Oh, one other thing. I'm not sure if you would count this as 'theory-crafting' or not.
But you read a lot on these boards about the paladin's oath causing problems at the table. I have to say that is spot on. Every time there is a paladin in the group about every other game session grinds to a screeching halt while they argue about a paladin can't, should, must, would never, etc...Usually by somewhere around level 5-8 they finally all agree on what this particular paladin believes and drop the argument. But it really makes me wish the class had never been created in the first place.
I say this on just about every Paladin thread that I can't resist posting on, but I'll say it again...
I've been playing D&D and its derivative for 30+ years, and I have never found the paladin class to be problematic. The only times I've seen it be a problem is when there's a disruptive player (often, but not always, the player of the paladin), or a power-tripping GM. (Or, worse, both.) These types tend to be unpleasant to play with anyway, but paladins really seem to attract their attention (and ire) unduly.
The last several times, in attempt to head things off, the paladin's player and the GM (sometimes me) made an effort to work things out ahead of time by discussing what X meant to this Paladin and how Y would be interpreted. Still had all the other players at the table arguing over it even when the GM and player agreed.
Rarely have any similar issues/discussions/arguments with those same players on anything else. But it always comes out with the paladin present.
YMMV, I guess.
Speaking from personal experience, in 30+ years of gaming, with at least a score of paladins I can think of, I can count on one hand the number of times I encountered the typical "paladin problem" people tend to gripe about on the boards. All were directly the result of players known to be disruptive or GMs known to be, um, jerks.
Moral quandaries? Situations that require creative solutions? Certainly! But no more so than when you have a non-paladin lawful good character in the party... which is often in the circles I play with.
YMMV, I guess.
Speaking from personal experience, in 30+ years of gaming, with at least a score of paladins I can think of, I can count on one hand the number of times I encountered the typical "paladin problem" people tend to gripe about on the boards. All were directly the result of players known to be disruptive or GMs known to be, um,...
Fairly well this, yeah...for example, I've run into the folks who tried PvPing everyone around them, or a wizard who claimed omnipotent knowledge and...the ability to PvP everyone.
Yeesh.
I've found there are also fewer issues with "rules conundrums" so long as expectations are stated. Certainly none of the drama you'd expect from reading these boards. More, just the occasional attitude quirkle.
For example, the fellow who demanded a CE assassin with expanded gun rules. ...while giving what felt like an hours-long pro-NRA speech while arguing for additional gun options while attempting to out-stare the DM and and that all women should love him now, but damn them all for jilting him so far...and hey dude, what's the policy on PvP? ...you may not want that guy at the table.
Or the guy who pretended to be a female sorceress and would sit there drawing her boobs all the time, mostly to the tune of, "Lawl! I drew them too big that time!"
...yeah. Quirkles.
...are much more frequent than rules-drama.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Haladir, how long have been playing again? :)
Anyway, I've seen paladins played 2 ways. Either disruptive with super-strict morals that are unyielding or this one time a buddy of mine played it way different. He roleplayed essentially a genuinely nice quarterback from your old high school.
Seriously. The paladin PC made a point to take off his armor and peacebond his own sword even though this wasn't the law of the land; he just didn't want to appear "scary to the townsfolk." Then he roleplayed walking around the town square to gather info. But he didn't just ask about the plot points; he asked commoners and merchants their names, then used them in conversation; he made a point to ask about other issues these folks had like stubborn weeds in gardens or cats in trees and such; finally for a couple of the folks he offered advice, encouragement, and even a helping hand here and there.
He was sweet, kind, and generous. Everything you think a paladin SHOULD be but never really comes across. In battle he would throw out these positives when directing traffic: "You're doing great rogue, but you need a flanker. Summoner, send one of your monsters to aid our young friend if you please..." stuff like that.
Best thing was he wasn't overly optimized. His DPR wasn't massive, he was no tank and his saves were vanilla as far as paladins go. But we all WANTED to help him and he made us WANT to succeed. It was the most fun I've had w/a paladin at the table.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never had a problem with a Paladin of any sort.
@Kydeem de'Morcaine:
The builds posted are almost universally combat-optimized, of course they'll be less than ideal out-of-combat if used directly without modification. That's really not the point of such builds, IME, the point is to show what the optimal version has and then use that as a general guideline of, say, which stats you want highest and what Feats to take. That kind of thing.
