|
One of the great beauties of the PFRPG is that it makes you think twice about multi-classing. So many class abilites are not front-end loaded and depend on levels in that class (cleric, wizard, sorcerer and bard spring to mind immediately), that it makes it an angonizing choice whether to sacrifice those more powerful abilities in exchange for a broader range of lower level ones.
So far, I've not multiclassed once in the 4 major PC's I've put together using Pathfinder, and I used to dabble all over the place with my class choices. Quite a change IMO, so a rule to govern it does not seem nescessary.
What is the big deal. Why is this even an issue
What is the big deal. Why is this even an issue
A very... fitting comment give your current avatar (Sexy Shoeless God of War) who was know to have dipped Barbarian, and the characters general attitude. Comical :D .
The biggest abuse I've seen with multiclassing tends to, as other have said, come from Prestige Classes more then base classes. This does seem like this is one of those wonderful situations that used to be covered by the optional rules for training times and such. Training rules were/are a refuge for a DM who has trouble saying no, as they can always justify the lack of teachers for troublesome extra material.
Aside from many of the suggestions already put forward point out DM control over the Prestige Class (which was never stated boldly enough in the various supplements for my tastes), I can only think of the system used in Anima: Beyond Fantasy which requires a character/player to declare a class changed 4 level in advance, and roleplaying through that change is strongly. The one fact that won't work for this is that Anima is point buy based and the character is supposed to start buying class related abilities before the switch actually takes place.
Now without wading throught the 200 posts in this thread, has anyone mentioned the XP penalty for multiclassing? That should be disincentive enough, I would think.
When in doubt, first read the Pathfinder Beta rules, then read the thread, and then post. Skipping the first two steps is not recommended.
|
Now without wading throught the 200 posts in this thread, has anyone mentioned the XP penalty for multiclassing? That should be disincentive enough, I would think.When in doubt, first read the Pathfinder Beta rules, then read the thread, and then post. Skipping the first two steps is not recommended.
To be fair it's not that obvious that the multiclass penalty is gone entirely in PFRPG, is it (and it was omitted from the 3.5 PhB that it wasn't there for PrCs)?
The lack of PrC exp penalty was omitted from the 3.5 DMG section and was one of the first FAQ/errata. Actually this was one contributing factor for PrC dipping over base classes. I've seen some of my more aggressive power gamers go through all kinds of contortions to avoid even just the most basic exp penalty. One good thing under Pathfinder is they won't have a driving force that tends to obfuscate their characters. I'd rather they 'dip' then spend hours trying to 'not-not-dip'.
Speaking of rules to boil the blood, does anyone remember the short lived apprentice levels from 3.0? :D (which as an avid multi-classer, I liked).
|
|
When in doubt, first read the Pathfinder Beta rules, then read the thread, and then post. Skipping the first two steps is not recommended.
My bad for not specifying 3.5 rules. I should have been more clear. That being said, the snark was neither necessary nor appreciated.
PFPRG, indeed, does not have multiclassing penalties because it has made it desireable to play the entire class from 1-20 with lots of great abilities and options. 3.5, being an older edition, did not have that advantage and thus needed some other sort of mechanic to limit the multiclassing nightmare. I prefer the PF carrot to the 3.5 stick myself. :)
When in doubt, first read the Pathfinder Beta rules, then read the thread, and then post. Skipping the first two steps is not recommended.My bad for not specifying 3.5 rules. I should have been more clear. That being said, the snark was neither necessary nor appreciated.
PFPRG, indeed, does not have multiclassing penalties because it has made it desireable to play the entire class from 1-20 with lots of great abilities and options. 3.5, being an older edition, did not have that advantage and thus needed some other sort of mechanic to limit the multiclassing nightmare. I prefer the PF carrot to the 3.5 stick myself. :)
I am more ambiguous about my carrot and stick preferences. I do prefer the carrot for Fighters, Barbarians and other Warrior-classes, but I would prefer a stick for the casters instead of making them more powerful as a carrot to encourage players not to auto-switch to prestige classes.
Speaking of rules to boil the blood, does anyone remember the short lived apprentice levels from 3.0? :D (which as an avid multi-classer, I liked).
I loved the apprentice rules. It kills me that they didn't reprint them in 3.5, but I suspect it'd have required them to put up apprentice level abilities for every supplement base class that they published. They may have decided it wasn't worth it to them.
|
Munchkins are a well defined subset of the gaming universe, use your google-fu.A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills," and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun.Like I said, in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, this applies best to single-classed clerics and wizards...
I agree....if the player is working all the numbers to make his character fit into the definition you provided. Some people play perfectly fine single-classed clerics and wizards. They see certain things in the game and restrict themselves (Holy word, I am looking at you, among others) for the benefit of the group. I call them team players or simply, mature gamers playing a fun game. I have one munchkin-like guy in my group that knows all the tricks to make great characters but he would rather aim for interesting builds that are sometimes powerful, but always have weaknesses. He's the only guy I've ever seen that could make a broken bard. The dude was giving the group a +5 attack and a +6 damage at 9th level when he sang. I forget how he did it but it was all legit by RAW. He did it because every told him that bards suck and not to play one. Once everyone saw what he could do he retired the PC and made another bard that was less broken and he was still good.
|
|
Speaking of rules to boil the blood, does anyone remember the short lived apprentice levels from 3.0? :D (which as an avid multi-classer, I liked).I loved the apprentice rules. It kills me that they didn't reprint them in 3.5, but I suspect it'd have required them to put up apprentice level abilities for every supplement base class that they published. They may have decided it wasn't worth it to them.
