An easy way to prevent single-level multiclassing dips would be to simply not allow them. A character could be required to take at least two consecutive levels of any class he enters into. A strict DM/GM/PM could, of course, require even more than two levels - three, four or five or more, but since most front-loading of bonuses and features happens at first level, even a two-level requirement would be relatively significant.
Technically, the 'consecutive' provision could be dropped, but it does prevent abuse in case the campaign does not run until level 20 or in case it ends prematurely.
Another easy way of restricting players is to allow them only a certain numbers of Classes (and Prestige Classes) they can take.
I did that for the game I'm about to GM: The players can only take up to 3 Classes including Prestige Classes.
Level dipping (1 level only) is not prohibited in that way, but it limits the characters in similar ways.
But in general, I allow players more freedom in customizing their characters.
Right, that is another possibility. I suggested a while back, for example, that it might be workable to only allow a character to take only one new class for free only every 4 levels starting with 2nd (numbers chosen, because that's when pathfinder characters don't get any general features - neither feats nor ability score increases). If they want to take more classes than that, they have to buy access to them with feats.
Of course, I too don't need to resort to those kinds of measures in my stable groups. In more transient ones, though, it can be useful.
The next campaign I DM will have the rule that you can have a maximum of 2 base classes and 1 prestige class. If you take ALL levels of the prestige class you will be able to enter a second prestige class, and so on.
At the moment I have a very non-restricted campaign, and most of the PCs are some sort of Advanced Adventurer.
My preferred choice is leaving the rules and stressing that the GM is allowed, and expected, to strike you down with furious anger if you try to be a weasel.
Maybe a big fat sticker on every book that says: "This is a P&P roleplaying game. The game is run by a real-life, human Game Master. The Game Master is expected to act like a human, not like a computer programme. That means he doesn't have to take rules abuse lying down. He can punish you even if you didn't break any written-down game rule. And he will. You were warned."
If it weren't such a hassle, I'd have anyone sign a disclaimer before he's allowed to play at all.
|
I agree with KaeYoss' comment, though I would add the caveat that the GM is in no way immune to the Absolute Rule of RPG : that all people around the table deserve to have the best time together and no one, not even the GM, should ruin other people's fun.
BTW : this should provide a nice guideline as to what to allow and what limitating rules to enforce for the good of all.
Not trying to be devil's advocate. What kind of abuse are you guys seeing that can't be mitigated through limiting the number of splat books a player can use?
the GM is in no way immune to the Absolute Rule of RPG : that all people around the table deserve to have the best time together and no one, not even the GM, should ruin other people's fun.
Of course not.
Unless, of course, if someone's definition of fun is "hog all the spotlight and win the game" or anything else that breaks the Absolute Rule.
Plus, sometimes, the GM has to be a bit hardass.
Not trying to be devil's advocate. What kind of abuse are you guys seeing that can't be mitigated through limiting the number of splat books a player can use?
I'd prefer a more informal "don't be a jerk" rule to "your character may use no more than 3 books" rule.
Not trying to be devil's advocate. What kind of abuse are you guys seeing that can't be mitigated through limiting the number of sNot trying to be devil's advocate. What kind of abuse are you guys seeing that can't be mitigated through limiting the number of splat books a player can use?Or to carry the Devil's advocation even farther, why must we mitigate and/or limit the players and/or their reference material?
If I have a player who goes out and drops $30-50 on a book, then wants to use ideas from that book, I don't see how my saying "Nope, that book is banned form this game." is adding to the fun.
I do expect that everyone at the table contributes to the ongoing story in a serious story-building way. This means that if our campaign is medieval European style, nobody will be playing samurai or ninjas. But other than restrictions on campaign verisimilitude (which, by the way, all the players agree on, together, before the first characters are created), I prefer not to restrict the players in any way.
If it's allowed by the rules, let them use it.
If it's in an official splat book, let them use it.
If it turns out to be broken, or overpowered, duscuss house rules to adjust the power level of the feature to bring it in line with other similar features.
What's the point of limiting?
Caveat: if all the players are on board with banning/limiting access to certain books, then there's no problem. If everyone agrees, before the campaign begins, that we're not using Monster Manual IV (I know, bad example, but I didn't want to pick on a controversial book), then there's no reason not to ban the agreed upon book. It only becomes a conflict when some players think using certain books will enhance their character, and other players (or the DM) feel that would be game-breaking in some way. Then there is conflict, and nobody wants to show up for a game only to have to deal with conflict instead.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I've always been fine with letting people multi-class to their hearts content. If they want to mix and match, dip here and there, I don't see the problem. Especially with the PRPG rules, all classes have more higher level abilities that will be missed out on the more you multi-class, so it's a trade off.