Using builds off the internet like cookie-cutters to make exactly that character is almost always a bad idea. Don't do it.
...
@Kydeem de'Morcaine:The builds posted are almost universally combat-optimized, of course they'll be less than ideal out-of-combat if used directly without modification. That's really not the point of such builds, IME, the point is to show what the optimal version has and then use that as a general guideline of, say, which stats you want highest and what Feats to take. That kind of thing.
Using builds off the internet like cookie-cutters to make exactly that character is almost always a bad idea. Don't do it.
Agreed. I thought that was the point of the OP's question. Was it not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Haladir, how long have been playing again? :)
Since 1982.
Which was 32 years ago.
So I've been playing 30+ years. And in my 30+ years of gaming over the past 30+ years, I guess I have 30+ years of gaming experience, and um...
What was I talking about again?
Hey, you damn kids! Get off my lawn!
(I'm drinking some prune juice and heading over to the Old Timer Community Thread now...)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, one other thing. I'm not sure if you would count this as 'theory-crafting' or not.
But you read a lot on these boards about the paladin's oath causing problems at the table. I have to say that is spot on. Every time there is a paladin in the group about every other game session grinds to a screeching halt while they argue about a paladin can't, should, must, would never, etc...Usually by somewhere around level 5-8 they finally all agree on what this particular paladin believes and drop the argument. But it really makes me wish the class had never been created in the first place.
I say this on just about every Paladin thread that I can't resist posting on, but I'll say it again...
I've been playing D&D and its derivative for 30+ years, and I have never found the paladin class to be problematic. The only times I've seen it be a problem is when there's a disruptive player (often, but not always, the player of the paladin), or a power-tripping GM. (Or, worse, both.) These types tend to be unpleasant to play with anyway, but paladins really seem to attract their attention (and ire) unduly.
This has been my experience as well.
You can take that with a grain of salt because I've only been gaming for 29 years. ;)
-Skeld
Agreed. I thought that was the point of the OP's question. Was it not?I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just noting that it's not the builds' fault per se. The usage is at fault, more than the existence of such builds.
It could be said to be a bit of the fault of the person writing the description of the builds. They are often put on a pedestal as perfect and can do anything. Some of the ... let's say less experienced players read those and think that is a how to do X. So they make it exactly like that theory crafted combat monster build.
Most don't seem to happy with them when they do. Though there have been a few players that are thrilled with it. { shrug } It takes all kinds of people to make a world.
What actually happens in your games? Does your table contain the types of things we see on these boards?
Not for a while, but I have witnessed every single thing you mention occur over a period of years and at different tables - I've been at one or two tables where more than one thing you mentioned has occurred. That being characters examined by others for 'usefulness' and the wizards being a walking hellstorm of death while the fighter-types barely ever had the opportunity to wet a blade. Mainly it was due to DM laziness in letting the party take full advantage of the 'fifteen minute adventuring day' where we'd enter a room, the two mages would unleash their most powerful spells on everything in sight. We'd do maybe one more room, then hole up in a safe area until the next day when they could re-prepare spells.
Now, this was if they didn't prep a ton of scrolls, or have a couple wands readied and full.
I've had both a gunslinger and a summoner in my games, and found neither to be any problem. I've had a monk that was actually the most effective combatant in the party. Nearly every full caster I've seen has been a blaster sorcerer. I've never had a Paladin cause arguments, or face a catch 22. While our only rogue wasn't a combat powerhouse, she did contribute both in and out of combat, and she did it as a flanking twf rogue. The only archer we've ever had was an elven sorcerer. I don't think any of my players have ever used a reach weapon. I've seen plenty of helpful in combat healing.
Theorycraft has not been borne out in my actual gaming experiences.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have had new players in the past couple of months try out theorycraft characters. In theory, these characters should be far better than the rest of the party, which is unoptimized. In practice, I've never seen one live long enough to even complete the first dungeon. They typically don't even make it past the first room, and I've had a couple not even make it inside the building without dying.
See, I love traps. I use them heavily. Only, I don't use the simple traps Pathfinder has. I like to make them more complex, with these being my typical additions:
1) Multiple triggers. Typically, not hard to spot. But is a nasty surprise for those used to a trap having a single trigger.
2) Sometimes, the trigger the rogue has to disarm has a trap attached to it. Needless to say, rushing to disarm as soon as you find the trigger is not a good idea.