I also liked the Apprentice rules. I wonder if there is someway I could get a copy of them without having to buy a 3.0 book? I would love to try to tweak them to work in Pathfinder but I sold my 3.0 books.
He's the only guy I've ever seen that could make a broken bard. The dude was giving the group a +5 attack and a +6 damage at 9th level when he sang. I forget how he did it but it was all legit by RAW. He did it because every told him that bards suck and not to play one. Once everyone saw what he could do he retired the PC and made another bard that was less broken and he was still good.
I think you are speaking of a Bard with
1) Word of Creation (BoED): double bonuses from Inspire Courage (and other Bardic Musics) taking subdual damage
2) Song of the Heart (ECS): adds an additional +1 bonus to those granted by Inspire Courage (and I think other features, too)
3) Using a Horn (Complete Adventurer, I believe) reduces the lingering time of Inspire Courage but adds an additional +1 to damage
At 9th level, Inspire Courage +2, x2 (Word of Creation), +1 (Song of the Heart) = +5 attack & damage, plus Horn = +5 attack, +6 damage
(I'm well informed since one of my players took the SAME combo... although he recently agreed to change those feats on my suggestion; plus, he was not enjoying his Bard with such bonuses, since the whole party treated him like a juke-box 'What are you waiting for !?! SING !!! What, you actually want to cast something ? Nah, forget and JUST SING !!!')
Oye if he wants to cast something while singing all he needs is the "Melodic Casting" feat from Complete Mage. It also has the nice side effect of turning perform into your concentration skill.
I am all for all kind of multiclassing. It spice up the play.
maybe a bb2/rgr2/ftr2 is a big bad mofo for lvl6 but you really miss up on high level features.
I not only allow mutliclassing, but in fact actively encourage it. I tossed out the mutliclass penalty years ago when I realised that we weren't even using it in practise.
I think 3.x's multiclassing was among it's very greatest of ideas, and idea of such simple brilliance I often asked myself why no-one had ever thought of it before. Indeed, my biggest single beef with 4E was it's removal.
As such, I don't view classes as professions (ironically, given my Rolemaster background) but merely a collection of abilities to be mixed and matched by the players.
I, out of both our groups, and the one with all the books and who know them best. I'm also the primary DM, doing what I reckon is just slightly over half the net DMing in both groups.
I don't allow or disallow books. I allow or disallow material from books. Comes from my Rolemaster background where it was impossible to use all of anyone book. Nothing it sacred from being disallowed in Core either. (No, you may not have spiked armour or most racial double weapons). As a rule, I allow all base class (except Complete Warrior Samurai which is removed for being so bad it's beyond boosting; a properly geared Fighter can do better), spells and feats. But, yes, I actually have master lists of what is and is not available (which also serve as an index of where all those things are!)
PrC are examinined as soon as got the book, and decisions made. When playing on my own worlds, I have a very specific idea of what the flavour is. Anything that's world specific (i.e. guild related or whatnot) also usually gets the heave-ho unless it's sufficently good as to warrent reflavouring. If it has restrictitve or non-generic flavour, it's likely to be out, on principle. Secondly, the PrC must pass the Stupid test; I.e. I look at the class and say: "Is this Too Stupid?"
This extend to other areas; you will have a very narrow choice of player races, since I like to keep the number of races down and make each culture different. And each race is often redeigned to boot. I find most races outside the Big Four (human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling) and the Bad Guys (Kobold, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Orc) to be generally Untidy and keep them to a minimum. (Certainly, any races beyond Core are flat-out non-existant.) Also, any equipment outside of Core and fair chunk of that is disallowed for being Too Stupid. Classic examples are most of the exotic racial double weapons in Core, Sword & Fist's tumbling bolt (shudder) and the later Complete Scoundral Rust-Monster-on-a-stick.
Actually, the tumbling bolt deserves a special mention for being quite probably the Most Stupid Thing I Have Ever Encountered.
As I once said:
Who can forget the delight of Sword and Fist's tumbling bolt? I certainly can't, and I've tried. Even after repeatedly cleaning my skull with anti-francium, the horror remains.
Yes, let's make the attack more accurate by making it aerodynamically unstable. (Fer crying out loud, they used the word tumble! If you had an aircraft 'tumble' it usually means it's about to make unwelcome aquaintence with the ground, assuming it gets that far!)
This is not so much raping the laws of physics (which D&D and fantasy do as a perfectly acceptable matter of course), as violating the laws of physics in front of it's parents, juvenile siblings, various friends and acquaintences and the Pope (replace with any nonevil ecclesiastical personality of your choice), then sueing the laws of physics for damages incurred and winning.
Ahem. But I digress...
Within those boundries, though, the players are generally allowed to go to town (if I'm running not on my world, I disallow only things not pertient to that world or that pass the Stupidity barrier.)
In fact, they had better do because the monsters very defintely will. I rarely if ever use stock monsters (assuming I've not toosed away the MM entriely as at least I've done with one world); usually opposotion is characters who are optimised as well or better than those of the players. That's just our playstyle. (We are mostly wargamers after all.)
Oye if he wants to cast something while singing all he needs is the "Melodic Casting" feat from Complete Mage. It also has the nice side effect of turning perform into your concentration skill.
He had that feat too, but it was too much cheesy for my taste, so I asked him to remove it. He had also Inspirational Boost (a spell from SPC), which basically boosts Inspire Courage of another additional +1; the worst thing of the spell was the duration itself, however...
Duration: as long as the Bardic Music continues
Can you figure a Bard who basically starts to sing in the first room of the Dungeon, or at the first encounter of the day, and then KEEPS SINGING all time long ??? Well, this basically was what happened every time. Of course, no surprise was possible ('Brave, brave Sir Garrick' is not useful for a stealth operation...), plus he was stuck not being able to speak with his comrades - no, as much as I like my players to do epic things, this was too silly for me.
