Leveling up

[Mordante]

When the characters in your group level up. Will you let them pick any feat, class, or PrC they qualify for? Regardless if it fits in the story, character back ground, or things that happened during the campaign?

If say a sorcerer never showed any interest in being a rogue will you let the player take a rogue level or will the player first need to get into contact with a rogue, get friendly with them etc.

How do you deal with this?

[KillianHawkeye]

I let them do what they want. There's no reason to be stingy about mutliclassing. It's not like we roleplay every minute of the character's day or something.

[Gruftzwerg]

Up to the DMs/tables decision. Most people don't demand anything else than to meet the requirements in a certain PRC (and none for base classes). This goes as far as than most people even ignore multiclass xp penalties to even encourage more build diversity.

If you should decide that your tables wants to play like this, it is highly recommended to plan enough downtimes where the PCs have time for such things. If your likes to play out such small details, go for it. But keep in mind that it consumes much of the time you all have to play 3.5. Which means, after a while it might become annoying. So keep track of that and adjust accordingly.

Imho a mix of both is the best. A character might just depict that his character has an interest in the arcane (to enter a caster class), but shoudln't be punished if he didn't had the opportunity to show that interest within the game. On the other hand, the PC should use those opportunities and shouldn't ignore em.

[Mordante]

A middle ground is needed IMHO.

Personally I do not like characters that have more then 2 basic classes. A level 20 should be IMHO 1 or 2 base class and 1 PrC.

Characters with lots of classes and PrC are not characters they are an optimized Excel sheet.

Most D&D games I play don't really use down time a lot, or at all. But maybe we should do so. Now we play day to day. Before covid I was in a party for long time but in game time was maybe two weeks.

[Gruftzwerg]

A middle ground is needed IMHO.

Personally I do not like characters that have more then 2 basic classes. A level 20 should be IMHO 1 or 2 base class and 1 PrC.

Characters with lots of classes and PrC are not characters they are an optimized Excel sheet.

Most D&D games I play don't really use down time a lot, or at all. But maybe we should do so. Now we play day to day. Before covid I was in a party for long time but in game time was maybe two weeks.

While I get your concerns about optimization, imho there are different kinds of optimization and they should be handled differently.

The most obvious and also the most problematic kind of optimization is for pure power. And here the table should decide together how strong the PCs should be.

The other kind of optimization is when you are trying to adapt a character concept or a fictional character from films/books/comics. Here you can also end up with half a dozen dips into PRCs and still have a medicore power lvl. Thus disallowing heavy multiclassing overall is imho a poor decision.

[ciopo]

A middle ground is needed IMHO.

Personally I do not like characters that have more then 2 basic classes. A level 20 should be IMHO 1 or 2 base class and 1 PrC.

Characters with lots of classes and PrC are not characters they are an optimized Excel sheet.

Most D&D games I play don't really use down time a lot, or at all. But maybe we should do so. Now we play day to day. Before covid I was in a party for long time but in game time was maybe two weeks.

Eh, sticking to a class is just as artificial as playing the excel sheet game.

Emerging gameplay choices are things like, I don't know, I considered taking the force reserve feat at level 9 because incorporeal enemies were a big problem during level 7-8 and the "end of the arc" boss that brought us up to level 9 was a big incorporeal. So, despite my planned progression had not that in mind at all, I considered it *in the moment*

Being told that , for a 7th level oneshot, I have to stay single classed... irks me, Irks me greatly because I usually stay single classed anyway, but for oneshots, "backstory" is as ephemereal as the "happily ever after". if you tell me I "have" to be ranger 7 instead of ranger 6/barbarian 1 (for the sweet pounce, in this example), I'll be cross with you, because these aren't, indeed, people. They're oneshots!

Any and all justifications can be found for whatever concept, something with 2 levels in a bunch of base classes is very representative of me actually, because I'm indecisive as all hell from that point of view.

It's a reason I make use of the retraining rules basically every time there is a chance for some downtime in the longspanning campaign I am ( where I am singleclassed+prc! ). Today I feel like doing improved trip shenanigans, tomorrow I get excited about martial study/manouvers, Yesterday I was worrying about finding a specific item and so I went with the "I'll just make it myself!"

Besides, your scenario of "When the characters in your group level up. Will you let them pick any feat, class, or PrC they qualify for? Regardless if it fits in the story, character back ground, or things that happened during the campaign?" is a nonentity, Either the player had planned out his character, so his story and background conforms to what he wants it to be, or he didn't, and therefore whatever he is feeling like taking at that moment is by necessity an informed decision made at that moment!

[Zombimode]

Personally I do not like characters that have more then 2 basic classes. A level 20 should be IMHO 1 or 2 base class and 1 PrC.


What is your rationale for that?

Especially the base class restriction.


I would advise you to view characters as the emergent result of their mechanical composition and judge the finished product instead of the composition.

[Mordante]

What is your rationale for that?

Especially the base class restriction.


I would advise you to view characters as the emergent result of their mechanical composition and judge the finished product instead of the composition.

I think it would not be okay to say have a wilderness campaign and the party dings after a session. They wake up the next and the all of a sudden someone has a level of cloistered cleric.

My recent characters are

fighter11 archblade 6
rogue 1 bard 1 ( will stay bard for the forseable futureP
Druid 15
rogue 1 wizard 5 unseen seer 7

But I dislike a chacters like

rogue 1, fighter1, sorc 1, spellthief 1, spell sniper 1, swash buckler 1etc etc.

[AnimeTheCat]

When the characters in your group level up. Will you let them pick any feat, class, or PrC they qualify for? Regardless if it fits in the story, character back ground, or things that happened during the campaign?

If say a sorcerer never showed any interest in being a rogue will you let the player take a rogue level or will the player first need to get into contact with a rogue, get friendly with them etc.

How do you deal with this?

I get ahead of this from the get-go. Before the game starts as a part of session 0, I discuss each player's intentions and plans, and we map out generally how the character will grow and develop in a perfect world, specifically according to the rules as they are written. Then, I build encounters, stories, and NPCs that can assist, guide, and direct the player's characters towards those desired goals. If a player is only interested in dipping a class for a prerequisite, I'll usually find out a way to grant that specific thing as a non-level dependent reward. For example, if the player is keenly interested in a particular prestige class that is focused around mounted combat, but they want to be a mounted spellcasting combatant (i.e. a ray shooting mounted archer) and they were planning a fighter dip for mounted combat or something, I'll design a quest or a portion of a quest where they will interface with a group who focuses on mounted combat, let them "struggle" though using the mounts without the feats, and then reward them with the feats after they've completed the quest, effectively showcasing their training and growth, even though they haven't gained a level. I'll do the same thing with some class features. If someone is playing a fighter but is really interested in having a loyal mount, I'll work with them to allow for character growth by having their connection to their horse, hippogriff, etc be a roleplaying point, and slowly improve their mount as if it were an animal companion or paladin mount, and then waive any prerequisites for animal companion or special mount class features.

This ad hoc style of reward helps to let characters each seem more unique and less like a bunch of mish-mashed classes, skills, and features, and more like a character that has grown and developed uniquely. By getting ahead of it and mapping out in theory where they character will go, I can create story moments for the characters to each display their desires and goals and that helps to curb the sorcerer who never showed any interest in being a rogue. I'll also often let players try things, even if the rules would otherwise say they can't. For example, I would let that sorcerer try to get a sneak attack in with an Int check or something on occasion, especially if they said something along the lines of:

Player: I want to flank the target and aim my spell for a weak spot it it's armor.
Me: Make a Wisdom check to see if you can pinpoint the best spot
Me *in my head*: This is a goblin wearing old, patchy, poorly made armor, so it will probably be pretty easy to spot a weak spot... let me set this at a DC 13
Player: 19
Me: You notice wide gaps all around the back torso section. To hit the specific spot, you'll take a minor penalty of -2 to hit. If you would hit without the -2, you'll still hit the target, you just won't get any bonus damage.

Things like that I think help players feel engaged as well. Hope this helps!


