When did making sense become wrongbadfun?

[Arssanguinus]

The Crusader wrote:

Someone will likely denounce this as the "But... Dragons?" argument, but can I just ask:

What single class addition to a character is so incomprehensible that it completely disrupts the world where you just found a stick that can magically knit fatal wounds together inside the hole-in-nothing that the ogre you just killed with a ray from your finger was carrying?

I keep going through the list. I keep adding class to class. Gunslinger. That's it, and only because it's hard to re-skin. Asian flavored classes... maybe, and only because of flavor.

You ever hear of internal consistency vs external consistency? A game is not trying to be consistent with the real world its trying to be consistent with itself. So mentioning healing wands and dragons and acting like that is some sort of argument is a bit fallacious. The world itself has rules and structure and internal consistency.

To use the trope ...

Internal Consistency: Consistency with itself.
Any rules, events, settings, or characters that have been established within the fictional work continue to exist and function as they did previously, unless otherwise indicated.

[The Crusader]

Jeff Wilder wrote:

You want a concrete example? The manifestation of a sorcerer level in a world where a BBEG just, last adventure, obliterated The Weave (or Mana, or whatever you wanna call it).

So, maybe this is rather Pathfinder-centric. I'm certainly aware that other game worlds have other rules. But, isn't that kind of like saying, "the manifestation of a fighter level in a world where all weapons and armor were turned into silly putty."

If you drastically alter the rules of the game world, you have to change player expectations.

[The Crusader]

Arssanguinus wrote:

The Crusader wrote:

Someone will likely denounce this as the "But... Dragons?" argument, but can I just ask:

What single class addition to a character is so incomprehensible that it completely disrupts the world where you just found a stick that can magically knit fatal wounds together inside the hole-in-nothing that the ogre you just killed with a ray from your finger was carrying?

I keep going through the list. I keep adding class to class. Gunslinger. That's it, and only because it's hard to re-skin. Asian flavored classes... maybe, and only because of flavor.

You ever hear of internal consistency vs external consistency? A game is not trying to be consistent with the real world its trying to be consistent with itself. So mentioning healing wands and dragons and acting like that is some sort of argument is a bit fallacious. The world itself has rules and structure and internal consistency.

To use the trope ...

Internal Consistency: Consistency with itself.
Any rules, events, settings, or characters that have been established within the fictional work continue to exist and function as they did previously, unless otherwise indicated.

Meaning the world that has fighters and alchemists and clerics could easily have a fighter/alchemist/cleric without destroying its own internal consistency.

So, why does a fighter gaining a level of alchemist or an alchemist gaining a level of cleric or a fighter gaining a level of cleric or a fighter/alchemist gaining a level of cleric or a....or a....or a.... ever disrupt your world?

[Jeff Wilder]

The Crusader wrote:

If you drastically alter the rules of the game world, you have to change player expectations.

Of course. Which is exactly what this is: "Remember, until the Weave is re-woven, there is no magic. You can't take a level of sorcerer."

The player can incorrectly claim that he can do it anyway, "because he owns the character," all he wants. It doesn't make it true. People can incorrectly claim that the GM is playing the game wrong, "because the player owns the character," all they want. It doesn't make it true.

[Unseelie]

At a guess, in 1984 when the Talking Heads released Stop Making Sense. It's been all down hill since then.

[Arssanguinus]

The Crusader wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

The Crusader wrote:

Someone will likely denounce this as the "But... Dragons?" argument, but can I just ask:

What single class addition to a character is so incomprehensible that it completely disrupts the world where you just found a stick that can magically knit fatal wounds together inside the hole-in-nothing that the ogre you just killed with a ray from your finger was carrying?

I keep going through the list. I keep adding class to class. Gunslinger. That's it, and only because it's hard to re-skin. Asian flavored classes... maybe, and only because of flavor.

You ever hear of internal consistency vs external consistency? A game is not trying to be consistent with the real world its trying to be consistent with itself. So mentioning healing wands and dragons and acting like that is some sort of argument is a bit fallacious. The world itself has rules and structure and internal consistency.

To use the trope ...

Internal Consistency: Consistency with itself.
Any rules, events, settings, or characters that have been established within the fictional work continue to exist and function as they did previously, unless otherwise indicated.

Meaning the world that has fighters and alchemists and clerics could easily have a fighter/alchemist/cleric without destroying its own internal consistency.

