PDA

View Full Version : [3.x] Would You Play without PrCs?



Tequila Sunrise
2010-07-29, 08:59 PM
If your DM told you "I won't enforce multiclassing penalties, and you can play any base classe/s and class variants you want to, and heck, you might even talk me into gestalt. But there will be no PrCs." Would you play?

1. Heck yeah! Finally, a campaign with a manageable number of options!
2. Yeah, sure. I'm just here to have fun.
3. Yeah, but just because you're my DM.
4. Heck no! PrCs are where the game is at! Especially the fun higher levels!
5. I'm a special snowflake.

EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."

Critical
2010-07-29, 09:03 PM
I'm leaning to number two - really, there's always something to do even with the base class levels.

Sucrose
2010-07-29, 09:03 PM
If your DM told you "I won't enforce multiclassing penalties, and you can play any base classe/s and class variants you want to, and heck, you might even talk me into gestalt. But there will be no PrCs." Would you play?

1. Heck yeah! Finally, a campaign with a manageable number of options!
2. Yeah, sure. I'm just here to have fun.
3. Yeah, but just because you're my DM.
4. Heck no! PrCs are where the game is at! Especially the fun higher levels!
5. I'm a special snowflake.

2, I suppose. A straight warblade, duskblade, or swordsage, or some sort of mild multiclass, can easily be as much fun as dumpster-diving amongst the PrC's.

Captain Six
2010-07-29, 09:04 PM
Number 2, although I would be Number 1 if prestigious class features were converted to bonus feats. I just want the special abilities.

Claudius Maximus
2010-07-29, 09:05 PM
A mixture of 2 and 3. If the DM doesn't want to deal with them, that's his right. The DMG basically says that the DM is expected to have control over PrC availability, and I would respect any DM who chose to exert that right. I might try to argue for their inclusion since I prefer them in the game, but I don't see them as something the PCs have some kind of unalienable right to. And it's perfectly possible to have fun and express most (but not really all) concepts with just base classes.

Boci
2010-07-29, 09:08 PM
Number 3. It is certainly possible to have fun without PrC, and with all the base classes and feats there are still many options, but I see no reason to throw them all out of the window.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-29, 09:11 PM
5. I would argue with my DM until we reached a reasonable conclusion.

Zaydos
2010-07-29, 09:12 PM
I'm leaning towards 2. I'm perfectly happy with straight wizard, sorcerer, heck any spell-caster and well any character with tricks that change every few levels is interesting. Might try a maneuver using class or binder or incarnum class. With some interesting multiclass a basic melee character could remain interesting for 20 levels and this way I'd not have to bother with prerequisite feats eating up my options. The gestalt suggestion especially seems fun (since in theory you have twice the options so you shouldn't really need a PrC).

Boci
2010-07-29, 09:16 PM
5. I would argue with my DM until we reached a reasonable conclusion.

Good point. IRL you would expect the DM would have a reason for his decision.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-07-29, 09:17 PM
5. I would argue with my DM until we reached a reasonable conclusion.
Would Captain Six's suggestion (PrC features as feats and/or class variants) be a reasonable compromise?

Boci
2010-07-29, 09:20 PM
Would Captain Six's suggestion (PrC features as feats and/or class variants) be a reasonable compromise?

But why? The only reason I can think of playing without PrC would be to make the game simpler. But that just gives the DM a load more work to do.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-29, 09:21 PM
Would Captain Six's suggestion (PrC features as feats and/or class variants) be a reasonable compromise?

That would be a both a tremendous homebrew project, and almost impossible to balance, as class features are much better than feats. I don't see the point really. It all depends on the DM's reason for the decision.

nyarlathotep
2010-07-29, 09:24 PM
Would Captain Six's suggestion (PrC features as feats and/or class variants) be a reasonable compromise?

That would actually be in many ways preferable to PrCs as they stand now. Though I'd also be fine with playing with no prestige classes in say pathfinder as the base classes there have far fewer dead levels.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-29, 09:25 PM
Number 1 to 2 for me, depending.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-29, 09:26 PM
6. Heck no - not because I absolutely must take a PrC, but because such a move leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Prodan
2010-07-29, 09:27 PM
Yes, I would play. And I would be a druid.

Mr.Moron
2010-07-29, 09:29 PM
There are plenty of classes that play fine as X 20, and they're the ones I like the most anyway (Divine Casters, Martial Adepts). So as a restriction on character builds it wouldn't really bother me at all.

That said, it's one of those things that could potentially be a "Red Flag" to me, like "Core-only". I'd probably ask why, just out of curiosity. If they said it was just to cut down on complexity and leave more to improvise I'd be plenty happy. If it was made out to be some sort of mechanical or balance issue, I'd probably approach the game with a little caution.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-07-29, 09:29 PM
3 and 5 simultaneously.

Jaeger
2010-07-29, 09:32 PM
mixture of 2 and 3. I would question my DM and expect him to give me a good reason why his world lacks prestige.

But all of that is mostly because I like to specialise and prestige classes for the mos part make it easier to focus my character concept into a razor edge.

That all being said it wouldn't be the first time i've gone base only. Might even make for a fun chance to break out a social Changeling Binder. Just so I can run circles around those ever so lovable Inquisitors who would want to wring his neck for being a horrific affront to the gods, and possibly for impersonating the king, the prince, and the princess if it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-29, 09:33 PM
6. Heck no - not because I absolutely must take a PrC, but because such a move leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

This. Sweeping bans are not usually the sign of a good DM.

FMArthur
2010-07-29, 09:37 PM
3. I know for a fact that I could have plenty of fun this way, but I don't think it would be good for my whole group, which operates mostly just out of core. Prestige classes are completely unnecessary for full casters (and kind of redundant on ones that have specialization options built in) and a wide variety of well-designed base classes can get by without them with no problems. But core non-fullcasters suffer, as do certain weak psionic classes and all CW and CA classes, which is unfortunate.

Powerfamiliar
2010-07-29, 09:42 PM
1 or 2, though I do allow most PrCs when I DM.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-29, 09:44 PM
Probably not. I like to make characters that are unique mechanically, and that means PrCs most of the time. Especially since I detest non-ToB/MoI melee, and those are the only ones who can multiclass (without PrCs) well. And I like theurges too much.

Also:


6. Heck no - not because I absolutely must take a PrC, but because such a move leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
This. Sweeping bans are not usually the sign of a good DM.
This, very much this. I have more than once politely rescinded interest in games when a DM starts banning at will.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-29, 09:44 PM
I'd go with it only if the reason is something like "I want to see what it's like" rather than "They're broken!" or whatever. Most PrCs either aren't worth it or can be made irrelevant with gestalt, so I wouldn't mind losing those, though I'd hope the DM would be willing to work with the players if there's a particular ability a player wants without the rest of the baggage (like "I'd like to be able to Bloodwalk like a Blood Magus" "Sure, here's a spell to do it" or "Can I be a dwarf drunkard and get benefits without being a Drunken Master?" "Sure, we'll make it a feat or two.") I also agree with DragoonWraith about wanting some form of mechanical differentiation, 'cause after playing for a while Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Ranger 2/... or Wizard 20 just doesn't always do it anymore.

So, somewhere between 2 and 4 based on the DM's rationale and flexibility.

Daelen
2010-07-29, 09:55 PM
I would say 5, but I am not a beautiful unique snowflake... so I will have to go with 2. I'd play a swift hunter.

senrath
2010-07-29, 10:03 PM
I'd go with 2, personally. I've actually played in a similar game, although that was more of no one picking a PrC rather than being forced to avoid them.

Private-Prinny
2010-07-29, 10:12 PM
A mixture of 2 and 4, strangely enough. I'd go along with such a game, but I would also try to change the DM's mind from time to time.

I would only consider one of the following, though: Duskblade, Dragonfire Adept, *insert ToB class here*, or Psychic Warrior.

valadil
2010-07-29, 10:23 PM
I could very happily play a game without PrCs. I'm not sure I'd trust a GM who outright banned all PrCs though. I feel like that's the kind of GM who would let me play a sorcerer and then take 2/3 of my spells away.

So I'd play the game, but only if I knew and trusted the GM.

jiriku
2010-07-29, 10:25 PM
3, but with caution. DMs who issue broad bans are usually afraid of powerful characters, which probably means that the DM has no clue how to create adventures for characters above 9th or 10th level. Eliminating prestige classes won't help him - he needs to learn how to hack it at high levels or restrict his campaigns to lower level play.

Starbuck_II
2010-07-29, 10:32 PM
1 or 2 depending on my mood.
No multiclass penalty fixes one need for Prc. Another issue is some abilities are unattainable without Prcs. But one can manage.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-07-29, 10:42 PM
EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-29, 10:46 PM
EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."

In that case, yeah, I'm a 1 or 2--if I can express a character how I want without jumping through all the hoops, the PrCs themselves can take a long walk off a short pier.

Rixx
2010-07-29, 10:51 PM
If you play Pathfinder (especially with the new APG options) than prestige classes are more or less unnecessary.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-29, 10:52 PM
EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."

In that case 2. That's a bit better than prestige classes, actually.

Boci
2010-07-29, 10:56 PM
I would personally be a bit worried about the strain this would put on my characters number of feats, an already scarce resource, but I would go along with it.

Vangor
2010-07-29, 10:59 PM
Meh, doesn't bother me if a DM wants to remove. I imagine this makes knowing what the players can do a little easier, but I would say this probably widens the ability gap between many base classes. Strict warblades and wizards are already great choices, but you rarely have reason to only pursue many of the others for a reasonably well-rounded adventure group. Still, this might be better for many players who do spend so much time creating characters for the end of the game with poor feats to meet requirements to build to PrC signature abilities and capstones.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-07-29, 11:10 PM
If your DM told you "I won't enforce multiclassing penalties, and you can play any base classe/s and class variants you want to, and heck, you might even talk me into gestalt. But there will be no PrCs." Would you play?

1. Heck yeah! Finally, a campaign with a manageable number of options!
2. Yeah, sure. I'm just here to have fun.
3. Yeah, but just because you're my DM.
4. Heck no! PrCs are where the game is at! Especially the fun higher levels!
5. I'm a special snowflake.

EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."


1, 2, and 5. . . .

When presented properly almost anything can be considered entertaining in a dnd game. . . if it is done arbitrarily or because of a poor DM, thats another matter.

sonofzeal
2010-07-29, 11:29 PM
Mostly #2, with a bit of #3. Definitely not #1 at all, though.

The one houserule that could remove my twinge of #3ness would be to increase feat availability. Feats and PrCs are the two biggest sources of character specialization and character differentiation. All Barbarians are generally going to play pretty similarly, but a Champion of Gwynharwyf and a Frenzied Berserker and a Bear Warrior could all go in very different directions and have very clear identities from each other. Similarly, one could focus their feats on charging and one on throwing and one on tripping, and they'd come across very differently on the battlefield. And that's what matters to me, interesting and memorable characters that aren't just cookie cutter "grawr I r teh barbarianzorz of stuffness just like every other barbarian you've adventured with in the past 20 years".

Crossblade
2010-07-30, 12:05 AM
There are enough Base Classes across the various books. If a DM wanted to limit out PrC, I wouldn't even bat an eye. Heck, I'd even accept the strict PHB 1&2.

Roderick_BR
2010-07-30, 01:26 AM
I'd go further. You can only multiclass between TWO classes.

Hey, I played AD&D like that for years. My friends would even suggest NO multiclass at al, since they played the original one. You don't need complex multiclass/PrC mix-ups to make an enjoyable game.

So, number 2.

Kylarra
2010-07-30, 01:49 AM
Probably 2 for me, I've got enough classes that I like that can be just 1-20'd that I don't need to PrC.

Greymane
2010-07-30, 02:26 AM
2-3 for me, with a dash of Tengu's 6.

I don't need them, but they sure do make the game more interesting for me. I value my fluff and my crunch in equal measures, usually, and sometimes I want PrCs for both those reasons.

Sindri
2010-07-30, 02:47 AM
Probably 2. A lot of the PrCs are nice, but in a game that doesn't start at level 6+, you spend your first 5 or more levels working to get the often inane and unreasonable requirements. If we could houserule the PrC I wanted into a modified base class, then you have the nice flavor and style of the prestige character without a bunch of dead levels at the start or tricky build planning.
For example, if I wanted to play a Shadowdancer, then instead of taking 7 levels of Rogue and blowing skill points into perform, we could work out a variant Rogue class with more focus on stealth and eventual magic powers instead of some of the sneak attack dice or whatever. You get the same flavor, but you don't need to wait until 8th level for it. or you could do a Mystic Theurge that has casting in both varieties at first level, but fewer spells per day than a wizard or cleric, and slightly slower spell advancement.
We might even eliminate Skill Focus and Weapon Focus entirely!

Kaww
2010-07-30, 02:53 AM
I say 2 this is just a hobby, not a competition.

Come to think of it I as a DM do tell my players that they should optimize their characters on account of me liking to try out new monsters from MMs and homebrew monsters.

katans
2010-07-30, 02:56 AM
That depends on which sources are allowed on a general whole and how high leveled the game will be. On the whole, I'm still for 2, but eventually drifting into 3-4 if other aspects are already strongly restricted.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-30, 04:05 AM
EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."
Oh, well then. Absolutely. The reason I go for Shadowdancer is because Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight is an obvious complementary ability for a Rogue, not because I especially want to dip into a prestige class.

Andion Isurand
2010-07-30, 04:09 AM
for me it depends on setting and how invested the campaign will be

if put in a specific setting and its an invested game, then I'm a solid 4

if its a first time DM, or a lesiurely game then im more of a 3 or possible 2

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-30, 04:39 AM
Generally, I would have no problems. I might (privately) baulk if the DM said it was soley because he thought PrCs were broken. But even "I think PrC are stupid" would be an acceptable reason; doubly so for "I don't want the extra hassle."

