PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Would you play in a game that disallowed multiclassing?



ken-do-nim
2008-09-27, 04:59 AM
I don't run a 3.5 game at the moment, but if & when I ever DM it again I'm thinking of disallowing multiclassing. Now I don't want this thread to turn into a debate about the pros & cons of the 3.5 approach to multiclassing, so I won't even bother explaining my reasons which would invite that. Simply put, I'm curious that if I took the time to create a 3.5 campaign if anybody would be interested in playing anyway considering that restriction. I would think that despite the fact that players would be forced to pick a class and stick with it, the ample amount of feats and races available would still allow considerable character customization. [Of course there are some classes, feats and races I probably wouldn't allow for game balance reasons, reviewed on a case-by-case basis like anything else]

Armoury99
2008-09-27, 05:25 AM
Yes. No problem at all.

The most resistence will probably come from min-maxers, and optimising class-dippers. As long as your group isn't primarilly made up of them, you should be fine.

overduegalaxy
2008-09-27, 05:29 AM
I could see people wanting to take dips for character reasons (a gnome rogue who really hates kobolds and takes a level in ranger to pick up favored enemy: reptilian), but most of the time there's feats or prestige classes to cover that.

PrCs are still allowed, right?

Tempest Fennac
2008-09-27, 05:35 AM
I can't see a problem with that approach at all (I tend to be more concerned with being allowed to use half-animal races then anything to be honest, and I don't multi-class anyway).

Kaihaku
2008-09-27, 05:36 AM
Yes I would. Yes I have.

My first 3.0 campaign was no multiclassing though prestige classes were still allowed.

I also played in a year long tabletop game where there was no multiclassing or prestige classing. It's not a big deal.

I like multiclassing, fighter/rogue is fun, but it's exclusion isn't a big deal and really simplifies things.

BobVosh
2008-09-27, 05:41 AM
If PrC are, ya, no problem.

Or if it is pathfinder or some other variant where half the levels aren't dead levels.

kamikasei
2008-09-27, 05:50 AM
I might, but it would raise the question of why the DM wanted the restriction, and the answer to that might put me off based on what it said about his style or attitude. Several possible motives for such a move are things I'd regard as marks against a DM, though other factors may outweigh them.

weenie
2008-09-27, 05:50 AM
Sure, I'd play. I've only played one multiclassed character so far actually.

But really, why would you ban multiclassing? It doesn't really create much balance issues and sometimes people want to make characters that don't fit into any single class.

Morty
2008-09-27, 05:57 AM
I'd have no problems with that, myself. I like multiclassing as an option, but I don't like using it myself.

nagora
2008-09-27, 06:03 AM
You go for it! Multiclassing sucks big time.

I am considering a return to OD&D's "Elf" and "Dwarf" classes should any of my players ever want to play a non-human again (which seems unlikely but it might happen).

Saph
2008-09-27, 06:03 AM
I like playing spellcasters, so sure, I'd have no problem with it. I'd be hesitant to play a single-class Fighter or Barbarian, though, because those classes struggle to keep up if you can't multiclass a bit (or a lot).

- Saph

Gorbash
2008-09-27, 06:06 AM
Sure, I'd play a wizard, druid or a cleric. Don't think the party fighter or some other non-spellcasting class would find it intresting at higher lvls, but hey, it's your campaign.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-27, 06:12 AM
Probably not. It seems like an arbitrary limitation, and really hurts non-casters. Druids, wizards, and clerics have no significant reduction in power if they stick to one class - all their multiclassing is done contingent on getting full casting progression anyway. Meanwhile, fighters, paladins, rogues, and rangers are really screwed; the only non-caster class I'd consider taking all the way is barbarian, and even they're not that hot.

No multiclass combination is going to have the sheer power of the full caster.

Jim Profit
2008-09-27, 07:15 AM
Probably not. It seems like an arbitrary limitation, and really hurts non-casters. Druids, wizards, and clerics have no significant reduction in power if they stick to one class - all their multiclassing is done contingent on getting full casting progression anyway. Meanwhile, fighters, paladins, rogues, and rangers are really screwed; the only non-caster class I'd consider taking all the way is barbarian, and even they're not that hot.

No multiclass combination is going to have the sheer power of the full caster.
Nothing a bit of house ruling can't solve. (NOTE: No cool abilities for wizard/druid/cleric, they're good enough..)

Fighter:
Gets to choose one of these abilities when the class is taken.

Fighter Strike (ex) :
Your weapon deals an additional die in damage per odd fighter level.
So for example, say you're a fighter at level 9 and are using a longsword.

Your longsword now deals 5d8 damage, this stacks with any other damage increasing feats or whatever..

Fighter Precision (ex) :
You gain +1 on all attack rolls per fighter level. (Great for overcoming high ACs later level without magic)

Painful Strike (ex) :
Even when your attack with a weapon misses. It still deals 1d12+dex or str mod (depending on the weapon) damage.



Barbarian:
Gets to choose one of the following when taking barbarian class.

Unstoppable (ex) :
Gains 2d6+1 per barbarian level in temporary hitpoints. This can be used as a free action a number of times per day equal to constitution modifier. This temporary HP does not "fade away". It has to be depleted.

Crushing Blow (ex) :
When the barbarian deals damage with a weapon, it deals additional damage to any of the foe's stats (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha) of the barbarian's choosing. The damage dealt is equal to the barbarian's constitution modifier.


Paladin:
Get to choose one the abilities when taking paladin class.

Holy Strike (su) :
Gain +4 on attack rolls against evil alignment creatures. This stacks with any other attack bonus/smite. Even if the attack misses, it still deals 1d4 damage. (This only effects evil creatures)

Petrifying Dogma (su) :
As a full-round action, you can pray, and bestow your weapon with a holy aura. The next time your weapon would strike a foe, the foe has to make a fortitude save DC equal to your charisma+wisdom score. If they fail, they become prone and stunned for 1d4 rounds. The petrifying dogma can be used as often as you want, but you must spend a full-round action everytime and it only has one "charge" per hit...


Ranger:
Choose one when taking the ranger class.

Paranoid Survivalist (ex) :
The ranger's hit die is now d12.

Nature's Wrath (ex) :
Even when your attacks miss with a weapon, they still deal 1d4 damage.


Bard:
Choose one when taking the bard class.

Tweak (su) :
1/day gain +20 to any skillcheck.

Jack of Trades (ex) :
Gain +1 on all skillcheck rolls.


Rogue:
Choose one when taking the rogue class.

Cut-Throat (ex) :
Gain +2 on attack rolls during Attack-Of-Oppurtunity.

Backstab (ex) :
Your sneak attacks deal d8s in damage instead.


Sorcerer:
Choose one when taking the sorcerer class.

Force Orb (sp) :
Melee touch attack. If succesful, deals 1d10 force damage.

Grasping Shadows (sp) :
Foe makes a will saving throw DC equal to the sorcerer's charisma score. If they fail, targets base land speed is reduced by half. (If foe's charisma score is below 12, they're completely stunned) Grasping Shadows can only be used on the ground and when there are shadows present. So if the light is too bright or if it's too dark this spell-like ability is useless. The range of grasping shaodws is 5 feet per 1 charisma point above 10. (So 18 cha=40feet) The foe is stunned/slowed untill the sorcerer fails their concentration check. They must make a concencreation check every round to keep the grasping shadows present..


Monk:
Choose one when taking the monk class.

Trained Body (ex) :
Gains additional HP equal to 5+wis modifier. This stacks with feats and other HP boosting qualities.

Trained Mind (ex) :
You may re-roll any will saving throw you just made. You must take the second roll, even if it's lower.

Bosh
2008-09-27, 07:16 AM
Yes. No problem at all.

The most resistence will probably come from min-maxers, and optimising class-dippers. As long as your group isn't primarilly made up of them, you should be fine.

Um, no not really. The most powerful classes are single class casters in 3.5ed...

Kaihaku
2008-09-27, 07:19 AM
Fighter Strike (ex) :
Your weapon deals an additional die in damage per odd fighter level.
So for example, say you're a fighter at level 9 and are using a longsword.

Um...wow.

I don't think giving the Fighter class unconditional super non-sneak sneak attack would balance things.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-27, 07:22 AM
Sure, I'd play a wizard, druid or a cleric. Don't think the party fighter or some other non-spellcasting class would find it intresting at higher lvls, but hey, it's your campaign.

Well, disallowing multiclassing is certainly for flavor reasons and not balance reasons. Any way you slice it, high-level 3.5 is going to have the usual problems between full casters and the others. I'm not sure what to do about that except leave it as a "cross that bridge when you come to it" kind of problem.

I had a compromise thought. Maybe I'd start the campaign at level 2, and characters can be either (1) level 2 in one class (2) level 1 in two classes or (3) level 1 with a +1 level adjustment from race. After that, no more multiclassing. That way you can get the combo you want, like fighter/rogue or wizard/rogue, and I would allow the DMG prestige classes like arcane trickster, mystic theurge, and eldritch knight.

Muspelheim
2008-09-27, 07:23 AM
Like others have said, I would probably play, but it would pretty much restrict my options to playing full casters for what is seemingly no good reason.

Personally, I totally separate fluff from a character's actual classes and just goes by the abilities the given character has. So excessive multiclassing doesn't bother me at all, and I actually encourage it in order to make concepts fit better mechanically with what the player's envision their character to be able to do. For many concepts, especially for non-casters or secondary casters, that can be pretty hard, or outright impossible, to do in a viable way without resorting to multiclassing. Feats only do so much, and most classes gets very few of them anyhow.

So I'd play -and probably start out as somewhat sceptical about the DM's motives for making the decision - and then definitely play a wizard, cleric, druid or sorcerer. Well, or a rogue perhaps.

AstralFire
2008-09-27, 07:24 AM
Yes, but only if we had access to most of the important splatbooks.

It's not just an issue of power - and I'm getting annoyed by the "min/maxers'll be the only ones who'd miss it!" since if you remove both multiclassing and a decent amount of splat it's nearly impossible to say, make a wandering mystic monk or a lightly armored frontliner that is not a monk or a bard who focuses on their music to the exclusivity of everything else or...

And frankly, out of the PHB classes:
- I have no interest in playing a Wizard. Ever.
- I have no interest in playing a Cleric. Ever.
- I have no interest in playing a Druid. Ever. (At least without one of the simplified wild shape variants where I don't have to flip through pages and pages every time I want to try something new.)
- Little interest in playing a Sorcerer or Paladin. These classes I do like the flavor, but casting spells developed by Mordenkainen that every Wizard can recognize feels wrong, and I like my Paladins a bit lighter and more dextrous.
- No to Rogues. I don't play opportunistic fighters, they don't interest me. Sneaky, yes, but Sneak Attack is baggage that I don't like to play with.
- Generally 'meh' to Barbarians. Sometimes, maybe.
- Out of the PHB that leaves me with Bards, Fighters, Rangers, and Monks. And I'm often not in the mood for one of those four. Bard is my favorite class ever, but Cheesecake is my favorite food ever and I don't just eat that all the time.

So yeah, basically, no multiclassing is doable as long as you still have a goodly amount of splat. You ditch both and I wouldn't play, just because most of the concepts I am interested in playing (Binder, Duskblade, Swordsage, Psion, Wilder, Warlock, Hexblade, Scout, Soulknife, Shadowcaster) would be gone.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-27, 07:29 AM
Nothing a bit of house ruling can't solve. (NOTE: No cool abilities for wizard/druid/cleric, they're good enough..)

Cool ideas, but they're not even remotely balanced against each other. (And the bard and sorcerer are already casters; they don't need more benefits.)

Seems easier to just allow multiclassing, which lets non-casters be kind of useful.

kamikasei
2008-09-27, 07:29 AM
Well, disallowing multiclassing is certainly for flavor reasons and not balance reasons.

In which case I would have a problem with it because the idea that the specific class-and-level makeup of a character is a part of his "flavour" is one I disagree with and is likely to indicate deeper differences between myself and the DM. I would expect a DM to be approving builds anyway, so it seems far better to me to say that a specific character being presented has some problem in your eyes than to prohibit multiclassing all together.

Satyr
2008-09-27, 07:32 AM
The system with classes and level is a major hindrance for the creation and developemnt of charactrers and force the into stereotypic cliché roles. This is bad enpough in standard D&D, but if you cut one of the few possibilities to crarte a rounder and less stereotypic character, I don't think you do the game any favor.

Aneantir
2008-09-27, 07:40 AM
Fighter:
Gets to choose one of these abilities when the class is taken.

Fighter Strike (ex) :
Your weapon deals an additional die in damage per odd fighter level.
So for example, say you're a fighter at level 9 and are using a longsword.

Your longsword now deals 5d8 damage, this stacks with any other damage increasing feats or whatever..

Fighter Precision (ex) :
You gain +1 on all attack rolls per fighter level. (Great for overcoming high ACs later level without magic)

Barbarian:
Gets to choose one of the following when taking barbarian class.

Crushing Blow (ex) :
When the barbarian deals damage with a weapon, it deals additional damage to any of the foe's stats (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha) of the barbarian's choosing. The damage dealt is equal to the barbarian's constitution modifier.

Bard:
Choose one when taking the bard class.

Tweak (su) :
1/day gain +20 to any skillcheck.


These class abilities are COMPLETELY insane. They will not balance these classes against full casters in the least, but will actually cause a whole ton of other problems you'll need to deal with.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-27, 07:41 AM
In which case I would have a problem with it because the idea that the specific class-and-level makeup of a character is a part of his "flavour" is one I disagree with and is likely to indicate deeper differences between myself and the DM. I would expect a DM to be approving builds anyway, so it seems far better to me to say that a specific character being presented has some problem in your eyes than to prohibit multiclassing all together.


The system with classes and level is a major hindrance for the creation and developemnt of charactrers and force the into stereotypic cliché roles. This is bad enpough in standard D&D, but if you cut one of the few possibilities to crarte a rounder and less stereotypic character, I don't think you do the game any favor.

Heck yes. Limiting characters to one class each is fine if you just want to "play D&D", but if you want to play anything more complex, layered, or deep...

Er, well, you probably wouldn't be playing D&D anyway. Huh.

nagora
2008-09-27, 07:56 AM
Heck yes. Limiting characters to one class each is fine if you just want to "play D&D", but if you want to play anything more complex, layered, or deep...
LOL. Try playing the person instead of the sheet.

Satyr
2008-09-27, 08:10 AM
LOL. Try playing the person instead of the sheet

I have an even bertter idea: Make sure that the Character and his datas are actually linked and interchangeable so that you can play both at the same time!
To a certain degree, people are what they can do. If the character does not represent the charakter, then somenthing went wrong.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-27, 08:24 AM
LOL. Try playing the person instead of the sheet.

I tried, but then it turned out you couldn't use swords and magic at the same time unless you were an elf. Go figure.

Muspelheim
2008-09-27, 08:32 AM
LOL. Try playing the person instead of the sheet.

Well, that's not really the issue ... It's just nice to match the roleplaying with the mechanics whenever possible. For instance, if you don't want to play a rogue because of whatever, it's really next to impossible to make a dex-based melee combatant that can contribute to the party in combat in any meaningful way unless you use somewhat heavy multiclassing and splat books. So yeah, you can be a fighter with weapon finesse but if you actually have the option to make a character which can be as (mechanically) viable as a classic two-handed weapon wielder, why shouldn't you be able to play that instead, even if it entails picking up a handful of different classes.

Actually, I'd say the quote supports that you should separate a given character's abilities from what its class says it is.

Eldariel
2008-09-27, 08:37 AM
Meh. I wouldn't like it, but I'd play it. I suppose the maker of the game just wants everyone to play a Druid, a Wizard, a Cleric or a Sorcerer (at least if the game is planned to proceed beyond level 6). I suppose that's fine, but you can just tell people: "This is a high magic world. Everyone is a spellcaster." instead of "Don't multiclass."

kamikasei
2008-09-27, 08:43 AM
Meh. I wouldn't like it, but I'd play it. I suppose the maker of the game just wants everyone to play a Druid, a Wizard, a Cleric or a Sorcerer (at least if the game is planned to proceed beyond level 6).

Now, now, he didn't say core-only. Maybe someone would play a Psion, Beguiler, Psywar, ToB-er, or other relatively viable single-classed build.

Morty
2008-09-27, 08:45 AM
One would think that if you're a single-classed non-spellcaster above 6th level you get eaten by dire ducks immediately...

nagora
2008-09-27, 08:50 AM
I tried, but then it turned out you couldn't use swords and magic at the same time unless you were an elf. Go figure.
Talk to your DM; if you have a character archetype in mind that fits the setting then s/he'll probably let you work something out and if you don't then it's a problem of mis-matching your and your DM's ideas of the setting, not a problem with the system.

For example, in a Lankhmar campaign, I would assume that the DM will allow the players to run characters based on Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, but probably not one based on King Arthur or an anime wizard. If you use a skill system to build such characters in that setting then, again, the problem is with you, which begs the question as to why should one even bother with a system that allows you to do that? A set of appropriate classes is more constructive than having to have the DM step in at every turn and approve or refuse every skill and feat you pick.

I think that a carefully selected set of classes is greatly preferable to the results of a 3e-style Frankenstien multiclassing system, which is why I mentioned thinking about going back to "Dwarf" and "Elf" classes even in my 1e game where multiclassing is already much more coherent. That would allow clarity of choice and add to the ambiance of the setting. Note, however, that the Dwarves or elves in question don't have to be Tolkienised ones - I just think it might help if they were clear and distinct from other player races.

Classes are definitely a superior approach to character generation compared to a skill-based system; but having 50 classes to choose from, from splat books and magazines etc. defeats the purpose.

mostlyharmful
2008-09-27, 09:00 AM
One would think that if you're a single-classed non-spellcaster above 6th level you get eaten by dire ducks immediately...

No I'd say they'd be ok with Direducks, its just that much more than that and they're sitting at the short people table while spellcasters sort out the big stuff. For the most part if you've got a big real problem you'd go to the people who're best equiped to handle it.

tarbrush
2008-09-27, 09:06 AM
I'd be cool with it, though I'd pretty much ignore core classes. Beguiler, ToB guy, duskblade, factotum, and binder maybe, would all be fun for 20 levels. Core classes could be dull cause they tend to lack capstone abilities higher up, bu certainly come of the later classes would work.

RebelRogue
2008-09-27, 09:10 AM
I'd be cool with it as I rarely multiclass anyway. And I rather enjoy playing core classes than some people think of as "useless". Having that zoo of "non-classic classes" just does not feel much like D&D to me :shrugs:

Satyr
2008-09-27, 09:16 AM
Classes are definitely a superior approach to character generation compared to a skill-based system;

Because there is nothing finer than limits, hindrances and a completely railroaded character development for a role-playing game. Because forced stereotypes relieve the players from the inconvenient compulsion to think for themselves when creating their characters.

I can understand when people prefer a class-based system; It's not particularly easy to understand, but I can understand it. Stating it as a holy truth, on the other hand, is a sign of dogmatism.

NEO|Phyte
2008-09-27, 09:20 AM
I'm with what seems to be the common response.

((Sure, as long as there's sourcebooks available such that there are DECENT classes to not multiclass out of, PrC access optional, depending on character idea. Go on all you'd like about those horrible minmaxers and optimizers, until a base class shows up that can both transform one's hands into a set of claws AND allows one to float off the ground indefinitely, Agdor Loathestone is going to need a PrC to be fully realized.))

Ascension
2008-09-27, 09:34 AM
I wouldn't ban it outright, I'd just make it dependent on a really good backstory. You want to multiclass? Explain to me why I should let you. I almost always take pains to explain why a character is multiclassed whenever I build one.

pinkbunny
2008-09-27, 09:36 AM
I find that "You're multiclassing? Cool, why's your character doing that?" solves most problems, as long as you only accept real answers.

A total ban on multiclassing can have the effect of inhibiting character development in the situation that characters change.

Also: if your game is passing level 10, there are certain classes *cough* Fighter*cough* Whose run out of useful choices.

kamikasei
2008-09-27, 09:44 AM
I find that "You're multiclassing? Cool, why's your character doing that?" solves most problems, as long as you only accept real answers.

If the character, rather than the player, is thinking about his classes and levels, that's a problem in itself.

