Only the rp is important, type DM's

[CyberThread]

So question.. you have DM's that you know say they prefer rp, and want folks to maybe stay single classes, or maybe only have one dip or a single PRC. ( Yes I know am building a straw man here).


My question of those type of thinkers, that think the rp is more important then the mechanics. IF I want to use 8 different classes and prc's and don't slam to much into the cheese fest that , such builds can have. Why can't we rp it as a single character, why does my character sheet matter, if the only important thing is that, John is a suave guy who can swing a sword and cast 4th level spells.



TL;DR: For DM's that put RP over Mechanics, why does it matter how many classes I have for my build, if am not blasting the cheese. Why do you seem to only care about mechanics, when I want to be more then a single class.

[Daer]

pain to track all the skills and abilities and so on if there are too many classes and exp penalties?

[Sith_Happens]

That's basically how the majority of people on this subforum seem to approach it. You class(es) can be the lens through which your character is defined as a person, but at base they merely represent what your character can do.

[Averis Vol]

So question.. you have DM's that you know say they prefer rp, and want folks to maybe stay single classes, or maybe only have one dip or a single PRC. ( Yes I know am building a straw man here).


My question of those type of thinkers, that think the rp is more important then the mechanics. IF I want to use 8 different classes and prc's and don't slam to much into the cheese fest that , such builds can have. Why can't we rp it as a single character, why does my character sheet matter, if the only important thing is that, John is a suave guy who can swing a sword and cast 4th level spells.



TL;DR: For DM's that put RP over Mechanics, why does it matter how many classes I have for my build, if am not blasting the cheese. Why do you seem to only care about mechanics, when I want to be more then a single class.

Because most of the time, DM's who say only RP matters are DM's who don't know the game, nor do they care to learn. They assume with a variety of classes you have to be trying to squeeze something out of it, even though it seems more realistic that an interesting person would have a myriad of experience, and therefore wouldn't be a single class (Letting that class define him at the core.) "RP is all that matters" is a crutch, it is the sign of someone who either wants to write a story, or who wants his PC's to not challenge his story and send it off the rails.

[CRtwenty]

Generally this is a sign of an inexperienced DM. When you're not very familiar with the game having a player show up whose PC has eight classes from five different books can be overwhelming. Usually they'll get over this in time as they get accustomed to the material.

The other reason this happens is because the DM is more interested in the story they've designed, rather then the actual mechanics of the game. In which cause I have to wonder why they're even playing a rules intensive game like D&D when there are other more rules light systems available that are better suited for that type of experience.

[ngilop]

now, i have to say. that i ma sort of offended by what Averis Vol is claiming.. but It is GiTP forums after alls o i guess that is to be expected.

I put a greater emphasis on my players roleplaying over the mechanics, becuase to me and my players D&D is a game we use for escape-ism and getting into character is more important to myself and my players than trying to be an wizard/incantrix/divine oracle/ dweomokeper

so when i say RP matters I mean RP matters not that i am completely stupid and have no idea how to play D&D or what any of the rules are ( though i willa dmit a couple fo times i found out i was inadverdan;ty houseruling or mis reading a rule) but then Im human

im only agiasnt somebody going 13 differnt classes over 20 levels becuase it just looks weird and im pretty sure than there is a less.. hectic way to go about that.

but at the same time most peeps are who just contiuously dipping are trying to exploit some mechanic which i guess is par for the course for GITP forum goers.

[ArcturusV]

Depends. I never had a problem with dipping classes so much other than having to remember XP penalties for the guy who is a level 2 Paladin, 4 Sorcerer, 1 fighter, 2 Ranger, etc. Kind of a pain in the ass. Then again people say "ignore that rule" which I suppose at least proves that a DM of that type (which I may be) at least somewhat knows the rules.

But I never really enforced anything quite that bad. The worst I ever did is stick to the original line about Prestige Classes... that they are, well prestige. And a reward, not just something that you level into. You don't just go "Ding, level 6, picking up Witch Hunter". It's something you strive for, go on quests to become, etc. A sort of reward where you helped out some other Witch Hunter, and after the adventure you got pulled aside due to the promise you showed, trained in the 6-8 months until the next adventure, and come back with level 1, Witch Hunter.

As far as myself, how I play (Not how I DM), I follow the idea of Logical Growth to my characters. I don't really have build plans so much as a concept. And I let how the adventure unfolds shape my character in ways that may not be "optimal" but makes sense. I don't go Paladin to Sorcerer because that's the build... I'd go Paladin to Sorcerer because something in character happened to awaken that power, or because finding some way to tap into his heritage/magic blood becomes the point of a quest, or something he's given a reason to strive for, etc.

Which is kind of a middle ground between the OP's views? I mean if you're going Dipmania it's typically because "I want to be an optimal X" rather than "Because my RP says my character logically should be a Ranger 2, Barb 2, Fighter 2, Bear Warrior 1, Warshaper 4..."

Might be a character who goes that way out there, I wouldn't doubt. It's a line that isn't quite as clear as the OP suggests, or other posts where people who "demand RP" just don't know and don't care about rules. Or people who dip a lot are all cheesemeisters or don't care about RP so much as Op. I'd be surprised if it was ever quite that clear a line.

Even if it's an RP line that someone draws? It's not really a bad thing, at least as I've seen it. You get told you can't just "level" into a PrC? Well now you have an instant quest hook to find some venerable master to help teach you, etc. Adventure! It's not a bad thing. Some tyrannical DM won't let you just take a Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian dip but wants some RP justification? Adventure!

[ithildur]

OP is preaching to the choir in these forums for the most part; the fact he's claiming to set up a 'strawman' is already enlightening (at least he's honest about the fact he's parroting the party line propaganda!). I'd expect not too many people are going to present a balanced view that might be different from the popular/prevalent notions around here on how 3.5e is supposed to be played.

[NichG]

I feel that there's an important point here that is getting lost, and since we're constructing an artificial DM to discuss, let me step into their feet for a bit (I'll use blue text to indicate what I think the views of this particular putative DM might be):

It is important that all powers/abilities/successes that a person has in the game stems from their RP

In other words, the objection at its heart doesn't have to be 'you are making the game about the mechanics by building this crazy thing' but rather an observation that by using the mechanics successfully behind the scenes, you are basically earning success and ability in ways that the other players, who are using 'strictly' RP methods, would not be able to reproduce.

The player who does a lot of RP about apprenticing to wizards, making deals with demons to sell bits of his soul for power, does extended downtimes searching libraries for lost tomes, etc must end up being better at magic than the person who goes Wizard full progression into potent PrCs.
Being able to offload your competency on the character building minigame interferes with this goal.


Now, I think one can argue whether thats really the case, what the best way to counter it, etc, etc is. But aside from all the reasons why this view in particular may pose problems, I think its a more reasonable outlook - a more solidly constructed strawman if you will - than imagining a purely irrational repulsion from the idea of complex character building.

[CRtwenty]

OP is preaching to the choir in these forums for the most part; the fact he's claiming to set up a 'strawman' is already enlightening (at least he's honest about the fact he's parroting the party line propaganda!). I'd expect not too many people are going to present a balanced view that might be different from the popular/prevalent notions around here on how 3.5e is supposed to be played.

"Party line propaganda"? :smallconfused: I'll admit we get pretty rules intensive here, but that's more due to the fact that 3rd ed has been out for a decade now and we've got a lot of posters here with some crazy system mastery. Anyway most of the crazy builds you see here are more thought exercises than something that would actually be played in a game. There's no concentrated push against role play from what I've seen and in fact a lot of threads boil down to "I have this cool PC concept, how can I make it work mechanically?".

Anyway as I stated before 3.5e and the d20 system are pretty rules intensive. If you're not going to follow most of those rules why use the system in the first place? There's tons of roleplaying systems out there that have simpler rules that allow for more GM and player freedom.

[TuggyNE]

I think NichG has some good stuff to say, and in general, just asking GitP, "hey, why do people who disagree with most of you in puzzling ways think the way they do?", because you're mostly going to get answers that range from "I have no idea" to "they must be stupid or jerks in some way because nothing else makes sense to me".


There's no concentrated push against role play from what I've seen and in fact a lot of threads boil down to "I have this cool PC concept, how can I make it work mechanically?".

There's certainly no push against roleplay, but there is undeniably a strong and fairly focused push against "roleplay only, no rollplay" or similar concepts. Here, let me jot down some rough estimates of GitP demographics.
{table=head]Roleplay only|Roleplay primarily|Mixed|Mechanics primarily|Mechanics only
<5%|~15%|~50%|~25%|<5%[/table]

We lean, if anything, more toward mechanical expression, though not usually at the expense of roleplay. But there's a pretty strong dislike for the far left, at least when it attempts to proselytize, and a considerably lesser dislike for the far right (perhaps because it never proselytizes?).

[CRtwenty]

We lean, if anything, more toward mechanical expression, though not usually at the expense of roleplay. But there's a pretty strong dislike for the far left, at least when it attempts to proselytize, and a considerably lesser dislike for the far right (perhaps because it never proselytizes?).

In my opinion that's it right there. You never see topics from people saying that their game was ruined because somebody roleplayed too much. From what I've seen people who are only interested in crunch and mechanics usually stay away from RPing games like D&D and tend towards things where fluff can be safely ignored, like Warhammer 40k or Magic the Gathering.

Even the most hardcore "Rollplayer" recognizes that there needs to be some sembelance of plot to explain why he's in the dungeon getting his phat lewtz and mad xps. Even if it's just something simple like "the town's being attacked by monsters from the crypt in the woods, go there and clear it out".

[Yahzi]

Yes I know am building a straw man here Not a strawman; such DMs exist. I know, for I am one. :smallbiggrin:

Classes in my world are actual in-game constructs (a bit odd, I know, but it works, and anyway that's the world I want to run). So your class is not merely a collection of abilities; it is a statement about your place in the social hierarchy of the world.

That's not to say that people (PCs and NPCs) don't take dips in other classes. But it is to say that it's not as simple as "I need a dice of back-stabbing damage."

I can't speak for other DMs; but I suspect a lot of DMs put these restrictions in place as a matter of world-building. Yes there are DMs who make bad house-rules; but at the same time, it is not only the DM's perogative but actually his job to create a world with a distinct flavor.

[Yogibear41]

In my experience the DM cares less about how you have X different class levels and more about how you learned to do X. For example you have been a rogue for 5 levels then at level 6 you want to dip cleric, okay sure but at level 5 you knew absolutely nothing about religion, never prayed, etc. Who is going to teach you to be a cleric? Can't just say bam I'm a cleric now.

[The Insanity]

You never see topics from people saying that their game was ruined because somebody roleplayed too much.
Every thread complaining about stealing Rogue PCs or PvP Evil PCs is just such a thread. You know - "I'm just roleplaying my character" jerk players.

[TuggyNE]

Every thread complaining about stealing Rogue PCs or PvP Evil PCs is just such a thread. You know - "I'm just roleplaying my character" jerk players.

Hmm. No, not really, or at least not always; in such a case, the jerk is not really roleplaying well, they are roleplaying poorly, or even just using it as an excuse to cover up their desire to troll the other players. So that's not a complaint of too much roleplay, but of not enough and of the wrong variety.

[ShadowFireLance]

In my experience the DM cares less about how you have X different class levels and more about how you learned to do X. For example you have been a rogue for 5 levels then at level 6 you want to dip cleric, okay sure but at level 5 you knew absolutely nothing about religion, never prayed, etc. Who is going to teach you to be a cleric? Can't just say bam I'm a cleric now.


This right here, is quite the best way to describe a "Oh I'm dipping cleric" thing, It works quite well to mix RP and Mechanics.

I like to use that sort of thing, when I run low level, but when I run high level, It kind of...falls apart.

[The Insanity]

Hmm. No, not really, or at least not always; in such a case, the jerk is not really roleplaying well, they are roleplaying poorly, or even just using it as an excuse to cover up their desire to troll the other players. So that's not a complaint of too much roleplay, but of not enough and of the wrong variety.
That's just assumptions. For all we know those people might be actually trying hard to roleplay the characters they made, it's just character concepts that tend to be jerk-ish. *shrug*
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." and all that jazz.

[NichG]

We lean, if anything, more toward mechanical expression, though not usually at the expense of roleplay. But there's a pretty strong dislike for the far left, at least when it attempts to proselytize, and a considerably lesser dislike for the far right (perhaps because it never proselytizes?).

Hm, I think both sides proselytize. The 'murderhobo' meme when used as a point of argument is kind of the 'mechanics-only' version of proselytizing - the idea that kick down the door play is not just a way to play D&D, but is the only way that makes sense because of how the game was mechanically constructed (there's a bit of a logical leap here on my part, but I can't remember ever seeing anyone on here argue that D&D's mechanics are best suited for out-of-combat things rather than combat things)

The 'if you don't like D&D's rules, why not play another system?' meme is also sometimes from that side of the spectrum.

I'm not entirely sure why the distribution is the way it is to be honest though I do agree that GitP is 'mechanics-leaning'. If I were to hazard a guess, its the strong Homebrew component of this place - people have become used to seeing bad mechanics and having to be discerning about them to the extent where they've learned more about mechanics in general. Since fluff is so often a matter of taste, I think it tends to get a pass more often (not that it should)

[Craft (Cheese)]

In my experience the DM cares less about how you have X different class levels and more about how you learned to do X. For example you have been a rogue for 5 levels then at level 6 you want to dip cleric, okay sure but at level 5 you knew absolutely nothing about religion, never prayed, etc. Who is going to teach you to be a cleric? Can't just say bam I'm a cleric now.

Usually I find myself saying "But I planned to be a priestly-type since the beginning, I've just had to wait until now to take my first cleric level for build reasons." This also tends to happen when you base your character concept around a PrC but the game starts at too low a level to actually be in that PrC.

[Andvare]

My 0.02$ is that it depends on the class/PRC.
Some classes requires a lot of training, and sometimes classical schooling, to get into. Some, not so much. The fluff that separates sorcerer and wizard is not a small thing, even though the two classes are a lot alike.

And in Pathfinder, which I usually play, there is an emphasis on the prestige part of a prestige class. You are often a part of something, a group of some sort, and that does require some kind of explanation.

On the other hand, I'd accept most constellations, as long as you have an explanation for the build.

Edit: Of course, at my table, the Gm isn't the supreme master and ruler of all he surveys (TM), we discuss the rules if there is something we don't like, and agree beforehand on the type of game we want, i.e. the level of seriousness, optimization, genre, mood ect.

[Killer Angel]

My question of those type of thinkers, that think the rp is more important then the mechanics. IF I want to use 8 different classes and prc's and don't slam to much into the cheese fest that , such builds can have. Why can't we rp it as a single character, why does my character sheet matter, if the only important thing is that, John is a suave guy who can swing a sword and cast 4th level spells.

I don't know if this can apply, but sometime i saw PRCs limited to one or 2 (once, even by me as DM!) for fluff reasons: the "secrets" and the special abilities given by a PRC, are mastered by organizations, often military or at the orders of the Kingdom, or whatever.
You will not be trained by 5 different groups, barring extraordinary exceptions.

[Dimers]

We lean, if anything, more toward mechanical expression, though not usually at the expense of roleplay. But there's a pretty strong dislike for the far left, at least when it attempts to proselytize, and a considerably lesser dislike for the far right (perhaps because it never proselytizes?).

I disagree; I've seen both ends of the spectrum prosletyzing on this forum. I've seen plenty of "just RP it out" but also plenty of "you should play [race] [class/PrC combo] because it's better", even when it's not a how-can-I-build-this-better thread.

I'm surprised to see so many people -- not you, Tuggy, but others in and out of this thread -- recently describing the Playground as if we were of one mind. We disagree with ourselves all over the place. My post is a case in point.


In my experience the DM cares less about how you have X different class levels and more about how you learned to do X.

I second that motion! That's what it always comes down to for me and the DMs I've played under.

[Psyren]

I have a knee-jerk aversion to "frankenstein builds." I would rather make you a custom archetype that gets you close to what you want than have you run some dip-heavy abomination just so you can proudly claim it's "RAW."

[Captnq]

Okay, few observations

1. The playground is NOT rules intensive. You guys focus on RAI quite a bit. When I need help figuring out the RAW of a situation, you guys are not very good at figuring things out when the going gets sticky. Yes, I post questions here every once in a while, but it's more for follow up then discussion.

2. I don't know a single DM who complains about what classes a player takes. I know DMs who complain about twinky combinations, but I don't know anyone who pushes a single class. I have no idea what you are talking about.

3. It IS all about the RP. And I shall prove it.

Think back to any game more then three months ago. Describe it out loud.

How often do you go into details about all the math required?
Do you talk about how your friend ripped the eyeball out of the giant demon's head then how you 'ported into the space left behind and blasted his brains from the empty eye socket, or do you discuss it in terms of initative and turn based movement?
Do you talk about about the skill checks and how you had a morale buff?
What part do you remember most , the game mechanics, or the RP?

The human mind is a very strange thing. We don't memorize things as snap shots. We break things down into smaller objects and store them seperately. When we "remember" things, we are "rebuilding" that memory. Every memory is a recreation. THAT'S WHY ROLE-PLAYING GAMES WORK.

It tricks our minds into calling up the various "parts" of other memories. The "math" serves as a framework to pull it all together so we can fit the parts more effectively and then the memory becomes "real."

Get any gamer talking about their favorate game session. Like the time Argar shouted out loud for no apparent reason, "Orgasm! Can I have some?" at the king's feast.

Note, I said ARGAR, not, BOB'S CHARACTER. We don't remember bob's character, we forget bob. We "create" a "memory" of the king's feast. And it makes us laugh because Argar the Barbarian just shouted across a room of nobles the new word he had just learned, "Orgasm".

Was it funny? Hell Yes. Did I roll the dice to confirm if the king laughed? No. The rules would have required me to, but the rules are unimportant. The Rules would have gotten in the way at that point. It would have spoiled the mood to have everyone pause so I could roll each NPCs reaction to the event and ask each player to make Spot checks and Diplomacy checks and...

The point was to have FUN. The point is to make a fun memory.

A good DM doesn't need any rules. The rules are a crutch. The rules are important because they serve a purpose. I can make cookies from scratch, but let's face facts, slice-n-bake is much easier.

Even Wargamers who focus on hack-n-slash and want to KILL KILL KILL. Wargamers who say, "SCREW The RP, Whatever has the MOST BONUSES!!!" Get them talking about their favorate memories gaming. Yes, they might throw out, "Then I rolled a 20 for a crit on near damage. Oh My GOD! I did like 400 points of damage and his head frickin EXPLODED!"

Well, actually, heads never explode in D&D.

But I hear this, time and time again. Massive over kill damage is described in a fashion that is not supported by the rules. Why? Memories. The memories built around that event have added on interesting tidbits.

If you are a wargamer, ask yourself, HONESTLY, if you could ONLY describe your games in DM in terms of numbers and rolls. No "Swinging a sword." instead you use language like, "I attack using my primary weapon." You can't embellish the story. "I killed him by 200 hit points." is the best you can do. Tell me, would it be half as fun?

No. It would not. Bragging is part of the fun. Discussing how the heads go flipping over your character's shoulder and bouncing down the stairs to roll to a stop at the second in command's feat. You WANT to hear about the terror in his eyes as he looks up at your pouncing, uber-charger barbarian.

That's the fun. That's what's important.

I am a DM. I am going to give you a memory. You will later talk about what I run. You will hate what I did. You will love what I did. You will be sad. You will be angry. You will swear vengence. You will lose hope. You will feel many things but I can promise you this.

YOU WILL NOT BE BORED AND YOU WILL REMEMBER IT.

So argue with your Straw DM about how RP isn't that important and that stats are what's needed. I don't care. Just don't deceive the other new DMs that function is more important then form.

Think of DMing like becoming a great chef. We all start out using microwave ovens. We move onto boxed recipes, then cookbooks, then we experiment, then, if you get good enough, you begin to understand that it's like the bald kid in the matrix says, "There is no spoon." There never was a spoon. As a DM, your job is to get the players to remember a spoon. If you are really good, you can get them to remember a spoon as you are talking.

[Segev]

(I'll use blue text to indicate what I think the views of this particular putative DM might be):

It is important that all powers/abilities/successes that a person has in the game stems from their RP

In other words, the objection at its heart doesn't have to be 'you are making the game about the mechanics by building this crazy thing' but rather an observation that by using the mechanics successfully behind the scenes, you are basically earning success and ability in ways that the other players, who are using 'strictly' RP methods, would not be able to reproduce.

The player who does a lot of RP about apprenticing to wizards, making deals with demons to sell bits of his soul for power, does extended downtimes searching libraries for lost tomes, etc must end up being better at magic than the person who goes Wizard full progression into potent PrCs.
Being able to offload your competency on the character building minigame interferes with this goal.

My advice to this hypothetical DM would be to use the mechanics to support his game. If the character who spends all his time in libraries and apprenticing to wizards is to be the best in the party at magic, he should be running straight wizard into a potent wizard-PrC. In fact, if he chooses a non-wizard class, he would seem to be violating your very assumptions about RP connecting with what talents and skills one has and develops.

Thus, you are perfectly in your rights to tell the player who is NOT RPing this, but is instead out carousing or what-have-you, that he cannot take a level of wizard because he's not studied it. It's something to be earned through RP. Suggest perhaps Bard or Rogue or whatever seems appropriate to his activities.

Be careful with this, however; he's earned exp enough to gain a level, so telling him that he can't even continue as what he was before because he's "not RP'd it" means you're telling him he's not actually practiced his existing capabilities. How, then, did he earn the exp at all? If you do not reward exp solely for "role playing," but do so through combat and the like, he likely should be allowed to continue as what he was, because he had to use those skills and talents to win the fight(s).

[NichG]

Okay, few observations

1. The playground is NOT rules intensive. You guys focus on RAI quite a bit. When I need help figuring out the RAW of a situation, you guys are not very good at figuring things out when the going gets sticky. Yes, I post questions here every once in a while, but it's more for follow up then discussion.


RAI vs RAW is a different conflict than Mechanics vs RP though. The RAI/RAW thing is basically an entirely mechanical discussion, about 'what did the designers mean this rule to actually do?'.



3. It IS all about the RP. And I shall prove it.

Think back to any game more then three months ago. Describe it out loud.

How often do you go into details about all the math required?
Do you talk about how your friend ripped the eyeball out of the giant demon's head then how you 'ported into the space left behind and blasted his brains from the empty eye socket, or do you discuss it in terms of initative and turn based movement?
Do you talk about about the skill checks and how you had a morale buff?
What part do you remember most , the game mechanics, or the RP?


I don't think this is a very good proof. I tend to think of myself as very story-minded, but when it comes down to it, yes, in several of the campaigns I've been in within the last 4 years, the mechanics have actually made for interesting discussion. I ran a campaign where everyone remembers 'oh, thats when we had the guy who abused Palm Throw to do massive damage, and X stat to Y was really broken due to some of the homebrew stuff'. At the same time, people also discuss crazy 'stuff' that happened.

The reality is, our group consists of people who do honestly care about both sides of the equation; its not as clearly divided as you present it to be.

Actually, the thing that gets the absolute most discussion in my games or others I've played in is neither the story nor the mechanics - its the particular antics of the players themselves that seem to carry over between characters. We get to know 'oh, thats the guy who is going to always charge in heedlessly and get us in trouble', etc, to the extent that we've had metagame jokes seep into the actual in game continuity in reference to the players' tendencies, even across campaigns by three separate GMs at this point ('J' taint, a cosmic energy not unlike an alignment, based on the fact that in our groups it seemed like each of the three players with a 'J' first name ended up being power hungry to the point of absurdity).

[The Insanity]

I have a knee-jerk aversion to "frankenstein builds." I would rather make you a custom archetype that gets you close to what you want than have you run some dip-heavy abomination just so you can proudly claim it's "RAW."
Not every DM is willing/skilled enough to do that. Often players have to make due with what they have - multiclassing.

[Spore]

Multiclassing is okay as long as you find ingame explainations for it. Remember Elminster's class outline. He is basically a mess of classes.

[navar100]

Those who stress roleplay uber alles aren't just anti-muticlassing. They're against PCs being "powerful". They're the ones who are actually obsessed about the game mechanics. In stead of "Fighters can't have Nice Things", it's "Player characters can't have Nice Things".

Personal bias, I find those who stress a "low magic campaign" to be another way of saying roleplay uber alles. I accept that's not universally true, but when such DMs only want wizards to cast Magic Missile and Fireball, facetiously speaking, their wanting a low magic game is not really about concerns over Gate or the Tier System. It's not wanting PCs in general having Nice Things.

[Psyren]

Multiclassing is okay as long as you find ingame explainations for it. Remember Elminster's class outline. He is basically a mess of classes.

Elminster would perhaps be more accurately modeled with the retraining rules, as he was basically trying to "find himself."

[Elderand]

So question.. you have DM's that you know say they prefer rp, and want folks to maybe stay single classes, or maybe only have one dip or a single PRC. ( Yes I know am building a straw man here).

First off, that's not really a strawman. It's an hypothetical situation.

Now to answer the actual question, it's not a matter of cheese (I dislike cheese because it makes the game painful to deal with unless the whole world use cheese). It's a question of justifying it.

I don't care if you are a wizard/warlock/rogue/cleric/fighter/binder as long as it can be justified. The more classes you have the more I ask for a detailled justification.

[Talya]

I believe in a holistic approach to character design. Crunch and Fluff must integrate seemlessly. I don't take classes that are not thematicly appropriate to what I'm trying to build - I occasionally take suboptimal classes because they thematically fit very very well with what i'm trying to build.

With that said, once I have the concept solidified and know what I want to do with it, I optimize the frack out of it. The concept may be more important than the mechanics at first, but after I understand the concept I want to build, I want it to work as effectively as I can possibly make it.

[Yogibear41]

Usually I find myself saying "But I planned to be a priestly-type since the beginning, I've just had to wait until now to take my first cleric level for build reasons." This also tends to happen when you base your character concept around a PrC but the game starts at too low a level to actually be in that PrC.

I know the feeling(we pretty much ALWAYS start at level 1), I recently starting playing an Aasimar who I wanted to start with a one level monk dip and then go paladin from there, even though I planned it from the beginning, I still had to go train at an academy for 4 years once I actually had enough xp to hit level 2, fortunately at that time the only other person playing in that particular scenario was an elf bard, and when you live for like 1000 years whats 4 years right? So time was fast-forwarded. (this is a side game we play if people in the main game can't make it)


I also had the idea to play a monk sorcerer mix once, starting as a monk then taking sorcerer a level or 2 down the line, and my DM was like but whos going to teach you? And I was like well sorcerers are kinda self-taught? and I'm going to just start naturally getting my spells? He replied with, so your going to accidentally burning hands yourself in your sleep?

Character never got made though, so I'm not sure how much was poking fun and how much wasn't.


Ironically, I am considered the most min-maxing person in our play group, I'm currently playing a warlock5/enlightened spirit3/fixing to take 1st level of cleric pretty horrendous in terms of power in my opinion, but I am doing it for the story, while I sit next to a rogue who has a permanent true strike buff, and basically sneak attacks anything that comes within 60 feet easily tripling or quadrupaling my damage per round, and next to him is the half-giant, half-troll psychic warrior ardent with a LA of +0, who had no idea what he is doing or at least acts like it and just runs around spending obscene amount of power points on powers because "he doesn't have time to sit around and read all the books with the rules in it"

[Abaddona]

Problem with RP vs mechanic type of play lies when your "RP only" DM says: "ok, roll dice for diplomacy/information gathering'whatever". Basically when he first say that "only RP matters" and then forces mechanics on you. The most basic thing - if I play single classed barbarian with concept "skald", but my DM on every turn wants me to roll for diplomacy/bluff/gather information etc. even on minor fluff like things like for example "in the tavern with beer in my hand I tell my party members an epic tale about the deeds of my ancestors" and he is like "ok, roll perform, let's see if other patrons liked your tale or if they threw you out". Suddenly game stops being "RP only" but gets highly centered on purely mechanical aspects, because even if I like writing and my tale was a good one - NPC reaction is based on pure luck of roll with bonuses coming from my character sheet, my RPing gets reduced to minor bonus and it's frustrating. Especially if I could make same concept with bard/barbarian multiclass, RP in exactly same way but suddenly I would be much more efficient.

[Averis Vol]

I believe in a holistic approach to character design. Crunch and Fluff must integrate seemlessly. I don't take classes that are not thematicly appropriate to what I'm trying to build - I occasionally take suboptimal classes because they thematically fit very very well with what i'm trying to build.

With that said, once I have the concept solidified and know what I want to do with it, I optimize the frack out of it. The concept may be more important than the mechanics at first, but after I understand the concept I want to build, I want it to work as effectively as I can possibly make it.

I couldn't agree more with Talya here. IME DM's who think roleplay is all that matters normally also suffer from Stormwind Fallacy (I've had two DM's like this. Apparently someone who's militant can't be a dirty fighter, so my fighter rogue kicked up a mess of scrutiny). Now, not all DM's are like this of course, thats a poor generalisation, but normally when I apply to games online (It really is mainly PbP I see this in,) theres overwhelming hostility to powergamers; they're equated with min/maxers and munchkins and it's an attitude that has put me off from applying to a lot of games that had nice, rich worlds and people.

I normally game on RPGcrossing, so it may just be the community, but the overarching theme is that having PC's who do what their fluff says is considered (Basically) treason to the game.

[Zubrowka74]

Because most of the time, DM's who say only RP matters are DM's who don't know the game, nor do they care to learn. They assume with a variety of classes you have to be trying to squeeze something out of it, even though it seems more realistic that an interesting person would have a myriad of experience, and therefore wouldn't be a single class (Letting that class define him at the core.) "RP is all that matters" is a crutch, it is the sign of someone who either wants to write a story, or who wants his PC's to not challenge his story and send it off the rails.