For one thing, I only allow about 50% of the existant PrC anyway. I don't say "ban" since coming from a Rolemaster background, my mind set work the exact opposite way. As a DM I rather say what is available from the various rules I have; i.e. I do not allow or disallow books wholesale, merely selected parts of them (because in RM is is literally impossible to implement everything at once). Instead of "everything that has been printed/is in books owned is allowed, except what I ban", I have a "this is a list of what you can have" policy, complied from various sources. PrC are, in the end, optional rules I simply choose not to implement in many cases.

(It is easy to know what you can have in my games, since I have massive lists available for that exact purpose! Base classes, most feats and spells are generally on the allowed list. Noncore equipment (non- and magical items) are generally not, and I'm even stomping down on Core magic items and taking the MiC with far more caution than I originally did.)

I might, however, make an argument for allowing some of the hybrid PrC (like Mystic Theurge) as dealing with them as just feats might be a bit too powerful, and it is occasionally useful to have them. With, of course, the corollary that there's only a handful of those (that are worth doing) at present anyway, and that the prereqs could be dropped to as low as to allow 3rd level entry. I actually have started to reclassify them as Hybrid Classes, as opposed to PrC, as to which they basically only advance some class features of two base classes simultaneously and add little new additional special abilities.

But even that is not a game-breaker. Generally, most of our characters are single-classed most of the time, save for the odd character with a PrC or a multiclass noncaster at higher levels. I rarely think of characters in terms of PrC anyway (mostly single-or-multiclass) and even more rarely use them on NPCs. So it would make little difference to my game.

So mostly 2 and maybe some 5.

Morph Bark
2010-07-30, 04:41 AM
This. Sweeping bans are not usually the sign of a good DM.

If it would be the first time with that DM, or if I had seen him play before and he hadn't used PrCs much at all, then I'd be inclined to believe this. Otherwise, I'd be leaning on 3.

I'm going with 1-2. I wouldn't mind it, and it would make certain feats like Swift Hunter and the like all the more appealing.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-30, 06:00 AM
The classes I enjoy playing usually have large motivators to stay in the class (see pathfinder's sorcerer and psychic warrior).
That said, I am disinclined to taking a bunch of prestige class dips unless they fit with the character's theme(say, abj chmp + suel)
It's not any painful to play without them.

wick
2010-07-30, 06:35 AM
I generally don't play with them or allow most. As a DM it is more important to focus on the story, rules, etc than to worry about the effects of the hundreds of different PrCs.

I don't use villians with over the top PrCs and I don't expect players to do the same.

Motivation for taking the PrC is important. If you are taking a PrC to make yourself more powerful than an equivalent level character your request will be shot down. If you like the concept and the benefits are not over the top we can discuss. (Don't tell me there are not some PrCs that are overpowered and some players feel they need to munchkinize. I was born but i was not born yesterday.)


Pet peeve when I am a player in the group and other member's in group tell me that I am stupid for not taking a PrC. Yes that combination is more powerful than my straightup class, but that is a fault in the game system and my choosing not to exploit the fault is not stupid.

potatocubed
2010-07-30, 06:49 AM
I'd play in a game that removed all PrCs, sure.

Ultimately, my characters' goals are not related to the acquisition of mechanical benefits, but more to the achievement of game-world objectives. If I want Bob to become Sir Bob, Knight of the Chalice, or Bob the Assassin, I don't need PrCs. If I want special demon-fighting powers or a death attack, I do.

If I can obtain those demon-fighting powers through feats, then PrCs are completely unnecessary anyway.


Instead of "everything that has been printed/is in books owned is allowed, except what I ban", I have a "this is a list of what you can have" policy, complied from various sources. PrC are, in the end, optional rules I simply choose not to implement in many cases.

That's pretty much how I do things as well.

Noodles2375
2010-07-30, 07:10 AM
2, I suppose. A straight warblade, duskblade, or swordsage, or some sort of mild multiclass, can easily be as much fun as dumpster-diving amongst the PrC's.

#2. And I completely agree with Sucrose.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-07-30, 08:10 AM
For example, if I wanted to play a Shadowdancer, then instead of taking 7 levels of Rogue and blowing skill points into perform, we could work out a variant Rogue class with more focus on stealth and eventual magic powers instead of some of the sneak attack dice or whatever. You get the same flavor, but you don't need to wait until 8th level for it. or you could do a Mystic Theurge that has casting in both varieties at first level, but fewer spells per day than a wizard or cleric, and slightly slower spell advancement.
We might even eliminate Skill Focus and Weapon Focus entirely!
Personally I've always thought that Hide in Plain Sight makes a great rogue special. And as I don't understand what's so awesome about having theoretical access to all spells, as opposed to all arcane spells, because you get what? A few healing spells and a few extra buffs. I might just take away your bonus wizard feats, or your familiar, if you wanted to play a theurge.

If I were your hypothetical DM, that is. :smallcool:



That depends on which sources are allowed on a general whole and how high leveled the game will be. On the whole, I'm still for 2, but eventually drifting into 3-4 if other aspects are already strongly restricted.
"All sources allowed; and we're going all the way to 20."

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-30, 08:18 AM
If this was done right (which I very much doubt it could be), it would be great. I like point-buy systems, the ability to pick and choose abilities from different PrCs without the pre-reqs would be awesome. Unfortunately, as I said before, it's not really feasible, and I'd much rather play in a streamlined system.

lesser_minion
2010-07-30, 08:23 AM
#1 or #2. I doubt I'd even miss the good PrCs, tbh.

Fewer 'official' options also makes it a lot easier to play around with adding new material to the game, so I wouldn't be surprised if the end result was an improvement.

A DM who admits to not liking something is better than one who sits there disliking something but doesn't admit to it. And I would expect any player to respect the DM's right to an opinion and not insist that they include something that they don't feel adds to the game.

Kish
2010-07-30, 08:29 AM
A modified version of #1 for me. The Internet has convinced me that Elan was right about prestige classes.

Prodan
2010-07-30, 08:35 AM
A modified version of #1 for me. The Internet has convinced me that Elan was right about prestige classes.

Oh, yes. Because things like the Duelist and the Shadow Dancer are so earth shakingly powerful.

M0rdain
2010-07-30, 08:48 AM
2 - I always used to feel that all the PrC had too may negatives, and was not a good enough trade off compared to the standard classes (but i did not even like the idea of multi classing)

But PrC's are growing on me as i read more and more :) [to the extent that my Current Caracter has a couple of levels of Radiant Servant of Pelor]

Gnaeus
2010-07-30, 08:55 AM
Yes, I would play. And I would be a druid.

This.

And I would assume that the DM didn't care how over the top I went with my full caster, because they had foolishly banned the PRC's (Arcane Hierophant, MoMF) that I use to deliberately nerf myself compared with other characters.

Petrankov
2010-07-30, 09:08 AM
2, when 3.0 first came out I had a DM that banned splat books. The game was plenty of fun and the DM was not that great (he has gotten a lot better :smallsmile:).

Eldan
2010-07-30, 09:31 AM
Number 2, probably. But it would kill about 2/3 of all base classes for me.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-30, 09:33 AM
2.5-4....I'd want to know exactly why first. If I got 'PrCs are overpowered and cheesy', cya senor. "I want to try a simple game", I might go for it, just for the challenge of building a good character out of base classes.

Emmerask
2010-07-30, 09:38 AM
Sure, a dm may even tell that everyone has to play class x as long as it´s a well thought out story where the decision makes sense I´m all for it :smallsmile:

Kylarra
2010-07-30, 11:42 AM
And I would assume that the DM didn't care how over the top I went with my full caster, because they had foolishly banned the PRC's (Arcane Hierophant, MoMF) that I use to deliberately nerf myself compared with other characters.Passive-aggressive responses like this are somewhat amusing on the internet, but in actual play are just immature jerk moves.

Gnaeus
2010-07-30, 01:25 PM
Passive-aggressive responses like this are somewhat amusing on the internet, but in actual play are just immature jerk moves.

Its true. I would probably warn them first that I was about to demonstrate the epic fail of their banning strategy. If they continue to believe that it is a good idea, they deserve to have their campaign hammered by shapeshift wielding tier 1s.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-30, 01:37 PM
If I could play This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133737) and the DM didn't arbitrarily make me fall then I wouldn't care as I wouldn't want to PRC out anyway.

ericgrau
2010-07-30, 01:45 PM
1. RPwise they really should be replaced with fluff, and I'm tired of the power creep as in if one person PrCs everyone else must do the same to keep up. I'm fine with the handful of PrCs that let PCs do new and interesting things at a cost but leaving no reason not to take one is screwed up. Suddenly every class in the game becomes a 5-6 level class. Don't get me wrong, they can be good, and using them on occasion for a PC that joins an elite group or wants to be something unusual is great, but at some point something went horrible wrong with PrCs.

So maybe I should say I would tolerate #1, and if PrCs were mostly but not completely removed that would be even better.

Vantharion
2010-07-30, 01:47 PM
This. Sweeping bans are not usually the sign of a good DM.

I generally agree with this unless its the DM doing so to make life better for both players and himself. I disagree with banning PrC outright, that could just be bad experience in the past.
As a general sweeping restriction I try to influence people NOT to heavily use negative levels because I don't find them quite as fun. (They always make me think of -1/-1 counters in MtG). Are Negative levels balanced, pretty much, are they a lot of fun for the players, not tremendously.
I think the DM probably wants simplicity, much the same as picking Core books only or somesuch action (Banning certain books). I think that banning prestige classes and NOT restricting feats/spells/items from other books is a bad sign however.

I would want prestige classes or at least the ability to discuss different options from the core classes. This is of course assuming he doesn't make it SUPER fun to play just 1-20 classes.

Emmerask
2010-07-30, 01:49 PM
Its true. I would probably warn them first that I was about to demonstrate the epic fail of their banning strategy. If they continue to believe that it is a good idea, they deserve to have their campaign hammered by shapeshift wielding tier 1s.

Well the next ban wouldn´t be a prc it would be you, so what exactly do you win by acting this way?

Gnaeus
2010-07-30, 01:58 PM
Well the next ban wouldn´t be a prc it would be you, so what exactly do you win by acting this way?

Well, if it didn't make them reconsider their idea, I would save a lot of time otherwise spent with a poor DM with an abysmal sense of game balance. The best thing 3.5 has going for it is its flexibility in character design. A DM who would cut that to pieces while simultaneously making game balance worse needs a lesson in 3.5, and if he isn't willing to learn about it, I don't want to play under him.

Yahzi
2010-07-30, 02:14 PM
This. Sweeping bans are not usually the sign of a good DM.
Or the sign of a DM who has made up his own world setting, instead of just using the generic "This tavern is frequented by ninjas, knights, vampires, chain-wielding fighters, and has a half-orc half-dragon Tiefling for a bartender..."

Maybe the DM is banning certain classes because they have the wrong flavor.

Emmerask
2010-07-30, 02:15 PM
Well, if it didn't make them reconsider their idea, I would save a lot of time otherwise spent with a poor DM with an abysmal sense of game balance. The best thing 3.5 has going for it is its flexibility in character design. A DM who would cut that to pieces while simultaneously making game balance worse needs a lesson in 3.5, and if he isn't willing to learn about it, I don't want to play under him.

You would even save a lot more time if you would say that under these circumstances you won´t play and then leave :smallwink:

Trying to destroy the game, where others might have fun is neither polite nor a very adult behavior.
Teaching others how to play d&d the right way is also pretty pointless because there is no correct or false way.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-30, 02:15 PM
Maybe the DM is banning certain classes because they have the wrong flavor.

But he's banning all prestige classes. I don't think you can claim it's for flavor without banning a few of the base classes too

The Glyphstone
2010-07-30, 02:18 PM
Well, if it didn't make them reconsider their idea, I would save a lot of time otherwise spent with a poor DM with an abysmal sense of game balance. The best thing 3.5 has going for it is its flexibility in character design. A DM who would cut that to pieces while simultaneously making game balance worse needs a lesson in 3.5, and if he isn't willing to learn about it, I don't want to play under him.

So why not save even more time by simply refusing to play in this game from the start, and clearly stating to the DM why you're refusing? If they're a decent, reasonable sort like you hope, then you can show them their error by talking, and if they're not, then "teaching them a lesson" will do no good except give you the vicarous satisfaction of destroying someone's game before getting kicked out, and likely ruining the game for the other players who accepted the restriction.

Boci
2010-07-30, 02:30 PM
Or the sign of a DM who has made up his own world setting, instead of just using the generic "This tavern is frequented by ninjas, knights, vampires, chain-wielding fighters, and has a half-orc half-dragon Tiefling for a bartender..."

And how does banning a significant resource for character customization means the DM's world is not generic?


So why not save even more time by simply refusing to play in this game from the start, and clearly stating to the DM why you're refusing? If they're a decent, reasonable sort like you hope, then you can show them their error by talking, and if they're not, then "teaching them a lesson" will do no good except give you the vicarous satisfaction of destroying someone's game before getting kicked out, and likely ruining the game for the other players who accepted the restriction.

In all fairness there is the right way to do the wrong thing. If the DM banned PrC because he thought they were overpowered then playing a straight druid for a single session and then pointing how powerful that was, explaining that PrC do not automatically = brokeness, and it might actually end well.

Yahzi
2010-07-30, 02:30 PM
But he's banning all prestige classes. I don't think you can claim it's for flavor without banning a few of the base classes too
Well, it depends. Maybe he's found a place for all the base classes in his world (the knights live over there, the ninjas live on an island) but hasn't figured out how to work Green Star Adepts into his world.