So, why does a fighter gaining a level of alchemist or an alchemist gaining a level of cleric or a fighter gaining a level of cleric or a fighter/alchemist gaining a level of cleric or a....or a....or a.... ever disrupt your world?

there a as many answers to that as there are worlds. And I mentioned, actually, a fighter taking a level of cleric as relatively easy to justify on the fly, if the person had been acting enough like an exemplar/priest of that deity should, the deity grants them powers/abilities. Really easy, as is Sorcerer in most cases. Rogue rarely presents big problems. Wizard ... Can.present some.

[Aioran]

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

so i can't call my highly anemic pajama wearing purple haired Samsaran wizard a sickly Yokai Magician specialized in the 5 controlling the 5 chinese elements? can i treat the purple silken pajamas as a reskinned silken ceremonial robe?

and i can't have said anemic purple haired magician take the leadership feat for a youthful tiefling magus cohort that she calls her devil familiar? and i can't call the dervish dancing tiefling cohort's 'scimitar' an oversized letter opener?

At first I thought you were insane and then I realised what (or who, rather) you were talking about. Somewhat related: do you read PurpleQuest? :> The author's depiction of that character is amazing.

Jeff Wilder wrote:

"Remember, until the Weave is re-woven, there is no magic. You can't take a level of sorcerer."

I'll raise you the Shadow Weave and the entire plot/reasoning behind NWN2.

[Jeff Wilder]

Aioran wrote:

I'll raise you the Shadow Weave and the entire plot/reasoning behind NWN2.

I knew using "the Weave" would get me in trouble. I like the phrase, but I actually know very, very little about Forgotten Realms. (And computer games are one of the major blind-spots in my geekdom, so that's two strikes.)

[Aioran]

Jeff Wilder wrote:

I knew using "the Weave" would get me in trouble. I like the phrase, but I actually know very, very little about Forgotten Realms. (And computer games are one of the major blind-spots in my geekdom, so that's two strikes.)

I probably like FR far too much:

What the Weave is exactly is confusing, it could be as much as an embodiment of the Goddess of Magic herself, or as little as a construct designed to allow mortal spellcasters to use magic without putting themselves at risk. It's kind of important in a lot of non-arcane respects because it's a direct creation of Mystra so it means that whenever someone draws on it or uses it she gets a tiny bit of divine power, even if they worship another god. So with every arcane caster using the Weave Mystra gets to be rather powerful. Though, there's only so much sense to all this because Cyric is more powerful or something stupid like that.

The Shadow Weave is a dark copy Shar made in an attempt to overthrow her errant daughter, Mystra, that spellcasters can tap into instead of the Weave for a variety of effects like making certain spells stronger/weaker and having less intractability with Weave users. However, the cost of using it also varies, from damning yourself to Shar's afterlife, or corrupting your soul, or just being wary of Weave casters wanting to hunt you down.

tl;dr: Primal Magic is bad and the Weave keeps arcane casters safe while making Mystra really powerful, the Shadow Weave is basically a copy of the Weave infused with Shar's inferiority complex over her daughter being more important than her (she's bad with kids), and Cyric is a badly disguised plot device.

EDIT: I just realised I didn't explain how the Weave works at all. If you imagine it sitting on a layer of reality, then it acts like a network to allow magic to flow between areas and creatures. The amount of magic than can be drawn upon via the Weave is directly regulated by Mystra. It's not immediate, however, and extensive use of magic can cause a strain on the Weave and cause a lowering in the local ambient level of magic*. I'm less certain about this, but I believe it also acts as an intermediate, processing raw primal magic into a form that can be safely used by mortal arcane spellcasters. Sort of like a flow regulator and an AC-DC converter.

*This actually happens in the fluff when the Netherese create a bunch of magic-powered flying cities, inadvertently starving a race of magic-dependent creatures living underground their empire. They create the Anauroch desert which pressures the Netherese to expand, the nearby empire creates "The Guardian", a construct which embodies the Weave, to stop them invading, and then Karthus attempts to supplant Mystra in order to save his people from the desert, who then kills herself to stop him, causing the Weave to cease to exist for a moment, and all the Netherse cities (except Shadovar who were at an altitude high enough that they were able to transport the city to the plane of shadows) come crashing to the ground ending the Netherese empire. Anything more and I'd have to spoiler tag this.

On topic: I'm glad AD and Ciertose's discussion came to a happy resolution.

[3.5 Loyalist]

I remember when the Weave collapsed, and all I got was this lousy chain shirt.

[Rocketman1969]

Arssanguinus wrote:

The Crusader wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

The Crusader wrote:

Someone will likely denounce this as the "But... Dragons?" argument, but can I just ask:

What single class addition to a character is so incomprehensible that it completely disrupts the world where you just found a stick that can magically knit fatal wounds together inside the hole-in-nothing that the ogre you just killed with a ray from your finger was carrying?

