Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andre" data-source="post: 2419232" data-attributes="member: 25930">Well, first off there are two reasons why this might be a problem. One is that the rules may make certain combinations much more effective/powerful than others. Certain prestige classes clearly fall into this category. That's why it's perfectly acceptable for GM's to limit some character options up front, or create house rules to correct problems that have occurred in the past.The second is if a player is using/abusing the rules in a way that affects the other players' enjoyment. My first reaction is to talk to the player. For instance, I have one player who is an expert at getting the most out of a HERO character. He's not trying to overshadow everyone - he just enjoys building characters and sometimes gets carried away. If I see a problem, we talk it out and he goes with a less-optimized build. If I see a potential problem, we'll agree to try it, with the proviso that the character may have to be changed later. So long as players and the GM are open about what's going on, I don't see a problem.Other times I can deal with the problem within the rules. Another player in my last HERO campaign decided to make all his powers Independent, reasoning that he'd get them all at roughly 1/3 cost. This would, of course, have resulted in an obscenely overpowered character. I pointed out to him that Independent powers are so cheap only if there is real risk that the power can be lost - and I would enforce that limitation. Translation: if he took Independent powers, the villains would figure it out and take his stuff, leaving him crippled as a character. He didn't like that idea and agreed to work up a more reasonable character. If, OTOH, the GM is simply concerned about a lack of roleplaying in these choices, I don't believe there is one answer that works for everyone. Some players enjoy immersive campaigns, where characters oftentimes make decisions that the player knows will be a mistake, just to stay in character. Other players just want to have fun, overcome challenges, beat on things, with a bit of roleplaying to rationalize their character choices. Many are somewhere in between. Either play style is acceptable, but I'm not sure how far a GM can go in encouraging the latter to be more like the former. For myself, I would suggest a carrot, rather than a stick. IOW, instead of making it more difficult to multiclass, provide incentives to either stay in a single class or for roleplaying the change to a new class. Extra skill points, a fate/luck point, a useful npc contact, etc. can have the same effect as a penalty, but will likely be accepted with less resentment.In the end, I don't think the restrictions proposed above are too onerous, so if the players agree to adding multiclass restrictions, go for it. If a few really want to multiclass freely, consider providing incentives to make their choices more difficult (from the perspective of optimization). And if someone goes too far in power gaming, to the point that it's affecting the group, talk to him/her. And if necessary, simply ban some choices - if they hurt the game.</blockquote>

Verification