Obviously, the problem of over-multiclassing can be dealt with on an ad-hoc basis and roleplaying. My mind, however, tends to be systemic and I cannot help thinking of new rules to deal with things like these. :)
We usually play sub-opimal character builds for some reason, so this thread doesnt really mean much to me. Nonetheless - doesnt the experience point penalty for multiclass characters stop people just getting one level of a class?
We usually play sub-opimal character builds for some reason, so this thread doesnt really mean much to me. Nonetheless - doesnt the experience point penalty for multiclass characters stop people just getting one level of a class?
In the Beta, the xp penalty went away ... we won't know until August, but that may be what's causing the uproar. For me, it's a null issue, if a player is abusing it (doesn't happen in my group) we'd talk about it and come to a compromise that doesn't break the game and still allows the player to be happy with the character.
I have a bit of a head for optimizing, but part of the art of optimizing (and the part that keeps you out of "powergaming" or "min/maxing" territory) is those spots you leave open.
Ok so I can build a divine caster with plenty (and then some) spells, good saves, and great AC. What I purposefully don't add to the mix is really good HP or offensive abilities. For those spells I grab buffs, heals, and the general purpose spells, with a small sprinkling of offensive ability. Why? So I don't out shine everyone. I could have the powerhouse that does it all, but by focusing only on an area or two I keep from grabbing the spotlight and allow everyone else to keep their role. After all the game is not about me, or my character, but about the party I travel in. Otherwise I would play a video game.
We usually play sub-opimal character builds for some reason, so this thread doesnt really mean much to me. Nonetheless - doesnt the experience point penalty for multiclass characters stop people just getting one level of a class?
Not anymore, PFRPG has replaced the mechanic for favored classes (and might have even removed some of the restrictions for some of the classes if I remember correctly). Now there is no penalty for not using classes that were "favored", you can take whatever you like, but you get a minor bonus for levels in a favored class.
EDIT: Beaten to the punch while typing the rest of this up >.<Which, thinking about it and some other changes, seems to point to PFRPG pushing more of a "whatever the character wants" scenario.
As a player, I have spent a great deal of money on books(having bought them as they come out at full price), any DM who is going to severely limit what I can use out of them has lost me as a player. Chances are even if I did play in the campaign for some reason, I would be just "going through the motions" and not enjoying myself. And just to be preemptive about possibly being considered a "munchkin" (as some of the previous posters behaviour seem to warrant this paranoia), 90% of the time I don't think I have ever played a character with more than 3 classes (2 core to get prereqs for a third PrC). The 10% otherwise were because there was just no possible way in game rules to get the concept off the ground with out them all and the character wouldn't come into its own until late (16th + level) anyways. At that point we are way past when full casters are dominating the game anyways.
As a DM the only thing I have consistantly said no to was the BoED. And it isn't because I think it is broken, it is because I am certain that the players won't play the concept to the extent that it is intended and will end up losing the abilities or if they are playing it it causes a somewhat similar party issue to having a "real" Paladin in the group. Otherwise, multiclass, use whatever you want in the rule set, etc to your hearts content - just realize everything you as a player have available, the "bad guys" will too and I have always made that clear from the beginning. If things start getting way out of hand I'll just up some of the encounters difficulty as a warning as the party's power level has increased on average right? Encounter CR's need to be adjusted appropriately. The offender can then take the hint and reign themselves in. If it continues a partial party wipe will eventually occur as the rest of the party can't keep up, chances are the offender will be one of the casualties though, I play opponents of an appropriate intelligence to what they should be (No "dumb" Int 16+ wizards here, tactics enforced and they will know who the threats are after a few rounds of being blasted, gutted or wailed on by them). No one is called out, no reason for hard feelings, it was just a "tough" encounter. This has yet to happen coupled with the above stipulation, but it is what I would do if the situation arises.
Granted this approach requires a bit of effort, time, and patience, things I can only guess those that outright rule out multiclassing and such either don't have or don't want to be bothered with. The way I look at it is if I'm willing to DM it is part of the package though. When I read things like "It doesn't fit my view" or "it doesn't make sense why someone would all the sudden take Barbarian at 5th level" I can only *sigh*. Even with an "organic" character with no plan on what to take from level to level, the end result is the same whether the class was taken at 1st or 5th (and I think they even went so far as to give reasons why/how "story wise" someone would take levels of Barb at later point in the core rules). Yes as a DM you are running a game, but it is a group game and you aren't the most important part of it, just an integral part. Half the stories we all love contain some stranger or odd ball who doesn't belong or is from some far away place or doesn't fit the current setting, that is a big part of what makes the story enjoyable in the first place. Being Different is the general idea behind that. There are always exceptions to the rules and in the game of D&D the characters are supposed to be those exceptions. Multiclassing says "I am different" and a great deal more than which feat or spell choice every other person playing your class gets at your level. Saying no to someones character progression/idea without "approval" isn't much more than a veiled power trip no matter what the reasons you give. Apparently you are entitled to direct which way someone builds, plays and what they do with their character for some reason. To me that sounds like a "God complex" to the Nth degree, I can't see that being healthy for any game unless your players like feeding that behaviour and enjoy being oppressed. Anyways at this point we're veering into psychological issues and away from gaming ones.