I keep going through the list. I keep adding class to class. Gunslinger. That's it, and only because it's hard to re-skin. Asian flavored classes... maybe, and only because of flavor.

You ever hear of internal consistency vs external consistency? A game is not trying to be consistent with the real world its trying to be consistent with itself. So mentioning healing wands and dragons and acting like that is some sort of argument is a bit fallacious. The world itself has rules and structure and internal consistency.

To use the trope ...

Internal Consistency: Consistency with itself.
Any rules, events, settings, or characters that have been established within the fictional work continue to exist and function as they did previously, unless otherwise indicated.

Meaning the world that has fighters and alchemists and clerics could easily have a fighter/alchemist/cleric without destroying its own internal consistency.

So, why does a fighter gaining a level of alchemist or an alchemist gaining a level of cleric or a fighter gaining a level of cleric or a fighter/alchemist gaining a level of cleric or a....or a....or a.... ever disrupt your world?

there a as many answers to that as there are worlds. And I mentioned, actually, a fighter taking a level of cleric as relatively easy to justify on the fly, if the person had been acting enough like an exemplar/priest of that deity should, the deity grants them powers/abilities. Really easy, as is Sorcerer in most cases. Rogue rarely presents big problems. Wizard ... Can.present some.

Does it make sense though? I'm not trying to re-up a fight here--and I have no real concrete answer--all I can do is relate the experience I have had GMing a basic four--fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard campaign.

The fighter, cleric and rogue have been together since childhood. The wizard is a brilliant daughter of a noble with distinctly non-traditional views of her position in society who have all been groomed and drafted into the service of the crown prince as troubleshooters because he believed his own spy ring was compromised. (The three friends started the campaign at 12 years of age each when they went into the woods after the proto-cleric had a vision and ended up saving the prince and his hunting party from an ambush thus starting the whole thing.)

Now-the cleric has spent the entire campaign fleshing out his religion and his approach to it. He has always been in the fight and then making sure that the NPC survivors or the wounded by-standers affected by the circumstances have the benefit of his presence and succor. Every time. Built into a more fullsome and deep character who actually questions actions on a philosophical basis--a character who continually tries to lecture the wizardess on the proper expectations of a noble woman in society but whose player let me have it for half an hour because in a session he had to miss--his character wasn't right beside hers to make sure she wasn't attacked and to get in the way of the damage if she was. And these are people who didn't know each other before the beginning of the campaign.

Now I'm supposed to take that work and investment and say--hell its okay if someone want to add a level of what you work for just for mechanical purposes.

It just doesn't "feel" right to me in that context. Y'dig?

[thejeff]

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Does it make sense though? I'm not trying to re-up a fight here--and I have no real concrete answer--all I can do is relate the experience I have had GMing a basic four--fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard campaign.

The fighter, cleric and rogue have been together since childhood. The wizard is a brilliant daughter of a noble with distinctly non-traditional views of her position in society who have all been groomed and drafted into the service of the crown prince as troubleshooters because he believed his own spy ring was compromised. (The three friends started the campaign at 12 years of age each when they went into the woods after the proto-cleric had a vision and ended up saving the prince and his hunting party from an ambush thus starting the whole thing.)

Now-the cleric has spent the entire campaign fleshing out his religion and his approach to it. He has always been in the fight and then making sure that the NPC survivors or the wounded by-standers affected by the circumstances have the benefit of his presence and succor. Every time. Built into a more fullsome and deep character who actually questions actions on a philosophical basis--a character who continually tries to lecture the wizardess on the proper expectations of a noble woman in society but whose player let me have it for half an hour because in a session he had to miss--his character wasn't right beside hers to make sure she wasn't attacked and to get in the way of the damage if she was. And these are people who didn't know each other before the beginning of the campaign.

Now I'm supposed to take that work and investment and say--hell its okay if someone want to add a level of what you work for just for mechanical purposes.

It just doesn't "feel" right to me in that context. Y'dig?

In your case, it sounds like you've got players focused enough on the roleplaying that they wouldn't change class without some roleplay reason behind it or at least wouldn't change class in a way that disrupts the already developed character.

OTOH, if the cleric took a level of something, say a prestige class or fighter or paladin or something that gave mechanical benefits he wanted, but didn't interfere with his character's motivations or religious dedication, would that be so wrong?

[Rocketman1969]

thejeff wrote:

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Does it make sense though? I'm not trying to re-up a fight here--and I have no real concrete answer--all I can do is relate the experience I have had GMing a basic four--fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard campaign.

