Class Jumping/PrC Skipping

[McClintock]

I think I see this once a year or so (I know I have asked this question in the past), but i just can't seem to wrap my head around what others find to be a "simple" concept.

Whats with all the jumping around? I have seen builds with 3 or 4 base classes and 3 or 4 PrCs. It just seems silly to me to create a character that has no focus. I guess I am just too old school to see it, but unless something follows a specific flow [ex: Swash/Fighter or Ranger to Dervish to Tempest] It just seems to me to be jumping for the abilities sake. Aren't characters more than just a sum of their parts? Why do we have to re-fluff the fluff to make something work? Why can't we just work within the fluff? Am I just typing to hear my keys click?

I love the builds, and I see the ultimate utility of doing things they way they are done. It just seems silly to keep switching around. Especially when many of the classes have specific RP requirements that seem to not get met...

thoughts??

[thompur]

I tend to agree with you, but then, I generally see character class as an 'in-game' concept, while most of those that do these complex builds see them as meta-game constructs.

[Telonius]

I'm with you to an extent. A lot of the builds you see on the boards here are exercises in optimization, trying to get the highest numbers you can. I am against trying to super-optimize when the rest of the group thinks that Toughness is a good idea. Having a build with 8 different classes in it is usually a sign that something like that is going on.

Generally, I see a class as a set of abilities organized around a theme. That set of abilities might be powerful or not, and might or might not actually do a good job in replicating the theme. When the existing classes do a poor job at realizing a theme (while keeping it playable), or when your concept is something that blurs the lines between several different themes, sometimes you really do need to combine several classes and PrCs to model that. (Melee classes are particularly subject to this. If you're going just by straight 1-20 classes, Fighter, Monk & Co. just can't hold up).

[Thespianus]

I used to agree strongly with the thoughts the OP posts here, that "dipping wizard/cleric" on a barbarian chassis or whatever rings untrue in my ears, especially in classes like wizard, where the fluff is all about the meticulous studying of the "science" of magic, or whatever. It doesn't feel right to me.

However, if it's PrCs that advance the character concept: Rogue/wizard/Unseen Seer/Arcane Trickster,it feels ok, even if it ends up with more classes and PrCs than a Barbarian 19/Cloistered Cleric 1

So I've realized that it's not the amount of Classes and PrCs that rub me the wrong way, it's when the fluff of the builds crash into eachother in a bad way that I feel all covered in stinky cheese.

That being said, I've spent enough time on here to have my shields worn down, and I no longer cringe at Barbarian/Cloistered Cleric/Focused Conjurer-builds. ;)

[BlueInc]

Because often the crunch is better for the fluff. A hackneyed set of examples would be the Monk: The Unarmed Swordsage and the Psychic Warrior are far better "monks" than the Monk.

I generally think of it this way: Come up with a character concept, then find a build that gives you the game mechanics to get you there.

In a campaign I'm playing, I wanted my character to be a grizzled veteran war medic. I started him off as a melee cleric, and I'm about to take a level of Crusader with them, then hopefully into RKV. The god for RKV doesn't exist in the campaign world, but the concept (devotee of a religion who is good at hitting things) works perfectly.

[flumphy]

First of all, one can have three or four base classes without having to refluff at all. For example:

Rogue: Sneaky guy who stabs things and and finds traps and is highly-skilled
Swashbuckler: Smart guy in light armor who stabs things
Fighter: Guy who stabs things. That's pretty much it...

Even if you consider fluff to be immutable, none of these are mutually exclusive. The exact same character could be represented by any one of these classes, or any combination of them. Therefore, it makes no sense to not just pick the combination that works best mechanically.

Even some of the more complex builds (gish builds, for example) aren't necessarily complex when it comes to fluff. Most of them boil down to "a guy who stabs things and casts magic at the same time," a concept that's not done very effectively by any pre-existing base class. In the case of a sorcadin, for example, it's a guy who was born with magic in his blood and stabs things for a righteous cause.

That brings us to my second point. 3rd Edition and even much of 3.5, for better or for worse, was purposefully designed to encourage multiclassing, partly to dispel the old-school single-class mentality. They front-loaded classes with abilities, meaning you could grab the good stuff, get out, and move on to something else.

[Keld Denar]

Is it that time of the week again?

Most builds do flow. At least the good ones do. You just have to understand them. Take something like the Sorcadin. Paladin2/Sorcerer4/Spellswords1/AbjurantChampion5/SacredExorcist8. 2 base classes, 3 PrCs. Basically, an arcane paladin...possibly one with dragonblood who worships Bahamut, platinum father of good dragons and paladins. Spellsword and Abjurant Champion are so similar, that they might as well be the same class. People JOKE that Spellsword is the 0th level of Abjurant Champion, its so popular together. All PrCs advance Sorcerer casting, so there is focus there. Sacred Exorcist is generally taken there because of several factors. Mechanically, its GOOD. 3/4 BAB, full casting, grants Turn Undead, and a few other nice abilities. Its also has fluff similar to a ranger, given that it has the option to choose undead or evil outsiders as your specific foe, and thus is very "warriory", despite being a caster.

Most Bard builds? They are pretty normal as well. Bard, bardic PrCs or casting PrCs, with occasional dips in things like Spelltheif or Binder or Paladin to pick up some nice features and add RP value to the build.

Really, good builds aren't random and skippy. The classes make sense, mechanically and flavorwise, and contribute to the overall theme of the character.

Also, linked for relevance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html). I'm surprised nobody beat me to it...

[Kol Korran]

mostly i tend to stick to 2-3 classes top at my charachters, but that is for simplicty's sake, not because of focus- The PCs are special, and often an intriguing character requires many classes to make it work. most of the multi-classes builds actually optmize or built towards some very specific requirments and shcticks, thus often showing quite a bit of focus, just taking the long way around to get there.

[sreservoir]

the "simple" concepts you're not getting are that a) fluff is mutable, b) classes are just sets of sequential abilities, nominally balanced.

classes become what you think of them because of the fluff, not the crunch. if you're throwing out the built-in fluff and writing your own, there's no reason the "jumping around" can't have a coherent flow. it does have a coherent flow, even.

it's really a simple concept, though not really universally accepted. YMMV.

[Arundel]

Does your character know they are a Monk1/Paladin2/Fighter12? They shouldn't. They are a warrior who is a bit more elegant than most and happens to feel a close connection with their diety.

[deuxhero]

As always

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

[Hiro Protagonest]

Er, when people suggest your charger build should be a Spirit Lion Totem barbarian 1/dungeoncrasher fighter 6/warblade 13, they generally aren't expecting you to think that the character has to have been raised in the spirit lion tribe, traveled to a city where he practiced with a specialized group if warriors who bashed the training dummies into walls for hours, and then learned from some master of the sublime way. They expect you to think your character is a warrior from whatever background with cool tricks.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

First of all, there is absolutely no in-character existence of classes, prestige or otherwise. In-character, nobody can tell the difference between a Wizard 15 and a Wizard 3/ Master Specialist 2/ Incantatrix 4/ Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 6, apart from the fact that the multiclass character has picked up a lot more tricks and thus is individually far more capable. The Wizard 15 is an underachiever by comparison, or maybe just less talented.

No class has an RP requirement unless it specifically says so via some sort of code of conduct or prerequisite for entry. A Fighter could be a disciplined soldier, or a tough guy who works as a bouncer, or a goon who steals everyone's lunch money. A class is nothing but a set of abilities, as long as your character's flavor fits those capabilities then you're fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with throwing a given class's built-in flavor right out the window.

Prestige classes are no more prestigious than base classes or even NPC classes. Many of them teach principles that are dependent on prior knowledge of the subject, thus they have requirements which must be met before a character is capable of learning them. Most prestige classes can be self-taught, or in some cases granted from higher powers, and thus do not include instruction from another individual as a prerequisite. This point strongly favors allowing early-entry tricks, since once a character has learned enough of a given topic to understand the principles involved in gaining the abilities of a prestige class, there should be nothing else to hold him back.

Quite a while back I'd played a Ranger 3/ Barbarian 2/ Horizon Walker, who referred to himself as a scout, because that was a very fitting description of his profession and capabilities. Almost a year later I used that same class build for a character in another group, and when he described himself in-character as a scout, they all presumed that I was using the recently published Scout base class. I was actually a bit offended that they would think that of me, and made every effort to demonstrate that this character's capabilities were nothing like that of the scout base class.

When I see someone describe their character by naming a class, I automatically presume that this character is one-dimensional and that no effort was put into that character's personality, motivations, etc. apart from the built-in flavor of that class. Your character is not his class(es), just like you should not define yourself by naming your current job. In-character, an individual is a collection of capabilities, experiences, accomplishments, etc. which should not be so limited and meager that you can summarize it all by just naming one character class.

[Thespianus]

In earlier editions, IMHO, the classes were "harder", they framed your character a whole lot more than what they do in 3.X. For us who grew up with the earlier editions, the characters KNEW that they were Fighters, Clerics, Magic Users, etc.

Now, in 3.X, this is supposed to be OOC-knowledge only. It usually works fine, but every now and then, there's a PrC with a heap of RP fluff in the description that gets very specific, such as the character needs to join a certain guild, or whatnot. that breaks the barrier. While that feels fine to "us" old grumpy guys, since we tend to see classes as in-game knowledge, it gets thrown out by "the young uns" who are fully comfortable with treating classes as OOC-knowledge only.

And, ofcourse, whoever is "old" and "young" in this scenario is not depending on age but on mind set. ;)

[Telonius]

As always

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

Combine that with the last few panels of this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html), and you get my general position.

[Greenish]

It just seems silly to me to create a character that has no focus.How does Swash/Fighter or Ranger/Dervish/Tempest (or the like) somehow lack focus? What do you even mean by that?


Aren't characters more than just a sum of their parts?Yes. What does that have to do with this?


Why do we have to re-fluff the fluff to make something work?Because the original fluff doesn't match the character, usually.


Why can't we just work within the fluff?Why should we?


Am I just typing to hear my keys click?You tell me.

[McClintock]

Ok, so I can see the whole OOG Knowledge thing, but what happens when you run across things like Monk, Paladin, Bard, Magic User, Cleric. All classes that need to be taught, whether it comes from a school or a master, these are not things you can just "pick up". Fighter, Druid, Ranger, Barbarian (a race not a class in my mind)can all be taught through life. The others require some schooling.

EX: Barbarian/Cloistered Cleric/Focused Conjurer

Barbarian: Wild/savage Illiterate being whom lives off the land and flies into a rage when engaged in a combat. non-lawful

Cloistered Cleric: The cloistered cleric spends more time than other clerics in study and prayer and less in martial training. He gives up some of the cleric's combat prowess in exchange for greater skill access and a wider range of spells devoted to knowledge (and the protection of knowledge).

Most cloistered clerics are non-chaotic, since they believe that a disciplined lifestyle lends itself better to learning.

Mechanically the crunch says this is a great combo..... but... they are nearly polar opposites. All the barbarian needed was a note saying always chaotic (which non-lawful comes close to saying)

As a DM I would find it hard to allow this with out a lot of IN GAME RPing. A PC coming to me with a pre-built character like this would get shot down almost instantly. You want to play a redeemed Barbarian who went into major book study... ok why? You want to play a book worm whom gave up his life for the wilds... why?

EDIT: And there would be no switching back and forth once the choice was made.

Character concept is one thing... putting together a collection of skills to "build a character" seems way to much like the gremlins from gremilns 2. And while that was entertaining, ultimately it was not that good of a movie.

[McClintock]

How does Swash/Fighter or Ranger/Dervish/Tempest (or the like) somehow lack focus? What do you even mean by that?


Ok so maybe I was unclear, Swash/Fighter (or straight Ranger) into Dervish/Tempest is focused. That all makes sense because there is a line that can EASILY be drawn between them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ok so maybe I was unclear, Swash/Fighter (or straight Ranger) into Dervish/Tempest is focused. That all makes sense because there is a line that can EASILY be drawn between them.

A paladin/sorcerer/spellsword/abjurant champ/sacred exorcist makes sense. It's a charisma based gish build.

[Greenish]

All classes that need to be taught, whether it comes from a school or a master, these are not things you can just "pick up".Says who?


EX: Barbarian/Cloistered Cleric/Focused ConjurerWarrior with minor knack for magic. And not particularly impressive, mechanically.


Character concept is one thing... putting together a collection of skills to "build a character" seems way to much like the gremlins from gremilns 2.Every character is, mechanically, a collection of skills and tricks, whether single-classed or not. What makes a character character is not whether you multiclassed or picked feat X or Y, but if these help your character to interact with the world the way you pictured him, what does it matter what it says on the "Class: _____" line on the character sheet?

[flumphy]

Ok, so I can see the whole OOG Knowledge thing, but what happens when you run across things like Monk, Paladin, Bard, Magic User, Cleric. All classes that need to be taught, whether it comes from a school or a master, these are not things you can just "pick up". Fighter, Druid, Ranger, Barbarian (a race not a class in my mind)can all be taught through life. The others require some schooling.

EX: Barbarian/Cloistered Cleric/Focused Conjurer

Barbarian: Wild/savage Illiterate being whom lives off the land and flies into a rage when engaged in a combat. non-lawful

Cloistered Cleric: The cloistered cleric spends more time than other clerics in study and prayer and less in martial training. He gives up some of the cleric's combat prowess in exchange for greater skill access and a wider range of spells devoted to knowledge (and the protection of knowledge).

Most cloistered clerics are non-chaotic, since they believe that a disciplined lifestyle lends itself better to learning.

Mechanically the crunch says this is a great combo..... but... they are nearly polar opposites. All the barbarian needed was a note saying always chaotic (which non-lawful comes close to saying)

As a DM I would find it hard to allow this with out a lot of IN GAME RPing. A PC coming to me with a pre-built character like this would get shot down almost instantly. You want to play a redeemed Barbarian who went into major book study... ok why? You want to play a book worm whom gave up his life for the wilds... why?

EDIT: And there would be no switching back and forth once the choice was made.

Character concept is one thing... putting together a collection of skills to "build a character" seems way to much like the gremlins from gremilns 2. And while that was entertaining, ultimately it was not that good of a movie.

And who says they don't have a reason? Maybe after surviving a particularly rough battle or a natural disaster due to what he believed to be divine intervention he forswore his wild existence and became a monk. (Not the class. I mean, well, a cloistered cleric...) It's a common trope in stories, and we have examples of this happening to people in real life! If they provide a logical reason in their backstory, I see no reason not to allow it.

Now, say the same guy has to go adventuring, for whatever reason. Maybe his order sent him out on a mission because he was the one most capable of completing it due to his past experiences. Maybe some enemy burned his temple down and he's out to avenge his friends. For whatever reason, he's back in the wild, stabbing things to death. He's also casting spells and learning more about how his magic works. How are his barbarian skills not going to improve along with his cleric ones? Not letting the character improve both actually seems less logical here.

[hex0]

A paladin/sorcerer/spellsword/abjurant champ/sacred exorcist makes sense. It's a charisma based gish build.

True. On the other hand I could see how weird it could be to go Trapsmith/Swiftblade all of a sudden.

[Hiro Protagonest]

True. On the other hand I could see how weird it could be to go Trapsmith/Swiftblade all of a sudden.

Why Swiftblade? It's a gish PrC that basically just enhances your fighting and casting. Trapsmith I could see as being weird.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

EX: Barbarian/Cloistered Cleric/Focused Conjurer

First of all, that combination of classes has no synergy, there is no benefit to combining all of those into one character, and it just looks like an intentionally bad example. That is a straw man, you created it so that you could beat it up and in doing so think that you're actually beating up viable multiclassing, which you're not.

Second, you're imposing the built-in flavor of Barbarian as though it was somehow inseparably welded to the class, which it is not. Barbarians are only illiterate if you have levels in no other classes, and haven't spent a few skill points to gain literacy at 1st level (which may as well be from childhood, having learned to read no later than anyone else). Not every barbarian is illiterate, not every barbarian lives off the land out in the wilderness, not even every barbarian is a wild savage. You're imposing your own personal stereotypes onto that class, so if someone makes a character who mechanically fits with using the Barbarian class, in your mind it won't work unless they also fit those stereotypes. This is completely incorrect.

In your example, the character could be a Jekyll and Hyde type, studious and religious normally, but capable of bouts of furious rage during which an inhuman strength wells up from within him. He could study Conjuration extra-hard because he loves monkeys and playing with monkeys and watching their hilarious antics helps him to stay calm. Those Conjurer levels would be so that he can prepare a lot of Summon Monster 1 during downtime to conjure what he calls a "Celestial Monkey Therapy" which keeps him from flying off the handle during everyday life.

Just because you can't think of any in-character explanation for a certain multiclass combination does not make that multiclass combination any less valid than any given single-class character.

[Telonius]

EX: Barbarian/Cloistered Cleric/Focused Conjurer

Barbarian: Wild/savage Illiterate being whom lives off the land and flies into a rage when engaged in a combat. non-lawful

Cloistered Cleric: The cloistered cleric spends more time than other clerics in study and prayer and less in martial training. He gives up some of the cleric's combat prowess in exchange for greater skill access and a wider range of spells devoted to knowledge (and the protection of knowledge).

Most cloistered clerics are non-chaotic, since they believe that a disciplined lifestyle lends itself better to learning.

Mechanically the crunch says this is a great combo..... but... they are nearly polar opposites. All the barbarian needed was a note saying always chaotic (which non-lawful comes close to saying)

As a DM I would find it hard to allow this with out a lot of IN GAME RPing. A PC coming to me with a pre-built character like this would get shot down almost instantly. You want to play a redeemed Barbarian who went into major book study... ok why? You want to play a book worm whom gave up his life for the wilds... why?



You just need a little creativity there.

Brother McLanahan, former angry young man and hoodlum, known for his fierce temper in his youth. He never went in for much book-learning, but learned how to survive on his own. After a fight went particularly sour he was taken in by a local Cleric of Kord to rest and recuperate. After the Cleric beat him in an arm-wrestling match, he was sufficiently impressed that he decided to devote himself to Kord. The Cleric decided that McLanahan needed to seriously catch up on his studies - knowledge is strength, after all - so off to the books he went.

McLanahan isn't interested in knowledge for its own sake, but what knowledge can do for him. He follows the disciplines because they benefit him, not because he believes in discipline in and of itself.

[NNescio]

Second, you're imposing the built-in flavor of Barbarian as though it was somehow inseparably welded to the class, which it is not. Barbarians are only illiterate if you have levels in no other classes, and haven't spent a few skill points to gain literacy at 1st level (which may as well be from childhood, having learned to read no later than anyone else). Not every barbarian is illiterate, not every barbarian lives off the land out in the wilderness, not even every barbarian is a wild savage. You're imposing your own personal stereotypes onto that class, so if someone makes a character who mechanically fits with using the Barbarian class, in your mind it won't work unless they also fit those stereotypes. This is completely incorrect.

On a related note:

Drizzt: Fighter 8/Barbarian 1/Ranger 6/Rogue 2/Dervish 1
Elminister: Fighter 1/Rogue 2/Cleric 3/Wizard 24/Archmage 5*

(*Hodgepodge build with crap synergy)

[Hiro Protagonest]

On a related note:

Drizzt: Fighter 8/Barbarian 1/Ranger 6/Rogue 2/Dervish 1

With that rage variant from PHBII that activates when you're down at 5*level or less HP. Combined with Whirling Frenzy.

But replace the fighter levels with warblade levels.

[JaronK]

Whats with all the jumping around? I have seen builds with 3 or 4 base classes and 3 or 4 PrCs. It just seems silly to me to create a character that has no focus.

Let's take, for example, OA Samurai 2/Warblade 2/Monk 1/Shou Disciple 5/Iaijutsu Master 10 with Kung Fu Genius.

Is this character without focus? No, he's a weapon master. He bounced through many classes, but all of it was building towards being a master of Iaijutsu... his Monk and Shou Disciple levels built up his ability to defend himself (Int to AC twice, eventually). His Warblade levels give him more flexibility with his sword, and the rest all let him flurry and do huge damage when he draws his blade. He has complete focus.

How about a Binder 1/Archivist 3/Anima Mage 10/Tainted Sorcerer 1/Tenebrous Apostate 5 (divine adaptation of Anima Mage, obviously)?

Is this character without focus? No, he's a character who studies ancient magics for more power. He's willing to do anything for more power, including letting eldritch abominations and vestiges of death into his soul. He's a classic dark wizard character.

Some people get the vision for their character first, pull together the roleplay, THEN find mechanics to support what they're doing.

JaronK

[Thespianus]

First of all, that combination of classes has no synergy, there is no benefit to combining all of those into one character, and it just looks like an intentionally bad example. That is a straw man, you created it so that you could beat it up and in doing so think that you're actually beating up viable multiclassing, which you're not.
I "created" it, he just brought it up, and it's not a straw man at all.

The Barbarian wants to move and attack, and loves free devotion feats, so the Cloistered cleric is perfectly reasonable. War domain, Travel Devotion and Knowledge Devotion (even a sucky roll yields a +1 bonus to hit).

The Focused Conjurer brings the Abrupt Jaunt ability (and a free Fighter feat), which is outstanding for any character who wants to be able to Full Attack.

And you know that a Barbarian/CC/FC is on the low end of the crazy-scale of what can be found here. ;)

EDIT: Sure, the argument about class fluff being completely redundant can be made. I'm trying to explain that there's on "older" (see definition above) view where classes were not merely OOC-knowledge, and this "older" view is what clashes with the way 3.X is played.

[Greenish]

With that rage variant from PHBII that activates when you're down at 5*level or less HP. Combined with Whirling Frenzy.

But replace the fighter levels with warblade levels.That's what we might do for statting him up, but NNescio pointed out how his build officially goes. Hardly an unfocused character, there, even if it's rather poorly executed.

[McClintock]

Greenish: show me an example of a wizard, monk, bard, etc that learned their skills on their own. Solely and COMPLETELY on their own and I will retract my statement.


That being said, I've spent enough time on here to have my shields worn down, and I no longer cringe at Barbarian/Cloistered Cleric/Focused Conjurer-builds. ;)
I pulled this from one of the posters in this thread.. not a build I came up, just something one of you said. We all play a game with a set of rules, within those rules are set the stereotypes (the fluff). I am only working within the parameters that were set for in the game we all play. If you all choose to disregard the "fluff" (rules) that's your choice. There is nothing set in the rules about how many classes you take or how many prestiges you are allowed to enter. I (and my group) choose to impose what we feel is a logical limit based on how we want to play. I am not trying to say what you want is wrong, I am trying to understand why people do what they do.

I guess it is just the old school vs the new school argument that defines this. I started playing almost 20 years ago when it was a bit tougher to "switch" the path of your character. I see 3.X as being the easy way out....

Crap I am starting to sound like an old person... "You kids have it too easy. Back in my day, we never had any of these new fangled tools"

so at this point i agree that there are merits, but I will need to filter these through my own opinions.

[0nimaru]

Ten Cents from a person who only DMs for sub-optimizers:

With games ranging into level 12-16, most of my players end up Base 5-6/PrC 8-9. Since they don't spend a lot of time book diving and exploring optimization online, my players tend to look over a class from the bottom features up.

There is a sense of excitement and character development in reaching high levels of a PrC and unlocking capstones. Are you a guy that is good at making will saves against dragons, or are you a grizzled anti-dragon warrior with special tactics, methods, and spell-likes? Did you spontaneously develop telepathy, and then nothing more came of it, or are you a mind dominator with permanent lackeys?

The second options are almost always worse without DM modifications of classes, but sub-op people get into a class to define how their character is advancing and to get at the cool techniques at the bottom.

[Greenish]

Greenish: show me an example of a wizard, monk, bard, etc that learned their skills on their own. Solely and COMPLETELY on their own and I will retract my statement.What do you mean?

[McClintock]

From Post #20 - Your POST:


All classes that need to be taught, whether it comes from a school or a master, these are not things you can just "pick up".
Says who?

[TroubleBrewing]

What do you mean?

He's asking for an example (presumably from fantasy literature) of a character that has levels in a class that (in his mind) requires some sort of training/mentorship/master-apprentice relationship to learn, but had no such training.

So, a self-taught Wizard. Seems easy enough to find.

[nightwyrm]

In a sense, 3.x isn't a true class-based system. It's a point buy system where every time you level up you get 1 point to buy a level of pre-packaged abilities from the character class buffet table.

Meanwhile, fluff is mutable while mechanics aren't. So you pick the class-level with the mechanics you're looking for from the buffet table in order to fit a character concept you have. Mostly because the existing classes often are unable to accomplish that if you take them from 1 to 20.

[NNescio]

Greenish: show me an example of a wizard, monk, bard, etc that learned their skills on their own. Solely and COMPLETELY on their own and I will retract my statement.

So who's the first Wizard, Monk, or Bard?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Wizard: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html

Monk: Good at punching stuff, natural insight keeps him safe. He could have grown up as a brawler who through years of mental conditioning learned his other class features, easy enough.

Bard: Spellcasting can be explained the same way it is for a Sorcerer. For the music, he's always been a natural musician and performer, and has enjoyed telling tales that captivated and inspired his audiences. Through years of practice, he's figured out just what kinds of notes and verses are perfect for inspiring men to great deeds.

[Big Fau]

Greenish: show me an example of a wizard, monk, bard, etc that learned their skills on their own. Solely and COMPLETELY on their own and I will retract my statement.


That is the flavor WotC built into 3.5, and is not required to make a character of that class.

[Greenish]

From Post #20 - Your POST:I know what I posted, I asked what do you mean?

[NNescio]

As for the self-taught wizard, we have an official example from the good ol' days of OD&D:

Bargle.

Yannow, the guy who backstabbed a Wizard Magic-User and taught himself magic with the spellbook he stole.

[McClintock]

Um ok... What I mean is this... you would allow a player to come to your game and play... say a rogue for a few levels, and then without advanced warning tell you his next level is in wizard. Say you are playing in a time sensitive campaign like RHoD that doesn't allow large amounts of down time. You would allow a PC to suddenly have knowledge of being a wizard, because it fits his build? No questions asked?

[flumphy]

I pulled this from one of the posters in this thread.. not a build I came up, just something one of you said. We all play a game with a set of rules, within those rules are set the stereotypes (the fluff). I am only working within the parameters that were set for in the game we all play. If you all choose to disregard the "fluff" (rules) that's your choice. There is nothing set in the rules about how many classes you take or how many prestiges you are allowed to enter. I (and my group) choose to impose what we feel is a logical limit based on how we want to play. I am not trying to say what you want is wrong, I am trying to understand why people do what they do.


Except I'm actually mostly against disregarding the fluff. I am merely saying that virtually all builds can have perfectly logical explanations withing the default fluff.