Gorbash
2008-09-27, 09:45 AM
Also, if you do want to enforce 'no-multiclass' rule, try playing Pathfinder. Yeah, it's not the best solution (neither is the idea of no multiclassing, but hey), but at least it won't be that boring to play melee classes.

expirement10K14
2008-09-27, 09:51 AM
I do think I have got it down. Or do I? One seems to be the rule, and it makes me a word that is not part of the game.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-27, 10:04 AM
In which case I would have a problem with it because the idea that the specific class-and-level makeup of a character is a part of his "flavour" is one I disagree with and is likely to indicate deeper differences between myself and the DM. I would expect a DM to be approving builds anyway, so it seems far better to me to say that a specific character being presented has some problem in your eyes than to prohibit multiclassing all together.

This. Just because a character is mechanically multi-classed doesn't mean they have several professions in the game world - a fighter/barbarian can simply be a raging warrior.


Because there is nothing finer than limits, hindrances and a completely railroaded character development for a role-playing game. Because forced stereotypes relieve the players from the inconvenient compulsion to think for themselves when creating their characters.

I can understand when people prefer a class-based system; It's not particularly easy to understand, but I can understand it. Stating it as a holy truth, on the other hand, is a sign of dogmatism.

Seconded. Classes aren't definitely better or worse than a skill system, it depends on the setting and preference (and, coincidentally, I have a strong preference towards classless systems). And saying things like "definitely superior" without any arguments to back them up doesn't help your arguments and only makes you sound like an elitist.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-27, 10:07 AM
Classes are definitely a superior approach to character generation compared to a skill-based system; but having 50 classes to choose from, from splat books and magazines etc. defeats the purpose.

:smalleek:

Skill-based systems like GURPS, RuneQuest, etc. obviously facilitate roleplay to a degree that's ridiculously removed from class-based systems like D&D. I can literally play any kind of character in a game like that. (Provided, you know, that such characters are suppose to be viable in the in-character world as removed from game mechanics.) If my options are limited to Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, it's patently impossible to play a whole host of character concepts - something as simple as "chirurgeon-herbalist-healer" or "detective" is entirely impossible, unless you saddle it with one of the pre-made classes, like "detective-Thief". At least 3.5 gives you a variety of choices that combine to form other choices (although anything not focused on combat or spellcasting is still not viable).

Kurald Galain
2008-09-27, 10:23 AM
Classes are definitely a superior approach to character generation compared to a skill-based system;

This is definitely the absolute and universal truth simply because you say to. Thank you for enlightening us with your unique wisdom.

kamikasei
2008-09-27, 10:39 AM
@Nagora,

I haven't more than a passing acquaintance with skill-based systems so I can't get too deeply in to that, but it seems like your post is coming from a starting point far removed from my own to say the least.

You seem to be saying that the virtue of classes is that they limit characters to predefined archetypes which are appropriate to the game being played (the setting, tone, etc). But who creates these classes? The game designer? Aren't you then stuck with a different game for every setting or style you might want to play (since the 3.5 approach of dozens of mix-and-match classes covering a wide range of game types doesn't seem to appeal to you)?

The DM? So, whenever starting a game in a new setting or with a new tone or style, the DM has to invent a new set of classes that will enable the players to play whatever he can anticipate them wanting to try within the limits of his design intent? That seems like an awful lot of work to add on.

Alternatively, since you've already said the DM and players should be talking to one another about their expectations for the game, wouldn't a good way to operate be to have a general system that lets the players build just about any sort of character, and the DM help ensure the result fits into the game world? In effect similar to letting the player design his own class for the DM's approval, but with guidelines to ensure various options are balanced against one another?

Such an approach has several advantages as I see it. You get a general system that (assuming it's well-designed) the DM and players can adapt to a wide range of games. Players have more freedom to realize the characters they want to play. Part of the creative burden is taken off the DM and shifted to the players, freeing him from having to anticipate everything they might want to try and letting him focus more on the rest of the game.

What is the clear superiority you see in class-based as opposed to skill-based systems?

Hallavast
2008-09-27, 10:58 AM
Would I play a game that disallowed multiclassing? Yes. The game is still fun. I'd lose a few options, but they are easily worked around by the complete modularity of 3e.

Would I play your game that disallowed multiclassing? No, because that is the only thing you've told us about it thus far (hint hint). Asking for an acedemic debate that isolates multiclassing from the rest of the game and asking for, basically, a judgement of it without the ability to consider the "merits" of using it in conjuction with a system is a bit pointless. I'm not sure what you're trying to determine.

Jayabalard
2008-09-27, 11:00 AM
Um, no not really. The most powerful classes are single class casters in 3.5ed...I'm pretty sure that multiclassing into certain PRCs with full casting are more powerful

Hallavast
2008-09-27, 11:07 AM
I'm pretty sure that multiclassing into certain PRCs with full casting are more powerful

That's not really considered multiclassing, though. It's Prestigeclassing! :smallwink:

1of3
2008-09-27, 11:09 AM
Yes. If it's a Gestalt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm) game.

Although that would be some kind of multi-classing, it would retain the idea of choosing a class and sticking to it.

No prestige classes, of course.

UglyPanda
2008-09-27, 11:12 AM
To the OP: May I ask why multiclassing would be banned? Sure some people would be fine with playing in such a campaign, but nobody is explicitly saying it's a good idea. Why do you not want it? Is it power? Is it that you don't want to do much bookkeeping on your own? Or do you just have players who have a bad grasp of the rules?

Nohwl
2008-09-27, 11:14 AM
yes. id probably play a cleric. i havent played one in a while.

Muspelheim
2008-09-27, 11:28 AM
For example, in a Lankhmar campaign, I would assume that the DM will allow the players to run characters based on Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, but probably not one based on King Arthur or an anime wizard. If you use a skill system to build such characters in that setting then, again, the problem is with you, which begs the question as to why should one even bother with a system that allows you to do that? A set of appropriate classes is more constructive than having to have the DM step in at every turn and approve or refuse every skill and feat you pick.

I think that a carefully selected set of classes is greatly preferable to the results of a 3e-style Frankenstien multiclassing system, which is why I mentioned thinking about going back to "Dwarf" and "Elf" classes even in my 1e game where multiclassing is already much more coherent. That would allow clarity of choice and add to the ambiance of the setting.


I think there are two distinct things going on here. It is certainly reasonable and entirely alright to limit or ban certain things in order to create a more coherent or stylistic setting and setting the mood for the entire campaign. However, I have a hard time seeing how 'no multiclassing' could contribute to that end. I can certainly see that, say, banning bards, the fly spell, polymorphing or heavy armor could be reasonable for certain campaigns. If you are playing in a dark, gritty horrorish setting, it would certainly seem somewhat odd to have a guy running around who's main shtick is to make people better by juggling, singing ballads, reciting poetry or whatever. But I have trouble imagining the concept where a party of a gnome ninja, an elven druid, a warforged bard and and a catfolk swashbuckler is perfectly 'in flavour' but a fighter/rogue would seem out of place. The thing is, that it just seems so arbitrary, both from a flavour and a balance point of view.

Personally, I think it's very boring to think of a character as conceptually defined by his/her class. When I think of a concept for the character I'd like to be able to fit mechanics and background/personality/general concept together. Adhering strictly to the stereotypes that the typical base class represents is not exactly inspiring in that regard, to say the least.

Some people prefer for fantasy/DnD to stick to certain established genre conventions (tolkienesque elves and wizards in robes and pointy hats, for instance). Nothing wrong with that. I just don't like it and find it extremely bland and uninteresting.

But really, as long as all the participants in the game are somewhat mature about things, it really shouldn't be a problem to hand out some guidelines for what kind of character would be appropriate for the setting and expecting people to respect that, and perhaps even limiting or outright banning certain, specific game elements for flavour or balance reasons. I fail to see how that would be more problematic that an arbitrary limitation like no multiclassing which doesn't help either issue.

Epinephrine
2008-09-27, 11:32 AM
I have no problem playing without multiclassing. PrCs are largely sufficient, and most DMs are flexible if you have resonable suggestions for homebrewing options (you want a mounted ranger? a mounted combat progression sounds just fine as a replacement for TWF or archery).

Dipping for benefits (ooh, a level of swordsage please!) is absurd, and it's why multiclassing XP penalties exist. I'm all for XP penalties , and tend to limit the benefit of 1 level dips whenever possible. The 1st level barbarian pounce ability is stupid, and will never be part of a campaign I run.

nagora
2008-09-27, 11:34 AM
Because forced stereotypes relieve the players from the inconvenient compulsion to think for themselves when creating their characters.
Well, it relieves them from the tedious need to find numbers to represent the actions of a person and free them to think about the reasons the person is that class and indeed everything else about their personality as a character rather than an exercise in linear programming.


I can understand when people prefer a class-based system; It's not particularly easy to understand, but I can understand it. Stating it as a holy truth, on the other hand, is a sign of dogmatism.
It was an opinion based on many years of playing different systems. Skill based systems are at their best representing normal people; they suck at doing heroes and the further the genre is from real life the worse they suck. D&D is a fantasy game and as such I think the evidence is that time spent on "builds" is time wasted.

Clearly-defined classes carry off fantasy far better than skills, IMO, and I think unrestrained multiclassing is rarely anything except an attempt to bilk the setting.

If you enjoy playing a character then a set of classes selected or designed by the DM for their setting will generate much more fun for you; if you prefer to find all the clever ways to combine rules to cause this effect or that bonus, then I can understand that you will prefer a skill/feat based system as an intellectual exercise, but I don't really see that as a form of roleplaying.

Deepblue706
2008-09-27, 11:43 AM
If a DM presented this absolute rule against multiclassing to me, I'd see it as condescending. I wouldn't play out of principle.

Chronos
2008-09-27, 11:46 AM
I find that "You're multiclassing? Cool, why's your character doing that?" solves most problems, as long as you only accept real answers.I'm curious: When a player chooses to stay in the same class, do you ask "Why are you staying?"? Under the way that D&D 3e is set up, when a 4th-level fighter gains his fifth level, fighter, rogue, barbarian, and ranger are all equally valid choices. As, for that matter, are bard, or cleric, or wizard, or whatever. If your player is always making the same decision for class, perhaps you should wonder about that.

Muspelheim
2008-09-27, 11:47 AM
Dipping for benefits (ooh, a level of swordsage please!) is absurd, and it's why multiclassing XP penalties exist. I'm all for XP penalties , and tend to limit the benefit of 1 level dips whenever possible. The 1st level barbarian pounce ability is stupid, and will never be part of a campaign I run.

Why exactly is it absurd? I find it to be perfectly in order and in many cases quite flavourful. I fail to see why having more than one class that would complement the other(s) are inherently any better or worse than just having a single class. Is it also absurd to take feats that augment your party role, or whatever it is you want your character to be able to do?

Sure, lots of things are stupid or broken or both in DnD (both in core and splat books), but that really has nothing to do with multiclassing in and off itself. A straight wizard will cast Polymorph, Forcecage, Planar Binding and Gate just fine for instance.

Jayabalard
2008-09-27, 11:50 AM
I'm curious: When a player chooses to stay in the same class, do you ask "Why are you staying?"? The "Why are you staying" question has already been answered by the original character backstory; if you continue the same training focus, then you don't need any additional explanation. On the other hand, if you change your training focus, you'll need some sort of reason or explanation as to why you're now doing different (especially if what you're doing is vastly different).

Epinephrine
2008-09-27, 11:55 AM
Why exactly is it absurd?

I find that most people do this for mechanical benefits, with no regard for the role playing/character. They fabricate a little story to justify it, and dip for something.

I'm not against all dips, or against multiclassing in some ways - splitting your levels nicely between two base classes both offering something you want - makes sense to me. Dipping for monk to get an AC bonus, when it's completely out of character? No. I don't mind if the player seriously thinks that their character is going monastic, and begins playing it, and is willing to take a few levels - but dipping for a level of a class to get a bonus is metagaming, and it's not something I encourage.

Deepblue706
2008-09-27, 11:57 AM
I'm curious: When a player chooses to stay in the same class, do you ask "Why are you staying?"? Under the way that D&D 3e is set up, when a 4th-level fighter gains his fifth level, fighter, rogue, barbarian, and ranger are all equally valid choices. As, for that matter, are bard, or cleric, or wizard, or whatever. If your player is always making the same decision for class, perhaps you should wonder about that.

I dunno.

I think it's perfectly natural to assume people will continue to do the same things until a situation changes. There's some kind of action. A realization, perhaps. If someone is playing a Fighter for one good reason, I don't need to ask them every time they level-up, because presumably, their reason has yet to change.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-27, 11:58 AM
It was an opinion based on many years of playing different systems. Skill based systems are at their best representing normal people; they suck at doing heroes and the further the genre is from real life the worse they suck. D&D is a fantasy game and as such I think the evidence is that time spent on "builds" is time wasted.


1. You don't use words such as definitely when stating an opinion.
2. O'Reilly? Exalted is among the best (if not the number one) games for epic, very high-powered fantasy. Mutants and Masteminds is the same for superheroes (although it's so versatile it can represent almost everything well). Scion combines these two. None of those is a class and level system like DND, all of them base on skills.
3. Out of curiosity, do you think that number-crunching during character creation and advancement means that the player turns his character into more of a set of numbers on the sheet and less of a real, interesting person?

Chronos
2008-09-27, 11:58 AM
The "Why are you staying" question has already been answered by the original character backstory; if you continue the same training focus, then you don't need any additional explanation.But what makes you say that the same training focus means the same class? "Hitting things really hard with a sword" is a perfectly valid training focus (and about the most detail you'll get on the subject from an in-character point of view), but you could represent that with almost any of the non-casting or half-casting classes. In-character, how is "I'm going to stay in fighter to gain another feat to expand the ways in which I can use my sword" any different from "I'm going to switch to rogue to pick up some Sneak Attack to expand the ways in which I can use my sword"?

Deepblue706
2008-09-27, 12:01 PM
But what makes you say that the same training focus means the same class? "Hitting things really hard with a sword" is a perfectly valid training focus (and about the most detail you'll get on the subject from an in-character point of view), but you could represent that with almost any of the non-casting or half-casting classes. In-character, how is "I'm going to stay in fighter to gain another feat to expand the ways in which I can use my sword" any different from "I'm going to switch to rogue to pick up some Sneak Attack to expand the ways in which I can use my sword"?

The Rogue class has more abilities than Sneak Attack, some of which that do not fit with a specific type of character (meaning it may or may not seem correct for the character in question). I see this method to be clumsy, at best.

Jayabalard
2008-09-27, 12:03 PM
In-character, how is "I'm going to stay in fighter to gain another feat to expand the ways in which I can use my sword" any different from "I'm going to switch to rogue to pick up some Sneak Attack to expand the ways in which I can use my sword"?Rogues are more than just a class that gets sneak attack, and they're a relatively simple class, so there's a pretty big difference between those.

Regardless, I'd still expect an in-character explanation for a new feat; since feats are much smaller than classes, they require less explanation than a class change, but they still need something to justify it.

Gorbash
2008-09-27, 12:17 PM
I may have missed it, but is PrestigeClassing allowed? If so, is only one prestige class allowed, or can there be multiple? It's understandable that you don't allow multi-prestigeclassing, to avoid dipping just for abilities, but if you set up a rule that before you can take levels in a second prestige class, you must take all the levels of the first prestige class, that'd be perfectly understandable.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-27, 12:18 PM
I find that most people do this for mechanical benefits, with no regard for the role playing/character. They fabricate a little story to justify it, and dip for something.

I'm not against all dips, or against multiclassing in some ways - splitting your levels nicely between two base classes both offering something you want - makes sense to me. Dipping for monk to get an AC bonus, when it's completely out of character? No. I don't mind if the player seriously thinks that their character is going monastic, and begins playing it, and is willing to take a few levels - but dipping for a level of a class to get a bonus is metagaming, and it's not something I encourage.

For those of you asking me why I want to restrict multi-classing, there are several reasons, but what Epinephrine has written is one of the biggest. I don't have a problem with someone splitting their levels between two classes either I realized, which is why I came up with the second approach where everybody starts off at level 2 and can choose to multiclass at character creation if they so desire. No one has commented on that yet...

Edit: so yes, if I'm going to allow advancing in 2 classes at once, I'd be cruel if I didn't allow you to go into a prestige class which makes that worthwhile to do in the first place.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-27, 12:24 PM
The "multiclassing encourages powergaming" arguments falls flat before the fact that most of the broken 3.5 content doesn't require any multiclassing at all, dipping is often a trap (dip one monk level to gain Wisdom to AC... while losing 1 point of BAB, and you'd have better AC in armor anyway), and it's the weaker classes like paladins who need to multiclass to be decent.

Epinephrine
2008-09-27, 12:28 PM
But what makes you say that the same training focus means the same class? "Hitting things really hard with a sword" is a perfectly valid training focus (and about the most detail you'll get on the subject from an in-character point of view), but you could represent that with almost any of the non-casting or half-casting classes. In-character, how is "I'm going to stay in fighter to gain another feat to expand the ways in which I can use my sword" any different from "I'm going to switch to rogue to pick up some Sneak Attack to expand the ways in which I can use my sword"?

I have no issue with a fighter taking sneak attack. We have a rogue using the feat variant (UA) as well as a rogue using a partial feat variant (halfway between feat variant and sneak attack variant - gives up half his sneak attack advancement for feats). I'm fine with a fighter doing the reverse as well, like the sneak attack fighter variant in UA. But I think that finding a solution as DM and player is far more important than having a set of rules that allow exploiting by picking certain single levels of classes.

The idea behind the leveled progression is that one acquires abilities gradually, and increasing in power typically. If the first (or second, whatever) level of a class grants an ability out of scale to the amount of advancement required, it's a problem. The 1st level Lion totem(?) barbarian with Pounce is an example of this.

I have no problem homebrewing though - I feel that any time a class offers good abilities for a level or two (Pounce barbarian, Marshall Aura...), and then fails to offer a decent advancement, it's a problem waiting to happen. Eliminating those problems is a better option than limiting multiclassing, so one can always rewrite classes - but it's easier sometimes to discourage people from looking around for things to multiclass to for a mechanical advantage, and instead ask them what they'd like thematically from the character, and work out an appropriate substitution. You want to play a favoured soul, but don't care for the wings/resistances/weapon focus - instead you'd like to be granted a companion/mount as a sign of your deity's favour? That's probably doable.

I guess I have no issue with power-balanced multiclassing, or with in character multiclassing - but I don't like the metagaming aspect of it. If you want to change how your class/character works, we can discuss things, and come up with a solution - whether it's a prestige class, a variant, a multiclass, a feat... I just don't like reading about dipping for a level of X, then 2 levels of Y, then a level of Z, because it allows adding all these things to your AC!

Muspelheim
2008-09-27, 01:08 PM
The idea behind the leveled progression is that one acquires abilities gradually, and increasing in power typically. If the first (or second, whatever) level of a class grants an ability out of scale to the amount of advancement required, it's a problem. The 1st level Lion totem(?) barbarian with Pounce is an example of this.

I have no problem homebrewing though - I feel that any time a class offers good abilities for a level or two (Pounce barbarian, Marshall Aura...), and then fails to offer a decent advancement, it's a problem waiting to happen. Eliminating those problems is a better option than limiting multiclassing, so one can always rewrite classes - but it's easier sometimes to discourage people from looking around for things to multiclass to for a mechanical advantage, and instead ask them what they'd like thematically from the character, and work out an appropriate substitution. You want to play a favoured soul, but don't care for the wings/resistances/weapon focus - instead you'd like to be granted a companion/mount as a sign of your deity's favour? That's probably doable.

I find this approach perfectly fine - and much much better than just instituting a blanket ban for no obvious reason. However, one should keep in mind that it goes both ways when talking about multiclassing and level appropriate abilities. For quite a few classes (casters, primarily) multiclassing (meaning with other base classes, not prestige classes) is pretty much a one-way street to being a really bad character. It's a trap, basically.

However, I still don't really get that people seem to be afraid of 'dips' that make characters too good. Sure, multiclassing probably can, in certain cases, grant access to stuff that is most likely not appropriate for the level. This also goes both ways, obviously, so that you may find that your character haven't got *any* level appropriate abilities due to bad and/or excessive multiclassing. But even so, that's in almost all cases not due to the multiclassing system in itself, but more a question of bad level design (frontloading classes like barbarian and paladin while giving them next to nothing for the rest of the levels, for instance) and single abilities being overpowered.

