Easy Rule to Mitigate Multiclassing Abuse through Single-Level Dipping


General Discussion (Prerelease)

51 to 100 of 250 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Is this really a major issue? I've DMed ADD people whose PCs had like 6 classes, and purists whose PC always stick with one. No issue to me; whatever makes the player happy. I've never had either type "break the game" -- the multiclassed casters lose higher-level spells (and are thus weaker), and the multiclassed warrior-types maybe pick up a few extra tricks (which might extend their lifespan a bit past 12th level or so). Either way, things work out fine, unless some fool has a sorcerer 1/wizard 1/cleric 1/druid 1/bard 1, in which case he is a major liability to a 5th level party.


houstonderek wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, a player should, I don't know, CONSULT with his DM before buying a splat book? Might save them $40, or prompt them to find a game more suited to their style.

You can buy most "Complete" and "Races of" books for approx. $4 each now, buy your DM a few too! LOL!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Is this really a major issue?

No, but it gives people something to do until August. Yay for forums and disgruntled excessively idle gamers!

On the original topic: I personally don't mind dipping, but you will never see any of my characters go over 2 base classes. If you plan on playing past 10th level... "It's a Trap!!"

And more than one DM in my recent past has just flat-out refused to allow anything other than core. (PHB, DMG, MM) Usually cuz they don't own them or have a working knowledge of their contents. So be it, it's their world,I'm just vacationing in it.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Is this really a major issue? I've DMed ADD people whose PCs had like 6 classes, and purists whose PC always stick with one. No issue to me; whatever makes the player happy. I've never had either type "break the game" -- the multiclassed casters lose higher-level spells (and are thus weaker), and the multiclassed warrior-types maybe pick up a few extra tricks (which might extend their lifespan a bit past 12th level or so). Either way, things work out fine, unless some fool has a sorcerer 1/wizard 1/cleric 1/druid 1/bard 1, in which case he is a major liability to a 5th level party.

Trust me, had I not died at the hands of the wizard, I was going to dip into ranger before taking a PrC...

I'm just bored, dammit!


I am really on the character optimizationist side.
I know this is really random but has anyone ever read history's strongest disciple kenchi?

Long story short the main character starts out as a regular person becomes a marshal artist.
But when you look at the masters comments, though it is a fiction you can see reality in what they say.
Like I remember them saying 'ahhh look at all of that wasted movement'
characters start out wildly inexperienced and then slowly but surely they turn into efficient killers.

If a person has a weakness, they have two options ignore it or address it.
Characters who feel weak in certain areas may work to fix them, even multi classing such as a Paladin taking one level in rogue.
Some people would say they would never do that.
Ohhhhh Really?
Ever heard of under cover?
Or statements in fantasy archetype characters, paragons of good saying something like 'To beat my enemy I must become like them.'

Suddenly you have a Paladin wise to rogues and there traps and able to 'sneak' some extra damage in some of the times.

Characters start out naive they don't stay that way.
Multi-classing is just away that characters are able to express this in stats.


crmanriq wrote:


I wasn't thinking of Paizo when I said wotc books, I was thinking of some of the really broken Mongoose stuff. I suppose I should modify it to read Core+1 non-core book.

Yeah, even some of the single non-core books can be broken on their own.

Mongoose. Those where the "Complete..." books, right? Heard of them, read through one or two, found horrible stuff, stopped reading.

I'm just saying that non-wotc doesn't equal broken, and wotc doesn't mean acceptable. They dropped more than their fair share of balls, too.

I still maintain that it's mostly a player problem, not a book problem.

I know two people who... "have an eye for character optimisation."

One is in my pathfinder group, and it's not so bad. I think he just cannot help it, he doesn't go too far, he doesn't complain when he's called out, and he still has characters with depth. I don't mind it at all.

Another can be a real pain. He's not just min/maxing, he's going for the PhD. He literally takes weeks to comb through rulebooks to find the perfect combination of race, classes, skills, feats, spells and so on to make his character invincible. Take away one of his toys (by saying: "Sorry, I won't allow that feat, it's too much") and he complaints about ruining the character concept and does it all over.

And his characters' characters are often annoying as well. I can't remember how many dwarves he has played, but they were all from the same sub-race: Annoying Cliche-Dwarf. If I got a penny for every time I heard his characters utter something along the lines of "bearded is beautiful", I could mock Bill Gates for his poverty.


Somehow this all reminds me of this...

Liberty's Edge

Shifty wrote:

The player needs to be able to provide some kind of story for how they got the skills of the new class, and if they can then fine.

Sure, the players might complain that you are somehow limiting their rights as free thinking individuals, but hey if it really was a free world then you'd all be admiring my Ferrari as I was driving it to dinner with Angelina Jolie.

Well, they might rightly complain that you are unfairly giving an advantage to the cunniest guy, ie the one who will design a "logical" explanation for why it makes sense for his character to get all those multiple classes. Or worse, the con-man who can convince you IRL that his character's background fits your requirements.

I feel that the best way to handle this kind of things is a frank and open discussion between player and GM about what the player wants for his PC and why and how the GM can help him get it.

Of course, that implies a high level of trust and cooperation between player and GM, which is paradoxically rather rare in RPG.


