PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Where did this particular nonsensical stereotype come from?



Pages : [1] 2

Zaq
2011-02-01, 10:43 PM
OK, so, I think we all know that multiclassing really only helps melee and martial types (i.e., the types who otherwise would be floundering by mid-levels), and then only if you do it right. It's no joke that 20 levels of druid gives you one of the strongest builds in the game. All the same, though, there's this bizarre stereotype running around that multiclassing, especially heavy multiclassing, equals out-and-out powergaming. It's less common nowadays, of course, but every so often you'll hear someone toss around remarks like "oh, you know, that guy with the ridiculous four-class build" or "some X 1 / Y 2 / Z 2 / PrC 5 monstrosity" with the default assumption that this is somehow a blatant power grab.

Now, I'm not here to discuss why this stereotype is wrong. We could go on for days about how classes are metagame constructions, and how a lot of the weaker classes have sharply diminishing returns, and how the really strong classes can go to 20 just fine without blinking an eye, and so on. You know the score, I know the score, we all know why it's silly. What I want to know is where this ridiculous stereotype came from in the first place. Why is there this background equation of multiclassing with powergrabbing? Just where did this misconception originate? It's oddly deep-seated in some places, and frankly I don't see why. So, where do you think that it came from?

Vladislav
2011-02-01, 10:49 PM
The people who are playing Druid20 or Wizard20, are taking their power trip quietly and with dignity, like fat cats.

Those playing Water Orc Half-Minotaur Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian X/Hulking Hurler Y/Something Z are running around chasing crumbs of power, shrieking like mice.

It's not the power we find objectionable, it's the lack of dignity. :smallbiggrin:

Occasional Sage
2011-02-01, 10:50 PM
Originally? Second edition. I don't remember first being like that.

MeeposFire
2011-02-01, 11:01 PM
It is more a dislike of the lack of class importance in 3e. In reality 3e is nearly classless (as in you often pick up a class for an ability rather than for the class itself thus making it more like the classless systems out there where you chose from a menu of abilities rather than getting set abilities from a class). People then take this dislike of picking classes for their abilities and attribute it to powergaming. It makes for a convenient scapegoat. I prefer simple builds for the most part but I do not begrudge people for using crazy class combos itself.

Zaq
2011-02-01, 11:02 PM
The people who are playing Druid20 or Wizard20, are taking their power trip quietly and with dignity, like fat cats.

Those playing Water Orc Half-Minotaur Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian X/Hulking Hurler Y/Something Z are running around chasing crumbs of power, shrieking like mice.

It's not the power we find objectionable, it's the lack of dignity. :smallbiggrin:

Seems to me that we're not quite talking about the same thing. A Water Orc Half-Minotaur anything is going to seem (and very probably be) powergamey, but the build itself doesn't have any real multiclassing in it. Taking one base class until you qualify for a PrC, taking most or all of that PrC, then moving on to another can hardly be considered class-hopping.


Originally? Second edition. I don't remember first being like that.

I have a handful of first ed and second ed books, but they're just for the fluff (mostly monster books, actually). Speaking as someone who's never played anything earlier than 3.5, can you please elaborate on that?

MeeposFire
2011-02-01, 11:07 PM
1e, 2e and 4e are heavily class based systems. 3e is the only system where you can multiclass in various classes , take just one level, and move to another one. If you originally started in one of the other D&D editions it is easy to see why you might think that multiclassing into a 4+ classes could be considered a power grab. Those who start with 3e or were never into class structures to begin with will not have a problem because it is the abilities that make a character not their class, as they see it. It is a matter of perception and game theory.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-02-01, 11:12 PM
This idea comes from the people who don't believe classes are a meta-game concept.

To be honest, I sort of see where they're coming from. I feel like fluff should come before crunch, and a lot of complicated builds come from people doing the crunch first. But then, perhaps there's more to it than that.

I know the fighter often helps fit someone's character concept better in small enough doses, and I realize sometimes that paladin flavor is better matched by prestige paladin 3/cleric/contemplative than paladin 20.

I think the misconception comes from people believing that all instances of X are caused by Y.

Skaven
2011-02-01, 11:47 PM
I once got called cheesy for daring to take Shifter (master of many forms 3.0 before they stole the name for a race) over straight druid. Despite it being a blatant and step down in tiers compared to straight druid.

Honestly I don't know where it comes from. It can be a little absurd, but imo its very much needed for some classes, Sorcerer comes to mind. The one class with a completely blank progression because of one guy in wotc's petty dislike for the class.

What gets me most about Sorc PrC's is that they usually come with a spellcasting level hit.. when Sorc's already have that hit built into their class, making them have a double spellcasting level hit! For this reason, I always houserule that sorc PrC's get that extra spellcasting level back.

Human Paragon 3
2011-02-02, 12:12 AM
I think part of it is pure intellectual laziness. Having a build that goes X 1/ Y 3/ X 1/ Z 1 / PrC 5 demonstrates that a lot of thought went into the build. Classes were taken at specific times and combination to get the exact set of abilities that the player wanted. The player who goes "I want to be a wizard, so I take wizard 20" looks at the above build and thinks "he's not taking four different classes and a prestige class because he wants to be weaker. If he's putting this much effort into his character build, he must be power gaming."

For some, it just doesn't make sense that you'd spend hours and hours pouring over source material and putting together the perfect build just to express an idea in player-character form, and get it to do whatever bizarre specific thing you want. And maybe they're right--maybe it's some weird form of psychosis or the result of spending too much time on this message board! I know there's a lot of time I wish I could get back.

Claudius Maximus
2011-02-02, 12:31 AM
Because a Ranger 3/Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Horizon Walker X is demonstrably better than Fighter X, and actually was likely taken to maximize the abilities granted by each class.

Taking a lot of classes totally is a thing players do when they powergame. The stereotype is the result of the fallacy of assuming anyone taking a lot of classes is powergaming.

nyarlathotep
2011-02-02, 12:59 AM
It is primarily because people who dislike optimization do not understand it well and diagnose one of the symptoms as the end all be all indicator.

Yahzi
2011-02-02, 05:11 AM
You take levels in Fighter because you want to play a fighter-guy.

You take levels in a half-dozen different classes because you want to win.

Ergo the role-players vs power-gamers divide.

Jarian
2011-02-02, 05:17 AM
You take levels in Fighter because you want to play a fighter-guy.

You take levels in a half-dozen different classes because you want to win.

Ergo the role-players vs power-gamers divide.

*bright lights flash, warning sirens sound*

So if I played a Druid 20...

Your argument is inherently flawed.

Fishy
2011-02-02, 05:26 AM
I think you take levels in a half-dozen classes because you want to do something that no one class by itself can accomplish.

Sometimes it's "I want to be more powerful than all of my friends' characters", and that's obviously lame.

Sometimes it's "I want to be different from all of my friends' characters", which could be an obnoxious attention seeker, or it could be someone who enjoys creativity. "I want to create a mildly creepy character for an urban campaign who lies, sneaks and steals her way out of situations and has an affinity for rats," and there might be no one class that does that, without weird ACFs.

But most often it's "I want to play a melee fighting character that doesn't become useless at higher levels, and can't use the ToB", or similar. This is a bad thing if you think the core classes are a balanced baseline that the game should be played at.

Frog Dragon
2011-02-02, 05:28 AM
You take levels in Fighter because you want to play a fighter-guy.

You take levels in a half-dozen different classes because you want to win.

Ergo the role-players vs power-gamers divide.
Stormwind senses tingling...

Most of the X2/Y1/Z4 builds I see are made because X7, Y7 or Z7 would kinda suck. And sucking is no fun for anyone. The competent members of the party *cough*wizard with half-decent spell list*cough* have to deal with lugging around a dead weight, while you, as the dead weight, get to do nothing much relevant.

Being half-competent is usually more fun than being terrible, even if it requires lots of multiclassing. Really, if the desire was to just "win D&D", as absurd as that is, you'd just try to get a Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10 past the GM.

Runestar
2011-02-02, 05:33 AM
I guess it is an expected kneejerk reaction.

After all, who in their right mind is going to waste time pouring over multiple splatbooks to create a character who is weaker than if he simply went with 1 class? So if you see someone spend the time and effort to lump multiple classes/prcs together, you are going to assume that the end product will be much stronger than say, a pure classed core class.

LordBlades
2011-02-02, 05:53 AM
I think it comes from the people that support the idea of classes being lifestyle choices and that all character decisions should be based on roleplay. Therefore if you took 1 level of fighter and 1 level of wizard you were a munchkin (because you did it to gain some mechanical abilities) and a bad roleplayer because fighter represented a guy who 'trained all his life to fight' while a wizard was a guy who 'trained all his life to do magic'.

If you happened to want to play a monk for RP reasons while somebody else wanted to play a druid for RP reasons, well....then life sucks.

Earthwalker
2011-02-02, 07:10 AM
Stormwind senses tingling...

Most of the X2/Y1/Z4 builds I see are made because X7, Y7 or Z7 would kinda suck. And sucking is no fun for anyone. The competent members of the party *cough*wizard with half-decent spell list*cough* have to deal with lugging around a dead weight, while you, as the dead weight, get to do nothing much relevant.


The OP question is why do people think that class dipping is to gain more power. I would say people think that becuase it is. If we look at this example going x2 / y1 / z4 is more powerful so thats what I will be.

Why people think being more powerful is a bad thing I have no idea. As we know optimization level has nothing to do with role playing ability.

One question to ask, people that play a water ork half minataur do they play this different then they would a human, is thier mind set different when playing the same character but being race human ?

bokodasu
2011-02-02, 07:16 AM
I think Gaurd Juris has the root of it. Surely nobody would take five classes, three with ACFs, and two PrCs to be weaker, so they must be doing it to make themselves stronger. And obviously each step must make them exponentially stronger, otherwise they'd leave that step out. Any claims of "flavor" or "differentiation" must be spurious, because nobody would put that much work into a D&D character just for flavor.

So to accuse someone of powergaming, you must have the seeds of the powergamer in yourself.

Aharon
2011-02-02, 07:26 AM
Well, sure a wizard 20 or druid 20 is powerful. But many optimizers don't think that is sufficient and do take PrCs even if they have a strong chassis.
Focused Specialist 3/Master Specialist 2/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 5 is more powerful than wizard 20, and this gets noted by people who don't bother to optimize.
That a similar, though not quite the same result can be achieved with wizard 20 gets lost.

Comet
2011-02-02, 07:27 AM
Multiclassing is optimization. Single classes won't do the trick, so you mix and match, hoping to get the best possible outcome for the character type you had in mind. This outcome will, most likely, be centered around combat because this is Dungeons and Dragons.

So, now you have a character that is beyond what most single-class characters can do. This effect was achieved with a lot of thought and analysis and careful calculation.
What part of that is not powergaming? You are gaming with power. This is not an inherently bad thing, it's just something that the mechanics encourage. You can still roleplay all you want and be brilliant about it, but you have still looked at the mechanics from a non-roleplay point of view and decided what combination of classes would best benefit you and create the kind of quirky character you want to play.

It's not munchkinery or sacrificing flavour for power, but it is powergaming. Powergaming can be awesome, if you are into numbers and thought excercises like this. Our group is not, so we rarely take advantage of the full multiclassing options in 3.5

Yahzi
2011-02-02, 07:31 AM
So if I played a Druid 20...
A role-player takes 20 levels in druid because he wants to play a tree-hugger.

Then he finds out by accident that he's also totally dominating the game.

Seriously, that exact story has been told on these boards a dozen times.

My point is that you either take a class for fluff or for crunch. And the people who take them for fluff assume that those who take them for crunch are power-gamers. I'm not even agreeing with them; I'm just saying that might be where the stereotype comes from.

LordBlades
2011-02-02, 07:47 AM
A role-player takes 20 levels in druid because he wants to play a tree-hugger.

Then he finds out by accident that he's also totally dominating the game.



Lol, that sounds like my first D&D campaign ever. We were all new to the game (the DM had been playing for about 4-5 sessions in another campaign, the rest of us absolute 0 experience) so we picked what we liked more from the PHB(fluff wise mostly).

We ended up with something like human fighter (weapon spec greatsword and the like), elf wizard, halfing monk and me as dwarf cleric. Started at lvl 3, and about lvl 7-8 me and wizard were destroying everything (campaign ended shortly after because the DM couldn't handle it anymore.

It was 100% by accident (didn't even look over the cleric's spell list before picking the class, just thought being a priest of Pelor and healing ppl was cool).

Weird is that the same group (DM and the fighter and monk players), which had no trouble being completely owned by a cleric, kicked me out due to 'being a munchkin' for wanting to play a rogue/monk/shadowdancer.

Jair Barik
2011-02-02, 07:47 AM
A role-player takes 20 levels in druid because he wants to play a tree-hugger.

Then he finds out by accident that he's also totally dominating the game.

Seriously, that exact story has been told on these boards a dozen times.

My point is that you either take a class for fluff or for crunch. And the people who take them for fluff assume that those who take them for crunch are power-gamers. I'm not even agreeing with them; I'm just saying that might be where the stereotype comes from.

This
So much this.
When I first played 3e I wanted to be a wizard. A straight up gnome illusionist. My last experience of D&D was baldurs gate and I couldn't think of anything wrong with going wizard. I'd be getting a few spells off every now and again but would ultimately have to conserve my powers for important encounters and hide behind the stronger characters for safety. Why multi-class? I didn't want to be some cooky elemental person or write spells in blood, I just wanted to play as a wizard. My first game of 3.5 was actually on these boards. I played straight sorcerer with dragon heritage feats because I wanted to be a noble and brave descendant of a silver dragon in the frozen north. This was straight sorcerer at around level 7 bear in mind and at this point I had no idea about the entire tiers argument and such like.

Now whilst it is possible to go straight caster without intending to powergame it is less likely for someone to go erratic 2 levels of each class without some attempt at powergaming being involved. With straight casters the signs of powergaming are from other sources, feats from a dozen books, 2 flaws and traits, spells from all over the place with examples such as shivering touch and venomfire, animal companions from obscure climates that have no relation to the race or to each other....
So yeah the dipping argument is more a matter of 'most dippers are powergamers' than 'mono class isn't powergaming'

AtlanteanTroll
2011-02-02, 07:49 AM
1e, 2e and 4e are heavily class based systems. 3e is the only system where you can multiclass in various classes , take just one level, and move to another one. If you originally started in one of the other D&D editions it is easy to see why you might think that multiclassing into a 4+ classes could be considered a power grab. Those who start with 3e or were never into class structures to begin with will not have a problem because it is the abilities that make a character not their class, as they see it. It is a matter of perception and game theory.

If by 3E you mean d20. Nothing stops you from doing this in d20 Modern or Future or...

Psyren
2011-02-02, 07:50 AM
A role-player takes 20 levels in druid because he wants to play a tree-hugger.

Then he finds out by accident that he's also totally dominating the game.

You're still drawing some strange line between roleplayers and game-dominators. Some of us set out to do both :smallwink:

Greenish
2011-02-02, 07:50 AM
For some, it just doesn't make sense that you'd spend hours and hours pouring over source material and putting together the perfect build just to express an idea in player-character form, and get it to do whatever bizarre specific thing you want. And maybe they're right--maybe it's some weird form of psychosis or the result of spending too much time on this message board!I regret nothing.

Yahzi
2011-02-02, 07:53 AM
Lol, that sounds like my first D&D campaign ever.
And that's what people mean when they say 3E is broken. Because people break games by accident, simply by playing a Core class.

On the other hand, once everybody knows this, you can play games with it just fine. The wizards and clerics and druids have more responsibilities and limitations than the melee classes (yes this is fluff, but role-playing is about the fluff), so it can work. It's even OK to design a game with unbalanced classes (like 1E and 2E clearly were). The broken part is that the PHB doesn't know that fighters are weaker than druids.


You're still drawing some strange line between roleplayers and game-dominators. Some of us set out to do both
Actually, I'm one of those people that argues that true role-playing requires you to power-game your character. Because while you might be there to have fun, your character is there to survive. Your character should do everything in his power to win. So I'm on the side of the power-gamers here.

But that doesn't change the fact that I am annoyed that Mr. Tough Guy Fighter McBadass has to take 18 levels of Sword Dancing / Cheesemaking Monkey / Barbarian to be a good Fighter.

Escheton
2011-02-02, 08:02 AM
It starts when you pick the dungeonscape variant ranger with trapfinding at lvl 1 because you are willing to trade sneak attack and a few skillpoints for a better fort save, and more importantly +1 bab.
You do this because you want to enter that +x bab prereq prestigeclass.

To you your char is a "thief" on a bordertown to a large forest that went on hunting forays and uses craft: trap to make snares and such.

To the guy across the table, you are a powergaming munchkin because you didnt take the rogueclass.

TakeABow
2011-02-02, 08:06 AM
It stems from the misconception that the classes in core are balanced. If you believe that, then a 'normal' character can take 1 base class and 1 prestige class. Or maybe two base classes. Or two base classes and a prestige class if the prestige class specifically calls for it. If you take more than that, you are 'exploiting the system'.

The people that see 1x/1y/2z/2w/5prc etc. as busted are the same people that don't realize that wizards are heads and shoulders better than the fighter.

Well-adjusted players will realize that the melee character who took 6 different classes is probably only doing it to catch up to the casters. Yes, sometimes those people are powergaming, but so is the player who takes Cleric, Druid, or Wizard straight to 20, even if they don't realize it.

Gnaeus
2011-02-02, 08:15 AM
Multiclassing is optimization. Single classes won't do the trick, so you mix and match, hoping to get the best possible outcome for the character type you had in mind. This outcome will, most likely, be centered around combat because this is Dungeons and Dragons.

So, now you have a character that is beyond what most single-class characters can do.

I once saw a fighter/cleric/warmage in 3.5. He was weaker than a fighter, a cleric, OR a warmage. I had to beg him to take Mystic Theurge, because his plan was to keep rotating between warmage & cleric, and I felt bad for him.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 08:15 AM
I was a Barbarian 1/Fighter X/Warblade that began as a miner. I started looking for ways to bring down doors and walls and whatnot, and found the Dungeonscape fighter option for levels 2 and 6.

The DM stopped the campaing because he said I did everything myself. Of course, he forgot that all the buffs, teleportation, divination and all of our magic items where made by the druid and the mage.

It really is depressing looking for a way to do something VERY well and suddenly being labeled a "powergamer" for it. Next time I'll just a conventional Barbarian that power attacks enemies into pieces. No more ramming them against each other fun :(

small pumpkin m
2011-02-02, 08:23 AM
Multiple reasons. Firstly the one already explained, somebody who makes a straight Druid and broke the game could easily have done it accidently, somebody who creates a powerful fighter-type by taking four different classes and two prestigue classes has obviously done this intentionally, and you can see it just by looking at their sheet. In fact, to someone, who say, doesn't actually know anything about how 3.x, and well, rpgs in general work, having more classes just looks more impressive. It's the Invader Zim percerption, just like how having more organs obviously makes you more healthy, have more classes obviously makes you more powerful, so the perception is you're not just making a grab for power, you're making a crass and obvious grab for power.

Not to mention that if the CoDzilla is walking all over the campaign, and they don't want too, the can start spending all their actions on buffing the other characters and helping the party, without changing their character, having a powerful character is not the problem, it's attempting to make a powerful character.

Another reason is roles, just because the Wizard & Cleric are having a much larger effect on the game as a whole, so long as the Fighter type manages to do his slightly higher single target damage every now and then, if they're not really paying attention to crunch details (and the people who make such claims often don't), they might just decide it's all good, but if one guys playing a fighter/barbarian/Paladin/Totemist/BlackGaurd/Frenzied Bezerker and the other guy's playing a straight fighter, and the fighter ends up being the less effective built (which it may or may not, that's a fairly silly build), since both characters will be doing similar things it will be far more obvious.

Oh, and multiclass builds are far more likely to involve taking a bunch of things from different books, which is something powergamers actually do, and again, it's right there at the top of your sheet, showing your shame to the world.

Lasty, for these people, a class is not what you can do, it's who you are. You don't choose rogue because you want to sneak, you chose rogue because you want to play the hard-eyed thief, you don't play a wizard over a sorcerer because you want to be able to switch your spells around, you do it because you want your character to be old and wise, which is what wizards are, while sorcerors are young and brash. A heavily multiclassed character doesn't fit a basic type like that, so you're choosing your classes based on abilities, not archetypes, which makes you a powergamer.

olentu
2011-02-02, 08:28 AM
Multiclassing is optimization. Single classes won't do the trick, so you mix and match, hoping to get the best possible outcome for the character type you had in mind. This outcome will, most likely, be centered around combat because this is Dungeons and Dragons.

So, now you have a character that is beyond what most single-class characters can do. This effect was achieved with a lot of thought and analysis and careful calculation.
What part of that is not powergaming? You are gaming with power. This is not an inherently bad thing, it's just something that the mechanics encourage. You can still roleplay all you want and be brilliant about it, but you have still looked at the mechanics from a non-roleplay point of view and decided what combination of classes would best benefit you and create the kind of quirky character you want to play.

It's not munchkinery or sacrificing flavour for power, but it is powergaming. Powergaming can be awesome, if you are into numbers and thought excercises like this. Our group is not, so we rarely take advantage of the full multiclassing options in 3.5

Allow me to say that making a character actually able to do what the concept is able to do is something I find to be a good idea.

Ingus
2011-02-02, 08:37 AM
This probably roots at the start of 3.0. At that time, bardic music was based solely on perform ranks, so picking bard 1 to have bardic music ability and then progress in another completely different class allowed you to progress like a full class bard. Ranger had a similar dynamic, but I don't recall how it worked.
It was very common to go Human Bard 1, Ranger 2 and then Rogue or Fighter.

I believe this is the cause

Jair Barik
2011-02-02, 08:46 AM
I find the problem comes when players begin labelling you OP because you are good at what you do.

The group I remember consisted of the following (all about lvl 5)
-Straight fireball wizard
-Spellthief/wizard with feats from complete mage
-Rogue with homebrew garotte
-Barbarian
-Cleric (healer)
-Swashbuckler with spiked chain

Near the end of the campaign (in fact the campaign ended largely because of this) the rogue attacked an NPC everyone had been talking to, a powerful wizard in fact, who we felt we needed to speak to about something (wizard was non evil, had inadvertantly knocked out the rogue earlier with an AoO spell). Wizard shrugs off his attacks and the party tries to intervene. Spellthief throws a one damage spell at the rogue to make it clear that he isn't siding with the rogue if the NPC wizard gets angry. Swashbuckler bbegins using non lethal trip attacks/disarms/grapple to try and restrain the rogue. Nobody dies everything works out fine. Later on though the rogue starts accusing the spellthief and swashbuckler (predominantly the swashbuckler) of being OPed, that spellthief does the wizards job better than the wizard despite him having multiclassed, and that the swashbuckler is completely better than he is largely as a result of him being able to pretty much shut down the rogue in combat.
Whilst I would agree that the spellthief's character had clearly optimised (he was the only one to take abilities from books beyond core/complete) and clearly was the most experienced player (sneak attacking with spells, casting in armour, rope tricking at night....) but the complaint against the swashbuckler was kind of strange considering the rest of the campaign. The other wizard had on a couple of occasions single handedly won encounters with fireball, the swashbuckler on the other hand was generally about par with the barbarian (stronger when the barbarian wasn't raging, weaker when he was) and had rarely been able to actually use his abilities to any good effect (enemies had included centipedes, invisible fungi, purple worms, swarms etc. that trip/disarm had no effect on). So yeah I'd say this is an example of how the stereotype can be accurate (spellthief) that people can inadvertantly be strong without powergaming (wizard's first game of 3.5 ever) and how some people will label anything they dislike as OP/powergame.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 08:53 AM
Ranger had a similar dynamic, but I don't recall how it worked.

Rangers got Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting at level 1 (in 3.0 you needed two feats for TWF). You could dip in it with any class and efectively save two feats. Three if track was useful for you.

Rangers got nothing else other than those "freebies", favored enemy and spells. There was no real reason to play one if rogues ended up being better at hunting.


It was very common to go Human Bard 1, Ranger 2 and then Rogue or Fighter.
Bard/Ranger/Paladin/then Rogue all the way. If you had decent charisma, it was a no brainer.

LordBlades
2011-02-02, 09:04 AM
I find the problem comes when players begin labelling you OP because you are good at what you do.



Some people find that bashing people that are good at stuff is easier that being good at stuff themselves.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 09:19 AM
Some people find that bashing people that are good at stuff is easier that being good at stuff themselves.

I think it's the whole problem with the "powergaming" thing. This term is used not only for those who look for the most powerful/++ giving items, but is also used for people that have effective builds.

Since the class system is inherently broken in 3.5 and requires at least some though before being used, lazy people call those who enjoy matching abilities "powergamers"... because they take the time to look up concepts.

I've never seen a Pun-pun in one of my games, or anything like that, but I was called a powergamer in 3.0 because I made an Enchanter/Monk/Warrior/Duelist. He had high AC, high saves (the only character I've ever known, in my roleplaying life time, that actually chose a "+2 to a save" feat) and a good repertoire of spells to help the group. Never really killed anything or anyone, but that doesn't stop people from saying "Holy toledo, more than one class? OMGPAWRGEYMEENG."

Grogmir
2011-02-02, 09:31 AM
how the really strong classes can go to 20 just fine without blinking an eye, and so on. You know the score, I know the score, we all know why it's silly.

As I disagree with your basic premise I guess this isn't the thread for me.

Admitiadly I have a very small sample, only dming a few games at a club before I ran back to the safty of my 'group of friends that Dnd' but those that bring the most complicated builds are ALWAYS (one of a type of group) that you know are going to bring you problems. (That and antisocial gamers being the main other)

Thats not to say its a stormwind, if you can get them engaged they are the best roleplayers out there. But when it comes to combat its a friggin nightmare, always looking for ways to end combats in 1 / 2 rounds. Or even end it before its already begun by the (very cunning) use of a certain power.
They are not bad players - just not team players.

Furthermore I've never seen someone take a 2 level dip that made someone mechanically weaker 'just for fluff'. Always seems to be because of some 'wicked combination' that makes them stronger than the developers meant.