Although, to be honest, I agree with you. In my world the only classes that exist are 3.0 Core, and not even all of the prestige classes, and no Monks. (Well... I do allow 3.5 Rangers).

Of course my players rebelled so I let them have whatever classes & PRcs they wanted. Then I upped all the encounters a level or two. /shrug The NPCs pretended they were just Fighters or Clerics with a few odd magic items/powers.

But the next game I run is going to be hard-core Core. No splat at all! And it's going to be great.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-30, 02:31 PM
EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."
In that case, yeah, I'm a 1 or 2--if I can express a character how I want without jumping through all the hoops, the PrCs themselves can take a long walk off a short pier.
This. I'm doing a lot of agreeing with Dice in this thread.

Yahzi
2010-07-30, 02:32 PM
And how does banning a significant resource for character customization means the DM's world is not generic?
Arg.

Role-playing is really not about how many different combat maneuvers you have.

Characters are customized by their histories, their choices, and their actions. Not by how they kill people.

Boci
2010-07-30, 02:33 PM
Well, it depends. Maybe he's found a place for all the base classes in his world (the knights live over there, the ninjas live on an island) but hasn't figured out how to work Green Star Adepts into his world.

Wow, yeah, that really isn't generic.


Arg.

Role-playing is really not about how many different combat maneuvers you have.

Characters are customized by their histories, their choices, and their actions. Not by how they kill people.

But more versatile mechanics leads itself to better roleplay. Besides, you have not answered my question. How does banning PrC make a world less generic?

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-30, 02:44 PM
Well, it depends. Maybe he's found a place for all the base classes in his world (the knights live over there, the ninjas live on an island) but hasn't figured out how to work Green Star Adepts into his world.

Just saying, I would play with no PrCs, but I would never play with a DM would enforced classes being part of an organization or nationality. Classes are meta-game constructs. To play otherwise is paradoxical.


Although, to be honest, I agree with you. In my world the only classes that exist are 3.0 Core, and not even all of the prestige classes, and no Monks. (Well... I do allow 3.5 Rangers).
...Why 3.0? :smallconfused:


Of course my players rebelled so I let them have whatever classes & PRcs they wanted. Then I upped all the encounters a level or two. /shrug The NPCs pretended they were just Fighters or Clerics with a few odd magic items/powers.
Or, instead of having to put everyone into categories, the characters could be people, and you wouldn't need to worry about what the NPCs thought they were.



But the next game I run is going to be hard-core Core. No splat at all! And it's going to be great.
Good for you, I'm currently playing in a core only PF game, but my question is why? Why core only? And 3.0 core for that matter?:smallconfused:


Arg.

Role-playing is really not about how many different combat maneuvers you have.

Characters are customized by their histories, their choices, and their actions. Not by how they kill people.

This is a Fallacy of a Stormwindian nature! (Stormwind Fallacy, optimization does not lead to poor roleplaying)
EDIT: As I have been corrected, not Stormwind, but it's still not true.
More mechanical options does not lead to poor roleplaying.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-30, 02:48 PM
This is a Fallacy of a Stormwindian nature! (Stormwind Fallacy, optimization does not lead to poor roleplaying)

I'm not sure it is. He's saying that characters are customized by how you develop them. As far as I could tell he wasn't saying that optimization affected the roleplaying in any way.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-30, 02:49 PM
But more versatile mechanics leads itself to better roleplay. Besides, you have not answered my question. How does banning PrC make a world less generic?

It'd depend on how heavily you weight the difference between homogenity and generic-ness. I'm reminded of a quote from The Incredibles from the villain - 'when everyone is super, no one will be'. Along that same line, a campaign or game where there are no PrCs would, indeed, be very unusual and non-generic compared to the broad body of games, though internally, its residents/characters would be much more likely to be similar or generic to each other.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-30, 02:51 PM
I'm not sure it is. He's saying that characters are customized by how you develop them. As far as I could tell he wasn't saying that optimization affected the roleplaying in any way.

Similar stuff though. He suggests that having more combat maneuvers/options impedes your ability to roleplay characters effectively.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-30, 02:55 PM
Invoking Stormwind when it's not the actual Fallacy is probably a bad idea; it is, in itself, an Appeal to Authority (I think). I've done it myself too many times, really.

Yes, it's related, and I have little doubt that Stormwind himself would agree, but it's not covered by the Fallacy, which is important because the Fallacy is logically incorrect, as opposed to just something you (and I) disagree with. Even if someone is wrong, being wrong is not necessarily the same as being fallacious.


Anyway, yeah, I consider having unique mechanics is an important part of having a unique character. I'm not satisfied playing the classes straight, because it feels too much like playing someone else's character. Classes I've designed myself, of course, are an exception. But mostly, I like my characters to be different, to be a bit odd-ball, to take class features in a different direction than they were intended, because to me that is original, as opposed to just taking the class as-is. Obviously, I realize no one is actually playing Ember or Miyalee or whatever - there's more than enough opportunity to create a unique character through backstory and personality, even with absolute stock-standard mechanics, but... it just doesn't interest me as much. I want both.

Boci
2010-07-30, 02:55 PM
It'd depend on how heavily you weight the difference between homogenity and generic-ness. I'm reminded of a quote from The Incredibles from the villain - 'when everyone is super, no one will be'. Along that same line, a campaign or game where there are no PrCs would, indeed, be very unusual and non-generic compared to the broad body of games, though internally, its residents/characters would be much more likely to be similar or generic to each other.

Sorry, just not seeing it. From a metagaming aspect its a non-generic world, but beyond that, nothing. Its like when I banned all core classes. That move in itself did not make my game any less generic.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-30, 02:59 PM
Invoking Stormwind when it's not the actual Fallacy is probably a bad idea; it is, in itself, an Appeal to Authority (I think). I've done it myself too many times, really.

Yes, it's related, and I have little doubt that Stormwind himself would agree, but it's not covered by the Fallacy, which is important because the Fallacy is logically incorrect, as opposed to just something you (and I) disagree with. Even if someone is wrong, being wrong is not necessarily the same as being fallacious.
True Dat. It's very similar, but not actually correct. I'll edit my post.

Tetsubo 57
2010-07-30, 02:59 PM
I've never been a huge fan of PrCs. If I were playing Pathfinder I would go either straight Monk or Sorcerer.

Emmerask
2010-07-30, 02:59 PM
Similar stuff though. He suggests that having more combat maneuvers/options impedes your ability to roleplay characters effectively.

Not at all. He is not saying that it impedes roleplay ability at all, he is saying that it doesn´t matter compared to other character customizations like backstory or decisions during play :smallwink:

Snake-Aes
2010-07-30, 03:00 PM
Not at all. He is not saying that it impedes roleplay ability at all, he is saying that it doesn´t matter compared to other character customizations like backstory or decisions during play :smallwink:

Dissociating Fluff from Mechanic means Fluff should never be a reason to ban or encourage a PrC.

Flickerdart
2010-07-30, 03:01 PM
5: Only if the Tome of Battle is in. Otherwise, melee becomes incapable of contributing even moreso than usual.

Boci
2010-07-30, 03:04 PM
EDIT: As I have been corrected, not Stormwind, but it's still not true.
More mechanical options does not lead to poor roleplaying.

I think most of us can agree with this. Whilst role-playing is not just about how many different combat maneuvers you have, it does involve a certain aspects of that.

OzymandiasVolt
2010-07-30, 03:16 PM
I'd go with 2. Sure, I'll miss the variety offered by PrCs, but I can make due with the seriously-reduced-but-still-quite-respectable variety of base classes.

However, I'm not going to pretend that this doesn't hit Melee characters really hard. Because it totally does.

Ashiel
2010-07-30, 03:21 PM
Since I mostly play Pathfinder these days, I'd definitely pick 2 and 5 (using TinyDwarfMan's #5); since core classes get lots of fun powers even at high levels (and with open Pathfinder's freedom with skills and multiclassing it makes it far easier to get a character concept going without a lot of complexity); and also because I'd want to know why on earth he would be allowing gestalting (which is in no way balanced) and stuff like that without allowing prestige classes.

Iferus
2010-07-30, 03:26 PM
I would think it is a useless limitation, but it would not limit my ability to express myself and have fun.

As long as I can play something moderately powerful, I'm happy. I've played a straight crusader for two years, and there are many more builds I would like to play that do not need PrC's.

Dr.Epic
2010-07-30, 03:29 PM
I guess I would. Half the time the campaign doesn't even last long enough for me to enter a PrC.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-07-30, 09:10 PM
I guess I would. Half the time the campaign doesn't even last long enough for me to enter a PrC.
Ain't that the sad truth. :smallfrown:



Its true. I would probably warn them first that I was about to demonstrate the epic fail of their banning strategy. If they continue to believe that it is a good idea, they deserve to have their campaign hammered by shapeshift wielding tier 1s.
Actually, I sympathize with your passive aggression. In the past, I've had to restrain myself from shattering naive ideas of game balance, for the sake of letting others have their fun. And yes, one situation involved ToB.


If this was done right (which I very much doubt it could be), it would be great. I like point-buy systems, the ability to pick and choose abilities from different PrCs without the pre-reqs would be awesome. Unfortunately, as I said before, it's not really feasible, and I'd much rather play in a streamlined system.
You mean, the huge hassle of translating all PrCs into feats/class features makes it unfeasible? Or the home brew nature of the idea makes it too open to argument? Or something else?


If I could play This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133737) and the DM didn't arbitrarily make me fall then I wouldn't care as I wouldn't want to PRC out anyway.
Your DM also says "I don't care about BS codes and alignment restrictions. Play your character, not your class."

Machiavellian
2010-07-30, 09:11 PM
2. I used to play in a Kalamak campaign where I was a Half-Hobgoblin Gladiator. A true blast!

Mystic Muse
2010-07-30, 09:15 PM
Your DM also says "I don't care about BS codes and alignment restrictions. Play your character, not your class."

Okay, Then 2 with the added statement of "However, if taking away PRCs takes away fun from the other players you probably shouldn't do it."

9mm
2010-08-04, 08:46 PM
If your DM told you "I won't enforce multiclassing penalties, and you can play any base classe/s and class variants you want to, and heck, you might even talk me into gestalt. But there will be no PrCs." Would you play?

1. Heck yeah! Finally, a campaign with a manageable number of options!
2. Yeah, sure. I'm just here to have fun.
3. Yeah, but just because you're my DM.
4. Heck no! PrCs are where the game is at! Especially the fun higher levels!
5. I'm a special snowflake.

EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."

I'd answer with 2, and pray to the deities for me not to get another character idea that involve 2 prcs or more.

AslanCross
2010-08-04, 08:58 PM
5: Only if the Tome of Battle is in. Otherwise, melee becomes incapable of contributing even moreso than usual.

Same here. I'm ok with no PRCs, but if it's Core only, no.

Set
2010-08-04, 09:00 PM
Heck yeah. I never liked PrCs (especially when they became so *not* prestigeous that there were five times more of them than core classes...).

I'd love to see various PrC abilities available as feats (perhaps at the end of feat chains, for the really sexy ones), 'though, and would totally approve of some of these feats only being available through setting-specific organizations or whatnot.

Where I don't mind PrCs so much is when they are brief. One to three levels long, is best. If you've got a 10 level PrC, and 7 of the 10 levels are 'advance spellcasting ability' or 'advance sneak attack,' then why the heck isn't this a three level PrC, if so much of it just advances the abilities of a core class you coul have been advancing directly?

mjames
2010-08-04, 09:14 PM
I'm going with the "i'm here for fun" answer.

Although, I would need classes from all the books. No way is the DM taking away my Swashbuckler or Dread Necromancer.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-04, 09:38 PM
I'd go further. You can only multiclass between TWO classes.

Hey, I played AD&D like that for years. My friends would even suggest NO multiclass at al, since they played the original one. You don't need complex multiclass/PrC mix-ups to make an enjoyable game.

So, number 2.

That is bad memory because AD&D never limited you to 2 classes.
AD&D let you triple multiclass at minimum: Fighter/Mage/Thiefs were allowed if you forgot.
Heck, Human Fighter + Theif+ Mage dual class works just as well. You'd need 15 Str, 17 Dex, and 17 int, but possible.

Ozymandias9
2010-08-05, 06:24 AM
Just saying, I would play with no PrCs, but I would never play with a DM would enforced classes being part of an organization or nationality. Classes are meta-game constructs. To play otherwise is paradoxical.

While I certainly see treating classes as a purely meta-game concept as a valid avenue of play, I don't see how doing otherwise is paradoxical. Would you care to elaborate? It's a particular line of though I don't recall having seen before, and the topic in general intrigues me.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-08-05, 07:33 AM
If your DM told you "I won't enforce multiclassing penalties, and you can play any base classe/s and class variants you want to, and heck, you might even talk me into gestalt. But there will be no PrCs." Would you play?

1. Heck yeah! Finally, a campaign with a manageable number of options!
2. Yeah, sure. I'm just here to have fun.
3. Yeah, but just because you're my DM.
4. Heck no! PrCs are where the game is at! Especially the fun higher levels!
5. I'm a special snowflake.

EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."

I'd be irritated if a DM enforced multiclassing penalties normally, so that won't be factored in for me.

With the edit I'd say 2, organisations and such can be taken care of by roleplay, I just want the cool abilities.

Without the edit I'd ask why, the answer could put me on 3 or 4. 2 is also an option if the answer is satisfactory and the game is gestalt.

