"Modding" classes vs multiclassing

[the Jester]

Interesting discussion!

I prefer to avoid modding classes if there's a way to achieve the pc's concept through feat choice, multiclassing or prcs, but I'm willing to allow a certain amount of modding if it's really central to the character concept. However, I'm very much against cherrypicking abilities, which is prolly the most common reason (ime) for pcs wanting the mods.

The whole discussion about archetypes that can't be achieved under core rules is amazing to me. I think just about anything can be created with the right mix of feats and multiclassing. (Granted, I understand Joshua's point about 'diffusing' your focus and abilities, but I think that's part of the price you pay for versatility.) Also, it seems like there's an argument beneath the surface here that you should be able to play things that suck without suffering for it, such as non-supernatural unarmed fighters ("I punch the dragon") and hedge wizards ("I distill a love potion for my customer").

A few comments about the list above of 'dnd doesn't do this archetype,' first using core classes only and then with notes about mods/prcs:


* Elementalist = sorcerer with appropriate spell selection. Later, prc into elemental savant or something like that. (In my campaign I have an elementalist base class based on a 2e priest of the elements I had, but it's mostly a flavor thing.)
* Unfettered- don't have Monte's book, but it really sounds to me like either a fighter/rogue or ranger/rogue can 'do this archetype' pretty easily. Not to mention throw in the duelist prc later.
* Swashbuclker = fighter, rogue, or fighter/rogue. Yeah, you'll deal less damage- well, that's because you aren't as strong! It seems like there's an unspoken argument in this thread that a swashbuckler type should be able to deal as much damage as a fighter. Well, I have to disagree. The swashbuckler-type should have a damage output somewhere between a rogue and fighter, imho. Again, later on add the duelist prc.
* Urban Ranger = Ranger or ranger/rogue. Most of the ranger's abilities imply woodsie stuff, sure- what exactly does an 'urban ranger' mean? A rogue with the track feat? A rogue with one level of ranger has the skill points to dump into Survival crossclass to keep it maxed up if he wants. If you wanna mod this one, you just need to swap out a few ranger class skills- but I really don't even see the necessity, really. It's easy to make this work without prcs or changing any classes at all!
* Robin Hood = Ranger, rogue, fighter or some multiclass combo thereof- I'd lean towards a few levels of ranger and mostly rogue. Throw in leadership and hey presto you have Robin right there. If you want, add one of the zillion archery prcs.
* Non-Supernatural Unarmed Fighter = Fighter or multiclassed fighter/monk (with only a few levels of monk). Again, if you're hoping to match the damage output of a fighter with a non-supernatural unarmed combatant, I think you're being silly. Gimme a sword and a crossbow and I'll gladly take on an unarmed foe any day.
* Knight in Shining Armor = Paladin, aristocrat or fighter. Come on, how is it that dnd can't do the knight in shining armor concept?? There's a feat chain for it, isn't there??
* Hedge Wizard = Adept, adept, adept. To those who argue that it isn't a balanced pc class, well duh. Neither's the commoner. If you want a balanced pc spellcaster, you have lots of choices (from cleric to wizard to druid to sorcerer...) Again, I think there's an unspoken argument in this thread that you ought to be able to make suboptimal choices and not suffer for them. I disagree. If you want to play a hedge wizard type, who dabbles in magic and maybe a little bit of alchemy or whathaveyou, you should lose hands down to a devoted wizard who spends months at a time studying arcana.
* Witch- depends on what you mean, really. A druid, an enchanter, etc- it's hard to address this one since everyone's concept of witchery is different.
* Pirate = Mostly suited to a rogue, but just about anyone can do it with a few ranks of Profession (sailor).

 

[Desdichado]

The whole discussion about archetypes that can't be achieved under core rules is amazing to me. I think just about anything can be created with the right mix of feats and multiclassing. (Granted, I understand Joshua's point about 'diffusing' your focus and abilities, but I think that's part of the price you pay for versatility.) Also, it seems like there's an argument beneath the surface here that you should be able to play things that suck without suffering for it, such as non-supernatural unarmed fighters ("I punch the dragon") and hedge wizards ("I distill a love potion for my customer").

The price you pay for versatility? Who's to say a character concept is more versatile than a core concept? It's simply different. A swashbuckling fighter (to use the example everyone has latched onto) isn't more versatile (necessarily) than a tank fighter, it's just different. Where's the "price you pay for versatility?" Let's be honest, it's the price you pay for not playing D&D core archetypes, which is completely different. And, it's a price I'd argue players shouldn't have to pay.