This is so wrong. While such DM exists, you blanket generalization is way off the mark. Gygax himself admited that RP can be played without a single book. Is it called a Mechanic-Playing Game ? No.

What you say is a mirror of the Stormwind Fallacy : if a DM puts emphasis on RP it's because he's the suxx at game rules / mechanics. The two are independant.

*EDIT* I skipped the second page so I missed you second post clarifying your view.

[Dawgmoah]

Problem with RP vs mechanic type of play lies when your "RP only" DM says: "ok, roll dice for diplomacy/information gathering'whatever". Basically when he first say that "only RP matters" and then forces mechanics on you. The most basic thing - if I play single classed barbarian with concept "skald", but my DM on every turn wants me to roll for diplomacy/bluff/gather information etc. even on minor fluff like things like for example "in the tavern with beer in my hand I tell my party members an epic tale about the deeds of my ancestors" and he is like "ok, roll perform, let's see if other patrons liked your tale or if they threw you out". Suddenly game stops being "RP only" but gets highly centered on purely mechanical aspects, because even if I like writing and my tale was a good one - NPC reaction is based on pure luck of roll with bonuses coming from my character sheet, my RPing gets reduced to minor bonus and it's frustrating. Especially if I could make same concept with bard/barbarian multiclass, RP in exactly same way but suddenly I would be much more efficient.

How else would one do it? To your Bard the story may be epic; to most of the crowd they might think it was boring and your Bard stole all the good parts out of the Götterdämmerung. So the DM has to have some mechanism to decide if the crowd liked it or not. So yes the perform check is used. What else could he do? Just say the crowd goes wild?

Role playing is what the game is about: the rules are the common framework which creates a mutual understanding of the way things will, or should, work.

[Red Fel]

What you say is a mirror of the Stormwind Fallacy : if a DM puts emphasis on RP it's because he's the suxx at game rules / mechanics. The two are independant.

This. I've been reading this thread, and trying to figure out if there's a way to express what's been bugging me.

On the one hand, it seems that we're discussing patchwork class combinations chosen almost purely for mechanics purposes. I agree with Talya and others; I generally choose classes for a concept, or a theme, not for pure optimization.

But it also seems that we're discussing the RP/mechanics dichotomy, which, as the Stormwind Fallacy points out, isn't a dichotomy at all. The two are separate metrics - the importance or lack thereof of RP, and the reliance or lack thereof on mechanics.

You can have an RP-heavy campaign with maximum mechanics, where you have to roll for everything, but still act out the result. You can have an RP-heavy campaign with minimal mechanics, which is basically freeform. You can have a mechanics-heavy campaign with minimal RP, which is basically just a dice engine.

Or you can have a campaign that has no RP and no mechanics. We call that "DM's Story Time." It's like something out of the SUE Files.

I've been in campaigns which placed an emphasis on mechanics under ordinary circumstances, but that emphasis was lifted in circumstances of particular player ingenuity or for the Rule of Awesome. For example, there wasn't much dice-rolling required when, in defense of a small desert town, our gnome bought every mirror he could find and constructed a parabolic laser array. He had the craft and knowledge skills, he had able assistants, he had the money, and best of all, it was awesome. So there were one or two minor checks, and then the DM announced how half of the approaching army was boiled in its heavy black armor. (Why would you wear black full plate while attacking a village in the middle of the desert in the middle of the day, anyway?)

A DM can place an emphasis on the RP elements without completely abandoning mechanics, is all I'm saying.

[Averis Vol]

This is so wrong. While such DM exists, you blanket generalization is way off the mark. Gygax himself admited that RP can be played without a single book. Is it called a Mechanic-Playing Game ? No.

What you say is a mirror of the Stormwind Fallacy : if a DM puts emphasis on RP it's because he's the suxx at game rules / mechanics. The two are independant.

You're taking "Values RP" and making it synonymous with "RP is all that matters", which was what this thread is pointed at. I completely agree that Roleplay is a necessary construct of the game, but if it was meant to be played by saying "People who intelligently use the rules in the books we created for the game are just cheats and/or wanna be MMOers" then why even put statistics into the game anyways? and again in my last post, I said In my Experience; I can only speak for the DM's with whom I've had the prospect of gaming with, so in reality.........about 15 DM's in all. But of those 15, I've only found three that were okay with my play style; the other twelve flat out said to me "I don't like min maxers, this game may not be right for you." No, seriously. Whirling frenzy has got me barred from a really fun looking game, so has collegiate wizard on my wizard who was a professor of a local academy.

EDIT: its all good Zubrowka74; I came in hot with that first reply and it was pretty rude.

[Zubrowka74]

Well, we are not too far apart in our respective opinions. But I still believe RP is the key element and that all the mechanics are tools to help us play that out.

Doesn't matter how many dips you have versus how many background pages. You can have both highly optimized crunch and stellar RP in the same PC. To me, it's more of "Here's my fluff, lets try and find the build that best describes this" than "here's myünrealistic, über-killer build, now lets' bend the fluff around to justify it." As a DM I will bend the rule to fit the RP, not the other way around.

[Abaddona]

Dawgmoah -> by telling me if my RP was good? If he (and other players) think it was good then other patrons liked it. If he think that it was not - NPC in game didn't like it. It's really simple. I'm not even saying about important rolls (like results of meeting with the king, when we want persuade the king to offer more help that he is willing to give us), but purely fluff ones. If I pay the bartender 100 gp and tell him "keep the beer flowing, let's make the night that everyone will remember" and want to talk with few familiar guards about recent events (purely fluff like things - kinda like in real life guys in bar are talking about football etc.) and he wants me to roll every 5 minutes it's discouraging.
Another example - my current DM told us that when we gain level we must find instructor which will teach us new things. Basically it's side quest. But it's not only for major things like for example "uncanny dodge" or feats but for everything. I must find instructor for BAB, Saving Throws, HD, class features, skill points etc. And to find instructor I must make Gather Infomartion check. Of course DC is low, but without ranks even DC12 check will end in failure half of the time. Oh, and by the "RP" he meant "you must make skill check in place in which you have chance of succed - so I must go to barracks and do gather information check to find guard who will teach how to increase my BAB, then I must haggle with him or persuade him (diplomacy) so he will teach me". Fortunately he quickly realized that when gaining level takes 10 hours (about four evening sessions on Skype) then it is not fun for anyone and greatly simplified this.
Suddenly simple "RP only" game requires lots of rolling to do even simple things and to be honest - if I'm RPin and keep failing because the dice didn't like me then after some time I will just keep only rolling waiting for good roll because it's tedious when I must RP everytime when I want to rent a room and my succes is still dependent on how well I will roll.

[ArqArturo]

Here's the thing, when I've DMed before: When a player suddenly roleplays a particular line that is just awesome, like an inspirational speech, or a plea to not start a battle, etc. F**k dice, it works.

[Talya]

Well, we are not too far apart in our respective opinions. But I still believe RP is the key element and that all the mechanics are tools to help us play that out.


There's something key in what you said.

If your concept that you're trying to roleplay involves someone being a master swordsman, for the mechanical aspects of the game to be useful tools to help play that out, they actually need to support the person being a master swordsman. Let's see where this is problematic:

Swordsplay in real life required a great deal of dexterity and manual skill, more so than brute strength. D&D mechanical elements actually do not support the idea of a highly dextrous, average strength master swordsman unless he uses a few specific finessable weapons (and even then, they don't do much damage.) In order to make that concept work at all requires a bit of system mastery, playing around with various feats and class features and things until you get something that actually works. (and ultimately, it rarely works well.)

Similar things can be said about any character concept. If you're playing a master manipulater and diplomat that wraps the world around his fingers, but you're playing a class without diplomacy, bluff or intimidate, your concept will fall flat due to a lack of mechanical support. The things have to be taken together - the crunch has to support the fluff.

[Dawgmoah]

Dawgmoah -> by telling me if my RP was good? If he (and other players) think it was good then other patrons liked it. If he think that it was not - NPC in game didn't like it. It's really simple. I'm not even saying about important rolls (like results of meeting with the king, when we want persuade the king to offer more help that he is willing to give us), but purely fluff ones. If I pay the bartender 100 gp and tell him "keep the beer flowing, let's make the night that everyone will remember" and want to talk with few familiar guards about recent events (purely fluff like things - kinda like in real life guys in bar are talking about football etc.) and he wants me to roll every 5 minutes it's discouraging.
Another example - my current DM told us that when we gain level we must find instructor which will teach us new things. Basically it's side quest. But it's not only for major things like for example "uncanny dodge" or feats but for everything. I must find instructor for BAB, Saving Throws, HD, class features, skill points etc. And to find instructor I must make Gather Infomartion check. Of course DC is low, but without ranks even DC12 check will end in failure half of the time. Oh, and by the "RP" he meant "you must make skill check in place in which you have chance of succed - so I must go to barracks and do gather information check to find guard who will teach how to increase my BAB, then I must haggle with him or persuade him (diplomacy) so he will teach me". Fortunately he quickly realized that when gaining level takes 10 hours (about four evening sessions on Skype) then it is not fun for anyone and greatly simplified this.
Suddenly simple "RP only" game requires lots of rolling to do even simple things and to be honest - if I'm RPin and keep failing because the dice didn't like me then after some time I will just keep only rolling waiting for good roll because it's tedious when I must RP everytime when I want to rent a room and my succes is still dependent on how well I will roll.

So if I am reading you correctly you believe your DM is making your roll too much for unimportant details and things. I can see your point. You have given more detail and it has become clearer. I still say that to resolve things like performances you should follow the performance check but when players roleplay things that should be considered as well. I find most of the time the skill checks are used to speed things up or for people who are highly introverted. For a performance though I will use the associated perform check. But then homebrew some circumstantial bonuses. The crowd is drunk, +2, you bought the beer, +5, you have an interesting accent or idiom of speech, +4, etc.

Training up and getting new skills is one thing, but BAB? Really? Never seen or heard of that one before.

Back on to the skill checks: they are an integral part of the game mechanics but in your examples I can now see why you would get frustrated at it.

[Dimers]

I recently starting playing an Aasimar who I wanted to start with a one level monk dip and then go paladin from there, even though I planned it from the beginning, I still had to go train at an academy for 4 years once I actually had enough xp to hit level 2 ...

I also had the idea to play a monk sorcerer mix once, starting as a monk then taking sorcerer a level or 2 down the line, and my DM was like but whos going to teach you?

Side note: 3.0 DMG had an optional rule for characters who start as half-a-level of one class and half-a-level of another. When they hit 2nd level, they have one full level of each. It was called "apprentice" something. Google says it's on page 40. The option didn't make it into the 3.5 DMG, but nothing superseded it either. I used it a few times and found it quite functional.

[The Oni]

Play the game you want.

The whole reason people still play tabletop roleplaying games in 2013, surrounded by a host of far more convenient electronic-based RPGs, is because of how beautifully modular everything is! The rules can be changed easily to suit the wants/needs of the group. The only wrong way to play tabletop RPGs is the way in which some people in your group are not consistently having fun.

[/thread]

[Hecuba]

Essentially, the question comes down to how you view the relationship between the players and the rules, especially as it regards the nature and purpose of classes.

To borrow Talya's most excellent swordplay example:
Should the rules, as an example, of the swashbuckler class determine the mechanical abilities of your Master Swordsman character?
Or
Should you choose the classes, feats, and skills that provide the mechanical abilities you feel best represent your idea of the skills of a Master Swordsman?

Both are valid frameworks, and both frameworks are supported by the 3.5 system. Both can work for roleplaying. But each of the prescribes a significantly different relationship between the players and the rules.

The hypothetical the OP presents is then (in my opinion) an extreme example of the dangers of trying to support both frameworks at the same table. At its most fundamental, the disagreement is not over the nature of role playing but over the nature of classes.

[Elderand]

Essentially, the question comes down to how you view the relationship between the players and the rules, especially as it regards the nature and purpose of classes.

To borrow Talya's most excellent swordplay example:
Should the rules, as an example, of the swashbuckler class determine the mechanical abilities of your Master Swordsman character?
Or
Should you choose the classes, feats, and skills that provide the mechanical abilities you feel best represent your idea of the skills of a Master Swordsman?

Both are valid frameworks, and both frameworks are supported by the 3.5 system. Both can work for roleplaying. But each of the prescribes a significantly different relationship between the players and the rules.

The hypothetical the OP presents is then (in my opinion) an extreme example of the dangers of trying to support both frameworks at the same table. At its most fundamental, the disagreement is not over the nature of role playing but over the nature of classes.

I'd argue that dnd support one of those framework a lot more than the other. Picking the feat classes and such that allows you to fit a character to your concept is significantly more difficult (as in: it demands a higher degree of system mastery and some concept are inherently more difficult if not outright impossible) than having your idea strictly limited by the rules of a class.

Sometimes it's better to admit that dnd doesn't fit your idea of the game than it is to try and fix it. Or since no game ever truly fit the ideas we have sometimes it's easier to start off with another system that more closely approximate what we want and make change to this than it is to overhaul dnd.

[Wings of Peace]

My general stance on the balance between roleplay and game mechanics (such as multiclassing) is that it's fine to tweak a few things in a game system if it enhances the immersion for your group. However, if you find you need multiple pages of restrictions and rule changes to "enhance the roleplay" then you should probably find a new system or just play pretend.

[NichG]

The thing about those DMs who were making you roll for every little flavor thing is that they weren't actually the kind of DM that this thread is asking about, no matter what they said about their feelings about the importance of RP.

The 'stance against powergamers' is a similar issue. Its not really about mechanics versus RP there, even though thats a common way for the DM to claim to save face. Especially for online games where you don't know the other players, its most likely a mismatch of optimization skill or comfort (e.g. the DM and other players aren't as good as optimization or generally dislike the process and consequences of optimization, so when you come in and raise the bar/start what appears to be an arms race, they get defensive).

In general, the thing that powergamers or even just mechanics-aware people have to be very careful about is that they have to actively 'choose' an appropriate power level for their character, whereas less experienced players can just stumble into it organically.

And of course, sometimes there are DMs who don't understand that that is exactly what the powergamer is doing by going with some convoluted build rather than straight Wizard, which is another problem.

[jedipotter]

TL;DR: For DM's that put RP over Mechanics, why does it matter how many classes I have for my build, if am not blasting the cheese. Why do you seem to only care about mechanics, when I want to be more then a single class.

I'm the type of DM mentioned.

I don't mind a class or two that makes sense for the character, but when you get to 5 or more I have a problem. It is simple enough. The only reason a player does this...is to cheat. And I take a dim view of cheaters.

[ArcturusV]

Course, at least in real life flesh and blood groups, there is also the other reason the "RP vs Power Gaming" thing crops up. At least one I saw. Where it was a simple situation where the DM didn't want to shell out cash and hunt down stuff. Happens quite a bit actually. You might have this mess of a character with Psychic Warriors, Incarnum stuff, etc, which may not be as gamebreaking powerful as the other player who went straight druid or sorcerer (At least potential for game breaking that is)... but the DM just doesn't have Magic of Incarnum or one of the Psychic books, doesn't want to/can't hunt down a copy (There are gamers out there who don't pirate after all), and doesn't want to DM for something that will "Sucker punch" them with capabilities they didn't know the player had or could have.

But rather than be honest about that being the reason they go on about how it's Power Gaming.

Course, I'm not really free of those sorts of sins either. Done things like blanket bans on anything Forgotten Realms because A) Don't have a copy. B) No, I'm not going to skim your copy every time we play just to make sure that it was in fact "in the book". C) (The unmentioned one) Faerun is about 3 times more powerful than the setting I created and I don't want Faerun shenanigans in my setting.

[ArqArturo]

Similar things can be said about any character concept. If you're playing a master manipulater and diplomat that wraps the world around his fingers, but you're playing a class without diplomacy, bluff or intimidate, your concept will fall flat due to a lack of mechanical support. The things have to be taken together - the crunch has to support the fluff.

Or, you have good skills, but bad attributes. The result:

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/28800000/Tyrion-Lannister-tyrion-lannister-28837629-490-245.gif

[Abaddona]

Dawgmoah - basically when someone says to me something about "RP only" then I think "basically storytelling with rolls only for combat and really important stuff". Then it's not a problem - I am choosing basic class representing my character concept and fluff it the rest of the way. But when DM wants me then to roll during every interaction I kinda feel cheated because if I knew he will want me to roll so much, I would build my character differently.
Also the problem of importance of stuff to RP - searching for intructors for everything or haggling for every piece of equipment is fun... but only for the first time, after several encounters appraising every spear, longsword, armor etc. is simply boring.

[jedipotter]

The things have to be taken together - the crunch has to support the fluff.

I have a problem with this. It makes a good sound bite, and everyone will ''agree'' with it, but there is way more to the story.

The problem is most players, even more so ''generation Y and Z players'' can only play the mechanical roll playing game. They use crunch as a crutch, not an amazing game element to advance their character. A crutch. A great example is a simple locked door. When they come upon this in the game, a YZ player will look down at their sheet. They will look through everything trying to find something that says ''open door'' or the like. If they don't find anything, they just stop and give up.

You can be a swordswoman, a pirate or a thief without crunch to back your character up. You can just role-play your character that way.

[Elderand]

I have a problem with this. It makes a good sound bite, and everyone will ''agree'' with it, but there is way more to the story.

The problem is most players, even more so ''generation Y and Z players'' can only play the mechanical roll playing game. They use crunch as a crutch, not an amazing game element to advance their character. A crutch. A great example is a simple locked door. When they come upon this in the game, a YZ player will look down at their sheet. They will look through everything trying to find something that says ''open door'' or the like. If they don't find anything, they just stop and give up.

You can be a swordswoman, a pirate or a thief without crunch to back your character up. You can just role-play your character that way.

That way lead to the madness of "bang you're dead" "nuhuh I'm not, you missed" "did not" "did too".

[Abaddona]

jedipotter - yeah, you can roleplay it - only as long as DM agrees with you. If I say that my archer is great rider and during fight I want to fluff him as "he is standing on the saddle raining deadly rain of arrows on his enemies" and then DM is like "it seems to me like DC30 ride check, roll for me and let's see how well you will do this" then it's last time this DM will see me doing some simple stuff because we are RPing things.

[ArcturusV]

Oddly one of the things I liked about 4th edition. If my character wants to go swing across a chandalier, kick a brazier over to firecoal some orc in the face and land behind him? Game rules are just built to tell the DM, "Okay, that was a limited source of damage that could only happen once. Make it 2d6+3 and resolve it as a full round action, character's attack bonus versus orc's Reflex defense". Rather than saying "Well make him make a high DC acrobatics check, and athletics check, AND an attack roll against the brazier, and a Reflex save for the Orc to avoid damage", etc.

Just seems like they built that edition more around being free to BS stuff and Rule of Cool it in the game rather than requiring your DM to shrug and play along as much as 3rd did. It's a healthy attitude and one of the few things I crib from 4th for my 3rd games... that and the idea of Minions.

[TuggyNE]

Hm, I think both sides proselytize. The 'murderhobo' meme when used as a point of argument is kind of the 'mechanics-only' version of proselytizing - the idea that kick down the door play is not just a way to play D&D, but is the only way that makes sense because of how the game was mechanically constructed (there's a bit of a logical leap here on my part, but I can't remember ever seeing anyone on here argue that D&D's mechanics are best suited for out-of-combat things rather than combat things)

The 'if you don't like D&D's rules, why not play another system?' meme is also sometimes from that side of the spectrum.

Hmm. I'd agree that's proselytizing, but is it for mechanics-only, or just mechanics-primary? Not sure from my memory.


I disagree; I've seen both ends of the spectrum prosletyzing on this forum. I've seen plenty of "just RP it out" but also plenty of "you should play [race] [class/PrC combo] because it's better", even when it's not a how-can-I-build-this-better thread.

Well, both sides, yes. Not necessarily the extreme ends; I can't readily think of a post that argued that all RP should be ignored (the mechanics-only position) even if the poster could reasonably be identified as being a mechanics-only player. Instead what usually seems to happen is those on the mechanical end argue for more mechanical representation, but without explicitly saying "RP is bad and you should have less of it", except insofar as decrying magical tea partying (free-form RP for things that are easily expressed as mechanics).


1. The playground is NOT rules intensive. You guys focus on RAI quite a bit. When I need help figuring out the RAW of a situation, you guys are not very good at figuring things out when the going gets sticky. Yes, I post questions here every once in a while, but it's more for follow up then discussion.

Heh. Well, we may or may not be as rules-savvy as MMB, but that doesn't mean we don't focus on the rules. :smalltongue:


I'm the type of DM mentioned.

I don't mind a class or two that makes sense for the character, but when you get to 5 or more I have a problem. It is simple enough. The only reason a player does this...is to cheat. And I take a dim view of cheaters.

And we all know that Barbarian 1 / Fighter 1 / Ranger 3 / Horizon Walker 10 / Rogue 5 (horizon tripper with evasion and a bit of sneak attack, or more bonus feats, or whatever) is cheating, but Wizard 20 isn't.


Course, at least in real life flesh and blood groups, there is also the other reason the "RP vs Power Gaming" thing crops up. At least one I saw. Where it was a simple situation where the DM didn't want to shell out cash and hunt down stuff. Happens quite a bit actually. You might have this mess of a character with Psychic Warriors, Incarnum stuff, etc, which may not be as gamebreaking powerful as the other player who went straight druid or sorcerer (At least potential for game breaking that is)... but the DM just doesn't have Magic of Incarnum or one of the Psychic books, doesn't want to/can't hunt down a copy (There are gamers out there who don't pirate after all), and doesn't want to DM for something that will "Sucker punch" them with capabilities they didn't know the player had or could have.

But rather than be honest about that being the reason they go on about how it's Power Gaming.

Course, I'm not really free of those sorts of sins either. Done things like blanket bans on anything Forgotten Realms because A) Don't have a copy. B) No, I'm not going to skim your copy every time we play just to make sure that it was in fact "in the book". C) (The unmentioned one) Faerun is about 3 times more powerful than the setting I created and I don't want Faerun shenanigans in my setting.

Yeah, in my book if the DM doesn't have the stuff and can't readily borrow the book, it's fine to just say so and skip those. But, as noted, that's not really so much about powergaming or mechanics or anything else, it's just a question of ability to familiarize themselves with the stuff.

[NichG]

I have a problem with this. It makes a good sound bite, and everyone will ''agree'' with it, but there is way more to the story.

The problem is most players, even more so ''generation Y and Z players'' can only play the mechanical roll playing game. They use crunch as a crutch, not an amazing game element to advance their character. A crutch. A great example is a simple locked door. When they come upon this in the game, a YZ player will look down at their sheet. They will look through everything trying to find something that says ''open door'' or the like. If they don't find anything, they just stop and give up.

You can be a swordswoman, a pirate or a thief without crunch to back your character up. You can just role-play your character that way.

The thing is, what's your alternative? I mean, you picked a very odd example to make your point here because its something that is very hard to take very far beyond the mechanics, but if we go with it, what exactly do you feel should happen when the player says 'I pick the lock'?

Does the DM say 'okay, your backstory is a pirate and I believe pirates can pick locks, so it works'? In that case, your argument about the mechanics being a crutch might hold for that table, but that does kind of make the game a little weird since you don't know what you can or can't do ahead of time to any degree (because its up to whether the DM happens to agree that your archetype should have that ability)

But most 3.5 DMs would say, rightfully, 'okay, roll an Open Locks check'. In which case if you don't have the skill you can't even attempt it!

Now I suppose you could argue that players should do other creative stuff instead of just 'I pick the lock' - they should try to unscrew the hinges, dissolve the bolt with an acid flask, create a disturbance outside to get the people inside to open the door for them, etc.

And in general I agree that that form of play is superior to 'look up skill, make roll, pass or fail'. But this particular example seems to be almost ideal for the 'look up skill, make roll, pass or fail' style of play, because there may be many many locked doors so the creative solutions will stop being creative after awhile, picking a lock is a strong component of the thief archetype, and the actual creative solutions are pretty extreme (in the sense of basically destroying the door and/or taking a long time) compared to the alternative.

I would say a better example to make your point would be a situation that doesn't really fit the mold of how the game is usually played - for example, if the party is asked to negotiate a peace between two warring tribes, a few players will go 'I roll Diplomacy!' then will be out of ideas. Or they have to figure out how to work some artifact that shrugs off magical identification but has various responses to different situations (does one thing when immersed in water, etc).

The thing is, while that does happen, its not all that common - maybe something like 1/4 to 1/2 of players I've encountered would shut down in situations like that, depending how far afield from their expectations it is. And furthermore, its not the same players that shut down every time - some players just don't have any idea how they'd handle a political negotiation, whereas others aren't so good at coming up with engineering style solutions to things, etc. And in certain cases, some players just don't want to try something and have the group call it 'wrong' or 'stupid'. So there's a lot of variation here.

[Talya]

That way lead to the madness of "bang you're dead" "nuhuh I'm not, you missed" "did not" "did too".


Yeah. This.

Jedipotter: The problem is, you can't just "roleplay" being the master swordsman if the mechanical aspects of the game make you lousy with a sword.

Let's take the monk. Say you want to play an expert martial artist with a type of shao-lin style to them, and you think, "the monk class perfectly fits what I had in mind."

Only, when you go to play the monk, you discover that you can't ever hit your targets, and everyone else can hit you. You find you don't feel like an expert martial artist, you feel like steve urkel with oversized boxing gloves on.

You can't just "roleplay" your way out of that. If the mechanics do not support your concept, the fact is, no matter how "badass" you try to roleplay yourself, you're useless. Your character does not have the skills to match what you're trying to roleplay.

The "locked door" example you give, well, the thing is, if you don't have either (A) the open lock skill and some thieves tools, (B) the knock spell, (C) a high enough strength to break the door, or (D) some other ability to damage the door or its surrounding wall enough that it is no longer in your way, or possibly (E) some spell that lets you go through or past the door without opening it, then you aren't getting through it without someone else opening for you. (Try knocking?) You can "roleplay" that you push against the door with all your strength, and when the dice are rolled, it doesn't open. You can add all the descriptive words you want about the strain on your character's face and the sweat running down his forehead, but this isn't White Wolf - you aren't getting bonus dice and the door ain't opening. Roleplay is what your character choose to try, what they say, how they act. Roleplay has nothing to do with the results of those actions, that's what the mechanics do. And ultimately, the results matter.

[Averis Vol]

-snip-

You're quickly becoming my favorite person here.

[Vedhin]

I'd say that the way I feel about lots of multiclassing is expressed by the way I build characters.

First, I start with concept. Let's say I want a swashbuckler. Now there is a Swashbuckler base class, but it is rather mediocre, and doesn't even capture the swashbuckler feel for the most part in my opinion.

Second, I determine how to fulfill the concept. For my swashbuckler, I might take a few levels of Fighter for the combat abilities (say 2 for arguement). Swashbuckler's are often portrayed as being able to improvise, so I'll take a coulpe levels of Bard (2 again), the Bardic Knack ACF, and the Jack of All Trades feat. I'd also have 3 levels of Swashbuckler-- free Weapon Finesse and Insightful Strike are also both swashbucklery things. Now maybe I'd like a few levels of Arcane Duelist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20030224a). The idea of a signature weapon fits the swashbuckler archetype well, as do Charisma to AC (using flair and deception to make enemies miss) and Dexterous Attack. I'll hold off at three, because I don't want a really magicy character. So now I have a Fighter 2/Bard 2/Swashbuckler 3/Arcane Duelist 3. I'd like other ways to leverage my character's wits, agility, and personality into my character, so I take 3 levels of Factotum and 2 of Paladin of Freedom (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassF eatures), getting Int to a variety of things and Cha to saves. I take a 2 levels of Swordsage to nab the Shadow Blade feat, letting me add Dex to damage (I don't get Wis to AC because of my buckler).
So now I have a Fighter 2/Bard 2/Swashbuckler 3/Arcane Duelist 3/Factotum 3/Paladin of Freedom 2/Swordsage 2. Order in which these levels were taken almost certainly varies.

Third comes backstorty. Paladin of Freedom locks me into Chaotic Good, and gives me a code of conduct, so that has a major influence on my abilities. Bardic Knack, Jack of All Trades, and Factotum all suggest that my character has done a lot of things/seen a lot of places. I chose to stick with nonmagical Swordsage maneuvers and unobtrusive Bard spells, so my character is mostly mundane. I decide that my character is a wandering freedom fighter, overthrowing tyrants the world over, robbing the rich to give to the poor, overusing cliches, etc. I then come up with a backstory to explain why this character is this way, but I feel lazy right now.

Now compare this character to a Swashbuckler 17. I'd wager that my build is more swashbuckler-y than any Swashbuckler 17 build you can come up with, and is much more mechanically effective to boot (barring extreme cheese). I'm feeling the urge to build this character now...

Anyway, I tend to feel that concept dictates build, and build dictates backstory. If I were a DM and a player wanted a character with levels in 20 different classes, I'd allow it-- but I'd tell them that they need to come up with a good backstory explaining why they are that way. Chances are that if classes were chosen to fill a concept, the backstory will fall into place. If it's something oddball like a dwarven Deepwarden/Fist of the Forest, then it will provide uniqueness for the character and an interesting backstory, along with proabable plothooks and RP opportunites.


TL;DR: I feel that RP is important, but any class combination can be RPed. The complicated ones provide good RP opportunities or fill a concept smoothly.

[jedipotter]

The thing is, what's your alternative? I mean, you picked a very odd example to make your point here because its something that is very hard to take very far beyond the mechanics, but if we go with it, what exactly do you feel should happen when the player says 'I pick the lock'?

I think it is a good example for the XYZ players. They encounter a locked door as 5th level characters. As far as they go only a couple things can open a locked door, like the open locks skill or the spell knock. And if they don't have one of them on their character sheet they do nothing.



Does the DM say 'okay, your backstory is a pirate and I believe pirates can pick locks, so it works'?

I'd never say that. That is free form role playing.