But really, just because there are published some insane spells it doesn't mean that the entire spell system is necessarily bad - it just means that there are spells that are too good in general or for their level. Same thing with multiclassing, even though I have a hard time seeing exactly which combinations are overpowered, as far as base classes go, except for certain class variants such as the conjurer teleport thingy from PHB II and perhaps the lion totem barb dip. But that's just a problem with these class features, not with multiclassing.

I think it's just much easier to establish what power level a campaign will be at (are everybody chain binding efreets or does the straight fighter use weapon finesse, a short sword and wear light armor?), and what kinds of things have a place within the setting and go from there.

Reaper_Monkey
2008-09-27, 01:09 PM
Conditional yes. The condition is that its either gestalt, or I get to homebrew to my hearts content.

As previous posters have said, removing multi-classing doesn't weed out minimaxing or optimizing, it just reduces the number of options for maturing a characters abilities so it fits into the design of the character. Its all very well and good saying that your character has set qualities, but if they cant do those things, it really isn't as much fun.

There are tonnes of errors in 3.5 for balance issues, and I don't think multi-classing is really going to solve them, if anything, it'll enforce it. As when left with the option of playing something that works well, or playing something that sucks but was the closest you could get to your character concept, most people will just bail and choose what's fun rather than something that is doubly annoying as not only does it not work, but its not the character you wanted.

If however I was in the mood to play something that I could construct from a core and prestige or two (so, access to enough splat books) then yeah I'd be fine with it... but at the end of the day, if I want my character to do a blend of things, or have something special that cant be done without multi-classing, then I'd be very disappointed and would end up getting frustrated if I had to play a cut down version of that character. But really, I don't think this is a good idea by a long shot.

Diamondeye
2008-09-27, 01:23 PM
It would depend on a number of things for me

1. Is it a gestalt, which isn't exctly what e mean here, but a gestalt where you picked 2 classes and never deviated from either would be fine with me.

2. Is it allowing splatbooks, and if so, which ones? The more, the more likely I would play, especially if ToB were allowed. All three classes there I'd be willing to play to 20 even in a game allowing multiclassing.

3. What's the game setting? If he's setting it in, say an MMORPG world where there was no multiclassing in the computer rules I'd be much more understanding?

4. What are his other reasons? Just to try it? Has he just made up his mind that multiclassing is bad under all circumstances? If so, why? Has he considered that some classes are much more worthwhile to keep advancng than others? Is he boosting the power/flexibility of base classes across the board, or in certain areas so that multiclassing is less useful anyhow?

5. Would it be a lesser version of this, such as "You can have 1 base class and 1 PrC."?

Really, the reasoning would play a huge part. If it were because multiclassing is "powergaming", "metagaming" or if he had arbitrary lines in the sand like "more than 3 base classes or more than 1 PrC is cheesy/powergaming/etc." I'm probably not goin to like his game much anyhow.

When I DM, I encourage players to try to lay out a character plan (not a build, a plan for the character beforehand, and come up with a tentative, general build plan before that. Since I customarily start games at ECL 3 or 4, I encourage a fairly solid build plan to 6 or 8, and don't worry a lot beyond that, although I advise people to have some sort of idea what the character might be like at 20 and beyond. I try to emphasize thinking in terms of a roleplaying concept, not classes or specific abilities.

I also lay out at this point what classes are banned, period. Everything else is a tentatively open sandbox; just run it by me first since I can't possibly remember everything available in all the splatbooks I allow.

Now, I allow multiclassing to optomize pretty much as much as a person wants within the character's general concept. However, I always mandate that choices make roleplaying sense:

1) Does it match the initial tentative plan?
2) If not, is the deviation justified by campaign events?
3) Is the class being multiclassed into very generic (most base classes, things like Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge) somewhat specific (Shadowbane Stalker, Daggerspell Shaper) or exceedingly specific (Ruby Knight Vindicator, Thayan Knight). If so, does the character's personality, alighnment and history mesh with the specificity of the class?
4) If not, why not? Is the class unnecessarily specific, or the class's functions much more general than the fluff (Ruby Knight Vindicator) or are they based on specifics of the world (Thayan Knight, Purple Dragon). If the former, I'll probably allow a refluffing if the class mechanically makes sense for the path, if the latter it will probably be disallowed as inappropriate.
5) Is the character dipping, and if so, into what and why? If a class has little to offer past an initial dip, I'm more sympathetic. If it's a 3 or 5 level PrC, I'm less so. The deeper the "dip" the more I'm sympathetic as well; taking more than 3 levels of a base class or 10-level PrC isn't dipping at all, IMO. I also use a modified feat progression for general feats and fighters to prevent the "every melee character takes 2 levels of fighter" thing.
6) Is the character picking at least 1 base class or PrC to deeply develop or is it nothing but a collection of dips and short progressions?
7) Is the class a favored class for the race? Is the character accepting EXP penalties for multiclassing, or worse, accepting them at level 20 on the assumption it doesn't matter because that's the end? (never actually had that happen, but I like to think ahead)

Some examples:

1) A player wants to play a traditional elven fighter/wizard. He wants to be able to cast level 9 spells by level 20, and is willing to compromise greatly on melee to do so. Casting spells while wearing at least some armor is important to him. Starting at level 3, he makes a fighter 1, wizard 2. He develops this to level 7, where he is a fighter 1/wizard 6. At this point he enters spellsword (having achieved enough BAB to do so) and takes 3 levels to gain the 15% spell failure reduction. This puts him at ECL 10. The next 10 levels he takes 10 levels of Elditch Knight.

This is my typical example of a very well done build from an in-game perspective. He starts with a concept and sticks to it consistently. He selects appropriate base and prestige classes. He develops one base class to level 6, and takes a ten-level PrC to its full progression. The classes he dips into provide no benefit to his stated concept if they were further developed. The character's build development is almost completely transparent in game; the only jarring point is the gaining of the ability to cast in armor.

Example 2)
A player wants a martial adept that's a "true master of the Nine"; he's read the thread here on GitP and wants to make a character that can use all 9 level 9 maneuvers by level 20.

He takes 12 levels of swordsage, then 2 of warblade, then 5 Mot9, and finally 1 of crusader. (Yes I worked out that this can accomplish it, especially if martial study is used, let's not get sidetracked)

This one has definite strong points: He deeply develops a base class, and takes a 5-level PrC to it's fullest extent. The dip into warblade is not so bad; it comes pretty late in development. For the first 12 levels, he's not multiclassed at all.

The sticking point is whether the character's overall development has emphasized his determination to master the 9 forms of combat, and especially, has he dedicated himself to some cause/diety/etc to justify Crusader at 20?

This is one where the goal is a valid in-game dedication of the charactr, but mechanically executing it inolves some real gymnastics of build that can be jarring without real effort in roleplay. I would inform the player at the start that his adherence to concept and character will be closely monitored.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-27, 01:27 PM
I'm pretty sure that multiclassing into certain PRCs with full casting are more powerful

Whether your power level is over 9,000 or over 10,000 is pretty irrelevant, when the non-casters are stuck at 100.


Well, it relieves them from the tedious need to find numbers to represent the actions of a person and free them to think about the reasons the person is that class and indeed everything else about their personality as a character rather than an exercise in linear programming.

This seems ass-backwards. So players should be coming up with reasons their character fits one of the narrow pre-existing classes? In a skill-based system, they could just be getting on with the game, comfortable in the knowledge that the skill-based system lets them not only create the character they wanted, but to have that character develop organically, without being forever bound to their chosen class.


Bizarrely enough, D&D (and d20 in general, although some games - like M&M - actually depart from this) remains just about the only game to use classes (I can think of Rolemaster/MERP, which is still skill-based, and LOTR, which is just as skill-based), and they're obviously an artifact (since it really wouldn't be D&D without classes) of earlier editions. All those dozens or hundreds of other games do an excellent job of representing fantasy without artificial and silly classes that needlessly limit characters (both concepts and development).

NEO|Phyte
2008-09-27, 02:03 PM
I find that most people do this for mechanical benefits, with no regard for the role playing/character. They fabricate a little story to justify it, and dip for something.

Taking ANY class aside from commoner (aside from maybe Samurai, depending on who you ask) is for mechanical benefits. Surprising, but true. Particularly when your class(es) have absolutely ZERO bearing on RP aside from dictating what you are capable of. Would Thog be any more/less of a dumb barbarian if he didn't have those two levels of fighter? As for fabricating stories to justify dips, what about when it actually makes SENSE? Using one of my character ideas as an example, having Adgor Loathestone take anything more than the first level of Elocater would make no sense, because he's NOT some highly opportunistic combatant with an affinity for teleportation effects, he's just a dwarf with some mind powers who happens to hate the earth SO MUCH that he flat-out refuses to walk on it.

AstralFire
2008-09-27, 02:12 PM
Well, it relieves them from the tedious need to find numbers to represent the actions of a person and free them to think about the reasons the person is that class and indeed everything else about their personality as a character rather than an exercise in linear programming.

This might come as a shock, but a lot of good roleplayers go into a game going "wow I have this concept that would just work really well in this world, it makes so much sense and it'd be fun to play and the group'd love it" and then go "okay, how can I realize this?" and have a lot of fun doing that.

No one plays the default families in The Sims for very long, and that's not exactly a game you can win.

Morandir Nailo
2008-09-27, 03:22 PM
I'd have no problem with it; I've played plenty of single-classed characters (rangers, fighters, and sorcerers, for example) and never (even with the fighter!) did I feel that I was being outclassed by someone else. Hell, my fighter was the biggest damage dealer in the group! I guess that means we were having BadWrongFun, but I don't care. We were far more interested in having adventures than in detailed analysis of the 1-2 minutes/day that we spent hacking monsters to bits.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a game featuring strongly defined archetypes; all games have a limit of some sort, defined by genre, tone &c. So long as that's the type of game you want to run, and it's the type of game your players want to play, you're fine.

Mor

Dode
2008-09-27, 03:33 PM
It wouldn't be a gamebreaker if I really liked the DM but it would suggest to me that he/she has some very naiive ideas on how game power is determined in D&D. I've seen absolutely terrible multiclassed characters that would have been far better if they stuck with a single class and I've seen straight Wizards played effectively.

Knaight
2008-09-27, 03:43 PM
It was an opinion based on many years of playing different systems. Skill based systems are at their best representing normal people; they suck at doing heroes and the further the genre is from real life the worse they suck. D&D is a fantasy game and as such I think the evidence is that time spent on "builds" is time wasted.
Spirit of the Century is an example of a skill based system that works fine with heroes. You can start out at a normal amount of ability, and go all the way up to people able to easily handle being swarmed in combat, fixing pretty much anything, totally mastering a field of knowledge, etc. Fudge does the same, and if you adapt the spirit of the century ladder(as its based on Fudge anyways), it does the even better.


If you enjoy playing a character then a set of classes selected or designed by the DM for their setting will generate much more fun for you; if you prefer to find all the clever ways to combine rules to cause this effect or that bonus, then I can understand that you will prefer a skill/feat based system as an intellectual exercise, but I don't really see that as a form of roleplaying. Right, so basically if you want to play a character you have to take one a few archetypes the GM created before hand. You can't just play a skill based system and take the skills you think your character would have, and naturally having the skills that fit with your character well makes it impossible to roleplay. That and its usually way harder to optimize in a skill based system anyways, the difference between optimizing a character in any edition of D&D through choosing weapons or spells and optimizing a character in Fudge is huge. Either the GM typically needs a huge number of classes, or just makes them vague, but they are still straight jackets. Lets say there is a world where using magic can have unpredictable side effects through further generatations. Either you can come up for a class which deals with each side affect along with what the person would normally do anyways, or you can just note down a side effect on a character who had a magic using ancestor, and then pick the skills they have anyways.


Back to topic, I would play without multi classing assuming that the class skills, cross class skills, banned skills thing was dropped. Just because I hit something with a sword doesn't mean I don't know how magic works, I just might not be able to cast spells(cough horribly limited spellcraft/ arcana/ knowledge skills cough). That and if splat books were allowed.

AstralFire
2008-09-27, 06:33 PM
That is all very true, K - skill system optimization is actually much tougher and generally not a topic of much debate, since you have much less expectation of what the GM will be throwing at you. Hence why I am interested to see nagora's detailed response.

kamikasei
2008-09-27, 06:37 PM
Hence why I am interested to see nagora's detailed response.

You might be waiting a while there.

In any case, the whole "is a skill-based or class-based system superior" discussion probably deserves its own thread if there are that many people interested on it; I doubt the OP even had skill-based systems on his radar.

Oslecamo
2008-09-27, 06:43 PM
The "multiclassing encourages powergaming" arguments falls flat before the fact that most of the broken 3.5 content doesn't require any multiclassing at all, dipping is often a trap (dip one monk level to gain Wisdom to AC... while losing 1 point of BAB, and you'd have better AC in armor anyway), and it's the weaker classes like paladins who need to multiclass to be decent.

Cough Planar sheperd Cough Iniatiate of the Seven Veils cough Incantrix Cough

Besides, the biggest badest builds take either one wizard or cleric level dip to classify for the best feats of their genre, and then take the remaining levels on the other class qualifing for the remaining best feats. You end with monstruosties wich shoot arcane and divine magic at the same time at full power with insane defenses on top of that.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-27, 06:52 PM
Cough Planar sheperd Cough Iniatiate of the Seven Veils cough Incantrix Cough


Casters can already be overpowered with minimal effort - taking any of those prestige classes is just adding insult to injury.

TeeEl
2008-09-27, 07:18 PM
I would think that despite the fact that players would be forced to pick a class and stick with it, the ample amount of feats and races available would still allow considerable character customization.

In theory, yes. In practice, not so much. You get very few feats, and generally most or all of your feats are best spent to improve your character's effectiveness within their own specialty. I'd be all for a system with little or no multiclassing that used feats or similar choices to define the direction of a character's mechanical growth, but 3.5e is not that system without heavy houseruling.

Curmudgeon
2008-09-27, 07:49 PM
I wouldn't rule it out, but the problem is that it removes a lot of the flavor and balance options that make D&D fun to play. There are many more prestige classes than base classes, so this would exclude all of them. It would also eliminate all the cross-class feats like Swift Ambusher. D&D isn't modular, so it doesn't have feats or templates for Rogues to get Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight; you get that by leaving Rogue for a dip into Shadowdancer or Assassin.

By eliminating other options the core spellcasting classes become even more powerful relative to other choices. I can't see that that's a good thing.

Given this option, I'd play a Druid, take Natural Spell, and be in fine shape. That's just not the type of character I'd prefer to play.

Knaight
2008-09-27, 08:05 PM
Cough Planar sheperd Cough Iniatiate of the Seven Veils cough Incantrix Cough

The initiate of the sevenfold veil isn't all that great. Sure its an edge, but Incantrix and Planar Shepard are both so much more powerful than it its not even funny. It might stand up to Archmage, but thats about it.

sonofzeal
2008-09-27, 08:46 PM
Multiclassing is for martial types, who, let's face it, need a boost. It doesn't help spellcasters, and for the most part actively hurts them, but melee and archer types get good mileage out of it. Also, a lot of concepts don't fall neatly into the archetypes presented in the base classes, and are best handled by judicious multiclassing to combine the necessary features. I don't mind playing in game where multiclassing is only allowed between associated classes, where the class has to make sense given the character concept before you can take it. For example, one of my early characters was a Ranger2/Rogue3/Fighter2; his concept was "Urban Assassin", and all of those classes fit nicely into the idea of a skilled archer who uses street smarts, stealth, and tracking skills to find and take out his targets.

Cainen
2008-09-27, 09:44 PM
For example, one of my early characters was a Ranger2/Rogue3/Fighter2; his concept was "Urban Assassin", and all of those classes fit nicely into the idea of a skilled archer who uses street smarts, stealth, and tracking skills to find and take out his targets.

...You played Green Arrow in D&D?

horseboy
2008-09-27, 09:50 PM
Er, well, you probably wouldn't be playing D&D anyway. Huh.Very true, it would have to be a REALLY ZOMG kick ass super special awesome monkey ninja sauce campaign idea just to get me to play 3.x. If you could talk me past that hurdle, no multiclassing wouldn't be that hard.

chiasaur11
2008-09-27, 10:09 PM
...You played Green Arrow in D&D?

Well, if he put points into the condescending lecture skill. Otherwise, he's Hawkeye (who is way awesomer, and I will fight anyone who denies it).

monty
2008-09-27, 10:34 PM
Casters can already be overpowered with minimal effort - taking any of those prestige classes is just adding insult to injury.

No, it's really more adding injury to injury. Or mindrape to injury. Or just mindrape.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-27, 10:56 PM
THE BIG REVEAL



In any case, the whole "is a skill-based or class-based system superior" discussion probably deserves its own thread if there are that many people interested on it; I doubt the OP even had skill-based systems on his radar.

Yeah, looks like some folks have an axe to grind with D&D as a whole. As for the viewpoint as to whether a class should define a character's background or whether it is simply a skill set, I firmly embrace the former. I want my barbarians to be from the uncivilized lands. I want my rangers to be rugged woodsmen [the original 1E ranger of blatantly Numenorean origin is lost on 3.5 so I can't ask for that]. I want my sorcerers to have a mysterious bloodline with Harry Potter-like powers emerging in their teen years. So forth and so on. By multiclassing to barbarian without ever stepping foot in barbarian lands, it cheapens the class concept.

By the way, I would not actually outlaw multiclassing in all cases. I would just make it hard to do. If you want to "take a level of wizard" your character would need to spend a few game years learning magic. If you want to "take a level of fighter" your character would need to spend at least a game year practising with all the martial weapons and wearing armor; I would allow this training to be quicker if the character is coming from a class like ranger than from a class like wizard. If you want to take a level of sorcerer or paladin, I would deny the request however; since those classes represent innate abilities that should have emerged in adolesence. Likewise for psionic classes; you can't suddenly become psychic, it's something you are born with.

So again I think by starting at level 2 and allowing a multiclass at character creation, I think I can allow pretty much any character concept to emerge without sacrificing the meaning of classes in the game.

The concern I'm hearing a lot from the responses is that things get skewed even more to the full casters, but no one seems to have taken into account my adjusted approach of allowing limited multiclassing. And also, I'm in the camp which says that full casters don't noticeably start trumping the others until into the teens. Who says the campaign even goes past level 10?

monty
2008-09-27, 10:59 PM
Druids win at level 5. Clerics win at level 7. Wizard/sorcerer varies, but they're always good.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-27, 11:02 PM
Druids win at level 5. Clerics win at level 7. Wizard/sorcerer varies, but they're always good.

Please don't turn this thread into a debate about full casters. Or the superiority of skill-based rpg systems for that matter. Thank you.

[Edit: GITP forums are starting to remind me of the old joke about the guy who went to a fight and a hockey game broke out ... seems like so many threads start to deteriorate down to similar themes]

monty
2008-09-27, 11:06 PM
Please don't turn this thread into a debate about full casters. Or the superiority of skill-based rpg systems for that matter. Thank you.

[Edit: GITP forums are starting to remind me of the old joke about the guy who went to a fight and a hockey game broke out ... seems like so many threads start to deteriorate down to similar themes]

You started it in the last paragraph of your previous post; I was just responding to you. If you didn't want a response, why did you say that in the first place?

ken-do-nim
2008-09-27, 11:11 PM
You started it in the last paragraph of your previous post; I was just responding to you. If you didn't want a response, why did you say that in the first place?

Well I mentioned it as a way of saying I don't think it's a big issue for talking about multiclass restrictions. Since so many people had brought it up as a concern, I wanted to respond. I do respect your opinion, by the way, I just don't want to see this thread turn into a "when full casters take over" debate.

Vortling
2008-09-27, 11:13 PM
So again I think by starting at level 2 and allowing a multiclass at character creation, I think I can allow pretty much any character concept to emerge without sacrificing the meaning of classes in the game.



Depends. What are you allowing as far as books go and do you consider the gish a character concept.



The concern I'm hearing a lot from the responses is that things get skewed even more to the full casters, but no one seems to have taken into account my adjusted approach of allowing limited multiclassing. And also, I'm in the camp which says that full casters don't noticeably start trumping the others until into the teens. Who says the campaign even goes past level 10?

The point of trumping moves around based on the attention to optimization of the players involved. The limited multiclassing doesn't really help the non-casters that much. Again, the real concern I'd have with this sort of game is what classes are allowed outside of core. All of 3.5? Core only? Specific books inbetween? You'd have to nail that down before I'd consider playing.