Granted, there's a fine line between balancing a non-core character concept, and giving such a creature way too much so that it's obviously a better choice. For the purposes of discussion, I'm assuming that's a given and that we've all found our center of balance around modded classes, since I don't see how we can actually have this discussion otherwise, unless of course, we're talking about specific class mods, in which case this thread would belong in House Rules.

 

[Umbran]

Geoff and Umbran: Criticizing swashbuckling fighter classes and the unfettered without actually having read the class description, let alone tried it out, is a bit silly.

Which is why I kept prefacing with "I haven't read it" and "by description". The details of the Unfettered were not the issue, so much as why the class was being used, in terms of design philosophy. It was the handy example, not a sticking point in and of itself.

The Unfettered was being touted because it was clean, had lost baggage, and was in general more focused and optimal. My thought was that this is what Prestige Classes are for - that's where one is supposed to introduce classes with more focus. Core classes are supposed to have some cruft, it is there to make them flexible. The major problems I see people griping about with the Paladin, Ranger, Monk, and Bard are that they are too focused to be core classes. I'm not sure I agree, but I don't see proliferation of separate core classes to be motion in the right direction either.

The main point of using the Unfettered seems to have been that it is not laden down with things it doesn't need, unlike the fighter/rogue. But nobody seems to have clued in that even the supposedly "optimal" fighter has stuff he isn't using. If you're going to clean up the fighter/rogue, why aren't you also cleaning up the fighter and rogue individually? Probably because that way lies madness - a core class for every imaginable role?

In game design, looking for everything to be optimal is a pipe dream. Aside from the whole thing being too complex for that, the definition of "optimal" is subjective. The target should be more broad. Instead of optimal, you look for "effective enough to be satisfying and interesting." That goal is far more realistic and useful.

In the end, as I originally stated, I don't mind a little modding here and there. I'd prefer not to modify classes when the core rules already have an option for the same thing - I probably wouldn't be bringing the Unfettered into a game that has fighter/rogue multiclasses. Nor would I be likely to bring a Fighter into a game that has the Warmain and Unfettered.

The thing I'm more holding against is Mr. Dyal's "I don't like most of what's here, so I may have to modify everything" approach. I'm a "use the right tool for the job" kind of guy. If the game needs extensive modifications to satisfy you, you'll probably be better off finding another game than trying to bash one into a wholly new form.

Honestly, I find Mr. Dyal's position... excessively picky. He clearly states that "close enough" isn't good enough for him. He wants things modded up to his precise specifications. You know what happens, though? You mod things up specially for one person, and all the other players have to go, "Oh well, it's close enough". How fair is that? If you want the classes so closely tailored, what next? All the magic items must be exactly what you want, and the storyline and plots must be perfect for you individually as well? I know, that's reductio ad absurdum, but still demonstrative. At some point, as part of a cooperative group playing a game, a player or DM must say, "that's close enough".

The simple fact of the matter is that no game system does everything perfectly, and you can't fit everyone's dream exactly all the time. There are other systems out there that have more flexibility in character creation, or use different base icons. GURPS and d20 Modern come to mind. However, they have other issues you may not like. Life's imperfect.

 

[Desdichado]

Umbran -- I see your point, and I can see how I come across that way. I don't imagine that situation at all, though, when thinking about what I'm on to here.

(Although I should note that I don't think that having more focused core classes is a problem. I like more options, not less, although I do agree that at a certain point you have to say "that's enough; you're close enough." I guess my tolerance for more options is higher than yours. My complaint about the more focused classes isn't that they're focused, it's that I don't like their particular focus.)

Although speaking theoretically, I'm honestly not talking about that big of a deal in terms of house rules. In our recent campaign, which has lain fallow for the better part of a month and a half, unfortunately, due to scheduling issues, one of the characters had a feat prereq waived because it made sense for his concept for him to have that feat, and it made the character more fun. We didn't feel that it added any imbalancing into the campaign. Similarly, my concept wasn't really captured well by the ranger, so I took a fighter, gave him Track as one of his 1st level feats, and we ruled that he could have Wilderness Lore (or Survival; we're actually kinda straddling the line between editions) as a class skill, which I keep maxed out as I level up.

In other words, I think you're arguing against a more extreme position than I actually hold. My point(s) really, are only the following:

• I don't like the rules for multiclassing, as it penalizes you unnecessarily for not sticking to the core D&D archetypes.
• There are some pretty basic fantasy archetypes that are missing from the D&D approach to fantasy.
• I feel concepts and roleplaying are more important than strict adherence to the rules.