3) Sometimes, the trigger mechanism isn't keeping a trap working, but preventing it from working; disabling that trigger activates the trap. This can be spotted by taking a single round to examine the trigger (you don't even need to roll for this).
4) Often, the trap will have a hidden bypass switch that you can push to temporarily deactivate it. These are always a minimum DC of 25 to find, and the DC typically is 30+ (including at first level).
I am more forgiving in how difficult it is to find and disarm my traps than Pathfinder is... but that's because I also make my traps deadly. So to make up for the increased consequences of failure, the difficulty is lower.
That said, I've seen way too many theorycraft characters who paid attention to these forums and assumed they could just tank the damage of the trap. Every single one of them found out the hard way that it's not possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like that'd get real old, real fast. A multitude of traps is boring enough when every one DOESN'T kill you.
Hard to be invested in a character (and a game) where a low Perception or Disable Device roll out of the bunches you need to make results in character death.
Typically, new players stop complaining about traps the first time they see one of the more experienced players use a trap and some trickery to one-shot a deadly enemy.
I do make efforts to balance it out, though. And a large portion of encounters are not in dungeons.
I have had new players in the past couple of months try out theorycraft characters. In theory, these characters should be far better than the rest of the party, which is unoptimized. In practice, I've never seen one live long enough to even complete the first dungeon. They typically don't even make it past the first room, and I've had a couple not even make it inside the building without dying.
See, I love traps. I use them heavily. Only, I don't use the simple traps Pathfinder has. I like to make them more complex, with these being my typical additions:
1) Multiple triggers. Typically, not hard to spot. But is a nasty surprise for those used to a trap having a single trigger.
2) Sometimes, the trigger the rogue has to disarm has a trap attached to it. Needless to say, rushing to disarm as soon as you find the trigger is not a good idea.
3) Sometimes, the trigger mechanism isn't keeping a trap working, but preventing it from working; disabling that trigger activates the trap. This can be spotted by taking a single round to examine the trigger (you don't even need to roll for this).
4) Often, the trap will have a hidden bypass switch that you can push to temporarily deactivate it. These are always a minimum DC of 25 to find, and the DC typically is 30+ (including at first level).
I am more forgiving in how difficult it is to find and disarm my traps than Pathfinder is... but that's because I also make my traps deadly. So to make up for the increased consequences of failure, the difficulty is lower.
That said, I've seen way too many theorycraft characters who paid attention to these forums and assumed they could just tank the damage of the trap. Every single one of them found out the hard way that it's not possible.
Nobody had ever heard of Wand of Summon Monster in your game?
In all my years I've only seen the paladin moral problem a few times but that may be because i play with a very pro roleplay group luckily
Nobody had ever heard of Wand of Summon Monster in your game?
They have. They have long, ongoing, epic tales of Summon Monster setting off a single trigger and having the air in the room filled with arrows, trap after trap going off as trigger sets off trigger, or the room sealing and filling with water or worse. And then there's the bizarre traps, such as the ceiling opening up and dropping in gelatinous cube after gelatinous cube, the entire dungeon flipping upside-down, or everything being spontaneously recolored purple.
I'm only responsible for the room sealing and filling with water and trap after trap going off.
|
Never had the problem paladin player.
The rogues tend to act like good little strikers and trap monkeys (the rogue in the current game I'm adjudicating basically charges in and shuts down AoOs so the big beefy types can move in unopposed).
And mages in my games don't tend to do as well as the internet forums they've gotten information from have told them they'd do, since I tend to run more 'war of attrition' then '15 minute adventuring day.' Some have tried to reserve all of their spells for the nova only for the players to get grumbly at them when they're holding back spells while the Not Quite The BBEG threats are ripping into them.
I don't nerf them, I just make situations have variables, unpredictable stuff and unplannable stuff. Like say they go hunting for evil clerics and find themselves up to their ears in abberations who showed up to fight the evil clerics (and anyone else there too), or they attack a wooded location only to find themselves fighting in the middle of a forest fire.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody had ever heard of Wand of Summon Monster in your game?They have. They have long, ongoing, epic tales of Summon Monster setting off a single trigger and having the air in the room filled with arrows, trap after trap going off as trigger sets off trigger, or the room sealing and filling with water or worse. And then there's the bizarre traps, such as the ceiling opening up and dropping in gelatinous cube after gelatinous cube, the entire dungeon flipping upside-down, or everything being spontaneously recolored purple.