I think it would not be okay to say have a wilderness campaign and the party dings after a session. They wake up the next and the all of a sudden someone has a level of cloistered cleric.
I think it could be ok IF the character had been consistently trying to search for deeper inner power, spent time meditating on their inner self and such. I would allow for some dialogue with their psyche, some god or other power, and before the level up allow them to make some sort of decision about how they wrench that power forth, perhaps a short combat with themselves or an avatar of that deity or being, or perhaps some other kind of fun, short roleplay (no more than 10 minutes tops, and let the rest of the group know to use the time to go to the restroom, grab snacks/drinks, etc).

Especially something like Cleric, Cloistered Cleric, Sorcerer, Favored Soul, etc where the power comes from an outside source or within themselves. Obviously this is more difficult with something like Wizard, but if you get creative with HOW things come to be, you can really create some unique situations for your game. The important part, again, is getting ahead of it early and working with the player to understand why they're picking what they're picking.

[rrwoods]

My take: classes are bags of abilities; class names don’t matter; printed class fluff is a suggestion; your character is not your character sheet. Others may have a different take; the only wrong gaming is the gaming that’s not fun for you. I think you open up a larger quantity of satisfying character concepts by allowing completely free multiclassing and letting mechanics serve the narrative (not the other way around).

I’m currently running a build from an optimization showcase, from level 1. My character is level 3 and has as many classes. But, even though my sheet says binder 1/barbarian 1/fighter 1, my *character* is a dwarf who lost his brother to a war and is wrestling with reality and the lines between life and death, and is finding his identity. The mechanics of rage and binding support the personal narrative, and the future mechanics of the other five classes the character will take also support a satisfying narrative arc.

In another game, I’m playing a single-classed swordsage focused on Shadow Hand and Diamond Mind. My character sheet says swordsage 13, but my *character* is an assassin who works to keep the balance of power intact, and is part of a larger organization of various kinds of people who do the same.

[Darg]

Feats - yes. There is no reason not to and it's not like there is mechanical stepping stones for getting feats other than prerequisites. If you want players to "learn" feats, then by all means facilitate the few weeks it would take. But limiting feats is simply controlling if not being done to limit the power of certain characters.

Classes - no, with a caveat. The single caveat is that isn't being done for no character growth reason at all. It's fine to let the character grow into the role after the class selection because 3e cannot facilitate 2e levels of multiclassing where you are able to progress multiple classes simultaneously.

PRCs - hard no. I prefer tailoring PRCs accordingly to the campaign/scenario and a character's disposition as the DMG tells DMs to do (why is arcane archer weak? Because it is a template, not a class that fits all campaigns and tables). I also prefer characters only taking one PRC because there is no reason they need to be mister assassin dwarven defender. If they have a character concept they like, we build the PRC together to align them with the table and allow them to have that concept. Want an assassin dwarf that can take a hit in heavy armor? Give sneak attack, reduced armor check penalties, instead of poison give an ability that allows them to muffle armor for a time, give them death attack that works only once per encounter on the next attack to a creature that hits you, and obviously adjust the skill selection too. These are just ideas.

[Calthropstu]

I ran a game where they had to find a trainer in order to level. The higher the level, the more difficult to find someone to train you.

The results were... mixed.

[Mordante]

Eh, sticking to a class is just as artificial as playing the excel sheet game.

Emerging gameplay choices are things like, I don't know, I considered taking the force reserve feat at level 9 because incorporeal enemies were a big problem during level 7-8 and the "end of the arc" boss that brought us up to level 9 was a big incorporeal. So, despite my planned progression had not that in mind at all, I considered it *in the moment*

Being told that , for a 7th level oneshot, I have to stay single classed... irks me, Irks me greatly because I usually stay single classed anyway, but for oneshots, "backstory" is as ephemereal as the "happily ever after". if you tell me I "have" to be ranger 7 instead of ranger 6/barbarian 1 (for the sweet pounce, in this example), I'll be cross with you, because these aren't, indeed, people. They're oneshots!

Any and all justifications can be found for whatever concept, something with 2 levels in a bunch of base classes is very representative of me actually, because I'm indecisive as all hell from that point of view.

It's a reason I make use of the retraining rules basically every time there is a chance for some downtime in the longspanning campaign I am ( where I am singleclassed+prc! ). Today I feel like doing improved trip shenanigans, tomorrow I get excited about martial study/manouvers, Yesterday I was worrying about finding a specific item and so I went with the "I'll just make it myself!"

Besides, your scenario of "When the characters in your group level up. Will you let them pick any feat, class, or PrC they qualify for? Regardless if it fits in the story, character back ground, or things that happened during the campaign?" is a nonentity, Either the player had planned out his character, so his story and background conforms to what he wants it to be, or he didn't, and therefore whatever he is feeling like taking at that moment is by necessity an informed decision made at that moment!

Even in long running campaigns we never use downtime. But we don't use a lot of things. (WBL, Scrolls, item crafting, pearls of power, big six etc)


I ran a game where they had to find a trainer in order to level. The higher the level, the more difficult to find someone to train you.

The results were... mixed.

I always thought that this was the standard in RPG, when I was younger. I started playing RPGs in my early 20s. Mainly Talislanta and a bit of Cyperpunk. But leveling was always an issue.

[Ettina]

Depends on the class.

A sorcerer multiclassing into rogue could just be fluffed as them getting more practice with the crossbow they've been carrying just in case, and starting to figure out for themselves how to aim at weak spots.

If they multiclass as a paladin instead, I'd probably at least expect them to RP swearing an oath. Even if it's just wandering a couple yards away from camp to pray awhile and make a pledge to their deity in privacy.

[Biggus]

I think it would not be okay to say have a wilderness campaign and the party dings after a session. They wake up the next and the all of a sudden someone has a level of cloistered cleric.

My recent characters are

fighter11 archblade 6
rogue 1 bard 1 ( will stay bard for the forseable futureP
Druid 15
rogue 1 wizard 5 unseen seer 7

But I dislike a chacters like

rogue 1, fighter1, sorc 1, spellthief 1, spell sniper 1, swash buckler 1etc etc.

This is similar to what I was going to suggest. In general I allow characters to multiclass how they like, and if they've been somewhere where they could have accessed the relevant training I'm willing to handwave that they've been studying in their downtime for the last level or two even if they haven't mentioned it before, but a character who's been away from civilisation for several levels can't just suddenly become a wizard.

I wouldn't set a hard limit on how many classes someone can have; apart from anything else, some prestige classes such as Fochlucan Lyrist are intended for characters with levels in three base classes first. Also, it's not uncommon to run out of levels in a prestige class before level 20, so I think it'd be a bit unfair to disallow taking a second prestige class if you've finished the first one.

However, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that you don't allow multiple 'dips' and that the normal limit is 3 classes total (or 4 if you've finished a prestige class) and that anyone who wants more than that had better have a very good explanation if they want you to allow it.

[ciopo]

However, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that you don't allow multiple 'dips' and that the normal limit is 3 classes total (or 4 if you've finished a prestige class) and that anyone who wants more than that had better have a very good explanation if they want you to allow it.

Here's the thing however, classes and levels are in the game layer, not in the fiction layer.

there are no "fighters" or "rogues" in the world, there are warriors and sneaky guys and levels are a nonentity and a PC or NPC isn't identified as "a barbarian1/ranger6/fighter2", he's identified as as "the chieftain of that tribe, well versed in using two enormous axes to do his things"

that the player want to "play such and such" is all the explanation needed for such and such to be what he plays with, ntowithstanding premade characters if you're doing that kind of campaign.

