Did you actually ask if he was serious? Seriously?I can see a massive, gaping distance between "not directly adding to the story", and "disrupting the story. If Bob's not adding but not disrupting, and he's pleasant, courteous and tactically skilled, he still gets a seat at my game.
Unless he never brings snacks. Or belongs to the KKK. Or other comparable bad stuff.
Did you just say those things were comparable? Seriously?
** spoiler omitted **
You should probably read posts before you comment on them, it'll save you a lot of embarrassment in the long run.
I can see a massive, gaping distance between "not directly adding to the story", and "disrupting the story. If Bob's not adding but not disrupting, and he's pleasant, courteous and tactically skilled, he still gets a seat at my game.
Unless he never brings snacks. Or belongs to the KKK. Or other comparable bad stuff.
Did you just say those things were comparable? Seriously?
** spoiler omitted **
Did you actually ask if he was serious? Seriously?
Read the spoiler? :-)
Edit: Ninja! You must have trained in that move, that's not something you learn how to do in a dungeon, it takes a lot of dedicated practice ironing out the kinks in a skill like that ;)
...We are assuming they are gaining experience.When you say that, be aware that "we" are assuming two different things.
I'm assuming they're gaining experience in life, and it may involve fighting, or it might involve magic, or whatever else.
You're assuming they're gaining no experience in anything outside of their own specialty.
I remain totally unconvinced that your assumption is more "realistic" than mine.
My sensei says only intentional practice leads to practical ability.
Overdoing it leads to sloppy practice which does nothing beneficial, so better to be more realistic.
The mechanics of the game reward winning, not training. I have had some players want training rules in-game so they could level safely without risk and injury.
In real life, you think practice in martial arts makes you good? Imagine how good you would be if you fought everyone you could? Think of this as a variant of Sun Tzu's quote. Not training, endless fighting, recovering, then fighting again. New opponents, things never seen before or trained against. Defeating them over and over, growing so fast by risking it all and experiencing so much more than training, developing in ways training never allowed or encouraged. This is the idea behind martials levelling through combat in dnd, and not at all through training (which they got before they were level 1).
To the real, I am suspicious of the sensei encouraging more training as the path to improvement, when each martial art has its weaknesses and emphasis. Train further in one, and you are becoming more orthodox and easier to counter by those that know the weaknesses of your style. More training improves your forms and appearance, your proficiency in that style and its techniques, but this is not exactly the same as fighting ability, or to use a gaming analogy, your level, bab and the feats you have unlocked. If your training does
Bú rù hǔ xué yān dé hǔ zǐ
How can you catch tiger cubs without entering the lair of the tiger?
I can see a massive, gaping distance between "not directly adding to the story", and "disrupting the story. If Bob's not adding but not disrupting, and he's pleasant, courteous and tactically skilled, he still gets a seat at my game.
Unless he never brings snacks. Or belongs to the KKK. Or other comparable bad stuff.
Did you just say those things were comparable? Seriously?
** spoiler omitted **
Did you actually ask if he was serious? Seriously?
Read the spoiler? :-)
Edit: Ninja! You must have trained in that move, that's not something you learn how to do in a dungeon, it takes a lot of dedicated practice ironing out the kinks in a skill like that ;)
Training gives you a set of tools from a tradition and moveset, it allows you to refine them in safety; but in the hardest sparring and fencing sessions I have been in, deep in the thick of it you develop whole new moves, new combinations of moves, new attack patterns, unusual angles to get an opponent. This does not have to be taught by an authority, and teaching it does not mean it comes out when you need it. It is found when the time comes!
Sparring-fag here. After basic and safety training, you throw people in and see what they can do. More experience leads to them becoming more surprising and living as combatants, not just repeating what they have been taught--which is the path of orthodoxy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What percentage of professional athletes, fighters and soldiers do you think would recommend not training regularly with a coach/trainer/sensei/mentor?
I would suggest an infinitesimally small amount.
Professional athletics isn't being a fighter. Performing in sport is not D&D fighting or fighting in the street. Kicking a ball is not honing the art of killing.
Soldiers do not only fight, and are trained to be bent to a larger purpose (a functioning and hopefully obedient part of the army), there is also the matter of their skills separate to fighting which need training and upkeep (something a raider or ronin didn't have to worry about).
A question for you. Do you think elite military units are just made by training? Nope, it requires a war and experience using those trained skills.
Professional athletics isn't being a fighter. Performing in sport is not D&D fighting or fighting in the street. Kicking a ball is not honing the art of killing.