As much as I would love to see a more useful Bard, these combos were too much for my taste... +5 to hit/damage (or more) at 9th level, with a group of 4/5 other characters aside from the Bard means free Power Attack for everybody (average of -1 to hit, +17 to damage with a +6 STR and Two-Handed weapon - as happened in my group) and a HUGE boost in offensive abilities. Every challenge had to be 'pumped up' in order to keep the pace of the characters... at the risk of 'pumping up' too much, and making a TPK.
You know, after lot of years of being too much permissive, the risk of being too much strict is just around the corner. But do you know the funny thing? After being stripped of all those feats (of course, I gave him the possiblity to change them, since it was under my permission that he could took them - a single feat or spell can do only little damage, and took by themselves didn't look too much on paper), he just the other day told me 'It was a long time I didn't enjoy myself so much playing this character... Now I'm not forced to use my Bardic Perform anymore, and can actually do other things !'. Not that he couldn't do even before - the fact was, if he didn't Inspire Courage all the time the party was under the impression that he wasn't useful at all, which is plain wrong (Discordant Performance, Dirge of Doom, Irresistible Laughter, Hold Monster, HUGE bonuses on Knowledge checks...)
Sometimes, being too good at something is more of a hindrance than a benefit (see Spontaneous Healing of Good Clerics in 3.x before the introduction of Channel Energy in PFRPG).
EDIT: sorry, I derailed the topic too much...
Once everyone saw what he could do he retired the PC and made another bard that was less broken and he was still good.
So that is "broken" or "munchkin-ie" build to you? It doesn't seem to fit the definition provided via wikipedia is the only reason I ask. Not to mention that with all that is invested in making the build, a simple silence spell completely messes with its ability to do what it was built to. It is also not exactly a very glorious build, yeah it does something very well, but you are sitting there making everyone else better. I'm also doubting it gets much better from that point on, my guess is that build peaked right about there. In the 11 levels left it might get to double, but at that point the other casters have bypassed and exceeded your abilities. It is similar to the role of cleric "Buff me and cast healing spells while you sit behind the rest of us." Most "munchkins" are intending to be the best by most peoples posts so far, not make everyone else good.
Which brings me to another point, something that steals the spot light has been stated to be "broken" or a sign of munchkinhood. Good choices in abilities, spells, etc. will make a character perform better and "steal the spot light" from sub par choices on other characters end. Sub par choices are sub par choices, you can still "role play" a character who made good choices just as easily. Poor choices in creating a character say "I don't know the rules" (or "I'm a moron" I guess is a possibility) not "I am a role player." Good choices, intelligent character creation, or knowing the rules well has nothing to do with being a "munchkin." If one player builds a social character and you spend the majority of the time out adventuring all the sudden the other character who was built with adventuring in mind is "broken"? And a character who can fill multiple roles must be "broken" right? How many peoples toes are they stepping on? It is up to the DM to make sure all the characters can shine in their respective roles, not the other characters. If, as a DM, you have a character who is overshadowing the others, how can you honestly blame them?
I mean many people post how they spent time on a setting and the characters should bow down and sacrifice their "fun" (Not allowed to multiclass, have to tell the DM what I plan to do, can't use the books I spent money on, and any of the other things posted that keep a player from making the concept they wanted) for the sake of the setting. Now I go and take that into account, create a decent build that is good at what it does with what I am allowed to use and apparently take the spot light, which makes me a munchkin? If a character is built within the guidelines that the DM provides I would hope that the DM has the ability or know how to create a world where I can enjoy myself without having to worry about the spot light. If I'm in the spot light regularly despite that, I would have to say the other characters are either sub par or the DM not being up for the job are possibilities and probably more likely than me being a "munchkin" or powergamer. Just something to consider.
Personally, our normal DM has always had an "anything" goes attitude in his campaign setting. We have never run into this occurance of "stealing the spotlight" so I have to seriously wonder what is happening in others games and if maybe the added restrictions might even be playing a part in it (And God knows we have used just about everything, when something came out that fit a previous character concept better we rewrote asap). I guess by many of your standards we are all munchkins and powergamers now because of that, regardless of the truth of the matter. As I said before I seriously oppose this "things are not appropriate in my setting" idea, our DM makes it work with a minimum of fuss, so I know it is not impossible. PC's are supposed to be the cream of the crop, the exceptions to the rule, the strange and powerful who stand out above the norm (paraphrased, but you'll find that in the books as well). Just like the main characters of stories, novels, comic books etc. that are the typical staple concept from which characters are made in one variation of another. You give some sort of "setting" and I'm sure someone will be able to give some literary source in which the build you are complaining about exisits. It is a fanatasy game and when it comes to imagination the sky is supposed to be the limit, not some glass ceiling, no? How come the DM is allowed to have no limitation on what is implemented in the "game" but the players have to be restricted?
As for the PrC's, anytime I see something that the DM cannot back by the rules they always have the "Rule 0" to fall back on. A line or two in the book doesn't really mean anything in the face of books upon books of contradictory information. Hell the errata states when in doubt the core books are to be followed as the official rules, yet other books (and maybe even statements from the designers) state if something was rewritten in a more recent publication it is the official ruling, it is a matter of having your cake and eating it too "officially". The rules may say the DM is always right, but that is like saying the customer is always right... It is an outright lie. Most people saying it is right to limit multiclassing or this or that will also say that its a game and they can do what they want and the rules aren't really rules, they can change things and do as they seem fit... Like arbitrarily saying this works or this doesn't, or you can use this and not that in "their game." To me that sounds like the DM trying to "win," its my sandbox and you have to play this way or go home. I fail to see how a certain character build or concept ruins an entire campaign setting when a player wants to play it. It is fluff, which leads to role playing and the player gets to play what they wanted and have fun in the setting the DM put so much effort into, where is the problem in that?
