| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:00:55
I've been looking at some of the 3rd Edition books and have come to a very basic question. Is the idea in 3rd edition that every character can "multi-class" or "dual class" whenever they want, and can revert back to their old class or be both at the same time?
Is there a limit on how many classes a character can have? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Mar 2013 : 00:20:40
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Too many classes = over-complication = hard for new people to 'get into' the hobby = Dead hobby.
The game continues down that path, the level of 'elitism' will increase exponentially, and only a few guys like Stephen Hawking will be able to understand the rules and play the game (and guys like him have much better things to do with their time).
I've spent a lifetime teaching D&D to 'new blood' - its sort of my specialty. 3e is to date my favorite rules-set, and yet it was the hardest for me to teach. When it takes over an hour to create a character, you lose your audience.
While I think more options is always better, I do see the need for simplicity at the starting stage. But this can be just as much of a problem from the DM as it is from the system. When teaching someone new, it's better to give them something small and simple to work with until they get the idea of the system under their belt before advancing to more complex options. I'd never start off a 1st time player of an edition with PHB 1, 2, & 3 with 4 companion supplmements and the full plethora of DDI content. How about something small, like any class and option from the PHB. And as the player becomes more familiar during leveling, he can swap out options the he may not necessarily agree with later down the road.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I am hoping that 5e starts with a fairly basic, easy-to-read (and play) set of rules. More like a pamphlet then a 300-page rulebook (that no kid in his right mind wants to read). Then they can build off of that to make the 'elitists' happy. Unless they do that, I see no future for this hobby, aside from video games (which aren't the same experience AT ALL). You know what one of the biggest strengths of MORPGs are? You don't need to know the rules - they are transparent. You can jump right in after about five minutes and start playing.
While I don't agree that those who prefer more complex options are 'elitist' I agree with different sets and levels of the game. I'm under the impression that D&D:Next is creating the game with multiple entry levels upon release.
• Basic Set: Probably includes the How-To rules, Character Creation rules along with the Core 4 classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) and 4 Core races (Dwarf, Elf, Human, Halfling). From there it might include the rules for Backgrounds (Skills) and Specialties (feats) and perhaps the ability to chose them as an ala-carte style AND it'll have guidelines on how it's ok NOT to use these options too, relying just on your Ability scores for most interactions. Spells will be pared down, perhaps 75 in total for both the Cleric and Wizard lists. Monsters might just be the basic ones seen in most fantasy-esque RPGs like Orcs, Dragons, Goblins, Medusa, Trolls, etc. It could also have a small selection of magical items and ideas for treasure as the PCs adventure.
This will probably (should be, IMO) sold as a separate package with it's own box and paper-backed rules. It should have dice, a quick adventure, character sheets, and general DM guide and information on running the basic game. This way, inexperienced gamers can learn quickly with unique, but not ridiculous amounts of, options while allowing the ability to run multiple style games as the group sees fit. Older DMs might also enjoy the simplicity of this style game and could just say "we're running basic" and the players now know that the Hybrid-class option from Complte Player's Guide with the Vampiric Heritage feat isn't allowed (without permission by the DM).
• Standard Set: Will probably be what's sold in hardback at the bookstores and on Amazon. It'll be the complete set with a full PHB including 15 classes, 11 races, 20 Specialties of over 40 feats, a dozen of Backgrounds with rules to create your own, & 100 spells. The DMG will have rules and guidelines on creating your own world, 30+ magical items, NPC templates, traps, treasure, etc. The Monster Manual will have the iconic monsters as well as perhaps new and interesting monsters or have ways of making your monsters more unique (such as giving a Vampire template to Dragons or Drow).
This should be like every other core set we've seen. It has a decent amount of options with rules and guidelines on building your own world and making it better. It has way to make NPCs and how to flesh out your campaign. It should have campaign ideas and sample character hooks. I also forsee this being the more popluar version that most people will eventually fall into.
• Advanced Set: Perhaps it's released at the same time or perhaps a companion supplement to the Standard Set. This should have more complex rules and options that allow for a more modular style. Want alternative healing that works like 4E's healing surge? It's here. Want "facing rules", flanking, and combat maneuvers that push, pull, slide creatures? It's in here. Want character options that push the envelope on the fantastic like Bloodline feats for Vampire, Lycans, Giants, Dragons? It's in here. Want Alternative casting rules that will allow non-Vancian spellcasting? It's here.
