You aren't the first person I have met that doesn't like dipping (to the point of outright disdain), I am not a fan either unless the player has done some in game spadework.
Role playing is about the fun of it. I personally like to play out why my character takes new skills, having them show an interest in something for a level or failing at something a couple of times before I take new skills or abilities.
Anytime I've played the role of DM it was usually geared for power gamers, so I placed no such restriction on dips. That type of gaming usually gets old fast, though.
It's fun to smash BBEM's for a day, it's fun to chase BBEM's for a lifetime.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The level system is an approximation of reality. If there is a minimum of background I don't see it as a problem.
Take your fighter1/rogue1. He probably was a bit roguish even before the dip, but the player couldn't portray it within the game's mechanics. He would have been hard pressed to portray it simply because the skill points were not enough.
Some dips are more credible than others, but as long as there is a bit of roleplay I don't see a problem in it.
High level character should be expected to have learned a lot that does not reflect on their sheets immediately: such experience will become useful when they put their mind onto rationalizing what they learned so far, for example being stealthy and fighting dirty(rogue dip), using proper stance when fighting (fighter), giving more than a lip-service player to your deity (cleric and paladin), putting into use all the diverse stuff you had to listen while talking to the fellow adventuring wizard (wizard) and so on.
Personally, I'd like all leveling being done with at least a couple of weeks off, during which you study books or try to get an hang on the maneuver which you tried in the last fights. I like to plan ahead and justify the change on my sheet before they happen, but then I get the powergamer label for planning ahead. As a DM you could try to understand where your players are planning to do with their characters and offer them chances to roleplay such changes. Don't frustrate your players banning multiclassing and dipping just because you don't like the flavor, try instead to help them do it in a better (roleplaying-wise) perspective.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who has difficulty answering a few simple background questions like those probably shouldn't be roleplaying.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy role playing training as well... But to be fair every new feat, skill, or ability should be trained NOT just the class dipped ones. So the fighter going to level 2 should be taking time off to learn his new feat and skills. I mean if your fighter can say "Wow I suddenly know how to speak elvish and cleave two opponents!" Then why couldn't the new rogue say "Hey I am suddenly able to sneak around and stab people when they aren't paying attention!" Training if you decide to use it should be universal. And then you would need an instructor and time off for any class. The best feature of requiring a trainer is the ease with which you can restrict PrCs.
Maybe the character learned a little more skill-stuff, and some back-stabbin' at the expense of some hit points and whatever else he might have lost had he gained another level of fighter. It's not that unbelievable for a character to pick up a new skill set. I'd understand if it was a spellcasting class (with the exception of sorcerer or oracle; though, I'd suspect a player considering those classes would mention it before nabbing levels). I mean, a wizard needs a spellbook, and it isn't going to just appear out of nowhere. But, a rogue? C'mon, that's easy - and hell, if DPR is your issue, why get upset over rogue dipping (and whose to say it's a dip; maybe he will pursue more class levels in rogue)? It's not exactly a beefy class. Now, if he was nabbin' a couple levels of ninja for some invis-action, or a couple paladin levels for uber-saves... well, maybe I could understand. But, ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if leveling up is so important for you, then you should ask them what feats/Skills/classes they want to add before they get their level up because you have to provide the NPCs for them to do so.
If you don't provide them and don't let them pick those things for that reason ... well then either a) you are the RP-GM and you can do whatever you want, or b) see title (no offense).
I would never disallow a combination because I don't think such a character should exist or I can't think of background story.
I mean if the lvl 19 Fighter suddenly wants 1 level or wizard, why not? If I as a GM want him to find a proper trainer, it's my job to lead a quest to a school wizards.
I mean if your fighter can say "Wow I suddenly know how to speak elvish and cleave two opponents!"
I'd grant the Fighter that he gained the 'insight' into Cleaving from all his recent combat experience, but hes way outta luck on the Elvish :p
|
I'd grant the Fighter that he gained the 'insight' into Cleaving from all his recent combat experience, but hes way outta luck on the Elvish :pI mean if your fighter can say "Wow I suddenly know how to speak elvish and cleave two opponents!"
