Frustrated by Party Composition

[der_kluge]

Re: Re: Meta gaming?

My problem is increasingly that everyone's so *very* weak in one area that I can't effectively challenge the group as a whole without utterly annihilating one of them. Which is a real shame.

That's their problem - not yours. They'll figure out it out soon enough that multi-classing incessantly isn't going to get them anywhere. They may just have to work it out of their system.

 

[Gavin Moergen]

a monk-paladin would not be able to wear armor and keep the evasion benefit. What kind of Paladin doesn't wear armor? and are you telling, me you are worried about taking care of a paladin with no armor? They can't run from combat and they have no armor to protect themselves. In the campaign I play in that character would not last a whole session.

 

[Sejs]

i'm more interested in how a paladin swaps campfire stories with the assassin

Easy to do if the DM lifts the Must be Evil alignment restriction on the assassin PrC. Example - a friend of mine runs a campaign where the PCs are basically running this fledgeling island kingdom in FR. The recent discovery of a very lucrative diamond mine (and *cough* some ancient, forgotten dwarven ruins) on an island in the uh.. that one inland sea, that's pretty much in the middle of a bunch of countries. (the name escapes me) - an island that wasn't claimed by anyone. So, in a big land rush, the PCs stepped in, claimed the island, declared their soverinity and now run a small country. Very political game, lots of big-scale stuff, but still with dungeon crawls now and again. Very nice game. Each Pc heads up a different function of the government.


In that game, one of the Pcs is a ....rather lecherous... Paladin who heads up internal security for the lords, protects visiting nobles, that sort of thing. Basically like the Secret Service.

Another PC is a Lawful Neutral Fighter/Rogue/Assassin who heads the kingdom's intelligence arm. Spies and Secret Police.

The two of them get along just fine.

 

[Creeping Death]

Here is an option

Send in the usual fireball blasting mages along with some weaker monsters. These weaker monsters will exploit the pc's weaknesses. Then slowly, over time, increase the number or the strength of the weaker monsters that exploit the pc's weaknesses while phasing out the main enemies that rely on reflex only attacks. If your pc's do not change tactics, then they will die.

 

[shilsen]

Otiluke's Freezing Sphere

 

[GILGAMESH]

Scratches head, I dont' see how you should allow certain multiclassing. Monk/Paladin. And some of the others I've heard about.
In the games I'm part of If a person is going to level in a different class they better damn well show the DM a Good, Logical way that it could happen.

A pc taking a lvl in another class needs a good reason that fits the campaign world.
A PC would have to show during the cource of the campaign that they (during down time), have been studying or practicing and have a reason for the change. Just to get a "cool" feat doesn't fly.

I myself wouldn't allow a Paladin to multiclass with a monk.

 

[ergeheilalt]

Multiclassing doesn't really weaken characters who stay in the fighter "ranks", really it only makes them stronger. Multiclassing spellcasters tend to be weaker.

-edit (didn't see the post right above mine) -

I would definitely allow a Paladin to multiclass with a Monk. The conceptual monk in parts of my campaign are holy-warriors of lawful gods, so a monk-paladin would not be uncommon for the LG gods. *shrugs*

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the games I'm part of If a person is going to level in a different class they better damn well show the DM a Good, Logical way that it could happen.

I personally feel the opposite.

You don't join the International Fighters' Association and sign an exclusive contract at 1st level.

You don't graduate high school with a Rogue Diploma.

If someone feels that the best way to mechanically represent their character concept is with a Ftr2/Rgr1/Rog2/Sor1, and someone else thinks their character is best defined as a Clr4/Pal1/Mnk1, I have no problem with it.

Paladins and Clerics are not required to serve a deity. They can champion a concept or philosophy. If someone wants to use a level or three in Barbarian to represent tapping their inner demons, rather than a savage upbringing, I think that's just fine.

I'm not going to prohibit anyone from taking any core class they meet the prerequisites for - including the NPC classes.

Prestige Classes are a different matter, and if it involves joining an organisation, I'll enforce that - assuming the organisation exists in the campaign. However, someone could join the Assassins and never take a level in the Assassin Prestige Class, or call themselves a Hospitaler despite being a Clr11/Ftr4/Pal5.

Character class is a metagame concept, that explains/provides the mechanics by which the in-game character exists and behaves.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeremy]

I agree 100%. I had an NPC who was a very talented lawman and detective, but because I mentioned that his actual mechanical make up was Rogue 9, he was constantly assumed to be up to something.

His mechanical breakdown was merely a tool to help flesh out his pre-existing character idea and purpose, it did not define him and make him into a footpad or a dirty cop.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I had a stand-up argument with a DM once. She insisted that a Paladin/Rogue was an impossibility, because, quote, "Rogues are thieves".

A few weeks later, I submitted three completely different Paladin/Rogues for a new game she was starting. I don't think she ever replied...

-Hyp.