A nonwizard in a wilderness settings suddenly wanting to multiclass to wizard? the crunchy limitation is already there in the form of spellbook! Did the party find a spellbook and/or have one stashed away in their bags since forever? then he can learn to be a wizard from that and nothing more is really needed other than the player expressing the willingness of doing that instead of something else

When a character grows stronger within the fiction, he's not leveling at all!, that the increase in power is represented as going Ranger 6->7 or Ranger 6/Barbarian 1 has little to do with how the character behaves, because Grok is Grok, not a ranger6 debating if he wants to go ranger 7 or multiclass into barbarian 1

I'm using the barbarian 1 because that's a strong dip, and so it's one I could see there being grumbling about

[Lilapop]

If they multiclass as a paladin instead, I'd probably at least expect them to RP swearing an oath. Even if it's just wandering a couple yards away from camp to pray awhile and make a pledge to their deity in privacy.
Oooooor... the character joined the knightly order at level 0 and swore the oath back then. And no matter which mechanical building blocks the player uses to craft the exact blend of fighting abilities this character has, be it ftr4/pal2 or pal6 or rgr4/knight of the raven 2, the character has always identified as a member of that knightly order, not as any of those classes, and has always considered himself to be bound by that oath. Because, as ciopo put it so well... Grok is Grok.

[gijoemike]

Even in long running campaigns we never use downtime. But we don't use a lot of things. (WBL, Scrolls, item crafting, pearls of power, big six etc)


I always thought that this was the standard in RPG, when I was younger. I started playing RPGs in my early 20s. Mainly Talislanta and a bit of Cyperpunk. But leveling was always an issue.

So fulfilling a game concept is an issue? Learning by being trained doesn't make any sense from about lvl 8 onward in 3.X. Below that you are still covering the basics and can learn from a variety of people not just limited to your class. Why lvl 8? Leadership comes online at level 7. At that point your PC is the one in charge and teaching everyone else.

Fighter - developing a name for themselves by heroic feats and developing a fighting style unique to them. It is impossible for these things to happen via someone else.

Rogue - you learn techniques via the school of hard knocks and dodging fireballs/lighting bolts. You don't learn from another rogue.

Sorc - internal power only.

Bard - composes own performances/dance routines and learns spells from power of song/dance/melody.

cleric - you cannot learn spells on your own. The dedication to a concept or deity reveals them on a personal basis.

wizard - spells are gained via research and self study at 2 per level per the rules. One can pay to research more out of a different spellbook/scroll. But all unique custom spells are self only.

Monk - by level 8 you can establish your own school of martial arts based entirely on your own style. Think Goku in the hyperbolic time chamber. They train for a year in solitude. They meditate alone under a waterfall. Ki is inner power.

Once the basics are covered PC's are on their own. And the basics are covered very very early on in levels. Also, finding a trainer could easily be viewed as the retraining segment. The PC is seeking out knowledge to replace skills.


What about feats? Surely feats need to be trained.

No. A cleric has stared at divine writings, and scrolls long enough they just decided to do it themselves (scribe Scroll).
A rogue decides to jump back after a quick stroke of the blade (spring attack).
A fighter/barbarian decides to swing with reckless abandon (power attack).
A barbarian/fighter lifts their weapon high above their head exposing their flanks ( Robolair's Gambit).
A wizard decides to make magical etchings on a ring/staff/flute/marble instead of on a sheet of parchment ( create ring/wonderous item/staves).
Weapon focus is a personal choice


What about limiting multiclassing?

Nonsense. Take Conan the Barbarian. If you read the comics and books he is a pirate, thief, and great warrior. In D&D he is a multiclass
Fighter, barbarian, rogue with some class dealing with being a pirate.

Can anyone explain the difference between a ranger 4 and ranger 3/fighter 1. Trick question! the answer is no. Concepts are too close.

There are a number of short PrCs where a single character can be 3 base classes or base + 3 prestige classes and be a complete concept. Wizard, master specialist, archmage, race paragon is just one that comes to mind with base + 3 prestige classes. Wizard, rogue, arcane trickster is a cookie cutter template with 2 base classes that levels multiple levels open after everything is complete. There is no reason to prevent the PC from going into a different class/PrC after that.


Classes even prestige classes are just kits of skills and abilities. If one sees their character needing a given skill they take what gives that skillset. It may have the name bard, warlock, wizard, fighter, or binder.


What about limiting a character from taking a new base class?

Nope. No one has ever role-played and described 100% downtime. When was the last time anyone in a game described a dream their character had? What they thought about when they went to poop? What their hobby when they were 10 years old? What is the bedtime habits of the sorc when he lays down to sleep?

During this downtime, things could happen that reveal the interest in doing X. X is a skillset normally associated with another class. When a GM limits one from taking a skillset that a Player envisions their PC having then it becomes a rules and power struggle to just play the game. See Mordante's quote above about issues with leveling. As some others have said setting a plan down in session 0 helps but always remember plans can change.

[Xervous]

The players are free to pitch anything and I’ll drop the specific veto if needed. That may be a session 0 veto on vow of poverty, a later veto on a given spell that clashes harshly with the setting, or a discussion about what the player really wants from going into Frenzied Berserker. If someone looks like they’re going to divert from the vague power band the rest of the party is operating in corrective actions may be taken, but I’m not going to filter options by the nature of the inputs, ignoring what the final product is.

[Bonzai]

I agree that session 0 is the most important session in the game. I generally allow everything, unless it would cause some major campaign disruption, or is some 3rd party source that I don't have access to. That said, It's important to talk to the players before hand about their characters and to know where they want to go with them. This can be a an opportunity to integrate and tailor RP opportunities into the campaign. I seldom require intraining unless the PrC specifically requires admittance into an organization or some sort of ritual. Once the formality is over no further training is required.

The main goal is for the players to have fun. It's their character and ultimately their game, let them do what they want with it. Worse, forced training has a habit of bogging the game down, or halting the story progress. In effect the players have to hit a pause button on their way to fight the BBEG villian every level. Worse, if they level in a dungeon, in a vast wilderness, or even another plane... they may not be able to level for a long time. That penalizes the players needlessly, and as the DM you are the one responsible as it is your campaign.

I am even that way when it comes to treasure. Instead of keeping meticulous lists of loot, calculating value, book keeping everyone's character wealth by lvl, etc. I hand wave it. It is assumed that they loot everything of value, sell it, and when they level they get the wealth increase associated with that lvl, minus any specific items or treasures they don't sell and decide to keep on the way. I then usually provide access to a magic mart where they can cash it in and upgrade. Maybe it's a Thayan Enclave, a local King, a Church, or even a planes traveling merchant. Yeah, they have to get there to spend it, but at least they get to equip the gear that they want, and are not at the mercy of random loot tables and the various economies of what ever small hamlets they may happen to be traveling through. Sure I understand the cool factor of finding that awesome +2 keen longsword that once belonged to a famous hero. But you are going to out grow it eventually. Now you are either going to have to find some one fabulously wealthy enough to buy it, or some one with the proper feats and power to improve upon it. Again, that can be a quest in itself and usually has no relation to the campaign story arc.

I prefer to focus more on the story of the campaign, rather than derailing it every lvl up just to role play justify what the mechanics say that they should have. But that is the style of play that I and my player's have grown to love. Freedom and customization are the hall marks of 3.5, and I embrace them. Older players may prefer the randomness and masochism of the older editions. Video gamers may prefer the streamlined and simplified play of 4th. To each their own, there is a flavor of D&D for everyone. Just find out what style your players can agree upon.

[Particle_Man]

In 3.5 I would be fairly free and easy with letting players take what they want (well I bar evil characters but that is an upfront rule 0 thing) so long as the party doesn't become so internally balanced that I when setting up scenarios have to choose between curb-stomping player character A or being curb-stomped by player character B, with no other alternatives. 3.5 is a crunchy game and chargen and char levelling up is basically a fun mini-game within it. "Shopping for Super-Powers".

In other games I might lean harder into the "this is your class, no multi-classing, no feats" idea but 3.5 is not that kind of game for me.

I mean right now I am playing a cleric/incarnate/sapphire hierarch who is optimized to . . . lawful stuff? I have chosen axiomatic storm as a spell and am waiting to use it, but I don't think it is a strictly more powerful spell than other alternatives. On the other hand I am wearing Mechanus armor, and yes it is very protective armor, but it is also very much lawful-themed.

But what if I had gone for a jack-of-all-trades type? Then presumably lots of classes and differing types of feats might be the order of the day.

