Encouraging players to role-play multiclassing?

[Bendris Noulg]

Well I guess when in the average game your PCs go to level 36, things are different.

Actually, she's a solo character. The others average 5th and 12th.

Of course following the rules, if the PrC is gained at level 12 or after, they'd never reach the full 10 levels of the class. But why let little things like rules get in the way. I really love the "my way or the highway" DMs. They are those who make the stereotype of the power-hungry DM true. Me, I prefer to have fun with my friends, tell an interesting story, and have the DM and players in a non-confrontational relationship.

Your post says so much about you, it's not even funny...

It is interesting to note that you seem to believe that adding RP elements to an RPG eliminates fun as well as presents a "confrontational" relationship between GM and player. Guess what? I've seen this attitude before. And when I do, I have a hard time getting the guy out the door before my fun-lovin', non-confrontational players do!!! Of course, they recognize the fact that a GM is often there to deliver an adventure and plot line that is cohesive and well constructed in a viable, believable campaign setting, not to cater to every petty whim that any spoiled brat walking in the door might have simply because the rules don't forbid it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that you are entitled to everything you might possibly desire. You are likely missing some extremely good games because you're too selfish to get into the spirit of things.

 

[DragonLancer]

Rayne strikes again! That guy kills me, man.

Yep, thats him. *Rolls eyes*

 

[Barak]

I think you misunderstood what I mean, and hopefully, I misunderstood what you meant as well. I'm not saying you need to tell your players "Ok, in this campaign there's a secret guild that kills people, so the PrC Assassin is possible. There's also a bunch of people that hide in the woods shooting at stuff, and some of them are OotBI, so that's possible too" and so on and so forth. But what I got from what you said earlier is that if a player came to you when he levelled and asked "Hmm.. I think my PC would be well-suited to be a Dwarven Defender. Do you allow those in your campaign?" you'd reply "well I'm not saying. You'll have to take the pre-reqs -in case- they do and you can find a teacher, but they're might not be any in the campaign".

Now, how does that make the game more fun/realistic/full of RP? Obviously, the DM isn't supposed to detail every secret organization in his World, but then again, not all organizations are secret either.

There's also the fact that I believe -some- PrCs do not necesserly require a tutor, but that's a whole different deal, and one in which I'd say that you'd be in your right to say it's not the case anyway.

Oh, and as for levelling past level 20, officially you stop gaining class abilities and what-not. Now I personally think that it's a bit silly anyway, so more power to you if you do things differently, but I thought I'd point that out.

 

[BSF]

I think we have a little misunderstanding going on. But, I do expect my players to speak with me about any PrC's that they may be interested in well in advance of when they want to take it. Otherwise, they may find that I object to the PrC doesn't exist, or exists in a different form than the book. As well, the player may not be aware of all the options. There may be a PrC that fits their concept better. For many PrC's, there may be non-mechanic requirements for eligibility. I need to work with the player to set these requirements up as RP opportunities in the game. You can't be a knight if you never had any loyalty to an organization, or lord.

Of course there are PrC's that do not need a mentor. Actually, I expect even better RP for those! Some of the internally driven character changes are the most interesting and the most fun.

But, I still won't provide a 'shopping list' of PrC's that are available. I want to talk to the players. Heck, in some cases, I might change PrC requirements to suit a character. If it makes sense, and won't create a character that will always outshine the rest of the group.

But, I do expect my players to RP the class advancement/multi-classing/PrC's for their characters to one degree or another.

Barak, by the Core rulebooks, you don't advance past level 20. Advancing past 20th level drops you into Epic level rules. Epic characters advance past level 20 but they do not advance BAB or saves in the standard fashion. There are Epic rules for that. However, Epic characters certainly pick up class abilities for a class beyond level 20. If you have maxed out a class, or a 10-level PrC, you can even go with epic progressions in the class/PrC.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I think you misunderstood what I mean, and hopefully, I misunderstood what you meant as well.

No, I think we're reading each other loud and clear. You gave your assesment of GMs that don't say yes to everything, and I gave my assesment of players that expect the GM to say yes to anything.

But what I got from what you said earlier is that if a player came to you when he levelled and asked "Hmm.. I think my PC would be well-suited to be a Dwarven Defender. Do you allow those in your campaign?" you'd reply "well I'm not saying. You'll have to take the pre-reqs -in case- they do and you can find a teacher, but they're might not be any in the campaign".

Partly right... I'd tell the player something along the lines of, "develop your character in the way you want with the resources availabe, preferable with an eye on past events as opposed to some uber-map to destiny, and if there's a chance to take the character further down the road than the standard rules grant, I'll present it at an appropriate time."

Now, how does that make the game more fun/realistic/full of RP? Obviously, the DM isn't supposed to detail every secret organization in his World, but then again, not all organizations are secret either.

How do you tell a Prestige Class from carefully guarded Feat Chains, spells, or items that an organization might possess?

I want (and thus have) players that will pursue things based on their relevance to plot and setting, not just because the numbers look cool. The best way to do that is to create an environment where everything is presented by its RP element before being actually revealed mechanically, with the mechanics being revealed after a suitable amount of in-game representation of interest has been expressed through role-play and/or direct pursuit.

There's also the fact that I believe -some- PrCs do not necesserly require a tutor, but that's a whole different deal, and one in which I'd say that you'd be in your right to say it's not the case anyway.

