D&D 3E/3.5 What do you ban? (3.5)

[Celebrim]

Puking over a build like that?

I didn't find it very amusing either. I'm not sure what to say. Dandu asked for someone's honest opinion, and now Dandu is unhappy with the honest opinion. What would you rather, a dishonest opinion? Seriously, any artist knows that when he presents his work, some people are going to trash it. No body likes all of my work either. So what? I understand the hurt you feel when your art is rejected, but I'd rather some one say, "This is junk", than try to protect my feelings.

Personally, I find the character to be juvenile to the point of infantile. Frankly, I'd hope that outside of a humerous one shot that even junior high players are a little more serious and a little less lame than that. It's not even really a character. It's instead a great example of mechanical class substituting for character and of the idea that you are what you can do. It's pretty much everything that drove players from D&D since way back in the 1970's - juvenile, purile, lame, and just a bit wacko.

It's also got other even more significant problems. For one thing, it's not a class built on backstory. It's a class built on forestory. In otherwords, this character isn't the 'character' when he's a 1st level ranger. This character is an amalgam of abilities, not of personality traits, beliefs, and attitudes. He doesn't have a history. No fundamental or intruiging questions are raised by this character. No interesting conflicts suggest themselves from this character, and especially no conflicts that have any sort of resonance with anything anyone experiences in the real world. He has a 'theme song', and he's a couple of levels less deep in his conception than 'George of the Jungle' or 'Roger Ramjet'. This is the 'SNL Skit' of player character creation - wierd, tolerable only in small doses, requiring more talent to pull of than the comedian playing the part has, and hasn't been funny since the '70's.

Like I said, this is ok for a beer and pretzels one shot, but after about 4 or 8 hours of play this very shallow schtick is going to get really old, and the player is probably going to be trying to keep gnawing that old bone for humor long after any of the meat is gone. As an exercise in mechanical creativity, I guess the 'I bite you' and 'My constitution is a god-stat' parts of it are ok (except that all the creativity there is really in the people who did the class write ups), but as an exercise in creative character building it just leaves me completely cold. Sufficiently so, that if someone proposed this as a character in my game, that I'd have to ask them whether they were really sure my game was right for them. I don't mind there being a certain amount of goofy behavior and inhibition relaxing in the game. But I get the feeling that the creator of this character wants that to be the entire game. That to me suggests 'problem player' and 'munchkin' every bit as much as a powered up twink in the hands of someone who seems to have his ego invested in 'winning'.

 

[Celebrim]

Dewd, wtf? Seriously? How would you like it if you painted a picture, and some stranger said it looked like someone's butt, and it made him want to gouge his eyes out with a dull spoon? Seriously, thats VERY insulting.

Maybe. But, if I painted a picture and asked some stranger what he thought of it, and they really thought it looked like someone's butt and it really did want to make them gouge his eyes out with a dull spoon, then that's what I'd want them to say. The last thing I need is someone bolstering my ego (which I have a surplus of) or trying to save my feelings (which, being almost autistic I don't have a lot of).

Why couldn't you be more accepting of others wishes to play as they wish, and you yourself play as you want without others judgement.

Because it's a social game and that idea cannot be perfectly achieved. Everyone's play impacts everyone elses play, and everyone's play impacts everyone elses ability to enjoy the game. One thing that has to be avoided at the table and which is absolutely wrecking to the game is a player trying to monopolize the game. That can happen in several ways. One way is a player builds a mechanically broken character and then proceeds to solve all the parties challenges single handedly. Another way it can happen is for a player to become a tedious amateur actor, roleplaying out at real time length every conversation with every passing farmer and merchant, spending 15 minutes haggling over the price of a peck of oranges and another 10 minutes discussing the weather and the prospects of a good wheat crop this year. Another way it can happen is if the player tries to grab spot light at all times, usually by playing some sort of wildly anti-social, kooky, 'humorous', "Tasselhoff Burrfoot" sort of character and then whenever they don't feel like they are the center of attention doing whatever they can to derail the game while saying that they are 'staying true to the character'.

These are classic play issues that have been around and discussed since the '70's, and when someone declares the intention to play "Beardfist Fistbeard" and describes a drunk that pummels you to death with his beard, I tend to get the impression that not only do we have incompatible gaming interests but that we have a player who is likely to create intraparty conflict unless every single player at the table is going for 'gonzo' and additionally willing to share spotlight.

Now, if the player is willing to moderate himself, 'gonzo crazies', 'amateur thespians', and 'power gamers' can all contribute to successful and enjoyable play with each player bring something valuable to the table.

But 'Beardfist Fistbeard' is just dumb.