We usually play sub-opimal character builds for some reason, so this thread doesnt really mean much to me. Nonetheless - doesnt the experience point penalty for multiclass characters stop people just getting one level of a class?In the Beta, the xp penalty went away ... we won't know until August, but that may be what's causing the uproar. For me, it's a null issue, if a player is abusing it (doesn't happen in my group) we'd talk about it and come to a compromise that doesn't break the game and still allows the player to be happy with the character.
Ah ok, thanks. Still - there's a penalty (or a benefit you dont get, anyhow) maybe it's just not enough for the OP's tastes.
I'm surprised it gets people so worked up, I wonder if it's a case of people wanting extremely different things out of the game.
Ah ok, thanks. Still - there's a penalty (or a benefit you dont get, anyhow) maybe it's just not enough for the OP's tastes.
I'm surprised it gets people so worked up, I wonder if it's a case of people wanting extremely different things out of the game.
Most definitely.
The core rules are hardly a low magic/fantasy setting, but one of the posters said he/she was running that type of game. Obviously this entails quite a few house rules and I'm usually of the mind that if you are going to go through a lot of effort to house rule things to your liking you are probably better off finding a setting that is more appropriate to the game you want to play or writing a new one. I think I remember someone mentioning The Black Rose Company (or something like that) campaign setting that was supposed to be a low magic and gritty. If that were my intention I'd definitely go looking for something that fit the bill and do a couple of tweaks leaving me to be able to spend my time on the creation and running of the game instead of rewriting large chunks of it. Obviously it will be based on d20 but you'll probably also find tidbits in there addressing things you never thought of or that reinforce the setting that you like if it is done well. Granted I also have to luxury of being able to afford to do that (thankfully), I see posts quite often saying that posters are on a budget and have to be picky about what they buy. So I have to admit that is a limitation I usually don't consider.
The other side of that is you are paying for something you have already thought out mostly. Our main DM has always run a homebrew campaign but anything went in it, the strength of this was being able to make room in the world for whatever the players wanted. You wanted to play some PrC that came out, he wanted to read up on it and then would get back to you about where they made sense in the world and what tweaks to the fluff he wanted to make so they fit. Often it helped him flesh out someplace he didn't know what to do with. He didn't have to go back to some published campaign setting book and put a bookmark saying "pages 30-56 are no longer valid" lol.
To me taking a high magic fantasy game and throwing together a couple pages of house rules with more limitations on it doesn't make it low magic. With the current rules (3.5/PFRPG) it would take reworking the majority of the classes (more use magic than not), the magic system and various other rules to make them "fit" a low magic campaign. Otherwise it is a high magic campaign containing an electric fence with minor square footage in a huge yard, and the players are the wearing collars (I can't express how horrid of a contraption those things are).
|
The core rules are hardly a low magic/fantasy setting, but one of the posters said he/she was running that type of game. Obviously this entails quite a few house rules and I'm usually of the mind that if you are going to go through a lot of effort to house rule things to your liking you are probably better off finding a setting that is more appropriate to the game you want to play or writing a new one.
Yeah, that was me, and the setting is my homebrew that has existed since the 1e days. Basically I didn't change anything, just updated the mechanics to 3x. I'm considering porting it to C&C (it feels like 1e, runs like d20), and just running a 3x FR game, core plus FR books.
It shows a lack of real flexibility in the game system, you should be able to build that class as either a Rogue, a Fighter or a Rog/Ftr combo.
Not really. If you were able to realise every concept with every class, we'd have a classless system, or classes that are generalised to the point where they're basically "defensive option" and "offensive option".
No, PF continues the fine D&D tradition of strong archetypes.
The real flexibility comes from the fact that you can mix and match however you want. Want to play a warrior arcanist? Sure, you can't do it as sorcerer or wizards, and not as fighter either, but you can go fighter/wizard.
Of course, if you put up arbitrary limits to multiclassing to nuke powergaming in a real "Kill them all, God knows His own" fashion, that flexibility will have its shadow burned onto some stairs in the centre of the blast radius.
