|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trikk, Although not all paladins are Paladins I think we can still safely assume that most, perhaps all, Paladins are paladins.
I think you know this.
You have discussed the topic using a form of words that is clearly non-standard in discussions of the topic.
Now you are disagreeing with folk for being so foolish as to not appreciate your non-standard definition. I find that odd and drifting toward rude (because being deliberately obtuse is a short step away from lying).
So, let us all be clear on this.
Phrase
Roleplaying your character class
Trikk Version
Your character tells people he meets that he is a level 7 paladin with power attack and a bonded mount who is considering buying some +2 armour.
Almost everyone else version
Your paladin is noble, courageous and kind.
|
My players are pretty good at explaining well before hand, however I don't require them to take months of training unless I give them months of training.
So if I'm running a game where characters are always in the Dungeon and the whole in-game campaign timeline happens over 3 months, I'm not going to penalize the fighter who wants a level of rogue by requiring he wait until level 6 (after a month of gaming) to do so. I'd probably ask the player to RP trying out some sneaky stuff for the next level of fighter, and then he can take Rogue through his inherent abilities and skills learned.
If I did give them months between levels, then I'd ask for some RP as to how his fighter became a rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to have this same problem as a DM. Back in the 3.5 days, I had a few parties that would always dip a level of monk, or 2 levels of paladin, for the saves and other benefits.
But, in general, classes really just represent a group of abilities your character wants. It's more about roleplaying your character, not playing your class. The class is just the cookie cutter you have to use for abilities. It really has no bearing on your roleplaying, outside of some alignment restrictions.
As to the topic, can't it be both? : p
|
|
Dovetailing off the 'this isn't 3.5 anymore' sentiment-
There's less benefit to level dipping in Pathfinder than there was in 3.5.. and knee-jerk reactions against the concept may need to be reevaluated.
Yes, you gain something by level dipping, but you also now lose something as well. In pathfinder, there's no more dead levels. Every class gets something every level. Not to mention, the saves (and to some degree BAB) self-correct. Yes you can frontload your good saves, but the other saves will be that much slower in progressing (aka, worse)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"I don't let my players dip classes, am I an A*hole?"
How the heck would anyone on the internet who has never gamed with you know?
What do your players say? Do you tell them you are using some house rules in advance so they can plan accordingly?
If your players are happy the opinions of a million forumites are meaningless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We roleplay the classes alright, we just don't roleplay the classes as the classes.
He's not a fighter with rogue training, he's a pirate.
He's not a ranger, he's a poacher.
He's not a witch/eldritch knight, he's a hexblade.
He's not a high level wizard, he's an archmage.
He's not a high level fighter/paladin, he's an Imperial General.
And so on.
Classes are unknown to the characters in-game. Basic observable concepts, however, are not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who has difficulty answering a few simple background questions like those probably shouldn't be roleplaying.
If you're an experienced adult, sure. Someone playing for the first time, though, needs encouragement. One of the recognised strong points of the Beginner's box is that you can open it and be playing within 15 minutes (not still writing a background). When I started GMing for my 2 kids (playing two characters each) we were happy with 'How are your 2 characters related?', and got on with play. We built up backgrounds slowly over several weeks. And it worked fine. If I'd asked straight away for as much detail as we have now, we'd never have got started.
It's much the same with role-play. If I set an example playing the NPCs, or give descriptions ('the wizard's distracted by the fascinating layering in the rock' on a low perception roll) then they're likely to do the same.
I demand some foreshadowing. Not going to hamstring the game because of a dip. Also, some things take vastly different amounts of time IRL vs in-game. For example, put +1 rank in linguistics: You become fluent in an entire language. Should we put the game on breaks for 6 months so this can be justified?
Either you have to deal with forcing all the players to plan out their characters from lv1-20, or you have to deal with some odd choices that might not make sense.