I have thanked my players time and time again for not be power/meta-gamers. They dont get it cuz I am the biggest nerd in the group and understand the rules (we play 3.5) more than any of them. They dont care about being uber powered, or even multiclassing at that. They just want to "role" (not "roll") play a little bit, hang out with friends, talk crap, and enjoy a night away from the stressful "real" world. The campaign I am running now has a ninja, hexblade, sorcerer, warlock, and favored soul. All players plan on not multiclassing and continuing in their chosen class (even the sorcerer!). I even tried to talk the players out of playing the ninja and hexblade, but they wanted to play them. So, yeah, I guess I am just a pretty lucky DM. But, if I did have a problem with powergamers, I would make some house rule about single level dips.
I am on the Multiclass to your hearts content wagon as well. I think that without fail a character gets more and more flawed and much weaker as you venture beyond dual classing. The only exception being saving throws. Never getting 3rd level spells, a second die of sneak attack or more than one rage a day makes a pretty lousy 5th level character....
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.
What's the point of limiting?
Caveat: if all the players are on board with banning/limiting access to certain books, then there's no problem.
In my game I do not limit the particular books, but the number of books a player can use to build a character. Much of the abuse I have seen occurs when combining things from more than 2 or 3 splat books. Does this limit characters? Yes, but I have not heard any complaints that it breaks the character concept that any of my players had in mind.
I am on the Multiclass to your hearts content wagon as well. I think that without fail a character gets more and more flawed and much weaker as you venture beyond dual classing. The only exception being saving throws. Never getting 3rd level spells, a second die of sneak attack or more than one rage a day makes a pretty lousy 5th level character....
I would agree with this. If a player wants to sacrifice higher level class abilities for Saving Throws, that's their decision.
I chalk it all up to "Does it make sense for your character".
Had a player one time who was playing a Dwarven Fighter. All of a sudden he announces "I take a level of Cleric". BS!!! He had NEVER once in game play mentioned anything about worshipping a god...uttering a prayer over his beer...NOTHING...
So sorry, if there's no character development to ground the multi-classing in, I don't allow it.
Just to let you all know, I did tell him that if he sought out a priest of the god he wished to become a cleric of...and petition to begin training as a priest...he'd be allowed to do so with certain caveats...
Shocker of shocks...the player said "nah..."
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.
In my game I do not limit the particular books, but the number of books a player can use to build a character. Much of the abuse I have seen occurs when combining things from more than 2 or 3 splat books. Does this limit characters? Yes, but I have not heard any complaints that it breaks the character concept that any of my players had in mind.What's the point of limiting?
Caveat: if all the players are on board with banning/limiting access to certain books, then there's no problem.
We've had good success in the past by curtailing powergaming with the rule:
You can use PH, DMG, MM to build your character, + one other WOTC book.
It seems to me (and I'm probably at least slightly wrong) that most splat books are not broken when combined with core, but become powergamey when combined with other splat books. Generally a player will see a core or prestige class that they really want, and will be glad to limit themselves to core+ the book their new favorite X is in.
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.
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....
|
|
These are my rules for multiclassing:
1) Maximum 2 base classes
2) If you take a PrC, you cannot take another PrC until you take all levels of the previous one
My biggest problem with a firm rule like this is that there still are likely to be exceptions and that tends to make me say it should be just left to the DM to strike or adjust a class change if it is overpowered or trying to be more munchkin-y then the groups tastes run.
For instance, in Dragonlance(either the campaign setting or age of mortals), there is a PrC for each of the 3 Knights of Solamnia. Because they are part of an organization and each hold a different rank in the organization, you are expected to pass through the Prcs sequentially. You won't be a knight of the rose until you have been a knight of the sword and both met the pre-reqs and been promoted in the organization, and likewise you won't be a knight of the sword until you have been serving as a knight of the crown and met the pre-reqs to advance.
These are full prestiges, as most knights join as knights of the crown and remain there, those who show clerical powers advance to the sword level and those who are the best of the best become leaders as knights of the rose.
Being able to freely multiclass between these prestiges, mean that if you take the most direct route possible to meet the pre-reqs, you can attain the maximum level in the highest order by 20th level, though you will only have a level or two in the prestiges that come lower on the totem pole, and you'll probably be a fighter/cleric or a paladin/cleric before that.
With the house rules that were proposed above, it would mean that you would be well into epic before you could even try and become a member of the highest order and wouldn't finish it out until something like level 36.
I thought this system worked really well and could find a lot of use in different campaigns where you consider prestige's tied to organizations somehow, maybe a secretive order of rogues, joining them takes you into something like thief-acrobat where you are the cat bugler for the organization. Those with some divine talent are then able to advance in the group to learn divine trickster, and finally those who prove themselves can pick up the secrets of dungeon delver and do the big jobs for the group and other adventurers.