 

[Eman Resu]

Brilliant use-(ab) of constitution which influences the whole PC; h pts, fort save, will save, add con mod to AC, jeeess all you need now is to find a way to have your con cause damge, err wait, this just in, Kensai, concentration for bonus +8 to str!

I thought CHA was the multi facet stat that could be (ab)used. Wow I sit corrected!

As far as all the back n forth over the "I gotta puke" comment ahh lads its just an expression, c'mon now buck up.

Eman Resu

 

[Corwin of Amber]

Just to generally address the people that seem to discourage and/or dislike multiclassing: Why are you trying to bend to your will a system based so heavily on building your character via multiclassing and mechanics to represent fluff?

Why not just try to play older versions where your only options were a single multiclass or dualclassing?

I have to agree with Dandu's points about Fistbeard Beardfist, what's wrong with representing a character with what he can do? After all, when you introduce yourself to people you would identify yourself by your job title or as a practitioner of some hobby rather than giving them a complete breakdown of your psychological motivations.

Just one more point I should make:

*snip*

It's also got other even more significant problems. For one thing, it's not a class built on backstory. It's a class built on forestory. In otherwords, this character isn't the 'character' when he's a 1st level ranger.

*snip

Are you saying that you wouldn't let a player play a Rogue 10/Sorcerer 10 because at level 1 he cannot have abilities of both classes, therfore his development could not possible encompass such a combination? Essentially you are saying that a character must have the exact same attitude at level 1 that he will have at level 20. Do you refuse your players the chance to allow their characters to grow and change?

What about this for his Ranger 1 backstory? I'm a Ranger, my life was destroyed by my excessive alcohol consumption, so I took on a mantle of asceticism to try and control myself. I learned the ways of the Monks, their discipline through martial arts. Eventually I learned to embrace my vice as a source of power, rather than a weakness.

As far as I can tell, the only concession to humor is that he uses his beard to fight. Change that to fists and you have a normal character.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Fistbeard Beardfist is awesome. I don't generally allow the same stat to AC twice, and for heavy multiclassing I do prefer the use of fractional save and BAB rules. But otherwise, great character concept that I'd totally allow in a game.

Multiclassing is generally bad for spellcasters, the most powerful 3E classes, and beneficial to non-casters. It's also the life-blood of the 3E system. So I don't restrict it at all, aside from following the multiclassing XP rules that seem to be hugely unpopular on the internet. I definitely do not like full progression spellcasting PrC's, though, which are the only exception to the above stated general rule that multiclassing is bad for casters. Thsoe I think unbalanced the game a lot. I don't mind them if they even lose a single CL early on in the class and otherwise give 9/10 progression, I don't even mind ones that have requirements that make dipping a martial or other class 1 or more levels unavoidable but then go on to give full progression in the PrC itself. Those tend to be more balanced. The ones a pure wizard or other spellcaster can easily enter are much more iffy. If the PrC benefits are modest and offset by an equally painful magnitude of pre-reqs, like crappy feats, can still be ok but if not it should probably be nerfed or banned.

 

[Celebrim]

Just to generally address the people that seem to discourage and/or dislike multiclassing: Why are you trying to bend to your will a system based so heavily on building your character via multiclassing and mechanics to represent fluff?

a) I don't dislike mutliclassing nor do I try to discourage it. I have rules that discourage multiclassing into more than 3 or 4 classes, and I have designed my system to only need 12 or so broad base classes total, but multiclassing is encouraged. In my current campaign I have 6 PC's and at 3rd level 2 of the 6 are already multiclassed, and a third is thinking about it.
b) I don't mind building up a character's abilities with mechanics or using mechanics to give a character a particular schtick. What I object to is the idea of continually adding inflexible chunky PrC's as the means to get there. What that really suggests to me is that either there aren't enough feats or class ability customization to obtain the concept (and that may require me bringing in a discussion of how many feats are 'enough'), or that the feats required to obtain the concept don't exist or are poorly designed, or that the base class is unnecessarily narrow and inflexible.

Why not just try to play older versions where your only options were a single multiclass or dualclassing?

The question is too broad to answer in a reasonable amount of time.

I have to agree with Dandu's points about Fistbeard Beardfist, what's wrong with representing a character with what he can do?

Nothing. My problem with Fistbeard Beardfist was what he represented, and not that he had mechanics that fit his abilities. My problem with the system is that it requires the player to dip 6 different classes to obtain "barehanded brawler" (assuming that you wish the system to allow for barehanded brawler). I think the example is a poor one because it illustrates two separate problems, and I have probably been focusing on the wrong one. Let's assume however I love the concept, the problem remains is the hoops the player had to jump through to get there. Why is all that crazy dipping necessary? Why do we need 400 PrC's? If we want monks in our game, why do we need to have a PrC like Kensai or something that makes monks a (somewhat) viable concept? Why can't 'monk' itself be a viable concept?