Um ok... What I mean is this... you would allow a player to come to your game and play... say a rogue for a few levels, and then without advanced warning tell you his next level is in wizard. Say you are playing in a time sensitive campaign like RHoD that doesn't allow large amounts of down time. You would allow a PC to suddenly have knowledge of being a wizard, because it fits his build? No questions asked?

Unless I'm playing with complete newbies, I require a 1-20 build ahead of time so I can work in plothooks and help them fill RP requirements and such. In the scenario your given, I'd make them provide a reason in their backstory why they were studying to become a wizard and encourage them to actually RP that out if a relevant scene came up.

If they were originally planning on doing something completely mundane and suddenly wanted to change their plans take a level of wizard out of the blue, I may or may not allow it depending on the explanation. In most cases, I would probably make them wait a level or two, studying or observing other casters in the interim. However, this has never come up, since planning your build from the beginning is important anyway.

[Kaje]

Um ok... What I mean is this... you would allow a player to come to your game and play... say a rogue for a few levels, and then without advanced warning tell you his next level is in wizard. Say you are playing in a time sensitive campaign like RHoD that doesn't allow large amounts of down time. You would allow a PC to suddenly have knowledge of being a wizard, because it fits his build? No questions asked?

He picked up a few minor tricks as he went along, and finally figured it out.

[NNescio]

Um ok... What I mean is this... you would allow a player to come to your game and play... say a rogue for a few levels, and then without advanced warning tell you his next level is in wizard. Say you are playing in a time sensitive campaign like RHoD that doesn't allow large amounts of down time. You would allow a PC to suddenly have knowledge of being a wizard, because it fits his build? No questions asked?

Just retroactively assume... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html)

[Essence_of_War]

We'd talk about it for sure, but if they could come up with a good in-character reason for it, and it fit their character concept (I want to be a sneaky fellow who combines my dexterity and liberal arts education in larceny with some innate magical talents!) I'd be fine with it. Adding a level of wizard to a 6th level rogue isn't a change like "I'm a rogue, I'm sneaky! LAWL Oh wait, now I'm a wizard and very studious and wear robes and only cast spells!". They're skillset probably principally matches with their previous levels, and this next wizard level is seeing them branch out into other interests and supplement that skillset.

[Big Fau]

Um ok... What I mean is this... you would allow a player to come to your game and play... say a rogue for a few levels, and then without advanced warning tell you his next level is in wizard. Say you are playing in a time sensitive campaign like RHoD that doesn't allow large amounts of down time. You would allow a PC to suddenly have knowledge of being a wizard, because it fits his build? No questions asked?

Absolutely. There's nothing requiring a character to take the time to learn how. That entire idea is a house rule suggested by the DMG, but it even applies to single-classed characters trying to take yet another level in their preferred class.


In all honesty, DnD doesn't make sense as-is. Why bother trying to apply it to multiclassing when the classes themselves still make even less sense anyway?


Edit: And Rogues trained in UMD can most certainly learn on their own.

[Thespianus]

Just retroactively assume... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html)
Yes, that describes it exactly. Us "old" players share Vs headache in the last frame. :)

[NNescio]

And really, where else do all those Arcane Tricksters/Unseen Seers come from?

[McClintock]

NNescio & Kaje thank you both for reinforcing my point. We are just to ASSUME its been done, so no role-playing. Which makes Classes a collection of abilities with no real connection to the character. Elan does nothing to get what he wants.. and just takes what he needs(wants). I prefer the way we do things. The classes support the character, but its done though role-playing and for us, makes sense.

[Starbuck_II]

Um ok... What I mean is this... you would allow a player to come to your game and play... say a rogue for a few levels, and then without advanced warning tell you his next level is in wizard. Say you are playing in a time sensitive campaign like RHoD that doesn't allow large amounts of down time. You would allow a PC to suddenly have knowledge of being a wizard, because it fits his build? No questions asked?
RHoD I thought was only time sensitive near beggining, I heard it was less so later (don't spoil me if I am wrong since I'm in a game of it near beginning).
Were I DMing, yes, as long as he understood, he would be limited to mostly free spells only (unless he buys a scrolls) so the 2 free each level and 1st lv ones.

I would ask how it fits their character maybe, but since fluff is mutable, if he gives it a reasonable try: sure.
As long as it is not 3.0 material: Pun-Pun orginially came from there (Serpant Kingdoms) so I've become very leery of anything 3.0 in a 3.5 game.

The exception was the 3.0 DMG's apprentice classes: multiclassing at 1st level. It was awesome concept cut when they did 3.5. Letting you be a Rogue 0/Wizard 0 (till you hit 2nd level), one class is primary and you get hp/skill points from (x4), at 2nd level the other gives its abilities.
But you still get the goodies like Sneak attack/spells at 0th (reduced spells/day though).

[NNescio]

NNescio & Kaje thank you both for reinforcing my point. We are just to ASSUME its been done, so no role-playing. Which makes Classes a collection of abilities with no real connection to the character. Elan does nothing to get what he wants.. and just takes what he needs(wants). I prefer the way we do things. The classes support the character, but its done though role-playing and for us, makes sense.

I was being facetious, and the original comic was satire anyway. Granted, it pokes fun at both sides of the debate, but still.

[Thespianus]

And really, where else do all those Arcane Tricksters/Unseen Seers come from?

As McClintock and I wrote earlier, those builds combine "Roguery" with "Wizarding" and somehow the focus remains (especially if you go through the whole 10 levels of US ;) )

I know, I know, it doesn't always make sense. Some PrC-rich builds feel ok and some don't. :)

[Greenish]

Um ok... What I mean is this... you would allow a player to come to your game and play... say a rogue for a few levels, and then without advanced warning tell you his next level is in wizard. Say you are playing in a time sensitive campaign like RHoD that doesn't allow large amounts of down time. You would allow a PC to suddenly have knowledge of being a wizard, because it fits his build?Yes, though if the player has thought his build up in advance, informing the DM beforehand would be polite.

I'd also allow a 5th level druid (or wildshape ranger) to suddenly become able to turn into animals for extended periods of time.

No questions asked?Of course you can ask the player why the character wants to learn magic, and how he/she plans to proceed.


But overall, I see no problem. The player knows his/her character the best and it makes sense to him or her.

[Thespianus]

But overall, I see no problem. The player knows his/her character the best and it makes sense to him or her.

And I agree with this too (making my head explode) since it seems completely unreasonable to keep a player from gaining some magic skills, especially if he's playing a Rogue in a Undead-heavy campaign.

Rule of Fun is important too, more so than Rule of Reasonable, Archetype-Fitting Class Choices. ;)

But, yeah, I used to be more "strict", after internalizing 3.5 more, I've become more ok with the "skipping and jumping".

[NNescio]

Yes, that describes it exactly. Us "old" players share Vs headache in the last frame. :)

Well let's put it this way; If there's a player like Elan, who wants to be a Wizard because it's cool, then acting like V is just plain being a meanie-head.

As the next comic puts it. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0127.html) And the one after that, for that matter.

Edit: Wrong quote.

[nightwyrm]

Um ok... What I mean is this... you would allow a player to come to your game and play... say a rogue for a few levels, and then without advanced warning tell you his next level is in wizard. Say you are playing in a time sensitive campaign like RHoD that doesn't allow large amounts of down time. You would allow a PC to suddenly have knowledge of being a wizard, because it fits his build? No questions asked?

No more problem than if the same rogue suddenly decided to spend all his skill pts that level to learn half-a-dozen languages he's never encountered before.

[Flickerdart]

Barbarian/Wizard/Cleric? Nothing simpler.

Grodnak is warrior from the savage mountain tribes, who battles against an invasion of orcish clans. He is a good reader of men's true intentions, an unsurpassed woodsman, and can use clever tricks in battle to knock his enemies off their feet. After meeting an adventuring party tasked by the local king to assassinate the orc chiefs, Grodnak joins them, and encounters Brother John, a devout cleric of Kord. Grodnak is impressed with the powers that Brother John's god grants him, and wishes to also be inducted into Kord's priesthood. He is not, however, overly inclined to change his way of life, and so doesn't pursue this path beyond learning Kord's basic tenets and rituals. Grodnak also notices that Brother John's companion, the mighty wizard Jomungus, has a power that he, Grodnak, lacks, and that brings ruin down upon the wizard's enemies. At first, Grodnak is daunted by the wizard's abilities. After observing him during battles and at rest, Grodnak is able to figure out the basics of what the wizard does, and soon he scribes his own spellbook of hastily-assembled and not entirely orthodox (read: independently researched) spells peppered with a couple that he borrowed from Jomungus. These tricks prove handy in battle, even if Grodnak rarely slows down to try and cast something and would rather cleave through his enemies with his axe.

In this adventure, Grodnak has gained two levels - one of Cleric and one of Wizard. He can use their low-level abilities thanks to his already decent Intelligence and Wisdom scores that he has to help his Sense Motive and Survival skills and to qualify for Combat Expertise and Improved Trip.

What about this character doesn't make sense?

[NNescio]

No more problem than if the same rogue suddenly decided to spend all his skill pts that level to learn half-a-dozen languages he's never encountered before.

Or the Wizard's two bonus spells at level-up. Or the Fighter suddenly learning a new combat style. Or the Druid suddenly being ab-- oh wait that's mentioned already.

[Thespianus]

No more problem than if the same rogue suddenly decided to spend all his skill pts that level to learn half-a-dozen languages he's never encountered before.
But "we" oldies wouldn't allow that either... Not without actually trying to learn the languages from people who speak it in-game. that's how old fashioned we are. ;)

[NNescio]

But "we" oldies wouldn't allow that either... Not without actually trying to learn the languages from people who speak it in-game. that's how old fashioned we are. ;)

So, what, the Wizard Magic-User has to declare in advance what bonus spells he is researching for his next level, and the Fighter Fighting-Man has to learn under a master to pick up feats?

Can't we all just retroactively assume things?

[Greenish]

Can't we all just retroactively assume things?Of course not, otherwise people who haven't earned it can just grab cool stuff!


Seriously, it seems "old-school roleplaying" is like grinding in a MMO, a chore you have to do to "earn" stuff.

[McClintock]

I know it seems likes its a chore, but it is "earning it"
EX:

Barbarian/Wizard/Cleric? Nothing simpler.

Grodnak is warrior from the savage mountain tribes, who battles against an invasion of orcish clans. He is a good reader of men's true intentions, an unsurpassed woodsman, and can use clever tricks in battle to knock his enemies off their feet. After meeting an adventuring party tasked by the local king to assassinate the orc chiefs, Grodnak joins them, and encounters Brother John, a devout cleric of Kord. Grodnak is impressed with the powers that Brother John's god grants him, and wishes to also be inducted into Kord's priesthood. He is not, however, overly inclined to change his way of life, and so doesn't pursue this path beyond learning Kord's basic tenets and rituals. Grodnak also notices that Brother John's companion, the mighty wizard Jomungus, has a power that he, Grodnak, lacks, and that brings ruin down upon the wizard's enemies. At first, Grodnak is daunted by the wizard's abilities. After observing him during battles and at rest, Grodnak is able to figure out the basics of what the wizard does, and soon he scribes his own spellbook of hastily-assembled and not entirely orthodox (read: independently researched) spells peppered with a couple that he borrowed from Jomungus. These tricks prove handy in battle, even if Grodnak rarely slows down to try and cast something and would rather cleave through his enemies with his axe.

If this was role-played as is here I would allow it. He "learned" the other classes through the experiences he had. He didn't just wake up one morning and decide "I need to sling some spells, so I am a wizard today." You are all helping me make the point. Valid reasons, in game rp, being exposed to some startling revelation through divine presence is all a way to justify the end result. But building a character and showing up at a gaming session able to do 9 bazillion things comes off as a bit cheesy. Don't you agree?

[Flickerdart]

I know it seems likes its a chore, but it is "earning it"
EX:


If this was role-played as is here I would allow it. He "learned" the other classes through the experiences he had. He didn't just wake up one morning and decide "I need to sling some spells, so I am a wizard today." You are all helping me make the point. Valid reasons, in game rp, being exposed to some startling revelation through divine presence is all a way to justify the end result. But building a character and showing up at a gaming session able to do 9 bazillion things comes off as a bit cheesy. Don't you agree?
In-game RP? Nonsense. This is Grodnak's backstory. Does that suddenly make it any less valid?

[NNescio]

I know it seems likes its a chore, but it is "earning it"
EX:


If this was role-played as is here I would allow it. He "learned" the other classes through the experiences he had. He didn't just wake up one morning and decide "I need to sling some spells, so I am a wizard today." You are all helping me make the point. Valid reasons, in game rp, being exposed to some startling revelation through divine presence is all a way to justify the end result. But building a character and showing up at a gaming session able to do 9 bazillion things comes off as a bit cheesy. Don't you agree?

Factotum X, where X is the party's starting level.

Backstory: I can do 9 bazillion things.

Done.

[Big Fau]

But building a character and showing up at a gaming session able to do 9 bazillion things comes off as a bit cheesy. Don't you agree?

You must be new to playing CoDzilla then, because that's exactly what they do.


Why make multiclassing harder? The classes that use it most are the Tier 3s and under.

[Seerow]

Factotum X, where X is the party's starting level.

Backstory: I can do 9 bazillion things.

Done.

Also:

Wizard X, where X is the party's starting level.

Backstory: I can do 9 bazillion things.

Done.

[McClintock]

Great back story, perfect jumping off point. But when you come to me later and tell me you want more barbarian, I am going to say why. Grog left that behind when he went cleric mage, there is no reason for it at this time.

As far as COD or Factotum, that is their class and how they work. So what you both are saying is that every build is trying to do what 2 classes can do naturally.

[Greenish]

I know it seems likes its a chore, but it is "earning it"I fully expected you to deny it. I'm not sure where you're coming from, any more. :smalleek:


But building a character and showing up at a gaming session able to do 9 bazillion things comes off as a bit cheesy. Don't you agree?Nope, if the concept is a dabbler or dilettante (there's even PrC of the same name for it), I don't see any problem with it, as long as it doesn't overshadow other characters.

And I don't see what multiclassing or dips have to do with it.


But if you think roleplaying should be a chore to earn cool stuff, means to an end instead of end itself, I don't think we can find common ground here.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Factotum X, where X is the party's starting level.

Backstory: I can do 9 bazillion things decently.

Done.

FTFY.

Wizard X, where X is the party's starting level.

Backstory: I can do 9 bazillion things better than you.

Done.

Druid X, where X is the party's starting level.

Backstory: I can do 9 bazillion things better than you.

Done.

Cleric X, where X is the party's starting level.

Backstory: I can do 9 bazillion things better than you.

Done.

Spell-to-Power Erudite X, where X is the party's starting level.

Backstory: I can do 9 bazillion things better than you.

Done.

[Big Fau]

As far as COD or Factotum, that is their class and how they work. So what you both are saying is that every build is trying to do what 2 classes can do naturally.

We like to call this a Double Standard. It's a bad thing, and needs to go.

[Flickerdart]

Great back story, perfect jumping off point. But when you come to me later and tell me you want more barbarian, I am going to say why. Grog left that behind when he went cleric mage, there is no reason for it at this time.
Except he only took dips precisely because he wasn't willing to change his way of life - these were just temporary decisions that he made, prompted by his companions' skill in battle. Spells and domains are, for him, tricks that he can use to reinforce his primary head-chopping occupation, but there's no reason for him to abandon his life of axe-murdering orcs in the wilds to dedicate himself to either the church or scholarly pursuits.
What you're suggesting really stinks of playing people's characters for them - if Grodnak's player wants him to continue as a Barbarian who happened to pick up a few magic tricks, who exactly are you to tell him "no, you dared take a level of Wizard and now you must walk that path forever"? That would only be encouraging multiclassing more, since now he can't continue with his primary class and needs to go into something like Eldritch Knight.

[McClintock]

Greenish here is where I am coming from: I only figured it out after re-reading all the posts.

2nd edition Bard... Fighter dual class to rogue dual class to druid then you can advance to Bard.

You earned your advancement. You didn't just pick it and go from there. I think that is why I am so against multiclassing for abilities. I guess I will always see them as classes and not just a sack of abilities to be pulled from as you need them.

[Flickerdart]

Greenish here is where I am coming from: I only figured it out after re-reading all the posts.

2nd edition Bard... Fighter dual class to rogue dual class to druid then you can advance to Bard.

You earned your advancement. You didn't just pick it and go from there. I think that is why I am so against multiclassing for abilities. I guess I will always see them as classes and not just a sack of abilities to be pulled from as you need them.
Yeah, but before you were a bard, you were a fighter/rogue/druid. Why is a barbarian/wizard/cleric so different? It's still an amalgamation of three classes. The only difference is that one has a dedicated PrC (bard) and one doesn't. And how is multiclassing for abilities different than multiclassing for PrC qualification? It's just, after all, more abilities.

[NNescio]

Greenish here is where I am coming from: I only figured it out after re-reading all the posts.

2nd edition Bard... Fighter dual class to rogue dual class to druid then you can advance to Bard.

You earned your advancement. You didn't just pick it and go from there. I think that is why I am so against multiclassing for abilities. I guess I will always see them as classes and not just a sack of abilities to be pulled from as you need them.

So the solution to the perceived lack of focus is to... multiclass in a bunch of classes with disparate abilities?

You're still 'jumping' around. It's just that the developers tell you how to instead of leaving it as an open exercise for the player to discover.

You don't have a problem with multiclassing. You have a problem with how 3.5e handles the class system.

Might I suggest 4.0e instead? Or Osric?

[sreservoir]

I guess I will always see them as classes and not just a sack of abilities to be pulled from as you need them.

well, there's your problem. (it's not like we haven't been saying as much for pages.)

if that's your playing style, by all means, do that. but many of us feel that class fluff is mutable, and that that makes for more interesting characters.

[Greenish]

Greenish here is where I am coming from: I only figured it out after re-reading all the posts.

2nd edition Bard... Fighter dual class to rogue dual class to druid then you can advance to Bard.Well, 3.5 bard is someone who likes to perform and has a knack for minor magic.


You earned your advancement. You didn't just pick it and go from there.Except that you did. Fighter/Rogue/Druid isn't exactly a single class.


II guess I will always see them as classes and not just a sack of abilities to be pulled from as you need them.I don't see the difference between the two, nor do I see the need for the qualifier "just" before the "sack of abilities". Class doesn't matter, character does.

[sreservoir]

I guess I will always see them as classes and not just a sack of abilities to be pulled from as you need them.

well, there's your problem. (it's not like we haven't been saying as much for pages.)

if that's your playing style, by all means, do that. but many of us feel that class fluff is mutable, and that that makes for more interesting characters.

[Ravenica]

see this is why you MUST have all your characters start playing as commoners, bloody gits shouldn't just be ALLOWED to play a class without earning it!

[darkdragoon]

Base classes start front-loaded and from then on have progressions seemingly picked out of a hat. Prestige classes similarly are all over the place. However, there are a bazillion of them (low estimate) so in theory you can find something that fills in gaps.


Travel Devotion is not so much "oh great Barbarian Clerics" as it is "Why do Clerics get to zip around like the Flash in the first place?"

[Dusk Eclipse]

For what it's worth... Barbarians dont need th cleric dip as much as other classes.

[sreservoir]

For what it's worth... Barbarians dont need th cleric dip as much as other classes.

if they took the right acf.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Spirit lion is the Natural spell of barbarian, you will take it unless it is banned or otherwise unatainable (lacking access to CCham).

[Optimator]

First of all, that combination of classes has no synergy, there is no benefit to combining all of those into one character, and it just looks like an intentionally bad example. That is a straw man, you created it so that you could beat it up and in doing so think that you're actually beating up viable multiclassing, which you're not.

Second, you're imposing the built-in flavor of Barbarian as though it was somehow inseparably welded to the class, which it is not. Barbarians are only illiterate if you have levels in no other classes, and haven't spent a few skill points to gain literacy at 1st level (which may as well be from childhood, having learned to read no later than anyone else). Not every barbarian is illiterate, not every barbarian lives off the land out in the wilderness, not even every barbarian is a wild savage. You're imposing your own personal stereotypes onto that class, so if someone makes a character who mechanically fits with using the Barbarian class, in your mind it won't work unless they also fit those stereotypes. This is completely incorrect.

In your example, the character could be a Jekyll and Hyde type, studious and religious normally, but capable of bouts of furious rage during which an inhuman strength wells up from within him. He could study Conjuration extra-hard because he loves monkeys and playing with monkeys and watching their hilarious antics helps him to stay calm. Those Conjurer levels would be so that he can prepare a lot of Summon Monster 1 during downtime to conjure what he calls a "Celestial Monkey Therapy" which keeps him from flying off the handle during everyday life.

Just because you can't think of any in-character explanation for a certain multiclass combination does not make that multiclass combination any less valid than any given single-class character.

Well put! I don't have much to add since you've done all the work already :smallwink:

[Little Brother]

Completely untaught wizard? It's called the Factotum. They can cast and heal through quoting their grandmother and Walking the Path of Heaven, to be the One who will Rule All, Tendou style.

[Madwand99]

Greenish: show me an example of a wizard, monk, bard, etc that learned their skills on their own. Solely and COMPLETELY on their own and I will retract my statement.

This one is a particularly easy one for me to answer. Check out my namesake (http://www.amazon.com/Madwand-Roger-Zelazny/dp/0743475267/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316668908&sr=8-1), Madwand by Roger Zelazny. The very definition of "Madwand" is a self-taught wizard, and one that is stronger for it. I have no problem if a player wants to suddenly take a wizard level, but it is nice if that player roleplays some kind of interest in it ahead of time. Someone already posted the relevant OOTS strip.

[Elric VIII]

Just a thought: Would you have as much of a problem if a character took a level of Sorcerer, Psion (or other psionic classes), or Favored Soul without roleplaying/earning it?

All of those could be explained away by unknown innate talents that suddenly surface. I think the problem is that you're stereotyping the Wizard as someone locked in his musty old study for the first 80 years of his life reading dusty old books.

What is wrong with someone having an innate talent with prepared magic? I don't expect you to make a spellbook and familiar spontaneously appear for the new Wizard. However, there's nothing wrong with suddenly discovering an affinity for vancian magic, taking a level in Wizard, and buying a spellbook in the next town you visit. You even simulate his unfamiliarness with magic by the fact that he cannot cast spells at as high a level as a Wizard X, where X is his ECL.

[Jude_H]

Stuff like Knowledge checks for class run-downs, descriptions of typical Barbarian reactions to Rangers, etc. do seem to put classes into the IC game.

I think what opponents of are missing is that character-building is a sort of game of its own. (Can I make a one-handed swordsman who doesn't die in a stiff breeze? Can I use the ranger class to make a necromancer? etc.) It's not trying to cheat or abuse the game; it's tinkering with rules that are supposedly robust to tinkering.

And regarding multiple classes as an indication of a disjoint concept, WotC ran over the same ideas so many times that you could probably put together a fair number of >15-class builds that are conceptually pretty tight. E.g, a Ninja 1/Swordsage 1/Lurk 1/Psychic Rogue 1/Monk 1/Psychic Warrior 1/Umbral Disciple 1/Shadow Dancer 1/Rogue 1/Shadow Sun Ninja 1/Shou Disciple 1/Ninja Spy 1/Elocator 1/Fist of the Forest 1/Shadowblade 1/Tattooed Monk 1/Xerth Cenobite 1/Warblade 1/Master of the Nine 1/Shadowsmith 1* wouldn't be much different than Ninja 20, conceptually.

*I didn't actually look at prerequisites. It's not like there aren't alternatives if a couple of those don't fit in mechanically.

I prefer to deal with classes as advertised - a job, a role and an ability package, wrapped up in a couple pages. I do this mostly because I feel I may as well embrace the class system if I'm going to use it, but also because it's easier to explain, less contentious with ex-AD&D players, and because I tired of plotting every prerequisite and wringing every minor advantage from character-building about half a decade ago. I'd still not agree that something like a Barbarian/Cleric should need extensive justification to alternate level advancement, or that a jumble of classes means a player is somehow abusing the game.

[Zaq]

But building a character and showing up at a gaming session able to do 9 bazillion things comes off as a bit cheesy. Don't you agree?

No. Why should that be the case? Everything has an opportunity cost, after all.

[Thespianus]

So, what, the Wizard Magic-User has to declare in advance what bonus spells he is researching for his next level, and the Fighter Fighting-Man has to learn under a master to pick up feats?

Can't we all just retroactively assume things?

The Fighter gets better at fighting, he's reaching new insights into the art of combat, and the magic user can reach new insights, sure. But a language as it is spoken by another race/culture? You don't just "reach the insight" that you now know Orc. So, no, I view Languages as different. If we play in an Orc intensive area, and the characters spend time around Orcs, sure. But if the player suddenly declares "I now know Celestial" after spending time with the Orcs, that doesn't seem sane.

But, yeah, people have different levels of what they deem sane. I realize that this is a subjective thing, and that's the point I've been trying to make throughout the thread.

I'm not trying to change the way people play the game, and I'm not saying that my way is objectively better.

[Zombimode]

In earlier editions, IMHO, the classes were "harder", they framed your character a whole lot more than what they do in 3.X. For us who grew up with the earlier editions, the characters KNEW that they were Fighters, Clerics, Magic Users, etc.

I see where you are coming from, but I dont agree.

Think this through:
Did the elven Fighter/Wizard called himself a "Fighter/Wizard"? No, he called himself a "Bladesinger", because thats what he is.
Did the Thief with a military backround who has nerver stolen a thing or did any other "thievish" things called himself a "Thief"? No, he called himself a "Scout", because thats what he is.
The Druid didnt had to be a "Druid". He could also be a priest of nature or a shaman.

So no, even in earlier editions classes were meta-game constructs.

[Killer Angel]

Is it that time of the week again?

Most builds do flow. At least the good ones do. You just have to understand them. Take something like the Sorcadin. Paladin2/Sorcerer4/Spellswords1/AbjurantChampion5/SacredExorcist8. 2 base classes, 3 PrCs. Basically, an arcane paladin...possibly one with dragonblood who worships Bahamut, platinum father of good dragons and paladins. Spellsword and Abjurant Champion are so similar, that they might as well be the same class. People JOKE that Spellsword is the 0th level of Abjurant Champion, its so popular together.

Yep, they're similar, but you're picking Spellsword1/AbjurantC.5, not Spellsword 6, or Abjurant Champion 6. Why? 'cause mechanically it's better, and one of the OP's observations was:


It just seems to me to be jumping for the abilities sake.

Which is almost exactly what these kinds of build do.
It's supported by the classes' fluff, but you do it for optimize.
Nothing wrong in it, BTW, but that's it.

[Thurbane]

So no, even in earlier editions classes were meta-game constructs.
That depends almost entirely on the flavor of the game. There is no hard and fast "rule" in any edition that I can recall (having played Basic, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E and D&D 3.5) that spells out just how "in game" or "meta" the concept of character class is. Sure, advice may have been offered in the DMG, but to the best of my knowledge there was no definitive ruling.