Now I suppose you could argue that players should do other creative stuff instead of just 'I pick the lock' - they should try to unscrew the hinges, dissolve the bolt with an acid flask, create a disturbance outside to get the people inside to open the door for them, etc.

Yes.




And in general I agree that that form of play is superior to 'look up skill, make roll, pass or fail'. But this particular example seems to be almost ideal for the 'look up skill, make roll, pass or fail' style of play, because there may be many many locked doors so the creative solutions will stop being creative after awhile, picking a lock is a strong component of the thief archetype, and the actual creative solutions are pretty extreme (in the sense of basically destroying the door and/or taking a long time) compared to the alternative.

Sure the same way killing foes, solving puzzles and getting loot and treasure gets old, right? PC-"Oh we find more gold coins, bah, I already have one gold coin so I don't need anymore.''




I would say a better example to make your point would be a situation that doesn't really fit the mold of how the game is usually played - for example, if the party is asked to negotiate a peace between two warring tribes, a few players will go 'I roll Diplomacy!' then will be out of ideas. Or they have to figure out how to work some artifact that shrugs off magical identification but has various responses to different situations (does one thing when immersed in water, etc).

I was avoiding the huge plot type ones. It is a given that 95% of players can't figure this stuff out. That is why D&D is built around the quest idea of ''DM tell me what to do.''

[NichG]

Sure the same way killing foes, solving puzzles and getting loot and treasure gets old, right? PC-"Oh we find more gold coins, bah, I already have one gold coin so I don't need anymore.''


The problem is its not 'solving puzzles', its 'solving the same puzzle'. A good example of how this can get old is the complaint further up-thread about 'always having to haggle over each spear/etc'. Very 'repeatable' situations like the locked door tend to suffer from this as well - once you know that unscrewing the hinges works, you do that every time, until its no longer clever but instead is just a running joke about how the hinges are always on the wrong side of all the doors in the world.

Basically very common things 'locked door' will tend to get old fast. That's the advantage of something like the 'big plot questions' over things like opening a door - they're complex enough that the relevant details can be different every time, so you can't just develop a standard operating procedure for them.

Again, note that I'm not objecting to using clever solutions as the core element of play, I'm just saying that the key to that is to make the problems never repeat.

[Eldariel]

I don't mind a class or two that makes sense for the character, but when you get to 5 or more I have a problem. It is simple enough. The only reason a player does this...is to cheat. And I take a dim view of cheaters.

I'd expect the reason is rather "this game has X poorly written classes that give abilities that fit my character on levels X, Y and Z - maybe I should multiclass them to suit my character concept rather than play a dualclassed character that does not".

Like, you want to play a veteran mercenary who has lived most his life on the road. He's seen countless of battles against different enemies and honed his skills to utilize his nimbleness and quick wits to stay alive. Master of many weapons, he's as dangerous with a bow as a sword.


Simple concept, right? Now, what class would I use? Fighter? Absolutely not; this kind of a concept needs observational skills. Also, as mechanical representations of his nimbleness and wits and "always ready"-attitude, he should at the very least have Evasion and Uncanny Dodge.

Barbarian is closer to what I want, but his combat style is more controlled; Rage doesn't really make sense unless we refluff it as combat focus (this probably means switch to a more controlled form of Rage, say Whirling Frenzy). However, Barbarian doesn't get Spot as a class skill, which is a problem since he has good eyesight and the "always ready"-attitude of a battle-hardened warrior. It also doesn't gain Evasion; therefore we combine Barbarian with Ranger.

However! He's skilled at both, melee and ranged combat. Barbarian/Ranger simply doesn't get the feats to support two combat styles simultaneously. You can pick up Rapid Shot for cheap and that's about it. Also, Ranger's evasion comes really late for the concept; he's not supposed to be a legendary hero of the scope of over level 10. As such, instead we take two levels of Martial Rogue, two of Ranger and two of Barbarian. We can fulfill the basic concept in 6 levels this way.


If you play a game with rules, the rules should serve your game. D&D, among its many flaws, has poorly written core classes. They aren't all that good at what they advertise and many don't scale well giving logical abilities as you level-up (some don't scale at all like the Fighter). Using a lot of classes and alternative class features, you can stitch up a set of abilities that corresponds to what your character has and work from there.

Note that players being poor in problem-solving has nothing to do with their builds. Creativity is completely player-dependent and there's no causality between relying on what's on the paper vs. looking for answers; that mostly comes down to player's creativity and how he's used to problems being solved in the table.

[Dawgmoah]

Dawgmoah - basically when someone says to me something about "RP only" then I think "basically storytelling with rolls only for combat and really important stuff". Then it's not a problem - I am choosing basic class representing my character concept and fluff it the rest of the way. But when DM wants me then to roll during every interaction I kinda feel cheated because if I knew he will want me to roll so much, I would build my character differently.
Also the problem of importance of stuff to RP - searching for intructors for everything or haggling for every piece of equipment is fun... but only for the first time, after several encounters appraising every spear, longsword, armor etc. is simply boring.

I have a simple fix for that in the games I run: I have the player characters role play it the first time to see what it is like. After that they just tell me they're doing it. And if they are in a place it is possible it's considered done.

I do the same thing with new groups/players for things like keeping their equipment in good condition, how they run their camping and sleeping arrangements, what they usually look for in an inne or tavern, etc. That way there is more time to adventure and everyone knows what it signifies when the marching is halted for the day and camp is being set up. We don't go over that every time; unless there is a reason for it. And then that of course puts the players on the alert that something is about to go down but oh well, it is just a simulation and the only other option is endless boring dice rolls and checks to mask those few times something happens.

[BrokenChord]

They assume with a variety of classes you have to be trying to squeeze something out of it, even though it seems more realistic that an interesting person would have a myriad of experience, and therefore wouldn't be a single class (Letting that class define him at the core.)

Just wanted to say in response to this...

http://thepoisonedappledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/shrek-onions1.png

[jedipotter]

Let's take the monk. Say you want to play an expert martial artist with a type of shao-lin style to them, and you think, "the monk class perfectly fits what I had in mind."

Only, when you go to play the monk, you discover that you can't ever hit your targets, and everyone else can hit you. You find you don't feel like an expert martial artist, you feel like steve urkel with oversized boxing gloves on.


I see this problem all the time in games. Often with the monk. I don't know what a shao-lin monk is, but most people want to be a monk like Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Kane or Jackie Chan (or, Jean Claude VanDam or that American Ninja guy). They love all the ''jumping around like crazy'' and all the ''Hiiiiyaa''s when they fight a room full of mooks. Then they play a monk character and expect to be a one person slaughter house with buckets of blood like a Quentin Terintenno movie. But that is not the ''martial artist'' they admired. go back and watch one of them Jackie Chan movies: you will note that he does not slaughter everyone he fights. If fact, he just sort of gives them a 'love tap' and they just fall down and give up. So ''slaughter character of 1000 corpses''' does not fit the monk mold.





You can't just "roleplay" your way out of that. If the mechanics do not support your concept, the fact is, no matter how "badass" you try to roleplay yourself, you're useless. Your character does not have the skills to match what you're trying to roleplay.

Of course your mixing combat and role play here. But I hope your not saying that you can't role play ''a lost monk looking for his father'' just as he can't ''slaughter a dragon''.



You can "roleplay" that you push against the door with all your strength, and when the dice are rolled, it doesn't open. You can add all the descriptive words you want about the strain on your character's face and the sweat running down his forehead, but this isn't White Wolf - you aren't getting bonus dice and the door ain't opening. Roleplay is what your character choose to try, what they say, how they act. Roleplay has nothing to do with the results of those actions, that's what the mechanics do. And ultimately, the results matter.

Again, we are not talking about drama role play or them other weird systems. But in a open role playing game you can 'try' anything. It's not like a video game where you need the red key to open the red door or you ''can't move past the hedge''.

[NichG]

I think what you're missing is the value inherent in a player having a good feel for what they can and cannot succeed at. Being able to try anything is kind of useless if you can't make reasonable conclusions about what will actually work.

In something like combat, you get one 'thing' to do each round, so you're taking a big chance by being creative unless the DM has given very strong signs of supporting creative play - you could either kill an enemy, or waste a round setting up to kill an enemy just to find that your 'climb the bookcase so you can then swing from the chandelier and hit the enemy' not only involves two more rolls that could be failed (thus making the entire sequence fail), but worse it only gives you something like +2d6 damage if you do manage to it.

After that happens a few times, a player is just going to stop trying to be creative and will use the mechanics they know, because that way they have a very good idea of exactly what the value of different tactical choices are.

The same is true to a lesser extent out of combat - the more things get shot down for being arbitrarily 'unrealistic' or 'the DM didn't like the idea' or even 'there's an impossible roll in a skill you don't have that you couldn't've known about before hand', the less the player will be encouraged to try creative solutions and the more they will focus on 'this ability I have does X, and X is what we need'.

Even in an 'open', 'creative' game I think its very important for players to have a firm grasp of what they can do. You don't have to keep players in the dark about their own abilities in order to make the game creative, and in fact it tends to hinder creative play because of the element of uncertainty.

Here's a concrete example: I could give a player a wand that can transmute an inanimate object by altering one letter of its common english name. That is a very distinct power, it is very clear what it can do, but at the same time there's a huge host of ways to use it beyond some sort of standardized 'wash, rinse, repeat'. Perhaps the player uses it to turn a 'flagon' into a 'dragon' to break up a bar fight, or turns 'mold' into 'gold' to buy an item, or 'corn' into 'cord' to climb down a pit, or 'air' into 'fir' to summon trees. The concreteness of 'this is what the power does' doesn't interfere with its creative usage, and in fact helps the player be confident about saying 'I can do this'.

The problem that Tayla is pointing out with D&D's core mechanics is that they lie to the player about what classes can actually do. They say in the descriptions 'this class is good at X and Y' but actually, the class isn't good at X and Y in practice. So players that are familiar with this deception but who like the flavor of the class find ways to work around it, ways which are often very convoluted because the mechanics of the game can be very convoluted.

[Talya]

After that happens a few times, a player is just going to stop trying to be creative and will use the mechanics they know, because that way they have a very good idea of exactly what the value of different tactical choices are.


They only stop if you're very lucky as a DM.

"Creativity" is fine so long as you stick to things that there are clear rules for doing. I really hate it when players think so far outside the box you have to make stuff up as you go. Just use the tools you're given and stop forcing me to rewrite the rulebook...

[navar100]

I was avoiding the huge plot type ones. It is a given that 95% of players can't figure this stuff out. That is why D&D is built around the quest idea of ''DM tell me what to do.''

Now it's all clear. Having such a low opinion of players that you believe 95% of them can't figure out how to bring peace between warring tribes or work out an artifact that defies magic detection without rolling a d20 to solve it all, it makes perfect sense for why you believe in roleplay uber alles. It's a saying I often used in the past but had forgotten until just now and fits in with my posting earlier. I call it a DM who hates his players. It's not supposed to be taken literally, but it is a more blunt way of saying a DM doesn't want his players to have Nice Things.

[upho]

But it also seems that we're discussing the RP/mechanics dichotomy, which, as the Stormwind Fallacy points out, isn't a dichotomy at all. The two are separate metrics - the importance or lack thereof of RP, and the reliance or lack thereof on mechanics.

You can have an RP-heavy campaign with maximum mechanics, where you have to roll for everything, but still act out the result. You can have an RP-heavy campaign with minimal mechanics, which is basically freeform. You can have a mechanics-heavy campaign with minimal RP, which is basically just a dice engine.Exactly my thoughts. Thank you for getting to the heart of this issue. Though after having read/heard about too many "jerk powergamers who suck at/don't give a damn about RP" and "stormwinders who believe good RP requires a PC build that sucks" I can totally understand why people sometimes fail to see that there is no dichotomy.

In addition, I think there are particularly two other associated issues that may also lead people to believe in a false RP/mechanics dichotomy:

Mechanics may hinder/break immersion and thus RP. This is of course highly subjective, but I can certainly see why some players can feel like being unwillingly pulled out of story and character and into a meta-game-y tabletop wargame when the battlegrid is unfolded in front of them. IME, it takes quite a bit of getting used to before your immersion remains safely in place when "The Mechanics" enters the stage. As in when the wonderfully vivid imaginary world suddenly turns into a squared paper, and the heroic PCs and horrible monsters turn into little cute dolls whose every action is accompanied by complex mechanics, arbitrary numbers and die rolls.
The internal consistency of the setting may be threatened by too weird PC builds, as described by other posters. Which, as mentioned, may confuse a DM keeping a tight rein on his campaign world - and the PC's place in it - with a belief that mechanically odd and/or pimped out PC's hinders RP. (Though personally, I have much less problems with highly unique PC's than with a gaming/setting style where characters are primarily defined and limited by single classes and where uniform crunch and/or fluff personality are either the result or required, as in the example of the "militant fighter".)

Furthermore, on a theoretical scale rating the importance/emphasis of a game's mechanics, where, say, chess represents the maximum and freeform RP the minimum, I guess most people would put PF/3.5 pretty high. However, this theoretical scale says very little of how well a game encourages an individual to RP - I've seen quite a few players "powergaming" in freeform, and I've personally never been quite able to stop picturing a detailed scene and refrain from making dramatic "in character" one-liners when I make a move in chess, I just enjoy it too much... :smallredface:

Also, as someone touched upon earlier, I think RPG mechanics can and should be used as infinite sources of inspiration for RP, providing the players with new and interesting acting challenges. And I'm not only speaking of the mechanics involving chance, but also the mechanics found in weird or unorthodox PC builds and parties. So, while a previous poster stated that "if you're only in it for the RP, you should probably play another RPG", I would rather say:

"If you're only in it for the RP and the mechanics keep ruining your RP instead of assisting it, you should probably play another RPG".

I must also say that I cannot remember that I've ever, during more than 30 years in the hobby, actually felt even the slightest puff of the Stormwind touch any of the games I've participated in. Instead, IME the more a player dedicates to mechanics (like char-op and combat tactics), the more he/she also dedicates to background/personality fluff and great RP, or vice versa. RL stuff, lack of dedication or creativity, competing interests etc could be said to be on the opposing side of both mechanics and RP in the dichotomy I know... :smallsmile:


Or you can have a campaign that has no RP and no mechanics. We call that "DM's Story Time." It's like something out of the SUE Files.:smalleek: SUE gets me sort of revolted and strangely fascinated at the same time. Like when you know you'll be disgusted by looking at something but still cannot stop yourself. Can't really laugh at it either, I feel too bad just knowing that that game actually happened, and that inevitably leads me to having really depressing thoughts about the hopelessness of humanity... *shudders*

[jedipotter]

Like, you want to play a veteran mercenary who has lived most his life on the road. He's seen countless of battles against different enemies and honed his skills to utilize his nimbleness and quick wits to stay alive. Master of many weapons, he's as dangerous with a bow as a sword.


Simple concept, right? Now, what class would I use? Fighter? Absolutely not; this kind of a concept needs observational skills. Also, as mechanical representations of his nimbleness and wits and "always ready"-attitude, he should at the very least have Evasion and Uncanny Dodge.

Barbarian is closer to what I want, but his combat style is more controlled; Rage doesn't really make sense unless we refluff it as combat focus (this probably means switch to a more controlled form of Rage, say Whirling Frenzy). However, Barbarian doesn't get Spot as a class skill, which is a problem since he has good eyesight and the "always ready"-attitude of a battle-hardened warrior. It also doesn't gain Evasion; therefore we combine Barbarian with Ranger.

However! He's skilled at both, melee and ranged combat. Barbarian/Ranger simply doesn't get the feats to support two combat styles simultaneously. You can pick up Rapid Shot for cheap and that's about it. Also, Ranger's evasion comes really late for the concept; he's not supposed to be a legendary hero of the scope of over level 10. As such, instead we take two levels of Martial Rogue, two of Ranger and two of Barbarian. We can fulfill the basic concept in 6 levels this way.

Another good example. You will note you start with ''veteran mercenary'' but for some reason go off on a wild tangent and say ''he must have the Sight of Heinmdal ''. Why? You think every ''veteran mercenary'' can spot everything in sight?

And ''nimbleness and wit'' don't automatically mean evasion and dodge. How about he takes improved reflexes and improved initiative? Or puts all of his ability bonuses into wisdom?

And why can't a fighter be ''as good with a bow as he is with a sword''? A 7th level fighter would get seven feats, so three bow and three sword. And he can take weapon focus in both weapons, for example.

This looks like more of a case of ''every character most have spot to see the foes and act first and must do a ton of damage and must have dodge, because that is what I like''.


It's a common flaw with 'mechanical XYZ players'. My classic example:He wanted to be a happy, cheery, friendly, charming pirate who used his charisma as a weapon as much as his swords. Sounded like a good concept. But after a couple levels, he took nothing but pure combat sword feats. And when asked ''why not take a charisma feat or two to fit with your concept?'', the player said ''nah''. Low and behold, he wanted to say ''I want to make a dual sword welding bloodthirsty pirate that slaughters everything in my path'' and suddenly the charisma pirate became the pirate 'o war.

[olentu]

Another good example. You will note you start with ''veteran mercenary'' but for some reason go off on a wild tangent and say ''he must have the Sight of Heinmdal ''. Why? You think every ''veteran mercenary'' can spot everything in sight?

And ''nimbleness and wit'' don't automatically mean evasion and dodge. How about he takes improved reflexes and improved initiative? Or puts all of his ability bonuses into wisdom?

And why can't a fighter be ''as good with a bow as he is with a sword''? A 7th level fighter would get seven feats, so three bow and three sword. And he can take weapon focus in both weapons, for example.

This looks like more of a case of ''every character most have spot to see the foes and act first and must do a ton of damage and must have dodge, because that is what I like''.


It's a common flaw with 'mechanical XYZ players'. My classic example:He wanted to be a happy, cheery, friendly, charming pirate who used his charisma as a weapon as much as his swords. Sounded like a good concept. But after a couple levels, he took nothing but pure combat sword feats. And when asked ''why not take a charisma feat or two to fit with your concept?'', the player said ''nah''. Low and behold, he wanted to say ''I want to make a dual sword welding bloodthirsty pirate that slaughters everything in my path'' and suddenly the charisma pirate became the pirate 'o war.

Did you just tell the theoretical player that you know what their character concept should be better then the one who came up with it.

[Talya]

Another good example. You will note you start with ''veteran mercenary'' but for some reason go off on a wild tangent and say ''he must have the Sight of Heinmdal ''. Why? You think every ''veteran mercenary'' can spot everything in sight?

Because that's his concept. Therefore, he has to build to support it.



And ''nimbleness and wit'' don't automatically mean evasion and dodge. How about he takes improved reflexes and improved initiative? Or puts all of his ability bonuses into wisdom?

Because...he'd suck mechanically at everything then?




And why can't a fighter be ''as good with a bow as he is with a sword''? A 7th level fighter would get seven feats, so three bow and three sword. And he can take weapon focus in both weapons, for example.

Because then he's not "as good with a bow as he is with a sword." He's "as bad with a bow as he is with a sword."



This looks like more of a case of ''every character most have spot to see the foes and act first and must do a ton of damage and must have dodge, because that is what I like''.

It's a common flaw with 'mechanical XYZ players'. My classic example:He wanted to be a happy, cheery, friendly, charming pirate who used his charisma as a weapon as much as his swords. Sounded like a good concept. But after a couple levels, he took nothing but pure combat sword feats. And when asked ''why not take a charisma feat or two to fit with your concept?'', the player said ''nah''. Low and behold, he wanted to say ''I want to make a dual sword welding bloodthirsty pirate that slaughters everything in my path'' and suddenly the charisma pirate became the pirate 'o war.

Your description sounds more like the case of a DM that's trying to tell players what they should play, rather than letting them try to build what they WANT to play.

The player characters are the bigdamnheroes of the campaign. There's nothing wrong with them wanting to be badass pinnacles of everything. That's a roleplaying choice, not a mechanical one. The mechanical one is building the character to support it.

[NamelessNPC]

jedipotter, you seem to be misunderstanding every single argument made against your point and going all over the place with irrelevant anecdotes. Let me be as clear as I can about what I think was what Talya and Eldariel were saying: When a character concept cannot be adequately portrayed by a single class, where do we go from there, provided that multiclassing a lot is not permitted in your games? How can those character concepts be created?

[gr8artist]

In my opinion, multiple classes along the same line are fine, especially if they synergize well (sorcerer/bard/rogue). My only issue arises when a character who's obviously intending to advance along a simple path decides to take an unexpected class level merely to balance out his mechanics. (say, starting rogue for the massive skill points, or barbarian for the great starting health, then dropping into your intended class for 19 levels.)
Obviously, if the character undergoes some change in desire, destiny, or skill set IN-GAME, then that supersedes any hesitancy about his class selection. (this wizard just got kidnapped and held ransom by the thieves' guild for a whole year? I think he can take a level of rogue, no problem.)

The whole class system is problematic, as people don't nicely file into preset destinies, or have simplistic, straightforward lives... especially adventurers.
Hell, I'm 26 years old, and I've had 9 or 10 different jobs, ranging from cashier to prison guard to construction worker. I'm multiclassed all to hell and back, because life.

[AMFV]

In my opinion, multiple classes along the same line are fine, especially if they synergize well (sorcerer/bard/rogue). My only issue arises when a character who's obviously intending to advance along a simple path decides to take an unexpected class level merely to balance out his mechanics. (say, starting rogue for the massive skill points, or barbarian for the great starting health, then dropping into your intended class for 19 levels.)
Obviously, if the character undergoes some change in desire, destiny, or skill set IN-GAME, then that supersedes any hesitancy about his class selection. (this wizard just got kidnapped and held ransom by the thieves' guild for a whole year? I think he can take a level of rogue, no problem.)

The whole class system is problematic, as people don't nicely file into preset destinies, or have simplistic, straightforward lives... especially adventurers.
Hell, I'm 26 years old, and I've had 9 or 10 different jobs, ranging from cashier to prison guard to construction worker. I'm multiclassed all to hell and back, because life.

The problem is that different classes synergize well for different things. Maybe the character is a wizard who has roguish tendencies that haven't yet manifested, or life as an adventurer outside of his schooling teaches him to be streetwise. I have issues with arbitrary training periods for things, if I can learn to be a Marine in real life, in four months, then becoming a thief shouldn't take a year, especially if training is OJT, the best way is to just fluff most training as having happened off screen in the past.

I find the best way to encourage roleplay is to be more permissive on these issues, if my players are allowed to get away with more awesome stuff, then they will become more invested in their characters and will roleplay more. It's not a hard fast rule, but it has been my experience every single time.

[Craft (Cheese)]

jedipotter, you seem to be misunderstanding every single argument made against your point and going all over the place with irrelevant anecdotes. Let me be as clear as I can about what I think was what Talya and Eldariel were saying: When a character concept cannot be adequately portrayed by a single class, where do we go from there, provided that multiclassing a lot is not permitted in your games? How can those character concepts be created?

Easy: You just pretend that your single-classed character fits your concept. If you can't, then you're bad at roleplaying!

[NichG]

They only stop if you're very lucky as a DM.

"Creativity" is fine so long as you stick to things that there are clear rules for doing. I really hate it when players think so far outside the box you have to make stuff up as you go. Just use the tools you're given and stop forcing me to rewrite the rulebook...

Send me all your players who don't stop then. I much prefer players who respond 'organically' to situations.

I just think jedipotter is going about actually getting players to do that the completely wrong way.

[LordBlades]

In my opinion, multiple classes along the same line are fine, especially if they synergize well (sorcerer/bard/rogue). My only issue arises when a character who's obviously intending to advance along a simple path decides to take an unexpected class level merely to balance out his mechanics. (say, starting rogue for the massive skill points, or barbarian for the great starting health, then dropping into your intended class for 19 levels.)
Obviously, if the character undergoes some change in desire, destiny, or skill set IN-GAME, then that supersedes any hesitancy about his class selection. (this wizard just got kidnapped and held ransom by the thieves' guild for a whole year? I think he can take a level of rogue, no problem.)

The whole class system is problematic, as people don't nicely file into preset destinies, or have simplistic, straightforward lives... especially adventurers.
Hell, I'm 26 years old, and I've had 9 or 10 different jobs, ranging from cashier to prison guard to construction worker. I'm multiclassed all to hell and back, because life.

The way I see it, a character in the world is the sum of the stuff that he can do, not the sum of his class levels (From an in-world perspective there is 0 difference between a Barbarian 1/Druid 19 and Druidic Avenger 20 for instance)

For example, Rogue 1/Whatever Class X can be just a guy with the usual abilities of Whatever Class that happened to pick some extra tricks (more sp and a bit of Sneak Attack) on the way. How is that not plausible?

[Andvare]

I hope the weather doesn't deteriorate, it would be a shame if it was both windy and storming.

[Talya]

Send me all your players who don't stop then. I much prefer players who respond 'organically' to situations.

I just think jedipotter is going about actually getting players to do that the completely wrong way.


Nothing about the creativity in question has ever been a "good idea"... overly convoluted, corny "Hey! This could work!" ideas tend to fail in real life, too. Generally they feel like the type of things players are thinking up while under the influence of a certain botanical product, rather than sound tactical thinking.

[Red Fel]

Nothing about the creativity in question has ever been a "good idea"... overly convoluted, corny "Hey! This could work!" ideas tend to fail in real life, too. Generally they feel like the type of things players are thinking up while under the influence of a certain botanical product, rather than sound tactical thinking.

What? You mean adding many convoluted steps to an otherwise simple plan doesn't make it more likely to succeed brilliantly? Why am I only now hearing about this?

[Talderas]

Multiclassing is okay as long as you find ingame explainations for it. Remember Elminster's class outline. He is basically a mess of classes.


On the one hand, it seems that we're discussing patchwork class combinations chosen almost purely for mechanics purposes. I agree with Talya and others; I generally choose classes for a concept, or a theme, not for pure optimization.

I believe you both misunderstand the purpose of multiclassing and the situations which lead to it. See what I quoted of Psyren.


I have a knee-jerk aversion to "frankenstein builds." I would rather make you a custom archetype that gets you close to what you want than have you run some dip-heavy abomination just so you can proudly claim it's "RAW."

His response indicates the problem of why a frankenstein build occurs. Multiclassing is a necessity to make some concepts of a character viable in a combat situation. D&D is a class based game and classes as constructs only have a limited number of things that they can do. As your idea for a character diverges from what the construct permits you run into more and more frankenstein builds. This is then exacerbated by the problem of wizards and druids where as a single class they can do as much and more than the aforementioned frankenstein build and do it better. The more martial and mundane a character happens to be and the more likely you're going to see a frankenstein build.

--


You can be a swordswoman, a pirate or a thief without crunch to back your character up. You can just role-play your character that way.

Sure you could. Then when combat or a situation that actually necessitates the mechanics crops up it becomes painfully obvious that the character is all bark and no bite.

[Eldariel]

Another good example. You will note you start with ''veteran mercenary'' but for some reason go off on a wild tangent and say ''he must have the Sight of Heinmdal ''. Why? You think every ''veteran mercenary'' can spot everything in sight?

No. I said that's a feature of this character. That is, he's extremely observant. It doesn't make sense for him to have poor eyesight if I determine good senses as one of his features.


And ''nimbleness and wit'' don't automatically mean evasion and dodge. How about he takes improved reflexes and improved initiative? Or puts all of his ability bonuses into wisdom?

He's an experienced warrior. He's fast enough to dodge a fireball so it would make absolutely no sense for him not to have learned so already. Improved Reflexes doesn't really improve anything in a meaningful way. That is, you can't tell a character with Improved Reflexes apart from one without. Evasion on the other hand has a very clear effect; it can define a character's abilities. Improved Initiative might just be in there. The whole point is tho that due to years of fighting, he's developed to be always ready for a sneak attack. It takes its mental toll on him but on the positive side he's never really surprised.

And all his ability bonuses to Wisdom? Well, sure, if I can somehow get mechanical benefits to my combat capabilities from it. If not and DM keeps sending CR appropriate encounters at me, I'm going to die because my combat stats are too low. The system isn't designed so that you can efficiently max stats that don't provide you with direct numeric bonuses since you need the stat growth to numerically match the opposition you're facing. In other words, I could but I'd be sacrificing so much mechanical power that the game would kill the character.


And why can't a fighter be ''as good with a bow as he is with a sword''? A 7th level fighter would get seven feats, so three bow and three sword. And he can take weapon focus in both weapons, for example.

I never said he couldn't. Fighter fails on all other fronts. He doesn't get Spot or Listen or any mobility-enhancing abilities in class. As such, my veteran mercenary can't be an always-ready type if he's a Fighter. I can't fulfill my character concept if I go very deep into Fighter due to the class not getting any skill points or class skills.

Besides, Fighter's "thing" is weapon specialization, which means that to benefit of Fighter-bonuses for multiple weapons, you need cumulatively more feats for each weapon while Fighter doesn't gain cumulatively more feats as it levels up. In fact, it gains more feats at the start than at the end.


This looks like more of a case of ''every character most have spot to see the foes and act first and must do a ton of damage and must have dodge, because that is what I like''.

You're wrong. It's a case of "Here are outlines of my character's competency. I want to play a character with this set of abilities." See, the rules of the game have no business telling me what my character can and can't do. If Core lacks a class granting a sensible combination of abilities (we're not talking Mary Sue here; we're talking about an observant, smart warrior! That shouldn't be a hard concept)


It's a common flaw with 'mechanical XYZ players'. My classic example:He wanted to be a happy, cheery, friendly, charming pirate who used his charisma as a weapon as much as his swords. Sounded like a good concept. But after a couple levels, he took nothing but pure combat sword feats. And when asked ''why not take a charisma feat or two to fit with your concept?'', the player said ''nah''. Low and behold, he wanted to say ''I want to make a dual sword welding bloodthirsty pirate that slaughters everything in my path'' and suddenly the charisma pirate became the pirate 'o war.