....unless he RPs that the Elvish book he picked up a while back is getting examined during any rest breaks and such. Hehe....elvish....you can do anything but lay offa my green suede boots....
I like to see some explanation too. My wizard character in RotRL (see my profile, he's the persona I use to post here) took his second level in Bard before going back to advancing as a wizard because he was friends with Ameiko Kaijitsu, and she taught him the basics of her profession.
This reminds me of the most over-optioned (not necessarily overpowered, though, since many of her options don't really play nice with one another) NPC I've ever seen in a Paizo publication: the version of James Jacobs' sometime PC Shensen Tessaril included in The Shackled City. She had levels in Monk, Bard, and Druid, and at higher levels adds a prestige class built for that campaign, the Pathwarden. All her classes were justified by her backstory (and Pathwarden is available only to members of an organization she belongs to, the Striders of Fharlanghn) but damn was she hard to fit on a character sheet.
I only accept dipping if it makes sense story-wise. And usually, it doesn't. However, exceptions exist and that's what I think is important. I had a player who multi-classed in ALL the melee classes even though he started out as a Wizard. It was hilarious and the whole group approved of it even though the build was sub-optimal to say the least.
Oh, and yes, you ARE an a-hole. *
* = I am joking, of course.
|
Different folks have different motivations and approaches to gaming: Creating uber-characters, creating specialist characters, hitting things, figuring stuff out, experience the story, just having a good time, and of course some want heavy roleplay (as per Robin's Laws). In my experience those motivations are fairly evenly spread out in a group and more than one heavy roleplayer is not common.
However it sounds like in your group it is you who is the main heavy roleplayer and it comes across that you believe this is the only way that the game can be played and that you try to impose this on everyone else and the game rules itself.
I consider it a core attribute of a good GM that they don't impose their style of play exclusively on the group, but that they accommodate and indeed plan challenges for other playing styles.
ZomB has a point, and there's one thing that counts above all the motivations the group members might have as a group or as individuals...
...the game needs to be FUN!!
If the game isn't fun for whatever reason, someone is doing something wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I never realized that people role play classes. It's just a mechanic.
Wow... I couldn't disagree with you more there.
On Elitist Jerks - One of THE most helpful guilds I've ever run across in an MMO. Period.
So I'll back up that he isn't being insulting.
|
I think it's up to what you like and what your players will tolerate. I've been gaming for over 30 years and like the streamlined auto-leveling now. In games where the GM role-played training, the game quickly bogged down and just meant open discussion for everyone except the GM and player in the current one-on-one session. If you can manage it, and your players accept it - more power to you.
Wow, I never realized that people role play classes. It's just a mechanic, treating the classes (or any other mechanic really) as something that actually exists in the world breaks all immersion for me.
So there are no Druids, Paladins or Clerics of a particular deity in your games? They are all just people who act a certain way and have certain powers?
Classes are definitely things that actually exist in the PC's world. Sure, fighters and rogues may call themselves mercenaries, sell-swords, soldiers, guards, just a simple merchant, whatever, but certain classes are called by their name by the PCs.
I'm with the OP, but all I ask of my players is a little in-game justification for the level change up. Even somehting as simple as "I find a blacksmith/scholar/brigand/etc and study up with them a bit" between an adventure. Just something, even a little thing, so it's not pure min/max cheese building.
It hasn't really been an issue in my games, so I guess I've lucked out there. Often times, my players explain to me their long-term "schedule" for classes they want to level in, and that makes it easy for me as a DM to provide the in-game opportunities to pick up that training. A little tougher to do if it's a spur of the moment decision to multiclass, but I do what I can to work with the player.
I still use lines like, "My character says to the necromancer..."
Am I doing it wrong?™ ;_;
|
I would likely want some explanation for really different skills or class dips or feats, e.g. Fighter going to Sorcerer, but wouldn't be too strict.
Maybe that fighter was trained in stealth before his adventuring career but he never really saw much need for it and so did not give it his full attention, however having been adventuring and seeing how his fellow PCs move stealthily and how his tasks now require infiltration rather than just strength of arms he looks back on his lessons and strives to put that into practise.