KaeYoss wrote:
crmanriq wrote:


I wasn't thinking of Paizo when I said wotc books, I was thinking of some of the really broken Mongoose stuff. I suppose I should modify it to read Core+1 non-core book.

Yeah, even some of the single non-core books can be broken on their own.

Mongoose. Those where the "Complete..." books, right? Heard of them, read through one or two, found horrible stuff, stopped reading.

I'm just saying that non-wotc doesn't equal broken, and wotc doesn't mean acceptable. They dropped more than their fair share of balls, too.

I still maintain that it's mostly a player problem, not a book problem.

I know two people who... "have an eye for character optimisation."

One is in my pathfinder group, and it's not so bad. I think he just cannot help it, he doesn't go too far, he doesn't complain when he's called out, and he still has characters with depth. I don't mind it at all.

Another can be a real pain. He's not just min/maxing, he's going for the PhD. He literally takes weeks to comb through rulebooks to find the perfect combination of race, classes, skills, feats, spells and so on to make his character invincible. Take away one of his toys (by saying: "Sorry, I won't allow that feat, it's too much") and he complaints about ruining the character concept and does it all over.

And his characters' characters are often annoying as well. I can't remember how many dwarves he has played, but they were all from the same sub-race: Annoying Cliche-Dwarf. If I got a penny for every time I heard his characters utter something along the lines of "bearded is beautiful", I could mock Bill Gates for his poverty.

Mongoose was "the quintessential ..." series.

I think the min/maxing can really be solved by the DM. The guy min/maxes towards combat - start putting in social situations that he will need other skills to get by in. If the guy builds a diplomamancer, then mix in some combat. If the DM builds in balance, it will force the players to as well. If the DM just builds dungeon crawls, then the players will focus on that.


crmanriq wrote:
Mongoose was "the quintessential ..." series.

Right. That's what I meant.

Dark Archive

I'd like to see multiclassing (whether to a prestige or core class) costing a Feat; of course, if the player persists burning four feats to create his Fighter/Cleric/Craftmaster/Hammer of Moradin, his character ends up being broken at some things and even weaker than normally in others...

Maybe the most elegant thing to do would be to allow multiclassing at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level only; maybe it even should include prestige classes as well, to get rid of some of the optimization?


Daniel Moyer wrote:
veector wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
If it turns out to be broken, or overpowered, discuss house rules to adjust the power level of the feature to bring it in line with other similar features.
Harder to do this once the campaign has begun. Players hate to retool a character AFTER the DM allows it into the campaign.
The DM should do whatever it takes to ensure the majority of his players are having an enjoyable experience. If that means "growing a pair" so that you can tell little Jimmy his Duskblade/Ninja/Cleric has effectively replaced everyone else in the party, then so be it.

Hey, I've done this and I don't enjoy it. So I just try to head it off before it becomes a problem.

BTW, thanks for the tone insinuating it takes "growing a pair" to confront a player about his character.


Y'know, it's funny. I thought the point of playing D&D was to have fun.

Honestly, I look at classes as skill sets, not jobs. Low level abilities are something most anyone can learn with the proper application of time and experience. It's the high level abilities that you can't just pick up. If a rogue, let's say, is always finding himself in battle, how hard is it for him to justify taking a level of fighter, to improve his combat prowess? And then, let's say he spends a great deal of time stuck in the wilds, or studying a particular type of opponent. Naturally, he might become something of a ranger, with a few nature oriented skills or a favored enemy. Oh, shock, horror! He's a munchkin! Please.

I've played only a few characters, because I'm usually the DM. I suppose my Swashbuckler 3/Scout 1/Fighter 2/Dervish 3 would make many of your heads spin. OMG! A light fighter who could dance through the enemy ranks and lay down the hurt, but was critically weak against anything immune to all her beautiful precision damage! She was so horribly broken (no, not at all).

I'm currently playing a PFRPG Druid in the Second Darkness - I considered taking a level of barbarian to speed myself up a bit, but decided I'd rather keep advancing my fun animal companion. The barbarian in the party took a couple of levels of fighter because she didn't really care about the Rage, and now she's a Favored Soul because she liked the idea of it. She was already amazing as a barbarian. The favored soul will just fix her saves a bit and give her some utility, which means maybe she won't just "hulk smash" her way through everything.

Multiclassing is taking on skills that might not be available to a particular class. They're usually not great skills, but they can be very useful skills for a certain build. Just because you know a character is a fighter 4/rogue 3/ranger 2/barbarian 1 doesn't mean the character or the world knows it. To the game world, that build is just Dannares, a swordsman deadly with his two short swords in an unfair fight. And he's swift as the wind, too. It's not broken. And it may mean that the player is having fun with his character, and that his melee character may even be useful past level 6 or so, when the single classed wizard or cleric start to pwn every encounter.


Thanks, Disciple. Great post.

So, if character concept doesn't necessarily suffer, and if character power is not greatly increased (and characters with a smorgasbord of base classes are often below par), then what's the problem?

In a few rare cases it might be some psychological control fixation on the part of the DM, but a LOT of people seem to really have a thing against multiclassing in general. Is it just a "I don't like to see chocolate in my peanut butter" type of thing?

(Reminds me of when Thich Nhat Hanh talks about unity between Christianity and Buddhism, and everyone jumps up and rails against his "horrible fruit salad" talks, claiming that any two religions must be mutually exclusive or they're no good anymore?)