That you believe it as a fact is irrelevant, however. Even the duelist is justifiably trained-only ("You are skilled, young one... And worthy of learning the ancient and secret fighting style of Dema'Koo."). A True Necromancer might require lore only found upon the wall of an ancient ruined temple. Nothing is necessarily a give-away regardless of how simple the mechanics make it seem.

Oh, and as for levelling past level 20, officially you stop gaining class abilities and what-not. Now I personally think that it's a bit silly anyway, so more power to you if you do things differently, but I thought I'd point that out.

No, just BAB and Saves, and both swap out for "Epic" advancement (low BAB, good saves). Everything else (Hit Dice, Class Features, Character Feats, Ability Score Increase, etc.) continues as normal.

 

[Chronosome]

IMO, it's all about what's on and off "camera". If you have healthy amounts of downtime between adventures (and require that PCs can only level in that downtime), you can work with a character to create some backstory for his new abilities.

Just like you did when he was 1st level.

Granted, it can be tough depending on the class the PC's adopting. Fighters, rogues, sorcerers...these are easy to "story up" since they're abilities one could hone solo. Wizards, clerics, druids...these take a little more finesse, since they have a hefty time requirement or initiation.

Oop--I'm late. Gotta run. Hope that helps.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Those of you who said this would be a problem for exotic character builds, I don't think you have to worry. If your character concept is "I'm a swashbuckler... I'll be going Fighter/Rogue", or "Primitive Shaman... Druid/Barb/Ranger" then you're already roleplaying the "change". You're doing better than that, because you've started establishing what your character will be like before getting close to taking those extra levels.

As with almost everything in roleplaying, I think it'd probably be better to use the carrot than the stick, though. If someone doesn't want to roleplay their character growing and changing (a pretty exciting thing to play out), then they may very well just not be that interested in exploration of their character. You can encourage people to be interested, but you can't make them do it. Telling them they flat out can't take a base class is probably just going to alienate them.

Prestige classes, though, hey, they're optional. Knock yourself out making PCs jump through any hoops you want.

 

[Desdichado]

When the creeping HEROization of D&D is complete, threads like this will be moot.

Character building without strict classes is hardly unique to HERO. HERO just seems like warmed-over GURPS from my experience, not that I'm terribly interested in investigating the system details of either.

I think this is a moot point. I depise the ideas of classes as being some kind of monolithic entity in the game. Classes should be transparent, IMO. Characters should be able to multiclass freely. Players should be able to describe their characters in ways other than "I'm a half-elf rogue." Classes can be an aid to roleplaying, a kind of roleplaying shorthand, when handled correctly, but in my opinion, this initial question in the thread is putting the cart way before the horse.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I think this is a moot point. I depise the ideas of classes as being some kind of monolithic entity in the game. Classes should be transparent, IMO. Characters should be able to multiclass freely. Players should be able to describe their characters in ways other than "I'm a half-elf rogue." Classes can be an aid to roleplaying, a kind of roleplaying shorthand, when handled correctly, but in my opinion, this initial question in the thread is putting the cart way before the horse.

I think I'm in agreement with you on this. That is to say, I heard/read once a comparison to a Class (in 3E) to a "skills set", and that D&D was just a matter of combining various amounts of different skill sets to make up most of the character's mechanicis.

In that regard, for Base Classes at least, I don't so much consider it "class training" as it is training for the things you can't do yet but are now elidgable to learn. Example: A 5th Level Rogue takes a level of Fighter. Now, here's what the PC gets that I'd likely just make automatic (i.e., no training of any sort required because the character is actually just making these better): BAB, Saves, and Skill Points. What I would have a problem with, unless previous in-game events indicate otherwise, is his new found ability to wear any form of armor, use any type of shield, and use any non-exotic weapon. In addition, past events may or may not support the Feat chosen at that level (two, infact, as one is gained for Character Level 6).

Now, am I going to be an absolute jerk and deny these things? No. Despite popular believe, I'm not a complete tightass. But I would require some degree of practice time (yes, off stage, but the time allocated just so it's known what the PC is doing, when he's doing it, and for how long it's part of his "daily routine"). He may not necessarily need a teacher, and the teacher need not be better or higher level (i.e., why can't a 6th Level character learn Improved Sunder from a 3rd Level character?), although having one would effectively reduce the time I would require.

I also use "familiarity" rules; For instance, the above Rogue would be considered to have the proficiencies Fighter gives him, but is still "unfamiliar" with it's use. Using an unfamiliar weapon in actual combat (or unfamiliar armor) carries the usual penalties for being non-proficient, but the penalties down-grade significantly over a (short) period of time, until finally vanishing entirely. Training takes a little longer, but obviously the non-lethal conditions of training has its own benefits.

 

[hong]

It is interesting to note that you seem to believe that adding RP elements to an RPG eliminates fun as well as presents a "confrontational" relationship between GM and player. Guess what? I've seen this attitude before. And when I do, I have a hard time getting the guy out the door before my fun-lovin', non-confrontational players do!!! Of course, they recognize the fact that a GM is often there to deliver an adventure and plot line that is cohesive and well constructed in a viable, believable campaign setting, not to cater to every petty whim that any spoiled brat walking in the door might have simply because the rules don't forbid it.

Bendy, why do you believe that a cohesive and well-constructed plotline is somehow mutually exclusive with a relaxed attitude to PC construction?