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

[Furn_Darkside]

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.

Salutations,

This has always been a confusing point for me, but the d&d FAQ helps clear it up.

You are correct when you say you can only spend any gained skill points can be spent as a member of the class you are gaining a level in.

However- once a character has a class skill in something, their maximum skill rank is their character level + 3.

Atleast that is how the FAQ suggests it works. It may not make total sense, but makes the book keeping a lot easier.

FD

 

[Davelozzi]

Cool, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Victim]

There's a reason I used Spot in my example instead of something really cool like Use Magic Device.

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?

People lose old skills all the time. Someone I know had to relearn most math skills because he/she hadn't used them in years. Now that said person has passed those classes, I think it's very likely that the person has again forgotten most math above basic algebra. On the other hand, a 70 year old retired fighter in DnD will still have that one rank craft that he bought at level one and NEVER used.

If you're worried about characters undergoing complete change every level (My character switches from fighter rogue to paladin sorcerer this level. WTF?), then just set a limit on how much can be changed. Perhaps you can only change a feat every third level, or move skill points around equal to your points for that level. Perhaps include a minor penalty for "retraining," such as a few days and some XP.

 

[Zerovoid]

Good point about the skill points, it would often be tricky to use this to any advantage, and there are some cases when it might be better to become a rogue later on to have a really high score in one or two rogue skills. Still I think you're almost always best off taking rogue as your first level.

Early in the first 3e campaign I ran, the player of the sorceror decided that his character had a definate roguish bent, and multiclassed into rogue at 2nd level. I felt he was really getting hosed by missing all those skill points, so I offered to let him have the difference in skill points to spend as a rogue. Surprisingly, he didn't seem interested. I can't understand that. Knowing that a character I had was missing those skill points would be like a cancer eating away at me, especially in a long term campaign. I would always thing about how my character sucked as a result of this. It would be like if your character lost an arm or something, and there was no way to get it back.

Sleep was a bad example on my part. My point was, while the sleep spell may become worthless at high levels, at least you still have the spell available. Your character is not strictly worse because of it, and it still has a few uses. If a character takes Toughness, and then later Dragon's Toughness becomes available, there will probably be some way to generate a new character by shuffling the feats around that is exactly like the old character, but with extra Hp. I can't express how much this bothers me. It really offends me that the system should allow for such mathematically impure results.

It might be difficult to figure out where to draw the line in this system though. Could a character whose hitpoints went up trade in the toughness feat for another one? This is similar to the "Flexible Weapon Focus with Bows" presented in S&F. That section says you can swap your weapon focus from long bow, to composite long bow, but only if your BAB goes up. That way you aren't actually getting worse with the bow that you no longer have focus in.

It might also be, that only a very few people are bothered like I am about these inconsistencies in the rules.

 

[Henry]

...then just set a limit on how much can be changed. Perhaps you can only change a feat every third level, or move skill points around equal to your points for that level. Perhaps include a minor penalty for "retraining," such as a few days and some XP.

I follow an even easier path than this. I allow anyone who did not have access to a given feat (let's say we JUST got the book, because it just came out), to drop one and take one. After this point, if we start a new game, If there is no more new material released, then the player is stuck with what they chose, no matter how much they like it later.

I always allow a period of adjustment with character choices, just in case they don't like what they chose. After a period of time, (say, three sessions), they are locked into their choices.

I also allow them to generate a new character that is of equal or one lower level, should they tire of the current one. Why plan something you are unhappy with. My group has not abused this trust, and only changes if they are extremely unhappy with their character. The most I ever saw anyone use this was one player who played as a wizard in the first 20 games or so, then he switched to an elf fighter/wizard, and finally to a human paladin! He was satisfied with the paladin, and played to the end of the campaign.

 

[Zenon]

Hmm, the new Toughness feats in MotW bothered me too. When I first saw them, I looked at them and expected to see a Prerequisite: Toughness Feat in them but was surprised when I didn't.

That would have at least made sense, and I think it's something that I might have to House Rule in. Make each level of the Toughness feats require as prereq's all of the lower feats. That should solve the problem nicely.

 

[Akunin]

Still I think you're almost always best off taking rogue as your first level.

I can think of two reasons right off the top of my head why it's NOT the best option: You'll start with 6 Hit Points (only Wizards and Sorcerers will have less than you) and you'll have a +0 BAB. For Feats and Prestige Classes requiring a minimum BAB, you've just delayed getting them by at least one level.

I felt he was really getting hosed by missing all those skill points, so I offered to let him have the difference in skill points to spend as a rogue. Surprisingly, he didn't seem interested. I can't understand that. Knowing that a character I had was missing those skill points would be like a cancer eating away at me, especially in a long term campaign. I would always thing about how my character sucked as a result of this. It would be like if your character lost an arm or something, and there was no way to get it back.

I think you're exaggerating here, or at least I hope you are. I don't think 99.9% of players would lose a minute of sleep over a thing like that. I don't blamy your player a bit - if he wanted the 32 skill points, he probably would've taken Rogue at first level.

Part of the design philosophy of 3e is that you have to make 'Hard Choices'. Oftentimes, to gain a benefit, a sacrifice has to be made. Do I take a level of Fighter and get access ot Specialization, or do I increase Rogue and get another die of Sneak Attack damage? Do I raise my Cleric level and get access to Fourth-Level spells, or do I add a level of Barbarian to up my Hit Points and fighting skill? You can't have it both ways.

If a character takes Toughness, and then later Dragon's Toughness becomes available, there will probably be some way to generate a new character by shuffling the feats around that is exactly like the old character, but with extra Hp.

