PrC’s, one at a time or for dipping?

[Nonlethal Force]

1) ASF is way too strict to just "suck it up and deal with it", which is basically what you're saying. "Play a fighter/mage who MIGHT get a spell off every once in a while".

Well, I think "might" is clearly the wrong choice here, unless you are planning on being a fighter/wizard in adamantine full plate.A fighter/mage in a mithril chain shirt has a 10% ASF. That means that the odds are that 9 out of 10 make it.

I mean, even if you went with mithril full plate, you are still only hit with a 25% ASF. That means that 3 out of every 4 make it! I should also note that this is only using CORE rules. Twilight armor helps even more than mithril, IIRC.

I think 3 out of 4 is actually best described as "probably," not "might." So it isn't that they might get a spell off every once and a while - it's more like they are probably going to get off the spells they want to cast. Sure, it isn't a guarantee. But even with the right full plate you still are only going to lose 1 out of every 4. Thats alot ... but then again - it's also the best armor you can find, too. Weaker armors can be found that lower the ASF.

 

[3catcircus]

Well, I think "might" is clearly the wrong choice here, unless you are planning on being a fighter/wizard in adamantine full plate.A fighter/mage in a chain shirt has a 10% ASF. That means that the odds are that 9 out of 10 make it.

I mean, even if you went with mithril full plate, you are still only hit with a 25% ASF. That means that 3 out of every 4 make it! I should also note that this is only using CORE rules. Twilight armor helps even more than mithril, IIRC.

I think 3 out of 4 is actually best described as "probably," not "might." So it isn't that they might get a spell off every once and a while - it's more like they are probably going to get off the spells they want to cast. Sure, it isn't a guarantee. But even with the right full plate you still are only going to lose 1 out of every 4. Thats alot ... but then again - it's also the best armor you can find, too. Weaker armors lower the ASF (with exception to half-plate. [Does anyone ever wear half-plate?)

Hear! Hear! For some reason, people think that every PC should be able to do everything equally well. This doesn't happen in real life; it doesn't happen in sci-fi/fantasy novels, nor should it in an RPG.

As to half-plate... Well, I'd love to implement a "weapons and armor based upon the specific culture" in my FR campaign, but I'm sure my players would howl. Just imagine the impossibility of buying full-plate (or that dreaded half-plate) in a desert or sea-going locale...

 

[Nonlethal Force]

For the record, I apparently did sneak an edit in just before 3catcircus replied to my post. The reason I edited was because when I actually looked at the 3.5 DMG I realized that most of the heavy armors are as bad or worse than full plate. So I figured I wouldn't just pick on half-plate when splint and the like deserve critiquing too.

But, for that matter ... if you can afford mithril splint, you are going to be able to afford mithril full plate - assuming the DM makes it available, of course.



As for the earlier conversation about allowed sources and DM/player collaboration, I agree that it is a good idea to set up a campaign and allowed sources at the start - especially if the gaming group can vote on allowing new sources as they are released .. and nobody grumbles if the group votes no. However, I also think that if the players are honestly lead from a mummies campaign into a place of stealing the pharoah's boat and the water bit intrigues the players, then the DM should be willing to alter course and go that route. After all, if the DM had the story move so that the RP got them on the water in the first place ... but, YMMV.

 

[hong]

I don't see any evidence of WotC pushing that you must be a member of an organization to take a PrC. You seem to be referring to the organization section which makes mention of such-and-such guild that fits a PrC referenced earlier, but this to me is a bone thrown to those who DO see PrCs as that way (Taking the work out of creating an organization from scratch) instead of saying "PrCs should have an attached organization).

I'll cite an example: Daggerspell Mage/Shaper from Complete Adventurer. The fluff mentions an organization, but it's nowhere listed as a requirement for entry to the class, thus has no bearing in-game except if the DM takes fluff and applies it to the mechanics. This, to me, says that they do not WANT this class to be part of an organization. However, later on the book has information on the Daggerspell Guild or whatever it's called. This to me is more of a "We know a lot of people feel PrCs should have an organization alongside it to help them integrate it into their games, so here's one you can just drop into your campaign" than a "We feel PrCs should have an organization attached to it, so we're giving you one that you can just drop into your campaign"

I think you have it the wrong way round. Here we have a prestige class that has a six-paragraph backstory. Part of this is how the class represents a member of an exclusive organisation, as well, as hints for how this organisation might be adapted for various campaigns. Later on in the book, there are more paragraphs fleshing out the organisation, who runs it, what its HQ is like, and so on.

