my view on multiclassing restrictions [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Honest Tiefling

2015-11-13, 12:40 PM

What's to prevent me from being a cleric/monk? The two words are basically synonyms, and there are religious orders of monks in DnD. And why would I care what a 'proper' member of my order thinks? My god is apparently okay with it, so why would I care about his opinion? I'm sorry, are you the embodiment of divine might that my god is? No? Why is this NPC randomly looking down on me again?

I think my issues with this are twofold: There's going to be cases where NPCs looking down on others for class levels gets really weird, either from a story perspective or from a gaming perspective. How does that guy know that I have a rogue level? What is to say it isn't just a continuation of my monk training, but focusing on striking weak spots instead of focusing on honing my speed? It'll quickly become the problem of a noble looking down their nose at a party of 'adventurers', who are actually a few mercenaries, a wandering priest and a knight.

Not to mention, if I'm an order of sneaky monk assassins, what the heck is a more proper member of my order? If I have a good build with a few classes and I've killed more people, which I assume is the point of things, I'd say I'm the more proper member of this order, Mister Lazypants.

It also can become a problem if what your players and you think is reasonable is different, hence the example above. Which I'm okay with, from a story perspective, as religions would probably form the backbone of many philosophies. I know that others would think it highly strange. If you don't talk to your players to make sure your expectations line up, players will feel like it is a game of 'Mother, may I?' as opposed to a lax rule.

Personally, I just ignore everything, and go with the idea that as long as it doesn't sound too harebrained (No, you cannot refluff magic as not-magic), just go with it and assume it'll work out.

RolkFlameraven

2015-11-13, 12:57 PM

There where a few gods in the Realms that do let you be a Paladin or monk something else as part of their fluff. Heck there are gods who have Padadin while they are CG or other alignments as well.

Having, or adding, that kind of fluff to a faith or sect, can be a fun thing to do. You could allow players to 'brake the mold' and muti-class freely and have the hardliners in their own faith come after them for being 'heretical'. despite, you know, still having their god(s) given powers.

But yeah, for the most part its a rather stupid rule.

LudicSavant

2015-11-13, 01:14 PM

I just ignore multiclass and alignment restrictions. They tend to be placed on the crappiest classes and have very flimsy justifications in-fluff.

This. They serve no purpose except to impede your ability to realize your character concept. The very opposite of useful mechanics.

BowStreetRunner

2015-11-13, 01:20 PM

They serve no purpose except to impede your ability to realize your character concept.
Unless they were put in the game for 'game-balance' purposes. In which case the game developers had no real concept of game balance and in the end just managed to impede your ability to realize your character concept while completely failing to balance the game. :smallwink:

Curmudgeon

2015-11-13, 01:26 PM

LudicSavant

2015-11-13, 01:30 PM

Unless they were put in the game for 'game-balance' purposes.

Not even then. Serving a purpose and being intended to serve a purpose are different.

Pex

2015-11-13, 01:34 PM

Game rules should not limit/prohibit multiclassing. It's the player's character. Let him decide what he wants to play.

If the DM puts restrictions on multiclassing because of game world culture to enhance verisimilitude, ok. For example, no multiclassing prestige classes or must finish a prestige class before going into another one. If he does it because he personally dislikes multiclassing and hates anyone who does, how dare they those min/maxing munchkin rollplayers, then the DM needs to step away from the chair.

The player has his own responsibility not to multiclass to the point of Winning or Losing D&D, a character too powerful the game doesn't function or too weak the character doesn't function. DM restrictions/advising to avoid these possibilities are ok.

legomaster00156

2015-11-13, 01:48 PM

I just ignore multiclass and alignment restrictions. They tend to be placed on the crappiest classes and have very flimsy justifications in-fluff.
Yep. I just completely ignore these ridiculous restrictions, with the exception of a few alignment restrictions.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-13, 02:25 PM

Game rules should not limit/prohibit multiclassing. It's the player's character. Let him decide what he wants to play.
Oh, yes. Game rules should not limit/prohibit player choice. I decided I want full BAB, all good saves, and 9th level spells at level 9, because that's what I want to play.

:tongue:

Triskavanski

2015-11-13, 03:16 PM

I follow the rules on this. If you don't like the restrictions on a class, just don't pick that class. There are about 1K official classes in D&D, so complaining that you don't have enough options gets no sympathy from me. Broaden your search.

Quantity does not really equate to 'choices'. Its not always Baskin Robins, sometimes its 50 shades of grey. Its still grey!

Its a bit of a pet peeve of mine when I've got GMs like this. "Oh you've got plenty of options already." they state, as they say the complete scoundrel and complete adventurer are not allowed books. Their reasons could be legit like "I don't have those books." even if it annoys me.

Troacctid

2015-11-13, 03:29 PM

Honestly, the restrictions tend to be really easy to work around even if they are in play. I don't think they've ever come up in one of my games (either as a player or a DM). Monk and Paladin are dip classes anyway. Erudites can run into problems if they want to take a psionic prestige class, but meh.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-13, 03:33 PM

Its a bit of a pet peeve of mine when I've got GMs like this. "Oh you've got plenty of options already." they state, as they say the complete scoundrel and complete adventurer are not allowed books. Their reasons could be legit like "I don't have those books." even if it annoys me.
I don't disallow any official sources. If I don't have the material I require copies for my records (and I've acquired 200+ copied pages of such things over the years). I'll only disallow material because of the content (Incantatrix, for example), not the book (Player's Guide to Faerûn in this case). I will restrict things if I would have to read most of a full book which I don't own; that excludes one or two subsystems.

As best I can, I try to accommodate player options. But getting to rewrite the rules for a class isn't a player option in my games.

nedz

2015-11-14, 06:20 AM

Classes that say you can never come back to them if you multiclass out of them (ie monk, samurai, etc.). I generally allow my players to take other classes, but only if the class would enhance the primary character build that the restricted class is built around. For example, if someone wants to make a monk that is more stealthy assassin like, I would probably allow them to take rogue or ninja levels with it. Or if you want to be a more warlike monk, you can take fighter levels to enhance your combat skills. Things like this. As long as you can provide a logical, reasonable argument for how it enhances your primary build you can take it.
Since these restrictions apply to weaker classes I normally start by saying that I won't allow this — simply to discourage the use of these classes. I won't put it in writing though (I publish all of my house-rules) so if someone persists in taking these classes then I will allow them to multi-class freely.

I also allow this kind of thing for getting around alignment restrictions. A lawful character can use anger and mindless determination to fight just as well as a chaotic one, and can be a barbarian. You just have to rp the character properly, and might be looked down on by more *proper* members of your class/alignment.

What do you guys think?
Generally not, unless the player has a good fluffy argument.