But as someone said this isn't just about multi classing - what if that Fighter didn't multiclass and took another level of Fighter, but as part of that levelling up put a couple of ranks in Knowledge (ENgineering) which he previously hadn't any ranks in? Knowledges are trained skills - so presumably the player would need to explain who taught him or be disallowed those ranks in your game?
Personally, learning "on the job" and by "trial and error" can be enough of an explanation for most class dips and skill & feat choices for me.
|
|
Classes and character concepts have interesting relations.
Sometimes your concept is the class (I want to play a Bard).
Sometimes your concept requires you to belong to a class (I want to play a holy knight).
And sometimes, your character concept cannot be accurately modeled by the class system. Maybe you want to have the very bestest AC and saves available while still diving into melee. In such a case, you might end up piling on 1-level dips.
Personally, I do not mind one iota. I encourage my players to strengthen and deepen their character anyway they feel like.
Concerning multiclassing, I do it the RetCon way.
You have been an illiterate Barbarian for 10 levels and want to get 1 level in Wizard ? No problem : you have clearly been studying on the side for all those years, quietly developping arcane powers but never letting anyone know (or care) about your studies. In fact, you restricted yourself to a mere Barbarian build when you could have been using all these spells and knowledges you now display.
Wonderful restraint there, my boy :-P
I would respond with a question: "Why do you get to veto my fun?"
If I was feeling less peeved, I would say role playing training leads to all sorts of unfun conclusions. If you need to train to get a new level in a new class, why don't you need to train to get a new feat? (And this can be applied to new class abilities too with similar justification.) As a result, every other level or every level, you need to halt the narrative for the players to go back to civilization/dojo/school/temple to level up, get a feat, etc.
You can overcome this with sufficient pre-planning and if the PCs do things in the order you expect and on schedule, but then you have to ask: how entertaining is this really going to be if you do training RP session 10 times in a character's life? And, with 4 PCs, that's 40 times in a 1st-20th level campaign. Do you really have enthralling training sessions, or do you eventually relent and do a training montage? And, if so, was all this really worth it?
Lastly, even if you just require it for changing classes, what do the other players do while the PC goes and gets trained in rogue 1? Twiddle their thumbs? Play a man short?
And, seriously? Rogue?! Other than Fighter and Sorcerer, it's the class that can best be justified as being gained without a training montage. Your argument has much better grounding with something like Summoner, Gunslinger, Witch, Cleric, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So there are no Druids, Paladins or Clerics of a particular deity in your games? They are all just people who act a certain way and have certain powers?
Classes are definitely things that actually exist in the PC's world. Sure, fighters and rogues may call themselves mercenaries, sell-swords, soldiers, guards, just a simple merchant, whatever, but certain classes are called by their name by the PCs.
No, that's a ridiculous idea. The class names coincide with what you would call certain things, but they in no way exist in the world's reality.
For example, a barbarian could be any class. A barbarian is just an uncivilized foreigner. A druid is a character with a connection to nature. It might be a Druid, but it can also be a Fighter with a pet.
Anyone can be a paladin, defending a holy site, without taking levels in Paladin.
Most inhabitants of the world are commoners, experts and warriors. That includes all druids, paladins, clerics, barbarians, etc.
Do you role play feats too? Stats? Damage dice? Spell slots?
Actually, yes, I role play those things too. If I'm using Power Attack, I'll emphasize that my character is forgoing technique and accuracy to just bury the axe in the danged monster's head as hard as he can, etc. If I'm fighting defensively via Combat Expertise, I'll state how I'm forgoing my offense and bulking up my stance, bracing against incoming attacks. No, I don't do this every single time, but it does come up.
If I'm DMing, and I'm describing what a npc looks like, I'll add in things based off of their stats that would be noticeable; high STR, I'll comment on their physique. High DEX? I'll maybe add in they are twirling something in one of their hands quite fluidly. Stuff like that. Role-play and mechanics work hand in hand in my games.
Thing is Von doesn't seem to be asking for a whole lot of RP, just something as simple as, "After the Debacle of the Clanky Boots, my fighter has decided to ask the local thieves' guild for some sneakin' lessons."
If you don't want to put that small an amount of thought into your character, I don't know why you'd like RPGs to begin with, no insult.