I think you will find that all the anti-fruitsalad multiclassing GM's have made the point that the example you have stated IS fine, no one has an issue with that, as there is a rationale behind the choice and it fits with what has been played out.
Swashbuckling Rogue Ranger Fighters on the other hand... wha?
If there's four classes involved then I would suggest there's too many.
It shows a lack of real flexibility in the game system, you should be able to build that class as either a Rogue, a Fighter or a Rog/Ftr combo.
Whats a Swashbuckler got to do with a ranger? The Musketeers meet Robin Hood?
Ah, except that there have been several posts to the effect of "You get two base classes and maybe one PrC... beyond that, you're a munchkin."
So, y'know, this character's a munchkin.
The only solution would be to make every 1st level ability available as a feat. Want rage? Feat. Want + 10' untyped speed? Feat. Want Sneak Attack +1d6? Feat. Perhaps, if every low level ability was a feat, multiclassing to get those abilities wouldn't be so necessary. But these are all abilities that are natural things for characters to learn (any commoner with a bit of XP can begin gaining levels in a PC class, after all. That's where PCs come from). So why is it so hard to believe that a warrior could start picking up a smattering of other abilities as he adventures and sees the wider world?
As for campaign verisimilitude, especially in a medieval context? Y'know what I find messes that up worse than anything? Magic! So a fighter's wielding an overly large weapon. So what? He's taking a -2 to hit for an average of +1 damage. Meanwhile, the wizard's able to read minds, predict the future, teleport across whole continents, and kill people by looking at them. How is the first one ruining verisimilitude but the latter's A-Okay?
Whats a Swashbuckler got to do with a ranger? The Musketeers meet Robin Hood?Hmm, if I recall the original stories well enough, Robin Hood was quite a swashbuckler, every bit as much as the Three Musketeers.
Crossed swords with some of the best swordsmen in the land. He swung on chandeliers, climbed tapestries, lept onto horseback, etc. Swashbuckler stuff.
Just because he was a superb bowman doesn't mean he wasn't also a fine and agile swordsman capable of feats of derring-do that would have tickled d'Artagnan's sense of facny.
"Zorro" strikes me as a good example of Swashbuckler/Ranger.
Example for a non-munchkinised character with 3 classes.
Tiefling Rogue1/MonkX/PaladinX
Felly started as a thug and thief, but was redeemed and became a divine brawler instead.
I don't recall his name but I think we called him Squirrel.
Example for a non-munchkinised character with 3 classes.
Tiefling Rogue1/MonkX/PaladinX
Felly started as a thug and thief, but was redeemed and became a divine brawler instead.
I don't recall his name but I think we called him Squirrel.
You say that's "non-munchkinised" and I'll take your word for it, but it reeks of munchkin.
Tiefling has, throughout all of 3.5 and maybe all of 3.x, been a top choice for munchkins. Neat ability scores and other racial stuff for a mere +1 LA.
Starting rogue for a single level has always been #1 on the munchkin list for 3.x. 32 skill points at first level and forever getting +1d6 on most of your attacks, assuming you get the right positioning is like ringing the dinner bell in munchkin land.
Level 1 monk is another favorite of munchkins, there are precious few tricks in the book to get +2 to all three saves, decent HP, and a bonus feat (even if it's just Improved Unarmed Strike, mostly useless to many classes).
Continuing with monk and paladin levels to make a brawler with smite evil, invincible saves, and other paladin and monk class abilities is an interesting choice, and may not be strictly munchkinish, since the two lawful classes seem moderately compatible.
But when you put all that into a blender and mix it up, it truly reeks of munchkin. Yes indeed.
I guess the question is whether the player RPed him in a non-munchkin way. But even if the player made it feel "non-munchkinised" through his RP, his mechanics choices still scream munchkin.
You say that's "non-munchkinised" and I'll take your word for it, but it reeks of munchkin.
Oh, come on...you're not being OPEN MINDED here.....
Then again, a lot of his monk "goodies" (fast speed, AC bonus, flurry) and rogue ones (stealth, etc.) are negated by the one of the paladin's main schticks (heavy armor). Look ahead a few levels and you've got a paladin who's lagging on his class features, and who either (a) can't wear armor (to break even) or else (b) wears it and loses out on everything but an occasional +1d6 damage. Moving up into the teens, he's probably taking a lot more rogue and monk levels and sinking most of his wealth into bracers of armor and the like just to stay competitive with a single-classed paladin, and he's still worse off than a single-classed cleric.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Moving up into the teens, he's probably taking a lot more rogue and monk levels and sinking most of his wealth into bracers of armor and the like just to stay competitive with a single-classed paladin, and he's still worse off than a single-classed cleric.
