Why should it matter what order you gain your abilities in?

[Zerovoid]

There are alot of places in the DnD rules where it matters when a character gains a certain ability or class. Making choices that are powerful early on means making great sacrifices later. I'm not just talking about a Sorceror who takes sleep at 1st level because its a powerful spell at that time, and then finds it useless.

What about anyone who multiclasses to rogue after first level, and doesn't get their skill points multiplied by 4.
What about somone who takes extra slot or extra spell, and then finds that to be underpowered later on.
What about the new Toughness feats in MotW, which essentially give you more Hp for taking toughness at a later point than an earlier one.

These inconsistencies are really bothering me. I think characters should be independant of path. A character with a given set of classes and feats should have all the same opportunities no matter when they were taken. I don't think players should have to make sub-par characters early on to have powerful characters later on. The thing that really bothers me, is when a character dies, and I see a replacement character come in who is totally optomized for a new level, even though their set of skills would never let them get to that level alive. I wouldn't be as bothered about this in a non-level based system, where characters could just spend a few more points later on to offset the advantages, but when a characters advancement potential is finite at any given level, it seems wrong to have characters that are strictly better than others.

Rather than create a long list of exceptions, I'm thinking about implementing the following rule: Whenever a PC gains a new level, that PC can be completely redesigned from the ground up, as long as they don't lose any abilities that were posessed previously. This would ensure consistency in advancement, but not penalize players for making optimal choices early on.

 

[Darklone]

Hmmm

Another evil RatBastardDM trick: Let them start as slaves. Everyone gets the same. No rogue wizard who will take rogue first.

 

[hong]

Rather than create a long list of exceptions, I'm thinking about implementing the following rule: Whenever a PC gains a new level, that PC can be completely redesigned from the ground up, as long as they don't lose any abilities that were posessed previously. This would ensure consistency in advancement, but not penalize players for making optimal choices early on.

Be warned: at higher levels, this could take a _long_ time. Also, this belongs in House Rules.

 

[Darklone]

Nah hong!

Hey, it does not belong in house rules if he looks for advices...

You could as well let them start as NPC class. Commoners

 

[Victim]

Well, the non multiplied skill points from not starting as a 1st leevl rogue gives other advantages. On average, your HP would be higher since first level gives max. Also, multiclasing into rogue later lets you put skills in at higher levels. For example, a first level rogue will be limited to 4 ranks in each skill. However, a fighter 6 rogue 1 has a max of 10 ranks in skill. He could dump all 10 (human + int, let's say) rogue skills points into one skill. Having +4 spot isn't that useful at higher levels because all the DCs are usually higher. However, getting 10 ranks puts you on par with single class rogue in that one area. I think the rogue skill point multiclassing issue is just anoter variation on the tendency to broaden or specialize a character's abilities with multiclasses.

The feats could scale better however.

 

[Umbran]

I think characters should be independant of path

Therin liest he crux of the matter. Others would say that the character is the path. Who cares exactly what the abilities are? The interesting part is in getting to wherever you are, not exactly what you can do once you arrive.

 

[nsruf]

I think you have a valid point, but how is your rule going to help?

Rather than create a long list of exceptions, I'm thinking about implementing the following rule: Whenever a PC gains a new level, that PC can be completely redesigned from the ground up, as long as they don't lose any abilities that were posessed previously. This would ensure consistency in advancement, but not penalize players for making optimal choices early on.

In the example of a sorcerer taking sleep, how does this change things? He has sleep at low levels and can't lose it at higher ones. I could see it working if there were higher level sleep spells, which could be taken instead, but there are too few similar effects for most spells (it would work with Summon Monster, though). The same holds for most feats.

Or did I misundertand your idea?

 

[Davelozzi]

Also, multiclasing into rogue later lets you put skills in at higher levels. For example, a first level rogue will be limited to 4 ranks in each skill. However, a fighter 6 rogue 1 has a max of 10 ranks in skill. He could dump all 10 (human + int, let's say) rogue skills points into one skill.

I don't think that's true. I'm pretty sure that the multiclass rules stipulate that any skill points that you get when you gain a level must be spent as a member of the class that you're gaining a level in. So, what you say would only be true for a skill that was a class skill for both fighter and rogue. A skill such as disable device, which is a class skill for a rogue but not a fighter, would still be maximum rank 4 in this case. I could be wrong, I don't have the PHB with me right now.

 

[Quickbeam]

I agree with Umbran. Characters should be the sum total of all their parts, which evolve as they partake in adventures and gain experience. Not the other way around. There's no question that PCs will acquire skills, abilities, and spells early on that will later border on useless -- but how is that different from you or I? As the events of your life have taken shape, certain areas of your development have remained static while others have continued to grow. Should you just be able to forget how to conjugate verbs in French, or calculate the value of x in an algebraic equation because those skills are no longer important to you?

The path your character follows, will (should) dictate what skills, feats, spells and abilities remain relevant and vital to his/her continued growth and survival. Others will fall by the wayside, as tokens of the past.

As for creating new PCs to replace those that have perished, I'd rule that the new character should have a coherent story explaining how and why they came to be what they are. This will only marginally alter the selection of skills, feats, etc., but reinventing the wheel (or characters) at every level seems a bit irrational to me.

 

[Cor Azer]

I don't think that's true. I'm pretty sure that the multiclass rules stipulate that any skill points that you get when you gain a level must be spent as a member of the class that you're gaining a level in. So, what you say would only be true for a skill that was a class skill for both fighter and rogue. A skill such as disable device, which is a class skill for a rogue but not a fighter, would still be maximum rank 4 in this case. I could be wrong, I don't have the PHB with me right now.

You're almost right. For exclusive skills, the max ranks is dependent only on the class level of whichever class gets the skill. As long as a non-exclusive skill is a class skill for any of a character's classes, goes off the max ranks by character level, not class level.