I'm only responsible for the room sealing and filling with water and trap after trap going off.
Each to their own. : /
It would bore and frustrate me by turns. I find such things unrealistic and tedious.
Why would several gelatinous cubes choose to live in a large tube just to one day fall on adventurers, maybe?
Why would anyone build such complex traps when they could just brick up the parts where they don't want people to go? Or if they just want lethality, there are more efficient ways.
Would anyone spend vastly more money making ridiculous traps than the treasure is worth? Why is the treasure a reward for bypassing the traps?
'Alright men, the task is to penetrate the various traps in order to get the McGuffin!'
'So, you want us to deliberately put ourselves into a Deathtrap? Several deathtraps? ......NO! Find some other mugs!'
Nobody had ever heard of Wand of Summon Monster in your game?They have. They have long, ongoing, epic tales of Summon Monster setting off a single trigger and having the air in the room filled with arrows, trap after trap going off as trigger sets off trigger, or the room sealing and filling with water or worse. And then there's the bizarre traps, such as the ceiling opening up and dropping in gelatinous cube after gelatinous cube, the entire dungeon flipping upside-down, or everything being spontaneously recolored purple.
I'm only responsible for the room sealing and filling with water and trap after trap going off.
Each to their own. : /
It would bore and frustrate me by turns. I find such things unrealistic and tedious.
Why would several gelatinous cubes choose to live in a large tube just to one day fall on adventurers, maybe?
Why would anyone build such complex traps when they could just brick up the parts where they don't want people to go? Or if they just want lethality, there are more efficient ways.
Would anyone spend vastly more money making ridiculous traps than the treasure is worth? Why is the treasure a reward for bypassing the traps?
'Alright men, the task is to penetrate the various traps in order to get the McGuffin!'
'So, you want us to deliberately put ourselves into a Deathtrap? Several deathtraps? ......NO! Find some other mugs!'
It is pretty much the group's preference. But, to answer your questions...
The gelatinous cubes don't choose it. The pits they are in were originally designed for another substance and were filled from above, but the cubes fell in.
The unusual complexity of the traps usually results from neglect, decay, attempts to repair and replace by people who didn't even understand how the original mechanism actually worked, and sometimes because the original designers actually wanted it to work that way.
Most of the time, the traps were not originally guarding treasure; they were guarding people. People in the modern era spend ridiculous amounts of wealth on protecting themselves, and people in historical eras were no different. That's why bypass switches that temporarily disable the traps are often included. Then the original owners died, were killed, etc. Plus, there's always a second way out for the underground dungeons (in case of cave-ins, structural failures, etc.).
One of the design philosophies behind why the dungeons are so heavily trapped is because the world these people were dealing with is massively more dangerous than our's. So, the massive increase in trap usage for security. Consider how many people go to the trouble of locking their cars, turning on car alarms, and getting GPS tracking devices on them just to prevent auto thefts, as well as the extremes some people go to in security systems for their own houses... and then keep in mind we're living in the least violent period in human history and that the typical Pathfinder setting is worse than the equivalent human era. It is that kind of thinking, along with the above elements, that lead to our trap designs.
But, then again, they can disarm the trap, try to tank it, or just find and press a hidden switch to walk past it without any worry.
In my opinion a good trap should do one of three things kill capture or incapacitat they are ment to frighten people off and act as a constant guard.
If all they do is hurt a little or delay you a bit there not much of a deterrent
Think of the opening of Indiana Jones the traps there where ment to kill you before you got to the idol and if you did get it the rest where ment to kill you or stop you leaving the temple for good
Now there traps
|
|
Nobody had ever heard of Wand of Summon Monster in your game?They have. They have long, ongoing, epic tales of Summon Monster setting off a single trigger and having the air in the room filled with arrows, trap after trap going off as trigger sets off trigger, or the room sealing and filling with water or worse. And then there's the bizarre traps, such as the ceiling opening up and dropping in gelatinous cube after gelatinous cube, the entire dungeon flipping upside-down, or everything being spontaneously recolored purple.
I'm only responsible for the room sealing and filling with water and trap after trap going off.
Each to their own. : /
It would bore and frustrate me by turns. I find such things unrealistic and tedious.
Why would several gelatinous cubes choose to live in a large tube just to one day fall on adventurers, maybe?