Edit: I think to truly earn the A__hole title you'd have to demand prestige class style skill requirements for multi-classing (stealth for rogue, knowledge(arcane) for wizard, etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say you were born into a military family. You grew up being groomed to be a soldier. You've learned the skills of the fighter early on, and when your 2(or 4 or 6) years are served, you decide to go adventuring.All of the sudden, you decide you want to be a stealthy type.
Most players I've encountered just take the next class they want at 2nd level, and go from there.
When I ask them "Who taught you those skills? Where did you go for training? Who did you ask to mentor you?" I often times get a blank stare, then realization sets in, and I then their brow furrows.
The answer is, "I've been trained to be a soldier from early on, you already knew that."
If you tried to insist that soldiers are never stealthy or opportunistic or whatever, I would laugh.
Come on, be honest here: you just don't like "cheap powergaming." It has nothing to do with the roleplaying. It can't, because classes are arbitrary constructions of mechanics--they don't actually mean anything to the game world.
It doesn't "make sense" that someone needs a tutor to learn how to sneak around. I snuck around as a little kid all the time without anyone teaching me. "Who taught you how to deal +2 damage with swords?" "Describe to me specifically what 2 damage is, and I'll tell you."
Look, I'm all for having deep characters--I run totally character focused games, so it's critical. But class levels don't fall into this--they're purely mechanical. I could give the exact same background description for a Fighter, a Barbarian, a Rogue, a Cavalier, a Ranger, a Paladin...
Oh, and Fighter/Rogue is easily one of the least powerful "dips" you could ever worry about. Dipping actually isn't super awesome in Pathfinder like it was in 3rd edition, from what I can see (other than Lame Oracle 1 for Barbarians), so I would just let it go.
Actually, yes, I role play those things too. If I'm using Power Attack, I'll emphasize that my character is forgoing technique and accuracy to just bury the axe in the danged monster's head as hard as he can, etc. If I'm fighting defensively via Combat Expertise, I'll state how I'm forgoing my offense and bulking up my stance, bracing against incoming attacks. No, I don't do this every single time, but it does come up.
If I'm DMing, and I'm describing what a npc looks like, I'll add in things based off of their stats that would be noticeable; high STR, I'll comment on their physique. High DEX? I'll maybe add in they are twirling something in one of their hands quite fluidly. Stuff like that. Role-play and mechanics work hand in hand in my games.
That is not the same thing at all. The same thing with feats would be for your character to yell out "Power Attack!" when he attacks, because that's the name of the feat. Just as all druids are Druids to you. Does your character say, in-game, "Get behind me I'm using my Combat Expertise!"?
I'll play a beefy mofo regardless of his Str. Str is just a measure of how successfully you pull off certain actions. It has no descriptive property, none of the stats do.
But that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Both our ways are fine. But you shouldn't sit there and tell me "I'm doin it wrong" because I play differently from you.
EDIT: Okay, hold up. In regards to feats, how is it not the same thing? You asked if someone role-plays a feat, and I gave an example of how I've role-played my characters using a couple feats. I could've just told the DM "I'm using Power Attack." *rolls dice* I'm not sure what you're getting at.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying at its most extreme - a person who talks in character at all times and describes in narrative what is happening with everything the character does. If the character attacks, he explains it in vivid detail. If the character casts a spell, he explains it in vivid detail. If the character makes a spellcraft roll, he explains it in vivid detail. If the character makes a diplomacy roll, he explains it in vivid detail. The dice results are incorporated into the details.
Rollplaying at its most extreme - a person who pushes his miniature forward on the battle map. Rolls a D20. Says he hit AC 16. Rolls damage. The character sheet is a collection of numbers and mechanics. When a player must attack, he rolls a dice and gives you the math. When a character casts a spell, he rolls some dice and gives you the math and explains the rules mechanics. When the character must make a spellcraft roll, he rolls the dice and gives you the math. When the character makes a diplomacy roll, he rolls the dice and gives you the math. The details are all in the number rolled.
Which one is the best and which one is "doing it wrong"?
=)
I'm sure you can tell what the correct answer is to that question. For those of you that do not, or insinuate I'm taking up for one side or the other, the correct answer is: "neither".
If you tried to insist that soldiers are never stealthy or opportunistic or whatever, I would laugh.
