeps people coming back. If you just want to run combat scenarios with static cliches, play halo. ;)
bitnine 12-14-06, 10:28 PM	Last time something like this came up I posted a few of a characters I've played in 3.0/3.5: Tellenreikos MordokTellenreikos Mordok. He was a half-orc warrior, outcast from his orcish tribe (pretty much for his unusual and strong belief in order), making his living as a mercenary in a nearby human kingdom. He knew his strengths to be in combat, and sought to find a place in society where he could express his natural strength and benefit others and be accepted. Towards that end, he joined a group of adventurers known as the Last Resort. Initially he hid his identity underneath armor, but eventually ceased doing so after becoming something of hero for his part in helping to save the capitol of he human empire. A good portion of his direction and development were shaped be events in the game. First off, Tellenreikos was caught in more a trap that sent him to another plane, the party was attacked by creatures while under the influence of a shadow walk spell, the party was trapped briefly in a demiplane contained within an artifact, and the party used the last few charges of a staff of etherealness to escape in a situation where trapped. Beyond that, there were two main arcs to the game which the party dealt with. The first of which was an open portal to the Abyss and the varied demons that were poking through and threatening everyone. Because of these experiences, Tellenreikos actively sought to learn about the planes and better himself in fighting this demonic threat. The second arc dealt with a particularly murderous group of orcs known as the Midnight Raiders, who were consolidating their power by subjugating other orcish tribes and taking many slaves. There were many warning signs that they would soon be a major threat to the civilized lands. Tellenreikos always wanted to lead some of his people away from what he saw as their barbaric ways. As he fought the Midnight Raiders and freed their slaves. He called upon other orcs and half-orcs who shared his views (converting a few), founding his own tribe from the remnants of others. This had a notable impact on the campaign world, as these events helped to charge the relations between a segment of the orcish people and civilized kingdoms.LN Half-Orc Fighter 6/Planar Champion 4/Tribal Protector 4. Planar enemy of demons, tribal enemy of the midnight raiders. 3.0 brute/charge monkey build with cross-class ranks in diplomacy and leadership taken w/o cohort simply to gain followers to form a tribe. Used a bastard sword, trading off between 2 handed fighter and shield use to tank; eventually used an animated shield.Ago LockeAgo Locke was a strong-willed, principled, and somewhat self-righteous spellcaster from a secret order in a homebrew world. Growing up sheltered from dealing with real events, he held to the belief that acting without making compromises would ultimately define a person with a nobility that was more important and lasting than mere survival. His beliefs were tested as events in the campaign ravaged the world and threatened to destroy the entire plane. This included becoming the last surviving member of his order, accidentally killing a number of innocent defenders during a siege (lost control of a magical item when trying to save them), and having to work with one character who was imbued with the essence of a dark god in order to essentially reforge creation. It wasn't practicality that forced him to finally take a more compromising stance, aided in no small part by how extremely powerful he was. And, even given the scope of the other entities he dealt with, he held a very considerable amount of power. However, a genuine compassion for other members of the party softened him. He still held himself to an unwaivering standard, and at the close of the campagin subdued and captured the character who ended being an avatar of a dark god so that they could either be healed or prevented from sowing more destruction.LG Human Wizard 20 (free homebrew dragonblooded template). DM had crazy spellcasting rules, like spell point system and all spells cast spontaneously. Seriously, didn't go out to try to optimize the character, but the DM's poor grasp of balance and skewed house rules made quite the difference. Still an enjoyable story, mainly through well-developed characters. Note that this is easily the most powerful character I've ever played.Attar BrownearthOnce a poor worker's son from Damara, Attar's family was killed and he was taken as a slave. Horrifically mistreated by the orcs as they travelled, over the course of weeks he watched them fight amongst each other and waited for a time to escape. Snapping his chains one night he did so, killing a number of the orcs in the style he had witnessed, and then fleeing the rest. His flight took a bad turn as it soon got him lost with only the single pack that he had grabbed in the sands of Anauroch. He endured the heat for days before stumbling across a small nomad trade caravan. In his heat-addled state, he treated them as he had the orcs, slaughtering them and taking their supplies. More concerned about the level of his loss of control than doing what he told himself had to be done, Attar dedicated himself to better controlling his rage. He ended up travelling across the desert for some time, then evading patrols, whom he feared might link him to the slaying of the caravan. To this end, he travelled far across Faerun, sticking mostly to the wilds. He briefly became settled as a member of an organized town gaurd, disguising his identity for a while - but then an organization approached him and others with knowledge of his past and an offer he couldn't refuse. This is how he came to join the party. He thought nothing of killing others and had both an idea and compulsion that fighting and killing powerful beings strengthened himself (in a tribal sense as well as honing his skills.) His views were borne of horrific experiences and the desire to never be powerless again. However, this itself didn't provide enough of a foundation for action, so he needed the other members of the party to help give him purpose. For purely selfish reasons, he feared that he would be lost without them and so was protective in a way that could easily have been mistaken for genuine caring. Of course, he wasn't intellectual enough to really understand the irony of being a willing servant so as not to be an unwilling slave. And his greatest fear of losing control was steeped in the idea that it would have him alone and lost. (In city and civilized environments this fear kept him from letting loose and causing trouble for his party, but it was always a matter of will and strain, never something entirely pleasant.) So I certainly found him to be an interesting and compelling character,. Deeply flawed and somewhat reprehensible? That too.CE Human Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Fighter 1/Horizon Walker 1/Frenzied Berserker 6. Desert as the terrain mastery; if we had done other travel, I probably would have picked up other masteries, but I was going to let the course of the game decide that. As a side note, Attar would have brutally killed me (the player) if he knew that I was the one selecting frenzied berserker levels. It wasn't something he wanted in character, but rather something I decided he could not avoid.Corivaath the ShieldHaven't played him yet , he's next for an upcoming game. So I have a bit of material on his background: [Update: I've actually played him for a couple of sessions by now.] Background: Corivaath was once a simple militiaman from a small town outside a city in the Dalelands. Skilled but unexceptional, Corivaath was content to fulfill his duty in defense of his land. This all changed one day when the was ransacked by a single man. The militia was called as signs of a battle were sighted outside the town. Arriving at the scene, the militia saw a Tiefling warrior with a flaming chain fighting against a group of foreign trackers. The trackers quickly fell, and the warrior ignored the calls from the militia to identify himself and stand down. Instead, he turned wordlessly and singlehanded slaughtered the assembled force. The last thing Corvaath remembers of the encounter is the chain whistling towards his head - and then darkness. Corivaath was found three days later by forces from the city who secured the town. He was the only one alive from the force who set out, found lying unconsious and mangled. From the moment that he awoke, Corivaath found that he could perform magic - something he had absolutely no experience with before, yet now understood innately. Corivaath believes that he died on that battlefield, but something brought him back and infused him with power for a reason, but a reason that he does not know or understand. Given leave from the militia, Corivaath left and sought to discovering the meaning behind his newfound abilities and their purpose. Finding his magics centered around protection, he decided to find a partner who he could help to shield and entered the service of a bounty hunter named Jaal the Swift. However, two weeks after coming to an arrangement, Jaal was killed in an orcish ambush that Corivaath survived without much trouble. So Corivaath was left to search for a more promising partner. Description: Corivaath stands just under 6 feet with a study frame, neat black hair, and dark brown eyes. More notable than this is the iron mask that covers half his face, from his left temple down to completely cover his nose and mouth. He still wears his militia-issue chain shirt and longsword, under a dark blue travelling cloak. At odds with his appearance, his voice always seems calm and soothing. (Underneath the mask, Corivaath looks just about like you'd expect for someone who had half their face seared, cut to ribbons, and left untreated for days.) Personality: I plan to play Corivaath as a man who is searching for his purpose with singleminded determination and a high level of moral detachment. The sense of purpose that his newfound abilities fill him with is overwhelming, unlike anything that he has experienced before. He would like to understand, but is driven enough that he might be compelled to fulfill his (perceived) purpose without understanding. His lack of moral attachments and his extreme focus make him capable of some fairly extreme actions, so in part I'm interested to see how that will play out in that regard.LN Human Battle Sorcerer 2 (current); Battle Sorcerer/War Weaver/??? Corivaath feels his powers call to him in ways he doesn't understand. Me? I understand a small part of them. And that's that he's heading towards War Weaver. I've been wanting to play a caster with almost no direct offensive options but lots of buffing power for a while. Cleared the materials and whatnot with the the DM at character creation; After finishing War Weaver, Corivaath will find something to represent continuing protective gishery. We'll see, but abjurant champion is something that caught my eye certainly. Definately from where I sit going to focus very heavily on that "the Shield" angle while keeping a slight amount of martial ability. (I might look at something like Arcane Disciple if the divine angle gets played up, but I have no idea if it will right now.) Personally, I like leaving fairly big hooks for a DM to use. I don't know exactly why Corivaath gained the power that he did - but I'm sure that it's something my DM can use for a good plot hook. Ditto with that Tielfling fellow. Also, let's face it: returning from (near?) death with sorcerous power is sorta badass. (And in fact, feel free to check your DMG for that passage on the sorcerer class represented power granted by extraplanar entities.) And I particularlly like how the Battle Sorcerer aspect makes the transition from militiaman fairly seemless and additive.Can you tell me that there's a point that any of them stopped being interesting and developed characters because of their stats? The number or type of classes and alignment? Their particular level of strength?
Walls 12-14-06, 10:43 PM	There is a simple reason. Everyone wants high stats, high damage, ability to kill everything, ability to dominate, ability to be perfect no matter what classes they need take. Nobody roleplays anymore. It's about stats. This might as well be a video game sometimes. I, personally, hate the evolution of the game. It's so hard to find a group that wants to ROLE play. Everyone is "Well, we need so and so many guys in the second rank and this much healing magic and this feat or else...". People don't build for character, they build for effectiveness. Whatever happened to tragic heroes? Whatever happened to losing? What ever happened to impossible quests finish through heart and ingenuity, not how many different levels you had in different classes and prcs? Sigh. Guess the game's gotten ahead of us old folk. It's probably why I am creating a world now instead of playing. I will also add that I preferred when classes had stat restrictions. Every character is uber powerful because you don't need 17 charisma to be a paladin when before, it meant something to have rolled those high stats. You were indeed a rare character in the game. Not anymore, nope!