I ignore favoured classes though.

eggynack

2015-11-14, 06:42 AM

I follow the rules on this. If you don't like the restrictions on a class, just don't pick that class. There are about 1K official classes in D&D, so complaining that you don't have enough options gets no sympathy from me. Broaden your search.
The problem isn't strictly that these are restrictive rules, though the blocking off of particular paths is certainly a factor. It's that they're kinda stupid rules. They rarely come up, due to their construction, and when they do come up they're typically applying a harsh nerf to a build that's probably pretty weak to start with. They are rules that make only limited sense, from an in-game perspective (why do you take a penalty for taking five fighter levels and one wizard level, and not for taking one level out of six different classes?), as well as from a metagame perspective (why are we penalizing the fighter/wizard when a straight wizard would be more powerful anyway?). Restrictive rules are often fine. After all, as you point out, giving 9th level spells to a first level character would be a recipe for disaster. It's stupid rules that really deserve booting.

Ashtagon

2015-11-14, 07:06 AM

Now I will preface this by saying I am a very lenient dm.

Classes that say you can never come back to them if you multiclass out of them (ie monk, samurai, etc.). I generally allow my players to take other classes, but only if the class would enhance the primary character build that the restricted class is built around. For example, if someone wants to make a monk that is more stealthy assassin like, I would probably allow them to take rogue or ninja levels with it. Or if you want to be a more warlike monk, you can take fighter levels to enhance your combat skills. Things like this. As long as you can provide a logical, reasonable argument for how it enhances your primary build you can take it.

I tend to drop that "can't return to the class" restriction entirely. It's not as if any class that has that rule is tier 1 or even tier 2.

However, for ANY class, if its their first level in that class, I do expect players to either come up with a reasonable explanation for how they are self-taught, or else find a mentor in the campaign. Even sorcerer or favoured soul, unless they already have a class level that is closely related (e.g., a would-be sorcerer with warlock or wizard levels), will require a mentor and a training montage scene.

I also allow this kind of thing for getting around alignment restrictions. A lawful character can use anger and mindless determination to fight just as well as a chaotic one, and can be a barbarian. You just have to rp the character properly, and might be looked down on by more *proper* members of your class/alignment.

What do you guys think?

I think "lawful" isn't about "fighting calmly" and equally "chaotic" isn't "fighting angrily".

Here's where I've spoken more about alignment:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18797769&postcount=7
http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?t=14300&p=163115

In that context, since being a monk (the social role) is intrinsically about being part of a larger organisation (a monastic order), lawful alignment makes sense. And since being a barbarian (the social role) in fluff is about being a member of a clan-based society where the leader is ultimately his own lawmaker, chaotic makes sense.

That said, I'm quite happy to separate the fluff of being a barbarian or monk from the class rules. Although given my mentor note above, a monk might have difficulty persuading a barbarian tribe to teach him the basics of the barbarian class (and vice versa). That said, conceivably, there is a monastic order that teaches a character how to unleash their emotions, particularly anger, in order to fight better, or a barbarian tribe that believes in proper mental discipline in combat. Alignment is about your interactions with the wider society, not about how you fight.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-14, 08:12 AM

Restrictive rules are often fine. After all, as you point out, giving 9th level spells to a first level character would be a recipe for disaster. It's stupid rules that really deserve booting.
The problem then becomes deciding which rules are stupid. Many prerequisites for prestige classes (feats, skills, whatever) don't seem to be useful for the classes themselves. Are those rules stupid?

ExLibrisMortis

2015-11-14, 08:49 AM

The problem then becomes deciding which rules are stupid. Many prerequisites for prestige classes (feats, skills, whatever) don't seem to be useful for the classes themselves. Are those rules stupid?
Yes. It's stupid that the Incantatrix requires Iron Will. It should require an additional metamagic feat, or perhaps Skill Focus (Spellcraft) - which is a terrible feat, but it makes sense for the class.

SkipSandwich

2015-11-14, 01:59 PM

I ignore multiclass restrictions, and change all alignment restrictions from "Must be X" into "Cannot be (Opposite of X)"
e.g. Paladins must maintain a Non-Evil, Non-Chaotic Alignment to continue advancing as a Paladin, instead of "always LG".

Classes that already had alignment restrictions of that form have all the alignment restrictions removed

e.g. Barbarans go from Any nonlawful to having no alignment restrictions at all

Warlocks "must be Evil or Chaotic" and other non-standard alignment restrictions evaluated on a case-by-case basis (for example I would change warlock to "any non-good" since I view their fluff as more tied to the good/evil axis then the law/chaos axis (3.5)

For Paladins and other class that can "Fall" I prefer to say that those powers are granted as via a ritual that binds them to X-extraplanar power source, and not revoked until the ritual is nullified, so while a CE Paladin could no longer gain additional levels in Paladin, they would not lose their powers unless their evil deeds came to light and their paladin status was formally revoked by the institution that granted it (a ritual that can be performed without the soon-to-be-ex paladin being present, if needed).

eggynack

2015-11-14, 02:53 PM

The problem then becomes deciding which rules are stupid. Many prerequisites for prestige classes (feats, skills, whatever) don't seem to be useful for the classes themselves. Are those rules stupid?
I'd prefer it if the feat taxes fit in better with the classes, even were they not strictly useful, but at least they're restricting players away from logical and powerful play patterns. You have a more powerful option available, and a cost associated with making use of it, and balance is preserved. It is somewhat stupid when the feat taxes are applied to really weak options, however, and I could see dropping those feat taxes if the player wanted access to that class.

Deophaun

2015-11-14, 04:08 PM

My attitude: In game there is no such thing as a class level. A bard who goes around stealing princesses and seducing crown jewels is called a rogue or thief, not a bard. A sorcerer who goes about casting spells for the glory of Heironeous is called a priest. Classes are just how you mechanically represent what your character is. If your character is considered a paladin, it doesn't matter if you stop taking paladin levels. You are still a paladin even while you're taking warlock levels. There's no reason why you can't continue taking paladin levels because the game world doesn't know you ever stopped.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-14, 04:10 PM

I'd prefer it if the feat taxes fit in better with the classes, even were they not strictly useful, but at least they're restricting players away from logical and powerful play patterns. You have a more powerful option available, and a cost associated with making use of it, and balance is preserved.

It's stupid that the Incantatrix requires Iron Will. It should require an additional metamagic feat, or perhaps Skill Focus (Spellcraft) - which is a terrible feat, but it makes sense for the class.
In keeping with the power of Incantatrix, then maybe all of Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude would make more sense, balance-wise.

TheIronGolem

2015-11-14, 04:20 PM

In keeping with the power of Incantatrix, then maybe all of Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude would make more sense, balance-wise.