Of course, 1E did have far more restrictive multiclassing rules than 3.5, and the classes had "titles" by level right there in their tables, so it isn't unfair to assume that to some degree the concept of class existed in-game more in that edition, simply by the fact that it was not far fetched for characters to refer to themselves or others by their level titles...

"Fear me, lowly Footpad - for I am the Grand Master of Flowers". :smalltongue:

[Thespianus]

Barbarian/Wizard/Cleric? Nothing simpler.

(...)In this adventure, Grodnak has gained two levels - one of Cleric and one of Wizard. He can use their low-level abilities thanks to his already decent Intelligence and Wisdom scores that he has to help his Sense Motive and Survival skills and to qualify for Combat Expertise and Improved Trip.

What about this character doesn't make sense?

In this case, nothing. In the case where the character has an int of 8 and a wisdom of 8, however, it makes no sense. The player just wants the entry level boosts that the Conjurer and the Cloistered Cleric gives, he don't care about the spells at all. Just the abilities, domain powers, domain devotion feats, etc.

So a Barbarian with an int of 8 and Wisdom of 8 can take Conjurer and Cloistered Cleric dips. I think it feels wrong. That's just me, though.

[Thespianus]

I see where you are coming from, but I dont agree.
(...)
So no, even in earlier editions classes were meta-game constructs.

Reading through "classics" such as the Drizzt epics, the D&D-classes are used continously to refer to the characters. I think Drizzt knows he's a Ranger, etc.

But, sure, it's possible to play the earlier editions without the characters knowing about their own classes. Just saying that things have changed from the earlier editions to 3.X when it comes to IC-knowledge of classes.

[Thespianus]

And he wouldnt be able to cast spells, because for that you need a minimum in your casting stat of 10 + spell level.
So the Wis 8 Cloistered Cleric is most likely a straw man.

Who takes a 1 level dip i CC for the SPELLS? Really?

Or, could it be for the THREE devotion feats you get for free with one level of CC?

It's really not a straw man.

[NNescio]

Reading through "classics" such as the Drizzt epics, the D&D-classes are used continously to refer to the characters. I think Drizzt knows he's a Ranger, etc.

But, sure, it's possible to play the earlier editions without the characters knowing about their own classes. Just saying that things have changed from the earlier editions to 3.X when it comes to IC-knowledge of classes.

Drizzt has more levels in Fighter. Eight versus six for Ranger.

Meanwhile, Bruenor gets called "warrior", while Catti-brie Cattie-brie Whatshername is often referred to as an archer, and Regis is rarely referred to as a Rogue except as an insult (as in, "rogue").

[Thespianus]

Drizzt has more levels in Fighter. Eight versus six for Ranger.

In what edition? At what year? 1989?

[Zombimode]

Who takes a 1 level dip i CC for the SPELLS? Really?

Or, could it be for the THREE devotion feats you get for free with one level of CC?

It's really not a straw man.

Yeah, I'd just read the last line of your posting and wildy responded. Then, after sending the message, I read your whole posting and thought {Scrubbed} and deleted my posting. Sorry for that :smallwink:

[NNescio]

In what edition? At what year? 1989?

3.X, naturally. Since this thread is in the, well, D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 section.

Want a Wizards (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=fr/fx20010117d) article?

The same entry can also be found in the FRCS proper, as noted here. (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drizzt_Do%27Urden)

A similar build is also used for Neverwinter Nights 2.

And IIRC he's updated to Fighter 8/Barbarian 1/Ranger 6/Rogue 2/Dervish 1 in the later stages of 3.5e, but I can't find the original source for that.

[Zombimode]

Reading through "classics" such as the Drizzt epics, the D&D-classes are used continously to refer to the characters. I think Drizzt knows he's a Ranger, etc.

That may be true for Salvatores works, but not neccesarily for all D&D novels writen within the AD&D timeframe. For example in my favorite Forgotten Realms and D&D novel in general, "Murder in Cormyr" one of the main characters is a retired War Wizard of Cormyr. And thats what he calls himself, and not "magic user", "wizard" or "thaumathurg" or something.

Now I have to say, I'm a 2nd edition guy. Besides modules, I never had any 1st edition material on my hands. In fact my 2nd ed books are most likely of the last print of this edition. And at least in the rule books I own, it is made pretty clear that classes are just mechanical representations of characters. In fact those funny historical and mythological examples for each class often had examples that you wouldnt call by the name of the class in question. You dont call Templar and Hospitaler knights "clerics", dont you :smallwink: ?

May thats the reason for our difference in perception concering classes.


3.X, naturally. Since this thread is in the, well, D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 section.

You missed his point. HE was talking on how classes were treated in earlier editions and cited Drizzt as an example.

[stainboy]

That depends almost entirely on the flavor of the game. There is no hard and fast "rule" in any edition that I can recall (having played Basic, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E and D&D 3.5) that spells out just how "in game" or "meta" the concept of character class is.

You can't set a Glyph of Warding based on "class, Hit Dice, or level." I believe it had the same restriction in 2e, and the 2e text actually called class a metagame abstraction. (I could be wrong, I don't feel like looking it up.)



Drizzt has more levels in Fighter. Eight versus six for Ranger.

In fairness Drizzt was born as an AD&D ranger. His background doesn't include any night classes at Druid Community College so straight 3e ranger didn't fit.

[Thespianus]

3.X, naturally. Since this thread is in the, well, D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 section.

My point was that this focus has shifted from earlier editions to 3.X.

BUT, that might just be the way I read and the way we played the earlier editions, so it might be a moot point anyway.


What I'm really saying is that I totally understand where the OP is coming from and that playing 3.5 in the "modern" way takes a bit of adjusting.

[Thespianus]

May thats the reason for our difference in perception concering classes.
You're probably right. Also, I have "come around" more to the "modern" way of viewing classes, even though I still feel upset when a Wis 8 character "picks up" Cloistered Cleric, a scholarly class, to get combat boosts.

[Thespianus]

Yeah, I'd just read the last line of your posting and wildy responded. Then, after sending the message, I read your whole posting and thought {Scrubbed the post, scrub the quote.} and deleted my posting. Sorry for that :smallwink:

No problem. Sorry if I sounded ticked off.

[Thiyr]

Because one thing in the OP stood out to me and still feels somewhat relevant.


Aren't characters more than just a sum of their parts? Why do we have to re-fluff the fluff to make something work?

Characters ARE more than the sum of their parts. They are -so much more-. So yes, the first sentence is correct. The second sentence, however, doesn't tie itself to the first at all. Why do we have to refluff the fluff to make it work? Because that is how we make the character (the individual you came up with in your mind) more than the sum of its parts (the class levels, feats, etc that it has).

And, while I may presume too much here, I think that from this and what I've read, the big thing is that you want things to make sense. Having a character out of the blue take a level of wizard because he needed to cast that day strains credibility, to steal an example from earlier in the thread. And I can understand that. But the problem there isn't necessarily the class-swap itself. It's that no effort was put in to explain it.

Nobody questioned it when my my ogre cohort began to pick up casting, because he was the cohort of a wizard, and in its own way a somewhat fanatical devotee of said wizard. Granted, I used Suel Archanamach, but same general concept. Before that point, it had been entirely barbarian. And when it went into abjurant champion, well, that made sense. He was trying to focus on the defense of his lil' buddy.

Similarly, nobody found it strange when I brought a monk/(spirit bear whirling frenzy) barbarian/totemist/warshaper to the table, nor was it odd when warblade or bloodclaw master were taken. Lots of classes, but it was all geared towards being a good grappler, with a cohesive story tying it all together.

For comparison, the counter-examples are "rogue who suddenly takes wizard with no reason" and "barbarian who is also a cleric who is also a wizard". It sounds a lot less credible saying them in those terms rather than providing some kind of explanation, which is kinda the point. It can be just as jarring as saying "Bard who picks up two new languages every level, even though he's in the middle of a desert fighting sand worms by himself" or "Druid who suddenly turns into a leoplurodon even though their life has been spent in the middle of a landlocked forest". It's the lack of effort put in explaining it, and by association the lack of reverence placed on having something believable. The whole "class as in game construct" thing has already been argued to death anyway, and this just feels like the elephant in the room.

Or maybe I'm way off. Am I just way off?

[Hel65]

Meanwhile, fluff is mutable while mechanics aren't.

And why is that? I don't see any particular reason for this. Both are subject to the golden rule (though I don't remember whether it was mentioned in 3E core), you can find plenty of people that argue for either or both being immutable (as evidenced in this thread and its many similar predecessors) so neither is a more readily accepted gaming contract. You could say that it's much easier for the GM to decide whether fluff changes fit the game theme, but deciding whether a particular mechanics' change (e.g. "can I get Pounce instead of an additional feat on my fighter?") fits the game is no harder than deciding whether to allow mechanics as printed (e.g. "can I play a Druid and take Natural spell?") if you know what you're doing and if you don't, well, sticking to the printed material isn't going to help you.

[NNescio]

My point was that this focus has shifted from earlier editions to 3.X.

BUT, that might just be the way I read and the way we played the earlier editions, so it might be a moot point anyway.


What I'm really saying is that I totally understand where the OP is coming from and that playing 3.5 in the "modern" way takes a bit of adjusting.

Fine, older editions then. We have multiclasser supreme Elminister, Gord the Rogue who's called a "rogue" before Rogues even exist, the Ranger Otis who is more often called a knight, several Fighters who are often called warriors, archers, knights, mercenaries, etc. instead of plain fighter, gobs upon gobs of Magic-Users who are called wizards* instead...

(Or magus, illusionist [even without the Illusionist class], sorcerer, magician...)

[Thurbane]

You can't set a Glyph of Warding based on "class, Hit Dice, or level." I believe it had the same restriction in 2e, and the 2e text actually called class a metagame abstraction. (I could be wrong, I don't feel like looking it up.)
Good pick-up, I'd totally forgotten about that.

[Thespianus]

Fine, older editions then. We have multiclasser supreme Elminister, Gord the Rogue who's called a "rogue" before Rogues even exist, the Ranger Otis who is more often called a knight, several Fighters who are often called warriors, archers, knights, mercenaries, etc. instead of plain fighter, gobs upon gobs of Magic-Users who are called wizards* instead...

(Or magus, illusionist [even without the Illusionist class], sorcerer, magician...)
I've lost all my books from that time, so I will take your word for it. It might have been my memory playing tricks on me, or it's the way I read the books back then and the way we played it all back then.

_Something_ has caused me to play the game with one mind set earlier and with a different mind set now. Apparently, as this thread demonstrates, I'm not alone in this.

[Partysan]

What infuriates me most is that we would have been spared these endless discussions if WotC had bothered to make classes that can actually do their job.

[Talya]

I usually keep the existing class fluff, if it exists. My characters have themes, for certain.

I can still jump around through 3-4 different PrCs...they've just got a theme in mind.

[Thespianus]

What infuriates me most is that we would have been spared these endless discussions if WotC had bothered to make classes that can actually do their job.

Well, writing 30 something base classes and 200 PrCs is hard work. Making them all work well is tough. (But, yeah, at least the Core classes could have been made better)

[Amphetryon]

What infuriates me most is that we would have been spared these endless discussions if WotC had bothered to make classes that can actually do their job.

Even if classes "can actually do their job", their fluff doesn't always line up with a concept a given player has, without utilizing more than one class. Should players in that situation be forced to abandon their concept because it doesn't fit neatly into a particular class's definition?

[Tyndmyr]

I think I see this once a year or so (I know I have asked this question in the past), but i just can't seem to wrap my head around what others find to be a "simple" concept.

Whats with all the jumping around?

Why is not jumping around inherently better?


I have seen builds with 3 or 4 base classes and 3 or 4 PrCs. It just seems silly to me to create a character that has no focus.

No more so than a person in the real life who works in multiple jobs has no focus. Sometimes, you work at a corner store, then go to college, and then get an entry level job, then specialize in something, then go into management. There can still be common threads throughout this persons life.

It is frankly not terribly realistic or interesting for a person to do the same exact thing for forever without any character development.


I guess I am just too old school to see it, but unless something follows a specific flow [ex: Swash/Fighter or Ranger to Dervish to Tempest] It just seems to me to be jumping for the abilities sake. Aren't characters more than just a sum of their parts?

They are. Or at least, they should be, regardless of the classes taken. You can have characterization over and above what classes give you, regardless of class. Choice of class does not make your character better or worse in terms of roleplay.


Why do we have to re-fluff the fluff to make something work? Why can't we just work within the fluff? Am I just typing to hear my keys click?

What is the advantage to staying within existing fluff instead of building your own? The latter IS characterization. Being the human barbarian who likes to hit things, can't read, and is generally uncivilized tells me...nothing. You could have just said "barbarian". To make your char unique, you need to tell me how he differs from everyone else.


I love the builds, and I see the ultimate utility of doing things they way they are done. It just seems silly to keep switching around. Especially when many of the classes have specific RP requirements that seem to not get met...

thoughts??

Essentially no classes actually have specific RP requirements. The very, very few that do, like assassin, are often puzzling, and you can think of quite reasonable alternative ways things might work in your world.

[Reaver225]

You're probably right. Also, I have "come around" more to the "modern" way of viewing classes, even though I still feel upset when a Wis 8 character "picks up" Cloistered Cleric, a scholarly class, to get combat boosts.

Would it be better with a cloistered cleric 20 with starting wis 9 and CHA 6?

Sure, it's unoptimized a bit, and Mr NotBarbarian charges into combat headlong and puts all points into STR, but his father put him in a convent and damned if he shames his father!

If there's nothing wrong with this scenario where a character throws away class features, then what's wrong with a character taking varied class features that he only uses part of.

It's like saying "I don't think any nonspellcaster class has a right to take... Ruathar, Elf-friend, because it advances spellcasting and so nonspellcasters don't benefit."

Or, for that matter, no-one can qualify for Rage Mage because a barbarian taking up wizarding makes no sense.

[Greenish]

Or, for that matter, no-one can qualify for Rage Mage because a barbarian taking up wizarding makes no sense.Rage Mage requires spontaneous arcane casting, if my memory serves. Of course, wizard could do that, but that's neither here nor there.

[NineThePuma]

Rage Mage requires spontaneous arcane casting, if my memory serves. Of course, wizard could do that, but that's neither here nor there.

Stop sabotaging points. :smalltongue:


Me, personally, I just had this dispute with my DM with my Cloistered Cleric 3/Church Inquisitor 1/Crusader 1/Ruby Knight Vindicator X when she said "Hi, I'm a paladin!"

Yes, there is some degree of Classes Exist In Game, but there are also literally hundreds of ACFs and that means that classes might as well not exist. Sure, Rangers are warriors who run around out doors, alright.

I present you the Urban Ranger and a dozen other things.


Clinging to the default fluff is just that: clinging to the default fluff.

[Starbuck_II]

And why is that? I don't see any particular reason for this. Both are subject to the golden rule (though I don't remember whether it was mentioned in 3E core)

In correct, the PHB tells you straigt up that you can change the names (fluff) of anything on you character sheet.
You want a move silents roll? Hah, Lidda only rolls Rice Paper Walking.

You are told you can change fluff all you want in the PHB. But no where are you told you can change mechanics.

[Jude_H]

You are told you can change fluff all you want in the PHB. But no where are you told you can change mechanics.
Same page, one paragraph earlier.

edit:
"With your DM’s approval, however, you could change some of your class features."
And the paragraph before that one:
"The rules for a character of a given race apply to most but not all people of that race," followed by examples of changing the rules to match a concept.

[ThiefInTheNight]

OK, here's the thing: a character should make sense. The player ought to have something in mind, and it seems reasonable for the DM to ask what that is, and have anything that confuses them explained to them.

And sometimes the player has to own the fact that something is done for optimization.

But! Most "optimizers" are interested in optimizing their character. There is so-called "theoretical optimization" (TO) which is just people playing with (abusing) the rules for their own amusement — see Pun-Pun, Chuck, the Jumplomancer, etc., but that's not really what we're discussing here. Those characters don't (or shouldn't and aren't intended to) see play. Most of the time, we are talking about "practical optimization" (PO), which is something very different.

Roleplaying, I think all will agree, is largely about having a character, a concept, the person you want to play. You want this character to be certain things, be able to do certain things, etc. He might be a master swordsman, or an acrobatic infiltrator, or a smooth talker, or a mage. Usually, we hope players get more specific than that: maybe your character is a rough-and-tumble adventurer, a vengeful vigilante, whatever. Maybe he's a member of this guild or that university, but maybe not.

Practical optimization is about making your character able to do all the things that your character is supposed to do. Within 3.5, there are surpisingly-limited options for achieving certain things.

For example, a highly-mobile warrior needs a way to move without losing most of his damage potential: by default, moving more than 5 ft. eliminates the full-attack option, which kills anywhere from 50% to 87.5% of your damage potential for the round. Therefore, you need some way around that. The two most obvious, useful, and least painful options for this are Barbarian 1 (with the Spirit Lion Totem ACF) or Cleric 1 (swapping a Domain for Travel Devotion) (ignoring, for the moment, Tome of Battle, which ends up being the much-better answer).

Thus, every highly-mobile warrior is strongly encouraged, if not required, to take either Barbarian 1 or Cleric 1. Unless you're saying that every character who should be highly-mobile must be considered either a savage or a priest, you need to allow the player to refluff the class that they use.

This is not hard to do, but I want to side-track for a moment to talk about class features. Ultimately, when you look at a character who has just taken his first level in a class versus the next level in whatever class he had before, you are looking at one set of class features versus another.

For example, if a character dips Rogue 1, they gain Sneak Attack +1d6 and Trapfinding. Trapfinding can be ACF'd away for various things if it's not appropriate, or just ignored as it's minor and probably not why the player is taking the level. He's taking it for +1d6 Sneak Attack damage.

Does the addition of +1d6 Sneak Attack damage automatically make the character a "rogue"? Is the fact that he can do that a reflection on his character? Does it make him sneaky, underhanded, deceptive? What if he puts 0 ranks in Bluff, Disguise, Hide, Move Silently? What makes him a "rogue" here? The +1d6 Sneak Attack?

How can you tell, in-game, that he is a Rogue? What rules out, say, Spellthief (which also gives +1d6 Sneak Attack damage at 1st). OK, he can't steal spells — or at least he isn't. He's not finding traps, either. What about Sneak Attack Fighter (again, +1d6 Sneak Attack damage at 1st)?

Overall, Sneak Attack is fairly-widely available. Lots of classes have it. In game, it gets very hard to say that just because someone has Sneak Attack, they are a Rogue.

Nor is the ability "Sneak Attack" particularly defining. You can take advantage of distracted or unaware opponents. Everyone can do that (them being flanked or flat-footed gives you a bonus no matter what), you're just a little better at it. Any finesse fighter ought to be doing that — hence the Duelist's Precision Damage, which is very similar (albeit crushingly limited; Duelist is not a well-designed class at all).

So back the the Barbarian or Cleric dip. You have gained the ability to move and full-attack (either through Pounce or Travel Devotion); that's pretty much the description of your character, so that's fine; I don't think that conflicts with anything on a fluff level.

As a Barbarian, you have also gained the ability to gain +4 Str, +4 Con, and +2 to Will saves once a day for a few rounds. For the Barbarian, this is called Rage, but realistically, it's just a few bonuses that make sense in a lot of contexts: you could very easily give a monk-type character an ability called "Zen Focus" with the exact same effects and no one would bat an eye, methinks.

The DMG even suggests that you rename your class features to match your character (at least, I know someone did this at my table and said it was in there somewhere; we didn't check because it was fine with us anyway), so our highly-mobile fighter calls it, I dunno, "Being in the zone" or something. That's a very common concept, so it should work fine no matter what his fluff is.


Alternatively, he took a level of Cleric; this is a bit harder, because of the spells, which require praying. But Clerics don't have to worship any particular deity (except in FR, but there everyone has to), they can worship a concept ...like "Me". Or "being really good with a pointy-stick". Or "grace and elegance in battle". Or anything else, really. Something related to the character (so something related to being able to move around and use a sword well; fits in nicely with the requirements for Travel Devotion). This belief, mantra, mindset, what have you, it powers him.

We see this all the time in real life: professional athletes are massively superstitious. Even if their superstitions are completely bogus (and let's face it, even assuming that such things exist, they can't all be right; some of them are very odd), the fact that they believe in this thing calms them down, keeps their mind in the game and eliminates distractions. It's one less thing they have to worry about, so they can worry about playing the game.

In a world of magic, where such things undeniably do work, is it surprising that someone can be literally physically boosted by their belief in something like this? Their hour of praying could easily just be them clearing their minds, telling themselves that they've got this and they can do it, etc. Those things work, to a certain degree, in real life; they should work that much more (and do, by the rules) in a world of magic.

So our highly-mobile swordsman doesn't need to be a priest, even if he's got a level of Cleric. He just needs to believe that he can do these things, and believe it thoroughly enough (and take it seriously enough) that the magic of the world makes things happen. Even things that are perhaps not what he expected: improving his weapons, cursing his enemies, healing his allies, etc.


I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that neither the class nor the class features define the character; the character defines the character. I think it is very much for the good of the game that players are allowed latitude in making their characters "work" as they are supposed to. The DM is allowed (and expected) to question the workings, both on a mechanical and a fluff level ("wait, where's this feat from/what's it do?" or "I don't think that's a 1st-level spell"; "wait, what is your character going for with this mish-mash of abilities?" or "what's the point of this level?"), but ultimately the player's character is the player's: unless there is some serious problem (over or under powered, or fluff inappropriate for the setting), he should be allowed to run his character as he likes.

There's certainly no requirement that the DM be lenient in his interpretation of the rules (both fluff and mechanics), but I think it's good if he is, at least insofar as character creation is concerned (I'd also probably not play for a DM that didn't, but that's besides the point). Allow players to play their character; don't feel compelled to bog them down with nitpicking details. If the character as a whole works as the player wants them to, and fits into the campaign, that should be enough, even if it means tweaking a few things.


Sometimes you do want to limit somethings. Maybe there's a certain PrC that you're using for the mysterious cabal that dogs the players' every move, and you want their secret techniques to be known only to their members; that PrC should probably not be allowed to players unless their backstory includes having been a former member of the cabal or something.

But other than that, when you get a player who wants to use certain class features from a class that doesn't fit, you should be asking yourself: "do I believe that only the people from that class as described can do that thing?"

Because most of the time, that's not the case. The Assassin class describes joining an Assassin's Guild; do you really think that only members of that guild are capable of felling someone in one blow after a bit of study and preparation? I mean, sure, not everyone knows how to do that, but it's also not exactly a state secret here.

Or, again, the Barbarian class: do you think that only savages are capable of brief moments of increased intensity, focus, and strength? Because that describes how adrenaline works in any human being. Knowing how to focus yourself, to "get your body in gear" (to use a technical term, to forcibly excite the sympathetic nervous system) is not something that only savages know how to do. Said savages may work themselves into a frenzy with taunts and warcries; a monk may briefly center himself with a silent chant — both things can result in a warrior who seems to be just a little bit stronger, a little bit more focused, than normal. In real life, I'm talking here. There's a reason those things were developed and used: they do work.

And, for the record, yes, engaging the heightened alert mode of the fight-or-flight response, getting adrenaline pumping and pushing yourself into that enhanced awareness, no matter how you do it, will leave you fatigued after.

[Thespianus]

If there's nothing wrong with this scenario where a character throws away class features, then what's wrong with a character taking varied class features that he only uses part of.

I don't have a problem with a Wild and crazy Barbarian taking a level of Cleric, but when the ilitterate barbarian takes the Cloistered Cleric variant, it's shady from an RP perspective, IMHO, and needs some serious investment in RP to be allowed.

Edit: I got my first warning from this thread for posting replies in multiple posts without any other posts inbetween. I apologize. I will try to do better in the future

[ThiefInTheNight]

I don't have a problem with a Wild and crazy Barbarian taking a level of Cleric, but when the ilitterate barbarian takes the Cloistered Cleric variant, it's shady from an RP perspective, IMHO, and needs some serious investment in RP to be allowed.
Ignoring the Lore feature, for the moment, what says a Cloistered Cleric has to be scholarly? Sure, it gets all Knowledges — doesn't mean the player has to put points in 'em. Or he could swap those for Knowledge Devotion, which seems fitting for any martial character that has an interest in knowing his enemies weaknesses (I don't care how primitive you are, it's impossible to not see the advantage of that) — even as an illiterate savage, he could easily have some points in Knowledge (Nature) and it makes sense for him to be good at fighting animals. Other than that, you get more skill points and less hp/BAB: so someone focused on his extracurricular activities this level, and his martial prowess has suffered. But he learned all sorts of neat things!

The Lore ability is a problem. As a DM, I'd ask the player if he wanted to swap that out for something appropriate, or if he wants to start fluffing his character as having decided to start really seeking out knowledge and shed his illiterate savage roots.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Edit: I got my first warning from this thread for posting replies in multiple posts without any other posts inbetween. I apologize. I will try to do better in the future

The ” next to the quote button allows you to multi-quote.

[Thespianus]

Ignoring the Lore feature, for the moment, what says a Cloistered Cleric has to be scholarly? .

I didn't say he had to be scholarly, right?

But the reduced hit die, the bad BAB, the knowledge domain, the Lore, the new spells related to learning, knowledge and divination, the non-chaotic alignment fluff, the lack of armor proficiencies except for light, no shield, etc, paints a picture of something that is very remote from the charging, frenzied berserker. And I think it requires a decent amount of RP focus for this to be allowed.

But to each his own.

[Talya]

clois·tered
1. Kept away from the outside world; sheltered
- a cloistered upbringing
2. Having or enclosed by a cloister, as in a monastery

Technically, that's not necessarily scholarly. Nevertheless, I find the concept of a cloistered cleric/barbarian to be rather...silly. Besides, nothing prevents a non-cloistered cleric from taking travel devotion.

[Thespianus]

clois·tered
1. Kept away from the outside world; sheltered
- a cloistered upbringing
2. Having or enclosed by a cloister, as in a monastery.

I agree, but the Duskblade is allowed to cast spells even at Dawn, so I didn't wanna open that door. :-)

[Elitarismo]

I think I see this once a year or so (I know I have asked this question in the past), but i just can't seem to wrap my head around what others find to be a "simple" concept.

Whats with all the jumping around? I have seen builds with 3 or 4 base classes and 3 or 4 PrCs. It just seems silly to me to create a character that has no focus. I guess I am just too old school to see it, but unless something follows a specific flow [ex: Swash/Fighter or Ranger to Dervish to Tempest] It just seems to me to be jumping for the abilities sake. Aren't characters more than just a sum of their parts? Why do we have to re-fluff the fluff to make something work? Why can't we just work within the fluff? Am I just typing to hear my keys click?