[Melcar]

When the characters in your group level up. Will you let them pick any feat, class, or PrC they qualify for? Regardless if it fits in the story, character back ground, or things that happened during the campaign?

If say a sorcerer never showed any interest in being a rogue will you let the player take a rogue level or will the player first need to get into contact with a rogue, get friendly with them etc.

How do you deal with this?

My concern would be balance between players first... people both in-game out off-game changes opinion, interests and see opportunity in different options at different times. Unless it would defeat the entire campagn theme or simply break the campaign, I would probably let players do what they want... again, balance between players are most important for me.

The most importing think is to make a character that most accurately depicts the concept they are trying to build towards I don't care if they have 20 different classes by level 20. I care about my players having fun!



A level 20 should be IMHO 1 or 2 base class and 1 PrC.

Why tho?

[Mordante]

This is similar to what I was going to suggest. In general I allow characters to multiclass how they like, and if they've been somewhere where they could have accessed the relevant training I'm willing to handwave that they've been studying in their downtime for the last level or two even if they haven't mentioned it before, but a character who's been away from civilisation for several levels can't just suddenly become a wizard.

I wouldn't set a hard limit on how many classes someone can have; apart from anything else, some prestige classes such as Fochlucan Lyrist are intended for characters with levels in three base classes first. Also, it's not uncommon to run out of levels in a prestige class before level 20, so I think it'd be a bit unfair to disallow taking a second prestige class if you've finished the first one.

However, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that you don't allow multiple 'dips' and that the normal limit is 3 classes total (or 4 if you've finished a prestige class) and that anyone who wants more than that had better have a very good explanation if they want you to allow it.

To me that is sort of theoretical discussion since I think (guessing) most players will never ever reach level 20. My guess would be that most charters are between level 4 and 12. So multi dippings so you character can do certain things at lvl 15+ seems rather moot.


So fulfilling a game concept is an issue? Learning by being trained doesn't make any sense from about lvl 8 onward in 3.X. Below that you are still covering the basics and can learn from a variety of people not just limited to your class. Why lvl 8? Leadership comes online at level 7. At that point your PC is the one in charge and teaching everyone else.

Fighter - developing a name for themselves by heroic feats and developing a fighting style unique to them. It is impossible for these things to happen via someone else.

Rogue - you learn techniques via the school of hard knocks and dodging fireballs/lighting bolts. You don't learn from another rogue.

Sorc - internal power only.

Bard - composes own performances/dance routines and learns spells from power of song/dance/melody.

cleric - you cannot learn spells on your own. The dedication to a concept or deity reveals them on a personal basis.

wizard - spells are gained via research and self study at 2 per level per the rules. One can pay to research more out of a different spellbook/scroll. But all unique custom spells are self only.

Monk - by level 8 you can establish your own school of martial arts based entirely on your own style. Think Goku in the hyperbolic time chamber. They train for a year in solitude. They meditate alone under a waterfall. Ki is inner power.

Once the basics are covered PC's are on their own. And the basics are covered very very early on in levels. Also, finding a trainer could easily be viewed as the retraining segment. The PC is seeking out knowledge to replace skills.


What about feats? Surely feats need to be trained.

No. A cleric has stared at divine writings, and scrolls long enough they just decided to do it themselves (scribe Scroll).
A rogue decides to jump back after a quick stroke of the blade (spring attack).
A fighter/barbarian decides to swing with reckless abandon (power attack).
A barbarian/fighter lifts their weapon high above their head exposing their flanks ( Robolair's Gambit).
A wizard decides to make magical etchings on a ring/staff/flute/marble instead of on a sheet of parchment ( create ring/wonderous item/staves).
Weapon focus is a personal choice


What about limiting multiclassing?

Nonsense. Take Conan the Barbarian. If you read the comics and books he is a pirate, thief, and great warrior. In D&D he is a multiclass
Fighter, barbarian, rogue with some class dealing with being a pirate.

Can anyone explain the difference between a ranger 4 and ranger 3/fighter 1. Trick question! the answer is no. Concepts are too close.

There are a number of short PrCs where a single character can be 3 base classes or base + 3 prestige classes and be a complete concept. Wizard, master specialist, archmage, race paragon is just one that comes to mind with base + 3 prestige classes. Wizard, rogue, arcane trickster is a cookie cutter template with 2 base classes that levels multiple levels open after everything is complete. There is no reason to prevent the PC from going into a different class/PrC after that.


Classes even prestige classes are just kits of skills and abilities. If one sees their character needing a given skill they take what gives that skillset. It may have the name bard, warlock, wizard, fighter, or binder.


What about limiting a character from taking a new base class?

Nope. No one has ever role-played and described 100% downtime. When was the last time anyone in a game described a dream their character had? What they thought about when they went to poop? What their hobby when they were 10 years old? What is the bedtime habits of the sorc when he lays down to sleep?

During this downtime, things could happen that reveal the interest in doing X. X is a skillset normally associated with another class. When a GM limits one from taking a skillset that a Player envisions their PC having then it becomes a rules and power struggle to just play the game. See Mordante's quote above about issues with leveling. As some others have said setting a plan down in session 0 helps but always remember plans can change.

ranger 3/fighter 1 is certainly not an issue, But fighter 1, rogue 1, swashbuckler 1, wizard 1, spellthief 1, bard 1, etc does seem a bit out there. No one like the leadership skill. It just over complicates the game play and adds nothing. At level characters are still pretty much a nobody. My lvl 16 fighter is still a rather simple man who works in bars between adventuring. My level 12 unseen seer works in a tiny shop to pay the bills between adventures.


My concern would be balance between players first... people both in-game out off-game changes opinion, interests and see opportunity in different options at different times. Unless it would defeat the entire campagn theme or simply break the campaign, I would probably let players do what they want... again, balance between players are most important for me.

The most importing think is to make a character that most accurately depicts the concept they are trying to build towards I don't care if they have 20 different classes by level 20. I care about my players having fun!

Why tho?

I have some players in my group that have only ever seen a PHB and no other book and they have been playing for over a decade like that. Still asking how does a fireball work? So yes if other go out of their way to create complicated powerful characters it will screw up the game.


I'm not saying that when I'm a DM I will ban it. But I don't think I will encourage it.

[Melcar]

To me that is sort of theoretical discussion since I think (guessing) most players will never ever reach level 20. My guess would be that most charters are between level 4 and 12. So multi dippings so you character can do certain things at lvl 15+ seems rather moot.



ranger 3/fighter 1 is certainly not an issue, But fighter 1, rogue 1, swashbuckler 1, wizard 1, spellthief 1, bard 1, etc does seem a bit out there. No one like the leadership skill. It just over complicates the game play and adds nothing. At level characters are still pretty much a nobody. My lvl 16 fighter is still a rather simple man who works in bars between adventuring. My level 12 unseen seer works in a tiny shop to pay the bills between adventures.



I have some players in my group that have only ever seen a PHB and no other book and they have been playing for over a decade like that. Still asking how does a fireball work? So yes if other go out of their way to create complicated powerful characters it will screw up the game.


I'm not saying that when I'm a DM I will ban it. But I don't think I will encourage it.

I can see that you play a very different game than us... We have been playing since 2000 and we all have pretty much system mastery at this point... At our table we love the leadership feat since it does not complicate things and adds a lot. Also unlimited money is fairly trivial at higher levels, so we don't "work" for anyone when getting to higher levels! I'm not saying you are playing wrong, its just very different... it resembles how we played the first years when we didn't know the game so well... our style of play has changed... again not saying your way is bad, just different, more simple than ours, more basic!

We started at level 1 in 2002, and eventually got to level 32! We did a fair amount of downtime, which we talked or story-told so we could evolve as characters... and pursue our own things when not dealing with the problems presented by our DM... So yes, many parties does reach level 20+!

[Biggus]

To me that is sort of theoretical discussion since I think (guessing) most players will never ever reach level 20. My guess would be that most charters are between level 4 and 12. So multi dippings so you character can do certain things at lvl 15+ seems rather moot.


My mention of level 20 was in reply to your comment "A level 20 should be IMHO 1 or 2 base class and 1 PrC".