Just a few points:

1) Well, as I said, I don't feel the need for a heavy-handed approach with my stable groups.

2) Many classes continue the full spellcasting progression, so mega-multiclassing does not necessarily lead to a loss of higher level spells.

3) As somebody pointed out, looking at issues like this gives us something rules-related to discuss, while we wait for more info on the final version of the PFRPG.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Thanks, Disciple. Great post.

So, if character concept doesn't necessarily suffer, and if character power is not greatly increased (and characters with a smorgasbord of base classes are often below par), then what's the problem?

In a few rare cases it might be some psychological control fixation on the part of the DM, but a LOT of people seem to really have a thing against multiclassing in general. Is it just a "I don't like to see chocolate in my peanut butter" type of thing?

(Reminds me of when Thich Nhat Hanh talks about unity between Christianity and Buddhism, and everyone jumps up and rails against his "horrible fruit salad" talks, claiming that any two religions must be mutually exclusive or they're no good anymore?)

Cool! Does this mean I get to play my Wuxia Master 4/Über Ninja 3/Disciple of Camembert 5 with monkey grip now?

:)


houstonderek wrote:

Cool! Does this mean I get to play my Wuxia Master 4/Über Ninja 3/Disciple of Camembert 5 with monkey grip now?

:)

Don't forget ImmatureChildMunch 12 !!!!


houstonderek wrote:
Cool! Does this mean I get to play my Wuxia Master 4/Über Ninja 3/Disciple of Camembert 5 with monkey grip now?

Would you really WANT to? I guess that's the main point -- find a group whose tastes are not antithetical to yours.


RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
Don't forget ImmatureChildMunch 12 !!!!

OK, I'm still confused -- maybe you can help me out. Say I've got this idea for a super-wilderness character; he's a druid/ranger, which is exactly what I want him to be. Am I childish right off the bat for wanting to multiclass? For the sake of argument, let's say you're having a good day and decide to condescend to allow it for a while. Suppose I'm sticking with the wilderness thing, but the PC sees a grove of dryads get torched, and he gets REALLY mad about it. Fighting mad! In fact, he gets so far into a righteous fury over it that I want to take a level of barbarian to reflect it. NOW am I being an "immature child munch"? I mean, like, where do you draw the line? Or is the line the initial "slash" mark after the first class?

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Cool! Does this mean I get to play my Wuxia Master 4/Über Ninja 3/Disciple of Camembert 5 with monkey grip now?
Would you really WANT to? I guess that's the main point -- find a group whose tastes are not antithetical to yours.

No, I really wouldn't want to, and you know that. I was just pointing out that DM "permissiveness", and I mean that to mean "never saying 'no' because a player might be offended by not getting everything he wants" isn't always best for every group.

If people want to play a "Crouching Tiger" type game with people running on bamboo tree tops and doing gravity defying (without being 'magic') quadruple spinning sword spins, cool. If that's the type of setting the DM created, then that type of character makes perfect sense.

But, if the DM created a low fantasy, highly political setting based on early Middle Ages Europe/Near East (like my homebrew), then that character concept doesn't really fit the setting, and blows verisimilitude like seeing a Timex on a Roman Centurion in Ben Hur.

I guess my reaction to this thread is my perception that not a few players think "anything goes" should be the default for every campaign, and that any DM putting limits on multiclassing or PrC entry is a tool who promotes "unfun".

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
Don't forget ImmatureChildMunch 12 !!!!
OK, I'm still confused -- maybe you can help me out. Say I've got this idea for a super-wilderness character; he's a druid/ranger, which is exactly what I want him to be. Am I childish right off the bat for wanting to multiclass? For the sake of argument, let's say you're having a good day and decide to condescend to allow it for a while. Suppose I'm sticking with the wilderness thing, but the PC sees a grove of dryads get torched, and he gets REALLY mad about it. Fighting mad! In fact, he gets so far into a righteous fury over it that I want to take a level of barbarian to reflect it. NOW am I being an "immature child munch"? I mean, like, where do you draw the line? Or is the line the initial "slash" mark after the first class?

Yeah. I didn't respond to that post myself, sorry. I probably shouldn't have posted our in-joke. Bad form on my part.

It's like the fighter/rogue I was playing. I wanted to be a "Ranger" without all the "Ranger" class features.

Going for a concept is fine, but I do honestly think a lot of people use that as a justification for min/maxing and power gaming. I'd rather they just be honest and say "I want a badass".


We agree to a large extent; as DM, I obviously have no problem at all banning stuff that doesn't fit the campaign world -- Derek, you know exactly how I feel about "Monkey Grip" (which I assume is why you brought it up to tease me -- good form!).

But on the flip side I'll never ban something just because I'm on a power trip, or because it makes me feel "virtuous" or something. There's a difference between not being a pushover, and just plain being a dick. The difference between authoritative vs. authoritarian, I guess, and far too many people can't tell the difference.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
Don't forget ImmatureChildMunch 12 !!!!
OK, I'm still confused -- maybe you can help me out. Say I've got this idea for a super-wilderness character; he's a druid/ranger, which is exactly what I want him to be. Am I childish right off the bat for wanting to multiclass? For the sake of argument, let's say you're having a good day and decide to condescend to allow it for a while. Suppose I'm sticking with the wilderness thing, but the PC sees a grove of dryads get torched, and he gets REALLY mad about it. Fighting mad! In fact, he gets so far into a righteous fury over it that I want to take a level of barbarian to reflect it. NOW am I being an "immature child munch"? I mean, like, where do you draw the line? Or is the line the initial "slash" mark after the first class?

