Well, tossing my hat in one this one...
I would like to see multi-classing clamped down some. Overall, I have no problem with it. It's the level of cherry picking that really gets to me.
When the multi-classing is done as part of the character's development, or to fulfill a overall character theme. Then yes, the system works and does what it is intended.
It's when you have somebody take their first level as Paladin (Cha of 6, Wis of 8) solely for the opportunity to get 5 ranks Knowledge-Religion with a martial class, then at 2nd level loses his Paladin-hood, turning LN because the class served it's purpose. That is where I have the problem.
Even if racial favored classes were dropped, I would like to see your first class taken be listed as your Favored Class. Stick with it, and you gain the perk. Deviate from it, then no perk for you.
This is really more of an individual player problem, and "clamping down" on this is the job of each individual DM. Some groups have no issues with this, while others do. Any blanket rule you might make will unnecessarily inhibit multiclassing in a way that will be detrimental to many players and groups. If this sort of illogical cherry picking is a problem with your group, the easy solution is to deal with it within your group.
People don't cherry pick because there's a rule in 3.5 that DISCOURAGES cherry picking... assuming of course the DM enforces it.
Taking the rule away, means there's no way to deal with it without singling out a player, and that shouldn't be done. The rule as it's designed is not prohibited.
No, people don't cherry pick while playing non-humans if the DM enforces the rules. Cherry picking players will just play humans. I suppose that's fitting for a race that's renowned for its adaptability, if that's your cup of tea.
|
This is exactly right. An elf may not be able to do Ftr 10/Brb 1/Rog 1 without issues, but a human certainly can. For that matter, I could easily get rage or a ton of skill points via PrCs if I wanted such things and never once worry about XP penalties. And the current system doesn't do a thing to prevent something like Brb 2/Ftr 2/Rgr 2/Clr 2/Rog 2 either.
Multiclassing between base classes is simply not an issue, because all these have been possibilities all along, and none of them have ever broken the game. (Except maybe the PrCs, but that's a matter of PrC design, not multiclassing.)
I just spent half an hour typing up a post and then the forum seems to have eaten it. Grr! I'm just going to hit the high points in this one.
If you take the time to take a favored enemy and it NEVER comes up in game, then your DM is a jerk. Either s/he should make sure that you do encounter an orc occasionally, or s/he should note during character creation that it is unlikely you're going to encounter orcs, and you might wish to choose something else.But your character doesn't like orcs and according to the theory above, that's a good enough reason to take a level of Ranger. Not your DM's job to tell you how to make your character. And not your DM's fault for no orcs if you're playing a pregenerated module/adventure path with no orcs in sight.
Two points:
1. Really disliking orcs is a good reason to take a level of ranger, if it goes along with your concept. Maybe I'm playing an Eldritch Knight who comes from a small town that was frequently raided by orcs, and so I choose to go ranger/sorcerer. Maybe my character is from a tribe of barbarians who were once decimated by orcs, and have vowed as revenge to drive all orcs from their territory. Either would be fully justified in picking up an ability that basically means they have studied orcs and know the best ways to kill them. Multiclasing, though, means that they are not as good at doing as they would have been had they stayed in ranger and gotten additional bonuses.2. I always thought it was the DM's job to work with the players to make sure everyone is having fun. If I tell my DM that I want to play a ranger with favored enemy orc (which, incidentally, I did last night), then that tells him something I want from the game: to fight orcs. If we then proceed to fight nothing but kobolds, then I'll not have as much fun because I never get to use one of my abilities. Yes, I can then pick kobolds as my next favored enemy, but it still means I have a useless class feature. If, on the other hand, my DM took the time to say, "Look, I understand that your character comes from a place with lots of orcs, but there really aren't any in the place where you'll be adventuring." I would thank the DM, and then decide whether I wanted to stick with my original concept, or switch it to something that might come up more often. I can still have the orcs, but at least when it doesn't come up I'll have known it in advance.
I can see where playing modules might make this more difficult. Having never played modules (my husband loves his homebrew world and I spend most of my play time there), this aspect did not occur to me. But aside from pointing out that there are exceptions to my "DM is a jerk" statement, this seems irrelevant to the discussion, as building a character for a module you're not familiar enough with will probably end up with any character, multiclassed or not, having class features or character choices that are not useful in that scenario.
