Class restrictions

[knifespeaks]

What sort of restrictions do you impose regarding:

1. multiclasses and
2. race/class combos?

As an old guy, I prefer having halflings and dwarves as non-arcane magic using creatures for example.

Also, as far as multiclassing goes, do you require any sort of training for characters to add a new class to the mix?

Just curious to see people's thoughts.

 

[Naathez]

In the world I am preparing for my next campaing, there's nothing "biological" to stop a Dwarf from being a Wizard.

But there's no Dwarf Wizards. Why?

Because they have Warmages, and that's all the arcane magic they care for. So noone is there to teach a Dwarf the basic tenets of scholarly casting. This means that if a player wants to be a Dwarf Mage, he can. But we'll have to find out HOW that happened - and THAT depends on the world, not just on his whim. And he'll surely be at the very least an atypical dwarf. But I DO believe in PCs not being your standard people. Standard people run mills, farms, and fish or hunt in the woods. Oh well, their loss

As for multiclassing, I usually have players who are reasonable in doing that (multiclassing being in the PC's DNA from the start, and part of the concept) and so I don't require special training.

Were one to want to multiclass from Barbarian to Wizard out of the blue in the middle of a dungeon, I'd say no. You need several years of study to learn to cast magic like a Wizard. Period. Were the player to really, really, really want it, deeply, and if i think it could be fun for all, I do have an emergency plan. But it's not revealed beforehand.

 

[knifespeaks]

Your last comment is something I agree with - wizardly magic is a function of much training.

I also take a similar view with clerics and druids - although adding a level of cleric to paladin or druid to ranger isn't such a stretch I guess. The basis of learning is already there to some extent.

 

[Li Shenron]

What sort of restrictions do you impose regarding:

1. multiclasses and
2. race/class combos?

No more restrictions than the PHB, and looking forward to drop even those few (Paladins & Monks). Also looking forward to relax alignment, therefore allowing more class combinations.

Already dropped multiclassing penalties, to eliminate what is not exactly a restriction on class combinations but in practice is a serious drawback on specific level combinations.

I absolutely accept however that a specific setting may demand some choices not to be taken for flavor reason, I just don't like restrictions to be part of generic core rules.

Also, as far as multiclassing goes, do you require any sort of training for characters to add a new class to the mix?

I simply consider training (for anything, and multiclassing gets no special rule) a normal part of downtime between adventures, which usually doesn't need description. Whenever I allow characters to level up in the middle of something, it's my own decision and I don't require anything more from them, I assume that in a way those abilities were already developed even if they just kick-in at the moment. Were I to require training for levelling up, I'd just not them level up while adventuring.

 

[shilsen]

Li Shenron pretty much nailed everything I was about to say.

 

[Tatsukun]

Pretty much the same here. If it fits the story, go for it. If you are a fighter / cleric who finds that the sharp blade is doing more good than the healing hand, go Paladin, no problem.

But, I wouldn't allow someone to change classes drasticly without a reason. If you are a Fighter / Rogue and you want to get good at fighting so you take a level of barbarian, nope.

I also removed the silly multiclass restrictions on Paladins and Monks. (I also improved the monk a bit, but that's another thread).

Finally, to keep people from having to multiclass for skills, I added a feat that gives you a +1 to a skill, and makes it a class skill for you no matter what class you take. It seems to work fairly well, a few people have taken it, but not everyone.

-T

 

[Fauxargent]

IMC Rules on mulitclassing and Favoured Class are applied.

The restrictions for Paladins and Monks are also applied (although some orders allow specific multiclass combos)

Anyone becoming a wizard after 1st level starts with just Read magic and 3+INT bonus spells (0th or 1st). They haven't had the long apprenticeship required to learn every cantrip. (But the time required to understand and copy spells into spellbooks have been reduced).

Barbarians who take another class do not suddenly become literate.

 

[irdeggman]

If you want more detailed (and restrictive rules to invoke for training - use the ones in the 3.5 DMG starting on pg 197. Our DM uses them, although he changed the cost for gp to sp (or else his economy would have gone bust). This does cause some problems since not all characters advance at the same time. This is especially prevelant when PCs die or a player misses a session or two.


One thing you should never do, IMO, is impose different training restrictions based solely on class. This is just not fair to the players. It is not right for a player running a wizard to have to take longer to train than one running a fighter. This is what balance in 3.5 is all about. Ensuring that all players feel they are being treated the same and not that some are getting "special" treatment.

As far as dwarven wizards go. When 3.0 came out I immediately jumped on the chance to try this "new" concept. I took one level of fighter (for survival and also because it just felt right for a dwarf to start that way), then switched to wizard. I subsequently discovered why dwarven wizards have a hard time. Movement. My PC couldn't move far enough fast enough to stay out of danger and since he wasn't wearing armor I didn't want that nasty arcane spell failure chance) he had a poor AC. Yes, I should have used expeditious retreat, but didn't - and a 1st level wizard can only cast so many spells.

Knifespeaks,
Is there really anything about 3.5 that you like? I mean you are consistently posting about things you want to change and don't like how they work (and prefer 1st ed mechanics instead), e.g., initiative, taking 10/20 and now the class choices and training being more difficult for certain classes.

 

[knifespeaks]

Knifespeaks,
Is there really anything about 3.5 that you like? I mean you are consistently posting about things you want to change and don't like how they work (and prefer 1st ed mechanics instead), e.g., initiative, taking 10/20 and now the class choices and training being more difficult for certain classes.

Indeed there is! My question stemmed from a separate thread I was reading, wherein players were building characters designed to maximise the offensive power against certain enemies - which, whilst permissible, struck me as...well, not my kinda thing, y'know?

Just to put your mind at ease, here's a list of things I like:
Sorcerers
Bards (I never encountered bards as a class you could play solely from first)
AC = to hit roll (one of the best aspects of 3.x - I didn't mind the to hit matrix, but less tables to look up = good)
Armour check penalties
Skills
Feats (especially feats - excellent idea)
Prestige classes (weird - people who know me would have thought it would be the first thing I hated - but PrC work really well as a facet of character development)
Critical hits (makes combat a bit more dangerous = good)

Where I seem to really differ to many others is in my approach to the game - namely, that characters are incidental.

I play a game where, to use a quote from the first ed DMG "always give a monster an even break". This means that players have enough advantages without me designing things solely for their class and skill combos. It means if a trap kills, it kills (no trap is lethal without good reason though - high level areas and the like). Intelligent villains, who have encountered the party before, or have had time to study the party, will use all the tactics he/she believes the party will have no defense against - which is the way it should be. PC's don't use fireball against fire giants, so why shouldn't smart foes use a similar train of thought?

Likewise, stupid means stupid - stupid monsters, or those with no brains are easy meat. But intelligent beasties are very bad juju.

Many of you likely play exactly the same type of game I do

 

[Saeviomagy]

Were one to want to multiclass from Barbarian to Wizard out of the blue in the middle of a dungeon, I'd say no. You need several years of study to learn to cast magic like a Wizard. Period. Were the player to really, really, really want it, deeply, and if i think it could be fun for all, I do have an emergency plan. But it's not revealed beforehand.

See - my point of view would be "if the character has a high enough intelligence, and he's multiclassing to wizard, then he MUST have been practising some tricks/had some previous training"

You know, in that 8 hours that aren't adventuring or sleeping time.

Beyond that - he'd have to have put SOME thought into it, otherwise he has no spellbook...

I also take a similar view with clerics and druids

See I really disagree with this one. To me clerical or druidic power is a manifestation of faith, not a result of study. For a character to suddenly have faith, or strong enough faith, is something that is easily glossed over.