Belgian Waffle 12-14-06, 11:04 PM	Nobody roleplays anymore. I'm sorry you think that. Seriously. I will also add that I preferred when classes had stat restrictions. Every character is uber powerful because you don't need 17 charisma to be a paladin when before, it meant something to have rolled those high stats. You were indeed a rare character in the game. Not anymore, nope! "Hey, Mr. DM, I really want to play a Paladin but my stats suck! Can I get a boost to my stats so that I can play one because I don't think that I'll play the campaign if I can't play a Paladin omg :sad:" Come on, dude, is this situation really fair for the person who wanted to play a Paladin and nothing else? The dude isn't even a power gamer, this is just how he wants to play the game. Why should he be restricted like you want him to be because he rolled bad?
solbergb 12-14-06, 11:06 PM	Whatever happened to tragic heroes? Whatever happened to losing? What ever happened to impossible quests finish through heart and ingenuity, not how many different levels you had in different classes and prcs? What ever happened to, you know, playing a character that in his own eyes might have a reason to risk his life on a daily basis? Who can realistically expect to not instantly die? The iconics in the PHB grow from weak to powerful. The single classed iconic is much more powerful than people give them credit for. Indeed I've seen a lot of people turn their characters into significantly "subiconic" in effectiveness by multiclassing and PRCing. There is no more chance of being "Tragic" or "losing" or "using ingenuity" by choosing a single class or multiclass or cherry-picking various classes/PRC's. You are either a competent adventurer or you're subiconic. It's tough to actually get all that much better than an iconic. Most people who talk the way you do don't seem to understand the D&D power curve. It's very, very steep, much more so than any other RPG out there. It's one of the things that makes D&D unique. You start out a farm boy, you end up a demigod...in a few years of ingame time if your character is active. A starting character is as tough as an average armed minion. A 6th level character is as tough as a real world special-forces type with top tier equipment. (an army of level 6th folks can approximate a modern military army, with magic substituting for artillery, bows for small arms) A 12th level character approaches movie-action-hero levels. Only "named" enemies are a real threat to them. They can do really flashy stunts, beyond what's possible in the real world and shrug off most damage as "a flesh wound", fine in the next scene except for cosmetic scuffing. A 18th level character? Now we're talking Xena in the "I can kill Gods" season. Xena never makes mistakes. Most people she fights can't really hurt her, they just cost her time. Even gods are only dangerous because they teleport around at will and can't be hurt by anything she does (at least before her "god killing" power came online)...and they're incapable of killing her even in a straight up fight. Her cohort is still in danger at times I'm not talking a cheesy character here. I'm talking Tordek, Mialee, Jozan and Lydda, with DMG equipment appropriate for the level. If you want your character jumping at shadows, never growing into their strength, you want to play Call of Cthulu or Paranoia, not D&D. In D&D, the challenges rise as the character power rises, and characters outgrow stuff that used to be dangerous very rapidly. A cliff may be a barrier at level 1. It isn't at level 6. A 1000 mile journey is a barrier at level 6. It isn't at level 12. Planar travel is a barrier at level 12. It isn't at level 18. Most level 18 barriers are related to time and opportunities, not physical barriers. Lots of things are like this. You can still have barriers, but they're more and more difficult and require a bigger BBEG to have the resources to set it up.
Manyfist 12-14-06, 11:11 PM	Everyone wants high stats, high damage, ability to kill everything, ability to dominate, ability to be perfect no matter what classes they need take. Nobody roleplays anymore. It's about stats. This might as well be a video game sometimes. I, personally, hate the evolution of the game. It's so hard to find a group that wants to ROLE play. Everyone is "Well, we need so and so many guys in the second rank and this much healing magic and this feat or else...". People don't build for character, they build for effectiveness. Everyone wants to feel like they're the hero. People don't want to be left out on the game when the monsters kick their arse. You can RP and optimize, believe it or not they can co exist. So you would build a gully dwarf with 3's on all his stats and have your DM put you against a CR = your party level. Why do you even exist? Sure its fun to RP the Gully Dwarf, yet you can't focus on one thing too much with out neglecting the other. 50% D&D Is RP 50% Is combat is how I see it. Whatever happened to tragic heroes? Whatever happened to losing? What ever happened to impossible quests finish through heart and ingenuity, not how many different levels you had in different classes and prcs? Because loosing is NOT fun. If you want to die fast then theirs settings for that. Ravenloft, Cthulu D20...etc. D&D is about being the Hero (Anti-Hero) and the process getting there. Why play a game were its impossible to accomplish anything? Sigh. Guess the game's gotten ahead of us old folk. It's probably why I am creating a world now instead of playing. Games evolve get over it. I will also add that I preferred when classes had stat restrictions. Every character is uber powerful because you don't need 17 charisma to be a paladin when before, it meant something to have rolled those high stats. You were indeed a rare character in the game. Not anymore, nope! Point Buy > Rolling. If people want 17 Cha on a Pally, then power to them. In Older editions most stats started bonuses late, unlike in 3.5 in which they want everyone even lowerlevels to feel like a Hero.
Walls 12-14-06, 11:36 PM	Losing doesn't mean dying. Losing means not winning. I never said anything about dying or not getting to a point. I just think there are better ways to it then domination. The way D&D is played would make the worst movie ever. Heroes join up, heroes kill everything, heroes win. Blah. Boring. You need a comeback for the hero. You need his downfall so his win means something. You need weaknesses in a character or people don't give a crap. The game hasn't evolved. The players, in my opinion, have devolved. It's a sad point and that's why I generally prefer to play with older players from 1st and second edition. And to answer the other fellow: Yes, challenges SHOULD grow. Orcs should be a menace to be worried about at first level. At higher levels they are fodder for more powerful characters. The problem is everyone wants to play low level characters like the most experienced adventurers when the simple realism is 1st level characters are bumbling, straight out of the town normal folk with certain abilities. Look at most NPC's in the FR. MOST have very few classes and hell, some of the biggest heroe's are relatively low levels compared to player groups, a lot only single digit levels. YET... they are considered some of the biggest heroes in the Realms. 9th Level fights considered major, iconic, event breaking heroes. You don't see many NPC's with multiple classes and prcs because the creators of the game and world, the ones who actually know more then us, realize the problems that creates. Super powerful, no weakness characters dipping into every prc to make sure are boring as all hell. They belong in Uwe Bol movies.
bitnine 12-14-06, 11:38 PM	Nobody roleplays anymore. It's about stats. This might as well be a video game sometimes.That is awesome. I am totally sigging this.
Walls 12-14-06, 11:50 PM	LAWL! Yeah, sounds better in my head. Regardless, I am an old bitter man wishing for the old days. Like my grandpa, only I don't smell like gin and pickles.
DaidojiTaidoru 12-14-06, 11:54 PM	Losing doesn't mean dying. Losing means not winning. I never said anything about dying or not getting to a point. I just think there are better ways to it then domination. The way D&D is played would make the worst movie ever. Heroes join up, heroes kill everything, heroes win. Blah. Boring. You need a comeback for the hero. You need his downfall so his win means something. You need weaknesses in a character or people don't give a crap. Yeah, characters should have flaws. But flaws don't have to be in a personas stats. Common weaknesses for characters? Friends, family, important items. For that matter strength is relative. I play with some insanely well optimised tenth level characters. We still lose frequently because our enemies are 12th level half demons who are trying to harvest souls from local villages. It's real hard to keep 1st level commoners alive in that firestorm. The game hasn't evolved. The players, in my opinion, have devolved. It's a sad point and that's why I generally prefer to play with older players from 1st and second edition. Ah the days of yore. When there was no powergaming. I'm going to go look over my old bardbuckler and specialty clerics and laugh maniacally now, okay? Seriously if you tried hard you could break 2nd ed like an egg. And to answer the other fellow: Yes, challenges SHOULD grow. Orcs should be a menace to be worried about at first level. At higher levels they are fodder for more powerful characters. The problem is everyone wants to play low level characters like the most experienced adventurers when the simple realism is 1st level characters are bumbling, straight out of the town normal folk with certain abilities. ? Don't see how they can if you play by normal rules and have any sort of GM oversite.... Look at most NPC's in the FR. MOST have very few classes and hell, some of the biggest heroe's are relatively low levels compared to player groups, a lot only single digit levels. YET... they are considered some of the biggest heroes in the Realms. 9th Level fights considered major, iconic, event breaking heroes. You don't see many NPC's with multiple classes and prcs because the creators of the game and world, the ones who actually know more then us, realize the problems that creates. Super powerful, no weakness characters dipping into every prc to make sure are boring as all hell. They belong in Uwe Bol movies. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Yeah, I've looked over the stats for Forgotton realms characters. They usually are A) Around 20th level B) Laden with more artifacts then you can shake a stick at. C) Incapable statistically of performing as well as they do in the series they appeared in. But that's okay, it was true in the 2nd ed writeups too.
Ian Demagi 12-15-06, 12:45 AM	I think it depends on your gaming group and your game master(s). The DM and the gaming group have to set the parameters on what is right for their game and their gaming group. WotC gives a wealth of material to fire players and game masters imaginations. It alway seems to come with the proviso of "consider carefully if this is right for your game." What is right from one group to another may vary widely. If your group has multipule DM's, it may vary from game to game. I will give some examples from our group. Books allowed for players Core 1 & 2, Completes, Spell Compendium, BoED (your fellow players may shout you down from this though). PRc's are limited to ONE per character and always by DM permission only. No psionics at all. No splat books, no 3rd party material-exept by group not DM conscent. No races of_, Frostburn, sand... The default world is Forgotten Realms. No Ebberon material of anytype. When Realms are being used, Realms sourcebooks are in play. So you can see what type of game you are going to get in our group. "Classic" D& D updated to 3.5 rules. very little house ruling occurs-when I run, 0 house ruling occurs. No messing with core occurs, if its in the book (3.5) that is what I go by. People inquiring about joining are screened. If they are wanting to play a "warforged psionic..." we tell them we are not the group for them, Same goes for the guys that say "well I want to run a second edition game...Keep moving, we wish you well-good speed -good bye. If you are wanting to use 10 different supplments to create your character-you will not be happy-keep going -gods bless- so long. So whether we are for you or not, there is a "feel" created by the group and the GM's. I think the OP would be happy in our group, but not in some of the others-because of the feel. For many gamers, we are probably too restrictive and not creative enough.The great thing about 3.5 and WotC is they have given plyers and GM all sorts of material to develope your own feel for the game. If you want a 1st ed feel to your 3.5 game, you can simply go "core." Its all up to you. If you really want to ramp up a powerful character, you can do that too. Its up to you and your gaming group. Are base classes a lost concept-it depends on your style of game. They dont have to be, if you dont want them to be, Ian.