Result: An overpowered PrC becomes an overpowered PrC with nonsensical prerequisites.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-14, 04:31 PM

Result: An overpowered PrC becomes an overpowered PrC with nonsensical prerequisites.
The main effect of adding those extra prerequisite feats is to delay entry into the PrC until later in the game (when everyone agrees that magic dominates everything), and I've seen similar things in action. My preferred approach is to just ban the class; that's much more straightforward than trying for an accommodation.

eggynack

2015-11-14, 04:31 PM

In keeping with the power of Incantatrix, then maybe all of Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude would make more sense, balance-wise.
Maybe, though I'd swap the ones besides iron will for more fitting feats for the class were that my angle. Iron will at least makes a vague sorta sense, if ya squint. Losing a caster level would also make sense. Either way, no one ever accused the costs and benefits in this game of being aligned perfectly. I'm just asserting that these feat taxes get them more aligned, rather than less aligned, and therefore have more justification than the weirdly oriented multiclass restrictions we're talking about. There's a logical metagame reason for the existence of these rules, in other words, and sometimes a valid in-game reason, where the various multiclassing rules often have no such justifications.

Beheld

2015-11-14, 05:24 PM

Maybe, though I'd swap the ones besides iron will for more fitting feats for the class were that my angle. Iron will at least makes a vague sorta sense, if ya squint. Losing a caster level would also make sense. Either way, no one ever accused the costs and benefits in this game of being aligned perfectly. I'm just asserting that these feat taxes get them more aligned, rather than less aligned, and therefore have more justification than the weirdly oriented multiclass restrictions we're talking about. There's a logical metagame reason for the existence of these rules, in other words, and sometimes a valid in-game reason, where the various multiclassing rules often have no such justifications.

Feat taxes are a poor method balancing a prc entry. They require you to take feats you don't want to take to get PrC. But that means you are giving up character customization in order to get a "more powerful" PrC that was already limiting your character customization by being more powerful than all the classes that should have fit your theme better but didn't because they were too weak.

The correct method is to build PrCs that 1) allow entry at the right levels (seriously, every single Arcane casting class PrC requirement could be replaced with Spellcraft X ranks, and the game would be better), 2) Provide abilities that are of the appropriate power level for the level they can be accessed.

Obviously the main problem is 2) for the Incantatrix, because even if it was a two level class that you only got at level 18 and it gave you Cooperative Metamagic and Metamagic Effect for those two levels, it would be the most powerful level 18 PrC in the game. giving up caster levels is almost never an appropriate balance concern, I'd prefer to see more Archmage spell slot costs if anything, but metamagic effect is a bargin at any cost even a lost caster level, as dumb as that normally is.

ryu

2015-11-14, 05:31 PM

Oh, yes. Game rules should not limit/prohibit player choice. I decided I want full BAB, all good saves, and 9th level spells at level 9, because that's what I want to play.

:tongue:

I don't see the big deal. That can effectively be achieved while following the rules. All you do by placing limitations is limiting the power of the people least capable of using power to begin with.

Ger. Bessa

2015-11-14, 07:24 PM

Incantatrix, by fluff, is a caster that protects the world from otherworldly creatures. That's why it has that "cannot ban abjuration" prerequisite.

An obvious and fluffy fix would be "conjuration must be a banned school". And we would see variations in wizard builds (OK, conjurers and Incantatrix transmuters, still better than only conjurers...)

For the Paladin/Monk restrictions, it is now obvious on this forum that your character isn't your class or your alignment. But that's what was intended in the PHB and DMG. PrC are supposed to be related to specific organisations but are now used as specialization paths. Very few "recent" PrC keep that "affiliation" theme (the Complete Champion does) and most are character and skill centered (look at Complete Scoundrel, Complete Mage or the Tomes books).

So of course those restrictions should be dropped or reinterpreted by the DM.

Triskavanski

2015-11-14, 08:06 PM

Well, alignment is one that I feel is most of the time a stupid rule.

Like assassins have to be evil, because they kill for money. I find this being stupid as it pigeon holes the whole idea of playing an assassin for me into "I only kill." But thats not just what assassins are about, imo. You've got some assassins in lore who actually go and learn how to use their arts of killing people to protect other people from the shadows.

I've seen it a few times in various shows and movies, were you've got someone who is an assassin but they use that art to kill anyone around the leader. Shadowrun has a few books on assassins, some that do kill for money. Some that kill for god or country, community, etc.

Even the mechanics of the Assassin PrC in 3.5 don't really make sense if the assassin is only there to kill people for gold. Cause the Death attack has two functions, killing the target or knocking the target out. I'm not sure why someone who "just kills for money." would want to knock out targets instead of just killing them outright.

The even released the assassin again with a different alignment as a web based supplement.

And if killing for money is an evil act, why don't players ever get dinged into more evil alignments when they keep taking quests to do exactly that?

************************************************** *****************

Now on the flip-side, a more good version of this, would be the alignment restrictions in Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness.. Most of the time. There is a few feats I really don't get why are exalted. Like the intuitive strike. Why can only good people have the whole instinctive faith of their abilities to use wisdom to hit with simple/natural weapons?

Its like "Oh I helped that granny walk across the street so I can better beat you to death with a club."

Andezzar

2015-11-15, 03:25 AM

Well, alignment is one that I feel is most of the time a stupid rule.

Like assassins have to be evil, because they kill for money. I find this being stupid as it pigeon holes the whole idea of playing an assassin for me into "I only kill." But thats not just what assassins are about, imo. You've got some assassins in lore who actually go and learn how to use their arts of killing people to protect other people from the shadows. It's less what they do, but what they do to get in "The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." So the organization only takes certain people.

Even the mechanics of the Assassin PrC in 3.5 don't really make sense if the assassin is only there to kill people for gold. Cause the Death attack has two functions, killing the target or knocking the target out. I'm not sure why someone who "just kills for money." would want to knock out targets instead of just killing them outright. Because that is what the client wants.

And if killing for money is an evil act, why don't players ever get dinged into more evil alignments when they keep taking quests to do exactly that?There is a school of thought that postulates exactly that. Have you ever heard the term murder hobo?

Now on the flip-side, a more good version of this, would be the alignment restrictions in Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness.. Most of the time. There is a few feats I really don't get why are exalted. Like the intuitive strike. Why can only good people have the whole instinctive faith of their abilities to use wisdom to hit with simple/natural weapons?

Its like "Oh I helped that granny walk across the street so I can better beat you to death with a club."It's even weirder than that. because you helped the granny over the road some extraplanar creature infuses you with the faith necessary to better beat people to death. Exalted feats are bestowed, not selected and learned by the character. Intuitive attack claims "You fight by faith more than brute strength." Shouldn't faith be something internal, not something that can be dropped on people?

gadren

2015-11-16, 08:13 PM

The problem then becomes deciding which rules are stupid. Many prerequisites for prestige classes (feats, skills, whatever) don't seem to be useful for the classes themselves. Are those rules stupid?
I'm sorry, but isn't being able to make decisions like this the advantage that tabletop RPGs have over a computer game? If I wanted to play a game with 100% rigid mechanics, I'd play DDO or something.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-16, 08:36 PM

I'm sorry, but isn't being able to make decisions like this the advantage that tabletop RPGs have over a computer game? If I wanted to play a game with 100% rigid mechanics, I'd play DDO or something.
As I've mentioned before, there are about 1K classes in D&D. I don't want to review and revise every class. Once the camel's nose is inside the tent, it's not going back without a lot of effort.