The fighter, cleric and rogue have been together since childhood. The wizard is a brilliant daughter of a noble with distinctly non-traditional views of her position in society who have all been groomed and drafted into the service of the crown prince as troubleshooters because he believed his own spy ring was compromised. (The three friends started the campaign at 12 years of age each when they went into the woods after the proto-cleric had a vision and ended up saving the prince and his hunting party from an ambush thus starting the whole thing.)

Now-the cleric has spent the entire campaign fleshing out his religion and his approach to it. He has always been in the fight and then making sure that the NPC survivors or the wounded by-standers affected by the circumstances have the benefit of his presence and succor. Every time. Built into a more fullsome and deep character who actually questions actions on a philosophical basis--a character who continually tries to lecture the wizardess on the proper expectations of a noble woman in society but whose player let me have it for half an hour because in a session he had to miss--his character wasn't right beside hers to make sure she wasn't attacked and to get in the way of the damage if she was. And these are people who didn't know each other before the beginning of the campaign.

Now I'm supposed to take that work and investment and say--hell its okay if someone want to add a level of what you work for just for mechanical purposes.

It just doesn't "feel" right to me in that context. Y'dig?

In your case, it sounds like you've got players focused enough on the roleplaying that they wouldn't change class without some roleplay reason behind it or at least wouldn't change class in a way that disrupts the already...

I probably wouldn't have a problem with it--but then again--he is already a pretty kick-ass combatant as it stands. He's a cleric in a discipline of the " Angel of War and Law" aspect of the church so he is already hellacious on a battle field because he has been designed that way--as support for shock troops and to fight demons.

If he takes that level of fighter would I be justified in assuming he is not maintaining the ritual, prayer and service he normally undertakes as a priest?

And if he isn't in the game--is there a potential effect for that? Would his god view such a thing as straying? or would it agree? Like the fighter who wishes to learn to cast spells--if he does this is he maintaining his regimen to maintain his fighter skill in game? As much as we would all like to be Leon Battista Albertis perhaps not everyone is all things.

[TOZ]

Aioran wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Here you go.

D: You're a bad person. Even if you like Robot Chicken and Legos.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

[thejeff]

Rocketman1969 wrote:

I probably wouldn't have a problem with it--but then again--he is already a pretty kick-ass combatant as it stands. He's a cleric in a discipline of the " Angel of War and Law" aspect of the church so he is already hellacious on a battle field because he has been designed that way--as support for shock troops and to fight demons.

If he takes that level of fighter would I be justified in assuming he is not maintaining the ritual, prayer and service he normally undertakes as a priest?

And if he isn't in the game--is there a potential effect for that? Would his god view such a thing as straying? or would it agree? Like the fighter who wishes to learn to cast spells--if he does this is he maintaining his regimen to maintain his fighter skill in game? As much as we would all like to be Leon Battista Albertis perhaps not everyone is all things.

It's your game. You can run it how you like. I'd definitely be upfront with the players about it though, because a character losing the abilities of one class when leveling in another is definitely not common.

The actual rules allow you to multiclass with no penalties. Under the rules, you're not justified in any mechanical penalties for a cleric taking a fighter level or fighter taking a sorcerer level.
Now, if the player roleplays a lack of devotion to his religion along with this change, that's a different story. Technically he'd have to change his alignment to no longer receive spells, but deliberating neglecting or rejecting his god should have some effects.

And he's not all things. He's not getting better at the original class's abilities while he's focused on the new class. He just doesn't get worse.

[Ashiel]

The minimum age of a cleric is 17 years old. The minimum age of a rogue is 16 years old. The minimum age of a cleric who was a rogue and multiclassed into a cleric is also 16 years old. The average age of a 1st level cleric is 22. The average age of a 1st level rogue is 17. The age of a rogue 1 / cleric 1 is still 17 if he leveled within 1 year of beginning his adventures.

*waits for heads to explode*

[Adamantine Dragon]

Ashiel wrote:

The minimum age of a cleric is 17 years old. The minimum age of a rogue is 16 years old. The minimum age of a cleric who was a rogue and multiclassed into a cleric is also 16 years old. The average age of a 1st level cleric is 22. The average age of a 1st level rogue is 17. The age of a rogue 1 / cleric 1 is still 17 if he leveled within 1 year of beginning his adventures.

*waits for heads to explode*

The average age of "children" being expected to "work" in medieval times was about 10. This was a direct consequence of the lack of an industrial economic base which allowed "children" to be "children" longer. (At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution 10 - 14 year old children commonly worked 60 hour weeks.)

The average age of marriage for most "women" was about 14.