What kind of charisma feats should he be taking? What's there really in the game on that front? It's all good to have a concept but you need high degree of system mastery to find something that makes it even possible to "use Charisma as a weapon". Kinda speaks for this really; he probably didn't know how.


Basically, right now you're telling a player "your concept is wrong, here, let me tell you what you want to play instead". That's really not a good place to be at.

[Segev]

First off, I need to disagree with one thing that people I otherwise agree with have been saying: The rules of the game absolutely have business telling you what your character can and cannot do. In D&D, we lack rules that allow you to play a computer hacker (without going into d20 modern or some such) because D&D is a (high) fantasy setting. In Exalted, we lack rules for allowing you to build a mortal who can wrestle the Unconquered Sun and win. In Shadowrun, we lack rules for resurrection, so you can't play Jesus Christ or Aslan or a D&D-style high-level cleric.

(I'm not going to get into level restrictions, as that's not, I think, the point that was being made; I'm sure we all agree that rules have EVERY right to tell you what you cannot do yet.)


Now. To jedipotter and others on "that side" of this debate. If you've responded to something that I've seen said repeatedly, I've missed your response, and for that, I'm sorry. If not, in case you just haven't noticed the point being raised, I will bold and underline it here:

The game mechanics you use to build your character influence the chance that your character will succeed at given tasks. If you take "flavorful" mechanics that don't actually help in a meaningful fashion, your character will not, in fact, be able to do the things that you are role-playing him as competent at.

Let's examine your hypothetical warrior with all his stat points in Wisdom. He is, in theory, a competent fighter-type, and in fact has taken levels of Fighter.

He has, per your suggestion, taken Lightning Reflexes.

By 5th level or so, he will have around +3 to his Reflex save: +1 from class, +2 from feat. He will have a fairly impressive Will save (+1 from class, but a hefty bonus, probably about +3 or +4, from dumping all those stat points into Wisdom): call it +4 total (since he's not a min-maxer and only put a 16 or 17 as his highest stat).

He also has at least a +3 to Spot and Listen; that's pretty good for a fighter. Maybe even a +7 to each, if he put his other good-bonus stat into Int (after all, a smart fighter survives), and thus had the skill points to spend. That would also give him at least a +1 or +2 to Search, for what it's worth.

His attack bonus is somewhere around +7: +5 from class, +1 from masterwork weapon, +1 from Weapon Focus. He's even got 1d6+2 damage, because of Weapon Specialization (and he's using a short spear and a shield; perfectly respectable armaments for a veteran of traditional warfare of the era).

His armor class - assuming he's gotten himself a breastplate (because heavier armor wouldn't fit with the 'nimble and witty fighter' concept) - is about 18.

With these numbers, he hits relatively rarely against CR 5 monsters, and they hit him relatively frequently. He has a decent chance of spotting things that aren't good at hiding - a very decent one. But anything devoted to it would have closer to +3 from stat and +8 from skill at this CR, for a +11. So he's not spotting even a simple but dedicated rogue. And that same simple but dedicated rogue can easily have +8 from skill alone in Spot and Listen by now.

The fighter's reflex save is rather pathetic for level 5, and the Lightning Reflexes would have been better spent on almost any other feat (perhaps Improved Trip, so he can knock foes down and THEN stab them with his spear...assuming he has the Dexterity to pull it off, since his stat bonuses all went to Wisdom first "for concept.")

His Will is about the only really impressive thing about him. And while fun to laugh at the foolish Enchantress who tried to target the "big dumb fighter" first, she'll just hit him with a Fireball when that doesn't work. Assuming she bothers at all once she realizes that he's the weakest combatant on the team and that the rogue is more dangerous.


Game mechanics are what allow you to do things within the "can I do this or not?" resolution system.

Do you just allow this hypothetical witty veteran warrior to hit more often because his backstory says he should? Do you let him make reflex saves he actually failed because he "tried?"

He would be better built using a combination of fighter and rogue. Evasion and skills are really good for this "competent, experienced guy who notices stuff and knows what he's doing." Fighter levels give him feats and solidify his BAB a bit. If you're really convinced that he should go with Wisdom for flavor purposes, maybe he's a little superstitious and should pick up a level or few of Cleric, perhaps even instead of Fighter. Concept of warrior's spirit or luck is his "deity," and he uses prayers to focus himself before battle and to inspire himself (Divine Favor) and others to ignore wounds and overcome exhaustion (i.e. "cure spells").

But that's really only if you insist on the high Wisdom; it NEEDS to be doing something for you beyond simply "flavor."

While you should play to your stats, you don't have to allow your RP to be completely dictated by them. You do have to rely on them for your mechanics. So if you want to RP wise words, go right ahead, even with a Wis of only 11 or 12. It won't help you with Will saves or Spot or Listen very much, and you might make poor choices in a pinch (if the DM calls for a "Wisdom Check,") but an experienced human can know wisdom even if he doesn't live it very well in emergencies. And really, 11 or 12 is above human average, which can be notable to average people in a thousand small ways that have nothing to do with direct mechanics.

But if he's competent and dangerous with a short spear, he needs a high Strength. If you want him to be nimble and hard to hit, a high Dex will go much further than Lightning Reflexes, as it will also add to AC. If, after taking 2 levels of Rogue, you find that Evasion isn't triggering often enough, maybe THEN you pick up Lightning Reflexes; at this point, the +2 might be notable because it's increasing an already competitive save to a strong one, and Evasion means successful saves are all the more impactful.

You build to be good at what your RP says you should be good at, not to have the fluff provided by the game sound like you should be good at it, even though you aren't. (Unless, you know, you're TRYING to play the vainglorious jerk who sounds a lot better than he is. Like that Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. I can never remember his name; he's too good with memory charms.)

[Red Fel]

His response indicates the problem of why a frankenstein build occurs. Multiclassing is a necessity to make some concepts of a character viable in a combat situation. D&D is a class based game and classes as constructs only have a limited number of things that they can do. As your idea for a character diverges from what the construct permits you run into more and more frankenstein builds. This is then exacerbated by the problem of wizards and druids where as a single class they can do as much and more than the aforementioned frankenstein build and do it better. The more martial and mundane a character happens to be and the more likely you're going to see a frankenstein build.

I don't disagree with this statement. But notice the portion I emphasized.

Multiclassing should be based on a concept, not on a mechanic, in my mind. Certainly, you can put together an elaborate build - a level of this, three levels of this - to make, say, your ranged attacks with a +5 Returning Thundering Spear deal 16d8 damage four times per round. But that's building around a mechanic.

A good build should be around a concept, an idea of what a character should be able to do. I will acknowledge that most base classes, as they are written, do not fully encompass the concept a player might want; multiclassing and PrCs are almost mandatory to make that happen.

I am not saying that a "Frankenstein build" is a bad thing; I am saying it requires a certain amount of justification. If I say I want to build a Paladin-esque champion of justice with powerful spells, I could see a Cleric/Prestige Paladin/Ordained Champion/Fist of Raziel, for example. This, in my mind, is a justified build - it's not designed around a mechanic, although mechanics arise from it nicely. It's designed around an image. Similarly, if I want a smart-fighting, Elven-themed martial adept, I might go Swashbuckler/Warblade/Eternal Blade. I may throw a Barbarian dip in there for Pounce, if I can come up with a reason (based on backstory and concept) why this elf might have anger issues. But it has to be thematically fitting.

Getting back onto the topic, I agree with Segev's post: the purpose of the crunch, mechanics and numbers, is to illustrate in quantifiable form the limits of a character's abilities. The numbers provide a reasonable, uniform metric against which other characters' abilities can be measured. This does not mean that you have to roll the dice for every action; as several posters (myself included) have observed, some wonderful DMs will throw the dice out the window in favor of the Rule of Cool.

But, for instance, if your Wizard decides he wants to barefist-smackdown the guy who just ticked him off, no matter how angry he is, he should not expect to be able to kill the guy (unless it's another squishy Wizard). He simply lacks the numbers. Even if we ignore dice rolls, it will at most resemble a sad slap-fight. If you do not have the numbers, you cannot, except in the rarest of beneficial circumstances, be expected to reliably take the action, dice or no.

By that same token, if your Barbarian with an off-the-charts Str score and innumerable ranks in Jump announces that he wants to throw a mook onto the roof, and then jump up after him to dangle him off the edge of said roof, as a substitute for a Gather Information check? That's just too awesome not to let him do that. (Of course, if he does this every time, it gets old fast and he should roll that. But for a one-time-only stunt? Too cool.)

[NichG]

There is one thing I should point out as far as using classes to build the character you have in mind goes. Namely, you could have in mind a character who excels and is skilled at every possible thing. However, the rules shouldn't actually let you build that character.

At some point, the rules need to say 'you can have A or B, not both'. That is generally done via a form of opportunity cost (you get only so many feats, only so many levels, etc). So its not necessarily a failure of the rules if you can't build the concept you have in mind if, for the scope of the game, that concept is too broad or potent.

It is however a failure of the rules if the only way to build the concept is completely counter-intuitive and goes against the fluff of what the various options are presented as. For example, if the best way to model a pro wrestler is Wizard+Octopus familiar, or the best way to model a master swordsman is Cleric, or the best way to model a master thief is, uh, Wizard.

[Lorsa]

I believe claiming that class choice should be based on "RP" really means "in-character". Think about it this way; every time you gain a new level you have to make a decision. The "RP" people believe this decision should be solely made by the character, not by the player. If you have a plan of exactly what classes to take at what levels up to level 20 you don't leave anything open to change. Your character might somewhere along the line decide s/he wants to take another path. In fact, very few people know exactly what they will choose to do 10 years from now.

Basically it all comes down to why you chose your classes. From an "in-character" perspective, you don't have to do any planning at all; in fact you shouldn't. Simply choose whatever class/feats/skills that feel appropriate to the character or that he would want at the time of acquiring them. If your choice is based on "this is will be most optimal at level X" then you're not favouring the roleplaying aspect enough. Which is okay but not what all DMs want.


Those who stress roleplay uber alles aren't just anti-muticlassing. They're against PCs being "powerful". They're the ones who are actually obsessed about the game mechanics. In stead of "Fighters can't have Nice Things", it's "Player characters can't have Nice Things".

Personal bias, I find those who stress a "low magic campaign" to be another way of saying roleplay uber alles. I accept that's not universally true, but when such DMs only want wizards to cast Magic Missile and Fireball, facetiously speaking, their wanting a low magic game is not really about concerns over Gate or the Tier System. It's not wanting PCs in general having Nice Things.

I like to stress roleplay over mechanical stuff. One of the reasons I stopped looking at threads on this sub-forum is that it demotivated me from playing D&D due to all the people who seemed to be playing it very different than I am.

However, I am not against characters being powerful. In fact my last D&D campaign (which admittedly was a solo-campaign) took place in Forgotten Realms where the player became a Chosen of Mystra at level 4. The character ended up being very powerful and had lots of nice things. That has nothing to do with prioritising in-character decisions over meta-game ones.

[Talderas]

I don't disagree with this statement. But notice the portion I emphasized.

Multiclassing should be based on a concept, not on a mechanic, in my mind. Certainly, you can put together an elaborate build - a level of this, three levels of this - to make, say, your ranged attacks with a +5 Returning Thundering Spear deal 16d8 damage four times per round. But that's building around a mechanic.

I don't think you understand. The necessity and prevalence of frankenstein builds is directly related to the tier system. While you can certain build frankenstein builds with T1/2 classes you don't need to. It also depends on how quickly you want the character to be able to reflect the concept. My most recent frankenstein build featured one level of exoticist, one level of swashbuckler, and two levels of martial rogue. This was all necessary in order to get all the necessary feats to actualize the concept so that it was playable at the start of the game. I had to really mash stuff around to make the concept usable at level four and it might be Tier 4 at this point.

There's truly multiple factors going on. The first is the versatility of the class in question. The more versatile it happens to be the less likely you are going to need to dip and multiclass to make it work. The second is the level constraint. How many levels are you willing to go about and suck until you get enough levels that your concept actually works.

In other words, the big reason that the roleplayer mentality is annoying to people that are centric or towards the crunch aspect of the game is that is amplifies the linear fighter quadratic wizard issue and creates an even more hostile environment for non-casters by directly barring the methods available to non-casters to become more useful and competitive with casters.

[Red Fel]

I don't think you understand. The necessity and prevalence of frankenstein builds is directly related to the tier system. While you can certain build frankenstein builds with T1/2 classes you don't need to. It also depends on how quickly you want the character to be able to reflect the concept. My most recent frankenstein build featured one level of exoticist, one level of swashbuckler, and two levels of martial rogue. This was all necessary in order to get all the necessary feats to actualize the concept so that it was playable at the start of the game. I had to really mash stuff around to make the concept usable at level four and it might be Tier 4 at this point.

That's possible, I may not understand, but I shall try.

If I follow you correctly, you are saying that to build around a concept, sometimes it is necessary to slap together multiple classes, a level of this and a level of that. I agree. To get the mechanics to support the concept, sometimes (strike that, often) it is necessary to do precisely what you suggest, even if it reduces the character in versatility. If that is what you're saying, I agree.


There's truly multiple factors going on. The first is the versatility of the class in question. The more versatile it happens to be the less likely you are going to need to dip and multiclass to make it work. The second is the level constraint. How many levels are you willing to go about and suck until you get enough levels that your concept actually works.

In other words, the big reason that the roleplayer mentality is annoying to people that are centric or towards the crunch aspect of the game is that is amplifies the linear fighter quadratic wizard issue and creates an even more hostile environment for non-casters by directly barring the methods available to non-casters to become more useful and competitive with casters.

Now, this part I'm not entirely certain that I follow. Again, I will try.

The "roleplayer mentality" - do you mean building around a concept, instead of numerical optimization? I can see how building around a concept, even where it might hinder your character's power, can be annoying to people who build around numerical power. You reference the "linear fighter quadratic wizard issue," which I take to be a reference to the disparity in mechanical power between casters and non-casters. I agree, concept-based characters often suffer due to that same disparity.

What I don't understand is how that perspective disagrees with my point. If I explained it poorly, I shall endeavor to redefine it: I feel that a build should be designed around a concept. If that concept requires you to dip levels in multiple characters, that's fine. If that concept is ultimately weaker than another class, that's fine, although you should be courteous of other players at your table and try not to build something completely useless. If you are at a table with high-op players, or in a high-op campaign, it may be inappropriate to play to a concept instead of to the numbers.

Let me clarify further: This is my personal feeling. I do not believe that everyone must build to a concept; it is aspirational. I will not look down on people at my table who optimize numerically instead of building around an idea, although if they go crazy with dips I might ask them to explain their reasoning.

If, as I understand, your position is that a character built around a concept may not be numerically optimized, and that this in turn may annoy the players of numerically optimized characters, I agree. I believe nonetheless that conceptual consistency is an aspirational state.

If I have misunderstood any of your comments, I apologize, and welcome clarification.

[Eldariel]

First off, I need to disagree with one thing that people I otherwise agree with have been saying: The rules of the game absolutely have business telling you what your character can and cannot do. In D&D, we lack rules that allow you to play a computer hacker (without going into d20 modern or some such) because D&D is a (high) fantasy setting. In Exalted, we lack rules for allowing you to build a mortal who can wrestle the Unconquered Sun and win. In Shadowrun, we lack rules for resurrection, so you can't play Jesus Christ or Aslan or a D&D-style high-level cleric.

(I'm not going to get into level restrictions, as that's not, I think, the point that was being made; I'm sure we all agree that rules have EVERY right to tell you what you cannot do yet.)

If you're responding to my comment, I meant it in a more restricted way; as in, the game mechanics shouldn't be allowed to stop me from having an observant warrior even if he does use heavy armor.

I didn't mean crossing beyond the genre or making a god or such (and now somebody is going to point out that godhood is indeed achievable level 1 in D&D - yes, but that's probably not the basis of practical play), but rather certain logical combination of abilities that doesn't really exist by the rules for reasons unknown.

[Segev]

If you're responding to my comment, I meant it in a more restricted way; as in, the game mechanics shouldn't be allowed to stop me from having an observant warrior even if he does use heavy armor.

I didn't mean crossing beyond the genre or making a god or such (and now somebody is going to point out that godhood is indeed achievable level 1 in D&D - yes, but that's probably not the basis of practical play), but rather certain logical combination of abilities that doesn't really exist by the rules for reasons unknown.
Fair enough! I just wanted to make sure the distinction was clear.

[skyth]

I will say, I have a blanket 'core only' rule in games I run with the exception that you are allowed to ask about non-core stuff. This is due mostly to make sure I understand what the players can do. (And when I talk about it, I do mention that this is the reason why...)

I also tend to run lower-level campaigns so there is less of a tier problem.

[LordBlades]

I believe claiming that class choice should be based on "RP" really means "in-character". Think about it this way; every time you gain a new level you have to make a decision. The "RP" people believe this decision should be solely made by the character, not by the player. If you have a plan of exactly what classes to take at what levels up to level 20 you don't leave anything open to change. Your character might somewhere along the line decide s/he wants to take another path. In fact, very few people know exactly what they will choose to do 10 years from now.

Basically it all comes down to why you chose your classes. From an "in-character" perspective, you don't have to do any planning at all; in fact you shouldn't. Simply choose whatever class/feats/skills that feel appropriate to the character or that he would want at the time of acquiring them. If your choice is based on "this is will be most optimal at level X" then you're not favouring the roleplaying aspect enough. Which is okay but not what all DMs want.





A significant part of the system however is built in a way that makes such an approach hard, because a lot of stuff has prerequisites.

Say your 5th level barbarian is in an appropriate situation that makes it appropriate, in character, to (want to) become a Dragonslayer. Tough luck, earliest he'll do it is at level 9, because odds are that if he didn't plan it in advance, he has neither Dodge, nor Iron Will.

[Segev]

A significant part of the system however is built in a way that makes such an approach hard, because a lot of stuff has prerequisites.

Say your 5th level barbarian is in an appropriate situation that makes it appropriate, in character, to (want to) become a Dragonslayer. Tough luck, earliest he'll do it is at level 9, because odds are that if he didn't plan it in advance, he has neither Dodge, nor Iron Will.

I know at least one DM who, if you weren't planning on something but had a cool RP involvement that made it suddenly appropriate, will start waiving prereqs or will start handing them out as bonus feats or skill ranks.

He also requires people to adhere to prerequisites if they're just progressing the normal way through mechanics; these things tend to be "unique occurrence" sorts of events. Or efforts to help fix a poor mechanical build with freebies that will elevate it to be on par with the rest of the better-built party.

He plays heavily RP-oriented games, and uses the mechanics as tools to help players tell the stories they want. It's not a competition to build the best characters. That said, designing what you want from the get-go and doing it well IS its own reward, as you don't NEED to rely on the DM figuring out a way to beef you up (nor have to suffer through the periods of sub-par performance sufficient to highlight that you need it).

[Talya]

Multiclassing should be based on a concept, not on a mechanic, in my mind.

I generally agree, although there is significant overlap between the two. The concept generaly includes being effective at what the character is going to do, and that requires mechanical optimizing.

[Talderas]

I will say, I have a blanket 'core only' rule in games I run with the exception that you are allowed to ask about non-core stuff. This is due mostly to make sure I understand what the players can do. (And when I talk about it, I do mention that this is the reason why...)

Many of the tier 1 classes are broken with core only.


I also tend to run lower-level campaigns so there is less of a tier problem.

Level 1 druids are still amazing more powerful and versatile compared to a level 1 fighter.

[Dimers]

I believe claiming that class choice should be based on "RP" really means "in-character". Think about it this way; every time you gain a new level you have to make a decision. The "RP" people believe this decision should be solely made by the character, not by the player. If you have a plan of exactly what classes to take at what levels up to level 20 you don't leave anything open to change. Your character might somewhere along the line decide s/he wants to take another path. In fact, very few people know exactly what they will choose to do 10 years from now.

Basically it all comes down to why you chose your classes. From an "in-character" perspective, you don't have to do any planning at all; in fact you shouldn't. Simply choose whatever class/feats/skills that feel appropriate to the character or that he would want at the time of acquiring them. If your choice is based on "this is will be most optimal at level X" then you're not favouring the roleplaying aspect enough. Which is okay but not what all DMs want.

I think this is really well-put.

When I run games, I'm fine with players sticking to a preconceived build, but I can understand that way feeling wrong to some people. In practice, when I play, there are a lot of times when 'build' and 'character' are at odds while I choose how to level-up.

I've heard this theory that fantasy and sci-fi protagonists tend not to change as much over the course of a book or series as in regular fiction, because they already excel -- they're sticking to a build. I don't know how accurate the theory is, because I don't read all that much. It'd be fun to see how closely correlated these things are ... whether the same people who prefer heroes who are badass right from the start, also prefer builds over letting the character run things.

[Arbane]

Then they play a monk character and expect to be a one person slaughter house with buckets of blood like a Quentin Terintenno movie. But that is not the ''martial artist'' they admired. go back and watch one of them Jackie Chan movies: you will note that he does not slaughter everyone he fights. If fact, he just sort of gives them a 'love tap' and they just fall down and give up. So ''slaughter character of 1000 corpses''' does not fit the monk mold.


From this, I can tell that you've never seen a wuxia movie or Fist Of The North Star.


Another good example. You will note you start with ''veteran mercenary'' but for some reason go off on a wild tangent and say ''he must have the Sight of Heinmdal ''. Why? You think every ''veteran mercenary'' can spot everything in sight?

If they want to LIVE long enough to be a veteran mercenary, yes. Situational awareness is your friend.


I've heard this theory that fantasy and sci-fi protagonists tend not to change as much over the course of a book or series as in regular fiction, because they already excel -- they're sticking to a build. I don't know how accurate the theory is, because I don't read all that much. It'd be fun to see how closely correlated these things are ... whether the same people who prefer heroes who are badass right from the start, also prefer builds over letting the character run things.

It depends a LOT on the writer, and the character. Luke Skywalker grew a lot over the course of three movies - Han Solo mostly just got character development. Chewbacca arguably didn't change at all.

But D&D is really REALLy wedded to the whole 'zero to hero' notion.

[PersonMan]

now, i have to say. that i ma sort of offended by what Averis Vol is claiming.. but It is GiTP forums after alls o i guess that is to be expected.

[...]

but at the same time most peeps are who just contiuously dipping are trying to exploit some mechanic which i guess is par for the course for GITP forum goers.

Now it's my turn to be offended.

"I don't like how you make that kind of sweeping generalization. Now, for some sweeping generalizations."


Another good example. You will note you start with ''veteran mercenary'' but for some reason go off on a wild tangent and say ''he must have the Sight of Heinmdal ''. Why? You think every ''veteran mercenary'' can spot everything in sight?

Of course not. But this one can.


And ''nimbleness and wit'' don't automatically mean evasion and dodge. How about he takes improved reflexes and improved initiative? Or puts all of his ability bonuses into wisdom?

There's a big difference between having the astounding dexterity to dodge a fireball, and being better at only getting partially blasted.

Remember, the player has the best vision of the character they want to play. If all you see is 'veteran mercenary', then you either play with people who make very flat characters or have a very incomplete picture.


It's a common flaw with 'mechanical XYZ players'. My classic example:He wanted to be a happy, cheery, friendly, charming pirate who used his charisma as a weapon as much as his swords. Sounded like a good concept. But after a couple levels, he took nothing but pure combat sword feats. And when asked ''why not take a charisma feat or two to fit with your concept?'', the player said ''nah''. Low and behold, he wanted to say ''I want to make a dual sword welding bloodthirsty pirate that slaughters everything in my path'' and suddenly the charisma pirate became the pirate 'o war.

This sounds like

1. The player ended up not going for his original idea after all.
2. The character developed in-game
3. The player felt that the game was so combat-focused that taking 'charisma feats' would be a bad idea
4. The player saw little or no real uses for his Charisma-based things in game, and made the logical conclusion that investing more in them would be pointless

In a lot of games, combat dominates the play time. You may have a 10 minute RP scene needed to start the whole thing, chances are the 30 second combat will take up a lot more time. As such, someone who wants a character who does both may end up investing more in the second because...well, why wouldn't you? Sure, it may not be 100% true to the original stated concept*, but if your game places a huge weight on combat, then you're putting more worth into combat feats.

Not saying this is the case, but it isn't as cut-and-dry as one may expect.

Especially for a system where it takes quite a bit of effort to be something other than focused on one thing and not suck at everything you do.

*Note, this is not 'not true to the character', it's 'the original stated concept'.


I like to stress roleplay over mechanical stuff. One of the reasons I stopped looking at threads on this sub-forum is that it demotivated me from playing D&D due to all the people who seemed to be playing it very different than I am.

I don't see how "people play it differently than I do" would be demotivating, personally.

I also think that, in some ways, level-up decisions shouldn't be made by the character.

For example, a character I'm playing experiences leveling up as a surge of power and insight from the core of her being. She doesn't choose which things she suddenly understands, just like she doesn't choose which things she knows about a new monster.

In this case, the player makes the decision, rather than the dice (Knowledge checks here), but in both cases the character isn't involved.

Now this depends on your vision of leveling up in-game, of course, but I don't see my way of doing things as 'less RP focused'.

[skyth]

Many of the tier 1 classes are broken with core only.



Level 1 druids are still amazing more powerful and versatile compared to a level 1 fighter.

Whether it's broken or not is irrelevant. As I said in my first post, it's whether I understand it or not that is relevant.

[Talderas]

Whether it's broken or not is irrelevant. As I said in my first post, it's whether I understand it or not that is relevant.

What is relevant is that your blanket, core-only, rule serves only to make lower tier classes even less competitive since they derive the greatest benefit from non-core material. This is no different from the RP policy that tries to avoid multiclassing. Both behaviors serve to reinforce the poorer position that non-caster hold.

[Just to Browse]

What is relevant is that your blanket, core-only, rule serves only to make lower tier classes even less competitive since they derive the greatest benefit from non-core material. This is no different from the RP policy that tries to avoid multiclassing. Both behaviors serve to reinforce the poorer position that non-caster hold.

That's not how debate works. skyth said he does core only because [X], you cannot tell him that he's wrong without discussing [X]. He very obviously does not care about the balance disparity (likely because he trusts himself to tailor encounters to the power levels of players) between classes and instead cares about being able to adapt to players, which means knowing all their tricks.

The stance "I do core-only because I like consistency" is not incompatible with "I recognize that some classes are more OP than others and sourcebooks can remedy this". You can value the benefit from one over the other, and telling somebody their values are badwrongfun is bad form.

[Talderas]

That's not how debate works. skyth said he does core only because [X], you cannot tell him that he's wrong without discussing [X]. He very obviously does not care about the balance disparity (likely because he trusts himself to tailor encounters to the power levels of players) between classes and instead cares about being able to adapt to players, which means knowing all their tricks.

The stance "I do core-only because I like consistency" is not incompatible with "I recognize that some classes are more OP than others and sourcebooks can remedy this". You can value the benefit from one over the other, and telling somebody their values are badwrongfun is bad form.

Compatability is not the crux of the issue. The issue is how RP focused DMs that restrict multiclassing are only hurting the classes which are already near the bottom of the power scope without affecting the higher tier classes. In the exact same vein, restricting to core only also unfairly targets and hurts lower tier classes in comparison to higher tier classes unless the lower tier classes decide to multiclass and progress as a wizard or druid instead of their lower tier class. Both essentially treat lower tier classes as 2nd or 3rd class citizens.

Further, you can't balance an encounter with classes across wildly separated tiers unless you tailor an encounter so you remove people from it or there is an absurd difference in competency between players (high competency low tier and low competency high tier) but even to get around that competency issue you often times need to multiclass, dip, and take non-core material to make those lower tier character comparableto the higher tier character. This is a rather well documented phenomena of 3rd edition D&D. A core fighter will always be worse than a core druid at any level. A straight fighter will always be worse than a straight druid. When that fighter multiclasses and picks up non-core material he can begin to make headway against that druid.

[Lorsa]

A significant part of the system however is built in a way that makes such an approach hard, because a lot of stuff has prerequisites.

Say your 5th level barbarian is in an appropriate situation that makes it appropriate, in character, to (want to) become a Dragonslayer. Tough luck, earliest he'll do it is at level 9, because odds are that if he didn't plan it in advance, he has neither Dodge, nor Iron Will.

Yes, that IS a problem with the game system and I know that the approach is very hard. In D&D you really do need a plan to make your in-character choices come true. It's a very odd relationship.

The problem is that not all DMs or players realize this to the full extent which cab lead to some of the issues the OP seem to have.


I don't see how "people play it differently than I do" would be demotivating, personally.

I also think that, in some ways, level-up decisions shouldn't be made by the character.

For example, a character I'm playing experiences leveling up as a surge of power and insight from the core of her being. She doesn't choose which things she suddenly understands, just like she doesn't choose which things she knows about a new monster.

In this case, the player makes the decision, rather than the dice (Knowledge checks here), but in both cases the character isn't involved.

Now this depends on your vision of leveling up in-game, of course, but I don't see my way of doing things as 'less RP focused'.

That is certainly a way of doing it that is giving a nice in-character explanation for new knowledge. Quite interesting one too; that I may try out myself sometime!

As for being demotivated; I am generally not demotivated by people having different views than I have, but the extent at which they are present (or at least seem so on this forum) makes me believe I am completely wrong and my way of playing is invalid and the only thing D&D should be about is creating the most optimal cheesy build for your character. That's not how I want to play and when you get hammered with this enough times it feels demotivating to me. It's possible I might need thicker skin, but I have the right to my own feelings, ya?

EDIT: If I forgot to say it; it is completely fine to play D&D whichever way you like. The great thing with roleplaying is that it can be enjoyed in so many different ways.