Ultimatecalibur 12-15-06, 12:49 AM	I don't dislike mutliclassing, but what really is killing single class character concepts is the fact that practically every class is front loaded in some way. Look at saves. Every class gets a +2 to atleast one save at first level. I can easily make a 3rd level character with saves of +4/+4/+6 just using base classes, sure I can't hit anything but I have a definate advatage when facing an opponent that requires me to make a save plus I can be an amazing support character.
bitnine 12-15-06, 01:01 AM	Bitnine's Funtime Class Challenge Anyways, so I figured it might be interesting to see some of the takes of y'all on a the classes of party of characters based on a largely in-game description. In any event, I'd certainly be interested in seeing a reponse. The Party: "So, even after all you've heard about us, you still wish to risk your lives like this?" Netan asked, a slight smile still on his face. By now his sword had moved from resting on his shoulder to in front of him, punctuating his words with slight movement. "If you were just to tell us where she's being held, I'm sure the danger from employer's displeasure would be much less then that from ours." The cloaked figure took a half step back, and for a moment, Mirra thought he was going to fold or bolt. But then he glanced to his fellows and took a step forward, bringing a thin sword to bear from under his cloak. Mirra sighed, running her fingers across the holy symbol around her neck. Nothing was ever easy with this bunch. "You may be sure," the lithe figure muttered, "but that certainty is not a luxury that I can share in." By now the mercenary's men had readied themselves as well. The one on the left held a bow, but Mirra's attention turned towards the woman on the right and the scroll case in her hand. Mirra couldn't help but sneak a glance towards Jaal. If she hadn't had seen him conceal himself in the branches, she would never had picked his slight form out. Chiding herself for the peak, Mirra turned her attention back to their opponents. She steadied herself, ready to incinerate the scroll the moment it was loosed from its case. Out of the corner of her eye, she saw Netan's mouth silently moving. She always did wonder what he was saying to himself, but hadn't yet felt comfortable asking him. By the strength of Kalaza'un, by the strength of Kalaza'un... Netan's mantra flowed through his body as well his mind, giving him strength, giving him focus. He could feel the power and the passion of his ancestor fill him, shutting out distraction, sharpening his senses. His eyes were fixed on his opponent, but he could hear Jaal's slight rustle in the trees, even the sound of Illiana's breathing as she stood next to him, still cloaked by her magic. Netan surged forward, thrusting before the cloaked figure could react. Despite the cloak's flair, Netan could feel he scored a hit, and his opponent staggered back. Then there was a bright flash and Netan could see the white purifying fire flowing from Mirra's hands, and the arcanist flinch as the scroll in her hands exploded into hot ash. At the same time, Netan's attention was turned more towards the arrow that whistled through the air and buried itself into his shoulder. Jaal's eyes narrowed as he saw this. For a moment he considered turning his crossbow to fire on the archer, but there would be time for that soon enough. He fired at the arcanist, deftly dropping from the tree before surveying the results. He heard a low disembodied moan in front of him - Illiana. Jaal fought back a shudder. He knew it wasn't deserved; Illiana had proven herself time and again, and even Jaal had occasion to use magics to conceal himself. The moan broke into a rhythm, became a chant, and increased in tempo. Then, in a shimmer, Illiana became visible, moving in time to her chant, ducking between her foes as she swayed and thrust with a curved blade in each hand. Jaal the Swift: A self-styled mage hunter, Jaal is a bounty hunter by trade. An agile and skilled warrior and tracker, Jaal uses a mixture of stealth and arcane trinkets to fight his enemies. Jaal is tight-lipped about his past and the reasons for his distrust of arcane magic, but he has shown himself to be trustworthy and devoted. He sees no hypocrisy in working with others or his own use of magic, as he focuses on the misuse of magic and acknowledges that it can be used well - even if he is still left slightly uneasy. Jaal is quick to anger and judges others harshly, something he tries to fight when dealing with other members of the party. He honestly does believe the others to be trustworthy, and his cynical views tell him that such a find is incredibly rare. Mirra Talshane: Born in a small village in the eastlands, as a young child Mirra often received dreams of the White Lady, a regional patron saint. Devout and faithful, Mirra found herself blessed with the gift of magic, able to both heal the wounded and call upon a blistering white fire. The flames she wields are intense, capable of scorching even those creatures who live in flame. She feels honored and humbled by these gifts, and works to help others in repayment. Recently, she has accepted the honor of training as an exorcist and fighting against the undead. Mirra is eager to push the party to accomplish great things, both believing them capable, and that she will be granted greater power to protect others after proving herself. Illiana Ai Tor: Once a soldier in a regional militia, Illiana's unit was caught by an ambush in the sands and slaughtered. Left for dead, she was rescued by a nomad tribe, who took her in as one of their own. To repay them, Illiana stayed with them for a long time, helping them in their tribal conflicts and learning their ways. Long ago she set aside her heavy armor for the light leathers and curved blades of her adopted tribe, learning their war chants and magics. Every battledancer is expected to leave the tribe and experience the world, and Illiana has taken her leave to adventure with the party for a time. She is quiet and almost unreadable, greatly contrasting her fierce and exotic graceful fighting style. Netan Vellan: Netan is the scion of a warrior house, just outside the city-state of Jolar. While he has had little in the way of formal martial training, he grew up accompanying family members in escorting caravans through the desert and fending off bandit attacks. He is more than a capable hand with his greatsword and buckler, and he prays to his ancestors, great heroes, believing that he can focus and channel their strength in battle. While very charming and talkative in most cases, Netan is quiet, single-minded, and focused in battle. Netan is well-read in the history of his family and the region, and far more comfortable along well-marked trails and the city than he is when venturing deeper into the desert. Due to his energetic and charismatic nature, Netan is looked upon as the unofficial leader of the party. The Challenge: Alright, so here's the challenge part. Can any of you tell me what classes each of the above characters possess? I've got a brief writeup right here. And, as a bonus, go ahead and tell me how their particular classes or number thereof impacts their ability to be roleplayed. Hint: They are all human and ECL 12.
GhostStepper 12-15-06, 01:10 AM	Ill take a stab at it! lol Jaal the Swift: A self-styled mage hunter, Jaal is a bounty hunter by trade. An agile and skilled warrior and tracker, Jaal uses a mixture of stealth and arcane trinkets to fight his enemies. Jaal is tight-lipped about his past and the reasons for his distrust of arcane magic, but he has shown himself to be trustworthy and devoted. He sees no hypocrisy in working with others or his own use of magic, as he focuses on the misuse of magic and acknowledges that it can be used well - even if he is still left slightly uneasy. Jaal is quick to anger and judges others harshly, something he tries to fight when dealing with other members of the party. He honestly does believe the others to be trustworthy, and his cynical views tell him that such a find is incredibly rare. The tracking makes me think he's got ranger levels and the anti-arcane bit could be Occult Slayer or Witch hunter perhaps. Mirra Talshane: Born in a small village in the eastlands, as a young child Mirra often received dreams of the White Lady, a regional patron saint. Devout and faithful, Mirra found herself blessed with the gift of magic, able to both heal the wounded and call upon a blistering white fire. The flames she wields are intense, capable of scorching even those creatures who live in flame. She feels honored and humbled by these gifts, and works to help others in repayment. Recently, she has accepted the honor of training as an exorcist and fighting against the undead. Mirra is eager to push the party to accomplish great things, both believing them capable, and that she will be granted greater power to protect others after proving herself. Id say cleric and maybe Exorxist of the Silver Flame. Illiana Ai Tor: Once a soldier in a regional militia, Illiana's unit was caught by an ambush in the sands and slaughtered. Left for dead, she was rescued by a nomad tribe, who took her in as one of their own. To repay them, Illiana stayed with them for a long time, helping them in their tribal conflicts and learning their ways. Long ago she set aside her heavy armor for the light leathers and curved blades of her adopted tribe, learning their war chants and magics. Every battledancer is expected to leave the tribe and experience the world, and Illiana has taken her leave to adventure with the party for a time. She is quiet and almost unreadable, greatly contrasting her fierce and exotic graceful fighting style. Atleast a few levels of fighter but deffinately a few of Dervish. Netan Vellan: Netan is the scion of a warrior house, just outside the city-state of Jolar. While he has had little in the way of formal martial training, he grew up accompanying family members in escorting caravans through the desert and fending off bandit attacks. He is more than a capable hand with his greatsword and buckler, and he prays to his ancestors, great heroes, believing that he can focus and channel their strength in battle. While very charming and talkative in most cases, Netan is quiet, single-minded, and focused in battle. Netan is well-read in the history of his family and the region, and far more comfortable along well-marked trails and the city than he is when venturing deeper into the desert. Due to his energetic and charismatic nature, Netan is looked upon as the unofficial leader of the party. The only vibe im getting from this guy is barbarian.
Gorillastyle 12-15-06, 01:34 AM	I don't dislike mutliclassing, but what really is killing single class character concepts is the fact that practically every class is front loaded in some way. Look at saves. Every class gets a +2 to atleast one save at first level. I can easily make a 3rd level character with saves of +4/+4/+6 just using base classes, sure I can't hit anything but I have a definate advatage when facing an opponent that requires me to make a save plus I can be an amazing support character. And that is exactly the point... you have the option to be great at saves, and to do that you lose the oportunity to increase your BAB. Like many things in 3.5, it's a trade. Choices. Options. You can tailor the game to fit your own needs. ... I don't care how powerful your first level character is, when I am the DM I throw challenges at Player height and Character height. In my games, your character needs to watch out for my NPCs, Monsters, Traps etc... She gets to swing a sword. But you need to watch out for the clues you need to survive the ambush coming up, or the evidence you should discover to solve the puzzle, or take just the right approach to convince an NPC to aid you. Roleplaying is fun. But as many have stated on this thread and all over these boards - it doesn't mean you can't be a superhero. Superheroes have problems too. Likewise, you could build the most sub-optimal character, and I will still work the adventure to give you and your character a chance to do something meaningful. If you are creative enough, you can make any situation work. 3.5 is so much better than previous incarnations because WoTC has such a good understanding of what makes a game fun, mutable and worth playing. I started playing with 1st edition. I played Basic, I played 2nd edition... 3.5 is the best incarnation of this game yet because you have the options to mold the game. AND they even made the core mechanics of the system freely available for third-party developers - so you aren't limited by the WoTC staffs' imaginations.
Sleepwalker13666 12-15-06, 04:10 AM	Sorcerer is explicitly spontaneous appearance. What you did was unneccessary. Read the PHB again. Unless Sorcerers work differently in your campaign setting, but that begs the question of "How does that related to DnD as written"? While sorcerory may be in the blood, it takes time to hone that skill, there was an article in dragon magazine that detailed sorcerors coming into thier powers, and I since I was uniformed of this sudden choice I instead gave him the scroll. Sure the game will just let you do it, but because I focus as at least 1/2 the game on story I felt it unreasonable to just let him pick it up, if he had informed me that he was planning on taking it a level or two ahead of time I would have used a few things out of that article I mentioned before to help bring sense to becoming a sorceror. As I have mentioned before I don't mind multi-classing but I at least want a decent reason behind drastic changes, and Sorceror from Ninja at the time was not a reasonable change for my game even though the rules allow it.
Bard-of-all-trades 12-15-06, 09:03 PM	So after reading the opinions and great answers to my post, I'm seeing a couple themes. Style and the DM. There seems to be a trend that a lot of folks have this style of gaming; cheery-picking class abilities versus playing what the class(es) give you as you advance. Some have said that classes limit you to what you can or cannot do and so limit your role-playing as well. Personally, I think this is a bogus statement, but some think to agree with this. What keeps me from role-playing a Fighter 10 any different than a Fighter 4/Swashbuckler 3/Ranger 3? They both are front-line fighters that use TWF. Or for that matter a Wizard 20 any different than a Fighter 1/Wizard 5/ Eldritch Knight 10/Abjurant Champion 4? They're both the main party arcane caster that can cast 9th level spells. And there is one point that seems to be missing; how you can continue to play your Sorcerer 10/Dragonslayer 1/Spellsword 1/Divine Crusader 2/Mystic Theurge 6? Where do you go from here? The second theme is the DM. I firmly believe in the statement that if you aren't having fun in your current game, talk to the DM and if that doesn't get anywhere to find a new DM or DM yourself. On the one hand the DM sets the game and on the other the DM allegedly is the one that screws one class or style by allowing or restricting different things. But, who really allows Ranger 1/Battle Sorcerer 4/Prestige Bard 1/Dragonslayer 1/Spellsword 1/Bladesinger 1/Prestige Bard 1/Master Harper 10 in their games? Can anyone seriously say that any of the characters from the Dungeon Delve (seen here at Designing the Delve, Part I (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060929a)) are any less effective than characters that cherry-pick class abilities? Is a Druid 5/Wizard 5/Arcane Hierophant 10/Warshaper 5 any more effective than the Druid they provide? Or a Fighter 4/Swashbuckler 3/Barbarian 3/Dervish 10 more effective than the Ranger 20? And for the record, let me say this; I'm not against anyone who has any one of the above listed builds or builds close to them in any way, shape, or form. If you and your DM can work it into your game to make these builds in a plausible and role-playing way, have fun and enjoy. If that's what you want to play, fine. I don't see how a base class or maybe a prestige class isn't good enough that so many feel they have to play a Rogue 3/Warlock 1/Arcane Trickster 10/Shadowlord 6 or something like that.
bitnine 12-15-06, 09:46 PM	What keeps me from role-playing a Fighter 10 any different than a Fighter 4/Swashbuckler 3/Ranger 3? Or for that matter a Wizard 20 any different than a Fighter 1/Wizard 5/ Eldritch Knight 10/Abjurant Champion 4? If you and your DM can work it into your game to make these builds in a plausible and role-playing way, have fun and enjoy.I want to see the former and latter statements over in concept thunderdome where they belong.
