PDA

View Full Version : Optimization vs Playable Character



McClintock
2010-07-20, 04:33 PM
I am not sure if this will turn out to be a rant or a question, but here goes:

I play in a group where I am generally the most optimized character, with 2 others that come close, 1 who has little time to read so usually goes straight classed and a final that usually plays whatever someone else just played in the last campaign that seemed powerful.

Our DM runs the modules straight (but will tweak minor things as necessary), so he has no complaint about under -optimized characters. Mostly because this creates a challenge, whereas optimized characters walk through his encounters. He is a busy father of 2 soccer children (and coach to one of them), works full time and exercises regularly... so no time to re-write modules.

This is all leading to reading the boards and seeing builds that are 2/1/3/4/2/3/4/1 which produce some awesome paper characters, but how do you role-play that many life changes? How do you justify 2 levels of rogue a dip of barbarian, and 2 or three prestige classes to you get sneak attack, rage full BAb, and a few spells?

We limit ourselves to 2 base classes and 2 prestige classes and even then have to have a good reason to jump around so much.

EX: I am playing a swash/fighter/dervish (well i will be) who starts out on a ship, takes up with some militia folk and studies to learn the dervish ways. Our group wouldn't have it any other way, and I wouldn't want to.

Bouncing around alot you could end up with stuff like this: Barbarian1 / Ranger2 / Scout5 / Swordsage2 / Dervish10. Then you are all over the board. It just seems odd.

I guess that brings me to my actual question. How do you convincingly role-play all those life changes with out your character coming off as indecisive? How can a benefactor take you seriously if you cannot stick to one thing?

Caphi
2010-07-20, 04:38 PM
Classes are metagame abstractions. As long as all the abilities piling up follow the character's theme, it doesn't matter what they're called.

Besides, that many classes is going to lead to a horrible lack of focus even if your GM waives, as they should, the multiclass xp penalties. Dips and splashes can be "I picked up a neat trick from the Lion Tribe barbarians a few years ago."

(Didn't we have this thread like a week ago?)

Kesnit
2010-07-20, 04:39 PM
You are mistaking Theoretical Optimization for characters most people actually play. TO is a "mind game" to take RAW and do everything within them to be as powerful as possible, and those tend to be the builds you are referring to (although Rogue and Barbarian are seldom seen in TO builds, but you get what I mean, I hope).

Gametime
2010-07-20, 04:41 PM
Most people on this board who multiclass heavily (or aren't opposed to it, even if they don't do it themselves) view classes as a metagame construct. A level in "fighter" gives you certain abilities related to fighting, but you aren't just a "fighter." You're a swordsman, or a guard, or what have you.

Some archetypes, like swashbuckler, have a lot of leeway. Are you a fighter, because you're skilled at hitting stuff? A rogue, because you're skilled at, well, skills, and can drive your blade home for extra hurtin' on an unsuspecting foe?

Basically, the idea is that you should take the combination of classes that grant you the abilities which best represent your character. One example I always liked was Ashiel's, where a "samurai" was represented by levels in (I think) rogue, barbarian, and fighter. Every ability represented some fundamental part of the whole, rather than representing diversions from a premade training schematic.

If it helps, pretend that the heavy multiclassing is just gaining levels in a single, very specialized, homebrew class, since that's basically the intention.

AmberVael
2010-07-20, 04:41 PM
I guess that brings me to my actual question. How do you convincingly role-play all those life changes with out your character coming off as indecisive? How can a benefactor take you seriously if you cannot stick to one thing?

Who says they are all life changes?

This is a major problem with perception of classes- just because you have a ton of classes doesn't mean you don't have a coherent character. Your good old Barbarian1 / Ranger2 / Scout5 / Swordsage2 / Dervish10 can be quite easily condensed and explained.

Barbarian1 / Ranger2 / Scout5, for example. All of these? You can really, really easily mesh them together. Dervish too, really. And if you're going for a Swordsage focused on things like diamond mind and tiger claw? Well, that fits in too.

Said character would be a very wilderness focused person, with some sneaky hunting and absurd, crazy survival skills. There's ranger and scout for you. Both of them work towards that role. Barbarian could take a more tribal and feral bent to it. So you're a sneaky, clever hunter from a barbarian tribe. Your rage? Well, it's obviously not something you use all the time (you can't, in fact, it's only 1/day). Call it a last resort thing, where you just go berserk. Maybe you channel the rage of the bear? Suffice to say, it can easily be worked into the fluff as a very special thing used by warriors in a bad situation (while you've trained mostly for hunting, hence your other levels).

Maybe once you started getting out into a world beyond your backwoods village, you had to learn to fight more. Got to put all those skills you have to use in a more brutal way- hunting deer doesn't really keep you alive when people are coming at you with knives, yeah? But what kind of skills do you have? Well, you're fast, and focusing on quick, hard strikes. So, Dervish. You start putting what little you do know to use, slowly building on it until you have this really fast, lethal style.

And there you have it. Coherent concept which gives no sign of the myriad classes making it up.

jiriku
2010-07-20, 04:46 PM
Does it really matter how? The simple fact is that some players write good backstories and some don't, and some characters have many classes, while others don't. There's little connection between the two elements of story and mechanics.

I've played characters with one class and characters with seven. All were rich, involved characters with interesting histories and personas. I have a gaming buddy who's also played characters with one class or with many. All of his characters are uniformly vengeful warriors bent on amassing personal power. He just doesn't have the knack or interest to develop interesting character histories.

The number of classes on a character sheet is pretty much irrelevant to a character's backstory and persona.

kamikasei
2010-07-20, 04:52 PM
Joining the chorus of "classes are a metagame construct", and also pointing out: most dip-heavy builds are for melee, because BAB stacks. A bunch of melee classes each contributing one or two neat abilities is still "fightan man", just "fightan man with kewl tricks". The other common case, a full caster taking a few full-casting PrCs to get actual class abilities, is equally "I am still a wizard, I just can do funky stuff now besides the spells". And then you have gish or theurge characters where the mix of abilities provided by the various classes is part of the whole concept of the character to start with.

I wouldn't require a swashbuckler/fighter/dervish to jump through any in-character hoops to explain her progression. She's a smart fighter. She gets better at fighting, though not particularly smarter about it. She gets quicker at it. That's it.

Urpriest
2010-07-20, 04:53 PM
I'll add that the idea that you have to be in a militia to take levels of fighter is just plain silly. Consider the fact that your character could have the exact same backstory, personality, and fighting style, all as a single-classed fighter. As such, levels in fighter are no different in terms of lifestyle than levels in swashbuckler, and it is perfectly reasonable to multiclass between the two.

Note that some classes aren't like this: monks and paladins have mutliclass restrictions, which imply that they are specific lifestyles in their own right. Druids learn Druidic, so they're all part of a world-spanning organization. For most classes, though, especially martial ones, the same backstory and lifestyle can fit many different classes, or a mutliclass of several.

Malakar
2010-07-20, 04:55 PM
My Character is a Knight.

He does knightly things, like ride around on a trusted steed shoving sharp poles into Dragons, Wear Heavy Armor, Be Fearless, Not Die, Be Good, and Occasionally pull out a bow when Dragons are flying.

His build is Fighter 2/Paladin 3/Ranger 2/Dragon Slayer 3/Whatever else you want here.

He was not once a fighter, then become a paladin, then stop being a paladin, live in the woods, then slay dragons.

He just happens to be good at mounted combat, resistant to fear and dragon breath and spells (and anything else with a save) shoot a bow passably well, and do a good job against Dragons.

He's also good at riding, Diplomacy, and Seeing things.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-20, 04:57 PM
The Adage(and it was said here): Coherence of Character does not preclude funky multiclassing nor optimization. A Coherent character is so as long as he is consistent and what he can do fits what he is. If what he does is "magic knight that kicks ass and protects himself through magic", and it can be explained by, say, "Duskblade 3, Spellthief 4, Suel Arcanamach 4, Abjurant Champion 5, Spellsword 4", then it's perfectly usable.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-07-20, 05:05 PM
In-character: "Hi, I'm a [class]!" is the opposite of role-playing. Characters have absolutely no concept of classes or levels in-character. Here's an example:

Right now I'm playing a Killoren VoP Druid whose people live like the Na'vi, but he wouldn't describe himself as a Druid. In this game magical creatures and spellcasters have been slowly dying off, including my character's people. He is a Seeker, one of many who was sent out into the world to find out what was afflicting them and hopefully put a stop to it. If my character met a Killoren Savage Bard with Wild Cohort who was also a Seeker, he would consider himself to have more in common with that character than with another Druid who'd stayed home. If he met a Killoren Ranger or Wilderness Rogue who was also a Seeker then he would consider himself to have more in common with that character than with another Druid who'd stayed home. Mechanically these characters are all very different, but they do all have similarly themed abilities. In-character they have the same goals and motivations, things they can actually perceive, so they see those things in common with each other and aren't even aware of their difference of class.

A city guard who's a single-classed Fighter would describe himself as a guard rather than a fighter. An arena champion who's a single-classed Fighter would describe himself as a gladiator rather than a fighter. A back-alley thug who's a single-classed Fighter would probably describe himself as a goon or bully before he'd use the word fighter to do so. As numbers on a sheet of paper these characters are all very similar, but in-character they see themselves as completely different people with nothing in common with each other.

Caphi
2010-07-20, 05:22 PM
In-character: "Hi, I'm a [class]!" is the opposite of role-playing. Characters have absolutely no concept of classes or levels in-character.

I'm playing a swordsage. He's not a sage, and he doesn't use a sword.

I'm playing a sorceror too. She's an arcane bioweapon engineered and raised by druids to add to their magical capabilities during a prolonged war.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-20, 05:24 PM
I'll take it one step further. My character is a nature lover who spends all of his time in the back country with his lifelong leopard companion, and detests civilization. From an early age, he found a magical bow which he can call to his side at any time, and soon began learning minor magical tricks to accompany his peerless archery. What is my character?
Hint: not a ranger! :smallwink:

Warlock with Wild Cohort, Eldritch Spear, and a love of nature.

Coplantor
2010-07-20, 05:49 PM
I´m playing a transformer with rocket punches engineered by an ancient magical civilization recently found by the party and since it was recently activated it behaves like a baby, though it´s learning.

Warblade 3/Fighter 2/Bloodstorm Blade 5+ warforged with a hombrewed +1 LA template that allows him to cast alter self to change into an animated construct, though he can turn into forms he has already memorized (right now, he has 2 "memory slots")

Guess what? Even if two clases involves blades, he foes unnarmed, also, he doesnt look like a warforged at all :smalltongue:

AvatarZero
2010-07-20, 05:50 PM
Another vote for "classes are an abstraction". I remember this being called the Jack Sparrow Principle. You can play Jack Sparrow as a Rogue, or a Swashbuckler, or a Rogue/Swashbuckler with levels in Fortune's Friend and a few flaws to represent the loose wiring, but no matter what rules you pick, when you're playing the character you're playing Jack Sparrow.

Tried googling it, no results. Of course with this forum there's a decent chance that any of you googling it will be redirected back here.

edit: But that's not really what the OP is asking about, is it? Optimized characters vs actually playable characters...

Speaking for myself, I have on three separate occasions created a character who was so powerful that the DM couldn't challenge me and the rest of the party at the same time. (Beguiler loves Glitterdust, Eclipse caste loves artifacts and social charms in a social game, Monk loves Improved Trip and an item of Magic Fang.) I don't know whether to be proud or embarrassed. A big complex build is a symptom, but not the issue itself. (The DnD characters up there were both single-classed.) Creating a big powerful character is fun. Imagining yourself as the character is also fun, especially if they've got a lot of cool abilities that you could use in everyday life. Actually playing one of these characters alongside people who's characters are, for what ever reason, eclipsed by your competence? Who is that fun for?

Keld Denar
2010-07-20, 06:09 PM
Jumping on the bandwagon (poor OP probably feels like we ran him over), your character has no metagame knowledge of his actual classes.

I kinda wish we had this conversation last week, so I could link this whole thread over to the Iron Optimization thread to all the people who got beat up for "unjustified multiclassing", including myself.

Some classes require a bit of RP lead in, such as Sublime Chord (has to have met a Sublime Chord), which, assuming you are building toward it, most DMs would either help you work it in to the story, or handwave it if thats not possible. Those classes are kinda few, and easy to meet with a little bit of player/DM colaboration, and as long as the fluff isn't TOO contradicting (no Pallys of Slaughter becoming Purple Dragon Knights, for example). In the end, it shouldn't matter if the character has 1 class or 10, the character is the whole, rather than simply the sum of the parts.

Morph Bark
2010-07-20, 06:16 PM
While agreeing with most that has been said, I think there also is a bit of a distinction whether you're talking about base classes or PrCs, since the latter are more specialized and tend to depend on organizations or highly specialized sets of skills or uses of a particular kind of magical/supernatural ability that someone else needs to teach you. Sure, some PrCs are easy and don't need "life-changing" stuff happening, especially Theurge classes, or simple ones like the Duelist. Jade Phoenix Mage, Assassin, Scarlet Corsair and Sacred Exorcist though? Those are specialized and part of some sort of organization, loose or not, and involve some role-play stuff, though it may often be ignored by players and DMs alike.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-20, 06:19 PM
While agreeing with most that has been said, I think there also is a bit of a distinction whether you're talking about base classes or PrCs, since the latter are more specialized and tend to depend on organizations or highly specialized sets of skills or uses of a particular kind of magical/supernatural ability that someone else needs to teach you. Sure, some PrCs are easy and don't need "life-changing" stuff happening, especially Theurge classes, or simple ones like the Duelist. Jade Phoenix Mage, Assassin, Scarlet Corsair and Sacred Exorcist though? Those are specialized and part of some sort of organization, loose or not, and involve some role-play stuff, though it may often be ignored by players and DMs alike.

As you said, if the class just fits what you want to do, but the fluff doesn't...break the fluff. Take it to a back alley and bend it over. Bück Dich!

Greenish
2010-07-20, 06:27 PM
Jade Phoenix Mage, Assassin, Scarlet Corsair and Sacred Exorcist though? Those are specialized and part of some sort of organization, loose or not, and involve some role-play stuff, though it may often be ignored by players and DMs alike.Scarlet Corsair just needs a ship and a reputation, or am I thinking some other "captain the ship and scare people"-PrC?

Boci
2010-07-20, 06:28 PM
Also, there is nothing saying your character levels up as the player does. IF you are aiming for abjurant champion by going ranger 2 / fighter 2 / wizard 2 (and taking the levels in that order) there is nothing to say your character lived in the wilderness for 2 years, then went to a fighting academy, then studied arcane arts. He could have trained for all three areas simaltenously. You level one class at a time because its the easiest way to handle it, but that doesn't concern your character's training.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-20, 06:28 PM
Scarlet Corsair just needs a ship and a reputation, or am I thinking some other "captain the ship and scare people"-PrC?

Jade Phoenix Mage could have had a prophetic dream, and in the quest to understand it, realized that he is the reincarnation of a great hero. Eternal Blades could be any warriors with a long tradition of mentors. There's Obi-Wan Kenobi there.

Keld Denar
2010-07-20, 06:36 PM
I mentioned that in my post. Some of them require some special RP to get into, but as long as that RP isn't contradictory with RP you already have, it shouldn't be hard to work with your DM to allow whatever RP needs to happen, happen.

Also, some PrCs advance other PrCs. This simply reflects your character doing things his own way, rather than the way that they are traditionally done. If you want to progress your Assassin with Unseen Seer, thats fine. Your Death Attack DC will suffer, but you'll be better at using Divinations to slay your foes. Maybe your character puts more stock in planning and precise operations than on any twist of the blade. Whether you take 1 Assassin level, 4 Assassin levels or all 10 Assassin levels, you are still an Assassin, and you were an Assassin before you even took your first Assassin level!

So no, I don't think its a problem even to stack multiple PrCs, again provided that the fluff isn't completely outrageous. Using Sacred Exorcist to progress your Assassin casting is kinda silly, on top of being a nearly impossible character creation decision.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-20, 06:38 PM
A new one for eternal blades customized for warforged: A secondary AI!

Greenish
2010-07-20, 06:42 PM
Using Sacred Exorcist to progress your Assassin casting is kinda silly, on top of being a nearly impossible character creation decision.You could be a holy Avenger!

Doing the deeds which must be done, but which the Church of the Silver Flame can't really advertise! (How could they admit having fiendish possessions in the leadership of the church?)

Admittedly, I don't remember what Sacred Exorcist does. :smallcool:

Caphi
2010-07-20, 06:43 PM
A new one for eternal blades customized for warforged: A secondary AI!

The bladeguide is actually its own entity that can be attacked (and you lose most Eternal Blade features while it's regenerating), but hey. Bits, floating cameras, etc.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-20, 06:48 PM
The bladeguide is actually its own entity that can be attacked (and you lose most Eternal Blade features while it's regenerating), but hey. Bits, floating cameras, etc.

damn ¬.¬
Put it in a gadget then. Assistant AI. They even have bluetooth connectors.

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-20, 06:53 PM
My personal best achievement in proving the "classes are metagame concepts" front is my shinobi character, Shuikue Ryushin. He's based around Naruto (both the anime in general and the character in particular). I simply refluffed all his mechanics to match that ideal. He has a fair bit of taijutsu skills, backed up by weapons, and a fair few jutsu powered by his chakra reserves. Ask him what profession he is, and he'll reply (loudly) "I'm a shinobi! An' I'm gonna be a big hero someday! Believe it!"

As an experiment, I asked two of the players not familiar with the mechanics what they thought he was, after the first game. They both sort of some of rogue or wizard or psionic character, because of his jutsu.

Actual class: straight Monk/Cleric with no clever options (though with Divine Counterspell instead of Turn Undead). (Yes, I know there might be better ways to represent the paradigm, but it was as much an experiment to see if I could do a ninja with just a Monk/Cleric; and excercise in reflavouring if you will.) He isn't therefore a monk who became a cleric. He's just Shikue, as he always was, that loud, sometimes obnoxious kid who and that amazing way of getting you to believe in yourself at the most critical of moments...



(Incidently, can you think of a better catchprase for a cleric to spout that "believe it"! I can't...)

Greenish
2010-07-20, 06:59 PM
Bouncing around alot you could end up with stuff like this: Barbarian1 / Ranger2 / Scout5 / Swordsage2 / Dervish10. Then you are all over the board. It just seems odd.Hey, isn't that Drizzt?

JonestheSpy
2010-07-20, 07:06 PM
if your GM waives, as they should, the multiclass xp penalties

I would just like to say that I completely, 100% disagree with this statement.

The rule is there precisely to prevent so much of the silliness in class combinations we've seen discussed, and to force players to actually make some choices - yeah, I know, some people seem to hate that.

Boci
2010-07-20, 07:07 PM
Hey, isn't that Drizzt?

Or Skilgannon the Damned.


I would just like to say that I completely, 100% disagree with this statement.

The rule is there precisely to prevent so much of the silliness in class combinations we've seen discussed, and to force players to actually make some choices - yeah, I know, some people seem to hate that.

Yes people hate rules that limit flexibility without any return other than helping to lock races into their stereotype.

Also, what is silly about multiclassing with a lot of classes?

Eldariel
2010-07-20, 07:18 PM
The rule is there precisely to prevent so much of the silliness in class combinations we've seen discussed, and to force players to actually make some choices - yeah, I know, some people seem to hate that.

The rule is bad because it does not work. It encourages you to be Monk 2/Rogue 2/Ranger 2/Barbarian 2/Fighter 2 rather than 10 levels in any of those classes simply because that way you avoid taking multiclass penalties.