This supplement should be absolutely 100% interchangeable with the Basic and Standard options. If a DM is liberal and allows anything (such as myself) then I should be able to pick up the Basic game and add in Flanking and the Healing Surge style healing. I should be able to allow the Wizard to swap out his Vancian spellcasting style for spell-points or perhaps AEDU and be more like Harry Potter. I should be able to pick up the Basic Box, grab a dozen or so feats/Specialties from the Standard rules and maybe 3 classes and have it work just fine.
That is, were I to run things I'd try to make a game that was as fluid, flexible, and modular as possible to allow the most (or least) amount of immersion into the system as any individual player or group desires. The game should be able to function WELL if one player decides on playing a Half-Vampire Warlord from Barovia with the Knight specialty and another player uses the Basic rules and rolls up a standard Dwarven Fighter with mayhap 2 basic maneuvers and no specialties. |
| Quale |
Posted - 06 Mar 2013 : 16:01:43
I don't think you can attract new players with heavy or light version of the rules. 5e should focus on making good adventures and stories, this is not a MMORPG type of game. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Mar 2013 : 13:00:27
Too many classes = over-complication = hard for new people to 'get into' the hobby = Dead hobby.
The game continues down that path, the level of 'elitism' will increase exponentially, and only a few guys like Stephen Hawking will be able to understand the rules and play the game (and guys like him have much better things to do with their time).
I've spent a lifetime teaching D&D to 'new blood' - its sort of my specialty. 3e is to date my favorite rules-set, and yet it was the hardest for me to teach. When it takes over an hour to create a character, you lose your audience.
I am hoping that 5e starts with a fairly basic, easy-to-read (and play) set of rules. More like a pamphlet then a 300-page rulebook (that no kid in his right mind wants to read). Then they can build off of that to make the 'elitists' happy. Unless they do that, I see no future for this hobby, aside from video games (which aren't the same experience AT ALL). You know what one of the biggest strengths of MORPGs are? You don't need to know the rules - they are transparent. You can jump right in after about five minutes and start playing. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 06 Mar 2013 : 04:34:09
See also: d20srd.org |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 07:47:13
I think all classes should be balanced. Meaning they should all be exactly equal in their gaming capacities, each able to do something no other can do, each with strengths and weaknesses ... in short, a player shouldn't be able to exclude any classes based on game-rule characteristics. I see broken game systems all the time, where the vast majority of players use a small selection of the many options available simply because these provide an overwhelming advantage and all the others "suck". It is not the players at fault, it is the game balance.
I think every class should progress in a sort of exponential fashion rather than a linear one. Meaning a level 10 single-class will be better than any level 10 multi-class combination. This means people will tend to stick on one path and "dip" into others only so they support the main build ... they won't be doing it to pick up the maximum number of little rules exploits because multiple linear progressions aren't as potent as a single quadratic progression. Yes, this means fighters vs wizards need to be balanced, so all those people who basically play wizards with a dash of fighting skill (to prevent themselves from being victims in melee) would be losing substantial advantages over their pure-wizard counterparts.
Just my thoughts. You nailed it though: unrestricted/unlimited 3E-style multiclassing is what people want, so it'll likely be exactly what the people get. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 07:09:53
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I've never been a fan of classless RPGs. Games like Shadowrun eventually mold all the characters into a few pigeonholed "nonclassed" roles (really just a few variations of magic-user or cyber-anything), games like D&D 3E seem to just turn everybody into some kind of warrior/mage hybrid ... after the PCs have gained enough experience/levels/whatever they all end up looking very interchangeable and the only thing left to really set them apart is their racial abilities.
Not saying pre-3E D&D (classes and all) was perfect or even superior, it is an approach with advantages and disadvantages. The characters may not all end up being interchangeable variations of the same Jack-of-Every-Trade multicombo, but the classic AD&D1E/2E approaches were often overly restrictive ... and their rules for dual-/multi-classing were a bit nonsensical.