My humble 2p.

Jair Barik
2011-02-02, 09:46 AM
Some people find that bashing people that are good at stuff is easier that being good at stuff themselves.

Just to check I am taking about characters as opposed to players. In this example the character is good at combat with other humanoids, the rogue was bashing him for being good at this. The other way round it would be like the Swashbuckler bashing the rogue for say... being good at sneaking around, or dealing more damage than him if he gets off a sneak attack.

LordBlades
2011-02-02, 09:50 AM
Admitiadly I have a very small sample, only dming a few games at a club before I ran back to the safty of my 'group of friends that Dnd' but those that bring the most complicated builds are ALWAYS (one of a type of group) that you know are going to bring you problems. (That and antisocial gamers being the main other)

Thats not to say its a stormwind, if you can get them engaged they are the best roleplayers out there. But when it comes to combat its a friggin nightmare, always looking for ways to end combats in 1 / 2 rounds. Or even end it before its already begun by the (very cunning) use of a certain power.
They are not bad players - just not team players.

Single class casters do that sort of thing just as well. It's not necessarily about the build but rather about the player mindset.


Furthermore I've never seen someone take a 2 level dip that made someone mechanically weaker 'just for fluff'. Always seems to be because of some 'wicked combination' that makes them stronger than the developers meant.

My humble 2p.

My experience has been completely different. Most people I game with multiclass either to fulfill a certain character concept (Gish being the most obvious example) or because it doesn't hurt their character concept (such as going Barb 2/Fighter 4 instead of Barb 6 for a Frenzied Berserker build. Same fluff but better mechanics for the first variant). As for dips that make you weaker: fighter 1/wizard x. Gishes are weaker that Batman wizards(assuming equal optimization).

Greenish
2011-02-02, 09:51 AM
Furthermore I've never seen someone take a 2 level dip that made someone mechanically weaker 'just for fluff'.You've never seen a wizard take a level in rogue for skills and SA? :smallconfused:

Always seems to be because of some 'wicked combination' that makes them stronger than the developers meant.Well, how strong did developers intend player characters to be? Druid-strong? Monk-strong? Something in between?

LordBlades
2011-02-02, 09:53 AM
Just to check I am taking about characters as opposed to players. In this example the character is good at combat with other humanoids, the rogue was bashing him for being good at this. The other way round it would be like the Swashbuckler bashing the rogue for say... being good at sneaking around, or dealing more damage than him if he gets off a sneak attack.


Well, it was a player bashing another player because their character was good at something, right?

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 09:53 AM
...but those that bring the most complicated builds are ALWAYS (one of a type of group) that you know are going to bring you problems. (That and antisocial gamers being the main other)

Because they propose a challenge to the DM. Most DMs aren't used to players that actually make them think about a good encounter, tailored for them that still feels right for unoptimized PCs.


But when it comes to combat its a friggin nightmare, always looking for ways to end combats in 1 / 2 rounds. Or even end it before its already begun by the (very cunning) use of a certain power.
They are not bad players - just not team players.

I disagree. just because you end a fight in 1 or 2 rounds that doesn't make you a Lone Wolf, it just means the encounter had a very easy way of being solved, such as all enemies appearing close together and then blaming the sorcerer for having nerveskitter, shock and awe and throwing a sudden empowered fireball.


Furthermore I've never seen someone take a 2 level dip that made someone mechanically weaker 'just for fluff'. Always seems to be because of some 'wicked combination' that makes them stronger than the developers meant.

True, but why is that a bad thing? I'm sure the developers meant for the fighter to be stronger, but never really made it. Should people then be stuck playing one like that having the possibility to be better?

Wizards and Druids are the strongest classes, by far. In fact, I cannot really see a high level campaing working without at least one spell caster in the group, and some pretty good magic items. I, for one, feel that if a character needs to multiclass to reach his concept, so be it.

Some rogues are called paladins in my world because they fight for good (and have been damn lucky sometimes), because IN the world classes exist only because of what you DO, not what abilities you use to do them. If then, why shouldn't the rogue be able to find a combination that makes him heal? or smite evil? or have an insane ammount of extra damage against evil creatures?

"Powergaming" in 3.5 via multiclassing is a beauty, because it lets you do ANYTHING. It should be called what it actually is: Optimizing.

Comet
2011-02-02, 09:59 AM
Allow me to say that making a character actually able to do what the concept is able to do is something I find to be a good idea.

It sure is. In D&D 3.5, this competence is achieved by optimization, unless you want to play a wizard or a druid or something like that.

Optimization and powergaming are not bad things. They are encouraged by the rules of 3.5 and, as such, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the player will want to do a bit of math and analysis to achieve the optimal result (the optimal result here being a character that is fun to play and that can make a difference in the world).

But it is still powergaming. You are still calculating the most optimal end result and how you can achieve it with the rules provided. Calling it anything other than such would be dishonest.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 10:05 AM
But it is still powergaming. You are still calculating the most optimal end result and how you can achieve it with the rules provided. Calling it anything other than such would be dishonest.

Then its optimizing. Powergaming means you are looking for "power", which actually depends on the build. A character that looks for the highest Diplomacy bonus ever is hardly powergaming (since Diplomacy only indirectly helps).

Gnaeus
2011-02-02, 10:08 AM
Furthermore I've never seen someone take a 2 level dip that made someone mechanically weaker 'just for fluff'. Always seems to be because of some 'wicked combination' that makes them stronger than the developers meant.


I have seen LOTS of 2 level dips that made PCs weaker. It is hard to say with 100% certainty that they were made "just for fluff". Some may have been attempts to powergame that just failed utterly. Some (including some that I have done) have been deliberate attempts to weaken a character for balance reasons.

DarkEternal
2011-02-02, 10:11 AM
Honestly, in my games, if you want to multiclass or become a prestige class, you need to have a damn good fluff reason why you think you're eligible, besides the "I meed the requirements". It may be poor DM-ing, I don't care, I like each character to have his or her own personality and the reasoning why he would become a wizard after he was a ranger for 5-6 levels or something(just an example, I know Arcane Archer sucks). There doesn't have to be a novel sized reason, just "While travelling with the party mage, I got interested in the mystical arts, and started observing his academic studies and making notes of my own, while collecting the same components he does and investigating what they do".

See, simple, but it adds some more flavor, and is then allowed.

Also, if you play many classes, especially prestige classes as multiclass options, you will have a hard time roleplaying it. A contemplative that dips into a barbarian or something(for whatever reason he might do that) will have a hard time explaining and pulling this one off on my shift.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 10:16 AM
Honestly, in my games, if you want to multiclass or become a prestige class, you need to have a damn good fluff reason why you think you're eligible…

There doesn't have to be a novel sized reason, just "While travelling with the party mage, I got interested in the mystical arts, and started observing his academic studies and making notes of my own, while collecting the same components he does and investigating what they do".That qualifies for "damn good"? :smallamused:

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 10:22 AM
That qualifies for "damn good"? :smallamused:

My last DM told us that we had to train for some time in order to get classes not related to what we did. I had a fighting class, so in order to, for example, get a level of cleric, I had to train for 5 years.

We never spent more than two weeks in downtime.

Amphetryon
2011-02-02, 10:25 AM
Also, if you play many classes, especially prestige classes as multiclass options, you will have a hard time roleplaying it. A contemplative that dips into a barbarian or something(for whatever reason he might do that) will have a hard time explaining and pulling this one off on my shift.
That sounds like you're saying that classes are not actually metagame constructs, then, which is a different supposition than the one in the OP.

How does a player in your game achieve an archetype that's not represented by the base classes, out of curiosity? Say they want to be a 'Church's Bounty Hunter', for instance, seeking out unrepentant souls and bringing them back into the fold through divine magic. Cleric is poorly suited to the bounty hunter role, with no tracking ability or skills related to the job; Ranger gets no affiliation with any Clergy, RAW, and cannot easily fulfill the 'through divine magic' aspect of the concept.

LordBlades
2011-02-02, 10:27 AM
Also, if you play many classes, especially prestige classes as multiclass options, you will have a hard time roleplaying it. A contemplative that dips into a barbarian or something(for whatever reason he might do that) will have a hard time explaining and pulling this one off on my shift.

It all depends how you look at it. You seem to look at classes as meaningful choices that define a character. I don't. For me classes are just tools, means through which I build a character concept. That's why, if my character concept requires the character to be able to do X, Y and Z, I will make a build to make sure the character is able to do X, Y and Z. It doesn't really matter to me if it ends up being single classed or have 10 different classes.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 10:29 AM
Also, if you play many classes, especially prestige classes as multiclass options, you will have a hard time roleplaying it. A contemplative that dips into a barbarian or something(for whatever reason he might do that) will have a hard time explaining and pulling this one off on my shift.Since it's tangentially relevant, a contemplative who dips into barbarian is probably doing it for RP reasons, since there's little mechanical benefit from doing it.

Well, unless you want to power down your character.

kamikasei
2011-02-02, 10:32 AM
But it is still powergaming. You are still calculating the most optimal end result and how you can achieve it with the rules provided. Calling it anything other than such would be dishonest.
"Powergaming" is one of those words that means very different things depending on who's using it and how. Your usage here is a neutral or positive one. It's pretty clear that the OP was using it in a common perjorative sense: "you're just powergaming, all your decisions are about what'll make your character more powerful!"

Having a concept for a character and then making mechanical choices that represent that concept in as mechanically powerful a way as possible is one thing (a good and sensible thing, in my book). A melee character might be heavily optimized in order to make an unusual fighting style viable or just to actually be good at melee, given the failings of the system, while still remaining much less powerful than a less optimized character built from inherently stronger elements. What the OP is (as I read him) objecting to is the view that such a character, by virtue of being optimized in a particular way, is or is trying to be stronger than everyone else at the table. If all a player cares about is character power, rather than just wanting her character to be powerful enough to a) contribute and b) live up to her image of her, there are easier ways to do that.

Also, if you play many classes, especially prestige classes as multiclass options, you will have a hard time roleplaying it. A contemplative that dips into a barbarian or something(for whatever reason he might do that) will have a hard time explaining and pulling this one off on my shift.
See the line in the OP: "classes are metagame constructions". Not everyone agrees, of course, but that's where he (and I) are coming from. Characters do not know their class levels or think of themselves as, e.g., a "Warblade/Wizard/Master Specialist/Abjurant Champion/Spellsword"; they think of themselves as swordmages, or mystic knights, or Therese of Brightmoon who'll blow you up and then stab whatever's left. A holy knight may be a Paladin, or a Cleric, or a Crusader, or a Fighter/Expert with high Knowledge: Religion and a deep devotion to her faith. Some classes do have in-game markers of identity and even level - Wizards have spellbooks, Paladins have mounts, Druids have a freakin' secret language - but many classes are minor variations on a basic theme.

A character is a character, and the character's build is a mechanical representation of that character, and the two inform one another but are not identical. Of course, if a ranger suddenly develops an ability to cast arcane spells and carries around a spellbook and familiar, that's surprising and warrants explanation. On the other hand, if a ranger becomes a bit more skillful and a craftier fighter who exploits openings more effectively in combat, that's quite natural character growth. Both are still the result of multiclassing. And if a character is built at a higher level than first, with a few dips or a basic multiclass already set up, they may warrant no more in-game explanation than any character's starting abilities.

edit: Ninja'd! Or Warblade/Ranger/Rogue'd, for all I know.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 10:33 AM
Since it's tangentially relevant, a contemplative who dips into barbarian is probably doing it for RP reasons, since there's little mechanical benefit from doing it.

Not every powergamer multiclasses (see Wizard and Druid), and not every multiclass means powergaming (see above).

Greenish
2011-02-02, 10:40 AM
Of course, if a ranger suddenly develops an ability to cast arcane spells and carries around a spellbook and familiar, that's surprising and warrants explanation.She's a member of the Order of the Shooting Star? :smalltongue:

[Edit]:
Not every powergamer multiclasses (see Wizard and Druid), and not every multiclass means powergaming (see above).I agree, I was just pointing out that the example used was, well, an example of that.

Pisha
2011-02-02, 10:51 AM
Furthermore I've never seen someone take a 2 level dip that made someone mechanically weaker 'just for fluff'. Always seems to be because of some 'wicked combination' that makes them stronger than the developers meant.


Ahem. My rogue/fighter with two levels of Favored Soul. Mechanically, it's the biggest waste on my character sheet (I've cast, what, 2 1st-level spells during the entire campaign?) but it's led to some interesting roleplay and really helped round out my character concept.

Jay R
2011-02-02, 11:01 AM
It all depends how you look at it. You seem to look at classes as meaningful choices that define a character. I don't. For me classes are just tools, means through which I build a character concept. That's why, if my character concept requires the character to be able to do X, Y and Z, I will make a build to make sure the character is able to do X, Y and Z. It doesn't really matter to me if it ends up being single classed or have 10 different classes.

I think you've reached an important point. In all versions of D&D before 3rd Edition, a class represents how your character grew up -- his training and background. The assumption was that it took years of single-minded study to reach the point where you could cast your first spell. To those of us who had played for years before 3E came out, adding a character class represents changing the entire background of your character in the middle of the game. (I remember how shocked I was when I first heard about somebody multi-classing to Barbarian, which originally meant growing up away from civilization.)

A good example of how silly it sounds to a long-term gamer is found here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html). Vaarsuvius is upset that his long years of single-minded study to become a Magic-User can be duplicated under the rules by Elan, just by claiming after the fact that he's been watching V.

In early games, the advantages of a class were what you could do, and the disadvantages were what you couldn't do. A Wizard cannot pick locks or use a sword, but he can cast spells. A fighter is great with weapons, but she can't climb walls or cast spells. o a wizard with a level of fighter and a level of thief is simply a wizard without the disadvantages.

3E changed this in the rules -- a class is now merely a toolbox, not a complete background that takes your entire youth to fulfill. But for all older players, the original idea is still strong. People tend to hold onto their ideas. In OD&D, 1E, and 2E virtually all attempts at multi-classing through prestige classes did in fact involve power-gaming, so people didn't like it.

Most prestige classes at that time (all the way back to the first Bard class in The Strategic Review, from before there was a Dragon Magazine), were attempts to get the advantages of the class without the disadvantages. The first Bard class could use swords, pick locks, and cast spells, and was in fact over-powered at the early levels.

Also, many people didn't like multi-classing because most attempts at multi-classing produced characters very different from any seen in the traditional fantasy literature. For anyone who's playing to get the feel of reading stories set in the lands of Erewhon, Middle-Earth, Camelot, Cimmeria, etc., the mixed character represented somebody who was playing the letter of the rules to avoid the spirit.

So the idea that multi-classing produces an over-powered character pre-dates 3E, and so is not based on the rules of 3E. That's why it seems like a fallacy to people who grew up in 3E.

Pigkappa
2011-02-02, 11:02 AM
Because they propose a challenge to the DM. Most DMs aren't used to players that actually make them think about a good encounter, tailored for them that still feels right for unoptimized PCs.

I think a lot of people want to play the game in a very different way. The DM should make an interesting world, and give interesting challenges to his players, and then they should try their best to face them with their resources.
Of course the players want their characters to be effective (they're heroes after all), but they shouldn't try to make too hard for the DM to make decent challenges.

To say it clearly: if every player optimizes as much as possible and they include some T1 classes (with possible prestige classes to make them better), it's really, really difficult for the DM to create interesting challenges. He can try to do that, but that's complicated and it isn't really funny having to think a decent (and different) way to counter that crazy incantratrix who can give your mobs 4d4 negative levels at level 11 and teleport away as an immediate action if anything is going wrong, in my opinion.

kamikasei
2011-02-02, 11:08 AM
Also, many people didn't like multi-classing because most attempts at multi-classing produced characters very different from any seen in the traditional fantasy literature. For anyone who's playing to get the feel of reading stories set in the lands of Erewhon...
This one makes me giggle, since the Grey Mouser seemed to my eyes to very plausibly have dipped in Wizard before the game started. (He might be part of why Rogues have UMD, but I don't think all his use of magic comes from items.)

And then, of course, there's the problem that Conan clearly had more than 3+INT skill points per level. :smalltongue:

Vladislav
2011-02-02, 11:13 AM
And then, of course, there's the problem that Conan clearly had more than 3+INT skill points per level. :smalltongue:The fact human Barbarians have 5+INT skill points per level could explain it.:smalltongue:

kamikasei
2011-02-02, 11:14 AM
The fact human Barbarians have 5+INT skill points per level could explain it.:smalltongue:
CROOOOOOOOOOOOM!

...Well, he still totally ought to have a bunch of extra class skills.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 11:15 AM
Also, many people didn't like multi-classing because most attempts at multi-classing produced characters very different from any seen in the traditional fantasy literature. For anyone who's playing to get the feel of reading stories set in the lands of Erewhon, Middle-Earth, Camelot, Cimmeria, etc., the mixed character represented somebody who was playing the letter of the rules to avoid the spirit.Conan is a rogue/fighter. Aragorn is a wilderness feat rogue/paladin. Merlin is a wizard/warlock/eldritch theurge. :smallwink:

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 11:16 AM
He can try to do that, but that's complicated and it isn't really funny having to think a decent (and different) way to counter that crazy incantratrix who can give your mobs 4d4 negative levels at level 11 and teleport away as an immediate action if anything is going wrong, in my opinion.
There are many encounters where magic is, in a word, useless at attacking an enemy directly.

Also, remember that D&D is not JUST a combat game. Encounters don't have to be fights where one team kills the other.

In a past campaing, we had one of the strongest teams I've ever played with, a brutal one on one Fighter, a destructive one to many Fighter, a buffer/blaster wizard, a summoner Druid and a super-healing paladin. We never lost a fight, and yet things never went our way either due to us never exactly being able to get to our objective on time.

Boci
2011-02-02, 11:22 AM
There are many encounters where magic is, in a word, useless at attacking an enemy directly.

This claim is made very often, but its rare to see an example that doesn't inolve any/all of the following:

*Unreasonable metagaming on behalf of the DM
*DM fiat
*Martial classes being equally useless


Also, remember that D&D is not JUST a combat game. Encounters don't have to be fights where one team kills the other.

Yes and castsers have many spells to help them out in non-combat encounters.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 11:32 AM
Yes and castsers have many spells to help them out in non-combat encounters.
Before this turns into a "wizards are broken/magic is op" thread, I was speaking about the specific case of the incantatrix.

Having a wizard in a party is no excuse for a DM to not have proper encounters and a good campaing.

Boci
2011-02-02, 11:37 AM
Before this turns into a "wizards are broken/magic is op" thread, I was speaking about the specific case of the incantatrix.

Which has a lot more options than a fighter for a social encounter, and even if they didn't, their superiority in combat would still be a problem.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 11:41 AM
Which has a lot more options than a fighter for a social encounter, and even if they didn't, their superiority in combat would still be a problem.

I wasn't speaking about a social encounter either.

To be brutally honest, I've never had an issue with a Wizard in a campaing, not even when I made the mistake of allowing an incantatrix in a generic campaing.

Maybe I just spend too much time on D&D.

Gnaeus
2011-02-02, 11:43 AM
3E changed this in the rules -- a class is now merely a toolbox, not a complete background that takes your entire youth to fulfill. But for all older players, the original idea is still strong. People tend to hold onto their ideas. In OD&D, 1E, and 2E virtually all attempts at multi-classing through prestige classes did in fact involve power-gaming, so people didn't like it.

Speak for yourself, not for me.



Also, many people didn't like multi-classing because most attempts at multi-classing produced characters very different from any seen in the traditional fantasy literature. For anyone who's playing to get the feel of reading stories set in the lands of Erewhon, Middle-Earth, Camelot, Cimmeria, etc., the mixed character represented somebody who was playing the letter of the rules to avoid the spirit.

?????
Conan is not well represented by "barbarian". He certainly would have a chunk of a skill monkey class. Probably fighter (he trained armies in military tactics, not in how to frenzy). Maybe others.

Fafhrd: Barbarian/Rogue (At least!)
Mouser: Wizard/Rogue/Fighter (At Least!)
Elric: Wizard/Fighter
Gandalf: Actually an Outsider, but if I had to stat him like a human Wizard/Fighter

Even in something like Camelot, there could be a lot of multiclassing. Fighter, Knight, or Paladin would all be common, but there were probably some Rangers, maybe a few Barbarians, maybe some smatterings of Rogue or Bard to fix holes in skills, or for people who were unsavory types before they joined the round table, or were in Mordred's faction.

Edit: Epically swordsaged. That is what I get for answering phone.

Boci
2011-02-02, 11:45 AM
I wasn't speaking about a social encounter either.

Grrrr. Well the wizard can potentially have spells that could help him in any encounter: combat, social or other. Martial classes rarely do.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 11:48 AM
Grrrr. Well the wizard can potentially have spells that could help him in any encounter: combat, social or other. Martial classes rarely do.

Not everything depends on the abilities of the class. That's the roleplaying part.

You are NOT letting this go are you?

Boci
2011-02-02, 11:52 AM
Not everything depends on the abilities of the class. That's the roleplaying part.

Are you familiar with the stormwind fallacy?

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 11:53 AM
Are you familiar with the stormwind fallacy?

Are you aware that people like playing role playing games, and that some people choose fighters because they're fighters and wizards because they're wizards?

Boci
2011-02-02, 11:56 AM
Are you aware that people like playing role playing games,

What is this role playing you speak of? It sounds strange. /sarcasm


and that some people choose fighters because they're fighters and wizards because they're wizards?

Yes, I prefer martial character to casters. I also like the two to be balanced relative to each other.

grimbold
2011-02-02, 11:57 AM
The people who are playing Druid20 or Wizard20, are taking their power trip quietly and with dignity, like fat cats.

Those playing Water Orc Half-Minotaur Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian X/Hulking Hurler Y/Something Z are running around chasing crumbs of power, shrieking like mice.

It's not the power we find objectionable, it's the lack of dignity. :smallbiggrin:

exactly
this made my day

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 11:59 AM
Yes, I prefer martial character to casters. I also like the two to be balanced relative to each other.
Even though it's impossible because they're not. It's inherent to the system.

Ideally a team of wizards could take on any challenge, ANY the DM could offer. I just never see that team. Luck? I dunno. I don't really see anyone prefering anyone over the other.

And again, never had any issues.

Gnaeus
2011-02-02, 12:04 PM
Are you aware that people like playing role playing games, and that some people choose fighters because they're fighters and wizards because they're wizards?

That has nothing to do with Boci's point, or with the fact that wizards can dominate a wide range of encounters that leave fighters sitting in the dust.

When people choose fighters, most don't think of that archetype as "the guy who carries the wizards bags. They think that they can be fighters who are competent. 3.5 core just doesn't support that archetype.

Boci
2011-02-02, 12:04 PM
Even though it's impossible because they're not. It's inherent to the system.

No it isn't. ToB martial classes are balanced towards the beguiler and the dread necromancer, so you can homebrew another 4 classes based off the same design (rewrite the warmage and add one for adjuration and divination, one for transmutation and one for conjuration) or just borrow from someone who has already done it. I used adapted versions of arguskos's homebrewd casters for example.


Ideally a team of wizards could take on any challenge, ANY the DM could offer.

Not ideally, theoretically/in practise, depending on what you actually believe/have expirienced about the class.


I just never see that team. Luck? I dunno. I don't really see anyone prefering anyone over the other.

But if wizards are more powerful than in game there should be a preference for them.

DarkEternal
2011-02-02, 12:06 PM
That qualifies for "damn good"? :smallamused:

Good enough for me :)

Just that he has something to say why or how he managed to do that. Doesn't have to be a book sized explanation, just something that will add some more flavour.


That sounds like you're saying that classes are not actually metagame constructs, then, which is a different supposition than the one in the OP.

How does a player in your game achieve an archetype that's not represented by the base classes, out of curiosity? Say they want to be a 'Church's Bounty Hunter', for instance, seeking out unrepentant souls and bringing them back into the fold through divine magic. Cleric is poorly suited to the bounty hunter role, with no tracking ability or skills related to the job; Ranger gets no affiliation with any Clergy, RAW, and cannot easily fulfill the 'through divine magic' aspect of the concept.

But there are clerical spells that do that, Scrying for instance, or Discern location if they are high enough level. He was picked by his church because he was especially good at finding people-creatures due to his link to the divine, with a spotless track record of always finding his mark by the aid of the God he worships.

Hell, he could even serve as a person mocking the party ranger at using such "primitive" tools of tracking someone, via looking at their tracks and such when he has the power of Gods at his disposal.


It all depends how you look at it. You seem to look at classes as meaningful choices that define a character. I don't. For me classes are just tools, means through which I build a character concept. That's why, if my character concept requires the character to be able to do X, Y and Z, I will make a build to make sure the character is able to do X, Y and Z. It doesn't really matter to me if it ends up being single classed or have 10 different classes.

See, that I would never, ever allow at my table. I'm not saying you are wrong, different people have different methods. My method, however, would not allow you such way of thinking. It would probably result in you finding a different gaming group or a compromise, and like I said, maybe I'm in the wrong here for being too rigid, but I really don't intend to change my ways in this matter. If you were to pull that at my table, you may be damn sure you'd spend some fifty years training to become all of those classes.


A character is a character, and the character's build is a mechanical representation of that character, and the two inform one another but are not identical. Of course, if a ranger suddenly develops an ability to cast arcane spells and carries around a spellbook and familiar, that's surprising and warrants explanation. On the other hand, if a ranger becomes a bit more skillful and a craftier fighter who exploits openings more effectively in combat, that's quite natural character growth. Both are still the result of multiclassing. And if a character is built at a higher level than first, with a few dips or a basic multiclass already set up, they may warrant no more in-game explanation than any character's starting abilities.