Beheld

2015-11-16, 08:42 PM

As I've mentioned before, there are about 1K classes in D&D. I don't want to review and revise every class. Once the camel's nose is inside the tent, it's not going back without a lot of effort.

Well then it is a good thing your players are only ever going to produce four characters with 20 levels each, so at the absolute most, that is a mere 100 classes, assuming you start the game at level 20 and all your players refuse to take two consecutive levels in any class.

Complaining about not wanting to review 1k classes when you will only have to review 3-8 is a little silly.

torrasque666

2015-11-16, 08:45 PM

Beheld

2015-11-16, 09:35 PM

Except its not just 3-8. Its 3-8 per character. And if characters die, or retire, or the player leaves and needs to be replaced, those numbers just keep going up. Yeah, not all classes are great, but that won't dissuade some players from taking them. And that means that the fact that they are there invites review. After all, no one wants a game of "mother may I" when building, to have the DM review each class individually and decide then and there, leaving a binding rules call for the rest of the campaign.

3-8 was for party of four. But fundamentally, I'm not sure how you can count "it's possible that in a few months I might to review another prestige class" as "too much work" you do more work than that making 13 encounters for them to level than you do even if they picked a new PrC every level.

But yes, everyone wants a game of mother may I with the DM. Every character you ever play in every game is a game of mother may I play this character with you DM.

gadren

2015-11-17, 12:43 AM

Except its not just 3-8. Its 3-8 per character. And if characters die, or retire, or the player leaves and needs to be replaced, those numbers just keep going up. Yeah, not all classes are great, but that won't dissuade some players from taking them. And that means that the fact that they are there invites review. After all, no one wants a game of "mother may I" when building, to have the DM review each class individually and decide then and there, leaving a binding rules call for the rest of the campaign.

Define "mother may I"? Because I've never played in a game in the past 22 years that didn't have players asking the DM if they could do stuff. Even if it's not "can we break this rule?", it's can I take this feat or prestige class or whatever? It's the DM's job, and refusing to make any judgement calls or exceptions as the DM because "if I make one exception, I'll have to make 1000 exceptions" is frankly the mark of a poor DM or a computer.

Andezzar

2015-11-17, 01:39 AM

Define "mother may I"? Because I've never played in a game in the past 22 years that didn't have players asking the DM if they could do stuff. Even if it's not "can we break this rule?", it's can I take this feat or prestige class or whatever? It's the DM's job, and refusing to make any judgement calls or exceptions as the DM because "if I make one exception, I'll have to make 1000 exceptions" is frankly the mark of a poor DM or a computer.The point is that players don't want to have to ask for every single detail of their character and DMs don't want to make that ruling for every single detail. You should begin with a couple of basic understandings, like you are playing D&D. This would include all publications unless the DM says otherwise. If he only gives a (short) list of approved list that is fine as well. However it becomes annoying for the DM and the other players if one player tries to expand this list.

nedz

2015-11-17, 02:03 AM

As I've mentioned before, there are about 1K classes in D&D. I don't want to review and revise every class. Once the camel's nose is inside the tent, it's not going back without a lot of effort.

Define "mother may I"? Because I've never played in a game in the past 22 years that didn't have players asking the DM if they could do stuff. Even if it's not "can we break this rule?", it's can I take this feat or prestige class or whatever? It's the DM's job, and refusing to make any judgement calls or exceptions as the DM because "if I make one exception, I'll have to make 1000 exceptions" is frankly the mark of a poor DM or a computer.

The solution is to establish principles.

In one game I'm running I removed T1s, Casterly +T PrCs, Vancian casting, and a few other things.
In another thread Gadren is trying to build a set of houserules around a T3-T4 game.

Once you have such principles, whatever they are, you can apply them to any class which comes up; and players will consider many times the number of classes which they actually use.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-17, 02:09 AM

Well then it is a good thing your players are only ever going to produce four characters with 20 levels each, so at the absolute most, that is a mere 100 classes, assuming you start the game at level 20 and all your players refuse to take two consecutive levels in any class.

Complaining about not wanting to review 1k classes when you will only have to review 3-8 is a little silly.
I've found it common for players to ask about 4-5 classes before picking one. Often they'll have a hidden agenda, looking to combine a tweak to class A with tweaks to classes B and C. When it finally gets to the combo, they might have snuck something by me and I'll have to either reverse myself or change the game world to give the enemies specific capabilities to deal with this new PC combo. It's a mess.

Instead, I mainly just keep to the official classes as written. I do address some class issues, but reluctantly. It's a pain in the butt to explicitly add proficiency with unarmed strikes to the Monk class, but it's on my list of house rules. So is letting Monks also use the six Bonus Feat choices they can select without meeting prerequisites. It took me a block of several hours to address the many issues with the Factotum. Here's the effort I had to put into just that one, very poorly-written, class:
The Factotum's Cunning Breach actually does work in my game, despite the authors not having the slightest idea how spell resistance functions in D&D. Ignore the last, nonsensical, sentence of the paragraph.

Ninjas, Scouts, Factotums, and other classes with Trapfinding can use Search (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/search.htm) to find traps with DCs higher than 20 and Disable Device (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm) to disarm magic traps, just as Rogues can. However, this does not override explicit limitations stated elsewhere in the rules, including the following spells:

Explosive Runes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiveRunes.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Fire Trap (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireTrap.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Glyph of Warding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Spike Growth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spikeGrowth.htm) can only be found by a Rogue.
Spike Stones (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spikeStones.htm) can only be found by a Rogue.
Symbol of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfDeath.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfFear.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Insanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfInsanity.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Pain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfPain.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Persuasion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfPersuasion.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfSleep.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Stunning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfStunning.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Weakness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfWeakness.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Teleportation Circle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleportationCircle.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.

Factotum inspiration points aren't gained when an encounter ends, or after a few minutes; they're only gained at the beginning of each encounter (when you roll initiative), exactly as stated. Also, I've decided among the various possible meanings of "gains" to treat it as synonymous with "attains" (rather than "adds") here; IPs thus refresh to the specified total rather than keep accumulating. I use the same definition for Font of Inspiration (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606). (The FAQ made up something counter to the RAW.)

House Rule: Bonus damage from the Factotum's Cunning Insight is negative energy damage when used with a spell or effect that deals negative levels or ability damage, making it consistent with the treatment of bonus damage from sneak attack when used with weaponlike spells. (This follows the pattern of a WotC Rules of the Game (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) article, months before Complete Arcane made that Skip Williams house rule official.)

