No More Multi-Classing

[Kae'Yoss]

Well said. 90% of 3.5 players would say, "You mean I can't be a 20th level Divine Gelatinous Cube/Rogue/Half-Dragon/Paladin/Sorcerer/Monk/Black Hand of Death Wanderer? Forget it! That SUXXORS!"

Yes, and then they'd crack up and laugh themselves silly about you.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

While there is lots to detest about your snarky, marginally insulting reply, I wanted to focus on this particular train of thought for a moment.

Apparently, you failed to read carefully, where I talked about fairness and not being a DM that just hands out death sentences out of some perverse pleasure. I respect the fact that you may have a different preferred playstyle that is more 'story' or 'narrative' centered. What I don't respect is you responding as if the whole purpose of my post was to lament the loss of the days when I could kill 8 or 12 PCs per session.

Why don't you go back and read it again -- this time without clawing your eyes out so you can actually see the words.

I've read it perfectly well the first time. You're talking about an antagonist relationship with your players. Being fair isn't antatonist. So you might choose your words more carefully to avoid misunderstandings.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

But the whole point is that I *want* to have fun playing D&D. because, you know, it's fun.

Our point is "others want to have fun playing in that game, too".

Last thing first: why do you think every AD&D campaign world was dominated by humans despite the obvious superiority of demi-humans

Because some silly people thought that humans had to rule. It never really made sense, but I can live with it most of the time.

What breaks suspension of disbelief more is that in 3e, every race can achieve a theoretically unlimited number of levels in a theoretically unlimited number of classes. Why don't the long lived races completely dominate the world. Why don't Epic Level elves control every inch of land and sea?

Why indeed?

But why should a dwarf be able to be a wizard, other than to make things fair and even and let the player that wants to be a dwarf wizard play that?

Why shouldn't he? It's as simple as that. It doesn't make no sense at all that it should be physically impossible tfor dwarves to become wizards, for halflings to become rangers or for elves to become bards. Socially shunned maybe (except in the elven bard thing, which was the greatest brainfart ever introduced as a rule in any RPG), but not impossible. Especially not according to the core rules.

 

[Reynard]

I've read it perfectly well the first time. You're talking about an antagonist relationship with your players. Being fair isn't antatonist. So you might choose your words more carefully to avoid misunderstandings.

Alternatively, you could take the post as a whole and comment on that, as opposed to picking out just what you want to make some point.

In any case, an antagonistic or competetive relationship between DM and Players -- as I defined it above -- may not be for everyone. Some people prefer 'cooperative storytelling' RPG play. I do too, sometimes. But that's not the point. The point is that -- as your responses have so wonderfully illustrated; thanks! -- that style of play has been labelled as inherently immature, inferior, unfair and unfun by many. But it is inherently none of those things.

Here's my attitude boiled down to the deal I'd make with my players: If you agree to give it your all, I'll agree to make it worth the effort.

 

[Reynard]

Because it can be just as viable an archetype. A dwarven wizard as a rune-carver, master smith, impeccable historian, and forger of great mysteries that commands the very bones of the earth.

Tell me that's not appropriately dwarven. It's all in how you do it. Wizard doesn't automatically mean long robes and pointy hats.

It sure is. I really wasn't making a specific statement about dwarves and the wizard class -- that was just an example. But the point stands: not every setting or campaign supports the full range of options, even limiting to the Core rules. The problem is that players tend to feel that they should be able to play whatever they want -- the dwarven wizard in a setting that hews close to the older definitions of the races, for example -- as opposed to seeing what options are appropriate and creating a compelling, fun character within those constraints. The problem is even more pronounced when you have people that actually paid money for (for example) Complete Warrior and feel they should be able to use the material in the book, regardless of how it fits the setting or campaign simply because they *paid* for it.

 

[Hussar]

Heh.

Just wanted to comment on something:

But pretty much every piece of fiction consider to be a part of the body of work that led to and influenced D&D has shown mighty thewed hereos running for their lives like little girls. Why don't players accept that possibility these days?

Because some DM's are complete wimps? I dunno, my bunch runs away all the time. Tactical play is part and parcel to my game. Then again, I have an average of 1 PC death every 4 sessions, so, that may have something to do with it. The idea that players don't run away may be your experience, but it certainly isn't mine.

Then again, IME, in 1e, we never ran from anything because nothing could come close to threatening you in melee after about 4th level. Same went for 2e as well. YMMV and all that. The only deaths I ever saw in earlier editions was due to failed saving throws. Killed by HP loss? In 2e or 1e? When creatures couldn't do more than about 15 points of damage in a round? Yeah right.