Agreed, but a lot of people really want a 3E-style of multiclassing in the next iteration of D&D and I just can't seem to understand how going that direction won't lead to the problems (both for Powergaming and Underperforming) that 3E's style led to. If someone had system mastery then Multiclassing of that form worked beautifully and often created extreamly powerful characters. But on the other hand, someone who just chose options that were good at the time or "fixed" problems their charactrs were having (ie. taking Lightning Reflexes because they never made a save vs. a spell against Reflex) or just wanted to mess with class-combos eventually made a character that was, at best, good at being a target so it didn't hit someone actually contributing to the battle.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 05:45:45
I've never been a fan of classless RPGs. Games like Shadowrun eventually mold all the characters into a few pigeonholed "nonclassed" roles (really just a few variations of magic-user or cyber-anything), games like D&D 3E seem to just turn everybody into some kind of warrior/mage hybrid ... after the PCs have gained enough experience/levels/whatever they all end up looking very interchangeable and the only thing left to really set them apart is their racial abilities.
Not saying pre-3E D&D (classes and all) was perfect or even superior, it is an approach with advantages and disadvantages. The characters may not all end up being interchangeable variations of the same Jack-of-Every-Trade multicombo, but the classic AD&D1E/2E approaches were often overly restrictive ... and their rules for dual-/multi-classing were a bit nonsensical. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 04:38:02
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
If the restrictions were heavier, then the idea of dipping into a prestige class to cherry pick 2 things becomes not worth it. Then the prestige classes instead become something that people think about more before they go into it. Its more likely to be part of their core concept, etc...
In my experience Powergamers and Min/Max'ers find ways and loopholes or options that supercede most restrictions, often via the free Multiclass system found with v3.5 edition. So unless we're talking about a hard-cap restriction like no PrC before 10th level or you must go through the entire PrC's levels before obtaining another one, then the heavy restrictions more prominenly hinder those who don't have Min/Max'ing on the mind and just want to play a Concept. It's sad to say but "dipping" will forever be a focused element of 3rd Edition (outside of house-ruling).
Plus I think this also derails a more organic leveling/progression for players who don't map their character's career or create a "build". A Fighter who, for example, isn't optimized or super-focused on 1 singular aspect of Combat (ie. Charging Build, Spiked Chain tripper, Tempest-style) is either now going to have to make a "build" or hope that his selection of options line up closely with a PrC he later finds or falls into as the story progresses. Our generic fighter (say, 6th level) example might have for his first 7 feats: Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus (longsword), Improved Initiative, Toughness, Shield Specialization (heavy shields), Improved Shield Bash, and Agile Shield fighter. He then joins up and befriends a group of Purple Dragons and performs some quests for them at their behest. He proves his worth and they "knight" him a Purple Dragon. But due to his previous choices, he now has to progress 4 more levels to obtain the "Correct" feats to be a 1st level Purple Dragon Knight instead of taking it right then.
This is why Prestige Classes should be more organic in nature, not tied down to suit a specific build that supercedes the original class. Being a Purple Dragon Knight doesn't make you any less a Fighter (or Paladin or Ranger or whatever), it should just be a layer on top of all the stuff you've already learned.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Secondarily, they need to gather more options for "generic" prestige classes such that you don't need a spellsword, eldritch knight, bladesinger, rage mage, etc..... Thus a character should be able to enter the generic "warrior/arcanist" prestige class and then pick some kind of path choices (want to focus on wearing armor and casting? want more melee choices? Want to combine spellcasting and combat better?). This is different than offering options for the base class, because its working on building the complexity of combining 2 classes (i.e. arcane spellcasting and melee). The same should go for the "theurge" idea, the "mage/rogue" idea, the "warrior/priest" idea, the "fighter/thief" idea, and the "thief/priest" idea. These are generic enough that the prestige classes people put out don't have a real good "roleplaying theme" like say the "red wizard" or "harper" prestige classes do (though there should only be one harper prestige class, and it should be generic enough to build whatever's needed to be a "harper").
That sounds more like a classless RPG to me, sort of like buying the powers/options you want at specific costs. Should D&D really promote classless mechanics? Personally, I don't think they'd do a very good job of it as people will note games like GURPS that do classless better or have a more elegant and robust system from the start. IMO, Prestige Classes should have a set level at which they can be selected and they should be options to layer onto your current character. They shouldn't give your character more power, but more diversity OR Specialization depending on your choice and be thematic in nature for more Role-playing opportunities. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 02:43:06
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The core concept of the 3E multi-classing was great. The problem just came in with the people developing a million prestige classes AND at the same time not making the prerequisites to enter the prestige classes stringent enough. For instance, I love eldritch knight, but I'm sure they could have come up with a little more than just "proficient with all martial weapons and able to cast 3rd lvl arcane spells". What about a certain base attack bonus? What about maybe some skill requirements or feats? For instance, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to make the somatic weaponry feat a requirement of entry (granted, at the time the class was made, somatic weaponry didn't exist yet)
See, I'd rather have less mechanical requirements for Prestige Classes. What they were designed for was to give an approx-level for most characters to enter. Your example of the Eldritch Knight shows that they (the Devs) determined that a character should be about 6th level to enter this class (assuming Ftr 1/ Wizard 5) due to the requirements. Adding more would increase that level higher and thus, a player spends less time playing the concept he's after.
