Changing the Requirements for Prestige Classes (Keep Out, My Players) [3.5]

[Temotei]

I'm making some encounters for my game in the Play by Post board. In particular, I'm making one BBEG right now.

My question is this: As the DM, is it okay if I change the requirements of certain prestige classes for the BBEG's, so I don't have to make them super high level, but I can still grant the abilities of the prestige classes?

Should I change the requirements for the players too, or should I just fluff it as the BBEG gaining insight into his/her particular field of focus, and therefore gaining enough power to advance as a particular class?

I've looked through a bunch of BBEG threads, and from what I saw, nothing like this has been asked.

[Fortuna]

It has, actually, or something similar. Essentially, do what you like with BBEGs: your players need never see his build, and as long as you run it well there won't be a problem. Unless you want to give him a level 20 capstone or whatever, just let him in easy or give him the ability free.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Depends on your game and the PrC. Generally, I'll ignore requirements like skill ranks(stupid ones, like Craft) and race because half the time I don't assign skill ranks and I'd allow my players to ignore race most of the time. What are you trying to do? There may be a harder way.

[Corbeau]

As a general rule, I'd say that if bending the rules for PrC entry contributes to the overall quality of the game then by all means do it. After all, he's the bad guy, he's supposed to cheat and fight dirty and the like, right?
So long as he ends up at the power level you want (and you don't tell the players what you're doing) everything should be fine.

[Temotei]

Depends on your game and the PrC. Generally, I'll ignore requirements like skill ranks(stupid ones, like Craft) and race because half the time I don't assign skill ranks and I'd allow my players to ignore race most of the time. What are you trying to do? There may be a harder way.

A harder way? Hehe.

I'm thinking of a magic/melee hybrid prestige class (not going to say which, so I don't have to keep my players out). The requirements are basically a middling BAB, a crappy feat, and low-level casting. I'm thinking of waiving the feat part and lowering the BAB requirement by one or two.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

A harder way? Hehe.

I'm thinking of a magic/melee hybrid prestige class (not going to say which, so I don't have to keep my players out). The requirements are basically a middling BAB, a crappy feat, and low-level casting. I'm thinking of waiving the feat part and lowering the BAB requirement by one or two.The easy way is changing the requirements. The hard way involves magical methods of granting the feat. The fun way involves Duskblade or a similar change to the build. I'd say tell your players to get out, and then tell us the PrC, or at least what you want him to do. If it's something like 'cast in armor', we can find a way without the feat.

[Gorgondantess]

A harder way? Hehe.

I'm thinking of a magic/melee hybrid prestige class (not going to say which, so I don't have to keep my players out). The requirements are basically a middling BAB, a crappy feat, and low-level casting. I'm thinking of waiving the feat part and lowering the BAB requirement by one or two.

But you just said it right there. There's few enough gish PrC's out there that this narrows it down to juuust about one.:smallcool:

Anyways, personally, as a DM, I say "screw the rules, I'm God." Unless you're the kind of person who would begin to abuse your power if you let yourself screw the rules, there's no harm in pushing a few numbers around. :smallsmile:

[Temotei]

The easy way is changing the requirements. The hard way involves magical methods of granting the feat. The fun way involves Duskblade or a similar change to the build. I'd say tell your players to get out, and then tell us the PrC, or at least what you want him to do. If it's something like 'cast in armor', we can find a way without the feat.

Abjurant champion. Duskblade isn't a bad idea. I hardly thought of that, for some stupid reason. :smallredface:

I want him to be a hybrid without being stupidly powerful or stupidly weak. I plan on him being fairly powerful defensively, but casting in armor isn't needed.


But you just said it right there. There's few enough gish PrC's out there that this narrows it down to juuust about one.:smallcool:

Anyways, personally, as a DM, I say "screw the rules, I'm God." Unless you're the kind of person who would begin to abuse your power if you let yourself screw the rules, there's no harm in pushing a few numbers around. :smallsmile:

I like this. :smallcool:

[Pie Guy]

Eh, I=if you wanted, you coukld give him the ability to fly in Heavy armor while maintaining monk abilities. It's your game, rule 0.

[term1nally s1ck]

Abj Champ is pretty easy to qualify for....what level do you want the BBEG to be?

[Oslecamo]

I like this. :smallcool:

Good. Because it's your DUTY as the DM to provide awesome BBEGs for the party to fight. Just make sure that you don't go mad with power.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Eh, I=if you wanted, you coukld give him the ability to fly in Heavy armor while maintaining monk abilities. It's your game, rule 0.

"Can" is not equivalent to "should". Personally, I would take offence if an NPC bypassed requirements if a PC couldn't. However I know lots of people are less harsh about rules than I am, so it may be appropriate to your game (or the OP's).

If you want, the CR system does account for abilities, so you could add a few abilities from a PrC for a small CR boost (note that I know the CR system doesn't work as well as it should, and that that particular section says the equivalent of "eyeball it, though if it can take out one player a round up CR by at least two". I also know it's odd wanting the same result, but within the rules. However if I wanted NPC's to be capable of gaining abilities arbitrarily, I'd be playing a different game).