And relating to posts that came up since I began my response to the above one....I can see where cherrypicking can be bad, especially in alignment based cases (edit: looking specifically at the paladin with low mental stats mentioned by Pathos). As a DM, I'd probably be inclined to ask for a really good in-character explanation before I'd allow it. But just because some people will do that sort of thing is really not a good reason for making a blanket rule that limits multiclassing, IMHO.
This is really more of an individual player problem, and "clamping down" on this is the job of each individual DM. Some groups have no issues with this, while others do. Any blanket rule you might make will unnecessarily inhibit multiclassing in a way that will be detrimental to many players and groups. If this sort of illogical cherry picking is a problem with your group, the easy solution is to deal with it within your group.
Well, that is why I mentioned making the Favored Class being the class you take at 1st level. Let that one be the one the character concept uses as it's base, and not just some stepping stone.
Of course, I would also like to see minimum stats brought back to. As in, minimum of 10 in the relevant stats for a class, thus countering the whole paladin thing I mentioned above.
This thread seems to have taken a turn towards believing the favored class mechanic is there as a means to curb multi-classing. Those are certainly it's roots - but consider that it also penalizes single-class characters who are simply not the favored class for their race - Elven rogues, if you will, or gnome druids.
In my mind, if you're going to keep the favored class rule as a means to penalize players for multi-classing, you should at least allow players to just pick their favored class. No more stereotyping.
Players are already going to pick classes that their races will give them an edge in. Elven rogues make sense, half-orc wizards do not. People aren't stupid. They're going to figure out pretty quickly which classes work well with which races. The favored class mechanic doesn't need to spell it out for them. Oh sure, you could include some fluff verbage like "elves tend to be wizards and rangers." But you really don't need a mechanic to enforce that.
If you're going to keep a favored class mechanic, it should be this:
Whichever class you choose at 1st level is your favored class. Each time you take a level in your favored class, you gain +1 skill point. Levels taken in other classes do not provide this benefit.
And the favored class mechanic does introduce a penalty - it penalizes players for making creative class choices for their characters. Half-elf fighter/wizard? Sorry, pick one you're "good at".Elven rogue? No dice.
It's only going to push players into stereotypical roles. The game will suffer as a result, IMHO.
That's right, because we players are simple-minded automatons; robot drones who only do what's expected of us, like we're supposed to, right?
Come on D_K, favored classes are nifty, maybe even cool, but not playing a favored class isn't going to kill a character, or render the game boring or unplayable. I've played an Elven rogue before, and he was a fun character. I had a friend who played a halfling paladin (that's right). He rocked. And not being a favored class didn't hinder us in the slightest. So, have a little more faith in the creativity and imagination of us players. We may surprise you.
Besides, now we have multiple options as to what your favored class can be, which gives you even more freedom. How is that more restrictive?
DogBone
Well, that is why I mentioned making the Favored Class being the class you take at 1st level. Let that one be the one the character concept uses as it's base, and not just some stepping stone.
Of course, I would also like to see minimum stats brought back to. As in, minimum of 10 in the relevant stats for a class, thus countering the whole paladin thing I mentioned above.
Not a bad concept, but i'm not sure. However, the minimum ability score thing should stay gone.
The most memorable character I ever saw was a human paladin, Sir Marcus of Tyr, played by a friend in a game that I ran many years ago. He was big (6'5"), tough and strong (STR 18, CON 18), but had a brain the size of a walnut (INT 6!!). Every time the party moved out, he would loudly declare "We go NORTH!!". Sadly, "north" was whatever direction he was currently facing. One time the other party members made the mistake of letting him lead them through a maze of tunnels. He'd come to an intersection and this is the conversation that followed...
Sir Marcus: "Have we been here before?"
DM: "Make an INT check."
Sir Marcus: "I rolled a 17."
DM: "No, you've never been here before."
Sir Marcus: "Then we continue north!"
HA ha ha!! I have some very fond memories of that moronic paladin, but if I'd been a srict rules lawyer, he would never have existed. So, leave ability score requirements at home. You'd be surprised.