Personally, I'm currently running a campaign which started at level 1, is currently at level 15, and will end at level 17 or 18. The players have said they want a new adventure after that so they can keep playing the same characters on into epic. The last time I played as a player (I usually DM) I played the same character from level 1 to 18. So for me, these issues are not theoretical. I know a lot of people don't like to play above level 12 or 13 though.

[Mordante]

My mention of level 20 was in reply to your comment "A level 20 should be IMHO 1 or 2 base class and 1 PrC".

Personally, I'm currently running a campaign which started at level 1, is currently at level 15, and will end at level 17 or 18. The players have said they want a new adventure after that so they can keep playing the same characters on into epic. The last time I played as a player (I usually DM) I played the same character from level 1 to 18. So for me, these issues are not theoretical. I know a lot of people don't like to play above level 12 or 13 though.

How fast do you level?

In the party where I played we gained 1 lvl in 2 years playing. We played every 2 weeks when possible. My level 1 (with a +1 LA race)got level 2 after I think 3 or 4, 3 hour sessions. This month with a few more sessions we should reach level 3 after killing a goblin lord and 30 to 200 goblins.

Unlimited cash and items, where is the fun in that? How do you even get unlimited money? Last adventure our reward was 1 random ability point. My con went to 19 also I got also a mantle which I'm sure does something but since we were licking our wounds after the battle I haven't looked into it. Rolled it up and stuffed it into my duffel bag. He just moves where is compelled to go, where the powers need him to be.

My level 16 fighter has about 120gold, my Level 12 unseen seer 50 gold. My sub level 5 characters have no gold I think.

About leadership I'm my fighter has a charisma 8 meaning I would get a cohort and 16 followers I'm not going to role play each and every one of them. Giving them all a character sheet and tracking their possessions. I try to keep all my possessions so that my character can carry it where ever he walks.

My fighter has +4 mindarmor fullplate, a +4 belt of giant strength, Ring of mind shielding, and a +4 falchion (which gives him 1 extra attack at full AB, and 1 enemy doesn't get an attack of opportunity when I use a 5 foot step out of combat). On whish list I have a Pale green Ioun stone and and a Third eye conceal. But both extremely expensive items. To be honest my fighter starts to bore me a bit since he is getting to powerful.

Why even have down time?

[Melcar]

How fast do you level?

In the party where I played we gained 1 lvl in 2 years playing. We played every 2 weeks when possible. My level 1 (with a +1 LA race)got level 2 after I think 3 or 4, 3 hour sessions. This month with a few more sessions we should reach level 3 after killing a goblin lord and 30 to 200 goblins.

Unlimited cash and items, where is the fun in that? How do you even get unlimited money? Last adventure our reward was 1 random ability point. My con went to 19 also I got also a mantle which I'm sure does something but since we were licking our wounds after the battle I haven't looked into it. Rolled it up and stuffed it into my duffel bag. He just moves where is compelled to go, where the powers need him to be.

My level 16 fighter has about 120gold, my Level 12 unseen seer 50 gold. My sub level 5 characters have no gold I think.

About leadership I'm my fighter has a charisma 8 meaning I would get a cohort and 16 followers I'm not going to role play each and every one of them. Giving them all a character sheet and tracking their possessions. I try to keep all my possessions so that my character can carry it where ever he walks.

My fighter has +4 mindarmor fullplate, a +4 belt of giant strength, Ring of mind shielding, and a +4 falchion (which gives him 1 extra attack at full AB, and 1 enemy doesn't get an attack of opportunity when I use a 5 foot step out of combat). On whish list I have a Pale green Ioun stone and and a Third eye conceal. But both extremely expensive items. To be honest my fighter starts to bore me a bit since he is getting to powerful.

Why even have down time?

This is Very different to The games We play. Not wrong just different! Down time Can be used to research new custom spells, or craft items or retrain skills or setup a guild, business or organisations of some sort!

We level up when we have enough exp. 200 goblings yieding at least sometjing like 20k exp so there are a few levels in that, depending on level. I also want to level up fairly ofte. Leveling and progression is a Big part og why I play rpgs, if there is no progressions/ development I rather play strategy games...

I guess we on average gain about 3-4 levels per year, playing 4-8 times per year! And I do t want it to be any slower than that. I also don’t like feeling like a nobody... part of the fun for me is being a fantastical character with huge power and money, since I have neither in real life... hardship campaign are not for me. I actually prefer epic level games...

When I take leadership I do it with character with 18 charisma and I build full characters sheets for all my followers. Like there might be 40 exactly the same fighters as soldiers but every character is fully build with feats classes and skill points! Like the last character I build I had militia, with officers seageants and all, spy network with infiltrators, spy’s and assassins, dwarven crafters to supply said network and militia and chancellery to supply my character with secretary work... every follower was build with equal amounts of dedication as my own character...

[Mordante]

This is Very different to The games We play. Not wrong just different! Down time Can be used to research new custom spells, or craft items or retrain skills or setup a guild, business or organisations of some sort!

We level up when we have enough exp. 200 goblings yieding at least sometjing like 20k exp so there are a few levels in that, depending on level. I also want to level up fairly ofte. Leveling and progression is a Big part og why I play rpgs, if there is no progressions/ development I rather play strategy games...

I guess we on average gain about 3-4 levels per year, playing 4-8 times per year! And I do t want it to be any slower than that. I also donÂ’t like feeling like a nobody... part of the fun for me is being a fantastical character with huge power and money, since I have neither in real life... hardship campaign are not for me. I actually prefer epic level games...

When I take leadership I do it with character with 18 charisma and I build full characters sheets for all my followers. Like there might be 40 exactly the same fighters as soldiers but every character is fully build with feats classes and skill points! Like the last character I build I had militia, with officers seageants and all, spy network with infiltrators, spyÂ’s and assassins, dwarven crafters to supply said network and militia and chancellery to supply my character with secretary work... every follower was build with equal amounts of dedication as my own character...

custom spells, I dont think we allow custom spells
craft items, No one ever puts the little skill points they have in crafting
retrain skills, We don't do that
setup a guild, Why would you do that?
business or organisations of some sort, again why?

But if you have huge power and money, why do anything at all?

No where in the Leadership feat does it state what the followers do. As I read the feat you get a group of people who blindly follow you around and do not much else. You can't control them much. Except maybe the cohort. But he would just be another NPC under the DM control.

I don't have power or wealth in my life. But I don't need it in a game, the one person in my party who accidentality got famous was a ranger and he hated it. They made him the commander of the police/army or something in a large city. He fled out never to return leaving a bewildered city. Material possessions and lots of power just makes for a lazy character.

[Arael666]

Characters with lots of classes and PrC are not characters they are an optimized Excel sheet

The ironic thing is, from your perspective, a druid 10/plannar sheperd 10 is completely ok, but a Druid 2/Bard 1/Rogue 2/Fochlucan Lyrist 10 is not.

The first example is a well known abusable class and prestige class that even when played in a unoptimal way can easily break the game, while the second is the intended way by the designers one should enter the published prestige class.

You can build extremely optimized character just for the sake of power without using more than a single class and a single prestige class. You can build a flavorfull character with backstory, motivations and means with multiple classes and prestige classes. And vice versa.

The shortsightedness of some people never ceases to amaze me

[Max Caysey]

The ironic thing is, from your perspective, a druid 10/plannar sheperd 10 is completely ok, but a Druid 2/Bard 1/Rogue 2/Fochlucan Lyrist 10 is not.

The first example is a well known abusable class and prestige class that even when played in a unoptimal way can easily break the game, while the second is the intended way by the designers one should enter the published prestige class.

You can build extremely optimized character just for the sake of power without using more than a single class and a single prestige class. You can build a flavorfull character with backstory, motivations and means with multiple classes and prestige classes. And vice versa.

The shortsightedness of some people never ceases to amaze me

I know right... 🙄

[Gnaeus]

The ironic thing is, from your perspective, a druid 10/plannar sheperd 10 is completely ok, but a Druid 2/Bard 1/Rogue 2/Fochlucan Lyrist 10 is not.