Anyway, this isn't me saying I have an lack of skill as a DM, this is me asking you; what do you allow and disallow in your game(s) when it comes to this sort of thing, and how much RPing explanation do you require for dipping and/or Prestige Classes?
A lot of players think when they hit level 7 they just automatically learn all of the skills and abilities of this sacred order of so-and-so that's been around for 400 years.
Not in my game. How about yours?
I used to worry about this stuff, but then I realized I didn't need to.
In my games, class titles are just suggestions. Not all barbarians are mouth-breathing morons with bad tempers from a hunter-gatherer society. (In fact I find that stereotype exceedingly shallow in and of itself.) I prefer that players play their characters, not their classes.
Also, a real 3.x min-maxer would play a caster, not a muggle.
Unless you are roleplaying every minute of every day of every character's life, then at some point you probably should do some hand waving these issues.
As to the discussion of class versus character:
I give you the classic example of the argument.
As a side note while it is fun and realistic to train between levels, it is not how the game was intended to work. Just look at the old 3e module Sunless Citadel where you walk in 1st level and a day or two later walk out 3rd level. It would break the believability to insert training breaks into the module. So keep in mind this style of play is best done with mostly short or self made modules and require plenty of extra work on the GM's part. After all you should allow people to role play through these training weeks.
No, neither fun nor realistic. Especially “fun”. I have had PC’s pinned for weeks without being able to level, just because we weren’t in a good place- RP-wise- to take a break. Which is more realistic, to require PC’s go train, or to have those PC’s go ahead and finish saving the world? But if they do go ahead to save the world, they may not be powerful enough to do so, and thus fail even worse. This leads to HUGE player arguments.
Yes, OP, I understand your frustration. Certainly it is within a DM’s prerogative to limit dipping. But if you go too far down that road, you find many players simply checking off what they need to do. “OH, right, I want to learn Elvish next level. So my fighter spends two hours every day talking to the elf.” So, yes- do ask for a little background, and do limit dipping within reason. But don’t start requiring “roleplaying it out”, it detracts from game time too much.
But when you roleplay the fluff then I expect some real mechanics when push comes to shove.
What the some people are suggesting is that the Fluff and the mechanics do indeed meet, as the fluff is what gives the mechanics their reason and purpose.
|
|
I hate level-dipping with a loathing that will stand the test of time.
Its a clear signal that the player is playing a build not a character.
If the character is initially presented as as a sort of dual-class concept then I defiantly do not require my players to wait or justify their first level in a class.
If the character (or player) has a realization that he should pursue a new life path then its fine to take levels in a new class. If they just 'want more skills' its not cool to just pick up a rogue level, but I'll probably allow it when they give me some sort of justification.
|
Using mechanics to role play has been a standing joke for a long time, it's often how RPGs are depicted in bad movies and TV. It's immersion breaking and something you have to remind kids of when you play with them. The mechanics are there to resolve conflicts and problems your characters face, but the labels you put on things are just that - labels.
With 1st and 2nd edition, the classes were considered your character’s profession or career...
A character class is like a profession or career. It is what your character has worked and trained at during his younger years. If you wanted to become a doctor, you could not walk out the door and begin work immediately. First you would have to get some training. The same is true of character classes in the AD&D game. Your character is assumed to have some previous training and guidance before beginning his adventuring career.
While later editions seem to have moved away from this, like many others, I have just continued this tradition in my games...
I would say that a GM should be very careful about putting too many restrictions on the choices a player makes towards their characters. Let's not forget the only thing the player has control over is their character. GMs should really avoid the temptation to micro-manage players choices. Some restrictions to keep within the game concept sure, but saying, "You haven't proved to me well enough why you are making a character choice" is something else entirely.
I don't think its really asserting control over them, the player is at liberty at any point to say "I spend my time at the campsite on guard duty with the Elven Ranger, learning a bit about his language whilst studying that book of Elvish I bought at the flea market" or "in the downtime, I go and help Wizzywand the Magician as an apprentice in his Tower"... or the like.