Kirth, he can't return to taking more levels in monk, can he? And if he "falls back" and takes another level of rogue, he's dead in the water for Paladin as well. (In any case, as soon as his Paladin levels outpace his frozen monk levels, he's taking XP penalties.)
Kirth, he can't return to taking more levels in monk, can he? And if he "falls back" and takes another level of rogue, he's dead in the water for Paladin as well. (In any case, as soon as his Paladin levels outpace his frozen monk levels, he's taking XP penalties.)
Chris,
Playing 3.5, I believe you're correct on all counts. Under the Pathfinder rules, however, my understanding is that all of the limitations you've cited (frozen class progression, xp penalties, etc.) have been removed -- and good riddance to 'em, I say!
Kirth, he can't return to taking more levels in monk, can he? And if he "falls back" and takes another level of rogue, he's dead in the water for Paladin as well.
That was true in vanilla 3e. It's not true in Pathfinder, or my house rules, which were used back then.
You say that's "non-munchkinised" and I'll take your word for it, but it reeks of munchkin.
Not really. It reeks of potential munchkin. However, knowing the player in question (somethign you don't do) and knowing how that specific character was built (something you don't do), I can assure you, it was 100% non-munchkin.
Starting rogue for a single level has always been #1 on the munchkin list for 3.x.
It has been on the "Do this if you're not braindead" list for 3.x as well. Unless you had a very good reason not to start with rogue, it made no sense whatsoever not to start with rogue. Nothing munchkin about it.
But when you put all that into a blender and mix it up, it truly reeks of munchkin. Yes indeed.
Unless you've seen the character in question. Which you have not.
He did have nice saves, that's true. But other than that, he had virtually no neglegible attributes. He kinda forsook strength (and dealing damage consistently), and I think constitution (and offset his defenses with a glass jaw) and still had to get dex, wis, cha, and int (skills were important - and this was 3.5, without all the consolidation going on!)
He didn't outshine anyone - and not all of the characters were min/maxed (and none were munchkinised)
Someone forgot the first rule of optimization: "Thou shalt not give up caster levels."
;D
Honestly, if anything with more than 3 classes (or even with three classes apparently) is munchkiny then I am a munchkin, proud of it and laugh at your inability to cope.
It seems like we're back to the "high-level casters own the game" argument.
See, if I weren't hip to the lingo and I happened upon this thread, I'd conclude that a "munchkin" is someone who tries to find a warrior class combo that will let him keep up with the full casters at higher levels. Unfortunately, I know of no such combo, excepting a single-classed fighter (who is nigh-useless from 13th to 19th levels, but can suddenly compete again at 20th when he gains the capstone ability to charge and 1-hit kill almost anything not immune to crits). If he focuses strictly on initiative, attack bonus, and crits, and invests all his wealth in items letting him fly and giving him true seeing, he can play rocket tag with the best of 'em. No barbarian/monk/paladin/ranger can do that.
Not really. It reeks of potential munchkin. However, knowing the player in question (somethign you don't do) and knowing how that specific character was built (something you don't do), I can assure you, it was 100% non-munchkin.
Unless you've seen the character in question. Which you have not.
Yep, pretty much what I said:
You say that's "non-munchkinised" and I'll take your word for it, but it reeks of munchkin.
I guess the question is whether the player RPed him in a non-munchkin way. But even if the player made it feel "non-munchkinised" through his RP, his mechanics choices still scream munchkin.
Just because it didn't work out well, particularly given his other non-munchkin choices (which your original post didn't mention) of neglecting STR and CON in favor of INT, doesn't make it reek less of munchkinism.
I'm glad to hear the RP saved this character from true munchkinhood.
|
OK, late comer to the conversation...
Why exactly is it bad to dip into a single level of other classes?
Sure, the character gets a big boost to certain Saves. But at what cost?
Almost every time there is no increase in BAB, and no substantially improving class abilities.
So in essence you have a one trick pony. He can't hit anything. He can't cast spells worth a flip. He has no cool abilities that allow him to do amazing things.
BUT he can resist things thrown at him!
So what?
That character is essentially a supporting player now.
Why exactly is it bad to dip into a single level of other classes?
As near as I can tell, because quite a number of DMs just plain personally dislike it. It's not in any way an issue of character power, as has been demonstrated. It's an issue of the player doing something the DM doesn't see the need for, or that contradicts the way the DM feels that things "should" work. That said, why the term "immature munchkin" gets thrown around is completely beyond me. What's the line from Real Genius? "We mock what we do not understand!" Something like that, maybe.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I thought of two literary examples of 3 class multi-classing - some of you might want to reconsider rules against it.