Soldiers do not only fight, and are trained to be bent to a larger purpose (a functioning and hopefully obedient part of the army), there is also the matter of their skills separate to fighting which need training and upkeep (something a raider or ronin didn't have to worry about).
A question for you. Do you think elite military units are just made by training? Nope, it requires a war and experience using those trained skills.
Sure.
And training. Constant training, updating knowledge, maintaining peak fitness, learning new skills and expanding old ones.
I'm not debating that action in the field transforms the exercises learnt in training into actual wicked effective war skills. But just as necessary is honing those skills away from the bwttlefield and receiving feedback from highly skilled others to correct unconsciously developing errors and improve in ways you mightn't have been aware you needed to.
I understand the importance of battlefield experience and agree it is absolutely necessary, but you seem to be saying that's all that's required after a basic level of skill. It's the second bit that I totally and completely disagree with. Training and external guidance are just as essential.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragonlance elves are far more worthy of genocide than kender. Bunch of racist, xenophobic, arrogant jackasses.The kender do not have this problem, as they all come from close knit communities and learn a bit about all the paths and options before apprenticeship with a master.
So much so that they (as a race) are able and often do multi-class on a whim.
I don't care WHAT class Kender take. And it doesn't matter WHAT class I am playing when I see one. Soon as I see kender, I kill kender. End of story. Wouldn't care if I lost my class as a result, or if I lost the character.
Had some baaaaaad experiences with them once upon a time!
Ever adventured with a kender? They are kleptomaniacs with zillions of pockets, claim they never steal (lie shamelessly) and routinely get you into massive trouble through either you coming up short when you need your gear, or doing something stupid like asking a red dragon for a light, or ticking something off that you KNOW is gonna get everyone else in the party dead, EXCEPT the damned kender.
Kender are a menace that should STAY dead with extreme prejudice!!!!!!!!!
Don't forget their GM fiat-based immunities and refusal to hand anything back because after they got it it's 'theirs'. Worst race ever printed, imprisonment+sympathy the whole lot of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can get good, but if you want to be the best it's much easier with a tracher, and you will learn things you otherwise wouldn't have developed in isolation.
That's why the people who are the best in the world at things that use their bodies (ie fighting, sport, music) spend time with, or have constant, mentors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And fighting styles don't come from one person in isolation. Bruce Lee had trainers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can get good, but if you want to be the best it's much easier with a tracher, and you will learn things you otherwise wouldn't have developed in isolation.
That's why the people who are the best in the world at things that use their bodies (ie fighting, sport, music) spend time with, or have constant, mentors.
Or perhaps its because those things are readily available to us now? I can almost promise you that in many places of the world fairly exceptional warriors developed without any form of mentor. If anything I would tell you that the battle experience makes up well over half of the equation.
aka. you can train as long as you want in your safe little room with a mentor. When you step out on a real battlefield the first time all that training is going to mean relatively little against people who are experienced. On the other hand someones whose brutally experienced in combat walks into a dojo. Still has all of his skills and experience.
In short experience > mentoring.
We could debate whether experience > mentoring all day. I've already stated quite a few times that I'm not dismissing the importance of experience. It is a fundamental part of improvement.
My assertion is that of two warriors ith the same basic attributes and comparable experience, the one that receives mentoring and trains away from the battlefield will be a better exponent of his craft. And many people who would fail to reach any worthwhile level of skill by themselves in isolation, relying only on ad hoc skills gleaned from harsh experience, would contrastingly succeed, improve, and excel if given the right guidance.
I'm a jazz musician. Jazz can be a messy, visceral, intuitive art form on the bandstand, but it requires many years of prepatory training (whether formal or informal), carefully honed physical and mental skills, and at least infrequent guidance and mentoring.
Now, none of that will make a great jazz artist. Hundreds, thousands of hours need to be spent "in the heat of battle" to integrate those practised, taught skills into an intuitive whole, a "voice", a free flowing, confident, unique mode of expression.
But without that training, again, formal or informal, no one becomes a great jazz artist. Yes, jazz came from somewhere, it had to be developed, but it wasn't developed by a dude in the desert. It was developed by a whole culture, one step at time, each adding to the whole.
You may dismiss this as irrelevant, but I think it's a very comparable artform and process of development, having dipped my toe in the seas of martial arts myself. I've lived this process through music, and I've seen many others live it firsthand as well.
That's all I got.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I just say I am kind of amused the thread has gone from "You don't need any explanation" to "Without training, how can you learn?"
I really want the person who said "What if the player tells you they are the chosen one and just know" to weigh in, so the whole thing comes full circle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in fights. I've been in ALOT of fights when I was younger.