I don't think anyone is saying "You flat out can't", just "please do me the courtesy not to have skills spontaneously manifest out of nowhere for no apparent reason, unless you are playing Kim Jong Il, and in that case you totally need a Rez".
I don't see why the two options in the title are mutually exclusive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very true.
I am certainly both at times.
True story.
So does that mean builds are the proof of the greatness of roleplaying? I mean if you need to plan ahead so you can roleplay enough for some subjective measure of your GM, then that pretty much means you have to plan out your character ahead of time. I must say, that is an interesting viewpoint. I had always been under the impression that builds were most often seen as the antithesis of roleplaying, to suggest they are actually the foundation of good roleplay is something of a marvel indeed.
Heck I'm both of those, a rules lawyer and an OP cheese dishing optimizer to boot.
Haven't had it conflict yet.
So does that mean builds are the proof of the greatness of roleplaying? I mean if you need to plan ahead so you can roleplay ahead enough for some subjective measure of your GM, then pretty much have to plan out your character ahead of time. I must say, that is an interesting viewpoint. I had always been under the impression that builds were most often seen as the antithesis of roleplaying, to suggest they are actually the foundation of good roleplay is something marvel indeed.
I've always worried less about where the abilities are coming from and more about if they fit the character or not.
So does that mean builds are the proof of the greatness of roleplaying? I mean if you need to plan ahead so you can roleplay ahead enough for some subjective measure of your GM, then pretty much have to plan out your character ahead of time. I must say, that is an interesting viewpoint. I had always been under the impression that builds were most often seen as the antithesis of roleplaying, to suggest they are actually the foundation of good roleplay is something marvel indeed.I've always worried less about where the abilities are coming from and more about if they fit the character or not.
But who gets to decide if something fits the character or not, the player whose character it is or the GM?
But who gets to decide if something fits the character or not, the player whose character it is or the GM?
To me? Both. As a GM if I see a choice I think is curious I'll ask about it. Usually the player gives me a reason mechanically and rp wise why the character would be after that particular ability (or levels in that class). 9 times out of 10 I don't bother with it even on that 1 time I typically simply make sure he didn't miss an easier way to do what he wanted.
The answer I get matters to me more as an indicator of what the player wants from the campaign, what he thinks of the campaign so far and where I can put hooks out that are more likely to snag the PCs.
After all we don't ask, "Is he a wizard or a sorcerer" because in game there is little to no distinction -- oracles have been mistaken as sorcerer's and people don't worry about if the NPC is a fighter/wizard/Eldritch Knight or a Magus or something else entirely -- those are completely metagaming questions that really have no bearing on the role play.
What matters are that the rules are consistently followed, the plot has coherence and that characters (both NPCs and PCs) show behavior that works.
But who gets to decide if something fits the character or not, the player whose character it is or the GM?
Well it can be a chicken and egg thing as well.
I have had characters who clearly started with a goal in mind, and continually moved towards that goal.
I have also had characters I have played where the campaign just went in a totally different direction to where I thought it was going to go, or when I was playing the character I started noticing a trend... like my Half Orc Rogue was being a frontline scrapper and found many reasons to be in there axe swinging, and RP circumstances generally had him in a very bad... almost berzerk from anger mood... now I never SAW him as taking levels in Barbarian, but after the first little while it certainly would have fit him.
As to the player/gm conitnuum, it is best if it is a collaboration.
I had an idea of a character dipping in a backstory that would actually make sense to me. He was a ninja and killed many people but felt really guilty and repented by becoming a paladin at third level. This is one story I thought up and think it works well.
I agree working with GM can yield good results.
Role playing fluff
Your character tells people he meets that he is a level 7 paladin with power attack and a bonded mount who is considering buying some +2 armour.
