No More Multi-Classing

[Reynard]

I don't. For the same reason I hate vitality/wound, I hate save vs. death. Worse was no-save death.

I actually despise VP/WP for the same reason, but here's the difference: in a VP/WP system, every enemy is capable of killing you outright. It is motivation to *not* get into fights or go adventuring. On the other hand, the occassional presence of a save-or-die(or petrify or paralyze or level drain or whatever) adds spice to the game. When the intrepid heroes are combing the ancient ruins for forgotten gold and they come across a giant spider lurking in the shadows above, they *should* be scared. They should fight for their lives and enjoy their win and survival. They should engage in smart play and solid tactics and be afraid. As I said before, not every encounter should be this way -- that's boring and unfun. But pretty much every piece of fiction consider to be a part of the body of work that led to and influenced D&D has shown mighty thewed hereos running for their lives like little girls. Why don't players accept that possibility these days?

However, the internet is awash with people who feel as you do. Use it to organize a 3e game you like. Or better, use it to organize an RC game!

Sadly I live in Connecticut (which is an ancient Indian word for "There are seven gamers in thisa state.")

 

[Reynard]

If you're not going to have fun playing D&D, why not do something else that's fun, instead? It's a game. Not a job. And if it is a job, then you're getting paid for it, which is cool, too.

But the whole point is that I *want* to have fun playing D&D. because, you know, it's fun.

Anyway, I don't think I could swallow "racial class/level limits" with suspension of disbelief intact without some mighty good convincing of how Elves are only smart enough to get to be 12th level fighters, and Dwarves somehow can't progress beyond 12th level in rogue. It just never made any sense to me back in the day, and it makes even less, now. Why wouldn't humans just level up so that they're higher than everyone else, and kill them all? Humans have numbers, and, apparently, potential on their side.

Last thing first: why do you think every AD&D campaign world was dominated by humans despite the obvious superiority of demi-humans (except halflings and gnomes -- useless buggers)? What breaks suspension of disbelief more is that in 3e, every race can achieve a theoretically unlimited number of levels in a theoretically unlimited number of classes. Why don't the long lived races completely dominate the world. Why don't Epic Level elves control every inch of land and sea?

On to the first point -- I agree with you. however, that's why I like the way RCD&D did. An elf was an archetype (a specific one froma specific piece of litertaure, in this case) and it wasn't that every lef on the planet was like the PC elf, it was that PC elves -- the ones that go meandering around adventuring with dwarves and humans -- were like that. I like the idea of a couple different archetypes for every race -- the Dwarf Fighter and the Dwarf Warpriest(cleric) for example. But why should a dwarf be able to be a wizard, other than to make things fair and even and let the player that wants to be a dwarf wizard play that?

 

[Remathilis]

Last thing first: why do you think every AD&D campaign world was dominated by humans despite the obvious superiority of demi-humans (except halflings and gnomes -- useless buggers)? What breaks suspension of disbelief more is that in 3e, every race can achieve a theoretically unlimited number of levels in a theoretically unlimited number of classes. Why don't the long lived races completely dominate the world. Why don't Epic Level elves control every inch of land and sea?

Well, I have handled it this way...

1.) elves*, even with a long life span, rarely seek as a race to dominate others. Mostly, this is do to low population numbers (100 years to mature is alot for an elf, thats 2 human generations who have bred exponentially before one elf is ready to reproduce) and lack of "ambition". Oh sure, there are elves that WANT to rule the world, but they are no more excepted than humans who want to.
2.) I cap level limit at 20th without divine intervention. Few if any ever see 20th level. None see past 30th.
3.) Most non-adventurers advance slowly. A venerable elf who never stepped into a dungeon is at most 12th level @ 600 years of age.
4.) Its fantasy. We accept and ignore it the same way we ignore the thermal-dynamics of a fireball cast while standing in a foot of snow.

* Insert any long-lived humanoid of good or neutral alignment. Most PH races fit this credo in one form or another.

On to the first point -- I agree with you. however, that's why I like the way RCD&D did. An elf was an archetype (a specific one froma specific piece of litertaure, in this case) and it wasn't that every lef on the planet was like the PC elf, it was that PC elves -- the ones that go meandering around adventuring with dwarves and humans -- were like that. I like the idea of a couple different archetypes for every race -- the Dwarf Fighter and the Dwarf Warpriest(cleric) for example. But why should a dwarf be able to be a wizard, other than to make things fair and even and let the player that wants to be a dwarf wizard play that?