Yora
2010-08-05, 07:39 AM
I almost never have Characters with PrCs. When I'm the dm, I usually play with people who are rather new to the game and haven't looked inside a single splatbook ever, so they have never come up in any of my games.

Roderick_BR
2010-08-05, 12:37 PM
That is bad memory because AD&D never limited you to 2 classes.
AD&D let you triple multiclass at minimum: Fighter/Mage/Thiefs were allowed if you forgot.
Heck, Human Fighter + Theif+ Mage dual class works just as well. You'd need 15 Str, 17 Dex, and 17 int, but possible.
I'm aware, but multiclass was a weird rule, seeing as you started with all the abilities of 2 or 3 classes at level 1.
And the actual dual classing rules made no sense at all, though it was the base for 3.x multiclass.
Anyway, if your elf started as wizard, he would remain a wizard, he would never become a wizard/thief, wizard/fighter, or wizard/cleric. A human fighter could become a fighter/wizard, but as I said, the rules where weird.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-05, 03:49 PM
I'd be happy to see them go.

1. The web of prerequisites can make character generation a fun puzzle to tinker with in your off-time, but it makes gameplay prohibitively fiddly. It means players need to do homework, not just to build an interesting character, but to build a mechanically effective character, as well. Any change that reduces the complexity and planning of character building is a good thing. [Yeah, this changes when you go to an internet forum and there are a hundred people who build characters over and over again for fun; I think I've met about 2 people who actually like to deal with this, though.]

2. Bringing more books to the table, more sections to read through, slows everything down at the table. Someone playing a Barbarian needs to look at one page to get a good idea of everything they're able to do. Someone playing a Barbarian/Hellreaver/Frenzied Berserker has three books to dig through and multiple effects from each in play.

3. Most PrC's are utter garbage. The fact that a handful might help with balance issues, doesn't change the fact that there are probably four Knight Protector-style PrC's for every one Telflammar Shadowlord. The sheer number of 3.5 Order of the Bow Initiates, Bladesingers and Duelists I've seen tells me that PrC's have little to no effect on actually dealing with 3.X's balance issues.

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-05, 10:16 PM
If your DM told you "I won't enforce multiclassing penalties, and you can play any base classe/s and class variants you want to, and heck, you might even talk me into gestalt. But there will be no PrCs." Would you play?

1. Heck yeah! Finally, a campaign with a manageable number of options!
2. Yeah, sure. I'm just here to have fun.
3. Yeah, but just because you're my DM.
4. Heck no! PrCs are where the game is at! Especially the fun higher levels!
5. I'm a special snowflake.

EDIT: Since rationale is important to many folks, your DM explains "I don't allow PrCs because I don't like pointless prereqs; so if you ask I'll make PrC features available as feats and/or class variants."I'll pick 2. And you can keep your multi-classing penalties and screw gestalt. But...

I want a campaign where the full progression caster classes are limited to Core, and that means no variants and no optional rules as well, while all other classes are not. This will go a long way towards limiting caster cheese. And while it does not keep those full casting classes from being highly potent, it will keep in play the various attempts to add to the melee classes. ToB, for example.

In a world where a PC Wizard can't be a Grey Elf and get +2 INT, things tend to balance out a bit better. In a world where Abrupt Jaunt does not exist, where there is not another +1 to DC due to a racial INT bonus, etc., then the non-casting options start to look better.

And if all else fails, it at least adds a huge amount of flavor to non-casting classes, and thus makes them interesting enough to take over the option of a Core Wizard, Druid, or Priest.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 10:26 PM
I want a campaign where the full progression caster classes are limited to Core, and that means no variants and no optional rules as well, while all other classes are not.

a PC Wizard can't be a Grey Elf and get +2 INT, things tend to balance out a bit better.

Er, grey elf is core. It's not a variant or optional rule, it's right there in the monster manual.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-08-05, 10:44 PM
Er, grey elf is core. It's not a variant or optional rule, it's right there in the monster manual.
I think by "optional" he means "outside of the PHB."


I'll pick 2. And you can keep your multi-classing penalties and screw gestalt. But...

I want a campaign where the full progression caster classes are limited to Core, and that means no variants and no optional rules as well, while all other classes are not. This will go a long way towards limiting caster cheese. And while it does not keep those full casting classes from being highly potent, it will keep in play the various attempts to add to the melee classes. ToB, for example.

In a world where a PC Wizard can't be a Grey Elf and get +2 INT, things tend to balance out a bit better. In a world where Abrupt Jaunt does not exist, where there is not another +1 to DC due to a racial INT bonus, etc., then the non-casting options start to look better.

And if all else fails, it at least adds a huge amount of flavor to non-casting classes, and thus makes them interesting enough to take over the option of a Core Wizard, Druid, or Priest.
Nevertheless, I'm a bit confused by all this. +2 stat restriction, banning some of the more balanced caster variants (spontaneous divine, shape shifting druids)...not something I'm interested in.

And multiclassing penalties? That's not even one of those rules I use as a bargaining chip; I just can't be bothered to micromanage like that.

togapika
2010-08-06, 01:42 AM
#2 Especially if he was running Pathfinder, because then I would just go Alchemist 20!

Akal Saris
2010-08-06, 02:11 AM
5: Only if the Tome of Battle is in. Otherwise, melee becomes incapable of contributing even moreso than usual.

Oh, please. If this hypothetical DM were banning PrCs, of course the ToB is banned too :smalltongue:

Personally, I'd play if the DM was a friend. I like playing swift hunters (ranger/scout) and daring outlaws (rogue/swashbuckler), so there are at least 2 viable multiclass builds I'd be interested in. Or as mentioned earlier, straight druid is fun.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-06, 02:39 AM
Nevertheless, I'm a bit confused by all this. +2 stat restriction, banning some of the more balanced caster variants (spontaneous divine, shape shifting druids)...not something I'm interested in.

And multiclassing penalties? That's not even one of those rules I use as a bargaining chip; I just can't be bothered to micromanage like that.

I know, right? Even looking at phb races and classes, there are ways to get +2 to a casting stat. And hey, everyone can age to get more, if they want. Im a bit confused as to what he's after.

And I've never, ever seen anyone use multiclassing penalties in an actual game. Those only hurt non-optimizers anyway. It's not like you can't break the game with a core only human wizard. Hi, I fly, stop time, cast wish, and otherwise make reality subject to my will. I hear you hit things with a sword a lot. Seems balanced.

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-07, 06:39 PM
Er, grey elf is core. It's not a variant or optional rule, it's right there in the monster manual.Thank you for making my point for me. It is right there in the monster manual. Not the PHB. Also note the text regarding New Races in the DMG (My bolds for emphasis):

You can give your players new race options by either using creatures from the Monster Manual or new creatures of your own design. In either case, handle this radical change to the campaign with care.
The presence of these rules in the DMG and the use of the word "can", along with the discussion of "customizing" the campaign in the main Races header, and the many repetitions of cautionary text about allowing non-standard races at all, clearly makes the use of monster races as PC races an optional rule.

So while the Grey Elf may be a Core monster, it is not at all a Core player race except through GM permission. And it's pure cheese. There is not a single backstory that you could apply to a Grey Elf which could not be also applied to a PHB Elf. The Grey Elf is selected for the +2 INT alone, and Arcane casters do not need another +1 to their spell DC and more spells and skills. Seriously.

And multiclassing penalties? That's not even one of those rules I use as a bargaining chip; I just can't be bothered to micromanage like that.When many CharOp builds dip into 6+ classes, the EXP penalty is a perfectly legitimate "bargaining chip." And it is RAW, so why remove it? Math is not hard, and the burden can be placed on the character to apply the penalty. Any player capable of CharOp exercises stringing together bits and pieces of a half dozen classes should be quite capable of taking care of that chore...

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-07, 06:59 PM
And hey, everyone can age to get more, if they want.Yeah, more cheese. While choosing your starting age is right there in the PHB, so is rolling it randomly. Eliminating the "I'm a caster and I want to be even more overpowered, so I'm an old caster" is just a basic change to the rules. Sort of like disallowing PRCs, as this thread topic points out.

And no, all the changes I listed don't remove the ability of a starting Wizard who rolled a 14 INT from becoming like unto a God once she gets access to 5th or so level spells. They just help a bit, and they tend to cheese off the players who min-max their characters to try to break the campaign as early as possible. Really balancing things requires such extensive modifications to 3.5 that you're really playing a completely different game which is loosely based upon D&D 3.5.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-07, 07:44 PM
PrCs do not equal power. Seriously, they just don't. Some PrCs are more powerful than their entry classes would be otherwise, but most aren't.

In a game where a Core, single-classed Cleric, Druid, or Wizard can utterly and completely break the game into itty-bitty pieces in a thousand different ways, what do you hope to accomplish by limiting player creativity by banning certain characters (e.g. old ones) or certain unique features (e.g. PrCs; note that "unique" does not equal "powerful", and PrCs and multiclassing often allow far greater customizability of characters than simple base classes)? I just don't understand the purpose of doing so.

thompur
2010-08-07, 08:15 PM
Played 24 years without 'em. Don't need 'em now. so ...2.

molten_dragon
2010-08-07, 09:27 PM
It most likely wouldn't bother me, as I generally have lots of character concepts in my head at any given time. Most likely one of them is achievable without prestige classes.

MattintheHat
2010-08-07, 09:39 PM
Most definitely. Granted, in 3.x, I'm usually playing in that sweet spot right around when you can start taking PrCs, so it's not that big of a deal if you can't. They really aren't necessary between levels 4 and 10.

Yahzi
2010-08-08, 01:15 AM
Classes are meta-game constructs. To play otherwise is paradoxical.
You would find the World of Prime quite perplexing, then. :smallbiggrin:


...Why 3.0? :smallconfused:
Because those are the books I own, and those are the rules I wrote hundreds of pages of world description to.
:smalltongue:

More mechanical options does not lead to poor roleplaying.
I didn't mean to imply that. I just meant that more mechanical options are a burden on the DM. Whereas a limited number of mechanics might allow the DM to build a more consistent, thought-out world.

Face it, with unlimited PRCs, your players are going to break your world. They are going to create characters that are vastly more powerful than their levels imply, and they might even do crazy stuff like PunPun. Then you'll have to ban-hammer them out of self-defense, and that's no fun.

I think it's better to lay better ground rules in the beginning, and then let the players loose.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-08, 01:30 AM
Yeah, more cheese. While choosing your starting age is right there in the PHB, so is rolling it randomly. Eliminating the "I'm a caster and I want to be even more overpowered, so I'm an old caster" is just a basic change to the rules. Sort of like disallowing PRCs, as this thread topic points out.

And no, all the changes I listed don't remove the ability of a starting Wizard who rolled a 14 INT from becoming like unto a God once she gets access to 5th or so level spells. They just help a bit, and they tend to cheese off the players who min-max their characters to try to break the campaign as early as possible. Really balancing things requires such extensive modifications to 3.5 that you're really playing a completely different game which is loosely based upon D&D 3.5.

You know which of your rules stop a level 1 wizard from using fell drained no-save spells to instagib CR 1 monsters?

None of them.

You're not really balancing, you just have an apparently hatred of people who pump their casting stat. Yeah...thats only a footnote on the ways to gain caster power.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-08, 01:40 AM
So while the Grey Elf may be a Core monster, it is not at all a Core player race except through GM permission. And it's pure cheese. There is not a single backstory that you could apply to a Grey Elf which could not be also applied to a PHB Elf.

I'm an elf wizard(my classes favored race), far from my homelands, seeking adventure and magical power. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

It's a core player race, since it's a player race, and it's in core. Core is more than the phb, sorry. Sure, you can opt not to play with them if you wish. That doesn't make them non-core.

Minor racial variants can play into a backstory, but they don't dominate it.


The Grey Elf is selected for the +2 INT alone, and Arcane casters do not need another +1 to their spell DC and more spells and skills. Seriously.
When many CharOp builds dip into 6+ classes, the EXP penalty is a perfectly legitimate "bargaining chip." And it is RAW, so why remove it? Math is not hard, and the burden can be placed on the character to apply the penalty. Any player capable of CharOp exercises stringing together bits and pieces of a half dozen classes should be quite capable of taking care of that chore...

Fail. First off, it doesn't apply to PrCs. Secondly, preferred classes are exempt. As are classes that are within a level of each other. The penalty is remarkably easy to avoid in char op. You don't even need to try. Seriously, how many different builds involve enough base classes, and incur the penalty? I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. Char Op almost invariably ends up focusing on specific aspects of a build and amplifying those. You can optimize the hell out of a wizard 20.

No, it hurts those poor chumps who actually take three levels of wizard, then see the mystic theurge class, go "oooh", and take three levels of cleric, while playing a race that isn't especially good for either. Those people are already suboptimal, and they're the ones you're penalizing.

Roc Ness
2010-08-08, 02:16 AM
5. Only if the DM is flexible on Rule of Cool stuff.

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-08, 08:58 AM
You know which of your rules stop a level 1 wizard from using fell drained no-save spells to instagib CR 1 monsters?

None of them.You must have missed the "Core only" part of my "rules." What the heck is a "Fell drained" spell? No-save I understand, but a quick perusal of the 1st level Core spell list shows that MM is about the only one which does not also require a touch attack (ranged or melee). And thus, is not a guaranteed "instagib."

And for the record, I see nothing wrong with a 1st level caster killing a CR 1 monster. Last I checked, that was kinda the right thing for them to be up against. And their Core spell list is amply suited to either killing outright or inflicting several varieties of SOS effects upon them. 1st level Fighters also do well against CR 1 monsters, and there's nothing wrong with that, either.