Another solution is making "sets" of prerequisites, for players and NPC's, which can give easier entry to different archetypes within a PrC (e.g. a Fallen Paladin set for the Blackgaurd would probably drop the 5 ranks in Hide and add something else).

If you just want to enter earlier, rather than at the same level with a different build, PrC abilities are given on the basis of it being as powerful as whatever you would otherwise gain that level (or slightly more powerful depending on prerequisites), it doesn't often work out that way but it probably isn't a good idea with something considered powerful already (such as Abj. Champion, within its niche).

[Myou]

Villains don't have to follow the rules - the players will never know what's on their character sheet (if they even have one) and the goal is to challege PCs, not make rules-legal builds that you could actually play at other tables.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Villains don't have to follow the rules - the players will never know what's on their character sheet (if they even have one) and the goal is to challege PCs, not make rules-legal builds that you could actually play at other tables.

If they don't follow the rules, why have the rules in the first place? They're not exactly small, relatively insignificant rules. If it's after the game has started and explicit houserules have been mentioned, it's even worse.

[Oslecamo]

If they don't follow the rules, why have the rules in the first place? They're not exactly small, relatively insignificant rules. If it's after the game has started and explicit houserules have been mentioned, it's even worse.

Rules are for mooks and the remaining 99,9% of the world.

But BBEGs are special. They found some dark special ritual that grants them special abilities. Or were blessed by a dark/chaotic god/fate. That's why the party is after them.

Even in published oficial adventures, BBEGs many times have special custom abilities to make them more awesome.

Of course, you should decide it's custom abilities before the battle starts, and then sticking to them. Making abilities on the fly to counter the PCs, now that's wrong.

[elonin]

I've got to say that as a player I'm rather offended by this practice.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Rules are for mooks and the remaining 99,9% of the world.

But BBEGs are special. They found some dark special ritual that grants them special abilities. Or were blessed by a dark/chaotic god/fate. That's why the party is after them.

Even in published oficial adventures, BBEGs many times have special custom abilities to make them more awesome.

Of course, you should decide it's custom abilities before the battle starts, and then sticking to them. Making abilities on the fly to counter the PCs, now that's wrong.

Well, that's accounted for by a CR bump (which I'm sure I mentioned earlier), or not if it's an insignificant ability. Nevertheless powers can be gained within the rules with dark rituals (or, more likely in my group, blessings from good-aligned gods) as the fluff reason.

I have no issue with ignoring Special requirements (e.g. Blood Magus' "you must have died") unless it involves class abilities, or other resources, partially because they're often rather stupid (see Blood Magus, above). Ignoring the mechanics just grates on me, though. What I like happening is something like:

At the beginning of the game, the houserules are laid out clearly

If any rules changes are made in game, they are given at the end of a session, and players are given a chance to review their characters under these rules

Unless otherwise noted, NPC's follow the same rules for charactwer creation as PC's (they are both forms of character, after all).

That is a very condensed version, and it is just my preference. I never claimed that any other players were like me, and I do not do so now. I just pointed out that this is a valid point of view, and should be taken into consideration in case one of the original poster's players holds this point of view.

While BBEG's are "special" player characters are, AFAIK, usually moreso. They still use the same rules, bar a few differences. I could see using PC rules for important villains, but no more than that.

Again this is all IMO. If you disagree, I don't mind, I just want to make sure that this is considered in the OP's decision. If they have an agreement with their players that rules may be bent or ignored without warning to make the game more fun, then they can freely ignore everything I've posted of course.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Rules are for mooks and the remaining 99,9% of the world.

But BBEGs are special. They found some dark special ritual that grants them special abilities. Or were blessed by a dark/chaotic god/fate. That's why the party is after them.I don't know about your group, but in mine, if a BBEG is casting several spells a round, the players will want to know how. If it involves getting an orc priest and a disciple of Asmodeus to cast certain blessings on you, they will track down an orc priest and a disciple of Asmodeus, kidnap them, and torture them until they are granted the blessings as well. If it involves sacrificing a baby on an alter, they will find a baby dragon and sacrifice it on an alter. The Sarrukh was a monster with a custom ability, remember?

[KellKheraptis]

If it's is indeed Abj Champ, go with a base of Mystic Ranger and take Sword of the Arcane Order. You'll be 10 BAB/12 CL at level 10, with the wizard list at your disposal and more class features. Plus you'll be able to focus all your favored enemy stuff on humanoids, since you're a bad guy (unless the party is all casters, in which case default to FE : Arcanists). Would make for one hell of a mid level assassin IMO.

[Viletta Vadim]

If they don't follow the rules, why have the rules in the first place? They're not exactly small, relatively insignificant rules. If it's after the game has started and explicit houserules have been mentioned, it's even worse.
You can create monsters from scratch with abilities not found anywhere else in the game. This is an aspect of the game.

You can add abilities to monsters that they could normally never qualify for, like simply slapping a couple spell-likes on an orc or tossing a breath weapon on a tauric orc/lion. This is even accounted for in the CR system.

The thing is, DMs are supposed to provide appropriate challenges, and have great leeway in providing them. How different is it to add an extra natural attack than it is to waive a PrC requirement or alter a spell list? Creating a villain NPC is little different than creating a custom creature. The key is in keeping the challenge appropriate, which just requires some finesse.