It encourages dipping, it encourages multi-dipping and it encourages entering PrC ASAP while discouraging playing non-Human races and anything but evenly split classes. Of course, since Human is the best anyways that doesn't really matter meaning you can be that Monk 1/Druid 19 because well, what do you care? Cloistered Cleric 1/Scout 4/Ranger 15 will of course never work 'cause it's so "silly" to be a Swift Hunter devoted to Travel; just think about it! And that's without even getting to classes that are very similar like Ranger and Barbarian or Barbarian and Fighter or Scout and Ranger or Favored Soul and Cleric or Sorcerer and Warmage and so on.

Every race only has one favored class (other than Dragonborn X which adds Fighter to that list), and it's always a core class leaving out support for functionally identical classes. Also, Elven Druids or Rangers are in no way supported even though they're supposed to be damn common.


In other words, people hate the rules not because of what they do, but because they are horrible. Limiting "silly combinations" or rewarding "sticking with it" is fine, though places arbitrary limitations on character creation and creativity on expressing character concept through classes, but the way the rules do it, they don't really do much other than:
1) Force you to play Human for many character concepts.
2) Discourage taking levels in base classes.
3) Encourage dipping.
4) Force even distribution on levels when dual classing.

In other words, they don't accomplish anything positive. That's the issue. Bad rule is bad. It isn't gonna become good or capable of accomplishing its goal or anything of the sort no matter what people say. The rule needs to change to be anything but horrible waste of space and excess baggage.

Kylarra
2010-07-20, 07:21 PM
Yes people hate rules that limit flexibility without any return other than helping to lock races into their stereotype.If you hate restrictions, you should just play GURPS or similar pointbuy games. Levels limit flexibility while arbitrarily locking you into a stereotype.

See what I did there? :smallwink:


Tongue-in-cheek; I like the concept of the penalties, but dislike the implementation

JonestheSpy
2010-07-20, 07:26 PM
Nope, disagree completely. We're just talking about massively different ways of playing the game, so not much point in going on about it. Just wanted to note my dissent from the common board groupthink.

Boci
2010-07-20, 07:28 PM
Nope, disagree completely. We're just talking about massively different ways of playing the game, so not much point in going on about it. Just wanted to note my dissent from the common board groupthink.

So you play with characters knowing they have levels in a class that has 20 steps in it, and believe staying in it is better?

Coidzor
2010-07-20, 07:31 PM
I'll take it one step further. My character is a nature lover who spends all of his time in the back country with his lifelong leopard companion, and detests civilization. From an early age, he found a magical bow which he can call to his side at any time, and soon began learning minor magical tricks to accompany his peerless archery. What is my character?
Hint: not a ranger! :smallwink:

Warlock with Wild Cohort, Eldritch Spear, and a love of nature.

Well, at least it wasn't soulbow. :smallyuk:

Greenish
2010-07-20, 07:34 PM
Nope, disagree completely. We're just talking about massively different ways of playing the game, so not much point in going on about it. Just wanted to note my dissent from the common board groupthink.You could, you know, argue your point, tell us how you think multiclassing penalties prevent "silliness" or how multiclass characters are silly?

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-20, 07:35 PM
Nope, disagree completely. We're just talking about massively different ways of playing the game, so not much point in going on about it. Just wanted to note my dissent from the common board groupthink.

And you don't care to elaborate on why you think it's a good rule?

JonestheSpy
2010-07-20, 07:37 PM
So you play with characters knowing they have levels in a class that has 20 steps in it, and believe staying in it is better?

Don't be ridiculous. I believe in a certain amount of focus, differentation between PC races, traditional fantasy archetypes unless in a setting specifically designed to subvert said archetypes, and generally not treating a campaign like Burger King (http://www.timrosablog.com/.a/6a00e5508c1ccb883301156f3f751b970c-320wi).

I could go into much greater detail, but as i don't expect to convert anyone it doesn't seem at all worth the time.

Boci
2010-07-20, 07:38 PM
Don't be ridiculous. I believe in a certain amount of focus, differentation between PC races, traditional fantasy archetypes unless in a setting specifically designed to subvert said archetypes, and generally not treating a campaign like Burger King (http://www.timrosablog.com/.a/6a00e5508c1ccb883301156f3f751b970c-320wi).

But that is up to the DM. PCs are just one member of their race, they do not define the distribution.

The DM can just say "Elves are 23% more likely to be wizards than humans", without having any mechanics that limit the players.

JonestheSpy
2010-07-20, 07:40 PM
But that is up to the DM. PCs are just one member of their race, they do not define the distribution.

Do you have any idea what I mean when i use words like 'archetype'?

Greenish
2010-07-20, 07:42 PM
Don't be ridiculous. I believe in a certain amount of focus, differentation between PC races,And you can't do that without a clumsy mechanic (that doesn't even work)? It's pen&paper RPG, it's all in your head!
and generally not treating a campaign like Burger King (http://www.timrosablog.com/.a/6a00e5508c1ccb883301156f3f751b970c-320wi).What? I've only been in a Burger King once in my life, so you'll have to explain that to me. ("Whopper" wasn't bad, but I don't see how it relates to an RPG campaign.)

[Edit]:
Do you have any idea what I mean when i use words like 'archetype'?Every elf is a legolas and every dwarf a gimli?

Boci
2010-07-20, 07:42 PM
Do you have any idea what I mean when i use words like 'archetype'?

The DM can just say "Dwarves are 23% more likely to be fighters than humans" and have more dwarven fighter NPCs to represent this, without having any mechanics that limit the player who is a dwarf.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-20, 07:43 PM
Don't be ridiculous. I believe in a certain amount of focus, differentation between PC races, traditional fantasy archetypes unless in a setting specifically designed to subvert said archetypes, and generally not treating a campaign like Burger King (http://www.timrosablog.com/.a/6a00e5508c1ccb883301156f3f751b970c-320wi).

I could go into much greater detail, but as i don't expect to convert anyone it doesn't seem at all worth the time.

What do you mean by focus? Also, for traditional Fantasy archtypes, I believe Conan would have like a 20 or 30% penalty w/ the multiclassing rules.

That's not the point of the discussion. 99% of the time, nobody on the other side is convinced, there are many readers who are persuaded by them. I should know, it's happened to me! :smallwink:


And you can't do that without a clumsy mechanic (that doesn't even work)? It's pen&paper RPG, it's all in your head!What? I've only been in a Burger King once in my life, so you'll have to explain that to me. ("Whopper" wasn't bad, but I don't see how it relates to an RPG campaign.)

Did you read the big words in the center of the pic?

Eldariel
2010-07-20, 07:44 PM
Don't be ridiculous. I believe in a certain amount of focus, differentation between PC races, traditional fantasy archetypes unless in a setting specifically designed to subvert said archetypes, and generally not treating a campaign like Burger King (http://www.timrosablog.com/.a/6a00e5508c1ccb883301156f3f751b970c-320wi).

But how do multiclass rules help with any of those? They still don't stop silly combinations, but will make Elf Fighter 2/Druid 7 take multiclass penalties, and support your goal to become a Monk 2/Rogue 2/Ranger 2/Barbarian 2/Fighter 2 which obviously does not take any.

I mean, if your group doesn't use multiclassing anyways, what's the purpose of the rules? And if it does, couldn't you just use DM judgment on what's kosher and what isn't without any artificial XP penalties for multiclassing in a "stupid" way, or make some sane limitations instead of arbitrary rules that don't really do what they're trying to do? How about giving the typical classes of a race some sub levels to somehow support the typical members of the class?

This way you can cover multiple classes per race, and you aren't penalized for straying but rather rewarded for sticking through (so the Monk 2/Rogue 2/Ranger 2/Barbarian 2/Fighter 2 is no longer rules-encouraged), and can gain benefits in multiple classes if you happen to dualclass between two typical classes for your race (like Dwarven Fighter and Cleric).


Regardless of how you play the game, I'm left wondering whether your play experience is truly improved by PHB multiclass rules.

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 07:44 PM
*snip*

Bravo sir. Have many cookies.

Greenish
2010-07-20, 07:50 PM
Did you read the big words in the center of the pic?I don't think he means to say that players shouldn't be able to play the characters they want to play.

I mean, there was a list of burgers on the wall (in the burger king), and then you just picked one, paid for it and ate it. Where multiclassing comes to the picture I'm puzzled.

[Edit]: I got it! He wants a campaign where elves are only served salad and dwarves ratburgers!

Boci
2010-07-20, 07:53 PM
I mean, there was a list of burgers on the wall (in the burger king), and then you just picked one, paid for it and ate it. Where multiclassing comes to the picture I'm puzzled.

You can freely pick what goes into your burger/freely pick how you multiclass?

Kylarra
2010-07-20, 08:05 PM
My guess is that he prefers a game where classes are not simply "metagame concepts" in which they simply represent arbitrary conglomerations of abilities that people pick and choose what they want out of, but something more akin to AD&D/2e where you could be relatively aware of what people can do simply by reading their class, and multiclassing represented a dividing of your attention between multiple classes, rather than simply dips for abilities.

Unfortunately, 3.X's multiclass rules do little to support such a game, if indeed they were intended to do so.

thompur
2010-07-20, 08:15 PM
I suddenly realized that if you dip into Barbarian after, say 3 levels of Bard, you instantly lose the ability to read and write. :-)

As to a character not knowing what class he is...ummm...Binder?

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 08:18 PM
I suddenly realized that if you dip into Barbarian after, say 3 levels of Bard, you instantly lose the ability to read and write. :-)

Actually, levels in any class other than Barbarian confer literacy. (Well, almost any... sorry Totemist.)


As to a character not knowing what class he is...ummm...Binder?

It's not that hard for casting classes or even semi-casting classes to know what they are. Martial classes have a great deal more gray area. When does an agile fighter stop being a Fighter and start being a Swashbuckler?

Caphi
2010-07-20, 08:18 PM
I suddenly realized that if you dip into Barbarian after, say 3 levels of Bard, you instantly lose the ability to read and write. :-)

As to a character not knowing what class he is...ummm...Binder?

Factotum, or anything/Chameleon.

Barbarian starts with no literacy, which you gain if you take a level in another class, but the reverse isn't true.

Kylarra
2010-07-20, 08:19 PM
I suddenly realized that if you dip into Barbarian after, say 3 levels of Bard, you instantly lose the ability to read and write. :-)That is incorrect.

Illiteracy

Barbarians are the only characters who do not automatically know how to read and write. A barbarian may spend 2 skill points to gain the ability to read and write all languages he is able to speak.

A barbarian who gains a level in any other class automatically gains literacy. Any other character who gains a barbarian level does not lose the literacy he or she already had.

edit: partially swordsaged twice, but my answer is the most complete.

Greenish
2010-07-20, 08:21 PM
As to a character not knowing what class he is...ummm...Binder?Anyone can practice soulbinding. It's kind of a big deal in the ToM fluff, even.

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 08:23 PM
Anyone can practice soulbinding. It's kind of a big deal in the ToM fluff, even.

While that is true, there is still a clear demarcation between dabbling in Binding and making a career out of it - just as there is for any casting class.

Magical Training can give Halruuan citizens access to several cantrips, but they know they aren't wizards. It's the same principle.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-20, 09:05 PM
I would just like to say that I completely, 100% disagree with this statement.

The rule is there precisely to prevent so much of the silliness in class combinations we've seen discussed, and to force players to actually make some choices - yeah, I know, some people seem to hate that.

Okay, well, then it's strongly encouraging my choice of going Wizard 3/Master Specialist 10/Malconvoker 5/Archmage 2.

Urpriest
2010-07-20, 09:43 PM
Favored classes are a way to encourage certain races to play certain classes, a goal which certainly has a place in the game. Why, mechanically, should 23% more gnomes be bards if gnomes aren't particularly good at being bards? Sure, a DM can just fluff it out, but chances are if you stuck with 3.5 it's because you have some simulationist leanings or like rules complexity, so you're going to prefer a rule that supports your world to an absence thereof.

That said, racial substitution levels are for the most part better for this sort of thing. They do have one disadvantage though: they make you less of an archetypal member of the class, which was the whole point of the favored class system in the first place.

I don't think that multiclassing penalties are justified by the existence of the favored class system. I do however think that something should be in place to mechanically encourage certain class choices for certain otherwise unoptimal races, and I don't think that racial substitution levels are always going to be a good way to do this. Another system would be welcome.

Boci
2010-07-20, 09:45 PM
Favored classes are a way to encourage certain races to play certain classes, a goal which certainly has a place in the game. Why, mechanically, should 23% more gnomes be bards if gnomes aren't particularly good at being bards? Sure, a DM can just fluff it out, but chances are if you stuck with 3.5 it's because you have some simulationist leanings or like rules complexity, so you're going to prefer a rule that supports your world to an absence thereof.

That said, racial substitution levels are for the most part better for this sort of thing. They do have one disadvantage though: they make you less of an archetypal member of the class, which was the whole point of the favored class system in the first place.

I don't think that multiclassing penalties are justified by the existence of the favored class system. I do however think that something should be in place to mechanically encourage certain class choices for certain otherwise unoptimal races, and I don't think that racial substitution levels are always going to be a good way to do this. Another system would be welcome.

Well one would hope that the favourite class makes sense given the race;s states. Besides, favourite classes do not make you more likely to play that class, less likely to multiclass as freely.

Greenish
2010-07-20, 09:48 PM
Why, mechanically, should 23% more gnomes be bards if gnomes aren't particularly good at being bards?Because they didn't optimize, but their culture values both musical and magical talent.
Another system would be welcome.PF offers an extra skill point or hitpoint every time you take a level in your race's favoured class.

Caphi
2010-07-20, 09:51 PM
.PF offers an extra skill point or hitpoint every time you take a level in your race's favoured class.

Pathfinder doesn't have racial favored classes. Each character selects a class of their choice at creation to be their favored class. It's part of their goal to encourage single-classing, which also includes building curved growth and meaningful capstones into every class (yes, even fighter), and it works much better than multiclass xp penalties.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-20, 09:55 PM
PF offers an extra skill point or hitpoint every time you take a level in your race's favoured class.


Pathfinder doesn't have racial favored classes. Each character selects a class of their choice at creation to be their favored class. It's part of their goal to encourage single-classing, which also includes building curved growth and meaningful capstones into every class (yes, even fighter), and it works much better than multiclass xp penalties.

Huh, they must have changed that since last I checked, because, as much as I don't care for Pathfinder in general, I did find the idea of having a bonus to take your favored class better than a penalty for not.

Greenish
2010-07-20, 09:58 PM
Pathfinder doesn't have racial favored classes. Each character selects a class of their choice at creation to be their favored class.Oh, right you are, I've completely missed that.

Coidzor
2010-07-20, 10:01 PM
Huh, they must have changed that since last I checked, because, as much as I don't care for Pathfinder in general, I did find the idea of having a bonus to take your favored class better than a penalty for not.

Well, yeah, if you want people to behave in a certain way, positive reinforcement is better and causes less resentment than negative reinforcement, after all, especially if negative consequences aren't necessary and there's no real reason to punish people for what they were doing anyway.

Keld Denar
2010-07-20, 10:12 PM
Mutliclass penalties aren't a matter of positive vs negative rewards though. They are like arbitrarily going around a dog obedience class and kicking 1/3 of the dogs for no reason, while giving treats to the rest. Doesn't teach any of the dogs a darned thing, and makes a good portion of them upset with you.

As Eldariel stated, something like an elf Fighter2/Druid6 gets penalized, while an elf Druid2/Fighter2/Barbarian2/Truenamer2/Commoner2 doesn't. Its just too darned arbitrary.

Urpriest
2010-07-20, 10:23 PM
Because they didn't optimize, but their culture values both musical and magical talent.

That just removes the answer by a step: what about their stats makes the race develop music-loving cultures? I realize this can be taken to silly extremes, but I do feel like character choice should make sense within the rules, not just the setting.

As favored classes make it easier to dip other classes while playing a given class, they make that class a more powerful choice for that race. It's not the best way to do it, though I could certainly see the argument that Elf Wizards, Dwarf Fighters, etc., would be more diverse (read: more multiclassing dips) than Wizards/Fighters of other races, since there are proportionally more of them and thus more room for diversity.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-20, 10:23 PM
Indeed, one of the things I really like about Pathfinder is their change to favored classes.

Greenish
2010-07-20, 10:24 PM
That just removes the answer by a step: what about their stats makes the race develop music-loving cultures?Nothing? Cultures don't make sense, they just kinda happen.

Boci
2010-07-20, 10:27 PM
That just removes the answer by a step: what about their stats makes the race develop music-loving cultures?

The default personality of the race also needs to be considered. Still wondering why gnomes choose bards most of the time.

Clepto
2010-07-21, 12:24 AM
Creating a big powerful character is fun. Imagining yourself as the character is also fun, especially if they've got a lot of cool abilities that you could use in everyday life. Actually playing one of these characters alongside people who's characters are, for what ever reason, eclipsed by your competence? Who is that fun for?

This. In my current group, I absolutely cannot play an archer, arguably my favorite archetype. One of our players is fairly new to the game, and this is probably her third campaign in as many years. She LOVES the archer type, and most of her characters end up as some form of archer or another. But she just doesn't do character optimization.

Now, admittedly, my characters are not completely optimized either. I'm a slave to an interesting character concept, even if changing the concept/build will do it better, but it's still somewhat thought out and carefully planned. Because of this, I know that any character I build that carries a bow will likely outshine hers in almost every way. Which really sucks because I adore archers, but I have to limit myself so I don't drive a friend out of the game for feeling inadequate.

Earthwalker
2010-07-21, 05:19 AM
Nope, disagree completely. We're just talking about massively different ways of playing the game, so not much point in going on about it. Just wanted to note my dissent from the common board groupthink.

The game I am currently in plays with the xp penalty for multiclassing in place and it hasn't effected the game. I can see why people don't like the rule, removing it is a small nerf to humans.

Reading the boards I can see where JonesTheSpy is coming from, alot of asumptions are made when building characters and recomending things, like we have no xp penalty for multiclassing as the rules are dumb. This seems to be part of the original post.

To me classes are metagaming concepts not character knowledge. There are glaring exptions that seem odd and have had lampshades hung in the comic.

Like a wizards background of years of study in the magical arts. Then more time in the field training. His buddy is a fighter and just hits things, then he goes up a level dips Wizard and seems to have bypassed the years of study part. All can be explained with role playing out classes changes but some things still seem odd.

Boci
2010-07-21, 05:42 AM
.Like a wizards background of years of study in the magical arts. Then more time in the field training. His buddy is a fighter and just hits things, then he goes up a level dips Wizard and seems to have bypassed the years of study part. All can be explained with role playing out classes changes but some things still seem odd.

Its a little odd anyway. A wizard spends years learning their first spell, then advances then learns how to cast 3rd level spells in a matter of weeks. What, it took them that long to figure out that killing random monsters would lead them to arcane mastery quicker?


This. In my current group, I absolutely cannot play an archer, arguably my favorite archetype. One of our players is fairly new to the game, and this is probably her third campaign in as many years. She LOVES the archer type, and most of her characters end up as some form of archer or another. But she just doesn't do character optimization.

Doesn't do or cannot do? Because if its the latter you could give her some tips.

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-21, 05:55 AM
Its a little odd anyway. A wizard spends years learning their first spell, then advances then learns how to cast 3rd level spells in a matter of weeks. What, it took them that long to figure out that killing random monsters would lead them to arcane mastery quicker?
3rd Edition and later timescales seem a bit off to me. Something seems to have happened between 2nd and 3rd Editions that makes groups 'move faster' as far as in-game time is concerned, cause it would not be unusual for games back when I played 2nd Edition to have months go by before the characters advanced a level (although the first few levels were always necessarily relatively quick in comparison, they still tended to take quite some time in-game). It also wasn't unusual to have a character take 40 years to go from 1-20, but in 3rd Edition and later games that seems to happen in a decade instead.