If PrC's were truly intended to be prestigious and rare or even more ludicris given the rule set, not used, we wouldn't have a list of PrC's that fill a small book (take a look at the PrC pdf at crystalkeep). Which leaves the DM creating a PrC for every character concept that can't be filled by the core classes (Even more work, because the core leaves a lot to be desired - see my previous post about not being able to a character concept from the get go) or not allowing PrC's at all (which leaves a huge hole in the game). Yes I might be able to do a character concept in another game system from the ground up but as this is the world's most popular fantasy role-playing game" I'm kinda stuck playing it you know? And it isn't like it was an issue in previous editions either, being able to play character concepts from the get go was fairly easy in past editions (aka the "old" multiclass). The new 3.0 system is where it became an issue so I'm fairly confident my complaint that it is an issue is more than valid. Maybe more so considering people are arguing for limitations on multiclassing, limiting and possibly eliminating possible character concepts from play outright. Actually considering that Paizo has decided to remove the multiclassing penalty that existed makes me think they agree as well, let the players play what they want and enjoy, seems to be their agenda.
Back on topic (again, sorry for the derailed post):
I don't see the need of a hard rule for allowing/forbidding multiclassing; every time a character gains a level, it should be a matter of circumstances and background, however (IMHO).
This is the reason I introduced years ago the concept of 'Training'... since a session can last a month of playtime - during an uneventful travel - or a single encounter - the final battle with the BBEG and his cohorts (I would not use the term 'Minions' ;) ...), I do not allow my players to level up at the end of the session. They have to stay 'idle' for a while (not too much.. a couple of weeks is enough) to practice in order to level up. Of course, the level they want to take can only be taken if either 1)it is a class they already have, or 2)it is a class somebody already possesses and has time to teach them (like another character, or somebody in town, or anyone else). In this case, the 'training time' is usually more long. I know that a 1st level character (Wizard) had to study for years before gaining his first level, but this is a decent compromise I found - and incidentally, it's even mentioned in the PHB in two instances: Multiclassing (when it says that the good Lidda has to find a mentor or see her friend Mialee casting spells for a while in order to gain one level in the Wizard class) and the sidebar 'Access to Skills' (where it says that it is reasonable to not allow a character to take ranks in Profession (sailor) while in the desert...)
Just my 2c.
Unfortunately "reasonableness" is extremely subjective. What is reasonable to someone is unreasonable to another even though they might agree on everything else besides one particular point. For a player it is not "unreasonable" to want to take a PrC that fits with and fulfills the character concept they want to play, but there are posters here saying that it shouldn't be allowed because it is too many classes/munchkinish (not even taking into account which classes) or that it is some sort of burden on the game to do so because the DM doesn't want to allow it (for whatever reasons).
Don't get me wrong I'm for the character investing something into getting into a class at times (certain PrC's or classes don't really have a role-playing lead in you have to admit) but I'm not going to say that it is a must have either. Stories are full of "normal" people waking up with or discovering new found abilities that they never had access to, the PC's shouldn't be any different. If the PC wants to role play a hard working studious apprentice cool, if they want to play someone who all the sudden develops magical powers that is no different.
As a group game the players should have as much freedom as they need to play the character they want, just like the DM has the freedom to create the world they are traveling through. DM's shouldn't have carte blanche and the intelligent or creative players being restricted with the only other option being "don't play/find somewhere else to play." I don't know about everyone else but I don't play the game for the sake of the game, I go to hang out with my friends and spend time with them, I'm fairly certain that isn't a realistic option even if I were to consider it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What kind of abuse are you guys seeing that can't be mitigated through limiting the number of splat books a player can use?
One of the best suggestions I've seen along this line is that in a campaign each character (not player) may bring 1 splat book into character creation.
How would that work, if someone wanted to play, oh, say, an Ardent, a (pretty balanced-to-weak) base class from the Complete Psionic? Would they not have access to the material in the Expanded Psionics Handbook? THat would be difficult to develop.
Snip:
I know that a 1st level character (Wizard) had to study for years before gaining his first level,
This is easy to wave aside.
I assume that anyone with the natural talent, the "gift" for magic, can be taught to be a wizard in weeks, maybe even days.
I further assume that any PC who says "I want to take a level of wizard" has that natural talent, they've just never used it until now.
So, why then does it take years of training to be a wizard?
1. That training comes with all kinds of irrelevent stuff, skill points dumped into Knowledge (The Planes) etc., none of which helps you cast a better magic missile.
2. Old wizards who take on an apprentice are looking for cheap labor. Someone to sweep the stairs, clean the lab, fetch the components, etc. Much like when a knight takes a squire - he could teach him most of what it takes to be a knight in days, but that squire is currying the horse and soveling the stables for years before he gets his shot). So the old mage drags it out, teaches his apprentice nearly nothing, holds him back, for the sake of prolonging the free labor.
Given all those assumptions (purely my assumptions, of course; none of this is officially written somewhere), it's easy to assume a skilled wizard can teach a newbie wizard (with the natural talent) to cast a handful of spells in just a matter of days: "OK, move your hands like this, say this funny word, and make sure you have a pinch of sand in your beltpouch - now you try. Sweet, you got it! Well done!"
