I don't want it. Imagine a Wisdom Sorcerer (there is an arcana that allows this) with a level of Monk. Imagine a Druid with a level of Monk, for that matter. Imagine a Wizard with a level of Crossblooded Sorcerer. I want none of these things. So, how do I ban this in a way that does not overstep my bonds as GM?
Simply lay down the rule that, as PCs level, they need to justify what they learn. For example, you can't take a level in Monk unless you train for 5 years with a master.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just be honest and ban all multiclassing at the start of your campaign. You have the right to do so as a GM. With all the archetypes available now, it's not like it will be missed.
Yeah it's a do and you don't issue. Either you take that step as a GM, or you don't anything else isn't really going to work.
As GM you control things
So as a House Rule you could stop it.
The rule could be
1) You can ONLY take one Class
2) You can take two base classes, but they have to be near equal to each other (no more than 2 levels difference)
3) You can dip, but only for a prestiage class.
or as Malignor posted above where they need to find a teacher of that class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You kind of can't, within the rules. The game is meant to allow cross classing.
If you really want to get into it, you can create a modification of the XP penality that says if two classes are more than X levels different, you gain 10% less xp. Forces the multiple classes to remain close together or pay a cost.
Generally speaking though, few classes cause major issues at level 1. What is the fear, for example, of adding a level of monk? For sorcerers, sure, AC from Wisdom but now they are are level behind in spell casting, which can catch up fast. With druid it is less impressive as his wisdom won't be so high as to offset normal armor (and you can say wearing armor while wildshaped still counts as turning off the monk bonus AC).
Or just forbid any cross classing at all ever. Or remove some of the major benefits of a class, like bloodlines and monk bonus AC and wizard chosen school, if the 1st level is not taken at character level 1.
In the game that I run, I will be banning all archetypes. Anything not in the core book, I have said that I must approve in advance of the game session where it will be used. That includes classes, spells, feats, and everything else. Players can multi-class to their heart's content, but without that extra material, it pretty much only weakens the character, not strengthen them.
Master Arminas
Alright I'll try and get in before a bunch of people start saying mean things - Have a sit-down discussion with your players about what you want the rules to be for multi-classing - if they don't agree with them you shouldn't force the issue. Most of those things aren't really problematic it just seems like you don't LIKE them (which is cool).
If the party doesn't like it, and it's something that really bothers you, you can either deal with it or find new players. I'm not saying that to be snarky or harsh - I mean it literally. DM'ing is a big job and not every party fits every DM's style.
DM's shouldn't feel shackled by the rules or their players, but they should be reasonable and upfront about expectations and house-rules. Maintaining an element of transparency is really important in the DM/player balance.
Just get it out there before the game starts and be cool with your players. Be on the level with them, but I wouldn't just dictate it unless it's important enough to you that you would be willing not to play with them over it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though I must ask: why don't you want them to level dip?
From all the many posts of yours regarding DM vs Player issues, I think it's somewhat clear that perhaps PF isn't the system for you.
That said, I have no problems with such small things like that. It helps them further meet the character concept that they think they will find fun.
Just for my own curiosity, why is it you don't want people multiclassing? (Or is it just one- or two-level dips?)
Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers. Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why disallow level dipping ? O_o
It is hardly what I would call munchkinism when you're better off going straight in your class, it allows concepts you couldn't do efficiently otherwise at best ; and I'm assuming your players at least explain this dip in their roleplay.
From all the many posts of yours regarding DM vs Player issues, I think it's somewhat clear that perhaps PF isn't the system for you.
I think it's more the players I always end up with. I like the whole idea of the GM having full power to modify rules and a responsibility to work with and not against the players (except when I get mad at them), but that is not the game the players want. They want very clearly defined limits on GM power and all house rules written in legalese and that writing strictly adhered to. It's irritating having to walk on eggshells all the time, but it's either put up or don't play.
|
Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
You know what else is munchkin?
A wizard/cleric going from apprentice/acolyte to archmage/hierophant in less than a year of setting time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just for my own curiosity, why is it you don't want people multiclassing? (Or is it just one- or two-level dips?)Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers. Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?
Ok, I'm sure it will be clear soon that you are in the minority around here (which is NOT to say that you're opinion isn't valid) but I don't think that it has anything to do with roleplaying. They could easily have begun their life in a monastery, you know?
I think what it really comes down to is - you just don't like it.