Doesn't do or cannot do? Because if its the latter you could give her some tips.
Yeah, I agree with this. Help her make a better character that will be equal to yours. Then you can both have fun. If she then refuses to make a better character when you offer to help with it, then well...why should you limit your fun when she refuses to work with you so you can both have fun?

Boci
2010-07-21, 06:07 AM
3rd Edition and later timescales seem a bit off to me. Something seems to have happened between 2nd and 3rd Editions that makes groups 'move faster' as far as in-game time is concerned, cause it would not be unusual for games back when I played 2nd Edition to have months go by before the characters advanced a level (although the first few levels were always necessarily relatively quick in comparison, they still tended to take quite some time in-game). It also wasn't unusual to have a character take 40 years to go from 1-20, but in 3rd Edition and later games that seems to happen in a decade instead.

It can take a lot less than that. It takes 13 encounters to level up, so 13 x 20 is is 260 encounters, assuming no extra XP for RPing and no XP drain. So for it to take a decade you would need on average 1 encounter every other week.

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-21, 06:28 AM
It can take a lot less than that. It takes 13 encounters to level up, so 13 x 20 is is 260 encounters, assuming no extra XP for RPing and no XP drain. So for it to take a decade you would need on average 1 encounter every other week.
Yeah, that just seems unreasonably fast. I'm not sure what to point to, if there even is anything specific, to explain that rushed-ness, either. Inflated exp rewards? Back in 2nd Edition exp rewards seemed a lot less uniformly set up, but it's not like we don't see odd CR's in 3.5 either. Might just be the difference in exp tables, where each class had its own separate table where the thief would be level 20 at the same time as the fighter is just under 17, the paladin just over 15, the cleric just under 18, and the mage just under 15 (and then there's the druid that needs 1.85 million more XP than any other class to reach 20, and that's after all the bizarre druid shenanigans between 12 and 16 - did anyone ever play a druid that actually followed those rules, I wonder?). And while nonmagical healing is much faster than in 2nd Edition (where you only healed 1 or 2 HP per day regardless of level, so it could take well over a month to heal once you were mid-level) even in 2nd Edition non-magical healing wasn't commonly relied upon in groups I played in, at least.

The whole thing could be easily resolved by having the characters simply have more downtime, but then, in my 2nd Edition games, downtime seemed more common. As soon as an adventure was over, our characters tended to spend months in town, with the casters researching spells primarily, and on rare occasions creating magic items, while non-casters did unspecified stuff. But I don't see this kind of downtime much anymore. Generally spending more than a week in town is odd in more recent games I've been in.

But overall it's absolutely true that exp rewards make no sense as far as the timescale of the game goes. The only way I could possibly imagine to have them make sense in-character and time-wise would be to place a flat 'you cannot gain more than X experience per day' rule in effect, so that no matter how much you kill you don't level until enough time has passed.

Greenish
2010-07-21, 06:38 AM
The whole thing could be easily resolved by having the characters simply have more downtime, but then, in my 2nd Edition games, downtime seemed more common. As soon as an adventure was over, our characters tended to spend months in town, with the casters researching spells primarily, and on rare occasions creating magic items, while non-casters did unspecified stuff. But I don't see this kind of downtime much anymore. Generally spending more than a week in town is odd in more recent games I've been in.It doesn't really matter whether you spend a day or a year in a town doing unspecified stuff when you fast-forward past that.

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-21, 09:04 AM
It doesn't really matter whether you spend a day or a year in a town doing unspecified stuff when you fast-forward past that.
It does as far as the logic of the game world is concerned. If you can advance to epic levels in a handful of years, why are there characters who have supposedly been adventuring for many years that are not level 35+ tromping around everywhere? Anyone who spent more than a decade actively adventuring should be massively high level, but that's not the way the settings usually work.

Changing that day to a year makes no difference as far as the players are concerned, but it allows the characters to advance at a pace that is internally consistent with the rest of the campaign setting.

WarKitty
2010-07-21, 09:09 AM
Personally, some of the fun can be coming up with a backstory for your optimized character. Like my long ritual backstory detailing how an anthro bat came about in a world that doesn't usually have anthropomorphic animals.

Greenish
2010-07-21, 09:19 AM
It does as far as the logic of the game world is concerned.Yes, I meant that it doesn't add the joy of actually playing the game to the hearts of player and DM alike.

dps
2010-07-21, 11:27 AM
I'm going to answer the question from the OP a little bit differently. Think about it not in game terms, but in RL terms. A person can change jobs, careers, residence, etc., all the time in RL, but is still the same person. Take my stepbrother, for example. He went to college after graduating high school as a business major, but left after 2 years to go into the Army. When his Army hitch was up, he decided that he didn't like the Army well enough to re-enlist, but thought that the military might still be a good career for him, so he joined the Air Force instead. Well, he didn't like that, either, so when he got out of the Air Force, he went back to college and got his degree. But he didn't finish up his business major; instead, he majored in education. After getting his degree, he did some student teaching and got his teaching certificate, but decided that wasn't right for him either, so he joined the State Police. He got a job selling insurance, wasn't particularly good at it, but managed to use his connections in the insurance business to get a job as an insurance adjuster. He did that for well over a decade (by far the longest he ever stuck with something) but then decided to get into politics and ran for public office. Unsuccessfully. He got bitter about that, and decided to quit his job and live off of welfare for a year or so. After that, he worked as an overnight cashier at all-night convenience stores/gas stations. Even then, he didn't stay with one store long, but moved around from one to another.

Anyway, it actcually makies more sense in a feudal/medieval setting (and a pseudo-medieval setting, after all, is the "standard" setting for most RPGs, not just DnD) that adventurers be multiclassed. A typical person simply followed their father's footsteps. If the father was a blacksmith, so was the son; if the father was a farmer, so was the son. Adventurers, though, are the people who aren't happy with that, but want to go see the world and learn new things.

Clepto
2010-07-21, 11:28 AM
Doesn't do or cannot do? Because if its the latter you could give her some tips.


Yeah, I agree with this. Help her make a better character that will be equal to yours. Then you can both have fun. If she then refuses to make a better character when you offer to help with it, then well...why should you limit your fun when she refuses to work with you so you can both have fun?

Kind of a combination of both actually. She certainly has the capability if she really wanted to, though she doesn't have any experience in optimization. It is a learnable skill for most people, so that's not the real problem. The main issue is she has neither the time nor the inclination to optimize.

To be fair, she plays her character extremely well, and is usually pretty effective, though most of the party is likewise un-optimized. And she's having fun, which is the main part that matters.

It's just a bit frustrating, but on the bright side, I've been exploring other character concepts, and explanding my repertoire of character experience.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-21, 11:32 AM
Its a little odd anyway. A wizard spends years learning their first spell, then advances then learns how to cast 3rd level spells in a matter of weeks. What, it took them that long to figure out that killing random monsters would lead them to arcane mastery quicker?
.

I don't find this that odd, actually. I know nothing about music, but I'm going to try and make a musical analogy to, say, playing piano. You can't learn to play piano via anything except mindless repetition without knowing which keys are which notes. Once you know that, you can learn where you put your hands on the keyboard. Then you learn to play Chopsticks. A few weeks(months? years?) later, he's playing Beethoven.

Similarly, a fledgling wizard doesn't spend years learning his first spell, he spends years learning how to write spells, how to meditate and prepare spells, how to perform somatic components without blowing himself up. Then he learns to cast Magic Missile. A few weeks later, he's throwing Fireballs and Hastes.

The idea is, a lot of that training is the fundamentals that will form the basis for every spell/song he ever learns. The initial training he goes through isn't only relevant to beginner-level workings.

Boci
2010-07-21, 11:42 AM
I don't find this that odd, actually. I know nothing about music, but I'm going to try and make a musical analogy to, say, playing piano. You can't learn to play piano via anything except mindless repetition without knowing which keys are which notes. Once you know that, you can learn where you put your hands on the keyboard. Then you learn to play Chopsticks. A few weeks(months? years?) later, he's playing Beethoven.

Similarly, a fledgling wizard doesn't spend years learning his first spell, he spends years learning how to write spells, how to meditate and prepare spells, how to perform somatic components without blowing himself up. Then he learns to cast Magic Missile. A few weeks later, he's throwing Fireballs and Hastes.

The idea is, a lot of that training is the fundamentals that will form the basis for every spell/song he ever learns. The initial training he goes through isn't only relevant to beginner-level workings.

I was just saying if you find a fighter suddenly learning to dabble as a wizard without years of training wierd, you will probably find arcane enlightenment via killing monsters wierd as well.


Kind of a combination of both actually. She certainly has the capability if she really wanted to, though she doesn't have any experience in optimization. It is a learnable skill for most people, so that's not the real problem. The main issue is she has neither the time nor the inclination to optimize.

To be fair, she plays her character extremely well, and is usually pretty effective, though most of the party is likewise un-optimized. And she's having fun, which is the main part that matters.

It's just a bit frustrating, but on the bright side, I've been exploring other character concepts, and explanding my repertoire of character experience.

Offer to tweak her build and see how she likess the changes. She doesn't have much to loose.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-21, 11:45 AM
I was just saying if you find a fighter suddenly learning to dabble as a wizard without years of training wierd, you will probably find arcane enlightenment via killing monsters wierd as well.

Those are a bit different, IMO though.

In the latter case, Mr. Wizard spent years learning the basics of arcane magic, then once he had them, was able to apply them practically and start learning at an exponentional rate for arcane enlightenment. Not that weird.

In the former case, Mr. Fighter spent years swinging a sword at things, then somehow managed to cram all of the extensive training and practice that Mr. Wizard spent years doing into a few weeks, as well as being capable of applying those lessons exactly as fast as Mr. Wizard does. That's weird.

Boci
2010-07-21, 11:48 AM
Those are a bit different, IMO though.

In the latter case, Mr. Wizard spent years learning the basics of arcane magic, then once he had them, was able to apply them practically and start learning at an exponentional rate for arcane enlightenment. Not that weird.

In the former case, Mr. Fighter spent years swinging a sword at things, then somehow managed to cram all of the extensive training and practice that Mr. Wizard spent years doing into a few weeks, as well as being capable of applying those lessons exactly as fast as Mr. Wizard does. That's weird.

Not really. The fighter dabbles in the art, and has no intention of ever learning 9th rank spells. He finds magic easier to learn, harder to master.

Theodoxus
2010-07-21, 11:57 AM
That's a bit of an overdramatization. There's no reason a Fighter 1/Wizard 19 can't know 9th level spells.

I agree, in a purely mechanical setting, why Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 needs to only spend a few weeks learning all that a Wizard 1 knows but took 15 years to get to that state...

However, there's all kinds of fluff reasons you could use to support the case.

Maybe the fighter actually spent his youth dabbling in the arcane arts, but just before he took his Wizarding competency test, he got called up in a draft and went off to war, where his instructors mistakenly put him in "pokey bit goes in the other man" school rather than the "think hard, move your hand thus and say "Squee!" school. So he comes out of the war as a level 1 fighter, decides he hates it, and goes back to his old master, passes his test, gets his spellbook and puts the whole army career behind him.

Boci
2010-07-21, 11:59 AM
That's a bit of an overdramatization. There's no reason a Fighter 1/Wizard 19 can't know 9th level spells.

My example involved a fighter dabbling in magic. That is a wizard dabbling in martial combat.

Prodan
2010-07-21, 12:01 PM
I agree, in a purely mechanical setting, why Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 needs to only spend a few weeks learning all that a Wizard 1 knows but took 15 years to get to that state...


Perhaps he was studying over the party wizard's shoulder.

DragonsAion
2010-07-21, 03:41 PM
Or the fighter was studying the "arts" in his spare time as a hobby.

heck Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays could have been study the ways of the sword or bow (however you have your fighter set up) and Tuesdays and Thursdays could be learn how to be a wizard days.

AvatarZero
2010-07-21, 04:20 PM
For this one, I like the way Star Wars Saga runs it's classes. Every class gets three or four feats to represent the learning that brought them to their first heroic level. If you multiclass into a heroic class, you only get one. So you CAN start out as a Scoundrel and end up a Jedi, but you need to invest some feats before you know all the tricks that someone trained as a Jedi from a young age would have. (You do of course have all those Scoundrel tricks.)

I thought about doing something like that for DnD, but I'm not sure it would really work. Not all classes are equal, feat-wise, at first level.

Andion Isurand
2010-07-21, 05:10 PM
One thing about multiclassing that my first DM implemented, is that one must assume they have 0 levels in each class.

So if you have 2 levels ranger for instance and want to take a level of fighter...
then you are going from (Rgr 2/Ftr 0) to (Rgr 2/Ftr 1) and may incur a multiclassing penalty.

It made it take longer to maximize each of your base class level dips.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-21, 05:19 PM
One thing about multiclassing that my first DM implemented, is that one must assume they have 0 levels in each class.

So if you have 2 levels ranger for instance and want to take a level of fighter...
then you are going from (Rgr 2/Ftr 0) to (Rgr 2/Ftr 1) and may incur a multiclassing penalty.

It made it take longer to maximize each of your base class level dips.

Wait, so your DM took an already harsh and unnecessary penalty and made it worse?:smallconfused:

Andion Isurand
2010-07-21, 05:30 PM
Yeah, you pretty much had to keep your non-favored base classes at first level each until you felt ready to raise one of them class to second level.

Glimbur
2010-07-21, 05:36 PM
One thing about multiclassing that my first DM implemented, is that one must assume they have 0 levels in each class.

So if you have 2 levels ranger for instance and want to take a level of fighter...
then you are going from (Rgr 2/Ftr 0) to (Rgr 2/Ftr 1) and may incur a multiclassing penalty.

It made it take longer to maximize each of your base class level dips.

So you have 0 levels in every base class? Because there are more base classes than you have levels in a pre-epic game, and this means that you either take levels solely in your race's favored class or you are incapable of taking any base class past level one.

Andion Isurand
2010-07-21, 06:35 PM
Well, it didn't affect gaining levels in that way. Technically I should have said you have 0 levels in a base class just before gaining your 1st level in it.

Kylarra
2010-07-21, 07:26 PM
For this one, I like the way Star Wars Saga runs it's classes. Every class gets three or four feats to represent the learning that brought them to their first heroic level. If you multiclass into a heroic class, you only get one. So you CAN start out as a Scoundrel and end up a Jedi, but you need to invest some feats before you know all the tricks that someone trained as a Jedi from a young age would have. (You do of course have all those Scoundrel tricks.)

I thought about doing something like that for DnD, but I'm not sure it would really work. Not all classes are equal, feat-wise, at first level.Yeah given a choice I'd do it somewhere between this, favored classes PF style and a lot more racial subs.

elonin
2010-07-21, 07:29 PM
It's been said before (maybe too many time) but joe the barbarian may be a barbarian but might also describe himself as a plains man or a member of such and such tribe. That said I've had complaints about how all the good adjectives have been taken over by class names. Or do you forget about the question about Mikko being a samurai with no levels in the class.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-21, 07:37 PM
It's been said before (maybe too many time) but joe the barbarian may be a barbarian but might also describe himself as a plains man or a member of such and such tribe. That said I've had complaints about how all the good adjectives have been taken over by class names. Or do you forget about the question about Mikko being a samurai with no levels in the class.

Doesn't even need to have a tribe, could just be brawler or gladiator who goes into rages, or enters a tiring stance in the Whirling variant.

Runestar
2010-07-21, 07:40 PM
Aye to classes being a metagame concept (and also because I am too lazy to sift through 4 pages of posts). :smallbiggrin:

That said, I certainly don't see how a barb/fighter/frenzied berserker/bear warrior/warshaper is any less of a barbarian than a pure barb20. If anything, that makes him even more flavourful to play. :smallamused:

Or how is a wizard/master specialist/archmage any different from a wiz20?

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-21, 07:46 PM
Aye to classes being a metagame concept (and also because I am too lazy to sift through 4 pages of posts). :smallbiggrin:

That said, I certainly don't see how a barb/fighter/frenzied berserker/bear warrior/warshaper is any less of a barbarian than a pure barb20. If anything, that makes him even more flavourful to play. :smallamused:

Or how is a wizard/master specialist/archmage any different from a wiz20?

MOAR POWAR! Of, course!:smalltongue: Yeah, I'm being facetious here.

Seriously, though, I'm all for classes as a metagame concept.

Kylarra
2010-07-21, 07:59 PM
Taking 1 or 2 PrCs is kind of different than dipping across a half dozen frontloaded classes.

I think it's important to understand where the people who oppose diptastic builds are coming from rather than throwing out random strawmen.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-21, 08:02 PM
Taking 1 or 2 PrCs is kind of different than dipping across a half dozen frontloaded classes.

I think it's important to understand where the people who oppose diptastic builds are coming from rather than throwing out random strawmen.

While this is true, the argument generally dissolves down to "Class X 2/y 3/Z 2/Alpha 1/Beta 2 is overpowered!" The counter to this is invariably "Druid 20."


EDIT: To be fair, my previous comment is a Strawman in the event my assumption is false. So, yeah.

elonin
2010-07-22, 12:22 PM
Aye to classes being a metagame concept (and also because I am too lazy to sift through 4 pages of posts). :smallbiggrin:

That said, I certainly don't see how a barb/fighter/frenzied berserker/bear warrior/warshaper is any less of a barbarian than a pure barb20. If anything, that makes him even more flavourful to play. :smallamused:

Or how is a wizard/master specialist/archmage any different from a wiz20?

In many cases I'd bet that barbarians consider frenzied berserkers to be lunatics but also given a lot of respect for how they throw themselves fully into battle. On the other hand the arch mage and master specialist is likewise given kudos for mastery of their art. Maybe it is like someone who goes back to get a second related degree.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-22, 12:46 PM
In many cases I'd bet that barbarians consider frenzied berserkers to be lunatics but also given a lot of respect for how they throw themselves fully into battle. On the other hand the arch mage and master specialist is likewise given kudos for mastery of their art. Maybe it is like someone who goes back to get a second related degree.

While I do not entirely disagree with this sentiment, I would also say that even a Wizard 16 would probably be considered an "archmage" solely due to level alone. He may not have all of the same tricks as a Wizard 5/Master Specialist 10/Archmage 1, but he's easily still within the same ballpark of power as him.

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 01:21 PM
Now and again people say 'just throw fluff out of the window' without realizing fluff is still a part of the game rules.
It's common to see people asking for a daring swashbuckler-type, fearsome and fearless, a man of the cities and the sea... and see advice like 'dip Barbarian for pounce' or 'take the Craven feat'.
I dislike ignoring the fluff. It was written for a reason and it should be taken more seriously. Some choices are easy to justify - taking a level in Fighter is probably the easiest, since one way or the other you see people wielding weapons and wearing armor while adventuring so you chose to learn more about that. Others are complicated.
This line of thinking that ignores fluff on classes and feats eventually explodes to the point where you want all your weapons to be made of kaorti resin... and ignore the fluff that comes with that.
Fluff helps integrate your character to the game world. I wonder if people who dislike this king of stuff actually play the game or just engage in thought exercises, because the search of a warmind rfor his Talaric codex, an assassin sidequest to assassinate his first target, a pyrokineticist burning his very first building... are all memorable game moments provided by fluff.
Without fluff, you might as well play a videogame.

Master_Rahl22
2010-07-22, 01:27 PM
true shinken, I would counter that by saying that without the ability to refluff, you might as well be playing a video game that has scripted "PC spends his time doing X now" and "PC learns from NPC X now" type events.

I too like to look at the fluff of classes etc that I take when building a character, but I'm also not afraid to change it or throw it out if the only way to get the mechanical abilities I want has conflicting fluff.

tyckspoon
2010-07-22, 01:32 PM
-cut for length-

The problem is much of the pre-written fluff is either stupid or overly-constricting for the mechanics its attached to. One of the biggest examples is, IMO, the Warblade, which has perhaps the broadest set of mechanics I've seen on pretty much anything. You can use one to mechanically represent anything from a barbarian to a knight protector to a precise one-cut swordsman, with the whole range of personalities and motivations that usually get attached to those archetypes. But the fluff? All Warblades are glory-hounding showoffs looking for the next big opponent to take down so they can burnish their own reputation. Yeah, I'm feeling no guilt about ignoring that.