Much like when a knight takes a squire - he could teach him most of what it takes to be a knight in days
As DM, I've often used that logic, but sometimes it depends on the group, how much of it they'll accept. While it's true in D&D land, learning to wield a sword effectively against an armored opponent, and to strike with a lance from horseback, actually do take years in reality. Not that D&D should necessarily worry too awfully much about what's "real," but some players are more sensitive than others to greater or lesser variations in the things that are different. With most groups, it's probably no problem, but some may find it annoying.
Much like when a knight takes a squire - he could teach him most of what it takes to be a knight in daysAs DM, I've often used that logic, but sometimes it depends on the group, how much of it they'll accept. While it's true in D&D land, learning to wield a sword effectively against an armored opponent, and to strike with a lance from horseback, actually do take years in reality. Not that D&D should necessarily worry too awfully much about what's "real," but some players are more sensitive than others to greater or lesser variations in the things that are different. With most groups, it's probably no problem, but some may find it annoying.
Maybe those things do take years in real life.
But they take years in D&D, too.
A knight can teach you how to hold a sword and swing a sword in a few days. How to sit a horse (in medieval times or D&D you probably would alredy know how to sit a horse) and how to hold a lance in a few days - the same few days, really.
A few practice sessions, sparring a bit with wooden swords, and you're trained. In days, not years.
In real world terms, you're a stupid noob, and any decent fighter will cut you to ribbons. In D&D world terms, you're level 1.
In both worlds, you now keep practicing and training and get better, go up levels, as you expand and extend your skills.
The concept still works.
A knight can teach you how to hold a sword and swing a sword in a few days. How to sit a horse (in medieval times or D&D you probably would alredy know how to sit a horse) and how to hold a lance in a few days - the same few days, really.
Except we're talking, in game terms, getting the whole 1st level fighter package: heavy, light, and medium armor proficiency; shields proficiency (including tower shields); proficiency with ALL martial weapons (including bows, maces, flails, swords, etc.); skills that you had no knowledge of before (riding and weaponsmithing to the level of skill of a trained entry-level professional -- in-class skills -- and maybe a smattering of military history as well if you're human); a substantial improvement in your ability to survive in combat (1d10 hp and +1 BAB); and another feat to top it off (say, Combat Expertise), and all of this is being learned in a few days?
Like I said, in D&D land that's fine, especially because PCs are exceptional. But I challenge you personally to learn all that in a few days. Heavy armor proficiency alone would take more practice than that.
But I challenge you personally to learn all that in a few days. Heavy armor proficiency alone would take more practice than that.
Playing devil's advocate here, but what exactly is "heavy armor proficiency" anyway?
As far as I can tell, it's knowing how to buckle the armor on so it won't fall off your body.
I can learn that in an hour.
Heavy armor proficiency won't let me jump higher, swim farther, climb higher, or run faster. All those skills and movement rates are affected exactly the same regardless of whether I have the feat.
Now, without the proficiency, I would be required to apply the armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, but I think pretty much all movement-based skill checks apply the armor check penalty anyway, so that last part is a little nonsensical.
But surely, taking a -6 (for example) on attack rolls for lack of the Heavy Armor Profiency would be a huge problem.
But, devil's advocate here, what is the reason for the -6 to hit?
Is it the weight? If so, then why does the profiency teach me how to ignore the weight when I swing my sword but not ignore the weight when I climb a tree?
No, logically, the only difference between proficient (being weighed down and taking all those armor check penalties anyway) and not proficient (the same armor check penalties but also attack roll penalties) is that when you're not proficient, your armor gets in the way. It limits your mobility, keeps you from moving your arm, swinging your sword, the way you want to.
Because you put it on wrong. Not because it's heavy or uncomfortable.
Simply because you buckled the tasset to your shoulder and the poleyn to your elbow.
Learn how to put it on right, and now you can hit your enemies, but it's still heavy and uncomfortable and still slows you down, still makes it hard to run and jump and swim and climb. But at least you can attack.
That's what you learn in an hour. How to put it on.
It's not rocket science. A dozen pieces of metal with a few dozen leather straps. And once you figure out that a gusset is not a codpiece, the rest is simple.
An hour to learn and you're set.
/devil's advocate
My simple rule was any time you have more then one class if they get more then two levels apart you suffer a 10% earned experince point penalty. So a level 4 cleric level 8 fighter would suffer 10%, but a level 1 rogue, level 1 ranger, level 8 fighter would suffer a 20% as would a level 8 fighter level 9 ranger level 1 cleric, in both cases there is a class at least 2 levels away from 2 other classes.
Prestige classes were not included in this.
I know it is a bit harsh and inflexible but it worked wonders for my purposes.
It's not rocket science. A dozen pieces of metal with a few dozen leather straps. And once you figure out that a gusset is not a codpiece, the rest is simple. An hour to learn and you're set.
Talking real life, not game stuff, let me speak a bit from actual peronal experience here. One could argue that I'm so dumb it takes me hundreds of times longer to learn simple tricks as it does anyone else; all I can say is that I may be a bit slow in some areas, but I'm not THAT slow.
1. Having worked in full HAZMAT gear (which is actually MUCH lighter and easier to wear than a suit of full plate) I can attest that it's not about "just knowing how to buckle it on." Getting used to moving around and acting while in a bulky, constrictive suit takes practice -- a lot of it. Not because you put it on wrong, but because working under those conditions is a skill, not an automatic thing. One doesn't just magically gain this new skill by having the gear put on you correctly. An hour certianly doesn't come close to cutting it. Even now, I couldn't fight at full efficiency in that kind of getup; not by a long shot. Sure, it's not rocket science -- it's a kinesthetic skill, not a mental one -- but it's not watching TV, either.