I realize that last bit is more just added fluff, but the ability to add connections and steps between prestiges seems like a good way for a DM to limit them while still adding good fluff to the world, rather then disallowing them altogether.
-Tarlane
Really what is the problem with Level Dipping it lets players build there personilzed characters that they want to play. If it makes the characters a little more powerful what harm is it? DMs can use the same tactics against the PCs
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Joey,
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.
I understand that the 3.5 designers recognized this problem and made some changes that delayed some of 3.0's 1st Level bounties to second levels.
Moe to the point, though, take a look at some of the keen things that classes get at higher levels. A Ranger who takes a level of Paladin and a level of Monk is trading in her two highest levels of Ranger.
Not to mention, a lot of the cool front-end class features are dependent on solid attributes for their punch. What attribute does a Ranger / Paladin / Monk not need at high levels?
I don't mind level-dipping, myself.
- It often makes sense in-character. ("We're trapped in a cave, there's an army of goblins between us and safety, and our Fighter's dead. We've all just risen a level. I'm going to take mine in Fighter.")
- It fits with how the player views his character.
- It's almost certainly going to make the character more interesting at the cost of making her weaker. I ask if the player would be happier with a variant character class feature.
Joey,
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.
The problem for alot of these people with level dipping seem on the lower levels of the game.
So yeah if you only make it to 5th level then a character full of dips might be pretty powerful but when played out to the higher level it doesnt affect the game that much
Am I correct in this assertion?
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.
It's amazing...really....Mature adult players don't do that childish crap.
|
|
TO answer DMBLake and Veector, let us look at ToB: Bo9S (the "controversial" book DM BLake was referencing, I'm sure).
This book was, as WotC said publicly, a testing ground for concepts they were looking at for developing 4e. This book was NOT designed to play well with 3x, and, frankly, I doubt it was playtested with how well it did work with 3x in mind. When you KNOW, due to DESIGNER'S statements, that the book wasn't designed to keep 3x going strong, you should be very, VERY careful to allow that book to play with others.
Furthermore, I really don't give two hoots what players spend money on. When I run my homebrew, I spend an insane amount of time on the feel and theme of my game. I don't do wuxia, I don't do "oversized anime/Final Fantasy weapons" (so monkey grip is right out), I do low, gritty, as "realistic as you can get with dragons and wizards running around" fantasy. I don't cater to players who think you can "win D&D", or who dip into six different classes and three different PrCs for their character "concept" (which is usually, not always, a poorly thought out justification for being a powergaming munchkin).
I'm sorry, but a lot of the "Complete" series, and the ToB books definitely, were poorly playtested and poorly conceived. Sure, there are some nice kernels in all of the chaff, but overall, WotC wasn't thinking about their "core" books when they wrote and released them, they were trying to get back some of the shine Mongoose and others stole with their 3pp splats. Basically, it was an RPG "arms race" to see who could come up with the most "uber" stuff to appease the munchkin crowd.
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...
|
|
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.
Yep, don't pull levels for a class out of your nether region, show me, in character, that you're pursuing the knowledge/skills in a class you want to dip in.
I fully endorse this :)
I am on the Multiclass to your hearts content wagon as well. I think that without fail a character gets more and more flawed and much weaker as you venture beyond dual classing. The only exception being saving throws. Never getting 3rd level spells, a second die of sneak attack or more than one rage a day makes a pretty lousy 5th level character....
I have a 31st level character that fits this bill. 8 base classes and one epic prestige, 2nd level spells highest. About the only thing he does well is survive - but he uses that to the party's advantage.
It's amazing...really....Mature adult players don't do that childish crap.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.
That was unnecessary.
Besides, other than the +8 Fort save (+4 others), that wouldn't be that great a character. BAB +2, 14 skill points (Int would be the only dump stat on that character).
Mature adult players don't do that childish crap.That's your opinion.
Different people play in different ways. No need to judge people. You play how you play and other people play differently. That's one of the things that makes this industry great.
Not opinion, fact.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
It's amazing...really....Mature adult players don't do that childish crap.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 you've never met anyone in real life who bounced around from one major in college to the next, and then one career to the next after school?
Maybe those people are immature, but saying that a player who wants to play a character who acts like that is immature is way off base.
It's amazing...really....Mature adult players don't do that childish crap.
That was unnecessary.
No, it was entirely necessary. Sorry you disagree.
So you've never met anyone in real life who bounced around from one major in college to the next, and then one career to the next after school?
Maybe those people are immature, but saying that a player who wants to play a character who acts like that is immature is way off base.
Here's a rope for you. You're stretching far enough you might fall off the ledge.
You can use PH, DMG, MM to build your character, + one other WOTC book.
So two good books are out, but one really nasty book is in? And what about all the great d20/OGL material? Like everything from Paizo?