Because Factotums do not cast spells, the metamagic feats they use must be those which affect Spell-like abilities (Empower Spell-Like Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#empowerSpellLikeAbility), Quicken Spell-Like Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#quickenSpellLikeAbility), and the like). Metamagic feats applicable only to spells do not benefit the Factotum. From Dungeonscape page 16:

By spending 1 inspiration point, you can mimic a spell as a spell-like ability.

The Factotum has a caster level, but not an arcane caster level or a divine caster level. Factotums use SLAs; they are not spellcasters — either arcane or divine. From Complete Arcane page 72:

... requirements for feats and prestige classes based on specific levels of spells cast (“Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells,” for example) cannot be met by spell-like abilities or invocations—not even spell-like abilities or invocations that allow a character to use a specific arcane spell of the appropriate level or higher.

The Factotum's Cunning Strike is limited to 1 inspiration point for 1d6 sneak attack, as that class feature doesn't stipulate an exception to the stacking rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking). (The FAQ made up something counter to the RAW.)

House Rule: The Factotum's Cunning Surge (an Extraordinary ability) can be used as a swift action.
Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted. This class ability does not note otherwise, but following the RAW here would make it have no use at all (use a standard action and pay 3 IPs to get a standard action).

The Factotum's Cunning Brilliance can't be used to imitate any ability without an explicit (Ex) label. That is, you can't assume an unlabeled class ability is Extraordinary; that's not the default. (The FAQ made up something counter to the RAW.) From Player's Handbook page 180:

Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
I don't ban the Factotum any more, but it was a pain in the posterior getting to where all the stupidities had been addressed and the class was usable without regularly bringing the game to a halt.

Realize that all of that spoilered work had nothing to do with player requests for class tweaks; it was purely getting to where all the inconsistencies in what the game authors wrote had been resolved. So no, if I have to spend all that effort on the RAW of the classes, I'm not going to want to also deal with requests for player tweaks.

Beheld

2015-11-17, 02:54 AM

I've found it common for players to ask about 4-5 classes before picking one. Often they'll have a hidden agenda, looking to combine a tweak to class A with tweaks to classes B and C. When it finally gets to the combo, they might have snuck something by me and I'll have to either reverse myself or change the game world to give the enemies specific capabilities to deal with this new PC combo. It's a mess.

You should probably play with people who aren't disingenuous then. If there is practically any meaningful combo that I want to use I would bring it up specifically. Nothing good comes of lying to the DM to trick him into allowing something.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-17, 03:40 AM

Nothing good comes of lying to the DM to trick him into allowing something.
These are lies of omission: i.e., telling the truth, but selectively. I think the tactic is employed mostly as a meta-game, to add an extra challenge ("surprise the DM").

Talionis

2015-11-17, 01:55 PM

I think its important to understand what is "Fluff" and what is rules. Class restrictions based on race tend to be fluff in my eyes. All the races are supposed to be balanced out with benefits and drawbacks that equal out in Level Adjustment. Since all those characters are LA 0 then they are equal. Many of the Dwarf only prestige classes have the crafting/forging prestige classes, allowing other races to be good crafters just makes sense to me.

Fluff I generally waive, and again. I agree wholeheartedly that you have it correct the DM and character should work together and communicate to make sure that it works for your game.

A Paladin's Code is a little more rules than fluff. Now I completely agree with you, Paladin is a pretty poor tier class as it is... I think its tier 5? So all classes are not equal.

I applaud efforts to make the characters close to equal and more interesting and deep for the players playing them.

I think you should view this choice as actually bending the rules... I think bending the rules is just fine, so long as you try to be consistent and balancing. When you do bend rules it sounds like you are making an effort to thoughtfully consider the power level adjustment you are making to your game and also the roleplay impact on your game. You are taking it seriously. I'd say its just fine.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-17, 03:05 PM

I think its important to understand what is "Fluff" and what is rules.
I keep seeing this, but it's a community construct rather than part of the defined game. In terms of the actual game rules, "fluff" is just part of the rules; it has no less priority than anything else in D&D.

ryu

2015-11-17, 04:18 PM

I keep seeing this, but it's a community construct rather than part of the defined game. In terms of the actual game rules, "fluff" is just part of the rules; it has no less priority than anything else in D&D.

Except for the part where the game explicitely mentions on several occasions that what you're given in the books is only a template or guideline that you're free to alter at will if it doesn't suit you. This is even given examples both mechanically with variant rules, and fluff-wise with different settings which come with different fluff. Considering that play doesn't even assume modules and that some form of fresh NPC or setting is likely going to happen? The game actively encourages you to make changes. Why? Probably because in a rare moment of foresight and wisdom the designers realized that an entire audience of people with the mindset to make use of these rules could probably do better at making a game given time. This is almost tautologically true as any given group customizes the everything. They change it to suit their desires. Some groups are just less drastic in their tweaking than others. Sometimes it just boils down to no one playing the roles they find boring and thus cutting content that was unenjoyable.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-17, 04:22 PM

Except for the part where the game explicitely mentions on several occasions that what you're given in the books is only a template or guideline that you're free to alter at will if it doesn't suit you.
Yes, but what does this have to do with "fluff" being a part of the rules? The DM's ability to change the game isn't limited to any particular type of rules.

rrwoods

2015-11-17, 06:11 PM

I think the biggest thing to remember is that D&D is a game built on customization, and the rules are no exception. Personally I find Curmudgeon's approach of being explicit and clear on rule changes the best in concept, and if I ran a game I would do it the same way. Individual DMs may differ on exactly which rules to change, and why (and discussing that stuff is useful!) but the explicitness is best IMO

137beth

2015-11-17, 07:13 PM

I just ignore multiclass and alignment restrictions. They tend to be placed on the crappiest classes and have very flimsy justifications in-fluff.

Yes, this one. Anyone who actually uses the multiclass and alignment restrictions shall be plagued by Orcus.

torrasque666

2015-11-17, 07:17 PM

Yes, this one. Anyone who actually uses the multiclass and alignment restrictions shall be plagued by Orcus.

I'm a rudisplorker, I'm already plauged by Orcus.

Psyren

2015-11-17, 07:19 PM

The code of conduct rules for clerics and paladins and some other classes make sense for me. Powers that at least partly aren't the character's own but bestowed upon him by some other entity may be taken away.

The multiclassing restriction for paladins et al. sounds nonsensical. As long as they still behave according to their code of conduct, learning other things should not hinder them progressing their original class later. With the large amount of classes that do not trigger the you cannot go back rule, it makes even less sense.

Yep, Pathfinder agrees with you on all counts.

ryu

2015-11-17, 08:09 PM

Yes, but what does this have to do with "fluff" being a part of the rules? The DM's ability to change the game isn't limited to any particular type of rules.

Simple. Nobody bats an eye if mention using a homemade setting. On the other hand houserules are expected to be spelled out in full before the game even begins.