Boci
2010-07-22, 01:36 PM
Now and again people say 'just throw fluff out of the window' without realizing fluff is still a part of the game rules.
It's common to see people asking for a daring swashbuckler-type, fearsome and fearless, a man of the cities and the sea... and see advice like 'dip Barbarian for pounce' or 'take the Craven feat'.

Why is such advice so bad? The barbarian is a valid choice, and craven could work (fearless could just be a mundane quality and have nothing to do with how well they resist fear inducing affects, or he could take other options to make up for the -2 to fear). In anycase, mentioning them is fine.


I dislike ignoring the fluff. It was written for a reason and it should be taken more seriously.

PC1: You are not wielding a sword, you are wielding a spiked chain.
PC2: Why?
PC1: Because WoTC says so.

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 01:48 PM
Why is such advice so bad? The barbarian is a valid choice, and craven could work (fearless could just be a mundane quality and have nothing to do with how well they resist fear inducing affects, or he could take other options to make up for the -2 to fear). In anycase, mentioning them is fine.
OK, you are an urban guy, bursting with urban savvy.
Why are Survival and Handle Animal class skills for you? Why are you devoted to the Lion Totem?
And Craven works of course... it's not like it said in the feat text 'you are a coward'. Yeah, that's extremely fearless, yeah.



PC1: You are not wielding a sword, you are wielding a spiked chain.
PC2: Why?
PC1: Because WoTC says so.
No, you are wielding it because you want it's benefits. The game is not unplayable with a longsword.
This line of thinking, if applied to other things, would mean no one ever plays Street Fighter with Dan, because he is not the most powerful option availabel. Even in D&D, if you take it to the extreme, there is no reason to even have a spiked chain anymore - just play a full-caster, they are more powerful.
You want a longsword? You get it. You want refluff? You ask your DM and hope he goes with it. Advice like "just refluff it" is not good advice at all - refluffing is not a player's choice, it's a DM's choice.



I too like to look at the fluff of classes etc that I take when building a character, but I'm also not afraid to change it or throw it out if the only way to get the mechanical abilities I want has conflicting fluff.

I find that perfectly reasonable if you can get your DM to go with it. I for one usually allow such things - one of my players has a (OA) Samurai/Artificer and he wanted the sohei's frenzy ability; he wanted it to be something like the resonance of his ancestor's spirit channelled in an infusion-like process into his blade. It's totally reasonable and I'd go for it.


The problem is much of the pre-written fluff is either stupid or overly-constricting for the mechanics its attached to.
That's a matter of opinion. Every once in a while you get characters that are different from the norm - Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil has a paladin that never wanted to be a paladin in the first place; he is dirty and rude.
If you don't want your warblade to be a glory hound, then don't. Talk to your DM, say he learned his techniques from martial scrolls (what was the exact name?) or something. Just don't expect your DM to simply ignore stuff, that's what I mean. If you want to refluff stuff, OK, do it. But remember you don't choose everything about classes, you just get to choose about how your character perceives things. So your warblade could he a humble warrior-type that dislikes the other warblades' glory hounding.
It's like handbooks listing 'lesser tiefling' as a very good race for so and so. A player does not choose to be a lesser tiefling; a DM chooses if the tieflings in his world are lesser or not.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-22, 02:01 PM
Craven is only 'cowardly' in the flavor text, which is fluff. The mechanical effects are -2 against fear, which could be refluffed as having an excessively fragile self-confidence; he acts fearless and considers himself to be so, but when influenced by an outside source (a fear effect, which is typically magical), he cracks easily.

Survival and Handle Animal are potential class skills. You're not strapped down and forced to take ranks in them. Ride is a Fighter class skill, but you don't see every city militiaman or PC warrior being an expert horseman.

Saying that people insist on 'removing the fluff' is getting dangerously close to a strawman. It's more accurate that we choose to dispense with WoTC's official fluff (which is in no way sacred or essential), and substitute our own to capture the same mechanical benefit in a way that more flavorfully fits our character.

Mojo_Rat
2010-07-22, 02:05 PM
I fully agee with true_shinken. The fact of the mater is while /some/ fluff is stupid most of it falls squarely in the norm for what most people expect for Fantasy.

The fact is i dont really think that Classes are a metagame concept. There is a Paradigm that a warrior isa fighting man whohas been shown how to march and use weapons but hs not had the formal training of a militarys School.

The game assumes that Fighters probly have attended some sort of militarys chool

Sure you can Ignore this but this is fairly consistant with the Game ultimately its only the Dm that can re-write the games Paradigm. Pc's shouldnt be able to do it for their own Mechanical benefit.

Editit inr egards to the poster Above me on the Craven Feat. perhaps you should look up what Craven means. Ignoring the Fluff and the name of the Feat which both imply your a coward.


This isnt to say im against optimizing, but Deciding nothing ever needs any justification by deciding the entire class system is a metgame concept even thugh every written product doesnt support this is doesnt make sense.

Kylarra
2010-07-22, 02:06 PM
PC1: You are not wielding a sword, you are wielding a spiked chain.
PC2: Why?
PC1: Because WoTC says so.if it's dealing 2D4, has special reach rules, can be finessed as well as PA-d two handed and requires EWP, then sure. :smalltongue:

Boci
2010-07-22, 02:07 PM
OK, you are an urban guy, bursting with urban savvy.
Why are Survival and Handle Animal class skills for you?

Why does that matter if you have no ranks in them?


Why are you devoted to the Lion Totem?

I am not. I refluffed it as something more apropriate for my character.

And Craven works of course... it's not like it said in the feat text 'you are a coward'. Yeah, that's extremely fearless, yeah.

I noted that merely recommending them is not a crime. Plus I mentioned other things about how craven could work (not saying it always will).



No, you are wielding it because you want it's benefits.

I know, but thats not what I was talking about. Why is the weapon with reach, the ability to hit adjacent targets and 2d4 piercing damage a chain and not a sword? Answer, because WotC says so.


The game is not unplayable with a longsword.

The game is not umplayable with a spiked chain called an exotic longsword.


This line of thinking, if applied to other things, would mean no one ever plays Street Fighter with Dan, because he is not the most powerful option availabel. Even in D&D, if you take it to the extreme, there is no reason to even have a spiked chain anymore - just play a full-caster, they are more powerful.

But a full caster might not fit you warrior character concept. An exotic sword that can be used to hit non-adjacent targets has a much higher chance of doing so.


You want a longsword? You get it. You want refluff? You ask your DM and hope he goes with it. Advice like "just refluff it" is not good advice at all - refluffing is not a player's choice, it's a DM's choice.

Does the Dm also right my background story?


because the search of a warmind rfor his Talaric codex, an assassin sidequest to assassinate his first target, a pyrokineticist burning his very first building... are all memorable game moments provided by fluff.

So do not refluff that. These things are not usually the kind that is recommended to be refluffed (also some people find the killing clause of an assassin to be metagaming).


Without fluff,

Who said that? We say create your own fluff. Like if you have a house. Don't not have a garden, but rip up all plants and replace them with the ones you want.


If you don't want your warblade to be a glory hound, then don't. Talk to your DM,

I find the notion that I need my DMs permission to not play a glory hound extremely disturbing.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 02:08 PM
The problem is that what 3.5 calls classes, are actually not. You have four classes, Warriors, Rogues, Mages and Priests. Wich does your build falls within?

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 02:14 PM
I am not. I refluffed it as something more apropriate for my character.
That's my point. You have to ask your DM for that.


But a full caster might not fit you warrior character concept. An exotic sword that can be used to hit non-adjacent targets has a much higher chance of doing so.
That weapon even exists - the spinning sword from Secrets of Sarlona. Why refluf it then?


Does the Dm also right write my background story?
Fixed that for you.
The DM does not write your backstory but of course he has to accept it. And he might just say no to a urban character with barbarian levels. And I'd totally agree with him.


Craven is only 'cowardly' in the flavor text, which is fluff. The mechanical effects are -2 against fear, which could be refluffed as having an excessively fragile self-confidence; he acts fearless and considers himself to be so, but when influenced by an outside source (a fear effect, which is typically magical), he cracks easily.
And that's a good definition of coward, thank you.

Boci
2010-07-22, 02:28 PM
That's my point. You have to ask your DM for that.

No you do. Thats your opinion. My opinion is a DM who says ,"Nope, sorry, youe character has to be a glory hog because he is a warblade" is not a very good DM.


That weapon even exists - the spinning sword from Secrets of Sarlona. Why refluf it then?

Thats not the point. Why is a spiked chain a chain?


Fixed that for you.
The DM does not write your backstory but of course he has to accept it.

Why? Why does a DM get a right to say how you should write your background story? As long as it doesn't involve something that conflicts with his setting's fluff or something stupid (I'm a prince will a gegillion extra gp), what right does he have to disagree with what happened to my character?


And that's a good definition of coward, thank you.

Clearly, when you want to build a fearless character, craven will have no place in it. But others might want it, so why should its recomendation be a problem to you?


And he might just say no to a urban character with barbarian levels. And I'd totally agree with him.

PC: My urban character was taught an ancient fighting style that involves connecting with his inner beast.
DM: No he wasn't.
PC: Why not?
DM: Because WotC says so.

Does that sound like a good DM?

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-22, 02:35 PM
That's my point. You have to ask your DM for that.

Why? As long the new fluff is appropriate for the setting and the thing that you're reflavouring the DM shouldn't have to be involved. If they won't let you have a longsword with the stats of a spiked chain why would they let you have a longsword at all?



That weapon even exists - the spinning sword from Secrets of Sarlona. Why refluff it then?

Fixed that for you. There are a few reasons, maybe the spinning sword would also need to be reflavoured slightly and the player would prefer the spiked chain stats, maybe no-one has that book, maybe the game is strictly Core only.


Fixed that for you.
The DM does not write your backstory but of course he has to accept it. And he might just say no to a urban character with barbarian levels. And I'd totally agree with him.

Why? Almost nothing in the Barbarian class is based around things which aren't found in urban environments and the few that are can be ignored, left unused. The Barbarian class doesn't mean your character gets angry sometimes and becomes stronger with it, wears a loincloth, comes from a jungle somewhere and has a limited education. That's the default fluff but you are supposed to alter it if it doesn't fit your character if the mechanics do fit. That's one reason why you're not just playing a videogame. You don't have to conform to the idea of a class that the people who made the game had.

The mechanics of things in the game are more or less completely divorced from what they represent in the game world. I can make an archer in-game even if my sheet says "Warlock". I can have a quick and charming master duelist even if my sheet says "Barbarian". I can have a martial artist, wielding body and mind with perfect precision even if my sheet says "Cleric". The DM should not have a say in whether or not I am allowed those classes with those descriptions. The DM should have a say in whether or not my character is okay for the setting (a master duelist with a sword would be stupid in a Stone Age game, for example), and may ban certain classes for balance reasons (as long as they are certain they know what effect that will have on play). But what your character is out-of-game for ease of identification can be completely different from what they are seen as in game.

For example, with my master duelist. Mechanics-wise they are a Barbarian wielding a Falchion, using Power Attack on a charge with Pounce to get very damaging hits. In-game they are wielding a rapier with precision, advancing for a single killing stroke. I may be rolling more than one attack and using a combat option called a charge, and my attacks will be made with considerable penalties. This does not stop me from fluffing successful hits as a single stroke, and "missing" with all my attacks as my duelist advancing only to have the opening for attack close and not striking because it would be deflected. My weapon choice does not mean that my duelist is wielding his blade two-handed, it merely means that the character's off-hand is being used very carefully for balance and cannot hold anything during combat because of this.

As long as all the mechanics are used why does what it looks like in-game matter?

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 02:40 PM
PC: My urban character was taught an ancient fighting style that involves connecting with his inner beast.
DM: No he wasn't.
PC: Why not?
DM: Because WotC says so.

Does that sound like a good DM?

Of course not. 'because it does not fit my campaign', though, is a completely valid answer.


Why? As long the new fluff is appropriate for the setting and the thing that you're reflavouring the DM shouldn't have to be involved. If they won't let you have a longsword with the stats of a spiked chain why would they let you have a longsword at all?
Because he is the DM. If you are not sticking to the books, you should talk to him. How would you now if the fluff is appropriate for his setting? Really, I think you guys take a lot of things for granted. If it's something so innocent, what's the harm in asking the DM anyway?

Anyway, I tire of this discussion. Refluff whatever the hell you want, it's not my problem. That's just not how I play it.

Boci
2010-07-22, 02:41 PM
I tire of this discussion. Refluff whatever the hell you want, it's not my problem. That's just not how I play it.

Okay, listen to WotC for your flavour as much as you want I guess.


Of course not. 'because it does not fit my campaign', though, is a completely valid answer.

Why would some little nkown about meditation trick/fighting style to briefly connect with your inner animal not fit a game?

Mojo_Rat
2010-07-22, 02:51 PM
It doesnt say anywhere the class fluff can be re-written at will besides rule 0. the Role and position of some of the classes specifically barbarian and Druid is pretty implicit.

Obviously if youw ant a different paradigm in your gaim you can change it but it shouldnt be the norm.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-22, 02:56 PM
It doesnt say anywhere the class fluff can be re-written at will besides rule 0. the Role and position of some of the classes specifically barbarian and Druid is pretty implicit.

Obviously if youw ant a different paradigm in your gaim you can change it but it shouldnt be the norm.

What exactly about the Barbarian and Druid is implicit? The Alignment restrictions of course, but why should it not be the norm to change fluff? I mean, personally I think it makes a lot more in-game sense to have fighter just be a metagame concept, instead of some kind of military school that everyone goes to. Why should a barb2 / fighter2 be anything different than a straight barbarian or fighter in fluff?

Mojo_Rat
2010-07-22, 03:04 PM
Well the thing is some class combos work perfelct fine without re-writing the Fluff. Somone Like Conan is in theory Barbarian 1/Rogue x/Fighter X. if story characters transfered over that simply.

You dont have to ignore the fluff to get what you want alot of times you can get what youw ant while using it. That Said Wild unctrolled Berserker doesnt usually go hand in hand with disciplined trained fighter. It can But its probly not the norm

Character Archtypes and Classes can go hand in hand, If the PAragim of Barbarian is that they are you know/barbiarians then explain why he learned to be a fighter.

I have no specific issue with changing The fluff i just dont think the player should /ever/ be the one Decicing that say a person witht he Craven eat is not in fact a coward.

If the Dm is fine with hat then Rule 0 says its fine.

But nothing int he books beyond rule 0 says Classes are metagame concepts .

Theodoxus
2010-07-22, 03:05 PM
As a wise man once recently said on these very boards... "Why are you trying to convince someone you'll never sit down and play a game with, that he's doing it wrong?"

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-22, 03:06 PM
Of course not. 'because it does not fit my campaign', though, is a completely valid answer.

Because he is the DM. If you are not sticking to the books, you should talk to him. How would you now if the fluff is appropriate for his setting? Really, I think you guys take a lot of things for granted. If it's something so innocent, what's the harm in asking the DM anyway?

But the fluff is the same either way! If having a longsword isn't appropriate to the setting then of course you shouldn't have something fluffed as one. If it is appropriate for the setting why do the stats you use for it matter? You're undermining your own argument with this post.


What exactly about the Barbarian and Druid is implicit? The Alignment restrictions of course, but why should it not be the norm to change fluff? I mean, personally I think it makes a lot more in-game sense to have fighter just be a metagame concept, instead of some kind of military school that everyone goes to. Why should a barb2 / fighter2 be anything different than a straight barbarian or fighter in fluff?

I completely agree with you Tinydwarfman.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 03:15 PM
Well the thing is some class combos work perfelct fine without re-writing the Fluff. Somone Like Conan is in theory Barbarian 1/Rogue x/Fighter X. if story characters transfered over that simply.

You dont have to ignore the fluff to get what you want alot of times you can get what youw ant while using it. That Said Wild unctrolled Berserker doesnt usually go hand in hand with disciplined trained fighter. It can But its probly not the norm

Character Archtypes and Classes can go hand in hand, If the PAragim of Barbarian is that they are you know/barbiarians then explain why he learned to be a fighter.

I have no specific issue with changing The fluff i just dont think the player should /ever/ be the one Decicing that say a person witht he Craven eat is not in fact a coward.

If the Dm is fine with hat then Rule 0 says its fine.

But nothing int he books beyond rule 0 says Classes are metagame concepts .

So tell, what is exactly a fighter that is so different from a barbarian that you need to justify your multiclassing?
This probably pointless, but in 2nd ed, for example, barbarian was a fighter kit, so was swashbuckler.
The problem here, is that even if the game does not say that classes are a metagame concept, there's nothing actually that explains what is exactly a class. Fighter might be, barbarian is more of a background condition than a "class".
Heck, there's nothin on the game that says that combat rounds are a metagame concept, from that point of view it's perfectly natural for you to stand where you are and let someone else hit you because "he won initiative"

Mojo_Rat
2010-07-22, 03:25 PM
Right barbarian ws a fighter kit in 2nd edition, it also was its own class in 1st other editions are meaningless. i think my point is being missed though


It isnt the players Job to re-write the fluff if the Dm wants to do it that is fine. and Fighters and barbarians are diferent enough that they made a seperate class to represent them. If they werre not diferent then they would jus tbe the same class with variations of play.

Really as i have said its all about the paradigm if the Dm wants to change it that is fine but the Rule books and all the material produce dby about every company supporting it was produced with one paradigm in mind regarding fighters and barbarians. Obviously theres probly exceptions but were not talking about those.

Im mostly trying to basically say It isnt the players Job to re-write fluff to suit their leasure it is the Dm's if the Dm wants to rew0rtie it then rule Zero says that the barbarian class represents Efeminete noblemen prone to burst into rages because their fashin ensamble was insulted then hts fine.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 03:27 PM
I see it more as a player's job to rewrite and a DM's job to aprove or ban.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-22, 03:31 PM
Indeed, I am not suggesting that the player should just do stuff without talking to the DM, that's ridiculous. But why should the player not be allowed to take the initiate when writing his own backstory. The game is not something that the DM simply presents to the players like a computer game, it's a co-operative experience.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-22, 04:02 PM
There were several posts whilst I was editing my last, so I'll move the text I added here so it's noticed.


Well the thing is some class combos work perfelct fine without re-writing the Fluff. Somone Like Conan is in theory Barbarian 1/Rogue x/Fighter X. if story characters transfered over that simply.

You dont have to ignore the fluff to get what you want alot of times you can get what youw ant while using it. That Said Wild unctrolled Berserker doesnt usually go hand in hand with disciplined trained fighter. It can But its probly not the norm

Character Archtypes and Classes can go hand in hand, If the PAragim of Barbarian is that they are you know/barbiarians then explain why he learned to be a fighter.

I have no specific issue with changing The fluff i just dont think the player should /ever/ be the one Decicing that say a person witht he Craven eat is not in fact a coward.

If the Dm is fine with hat then Rule 0 says its fine.

But nothing int he books beyond rule 0 says Classes are metagame concepts.


First, please look over your posts before submitting them, random capitilisation gets very irritating.

Second, nothing in the books says that classes are anything but metagame concepts. The books encourage customising your character's rules to give a more accurate representation of the character in the game world (see the PHB's chapter on description, near the end). Refluffing classes is far less extreme than than that because it can have no effect on balance, which is the only reason it recommends talking to your DM about things like swapping some class skills for others. It doesn't meniton talking to the DM at all when talking about altering the description of skills, feats, class features and equipment. So a Barbarian isn't necessarily a "Wild unctrolled Berserker", as you put it, they could just as easily be a proud and noble knight, who becomes supremely focused in battle (handily dealing with any difference in flavour from what you think a Fighter is).