A slightly more technical problem is mechanical variation for its own sake. Most of the abilities that Fistbeard Beardfist aren't technically essential to his concept, they are simply synergistic mechanics that give some mechanical advantage - like making his Constitution a god-stat that serves for almost every purpose so that maxing out constitution alone gives near universal benefit. That's not an essential component of the character. That's a particular mechanical implementation of the concept. Sometimes players mistake the particular mechanics of their concept for the concept itself. For example, getting AC from constitution is a particular implementation of 'tough'. But its purely arbitrary whether AC from constitution or DR from constitution or extra hit points from constitution above the normal is the 'right' implementation of 'tough'. The point is that the player needs some mechanical marker that means 'not just tough, but extra tough'. What PrC's from different splatbooks tend to do after a while is give every variation on 'not just tough, but extra tough', leading players to dip for every variation. This is like having a class based system that picks up all the problems of a point buy system. You've now got all the lack of character breadth combined with the more limited flexibility of class based.

Sure, some players like that sort of system mastery and mechanical variation for its own sake, but its one of the primary reasons that 3.5 got unworkably unbalanced in the long run. The way 3.5 was set up, you couldn't add more variation to the system (more viable concepts) without as a side effect incidently breaking things in combination with existing things. And that's to say nothing of the initimidation that such a system brings to a new player, both in terms of rules understanding and the economic burden of buying up all those splatbooks.

And ultimately, I think the designers of 3.5 knew that it was bad for the game as whole, but knew also that it was a profitable economic model to continue to provide endless mechanical variation on themes spread all over the place.

After all, when you introduce yourself to people you would identify yourself by your job title or as a practitioner of some hobby rather than giving them a complete breakdown of your psychological motivations.

I might, but its worth pointing out that I'm not my job title or my hobby and the reason that I would tell you what I do but not who I am would be precisely so that I wouldn't want you to know who I am until I'd established I could trust you.

Are you saying that you wouldn't let a player play a Rogue 10/Sorcerer 10 because at level 1 he cannot have abilities of both classes, therfore his development could not possible encompass such a combination?

To begin with, if a character wanted to play say a 'Gutter Mage' that was equal parts rog and sorcerer, he'd start out as a 0th/0th level apprentice type character using the 3.0 rules for multiclassing 0th level characters. He'd probably also start out with the Unusual Background (Gutter Mage) to make skills synergize better. And then, he'd probably start up the 'Interdisciplinary Student' feat tree to ensure that he didn't sacrifice his spellcasting ability too much, given that a rog10/sor10 is a pretty suboptimal build without some help.

And secondly, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a second level ranger contains none of what is apparantly considered the essential aspects of 'Fistbeard Beardfist'. Most of his mechanics that will define him are well into his future. That's all well and good if you are starting out with 10th or 12th level characters, but it shouldn't have to take you to 10th or 12th level and 6 class dips to have your schtick in place.

Essentially you are saying that a character must have the exact same attitude at level 1 that he will have at level 20. Do you refuse your players the chance to allow their characters to grow and change?

Whoa there. I believe you are confusing emotional growth with mechanical or skill growth. Characters certainly grow and change in my game, and in an ideal world most of that growth and change isn't reflected in merely increased combat ability.

What about this for his Ranger 1 backstory? I'm a Ranger, my life was destroyed by my excessive alcohol consumption, so I took on a mantle of asceticism to try and control myself. I learned the ways of the Monks, their discipline through martial arts. Eventually I learned to embrace my vice as a source of power, rather than a weakness.

Forestory. At the time he's a Ranger 1, his Monk career is still in his future.

 

[Corwin of Amber]

a) I don't dislike mutliclassing nor do I try to discourage it. I have rules that discourage multiclassing into more than 3 or 4 classes, and I have designed my system to only need 12 or so broad base classes total, but multiclassing is encouraged. In my current campaign I have 6 PC's and at 3rd level 2 of the 6 are already multiclassed, and a third is thinking about it.

*snip*

Nothing. My problem with Fistbeard Beardfist was what he represented, and not that he had mechanics that fit his abilities. My problem with the system is that it requires the player to dip 6 different classes to obtain "barehanded brawler" (assuming that you wish the system to allow for barehanded brawler). I think the example is a poor one because it illustrates two separate problems, and I have probably been focusing on the wrong one. Let's assume however I love the concept, the problem remains is the hoops the player had to jump through to get there. Why is all that crazy dipping necessary? Why do we need 400 PrC's? If we want monks in our game, why do we need to have a PrC like Kensai or something that makes monks a (somewhat) viable concept? Why can't 'monk' itself be a viable concept?

