DM: "I have some outdoor skills - but with her having disappeared two months ago... Any tracks will be hard to find" - Dharius pondered - "Would anyone have any idea of where her husband might be buried? Following in that direction could maybe work. Were there any searches already done for her?" - he continued the conversation, genuinely interested in the life of these people, also trying to understand if they are more farmers, gatherers, hunters, or something else. Maybe a mix.
DM:
Dharius will engage the men, offering to buy the next round of whatever they are drinking, and wanting to understand if such occurrences are common. Meaning someone inside would not usually be eaten by a bear or wolf. Was she out in the woods by herself? Why? "Thank you Lewill, much appreciated" - Dharius had enough to pay for his stay, but did not want to offend his companion.
"No more than an hour from here" - Dharius explained - "Wounded by the side of the road and asking us to take her back to some lake... Orb Lake?" - he looked around at his companions for confirmation - "But we decided to stop by here first, and see if we could learn more" - the elf added - "I am Dharius by the way. Well met"
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
Yes, Paladins do have a few boosts, but multiclass characters are two classes, right? I mean, that's already the trade-off of multiclassing: you get access to the abilities of multiple classes, but you don't get the full benefits of either class. Without pushing the point further, though, can I ask why we'd try it this way instead of first playing it according to the rules as written? I'm not opposed to house rules if something proves problematic in play. I just don't really see what problem we're trying to solve yet, and it seems a little arbitrary to compensate multiclass Fighters for something that is already an intended consequence of multiclassing. I'd honestly prefer to play a few encounters RAW first and then see whether there's actually a balance issue worth addressing.
I don't have a particular stake in this, but what about the Paladin? Would Brene also be allowed Weapon Specialisation? More generally, this is why I'm a little wary of going too far down the UA/houserule route. Personally, I'd prefer to first see how the game plays using the PHB/DMG rules as written, and then tweak things if something actually seems unbalanced in practice. My concern here is that, as things currently stand, multiclass demihuman characters seem to get most of the mechanical advantages, while there isn't much incentive to play something like say a single-class Fighter or a Human. And since this is PbP, the level limits probably won't become particularly relevant anyway. It is expected that multiclass characters will have fewer HP than single-class Fighters — that's simply one of the trade-offs of multiclassing, as I understand it. You gain several other things (heck, another class), so I'm therefore not sure that the lower HP should necessarily be something that needs to be compensated for with additional mechanical advantages. This is also why, historically, later systems started giving Humans various compensating advantages — a bonus feat here, extra skill points there, etc. In a sense, those were ways of making up for some of the advantages that had previously been given to demihuman characters. That's not necessarily a problem, and obviously it's your call as DM. I'm just wondering whether we're potentially creating some imbalances by trying to compensate for something that is already part of the intended trade-off of multiclassing. It might be worth seeing how things play out first before adding more exceptions to the rules. I realize I'm continuing to push this point, but I do think it is relevant.
I would go human, but my precious 18 Str would be gone :'( Also I was re-reading the Weapons Specialization rules for Ranger, and I do think they can specialize at level 1 - here is the whole paragraph: 'The ranger’s weapons
By the time a ranger gains a fourth weapon proficiency at 4th level, the character’s list of weapons must include:
The initial weapon selection for the character must be made so as to take these requirements into account. A ranger who specializes in a particular weapon must do so in one of the types listed above. In this manner, a ranger has less than four proficient weapons at fourth level, and in this case the first four proficient weapons gained by the ranger must include one of each of the four types listed' Bold is mine, but it indicates that it is possible for a Ranger to specialize at level 1, and thus have less than four proficient weapons at fourth level. ---------- Character sheet is now updated with 18/75 Str.
I always interpreted that entry from UA to simply supersede the limitation on extraordinary Str for Elves, as UA does with so many other things. Feels a bit convoluted to me that a table would be built to address the very, very specific situation/possibility of someone having XP to exceed the level limit and then casting a Str spell to be higher level in their class for some hours :P Is that in the rules somewhere, or is it a common ruling of some sort?
DM Lil" Eschie wrote: @Dahrius/ Aelwyn: Elves have 18/75 maximum STR. An Half elf has 18/90 max STR; male human have 18/00 I was looking at the table in page 9 of UA, and it seems like Elves can have extraordinary Str beyond that? In fact it is what qualifies them to advance further in levels as a Ranger? |