I love the builds, and I see the ultimate utility of doing things they way they are done. It just seems silly to keep switching around. Especially when many of the classes have specific RP requirements that seem to not get met...

thoughts??

Easy answer. Necessity.

Certain types of characters don't have any options that are not frontloaded. This means that their options are to either stop improving in a meaningful manner past the lowest levels of play, or jump off to the next frontloaded class and so forth ending up with a long list of classes. Imagine it as if it were one of those platformer segments in which the player must leap from platform to platform before they fall out from under their feet.

Fortunately though all the classes subject to this are also generic enough so that they blend together fine. If you seen a Fighter 6 (Dungeon Crasher), a Warblade 6, and Lion Totem Barb 1/Fighter 4/Warblade 1 it would be impossible to tell the difference between them in world unless you saw them fight, and then it would still be near impossible. It is likely that all three of those would be described as warriors, or a similar term.

Compare to other classes, that are more obvious in world. The differences between a Sorcerer and a Wizard are apparent even to a layperson provided that they watch them wake up in the morning. And that is the most similar parallel that can be drawn. For these guys, multiclassing is a bad idea. PRCing might not be, but also isn't required. It's just generally done anyways because there are only two types of PRCs:

PRCs that grant everything your base class did that matters and more besides.
PRCs that do not grant everything your base class did, and no amount of class features can justify caster level loss.

The obvious exception is Druids, where the only Druid+ PRC that exists is also the most broken thing in the game that isn't an infinite loop.

TL;DR version: There are only so many variations of swing a sword for HP damage possible, so all the classes that do that blur together. Magical classes are more distinctive and diverse, so they blur together much less both in terms of in game conceptual space and in terms of player mental space.

[Dusk Eclipse]

In correct, the PHB tells you straigt up that you can change the names (fluff) of anything on you character sheet.
You want a move silents roll? Hah, Lidda only rolls Rice Paper Walking.

You are told you can change fluff all you want in the PHB. But no where are you told you can change mechanics.

Footpadding, Lidda rolls footpadding. Ember is the one who rolls rice paper walking. :smalltongue:

[flumphy]

I didn't say he had to be scholarly, right?

But the reduced hit die, the bad BAB, the knowledge domain, the Lore, the new spells related to learning, knowledge and divination, the non-chaotic alignment fluff, the lack of armor proficiencies except for light, no shield, etc, paints a picture of something that is very remote from the charging, frenzied berserker.

But to each his own.

I'm going to have to disagree on both the lore and the alignment fluff being incongruous.

First, lore. Bards, who are not typically described as all that studious (although there are certainly exceptions) get the same ability. It's renamed, sure, but it is mechanically the same ability. The assumption is not that the bard reads a lot, but that he's met a lot of people and been to a lot of parties and somehow through his drunken stupors and (mis)adventures he's picked up a lot of scraps of trivia.

You know who that last bit sounds like? Freaking Conan. Seriously, just because a person doesn't learn things from books or a formal education doesn't mean they are incapable of learning anything. Barbarians do get 4 skill points per level, more than a regular cleric or even a civilized fighter.

Maybe the basic training Grodnak got from the priests helped him see his experiences in a new light and draw from them more effectively. Maybe the adventure itself exposed him to a whole lot of cool things. In any case, I think the lore ability can be justified for pretty much any character who's either well-studied or well-travelled. Or maybe just a character with a photographic memory.

Secondly, the issue of alignment. First of all, barbarians don't have to be chaotic, just nonlawful, so even if the fluff were an actual rule and not just a guideline there would be no conflict. Secondly, what about chaotic deities? Isn't it likely that even their cloistered clerics would tend to emulate their alignment?

One could even make an argument that some of the most famous cloistered clerics in real life should be classified as chaotic. Martin Luther, anyone? (Sure, you could make an argument that the whole reformation thing was lawfully motivated, but if you look at his personality and theological views, which we obviously can't get into here...)

Finally, the issue of physicality. You assume that somehow, big, strong men are less likely to be spiritual, and that when they are, they will only follow a spiritual path that involves punching people. However, this is also unrealistic. Looking back, I have had more pastors that played high school, even college football, than not. Some of them were also in the military. My father-in-law went back and forth, joining the military then going to seminary then ending up as a blue collar worker. Effectively, in a world with divine magic, these guys would be multiclass fighter/clerics (or warrior/adepts if you assume they're NPCs.)

Yeah, I know, anecdotal evidence and all, but this is also a common trope in stories: people who can dish out the hurt when they need to but choose follow scholarly pursuits when they can. Even most fictional barbarian tribes end up having a shaman who doesn't fight. Even Avatar did this.

None of these observations even took any creativity. None of them require you to ignore or even bend the default fluff. I don't see why it's so bad to allow a concept like this.

[Thespianus]

First, lore. Bards, who are not typically described as all that studious (although there are certainly exceptions) get the same ability. It's renamed, sure, but it is mechanically the same ability. The assumption is not that the bard reads a lot, but that he's met a lot of people and been to a lot of parties and somehow through his drunken stupors and (mis)adventures he's picked up a lot of scraps of trivia.
That's the assumption with the Bard, yes.

The assumption with Lore for CC (or, the exact phrasing of the ability, for that matter) , however, is: "Thanks to long hours of study, a cloistered cleric has a wide range of stray knowledge"

That does NOT sound like Conan, does it? So, you want to use the fluff of the Bard to make the argument that the "long hours of study" in the fluff of a CC makes the CC-fluff irrelevant.

Bard-fluff trumps CC-fluff? Ok. I disagree.


Maybe the basic training Grodnak got from the priests helped him see his experiences in a new light and draw from them more effectively.
But he didn't do the "basic training", he can't use armor, he's got a lousy BAB, shoddy hit-points. What did Grodnak do? Grodnak read. Grodnak read many books in long hours of study. While the other Cleric interns were out practicing prodding buttock in the name of their deity, Grodnak stayed indoors and read books.


Maybe the adventure itself exposed him to a whole lot of cool things.
"One day in the library, Grodnak was attacked by another book. What a great adventure. He now learned to move really fast and, hey, he got Travel Devotion" ;)


In any case, I think the lore ability can be justified for pretty much any character who's either well-studied or well-travelled. Or maybe just a character with a photographic memory.
If one ignores the fluff, and ignores the obvious intention of the class, one can probably justify a lot of things. This is exactly what my peeve is about.


Secondly, the issue of alignment. First of all, barbarians don't have to be chaotic, just nonlawful, so even if the fluff were an actual rule and not just a guideline there would be no conflict.
True. The alignment was something I brought up to make the picture complete, to indicate the intent with the class. The CC was not intended to be seen as a character who got his knowledge from drinking alot and schmoozing at parties. I think that's kind of obvious.


One could even make an argument that some of the most famous cloistered clerics in real life should be classified as chaotic. Martin Luther, anyone? (Sure, you could make an argument that the whole reformation thing was lawfully motivated, but if you look at his personality and theological views, which we obviously can't get into here...)
This says a lot of Martin Luthers views on laws. I'll leave this here and move on. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/155021


Finally, the issue of physicality. You assume that somehow, big, strong men are less likely to be spiritual, and that when they are, they will only follow a spiritual path that involves punching people.
No. I do not assume that. Where did you get that idea? No, that is not at all what I meant.

But it depends on how the character is RPed. If the CC-dip is just something a raving Int-8, Wis-8 Barbarian slaps on to his character sheet to gain Travel Devotion to gain more full attacks, then I think it's ridiculous.

If he roleplays his Barbarian into becoming a more spiritual character, I take no offence. That's what I've been saying: It takes a LOT of RP work to justify such a dip, IMHO.


None of these observations even took any creativity. None of them require you to ignore or even bend the default fluff. I don't see why it's so bad to allow a concept like this.
Well, the Lore-bit you presented took the fluff and threw it all out the window, so I think you're wrong here. The Lore ability is clearly fluffed as "Long hours of study", not "drinking and listening in taverns".

The "basic training" bit was also changed, since it's obvious that the CC doesn't do the "basic training" like the "normal" Clerics. In fact, the Barbarian 4 dipping into CC don't do any kind of training at all.

But it's not "bad" to allow the concept of a spiritual Barbarian, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that slapping on a CC dip and continue being a non-spiritual Barbarian is "bad".

[Tyndmyr]

That's the assumption with the Bard, yes.

The assumption with Lore for CC (or, the exact phrasing of the ability, for that matter) , however, is: "Thanks to long hours of study, a cloistered cleric has a wide range of stray knowledge"

That does NOT sound like Conan, does it? So, you want to use the fluff of the Bard to make the argument that the "long hours of study" in the fluff of a CC makes the CC-fluff irrelevant.

Bard-fluff trumps CC-fluff? Ok. I disagree.

Er...that's kind of what refluffing is.

You're basically saying that you can't refluff because THERES FLUFF ALREADY THERE AND IT"S DIFFERENT!

[Thespianus]

Er...that's kind of what refluffing is.

You're basically saying that you can't refluff because THERES FLUFF ALREADY THERE AND IT"S DIFFERENT!

No, what I'm saying is that if you want the Bardic Knowledge-ability, want to fluff your character as a tavern-schmoozing charismatic information-sponge, and want your Barbarian to be all Conan-like, don't take the bookworm variant of the Cleric.

If you want your Barbarian to be Bardy, dip Bard. If you want your Barbarian to have cleric abilities, dip Cleric, but unless you want to RP a very learning-focused character, don't dip Cloistered Cleric.

If you really want to RP a Barbarian who turns to book learning, that's fine, go Cloistered Cleric. But you have to RP harder to make it work, IMHO.

It's the "I can throw out all fluff, and cherry-pick any ability I want"-mentality that rubs me the wrong way.

Also: A while ago, I started a thread asking about what the opposite of a CC would be like, a martial Cleric.

Basically a very melee-focused Cleric, that gets the Domains and the Turning, but drops the spell casting. Because THAT is what I would expect a Barbarian who dips Cleric to pick: A full BAB variant that gets domain access/devotion feat access and Turning. No Lore, no special Knowledge-focused spells, etc.

A martial cleric, because that's usually what the Barbarian wants anyway.

[flumphy]

That's the assumption with the Bard, yes.

The assumption with Lore for CC (or, the exact phrasing of the ability, for that matter) , however, is: "Thanks to long hours of study, a cloistered cleric has a wide range of stray knowledge"


Define "study." I think most researchers would count field work in the definition.


But he didn't do the "basic training", he can't use armor, he's got a lousy BAB, shoddy hit-points. What did Grodnak do? Grodnak read. Grodnak read many books in long hours of study. While the other Cleric interns were out practicing prodding buttock in the name of their deity, Grodnak stayed indoors and read books.

I didn't mean "basic training" in the military sense. I meant "basic training" as in being trained in basic concepts, such as how to read in the first place. Stuff that most of his peers probably would have learned years ago. Hence, "basic."



"One day in the library, Grodnak was attacked by another book. What a great adventure. He now learned to move really fast and, hey, he got Travel Devotion" ;)

The devotion feats are strongly implied to be divinely-granted, not learned. Also, since historical monks went on pilgrimages, I don't see why the cleric Grodnak met (or Grodnak himself) couldn't have been doing the same.



This says a lot of Martin Luthers views on laws. I'll leave this here and move on. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/155021

There's a difference between following the law and being Lawful. I will leave it at that. It's a tangential point, anyway.


But it's not "bad" to allow the concept of a spiritual Barbarian, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that slapping on a CC dip and continue being a non-spiritual Barbarian is "bad".

But why is advancing as a spiritual barbarian after that level in cleric bad while advancing as a cleric is not?

[Partysan]

Even if classes "can actually do their job", their fluff doesn't always line up with a concept a given player has, without utilizing more than one class. Should players in that situation be forced to abandon their concept because it doesn't fit neatly into a particular class's definition?

No, it's not as if I'm against multiclassing or even dipping. I just think that it should be possible to build at least basic character concepts in a mechanically useful way without hopping around this much. Classes just too often don't work as advertised.
The cleric dip for travel devotion is a good example. We shouldn't need to dip a class like cleric, and a UA variant at that, to make a melee build capable of moving and attacking effectively. Same goes for Spirit Lion Totem and similar things. We have a class (Fighter) that was once supposed to be able to represent almost every melee type, and all it's used for is 2 level dips or 6 levels with a specialized ACF. That's not good design. I'm not blaming the players for building characters that way, I'm doing it myself after all. I'm just saying that a well-designed system shouldn't require jumping through so many hoops to fulfill a concept that more often than not isn't actually that exotic or "mixed".

[Thespianus]

Define "study." I think most researchers would count field work in the definition.

The dictionary.com entry - amusingly enough - has as its first entry the exact phrase we are discussing:


application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading, investigation, or reflection: long hours of study.
;)

But, sure, "I study the martial arts" doesn't mean you read books about it. It means that you DO martial arts. So, sure, define "study" as exploring through dangerous dungeons, and maybe we can define "learning" as "learning to kill all monsters with a huge sword". Makes me wonder why the CC didn't get full BAB, really. What were they thinking? ;)

Do you think the Cloistered Cleric was intended as an extra-skilled monster-killer?


The devotion feats are strongly implied to be divinely-granted, not learned. Should that fluff be treated differently, you think?


Also, since historical monks went on pilgrimages, I don't see why the cleric Grodnak met (or Grodnak himself) couldn't have been doing the same.
Ofcourse he could. Again: If you want to add a level of CC to your furious chargine Barbarian, you will have to role play that harder than you would have to do if you went with a normal Cleric.


But why is advancing as a spiritual barbarian after that level in cleric bad while advancing as a cleric is not?
It's not. You're putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that.

All along, I've been saying that if you role play it really hard, it might work out. Maybe I haven't expressed that point clearly enough. I'm Swedish, maybe my English is poor?

I'll try to make it clear, since apparently that point has been missed: If you want to dip CC with your low-Wis/low-Int Barbarian, you will have to motivate the transition through role play, and you will have to show me (if I'm the DM) why your character is a Clostered Cleric and not a regular Cleric.

"One extra domain" is not the answer I'm looking for in that case.

[Elitarismo]

Makes me wonder why the CC didn't get full BAB, really. What were they thinking? ;)

Are you implying that they don't? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm)

[Thespianus]

Are you implying that they don't? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm)

Not as a 1 level dip on a Barbarian chassis, they don't. ;)

(unless you get a wand of the thing, ofcourse)

[NNescio]

But, sure, "I study the martial arts" doesn't mean you read books about it. It means that you DO martial arts. So, sure, define "study" as exploring through dangerous dungeons, and maybe we can define "learning" as "learning to kill all monsters with a huge sword". Makes me wonder why the CC didn't get full BAB, really. What were they thinking? ;)

Do you think the Cloistered Cleric was intended as an extra-skilled monster-killer?

Should that fluff be treated differently, you think?

Indiana Jones, low Wis so he can't cast spells (and also explains all those plots he runs into). Meanwhile most of the scholarly stuff are in his backstory instead of roleplaying proper. Takes Travel Devotion and Knowledge Devotion, while keeping the Luck Domain for the domain granted power.

Done.

[Elitarismo]

Not as a 1 level dip on a Barbarian chassis, they don't. ;)

(unless you get a wand of the thing, ofcourse)

Without fractional BAB rules 1 level of CC is 0 BAB, and 1 level of Cleric is 0 BAB. Exactly the same loss.

With them he'd probably take the rest as full BAB levels anyways.

[Hazzardevil]

Let me give my perspective on things.

Supposing I am playing a thoroughly disklikeable bastard who is cruel to everyone and will torture people for fun.
Then he sees the light and joins team good.
What class is he suppose to be if he was a paladin of slaughter before?

Barbarian? Oh no, you can't do that, you have to live in the wild and get angry a lot.

Bard? Oh no, you can't do that, you must have trained to be a musician all your life to be a bard.

Cleric? Oh no, you can't do that, for that you must pray in your church for years so that you can use a god's power.

Druid? Oh no, you can't do that, you must love nature for years and find someone to teach you drudiric.

Fighter? Oh no, you can't do that, you must train for years to swing a sword.

Monk? Oh no, you can't do that, you must sit in your monastery meditating.

Paladin? Oh no, you can't do that, you must be chosen by your god to serve him and your god has no reason to pick you.

Ranger? Oh no, you can't do that, you must live in the wilds swinging 2 swords at the same time to intruders.

Sorcerer? Oh no, you can't do that, you didn't have a dragon as an ancestor.

Wizard? Oh no, you can't do that, you don't have a spellbook to study and you don't have Elminster ready to teach you magic.

See where your following the strict fluff for classes gets you?

[Starbuck_II]

Druid? Oh no, you can't do that, you must love nature for years and find someone to teach you drudiric.


Don't me started on Druid: to teach someone a Druid must lose his class (a druid who teaches anyone Druid loses abilities).
Maybe a Blighter could teach you.

[Hazzardevil]

Don't me started on Druid: to teach someone a Druid must lose his class (a druid who teaches anyone Druid loses abilities).
Maybe a Blighter could teach you.

That's unlikely as the only 2 blighters ever printed where the ghostlord and that sample one in complete divine, both of which are insane and would be easily killed by a paladin of their level.

[Elric VIII]

Without fractional BAB rules 1 level of CC is 0 BAB, and 1 level of Cleric is 0 BAB. Exactly the same loss.

With them he'd probably take the rest as full BAB levels anyways.

Even with fractional BAB, it would only matter if he took 3 additional levels in a poor BAB class for the normal Cleric build to see a difference, when compared to Cloistered Cleric.


Let me give my perspective on things.

Supposing I am playing a thoroughly disklikeable bastard who is cruel to everyone and will torture people for fun.
Then he sees the light and joins team good.
What class is he suppose to be if he was a paladin of slaughter before?

*Humorous sarcasm*



Obviously, he would have to become a Blackguard. He is a fallen Paladin, after all.

[Flickerdart]

Obviously, he would have to become a Blackguard. He is a fallen Paladin, after all.
What if he doesn't have the prerequisites?

[flumphy]

The dictionary.com entry - amusingly enough - has as its first entry the exact phrase we are discussing:


;)

But, sure, "I study the martial arts" doesn't mean you read books about it. It means that you DO martial arts. So, sure, define "study" as exploring through dangerous dungeons, and maybe we can define "learning" as "learning to kill all monsters with a huge sword". Makes me wonder why the CC didn't get full BAB, really. What were they thinking? ;)

Do you think the Cloistered Cleric was intended as an extra-skilled monster-killer?

Actually, the definition you present supports my usage as much as yours. Investigation and reflection count as well as reading, meaning that an archaeologist or anthropologist or geologist are still studying their respective fields even when they aren't in the library. If scholars didn't go on adventures, we wouldn't have Mr. Spock, or Daniel Jackson, or Reed Richards, or yes, even Indiana Jones.

To the extent that every single PC class in the game except maybe Apostle of Peace is designed to be an extra-skilled monster killer, I suppose cloistered cleric also is, although I will concede that it was meant to have a more magical than martial flavor. However, as the above characters prove, being a geek does not preclude kicking ass.



Should that fluff be treated differently, you think?

I'm not even sure what you're asking here. I just re-read the section on domain feats to be sure, and no, there's nothing at all to indicate that any studying need be involved. However, it's repeatedly stated that to qualify, you must follow a specific deity or cause.

I guess you could fluff it as studying, but weren't you just arguing against that? :smallconfused:



All along, I've been saying that if you role play it really hard, it might work out. Maybe I haven't expressed that point clearly enough. I'm Swedish, maybe my English is poor?

I'll try to make it clear, since apparently that point has been missed: If you want to dip CC with your low-Wis/low-Int Barbarian, you will have to motivate the transition through role play, and you will have to show me (if I'm the DM) why your character is a Clostered Cleric and not a regular Cleric.

"One extra domain" is not the answer I'm looking for in that case.
No, you weren't really clear on that, at least not to me. I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. I think that's a reasonable stance, if a bit strict even for my tastes.

[Elric VIII]

What if he doesn't have the prerequisites?

Then it just means he wasn't RP-ing hard enough. :smallwink:

[Starbuck_II]

That's unlikely as the only 2 blighters ever printed where the ghostlord and that sample one in complete divine, both of which are insane and would be easily killed by a paladin of their level.

As a Ghost, wouldn't the Ghostlord just rejuvenate if killed. Can't you use Heal or Greater Restoration to remove insanity?

[Dusk Eclipse]

As a Ghost, wouldn't the Ghostlord just rejuvenate if killed. Can't you use Heal or Greater Restoration to remove insanity?

Despite it's name the Ghostlord is a lich.

[Thespianus]

Indiana Jones, low Wis so he can't cast spells (and also explains all those plots he runs into). Meanwhile most of the scholarly stuff are in his backstory instead of roleplaying proper. Takes Travel Devotion and Knowledge Devotion, while keeping the Luck Domain for the domain granted power.
And that's ok, if you've been playing a character with that backstory.

If you've been playing a character with a "raging megacharger" focus, who's sole pleasure in life is to crush his enemies and hear the lamentations of their women, then it's kind of hard to work the bookwormy stuff into the backstory.

In my opinion, ofcourse. Others might not see it as weird at all.



Without fractional BAB rules 1 level of CC is 0 BAB, and 1 level of Cleric is 0 BAB. Exactly the same loss.

With them he'd probably take the rest as full BAB levels anyways.
Not sure what you mean here, we were talking about the spell Divine Power, which is quite far off for a level 1 cleric.



Actually, the definition you present supports my usage as much as yours.
Ok.

I'm not even sure what you're asking here.Never mind, I was making a slight joke about the way you seemed to view the fluff of the devotion feats as something one should pay good attention to, while saying that the fluff of the CC can be ignored at will. It probably wasn't a very funny joke anyway. ;)



No, you weren't really clear on that, at least not to me. I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. I think that's a reasonable stance, if a bit strict even for my tastes.

Earlier I wrote: "If you really want to RP a Barbarian who turns to book learning, that's fine, go Cloistered Cleric. But you have to RP harder to make it work, IMHO."

and: "I don't have a problem with a Wild and crazy Barbarian taking a level of Cleric, but when the ilitterate barbarian takes the Cloistered Cleric variant, it's shady from an RP perspective, IMHO, and needs some serious investment in RP to be allowed."

I thought it was clear. My apologies for not making that more clear.

[Flickerdart]

And that's ok, if you've been playing a character with that backstory.

If you've been playing a character with a "raging megacharger" focus, who's sole pleasure in life is to crush his enemies and hear the lamentations of their women, then it's kind of hard to work the bookwormy stuff into the backstory.
"I used to be a scientist - I designed weapons. Now I'm a genius wasted on frivolous things, things that don't explode." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOvdBGeq6bU)

[NNescio]

And that's ok, if you've been playing a character with that backstory.

If you've been playing a character with a "raging megacharger" focus, who's sole pleasure in life is to crush his enemies and hear the lamentations of their women, then it's kind of hard to work the bookwormy stuff into the backstory.

In my opinion, ofcourse. Others might not see it as weird at all.

"Behind an ivory, gold-inlaid writing-table sat a man whose broad shoulders and sun-browned skin seemed out of place among those luxuriant surroundings." (First appearance)

"Many a sheltered scholar would have been astonished at the Cimmerian's linguistic abilities, for he had experienced many adventures where knowledge of a strange language had meant the difference between life and death."

Guess who's the character being referred to here?

[Thespianus]

"I used to be a scientist - I designed weapons. Now I'm a genius wasted on frivolous things, things that don't explode." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOvdBGeq6bU)
To suddenly change your direction is one thing, to suddenly change your history is something else.


"Behind an ivory, gold-inlaid writing-table sat a man whose broad shoulders and sun-browned skin seemed out of place among those luxuriant surroundings." (First appearance)

"Many a sheltered scholar would have been astonished at the Cimmerian's linguistic abilities, for he had experienced many adventures where knowledge of a strange language had meant the difference between life and death."

Guess who's the character being referred to here?
Here we receive a backstory that already includes the knowledge stuff. I'm talking about something else.

[NNescio]

To suddenly change your direction is one thing, to suddenly change your history is something else.

The Barbarian suddenly changed his direction in life. Because he saw the importance of book-learning/piety/spirituality/etc.



Here we receive a backstory that already includes the knowledge stuff. I'm talking about something else.

The point is to illustrate that book smarts and enjoying "crushing one's enemies and hearing the lamentations of their women" are not mutually exclusive, by using a well-known character -- Conan the Barbarian.

[Elric VIII]

To suddenly change your direction is one thing, to suddenly change your history is something else.


Here we receive a backstory that already includes the knowledge stuff. I'm talking about something else.

I don't know, it seems that your main problem is with people that let their characters flow organically and pick up abilities/features that fit what they want to play as the need arises.

I'm one of the crowd of optimisers that plans a 20-level build in advance.

In fact, In a current campaign I have a 30+ page folder detailing my character's advancement, feat choices, custom class table the incorporates all of my class abilities/spellcasting progression, photocopies of all relevant classes/ACFs, a log of equipment that I hope to acquire as I adventure, list of favored spells, text of noncore spells (for reference), and a page of backstory that ties it all together.

A friend of mine, in that same campaign, has very recently been exposed to the concept of having a character develop mechanical skills to represent character growth, and general optimization of a concept. For example, He started out as a Rogue/Fighter and multiclassed into Swashbuckler and Barbarian, but he found that he was always failing Will saves. So, he eventually started taking a few levels in Warblade and Swordsage, for Diamond Mind save maneuvers. Then, he started to realize the utility of wands and other items, so he moved back into Rogue levels for a few UMD ranks. Now he is finishing up with UA Generic Expert that has good Ref and Will saves, UMD as a class skill, and SA, tying his build together. Nowhere did he include all of the various fluff backstory you would impose upon him, but his character choices made sense both from a mechanical and IC standpoint.

Basically, your point of view doesn't stop powergaming/munchkining/optimizing/(insert buzzword here), since I can easily make a backstory to justify all of my decisions (as has been proven many times, by other posters), but it does stop the player that allows his character growth to flow organically from necessity.

What I gather from your posts is that, given a proper backstory, you would see no problem with a Beguiler/Rogue/Enchanter in an undead heavy campaign, in spite of the fact that someone combating undead is not likely to develop those talents. However, in the same campaign, you would prevent the Fighter from taking a few levels in Cleric/PrC Paladin in order to bolster his ability to fight undead, simply because he did not include monastic training and devout worship into his backstory.

[Thespianus]

The Barbarian suddenly changed his direction in life. Because he saw the importance of book-learning/piety/spirituality/etc.
And, as I've said, if you RP this change, it's ok.

If you just dip CC, just to get Travel Devotion and Knowledge Devotion, and keep on with the non-spiritual raging with improved movement from CCt hen you're just cherrypicking abilities without any regard for the fluff at all, and I think that sucks.