[upho]

Re: Multiclassing should be based on a concept, not a mechanic)
I generally agree, although there is significant overlap between the two. The concept generaly includes being effective at what the character is going to do, and that requires mechanical optimizing.This. So much this. And even more this for a non-caster build in a party with tier 1-2 casters, because a PCs effectiveness (doing any specific thing) and the overall party benefit of that effectiveness is primarily measured by comparisons to the other party members. This, I guess, is the reason for:

In other words, the big reason that the roleplayer mentality is annoying to people that are centric or towards the crunch aspect of the game is that is amplifies the linear fighter quadratic wizard issue and creates an even more hostile environment for non-casters by directly barring the methods available to non-casters to become more useful and competitive with casters.Speaking of which, as a DM I would actively encourage and help players of non-casters with min-maxing their builds, not limit them to any particular number of classes, PrCs or splat books. Especially with new players and/or those with less system mastery, and especially if there are tier 1-2 casters in the party. But it would of course still definitely be their character concepts and their personal views that would guide and ultimately decide on any build options.

With more experienced players, I really feel that party balance is a group responsibility. A DM shouldn't really have to look up every build element on a character sheet and allow or ban it in order to balance the party. I prefer the DM (or group) setting a target tier and making it the players' job to create suitable PC builds and then explain their crunch and fluff concept, including any less obvious details and future plans, to the DM before the game starts. As an example, in our recently started PF campaign (Kingmaker), my friend's melee ranger build is a quite highly optimized mix of class dips and a few 3.5 conversions, while my single-class vanilla summoner build strives to tone down stuff that hogs the spotlight or overshadows other party members' roles, thus keeping both these PCs in balance with the party's tier 3 crusader and inquisitor.

I really like playing what someone referred to as "the PC build mini-game", but my goal (not counting theory-op builds) has never been "MOAH POWAH" but rather: "The best mechanical representation of my character concept in balance with the rest of the party". Because that results in the best basis for RP and the most fun for everybody, IME.

[ArcturusV]

It's one way to level. I tend to do a different way, where the character is more involved. I don't level up immediately after a fight, or a scene, etc. So it's never a "ding, I'm level 8" or the like coming up. Usually more like they completed their journey, are back home, wherever home for them is at this point, and take a few weeks or months of downtime during which the character might reflect on what they learned on their adventures, hone their skills, etc. It becomes a character choice and motivated by character thinking in so far as the character themselves kind of sits back and thinks "... considering what all happened... what would be a good way to focus myself?" Granted, kind of crosses the line towards the mechanical aspect talked about earlier. Where despite original concept a player might decide to pick up something more practical to the situations they are experiencing, or sometimes things they couldn't have known about like homebrewed stuff I had whipped up as particular rewards/benchmarks for them to possibly take.

Granted in a more mythical themed campaign, I might have a moment where leveling up is some surge of power like the Quickening, could be fun for a theme. But it's been a long time since I've DMed a campaign where that would be appropriate towards the mood and feel of the game.

Be kinda interesting to have some campaign where the players were something like imprisoned immortals (Outsiders, maybe demi-gods, who knows?) and leveling up was a rush of power as their true potential awakened...

... hmm.

[Averis Vol]

It's one way to level. I tend to do a different way, where the character is more involved. I don't level up immediately after a fight, or a scene, etc. So it's never a "ding, I'm level 8" or the like coming up. Usually more like they completed their journey, are back home, wherever home for them is at this point, and take a few weeks or months of downtime during which the character might reflect on what they learned on their adventures, hone their skills, etc. It becomes a character choice and motivated by character thinking in so far as the character themselves kind of sits back and thinks "... considering what all happened... what would be a good way to focus myself?"....


I just about always play mundanes, normally they are honestly good folk who fear when their allies get struck, so a lot of their leveling up process is "Oh gods, if I had interjected my blade instead of shield, that damned orc wouldn't have spun off it and charged the archer. Maybe I should try to parry more often instead of relying on my bulwark...."

They will stress of every tiny mistake, replaying the scene and envisioning better defenses/ways to land a blow. Leveling up as a spell caster on the other hand has always been harder for me to envision, seeing as I myself trained with a blade and notice when I make big mistakes and can correct them. I can't cast spells, so the whole process of them learning new spells from old ones confuses me, so I just chalk it down to a mental workout. (Like, how ones muscles expand after lifting weight, a casters mind expand and allows more room for spells. I dunno, it's weird for me.)

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, usually hard to grip. The Wizard spells on leveling makes the easiest sense. As it's very "scientific" with research, tinkering, and testing until they finally go "A HA! New spells!". Though sometimes a little weird if last level all your wizard did was cast sleep and color spray, and somehow at level 2 all those castings of sleep and color spray let him learn Lesser Orb of Fire, for example.

But with spontaneous casters? Always been kinda hard to think of. Closest I've imagined it being with one of my characters was like a looming freight train of power, his body is the tracks, and if he doesn't switch it to the right tracks, it'll run him down (picking the spells he'll know to help tame his power). But that's just my characters. I kinda liked the fluff of having a natural power that is only barely kept under control. And the in character pressure to rely on it, and fear it, and know that you can't stop using it. Because sorcery isn't "science" but this vague natural gift and superstitious thing that no one really knows the origins of or real mechanics behind in character. Which is more or less their book standard fluff after all.

[skyth]

That's not how debate works. skyth said he does core only because [X], you cannot tell him that he's wrong without discussing [X]. He very obviously does not care about the balance disparity (likely because he trusts himself to tailor encounters to the power levels of players) between classes and instead cares about being able to adapt to players, which means knowing all their tricks.

The stance "I do core-only because I like consistency" is not incompatible with "I recognize that some classes are more OP than others and sourcebooks can remedy this". You can value the benefit from one over the other, and telling somebody their values are badwrongfun is bad form.

And also, if he had read my original post, I do allow non-core, you just have to get it okayed by me. It has to do with my comfort level as a GM. It has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing a play style or concern about power.

I just want to understand how my players' abilities work, and I'm not as familiar with non-core stuff (As I was primarily a 3.0 player who only somewhat recently got the 3.5 handbooks). This means that I'm not going to have something sprung on me by surprise and interrupt the flow of the game.

Playing lower level campaigns with players that aren't skilled at optimization (Or just don't try to) helps as well. Heck, in the most recent campaign (Playing Champions) , I had to help them optimize while making characters so they wouldn't be too crippled.

Granted, I'll evaluate what the power level of something is, but I'm more likely to say yes to something for a mundane rather than a caster. (Other than pounce. Don't like that as a player ability). I know things I've said no to are Green summoning (Not the actual name...Where a druid summons get a plant template that buffs them up) and alienist (That one is campaign theme based).

But comfort level, I can imagine, is a big reason why a lot of GM's say core-only.

[ArcturusV]

Something I touched on earlier as well Skyth. I've known DMs who sometimes lie, a little white lie to be sure, but site "power" or fluff issues over not allowing something when it's really "I don't have the books and don't want to be blindsided".

Granted sometimes it actually is a power issue (Faerun is too powerful for my game, nope), or fluff issue (We're not playing on Eberron, so no Eberron particular things, as this is a vastly different world).

[Averis Vol]

Yeah, usually hard to grip. The Wizard spells on leveling makes the easiest sense. As it's very "scientific" with research, tinkering, and testing until they finally go "A HA! New spells!". Though sometimes a little weird if last level all your wizard did was cast sleep and color spray, and somehow at level 2 all those castings of sleep and color spray let him learn Lesser Orb of Fire, for example.

But with spontaneous casters? Always been kinda hard to think of. Closest I've imagined it being with one of my characters was like a looming freight train of power, his body is the tracks, and if he doesn't switch it to the right tracks, it'll run him down (picking the spells he'll know to help tame his power). But that's just my characters. I kinda liked the fluff of having a natural power that is only barely kept under control. And the in character pressure to rely on it, and fear it, and know that you can't stop using it. Because sorcery isn't "science" but this vague natural gift and superstitious thing that no one really knows the origins of or real mechanics behind in character. Which is more or less their book standard fluff after all.

Weird. Spontaneous to me always seemed easier. They don't have to learn anything; after a climactic fight that tears at the very core of their being and tests the limits of their arcane might. Battered and tired they go to rest and have vivid dreams of various mystical symbols and entities. Voices speak to them and when they arise new words are burned into the front of their minds.

I dunno, maybe it's because I prefer the "inherently magical" viewpoint of magic that it's easier to envision. The thought that you could read books and harness insurmountable power just rubs me the wrong way, which is why I've basically done away with vancian magic and replaced it with a psionics equivalent.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah. But in character, fluff wise, it just always struck me as odder. How does this power manifest? How does a Sorcerer know which spells to pick as spells known? How do they switch out spells they already knew?

I mean mechanically it's straight forward. But when you try to get into the head of the character and fathom what is going on? Kinda hard. Particularly since the fluff is natural, latent talent that they don't necessarily hone but just have thrust upon them.

[Averis Vol]

Yeah. But in character, fluff wise, it just always struck me as odder. How does this power manifest? How does a Sorcerer know which spells to pick as spells known? How do they switch out spells they already knew?

I mean mechanically it's straight forward. But when you try to get into the head of the character and fathom what is going on? Kinda hard. Particularly since the fluff is natural, latent talent that they don't necessarily hone but just have thrust upon them.

I've always played my sorcerers as not having a choice in their spells. they wake up the next morning and test out their new spells to find out just what they are capable of. The spells themselves are ingrained into the casters destiny; the person has no choice over what is in their genes.

[CombatOwl]

So question.. you have DM's that you know say they prefer rp, and want folks to maybe stay single classes, or maybe only have one dip or a single PRC. ( Yes I know am building a straw man here).

I'm one of those types. I don't care if players multiclass; I don't even care if they pick up a PrC. But it has to make sense. I mean, okay, they're in a campaign that doesn't take place in the underdark. They're playing a psion. Why the hell would they suddenly, after 10 levels or so, pick up illithid slayer? What's the justification? Where would they even have learned the skills of the class? It's that sort of thing I have a problem with--not someone who has obviously been working towards a specific PrC over their adventuring career finally entering into it.


My question of those type of thinkers, that think the rp is more important then the mechanics. IF I want to use 8 different classes and prc's and don't slam to much into the cheese fest that , such builds can have.

Why's that third knightly order going to accept you after you so ungraciously dumped the last two? Etc, Etc. PrC dipping into PrCs with specific fluff (as opposed to something generic, like assassin) makes it hard for the DM to spin a sensible order of events.


TL;DR: For DM's that put RP over Mechanics, why does it matter how many classes I have for my build, if am not blasting the cheese. Why do you seem to only care about mechanics, when I want to be more then a single class.

It's pretty hard to explain how a character would end up in eight different prestige classes. I mean, a knight picking up paladin makes sense. That paladin then going and entering a knightly order--that also makes sense. Maybe even entering into some sort of clerical order relating to his deity too. Okay--that all makes sense. But most PrCs aren't chosen like that. They're picked because the player wanted some cool mechanical feature--not because it made any sense whatsoever to the story.

[Sith_Happens]

It's pretty hard to explain how a character would end up in eight different prestige classes. I mean, a knight picking up paladin makes sense. That paladin then going and entering a knightly order--that also makes sense. Maybe even entering into some sort of clerical order relating to his deity too. Okay--that all makes sense. But most PrCs aren't chosen like that. They're picked because the player wanted some cool mechanical feature--not because it made any sense whatsoever to the story.

Not all PrCs involve membership in an organization, and in fact I'd say that more PrCs are easy to justify than difficult to.

[Phelix-Mu]

For me, role play is more important than mechanics because it makes the world feel real. As DM, that is one of my tasks. I typically don't hold back the players much, though, depending on the tenor and power-level of the campaign, of course.

I don't care for the insinuation that rp-focused DMs must be that way because they lack system mastery. If that has been your experience, fine. But I know plenty of competent and highly competent DMs that like to focus on role play. The mechanics are there if the players want them. But the interaction between the players' characters and the world around them is pretty much unavoidable, and unless one is playing some kind of grind dungeon or hack/slash focused thing, then role play should happen and make at least a modicum of sense.

Now, I am a strong believer in the power of the imagination. If you really want that fourth prestige class in a campaign where that just isn't typical, then create a reason that your character has explored that career track. Let's look for in-game resources (npcs, texts, special equips, organizations) that can back up the choice, or maybe some profound change in the character concept (sudden death of loved one, loss of homeland, change of religion, scientific epiphany, horrific torture, etc).

My whole emphasis on role play can and does encompass the vast majority of the existing mechanics (with small exceptions like RAW gate and thought bottle antics). I have lots of system mastery, and while I enjoy letting players develop or display their own, I also want to encourage the less mechanical aspects of creativity that the game really can nurture. My own group of long-term players have recently proven to me that they have made leaps and bounds in this area, and I find the game much more fun with a bunch of deeply thought out character concepts than a bunch of cookie cutter DWKs/primordial half-giants/changeling factotums that have been kitted to the gills with class features. Not that those can't be fun too, but the game suffers much more from rp-deficiency than a lack of optimization. IMHO.

[LordBlades]

I'm one of those types. I don't care if players multiclass; I don't even care if they pick up a PrC. But it has to make sense. I mean, okay, they're in a campaign that doesn't take place in the underdark. They're playing a psion. Why the hell would they suddenly, after 10 levels or so, pick up illithid slayer? What's the justification? Where would they even have learned the skills of the class?

One of the issues with everyone taking Ilithid Slayer is that psionics lack a generic warrior-caster PrC (like Eldritch Knight), so by the rules, pretty much only way to become a psionic gish is to learn to kill ilithids.


Not all PrCs involve membership in an organization, and in fact I'd say that more PrCs are easy to justify than difficult to.

This. It's more easy to justify a fighter taking most fighter-specific PrCs, than a fighter taking let's say a level of druid.

[TuggyNE]

One of the issues with everyone taking Ilithid Slayer is that psionics lack a generic warrior-caster PrC (like Eldritch Knight), so by the rules, pretty much only way to become a psionic gish is to learn to kill ilithids.

Didn't they generalize the class, though? The version on the SRD is not illithid-specific (though it does require a [psionic] favored enemy). So it's not even as bad as it was.

[LordBlades]

Didn't they generalize the class, though? The version on the SRD is not illithid-specific (though it does require a [psionic] favored enemy). So it's not even as bad as it was.

So and so. They had to generalize it because Ilithids aren't included in the OGL for some reason. The generalization isn't very useful in the discussed circumstance however. It does remove the need for killing an ilithid, and it allows Favored Enemy to apply to any psionic creature, but most anti-ilithid features of the class stay the same (namely Brain Nausea and Blast Feedback), and what other creatures in D&D use Mind Blast or attempt to eat your brain?

[Just to Browse]

Unrelated things

Sweeping conjecture1) You need to re-read the post that you initially responded to, my friend. You cannot decide that a debate is about something you want it to be about, instead of the thing it's actually about. skyth gave a reason for why he wants core-only (+ exceptions), and so if you're going to debate that then you need to debate his reasons instead of making up reasons of your own.

2) It's totally possible to balance an encounter to a wildly disparate array of classes. It's hard to do, and it can hurt suspension of disbelief, but people have run games for a decade now with wizards and fighters in the same party and to say it's not possible to tailor an encounter to individual capacities is ridiculous. Heck, I've done it before.

[CombatOwl]

Not all PrCs involve membership in an organization, and in fact I'd say that more PrCs are easy to justify than difficult to.

No, but most of the crazy broken PrCs do involve membership in an organization. I mean, as a DM it's way more tempting to point out that the Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil have been going through a reform lately and aren't taking new members... than to actually deal with the cheese that follows from that PrC.

There are a few that don't, but that field gets narrowed too because even a lot of those "generic" PrCs are flavored in a way that they're all fanatical <doers of some specific thing>. Which I could see if that person had, up until that point, been established as [hating illithids, doing all their work unseen, killing people for profit, more]. But I know it bugs me when people try to grab some weird PrC that has nothing to do with what the character's been doing throughout the campaign... but they're gonna take that weird thing anyway because the build-gods require it.

[LordBlades]

No, but most of the crazy broken PrCs do involve membership in an organization. I mean, as a DM it's way more tempting to point out that the Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil have been going through a reform lately and aren't taking new members... than to actually deal with the cheese that follows from that PrC.


If somebody wants to break the game, he can do it just fine with core only wizard, no PrCs. PErsonally, I think that if somebody is in a breaking tthe game mood, talking to him/kicking him out if he doesn't listen achieves a lot more than banning this or that.


There are a few that don't, but that field gets narrowed too because even a lot of those "generic" PrCs are flavored in a way that they're all fanatical <doers of some specific thing>. Which I could see if that person had, up until that point, been established as [hating illithids, doing all their work unseen, killing people for profit, more]. But I know it bugs me when people try to grab some weird PrC that has nothing to do with what the character's been doing throughout the campaign... but they're gonna take that weird thing anyway because the build-gods require it.

What if said PrC has an ability that is quite important for the concept the player has in mind? Are you really going to say to a player 'Sorry, but you can't really blend psionics and fighting unless you also hate ilithids?'

[DarkSonic1337]

There are a few that don't, but that field gets narrowed too because even a lot of those "generic" PrCs are flavored in a way that they're all fanatical <doers of some specific thing>. Which I could see if that person had, up until that point, been established as [hating illithids, doing all their work unseen, killing people for profit, more]. But I know it bugs me when people try to grab some weird PrC that has nothing to do with what the character's been doing throughout the campaign... but they're gonna take that weird thing anyway because the build-gods require it.

One problem that arises is that some character concepts don't actually work before a certain level, so it's hard for the player to do the things they want to do BEFORE they enter the prestige class. It's actually very common with gishes ("magic fighters").

Plenty of gish builds start as primarily a spellcaster, taking 1 level of a martial class for proficiencies and then DEPEND ON THE PRESTIGE CLASS to actually mesh spellcasting and fighting together. So before said prestige class (and actually a couple levels into it), they look really darn similar to just another spellcaster. Would you prevent them from entering the class because they didn't try to fight in melee combat in no armor with 3 bab by level 6? They're waiting on their twilight mithral breastplate and full bab prestige class to become competent in melee so they can do what they really want to do.

[Craft (Cheese)]

No, but most of the crazy broken PrCs do involve membership in an organization. I mean, as a DM it's way more tempting to point out that the Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil have been going through a reform lately and aren't taking new members... than to actually deal with the cheese that follows from that PrC.

Then this conversation happens:

"Okay, I set out on a quest to find an Initiate who will teach me outside of the order's official rules."

"None exist."

"Why?"

"Because I said so."

"Okay then, I try to find a way to convince the order to accept me in spite of the current ban on new members."

"You can't."

"Why?"

"Because I said so."


Look, if you want to ban a piece of crunch, just say so. Don't passive-aggressively come up with in-world excuses why the player can't get it. That's just dishonest.


There are a few that don't, but that field gets narrowed too because even a lot of those "generic" PrCs are flavored in a way that they're all fanatical <doers of some specific thing>. Which I could see if that person had, up until that point, been established as [hating illithids, doing all their work unseen, killing people for profit, more]. But I know it bugs me when people try to grab some weird PrC that has nothing to do with what the character's been doing throughout the campaign... but they're gonna take that weird thing anyway because the build-gods require it.

In other words, "I know your character better than you do, and I say your character wouldn't do that."

[NichG]

What if said PrC has an ability that is quite important for the concept the player has in mind? Are you really going to say to a player 'Sorry, but you can't really blend psionics and fighting unless you also hate ilithids?'

Playing devil's advocate, a setting is a lot more interesting when not all combinations of things can exist in the world. If the only psionicist-warriors in the world are that way because e.g. they were former slaves to illithids and managed to kill their masters, growing psionic powers from the years of mental manipulation and experiments, then that becomes an interesting 'fact' that can be used to make conclusions. That is to say, if you learn of this as a player, you can know something about the backstory of anyone you meet who blends psionics and fighting.

If you relax that requirement, then yes, you can build more character concepts in the system more easily, but at the same time you can say less about a person by observing them.

The illithid example is particularly weird of course, but in general I do think there is value in being able to tie 'important' things in the world like fundamental types of power to specific sources and methods, so that the players can plan rationally around that fluff and use it the same way that you would use mechanics. If you had a setting where 'all magic comes from the forty nine words of the First Language' or that 'all sorcerers have sold their soul for power' or 'psionics is the result of exposure to the radiation of a comet that shows up once every 47 years', these can all lead to interesting plotlines, even plans that originate with the players (I go into stasis until the comet arrives again, and then get a wizard to teleport me to its surface - lets see how psionic I become!)

[LordBlades]

Playing devil's advocate, a setting is a lot more interesting when not all combinations of things can exist in the world. If the only psionicist-warriors in the world are that way because e.g. they were former slaves to illithids and managed to kill their masters, growing psionic powers from the years of mental manipulation and experiments, then that becomes an interesting 'fact' that can be used to make conclusions. That is to say, if you learn of this as a player, you can know something about the backstory of anyone you meet who blends psionics and fighting.

It still doesn't answer the question of why can't Average Joe learn how to fight&mainfest at the same time without hating Ilithids.
Ok, so only guys that know how to do that are a group of former Ilithid slaves (which most likely means the technique is pretty new). Why can't Average Joe find one and coerce/convince him to teach his technique (minus all the anti-Ilithd stuff because Average Joe doesn't give a **** about Ilithids) or why can't he try to develop a similar technique on his own?

[Talderas]

1) You need to re-read the post that you initially responded to, my friend. You cannot decide that a debate is about something you want it to be about, instead of the thing it's actually about. skyth gave a reason for why he wants core-only (+ exceptions), and so if you're going to debate that then you need to debate his reasons instead of making up reasons of your own.

1. This isn't a debate. It's a dicussion.
2. I did read his post but like Arcturus, it's rather common that a GM says core-only because he's too lazy to actually read about the additional content despite the fact that most of it isn't at all powerful. Consequently, I discarded it as it wasn't at all relevant to what I have been talking about.
3. This is a thread where people have been discussing various effects caused by RP focused GMs of which the concept of limited prestige classes and multiclasses is included. Both that method and a core-only method have the exact same outcome, fighters and other mundanes get shunted down to 2nd and 3rd class citizens because the majority of what makes them work or makes them better is not available in core and requires multiclassing and dips to work. Whether or not you agree with that statement at your own table is not really a concern to me because it's not a factor or element that can be discussed in this environment.


2) It's totally possible to balance an encounter to a wildly disparate array of classes. It's hard to do, and it can hurt suspension of disbelief, but people have run games for a decade now with wizards and fighters in the same party and to say it's not possible to tailor an encounter to individual capacities is ridiculous. Heck, I've done it before.

Yes it is possible but it requires either a very talented DM, a significant disparity in player competency, or a party composition that runs significant similarities in order to permit all players to feel like the contribute. These are all factors outside the scope of any discussion of merit as most of those factors are dependent on the individual group and cannot be well conveyed to the forums for any sort of meaningful discussion.

--


No, but most of the crazy broken PrCs do involve membership in an organization. I mean, as a DM it's way more tempting to point out that the Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil have been going through a reform lately and aren't taking new members... than to actually deal with the cheese that follows from that PrC.

Excluding total optimization, a PHB only druid is significantly more powerful than most of the stuff you can get out of non-core material. Eggynack will be able to explain a lot better. I believe he's the one who knows druids best in this sort of situation.

[upho]

What if said PrC has an ability that is quite important for the concept the player has in mind? Are you really going to say to a player 'Sorry, but you can't really blend psionics and fighting unless you also hate ilithids?'Exactly my thoughts. Someone who values RP highly (like myself) is much better off changing some fluff and houseruling the minor annoying details of an otherwise mechanically suitable PrC than to ban it. And by "mechanically suitable" I mean "fitting the character concept". The game is built on the premise that important PC traits is reflected in mechanics, so I really think it's better to roll with that than trying to ignore character incompatible mechanics.

[IronFist]

"Party line propaganda"? :smallconfused: I'll admit we get pretty rules intensive here, but that's more due to the fact that 3rd ed has been out for a decade now and we've got a lot of posters here with some crazy system mastery. Anyway most of the crazy builds you see here are more thought exercises than something that would actually be played in a game. There's no concentrated push against role play from what I've seen and in fact a lot of threads boil down to "I have this cool PC concept, how can I make it work mechanically?".

Anyway as I stated before 3.5e and the d20 system are pretty rules intensive. If you're not going to follow most of those rules why use the system in the first place? There's tons of roleplaying systems out there that have simpler rules that allow for more GM and player freedom.

I have to say this forum each looks less like an RPG forum and more and more like a character optimization forum. People barely bat an eye at campaign journals, adventure design and fluff questions. It looks like most people here don't even play RPG, they just build characters.

[Red Fel]

Exactly my thoughts. Someone who values RP highly (like myself) is much better off changing some fluff and houseruling the minor annoying details of an otherwise mechanically suitable PrC than to ban it. And by "mechanically suitable" I mean "fitting the character concept". The game is built on the premise that important PC traits is reflected in mechanics, so I really think it's better to roll with that than trying to ignore character incompatible mechanics.

This. For example, I recently worked with a build that involved a worshiper of Bahamut. The build involved a refluffed Ordained Champion (change the deity and domains) and Fist of Raziel (change Servant of the Heavens from Tome Archons to Bahamut). There were no mechanical changes needed (except the domain), it was purely a fluff re-write, and the result was good.

I think many PrCs that would fit a concept perfectly, but for their narrow focus, can easily be refluffed to a different narrow focus and be both mechanically and RP-wise optimal.

[Talderas]

I have to say this forum each looks less like an RPG forum and more and more like a character optimization forum. People barely bat an eye at campaign journals, adventure design and fluff questions. It looks like most people here don't even play RPG, they just build characters.

Multiple reasons for this.

1. Rules are easier to discuss as everyone has a same foundation to work from. Both players and DMs can equally contribute to such threads.
2. World building topics tend to lack a similar foundation for discussion and are quite variable. They require each thread to have its foundation build from scratch and it's trivially easy to neglect to mention details in order to convey the foundation.
3. There's far more players than DMs. DMs are the ones in the best position to assist in those threads and consequently you're going to see less traffic to them.

Edit: 4. This is a subforum dedicated to 3rd edition D&D and it's inheritors. Most of the DM level advice is probably best placed in the general roleplaying forum unless it's regarding 3rd edition specific issues.

[CombatOwl]

What if said PrC has an ability that is quite important for the concept the player has in mind? Are you really going to say to a player 'Sorry, but you can't really blend psionics and fighting unless you also hate ilithids?'

"Sorry, if you want to blend fighting and manifesting... use psychic warrior." Because that route involves tradeoffs and illithid slayer doesnt really.


One problem that arises is that some character concepts don't actually work before a certain level, so it's hard for the player to do the things they want to do BEFORE they enter the prestige class. It's actually very common with gishes ("magic fighters").

Being a fighter/wizard is supposed to be hard. Its why there arent supposed to be a lot of them in the game. Everyone has to start somewhere, and if that wizard wants to learn to blend magic and sword togwther, they have to actually start doing that. I don't buy the notion that they can spend half their adventuring career doing nothing but standing in the back firing spells until that one day they finallu learn abjurant champion and can suddebly know how to fight. One level of better BAB isnt that big of a deal.


Plenty of gish builds start as primarily a spellcaster,

I'm entirely aware that such is the optimal path to build a gish. It is not, however, the only way.


taking 1 level of a martial class for proficiencies and then DEPEND ON THE PRESTIGE CLASS to actually mesh spellcasting and fighting together. So before said prestige class (and actually a couple levels into it), they look really darn similar to just another spellcaster.[/quote.]

Wizard 5/Fighter 1 doesnt carry any prohibition against melee combat. Just because the charactrr isnt yet amazing at it is no excuse not to do it--and, in fact, how people justify entering classes like abjurant champion or eldritch knight in my game. My point wasnt that these classes ought to be banned... my point was that they ought not be allowed without justification. A wizard who routinely breaks with his class and tries to practice his.melee combat skills more than justifies entry into a class about that. If he just spends all day doing normal wizard things--despite that one level dip in fighter--hes not doing what he neess to do to sharpen his skills as a gish.

[quote]Would you prevent them from entering the class because they didn't try to fight in melee combat in no armor with 3 bab by level 6?

There is also nothing prohibiting a wizard/fighter from putting on some armor and going into combat. Other than the player not being willing to suffer an acf percentage. So sad, too bad. If their character is unwilling to make those sacrifices to learn to overcome those limits... he does not belong in the PrC.


They're waiting on their twilight mithral breastplate and full bab prestige class to become competent in melee so they can do what they really want to do.

You seem to have this strange perception that a character has to be optimized at something in order to do it. Wizard 5/Fighter 1 can reliably hit CR 2-3 bandits if their strength isnt in the toilet. Are you as good at it as the fighter? No, but you arent supposed to be. Is it as efficient as just casting Fireball? No, but the character needs the practice. Might you theoretically be more powerful with wizard 5/fighter 1? Yeah, you would be... but you want to be a gish, not just a primary caster. Maybe you ought to think about taking more than one level of fighter.

[Raven777]

I'm the type of DM mentioned.

I don't mind a class or two that makes sense for the character, but when you get to 5 or more I have a problem. It is simple enough. The only reason a player does this...is to cheat. And I take a dim view of cheaters.

Errr... I fail to get how using the game's own systems constitutes cheating.

Also, point of argument : what if character building is what someone finds fun in the game? Surely a campaign can accomodate for everyone's fun, not just the roleplayers'.

[LordBlades]

"Sorry, if you want to blend fighting and manifesting... use psychic warrior."

That only works if the character in question isn't already in game. what if he's a psion that's looking to add a more martial side?

[Forrestfire]

"Sorry, if you want to blend fighting and manifesting... use psychic warrior."

What if their concept is something that blends blasting powers and combat? If the player wants to play an artillery piece that can hold its own in melee, as opposed to a wise warrior with a large amount of self-buffs?

Or someone who creates allies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/astralConstruct.htm) and then fights alongside them? Psychic warrior can expanded knowledge Astral Construct, but using it well would cost them a large amount of power points compared to many of their other abilities.