What PrCs need to do is become a layer on top of existing class mechanics. Sort of like a Specialization as it works with, not overlaps, the base class features. THink of it as a lateral progression in options and versatilty rather than a vertical progression of power.
If the restrictions were heavier, then the idea of dipping into a prestige class to cherry pick 2 things becomes not worth it. Then the prestige classes instead become something that people think about more before they go into it. Its more likely to be part of their core concept, etc...
Secondarily, they need to gather more options for "generic" prestige classes such that you don't need a spellsword, eldritch knight, bladesinger, rage mage, etc..... Thus a character should be able to enter the generic "warrior/arcanist" prestige class and then pick some kind of path choices (want to focus on wearing armor and casting? want more melee choices? Want to combine spellcasting and combat better?). This is different than offering options for the base class, because its working on building the complexity of combining 2 classes (i.e. arcane spellcasting and melee). The same should go for the "theurge" idea, the "mage/rogue" idea, the "warrior/priest" idea, the "fighter/thief" idea, and the "thief/priest" idea. These are generic enough that the prestige classes people put out don't have a real good "roleplaying theme" like say the "red wizard" or "harper" prestige classes do (though there should only be one harper prestige class, and it should be generic enough to build whatever's needed to be a "harper"). |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 00:40:55
Alystra, you're actually the only person I've heard of who used *anything* from the Magic of Incarnum books. As far as I could tell, it was always just one of those kinda-cool/neat books everybody has and nobody plays (or allows in play). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 00:39:07
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
In my campaigns, it is pretty simple. There are some PrC's that simply don't fit the game-world I run, (and a few base classes too, mostly the incarnum races/classes out of Magic of Incarnum and the material in Tome of Battle) so I don't allow them.
There were these really great articles by Eytan Bernstein that gave all sorts of lore for non-PHB classes for the Realms. I particularly like the Tome of Battle write-up and the Duskblade as well as it helped give such classes a place within the Realms rather than making a player create everything themselves. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 00:27:34
In my campaigns, it is pretty simple. There are some PrC's that simply don't fit the game-world I run, (and a few base classes too, mostly the incarnum races/classes out of Magic of Incarnum and the material in Tome of Battle) so I don't allow them. I thought about also removing the Alienist as well, since I don't see any of my players ever using it. Maybe a few others that just don't have much place in my world, but I've only ever run itno these kinds of problems once- which is the reason I banned Magic of Incarnum from my game. A player completely broke a campaign in the first session, with a 1st level PC! |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 06 Feb 2013 : 23:32:37
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The core concept of the 3E multi-classing was great. The problem just came in with the people developing a million prestige classes AND at the same time not making the prerequisites to enter the prestige classes stringent enough.
Pretty much this.
The only thing I'll add is that people also seemed to forget that prestige classes were meant to be bridges between mechanics and flavor. They existed to reflect the particulars of the flavor of a DMs campaign world.
They weren't there to provide outs for purely mechanics-minded people that didn't give a hoot about story or flavor and were more interested in seeing (for fun, of course) how high they could get a particular stat or ability. |
| Razz |
Posted - 06 Feb 2013 : 22:44:11
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The 'no limits' thing led to 'dipping'
For instance, every character I created in 3e was a human fighter at first level... no matter what direction I wanted to take him later. It was just too good to pass up.
I also had a Monk that was getting AC bonuses from two other Prestige Classes (INT and CHA, IIRC) because of dipping. The guy wore no armor and was practically untouchable.
And that lead to min-maxing, which lead to power-gaming....
Which lead to Paizo taking over the world. 
EDIT: And the above side-chatter made me think about pali-bards, and 'singing knights', and of course I just had to remember the I Love Lucy episode with 'the good Prince Lancelot' ("Who liked to sing and dance-a-lot").