The general world view of the time was that by the age of 16 a person had been working pretty hard for six years already. Frequently this meant as an apprentice in a trade. So that 20 year old journeyman blacksmith probably had nearly a decade of working with blacksmith tools behind him.

"Clerics" generally are assumed to have been dedicated to their religion from even younger than that. So your 17 year old cleric has probably been studying their faith for a decade already.

You didn't post the minimum age for a wizard, but if you do, consider that wizard is probably the Pathfinder equivalent of Sheldon Cooper.

[TOZ]

Who?

[Adamantine Dragon]

Assuming you are asking "who" in response to my comment TOZ, Sheldon Cooper (Apparently your google/wiki fu is weak.)

[Jeff Wilder]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

[Stuff on working ages.]

I think the poster you're responding to was actually pointing out the minor weirdness of multi-classing allowing, e.g., a multi-class cleric to be younger than a starting single-class cleric.

Starting age suggestions are fluff, not rules. I think it's a little funny, what he was pointing out, but not a big deal.

[TriOmegaZero]

Despite them being in the 'Addition Rules' section of the rulebook. :)

[Vod Canockers]

The Crusader wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

The Crusader wrote:

Someone will likely denounce this as the "But... Dragons?" argument, but can I just ask:

What single class addition to a character is so incomprehensible that it completely disrupts the world where you just found a stick that can magically knit fatal wounds together inside the hole-in-nothing that the ogre you just killed with a ray from your finger was carrying?

I keep going through the list. I keep adding class to class. Gunslinger. That's it, and only because it's hard to re-skin. Asian flavored classes... maybe, and only because of flavor.

You ever hear of internal consistency vs external consistency? A game is not trying to be consistent with the real world its trying to be consistent with itself. So mentioning healing wands and dragons and acting like that is some sort of argument is a bit fallacious. The world itself has rules and structure and internal consistency.

To use the trope ...

Internal Consistency: Consistency with itself.
Any rules, events, settings, or characters that have been established within the fictional work continue to exist and function as they did previously, unless otherwise indicated.

Meaning the world that has fighters and alchemists and clerics could easily have a fighter/alchemist/cleric without destroying its own internal consistency.

So, why does a fighter gaining a level of alchemist or an alchemist gaining a level of cleric or a fighter gaining a level of cleric or a fighter/alchemist gaining a level of cleric or a....or a....or a.... ever disrupt your world?

In my world it takes years of studying to learn how to cast spells. So you can't just say, I'll add a level of wizard or cleric. You can't even justify it by saying, "Oh, I've been studying it in my spare time." It would be like me deciding tomorrow that I am a Brain Surgeon.

[Ashiel]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

The minimum age of a cleric is 17 years old. The minimum age of a rogue is 16 years old. The minimum age of a cleric who was a rogue and multiclassed into a cleric is also 16 years old. The average age of a 1st level cleric is 22. The average age of a 1st level rogue is 17. The age of a rogue 1 / cleric 1 is still 17 if he leveled within 1 year of beginning his adventures.

*waits for heads to explode*

The average age of "children" being expected to "work" in medieval times was about 10. This was a direct consequence of the lack of an industrial economic base which allowed "children" to be "children" longer. (At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution 10 - 14 year old children commonly worked 60 hour weeks.)

The average age of marriage for most "women" was about 14.

The general world view of the time was that by the age of 16 a person had been working pretty hard for six years already. Frequently this meant as an apprentice in a trade. So that 20 year old journeyman blacksmith probably had nearly a decade of working with blacksmith tools behind him.

"Clerics" generally are assumed to have been dedicated to their religion from even younger than that. So your 17 year old cleric has probably been studying their faith for a decade already.

You didn't post the minimum age for a wizard, but if you do, consider that wizard is probably the Pathfinder equivalent of Sheldon Cooper.

As Jeff Wilder pointed out, the joke is that in the core rules there are minimum ages based on your profession. The adult age of a human is 15, and then you add +1d4 for barbarians, rogues, or sorcerers. +1d6 for Bard, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger, and +2d6 for Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Wizards. This is presumably due to the amount of time that it takes to train these sorts of skills and sets a fair precedent for the average ages of NPCs (most 1st level wizards will be between 17 and 27 years old with an average of 22).

Yet if you begin as another class then multiclass into another class you can actually end up under the age of someone who begins as that class. It's funny, it's a bit nonsensical, and yet it's fine. It works. It's all good. The sky doesn't fall. I'd estimate a good 80% of players probably wouldn't care even if they noticed. Most people don't even seem to realize there are rules for age/height/weight for characters.