Or just someone who is already a psion in-game, and doesn't want to reroll their character so they can fulfill their vision.

[Segev]

That only works if the character in question isn't already in game. what if he's a psion that's looking to add a more martial side?

Clearly, he should pick up levels of Psychic Warrior. "Organic" character growth through sub-optimal choices is superior to planning your character ahead of time or trying to adapt as your concept evolves after having started on a different path.

[CombatOwl]

That only works if the character in question isn't already in game. what if he's a psion that's looking to add a more martial side?

He has a choice; give up a few levels of manifesting for fighter, give up few levels of psion for psychic warrior... or acknowledge that a class-based game depends on role protection and settle for not being good at everything. Or pick up Leadership and start looking fot a martial cohort to protect him while he manifests.

[skyth]

You also have the tug of war between escapism and 'realism' mentalities.

The 'you have to drudge to get anything you want' versus 'I drudge at work all day and want to enjoy myself when I'm off work'.

[Raven777]

He has a choice; give up a few levels of manifesting for fighter, give up few levels of psion for psychic warrior... or acknowledge that a class-based game depends on role protection and settle for not being good at everything. Or pick up Leadership and start looking fot a martial cohort to protect him while he manifests.

Or call out your BS and pick Illithid Slayer...

[Craft (Cheese)]

Being a fighter/wizard is supposed to be hard. Its why there arent supposed to be a lot of them in the game.

Says who?


Wizard 5/Fighter 1 doesnt carry any prohibition against melee combat. Just because the charactrr isnt yet amazing at it is no excuse not to do it--and, in fact, how people justify entering classes like abjurant champion or eldritch knight in my game.

A wizard who routinely breaks with his class and tries to practice his.melee combat skills more than justifies entry into a class about that. If he just spends all day doing normal wizard things--despite that one level dip in fighter--hes not doing what he neess to do to sharpen his skills as a gish.

There is also nothing prohibiting a wizard/fighter from putting on some armor and going into combat. Other than the player not being willing to suffer an acf percentage. So sad, too bad. If their character is unwilling to make those sacrifices to learn to overcome those limits... he does not belong in the PrC.

It's bad enough that many character concepts require suffering through playing someone virtually unplayable early in your career (unless you start at a high enough level to skip that part) without being required by the DM to do deliberately suicidally stupid things (like wade into melee combat as a mostly-wizard instead of casting spells) to be allowed to progress into the character you're actually interested in playing.


You seem to have this strange perception that a character has to be optimized at something in order to do it. Wizard 5/Fighter 1 can reliably hit CR 2-3 bandits if their strength isnt in the toilet. Are you as good at it as the fighter? No, but you arent supposed to be. Is it as efficient as just casting Fireball? No, but the character needs the practice. Might you theoretically be more powerful with wizard 5/fighter 1? Yeah, you would be... but you want to be a gish, not just a primary caster. Maybe you ought to think about taking more than one level of fighter.

It depends on what kind of campaign you're in. If you're level 6 and the most dangerous thing you're fighting is a CR 2 bandit, then yeah, you can afford to play this way without too much trouble. If you're playing in a campaign where you're level 6 and your most common enemies are Bebeliths, Erinyes, and Fire Giants, doing this will be horribly frustrating and unfun at the very least, and TPK-tastic at worst.

Also, who says a gish-in-training needs to get practice in when something is trying to murder you? Why not say they did their training in friendly sparring matches?

[LordBlades]

He has a choice; give up a few levels of manifesting for fighter, give up few levels of psion for psychic warrior... or acknowledge that a class-based game depends on role protection and settle for not being good at everything. Or pick up Leadership and start looking fot a martial cohort to protect him while he manifests.

OR he can develop a deep hatred for Ilithids and all his problems are solved.

A 'you must RP this certain way or be forced to make mechanical or concept compromises' just doesn't sit well with me. I feel it adds nothing good to the game.

Regarding fighter/wizards, or even more so, warblade/wizards it's a very interesting topic, especially if you start at level 1.

If you start with fighter/warblade, you're a guy with decent martial skills, but no specllcasting ability whatsoever. You whack a few monsters over the head with your sword and bingo, that experience has enlightened you enough to be able to cast spells now.

If you start as wizard, you can either play as a regular wizard until you pick up a fighter/warblade level and suddenly your character has a ton of marital knowledge he never practiced before or you can get into melee with your d4 HD, no armor and prey the DM babysits you enough so you don't suffer the ligcal consequence of your actions (aka death).

[Forrestfire]

If you start with fighter/warblade, you're a guy with decent martial skills, but no specllcasting ability whatsoever. You whack a few monsters over the head with your sword and bingo, that experience has enlightened you enough to be able to cast spells now.

If you start as wizard, you can either play as a regular wizard until you pick up a fighter/warblade level and suddenly your character has a ton of marital knowledge he never practiced before or you can get into melee with your d4 HD, no armor and prey the DM babysits you enough so you don't suffer the ligcal consequence of your actions (aka death).

I guess you could always write a backstory that involves you having skills in the planned multiclass, but not enough to actually matter.


suddenly your character has a ton of marital knowledge he never practiced before

:smallamused: I know it's unintentional, but still XD

[gooddragon1]

For the cases where I run into RP and I don't care to do it there's always at least 1 of 2 things for me (usually both):

-Other players.
-My bubble pipe (see below).

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs11/i/2006/252/4/6/bubble_pipe_with_gold_band_by_niccc.jpg

[LordBlades]

I guess you could always write a backstory that involves you having skills in the planned multiclass, but not enough to actually matter.


Except from a game mechanics point of view, you're exactly as skilled as somebody that never ever had any interest in the field, unless, you take feats that would become useless later, like Magical Aptitude (that FR feat that gives you a couple of cantrips, or was it Magical Training?), Martial Weapon Prof. or Martial Study for example.

[Segev]

He has a choice; give up a few levels of manifesting for fighter, give up few levels of psion for psychic warrior... or acknowledge that a class-based game depends on role protection and settle for not being good at everything. Or pick up Leadership and start looking fot a martial cohort to protect him while he manifests.

Yes, but now you're punishing him for not predicting a priori that his psion would develop a desire for more martial training in the future.

Somehow, if he'd known that all along, he could have been a more powerful psychic AND warrior than if he started concentrating on psionics, then decided to become better at warfare. A Psion/Psychic Warrior is a weaker psychic than a straight psychic warrior.

[Forrestfire]

Except from a game mechanics point of view, you're exactly as skilled as somebody that never ever had any interest in the field, unless, you take feats that would become useless later, like Magical Aptitude (that FR feat that gives you a couple of cantrips, or was it Magical Training?), Martial Weapon Prof. or Martial Study for example.

Well, obviously you can just roleplay your character how you want and the mechanics don't have to support it, right?

In any case, maybe this specific "wizard's" magic is entirely devoted to physical strengthening (higher hit die, fluffed into your physical scores being where they are, etc), or maybe it helps him swing his sword with divination or speed magic (that +1 of BAB), or possibly he just spends all his mana on something like keeping his hair color consistently brown or something else silly like that :smalltongue:

[Volos]

I happen to be one of 'those DMs' that prefer Roleplay over Roll-Play. But I take a different approach to the idea of mechanics in regards to RP. One of my usual players loves playing winged characters who can cast spells and swing a blade equally well. Most mechanics based DMs, to my experience, would balk at the idea of letting a first level character fly. It would be 'too broken'. I, however, am only really concerned with the story and letting my players feel challenged. So I let her play her winged elf Magus (Pathfinder), but I throw a lot of flying enemies, ranged attackers, and bad weather her way to keep her from abusing her advantage. The player gets to play what she wants, I make sure the mechanics allow her to tell the story she wants, and we all have a lot of fun playing in three dimensions. My other player wants to play a strong, shy, book-smart, no-common-sense, raging alchemist. I let him. I work the mechanics over until we get a mostly legal build that does what he wants and I have to home-rule only a couple of things that honestly make him less powerful but more flavorful. I allow him to take Hulk-like leaps because to everyone at the table it makes sense. He has access to Throw-Anything and Catch-Off-Guard along with a Strength score of 24ish when transformed so I allow him to beat on bad guys with trees, wagons, and even a stone sarcophagus once. RAW it wouldn't be allowed, but I let the mechanics of the game change to let the players do what they want with their stories.

[NichG]

It still doesn't answer the question of why can't Average Joe learn how to fight&mainfest at the same time without hating Ilithids.
Ok, so only guys that know how to do that are a group of former Ilithid slaves (which most likely means the technique is pretty new). Why can't Average Joe find one and coerce/convince him to teach his technique (minus all the anti-Ilithd stuff because Average Joe doesn't give a **** about Ilithids) or why can't he try to develop a similar technique on his own?

Well ostensibly its because you can't 'just learn it'. You can't study psionics, you either are psionic or you aren't. Said slaves were the result of years of experimentation by the illithids, so arguably your best bet wouldn't be to go to one of the slaves but instead to go to one of the illithids and find out just how they made people psionic.

The result is that you do a quest in-character, go steal the method of becoming psionic from the illithids, and get your desired power.

Now, that kind of game is certainly not everyone's cuppa tea, since those quests for power could easily dominate a lot of the play. But at the same time, I'm not really trying to argue that everyone should play this way, only that there are certain values to that kind of play that are worth at least understanding.

[Abaddona]

This now reminds me about one guy that i know that said that wizard10/cleric10 is viable dual casting build and there is nothing wrong (and it can be great fun) with playing that way.

So yeah - let's be clear about this: there is absolutely no limit to how roleplay you getting into various obscure PrC or strange combinations of them.
I get into two knightly orders, and now want to get into third? Well I didn't "dumped" them but i work to be some sort of mediator between those orders, willingly accepting that I never be permited into higher circles of power in this orders but still I will gain some sort of respect for working hard into forging an alliance between those orders.
You want to obtain strange template? Well, magical experiments (yeah I know that this is as old as pyramids) certainly can go wrong.

To be honest there are times when reading some "ideas I think that some DMs should play with their own rules (especially as martial artists in party with druid and control wizard) to see how "fun" their decisions can be to players.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I believe claiming that class choice should be based on "RP" really means "in-character". Think about it this way; every time you gain a new level you have to make a decision. The "RP" people believe this decision should be solely made by the character, not by the player.

To me, this distinction doesn't make any sense: The character is the player. The character's decisions are necessarily the player's decisions. They're one fractal at different levels of zoom.

[ArcturusV]

*shrug* Not going to claim one side of the PrC or Not side is right or wrong. I can understand both views. On one hand there was an obvious intention early on that PrCs were not supposed to be "Auto Includes" for players. That's why they were in the DMG. That's why almost all of the early PrCs in third edition had things like "Must train with another Witch Hunter" or "Must kill someone for no reason other than becoming an assassin", etc. But they kinda caved later on and gave up a lot of that as third edition went on, or only made vague references in the header to a PrC suggesting that it might still have ties like that without actually listing the requirements.

But I can understand where the stance that it isn't an auto-include you should let players just level into because they want to.

Other thing: Heh, if I wanted to play a Wizard/Fighter mix at level 1 I'd more likely just go Wizard and use stuff like True Strike and crossbows. It's not an impossible task. And chances are if you're going Wizard/Fighter you'd be unarmored/lightly armored anyway, so probably a good Dex and it's not exactly the death sentence to go into a fight compared to how it would be for anyone else, no more so than the Rogue or the Cleric.

[LordBlades]

In any case, maybe this specific "wizard's" magic is entirely devoted to physical strengthening (higher hit die, fluffed into your physical scores being where they are, etc), or maybe it helps him swing his sword with divination or speed magic (that +1 of BAB), or possibly he just spends all his mana on something like keeping his hair color consistently brown or something else silly like that :smalltongue:

Which also happen to be completely undispellable, undetectable and work in AMF, amidoingitrite?


Well ostensibly its because you can't 'just learn it'. You can't study psionics, you either are psionic or you aren't. Said slaves were the result of years of experimentation by the illithids, so arguably your best bet wouldn't be to go to one of the slaves but instead to go to one of the illithids and find out just how they made people psionic.

The result is that you do a quest in-character, go steal the method of becoming psionic from the illithids, and get your desired power.

Now, that kind of game is certainly not everyone's cuppa tea, since those quests for power could easily dominate a lot of the play. But at the same time, I'm not really trying to argue that everyone should play this way, only that there are certain values to that kind of play that are worth at least understanding.

Except Average Joe that did all this still doesn't hate ilithids, especially if he somehow got this method from them on friendly terms, and can now dedicate his time creating more people who can blend fighting and psionics without having anything to do with ilithids. So that justification just doesn't hold up so much in game.

I understand where you're coming from, and I certainly am not arguing that people shouldn't play how they want to play. I'm arguing it doesn't make that much sense, neither from an out of game perspective, nor from an in-game one.

[Forrestfire]

Which also happen to be completely undispellable, undetectable and work in AMF, amidoingitrite?

If the Swiftblade can do it for haste, so can the wizard for what is effectively a -1 level spell :smalltongue:

[LordBlades]

If the Swiftblade can do it for haste, so can the wizard for what is effectively a -1 level spell :smalltongue:

Also, don't forget it's a spell so secret you can't write it in any spellbook or teach it to anyone :D

[Forrestfire]

Also, don't forget it's a spell so secret you can't write it in any spellbook or teach it to anyone :D

Heh, well obviously it's not a spell, but just "magic" designed for and useable only by the caster. Elementary stuff, manipulating the magic inherent in the caster's body and surroundings.

I mean, everything has some bit of magic that isn't negated by dispels in D&D, even the mundanes (their soul, for instance).

[AntiTrust]

You're taking "Values RP" and making it synonymous with "RP is all that matters", which was what this thread is pointed at. I completely agree that Roleplay is a necessary construct of the game, but if it was meant to be played by saying "People who intelligently use the rules in the books we created for the game are just cheats and/or wanna be MMOers" then why even put statistics into the game anyways? and again in my last post, I said In my Experience; I can only speak for the DM's with whom I've had the prospect of gaming with, so in reality.........about 15 DM's in all. But of those 15, I've only found three that were okay with my play style; the other twelve flat out said to me "I don't like min maxers, this game may not be right for you." No, seriously. Whirling frenzy has got me barred from a really fun looking game, so has collegiate wizard on my wizard who was a professor of a local academy.

EDIT: its all good Zubrowka74; I came in hot with that first reply and it was pretty rude.

The thing is, that on an extreme end I can make a build that uses a bunch of books with multiclasses, and prc's out the wazoo and then after I've made this monstrosity of rules and mechanics and abilities, I can weave a story that explains every single one of them. Many experienced dm's are going to see right through the veneer of rp some people will use to legitimize their builds. Players should be able to look at a group and gauge where everyone is in terms of builds and then build accordingly, not blow them out of the water and set a new paradigm of power everyone has to meet.

[Eldariel]

To me, this distinction doesn't make any sense: The character is the player. The character's decisions are necessarily the player's decisions. They're one fractal at different levels of zoom.

Usually players don't make those choices as themselves but as someone else tho. Much like actor who properly gets in role isn't really himself at that moment. Though level-up is not something the character can really observe so doing it in-character doesn't make sense to me; I suppose some people like it that way though.

[LordBlades]

The thing is, that on an extreme end I can make a build that uses a bunch of books with multiclasses, and prc's out the wazoo and then after I've made this monstrosity of rules and mechanics and abilities, I can weave a story that explains every single one of them. Many experienced dm's are going to see right through the veneer of rp some people will use to legitimize their builds.

This isn't necessarily true (that a story used to justify a mechanic is necessarily weaker than a story written for story's sake).

Personally(can't speak for everyone OFC) , I've creating characters in a variety of ways:

- sometimes I start with a story (either what a given character has done so far or what he set out to do) and build the mechanics and personality from there.
-sometimes I start with a build that I find interesting (like ex-paladin 3/fighter 2/rogue 1/ur-priest 2/bone knight 10) and come up with a story (what made this guy follow this path?) and a personality for him.
-sometimes I start with a character idea I got from a picture, a movie/book etc. and fill in the rest to fit the game.

Can't say any approach has produced consistently better characters from a RP point of view.

As long as you have a good build (that fits well in the game) and a good story (that fits well in the game), what does it matter which one came first?



Players should be able to look at a group and gauge where everyone is in terms of builds and then build accordingly, not blow them out of the water and set a new paradigm of power everyone has to meet.
100% agreed. It's your job as a player to fit in with the majority, both mechanics and RP-wise.

[Oko and Qailee]

pain to track all the skills and abilities and so on if there are too many classes and exp penalties?

TBH this is the only big issue. I check char sheets to make sure no one has mistakes and I have one player who is a CloisteredCleric1/Fighter2/Paladin2/PiousTemplar2, needless to say I ALWAYS have to correct his sheet. And despite telling him 300 times how multiclassing works he still messes up his BAB/Base Saves

[LordBlades]

TBH this is the only big issue. I check char sheets to make sure no one has mistakes and I have one player who is a CloisteredCleric1/Fighter2/Paladin2/PiousTemplar2, needless to say I ALWAYS have to correct his sheet. And despite telling him 300 times how multiclassing works he still messes up his BAB/Base Saves

That's more of a player issue than a build issue.

There's a lot less to calculate in a CloisteredCleric1/Fighter2/Paladin2/PiousTemplar2 (and most of it is once per level) than it's in a single class druid, with Augment Summoning, few different Wild Shape options and an advanced Animal Companion (and most of it needs to be done regularly).

[upho]

I think this basically boils down to two different perspectives:

Primarily the fluff and "intents" of the rulebooks' PC build options dictate which possible character concepts that can be reflected mechanically. An individual player's wishes, inter-party balance etc has, generally, a lower priority than adherence to the perceived intentions of elements in the rulebooks (no multi-dip or "cheesy" splat book PrCs, ACFs etc).
Primarily the player's character concept and party balance dictates which build options to use. Whether these options include multi-dip combos, come from splat books or even homebrew fluff or crunch is less important.

I can understand that a very open perspective 2 game might be impractical and overwhelming for new groups, but otherwise I see no reason for not trying to stick to it. Especially for RP reasons.

[Talya]

I think this basically boils down to two different perspectives:

Primarily the fluff and "intents" of the rulebooks' PC build options dictate which possible character concepts that can be reflected mechanically. An individual player's wishes, inter-party balance etc has, generally, a lower priority than adherence to the perceived intentions of elements in the rulebooks (no multi-dip or "cheesy" splat book PrCs, ACFs etc).
Primarily the player's character concept and party balance dictates which build options to use. Whether these options include multi-dip combos, come from splat books or even homebrew fluff or crunch is less important.

I can understand that a very open perspective 2 game might be impractical and overwhelming for new groups, but otherwise I see no reason for not trying to stick to it. Especially for RP reasons.

Agree. By limiting multiclassing, you are actually limiting RP, not promoting it, as you are limiting the number of viable character concepts people can choose to RP.

[LordBlades]

Agree. By limiting multiclassing, you are actually limiting RP, not promoting it, as you are limiting the number of viable character concepts people can choose to RP.

Not to mention you're not using one of the biggest strengths of D&D 3.5 : freedom of concept. There are other systems that are arguably easier and/or more balanced than 3.5, but very few of them allow you to actually portray anything that crosses your mind in game.

[Zubrowka74]

The thing is, that on an extreme end I can make a build that uses a bunch of books with multiclasses, and prc's out the wazoo and then after I've made this monstrosity of rules and mechanics and abilities, I can weave a story that explains every single one of them. Many experienced dm's are going to see right through the veneer of rp some people will use to legitimize their builds. Players should be able to look at a group and gauge where everyone is in terms of builds and then build accordingly, not blow them out of the water and set a new paradigm of power everyone has to meet.

And I did just that as a player with my HiPSter build, on these very forum, to check if it would be 1) RP viable ans 2) mechanicaly viable. Turns out it's quite a hassle and makes for some stories that strech thin you suspension of disbelief.

Anyways, you can only put that many dips before it becomes a mechanical liability as well. I don't have a problem with complex build, as long as it does not overpower the RP. Doing it for cool story hooks or flavor is nifty. Doing it to have an "I Win" button, to show off or to crush other player, not my cup of tea. Again, you could do a campaign or one shot with ridiculously optimized PCs, just remember that it's an RPG so there'S RP in it. Anything goes as long as everybody's having fun but if you want to flush RP, go play M:TG or some strategy game.

[The Insanity]

Me making an optimized character doesn't mean I don't know there's RP in the game, so you talking like that's always true is almost insulting, Zubrowka and I would be freatthankful if you could keep your judgments out of the discussion.

A problem I see often with "those type of DMs" is that they see an optimized character and don't even bother looking at his backstory and fluff, they just say "No", and even if you get them to look at the backstory, it's always "Just to justify your overpowered PC".

[Raven777]

just remember that it's an RPG so there'S RP in it.

Maybe its the years of playing Baldur's Gate / Diablo / World of Warcraft before I discovered Pathfinder speaking, but to me RP is as much synonymous with the system enabling the role as it is with acting it. Most RPGs have in common a deep mathematics and rules system to deal with simulating a character. And systems can be optimized within arbitrary parameters, not only as a matter of pride but also as a matter of fun.

So why should the acting part be the be all, end all measure of one's roleplaying purity? Harnessing he system to build as efficient a character as possible to fulfill one's role seems, to me, a perfectly valid approach to enjoying the game.

Moreover, both ends of the spectrum can totally cohabit. In reality, they usually do. An optimizer is perfectly capable to reign in his build during play to make sure not to overshadow his friends, and said friends are perfectly capable of benefiting from system mastery to select abilities that best portray their character's actions.

Finally, regardless of Rule 0, I find DMs who reactively limit character building options to be a disservice to the game. I know I drive to Gary's house to play Pathfinder, not "Gary's take on Pathfinder". They also fail to understand that in their game world, I am not a Paladin 2 / Oracle 1 / Monk 10 / Inquisitor 2 / Shadowdancer 2 / Ninja 3. I am a stealthy divine archer with sneak attacks whose hand is guided by providence. Which is both cool and badass, which should be what's important at the end of the day.

[LordBlades]

A problem I see often with "those type of DMs" is that they see an optimized character and don't even bother looking at his backstory and fluff, they just say "No", and even if you get them to look at the backstory, it's always "Just to justify your overpowered PC".

Also, in most such cases the PC isn't even that strong, just convoluted (which is sadly something you need to do for many non-caster concepts). There's a fair amount of DMs that would veto something like rogue/monk/shadowdancer/assassin for being 'OP' or 'cheesy' and not bat an eyelash at a Conjuration specialist wizard.

[Oko and Qailee]

That's more of a player issue than a build issue.
.

I mean it was just an example... it's definitely more complicated than a standard fighterX.

Also I think bringing druid is a bit unfair, those guys have to keep track of like, 50 animals

[Craft (Cheese)]

Usually players don't make those choices as themselves but as someone else tho. Much like actor who properly gets in role isn't really himself at that moment. Though level-up is not something the character can really observe so doing it in-character doesn't make sense to me; I suppose some people like it that way though.

Most of the time you're playing as a person you've built entirely yourself, up to and including their motivations. There are exceptions of course where you're playing a real-life historical figure or a pre-established character made by someone else, but even then you're limited to your own interpretation of the person.

[NichG]

Except Average Joe that did all this still doesn't hate ilithids, especially if he somehow got this method from them on friendly terms, and can now dedicate his time creating more people who can blend fighting and psionics without having anything to do with ilithids. So that justification just doesn't hold up so much in game.

I understand where you're coming from, and I certainly am not arguing that people shouldn't play how they want to play. I'm arguing it doesn't make that much sense, neither from an out of game perspective, nor from an in-game one.

Its totally possible for PC actions to change the world and its structure in a game like this hypothetical one. That makes perfect sense. In this hypothetical game though, you can't declare that the world has been changed in your backstory in order to enable your character concept. You have to actively pursue it within the world.

Think of it like the magical locations introduced later in D&D. The idea was to create things that the players might have heard of that they could seek out in-character, thereby generating a very easy way for player-driven plots to occur. Rather than the DM having to hand them every plotline, now a player can read something in the fluff and have (an additional) reason to be proactive in-character and seek out the location.

There's nothing stopping the PCs from camping a magical location, slaying its guardians, and selling tickets to the adventuring population. But thats something that has to happen on screen.

[Eldariel]

Most of the time you're playing as a person you've built entirely yourself, up to and including their motivations. There are exceptions of course where you're playing a real-life historical figure or a pre-established character made by someone else, but even then you're limited to your own interpretation of the person.

Certainly, but you're still making decisions with different values, different morales, different life history, different temperament to your normal. I'd like to imagine a good actor can discard most of their personal bias to a degree where it's barely different from just being that other person.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Certainly, but you're still making decisions with different values, different morales, different life history, different temperament to your normal. I'd like to imagine a good actor can discard most of their personal bias to a degree where it's barely different from just being that other person.

I don't think it's really possible: There's a such thing as good and bad casting for a role no matter how good of an actor you are, different actors are just naturally inclined to play certain types of characters. And even if you could, I don't think you'd want to: "Write what you know" is great advice for writers, and "Play what you know" is even better advice for roleplayers.


In this hypothetical game though, you can't declare that the world has been changed in your backstory in order to enable your character concept. You have to actively pursue it within the world.

"Hey DM, can my character (eventually) take the Illithid Slayer class without being racist against illithids?"

"Sure, why not."

This is not as big of a problem as you seem to think it is.

[Zubrowka74]

Me making an optimized character doesn't mean I don't know there's RP in the game, so you talking like that's always true is almost insulting, Zubrowka and I would be freatful if you could keep your judgments out of the discussion.

Where did I say that? I've actually been saying both are independent parameters. Pay attention, kiddo!

If your still unsure of my position let me clarify: you can like RP, you can like toying with the mechanics, you can like both. Whatever rocks you boat. If someone is bitching that someone else is putting too much emphasis on RP, he might as well go play another game. Yes, you can also play with only RP, it's a valid point. No rules is a bit extreme for my taste as I like both aspect but to me RP come first. The trick is finding fellow gamers with a like mind.

[Just to Browse]

2. I did read his post but like Arcturus, it's rather common that a GM says core-only because he's too lazy to actually read about the additional content despite the fact that most of it isn't at all powerful. Consequently, I discarded it as it wasn't at all relevant to what I have been talking about.So what you did was ignore what he said, tell him that he meant something other than what he said, and criticize him for that? There's a name for that. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)


[snip] are all factors outside the scope of any discussion of merit as most of those factors are dependent on the individual group and cannot be well conveyed to the forums for any sort of meaningful discussion.The "meaningful discussion" is literally a personal anecdote that skyth provided. Someone gave their personal anecdote about why they like core-only, and you are telling them they're wrong. You cannot decide that "meaningful discussion" applies to "things talderas wants to talk about" and just pick arguments to dismiss/disprove like that.

The entire context of me telling you off is that someone said why they used core-only and you attacked a position they didn't represent in order to tell them why they were doing it wrong. I'm trying to tell you that's intellectually dishonest, in the hopes that you will stop doing it.

[NichG]

"Hey DM, can my character (eventually) take the Illithid Slayer class without being racist against illithids?"

"Sure, why not."

This is not as big of a problem as you seem to think it is.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a certain value in having non-mechanical constraints surrounding whether or not you can take a certain class. I'm not saying that there is a 'problem', but rather that people are disregarding or at least not considering this value in their arguments.

My intent is to make people think about the possible benefits of not letting a player just go and take Illithid Slayer without being racist against Illithids, not because I think that everyone should prevent this, but that I think that understanding that point of view and the possible benefits to the game will make this kind of discussion less histrionic and more thoughtful.

[Yukitsu]

In my experience, the DM's that have this problem tend to be ones that will do this:

Make a character>RP the class on the character sheet.

There isn't anything terribly wrong with this, but it feels to me that they are in some way incapable or unwilling of looking at abilities as a whole, or in other words, they're the sort that miss the forest for the trees.

These guys aren't always RP types, it's just that the ones who are vocal about this being a problem both assume that your class defines everything about your character, and they emphasize RP and are thus offended when you move away from their preferred model.

[Raven777]

If someone is bitching that someone else is putting too much emphasis on RP, he might as well go play another game.

If someone is bitching that someone else is putting too much emphasis on mechanics, he might as well go play another game.

WoW! This argument seems to work both ways! Who wudda thought?

[Red Fel]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a certain value in having non-mechanical constraints surrounding whether or not you can take a certain class. I'm not saying that there is a 'problem', but rather that people are disregarding or at least not considering this value in their arguments.

My intent is to make people think about the possible benefits of not letting a player just go and take Illithid Slayer without being racist against Illithids, not because I think that everyone should prevent this, but that I think that understanding that point of view and the possible benefits to the game will make this kind of discussion less histrionic and more thoughtful.

The way I see it, there are certain parts of a class or PrC that are "fluff," or purely for flavor; certain things that are "semi-fluff," or mechanics which can easily be swapped out for other, parallel mechanics; and certain things which are "key," or integral to the nature of the class.

For example, a Wizard's spellbook is key - being a prepared caster as opposed to spontaneous is what distinguishes a Wizard from a Sorcerer. An RKV's affiliation with the Church of Wee Jas is fluff - there is no real reason, based on how that class works, that a character in that class would have to be affiliated with Wee Jas, as opposed to any other deity. An Ordained Champion's deities and domain are semi-fluff - they make mechanical sense, but could still be substituted for certain other deities and domains (for instance, an Ordained Champion of Bahamut spontaneously casting Protection spells still makes sense in light of the class).

(Feel free to disagree with these distinctions, by the way; I'm providing them merely to illustrate my position.)

By these definitions, I would say the Illithid-hating of the Illithid Slayer class is someplace between semi-fluff and key. Why? Look at the class abilities. For goodness' sake, Slayers have a class ability that nauseates creatures that try to eat their brains. I can count the number of creatures with brain-eating tendencies on one hand. (Yes, I'm including zombies. Not the point.) The entire class is built around resisting psionics, detection, mind control, and the consumption of one's gray matter.