Well 3.5 did fix a lot of the dipping. The Duelist prestige class, for example, used to grant Int bonus to AC at 1st level. But in 3.5, they changed it to you get one Intelligence bonus per level of Duelist (so, if you wanted the full +4 AC bonus from Int 18, you had to have 4 levels of Duelist).
The 20% XP penalty for the levels being too far apart was done away with by Paizo, surprisingly. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 05 Feb 2013 : 03:16:54
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The core concept of the 3E multi-classing was great. The problem just came in with the people developing a million prestige classes AND at the same time not making the prerequisites to enter the prestige classes stringent enough. For instance, I love eldritch knight, but I'm sure they could have come up with a little more than just "proficient with all martial weapons and able to cast 3rd lvl arcane spells". What about a certain base attack bonus? What about maybe some skill requirements or feats? For instance, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to make the somatic weaponry feat a requirement of entry (granted, at the time the class was made, somatic weaponry didn't exist yet)
See, I'd rather have less mechanical requirements for Prestige Classes. What they were designed for was to give an approx-level for most characters to enter. Your example of the Eldritch Knight shows that they (the Devs) determined that a character should be about 6th level to enter this class (assuming Ftr 1/ Wizard 5) due to the requirements. Adding more would increase that level higher and thus, a player spends less time playing the concept he's after.
What PrCs need to do is become a layer on top of existing class mechanics. Sort of like a Specialization as it works with, not overlaps, the base class features. THink of it as a lateral progression in options and versatilty rather than a vertical progression of power. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Feb 2013 : 02:16:56
4E got lambasted for many things, some criticisms it deserved but many criticisms were just ignorance and prejudice. I choose to not play 4E (or 3E for that matter), but there are many things about it which I like or recognize as real improvements.
One of the big detriments in 3E megaclassing is the pages and pages of statblocks ... a mid-level character "sheet" could (with some careful page-filling min/max choices) fill up half a binder. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 05 Feb 2013 : 02:05:11
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'd love to see a system that does PrCs right - as synergies between base classes. Why do you need a Paladin class? Just multi between cleric and fighter and so long as you keep the two classes within 2-3 levels of each other you get the bonus synergies (like the Paladin's mount).
PrCs can be completely done away with if you have a slew of base classes, and then build everything else with multi-class Feats and synergies.
I really don't find anything 'prestigious' about that honestly. If anything, I think that Prestige Classes should be more thematic in nature, something a PC strives for to obtain to atain a prestige title or rank. And the mode of which one should go about that might be similiar to 3E's Organization system. You get an affiliation score based on a certain critera like base class, having a specific feat, and/or previously accomplished things and gain MORE stuff as you perform or do quests. So as you level, you maintain your base class info but you gain another layer on top that adds more versatility or complexity to existing rules, not just more power.
What 3E-multiclassing brought to the game was the closest thing D&D has seen to an almost "classless" system like GURPS. Spend a level, gain Fighter feat 1, spend a level and gain Turn Undead 3 + Cha/day, spend a level and gain Rage 1/day. And feats augment these capabilities such as Extra Rage, Destructive Rage, Extra Turning, and Divine feats.
As a min/max'er myself one specific build I played was a Barbarian 2 (4 + Skill pts at 1st level, 12 max HP at 1st level)/ Fighter 2 (two free bonus feats, one to supplement my Reflex via Lightning Reflexes)/ Cleric 1 (turn undead to fuel Divine feats like Divine Shield, Divine Vigor, etc.). By 5th level, my BAB was +4, saves were Fortitude +6, Reflex +2, Will +2 I had versatility out the butt, could heal myself, could rage and be more a potent fighter, PLUS Domain featurs. Compare this to a Straight 5th level Fighter (+5 BAB, Fortitude +4, Reflex +1, Willpower +1 and only 2 extra feats to show for it) and it's not difficult to see what I'm getting at here.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
They moved too quickly in a new direction with 4e - 3e still had a lot of mileage left under the hood if only they had started fixing it (rather then abandoning it). The sad thing is 3e eventually just came down to 'builds', and that goes right back to D&D's roots with just the base classes. Why bother giving folks options when they are all going to build the same damn characters anyway?