Proven_Paradox
2008-09-27, 11:21 PM
I disagree about caster winning doesn't happen until level 10--with arcane casters, if you do it right, you can win at level 1. But, that's not your original question, so that's as far as I'll do with that.

As to the original question, for me it depends on what books are available. If the Tome of Battle is an option, then I'd have no problems with a no multi-classing game. If it is not, and if I were expected to play a melee character, I would walk away there--core melee is just boring to me. I would still be willing to play rogues or full casters, but you would have to give me a truly interesting campaign pitch.

Vaynor
2008-09-27, 11:24 PM
I'd play, but I think lack of multi-classing severely limits your options, both from a crunch and fluff perspective.

The Glyphstone
2008-09-27, 11:25 PM
THE BIG REVEAL



Yeah, looks like some folks have an axe to grind with D&D as a whole. As for the viewpoint as to whether a class should define a character's background or whether it is simply a skill set, I firmly embrace the former. I want my barbarians to be from the uncivilized lands. I want my rangers to be rugged woodsmen [the original 1E ranger of blatantly Numenorean origin is lost on 3.5 so I can't ask for that]. I want my sorcerers to have a mysterious bloodline with Harry Potter-like powers emerging in their teen years. So forth and so on. By multiclassing to barbarian without ever stepping foot in barbarian lands, it cheapens the class concept.

By the way, I would not actually outlaw multiclassing in all cases. I would just make it hard to do. If you want to "take a level of wizard" your character would need to spend a few game years learning magic. If you want to "take a level of fighter" your character would need to spend at least a game year practising with all the martial weapons and wearing armor; I would allow this training to be quicker if the character is coming from a class like ranger than from a class like wizard. If you want to take a level of sorcerer or paladin, I would deny the request however; since those classes represent innate abilities that should have emerged in adolesence. Likewise for psionic classes; you can't suddenly become psychic, it's something you are born with.

So again I think by starting at level 2 and allowing a multiclass at character creation, I think I can allow pretty much any character concept to emerge without sacrificing the meaning of classes in the game.

The concern I'm hearing a lot from the responses is that things get skewed even more to the full casters, but no one seems to have taken into account my adjusted approach of allowing limited multiclassing. And also, I'm in the camp which says that full casters don't noticeably start trumping the others until into the teens. Who says the campaign even goes past level 10?


Isn't that just the same as banning multiclassing into fighter or wizard anyways, but more subtly? I suppose there are games out there that actually track game time in years, but I personally have never played in one. Then again, it'd require you to actually pay attention to the age categories, so who knows...

As for sorcerer/paladin/psionics, if classes are more backgrounds than skill sets, what about being flexible in some cases?

For example -the party foils the schemes of a group of mind flayers...during the campaign, the fighter was captured by the flayers and experimented on, saved by his friends just before he became an appetizer at McHumanoidbrains. Would you allow him to multiclass into psychic warrior if he asked for it, to represent the lingering effects of the flayer's tampering? Granted, this isn't background so much as an evolution of the character, but it doesn't break versimilitude at all to any significant degree.

Sorcerers are a lot harder to make an arguement for, and I can't come up with anything that wouldn't sound like the above scenario after substituting "sorcerer' and 'dragons' for 'psionics' and 'mind flayers'. the only rational one I can think of involves a dragon-worshipping fighter or rogue who takes the Dragon Devotee PrC and gains sorcerer spellcasting that way, and wants to focus on his newfound arcane talents afterward instead of continuing his martial training. Weak, but it's the best I got.

For Paladins - I'm AFB, so I can't check to see if the Paladin fluff specifically says that their powers manifest during adolesence...if it does, point, but it seems odd - why couldn't a character be 'chosen' later in life, a grizzled mercenary veteran who converts to the worship of Heironeous after an experienced paladin of Big H gives his life to protect the man, and is selected by the god to take up his fallen champion's mantle?

All of those are in-character explanations for multiclassing I'd accept in a heartbeat - they contribute to character development and RP without being too jarring.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-27, 11:26 PM
Depends. What are you allowing as far as books go and do you consider the gish a character concept.



The point of trumping moves around based on the attention to optimization of the players involved. The limited multiclassing doesn't really help the non-casters that much. Again, the real concern I'd have with this sort of game is what classes are allowed outside of core. All of 3.5? Core only? Specific books inbetween? You'd have to nail that down before I'd consider playing.

I don't think what I'd allow and what I'd not allow is by book but rather on a case-by-case basis. At any rate I'm more concerned with disallowing certain broken spells than I am classes or feats. I'd also prefer my players to stick to the more mainstream races and leave the half-giant/half-dragon/celestial stuff alone.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-27, 11:35 PM
If the Tome of Battle is an option, then I'd have no problems with a no multi-classing game.

I actually don't own the Tome of Battle, but if I'm allowing psychic warriors then I'm sure it would be fine.

I have to admit that I was under the mistaken assumption that the feats in Players Handbook II and the magic items in Magic Compendium helped the fighter class out tremendously though.

Proven_Paradox
2008-09-28, 12:24 AM
I actually don't own the Tome of Battle, but if I'm allowing psychic warriors then I'm sure it would be fine.

I have to admit that I was under the mistaken assumption that the feats in Players Handbook II and the magic items in Magic Compendium helped the fighter class out tremendously though.

Oh, they definately did help the fighter. They're still boring to me, though. It's not as much a question of power, it's about fun.

*Shrug* Psychic warriors help, I suppose--I'm not familiar with psionics, but faced with this situation, and if your game had a premise that really made me want to play, I'd look them up.

I highly recommend you look into the ToB sometime; it makes me eager to play melee again. Best to borrow it from someone first, though; it's not to everyone's taste.

Frosty
2008-09-28, 01:30 AM
I'd be willing to forego multiclassing if 1) I were playing a caster or 2) I get to homebrew my own class from 1 to 20 so I can play the character I want.

monty
2008-09-28, 01:32 AM
Would you let me play a Lightning Warrior?

Edea
2008-09-28, 02:38 AM
Since I almost invariably play Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, or Clerics anyway (in 3.5), not having the ability to multiclass wouldn't bother me much. Not being able to take a PrC, on the other hand, would be extremely irritating.

turkishproverb
2008-09-28, 03:33 AM
Yes. No problem at all.

The most resistence will probably come from min-maxers, and optimising class-dippers. As long as your group isn't primarilly made up of them, you should be fine.

Bullux. The only times I've ever built a minmaxed character were pure PC revenge. Often over such arbitrary restrictions as this, and usually single to single+ prestige classed. If I'm multiclassing it is because an ability/class change makes sense for the character (Such as my level 1 wizard who goes rogue because he gets fed up with magic). To say nothing of the fact multiclassing can be the only way to make certain classes playable.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 03:34 AM
Spirit of the Century is an example of a skill based system that works fine with heroes.

Then there's RM/MERP, where you can indeed build characters who can toe-to-toe Middle-Earth trolls (or even kill multiple trolls on their own). And LOTR, where you can do the same. And RuneQuest, where you can actually roleplay characters who defeat armies single-handed. And HeroQuest, which makes that bit even easier. (HQ doesn't even have any kind of list of skills. If you can convince the Ref and the other players it's a good idea, you can use Painful Punning against your opponent's Spear Combat.) Oh, and M&M is a superhero game. And there's Pendragon, where you play the most classic fantasy heroes ever. Even GURPS, which is best used for gritty SF or modern RP, can pull of fantasy heroes.

Out of these, RM/MERP and LOTR have classes, but they only exist to determine your "class skills" (in RM/MERP specifically, they determine how easily you can develop certain skills; a Rogue learns more stealth skills faster than a Warrior), and LOTR lets you jump between classes as you like.

Having more fluid choices and options can not be bad for RP. It's just nonsense.

kamikasei
2008-09-28, 03:55 AM
Yeah, looks like some folks have an axe to grind with D&D as a whole.

I think that's an entirely unfair characterization of the discussion.

As to the rest of your post, simply put, I'm a lot more interested in my idea for a character and how to get the abilities it implies than in a WOTC designer's concept of a barbarian or ranger, etc. I don't see any point in limiting my imagination according to the imagination of another, nor do I think it's a good idea to mix the classes and levels written on the sheet with the character's view of himself within his world.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 04:52 AM
I think that's an entirely unfair characterization of the discussion.

Damn straight it is.

What sort of axe am I grinding? I started with red-box D&D, played AD&D 2E from since I could understand English well enough to get the rules, and got D&D 3.0 within a month or two of it coming out, and am now planning a 4E campaign. D&D is fun as hell - but it's only good for playing D&D.

D&D, in any edition, is not a superior - or even great - system, and the class-based paradigm is plainly not superior to the skill-based paradigm in any respect, least of all freedom or quality of roleplay.


As to the rest of your post, simply put, I'm a lot more interested in my idea for a character and how to get the abilities it implies than in a WOTC designer's concept of a barbarian or ranger, etc. I don't see any point in limiting my imagination according to the imagination of another, nor do I think it's a good idea to mix the classes and levels written on the sheet with the character's view of himself within his world.

Damn straight again. There's no way X classes, no matter what X is, can represent the complete width and depth of in-character/in-world options and choices - and the combinations thereof - unless you're working with some ridiculously narrow setting. (Like, say, a game where everyone plays a Type 13-B Combat Cyborg, or something.)

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-09-28, 05:16 AM
...The only people who would actually cheer for a single-class-only system are probably such poor role-players that they introduce themselves in-character by saying, "I'm a [class]."

...It does not cheapen the class to reflavor it as appropriate to the character, a class is a skill set and there are many different ways of describing the same set of skills, characters are defined by their capabilities and personalities, not what classes they have levels in.



*snip* By multiclassing to barbarian without ever stepping foot in barbarian lands, it cheapens the class concept. *snip*

*snip* Likewise for psionic classes; you can't suddenly become psychic, it's something you are born with. *snip*

Barbarian: Let's assume a warrior-type character who was always a bit hot tempered got a Rage spell cast on him during combat. The experience stirred his warrior spirit like he'd never felt before, and he wanted to feel it again, every time he fought. By working himself into a ruthless frenzy during battle he taught himself the basics of entering an enraged state, and was able to take a level of Barbarian. He has never been to the uncivilized barbarian lands or even met such an individual, but the barbarian class as a skill set best describes the abilities he's learning, so that's the class he takes. It does not cheapen the class to reflavor it as appropriate to the character, a class is a skill set and there are many different ways of describing the same set of skills, characters are defined by their capabilities and personalities, not what classes they have levels in. I say it cheapens a barbarian character by forcing them to take the barbarian class, when a class like ranger, cleric, or even hexblade is just as fitting to the character concept of a barbarian when that skill set is properly reflavored to better suit the character.

Psionics: Any character can have latent, undeveloped abilities that have gone neglected until they decide to take interest in them. Some characters may not even know that they had such abilities to begin with. If someone plans on taking a Psionic class later on, they could just put in their character background that they have psionic capabilities but have yet to take an interest in developing them. In that case, it would just be as unreasonable to deny them the ability to take a psionic class.


I probably wouldn't play in a game like this, unless there was a very good reason for disallowing multiclassing. If I were to play in a game like this, I would play one of the few classes that would remain viable in mid- to high-level play, because I would want my character to be a successful adventurer*.

Character classes are far too abstract for anyone to relate to in-character. The only people who would actually cheer for a single-class-only system are probably such poor role-players that they introduce themselves in-character by saying, "I'm a [class]." Personally, I've gone through quite a few different types of professions, some requiring similar skill sets and some completely different from what I was accustomed to. If I had to tell someone what "class(es)" I was personally, I'd probably name off at least half a dozen different things. The fact of the matter is, very seldom does someone stick to the same profession and the same skill set their entire life. Even two individuals in the same career have widely varying skills and specialties within that career, which would be represented by prestige classes. How would you like it if, once you get a job, you have to do that same job until you retire, regardless of whether or not you like it or would want to try something different? In short, denying characters the ability to multiclass is both nonsensical out of character and unfair in-character.

Classes that are inherently weak on their own, especially in the higher levels, would not even be playable, while the few classes which are actually viable in the higher levels will become even stronger in comparison to the weaker ones. The Stormwind Fallacy aside, I think that this sort of game would lead to a whole mess of in-character problems.

In the mid to high levels, characters of the playable classes wouldn't even let characters of the weaker classes tag along on their adventures, because they would be more of a liability than a contribution. In-character, why would powerful adventurers recruit equally experienced yet weaker adventurers into their party? They need to bring someone along who they can depend on to pull their own weight and help the group get out of tough situations and defeat powerful opponents. They'll want to bring along the most capable individuals that they can find, not just whatever the other guy at the table puts on his character sheet.

*In-character, optimized characters would be those individuals who become successful, powerful adventurers, and unoptimized characters would be those individuals who become either dead adventurers, or people who wanted to become adventurers but couldn't handle it so they became dirt farmers instead. Forcing everyone to go single-classed would turn every individual of the weaker classes into either dirt farmers, or moochers who ride on the coattails of adventurers of the more powerful classes.

Even if the game was capped at a certain level in order to cater to the weaker classes, PCs aren't aware of that in-character, and not every individual present in the setting has suffered from this level cap. Therefore, they would surely know that either every would-be great adventurer of their profession and skill set was forced into early retirement because they couldn't handle it, or that there have been many great adventurers with the same profession and skill set as they have who were forced to leave their weaker counterparts behind in order to achieve ever greater deeds. Characters of the weak classes would know that they're doomed to mediocrity from the start, and characters of the powerful classes would know that their companions of the weaker classes are only temporary as they'll be unable to sufficiently contribute when faced with inevitably greater challenges.

...The only people who would actually cheer for a single-class-only system are probably such poor role-players that they introduce themselves in-character by saying, "I'm a [class]."

...It does not cheapen the class to reflavor it as appropriate to the character, a class is a skill set and there are many different ways of describing the same set of skills, characters are defined by their capabilities and personalities, not what classes they have levels in.

For reference, The Stormwind Fallacy (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-624756-p-2.html):
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-28, 06:08 AM
Oh, they definately did help the fighter. They're still boring to me, though. It's not as much a question of power, it's about fun.


Ah, interesting. So as a DM I have to spend lots & lots of time creating the richest campaign setting I possibly could. Really, it's a huge amount of effort to get it right. If a player can't enjoy that setting while playing this great game and playing a viable class and hanging out with people who hopefully become good friends and eating good food and drinking wine (my newest gaming addition), then - no offense - I probably wouldn't want him in my game.

I think that cuts to the heart of a lot of the debate. Most people arguing against the "strong class idea" wouldn't have fun if they can't get the exact, last, minute detail of their "character concept" right. To these people, I can't see that all the hard work I'd do as DM would even matter. In fact, if the particular adventure I wrote didn't let them do ability x of that concept, they'd probably hate it.

Well folks, this thread has been very helpful to me to understand player mindsets and what makes 3.5 fun for them. Thanks all!

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 06:11 AM
Barbarians as a specific example really suck, because what distinguishes the class is the rage mechanic, and throughout history there have been warriors and knights who were distinguished by their berserk rages. 11th-century Irish and Danes are hardly barbarians, but a berserk warrior (like a barbarian or fighter/barbarian) would fit in great into a D&D representation of either culture; a warrior exemplifying the old ways of battle-rage. And there's no reason it needs to be some screaming frenzy; a death-dealing trance, where the fighter stoically wades into the enemies, unconcerned with defending himself and focused only on delivering lethal blows, is just as valid an interpretation.

This also illustrates why tying the classes to specific in-world concepts, peoples, or areas makes them way too narrow. The Barbarian class is just a collection of mechanics that can be justified or flavored in innumerable ways, without "cheapening" anything at all. If anything, it'd cheapen a player's character concept to be told "No, you can't use that class or combine those classes to represent your cool idea; you just have to RP it without any mechanics to back it up. Meanwhile, character X over here who happens to be from the right geographical and cultural context gets those exact mechanics, regardless of the strength of the character concept."

Edit:

I think that cuts to the heart of a lot of the debate. Most people arguing against the "strong class idea" wouldn't have fun if they can't get the exact, last, minute detail of their "character concept" right. To these people, I can't see that all the hard work I'd do as DM would even matter. In fact, if the particular adventure I wrote didn't let them do ability x of that concept, they'd probably hate it.

Ad hoc hypothesis, poisoning the well, and non sequitur. Can you explain what makes a player who likes playing their character concept (the "last minute detail" bit was your strawman, incidentally) likely to hate adventures that they do not control? It seems to me that any player should and would understand that the GM is the one making the adventure; but they also understand that they are the one making the PC.

AstralFire
2008-09-28, 06:24 AM
Ah, interesting. So as a DM I have to spend lots & lots of time creating the richest campaign setting I possibly could. Really, it's a huge amount of effort to get it right. If a player can't enjoy that setting while playing this great game and playing a viable class and hanging out with people who hopefully become good friends and eating good food and drinking wine (my newest gaming addition), then - no offense - I probably wouldn't want him in my game.

As a DM, I spend lots & lots of time creating the richest campaign setting I possibly could. Really, it's a huge effort to get it right. If a player isn't enjoying the mechanical aspects while playing this great setting and playing a viable class and hanging out with people who hopefully become good friends and eating good food and drinking wine (my newest gaming addition), then I pull them aside and ask them how I can do it better and help them have more fun.

Because it is a roleplaying game and you should be enjoying both aspects, and frankly, helping a player pick a class more suited to them takes about $25 and an hour which should be enjoyable to both of you.

And honestly, in my experience people generally care more about fun mechanics than just viability. Viability is nice and should be strove for whenever possible, but rock-paper-scissors is hands down the most balanced game ever created, and most don't want to play it for three hours either, no matter how witty the banter is getting while you do it.

Most people who I know that are competitive gamers - very balance concerned, those types - still quit playing if the mechanic just becomes boring, since then they are no longer having fun, even with spending lots of time with friends and rivals and food and music. Obviously, an RPG has one more thing to offer to a person, but when you get right down to it, the gaming part is unremovable or it's just free-form. What's wrong with maximizing your enjoyment of that part? Do you kick people out decline to play with people for maximizing their enjoyment of RP?


I think that cuts to the heart of a lot of the debate. Most people arguing against the "strong class idea" wouldn't have fun if they can't get the exact, last, minute detail of their "character concept" right. To these people, I can't see that all the hard work I'd do as DM would even matter. In fact, if the particular adventure I wrote didn't let them do ability x of that concept, they'd probably hate it.

That makes no sense. The DM is in charge of the adventure; you are in charge of your character. I never get to use half of the abilities I design into a character, and I really don't care, because if anyone asks me to prove that my half-orc swordsage can punch a pig so hard it explodes and rains bacon over the area, by gummit, I can rush down to the nearest farm and put my money where my mouth is. Even if I never get to do it in the game itself.

People need to stop with the high and mighty attitude where you're making declarative statements about how people who are not you think and play. It doesn't make you look smart because you are wrong.

Torque
2008-09-28, 06:44 AM
The problem is that the issue of Class Vs Skills is getting mixed in with the issue of how 3.5 specifically handles both. The concept of Class put forward by the late lamented Nagora goes hand in hand with his underestanding of how task resolution is handled in 1e, which is totally different from 3e and 4e.

A loose class framework does not really work in combination with a tight task resolution system. You need to change both the classes and the task resolution to a loose style in order to live without skill lists, or at least without lists of skills with numerical values attached to them.

Teron
2008-09-28, 07:01 AM
Ah, interesting. So as a DM I have to spend lots & lots of time creating the richest campaign setting I possibly could. Really, it's a huge amount of effort to get it right. If a player can't enjoy that setting while playing this great game and playing a viable class and hanging out with people who hopefully become good friends and eating good food and drinking wine (my newest gaming addition), then - no offense - I probably wouldn't want him in my game.

I think that cuts to the heart of a lot of the debate. Most people arguing against the "strong class idea" wouldn't have fun if they can't get the exact, last, minute detail of their "character concept" right. To these people, I can't see that all the hard work I'd do as DM would even matter. In fact, if the particular adventure I wrote didn't let them do ability x of that concept, they'd probably hate it.