I've sparred with Karate practitioners, Wing Chun proponents, Capoeria practitioners, Boxers and BJJ proponents.
I'm not what would be considered formally trained in any of those arts (the closest I'd say is boxing which I've studied the longest) and to say that training with a mentor or teacher isnt important? I'd say that it depends on the fighter and the the teacher/mentor. I'd say that the most important thing that experience provides is that you wont freeze up in a real fight. Experience does give you a certain mindset including whether you should be engaging with a particular opponent AT ALL.
I've rolled with women BJJ fighters who are half my size and who's total fighting expereince has been in the gym. And when I tell you that I would NOT want to full on fight these women when they've turned it ON? I really, REALLY wouldn't. They know exactly what to do to break my arm, shoulder or ankle with minimal effort and they got that skill through training. Repeated, constant training.
Also experience will teach you certain things but without a foundation? Without someone telling you what you're doing right and more importantly what you're doing WRONG. I dont know if having some experience is enough to be called proficient. Before I actually started learning how to fight, I was IN plenty of fights. Some worked out great others not so much. The fights I had the most trouble with weren't against the bigger guys or the so called tough kids, it was against the people who had some form of training (whether it was dojo training or their dad or uncle teaching them) mixed with having fought before.
There's a difference between being a basement brawler and a proficient fighter. In short I absolutely respect formal training and dont discount it or disrespect it at all. I have a close friend who has been taking Kali Escrima for about 10 years now and he will tell you that he could have all of the experience in the world in knife fighting. He would not want to go up against someone who was trained by his teacher. YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or I could say--you have been on the run for a couple of weeks now after being shipwrecked, stumbling through a jungle without your basic equipment and an opportunity to reasonably research anything--why a completely new spell should appear instantly in...I did have problem with the wizard who assumed he was going to get two new spells every level just appearing in his spell book regardless of the situation he was in. I need some justification somewhere --and I'm fairly lenient--but some justification.The reason for the two new spells would be the same reason why the majority of his spells increase in power step-wise.
At level 5, the maximum reach of a normal fireball is 620 ft. If someone was standing 625 ft away, the wizard wouldn't be able to hit them. And then at some precise moment, the wizard can suddenly reach 660 ft. The character can never reach 625 ft or 650 ft no matter how much he practices without also being able to hit 660 ft. It's a step-wise improvement.
It's also the same reason that no matter how much my character works out or hits the gym, his strength will never naturally improve until he hits one of the stat improvement levels (4, 8, 12, 16, 20). And then that's only if I choose to increase strength, but not increase one of the other five stats.
It's the same reason why all my skills seem to improve in steps of 5 percent, but never less or more.
Or you can just handwave it all away and claim that the character has been thinking about it, working out the magical writings using scrap paper, and practicing the news spells during his off time (while at camp, etc), and only now is he satisfied enough to write them into his spellbook. But if you're at that point, why even bother with requiring the player to come up with a reason at all? You didn't bother to require the player to explain his skill, stat, or spell range improvements. Focusing on that one thing as the "unrealistic" aspect just seems inconsistent.
Your ongoing casting and usage of magic has revealed to you a few things which enabled you to complete the work on a few spells you had been working on, and finish them off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What percentage of professional athletes, fighters and soldiers do you think would recommend not training regularly with a coach/trainer/sensei/mentor?
I would suggest an infinitesimally small amount.
What percentage of all of the above do you think reach the height of their profession because of training rather than in game experience, or in war and battle experience?
I'm still trying to figure out why it is so critical to ciretose's story that he know WHY I took a level in another class.
See, it's not that I TOOK another class that's ruining his story, it's that I did so without giving him an adequate explanation. And he's repeatedly said that the "explanation" can be as simple as "I practiced with my sword at night".
So I I tell him "I practiced with my sword at night" then his story zooms on, pristine and undamaged. But if I tell him "I dunno, I just felt like it" his story comes crashing down in shattered ruins.
I still don't understand that. How does the first keep the story true, but the second ruins it for the whole table?
If the DM asks for it why is it so critical to resist? Why not meet the DM's expectation?
In most cases, I don't see any problem with the multi-class choices players make for their PCs. But if they're not toting around a spellbook and they're out in the wild, I'm going to tell them that multi-classing into a wizard will be a bit hampered and suggest they hold off until there's a more reasonable time for it. Discussing how they're learning to be a wizard beforehand with the GM can smooth that process. It would with me.
I also tend to be pretty strict about access to prestige classes, so if someone wants to take one, they need to indicate that in advance.