I agree. However, through rp you also find out a lot about the character and his "build", or at least that was my experience through the sessions I led or was a part of. Every class-prestige class has it's fluff laid out, and examples of how those classes act. Of course, I approve and encourage originality, but those texts are a pretty good way to get the "gist" of the class, even if it is something similar to what you were already playing. For instance, a rogue goes prestige into a Outlaw of the Crimson Road(I think it was from Song and Silence). He is still effectively a rogue, but why did he become this prestige class? The fluff says that they are usually on the run from the law with high bounties on their head for some reason or other(be they failed revolutionaries, or just someone who pissed off the wrong person), so wrap that up in your character. Again, I do not insist on this dragging out forever, because it would slow down the momentum of the play, nor do I make special sidequests for them to become this, but just a slight "growth" in character interactions, a change how they behave when they became this, essentially, different person.

WarKitty
2011-02-02, 12:15 PM
See, that I would never, ever allow at my table. I'm not saying you are wrong, different people have different methods. My method, however, would not allow you such way of thinking. It would probably result in you finding a different gaming group or a compromise, and like I said, maybe I'm in the wrong here for being too rigid, but I really don't intend to change my ways in this matter. If you were to pull that at my table, you may be damn sure you'd spend some fifty years training to become all of those classes.

See this is the issue. I spent the first 20 or 30 years of my life training to do one thing. That one thing just doesn't happen to be represented by any particular class. For example, I had a character that was part of a monster race trained to be temple guardians. The race was descended from lycanthropes but had lost their humanoid forms, retaining only the hybrid and full animal. They had no aptitude for traditional magic but had learned some ways to make themselves stronger for a limited time. Being descended from animals, they eschewed weapons and armor in favor of their natural toughness.

In actual practice, the build was something like dragonblooded goliath/shifter druid 4/Nature's warrior 4/fist of the forest1/warshaper5 with eschew materials to represent the lack of traditional magic and only casting self-buff spells.

Now, the original character was a weretiger monk. Single-classed, and also quite unplayable.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 12:16 PM
Maybe I'm not being clear, so maybe I'll bold it:

As a DM I've NEVER had any issues with fighters feeling crappy or Wizards dominating the table. I know that Wizards should DOMINATE everything, but I just NEVER see it, I don't know why it NEVER happens. It should according to all that I read, the advice I give to players... hell, I purposely give them combos so they have more options. I don't mind if they wipe the floor with the enemies (also, doesn't happen), but even when that has happened, it has never felt unbalanced, everyone has fun with what they do (even with their sometimes stupid/hilarious/unfair deaths).

As a player, the last campaing I played as a Wizard ended with everyone thinking my Enchanter/Monk/Fighter/Duelist was op, because he was practically unhitable, even though he couldn't really kill anyone.
As a player, the last campaing I played as a Fighter ended with everyone thinking my Barbarian/Fighter/Warblade was op. The DM wouldn't go on because he thought there was nothing he could throw at me I couldn't deal with and that I made other players feel useless (PS: Not really, all in the DMs head. All of us would love to continue). Warblade level 1 only.

So yes, I do understand that the Wizard is more powerfull, it dominates the table, it can do and undo reality!... maybe I just don't care, maybe it's not important. I play with (mostly) powergamers, and maybe non of us give a damn, because we don't really break the game every time... maybe we like creating flawed characters, I'm not sure.

Again, personal experience, your mileage may vary.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 12:16 PM
a change how they behave when they became this, essentially, different person.Wait, what? I can wrap my head around prestige classes representing organizations, or classes being in-game constructs, but how do you become a different person by taking levels in a different class? :smallconfused:

Boci
2011-02-02, 12:17 PM
But there are clerical spells that do that, Scrying for instance, or Discern location if they are high enough level. He was picked by his church because he was especially good at finding people-creatures due to his link to the divine, with a spotless track record of always finding his mark by the aid of the God he worships.

What about chruches where 5th level members count as high?


If you were to pull that at my table, you may be damn sure you'd spend some fifty years training to become all of those classes.

Would would dipping into rogue to gain +1d6 SA be any harder than gaining another fighter level and learning combat reflexes.

DarkEternal
2011-02-02, 12:19 PM
See this is the issue. I spent the first 20 or 30 years of my life training to do one thing. That one thing just doesn't happen to be represented by any particular class. For example, I had a character that was part of a monster race trained to be temple guardians. The race was descended from lycanthropes but had lost their humanoid forms, retaining only the hybrid and full animal. They had no aptitude for traditional magic but had learned some ways to make themselves stronger for a limited time. Being descended from animals, they eschewed weapons and armor in favor of their natural toughness.

In actual practice, the build was something like dragonblooded goliath/shifter druid 4/Nature's warrior 4/fist of the forest1/warshaper5 with eschew materials to represent the lack of traditional magic and only casting self-buff spells.

Now, the original character was a weretiger monk. Single-classed, and also quite unplayable.

What's the problem there? You have the lore behind it, and I don't really see anything I would ban at my table there. Like I said, if you came to me with an idea what your character would be like in the game, and had a reason why he or she would be like that, chances are, I'd allow it. If, on the other hand the only reason was to make a character better in fighting, that would be a whole different story. I realise that there are characters in DnD that just don't have viable substitutes in the rules, and that you have to work around them. If the idea and plan is good, then they can be replaced by something that's close to it.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 12:22 PM
If, on the other hand the only reason was to make a character better in fightingWhat if part of your character concept was that you're a great warrior?

Boci
2011-02-02, 12:22 PM
Maybe I'm not being clear, so maybe I'll bold it:

No you were being clear. You just made some statements that were wrong and used some arguments that I find annoying, so I addresed them.


As a player, the last campaing I played as a Wizard ended with everyone thinking my Enchanter/Monk/Fighter/Duelist was op, because he was practically unhitable, even though he couldn't really kill anyone.
As a player, the last campaing I played as a Fighter ended with everyone thinking my Barbarian/Fighter/Warblade was op. The DM wouldn't go on because he thought there was nothing he could throw at me I couldn't deal with and that I made other players feel useless (PS: Not really, all in the DMs head. All of us would love to continue). Warblade level 1 only.

I'd ask for details, but I know this is just hopeless.


I play with (mostly) powergamers, and maybe non of us give a damn, because we don't really break the game every time... maybe we like creating flawed characters, I'm not sure.

Am I the only one who sees this as a contradiction?

WarKitty
2011-02-02, 12:26 PM
What's the problem there? You have the lore behind it, and I don't really see anything I would ban at my table there. Like I said, if you came to me with an idea what your character would be like in the game, and had a reason why he or she would be like that, chances are, I'd allow it. If, on the other hand the only reason was to make a character better in fighting, that would be a whole different story. I realise that there are characters in DnD that just don't have viable substitutes in the rules, and that you have to work around them. If the idea and plan is good, then they can be replaced by something that's close to it.

I think the issue is the change from straight weretiger monk to that race/class combination is a power move. It's just that the original character was incredibly weak. So it takes those moves to make the character powered up enough to stay relevant. In one sense, that's powergaming, and it's likely to register as such.

So yeah, the point of this combo was to make the character better at fighting, because the point of the character is to be good at a particular style of fighting. If I'm not any good at it, then my character just looks silly.

Boci
2011-02-02, 12:26 PM
If, on the other hand the only reason was to make a character better in fighting, that would be a whole different story.

This may not be a problem with your group, but as a player, if my character isn't optimized I have a hard time connecting with them which makes roleplay difficult. So, with this policy of yours, I would need to lie to you about why I made my character in such a way, which I don't have any problem with, but bothers a lot of people.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 12:27 PM
No you were being clear. You just made some statements that were wrong and used some arguments that I find annoying, so I addresed them.
What statements where wrong? That as a DM you can setup encounters where everyone does something meaningfull?


I'd ask for details, but I know this is just hopeless.
Hopeless for what? What are you even TRYING to get to?


Am I the only one who sees this as a contradiction?
Probably because you're missing the point.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 12:35 PM
I'm sure the forums would be overjoyed to have a new thread where you two can debate the power of wizards.

Boci
2011-02-02, 12:35 PM
What statements where wrong? That as a DM you can setup encounters where everyone does something meaningfull?

The non-combat encounter argument

Implying I didn't roleplay

Stormwind fallacy

Claiming that casters and melee cannot be balanced



Hopeless for what? What are you even TRYING to get to?

Ask for details so I can understand how the situation you described happened. If you do and as I result everything is clarified for me, it would be a first.


Probably because you're missing the point.

You've never seen wizards break the game, your group thinks melee is overpowered, and you're mostly powergamers. That to me is a contradiction. What point did I miss?


I'm sure the forums would be overjoyed to have a new thread where you two can debate the power of wizards.

Thats not really the issue though. Corronchilejano said that he understands how wizards should be overpowered and that their group isn't too concerned with balance, I just took issues with some of the things he said. Besdies, wouldn't starting a thread for the sole purpose of disagreeing with someone violate the forume rules?

ajkkjjk52
2011-02-02, 12:38 PM
Taking a lot of classes totally is a thing players do when they powergame. The stereotype is the result of the fallacy of assuming anyone taking a lot of classes is powergaming.

Exactly. It all comes down to intentions. I would contend that 80+% of the time when someone has 4 or more classes, it's because they want some particularly powerful ability that synergizes well; that the dip is all about powergaming and they can't explain character-wise why that one-level dip into lion-totem barbarian makes any sense for their streetwise rogue/sorcerer/whatever.

That said, sometimes a complex multiclassing history really can help represent a nuanced character concept, or a backstory where the character has done a bunch of different things. As someone who will soon be playing an ex-Barbarian 4/Ranger 2/ex-Eye of Gruumsh 2/Paladin 2/Annointed Knight 2 I can personally attest that not all such characters are built out of roquefort.

But a lot of them are.

DarkEternal
2011-02-02, 12:43 PM
Wait, what? I can wrap my head around prestige classes representing organizations, or classes being in-game constructs, but how do you become a different person by taking levels in a different class? :smallconfused:

Hmmm, alright, maybe a strong use of the word, but every class, and prestige class at that has it's fluff saying stuff about how that class operates, what it is and how it is played. Again. I would never tell my group how to play their characters or that they have to follow those examples, but that they should read the book as a guide line, because that's what I consider it, some sort of a basic guide line through everything. If you read the fluff, you know what sort of person that class "is" and then consider and adapt what your character would be like if he just learned how to morph into a sodding bear or become insanely pissed off to the point he hulked out.


What about chruches where 5th level members count as high?

Again, divination-necromancy spells. Speak with dead comes to mind. If you play such a cleric, any sane DM will throw in mobs that when interrogated by such a character will throw in the information he needs in some manner.


Would would dipping into rogue to gain +1d6 SA be any harder than gaining another fighter level and learning combat reflexes.

Not really, no. These are classes that are "similar" to each other, though I would still like if my players wrapped in their explanation, that they realised that sometimes charing in and devouring everything with their well thought out battle style is not always the best, and by paying extra attention in battle, they saw their enemies exposing that loose spot in their armor when they move a certain way which they could use for maximum damage. If you want to progress as rogue, and forget about being a fighter, they obviously learned that this style of combat suited them better.


What if part of your character concept was that you're a great warrior?

Perfectly fine with me. However, where did you hear that "Chosen of Bahamut" will give you abilities that you'll become such a warrior? How did you become a Lion Totem Barbarian? Did one of your comrades speak to you of some tribes that worship these creatures and you went to train with them? Being a great warrior is fine, but it takes time. And if you dip into various classes, that is exactly what the price will be.


So yeah, the point of this combo was to make the character better at fighting, because the point of the character is to be good at a particular style of fighting. If I'm not any good at it, then my character just looks silly.

We have all been there that we screwed up our way of play. If you came up with this combination, and the story behind them in mid play after you saw your build doesn't work the way you want it to work, I would be against it. However, if you wanted from the start to build something and you saw it didn't work like you wanted it to work, then we could talk. Again, this is the situation at my table, and I'm sure other people play differently. Here, my players agree with such rules.



This may not be a problem with your group, but as a player, if my character isn't optimized I have a hard time connecting with them which makes roleplay difficult. So, with this policy of yours, I would need to lie to you about why I made my character in such a way, which I don't have any problem with, but bothers a lot of people.

That's a shame. My players really don't have that problem, for the most part. They play because they enjoy the interaction, and the straining of the rules is always present in game play, even if they build their characters unfavorably towards their optimisation. If you want to build an optimal build, more power to you. I just don't see it as necessary.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 12:46 PM
The non-combat encounter argument

Implying I didn't roleplay

Stormwind fallacy

Claiming that casters and melee cannot be balanced

Ok, I never directly addressed YOU, I addressed the problem itself: The game isn't divided in combat encounters and social encounters. I just said there are other encounters other than combat, and when you talked about social skills, I said simply: There's more than social encounters too.

Im not going into caster Vs melee, not here.


You've never seen wizards break the game, your group thinks melee is overpowered, and you're mostly powergamers. That to me is a contradiction. What point did I miss?
You got it, but maybe I have to spell what I was trying to say: Lots of people say caster (usually wizard and druid) is better than melee, yet I've seen both cases happen, so there's really no point in saying one breaks the other.

Back to topic, you can't even say that single class isn't powergaming since you can pretty much break the system having only ONE class. Having multiple makes it easier, sure, but where do you paint the line between what is powergaming and what is not? Two? Three clases? A class and a prestige class?

It's a nonsensical stereotype because it's ambiguous. There's so many ways to break the system it's ridiculous to say the problem is the multiclassing.

Something as simple as leadership can potentially destroy the delicate world economy in a D&D campaing.

nyarlathotep
2011-02-02, 12:51 PM
I think a lot of people want to play the game in a very different way. The DM should make an interesting world, and give interesting challenges to his players, and then they should try their best to face them with their resources.
Of course the players want their characters to be effective (they're heroes after all), but they shouldn't try to make too hard for the DM to make decent challenges.

To say it clearly: if every player optimizes as much as possible and they include some T1 classes (with possible prestige classes to make them better), it's really, really difficult for the DM to create interesting challenges. He can try to do that, but that's complicated and it isn't really funny having to think a decent (and different) way to counter that crazy incantratrix who can give your mobs 4d4 negative levels at level 11 and teleport away as an immediate action if anything is going wrong, in my opinion.

As long as the PCs don't do anything excessively silly (flowing time demiplanes etc.) I find the only thing a DM needs to do to face optimized PCs is optimize the enemies. Re-pick the monsters feats, give the enemy spellcasters good battlefield control and buff spells, replace enemy fighters and monks with warblades and swordsage, and most importantly make sure you account for the players utility spells like teleport.

Edit: One minor clarification, optimized one-tick ponies (such as ubercharger) are hard to build encounters for because they either take out the encounter in 1 round, make it impossible for others to contribute, or end up being useless.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 12:53 PM
you know what sort of person that class "is"Class = personality?

Perfectly fine with me. However, where did you hear that "Chosen of Bahamut" will give you abilities that you'll become such a warrior? How did you become a Lion Totem Barbarian?Each for their own, but do you understand the approach where classes are considered metagame constructs?

We have all been there that we screwed up our way of play. If you came up with this combination, and the story behind them in mid play after you saw your build doesn't work the way you want it to work, I would be against it. However, if you wanted from the start to build something and you saw it didn't work like you wanted it to work, then we could talk.Huh? So if some built their character strong to begin with, you got no problem with it, but if someone makes a weak character, rebuilding it into something more in line with the rest of the party is out of the question?

Isn't that kinda harsh towards the less experienced people?

Boci
2011-02-02, 12:56 PM
Ok, I never directly addressed YOU,

Never said you did, just that I percieved them as wrong/annoying and addressed them. (Unless your claiming you never implied I didn't understand roleplaying. You did, or it was a very poor choice of words if you didn;t.)


I addressed the problem itself: The game isn't divided in combat encounters and social encounters.

What do you mean by that?


I just said there are other encounters other than combat, and when you talked about social skills, I said simply: There's more than social encounters too.

Ignoring my point in the process: non-combat encounters were not a valid counter argument because the class in question's abilities extend outside of combat as well.


You got it, but maybe I have to spell what I was trying to say: Lots of people say caster (usually wizard and druid) is better than melee, yet I've seen both cases happen, so there's really no point in saying one breaks the other.

I got that bit.

DarkEternal
2011-02-02, 12:58 PM
Class = personality?
Each for their own, but do you understand the approach where classes are considered metagame constructs?

Huh? So if some built their character strong to begin with, you got no problem with it, but if someone makes a weak character, rebuilding it into something more in line with the rest of the party is out of the question?

Isn't that kinda harsh towards the less experienced people?

I do understand it. At my table, it's just got to have more flavour then just building a character. You can be anything you want to be, but give me a reason aside for "I want to hit stuff stronger". That doesn't suit you? Fine with me, you can't have it. Again, it works at my table, and nobody complained thus far.

Absolutely not. If anything, the less experienced characters get all the help they can by the more experienced players trying to help them build a character they envisioned. However, if they are not happy with him in mid play, they have to correct their mistakes as much as they can with new levels. With taking better feats, better spells, or multiclassing. Multiclassing is not forbidden. I just want to hear why you multiclass or go prestige. I allow every 3.5 book that we have access to, and will allow any class you want, but I also want it incorporated in the main frame of the story.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 12:58 PM
Thats not really the issue though. Corronchilejano said that he understands how wizards should be overpowered and that their group isn't too concerned with balance, I just took issues with some of the things he said.Right, but that is off topic for this thread.


Besdies, wouldn't starting a thread for the sole purpose of disagreeing with someone violate the forume rules?Creating a thread to continue a conversation (or even an argument) that sparked as off-topic in another thread is not against forum rules.

[Edit]:
I do understand it. At my table, it's just got to have more flavour then just building a character.No, you mean that in your table, they have to use the flavour WotC provided, instead of what they want. Don't try to frame this as a "people who see classes as metagame constructs don't care about flavour", because we most emphatically do!

You can be anything you want to be, but give me a reason aside for "I want to hit stuff stronger".Why isn't "my character is an experienced warrior, who has been in the frontlines of the war for decades" a good reason to be good at fighting?

Amphetryon
2011-02-02, 01:03 PM
I do understand it. At my table, it's just got to have more flavour then just building a character. You can be anything you want to be, but give me a reason aside for "I want to hit stuff stronger". That doesn't suit you? Fine with me, you can't have it. Again, it works at my table, and nobody complained thus far.

So, a professional man-at-arms giving you the justification of "I want to be better at my job" is insufficient reason? :smallconfused:

Coidzor
2011-02-02, 01:06 PM
See the line in the OP: "classes are metagame constructions".

Isn't that what the rules have to say on the matter anyway? I seem to recall encountering a passage like that in the DMG.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 01:07 PM
Isn't that what the rules have to say on the matter anyway?No, I'm pretty sure that the DMG and PHB very much consider classes to be in-game constructs.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 01:09 PM
Never said you did, just that I percieved them as wrong/annoying and addressed them. (Unless your claiming you never implied I didn't understand roleplaying. You did, or it was a very poor choice of words if you didn;t.)
My poor choice of words then? I never implied you didn't roleplay. I don't even know you.


What do you mean by that?
Encounter A: Your group finds 20 gnolls attacking a town and proceed to defend the town.
Encounter B: Your group talks to the gnoll warchief in an attempt to persuade him not to attack.
Encounter C: You all decide it would be safer to try to "dispose" of the warchief without anyone else noticing and make it appear as if the place was cursed and the chief got killed by an unknown spirit so the gnolls run away.
Encounter D: One of you knows gnoll and actually knows the gnoll warchief. That person escaped with the warchief from prison and learned that he (and most of his tribe of actually peaceful gnolls) was enslaved by a baron whose child they found lost in the wild, kept safe and when they returned him, got attacked instead. They're not invading, they're looking for vengeance. Your group faces a dilemma but realize that maybe fighting the gnolls isn't what you should be doing.

I could just go on all day. There's so many ways to setup encounters (some of which directly NEED your characters to have had interaction with the creatures in question) that I don't even know where to begin. In this case, having one or twenty classes, having melee or caster, and the reasons for having them is of little importance.


Ignoring my point in the process: non-combat encounters were not a valid counter argument because the class in question's abilities extend outside of combat as well.
Maybe they do, but unless they're very high level (in which case the gnoll example is ridiculous), odds are the wizard isn't prepared for everything. In fact, in a very social campaing I wouldn't mind the Paladin taking a few levels of Bard (and being a bit freedomy) and the Fighter a couple of rogue.

Do a soup of classes if you need to, as long as whatever comes out defines what you wanted your character to be. That's not powergaming, that's adaptation. Making your character being able to survive the world he lives in.

DarkEternal
2011-02-02, 01:10 PM
So, a professional man-at-arms giving you the justification of "I want to be better at my job" is insufficient reason? :smallconfused:

Nope, he can be that. He just has to be ready to train for quite some time to be the most awesome warrior ever, which is basically multiclassing in various classes.



No, you mean that in your table, they have to use the flavour WotC provided, instead of what they want. Don't try to frame this as a "people who see classes as metagame constructs don't care about flavour", because we most emphatically do!

No, like I said, again and again, they can use it as guide lines, nothing more or less. I would never stunt their creativity as long as they can put a reasoning behind it. Look, we can do this forever, you can say one thing and I'll be back on my own version over and over again but the fact is that we'll not meet at a half way point. I have my way of doing things, and you of yours. I didn't meet any problems with it at my table, and you didn't at yours. Fine with me.

Coidzor
2011-02-02, 01:11 PM
No, I'm pretty sure that the DMG and PHB very much consider classes to be in-game constructs.

Huh. Would've sworn that characters weren't supposed to know what classes they were, being aware of the organizations they were in at most.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 01:15 PM
Nope, he can be that. He just has to be ready to train for quite some time to be the most awesome warrior ever, which is basically multiclassing in various classes.
This actually happened to me, and it begs the question: Just how justified in roleplaying terms will the DM ask for before letting you multiclass? I had to train for years to get a multiclass in a certain campaing, and ended up getting it a few levels too late. I can't blame the DM, he asked for the training time, he just didn't give any.

Would giving the proper training time to an unusual but strong combination of classes still give you the title of "powergamer"?

Greenish
2011-02-02, 01:16 PM
Look, we can do this forever, you can say one thing and I'll be back on my own version over and over again but the fact is that we'll not meet at a half way point. I have my way of doing things, and you of yours. I didn't meet any problems with it at my table, and you didn't at yours. Fine with me.I'm not trying to convince you to change anything, I'm just trying to explain my approach.

[Edit]: And understand yours.

Coidzor
2011-02-02, 01:16 PM
I can't blame the DM, he asked for the training time, he just didn't give any.

Sure you can. He's the one who set it up in such a way.


I would never stunt their creativity as long as they can put a reasoning behind it.

:smallconfused: Yes you would, from what I've read, unless I'm mixing you up with someone else. By not offering as much time as you require in order to jump through your specific set of hoops in order to gain x, y, or zed; which is basically banning material but not having the decency to be upfront with your players about it.

Edit: hmm, it appears that I may have.

Knaight
2011-02-02, 01:23 PM
I do understand it. At my table, it's just got to have more flavour then just building a character. You can be anything you want to be, but give me a reason aside for "I want to hit stuff stronger". That doesn't suit you? Fine with me, you can't have it. Again, it works at my table, and nobody complained thus far.

What do you mean more flavour than just building a character? That's the entire point.

To use an example, lets say someone is playing a ruffian off the street, who was taken in by a hedge knight. They learned to be a knight, but also took advantage of that training to get revenge on the people they made enemies with as a ruffian. Added to that, the character has little value for his own life, and tends to be extremely aggressive, seeing themselves as worthy of death. Its one character, one background, and probably several classes. A bit of Barbarian gets rage and uncanny dodge, which covers the recklessness and aggressiveness as well as the sort of sixth sense arising from life in a world where people try to stab one in the back. Rogue gets sneak attack, covering the sort of brutal and unfair tactics the character would typically employ. Fighter covers the more martial training, both in arms and armor used, and in specialized tricks with knightly weapons (the lance, the sword, and the shield).

That said, its a kludge. In a skill based system, this would be extremely easy to do. In a more narrative system, even easier. To use an example from my current pet homebrew system, characters have 3 attributes (Might, Guile, Charm), a nature (basically who they are), and initially 1 title (what they are). I could represent that character with the title Street Knight, and be pretty much done. If I wanted to be something other than completely lazy with attributes, I would also knock charm down a bit.

gourdcaptain
2011-02-02, 01:24 PM
Uggh. I've always had the problem that most of the people I run with in RPGs aren't that good at optimizing. Or building. (They're also not really the kind to really care either - the second best builder I know is the DM of two of my games who doesn't really care that much about that.) It's not so much broken optimization (my current PF character is going for Fighter 2/Rogue 8/Duelist 10) as that a large number of people just don't care about building as far as I can tell.

An encounter that pretty much represents this is when in a 4e game the Assassin player took the Brutal Shroud feat that let him reroll the d6's on his Shroud ability's damage on a one. This is something that works out to roughly once a turn, so about a 0.5 increase in damage that never scales. Pointing out that just taking Weapon Focus would add 1 damage per tier that was less conditional just got me blank looks, and then once I explained the math, a general feeling that he just thought I was a munchkin.

DarkEternal
2011-02-02, 01:43 PM
I'm not trying to convince you to change anything, I'm just trying to explain my approach.

[Edit]: And understand yours.


Yes you would, from what I've read, unless I'm mixing you up with someone else. By not offering as much time as you require in order to jump through your specific set of hoops in order to gain x, y, or zed; which is basically banning material but not having the decency to be upfront with your players about it.

Not really like that. Like I said, they can have any item(except Nightsticks which do not exist in this universe, because yeah. Sod that.), any class, and race they want to be. They just need to have a reasoning behind it because characters are not as one dimensional as "I want to cast spells until they die." or "I want to hit them until they die.". In my campaigns combat is not as important to the point that the players play because they want to fight stuff. They just have to know what they want and have some sort of an in game reason for being that. You can multiclass to whatever you want with a single sentence. Want to be a Fighter that multiclasses into a bard? Fine. Give me a reason, which can be as simple and short as a few sentences and I will say sure in a 100 percent of the cases before me.

Want to be a Fighter/Bard/Rogue/Paladin/Favored Soul/Ranger/Barbarian? That one, on the other hand will be a bit tougher for me to accept with just a few lines of dialogue, though sure, you can multiclass, no matter how many times you want. It will take time, but sure, you can train and become awesome in all of those.

