| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 12:37:37
|
I am a staunch 3.5/Pathfinder loyalist, but I have made no secret of the fact that I absolutely loathe the multiclassing rules that allow everyone to be everything. I forbade my players any multiclass opportunities when the campaign started - pick what you want to be, and that is what you will remain. Prestige classes will be done on a case-by-case basis.
But that rule has now come back to bite me on the posterior. A player wants her rogue to be able to take a specific Feat, but it is one that is Fighter-only. Yes, I could use DM's Fiat, but that seems to be a bit too much like ignoring the issue.
4th Edition neatly did away with the endless multiclassing nonsense, and introduced a Feat where one could 'dabble' in another class (and only one other class, the rules say). My question is phrased thusly:
Have any scribes run into this issue, and how would you interpret the multiclass feats of 4th Edition (pp. 208-209 of the Player's Handbook) in 3.5/Pathfinder terms? I am (attempting) making conversions of the Feats, but I am curious to know how anyone else might handle this problem. Such issues might also surface when someone wants to be a certain Prestige class, say, an Arcane Archer, but their fighter has no 'able to cast 3rd-level spells' ability. Has anyone encountered this issue?
- OMH
(Edit: If this is not the correct shelf for this scroll, I will not object if it gets moved. It seemed like the right place.)
|
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 19 Feb 2012 12:38:54
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 13:05:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell A player wants her rogue to be able to take a specific Feat, but it is one that is Fighter-only. Yes, I could use DM's Fiat, but that seems to be a bit too much like ignoring the issue.
I think this is an easy one. Does the player want the feat because it fits the character background and also what they have experienced through playing in the campaign, if so its a yes.
If the player purely wants it to make their character better/stronger/fitter/insert another superlative and has nothing at all to do with roleplaying and character development then as a DM say no and explain why, (harsh? most definitely, but hang on DM gears are starting to work.....)
At which point listen to the players counter arguement and come to an agreement on how in game the player can achieve said feat (i.e. quests for the gods, favours for people who can train them in the feat, recovering lost treasures of Tempus and donating them all to the Church as it is a fighter feat they want!) That way the player has something to work for in order to be rewarded with something out of the ordinary and so they must also be extra-ordinary as well. I can see a fantastic 'quest' for the player to undertake to achieve and one that means something to them when they finally succeed.
Cheers
Damian
ps of course if the player is super whiny and not interested in a compromise then its a no and let them spit their dummy out all they want! |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
 |
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 14:51:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell A player wants her rogue to be able to take a specific Feat, but it is one that is Fighter-only. Yes, I could use DM's Fiat, but that seems to be a bit too much like ignoring the issue.
I think this is an easy one. Does the player want the feat because it fits the character background and also what they have experienced through playing in the campaign, if so its a yes.
If the player purely wants it to make their character better/stronger/fitter/insert another superlative and has nothing at all to do with roleplaying and character development then as a DM say no and explain why, (harsh? most definitely, but hang on DM gears are starting to work.....)
At which point listen to the players counter arguement and come to an agreement on how in game the player can achieve said feat (i.e. quests for the gods, favours for people who can train them in the feat, recovering lost treasures of Tempus and donating them all to the Church as it is a fighter feat they want!) That way the player has something to work for in order to be rewarded with something out of the ordinary and so they must also be extra-ordinary as well. I can see a fantastic 'quest' for the player to undertake to achieve and one that means something to them when they finally succeed.
Cheers
Damian
ps of course if the player is super whiny and not interested in a compromise then its a no and let them spit their dummy out all they want!
Oh no, the player is an awesome lady. She and her husband are the perpetual hosts for all the gaming sessions, and she goes out of her way to make people feel at home. She's not a hardcore roleplayer, no, but not everyone is.
The main reason I posed the question is not so much situational, but to have readily-hashed-out mechanics, not just for this instance, but for any that may arise in the future. In that sense, something 'crunchy', for lack of a better description. |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 15:23:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
The main reason I posed the question is not so much situational, but to have readily-hashed-out mechanics, not just for this instance, but for any that may arise in the future. In that sense, something 'crunchy', for lack of a better description.
A-ha I see, in that case I would still open it for all players but there must be an in-game reason for it, the 'Will of the Gods' if you wish, send them on a quest and make them earn it.
Cheers
Damian
|
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 15:58:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I am a staunch 3.5/Pathfinder loyalist, but I have made no secret of the fact that I absolutely loathe the multiclassing rules that allow everyone to be everything. I forbade my players any multiclass opportunities when the campaign started - pick what you want to be, and that is what you will remain. Prestige classes will be done on a case-by-case basis.
But that rule has now come back to bite me on the posterior. A player wants her rogue to be able to take a specific Feat, but it is one that is Fighter-only. Yes, I could use DM's Fiat, but that seems to be a bit too much like ignoring the issue.