Conan - started as a barbarian, added rogue, then fighter
Grey Mouser - started as a wizard, added rogue, then fighter (maybe stayed as a rogue, but was certainly much better in a fight than other rogues he met.)
I thought of two literary examples of 3 class multi-classing - some of you might want to reconsider rules against it.
Conan - started as a barbarian, added rogue, then fighter
Grey Mouser - started as a wizard, added rogue, then fighter (maybe stayed as a rogue, but was certainly much better in a fight than other rogues he met.)
I tell you what matey, if my players can come up works of fantasy lit as good as the examples you have shown then I will 110% support them dipping in twenty classes if they want to :p
And, of course, Drizzt! Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger!
And, of course, Drizzt! Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger!I thought the French were into cheese...
;)
But Drizzt is a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger I have his stat card some where at home he came with my Gargantuan white dragon.
|
|
So in essence you have a one trick pony. He can't hit anything. He can't cast spells worth a flip. He has no cool abilities that allow him to do amazing things.
BUT he can resist things thrown at him!
So what?
That character is essentially a supporting player now.
And you even have a base class to play this kind of character. It's called Monk.
But Drizzt is a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger I have his stat card some where at home he came with my Gargantuan white dragon.And, of course, Drizzt! Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger!I thought the French were into cheese...
;)
His stats actually make sense from his backstory. And 3e finally enabled them to make the stats somewhat fit the backstory without breaking the rules (before he was a fighter/ranger dualclass, as far as I know, and that broke two rules: fighter/ranger isn't a viable class combination, and only humans can dual-class).
He received a formal martial education as fighter in the drow school of swordery (I can't be bothered to write down the correct name), and became one of the most capable fighters of his city. After he fled from there (because the drow don't like nice people who don't want to kill others for their own pleasure and benefit) he was forced to survive in the Dar... I mean Underdark wilderness for some time, where he became quite feral (hence barbarian with rage). When he finally came to the surface, he found a blind ranger of some nature god (complicated thing with ret-cons in it and I won't bother to recall or recount this, either) and got his ranger on.
The official stats are Ftr10/Brb1/Rng6, as far as I know. Not exactly a munchking build (those would have 4 levels of fighter and/or barbarian and probably none of ranger.)
|
|
But Drizzt is a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger I have his stat card some where at home he came with my Gargantuan white dragon.And, of course, Drizzt! Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger!I thought the French were into cheese...
;)
His stats actually make sense from his backstory. And 3e finally enabled them to make the stats somewhat fit the backstory without breaking the rules (before he was a fighter/ranger dualclass, as far as I know, and that broke two rules: fighter/ranger isn't a viable class combination, and only humans can dual-class).
He received a formal martial education as fighter in the drow school of swordery (I can't be bothered to write down the correct name), and became one of the most capable fighters of his city. After he fled from there (because the drow don't like nice people who don't want to kill others for their own pleasure and benefit) he was forced to survive in the Dar... I mean Underdark wilderness for some time, where he became quite feral (hence barbarian with rage). When he finally came to the surface, he found a blind ranger of some nature god (complicated thing with ret-cons in it and I won't bother to recall or recount this, either) and got his ranger on.
The official stats are Ftr10/Brb1/Rng6, as far as I know. Not exactly a munchking build (those would have 4 levels of fighter and/or barbarian and probably none of ranger.)
I have the FRCS, the build is reasonable, I was just referring to the "cheese" effect of even invoking his name (He is one of the more infamous "mary sues" after all) :)
As far as his classes, NPCs didn't follow the same rules as PCs in first edition. Class combinations closed to player characters were allowed to NPCs, the "unified rule" thing is a 3x invention. Basically, it was whatever the DM needed the NPC to be. Drizzt being a ranger, a barbarian and a fighter was perfectly kosher, and, you have to remember, the novels didn't become "canon" until someone at TSR decided they were when they updated the FRCS for 2e. Before then, novels were novels, and Salvatore's fiction didn't interfere with 1e's campaign setting.
The trouble with any redlining rule is that there it simply makes something else more optimal.
Rule that if you have to take one level of a prestige class, you have to take them all? Well, you've just made a whole list of prestige classes go on the "suboptimal" pile, the first of which is Mindbender, the class that everyone wants the first level of and nobody wants the levels after that. Telepathy is a nice thing, good for all sorts of things, roleplaying included. Losing caster levels? Very much not worth it.
What it would mean for casting classes is that the Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil and the Guild Wizards of Waterdeep would have a membership boom and the rest of everything would pretty much dry up and blow away.
|
|
The trouble with any redlining rule is that there it simply makes something else more optimal.