KG, if you were in my game and came to me saying this was a concept you wanted to play..we'd discuss it.

Druid / Ranger? No problem..I see them as fitting pretty well together. I'd want you to have a good reason in your character and playing of that character for it (simply to keep the game grounded in roleplaying)...and if you started as a druid, i'd want you to find a Ranger to teach you the basics (most likely an NPC contact that you could learn from in game "downtime").

The change to barbarian..hmm...here's my issue with that. I personally see the barbarian as a social construct not so much as something that is "learned". Honestly, the way you explained it sounds pretty good...actually one of the better scenarios I've heard of someone becoming "barbaric"...but, alas...I still feel as the DM that it is something that you must START as...

Now, if you started as a barbarian...and learned from a druid and or ranger their skills...I think I'd be cool with that.

Frankly, my issue is when someone simply says "Hey, I'm not going to take a level in X this time...I'm going to take a level in Y" without any kind of thought to the roleplaying of it, the motivations, the training, etc.

Is my point that alien? My statements of childishness and immaturity reflect the folks that I've seen do this kind of thing and whine about not being allowed....

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

We agree to a large extent; as DM, I obviously have no problem at all banning stuff that doesn't fit the campaign world -- Derek, you know exactly how I feel about "Monkey Grip" (which I assume is why you brought it up to tease me -- good form!).

But on the flip side I'll never ban something just because I'm on a power trip, or because it makes me feel "virtuous" or something. There's a difference between not being a pushover, and just plain being a dick. The difference between authoritative vs. authoritarian, I guess, and far too many people can't tell the difference.

Exactly. If I do disallow something, I'll do my best to explain why it doesn't fit the mood or concept I'm trying to create in my game. Or I'll try to point out why I find something to be "broken" (as much as I hate that word, it seems to be useful shorthand).

Douchebaggery for the sake of douchebaggery is never a good thing.


Had a friend try to talk me into a Druid/Rogue before...

*shakes head*

To me, these two classes are simply polar opposites...the druid is a wilderness critter...and the rogue is an urban critter...

I asked him how he saw the two fitting...what kind of personality...etc...and REALLY justify it...

He couldn't.


RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
The change to barbarian..hmm...here's my issue with that. I personally see the barbarian as a social construct not so much as something that is "learned".

That's where the talking would come in, I guess. If you were clear up front (like, before we starting rolling initial stats) that barbarian MUST be a starting class, OK, no problem. But otherwise, I always try to steer clear of DMs who swing the ban-hammer with gleeful abandon, without warning, based on personal preferences, whims, or time of the month.

RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
Frankly, my issue is when someone simply says "Hey, I'm not going to take a level in X this time...I'm going to take a level in Y" without any kind of thought to the roleplaying of it.

Yeah, me, too. But like I said, sometimes there's a fine line between character concept on the one hand, and silly nonsense on the other. You'd have banned my dwarf fighter/rogue/bard in a second, but I needed all those classes to make my character Vortigern, who aspired to be a noble warrior-poet, but who unfortunately often gave in to his larcenous impulses.

And then there was Seth, the paladin who would sometimes fall into a martial trance, in which he was so focused on defeating evil that he became unaware of unjury (read: 1 level in barbarian, with "rage" called "trance"), and later found that his trance was merely one of several latent psychic abilities (read: multiclass to psychic warrior). Granted, he'd have been a lot more powerful as a straight paladin or barbarian/paladin, but the point is that it fit the character and the campaign (indeed, the DM was the one who suggested the psychic warrior levels). Of course, I also enjoyed playing Gilfig the Fat, a single-classed cleric, up to 18th level. The single class fit his character concept just fine, so I stuck with it.


This whole thread makes me very, very glad that I wrote those Classless Pathfinder rules...


RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
voska66 wrote:

I prefer to handle multi-classing in the game. I rule that no Player can multi-class. I offer opportunities to multi-class based on what the player does in the game. If they are constantly searching arcane lore and rogue at some level I'll offer an in game opportunity for the player to level up as a wizard.

A well written background story can also open the doors to mult-class.

I just plain don't allow total freedom to multi-class and that eliminates the class dipping.

YEAY!!!! Someone with cajones that looks at this realistically....

I fail to see how taking the easy way out, denying, restricting, limiting, banning, and preventing your friends from playing what they might want to play, demonstrates any more "cajones" than opening up the possibilites, facing the challenges that may arise, and dealing with those challenges in a mature and responsible, yet open-minded, fashion.

In fact, I'd be inclined to believe the opposite.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

That's where the talking would come in, I guess. If you were clear up front (like, before we starting rolling initial stats) that barbarian MUST be a starting class, OK, no problem. But otherwise, I always try to steer clear of DMs who swing the ban-hammer with gleeful abandon, without warning, based on personal preferences, whims, or time of the month.

No, I say this upfront. I also state that I prefer the PRC version of the Paladin as well...