That said, these abilities could be refluffed, although it would change things somewhat. Really, every ability except for Brain Nausea and Blast Feedback can apply across the board. So you'd really only have to adjust those two. Perhaps redesign the class to fight cannibals. Thus, instead of "Brain Nausea" you have "Flesh Nausea," and replace "Blast Feedback" with, say, "Bite Feedback" against anything using a bite attack against you. It's a less impressive capstone, but it gets the job done. Now you've got a psionic stalker of his favored enemy, who can avoid detection and compulsion. It works.

But the class, as it's written? It does require the presence of Illithids in your campaign, and the desire to slay them. Thus the name. There's simply no justification for it otherwise.

... What were we discussing again?

[LordBlades]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a certain value in having non-mechanical constraints surrounding whether or not you can take a certain class. I'm not saying that there is a 'problem', but rather that people are disregarding or at least not considering this value in their arguments.

My intent is to make people think about the possible benefits of not letting a player just go and take Illithid Slayer without being racist against Illithids, not because I think that everyone should prevent this, but that I think that understanding that point of view and the possible benefits to the game will make this kind of discussion less histrionic and more thoughtful.

What I've got so far:

Benefits:

-A bit more world flavor

Drawbacks:

-player either has to include in his backstory something he might not want to include (hatred for ilithids, association with the Ilithid Slayers etc.) or needs to make mechancial compromises (since in this case Ilithid Slayer is pretty much the only thing in the rules that allows a certain approach to a build) if he's starting at a higher level than the one he intended to take Ilithid Slayer at.

-alternatively, player needs to drag the rest of the party unto a more-or-less lengthy sidequest, which both delays the main plot (which would be rather stupid for anyone to agree with if the main plot is time-critical, and yet there will be a social pressure out of game for the other players to get along with, otherwise they'd be telling their friend 'no, you can't play what you want').

-not all people enjoy sidetracks where somebody else is protagonist and they're just tagging along as sidekicks, so the DM might end up having a game for one dude and a few marginally interested players that are counting the sessions until it's over.

-if you have too many sidequests (like the whole party is playing something that requires one), you might not have much time for the actual main story.

Sorry, but I just see more drawbacks than benefits.

[Just to Browse]

LordBlades, before NichG gets mad at you, you need to make sure your point is consistent and (more importantly) actually addresses him.

1) It's not OK to describe some concept in 1 sentence, and then another concept in a long paragraph and say that one is superior to the other because of word count or list length or whatever. I could literally just as easily flip those so the negatives list is tiny and the positives list is huge, and it would be exactly as valid. Unless you can show that one side actually outweighs the other, there's no point in making your argument look bigger.

2) NichG's entire point is that sometimes it's OK to do make specific PrCs, because sometimes players will want to take advantage of a specific macguffin and build themselves around that, and people should recognize that that we're not talking 100% or 0%. It's a pretty banal point (since only a Sith speaks in absolutes) but by arguing against him you're saying that 100% of all PrCs should not have specific flavor, and that doesn't hold water at all.

[PersonMan]

1) It's not OK to describe some concept in 1 sentence, and then another concept in a long paragraph and say that one is superior to the other because of word count or list length or whatever. I could literally just as easily flip those so the negatives list is tiny and the positives list is huge, and it would be exactly as valid. Unless you can show that one side actually outweighs the other, there's no point in making your argument look bigger.

Consider this:

The length given to each bit is representative of what he sees. I.e. the "bit of world flavor" is a minor thing that will rarely come up, whereas the drawbacks are big problems which will take up a lot more time.

Also, he said 'see', not 'are', so what he was saying was 'I see these benefits/drawbacks'.

Unless you expect him to magically know all of the benefits he doesn't know about...why do you expect his list to not be lopsided? If it weren't, why would he have his current viewpoint?

EDIT: May come off a bit stronger than I intended, but I don't have time to fix the wording, sorry.

Basically, you seem to be asking 'why do you think this viewpoint is better?' when it makes no sense to do so.

[LordBlades]

LordBlades, before NichG gets mad at you, you need to make sure your point is consistent and (more importantly) actually addresses him.

1) It's not OK to describe some concept in 1 sentence, and then another concept in a long paragraph and say that one is superior to the other because of word count or list length or whatever. I could literally just as easily flip those so the negatives list is tiny and the positives list is huge, and it would be exactly as valid. Unless you can show that one side actually outweighs the other, there's no point in making your argument look bigger.

2) NichG's entire point is that sometimes it's OK to do make specific PrCs, because sometimes players will want to take advantage of a specific macguffin and build themselves around that, and people should recognize that that we're not talking 100% or 0%. It's a pretty banal point (since only a Sith speaks in absolutes) but by arguing against him you're saying that 100% of all PrCs should not have specific flavor, and that doesn't hold water at all.

As PersonMan said, it's just how I see things. I've tried that approach in games and I've found more disadvantages than advantages to it.

Honestly, I don't think attaching mandatory fluff to bits of the game is 100% bad, what I'm trying to say is that in my experience, this approach backfires more often than it adds stuff to the world,and often you find yourself in need to add artificial roadblocks to preserve said mandatory fluff, especially vs. a determined player that hates the mandatory fluff in question.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The way I see it, there are certain parts of a class or PrC that are "fluff," or purely for flavor; certain things that are "semi-fluff," or mechanics which can easily be swapped out for other, parallel mechanics; and certain things which are "key," or integral to the nature of the class.

It depends on the player and the character they have in mind: What's disposable for one player will be critically important for another. This is why, I believe, you need a flexible approach to this kind of stuff.

[NichG]

Anecdotally, it all depends how you use it. My point isn't something about 'sometimes its okay to do X', because yes, that is kinda banal. Its about a piece of mechanical design methodology that I rarely see people use well, and trying to point out that piece of methodology so that people can perhaps understand why having a options that are very strongly tied to specific fluff is beneficial.

Fluff is not just 'the pretty words you attach to mechanics' - in a game that makes maximal use of it, fluff is as hard of a rule as 'roll 1d20 + attack modifier against AC to hit'. The benefit of that is that fluff can be used by players in order to accomplish solid things in game, without it being a 'mother may I' type situation.

In order to construct this sort of situation, if you make a claim 'this power comes from X' it has to come from X consistently. Each exception you add makes it harder for players to use what they know to make solid conclusions about the game world and to decide their actions.

I'm not claiming that D&D does this very well with its PrC fluff - it doesn't. But I am saying that having solid, consistent fluff is a system strength that is worth keeping in mind when designing your own campaign settings and making decisions about homebrew/etc.

I feel that this particular design consideration is an important element to why people would be very picky about allowing too much re-fluffing. Part of the point of debate is to create understanding of both sides of the issue. This involves trying to understand the other side's point of view. At the end of it, you can decide that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits for you, but if you don't actually give the benefits a fair consideration in their own right and independent of the drawbacks, you do yourself a disservice - you may miss a way to achieve those benefits without suffering the drawbacks that bother you.

[LordBlades]

A.



In order to construct this sort of situation, if you make a claim 'this power comes from X' it has to come from X consistently. Each exception you add makes it harder for players to use what they know to make solid conclusions about the game world and to decide their actions.

It also has to be very solidly written to cover all the 'what if's' that a player's mind might come up with.

In some cases is simple. Take a hypothetical 'all arcane magic in this world comes from dragons, you must have dragon blood (with the mechanical implication that you need Dragonblood subtype) or you can't cast spells'. It's straightforward and leaves very little room for interpretation.

Now take our discussed situation (all the dudes that know how to blend psionics and fighting are a group of former Ilithid slaves), with the obvious intention of having any player who desires to take the class seek out them or the Ilithids that did it.

Now, you either need to find answers to why all the easy ways to find out all you need without seeking these guys out don't work (knowledge checks, divinations, sending out henchmen or whatever the player might think of), because if they do, it's practically equally to allowing the player to take Ilithid Slayer without getting involved with the mandatory fluff.

[NichG]

It also has to be very solidly written to cover all the 'what if's' that a player's mind might come up with.

In some cases is simple. Take a hypothetical 'all arcane magic in this world comes from dragons, you must have dragon blood (with the mechanical implication that you need Dragonblood subtype) or you can't cast spells'. It's straightforward and leaves very little room for interpretation.

Now take our discussed situation (all the dudes that know how to blend psionics and fighting are a group of former Ilithid slaves), with the obvious intention of having any player who desires to take the class seek out them or the Ilithids that did it.

Now, you either need to find answers to why all the easy ways to find out all you need without seeking these guys out don't work (knowledge checks, divinations, sending out henchmen or whatever the player might think of), because if they do, it's practically equally to allowing the player to take Ilithid Slayer without getting involved with the mandatory fluff.

I think the problem we're having here is that the point of doing this isn't actually to prevent the player from being an Illithid Slayer per se. It is to make there be consistent reasons why Illithid Slayers are so good at what they do that are not simply a matter of 'well they decided to be', so that someone else can actually research those reasons and bypass the limit.

So in this case, if I were to run it, I would say 'Yes, if you meet someone who is a psionic warrior, 100% of the time they were part of that initial illithid slave group.' If a player wanted to take Illithid Slayer I would tell them 'you must be part of this group to take this class'. If they then sought out an in-character way of bypassing it that should logically work, it would work.

The question of course is, what should logically work? It depends on 'why' Illithid Slayers have to hate illithids. If its because they're part of this group of experimental subjects who were subjected to some unknown process by the illithids, then that is basically what the player has to do to substitute it. They can't just divine 'hey, how do I become an Illithid Slayer?' (or rather they can, but it will say something like 'you must undergo the process of Tzhc'alzhik at the hands of the illithids of the 9th Outpost). They can't 'just' ask another Illithid Slayer to teach them, because its not a learned ability, its the result of specific biological and psionic experimentation - using tools the escapees won't have. They can't 'just' make a Knowledge check, because even then it might say 'you need X and Y and Z circumstances' which might involve, say, having their brain partially eaten and regurgitated by an illithid.

But after all of that, if they go and dominate a bunch of illithids and acquire the equipment and have the stuff done to them, then of course they get the class. Because they've followed the steps that actually lead to gaining that power, so its only logically consistent if they then get that power.

[LordBlades]

I think the problem we're having here is that the point of doing this isn't actually to prevent the player from being an Illithid Slayer per se. It is to make there be consistent reasons why Illithid Slayers are so good at what they do that are not simply a matter of 'well they decided to be', so that someone else can actually research those reasons and bypass the limit.

So in this case, if I were to run it, I would say 'Yes, if you meet someone who is a psionic warrior, 100% of the time they were part of that initial illithid slave group.' If a player wanted to take Illithid Slayer I would tell them 'you must be part of this group to take this class'. If they then sought out an in-character way of bypassing it that should logically work, it would work.

The question of course is, what should logically work? It depends on 'why' Illithid Slayers have to hate illithids. If its because they're part of this group of experimental subjects who were subjected to some unknown process by the illithids, then that is basically what the player has to do to substitute it. They can't just divine 'hey, how do I become an Illithid Slayer?' (or rather they can, but it will say something like 'you must undergo the process of Tzhc'alzhik at the hands of the illithids of the 9th Outpost). They can't 'just' ask another Illithid Slayer to teach them, because its not a learned ability, its the result of specific biological and psionic experimentation - using tools the escapees won't have. They can't 'just' make a Knowledge check, because even then it might say 'you need X and Y and Z circumstances' which might involve, say, having their brain partially eaten and regurgitated by an illithid.

But after all of that, if they go and dominate a bunch of illithids and acquire the equipment and have the stuff done to them, then of course they get the class. Because they've followed the steps that actually lead to gaining that power, so its only logically consistent if they then get that power.

And are you not , by that, introducing some amount of unnecessary hassle to somebody who just wants to swing a sword and manifest psionic powers? As opposed to somebody who wants to do the same while casting arcane spells that can take the extremely generic Eldritch Knight PrC?

You (as in the hypothetical DM of all this) are arbitrarily penalizing a player who wants to play a certain thing, as opposed to many other (even stronger) things, because odds are you won't be able to guarantee he finishes this side quest before or at the point he intends to take his first level in the class, not unless he dedicates significant time away from the main plotline.

Also, come to think about it, it doesn't really make much sense to tie advancing combat ability (BAB) and psionic ability (ML) at the same time to really weird stuff (like having your brain partially eaten by ilithids). Wizards can do it (Eldritch Knight, Spellsword, Abjurant Champion) and advancing psionics is just as hard as advancing arcane arts (it takes exactly the same experience to gain 1 ML as it takes to gain 1 CL), so why can't psions?

[Averis Vol]

The thing is, that on an extreme end I can make a build that uses a bunch of books with multiclasses, and prc's out the wazoo and then after I've made this monstrosity of rules and mechanics and abilities, I can weave a story that explains every single one of them. Many experienced dm's are going to see right through the veneer of rp some people will use to legitimize their builds. Players should be able to look at a group and gauge where everyone is in terms of builds and then build accordingly, not blow them out of the water and set a new paradigm of power everyone has to meet.

This is an agreed upon fact for anyone who isn't a complete ****. And notice, I wasn't talking about doing things that were game breaking; they were fluff choices of moderate power, that in the grand scheme of things held little effect.

But as for multiclassed builds with a handful of splatbooks, besides not having reliable access to the book/knowledge of the material, I see no reason to look down on someone because they browsed the full depth of the system to perfectly complete their concept. Lets take a character I am currently playing; Our hero today is Hravingar, forest reeve of Obad hai. From a fluff perspective he is a stalwart defender of nature; he believes in justice for those natural beings who cannot protect themselves, is an arrogant and rather blunt man, and holds a distinct distrust of humanity as a whole. He is also a devastating whirlwind of force willing to unleash the feral nature from within himself to destroy is enemy.

Mechanically he is a barbarian 1/paladin of freedom 3/ranger 1/warblade 1/Forest reeve 1. Now, does this seem like a build to be despised because it has a handful of classes, or does it look like a person with a distinct personality, even if his creator had to scrounge a little to find jsut what would complete him?

When someone multiclasses like this, it's because they have a distinct way they want their character to work; a way that is not supported by a single class. And to the extent of trying to cheat out power like some people have claimed, let me as you; when was the last time a build like the one above has had a more devastating effect on your game then a straight 20 caster? And how many people do you play with that actually try to abuse your game? to all the DM's who use that as an excuse.....did you ever stop to think you needed to attract better people to your social group?

[NichG]

And are you not , by that, introducing some amount of unnecessary hassle to somebody who just wants to swing a sword and manifest psionic powers? As opposed to somebody who wants to do the same while casting arcane spells that can take the extremely generic Eldritch Knight PrC?

You (as in the hypothetical DM of all this) are arbitrarily penalizing a player who wants to play a certain thing, as opposed to many other (even stronger) things, because odds are you won't be able to guarantee he finishes this side quest before or at the point he intends to take his first level in the class, not unless he dedicates significant time away from the main plotline.


Ideally, the player should pick from concepts that fit with what the rules and setting say is possible, and (ideally) each of those options should make for a mechanically viable character. I stress 'ideally' here because obviously D&D is not an ideal game.

In that sense its not an arbitrary penalty. What it is is an enforcement of the existing idiosyncracies that have been built into the game. A player wanting to ignore some of the PrC restrictions is basically asking the DM to make an exception for them. Exceptions are fine, of course, nothing wrong with that; but its not an 'arbitrary' penalty because the player can read the books and realize 'this is what you need to do in order to play this concept', and then decide if they want to or not.

Its not too different than if a player wanted to play someone who could turn emotional energy into magic and use it to cast spells. Thats a cool idea, nothing wrong with it. If that isn't how magic works in the cosmology though and there's nothing letting them do that in the rules, then they really shouldn't have the 'expectation' that they can do it (though of course a clever GM can find a way to help them make it work). But basically, the game and GM should communicate clearly whether or not a given concept is going to be viable or not (which D&D tends to be bad at, which is the cause of a lot of drama).



Also, come to think about it, it doesn't really make much sense to tie advancing combat ability (BAB) and psionic ability (ML) at the same time to really weird stuff (like having your brain partially eaten by ilithids). Wizards can do it (Eldritch Knight, Spellsword, Abjurant Champion) and advancing psionics is just as hard as advancing arcane arts (it takes exactly the same experience to gain 1 ML as it takes to gain 1 CL), so why can't psions?

Differences make things more interesting. If psionics is just 'magic, part 2' then its not very interesting story-wise. I'm of course not arguing that 'you can't be a Psionic Knight' makes psionics into a compelling story element, but this kind of thing can be more generally used to that effect.

D&D is kind of a bad example because it does this only halfway. It breaks its own rules all the time, mushes things up, etc, so there's not much to be gained by enforcing one random specific restriction because the entire thing is already kind of a lost cause for that sort of consistency. But other systems do it much better by being far more stringent about things. Think of something like 7th Sea, where each sorcery is specific to a certain nationality and noble bloodlines at that (you can mix a little but its generally crippling to do so); even just being a practitioner of El Fuego Adentro connects you to tons of plotlines because all of the practitioners were supposedly wiped out recently. If you're using Zerstorung, you're even more of a strange phenomenon since that sorcery has been dead for even longer.

So if a player encounters someone using Zerstorung, that right there is a huge in-setting hint that something is up. If they encounter someone wearing Dracheneisen, they can know 'that person is Eisen nobility' immediately. If they encounter someone who can, say, create illusions, then they immediately know that something is very strange because there are no sorceries in the game that do that.

That 'being able to know' using player lore is just as important when using fluff proactively as being able to know that 'oh, that spell looks like a Cloudkill, lets keep the hirelings back' or 'trolls regenerate unless you burn them with fire, acid, or use more exotic methods like vile damage' is important to being able to use mechanics proactively.

In some sense this is why things like metabreath feats that let dragons swap around their breath elements, or dragons casting energy immunity to their weakness are damaging to the coherency of the game. Yes, it makes sense that they, being genius creatures, would take such measures. But at the same time, it dilutes player knowledge that allows players to feel confident about their decisions and responding to clues. Without such tactics, players finding a red scale in a cave could 'be clever' and prepare fire immunity and cold attacks; with such tactics, it renders the clue meaningless.

[LordBlades]

In that sense its not an arbitrary penalty. What it is is an enforcement of the existing idiosyncracies that have been built into the game. A player wanting to ignore some of the PrC restrictions is basically asking the DM to make an exception for them. Exceptions are fine, of course, nothing wrong with that; but its not an 'arbitrary' penalty because the player can read the books and realize 'this is what you need to do in order to play this concept', and then decide if they want to or not.

Who said anything about ignoring PRc restrictions?
By, RAW, Ilithid Slayer prerequisites are BAB +4, Track, Knowledge(dungeoneering) 4 ranks and the need to have slain an Ilithid.

I was talking about DM added prerequisites, like 'you must hate Ilithis and have a long in character history of doing so' or 'you must meet this group and learn how they became that'. That's what I called 'arbitrary restrictions'.

[NichG]

Who said anything about ignoring PRc restrictions?
By, RAW, Ilithid Slayer prerequisites are BAB +4, Track, Knowledge(dungeoneering) 4 ranks and the need to have slain an Ilithid.

I was talking about DM added prerequisites, like 'you must hate Ilithis and have a long in character history of doing so' or 'you must meet this group and learn how they became that'. That's what I called 'arbitrary restrictions'.

Fair enough, I think I got mixed up by one of the previous posts (not yours) suggesting retooling some of the abilities to be less illithid-focused.

I'd still argue that these 'arbitrary restrictions' can be used well, or at the very least expose an interesting area of design space, namely that of 'hard fluff'.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Think of something like 7th Sea, where each sorcery is specific to a certain nationality and noble bloodlines at that (you can mix a little but its generally crippling to do so); even just being a practitioner of El Fuego Adentro connects you to tons of plotlines because all of the practitioners were supposedly wiped out recently. If you're using Zerstorung, you're even more of a strange phenomenon since that sorcery has been dead for even longer.

I feel like this should be addressed: My policy as a DM is "Your character can be anything you want (within the limits of ECL and the like of course) but I decide how the world will respond to you."

You want to play a 10-foot tall man-eating spider-wolf? Okie-dokie, but don't be surprised when you get weird looks if you just strut around through the streets in broad daylight. If you don't want that, then we can work out a magical disguise for you or something. What you *don't* get to say is "Random strangers love me because in this world giant man-eating spider-wolves are considered to be more adorable than puppies and kittens. Children run up to me and ask if they can pet my furry exoskeleton." That's where your freedom to write your own character ends, because now you're writing the setting instead of just the character. If you want to play something adorable but also deadly, then talk to me and we'll work out something appropriate.

The thing is I don't really feel like this is a "restriction" on the player's freedom, though I guess it is in the strictest sense.

[LordBlades]

Fair enough, I think I got mixed up by one of the previous posts (not yours) suggesting retooling some of the abilities to be less illithid-focused.

I'd still argue that these 'arbitrary restrictions' can be used well, or at the very least expose an interesting area of design space, namely that of 'hard fluff'.

While I agree such a concept might be interesting to explore, I feel D&D 3.5 is ill-suited for it because if you 'harden' the fluff only in some places, that's going to make somebody feel discriminated at some point and hardening the fluff across the board is a giant undertaking.

[PersonMan]

It also depends on the timing involved.

If the DM says 'by the way, in this game all [members of PrC X] belong to this organization' and later a player wants to use the PrC without being a member, then it's on them to conform to what the DM said.

If the player says 'I want to take my next level in PrC X and have all the prereqs' and the DM replies with 'actually you need to be a member of this organization first', then it's less clear who should be doing what.

[Lorsa]

To me, this distinction doesn't make any sense: The character is the player. The character's decisions are necessarily the player's decisions. They're one fractal at different levels of zoom.

I would say that the character is played by the player. If they were equal then all you'd ever portray was yourself. Thus decisions me the player would like to make for mechanical reasons might not be the same decisions the character want to make for story reasons. It is possible that for you this is always the same but it doesn't have to be so. Sometimes player and character have different personality and so their decisions are different. Yes, the player is ultimately the one making the decision for the character but I always found there is a degree of separation between myself and my character.

[Zubrowka74]

If someone is bitching that someone else is putting too much emphasis on mechanics, he might as well go play another game.

WoW! This argument seems to work both ways! Who wudda thought?

Well, lets' take another example : someone who complains that my game of chess is not physical enough should look into another game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing).

Or better yet : someone complaining that M:TG has too much mechanics. Let's take out the rules then? No? Of course not, M:TG is a card game made with rules, RP is not needed in a game like this. It's secondary. The opposite of an RPG, in fact.

I'm not saying mechanics should be taken out of D&D, just that if you take the RP out of RPG you're left with a pretty LIMITED game, same thing if you LIMIT the mechanical options. If you find a group that doesn't like RP and wants to drop it completely, fine, go play with this group. Just don't bitch about people RPing in a game that's meant for this.

Also, if we go back to the OP, I'm not saying a DM should cripple the players options because he doesn't know the rules and doesn't want to learn them. The role of a DM or GM has a floor on rule knowledge. You don't have to know every single detail, but you have to be above the average and/or willing to seek out the info and learn.

[Forrestfire]

To me, this distinction doesn't make any sense: The character is the player. The character's decisions are necessarily the player's decisions. They're one fractal at different levels of zoom.

The majority of my characters are very different from my own personality, and when I make a decision or action in-character, I take a good amount of time analyzing their motivations and experiences to figure out how they would react, as opposed to how I would.

At least when I play or DM, a character's decisions are very different from my own inclinations. Maybe I play it differently than others.

[Oko and Qailee]

If someone is bitching that someone else is putting too much emphasis on mechanics, he might as well go play another game.

WoW! This argument seems to work both ways! Who wudda thought?

And both those arguments are valid. There are players who are too obsessed with mechanics and it is possible to be too obsessed with RP.

[Oko and Qailee]

To me, this distinction doesn't make any sense: The character is the player. The character's decisions are necessarily the player's decisions. They're one fractal at different levels of zoom.

Disagree. I wouldn't label myself as an ultra-good or and ultra-evil person, but I have played both those characters. It's like acting.

[LordBlades]

The majority of my characters are very different from my own personality, and when I make a decision or action in-character, I take a good amount of time analyzing their motivations and experiences to figure out how they would react, as opposed to how I would.

At least when I play or DM, a character's decisions are very different from my own inclinations. Maybe I play it differently than others.

I don't think that in this context 'the character is the player' shouldn't be interpreted as 'they character's personality is the player's personality' but rather as 'the player is the one who controls the character, and as such he is the final arbiter of a character's decisions'. What a character would do in a given situation is ultimately what the player decides he/she would do, since the player is the creator and controller of the character's psychology.

[Captnq]

Are you people STILL posting about this?

WHICH IS BETTER?

RP or MECHANICS?

THE ANSWER:


Neither. It's a foolish question. You are being tricked into an argument where both answers are wrong.


Look, here's the question to ask:

WHY ARE YOU PLAYING?
Don't answer that.

You see, it doesn't matter what your answer is because it's YOUR answer. I don't need your answer. My answer is perfectly valid. Yours is as well. All answers are valid.

So, you have your answer. Now then, What will allow you to achieve that goal? Do it.

My whole problem with this thread is the OP.

In my opinion, the mechanics are only important to the players. The DM, a really truly masterful DM, has no need for the mechanics. He is a judge. He is a ref. He needs to maintain the Illusion of the game. And it IS an illusion. The mechanics can help a DM, but the mechanics are not needed. The Illusion is all that matters.

If I can maintain the illusion that I know every rule and I am totally fair and I never cheat, even if I have NEVER read a single rulebook, well then, bully for me. If the players BELIEVE in me, that's all that matters.

The player's FAITH in the DM is far more important then a DM's ability to RP or knowledge of the mechanics. If you believe in me, and you trust me, you will have fun. I do know the rules. I do know how to RP. But maintaining trust and creating the illusion of the experience is all that matter. The RP and Mechanics are but TOOLS for my eventual goal.

I will create a memorable experience for you.

[Zubrowka74]

Are you people STILL posting about this?

WHICH IS BETTER?

Dis is da Interwebz, Forumz is meant for endless debating. Resistance is futile.

[Talya]

Those who stress roleplay uber alles aren't just anti-muticlassing. They're against PCs being "powerful". They're the ones who are actually obsessed about the game mechanics. In stead of "Fighters can't have Nice Things", it's "Player characters can't have Nice Things".

Personal bias, I find those who stress a "low magic campaign" to be another way of saying roleplay uber alles. I accept that's not universally true, but when such DMs only want wizards to cast Magic Missile and Fireball, facetiously speaking, their wanting a low magic game is not really about concerns over Gate or the Tier System. It's not wanting PCs in general having Nice Things.

Meh. It may just be about "keeping it simple." Most of the really broken/powerful crap is complicated.

I prefer running PbP without a battle-map if I can get away with it. Too often I can't, and it's generally because someone wants to figure out if they can gain some advantage that isn't built into their character.

I actually like the optimizing side of things, especially melee optimizing, because it gets people away from trying really convoluted fancy garbage and just gets them hitting stuff. It's better if you rely on actually being better than your enemies, rather than relying on some unrealistic and convoluted trick to gain a combat advantage.

[ArcturusV]

Oddly the opposite of how I like to play. I find it a lot less interesting, and turns combat into an obstacle rather than an enjoyment, something I just try to "get through" if all I can really do is go Power Attack Smash and try to build my fighter to have raw numbers. Compared to being able to look at a battlemap and do even simple things like, "I flip up that table for cover and concealment and snipe from behind it" or, "... oh, neat, I grab one of those bottles off the table and whip it at my enemy for an improvised ranged attack" or "I dive off the balcony and missile dropkick the ogre", etc.

[Adverb]

There's this idea that keeps popping up in this thread that the DM has to know the rules better than most of the players do. And it's certainly true that in order to run a game (D&D or otherwise) it's best to have a clue or three.

But consider that the DM has to spend time building every encounter. And they're on-screen for a few rounds and get wiped out. The hours you spend on game can be entirely devoted to your single character, and it doesn't change every week. If your DM spends any time on NPC personalities or writing interesting plots or trying to figure out what particular things a player might want in game or drawing maps, that's less time they can spend on anything having to do with mechanic crunch. The more complicated each character at the table is, the more work the DM needs to put in to make it work. Consistency of concept and/or of class-and-abilities makes that easier.

If you're reading this board, you're probably like me and love playing HeroForge mix-and-match. But unless you're paying your DM a living wage to run your weekly game, they're not going to have the time to keep up with you and all the other players at the table unless some brakes get put on somewhere. When your DM says "tone it down," it's probably less because they're lazy or vindictive and more because they'd like to have a life beyond running a tabletop for you. Give your friend a break.

[Talya]

Oddly the opposite of how I like to play. I find it a lot less interesting, and turns combat into an obstacle rather than an enjoyment, something I just try to "get through" if all I can really do is go Power Attack Smash and try to build my fighter to have raw numbers. Compared to being able to look at a battlemap and do even simple things like, "I flip up that table for cover and concealment and snipe from behind it" or, "... oh, neat, I grab one of those bottles off the table and whip it at my enemy for an improvised ranged attack" or "I dive off the balcony and missile dropkick the ogre", etc.

Oh, that type of stuff is fine. It's simple, and I'm not going to worry about whether or not there's a table close enough to do what you're saying. If the room has tables in it, and I haven't drawn a map, and you state you want to flip a table up for cover, you just got cover. Cover is a simple mechanic and I like when people choose to use it.

You're free to take those other actions, but they'll suck. There's a clear mechanic for improvised weapons, and generally it's never worth using. Likewise, unless you're a martial adept specializing in unarmed combat and tiger claw maneuvers, chances are your balcony diving unarmed strike is also going to suck.