An example of "role playing fluff" with your example would be as simple as: "A paladin of significant stature, atop a well-groomed and trained mount, is considering upgrading to an enhanced armor that would better suit him in combat." Then, out-of-character, you tell your DM what you want specifically.
The easy answer is, remove the numbers, and give a descriptor somewhat resembling what the number is in comparison to the status quo. I really don't see how you walking around, spouting off specific mechanical numbers is "role playing mechanics". You can simply address what the mechanic in question does and describe it.
Mechanics and fluff need to be separate. You calculate using the mechanics and you role play using the fluff. Never shall the twain meet.
I completely disagree. Use a little imagination and describe, in character, what the mechanic is actually doing, without numbers. They can coincide just fine.
I completely disagree. Use a little imagination and describe, in character, what the mechanic is actually doing, without numbers. They can coincide just fine.
Mechanics and fluff need to be separate. You calculate using the mechanics and you role play using the fluff. Never shall the twain meet.
Precisely. A +10 sword just looks and feels more awesome than a +1 sword. Someone poured near godlike magic into it, and spent the annual GBP of a small country to craft it. While I VEHEMENTLY oppose the whole "magic items should be rare, hurr durr, even if 80% of the hero classes have magic in one way or the other, and any lv5 commoner can make a magic sword with the right feats..." concept, something that amazing should not look nor feel like a slightly shinier longsword.
Just like I always drop hints about the power of people. A lv10+ character has an air of justified confidence, even when not wearing his 60k GP wardrobe of magical loot. And someone with a strong or overwhelming aura (lv5+ paladins and clerics) certainly radiates some manner of unusual quality in my games.
@Trikk: The guy who describes Power Attack as "foregoing technique" seems off in my opinion. Power Attack is an advanced technique, where you use your superior combat prowess to inflict more damage. After all, it is a feat with a BAB requirement. Just my 2cp
For base classes, I figure an adventurer is around that sort of thing to have picked up on whatever they need. For prestige classes, that is discussed and worked in for the player.
I'm a fairly lax gm. In so much that if a player wants to do something and we can work it in I'm all about it. As a player, I don't want to have to justify every skill I have or what I'm envisioning at level up. As a player, however, I don't mind having to do some work if I intend on taking a prestige class. I'll also tell my gm what I'm planning on taking so a. he knows, and b. if he requires some hoops for me to jump through we can work it out.
I bend over backwards for my players in helping them realize their goals with their characters. I want them to feel that they have the upper hand, because I am incredibly viscous and they never know when they'll have seen their last sunrise.
|
|
I tend to want some explanation as to why/how a character in my games adds a second class. On top of that I don't allow dipping, unless for a very good background reason, if you take a class in our game you are required to take a minimum of 3 levels without prior group consent. For example, if you want to play a street wise PC who doesn't discover their inborn Sorcerer powers until 2cnd level, I would allow you to start as Rog1, then take Sor from then out.
Only the game developers are allowed to design a character development.
If you think that rog, sor, rog, sor, ... would fit your idea of how the character should develop, then you should first become a developer for the game system in use, then design a new base class that puts those abilities together and have the rpg company that makes the game system publish it. Only then can such be done.
Multiclassed into Fighter? I've been adventuring for a while, so I've picked up good working knowledge of arms and armor.
Multiclassed into Paladin? I've felt a calling from my god or the Forces of Good in general, and I have accepted it.
Multiclassed into Cleric? I've felt a calling from my god, and I have accepted it.
Multiclassed into Inquisitor? I've felt a calling from my god and accepted it.
Multiclassed into Sorcerer? My talent just manifested.
Multiclassed into Oracle? My talent just manifested.
Multiclassed into Druid? I feel a connection to this land, and I am cultivating it.
Multiclassed into Witch? I have a freaky dream and wake up with a new pet and strange powers.
Multiclassed into Summoner? My mind brushes against some extraplanar entity, and I gained power from the encounter.
Multiclassed into Barbarian? I've kindled an inner fury to help me in battle.