Issabella 12-15-06, 09:53 PM	Sometimes, the Burger King is closed for rennovations. Some people live in remote locations where a Burger King is 5 minutes away, while a Chili's is more than an hour. They could always choose to cook their own meals if they don't feel like driving an hour for what they want. On the other hand, though, Burger King frequently has limited time products, like the Bacon Cheddar Ranch sandwiches, they like to mix it up some times. Like Cheese Sticks. Or the Cheese Sauce they had for awhile around the same time they did the Simpons watch promotion. To quote Homer, "Only cheese makes it more cheesier." dammit now I am hungry thanks GRIMM!! all kidding aside D&D right now is suffering from MMORPG's "power creep" where each product that is produced in one way or another pushes the power boundry, wether it is intended or not. Many materail gets released without proper play testing and is frankly broken as all hell in mechanics. I am sure many could contribute a longer list and agrue back and forth. As the current GM, I flat out ban many many classes from my game, why if I allowed them, it would be breaking. I have the greatest sympathy for any GM that has players who actually try and play stuff out of the min max boards, thankfully my players listened when I asked them not too. I am of several mines about PRC's. One one hand I love the options they represent. On the other the dipping strikes as power gaming to me, I am old school about that. The way i work most prc's is they are secret societies and schools, and guess what they do not like people who join and split. They feel like their secrets are tarnished and that player was actually an interloper. Those of my players who find out if they "dipped" 3 levels in a prc and split for another. That secret society is not going to be happy. Also in my games, not all Prc's are automatically open, they have to generally find a teacher, and sometimes this was not possible in the cource of the game. "yeah I leveled, I want to take sandshaper now." "Umm you guys are near the Northern Pole of the world...there is not sand or a shaper of it for over a thousand miles currently." Sadly this I think have thrown off peoples Ideal builds, or sometimes I let them put off leveling until they get training. varies from case to case. Okay about core classes, most suffer from severe design flaws in relations to PRCS. Many core classes to not provide any reason to continue if you can find a prc that allows mostly normal progression. If no prc's offered full casting progression you would see more full wizards...and maybe soccerrs (whom have their own problem)
Ovarwa 12-15-06, 10:07 PM	Hi, Are base classes a lost concept? Maybe for 4ed they *should* be. A Rogue 20 is all well and good, but isn't quite as cool as a Journeyman Rogue/Archeologist-Thief/Clandestine Infiltrator/Master Spy. Why be a Fighter12 when you can be a Journeyman Fighter/Knight/Protector of the Realm? And so on. Lots of smaller, atmospheric classes may be the way to go. And while we're at it, maybe even the entry level classes could have entry requirements, with characters taking "apprenticeship packages" instead of quadrupling skill points at first level. It is natural for players to go for prestige classes that increase their characters' power and best match their concept; it is natural for WotC to spam us with New and Improved Prestige Classes--might as well roll with it and make *every* class a Prestige Class. Sort of like the special olympics. Anyway, Ken
Merryadocc 12-15-06, 10:19 PM	I only read the first page of posts, so this may not fit where the thread is currently at. I would just like to say that one of my favourite concepts, which I have yet to play, is to go Human Rng1/Ftr19. With the able learner feat for keeping up my Spot, Listen, and Survival. I would also take the Skill Knowledge feat for Use Magic Device, and then would spend the rest of my skill points on Climb, Jump, and Swim. No thinking, just going with the flow on a simple character concept, and if I didn't have the 16 Int needed for the build (I like smart fighters) then screw Spot and Listen, I'll just keep up my Survival so I have more of a 2nd ED feel to my character. I have strong memories still, of many a 2nd ED Fighter spending Non-Weapon Proficiencies on being able to track well, I want to play a pure (or near pure) Fighter in 3.x that can do the same. Thanks to Weapon Supremacy in PHB2 I can do so again and have it be worth it. :) Using nothing but base classes (and alot of supplemental feats) to get my ideal roleplaying tankage experience. ;)
Damionte 12-15-06, 10:30 PM	I only read the first page of posts, so this may not fit where the thread is currently at. I would just like to say that one of my favourite concepts, which I have yet to play, is to go Human Rng1/Ftr19. With the able learner feat for keeping up my Spot, Listen, and Survival. I would also take the Skill Knowledge feat for Use Magic Device, and then would spend the rest of my skill points on Climb, Jump, and Swim. No thinking, just going with the flow on a simple character concept, and if I didn't have the 16 Int needed for the build (I like smart fighters) then screw Spot and Listen, I'll just keep up my Survival so I have more of a 2nd ED feel to my character. I have strong memories still, of many a 2nd ED Fighter spending Non-Weapon Proficiencies on being able to track well, I want to play a pure (or near pure) Fighter in 3.x that can do the same. Thanks to Weapon Supremacy in PHB2 I can do so again and have it be worth it. :) Using nothing but base classes (and alot of supplemental feats) to get my ideal roleplaying tankage experience. ;) :eek: :eek: THAT'S JUST CRAZY TALK :eek: :eek:
Archangel62 12-15-06, 10:41 PM	I only read the first page of posts, so this may not fit where the thread is currently at. I would just like to say that one of my favourite concepts, which I have yet to play, is to go Human Rng1/Ftr19. With the able learner feat for keeping up my Spot, Listen, and Survival. I would also take the Skill Knowledge feat for Use Magic Device, and then would spend the rest of my skill points on Climb, Jump, and Swim. No thinking, just going with the flow on a simple character concept, and if I didn't have the 16 Int needed for the build (I like smart fighters) then screw Spot and Listen, I'll just keep up my Survival so I have more of a 2nd ED feel to my character. I have strong memories still, of many a 2nd ED Fighter spending Non-Weapon Proficiencies on being able to track well, I want to play a pure (or near pure) Fighter in 3.x that can do the same. Thanks to Weapon Supremacy in PHB2 I can do so again and have it be worth it. :) Using nothing but base classes (and alot of supplemental feats) to get my ideal roleplaying tankage experience. ;) That can work quite well for you, and if it does then great. Then again some concepts need prestige or some multi-classing to work well mechanically. Mage slayers are an example of this.
Bard-of-all-trades 12-16-06, 12:37 PM	That can work quite well for you, and if it does then great. Then again some concepts need prestige or some multi-classing to work well mechanically. Mage slayers are an example of this. Could you please explain?
bitnine 12-16-06, 01:23 PM	That can work quite well for you, and if it does then great. Then again some concepts need prestige or some multi-classing to work well mechanically. Mage slayers are an example of this.No...! My brain! It's happening all over again! This is the part where yet again someone starts arguing for the disclusion of PrCs based on the reasoning that "you don't need them," eventually challenging everyone to come up with a concept that can't be represented from the core books. With plenty of liberal applications of effect descriptions and item dependency (spell thematics for everyone!) and mentions on how the concept is represented "well enough." And that you want for Kamahl a sorcerer/barbarian combination that doesn't feel like stabbing yourself in the eyes with a fork is just a case of asking for more power. For the love of bitnine, skip it - because saying that you don't need a particular something is a non-reason! Something being broken, disruptive, silly, not making any sense - these are actual reasons to avoid or disallow material. (Even I'm poor and I can't afford books, or I'm lazy and don't want to read more - not necessarily the best reasons in the world, but certainly reasons there.) Seriously, look at the example character above, Illiana Ai Tor. Without stating anything definitive, probably a dervish from the description. Does she need to have levels in the dervish class? Couldn't she be just a fighter played in a certain way? Right now I'm going to say, sure. So right now, as an assertion, we have moved to the point where (at least for the sake of this case or hypothetically) everyone agrees that Illiana doesn't need a couple levels in Dervish. Now let's eliminate everything else. Assume (perhaps hypothetically again) those levels in Dervish aren't broken or silly, that they don't disrupt the game, and they may perfect sense for the character, as well as more finely and accurately descripting who she is. What on earth does the idea of "you don't need it" have to do with anything? Using the same shoddy reasoning in my next game I'm going to forbid players from taking levels in fighter unless they can prove to me that they need them, which they won't be able to. So they'll suck down levels in the warrior class and like it. In fact, if they quesiton me, I'll start beating them with a brick and shouting, "Shut up! You're just asking for more power and things you don't need! One more word and you'll be playing a fighting commoner!"