A few examples from some campaigns I led. A ranger multiclassed into a fighter. Reason? I would allow him to multiclass into this without really anything to say, why because he played an elf who was a part of a mercenary band and he perfected his combat style there. Still, he said that he was training with the party's fighter(their backstory was that they were the part of the same mercenary camp and best friends for years) and that was perfectly alright.

The other party member plays a cleric/contemplative dream dwarf, follower of Gond. He made a power gamer build with all that DMM crap and stuff, but he still, with little feats took Craft Magical items as a feat, even though he would rarely have a use for it(due to the fast pace of some campaigns) because it fit with his character. I didn't really have to tell him anything, nor would I.

Hammerhead
2011-02-02, 02:16 PM
Anybody who writes small enough to fit all those class names on the little line is not to be trusted.

Pigkappa
2011-02-02, 02:50 PM
As long as the PCs don't do anything excessively silly (flowing time demiplanes etc.) I find the only thing a DM needs to do to face optimized PCs is optimize the enemies. Re-pick the monsters feats, give the enemy spellcasters good battlefield control and buff spells, replace enemy fighters and monks with warblades and swordsage, and most importantly make sure you account for the players utility spells like teleport.

Just Celerity + Dimension Door (or Celerity + Teleport) is really difficult to counter in many different ways. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's difficult and the DM's job shouldn't be about this.

Also, optimizing every enemy by choosing his feats, giving them decent class levels and so on requires a lot of time; the players just have to care about one character, the DM should do this for several characters per session.


It's much better to rule out this problem by asking the most experienced players to choose weaker classes and to avoid crazy combinations (which sometimes require huge multiclassing with poor roleplaying results (e.g. we said at the beginning of the game that your Monk character was raised in a big monastery; how can you become neutral and take a level as a Barbarian now, considering you've never even met one during the game?)).

Amphetryon
2011-02-02, 02:58 PM
It's much better to rule out this problem by asking the most experienced players to choose weaker classes and to avoid crazy combinations (which sometimes require huge multiclassing with poor roleplaying results (e.g. we said at the beginning of the game that your Monk character was raised in a big monastery; how can you become neutral and take a level as a Barbarian now, considering you've never even met one during the game?)).
The monastery burned down, taking most of my brethren with it. I was forced to live in the wilderness like an animal, and soon found that the rigid code of conduct to which I'd adhered was often more hindrance to my daily survival than help. That fact alone just makes me so... angry.

That's off the top of my head, anyhow.

Barbarian is frequently cited as being more of a lifestyle than a class, to a larger extent than most of the other base classes.

Elric VIII
2011-02-02, 03:03 PM
Want to be a Fighter/Bard/Rogue/Paladin/Favored Soul/Ranger/Barbarian? That one, on the other hand will be a bit tougher for me to accept with just a few lines of dialogue, though sure, you can multiclass, no matter how many times you want. It will take time, but sure, you can train and become awesome in all of those.

Originally a tribal hunter (Barbarian, Ranger) I was forced out of my tribe for questioning its religious beliefs. As a result I found myself trying to survive in the city, eventually being taken up as an apprentice of a spy in the royal court where I learned the arts of espionage and blending into high society (Rogue, Fighter, Bard). My original beliefs, that cause my exile from my tribe, conflicted with the training I received and accepted in order to survive, I decided to trust in my own religious beliefs rather than those imposed upon me (Favored Soul/Paladin). [note]: you would have to be a Palading of Freedom, since Barbarian and Bard cannot be Lawful. This is also pretty close to the story of Leliana from DA:O.

The class has great Cha synnergy even though you won't be that powerful due to the 4 different spellcasting progressions.



This seems, to me, like a way to simply punish people for not being creative enough with backstory, when they may have a knack for creating unique and interesting combinations of mechanics. While I agree that simply wishing to be the most powerful person on the team is not the best character goal, sometimes people may just want to use a certain mechanic or ineraction that requires multiclassing to pull off; it's like buying a car because of its features and capabilities, rather than the history of its R&D.

olentu
2011-02-02, 03:08 PM
It sure is. In D&D 3.5, this competence is achieved by optimization, unless you want to play a wizard or a druid or something like that.

Optimization and powergaming are not bad things. They are encouraged by the rules of 3.5 and, as such, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the player will want to do a bit of math and analysis to achieve the optimal result (the optimal result here being a character that is fun to play and that can make a difference in the world).

But it is still powergaming. You are still calculating the most optimal end result and how you can achieve it with the rules provided. Calling it anything other than such would be dishonest.

It seems to me that by this definition of powergaming basically everyone ever is powergaming almost all the time. I mean the only way not to be powergaming is deliberately trying to take options that make your character less like what you want it to be like and even then that it would seem is actually just redefining what is considered optimal by the player and then calculating what is most optimal for that measure of optimality and thus is still powergaming.

Hawk7915
2011-02-02, 03:13 PM
I think it stems from the fact that, while it can be explained in a few seconds for anyone whose forced to add fluff to their crunchy builds, in an actual 1-20 campaign it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Let's look at a traditional Sorcadin build:

"I am a holy warrior, dedicated to light and good. I have trained my whole life to be an agent of righteousness. But after a few weeks of fighting goblins and kobolds, my latent magical talents have awakened! I forsake paladinhood, although I swear to remain good as I learn the ways of arcana. And now I want to take a level in this special and unique fighting style known as being a "Spellsword". I will seek them out, and learn from them. For a few days. Then I will abandon them, too, once I feel my arcane power is enough to instead learn from these "Abjurant Champions". Once they have taught me all they know, I will take on the mantle of an Excorcist...because...uh...well, it's not just because I want Turn Undead and full caster progression, okay! It totally works!"

Again, if you were actually starting at level 14 I'm sure you could refluff that, because classes aren't professions, etc, etc. I just don't see how anyone could play that starting at level 1 with a straight face and have it not seem a bit power-gamey.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 03:24 PM
I think it stems from the fact that, while it can be explained in a few seconds for anyone whose forced to add fluff to their crunchy builds, in an actual 1-20 campaign it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.Not if you view classes as in-game constructs, no.

Let's look at a traditional Sorcadin buildFine, lets.

You start off as a warrior devoted to good, then discover your innate powers. You continue to fight evil as a holy warrior. Gradually, your powers both as a spellcaster and as a warrior increase, and you learn to meld the two better into a coherent whole. In time, your devotion to good is rewarded by the ability to channel positive energy.

:smallamused:

[Edit]: Hey, notice something. The above could also describe a bog-standard straight-classed paladin!

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 03:25 PM
OK, so, I think we all know that multiclassing really only helps melee and martial types (i.e., the types who otherwise would be floundering by mid-levels), and then only if you do it right. It's no joke that 20 levels of druid gives you one of the strongest builds in the game. All the same, though, there's this bizarre stereotype running around that multiclassing, especially heavy multiclassing, equals out-and-out powergaming. It's less common nowadays, of course, but every so often you'll hear someone toss around remarks like "oh, you know, that guy with the ridiculous four-class build" or "some X 1 / Y 2 / Z 2 / PrC 5 monstrosity" with the default assumption that this is somehow a blatant power grab. Because dipping into classes is indeed one of the ways that people powergame; they go in, grab the advantages of the class and drop the class to grab something else before being saddled with the disadvantages (ie, dead levels, lackluster class features, etc). It's quite clearly a form of min-maxing.


Are you familiar with the stormwind fallacy?I am, but I'm not really sure what his comments have to do with it; he's not using a false dichotomy to fallaciously prove that roleplaying prevents someone from optimizing and/or vice versa.

WarKitty
2011-02-02, 03:28 PM
I think it stems from the fact that, while it can be explained in a few seconds for anyone whose forced to add fluff to their crunchy builds, in an actual 1-20 campaign it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Let's look at a traditional Sorcadin build:

"I am a holy warrior, dedicated to light and good. I have trained my whole life to be an agent of righteousness. But after a few weeks of fighting goblins and kobolds, my latent magical talents have awakened! I forsake paladinhood, although I swear to remain good as I learn the ways of arcana. And now I want to take a level in this special and unique fighting style known as being a "Spellsword". I will seek them out, and learn from them. For a few days. Then I will abandon them, too, once I feel my arcane power is enough to instead learn from these "Abjurant Champions". Once they have taught me all they know, I will take on the mantle of an Excorcist...because...uh...well, it's not just because I want Turn Undead and full caster progression, okay! It totally works!"

Again, if you were actually starting at level 14 I'm sure you could refluff that, because classes aren't professions, etc, etc. I just don't see how anyone could play that starting at level 1 with a straight face and have it not seem a bit power-gamey.

Unfortunately I think the 1-20 mechanic is the problem sometimes. Particularly with the various prerequisites and requirements to get into PrC's, and the additional requirements to make different stuff work as a coherent playable whole. If you want something other than a single base class and a single PrC, you need to plan your build out starting at early levels. If I start out with the concept of "a character who uses magic to make his swordfighting better", I'm going to end up having a rather twisty class progression in order to not simply be a character who sucks at both magic and swordfighting. And I'm going to have to plan starting at level 1 rather than taking levels as they suit my character.

Boci
2011-02-02, 03:29 PM
I think it stems from the fact that, while it can be explained in a few seconds for anyone whose forced to add fluff to their crunchy builds, in an actual 1-20 campaign it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Let's look at a traditional Sorcadin build:

"I am a holy warrior, dedicated to light and good. I have trained my whole life to be an agent of righteousness. But after a few weeks of fighting goblins and kobolds, my latent magical talents have awakened! I forsake paladinhood, although I swear to remain good as I learn the ways of arcana. And now I want to take a level in this special and unique fighting style known as being a "Spellsword". I will seek them out, and learn from them. For a few days. Then I will abandon them, too, once I feel my arcane power is enough to instead learn from these "Abjurant Champions". Once they have taught me all they know, I will take on the mantle of an Excorcist...because...uh...well, it's not just because I want Turn Undead and full caster progression, okay! It totally works!"

Again, if you were actually starting at level 14 I'm sure you could refluff that, because classes aren't professions, etc, etc. I just don't see how anyone could play that starting at level 1 with a straight face and have it not seem a bit power-gamey.

1st level sorceror, in his background story learns that his force of personality could make him a good paladin. So he tries to study being a paladin but decides that spell casting interests him more than martial combat. Then he hears of an a martial style that combines both, why not? He tries it out and it goes well, but then learns that he must forsake his studies of his magical heritage if he continues to use this (i.e. lose a caster level), so he seeks out a different style of combining magic and martial combat. Then he feels guilty and returns to the temple where he first studied paladinhood and apolagizes for abandoning his studies, pointing out that he has remained virtous (lawful good). The clerics tell him that there is a order of casters within the church that could suit him and he agrees to join that.

Requires a bit of co-operation from the DM, but couldn't that work?


I am, but I'm not really sure what his comments have to do with it; he's not using a false dichotomy to fallaciously prove that roleplaying prevents someone from optimizing and/or vice versa.

I know, and that's why I specifically asked him if he knew about it, as opose to saying he was using it, since whilst he wasn't, his line of thinking (power doesn't matter because you can always roleplay) seemed similar, at least to me.

HunterOfJello
2011-02-02, 03:36 PM
I just made a Feral Half-Orc character for a campaign that uses Barbarian 1/Totemist 2/Monk 1/Swordsage 1. I love the synergy between the classes that set him up as an effective character along with the class progression that shows the character growing and evolving over time.

I think a character like this one can be far more fun than a straight build.

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 03:49 PM
1st level sorceror, in his background story learns that his force of personality could make him a good paladin. So he tries to study being a paladin but decides that spell casting interests him more than martial combat. Then he hears of an a martial style that combines both, why not? He tries it out and it goes well, but then learns that he must forsake his studies of his magical heritage if he continues to use this (i.e. lose a caster level), so he seeks out a different style of combining magic and martial combat. Then he feels guilty and returns to the temple where he first studied paladinhood and apolagizes for abandoning his studies, pointing out that he has remained virtous (lawful good). The clerics tell him that there is a order of casters within the church that could suit him and he agrees to join that.

Requires a bit of co-operation from the DM, but couldn't that work?That seems very weak to me. You're going to need to roll really well on your fast talk check (the one you do in real life when describing this backstory) to get that by pretty much any of the groups I've played with.


I know, and that's why I specifically asked him if he knew about it, as opose to saying he was using it, since whilst he wasn't, his line of thinking (power doesn't matter because you can always roleplay) seemed similar, at least to me.That's totally different.

His point is quite valid; if you handle social interaction by role playing rather than rolling dice, and have a good amount of puzzle based encounters where the players solve the puzzle by thinking rather than rolling dice to determine whether the characters are able to solve it (and a lot of groups do, especially ones that have history playing earlier editions where this was SOP), then relative power of the classes matters a whole lot less. He's goes on to talk about his experience, and how he personally hasn't seen the problem, without generalizing this to mean that it definitely applies to everyone.

I mean, as an outsider, it really does look to me like you're missing his point.


Conan is not well represented by "barbarian". He certainly would have a chunk of a skill monkey class. Probably fighter (he trained armies in military tactics, not in how to frenzy). Maybe others.
Conan is a rogue/fighter. Rogue/Fighter doesn't cover "The fighting-madness of his race was upon him, and with a red mist of unreasoning fury wavering before his blazing eyes, he cleft skulls, smashed breasts, severed limbs, ripped out entrails, and littered the deck like a shambles with a ghastly harvest of brains and blood." - Queen of the Black Coast

So he does indeed frenzy, and it's one of the reasons that the barbarian class in D&D has that ability; he matches up fairly well with some of the other class features of the barbarian class as well. If you look back at the AD&D barbarian (which is where I know if from first, in UA), it talks a lot about the class as if it's kind of racial, as in whole clans of people would generally be barbarians.


This one makes me giggle, since the Grey Mouser seemed to my eyes to very plausibly have dipped in Wizard before the game started. (He might be part of why Rogues have UMD, but I don't think all his use of magic comes from items.)I think that when he was statted up in Deities and Demigods (AD&D) he had a couple of magic user levels.

WarKitty
2011-02-02, 03:56 PM
His point is quite valid; if you handle social interaction by role playing rather than rolling dice, and have a good amount of puzzle based encounters where the players solve the puzzle by thinking rather than rolling dice to determine whether the characters are able to solve it (and a lot of groups do, especially ones that have history playing earlier editions where this was SOP), then relative power of the classes matters a whole lot less. He's goes on to talk about his experience, and how he personally hasn't seen the problem, without generalizing this to mean that it definitely applies to everyone.

Unfortunately, the more role-playing type that you describe tends to work badly in my experience. Simply put, it favors the players who are good at fast-talking and coming up with things on the spot over the people who have characters that are supposed to be good at fast-talking and coming up with things on the spot.

Boci
2011-02-02, 04:01 PM
That seems very weak to me. You're going to need to roll really well on your fast talk check (the one you do in real life when describing this backstory) to get that by pretty much any of the groups I've played with.

Which part seems weak? That he knows paladins use their inner strengths to ward themselves? That he objects to neglecting his magical studies?


His point is quite valid; if you handle social interaction by role playing rather than rolling dice,

I'm sure the rogue who put ranks in diplomacy will be thrilled. Plus a wizard still has spells.


and have a good amount of puzzle based encounters where the players solve the puzzle by thinking rather than rolling dice to determine whether the characters are able to solve it (and a lot of groups do, especially ones that have history playing earlier editions where this was SOP),

You sure its used often? I rarely see it in use, and its generally considered problematic on the forume, at the very least to be used carefulyy and sparingly.


then relative power of the classes matters a whole lot less.

Doesn't change the fact that wizards spells allow him to do excel in multiple areas, martial characters generally only have skills for combat.


He's goes on to talk about his experience, and how he personally hasn't seen the problem, without generalizing this to mean that it definitely applies to everyone.

I didn't have a problem with that, just the powergaming bit.

Gnaeus
2011-02-02, 04:16 PM
Rogue/Fighter doesn't cover "The fighting-madness of his race was upon him, and with a red mist of unreasoning fury wavering before his blazing eyes, he cleft skulls, smashed breasts, severed limbs, ripped out entrails, and littered the deck like a shambles with a ghastly harvest of brains and blood." - Queen of the Black Coast

So he does indeed frenzy, and it's one of the reasons that the barbarian class in D&D has that ability; he matches up fairly well with some of the other class features of the barbarian class as well. If you look back at the AD&D barbarian (which is where I know if from first, in UA), it talks a lot about the class as if it's kind of racial, as in whole clans of people would generally be barbarians.

I think that when he was statted up in Deities and Demigods (AD&D) he had a couple of magic user levels.

Sorry. I misspoke. I didn't mean to imply that he didn't have barbarian levels. I meant to imply that he had at least fighter & skillmonkey classes as well. Along with traditional Barbarian skills (Ride, climb, jump, swim, survival, listen, handle animal,) he pretty clearly has at least Hide & Move silently, Spot, Search, Profession (Sailor, maybe others), Use Rope, Tumble and Balance. By the end of his career (remember, he spent a lot of time as a professional thief, and ended up as a king), probably also at least a few ranks in some Knowledges (certainly Local, Geography, Nature, maybe a little Nobility, Arcane or Religion), Appraise, Sense Motive, Gather Information, Bluff, Diplomacy, Open Lock or Disable Device. Thats a lot to afford on a barbarian salary.

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 04:17 PM
Unfortunately, the more role-playing type that you describe tends to work badly in my experience. Simply put, it favors the players who are good at fast-talking and coming up with things on the spot over the people who have characters that are supposed to be good at fast-talking and coming up with things on the spot.That sounds an awful lot like "the problem with football is that it rewards people who are good at running, catching and throwing a ball rather than the people who just say they are good at it" ... I mean, it's only a problem for people who aren't good at it. Likewise, that game style works fine people who are good at that and enjoy that

Note: I'm not saying this is, or should be a universal play style, just that there are people that this works fine for... and these people aren't going to see some of the power problems that you're talking about (since character power is a lot less important in their games).


Which part seems weak? That he knows paladins use their inner strengths to ward themselves? That he objects to neglecting his magical studies?The entirety of it (I'll see if I can write up some specifics shortly)


I'm sure the rogue who put ranks in diplomacy will be thrilled. Plus a wizard still has spells.So? Obviously those don't matter in the examples he's talking about.


You sure its used often? I rarely see it in use, and its generally considered problematic on the forume, at the very least to be used carefulyy and sparingly.Yes.


*bright lights flash, warning sirens sound*

So if I played a Druid 20...

Your argument is inherently flawed.Your counterargument is based on an implied false dichotomy (the same fallacy at the root of the stormwind fallacy). "You take levels in a half-dozen different classes because you want to win." and "You take levels in Fighter because you want to play a fighter-guy." can be true at the same time "You pick 20 levels of a single overpowered class because you want to win" ... so offering druid 20 as a counter example doesn't actually disprove anything.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't roleplay a "some X 1 / Y 2 / Z 2 / PrC 5 monstrosity" ... or that there's anything wrong with building characters that way... but it seems that it's often quite clearly an attempt* at powergaming ... which is why we have that stereotype.

* As often noted on this forum, it's often a failed attempt.


Sorry. I misspoke. I didn't mean to imply that he didn't have barbarian levels. I meant to imply that he had at least fighter & skillmonkey classes as well. Along with traditional Barbarian skills (Ride, climb, jump, swim, survival, listen, handle animal,) he pretty clearly has at least Hide & Move silently, Spot, Search, Profession (Sailor, maybe others), Use Rope, Tumble and Balance. By the end of his career (remember, he spent a lot of time as a professional thief, and ended up as a king), probably also at least a few ranks in some Knowledges, Appraise, Sense Motive, Gather Information, Bluff, Diplomacy, Open Lock or Disable Device. Thats a lot to afford on a barbarian salary.As a quick note: this is more due to the limitations of the D&D skill system than with the classes themselves; in general, it's really bad at representing the skills of "real people"

Boci
2011-02-02, 04:21 PM
So? Obviously those don't matter in the examples he's talking about.

Or he just didn't think of potential problems.


Yes.

Shrug. Different expirience.

MeeposFire
2011-02-02, 04:28 PM
I always am conflicted when it comes to social skills. On the one hand not having social allows you to only roleplay since just rolling the dice is not an option. On the other hand social skills make sure that the DM has to decide on the meta-gaming that occurs with without rolling and rolling for skills does not mean that you will not roleplay. Indeed how do you truly arbitrate social skills without rolling (which shows how well a character does) without using a meta-game construct? How do you know you are considering success/failure b what the person says rather than what a character says?

Gnaeus
2011-02-02, 04:28 PM
As a quick note: this is more due to the limitations of the D&D skill system than with the classes themselves; in general, it's really bad at representing the skills of "real people"

Well, some of both.

In Conan's case, his actual career path (professions, not classes) wold be something like:
Barbarian, Gladiator, (Bandit/Pirate/Thief/Mercenary/Soldier/Officer/Male Concubine (He switched back and forth between these a lot)), Aristocrat

That is a lot to squeeze into "Barbarian". Even Barbarian/Rogue is stretching it a bit.

MeeposFire
2011-02-02, 04:33 PM
Let us be honest. Characters in non D&D books are often hard to fit well in D&D classes. It has been true from the start in basic and it is true now. Nothing to go crazy about.

Boci
2011-02-02, 04:37 PM
Let us be honest. Characters in non D&D books are often hard to fit well in D&D classes. It has been true from the start in basic and it is true now. Nothing to go crazy about.

True, but that still means if you want to copy a character in D&D you wil often need to dip rogue for skill points.

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 04:39 PM
Or he just didn't think of potential problems.He's talking about his experience; he doesn't need to think of potential problems, since (as he says) there weren't any.


Which part seems weak? That he knows paladins use their inner strengths to ward themselves? That he objects to neglecting his magical studies?So (getting back to this one), in general, the whole thing seems fairly unbelievable,

It's very metagamey for a backstory. Example "paladin" is a class; if you want to move away from the metagame, it would be something like "the knights of some virteous order" .

Either he has the convictions to follow through or not; as presented he's far too wishy washy for the temple to want to take him into their super special order when he returns at the end. He's already proven himself undependable, so why would they trust him to be dependable for the order that's too secret for him to have known about.

Why didn't the temple talk to him about the other order at the beginning? This makes no sense; you have someone who has both an aptitude for magic is virtuous, and an order for people those sort of people, but they don't bother to tell him about the order that he would be a perfect fit for? Who's running this church, Bishop Derp?

It's far fetched that he wouldn't have known about the need to "forsake his studies of his magical heritage if he continues " down the path he chose after forsaking his magical heritage to become a paladin. I mean, this makes no sense: I will forsake my heritage and become a paladin, wait, no magic is more important so I'll pick this thing that will shortly require me to forsake my heritage again, wait, no I'll go back to the temple and beg them to let me into the order they should have talked about in the beginning.

The whole thing just doesn't hang together.

MeeposFire
2011-02-02, 04:42 PM
True, but that still means if you want to copy a character in D&D you wil often need to dip rogue for skill points.

Exactly. D&D classes were not made to exactly create characters from books since those characters were not designed with the limitations and benefits that classes provide. Conan did not have his skills from taking certain classes, he had those skills because the author wanted him to have those skills. And unlike the game once the author decides that Conan just gets it unlike with character classes. Even with 3e style multiclassing classes still do a poor job of recreating a book character. It is often far better to pick a few things from a character and recreate that instead of trying to recreate a character in fine detail.

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 04:44 PM
Exactly. D&D classes were not made to exactly create characters from books since those characters were not designed with the limitations and benefits that classes provide. Conan did not have his skills from taking certain classes, he had those skills because the author wanted him to have those skills. And unlike the game once the author decides that Conan just gets it unlike with character classes. Even with 3e style multiclassing classes still do a poor job of recreating a book character. It is often far better to pick a few things from a character and recreate that instead of trying to recreate a character in fine detail.indeed, point based systems do a lot better job of dealing with "the competent man"


True, but that still means if you want to copy a character in D&D you wil often need to dip rogue for skill points.Possibly but keep in mind that the way these characters are presented you don't need to have full ranks, and that sometimes other options (say, scout, or ranger) fits a bit better than rogue.

Boci
2011-02-02, 04:51 PM
He's talking about his experience; he doesn't need to think of potential problems, since (as he says) there weren't any.

Since I brieflycontinued that discussion in PMs I can tell you that that part was not solely him recounting personal experience.


It's very metagamey for a backstory. Example "paladin" is a class; if you want to move away from the metagame, it would be something like "the knights of some virteous order" .

I know, I just used paladin so we could be clear what I meant.


Either he has the convictions to follow through or not; as presented he's far too wishy washy for the temple to want to take him into their super special order when he returns at the end.

Why? He has the neccissary force of personality to fuel the required conviction, and his morals seemed in order.


Why didn't the temple talk to him about the other order at the beginning?

Wasn't any indication he would ever be powerful enough to enter.


This makes no sense; you have someone who has both an aptitude for magic is virtuous, but they don't bother to tell him about the order that he would be a perfect fit for? Who's running this church, Bishop Derp?

Again, no indication he would ever be powerful enough to join, plus at that stage it looked like he might give up magic all together in favour of paladin training.


It's far fetched that he wouldn't have known about the need to "forsake his studies of his magical heritage if he continues " down the path he chose after forsaking his magical heritage to become a paladin.

He tried it as a paladin, that's why he knew he didn't want to repeat the mistake as a spell sword.


I mean, this makes no sense: I will forsake my heritage and become a paladin, wait, no magic is more important

I'm guessing so far you have no problem. Sorceror, paladin, sorceror, or is even that too much?


so I'll pick this thing that will shortly require me to forsake my heritage again

It allowed him to build equally upon both his magical nature and the fighting he had learnt as a paladin. Why wouldn't he take it? He might not even have known he would loose a caster level when he took the first level.


wait, no I'll go back to the temple and beg them to let me into the order they should have talked about in the beginning.

He didn't know about the order, they just pointed him towards it.

LordBlades
2011-02-02, 05:01 PM
It's very metagamey for a backstory. Example "paladin" is a class; if you want to move away from the metagame, it would be something like "the knights of some virteous order" .