I've got to say that as a player I'm rather offended by this practice.
Keep in mind that a player is responsible for one sheet. Maybe a couple more. Meanwhile, a DM is responsible for dozens. There needs to be some level of flexibility in there, or the workload simply becomes so massive that it becomes impossible to provide a proper game.

[Foryn Gilnith]

If they don't follow the rules, why have the rules in the first place? They're not exactly small, relatively insignificant rules. If it's after the game has started and explicit houserules have been mentioned, it's even worse.

I'll posit two scenarios. You tell me which one is better.
1) DM fudges the PrC requirements for his BBEG.
2) DM uses the Rules-as-written effects of Restoration, Embrace the Dark Chaos, and Shun the Dark chaos to get his BBEG into a prestige class "earlier".

One doesn't follow the rules. One does.

[KellKheraptis]

I'll posit two scenarios. You tell me which one is better.
1) DM fudges the PrC requirements for his BBEG.
2) DM uses the Rules-as-written effects of Restoration, Embrace the Dark Chaos, and Shun the Dark chaos to get his BBEG into a prestige class "earlier".

One doesn't follow the rules. One does.

Possibly also using RAW for rebuilding? No reason the bad guys can't retrain too, after all.

[Temotei]

This is helping me. :smallbiggrin:

This BBEG will be around level ten.

[Pigkappa]

If they don't follow the rules, why have the rules in the first place?

This is not a videogame, this is a RPG. Rules are good for PCs and are guidelines for NPCs, but I can hardly imagine that anybody in the world can be considered part of a class. It makes sense to me that somewhere can exist a Divine-oriented low-level guy who can cast a good amount of divine spells, but never learned to cast Sleep nor to Turn Undead. If a DM needs something like this in a campaign, it makes more sense to say that he's a level 1 Adept without Sleep in its spell list, instead of searching some crappy divine class which qualifies.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

This is not a videogame, this is a RPG. Rules are good for PCs and are guidelines for NPCs, but I can hardly imagine that anybody in the world can be considered part of a class. It makes sense to me that somewhere can exist a Divine-oriented low-level guy who can cast a good amount of divine spells, but never learned to cast Sleep nor to Turn Undead. If a DM needs something like this in a campaign, it makes more sense to say that he's a level 1 Adept without Sleep in its spell list, instead of searching some crappy divine class which qualifies.Favored Soul. Alternatively, Spirit Shaman. Or Archivist. Took me 10 seconds. Either lots of spells known or lots of spell slots, no TU, and interesting class features.

[ScionoftheVoid]

I'll posit two scenarios. You tell me which one is better.
1) DM fudges the PrC requirements for his BBEG.
2) DM uses the Rules-as-written effects of Restoration, Embrace the Dark Chaos, and Shun the Dark chaos to get his BBEG into a prestige class "earlier".

One doesn't follow the rules. One does.

Personally (and since "better" is subjective it has to be IMO, I won't pretend to know what others think) I would prefer the second. Being rules-legal helps because a player can counter with the same if they feel they need to.

[Dr Bwaa]

A harder way? Hehe.

I'm thinking of a magic/melee hybrid prestige class (not going to say which, so I don't have to keep my players out). The requirements are basically a middling BAB, a crappy feat, and low-level casting. I'm thinking of waiving the feat part and lowering the BAB requirement by one or two.

This sounds like Abjurant Champion to me :smallsmile: Give him skill focus: concentration instead of combat casting, and a few levels of duskblade. Or if you don't want to optimize too hard, Paladin 4/Wiz 2/Abjurant Champion 4 with Practiced Spellcaster gets you to level 10, casting 3rd-level spells at caster level 10, plus you get a couple paladin spells, divine grace & lay on hands. You don't need more than 3rd-level spells to be a pretty decent melee combatant: Shield (+9), Luminous Armor (+10), Haste and Displacement are all within reach at this point.

[Temotei]

Personally (and since "better" is subjective it has to be IMO, I won't pretend to know what others think) I would prefer the second. Being rules-legal helps because a player can counter with the same if they feel they need to.

Then the elf becomes infinitely more powerful than the human. Or pretty much any other race. :smallsigh:

No dark chaos shuffle.

[Jacob Orlove]

I think there's actually a better approach to getting this villain into that PrC. The trick is that everyone always thinks about building characters like a player would, where you want to maximize your power and minimize your levels. But an NPC can take terrible extra levels, because they don't lose power relative to their party. That way, you stay within the rules (because that seems to be important here), but you don't use any tricks that you wouldn't let your players use.

Instead of trying to fit in all the BAB and spellcasting you need in 10 levels, give the guy a few starting levels in Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm), and make him level 12 or so (but still CR 10ish). That's enough to get him the extra BAB and extra feat, without actually making the character stronger. If you prefer, start him off with three levels of Aristocrat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/aristocrat.htm) instead, if that's a better fit.

Basically, follow the rules, but in a way that your players wouldn't ever want to copy. It's NPC-optimal, but not PC-optimal.

[Prime32]

See this: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm

[ScionoftheVoid]

I think there's actually a better approach to getting this villain into that PrC. The trick is that everyone always thinks about building characters like a player would, where you want to maximize your power and minimize your levels. But an NPC can take terrible extra levels, because they don't lose power relative to their party. That way, you stay within the rules (because that seems to be important here), but you don't use any tricks that you wouldn't let your players use.