Manyfist 12-16-06, 01:28 PM	Losing doesn't mean dying. Losing means not winning. I never said anything about dying or not getting to a point. I just think there are better ways to it then domination. So when you loose you expect your enemies to whom you lost too just to say, GJ go off now? If you loose to something especially at higher levels you'll loose your life. In example you face a Pit Fiend, you loose, what next? Well he's going to either Enslave you, or kill you out right. Unless you're dealing with minor threats you're most likely to get killed when you loose. The way D&D is played would make the worst movie ever. Heroes join up, heroes kill everything, heroes win. Blah. Boring. You need a comeback for the hero. You need his downfall so his win means something. You need weaknesses in a character or people don't give a crap. Generalization is fun! Yes lets all say that all D&D is just an Hack and slash! They're is no Wrong way to play D&D. The game hasn't evolved. The players, in my opinion, have devolved. It's a sad point and that's why I generally prefer to play with older players from 1st and second edition. It HAS evolved. 3.5 puts more on the DM to decided what he wants with his campaign. Players can't De evolve, they just play diffrently. You're just an bitter old man, most kids (12 & under) are with the Hack and Slash, yet as they age they gain more apreciation for character development. Maybe you need to find new people if all you run into are Munchkins, or your DM needs to grow some balls and tell them no. And to answer the other fellow: Yes, challenges SHOULD grow. Orcs should be a menace to be worried about at first level. At higher levels they are fodder for more powerful characters. The problem is everyone wants to play low level characters like the most experienced adventurers when the simple realism is 1st level characters are bumbling, straight out of the town normal folk with certain abilities. Add a few class levels to the Orcs, and bamn... you got a scaleing mence. Get Redhand of Doom its a good place to start how NPCs evolve over time. Look at most NPC's in the FR. MOST have very few classes and hell, some of the biggest heroe's are relatively low levels compared to player groups, a lot only single digit levels. YET... they are considered some of the biggest heroes in the Realms. 9th Level fights considered major, iconic, event breaking heroes. BS. Majority of the Realms are already Epic. Majority of the Realms are Multiclassed monsters, and non of the Heroes are at low level. If you want Low level NPC heroes play Eberron, in the Realms you obey everyone else. In Eberron everyone else can obey you. You don't see many NPC's with multiple classes and prcs because the creators of the game and world, the ones who actually know more then us, realize the problems that creates. Super powerful, no weakness characters dipping into every prc to make sure are boring as all hell. They belong in Uwe Bol movies. What NPCs take 20 levels in one class? Much rather have a Rogue with muti PrCs that embody my view of my Rogue, than take 20 levels in one class. Like I said get a new DM who has some balls to limit people. If you're group you played with was nothing but munckin people, then take charge. Tell them NO, you may not dip into so many classes for X amount of levels. Ask them how they view their character, what's the background of this character? A Rogue who goes Rogue 5/Assassin 9/Ghost Face Killer 6, would consider himself an Assassin who can catch his Quarry in the right moment. Than a Rogue 20, who is viewed more as a skill monkey than a true person. Sure a Rogue 20 can call him self an Assassin, yet is he really? Sure he can kill, yet can he kill without hassle, he doesn't have access to the Death attack so the One Shot, One Kill doesn't apply. Its all how you want to define your character, I my self like Changelings. So what do I want to do? Rogue 5/Chameleon 10/Cabinet Trickster 5 I am who ever you want me to be. I am now a great assassin, spy, social lite.;)
Sleepwalker13666 12-16-06, 02:32 PM	No...! My brain! It's happening all over again! This is the part where yet again someone starts arguing for the disclusion of PrCs based on the reasoning that "you don't need them," eventually challenging everyone to come up with a concept that can't be represented from the core books. With plenty of liberal applications of effect descriptions and item dependency (spell thematics for everyone!) and mentions on how the concept is represented "well enough." And that you want for Kamahl a sorcerer/barbarian combination that doesn't feel like stabbing yourself in the eyes with a fork is just a case of asking for more power. For the love of bitnine, skip it - because saying that you don't need a particular something is a non-reason! Something being broken, disruptive, silly, not making any sense - these are actual reasons to avoid or disallow material. (Even I'm poor and I can't afford books, or I'm lazy and don't want to read more - not necessarily the best reasons in the world, but certainly reasons there.) Seriously, look at the example character above, Illiana Ai Tor. Without stating anything definitive, probably a dervish from the description. Does she need to have levels in the dervish class? Couldn't she be just a fighter played in a certain way? Right now I'm going to say, sure. So right now, as an assertion, we have moved to the point where (at least for the sake of this case or hypothetically) everyone agrees that Illiana doesn't need a couple levels in Dervish. Now let's eliminate everything else. Assume (perhaps hypothetically again) those levels in Dervish aren't broken or silly, that they don't disrupt the game, and they may perfect sense for the character, as well as more finely and accurately descripting who she is. What on earth does the idea of "you don't need it" have to do with anything? Using the same shoddy reasoning in my next game I'm going to forbid players from taking levels in fighter unless they can prove to me that they need them, which they won't be able to. So they'll suck down levels in the warrior class and like it. In fact, if they quesiton me, I'll start beating them with a brick and shouting, "Shut up! You're just asking for more power and things you don't need! One more word and you'll be playing a fighting commoner!" I think the point was you did'nt need them to play a good character. It is possible to play a character without PrCs and without Multi-Classing, it's also possible to fullfill a concept without doing it. I find it can be eaiser to do with them, but it does'nt need to be done. One character I have is a warrior nun, she acts like a paladin, but shes only a fighter, currently level 8, I eventually gained the saint template with her. I could continue out with her as a fighter if I wnted to, there are enough optionsto keep her powerful and interesting as a fighter, but more than likly after level 10 I will find a prestigous class for her, something more Paladin-Like becasue it fits the character. On the flip side of the coin I have another character that is an Amazon Warrior which was accomplished through 2 levels of Ranger, Barbarain and Fighter, then prestiging into Frenzied Beserker. I could have gone all barbarian, but I felt the wilderness abilities of the ranger fit well with my concept, and the fighter levels to show a sense of combatitive skill rather than just unbridled wrath. Both of these characters are well roleplayed, the Amazon is more min-maxed than the Warrior Nun, but both builds where done with the intention of how i saw the characters.
Bard-of-all-trades 12-16-06, 03:07 PM	... - because saying that you don't need a particular something is a non-reason! Something being broken, disruptive, silly, not making any sense - these are actual reasons to avoid or disallow material. ... This would have been just fine to answer. Let's keep things civil here folks. Besides, I asked for the answer to be explained. And what is "concept thunderdome"?
bitnine 12-16-06, 03:23 PM	Let's keep things civil here folks. Besides, I asked for the answer to be explained.Erm, just to make it perfectly clear, all of those statements were directed at thoughts and concepts, not persons - and certainly not you, so please don't take that as any sort of personal hostility.
Damionte 12-16-06, 06:52 PM	Erm, just to make it perfectly clear, all of those statements were directed at thoughts and concepts, not persons - and certainly not you, so please don't take that as any sort of personal hostility. Didn't sound like any kind of personal attack to me. To weigh in. I like the prestige classes. I like having options. I like playing the archetypes I like t play. The base classes are fine but we played those already. played them to death. I've had enough of trying to squeze my character concept into a class where it doesn't truly fit. I've been playing for 20 years now. I've done the base classes to death already. Now to be honest I see picking up 2 or 3 base classes as the same as picking up a prestige class. It's silly to argue that because you can make an archetype using only base classes that you're staying pure, compared to someone using a prestige class. I have plenty of archetypes that use base classes only. My favorite archer build is a wonderful combination of fighter scout and ranger, with the ranger acting as a prestige class of sorts. I have many that use prestige classes. Hell I have a few that use just one base class. The point is to use whatever you need to use to get the archetype you're looking for. Is it really a role-playing versus roll-playing standpoint? Let's hear what you have to say on this... I don't feel it's an issue one way or the other at all. Both roll play and role play are helped by the ability to multiclass. Which is really what we're talking about there. This argument isn't about base vs prestige, it's about single vs multi classes.
Belgian Waffle 12-16-06, 07:37 PM	I find it interesting that the latest OotS comic brings up this same exact topic. Yes... interesting...
Bard-of-all-trades 12-17-06, 02:15 AM	OK I apologize for not seeing this earlier, especially to bitnine. Remember folks this is a discussion and I won't let this deteriorate to post bashing. If you can prove a point to correct something someone else posted, just do it and don't cuss about it. Generalization is fun! Yes lets all say that all D&D is just an Hack and slash! They're is no Wrong way to play D&D. It HAS evolved. 3.5 puts more on the DM to decided what he wants with his campaign. Players can't De evolve, they just play diffrently. You're just an bitter old man, most kids (12 & under) are with the Hack and Slash, yet as they age they gain more apreciation for character development. Maybe you need to find new people if all you run into are Munchkins, or your DM needs to ... tell them no. I know plenty of folks that are over 21 that do nothing but Hack & Slash when they play D&D. It's a personal choice, not an age thing. But nice generalization. :) Majority of the Realms are already Epic. Majority of the Realms are Multiclassed monsters, and non of the Heroes are at low level. If you want Low level NPC heroes play Eberron, in the Realms you obey everyone else. In Eberron everyone else can obey you. Well to clarify, King Bruenor is only 10th level or so, as is Wulfgar, and, if my memory serves me correctly, so is Alias from the Harpers series. Yes Elminster, Drizz't, and Artemis Entreri are all high level, but again they aren't the only characters running around the Realms that are powerful in the novels. And as you allude to, there is a very distinct style difference between the Realms and Eberron. A Rogue who goes Rogue 5/Assassin 9/Ghost Face Killer 6, would consider himself an Assassin who can catch his Quarry in the right moment. Than a Rogue 20, who is viewed more as a skill monkey than a true person. Sure a Rogue 20 can call him self an Assassin, yet is he really? Sure he can kill, yet can he kill without hassle, he doesn't have access to the Death attack so the One Shot, One Kill doesn't apply. Its all how you want to define your character, I my self like Changelings. So what do I want to do? Rogue 5/Chameleon 10/Cabinet Trickster 5 I am who ever you want me to be. I am now a great assassin, spy, social lite.;) So are you arguing that class mechanics make your character and not the player or what exactly? If you're group you played with was nothing but munckin people, then take charge. Tell them NO, you may not dip into so many classes for X amount of levels. Ask them how they view their character, what's the background of this character? This sounds like a sound, if not blunt, way to handle this situation as the DM. It is the job of the DM to allow or not allow things in the game for various reasons (i.e. power level, setting, culture, etc.).
Archangel62 12-17-06, 03:19 AM	Please define base class. Please define it in a way that makes sense in a non-metagame way. Please explain why it is necessary for roleplay or for a game to work.
Bard-of-all-trades 12-17-06, 04:12 AM	Base class being one of the 11 core classes from the Player's Handbook plus 3 each from the Complete Adventure, Arcane, Divine, & Warrior, and Tome of Battle, as well as 4 from Complete Psionics and Player's Handbook II. It would mean playing this one class for an entire character's adventuring life time. It could also mean multiclassing by having 50% or more levels in one of the aforementioned base classes and the rest of the levels in one other base class or one other prestige class. Having three or more classes, base or prestige, in any combination would not qualify for the terms of my original question. I want to know why a Barbarian 20 or Wizard 15/Archmage 5 is not acceptable to play as compared to a Fighter 2/ Barbarian 2/ Swashbuckler 3/ Warblade 3/ Frenzied Berserker 10 or a Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Spellsword 1/Eldtrich Knight 8/Abjurant Champion 5.
Neutronium_Dragon 12-17-06, 04:38 AM	A Barbarian 20 or Wizard 15/Archmage 5 is as acceptable to play as a Fighter 2/ Barbarian 2/ Swashbuckler 3/ Warblade 3/ Frenzied Berserker 10 or a Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Spellsword 1/Eldtrich Knight 8/Abjurant Champion 5. Which is the point. It's not somehow "less acceptable" to use the latter two, just as it's not "less acceptable" to use the former two. Whichever the player feels sets a better mechanics representation of the concept (which is independent of classes). But you seem to be arguing that the former two are inherently superior because there are fewer classes involved, and I don't buy that.
Ultimatecalibur 12-17-06, 04:41 AM	I think it comes from how multiclassing works. Every class gets a kicker to saves on their 1st level, and classes usually grant their basic "Meat and Potatoes" abilities in the first 2 levels of the class.