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yeah, me, too. But like I said, sometimes there's a fine line between character concept on the one hand, and silly nonsense on the other. You'd have banned my dwarf fighter/rogue/bard in a second, but I needed all those classes to make my character Vortigern, who aspired to be a noble warrior-poet, but who unfortunately often gave in to his larcenous impulses.

HAHAHA...come on now...no, I would NOT ban a fighter/rogue/bard....first of all, I do see a naturally progressive connection between the three...second, if you discussed this with me...I'd say "Ok, here's what I'd expect to see from you with regards to roleplaying to achieve this..."

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
This whole thread makes me very, very glad that I wrote those Classless Pathfinder rules...

Yep. You can get exactly what you want, concept-wise, without any mind bending combinations.

My biggest pet peeve has always been multiclassing in wizard without ever mentioning that you're studying magic. I've always assumed a first level wizard got to be such by studying for YEARS (which is reflected in their higher average starting age), and Joe Longsword comes along and learns all of that in the two months between adventures...

I think maybe gestalting is the way to go, if you're not into "classless" systems, as it emulates the old multiclassing rules reasonably well...


DM_Blake wrote:

I fail to see how taking the easy way out, denying, restricting, limiting, banning, and preventing your friends from playing what they might want to play, demonstrates any more "cajones" than opening up the possibilites, facing the challenges that may arise, and dealing with those challenges in a mature and responsible, yet open-minded, fashion.

In fact, I'd be inclined to believe the opposite.

Before you draw conclusions...perhaps you should ask questions...or read the conversation that Kirth Gersen and I are having in this thread...then come back and tell me your thoughts...


The black raven wrote:
I feel that the best way to handle this kind of things is a frank and open discussion between player and GM about what the player wants for his PC and why and how the GM can help him get it.

How true!

The black raven wrote:
Of course, that implies a high level of trust and cooperation between player and GM, which is paradoxically rather rare in RPG.

How sad...


RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
I personally see the barbarian as a social construct... To me, these two classes are simply polar opposites... I do see a naturally progressive connection between the three...

Looking back over your posts, these jump out at me. I get the sense that you have strong personal opinions regarding the "fluff" as well as the "crunch," and as DM you run a very tight ship that strictly adheres to those ideas.

Personally, as a DM I like to believe that I can create a multiverse large enough for the players' preferences as well, even if I personally don't like them or agree with them. That doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that anything goes -- it just means that the players and I have to work together to fit their concepts into the overall scheme of things.

For example, I hate animated shields. I ban them as a matter of course. I sure as hell won't put them in all the local magic shops at 2K a pop, regardless of what the tables in the DMG say, and people can whine about that 'til they're blue in the face and I'll ignore them. But if a player had an interesting character concept (not some "sick build" he picked up off a CharOp board) that required one, I might introduce a unique animated shield as a minor artifact at some point... sometimes it's a matter of compromise. Does that make me a "weak" DM? Or just one who's willing to expand the boundaries a bit in order to be sure the players also have a sense of ownership in the shared world?


RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

I fail to see how taking the easy way out, denying, restricting, limiting, banning, and preventing your friends from playing what they might want to play, demonstrates any more "cajones" than opening up the possibilites, facing the challenges that may arise, and dealing with those challenges in a mature and responsible, yet open-minded, fashion.

In fact, I'd be inclined to believe the opposite.

Before you draw conclusions...perhaps you should ask questions...or read the conversation that Kirth Gersen and I are having in this thread...then come back and tell me your thoughts...

OK, here goes:

RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
OK, I'm still confused -- maybe you can help me out. Say I've got this idea for a super-wilderness character; he's a druid/ranger, which is exactly what I want him to be. Am I childish right off the bat for wanting to multiclass? For the sake of argument, let's say you're having a good day and decide to condescend to allow it for a while. Suppose I'm sticking with the wilderness thing, but the PC sees a grove of dryads get torched, and he gets REALLY mad about it. Fighting mad! In fact, he gets so far into a righteous fury over it that I want to take a level of barbarian to reflect it. NOW am I being an "immature child munch"? I mean, like, where do you draw the line? Or is the line the initial "slash" mark after the first class?

KG, if you were in my game and came to me saying this was a concept you wanted to play..we'd discuss it.

Druid / Ranger? No problem..I see them as fitting pretty well together. I'd want you to have a good reason in your character and playing of that character for it (simply to keep the game grounded in roleplaying)...and if you started as a druid, i'd want you to find a Ranger to teach you the basics (most likely an NPC contact that you could learn from in game "downtime").

Doesn't some of the responsibility here now lie on the DM, too? Present a ranger in the story, one willing to take an apprentice? Provide the downtime? I hope you would work this into the story, and soon. Few things would be more irritating than wanting to MC at level 5 and not being able to until level 10 because your DM never provided the opportunity.

RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:

The change to barbarian..hmm...here's my issue with that. I personally see the barbarian as a social construct not so much as something that is "learned". Honestly, the way you explained it sounds pretty good...actually one of the better scenarios I've heard of someone becoming "barbaric"...but, alas...I still feel as the DM that it is something that you must START as...

Now, if you started as a barbarian...and learned from a druid and or ranger their skills...I think I'd be cool with that.

This I don't like.