Rule that if you have to take one level of a prestige class, you have to take them all? Well, you've just made a whole list of prestige classes go on the "suboptimal" pile, the first of which is Mindbender, the class that everyone wants the first level of and nobody wants the levels after that. Telepathy is a nice thing, good for all sorts of things, roleplaying included. Losing caster levels? Very much not worth it.
What it would mean for casting classes is that the Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil and the Guild Wizards of Waterdeep would have a membership boom and the rest of everything would pretty much dry up and blow away.
Well, there's always the hurdle of being accepted into the Guild. That should be a role playing thing, not an automatic because "I really want the skills!"
Seriously, are PrCs "prestigious", or just another class? Just call them "advanced" classes or "skill/feature packets". There is no prestige in a class that only exists to give a character a one level dip to grab a skill set.
As far as his classes, NPCs didn't follow the same rules as PCs in first edition. Class combinations closed to player characters were allowed to NPCs, the "unified rule" thing is a 3x invention.
Didn't know that. 3e is 10 years old, but it keeps looking better each day :D
I really hate when an NPC can do stuff like be a fighter/ranger, but player characters cannot. Either it's possible and players can use it, or it doesn't work. Especially if we're talking about standard stuff like this (I can understand if normal characters won't get Hover or Wingover or poisonous bites)
Rule that if you have to take one level of a prestige class, you have to take them all? Well, you've just made a whole list of prestige classes go on the "suboptimal" pile
Good. If they're only good for one level, they're worthless, anyway.
Why exactly is it bad to dip into a single level of other classes?As near as I can tell, because quite a number of DMs just plain personally dislike it. It's not in any way an issue of character power, as has been demonstrated. It's an issue of the player doing something the DM doesn't see the need for, or that contradicts the way the DM feels that things "should" work.
I think most people can agree that multiclassing should be allowed when it "makes sense". But people differ on what "makes sense" means; some DMs think that learning a new class automatically requires years of training and some don't.
There's also the issue of taking one level of a heavily front-loaded class (like the 3.0 ranger or the shadowdancer). But in that case it's the class that should be fixed, not the player!
|
|
As far as his classes, NPCs didn't follow the same rules as PCs in first edition. Class combinations closed to player characters were allowed to NPCs, the "unified rule" thing is a 3x invention.Didn't know that. 3e is 10 years old, but it keeps looking better each day :D
I really hate when an NPC can do stuff like be a fighter/ranger, but player characters cannot. Either it's possible and players can use it, or it doesn't work. Especially if we're talking about standard stuff like this (I can understand if normal characters won't get Hover or Wingover or poisonous bites)
Well, you would have just LOVED all of the "npc only" classes they came up with in Dragon Magazine back then.
|
|
Good. If they're only good for one level, they're worthless, anyway.
Rule that if you have to take one level of a prestige class, you have to take them all? Well, you've just made a whole list of prestige classes go on the "suboptimal" pile
Absolutely agree 100%. Good for only one level = crappy design.
|
As far as his classes, NPCs didn't follow the same rules as PCs in first edition. Class combinations closed to player characters were allowed to NPCs, the "unified rule" thing is a 3x invention. Basically, it was whatever the DM needed the NPC to be. Drizzt being a ranger, a barbarian and a fighter was perfectly kosher...
Do you remember the spy in Hommlet, who was a 1st-level commoner, but wielded a crossbow like a 7th-level Fighter?
How many PCs got plugged by him over the years?Dieties and Demigods, gave all the gods and heroes virtual class-like abilities.
The Lankhmar setting broke the restrictions on humans being allowed to multi-class (since there weren't many non-human PCs), and the requirement to keep all the classes the same level.
I guess I don't understand people freaking over 4E 'exception-based design', when it's what we had for decades before 3E.
|
|
As far as his classes, NPCs didn't follow the same rules as PCs in first edition. Class combinations closed to player characters were allowed to NPCs, the "unified rule" thing is a 3x invention. Basically, it was whatever the DM needed the NPC to be. Drizzt being a ranger, a barbarian and a fighter was perfectly kosher...Do you remember the spy in Hommlet, who was a 1st-level commoner, but wielded a crossbow like a 7th-level Fighter?
How many PCs got plugged by him over the years?Dieties and Demigods, gave all the gods and heroes virtual class-like abilities.
The Lankhmar setting broke the restrictions on humans being allowed to multi-class (since there weren't many non-human PCs), and the requirement to keep all the classes the same level.
I guess I don't understand people freaking over 4E 'exception-based design', when it's what we had for decades before 3E.
I have no problem with 'exception based design', love it in my 1e. But then, in my 1e, my fighters didn't play like wizards...