Bard-of-all-trades 12-17-06, 05:35 AM	A Barbarian 20 or Wizard 15/Archmage 5 is as acceptable to play as a Fighter 2/ Barbarian 2/ Swashbuckler 3/ Warblade 3/ Frenzied Berserker 10 or a Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Spellsword 1/Eldtrich Knight 8/Abjurant Champion 5. Which is the point. It's not somehow "less acceptable" to use the latter two, just as it's not "less acceptable" to use the former two. Whichever the player feels sets a better mechanics representation of the concept (which is independent of classes). But you seem to be arguing that the former two are inherently superior because there are fewer classes involved, and I don't buy that. No, I didn't say any one was more superior than the other. But, like I said in my original post... All over these forums and others, I have seen a personally upsetting trend in character creation, both for general play and optimizing, that involves only "dipping" levels of base and PrC classes for making an allegedly effective character. Marshal is only good for Cha builds and only a one level dip, Fighters should only take a 2 or 4 level dip, Divine Oracle a one level dip for the extra Domain, etc. Why don't players in general want to play a Wizard 15/ Archmage 5? Or heavens forbid a Fighter 20?Do you really have to have a bigger/ faster/ stronger character in order to play the game? Has the power curve been raised so high that you cannot play a more straight-forward character? Or is it that they need this dipping to fully flesh out the character concept properly?
Roland the Crownbreaker 12-17-06, 05:53 AM	One of the primary reasons for dipping is to boost saves. The more "save-or-you-get-to-watch-and-not-play" effects enter the game, the more min-maxing player builds get.
Krevon 12-17-06, 05:58 AM	It really depends on the power level of the game. If yuo play a module like Age of the Wyrm a character concept that dosen't pay off til 15th level won't cut if you start from level 1.
Walls 12-17-06, 10:37 AM	My whole argument comes down to "realism" (yes, it's a fantasy game) But, using the above example and it's happened, how the heck does a barbarian go to a swashbuckler or a swashbuckler to a frenzied berserker. They are such polar opposites as far as characters go. I understand why you would because of mechanics and stats, but there has to be a reason. A good DM would certainly see it and say "Uh... how does that make sense?"
Belgian Waffle 12-17-06, 12:31 PM	It's not any different than how a character's alignment can change. Maybe the character just had an Epiphany at some point and said, "This is how I want to do things from now on." Or maybe the guy is just schizo. What does it matter?
Nephlite 12-17-06, 12:40 PM	My whole argument comes down to "realism" (yes, it's a fantasy game) But, using the above example and it's happened, how the heck does a barbarian go to a swashbuckler or a swashbuckler to a frenzied berserker. They are such polar opposites as far as characters go. I understand why you would because of mechanics and stats, but there has to be a reason. A good DM would certainly see it and say "Uh... how does that make sense?" Barbarian wishes to build up on his fencing. Maybe he has a duel coming up. Maybe, he just likes light weapons. Who knows. By the way, Barbs do not have to be uncultuired bafoons. Spend 2 skill points and they can read. Maybe the a Swashbuckler (don't they need Rage to be a FB?) had someone kill his father in a duel. So he gained a inner fury or state of mind to better fight. His fury or state of mind deepens and widens till he gains a hatred in this state of all who get in his way. When he finally meets the man who killed his father he will say: "I am Inaga Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!" (rage + fenzy) "I am Inaga Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!" "I am Inaga Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!" Enemy: Stop saying that!
Kursk 12-17-06, 12:40 PM	My whole argument comes down to "realism" (yes, it's a fantasy game) But, using the above example and it's happened, how the heck does a barbarian go to a swashbuckler or a swashbuckler to a frenzied berserker. They are such polar opposites as far as characters go. I understand why you would because of mechanics and stats, but there has to be a reason. A good DM would certainly see it and say "Uh... how does that make sense?" Some players like playing in a campaign that has no rhyme or reason. Others like a more defined world where they can figure things out based on a "world logic" where cause and effect are related. Some like no logic or cause & effect linkage. Just depends on the group. My players like a world that is internally consistant. So there are no "Fighter 2/ Barbarian 2/ Swashbuckler 3/ Warblade 3/ Frenzied Berserker 10's". If one showed up my players would ask if I'd lost my mind. At some point I'll probably run a game where anything goes just to have fun and give my players that "LSD" trip type of feeling.
Archangel62 12-17-06, 12:41 PM	My whole argument comes down to "realism" (yes, it's a fantasy game) But, using the above example and it's happened, how the heck does a barbarian go to a swashbuckler or a swashbuckler to a frenzied berserker. They are such polar opposites as far as characters go. I understand why you would because of mechanics and stats, but there has to be a reason. A good DM would certainly see it and say "Uh... how does that make sense?" Also depends on the styles too however. If a barbarian is a whirling frenzy type then it might make more sense, but I doubt that many would combine barbarian and swashbuckler simply because it wouldn't work well mechanically. However, I can understand the frustration of a DM in a game that is more RP focused where some players just want to slaughter. Many DMs will ask why a character is multi-classing. BTW, Bard, your example of the base classes is still a metagame concept as you explained it.
Manyfist 12-17-06, 12:42 PM	I just say if your class list is longer than the line given too you, don't bother playing it.
Archangel62 12-17-06, 12:44 PM	I just say if your class list is longer than the line given too you, don't bother playing it. Remember kids, pick classes with short names, same with prestige classes, and don't write big either.
OneWinged4ngel 12-17-06, 12:52 PM	My whole argument comes down to "realism" (yes, it's a fantasy game) But, using the above example and it's happened, how the heck does a barbarian go to a swashbuckler or a swashbuckler to a frenzied berserker. They are such polar opposites as far as characters go. I understand why you would because of mechanics and stats, but there has to be a reason. A good DM would certainly see it and say "Uh... how does that make sense?" Forgive me for stepping in late. But... wow... so much wrong in this. I'm going to be just a tad blunt here, but I feel it is nescessary. You've been warned. :rant: It makes absolute, perfect sense, and it just sounds stupid to hear so many people saying otherwise in one thread... which exemplifies people's use of the Stormwind Fallacy. Flavor is independent from mechanics. Here's what a Barbarian is mechanically: It's a guy who, somehow, is able to dish out more damage and become more resilient for a set amount of time a set number of times per day. He has a decent amount of skill points. He can read if you spend two of them. He's able to dodge some attacks and other minor goodies. Here's what a Barbarian is flavorfully: Whatever you want to make it. That's it. Now, let's see how many concepts we can think of for a moderately skilled class that can dish out more damage or become more resilient a few times a day. I don't know about you, but I can think of thousands right off. Mechanics are independent from flavor. DUH. Thinking otherwise is a LOGICAL FALLACY (indeed, an aspect of the Stormwind Fallacy), which is to say... you're wrong, and probably not particularly capable of thinking logically. Seriously. I'll name a few that others have cited before: Edymnion suggested Stinking Cloud could be renamed "Euphoria" and create such a joyful sensation that it hinders foes, with the exact same mechanics. It's as simple as making your own flavor (and not having to just play stereotypes and unoriginal concepts that you didn't make yourself, because you're an uncreative idiot.) Tempest Stormwind has mentioned how he once had some super-mutant creatures whose limbs transformed into deadly weapons and their bodies molded into various implements to help them accomplish various feats. You know what they were? Monks! Just plain monks, mechanically. And it works! Slow fall? A knife sticks out of the torso to jam into the wall, slowing the descent. Extra unarmed damage? Turning your fist into a deadly weapon seems to fit. Etc, etc. These posters are not idiots. In fact, they (and I) have pretty strong reputations for the opposite on these boards, which is why I use them as examples. Oh, right... your particular question. How many examples should I give? One should do it, but I could easily give you dozens should you request it. A Barbarian could be a holy man who channels the spirits of his ancestors through his body to give him strength, and relies on their guidance in battle (for example, his dodging abilities would be a result of these warnings). He is very well-cultured, and comes from a long line of nobles who were accomplished swordsmen. And he can use a rapier and use finesse in battle, so he could be a Swashbuckler. Indeed, he believes his ancestors' spirits help guide his sword. So... your argument comes down to a logical fallacy. In your example, the person saying "uh, how does that make sense?" doesn't seem like a particularly good DM at all. A good DM should allow it if it fits the flavor. And, as I have demonstrated, it conceivably *can* fit the flavor of a character. A good DM doesn't require players to play stereotypes. A good DM isn't an idiot who thinks in logical fallacies. The only case in which a good DM would say a Barbarian/Swashbuckler was something he wouldn't allow would be if *the player* does not justify the multiclass with any sort of decent flavor.
Manyfist 12-17-06, 12:57 PM	Remember kids, pick classes with short names, same with prestige classes, and don't write big either. Nah I let them Abrv. as long I and they know what class it is. I like multiclassing, but MC too much for the sake of Powergaming I don't like. When I play a Rogue I play a Changeling Rogue. Or a Changeling Wilder, maybe even a Dwarf (Berserker) Barbarian.
Belgian Waffle 12-17-06, 01:00 PM	Nah I let them Abrv. as long I and they know what class it is. I like multiclassing, but MC too much for the sake of Powergaming I don't like. When I play a Rogue I play a Changeling Rogue. Or a Changeling Wilder, maybe even a Dwarf (Berserker) Barbarian. Here is the thing. Where is the boundary between "powergaming" and simply multiclassing? Is it even something that can be quantified?
Nephlite 12-17-06, 01:10 PM	Here is the thing. Where is the boundary between "powergaming" and simply multiclassing? Is it even something that can be quantified? As far as I read from his post: MC with even a little rationale= simply multi/powergame MC with even no rationale= munchkin So just idiots count as munchkin. of course :D The rest of us optimize because our characters want to live realistically (and be best as possible). Powergaming is choosing the optimal choice. It would be like choosing between using a Sorceror with 10 charisma: you can do it but why? If you do anything optimal you are powergaming.
Manyfist 12-17-06, 02:09 PM	Here is the thing. Where is the boundary between "powergaming" and simply multiclassing? Is it even something that can be quantified? Powergaming when you dip into one class just to gain something. Such as Wizard X/Mindbender 1/Fighter 2/Spell Sword 1/Abjurant Champion X/Eldritch Knight X. That is powergaming, when you go through so many PrCs just to cast in Full Plate Armor and have 9th level casting, and Close to Full BAB. Thats Powergaming/Optimizing. While if you are like me on my Changelings, I go Rogue X/Chameleon X/Cabinet Trickster X or Rogue X/Cabinet Trickster X/Mindspy X/Warshaper X. I say take at least 3-4 Levels in a PrC inorder to be considered not Powergaming. Why? Many classes just offer good level 1 content, and forcing them to take 2 more levels can throw off most builds. If they really have that character in mind for RP they wouldn't have a problem takeing a few more levels in X before moving on.
Votan 12-17-06, 02:11 PM	As far as I read from his post: MC with even a little rationale= simply multi/powergame MC with even no rationale= munchkin So just idiots count as munchkin. of course :D The rest of us optimize because our characters want to live realistically (and be best as possible). Powergaming is choosing the optimal choice. It would be like choosing between using a Sorceror with 10 charisma: you can do it but why? If you do anything optimal you are powergaming. What is strange about this is, with some exceptions, multi-classing itself is not a powerful choice most of the time. It breaks synergy and delays upper-tier class abilities. With a few exceptions (Fighter, but only pre PHB2) there is always something to lose by doing it. Prestige classing is a completely different matter, of course, as it is possible to have a prestige class continue the most important class abilities (e.g. casting abilities) and still grant more powers later on. But a Barbarian/Swashbuckler now has another important attribute to keep high (intelligence), a skill set that doesn't mesh perfectly well and delays things like Mighty Rage, Tireless Rage and even extra rages. Not really a way to build an overpowered character most of the time.