The first example is a well known abusable class and prestige class that even when played in a unoptimal way can easily break the game, while the second is the intended way by the designers one should enter the published prestige class.

You can build extremely optimized character just for the sake of power without using more than a single class and a single prestige class. You can build a flavorfull character with backstory, motivations and means with multiple classes and prestige classes. And vice versa.

The shortsightedness of some people never ceases to amaze me

Ok. Here’s the thing I learned last time I argued with Mordante. Their game has one fight every 3-4 sessions. So they don’t care at all about balance concerns, because his fighter 16 plays with an equivalent level illusionist who only uses silent image. I can’t understand why his group plays 3.5 rather than some rules light or RP heavy system. But their game is 100 miles away from any other 3.5 game I’ve seen or heard. Just assume that he is in some kind of bizarro world in which everything you know about 3.5 is inverted.

Of course, he knows this, so it’s also somewhat bizarre for him to be starting threads about how people who are playing a completely different game from him do things, and then point out his rules and why that doesn’t relate to his game. No, Mordante, when your default is to throw out most of the core assumptions of the game, nothing anyone suggests is going to be relevant to your game. Please trust us when we say that a functioning character with 7 classes works better in most of our games than a single classed fighter or monk who cannot do their job in combat, which is where most of us spend significant amounts of playtime. When you talk about your 16th level fighter with 250 gold, that’s fine, but you are talking about a game that is highly, highly anomalous to what most people are doing. Seriously I would be shaking my DM every session going “Have you seen FATE? We could be doing this in FATE! Why are we torturing 3.5 like this?”

In general, you just aren’t going to see that specific kind of build you discuss, because it involves an odd blend of fighting and casting classes that doesn’t get you anything. What you tend to wind up with in game is something like fighter 2/Barbarian 1/ranger 2/cleric 1/PRC… or rogue 3/ninja x/scout x/ranger x. Because you are focusing on something (like fighting, or skills and precision damage) and your base class doesn’t give enough tools to keep you competitive. For games with any kind of optimization, core fighter is a 2 level class which only extends to 6th with dungeoncrasher, and even then in a high op game you may struggle to be on par with casters minions. There is a non-trivial group on the forums who argue that classes like fighter and monk are too weak to exist at all. And again, this doesn’t reflect your experience because your game is trying to do a way different thing, with way different expectations about combat, character wealth, caster power, character agency in game world than the system is designed around.

Casters tend not to multiclass a lot, because every dip hurts them (and again, most of us aren’t on the level 16 illusionist casting silent image level. For most of us AnyFullCaster 16 is leveraging vast cosmic power). But the muggles may dip a level in a single casting class so they can use items or enter a PRC, or cleric for the domain feats. So what you tend to wind up with is a Combatant or a SneakyGuy who can cast a few spells or use wands, while being more functional than the low tier classes alone.

Honestly robust multiclassing is one of the few really standout things about 3.5 that make me want to play it over other systems. It doesn’t have the best realism or the smoothest combat or the best written rules. But if you want to play a half dragon centaur fighter/barbarian/cleric, there’s rules for that.

[Telonius]

If it's not on my ban list, and if the player qualifies for it, and if it doesn't otherwise unbalance the game, they can take it.

I remove multiclass XP penalties. If a player wants to take a level in Rogue after being a Cleric of St. Cuthbert? Sure, knock yourself out. (There's nothing about "Rogue" that requires "Criminal," and the pile of skill points he gets could help in investigations).

[Darg]

But if you want to play a half dragon centaur fighter/barbarian/cleric, there’s rules for that.

I mean, sort of. When you hit ECL 20 you'd be a fighter 3/barbarian 3/cleric 5. Not particularly strong by any stretch of the imagination.

I've been meaning to try a multiclass variant where you gestault while taking the standard xp penalties. You take a level adjustment for each class and give it a score. HD d12 would be 5 and a d4 would be a 1. Add them together, divide by the number of classes, and round up. The final number for the multiclass above would be a 4 which translates to a d10 HD on level up. The lowest is always a 1. So a poor BAB is a 1 and a good BAB is a 3. Calculating it comes out as a 3 and so the fighter/barbarian/cleric comes out as having good BAB. The same happens with saves and skill points with good/poor/good and +4 points per level. Your class skills are combined from all classes. Your ECL (LA + class level + RHD) determines the number of HD you possess. Racial LA HD are the same size as RHD. RHD + class level determines max skill rank. RHD are treated as a single class progression. So a level 1 half dragon centaur fighter/barbarian/cleric would have 10d10 HD thanks to the half dragon template, +3 fort/+4 ref/+5 will, +5 BAB, max class skill rank of 8, and 2 CL feats. Max level in the triple multiclass would be 7/7/7. A dual class max level would be 9/9. Quadruple would be 5/5/5.

Personally, I think it adds a little extra oomph that multiclassing needs, but it doesn't have the power level of a true gestault. The end result has a closer power level to single class characters and tries to retain the advantages of individual classes, but it also leaves single class characters with the powerful advantages of leveling sooner. But, that is speculation as I haven't tried it.

[Melcar]

custom spells, I don't think we allow custom spells
Why not, when its an inherent part of the game? So why wouldn't you???


craft items, No one ever puts the little skill points they have in crafting
You do understand that I mean crafting magic items right, which again, is an inherent part of the game, so why wouldn't you?


retrain skills, We don't do that
Why not, when its an inherent part of the game? Like, why wouldn't you? And you do know there are both psionic powers and spells that can alter your character makeup!


setup a guild, Why would you do that? business or organisations of some sort, again why?
Is this a legitimate question or are you simply being peculiar here? That's like asking why anyone would want to play a fighter?


But if you have huge power and money, why do anything at all?
For fun, natually!


No where in the Leadership feat does it state what the followers do. As I read the feat you get a group of people who blindly follow you around and do not much else. You can't control them much. Except maybe the cohort. But he would just be another NPC under the DM control.
You are reading the feat wrong!


Material possessions and lots of power just makes for a lazy character.
You know what makes a lazy character, just picking one standard PHB class and not multi-classing in a game that is literally build for multi classing! I bet you don't even use any of the alternative fighter versions or ACF there are for fighter? That's some of the laziest gaming I have heard of...

I have to say that you are as close to playing D&D 3.5 wrong as one can. What I mean by that is that you seem to play the game not in a way that is even close to how it was designed, because your are not adhering to any one of the build-in design expectations when it comes to exp, gold, items or power. You seem unable to fathom why running i guild/business might be fun role-playing at that there are players and characters out there who wants to do more than hit things with a sharp stick - which is just weird! You not only come across as arrogant but unimaginative, close-minded and bizarre. When I say you play D&D 3.5 wrong its because I don't think you play D&D 3.5 at all... you seem to be playing something else, which does not fit neither the game design, mechanics or lore of D&D 3.5 and even if you insist you do play D&D 3.5, you are then using so little of the content that it can hardly even be called 3.5 at all!



Ok. Here’s the thing I learned last time I argued with Mordante. Their game has one fight every 3-4 sessions. So they don’t care at all about balance concerns, because his fighter 16 plays with an equivalent level illusionist who only uses silent image. I can’t understand why his group plays 3.5 rather than some rules light or RP heavy system. But their game is 100 miles away from any other 3.5 game I’ve seen or heard. Just assume that he is in some kind of bizarro world in which everything you know about 3.5 is inverted.

Of course, he knows this, so it’s also somewhat bizarre for him to be starting threads about how people who are playing a completely different game from him do things, and then point out his rules and why that doesn’t relate to his game. No, Mordante, when your default is to throw out most of the core assumptions of the game, nothing anyone suggests is going to be relevant to your game. Please trust us when we say that a functioning character with 7 classes works better in most of our games than a single classed fighter or monk who cannot do their job in combat, which is where most of us spend significant amounts of playtime. When you talk about your 16th level fighter with 250 gold, that’s fine, but you are talking about a game that is highly, highly anomalous to what most people are doing. Seriously I would be shaking my DM every session going “Have you seen FATE? We could be doing this in FATE! Why are we torturing 3.5 like this?”