2. Likewise, being actually proficient with a weapon (avoiding the -4 nonproficiency penalty, in game terms) takes more than knowing which end is sharp. Having learned to use knives, paired sticks, and various other weapons -- and later an M-14, for that matter -- I can again attest from personal experience that gaining "proficiency" to the point where they're as accurate as a fist takes a good deal of practice -- it's not something you can "just pick up" by having someone show you. Our would-be knight has to take an actual heavy flail and try to swinging it at a tree. Then try it while on horseback. And do it until it's second nature -- in other words, until it's equally as accurate as his fist. Now he does this with a lance. And with swords of all sizes. And polearms. And a composite longbow. All this takes a lot of time, and a lot of practice, except in the world of the imagination.
3. Have you taken horseback riding lessons before? I have, and a day wasn't anywhere near enough to get me to the point where I'd be able to gallop around and fight from horseback. It takes a lot more than knowing which direction is forward and how to mount.
* And is an hour long enough to learn to operate a forge and make a useable sword? A person with 1 rank in Craft (Weaponsmithing) has enough skill to make a sword, a dagger, a mace, or whatever -- not just for show, but for actual sustained use in warfare -- without any help.
And is an hour long enough to learn to operate a forge and make a useable sword? A person with 1 rank in Craft (Weaponsmithing) has enough skill to make a sword, a dagger, a mace, or whatever -- not just for show, but for actual sustained use in warfare -- without any help.
That last bit was a bad D&D example: Craft isn't a "trained only" skill, so anyone in the D&D universe can make a sword (or whatever) as long as they have the tools and aren't particularly stupid.
That last bit was a bad D&D example
They're ALL bad D&D examples -- every one of them. My point is that, in game-land, people can learn in a few days (or are somehow born knowing) what real-life people need years to learn. And we accept that as part of the game, the way we accept that people can throw fireballs -- even though we know from personal experince that it's totally absurd.
That last bit was a bad D&D exampleThey're ALL bad D&D examples -- every one of them.
Right, but you specifically implied that one rank of Craft (weaponsmith) is equivalent to getting years of training in blacksmithing. It's not, in 3.X D&D; it's the equivalent of gaining a small additional bit of training in blacksmithing.
Right, but you specifically implied that one rank of Craft (weaponsmith) is equivalent to getting years of training in blacksmithing. It's not, in 3.X D&D; it's the equivalent of gaining a small additional bit of training in blacksmithing.
Ah, I see what you're saying. All I can say is that it's beyond any rational explanation, in English, that an "untrained" person, without supervision, can walk up to a forge, light it up, and on his first try make a useable sword -- not unless "untrained" is doublespeak for "highly-trained." Now, maybe that's so, and everyone in Golarion was an apprentice smith at some point -- but that's another matter.
The fact that people do get attack penalties for nonproficiency in weapons and armor implies that the practice with these things is NOT universally assumed. Stick with the other examples, then, and ignore the Craft issue (until they fix it in the errata that it's not useable untrained, or else specify that everyone in the world IS somehow trained).
It's not rocket science. A dozen pieces of metal with a few dozen leather straps. And once you figure out that a gusset is not a codpiece, the rest is simple. An hour to learn and you're set.Talking real life, not game stuff, let me speak a bit from actual peronal experience here. One could argue that I'm so dumb it takes me hundreds of times longer to learn simple tricks as it does anyone else; all I can say is that I may be a bit slow in some areas, but I'm not THAT slow.
1. Having worked in full HAZMAT gear (which is actually MUCH lighter and easier to wear than a suit of full plate) I can attest that it's not about "just knowing how to buckle it on." Getting used to moving around and acting while in a bulky, constrictive suit takes practice -- a lot of it. Not because you put it on wrong, but because working under those conditions is a skill, not an automatic thing. One doesn't just magically gain this new skill by having the gear put on you correctly. An hour certianly doesn't come close to cutting it. Even now, I couldn't fight at full efficiency in that kind of getup; not by a long shot. Sure, it's not rocket science -- it's a kinesthetic skill, not a mental one -- but it's not watching TV, either.
2. Likewise, being actually proficient with a weapon (avoiding the -4 nonproficiency penalty, in game terms) takes more than knowing which end is sharp. Having learned to use knives, paired sticks, and various other weapons -- and later an M-14, for that matter -- I can again attest from personal experience that gaining "proficiency" to the point where they're as accurate as a fist takes a good deal of practice -- it's not something you can "just pick up" by having someone show you. Our would-be knight has to take an actual heavy flail and try to swinging it at a tree. Then try it while on horseback. And do it until it's second nature -- in other words, until it's equally as accurate as his fist. Now he does this with a lance. And with swords of all sizes. And polearms. And a...
To start - I absolutely agree with you that this stuff requires training. And in real life, training takes time.
In the game, all of this training is abstracted as class abilities and feats. Even a mage can learn weapon or armor proficiency without multiclassing or time. All it takes is to take the proficiency feat. Poof. He's proficient.
If you want an in-game abstraction, or justification, you could require a player with a mage who wanted to take a level in fighter to in-game do fighter like training. (I'll pick up a suit of armor, and wear it in my off time to get used to the weight, and feel. I'll sleep in it. I'll practice eating with heavy gauntlets on.) It reminds me very much of reading Heinlein's "Have Spacesuit Will Travel" where the protagonist wins a Lunar Pressure Suit in a contest, and sets about not only bringing it up to operational condition, but training himself to be proficient in its use.
Or you could accept that all knowledge/training/ability/adaptability of a heroic D&D character is far accelerated beyond what you or me or the average town guard or local priest would be capable of and that he simply was able to learn the class abilities, but until he decided to become a fighter/mage/rogue/whatever, he never took the time out to make a quick study of the techniques involved.
