How much should GMs be allowed to control PC advancement

[MrHackenSlasher]

In a game a PC wants to take levels in a class that they do not currently have levels in. The GM forces them to meet either an NPC or PC and receive some sort of training before being able to take levels in the base class.

Example: Player is a fighter. Player reaches lvl 4 fighter and upon gaining enough EXP to go to level 5 wants to start taking Wizard levels, but cannot find any wizards. Player is then forced to take another level of fighter.

Same general question applied to Prestige classes. Player meets all requirements for prestige class. Forced to find someone to train them in prestige class, before being allowed to take lvls in said prestige class.

Skills...same question. Must spend extended time IN GAME being trained by NPC or PCs before being allowed to put ranks in particular skill.


Thoughts... is this good or bad GM behavior? Do any of the GMs here implement similar rules? If so, How do you make sure PCs can advance their classes when they want to, while maintaining in game training rules?

[HaikenEdge]

If this is sprung on the player after the game has started, it's bad GM behavior. If it was mentioned beforehand, and the GM is enforcing it as a way of enhancing roleplay, it's good GM behavior.

I never implement such rules, because the campaigns I DM assume that the PCs have already been studying whatever class they want to get into during the time between level ups.

[Sian]

while not quite a tightrope to walk, it is a matter where both making it to easy (depending a lot on the fluffy requirements of the class) and to hard (forcing people into a road they're not planing)

Its fair enough to say that your character should actually have done something instead of magically having retroactively studied something vastly different than what you used to do (Fighter -> Wizard ... or Elans Bard -> Wizard thoughts in the comic). But at the same time a DM shouldn't roadblock players from what they want to do.

The happy medium (at least in my opinion) is to talk with the DM a good bit of time before multiclassing so its not dropped out of nowhere on him, but other than specific cases (say the class heavily suggest, if you expilictly state ... say like a class asking you to be a member of a certain organization) the DM shouldn't roadblock attempts of branching out unless the player springs the change on the DM, out of the blue, while sitting and advancing the characters.

[Mootsmcboots]

These things are sometimes actually part of a class requirement.

Or perhaps it's a class/class combination he is wary of in his game for balance issues? And wants to make you work for that? Or wants to make it fit into his world.

I dunno, doesn't seem bad. As long as it's not like "You have to meet Steve on top of the tallest mountain on the third moon of this planet which only appears every 43 years, it just came and went yesterday btw"

[Gnaeus]

Thoughts... is this good or bad GM behavior? Do any of the GMs here implement similar rules? If so, How do you make sure PCs can advance their classes when they want to, while maintaining in game training rules?

Bad behavior. 2 reasons, both dealing with balance.
Scenario A. Player 1 is Druid. Player 2 is Fighter. Player 1 is perfectly happy advancing in his chosen class forever. He can't find anything better to put with druid than more druid. Player 2 wants to be as effective as the druid in his narrow specialty (hitting things). The easiest way for him to do this as a melee is with several small dips (barbarian, maybe ranger, maybe something for sneak attack, certainly some thuddy PRCs). But he can't without extensive in game legwork. So the single class caster is unaffected, but the weaker melee is hurt.

Scenario B. Player 1 and 2 both Fighter 1s. Player 1 is an expert, and has his career path set out before he begins play. He knows that to reach his PRC of choice at the optimum entry time, he will need to satisfy this rule by meeting a member of PRC x, and maybe also to train as a member of class y to meet some prereq. So he writes a connection into his backstory which explains that he has already been living with rogues and has several contacts among that community, and the moment he walks into play he begins ooc looking for a member of the PRC he wants to satisfy that requirement. Player 2 is a newer player. He realizes 3 levels in that he wants to take some PRC, but he is several steps behind in the legwork he needs to get there, and the arbitrary training rules are making it more difficult to maintain equality with his better prepared party member.

Finally, many classes are OOC constructs. While it might not make much sense to suddenly become a wizard, there is not necessarily much in game difference between a fighter, a rogue (a sneaky fighter who learns to attack others when their guard is down), a barbarian (a fighter with an anger management issue) and a ranger (a fighter who learned something about the outdoors while fighting in the woods in his last campaign). A person who spends all his time training with weapons would not necessarily need to train with a thief in order to learn how best to surprise attack someone.

[Red Fel]

If this is sprung on the player after the game has started, it's bad GM behavior. If it was mentioned beforehand, and the GM is enforcing it as a way of enhancing roleplay, it's good GM behavior.

I never implement such rules, because the campaigns I DM assume that the PCs have already been studying whatever class they want to get into during the time between level ups.