I suspect, because I hear very similar complaints from a lot of people, that these are common problems people have with the system, but I feel like my initial post has been somewhat taken out of proportion.

 

[johnsemlak]

This is a very interesting discussion.

I personally would say I sympathize with those who would prefer an alternate base classs to attempting to achieve a particular archtype via multiclassing. Having one base class just seems better flavor to me, and a well constructed alternate core class is probably more balanced than a muticlassed character in the long run.

 

[Tsyr]

Granted, I understand Joshua's point about 'diffusing' your focus and abilities, but I think that's part of the price you pay for versatility.

I think you are confusing "versatility" with "worthless abilities that will never get used".

You are right. A strait fighter or a strait rogue both have stuff they won't use. A rogue might never use pick pockets, disguise, move silenetly, or hide. A fighter might never use two of his three types of armour and most of his weapons.

A swashbuckler has TWICE the options that they might never use (Two of the three types of armour, PLUS the theif skills)... But doesn't really get compensated for that.

You are saying that is versatility, and they should have to pay for that.

Fine.

I call it "needless bagage left over from a game mechanic". Potato patatoh, I suppose.

* Non-Supernatural Unarmed Fighter = Fighter or multiclassed fighter/monk (with only a few levels of monk). Again, if you're hoping to match the damage output of a fighter with a non-supernatural unarmed combatant, I think you're being silly. Gimme a sword and a crossbow and I'll gladly take on an unarmed foe any day.

Again, once more, I'm *not* saying non-superanatural! I don't think anyone has, actually. I'm saying not wire-fu. If you wanna have supernatural abilities like "Fists of Striking" and "Grapple of Steel" and stuff, fine. But tone down the wire-fu pseudo-eastern mystic crap like leap of the clouds and such.

* Knight in Shining Armor = Paladin, aristocrat or fighter. Come on, how is it that dnd can't do the knight in shining armor concept?? There's a feat chain for it, isn't there??

Because DnD seems to have a built in assumption that a Knight in Shining Armour is a Holy Warrior of Good, which is not in fact relevant to the archtype as a whole.

* Hedge Wizard = Adept, adept, adept. To those who argue that it isn't a balanced pc class, well duh. Neither's the commoner. If you want a balanced pc spellcaster, you have lots of choices (from cleric to wizard to druid to sorcerer...) Again, I think there's an unspoken argument in this thread that you ought to be able to make suboptimal choices and not suffer for them. I disagree. If you want to play a hedge wizard type, who dabbles in magic and maybe a little bit of alchemy or whathaveyou, you should lose hands down to a devoted wizard who spends months at a time studying arcana.

Not adept, not adept, not adept. You are confusing "Suboptimal" with "not what DnD tells you to play". A hedge wizard can be a perfectly viable class.

For example, in my campaign, I have a core class hedge wizard (as opposed to high wizard or wild mage). Hedge wizards have a slower spell progression, stop at level 6 spells (currently, may fine tune that a bit), and can't use metamagic (They learn spells by rote memorization, they aren't really skilled enough to change them after the fact). But they also can cast more of the lower level spells per day than a high mage, have a slightly different spell selection, get a familiar (High mages do not), have an ability that functions like "Bardic knowledge" for magic (They do not, however, get Spellcraft), get some abilities concerned with making potions and talismans, and have the ability to "book cast" certain spells (IE, just pick up the spellbook, read the spell, make some gestures, and poof). The class is balanced just fine against High Mages and Wild Mages. It's just *different*.

No one is saying the Hedge Wizard should be as good as a normal wizard at magic, AND have special abilities. That doesn't mean the class as a whole cannot be balanced, though.

 

[Tsyr]

1337 double post.

 

[Umbran]

In other words, I think you're arguing against a more extreme position than I actually hold.

Fair enough.

My point(s) really, are only the following:

• I don't like the rules for multiclassing, as it penalizes you unnecessarily for not sticking to the core D&D archetypes.
• There are some pretty basic fantasy archetypes that are missing from the D&D approach to fantasy.
• I feel concepts and roleplaying are more important than strict adherence to the rules.

The first is a matter of taste,I suppose. I personally don't find there to be that much penalization.

The second I ascribe to unrealistic expectations. The fantasy genre is huge. Gigantic. Enormous. The number of basic archetypes within it is staggering. Expecting one game to hit most of them, let alone all, is simply not realistic.

I also feel that concepts and roleplaying are more important than strict adherence to the rules. I also think that minor details of character abilities are not a very great barrier to roleplaying. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think many folks link the details of abilities to roleplaying to strongly. By what folks here have described, the mechanical differences between a fighter/rogue and an Unfettered are not nearly enough to cause issues with roleplaying. The fact that one has heavy armor proficiency should not be a role-playing issue. It isn't like the player should go, "My gods, I know how to wear plate armor! My personality should be totally diferent!"