At the end of the day it's a game that we play with our friends to have fun.

[Komoda]

Quote:

In my world it takes years of studying to learn how to cast spells. So you can't just say, I'll add a level of wizard or cleric. You can't even justify it by saying, "Oh, I've been studying it in my spare time." It would be like me deciding tomorrow that I am a Brain Surgeon.

Yet I bet it would be ok to go from wizard to fighter, in your world. A certain dark elf took years of training before he was a Ranger.

And why couldn't the character in your world just say, "Before I chose to be a fighter, I practiced being a wizard for many years, but never quite got it. Turns out just a little bit more practice was all I needed to make the breakthrough to cast spells."

[TriOmegaZero]

Vod Canockers wrote:

In my world it takes years of studying to learn how to cast spells. So you can't just say, I'll add a level of wizard or cleric. You can't even justify it by saying, "Oh, I've been studying it in my spare time." It would be like me deciding tomorrow that I am a Brain Surgeon.

That's cool. In my world, you're free to multiclass however you like. Just let me know how I should play it out.

[ciretose]

Unseelie wrote:

At a guess, in 1984 when the Talking Heads released Stop Making Sense. It's been all down hill since then.

It's because they stopped letting children sleep.

They aren't just plaything, you can't just make them stay up all night.

[Vod Canockers]

Komoda wrote:

Quote:

In my world it takes years of studying to learn how to cast spells. So you can't just say, I'll add a level of wizard or cleric. You can't even justify it by saying, "Oh, I've been studying it in my spare time." It would be like me deciding tomorrow that I am a Brain Surgeon.

Yet I bet it would be ok to go from wizard to fighter, in your world. A certain dark elf took years of training before he was a Ranger.

No, actually it would take several years of schooling to become a fighter or rogue or cleric or any other class.

Skills are something else, you can always pick up the skills of another class, and even the weaponry, but you won't be as good without the training.

Komoda wrote:

And why couldn't the character in your world just say, "Before I chose to be a fighter, I practiced being a wizard for many years, but never quite got it. Turns out just a little bit more practice was all I needed to make the breakthrough to cast spells."

Said character would have to be independently wealthy to be have been able to support himself for about a decade to have completed all the studying necessary to be both a fighter and wizard. If he were to have to work to support himself during that time, he would need at least 20 years to complete all the learning necessary. So if you would like to play a character that is roughly 15 years older than his peers, he could actually go adventuring with his child and both of them be first level.

An historical NPC fighter, a guard at one of the wizards schools, did learn to cast spells. It took him a decade of taking classes at the school in his free time. He ended up starting what became a knightly order and main guards of the wizards schools all over the world.

[TriOmegaZero]

How does multiclassing work in your world?

[Jeff Wilder]

Has anybody ever come up with PFRPG-compatible simultaneously advancing multi-class rules? I've thought about it idly, but never came up with even a close-to-workable solution. (Honestly, even the old 3E version of hitting 1st level in both simultaneously would be pretty cool.)

[TriOmegaZero]

Jeff Wilder wrote:

Has anybody ever come up with PFRPG-compatible simultaneously advancing multi-class rules?

Here you are!

[Jeff Wilder]

Yeah, I've never been a big fan of gestalt rules. Even if I were, I wouldn't want to require everyone use gestalt rules, and a gestalt PC wouldn't balance with a standard PC.

[TriOmegaZero]

Me either. The one time I allowed it I averaged a lot of things. (1/2 BAB and 1/1 BAB became 3/4 BAB.)

[Rocketman1969]

Jeff Wilder wrote:

Has anybody ever come up with PFRPG-compatible simultaneously advancing multi-class rules? I've thought about it idly, but never came up with even a close-to-workable solution. (Honestly, even the old 3E version of hitting 1st level in both simultaneously would be pretty cool.)

Yes. But it is entrenched with some other fairly big divergences from RAW. In essence you can buy feats and features in my game using character points which serve as experience points and hero points--leaving the characters to decide very flexibly what they want to build. It just costs far more and takes more time to move ahead.

[phantom1592]

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

bookrat wrote:

The character could be like Shepherd Book. A pacifist religious man leaving the abbey to walk the world, but as the story progresses, it's hinted that he used to be a government sponsored assassin. Translate to pathfinder, that could be like gaining a level of monk or fighter in the middle of a campaign.

Actually in Pathfinder that would be the equivalent of always having the class and not telling anyone

Which I consider a perfectly acceptable use of fluff :)

Why yes... I studied as a mage/monk/barbarian as a kid, but didn't feel the need to tell you party members about it. Guy's gotta have SOME secrets you know....