I had players fighting a clockwork dragon once. One of the players decided to use his 100' coil of silk rope to entangle the dragon's legs. I let him do it, had him make tumble rolls to go between the thing's legs a few times and wrap around its legs, and a use rope check vs. the creature's reflex save. I even let him apply the entangled status to the dragon...but by the time he was done the clockwork dragon was nearly scrap metal anyway. He was a melee character - had he just been hitting the thing, it would already have fallen.

[LordBlades]

There's this idea that keeps popping up in this thread that the DM has to know the rules better than most of the players do. And it's certainly true that in order to run a game (D&D or otherwise) it's best to have a clue or three.

But consider that the DM has to spend time building every encounter. And they're on-screen for a few rounds and get wiped out. The hours you spend on game can be entirely devoted to your single character, and it doesn't change every week. If your DM spends any time on NPC personalities or writing interesting plots or trying to figure out what particular things a player might want in game or drawing maps, that's less time they can spend on anything having to do with mechanic crunch. The more complicated each character at the table is, the more work the DM needs to put in to make it work. Consistency of concept and/or of class-and-abilities makes that easier.

If you're reading this board, you're probably like me and love playing HeroForge mix-and-match. But unless you're paying your DM a living wage to run your weekly game, they're not going to have the time to keep up with you and all the other players at the table unless some brakes get put on somewhere. When your DM says "tone it down," it's probably less because they're lazy or vindictive and more because they'd like to have a life beyond running a tabletop for you. Give your friend a break.

While I understand where you're coming from and I agree with most of it, many times is not an issue of power (most complex builds are still weaker than a straight wizard) or complexity (odds are said build has less abilities than a prepared caster has on his list of prepared spells).

[Adverb]

While I understand where you're coming from and I agree with most of it, many times is not an issue of power (most complex builds are still weaker than a straight wizard) or complexity (odds are said build has less abilities than a prepared caster has on his list of prepared spells).

I agree that at high-level play, most things are weaker than a straight wizard. And I concur that a Wiz20 is hella complex and probably harder to run game for than anyone's favorite Reshar build.

Mumble, mumble, Tier 1 high level play.

[Arbane]

Not to mention you're not using one of the biggest strengths of D&D 3.5 : freedom of concept. There are other systems that are arguably easier and/or more balanced than 3.5, but very few of them allow you to actually portray anything that crosses your mind in game.

You're kidding, right? Off the top of my head, just about ANY point-buy-based system, FATE, RISUS, HeroQuest....

[NichG]

While I agree such a concept might be interesting to explore, I feel D&D 3.5 is ill-suited for it because if you 'harden' the fluff only in some places, that's going to make somebody feel discriminated at some point and hardening the fluff across the board is a giant undertaking.

For my own games, what I tend to do is overlay a set of consistent 'hard fluff' over the D&D stuff and basically make the homebrew things strictly better in most ways than the D&D base abilities to encourage people to engage with it rather than sticking with the core D&D stuff. That way I can basically make the D&D mishmash less relevant overall at the cost of some power creep. Or I use what amounts to a custom system on top of a d20 chassis.

[Forrestfire]

You're kidding, right? Off the top of my head, just about ANY point-buy-based system, FATE, RISUS, HeroQuest....

I think there was an implied "of any class-based system."

And even then, I prefer stuff like 3.5 to a lot of point-buy systems, because while it may technically have less options, they're neatly arranged in self-contained bundles to mix and match from.

And while a good amount of it is often refluffed, just as much fluff is awesome as-is.

Course, I'm also extremely biased, because there's also the fair amount of system mastery I possess, having played it since 3.0 came out...

[AntiTrust]

But as for multiclassed builds with a handful of splatbooks, besides not having reliable access to the book/knowledge of the material, I see no reason to look down on someone because they browsed the full depth of the system to perfectly complete their concept. Lets take a character I am currently playing; Our hero today is Hravingar, forest reeve of Obad hai. From a fluff perspective he is a stalwart defender of nature; he believes in justice for those natural beings who cannot protect themselves, is an arrogant and rather blunt man, and holds a distinct distrust of humanity as a whole. He is also a devastating whirlwind of force willing to unleash the feral nature from within himself to destroy is enemy.

Mechanically he is a barbarian 1/paladin of freedom 3/ranger 1/warblade 1/Forest reeve 1. Now, does this seem like a build to be despised because it has a handful of classes, or does it look like a person with a distinct personality, even if his creator had to scrounge a little to find jsut what would complete him?

When someone multiclasses like this, it's because they have a distinct way they want their character to work; a way that is not supported by a single class. And to the extent of trying to cheat out power like some people have claimed, let me as you; when was the last time a build like the one above has had a more devastating effect on your game then a straight 20 caster? And how many people do you play with that actually try to abuse your game? to all the DM's who use that as an excuse.....did you ever stop to think you needed to attract better people to your social group?


Your fluff doesn't explain, or more aptly only explains in the most generic of ways (what I'd call the thin veneer of rp), why one day he's a barbarian, the next he's adding paladin, then later on not pursuing either of those, but ranger now, and then nope, not that either now its warblade time and then currently we're forest reeve. You're not building for rp, you're building for a mechanical advantage. You don't need that build to be that person you've described. A man can believe in justice and not be a paladin of freedom, or be arrogant and not be a warblade. So I can see why Mr Strawman dm would look at this and say you're trying to tease out something mechanical. You're trying to convince me that the clothes make the man and I'm not buying it.

[skyth]

Like building for a mechanical advantage is a bad thing...Really sounds like the Stormwind Fallacy...Unless you build the less powerful way, you obviously aren't doing it for roleplaying reasons...


Originally Posted by LordBlades
Not to mention you're not using one of the biggest strengths of D&D 3.5 : freedom of concept. There are other systems that are arguably easier and/or more balanced than 3.5, but very few of them allow you to actually portray anything that crosses your mind in game.

If you want a system that can portray ANYTHING that crosses your mind...Try Champions ;)

[Arbane]

If you want a system that can portray ANYTHING that crosses your mind...Try Champions ;)

So, how do you model a spoon in Champions?

(This was an actual debate on one HERO System forum for a while. I kid because I love.)

[AntiTrust]

Like building for a mechanical advantage is a bad thing...Really sounds like the Stormwind Fallacy...Unless you build the less powerful way, you obviously aren't doing it for roleplaying reasons...)

Its not about liking a build for a mechanical advantage, its about making ridiculously powerful builds that you then try to play off or legitimize by weaving this complicated back-story tale about how it must be that way or else the concept for the character is ruined. And like my original reply said, a player should gauge the builds of everyone around him to get the common denominator he should work in.

As an interesting side note, and I'd be curious if other dm's noticed this with their players, when I see character builds that contain a lot of dips and prestige classes they are never weakening their characters mechanics to better fit their concept, but in fact always the opposite. The dips are carefully crafted to increase the mechanical power of character in very specific ways no matter what % of rp to combat I present to the group before starting it.

[Talya]

Your fluff doesn't explain, or more aptly only explains in the most generic of ways (what I'd call the thin veneer of rp), why one day he's a barbarian, the next he's adding paladin, then later on not pursuing either of those, but ranger now, and then nope, not that either now its warblade time and then currently we're forest reeve. You're not building for rp, you're building for a mechanical advantage. You don't need that build to be that person you've described. A man can believe in justice and not be a paladin of freedom, or be arrogant and not be a warblade. So I can see why Mr Strawman dm would look at this and say you're trying to tease out something mechanical. You're trying to convince me that the clothes make the man and I'm not buying it.

You're making a mistake here. If you're actually RPing, you generally don't think of the classes as discrete things. There are not people wandering around the world saying "I'm a fighter," "Well, I'm a barbarian," "I'm a paladin." They are just piles of mechanics that represent abilities that various characters may have. The only exceptions exist for people that perform a particular job -- but that says nothing about the classes they have. For instance, a person may be a forest ranger for Kingsland, and not actually have a single level of ranger. He may instead be a barbarian who took the tracking feat. Adventurers don't go to the tavern seeking a rogue to join their party. They go to the tavern to seeking someone who has the skills to get what they need. The rogue class may give that, but not all sneaky lockpicking thieves are represented by rogues.

Class is not usually an in-character thing. The warblade/fighter/barbarian/ranger is not a warblade/fighter/barbarian/ranger. They're a survivalist combatant. The classes just represent abilities, not character fluff. Classes are a mechanical construct, not a thing that exists in game in lore.

[IronFist]

Like building for a mechanical advantage is a bad thing...Really sounds like the Stormwind Fallacy...Unless you build the less powerful way, you obviously aren't doing it for roleplaying reasons...

That's not really what the fallacy is about; it's about considering optimization and roleplaying mutually exclusive.
If you dip Swordsage out of the blue for teleport and assassin's stance, well, you are doing it for the plusses. This does not necessarily make it bad or wrong, but it's a purely mechanical goal. Now, if you meet a martial arts master, train under him and take a Swordsage, that was RP-driven. Same power, more consistency with just a different approach.

[ArcturusV]

"I'm a paladin."

Well... to be fair they probably DO say that one.

[PersonMan]

You're trying to convince me that the clothes make the man and I'm not buying it.

If a man is naked and freezing in the cold, no amount of him assuring you, or you assuring him, that "You don't need these clothes, you're fine as-is!" will stop him from freezing.

---

Plus, you're doing something I see as a problematic and, honestly, really arrogant behavior. Namely, you're saying 'well, I know your character well enough to know that you aren't doing any of these things to model him. No, I don't care that I only have a brief description of him while you've spent a lot more time thinking about it, I know him better', which, well, generally isn't the case.

Could just be my tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt, or from my own experiences.

Classes as an in-game concept is something I've never seen as workable in anything but an OoTs-like game where everyone is breaking the 4th wall. Especially with the huge pile of material for 3.5, then grandfathered 3.0, homebrew and houserule changes...there are a lot of different ways to model the same thing.

The fact that I want an actual shield instead of a cardboard cutout with 'SHIELD' written on it in marker doesn't mean I'm any less devoted to my playing of a shield user.


As an interesting side note, and I'd be curious if other dm's noticed this with their players, when I see character builds that contain a lot of dips and prestige classes they are never weakening their characters mechanics to better fit their concept, but in fact always the opposite.

Well, obviously they won't do things to make them weaker. But how would you justify that in-game? "Oh, well, after that fight with the dragon I decided to invest some time in this other combat style which is horrible and not related to my main focus"? Or do they just suddenly stop getting better as quickly as before?

Choosing to not go for pure power options is invisible. For example, in a game I've been playing on these forums I'm playing a combat monster type. I don't have Power Attack. It'd be a huge boost in power, for me - my attack bonus is more than high enough for me to easily get +6 or more damage (two handing) without having to worry at all about accuracy.

But I don't, because I'm taking Aberrant feats.

My choice to not take Power Attack is not visible. I'm not going to the DM and saying "Well, I could take Power Attack, but I won't, because this fits better. Look at me, sacrificing power for flavor!" so it isn't obvious.

You don't pick options to weaken yourself, you don't pick the super-strong ones. And that's not immediately visible to a DM.

[IronFist]

You're making a mistake here. If you're actually RPing, you generally don't think of the classes as discrete things. There are not people wandering around the world saying "I'm a fighter," "Well, I'm a barbarian," "I'm a paladin." They are just piles of mechanics that represent abilities that various characters may have. The only exceptions exist for people that perform a particular job -- but that says nothing about the classes they have. For instance, a person may be a forest ranger for Kingsland, and not actually have a single level of ranger. He may instead be a barbarian who took the tracking feat

That does not apply for every class. Some classes are very rooted as actual occupations in the rules, Paladin among them. Several rulebooks mention how classes interact with each other, some organizations favor certain classes, some magical items only work for certain classes, so on and so forth.
"Classes are only metagame constructs" is a popular stance in these forums but much less so in the D&D books.

[Talya]

Well... to be fair they probably DO say that one.

Again, they might -- although I'd think it more likely they'd call themselves a "Knight of [Insert Order Here]." Examples abound with specific orders of paladins represented by substitution levels generally, which are almost always called "knights." However, even if Paladin was a title/job represented directly in the lore of your game world, such a paladin might not actually have levels in the paladin class. The crusader also can represent a paladin-like knight.

Similarly, it's very likely that in any given setting, the terms "Wizard," "Sorcerer", "Arcanist" and possibly "Witch," get used interchangeably. However, I didn't mention those classes specifically because of the academic nature of arcane magic makes it very likely that those educated in the arts know the difference between them. They most certainly know the difference between a conjurer and an abjurer. A beguiler, however, likely gets called an enchanter or an illusionist, even by the educated.

[PersonMan]

"Classes are only metagame constructs" is a popular stance in these forums but much less so in the D&D books.

It's a playstyle difference, just like FocusOnRP/JustPlay, SneakyIntrigue/HacknSlash and YouDieOfInfectedWounds/YouAreNighImmortal.

I prefer classes as metagame constructs.

[Terazul]

Its not about liking a build for a mechanical advantage, its about making ridiculously powerful builds that you then try to play off or legitimize by weaving this complicated back-story tale about how it must be that way or else the concept for the character is ruined. And like my original reply said, a player should gauge the builds of everyone around him to get the common denominator he should work in.
.

My problem is that this is always the default assumption the second many DMs see more than say, 2 classes on the given sheet. My character in a game right now is a Bard 1/Marshal 1/Warblade 3/Harmonic Lance Adept(homebrew class that blends inspire courage and maneuvers).His backstory is essentially about how he's a Lieutenant in a military brigade that is extremely skilled with wordplay (Perform: Oratory), with a bit of arcane infused inspiring speeches (Hello Dragonfire Inspiration), combined with a mish mash of tactical maneuvers (Hello White Raven) to lead his allies to victory. If someone read that and said I was just trying to make a "ridiculously powerful build" that I was trying to legitimize when all of that flows seamlessly together, I'd be a bit insulted.

I actually find it a bit more ridiculous when training rules come up to try and get in the way of multiclassign; saying I need to go take like a two week course on inspiration before I can become a Marshal or something is way more inorganic than just having my charismatic swordfighter be good at giving his allies around him a boost with witty one liners or telling them to keep their eyes open.

[AntiTrust]

Class is not usually an in-character thing. The warblade/fighter/barbarian/ranger is not a warblade/fighter/barbarian/ranger. They're a survivalist combatant. The classes just represent abilities, not character fluff. Classes are a mechanical construct, not a thing that exists in game in lore.

I disagree, I think in the cases of paladins, warblades and many others they are representing a game lore as well as mechanics. Maybe not so much for a fighter, but not all classes are as generic as the fighter in terms of what they represent in game. Again, its as I said in my first post, you've got to look around at your other players builds to find out whats appropriate. If X build construct you made is although possible to create a backstory for that explains all the dips and jumps and hops it makes (which is the case with every concept) that still doesn't make it appropriate.

[IronFist]

It's a playstyle difference, just like FocusOnRP/JustPlay, SneakyIntrigue/HacknSlash and YouDieOfInfectedWounds/YouAreNighImmortal.

I prefer classes as metagame constructs.

100% correct.
As such, it shouldn't be hailed as the one true gospel, though.

[ArcturusV]

Well, that said, I do think AntiTrust and others are right. Classes aren't really all generic templates that can be mutated. Some are. Fighter, sure. Wizard? Probably. Sorcerer? Yeah. Bards, Barbarians, yep. Druid? Well... it has pretty exacting fluff of being part of the Order of Druids, guardians of nature, etc. And not only is that fluff pretty well spelled out in fluff sections, the "Druids are part of a secret society cabal of Nature" is also in the mechanics, such as the restrictions against metal armors, teaching their secret handshakes to the uninitiated, getting a secret language, having the powers that relate to their natural connection, etc. Similarly I don't think anyone would take Paladin as a "Generic fighter" concept really. Fluff and mechanic wise it is chock full of the specific divine crusader of Good, holy sword that stands fast against the tides of evil, etc.

[PersonMan]

As such, it shouldn't be hailed as the one true gospel, though.

The majority of people who prefer X think X is better than Y. Therefore they will helpfully explain to you how you're misguided with Y, and really X is better.

It takes some introspection and disconnection to realize that things aren't really like that.

[skyth]

So, how do you model a spoon in Champions?

(This was an actual debate on one HERO System forum for a while. I kid because I love.)

Construct rules (Takes no stun), Shrinking (Always on), Disadvantage (Cannot speak, no manipulation, no limbs). A little bit of extra PD/ED. Lower Int, Str, Con, Pre, and Ego to 0. Lower running to 0". Lower Body to 1.

[IronFist]

The majority of people who prefer X think X is better than Y. Therefore they will helpfully explain to you how you're misguided with Y, and really X is better.

It takes some introspection and disconnection to realize that things aren't really like that.

Again, agreed.
One would wish all exchanges around here would flow as smoothly as this one.

[AntiTrust]

Well, obviously they won't do things to make them weaker. But how would you justify that in-game? "Oh, well, after that fight with the dragon I decided to invest some time in this other combat style which is horrible and not related to my main focus"? Or do they just suddenly stop getting better as quickly as before?

You don't pick options to weaken yourself, you don't pick the super-strong ones. And that's not immediately visible to a DM.

Let me rephrase that since I think you and I are thinking about slightly different concepts of power. I've yet to see a player take something that isn't optimal because it makes more sense with his background/fluff or as the result of something happening in game. What I see is that people head off on these pre-determined builds taking dips here and there and no matter what happens in the story they won't deviate from it because its not optimal to do so and the fluff falls by the wayside. Is that the case always? No of course not, but it happens enough that when I personally see these characters come to the table I have to wonder is it purely mechanics driving them or do they actually have a story to tell. And even when they do have a story tell I then have to look around and ask myself "is this story and its accompanying build mechanics going to negatively effect the stories and builds of my other players"

[Talya]

Well, that said, I do think AntiTrust and others are right. Classes aren't really all generic templates that can be mutated. Some are. Fighter, sure. Wizard? Probably. Sorcerer? Yeah. Bards, Barbarians, yep. Druid? Well... it has pretty exacting fluff of being part of the Order of Druids, guardians of nature, etc. And not only is that fluff pretty well spelled out in fluff sections, the "Druids are part of a secret society cabal of Nature" is also in the mechanics, such as the restrictions against metal armors, teaching their secret handshakes to the uninitiated, getting a secret language, having the powers that relate to their natural connection, etc. Similarly I don't think anyone would take Paladin as a "Generic fighter" concept really. Fluff and mechanic wise it is chock full of the specific divine crusader of Good, holy sword that stands fast against the tides of evil, etc.

This is true to an extent. However, let's look at the druid. I agree, the druid represents something specific. Have you looked in Complete Champion? What prevents a Cleric/Holt Warden of Mielikki from joining a druidic circle filled with Mielikkan druids and calling themselves a druid without ever taking a level? The fluff still fits. They may not be a traditional druid, but they could still be a druid.

No, Paladins don't fit the "Generic fighter" concept. (I still say Warblades fit the "Generic Fighter" concept, though.) However, Paladins do fit the "Generic Holy Knight" concept. And it's a pretty broad concept. There are lots of ways to create one: the Fighter/Cleric; the Prestige Paladin; the Crusader; the Holy Liberator; the Divine Crusader; I could probably go on making them for a long time.

[skyth]

Let me rephrase that since I think you and I are thinking about slightly different concepts of power. I've yet to see a player take something that isn't optimal because it makes more sense with his background/fluff or as the result of something happening in game. What I see is that people head off on these pre-determined builds taking dips here and there and no matter what happens in the story they won't deviate from it because its not optimal to do so and the fluff falls by the wayside. Is that the case always? No of course not, but it happens enough that when I personally see these characters come to the table I have to wonder is it purely mechanics driving them or do they actually have a story to tell. And even when they do have a story tell I then have to look around and ask myself "is this story and its accompanying build mechanics going to negatively effect the stories and builds of my other players"

Think of it this way...Pre-planning all your levels is effectively building your own class. It's the same as going up in one class and not changing that based on events in the campaign.

[Terazul]

Heck, even in taking the Druid class, the only thing involved with organization whatsoever (unless you start taking specific feats) is the fact that you get a language you wouldn't be able to get otherwise.

[Talya]

Let me rephrase that since I think you and I are thinking about slightly I've yet to see a player take something that isn't optimal because it makes more sense with his background/fluff or as the result of something happening in game.

My favorite character I've ever played had 2 useless bard levels. Her background was a Calishiite harem girl with hidden efreeti blood that gave her latent magical powers. We started at level 4. She started off as 2 bard/2 sorcerer. She had recently earned her freedom by saving her master's life with a blast of fire against some home invaders. The bard levels represented her harem training. The sorcerer levels were her path.

Was she pre-planned? Yes. You can't get into a PrC without pre-planning. When we finished the game she was Bard 2/Sorcerer 6/Heartwarder 10. She was the High Priestess of Sune in a grand basilica in Calimport.

[AntiTrust]

My favorite character I've ever played had 2 useless bard levels. Her background was a Calishiite harem girl with hidden efreeti blood that gave her latent magical powers. We started at level 4. She started off as 2 bard/2 sorcerer. She had recently earned her freedom by saving her master's life with a blast of fire against some home invaders. The bard levels represented her harem training. The sorcerer levels were her path.

Was she pre-planned? Yes. You can't get into a PrC without pre-planning. When we finished the game she was Bard 2/Sorcerer 6/Heartwarder 10. She was the High Priestess of Sune in a grand basilica in Calimport.

The rest of that quote specifically says "is that always the case, no of course not" So I'm if you're just supporting the quote you didn't actually quote or if you're making some other point?

Also I wasn't aware the prc's were required. And that even if its the goal of a character, I'd think that in rp heavy games one should be open to the idea that the road to that goal is not always going to be as direct as class 2/ class 1/ prestige 1/ prestige 5 like there were some player character rails they were riding on, immune to the ongoing story.

[AMFV]

The rest of that quote specifically says "is that always the case, no of course not" So I'm if you're just supporting the quote you didn't actually quote or if you're making some other point?

Also I wasn't aware the prc's were required. And that even if its the goal of a character, I'd think that in rp heavy games one should be open to the idea that the road to that goal is not always going to be as direct as class 2/ class 1/ prestige 1/ prestige 5 like there were some player character rails they were riding on, immune to the ongoing story.

PRCs can help a great deal in backing up what you imagine your character is. Sometimes having certain abilities is absolutely required. For example if I wanted a wizard who has been hiding out in the woods pretending to be a bear for years, I'd pretty much have to have levels in Sentinel Of Bharrai.

The other problem is that dip-heavy builds tend to be intended to induce melee competency, ergo if I want a warrior who can do anything other than suck, I need to have dips. As suckage isn't fun for any player, then there is no reason to restrict their dips unless you want players not having fun for arbitrary reasons.

That's the crux of the matter, if what you are doing is making people not enjoy the game, it's probably not conducive to a good gaming experience for everybody, if your group is fine with, or enjoys the penalties then it's probably not that big a deal.

I would not, I would absolutely be unable to enjoy D&D where I could not build concepts, since that is the thing I most enjoy.

[PersonMan]

Druid? Well... it has pretty exacting fluff of being part of the Order of Druids, guardians of nature, etc. And not only is that fluff pretty well spelled out in fluff sections, the "Druids are part of a secret society cabal of Nature" is also in the mechanics, such as the restrictions against metal armors, teaching their secret handshakes to the uninitiated, getting a secret language, having the powers that relate to their natural connection, etc.

Partially disagree.

I often...ok, always use Druid for a sort of 'nature-connected mystic' type. Druidic? Either some language they don't know why they know (amnesiac), something their mysterious tutor spoke with them (never-seen-civilization type) or the secret tongue of their tribe's witch doctors (barbarian druid), or just ignored (just like bonus languages from Int sometimes are, for characters who only speak one even with 16+ Int).

The rest? Ok, metal armor issue can be odd, but in my experience it either doesn't come up or is a mystery IC. Mainly the former. Apart from that...nothing really says 'you are like this'.



Let me rephrase that since I think you and I are thinking about slightly different concepts of power.

After reading your post, I must conclude that we play with very different groups of people. I play more or less exclusively PbP on these forums and have often seen sacrifices of more optimal build paths/other things for fluff, but never really seen someone follow a set build unless it was connected to their character's development as a character.

So I think we have the issue of the desert man and the flooded guy arguing about how water works.

...Ignore that deserts often experience rain as flash floods here.

[Elderand]

The other problem is that dip-heavy builds tend to be intended to induce melee competency, ergo if I want a warrior who can do anything other than suck, I need to have dips. As suckage isn't fun for any player, then there is no reason to restrict their dips unless you want players not having fun for arbitrary reasons..

I'll second that, in my experience the dippiest (is that even a word ? If it's not I'm saying it is now) tend to be melee characters. A spellcaster can function perfectly well and even break the game in itty bitty pieces while staying monoclassed.

[Arbane]

I'll second that, in my experience the dippiest (is that even a word ? If it's not I'm saying it is now) tend to be melee characters. A spellcaster can function perfectly well and even break the game in itty bitty pieces while staying monoclassed.

Yep. A while back, someone came up with the rule of thumb that a class's Tier Number is also the minimum number of sourcebooks needed to make them not suck.

[georgie_leech]

If multiclassing is against RP, then is single-classing roleplaying properly? If that's the case, what is the RP reason for the difference between the best Rogue in the world (Rogue 20) and the second best Rogue (Rogue 19) having extremely minor differences, while the Monk 20's and Monk 19's being differentiated by being treated as a different kind of creature entirely and being able to go from slow falling 90 feet and any distance needed?

[Averis Vol]

Your fluff doesn't explain, or more aptly only explains in the most generic of ways (what I'd call the thin veneer of rp), why one day he's a barbarian, the next he's adding paladin, then later on not pursuing either of those, but ranger now, and then nope, not that either now its warblade time and then currently we're forest reeve. You're not building for rp, you're building for a mechanical advantage. You don't need that build to be that person you've described. A man can believe in justice and not be a paladin of freedom, or be arrogant and not be a warblade. So I can see why Mr Strawman dm would look at this and say you're trying to tease out something mechanical. You're trying to convince me that the clothes make the man and I'm not buying it.

really? it doesn't? I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but it seems you are actively avoiding seeing the story fitting together. Or maybe you just don't know what each class is. That's fine. I can go over it and show how it correlates to the character.

Barbarian: A class given to wild and savage warriors with a natural bent. This is the basis of our arrogant, savage warrior. He started his life this way; born so far from society, he was raised on the land and learned to fight like an animal.

Paladin of freedom: a paladin (Warrior of virtue and an exemplar of his god, in this case, mother nature itself) variant that extols freedom in all things. In relation, it is only once he truly sees the devastation wrought on his family (the plants and animals of his homeland) that he becomes closer to them. He listens to the forests and defends its citizens from greater beings who would take advantage of them (AkA human settlers.)

Ranger: a warrior of nature, a ranger is friend to the animals. Hravingar, even before being exiled, was just this, except his capabilities were different. His kicking point to the class though was when he was forced to hunt down and remove the human threat to his forest.

Warblade: a class for someone whose life is involved of fighting and battle. Again, this is our hero. It is how he contributes to the betterment and mankind; as the only way he has ever known was by the sword.

Forest Reeve: These guys are ardent defenders of their forests and all others that he comes in contact with, and as such, this is what Hravingar has always worked towards. These folks trained him to fight and taught him of their ways; he had just yet to prove himself worthy of their order (Until recently that is)

now, what exactly is the flimsy veneer here? and please tell me what I'm trying to cheese out of such a build.

[jedipotter]

I've yet to see a player take something that isn't optimal because it makes more sense with his background/fluff or as the result of something happening in game. What I see is that people head off on these pre-determined builds taking dips here and there and no matter what happens in the story they won't deviate from it because its not optimal to do so and the fluff falls by the wayside.

This, so much. I've seen tons of players say ''I want to be this or that'' and come up with a nice character concept and fluff. But then when the crunch comes, it is the same old things. No matter the fluffy character concept they still take Improved Initiative. No matter what they have to take the line of two weapon fighting feats, or spellcasting feats.

[Forrestfire]

This, so much. I've seen tons of players say ''I want to be this or that'' and come up with a nice character concept and fluff. But then when the crunch comes, it is the same old things. No matter the fluffy character concept they still take Improved Initiative. No matter what they have to take the line of two weapon fighting feats, or spellcasting feats.

To be fair to two-weapon fighting, it's really hard to play someone with two weapons without them :smalltongue:

And feats are rare for most characters. They're a resource that's expected to be spent on improving your abilities, so you can keep up with the CR of monsters.

[Talya]

This, so much. I've seen tons of players say ''I want to be this or that'' and come up with a nice character concept and fluff. But then when the crunch comes, it is the same old things. No matter the fluffy character concept they still take Improved Initiative. No matter what they have to take the line of two weapon fighting feats, or spellcasting feats.

Some choices have to be mechanical in nature, because your character concept isn't "incompetent moron."

In real life, people don't have classes, but they damn well "optimize." You become as good as you possibly can at your chosen vocation...and that's without your life depending on it. If you were risking your life on a daily basis, you're damn right you choose to learn things that will help you survive.

Being better than the people you're fighting is not only in character, but I would go so far as to say if you're trying to RP a combatant and you don't optimize to at least some degree, the only thing you're RPing is a moron.

[Elderand]

This, so much. I've seen tons of players say ''I want to be this or that'' and come up with a nice character concept and fluff. But then when the crunch comes, it is the same old things. No matter the fluffy character concept they still take Improved Initiative. No matter what they have to take the line of two weapon fighting feats, or spellcasting feats.

For months I played a Druid/wizard on a nwn 2 server simply because it made sense given the context. Everyone could steamroll that character. I would have been better off playing a straight wizard or druid for everything but number of spell slot. And even for that there was the abusing a semi glitch option of being a Wizard or sorcerer/arcan prestige class of choice/spirit shaman. Which would have gotten me much more power.

Just because you haven't seen someone take subpar options for flavor doesn't mean it doesn't happen.