Come on, be honest here: you just don't like "cheap powergaming." It has nothing to do with the roleplaying. It can't, because classes are arbitrary constructions of mechanics--they don't actually mean anything to the game world.
It doesn't "make sense" that someone needs a tutor to learn how to sneak around. I snuck around as a little kid all the time without anyone teaching me. "Who taught you how to deal +2 damage with swords?" "Describe to me specifically what 2 damage is, and I'll tell you."
Look, I'm all for having deep characters--I run totally character focused games, so it's critical. But class levels don't fall into this--they're purely mechanical. I could give the exact same background description for a Fighter, a Barbarian, a Rogue, a Cavalier, a Ranger, a Paladin...
Oh, and Fighter/Rogue is easily one of the least powerful "dips" you could ever worry about. Dipping actually isn't super awesome in Pathfinder like it was in 3rd edition, from what I can see (other than Lame Oracle 1 for Barbarians), so I would just let it go.
While I do not agree that classes are arbitrary constructions of mechanics (nor should they be), there are some good points here. Soldiers most certainly can be stealthy and armies always have need of scouts, spies, and other special commando-style forces. If the character expressed an interest in developing those skills, I'd certainly let him. It's no more metagaming or non-roleplaying than learning how to do +2 damage with a weapon.
|
I'm a DM, so I guess any one of you could just say "You're the DM. You can do what you want." and that would be the end of this thread.
But I'd like some opinions from you guys.
Me? I don't allow cherry picking(dipping) without some serious in-game explaining and RPing, and it takes months to do.
So let's put it in perspective..
Let's say you were born into a military family. You grew up being groomed to be a soldier. You've learned the skills of the fighter early on, and when your 2(or 4 or 6) years are served, you decide to go adventuring.
All of the sudden, you decide you want to be a stealthy type.
Most players I've encountered just take the next class they want at 2nd level, and go from there.
When I ask them "Who taught you those skills? Where did you go for training? Who did you ask to mentor you?" I often times get a blank stare, then realization sets in, and I then their brow furrows.
"Uh. Dunno. I just want rogue at level 2."
Point is, I dislike this sort of thing. Sure, I change it quick and all, but how much RPing do YOU require for these sorts?
I mean, if all of your players are just min-maxxing and dipping classes for the best overall DPS, then aren't we really just playing a table-top game of strategy and tactics?
Why don't we just go play Warhammer 40k or Fantasy? Or War Machine?
Anyway, this isn't me saying I have an lack of skill as a DM, this is me asking you; what do you allow and disallow in your game(s) when it comes to this sort of thing, and how much RPing explanation do you require for dipping and/or Prestige Classes?
A lot of players think when they hit level 7 they just automatically learn all of the skills and abilities of this sacred order of so-and-so that's been around for 400 years.
Not in my game. How about yours?
-Von
Hey Von, Something my group does (and I am a player as well) is before we ever start the campaign, I am either given the player's idea on where he wants to go with his character (class selection), or I have submitted my own to the dm so he knows exactly where I want to be at what level. I have never had a problem dipping (althuogh I havent really dipped in PF, in 3.5 i did run a Bard/Lyric Theurge/War Weaver 5/7/5 but at one point, I was 5/2/1 and went up to 5th in war weaver. This was for the Rise of the Runelords campaign, but I didnt have a problem with this as the DM knew my character background and it fit well with this path.
I do agree with your premise that players need to find a way (in game) to train to take a class that goes against what was originally stated to you in the begining, especially if they are a big bruiser trying to go stealth.
You are not an A-hole, you just want a small bit of realism in a non-real world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying at its most extreme - a person who talks in character at all times and describes in narrative what is happening with everything the character does. If the character attacks, he explains it in vivid detail. If the character casts a spell, he explains it in vivid detail. If the character makes a spellcraft roll, he explains it in vivid detail. If the character makes a diplomacy roll, he explains it in vivid detail. The dice results are incorporated into the details.