It seems to me that if you modify the base classes to have viable ailities, it eliminates the need for multiclassing, by attatching the PrC to the base class. This is perfectly fine. If the core Monk began to acquire Kensai abilities starting at level 10, it would be conceptually and flavorfully sound without needing multiclassing. Essentially the concept of multiclassing is allowing the players to modify/homebrew their own 20 level base classes. Just to repeat, there is nothing wrong with making a system that allows classes to more accurately focus without requiring focus specific PrCs.

A slightly more technical problem is mechanical variation for its own sake. Most of the abilities that Fistbeard Beardfist aren't technically essential to his concept, they are simply synergistic mechanics that give some mechanical advantage - like making his Constitution a god-stat that serves for almost every purpose so that maxing out constitution alone gives near universal benefit. That's not an essential component of the character. That's a particular mechanical implementation of the concept. Sometimes players mistake the particular mechanics of their concept for the concept itself. For example, getting AC from constitution is a particular implementation of 'tough'. But its purely arbitrary whether AC from constitution or DR from constitution or extra hit points from constitution above the normal is the 'right' implementation of 'tough'. The point is that the player needs some mechanical marker that means 'not just tough, but extra tough'. What PrC's from different splatbooks tend to do after a while is give every variation on 'not just tough, but extra tough', leading players to dip for every variation. This is like having a class based system that picks up all the problems of a point buy system. You've now got all the lack of character breadth combined with the more limited flexibility of class based.

Sure, some players like that sort of system mastery and mechanical variation for its own sake, but its one of the primary reasons that 3.5 got unworkably unbalanced in the long run. The way 3.5 was set up, you couldn't add more variation to the system (more viable concepts) without as a side effect incidently breaking things in combination with existing things. And that's to say nothing of the initimidation that such a system brings to a new player, both in terms of rules understanding and the economic burden of buying up all those splatbooks.

And ultimately, I think the designers of 3.5 knew that it was bad for the game as whole, but knew also that it was a profitable economic model to continue to provide endless mechanical variation on themes spread all over the place.

At its heart, D&D is a game of competition, even though cooperation between some players will occur. While multiclassing for mechanics can be annoying, this particular example is not a case of that. For a character that uses his own toughness as his only answer, the various abilities fit.

However, each group is free to define their own level of CharOp vs RP (although, note the Stormwind Fallacy). This is a purely subjective realm and debate is pointless here. There is no wrong answer, so I'm fine with this.

I might, but its worth pointing out that I'm not my job title or my hobby and the reason that I would tell you what I do but not who I am would be precisely so that I wouldn't want you to know who I am until I'd established I could trust you.

Trust issues aside, this is 100% true. So why can't it be true for a character? If his abilities are not who he is, they why should his lack of abilities at low levels define who he is?

To begin with, if a character wanted to play say a 'Gutter Mage' that was equal parts rog and sorcerer, he'd start out as a 0th/0th level apprentice type character using the 3.0 rules for multiclassing 0th level characters. He'd probably also start out with the Unusual Background (Gutter Mage) to make skills synergize better. And then, he'd probably start up the 'Interdisciplinary Student' feat tree to ensure that he didn't sacrifice his spellcasting ability too much, given that a rog10/sor10 is a pretty suboptimal build without some help.

And secondly, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a second level ranger contains none of what is apparantly considered the essential aspects of 'Fistbeard Beardfist'. Most of his mechanics that will define him are well into his future. That's all well and good if you are starting out with 10th or 12th level characters, but it shouldn't have to take you to 10th or 12th level and 6 class dips to have your schtick in place.

*snip*

Forestory. At the time he's a Ranger 1, his Monk career is still in his future.

First, I used Sor 10/Rogue 10 as a simple example; Op level is not important for this facet of the argument (fee free to assume that it is, instead, the beginning of an optimized class).

Now, these two arguments seem contradictory. So would you allow a 0th/0th level Sorcerer/Rogue apprenticeship but not a 0th/0th level Ranger/Monk apprenticeship?

It could be argued that, by 3.5 mechanics w/o homebrew or going back to 3.0 apprentice rules that the Sorcerer in that build is forestory. Plus, you said you would allow 3-4 classes. If your players wanted to take you up on that and run a 4 class character, would you force them to start as a 0th/0th/0th/0th level character or allow them to gain new abilities later on, not related to what they had at the start?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

3 PrCs and 400 PrCs are different numbers.

Just, you know.