And, finally, I do take an active interest in how the characters in the games I run get built. If the concept is going to put them head and shoulders above the others in some way, I'm going to ask them to tone it down. If they're going to fall behind, I'm going to ask them to shore up some weaknesses as they advance. One of my responsibilities as a GM includes helping the players be successful in the game we're playing so if I can catch frustration issues early, I will try to do so. But if their choice looks dubious and they have a good rationale and plans to ameliorate it with other choices, I'll let it slide.
I seem to have this dim memory, way back in the dark fading corners of my brain, that in the early versions of this game leveling up actually did require the PC engage in training, although that was usually done during game "down time". In other words, it was not possible to level up within a dungeon because training wasn't available.
If you want to run a "gritty, realistic" campaign, then I have no problem with requiring some sort of training/mentoring/education/research to go from level to level. But that sort of game is rare these days.
As far as the need to train/mentor/learn/research to level up is concerned, I would say that Hollywood movie heroes have done a lot to set expectations that heroes just get better as they go. You never see Bruce Willis in Die Hard do anything but get better, better and better at fighting and killing. He was just a street cop in Die Hard 1 but by the last movie he's using rocket launchers, driving armored trucks, picking up specialized Russian weapons, using Russian electronic devices and I'm sure if the plot called for it, he'd be flying Russian fighter jets.
From a modern narrative perspective having the story pause so that the hero can take a course on nuclear control room protocol just isn't done. The hero just knows which buttons to push, or else just gets lucky.
Does it "make sense?" Not in any realistic sense, but I don't see a lot of people complaining that it's ridiculous that Tony Stark could make a miniature nuclear reactor in a cave with nothing but an anvil, a wood stove and a few missiles to take apart. He's Tony Stark. He doesn't need no stinkin' manuals.
Don't forget their GM fiat-based immunities and refusal to hand anything back because after they got it it's 'theirs'. Worst race ever printed, imprisonment+sympathy the whole lot of them.Dragonlance elves are far more worthy of genocide than kender. Bunch of racist, xenophobic, arrogant jackasses.The kender do not have this problem, as they all come from close knit communities and learn a bit about all the paths and options before apprenticeship with a master.
So much so that they (as a race) are able and often do multi-class on a whim.
I don't care WHAT class Kender take. And it doesn't matter WHAT class I am playing when I see one. Soon as I see kender, I kill kender. End of story. Wouldn't care if I lost my class as a result, or if I lost the character.
Had some baaaaaad experiences with them once upon a time!
Ever adventured with a kender? They are kleptomaniacs with zillions of pockets, claim they never steal (lie shamelessly) and routinely get you into massive trouble through either you coming up short when you need your gear, or doing something stupid like asking a red dragon for a light, or ticking something off that you KNOW is gonna get everyone else in the party dead, EXCEPT the damned kender.
Kender are a menace that should STAY dead with extreme prejudice!!!!!!!!!
Gm fiat should lead to imprisonment.
I'm still trying to figure out why it is so critical to ciretose's story that he know WHY I took a level in another class.
See, it's not that I TOOK another class that's ruining his story, it's that I did so without giving him an adequate explanation. And he's repeatedly said that the "explanation" can be as simple as "I practiced with my sword at night".
So I I tell him "I practiced with my sword at night" then his story zooms on, pristine and undamaged. But if I tell him "I dunno, I just felt like it" his story comes crashing down in shattered ruins.
I still don't understand that. How does the first keep the story true, but the second ruins it for the whole table?
If the DM asks for it why is it so critical to resist? Why not meet the DM's expectation?
In most cases, I don't see any problem with the multi-class choices players make for their PCs. But if they're not toting around a spellbook and they're out in the wild, I'm going to tell them that multi-classing into a wizard will be a bit hampered and suggest they hold off until there's a more reasonable time for it. Discussing how they're learning to be a wizard beforehand with the GM can smooth that process. It would with me.
I also tend to be pretty strict about access to prestige classes, so if someone wants to take one, they need to indicate that in advance.
And, finally, I do take an active interest in how the characters in the games I run get built. If the concept is going to put them head and shoulders above the others in some way, I'm going to ask them to tone it down. If they're going to fall behind, I'm going to ask them to shore up some weaknesses as they advance. One of my responsibilities as a GM includes helping the players be successful in the game we're playing so if I can catch frustration issues early, I will try to do so. But if their choice looks dubious and they have a good rationale and plans to ameliorate it with other choices, I'll let it slide.
Bill, I consider the discussion I was having with ciretose to be resolved amicably with each of us feeling like our approach is really pretty close to the other's approach, with some very, very minor potential differences in extreme edge cases. So I am not interested in re-opening that discussion.