[phantom1592]

Ashiel wrote:

The minimum age of a cleric is 17 years old. The minimum age of a rogue is 16 years old. The minimum age of a cleric who was a rogue and multiclassed into a cleric is also 16 years old. The average age of a 1st level cleric is 22. The average age of a 1st level rogue is 17. The age of a rogue 1 / cleric 1 is still 17 if he leveled within 1 year of beginning his adventures.

*waits for heads to explode*

This is also PRE-Ultimate Campaign... I'm curious what the NEW minimums will be when we have 'young' characters in the game...

Levels and starting ages are really a poor place to look for 'making sense'...

As you say, minimum age for level one cleric... 17. ending age of a level 19 cleric??? ALSO could be 17...

My basic philosophy is this... other players/DM shouldn't have TOO much control over YOUR character.

Can I come up with simple "I practiced with weapons" answer for why I want an alchemist or monk level... But I don't want the DM or even worse 'other players' vetoing my decisions on how the character evolves.

Also, if the DM puts too many strictures on HOW I can advance... then he pretty much dictates WHEN, WHERE, and IF I'll be able to level up at all... I'll meet a magus, WHEN he decides or a Monk IF he decides...

Having played in a couple of APs... Like Serpent skull... NPCS are few and far between...

*Fighters are given proficency in weapons and armor FAR above anything they've had access to use, i.e.

*Bards can cast clerical spells without a god

*one skill point in linguistics gives you any language you want.

*Snakes provide soft cover against range attacks

Unless, what my character is SOOOOOOOO far outside the realm of 'realistic sense' that blows THESE points out of the water... then i would be seriously ticked if my choices were vetoed or my story 'not good enough' for it to happen.

[Craig Frankum]

I've read a few pages of this thread as well as the other. I feel each tables aesthetics vary greatly as I have GM'ed or played under a couple of GM's. My question comes since when did role-playing become devoid in a ROLE-PLAYING game?

[Adamantine Dragon]

Craig Frankum wrote:

I've read a few pages of this thread as well as the other. I feel each tables aesthetics vary greatly as I have GM'ed or played under a couple of GM's. My question comes since when did role-playing become devoid in a ROLE-PLAYING game?

It hasn't. Virtually everyone who has commented on every side of this discussion has said that role playing is the preferred way to play the game. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has said that role playing should go away, or was less desired or is "wrongbadfun".

The core of this debate has been about requiring specific role playing activities to allow players to make completely legal game mechanic choices.

So just stop this nonsense about people calling role playing "wrong" or saying that role playing "has no place" or asking "when did role-playing become devoid" and all this other hysterical BS.

The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

[Vod Canockers]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

How does multiclassing work in your world?

Assuming you are asking me, the PC would have to take roughly 3 years of game time off studying and training to learn the new class, and come up with the money to pay for all the training.

[littlehewy]

Vod Canockers wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

How does multiclassing work in your world?

Assuming you are asking me, the PC would have to take roughly 3 years of game time off studying and training to learn the new class, and come up with the money to pay for all the training.

I'd say 8 years for a wizard...

[Aioran]

phantom1592 wrote:

*Bards can cast clerical spells without a god

Point of order: If you mean they can cast spells that are on the cleric spell list then that's not unique to Bards, if you mean they can cast spells Divine spells then no, they can't. If you mean they cast spells that are typically clerically flavoured then my answer is Conjuration (Healing) spells are available to Druids and they don't get them from gods, spells that are actually specific to gods and Clerics are not on the Bard list. Unless there's something like Divine Power and Divine Might secretly on the Bard list that I just didn't notice before.

[phantom1592]

Aioran wrote:

phantom1592 wrote:

*Bards can cast clerical spells without a god

Point of order: If you mean they can cast spells that are on the cleric spell list then that's not unique to Bards, if you mean they can cast spells Divine spells then no, they can't. If you mean they cast spells that are typically clerically flavoured then my answer is Conjuration (Healing) spells are available to Druids and they don't get them from gods, spells that are actually specific to gods and Clerics are not on the Bard list. Unless there's something like Divine Power and Divine Might secretly on the Bard list that I just didn't notice before.

It's one of the changes from 2E to 3.x, Individualized spell lists. In 2E you had Wizard Spells, and Priest Spells.

Druids and clerics used the same lists and druids were essentially 'nature priests'

Bards... were a 'jack of all trades' They picked up various proficiencies and spells from others... but the purely 'priest spells' were NOT on their lists.. they were restricted to things they could 'pick up in a tavern' like a limited ability in wizard spells...