Instead of trying to fit in all the BAB and spellcasting you need in 10 levels, give the guy a few starting levels in Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm), and make him level 12 or so (but still CR 10ish). That's enough to get him the extra BAB and extra feat, without actually making the character stronger. If you prefer, start him off with three levels of Aristocrat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/aristocrat.htm) instead, if that's a better fit.

Basically, follow the rules, but in a way that your players wouldn't ever want to copy. It's NPC-optimal, but not PC-optimal.

That is a really good idea, unless he needs to be a particular level as opposed to a particular CR.

With the internet to help you, I don't see why you would want to go outside of the rules. Though others of course do and I do not speak for them. Actually, unless I note otherwise, my posts on this topic will be IMO only.


Then the elf becomes infinitely more powerful than the human. Or pretty much any other race. :smallsigh:

No dark chaos shuffle.

I merely answered the question given, I did not suggest that you use this method. Feel free to ignore me completely if you wish. I am not in your group and have no idea how they would react to any entry method suggested thus far.

[Temotei]

That is a really good idea, unless he needs to be a particular level as opposed to a particular CR.

With the internet to help you, I don't see why you would want to go outside of the rules. Though others of course do and I do not speak for them. Actually, unless I note otherwise, my posts on this topic will be IMO only.



I merely answered the question given, I did not suggest that you use this method. Feel free to ignore me completely if you wish. I am not in your group and have no idea how they would react to any entry method suggested thus far.

I understand where you're coming from, and I admire your lawfulness. :smallcool: I appreciate your input.

That said, the NPC class idea is a fairly good one. Then again, so is using test-based requirements (tests for a deity, himself) and just plain moving around class features/class requirements.

[Oslecamo]

I don't know about your group, but in mine, if a BBEG is casting several spells a round, the players will want to know how. If it involves getting an orc priest and a disciple of Asmodeus to cast certain blessings on you, they will track down an orc priest and a disciple of Asmodeus, kidnap them, and torture them until they are granted the blessings as well. If it involves sacrificing a baby on an alter, they will find a baby dragon and sacrifice it on an alter. The Sarrukh was a monster with a custom ability, remember?

More than fair enough. If the BBEG can do it, the players can (eventualy) do it. With (eventualy) being the choice word. Assuming they have met the BBEG, found his secret diary, decyphred and disarmed it, made the right knowledge checks, now they must acomplish a loonngg chain of side-quests the BBEG also had to do. Kidnaping baby dragons of Asmodeus will be just the first step. Then you'll have to raise said baby dragon on the blood of virgin elves, sacrifice it under a blue moon on the hidden temple of the secret kingdom of Gdsint, with a dagger forged by an elder giant, etc, etc, etc.

If they can complete the super-chain of quests, then yes, they deserved the right to get the super awesome BBEG ability.:smallsmile:

After all, it's also the DM's duty to allow the players to acomplish awesome things, but you'll have to work more than just a single knowledge check. If casting several spells per round as the BBEG was easy in that campaign seting, then every mook and their mother would be doing so.:smalltongue:

And yes, I've already played with such players who would like to acess the BBEG super abilities, but they're normaly stoped by the other players whose characters don't find torturing babies exactly the best course of action.

[term1nally s1ck]

Sorcerer4/Fighter1/Swiftblade1/Spellsword1/AbjChampX (You have versatile spellcaster for those 3rd level spells needed for swiftblade)

Other than this, you'd have to use some really serious cheese, or Ruathar, whose fluff probably doesn't fit. If you don't mind Ruathar, then Wizorsorc4/Ruathar1/Swiftblade1/Spellsword1/AbjChampX is nice, and you could drop the swiftblade for Ruathar2, and get full casting and only lose 2 BAB.

[Defiant]

I'm making some encounters for my game in the Play by Post board. In particular, I'm making one BBEG right now.

My question is this: As the DM, is it okay if I change the requirements of certain prestige classes for the BBEG's, so I don't have to make them super high level, but I can still grant the abilities of the prestige classes?

Should I change the requirements for the players too, or should I just fluff it as the BBEG gaining insight into his/her particular field of focus, and therefore gaining enough power to advance as a particular class?

I've looked through a bunch of BBEG threads, and from what I saw, nothing like this has been asked.

Follow the golden rule of DMing:

The purpose of D&D is for everyone to have fun at the table.

Will this BBEG be even cooler with the use of this early-entry illegally-obtained Prestige Class, thereby resulting in an encounter that's more fun? Go for it.

Will this BBEG be about the same coolness, and still maintain a level of power over the players that you desire (i.e. don't TPK), but make it easier for you to craft the character? Go for it. Players' fun isn't decreasing and yours is increasing (from reduced workload).

However, be weary of any rules-fudging to get your way. Never let your players know of any fudging or "cheating" that you do (even if it's, like it should always be when you do this, to increase the fun level of the game). Hand-waving away Prestige Class requirements should be done carefully: a slight hand-wave will not be noticed. A big hand-wave and your players might notice. "Aha, based on the BBEG's powers, he must have this Prestige Class... meaning that he will have this prerequisite. Let's abuse this fact to our tactical advantage."