That's fine, it really is. It's not broken or cheap or poor roleplaying, it's just not something you care for - just let the players know and move on.
Just for my own curiosity, why is it you don't want people multiclassing? (Or is it just one- or two-level dips?)Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers. Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?
What I'm hearing here is that so long as your players can justify it in their story lines and in game role playing - you won't have a problem with it. I don't think it needs much more explanation to your players then that. But a unsolicited word of advice and caution - don't squish their creativity if they come up with something good and explainable simply because you don't like the flavor of it. As DMs we have a responsibility to maintain balance yes, but to also provide an enjoyable game where creative roleplaying can be had and enjoyed. /cautionary advice.
Why disallow level dipping ? O_o
It is hardly what I would call munchkinism when you're better off going straight in your class, it allows concepts you couldn't do efficiently otherwise at best ; and I'm assuming your players at least explain this dip in their roleplay.
You know what they say about people to assume. I asked, and they said that the rules do not obligate them to explain it (I seriously HATE having my so little ability to house rule stuff in my tabletop games).
This is why I love Paizo's PBP function. My tabletop groups won't let me do anything without a three page legalese essay about what it is I'm doing.
From all the many posts of yours regarding DM vs Player issues, I think it's somewhat clear that perhaps PF isn't the system for you.I think it's more the players I always end up with. I like the whole idea of the GM having full power to modify rules and a responsibility to work with and not against the players (except when I get mad at them), but that is not the game the players want. They want very clearly defined limits on GM power and all house rules written in legalese and that writing strictly adhered to. It's irritating having to walk on eggshells all the time, but it's either put up or don't play.
Maybe you should let them set the house rules for a few sessions, kind of get a feel for the game that they want to play? Or you could have them DM for a few sessions and see what they think then.
Expectations and outcomes need to be in sync between the DM and the group. Doesn't seem like you and your players are - that will always cause some problems when it happens.
|
|
Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers.
It's... more or less the principle of dipping. Getting bonuses from a class by giving up those provided by your other.
Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
Player/DM agreement. Also, you don't look like you trust your players a lot... (not that's a bad thing with some players, but...)
I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?
Simple. First, ANYTHING in the game is suggest to "GM whims", as long as people know it beforehand and you're not making up things on the road.
Second, say clearly that any particular build must find an explanation and be expressed in roleplay.
What I'm hearing here is that so long as your players can justify it in their story lines and in game role playing - you won't have a problem with it.Just for my own curiosity, why is it you don't want people multiclassing? (Or is it just one- or two-level dips?)Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers. Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?
Well, aside from a few combinations (like anything that involves dipping into Monk), yes. The issue is that the PC's house rules force me to justify the decision in very specific terms, and I need to figure out how to do that.
Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
Start as a monk and then switch to sorcerer. The baby was born with scales and horns and dropped off in a basket at the monastery. As the child got older they found that the use of their sorcerous powers was more effective than hitting things with their fists.
I don't want it. Imagine a Wisdom Sorcerer (there is an arcana that allows this) with a level of Monk. Imagine a Druid with a level of Monk, for that matter. Imagine a Wizard with a level of Crossblooded Sorcerer. I want none of these things. So, how do I ban this in a way that does not overstep my bonds as GM?
Well, just ban it from the start and nobody should care, anymore than if you are playing Star Wars D6 and there just isn't any of those options to begin with. Personally, I am pretty loose with banning stuff that doesn't fit the flavor of the game, but I'm not exactly sure what your problem is in the first place... Wisdom Sorceror + Monk... Gee, that sounds pretty much like a Wu Xia SLA Monk variant who's getting further into the spell effects. The WIS/Celestial Sorceror variant is probably better than a CHA/base if you look solely at Stats, because the Monk is already so multi-stat dependent that adding CHA to the mix is kind of just sadism. If you DON'T look at just Stats, you realize that the player is giving up all the other 'better' Bloodlines for the priviledge of using WIS for Sorceror casting. Somebody who gets a +2 CHA item to cast spells, then multiclasses into Sorceror with something like Arcane Bloodline: Familiar is not really going to look that much worse. And this whole excercise is gimping the character's BAB and monk ability progression, all for some spells which they can probably use via potions or scrolls, etc. Especially for the Monk class, which is already supernatural, I don't see how adding some Sorceror levels to the mix, Monks already do stuff on par with what some Sorceror/Martial multiclass should do, right?
