To often multi-classing is, in my opinion, unnecessary hoop jumping for viable starting campaign concept. As a DM, my preference before having a player resort to multi-classing is to look at variant spell lists (3e DMG), Cityscape wilderness/urban skill swaps, UA style class variants (which expands on concepts in the PHB and DMG), and third party variants along with 3.0 multiclassing at first level. Once the campaign begins, I think picking up a new class should be more difficult.
How to avoid ridiculous player character builds
To often multi-classing is, in my opinion, unnecessary hoop jumping for viable starting campaign concept. As a DM, my preference before having a player resort to multi-classing is to look at variant spell lists (3e DMG), Cityscape wilderness/urban skill swaps, UA style class variants (which expands on concepts in the PHB and DMG), and third party variants along with 3.0 multiclassing at first level. Once the campaign begins, I think picking up a new class should be more difficult.
Well, the start isn't the only thing we have to worry about.
The problem with variants is, invariably, they aren't all that well tested. If the problem (as stated in the OP) is balance, stacking together variants seems an unreliable solution.
RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
I've found for myself and my players that "Ridiculous" depends on the campaign and the consensus across the players.
If every PC is built to a similar level of power, and the DM can keep up with CR appropriate encounters, then groovy. Should that be a low-magic, mostly melee style game or a multiverse spanning, reality warping storyline, determines the parameters of "Ridiculous".
Keep in mind, the DM has just as much (usually more) access to options for power. I once threw a 2 headed templated White Dragon with a few levels in Sorcerer living in a very specific lair with water tunnels that were frozen over at the surface. (White dragons are great against Shivering Touch shenanigans, which I allow). In my games, templates and class levels on monsters is a legitimate option against creative and diverse PCs.
If every PC is built to a similar level of power, and the DM can keep up with CR appropriate encounters, then groovy. Should that be a low-magic, mostly melee style game or a multiverse spanning, reality warping storyline, determines the parameters of "Ridiculous".
Keep in mind, the DM has just as much (usually more) access to options for power. I once threw a 2 headed templated White Dragon with a few levels in Sorcerer living in a very specific lair with water tunnels that were frozen over at the surface. (White dragons are great against Shivering Touch shenanigans, which I allow). In my games, templates and class levels on monsters is a legitimate option against creative and diverse PCs.
Last edited:
Nezkrul
First Post
Every race has ninjas
Some good points are being made here.
Not necessarily. Doesn't every DM merely start with the treasure tables and begin customising things for his campaign from that point onwards? If your 4th level Fighter has five magic weapons he may seem to be better than mine who has only one... but if my magic weapon is a Vorpal Sword and yours are +1 daggers and a +1 long sword then the assumption your making doesn't hold up. I'm making a point here about quality over quantity which is almost a philosophical point and really ties into the campaign being run. It's basically all relative; class powers against each other and the party as a whole against the campaign world. Fighters struggle to keep up with the Wizard's fireball and this has always been true... the balancing factor has always been that the Wizard's fireball can only be cast so many times per day while the fighter just keeps swinging (and of course in 3E cleaving!).
Edit for clarity - Looking at any one aspect in isolation can lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn. A campaign is a self contained whole which is balancing various elements together.
Not necessarily. Doesn't every DM merely start with the treasure tables and begin customising things for his campaign from that point onwards? If your 4th level Fighter has five magic weapons he may seem to be better than mine who has only one... but if my magic weapon is a Vorpal Sword and yours are +1 daggers and a +1 long sword then the assumption your making doesn't hold up. I'm making a point here about quality over quantity which is almost a philosophical point and really ties into the campaign being run. It's basically all relative; class powers against each other and the party as a whole against the campaign world. Fighters struggle to keep up with the Wizard's fireball and this has always been true... the balancing factor has always been that the Wizard's fireball can only be cast so many times per day while the fighter just keeps swinging (and of course in 3E cleaving!).
Edit for clarity - Looking at any one aspect in isolation can lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn. A campaign is a self contained whole which is balancing various elements together.
Doug McCrae
Legend
What were the issues prior to introducing these restrictions? Were PCs too powerful compared to the monsters, or was there a power imbalance between the PCs? Or was the problem that PC builds were too complex to be plausible within the game's fiction?
While I agree with most of what you said and how you justify them, I must point out the above doesn't help one bit in and of itself. It may work for a specific campaign, probably one you run, but not applicable in general. Banning whole books instead of material known to be more beefy than what you're looking for is misguided. The base classes presented in the Player's Handbook are all over the place regarding power. You may have tamed Druids and Clerics with spell restrictions. Beside that, all you've achieved is a relatively boring, small selection for your even still unbalanced PCs to choose from.
You'd had been better off by allowing classes known to be weakish on the various optimizer boards. You can trust them when they say they can't break the game with a class, that's what they do for a hobby. Instead of allowing Wizards, Druids, and Fighters in the same group(which will never work in favor of balance, no matter how much you want it, albeit may not affect it negatively either), allow Hexblades, Warlocks, Meldshapers(except Necrocarnum or spellcaster multiclass), Initiators, and similar magic users to take the place of full casters. Allow material published specifically for those classes from all core books, you literally can't go wrong.
I run a campaign with the exact same concept right now!
Man, nice to see I'm not the only one.
Last edited:
Good to hear that others are running sandboxes successfully, too!
Wizards, fighters and druids are *supposed* to be in the same group, they are complementary, helping to cover for the inherent weaknesses in each class with a strength of their own. As for core classes being perceived as being somehow boring, they're merely wrappers for a set of skills and abilities that the player can customise. I'll stick my neck out here and say that anybody bored with the core classes can get some variation from the Miniature's handbook (e.g. Favored Soul instead of Cleric). After that, though, that kind of player is really out on their own. They are probably bored of fighting kobolds, too, bored of dragons, bored of dungeons, bored of collecting treasure, winning battles and saving the world. Good players take a character concept that doesn't have to be expressed mechanically and make their characters interesting. 1E restricted players to merely four classes and just look at the variety of play styles it engendered in players. Less can really be more. It's a game of imagination.
Wizards, fighters and druids are *supposed* to be in the same group, they are complementary, helping to cover for the inherent weaknesses in each class with a strength of their own. As for core classes being perceived as being somehow boring, they're merely wrappers for a set of skills and abilities that the player can customise. I'll stick my neck out here and say that anybody bored with the core classes can get some variation from the Miniature's handbook (e.g. Favored Soul instead of Cleric). After that, though, that kind of player is really out on their own. They are probably bored of fighting kobolds, too, bored of dragons, bored of dungeons, bored of collecting treasure, winning battles and saving the world. Good players take a character concept that doesn't have to be expressed mechanically and make their characters interesting. 1E restricted players to merely four classes and just look at the variety of play styles it engendered in players. Less can really be more. It's a game of imagination.
Ahnehnois
First Post
No. They're just guidelines, not everyone goes so far as to even start there.
Grogg of the North
Adventurer
Before every campaign I tend to say something along the lines of "You don't need AC 50 to survive and I will do my best to not put you in a situation where you need that to survive".
Thankfully, most of the players I game with know that I prefer a "Beer and pretzels" style of gaming.
It helps to talk with your players. I, personally, loathe dipping. Yet I've played with people that don't have a problem with it. But since I brought it up right at the beginning everyone was okay with that.
Thankfully, most of the players I game with know that I prefer a "Beer and pretzels" style of gaming.
It helps to talk with your players. I, personally, loathe dipping. Yet I've played with people that don't have a problem with it. But since I brought it up right at the beginning everyone was okay with that.