Similarly with the wilderness warrior thing. D&D has the ranger, barbarian,and fighter to use as building blocks. If the player can't manage something close enough with those, I'm apt to feel the player is so picky that I won't be able to please them in other ways as well.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Umbran: We aren't saying that there should be a class for every concept in existance. I think we can all agree that such a thing is impossible. However, what we can have is a way to modify the classes we have to fit the concepts we want. A couple examples of this that I've used:
Your standard mideival knight: Straight up fighter with a focus in heavy armor and mounted combat. You can modify the skill list to include Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and the like, or you can force the character to take some levels in something else. Hm... He's non-magical, so Sorceror, Wizard, Bard, Ranger, and Cleric are all out; Some would be dastardly, but most wouldn't resort to sneak attacks, so no Rogue; they don't rage, so Barbarian's out of the picture, and that just leaves the fighter, which doesn't have the skill points. In this case, multiclassing would take the character farther from the concept than closer. Modifying is definitely the way to go.
Ruin Explorer: Ranger with a level or two of Rogue. This one doesn't need as much modifying as the Knight does, but there's still some. He'd want most of the standard Ranger skills as well as the Disable Device skill at full ranks. The drop in combat effectiveness for the trapfinding ability is worthwhile, and it fits the concept. The best solution would be to merge the level or two into the class (by swapping out a skill or two and some abilities), but that's not entirely necissary.
The Cavalier: This is the guy that jumps all over the place, swings out over the battlefield, and always manages to win the day. Though you could make this type of character (and his counterpart, the stealthy duelist) by mixing Fighter and Rogue, you end up with a character that only somewhat approximates the character. You could also try modifying each of the classes to fit, but that changes the class so much that it's no longer recognizable as either a fighter or a rogue. The best solution for this concept is, IME, the Unfettered class, which is better than a fighter/rogue of the same level, but less powerful than either a fighter or rogue of the same level.

Yes, you did read that las line correctly. If you compare the Unfettered to a straight-up Fighter or a straight-up Rogue, you'll find that the Unfettered is a slightly weaker character. He doesn't have the fighter's hitpoints or fortitude save, and he lacks the rogue's skills (to some extent), sneak attack (to an extent), and extra high-level abilities. He gets extra AC (class bonus and int to AC), full attack bonus, and weapon proficiencies, as well as a couple of bonus feats, but that's it. I think it all balances out.
That is all.
Magius out.

 

[Desdichado]

The first is a matter of taste,I suppose. I personally don't find there to be that much penalization.

Now, it's not astronomical, but it still seems "wrong" to me.

The second I ascribe to unrealistic expectations. The fantasy genre is huge. Gigantic. Enormous. The number of basic archetypes within it is staggering. Expecting one game to hit most of them, let alone all, is simply not realistic.

I never said I expected that, as a matter of fact. I know quite well that any one game cannot capture all archetypes. The DMG even essentially says that when it gives rather extensive examples and suggestions for modding classes. Despite that, however, it seems few people actually believe that's a good way solve the problem, which seems quite unusual to me.

I also feel that concepts and roleplaying are more important than strict adherence to the rules. I also think that minor details of character abilities are not a very great barrier to roleplaying. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think many folks link the details of abilities to roleplaying to strongly. By what folks here have described, the mechanical differences between a fighter/rogue and an Unfettered are not nearly enough to cause issues with roleplaying. The fact that one has heavy armor proficiency should not be a role-playing issue. It isn't like the player should go, "My gods, I know how to wear plate armor! My personality should be totally diferent!"

Similarly with the wilderness warrior thing. D&D has the ranger, barbarian,and fighter to use as building blocks. If the player can't manage something close enough with those, I'm apt to feel the player is so picky that I won't be able to please them in other ways as well.

See, that's the attitude that surprises me. Despite the fact that the DMG specifically recommends modding classes to meet archetypes, I get replies like this where people tell me that that's being too picky, and that I'm unlikely to be pleased in other aspects of the game as well!

This suggests to me a somewhat mindless slavery to the rules, and a blatant ignoring of the modding classes section of the DMG (how's that for exchanging one half-hearted insult for another! ) Just as you dismiss my complaints about multiclassing, I dismiss your accolades of it. I've tried it for some time; since 3e's release, as a matter of fact, and have grown increasingly disillusioned with it after initial excitement about the concept.