Well folks, this thread has been very helpful to me to understand player mindsets and what makes 3.5 fun for them. Thanks all!
{Scrubbed} What you describe sounds fun, sure, but why not let it be more fun for the players? After you've put all this work into your setting, why place completely arbitrary limitations on their ability to play the character they want? With good friends, I could have fun role-playing a commoner in a party of spellcasters - hell, I'd get a kick out of basically playing Nodwick, at least for a while. However, I'd sure as hell have more fun if I could play a character as lovingly crafted as your campaign setting, and I don't see why he can't be, say, a divinely blessed hero with extensive social skills, a penchant for discretion and sapping unwary criminals he doesn't want to kill, and a few fancy combat tricks he pulls out when things get out of hands. Mechanically, it's a paladin/rogue/fighter (please don't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting there's anything munchkin-y about that), but he calls himself a humble defender of Pelor's faithful, and he has a logical skill set tailored to perform that duty efficiently.

Torque
2008-09-28, 07:05 AM
You're being obtuse. What you describe sounds fun, sure, but why not let it be more fun for the players? After you've put all this work into your setting, why place completely arbitrary limitations on their ability to play the character they want?
Is it really that arbitrary? If the DM constructs an Arthurian setting and says "You're all going to be knights or enchantresses", is that arbitrary or just defining the setting clearly?

Teron
2008-09-28, 07:10 AM
Is it really that arbitrary? If the DM constructs an Arthurian setting and says "You're all going to be knights or enchantresses", is that arbitrary or just defining the setting clearly?
Of course that's not arbitrary. What is, is running a setting where, say, sneaky skills (the rogue class) exist, but no one can employ them at all unless that's all they know how to do.

Epinephrine
2008-09-28, 07:28 AM
...The only people who would actually cheer for a single-class-only system are probably such poor role-players that they introduce themselves in-character by saying, "I'm a [class]."

Simply not true. {scrubbed}

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 07:44 AM
Simply not true. {scrubbed}

Probably just didn't stop to think about what he was saying in the heat of the moment. Cause, you know, someone was wrong on the internet.

Thane of Fife
2008-09-28, 07:48 AM
Of course that's not arbitrary. What is, is running a setting where, say, sneaky skills (the rogue class) exist, but no one can employ them at all unless that's all they know how to do.

But everyone could use them - they're skills. It's just that someone who has spent his life learning how to fight can't use them as well as someone who has spent his learning how to sneak.

Sparhawk, for example, is fairly sneaky, but I certainly wouldn't say that he'd taken Thief Rogue levels; not when compared with that kid he travels with whose name escapes me but who is constantly picking people's pockets. Sparhawk's just a fighter who spent some skill points cross-class.

EDIT: It suddenly occurs to me that this is a bad example, as Sparhawk knows a bit of magic, which is not a skill, but oh well.

Jim Profit
2008-09-28, 08:02 AM
...The only people who would actually cheer for a single-class-only system are probably such poor role-players that they introduce themselves in-character by saying, "I'm a [class]."
J.R.R. Tolkien was a poor roleplayer. And don't get me started on Gary Gygax..

kamikasei
2008-09-28, 08:04 AM
J.R.R. Tolkien was a poor roleplayer.

Ah, the well-known "let me just cite Tolkien's well-documented position on the fundamentals of RPG design" gambit.

Satyr
2008-09-28, 08:07 AM
According to my experiences, it is much easier to take a game with little to no limits and either provide a number of obligatory templates or just say no to traits you does not want in your game than take a more limited game and create a completely appropriate new set of classes.
In most skill-based games I know, it is very esy to include classes or a very similar mechanism. It is a bit harder, but by no means impossible to include levels.
Gurps for example, is an almost archetypical skill-based game with an enormous potential for free-form character creation which allows a lot fine tuning with your character. There are also the Dungeon Fantasy e-books for it that are simply a class system for classical dungeon crawl adventures, very similar to D&D: Xou chose a race template. You chose a class. You chose a secondary class (optional). You add additional skills, traits and individual features to your character (also optional). Done.

Reaper_Monkey
2008-09-28, 09:23 AM
To these people, I can't see that all the hard work I'd do as DM would even matter. In fact, if the particular adventure I wrote didn't let them do ability x of that concept, they'd probably hate it.

This is completely wrong. Yes, I wouldn't enjoy it if x ability was cut from my characters abilities, and I think that's a fair response. If a rogue got told they couldn't use their sneak attack, they'd be quite rightly miffed. However, should the DM say that ability x is too powerful and their cutting it down a bit, it still does the same thing, but is more balanced, I don't think anyone but the minimaxing munchkins would really care.

What the players care about is that they can do what their character concept states they can do. They don't mind if its not that powerful (look at all the samurai players out there) and they don't mind if they have to work hard for it or get it a level later or what not, so long as they can do it, all is good.

This viewpoint doesn't even in the slightest subtract from how much they players will enjoy the scenario, or care about how much effort the DM has put into making it. If anything, they'd want a well crafted setting with lots of effort put into its construction, as no doubt they'd have put equally large amounts of efforts conceiving their character and then creating it within the bounds of the D&D class system. And the last thing you want your beautifully crafted character to do is run a hodgepodge hack and slash adventure through a nondescript dungeon of no relevance time and time again.

Torque
2008-09-28, 09:31 AM
Gurps for example, is an almost archetypical skill-based game with an enormous potential for free-form character creation which allows a lot fine tuning with your character.
I find GURPS almost impossible to construct a character in due to the obsession with points and having a skill level for everything from driving to wiping your nose. It all gets in the way; I much prefer the broad classes of 1e which let me get on with defining the character through play and characterisation.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 09:55 AM
Is it really that arbitrary? If the DM constructs an Arthurian setting and says "You're all going to be knights or enchantresses", is that arbitrary or just defining the setting clearly?

Pendragon says everyone's a knight. (Although, funnily enough, the rules allow you to play Saxons, Sorcerers, peasants, and naked screaming Pictish warriors, too. Since it's skill-based.)

It's part of the setting and the standard campaigns. Making it part of the mechanics? Probably not such a great idea. Pendragon, for instance, is so flexible that some people decided to play their RuneQuest (a radically, dramatically different game world) with it, inventing PenDragon Pass, and it was a superb fit.

If you limit choices mechanically, you're doing the setting a disservice. Very few settings are so narrowly defined that you could ever cover all the realistic character options with any number of classes.


But everyone could use them - they're skills.

Which system are you talking about? AD&D certainly didn't let non-rogues (except rangers) sneak. Or climb walls, or pick pockets or locks, or a host of other things. They weren't skills, they were class abilities. 3.X is barely better about it, with class and cross-class skills, but it's still not a skill-based paradigm.

The Lord of the Rings RPG, for instance, is a skill-based paradigm, albeit with classes; your race gives you a broad base of skills you can learn easily, and your class expands on that, and adds some special abilities. You learn everything as a skill, from hitting in combat to knowing about Rings of Power to climbing to sneaking to speaking foreign languages. GURPS is similar, only without even the pretense of classes. Shadowrun employs the exact same paradigm as GURPS.


Ah, the well-known "let me just cite Tolkien's well-documented position on the fundamentals of RPG design" gambit.

*cackle*

It was a silly argument anyway. How is a single-class paradigm evident in LOTR? If anything, it's the contrary - the party wizard used a sword more than magic, and Aragorn would be a Warlord, not a Ranger, in 4E. (And something like a Ranger/Fighter/Paladin/Legendary Leader in 3.X.)


According to my experiences, it is much easier to take a game with little to no limits and either provide a number of obligatory templates or just say no to traits you does not want in your game than take a more limited game and create a completely appropriate new set of classes.
In most skill-based games I know, it is very esy to include classes or a very similar mechanism. It is a bit harder, but by no means impossible to include levels.

Abso-freaking-lutely.

HeroQuest is entirely skill-based, but the easiest way to create a character is to use templates. You take a template for your nationality; you take a template for your profession; and you take a template for your religion. This gets you a bunch of abilities (skills) on your sheet, with numbers next to them, and you've got all the mechanics you need. (The really cool thing is that the default way to create a character is to write a hundred words about the. You include the keywords for your culture, profession, and religion, and everything else in the description that needs a mechanical representation is written down as an ability too.)

Similarly, when I run RuneQuest, I usually tell my players, "Okay, you're all uninitiated young Heortlings (or whatever else). Here's the career templates you can pick, which determine some of your starting skills."

I find it a lot easier to use limitations inherent in the setting of the campaign to restrict the choices of an open system, than to try to broaden and houserule a narrow, rigid system to allow ideas that don't fit in. If I really like the game, I may be willing to do that, but it doesn't make the rigid system superior.

kamikasei
2008-09-28, 10:12 AM
Seems we have several issues being conflated here, not to mention a bit of a slide towards psychoanalyzing each other rather than responding to arguments, which is not terribly productive.

Firstly - the DM and players should communicate about their expectations for the game, and yes of course, players should be reasonable about adjusting their characters to fit in to the setting and campaign. This means both the character concept and background, and the mechanical build depending on balance issues. At the same time, DMs should be flexible about helping players incorporate their ideas into the game where possible.

Secondly - class is not an in-game concept, though some classes are much more visible in character than others - a prime example being the wizard with its spellbook setting it apart from other arcanists. However, what matters in character are the sum of abilities that a build confers, not what classes and levels they come from. Of course, if you're currently a fighter 5 and you decide to take a level of wizard next that's a major new ability you're gaining and a lot of in-character baggage it brings. Depending on the game style it would make sense to say that, no, you have to take the time to train before you can get your new abilities. But that's a case-by-case thing applying to some multiclasses and not others, and can apply just as much to single-classed progressions when dramatic new class features show up. Maybe the Duskblade should have to spend some downtime training before he can use his arcane channeling, rather than getting it in the middle of a dungeon adventure. Contrariwise maybe the fighter, the player having decided he wanted to go gish before creating the character, has been studying magic since level one and the first level of wizard requires no more than for him to pick up a spellbook and begin filling it, the groundwork already having been done in character.

Furthermore, while it can be troublesome to explain some progressions in character, just about any arbitrarily complex build can be glossed over if the game starts at a high enough level for the shape to have become clear already. Taking the kind of convoluted multiple-base-classes-and-PrC-dips builds that you see used for effective gishes, there are obvious difficulties in playing through the uneven accumulation of abilities they provide, but once you're far enough along that the character is already a sword-wielding, spell-slinging guy who's found his niche and is just getting better at it (via whatever gish PrC he's probably in by this point), the previous levels can be abstracted away as a more uniform and gradual development in his backstory.

Thirdly and lastly - if you want a system that offers only single classes, then either those classes have to be very general or there have to be a lot of them if characters are to have much variation in ability. Having to have a single entire class per possible concept that would fit in places a hell of a creative burden on whoever's responsible for designing them. That design sure would be a lot easier if the abilities of classes could be weighed against each other according to their value, so that you have tools and guidelines to help you design new classes with the abilities you want quickly and easily and ensure that they're balanced against each other. Which brings us right back around to...

Teron
2008-09-28, 10:19 AM
But everyone could use them - they're skills. It's just that someone who has spent his life learning how to fight can't use them as well as someone who has spent his learning how to sneak.

Sparhawk, for example, is fairly sneaky, but I certainly wouldn't say that he'd taken Thief Rogue levels; not when compared with that kid he travels with whose name escapes me but who is constantly picking people's pockets. Sparhawk's just a fighter who spent some skill points cross-class.

EDIT: It suddenly occurs to me that this is a bad example, as Sparhawk knows a bit of magic, which is not a skill, but oh well.
I meant skills in the broader sense of capabilities, which includes things like sneak attack and uncanny dodge in addition to the ability to use actual skills more effectively than a fighter. The two classes simply represent skill sets, and particularly generic ones at that; there's no reason someone shouldn't be able to mix and match to achieve exactly the mix they want, like a fighter nimble enough to jump, climb, balance and tumble with the best of them (but little else, unlike a pure rogue who could max out several more skills), fight multiple opponents without leaving himself open, and hit distracted opponents where it hurts (as represented by the aforementioned class features, though again they're not as effective as those of a pure rogue). Needless to say, the fact that your example turns out to be a spellcaster as well reinforces my point.

Thane of Fife
2008-09-28, 10:21 AM
Which system are you talking about? AD&D certainly didn't let non-rogues (except rangers) sneak. Or climb walls, or pick pockets or locks, or a host of other things. They weren't skills, they were class abilities. 3.X is barely better about it, with class and cross-class skills, but it's still not a skill-based paradigm.



I was under the impression that this was a 3.5 thread, so that's what I meant. Even with cross-class skills, I would argue that its possible.

Sure, Move Silently and Hide are cross-class for most classes, but then so are Listen and Spot. Fighters aren't bad at sneaking past warriors and other fighters, they just aren't amazingly good at it.

Open Lock is similar - since you'll generally Take 20, a fighter who's been trained to Open Locks can do it. Sure, not as well as a Rogue, but that's what Rogues are good at. It's like complaining that a Rogue can't hit people as often as the fighter.

Sleight of Hand is probably never going to be reliably possible for the fighter, but I would argue that it doesn't really fit the Fighter archetype anyway.

Saph
2008-09-28, 10:27 AM
However, what matters in character are the sum of abilities that a build confers, not what classes and levels they come from.

I think you're missing the whole reason for the argument by saying this - some people agree with you, while others think that a class is more than just a set of abilities.


Furthermore, while it can be troublesome to explain some progressions in character, just about any arbitrarily complex build can be glossed over if the game starts at a high enough level for the shape to have become clear already.

(shudder.) Eesh. Starting a 3.5 game at a high level where the characters have been carefully tweaked for maximum power is usually a recipe for disaster unless the DM knows exactly what he's doing.

- Saph

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 10:28 AM
I was under the impression that this was a 3.5 thread, so that's what I meant. Even with cross-class skills, I would argue that its possible.

Some grognards were, in fact, arguing for pre-AD&D D&D approaches (Elf and Dwarf as classes, etc.), so I was including that.

kamikasei
2008-09-28, 10:34 AM
I think you're missing the whole reason for the argument by saying this - some people agree with you, while others think that a class is more than just a set of abilities.

No, I'm not missing that. I'm arguing that it's incorrect. In character, classes do not exist. All characters see are the abilities they possess.


(shudder.) Eesh. Starting a 3.5 game at a high level where the characters have been carefully tweaked for maximum power is usually a recipe for disaster unless the DM knows exactly what he's doing.

I didn't mention power, just abilities. I'm thinking of builds for gish or theurge-type characters, where until you're high enough level to take a PrC that combines features from different archetypes you've got less a synthesis and more a hodgepodge.

Teron
2008-09-28, 10:35 AM
Sleight of Hand is probably never going to be reliably possible for the fighter, but I would argue that it doesn't really fit the Fighter archetype anyway.
This line highlights the point I feel you're missing: why can't it fit my warrior (note the deliberate avoidance of the word "fighter", which is a rule construct)? Perhaps he practiced hiding weapons on his person to better do his job and progressed to lifting objects off others, or maybe he just likes stealing from market stalls. In short, why do I have to adhere rigidly to the archetypes that happen to be represented by a single existing class?

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 10:36 AM
This line highlights the point I feel you're missing: why can't it fit my warrior (note the deliberate avoidance of the word "fighter", which is a rule construct)?

You play an NPC class?

Teron
2008-09-28, 10:40 AM
Man-at-arms, then. I'm reasonably confident you got my point, anyhow. :smallannoyed:

Saph
2008-09-28, 10:48 AM
No, I'm not missing that. I'm arguing that it's incorrect. In character, classes do not exist. All characters see are the abilities they possess.

Not really true. They also see personality, habits, nature, looks, age, dress, social behaviour, and a bunch of other stuff - some of which is related to class.

The truth is that the 3.5 core books swing both ways on the subject. In some ways they treat the classes as if they're nothing but sets of abilities. In other ways, though, they treat them more as lifestyles - read the fluff descriptions for the Barbarian and Druid classes (not to mention the Paladin!) and it's obvious that they're being presented as a lot more than just an ability set. That's why we're having this argument in the first place - because it's not an open-and-shut question. Exactly where the line is drawn is fuzzy, and varies from group to group.

- Saph

kamikasei
2008-09-28, 10:58 AM
You're right - I was making the assumption that any amount of reflavouring was going on, since the discussion included adapting to different settings and styles. I stand by that assumption, but should have noted it.

Satyr
2008-09-28, 11:29 AM
I find GURPS almost impossible to construct a character in due to the obsession with points and having a skill level for everything from driving to wiping your nose. It all gets in the way; I much prefer the broad classes of 1e which let me get on with defining the character through play and characterisation.

The skills in Gurps have about the same focus as in D&D 3.5. There are more skills, indeed, because many things which are class features in D&D (e.g. Attack Rolls) are skills instead. For example, there is virtually no difference between the Gurps climbing skill and its D&D equivalent (besides the completely different mechanisms…) – you use exactly one skill to climb anything, from trees to rocks to mountains…

And yes, there are many skills, you probably will not need in many campaigns – and you can just ignore them. Really, you don’t have to take the Driving skill for your dungeoncrawl hero, even when it is in the book. Depending on the game, there are many superfluos ability in the basic book. The idea behind it was that you get ecverything you ever need in two books and chose wht to use and what not instead of getting a basic set rules and require different splat books for all lements apart from the basics.

And the other great advantage is: If I want to play a game with “broad classes” I just write a fitting template for it. Let’s take your own example for the Arthurian setting. Within an hour or three, I create three to four cultural background templates (Kymric, Romanised Briton, Pict, Saxon), and ten or so professional templates (thegn, loricator, noble, monk, warlord, bard, druid, conjurer, priestess of the Mother, noble woman, clan warrior, raider, fisher, peasant, hunter) and I have a completely balanced, ideal fitting set of character roles / classes for the setting. In under three hours.

Thane of Fife
2008-09-28, 12:04 PM
This line highlights the point I feel you're missing: why can't it fit my warrior (note the deliberate avoidance of the word "fighter", which is a rule construct)? Perhaps he practiced hiding weapons on his person to better do his job and progressed to lifting objects off others, or maybe he just likes stealing from market stalls. In short, why do I have to adhere rigidly to the archetypes that happen to be represented by a single existing class?

1. I would argue that all versions of D&D are essentially archetype-based. I don't know that the intent is/was to allow the creation of any character imaginable, but rather to allow people to play various archetypes. Newer editions are less like this, but the idea is still heavily influencing the game mechanics.

2. I'm not arguing against multi-classing in general. Heck, I'm not arguing against Multi-classing at all. I'm arguing that this

What is [arbitrary], is running a setting where, say, sneaky skills (the rogue class) exist, but no one can employ them at all unless that's all they know how to do.
is not necessarily the case without multi-classing. Your fighter can, to some extent, hide things about his person. He just can't do it as well as someone who has spent most of his life learning about it, rather than learning both it and how to hit people with an axe. Remember that Search, Spot, and Listen are all cross-class skills for the vast majority of people. Your fighter can fool most people most of the time. He just shouldn't try to sneak into a thieves' guild with knives concealed in his jacket.
With a bit of investment (i.e. forfeiting some of his weapon skills), he can become a fairly competent pickpocket as well - with Skill Focus: Sleight of Hand and a decent Dexterity, he's already at +6 or +7 by level 1.

Jayabalard
2008-09-28, 12:09 PM
You're right - I was making the assumption that any amount of reflavouring was going on, since the discussion included adapting to different settings and styles. I stand by that assumption, but should have noted it.Not "any amount of reflavoring" ... you're assumption there requires nothing besides abilities are retained from classes. That's just a circular argument; you're making an assumption and then showing how that's the case when you hold that assumption. If you make a different assumption, where the non-mechanical details of a class retain some meaning, then classes are clearly more than just a set of abilities.

Not everyone throws the non-mechanical parts of classes out when they "reflavor them" ... which is why people who see classes as more than just an ability set are not wrong, they just aren't playing the game the same way as you do.


Damn straight again. There's no way X classes, no matter what X is, can represent the complete width and depth of in-character/in-world options and choices - and the combinations thereof - unless you're working with some ridiculously narrow setting. (Like, say, a game where everyone plays a Type 13-B Combat Cyborg, or something.)I'll disagree; I'm pretty sure that 20! (2,432,902,008,176,640,000) would be sufficient, and certainly something as large as 1000! would be.

monty
2008-09-28, 12:19 PM
I'll disagree; I'm pretty sure that 20! (2,432,902,008,176,640,000) would be sufficient, and certainly something as large as 1000! would be.