It's even more true when they do stuff that they couldn't otherwise do, like fly in heavy armor. For those things, you must provide a "special" item, or think of something special (room magic, person-magic, item, thing that will be revealed later etc.), otherwise the players will be upset at foes everywhere getting to do stuff they can't for no discernible reason.

[Viletta Vadim]

However, be weary of any rules-fudging to get your way. Never let your players know of any fudging or "cheating" that you do (even if it's, like it should always be when you do this, to increase the fun level of the game). Hand-waving away Prestige Class requirements should be done carefully: a slight hand-wave will not be noticed. A big hand-wave and your players might notice. "Aha, based on the BBEG's powers, he must have this Prestige Class... meaning that he will have this prerequisite. Let's abuse this fact to our tactical advantage."
This, I find contemptible.

If you have to lie to your players about it (and a lie of omission is indeed a lie), don't do it. Don't treat your players like idiots or sheep to be deceived. If you're bending the rules to make the NPCs, don't make it any sort of secret. In fact, be flexible with the rules for the players as well. However, if you have to lie to the players (as distinct from lying to the characters), you're doing something wrong.

[ScionoftheVoid]

More than fair enough. If the BBEG can do it, the players can (eventualy) do it. With (eventualy) being the choice word. Assuming they have met the BBEG, found his secret diary, decyphred and disarmed it, made the right knowledge checks, now they must acomplish a loonngg chain of side-quests the BBEG also had to do. Kidnaping baby dragons of Asmodeus will be just the first step. Then you'll have to raise said baby dragon on the blood of virgin elves, sacrifice it under a blue moon on the hidden temple of the secret kingdom of Gdsint, with a dagger forged by an elder giant, etc, etc, etc.

If they can complete the super-chain of quests, then yes, they deserved the right to get the super awesome BBEG ability.:smallsmile:

After all, it's also the DM's duty to allow the players to acomplish awesome things, but you'll have to work more than just a single knowledge check. If casting several spells per round as the BBEG was easy in that campaign seting, then every mook and their mother would be doing so.:smalltongue:

And yes, I've already played with such players who would like to acess the BBEG super abilities, but they're normaly stoped by the other players whose characters don't find torturing babies exactly the best course of action.

You see this I don't mind so much, as long as it is made clear that such things may be used beforehand.

Anyway who wouldn't (in character only) find torturing babies exactly the best course of action?Lawful Evil is the best alignment. Being it makes me feel all corrupt and maniacal and I can still keep a straight face.

Muhahahahaaa!(For those who didn't guess, there is explanatory white text above)

Edit: I agree with the post immediately above. If you have to lie to your friends, or use a within the rules workaround (with the help of thousands in the form of the internet if you can't manage by yourself) I have no idea why you would choose to do the former. Is a request for an explanation acceptable Defiant?

[Viletta Vadim]

Edit: I agree with the post immediately above. If you have to lie to your friends, or use a within the rules workaround (with the help of thousands in the form of the internet if you can't manage by yourself) I have no idea why you would choose to do the former. Is a request for an explanation acceptable Defiant?
It doesn't even have to be an in-rule achievement. Just recently, I ran a player through a monastery where the enemy monks could do some crazy **** in a solo campaign. They were, in fact, first- and second-level Psychic Warriors who I gave Monk unarmed strike progression and AC at the expense of their weapon and armor proficiencies. The grandmaster was a fourth-level law incarnate with the same treatment.

The distinction, however, is that I didn't lie to my player about it. After the quest, she asked how they could do all that and I told her what they were. And of equal importance, I show my players that same level of flexibility when they're making their own characters.

[Oslecamo]

You see this I don't mind so much, as long as it is made clear that such things may be used beforehand.


Meh, perhaps I'm lucky, but the people I play with in RL always assume that if you want to do something special not directly covered by the rules, we can work something out. I've seen whole characters based on this, like a sorcerer who slowly become a being of fire after a lot of side-quests for a custom diety. The other players got extra loot out of the deal.

[Defiant]

I'm sorry, I don't realize where I made it seem like I was lying. And if we include "lie by omission", then I lie every day about everything. I don't really understand that term. Nothing but the truth comes out of my mouth, but I'm still lying.

Regardless, I never meant "lie to the players". I just meant fudge a prerequisite here or there that might not be that important and ignore it. Am I required to tell all my players every little thing I change about a monster? If my ClassX/PrCY is illegal because the Class was supposed to be X+1 before I entered the PrC, am I supposed to announce it to all my players? Or just not do it? Why? It won't hurt anyone.

Bear in mind that the quote in my original post was supposed to be a PC quote. The PCs saying "He's PrCY, so he must have FeatZ. In that case, we need to change our tactics" would make me feel bad for fudging away the FeatZ requirement (and thus to be avoided).

With all that said, please elaborate how and where I am lying, because I can't defend/explain myself if I don't realize what's going on.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Meh, perhaps I'm lucky, but the people I play with in RL always assume that if you want to do something special not directly covered by the rules, we can work something out. I've seen whole characters based on this, like a sorcerer who slowly become a being of fire after a lot of side-quests for a custom diety. The other players got extra loot out of the deal.