The issue begins when the Wizard decides that being on relatively equal footing with the Fighter at 1st level, even with the foreknowledge that in a half dozen more levels the Wizard will be far, far ahead of his Fighter friend due to the quadratic/linear nature of their respective progressions, isn't enough. When this Wizard decides that min-maxing a dozen splat books and optional rules to jump start this inevitable effect is the only way for them to "enjoy" (read: ruin) the game, even when it comes at the expense of every other player, that's when it becomes wrong.


You're not really balancing, you just have an apparently hatred of people who pump their casting stat. Yeah...thats only a footnote on the ways to gain caster power.Hatred? You're really reading into this, aren't you? I think you've missed my point entirely, and it's probably because you see nothing at all wrong with accelerating the ultimate dysfunction of the game. I'd prefer to see that dysfunction delayed for a long as is possible, and if this means saying "no" when a player asks if they can choose the monster manual race Grey Elf for their Wizard, when the sole reason for selecting that race over the PHB Elf is for the +2 INT adjustment, I see this as a very reasonable decision. Your point of view seems to be "It's gonna happen anyway (as per your "thats only a footnote on the ways to gain caster power" quote above), so why not pull out all the stops and just watch?" You seem to feel that any attempt to delay the inevitable is by definition an unreasonable attempt, and I have a hard time understanding that point of view.

Boci
2010-08-08, 09:13 AM
Hatred? You're really reading into this, aren't you? I think you've missed my point entirely, and it's probably because you see nothing at all wrong with accelerating the ultimate dysfunction of the game. I'd prefer to see that dysfunction delayed for a long as is possible, and if this means saying "no" when a player asks if they can choose the monster manual race Grey Elf for their Wizard, when the sole reason for selecting that race over the PHB Elf is for the +2 INT adjustment, I see this as a very reasonable decision. Your point of view seems to be "It's gonna happen anyway (as per your "thats only a footnote on the ways to gain caster power" quote above), so why not pull out all the stops and just watch?" You seem to feel that any attempt to delay the inevitable is by definition an unreasonable attempt, and I have a hard time understanding that point of view.

Kinda like putting a plaster on a slashed artery: it does so little to help why bother? Might be different in core but even then grease requires a DC: 10 balance check, ray of exhaustion makes them fatigued even on a successful save, solid fog doesn't allow a save and neither does fly + invisibility.
Compared to a fighters ability to hit things with their weapon.

Core only may limit a wizards options, but it also limits melee, and the latter need extra stuff a lot more.


You would find the World of Prime quite perplexing, then. :smallbiggrin:

Care to elaborate. Do you mean to say that fighters know they have taken the class "fighter"?


Because those are the books I own, and those are the rules I wrote hundreds of pages of world description to.
:smalltongue:

Core 3.5 is avilable online and as for world descriptions, isn't that fluff?


Face it, with unlimited PRCs, your players are going to break your world. They are going to create characters that are vastly more powerful than their levels imply, and they might even do crazy stuff like PunPun. Then you'll have to ban-hammer them out of self-defense, and that's no fun.

Not with a simple house rule: "Being a jerk will result in a warning. An ignored warning will lead to rock falls".
And on a side note, Pun-Pun doesn't require any PrC.

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-08, 09:41 AM
I'm an elf wizard(my classes favored race), far from my homelands, seeking adventure and magical power. Yadda, yadda, yadda,.I'm assuming this is your attempt to "justify" the +2 INT adjustment for the Gray Elf monster race, even though you just listed elf above? If so, you have completely failed to provide any reason why this exact same "yadda, yadda, yadda" can not apply to the PHB Elf, as was my point. The selection of the Gray Elf is purely for mechanical reasons, and adds nothing to role play. Petition denied.

It's a core player race, since it's a player race, and it's in core. Core is more than the phb, sorry. Sure, you can opt not to play with them if you wish. That doesn't make them non-core.First, the player races are listed quite clearly in the PHB. No race not so listed is by default a "player race." Here is a quote from the PHB which should clear this up for you, under the header "Choose your class and race":
The races, described in Chapter 2, are human, dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-elf, and half-orc.Did you see Gray Elf listed in there? I did not. Thus it is not an option for when you "Choose your class and race" during character creation.
Second, you have the "opt" rather backwards there. The "opt" defaults to "no", so it is not that the GM can "opt not" to allow his players to select monster races. It is instead that the GM can "opt to" allow monster races as player options. But unless he does so, your "opt"ions during character creation are those in the PHB.

No, [EXP penalty] hurts those poor chumps who actually take three levels of wizard, then see the mystic theurge class, go "oooh", and take three levels of cleric, while playing a race that isn't especially good for either. Those people are already suboptimal, and they're the ones you're penalizing.But wait, why would any player choose a race that isn't good at either? The PHB races offers 3 out of 7, almost fully half, races who don't have to worry about an EXP penalty for being a Mystic Theurge at all. So now you seem to be saying that rules intended to slow down full progression casters only hurt all the "poor chumps" who just don't know how to min-max their characters anyway. That any attempt to allow your character to quickly gain ascendancy over theirs is misguided because they suffer for it.

Your position appears to be able to be summed up as thus: "Don't make any attempt to slow me down, because poor Joe over there, who didn't even pick a race with the favored class of Wizard, much less ask you if he could play a Gray Elf, and who will be building his character based upon nearly random or otherwise ill-informed selections (aka Mystic Theurge) will just suck even more compared to me if you try." If this is indeed your position, do you realize just how condescending it sounds?

Boci
2010-08-08, 09:59 AM
I'm assuming this is your attempt to "justify" the +2 INT adjustment for the Gray Elf monster race, even though you just listed elf above? If so, you have completely failed to provide any reason why this exact same "yadda, yadda, yadda" can not apply to the PHB Elf, as was my point. The selection of the Gray Elf is purely for mechanical reasons, and adds nothing to role play. Petition denied.

The elves noticed that a certain mutation in their blood line known as the grey gene reduces physical combat capabilities by increases aptitude for magic, thus bearers of such genes are disproportionally common in arcane acedemy graduates.



Second, you have the "opt" rather backwards there. The "opt" defaults to "no", so it is not that the GM can "opt not" to allow his players to select monster races. It is instead that the GM can "opt to" allow monster races as player options. But unless he does so, your "opt"ions during character creation are those in the PHB.

Ireelivant. I'm not sure you can prove that statement and even if you could it means nothing. How WotC intended the game to be played does not matter. The point remains that grey elf is core, whether or not it needs to be specificially okayed or specifically banned.


Your position appears to be able to be summed up as thus: "Don't make any attempt to slow me down, because poor Joe over there, who didn't even pick a race with the favored class of Wizard, much less ask you if he could play a Gray Elf, and who will be building his character based upon nearly random or otherwise ill-informed selections (aka Mystic Theurge) will just suck even more compared to me if you try." If this is indeed your position, do you realize just how condescending it sounds?

Elven fighter 2 / rogue 5. Why should he have multiclass penalties?

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-08, 10:02 AM
Kinda like putting a plaster on a slashed artery: it does so little to help why bother?That's a rather defeatist attitude. You try because may make things better, just like the paramedic tries to save the person with life threatening injuries because they may pull through. You try because if you succeed against slim odds, you've won.

Might be different in core but even then grease requires a DC: 10 balance check [...]Tell that the the last mini-boss my group fought. A Wizard. He stood in my Grease for it's full duration (4 rounds) and never fell. He also shrugged off every other spell I cast, and every Bard spell as well. A couple of the Druid spells got through, but I digress.

Compared to a fighters ability to hit things with their weapon.No argument here. I only ask "Why should a GM, understanding that casters are already OP, allow a Wizard to select the monster race Gray Elf when the only reason for this selection is to bump their spell DC, spells cast, and skill points?"

Core only may limit a wizards options, but it also limits melee, and the latter need extra stuff a lot more.You missed my suggestion. I suggested limiting all full casting progression classes to Core only, and allowing all other classes whatever the GM decides to allow from the wealth of splat books available. And I admitted that this does not keep full casting progression classes from dominating, but allowed the other classes a lot of flavor and some splats (ToB) that offer them more balance through more levels than Core does.

Boci
2010-08-08, 10:06 AM
That's a rather defeatist attitude. You try because may make things better, just like the paramedic tries to save the person with life threatening injuries because they may pull through. You try because if you succeed against slim odds, you've won.

But you try differently than banning grey elf. Try banning core classes, except for dips.


Tell that the the last mini-boss my group fought. A Wizard. He stood in my Grease for it's full duration (4 rounds) and never fell.

And? One monster was either well equipt to deal with the spell or got lucky. That proves nothing. Against a lot of monsters greace is a 50% chance to not be able to move.

Kish
2010-08-08, 10:14 AM
Care to elaborate. Do you mean to say that fighters know they have taken the class "fighter"?Try phrasing it the other way around. That is, if classes are "metagame constructs"...

...does that mean clerics either somehow don't know that they are priests, or don't know that priests can cast spells and turn/rebuke undead? Are there large numbers of "priests" who aren't actually clerics and who aren't immediately treated as charlatans if they admit they have no spellcasting abilities? That certainly isn't the case in any published setting I know of. A character might not know that she's a fighter rather than a warrior, but she's going to know a bard from a druid, and either of them from a wizard.

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-08, 10:15 AM
The elves noticed that a certain mutation in their blood line known as the grey gene reduces physical combat capabilities by increases aptitude for magic, thus bearers of such genes are disproportionally common in arcane acedemy graduates.This can also be applied the PHB elf. It is not a role playing story which refuses any other option, it is a "roll playing" story which justifies a mechanical advantage.

Here is a role play (simple) backstory: "The elf family line of ArilouLalee'lay, examined over their long and illustrious history, has had no members of any renown who were not Wizards. Noting this, there is a large amount of pressure placed upon every young member of this family to engage in Arcane studies. Thus my PC, Jim ArilouLalee'lay, is an Elf Wizard due to both racial preference and familial pressures."

Your story also requires GM buy-in, as things such as "racial mutations" and references to "genes" are rather outside the scope of what the player is allowed to simply presume applies to the game world.

Boci
2010-08-08, 10:17 AM
This can also be applied the PHB elf. It is not a role playing story which refuses any other option, it is a "roll playing" story which justifies a mechanical advantage.

Never said it was anything else.


Your story also requires GM buy-in, as things such as "racial mutations" and references to "genes" are rather outside the scope of what the player is allowed to simply presume applies to the game world.

Its just refluffing it changes nothing.

Kish
2010-08-08, 10:21 AM
It just refluffing. Doesn't change anything.
I have to disagree. For starters, it changes a subrace to a genetic mutation. Then, if "bearers of such genes are disproportionately common in arcane academy graduates," I would blink at "non-grey" elves still having "wizard" as their favored class.

Boci
2010-08-08, 10:29 AM
I have to disagree. For starters, it changes a subrace to a genetic mutation.

Which affects the game how exactly?


Then, if "bearers of such genes are disproportionately common in arcane academy graduates," I would blink at "non-grey" elves still having "wizard" as their favored class.

If 5% of an elven city are grey elves, wouldn't you expect the number of grey elves to graduate from the fighters academy to be less than 5% and the number of grey elves to graduate from the arcane academy to be more than 5%?


A character might not know that she's a fighter rather than a warrior, but she's going to know a bard from a druid, and either of them from a wizard.

Obviously, because they can tell the difference based on their abilities. But a wizard 3 / fighter 1, all they know is that its a wizard with above average martial capabilities.

ClockworkKnight
2010-08-08, 10:49 AM
As a DM, I generally do not allow PrCs or multi classing due to rules headaches and game balance.

It often depends on the player, if they want to take a PrC to make their character overpowered and to have access to all manner of overpowered feats and skills, then no. If a player is willing to work with me, then I'll consider making PrC features available as feats or class variants.

I run a home brew world of Gaslight and most PrC have no place in it. Same goes for some classes.

Kish
2010-08-08, 12:07 PM
Which affects the game how exactly?

...You're right. No one treats being of a different race as meaningfully different than having a different eye color in real life. I don't know what I was thinking.


If 5% of an elven city are grey elves, wouldn't you expect the number of grey elves to graduate from the fighters academy to be less than 5% and the number of grey elves to graduate from the arcane academy to be more than 5%?



Obviously, because they can tell the difference based on their abilities. But a wizard 3 / fighter 1, all they know is that its a wizard with above average martial capabilities.
...

Make up your mind, are there academies that train classes or aren't there? Not that I agree that no one would observe a difference between--for example--"trained in using a couple dozen weapons and all armor with a focus on physical combat as a primary or sole means of fighting" vs. "trained in four weapons and no armor as supplementary to training that assumed her important fighting will be done with magic."

I consider "classes are partly in-game concepts and partly out-of-game ones" viable, as is "classes are purely in-game, people in the gameworld know all about them." "Classes are purely out-of-game, people in the gameworld know nothing about them," on the other hand, ranges from the frankly ridiculous--"No, you don't know you're a member of the clergy of Pelor or that a priest of Vecna can cast any spells!"--to the breaks-down-quickly--"He's wearing light clothing and pulling what looks a lot like bat dung out of a pouch he carries at his waist, glaring threateningly at you. You stare at him, wondering why he's engaging in this weird behavior and where his armor is."

Boci
2010-08-08, 12:11 PM
...You're right. No one treats being of a different race as meaningfully different than having a different eye color in real life. I don't know what I was thinking.

A different eye colour that also results in lower strength but superior intelect. You missed an important detail there.


Make up your mind, are there academies that train classes or aren't there?

There are academies that teach you how to cast spells and how to swing blades.


Not that I agree that no one would observe a difference between--for example--"trained in using a couple dozen weapons and all armor with a focus on physical combat as a primary or sole means of fighting" vs. "trained in four weapons and no armor as supplementary to training that assumed her important fighting will be done with magic."