Yes, but given the near-infinite (and yes, I know near-infinite is an impossible concept) number of possible different personalities and skill sets, that's still a pitifully small number.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-09-28, 12:32 PM
Sure I would. I actually am going to be running one just like that when our current campaign is over. Pick a class, and stick to it, come Hades or high water. Pathfinder really pushes that to a new level; it makes sense to take 20 levels in a single class, unlike with WoTC 3.5.

Oh yes, I will be playing the 20 level fighter. All built up and ready to go. =D

Torque
2008-09-28, 12:37 PM
1. I would argue that all versions of D&D are essentially archetype-based. I don't know that the intent is/was to allow the creation of any character imaginable, but rather to allow people to play various archetypes. Newer editions are less like this, but the idea is still heavily influencing the game mechanics.
I agree that archetypes are a core concept in D&D from the very beginning; I'm also saying that in any particular setting (or even genre) there's only so many archetypes which are interesting/important. Both skills and multiclassing effectively allow the player to invent new classes on the fly which may or may not conform to the setting. As such, there is little point in allowing unrestrained access to either. And if that's the case, it's more sensible to do what Ken is suggesting and simply pick a set of classes that do conform to the setting and start playing. However, to make this work the classes need to not be straight-jackets that closely define everything about the character, otherwise things will get dull quickly.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 12:50 PM
I'll disagree; I'm pretty sure that 20! (2,432,902,008,176,640,000) would be sufficient, and certainly something as large as 1000! would be.

I'll take that seriously when you show me a game with that many classes.

Even then, it's plain and logical that a game with skill-based character creation will have more options for the same amount of effort than a game with class-based character creation.


And if that's the case, it's more sensible to do what Ken is suggesting and simply pick a set of classes that do conform to the setting and start playing.

Why is it more sensible? Seems to me that it requires less effort to create a more open system that's skill-based, than to create a system with X number of classes. Restricting those options according to the in-world requirements takes no extra effort at all. Heck, it's obvious just looking at page numbers.

Thane of Fife
2008-09-28, 01:08 PM
I agree that archetypes are a core concept in D&D from the very beginning; I'm also saying that in any particular setting (or even genre) there's only so many archetypes which are interesting/important. Both skills and multiclassing effectively allow the player to invent new classes on the fly which may or may not conform to the setting. As such, there is little point in allowing unrestrained access to either. And if that's the case, it's more sensible to do what Ken is suggesting and simply pick a set of classes that do conform to the setting and start playing. However, to make this work the classes need to not be straight-jackets that closely define everything about the character, otherwise things will get dull quickly.

I am no longer certain what we're arguing about, as I don't disagree with anything in that statement, so I think that I shall be bowing out.

It has been a pleasure discussing with you.

Jerthanis
2008-09-28, 01:43 PM
I would play a game which disallows multiclassing in a heartbeat with no hesitation or followup questions.

The strength of class based systems is in their ability to mimic archetypal characters, and a multiclassing which is too free undermines that somewhat. If I want to play a character whose every focus and foible, skill and standard was represented mechanically (and I often do), I play a point based character creation system. I think the paradigm of taking a level in Robin Hood, two levels in Galahad, and seven levels in d'Artagnan is a little odd, to say the least.

Torque
2008-09-28, 01:44 PM
Why is it more sensible? Seems to me that it requires less effort to create a more open system that's skill-based, than to create a system with X number of classes. Restricting those options according to the in-world requirements takes no extra effort at all. Heck, it's obvious just looking at page numbers.
The issue is not how many options one has but how many sensible or useful ones.

Take the original 1e classes and sub-classes: Fighter/Ranger/Paladin, Magic User/Illusionist; Cleric/Druid; Thief/Assassin, and Monk (and Bard as an option). With a sub-set of those I can run a game set in the worlds of Arthur, Sinbad, Achilles, Frodo, Conan, Soloman Kane, Griselda, Henry V, Cromwell, Charlemagne, Gengis Khan, Baba Yaga, Girl Genius, Aazh and Skeeve, Rhialto the Marvelous, Severian, Seven Samurai, or Siegfried and all I need to do is twiddle with the magic system here and there (which is something that any game has to do as there's no such thing as a generic magic system that covers all settings). I can even do a fairly good modern setting with the classes from 1e and for some settings like Lankhmar a limited amount of multiclassing two of these classes covers things well too. Despite rumors to the contrary, even Tekumel can work with 1e and a bit of twiddling (again, mostly around the magic).

So, aside from some time spent on customising magic for the setting, the broad classes and non-skill-based mechanics of 1e already cover a vast swath of fantasy and legend for no cost. Because the loose classes and the loose task resolution get out of the players' way and allow their playing to drive the characters instead of the quest for the right set of numbers.

On the other hand, taking 3.5's skill & feat system or 4e's power system and trying to simulate many of those worlds would require considerable work and selection by the DM with the ever-present danger of throwing some madly unbalanced optimisation possibility into the game due to the complex interrelations between all the skills, feats, and powers.


I am no longer certain what we're arguing about, as I don't disagree with anything in that statement, so I think that I shall be bowing out.
I wasn't arguing; just expanding on what you said.

Enlong
2008-09-28, 01:47 PM
I don't run a 3.5 game at the moment, but if & when I ever DM it again I'm thinking of disallowing multiclassing. Now I don't want this thread to turn into a debate about the pros & cons of the 3.5 approach to multiclassing, so I won't even bother explaining my reasons which would invite that. Simply put, I'm curious that if I took the time to create a 3.5 campaign if anybody would be interested in playing anyway considering that restriction. I would think that despite the fact that players would be forced to pick a class and stick with it, the ample amount of feats and races available would still allow considerable character customization. [Of course there are some classes, feats and races I probably wouldn't allow for game balance reasons, reviewed on a case-by-case basis like anything else]

Hmmm.. I think I'd be cool with playing in a game like that. It depends a little bit on whether Prestige Classes count as Multiclassing in this case, but I'd still have a whole lot of fun with, say a Warlock 20 or a Bard.

Roderick_BR
2008-09-28, 02:43 PM
I used to play AD&D, were your class was set for life. I don't see it so restricting in 3.5. Actually, I don't remember playing a 3.5 game with a multiclass character, except for a wizard PrCing into blood magus.

Swooper
2008-09-28, 02:58 PM
Sure. I'd probably play a ToB class. This rule DOES limit one's options, I don't see the point of it myself and I'd never use it in my own game, but if the rest of the game was interesting I'd work with what I had.

Cainen
2008-09-28, 03:02 PM
J.R.R. Tolkien was a poor roleplayer. And don't get me started on Gary Gygax..

Please don't, Jim. The Tomb of Horrors isn't indicative of anything at all because it was a tournament module. It was meant to kill the players to see who'd survive longer.

More on-topic, however... why, exactly, would you disallow multiclassing? There's little it adds, and honestly if you have an issue with people jumping from class to class like a rabbit you may want to stop them personally than hurt the other players' concepts.

Dr Bwaa
2008-09-28, 03:53 PM
I'd certainly play. I'm not a huge fan of dips and so on, either as a player or a DM, without good role-playing reasons. I would probably push for a one-PrC-per-character rule, though, allowing PrC's outside the DMG (since many, many of those are so very not worth it). But otherwise, I think it would be fine. I have a level 13 character in a game (started at level 1 a long time ago) who is a fighter 7/devoted defender 6. Not optimized one bit, but I class him strictly by role-playing. I have another level 17 Bard, again, raised from level 1. So yes, I'd be fine playing in a game like this.

Curmudgeon
2008-09-28, 05:27 PM
So again I think by starting at level 2 and allowing a multiclass at character creation, I think I can allow pretty much any character concept to emerge without sacrificing the meaning of classes in the game. OK, if you really expect feats to allow enough variation to make up for limited multiclassing, I'd go with Rogue/Cloistered Cleric, with Sacred Outlaw (from Dragon # 357). Sacred Outlaw is for Rogues and Clerics what Swift Hunter is for Scouts and Rangers: your Rogue and Cleric levels stack for sneak attack damage and undead turning.

Cloistered Cleric and Rogue are already close mechanically: they both have d6 hit dice, and only light armor proficiency. Cloistered Clerics get 6 + INT mod skill points per level, almost as much as the Rogue. The combination makes for a thoughtful skill monkey (all the Rogue skills, plus all Knowledge skills), with moderate magical backup (only from the CC levels, because Sacred Outlaw doesn't let the Rogue levels advance spellcasting).

The thing I like about this combination is that you've still got quite a bit of flexibility in the type of character you want to play. Skill point selection can make a big difference; you could be a human, put your best stat in INT, and take the Able Learner feat if you wanted to concentrate on skills. Or you could become an undead specialist, choosing the Penetrating Strike alternative class feature to let you deal 1/2 sneak attack damage against those normally immune: you can turn some undead, and sneak attack others.

Jayabalard
2008-09-28, 05:44 PM
Yes, but given the near-infinite (and yes, I know near-infinite is an impossible concept) number of possible different personalities and skill sets, that's still a pitifully small number.The number of possible different personalities is large, but still finite... therefore, for a sufficiently large X, it's possible to have classes to cover all of them, which is the specific thing I was disagreeing with. I suggested that 20! is plenty to take care of that (By the current best guestimates, 20! is FAR more people than have ever lived)


I'll take that seriously when you show me a game with that many classes.That wasn't your claim. If you want to make an argument that is more realistic than "There's no way X classes, no matter what X is" feel free, but the statement that you actually made is not correct, which is why I disagreed.


Even then, it's plain and logical that a game with skill-based character creation will have more options for the same amount of effort than a game with class-based character creation.If you just mean that you think that it's easier to have more mechanical options in a skill based character system than a class based one, then you should probably make that argument. At least then you can make an argument and back up your opinion instead of setting yourself up for such trivial counterexamples. The question then centers on "Is it actually more useful to have more mechanical options"... which seems to be the real point that is in contention.


Whether your power level is over 9,000 or over 10,000 is pretty irrelevant, when the non-casters are stuck at 100.It's quite relevant. He's saying that 9000 is the max, and I'm pointing out that there are people at 10,000 or even higher. So the whether your power level is over 9,000 or over 10,000 is extremely relevant to the question of whether 9000 is the max or not.


This seems ass-backwards. So players should be coming up with reasons their character fits one of the narrow pre-existing classes?No, they should just play the character as defined without trying to force it into any particular mold; the claim is that this is a better roleplaying experience/exercise, since you can't pick and choose what's easy for you to play.


Bizarrely enough, D&D (and d20 in general, although some games - like M&M - actually depart from this) remains just about the only game to use classes As far as I'm aware, Palladium is still class based and they're still publishing material (there's a Palladium writer who posts on this forum, Mark Hall). Most console RPGs and MMORPGs are class based as well. Most of the rest that I can think of don't qualify as modern games (lots of small games from the 80s and early 90s).

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-09-28, 10:19 PM
Before creating the Stormwind Fallacy, Tempest Stormwind made another post in that same thread, which I think a quote from will fit this debate quite well:

You don't like the name Magic Missile? Great, call it Arcane Blast. Psionics seem too sci-fi (they aren't, but I hear this a lot)? See the Truenaming Psionics link in my sig. Warlock doesn't fit your bill? Maybe he's a walking Dream, able to manipulate this world by projecting the next on top of it. No mechanics are changed, but all of a sudden the class that a player wanted to play fits logically into your world. ... If you lay the boot down and deny people things on these ideas instead of questioning your own thoughts, congrats, you are indeed being a dictator, and it's because you want to avoid more work.

The flavor text included with a class is not a set of rules, and it is no reason for that class to not be included into a given setting.

Right after the Complete Warrior was printed, I played a Ranger 3/ Barbarian 2/ Horizon Walker. He called himself a scout, because that's what he did as a profession (this was before scout existed as a class). Years later, I remade the same character for another game, and played him the same way: as a professional scout, and naming his profession in describing what he did. It was only when I didn't use the skirmish mechanic, when I went into a rage, when I used Horizon Walker's Dimension Door ability, that the rest of the party realized that I wasn't just naming off a class to describe my character like they all had done. I think that the character I played filled the archetypical role of scout better than the scout class is capable of, and I certainly enjoyed playing that character more than I would have had I lazily built a single-classed character of the scout class.

Tolkien wasn't naming a class that someone else came up with that he modeled his timeless characters after, he summarized their abilities into a profession which he described in a single word, such as Ranger or Burglar. Similarly, in playing my "scout" I gathered the abilities that I thought suited the character's personality and profession and summarized those abilities into a single word. Just because a character class later published is described by that exact same word does not mean that this was the class named in describing the character in question.

Similarly, classes are only a collection of game mechanics. Any poor role-player can design a character to fit the flavor text of the class they intend to take. A character who comes from a tribe of superstitious warriors who was taught by the elder seer to wield the ancient words of power is a Hexblade, even though the character concept couldn't be further from the built-in flavor text of the class. The fluff included with any class is not a set of rules on who can become a member of that class, it's just a description of one of countless types of characters that may have levels in that class.

The flavor text included with a class is not a set of rules, and it is no reason for that class to not be included into a given setting.

horseboy
2008-09-28, 11:04 PM
I find GURPS almost impossible to construct a character in due to the obsession with points and having a skill level for everything from driving to wiping your nose. It all gets in the way; I much prefer the broad classes of 1e which let me get on with defining the character through play and characterization.1e is quite a free form RPG, it just has OCD combat mechanics.

Torque
2008-09-29, 03:24 AM
The question then centers on the question "Is it actually more useful to have more options"... which seems to be the real point that is in contention.
Actually, I think the core contention for me is "is it actually more useful to have more mechanically defined options". The 1e class system has, it seems to me, more options than any numerical-skill-based system - they're just not options defined in the rules/on the character sheet.

Every number on a character sheet is a limitation (that's why it has a number), not an extra option. Working within limitations is part of playing a character, but beyond a certain (subjective) point it just becomes wearying and frustrating.

Kaiyanwang
2008-09-29, 04:02 AM
I'd play. Any Class allowed. I played few campaigns like this and may be fun (or unfun) like a multi-class campaign.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-29, 10:46 AM
I've been absorbing all the back-and-forth discussion as to whether a class is an identity or a set of abilities with interest, but that aside one of my main objections to instant multiclassing remains: training.

I still say you just can't "take" a level of wizard. Training for a wizard should take years. That's why my idea of starting at level 2 allows for a multiclass where you can fit training for both into your backstory.

Even if you go with classes as a set of abilities and not a way of life in-and-of themselves, when a character chooses to multiclass I would line up the new abilities with the character's existing abilities to determine training time. If you're a cleric and want to dip into fighter for a level or two which I see all the time - well that's an awful lot of martial weapons to train in. So on and so forth. If you're a paladin and want to take a level of fighter, I think the training would be minimal as armor wearing and martial weapons are skills you already know.


Ad hoc hypothesis, poisoning the well, and non sequitur. Can you explain what makes a player who likes playing their character concept (the "last minute detail" bit was your strawman, incidentally) likely to hate adventures that they do not control? It seems to me that any player should and would understand that the GM is the one making the adventure; but they also understand that they are the one making the PC.

Sorry that my thoughts came off as harsh; I need a place like this forum to iron them out and examine them. Naturally some of my ideas are going to turn out to be stinkers.

I do have to say that in my experience, players who are most into their builds are usually the ones who are least interested in the adventure. The fine roleplayers on this board could very well be head and shoulders above such folks I've played with to this point. I guess I'm just concerned with running a 3.5 game that I'd put all this hard work in and it would be unappreciated by certain players.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 11:49 AM
I do have to say that in my experience, players who are most into their builds are usually the ones who are least interested in the adventure. The fine roleplayers on this board could very well be head and shoulders above such folks I've played with to this point. I guess I'm just concerned with running a 3.5 game that I'd put all this hard work in and it would be unappreciated by certain players.

I am very familiar with these kinds of players, and in my experience they can usually be weeded out before the game even begins - they tend to not ask a single flavor question. If they ask what the setting is or what the party is, they ask to see how they mechanically can contribute or benefit. This is different from asking mechanical questions first and -then- talking about flavor. These people never bother with the latter except in the most cursory of circumstance.

I generally spend about as much time building a character as I do flavoring it, which can be anywhere from a day if I have a definite picture, an hour if I'm playing it by ear, or a few weeks if I've got time and I'm not sure what I want to do.

Jayabalard
2008-09-29, 12:01 PM
Actually, I think the core contention for me is "is it actually more useful to have more mechanically defined options". Yes, that's really what I meant. And I agree, more mechanically defined options means that have set more limitations on your character...so the game with the more mechanical options has has less roleplaying options than game with fewer things defined with numbers.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 12:09 PM
...so the game with the more mechanical options has has less roleplaying options than game with fewer things defined with numbers.

That's not an absolute, unless you're suggesting that for example the existence of the Bull Rush mechanic in 3.x meant that you'd be able to do it if it didn't exist. Some mechanics, particularly ones that relate to conflict, enable more things to occur than many GMs would be inclined to otherwise allow.

Torque
2008-09-29, 12:27 PM
That's not an absolute, unless you're suggesting that for example the existence of the Bull Rush mechanic in 3.x meant that you'd be able to do it if it didn't exist. Some mechanics, particularly ones that relate to conflict, enable more things to occur than many GMs would be inclined to otherwise allow.
There is some truth in this, but also in the flip side, that having a list of things you can do leads players to assume that those are the only things they can do. As the list of mechanical options increases, I think this tendency increases with it.

A better solution, to me, is a flexible system with good examples in the books of how to allow a free-wheeling game to operate.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 12:29 PM
There is some truth in this, but also in the flip side, that having a list of things you can do leads players to assume that those are the only things they can do. As the list of mechanical options increases, I think this tendency increases with it.

A better solution, to me, is a flexible system with good examples in the books of how to allow a free-wheeling game to operate.

That would be the system I am designing, sir. (At least hopefully.)

Jayabalard
2008-09-29, 12:33 PM
That's not an absolute, unless you're suggesting that for example the existence of the Bull Rush mechanic in 3.x meant that you'd be able to do it if it didn't exist.I'm not sure I understand what you're saying... but If I understand you correctly: Yes, you can still bull rush someone even if there aren't mechanics to cover attack options. A game system that has clearly defined mechanics for dozens of different special attacks implies that the ones that it lists are it, they're all the special attacks that are allowed; a game system that does not have defined mechanics for special attacks leaves that up to the player and GM creativity, so you potentially have many more options with a more mechanics-lite game. There are less things to limit the GM and player.

We were more talking about skill vs class based design though. Skill based design sets out exactly what skills you character has; this is a limitation on the things that your character knows and can do and it's generally enforced with some sort of balancing mechanics (you get so many points to spend and then your character is defined). A class based game design does not have the same limitation, since you wind up with less things on your character sheet that are defined numerical limitations.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 12:40 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying... but If I understand you correctly: Yes, you can still bull rush someone even if there aren't mechanics to cover attack options. A game system that has clearly defined mechanics for dozens of different special attacks implies that those are all the special attacks that are allowed; a game system that does not have defined mechanics for special attacks leaves that up to the player and GM creativity, so you potentially have many more options with a mechanics lite game.

A game system that does not have defined mechanics for special attacks is a game system that does not have defined mechanics for special attacks. Any given GM may say "no", make an overpowered solution, make an inconsistent solution, make an underpowered solution, etc. You're essentially leaving it up to Rule Zero, which can also be invoked on a complex system.


We were more talking about skill vs class based design though. Skill based design sets out exactly what skills you character has; this is a limitation on the things that your character knows and can do and it's generally enforced with some sort of balancing mechanics (you get so many points to spend and then your character is defined).

Not true as a blanket statement. That depends on how detailed the skills go. To use the one I'm currently developing, the only things I tend to measure are raw combat useful abilities, with some exceptions for very nice utility. How intelligent your character is, how charismatic, how much money they make, how well they can balance, etc, is up to you.

A class system can be just as restrictive because this is a matter of detail. If you kept things in 3.x to the PHB classes, for example, there is absolutely no way to play the smooth talking, opportunistic frontliner who can keep up with his comrades encased in steel. Your Rogue is not a frontliner in damage or durability, your Fighter is not a smooth talker or a very good opportunist or even really worth anything outside of armor. Multiclassing just makes someone who's lesser at both roles. The 3.x classes, even without skills, are pretty sharply defined in what they can do.