 

[drothgery]

Funny thing is, I did the same thing to create my homebrew, to see what roles were missing. I actually did a chart featuring the 6 ability scores and the 4 core roles, which actually gave more options and allowed for the feel I wanted, so that worked for me

Nice job, anyways - although the beguiler and archivist would have to be made less niche, and the Theurge would need some major balancing tweaks.... but neat, none-the-less

My idea, more fully fleshed out, was
- all casters use an MP system based on XPH psionics
- all classes have a magic rating (there's just one MP chart; even fighters get MP, though they can't use it without taking feats for channeling ki or raging or Tome of Battle manuever-esque stuff)
- either casters have a small list where they get everything (beguiler, duskblade, cleric) or they have spellbooks and a 'spells readied' mechanic (archivist, priest, wizard, theurge)
- every class would have a 'thing' that they do really well
- d4 HDs and 2 skill point/level classes would go away

archivist - access to all divine spells, full magic rating, spellbook/readied spells, 6 skill points/level, divine knowledge-esque abilites, 1/2 BAB, d6 HPs, light armor, simple weapons

beguiler - limitted set of arcane spells (mostly illusion and enchantment), 3/4 magic rating, knows all class spells, 6 skill points/level, stealth/magic and/or social/magic abilities, 3/4 BAB, d6 HPs, light armor, simple weapons

cleric - limitted set of divine spells (including spells by deity); mostly buff spells and healing, 3/4 magic rating, knows all class spells + all deity spells, holy warrior special abilities by deity/alignment, 3/4 BAB, d8 HPs, heavy armor, simple weapons + deity's favored weapon, 4 skill points/level

duskblade - limitted set of arcane spells (mostly touch attack spells), 3/4 magic rating, knows all class spells, 4 skill points/level, warrior mage special abilities, full BAB, d8 HPs, light armor, martial weapons

fighter - no spells, 1/4 magic rating, 4 skill points/level, warrior special abilities (i.e. lots of combat feats), full BAB, d10 HPs, heavy armor, martial weapons

priest - access to all divine spells, full magic rating, spellbook/readied spells, 4 skill points/level, "white mage" special abilities + special abilities by deity/alignment, 1/2 BAB, d6 HPs, light armor, simple weapons

rogue - no spells, 1/4 magic rating, 8 skill points/level, stealth/skill special abilities, 3/4 BAB, d8 HPs, light armor, simple weapons, light martial weapons

swashbuckler - no spells, 1/4 magic rating, 6 skill points/level, "light fighter" and "courtier" special abilities, light armor, martial weapons, full BAB, d8 HPs

theurge - access to all spells, full magic rating, spellbook/readied spells, 4 skill points/level, no special abilities beyond spells, d6 HPs, 1/2 BAB

wizard - access to all arcane spells, full magic rating, spellbook/readied spells, 4 skill points/level, "mage" special abilities (familiar, item creation, metamagic, etc.), d6 HPs, 1/2 BAB

 

[Nyaricus]

Very cool, dro. You should start up a thread in HR and extrapolate on that - it'd be a very interesting read on your take on D&D

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The problem is that players tend to feel that they should be able to play whatever they want -- the dwarven wizard in a setting that hews close to the older definitions of the races, for example -- as opposed to seeing what options are appropriate and creating a compelling, fun character within those constraints.

Not everyone wants to play stereotypes all the time. Some times you want to break the molds. Play a dwarven wizard because dwarves frown on wizardry.

As I said: I understand dwarves being extremely prejudiced against magic in a setting. It's one of the popular flaws attributed to dwarves. So every dwarf pracising magic will be shunned, maybe even killed if found out. But unless you have a good explanation why it should be simply impossible to become a wizard if you're a dwarf, it's an arbitrary ruling.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

My idea, more fully fleshed out, was
- all casters use an MP system based on XPH psionics
- all classes have a magic rating (there's just one MP chart; even fighters get MP, though they can't use it without taking feats for channeling ki or raging or Tome of Battle manuever-esque stuff)
- either casters have a small list where they get everything (beguiler, duskblade, cleric) or they have spellbooks and a 'spells readied' mechanic (archivist, priest, wizard, theurge)
- every class would have a 'thing' that they do really well
- d4 HDs and 2 skill point/level classes would go away

I have a similar idea for my homebrew:

- for magic, I use Elements of Magic (I really want to try this out)
- instead of a multitude of classes, there are three: warrior, expert, spellcaster. They're not the NPC classes, and not quite the generic character classes (they're more powerful, as are the races, but there will be no magic items like there are in general D&D, so, it's more about personal power than items)
- each class gets a spellcaster level (full for spellcasters, poor (1/2) for experts, latent (1/4) for warriors
- no class skill lists
- free multiclassing
- old class abilities turned into feats.


There will not be different spellcasters per se, but there will be spellcasting traditions, like priest (more power for spell lists favoured by your deity, but you may not use spell lists that are anathema to your deity), warlock (get a weak attack spell at will with no mp cost, limited upgrades via more feats), mage (improved proficiency with spell preparation), shifter, druid, stuff like that. If you qualify for several traditions, you can use more than one (as basically, they're a large part of the feats that are geared towards spellcasters, just like warriors have many combat feats), which is a bit like multiclassing several spellcasting classes.