I'd do the same bar the assumption that this would happen. I would enquire about it if I couldn't find a rules-legal way to get what I wanted from a character, and would probably use it more readily if I was informed it was allowed. I just don't like to deviate from the given rules if I do not have to.


I'm sorry, I don't realize where I made it seem like I was lying. And if we include "lie by omission", then I lie every day about everything. I don't really understand that term.

Lying by ommision is deliberately withholding information, even if it may be important (such as your example of players using inneffective tactics because of a removed prerequisite).

If a player has put more effort into a character, and has bothered to stay within the rules, why should a DM be able to remove prerequisites on a whim? It removes a small amount of paperwork, but really the fact that you're here means you could always get help with a workaround at short notice. Do you really customise enemies so often as to make it unworkable, or at least inform your players that you do such things? If you do, then that's fine. I'm just unsure as to why you would do such things when there are alternatives, and I am trying to understand.

[Temotei]

In Defiant's defense:
I just meant fudge a prerequisite here or there that might not be that important and ignore it...Bear in mind that the quote in my original post was supposed to be a PC quote. The PCs saying "He's PrCY, so he must have FeatZ. In that case, we need to change our tactics" would make me feel bad for fudging away the FeatZ requirement (and thus to be avoided).

I see both sides, and I see both their virtues and their weaknesses. Hopefully, a blend can be made that minimizes weaknesses while strengthening virtues. :smallsmile:

[elonin]

You can create monsters from scratch with abilities not found anywhere else in the game. This is an aspect of the game.

You can add abilities to monsters that they could normally never qualify for, like simply slapping a couple spell-likes on an orc or tossing a breath weapon on a tauric orc/lion. This is even accounted for in the CR system.

The thing is, DMs are supposed to provide appropriate challenges, and have great leeway in providing them. How different is it to add an extra natural attack than it is to waive a PrC requirement or alter a spell list? Creating a villain NPC is little different than creating a custom creature. The key is in keeping the challenge appropriate, which just requires some finesse.

Keep in mind that a player is responsible for one sheet. Maybe a couple more. Meanwhile, a DM is responsible for dozens. There needs to be some level of flexibility in there, or the workload simply becomes so massive that it becomes impossible to provide a proper game.

I can appreciate the difficulty in keeping the balance as a dm. It's a problem if dms are strict about pc's joining prcs but granting a lot of leeway for their villain. I've had more than a few dms who have used this lee-way to really heat up their encounters but then kept us poor from the amount of loot that was dropped/found.

[Temotei]

I can appreciate the difficulty in keeping the balance as a dm. It's a problem if dms are strict about pc's joining prcs but granting a lot of leeway for their villain. I've had more than a few dms who have used this lee-way to really heat up their encounters but then kept us poor from the amount of loot that was dropped/found.

I won't be doing that. I'm talking about lowering the prerequisites slightly so the villain doesn't have to be a high-level death BBEG that will just step on the wizard in the party. The players will probably find something along the lines of a journal or diary describing the duties his god sent him on to achieve the powers...etc.

I'm not talking about: "I make my villain a wizard 1/abjurant champion 5/incantatrix X."

[JoshuaZ]

I won't be doing that. I'm talking about lowering the prerequisites slightly so the villain doesn't have to be a high-level death BBEG that will just step on the wizard in the party. The players will probably find something along the lines of a journal or diary describing the duties his god sent him on to achieve the powers...etc.

I'm not talking about: "I make my villain a wizard 1/abjurant champion 5/incantatrix X."

If they got direct intervention of a deity then that's more or less ok too since PCs aren't likely to duplicate that anytime soon. I however agree with the people who have suggested helping get the requirements by adding on a few NPC levels. If you need to add a level of warrior and a level of aristocrat that shouldn't alter CR much while still doing what you want.If you really wanted to you could actually give him a level or two in a PC class that just doesn't synergize that well. Would for example, a level in sorcerer help? Maybe Dread Necromancer?

[Pigkappa]

Favored Soul. Alternatively, Spirit Shaman. Or Archivist. Took me 10 seconds. Either lots of spells known or lots of spell slots, no TU, and interesting class features.

Ok, let's say the game is core-only. Or, there are some more requisites (i.e., the master wants that guy to be quite sucky and useless to the players, so NPC classes fit better; or, the adept fluff fits much better than archivists or favored soul's.). What's wrong with modifying the rules for NPCs? You're not making them stronger, and if you are, the players are going to get more XPs.

[Temotei]

Ok, let's say the game is core-only. Or, there are some more requisites (i.e., the master wants that guy to be quite sucky and useless to the players, so NPC classes fit better; or, the adept fluff fits much better than archivists or favored soul's.). What's wrong with modifying the rules for NPCs? You're not making them stronger, and if you are, the players are going to get more XPs.

I don't believe he was refuting your point. He was just pointing out that you don't have to search too hard to find some of the things you asked for.

[Defiant]

Lying by ommision is deliberately withholding information, even if it may be important (such as your example of players using inneffective tactics because of a removed prerequisite).

Well I don't deliberately withhold information. I just omit things that I don't think are relevant, and which would detract from the game experience (every time they have an encounter, me explaining to them the changes I made to the characters).