The point is to illustrate that book smarts and enjoying "crushing one's enemies and hearing the lamentations of their women" are not mutually exclusive, by using a well-known character -- Conan the Barbarian.
I've never said that they are mutually exclusive, I'm saying that you have to RP it as well. If you don't RP the "book smarts" at all, just grab CC for the abilities and continue being only a "crushing-and-lamentations"-kind of guy, that's what I'm opposed to.



I don't know, it seems that your main problem is with people that let their characters flow organically and pick up abilities/features that fit what they want to play as the need arises.

Going from "raging barbarian" to "cloistered cleric" is NOT organic, it's a huge, discrete jump, especially if it is only for a one level dip.

If you want to weave some spirituality into your Barbarian, that's cool. Go into the normal Cleric, it's not a big deal. The normal Cleric is a spiritual warrior. Just make sure that it's reflected in the way the character acts.

But when you go into Cloistered Cleric, in the middle of an adventure where all your character does is rage, chop and maim monsters, THAT is where I cringe. Because the CC is NOT an organic route for that kind of Barbarian.



A friend of mine, in that same campaign, has very recently been exposed to the concept of having a character develop mechanical skills to represent character growth, and general optimization of a concept. For example, He started out as a Rogue/Fighter and multiclassed into Swashbuckler and Barbarian, but he found that he was always failing Will saves. So, he eventually started taking a few levels in Warblade and Swordsage, for Diamond Mind save maneuvers. Then, he started to realize the utility of wands and other items, so he moved back into Rogue levels for a few UMD ranks. Now he is finishing up with UA Generic Expert that has good Ref and Will saves, UMD as a class skill, and SA, tying his build together. Nowhere did he include all of the various fluff backstory you would impose upon him, but his character choices made sense both from a mechanical and IC standpoint.
I don't see a huge problem with this, even if that is an awful lot of base classes. I assume fractional BAB? ;) The choices make sense from an IC stand point, and that's fine. The Barbarian dipping Cloistered Cleric (or Conjurer Wizard) in the middle of a campaign, just to get the first level benefits, and then continue being a low int/wis meat grinder without any RP change to reflect the CC dip, that's where I cringe.



Basically, your point of view doesn't stoppowergaming/munchkining/optimizing/(insert buzzword here)
I never said it did. That's never been my point at all. At no time in this thread have I made that argument.


but it does stop the player that allows his character growth to flow organically from necessity.
Doesn't stop that either. The only thing my point of view reduces(not "stop") is extreme cherrypicking of classes just to get mechanical benefits without any IC change to the character's behavior.


What I gather from your posts is that, given a proper backstory, you would see no problem with a Beguiler/Rogue/Enchanter in an undead heavy campaign, in spite of the fact that someone combating undead is not likely to develop those talents. I would be more lenient towards such a character, since the game is also about having fun. A Beguiler or Enchanter would have problems contributing and that's not fun for anyone. I would work with the player towards improving that character's ability to contribute. I'm not a jackass, but thanks for the vote of confidence. ;)


However, in the same campaign, you would prevent the Fighter from taking a few levels in Cleric/PrC Paladin in order to bolster his ability to fight undead, simply because he did not include monastic training and devout worship into his backstory.
No. I've said, at least 4 times now, that the normal Cleric is fine. That the normal Cleric is a spiritual warrior for his deity. That the characterer's faith in his deity can be strengthened in an undead campaign, I view as a very natural development of a character.

However, the Fighter reeeally have to justify taking Cloistered Cleric instead of the regular Cleric.

(Granted, in the case of the Fighter, I might take a more lenient approach too: The argument "C'mon, I'm a Fighter!! Help a guy out!" might suffice.:smallamused: )

[Zaq]

If you just dip CC, just to get Travel Devotion and Knowledge Devotion, and keep on with the non-spiritual raging with improved movement from CCt hen you're just cherrypicking abilities without any regard for the fluff at all, and I think that sucks.

And why is it worse to ignore inconsistent fluff than to perform obtuse story gymnastics to try to explain why I'm suddenly a book-learnin' man now? Fluff does matter, but the character's fluff is what matters, not the class's fluff. If I want the ability to move quickly with Travel Devotion and I dip CC to get it, why do I have to say that the ability came from pious study? Why not say that it comes from my primal soul, or from specialized muscle training, or from the blessings of my ancestors, or from watching and imitating my new friend Roguey McSneak and his quick-moving ways, or from just getting better like all adventurers do? Why does my explanation have to fit the fluff in the book? That seems like it causes more fluff incongruity than it prevents.

[Thespianus]

If I want the ability to move quickly with Travel Devotion and I dip CC to get it, why do I have to say that the ability came from pious study?
Because you want Diety Points(Turn Undead) to fuel it. If you want the benefits of Turn Undead, you need to "pay" by making some effort in character.

You rely on a supreme divine power to get large benefits, instead of relying on your own abilities to get small benefits (like Rogey McSneak). And that requires some effort from your roleplaying.

With the CC, you get even bigger favors from your Deity, and that requires more effort to justify.

In the same vein, I see Sorcerer or War Mage/Beguiler as a more "natural" dip for a Barbarian than a Wizard dip. The Wizard is more powerful, but it comes with the prize of dedicating yourself to the study of magic. You can still go into Wizard with your Barbarian, but you would have to justify it "harder" in character.

[Zaq]

I think we're just approaching this from fundamentally different angles. As I understand it, you want to change the character to match the fluff, while I want to change the fluff to match the character.

I don't really understand your position, to be honest, but I'm willing to agree to disagree, not that you were arguing specifically with me in the first place.

[Coidzor]

Ok, so I can see the whole OOG Knowledge thing, but what happens when you run across things like Monk, Paladin, Bard, Magic User, Cleric. All classes that need to be taught, whether it comes from a school or a master, these are not things you can just "pick up".

Paladin fluff always seemed more to suggest that one could not train to be a Paladin, one had to be "called" to the class in a way too similar to real world religions to really discuss very well or much further due to unintentional direct quotes being pretty much guaranteed.

[Thespianus]

I think we're just approaching this from fundamentally different angles. As I understand it, you want to change the character to match the fluff, while I want to change the fluff to match the character.

I want to maintain as much fluff as feels reasonable. I want the classes to represent more than just a heap'o'abilities. I want a Cleric character to care about and respect his deity. I want Turn Undead attempts to be more than just a daily alotted resource. I want the study of magic to mean something to the character and the player, not just "I prepare Haste, Grease and Glitterdust".

When players start treating direct two-way communication with deities as an everyday occurrence (scry-n-die tactics), or when the Cleric takes his deity for granted, without paying any in-game respect to religion, the deity and the fluff in the deity description, I think a lot of the fun has been lost.

Basically, I see the Tier-system as not just a power level ranking, but also an indication on how hard a character need to work in game to justify his insane levels of power. A Tier 1 character needs to work to make it feel right, sacrifice some of the "I Rule the Universe"-time and work with the "Study Magic"/"Worship deity"/"Worship Nature" theme of the character fluff. A Rogue don't have the same "requirement" in that sense.

But each to his own.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I want to maintain as much fluff as feels reasonable. I want the classes to represent more than just a heap'o'abilities. I want a Cleric character to care about and respect his deity. I want Turn Undead attempts to be more than just a daily alotted resource. I want the study of magic to mean something to the character and the player, not just "I prepare Haste, Grease and Glitterdust".

When players start treating direct two-way communication with deities as an everyday occurrence (scry-n-die tactics), or when the Cleric takes his deity for granted, without paying any in-game respect to religion, the deity and the fluff in the deity description, I think a lot of the fun has been lost.

Basically, I see the Tier-system as not just a power level ranking, but also an indication on how hard a character need to work in game to justify his insane levels of power. A Tier 1 character needs to work to make it feel right, sacrifice some of the "I Rule the Universe"-time and work with the "Study Magic"/"Worship deity"/"Worship Nature" theme of the character fluff. A Rogue don't have the same "requirement" in that sense.

But each to his own.
And sticking to official fluff somehow helps with that? :smallconfused:
For me, if there is (reasonable) fluff, everything is okay. The players can take whatever class or feat they want.

[Killer Angel]

"Many a sheltered scholar would have been astonished at the Cimmerian's linguistic abilities, for he had experienced many adventures where knowledge of a strange language had meant the difference between life and death."

Guess who's the character being referred to here?

Last time I checked, Conan wasn't able to cast spells.
This is a PF barbarian with ranks in linguistics, certainly not a bookworm.

(BTW, this is only to say that, while it's not simple, you can justify a barbarian / cloistered cleric, but Conan is not the right example...)



For me, if there is (reasonable) fluff, everything is okay. The players can take whatever class or feat they want.

I suppose we all agree on this. Only, every DM got its own idea of what's "reasonable".

[Coidzor]

I know it seems likes its a chore, but it is "earning it"

Well... What is earning, really?

Playing D&D is presumably something people do in their leisure time, presumably with friends, to presumably enjoy a social-ish-esque game. :smallconfused:

You're not supposed to actually be wrestling bears (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm)to death with your beard (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7814.msg257943#msg257943) in order to have dinner on the table tonight while playing the game.

So there comes a point where one has to define how much hassle it's reasonable to force people to deal with, which, generally, has been more or less decreasing over time in the interest of fun and streamlining play.

[Killer Angel]

Ok, so I can see the whole OOG Knowledge thing, but what happens when you run across things like Monk, Paladin, Bard, Magic User, Cleric. All classes that need to be taught, whether it comes from a school or a master, these are not things you can just "pick up".

Cough sorcerer Cough

edit: all those classes can function without a teacher. Do you really think I need a church and a pious patriarch to create a faithful cleric?

[Thespianus]

And sticking to official fluff somehow helps with that? :smallconfused:

Yes. If a (non-Urban) Druid doesn't care about Nature, or if a Cleric doesn't care about religion or his deity, just milking the deity for Turn Undead or spells, I think it's too far removed from the fluff to be enjoyable.

[Thiyr]

I want to maintain as much fluff as feels reasonable. I want the classes to represent more than just a heap'o'abilities. I want a Cleric character to care about and respect his deity. I want Turn Undead attempts to be more than just a daily alotted resource. I want the study of magic to mean something to the character and the player, not just "I prepare Haste, Grease and Glitterdust".

I find it funny, because I had a straight-classed cleric I played for a 1shot that used the default fluff, and absolutely refused to respect his deity at all. The deity literally forced this bookworm of a halfling to fight. Most shy, quiet, introverted, indoorsy non-fighter of a cleric in the world, who had to be the leader of a band of mercenaries and wade neck-deep into combat, weapon held high and smashing in faces. On the one hand, that was really satisfying, but on the other, it still doesn't really fit the default fluff at all.

On the other hand, I'd be just as satisfied saying that the same character was a battlewizard channeling magical might through their body in a previously unseen manner, based on the magical prowess of clerics. So long as your character can do what they say they can do, and say they can do what they do, I'm fine. The thing is, I'm looking at the actions rather than any associated sources for it. If you say you're a master of poisons and sneaky death-dealing, that's cool. You're an assassin? No, I'm a wizard who poisons their weapon with mage hand and has a high craft alchemy and/or poison, and otherwise focuses on stealth-spells. Or I'm an undead cleric with tons of ranks in hide/move silently. Or I'm a truenamer who attacks in combat via reversed word of nurturing (a ranged, extremely virulent poison which can overcome both the most stout dwarves and even the most non-circulatory skeletons) and a lot of other sneaky tricks.

Those all work. I suppose it's because I -do- see classes as just sacks of abilities, and if you can explain the abilities, I'm cool with it. Turn undead -is- just a daily resource to me, as are spell slots, hit points, and the like. You could call your spells technogadgets that need to recharge after you use them, your turn undead uses aethertrolium which powers your spectral teleportacycle, and so long as it fit the general theme of the campaign, s'all good. Now, general theme of the campaign is the real sticking point. If I'm going for a lower-magic war game and you come in with chuckles the flying monkey, I'm gonna have words unless you give a good reason why chuckles fits. And if you can make it work, all the more power to you, but while i'll stretch the world to fit you in, I won't just rewrite it entirely. essentially, a greyhawk-esque world won't suddenly have gotham city in it so you can be batman, though I won't have any trouble with you being the last scion of a fallen noble house who is seeking to get vengeance on the cabal of wizards who destroyed your family name. If you do that by a variety of clever gadgets (represented by spellcasting), I see no real issue.

edit: and to respond to this


Yes. If a (non-Urban) Druid doesn't care about Nature, or if a Cleric doesn't care about religion or his deity, just milking the deity for Turn Undead or spells, I think it's too far removed from the fluff to be enjoyable.

What if the "druid" was member of the local wizarding guild's new Nature Magic program? What if the "cleric" was a time traveling jedi sent from the future to protect the further future by altering the past with the force? Presuming, of course, that said descriptions are in fitting with the theme of the game (the first wouldn't work in a setting where there is no formalized magical education, the second wouldn't work in anything resembling a serious and/or non-wibbly-wobbly star wars game). Not saying you have to enjoy those examples specifically, but the point is more that if the power isn't specifically deific, what's the problem with someone being able to make undead flee and be able to provide bonuses to one's allies through some other manner? Is the only way to made undead flee in terror like that by worshiping a deity, or could it possible that some other kind of magic could sufficiently emulate it without homebrewing a spell that says "use turn undead", so long as sufficient explanation is provided?

[NNescio]

Cough sorcerer Cough

edit: all those classes can function without a teacher. Do you really think I need a church and a pious patriarch to create a faithful cleric?

"No, you can't just take a level in sorcerer! Where's your ancestral dragon blood? You didn't mention it in your backstory! We can't just retroactively assume that you have magic in your blood!"


Yes. If a (non-Urban) Druid doesn't care about Nature, or if a Cleric doesn't care about religion or his deity, just milking the deity for Turn Undead or spells, I think it's too far removed from the fluff to be enjoyable.

PHB, Page 32, § Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells, Line 4~5.

Also Page 30, § Religion, Paragraph 2, if you want flavour text.

[Thespianus]

Those all work. I suppose it's because I -do- see classes as just sacks of abilities, and if you can explain the abilities, I'm cool with it.

I've "grown up" with the Forgotten Realms setting, I suppose that is the difference. I play DnD in Faerun, not in a timetrevalling jedi scenario with DC superheroes visiting. The Faerun theme might be very limited, but that's where "home" is for me. YMMV.

That might be a large chunk of the different mind sets we come across in this thread, and I might have been well served in explaining this from the get-go.

Maybe it would have helped to avoid having to endure intresting sarcasms such as this:


"No, you can't just take a level in sorcerer! Where's your ancestral dragon blood? You didn't mention it in your backstory! We can't just retroactively assume that you have magic in your blood!"
Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I have been saying throughout the thread. EXACTLY that. :smallannoyed:



PHB, Page 32, § Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells, Line 4~5.

Also Page 30, § Religion, Paragraph 2, if you want flavour text.

As I said above, I see DnD as a Faerun activity, but I realize now I should have made that clear much earlier on. I do apologize for that.

[NNescio]

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I have been saying throughout the thread. EXACTLY that. :smallannoyed:

That was a reference to McClintock (note the original quote), whom I assume to be far more stringent on this issue than you are. I apologize if you thought it was directed at you.

[Coidzor]

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I have been saying throughout the thread. EXACTLY that. :smallannoyed:

How the hell are they supposed to know in character for such a backstory to make sense except by starting off from level 1 as a sorcerer so that finding out they had magical blood already occurred in their backstory before play?

Finding out you have magical blood in play shouldn't interact with the backstory anyway, really, unless you've got it in there that great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great granny's corpse were dug up and subjected to the most rigorous scrying and speak with dead spells that haven't actually ever been printed in order to determine that yes, somehow, one is a completely and utterly normal lineage of human that has never had ancestors dwelling anywhere near any kind of magical energy ever.

[Thiyr]

As I said above, I see DnD as a Faerun activity, but I realize now I should have made that clear much earlier on. I do apologize for that.

mmay, I can see that. That pretty much by default sets a lot of standards, themes, and tones about the game out of the box, which was kinda my point. Faerun, as far as I'm aware at least, is about as default as you can get with d&d without playing in greyhawk. I'm used to playing in a wide variety of settings, personally, ranging from "fantasy kitchen sink, including scifi", to Ptolus, to a mostly traditional world except the orcs got organized and managed to take over, so by the very nature of the games I play, refluff is somewhat required. But if you're a consistent player of one well-defined setting, yea, the default fluff of that setting -will- be in some sense tied to the mechanics, by nature of that setting's being so well defined. The only exception is really those one-off abberations from the way things normally are, but those are normally somewhat well defined as well (in a wonderful twist of irony).

Still, I feel that making the classes bags-o-abilities adds a great wealth of options to both the players and the DM when a setting is less well defined, or if it's made notably larger (like, say, planescape). Would you be willing to concede that point? (not to say you enjoy that, but rather that it has its place, even if that place isn't in your games)

[Thespianus]

That was a reference to McClintock (note the original quote), whom I assume to be far more stringent on this issue than you are. I apologize if you thought it was directed at you.
Ok, no problem. I apologize for my frowneyface and all that. :)


Finding out you have magical blood in play shouldn't interact with the backstory anyway
It doesn't. That's why I said that "Sorcerer is a more natural class for a Barbarian to take" earlier.

Sorcerer levels can "emerge" at any time through a character's career, that's ok. Wizards and Cloistered Clerics do not just "appear" , but are instead the result of dedicated IC work.


Still, I feel that making the classes bags-o-abilities adds a great wealth of options to both the players and the DM when a setting is less well defined, or if it's made notably larger (like, say, planescape). Would you be willing to concede that point? (not to say you enjoy that, but rather that it has its place, even if that place isn't in your games)

Yeah, I'm sure it has its place in settings less "strict" than Faerun. If that's the type of game you like to play, go for it.

[Coidzor]

As I said above, I see DnD as a Faerun activity, but I realize now I should have made that clear much earlier on. I do apologize for that.

There exists more than one official campaign setting, and, indeed, there's a generic version of D&D, thus even though that's your perspective it has no real bearing on this discussion anyway.

[Amphetryon]

Sorcerer levels can "emerge" at any time through a character's career, that's ok. Wizards and Cloistered Clerics do not just "appear" , but are instead the result of dedicated IC work[Citation needed].

[Thespianus]

There exists more than one official campaign setting, and, indeed, there's a generic version of D&D, thus even though that's your perspective it has no real bearing on this discussion anyway.
Really? My subjective opinion has no bearing on a discussion of subjective opinions?

That's cool.

[Citation needed].
Really?

Here: PHB, p55


These simple acts make magic seem easy, but they only hint at the time the wizard must spend poring over her spellbook preparing each spell for casting, and the years before that spent in apprenticeship to learn the arts of magic. Wizards depend on intensive study to create their magic. They examine musty old tomes, debate magical theory with their peers, and practice minor magics whenever they can. For a wizard, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art.

The CC fluff has already been cited.

[Amphetryon]

Really? My subjective opinion has no bearing on a discussion of subjective opinions?

That's cool.

Really?

Here: PHB, p55



The CC fluff has already been cited.
Mmm hmmm. Could you cite the specific proscription on multiclassing into Wizard or Cloistered Cleric for those reasons, please? Because what I find in the PHb, on page 59, actually does not limit a character from multiclassing into Wizard (or Cloistered Cleric, but it's from a different source). Could you help me find the RAW restriction? Could you help me find the exception to the restriction that allows multiclassing into Sorcerer in the RAW?

[Coidzor]

Really? My subjective opinion has no bearing on a discussion of subjective opinions?

That's cool.

Which would be cool if it were really discussing subjective opinions.

The thread seems to mostly be about whether it's part of D&D's design to have players freely able to choose the classes they qualify for or not, which is an objective, yes or no answer.

So assuming that we must all play Forgotten Realms just like you was just plain inappropriate.

[Thespianus]

Mmm hmmm. Could you cite the specific proscription on multiclassing into Wizard or Cloistered Cleric for those reasons, please? Because what I find in the PHb, on page 59, actually does not limit a character from multiclassing into Wizard (or Cloistered Cleric, but it's from a different source). Could you help me find the RAW restriction? Could you help me find the exception to the restriction that allows multiclassing into Sorcerer in the RAW?

And, *AGAIN* - I believe this is the 10th time - we're not talking about absolute prohibitions against taking the wizard class.

We're talking about a character, like a int8/wis8 Barbarian, dipping Wizard or CC to get the low hanging fruit of Abrupt Jaunt or the Devotion feats and the amount of in-game RP you'd have to do to make that seem like a plausible path for your character in my games.

I've never, ever in the history of time talked about a blanket ban for a Barbarian to multiclass into the Wizard class, so PLEASE stop with the straw man crap. Please? Please?


Which would be cool if it were really discussing subjective opinions. Oh, we're not? Read the first post in this thread again and tell me if you think "It just seems silly to me" is the words of a person who wants to make objective statements of the game.


The thread seems to mostly be about whether it's part of D&D's design to have players freely able to choose the classes they qualify for or not, which is an objective, yes or no answer.
Then your perception of the content of the thread is skewed.

Me and the OP are talking about our way of playing the game, what we see as reasonable fluff limitations on the very prevalent view that classes and abilities are bags of abilities, and the view that the fluff of all classes can be completely ignored whenever it is convenient.

It's a 100% subjective thread.

[Coidzor]

Oh, we're not? Read the first post in this thread again and tell me if you think "It just seems silly to me" is the words of a person who wants to make objective statements of the game.

Regardless, it seems to really boil down to him not wanting to admit that the game's design is different from previous games, so that he can play the previous games when using the game in question.


Then your perception of the content of the thread is skewed.

Me and the OP are talking about our way of playing the game, what we see as reasonable fluff limitations on the very prevalent view that classes and abilities are bags of abilities, and the view that the fluff of all classes can be completely ignored whenever it is convenient.

Or, conversely, to play it straight with your subjectivity angle, your perception of the content of the thread is skewed, because you frame the conflict in the above terms rather than seeing it as whether the player, the guy sitting across from the guy behind the DM screen who is wearing a shirt with Cheetos stains on it, is allowed to freely make decisions for his character that are allowed by the rules.

Or, from another subjective viewpoint, anything that stands in the way of fun is flawed, so one just shouldn't ever play with anyone whose stances on anything related to the game differ from one's own so it could never become an actual issue and so the discussion thereof is irrelevant.

Or even, anything that hampers your ability to have fun is a flaw that should probably be excised so that you can have maximum fun with no possibility of it being detracted from.

Or it could be taken as nothing more than a complaint that people are having badwrongfun being responded to by people who do not believe their fun is badwrongfun.

So many ways of framing this issue if you want to make it about subjectivity.

So much better and simpler to boil it down to the crux of it and then decide whether one wants to abide by the facts of the matter or not, since, hey, the rules are made to be fun and even have a bit in them where one is told to alter them in the interest of further fun and ease of play.

[Amphetryon]

The fact that you cited a passage from the PHb to support your position to begin with makes me think you feel your argument is supported, RAW. I don't feel asking for a better citation than the one listed (better because it deals specifically with multiclassing, rather than beginning a career as an adventurer) is a strawman, especially in light of your ability to cite the PHb for your position.

[Thespianus]

So many ways of framing this issue if you want to make it about subjectivity.
The thread has been about subjectivity from post 1.


So much better and simpler to boil it down to the crux of it and then decide whether one wants to abide by the facts of the matter or not, since, hey, the rules are made to be fun and even have a bit in them where one is told to alter them in the interest of further fun and ease of play.
For the Nth time: I am not talking about what the rules of the books allow.

Wiggling the rules is perfectly fine, adjusting some fluff is ok, making sure that all players are having fun and can contribute is the goal.

But, just as I don't want the suspension of disbelief to be totally crushed by a Fighter pulling out a B2 Stealth Bomber from his Handy Haversack or the Druid launching Mind Controlling Lasers into orbit, I don't want the fluff to be disregarded to the point where the plausibility of the actions and the classes are completely stomped upon.

And, yes, this is subjectivity. People have different opinions of how the game ought to be played. This is a thread where we discuss these opinions.

[Killer Angel]

And, yes, this is subjectivity. People have different opinions of how the game ought to be played. This is a thread where we discuss these opinions.

Pretty much. Each one of us tries to support its opinions with citations, rules, and so on (even in alignment threads), but the only really objective threads around here, are the Q&A by RAW...

[Coidzor]

But, just as I don't want the suspension of disbelief to be totally crushed by a Fighter pulling out a B2 Stealth Bomber from his Handy Haversack or the Druid launching Mind Controlling Lasers into orbit, I don't want the fluff to be disregarded to the point where the plausibility of the actions and the classes are completely stomped upon.

Then don't introduce things to the game that don't exist in the game that you don't want. Which has nothing to do with a Fighter taking a level in Wizard.


The thread has been about subjectivity from post 1.

So you say, but the arguments still boil down to the same binary now as they did when the OP was posted.

[Thespianus]

Then don't introduce things to the game that don't exist in the game that you don't want. Which has nothing to do with a Fighter taking a level in Wizard.
I can't parse this. Sorry. You lost me at the third "don't", I believe.

In essence: I believe that the game is a balance between a world that the DM and the players enjoy playing in, and the flexibility that ought to be available to the players.

The difference in opinion shows up in how we treat this balance. I don't think that the players should have 100% flexibility, but that the group should work together to maximize the flexibility while still maintaining the "believability" of the gaming world.

[Elitarismo]

And, *AGAIN* - I believe this is the 10th time - we're not talking about absolute prohibitions against taking the wizard class.

We're talking about a character, like a int8/wis8 Barbarian, dipping Wizard or CC to get the low hanging fruit of Abrupt Jaunt or the Devotion feats and the amount of in-game RP you'd have to do to make that seem like a plausible path for your character in my games.

I've never, ever in the history of time talked about a blanket ban for a Barbarian to multiclass into the Wizard class, so PLEASE stop with the straw man crap. Please? Please?

Abrupt Jaunt? You mean that thing you use a number of times per day equal to your nonexistent Int bonus, and that you cannot use when raging?

Domain Devotions? You mean those things that are good, if you have the right abilities to go with them but a Barbarian does not?

You can go back and forth with the he said she said all day, but at the end of that day that Barbarian is making himself worse, so any argument to talk him out of that course of action that doesn't begin with asking him if he's fine with nerfing himself (when he is already weak) is fine with him is already flawed.

[Coidzor]

I can't parse this. Sorry. You lost me at the third "don't", I believe.

Well, I've no idea what could be tricky about not creating new content that is undesired.


In essence: I believe that the game is a balance between a world that the DM and the players enjoy playing in, and the flexibility that ought to be available to the players.