In general, you just aren’t going to see that specific kind of build you discuss, because it involves an odd blend of fighting and casting classes that doesn’t get you anything. What you tend to wind up with in game is something like fighter 2/Barbarian 1/ranger 2/cleric 1/PRC… or rogue 3/ninja x/scout x/ranger x. Because you are focusing on something (like fighting, or skills and precision damage) and your base class doesn’t give enough tools to keep you competitive. For games with any kind of optimization, core fighter is a 2 level class which only extends to 6th with dungeoncrasher, and even then in a high op game you may struggle to be on par with casters minions. There is a non-trivial group on the forums who argue that classes like fighter and monk are too weak to exist at all. And again, this doesn’t reflect your experience because your game is trying to do a way different thing, with way different expectations about combat, character wealth, caster power, character agency in game world than the system is designed around.

Casters tend not to multiclass a lot, because every dip hurts them (and again, most of us aren’t on the level 16 illusionist casting silent image level. For most of us AnyFullCaster 16 is leveraging vast cosmic power). But the muggles may dip a level in a single casting class so they can use items or enter a PRC, or cleric for the domain feats. So what you tend to wind up with is a Combatant or a SneakyGuy who can cast a few spells or use wands, while being more functional than the low tier classes alone.

Honestly robust multiclassing is one of the few really standout things about 3.5 that make me want to play it over other systems. It doesn’t have the best realism or the smoothest combat or the best written rules. But if you want to play a half dragon centaur fighter/barbarian/cleric, there’s rules for that.

This makes a lot of sense! I'm glad I was not the only one who picked up on how incredible abnormal his game seems to be, compared to, as you say, any other game you (or I) have ever heard, or read about! Thanks for clearing that up!

[Gnaeus]

I mean, sort of. When you hit ECL 20 you'd be a fighter 3/barbarian 3/cleric 5. Not particularly strong by any stretch of the imagination..

Luckily, I never had to play it at 20, but it worked great as a chain tripper at the level for which I built it. It was big enough and strong enough to trip most enemies in a convention environment where I couldn’t rely on a friendly polymorph. It was optimized around the rules of the tournament. I can’t remember if it won or only placed.

[Bonzai]

Material possessions and lots of power just makes for a lazy character.

I would love to hear more of an explanation of this statement.... I have met many powerful and wealthy people in life, and if anything it just makes them even more driven and ambitious. It's not thier goal, to them it's a tool. It just expands the range and scope of what they can do. Similarly in D&D terms, give a fighter a magic weapon, and now he can take on incoporeal undead where before he couldn't. How does this power and material possession make him lazy? Should he have just made due with his Fists? Of course not. As long as the challenges scale with the players then there is nothing lazy about it. It is how the game is intended to be played.

[Mordante]

Why not, when its an inherent part of the game? So why wouldn't you???

Most player already struggle with understanding how normal spell work, what their effects are, how they work and how they interact with the environment. Custom spell make things more complicated.


You do understand that I mean crafting magic items right, which again, is an inherent part of the game, so why wouldn't you?

Takes so much time, skills and gold, sometimes also feats are required. People can't be bothered to find out how it works.


Why not, when its an inherent part of the game? Like, why wouldn't you? And you do know there are both psionic powers and spells that can alter your character makeup!

We don't allow Psionics. Besides that I don't think anyone ever needed to retraining in any official way as part of leveling. If it is done we discuses it before hand. Stating we want to try out something and if it sucks try something else. Playtesting.


Is this a legitimate question or are you simply being peculiar here? That's like asking why anyone would want to play a fighter?

In my two decades of playing table top RPGs I have never started a guild. In Cyberpunk we were happy if a character survived more then 3 sessions. In other games we never got powerful enough (level20+) to become noteworthy.


For fun, natually!

The high level (16/17) we are just a group of sorry bastards who are trying to safe to world. Not because it is fun, but if no one else does the world will probably end, of turn into a nasty place. The world is rather large. In one of the cities it would take days to travel from the outer wall to the center.


You are reading the feat wrong!

Why do you think so?


You know what makes a lazy character, just picking one standard PHB class and not multi-classing in a game that is literally build for multi classing! I bet you don't even use any of the alternative fighter versions or ACF there are for fighter? That's some of the laziest gaming I have heard of...

That is up the player. My Fighter is regulare fighter 10, Archblade 6 (I think Archblade is homebrew, my catfolk is a martial rogue 1, lore song bard 2 working towards swiftblade. My 3rd charter is a rogue 1, wizard 6?, unseen seer 5.


I have to say that you are as close to playing D&D 3.5 wrong as one can. What I mean by that is that you seem to play the game not in a way that is even close to how it was designed, because your are not adhering to any one of the build-in design expectations when it comes to exp, gold, items or power. You seem unable to fathom why running i guild/business might be fun role-playing at that there are players and characters out there who wants to do more than hit things with a sharp stick - which is just weird! You not only come across as arrogant but unimaginative, close-minded and bizarre. When I say you play D&D 3.5 wrong its because I don't think you play D&D 3.5 at all... you seem to be playing something else, which does not fit neither the game design, mechanics or lore of D&D 3.5 and even if you insist you do play D&D 3.5, you are then using so little of the content that it can hardly even be called 3.5 at all!

That is just BS IMHO. No where does it state in D&D that you will become a world famous all powerful hero. So because I play the game different from you I am "arrogant but unimaginative, close-minded and bizarre." Good to know. Running a business, yes so much fun, if you enjoy doing paper work, endless HR issues, boring job interview, tax form etcetera. Why do you think the game is designed to become rich and powerful? The powerful beings in the D&D world are lvl 70+ the Gods and Deities. Rulers of cities and lands are lvl20+


This makes a lot of sense! I'm glad I was not the only one who picked up on how incredible abnormal his game seems to be, compared to, as you say, any other game you (or I) have ever heard, or read about! Thanks for clearing that up!

D&D is primarily a way to see friends have a beer or two and have a nice evening. The game is about having fun. One or two of the people in the party their characters started as level 1 in the AD&D area and were converted to 3.5 around 2006. These characters are level 16 now. Most never played anything else but (A)D&D.

IMHO if you focus a lot on combat the game becomes boring. Fighting can be fun, but it is a part of the game. More fun is it when someone wants to use bluff and the DM asks him, ok explain me how you are going to bluff your way into................ and then seeing the player tell a in-game story why he should be allowed into the "for invites only" gambling den.

[Ettina]

Oooooor... the character joined the knightly order at level 0 and swore the oath back then. And no matter which mechanical building blocks the player uses to craft the exact blend of fighting abilities this character has, be it ftr4/pal2 or pal6 or rgr4/knight of the raven 2, the character has always identified as a member of that knightly order, not as any of those classes, and has always considered himself to be bound by that oath. Because, as ciopo put it so well... Grok is Grok.

I'd count that as RPing swearing an oath, as long as it's consistent with how they've played so far and not a ret-con.

And if it is a ret-con, I allow those sometimes if they don't break the continuity too hard and everyone's OK with it.

[Gnaeus]

The powerful beings in the D&D world are lvl 70+ the Gods and Deities. Rulers of cities and lands are lvl20+

Maybe in Expert set immortal rules. There are a small handful of mostly inactive critters in Forgotten Realms that hit low 40s. Supremely powerful continent shifting casters like Elminster and Szass Tam come in at high 20s/bottom 30s (Tam is 31 after the level adjustment for being a lich. Halaster Blackcloak, the mad mage of undermountain also weighs in at 30) Many of the Zulkirs of Thay, being the strongest mages in the most mage heavy country, are in their mid teens.

I’m not saying you are doing it wrong. You can design your campaign so city guards are level 20 if you want. But when referring to the “lore” of D&D as defined by all their campaigns materials, you are dead wrong. A 16th level party can trivially roll many countries, let alone cities. After one AP we compared my sorcerer 18 with the printed stats of the ruling council of a nearby large pirate city and determined that working together they couldn’t give me a fight challenging enough to bother running.