The core rules say nothing about starting as any class, or any class being unavailable except at level 1.

A change like this better be laid out well in advance.

Even then, along the way characters grow, evolve, change their minds. Long ago, I wanted to be an astronaut. Heck, I even studied astronomy and got a telescope. Tools of the trade, entry level skills... My career path changed when I was older.

It would have been very irritating to me if my Life Rules had said "well, you want to be a software engineer now? But, I told you when you were born that you had to start as a software engineer, and you were OK with that. I don't care that you've changed your mind, stick with astronaut because software engineer is not available to you at your current level."

My point (sorry for the silly example) is that through our lives, our real lives, we change our minds about who we are. We redefine ourselves. I have had friends change to being Vegan. I've had friends change religions. Redifinition happens, even in mid-life. A heavy-handed rule that certain character options can only be taken early in life and are lost forever if you want them later feels gamist, restrictive, and un-lifelike.

RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:


Frankly, my issue is when someone simply says "Hey, I'm not going to take a level in X this time...I'm going to take a level in Y" without any kind of thought to the roleplaying of it, the motivations, the training, etc.

I have an issue with that too.

But when the player says "I think x+y+z would be fun, and my character is studying it" and they take a little RP time to do so, then that's good enough for me.

Strange combos? I learned Jujitsu from a Texan cowboy. Hat, boots, jeans, big belt buckle with his name on it, handlebar mustache, drawl, pipe and tobacco can in his pocket. And 22 black belts and a wall of trophies from national and international competitions he had won. No DM ever told him that cowboys can't be martial artists.

Broken combos? Fix what's broken. Work with your player, explain why you think it's broken, find the middle ground that works mechanically and satisfies the player.

Inconsistent combos? Talk to the player. Suggest that it would break campaign continuity to have ninjas walking around Kervossa (e.g.). Offer alternatives. Say things like "well, there's probably no way for you to learn ninja training in Kervossa, but you've heard rumors of an underground rign of assassins".

While I don't like limitations on character building, I think the least disagreeable reason for them would be campaign continuity. And in the end, if my buddy is dead-set on his dwarf sorcerer picking up ninja skills, despite campaign continuity, it's still not too far fetched to steal a concept from the old Quai-chang Kane Kung Fu series on TV, and have some wandering master drop in for a cameo in Kervossa...

RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:

Is my point that alien? My statements of childishness and immaturity reflect the folks that I've seen do this kind of thing and whine about not being allowed....

Yes, it's alien to me.

My friends and I play to have fun. Me saying "nope, you can't have your kind of fun because I say so, so shut up and have my kind of fun" seems alien to me.

Are you saying those words? No, those were my words (that I would never really say). But you're saying something like those words. Maybe not very much like them, but at least a little like them.

Are you that childish or heavy handed? I doubt it. I truly don't think you are. But you are choosing that path, regardless of how fully you commit yourself to it. In my opinion, the more commitment to this path of denial and restriction, the worse the game gets.

RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:

Had a friend try to talk me into a Druid/Rogue before...

*shakes head*

To me, these two classes are simply polar opposites...the druid is a wilderness critter...and the rogue is an urban critter...

I asked him how he saw the two fitting...what kind of personality...etc...and REALLY justify it...

He couldn't.

Shakes head?

Why is this so hard to swallow.

1. Your "friend" wanted to play this. It sounded fun to him or he wouldn't "try to talk [you] into it."

2. Why can't a druid want to learn more about sneaking, hiding, killing from behind (when killing is called for), disabling hunters' traps, evading enemy spellcasters, etc.? Obviously, he's willing to forego his ongoing training as a druid, at least for a while, while he studies the skills and fighting styles of rogues.

3. Why must rogues be urban? Bandits on the highway, pirates at sea, sneaky trap-making goblins in dungeons, etc. Robin Hood and his merry men were all rogues, living in a forest, hardly ever venturing into town where they would be executed as criminals on the spot. Almost every trap, every ambush, every roguish thing Robin Hood and his men ever did was in a wilderness setting.

4. Druids are defenders of the natural habitat. They not only encourage wilderness to grow and thrive, they also defend it, kill or drive off invaders, destroy abberations and abominations to restore natural balance, etc. So it's not hard to imagine a druid wanting better martial skills, since theirs are sub-par. If all he wants to do is fight, he can change into a bear and fight. So why go druid/fighter? Maybe an alternative is a sneaky kind of fighter, something a bear isn't good at. Killing at range, but stealthy and sneaky. Like a rogue.

It took me about a minute to think of this stuff (much longer to type it).

So why the head shaking?

RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

That's where the talking would come in, I guess. If you were clear up front (like, before we starting rolling initial stats) that barbarian MUST be a starting class, OK, no problem. But otherwise, I always try to steer clear of DMs who swing the ban-hammer with gleeful abandon, without warning, based on personal preferences, whims, or time of the month.

No, I say this upfront. I also state that I prefer the PRC version of the Paladin as well...

I agree with KG here. Steer clear of the ban-hammer DMs.

It's nice that you state this up front, but I've already commented on the tendency of people to change their priorities later in life. I would hope you can forestall that hammer long enough to have an open-minded discussion with your player who comes up, later in the game, with a fun idea he wants to try despite having already spelled it out up front.

RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yeah, me, too. But like I said, sometimes there's a fine line between character concept on the one hand, and silly nonsense on the other. You'd have banned my dwarf fighter/rogue/bard in a second, but I needed all those classes to make my character Vortigern, who aspired to be a noble warrior-poet, but who unfortunately often gave in to his larcenous impulses.
HAHAHA...come on now...no, I would NOT ban a fighter/rogue/bard.... first of all, I do see a naturally progressive connection between the three...second, if you discussed this with me...I'd say "Ok, here's what I'd expect to see from you with regards to roleplaying to achieve this..."

"expect to see from you" - really?

You sound like a boss setting expectations for your employees. Are you paying your players to meet your expectations? Do they get a salary?

Or maybe you're a professor outlining a course of study for your students. Has D&D become a test? What's the final exam?

Do your players to get set expectations for you?

If you told me what you "expect to see from [me]", I would immediately reply with what I expect to see from you. I would expect you to create opportunities for me to meet your expectations. If you expect me to roleplay meeting a ranger, then I expect you to put a ranger in the game, and you'd better do it soon because I want to multi-class next level, not 5 levels down the road when you get around to it.

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

Ok, you asked me to read your conversations with KG, and I've done so. You asked me to tell you my thoughts, and I've done so.

Here's the summary:

1. I think D&D is a fun collaborative story between DM and players. To this end, I communicate with them constantly, at a metagame level, to make sure the story is going where they want it to go, to make sure they are having as much fun as possible, and to make sure they're enjoying their character as much as possible.

2. I encourage my players to branch out. Find new stuff I haven't seen before and bring it into the game. Challenge me. Teach me something I don't know. I encourage their creativity, regardless of whether it stems from roleplaying creatively or from creatively building a combination of classes/feats/items to turn their character into a superhero. Whatever it is, I encourage it and I thrive on finding ways to challenge my players wherever they take their creativity. Unless the stuff they find is mechanically broken, in which case we fix the mechanics and play on.

3. You don't seem to want to do this, to the point of saying that people who do want this are lacking "cajones" as you so eloquently put it. Fine, each to their own. But I believe that if you open your mind, rather than closing it, you'll find the universe is a big place with room for everyone to explore their own creativity and have fun together, and your gaming experience, as well as the experiences of your players, will be greatly enhanced.

4. I don't mean any of this as an attack at you personally. Don't take it that way. Despite the fact that I took the "cajones" somment somewhat personally, and despite the fact that you will no doubt take some of what I've written here personally, it's not meant that way. You asked for my thoughts and I poured them out.

Liberty's Edge

I'm more offended by the constant misspelling of "cojones"...

;)

For Kirth:

Spoiler:
Do you like Cuban Sandwiches? I finally broke down and went to this place near my apartment rather than my usual place, and the sandwich ROCKS


Spoiler:
Well, I personally see a logical connection betwen ham and roast pork, but I won't allow you to multiclass into French bread... just kidding. Dude, a good Cuban sandwich is a thing of bliss! The best I've ever had was here in Houston at El Rey (the one near the Heights, I think); the worst was also in Houston at an El Rey (the one next to the courthouse downtown).


DM_Blake wrote:

OK, here goes:

Suffice it to say, I'd throw you out of my game, and vice versa.

Ciao.


Cuban sandwiches rock....


Kirth Gersen wrote:
wouldn't let it multiclass with french bread..

That's it...mustard at twenty paces...

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Yeah, the one on Washington is good, and the one downtown, well, stick to the tacos...

This one was properly melty and messy, nd the meat was excellent, but it was on a long onion roll rather than french bread. Quite tasty. And the Cuban style "Tamal" I got for a side dish was outstanding as well!

As to the multiclassing: I thought I pointed out that my sandwich's mother was born in a Parisian bakery. Man, you write a background and the DM doesn't even read it. Sheesh.

;)


houstonderek wrote:
As to the multiclassing: I thought I pointed out that my sandwich's mother was born in a Parisian bakery. Man, you write a background and the DM doesn't even read it. Sheesh.

As to the parisian mother...well, in the UK she'd be considered a slag....

As to bakground story...comeon...GROW UP and BE MATURE....pork goes ON A ROLL...dammit!!!


Chris Mortika wrote:

The problem with level-dipping, as I understand the concern, is that some base classes "front-load" with a lot of cool abilities. For example, a human Rgr 1 / Pal 1 / Mnk 1 / Clr 1 is a pretty spiffy character, better in many ways than a 4th Level character with a single base class.

So he has a BAB of 2, Base saves: Fort +8, Reflex +6/ Will +4.

1st level spells (really low by level 4)
Can wear armor heavy armor, but penalized by doing so. Wisdom to AC, but has to suffer 3 levels to use it.

A Cleric 4 is better than the above character in every way but Reflex. You ask why?
Cleric 4: Base 4/1/4. Base spells: 5/3+1/2+1. Bab +3 (better bab)
3rd level spells beats better saves any day of the week.


Disciple of Sakura wrote:

Y'know, it's funny. I thought the point of playing D&D was to have fun.

If a rogue, let's say, is always finding himself in battle, how hard is it for him to justify taking a level of fighter, to improve his combat prowess? And then, let's say he spends a great deal of time stuck in the wilds, or studying a particular type of opponent. Naturally, he might become something of a ranger, with a few nature oriented skills or a favored enemy. Oh, shock, horror! He's a munchkin! Please.