Multiclassed into Rogue? I fight dirty and try to keep my head down.
Multiclassed into Ranger? I've kept my wits sharp and observed as we tromp around the most hostile environments in the world. I think I'm getting a sense of how to make my way around here. And those guys? I really don't like 'em much.
Multiclassed into Bard? I felt something stirring within me. Turns out I'm a natural! (Makes especial sense if you multiclass out of a casting class; it means you've just intuited a new method for employing your magic.)
Multiclassed into Alchemist? A bit less plausible, but if you've ever put any ranks into Craft (Alchemy) in your career, then you've just decided to make a more focused study on it.
Admittedly, it's a bit harder to justify Wizard or Monk out of thin air, since they imply a high degree of training in an obscure and specialized field (and it kind of spoils the concept of a wizard academy if you can become a wizard by studying over someone's shoulder). Also Cavaliers, since they absolutely demand a specific organization to be part of.
All of the sudden, you decide you want to be a stealthy type.
Most players I've encountered just take the next class they want at 2nd level, and go from there.
When I ask them "Who taught you those skills? Where did you go for training? Who did you ask to mentor you?" I often times get a blank stare, then realization sets in, and I then their brow furrows.
"Uh. Dunno. I just want rogue at level 2."
Point is, I dislike this sort of thing. Sure, I change it quick and all, but how much RPing do YOU require for these sorts?
I mean, if all of your players are just min-maxxing and dipping classes for the best overall DPS, then aren't we really just playing a table-top game of strategy and tactics?
Why don't we just go play Warhammer 40k or Fantasy? Or War Machine?
Anyway, this isn't me saying I have an lack of skill as a DM, this is me asking you; what do you allow and disallow in your game(s) when it comes to this sort of thing, and how much RPing explanation do you require for dipping and/or Prestige Classes?
A lot of players think when they hit level 7 they just automatically learn all of the skills and abilities of this sacred order of so-and-so that's been around for 400 years.
Not in my game. How about yours?
-Von
Most GM's just allow these things to happen in my experience so if you play differently then you should tell the players up front so they can RP the next class progression. Another thing is that many players don't plan builds ahead of time and those players may feel punished for being slow choosers.
I understand you, but I would just be more lenient so everyone has the same options.If you insist on the RP them putting NPC's in the game for them to learn from should be done on your part.
Anyone who has difficulty answering a few simple background questions like those probably shouldn't be roleplaying.
Maybe the person making the character changed their mind about the character, but does not want to introduce an entirely new one so just decides to change the old one. At this point what they want may not match the background story they had at first.
I'm a DM, so I guess any one of you could just say "You're the DM. You can do what you want." and that would be the end of this thread.
But I'd like some opinions from you guys.
Me? I don't allow cherry picking(dipping) without some serious in-game explaining and RPing, and it takes months to do.
So let's put it in perspective..
Let's say you were born into a military family. You grew up being groomed to be a soldier. You've learned the skills of the fighter early on, and when your 2(or 4 or 6) years are served, you decide to go adventuring.
All of the sudden, you decide you want to be a stealthy type.
Most players I've encountered just take the next class they want at 2nd level, and go from there.
When I ask them "Who taught you those skills? Where did you go for training? Who did you ask to mentor you?" I often times get a blank stare, then realization sets in, and I then their brow furrows.
"Uh. Dunno. I just want rogue at level 2."
Point is, I dislike this sort of thing. Sure, I change it quick and all, but how much RPing do YOU require for these sorts?
I mean, if all of your players are just min-maxxing and dipping classes for the best overall DPS, then aren't we really just playing a table-top game of strategy and tactics?
Why don't we just go play Warhammer 40k or Fantasy? Or War Machine?
Anyway, this isn't me saying I have an lack of skill as a DM, this is me asking you; what do you allow and disallow in your game(s) when it comes to this sort of thing, and how much RPing explanation do you require for dipping and/or Prestige Classes?