Kresalak 12-17-06, 02:23 PM	I say take at least 3-4 Levels in a PrC inorder to be considered not Powergaming. Why? Many classes just offer good level 1 content, and forcing them to take 2 more levels can throw off most builds. If they really have that character in mind for RP they wouldn't have a problem takeing a few more levels in X before moving on. Is that a No True Scotsman Roleplayer fallacy?
Nitan 12-17-06, 02:31 PM	Is that a No True Scotsman Roleplayer fallacy? Well... I don't think so.
Kresalak 12-17-06, 02:34 PM	I think he's saying "no real roleplayer would dip into a class to get special abilities." It's similar to the Stormwind Fallacy, only that is a False Dilemma, while this is a different fallacy. No True Scotsman, if I intepreted him correctly.
Manyfist 12-17-06, 02:38 PM	I think he's saying "no real roleplayer would dip into a class to get special abilities." It's similar to the Stormwind Fallacy, only that is a False Dilemma, while this is a different fallacy. No True Scotsman, if I intepreted him correctly. I never said a real RPer wouldn't dip. I am saying it wont hurt them to take more levels instead of dipping here and there. If they got a sound character, then a few levels in Mindbender or any other class won't hurt their character. Dipping into one class won't help define your character, how ever MC (3-4 levels) in a class would.
bitnine 12-17-06, 03:07 PM	I think he's saying "no real roleplayer would dip into a class to get special abilities." It's similar to the Stormwind Fallacy, only that is a False Dilemma, while this is a different fallacy. No True Scotsman, if I intepreted him correctly. So... Let's take a look at some sort of character: Ajath Ai Tor CR 12 Male Human Sandwalker 12 CG Medium Humanoid Init +3; Senses Listen +6, Spot -1 Languages Common, Sallan AC 18, touch 13, flat-footed 15 (+3 dex, +5 armor) hp 70 (12 HD) Fort +12, Ref +10, Will +6 or Fort +8, Ref +10, Will +5 (using fractional saves) Speed 40 ft. (8 squares) Melee smititars +11/+11/+6/+6 (1d6+3 plus 1d6 fire) Base Atk +10; Grp +12 Combat Gear Mithril breastplate, dual +1 flaming scimitars, probably other stuff Spells Prepared (CL 4th): [spells here] Abilities Str 14, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 8, Cha 18 SQ Passion of the Sands, Sandhunter, Sandwalker, Warchanting, Warchanter's Elation, Flowing Power Feats Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus: Scimitar, others (written directly as special qualities or modifications thereof) Skills [Skills here] Special Qualities: Passion of the Sands: Ajath may fill himself with the joyous energy of his people and their connection to the rough sands. For a brief time, his strength and natural connection to the sands are bolstered, rendering both heat and flame no threat to him. (Three times per day he gains a +4 bonus to strength and the fire subtype, but a -2 penalty to AC.) Sandhunter: Ajath is a trained hunter of desert beasts, particularly monsterous scorpians and their kin. He gains a bonus to attack and damage against all desert creatures, and an additional bonus to damage against all vermin. (A +1 insight bonus to attack and damage against desert creatures, and a +2 damage bonus against vermin.) Sandwalker: Ajath does not tire from travel or other effects and is particularly hearty against environmental hazards. (He has the benefits of the Endurance feat and can only be fatigued by effects that would normally exhaust him.) Warchanter: Ajath can use the old chants of his people to strengthen his allies and himself. He may inspire his allies, bolster his own passions, or even share a blessing against fire and heat to his allies. (He can grant all allies a +1 to attack and damage, or add his charisma modifier to attack rolls with his scimitars, or grant fire resistance 15 to his allies. He may use these abilities a total of 5 times per day.) Warchanter's Elation: While using a warchant, Ajath's focus and morale are bolstered, allowing himself to better react and defend himself. (He gains a +2 insight bonus to armor class when using any warchant.) Flowing Power: Ajath can expend some of the power harnessed by his people through his swords. (He gains a bonus to melee attack and damage rolls by expending a spell slot.) Now, I could probably fill out the mechanics a little bit more completely above. But taking a look at the fellow, wouldn't you say that Ajath could be roleplayed very well, as an interesting and well-developed character? I'd go so far as to assert that given the above, despite the lack of gear in particular making him look a little lackluster, he certainly doesn't seem overpowered. Given this, make a judgement on the character. Here's my question: what on earth difference could it possibly make if "Standwalker 12" stands for a single base class, two class variants multiclassed evenly, or some sort of 'dip' including combination? How could that possibly change whether or not you say the character makes sense and an evaluation of its power level? Seriously, if I answer: "Yeah, that's just Sandwalker 12, a base class," do I get the reponse "Hm, that character looks sort of neat," and if I answer "Standwalker 12 stands for 6 classes including 2 dipped PrCs," does that change to, "Aw, whoever plays this must be a total munchkin!"?
Kadasbrass 12-17-06, 04:05 PM	My problem with base classes is that instead of them being unique from each other, their starting to become blured with classes that are really a mimic of two other classes or even existing PrCs. While they're not a complete copy paste, their in nature a repeat and try to turn a character build into a stand alone class. Alittle bit of seasoning makes something taste great, but pour to much and your only going to taste the seasoning.
Ultimatecalibur 12-17-06, 04:43 PM	bitnine, the only problem I have with your sandwalker is the fact that his saves are compareable to a single class character 7 to 8 levels higher.
Belgian Waffle 12-17-06, 07:21 PM	Powergaming when you dip into one class just to gain something. So, if I want to create a character who can cast arcane and divine spells, is it powergaming to grab Mystic Theurge levels? Or would the proper way to play that character be to go 10 Cleric/10 Wizard? Again, where is the line drawn between Powergaming and simply multiclassing? Does intent really matter? If a monkey were to be sprayed with water every time he tried to touch a banana for a week, what do you think he's going to think about touching bananas?
OneWinged4ngel 12-17-06, 07:24 PM	If you don't want the saves to go up from each multiclass, just use fractional BAB and Saves.
Neutronium_Dragon 12-17-06, 07:24 PM	> Powergaming when you dip into one class just to gain something. Baloney. Any time a character gains a level in *any* class, they're doing so to gain something. Whether it happens to be the same class as before or a different one makes no difference.
bitnine 12-17-06, 07:27 PM	If you don't want the saves to go up from each multiclass, just use fractional BAB and Saves.Yeah, I would tend to suggest that myself and would have written up my example aboving using such except for that I wanted to simply show the current system as is as much as possible; I have incuded the factional save equivelent. Aw... I'm sort of diappointed. Doesn't anyone want to call me a munchkin for thinking that Ajath looks like sort of a neat character to play?
Manyfist 12-17-06, 07:36 PM	> Powergaming when you dip into one class just to gain something. Baloney. Any time a character gains a level in *any* class, they're doing so to gain something. Whether it happens to be the same class as before or a different one makes no difference. A Dip is takeing one or two levels in a PrC then moving on. If you want a Mystic Thuerge then 5 Wiz/5 Cleric/10 MT. The 5 levels in Wiz and Clerics wouldn't be considered Dipping, it would be Multiclassing. Dipping would be Wiz X/Fighter 2/Spell Sword 1/Eldritch Knight X/Mind Bender 1/Abjurant Champion X. The Red = Dipping. When you take a tiny bit of the class just for the goodies it offers at 1st-2nd level then thats dipping. The only time I would allow Dipping would be for the Fochlucan Lyrist for its a Tri-Class Monster, and its part of the PRC requirements.
clannagh 12-17-06, 07:36 PM	Classes like Paladin that seem to stop advancing at level 5 but actually have every single important ability (smite, mount advancement, spell advancement) improve every level or every other level also tempt people away, because people are stupid :) They don't see that these benefits are increasing, they only see that nothing appears on the "class feature list". Although you can add classes like hospitaler and ranger (with devoted tracker) and add to some of those abilities and still swap back to Paladin later. 3.5 allows a lot more cross class options even for previously one class tracks like Paladin and Monk.
Votan 12-17-06, 08:08 PM	A Dip is takeing one or two levels in a PrC then moving on. If you want a Mystic Thuerge then 5 Wiz/5 Cleric/10 MT. The 5 levels in Wiz and Clerics wouldn't be considered Dipping, it would be Multiclassing. Dipping would be Wiz X/Fighter 2/Spell Sword 1/Eldritch Knight X/Mind Bender 1/Abjurant Champion X. The Red = Dipping. When you take a tiny bit of the class just for the goodies it offers at 1st-2nd level then thats dipping. The only time I would allow Dipping would be for the Fochlucan Lyrist for its a Tri-Class Monster, and its part of the PRC requirements. But to what extent is this an issue of just Prestige class design? It seems to only ever be a prestige class that has this problem as the multi-classing XP penalty is a pretty significant barrier to extreme dips in base classes. But 80% of this problem appears with full caster prestige classes or prestige classes that give abilities and caster advancement at level 1. It's surprising how much of this problem goes away if you simply ban this absolutely. It's possible to give a prestige class cool abilities when it no longer does this and dipping will be gone forever (for obvious reasons; the same reason why a warrior does not dip repeatedly into 3/4 BAB classes for abilities). Other than that, it's really hard to find things that are extremely abusive in terms of multi-class combinations. Pretty much everyhting else requires very careful planning to execute effectively.
OneWinged4ngel 12-17-06, 08:15 PM	But to what extent is this an issue of just Prestige class design? It seems to only ever be a prestige class that has this problem as the multi-classing XP penalty is a pretty significant barrier to extreme dips in base classes. But 80% of this problem appears with full caster prestige classes or prestige classes that give abilities and caster advancement at level 1. It's surprising how much of this problem goes away if you simply ban this absolutely. It's possible to give a prestige class cool abilities when it no longer does this and dipping will be gone forever (for obvious reasons; the same reason why a warrior does not dip repeatedly into 3/4 BAB classes for abilities). Other than that, it's really hard to find things that are extremely abusive in terms of multi-class combinations. Pretty much everyhting else requires very careful planning to execute effectively. Indeed, there are many faulty prestige class designs. One possible house rule you could enforce would be to penalize multiple prestige classing, much as multiclassing is penalized. I don't think it's really nescessary though (it wouldn't be if prestige classes were better designed.)
bitnine 12-17-06, 08:26 PM	But to what extent is this an issue of just Prestige class design?Oh, it can very clearly be shown to be such. Picture a player, very proud of himself, who has just taken 1 level in 20 different classes. However, although some classes may be front-loaded with benefits in their first level beyond appropriate for the normal scale of a gained level, he has managed to avoid all of them. He then gives a big speech about how powerful his character must be and demands that others call him the dipmaster general. I find that picture to be somewhat comical.
Manyfist 12-17-06, 09:01 PM	But to what extent is this an issue of just Prestige class design? It seems to only ever be a prestige class that has this problem as the multi-classing XP penalty is a pretty significant barrier to extreme dips in base classes. But 80% of this problem appears with full caster prestige classes or prestige classes that give abilities and caster advancement at level 1. It's surprising how much of this problem goes away if you simply ban this absolutely. It's possible to give a prestige class cool abilities when it no longer does this and dipping will be gone forever (for obvious reasons; the same reason why a warrior does not dip repeatedly into 3/4 BAB classes for abilities). Other than that, it's really hard to find things that are extremely abusive in terms of multi-class combinations. Pretty much everyhting else requires very careful planning to execute effectively. Thats why I either make them take 3,4 (even 5) levels in all PrCs/Base Classes they take. With the excpetion of Tri Class monsters like the FL. I usally run a Psionic campaign, so many of their PrCs are balanced.