In my example is one that I would feel bad and try to never do (i.e. I'd feel like the liar you're describing).


If a player has put more effort into a character, and has bothered to stay within the rules, why should a DM be able to remove prerequisites on a whim? It removes a small amount of paperwork, but really the fact that you're here means you could always get help with a workaround at short notice.

And then what's the point? I achieved the same thing, but with dubious workarounds that involve tons of splatbooks.

Here you are arguing about specifically staying within the rules, and that straying off is a bad thing. Even if you strayed off in a way that could be easily replaced with a rule-obeying method. What does it matter? RAW itself is invalid in most games, since DMs have the final say (even more when it's the DM itself).

Is it a power issue? I could easily overpower my players while staying within rules-as-written. It changes nothing.

The way I DM is to make the game fun for the players (primary), and for me (secondary). As long as that is achieved, I'm happy. I just don't see the point in making more work for me or obeying things to the letter when all it will achieve is "following rules-as-written", which I control anyways since I'm the DM, and which don't add anything to the game.


Do you really customise enemies so often as to make it unworkable, or at least inform your players that you do such things? If you do, then that's fine. I'm just unsure as to why you would do such things when there are alternatives, and I am trying to understand.

I don't even do this, but given the situation I might if I feel it would add to the game. Why I would do such things? Because it doesn't matter. Informing the players would be giving away vital behind-the-scenes information that they shouldn't have access to. Doing alternatives will not add anything to the game.

I do admit that this is a little difficult to argue about since it's all hypothetical. I can't really imagine or remember times when I've done this, other than "cutting corners" which are mostly irrelevant (such as skills and similar things that I won't place on my enemies' characters).

[ScionoftheVoid]

Defiant, I don't mind if you play differently from me. I'm just saying that I feel weird about changing rules if I haven't talked about it at least a session or so beforehand. If your players know that you may fudge the rules to increase their fun then I have no objections at all to your style of play. If you don't then I would be less cumfortable in such a game, but really it would still have no effect since I don't know you or your group personally and don't play in your group. Play as you will, don't let my less than perfectly rational dislikes stop you. I'm sorry if I was aggressive, or seemed to say "you're doing it wrong!", because you are not. You are increasing the fun at your table, and that cannot be wrong.

Temotei221 yes I went a bit too far. The use of NPC classes to give the prerquisites idea seems to be gaining popularity. I support that way forward, just to clarify because I hadn't clearly supported any particular idea before. I'll stop rambling unless someone specifically adresses me, or I really object to something from now on.

[Defiant]

Defiant, I don't mind if you play differently from me. I'm just saying that I feel weird about changing rules if I haven't talked about it at least a session or so beforehand. If your players know that you may fudge the rules to increase their fun then I have no objections at all to your style of play. If you don't then I would be less cumfortable in such a game, but really it would still have no effect since I don't know you or your group personally and don't play in your group. Play as you will, don't let my less than perfectly rational dislikes stop you. I'm sorry if I was aggressive, or seemed to say "you're doing it wrong!", because you are not. You are increasing the fun at your table, and that cannot be wrong.

The very nature of fudging forbids me from letting the players know.

"Oh, by the way, the dragon actually did 52 damage, not 43, but I'm saying 43 so that you're only dead and bleeding and so the party has a chance and doesn't get completely TPK'd because of a mis-estimation of party/monster power on my part."

"Oh, by the way, the skeleton didn't actually beat your AC, but I'm saying it did and rolling for damage, so that this fight doesn't seem that boring, useless, and harmless."

"Oh, by the way, the BBEG that's attacking you right now took the Prestige Class Y slightly earlier than the given prerequisites, so that I could use the flavour of the Prestige Class while keeping the character at a power level that is challenging but not dominating for the party."

There are some things the players aren't supposed to know so that it's more exciting for them. For example, they don't need to know that this really cool encounter I planned out is going to happen whether they take the north bridge or the south bridge (despite it making no sense that the same people or monsters could be in either place at the same time). Or that I wasn't really sure what I wanted to do with this detached villain they heard of, causing me to name him a wizard, but I decide that it would be better as a sorcerer, and then say that "it appears the rumours were wrong" when they find out he's not a wizard (despite the fact that I had originally planned him as a wizard). And so on... Of course I don't want to lie to the players. And I don't lie head-on. If they ask me OOC what class this villain is, and I said "wizard", I'll either suck it up and try to make it work as a wizard (I hate retroactively changing things in my world), or tell them directly that I've changed my mind. But my usual response is a shifty "I don't know, what do you think?" to things like that.

Just something to consider...

[BRC]

I would say it really depends on what you're doing.
If you're ignoring one tax feat and some skill ranks, that's no problem, your PC's probably won't notice.

Now, what I would be careful about, is messing with the levels at which the NPC can enter the PrC. It's one thing to give your guy Improved Toughness (Something I try to slap onto all my NPC bosses above 3rd level) instead of Dodge or something, it's another to let him enter Initiate of the Sevenfold Veils at 2nd level.

[Defiant]

I would say it really depends on what you're doing.
If you're ignoring one tax feat and some skill ranks, that's no problem, your PC's probably won't notice.