I commented on this in the race-as-class thread. Its great if you and your players love to stick to archtypes, but murder to those who don't. My group rarely ever goes too far afield to archtype (no gnomish paladin, dwarven mages, or elf barbarians; but a few halfling rangers, elven bards, and dwarven monks). So it has its ups and downs; if you like sticking ot the archtype, more power to you. IF you play against the type (and have a cool story/reason for it) more power to you also.

 

[Sejs]

You see, that's exactly the kind of throw-away comment that simply doesn't wash in the real world. It's easy to say on a message board, "If they don't like, it, kick 'em out!" But it's almost never that simple in the real world. If your group has five players, and four of them demand tons of KEWL POWRZ, then you either have to give them what they want, or "kick them in their dice-bags and send them packing",

You're focusing too much on the second part of the comment and ignoring the first part. The first part is easily one of the facets of good DMing - being mindful and in control of your game. If you don't want the option in your game, don't allow it. If you don't want psionics, incarnum, or monster races in your game, all you as a DM have to do is say, when a player asks 'Sorry, there's no psionics/incarnum/monster PCs in my game'. Bam. Done.

which means you end up alone, playing Resident Evil 4 and eating Domino's Pizza.

Which actually sounds a lot more fun than D&D 3.5 . . .

D&D 3.5 ran over your dog, didn't it.

Well said. 90% of 3.5 players would say, "You mean I can't be a 20th level Divine Gelatinous Cube...

Wait, there are more divine cubes out there? I'm not alone!

 

[Kishin]

Last thing first: why do you think every AD&D campaign world was dominated by humans despite the obvious superiority of demi-humans (except halflings and gnomes -- useless buggers)? What breaks suspension of disbelief more is that in 3e, every race can achieve a theoretically unlimited number of levels in a theoretically unlimited number of classes. Why don't the long lived races completely dominate the world. Why don't Epic Level elves control every inch of land and sea?

Because there are obstacles in the way of their meteoric rise to power? Things out there killing off those elves pre, post or during their climb to Epic Level?

More importantly though, like humans, not every demi-human possesses the ambition or the acumen to reach those levels of power. Some probably could care less.

These to me the bigger arguments, but there are of course, other elements of support. If you use the 'vanilla' D&D Elf fluff, for example, they're capricious and not prone to devoting themselves wholly to a singular pursuit. The average elf is a dabbler in vanilla terms.


Ultimately, I fail to see how making demihuman races patently inferior breaks suspension of disbelief. Also, there are far better candidates for world domination than the long lived races. Dragons accrue power simply by existing and aging, theoretically, this is at little risk to themselves (save for of course, the occasional nosy adventurer), why don't THEY rule the world? Beings that are capable of reducing entire kingdoms to rubble are a bit more qualified for the job, if you ask me.

On to the first point -- I agree with you. however, that's why I like the way RCD&D did. An elf was an archetype (a specific one froma specific piece of litertaure, in this case) and it wasn't that every lef on the planet was like the PC elf, it was that PC elves -- the ones that go meandering around adventuring with dwarves and humans -- were like that. I like the idea of a couple different archetypes for every race -- the Dwarf Fighter and the Dwarf Warpriest(cleric) for example. But why should a dwarf be able to be a wizard, other than to make things fair and even and let the player that wants to be a dwarf wizard play that?

Can you conjure up a terribly compelling argument as to why Dwarf Wizards shouldn't be allowed?

Archetypes are one thing, but the idea that all the adventuring members of one species are functionally the same in terms of skills and abilities is ludicrous overgeneralization, especially since adventurers are some of the most individualistic entities there are. Its tantamount to presenting all Historians as being versed in South American history. Adventuring's a pretty broad field, not all members of a race are going to pursue the same avenues of it. Sure, they might be naturally predisposed towards some elements, but that should not make for the exclusion of others.

I'll admit a slight bias here. I absolutely cannot stand seeing fantasy, a genre that supposedly allows for nigh infinite creativity, to be constrained by a set of arbitrary tropes based off tradition or someone else's perceptions. Options are never a bad thing, and I'd rather be able to paint with a palette of thirty colors rather than three, as there's a greater chance I'll be able to express what I really want to express.

Sadly I live in Connecticut (which is an ancient Indian word for "There are seven gamers in thisa state.")