Just pointing that out.

I mean they're just radically, radically different numbers, you know.

It's really bad hyperbole, I guess, is my point.

You know, trying to claim 3 as being 400.

If you have a problem with this, I seriously have no idea how you function in 3e. Two base classes, three PrCs. Not a biggie. And there's a huge number of characters you can't play from level 1. Lastly, getting mad someone made choices that gave a mechanical benefit is absurd. It's like getting mad the fighter made strength his high stat.

Also, I only want serious gamers in my game with giant floating brains with beaks and monsters designed around childrens toys. Like that scene in LotR when Gimli and Legolas fight playfully? No way, never would happen in my games, it's not serious enough. And if your dwarf isn't a fighter 20 with an axe you can just get the hell out.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's really bad hyperbole, I guess, is my point.

Also, I only want serious gamers in my game with giant floating brains with beaks and monsters designed around childrens toys. Like that scene in LotR when Gimli and Legolas fight playfully? No way, never would happen in my games, it's not serious enough. And if your dwarf isn't a fighter 20 with an axe you can just get the hell out.

Talk about really bad hyperbole. If you don't want a joke character, you only want insanely serious sessions? This is a dangerous game that both sides are engaging in. It's best not to make too many assumptions, and just state different opinions civilly.

Simply saying "it's not my cup of tea, but to each their own" would go a long way in making this thread seem a lot more mellow. Maybe even productive again.

 

[Celebrim]

It seems to me that if you modify the base classes to have viable ailities, it eliminates the need for multiclassing, by attatching the PrC to the base class. This is perfectly fine. If the core Monk began to acquire Kensai abilities starting at level 10, it would be conceptually and flavorfully sound without needing multiclassing. Essentially the concept of multiclassing is allowing the players to modify/homebrew their own 20 level base classes.

- emphasis added.

In my opinion, that is what feat and class ability choices do. Multi-classing exists IMO to hybridize characters that want to do two unlike things, or to move into the grey zones between two classes. Conceptually rogue and fighter are quite similar, but there is still some space between them not fully colonized by one or the other - call it 'Thug' or 'Swashbuckler' or any number of other concepts. We shouldn't need a 'Thug' or 'Swashbuckler' PrC to occupy this unclaimed space IMO if the base classes are well designed and the feats suitably diverse, common, and powerful. Multiclassing base classes and selecting flavorful and impactful feats should be enough, and if it isn't, then we need to be looking somewhere else than the PrC as a solution.

Trust issues aside, this is 100% true. So why can't it be true for a character? If his abilities are not who he is, they why should his lack of abilities at low levels define who he is?

They don't. Because a character isn't defined by what they can do. That's a D&Dism that annoyed to no end many of the first generation of role-players. And so, you see things like Chivalry & Sorcery and Pendragon and so forth created to address that. What a character can do is only a small part of truly having a 'character'. You also must have beliefs, traits, values, personality, quirks, and relationships with the world. A starting character should have all those things, and a true background addresses primarily those things. D&D's starting assumption is that a new character has yet limited abilities, but that doesn't mean D&D assumes you start without character.

First, I used Sor 10/Rogue 10 as a simple example; Op level is not important for this facet of the argument (fee free to assume that it is, instead, the beginning of an optimized class).

Now, these two arguments seem contradictory. So would you allow a 0th/0th level Sorcerer/Rogue apprenticeship but not a 0th/0th level Ranger/Monk apprenticeship?

With the exception that I have neither rangers nor monks, I would. So, I'd be just as happy to allow a Hunter/Fighter character as any other combo. My goal is to allow for freedom of multiclassing while making optimization as natural as possible.

It could be argued that, by 3.5 mechanics w/o homebrew or going back to 3.0 apprentice rules that the Sorcerer in that build is forestory.

I've argued in many places that 3.5 broke more than it fixed.

Plus, you said you would allow 3-4 classes. If your players wanted to take you up on that and run a 4 class character, would you force them to start as a 0th/0th/0th/0th level character or allow them to gain new abilities later on, not related to what they had at the start?

I would focus on the concept, and not on the mechancs. When I help a new player start a character, I start with his concept and then give him options of how to mechanically represent the concept. So let's say I had a player who said, "I want to play a 'martial artist ranger', but I don't see either monk or ranger in your game. How do I get there?" And if we talked about the options he decided, "Ok, I see how that works, but now I'm probably going to end up being a multiclassed Hunter/Explorer/Fighter/Shaman, so what do I start as." And again, you focus on concept not on mechanics. I'm about to run my game, but I'd probably have them start as Explorer0/Shaman0, and then pick up Fighter and Hunter later to reinforce the concept.