DogBone
This thread seems to have taken a turn towards believing the favored class mechanic is there as a means to curb multi-classing. Those are certainly it's roots - but consider that it also penalizes single-class characters who are simply not the favored class for their race - Elven rogues, if you will, or gnome druids.
For the last time, not getting something isn't a penalty. It's just a lack of a bonus. In Pathfinder, your favored class bonus HP is a bonus for playing to type, which is perfectly fine. DMs can always rewrite favored classes for their particular setting to reflect the cultures and paradigms of their world - if elves in your CS are particularly known for being rogues, then give the elf of your setting Favored Class: Rogue. But if elves aren't widely known as being rogues, then an elf rogue will still excel in the role. He just isn't being rewarded for playing to type and fitting himself into the setting.
Let me provide an example. Hopefully it'll help illustrate what I mean. In my home brew setting, there are four subraces of elves. They're mechanically identical except for favored class. Their favored classes represent what the cultural trends of those subraces have. High Elves have the favored class of wizard, because they revere magic in its purest form. Wood Elves have favored class Ranger because they live in a more hunter/gatherer society and are often close to nature. Wind Elves revere both swordplay and magic, so they have Duskblade as a favored class. The Shadow Elves who live beneath the surface have a favored class of Ninja, because they prefer sneaky hit and run tactics and are closely tied to darkness. This may become Rogue in Pathfinder, honestly.
Now, you can have a High Elf who isn't a wizard. No problems, really, and there are plenty of good reasons not to. But if you play a high elf, and you do take levels of wizard, then you've got incentive. Much like racial and regional feats from Eberron and FR, you're getting a very small reward for accepting the ideas and tropes of the setting you're playing in. "You're playing a high elf who's a wizard? Cool! You're accepting certain ideas and standards and integrating yourself. Here's an extra HP." If, of course, you're opposed to stereotyping, you can look at it instead as "No one wants to play this particular combination because they want to rebel against the image... Let's give 'em some incentive to do so." And, finally, there's the simple fact that there should be some reason why so many of a particular race find themselves in a particular class. In this case, it's because it's a natural fit for them, so much so that they just live longer (somehow).
Favored Classes help to define how a race fits into a setting. It helps provide a mechanical reward for a player for picking a race and playing them as befits their ingrained background and information. This is a good thing. It's a reward. A very tiny reward. It's not even on the scale of a feat (Improved Toughness would give you an HP per level even if you multiclassed out). It's handy, but it's not a penalty if you don't get it, any more than not getting 2nd level spellcasting is a penalty if you take levels of rogue instead of wizard.
The most memorable character I ever saw was a human paladin, Sir Marcus of Tyr, played by a friend in a game that I ran many years ago. He was big (6'5"), tough and strong (STR 18, CON 18), but had a brain the size of a walnut (INT 6!!). Every time the party moved out, he would loudly declare "We go NORTH!!". Sadly, "north" was whatever direction he was currently facing.
These types of characters really are memorable and they're great to have around. However, what I have the problem with is players who use stats that are needed for making use of their class abilities, dump stats. Such as my paladin, a dwarf btw, example above (Cha 6, Wis 8).
I'm not saying these stats need to be exceptional, only that they have a minimum (10). Thereby providing a mechanic that does diecourage this kind of cherry picking munchkinism.
However, what I have the problem with is players who use stats that are needed for making use of their class abilities, dump stats. Such as my paladin, a dwarf btw, example above (Cha 6, Wis 8).
I'm not saying these stats need to be exceptional, only that they have a minimum (10). Thereby providing a mechanic that does diecourage this kind of cherry picking munchkinism.
Just out of curiosity, what did the dwarf get for his single level of Paladin? Just Knowledge (Religion) as a class skill? He wasn't getting any other benefits of the Paladin class, that all run off those stats that he dumped. So, aside from getting a bit of a bonus on a single knowledge skill, what did he get there that he wouldn't have gotten with a level of fighter? Was access to that knowledge so powerful that it broke a campaign? Did it somehow make him 200% more powerful? If not, what was so munchkinny about it? Could you have just as easily said "Okay, you can have Knowledge (Religion) as a class skill" and made the player and yourself happy?
See, the problem with minimum scores is that they are arbitrary. What would the minimum score for Fighter be? 10 STR? What about light, finesse fighters who dump their STR but want a few levels of fighter for the extra feats? How is that really munchkinism?