4th Edition neatly did away with the endless multiclassing nonsense, and introduced a Feat where one could 'dabble' in another class (and only one other class, the rules say). My question is phrased thusly:
Have any scribes run into this issue, and how would you interpret the multiclass feats of 4th Edition (pp. 208-209 of the Player's Handbook) in 3.5/Pathfinder terms? I am (attempting) making conversions of the Feats, but I am curious to know how anyone else might handle this problem. Such issues might also surface when someone wants to be a certain Prestige class, say, an Arcane Archer, but their fighter has no 'able to cast 3rd-level spells' ability. Has anyone encountered this issue?
- OMH
Ouch! This hurts my powergaming/option-loving senses, but to each their own. 
Well, for one you could pull back your rule of no multiclassing to a limit of one multiclass per character. This means, if you want your character to multiclass then you get one shot at it and that's it. You could even put a cap on the level they're allowed to delve into the second class. Say something like you can only take 1 level of your second class for every two levels of your original class.
A second option is to do something like your originally suggested with Feats. So her Rogue wants to take a Fighter-only feat, but she's not allowed to be a fighter. Well what about a pre-requisite feat that "multiclasses" her into a Fighter. You could probably even directly 'port' a MC-Fighter 4E feat into 3E/PF (listed below). The catch is that they can only take one such MC-feat and she could only qualify for class specific feats that have levels. So, for example, her rogue wants Weapon Specialization, but it requires a 4th level Fighter. She could take one of the below MC-feats and then gain the Weapon Specialization feat. A further restriction is that you must have double the class levels of your original class to qualify for your secondary class feats. So taking the same example above, she would need to be an 8th level Rogue to take a Fighter feat that requires 4th level Fighter.
Here's a converted list of 4E-MC feats for the Fighter:
Battle Awarness: Gain training (or in v3.5/PF, gain a Fighter class skill and the +3 bonus to it) in one Skill associated with the Fighter. Once per encounter, whenever an adjacent enemy makes a 5-ft. step or an attack that doesn't include you, you may make one melee-based attack as an Immediate Interrupt.
Brawling Warrior: Gain training (or in v3.5/PF, gain a Fighter class skill and the +3 bonus to it) in one Skill associated with the Fighter. Once per encounter while your wielding a weapon in one hand and have nothing in the other, you can use a free action to gain a +1 to an attack roll you just made or a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
Whirling Blademaster: Gain training (or in v3.5/PF, gain a Fighter class skill and the +3 bonus to it) in one Skill associated with the Fighter. Once per encounter as a free action during your turn, while wielding a weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with both weapons. This functions only if your wearing light armor or chainmail.
Warrior of Vengeance: Gain training (or in v3.5/PF, gain a Fighter class skill and the +3 bonus to it) in one Skill associated with the Fighter. Once per encounter, when you are hit by a melee attack, gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier + 1d6.
Blade Adept: Gain training (or in v3.5/PF, gain a Fighter class skill and the +3 bonus to it) in one Skill associated with the Fighter. Choose either a one-handed or two-handed weapon. Once per encounter as a free action, add a +1 bonus to your next attack roll with that weapon. Regardless if the attack hits or misses, the target takes a -2 penalty to attacks against creatures other than you. This penalty lasts until the end of your next turn.
3rd option is to allow her some role-playing opportuinities to take the Fighter feat if you don't think it's too overpowered. SOmething like Weapon Specialization really isn't that strong and might be gained say.....through a gladitorial match, training with a high-leveled warrior, finding a tome of martial practices with weapons and training for a few weeks, or even a life-or-death scenario that is overcome with direct, physical damage born of fear. |
Edited by - Diffan on 19 Feb 2012 16:00:25 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 16:18:07
|
Ahhhh, thank you, Diffan. That is exactly the sort of crunchy goodness I am looking for.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 19 Feb 2012 16:18:23 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 16:27:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
A second option is to do something like your originally suggested with Feats. So her Rogue wants to take a Fighter-only feat, but she's not allowed to be a fighter. Well what about a pre-requisite feat that "multiclasses" her into a Fighter. You could probably even directly 'port' a MC-Fighter 4E feat into 3E/PF (listed below). The catch is that they can only take one such MC-feat and she could only qualify for class specific feats that have levels. So, for example, her rogue wants Weapon Specialization, but it requires a 4th level Fighter. She could take one of the below MC-feats and then gain the Weapon Specialization feat. A further restriction is that you must have double the class levels of your original class to qualify for your secondary class feats. So taking the same example above, she would need to be an 8th level Rogue to take a Fighter feat that requires 4th level Fighter.
This is essentially what I have in mind. She raised the issue early, so I do have some time yet (plus we only run the campaign once, occasionally twice a month), and it will thus be a couple of months at the least before I need to worry about it.