I think you will find that all the anti-fruitsalad multiclassing GM's have made the point that the example you have stated IS fine, no one has an issue with that, as there is a rationale behind the choice and it fits with what has been played out.

Swashbuckling Rogue Ranger Fighters on the other hand... wha?

If there's four classes involved then I would suggest there's too many.
It shows a lack of real flexibility in the game system, you should be able to build that class as either a Rogue, a Fighter or a Rog/Ftr combo.
Whats a Swashbuckler got to do with a ranger? The Musketeers meet Robin Hood?


Shifty wrote:
What[']s a Swashbuckler got to do with a ranger? The Musketeers meet Robin Hood?

It's funny, but personally I have no problem with that.


You know.. For the most part all this thread has done is reaffirm my stance that I'll never go to another con with out a suitcase nuke..

Someone mentioned that they thought the point of D&D was to have fun.. Well.. that may have been true back in the day but for the most part now it seems to be a way for those who never got to experience the joy of the growing their first pube to go on totalitarian rampages about how only their way is the right way despite the fact almost *Every* RPG makes some reference to the Golden rule a.k.a Rule zero that more or less states 'None of you dumbasses have the right idea it right hell we built the game and we probably didn't get it right so in a vain attempt to preemptively eradicate some of the problems you mongoloids will cause were gonna tack on something that lets everyone do things the way they want to so everyone can have fun.'

But you know.. Rather then suck it up and deal and let people do things the way they want to were just gonna rant to people we don't even know about how our way is better in if they'd just stop the childish immature quackery we could all acend to the shangrila of RPGdom and become one with the Dungeon Bhudda

Jackasses.


VargrBoartusk wrote:

You know.. For the most part all this thread has done is reaffirm my stance that I'll never go to another con with out a suitcase nuke..

Someone mentioned that they thought the point of D&D was to have fun.. Well.. that may have been true back in the day but for the most part now it seems to be a way for those who never got to experience the joy of the growing their first pube to go on totalitarian rampages about how only their way is the right way despite the fact almost *Every* RPG makes some reference to the Golden rule a.k.a Rule zero that more or less states 'None of you dumbasses have the right idea it right hell we built the game and we probably didn't get it right so in a vain attempt to preemptively eradicate some of the problems you mongoloids will cause were gonna tack on something that lets everyone do things the way they want to so everyone can have fun.'

But you know.. Rather then suck it up and deal and let people do things the way they want to were just gonna rant to people we don't even know about how our way is better in if they'd just stop the childish immature quackery we could all acend to the shangrila of RPGdom and become one with the Dungeon Bhudda

Jackasses.

Easy, m'friend. No need for all that.


Shifty wrote:
Whats a Swashbuckler got to do with a ranger? The Musketeers meet Robin Hood?

Hmm, if I recall the original stories well enough, Robin Hood was quite a swashbuckler, every bit as much as the Three Musketeers.

Crossed swords with some of the best swordsmen in the land. He swung on chandeliers, climbed tapestries, lept onto horseback, etc. Swashbuckler stuff.

Just because he was a superb bowman doesn't mean he wasn't also a fine and agile swordsman capable of feats of derring-do that would have tickled d'Artagnan's sense of facny.


VargrBoartusk wrote:

You know.. For the most part all this thread has done is reaffirm my stance that I'll never go to another con with out a suitcase nuke..

Someone mentioned that they thought the point of D&D was to have fun.. Well.. that may have been true back in the day but for the most part now it seems to be a way for those who never got to experience the joy of the growing their first pube to go on totalitarian rampages about how only their way is the right way despite the fact almost *Every* RPG makes some reference to the Golden rule a.k.a Rule zero that more or less states 'None of you dumbasses have the right idea it right hell we built the game and we probably didn't get it right so in a vain attempt to preemptively eradicate some of the problems you mongoloids will cause were gonna tack on something that lets everyone do things the way they want to so everyone can have fun.'

But you know.. Rather then suck it up and deal and let people do things the way they want to were just gonna rant to people we don't even know about how our way is better in if they'd just stop the childish immature quackery we could all acend to the shangrila of RPGdom and become one with the Dungeon Bhudda

Jackasses.

Ooooh, thank you for this post.

I'm glad I read it before the mods nuke it.

I haven't laughed this hard at work in a long time.

I mean, really, this was great humor. I hope I'm laughing with you rather than at you (in other words, I hope your post was humorous hyperbole) because if not, then you are a very sadly frustrated individual and I should weep with you instead.

So I will assume the intent was comical and assume I'm laughing with you, for it was funny indeed.

One minor caveat, my comedic friend: when belittling the maturity and intellectual perspicacity of your audience, you should generally look to your own spelling and grammar else your vitriolic diatribe strikes the erudite reader as ironically auto-exemplifying.

Other than that, bravo! I say, bravo! Pure comic gold!

Sovereign Court

I agree with Kaeyoss way upthread. If it's a problem in individual cases, DM can rule against it, particularly if it involves a Prestige Class. No need for a rule to forbid it.

51 to 100 of 250 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Easy Rule to Mitigate Multiclassing Abuse through Single-Level Dipping All Messageboards