There's also the issue of taking one level of a heavily front-loaded class (like the 3.0 ranger or the shadowdancer). But in that case it's the class that should be fixed, not the player!
+1 to this.
|
|
Well, you would have just LOVED all of the "npc only" classes they came up with in Dragon Magazine back then.
Weren't they 'NPC-only', because no player would want them?
I seem to recall that most of them were not suited for adventuring, being tied to a static base, like sages, oracles or alchemists.
|
|
Well, you would have just LOVED all of the "npc only" classes they came up with in Dragon Magazine back then.Weren't they 'NPC-only', because no player would want them?
I seem to recall that most of them were not suited for adventuring, being tied to a static base, like sages, oracles or alchemists.
Some were like that, but some, like beast masters, ninjas (pre OA), samurai (pre OA as well), anti-paladin, and a bunch of others were quite viable as PCs, but were either evil or a bit more powerful than the PC classes.
The other reason they were NPC only was, unless an article was specifically labeled as such, nothing in Dragon was "official". You couldn't use them in a RPGA game. Didn't stop a lot of us from using them as PC classes, but still...
1. I think most people can agree that multiclassing should be allowed when it "makes sense". But people differ on what "makes sense" means.
2. There's also the issue of taking one level of a heavily front-loaded class (like the 3.0 ranger or the shadowdancer). But in that case it's the class that should be fixed, not the player!
Two excellent points there:
1. Agreed. I suppose the trick is to find a DM whose limits on "making sense" are greater than or equal to yours -- or at least who's fun enough to play with that you don't mind the extra limitations (limitations that might well feel artificial, bossy, and overly-restrictive to you).2. Amen!
some, like beast masters, ninjas (pre OA), samurai (pre OA as well), anti-paladin, and a bunch of others were quite viable as PCs, but were either evil or a bit more powerful than the PC classes.
October issue: the Death Master... or the original Duelist, who had d12 HD and was so good a teacher he could grant others a permanent +1 to attack and damage.
All things considered, the "equal opportunity" rule for PCs vs. NPCs is one of my favorite things about 3e.
Absolutely agree 100%. Good for only one level = crappy design.Good. If they're only good for one level, they're worthless, anyway.
Rule that if you have to take one level of a prestige class, you have to take them all? Well, you've just made a whole list of prestige classes go on the "suboptimal" pile
Well then, there's crappy design from the ground up, because a majority of the interesting prestige classes are set up so you cannot immediately enter them at level 6, but instead have to wait for level 8 or 9. Meaning that you need to do something for a couple levels in the mean time, and with the wizard as an example, there's really no incentive to take two levels of that if you're not going back.
Add to that the various gatekeeper feats: you know, the feats that no one, roleplayer or munchkin, would take except to qualify for a prestige class. Then there's stuff like the Loremaster's Secret rebate program: Take one level in Loremaster to get the feat you actually wanted to get rather than the lame feat you had to take to qualify for a particular prestige class.
Meaning that you need to do something for a couple levels in the mean time, and with the wizard as an example, there's really no incentive to take two levels of that if you're not going back.
That's why the Pathfinder version of the wizard does have an incentive to take more levels of wizard (otherwise you're forfeiting a bonus spell and/or a special ability at levels 8 and 20).
I guess I don't understand people freaking over 4E 'exception-based design', when it's what we had for decades before 3E.
In the same vein, I suggest bloodletting as a panacea. Worked for two millenia, why not again?
Another thought:
I dip classes, but I do it when it makes sense for the character. Consider my most recent example:
Lesser Aasimar
Favored Soul 5 /Mystic Wanderer 2 /Heartwarden 10 /Spelldancer 2/ Comtemplative 1
I wanted a divine caster that was a favored soul instead of a trained up cleric. Truthfully I wanted to play up the love and beauty part of Sune's worship as opposed to the foucs on lust and hedenoistic tendencies that most people focused on. I was looking to be not need armor but to not nessecarily have the extras that a monk would, looking in my books I found the Mystic Wanderer, which allows you to add your Cha to your AC while not wearing armor. That was exactly what I wanted, I didn't want armor as that didn't carry the right 'feel'... I did want someone protected by more 'divine forces' instead. Heartwarden provides several Cha bumps which helps increase my AC more, but it also comes with several social skills and an almost bard like ability to instill morale bonuses with a kiss, which had neat flavor. The Mystic Wanderer's need skill points in knowledge nature and herbalism was a good thing for me. This character was raised in a temple of sune but didn't go to the normal class. What did the character do with its time then? Gardening and dance classes. I was looking to play a buffer for the most part and realised that spelldancer would let me buff up my allies for longer without needing divine metamagic cheese to do so (cheese of another flavor I admit, but at least it was a new cheese), while Comtemplative offered up the Joy domain which I really wanted for several spells.