Third, I've already dealt with it at least in part but a Barbarian 2/Fighter 2 was not foaming at the mouth, biting their shield in half and charging into the fray for a while and then going to a military training school later (unless you want to have such a rediculous character). They were always a proud knight defending their country, becoming so focused in battle that they could hit their opponents harder and more precisely, whilst shrugging off fatal wounds and mind-addling spells. They're just learning how to use more tricks in combat, learning more exotic combat styles and weapons to better serve their order. That's just one (laughably easy) method of explaining how the character has levels in both classes. And that's assuming that the classes are more than just metagame constucts so you actually have to justify the levels, rather than just saying what your character concept is and taking levels to best represent that character mechanically. Because that is all levels are, for the most part, mechanics.

Fourth, what do you mean by Character Archetype? I would say that every Core class except the Monk would be an example of a "Warrior" archetype, every Core class except the Barbarian, Fighter and Monk goes into a "Mage" archetype and every class except Fighter and Paladin goes into a "Rogue" or "Sneak" archetype. And even those classes could be made to fit with a bit of work.

Fifth, the player makes their character, the DM makes everything else. If the character fluff doesn't fit the setting, the DM should stop the player using it. If the character mechanics are not allowed because it's Core only, unbalanced, unfamiliar, etc. then the DM should stop the player using it. Within those boundaries the player makes the character. If they make Conan using Barbarian 20, the DM should not stop them. If they make Conan using Warblade 3/Crusader 1/Warblade +1 the DM should not should not stop them. If they make a witty, dashing swordsman type using either of those stats the DM should not stop them. Provided those concepts, levels and mechanics are aproppriate to the setting and power level respectively, of course.

Thiyr
2010-07-22, 04:07 PM
Indeed, I am not suggesting that the player should just do stuff without talking to the DM, that's ridiculous. But why should the player not be allowed to take the initiate when writing his own backstory. The game is not something that the DM simply presents to the players like a computer game, it's a co-operative experience.

I agree with this, particularly in light of one thing: The ammount of PrCs that have some kind of "Adaptation" section, where there are suggestions being given on how to get a PrC to work around fluff issues. As those are in the shared realm between players and DM, that suggests to me that its supposed to be something they both work with.

Also, because it keeps coming up, on the note of Craven: One needn't be a coward to get a penalty to saves against fear. I've got a character right now who nobody would really consider a coward (in game, at least). In fights, he's one of the first to charge in. When being attacked in the middle of the night by goblins on wyvernback bombing their campsite, he took to the skies and charged them solo, with no reservations whatsoever. When breaking into essentially a supermax prison, he carried the party. Having craven had no effect on those. But if someone used symbol of fear on him, or tried to use intimidate on him, he'd be worse off. Why? Doesn't that penalty on saves represent him being cowardly, thus making it out of character for him to be doing that stuff? I've been working with that penalty as "He's fearless, but people that know what they're doing can get under his skin." A first level character using intimidate isn't going to do much, because they don't know what they're doing. But he would crumble under a master torturer, magical or otherwise.

Just because Batman gets freaked out when blasted by Scarecrow doesn't mean he's a coward. If he were naturally more susceptible to that, it still doesn't make him a coward.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-22, 04:09 PM
I fully agee with true_shinken. The fact of the mater is while /some/ fluff is stupid most of it falls squarely in the norm for what most people expect for Fantasy.

Fluff is fluff. Some people find the Binder fluff in Tome of Magic to be the nectar of the gods (hyperbole), where as I find it somewhat mediocre. Not everyone will view the same fluff the same way.


The fact is i dont really think that Classes are a metagame concept. There is a Paradigm that a warrior isa fighting man whohas been shown how to march and use weapons but hs not had the formal training of a militarys School.

A warrior is a warrior. The end result is "I hit things with a pointy stick/trip people/tank/etc." Does it matter if I do any or all of the above via Fighter X, Barbarian X, Warblade X, or some combination of the above? I'm still playing some sort of swordsman with roughly the same concept and fluff, just different mechanics to represent such.


The game assumes that Fighters probly have attended some sort of militarys chool

No, actually. You assume such: the game does not. The game's default fluff may suggest that Paladins come from some sort of holy order, but then again, so do clerics, druids, crusaders, favored souls, archivists, and more.


Sure you can Ignore this but this is fairly consistant with the Game ultimately its only the Dm that can re-write the games Paradigm. Pc's shouldnt be able to do it for their own Mechanical benefit.

Again, I disagree. I may put something forward to the DM about being a savvy rogue not unlike Han Solo represented via Swordsage, Ninja, and Shadowdancer. If the DM approves, cool. If not, I'd at least like to hear why and then work with him on getting it to work with whatever his setting has.


Editit inr egards to the poster Above me on the Craven Feat. perhaps you should look up what Craven means. Ignoring the Fluff and the name of the Feat which both imply your a coward.

This has already been largely covered. It's a fairly common trope to have a character who claims to be fearless, generally acts fearless, but cracks under certain circumstances. Sometimes it's spiders, other times it's some mage whipping your mind like a redheaded step-child. Then there is also the common cited notion that courage does not equate to an absence of fear, merely the ability to overcome it.



This isnt to say im against optimizing, but Deciding nothing ever needs any justification by deciding the entire class system is a metgame concept even thugh every written product doesnt support this is doesnt make sense.

As has been already stated, outside of TO, people do not say "remove the fluff," but rather "replace the fluff."


The problem is that what 3.5 calls classes, are actually not. You have four classes, Warriors, Rogues, Mages and Priests. Wich does your build falls within?

I partially agree with this. The 3.5 classes aren't. I disagree that there are only four "classes," though. The ones listed above are rough guidelines for a character, but by no means an end-all, be-all list.


Of course not. 'because it does not fit my campaign', though, is a completely valid answer.

Where is the harm in asking "why?" With discussion both player and GM may reach a resolution where X class or Y feat is usable.


Because he is the DM. If you are not sticking to the books, you should talk to him. How would you now if the fluff is appropriate for his setting? Really, I think you guys take a lot of things for granted. If it's something so innocent, what's the harm in asking the DM anyway?

This has largely been covered. A lot of Char Op advice does boil down to "Well, you could take this, but it may conflict with that, so talk with your GM about it and see what he thinks." For some campaign settings, the fluff is damned important. Spellguards of Silverymoon protect said city in FR. If we're playing in FR, chances are, if I'm shooting for that PrC, I'll have being a resident of Silvermoon as a part of my backstory. That or another similar city, but of course I will discuss such with my GM. If we're not in FR, then I'll talk with him about adapting it to some other city on the edge of civilization.


Anyway, I tire of this discussion. Refluff whatever the hell you want, it's not my problem. That's just not how I play it.

As has been obvious by your discussion. However, I and others are attempting to show that refluffing isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most fluff has little if any effect on the mechanics of the game, so why not replace the bad with the good?


It doesnt say anywhere the class fluff can be re-written at will besides rule 0. the Role and position of some of the classes specifically barbarian and Druid is pretty implicit.

If it's implicit than it is not explicit, QED, it's not RAW. Hell, books like Hero Builder's Guide and PHB2 have a lot of suggestions for backgrounds for a number of classes. In the PHB2, some of the later examples for Background X say "check page XX in the rogue section."


Obviously if youw ant a different paradigm in your gaim you can change it but it shouldnt be the norm.

Why shouldn't it be the norm? And what is said paradigm? That all rogues are cowards? I don't quite understand your conclusion here.


Well the thing is some class combos work perfelct fine without re-writing the Fluff. Somone Like Conan is in theory Barbarian 1/Rogue x/Fighter X. if story characters transfered over that simply.

No real disagreements here. Although, Conan was more of Rogue/Cleric than a fighter or barbarian.


You dont have to ignore the fluff to get what you want alot of times you can get what youw ant while using it. That Said Wild unctrolled Berserker doesnt usually go hand in hand with disciplined trained fighter. It can But its probly not the norm

A barbarian's rage could be represented by an inner calm, breaking past usual physical limits for a limited increase in strength and endurance.

Again, it's not about ignoring fluff in its entirety, but rather ignoring fluff viewed as being bad or contradictory and using something else in its place.


Character Archtypes and Classes can go hand in hand, If the PAragim of Barbarian is that they are you know/barbiarians then explain why he learned to be a fighter.

Because fighters have class abilities and all.:smalltongue: Seriously, though, both classes are about hitting things pretty hard, generally. Barbarians due it through RAAARGH, Fighters through feats. Instead of attempting to increase his ability to channel his rage, maybe a barbarian decided to attempt a different sort of training regiment for whatever reason.


I have no specific issue with changing The fluff i just dont think the player should /ever/ be the one Decicing that say a person witht he Craven eat is not in fact a coward.

See above comments in this and other posts.


If the Dm is fine with hat then Rule 0 says its fine.

But nothing int he books beyond rule 0 says Classes are metagame concepts .

Nothing in the books says that you must explicitly follow the fluff for that class, either. In fact, other 3.5 supplements support the idea that classes are metagame concepts. See PHB2, Hero Builder's Guide, and just about any book that gives ACFs.


As a wise man once recently said on these very boards... "Why are you trying to convince someone you'll never sit down and play a game with, that he's doing it wrong?"

Because some of us enjoy arguments for arguments' sake. Sometimes people may have a misinformed view of Class X or Y, so others will show that, no it isn't as strong as you think it is. There are more reasons, but those are the top ones.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 04:13 PM
I partially agree with this. The 3.5 classes aren't. I disagree that there are only four "classes," though. The ones listed above are rough guidelines for a character, but by no means an end-all, be-all list.

I know, I was being quite simplistic actually, since gishes and other tpes would fall outside of those four. (Though you can always force them:smalltongue:)

The Glyphstone
2010-07-22, 04:16 PM
But nothing int he books beyond rule 0 says Classes are metagame concepts .

Player's Handbook v3.5, Page 110.



Skills and Feats: You can call your skills,
feats, and class features whatever your character
would call them. Lidda, the halfling rogue, talks
about “footpaddin’ ” rather than about “moving
silently,” so her player writes “Footpaddin’ ”
down on her character sheet to stand for the
Move Silently skill. Ember, the monk, calls her
Move Silently skill “Rice Paper Walk.”


No, it doesn't specifically mention classes, but it's an entirely reasonable assumption beyond saying "eh, Rule 0 it". If you can change the name of your Move Silently skill to Rice Paper Walk, why can't you change the name/flavor of your Craven feat to Corrupted By Nightmares, a curse on your otherwise fearless and non-cowardly character that causes him to bear the essence of a demon in his soul, which feeds on fear magic and can overwhelm the character's natural instincts temporarily?

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-22, 04:18 PM
I know, I was being quite simplistic actually, since gishes and other tpes would fall outside of those four. (Though you can always force them:smalltongue:)

Ah, okay. That makes sense. It just seemed that you listed them as the only "classes," which is my bad in assuming such.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 04:20 PM
Ah, okay. That makes sense. It just seemed that you listed them as the only "classes," which is my bad in assuming such.

To be fair, it did seemed so.

Greenish
2010-07-22, 04:33 PM
OK, you are an urban guy, bursting with urban savvy.
Why are Survival and Handle Animal class skills for you?You have Gather Information and Tumble (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a). Or just don't put points into those skills.

Why are you devoted to the Lion Totem?You aren't. You learned the fighting style focused on fast first strike and skirmishing in [your backstory]. (It's your backstory, not WotC's or DM's, even though the latter can veto parts of it.)
And Craven works of course... it's not like it said in the feat text 'you are a coward'. Yeah, that's extremely fearless, yeah.The bravest people are the ones who are afraid and still persist.

If you don't want your warblade to be a glory hound, then don't. Talk to your DM, say he learned his techniques from martial scrolls (what was the exact name?) or something. Just don't expect your DM to simply ignore stuff, that's what I mean. If you want to refluff stuff, OK, do it. But remember you don't choose everything about classes, you just get to choose about how your character perceives things. So your warblade could he a humble warrior-type that dislikes the other warblades' glory hounding.What "other warblades"? If there are glory-obsessed narcissistic warriors in the world who are called "warblades", my humble and down-to-earth character will not consider himself as one.
It's like handbooks listing 'lesser tiefling' as a very good race for so and so. A player does not choose to be a lesser tiefling; a DM chooses if the tieflings in his world are lesser or not.Yes, it's completely impossible that in a race born of mixing fiendish and human blood, some might have more human blood than others.

Arcane-surge
2010-07-22, 04:58 PM
To those who debate the notion of classes being metagame concepts, I imagine you play a very different game of D&D than I do. When I make a character, I, a person in the conceivably real world, pick up these things called books and look inside them. From there, I make selections of classes, skills, and abilities within the parameters set out by my GM. Note that I'm not playing the game when I'm doing that. I'm manipulating metagame concepts.

In your D&D games, does your dwarven fighter sit around the fire dreaming of acquiring a copy of Complete Warrior so that he can get more kickass feats? Do you roleplay him thumbing through the Player's Handbook and planning for his next level on quiet evenings? Are there Monster Manuals in the libraries of major cities so that prospective adventurers can examine the stats of the creatures they might face? If any of these questions seem silly, be aware that these are the sorts of things one might expect if things like classes and stats aren't metagame abilities. If they're not in the metagame, and they're still part of the game, then they must be chosen in-game, it seems. I don't know about the rest of you, but my character doesn't actually make choices. I make choices. Some of these happen out of character, like deciding what number goes into Wisdom, and some of them happen in character, where I pretend to be like my character.

Okay, you say. They're metagame abilities. But you still can't rewrite fluff without permission. Classes are like jobs, and the fluff is like a job description. Barbarians have to flip out, and ninjas have to flip out to somewhat less effect.

But let's examine some of this fluff. I'll use Barbarian as an example, because it's come up so often. From page 24 of the PHB, "The barbarian is an excellent warrior." It's the first thing listed in their characteristics. If I make a barbarian with a Strength of 4, he is an excellent warrior. Remember, we can't examine metagame abilities to determine outcomes, and we can't refluff the barbarian. Str 4 Barbarian? Excellent warrior.

A few gems from the "Other Classes" section, past the fundamentally racist parts about certain races being brutish and being more likely to be barbarians, we find that "Barbarians don’t trust that which they don’t understand, and that includes wizardry, which they call “book magic.”". They also have "...no special attitudes toward fighters, paladins, clerics, or rogues." The party fighter saves your life and you want to owe him an honour debt, or maybe have a fun rivalry? Sorry, no special attitudes. You don't get to decide what your character thinks of other classes, WotC does that for you. Anything less than strict obedience to your class entry is refluffing.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-22, 05:12 PM
To those who debate the notion of classes being metagame concepts, I imagine you play a very different game of D&D than I do. When I make a character, I, a person in the conceivably real world, pick up these things called books and look inside them. From there, I make selections of classes, skills, and abilities within the parameters set out by my GM. Note that I'm not playing the game when I'm doing that. I'm manipulating metagame concepts.

In your D&D games, does your dwarven fighter sit around the fire dreaming of acquiring a copy of Complete Warrior so that he can get more kickass feats? Do you roleplay him thumbing through the Player's Handbook and planning for his next level on quiet evenings? Are there Monster Manuals in the libraries of major cities so that prospective adventurers can examine the stats of the creatures they might face? If any of these questions seem silly, be aware that these are the sorts of things one might expect if things like classes and stats aren't metagame abilities. If they're not in the metagame, and they're still part of the game, then they must be chosen in-game, it seems. I don't know about the rest of you, but my character doesn't actually make choices. I make choices. Some of these happen out of character, like deciding what number goes into Wisdom, and some of them happen in character, where I pretend to be like my character.

Okay, you say. They're metagame abilities. But you still can't rewrite fluff without permission. Classes are like jobs, and the fluff is like a job description. Barbarians have to flip out, and ninjas have to flip out to somewhat less effect.

But let's examine some of this fluff. I'll use Barbarian as an example, because it's come up so often. From page 24 of the PHB, "The barbarian is an excellent warrior." It's the first thing listed in their characteristics. If I make a barbarian with a Strength of 4, he is an excellent warrior. Remember, we can't examine metagame abilities to determine outcomes, and we can't refluff the barbarian. Str 4 Barbarian? Excellent warrior.

A few gems from the "Other Classes" section, past the fundamentally racist parts about certain races being brutish and being more likely to be barbarians, we find that "Barbarians don’t trust that which they don’t understand, and that includes wizardry, which they call “book magic.”". They also have "...no special attitudes toward fighters, paladins, clerics, or rogues." The party fighter saves your life and you want to owe him an honour debt, or maybe have a fun rivalry? Sorry, no special attitudes. You don't get to decide what your character thinks of other classes, WotC does that for you. Anything less than strict obedience to your class entry is refluffing.

Arcane-surge that is the most awesome explanation of why classes are metagame that I have ever seen. Partially because it's completely true, hard to argue against and generally easy to understand. Partially because of the line "does your dwarven fighter sit around the fire dreaming of acquiring a copy of Complete Warrior so that he can get more kickass feats?". At some point I'm going to make that Fighter, and she shall be called "Horace the Gender-Confused", and she shall wield a copy of the F.A.T.A.L. rules.

Urpriest
2010-07-22, 05:35 PM
Part of the point of the rules is that different rules elements represent different things. Is refluffing anathema? Hardly. But each refluff is a change not merely for the character, but for the setting. You want your spiked chain stats on an "exotic longsword"? That means that the DM has to agree that in his world, there are longswords that behave like that. And generally speaking, that's unnecessary.

Arcane-surge's argument is facetious because the examples he cites are all from areas that explicitly cover "suggested" fluff. There is a difference between suggested fluff and what a rules element is intended to represent. People from the wilderness who fly into rages gain specific stats by doing so. WotC suggests that people from the wilderness who fly into rages should have certain dispositions. This does not imply that WotC requires people with these specific stats to have these dispositions. Recommendations are not transitive.

Some refluffing is encouraged, and of course characters will only coincidentally refer to abilities by their rules names. Nevertheless, each class has a range of archetypes that it represents. It's not a matter of restricting those who take the class to those archetypes, it's a matter of the archetypes restricting the class.

And the classes are quite broad, in any case, especially including alternate features. A barbarian could be a reckless nomad, a violent farmer, a savvy and brutal street-urchin. A fighter is anyone who brushed up enough on some form of combat to gain a bonus feat out of it. Some are more restricted, true. Druids know a language shared only with other druids, so your druid has to have come into contact with members of a vast organization. If you play a cloistered cleric, you should probably be more of a bookworm than a normal cleric, otherwise, why aren't you a normal cleric?

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 05:58 PM
Yes, it's completely impossible that in a race born of mixing fiendish and human blood, some might have more human blood than others.
You really should read Player's Guide to Faerun on lesser races. It explicitly says it's a DM's call.

Thespianus
2010-07-22, 06:05 PM
The problem is that what 3.5 calls classes, are actually not. You have four classes, Warriors, Rogues, Mages and Priests. Wich does your build falls within?

With a Cloistered Cleric? Warrior AND Priest.
With an Unseen Seer? Rogue AND Mage.

With a heap of dairy products, I'm sure you can squeeze all four of them into the same character, long before you get into Gestalt. I think that's pretty much what the whole discussion revolves about.

For me, it's not as much the class dipping that bothers me, it's the "I'm playing a dragonwrought half-kobold half-minotaur athro-bat. What do you mean, people in Nulb looks at me funny? Let me buy that sword! What are you, racist?"

That's when the cheese gets a bit too stinky for my taste.

OR when the scholarly Cloistered Cleric starts off with Power Attack and later dips into Barbarian for Pounce. The cheese factor gets to me when you pick a dedicated scholarly class to become the ultimate melee character.


Ok, it's late, I've probably ranted too much already. Sorry.