Why would anyone build such complex traps when they could just brick up the parts where they don't want people to go? Or if they just want lethality, there are more efficient ways.
Would anyone spend vastly more money making ridiculous traps than the treasure is worth? Why is the treasure a reward for bypassing the traps?
'Alright men, the task is to penetrate the various traps in order to get the McGuffin!'
'So, you want us to deliberately put ourselves into a Deathtrap? Several deathtraps? ......NO! Find some other mugs!'
It is pretty much the group's preference. But, to answer your questions...
The gelatinous cubes don't choose it. The pits they are in were originally designed for another substance and were filled from above, but the cubes fell in.
The unusual complexity of the traps usually results from neglect, decay, attempts to repair and replace by people who didn't even understand how the original mechanism actually worked, and sometimes because the original designers actually wanted it to work that way.
Most of the time, the traps were not...
Thanks for answering some of my points, but how about the main point: why would anyone deliberately put themselves into Deathtrap after Deathtrap?
Another old-school hatred of mine: The Deck of Many Things. Why would you draw a card when it's a 50/50 chance of death? You can draw 4 if you want? NO! Players might want to keep having PC after PC draw and not worry about casualties. After all, if one dies you can roll up another. But why would any person choose to do this unless death were inevitable anyway? And what kind of rail-roaring would put them in that position?
Probably for some of the exact same reasons tomb robbers in real life risked death trap after death trap and why some people are soldiers (the profession where you are most likely to be sent into a situation with the full expectation you will die). Or the reason some people climb Mount Everest.
For that matter, why be adventurers at all?
If you can't believe people would do something that no sane, rational, normal person would do... then why play Pathfinder and why post on these forums?
|
|
Generals can assess the situation and choose to fight another day. So can adventurers.
If the choice was to go into a death-trap or find another way to get rich....
As a player, my PC may very well be a bard with a concept of a diplomat. He might use his oratory as his Perform skill, have a wide range of friends who owe him favours, have a great deal of influence and solve problems by making friends, either sincerely or by magic.
Ask him to go into the Deathtrap to make his fortune? Nah. See you when/if you get back.
Not much of an adventure really. There's plenty to do in town without walking into deathtraps.
It's not about being afraid of possible danger, it's about willingly and deliberately putting your head into the mincing machine; not brave, merely foolhardy.
Generals are the people who assign missions. Not fight them. Adventurers are typically taking missions, not assigning them. The comparison doesn't hold.
As for the deathtrap... what if you knew you could turn it off and not have to worry about killing you just by pushing one single button? That's a lot less dangerous than going toe-to-toe with a lich and his army of minions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion a good trap should do one of three things kill capture or incapacitat they are ment to frighten people off and act as a constant guard.
If all they do is hurt a little or delay you a bit there not much of a deterrent
Think of the opening of Indiana Jones the traps there where ment to kill you before you got to the idol and if you did get it the rest where ment to kill you or stop you leaving the temple for good
Now there traps
The thing to remember about Indiana Jones is that it's based in RL. The traps were meant to kill you, yes, but break them down:
1. Spikes from the walls: +15 melee attack dealing 2d6 piercing. Yes, enough to kill or AT LEAST incapacitate a normal CR 1/2 or 1/3 NPC, but a PC fighter could survive
2. Darts from the walls: a DC 13 Ref save to pass through an open area affected by the trap (multiple targets could be affected; 2d4 damage). If someone takes one or two darts, no problem (1/2 damage) but suffer full damage and you're a pin cushion. Again - a rogue or other perceptive PC may just avoid like Indie does or make their save and take it.
3. Pit trap: Jump it, climb the walls, mage hand to use rope and hook from a distance, etc. Or climb down, investigate, and collect treasure from bodies at the bottom. Failing all of that, the Perception check to notice AND the DC 15 Ref save, yes the fall will kill a lot of PCs... but not all of them by RAW.
4. The rolling ball: ok, that one's a monster! I'd basically rule it like an avalanche - fail a save and you take full on 8d6 (yeah, it's gonna kill a lot of PCs); make your save and you're STILL taking 3d6 damage.
I guess my point is that traps may not translate to PF as well as you'd like, without making them elaborate death traps. My favorite stereotype is the "swinging blades in the hall" trap where the hero has to figure out the timing. Unfortunately in PF that boils down to some rolls, not a mental puzzle like I want.