Because options are good and don't hurt the game so long as everyone is cool with them. I'd like the simplicity of just playing/buidling a Paladin and not be required to delve into min/max'ing if I don't have to. Further, classes like the Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and even newer ones like the Duskblade/Bladesinger/Swordmage ARE iconic to the game and removing them as classes hurts the expectations of customers that are going to play the game. Paladins have been in the game for 20+ years, they're essential to D&D just as much as the Core 4 classes. If D&D:Next were to tell me flat out that they're scrapping the Paladin class and just gave me suggestions on Multiclassing a Cleric/Fighter with some feats, I'd drop it in a heartbeat. Because to me, a class like the Paladin plays completely different than a Clr/Ftr. They have smites, they have conviction, they have auras and the limitied ability to heal themselves and others. They have heavy armor proficiency and are great with all weapons. They might have a mount or channel their deity's power through their weapon.
But what I find funny is that 4E brought back the idea of the iconic class-based game. You can't "dip" in 4E. The idea of multiclassing is that your dabbling in another profession, not a striaght up proficient with that classes features. And 4E got lambasted for it. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 23:34:31
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Although I am definitely a 3.5/Pathfinder adherent (I like Second Edition, too, but my players uniformly despise it, sadly), the one thing I have forbidden in any 3.5/PF campaign I run is multiclassing. Of any sort - the edition's 'Summer of Multiclassing' style is just begging to have player characters run roughshod over a campaign.
Take one level of Thief/Rogue for lots of skill points. Then take one level of Fighter for lots of free Combat Feats. Then advance every level alternating between, say, Druid and Sorcerer.
Forget it. Not happening. Prestige classes are a different matter, but I insist a player pick a single Core class, and then stick to it, with Prestige classes decided later, depending on prerequisites and Feats designed to fill in the gaps.
I know I'm in the minority here in the Keep with this outlook, but to a person, my players are an assembly of some of the most deviously creative bastards ever to toss a polyhedron, my own son being among the worst of the lot. I am seriously pondering converting all the Pathfinder characters into another system that has no levels (like RuneQuest 6th or Hero System, for example) - then the multiclassing headaches will go away, never to be seen again.
Doing that, the person ends up having really great saves and a base attack bonus that quite literally sucks. Grabbing a couple dips in a few classes may work, but I've rarely seen a person dip into more than 3 base classes and it actually work for them. The only exception might be a non-casting fighter type.... which I kind of don't have a problem with.... the ranger, fighter, barbarian, rogue...it reminds me of Conan. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 23:29:55
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I agree with Wooly Blue Bubbles, 2E multi-/dual-class rules were a bit stuffy and overly restrictive but 3E multiclassing was easily abused and produced some combinations which seem quite stupid/unlikely from a non-powergaming (actual role-playing) context. People who cut their teeth on 3E generally seem to prefer unlimited interchangeable race/class possibilities, grognards like me generally prefer races and classes to be defined through their classic identities, and reserving unlimited classing for races like humans to give them a tangible advantage.
A 2E paladin/bard is basically impossible, all other requirements aside they have incompatible alignments. A non-LG paladin becomes a fighter, while a bard must be partially Neutral (and general rogues can be any alignment except LG).
A variety of 3E paladin/bard combinations (of nearly any PC race) are possible, provided all requirements are met. Each alignment has a paladin subtype, even an aasimar/half-drow paladin/bard/assassin/necromancer would be possible. And when in Rome, multiclass as the Romans do; most NPC opponents are going to be gish types, so PCs invariably need to mix steel and magic as well.
Preference aside, I can play the game either way. Although I've noticed Realms canon waver and wobble as authors attempt to find a balance between "new" 3E-style race/class characters with "old" 2E-style traditions. Still, I can't help but roll my eyes every time I see things like a paladin/bard or a dwarven sorcerer.
The core concept of the 3E multi-classing was great. The problem just came in with the people developing a million prestige classes AND at the same time not making the prerequisites to enter the prestige classes stringent enough. For instance, I love eldritch knight, but I'm sure they could have come up with a little more than just "proficient with all martial weapons and able to cast 3rd lvl arcane spells". What about a certain base attack bonus? What about maybe some skill requirements or feats? For instance, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to make the somatic weaponry feat a requirement of entry (granted, at the time the class was made, somatic weaponry didn't exist yet) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 13:05:24
I'd love to see a system that does PrCs right - as synergies between base classes. Why do you need a Paladin class? Just multi between cleric and fighter and so long as you keep the two classes within 2-3 levels of each other you get the bonus synergies (like the Paladin's mount).