Cross-Blooded Sorceror? Well, that Archetype is kind of broken anyways, s%~+ty for single class Sorcerors, great for ANYBODY else (caster or martial). I don't see the problem with Druid/Monk... AT ALL.
If you think that the players are getting advantageous out of doing this, compared to what you as a GM can do with the NPCs you design, I can see your issue, but be aware that single classing is MORE than viable as optimization in PRPG, so you aren't really getting rid of any disparity (to your designed in 2 minutes NPCs) by just banning multiclassing. If your players are powerful, simplest thing is to ramp up the challenges, or throw Elite Array on all NPCs, that sort of thing.
I asked, and they said that the rules do not obligate them to explain it
getbetterplayers.exe
But seriously, sounds like a disfuctional player/GM relationship to me. You should sit down and have a nice talk about the whole experience of your game together, because no amout of GM vetoes is going to stop a player with this mindset to munchkin his way up to Pun-Pun.
Why disallow level dipping ? O_o
It is hardly what I would call munchkinism when you're better off going straight in your class, it allows concepts you couldn't do efficiently otherwise at best ; and I'm assuming your players at least explain this dip in their roleplay.
You know what they say about people to assume. I asked, and they said that the rules do not obligate them to explain it (I seriously HATE having my so little ability to house rule stuff in my tabletop games).
This is why I love Paizo's PBP function. My tabletop groups won't let me do anything without a three page legalese essay about what it is I'm doing.
If you're seriously unhappy running for your party... take a break. Find a new group. Don't do THAT thing... that "I can fix them!" thing. It's not likely to happen. The more I hear the more it seems that you and your party just don't mesh... maybe you're afraid of confronting them, but I wouldn't let them push me around if I were you. If they don't like it, close your book.
You kind of can't, within the rules. The game is meant to allow cross classing.
How? The game doesn't break if he doesn't allow multi/classing, or just banning specific combos he doesn't like... Because players can just happen to not do this things, and the game continues normally, so having an out-of-game restriction like this doesn't impact game play, any more than an out-of-game restriction like 'nobody plays elves'.
Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers.It's... more or less the principle of dipping. Getting bonuses from a class by giving up those provided by your other.
Except the Monk dips always end up being WAY overpowered.
Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?Player/DM agreement. Also, you don't look like you trust your players a lot... (not that's a bad thing with some players, but...)
I trust them about as much as they trust me. When I have to write out every single decision I make in legalese, I get irritated.
I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?Simple. First, ANYTHING in the game is suggest to "GM whims", as long as people know it beforehand and you're not making up things on the road.
Second, say clearly that any particular build must find an explanation and be expressed in roleplay.
That's just it. The player's house rules were written specifically to prevent the GM from acting on whims.
I'll try that and see if they accept it.
|
|
I asked, and they said that the rules do not obligate them to explain it (I seriously HATE having my so little ability to house rule stuff in my tabletop games).
This is why I love Paizo's PBP function. My tabletop groups won't let me do anything without a three page legalese essay about what it is I'm doing.
1. You don't give a s*#& about what rules don't say.
2. You don't begin your DMing by letting your players belittle you by pretty much saying "f@!@ you and mind your own business, now take your time to entertain us, monkey buffon".
3. Next time they come with their 3-pages essay, come with your two-lines quote from the Gold Core Original Official Rulebook(tm) saying something about the DM being king and last decider at the table. Someone will probably be able to give you the exact page and quotation.
I don't see the problem with Druid/Monk... AT ALL.You didn't see that thing in action.
|
|
“The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.”
Page 9 of the Core Rule book
Kelsey,
One of the wonderful things about this game, is that one of the assumptions of the game, in the very beginning of the book, they tell you they expect you to make the game your own with the inclusion of your own house rules. All you need to do is let the players know what the ground rule are.
Now that may be easier said then done. Some people treat the CRB as holy writ, and won't allow any fiddling with the "rules"....particularily if it nerfs something they wanted to try.
Good luck.....
My tabletop groups won't let me do anything without a three page legalese essay about what it is I'm doing.
In the players' defense, they have every right to expect you to make the rules clear before they inadvertently break them. A GM can get away with fudging things during play, but should never make contradictory rulings mid-session. Having the houserules written down prevents you from making this GM no-no.
I have literally hundreds of pages of house rules for my home game. All of them are provided to the players in writing. All of them are subject to discussion and a vote.