But I don't mind addressing another aspect of this debate so long as it is clear that this is now an entirely new point in the discussion and is not re-opening what has already been discussed.
Let me propose a situation to you and get your opinion.
You have a party that is on a long-term adventure. The party includes a rogue, fighter, cleric and druid, all level six, none multiclassed. The party is well balanced and is not having any unusual difficulties meeting the challenges of the campaign. The party has just cleared out a dungeon, but is still far from any civilization. No player has so far expressed any interest in multi-classing up until now.
After clearing out the dungeon the party finds a safe and comfortable place to camp. You announce that due to their heroic actions, they have gained a new level.
The rogue player, out of the blue, announces that he wants to take a dip in sorcerer.
What do you do?
With a teacher, you will only learn the patterns.
Ooh! May I?
I would do a burst of energy sort of cinematic mixed with a stark realization of self for the character. If at all possible tie it to contact with some magic item in the dungeon.
Failing magic items in le dungeon, I would have them activate a few low level spells for free as they go about their routine during down time. Go to reach for something? Mage hand. Clearing some brush to clear a camping area? Burning hands. Go to say something to someone across the room? Message. Give the character a minor psychosis (again, only cinematically) as they gain control of themselves and figure out what's going on perhaps even having them black out for 1d4 hours. After this, they realize they're a sorcerer who's powers have just awakened and have enough of a handle on them to at least not accidentally activate them.
Sorcerer isn't the best example, I think. Sorcerer is relatively easy to explain. So are some things which would involve switching from say fighter to cleric - they already knew the fighting bits of the cleric package, they gained the favor of their god and the ability to cast spells, granted, after all, by divine favor. Figure out why the god granted the divine favor you are there. Sorcerer is innate ability. Switching from fighter to say ranger or paladin isn't that bad. A large chunk of core skills and abilities are the same you just have to gain certain other things.
Barbarian to wizard, say, is one that strains credulity quite a bit more.
A paladin to a cleric is smooth as silk. A cleric to a paladin is fairly smooth.
A certain subset of their archetype is being emphasized more but it IS part of their archetype see? It's not a massive sudden sea-change.
|
In my first Shackled City game, the party fighter decided he wanted some cool powers instead of just his feats. He narrowed his choices down to scout, ninja, and spell thief. I grabbed a few NPCs and told him he would need to go train with one of them to learn whichever style he wanted. It ended up being an homage to The Cruel Tutelage of Pai Mei.
In the second run, the catfolk monk decided she wanted to become a tattooed monk. Since there was already such an NPC in the AP, her character was directed that way.
Those are the only two times I recall doing such a thing however.
With a teacher, you will only learn the patterns.Oh there is a lot more to it than that my friend. You must practice outside of class yes, but there is a lot of little things that make up a big part of the art.
Exactly. I dont understand why people dont get this. It's not just the teacher saying "here. Do this 25 times." and walking off. A good teacher is going to say "here. Do this 25 times." Then observe you and your classmates to see what you're doing right and correct what you're doing wrong.
When I first started learning how to box, I would jab, jab and then throw the cross but I would drop my guard during the cross. So my trainer would tell me that I was doing it because he saw something that I didn't. When I would train with him, EVERYTIME I threw that cross and my guard would drop he would POP ME right through that weak guard until I got tired of getting hit and started keeping my arm up.
If a real fight with no training? Yes, I know how to set up my cross but against an opponent that knows what to watch out for (because presumably he was trained in a similar fashion?) I'm kissing canvas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shin: in many adventuring parties the ARE other people who can point those things out to you: your other party members, who are experts in their own right. Even if you are a fighter and their a cleric it doesn't mean they couldn't be pointing out hitches in your swing and the like. Look at many batting coaches and the like - many of them weren't as good hitters as the guys they are improving.
So a good bit of the sort of training you are talking about is probably your own companions sitting around a campfire with you and going "Bill, I couldn't help but notice that when we were fighting those ogres, you dropped your left shoulder way too low on your swing and ..."
Yes, training is important.
But at the point a monk has begun adventuring, he has already snatched the pebble from his master's hand. He las learned everything a master can teach his pupil. Now the pupil must go and learn what life has to teach, and refine his art for himself.
Why do you think there are so many different Chinese styles of Kung Fu?
They didn't all sit around and learn the same stuff. They learned some basics, enough to defend themselves from the untrained, and went out and refined them into new styles based on their own observances and practice.