Rollplaying at its most extreme - a person who pushes his miniature forward on the battle map. Rolls a D20. Says he hit AC 16. Rolls damage. The character sheet is a collection of numbers and mechanics. When a player must attack, he rolls a dice and gives you the math. When a character casts a spell, he rolls some dice and gives you the math and explains the rules mechanics. When the character must make a spellcraft roll, he rolls the dice and gives you the math. When the character makes a diplomacy roll, he rolls the dice and gives you the math. The details are all in the number rolled.
Which one is the best and which one is "doing it wrong"?
Actually, in our games we require that you do both: you have to describe in a graphic way what you are doing but you are also required to explain all the mechanic, all the while taking care of your miniature and having all relevant text printed on your sheets.
An example would be, when casting haste, saying: "I moves my hands at increasing pace, while runes of power begin to show on the ground around everybody's feet: you all feel the world as slowing down a bit and your reflexes becoming better". Then I look at the DM and says I cast haste, then look at the other players and say they get an extra attack at maximum bonus on a full attack, +1 to to hit, AC (dodge bonus) and reflex saves for 10 rounds and keep track of the duration using a die.
|
As far as I'm concerned, all training comes between adventures. Whether the 1st level fighter advancing to 2nd level gets another level of fighter or his first level of rogue, it's just assumed that he spends a few weeks "off camera" hanging out with a teacher (or sparring partner) that he trains with to gain some new skills, and improve his old ones. Since most campaigns involve time spent hanging out in big towns or major cities at some point, this really isn't an issue, and doesn't need to be explicitly explained.
In fact, because training has to happen between adventures, I remember at least once or twice, back when I used to DM a lot in high school (1st edition, back in the 80's - I'm only just recently returning to RPGs in the last few months), where the PCs earned enough XP to advance more than 1 level at a time. But because they hadn't had a break in the adventure, they hadn't had a chance to spend time training/studying to apply what they'd learned in their travels to becoming more effective at their chosen professions. When we had a break in the adventures, they'd gain 2 levels at once before starting the next adventure. Nobody ever complained, because it made sense in story, and because I tracked XP gained behind the scenes and didn't even do the math to know what they'd earned until each adventure was over.
As for role playing class, I can kinda see both sides of that argument, and there's something of a mix involved in any character, I think. For some characters, their chosen profession is their class. I have one character named Sister Isabella, and everyone knows she's both a cleric and Cleric of Sarenrae.
On the other hand, I made another Pathfinder Society character whose page and a half back story talks about having been born a slave in Cheliax, being freed by an Andoran warrior working for the Pathfinder Society, and being brought back to Absalom to live with the man who freed him. He spent the rest of his childhood hanging out at the Pathfinder Society Grand Lodge, working odd jobs for any Pathfinder who would teach him something or give him some money, so he learned to be a jack of all trades. He has knowledge of a great many different areas of study, decided to specialize in a bow as his primary weapon, is pretty good with a rapier, but has an in story excuse for never wanting to learn to trade blows in battle with heavier weapons in heavy armor. He learned a bit of magic along the way, and also learned to be quite the storyteller from hearing and repeating the adventures of the many Pathfinders he's met, eventually learning that the tales he repeats can be used to inspire his comrades to greatness in battle. From that description, most of you have probably picked up that he's a bard, but the word "bard" never actually appears anywhere in his 1000+ word back story. I haven't actually played the character yet, but when I do, I intend for him to introduce himself with "I'm primarily an archer in combat, but you'll find that I have quite a few other useful skills, as well."
That's cool. Most tables don't require that. Most tables I have seen have a guy that does max RP, a guy that doesn't care at all about RP and sees everything as numbers, and the rest of hte people are somewhere in the middle.
You need a montage.
Are you always starting your players off at level 1? If so, this may be a little extreme. The game simply doesn't allow for character complexity with certain classes at the lowest levels. A Rogue 1 could portray himself as a "Soldier" without too much problem, while a Fighter 1 has a great deal of difficulty portraying a stealthy "black-ops" type of soldier until he can add some more levels.
So, in your example, I personally think your methods are too extreme.
If, on the other hand, your soldier was Fighter 5, and wanted to take his sixth level as a Rogue (which is more along the lines of what I think of when someone refers to 'dipping'), then I think you are perfectly justified in looking for some RP explanation.
I don't fuss about it too much with my local group (which is more kick-in-the-door style).