D&D is primarily a way to see friends have a beer or two and have a nice evening. The game is about having fun. One or two of the people in the party their characters started as level 1 in the AD&D area and were converted to 3.5 around 2006. These characters are level 16 now. Most never played anything else but (A)D&D.

IMHO if you focus a lot on combat the game becomes boring. Fighting can be fun, but it is a part of the game. More fun is it when someone wants to use bluff and the DM asks him, ok explain me how you are going to bluff your way into................ and then seeing the player tell a in-game story why he should be allowed into the "for invites only" gambling den.

So what you are saying is that the writers of the game you are playing, who focus the vast majority of their rules on combat, and who explicitly suggest multiple fights per adventuring day, are wrong. IYHO 3.5 shouldn’t be 3.5. And the people who play 3.5 as written play boring games. You don’t see why that is a LITTLE bit incendiary on a forum of players who actually play 3.5 as designed? (You dont, BTW)

The rules 3.5 has about that situation: you make a bluff check. 1d20+say 20 at level 16. Enemy opposes with sense motive. Succeed or fail. That’s what 3.5 gives you.

More fun is when you are trying to bluff someone and you spend a fate point and tag your adorable child hook, and you wind up with a great success while another player sets up an advantage and pushes you to superb. Because FATE is a game designed around cinematic conflict resolution and 3.5 is a game designed around putting minis on a battle map.

[Melcar]

Most player already struggle with understanding how normal spell work, what their effects are, how they work and how they interact with the environment. Custom spell make things more complicated.
Ok...




Takes so much time, skills and gold, sometimes also feats are required. People can't be bothered to find out how it works.
Again, its farly simple, but that is presicely what downtime if for!




We don't allow Psionics. Besides that I don't think anyone ever needed to retraining in any official way as part of leveling. If it is done we discuses it before hand. Stating we want to try out something and if it sucks try something else. Playtesting.
Call it what you want, thats pretty much retraining... and I don't think anyone here does retraining without discussing it beforehand...




In my two decades of playing table top RPGs I have never started a guild. In Cyberpunk we were happy if a character survived more then 3 sessions. In other games we never got powerful enough (level20+) to become noteworthy.
You should try it... use your followers to "run" it, so you don't have to micro manage it. You could start a tavern, and make money or gain tons of rumors and information which can either be exploited by the paprty or sold to either nefarious groups or the local magistrate...




The high level (16/17) we are just a group of sorry bastards who are trying to safe to world. Not because it is fun, but if no one else does the world will probably end, of turn into a nasty place. The world is rather large. In one of the cities it would take days to travel from the outer wall to the center.
I assume there are other adventuring groups than you? Or are you the only party of adventures out there?




Why do you think so?
Because what you said the feat did, is nowhere to be found in the description. It specifically calls it out for the player to work with the DM to figure out what kind of followers your get. If your DM only give you a bunch of worthless followers, which had zero capabilities and zero effect on the world, then your DM is doing you a disservice. You can naturally keep reading the feat as a really bad feat that yield zero effect and outcome or you can understand that the entire D&D 3.5 community across multiple fora explicitly calls out the Leadership feat as one of, if not the most powerful feat in the game. So for you to call it useless is you not understanding the feats potential or having a douche DM.





That is up the player. My Fighter is regulare fighter 10, Archblade 6 (I think Archblade is homebrew, my catfolk is a martial rogue 1, lore song bard 2 working towards swiftblade. My 3rd charter is a rogue 1, wizard 6?, unseen seer 5.
If its up to the player, there should be nothing wrong with having many different classes, if that is indeed how your achieve the most accurate representation of the character concept.




That is just BS IMHO. No where does it state in D&D that you will become a world famous all powerful hero. So because I play the game different from you I am "arrogant but unimaginative, close-minded and bizarre." Good to know. Running a business, yes so much fun, if you enjoy doing paper work, endless HR issues, boring job interview, tax form etcetera. Why do you think the game is designed to become rich and powerful? The powerful beings in the D&D world are lvl 70+ the Gods and Deities. Rulers of cities and lands are lvl20+
I'm not saying you are arrogant for playing the game perpendicular to how I (or many others play), you came across as arrogant because of the way in which you responded to my precious post. How? By categorically stating something without denoting it as your opinion/ experience or how you play. Simple stating something as factual, when your way of viewing the game is clearly not, seems very brash.

Furthermore, when responding "Why would you do that? to a common and for most people a fun proposition, that just comes off as rude. Its basically like saying "what a stupid idea!" And frankly that made you seem unimaginative... if it wasn't immediately clear why running a business/guild/gang could be fun then yes, you are unimaginative.




D&D is primarily a way to see friends have a beer or two and have a nice evening. The game is about having fun. One or two of the people in the party their characters started as level 1 in the AD&D area and were converted to 3.5 around 2006. These characters are level 16 now. Most never played anything else but (A)D&D.
I get that, and that is also why I play... We started 3.5 in 2000, and played around with a few characters before settling in in 2002 where we made a serious party... that party slowly broke up during the follwoing 10 years, but we all made it to lvl 20... due to life we played less and less, but to of the original 5 characters made it to level 32. W have played different campagns since with different themes and styles too tho.



IMHO if you focus a lot on combat the game becomes boring. Fighting can be fun, but it is a part of the game. More fun is it when someone wants to use bluff and the DM asks him, ok explain me how you are going to bluff your way into................ and then seeing the player tell a in-game story why he should be allowed into the "for invites only" gambling den.
D&D 3.5 is primarily sat around combat. That seems evident when looking at what class abilities you get. You have to really search to find a class that doesn't increase combat abilities. I'm thinking Dungeon Delver, Exemplar and the NPC classes... I'm sure there are more, but by and large, D&D 3.5 is a game about combat.

While I think it can be fun, to have an idea of what you are trying to bluff with or how, thats not how D&D 3.5 works. You DM would not rate your jump, climb, swim, Spellcraft check on how you performed that in real life. And therefore should not rate your ability to bluff on anything other than the skill check you made. Its that simple. All you have to say is that you try and bluff your way into the party. Then roll a dice, and your DM tells you whether or not you succeed in hitting the DC. Anything other than that is not strictly D&D 3.5. Its fine that you homebrew events like that, and as I said it can be fun, to play that, but the success of failure is up to the skill check.




Maybe in Expert set immortal rules. There are a small handful of mostly inactive critters in Forgotten Realms that hit low 40s. Supremely powerful continent shifting casters like Elminster and Szass Tam come in at high 20s/bottom 30s (Tam is 31 after the level adjustment for being a lich. Halaster Blackcloak, the mad mage of undermountain also weighs in at 30) Many of the Zulkirs of Thay, being the strongest mages in the most mage heavy country, are in their mid teens.

I’m not saying you are doing it wrong. You can design your campaign so city guards are level 20 if you want. But when referring to the “lore” of D&D as defined by all their campaigns materials, you are dead wrong. A 16th level party can trivially roll many countries, let alone cities. After one AP we compared my sorcerer 18 with the printed stats of the ruling council of a nearby large pirate city and determined that working together they couldn’t give me a fight challenging enough to bother running.



So what you are saying is that the writers of the game you are playing, who focus the vast majority of their rules on combat, and who explicitly suggest multiple fights per adventuring day, are wrong. IYHO 3.5 shouldnÂ’t be 3.5. And the people who play 3.5 as written play boring games. You donÂ’t see why that is a LITTLE bit incendiary on a forum of players who actually play 3.5 as designed? (You dont, BTW)

The rules 3.5 has about that situation: you make a bluff check. 1d20+say 20 at level 16. Enemy opposes with sense motive. Succeed or fail. ThatÂ’s what 3.5 gives you.

More fun is when you are trying to bluff someone and you spend a fate point and tag your adorable child hook, and you wind up with a great success while another player sets up an advantage and pushes you to superb. Because FATE is a game designed around cinematic conflict resolution and 3.5 is a game designed around putting minis on a battle map.

Indeed... the game mechanics expect a certain amount of magic items, feats, wealth and level for the interactions at different levels to make sense, and for the mechanics - however flawed - to function.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: closed for review