Player's build is to strong?

radferth · May 5, 2005

After I informed the players which of those prestige classes existed in my campaign (varies depending on which I am running), I would say "You may well be planning to take that combination of classes, but you will have to work that out in game. The idea that you could find a teacher of some sort for each of those prestige classes right when you want to take them is a bit hopeful." In my experience, (echoing what others have said) a lot of builds that look really good at level 20 are quite weak at low to mid levels.

I'm sure the other 1st ed.ers is this thread already know this, but the Fochan Lyrist (or whatever) is designed to be like the odd 1st edition bard, who need to take 6 or so level of fighter and then thief before taking levels in the druid-spell-casting bard. Given the oddities of 1st ed. dual classing, I'm not sure how well the FL simulates that; but its a way better attempt than the one I came up with for my Greyhawk campaign.

Storm Raven · May 5, 2005

blargney the second said:
I have a simple rule regarding prestige classes: finish what you start.

Interesting. So, if you drop out of college, you can't enroll at a Tae Kwon Do school until you go back and finish your B.A.?

blargney the second · May 5, 2005

Storm Raven said:
Interesting. So, if you drop out of college, you can't enroll at a Tae Kwon Do school until you go back and finish your B.A.?

It's more like progressing through university: in order to get a doctorate, you (usually) have to finish a master's first. If you want to pick up a second prestige class, you have to finish the first one before moving on. Finish what you start, or else you end up with sick combos like the one mentioned here.

James Heard · May 5, 2005

Crothian said:
Not always. It depends on the player and how they are. I've seen players that have taken many classes but in the logical course of the game and not preplanned like this. AS long as they are not abusing the system, ity should not matter how many classes they have.

Yeah, I played in a game where I started off a Bard and went to Wizard then to Cleric then back to Wizard then to...Basically whoever was whispering in his ear that month and whatever he was doing more of he took a level in. It really ticked off the other players and wasn't a particularly optimized build, but it was fun to pick up every magic item in the game and use them without fail and the faces of the rest of the party when they found out I'd joined a death cult and became a priest of that cult ("You said I should go to church, so I did. A lot.") was worth it. That character was a poster child for -20% XP penalties. I think there were even Ranger levels on him before too long.

MoonZar · May 5, 2005

blargney the second said:
I have a simple rule regarding prestige classes: finish what you start.

This also logical, i like it...

Storm Raven · May 5, 2005

blargney the second said:
It's more like progressing through university: in order to get a doctorate, you (usually) have to finish a master's first. If you want to pick up a second prestige class, you have to finish the first one before moving on. Finish what you start, or else you end up with sick combos like the one mentioned here.

So, if I drop out of law school, I can't enroll in any medical schools until I go back and get my J.D.? If I get an M.A. in Math, I can't go and get an M.A. in Russian Literature until I get my Ph.D. in Math?

I'm thinking your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

(I'm also not seeing the "sick" nature of the combo either. The character basically is useless until level 10 or so, and even after that he's underpowered compared, for example, to a single classed druid or wizard).

Storm Raven · May 5, 2005

MoonZar said:
This also logical, i like it...

If your definition of "logical" is identical to your definition of "silly", I guess you are correct.

MoonZar · May 5, 2005

Storm Raven said:
If your definition of "logical" is identical to your definition of "silly", I guess you are correct.

Thanks for the support

I think that the idea of the guy is a good way to keep thing balance when people abuse.

Storm Raven · May 5, 2005

MoonZar said:
Thanks you for the support

I don't see why silly ideas need to be supported.

I think that the idea of the guy is a good way to keep thing balance when people abuse.

It might be that (dubious, but possible), but it certainly isn't logical. People dabble all the time, in real life, in literature, and so on. Prohibiting dabbling is the exact opposite of a "logical" rule.

In any event, I have yet to see combinations that, in play, are seriously abusive that result from lots of dabbling. Dabbling usually detracts from the power of a character, in most cases, a single class build outstrips virutally all "dabble" builds. Implementing a rule to prevent a sub-optimal character building strategy seems pointless to me.

MoonZar · May 5, 2005

Storm Raven said:
I don't see why silly ideas need to be supported.

It might be that (dubious, but possible), but it certainly isn't logical. People dabble all the time, in real life, in literature, and so on. Prohibiting dabbling is the exact opposite of a "logical" rule.

In any event, I have yet to see combinations that, in play, are seriously abusive that result from lots of dabbling. Dabbling usually detracts from the power of a character, in most cases, a single class build outstrips virutally all "dabble" builds. Implementing a rule to prevent a sub-optimal character building strategy seems pointless to me.

Well probably that "logical" was a bad choice of word

I agree that this not logical that someone must finish a class without learn anything else.

you're right about this point !