A lot of players think when they hit level 7 they just automatically learn all of the skills and abilities of this sacred order of so-and-so that's been around for 400 years.
Not in my game. How about yours?
-Von
I agree Von. I am also of this opinion, some times I roll my eyes (they are d12s) when it happens, other times I say just no. The biggest example of this I have come across in pathfinder is acrobatics.
Acrobatics you say? Yep, specifically acrobatics and spellcasters (and not gypse erotic dancer sorcerers, that I would allow, although perhaps they should have more climb, anyway...). There is a player I know, who always gives his characters acrobatics. He loves his spellcasters, his well-learned wizards and clerics that did not do PE, did not compete in Kurgessian competitions, did not learn their craft as circus performers, no, they just have it. He loves the skill and what can be done with it, so his pcs always have acrobatics, even when it isn't justified, or on their skill list. He also never has a poor dex, he considers it too important. He is meta-gaming, not sticking with his character concepts, which strangely enough, are usually stand up cleric fighters, or wizard merchants. Now that doesn't sound very acrobatic to me, but on he goes.
I have no problem with multi-class character types, I just dislike things that don't make much sense and have no reason (beyond being beneficial). The good news is, wizards are not brilliant at acrobatics without some feat focus, so they can try to tumble, but they can also be crit while trying such bull. Mmmm, good times (I was the player, don't blame me, I warned him he wasn't a rogue, roflmao).
I agree Von. I am also of this opinion, some times I roll my eyes (they are d12s) when it happens, other times I say just no. The biggest example of this I have come across in pathfinder...I'm a DM, so I guess any one of you could just say "You're the DM. You can do what you want." and that would be the end of this thread.
But I'd like some opinions from you guys.
Me? I don't allow cherry picking(dipping) without some serious in-game explaining and RPing, and it takes months to do.
So let's put it in perspective..
Let's say you were born into a military family. You grew up being groomed to be a soldier. You've learned the skills of the fighter early on, and when your 2(or 4 or 6) years are served, you decide to go adventuring.
All of the sudden, you decide you want to be a stealthy type.
Most players I've encountered just take the next class they want at 2nd level, and go from there.
When I ask them "Who taught you those skills? Where did you go for training? Who did you ask to mentor you?" I often times get a blank stare, then realization sets in, and I then their brow furrows.
"Uh. Dunno. I just want rogue at level 2."
Point is, I dislike this sort of thing. Sure, I change it quick and all, but how much RPing do YOU require for these sorts?
I mean, if all of your players are just min-maxxing and dipping classes for the best overall DPS, then aren't we really just playing a table-top game of strategy and tactics?
Why don't we just go play Warhammer 40k or Fantasy? Or War Machine?
Anyway, this isn't me saying I have an lack of skill as a DM, this is me asking you; what do you allow and disallow in your game(s) when it comes to this sort of thing, and how much RPing explanation do you require for dipping and/or Prestige Classes?
A lot of players think when they hit level 7 they just automatically learn all of the skills and abilities of this sacred order of so-and-so that's been around for 400 years.
Not in my game. How about yours?
-Von
I tend to do this with perception if it is a class skill because it is so dang useful. Although why should a concept not have perception it is useful in life to observe what is going on around you even if you are a commoner or anything to know what your surroundings are. So it is not the same.
Anyone who has difficulty answering a few simple background questions like those probably shouldn't be roleplaying.Maybe the person making the character changed their mind about the character, but does not want to introduce an entirely new one so just decides to change the old one. At this point what they want may not match the background story they had at first.
+1
It's surely a good thing to encourage people to try classes they've never played before, but some people are bound to not like their choice in practice, and flexibility and redesign makes experimentation much more attractive
Regarding the OP, I expect people to be able to answer those simple questions such as, "How did you learn to be stealthy?" -- and in most cases in my experiences, my players were able to answer those questions. I also expect players to "practice" to a degree the skills they advance (and I do the same as a player -- so I'll put a rank in Stealth if my character has spent a lot of time trying to sneak around).