Either he has the convictions to follow through or not; as presented he's far too wishy washy for the temple to want to take him into their super special order when he returns at the end. He's already proven himself undependable, so why would they trust him to be dependable for the order that's too secret for him to have known about.

Why didn't the temple talk to him about the other order at the beginning? This makes no sense; you have someone who has both an aptitude for magic is virtuous, and an order for people those sort of people, but they don't bother to tell him about the order that he would be a perfect fit for? Who's running this church, Bishop Derp?

It's far fetched that he wouldn't have known about the need to "forsake his studies of his magical heritage if he continues " down the path he chose after forsaking his magical heritage to become a paladin. I mean, this makes no sense: I will forsake my heritage and become a paladin, wait, no magic is more important so I'll pick this thing that will shortly require me to forsake my heritage again, wait, no I'll go back to the temple and beg them to let me into the order they should have talked about in the beginning.

The whole thing just doesn't hang together.

It's not perfect but it's an idea. It could get even simpler:

Guy X is a Paladin, zealous and devout While adventuring, he discovers his latent powers of spellcasting (obviously a gift from his god and a sign he should take this path). So he keeps honing his magical talents, while seeking a way to better combine it with his martial prowess. He tries different things (1 lvl Spellsword) until he finds the 'true' way to blend the two (Abjurant Champion). In all this time he keeps serving his church faithfully as a paladin (RP wise a paladin 2/sorc 8 should be as much a 'chosen warrior of faith' as a paladin 10) and he gets to join one of the church's more exclusive branches (Sacred Exorcist).

Most character background stories are more or less metagamey anyway, because that's what the system rewards: synergy and forethought. If you want to make a character that's not a full caster and not endu up with something sucky, you need to plan ahead.

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 05:02 PM
Since I brieflycontinued that discussion in PMs I can tell you that that part was not solely him recounting personal experience.Unfortunately, I'll have to go with what is strictly in the thread (the forum's clean slate rule)... and I don't see any indication anything beyond him relating his experience here.

As for the rest... I don't see anything in that to revise my initial reaction of "very weak". You've painted him as a very wishy washy character who has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of commitment, and the temple as extremely short sighted, and incompetent at training people... it's simply not very believable. You could probably get by with it if your group doesn't expect much from a back story, or if you're good at fast talking, but pretty much any group I've been in is going to at least look at you funny if you come to the table with this.


Most character background stories are more or less metagamey anyway, because that's what the system rewards: synergy and forethought. If you want to make a character that's not a full caster and not endu up with something sucky, you need to plan ahead.This is extremely dependant on the group; it depends on

What = sucky for a particular group
How much a particualr person cares about "being sucky" ... some people really don't care.


There are people who come up with a backstory, and then try to fit the character's build into it as best they can; there's nothing remotely metagamey in a backstory like that.

Greenish
2011-02-02, 05:04 PM
It's not perfect but it's an idea. It could get even simpler:

Guy X is a Paladin, zealous and devout While adventuring, he discovers his latent powers of spellcasting (obviously a gift from his god and a sign he should take this path). So he keeps honing his magical talents, while seeking a way to better combine it with his martial prowess. He tries different things (1 lvl Spellsword) until he finds the 'true' way to blend the two (Abjurant Champion). In all this time he keeps serving his church faithfully as a paladin (RP wise a paladin 2/sorc 8 should be as much a 'chosen warrior of faith' as a paladin 10) and he gets to join one of the church's more exclusive branches (Sacred Exorcist).Even simpler?

How about:
You start off as a warrior devoted to good, then discover your innate powers. You continue to fight evil as a holy warrior. Gradually, your powers both as a spellcaster and as a warrior increase, and you learn to meld the two better into a coherent whole. In time, your devotion to good is rewarded by the ability to channel positive energy.:smallamused:

WarKitty
2011-02-02, 05:08 PM
That sounds an awful lot like "the problem with football is that it rewards people who are good at running, catching and throwing a ball rather than the people who just say they are good at it" ... I mean, it's only a problem for people who aren't good at it. Likewise, that game style works fine people who are good at that and enjoy that

Note: I'm not saying this is, or should be a universal play style, just that there are people that this works fine for... and these people aren't going to see some of the power problems that you're talking about (since character power is a lot less important in their games).

True. The problem is that I've seen groups that start out with "people are good at it" when in reality it's "one or two of the people here are good at it." And it's quite selective in who it rewards - you don't have to have any rl strength to roleplay a strong fighter, but if you don't have good charisma in rl you'd better not try to play a bard.

Boci
2011-02-02, 05:09 PM
As for the rest... I don't see anything in that to revise my initial reaction of "very weak". You've painted him as a very wishy washy character who has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of commitment, and the temple as extremely short sighted, and incompetent at training people... it's simply not very believable. You could probably get by with it if your group doesn't expect much from a back story, or if you're good at fast talking, but pretty much any group I've been in is going to at least look at you funny if you come to the table with this.

You've got a sorceror, who decides to try and be a paladin because he could gain a lot from it. Having departed from his magical studies he realizes that they mean a lot more to him and returns to them. Wanting to justify the time spent training as a paladin, he looks for ways to mix martial and magical prowess, but has already realized that he is no longer willing to sacrifice magical power, and this influences his studies. After he has matured both in power and in sense, possibly aided by the fact that he is not sure how to continue his development, he decides to return his temple since he left the place kinda suddenly when he was younger, and there he is introduced to his final teaching path.

How is that wishy washy? And even if it is, why would that be a problem if you role play him as one? A lawful good character, who really isn't sure how to stay true to the brief paladin teachings he recieved.

LordBlades
2011-02-02, 05:11 PM
This is extremely dependant on the group; it depends on

What = sucky for a particular group
How much a particualr person cares about "being sucky" ... some people really don't care.


There are people who come up with a backstory, and then try to fit the character's build into it as best they can; there's nothing remotely metagamey in a backstory like that.

Of course, a fighter/ranger for example might be all right in a healer, rogue, monk group, but extremely sucky in a druid, cleric, wizard group.

Most people I've gamed with do care about being relevant. I'm sure however that there are some people that don't and draw thein enjoyment exculsively from roleplay.

As long as your character build and backstory go well together, does it really matter if you made the character to fit the backstory, or the backstory to fit the build?

Khatoblepas
2011-02-02, 05:23 PM
He's talking about his experience; he doesn't need to think of potential problems, since (as he says) there weren't any.

So (getting back to this one), in general, the whole thing seems fairly unbelievable.

Try this one on for size. It is exactly a progression. Things happen imbetween, but the events happen at the following levels:

Tenfold the Knight of the Mystic Fire:
Lesser Aasimar Paladin 2/Battle Sorcerer 3/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Sacred Exorcist X

1st level) Tenfold is a young knight of mystic fire, worshipping a god of magic and protecting apprentice mages from minor threats. He is a devout good guy, but he fears that he would not be able to protect those with his current abilities, as he is weaker than the other knights, but blessed with a strong will.

3rd level) Tenfold's fears come true. He returns to his hometown where he finds to his horror an evil necromancer has swept through, turning his parents into horrific Shadows. Searching his old homestead, he finds a letter and a legacy that was to be given to him on his 18th birthday. His blood is celestial blood, and in the wake of this terrible tragedy it awakens, giving him the power of magic. Instead of seeing his loss of Paladin advancement as a blasphemy against the church, he sees it as a gift from the god of magic herself. He knows that with these knewfound powers, he would soon be able to bring the necromancer to justice himself. He is more confident with a sword than the cerebral mages he protected, and believes that not combining his talents to be pretty wasteful.

6th)His skill with sword and spell now reaching new heights, he seeks out old tomes of magical technique. New avenues open up to him that he did not understand before, he discovers the Spellsword techniques, a style of fighting for who take up swords and channel their magical energies through it. He is skeptical of it's efficiency, as they do not focus as much on magic as he would like - and channeling spells seemed like a waste of his god's gifts. He learns much from it, however, and moves on.

7th) His protective spells and prowess have served him well thus far lead him to the Abjurant Champions, who turned him down a year and a half ago for being a greenhorn, but now welcome him. They teach him how to weave better and quicker protective charms - honing his natural talent into something more solid.

12th) Rashly, Tenfold had attempted to take on the evil necromancer, only to find his skills lacking, and the undead horde around the Necromancer's vile fortress augmented by vile demons! What blasphemies would he commit next? Seeking solace at the temples of his homeland, Tenfold petitions to learn how to exorcise spirits and train as a cleric does. Seeing that he has grown as a person and a warrior, combining his magical heritage with the warrior skills of his youth, they accept. He goes on to train, discovers how to channel his god's positive energy into magical power (Divine Spell-Power) and finally beat the necromancer and become the greatest warrior in living memory in the years to come.

Pigkappa
2011-02-02, 05:23 PM
The monastery burned down, taking most of my brethren with it. I was forced to live in the wilderness like an animal, and soon found that the rigid code of conduct to which I'd adhered was often more hindrance to my daily survival than help. That fact alone just makes me so... angry.

What I meant is:

1)We start the game with this player being a Monk raised in a monastery.
2)We keep playing a few adventures in a city until we level up.
3)He wants to become a Barbarian 1.

(this didn't really happen, luckily, I'm just making it up)

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 05:24 PM
How is that wishy washy? And even if it is, why would that be a problem if you role play him as one? A lawful good character, who really isn't sure how to stay true to the brief paladin teachings he recieved.demonstrated lack of commitment = wishy washy. If a temple has a super special order, one that it won't talk to our sorcadin about because it's too secret... it's not believable for them to take someone like that (not as presented), and certainly not into that particular order. They might let you in an entry level order, but not their super special order.

It's equivalent to someone who has 5 jobs on their resume, none lasting for more than a month. It doesn't matter how much you present yourself as a "dedicated employee" ... potential employers are going to see your lack of commitment. It makes it really hard to get hired, especially when one of those 5 jobs is with the same company you're that you're trying to get hired for. They might hire you, but it's going to be in a fairly entry level position where you can prove yourself, not a management position.

edit: Khatoblepas' example loses points due to "loses parents and home" cliche :smallwink: ... but it hangs together much better than the one you presented.


Even simpler?

How about: :smallamused:It doesn't work for people who go with "PRC = some organization in game" ... I'm not saying that's the only way to play, just that it's not uncommon for people play that way, and the books encourage that. I mean, if you look at, uh... complete champion? ... all the PRCs in that book are mostly painted as being specific orders/groups. Shadowcraft mage assumes that you learn these things by being a member of a particular cabal that specializes in such magic. Things like that.


Of course, a fighter/ranger for example might be all right in a healer, rogue, monk group, but extremely sucky in a druid, cleric, wizard group.It might be; it really depends on how well the druid, cleric and wizard are played. In a recent game, the druid and cleric were some of the weaker characters; the druid in particular, who persisted in trying to play a blaster. He did start getting the hang of it toward the end.


Most people I've gamed with do care about being relevant. I'm sure however that there are some people that don't and draw thein enjoyment exculsively from roleplay.Being sucky doesn't necessarily mean you're not relevant, nor that you gain enjoyment strictly from RP.


As long as your character build and backstory go well together, does it really matter if you made the character to fit the backstory, or the backstory to fit the build?You were the one making the claim that all backstories are metagamey... that's just an example of where that's not the case. It has no relevance beyond that.

Boci
2011-02-02, 05:31 PM
demonstrated lack of commitment = wishy washy. If a temple has a super special order, one that it won't talk to our sorcadin about because it's too secret... it's not believable for them to take someone like that (not as presented), and certainly not into that particular order. They might let you in an entry level order, but not their super special order.

Why not? He made a foolish mistake as a young man, but has lived a good life as an adventurer since then, stayed true to his brief teaching at the temple, and has finally returned to admit he is wrong and apologize. That doesn't sound unreliable to me.


It's equivalent to someone who has 5 jobs on their resume, none lasting for more than a month. It doesn't matter how much you present yourself as a "dedicated employee" ... potential employers are going to see your lack of commitment. It makes it really hard to get hired, especially when one of those 5 jobs is with the same company you're that you're trying to get hired for. They might hire you, but it's going to be in a fairly entry level position where you can prove yourself, not a management position.

You don't work in human resources do you? Discarding the "none lasting for more than a month" hyperbole, there's nothing strange about 5 different jobs. And if 4 of them are marketting and 1 public relations, which is explained as he tried PR but prefered marketting, why would they hold that against him? Its been a while since I checked statistics, but I'm pretty sure 5 different jobs is below average.

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 05:38 PM
Discarding the "none lasting for more than a month" hyperbole, there's nothing strange about 5 different jobs. It's not hyperbole, so why discard it? That's the equivalent to dipping classes for a level or 2 (if you treat classes = organizations, which your example did). All of them were left due to lack of commitment on the character's part; something else caught his fancy and he suddenly dropped what he was doing and moved onto something new and shiny. Why should the temple trust that he's going to commit now, after he's demonstrably been unwilling to do so in the past?

Boci
2011-02-02, 05:45 PM
It's not hyperbole, so why discard it? That's the equivalent to dipping classes for a level or 2.

No, it isn't. Assuming your not going into epic, you have 20 levels. A single level represents a lot more of a commitment than a single month. Of course this is ruined slightly by the need to level quickly, but thats a limitation of the gaming system. So yes, if its not hyperbole its an unfair comparison.


All of them were left due to lack of commitment on the character's part. Why should the temple trust that he's going to commit now, after he's demonstratively been unwilling to do so in the past?

He's demonstrated a moderate lack of commitment to any particular style, having completed 1, continuely worked on a second and abandoned 2 (and the church will only know about 1). But hes remained commited to the ideals of being a paladin, which is going to be more important.



edit: Khatoblepas' example loses points due to "loses parents and home" cliche :smallwink: ... but it hangs together much better than the one you presented.

Yeah, its almost as if his actually happened, where as I made mine up in the space of 10 minutes and have slightly altered it since then.

WarKitty
2011-02-02, 05:46 PM
It's not hyperbole, so why discard it? That's the equivalent to dipping classes for a level or 2 (if you treat classes = organizations, which your example did). All of them were left due to lack of commitment on the character's part. Why should the temple trust that he's going to commit now, after he's demonstratively been unwilling to do so in the past?

Honestly that backstory didn't sound like "lack of commitment" to me. It sounded like "didn't know what he wanted or was good at in the beginning." Relating it to my own experience, it's like the kid who goes to college, realizes that the major he's started in isn't what he wants to do at all, switches around a few times, and finally settles into something that suits him. Which is someone I'd rather have than the kid who goes into a major and sticks with it whether or not it suits him because he believes in "seeing things through."

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 05:55 PM
A single level represents a lot more of a commitment than that. Not at all; it's probably only be a weeks commitment per level, so a month is actually being fairly generous. It's a totally fair comparison.


But hes remained commited to the ideals of being a paladin, which is going to be more important.Nothing in your story shows that he has; in fact, him leaving the paladin order and being unwilling to commit to any of the organizations that he's joined shows the opposite. The only way he can demonstrate how he's been keeping up the ideals of a paladin would be to talk about what he's been doing since he left, so they're going to know about all of the other organizations that he bailed out on.


None of this addresses how terrible Bishop Derp is at running this temple.


Yeah, its almost as if his actually happened, where as I made mine up in the space of 10 minutes and have slightly altered it since then.Maybe that's why his is less weak?

Greenish
2011-02-02, 06:02 PM
It doesn't work for people who go with "PRC = some organization in game".True enough. I've never been a big fan of that approach, mostly because I feel the "generic organizations" most splatbooks present are often either very bland or fit poorly to a given setting (or sometimes both).

Trying to match the various PrCs to organizations that are actually rooted into the setting is sort of fun, though. Fist of the Forest seems to embody Ashbound ideals beautifully, for example.

Boci
2011-02-02, 06:04 PM
Not at all; it's probably only be a weeks commitment per level, os a month is actually being fairly generous. It's a totally fair comparison.

I already noted that: its a flaw of the levelling system. Unless you're saying characters will regularly advance 54 levels per year.


Nothing in your story shows that he has; in fact, him leaving the paladin order and being unwilling to commit to any of the organizations that he's joined shows the opposite. The only way he can demonstrate how he's been keeping up the ideals of a paladin would be to talk about what he's been doing since he left,

Or maybe they heard about him.


so they're going to know about all of the other organizations that he bailed out on.

Not all the others. The other (spell sword).


None of this addresses how terrible Bishop Derp is at running this temple.

A young man joins to become a paladin, does reasonable well, but suddenly leaves. The temple hears about someone that could be him every now and then as a bard or traveler passes through the temple. Years latter he comes returns, having remained true to his moral teachings and made impressive progress in his studies, even if he was inconsistent. Having returned and apologized for a youthful mistake and evidently a little unsire of what to do next, the bishop offers him a second chance.

How does that make the bishop stupid?


Maybe that's why his is less weak?

Not maybe.

MeeposFire
2011-02-02, 06:10 PM
I think there is a disconnect here anyway.

Just because a paladin stops picking up levels does not mean he is no longer a paladin. In 3e this is quite common. Don't blame the player for the system that makes class mostly unimportant compared to class features.

A paladin that takes levels in arcane classes should be a character concept allowed in the rules. The fact that you have to take 4+classes to do is an issue of how multiclassing works in 3e rather than a problem with the general idea.

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 06:19 PM
I think there is a disconnect here anyway.

Just because a paladin stops picking up levels does not mean he is no longer a paladin. In 3e this is quite common. Don't blame the player for the system that makes class mostly unimportant compared to class features.We're talking about a specific example though, where in the back story he really did leave the temple, and I'm speaking from strictly the story perspective (since that's what I said was weak).


A young man joins to become a paladin, does reasonable well, but suddenly leaves. The temple hears about someone that could be him every now and then as a bard or traveler passes through the temple. Years latter he comes returns, having remained true to his moral teachings and made impressive progress in his studies, even if he was inconsistent. Having returned and apologized for a youthful mistake and evidently a little unsire of what to do next, the bishop offers him a second chance."suddenly leaves" doesn't really help his case. Traditionally paladins are basically military organizations associated with churches... just leaving would be going AWOL. And I can't imagine any organization of paladins wouldn't have a rather simple oath of service that he would have been abandoning. If he wants a chance to get back in at all (rather than spending a bunch of time turning big rocks into smaller rocks), he would have had to have left on good terms by talking to his superiors and arranging to leave service rather than just vanishing.


Not maybe.Your question was why I thought your version was weak; bearing in mind that I have at least one issue with his story, and that you seem to be agreeing that yours is weaker than his, and then including all of the explanations I've made thus far... I'm going to assume that your question is pretty much answered.

MeeposFire
2011-02-02, 06:22 PM
Why does a paladin have to leave an order to pick up levels of sorcerer which fluff wise is a hereditary magical class?

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 06:22 PM
Why does a paladin have to leave an order to pick up levels of sorcerer which fluff wise is a hereditary magical class?That's a question for Boci... that's what he wrote.

Cerlis
2011-02-02, 06:23 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html

This is why.

-------------

Remember, its a sterotype for a reason. That doesnt mean people are legitimatley hating any character with 4 or so classes for no reason but the multiclassing. Its a knee jerk reaction because of characters and builds that people DO make for the sake of optimizing. You make a topic to make sure you're cleric doesnt suck,a nd someone tells you to take X levels of Ur-priest and i'm boggled. "Why would i take 2 levels of a class with fluff like that when its completely out of character"

In a sense people would be less adverse to it, if classes every level had a buy system. Each level, depending on the class tehy could buy what ability they want. You can upgrade your trapsense, or your sneak attack. or maybe you get enough points for both. but you cant upgrade your sneak attack if you did last level. SImularly once you hit level 5 you could start isntead of gaining a BA + get more skill points, or a spell like ability.

The issue is people having a problem with taking one or two level dips just for an ability without the lore behind the class.

I mean the way some people do it its like, "Oh i'm going to take a level of paladin so i can cast detect evil at will, then next level taking a nother level of monk for evasion so i can use <obscure ability combo here>
------------------


But either way to repeat my answer. seeing enough of anything bad and you begin to have a knee jerk aversion to anything that looks like it. Almost every aspect of hate or bias in the human world that is involved with misunderstanding or lack of knowledge is based on this same concept.

---------------------

Why does a paladin have to leave an order to pick up levels of sorcerer which fluff wise is a hereditary magical class?

because he has abandoned his pursuit of being a paragon of good for "worshiping" arcane power. The reason a paladin can fall is because, he has his power by being a power of pure good, not by serving pure good. if he loses that purity then he loses his powers or can not gain it again. being a non paladin before is simply like being a non paladin before. but multiclassing out of paladin, you may still have your faith, but you've "corrupted" your mind and soul with faith in another power.

its like how monk cant multiclass because what you are doing is you are achieving physical and mental perfection. Make yourself not perfect and you cant fix it.


Its like playdo, once you put other playdo in it you can never get it completely out.

Boci
2011-02-02, 06:27 PM
Your question was why I thought your version was weak; bearing in mind that I have at least one issue with his story, and that you seem to be agreeing that yours is weaker than his, and then including all of the explanations I've made thus far... I'm going to assume that your question is pretty much answered.

Oh yes my question is answered on why you think it is weak, I just disagree since you seem to think it would be impossible for a church to forgive a youthful mistake, even though he does eventually return to apologize for it, and has lived a good life, ridding evil and helping the poor as an adventurer. Maybe the bishop was more naive then you, or maybe he was wiser and saw something you missed.


Why does a paladin have to leave an order to pick up levels of sorcerer which fluff wise is a hereditary magical class?

They don't have to, this one did though because he didn't want to confront his teachers. This is mainly why he later returned.

Yahzi
2011-02-02, 07:13 PM
3E changed this in the rules -- a class is now merely a toolbox, not a complete background that takes your entire youth to fulfill.
Four pages later, this is still the best answer.

Elric VIII
2011-02-02, 08:30 PM
"suddenly leaves" doesn't really help his case. Traditionally paladins are basically military organizations associated with churches... just leaving would be going AWOL. And I can't imagine any organization of paladins wouldn't have a rather simple oath of service that he would have been abandoning. If he wants a chance to get back in at all (rather than spending a bunch of time turning big rocks into smaller rocks), he would have had to have left on good terms by talking to his superiors and arranging to leave service rather than just vanishing.

I'm just wondering, you keep making implications that the backstory was "wrong." Are you saying that if you don't like someone's backstory or plan, it cannot happen? Do you really DM in such a way as to restrict your playes on RP terms simply because you don't like their story, rather than just being a mediator to limit OP-ness?

It seems here that your main problem is that the story didn't make sense to you. You imply that if he made the suggested changes, with no change to the actual build, that you would allow it. I know the DM is supposed to be in control of the world, but to say that it is impossible for this situation to have happened anywhere ever seems awfully restrictive.

Coidzor
2011-02-02, 09:08 PM
Exactly. D&D classes were not made to exactly create characters from books since those characters were not designed with the limitations and benefits that classes provide.

Except for the niggling detail that those were the characters they were drawing upon for the archetypes when they created the character classes.

Which is why people are annoyed that the things that were being used for inspiration in the design process can't be replicated by the system without changing it one's self.


Why didn't the temple talk to him about the other order at the beginning? This makes no sense; you have someone who has both an aptitude for magic is virtuous, and an order for people those sort of people, but they don't bother to tell him about the order that he would be a perfect fit for? Who's running this church, Bishop Derp?

So you're saying that players should be penalized for conforming to the PrC requirements that delay access to PrCs until one's gotten fairly well into a character's career, because that's the reason why he couldn't join earlier. So why hate the character when your objection is to the way the system deals with it?

H Birchgrove
2011-02-02, 09:21 PM
What if I want to multi-class my PC, not merely to improve the PC's skills, but include the multi-classing as a part of his personality? A D&D version of The Ace, similar to Doc Savage or Buckaroo Banzai but in fantasy setting, is what I'm having in mind.*

To be precise, a PC I originally intended to be a Barbarian with at least two other classes - Rogue and Ranger - has now gotten levels in Fighter, Prestige Class Assassin, Druid and Bard. Moral alignment would be Chaotic Good, and he would work as thief, pirate, bounty hunter, adventurer and liberator.

It's still just in my mind, and he might end up in an OoTS fanfiction as well as in a RPG. I admit that I'm being a complete newbie when it comes to D&D and RPG's in general.

* Not to mention wish fulfilment Author Avatar and/or Gary Stu - but if the latter happens, it will end up as a parody or deconstruction.

Cerlis
2011-02-02, 09:59 PM
I'm just wondering, you keep making implications that the backstory was "wrong." Are you saying that if you don't like someone's backstory or plan, it cannot happen? Do you really DM in such a way as to restrict your playes on RP terms simply because you don't like their story, rather than just being a mediator to limit OP-ness?



I can not speak for him, but i can speak for myself. I would not like the story at all because since it seems very contrived (and indeed, since the person who posted the story was just trying to get an example. One could easily make a more believable story). The original "backstory" seemed like the player made some weird multiclassing combo to make some highly optimized character and gain this ability and this ability. and the DM didnt like it so he made up some backstory.

I'm not saying its bad. In fact i do it alot. I see a cool ability and i realize that it meshes well with this one from this class or another, and i end up trying to think of character motivation and personality to fight with the class skeleton.

I'm not saying its wrong, but just the idea of someone mutating a character with multiple classes all with alot of lore and story in each of them, just to gain certian abilities, base attack and spells, and contriving the character backstory and motivation after the fact as some half assed excuse to play it and get it past the DM is what i dont like.

----------

again, one could figure out a fully sensible backstory for that one character yall have been talking about. but if someone gave that reader's digest contrived version my bull****-alarm would be going off.

Coidzor
2011-02-02, 10:00 PM
I'm not saying its bad. In fact i do it alot. I see a cool ability and i realize that it meshes well with this one from this class or another, and i end up trying to think of character motivation and personality to fight with the class skeleton.

If you do it a lot, why do you still find it weird when others do so?

