The rules for variant multiclassing only specify characters, not players. In theory this means NPCs and even monsters with racial hit dice can take variant multiclassing--though, obviously, it's written predominately from a PC point of view.
I don't think so.
With this system, each character can choose a secondary class at 1st level that she trains in throughout her career, without giving up levels in her primary class.
It seems unlikely that you could have a secondary class without having a primary, i.e. It is reserved for characters with class levels. And I for one would cry shenanigans if a player wanted VMC her animal companion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though, on the other hand, it could also be an easy way for a GM to give monsters the feel of a certain class without actually having to add class levels to them.
How would it work?
Racial HD are not class levels, do you count the first HD as level 1? Do you start from where they are at in the book?
I also believe that VMC requires class levels.
Though, on the other hand, it could also be an easy way for a GM to give monsters the feel of a certain class without actually having to add class levels to them.
Sure, and a GM can do whatever anyway. But there's plenty of ways to accomplish something similar without the need for VMC, perhaps most notably the Simple class templates.
so long as they have 3 int minimum i see no problem with an animal companion taking vmc, it also means the dragon can also vmc, the giant can vmc and anything else with racial hit die can vmc
I think Rage on an AC at effective Druid level 2 would be a huge power increase compared to what a single feat does and it would, to me, feel incredibly cheesy. Of course, your experience might be different than mine.
Sure, and a GM can do whatever anyway. But there's plenty of ways to accomplish something similar without the need for VMC, perhaps most notably the Simple class templates.gms shouldn't use things they have outright baned their players from using
Well, that was sort of my point. There's no need to use VMC on critters with racial HD, since there's several different ways to accomplish what one would want through different means.
Off the bat, I would have read VMC as starting with whatever hit dice you have (class or monster), but an argument could be made that it only starts with class levels, since Simple Class Templates are provided for use on monsters, although unfortunately only for an even more limited set of classes (Core Rulebook only, despite the 2014 release date of the Monster Codex), and the default spellcasting progression rule is just weird (losing access to lower level spells unless the GM decides to run things in hard mode). At least the quality is more consistent -- I haven't checked thoroughly for disparities, but at least I didn't see any off the top of my head that are totally useless in a way equivalent to VMC Gunslinger or VMC Witch, although Ranger is still semi-bad (never get more than 1 Favored Enemy), and maybe the lack of totally useless Class Templates is simply due to the fact that non-Core Classes didn't make it into the Class Templates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that was sort of my point. There's no need to use VMC on critters with racial HD, since there's several different ways to accomplish what one would want through different means.you mean via the massivly more powerful than what the cr suggests class templates that the players can also take?
Okay, now we have to deal with this statement of yours:
gms shouldn't use things they have outright baned their players from using
This is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, its very bad GMing to say »The Oathbound Paladin archetype are banned in my game because they are overpowered« and then field a bunch of Oathbound paladins against the party. But of course GMs have options available to themself that aren't for PCs. The game is designed with this in mind in several places and the GM should feel free to add more restrictions if these bring additional fun to the game (for players and GM alike).
Most notably, templates are with very rare exceptions never intended for the PCs to have access to, ever. Many a campaign through the ages have been played where the PCs have a specific template or one of a select few (such as the Vampire template) to give the campaign a distinct flavor, but in the vast majority of campaigns templates are solely for the GM to modify monsters with.
Another I think fairly common rule is that on monster feats are for monsters only, not PCs. I don't enforce such a rule myself, but I sure can see why a GM would rule that way.
Races are often more restricted for the GM. »Core races only«, a common way of playing, does not imply that the world is empty of orcs and goblins - these races exists for the GM only. Similarly, a GM might rule for thematic reasons that a certain class or archetype exist in the game world but is beyond the reach of PCs.
I do not doubt that one could play with every option available to the GM to also be available to the GM, as you seem to play, but that play style is way beyond what the game ever intended.
they would also lock themselves into losing feats later on for much less useful abilities and as animal companions only get to 16 hit die without boosting them in some way they are locked out of the vmc capstones so it wouldn't get the greater rage
No. Animal companions are, to a much larger degree than PCs, expandable resources. A Druid can replace a dead companion or release and replace a live one only by expending 24 hours (tricky in some campaigns, but not even a speed bump in others). The new companion does not have to be a clone of the old one, meaning you're not tied down by VMC once it has lost its charm.
everything that's in the books including templates and bestiary races are available for player use and if they are banned for players they should be banned for the gm to use as well
Your table can of course handle this that way, but:
A template is a set of rules that you apply to a monster to transform it into a different monster.
And the definition of monster only has a small loophole (marked in italics):
Monster: Monsters are creatures that rely on racial Hit Dice instead of class levels for their powers and abilities (although some possess class levels as well). PCs are usually not monsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
everything that's in the books including templates and bestiary races are available for player use and if they are banned for players they should be banned for the gm to use as well
Yeah, no that's not a thing that is happening. I will not allow PCs to use any template, but they will be used liberally when and where I need it as a GM. Same with anything else I deem inappropriate for PCs. It does not in any way make it inappropriate for NPCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
gms shouldn't use things they have outright baned their players from using
Pretty sure that's not even remotely true. Like if I tell my players "no evil characters" that will preclude any PCs becoming a lich, but that doesn't mean an NPC can't become a lich.
I've played in a bunch of games where the players were told "no 9 level casters" but they showed up as antagonists nonetheless.
Monster feats are generally designed to help monsters keep up with potentially powerful players, and are not necessarily balanced for player characters. It's unlikely you'll be allowed, say, Quicken SLA without asking first.
So as a philosophical point, I do not agree at all and this is certainly not a hard and fast rule.