Just out of curiosity, what did the dwarf get for his single level of Paladin? Just Knowledge (Religion) as a class skill? He wasn't getting any other benefits of the Paladin class, that all run off those stats that he dumped. So, aside from getting a bit of a bonus on a single knowledge skill, what did he get there that he wouldn't have gotten with a level of fighter? Was access to that knowledge so powerful that it broke a campaign? Did it somehow make him 200% more powerful? If not, what was so munchkinny about it? Could you have just as easily said "Okay, you can have Knowledge (Religion) as a class skill" and made the player and yourself happy?
See, the problem with minimum scores is that they are arbitrary. What would the minimum score for Fighter be? 10 STR? What about light, finesse fighters who dump their STR but want a few levels of fighter for the extra feats? How is that really munchkinism?
You're correct, all he did gain from it was the extra skill points he needed.
What, in my opinion, makes it "Munchkiny" is the idea that he is using a class to get into a prestige class 4 levels earlier than he normally would have been able to.
That is why I would like see some minimums placed for class admittance. We already have said minimums in place already from some of the classes. Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Bard (Both in spell casting and Perform skill to use bardic powers).
I'd still like to see the favored class mechanic removed as an automatic bonus or penalty, and supported by Racial Feats that can be taken as an option to reinforce the characteristics of a race's favored class(es).
Ditto.
Honestly, why not just have more Racial Feats that let a race be better at what they're good at, like Elves with Perception and Bow Feats that let them get above and beyond humans, Dwarves with Hammers, Axes and Shields, Halflings with Stealth, etc.
Here's how you need to approach Favored Class...
What is the point/reasoning for it:
Racially, you are either built, or as a race you have an aptitude/socially trained to have a bonus for a particular class.
This makes sense, and gives more flavor for the race as a whole. I think it should stay.
Now we need to look at the things people like and dislike in mechanics:
- People like getting bonuses. The like being able to get the bonus no matter what. Whether they can use the bonus is up to them, but they want access to the bonus no matter what build their character has.
- People dislike not getting a bonus because they decided to build their character a certain way. They don't like others getting more than them, or feel like they are making a bad choice because they want a particular fluff or concept.
With this in mind, the best approach would be the following:
1. Take the class (classes) that a race would normally have as a Favored Class.
2. Take something that is appropriate to that class. Class skillpoints. A feature (Combat Manuver, Sneak Attack, Channeling/Turning, Smite, etc). Give the RACE this bonus, no matter what class they choose.
Result:
Now if you pick a race, you get an ability or skillpoints that are appropriate to their favored class. If you happen to pick the class the benefit comes from, then even better.. you've got a bonus that increases your abilities at that class. If you don't pick the class, then you get a little something that gives a bit of diversity.
Don't want it to be too powerful? Just add a bonus skillpoint per character level for a class skill.
Want race to mean something more? Add a class ability.
Now there is a philosophical debate to be had if not getting a bonus is a penalty or not. But I am not sure if that really is what is at the core of the Favored Class issue.
The issue as I see it is that in 3.5 the Favored Class rule only came into play if you chose to multiclass. Now it comes into play no matter what because you either play in your favored class and get the bonus, or you miss out.
This is a change in the focus and purpose of the Favored Class rule.
The 3.5 rules was designed to let you pick up a level in your races "niche" without harming your overall career, the new rule is designed to encourage you to stay in your races "niche".
I can see where this shift is a problem for some.
I think there is logic in the idea of making the class you take your first level in your Favored Class. This allows the player to get the bonus while staying with their unusual character concept, while still encouraging staying in a single class.
Though overall, changing what a races Favored Class(es) are is one of the easiest things to houserule or ignore.
As an aside though, I do think the option for an extra skill point per level makes more sense than +1hp. I mean, if Favored Class is supposedly the class your race has a knack for, it seems like that "knack" would manifest itself as increased competence (Skills) instead of increase survivability (HP).
|
I love the favored class bonus of +1 hp.
I admit I am an old AD&D first edition fan as it made the flavor of each character relatively clear from the outset and allowed you to really spend 10 levels or more building up a unitary character concept. One of the things that sold me on AD&D was the real differentiation that existed between classes from the outset and that was maintained even at high levels. The multiclassed character in AD&D paid a substantial price for his ability to operate in more than one world at a time.