Then there's nothing to discuss, unless you're espousing the idea that the DM has the ability to negate the perspectives of his group. Especially since you're already agreeing that this flexibility ought to be available to the players, the only thing is whether the DM & players together can enjoy playing in a world that retains said flexibility.


"believability" of the gaming world.

Then you'd need to define that and the idea of earning things in order to have a meaningful discussion of such things anyway.

[Thespianus]

Abrupt Jaunt? You mean that thing you use a number of times per day equal to your nonexistent Int bonus, and that you cannot use when raging?Fair enough. Bad example, then.


Domain Devotions? You mean those things that are good, if you have the right abilities to go with them but a Barbarian does not?
Tell me again how a Barbarian who dips CC 1 for Travel Devotion, War Domain power (free Weapon Focus) and Knowledge Devotion or Strength Devotion, nerfs himself.

By losing one BAB and 3 hitpoints? That's a terrible nerf to the Barbarian, indeed.



Well, I've no idea what could be tricky about not creating new content that is undesired.
And.. where did I say that I was going to create new content that is undesired? Did the B2 bomber sidetrack you? Sorry, I didn't mean for that to happen.


Then there's nothing to discuss
Probably not.


Then you'd need to define that and the idea of earning things in order to have a meaningful discussion of such things anyway.
Do I need to "define" suspension of belief - in a roleplaying forum - in order to continue this fine discussion with you?

Pass.

[Elitarismo]

Fair enough. Bad example, then.

Tell me again how a Barbarian who dips CC 1 for Travel Devotion, War Domain power (free Weapon Focus) and Knowledge Devotion or Strength Devotion, nerfs himself.

By losing one BAB and 3 hitpoints? That's a terrible nerf to the Barbarian, indeed.

Travel Devotion: Usable only once per day, takes 3 turns to recharge. Chances are he doesn't have 9 turns, so he can't do this all day. Meanwhile a Lion Totem Barb can do the move and attack thing all day. Therefore, nerfing self.

War domain: Gain +1 to hit with one weapon... lose 1 BAB, and by extension +1 to hit with ALL weapons, and lose 3 HP. Obvious nerf.

Strength Devotion: I don't remember what this does, but it's not one of the few good ones so it probably doesn't matter.

Knowledge Devotion: Good if you have the Knowledge skills to back it up. Interestingly enough, an 8 Int Barbarian lacks the Knowledge skills to back it up.

[Coidzor]

And.. where did I say that I was going to create new content that is undesired? Did the B2 bomber sidetrack you? Sorry, I didn't mean for that to happen.

Well, you are the one who posited those things in his games if he didn't take steps to prevent them from being there. Then I pointed out that the only step you'd need to take would be to not take the step of putting them in to where they did not exist in the first place.

So, in short, you gave a very poor example and should have expected to be called on such.


Do I need to "define" suspension of belief - in a roleplaying forum - in order to continue this fine discussion with you?

Understanding what the source of your beef is would be essential to understanding your position, I imagine, yes, so if you truly feel the need to facetiously define something rather than actually give it an honest definition, I suppose you should do what you need to do.

However, this is secondary to the bit where it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion of what things you can or cannot find believable without some kind of baseline understanding.

Though, really, the whole earning idea is probably more fundamental, since it would also cover the whole "you crafted a throwaway backstory in 5 minutes, free pass on that Tristan. No, you still cannot do the same thing that Tristan just did, Joey," thing as well.

[Thespianus]

Travel Devotion: Usable only once per day, takes 3 turns to recharge. Chances are he doesn't have 9 turns, so he can't do this all day. Meanwhile a Lion Totem Barb can do the move and attack thing all day. Therefore, nerfing self.
But the Barbarian already have the Lion Totem pounce ability. He's picking up Travel Devotion to be able to Full Attack even on non-charge attacks.

The cost to recharge is 2 Turn Undead attempts, so the Barbarian can do this in at least 2 encounters during the day. With a Charisma of 12, he can do it three times per day.

If you call this a "nerf", I'd like to see a "boost".


War domain: Gain +1 to hit with one weapon... lose 1 BAB, and by extension +1 to hit with ALL weapons, and lose 3 HP. Obvious nerf.
Very small nerf when taken in combination with the other two.


Strength Devotion: I don't remember what this does, but it's not one of the few good ones so it probably doesn't matter.
It gives you the ability to completely disregard Hardness, and all your attacks gain the adamantine property for overcoming DR. You also get a slam attack.

It's not outstanding, I agree. But it adds to the flexibility of the Barbarian.


Knowledge Devotion: Good if you have the Knowledge skills to back it up. Interestingly enough, an 8 Int Barbarian lacks the Knowledge skills to back it up.
But as a Cleric, the Barbarian gets a couple of Knowledge skills. And, even without spending more than one skill point on each available skill, the Barbarian gets at least +1 on all attacks (and damage), and might reach +2 on some good rolls.

So, if we sum this up: You gain (at least) a +2 to attacks and damage, you gain the travel devotion ability 2-3 minutes per day, and you gain a feat (Weapon Focus) that you might be able to retrain later on for something much more impressive. You get a +2 to Will and Fort saves and +2 skill points, AND you get the ability to cast Cleric spells off Wands.

What does the Barbarian gain? +1 BAB and 3 more hitpoints. Maybe a +1 to a save.

Still wanna tell me that a CC-dip is a nerf? Really?






Well, you are the one who posited those things in his games
No, I didn't. I showed an example of things that I know we both would consider to break the suspension of disbelief in a DnD game.

I did not say that he should fill his game with them, nor that he regularly use them in his game.


Understanding what the source of your beef is would be essential to understanding your position
I have no beef, except with people who put words in my mouth. I'm trying to explain why I think some ways of playing the game feels wrong to me.

Apparently this is a horrible thing to do, and in order to do so, I need to define a bunch of things. Why? I'm not trying to change the way anyone else plays the game. I'm trying to explain my point of view.


However, this is secondary to the bit where it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion of what things you can or cannot find believable without some kind of baseline understanding.
Does it matter exactly what things I find believable or not? It seems odd when we're discussing the balance between how much the fluff of the classes matter to us.


Though, really, the whole earning idea is probably more fundamental, since it would also cover the whole "you crafted a throwaway backstory in 5 minutes, free pass on that Tristan. No, you still cannot do the same thing that Tristan just did, Joey," thing as well.
Again, you're putting words into my mouth. The straw man argument gets so tiring.

I've been talking about role playing the change in the character's direction when he (for example) wants to dip Cloistered Cleric instead of Cleric.

[Elric VIII]

So, if we sum this up: You gain (at least) a +2 to attacks and damage, you gain the travel devotion ability 2-3 minutes per day, and you gain a feat (Weapon Focus) that you might be able to retrain later on for something much more impressive. You get a +2 to Will and Fort saves and +2 skill points, AND you get the ability to cast Cleric spells off Wands.

What does the Barbarian gain? +1 BAB and 3 more hitpoints. Maybe a +1 to a save.

Still wanna tell me that a CC-dip is a nerf? Really?

You are forgetting a few things:


The +0 BAB means that your full attacks come on line 1 lavel later than usual (since move + full attack if the goal, this seems counterintuitive, especially in the face of pounce)


Considering a Barbarian's main class feature is :smallfurious:RAGE:smallfurious: I doubt he's using too many wands.


Multiclassing away means that you get your Rage improvements/PrC abilities a level later, as well.


As for Strength Devotion, a 1 level dip into Warblade gives you some nice Stone Dragon maneuvers that bypass hardness and all damage reduction, with no loss in BAB.


Warblade also grants a maneuver that replaces Will save with a Con-based skill check at level 1 and, depending upon your investment in Warblade levels* you gan get a Travel Devotion-like maneuver, usable many times/day.


So, taking that level of CC may not be a straight-up nerf 100% of the time, but it definately carries with it quite an opportunity cost.

Just a personal opinion, Barbarian 4/Warblade 16 is a great Barbarian, but that is not really the issue here.

[Elitarismo]

But the Barbarian already have the Lion Totem pounce ability. He's picking up Travel Devotion to be able to Full Attack even on non-charge attacks.

The cost to recharge is 2 Turn Undead attempts, so the Barbarian can do this in at least 2 encounters during the day. With a Charisma of 12, he can do it three times per day.

If you call this a "nerf", I'd like to see a "boost".

If he cannot charge things, he's already fairly well shut down. Even if he can still get off normal full attacks, without charge multipliers in effect it doesn't matter.


Very small nerf when taken in combination with the other two.

If you're going to do this, you'll do it with something better than War.


It gives you the ability to completely disregard Hardness, and all your attacks gain the adamantine property for overcoming DR. You also get a slam attack.

It's not outstanding, I agree. But it adds to the flexibility of the Barbarian.

So entirely worthless because an Adamantine weapon is 3k and handles burrowing through the dungeon just fine and low level ToB maneuvers also ignore hardness to this end and there are absolutely no other scenarios in which this comes up, right?


But as a Cleric, the Barbarian gets a couple of Knowledge skills. And, even without spending more than one skill point on each available skill, the Barbarian gets at least +1 on all attacks (and damage), and might reach +2 on some good rolls.

And not the skill points to put into them, so you're stuck getting low level bonuses, on par with a weak buff.


So, if we sum this up: You gain (at least) a +2 to attacks and damage, you gain the travel devotion ability 2-3 minutes per day, and you gain a feat (Weapon Focus) that you might be able to retrain later on for something much more impressive. You get a +2 to Will and Fort saves and +2 skill points, AND you get the ability to cast Cleric spells off Wands.

What does the Barbarian gain? +1 BAB and 3 more hitpoints. Maybe a +1 to a save.

Still wanna tell me that a CC-dip is a nerf? Really?

The point is that an 8 Int, 8 Wis Barbarian gains nothing from these things. He lacks the turns to fuel Travel Devotion and does not need it in any case, he lacks the skill points to fuel Knowledge Devotion, he lacks the Wis to cast spells (you laugh, but getting a few castings of Sign a day for the Initiative boost is useful).

The sort of Barbarian that would benefit more is also the sort that it'd make more sense for. And that would be less good at being a Barbarian due to the way stats work.

Edit: Moment of Perfect Mind doesn't help the Barbarian either as they cannot use the Concentration skill while raging. Even if they could get it to max ranks. Steadfast Determination is much better for bulking up Barbarian Will saves in any case.

[Thespianus]

You are forgetting a few things:

The +0 BAB means that your full attacks come on line 1 lavel later than usual (since move + full attack if the goal, this seems counterintuitive, especially in the face of pounce)

This is true, and it has to be considered. For most levels, however, this won't be a problem.


Considering a Barbarian's main class feature is :smallfurious:RAGE:smallfurious: I doubt he's using too many wands. Maybe not while Raging in battle, but I don't think he'd mind the ablity to use CLW/Lesser Vigor once he's done raging. There's a ton of utility stuff that you can get off Wands that a Barbarian wouldn't mind at all in between :smallfurious:RAGE:smallfurious: moments. ;)


Multiclassing away means that you get your Rage improvements/PrC abilities a level later, as well.
Yes, that has to be factored in too. Absolutely.


As for Strength Devotion, a 1 level dip into Warblade gives you some nice Stone Dragon maneuvers that bypass hardness and all damage reduction, with no loss in BAB.

Warblade also grants a maneuver that replaces Will save with a Con-based skill check at level 1 and, depending upon your investment in Warblade levels* you gan get a Travel Devotion-like maneuver, usable many times/day.
Yeah, ToB brings a lot of goodies to the table. No question there, and dipping into ToB-classes rather than CC might be better for many scenarios. But for versatility out of combat, casting off Wands and Scrolls help alot


So, taking that level of CC may not be a straight-up nerf 100% of the time, but it definately carries with it quite an opportunity cost.
The reason I brought up the CC wasn't that it is teh ueberbest charOp build dip evvar, but rather that it's a huge step in class fluff for a class that usually comes up when people look for 1 level dips.





The point is that an 8 Int, 8 Wis Barbarian gains nothing from these things. He lacks the turns to fuel Travel Devotion and does not need it in any case
He gets 3-4 turn attempts natively, with a nightstick a lot more. Divide that number with 2 and you get the number of extra Travel Devotion minutes you get per day.

The point with Travel Devotion is that it allows you to manouver into a square from where you can perform a charge. If your Barbarian builds always can charge, than I'm impressed. Normally, at least at our games, there are a bunch of ways to make charging harder or difficult, and Travel Devotion helps you to manouver around them to a spot where you can charge.

But, sure, there are other ways to get this ability too, Sudden Leap from ToB comes to mind.


he lacks the skill points to fuel Knowledge Devotion,
Knowledge Devotion always gives +1 bonus.


he lacks the Wis to cast spells (you laugh, but getting a few castings of Sign a day for the Initiative boost is useful)
With a CC-dip, you can cast Sign off a Wand 50 times a day, if you want. ;)


I really don't think it's a nerf for a Barbarian, even if he can't cast the level 1 spells he gains.

[Coidzor]

No, I didn't. I showed an example of things that I know we both would consider to break the suspension of disbelief in a DnD game.

I did not say that he should fill his game with them, nor that he regularly use them in his game.

You provided an example of something that doesn't exist in D&D and would have to be created to be in there and then conflated them with playing the game without putting additional and arbitrary rules about when and how a character can multiclass.

So, yeah, there's some problems with your example that you're not going to be able to get rid of by just shaking your head.

And whose game were you discussing if not your own? Why should you care if someone else plays with B2 bombers in his D&D if you're not playing in that game at all? How does that negatively impact your suspension of disbelief in an entirely separate game? That makes no sense, so you must've been posing a hypothetical closer to yourself than you now claim, or at least, I see no rational way I could have anticipated that you were discussing it as anything else.


I have no beef, except with people who put words in my mouth. I'm trying to explain why I think some ways of playing the game feels wrong to me.

Obviously if someone else's way of playing the game feels wrong enough to you to be worth posting about, you've got some beef with it, and you're trying to explain why those feel wrong to you, well, getting at the heart of the beef would help with that.


Apparently this is a horrible thing to do, and in order to do so, I need to define a bunch of things. Why? I'm not trying to change the way anyone else plays the game. I'm trying to explain my point of view.

So asking for clarification is now the same thing as making a moral indictment against you?

If you're trying to explain your point of view, then you're not really doing a very good job, I still don't understand what it actually is, since you both say players should have freedom to choose their own classes and yet say they shouldn't at the same time, with no real basis for the distinction between cases, since the "did the player take 5 minutes to think of something clever to say to cover it up" test didn't really seem to resonate with you.


Does it matter exactly what things I find believable or not? It seems odd when we're discussing the balance between how much the fluff of the classes matter to us.

Well, look here.


I'm trying to explain why I think some ways of playing the game feels wrong to me.

From everything you've said so far, it rather strongly appears that, yeah, why and how and how much fluff of the classes matters to you ties directly into this subject.


Again, you're putting words into my mouth. The straw man argument gets so tiring.

Simply because you have not used the word earning does not make it putting words in your mouth to see the same idea at play in your words in general.


I've been talking about role playing the change in the character's direction when he (for example) wants to dip Cloistered Cleric instead of Cleric.

Well, first we really need to know why the distinction truly matters to you between cloistered cleric and cleric before we can formulate the exact buttons one would have to push in order to get you to relax about it, if such existed.

[Elitarismo]

This is true, and it has to be considered. For most levels, however, this won't be a problem.

Maybe not while Raging in battle, but I don't think he'd mind the ablity to use CLW/Lesser Vigor once he's done raging. There's a ton of utility stuff that you can get off Wands that a Barbarian wouldn't mind at all in between :smallfurious:RAGE:smallfurious: moments. ;)

Managing the god stick is a one person affair. Generally someone else can handle it.


He gets 3-4 turn attempts natively, with a nightstick a lot more. Divide that number with 2 and you get the number of extra Travel Devotion minutes you get per day.

One use = one fight. Which means if you can't get at least 4, it isn't always on. More than that though, he already has a better ability from Lion Totem Barb.


The point with Travel Devotion is that it allows you to manouver into a square from where you can perform a charge. If your Barbarian builds always can charge, than I'm impressed. Normally, at least at our games, there are a bunch of ways to make charging harder or difficult, and Travel Devotion helps you to manouver around them to a spot where you can charge.

But, sure, there are other ways to get this ability too, Sudden Leap from ToB comes to mind.

There are plenty of ways. Most of them are more practical than this. Yes, there are plenty of ways to counter a charge but any Barbarian worth playing has already found ways around them. And the ones that can't? Well, they aren't worth playing.


Knowledge Devotion always gives +1 bonus.

And a +1 bonus isn't worth it. For it to be worth it, you need higher bonuses. Those higher bonuses in turn require skill points to fuel that a 8 Int Barbarian does not have. There are 6 different Knowledges that apply after all, so at the minimum you'd have to be a 12 Int Human Barbarian just to get one Knowledge skill maxed and the others at half due to CC ranks.


With a CC-dip, you can cast Sign off a Wand 50 times a day, if you want. ;)

I really don't think it's a nerf for a Barbarian, even if he can't cast the level 1 spells he gains.

If you're going to bring wands into it, you can UMD those without too much difficulty.

Again, the point is that an 8 Int 8 Wis Barbarian cannot make use of a CC dip properly, and the ones that can it also makes a lot more sense for, which silences those silly fluff concerns in one swift move.

[Thespianus]

One use = one fight. Which means if you can't get at least 4, it isn't always on. More than that though, he already has a better ability from Lion Totem Barb.

Travel Devotion complements the Lion Totem Barbarian is what I'm saying. Maybe it doesn't do it better than any other ability, but it still improves on the Barbarians mobility, and helps him get off more charges.


And a +1 bonus isn't worth it. For it to be worth it, you need higher bonuses. Worth what? A 1 level dip that nets you: Wand Usage, Turn Undead, Cleric Casting (if you get your Wis above 10), a bunch of Devotion Feats and/or Domain powers, +2 to two saves, etc.

There might be other dips that are better, sure, but CC is not bad for a Barbarian.

(And, if you don't like the Devotion Feats, retrain them to something you like, and laugh all the way to the Feat bank)


Those higher bonuses in turn require skill points to fuel that a 8 Int Barbarian does not have. There are 6 different Knowledges that apply after all, so at the minimum you'd have to be a 12 Int Human Barbarian just to get one Knowledge skill maxed and the others at half due to CC ranks.
Collector of Stories skill trick gives a +5 to one roll in every encounter, a Wand of Divine Insight gives you +8 to one roll as well, which means that you'll be rolling over 16 on your knowledge check on a natural 3, gaining +2 to Attack and damage, even with just one rank in each knowledge skill. On a roll of 16 or above, you gain +3 to Attack and Damage, even with just one skill point in the Knowledge skill.

Doesn't seem like such a horrible investment to me.


If you're going to bring wands into it, you can UMD those without too much difficulty.What class do you dip into to get UMD? Straight up Barbarian doesn't have UMD.


Again, the point is that an 8 Int 8 Wis Barbarian cannot make use of a CC dip properly, and the ones that can it also makes a lot more sense for, which silences those silly fluff concerns in one swift move.
"silly"? Yeah, your opinions are better than mine, obviously.


EDIT: I add two replies into the same post here, for rules reasons.



You provided an example of something that doesn't exist in D&D
As an example of something that would crush the suspension of disbelief if it were introduced. I can change it to any other example you want, the B2 bomber was not the point. The point was that breaking fluff of the game can cause as much trouble with the suspension of disbelief as the appearance of a B2 bomber can in the gaming world.


So, yeah, there's some problems with your example that you're not going to be able to get rid of by just shaking your head. Or maybe you're just aching for a word fight. I don't know anymore.


Why should you care if someone else plays with B2 bombers in his D&D if you're not playing in that game at all?

Why should you care if someone else plays a game where fluff matters in his D&D if you're not playing in that game at all? I mean, really: I find it very odd that you decide to lecture me on the way I prefer my games to be played out, and then get upset when I do the same. I don't understand that one bit.


Obviously if someone else's way of playing the game feels wrong enough to you to be worth posting about
The OP posted questions if he was the only one who throught the disregard for fluff was odd. I posted a reply to that question, showing him support and saying that I tend to agree that I think it is odd too.

When that met with questions, ridicule and complaints, I tried to answer those complaints.

Should we disregard questions put from other members of the board unless we feel they are "wrong enough"? Makes for a sad forum if that's the case.

{Scrubbed}


Well, first we really need to know why the distinction truly matters to you between cloistered cleric and cleric before we can formulate the exact buttons one would have to push in order to get you to relax about it, if such existed.

Because grabbing CC instead of regular Cleric nets you more abilities. That is why someone picks the CC instead of the regular C. That's ok, if you spend time with integtrating the cloistered part of the CC into your character. If you just want to cherry/pick the strongest variant of the class for it's abilities and completely ignore the fluff, I will object if you're in my game, naturally.

You can do whatever you want in any other game. Again: I'm not trying to say that "your" way is wrong. I just don't like it. I don't like pineapple pizza either, but I wouldn't object to someone ordering it for themselves.

[Tyndmyr]

Fair enough. Bad example, then.


Tell me again how a Barbarian who dips CC 1 for Travel Devotion, War Domain power (free Weapon Focus) and Knowledge Devotion or Strength Devotion, nerfs himself.

By losing one BAB and 3 hitpoints? That's a terrible nerf to the Barbarian, indeed.

Actually, yeah, I can justify that.

Travel devotion: Total time per day of 1 rnd/cleric level. Cleric levels = 1. That's not a lot of FoM. I'd rely on items instead, since you can get a lot more usage out of them.

Knowledge devotion: Kinda has jack for knowledge skills. Turns out, a barbarian is already pretty good at hitting things. Giving up BaB for this is probably not a great idea.

War Domain: Wooo...he could have instead taken one level of Fighter, and gotten this(mediocre option) with his feat instead. Also, he wouldn't have lost the BaB, and he wouldn't have lost as many hp. Hell, he'd gain proficiencies.

When the option looks poor compared to Fighter, it's probably not great.

Also, using skill tricks to fix "lack of skill points" is...mind boggling. That's the opposite of helpful. You are now down two skill points in return for a single +5 once a combat. Note that collector of stories specifically only applies to knowledge checks to ID a monster. Your DM *might* consider this applicable to knowledge devotion, but that's not a guarantee. Even if allowed, it's kinda meh, because it's only ONCE A COMBAT.

[Thespianus]

Actually, yeah, I can justify that.

Travel devotion: Total time per day of 1 rnd/cleric level.

It lasts one minute, regardless of cleric levels. You recharge it with 2 Turn Undead uses. That means 2 or 3 uses per day, straight off the bat, without even a single Nightstick to bring the total up even higher.


Knowledge devotion: Kinda has jack for knowledge skills. Turns out, a barbarian is already pretty good at hitting things. Giving up BaB for this is probably not a great idea.
As I showed above, you can easily get +2 and +3 without spending more than 1 skill rank in each Knowledge skill (apart from one, where you need to invest 5 to get Collector of Stories skill trick)

But if you prefer +1 BAB instead of 2-3 attack bonus and damage, that's your call.


War Domain: Wooo...he could have instead taken one level of Fighter, and gotten this(mediocre option) with his feat instead. Also, he wouldn't have lost the BaB, and he wouldn't have lost as many hp. Hell, he'd gain proficiencies.

When the option looks poor compared to Fighter, it's probably not great.
When you bring that kind of sarcasm to the table, you really should make sure your arguments are correct.

Tell me how the Fighter dip brings all Cleric wands to the table.
Tell me how the Fighter dip brings Travel Devotion for 2-4 minutes per day to the table.
Tell me how the Fighter dip gives the Barbarian more skill points.
Tell me how the Fighter dip gives the Barbarian a better chance to hit and damage things.
Tell me how the Fighter dip gives the Barbarian two good saves.

Or tell me that you're sorry for being mistaken.

[Elitarismo]

Travel Devotion complements the Lion Totem Barbarian is what I'm saying. Maybe it doesn't do it better than any other ability, but it still improves on the Barbarians mobility, and helps him get off more charges.

Having the ability to do x, where x is something you can already do in a better way is not a complimentary ability, it is a redundant one.


Worth what? A 1 level dip that nets you: Wand Usage, Turn Undead, Cleric Casting (if you get your Wis above 10), a bunch of Devotion Feats and/or Domain powers, +2 to two saves, etc.

There might be other dips that are better, sure, but CC is not bad for a Barbarian.

And I've already explained that such a Barbarian also would more logically make such a move.


Collector of Stories skill trick gives a +5 to one roll in every encounter, a Wand of Divine Insight gives you +8 to one roll as well, which means that you'll be rolling over 16 on your knowledge check on a natural 3, gaining +2 to Attack and damage, even with just one rank in each knowledge skill. On a roll of 16 or above, you gain +3 to Attack and Damage, even with just one skill point in the Knowledge skill.

Doesn't seem like such a horrible investment to me.

What CL of wand is that again?


What class do you dip into to get UMD? Straight up Barbarian doesn't have UMD.

They do not have Knowledges either. Cross classing up to a decent chance to hit DC 20, when you can try multiple times without consequence is a lot easier to do than having to hit DC 26 or better to even begin to hit meaningful effects off of cross class ranks, as anything less is done by low level spells as well or better. For example a simple wand of Bull's Strength gets you +2 to hit, +3 to damage with a lot less setup, a lot more reliability (it's more than a 25% chance to happen), and a lot less cost. Yet no one is calling Bull's Strength good, because it isn't. So why then would you call a low grade Knowledge Devotion good?


And I've used a simple explanation, basically saying that dips into Tier 1 classes requires more RP work than keeping going in the same class you already used. Tier 5 dips are not as important, as they usually don't have a set of very front loaded abilities like, for example, the Cloistered Cleric has.

...

Just about all of the low Tier classes are frontloaded. A good part of the reason why they are low Tier is because they offer nothing beyond those first few levels, but nonetheless they are the most likely to go dipping around into a wide variety of classes, including Cloistered Cleric (assuming a non Barbarian, with decent mental stats).

Barbarian: 1 level long class.
Fighter: 1, 2, 4, or 6 levels long, the last only if Dungeon Crasher is in and the second to last only if you really have no better ideas/really need one more feat.
Monk: 2 levels long.
Paladin: 2 levels long, 4 or 5 if you are very generous.
Ranger: 2 levels long unless both Swift Hunter and the Spell Compendium are in. Keep in mind this is almost gestalting in a non gestalt game. That's how much it takes to save the Ranger.

Tyndmyr: You are confusing Travel Devotion with Travel Domain.

Travel Devotion is mainly for classes like the Scout, who have to move, still full attack, and probably can't charge to do it. Not for the Barbarian though, who can just Pounce things with his one level dip.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Thespianus, do you really think that a Cleric is the only class that ought to be able to use Travel Devotion more than once per day? Do you really think that every single character ever who would like to use that ability must fluff himself as a priest or scholar?