I like traps that inflict a condition. Blind them with stinging dust; deal a little damage but with Bludgeoning to a sensitive spot that causes Sickened; use a sudden heat vent opening to inflict a Waves of Fatigue like effect on the whole party. Drop that and follow up with a couple monsters in a normal, APL +0 combat. Suddenly your Blinded, Fatigued PCs begin to fear traps again.
Another old-school hatred of mine: The Deck of Many Things. Why would you draw a card when it's a 50/50 chance of death? You can draw 4 if you want? NO! Players might want to keep having PC after PC draw and not worry about casualties. After all, if one dies you can roll up another. But why would any person choose to do this unless death were inevitable anyway? And what kind of rail-roaring would put them in that position?
Ugh. The deck of many things has to be my least favorite D&D magic item ever. I've been in two campaigns where the GM introduced it just for fun, but the item literally TPKed the whole party, ending the campaign!
(Yes, I was one of the two GMs it happened to. Least satisfying ending to a campaign EVER!)
That is one item you will never encounter if I'm the GM.
The last time I played in a game where it was introduced, my PC was the only one who didn't draw... and also the only one that didn't have something terrible happen.
I like traps that inflict a condition. Blind them with stinging dust; deal a little damage but with Bludgeoning to a sensitive spot that causes Sickened; use a sudden heat vent opening to inflict a Waves of Fatigue like effect on the whole party. Drop that and follow up with a couple monsters in a normal, APL +0 combat. Suddenly your Blinded, Fatigued PCs begin to fear traps again.
You and I are on exactly the same wavelength here!
As I recall, we loved the DoMT as teenagers. As adults, we just tend to roll our eyes and play along with the GM who thinks it's fun. Basically you either got something pretty good or something that made your character unplayable. Then you made up a new character.
So if you weren't too happy with your character you'd go ahead and draw the max 4 or 6 or whatever. If you got all good ones, you were probably once again happy with your character. If not rebuild as expected.
I think one GM allowed a divination to tell if the next 5 cards held more bad cards or more good cards. If it held more bad cards, you would capture some goblin and let him draw.
In our games we an a RP heavy rogue with flimsy alliances to every one including our own party. He nails every non critical roll whether it be diplomacy, sneak, steal, acrobatics but never lands hits in fights. incredibly sub optimal but very entertaining to play with.
An Evocation Wizard with a love for fire and sulking when a monster is resistant against his one trick character. It took us nearly a year for him to take up cantrips that were useful outside of battles. Even now and again we have to explain how to use certain spells as he ignores those without fire in the title.
Ranger switch hitter with a velociraptor companion. With a history of one shotting encounters and a combined 9 attacks per round, our ranger has taken just as much pain as he's dealt, dying twice so far and eating more crits than any other PC. While the ranger consistently hits hard, his pet has been a constant source of misfortune and failed actions. Having been rendered permanently insane, completely retarded, permanently paralysed, permanently dominated, rendered incapable of attacking and many other results from failed Will saves ~ it constantly needs money funneled into him.
My character is a GM hated Inquisitor, taking up the role of tank, healer and melee dps. I admit to being an optimiser due to my deep studying of the rules (I gm my own games). I don't like throwing myself into the firing lines but often have to try to save my other players. While I easily deal the most consistent damage, most of my time is spent trying to bring the other players back into the fight through healing and buffing.
We also have a new player but not much to be said until he properly finalises his character.
In our 5-6 hour games we spend probably about 3 hours arguing in character. I'm not sure if this is roleplaying or not really as it's often about tactics rather than story.
I'm apparently unusual because, if possible, I always like to have two campaigns going on alternating weeks: one casual beer'n'pretzels campaign (big encounters might be APL+0), and one hard-mode optimized campaign (big encounters might be APL+5).
In the former, I never see any real class imbalance, because it doesn't come up.
In the latter, I never envisioned an imbalance on paper, but man, did we ever see it in play.
Your Barbarian multiclassed into one of the Wu-Tang Clan?
Your Barbarian multiclassed into one of the Wu-Tang Clan?
Str8-up, yo!
Per Wikipedia: "His stage name was taken from one of the characters in the 1979 kung fu film Mystery of Chessboxing."Seriously, check out Complete Adventurer. They even drew him with the armor the evil ghosts all wear in all those old kung-fu movies.