THAT kind of made sense... Moving to Pathfindeer, them getting the cure light wounds?!? That blew my mind, and makes zero 'sense' in my reality.

[Bearded Ben]

Vod Canockers wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

How does multiclassing work in your world?

Assuming you are asking me, the PC would have to take roughly 3 years of game time off studying and training to learn the new class, and come up with the money to pay for all the training.

So you've effectively banned multiclassing except in rare corner cases (time-skips and very long games)? I hope you tell your players that at the beginning of the campaign rather than when they try to do it.

[Aioran]

phantom1592 wrote:

Moving to Pathfindeer, them getting the cure light wounds?!? That blew my mind, and makes zero 'sense' in my reality.

I take it you didn't play any iteration of third edition? In 2e healing spells were Necromancy (Healing), in 3.0/3.5e they were Conjuration (Healing). You aren't subtly manipulating life energies to restore a person, you're conjuring positive energy which heals them for you. It toned down the required involvement of a divine force.

I think the reason (thematically) bards and witches and druids have cure spells and the like is because their magic is to do with a spiritual connection or drive to something, music and guile in the case of the bard. But a Wizard/Sorcerer casts and uses magic in a clinical, tactical, or brutish kind of way. There's no deep connection there.

[Aioran]

Bearded Ben wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

How does multiclassing work in your world?

Assuming you are asking me, the PC would have to take roughly 3 years of game time off studying and training to learn the new class, and come up with the money to pay for all the training.

So you've effectively banned multiclassing except in rare corner cases (time-skips and very long games)? I hope you tell your players that at the beginning of the campaign rather than when they try to do it.

Who needs multiclassing anyway? I'll play an elven wizard and laugh hysterically at the short lived humans trying to pick up multiple classes. Guess who'll be more effective and do more adventuring too?

[RadiantSophia]

Bearded Ben wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

How does multiclassing work in your world?

Assuming you are asking me, the PC would have to take roughly 3 years of game time off studying and training to learn the new class, and come up with the money to pay for all the training.

So you've effectively banned multiclassing except in rare corner cases (time-skips and very long games)? I hope you tell your players that at the beginning of the campaign rather than when they try to do it.

Which is perfectly legitimate, but does move the concept from "RAW" to "homebrew".

[Vod Canockers]

Bearded Ben wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

How does multiclassing work in your world?

Assuming you are asking me, the PC would have to take roughly 3 years of game time off studying and training to learn the new class, and come up with the money to pay for all the training.

So you've effectively banned multiclassing except in rare corner cases (time-skips and very long games)? I hope you tell your players that at the beginning of the campaign rather than when they try to do it.

Yes it was clear from the beginning, but there is much more flexibility in other things to make up for it.

[sunshadow21]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

In some campaigns and groups, absolutely they can. It needs to be something the player is forewarned about, and it needs to be applied consistently, but if those two conditions are met, and the player still sits down to play, the DM is well within his rights to expect a specific action or a functional equivalent. It's grown less common that DM's do so as the game has progressed, and the rules have become more defined, but there are still plenty of players and DMs that prefer to play that way.

[firefly the great]

Craig Frankum wrote:

I've read a few pages of this thread as well as the other. I feel each tables aesthetics vary greatly as I have GM'ed or played under a couple of GM's. My question comes since when did role-playing become devoid in a ROLE-PLAYING game?

It's not about RP, it's about mutli-classing. It's about whether you need to check off a sufficient number of RP boxes to make a legal mechanical decision for your character. It's also full of GMs who won't allow multi-classing, period, because apparently it takes years and years to learn magic missile, but throw a few of those at some kobolds and suddenly you're summoning devils? Sure, makes sense.

[TriOmegaZero]

firefly the great wrote:

It's also full of GMs who won't allow multi-classing, period, because apparently it takes years and years to learn magic missile, but throw a few of those at some kobolds and suddenly you're summoning devils? Sure, makes sense.

You are welcome at my table any time.

[Arssanguinus]

sunshadow21 wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

In some campaigns and groups, absolutely they can. It needs to be something the player is forewarned about, and it needs to be applied consistently, but if those two conditions are met, and the player still sits down to play, the DM is well within his rights to expect a specific action or a functional equivalent. It's grown less common that DM's do so as the game has progressed, and the rules have become more defined, but there are still plenty of players and DMs that prefer to play that way.

It's not specific to multi classing, its just that actions and results need to have some logical interaction with the world. Just like if you want to attempt some action in character that might seem impossible on its face, if you give me a really good explanation for HOW you are attempting the impossible, I will probably allow a roll anyway, and a chance at succeeding at the purportedly impossible - which through your explanation has now become improbable.