PrCs can be completely done away with if you have a slew of base classes, and then build everything else with multi-class Feats and synergies.
They moved too quickly in a new direction with 4e - 3e still had a lot of mileage left under the hood if only they had started fixing it (rather then abandoning it). The sad thing is 3e eventually just came down to 'builds', and that goes right back to D&D's roots with just the base classes. Why bother giving folks options when they are all going to build the same damn characters anyway? |
| Quale |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 08:40:57
I like some of 2e class restrictions, when everyone is allowed everything it loses its charm. Only if the elf was raised in human society, otherwise how else would he become a paladin. Or halfling paladin would be called thain. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 07:54:47
I don't entirely agree with "multiclassing is usually not needed". I mean I agree with the particular statement, I prefer limited multiclassing (and traditional level limits for most races!) in my gaming.
But I don't agree that it's the "right" solution for everybody. Some gamers like 2E grognard style, others like 3E unlimited style.
So where do you draw the line? 2E paladins must be human, but some gamers want elven paladins (with more bonuses), some gamers want non-LG paladins or, say, a paladin/bard multiclass. 2E kits are arguably unneeded since anyone can emulate a kit by choosing the appropriate proficiencies and stuff, so why give them extra bonuses? For that matter, why should demihumans be allowed to choose classes and multiclasses (and again, more bonuses) when simpler D&D rules have predefined them with fixed race/class roles? It's all pure preference.
Game rules are just like any other product:
If there was a single universally perfect option then there wouldn't be a vast array of imperfect ones to choose from. |
| Quale |
Posted - 03 Feb 2013 : 22:01:16
We allow ''dipping'' for class features, between similar classes, e.g. paladin and crusader, or summoner-binder. Multiclassing is usually not needed. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 03 Feb 2013 : 19:38:52
Meh, I didn't bother using extra feats to do something that was easily explained and done via a simple backstory idea. Take the bard class for a couple of levels, then change alignment and go Pali. Simple. Since ex-bards don't loose any of their abilities (unlike an ex-pali), I lost nothing, and the powers meshed pretty well, so I was happy with it. I just chose not to advance further as a bard, because it wasn't necessary for the PC. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 03 Feb 2013 : 03:42:29
asor the paladin there were various orders taht he/she/it/wahtever/ifever could be a paladin of and siad cahracter could freely mc with classes with that order and a few that had restrictions.
there was also a feat that allowed a paladin to mc with rogue or bard might have been rogue.... |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 22:24:43
LOL!! Yes, I got it, but I was referring to the cowboy SINGERS of old B&W western TV shows, of which Paladin was NOT one (though I loved the theme song for that show...). Roy WAS. They were all cut from the "law, order, and justice" mold, being the clean-cut (a "clean-cut" cowboy? There's an oxymoron, LOL!!) good guys with shiny guns, silver-studded saddles, and the ever-present faithful mounts. Roy had Trigger, the Lone Ranger had Silver (not a singer, I know, but along the same stereotype), and Rex from Rustler's Rhapsody had Wildfire. They were the Pali analogs of the Old West. It was that theme I was going for with that PC, of a law-and-order roaming knight of justice type. You know, the kind who rides into town, defeats the bad guys, kisses the girl then rides into the sunset strumming his guitar. (or lute in this case.) A crooning do-gooder rover in shining armor!
And while he was technically "impossible" going strictly by the rules in 2nd ed, that PC has always been one of my most fun to play, due to the unique nature of the class combo. That was never a problem in our games though, as we had already agreed that if another race besides humans wanted to apply for paladinhood, a church shouldn't deny them just because they happen to be an elf or a dwarf. As for the class combo impossibility, I had a thorough backstory written up on him, and how he and his twin sister had once been attacked on the road (while he was still just a bard) by bandits who, er, defiled her while he was forced to watch, and he swore to become a holy knight to enforce law, chivalry, and justice after that. He'd start every fight with a rousing battle-hymn to his deity, cast a few buff spells before wading into the melee, and smite evil to his heart's content. But he is a bit of a jerk at times, and never "gets the girl" because he took a vow of chastity..... Kind of like how Rex never "got the girl" in that movie, either, lol!