As I noted on another thread recently, the argument is complexities, not skill versus class. Skill is often paired with complexity, but it's not a causal relationship.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-29, 01:05 PM
Barbarians as a specific example really suck, because what distinguishes the class is the rage mechanic, and throughout history there have been warriors and knights who were distinguished by their berserk rages.

I disagree with your statement. Barbarians as a whole are an excellent example. Besides rage, they have the following "I come from the wild" abilities/restraints:
- illiteracy
- survival, handle animal, swim as class skills
- fast movement in light armor (gotta cross those plains!)
- uncanny dodge (years of surviving around animal predators)

As for trap sense and damage reduction, you can put a spin on those but I'll agree they aren't core to the concept of wilderness fighter.

So if you just want your fighter to be able to rage, I'd rather see a mechanic like the 2E book Skills & Powers had where you can buy another class' ability with character points than to actually take a level of it just to get one particular ability. See what I'm saying? Let's say your fighter wants to learn to rage. Perhaps at level 6 he can pass up the level 6 feat and the fighter 6 feat in exchange for the rage ability. He still takes a level of fighter though, learning fighter class skills instead of barbarian class skills, and doesn't gain another ability like fast movement.

Edit: The more I think about it, the more I think that Skills & Powers had a much better approach to character customization than the multiclassing of 3E.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 01:07 PM
I'm fine with that, though at that point you're really starting to enter into the class-less category. Ad hoc class-less is cool; but Multiclassing requires less work on the part of the DM and more on the part of the PC.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-29, 01:09 PM
I'm fine with that, though at that point you're really starting to enter into the class-less category.

Not entirely, because in Skills & Powers the price of another class' ability depends upon your current class, a la cross-class skills. If I recall correctly, it is easier for a cleric to learn an m-u spell than a fighter. I don't have it in front of me though so I can't say for sure.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-29, 01:09 PM
I disagree with your statement. Barbarians as a whole are an excellent example. Besides rage, they have the following "I come from the wild" abilities/restraints:
- illiteracy
- survival, handle animal, swim as class skills
- fast movement in light armor (gotta cross those plains!)
- uncanny dodge (years of surviving around animal predators)

As for trap sense and damage reduction, you can put a spin on those but I'll agree they aren't core to the concept of wilderness fighter.


So if I pay 2 skill points to remove illiteracy... am I still a Barbarian?
If yes, then literacy is just 2 skill points to ignore.

Handle Animal are Fighter skills...as well as swim...

You are correct they have fast movement, but uncanny Dodge is just something the rogues know as well. Do rogues survive animal predators to learn it?
No, I didn't think so.

So the basis of your disagree is Survival and Fast movement.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 01:12 PM
Not entirely, because in Skills & Powers the price of another class' ability depends upon your current class, a la cross-class skills. If I recall correctly, it is easier for a cleric to learn a spell than a fighter. I don't have it in front of me though so I can't say for sure.

Well, sure, it hasn't spontaneously turned into GURPS or anything - but by the same token, turning combat abilities into something which can be cherrypicked without losing class is a big step.

Also, unless each feature is well-delineated and also built with that in mind you doubtless end up with borrowed features from other classes that are gotten too cheaply or at too much cost. Now, 3.0 multiclassing sucked because the 3.0 classes weren't actually built with that mechanic in mind, but the bulk of classes in 3.5 really alleviate the issues for the most part.

Skills and Powers was a one-book expansion that I'm given to understand happened midway through 2's life, so it sounds like the options there would be about as easy to quickly insert and balance as Unearthed Arcana's (that is to say, interesting, but not quick to implement well at all.)

ken-do-nim
2008-09-29, 01:16 PM
So if I pay 2 skill points to remove illiteracy... am I still a Barbarian?
If yes, then literacy is just 2 skill points to ignore.

Handle Animal are Fighter skills...as well as swim...

You are correct they have fast movement, but uncanny Dodge is just something the rogues know as well. Do rogues survive animal predators to learn it?
No, I didn't think so.

So the basis of your disagree is Survival and Fast movement.

Alright, I think we're getting somewhere here. So if a fighter wants to dip to barbarian to get the rage ability, I could say:
1. Skill points and choices stay as fighter
2. Abilities that don't make sense for the character aren't gained; in this case illiteracy and fast movement.

I don't know if that would fly for the player, but it makes me feel better about it.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 01:20 PM
Alright, I think we're getting somewhere here. So if a fighter wants to dip to barbarian to get the rage ability, I could say:
1. Skill points and choices stay as fighter
2. Abilities that don't make sense for the character aren't gained; in this case illiteracy and fast movement.

I don't know if that would fly for the player, but it makes me feel better about it.

If you take an approach like this, I really doubt many people would object to a no multiclassing game.

My games generally have an unwritten rule of no more than 2 or 3 classes (prestige included) - if you feel you need more than that, I think it's time that I helped you write up a new class that gave abilities more steadily, or looked at exchanging class features. I've never received a complaint.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-29, 01:23 PM
If you take an approach like this, I really doubt many people would object to a no multiclassing game.

My games generally have an unwritten rule of no more than 2 or 3 classes (prestige included) - if you feel you need more than that, I think it's time that I helped you write up a new class that gave abilities more steadily, or looked at exchanging class features. I've never received a complaint.

Wait, so would you rewrite the Kensai so he only got the good abilities and not the crappy ones? (a few of his high level abilities really aren't as good comparede to other Prc classses)

NEO|Phyte
2008-09-29, 01:23 PM
2. Abilities that don't make sense for the character aren't gained; in this case illiteracy and fast movement.

Multiclassing into barbarian doesn't make you illiterate as it is, and I'm not entirely sure how the fast movement doesn't make sense. Unless your fighter is running around in light/no armor, just call it conditioning oneself to be able to move in heavier (Medium) armor as swiftly as an unarmored person.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 01:25 PM
Wait, so would you rewrite the Kensai so he only got the good abilities and not the crappy ones? (a few of his high level abilities really aren't as good comparede to other Prc classses)

The 3.5 Kensai has always turned me off since every time I start to look at it I go "BUT I WANTED THE IMPROVED WHIRLWIND SO I COULD BE LINK FROM ZELDA WAAHH 3.5 RUINED MY 3.0 KENSAI" and skip it over. So I don't know. But generally I try to remove unfun things from classes that don't need them.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-29, 01:28 PM
Multiclassing into barbarian doesn't make you illiterate as it is, and I'm not entirely sure how the fast movement doesn't make sense. Unless your fighter is running around in light/no armor, just call it conditioning oneself to be able to move in heavier (Medium) armor as swiftly as an unarmored person.

I get the concept that any warrior can learn to rage, but I think fast movement comes from growing up on the plains and hunting fast moving deer. I wouldn't allow learning it in a dip without it being part of your backstory. YMMV.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-29, 01:31 PM
If you take an approach like this, I really doubt many people would object to a no multiclassing game.

My games generally have an unwritten rule of no more than 2 or 3 classes (prestige included) - if you feel you need more than that, I think it's time that I helped you write up a new class that gave abilities more steadily, or looked at exchanging class features. I've never received a complaint.

Well, they might object because I'd still enforce lengthy training when needed and I would object to suddenly discovering an innate power like a sorcerer or a psion gets, so some classes would be off-limits to take later.

Basically the multiclass choice has to make sense for where the character is at when the class is taken.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 01:32 PM
I get the concept that any warrior can learn to rage, but I think fast movement comes from growing up on the plains and hunting fast moving deer. I wouldn't allow learning it in a dip without it being part of your backstory. YMMV.

My problem with "part of your backstory" is that you penalize players who don't anticipate the ways in which they may want to evolve their character at character creation and reward those who make eclectic backgrounds. Balance should be independent of backstory. The mechanics and the story must agree with one another, but they shouldn't drive one another inordinately either.


Well, they might object because I'd still enforce lengthy training when needed and I would object to suddenly discovering an innate power like a sorcerer or a psion gets, so some classes would be off-limits to take later.

Basically the multiclass choice has to make sense for where the character is at when the class is taken.

I really wouldn't even bring this up ahead of time, TBH. I had the same stance once and I've found that most players who want to multi into a caster either planned it out in advance or are heavy roleplayers that completely ignore optimization but had this REALLY great idea that makes sense to me and seems cool - and more often than not I have to compensate for it so they don't suck. So saying things like that in advance can give a false impression of thought tyranny.

Instead, check with a player as they're entering the game to see what they want to do, and give a general note like "I want class choices to make sense for your character". They'll generally do the planning for you.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-29, 01:40 PM
My problem with "part of your backstory" is that you penalize players who don't anticipate the ways in which they may want to evolve their character at character creation and reward those who make eclectic backgrounds. Balance should be independent of backstory. The mechanics and the story must agree with one another, but they shouldn't drive one another inordinately either.


*Chuckle*, as I stepped away from the computer after writing the last post I had the same thought. Every character would submit a background where they grew up in the wilds, always had strange weird psychic and magical phenomena happen inexplicably around them, as they were indoctrinated into learning magical and clerical rituals by the tribal elders, and learning how to pick pockets from unknowing travellers and make sneaky attacks on them.

horseboy
2008-09-29, 06:07 PM
A class system can be just as restrictive because this is a matter of detail. If you kept things in 3.x to the PHB classes, for example, there is absolutely no way to play the smooth talking, opportunistic frontliner who can keep up with his comrades encased in steel. Your Rogue is not a frontliner in damage or durability, your Fighter is not a smooth talker or a very good opportunist or even really worth anything outside of armor. Multiclassing just makes someone who's lesser at both roles. The 3.x classes, even without skills, are pretty sharply defined in what they can doThat's more a failing of the abysmal 3.x skill system than a class system. Prior editions, you just put a better than 12 cha stat on a fighter. and that'd be what he was if you wanted him to be.
As for trap sense and damage reduction, you can put a spin on those but I'll agree they aren't core to the concept of wilderness fighter.I don't know, when I think woodsman one of the first things I associate with it is "Snares and Pit Traps". DR I got nothing. It's just a retardicon mechanical effect.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 06:12 PM
That's more a failing of the abysmal 3.x skill system than a class system. Prior editions, you just put a better than 12 cha stat on a fighter. and that'd be what he was if you wanted him to be.

And the 'no armor wearing' 'frontliner' bit?

horseboy
2008-09-29, 06:43 PM
And the 'no armor wearing' 'frontliner' bit?
Bracers of defense. He runs around in his nice clothes while the magical force field keeps them from getting all ripped up. Yeah, had a paladin that did that until UA came out and said they HAD to wear full plate.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 06:45 PM
Bracers of defense. He runs around in his nice clothes while the magical force field keeps them from getting all ripped up. Yeah, had a paladin that did that until UA came out and said they HAD to wear full plate.

Um... You can do that just fine in 3.x, but I don't think Wesley had bracers of defense. And there are people who will want to play Wesley on the same field as Aragorn and Peter Pevensie.

monty
2008-09-29, 06:54 PM
Play a female character. As everybody knows, less is more when it comes to women in armor.

I mean, look at WoW. Some of the top-level gear barely covers their naughty bits, much less all the vital organs.

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 06:55 PM
Play a female character. As everybody knows, less is more when it comes to women in armor.

I mean, look at WoW.

Please, let's not. It's a fun game, but the people in charge of art need to be universally shot with hammers.

Well, okay, the people who made Silvermoon City can go hammer-free today.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-29, 06:58 PM
I was just thinking about how my new approach solves so many problems. For instance, there's all these feats in the game that are really just patches to the multiclassing system where they allow you to stack levels for something. Or there are prestige classes that give cool abilities but aren't worth taking because then your existing caster level doesn't go up.

So for instance, monks love to take kensai to enchant their fists but to do so means that their monk level falls behind for purposes of determining spell resistance, quivering palm dc, etc. not to mention the fact that they have to put off an ability they are looking forward to like turning ethereal. But if a player says to me that it is not that he wants his character to become a kensai with all that implies but simply wants an ability from it, then I can have him take a level of monk but trade an ability like tongue of the sun & moon for the ability to enchant their fists to +1. Obviously I'd have to make a judgement call on the appropriate balance, but I think that works better for me than a full class change.

monty
2008-09-29, 07:01 PM
Dang it. I was going to quote Chainmail Bikini, but it apparently no longer exists.

I know it's a dead comic. I mean that I can't find the old pages either.

ericgrau
2008-09-29, 07:06 PM
To original question: Heck ya.

Though I still like it 10 times more than prestiging; I'm all for multi-classing. I just mean I wouldn't have the slightest problem playing in a game restricted to single class. In the groups I've played in there's been many single classed players. The stronger characters tended to drift towards prestiging and multi-classing and templates, though.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-29, 09:17 PM
I get the concept that any warrior can learn to rage, but I think fast movement comes from growing up on the plains and hunting fast moving deer. I wouldn't allow learning it in a dip without it being part of your backstory. YMMV.

So there are only plains barbarians? No hill barbarians, no mountain barbarians, no jungle barbarians, no forest barbarians, no barbarians where there's no deer, no mounted barbarians...? 1st-century Picts and Celts and Goths wouldn't be D&D barbarians?

You've tied the barbarian class to in-world fluff that cuts out most of the types of barbarians you actually find in any fantasy. That seems absurdly limiting.

As for fast movement: Dude is just a fast mover. That's not exactly hard to imagine; an ability like evasion is way more outre.


Hilariously enough, "no multiclassing" makes the most iconic examples of D&D-style characters unfeasible: Conan and Fafhrd and Mouser. Conan would be a Barbarian/Rogue/Fighter/Dread Pirate/Legendary Leader, or something. He's got the rages, he's got the thieving skills, he's got the leadership and sailing abilities, he's got the knowledge of arms and armor (he's only half-naked in most of the stories because he's lost everything right before the start; in all the stories where he starts out with proper "kit", he's wearing the heaviest armor he's been able to afford)... Fafhrd and Mouser would be Fighter/Rogues at the very least; I don't think Fafhrd actually rages.

Jayabalard
2008-09-29, 09:21 PM
Please, let's not. It's a fun game, but the people in charge of art need to be universally shot with hammers.It's no sillier than expecting someone unarmoreed to be able to go toe to toe with someone in full armor.


So there are only plains barbarians? No hill barbariansLothar Disagrees, there are definitely hill people.


Hilariously enough, "no multiclassing" makes the most iconic examples of D&D-style characters unfeasible: Conan and Fafhrd and Mouser. Conan would be a Barbarian/Rogue/Fighter/Dread Pirate/Legendary Leader, or something. The official TSR versions of Conan in 1e AD&D had him stated out as a fighter with some thief levels thrown in (different ratios for each version). I'm not sure of the stats for the other two from dieties and demigods, (EDIT) but ken-do-nim does

But all of those characters are arguably Low Fantasy/Swords and Sorcery rather than the "High Fantasy" that modern D&D has been aimed at, so I'm not sure I agree that "Iconic examples of D&D-style characters" applies when you're talking about 3e or later.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-29, 09:37 PM
It's no sillier than expecting someone unarmoreed to be able to go toe to toe with someone in full armor.

Lothar Disagrees, there are definitely hill people.

The official TSR versions of Conan in 1e AD&D had him stated out as a fighter with some thief levels thrown in (different ratios for each version). I'm not sure of the stats for the other two from dieties and demigods, but I think Fafhrd was a straight fighter and the Grey Mouser a straight thief. All of them were doable in 1e with a straight class just fine.

But all of those characters are arguably Low Fantasy/Swords and Sorcery rather than the "High Fantasy" that modern D&D has been aimed at, so I'm not sure I agree "Iconic examples of D&D-style characters" applies when you're talking about 3e or later.

I'm happy to chime in with the 1E stats for Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser. Deities & Demigods allowed more multiclassing than you could do as a player character in 1E.

Fafhrd: ranger 15 / thief 13 / bard 5
Gray Mouser: fighter 11 / magic-user 3 / thief 15

Keep in mind that Deities & Demigods is pre-Unearthed Arcana so the barbarian class wasn't invented yet; therefore ranger went where barbarian might otherwise go.

Edit: While I have the book open, here's a fun one:

Elric: cleric 10 / druid 5 / fighter 15 / magic-user 19 / illusionist 10 / assassin 10

AstralFire
2008-09-29, 10:50 PM
It's no sillier than expecting someone unarmoreed to be able to go toe to toe with someone in full armor.

That was just a little bit random, going from art that produces eyebrows of doom to discussion of reality in combat.

I do not expect someone unarmored to be able to go toe to toe with someone in full armor in real life. But I also don't expect someone to be able to use the words they were reading and zap me in the face with them in real life, either.

The unarmored swashbuckler's a big one in fantasy, and it's a hole in any fantasy system that can't support it.

Oslecamo
2008-09-30, 01:29 AM
The unarmored swashbuckler's a big one in fantasy, and it's a hole in any fantasy system that can't support it.

No it isn't. Is a relatively new concept. Even Conan used armor on the old days.

Nowadays, even Spartans don't use armor. Puting hard things over your body is considered "passe", wich is strongly related with society's evolution, since indeed armors have not only become obsolete but people indeed go around with less clothes. Even comic heroes see their clothes shrink at an alarming rate. Not to speak of manga.

You could always use the unarmored rules from unhearted arcana. Everybody gets an armor bonus to AC whitout needing to actually use armors. Fighty classes get a bigger bonus. And then you can have your party of naked guys to wich arrows go flying by their side.

lord_khaine
2008-09-30, 04:59 AM
That was just a little bit random, going from art that produces eyebrows of doom to discussion of reality in combat.

I do not expect someone unarmored to be able to go toe to toe with someone in full armor in real life. But I also don't expect someone to be able to use the words they were reading and zap me in the face with them in real life, either.

The unarmored swashbuckler's a big one in fantasy, and it's a hole in any fantasy system that can't support it.


actualy this would really depend on the situation, armor gives protection, but it also slows you down, and if you wear full plate armor with chain, and someone manage to trip you, then you are more or less done for.

the same applies to getting into a grapple, then all of a sudden the armor would be a hindrance.

of course, these 2 scenarios would not really be possible in a bigger battle, but in a duel with only 2 people they would be a option.

Torque
2008-09-30, 05:57 AM
actualy this would really depend on the situation, armor gives protection, but it also slows you down, and if you wear full plate armor with chain, and someone manage to trip you, then you are more or less done for.

the same applies to getting into a grapple, then all of a sudden the armor would be a hindrance.

of course, these 2 scenarios would not really be possible in a bigger battle, but in a duel with only 2 people they would be a option.

Popular myths ahoy! Heavy armour was used in historically documented duels because it was actually very good at protecting the wearer. A longsword is almost useless against heavy armour and unless the ground is muddy that armour allows good mobility, including the ability to grapple or to regain one's feet.

The real disadvantages of full plate are cost and heat, as well as difficulties on soft ground, mud, or - worst of all - water. Tournament armour was heavier still and that is the stuff that causes trouble for the prone figure.

People in the past were not stupid; if tripping opponents was a sure-fire way to defeat them then either everyone would have used halberds (or Shepperd's crooks with a spike on the other end) or no one would have bothered with armour that cost the equivilent of a Ferrari today.

It is interesting and significent that many reports of nobles being killed in battle are suffixed by the words "after taking his helmet off to rest". Full plate was fantasticly effective.

Not that any of that implies that you must use realistic armour rules in your game, but it is true that the modern idea of the lightly armed/armoured rogue being in front-line fighting against armoured opponents is as realistic as a flying dragon.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-30, 06:04 AM
No it isn't. Is a relatively new concept. Even Conan used armor on the old days.

Depends entirely on the story. Phoenix in the Sword ? He fights a well-prepared ambush of conspirators and a huge gorilla-demon buck naked, just out of bed, and wins, having dodged or blocked almost all attacks other than the poet's dagger under his arm. In Hour of the Dragon, he's mostly very heavily armored - with the grey mail hauberk and heavy helm and such - but occasionally unarmored. And so on. Examples abound of both extremes.

I have to confess that I don't remember how Fafhrd and Mouser rolled at all, as comes to armor, but since they were mainly thieves, I don't imagine they wore much more than leather clothes.

Elric alternates a lot; sometimes he's decked out in full Dragonlord harness, sometimes he wears a mercenary's hauberk, and sometimes he doesn't. It rarely matters, because he's got a big ol' magic sword and fends off or kills all enemies before they get close.

The LOTR RPG has a nice treatment of this as it comes to LOTR; the rules encourage not bothering with armor (although not that well, admittedly), since it just doesn't fit the style. Frodo and probably Gimli were armored, out of the Fellowship.