But by swapping them around, you've retroactively changed your character's history. Maybe that low-leveled Sorcerer had a few close calls and near-death experiences, so he took Toughness to help keep himself alive. It makes no sense to swap that out at a later level so he can get more Hit Points from a more powerful version of the Feat. You're not just "optimizing" the character, you're changing some of the fundamental events in his development.

I can't express how much this bothers me. It really offends me that the system should allow for such mathematically impure results.

Mathematically impure results? It's not math, and it's not science. It's a game. A simulation of fantasy adventures. Your character is much, much more than stats on a sheet of paper.

I think you're reading much to far into the importance of the numbers that comprise your PC.

It might be difficult to figure out where to draw the line in this system though. Could a character whose hitpoints went up trade in the toughness feat for another one? This is similar to the "Flexible Weapon Focus with Bows" presented in S&F.

I don't think the system needs to be created, at all.

When I sit down to make a character, I try to envision what I want that character to be like at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels. I think about what sort of abilities, skills, and Feats I want to develop, and what classes I'd like to take. It only takes a few minutes, and it helps greatly in building the character concept, and these "goals" give roleplay hooks for the character. I think many other players do the same or something similar.

Sure, it makes the going tough when you decide to wait for a higher level to take a Feat or class level that would benefit you now, but you always get something else in return for the things you pass up.

It might also be, that only a very few people are bothered like I am about these inconsistencies in the rules.

Not inconsistencies. Hard Choices. You can't have everything, so you have to pick and choose when developing a character. Sometimes, this means sub-optimal Feat and Skill picks. It's just a part of the game.

 

[thundershot]

If it came up, I would allow my players who STACKED toughness feats to trade them in for the new ones. Or if they took the feat at the appropriate level. No problem with that at all.

Also, if a character realizes he/she made a mistake in selecting a feat, and they NEVER used it, then I'll let them reselect it based on the prereqs at the time it should have been chosen. It keeps people from throwing away perfectly good characters based on one bad choice.


Chris

 

[Storminator]

When I sit down to make a character, I try to envision what I want that character to be like at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels. I think about what sort of abilities, skills, and Feats I want to develop, and what classes I'd like to take. It only takes a few minutes, and it helps greatly in building the character concept, and these "goals" give roleplay hooks for the character. I think many other players do the same or something similar.

Personally, I NEVER spend the time to do this. I envision how I'll make my character live to next week.

But why should I get all the benefits of foresight (ie, the ability to re-optimize my character constantly) if I don't HAVE any foresight? This is the issue here. Those that think ahead and work at a goal should get a benefit when that goal is attained. Those of us that wing it should be left behind.

Maybe my PC will be better off at 3rd level (because I choose feats with the goal of living to 4th level) than a more planned PC, but at 6th level I fall behind the PC that worked up the feat tree, or can now take a cool prestige class. That's a tradeoff you shouldn't take away.

PS

 

[Akunin]

But why should I get all the benefits of foresight (ie, the ability to re-optimize my character constantly) if I don't HAVE any foresight?

The biggest benefit gained by having foresight is a better idea of when you should take a certain Feat or Skill to gain a desired result. Players with foresight don't need to be rewarded - they'll have the character turn out the way they wanted.

But giving a huge benefit to players lacking in foresight, or who don't want to take a little time to plan a character, is wrong. Hindsight, they say, is 20/20 and rewarding those players who want to "take back" poor decisions only encourages a lack of foresight.

Looking ahead and planning a career for your character in the manner I suggested takes only ten or fifteen minutes. That's not too much effort to put into making a character.

This is the issue here. Those that think ahead and work at a goal should get a benefit when that goal is attained. Those of us that wing it should be left behind.

Precisely. If you don't put any thought into choices, and you find later that you made a bad choice, you shouldn't be allowed to rebuild your PC from the ground up, as was suggested by the original poster. You took a feat to gain a bonus 5th-level slot, and you want to change it to an 8th-level slot? Sorry. You took a level of Fighter, then a level of Rogue, but now you want 32 skill points, instead of 8? Sorry.

The player knew that there was a trade-off to be made, and took one route. You can't go back and change the development path traveled.

As for a swapping out of a Feat here or there, if new options become available (such as the class books example above) is a fine option, so long as the change in the Feat is in-line with the character concept.

For example, if your fighter-type has been using the Bull Rush maneuver in every fight, and a book is released that includes a Feat to improve that combat option, and you want to drop the Quick Draw Feat you picked up a couple levels back and never used, I'd be cool with that. But if Quick Draw had become an important part of your character's fighting style, I'd say "no".

In the first case, you made a choice based on what was available, and never used the ability gained, instead relying on an ability you could not improve. Trading a Feat you chose (and didn't use) because at the time you didn't have access to the Feat that made sense for the character is fine, in my eyes.

In the second, you made a choice based on your options, and made it a part of your character concept. You should not be allowed to trade it for something "better" that wasn't available before.

But re-tooling the entire PC just because the player took a +3 HP Feat at first level and qualifies for a +12 HP Feat now should be right out. You're trading in a good thing for a better thing, based only on the fact that you decided to take the good thing at an early level and not wait for a better option. And you're losing nothing in the process.

Maybe my PC will be better off at 3rd level (because I choose feats with the goal of living to 4th level) than a more planned PC, but at 6th level I fall behind the PC that worked up the feat tree, or can now take a cool prestige class. That's a tradeoff you shouldn't take away.

Agreed. The tradeoffs (often, as you point out, being based on a style of play) are an important part of the game, and that's why I don't agree with making a rule to allow for an editing of a PC at each level.