This.

First off, it's my personal policy (yours may differ) that any changes a DM plans to make to rules or mechanics need to be addressed in advance of the campaign, with the exception of emergency patches which result in very rare circumstances (i.e. even the player involved acknowledges that what happened was unreasonable). As such, a DM implementing a "You must find a mentor" policy should make that clear upfront; springing it on players later, as Haiken mentions, is "bad GM behavior."

As an aside, there is explicitly a feat for this sort of thing - the Apprentice feat can be found in DMGII, if I recall correctly. A DM imposing an apprenticeship requirement is basically imposing the cost of one of these feats without the benefits.

I also agree with Haiken that if a PC takes a new class level, it should be assumed that the PC has been preparing for it during his "off" time. I don't just assume that one day a Fighter wakes up and magically has a spellbook and a basic knowledge of the arcane. I assume that the Fighter, when not honing his skill with a sword or hurting green people, has been reading and researching, and that taking the level of Wizard simply represents having reached a threshold in his studies.

All that said, if it's agreed upfront, it can be a very good thing. Further, I am not saying that, even in the absence of such a rule, a DM cannot control the PCs' class choices. Far from it. If made explicit in advance, I have absolutely no problem with a DM saying, for example, "No PCs may take any levels in the following classes." There are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so. But saying in the middle of gameplay that a PC cannot take a level in a class he intended to take because the DM has not provided an NPC who can act as tutor, and then forcing the PC to take another class instead, is springing complications on the players, and is dirty pool.

[Urpriest]

It's also bad behavior because it makes the game too videogamey. The whole "you must go on a sidequest with the X guild to access Y game element" is a videogame trope, and one we only tolerate in video games because of their limited storytelling capabilities. In RPGs it just serves to decrease immersion for both players and DMs alike.

[Azoth]

If known about from the word "Go" it isn't that bad of an idea.

Granted, I feel certain leeways are in order depending upon progression of abilities/classes.

For example: Barb2/Ranger3/Ftr1/Horizon WalkerXX. It is a natural progression of uncivilized towards civilized that would naturally occur over the course of a campaign and spending more time in society. You start out a wild man fighting with brawn and temper utiziling savage ways. Coming from nature itself you start becoming more civilized by being with your party and spending time in towns, so you can focus more and bring to mind things you learned but deemed less important (increased skill points from ranger) and get along better in nature. Fighting tactically with a group and being around civilized individuals has given you a militaristic mindset and a knack for your decided way of fighting (fighter level). All of this is good and well, but you can resist your wandering urges and the knowledge gained from you many travels that have taught you to fight in many varying environments (Horizon Walker).

As long as a player can show that their progression is logical and can be RPed well enough I don't see a necessary point in hunting down a trainer or doing a forced apprenticeship.

If it is a wide jump or learning a completely new mechanic atleast make it believable. You could at least have RPed at some point doing something to foreshadow it. Taking a cleric dip as a swift hunter to get Travel Devotion? Sure, but have a conversation with a cleric of a that diety I can never remember or pronounce, maybe buy a few religious scrolls that discuss his beliefs/tenants and RP reading over them during down time/setting up camp.

Fighter1 going into Wizard to be a gish? No problem, RP an interest in what the party caster does and ask him to show/teach you a few things once in a while before level up occurs. If the party kills an enemy wizard, claim the spell book after the party wizard coppies what he wants out of it and try to decipher the rest with his help.

I can understand a DM not wanting to just be blindsided by dips or sudden jarring multiclass changes. Finding an in game tutor may not be absolutely the best way to go/necessary, but at least it gives a heads up players usually don't hint at.

[Curmudgeon]

In a game a PC wants to take levels in a class that they do not currently have levels in. The GM forces them to meet either an NPC or PC and receive some sort of training before being able to take levels in the base class.
That doesn't make sense to me, because it assumes you don't need a teacher in your current class after you've just started in it. It's the equivalent of going from plumber's assistant (fetch stuff, hold the flashlight) to master plumber with no teachers required after you become an assistant. If you need a teacher for the first level in a class, you should need a teacher for every level in the class.

[Trasilor]

As a DM this falls under the "it depends" category.

As others have stated, if this is a new rule - shame on DM for suddenly imposing it. I suggest talking to your DM about having arbitrary rules (which this is) sprung upon other players.

If this is a rule that has been in place and the player springs on the DM their decision to suddenly shift gears and play a very different class - shame on the player. I always encourage my players to look to the future - pay attention to the next level you want to take. You don't need to have a master plan in which you map out every single feat/class/skill for each level. Just knowing what you want for your next level.