However, with my PbP, that's definitely what my players and I would consider RP-Heavy. For the most part, the players are pretty good at keeping things realistic when they level-up. For instance, we've been stuck on Smuggler's Shiv so they've mostly kept their skill and feat selections based upon what they have actually been doing or trying to improve at.
The only instance in which someone has done otherwise was when the dwarf (whose grand father is a legendary weaponsmith) decided to invest 4 ranks in Craft: Weaponsmithing, and take Craft Magic Arms & Armor last level-up. Yet even there, it was roleplayed believably in-character and built-up-to before the level-up.
Had any of the PCs suddenly put all their skill points at a given level in something crazy like suddenly learning a half-dozen languages that no one else there knows, then I'd probably tap them on the shoulder. In fact, I can recall at least one instance in which a language choice got vetoed... The party's wizardess (a reforming succubus) wanted to learn celestial, but the party's paladin refused to teach her because she didn't yet fully trust her. It was a choice I upheld as GM.
Wow, I never realized that people role play classes.
I find it extremely hard to believe that you never realized such a thing.
Take your fighter1/rogue1. He probably was a bit roguish even before the dip, but the player couldn't portray it within the game's mechanics. He would have been hard pressed to portray it simply because the skill points were not enough.
That's why I liked the 3.0E "apprentice level" option where you could start as a level 0/0 multiclassed fighter/rogue starting at level 1.
This thread needs a theme song. I suggest: Highway to Hell - AC/DC.
I recall that back 'in the day' characters...
-could only level up between sessions/adventures,
-could only level up one level at a time (with a cap at 1 XP short of the next level),
-had to pay money and spend time in training for each level,
-etc.
So what VonZrucker is proposing for his game is reminiscent of older editions of D&D. I personally would not have a problem with this, as I like role-playing. Newer editions of D&D/OGL have made it much easier for characters to progress*. This makes things much smoother, game-wise, but does take a little of the RP out of the RPG IMO. The paying money part I can do without (though it does give characters motivation to go adventuring and take risks to earn more money). But I would at least encourage an RP explanation for some choices.
Ex. If you plan on playing a fighter/wizard, I expect at least some backstory supporting that. Wizards need many years of study to be proficient (supported by their starting age). So if you were part of the wizard’s tower training to be such, maybe consider starting older than an average fighter so you could justify taking that level of wizard at level 2.
Ex. Why you would multiclass out of or into monk would take, again, at least some RP explanation. “My fighter is disturbed by the bloodshed and greed in the world, so he retires to a monastery for a few months/years to find meaning in life.” “My monk is disturbed by the harsh realities found outside of his monastery; he chooses to forsake his ‘misguided’ training and walks a different path.”
Ex. Paladin. See monk.
Druids, clerics, and maybe even wizards would have a reason why they are deciding to ‘walk away’ from years of upbringing, devotion, and/or study to do something else.
I think fighters and rogues (and maybe barbarians) would have the easiest time multi-classing. Martial training, stealth, trap-finding, learning to spot vital openings (i.e. sneak attack), and such are all useful to any adventurer. But even a rogue has a lot of skills to learn, and traditionally rogues learn from a rather inclusive lot belonging to a secretive guild.
I don’t think VonZrucker is an a-hole for proposing this. I would suggest you apply it to all character training, multiclass or not. And I would suggest getting buy-in from your players before the campaign starts. Forewarned is forearmed, and if my character concept is crushed because of some GM rule that was not disclosed beforehand, that would be extremely frustrating.
And I totally agree that there is not just one way of doing things. That's true in both games and life (as long as we all follow some basic rules, be they from a core book or a code of law).
* ...and easier to play in general... remember when preparing/praying for spells took time for each spell (iirc between 15 minutes to 1 hour per spell level); rarely would casters want to blow their daily allotment because it often took days to prepare their entire spell list... but I digress.
As a side note while it is fun and realistic to train between levels, it is not how the game was intended to work. Just look at the old 3e module Sunless Citadel where you walk in 1st level and a day or two later walk out 3rd level. It would break the believability to insert training breaks into the module. So keep in mind this style of play is best done with mostly short or self made modules and require plenty of extra work on the GM's part. After all you should allow people to role play through these training weeks.