I'm not so sure your comparison is accurate. Then, again, I use the Golarion setting and have its relative levels in my mind. A level 5 - 8 is a high end professional, lieutenant type character. ~10 is low level royalty and generals. I don't see a level 1 getting anything over on those guys. That's not to say the "go learn for yourself" bit isn't correct, though.
Yes, training is important.
But at the point a monk has begun adventuring, he has already snatched the pebble from his master's hand. He las learned everything a master can teach his pupil. Now the pupil must go and learn what life has to teach, and refine his art for himself.Why do you think there are so many different Chinese styles of Kung Fu?
They didn't all sit around and learn the same stuff. They learned some basics, enough to defend themselves from the untrained, and went out and refined them into new styles based on their own observances and practice.
You're talking exception here and not the rule.
If everyone did what you just pointed out then there would be many more styles of martial combat than there are now. EVERYONE would have their own style or technique.
When someone sees the example of your monk with his new fighting style and wants to learn how to do THAT style? he's gonna seek out that monk for training right?
Anyway I think we're all kind of talking about variations of the same thing to different degrees. Except for the people who are saying that any kind of training or tutelage is lame. That I completely disagree with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, only a few were driven to make their own art. But...
The main part of my point is, when any character has decided to adventure (level 1) he has learned the basics for his main class and is ready to go do so.
This is what the starting age variables represent. To show how long that training took.
This doesn't mean that other training isn't needed as the character levels, just not months at a time.
To make a fine point of it ... One would presume that pcs are exceptional cases and not the norm. Pcs are the exception rather than the rule.
Fair enough.
Let me propose a situation to you and get your opinion.
You have a party that is on a long-term adventure. The party includes a rogue, fighter, cleric and druid, all level six, none multiclassed. The party is well balanced and is not having any unusual difficulties meeting the challenges of the campaign. The party has just cleared out a dungeon, but is still far from any civilization. No player has so far expressed any interest in multi-classing up until now.
After clearing out the dungeon the party finds a safe and comfortable place to camp. You announce that due to their heroic actions, they have gained a new level.
The rogue player, out of the blue, announces that he wants to take a dip in sorcerer.
What do you do?
If this were way out of the blue, my first questions would be "Where do you expect this to lead you? What do you want to get out of it?" I want to know what the player is thinking about how his character is developing.
I'd also be looking at his character's stats and thinking about his history. Does he have a Charisma to make it worthwhile or would this end up being a fairly wasted level of stuff that would end up being not very useful (that's where I might actively discourage that particular multi-class)? Does he have anything invested in Use Magic Device? Has he shown any interest in magic-use before?
I would also ask him how would he would explain having this heretofore unknown bloodline? What would it mean for his family (and my gears would be grinding to bring up interesting complications based on the bloodline - such as why, exactly, would there be a demonic bloodline in the family?) What has happened that would now cause a previously hidden bloodline to become manifest?
And since they've just cleared out a dungeon and will be traveling back toward civilization, they've certainly got comparative downtime (relative to exploring the dangers of a dungeon), so we'd have plenty of opportunity to explore the burgeoning manifestation of any potentially sorcerous powers. I would seriously consider some lighthearted magical failures or misfires on his part on the trip back as well.
If this were way out of the blue, my first questions would be "Where do you expect this to lead you? What do you want to get out of it?" I want to know what the player is thinking about how his character is developing.Let me propose a situation to you and get your opinion.
You have a party that is on a long-term adventure. The party includes a rogue, fighter, cleric and druid, all level six, none multiclassed. The party is well balanced and is not having any unusual difficulties meeting the challenges of the campaign. The party has just cleared out a dungeon, but is still far from any civilization. No player has so far expressed any interest in multi-classing up until now.
After clearing out the dungeon the party finds a safe and comfortable place to camp. You announce that due to their heroic actions, they have gained a new level.
The rogue player, out of the blue, announces that he wants to take a dip in sorcerer.
What do you do?
And if I as the player say "I really don't think you need to know what my plans are for my character. Just as you want to surprise us with challenges, I want you to have to deal with challenges we provide you." how do you respond to that?
I'd also be looking at his character's stats and thinking about his history. Does he have a Charisma to make it worthwhile or would this end up being a fairly wasted level of stuff that would end up being not very useful (that's where I might actively discourage that particular multi-class)? Does he have anything invested in Use Magic Device? Has he shown any interest in magic-use before?
So say I'm a highly experienced player that doesn't need to be baby-sat. Do you still take it upon yourself to second-guess my character advancement decisions?
I would also ask him how would he would explain having this heretofore unknown bloodline? What would it mean for his family (and my gears would be grinding to bring up interesting complications based on the bloodline - such as why, exactly, would there be a demonic bloodline in the family?) What has happened that would now cause a previously hidden bloodline to become manifest?