Being a fellow denizen of that selfsame not-so-hallowed state, I can attest to the validity of this statement. But hey, thanks to you and I, we can now say that approximately 28% of the gaming population of Connecticut is present on ENWorld.

 

[Sejs]

Why don't the long lived races completely dominate the world. Why don't Epic Level elves control every inch of land and sea?

I've touched on this elsewhere, in other threads - what it boils down to is that in open warfare long-lived races like elves lose and lose hard against faster-breeding races. Once war becomes a numbers game, slower birth and maturation rates mean that once they're dealt any significant blow they never have a chance to recover.

But why should a dwarf be able to be a wizard, other than to make things fair and even and let the player that wants to be a dwarf wizard play that?

Because it can be just as viable an archetype. A dwarven wizard as a rune-carver, master smith, impeccable historian, and forger of great mysteries that commands the very bones of the earth.

Tell me that's not appropriately dwarven. It's all in how you do it. Wizard doesn't automatically mean long robes and pointy hats.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I actually despise VP/WP for the same reason, but here's the difference: in a VP/WP system, every enemy is capable of killing you outright. It is motivation to *not* get into fights or go adventuring.

I've noticed that, with my group, when we play games that have significant "Mook rolls well and kills you outright" possibilities, we tend to either avoid combat or, if we have to initiate it, use firepower to excess to make sure the encounter's a short one. And while the occasional thermal detonator in the middle of the pack of 3rd-level thugs is kinda fun once in a while, and while it's always ego-boosting to have the DM ask for help getting your party into combat, that wears down eventually. While avoiding/running from combat/vastly over-powering your enemies may be realistic, if I wanted realism, I'd go out and do stuff in real life.

Brad

 

[Ranger REG]

See, I would rather use alternate core classes than allow multiclassing. For example, if I were to run a RCD&D style 3.5 campaign, I would probably make an available race/class list something like this:

Human Cleric
Human Fighter or Ranger
Human Rogue
Human Wizard or Sorcerer
Elf Duskblade
Dwarf Knight (slight mod -- give Weapon Focus instead of Mounted Combat)
Halfling Scout

From there on, the adventure is the thing. The game is the reward (aside from XP and loot). Character development would happen because that's what happens in an RPG, not because there was some PrC the player wanted to take.

Not much alternate core classes, IMNSHO. Do you have something against "the Jack-of-all-Trades" model?

*Shrugs*

Meh. Your Campaign, Your Rules ... but it's just not mine.

 

[Nyaricus]

I tossed out an idea in one of the 4e threads for a revised set of base classes that would, I think, make multiclassing a lot less common. The idea is that there'd be a core class for each of the four basic roles (arcane caster, divine caster, skill guy, warrior) and each two-role combo. i.e. ...

           arcane       divine      skill         warrior
arcane     wizard       theurge     beguiler      duskblade
divine     theurge      priest      archivist     cleric
skill      beguiler     archivist   rogue         swashbuckler
warrior    duskblade    cleric      swashbuckler  fighter

Theurge is a single-class mystic theurge; priest is essentially a cloistered cleric.

Funny thing is, I did the same thing to create my homebrew, to see what roles were missing. I actually did a chart featuring the 6 ability scores and the 4 core roles, which actually gave more options and allowed for the feel I wanted, so that worked for me

Nice job, anyways - although the beguiler and archivist would have to be made less niche, and the Theurge would need some major balancing tweaks.... but neat, none-the-less

 

[Victim]

But pretty much every piece of fiction consider to be a part of the body of work that led to and influenced D&D has shown mighty thewed hereos running for their lives like little girls. Why don't players accept that possibility these days?

The problem is there's no clear divding line for when any given fictional character runs or fights. In one story, Conan runs away from overwhelming force until it can somehow be made less overwhelming. In another, he just rushes the overwhelming force and crushes it with his barbarian awesomeness. But players don't operate on author's fiat, so they're going to need a compeling reason to run this time, when they're been fighting and winning the other times. Is it really any surprise that players will err on the side of asskicking?

Besides, if the players succeed against the odds instead of running, then it's all the more memorable.

And finally, running usually sucks. Seriously. Creatures that are dangerous enough to run away from usually pack some form of enhanced movement, ranged attack, or way to screw up your movement (otherwise they wouldn't really be that dangerous since mobility based tactics would usually beat them).