Neutronium_Dragon 12-17-06, 09:16 PM	It's dipping, but that doesn't make it "powergaming" in the slamming sense that I was quoting from. Any class level from any class at any level is taken to give you something. The "problem", to the extent that it even is one, is that many classes don't offer things at all levels which make them seem worth taking over a level in another class. I still don't consider this a problem because I don't see classes as being a sacrosanct game component; D&D would work just as well with three-dozen three level classes that you did a pick-and-choose from. In some ways it might even be better, since each level of each class would probably mean something (many levels of the current 20-level long ones don't). This is, in essence, what dipping represents anyway.
Votan 12-17-06, 10:18 PM	Thats why I either make them take 3,4 (even 5) levels in all PrCs/Base Classes they take. With the excpetion of Tri Class monsters like the FL. I usally run a Psionic campaign, so many of their PrCs are balanced. I think that this would be a good solution overall. Until the Anarchic Initiate came along, I would have said all psionic prestige classes were actually balanced. One thing that needs to be considered is caster progression as a mechanic -- it is rather weak and varies too much by class. Consider the Shining Blade of Hieronous. Widely considered a weak prestige class. However, if it gave fall caster progression to a Paladin this would do nothing except make the class actually be used occasionally. Given the same to a cleric, it would be too strong. In the same sense, a Psion benefits more from the Anarchic Initiate than the Wilder (for whom the class is practically balanced). The Slayer is fine for a pyschic warrior but maybe a bit much for the psion. Advancing bard casting is not at all the same as advancing Sorcerer casting in a prestige class. I don't have a solution here, but it is the most problematic mechanic. Demanding 3 to 5 level bursts in a prestige class also makes the "super saving throws" issue of the massive dipper.
Votan 12-17-06, 10:21 PM	Indeed, there are many faulty prestige class designs. One possible house rule you could enforce would be to penalize multiple prestige classing, much as multiclassing is penalized. I don't think it's really nescessary though (it wouldn't be if prestige classes were better designed.) What is funny is that the average prestige class isn't bad. It's just when there are 200 of the things it is inevitable that mistakes will creep into the game. But better design would definitely do a lot towards solving the problem. I really admire the early ideas of the Archmage (when it did not advance caster levels) and the Hierophant (which still does not) as being good examples of a more interesting way to create caster prestige classes.
HamHam 12-17-06, 10:33 PM	But better design would definitely do a lot towards solving the problem. I really admire the early ideas of the Archmage (when it did not advance caster levels) and the Hierophant (which still does not) as being good examples of a more interesting way to create caster prestige classes. Except those end up being far too weak. The problem is essentially a catch-22: If you don't give spellcaster progression, it's practically impossible to make the class worthwhile. If you do, it's practically impossible to make sticking in the base class worthwhile. Half or otherwise partial progressions are a decent compromise, and there are many caster PrCs that effectively balance caster progression and class abilities. But there are also plenty that just give full progression and abilities.
Manyfist 12-17-06, 10:54 PM	I think that this would be a good solution overall. Until the Anarchic Initiate came along, I would have said all psionic prestige classes were actually balanced. Well if you just limit AI to just the Wilder its balanced, since he needs all his powers... poor fellow. Anyhow, most if not all Psionic PrCs are balanced, some are underpowered *coughmetamindcough*.
OneWinged4ngel 12-17-06, 10:58 PM	Metamind: Prerequisite: You must be an idiot to take this class. :P
Manyfist 12-17-06, 11:00 PM	Metamind: Prerequisite: You must be an idiot to take this class. :P I think theres a fix out there where it give 7/10 ML.
GalaGalaxia 12-17-06, 11:07 PM	Far too many powergame, not role play.
OneWinged4ngel 12-17-06, 11:11 PM	Far too many powergame, not role play. Stormwind Fallacy. The two are not mutually exclusive. Understanding the rules/knowing how to create effective characters has... absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to act as if they were someone else. Mechanics are independent of flavor.
Votan 12-17-06, 11:18 PM	Except those end up being far too weak. The problem is essentially a catch-22: If you don't give spellcaster progression, it's practically impossible to make the class worthwhile. If you do, it's practically impossible to make sticking in the base class worthwhile. Half or otherwise partial progressions are a decent compromise, and there are many caster PrCs that effectively balance caster progression and class abilities. But there are also plenty that just give full progression and abilities. I think that I'd rather have the problem of making a prestige class that was worth taking that advanced caster level but not spell casting progression. That's be pretty interesting and some fun and creative classes could be made. But, I agree with you that balancing a full caster progression prestige class is nearly impossible. If you must do it, then I think that a rule saying that level 1 of a prestige class never advances casting would be the minimum to make them balanced. Now, for non-caster classes, it seems to rarely be the case that a prestige class is grossly overpowered. The rare exceptions, like frenzied berserker, rely on breaking key rules concepts (like hit-points are important). There were some tough archer prestige classes last edition but, these days, archers are not favored. And I have yet to see a fundementally overpowered rogue prestige class. For warriors, the classes are nice but these roles are lagging the casters by so much at the the time that they can prestige class that it just doesn't make much of a difference.
bitnine 12-17-06, 11:20 PM	Understanding the rules/knowing how to create effective characters has... absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to act as if they were someone else. Mechanics are independent of flavor.Plus, so many people think or pretend that players only juggle classes in order to get a more powerful character. I know that isn't true. For that a lot of the time, they could have probably just stuck with a single class an stuck in a single PrC like incantatrix. This sort of finessing I see a lot from players who want to more or less get their abilities freeform in order to represent the concept they have in their head. Ajath up there, even if there are some dips in his 'sandwalker' levels, certainly ain't going to be winning any charop contests, not even against singleclassed contestants.
OneWinged4ngel 12-17-06, 11:28 PM	Plus, so many people think or pretend that players only juggle classes in order to get a more powerful character. I know that isn't true. For that a lot of the time, they could have probably just stuck with a single class an stuck in a single PrC like incantatrix. This sort of finessing I see a lot from players who want to more or less get their abilities freeform in order to represent the concept they have in their head. Ajath up there, even if there are some dips in his 'sandwalker' levels, certainly ain't going to be winning any charop contests, not even against singleclassed contestants. Heck, Druid 20 has long been considered one of the best ways to go. Until the Planar Shepherd came out, of course. Then it's Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10, but it's broken enough that sane DMs tend not to allow it :P
Ephraim 12-17-06, 11:45 PM	Stormwind Fallacy. The two are not mutually exclusive. Understanding the rules/knowing how to create effective characters has... absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to act as if they were someone else. Mechanics are independent of flavor. Very well. Far too many players powergame irrespective of whether or not they role play well.
bitnine 12-17-06, 11:51 PM	Very well. Far too many players powergame irrespective of whether or not they role play well.Ironically, the most 'dangerous' powergamers don't look anything like this. The guy who likes high numbers, grunts instead of roleplaying, and makes nonsensical character choices obsessing over particular bonuses is filled with weaksauce. The guy who takes into account arbitrary DM restrictions, hides a portion of his character's true ability, is a whiz at having a dominating presense at the table, has an involved and thorough backstory, and glib justifications for each of his choices - he is the win. He whips the pants off of senor weaksauce, and the DM may not even realize or care that he's basically the main character. Even the other party members might not realize or care that they've been reduced to a supporting cast. In fact, Grunty McWeaksauce probably gets a reputation for being a 'munchkin' even when his character is relative trash. Ain't it funny how that works?
Nitan 12-18-06, 12:17 AM	Ain't it funny how that works? Shhh...don't tell them my secrets.
OneWinged4ngel 12-18-06, 12:21 AM	Ironically, the most 'dangerous' powergamers don't look anything like this. The guy who likes high numbers, grunts instead of roleplaying, and makes nonsensical character choices obsessing over particular bonuses is filled with weaksauce. The guy who takes into account arbitrary DM restrictions, hides a portion of his character's true ability, is a whiz at having a dominating presense at the table, has an involved and thorough backstory, and glib justifications for each of his choices - he is the win. He whips the pants off of senor weaksauce, and the DM may not even realize or care that he's basically the main character. Even the other party members might not realize or care that they've been reduced to a supporting cast. In fact, Grunty McWeaksauce probably gets a reputation for being a 'munchkin' even when his character is relative trash. Ain't it funny how that works? A good observation. I've found this to be true in my own experience, and indeed I've seen that some people who are really concerned with making powerful characters (and only that) aren't actually the ones that are really good at it.
Archangel62 12-18-06, 01:14 AM	Also, some 'dip' designs are simply smarter than others. A Fighter/Wizard/EK/Abjurant champion is likely to only have one level in fighter, maybe two, because it's comparatively the smartest way to go. The barbarians rage won't allow spellcasting and the rangers abilities are impractical in this regard. The fighter works well and makes sense, and they only learn a little about being a fighter because they find their casting abilities to be more important to them than their combat abilities.
Neutronium_Dragon 12-18-06, 01:49 AM	> But, I agree with you that balancing a full caster progression prestige class is > nearly impossible. This is heavily the fault of the base classes for not offering much of anything beyond caster progression, though. The ones that do offer significant non-casting-progression capabilities, like the druid or spirit shaman, aren't instant-PrC-bait. Still, it's not impossible to balance a full casting progression class, and for the most part I'd say that any caster class which doesn't offer full casting progression is going to be too weak - whatever abilities you're getting out of it are going to have to be tremendous to make up for the loss of spell slots (which could probably duplicate those abilities you're getting and then some). The current Archmage approach is a good one - you get full casting progression, but you essentially trade something in in return for the ability, like a spell slot; alternatives would be to trade in hit points, skill points, or BAB/base saves, although the latter two could create problems (more so than HPs or skill points would).
Sleepwalker13666 12-18-06, 04:19 AM	I wound think at this point it's safe to say Base Classes are not a lost concept, but it is a heavily wounded concept, I'm gonna say at -3 hp and has'nt stabilzed. But one of the recent trends wizards of the coast has been doing is the class feature substitutions, it's giving some weaker classes better options, I perfer the swashbucklers shield of blades ability out of players handbook II. Also I just got complete mage today and was really impressed with the new material, even without new core classes I found it to be a valuble purchase. If the trend continues the classes will continue to be useful for longer progressions, and weaker classes will be gaining options to make them more attractive choice, possibly for the long haul.
Neofish 12-18-06, 06:02 AM	I wound think at this point it's safe to say Base Classes are not a lost concept, but it is a heavily wounded concept, I'm gonna say at -3 hp and has'nt stabilzed. But one of the recent trends wizards of the coast has been doing is the class feature substitutions, it's giving some weaker classes better options, I perfer the swashbucklers shield of blades ability out of players handbook II. Also I just got complete mage today and was really impressed with the new material, even without new core classes I found it to be a valuble purchase. If the trend continues the classes will continue to be useful for longer progressions, and weaker classes will be gaining options to make them more attractive choice, possibly for the long haul. I for one, really enjoy the racial subsitution levels offered in the various splatbooks aswell and personally perfer them over the concept of a new edition.