As far as banning things not for any mechanical reason, but simply because they annoy you -- that's something you need to talk over.
Well, aside from a few combinations (like anything that involves dipping into Monk), yes. The issue is that the PC's house rules force me to justify the decision in very specific terms, and I need to figure out how to do that.
What if they started out level one as a monk and took it to say level two or three and then explained (could be through exposure to magical energies - a blessing from divinity - or simple latent bloodline finally coming to the surface) how they became a sorcerer? I know reversing the order of the classes may seem trivial to some, but when it comes to storyline it can make all the difference.
|
|
Also, let the players understand that you are doing games for anyone's pleasure, and playing with them instead of against them ; and to do so, you need a minimum background details, including the whereabouts of any multiclassing.
Looks like your players are just stupid jerks, but who knows, they say being diplomatic and manipulating the simple-minded guys with anti-DM houserules works...
Just for my own curiosity, why is it you don't want people multiclassing? (Or is it just one- or two-level dips?)Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers. Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?
Don't allow it only if it 'makes sense'. I have found that my group's power gamer is amazingly talented at making pretty interesting stories only when I challenge his desires.
Any rules caveats are dangerous. Why is it the sorcerer gets to dip into monk because of his "I wanted to be a monk but quit in embarrassment when my powers manifested and I burned the temple down" but my druid can't dip into monk because you said my "because he thought monks were cool and like met a guy or something in a mountain that showed him how to kick a lot" story was crappy?
Apply it to everyone equally. Your best bet here is to prevent multiclassing (which screws access to some prestige classes). Next best is to penalize differences in class levels above 1 (so a Monk 1/Sorc 3 would gain 10% less XP, another level in Sorc and they lose out on 20%) until the player reaches 3 or 5 levels in all classes.
While it is good to require story backgrounds, it is also important to be fair and firm. You are GM. Require a 3 page character backstory before they are allowed into the game. They say it isnt required, you say it isn't forbidden and that the GM has domain over the RP aspects of the game; rules simply provide framework, they do not demand functionality, this isn't a computer game where a formula has been written and compiled and cannot be modified.
I think I should point out that this isn't the same RP group as the one in my last thread. It's a whole different set of players.
Maybe I'm just completely useless as a GM, because this happens with pretty much all my tabletop groups.
GM: Stop that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers.
Wait... WHY shouldn't players really have that stuff?
Because it's from minor level dipping? That's circular logic there.Paizo in fact designed their system to work like this, and all class abilities are gained at levels with the possibility of multiclassing as a backdrop. This is just how the game is supposed to work, even if you don't beleive that.
Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
Because he dropped out of the monastery and didn't pursue further training with high level Monks? That's a pretty obvious one right there. Sorceror Bloodlines are the type of thing that can be discovered at any point... After 10 levels of Expert:Librarian, or 10 levels of Paladin.
It seems like your 'anti cheese' intuition is actually just blocking off story possibilities besides 'loyal, hardworking singleclass' types. If being a Monk is hard, yet you retain most of the abilities after you drop it, why wouldn't you expect that alot of high level characters with Monk abilities in fact don't have most of their levels in Monk? If 1 level of Fighter represents minimal training with a broad set of weapons and armor, why can somebody only do that at 1st level, not after ditching their Monk Monastery's vows of Unarmed Combat and right before discovering that the gods have messed with their mojo enough to Curse them and give them Oracular spellcasting?I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?
Well, starting characters should have a good backstory, whether or not they are multiclassed (if starting above 1st) or will later multiclass doesn't really change that IMHO. As to gaining levels in new classes during the game, different GMs run it differently, I think it's appropriate to have some sort of explanation for things, although as mentioned some class abilities can just 'emerge'. For classes that represent some specific training (wizard, monk) I think it's more than reasonable to have that happen in-game, but you should warn the players of this so that can do reasonable things like 'my character wants to be a wizard like he always did before his family forced him into the military where he became a fighter, so he seeks out a master wizard willing to teach him, faster than any normal wizard school according to the rumours'.... That sort of thing. This shouldn't be seen as a penalty, but rather a role-playing introduction to a society with traditions and lore.
GM: Stop that.
Oh, how I wish I could get away with that.
One other idea: Ban monks.
How do you roleplay that?
GM: Stop that.Oh, how I wish I could get away with that.
Have you tried it?
It's very easy. You say it. They ignore it? You leave.GM: Stop that.Oh, how I wish I could get away with that.
+1