That would be noticed, but no one would know the wizard had dipped into the fighter class, they would just note they knew more about weapon and armour use than other mages.

Kish
2010-08-08, 12:18 PM
A different eye colour that also results in lower strength but superior intelect. You missed an important detail there.
How is that an important detail--let me amend that. How does that support your position that changing a race into a genetic mutation "changes nothing"? Are you seriously arguing that people will treat a smarter-but-weaker race exactly the same way as they treat a smarter-but-weaker segment of the majority race?


There are academies that teach you how to cast spells and how to swing blades.

Then, if one wizard's background includes "spent one semester attending the Greenhilt Fighting Academy," that's very much a concept that exists in-game, isn't it?

Boci
2010-08-08, 12:26 PM
How is that an important detail--let me amend that. How does that support your position that changing a race into a genetic mutation "changes nothing"? Are you seriously arguing that people will treat a smarter-but-weaker race exactly the same way as they treat a smarter-but-weaker segment of the majority race?

For this specific example, yes I am.


Then, if one wizard's background includes "spent one semester attending the Greenhilt Fighting Academy," that's very much a concept that exists in-game, isn't it?

The concept that going to a fighting academy increases your knowledge of weapons, armour and martial combat? Yes that exist in game.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-08, 12:30 PM
Face it, with unlimited PRCs, your players are going to break your world.
Can you explain this to me? This flies in the face of every single thing I know about PrCs. What about PrCs inherently breaks the world?

Face it: if your players want to break the world, you can't stop them without ruining the game. That is the reality. No amount of houserules is going to cover for every possible way to break the rules, and even attempting it is just going to penalize those who want to just enjoy the game.

I really think you should consider just trusting your players. Unless they're really immature, breaking the game probably wouldn't be too much fun for them. And if you cannot trust them, then you have much bigger problems than PrCs.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-08-08, 02:13 PM
2 _________

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-08, 05:14 PM
But you try differently than banning grey elf. Try banning core classes, except for dips.Those are also options. Not necessarily better or worse. But still options, and I agree with the general approach.

Tyndmyr seemed to be arguing that even trying any option is a waste of time, because it only hurts the "poor chumps" who don't know how to optimize, and because there is always another road to full caster dominance. I disagree. I believe that the time to start trying is early, and often, and that you don't stop until you either have to ban the munchkin players who seek out these mechanical advantages or you gentle them down into a player your group can enjoy having as a team mate.


And? One monster was either well equipt to deal with the [grease] spell or got lucky. That proves nothing. Against a lot of monsters greace is a 50% chance to not be able to move.Sure. But you listed Grease right after saying "why bother" trying to balance the game, so I thought I'd throw out a case where it wasn't a "win button." The Grease spell is a very good spell. But it alone does not provide dominance to full progression casting classes. Ray of Exhaustion is also a very good spell, but again it alone does not provide dominance to full progression casting classes. What does provide dominance to full progression casting classes is having one such spell (or spells) in their arsenal for the many different types of opponents they will be facing in their adventures. This is the single largest differentiator, as most other classes have one thing they do well, and a few other options which may be better in a very limited number of other situations.

And every splat book, even those which focus on melee classes, seems compelled to print another couple hundred spells to provide casters with even more options. So straight up eliminating them from the full caster arsenal while keeping them open to the other classes is a sound step in the effort towards seeking balance.

Face it: if your players want to break the world, you can't stop them without ruining the game. That is the reality. No amount of houserules is going to cover for every possible way to break the rules, and even attempting it is just going to penalize those who want to just enjoy the game.I disagree. No player is going to break my game. They will be broken first. And no other player is going to be penalized by my efforts to break those who seek to break my game.

I really think you should consider just trusting your players.I do of course start out trusting all players. But once I'm shown a character sheet with "Gray Elf Wizard" written on it, I'll ask why the monster manual race. And since there is, in my considered opinion, no reason which does not boil rather easily down to "I wanted the +2 INT", I would ask that the player select a PHB race, on the basis that a Wizard already has more than enough advantages. If this is a problem, then trust is already right out the window, as I realize that I'm dealing with someone who values min-maxing more than just enjoying the game.

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-08, 05:25 PM
{Scrubbed}

Boci
2010-08-08, 05:33 PM
Sure. But you listed Grease right after saying "why bother" trying to balance the game, so I thought I'd throw out a case where it wasn't a "win button."

Its not an "I win" button, but it is a very powerful spell, 1st level, its most powerful function does not care how high you casting state is, and even with splat books melee would have a hard time matching it.


If this is a problem, then trust is already right out the window, as I realize that I'm dealing with someone who values min-maxing more than just enjoying the game.

That is not always true though. No Dm has ever complained about my role playing skills, and some have even complemented me, but if I made a core caster, I would want to play a grey elf. Why? Because of the +2 intelligence. Role playing requires you to like your character and feel involved in the game, and I am better at both if I know my character is optimized.

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-08, 06:44 PM
Role playing requires you to like your character and feel involved in the game, and I am better at both if I know my character is optimized.I disagree strongly with this statement. Role playing does not require an optimized character. In fact, my observation is that the more potent the character(s), the lower the role play quality I observe at the table. The player with a more optimized character can just rely upon their characters many strengths to react to and overcome situations. A more typical character, on the other hand, one with some strengths but also some weaknesses, tends to inspire much though about how to make the best out of a more limited set of resources.

And if a character is only likable to you if it is optimized, well, that would seem to be your personal choice rather than one which applies equally to all players. My groups are not at all optimized, and except for the player of the Bard in one of the games, I see nothing but enjoyment from all of the players. Even if that involves laughing at their character for having some rather unfortunate weakness that happened to come into play at the wrong time.

sonofzeal
2010-08-08, 06:59 PM
I disagree strongly with this statement. Role playing does not require an optimized character.
Er, that's not what Boci said.


Boci said that good RP requires that...

- you like your character
- you feel involved in the game

....and I'm inclined to agree. It's hard to imagine good RP without either of those. Now, the further claim that powerful characters may help with one or both of those, that depends entirely on the player, but I could see it being true for some. I could also imagine players for whom the opposite is true, that weak characters help them get more into the character and the game. Hopefully the group as a whole can find a balance where everyone feels involved and can RP fully.

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-08, 08:23 PM
Er, that's not what Boci said.


Boci said that good RP requires that...

- you like your character
- you feel involved in the gameIt is what Boci said. You just chopped off the rest of his statement which illustrated it clearly. "I am better at both if I know my character is optimized." It's not quite an A = B and B = C so therefore A = C, but it's damn close.

Breaking it down, what we have here is a player of a Wizard, one of the most potent character classes in the game, who can not feel good at liking his character or being involved in the game, unless he is "optimized."

Why? The character is already optimized, simply for having "Wizard" written in the space next to "Character class:" on the character record sheet. Sitting next to the Fighter, the Barbarian, the Monk, this character needs nothing else to be a relative equal to them at 1st level, as far as player vs. environment goes, and at 5th? It's become quite apparent that the Wizard is ahead of the pack. By 8th it's at the point of being a joke, depending on the campaign setting, pace, and splat books allowed.

I quite simply cannot understand that a player would feel that they can not role play unless they are not only playing one of the top tier classes, but additionally also need to wring every other mechanical advantage out of the game as is possible. To like their character and feel involved in the game...

I do know that my 4th level Elf Conjurer, 17 INT (16 start, +1 at 4th) is a solid part of the Core group I'm playing him in. However, were I do have selected Gray Elf as a race, and aged to Middle age, I'd have a 20 INT, and that 2 points of spell DC would make a huge impact upon my character's effectiveness. And I just don't need it.

olentu
2010-08-08, 08:29 PM
It is what Boci said. You just chopped off the rest of his statement which illustrated it clearly. "I am better at both if I know my character is optimized." It's not quite an A = B and B = C so therefore A = C, but it's damn close.

He said I making it personal preference and I believe the appropriate phrase is there is no accounting for taste.

Chambers
2010-08-09, 12:09 AM
I am a special snowflake. :smallsmile:

I think it'd be fun. You get some benefits of Prestige Classes, probably the benefits that are really central to the theme of the Prestige Class and not the the "minor +1 or +2 to this ability you already have" abilities. And I can see it being more powerful. My Wizard could have a Veil or two from IoSV and then have some Wild Mage fun.

Or my Scout could pick up the Tempest's Two Weapon Spring Attack and combine it with some Dervish Dance. That sounds like a really cool character.

One of the areas where 3.5 shines is in character customization. By increasing the customization available by making it easier to access and being able to access different types of abilities (read: Prestige Class abilities) you're playing off the strength of the system and hopefully creating characters that actually DO what the players WANT them to do. I'm for it.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-09, 12:24 AM
It is what Boci said. You just chopped off the rest of his statement which illustrated it clearly. "I am better at both if I know my character is optimized." It's not quite an A = B and B = C so therefore A = C, but it's damn close.

Breaking it down, what we have here is a player of a Wizard, one of the most potent character classes in the game, who can not feel good at liking his character or being involved in the game, unless he is "optimized."

Why? The character is already optimized, simply for having "Wizard" written in the space next to "Character class:" on the character record sheet. Sitting next to the Fighter, the Barbarian, the Monk, this character needs nothing else to be a relative equal to them at 1st level, as far as player vs. environment goes, and at 5th? It's become quite apparent that the Wizard is ahead of the pack. By 8th it's at the point of being a joke, depending on the campaign setting, pace, and splat books allowed.

I quite simply cannot understand that a player would feel that they can not role play unless they are not only playing one of the top tier classes, but additionally also need to wring every other mechanical advantage out of the game as is possible. To like their character and feel involved in the game...

I do know that my 4th level Elf Conjurer, 17 INT (16 start, +1 at 4th) is a solid part of the Core group I'm playing him in. However, were I do have selected Gray Elf as a race, and aged to Middle age, I'd have a 20 INT, and that 2 points of spell DC would make a huge impact upon my character's effectiveness. And I just don't need it.

Hosing your physical stats in that matter is generally problematic. Consider that this stacks with the racial con penalty. At level 4, not having hit points is a real downside.

Yahzi
2010-08-09, 12:28 AM
Care to elaborate. Do you mean to say that fighters know they have taken the class "fighter"?
Indeed I do.

I realize it sounds really, really weird. But in practice it works really well. The players love managing the most important resource in the game (XP) and the world makes a lot more sense.

Check out my sig for some examples.


Core 3.5 is avilable online and as for world descriptions, isn't that fluff?
Actualy, not all of Core is available on-line. And there's a bit more than fluff involved.

For example, the DMG provides a table for rolling up the various leveled NPCs to be found in random cities. This table is impossible (in my opinion) to integrate into any setting that is even remotely medieval. Yet the fluff of the game is relentlessly medieval.


Not with a simple house rule: "Being a jerk will result in a warning. An ignored warning will lead to rock falls".
Ah... but that's not actually a simple rule. One man's jerk is another man's uproarious comedian, after all.


And on a side note, Pun-Pun doesn't require any PrC.
Surely there is a version that does, thus rendering my claim at least technically true. :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2010-08-09, 12:34 AM
I really think you should consider just trusting your players.
Ha! You don't know my players...

One of them came up with some weird construction that rode a flying golem mount and had a telescoping lance. Due to various feats and whatnot, he got an automatic AoO against anyone moving anywhere within 20 ft, and he could use some special attack to make them immobile. Then, on his turn, he could kill what appeared to be an infinite number of creatures.

The worst game-breaking part of this is that his character slaughtered absolutely everything it encountered, no matter how many hit dice I pumped them up. Until I used Pryotechincs - a simple 2nd level spell - and suddenly his character was all but helpless. Neither situation was fun for anyone.

Admittedly I don't recall if this had anything to do with PRCs; it's more about splat books, but I kind of drifted into the general topic of source material control.

Caphi
2010-08-09, 12:36 AM
Indeed I do.

I think you should tell that to my swordsage. But before you do, keep in mind he's not actually a sage. He doesn't use a sword, either; he fights with his own body using some focusing accessories (magical, though he doesn't really understand magic items himself).

He's a disciple of a certain school of martial arts as a path to self-discipline and control. The word "swordsage" is utterly meaningless to him. If he met a Shadow Hand 'sage, he might possibly recognize him as belonging to a different school, at best.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-09, 12:37 AM
Surely there is a version that does, thus rendering my claim at least technically true. :smallbiggrin:

That doesn't make sense. I mean, you could add prestige classes to the build if you wanted to, but the fastest way to pun pun is just pally. PrCs would merely slow it down. You could add them, sure, but blaming them for pun pun is like blaming the side of celery you ate along with a meal of doughnuts for making you fat.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-09, 07:50 AM
Ha! You don't know my players...

One of them came up with some weird construction that rode a flying golem mount and had a telescoping lance. Due to various feats and whatnot, he got an automatic AoO against anyone moving anywhere within 20 ft, and he could use some special attack to make them immobile.
Define "automatic"? I mean, that sounds like something with 20 ft. reach, Combat Reflexes, and Stand Still. This is not overpowered, at all, really. It's an example of melee actually being able to do something other than "lulz I hits it with my sword" which is a very good thing, IMO.


Then, on his turn, he could kill what appeared to be an infinite number of creatures.
:smallconfused: Not sure how he could have done that without actually cheating.


The worst game-breaking part of this is that his character slaughtered absolutely everything it encountered, no matter how many hit dice I pumped them up. Until I used Pryotechincs - a simple 2nd level spell - and suddenly his character was all but helpless. Neither situation was fun for anyone.
Well, Pyrotechnics is stupidly broken; no doubt about that.


