Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?

[Umbran]

9) All games are easy to house rule; however, since D&D is "balanced" if you use what the core rules suggest, implementing house rules can cause unforseen effects.

House rules can cause unforseen effects in any and all games. In some games you don't notice them, because the aren't particularly well balanced to begin with. The difference in 3E is that the balance of the system is somewhat more "transparent" than many other games (and previous editions of D&D), so it is easier to see what the effects will be ahead of time, or they will become more obvious as play continues. You can view this as an asset, or a detriment, I suppose.

 

[LostSoul]

House rules can cause unforseen effects in any and all games. In some games you don't notice them, because the aren't particularly well balanced to begin with. The difference in 3E is that the balance of the system is somewhat more "transparent" than many other games (and previous editions of D&D), so it is easier to see what the effects will be ahead of time, or they will become more obvious as play continues. You can view this as an asset, or a detriment, I suppose.

Yeah, it's a funny thing. Because D&D starts off balanced (as opposed to most game systems), any changes tend to look overwhelming.

 

[mzsylver]

Learning "a bit of magic" seems absurd, wouldnt it take ALOT of hard work and training to learn "the art". I see magic as something very special, something that few can learn.

But isnt the Expert class alot worse than all the PC classes, Im not sure if I remember correctly but doesnt the Expert class get less skill points than the Rogue class?

considering you can take one level in sorcerer or wizard or cleric and learn a little bit of magic... it doesnt seem that absurd. it seems like the 3e system is your problem.

first question: did you ever play 2e? the classes were basically the same.

second question: are you sure 3e is the right system for you?

i personally dont like 3e that much but i play it nonetheless. if i ever run a home campaign again, it will be in 2e.

i suggest using a non-magic D20 variant - there is a neat new one presented in Polyhedron or Dragon somewhere that's a bit modernized. just write up a few classes - then you'll be sure they suit your needs.

good luck! =)

 

[Michael Tree]

The bard isnt banned because it is too powerful, it is banned because the idea that bards are magicians is absurd.

So the many stories of the supernatural effects of Orpheus' music are absurd? The medieval stories of troubadors beguiling hapless listeners with their songs are absurd? The magical powers of the bard Taliesin, and the innumerable examples in Irish folktales about music enchanting people, making them dance or sleep, turning them into strange shapes, helping them fight with tremendous endurance and courage, and even songs that make spears fly straighter and control the winds, are all absurd?

You really should read more about folktales and mythology before you make sweeping statements about what is and isn't absurd. Saying magical bards don't fit your campaign setting is one thing, but saying that they're absurd is quite another.

 

[Michael Tree]

The problem isn't that the Assassin's spells are inappropriate; it's that an Assassin shouldn't have to be a spellcaster, since it's not intrinsic to the character concept.

You know what, the Assassin prestige class in the the DMG isn't intrinsic to the character concept either. An assassin doesn't have to be the DMG assassin PrC. An assassin could be a rogue good at sneaking and sneak-attacking, or a bard who charms and then poisons his targets, a wizard who sets magical traps or ambushes, and so on.

Prestige classes are by their very nature more focussed concepts than the core classes. The assassin in the DMG is an assassin who uses a combination of skills, stealth, poison, and a dabbling of deadly magic to get the job done.

If you don't like that type of assassin guild, then create another prestige class, or just use core classess and multiclassing.

 

[mmadsen]

considering you can take one level in sorcerer or wizard or cleric and learn a little bit of magic... it doesnt seem that absurd.

Many people have voiced concerns about that too though. It's one thing that a character can start out as a Wizard, presumably having studied through a long apprenticeship; it's another that he can add a level of Wizard later and overnight start casting spells.

Mechanically, this problem stems from the frontloading found in all the 3E classes to make first-level characters palatable. The system even acknowledges that first level is different by giving four levels worth of skill points for what's supposedly one level. I think the system should go all the way and accept that characters have four levels worth of experience from apprenticeship. That way, what we now call "first level" would be four levels, and multiclassing into a spellcasting class could be more gradual. The same would hold for multiclassing into other classes with many Special Abilities at first level. A Ranger might get Tracking at first level, Favored Enemies at second, etc.

Another idea is that given that 3E accepts starting at a level higher than first (e.g. ECLs), and given that it has the concept of Prestige Classes, it seems only natural to make the spellcasting classes Prestige Classes. Even if you don't like the idea for "core" D&D, it makes a great low-magic variant.

 

[Michael Tree]

Learning "a bit of magic" seems absurd, wouldnt it take ALOT of hard work and training to learn "the art". I see magic as something very special, something that few can learn.

Again with the 'absurd' comments. You're entitled to your view of magic, but to dismiss the alternative as 'absurd' simply because it doesn't agree with your view is arrogant and narrow-minded.