The effort now is to cook up Feats for all the cross-classing that I am sure is coming down the pike. She was the first, but I'm not naive enough to think she'll be the only one.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 19 Feb 2012 16:28:16 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 16:40:14
|
| Well if you have the 4E material, it's pretty easy to convert. For example, the Blade Adept feat I listed is just Student of the Sword without the "Marking" word (literally) but functions the same way. The fact that they're all only 1/encounter keeps the balance pretty square (IMO) while maintaining flavor and what-not. The same could possibly be used for other Classes Multi-class feats but, of course, they may vary in power or might need complete re-writes. For example, the Multiclass Warlock feat probably can't be converted as is and would require a re-write as it uses the 4E Warlock Pacts. Same goes for the Wizard one too, as it uses strict 4E class features (Impleemnt abilities) not found in 3E or Pathfinder. I'd say take it as a case-by-case basis so you don't do a lot of work for nothing. |
Edited by - Diffan on 19 Feb 2012 16:41:35 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 23:17:06
|
I have created the below feat for 3.x that has not unbalanced any of the characters that have used it in my RP group:
quote:
Martial Training
Prerequisites: Martial Weapon Proficiency (at least one weapon), Base Attack Bonus +4.
Benefit: You can take feats with a fighter level prerequisite as if you were a fighter 4 levels lower than your character level with any weapon you are proficient with.
|
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 00:32:05
|
I had something completely different here, and then I realized it wasn't really helping the OP, so I erased it all. Lets just say I wouldn't do too much in the way of conversions without them taking an official fansite stance.
That being said, I like a more open system, which you've already said you don't like, so on this point we can agree to disagree.
If I had my way, I get rid of classes altogether, use apptitudes instead, and create a character-point system for Feats, abilities, powers, talents, skills, etc, etc.
But then that wouldn't be D&D at all, would it?  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 01:54:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I had something completely different here, and then I realized it wasn't really helping the OP, so I erased it all. Lets just say I wouldn't do too much in the way of conversions without them taking an official fansite stance.
That being said, I like a more open system, which you've already said you don't like, so on this point we can agree to disagree.
If I had my way, I get rid of classes altogether, use apptitudes instead, and create a character-point system for Feats, abilities, powers, talents, skills, etc, etc.
But then that wouldn't be D&D at all, would it?
Not sure that the fansite has an official stance, tbh.
And no, it wouldn't be D&D...it'd be more the style of the fantasy line for the Hero System. 
- OMH |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 02:00:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I have created the below feat for 3.x that has not unbalanced any of the characters that have used it in my RP group:
quote:
Martial Training
Prerequisites: Martial Weapon Proficiency (at least one weapon), Base Attack Bonus +4.
Benefit: You can take feats with a fighter level prerequisite as if you were a fighter 4 levels lower than your character level with any weapon you are proficient with.
I think that fits the bill perfectly. I might also further extend it to include the ability to take Fighter skills as Class skills.
Rogue will also likely be simple enough. I'm just hoping no one wants to cross-class into a spellcaster role, though it might be possible to give them all the benefits of spellcasting, plus maybe cast a few 0-level/Cantrip spells, without actually having them become bona fide spellcasters.
- OMH |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 03:37:33
|
This looks like interesting stuff... I may have to see what I can do with these now as well, Diffan... and now that 5E has been announced, I should be keeping my eyes open for deals on 4E core expansions... I only have the original core books, but now that you've demonstrated the simplicity of power conversion, I may have to see what I can grab before they're gone.
OMH, I like your thinking on multiclassing. My current 3.5 DM has made it something that always requires DM approval on a case by case basis, and nobody has really found it either attractive or necessary yet. We're getting to the point where prestige classes are becoming a real possibility, and they will be handled in the same way. It's a homebrew world, so prestige classes will be either customized or built from scratch to fit the setting anyway. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 04:55:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I'm just hoping no one wants to cross-class into a spellcaster role, though it might be possible to give them all the benefits of spellcasting, plus maybe cast a few 0-level/Cantrip spells, without actually having them become bona fide spellcasters.
- OMH
I have a theory as to how to allow for spellcasting via feats as well as some other "cross-class" feats that I have designed; but at the very least, if they are an elf, half-elf, or gnome, there is the Arcane Talent feat in the Advanced Player's Guide. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
Edited by - Hawkins on 20 Feb 2012 04:58:42 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 20:59:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I have a theory as to how to allow for spellcasting via feats as well as some other "cross-class" feats that I have designed; but at the very least, if they are an elf, half-elf, or gnome, there is the Arcane Talent feat in the Advanced Player's Guide.
Hawkins... I'm very interested in seeing this. I've been trying to do something similar in my ruleset, largely because it's essentially classless, based on the Eclipse books by Distant Horizons. I haven't been really happy with anything I've come up with for spell level acquisition, and I don't want to rebuild the entire spell list for 3.x/PF to accommodate a vast change in fundamental mechanics. The only thing I've come up with is something based on spellcasting skill rank and spellcasting stat bonus, and this might work for dabblers as well as primary spellcasters. The big concern, as with any RPG that does away with class as a concept, is min-max abuses... but these will work themselves out in playtesting, which I am nowhere near yet. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Backporting rules