I assume you would do all of this whether the character was in the middle of a campaign or resting leisurely in a large city between campaigns, so I'll consider this to be irrelevant to the current question.
And since they've just cleared out a dungeon and will be traveling back toward civilization, they've certainly got comparative downtime (relative to exploring the dangers of a dungeon), so we'd have plenty of opportunity to explore the burgeoning manifestation of any potentially sorcerous powers. I would seriously consider some lighthearted magical failures or misfires on his part on the trip back as well.
In case it wasn't clear, I deliberately set this example up as being "in the middle of a campaign" and not being able to get back to civilization. The expectation is that a dungeon has been cleared out, the party is able to rest for the moment, but they have to move on quickly and tackle additional challenges before returning to civilization. So, no, you wouldn't have time to "explore the burgeoning manifestation of any potentially sorcerous powers." The decision is time-sensitive, the player wants a level of sorcerer NOW. They could take another level of rogue immediately and move on the next morning. That's what they expect to do with a level of sorcerer.
Now what do you do?
And if I as the player say "I really don't think you need to know what my plans are for my character. Just as you want to surprise us with challenges, I want you to have to deal with challenges we provide you." how do you respond to that?
I don't have any players like this at my table now. If one joined who was like this, clearly he's a bad fit for the group. If he persists, he can find another group to play with.
So say I'm a highly experienced player that doesn't need to be baby-sat. Do you still take it upon yourself to second-guess my character advancement decisions?
Same answer. I play with my friends. We share information with each other in order to play better together. And even if there are reasons for players to have secrets between each other, none of those apply to the GM. We're not running player vs GM adversarial campaigns. If the player wants to make it so - he can find another group to play with.
As far as being in the middle of a campaign - having downtime is also being in the middle of a campaign. If you meant in the middle of a time-sensitive mission, you should have said so. But even then, there's going to be transit time from one aspect of the mission to another so there should be ample time to explore aspects of a new set of bloodline powers and quirks.
Edit: None of this is about "baby-sitting". This is about working together to produce a story through game play and character development. We get better results if the PC can be fit into the world around him or her and I can't do my end of that work if the player and I aren't communicating about these issues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bill, I deliberately gave you the simplest and easiest example of how to do a multi-class in a campaign. In fact I was expecting you to say "Hmm... rogue to sorcerer? Not a big deal" and then I was going to go into the real meat of my argument when the fighter heard the rogue taking a level of sorcerer and said "wait, I want a level of wizard!"
But instead you made it impossible for the rogue to even take a level of sorcerer and created this monstrous set of conditions and expectations for the player to meet before he could take a class that by rule manifests itself spontaneously!
I would be a bad fit for your group Bill. Not because I couldn't adjust my game to play with you, I could. But because I view your approach to the game as far too controlling in philosophy to meet my own expectations of how the game should be played. Not to mention that I find your insistence that you second-guess every single decision I would make for my character just downright condescending.
Have fun.
Bill, I deliberately gave you the simplest and easiest example of how to do a multi-class in a campaign.
And you deliberately came back at me with an adversarial attitude. You're right you wouldn't fit in with the games I play in and run. I had enough of that crap in other games and don't have any interest in playing that way.
Or I could say--you have been on the run for a couple of weeks now after being shipwrecked, stumbling through a jungle without your basic equipment and an opportunity to reasonably research anything--why a completely new spell should appear instantly in your spell book without explanation is not in keeping with the game world or any real justification other than it is in the basic rules. Fine for you--not fine for me. There is a difference in my opinion between getting better at what you do and instantly finding neatly scripted new magic appearing in your battered old spell book without explanation.I did have problem with the wizard who assumed he was going to get two new spells every level just appearing in his spell book regardless of the situation he was in. I need some justification somewhere --and I'm fairly lenient--but some justification.The reason for the two new spells would be the same reason why the majority of his spells increase in power step-wise.
At level 5, the maximum reach of a normal fireball is 620 ft. If someone was standing 625 ft away, the wizard wouldn't be able to hit them. And then at some precise moment, the wizard can suddenly reach 660 ft. The character can never reach 625 ft or 650 ft no matter how much he practices without also being able to hit 660 ft. It's a step-wise improvement.
It's also the same reason that no matter how much my character works out or hits the gym, his strength will never naturally improve until he hits one of the stat improvement levels (4, 8, 12, 16, 20). And then that's only if I choose to increase strength, but not increase one of the other five stats.