Curmudgeon

2015-11-17, 08:19 PM

Simple. Nobody bats an eye if mention using a homemade setting. On the other hand houserules are expected to be spelled out in full before the game even begins.
How does this jibe with Talionis's point, which I responded to? You're not using the same definitions.

ryu

2015-11-17, 10:05 PM

How does this jibe with Talionis's point, which I responded to? You're not using the same definitions.

Fluff cannot be divorced from setting. It only makes sense for dwarves to be the stereotypical crafters in the setting if they have some crafting related thing that that either only they can do, or that they do more efficiently than anyone else. In the case he listed? A nonsensical requirement for some crafting options. By any common definition of fluff the setting is the first thing effected by it. This is why the Tippyverse or something similar was a fairly inevitable homebrew setting. Base settings literally don't make sense with mechanics or creatures as presented. The tippyverse is what happens when the setting is designed around the possibilities of the system.

Talionis

2015-11-17, 10:19 PM

I actually understand Curmudgeon s point. When you accept the game should accept rules it's played by. In some ways it's like saying you are playing basketball and then deciding to change the rules of basketball for your play group.

How many small rule changes before you aren't playing basketball by more. 3.5 is a huge amount of rules and almost uncalculatable combinations can fit most ideas.

However the DnD 3.5 universe isn't anywhere near balanced and I personally think efforts should be made to give players both a play field which is consistent and more balanced.

When you break a fluff it isn't really changing the rules/physics of the Universe. When the physics is the same players know what to expect, but almost as soon as the DM leads you into the Univese fluff can change.

Ex: Ironsoul Forgemaster is a Dwarf only class that has an adaption for it to be an Elf class. It wouldn't be too crazy to someday meet a Orc Forgemaster. If the DM made a whole story with the BBEG being an Orc IRonsoul Forgemaster the game is still predictible for the players, because there is no big change.

I actually was saying that this is a very small rules change and not just fluff. Paladins are supposed to have restrictions against multi classing. It seems like it was built into the class as a balancing feature. Has most of the people on these boards will greatly attest, Paladin by itself is a fairly inferior class. It's MAD has almost no spells and full BAB was greatly over valued especially earlier in 3.5. Most of us are okay with letting this rule go because playing a Paladin is already a huge power level anchor to drag along. Role Playing their Code is actually a challenge enough in and of itself. Because we almost all would want to raise Paladin up a tier we are I afraid to make a rule Change to throw away a very small weakness.

Andezzar

2015-11-18, 12:39 AM

Simple. Nobody bats an eye if mention using a homemade setting. On the other hand houserules are expected to be spelled out in full before the game even begins.As a player I expect the DM to inform me about the setting, whether it is an established one or homebrew. The explanation of an established one of course can be a lot shorter. Rule changes are the same. Such explanations are necessary to make an informed decision what to play and if you want to play at all.

Fluff cannot be divorced from setting. It only makes sense for dwarves to be the stereotypical crafters in the setting if they have some crafting related thing that that either only they can do, or that they do more efficiently than anyone else.Stereotypes need not be based on fact. It could just as well be a a trait of the dwarven society to hold crafting in very high regard and that's why most dwarves at least dabble in it. This can also lead to a reputation of crafty dwarves.

As for the racial restriction on the ironsoul forgemaster, maybe no other race has thought about combining meldshaping with cvrafting yet. Its not like any of the established settings imply easily available information like you would expect in our world.

tadkins

2015-11-18, 02:06 AM

Andezzar

2015-11-18, 02:30 AM

These all work by RAW. they only become problem when the paladin wants to again improve his paladin powers or the the cleric wants to alternate cleric and monk training. I never understood those special restrictions.

Ashtagon

2015-11-18, 03:38 AM

A Paladin wakes up to find that his bloodline has manifested into sorcerer powers.

A Rogue find herself training for a few months in the military.

A Druid seeks a greater understanding of the magic surrounding nature and studies with a wizard comrade.

A Cleric travels to a monastery sponsored by her church and picks up a few of the monks' ways.

A Barbarian wardrummer finds his performances possess powers of their own and seeks to explore it more.

All a few of many reasons where multiclassing is fine and natural I think.

These are all fine. What I am not fine with is when, for example, the druid learns the ways of the wizard without an in-campaign wizardly mentor helping her along.

For most classes, I'd allow them to multiclass without a mentor if the character has demonstrated an urge in that direction (i.e., has 4 ranks in a relevant skill). In effect, every new basic class has a prerequisite of "4 relevant skill ranks or an in-campaign mentor".

These all work by RAW. they only become problem when the paladin wants to again improve his paladin powers or the the cleric wants to alternate cleric and monk training. I never understood those special restrictions.

I drop that rule about not being able to return to monk/paladin after you leave those classes. They aren't exactly tier 1 classes.

Florian

2015-11-18, 03:59 AM

Yes, but what does this have to do with "fluff" being a part of the rules? The DM's ability to change the game isn't limited to any particular type of rules.

The often neglected "fluff" is what the rules are all about. You declare your game element, the fluff, then use the rules to model it and define it, make it handleable, not the other way around. If the rules and the fluff don't mesh well, the rules are wrong.

For example, I'm always amused about talk about the Assassin PrC. This is strictly based on the Assassin Guild of Greyhawk City and how to enter it. The fluff defines the rules here, so evil, it is, willingness to kill to enter this special guild, and so on.

Andezzar

2015-11-18, 04:14 AM

These are all fine. What I am not fine with is when, for example, the druid learns the ways of the wizard without an in-campaign wizardly mentor helping her along.Why not? Would the druid need a mentor to take his 5th druid level? That level also gives him something completely new (wild shape and 3rd level spells). BTW training and possibly being tutored is supposed to occur off camera anyways.

The often neglected "fluff" is what the rules are all about. You declare your game element, the fluff, then use the rules to model it and define it, make it handleable, not the other way around. If the rules and the fluff don't mesh well, the rules are wrong.Then you need to rewrite pretty much any non-tier one class. The fluff says they are awesome, and many simply aren't by their rules.

For example, I'm always amused about talk about the Assassin PrC. This is strictly based on the Assassin Guild of Greyhawk City and how to enter it. The fluff defines the rules here, so evil, it is, willingness to kill to enter this special guild, and so on.I'm not very familiar with Greyhawk, so I don't know whether this is true, but if it is, the class is mislabled. The PrC entry in the DMG actually mentions nothing of this connection. Instead of such a generic name, it should have some reference to that specific guild. Similarly specific classes are also appropriately named (Mage of the Arcane Order, Red Wizard of Thay, Thayan Knight etc.)

tadkins

2015-11-18, 04:40 AM

These are all fine. What I am not fine with is when, for example, the druid learns the ways of the wizard without an in-campaign wizardly mentor helping her along.

For most classes, I'd allow them to multiclass without a mentor if the character has demonstrated an urge in that direction (i.e., has 4 ranks in a relevant skill). In effect, every new basic class has a prerequisite of "4 relevant skill ranks or an in-campaign mentor".