D&D, in all its incarnations, holds a different view of magic than you. A lot of mythology and folktales also doesn't jive with your views, to say nothing of fantasy literature. For example, in Irish folktales, virtually everyone has a few supernatural talents or abilities, and "dedicated wielders of magic and nothing else" are virtually unknown. The same holds true for russian Bogatyr and gypsy Taltos.

Your preferred genre of fantasy seems to be like the gritty worlds of Leiber (Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser) and Howard (Conan). I like this genre too. But to dismiss everything that isn't in this genre as "absurd" is ridiculous. There is a lot of very good fantasy out there that has high magic. Just because a game has high magic doesn't mean it's Diablo.

 

[Bastoche]

Many people have voiced concerns about that too though. It's one thing that a character can start out as a Wizard, presumably having studied through a long apprenticeship; it's another that he can add a level of Wizard later and overnight start casting spells.

Mechanically, this problem stems from the frontloading found in all the 3E classes to make first-level characters palatable. The system even acknowledges that first level is different by giving four levels worth of skill points for what's supposedly one level. I think the system should go all the way and accept that characters have four levels worth of experience from apprenticeship. That way, what we now call "first level" would be four levels, and multiclassing into a spellcasting class could be more gradual. The same would hold for multiclassing into other classes with many Special Abilities at first level. A Ranger might get Tracking at first level, Favored Enemies at second, etc.

Another idea is that given that 3E accepts starting at a level higher than first (e.g. ECLs), and given that it has the concept of Prestige Classes, it seems only natural to make the spellcasting classes Prestige Classes. Even if you don't like the idea for "core" D&D, it makes a great low-magic variant.

I really like the idea of a campaign in which spellcaster classes are PrC !

And about your gripe, may I suggest this house rule : In order to gain a level in another class, you need to train in that class for at least X level ?

For exemple, a fighter will study magic (devoting skill points for exemple, or simply listening to a wizard for tutelage) until he is a 4th level fighter, then he can get his 1st wizard level. But you would have to reconsider the multiclassing penalities on XP.

 

[Victim]

Requiring X number of levels before multiclassing destroys any traditional style multiclass characters. It also can result strange things. A paladin that falls at low level would no longer be able to advance; he can no longer advance in paladin, and doesn't have the level needed to enable multiclassing. A rogue who undergoes a sudden conversion can't become priest or paladin. If a crucial character in a group dies, other characters can't multiclass to fill the gap. Low level characters are about the same age as college freshmen, some older, some younger; how many college freshman end up changing their major? They don't need to finish their initial choice to do so.

Splitting first level into 4 other levels seems pretty odd. First level characters have little in the way of skills, offense, or survivability. About the only thing they do have are stat bonuses. From my experience in other RPGs, starting DnD characters are weaker than other starting characters, and I think it's somehwat crazy to weaken them further.

I'm not sure where Metheus's problems are coming from. Our group doesn't run around around looking for gold and then returning to town to buy items from the Magical Sears catalog. We haven't made a choice not to do so to preserve some kind of style. We have the resources to act in that manner quite efficiently - teleport, a helm of teleportation, and 2 characters with "Studied Carefully" or "very familar" locations in Waterdeep. We have jumped around, or at least had the wizard port, to buy some things. Things like scrolls of low level spells. Also, we've wanted to sell items that no one wanted to use. Buying items seems much less efficient than making them yourself anyway.

The Realms, at least in 2e, had tons of high level wizards, the same # of Chosen of Mystra, etc. At least now they've added higher level villains like the Shades so the "Forces of Good" shouldn't be stomping down on every because they out number and out level villains. Population counts probably changed because different counting methods. I don't have the books with me, but it seems likely that 2e books counted the population in the town proper, while 3e ones count the number of people living in the area.

Of course, in previous editions, if you wanted to roleplay a fighter as crafty and sneaky, you could. However, you weren't. Now you can both act sneaky and be sneaky because of cross class skills or multiclassing.

 

[SableWyvern]

Mechanically, this problem stems from the frontloading found in all the 3E classes to make first-level characters palatable. The system even acknowledges that first level is different by giving four levels worth of skill points for what's supposedly one level. I think the system should go all the way and accept that characters have four levels worth of experience from apprenticeship. That way, what we now call "first level" would be four levels, and multiclassing into a spellcasting class could be more gradual. The same would hold for multiclassing into other classes with many Special Abilities at first level. A Ranger might get Tracking at first level, Favored Enemies at second, etc.

If you do that, you're going to have to make some other pretty thorough changes: Otherwise, a 20th level character with two classes is effectively 17th level, with three classes effectively 14th. That's a huge difference, enough to make multiclassing incredibly detrmimental to long term power.