Admittedly I don't recall if this had anything to do with PRCs; it's more about splat books, but I kind of drifted into the general topic of source material control.
Except that this player could have easily broken the game with just Core. That's the main thing here, to me - people banning splatbooks, when the most imbalanced book in 3.5 is the Player's Handbook. To me, it just seems pointless, ineffective, and needlessly restrictive on players who have no interest in breaking the game, but rather just in having a unique character.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-09, 10:40 AM
Define "automatic"? I mean, that sounds like something with 20 ft. reach, Combat Reflexes, and Stand Still. This is not overpowered, at all, really. It's an example of melee actually being able to do something other than "lulz I hits it with my sword" which is a very good thing, IMO.

I'm pretty sure you can build a core trip-monkey, too, with ease. Start with a single classed fighter, using a spiked chain(or other reach weapon +spiked shield/gauntlets, etc...whatever you prefer), any size booster, grab combat reflexes, and so on.

That's pretty much defined as "making a competent melee character". Like you said, it's just a melee guy that does something other than "I attack you. You attack me. I attack you." And that's a terribly boring game. I mean, sure, you COULD ban everything except basic blasty spells for wizards, heal spells for clerics, and normal stabbing things for melee, but at that point, you're not playing D&D. You're playing something that would be better described in a 1 page ruleset.

Caphi
2010-08-09, 10:48 AM
The worst game-breaking part of this is that his character slaughtered absolutely everything it encountered, no matter how many hit dice I pumped them up. Until I used Pryotechincs - a simple 2nd level spell - and suddenly his character was all but helpless. Neither situation was fun for anyone.

A character excelled at his own field of competence and resisted all attempts at brute forcing him to death, but was defeated when you finally decided to use tactics he hadn't prepared for to hit his weakness rather than just bigger numbers? Oh no, this is not D&D at all.

Yahzi
2010-08-09, 12:33 PM
A character excelled at his own field of competence and resisted all attempts at brute forcing him to death, but was defeated when you finally decided to use tactics he hadn't prepared for to hit his weakness rather than just bigger numbers? Oh no, this is not D&D at all.
It's not that he excelled: he dominated, to the point where the rest of the party often had nothing to do. Conversely, the other players were never as crippled by any particular set of tactics. When their weaknesses were targeted, they were handicapped but not devastated.

My general point was that over-specialization is bad because it leads to binary outcomes of either dominance or helplessness, neither of which are particularly fun to play.

Again, I don't know if this really has anything to do with PRCs, unless you view PRCs as even more specialization.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-09, 12:40 PM
PrCs can be used for specialization. Also, for combinations of different things, or for thematic reasons. Depends on the PrC, really. It's hard to judge them all equally, since they vary so wildly. Planar Shepherd isn't even in the same ballpark as horizon walker.

What you're talking about is an artifact of how many melee builds work in 3.5. Once you're competent at one melee trick, it's easier to master it than it is to get competent at additional things. Trying to make a balanced melee character(without significant cheese), usually results in suckage.

Yahzi
2010-08-09, 12:43 PM
:smallconfused: Not sure how he could have done that without actually cheating.
This is precisely what I mean.

The last thing a DM needs in a game is a small, confused face and the words "I'm not sure how you can do that without actually cheating."

To avoid this situation, a DM might well choose to limit the source material to a smaller subset that he thinks he actually understands.


Except that this player could have easily broken the game with just Core. That's the main thing here, to me - people banning splatbooks, when the most imbalanced book in 3.5 is the Player's Handbook.
I agree - but here's the thing. I think I have instituted house rules that will prevent Core from breaking the game. I have no freaking idea if my house rules will prevent every known splat book from breaking the game, because I haven't read them all and I certainly don't understand them all enough to fit them into my world.

Right off the bat: immortality. It's apparently a freebie with certain classes/races/PRCs, not even costing a feat. Yet in my world this would be game-changing (despite its total lack of effect on combat).


To me, it just seems pointless, ineffective, and needlessly restrictive on players who have no interest in breaking the game, but rather just in having a unique character.
I am all for characters having a unique character. I just don't see how that relates to how they kill things.

Now obviously, if a game revolves around combat, then uniqueness must also: "I'm the guy that does the swinging-chandelier thing!"

But in a more role-playing game, your class (outside of the iconic roles of fighting, healing, and blowing things up) is less important than your history: "I'm the hero of the Goblin Debacle!"

So, in a game where most of the action occurs at the combat map, I agree with you. I really hadn't considered that point of view.

Yahzi
2010-08-09, 12:45 PM
What you're talking about is an artifact of how many melee builds work in 3.5. Once you're competent at one melee trick, it's easier to master it than it is to get competent at additional things. Trying to make a balanced melee character(without significant cheese), usually results in suckage.
Ya, that too. D&D seems particularly weighted towards this, which really annoys me. In my mind fighters should be the generalists, the ones who can survive anything out of innate toughness.

If I want a character who will dominate when prepared and suck when surprised, I'd play a wizard.

Boci
2010-08-09, 05:39 PM
Ya, that too. D&D seems particularly weighted towards this, which really annoys me. In my mind fighters should be the generalists, the ones who can survive anything out of innate toughness.

Hence the popularity of ToB.


This is precisely what I mean.

The last thing a DM needs in a game is a small, confused face and the words "I'm not sure how you can do that without actually cheating."

He was being sarcastic. I'm sure his actual response in real life as a DM would be more along the lines of "I am pretty sure you cannot do that without cheating. Assuming you haven't and you are instead using a Pun-Pun style loophole then as per rule 0 your character is banned. Remake one that doesn't use such cheese, ask me is you need help".



I agree - but here's the thing. I think I have instituted house rules that will prevent Core from breaking the game.

I'm yet too see a list of actual house rules that do this without resulting to DM fiat or a gentlemens agreement.

BillyJimBoBob
2010-08-09, 06:10 PM
Hosing your physical stats in that matter is generally problematic. Consider that this stacks with the racial con penalty. At level 4, not having hit points is a real downside.I completely agree. But I also would not select the Gray Elf race for the +1 spell DC, so my example stands. Again, although the +1 DC and more spells per day and skill points would make my character more effective, I just don't need it. Should it come down to it, I feel that my character is able to be more than the equal of every other character in the game, save the Druid. I don't need +1 spell DC to boost me over him, and I sure don't need anything else at all with regards to the remainder of the party.

PersonMan
2010-08-11, 02:45 AM
You assume that the person playing the Wizard knows how to choose their spells. If you screw up your spell selection you can have someone who, while they are a wizard, isn't an optimized wizard. If two people asked for the same thing, one trying to play, say, a blasting wizard but doesn't like that their spell DCs are low enough that lots of enemies can make their saves, while the other is trying to make a SoD-specializing one? To me, at least, it seems as if you don't like any sort of optimization, even if someone is taking a sub-optimal concept and optimizing it, rather than always picking the best of everything.

For the most part, I enjoy having characters that are good at what they do. Mainly because my concepts are usually more towards "awesome fighter with [quirks A,B and C], who [personality]", rather than "kind-of okay fighter with [quirks A,B and C], who [personality] and somehow survived this long, even though they're pretty meh". While I may play a character who has no idea what they're doing and dodges, hits, etc. simply by chance and waving around their weapon, I really prefer being able to do something anyways. The character can be incompetent but still somehow hit very well(due to luck or chance or whatever) because I, for some reason, enjoy being able to contribute meaningfully and helping in combat.

Unless it fits with the concept, I don't like having many big weaknesses. Sometimes I forgo a very character-fitting thing(low Will save, for example) because I don't want to be asleep, charmed or dominated and therefore either not contributing or contributing against the party.

If a prestige class fits with a concept, I'll at least want to take it. If, upon closer examination, it'd result in a flavorful but weak(as in "well, I'd love to come other there and help, but I've got no reach and can only move in five-foot increments each round or lose my defensive stance. Which is only 1/day, so...sorry." rather than "Oh, no! I'll lose 1 BAB!") character, I either try to rework the PrC with the DM's help(or permission, if they aren't a homebrewer themselves) or find something like it but less weak.

EDIT: Also, at the Grey Elf issue, where do you draw the line between 'too optimization-oriented' and 'okay, enough RP reasons'? Most people I know would pick it because it was cool, and provided a bonus to an important stat. Like someone playing a rogue might choose a small race because they like the idea of a tiny assassin-type character, and they get bonuses to one of the stealth-type skills.

hamishspence
2010-08-11, 04:55 AM
Or, if you're playing in Faerun, you might like the Sun Elves (the +2 INT elven race in that setting) for their long history, interesting characters, and seriously evil empires.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-11, 07:55 AM
EDIT: Also, at the Grey Elf issue, where do you draw the line between 'too optimization-oriented' and 'okay, enough RP reasons'? Most people I know would pick it because it was cool, and provided a bonus to an important stat. Like someone playing a rogue might choose a small race because they like the idea of a tiny assassin-type character, and they get bonuses to one of the stealth-type skills.

I'll happily play any of the racial variants. The idea that different cultures of a race act a bit differently isn't really that insane. It also doesn't surprise me that people tend to be in professions they have a natural aptitude for. Seems realistic.

However, playing things like anthropomorphic animals for stat boosts...that I've never done. I just don't want to roleplay a spellcasting bat.

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-11, 10:17 AM
This is precisely what I mean.

The last thing a DM needs in a game is a small, confused face and the words "I'm not sure how you can do that without actually cheating."

To avoid this situation, a DM might well choose to limit the source material to a smaller subset that he thinks he actually understands.
OR you could just go over his character with him and make sure it's all legal. These rules are not that complicated unless you're using TO, and you should never be using TO in an actual game. It's called Theoretical Optimization for a reason.


I agree - but here's the thing. I think I have instituted house rules that will prevent Core from breaking the game. I have no freaking idea if my house rules will prevent every known splat book from breaking the game, because I haven't read them all and I certainly don't understand them all enough to fit them into my world.
Well known fact: casters are more powerful (relatively) in core than out of it. There are a ridiculous things like Shivering Touch, Incantatrix, Dweomerkeeper, ect, but while wizards get more powerful, everything else gets even better too. I'd really like to see those house-rules though. Agreeing with Boci here.


Right off the bat: immortality. It's apparently a freebie with certain classes/races/PRCs, not even costing a feat. Yet in my world this would be game-changing (despite its total lack of effect on combat).
IMHO, class feature != freebie. Also, why so game-changing?



I am all for characters having a unique character. I just don't see how that relates to how they kill things.

Now obviously, if a game revolves around combat, then uniqueness must also: "I'm the guy that does the swinging-chandelier thing!"

But in a more role-playing game, your class (outside of the iconic roles of fighting, healing, and blowing things up) is less important than your history: "I'm the hero of the Goblin Debacle!"

So, in a game where most of the action occurs at the combat map, I agree with you. I really hadn't considered that point of view.
Here's the thing: why can't you have both? Why can't you be the hero the Goblin Debacle and still have a bunch of cool ways to kill things? They're not mutually exclusive you know.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-11, 03:01 PM
OR you could just go over his character with him and make sure it's all legal. These rules are not that complicated unless you're using TO, and you should never be using TO in an actual game. It's called Theoretical Optimization for a reason.
Well known fact: casters are more powerful (relatively) in core than out of it. There are a ridiculous things like Shivering Touch, Incantatrix, Dweomerkeeper, ect, but while wizards get more powerful, everything else gets even better too. I'd really like to see those house-rules though. Agreeing with Boci here.

Agreed. Core is relatively more broken than non-core. I have yet to see a set of house rules that completely balances core.

Realistically, everyone I know plays under the rules of gentleman's agreement and no infinite combos. This prevents things like the illusion guessing games from breaking out. You dont want that.

Leon
2010-08-12, 02:11 AM
Option 2

PrCs are a interesting thing to have occasionally but are not a necessity for a good PC nor is needing more than one class.

Class Variants - If these are available then often they can provide enough of a difference from the norm that multi-classing/Prestige classing is not needed anyway.

I am working on adapting a Homebrew ruleset of my own from various sources that includes the Generic classes (Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster) as the sole classes playable.

potatocubed
2010-08-12, 03:17 AM
Here's the thing: why can't you have both? Why can't you be the hero the Goblin Debacle and still have a bunch of cool ways to kill things? They're not mutually exclusive you know.

The question isn't 'why can't you have both?' The question is 'why must you have both?'

Or, to put it another way, why is mechanical differentiation a necessary part of a unique character?

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 07:13 AM
I'm probably going to regret weighing in on the debate that seems to have sprung up here, and I've only really had a chance to skim the arguments that came up, but here's what I think (warning, this is kind of long):


On fluff:

Dissociated fluff and mechanics are a mirage.

Material with no stated mechanical impact is not material that can just be ignored or replaced at will. Nothing that appears in the books is meant to be entirely inconsequential, and ignoring it in favour of something else creates a house rule, with at least some of the implications that would have for a change to the mechanics.

Even if there's no 'official' effect, it's still put there because the writers felt it might be handy -- either to help players be creative, to help the DM handle creative players, or to help inform a decision where the rules don't necessarily provide a clear answer.

Changing the fluff will change what happens in those situations, and it also changes what the DM has to do in order to incorporate characters into the game.

There is a 'counts as' principle, but I wouldn't think of it as a 'positive' "fluff is meaningless, re-write and re-interpret it however you want as often as you want". It's more of a 'negative' "don't write a new set of rules until you have a very good reason to believe that whatever you're trying to handle isn't already handled adequately in the game".

As I've pointed out before, the main issue with psionics is that it only holds up when you have an even more broken and arbitrary magic system floating around for it to show up. If we'd had a decent magic system to start with, then psionics would never have gained the popularity it did.