The whole argument of: my character has been practicing magic between levels becomes a bit silly if in one adventure you level 2 or 3 times (given one adventure may only take 2-3 days of in-game time).

I will sometime require a trainer if the character is looking to take a prestige class.

I suggest seeking a compromise - if you roleplay your character multiclassing into another class - my fighter starts wearing lighter armor, and hiding more before taking that level of rogue or I purchase Wizarding 101: Everthing an Aspiring Wizards Needs) and studies all the basics of spell casting during the downtime. Then leveling should not require training.

Conversely - suggest he requires all classes undergo training between session. With this option, at least everybody is on equal terms. Of course if that was the case, there would be lots and lots of training centers (i imagine something like Pokemon gyms :smallamused: ).

EDIT: Dang it i keep getting swordsage'd

[3drinks]

I couldn't imagine doing something like this to my players - the character one would create is their creation and I want them to develop that creation as they envision it. The only stuff I've ever put limits on is no Leadership (unless you're a LG Pal8) or Undead Leadership (unless you're a fallen Paladin Bkg8) in both cases these are class features in my world (so you don't lose a feat for it). And that's because the breaking of action economy involved in having tons and tons of followers and a Cohort (at least it makes sense in the vein of some Legendary Hero who's devoted his life to fighting evil).

Anyway - disallowing a PC from multiclassing? not cool. If the book says you get something, you get it - there needs to be a really, really good reason to deny especially such a basic function from a PC. And this arbitrary training thing is not such a reason.

[MrNobody]

As said, it depends on when the rule was stated: if it's a "common rule" this DM applies, that you have known before, it's a good rule.
I used it sometimes, expecially when players would multi-class in Classes that requires an high training (by rules, the ones that add more to the "base age" at the PC creation). On the other side, Classes with the lowest starting age (like barbarians and sorcerers) don't require training.

Suppose we have a fighter and that the player wants to give him more power through some arcane trick. He has two choice:
- Take a level in wizard, doing some training. Not an extensive one, but more like undertaking a "tour-de-force" in which he gets enough knowldge to start his way in the "arcane". Sometimes i let the player find a "special" spell book... something like a "Arcane for Dummies" so that, using a little more time, he can self-learn magic.
- Take a level in sorcerer. If the charachter is planned in advance i may require him to explain the late-rising of his power (dragon-outsider-fey blood, a prophecy... and so on). If not, i could (or not) give him a little side quest, at the end of which a powerful being gives him the spark of power needed to channel his magic.

Talking to the DM is the focal point of all of this. If the DM know in advance, can adjust the story so to fit your needs. Anyway, there is a way i used a couple of time when my players came out with a similar request out of nothing. I had them take another level in the class they had (fighter, to connect to the example written above), give them the training/sidequest and treat it like a retraining.
For the fighter wanting to become a Sorcerer he does his little side quest, he finds the demon that can grant him the power, persuade him to do so. Then the Demon says: "to give you power I must than away from you some you just have!" So the PC loses the (not wanted) fighter level and gets the (wanted) Sorc level.
All of this MUST be made in a two or three sessions, not leaving the player enough time to get another level. Otherwise, it messes all up.

For Prestige classes i'd instead say no. There are classes that requires training in their pre-req, and in that case they must be respected. Otherwise, ther is no need.
However, just for a bit of realism and to make thing look less like an onlike MMORPG, I ask my player to "prepare" their PC to the PrC class in advance, through roleplay. The warrior that wants to become kensai must show "love" to his weapon before entering the class, refusing to leave it unattended, raging against who wants to break him and so on.

For skills, it's more or less like i said for base classes. Some of them are easy to get and don't require training: how would you train spot or search, through "Where is waldo?" games???
Other skill can instead require training. Knowledge, languages, perform... even swim and climb are not easy tasks and require a little of effort on learning the basis.
That said, to me is enough that the player shows interest in the subject before taking the point in one ability to fulfill this "requirement".
Say a Fighter that wants to get some points in Spellcraft or "Knowledge (arcana)". Before getting the new level he could "use" the party wizard for learning. Now and then, when they find magical stuff, he could ask the wizard more than "what is?" and "what it does?". He should show interest, asking HOW it works, WHO invented it and so on. This would get him enough training to buy it's first grade.

[Sylthia]

I've never been big on RP requirements for classes, even when certain PrCs would otherwise require them. I'd have issue with it, unless the DM stated that requirement before the campaign started. It's especially cruel to lock them into straight Fighter.

[DR27]

Take advice from the OOTS 126 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) on this one