Encouraging players to role-play multiclassing?

[hong]

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.

The point being that D&D seems to be evolving towards a "builder" approach, where elements like feats, skills, even classes, are simply things you put together to create a desired result.

 

[hong]

The point being that D&D seems to be evolving towards a "builder" approach, where elements like feats, skills, even classes, are simply things you put together to create a desired result.

EXPLAINING TEH JOEK!!!1 PLONK!!!!!!!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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

Because I don't see how PCs just spontaneously sprouting new abilities without any in-game justification or reasoning is at all cohesive. I'm actually quite loose with how/when/where this justification comes from (except Prestige Classes, of course), I just insist that it be there in some form (with Prestige Classes requiring justification specific to the Prestige Class).

 

[hong]

Because I don't see how PCs just spontaneously sprouting new abilities without any in-game justification or reasoning is at all cohesive. I'm actually quite loose with how/when/where this justification comes from (except Prestige Classes, of course), I just insist that it be there in some form (with Prestige Classes requiring justification specific to the Prestige Class).

Fair enough. I think if you're talking about stuff like a fighter multiclassing to barb or rogue, it's not really a big deal. Multiclassing to sorc or wiz might take a bit of handwaving, though.

I'm generally fairly loose with PrCs, assuming they're not completely outre. If the player wants a certain PrC, and there's no issues with it, then I'll find a way to work it into the flow of the campaign. I actually like it when players want to try a new PrC, because it's also an opportunity for me to get creative.

 

[S'mon]

I don't allow PCs to change class unless there's a good in-game reason for it. I'd recommend you do the same. Usually this just means the player discusses future plans with me prior to them levelling up, and at levelling time I let them take a level in a prestige class or different core class. The idea that the player has the right to multiclass into whatever they like, no matter how unlikely, doesn't work in a long-term campaign IMO. "Hey, I just discovered I'm a Sorcerer!" really sticks in my craw.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I think anyone can wear any armour, use any shield, and use any weapon - they just take penalties to do so, ie these aren't 'trained only' abilities like picking a lock. So I'm fine with a PC whose character concept is 'roguish fighter' who takes Rogue as his first level & Fighter as his second - that just means the penalties for doing Fighter-y things are eliminated. What I'm not fine with is someone whose character concept is "anything I want to be" who starts as say a Rogue, then takes level in Sorceror (I pretty much never allow multiclassing to Sorcerer) or, even worse, in Wizard, a class that IMC requires years of specialised training in magic use. That's my campaign world - Fighters are common as muck and it's easy to become one, Wizards & Sorcerers are rare and require years of study or inborn talent. Players who try to violate this get short thrift. In fact non-spellcasting PCs IMC tend to get 'freebies' like magic items or extra abilities from the DM denied to spellcasting PCs, who get non-combat gifts if anything.

 

[S'mon]

I'm generally fairly loose with PrCs, assuming they're not completely outre. If the player wants a certain PrC, and there's no issues with it, then I'll find a way to work it into the flow of the campaign. I actually like it when players want to try a new PrC, because it's also an opportunity for me to get creative.

Me too, although the PCs IMC are currently starting at 11th level so it's easiest if they begin play already as members of the prestige class.

Re HERO-isation, I'd like to see even more customisability, but also make it easier to quickstart PCs, which is what a class system traditionally allows. Template-type systems (d6 Star Wars, Buffy) allow this too, but templates can be a little too rigid for many players. So I'd favour keeping the existing classes (and skill/equipment packages from PHB) but also include rules for designing characters from the ground up, eg a points system that gives points for full BAB, good saves, barbarian fast movement etc. The only problem I can see with that is that any likely points system would demonstrate that the Cleric class is hugely overpowered compared to the rest, ie it would require more points to build a Cleric than a Fighter or Rogue.

 

[Will]

I think some of the 'work PrCs they want into the game' and 'They should just embrace the world and see what happens' is a matter of wildly varying attitudes about power balance.

That is, in some games, the players have a lot of say over things. They may even be able to 'write' much of the world, with some DM oversight.

In other games, the DM has constructed a tightly knit world that is revealed to the players, and that they interact with.

Each demands certain things, and lends itself to different choices about structuring the game.

Beware of telling each other 'you are playing it wrong.'

 

[Agback]

Character building without strict classes is hardly unique to HERO. HERO just seems like warmed-over GURPS

Shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? I have a distinct impression that I played Champions before even Man to Man came out.

Regards,


Agback

 

[S'mon]

I think some of the 'work PrCs they want into the game' and 'They should just embrace the world and see what happens' is a matter of wildly varying attitudes about power balance.

That is, in some games, the players have a lot of say over things. They may even be able to 'write' much of the world, with some DM oversight.

In other games, the DM has constructed a tightly knit world that is revealed to the players, and that they interact with.

Each demands certain things, and lends itself to different choices about structuring the game.

Beware of telling each other 'you are playing it wrong.'

Hmm - I think I'm on both sides of your divide - I encourage players to 'write' undeveloped bits of the world, OTOH it's already highly detailed with tightly-knit relationships. If a player expresses interest in a PrC I'll bear that in mind when developing the world - but if the PrC doesn't fit, it doesn't fit and isn't used. The final rule is that I as DM am in charge of what goes on in my world, but I welcome lots of input from the players. They certainly have a lot of influence on how it develops - influence, but not control.