That was diminished when multiclassing became much more mechanically favored by the 3.5 rule-set. PRCs made that tendency absolutely clear as more and more PRCs (and later, feats) were concocted solely to allow a character to mine more than one class without penalty. By late 3.5, it was really clear that the game designers felt that you should be able to do just about anything imaginable through the creative addition of 'mods' in the form of feats and PRCs.
The outcome, in my opinion, was a ton of campaigns where each PC attempted to build himself up to be a self-contained party. As a DM, this made it so much more important to say no to PRCs, feats, and the like so as to make it possible to design encounters where one character or another was truly indispensable. In original AD&D, that was never a problem--the fighter could not do what the magic-user could do and the party knew it; knock out the magic-user and there was likely coming a situation where the party couldn't go forward. This allowed me to bind parties together in bonds of mutual dependence. 3.5 reduced that.
The Pathfinder fix is nice and elegant. Favored class mechanics give the the player a reason to pick up levels in a favored class over time (especially in the low HP favored classes). The class skill mods make it really likely that a party will need someone who has max ranks and the class skill bonus to succeed at a level appropriate challenge. Add in good discipline on PRCs and feats that blur the line between class abilities and you can get the party back in the mindset of being dependent upon each other to survive the DMs quiver of tricks.
If anything, I would strengthen favored class even further, adding racial traits that arrive every five levels the character takes in a favored class (perhaps a +2 in the key ability of a favored class? or something equally general to apply) as a way of making the favored class really profitable (and as an antidote to having players constantly seeking out the latest and greatest PRCs).
|
|
I vote to keep favored classes, and allow multiclassing only when a favored class is one of the classes. I love the carrot of +1 hp, especially if your favored class is a low hp class.
I am a fan of AD&D, where a class represented the career ambitions of your character's preadventuring life, and such a choice was not taken lightly.
Game balance is about keeping a wide variety of options equally viable, rather than restricting characters to a bare handful of optimal choices.
What we have here is not game balance, it is niche enforcement. It isn't just unbalanced. It is the opposite of balance.
What we have wrought here, gentlemen, is antibalance.
Game balance dissolves at its touch. The natural order of rules and restrictions crumbles. Purple lightning strikes from the stars, blinding all who watch, but there is no thunder. Mind-splitting laughter echoes from the edge of space. The earth splits, the fibers fray, the wound widens with a sound like a million insects.
The slave-gods howl, and then crawl back to their caves, abandoning their works to the eschaton. Chaos reigns, for The Unraveling has begun.
...
Alright, so maybe it's not the end of the world.
But it IS a pretty annoying rule.
All depends on the game. We generally consider a couple of years of weekly sessions about the minimum for a campaign - and most characters are fairly high level by the end of it. The longest campaign ran for better than a decade, by which time the main characters were in the mid-30's for levels. Of course, that was with much older rules. In longer campaigns, it will indeed become an issue - and in short ones, minor advantages are no big deal.
I vote to keep favored classes, and allow multiclassing only when a favored class is one of the classes. I love the carrot of +1 hp, especially if your favored class is a low hp class.
I hate this idea. If I want to play an elven fighter/rogue, then the rules better have a damn good reason for not letting me do that, and "maintaining group dependency on each other" or whatever is not one.
My two coppers: I love the +1 hit point per favored class, as I loathe the idea that the optimal monks in 3.5 are dwarves and half-orcs instead of humans. This mechanic puts human monks more on a par with these races. In general, the boost that this mechanic gives to humans and half-elves is one of my favorite aspects of it, a real way to reward their flexibility. I also like the fact that it gives a small bonus to races that choose to level in their favored classes. Right now, there is no incentive to choose one's favored class, there are only reasons to multiclass and cherry pick that class. For example, why should an elf be a wizard in 3.5? Gnomes or even halflings seem to be a better choice even though elven wizards are supposed to be iconic. There are good reasons, however, for an elven rogue to pick up a level of wizard, which I think is just crazy, not how favored class should work. In th end, I think it is very easy for campaigns who want to encourage multiclassing to house rule the +1 hit point rule away, but I am glad that it is in the rules right now.
Marnak