Amphetryon
2011-02-02, 10:11 PM
I'm not saying its wrong, but just the idea of someone mutating a character with multiple classes all with alot of lore and story in each of them, just to gain certian abilities, base attack and spells, and contriving the character backstory and motivation after the fact as some half assed excuse to play it and get it past the DM is what i dont like.So, hypothetically, how many hoops would you make a player go through if he gave you a backstory that exactly meshed with a PrC that has a prepackaged fluff writeup that doesn't fit into your world's history?

Say, for instance, you had a new player show up for the first game of a new campaign. He's written up a really solid story about a Sorcerer coming to grips with his developing powers, that ultimately include a breath weapon and becoming more 'draconic' over time. It's a backstory that meshes well with the Dragonheart Mage (Races of the Dragon). Problem is, Dragons don't breed with humanoid races in your campaign world; they're xenophobic thieves who hoard treasure as a far-reaching plan to collapse civilization so they can again reign.

Do you work with the player, on the theory that flavor is mutable, to approximate his idea? Or do you say 'nice try, but no' and send him back to the drawing board because his perfectly sound idea doesn't mesh with your fluff?

Ravens_cry
2011-02-02, 10:24 PM
Well, effective multi classing combines abilities in ways the authors never intended. This can be seen as and can in fact be 'gaming' the system, especially with high cheese. Right or wrong, I can see how it came about.

LordBlades
2011-02-03, 12:33 AM
It might be; it really depends on how well the druid, cleric and wizard are played. In a recent game, the druid and cleric were some of the weaker characters; the druid in particular, who persisted in trying to play a blaster. He did start getting the hang of it toward the end.

Being sucky doesn't necessarily mean you're not relevant, nor that you gain enjoyment strictly from RP.

You were the one making the claim that all backstories are metagamey... that's just an example of where that's not the case. It has no relevance beyond that.

I assumed at least decent levels of optimization. At least to the point where clerics and druids realize they are better at fighting than fighters, and wizards realize they aren't blasters.

From my point of view, being sucky equals being not-relevant mechanics-wise. If you're not good at what you do, and somebody else in the party is better than you at that exact same thing, there isn't much you can contribute, mechanics-wise.

My bad for generalizing. I meant the backstories of chars past a certain level of optimization. This is simply how the game works. If you want to be particularly good at something, you need to plan ahead.

Roog
2011-02-03, 01:44 AM
I think it stems from the fact that, while it can be explained in a few seconds for anyone whose forced to add fluff to their crunchy builds, in an actual 1-20 campaign it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Let's look at a traditional Sorcadin build:

"I am a holy warrior, dedicated to light and good. I have trained my whole life to be an agent of righteousness. But after a few weeks of fighting goblins and kobolds, my latent magical talents have awakened! I forsake paladinhood, although I swear to remain good as I learn the ways of arcana. And now I want to take a level in this special and unique fighting style known as being a "Spellsword". I will seek them out, and learn from them. For a few days. Then I will abandon them, too, once I feel my arcane power is enough to instead learn from these "Abjurant Champions". Once they have taught me all they know, I will take on the mantle of an Excorcist...because...uh...well, it's not just because I want Turn Undead and full caster progression, okay! It totally works!"

Again, if you were actually starting at level 14 I'm sure you could refluff that, because classes aren't professions, etc, etc. I just don't see how anyone could play that starting at level 1 with a straight face and have it not seem a bit power-gamey.


All the explanations of how the character is justified sound contrived because they are over-complicating things.

Taking the descriptions from the books:
- Sorcerers are spell-casters with inborn talent - no mention of organizations.
- Paladins are characters with an innate calling to uphold righteousness - no mention of organizations, but may start as apprentices.
- Spellswords are described as characters with a focus on mixing spell-casting with martial prowess - and are not described as organizations. The character could be trained or self taught.
- Abjurant Champions are described as only being taught by specific militant orders. A holy order of arcane knights fits this well.
- Sacred Exorcists are described as specialist members of a religious organization. Just about any order of Paladins would fit this requirement.

A Sorcadin character could be a member of a holy order of arcane knights,
either from first level or joining some point later. No forsaking required.

The progression of a Sorcadin's abilities is probably simpler to explain than that of a Druid or Monk. Try explaining their ability progression without resorting to game mechanics.

Grim Reader
2011-02-03, 03:05 AM
I was a soldier once.

I was never in a war, but I knew a lot of people who had been. And when they met other people who had been, sat down and had a beer -man, did they ever optimize! A lot of the conversation was about best kind of armor, guns good for various situations, climate tricks, etc, etc. In fact, I think only ******** sergeants were a bigger subject. (Which could be because people who hadn't been to war still had had sergeants.)

It is sort of like if you get a plumber from Norway and a plumber from Britain to sit down with a beer... -they'll talk shop. Except that these guys lives were riding on their choices, so they were a lot more motivated than plumbers.

Realistically protrayed, D&D characters will be even more motivated. They risk worse things than death. Much worse.

Any character who is realistically portrayed is going to spend some though, in-character and in-game, on his capabilities and what he needs to learn to survive and contribute. Real world people optimize. And the happy-go-lucky fellow loves his healmet just as much when the bullets start flying as the obsessive does.

On the subject on how long levelling should take, I have been musing on a high-north campaign, where adventuring happens during the warmer months, and levelling happens once per year, during the weather-immobilized winter months, and requires months of work.


Well, effective multi classing combines abilities in ways the authors never intended. This can be seen as and can in fact be 'gaming' the system, especially with high cheese. Right or wrong, I can see how it came about.

Given that the authors made both the Druid and Monkl base classes, I think actually avoiding the authors intent should be a priority point for DMs who want a good, long-running campaign.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-03, 03:08 AM
Given that the authors made both the Druid and Monkl base classes, I think actually avoiding the authors intent should be a priority point for DMs who want a good, long-running campaign.
Maybe, I am just trying to piece together the puzzle from what I know of human interactions.

Hawk7915
2011-02-03, 03:42 AM
All the explanations of how the character is justified sound contrived because they are over-complicating things.

Taking the descriptions from the books:
- Sorcerers are spell-casters with inborn talent - no mention of organizations.
- Paladins are characters with an innate calling to uphold righteousness - no mention of organizations, but may start as apprentices.
- Spellswords are described as characters with a focus on mixing spell-casting with martial prowess - and are not described as organizations. The character could be trained or self taught.
- Abjurant Champions are described as only being taught by specific militant orders. A holy order of arcane knights fits this well.
- Sacred Exorcists are described as specialist members of a religious organization. Just about any order of Paladins would fit this requirement.

A Sorcadin character could be a member of a holy order of arcane knights,
either from first level or joining some point later. No forsaking required.

The progression of a Sorcadin's abilities is probably simpler to explain than that of a Druid or Monk. Try explaining their ability progression without resorting to game mechanics.

Wow, I'm surprised my off-hand comment got so much attention :smallredface:. I'm quoting you since you were the most recent response. I'll admit Sorcadin wasn't a perfect example (I double checked afterwords and saw that none of the classes are explicitly about being a member of an organization). Perhaps Barbarian/Monk/Fist of the Forest/Drunken Master/Deepwarden/Bear Warrior would have been more appropriate, but it's all really moot.

I'd also like to say, for the record, that I don't usually see see comboing 4 or 5 classes as wrong or munchkiny, and even if it is "min-maxing" I like it. My playgroup has never had a build more complex than "Bard-Barbarian-Dragon Disciple" but I appreciate that classes aren't careers or straight-jackets, and that sometimes in order to get a character that "feels right" for a certain concept you need to just dip a few classes here and there until they all fit. Silly off-hand comment that no one should take seriously: Aragorn would be best as a Human Paladin/Ranger/Fighter/Human Paragon (assuming you let him be higher than 6th level :smallwink:), leaving all those classes at just the right point to get the best stuff.

But I was just trying to guesstimate one reason people might have this stereotype, and that was it. There's a reason that that Elegance is a category in Iron Chef Optimization and there's a reason that said competition even cares about backstory: Because all too often is seems like people aren't taking class levels to fit a cool character concept; they're taking class levels to make the most optimized character they can and then hurriedly adding some fluff afterwards to justify the mess of classes, and it's worth points when a character doesn't seem that way. That's not to say that optimization is wrong or bad, or that building powerful characters and then justifying their powers after the fact is "the wrong way to play" (was there a right way, besides never playing monk? :smallbiggrin:). I also do not mean to invoke the Stormwind Fallacy; I'm sure some of the coolest characters have emerged from this sort of "top-down" design.

But let's call a spade a spade: taking 6 or 8 levels of Fighter instead of 7, never taking Rogue 20, weaving a level of Spellsword into your Sorcadin build, adding Deepwarden 2 (but not 3 or 4) onto your Fist of the Forest build, these are all, as the OP said, "Blatant Power Grabs". I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it's very much dependent on your group how much power you need to grab for, and there is no right or wrong way, and it sucks that some people label power-grabbing as evil and wrong and dirty. But it is grabbing for power.

<apologies if this makes little sense; I'm tired>

Jayabalard
2011-02-03, 09:44 AM
I just disagree since you seem to think it would be impossible for a church to forgive a youthful mistake, even though he does eventually return to apologize for it, and has lived a good life, ridding evil and helping the poor as an adventurer. Maybe the bishop was more naive then you, or maybe he was wiser and saw something you missed.I don't think that correctly sums up what I've said... and really, that only covers one part of the problems in this story that I've mentioned.

Closer would be "I think that it's extremely far fetched for a church to forgive a deserter and take him directly into their special order as you've portrayed it, regardless of what he's been doing in the meantime" ... That's not something that you win a prize for; in the real world, people have been executed for that. For a lot of people that I know, this one would be a deal breaker by itself; I would have pointed it out earlier, but your initial write up didn't really say that outright.


I'm just wondering, you keep making implications that the backstory was "wrong." No, I made the implication that it's a very weak backstory when he asked for feedback ... and then, when directly asked to explain, started pointing out problems using examples from the backstory, and then continuing to point out flaws in his counter arguments. It's not that the backstory is "wrong" ... it's just "weak"


Are you saying that if you don't like someone's backstory or plan, it cannot happen? Do you really DM in such a way as to restrict your playes on RP terms simply because you don't like their story, rather than just being a mediator to limit OP-ness?I'm a player, not a DM. If you'll look back, you'll note that I'm talking about the reaction such a back story would get from the rest of the group, meaning the players in most of the groups I've played in. Please save the "you're a terrible DM" line of argument for someone else.


So you're saying that players should be penalized for conforming to the PrC requirements that delay access to PrCs until one's gotten fairly well into a character's career, because that's the reason why he couldn't join earlier.Nope; I'm saying the write up that boci did was very weak, with specifics as to why. Other people have hit on the root cause: it's far too complicated.


So why hate the character when your objection is to the way the system deals with it?That's not the way the system deals with it. The system does not require that he desert his post in a militant order and that the head that militant order just brush that off like it doesn't matter;nor does it require that someone who has demonstrated a lack of be taken into a secret an order without a significant trial period; nor that the bishop not have a valid training path into the special order of the temple, the temple's total failure to identify potential fits for such an order. None of those backstory details are required by the system; they're a problem strictly with that character.

Boci
2011-02-03, 09:54 AM
I don't think that correctly sums up what I've said... and really, that only covers one part of the problems in this story that I've mentioned.

What are the other ones? You seemed to be okay with up until the sorceror/paladin/sorceror, and haven't said much about the spell sword/abjurant champion part.


Closer would be "I think that it's extremely far fetched for a church to forgive a deserter and take him directly into their special order as you've portrayed it, regardless of what he's been doing in the meantime" ... That's not something that you win a prize for; in the real world, people have been executed for that.

Yes and if soldier's diary's are to believed, people have also had three days wages docked for it. Besides, he killed many evil things as an adventurer. I doubt a deserter during a war who managed to kill an enemy general whilst going rogue (whilst flicking through a machine gun, riffle and sniper because he wasn't sure which weapon he really wanted to use) would be executed upon his return. He could be executed, but I find it hard to imagine it would shatter your disbeliefe if he wasn't.

Greenish
2011-02-03, 09:57 AM
There's a reason that that Elegance is a category in Iron Chef Optimization and there's a reason that said competition even cares about backstoryYes, and those reasons are the fact that the judges, competitors and spectators do care about those categories.

Because all too often is seems like people aren't taking class levels to fit a cool character concept; they're taking class levels to make the most optimized character they can and then hurriedly adding some fluff afterwards to justify the mess of classesIn my experience, that's rarely the case for a character actually made for a game (instead of one that's only a thought exercise). Maybe your group does things differently.

[Edit]:
All the explanations of how the character is justified sound contrived because they are over-complicating things.All of them? :smallamused:

Amphetryon
2011-02-03, 10:02 AM
There's a reason that that Elegance is a category in Iron Chef Optimization and there's a reason that said competition even cares about backstory:Note that definitions of "Elegance" in said competition vary wildly from judge to judge and competitor to competitor. Citing that particular competition, based on thought exercises, as justification for real game character creation rules is, at best, shaky ground.

Roog
2011-02-03, 01:03 PM
All of them? :smallamused:

Sorry, I must have missed that one.

Coidzor
2011-02-03, 02:47 PM
Nope; I'm saying the write up that boci did was very weak, with specifics as to why. Other people have hit on the root cause: it's far too complicated.

You'll note I was addressing a specific concern of yours. Which was how you didn't understand the artifact of the PrC's prerequisites having to be reflected by the player.


That's not the way the system deals with it. Actually it is. Take a look at Eldritch Knight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/eldritchKnight.htm), the BAB+/Casting- option for finishing off Sorcadins as they only get 8th level spells with it. One simply can't enter until one's 6th level and most aren't going to enter that early. So unless one characterizes themselves as an apprentice to a member of the order, which may or may not fly given the byzantine judgments people have for this sort of thing, one has to not find out about it/be allowed to join until further into a character's progression.

Unless they're starting at a high enough level that it doesn't particularly matter.


The system does not require that he desert his post in a militant order Good thing I wasn't addressing the whole thing and was focusing on a particular complaint of yours. The one where you asked why he wasn't made aware of them and allowed to join earlier before leaving. Which is entirely an artifact of the PrC prerequisites system.


Yes, and those reasons are the fact that the judges, competitors and spectators do care about those categories.

Plus it's a performance. Making a show, so of course one has to provide full entertainment. Just presenting a mechanics block isn't going to fire the imaginations of the crowd and cause others to be truly impressed.

Most people aren't making their character's backstory into a piece of performance art.

HoR_Emperor
2011-02-03, 05:09 PM
The assumption that "balance" is needed in order for the game to work or for the players to have fun is a false assumption. In fact, it is a specifically power-gamer assumption, because it assumes the players cannot have fun unless their characters are close to each other in their powers and capabilities. IMHO, players who cannot have fun unless their character is just as strong as the others are players who define "fun" in terms of their character's power... and are thus power-gamers.

Elric VIII
2011-02-03, 05:14 PM
The assumption that "balance" is needed in order for the game to work or for the players to have fun is a false assumption. In fact, it is a specifically power-gamer assumption, because it assumes the players cannot have fun unless their characters are close to each other in their powers and capabilities. IMHO, players who cannot have fun unless their character is just as strong as the others are players who define "fun" in terms of their character's power... and are thus power-gamers.

I agree, some of the most fun-filled basketball games that I've played are the ones where I can stand in the corner and just let the one great player win for our team.

Boci
2011-02-03, 05:14 PM
The assumption that "balance" is needed in order for the game to work or for the players to have fun is a false assumption. In fact, it is a specifically power-gamer assumption, because it assumes the players cannot have fun unless their characters are close to each other in their powers and capabilities. IMHO, players who cannot have fun unless their character is just as strong as the others are players who define "fun" in terms of their character's power... and are thus power-gamers.

A desire for balanced classes is considered default though, even if it isn't universal. In addition the danger of one character's achievements being cheapened by anothers if the latter is a lot more powerful, it also limits the available social dynamics of the group: if one member of the group is significantly weaker than others, he would need to be friends with the rest, otherwise the question arises why do they keep him around.

Jayabalard
2011-02-03, 06:18 PM
I agree, some of the most fun-filled basketball games that I've played are the ones where I can stand in the corner and just let the one great player win for our team.It's good that you can get that kind of enjoyment from just standing around... I need to at least be running and flailing around innefectively.

Some of the most fun floor hockey games I played in were ones where I did nothing more effective than a pass here and there, or stepping in to play a bit so the better players could get their breath back. I'm quite aware of the fact that my contribution was far less than some of the other players, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the game.

Now, it helps if my TEAM is balanced with the other TEAM ... but the individual players in the team don't need to be anywhere close to balanced.


A desire for balanced classes is considered default thoughDefault? Sure, it's the defaullt assumption of the people who desire balance, but really, that's kind of circular.


In addition the danger of one character's achievements being cheapened by anothers if the latter is a lot more powerful, it also limits the available social dynamics of the group: if one member of the group is significantly weaker than others, he would need to be friends with the rest, otherwise the question arises why do they keep him around.I'm not clear on your point here. The question of "why does character X hang out with these guys, and why do they tolerate his presence" is a common one. Its not a question that only comes up in regards to differences in character power either; it also comes up due to differences in morality and goals (as 2 quick examples). It's generally a source of good RP fodder.

Boci
2011-02-03, 06:28 PM
Default? Sure, it's the defaullt assumption of the people who desire balance, but really, that's kind of circular.

How many times do you see GMs posting houserules for anu game system with the purpose of unbalancing it?


I'm not clear on your point here. The question of "why does character X hang out with these guys, and why do they tolerate his presence" is a common one. Its not a question that only comes up in regards to differences in character power either; it also comes up due to differences in morality and goals (as 2 quick examples). It's generally a source of good RP fodder.

Yes, but if there is a difference in power, then the only reason you would be willing to risk your life by adventuring with someone weaker than you if is they were your friend. IF everyone is of equal power, it gives opertunities to have less ideal inter party relations.

Elric VIII
2011-02-03, 06:44 PM
Some of the most fun floor hockey games I played in were ones where I did nothing more effective than a pass here and there, or stepping in to play a bit so the better players could get their breath back. I'm quite aware of the fact that my contribution was far less than some of the other players, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the game.

This sounds more like party buffing or BFC rather than showing-up the fighters. You are contributing in a meaningful way that takes stress off of the front-liners. I know the analagous roles were switched, but the point stands.

Jayabalard
2011-02-03, 06:54 PM
How many times do you see GMs posting houserules for anu game system with the purpose of unbalancing it?I didn't really keep count.

I don't really see the relevance of the question though; the issue isn't between GMs who strive for balance and GMs who strive for imbalance.. it's between GMs who strive for balance and ones who don't care. A better question would be "how many times to do you see GMs posting houserules for any game system without regards to balance" ... to which the answer is something like "A fair bit, though since they aren't worried about getting feedback related to balance they're more likely to just use them rather than run them by some community of gamers"


Yes, but if there is a difference in power, then the only reason you would be willing to risk your life by adventuring with someone weaker than you if is they were your friend. IF everyone is of equal power, it gives opertunities to have less ideal inter party relations.No, that's only one of the reasons, not the only. Perhaps the lower power person just happens to be useful in some way (even if only as cannon fodder when there's an extreme difference); or perhaps a paladin is working to raise the street rat out of the gutter; or the reverse (a temptress tempting a good man); or fate continues to throw them together; or perhaps one is the servant or retainer of another; etc.


You'll note I was addressing a specific concern of yours. Which was how you didn't understand the artifact of the PrC's prerequisites having to be reflected by the player.No, I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with your premise. I thought I was kind of clear about that but perhaps I wasn't.


Actually it is. Take a look at Eldritch Knight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/eldritchKnight.htm), the BAB+/Casting- option for finishing off Sorcadins as they only get 8th level spells with it. One simply can't enter until one's 6th level and most aren't going to enter that early. So unless one characterizes themselves as an apprentice to a member of the order, which may or may not fly given the byzantine judgments people have for this sort of thing, one has to not find out about it/be allowed to join until further into a character's progression. No it's not; the bits that I was objecting to have nothing to do with anything the game forces on the players. Eldritch knights don't have to be their own specific organization. In his backstory, there is no game mandated link between "joining Organization A" and "taking prestige class X" or "switching from Class Y to Z" and "leaving Organization B" ... that's totally his choice as a player writing the back story.

There's nothing that prevents all of the classes on that character's progression from being represented by a single organization. Even if he does choose to leave, there's nothing that prevents him from leaving that organization in a believable way, one that would make it less far fetched that he'd be allowed back in later.


Good thing I wasn't addressing the whole thing and was focusing on a particular complaint of yours. The one where you asked why he wasn't made aware of them and allowed to join earlier before leaving. Which is entirely an artifact of the PrC prerequisites system.If you're focused on that, you're arguing with a strawman. My objection (at least, the closest one to what you're talking about) was not that he wasn't allowed to join the order, but instead that there is no path from holy warrior to holy warrior that uses magic without leaving the organization and rejoining; I implied that whoever was running that temple was an idiot (referring to him as Bishop Derp), and that this part of the backstory makes the whole thing seem more contrived and less believable.

And no, it's not an artifact of the PRC prerequisite system. What I'm objecting to is totally Boci's choice, and has nothing to do with the game mechanics.


This sounds more like party buffing or BFC rather than showing-up the fighters. You are contributing in a meaningful way that takes stress off of the front-liners. I know the analagous roles were switched, but the point stands.Eh, they could have gone the whole game straight (they did on a couple of occasions). My contribution was right in line with the fighter who's only contribution was to CDG the people who fail to save on a save or lose.

but like I said, I wouldn't have been happy with standing in the corner and just let the one great player win for our team like you are ... I needed a slightly more active role than that.

Anyway... I don't see how this is relevant to the "balance is not required for fun" ...

Boci
2011-02-03, 07:12 PM
I didn't really keep count.

I don't really see the relevance of the question though; the issue isn't between GMs who strive for balance and GMs who strive for imbalance.. it's between GMs who strive for balance and ones who don't care. A better question would be "how many times to do you see GMs posting houserules for any game system without regards to balance" ... to which the answer is something like "A fair bit, though since they aren't worried about getting feedback related to balance they're more likely to just use them rather than run them by some community of gamers"

Really? I'd most people at some point post their houserules, those who don't care about feedback related to balance do so to get feed back related to fun, simplicity or something else.


No, that's only one of the reasons, not the only. Perhaps the lower power person just happens to be useful in some way (even if only as cannon fodder when there's an extreme difference);

Someone of equal power would be more useful though.


or perhaps a paladin is working to raise the street rat out of the gutter; or the reverse (a temptress tempting a good man);

I was using a broad definition of firend, although good point about the tempress, I didn't think of it.


or fate continues to throw them together; or perhaps one is the servant or retainer of another;

I thought you had a problem with contrived situations.


Even if he does choose to leave, there's nothing that prevents him from leaving that organization in a believable way, one that would make it less far fetched that he'd be allowed back in later.

He left without word because he didn't want to confront them. This is one of the main reasons why he eventually returns.


If you're focused on that, you're arguing with a strawman. My objection (at least, the closest one to what you're talking about) was not that he wasn't allowed to join the order, but instead that there is no path from holy warrior to holy warrior that uses magic without leaving the organization and rejoining; I implied that whoever was running that temple was an idiot (referring to him as Bishop Derp), and that this part of the backstory makes the whole thing seem more contrived and less believable.

What is so unbelieveable about a bishop whose naive and grants a man who deserted the paladin order but not the paladin at a young age?

Jayabalard
2011-02-03, 07:42 PM
Really? I'd most people at some point post their houserules, those who don't care about feedback related to balance do so to get feed back related to fun, simplicity or something else.Keep in mind that most of my gaming predates an internet where posting is much of an option (I mean, some people did post them on usenet but most didn't bother). So my perception may be a bit skewed. But in my experience, most people don't post their house rules.


Someone of equal power would be more useful though.sometimes; you have to deal with people of equal power as equals though, which means you don't generally get to use them as cannon fodder.

And "more useful" is only relevant if you have an unlimited number of people to choose from. Sometimes you have to take what you can get; and having a party made up like that can certainly have a good dynamic, not just regardless of the imbalance, but because of the imbalance.


I was using a broad definition of firend, although good point about the tempress, I didn't think of it.Hmm... well, if you're to use that broad of a definition of friend, then I'm mostly fine with that. The only thing that doesn't cover is parties that are strictly mercenary where the characters don't care about each other, and I don't really care for games of that nature.


I thought you had a problem with contrived situations.I do, but that cliche shows up often enough in fiction that I kind of have to include it.


He left without word because he didn't want to confront them. This is one of the main reasons why he eventually returns.That... doesn't help. That's cowardly, which is antithetical to being a paladin. It actually makes that backstory less believable for me (I find it a deal breaker pretty much by itself).


What is so unbelieveable about a bishop whose naive and grants a man who deserted the paladin order but not the paladin at a young age?I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the last half of that. So I'm just going to kind of respond generally to the word "young"

The idea that young adults need to be given a lot of room for error is a pretty modern one, and it's not something that people universally agree with. I don't think it fits in the sort of societies that people use when they're playing D&D (whether you go with D&D = pseudo medieval, or D&D = the wild west). Once you are old enough to start training as a paladin, you're a adult, not a child, and you should be held accountable as such. Making a bunch of allowances for his youth and letting him off with an "oops, my bad" breaks verisimilitude. Now, you might be able to write something up so that I'd believe them taking him back, but that'd have to be really significant.

The Glyphstone
2011-02-03, 07:54 PM
Interesting discussions here, and I'm impressed that the tone is remaining so civil at this point. Let's try to keep it that way.



@Dark_Eternal, since I think you were the one talking about enforcing training time for multiclassing: How would you feel about, effectively, pre-emptive training? Anyone else can weight in as well.