It seems to me (and I'm probably at least slightly wrong) that most splat books are not broken when combined with core, but become powergamey when combined with other splat books.
Nah, actually it's splat books combined with powergamers that make them powergamey.
Quite frankly, most of the time I see people multiclassing or digging through splatbooks is because they are looking for something that matches a character concept that can't be fulfilled with the basic cookie cutter classes. Everyone here has seen the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue played out several times over.
But let's say you've got a player who wants to make a character like "D" from Vampire Hunter D. He'd want to be stealthy, while being a good fighter, with some abilities focused on combating undead such as the Channel Energy ability or Smite Evil, and a few minor magical spells at his disposal. You can either deride your player for wanting to make a Fighter/Rogue/Paladin/Sorcerer, or you can say, "Hey, that sounds cool. Let's come up with a way for to do this."
It all comes down to what kind of DM you are. Are you the kind that looks for every conceivable reason to say "no" or do you look for ways to say "yes". Personally, the more I game with the former, the more I try to be the latter.
You might want to look up "Complete Control - Character Design for the Uninhibited" from Dreamscarred Press. It allows character creation without classes. You simply buy your abilities, saves, base attack, spells and feats using Experience Points. There's a PDF available from the Paizo store for relatively cheap if you care to check it out.
Here's a rope for you. You're stretching far enough you might fall off the ledge.So you've never met anyone in real life who bounced around from one major in college to the next, and then one career to the next after school?
Maybe those people are immature, but saying that a player who wants to play a character who acts like that is immature is way off base.
I don't think he'll need that, you've adequately hung yourself.
Nope...head and neck still intact...thank you very much!
Not opinion, fact.Mature adult players don't do that childish crap.That's your opinion.
Different people play in different ways. No need to judge people. You play how you play and other people play differently. That's one of the things that makes this industry great.
Im sorry but thats an opinion I have mature friends who try to munchkin up characters all the time
|
|
Quite frankly, most of the time I see people multiclassing or digging through splatbooks is because they are looking for something that matches a character concept that can't be fulfilled with the basic cookie cutter classes. Everyone here has seen the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue played out several times over.
But let's say you've got a player who wants to make a character like "D" from Vampire Hunter D. He'd want to be stealthy, while being a good fighter, with some abilities focused on combating undead such as the Channel Energy ability or Smite Evil, and a few minor magical spells at his disposal. You can either deride your player for wanting to make a Fighter/Rogue/Paladin/Sorcerer, or you can say, "Hey, that sounds cool. Let's come up with a way for to do this."
I have no problem with this. If a player wants to emulate a favorite character from literature or other media, I'm cool with it, and I'm more than willing to help him realize it within the context of my homebrew. Well, except I can't stand most anime. (Vampire Hunter D was kind of cool though...)
Um, your horns are showing...;)
Well, even Saints have their down periods, you know?
And besides...munchkin'ism isn't allowed at my table...nor at the table of any of my accumulated friends that run games either.
The example I gave of the Dwarven Fighter was a player that was soon asked to leave the group.
I see your self imposed vacation only lasted 18 days. It's a shame you didn't have more vacation days to use.Nope...head and neck still intact...thank you very much!
It's a shame you think the way you do, but hey...we're both bound to find certain aspects of life to be a disappointment :)
Well for no reason This has degenerated down very much which could of been a really good discussion, I still stand by at higher levels the dipping does really effect the game
You can use PH, DMG, MM to build your character, + one other WOTC book.So two good books are out, but one really nasty book is in? And what about all the great d20/OGL material? Like everything from Paizo?
Nah, actually it's splat books combined with powergamers that make them powergamey.
It seems to me (and I'm probably at least slightly wrong) that most splat books are not broken when combined with core, but become powergamey when combined with other splat books.
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.
+1 for the "how does that fit with your character" camp.
Personally I find the 3+ classes just over the top, then again I think Prestige classes are the great Evil and just make me weep. At least Prestige classes are notionally building on the existing class as opposed to my fighter turning around and saying he thinks he might go to mage school today.
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.
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.
{quoted}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.
{quoted}
...It's amazing...really....Mature adult players don't do that childish crap.
{quoted}
...that wouldn't be that great a character.
Nope, that character can't use armor due to the Monk ability restrictions. Swap Ranger for Sorcerer, take Mage Armor and Shield.
Saving throws may be cool, but the hit you're taking to BaB on your attack rolls(and average HD) is what would be your undoing.
So it took you 4 levels to make a 1st level Bard w/Smite Evil and Super-Saves, AWESOME!!! >.<
EDIT: I don't really see doing this as 'childish' or 'immature', I see it as something an 'inexperienced' or 'indecisive' player might do. At which point the DM should ask the player what exactly they are trying to do with their character and allow the player a 'do-over' accordingly.