Boci
2010-07-22, 06:06 PM
You really should read Player's Guide to Faerun on lesser races. It explicitly says it's a DM's call.

We know that, we just find it a bit wierd for a DM to say,

DM: "You are either full blooded humanoid, full blooded outsider, or a human with the half template. No exeptions."
PC: "But what if one parent was a half-fiend and the other a full blooded humanoid?"
DM: "No exeptions!"


Part of the point of the rules is that different rules elements represent different things. Is refluffing anathema? Hardly. But each refluff is a change not merely for the character, but for the setting. You want your spiked chain stats on an "exotic longsword"? That means that the DM has to agree that in his world, there are longswords that behave like that. And generally speaking, that's unnecessary.

Why? The PC has given the DM several plot hooks on a plate with this refluffed character concept. Why should the DM shoot it down and deny himself those plothooks?

The Glyphstone
2010-07-22, 06:12 PM
We know that, we just find it a bit wierd for a DM to say,

DM: "You are either full blooded humanoid, full blooded outsider, or a human with the half template. No exeptions."
PC: "But what if one parent was a half-fiend and the other a full blooded humanoid?"
DM: "No exeptions!"



Why? The PC has given the DM several plot hooks on a plate with this refluffed character concept. Why should the DM shoot it down and deny himself those plothooks?

That's technically not what's going on. Your example would be banning tieflings entirely. He's talking about the difference between tieflings and lesser tieflings. The inherent power of fiendish blood could be such that having 25% fiendish ancestry or 10% fiendish ancestry makes no effective difference, which I find perfectly reasonable. If you want tiefling stats, eat the +1 LA.

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 06:15 PM
We know that, we just find it a bit wierd for a DM to say,

DM: "You are either full blooded humanoid, full blooded outsider, or a human with the half template. No exeptions."
PC: "But what if one parent was a half-fiend and the other a full blooded humanoid?"
DM: "No exeptions!"


Except that's not true.
You have half-celestials, half-fiends, tieflings and aasimars and the Otherwordly feat (from the same book, even).
You are the son of an outsider? Then, half-celestial or half-fiend.
You are a distant relative of an outsider? Aasimar or tiefling for you.
You are a very distant relative of an outsider? There is always the Otherwordly feat.
Lesser races are for the DM to allow his players to pick if he wants to drop the LA. It's something your DM should tell you, not something you choose to get more power for a smaller cost (because you are not taking it for roleplaying reasons, certainly). You shouldn't come to his game with a lesser tiefling and not expect some debate when suddenly the DM asks 'wait, you can cast X level spells? I thought tieflings have LA' and you go 'oh, I'm a lesser tiefling, forgot to tell'.
This is not even in the realm of refluffing, it's explicitly against the rules.



That's technically not what's going on. Your example would be banning tieflings entirely. He's talking about the difference between tieflings and lesser tieflings. The inherent power of fiendish blood could be such that having 25% fiendish ancestry or 10% fiendish ancestry makes no effective difference, which I find perfectly reasonable. If you want tiefling stats, eat the +1 LA.
That's exactly what I meant. Thank you.

Keld Denar
2010-07-22, 06:18 PM
And generally speaking, that's unnecessary.

Fun is always necessary. Its a game, it should be fun. If something makes the game more fun, it is necessary. If it makes the game unfun, its unnecessary. Does me saying that my spiked chain looks like a really long sword make the game more fun for me? Maybe. Does it make it less fun for you? No. Then whats all this talk about necessity then? Personal opinion only, imposed on others, telling them that they should play the game the way YOU want it to be played.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-22, 06:22 PM
Except that's not true.
You have half-celestials, half-fiends, tieflings and aasimars and the Otherwordly feat (from the same book, even).
You are the son of an outsider? Then, half-celestial or half-fiend.
You are a distant relative of an outsider? Aasimar or tiefling for you.
You are a very distant relative of an outsider? There is always the Otherwordly feat.
Lesser races are for the DM to allow his players to pick if he wants to drop the LA. It's something your DM should tell you, not something you choose to get more power for a smaller cost (because you are not taking it for roleplaying reasons, certainly). You shouldn't come to his game with a lesser tiefling and not expect some debate when suddenly the DM asks 'wait, you can cast X level spells? I thought tieflings have LA' and you go 'oh, I'm a lesser tiefling, forgot to tell'.
This is not even in the realm of refluffing, it's explicitly against the rules.

I'm not going to argue about it being against the rules, but if the DM hasn't specifically decided which is being used what's the harm in making stats for the character using the one you'd prefer and for your second choice and requesting the one you'd prefer? That is outside the realm of refluffing since it affects mechanics, so I shall not say much on it.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 06:25 PM
With a Cloistered Cleric? Warrior AND Priest.
With an Unseen Seer? Rogue AND Mage.

With a heap of dairy products, I'm sure you can squeeze all four of them into the same character, long before you get into Gestalt. I think that's pretty much what the whole discussion revolves about.

For me, it's not as much the class dipping that bothers me, it's the "I'm playing a dragonwrought half-kobold half-minotaur athro-bat. What do you mean, people in Nulb looks at me funny? Let me buy that sword! What are you, racist?"

That's when the cheese gets a bit too stinky for my taste.

OR when the scholarly Cloistered Cleric starts off with Power Attack and later dips into Barbarian for Pounce. The cheese factor gets to me when you pick a dedicated scholarly class to become the ultimate melee character.


Ok, it's late, I've probably ranted too much already. Sorry.

As long as it makes sense ,I, as a DM, allow it.
And if it doesn't make sense but it will surely provide us with a good time, I allow it.

Thespianus
2010-07-22, 06:30 PM
As long as it makes sense ,I, as a DM, allow it.
And if it doesn't make sense but it will surely provide us with a good time, I allow it.

I guess I was more focused on the "Optimization vs Playable Character" rather than if the DM should allow the combo or not. Sorry for not being clear.

The class-cheese that kinda bothers me (say, a melee focused Cloistered Cleric) is available even without any class dips, so I guess I went off on a tangent.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 06:36 PM
I guess I was more focused on the "Optimization vs Playable Character" rather than if the DM should allow the combo or not. Sorry for not being clear.

The class-cheese that kinda bothers me (say, a melee focused Cloistered Cleric) is available even without any class dips, so I guess I went off on a tangent.

For me, it's all on the way you explain it, yeah, cloistered cleric is supposed to be a lonely bookworm with the power OF THE GODS. Or you could go a bit oriental on it and say that while in his monastery, he practiced some martial arts.

And on my games this doesnt happen too often, half of my players go with 20 levels of X since they think their characters serve it's class instead of the class serving the character. Even if I hold the opossite point of view (classes as a metagame concept) as long as we are having fun and people roleplay, I have no problem.
On the otherside, once, a player did the Ur Priest/sublime chord theurge. Background made sense and we all laughed when he one shoted a dragon with a CR ten points above the party ECL.

Rixx
2010-07-22, 06:45 PM
I'm personally against the "classes as metaame abstraction" belief. In the earliest editions of the game, your class was also your career. As a Thief gained skill and prestige (I.E levels), they were expected to start a Thieves Guild. Wizards were expected to take on apprentices. Druids advanced in rank, and even have to take up a "desk job" type position at one point in their careers before gaining their cool abilities.

Granted, third edition made the classes much broader and more or less removed anything in the class's description that didn't involve game mechanics (with a few exceptions), but I think it was still designed with the assumption that classes were careers and not just lists of cool abilities.

I'm also against "refluffing" - the mechanics of the game were designed around the "fluff", so disregarding the fluff could also fiddle with the balance of the game.

Runestar
2010-07-22, 06:47 PM
As a wise man once recently said on these very boards... "Why are you trying to convince someone you'll never sit down and play a game with, that he's doing it wrong?"

Because we want to change the world.

And when people change, the world changes.

That is the path to heaven...:smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Eldariel
2010-07-22, 06:48 PM
As a wise man once recently said on these very boards... "Why are you trying to convince someone you'll never sit down and play a game with, that he's doing it wrong?"

Because these are discussion boards specifically for discussing such points, and considering the pros and cons of aspects of the game is pretty much what they exist for.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 06:50 PM
I'm personally against the "classes as metaame abstraction" belief. In the earliest editions of the game, your class was also your career. As a Thief gained skill and prestige (I.E levels), they were expected to start a Thieves Guild. Wizards were expected to take on apprentices. Druids advanced in rank, and even have to take up a "desk job" type position at one point in their careers before gaining their cool abilities.

Granted, third edition made the classes much broader and more or less removed anything in the class's description that didn't involve game mechanics (with a few exceptions), but I think it was still designed with the assumption that classes were careers and not just lists of cool abilities.

I'm also against "refluffing" - the mechanics of the game were designed around the "fluff", so disregarding the fluff could also fiddle with the balance of the game.

For older editions I agree with you, but the problem here is that third edition is not a game where classes actually play a role like they did in 2nd ed or 1st ed. And I dont see how refluffing might have a deep impact on game balance, since that is a part of the mechanichs.

Thespianus
2010-07-22, 06:51 PM
For me, it's all on the way you explain it, yeah, cloistered cleric is supposed to be a lonely bookworm with the power OF THE GODS. But it hurts my eyes if players pick the Cloistered Cleric for free Knowledge Devotion, go Power Attack-&-Pounce-crazy and start persisting Divine Might.

If he roleplays his CC like a bookworm that sometimes, rarely, explode in a divine furious melee death-engine of..well..death, then that's cool.

If he routinely persists Divine Might or whatever, it just becomes meh and the whole bookworm feel is lost.

In my book. Everyone elses mileages may vary, naturally.


Even if I hold the opossite point of view (classes as a metagame concept) as long as we are having fun and people roleplay, I have no problem.
Absolutely. I completely agree but I also don't have a problem understanding that certain class combinations/races/templates/magic items can create a problem in some groups.

When everyone involved acts like an adult (even if they aren't) things usually work out ok.

Arcane-surge
2010-07-22, 06:58 PM
Arcane-surge's argument is facetious because the examples he cites are all from areas that explicitly cover "suggested" fluff. There is a difference between suggested fluff and what a rules element is intended to represent. People from the wilderness who fly into rages gain specific stats by doing so. WotC suggests that people from the wilderness who fly into rages should have certain dispositions. This does not imply that WotC requires people with these specific stats to have these dispositions. Recommendations are not transitive.

Some refluffing is encouraged, and of course characters will only coincidentally refer to abilities by their rules names. Nevertheless, each class has a range of archetypes that it represents. It's not a matter of restricting those who take the class to those archetypes, it's a matter of the archetypes restricting the class.

And the classes are quite broad, in any case, especially including alternate features. A barbarian could be a reckless nomad, a violent farmer, a savvy and brutal street-urchin. A fighter is anyone who brushed up enough on some form of combat to gain a bonus feat out of it. Some are more restricted, true. Druids know a language shared only with other druids, so your druid has to have come into contact with members of a vast organization. If you play a cloistered cleric, you should probably be more of a bookworm than a normal cleric, otherwise, why aren't you a normal cleric?

My arguments are a bit facetious, but my point stands. Consulting page 24 once again, I note that some of the entries, such as that of Religion, denote "Some barbarians". As in not all barbarians do these things. As in there's some wiggle room allowed. The entries I quoted in my first post simply address barbarians as a whole. Clearly, they represent the approved archetypes, and those archetypes are what matter.

Funny thing about archetypes though, who decides what archetypes are represented by a class? Wizards of the Coast? That answer runs into some of the problems I already addressed. Your GM? That's the answer some people have given, but I'd question the legitimacy of the GM's authority in this case. Saying "Barbarians don't trust magic" isn't relevant to the rules (and looking to page 24, the difference between flavour text and the game rule information is clearly marked). It could be relevant to the setting, but I'd still question the GM's authority to enforce that in the same way that I'd question the GM telling me in a civil war game that my Confederate character has to agree with slavery. If basic personal opinions are mandated by the setting, the setting is already too restrictive. Similarly, if possible archetypes which can be clearly and logically argued for and are within the bounds of the game are banned by the setting, especially ones based on metagame information rather than the thematic elements of a character, then the setting is too restrictive. So who chooses? Who chooses how best to mechanically execute your concept within the bounds of the game? Your mom? A panel of experts? Oprah? The answer seems clear.

Also, if only one class can represent an archetype, why have multiclassing at all? And it certainly seems as though more than one class, even just from the Player's Handbook, can represent a single archetype. A hard-bitten ex-gladiator who's filled with cold rage over the death of his brother, for example. Ranger? Barbarian? Fighter? Why not all three mixed together? It seems perfectly believable, because the abilities of all three classes have synergy with the concept. Given that, it appears that, so long as the abilities are in synch with the concept, any amount of multiclassing or taking of feats is already justified. Since the optimizer seeks synergy rather than disparity, it would seem that optimized characters who multiclass a great deal are playable characters.

I'd also like to comment on the melee cloistered cleric notion which seems to bother some people by making a reference to real life. I'm a philosophy student in a middling-sized department, and there are no less than five professors and phd students, some of whom are also mathematicians and scholars of religion, who have multiple black belts in various martial arts. Being a scholar does not mean that's all you can do. Furthermore, the idea of the student who wants to be a warrior, practicing at night in secret seems to be a reasonably appropriate fantasy archetype.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-22, 06:59 PM
I'm personally against the "classes as metaame abstraction" belief. In the earliest editions of the game, your class was also your career. As a Thief gained skill and prestige (I.E levels), they were expected to start a Thieves Guild. Wizards were expected to take on apprentices. Druids advanced in rank, and even have to take up a "desk job" type position at one point in their careers before gaining their cool abilities.

Granted, third edition made the classes much broader and more or less removed anything in the class's description that didn't involve game mechanics (with a few exceptions), but I think it was still designed with the assumption that classes were careers and not just lists of cool abilities.

I'm also against "refluffing" - the mechanics of the game were designed around the "fluff", so disregarding the fluff could also fiddle with the balance of the game.

I think you may have a point on the first part, I've seen lots of things saying that WotC were basically trying to create the same game in flavour but altered some mechanics in ways which made them totally unsuited to it.

However, that doesn't change the fact that refluffing allows for a far greater range of characters than not and options are a significant part of why many people play 3.5.

Also, how can altering something other than mechanics affect a mechanical portion of the game (balance) in any way? As long as you take all of the mechanics from the thing that you're refluffing there is no alteration in mechanics. There cannot be a change in how balanced something is. Besides which who plays 3.5 because of the balance without significantly altering the rules?

Kantolin
2010-07-22, 07:04 PM
I think I have a more moderate view on 'are classes a metagame concept' than most people, as I lean towards yes but not quite to the extent of many people.

Favored classes, however, are extremely dumb - and that's a bandwagon I'm willing to hop on.

They are bad for: People who are high level in one class adn want to dip into another when neither is their favored class. That's it.

They don't make more elves wizards. You can be an elf barbarian, or an elf cleric of Kord, or something like an Elf Barbarian / Stoneblessed / Dwarven Defender. If the goal is 'well, most elves are wizards', then that does as much to PC elves as if you'd said, "83% of elves are wizards. You are free to be of that 83% or of the remaining 17% and have no lame on you

It doesn't discourage dipping. It, in fact, encourages a /lot/ of dipping - it tells you that you should go run around and find multiple classes that fit your idea, since if you take a third non-prc level of a class you're in trouble.

It encourages jumping around PrCs as a second overall statement. It gives you great incentive to, rather than keep taking normal classes, to find as many prestige classes as you can, to jump around.

It punishes people who like to have their characters 'flow' in a campaign. For example, the dwarf notfighter who's fairly intelligent but hates magic goes through an awesome plot arc involving magic. He'd normally decide, "Okay, a level of wizard just makes sense now after everything that's hpapened". But nope! He didn't plan ahead and took a third (Or fourth, or ninth) level in whatever class he was, so now if he takes that level of wizard he's suffering a multiclass penalty. You're punished (more than normal) for not sitting down at the beginning of a campaign and plotting out your level 20 progression.

Classes like Monk or Paladin where 'you can't go back onec you turn away' are worse for this - if you go Monk 5 / Warmind 10 or something, you then have to go find some prestige class that is vaguely fitting to fill the last 5 levels, rather htan what most people who seem to like these penalties would prefer (more monk rather than a pile of dips). This is somewhat an aside, but most people who like multiclassing penalties also like these.

So bah. And that's beyond the 'Sure, most half-orcs aren't wizards, but both of my character's parents were themselves wizards and he grew up in a wizard's school and is very smart, so obviously he's not 'most half-orcs' problem.

Thespianus
2010-07-22, 07:08 PM
I'd also like to comment on the melee cloistered cleric notion which seems to bother some people by making a reference to real life. I'm a philosophy student in a middling-sized department, and there are no less than five professors and phd students, some of whom are also mathematicians and scholars of religion, who have multiple black belts in various martial arts. Being a scholar does not mean that's all you can do. Furthermore, the idea of the student who wants to be a warrior, practicing at night in secret seems to be a reasonably appropriate fantasy archetype.

The point with the Cloistered Cleric is that it gets 1/2 BAB instead of the usual 3/4 BAB of "normal" Clerics.

If you want to be a Cleric that is good at combat, you shouldn't actively pick the class variant that gives you a lower BAB.

That's my main point, that's the kind of stuff that curds the milk into cheese, IMHO.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 07:11 PM
But other than the BAB, does it give the character some ability that might aid him at combat? There's more to combat than just pluses to your attack.

Kylarra
2010-07-22, 07:21 PM
For older editions I agree with you, but the problem here is that third edition is not a game where classes actually play a role like they did in 2nd ed or 1st ed. And I dont see how refluffing might have a deep impact on game balance, since that is a part of the mechanichs.Yeah, 3.X is a pointbuy system masquerading as level-based. :smallamused:

Thespianus
2010-07-22, 07:22 PM
But other than the BAB, does it give the character some ability that might aid him at combat? There's more to combat than just pluses to your attack.

Yeah, if CompChamp is in play, you get Knowledge Devotion for free, which basically offsets the BAB-issue (apart from iteratives) and if you start Divine Mighting yourself, you're like every other cleric, only with a ton more skill points, and free Knowledge Devotion. So much for that bookworm type...

If you ignore the fluff of the class variant, I can see that it just doesn't matter. Then I can play a nature worshipping Chaotic Evil Kobold Necromancer that cuddles Bambi, if I want.

It just leaves a bit of an odd taste in my mouth, you know? I think I'm too old to ignore fluff completely, maybe that's why I just revolt against even fairly low levels of cheese, and I'm sorry for taking up this much space. :)

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 07:25 PM
Yeah, if CompChamp is in play, you get Knowledge Devotion for free, which basically offsets the BAB-issue (apart from iteratives) and if you start Divine Mighting yourself, you're like every other cleric, only with a ton more skill points, and free Knowledge Devotion. So much for that bookworm type...

If you ignore the fluff of the class variant, I can see that it just doesn't matter. Then I can play a nature worshipping Chaotic Evil Kobold Necromancer that cuddles Bambi, if I want.

It just leaves a bit of an odd taste in my mouth, you know? I think I'm too old to ignore fluff completely, maybe that's why I just revolt against even fairly low levels of cheese, and I'm sorry for taking up this much space. :)

Nah, it´s ok. you have your preferences in wich characters are less, exotic Not that they are copies of each other, just not wierd cleric bat things or as you would say it:nature worshipping Chaotic Evil Kobold Necromancer that cuddles Bambi.

Wich I love, can I steal the concept? :smalltongue:

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-22, 07:26 PM
I'm personally against the "classes as metaame abstraction" belief. In the earliest editions of the game, your class was also your career. As a Thief gained skill and prestige (I.E levels), they were expected to start a Thieves Guild. Wizards were expected to take on apprentices. Druids advanced in rank, and even have to take up a "desk job" type position at one point in their careers before gaining their cool abilities.