"Superiorly skilled fighter voiding and parrying his enemies' attacks" isn't an exclusively modern concept at all. Heck, look at the Three Musketeers.

Edit:

Popular myths ahoy! Heavy armour was used in historically documented duels because it was actually very good at protecting the wearer. A longsword is almost useless against heavy armour and unless the ground is muddy that armour allows good mobility, including the ability to grapple or to regain one's feet.

The real disadvantages of full plate are cost and heat, as well as difficulties on soft ground, mud, or - worst of all - water. Tournament armour was heavier still and that is the stuff that causes trouble for the prone figure.

People in the past were not stupid; if tripping opponents was a sure-fire way to defeat them then either everyone would have used halberds (or Shepperd's crooks with a spike on the other end) or no one would have bothered with armour that cost the equivilent of a Ferrari today.

It is interesting and significent that many reports of nobles being killed in battle are suffixed by the words "after taking his helmet off to rest". Full plate was fantasticly effective.

Not that any of that implies that you must use realistic armour rules in your game, but it is true that the modern idea of the lightly armed/armoured rogue being in front-line fighting against armoured opponents is as realistic as a flying dragon.

Indeed; wearing 50 pounds of full harness was likely easier than carrying a 50-pound backpack would be. The weight is divided very evenly, and most of your knights and the like were bound to be quite strong and quite acclimated to the armor.

In longsword combat, grappling was a preferred way to fight, since whacking your opponent with the sword just made a clang. Locking your opponent's arm or arms let you slip your blade or a dagger into an opening in his armor.

Torque
2008-09-30, 06:13 AM
"Superiorly skilled fighter voiding and parrying his enemies' attacks" isn't an exclusively modern concept at all. Heck, look at the Three Musketeers.
The clue there is in the title: muskets had rendered heavy armour obsolete on the battlefield without having reached a level of rapid fire that would make swords obsolete in close combat.

Jayabalard
2008-09-30, 06:42 AM
The unarmored swashbuckler's a big one in fantasy, and it's a hole in any fantasy system that can't support it.you can replace "unarmored swashbuckler's" with "chainmail bikini" and wind up with a statement that has the same truth value and same silliness value.

Neon Knight
2008-09-30, 06:57 AM
No it isn't. Is a relatively new concept. Even Conan used armor on the old days.



And yet the Picts and celtic peoples depicted by the very same author, Robert E. Howard, disdained armor as for cowards and fought unarmored. And they fought armored vikings and won.

And didn't the ancient greeks consider fighting naked a sign of bravery and heroism?

Oslecamo
2008-09-30, 07:07 AM
Depends entirely on the story. Phoenix in the Sword ? He fights a well-prepared ambush of conspirators and a huge gorilla-demon buck naked, just out of bed, and wins, having dodged or blocked almost all attacks other than the poet's dagger under his arm. In Hour of the Dragon, he's mostly very heavily armored - with the grey mail hauberk and heavy helm and such - but occasionally unarmored. And so on. Examples abound of both extremes..

This is a complete diferent situation. He fight unarmored because puting on an armor is not an option at those situations. Even Iron Man has to fight whitout armor if he's catched with his adamantium pants down.

A unarmored swashbuckler fights unarmored all the time, even if the enemy is raining arrows at him.



I have to confess that I don't remember how Fafhrd and Mouser rolled at all, as comes to armor, but since they were mainly thieves, I don't imagine they wore much more than leather clothes.

Light armor. Good tick leather clothes with some pading below are a staple of cheap armor very effective against light attacks.

Unarmored swasbucklers like to show their muscles and wear thin fragile clothes.



Elric alternates a lot; sometimes he's decked out in full Dragonlord harness, sometimes he wears a mercenary's hauberk, and sometimes he doesn't. It rarely matters, because he's got a big ol' magic sword and fends off or kills all enemies before they get close.

Your point being? He uses armor most of the time. Definetely not unarmored specialist.



The LOTR RPG has a nice treatment of this as it comes to LOTR; the rules encourage not bothering with armor (although not that well, admittedly), since it just doesn't fit the style. Frodo and probably Gimli were armored, out of the Fellowship.


First, both Frodo and Gimli are saved by their armor more than once.
Boromir and Aragorn use medium/light armor under their clothes, plus shields. The other hobbits spend most of their time hidding, and later one of them actually picks up armor at the white city. The only one who fights and doesn't use armor is Legolas, but he's a ranged specialist anyway.





"Superiorly skilled fighter voiding and parrying his enemies' attacks" isn't an exclusively modern concept at all. Heck, look at the Three Musketeers.



Go look at it again. They use tick leather clothes, very nice to absorb some blows. There's plenty of brawling going around the three musketeets. Also, as someone pointed out, fire arms had made heavy armors obsolete.

Also, one very unknow fact is that the hats weren't just for shows. They were actually made of metal, and could easily save one's life from a blow to the head.

EDIT:

Kasrkin : History tells the contrary. The armored vikings came and kicked their asses. The armored romans also came and kicked their asses.

Altough Howard may have retracted them that way, there's plenty of other older stories were the naked picts get owned by their armored oponents. There was a reason why armor became popular. It worked.

Also, greeks were infamous for the first heavy infantry european army. They were only naked during sports. And was more a sexual/exhibicionism thing than anything else.

Plus, to prevent women from participating.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-30, 08:11 AM
And yet the Picts and celtic peoples depicted by the very same author, Robert E. Howard, disdained armor as for cowards and fought unarmored. And they fought armored vikings and won.

Oh, yes. The Irish Celts generally eschewed armor even when it was to be had. They had crazy berserker warriors who'd charge into battle naked, painted with woad.

It's an old, old image and a fantasy staple. Obviously something RPGs should bend to model.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-30, 08:24 AM
How dare all of you make this mundane thread more interesting by talking about fighting naked? :smallbiggrin:

Incidentally, there's a King Arthur story where Sir Tristram (second only to Launcelot in skill) was caught by armored assassins naked in bed with his girlfriend. Of the 20 attackers, he managed to kill 10 before he had to flee if I recall correctly. Of course had he been armored to start I'm sure he would have stayed and wiped the floor with all 20, something he and Launcelot did often. [And yes, Launcelot and Tristram once fought a duel and after half a day called it quits. Good stuff.]

Well, in a vain attempt to bring us back on topic...


So if I pay 2 skill points to remove illiteracy... am I still a Barbarian?
If yes, then literacy is just 2 skill points to ignore.

Handle Animal are Fighter skills...as well as swim...

You are correct they have fast movement, but uncanny Dodge is just something the rogues know as well. Do rogues survive animal predators to learn it?
No, I didn't think so.

So the basis of your disagree is Survival and Fast movement.

Oh, and the d12 hit die vs a fighter's normal d10. IMHO, barbarians get d12 hit dice because living out in the wild toughens you up.

Gerrtt
2008-09-30, 08:27 AM
I would totally play in this kind of game.

I would also play in a game where you could only have one prestige class.

Serenity
2008-09-30, 08:41 AM
As far as it goes, it seems to me that Psions and Sorcerers are the easiest to justify multiclassing into. Who says you can't be a 'late bloomer' magically? Why do your innate supernatural abilities need to develop in puberty? Maybe actually going up against unnatural foes finally awakens the spark that's lain dormant within you.

Torque
2008-09-30, 08:59 AM
As far as it goes, it seems to me that Psions and Sorcerers are the easiest to justify multiclassing into. Who says you can't be a 'late bloomer' magically?
One of the characters in my current game is a pig farmer who, on receiving a large inherentance, went off to collage become a magic user. He has an Int of 13, Wis 7 (which probably explains it) and Str 18. And a big dog as his familiar and a staff with which to beat people who trespass on his land.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-30, 10:10 AM
As far as it goes, it seems to me that Psions and Sorcerers are the easiest to justify multiclassing into. Who says you can't be a 'late bloomer' magically? Why do your innate supernatural abilities need to develop in puberty? Maybe actually going up against unnatural foes finally awakens the spark that's lain dormant within you.

True, but there's just something odd about a player deciding that suddenly his character is psychic or a mutant or has any other odd X-Men like ability that has come out of the blue.

Maybe each level a character gains, I the DM roll on a secret table to determine if multiclassing into sorcerer, psion, or paladin is suddenly a possibility.

Edit: Better yet, I roll at character creation time, and secretly tell the player that anytime his character wants to explore his sorcerer/psionic/paladin-hood he may freely multiclass into it, because the seeds of those powers are indeed inside him. (That is, if such a class isn't chosen at character creation)

AstralFire
2008-09-30, 10:57 AM
you can replace "unarmored swashbuckler's" with "chainmail bikini" and wind up with a statement that has the same truth value and same silliness value.

I was referring to the general aesthetics of that game. Eyebrows of doom, shoulderpads of doom... the armor in general at epics... and the entirety of what passed for art as far as night elves and male trolls are concerned.

Also: Chainmail bikini is primary an aesthetic. They are still supposed to be wearing armor. Outside of parody, at no point is the fact that they are wearing ineffective armor supposed to be a point of note, and indeed they are less well protected if they take it off.

So I have no issue with Chainmail Bikinis because they can already be well-represented. Any women I play will be fully clothed/armored, though.

So what, do you want the monk to go away too?


Edit: Better yet, I roll at character creation time, and secretly tell the player that anytime his character wants to explore his sorcerer/psionic/paladin-hood he may freely multiclass into it, because the seeds of those powers are indeed inside him. (That is, if such a class isn't chosen at character creation)

...Nnnn. You're deciding things for that player, and that would be rather frustrating for someone who didn't get that roll (and wants it) and someone who does get the roll doesn't even care.

That's only one step above rolling to see if someone can even be part of those classes to begin with, I think that that is bad policy.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-30, 11:06 AM
That's only one step above rolling to see if someone can even be part of those classes to begin with, I think that that is bad policy.

Are you making fun of my 3rd edition RuneQuest?

Roll, players, roll! Roll for the general geographic area you're from, roll for the specific region and culture you're from, roll for a lot more if you hit that 5% chance of not being human, and then sit there green with envy when one guy rolls a great troll warrior or a green elf shaman while you all get human peasants (60-80 % share of each culture's profession table).

Yeah, that got old fast.

AstralFire
2008-09-30, 11:09 AM
Are you making fun of my 3rd edition RuneQuest?

Roll, players, roll! Roll for the general geographic area you're from, roll for the specific region and culture you're from, roll for a lot more if you hit that 5% chance of not being human, and then sit there green with envy when one guy rolls a great troll warrior or a green elf shaman while you all get human peasants (60-80 % share of each culture's profession table).

Yeah, that got old fast.

Reminds me of a DBZ game I played a little bit on BYOND. (...What? I was 13 once! Kamehameha used to be cool!) Your starting race, maximum power level, and starting power level were all completely randomized with most people ending up as weak humans so... they deleted their characters and started over and over again so they could actually quest and PVP without getting fried.

I think I lucked out and got Super Namek the first time I tried the game.

Obviously rolling to allow people to multi into Sorcerer or Psion isn't nearly that random and capricious, but I still dislike the idea of deciding what a player can be with rolls.

Zeful
2008-09-30, 11:10 AM
...Nnnn. You're deciding things for that player, and that would be rather frustrating for someone who didn't get that roll (and wants it) and someone who does get the roll doesn't even care.

That's only one step above rolling to see if someone can even be part of those classes to begin with, I think that that is bad policy.

It really depends on the person: If the DM told me that I didn't have the sorcereous "seed" at the beginning of the game, I would be looking for/desinging things to allow me to do it both in game and out of game.

If I were DM a similar situation, I'd talk to the player outside the game about that subject, and see if he'd be interested in alternative options that might fit his character better from my point of view (read: based on the way I interpret in IC actions).

Though I agree that the DM shouldn't be arbitrarily determining things at the beginning of the game.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-30, 11:14 AM
...Nnnn. You're deciding things for that player, and that would be rather frustrating for someone who didn't get that roll (and wants it) and someone who does get the roll doesn't even care.

That's only one step above rolling to see if someone can even be part of those classes to begin with, I think that that is bad policy.

Well, I think you misunderstood my intent a bit. Anybody can be any class they want at level 1. You want your character to be a sorcerer? Go ahead. However, if you want to multiclass to sorcerer later on in your career, that's where the roll comes in. Sorry I wasn't clearer earlier.

And I'd love to see a paladin/sorcerer/psychic warrior in somebody's game. Talk about somebody with innate gifts, eh?

monty
2008-09-30, 11:15 AM
Your starting race, maximum power level, and starting power level were all completely randomized

I'm really sorry, but I have to ask...did anybody start with a power level over 9000?

AstralFire
2008-09-30, 11:20 AM
Well, I think you misunderstood my intent a bit. Anybody can be any class they want at level 1. You want your character to be a sorcerer? Go ahead. However, if you want to multiclass to sorcerer later on in your career, that's where the roll comes in. Sorry I wasn't clearer earlier.

No, I understood. I still think it's a bad idea - just not as bad as actually forcing a roll to become the class in the first place. Not that many people in my experience suddenly decide to multiclass into an innate power class to begin with.


I'm really sorry, but I have to ask...did anybody start with a power level over 9000?

It's been years, but I think Legendary Super Saiyajin (they used the Japanese Romaji spelling) and Super Nameks could. Elite Saiyans and Nameks were around 1000, Low-Class Saiyans were 100-ish, and ordinary humans could start out with anything from 1-9.

BYOND: Where bad games are born and fester.

horseboy
2008-09-30, 11:52 AM
So there are only plains barbarians? No hill barbarians, no mountain barbarians, no jungle barbarians, no forest barbarians, no barbarians where there's no deer, no mounted barbarians...? 1st-century Picts and Celts and Goths wouldn't be D&D barbarians?
All of which would have more cursorial conditioning than their softer civilized counterparts.
No it isn't. Is a relatively new concept. Even Conan used armor on the old days.Good Lord, I'm agreeing with Oslecamo and Jay, surely it's the Aporkaclypse.
There is one other option, either the system or the group has to have a good parry system. That way Wesley can parry to his heart's content in a duel, but once he's out numbered, he's dead quickly, where as the smart guy with armour has a chance.
Are you making fun of my 3rd edition RuneQuest?Here I was thinking he was making fun of Traveler.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-30, 12:00 PM
Here I was thinking he was making fun of Traveler.

Oh, now you've done it. Bring it on!

Any game where you don't have a 30% chance (I think it's usually DM 6+?) per 4 years of background of dying and having to restart the entire excruciating character creation process is for sissies!

Neon Knight
2008-09-30, 12:07 PM
EDIT:

Kasrkin : History tells the contrary. The armored vikings came and kicked their asses. The armored romans also came and kicked their asses.

Altough Howard may have retracted them that way, there's plenty of other older stories were the naked picts get owned by their armored oponents. There was a reason why armor became popular. It worked.

Also, greeks were infamous for the first heavy infantry european army. They were only naked during sports. And was more a sexual/exhibicionism thing than anything else.

Plus, to prevent women from participating.

This isn't about history. DnD is not a history simulator. The Greek thing I was referring to was the depiction of heroes in images (and, presumably, tales) as fighting naked.

The idea that you could fight bereft of armor and still kick arse is one found in fiction throughout the ages.

Jayabalard
2008-09-30, 12:22 PM
No, I understood. I still think it's a bad idea - just not as bad as actually forcing a roll to become the class in the first place. Not that many people in my experience suddenly decide to multiclass into an innate power class to begin with.I don't see anything wrong with it, whether you have full control of your character creation, have no control of your character creation, or anywhere in between. Some prefer one way to the other, with most being somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but that's just a matter of preference.


This isn't about history. DnD is not a history simulator. The Greek thing I was referring to was the depiction of heroes in images (and, presumably, tales) as fighting naked.

The idea that you could fight bereft of armor and still kick arse is one found in fiction throughout the ages.D&D isn't a mythology simulator either.

horseboy
2008-09-30, 12:38 PM
Oh, now you've done it. Bring it on!

Any game where you don't have a 30% chance (I think it's usually DM 6+?) per 4 years of background of dying and having to restart the entire excruciating character creation process is for sissies!"So, like wait. You mean I just spent, like, half an hour rolling on these charts and now he died marshaling out so I got to start all over? Oh man, that's brutal." [/nathanexplosion]
My players are making noises about wanting to play Traveler. I told them no because trying to rewrite the hard-scifi setting to incorporate modern technology isn't worth it when we could just do Privateers instead. There's just some sort of odd charm about playing a system where you have to cheat death, rather than just power attacking him for full.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-30, 12:44 PM
Half an hour if you're lucky. It still takes me about 2 hours per character, using the extended charts from the branch-specific sourcebooks. Some - like the Army and Navy - are worse than others - like Merchants and Scouts. (On the up side, you stand to gain way more skills.)

Torque
2008-09-30, 12:53 PM
"So, like wait. You mean I just spent, like, half an hour rolling on these charts and now he died marshaling out so I got to start all over? Oh man, that's brutal." [/nathanexplosion]
My players are making noises about wanting to play Traveler. I told them no because trying to rewrite the hard-scifi setting to incorporate modern technology isn't worth it
I did it recently for a short-term game with a CoC/Gamma World plot. It was fun and updating the tech on the fly wasn't that hard.

Also, any GM who actually killed you during generation instead of giving your character an interesting scar or a bionic leg etc was being an arse.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-30, 01:01 PM
Also, any GM who actually killed you during generation instead of giving your character an interesting scar or a bionic leg etc was being an arse.

The books do suggest the alternative, but it's with distinct contempt for the idea. "If you think this is 'too harsh', then you ninnies can substitute a career-ending injury for death."

horseboy
2008-09-30, 01:07 PM
Half an hour if you're lucky. It still takes me about 2 hours per character, using the extended charts from the branch-specific sourcebooks. Some - like the Army and Navy - are worse than others - like Merchants and Scouts. (On the up side, you stand to gain way more skills.)Ah yes, the ones that made sure you at least got combat rifleman 1? Cause there's nothing like spending 12 years in the Marines and never actually getting any shooting skills.
I did it recently for a short-term game with a CoC/Gamma World plot. It was fun and updating the tech on the fly wasn't that hard.

Also, any GM who actually killed you during generation instead of giving your character an interesting scar or a bionic leg etc was being an arse.
Yeah, that's one of the advantages to Space Opera/Soft Scifi systems. They age much better because they're based on what would be cool, as opposed to what is possible.

Leon
2008-09-30, 09:57 PM
Playing in one atm, it was mildly annoying initially but ive settled on a class that is good to stay with and not need to multi to get into a PrC

Paul H
2008-10-20, 08:07 PM
Hi

Normally play spellcasters, so would stick with the old favourites - Druid or Cleric, though I'm really getting into Beguilers at the moment. Druids & Clerics are excellent for creating items, especially if you choose the right domains.

Low level characters don't take me that much time to sort out since we usually use a 'point buy' system. It's the higher level (10+) that takes time because there's just so much choice, especially with the MIC.

Currently playing Age of Worms campaign where the GM limits multiclassing/PrC's to finding someone to train you. Since I started about 7th-9th this wasn't a hassle.

Cheers
Paul H

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-20, 08:11 PM
Most of the character concepts in my head don't conform to one class. Apart from that Not being able to multiclass would be like the 400lbs gorilla in the room and I'm likely to have a short fuse the whole game.

monty
2008-10-20, 08:26 PM
http://www.freewebs.com/cortlesteeze/pix/ThreadNecro.jpg

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-20, 11:39 PM
http://www.freewebs.com/cortlesteeze/pix/ThreadNecro.jpg

There should be a rule against this.

LotharBot
2008-10-21, 12:22 AM
Edit: Better yet, I roll at character creation time, and secretly tell the player that anytime his character wants to explore his sorcerer/psionic/paladin-hood he may freely multiclass into it, because the seeds of those powers are indeed inside him.

I'd play in a no-multiclassing game. But I wouldn't play in a game where multiclassing may or may not be allowed depending on how your dice happen to roll behind the scenes. I want my options to be determined by my character and your game world (in a principled, predictable way), not by random chance.

One thing you can do is require actual roleplaying leading up to multiclassing or PrC'ing... you don't just hit level 7 and say "OK now I'm going to be a rogue" or whatever, but if you've spent the last level paying close attention to the rogue, practicing flanking enemies, etc. maybe then you can.