That said, I don't think it has to take a lot of time during the campaign. I might say, "Bob is practicing a lot with his sword at the campfire." And maybe have Bob try a few melee efforts in combat. And that's about it, before Bob takes his fighter level.
In short, you have to be able to account for it, but you don't have to go crazy over it.
Some classes do take more work though. If Sam the Fighter is doing absolutely nothing but stabbing things, and then Sam's player says, "I'm gonna take a wizard level next," I'm going to say, "Then you damn well start studying spells, or that's not going to happen." Sam's going to have to find a mentor and a spellbook to look over, and take the time to work on spellcraft. If he's failed to do any of this by the time he gains the next level, he's not going to be allowed to take wizard. And that's more time consuming than, "Bob and I are sparring together, I'm focusing on jabbing the weak points in his armor." But still not impossible, nor unreasonable, I don't think.
Fortunately, I've never seen any multiclassing amongst my usual group that didn't make sense for the character and the way they were being played, honestly. Maybe I'm lucky?
This is why fighters can't have nice things. :P
This is why fighters can't have nice things. :P
Oh, I don't know. I think she qualifies as a nice thing.
But when you roleplay the fluff then I expect some real mechanics when push comes to shove.
What the some people are suggesting is that the Fluff and the mechanics do indeed meet, as the fluff is what gives the mechanics their reason and purpose.
Hey Shifty, well fluff can sometimes get too fluffy.
I'll take Golarion elves, don't worry won't attack them very much. My point is that they sure have a lot of fluff, a lot of what is presented as things they have mastered, the pro-elf material presents them very favourably in their fluff, and yet, they don't get any more bonuses than is presented in their racial block. They don't get a bonus to bab (from playful fencing), they don't get free spells, free spellcaster levels because they are elves, free farming ranks, free ranks in poetry and artistic sensibilities/mastery. They have some bonuses in the mechanics, and the rest of the fluff actually is without form--ethereal fluff.
I always tell my players are you sure you want this class about 3 times. Then as they progress they admire certain idols, or rolemodels in their town and want to become like them. I say its fun to dream, but it takes hard training to actually do. So its not so easy in my campaigns, things are pretty realistic and set in stone.
I'll take Golarion elves, don't worry won't attack them very much. My point is that they sure have a lot of fluff, a lot of what is presented as things they have mastered, the pro-elf material presents them very favourably in their fluff, and yet, they don't get any more bonuses than is presented in their racial block. They don't get a bonus to bab (from playful fencing), they don't get free spells, free spellcaster levels because they are elves, free farming ranks, free ranks in poetry and artistic sensibilities/mastery. They have some bonuses in the mechanics, and the rest of the fluff actually is without form--ethereal fluff.
If you assume that the vast population of the world, regardless of race, is 1st-level then yeah, it doesn't hold up.
However, if you tie experience to age (for non-adventurers), then some of the old tropes like this start to make a bit more sense. Anyone who is more than a couple levels higher than someone else is going to seem rather impressive by comparison, regardless of race.
We have plenty of rules for adventurers, so issues like this are chiefly up to the GM on how they want to present the other 99% of the population. I came up with the above approach simply because I found that it fit the old tropes better . YMMV.
|
Quite frankly, if he can't come up with a reason for being able to take one level in rogue, aside form "I just want to" then he really doesn't deserve it. I mean it's not that HARD to come up with something.
You know, like...
"Well, yes I was trained in the military, but you see our superior officer was big on subterfuge, he made sure that we all had basic knowledge of sneaking around and such, and I've been practicing. I really have."
Then stick him with a "learning penalty" time in which he takes a negative to his DC checks, for say... a few in game weeks.
Then everyone's happy.
It was role played out, and he gets his level in rogue.