On racial variants:

I fail to see the issue here.

Grey elves are sufficiently different to normal elves that if a player is able to roleplay one, I see no reason to stop them.

As for the "they're only doing it for the mechanical benefit" argument. So what?

Elves being inherently suited to wizardry is something that really needs to be conveyed by mechanics. In core, the only thing that even comes close to making elves better suited to wizardry is that +2 Int for being a grey elf.

As far as I'm concerned, players have every right to expect an appreciable benefit to being an elven wizard. +2 Int is not too bad on that front.


On Limiting Sources:

I see no problem.

Rules-legality/being able to verify characters is not the main issue with a DM being unfamiliar with a source. The issue is that it's going to be harder for the DM to adjudicate what's going on -- even if she spends plenty of time familiarising herself with the rules, play experience can be a lot more useful.

Furthermore, some sources are simply inappropriate for a campaign. No matter what I think about pact magic, the feel it's intended to evoke is not going to be suitable for every game.

Yes, to an extent, you can solve that problem with refluffing, but that's still something you should discuss at length with your DM and see if you can come to a compromise. New concepts are supposed to be things you couldn't handle well beforehand. WotC might have broken that rule several times, but the end result only ever worked when the existing form of that concept was less-than-good -- the basic reason why psionics are good but samurai suck.

Boci
2010-08-12, 07:18 AM
As I've pointed out before, the main issue with psionics is that it only holds up when you have an even more broken and arbitrary magic system floating around for it to show up. If we'd had a decent magic system to start with, then psionics would never have gained the popularity it did.

Depends. Even if the vatican casting system was balanced some may still like the PP system better. And even if you ban the big 6, psionics is still balanced compared to some other choices.


Even if there's no 'official' effect, it's still put there because the writers felt it might be handy -- either to help players be creative, to help the DM handle creative players, or to help inform a decision where the rules don't necessarily provide a clear answer.

But the writers made the fluff for everyone. You are making it for yourself, so generally who is going to be better at making fluff?

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 07:42 AM
Depends. Even if the Vancian casting system was balanced some may still like the PP system better. And even if you ban the big 6, psionics is still balanced compared to some other choices.

If making the system points-based is what it takes to make the system 'good', then so be it. Balance is not the whole problem with 3rd edition spellcasting.

And that illustrates the issue even more clearly -- if the existing rules were points-based, anyone proposing a whole new system that worked the same way would be laughed out of a job.


But the writers made the fluff for everyone. You are making it for yourself, so generally who is going to be better at making fluff?

I'm not saying that it should never be changed, I'm saying that it shouldn't be changed lightly.

Just like the rules, the basic reason that material is included in the books is so that there is a standard from group to group. Deviating from that standard has the same implications, whether there's an immediate mechanical effect or not.

Boci
2010-08-12, 07:51 AM
If making the system points-based is what it takes to make the system 'good', then so be it. Balance is not the whole problem with 3rd edition spellcasting.

And that illustrates the issue even more clearly -- if the existing rules were points-based, anyone proposing a whole new system that worked the same way would be laughed out of a job.

Yeah sure, if it already existed there would be not point in inventing it, but there are other ways to balance core casting, such as making more beguiler and dread necro style classes.


I'm not saying that it should never be changed, I'm saying that it shouldn't be changed lightly.

Just like the rules, the basic reason that material is included in the books is so that there is a standard from group to group. Deviating from that standard has the same implications, whether there's an immediate mechanical effect or not.

Mechancis are much more different though. Changing fluff will generally affect your character most of all, changing mechanics will affects others as well.

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 08:09 AM
Yeah sure, if it already existed there would be not point in inventing it, but there are other ways to balance core casting, such as making more beguiler and dread necro style classes.

And we'd be back to pointing out that people who would rather be nailed to a tree than use a system that isn't points-based are comparatively rare. Beguilers don't use Vancian casting.


Mechancis are much more different though. Changing fluff will generally affect your character most of all, changing mechanics will affects others as well.

It depends on what you're changing in both cases. You can make a fluff change that affects everyone quite easily, and it's quite easy to change the mechanics in a way that only affects one person as well. Unless everyone's playing the exact same character.

Boci
2010-08-12, 08:19 AM
And we'd be back to pointing out that people who would rather be nailed to a tree than use a system that isn't points-based are comparatively rare.

Few would be that extreme, true, but most caster fans would probably give it a try, and some may prefer it. To me it makes more sense.


Beguilers don't use Vancian casting.

I thought Vancian was the spell slot system.


It depends on what you're changing in both cases. You can make a fluff change that affects everyone quite easily, and it's quite easy to change the mechanics in a way that only affects one person as well. Unless everyone's playing the exact same character.

In a vacuum its a bit hard to say but generally you are refluffing your own character, which does not affect overs.But with mechanics, others will generally be more likely to be included in the change.

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 08:44 AM
Few would be that extreme, true, but most caster fans would probably give it a try, and some may prefer it. To me it makes more sense.

And even then, a few notes on how to convert a spell slot system into a spell point system might have been enough.


I thought Vancian was the spell slot system.

No, Vancian is prepared casting.


In a vacuum its a bit hard to say but generally you are refluffing your own character, which does not affect overs.But with mechanics, others will generally be more likely to be included in the change.

Whatever special rules the DM applies to sublime chord gishes will only affect players who decide to play sublime chord gishes. The same goes for the fluff of grey elves.

Boci
2010-08-12, 08:46 AM
And even then, a few notes on how to convert a spell slot system into a spell point system might have been enough.

Possible. Didn't work out for Unearthed Arcane, but that could be for any number of reasons.


No, Vancian is prepared casting.

Oh right, my mistake.


Whatever special rules the DM applies to sublime chord gishes will only affect players who decide to play sublime chord gishes. The same goes for the fluff of grey elves.

I'm talking about players, not DMs.

thompur
2010-08-12, 08:53 AM
Option 2

PrCs are a interesting thing to have occasionally but are not a necessity for a good PC nor is needing more than one class.

Class Variants - If these are available then often they can provide enough of a difference from the norm that multi-classing/Prestige classing is not needed anyway.

I am working on adapting a Homebrew ruleset of my own from various sources that includes the Generic classes (Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster) as the sole classes playable.

Yes! You can actually make some unique and interesting characters with those rules. I had a character, a Fighter who was a proffesional Pit-Fighter. His cohort was an Expert-Courtesan, who worked as his manager/valet. I built her as a 'diplomancer' and, ironically, she became the first character I ever gave a PrC to; Exemplar. Her diplomacy skill actually backfired and inadvertantly caused the death of her client. She tried to convince a company of mercenary orcs to break their contract with our enemies. This was, apparently, the worst thing she could have suggested, In the ensuing battle, the fighter was killed.

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 08:56 AM
Possible. Didn't work out for Unearthed Arcane, but that could be for any number of reasons.

That was basically because the 'cheap useless spells' weren't so useless.


I'm talking about players, not DMs.

If you're asking to change an aspect of the setting, then that really is the DM's business, especially if the DM already wanted to do something with whatever it is you're changing.

Boci
2010-08-12, 08:57 AM
That was basically because the 'cheap useless spells' weren't so useless.

So how did psionics not suffer from that problem?


If you're asking to change an aspect of the setting, then that really is the DM's business, especially if it has the potential to conflict with something the DM wanted to do.

But refluffing your own character generally does not change the setting, it changes your own character.

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 09:29 AM
So how did psionics not suffer from that problem?

As far as I'm aware, there are no psionic powers out there like Glitterdust.


But refluffing your own character generally does not change the setting, it changes your own character.

Your character is probably not the only grey elf in the setting, so if you change something important about how grey elves work or create a new race that's the exact same thing, then there could quite easily be an issue.

For base classes, that's a more reasonable assumption, perhaps. But even then, you should be asking everyone else's permission. Different people are different -- what seems perfectly reasonable to you might totally rape verisimilitude for your DM or another player, in which case playing it would be somewhat selfish.

The purpose of prestige classes is explicitly to help the DM portray certain aspects of the setting, so refluffing one of those changes the setting in the exact same way that refluffing a race might.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-12, 09:37 AM
what seems perfectly reasonable to you might totally rape verisimilitude for your DM or another player, in which case playing it would be somewhat selfish.

It's fairly unlikely that with all the races and prestige classes out there, the exact one you happened to pick completely destroys the DMs campaign idea.

In the unlikely event that it does pose a horrible problem, presumably you'll talk briefly about your characters before the adventure starts, and sort out the issue. If the DM doesn't list anything as banned beforehand, make whatever you want, and check to ensure it's ok before you play. It ain't hard, and 99% of the time, the DM isn't even going to care about details like "my tribe of grey elves lives in cities, not mountains".

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 09:40 AM
99% of the time, the DM isn't even going to care about details like "my tribe of grey elves lives in cities, not mountains".

Maybe not. But you should check with the DM before you make that change.

Boci
2010-08-12, 09:41 AM
As far as I'm aware, there are no psionic powers out there like Glitterdust.

Okay.


Your character is probably not the only grey elf in the setting, so if you change something important about how grey elves work or create a new race that's the exact same thing, then there could quite easily be an issue.

Fair enough on that one. I used the example because the other poster implied (at least they did to me) that grey elves do not even exist in his setting.


For base classes, that's a more reasonable assumption, perhaps. But even then, you should be asking everyone else's permission. Different people are different -- what seems perfectly reasonable to you might totally rape verisimilitude for your DM or another player, in which case playing it would be somewhat selfish.

But it only applies to you, so why should other players have a say in your own character. As long as you you can function in a party, its fair game. If you don't like another player's character, then sorry?


The purpose of prestige classes is explicitly to help the DM portray certain aspects of the setting, so refluffing one of those changes the setting in the exact same way that refluffing a race might.

This I disagree with. For some maybe, but there is no reason why all Jade Pheonix Mage should be as unified as water orcs.

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 09:54 AM
But it only applies to you, so why should other players have a say in your own character. As long as you you can function in a party, its fair game. If you don't like another player's character, then sorry?

Because you're supposed to be working together to create an end result.

If your character concept and your explanation for your character's abilities don't make sense for anyone else, then every time you do something you run the risk of breaking immersion for another player.

Just to clarify, we're talking about cases like barbarian rage that's being described as 'meditative battle focus' or an 'inventor' being portrayed using a wizard whose spells are refluffed as arbitrary gadgets being pulled from his backside.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-12, 09:56 AM
I don't see why have a party melee dude who gets better by dint of focus and concentration instead of anger matters all that much to his party members. How would that be a problem?

The other concept is basically an artificer.

Boci
2010-08-12, 09:59 AM
Because you're supposed to be working together to create an end result.

Yes, and refluffing will only rarely stop a character from working together.


If your character concept and your explanation for your character's abilities don't make sense for anyone else, then every time you do something you run the risk of breaking immersion for another player.

So? Its my character not theirs. I don't have a say in other characters at the table.

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 10:02 AM
I don't see why have a party melee dude who gets better by dint of focus and concentration instead of anger matters all that much to his party members. How would that be a problem?

If one of the players doesn't find that explanation reasonable, then you have a problem. As I said, different people are different. One player might be perfectly happy with that explanation, another player might end up picking holes in it.

Both players would probably be happier if the guy with the 'meditative battle focus' played a warblade or a normal fighter.


The other concept is basically an artificer.

Which uses somewhat different mechanics for precisely the same reason that using a wizard would probably not work.

Boci
2010-08-12, 10:05 AM
Both players would probably be happier if the guy with the 'meditative battle focus' played a warblade or a normal fighter.

There isn't always a better mechanical option for e refluffed character though. And if another player does not accept it, well tough. I do not always like the character concept of others. I live with it.

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 10:25 AM
There isn't always a better mechanical option for e refluffed character though. And if another player does not accept it, well tough. I do not always like the character concept of others. I live with it.

A reasonable character is one that can function in the party, makes sense in the game world, and doesn't cause issues for anyone else at the table.

If you take refluffing a character too far, you run the risk of breaking immersion for one or more of the other players. If they're cool with it, they'll say so.

If you have a weird character concept, you should be talking to your DM every step of the way, even if you don't change any of the rules. Because actually changing a character class is usually an option.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-12, 10:45 AM
If one of the players doesn't find that explanation reasonable, then you have a problem. As I said, different people are different. One player might be perfectly happy with that explanation, another player might end up picking holes in it.

Both players would probably be happier if the guy with the 'meditative battle focus' played a warblade or a normal fighter.

This would be the point at which I'd tell them that they are entirely too worried about the mechanics of my character sheet, and take offense at their belief that classes must be played as boring steriotypes.

Not everyone who plays a barbarian needs to be susipicious of magic, have anger management issues and budding alcoholism. I've seen plenty of them, thanks. One more is not clever or original.

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 10:47 AM
This would be the point at which I'd tell them that they are entirely too worried about the mechanics of my character sheet, and take offense at their belief that classes must be played as boring steriotypes..

Where did I say that?

The problem is refluffing an ability in such a way that it's too much of a stretch from the mechanics to the fluff. Not people refluffing the class at all.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-12, 10:58 AM
If I can't refluff the source of a single class ability without it being "too much", then what CAN I refluff without hitting that limit?

lesser_minion
2010-08-12, 11:08 AM
If I can't refluff the source of a single class ability without it being "too much", then what CAN I refluff without hitting that limit?

Different people are different. They tolerate different things to different extents for different reasons.

That's why you just do your best and check with (at least) your DM that what you're doing is OK.

Boci
2010-08-12, 11:08 AM
Different people are different. They tolerate different things to different extents for different reasons.

That's why you just do your best and check with (at least) your DM that what you're doing is OK.

Sure. It was the "other players" thing I objected to mostly.