Now, what I would be careful about, is messing with the levels at which the NPC can enter the PrC. It's one thing to give your guy Improved Toughness (Something I try to slap onto all my NPC bosses above 3rd level) instead of Dodge or something, it's another to let him enter Initiate of the Sevenfold Veils at 2nd level.

You have to be careful about something that is overpowering or annoying that you fudged to get at that level. Sure, you can easily make something overpowering and annoying without fudging. But if your players find out that you fudged this guy, they'll get upset (other than the additional loss of immersion).

Overpowering/annoying character within the rules - the players are annoyed
Overpowering/annoying character fudged even slightly outside the rules - players are annoyed, as well as angry at you
(despite the same character power level or annoyance)

Just something to keep in mind.

[ScionoftheVoid]

The very nature of fudging forbids me from letting the players know.

"Oh, by the way, the dragon actually did 52 damage, not 43, but I'm saying 43 so that you're only dead and bleeding and so the party has a chance and doesn't get completely TPK'd because of a mis-estimation of party/monster power on my part."

"Oh, by the way, the skeleton didn't actually beat your AC, but I'm saying it did and rolling for damage, so that this fight doesn't seem that boring, useless, and harmless."

"Oh, by the way, the BBEG that's attacking you right now took the Prestige Class Y slightly earlier than the given prerequisites, so that I could use the flavour of the Prestige Class while keeping the character at a power level that is challenging but not dominating for the party."

There are some things the players aren't supposed to know so that it's more exciting for them. For example, they don't need to know that this really cool encounter I planned out is going to happen whether they take the north bridge or the south bridge (despite it making no sense that the same people or monsters could be in either place at the same time). Or that I wasn't really sure what I wanted to do with this detached villain they heard of, causing me to name him a wizard, but I decide that it would be better as a sorcerer, and then say that "it appears the rumours were wrong" when they find out he's not a wizard (despite the fact that I had originally planned him as a wizard). And so on... Of course I don't want to lie to the players. And I don't lie head-on. If they ask me OOC what class this villain is, and I said "wizard", I'll either suck it up and try to make it work as a wizard (I hate retroactively changing things in my world), or tell them directly that I've changed my mind. But my usual response is a shifty "I don't know, what do you think?" to things like that.

Just something to consider...

Well, it's your way. My first disagreement with you started with the poster above pointing it out, I didn't think through the stuff I said afterward (I make my writing interesting, or try to, sometimes that is the result).The first complaint I would say there is that flavour is mutable, a guy doesn't need a PrC to seem like a member unless all members get a very odd ability (which is not really that common). As a person who has looked through the rules and learned them, I like to be rewarded for that. I generally don't find things hidden from me as "exciting", I tend to want to figure them out, though you must know people who do find that kind of thing interesting or you would not have mentioned it. I don't personally see why doing any of the things you suggested are bad, but we obviously have very different views. I've got things to do now but again, don't let my personal preferences, which are not completely based in rational thoght, deter you from doing what you wish. I won't be able to convince you that my way is somehow better, because to you it obviously is not. I just wanted people to be wary in case they played with someone like me (who had not informed of such occurances) that done, I will return to lurking.

[Defiant]

Of course. As always, it will depend on the players. If you were in a campaign, I'd be tighter on the restrictions I impose on myself.

For example, I lead a very to-the-rules campaign, so I found players that like that. Most of my friends have played in campaigns that are much more freeform. Where they would roll a save, and the DM (who would never have any paper, dice, or anything else) would look at it and go "hmmm, ok, you make the save". I, on the other hand, crave structure and rules in my D&D games. But I do know that if I ever ended up DMing for these friends I was talking about, I would drastically change my DMing style to compensate.

[Person_Man]

If it's for an NPC of any type (be they enemy or friend to the PC's) I don't even bother with a class. I make a list of the abilities I want them to have, write out there stats, and I'm done. You're the DM, the deity of your game world. You are not bound by the same game mechanics of the PCs, nor should you be.

[Gametime]

If your players don't mind, I can't see any reason not to make your BBEGs as awesome as possible.

If your players do mind, it's your job as a DM to either convince them it is for the good of the campaign, or give up and work within the rules. If your players are uncomfortable with using a different set of rules for the bad guys, don't force them to. You're making the game for them, after all.

Personally, I think DMs should be given leeway to fudge requirements. The only way it could become problematic is if the DM was using the lack of rules to make super-powered enemies that you don't stand a chance against, and if that's the problem the DM could accomplish that easily WITHIN the rules. If your DM wants you to win (and they usually do), why do you need to worry about "fighting back" against his rules-abuse?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The very nature of fudging forbids me from letting the players know.

"Oh, by the way, the dragon actually did 52 damage, not 43, but I'm saying 43 so that you're only dead and bleeding and so the party has a chance and doesn't get completely TPK'd because of a mis-estimation of party/monster power on my part."

"Oh, by the way, the skeleton didn't actually beat your AC, but I'm saying it did and rolling for damage, so that this fight doesn't seem that boring, useless, and harmless."I don't do either of those. Different strokes, different folks, ya know? I prefer to kill my PCs through the rules, and I prefer to make fights awesome through descriptions than by changing the HP and AB on the fly.