That said, he was never intended as a game-breaker or power-game PC by any means. One of the things I do when coming up with characters is to think of an interesting concept and backstory, THEN try to figure out what race/class combos best define that concept and backstory. I've ended up with some odd combinations that way, but none were ever particularly power-game PC's or munchkins by any means. I do a little optimizing of skills and feats for playability's sake, but not to "break" a class combo. I just like playing truly unique characters that don't always fit the standard molds of core class expectations. My other half-dragon (the sister) is a sorceress/bard (bladesinger) who specializes in force-related spells and protection magic. She uses a lot of the Bigby spells and magic missiles, lol! I'm usually the DM in our games, but when I am on the other side of the screen, I like to play them together, as they work well off each other, and the sibling banter can add a lot of fun to the game. Palx is the strong, silent type with a hot temper when he's not playing in taverns, while Vala is more easy-going and compassionate. She's the Jimmeny Cricket who keeps his temper in check and keeps him on the straight and narrow. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 22:00:38
The 'no limits' thing led to 'dipping'
For instance, every character I created in 3e was a human fighter at first level... no matter what direction I wanted to take him later. It was just too good to pass up.
I also had a Monk that was getting AC bonuses from two other Prestige Classes (INT and CHA, IIRC) because of dipping. The guy wore no armor and was practically untouchable.
And that lead to min-maxing, which lead to power-gaming....
Which lead to Paizo taking over the world.
EDIT: And the above side-chatter made me think about pali-bards, and 'singing knights', and of course I just had to remember the I Love Lucy episode with 'the good Prince Lancelot' ("Who liked to sing and dance-a-lot"). |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 21:47:06
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
What's wrong with a Pali/Bard? As I said, the PC was a bard FIRST, then later changed class (and alignment) to become a Pali. It was part of his basic concept when I created him, then an event occurred that completely changed his outlook and life-path. That, and I modeled him somewhat loosely on the concept of the old Western "singing cowboy" archtype, a la Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, and others. If you've ever seen the movie Rustler's Rhapsody, you'd have a good idea of what I was going for. But for the concept to work, I had to "bend" the rules a bit- and I first built him (and he is a half-gold dragon/[Moon]elf, which at that time was not even possible as a Pali race option due to race restriction on Palis) in 2nd ed, which should give a good idea of how long I've been playing him. The only edition where I've ever found the combo did NOt work, was in 4th, which ironically professes to make characters eisier to run. His race/class simply did not fit into that edition's mold. I found he actually works best in 3.5, but he was still perfectly playable- and FUN- back in 2nd ed when I created him!
Paladin was Richard Boone, not Roy Rogers - I REALLY hope you get that joke :D |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 21:23:50
Deviously creative player bastards will always push the envelope and dig for exploits, patch up one thing and create weakness in another. The only workable option to prohibit powergaming is a gross oversimplification of the game rules, basically rebuild the entire game as something elementary, straightforward, locked by childish simplicity (sound familiar?).
Powergaming balance is also a preference, and I personally think it's hardly relevant unless there's a disparity within the group (by which I mean all the players and the DM, his NPCs and adventures have to remain appropriately "balanced"). I've seen groups composed of feeble players, ordinary gamers, powergamers, or shameless munchkins, and some of these have had long-running campaigns which are very fun and engaging.
OMH - I don't really expect moving onto a new game system will correct problems, although your players might feel robbed or restricted or denied the goals and challenges which they find engaging. But good luck, bro. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 20:53:36
Although I am definitely a 3.5/Pathfinder adherent (I like Second Edition, too, but my players uniformly despise it, sadly), the one thing I have forbidden in any 3.5/PF campaign I run is multiclassing. Of any sort - the edition's 'Summer of Multiclassing' style is just begging to have player characters run roughshod over a campaign.
Take one level of Thief/Rogue for lots of skill points. Then take one level of Fighter for lots of free Combat Feats. Then advance every level alternating between, say, Druid and Sorcerer.
Forget it. Not happening. Prestige classes are a different matter, but I insist a player pick a single Core class, and then stick to it, with Prestige classes decided later, depending on prerequisites and Feats designed to fill in the gaps.
I know I'm in the minority here in the Keep with this outlook, but to a person, my players are an assembly of some of the most deviously creative bastards ever to toss a polyhedron, my own son being among the worst of the lot. I am seriously pondering converting all the Pathfinder characters into another system that has no levels (like RuneQuest 6th or Hero System, for example) - then the multiclassing headaches will go away, never to be seen again. |
|
|