If a druid player mentioned beforehand that they were going to start taking some wizard levels (planning to go Arcane Hierophant later) would you as a DM provide the vehicle for it?

For some classes multiclassing feels pretty natural at any rate. A rogue can transition to fighter pretty easily and vice versa I think.

nedz

2015-11-18, 05:05 AM

The hard one to justify is
Barbarian 1 / Wizard
Conan smashes up some Orcs, gains xp, and now can read and understand magic writings.

Andezzar

2015-11-18, 05:16 AM

If you phrase it like that, of course it sounds silly, but that is not the way it is supposed to go. It's more like Conan smashes up some orcs and then decides to train as a wizard. End of book 1. At the beginning of Book 2 Conan is Barbarian 1/Wizard 1. The training happens off screen.

I can phrase the "natural" progression of one level to the next in a single class just as stupidly.

Druid kills some Araneas, gains XP, DING!, now he can turn into a bear or dinosaur and call lightning on his foes.

Ashtagon

2015-11-18, 05:37 AM

Why not? Would the druid need a mentor to take his 5th druid level? That level also gives him something completely new (wild shape and 3rd level spells). BTW training and possibly being tutored is supposed to occur off camera anyways.

No, because druid 5 is a progression from druid 4 in a way that druid 4/wizard 1 is not.

I leave the training and tutoring off-screen to happen during downtime just as it is "supposed to". But I take as a bare minimum that the PC and the mentor have spent a day or three talking to each other on friendly terms during such downtime. Actually locating such a mentor though, should happen in a logical fashion on-screen. For some classes (eg cleric), that could be as simple as "I visit my local temple and seek out a cleric for intense guidance on the ways of my deity". Other classes may be more or or less difficult than that. Fighter and rogue are probably the easiest to multiclass to.

If a druid player mentioned beforehand that they were going to start taking some wizard levels (planning to go Arcane Hierophant later) would you as a DM provide the vehicle for it?

If a player let me know of an intention to multiclass, I'd certainly provide for ways into that multiclassing option, or give campaign-specific reasons why I wouldn't want that to happen ("dragons are widely believed not to exist and no one has seen any in centuries, so no you can't expect to get into the dragon disciple class").

For some classes multiclassing feels pretty natural at any rate. A rogue can transition to fighter pretty easily and vice versa I think.

Pretty much any PC who survives level 1 will have seen more than one fight, so yeah, that one goes through with no question. I'd put as a minimum "find a mentor or have used a fighter-relevant weapon in XP-relevant combat". Going the other way, find a mentor or 4 ranks in a skill important to the rogue class (any one of those on the rogue class list seems reasonable).

Florian

2015-11-18, 05:45 AM

@Andezzar:

Locate the old 3.0 SRD an compare the entries for all the DMG PrCs. It's enlightening.

@Ashton:

Pretty much this.

tadkins

2015-11-18, 05:59 AM

If a player let me know of an intention to multiclass, I'd certainly provide for ways into that multiclassing option, or give campaign-specific reasons why I wouldn't want that to happen ("dragons are widely believed not to exist and no one has seen any in centuries, so no you can't expect to get into the dragon disciple class").

That's fair.

Pretty much any PC who survives level 1 will have seen more than one fight, so yeah, that one goes through with no question. I'd put as a minimum "find a mentor or have used a fighter-relevant weapon in XP-relevant combat". Going the other way, find a mentor or 4 ranks in a skill important to the rogue class (any one of those on the rogue class list seems reasonable).

Wouldn't that hurt a character mechanically? Fighters get few skill points and no relevant rogue skills (I believe), so you'd be forcing them to spend a ton of cross-class ones just to qualify for a base class.

What if the fighter in question was RPed as a quick-talking scoundrel with a bit of street smarts? That'd make him or her a natural rogue I think.

Florian

2015-11-18, 06:02 AM

@tadkins:

That's a void argument. A "Level" is only a snapshot of what a character can do at a certain time and doesn't include further potential.

Andezzar

2015-11-18, 06:03 AM

No, because druid 5 is a progression from druid 4 in a way that druid 4/wizard 1 is not.Where do you draw the line? Is taking a racial substitution level still a progression? What about PrCs that advance existing features? What about PrCs that give something completely new (like Ur-Priest)?

I don't think making characters jump through hoops beyond those that are already imposed by the rules serves any purpose beyond annoying the players.

@Florian:Enlightening it may be, but it is also completely overwritten by the 3.5 DMG.

tadkins

2015-11-18, 06:14 AM

@tadkins:

That's a void argument. A "Level" is only a snapshot of what a character can do at a certain time and doesn't include further potential.

Right, I'm just commenting on that particular method of multiclass allowance. The rules themselves say a person can multiclass however they want even if it doesn't make sense (fear my barbarian/wizard/warlock!) without any mechanical explanation required. Of course it's always right to defer to the DM about a character plan, I'm just questioning the extra mechanical hoops in this instance.

nedz

2015-11-18, 06:17 AM

If you phrase it like that, of course it sounds silly, but that is not the way it is supposed to go. It's more like Conan smashes up some orcs and then decides to train as a wizard. End of book 1. At the beginning of Book 2 Conan is Barbarian 1/Wizard 1. The training happens off screen.

Or:
the player states, in their backstory, that they have been studying magical writings and they have spent the two skill points on acquiring literacy.

The trouble is RAW does not require this.

Barbarian 1 / Cloistered Cleric is another silly one.

tadkins

2015-11-18, 06:20 AM

Barbarian 1 / Cloistered Cleric is another silly one.

Nearby civilized temple starts a program to educate the needy, takes barbarian in and teaches them to read along with other stuff. xD

Florian

2015-11-18, 06:43 AM

Naturally, RAW can't include this, as that would modify how the game is played, something that is not wanted. As a random example, playing a mega dungeon like Rappan Athuk would simply exclude going deeper into stuff like training or background issues out of necessity.
Well, that's just naming one possible mode of play. Transfering expectations from one mode to another still will be prone to not work without first clearing up general consent on that.

WHFRPG actually is an good example on that, as you need to assemble all necessary trapings first before you can switch "career".

Ashtagon

2015-11-18, 06:49 AM

Wouldn't that hurt a character mechanically? Fighters get few skill points and no relevant rogue skills (I believe), so you'd be forcing them to spend a ton of cross-class ones just to qualify for a base class.

What if the fighter in question was RPed as a quick-talking scoundrel with a bit of street smarts? That'd make him or her a natural rogue I think.

Well, there is always the "find a mentor" option. If a PC can't find an actual fighter to teach them the basics of combat off-screen, then either the player sucks, the GM sucks, or both.

Where do you draw the line? Is taking a racial substitution level still a progression? What about PrCs that advance existing features? What about PrCs that give something completely new (like Ur-Priest)?