Example 1, Classes As Metagame Construct: Bob is descended from the heroic champion of a nomadic warrior tribe. Despite having been born and raised as a 'civilized' person, he grew up listening at his long-in-the-tooth grandfather's knee to stories about his old tribe's great lion spirit patron and how its blessings won him countless victories. He joins the royal guard and is trained as a soldier to fight carefully without letting his guard down, but sometimes in battle he feels like something is wrong, and often dreams of lions. One day, he's fighting as normal, but sees one of his allies take a terrible blow and loses his composure, going berserk as his barbarian heritage finally manifests itself, and from that day on he finds that the lion-spirit his grandfather spoke so fondly of has chosen to favor him with a small measure of its power. He doesn't go off to live in the wild or start wearing furs, instead maintaining his commission in the guard, but he now has a reputation amongst the guard as 'that one captain who's great to have guarding your back, and really dangerous if you make him angry', with a noticable knack for being more effective in an offensive role than his more defensive-minded colleagues.

In this example, Bob is intended to be 'training' for his 1-level Barbarian dip while simultaneously training as (and leveling in) the Fighter class. The dip is obviously for Pounce's mechanical utility, but his intentions are both worked into the backstory and telegraphed from long away. He didn't spend months meditating in the wild with prayers to the Great Spirit Lion, but was gifted with its attention anyways, attention that happened to be beneficial.

Example 2, Classes as Discrete Entities: Joe is a devout worshipper in his Church, so devoted that he decides to enter seminary school (or its equivalent) to become an ordained cleric of that particular deity. He excels in his schooling, but feels a strange void in his spiritual side - so upon finishing his tutoring, he ends up declining to take up a mantle, telling his instructors that he instead wishes to wander the world in search of whatever he's missing. Joe ends up at a remote monastery, where he adopts a monastic lifestyle and spends years honing his inner focus and purifying himself. After a while, he has fended off enough orc raids on the temple to somehow be capable of punching ghosts in the face (without humming Ghostbusters), and believes that he has filling that empty chunk of his soul. With tearful farewells to his monk brothers, he returns to civilization and his old clerical would-be colleagues. He remembers much of the rituals and doctrine from his schooling, so after a quick refresher course, he takes his priestly vows in truth this time; noting how incredibly buff an asthetic existence made him, the clergy tutors suggest that he join a reclusive group of templars within the church who train to employ their unarmed bodies as holy weapons.

This example has Joe effectively doing 99% of his Cleric 'downtime training' in the past, stopping right before he'd actually qualify for the Cleric level and going to become a Monk instead. A few years to level to Monk 4, then he goes back and completes that last 1% to become a Monk 4/Cleric 1, then Cleric 2 before branching into Sacred Fist.

olentu
2011-02-03, 07:59 PM
Because forgiveness is something no person much less a presumably benevolent personage would ever want to grant towards someone who made a mistake and then later did their best to take responsibility and make amends. Since that would clearly be outlandish in real life I can see how that could break immersion in a game about a magical universe.

I mean it is not like there is an spell that grants atonement for when paladins completely and without question violate the basic tenants of the paladin order with actions so contrary to their being that they are forcibly stripped of their powers by the very nature of goodness itself. And so if these wrong doers should not be given a second chance it is reasonable that by extension those that have committed lesser misdeeds (i.e. those that are not antithetical to the very nature of being a paladin) would likewise not be granted any forgiveness no matter how contrite they are.

Boci
2011-02-03, 08:17 PM
sometimes; you have to deal with people of equal power as equals though, which means you don't generally get to use them as cannon fodder.

The whole cannon fodder thing is a bit doggy anyway, since cannon fodder has a tendancy to die.


And "more useful" is only relevant if you have an unlimited number of people to choose from. Sometimes you have to take what you can get; and having a party made up like that can certainly have a good dynamic, not just regardless of the imbalance, but because of the imbalance.

That depends on the setting, but generally there are enough adventurers that its hard to believe there is no over choice.


Hmm... well, if you're to use that broad of a definition of friend, then I'm mostly fine with that.

I just think its unlikely to happen that often. I don't have many friends, and I have fewer still who I would take with me on a dangerous mission to watch my back if they were less competant than me.


That... doesn't help. That's cowardly, which is antithetical to being a paladin.

A paladin who had an unpaladiny moment yet managed to recover is a pretty idea in D&D.


The idea that young adults need to be given a lot of room for error is a pretty modern one,

But D&D is very frequently a mix of modern, authentic and semi-authentic ideaologies. Attitudes to women springs to mind.


and it's not something that people universally agree with.

That is entierly compatible with the background story. Indeed it could add good rp potential if not everyone agrees with the bishops choice.


I don't think it fits in the sort of societies that people use when they're playing D&D (whether you go with D&D = pseudo medieval, or D&D = the wild west). Once you are old enough to start training as a paladin, you're a adult, not a child, and you should be held accountable as such. Making a bunch of allowances for his youth and letting him off with an "oops, my bad" breaks verisimilitude. Now, you might be able to write something up so that I'd believe them taking him back, but that'd have to be really significant.

Even after leaving the paladin order, he remained lawful good, and stayed true to his code of conduct. He was still a paladin when he returned years later, in the flavour sense that he was a virtous knight, and ther mechanical sense that he still benefited from divine grace.

Thurbane
2011-02-03, 08:17 PM
To the OP: I don't think most people who have a problem with mass-multiclassing have the problem becuase of powergaming, neccessarily. I think it's more a case of breaking versimiltude to cherry pick class abilities.

It's a lot easier to explain a Wiz 20 or Druid 20 ingame in terms of background and character, than say a Facotum 8/Fighter 2/Cleric 1/Hexblade 3/Barbarian 1/Binder 3/Conjuror 1/Dragonfire Adept 1 :smalltongue:

That's my take, anyway. While it is eminently easy to break the game or powergame with a single classed Tier 1 class, it also seems a lot more blatant when someone is cherry picking very specific levels of classes...

Greenish
2011-02-03, 08:20 PM
To the OP: I don't think most people who have a problem with mass-multiclassing have the problem becuase of powergaming, neccessarily. I think it's more a case of breaking versimiltude to cherry pick class abilities.

It's a lot easier to explain a Wiz 20 or Druid 20 ingame in terms of background and character, than say a Facotum 8/Fighter 2/Cleric 1/Hexblade 3/Barbarian 1/Binder 3/Conjuror 1/Dragonfire Adept 1 :smalltongue:

That's my take, anyway. While it is eminently easy to break the game or powergame with a single classed Tier 1 class, it also seems a lot more blatant when someone is cherry picking very specific levels of classes...So you basically agree with Vladislav? :smalltongue:

The people who are playing Druid20 or Wizard20, are taking their power trip quietly and with dignity, like fat cats.

Those playing Water Orc Half-Minotaur Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian X/Hulking Hurler Y/Something Z are running around chasing crumbs of power, shrieking like mice.

It's not the power we find objectionable, it's the lack of dignity. :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor
2011-02-03, 08:28 PM
I think it's more a case of breaking versimiltude to cherry pick class abilities. Verisimilitude how? In terms of acquiring training?

Edit: because if anything, that's a failure on the part of the DM, really, if there's no believable method by which individuals can become certain classes which clearly exist in the world if they're allowed by themselves.


It's a lot easier to explain a Wiz 20 or Druid 20 ingame in terms of background and character, than say a Facotum 8/Fighter 2/Cleric 1/Hexblade 3/Barbarian 1/Binder 3/Conjuror 1/Dragonfire Adept 1 :smalltongue:

Though still not all that hard. Since it's obvious they're a dabbler, since that's what a factotum is and its the best way to characterize that spread of dipping. It's probably harder to explain out of game in terms of build choice than it is ingame, really. Mostly because it's just a nova of low-level, ankle-biting effects as far as I can tell.


That's my take, anyway. While it is eminently easy to break the game or powergame with a single classed Tier 1 class, it also seems a lot more blatant when someone is cherry picking very specific levels of classes...

What's wrong with "cherry picking," in and of itself though? Why should a player pick up abilities he doesn't want when he can pick up abilities he does want that further his concept or goal?

Because he should just be a Wizard 20 and do it with spells while bending the system over one knee? Where's the verisimilitude in breaking the game?

Boci
2011-02-03, 08:37 PM
Mostly because it's just a nova of low-level, ankle-biting effects as far as I can tell.

Seems like a solid tier 4 bild to me. It gots it share of moderately powerful abilities, a bit a utility and some gimmicks.

16 BAB using fragmented progression, good intelligence synergy, 2 extra standard actions per encounter, detect magic, identify and a 1d6 breath weapon at will, rhino's rush 1/day, 2 domain powers, whirling frenzy 3/day, 3rd level vestiges, short ranged teleport int mod / day as immediate action, cha to saves and mettle.


What's wrong with "cherry picking," in and of itself though? Why should a player pick up abilities he doesn't want when he can pick up abilities he does want that further his concept or goal?

Bear in mind (I'm pretty sure I'm right here) Thurbane played 2E, where the system didn't support cherry picking so well, so the answer may be its just not part of the game he's use to.

MeeposFire
2011-02-03, 08:38 PM
I still think that it has more to do with D&D always being a class oriented game and 3.5's use of multiclassing flies into the face of strong class dynamics. So if you like a class based game (strongly class based mind you) 3.5's multiclassing to a large extent will make you uncomfortable as a this sorcerer build we are talking about as little sorcerer or paladin in it. It is almost all small dips. While this can be made to make sense it still will make people that like strong class use to feel uncomfortable. The sad part is that they often do not know why and then blame it on a common foe-powergaming whether it happens to be the case or not (or even if it is a problem in the first place).

Thurbane
2011-02-03, 08:43 PM
Please note; my post above was somewhat "devil's advocate", and not neccessarily indicating I have a problem with multiclassing. However, traditionally, my group rarely multiclass, and when they do, it's usually only 2 classes.

Verisimilitude how? In terms of acquiring training?

Edit: because if anything, that's a failure on the part of the DM, really, if there's no believable method by which individuals can become certain classes which clearly exist in the world if they're allowed by themselves.
YMMV, but when I look at a character sheet with more than 3 or so classes, it looks like a mishmash to me, and I have a hard time visualizing the character and it's backstory. That may be a failing on my part, but it's the way my playstyle preferences swing.

Though still not all that hard. Since it's obvious they're a dabbler, since that's what a factotum is and its the best way to characterize that spread of dipping. It's probably harder to explain out of game in terms of build choice than it is ingame, really. Mostly because it's just a nova of low-level, ankle-biting effects as far as I can tell.
The above example was just a mix of classes of the top of my head - don't read too much into the specific combo. :smalltongue:

What's wrong with "cherry picking," in and of itself though? Why should a player pick up abilities he doesn't want when he can pick up abilities he does want that further his concept or goal?
Nothing is wrong as such - it's just a style of play that is discouraged in some groups. Most (all?) of the groups I've played with, in fact. Different strokes for different folks - if extensive dipping works for your group, I have precisely zero problem with that.

Because he should just be a Wizard 20 and do it with spells while bending the system over one knee? Where's the verisimilitude in breaking the game?
Perhaps versimilitude was a bad choice of words.

The fact remains, however, that massively multiclassed/cherry picked dip characters are more likely to break my suspension of dibelief at a game than others. Again, YMMV.

Bear in mind (I'm pretty sure I'm right here) Thurbane played 2E, where the system didn't support cherry picking so well, so the answer may be its just not part of the game he's use to.
Quite possibly, although I like to think I'm pretty well adapted to 3E now. Still, some of my 1E/2E tendencies still tend to surface - 3 of our 7 man group are 1E/2E veterans. :smallbiggrin:

So you basically agree with Vladislav? :smalltongue:

Kind of, yeah. :smallcool:

Tavar
2011-02-03, 09:11 PM
Really, I think this discussion boils down to one question; are classes meta game or in game. If they're out of game, there's no reason for someone with 20 classes to be treated any differently than someone with 1; the classes don't matter, only the flavor that the player choses to project(well, and the abilities that they have, but those are a bit harder to judge, normally). If they're an in game construct, then obviously someone with 20 classes is very different than someone with 1.

I guess the players preference with regards to systems matters too. I like point based, or at the very least more free-form systems. In game, if you asked what class I was, I'd either look at you funny, or say what social class. The mechanics are an abstraction, only useful in that they tell me what I can and cannot do. If I make a concept, I'll look at all the tools I have(including multiclassing) in order to realize it. I'd guess that others prefer more rigid class structure, with more in-game impact, where asking what class would yield answers like 'fighter' and 'rogue'.

Maybe the best way to sum it up is that one side would change the build to match the concept, while the other would change the concept to match the build. If I'm understand the sides right.

Roog
2011-02-04, 12:09 AM
It's a lot easier to explain a Wiz 20 or Druid 20 ingame in terms of background and character, than say a Facotum 8/Fighter 2/Cleric 1/Hexblade 3/Barbarian 1/Binder 3/Conjuror 1/Dragonfire Adept 1 :smalltongue:


So how do you explain "in terms of background and character" the crazy combination of abilities that a Druid 20 (or Monk 20) has?

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 12:25 AM
So how do you explain "in terms of background and character" the crazy combination of abilities that a Druid 20 (or Monk 20) has?

They are a druid and that is normal for them to get in D&D.

Tavar
2011-02-04, 12:33 AM
Which would key into the differences in playstyle. The more fluid, less class based style looks at abilities, first and foremost. The more rigid, class based styles look at, well, classes first.

This isn't to say that all multiclassing isn't a power grab. There is some. But, there's always been people in the games that only want power. The only thing that's changed is what they need to do to get it.

LordBlades
2011-02-04, 12:58 AM
The assumption that "balance" is needed in order for the game to work or for the players to have fun is a false assumption. In fact, it is a specifically power-gamer assumption, because it assumes the players cannot have fun unless their characters are close to each other in their powers and capabilities. IMHO, players who cannot have fun unless their character is just as strong as the others are players who define "fun" in terms of their character's power... and are thus power-gamers.

That depends on the players and DM. Many fighter players don't really enjoy to see the CoDzilla besting them (by a significant margin) at fighting, while still being able to do a horde of other nice things.

Also, many DMs don't really enjoy having to think how a monster would challenge both the 50 AC +30 to hit DMM Cleric and the 25 AC +15 to hit fighter. (numbers are arbitrary).

Roog
2011-02-04, 01:02 AM
They are a druid and that is normal for them to get in D&D.

In D&D, it's also entirely normal for a Facotum 8/Fighter 2/Cleric 1/Hexblade 3/Barbarian 1/Binder 3/Conjuror 1/Dragonfire Adept 1 to have all the abilities that they have.

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 01:08 AM
In D&D, it's also entirely normal for a Facotum 8/Fighter 2/Cleric 1/Hexblade 3/Barbarian 1/Binder 3/Conjuror 1/Dragonfire Adept 1 to have all the abilities that they have.

Yes and the question was how do describe in background how a druid has his abilities. A druid natural acquires its abilities because the class says it does. Since it is just one class you only have to worry about one background (if you feel like you need to justify it). Your example character has 8 different classes and therefor you would need to come up with 8 different background components (which can be mixed or whatever) to justify the combination in a class sense in a game like D&D. Note I am not saying you have to justify it, as I would not go crazy making you, but if somebody asked you to that is a much taller order than a simple druid 20 in D&D.

Gametime
2011-02-04, 01:12 AM
The assumption that "balance" is needed in order for the game to work or for the players to have fun is a false assumption. In fact, it is a specifically power-gamer assumption, because it assumes the players cannot have fun unless their characters are close to each other in their powers and capabilities. IMHO, players who cannot have fun unless their character is just as strong as the others are players who define "fun" in terms of their character's power... and are thus power-gamers.

Those aren't entirely fair conclusions to draw. For one thing, a character's ability to contribute meaningfully to some, and preferably most, encounters might matter to a player without being a total deal-breaker. Under that schema, "power" is just one of a number of factors that contribute to "fun," and it's perfectly reasonable to both care about relative power and still be willing to sacrifice it for other considerations. Balance can be sought without being the most important aim.

For another thing, power gaming is usually thought of as maximizing (at least in the sense that I've seen it used). Even if you're building your character to be powerful, I don't think it's necessarily true that you're power gaming; I think that label generally indicates an attempt to get as much power as possible, but you talk in your post about the power levels in the party being relatively balanced. This means that while the entire party might be power gaming, it's also quite possible for them to be all building at a lower-than-maximum level of power, achieving intraparty balance and avoiding power gaming.

The conception of power gaming you offer above seems to imply that giving any consideration to your character's capabilities is power gaming, which is extremely broad. At that point, the term sort of ceases to have any meaning.

Roog
2011-02-04, 01:14 AM
Yes and the question was how do describe in background how a druid has his abilities. A druid natural acquires its abilities because the class says it does. Since it is just one class you only have to worry about one background (if you feel like you need to justify it).

So what happens when the background that fits the Druid ceases to fit?

Its not difficult to have a background that fits Druid 1-4, but does not justify level 5, or fits Druid 1-15 but not 16+.

Coidzor
2011-02-04, 01:17 AM
The conception of power gaming you offer above seems to imply that giving any consideration to your character's capabilities is power gaming, which is extremely broad. At that point, the term sort of ceases to have any meaning.

Agreed. Used too broadly it bleeds over into optimizing and wanting a character to be capable of fulfilling a role.

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 01:28 AM
So what happens when the background that fits the Druid ceases to fit?

Its not difficult to have a background that fits Druid 1-4, but does not justify level 5, or fits Druid 1-15 but not 16+.

You do not have to do anything. What does a druid do that requires any additional information from their background? They are a druid. Druids change shapes into animals and elementals, cast spells, and all that other stuff. What more do you need?

And once again I am not insinuating that you cannot make a background for your character or that you have to.

WarKitty
2011-02-04, 01:31 AM
So what happens when the background that fits the Druid ceases to fit?

Its not difficult to have a background that fits Druid 1-4, but does not justify level 5, or fits Druid 1-15 but not 16+.

I've actually had this come up with an NPC. Nymph with druid class levels. The background made perfect sense, right up until wild shape. And then there was absolutely no reason at all why that particular character would have wild shape. With druid this isn't a big issue - with a less powerful class it quite possibly would be.

Similarly, I've found that a lot of the multi-class combos come from situations where according to the backstory, the character really ought to have a certain ability that the class just doesn't provide.

The fundamental problem is that, say, that particular character would not recognize herself as a "druid." My bard in another game would not call himself a bard - he's a trickster, he's an assassin, he's even a performer. The characters don't know what class they are.

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 01:44 AM
I've actually had this come up with an NPC. Nymph with druid class levels. The background made perfect sense, right up until wild shape. And then there was absolutely no reason at all why that particular character would have wild shape. With druid this isn't a big issue - with a less powerful class it quite possibly would be.

Similarly, I've found that a lot of the multi-class combos come from situations where according to the backstory, the character really ought to have a certain ability that the class just doesn't provide.

The fundamental problem is that, say, that particular character would not recognize herself as a "druid." My bard in another game would not call himself a bard - he's a trickster, he's an assassin, he's even a performer. The characters don't know what class they are.

Why does wild shape not fit due to a background? I can understand why you may not decide to use wildshape but how does it not fit? Do nymph's have a secret reason that they cannot have wildshape? Further what you are describing is not background but getting character abilities. You do not want wildshape why be a standard druid? Choose an alternative to wildshape or a different class like shaman, spirit shaman, or a cleric worshiping nature.

Thurbane
2011-02-04, 01:46 AM
So how do you explain "in terms of background and character" the crazy combination of abilities that a Druid 20 (or Monk 20) has?
It's worth noting that in a "standard" game world, people are going to be used to meeting a lot more straight druids than "multi-class combo 175A6". If this is the case, it's going to be easier for someone to grasp the powers/abilities grouped under the druid banner than those from disparate class dips.

Please understand, I'm not saying this is a bad thing - just that it suits some play styles better than others. Multi-class characters aren't inherently harder to imagine a persona and background for to everyone - they are so to me (and some others, apparently).

I never get why people get so worked up about what basically amounts to a matter of personal opinion. I'm not arguing that the sky isn't blue, I'm saying that I prefer pizza to lasagna. It often amuses me how hard people argue over various play styles of being "right" or "wrong". Heck, I can say that I prefer single classed characters to multi-classed for a variety of reasons - it doesn't mean I'm going to break down the door at your next session and tear up the character sheets of everyone whose character has more than 2 classes! :smallamused:

LordBlades
2011-02-04, 02:20 AM
The assumption that 'multiclassing is power-gaming' tends to create some kind of double standard regarding character concepts.

If you want a character that has an animal friend, can turn into animals and cast spells, it's all cool since you can go single class druid.
If you want a character that can fight and cast spells (which is also a pretty classical fantasy archetype, think Gandalf) you're powergaming since you need to multiclass.

Also, regarding druids, I do agree lvl. 5 is quite a stretch to explain form a RP point of view. Nothing from lvl. 1-4(except for Aspect of the Wolf spell) hints that you would be able to turn into animals at some point. Why would a druid that had nothing to do with any of that before(and maybe never thought about it) suddenly has the ability to turn into animals?

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 02:31 AM
What you are describing is a problem of a class system like 3.5 where you do not get all your basic class abilities at level 1.

Though for fighting and magic be a duskblade:smalltongue:.

LordBlades
2011-02-04, 02:44 AM
Okay, maybe my example was not the most fortunate (although for the record I do think duskblade sucks at the magic part) but I think it gets the point across. There are many archetypes that one might want to play, that do not fall within the boundaries of one class.

Boci
2011-02-04, 02:51 AM
Okay, maybe my example was not the most fortunate (although for the record I do think duskblade sucks at the magic part) but I think it gets the point across. There are many archetypes that one might want to play, that do not fall within the boundaries of one class.

Duskblade is good if you want to use spells to do extra damage and a bit of debuff. If you want to buff yourself or use BFC before entering melee, then yes the duskblade does suck in the magic department.

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 02:51 AM
Indeed welcome to the good and bad of classes. Strong thematic mechanics but they can also make it difficult to show exactly what you want. Add on a desire to follow strong class archetypes and you have a big reason on why lots of classes makes some people uncomfortable. Whereas in a classless game these same people would not mind the exact same combo at the same power level since then there is no baggage involved. I love me class based games but I do know they have limitations.

That's also too bad I love duskblades.

LordBlades
2011-02-04, 03:16 AM
Indeed welcome to the good and bad of classes. Strong thematic mechanics but they can also make it difficult to show exactly what you want. Add on a desire to follow strong class archetypes and you have a big reason on why lots of classes makes some people uncomfortable. Whereas in a classless game these same people would not mind the exact same combo at the same power level since then there is no baggage involved. I love me class based games but I do know they have limitations.

That's also too bad I love duskblades.

Loving a class has little to do with actual power level. I like paladins a lot, despite being kind of weak:)

My main reasons for disliking duskblade are lack of versatility(conpared to a gish with sor/wiz casting just seems limited) and the fact that spell list is full of a kind of magic I really don't care much for (blasting)

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 03:25 AM
Who mentioned any specific power level? I think you are trying to add something into my posts that I am not writing.

The duskblade was supposed to be a one liner pseudo funny comment not something for honest discussion.

Indeed those are good reasons for not wanting to play a duskblade mechanically. Chances are you will have to multiclass into several classes and deal with it since straight up caster/warrior multiclasses are terrible without prcs and since prcs only last 10 levels at best then you need to multiclass several times to do what you want. This is a problem unique to 3e. Of course this will cause a problem for you if like strong class concepts but you did not have a choice to do that. Now if you do not care about strong class concepts then it will not be a problem for you.

LordBlades
2011-02-04, 03:46 AM
Who mentioned any specific power level? I think you are trying to add something into my posts that I am not writing.

The duskblade was supposed to be a one liner pseudo funny comment not something for honest discussion.

Indeed those are good reasons for not wanting to play a duskblade mechanically. Chances are you will have to multiclass into several classes and deal with it since straight up caster/warrior multiclasses are terrible without prcs and since prcs only last 10 levels at best then you need to multiclass several times to do what you want. This is a problem unique to 3e. Of course this will cause a problem for you if like strong class concepts but you did not have a choice to do that. Now if you do not care about strong class concepts then it will not be a problem for you.

I misunderstood thrn. Just wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to offend anyone who likes duskblades:)

WarKitty
2011-02-04, 08:39 AM
Why does wild shape not fit due to a background? I can understand why you may not decide to use wildshape but how does it not fit? Do nymph's have a secret reason that they cannot have wildshape? Further what you are describing is not background but getting character abilities. You do not want wildshape why be a standard druid? Choose an alternative to wildshape or a different class like shaman, spirit shaman, or a cleric worshiping nature.

Well, in that case the druid casting is the only one that stacks with the nymph's inherent abilities, so I'm kind of locked in. For the nymph, she's supposed to be an exemplar of the race that has more of the same kind of abilities that a normal one has, not a totally different ability.

Put it another way - take the temple guardian build I posted earlier. Shapeshift druid is, as far as I've found, the only class that has the abilities that would accurately represent the character. However the character is most emphatically not a druid - if anything, she's some sort of specialized shapeshifting monk. Except monk levels don't get me the shapeshifting and natural weapon abilities that the character requires. So I end up with a druid, but have no use for an animal companion or for 90% of the druid's spell list. In fact neither of them would make the slightest bit of sense, since the character as written really has no connection to nature whatsoever - her shapeshifting abilities are a result of lycanthropic heritage and special magical breeding.

The Big Dice
2011-02-04, 10:09 AM
The assumption that "balance" is needed in order for the game to work or for the players to have fun is a false assumption. In fact, it is a specifically power-gamer assumption, because it assumes the players cannot have fun unless their characters are close to each other in their powers and capabilities. IMHO, players who cannot have fun unless their character is just as strong as the others are players who define "fun" in terms of their character's power... and are thus power-gamers.

I wouldn't say that the desire for balance is a bad thing. But I would say that balance in RPGs is a myth.

The ideal for a balanced system is, everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in every situation. Except that lands you in a situation where, because every character is equally capable, no character gets to stand out.

I wouldn't say that it's a power gaming idea that balance is desireable. I'd say it's something more modern than that. Certain companies have very vocal and opinionated members of their forums. Those people make their feelings known in no uncertain terms about the relative power levels of various character options. The company is getting feedback from a bigger group of people, and much faster than was possible not that long ago.

So those companies produce games that they think are what the people playing want. And that leads to the current crop of RPGs. Which, in the case of games that are on a new edition, seem to tend towards the vanilla. Either in a reaction to the excesses of the previous edition of the games in question, or in an attempt to please the people on their forums.