OTOH, there is one line omitted from the Prereqs section, saying you have to be a member of this organisation to join.

Clearly this is WotC throwing a bone to those who feel PrCs are just tools to achieve their desired character build, while still emphasising that PrCs are qualitatively different to base classes, not just in crunch terms but also in how they fit into a game world.

I would say more on the matter but it goes close to the "My opinion on how things *should* be" area.

Really?

 

[Seeten]

My dread pirate is armor-less. Call me wacky. Apparently armor, ships and water have issues when mixed.

I think we do way too much attribution around here.

3catcircus, your reply to my reply is what I like to hear.

If I want to make a pirate, I dip rogue for sneak, swashbuckler for the buckling and the ac buffs and the skills with fighting, dread pirate for the sea legs, and twf, scarlet corsair for the feinting and scary intimidation, and I have a real honest to goodness pirate, from both a MECHANICAL perspective, AND a roleplaying perspective, because I am happy, and capable, of doing the rp part myself.

If I go straight rogue, no dips, I dont get sea legs, I burn feats on twf and feint, and get feats that dont make sense as prereqs, and in general, I am not nearly as mechanically piratical as I could be. Why hamstring my concept like that, when I can roleplay Argh, matey equally well in either case?

Mechanics+Roleplay = win.

Why settle for only one, or the other?

 

[wayne62682]

Really?

Yes. Basically the opinion to the effect of PrCs being there to add "ability packages" to fulfil concepts without requiring some silly organization that you are a part of, and then the rant against the "anti-dipping" crowd who want to use organizations as a way to prevent folks from taking one or two levels of classes. The old "classes are abilities, not careers" argument.

However, as I was respectfully asked not to interject my opinion of how I think the game should be to the discussion at hand, I've refrained from mentioning it.

 

[Jhulae]

Am I wrong?

Yeah.

 

[rgard]

I fully agree that the players and DM should collaborate - before the campaign begins. I look at the running of the game as being quarterbacked by the DM, with the players as the rest of the team. Or, as a military unit - there can only be one CO, but many squad leaders.

Once the campaign has been determined (what sources, what genre, what tone, what house-rules, etc.) then I consider that to be the baseline for the campaign. If a new book comes out, players can certainly ask the rest of the group to consider including that, but shouldn't feel entitled to just use it because they bought the book.

I certainly don't approach it as a "I do all the work, bask in my glory" situation. However, if I spend a ton of my time preparing for a campaign theme and genre that we all agreed to, then shouldn't I expect the players to follow through vice running around like a gadfly, flitting to each new idea (my Egyptian/Dread Pirate example)? Especially that example, where the idea of a Dread Pirate is completely different from an Egyptian campaign...

In my experience as a DM, I'm not the QB or the CO (BC for us artillery types), but rather I'm the guy that sets up the campaign, creates the world back drop and gives the players reasons to go adventure. Sure, it can be frustrating somewhat when the group does a 180 (or 3200) and what you've prepped is now at the moment useless. I'd don't say no when they do that. To prepare for that happening, I always have short encounters ready for the group that I can throw at them while I get my bearings. The QB or CO in my games is the 1 or 2 players who inevitably end up leading the rest of the players. That's the dynamic of most groups of people in most any social setting. I don't want to be their QB or CO. That's for them to sort out.

As for allowable PrCs and the like, I won't reject anything out of hand. I'll read whatever they bring to the table; WotC or 3rd party, and more often than not, I'll approve it.

As a player, I look for somebody who DMs like I do. I prefer choices, no, lots of choices when it comes to character development and I do prefer the option to say I'm tired of this area of the world, let's go over there instead.

It comes down to different styles of play. Players will gravitate to the DM whose style they best like for playing the game.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[PallidPatience]

I must apologise to you, Mistwell. I was very antisocial in my responses.

Other than that, I maintain my stance. I prefer to think of classes as ability packages and not as careers.

 

[wildstarsreach]

And how else would you propose one play a "true" fighter-mage (one that can fight decently in melee AND cast spells) if you cannot wear armor without incurring ASF? The reason why folks "dip" and "min-max" as you put it is to pull off the concept they want to play. I see nothing wrong with it.

Duskblade. I don't believe that you need to be able to cast 9th level spells and wear full plate armor and have a really decent base attack. You should be equitable to a straight wizard/fighter, not superior. Notice that I didn't say equal, equitability is that in most situations either will perform comparably.