I don't think making characters jump through hoops beyond those that are already imposed by the rules serves any purpose beyond annoying the players.

@Florian:Enlightening it may be, but it is also completely overwritten by the 3.5 DMG.

Racial substitution levels? I'm cool with that with no special training. Every PC is already experienced at being their race and the base class on which the substitution level is based.

Prestige classes? I keep to their existing prerequisites. Some of them specifically call for a meet-up with a mentor; some don't.

Andezzar

2015-11-18, 06:53 AM

WHFRPG actually is an good example on that, as you need to assemble all necessary trapings first before you can switch "career".And then there are other classless systems that don't bother with a distinction of wizard/fighter/rogue/cleric but let you improve whatever you like at the moment (there might be some impossibilities though, like getting a MAG attribute in Shadowrun after character creation)

Prestige classes? I keep to their existing prerequisites. Some of them specifically call for a meet-up with a mentor; some don't.Exactly, So why do you make base classes less accessible than PrCs that do not require a mentor?

Ashtagon

2015-11-18, 07:04 AM

And then there are other classless systems that don't bother with a distinction of wizard/fighter/rogue/cleric but let you improve whatever you like at the moment (there might be some impossibilities though, like getting a MAG attribute in Shadowrun after character creation)

Exactly, So why do you make base classes less accessible than PrCs that do not require a mentor?

They aren't. Every PrC has some kind of prerequisite that requires several levels worth of stuff. All I'm asking for a base class is that the player actually role-play sidling up alongside a likely-looking mentor and saying howdy.

Pardon me if my rules are forcing you to actually role-play.

Andezzar

2015-11-18, 07:42 AM

They aren't. Every PrC has some kind of prerequisite that requires several levels worth of stuff. All I'm asking for a base class is that the player actually role-play sidling up alongside a likely-looking mentor and saying howdy.

Pardon me if my rules are forcing you to actually role-play.I have no issue with the role-playing. The issue is that to me it makes no sense that it is easier to learn completely new and previously alien concepts (like wild shape) than learning something that should be an extension of what the character learned previously (knowing where hits hurt most i.e. sneak attack/rogue levels on a fighter) just because the former is on a list of potential subjects to learn. If a character should not be able to learn without tutoring he should not be able to do that regardless of which class the desired ability comes from.

You also proposed required skill ranks to be able to train in a new class above and beyond the usual requirements. I really see no reason to make base classes similarly restricted as PrCs.

Do you force a player to change his intended build because he did not say howdy to a certain mentor, because for several levels he has been in a dungeon that does not have any friendly mentors?

Ashtagon

2015-11-18, 07:57 AM

I have no issue withrole-playing. The issue is that to me it makes no sense that it is easier to learn completely new and previously alien concepts (like wild shape) than learning something that should be an extension of what the character learned previously (knowing where hits hurt most i.e. sneak attack/rogue levels on a fighter) just because the former is on a list of potential subjects to learn. If a character should not be able to learn without tutoring he should not be able to do that regardless of which class the desired ability the comes from.

You also proposed required skill ranks to be able to train in a new class above and beyond the usual requirements. I really see no reason to make base classes similarly restricted as PrCs.

Do you force a player to change his intended build because he did not say howdy to a certain mentor, because for several levels he has been in a dungeon that does not have any friendly mentors?

wildshape is something that, as a druid, he would have been training towards for the last four levels. Before level 5, he has been meditating and whatever else a druid does to learn how to wildshape, and may even be able to hold a wildshaped form for a split second when he has absolute calm (ie no game effect). Level 5 is when he has finally learned it well enough to be useful. You're making a contrast that simply isn't there.

Think of it like a university degree. The day before graduation day, you know pretty much the same as you do the day after. Graduation is merely that "ding" moment.

Skill ranks is supposed to be an alternative to finding a mentor. Finding a mentor is intended to be the primary way to train into a new class, with skill ranks as an alternative fall back. I'm not sure it is all that unreasonable to expect a would-be cleric to have either met and chatted to another cleric or have four ranks in K/religion, or for a would-be rogue to get four ranks in, say, Disable device. That can usually be met at 1st level one way or another.

(There's a game granularity issue with a player who wants a warrior-wizard type needing to do a fighter/wizard multiclass; the 3.0 DMG has rules for that though These rules were never superseded).

Do I force a player to change his intended build? If he can't make the class prerequisites, absolutely I would. These are, at the end of the day, not "builds". They are supposed to be representations of living, breathing (albeit fictional) people.

Florian

2015-11-18, 08:17 AM

@Andezzar:

And that actually is the enlightening thing, you know? The first versions were very specific examples of what you could actually do with a PrC, what they were meant to be.
Not "An Assassin" or "A Loremaster", but something very specific that you had to work for to gain access to, the "fluff" trumping a players personal desire to handle the rules.

Now, the 3,5 version is the anti-thesis to this, rules divorced from fluff, mere building blocks without meaning. Please note that I'm not averse to that, but I do see and accept the differences there.

At that point, taking a look at Pathfinder is also enlightening in this regard. You have the (generic) Assassin as well as the Red Mantis Assassin, you have the (generic) Loremaster as well as the Cyphermage.

For me, personally, that's a big difference because I don't play very elaborate skirmish game, I play a roleplaing game.

Andezzar

2015-11-18, 08:31 AM

wildshape is something that, as a druid, he would have been training towards for the last four levels. Before level 5, he has been meditating and whatever else a druid does to learn how to wildshape, and may even be able to hold a wildshaped form for a split second when he has absolute calm (ie no game effect). Level 5 is when he has finally learned it well enough to be useful. You're making a contrast that simply isn't there.Now you are making stuff up. Please quote a WotC publication that states something to that effect. Also what hinders the druid to do the same stuff with wizardly things. He could already be practising and at 5th level he has learned enough to actually gain a level. Why do you require outside help for the latter but not for the former?

Think of it like a university degree. The day before graduation day, you know pretty much the same as you do the day after. Graduation is merely that "ding" moment.Well that depends on whether you have a job after graduation ;) Also before the ding moment the druid is not doing the same as afterwards. He is not wild shaping before.

(There's a game granularity issue with a player who wants a warrior-wizard type needing to do a fighter/wizard multiclass; the 3.0 DMG has rules for that though These rules were never superseded).I'm pretty sure the 3.0 DMGwas superseded in total by the 3.5 DMG.

Do I force a player to change his intended build? If he can't make the class prerequisites, absolutely I would. These are, at the end of the day, not "builds". They are supposed to be representations of living, breathing (albeit fictional) people.Does that include prerequisites that you invented? Did you tell the players in advance or do you spring that on them? Something like Fighter 2 is on a lengthy dungeon crawl and levels up in the middle. Can he take a level of rogue if he didn't talk to a rogue before or has 4 ranks in a "rogue skill" (that is impossible BTW for cross class skills)