So rather than the players demanding balance and not getting it, game designers are trying to provide something that just doesn't exist. Because the moment you've got a character that can do something that another charcter can't, balance goes out of the window.

Gamers have known for decades that high level casters are more powerful than high level melee characters. But it was fine, because by the time the casters were powerful enough to blow up most threats, the muggles were ruling dominions and building political power.

Sure, the wizard had arcane personal power. But the fighter could send an army to kick the stuffing out of his enemies. And so balance was maintained, even though on paper there was no comparison.

WarKitty
2011-02-04, 10:15 AM
I wouldn't say that the desire for balance is a bad thing. But I would say that balance in RPGs is a myth.

The ideal for a balanced system is, everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in every situation. Except that lands you in a situation where, because every character is equally capable, no character gets to stand out.

I wouldn't say that it's a power gaming idea that balance is desireable. I'd say it's something more modern than that. Certain companies have very vocal and opinionated members of their forums. Those people make their feelings known in no uncertain terms about the relative power levels of various character options. The company is getting feedback from a bigger group of people, and much faster than was possible not that long ago.

So those companies produce games that they think are what the people playing want. And that leads to the current crop of RPGs. Which, in the case of games that are on a new edition, seem to tend towards the vanilla. Either in a reaction to the excesses of the previous edition of the games in question, or in an attempt to please the people on their forums.

So rather than the players demanding balance and not getting it, game designers are trying to provide something that just doesn't exist. Because the moment you've got a character that can do something that another charcter can't, balance goes out of the window.

Gamers have known for decades that high level casters are more powerful than high level melee characters. But it was fine, because by the time the casters were powerful enough to blow up most threats, the muggles were ruling dominions and building political power.

Sure, the wizard had arcane personal power. But the fighter could send an army to kick the stuffing out of his enemies. And so balance was maintained, even though on paper there was no comparison.

The problem with the current system isn't that one character can do something that the other can't. It's when one character can't do anything that the others can't do better. For example, a party with a fighter 5, a rogue 5, and a bard 2 might still be relatively balanced, because each character has their own niche. A party with two fighter 5's and one fighter 2 would be unbalanced, because there's no reason for the fighter 2 to be there that the other fighter's can't handle without him.

Boci
2011-02-04, 10:26 AM
The ideal for a balanced system is, everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in every situation. Except that lands you in a situation where, because every character is equally capable, no character gets to stand out.

You jumped from meaningful to equal for no apparant reason. A warblade has diplomacy as a class skills, so with a couple of ranks spent they can contribute meaningfully to a negotiation scene, but that doesn't they wsill be contributing equally when compared to the bard.

Tael
2011-02-04, 10:29 AM
Gamers have known for decades that high level casters are more powerful than high level melee characters. But it was fine, because by the time the casters were powerful enough to blow up most threats, the muggles were ruling dominions and building political power.

Sure, the wizard had arcane personal power. But the fighter could send an army to kick the stuffing out of his enemies. And so balance was maintained, even though on paper there was no comparison.

:smallconfused: Why are muggles any better at building political power? Or ruling dominions? Or raising armies?

Even with the ridiculous premise that mundanes would be able to build armies to compete with casters, at that point, the game would be extremely boring for the muggle, basically saying "go kill some chumps" and sitting back and waiting, while the wizard is actually out, you know, adventuring.

WarKitty
2011-02-04, 10:33 AM
Not every character has to be able to contribute significantly to every single situation. It's not a problem if the low-cha fighter can't contribute to a social encounter with the king. What is a problem is if the fighter can't contribute to a battle - that's what his class is designed for. The problem with the wizard is that he doesn't have any weaknesses - no matter what the encounter is, he can contribute, often better than the class designed for that situation. And the fighter gets locked out of encounters designed for his strong point - combat.

Jayabalard
2011-02-04, 11:03 AM
That depends on the setting, but generally there are enough adventurers that its hard to believe there is no over choice.I'm going to suggest that instead of "generally" the words "in my games" would be more correct. I personally find game worlds where every other person you meet is an adventurer to be inherently unbelievable, and the in my games, there's almost never a plethora of adventurers. The closest we get is when we're playing a game where the society is at war, and in those cases you're always stuck with who you can get because the other people just can't be spared from what they're doing.

In games where you're not at war, well, you're kind of stuck with Bob the glass jawed fighter because all the other guys who are good at swinging swords aren't crazy enough to join you.


That is entierly compatible with the background story. Indeed it could add good rp potential if not everyone agrees with the bishops choice.Adding a bit to the backstory that laid that out would go a long way toward making it more believable; it'd also give the gm a lot of stuff to potentially work into the game: the faction of your new order that doesn't fully trust you and storylines where you have to prove yourself; political intrigue where the bishop's political rivals use his reinstatement of you against him; an individual rival, setting up some very personal LG vs LG conflict, etc.


I never get why people get so worked up about what basically amounts to a matter of personal opinion. I'm not arguing that the sky isn't blue, I'm saying that I prefer pizza to lasagna.HERETIC! Shun the unbeliever! :smallbiggrin:


It often amuses me how hard people argue over various play styles of being "right" or "wrong". Heck, I can say that I prefer single classed characters to multi-classed for a variety of reasons - it doesn't mean I'm going to break down the door at your next session and tear up the character sheets of everyone whose character has more than 2 classes! :smallamused:A lot of it is the internet... people tend to take hard lines, and argue a lot more vehemently than they would in person. It's a lot easier to demonize your opposition than it is to actually point out the flaws.



So those companies produce games that they think are what the people playing want. And that leads to the current crop of RPGs. Which, in the case of games that are on a new edition, seem to tend towards the vanilla. Either in a reaction to the excesses of the previous edition of the games in question, or in an attempt to please the people on their forums.It's really the result of trying for a more mass appeal; perhaps companies aren't being profitable enough by sticking to smaller niches.


Imagine a flower, a climbing orchid to be exact. The one of some 20,000 varieties that produces something edible. Now, imagine that its blooms must be pollinated either by hand or a small variety of Mexican bee and that each bloom only opens for 1 day a year. Now, imagine the fruit of this orchid, a pod, being picked and cured, sitting in the sun all day, sweating under blankets all night for months until shrunken and shriveled it develops a heady, exotic perfume and flavor. Now, imagine that this fruit's name is synonymous with dull, boring and ordinary.

Boci
2011-02-04, 11:11 AM
I'm going to suggest that instead of "generally" the words "in my games" would be more correct. I personally find game worlds where every other person you meet is an adventurer to be inherently unbelievable, and the in my games, there's almost never a plethora of adventurers. The closest we get is when we're playing a game where the society is at war, and in those cases you're always stuck with who you can get because the other people just can't be spared from what they're doing.

In games where you're not at war, well, you're kind of stuck with Bob the glass jawed fighter because all the other guys who are good at swinging swords aren't crazy enough to join you.

I would imagine most games have quite a few NPCs who are roughly the same power level of the PCs. A lot of PrCs for example lists a gather information check to locate a member.

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 11:21 AM
I would imagine most games have quite a few NPCs who are roughly the same power level of the PCs. A lot of PrCs for example lists a gather information check to locate a member.
Those people are not necessarily adventurers. Actually, they probably aren't.

Boci
2011-02-04, 11:24 AM
Those people are not necessarily adventurers. Actually, they probably aren't.

I dunno, to me its would make sense that you're gonna find one who adventures pretty soon, or failing that one who can point you to another member of the PrC who is.

The Big Dice
2011-02-04, 11:39 AM
You jumped from meaningful to equal for no apparant reason. A warblade has diplomacy as a class skills, so with a couple of ranks spent they can contribute meaningfully to a negotiation scene, but that doesn't they wsill be contributing equally when compared to the bard.

Actually no. You just pointed out exactly what I'm talking about. A Warblade is not balanced when compared to a Bard, because the Bard is less effective at hitting things and more effective at talking to people.

There is an inherent imbalance right there.

How can the Warblade contribute meaningfully to a negotiation when every roll he makes is blown out of the water by the Bard? The two aren't balanced against each other, as one is better at something than the other.

That's how RPGs really are, things aren't all equal. And so balance is just a dream.


It's really the result of trying for a more mass appeal; perhaps companies aren't being profitable enough by sticking to smaller niches.Which is exactly what I said when I said the designers are trying to give people what they think people want.

Boci
2011-02-04, 11:42 AM
Actually no. You just pointed out exactly what I'm talking about. A Warblade is not balanced when compared to a Bard, because the Bard is less effective at hitting things and more effective at talking to people.

There is an inherent imbalance right there.

How can the Warblade contribute meaningfully to a negotiation when every roll he makes is blown out of the water by the Bard? The two aren't balanced against each other, as one is better at something than the other.

That's how RPGs really are, things aren't all equal. And so balance is just a dream.

Balance doesn't mean it impossible for each class to have situations in which they are better than others.

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 11:44 AM
I dunno, to me its would make sense that you're gonna find one who adventures pretty soon, or failing that one who can point you to another member of the PrC who is.
It's like Jayabalard says - that applies to your games, but you keep saying 'generally' and 'most games'.

WarKitty
2011-02-04, 11:46 AM
Actually no. You just pointed out exactly what I'm talking about. A Warblade is not balanced when compared to a Bard, because the Bard is less effective at hitting things and more effective at talking to people.

There is an inherent imbalance right there.

How can the Warblade contribute meaningfully to a negotiation when every roll he makes is blown out of the water by the Bard? The two aren't balanced against each other, as one is better at something than the other.

That's how RPGs really are, things aren't all equal. And so balance is just a dream.

Which is exactly what I said when I said the designers are trying to give people what they think people want.


Not every character has to be able to contribute significantly to every single situation. It's not a problem if the low-cha fighter can't contribute to a social encounter with the king. What is a problem is if the fighter can't contribute to a battle - that's what his class is designed for. The problem with the wizard is that he doesn't have any weaknesses - no matter what the encounter is, he can contribute, often better than the class designed for that situation. And the fighter gets locked out of encounters designed for his strong point - combat.

Equality =/= sameness. That's like saying a car mechanic and a courtroom translator can't be equally skilled because they don't have the same skill set.

Boci
2011-02-04, 11:47 AM
It's like Jayabalard says - that applies to your games, but you keep saying 'generally' and 'most games'.

Because I find it hard to believe otherwise. What would you do as a DM if I started tracking down members of specific PrC? Have every single one be integrated into the community and not know of anyone else who shared their skills and was interested in adventuring?

The Big Dice
2011-02-04, 11:50 AM
Balance doesn't mean it impossible for each class to have situations in which they are better than others.


Equality =/= sameness. That's like saying a car mechanic and a courtroom translator can't be equally skilled because they don't have the same skill set.

Character A can do something that Character B can't.

How is that balanced?

And that's my point about balance being a myth. If one character is better at something than another, they can't be balanced. Becaue a balanced character in a PvP match against another balanced character would be decided purely by the dice rolls.

Not by being able to do something that the other character can't.

Boci
2011-02-04, 11:52 AM
Character A can do something that Character B can't.

How is that balanced?

Because as a group they complement eachother as oppose to stepping on eachother's toes.

WarKitty
2011-02-04, 11:52 AM
Character A can do something that Character B can't.

How is that balanced?

Because Character A and Character B are both useful, contributing members of the party with roughly equally valuable skill sets. Whereas with D&D, the wizard's skill set renders the fighter's skill set worthless.

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 11:56 AM
Because I find it hard to believe otherwise. What would you do as a DM if I started tracking down members of specific PrC? Have every single one be integrated into the community and not know of anyone else who shared their skills and was interested in adventuring?
Most probably, yes. Adventuring means risking your life on a daily basis. Someone in a guild already gets more than enough money to survive comfortably. Why would they risk their lives? Even if they are adventurers, they already have their established agendas. Why would they be willing to give up on their agendas for you?
Also, as a DM, if one of my players decided to find an NPC to fill in for another player character 'because he is not powerful enough', I'd first say 'no, don't do it, you're ruining Bob the Fighter's fun' and if he insisted on it, I wouldn't invite him for my next game.

Gametime
2011-02-04, 11:59 AM
I wouldn't say that the desire for balance is a bad thing. But I would say that balance in RPGs is a myth.

The ideal for a balanced system is, everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in every situation. Except that lands you in a situation where, because every character is equally capable, no character gets to stand out.

That's not necessarily true. If I hit the Balor for 30 damage and you hit him for 50, you've contributed more than me. We aren't equal. We both did contribute significantly to the battle, though, assuming that your 50 damage only brought down the demon when added to my 30.


Actually no. You just pointed out exactly what I'm talking about. A Warblade is not balanced when compared to a Bard, because the Bard is less effective at hitting things and more effective at talking to people.

There is an inherent imbalance right there.

How can the Warblade contribute meaningfully to a negotiation when every roll he makes is blown out of the water by the Bard? The two aren't balanced against each other, as one is better at something than the other.



Social encounters in D&D don't really lend themselves to balanced interaction if the DM is willing to let the party act as a whole. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending. Still, it's far from unusual for one character's word to not be good enough; maybe the king would be more convinced if the somewhat shifty-looking bard had the backing of a strong, upright soldier, and so the Warblade's diplomacy check contributes to the encounter without ever being as good as the bard's.

In other forms of encounter, though, it's a lot easier for different people to contribute unequally but significantly. The rogue sneaks in and steals the MacGuffin, but the ranger keeps watch with his high Spot and Listen checks. The factotum cuts the rope and drops a chandelier on the insane opera-themed murderer, but the bard keeps him talking long enough for that to happen. Whatever. There's a broad range between "useless" and "equal" that you're completely ignoring.

Boci
2011-02-04, 12:01 PM
Most probably, yes.

To me that doesn't sound very realistic that in the whole adventuring world no one knows of someone who wants to join up with some other adventurers.


Adventuring means risking your life on a daily basis. Someone in a guild already gets more than enough money to survive comfortably. Why would they risk their lives?

For the rewards. New magical items, new abilities, new allies.


Even if they are adventurers, they already have their established agendas. Why would they be willing to give up on their agendas for you?

Because their own agenda is compatible with ours.


Also, as a DM, if one of my players decided to find an NPC to fill in for another player character 'because he is not powerful enough', I'd first say 'no, don't do it, you're ruining Bob the Fighter's fun' and if he insisted on it, I wouldn't invite him for my next game.

Player's obviously shouldn't do this, but it breaks the feeling of the game to have characters stick with someone who is far weaker than them because he's a PC.

Gnaeus
2011-02-04, 12:16 PM
I wouldn't say that the desire for balance is a bad thing. But I would say that balance in RPGs is a myth.

Certainly not. It is more of a concept that means different things to different people and rarely lives up to its ideals. I could easily create an RPG with a party of commoners with the elite array, a group of 10 year old children, or sapient squirrels, or whatever, where everyone had the same character sheet.


The ideal for a balanced system is, everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in every situation.

That is one ideal for a balanced system. Some people like that.

Another ideal for a balanced system is a game in which everyone has a different enough skill set that they contribute to the group. If any member was removed, the group would lose some relevant set of abilities that contributes to its success. I prefer that approach.



I wouldn't say that it's a power gaming idea that balance is desireable. I'd say it's something more modern than that. Certain companies have very vocal and opinionated members of their forums. Those people make their feelings known in no uncertain terms about the relative power levels of various character options. The company is getting feedback from a bigger group of people, and much faster than was possible not that long ago.


Personally, I think balance is not an ideal that gaming companies should shoot for. Better by far, in my opinion, is predictability. If you think (because the game implies it) that a fighter is good at fighting, and you build it into your character that you are a great warrior, and then you suck hard, most people will be disappointed. If you recognize that the fighter carries the wizard's bags, and your character concept is the wizards butler Geeves, Fighter can probably live up to all your expectations. D&D is very bad about making some things strong, some things weak, and making system mastery the requirement to know which is which. I spent years playing a kinfolk in a group of werewolves, and I loved that character, even though brand new unoptimized PCs were way more powerful than he was. But I knew what I wanted to play when I made him, and the crunch (weak) matched the fluff.

In that sense (only), single classing IS better than rampant multiclassing. I know what I can expect from a ClassX 10. An x2/y3/z2/a1/b1 may be unexpectedly strong or weak. As an experienced player, I am better than I used to be at predicting that, but in a lot of cases I can't tell just how strong something will be until I see it in play.

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 12:20 PM
To me that doesn't sound very realistic that in the whole adventuring world no one knows of someone who wants to join up with some other adventurers.
Are you searching the whole adventuring world? That could take a lot of time. Gather Information is limited in scope.


For the rewards. New magical items, new abilities, new allies.
And what makes you think they want that? :smallconfused:
Why would a bouncer want 'new magical items'? He is good enough to do his job, he gets enough money to feed his family, to buy new furniture and if he saves he can even get expensive clothes. Why would the diviner who set up shop in the corner want new abilities? He already gets a lot of money just casting augury twice a day. Why would the bard in the tavern want new allies? He is already friends with everyone in town.
Seriously, there's plenty of reasons not to adventure and the only reason to adventure is 'getting money really really fast' unless you're on some part of personal quest. Adventurers should be rare.


Because their own agenda is compatible with ours.
Is it? Because it seems like it isn't. These people already get enough money with their jobs. While do you think they are both greedy enough and crazy enough to be adventurers?


Player's obviously shouldn't do this, but it breaks the feeling of the game to have characters stick with someone who is far weaker than them because he's a PC.
You think it breaks the feeling of comics that Batman hangs around with Robin? Or that the Avengers accepted Spiderman as a member?
There are plenty of reasons to be around someone other than how wel they perform in an encounter. May Bob the Fighter is your brother, maybe he is your friend, maybe he saved your life back in the first levels when you only had a good spell once a day. Hell, maybe he's cute. People that only worry about 'how well X performs in an encounter' are the unrealistic ones, because there is a lot more to the game than killing monsters, getting loot and growing more powerful.

WarKitty
2011-02-04, 12:27 PM
You think it breaks the feeling of comics that Batman hangs around with Robin? Or that the Avengers accepted Spiderman as a member?
There are plenty of reasons to be around someone other than how wel they perform in an encounter. May Bob the Fighter is your brother, maybe he is your friend, maybe he saved your life back in the first levels when you only had a good spell once a day. Hell, maybe he's cute. People that only worry about 'how well X performs in an encounter' are the unrealistic ones, because there is a lot more to the game than killing monsters, getting loot and growing more powerful.

I suspect it has as much to do with the fact that a lot of people really don't want to play robin. It's more fun to be an equal than a sidekick. Now, this isn't universal, but it's certainly an understandable view. It doesn't feel that good to be the second best all the time, no matter how good you are. You want your own moments to shine.

The Big Dice
2011-02-04, 12:28 PM
In other forms of encounter, though, it's a lot easier for different people to contribute unequally but significantly. The rogue sneaks in and steals the MacGuffin, but the ranger keeps watch with his high Spot and Listen checks. The factotum cuts the rope and drops a chandelier on the insane opera-themed murderer, but the bard keeps him talking long enough for that to happen. Whatever. There's a broad range between "useless" and "equal" that you're completely ignoring.
I'm not ignoring the fact that characters can be complimentary without being equal. I'm saying that unless all characters are equally capable when measured directly against all other characters, they are by definition imbalanced.

I quite agree that characters don't have to be balanced in the wy that ame designers seem to be striving for. BUt there does need to be some kind of parity between characters, or people start feeling like the Fighter at an all Wizard prom.

Boci
2011-02-04, 12:30 PM
And what makes you think they want that? :smallconfused:

I hear they are pretty popular amougst humanoids.


Is it? Because it seems like it isn't. These people already get enough money with their jobs. While do you think they are both greedy enough and crazy enough to be adventurers?

So no academy graduates wanting to expirience the real world/find some rare magical item, no lone wolf whose decided he needs to team up, no adventurer who lost his companions and needs new allies?


You think it breaks the feeling of comics that Batman hangs around with Robin?

Yes it does. The robin I remember often ended up in trouble because the opponent's they faced were above him. Of course in batman's setting he really didn't have the option of replaceing robin. Can't comment on the second one since I know nothing about it.


There are plenty of reasons to be around someone other than how wel they perform in an encounter.

I know, I acknowledged this. But that doesn't changed the facts that if all the characters are balanced towards eachother then more options for interparty dynamics become available.

You said it yourself: adventuring is dangerous. I need a damn good reason to do it with someone weaker than me.

Gnaeus
2011-02-04, 12:39 PM
You think it breaks the feeling of comics that Batman hangs around with Robin? Or that the Avengers accepted Spiderman as a member?

Spiderman is a perfectly good choice for an avenger. They have had lots of people with less impressive stat blocks than Spidey. Jessica Jones, to give one example, although Alias was awesome as a comic.

Boci
2011-02-04, 12:42 PM
BUt there does need to be some kind of parity between characters, or people start feeling like the Fighter at an all Wizard prom.

Do tier 3 classes feel alike?

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 12:46 PM
Spiderman is a perfectly good choice for an avenger. They have had lots of people with less impressive stat blocks than Spidey. Jessica Jones, to give one example, although Alias was awesome as a comic.

Jessica is not, and never was, an Avenger.
And you're talking about a team that had both the Sentry (the power of a thousand exploding suns!) and Spiderman (powers of a spider). So I think my point is pretty clear.

Tavar
2011-02-04, 12:47 PM
Seriously, there's plenty of reasons not to adventure and the only reason to adventure is 'getting money really really fast' unless you're on some part of personal quest. Adventurers should be rare./QUOTE]

That depends entirely on the setting, which is probably one reason this argument is so difficult.


[QUOTE=true_shinken;10304401]You think it breaks the feeling of comics that Batman hangs around with Robin? Or that the Avengers accepted Spiderman as a member?
There are plenty of reasons to be around someone other than how wel they perform in an encounter. May Bob the Fighter is your brother, maybe he is your friend, maybe he saved your life back in the first levels when you only had a good spell once a day. Hell, maybe he's cute. People that only worry about 'how well X performs in an encounter' are the unrealistic ones, because there is a lot more to the game than killing monsters, getting loot and growing more powerful.
First off, from what I remember, Robin's both a sidekick, learning from someone more experienced, and also he's a valuable part of the team. Yeah, he gets in over his head, but so does Batman, from what I remember. Regarding the Avengers and Spiderman, Spiderman's actually pretty powerful, and takes down some decently powerful supervillians, from what I remember. Yeah, he's not cosmically powerful, but not every Avenger foe is, so it's not as much of a problem. And, again, from what I've heard, he's managed to be a somewhat valuable member of the team, at least for as long as he was a part of it.

Now, bringing up party members that are family is...tricky. I mean, by that logic, if a family member began doing drugs, you wouldn't try and stop them because, hey, they're family. Not a perfect analogy, but part of any relationship is telling the other person when what they're doing is dangerous and foolhardy. Yes, there are reason to adventure with someone that's weak, but there are also reasons not to adventure with them. And the reasons to not do so, at least in my mind, can be much stronger than the reasons to do so. I mean, when you start getting to higher levels, in my mind, you're probably going to be operating in a somewhat military fashion, modeled something like that of elite units. As part of that, you're going to be thinking "man, I like that guy, but he's becoming dead weight, and I don't want his death on my hands."

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 12:50 PM
So no academy graduates wanting to expirience the real world/find some rare magical item, no lone wolf whose decided he needs to team up, no adventurer who lost his companions and needs new allies?
They do. We call them player characters.


Yes it does. The robin I remember often ended up in trouble because the opponent's they faced were above him. Of course in batman's setting he really didn't have the option of replaceing robin. Can't comment on the second one since I know nothing about it.
You're telling me with a straight face that Robin 'breaks the feeling of comic books'?

I know, I acknowledged this. But that doesn't changed the facts that if all the characters are balanced towards eachother then more options for interparty dynamics become available.

You said it yourself: adventuring is dangerous. I need a damn good reason to do it with someone weaker than me.
If everyone as powerful as the others, you also lose on many intraparty (I believe interparty would be between two different parties) dynamics.
Also, if you care about your brother Bob the Fighter, all the more reason to adventure with him to avoid him from dying, isn't it?


Regarding the Avengers and Spiderman, Spiderman's actually pretty powerful, and takes down some decently powerful supervillians, from what I remember. Yeah, he's not cosmically powerful, but not every Avenger foe is, so it's not as much of a problem. And, again, from what I've heard, he's managed to be a somewhat valuable member of the team, at least for as long as he was a part of it.
Perfect, that's exactly where I wanted to go. The Avengers are a group, they are not as powerful as each other, and Spiderman, even being one of the least powerful among them, has been very useful lots of times (sometimes just because he is not that powerful; he 'thinks small' and it helps a lot at times, specially against the new Superadaptoid). The Sentry is your tier 1 character. Spiderman, in comparison, is an optimized Fighter. Sure, Spiderman deals a lot of damage. He can also take quite a beating. But The Sentry can alter minds, destroy matter on an atomic level, fly to the sun and back, survive being disintegrated and hits harder than Spiderman. Even then, they're (well, were) on the same team and Spiderman manages to be relevant more often than not. That's because the writer makes it happen, of course. The writer creates situations for Spiderman to be useful. Is it so hard for the DM to do so? Or must The Sentry kick Spiderman, Iron Man, Captain America and pretty much all of the gang and then remake the Avengers with him, Nova, Silver Surfer, Red Hulk, Dr. Strange and Molecular Man?

Boci
2011-02-04, 12:55 PM
They do. We call them player characters.

So there are 4-6 of them in the land?


You're telling me with a straight face that Robin 'breaks the feeling of comic books'?

I never read any comic books, I'm refering to the cartoons I saw. Also, why do you find it so hard to believe some people have problems with the comic?


If everyone as powerful as the others, you also lose on many intraparty (I believe interparty would be between two different parties) dynamics.

Really? What options are unavailable to a balanced party?


Also, if you care about your brother Bob the Fighter, all the more reason to adventure with him to avoid him from dying, isn't it?

No. If I'm going on a black ops mission to hostile territory, taking my younger brother with me is stupid. Leaving him in civilizations and getting him a job as a bouncer is much better for his safety, and mine.