If you allocate training time (we use 2 weeks of training for the height of the level you are training into - thus to go from level 3 to level 4 requires 8 weeks), then a fifth level character taking a first level of a new class would train for 2 weeks - enough to fill in the gaps between what he already knew as an adventurer and what he will need for his new class.
If you don't allocate training time, then you still have to deal with the concept that a first level wizard can progress up to uber-mage in a relatively short number of days. Not to mix apples and oranges too much, but we are doing a 4e campaign where total in-world game time is on the order of 2-3 weeks, but the entire party has progressed from 1st to 8th level. I can justify this to myself as the sink-or-swim approach (or learn-quick-or-die-trying approach). There is the general maxim that training only goes so far, it's the life or death battle where the real schooling/sorting of heroes from the dead happens.
If you don't allocate training time, then you still have to deal with the concept that a first level wizard can progress up to uber-mage in a relatively short number of days.
YES! That's a great point, and another area where some players are irked a lot more than others. In 1st edition, it took years of playing to get to like 12th level, and very few people got much higher than that. In 3rd edition, you go from 1st to 20th over the course of a 6-month AP (playing time) which might occur over the course of 3 weeks' game time. Much like learning to be a trained knight in a few days, it's something that has absolutely no basis in reality, but it's something most of us accept as being part of the game -- either through rationalizations such as yours, or through hand-waving.
Some people are annoyed by this more than others, though, which is why you need to really know your players. If they're not people who have an easy tolerance for these sorts of miracles, it's easy enough to alter the storyline just enough so that there's sufficient "down time" to allow for training, study, etc. -- a small price to pay for a greater sense of immersion.
|
|
If you don't allocate training time, then you still have to deal with the concept that a first level wizard can progress up to uber-mage in a relatively short number of days.YES! That's a great point, and another area where some players are irked a lot more than others. In 1st edition, it took years of playing to get to like 12th level, and very few people got much higher than that. In 3rd edition, you go from 1st to 20th over the course of a 6-month AP (playing time) which might occur over the course of 3 weeks' game time. Much like learning to be a trained knight in a few days, it's something that has absolutely no basis in reality, but it's something most of us accept as being part of the game -- either through rationalizations such as yours, or through hand-waving.
Some people are annoyed by this more than others, though, which is why you need to really know your players. If they're not people who have an easy tolerance for these sorts of miracles, it's easy enough to alter the storyline just enough so that there's sufficient "down time" to allow for training, study, etc. -- a small price to pay for a greater sense of immersion.
How come every time you say "somebody might be annoyed by" I think you're referring to me? ;)
How come every time you say "somebody might be annoyed by" I think you're referring to me? ;)
Because by "somebody" I typically mean "me" -- which by extension implies that you won't like it, either -- insafar as we're both 1e refugees.
*raises hand*
1e refugee here too.
Though I'm not one of those (you?) old grognards that pines for the good old 1e days.
Nope, I think 3.5 was vastly better than 1e or 2e, and I think Pathfinder is making it even better.
I would, however, play 1e, or Hackmaster, long before I would play 4e again. Once was enough, and I regret the lost days we playtested that.
There's a lot of stuff about 3.0/3.5 I really like -- huge improvements over earlier editions. Things like consistent game mechanics, consistent rules for PCs vs. NPCs vs. monsters, etc. Pathfinder has done some really great things: rage powers and rogue talents are a masterstroke.
What I dislike is the fact that the combat and spellcasting rules were completely redone between 2.0 and 3.0 to overwhelmingly favor casters at higher levels. I don't like how fast advancement is in 3.0/3.5. And I strongly dislike the built-in "christmas tree" assumption in 3.X.
The unpaid childhood chores of being a wizard's apprentice, knight's squire, temple acolyte, thieving street urchin and all the rest give you character background that later on provides circumstance bonuses on dealing with the subculture you were raised in. Fred the Fighter and Wanda the Wizard may train each other so that by level two they're both fighter/wizard with a rank in each, but Fred is going to know more about military culture than Wanda, and Wanda is going to know more about academia than Fred even if they've both got the same everything written on their character sheets. The old knight who trained Fred and the old wizard who trained Wanda may not have been statted out as mentors per say (because there are only so many feats you can take, and the DM may not have been using whatever book the Mentor feats are it), but they still are mentors anyway, even if they were both eaten by orcs. Other knights are going to look after Fred as one of theirs and other wizards are going to look after Wanda as one of theirs.
*raises hand*
1e refugee here too.
Though I'm not one of those (you?) old grognards that pines for the good old 1e days.
Nope, I think 3.5 was vastly better than 1e or 2e, and I think Pathfinder is making it even better.
I would, however, play 1e, or Hackmaster, long before I would play 4e again. Once was enough, and I regret the lost days we playtested that.
Same here. Had a GM named Blake too ....hmm. Anyway 4.0...not for me. 3.5 is much better.
Multiclass one level dipping is an issue and while logic doesn't support hard limits it becomes a balance issue. Having everyone with one level of cleric so they can use cure wounds wands, starting one level of rogue/ranger for max skill points is not desireable to support so I feel it is ok to a) reward single class characters with a XP b) reduce xp for characters with vast level difference between their classes. Basically I just dropped the favored class thing from 3.5 and that cleaned things up pretty fast. Also it got me more non-humans, also to me desireable in a fantasy game.
Hm, I would think that the whole lack of BAB would be a drawback, and the fact you are 2 levels off of whatever you really wanted to do with that character.