This argument would hold if we were talking 1E or maybe 2E. I am largely ignorant of both, so there's not much I can say about either. However, 3.5 doesn't have such distinctions. Only three classes in the game I can think of have some requirement to get class abilities. Wizards and Sorcerers both have to blow 100 GP and some time to get a familiar and a prestige class in I want to say Planar Handbook requires you to do certain things to gain levels X, Y, and Z after the first, which has its own normal requirements. In short, "no."


Granted, third edition made the classes much broader and more or less removed anything in the class's description that didn't involve game mechanics (with a few exceptions), but I think it was still designed with the assumption that classes were careers and not just lists of cool abilities.

Again, check the PHB2, Hero Builder's Guide, and any, any, book with a list of ACFs.


I'm also against "refluffing" - the mechanics of the game were designed around the "fluff", so disregarding the fluff could also fiddle with the balance of the game.

Certain mechanics, like the poorly defined Paladin's Code of Conduct, are intrinsically tied with some sort of fluff or another, but the vast majority have no such connections. Hell, there are some classes with very different fluff but essentially the same crunch (Wu Jen spells versus Wizard spells).


Except that's not true.
You have half-celestials, half-fiends, tieflings and aasimars and the Otherwordly feat (from the same book, even).
You are the son of an outsider? Then, half-celestial or half-fiend.
You are a distant relative of an outsider? Aasimar or tiefling for you.
You are a very distant relative of an outsider? There is always the Otherwordly feat.

I agree with the assessment of Outsider and human pairing. I agree with the human Half-X pairing. I do not agree with the assessment that if you are the child of a planetouch that that necessitates the taking of the Otherwordly feat. Numerous books cite how planetouch can appear in bloodlines seemingly at random and how numerous planetouch breed full blooded humans (or dwarves or elves or whatever) instead of moar planetouched. The Otherwordly feat is simply another way to show that sort of distant bloodline in a small subset of character races (Namely, Elves and Deep Imaskari, the later of which actually do NOT breed with outsiders, but rather result from their largely extradimensional city).


Lesser races are for the DM to allow his players to pick if he wants to drop the LA. It's something your DM should tell you, not something you choose to get more power for a smaller cost (because you are not taking it for roleplaying reasons, certainly). You shouldn't come to his game with a lesser tiefling and not expect some debate when suddenly the DM asks 'wait, you can cast X level spells? I thought tieflings have LA' and you go 'oh, I'm a lesser tiefling, forgot to tell'.
This is not even in the realm of refluffing, it's explicitly against the rules.

While the books do say that it is largely up to the DM to determine if certain planetouch are "lesser" or not, I see no problem in having both exist side by side. RAW, they shouldn't, but this is just a personal view.

Thespianus
2010-07-22, 07:29 PM
Nah, it´s ok. you have your preferences in wich characters are less, exotic Not that they are copies of each other, just not wierd cleric bat things or as you would say it:nature worshipping Chaotic Evil Kobold Necromancer that cuddles Bambi.

Wich I love, can I steal the concept? :smalltongue:

Only as long as Bambi radiates a 30' Anti-Magic Field ;)

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 07:30 PM
Only as long as Bambi radiates a 30' Anti-Magic Field ;)

Players wont see that one coming

Urpriest
2010-07-22, 07:31 PM
My arguments are a bit facetious, but my point stands. Consulting page 24 once again, I note that some of the entries, such as that of Religion, denote "Some barbarians". As in not all barbarians do these things. As in there's some wiggle room allowed. The entries I quoted in my first post simply address barbarians as a whole. Clearly, they represent the approved archetypes, and those archetypes are what matter.

Funny thing about archetypes though, who decides what archetypes are represented by a class? Wizards of the Coast?

In my opinion? The literature on the class as a whole. This means that the archetypes represented evolve from their initial PHB presentations. What a barbarian is is a composite of every barbarian feat, every rage variant, every NPC with barbarian levels, etc. This can change things. As an example, some people allude to Fighters being people with specific training from fighting schools. While the PHB might imply this, later books showcase the Fighter's "class feature" (the bonus feats) as representing dilletantism, specific martial abilities that showcase versatility. As such, a fighter 2 dip is generally an appropriate use of the archetype, even with no story justification whatsoever.


Your GM? That's the answer some people have given, but I'd question the legitimacy of the GM's authority in this case. Saying "Barbarians don't trust magic" isn't relevant to the rules (and looking to page 24, the difference between flavour text and the game rule information is clearly marked). It could be relevant to the setting, but I'd still question the GM's authority to enforce that in the same way that I'd question the GM telling me in a civil war game that my Confederate character has to agree with slavery. If basic personal opinions are mandated by the setting, the setting is already too restrictive.

Such a GM would indeed be overstepping his/her mandate. However, what if your character took the "Slave-Whipper" trait, which states: "Your character loves to whip slaves so much, he gets +2 to attack with whips." That feat represents something, and taking it as a character who disagrees with slavery is silly. If you want a whip-focused anti-slavery character in such a system, find an equivalent trait that agrees with your character's personality. If you can't find one, then make a new trait. That's a fine thing to do, but it should always be done with the awareness that it goes to represent something that the system otherwise wouldn't have represented.



Also, if only one class can represent an archetype, why have multiclassing at all? And it certainly seems as though more than one class, even just from the Player's Handbook, can represent a single archetype. A hard-bitten ex-gladiator who's filled with cold rage over the death of his brother, for example. Ranger? Barbarian? Fighter? Why not all three mixed together? It seems perfectly believable, because the abilities of all three classes have synergy with the concept. Given that, it appears that, so long as the abilities are in synch with the concept, any amount of multiclassing or taking of feats is already justified. Since the optimizer seeks synergy rather than disparity, it would seem that optimized characters who multiclass a great deal are playable characters.

Nothing against multiclassing in general. Some archetypes are only present in multiple classes (mystic theurge, for example). Others, as you point out, are shared between classes. In fact, almost every archetype already has several synergistic classes that fit it. That said, why would you ever need something outside of your character's archetype? Only if you've stopped trying to represent your character and merely focused on optimization would you pursue such things. If you're a barbarian 2/fighter 2/warblade 2 (perfectly fine for many archetypes by the way) and you want to pick up a level of cloistered cleric, ask yourself whether you're doing it for the extra domain or because your character is in some sense cloistered. Because the extra domain and low BAB simulates the fact that you're a shrimpy academic without formal combat training who spent that time with books, and if you're very much not that then you don't actually have the traits that the extra domain is supposed to represent.

Keld Denar
2010-07-22, 08:03 PM
Such a GM would indeed be overstepping his/her mandate. However, what if your character took the "Slave-Whipper" trait, which states: "Your character loves to whip slaves so much, he gets +2 to attack with whips." That feat represents something, and taking it as a character who disagrees with slavery is silly. If you want a whip-focused anti-slavery character in such a system, find an equivalent trait that agrees with your character's personality. If you can't find one, then make a new trait.

Ok...so you'd rather do MORE work to homebrew up a new mechanic, than simply change the concept of an existing, relatively balanced mechanic, and rename it? Maybe you have the time and inclination to do that, but I don't. I'm sorry, thats just so counter-intuative, and undermines the whole arguement. You aren't seeing the flexibility of the fluff as presented because you don't want to see it. You don't want anyone to poop on your sacred cow. Thats fine. Advocating that nobody else do it either, or that anyone who does it is "doing it wrong", thats imposing your own restrictions on others under a mask of "justification". Thats generally frowned upon.

And as far as slave-whipper and whatnot...thats EASY to justify. Prior to adventuring, the character was a slave driver. It made him feel dirty. He quit. You can't just quit slave driving though, you know too much. So now you have enemies, a free plot hook the DM can take or leave. But you have to defend yourself against these enemies, who are strong and scary. What tools do you have to defend yourself in such a way? Mad whip skillz. You don't get any less skilled at whipping because you now whip slave drivers instead of slaves, and why should you?

Cause when a problem comes along, you must whip it!

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-22, 08:43 PM
Cause when a problem comes along, you must whip it!

When all you have is a hammer whip all problems start looking like nails slaves slave drivers.

Greenish
2010-07-22, 08:50 PM
Except that's not true.
You have half-celestials, half-fiends, tieflings and aasimars and the Otherwordly feat (from the same book, even).
You are the son of an outsider? Then, half-celestial or half-fiend.
You are a distant relative of an outsider? Aasimar or tiefling for you.
You are a very distant relative of an outsider? There is always the Otherwordly feat.
Lesser races are for the DM to allow his players to pick if he wants to drop the LA. It's something your DM should tell you, not something you choose to get more power for a smaller cost (because you are not taking it for roleplaying reasons, certainly). You shouldn't come to his game with a lesser tiefling and not expect some debate when suddenly the DM asks 'wait, you can cast X level spells? I thought tieflings have LA' and you go 'oh, I'm a lesser tiefling, forgot to tell'.
This is not even in the realm of refluffing, it's explicitly against the rules.Of course you'd ask your DM about things like lesser planetouched which change the mechanics too, but having lesser and 'greater' planetouched in the same setting is perfectly reasonable. It can be, in a word, refluffed.

And, contrary to what you're insinuating, refluffing can (and ususally is, in my experience) be done to have a character that best represents your concept, not to increase your power. You can easily be a druid 10 / planar shepherd 10 with the canned fluff, after all.

742
2010-07-22, 09:19 PM
Classes are metagame abstractions. As long as all the abilities piling up follow the character's theme, it doesn't matter what they're called.

this. also, whats wrong with someone who has lived a colorful life, and from that picked up many varied skills? or maybe there just isnt a class that completely fits the character concept, even if its a very specific thing.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-22, 09:33 PM
When all you have is a hammer whip all problems start looking like nails slaves slave drivers.

If my signature wasn't full, I'd totally sig this.

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 09:50 PM
Of course you'd ask your DM about things like lesser planetouched which change the mechanics too, but having lesser and 'greater' planetouched in the same setting is perfectly reasonable. It can be, in a word, refluffed.

And, contrary to what you're insinuating, refluffing can (and ususally is, in my experience) be done to have a character that best represents your concept, not to increase your power. You can easily be a druid 10 / planar shepherd 10 with the canned fluff, after all.

Greenish, you are just complaining about stuff I haven't said. I was talking about lesser planetouched because people specifically said 'what's the harm in taking them without telling your DM?', which is just wrong and against RAW. If your DM wants to houserule something, it's his choice; but it is solely his choice.
I'm not against refluffing and I already said I actually do it and allow my players to do it (even mentioned the Samurai/Artificer in my group). I just think sometimes it's too much and I would complain about (and not accept in my game) a build that was not according to my beliefs.
If a new guy comes on my table using a base class from Eberron, a race from Dragonlance, a prestige class from Forgotten Realms and wants me to refluff stuff just so he can pull off a combo, I will probably say no. If the same guy tells me he wants his animal companion to be a 'star wolf' with greenish fur but the same stats as a normal wolf, I'd probably allow it... if he tells me so beforehand and asks if it's OK. My point is, if you are somehow changing what your DM is expecting (that is, what is in the books, because he can't read your mind and discover you refluffed ir), you should tell him. Fluff changes how the game feels and it's very important to many people.
I, for example, usually DM heroic games. I tell that to my players beforehand. It's about herores and the stuff heroes do - it's not about mercenaries or villains. So if you show up with some chaotic evil dude who likes to light up babies on fire, I won't allow it in my game. Here people usually ask the DM about the crunch, what's the harm in asking about the fluff, really?
I won't discuss refluffig. As I said, I'm not against it, I just don't do it the way you guys do it and I think it's fine that you play your games the way you want it.

Urpriest
2010-07-22, 10:12 PM
Ok...so you'd rather do MORE work to homebrew up a new mechanic, than simply change the concept of an existing, relatively balanced mechanic, and rename it? Maybe you have the time and inclination to do that, but I don't. I'm sorry, thats just so counter-intuative, and undermines the whole arguement. You aren't seeing the flexibility of the fluff as presented because you don't want to see it. You don't want anyone to poop on your sacred cow. Thats fine. Advocating that nobody else do it either, or that anyone who does it is "doing it wrong", thats imposing your own restrictions on others under a mask of "justification". Thats generally frowned upon.

Pulling the "stop being oppressive" card is silly and pointless, as I could have just as easily accused anyone arguing with me of trying to force me to allow extreme refluffing in my games. This is the internet. We argue about the best way to do things because we enjoy debate.

As for the difference between homebrewing and refluffing, yes it's more work, which is certainly not for everyone. However, when it's possible, wouldn't you prefer having a setting in which radically different story elements were represented by radically different rules elements? The whole reason some people stuck with 3.5 rather than going to 4e was because they wanted a complicated, simulationist system rather than a streamlined system with fluff divorced from crunch. This simulationist complexity is one of 3.5's strengths, and I don't think it should be lightly thrown aside.



And as far as slave-whipper and whatnot...thats EASY to justify. Prior to adventuring, the character was a slave driver. It made him feel dirty. He quit. You can't just quit slave driving though, you know too much. So now you have enemies, a free plot hook the DM can take or leave. But you have to defend yourself against these enemies, who are strong and scary. What tools do you have to defend yourself in such a way? Mad whip skillz. You don't get any less skilled at whipping because you now whip slave drivers instead of slaves, and why should you?

Cause when a problem comes along, you must whip it!

While a fun backstory, it also sidesteps the problem. You gained the feat because you have a background that fits its intended fluff. Yes, that's doable. But if you insisted on the feat when your character's whipping was entirely unrelated to slave whipping (or if you wanted it to work with a longsword or something) then you'd be better off with a rules element that has fluff that actually matches your character.

Greenish
2010-07-22, 10:25 PM
Greenish, you are just complaining about stuff I haven't said. I was talking about lesser planetouched because people specifically said 'what's the harm in taking them without telling your DM?'Oh, I've completely missed that. Who said it and where?

I'm not against refluffing and I already said I actually do it and allow my players to do it (even mentioned the Samurai/Artificer in my group). I just think sometimes it's too much and I would complain about (and not accept in my game) a build that was not according to my beliefs.Okay, it just seems that some people argue classes being in-game concepts.
If a new guy comes on my table using a base class from Eberron, a race from Dragonlance, a prestige class from Forgotten Realms and wants me to refluff stuff just so he can pull off a combo, I will probably say no.Well that's not refluffing at all! That's almost a strawman. It is he who should provide the fluff that'll fly in your world to explain his stats, and explain the concept his choices represent.
My point is, if you are somehow changing what your DM is expecting (that is, what is in the books, because he can't read your mind and discover you refluffed ir), you should tell him.Obviously you should tell him what mechanics you're using to represent your character when you go over it in the start of the game (or when creating it together). You seem to assume that people refluff things to slip them past their DMs. When I suggest to someone on these forums certain options for building their character, I by default assume that his or her DM will have to okay them before he or she can use them. Dm can't read your mind, but she usually is reading your character sheet.
Fluff changes how the game feels and it's very important to many people.Often when people say "ignore the fluff", they just mean you shouldn't use the pre-canned fluff, but come up with your own! Fluff matters obviously. That's why your character has a name (and maybe even a personality), rather than just being [class] [level].

I, for example, usually DM heroic games. I tell that to my players beforehand. It's about herores and the stuff heroes do - it's not about mercenaries or villains. So if you show up with some chaotic evil dude who likes to light up babies on fire, I won't allow it in my game.…That's not about refluffing. :smallconfused: I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Here people usually ask the DM about the crunch, what's the harm in asking about the fluff, really?Not following you at all. People usually ask the forums for help in making the mechanics to represent what they want, and get told about mechanics and to ask their DMs for changes in mechanics.

Besides, I should think DMs have more important things to do that assure players that no, their warblade doesn't have to be a gloryhound.

I won't discuss refluffig. As I said, I'm not against it, I just don't do it the way you guys do it and I think it's fine that you play your games the way you want it.How do "we guys" do it? I don't think I've ever played with you.

So in short, you're not opposed to refluffing, but you think classes are in-game concepts and you need to ask for DM's permission to ever divert from the default fluff at all. Every barbarian needs a permission to take a level in fighter, even when it mechanically only means getting one feat before they'd normally do. I don't see how anyone's enjoyment is increased by that.

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 10:36 PM
So in short, you're not opposed to refluffing, but you think classes are in-game concepts and you need to ask for DM's permission to ever divert from the default fluff at all. Every barbarian needs a permission to take a level in fighter, even when it mechanically only means getting one feat before they'd normally do. I don't see how anyone's enjoyment is increased by that.

I actually had a player drop out of my game because of this. He played a single class Wizard and felt offended by the party, which included aforementioned Samurai/Artificer/Sohei and a Paladin/Swordsage/Shiba Protector. Both characters had refluffed material and the guy playing the Wizard did not like it; he even told me Oriental Adventures explicitly states to have 'great caution' with Shiba Protector. He was absolutely fine with the power aspect, mind you - never questioned the hengeyokai Warblade/Warshaper that far outshined basically everyone any time she wanted to. His problem was that the mutable fluff confused him and he didn't enjoy the atmosphere it created. So I lost a player because of this thing.
So, yes, one's enjoyment can increase by sticking to fluff as written. That's even how some people expect it.

Greenish
2010-07-22, 10:41 PM
I actually had a player drop out of my game because of this. He played a single class Wizard and felt offended by the party, which included aforementioned Samurai/Artificer/Sohei and a Paladin/Swordsage/Shiba Protector. Both characters had refluffed material and the guy playing the Wizard did not like it; he even told me Oriental Adventures explicitly states to have 'great caution' with Shiba Protector. He was absolutely fine with the power aspect, mind you - never questioned the hengeyokai Warblade/Warshaper that far outshined basically everyone any time she wanted to. His problem was that the mutable fluff confused him and he didn't enjoy the atmosphere it created. So I lost a player because of this thing.
So, yes, one's enjoyment can increase by sticking to fluff as written. That's even how some people expect it.:smallconfused: Well, that is weird. He needn't even have known your exact builds, and I don't see why'd it matter to anyone. I just don't get it.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-22, 10:45 PM
Seriously. He dropped out because other player weren't using the fluff as written? There must be something more there.

Also:
When I suggest to change fluff I am not suggesting to just divorce rules and crunch completely. Just to change it to something else equally or even better suited to the ability it represents.

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 11:01 PM
:smallconfused: Well, that is weird. He needn't even have known your exact builds, and I don't see why'd it matter to anyone. I just don't get it.

I'm not saying it isn't weird, it's just what it happened. Sometimes the littlest things botter people and I'd much ratter keep a player than lose one.:smallfrown:
The guy is question is a good friend and all, but he leaving my game created quite a bit of trouble, specially since his girlfriedn also left the game a few weeks later.
I guess my point is you shouldn't just say 'simply refluff' like it's not a big deal because it can be a big deal for some people. Yeah, that's about it.

Greenish
2010-07-22, 11:05 PM
I'm not saying it isn't weird, it's just what it happened. Sometimes the littlest things botter people and I'd much ratter keep a player than lose one.:smallfrown:
The guy is question is a good friend and all, but he leaving my game created quite a bit of trouble, specially since his girlfriedn also left the game a few weeks later.
I guess my point is you shouldn't just say 'simply refluff' like it's not a big deal because it can be a big deal for some people. Yeah, that's about it.That you can find a fringe case who takes offend at something you do doesn't mean doing that something is a big deal.

I don't think there's anything that doesn't offend someone somewhere.

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 11:10 PM
That you can find a fringe case who takes offend at something you do doesn't mean doing that something is a big deal.

I don't think there's anything that doesn't offend someone somewhere.

No, of course it doesn't mean so. I just said it can be a big deal for some people, so I try to avoid if I can.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-22, 11:16 PM
No, of course it doesn't mean so. I just said it can be a big deal for some people, so I try to avoid if I can.

I think that that may have been a niche case, at best, but I don't have first hand experience in such case, so I can't really comment.