[Amphetryon]

Tell me how the Fighter dip brings all Cleric wands to the table.
Tell me how the Fighter dip brings Travel Devotion for 2-4 minutes per day to the table.
Tell me how the Fighter dip gives the Barbarian more skill points.
Tell me how the Fighter dip gives the Barbarian a better chance to hit and damage things.
Tell me how the Fighter dip gives the Barbarian two good saves.Fighter can cross-class UMD to bring "all Cleric wands to the table". . . just like any other class can. Hate to be the one to bring the CC-skill UMD argument to the table, but it's there. It's not like a single level of a UMD using class or

See previous answer, for a wand of FoM - useful much more per day than a single level dip in Cleric, Fighter, Factotum, or any other option when measured solely against Travel Devotion's limited ability to improve movement. Those dips bring other options, but you wanted to know about Travel Devotion. A wand of FoM works better, if that's your only goal.

Fighter dip at the appropriate level(s) - any regular feat levels - opens a bonus feat slot, allowing the Barb/Fighter to assign an otherwise spoken-for feat for one that improves whatever skills he's looking for. Simply choosing Alertness, for example, gives the same net result as +4 skill points for anything but specific rank requirements.

Fighter dip allows expenditure of a feat, such as Knowledge Devotion, Shock Trooper, or Weapon Focus, that improves chances to hit and was otherwise not available on a given Barbarian's feat budget. Hit more often, you'll do more damage. Knowledge Devotion covers the damage angle as well, FWIW.

As with the skill point answer, dipping Fighter at a regular feat level allows the character to afford Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes more easily than a straight Barbarian would. Just like that, he's improved his second save exactly as much as he would with a dip, without even slowing down Fort save progression.

[Elitarismo]

You have also confused Travel Devotion with Travel Domain.

[Thespianus]

I will cut down on my replies in this thread. It's getting out of hand, I hope everyone involved will be ok with me just replying to a few questions below:


Having the ability to do x, where x is something you can already do in a better way is not a complimentary ability, it is a redundant one. But a charge places limits on the movement. You can't charge around things (unless you spend feats to get Nimble Charge, or whatever). You have to charge in a straight line, and Travel Devotion allows you to move to a place where you can charge in a straight line. It's not a redundant ability, it's an extending ability.


What CL of wand is that again?
The default for a level 2 spell: CL 3. You spend more money, you can boost the caster level even higher.


They do not have Knowledges either.
They don't need more Knowledge ranks than 1 to get a +2 - +3 boost to Attack and Damage with the wand and skill trick mentioned above. To UMD a Cleric wand reliably, without dipping cleric, however, you need about 10 ranks in a cross class skill. That's plenty for an Int8 Barbarian.


For example a simple wand of Bull's Strength gets you +2 to hit Sure. It also stacks with Knowledge Devotion, so thanks for supplying even more reasons to dip Cleric. ;)


So why then would you call a low grade Knowledge Devotion good?A +1 is ok, a +2 or +3 Knowledge devotion bonus IS good for say a level 7 character. Stack it with Bull's Strength if you want, apply the +1 to attack from the free Weapon Focus feat you got from War Domain, and you're looking at +5 to +6 Attack bonus. It's nothing to scoff at at level 7.


Travel Devotion is mainly for classes like the ScoutAbsolutely, it's a LOT better for a Scout.


Thespianus, do you really think that a Cleric is the only class that ought to be able to use Travel Devotion more than once per day?
No. Any class that gets Turn Undead should be able to fuel the Devotion feats with Turn Undead "charges". I believe that's what the rules say too?


Fighter can cross-class UMD to bring "all Cleric wands to the table". . . just like any other class can.
Absolutely. You spend 20 skill points to get 10 ranks in UMD so that you can cast Cleric spells 50% of the time. Sounds much more effective than a Cleric dip. ;)


Those dips bring other options, but you wanted to know about Travel Devotion. A wand of FoM works better, if that's your only goal.
FoM and Travel Devotion gives completely different abilities, I'm really not sure what you want to say here. FoM is really good, and can reliably be used by a level 7 character after a Cleric dip. A UMD character needs to reliably make DC 24 UMD checks, and that's not all that easy for martial classes.


Fighter dip allows expenditure of a feat, such as Knowledge Devotion, Shock Trooper, or Weapon Focus
Cleric dip allows expenditure of several feats, such as Knowledge Devotion, Shock Trooper (after retraining a domain feat, if your DM allows it) *AND* Weapon Focus.

That's three feats instead of one. How is that inferior?


EDIT:
I missed this one from earlier in the thread:

The fact that you cited a passage from the PHb to support your position to begin with makes me think you feel your argument is supported, RAW. I don't feel asking for a better citation than the one listed (better because it deals specifically with multiclassing, rather than beginning a career as an adventurer) is a strawman, especially in light of your ability to cite the PHb for your position.

I think there is fluff to support my position, not rules.

[Big Fau]

Fighter can cross-class UMD to bring "all Cleric wands to the table". . . just like any other class can. Hate to be the one to bring the CC-skill UMD argument to the table, but it's there. It's not like a single level of a UMD using class or

See previous answer, for a wand of FoM - useful much more per day than a single level dip in Cleric, Fighter, Factotum, or any other option when measured solely against Travel Devotion's limited ability to improve movement. Those dips bring other options, but you wanted to know about Travel Devotion. A wand of FoM works better, if that's your only goal.

First of all, that's the Giacomo Argument. And anyone who has a degree of system mastery higher than his will tell you that this argument fails spectacularly.


Secondly, you are confusing Travel Devotion (effectively a multi-use Lesser Celerity that has a duration of 1 minute and no Daze) with Travel Domain (FoM 1/day).

[ThiefInTheNight]

No. Any class that gets Turn Undead should be able to fuel the Devotion feats with Turn Undead "charges". I believe that's what the rules say too?
In practice, that means Cleric for most characters. All other options are Cleric-like anyway (Sacred Exorcist, Paladin, etc).

Again, does every single character who wants to be more mobile need to be a priest of some sort?

[Thespianus]

In practice, that means Cleric for most characters. All other options are Cleric-like anyway (Sacred Exorcist, Paladin, etc).

Again, does every single character who wants to be more mobile need to be a priest of some sort?

No. But if they want to use the deity-inspired Travel Devotion feat for their movement, more than once per day, they need to be able to Turn Undead.

There are other ways to be similarly mobile, ToB have some options that help.

[Amphetryon]

First of all, that's the Giacomo Argument. And anyone who has a degree of system mastery higher than his will tell you that this argument fails spectacularly.


Secondly, you are confusing Travel Devotion (effectively a multi-use Lesser Celerity that has a duration of 1 minute and no Daze) with Travel Domain (FoM 1/day).

There's a reason I said I hated to be the one to bring it to the table, but I recognized that it was due at some point. I might as well be the one to jump on that particular grenade.

[Tyndmyr]

It lasts one minute, regardless of cleric levels. You recharge it with 2 Turn Undead uses. That means 2 or 3 uses per day, straight off the bat, without even a single Nightstick to bring the total up even higher.

I was going with domain yes. In error there.

2/day requires a 12 cha. 3 requires a 16 cha. Note that barbarians are not noted for their high charisma.


As I showed above, you can easily get +2 and +3 without spending more than 1 skill rank in each Knowledge skill (apart from one, where you need to invest 5 to get Collector of Stories skill trick)

A barbarian with 8 or less int is pulling a whopping 3 skills a level. Less, if he's below 8 int. 1 in each, 5 in one, 2 for the skill trick is a grand total of 16 skill points.

That is a non trivial investment that is most certainly not provided by the class(he's a whopping 2 skill points up for CC).


But if you prefer +1 BAB instead of 2-3 attack bonus and damage, that's your call.

If I'm a well built barbarian, the odds of me missing are generally pretty low, and my damage is already describable as decent. I almost certainly rely on pounce to get full attacks.

Lower BAB screws me over for getting into PrCs and it kills my iteratives. The whole point of pounce is to get interatives. Losing one of those is worth a LOT of bonus damage.


When you bring that kind of sarcasm to the table, you really should make sure your arguments are correct.

Tell me how the Fighter dip brings all Cleric wands to the table.

It doesn't. But yknow, caster level checks are pretty brutal when you have a CL of 1. And also, when you spend most of each combat raging and can't actually use these things.


Tell me how the Fighter dip brings Travel Devotion for 2-4 minutes per day to the table.

It doesn't. I didn't claim it did. I suggested using an item instead to cover the angle, and leaving your class levels for your core ability of smashing the hell out of things. Uberchargers really don't want to sacrifice BaB.


Tell me how the Fighter dip gives the Barbarian more skill points.

There's a 4 skill point bonus for choosing your CC over fighter. However, you are also expending 16 skill points on this combo. I'm not a genius, but I'm pretty sure that this puts the straightforward fighter method 12 skill points ahead.


Tell me how the Fighter dip gives the Barbarian a better chance to hit and damage things.

Well, he could instead take a BETTER feat than weapon focus. Such things do exist. I'd probably use it on a staple like power attack, freeing up one of my non restricted feats for something interesting.


Tell me how the Fighter dip gives the Barbarian two good saves.

Or tell me that you're sorry for being mistaken.

Look, a barbarian with 8 wis is going to have a terrible will save regardless of if he gets a +2 bump from CC. This really isn't that big of a deal, it sucks either way. You want to get flat out immunities via say, necropolitan, instead. Then, you just don't care that your will sucks terribly.



Actually, since knowledge skills are only class skills for the CC, and the CC doesn't provide enough ranks to buy them all then...you need to dump a LOT of skill points into cross class skills. After all, knowledge domain only adds them to your list of CLERIC class skills, no?

So, we're looking at a total investment of 25 skill points if your a barb with 8 int, assuming that you chose wisely on your CC level. This means that dedicating every skill point to this combo, you don't get it till level 8. Weee.



Cleric dip allows expenditure of several feats, such as Knowledge Devotion, Shock Trooper (after retraining a domain feat, if your DM allows it) *AND* Weapon Focus.

Retraining to something you could not have originally chosen explicitly breaks RAW. Short of a chaos shuffle or something. And at that point, it's certainly not a fluff argument at all, and also brings in a gold investment.

Note that it is also quite possible for one feat to be more important than three feats in this game. It just all depends on WHICH feats we're talking about. Weapon Focus is not a winner. An illegal retraining is not a winner. Knowledge Devotion is decent, but not for this build.

[Flickerdart]

So...you're complaining that a Barbarian with low mental stats can benefit from Cleric, but then insisting that he must have a high Charisma? Some of the best LA0 Barbarian races (Orc, Dwarf, Mongrelfolk) already have a Charisma penalty - assuming their Charisma to be higher than their non-existent Wisdom is absurd.

And if they do have high Charisma, doesn't that justify things by your own argument, just like a high Wisdom barbarian is fine as a Cleric? Whatever explanation you use to explain Charisma tying in to fuelling Devotion feats, the Barbarian has just as much of a claim to as the Cleric.

[flumphy]

Thespianus, do you really think that a Cleric is the only class that ought to be able to use Travel Devotion more than once per day? Do you really think that every single character ever who would like to use that ability must fluff himself as a priest or scholar?

I'll jump in and say that yes, I do. "Priest" in the sense of being a loyal enough servant of a deity or cause to receive divine powers, anyway. (Unless he can get the turn attempts from a non-priestly class. I forget if the Chameleon, for example, can fuel divine feats. But then he'd have a different explanation consistent with the given fluff.) I'm not saying the character has to be a member of a priestly order, but his turn attempts will, in fact, be treated as the ability to turn undead, and his travel devotion will be treated as a devotion to travel.

Why? Because that's what they're called. I understand that a lot of people have the ability to ignore the names of abilities and still suspend their disbelief. I do not. I'll be the first to admit this is a failing on my part, but that doesn't mean I can willingly change it. If my players don't like it, the door is always open to play a generic system with no pre-set fluff or to choose a different DM.

It's not like I'm forcing my own players into anything, even if I could, let alone other GMs. This is just my personal reasoning behind my personal playstyle.

[Flickerdart]

Why should a character need to be a priest in order to be devoted to travel? A Cleric of any god can pick up Travel Devotion and spam its ability endlessly, while the most wanderlusting Bards and Barbarians can only use it once. Does that seem fair to you?

[Tyndmyr]

So...you're complaining that a Barbarian with low mental stats can benefit from Cleric, but then insisting that he must have a high Charisma? Some of the best LA0 Barbarian races (Orc, Dwarf, Mongrelfolk) already have a Charisma penalty - assuming their Charisma to be higher than their non-existent Wisdom is absurd.

And if they do have high Charisma, doesn't that justify things by your own argument, just like a high Wisdom barbarian is fine as a Cleric? Whatever explanation you use to explain Charisma tying in to fuelling Devotion feats, the Barbarian has just as much of a claim to as the Cleric.

This. Frankly, though, the amount of Barbarians I've seen in actual play with a 16 cha can be counted on no hands. The only time I can imagine it is if someone was going for Rage mage or something.



Flump: Why are names important? Specifically, why is the name in a sourcebook more important than the name on the character sheet? For that matter, why couldn't someone other than a cleric be devoted to travelling as a concept(clerics don't have to worship a god), or hell, even be particularly into worshipping a god of travel? I can see a LOT of archtypes being fond of travel. Yer standard conanesque barbarian does a fair bit of it.

[ThiefInTheNight]

I'll jump in and say that yes, I do. "Priest" in the sense of being a loyal enough servant of a deity or cause to receive divine powers, anyway. (Unless he can get the turn attempts from a non-priestly class. I forget if the Chameleon, for example, can fuel divine feats. But then he'd have a different explanation consistent with the given fluff.) I'm not saying the character has to be a member of a priestly order, but his turn attempts will, in fact, be treated as the ability to turn undead, and his travel devotion will be treated as a devotion to travel.

Why? Because that's what they're called. I understand that a lot of people have the ability to ignore the names of abilities and still suspend their disbelief. I do not. I'll be the first to admit this is a failing on my part, but that doesn't mean I can willingly change it. If my players don't like it, the door is always open to play a generic system with no pre-set fluff or to choose a different DM.

It's not like I'm forcing my own players into anything, even if I could, let alone other GMs. This is just my personal reasoning behind my personal playstyle.
So if a player came to you and said "I want to be able to move around like this, but I don't want to be a priest; can I just call my Turn Undead uses 'Travel Devotion uses' and calculate it as (3+Cha)/2? I'll never attempt to use them to Turn Undead." you would say no?

I'd be taking that latter option.


No. But if they want to use the deity-inspired Travel Devotion feat for their movement, more than once per day, they need to be able to Turn Undead.
Call it something else. Fluff it as something else. But you yourself agree that the ability should be available to other character concepts. What is the problem? That Wizards never printed something that does the same thing for another class? That's Wizards' problem; you don't have to make it your games problem.


There are other ways to be similarly mobile, ToB have some options that help.
Yes, there are three options that work well with a wide variety of builds:
Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian
Travel Devotion (requires Turn Undead to be useful)
Tome of Battle

If, say, ToB isn't in play, then, what? Every single highly-mobile character in your game must be either a savage or a priest?

[Elitarismo]

I will cut down on my replies in this thread. It's getting out of hand, I hope everyone involved will be ok with me just replying to a few questions below:

But a charge places limits on the movement. You can't charge around things (unless you spend feats to get Nimble Charge, or whatever). You have to charge in a straight line, and Travel Devotion allows you to move to a place where you can charge in a straight line. It's not a redundant ability, it's an extending ability.

Making your charges standard actions is... a few thousand gold at most. Swift action jumps are easy to do.


The default for a level 2 spell: CL 3. You spend more money, you can boost the caster level even higher.

So the same as a weak buff wand, except far less reliable than an already bad option??


They don't need more Knowledge ranks than 1 to get a +2 - +3 boost to Attack and Damage with the wand and skill trick mentioned above. To UMD a Cleric wand reliably, without dipping cleric, however, you need about 10 ranks in a cross class skill. That's plenty for an Int8 Barbarian.

Out of combat activation works fine with less. Whereas in combat abilities have to be reliable. Even so, it's worse than a weak spell buff.


A +1 is ok, a +2 or +3 Knowledge devotion bonus IS good for say a level 7 character. Stack it with Bull's Strength if you want, apply the +1 to attack from the free Weapon Focus feat you got from War Domain, and you're looking at +5 to +6 Attack bonus. It's nothing to scoff at at level 7.

Absolutely, it's a LOT better for a Scout.

Leadership, Bard. Enjoy your +10 to hit and damage for a lot less effort. Not to mention doesn't most of the stuff you said only apply to one check? Whereas buffs, weak or strong apply to all of them. And the resources required to get Knowledge Devotion to even +3 for an 8 Int Barb... not happening.

I do have to laugh at the idea of an undead Barbarian though. Just use Steadfast Determination, Will save problems solved.

[Analytica]

I'll jump in and say that yes, I do. "Priest" in the sense of being a loyal enough servant of a deity or cause to receive divine powers, anyway. (Unless he can get the turn attempts from a non-priestly class. I forget if the Chameleon, for example, can fuel divine feats. But then he'd have a different explanation consistent with the given fluff.) I'm not saying the character has to be a member of a priestly order, but his turn attempts will, in fact, be treated as the ability to turn undead, and his travel devotion will be treated as a devotion to travel.

Why? Because that's what they're called. I understand that a lot of people have the ability to ignore the names of abilities and still suspend their disbelief. I do not. I'll be the first to admit this is a failing on my part, but that doesn't mean I can willingly change it. If my players don't like it, the door is always open to play a generic system with no pre-set fluff or to choose a different DM.

It's not like I'm forcing my own players into anything, even if I could, let alone other GMs. This is just my personal reasoning behind my personal playstyle.

I would tend to agree. More specifically, I think that whether an ability is powered by divine energies or not is a crunch thing as much as a fluff thing. There may well be spells and effects which will detect or prevent or affect one but not the other, either published or as part of an adventure. If so, they will impact divine-sourced abilities differently.

Given this, while you could have a Travel Devotion which was not a power given by a deity (or by the divinely charged concept of Travel, if your campaign setting allows concepts to grant divine energies to their adherents), it would have to be refluffed as arcane, or a ki power, or psionic, or just an extraordinary ability. This is fine, but as it may affect how the ability interacts with other effects, it is a crunch change along with a fluff change, and as such, you may also want to consider if it has any effects on game balance. Probably not in this case.

[flumphy]

Why should a character need to be a priest in order to be devoted to travel? A Cleric of any god can pick up Travel Devotion and spam its ability endlessly, while the most wanderlusting Bards and Barbarians can only use it once. Does that seem fair to you?

Actually, by RAW, they must be devoted to travel or a god who offers it as a domain in order to take travel devotion. Read the section in CC again. And yes, it seems perfectly fair. A barbarian can't spam wild feats either, or take draconic feats if she's not dragonblooded. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the designers to have listed turn undead as a prerequisite.


Flump: Why are names important? Specifically, why is the name in a sourcebook more important than the name on the character sheet? For that matter, why couldn't someone other than a cleric be devoted to travelling as a concept(clerics don't have to worship a god), or hell, even be particularly into worshipping a god of travel? I can see a LOT of archtypes being fond of travel. Yer standard conanesque barbarian does a fair bit of it.

Because I have a decent knowledge of the system to the point where I can identify abilities by name, and because I have the sort of brain that easily makes associations between words. If someone fluffs "turn undead" into "primal power", I will still know it's refluffed turn undead in the back of my head, and all the connotations of that will come pouring in. This is a strength it that it allows me to process things like scientific literature and literary criticism really well. It's a weakness in that when someone refluffs something in an RPG, my immersion is flushed down the drain, and good luck getting me into the story after that.

And I said in my last post it was fine if they were devoted to the concept of travel. I'm not sure where I suggested otherwise.


I'll jump in and say that yes, I do. "Priest" in the sense of being a loyal enough servant of a deity or cause to receive divine powers, anyway. (Unless he can get the turn attempts from a non-priestly class. I forget if the Chameleon, for example, can fuel divine feats. But then he'd have a different explanation consistent with the given fluff.) I'm not saying the character has to be a member of a priestly order, but his turn attempts will, in fact, be treated as the ability to turn undead, and his travel devotion will be treated as a devotion to travel.

Moving on...


So if a player came to you and said "I want to be able to move around like this, but I don't want to be a priest; can I just call my Turn Undead uses 'Travel Devotion uses' and calculate it as (3+Cha)/2? I'll never attempt to use them to Turn Undead." you would say no?

I'd be taking that latter option.

You are correct. I would say no. And as rule -1 states, if you don't like my game, no reason you have to play with me. I do not say this with animosity. Everyone should do what they find fun.



If, say, ToB isn't in play, then, what?

ToB will be in play in any game of mine. Therefore, melee having other options is not an issue.

[Thespianus]

I was going with domain yes. In error there.

2/day requires a 12 cha. 3 requires a 16 cha. Note that barbarians are not noted for their high charisma.
Again, I ask you to check the rules. Clerics get 3+ Cha mod turn undead attempts per day. Travel Devotion is available once per day, and one additional time / 2 Turn Undead attempts spent.

So, a Cleric with Cha 12 gets 3 uses of Travel Devotion / day. I believe a Nightstick gives 4 more Turn Undead attempts per day, so with one of those, you have 5 uses of Travel Devotion per day. That's quite a lot.


A barbarian with 8 or less int is pulling a whopping 3 skills a level. Less, if he's below 8 int. 1 in each, 5 in one, 2 for the skill trick is a grand total of 16 skill points.

That is a non trivial investment that is most certainly not provided by the class(he's a whopping 2 skill points up for CC).
True. Cloistered Cleric gets even better if you go CC for your first character level, that is true. However, you don't need all Knowledge skills to gain the benefits, you only need 5 or 6 (Away from books at the moment). Assuming 6, that makes it 5+5+2 or 12 skill points to get the whole shebang online. You still get the benefits from one Knowledge skill even if you don't have all Knowledges covered. If you're in an Undead heavy campaign, grabbing Knowledge(Religion) 5 + the skill trick costs you 7 skill points. Not something that will kill you, and you will be able to rake up +2 attack bonuses against undeads in no time.


If I'm a well built barbarian, the odds of me missing are generally pretty low, and my damage is already describable as decent. I almost certainly rely on pounce to get full attacks.
More attack bonus means more Power Attack damage, if your Shock Trooper hasn't come online yet.


Lower BAB screws me over for getting into PrCs and it kills my iteratives. The whole point of pounce is to get interatives. Losing one of those is worth a LOT of bonus damage.
You lose it for one level. You're one level behind, and you will compensate that with being able to Charge or Full Attack more often.


It doesn't. But yknow, caster level checks are pretty brutal when you have a CL of 1. And also, when you spend most of each combat raging and can't actually use these things.
Caster level checks from wands are wand dependent, not caster level dependent. But reasonably long term self-buffs from wands are pretty darn effective, no matter what caster level you're at.


It doesn't. I didn't claim it did. I suggested using an item instead to cover the angle, and leaving your class levels for your core ability of smashing the hell out of things. Uberchargers really don't want to sacrifice BaB.
Find me the item that grants Travel Devotion 3-4 times a day, then.


There's a 4 skill point bonus for choosing your CC over fighter. However, you are also expending 16 skill points on this combo. I'm not a genius, but I'm pretty sure that this puts the straightforward fighter method 12 skill points ahead.
I can spend 6 skill points (ignoring the skill trick) and still hit >15 Knowledge rolls (using the Wand mentioned before), giving me a +2 to Attack and Damage against the toughest creature type for each encounter.

There are other ways to boost your Knowledge checks, I'm just using one here.


Well, he could instead take a BETTER feat than weapon focus. Such things do exist.
Naturally. War domain was just an example of a domain with a decent Domain Power. I'm sure there are a bunch of others.


I'd probably use it on a staple like power attack, freeing up one of my non restricted feats for something interesting.
Sure, dip Fighter too then. Nothing is stopping you from that. In fact, double-dip. Be a Fighter 2 as well. It all adds to your abilities, nothing gets taken away (except for skillpoints as a Fighter and BAB as a Cleric)


Look, a barbarian with 8 wis is going to have a terrible will save regardless of if he gets a +2 bump from CC. This really isn't that big of a deal, it sucks either way. You want to get flat out immunities via say, necropolitan, instead. Then, you just don't care that your will sucks terribly.
Yeah, this is exactly my point. Here we have a perfect example of a character that forsakes his eternal soul, his life, shunned from normal mortal communities, the social stigma of being undead, etc, etc (depending on your setting, ofcourse), to continue "living" as an undead creature, just so he can gain Fort save immunities.

This is EXACTLY the type of stuff that make me cringe. Thank you for making the point so much better than I managed to do.


Actually, since knowledge skills are only class skills for the CC, and the CC doesn't provide enough ranks to buy them all then...you need to dump a LOT of skill points into cross class skills. After all, knowledge domain only adds them to your list of CLERIC class skills, no? This is true. That's an oversight on my part, I would need to spend some more points on the Knowledge skills, 12 instead of 6 to gain the base rank of 1 in all the relevant skills. This makes the skill trick seem harder to attain. I'll grant you this point.

Again, the CC is usually better as a level 1 class dip.


Retraining to something you could not have originally chosen explicitly breaks RAW.
Maybe. I rarely use the retraining rules, and I'm away from my books now, so this might be correct.


So...you're complaining that a Barbarian with low mental stats can benefit from Cleric, but then insisting that he must have a high Charisma?
Are you talking to me here? I'm sorry, I can't make out if your replying to my post or to Tyndmyr's post.

If it is to me: I'm saying that even a Cleric with shoddy Charisma will get 3 Turn Undead attempts per day, 7 with a Nightstick, and that means 2 or 4 uses of Travel Devotion per day.



Why should a character need to be a priest in order to be devoted to travel? A Cleric of any god can pick up Travel Devotion and spam its ability endlessly, while the most wanderlusting Bards and Barbarians can only use it once. Does that seem fair to you?

Hello? Yeah, Dungeons and Dragons called and asked you to stop this nonsense. "Fair"? ;)

No, it's not fair. Everyone does not get to do everything in DnD. It's not fair. That is a part of the game: All characters can't do all things. Some have a major advantage over the others. That is exactly why I want the players of Tier 1 characters to role play their devotion to their deity (for example) more than what a Rogue would have to RP is devotion to skills and practice.





Making your charges standard actions is... a few thousand gold at most. Swift action jumps are easy to do.
We're haggling over tiny details that have nothing to do with the main topic here. If you want we can break out the CC-dip detail discussioninto a separate thread?


So the same as a weak buff wand, except far less reliable than an already bad option??
It's not less reliable, you get an effect that lasts for 3 hours, that gives you aan instant +8 to any skill check. If you chose to use that for Knowledge Devotion, you gain a +1 boost from not using it for Knowledge devotion. It's a small boost, sure, but the spell lasts for 3 hours.