True your save throws are ok at level 2, however by the higher levels they are still going to even out, while you will still be at least a point behind on BAB than you where going to be (which also influences some actions you can take -- for example until you hit BAB +1 you can't draw a weapon as part of a move action, which means it takes a complete move action to get that sword/axe/whatever out and you can't take any exotic weapon proficiencies, or anything else with a BAB requirement).
Hm, I would think that the whole lack of BAB would be a drawback, and the fact you are 2 levels off of whatever you really wanted to do with that character.
True your save throws are ok at level 2, however by the higher levels they are still going to even out, while you will still be at least a point behind on BAB than you where going to be (which also influences some actions you can take -- for example until you hit BAB +1 you can't draw a weapon as part of a move action, which means it takes a complete move action to get that sword/axe/whatever out and you can't take any exotic weapon proficiencies, or anything else with a BAB requirement).
Take one level of ranger at first level. You BaB is as good as if you took that as a fighter level and in 3.5 that means you get a base of 24 skill points vs 8. You also can use that cure wounds wand as long as it is a cure spell rangers get. Nothing lost for your fighter to do that, and yet you got a ton for just that one level. But even assuming you chose rogue well you get even more skill points, but sure you loose one point of BaB, you can live with that, long term it will not hurt while the bonus skills will be huge throughout your leveling.
|
|
But even assuming you chose rogue well you get even more skill points, but sure you loose one point of BaB, you can live with that, long term it will not hurt while the bonus skills will be huge throughout your leveling.
It does hurt a lot if you are aiming for a melee combat-worthy rogue.
Because you need a BAB of 1+ to take Weapon Finesse as a feat, a pure rogue will have to wait till 3rd level to successfully hit the bad guys with his dagger and rapier :-(
Which is why I dipped my PFS character in Fighter for a single level at level 2 even though I initially wanted a pure rogue.
But even assuming you chose rogue well you get even more skill points, but sure you loose one point of BaB, you can live with that, long term it will not hurt while the bonus skills will be huge throughout your leveling.It does hurt a lot if you are aiming for a melee combat-worthy rogue.
Because you need a BAB of 1+ to take Weapon Finesse as a feat, a pure rogue will have to wait till 3rd level to successfully hit the bad guys with his dagger and rapier :-(
Which is why I dipped my PFS character in Fighter for a single level at level 2 even though I initially wanted a pure rogue.
But that's going the reverse of what we were discussing. We were talking about dripping one, the first level into rogue, for a guy who will primiarily be taking fighter levels. Sure it slows some feats a little but only by one level and it will only have an effect for the early levels. (say 1-6) after that it will hardly be noticed were as the bonus skill points, flank damage bonus, and even the ability to find and disarm all traps at all levels will always be handy.
As a rogue I would hardly ever dip into the fighter class, maybe ranger, but it gives up too many skill points in my veiw. Heck dip two levels into ranger and you get TWF for free as well.
Like I said the dipping is too powerful, it gives too much. Thus why I do not use prefered classes, I have no issue with a 5 rogue/ 6 fighter that is a viable character but one who paid for his flexibility. A level 2 ranger / 8 rogue just dipped and ran getting much giving up little.
We were talking about dripping one, the first level into rogue, for a guy who will primiarily be taking fighter levels. Like I said the dipping is too powerful, it gives too much. I have no issue with a 5 rogue/ 6 fighter that is a viable character but one who paid for his flexibility.
Pathfinder has gone a long way towards eliminating 1-level dips, especially into rogue:
But even assuming you chose rogue well you get even more skill points, but sure you loose one point of BaB, you can live with that, long term it will not hurt while the bonus skills will be huge throughout your leveling.It does hurt a lot if you are aiming for a melee combat-worthy rogue.
Because you need a BAB of 1+ to take Weapon Finesse as a feat, a pure rogue will have to wait till 3rd level to successfully hit the bad guys with his dagger and rapier :-(
Pathfinder (Beta) removed the BAB requirement for Weapon Finesse.
Pathfinder has gone a long way towards eliminating 1-level dips, especially into rogue:
No 4x skill points at 1st level anymore;
Taking a 2nd level of rogue gives +1 BAB, evasion, and a rogue talent (maybe bleeding attack, or a bonus combat feat -- meaning you're just as well off as if you'd taken a level of fighter instead);
After that, it's awful tempting to stick with rogue for maybe one more level, for another +1d6 flank damage and another +1 BAB and a nice bonus against traps;
Having gone that far, you might as well take a 4th rogue level, for another +1 BAB and another rogue talent;
At this point, it's tempting to maybe go rogue 5 and get still another +1d6 to flank damage and also get uncanny dodge (a very useful trick for a fighter) while you're at it. At this point, you might just end up sticking with rogue for the rest of your career. Or you might finally take a level of fighter after 4 rogue levels, which means you're a lot more of a fighter/rogue than you are a fighter dipping into rogue.
On the flip side, if you go straight fighter 20 instead, you eventually get the 1-hit-kill-everything-living capstone crit ability, which is nothing to sneeze at.
It sure has. It is to me one of the strengths of the pathfinder system. Each class just keeps getting better so it isn't nearly as tempting or as benifical to do the multiclass one level dip at all. Now it is still very viable to go say alternating class level, like one level of cleric followed by one of fighter and back and forth. Makes you a very solid healer and front line smasher. But you pay for your diversity and strength by missing out of the top end of each class.
In sum, pathfinder makes dipping a bad idea in that it is less useful and far less obusive espically at first level. All the while true multiclassing remains a strong options as does going all the way in one class. A fighter level 20 is a beast to behold, a level 20 cleric is powerhouse of life and death, but a level 10 fighter/level 10 cleric is no weekling at all powerful and strong being more flexible.