Keld Denar
2010-07-22, 11:19 PM
(or if you wanted it to work with a longsword or something) then you'd be better off with a rules element that has fluff that actually matches your character.

Don't confuse refluffing with changing the mechanics. Once you change whip to longsword, you've changed the rules. Thats like saying "Lightning Maces should work with my Kukiris because I don't like Light Maces". No...thats changing the mechanics, not the fluff, and nobody here has suggested that. Nobody here has even talked about that. I'm confused why you even brought this up?

What we are talking about is taking things that exist that have pre-existing fluff, modifying that fluff so that it works with your concept, and calling it good.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-22, 11:32 PM
Don't confuse refluffing with changing the mechanics. Once you change whip to longsword, you've changed the rules. Thats like saying "Lightning Maces should work with my Kukiris because I don't like Light Maces". No...thats changing the mechanics, not the fluff, and nobody here has suggested that. Nobody here has even talked about that. I'm confused why you even brought this up?

What we are talking about is taking things that exist that have pre-existing fluff, modifying that fluff so that it works with your concept, and calling it good.

But... but... Aptitude Weapons totally make Kukris work with Lightning Maces.:smalltongue:

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 11:33 PM
What we are talking about is taking things that exist that have pre-existing fluff, modifying that fluff so that it works with your concept, and calling it good.

Actually, many people said stuff like 'just refluff spiked chain as a longsword'...

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-22, 11:39 PM
Actually, many people said stuff like 'just refluff spiked chain as a longsword'...

It's clearly calling a rabbit a smeerp (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallARabbitASmeerp) type things. Personally, I'd have it operate something like Ivy's Whipsword from Soul Calibur. It's clearly a two-handed exotic weapon: it just looks like a sword rather than a spiked chain.

Greenish
2010-07-22, 11:39 PM
Actually, many people said stuff like 'just refluff spiked chain as a longsword'...Yes? You take an existing mechanic (2d4, x2/20, reach*, trip, disarm), and change the fluff to work with your concept ("swordsman" in this case).

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 11:43 PM
It's clearly calling a rabbit a smeerp (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallARabbitASmeerp) type things. Personally, I'd have it operate something like Ivy's Whipsword from Soul Calibur. It's clearly a two-handed exotic weapon: it just looks like a sword rather than a spiked chain.

Ivy's whip-sword is one-handed, though.
And this kind of thing eventually messes with rules at some point. I'd really like to avoid it. For example, it becomes slashing, so it can do a few stuff a spiked chain can't do. And another player might come up and want to get free proficiency with it, since his god's favored weapon is a lonsword and the other guy calls it longsword. Etc etc. I really wouldn't want to go through all this trouble when he could just use a spinning sword instead.


Yes? You take an existing mechanic (2d4, x2/20, reach*, trip, disarm), and change the fluff to work with your concept ("swordsman" in this case).
What I ment is that Keld Denar was saying he did not support refluffing to change mechanical aspects, but in this case the refluffing does change mechanics (at very least it makes the spiked chain a slashing weapon).

Keld Denar
2010-07-22, 11:46 PM
See, you are doing it again. You are proposing mechanical changes and disguising them as fluff changes. Why are you attacking a position that nobody is claiming? Its a spiked chain, its treated as a spiked chain in EVERY way, including dieties favored weapons and all that, he's just calling it a sword.

YOU are the only one suggesting changing the mechanics, then attacking people for your OWN change. Thats not at all what is being said.

EDIT:

What I ment is that Keld Denar was saying he did not support refluffing to change mechanical aspects, but in this case the refluffing does change mechanics (at very least it makes the spiked chain a slashing weapon).

Please quote me saying to change the damage type from piercing to slashing. Without that, you are putting words in my mouth and then attacking me for them.

Greenish
2010-07-22, 11:49 PM
Ivy's whip-sword is one-handed, though.The basic premise is the whip-sword (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhipSword), Ivy's one is merely an example.
And this kind of thing eventually messes with rules at some point. I'd really like to avoid it. For example, it becomes slashing, so it can do a few stuff a spiked chain can't do.Who says it becomes slashing? It can pierce just like spiked chain somehow can pierce.
And another player might come up and want to get free proficiency with it, since his god's favored weapon is a lonsword and the other guy calls it longsword. Etc etc.By RAW you can only get a Martial Proficiency, I seem to recall. Nonetheless, it would obviously be a different weapon. Call it "Exotic longsword" or "long-sword" or "reachsword" or "schmeerp".
I really wouldn't want to go through all this trouble when he could just use a spinning sword instead.Spinning sword is a light weapon, so no two-handing it, not to mention silly penalties on disarm. Call the two-handed version a "spinning greatsword" or "greater spinning sword". That's the point!

Keld Denar
2010-07-22, 11:52 PM
Correct, martial weapons only. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#warDomain)

You are wrong about the Spinning Sword though. Its a 1handed weapon, so you COULD 2handed PA with it. Still, using a spiked chain as a "great spinning sword" is fine, so long as its still a 2d4 type P reach weapon that can attack adjacent foes, can trip, and offers a +2 on opposed disarm checks.

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 11:53 PM
Please quote me saying to change the damage type from piercing to slashing. Without that, you are putting words in my mouth and then attacking me for them.
Keld, sorry, but I'm not attacking anyone and I didn't even say you said anything. I just remembered someone said specifically to 'refluff a spiked chain as a longsword'.
The slashing damage part came from my part; if you want something like that to look like a sword, I would expect it to deal slashing damage.
Also, the thing about favored weapons is just something I think could potentially come up in a game. Again, that comes from the statement a few posts before where someone said to refluff it as a longsword. If it just said sword I don't think anyone would bother to try to pull this, but if there is a guy with a longsword that has 10-foot reach, other people would want that and it might cause a few issues.
Like I said, it's just my opinion because I've has bad experiences with this before. I see nothing wrong with it, just prefer not do it.

Greenish
2010-07-22, 11:56 PM
You are wrong about the Spinning Sword though. Its a 1handed weapon, so you COULD 2handed PA with it.Oh, right you are. Man, now I feel silly for not checking it even when Secrets of Sarlona was within my reach.

Actually, looking at it now, I'd probably rather use the spinning sword for better crit range, but that's besides the point.

[Edit]:
I never said you couldn't, so I don't see your point.But I did (implicitly), and he was replying to me.

balistafreak
2010-07-23, 12:00 AM
The slashing damage part came from my part; if you want something like that to look like a sword, I would expect it to deal slashing damage.

... but our whip-sword example is dealing slashing damage? Not sure what you're complaining about here. :smallconfused:


Also, the thing about favored weapons is just something I think could potentially come up in a game. Again, that comes from the statement a few posts before where someone said to refluff it as a longsword. If it just said sword I don't think anyone would bother to try to pull this, but if there is a guy with a longsword that has 10-foot reach, other people would want that and it might cause a few issues.

His "longsword" as 10-foot reach and awesome abilities because he paid Exotic Weapon Proficiency for it. Refluff EWP as "master swordsmanship training" and now anyone can get a sword that works like a spiked chain... if they train for it.

Trying to use said sword without such training means that you flail around and look like an arse: -4 nonproficiency penalty. Perfectly within the rules.

The one thing that might throw people off is if the character gets thrown in a situation where he loses his favored sword and gets thrown a vanilla one, and suddenly he can't use it like he normally does (because now he has a rules-longsword, not a rules-spiked chain, although both are fluff-longswords).

Call it "preferred weapon familiarity". It's a little awkward, but so is the situation. The fix is hardly flawless - little is in this day and age - but it works at least 95% of all normal adventuring situations.


I never said you couldn't Power Attack with it.

Catch up with other people's posts - he wasn't talking to you. :smallwink:

Greenish
2010-07-23, 12:11 AM
Oh, right you are. Man, now I feel silly for not checking it even when Secrets of Sarlona was within my reach.

Actually, looking at it now, I'd probably rather use the spinning sword for better crit range, but that's besides the point.Actually, reading the description, you can't wield it two-handed. :smallfrown:

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-23, 12:13 AM
Actually, reading the description, you can't wield it two-handed. :smallfrown:

That is a shame. I also approve of the idea of the "greater spinning sword" you mentioned earlier, Greenish. Me listing Ivy's Whipsword was intended simply to be an example of such a weapon, not exactly how you would call a spiked chain a sword.

Boci
2010-07-23, 03:25 AM
Keld, sorry, but I'm not attacking anyone and I didn't even say you said anything. I just remembered someone said specifically to 'refluff a spiked chain as a longsword'.
The slashing damage part came from my part; if you want something like that to look like a sword, I would expect it to deal slashing damage.

If its on the end of a chain/really long, I can see it being a piercing weapon.


Also, the thing about favored weapons is just something I think could potentially come up in a game.

Simply solution: because it is such a stange sword, it does not count as a sword for the purpose of weapon groups.


Again, that comes from the statement a few posts before where someone said to refluff it as a longsword. If it just said sword I don't think anyone would bother to try to pull this, but if there is a guy with a longsword that has 10-foot reach, other people would want that and it might cause a few issues.

How is that any worse than someone wielding a spiked chain and everybody wanting it?


That's technically not what's going on. Your example would be banning tieflings entirely. He's talking about the difference between tieflings and lesser tieflings. The inherent power of fiendish blood could be such that having 25% fiendish ancestry or 10% fiendish ancestry makes no effective difference, which I find perfectly reasonable. If you want tiefling stats, eat the +1 LA.

True, but then it is also reasonable to assume that IS a difference between being 10% outsider and 25% outsider. And since this hypothetical player in question wants there to be one, and D&D is about being fun, shouldn’t they be allowed?

JoshuaZ
2010-07-23, 11:51 AM
Favored classes are a way to encourage certain races to play certain classes, a goal which certainly has a place in the game. Why, mechanically, should 23% more gnomes be bards if gnomes aren't particularly good at being bards? Sure, a DM can just fluff it out, but chances are if you stuck with 3.5 it's because you have some simulationist leanings or like rules complexity, so you're going to prefer a rule that supports your world to an absence thereof.

That said, racial substitution levels are for the most part better for this sort of thing. They do have one disadvantage though: they make you less of an archetypal member of the class, which was the whole point of the favored class system in the first place.

I don't think that multiclassing penalties are justified by the existence of the favored class system. I do however think that something should be in place to mechanically encourage certain class choices for certain otherwise unoptimal races, and I don't think that racial substitution levels are always going to be a good way to do this. Another system would be welcome.

Hmm, would maybe keeping the system work but then give extra skill points if one's race has that as a favored class? If favored class earned 1 extra skill points a level that would make people in those racial groups slightly better at those classes but not so much as to be a problem. And it would result in the weird problems that the multiclassing xp penalties cause.

true_shinken
2010-07-23, 12:31 PM
True, but then it is also reasonable to assume that IS a difference between being 10% outsider and 25% outsider. And since this hypothetical player in question wants there to be one, and D&D is about being fun, shouldn’t they be allowed?

This is not the point. The point is, the rules as written specifically say that a DM chooses between lesser tieflings or tieflings, not the player.
The hypothetical player is not wanting 'a difference between being 10% outsider and 25% outsider'; he want to get tiefling stats without the LA adjustment.
In my very game, we have a player who is part to an aasimar bloodline that rules a kingdom. He is an aasimar (also a Swordsage/Paladin/Shiba Protector that alreayd got mentioned in this thread).
After a bit, a player joined the game and was excited about the kingdom thing and wanted to be a part of it. Now, it was already stablished that the big bad killed his own father and mother and put the blame on his brother to take over the kingdom, but I figured an extra element would be fine, so I allowed him to be the queen's long lost bastard son... except he didn't one the level adjustment. He was starting as a Lurk and then going into Chameleon, and the longer it took him to get into Chameleon, the longer he would suck. So I suggested refluffing the Otherwordly feat to represent his extraplanar heritag, and he became the bastard son of an aasimar queen and a human ranger.
This is the thing I'm getting on here - I dislike when someone wants to refluff just to get a mechanical advantage, but I'm fine with it as long as there is none.

Urpriest
2010-07-23, 12:38 PM
Don't confuse refluffing with changing the mechanics. Once you change whip to longsword, you've changed the rules. Thats like saying "Lightning Maces should work with my Kukiris because I don't like Light Maces". No...thats changing the mechanics, not the fluff, and nobody here has suggested that. Nobody here has even talked about that. I'm confused why you even brought this up?

What we are talking about is taking things that exist that have pre-existing fluff, modifying that fluff so that it works with your concept, and calling it good.

That's what I'm talking about as well. You guys, as I am fully aware, aren't suggesting someone should be able to mix and match the mechanics to create any broken thing you please. People on this thread have, however, suggested refluffing a spiked chain so it looks like a longsword. Using your analogy, this would be like someone taking Lightning Maces and then using Light Maces that happen to look exactly like Kukris despite having a 20/x2 crit and dealing bludgeoning damage. The problem is that stuff like that is part of the physics of the setting. The rules say that if you have an object shaped like a longsword, it deals 1d8 damage, is a martial weapon, doesn't reach people in other squares, etc. Those aren't just rules for some object that only the rules refer to as a longsword, those are the rules for a piece of metal of a specific shape. It's just like falling dealing 1d6 per ten feet. Changing it to 1d10 per ten feet is just as much a change in the game's rules as changing a longsword so it's an exotic weapon that deals 2d4 damage and interacts with feats as if it were a spiked chain and not like a longsword. These are changes in the physics of the setting, and the physics of the setting is the DM's purview, not the players'. The DM should not feel obligated to change the setting's physics because their players think a certain fighting style should behave differently.

Urpriest
2010-07-23, 12:40 PM
Hmm, would maybe keeping the system work but then give extra skill points if one's race has that as a favored class? If favored class earned 1 extra skill points a level that would make people in those racial groups slightly better at those classes but not so much as to be a problem. And it would result in the weird problems that the multiclassing xp penalties cause.

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, that's similar to how Pathfinder does it. It is interesting. I'm not sure that it's powerful enough, and it feels like a niche benefit. Some characters don't care at all about skills, some find them essential. There's probably a better way to do it.

Caphi
2010-07-23, 12:49 PM
As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, that's similar to how Pathfinder does it. It is interesting. I'm not sure that it's powerful enough, and it feels like a niche benefit. Some characters don't care at all about skills, some find them essential. There's probably a better way to do it.

Actually, as a sorceror, I've been taking the extra skill point on levels I get good HP rolls and using it to splash a bunch of skills to push out my character's versatility. Because of the way Pathfinder handles class skills, putting one point into any class skill also turns on the +3, which is actually a big advantage on skills that have low-mid static DCs. Also, one point is a language, and anyone can capitalize on that if it matters to your campaign.

Overall, it probably matters more to characters who already have lower skill points and higher hit dice or other defenses. If you get more than 6 base skill points, you're engorged on the skills you want anyway, and everything else is sprinkles, but if you get 2, or even 4, the extra splashes actually add something.

balistafreak
2010-07-23, 01:05 PM
@Urpriest: We use the spiked chain/longsword example because they both deal slashing damage. No physics breaking there. Reach, trip, and disarm are relatively nonconcrete compared to that, so the example continues to work.

I agree with you that if you were my player and wanted to wield "kukris" that were actually light maces for Lightning Maces, I'd wiggle and try to edit your build, but I'd probably err on the side of "no".

Similar case to the spikedchain/longsword refluff: I had a player who fell in love with punching daggers, but really, that's a terrible idea. I gave him a Morningstar, told him that he could only ever deal piercing damage with it, and let him "punching dagger" all day long.

Greenish
2010-07-23, 02:11 PM
@Urpriest: We use the spiked chain/longsword example because they both deal slashing damage.Except that spiked chain is piercing (because otherwise it'd be hard to use underwater, gods forbid).

Though longsword should have piercing as an option too.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-23, 02:21 PM
There is also the drow scorpion chain in some Eberron book which is essentially a spiked chain that does slashing instead of piercing damage, which our hypothetical refluffed sword could be based off of instead.

balistafreak
2010-07-23, 03:57 PM
Except that spiked chain is piercing (because otherwise it'd be hard to use underwater, gods forbid).

Though longsword should have piercing as an option too.

Eeefffff! I failed a Spot check there, I had the d20srd right in front of me and said, "Yup, that's slashing."

... so your style is based on long lunges and stabs, then. No biggie.

To be truthful the swords in D&D are messed up - while daggers slash and stab, shortswords can only stab while longswords can only slash. :smallconfused:

You can stab effectively even with a greatsword. I wouldn't base a style on it, but it's always an option.

But yeah, dealing bludgeoning damage is out of the question. Surely, the flat of a sword hurts, but not in a 1d8 lethal damage sort of way.

And if all else fails, there's probably some weapon out there that deals slashing anyways.

Coplantor
2010-07-23, 03:59 PM
Eeefffff! I failed a Spot check there, I had the d20srd right in front of me and said, "Yup, that's slashing."

... so your style is based on long lunges and stabs, then. No biggie.

To be truthful the swords in D&D are messed up - while daggers slash and stab, shortswords can only stab while longswords can only slash. :smallconfused:

You can stab effectively even with a greatsword. I wouldn't base a style on it, but it's always an option.

But yeah, dealing bludgeoning damage is out of the question. Surely, the flat of a sword hurts, but not in a 1d8 lethal damage sort of way.

And if all else fails, there's probably some weapon out there that deals slashing anyways.

That's because shortswords were made for stabbing and longswords for slashing :smalltongue:

Gametime
2010-07-23, 04:09 PM
Because we want to change the world.

And when people change, the world changes.

That is the path to heaven...:smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

You make it sound like we're enacting the Human Instrumentality Project through metagame discussion. :smallbiggrin:

Don't let them know about Operation: Giant!Rei in the Playground! All our hard, extremely confusing, nebulously-explained plans will be for naught!

balistafreak
2010-07-23, 07:33 PM
That's because shortswords were made for stabbing and longswords for slashing :smalltongue:

There's a difference between "made for" and "entirely capable of competently". A knife can slash and stab equally well, or at least equally enough to kill someone dead. So can a shortsword - even a longsword. (They're much lighter than people think they are. Of course, they still end up feeling heavy.) It's only when we get into greatsword territory that stabbing becomes a bit too ponderous to really use as a competent fighting style.

Coidzor
2010-07-23, 07:54 PM
But yeah, dealing bludgeoning damage is out of the question. Surely, the flat of a sword hurts, but not in a 1d8 lethal damage sort of way.

Well, if you got gauntlets on, there's always mordenkrau. :smallwink:

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-23, 09:43 PM
But yeah, dealing bludgeoning damage is out of the question. Surely, the flat of a sword hurts, but not in a 1d8 lethal damage sort of way.
It's not necessarily the flat of a sword. Consider a sword versus an armored character - especially a sword like a greatsword, which is heavy, weighted to take that heft and apply it even more effectively against the enemy, and depends on considerable momentum and force to deliver its damage. It's not the sharpness that's the issue a lot of the time. A greatsword vs. plate armor isn't going to be depending on the sharpness of its blade in order to harm the wearer - it's going to be depending on its weight and power to primarily bend his armor and bludgeon the enemy into submission.

No realistic sword could slash its way through a piece of full plate armor, but it's going to cave that armor in to some degree, and deliver a powerful shock to the person inside, and it's the trauma of that powerful shock that is represented in its damage.

A shortsword, on the other hand, lacks that weight and is going to be utterly ineffective at slashing against an armored opponent. Someone in full plate or even chainmail is going to be bruised badly at best from a slash from a shortsword. You need to pierce with it to get through the chain links, or into a gap in the plates so you can stab effectively.

So yeah, the damage types still have a number of flubs depending on the situation, but I think their assigning of damage type was made on two basis: general perception (greatsword slashing damage) and mostly considering the needs of wielding the weapon vs. an armored target (shortswords don't slash through chainmail or heavier).