It also works alongside the "weak boost".


Leadership, Bard. Enjoy your +10 to hit and damage Don't get me started on the notion that Leadership allows you to "order" a character that you get to build yourself. You take Leadership, you say that you want to attract a Bard, I might give you a Bard. You might get a "Rogue/Fighter/Wizard specializing in Enchantment" (to reuse the OOTS joke from earlier in the thread). You really dont get to design your own Bard.


Not to mention doesn't most of the stuff you said only apply to one check? Whereas buffs, weak or strong apply to all of them. And the resources required to get Knowledge Devotion to even +3 for an 8 Int Barb... not happening.
To get +3 in Knowledge Devotion on an 8 Int Barbarian like this, you need to roll 26, I believe. With a +8 from the wand, that happens one time in 10. That's with one skill rank in the skill.

If you spend some gold on a competence boosting items, they stack with the insight bonus from the spell. But, yeah, I guess all knowledge skills would have to be a separate item, in that case, which kinda sucks.

[McClintock]

Ok I know I have been gone a few days, and I don't have the time on my lunch to read the 4 pages of posts i missed, so please forgive me if this point has be brought up:

Can we all assume we play the same game. We bought the books and use the rules within those books, because we enjoy the game. Whether you call it "FLUFF" or part of the class, or RAW, what we are talking about was written to be apart of the game for a reason.

So please indulge me and allow me to draw a correlation:

Lets all change the game to, oh i don't know, Monopoly. We all choose our pieces and start the game. After a few rounds one of players has 2 of the light blue properties and 1 of the purple properties. He/She/It decides that he now has a monopoly because they are all 3 in a row and starts to buy houses. Now everyone in their right mind is going to cry foul, because that is now how the rules work.

To me, throwing away the "FLUFF" is doing this, scrapping the part of the rules that don't work in favor of rules that do.

[Thespianus]

To me, throwing away the "FLUFF" is doing this, scrapping the part of the rules that don't work in favor of rules that do.
While we share many views on the fluff, I don't agree with this, because the fluff of DnD is not the same as the rules of DnD, or the mechanics of DnD.

In Monopoly, there is very little fluff, very little text mentions that the Owner of the Shoe piece is motivated by different things than the Owner of the Car. ( And the alignments are always Chaotic Greedy. ;) )

RPGs are a different kind of game than monopoly, and to make them fun you have to immerse yourself into the fantasy world of the game. The fluff helps with that, and provides an imagery of how things work in that world.

So I think your explanatory post misses the mark a little. :)

[Big Fau]

Ok I know I have been gone a few days, and I don't have the time on my lunch to read the 4 pages of posts i missed, so please forgive me if this point has be brought up:

Can we all assume we play the same game. We bought the books and use the rules within those books, because we enjoy the game. Whether you call it "FLUFF" or part of the class, or RAW, what we are talking about was written to be apart of the game for a reason.

So please indulge me and allow me to draw a correlation:

Lets all change the game to, oh i don't know, Monopoly. We all choose our pieces and start the game. After a few rounds one of players has 2 of the light blue properties and 1 of the purple properties. He/She/It decides that he now has a monopoly because they are all 3 in a row and starts to buy houses. Now everyone in their right mind is going to cry foul, because that is now how the rules work.

To me, throwing away the "FLUFF" is doing this, scrapping the part of the rules that don't work in favor of rules that do.

The difference here is one player is clearly in violation of the rules, whereas what we are talking about is rewriting something that has no rules attached to it.

That's what fluff is: Minor aspects that provide flavor for the crunch, without being tied to the crunch itself. WotC did this themselves. Compare the flavor of FR Drow to Eberron Drow. Notice the difference? One is a group of badasses who worship scorpions, the other is a group of backstabbing maniacs who are forced into paranoia by a psychopathic goddess (or a bunch of CG wannabes who irritate everyone).

Fluff is mutable, Crunch is not. The only person with the authority to change Crunch is the DM. In addition, the players can only change so much of the Fluff before the DM is allowed to veto it.



To put this into your Monopoly comparison, it's like one player decides that Boardwalk and Park Place are Hollywood and London, and starts referring to them as such. That's all that we are saying.

Your example was blatant cheating. Mine is fluff alteration.

[Tyndmyr]

Thes, I agree that the skill point issue is much less of a problem if the Cloistered Cleric level is taken first...but in that instance, I also have no idea how anyone would have an RP problem with taking it. People gotta start out as something, and there's not really any pre-existing classes for people to conflict with.

In that case, I don't get how fluff and rules would contradict at all.


Because I have a decent knowledge of the system to the point where I can identify abilities by name, and because I have the sort of brain that easily makes associations between words. If someone fluffs "turn undead" into "primal power", I will still know it's refluffed turn undead in the back of my head, and all the connotations of that will come pouring in. This is a strength it that it allows me to process things like scientific literature and literary criticism really well. It's a weakness in that when someone refluffs something in an RPG, my immersion is flushed down the drain, and good luck getting me into the story after that.

I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly the connotations of this are.

Note that there are a ridiculous amount of ways to gain turn undead or some other form of turning that works essentially the same way, purely by RAW.

Surely you also know that people in real life frequently refer to one thing by a variety of terms. I don't see why this is a problem for immersion if the fantasy world also does that. If anything, I'd think it'd be a strength over a purely identical terminology that everyone in the world uses and understands equally.


ToB will be in play in any game of mine. Therefore, melee having other options is not an issue.

Why is that?

And how does "less options" make this not an issue?

[ThiefInTheNight]

You are correct. I would say no.
And that doesn't strike you as completely arbitrary? "Wizards happened to print it for Cleric, so since you're not a priest, you can't have it."

The reason I prefer tabletop games to computer games is because a human being is there to leave wiggle room in the rules for things like this; if I wanted every arbitrary rule enforced, I'd play Neverwinter Nights or something.

[Thespianus]

Thes, I agree that the skill point issue is much less of a problem if the Cloistered Cleric level is taken first...but in that instance, I also have no idea how anyone would have an RP problem with taking it. People gotta start out as something, and there's not really any pre-existing classes for people to conflict with.

In that case, I don't get how fluff and rules would contradict at all.
And in that case it wouldn't contradict at all, IMHO.

Going from being raised in a "Cloistered" environment, getting "kicked out", or whatever for being too rowdy, being furious and charging everything once you do find your natural talent with a greatsword in your hands makes more sense to me than a character who's spent 6 levels as a raving crazy barbarian with an 8 Int/Wis-combo and THEN deciding to become the cloistered variant of the cleric, without any change in the way he roleplays his character.

And, again: If he commits to roleplaying the change that his character is undergoing, the CC1-dip is ok with me.



And that doesn't strike you as completely arbitrary? "Wizards happened to print it for Cleric, so since you're not a priest, you can't have it."
Then you think it's ridiculous that the Cleric and the Wizard spell lists differ as well? Seems totally arbitrary that Haste is missing from the Cleric spell list, right?


The reason I prefer tabletop games to computer games is because a human being is there to leave wiggle room in the rules for things like this; if I wanted every arbitrary rule enforced, I'd play Neverwinter Nights or something.
Really? That's funny, I play Tabletop RPGs mainly for the social interaction.

If I wanted to play only a tactical war game, I'd play Advanced Squad Leader.

[ThiefInTheNight]

But why? Why can't he roleplay his character?

[Tyndmyr]

And in that case it wouldn't contradict at all, IMHO.

Going from being raised in a "Cloistered" environment, getting "kicked out", or whatever for being too rowdy, being furious and charging everything once you do find your natural talent with a greatsword in your hands makes more sense to me than a character who's spent 6 levels as a raving crazy barbarian with an 8 Int/Wis-combo and THEN deciding to become the cloistered variant of the cleric, without any change in the way he roleplays his character.

And, again: If he commits to roleplaying the change that his character is undergoing, the CC1-dip is ok with me.

*shrug* A rogue picks up tons of skill points without being cloistered at all. Ditto factotum.

I wouldn't even require that as a backstory. If he's acting like a barbarian, he gets referred to as such, regardless of what class levels he has. I played a "paladin" a while back with levels in everything but that. Wizard, Human Paragon, Eldritch Knight, and Abjurant Champion. He acted like a paladin, he had powers of a paladin, he was lawful good, and the party treated him as such. He was also a lot more competent than any straight paladin would have been, but in world, there was very little reason for him to have been called anything else.

[Thespianus]

But why? Why can't he roleplay his character?
He should, but if he cherrypicks high-powered variants of any class, I require something in return.


*shrug* A rogue picks up tons of skill points without being cloistered at all. Ditto factotum.
So? The fluff of the rogue and the factotum is completely different from the CC.


I wouldn't even require that as a backstory. If he's acting like a barbarian, he gets referred to as such, regardless of what class levels he has. I played a "paladin" a while back with levels in everything but that. Wizard, Human Paragon, Eldritch Knight, and Abjurant Champion. He acted like a paladin, he had powers of a paladin, he was lawful good, and the party treated him as such. He was also a lot more competent than any straight paladin would have been, but in world, there was very little reason for him to have been called anything else.
You can call yourself a "paladin" if you want, even if you play a sewer rat. But if you want the mechanical benefits of a Paladin, you need to pick Paladin and then you need to RP that your character has "Paladinesque" qualities.

You can't walk around spitting children in the eye and stealing their candy while using the divinely powered feats of a good Cleric.

[flumphy]

I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly the connotations of this are.

Note that there are a ridiculous amount of ways to gain turn undead or some other form of turning that works essentially the same way, purely by RAW.

I know. And as I said, if a player can get it, they are welcome to use it as long as they don't contradict the fluff of whatever class(es) they use to get it.


Surely you also know that people in real life frequently refer to one thing by a variety of terms. I don't see why this is a problem for immersion if the fantasy world also does that. If anything, I'd think it'd be a strength over a purely identical terminology that everyone in the world uses and understands equally.

This is not taking say, a firefly and referring to it as a lightning bug. That would be like taking a religious hermit and calling him a cloistered cleric, two words for basically the same concept. I've already stated I'm okay with that.

This is taking a firefly and referring to it as a radioactive spider. Radioactive spiders are cool and all, but only if you can distance yourself from the fact that they're actually just dressed-up fireflies. No matter how much the refluffed barbarian calls upon his "zen focus" to increase his strength and constitution, I will automatically associate it with a primal rage, and the character will fall flat for me.

Maybe you still don't understand my thought process or how I can think this way. I can't imagine not thinking this way, because it's just how my brain has always be wired. But I do understand the fact that not everyone shares my thought processes, even if I don't understand what their own thought processes are. As long as they aren't killing my own enjoyment of the game, they are free to do as they please.



Why is that?

And how does "less options" make this not an issue?

They still have the option of taking travel devotion. They just have to be devoted to travel or a travel-related deity if they want to use it. Not exactly an impossible requirement. And if they don't want to be devoted to travel, they have plenty of equally effective--or better!--options in ToB. It's not like I'm making a mobile melee character impossible, here.

[ThiefInTheNight]

He should, but if he cherrypicks high-powered variants of any class, I require something in return.
You're now confusing two separate issues: power level and roleplaying. They shouldn't influence each other. Unless you think that because he wants to roleplay a non-priest, he should be weaker.

[Wings of Peace]

I'm in the camp that looks at classes as metagame constructs. I'd argue the other interpretation actually puts melee at a disadvantage since most casters can say "I read of an arcane style that will give me this, it sounds useful so I will study it till I gain that ability". Most melee characters on the other hand can at best say "I got beat up by a creature that fought like this, I'd like to learn that." The summarized argument essentially being, while either group can justify jumping around the Wizard will have the more versatile reason.

[Thespianus]

You're now confusing two separate issues: power level and roleplaying. They shouldn't influence each other. Unless you think that because he wants to roleplay a non-priest, he should be weaker.

I'm not confusing anything, that's just your opinion, and I believe that you're wrong in saying so.

If you want to receive the blessings and the channeled power from a deity, don't you think that requires some effort to work (in game) towards that deity's goals and purposes? If you're using powers granted by the Dwarf God of Beer, don't you think that you would have to act decent towards Dwarves and that you will have to stop extolling the virtues of Wine?


I'm in the camp that looks at classes as metagame constructs. I'd argue the other interpretation actually puts melee at a disadvantage since most casters can say "I read of an arcane style that will give me this, it sounds useful so I will study it till I gain that ability". Most melee characters on the other hand can at best say "I got beat up by a creature that fought like this, I'd like to learn that." The summarized argument essentially being, while either group can justify jumping around the Wizard will have the more versatile reason.

And I give melee characters more leeway (and ToB), but I do not allow obviously divine sources of power without any kind of in-game acknowledgement from the player's roleplaying that these are divine sources of power, and they require some sort of worship or respect to be used.

A good Barbarian(or Scout, for better use of Travel Devotion) with a Cleric-dip who behaves like a jackass in character would run the risk of losing his Cleric powers (and Devotion feats) completely.

[Elric VIII]

A good Barbarian(or Scout, for better use of Travel Devotion) with a Cleric-dip who behaves like a jackass would run the risk of losing his Cleric powers (and Devotion feats) completely.


Kord, the god of strength, is chaotic good. He is known as the Brawler. Kord is the patron of athletes, especially wrestlers. His worshipers include good fighters, barbarians, and rogues.

Someone should tell Kord's Clerics that they're doing it wrong.

Also, oddly enough, I once DM-ed an adventure that had a Barbarian 1/Cleric 3 in it. Although he was described as more of a barbarian than a priest. WotC is doing it wrong, too.

[Thespianus]

Someone should tell Kord's Clerics that they're doing it wrong. Thank you for running off on a tangent without spending a second to contemplate what I actually meant. That helps the discussion alot, and makes things a lot easier.


Also, oddly enough, I once DM-ed an adventure that had a Barbarian 1/Cleric 3 in it. Although he was described as more of a barbarian than a priest. WotC is doing it wrong, too.
Yeah, that's exactly my point, thank you for understanding without stooping to ridiculous levels of sarcasm. Brah-Vo, sir.


If a Cleric of Kord only focuses on picking flowers and bringing pease through Diplomacy, Kord would not be happy. Kord smash puny Cleric. Puny Cleric can't have War Domain Powers anymore. Puny Cleric needs to Attone.

Wouldn't it be easier if you could atleast try to see my points? God knows, I do try to stay reasonable in my explanations.

[Elric VIII]

Thank you for running off on a tangent without spending a second to contemplate what I actually meant. That helps the discussion alot, and makes things a lot easier.


Yeah, that's exactly my point, thank you for understanding without stooping to ridiculous levels of sarcasm. Brah-Vo, sir.


If a Cleric of Kord only focuses on picking flowers and bringing pease through Diplomacy, Kord would not be happy. Kord smash puny Cleric. Puny Cleric can't have War Domain Powers anymore. Puny Cleric needs to Attone.

Wouldn't it be easier if you could atleast try to see my points? God knows, I do try to stay reasonable in my explanations.

I hardly see it as a tangent considering the bulk of your arguments have been based in using fluff as a basis for mechanics.

[Tyndmyr]

So? The fluff of the rogue and the factotum is completely different from the CC.

Exactly! PLENTY of possible, logical explanations for why someone could be a skilled, knowledgeable type. Use whichever one you want, and whichever one best fits your character. There's no need for "class" to force you into any one of them.


You can call yourself a "paladin" if you want, even if you play a sewer rat. But if you want the mechanical benefits of a Paladin, you need to pick Paladin and then you need to RP that your character has "Paladinesque" qualities.

You can't walk around spitting children in the eye and stealing their candy while using the divinely powered feats of a good Cleric.

Oh, I didn't need mechanical benefits of being a paladin. Or, more correctly, I was far more powerful than I would have been if I had actually chosen paladin, where I would have gotten such "benefits" as a code of conduct and falling possibilities.

No, it was a straight refluff. There was no need for any mechanical freebies to make that work.


This is not taking say, a firefly and referring to it as a lightning bug. That would be like taking a religious hermit and calling him a cloistered cleric, two words for basically the same concept. I've already stated I'm okay with that.

This is taking a firefly and referring to it as a radioactive spider. Radioactive spiders are cool and all, but only if you can distance yourself from the fact that they're actually just dressed-up fireflies. No matter how much the refluffed barbarian calls upon his "zen focus" to increase his strength and constitution, I will automatically associate it with a primal rage, and the character will fall flat for me.

Maybe you still don't understand my thought process or how I can think this way. I can't imagine not thinking this way, because it's just how my brain has always be wired. But I do understand the fact that not everyone shares my thought processes, even if I don't understand what their own thought processes are. As long as they aren't killing my own enjoyment of the game, they are free to do as they please.

Well, the rage mechanic is not any more inherently based on rage than anything else. There's no underlying mechanical problems with a different explanation for source of ability. It contradicts nothing. In this world, he hits things better because he's in the zone, not because of rage. Surely you agree this is a fairly plausible reason, yes?

I mean, sure, if he renamed it "Fluffy bunny power", I might take issue with it, but so long as it's a plausible alternative explanation, why not?

I consider this different from "radioactive spider", because radioactivity is testable. You can empirically tell that something radioactive is different from a mere firefly in real life. And that, that is why it fails as a plausible refluff. It doesn't fit the evidence, as good refluff must. But not all refluffs are equally implausible.

More to the point, why does it bother you to the point of ruining your enjoyment? I'm trying to find the link here. I understand that you're not happy with refluffing...but I'm trying to understand WHY it bothers you.

Is the fluff written by WoTC writers more important or valid than that written by you or your players? If so, why?

[Thespianus]

I hardly see it as a tangent considering the bulk of your arguments have been based in using fluff as a basis for mechanics.
Ok, so you think "WotC is doing it wrong" is a reasonable representation of my views?

I disagree.




Exactly! PLENTY of possible, logical explanations for why someone could be a skilled, knowledgeable type. Use whichever one you want, and whichever one best fits your character. There's no need for "class" to force you into any one of them.
Absolutely. Find one that fits. But don't dip into the Cloistered Cleric if you do it because it will make your combat skills crazy good. Because it does not fit, IMHO.

However, if you can make it fit, through roleplay and a slight shift in character focus and add a little deity worship into the mix, then by all means, take it.


Oh, I didn't need mechanical benefits of being a paladin. Or, more correctly, I was far more powerful than I would have been if I had actually chosen paladin, where I would have gotten such "benefits" as a code of conduct and falling possibilities.
I understand that you acted like a Paladin without the mechanics of a Paladin. My "beef" is with characters doing the other way around: Using the divine powers of a Paladin(or Cleric) without acting like a Paladin(or Cleric).

[flumphy]

Wouldn't it be easier if you could atleast try to see my points? God knows, I do try to stay reasonable in my explanations.

To be fair, you said something quite different from what you meant. I'm not holding it against you, given that I can't speak another language at all. I'm just pointing out why there may be a misunderstanding.

Being a jackass is not the same as being evil. There are plenty of good deities (Kord and Garl Glittergold come to mind) who could be described as jackasses. Therefore, you implied an extremely strict interpretation of devotion and/or alignment that doesn't even jive with RAW.

I'm not saying that's what you meant. It is, however, what you said.



Well, the rage mechanic is not any more inherently based on rage than anything else. There's no underlying mechanical problems with a different explanation for source of ability. It contradicts nothing. In this world, he hits things better because he's in the zone, not because of rage. Surely you agree this is a fairly plausible reason, yes?

I mean, sure, if he renamed it "Fluffy bunny power", I might take issue with it, but so long as it's a plausible alternative explanation, why not?

I consider this different from "radioactive spider", because radioactivity is testable. You can empirically tell that something radioactive is different from a mere firefly in real life. And that, that is why it fails as a plausible refluff. It doesn't fit the evidence, as good refluff must. But not all refluffs are equally implausible.

More to the point, why does it bother you to the point of ruining your enjoyment? I'm trying to find the link here. I understand that you're not happy with refluffing...but I'm trying to understand WHY it bothers you.

Is the fluff written by WoTC writers more important or valid than that written by you or your players? If so, why?

It doesn't matter if the way something is refluffed is pausible or not. I'm playing a game where wizards can break reality and fighters can dual-wield spiked chains without killing themselves. Plausibility went out the window before I was even born.

What matters is that rage is called rage and presented as a visceral anger in the default fluff. That definition will be stored in my memory for the remainder of my life (or until I get Alzheimer's, or a rare form of amnesia, or whatever.) I will forever associate an ability that behaves like rage with, well, rage. Everything associated with the word "rage" will crop up in my mind when that ability appears. I am unable to stop it, even if I try to stop it. Hell, I have undergone years of training that, in fact, encouraged it.

While I wouldn't call WotC fluff better or more plausible than anything my players could come up with, it is the default fluff that everyone who plays the game knows and was first introduced to and usually goes by. And in that sense, yes, it is more important in defining what powers represent.

[NNescio]

Boccob the Uncaring does not care if you are being a jackass.
Garl Glittergold himself is a jackass. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice)
Ditto Baravar Cloakshadow. Moreso.
Olidammara is a master troll.
Kord appreciates bar brawls.

On a related note, a Good character can be a cleric of a Neutral deity, and he can fall to Evil and still retain his powers.


Ok, so you think "WotC is doing it wrong" is a reasonable representation of my views?

It's called a "Reductio ad absurdum", which follows exactly from what you said earlier.

[Elric VIII]

Ok, so you think "WotC is doing it wrong" is a reasonable representation of my views?

What I'm saying is that you are setting a double standard by cherrypicking the fluff that you want to support your character guidelines while attempting to discourage cherrypicking of mechanics.

[Thespianus]

To be fair, you said something quite different from what you meant. I'm not holding it against you, given that I can't speak another language at all. I'm just pointing out why there may be a misunderstanding.

Being a jackass is not the same as being evil. There are plenty of good deities (Kord and Garl Glittergold come to mind) who could be described as jackasses. Therefore, you implied an extremely strict interpretation of devotion and/or alignment that doesn't even jive with RAW.

I'm not saying that's what you meant. It is, however, what you said.
Ok, I meant "being a jackass in comparison to the deity you worship". A Cleric of an Evil deity who helps children and act all do-goody is a "jackass" in the view of his deity, IMHO.

If you gain your powers from a supreme being, you probably should remain loyal to that deity and work towards its goals, etc.

But, sure, I might have phrased myself wrong, or explained myself poorly. I do apologize for that, and I thank you for explaining.

[Wings of Peace]

If you gain your powers from a supreme being, you probably should remain loyal to that deity and work towards its goals, etc.


What about Archivists?

[Starbuck_II]

Boccob the Uncaring does not care if you are being a jackass..
Is it even possible to make Boccob care enough to make you an ex-Cleric? He is uncaring...

[NNescio]

Is it even possible to make Boccob care enough to make you an ex-Cleric? He is uncaring...

Burn the local analogue of the Library of Alexandria, maybe?

[Thespianus]

Ok, the use of the word "jackass" apparently opened the gates here:


What I'm saying is that you are setting a double standard by cherrypicking the fluff that you want to support your character guidelines while attempting to discourage cherrypicking of mechanics.
What fluff do I cherrypick?


Boccob the Uncaring does not care if you are being a jackass.
But he cares if his clerics work to distrupt magic, or to limit the power of magic.

All deitys have principles, goals, etc. If one of their Clerics ignores these goals, or works against them actively, I see no reason why the Cleric should be able to gain power from that Deity.


It's called a "Reductio ad absurdum", which follows exactly from what you said earlier.
I was unclear with what I meant with the word "jackass", I agree. But no, I do not think that "WotC is doing it wrong" follows from what I've been saying in this thread.

Quite the opposite, the fluff is also the work of WotC and I am the one who think it should be kept in the game. Logically it follows, when you say the fluff is mutable, you're saying "WotC is doing it wrong". ;)

See, more than one person can play the Freshman Philosophy game.

[Starbuck_II]

But he cares if his clerics work to distrupt magic, or to limit the power of magic.


Sadly, no, he cares not. It is part of his name.

[NNescio]

Ok, I meant "being a jackass in comparison to the deity you worship". A Cleric of an Evil deity who helps children and act all do-goody is a "jackass" in the view of his deity, IMHO.

If you gain your powers from a supreme being, you probably should remain loyal to that deity and work towards its goals, etc.

But, sure, I might have phrased myself wrong, or explained myself poorly. I do apologize for that, and I thank you for explaining.

Sshamath (or at least the clerics who live there), Laori Vaus, and on the other end of the scale we have Sargonnas, Chemosh, Nuitari...

Just saying that some evil people (and deities can also be very, very nice. While having standards.

[Thespianus]

Sadly, no, he cares not. It is part of his name.
Oh, the fluff you mean? ;)

Again, I'm more "into" the Forgotten Realms and Boccobs "equivalent" there, Mystra, is certainly not someone who doesn't care. But I'd be surprised if there was no way a Cleric of Boccob could lose his powers.


What about Archivists?

I don't know. The Archivist is one of those odd beasts that I can't really come to terms with in the Faerun setting. I'd work on it if a player wanted to play one, and I'm sure it would be alright without any weird side effects.


Sshamath (or at least the clerics who live there), Laori Vaus, and on the other end of the scale we have Sargonnas, Chemosh, Nuitari...

Just saying that some evil people (and deities can also be very, very nice. While having standards.

Not sure what you're trying to say, but almost all clerics need to pay a little attention to their deity. I don't think this is unreasonable fluff or an unreasonable RP requirement.

[NNescio]

Not sure what you're trying to say, but almost all clerics need to pay a little attention to their deity. I don't think this is unreasonable fluff or an unreasonable RP requirement.

Let me make it clearer:




Ok, I meant "being a jackass in comparison to the deity you worship". A Cleric of an Evil deity who helps children and act all do-goody is a "jackass" in the view of his deity, IMHO.

If you gain your powers from a supreme being, you probably should remain loyal to that deity and work towards its goals, etc.

But, sure, I might have phrased myself wrong, or explained myself poorly. I do apologize for that, and I thank you for explaining.

Sshamath (or at least the clerics who live there), Laori Vaus, and on the other end of the scale we have Sargonnas, Chemosh, Nuitari...

Just saying that some evil people (and deities can also be very, very nice. While having standards.)

[Amphetryon]

Oh, the fluff you mean? ;)So, you're dismissing the fluff when it hurts your argument, or. . .?

[Big Fau]

Again, I'm more "into" the Forgotten Realms and Boccobs "equivalent" there, Mystra, is certainly not someone who doesn't care.

That's because Mystra is actually 6 or so different people.

And she's a Wish Fulfillment character for Elminster (you know, what with being a Gary Stu and all that).



I think I've found your problem though: You use FR, a setting that is so intrinsically tied to it's own fluff that changing it can potentially ruin the entire setting. Think outside the Realms and we wouldn't be having this conversation with you.