It's the same reason why all my skills seem to improve in steps of 5 percent, but never less or more.
Or you can just handwave it all away and claim that the character has been thinking about it, working out the magical writings using scrap paper, and practicing the news spells during his off time (while at camp, etc), and only now is he satisfied enough to write them into his spellbook. But if you're at that point, why even bother with requiring the player to come up with a reason at all? You didn't bother to require the player to explain his skill, stat, or spell range improvements. Focusing on that one thing as the "unrealistic" aspect just seems inconsistent.
I'll note that you completely ignored everything I said in order to move the goalpost. Your complaint that I addressed was that the wizard player would assume the spells would appear in his spellbook - not that the wizard didn't have a spellbook at all (unless your definition of "basic equipment" differs from a normal person). But I'll play along. Let us pretend the characters are now shipwrecked and fleeing though the jungle from some BBEG.
If the wizard does not have the ability to practice spells because he is on the run through the jungle without basic equipment, how would a fighter be able to gain a new combat feat, since he also would not have had time to practice nor did he have basic equipment (weapons, armor, shield, etc)? How did the rogue gain a new rogue talent and increased sneak attack if he did not have his basic equipment nor time to practice?
How did the cavalier get better without his horse? How did the alchemist write new formula? How did the monk have time to learn a new style feat (especially without a mentor; when did he have time to reinvent the wheel while on the run in the jungle?)? How did the urban ranger have time to improve, especially without a city in sight?
If they were in such a hurry, did they even have time to stop and eat or sleep? If no, then wtf? If yes, then why does that not count as down time? Did the wizard have time to prepare his spells? Did the cleric have time to pray? Did the witch have time to commune? If no, then how did they get their daily allotment of spells? If yes, they why does that not count as practice for improving their abilities? Can a fighter who never trips in combat and doesn't have time to practice gain the Improved Trip feat while on the run in the jungle? If yes, then why can the fighter do that while the wizard cannot gain a new spell? Or is only the fighter allowed to practice during downtime, but the wizard cannot (wait, what downtime; they're running through the jungle for weeks on end!)?
All these characters are in the same exact situation: shipwrecked and running through the jungle with no basic equipment. When they level up, shouldn't they all be forced to level in the same exact class? They've all had the same exact experiences. Perhaps they should all be forced to take a level in Ranger (Warden) for the survival experience, with a forced favored terrain in jungle. This makes a lot more sense than all of them running through the jungle after a shipwreck without basic equipment or time for training or practice, yet they all somehow magically had the ability to continue their old craft except the wizard.
Or you could handwave it all away and claim that the wizard had been writing the new spells into his spellbook back when he had plenty of time for practice (on the ship during the days or weeks before the shipwreck, back when the wizard did have all of his equipment and plenty of time), and during the night one night in the jungle, unable to sleep, he had an epiphany that finally allowed him to make sense of an equation which finalized his ability to cast his two new spells (Oh, and you can't tell me that such a thing wouldn't happen; I've had epiphanies in the middle of the night which allowed me to solve complex chemistry and mathematical equations that I spend days trying to understand). Of course, if I were a betting man, I would bet that you would move the goalpost again and tell me that the wizard wouldn't have had time to practice on the ship because they were tied up slaves or some other excuse (Yet the fighter would still gain his new feat, even though he was in the exact same situation).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bill, I deliberately gave you the simplest and easiest example of how to do a multi-class in a campaign.And you deliberately came back at me with an adversarial attitude. You're right you wouldn't fit in with the games I play in and run. I had enough of that crap in other games and don't have any interest in playing that way.
It's not an adversarial attitude Bill.
Just being honest. I mean I was literally appalled by your reaction to "I want to take a level of sorcerer."
I doubt that your games actually go that way. I mean seriously? "I want to take a level of sorcerer" generates all that crap you listed?
Ugoddabekiddinme man.
It's not an adversarial attitude Bill.Just being honest. I mean I was literally appalled by your reaction to "I want to take a level of sorcerer."
I doubt that your games actually go that way. I mean seriously? "I want to take a level of sorcerer" generates all that crap you listed?
Ugoddabekiddinme man.
You want honest? Coming back to a GM's questions by blocking reminds me an awful lot of a petulant child saying "Nuh-uh, don't gotta tell you."
And then you come back at me with the old badwrongfun because, apparently, I'm gaming philosophically incorrect. Well, I've got my stable gaming groups - one of which has had the same core for over 20 years, the other of which has the same core for over 8. Clearly, my incorrect gaming philosophy is working with somebody and that's what matters to me, not your opinion.
So I'm content to treat this conversation as over.