I dipped 3 different classes, had one "legitimate" Prestige Class, and 5 levels as an acceptable step into the prestige classes.
The BAB stinks, as does the HP, but I can do what I want while still filling the character concept and being useful to the other players.
You say that's "non-munchkinised" and I'll take your word for it, but it reeks of munchkin.
Tiefling has, throughout all of 3.5 and maybe all of 3.x, been a top choice for munchkins. Neat ability scores and other racial stuff for a mere +1 LA.
Starting rogue for a single level has always been #1 on the munchkin list for 3.x. 32 skill points at first level and forever getting +1d6 on most of your attacks, assuming you get the right positioning is like ringing the dinner bell in munchkin land.
Level 1 monk is another favorite of munchkins, there are precious few tricks in the book to get +2 to all three saves, decent HP, and a bonus feat (even if it's just Improved Unarmed Strike, mostly useless to many classes).
Continuing with monk and paladin levels to make a brawler with smite evil, invincible saves, and other paladin and monk class abilities is an interesting choice, and may not be strictly munchkinish, since the two lawful classes seem moderately compatible.
But when you put all that into a blender and mix it up, it truly reeks of munchkin. Yes indeed.
I guess the question is whether the player RPed him in a non-munchkin way. But even if the player made it feel "non-munchkinised" through his RP, his mechanics choices still scream munchkin.
Soooo.... Wanting a non vanilla race (and one that has been around for quite some time and very common in the game might I add - for flavor reasons alone) and semi intelligent use of game mechanics makes you a "munchkin"? That is like you saying "roll your stats straight down" and then calling me a "munchkin" for saying I'd like to play a wizard or rogue because my highest 3 scores were a 16 INT, 15 DEX and 16 CON. You can say that is "different" but I'm fairly certain any defense you come up with to that would be pretty flimsy or be really arbitrary. I'd rather not play than not be able to play the character I want when it comes down to it, and it would probably be more fun to watch the game and play the "peanut gallery" than play in the game itself if that is the way it is going to be. I mean we are all supposed to be getting together and have fun right? Someone abstaining from a game is usually a much better eye opener than just playing and being miserable (I've had my fair share of experience with tyrannical DM's).
Well, there's always the hurdle of being accepted into the Guild. That should be a role playing thing, not an automatic because "I really want the skills!"
Seriously, are PrCs "prestigious", or just another class? Just call them "advanced" classes or "skill/feature packets". There is no prestige in a class that only exists to give a character a one level dip to grab a skill set.
PrC's are mostly a "this is another class" by design. Very few PrC's actually have a "you need to meet X role-playing requirement" to enter. The one I can remember off the top of my head from Core was the Warmind which stated specifically you needed to be trained by someone from the PrC or have access to their books. Mostly PrC's exist as a way to fulfill certain concepts that you simply cannot achieve with just the base classes. Think of the Beastmaster, you cannot have a character who has a bunch of animal companions in core, so a PrC comes in to fill that gap.
The reason is very simple, a role-playing approach to requirements into a PrC ends up being very arbitrary and if the DM wants to be a dick about it, can keep you from doing something that there is no good reason not to (other than they don't like it). Not all games are equal and it gives a justification to "that" DM by allowing them to say "Here look, you have never run into these people so you cannot take this PrC" (and you never will because I'm not going to put them someplace accessible to you) - instead it forces the DM to just sound like a jerk when they say "No, I don't like that PrC so you can't play it even if you do have all the requirements to get into it."
As for the "dip" into any class, any ability that is really powerful is almost never in the first level and if it is there is some limiting factor (generally, there are always exceptions). It is usually within the first 3-4 levels, if it is an ability that is supposed to "develop" as you level it has to be, you only have at best a 10 level spread - and you end up taking a few class levels for that reason, so it gets better. If you only get the ability at the last level (in a 10 level PrC) it have better be a damn good ability and a couple of reasons to take the 9 levels before it (caster PrC's used to be different, full progression and whatever gravy the rest of the class abilities were in 3.5).
This is unfortunately a flaw to the d20 system, at least in my opinion. To play the character concept I want, I usually have to "waste" time taking levels of X, Y or Z (read here as "multiclass munchkinhood" apparently) to get to something resembling what I want. Other games systems allow me to get the "core" of my concept from the beginning (even if it may be damn weak), and increase as the character levels. I love having to wait around, yawn and try to survive and for 6 levels before I can start getting into the character I wanted to play don't you? /sarcasm