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

[Zerovoid]

Everyone says that 3rd edition is all about making hard choices, and that having a crappy character at low levels to be good at high levels is an important part of the game. I just can't see how that is a good way to design a game. Isn't this similar to the demihuman level limits of 2e, that everyone hated so much? The idea behind those was that extra powers at low levels were balanced because your character would hit a wall at high levels. I though 3rd edition was designed so that in theory, all characters would be roughly the same at all levels. Forcing players to balance a strong character in one part of their PC's career path with a weak character at another time doesn't seem to be in line with these principles.

 

[Humanophile]

I think that an issue raised in the first post was ignored, when it should be the crux of the issue; sometimes, dying is actually a benefit to the player, and anything that encourages rapid character changeover is a poor design decision. But when doing so opens up more racial options, lays a garden path to easy prestige classes, and allows optimization for that level of gameplay, there'd better be something major there to keep dying from being too good.

As for the rest of the game, I mostly agree, but the current system is quite elegant even with its inherent imbalances to risk mucking it all up in the hopes of even better balance. I'd like to see 4e have more of a "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" mentality, and more rules for undoing bad choices/catching up when new material comes out, but that's about ten more years of field testing away. So make and streamline your house rules, but try to keep them from taking up over a minute of game time/ten minutes of out of game time, tops.

 

[Akunin]

Everyone says that 3rd edition is all about making hard choices, and that having a crappy character at low levels to be good at high levels is an important part of the game.

I fail to see how it could be any other way. First level characters have much lower Hit Points, Armor Classes, Attack Bonuses, wealth, and magic than higher-level characters. It's been that way from the very start of D&D, and that's the way that most RPGs work.

Relatively speaking, if you compare a first level fighter to a 20th-level fighter, of course the first level character will look crappy. He's not going to have as many attacks, or Hit Points, or cool abilities granted by Feats and magic items. He's not going to have the enchanted armor and weaponry, either. That's the difference between a first-level and a 20th-level PC. The level 1 character is a novice who's decided to take up the life of an adventurer, and the level 20 PC is the famous hero who has survived dozens of adventures and has become more powerful with the experience and treasure gained.

I fail to see what is wrong with this power progression.

If you want a flatter distribution of power, or a system where inexperienced and experienced characters have roughly the same amount of power, I'd look into a few point-based character-construction games, like Gurps or the Hero system.

I just can't see how that is a good way to design a game. Isn't this similar to the demihuman level limits of 2e, that everyone hated so much? The idea behind those was that extra powers at low levels were balanced because your character would hit a wall at high levels.

The extra powers granted at low levels were the racial abilities inherent in demihumans, and the ability to multiclass, and even then you had limited options. The multiclassing rules have been made much more player-friendly and racial abilities are now better balanced. The old 2e limits never made sense, anyway.

But those game design issues are not similar to your wanting to swap around Feats and re-building your character from the gorund up every time he advances in level.

In the 2e case, I think it was an attempt at making Humans a desirable character choice, a way of encouraging more human PCs (they are supposed to be the most populous of the races), and an over-estimation of the value of demihuman's racial abilities.

In your rules suggestion, you're trying to reward players who make poor decisions, and negate the consequences of such decisions.

If I'm playing a Wizard, and I keep failing Fortitude Saves at low levels, I'll probably take the Fortitude-save-increasing Feat. But if I later decide to multiclass into Fighter, and notice later that my Fortitude save is now at a reasonable level, should I be able to go back and swap out that old Feat for something "better" simply because I made a choice that was a good idea at third level, but not at fifteenth?

Nope.

I knew that if I multiclassed into Fighter, my Fortitude save would increase. Out of dozens of Feats available, I chose the one that I needed at the time. Why should I be able to "take back" that decision once I hit level 15, just because it's no longer an "optimal choice"?

I though 3rd edition was designed so that in theory, all characters would be roughly the same at all levels. Forcing players to balance a strong character in one part of their PC's career path with a weak character at another time doesn't seem to be in line with these principles.

I think you're misunderstanding the "character balance" intent. It sounds to me like you're saying that a "strong character" (high-level) needs to be balanced against a "weak character" (low level).

This is how I'm understanding your take on character balance: The stats and abilities of a fifth-level Cleric should be balanced compared to his stats and abilities at twelfth level. Is this what you're saying?

If so, it's an incorrect take on the "balance in 3e". What the game is designed to do is promote balance between characters of equal levels. Now, not all characters are going to have the same strengths, but the benefits they gain from their classes should be comparable.

My 10th-level Wizard will have a better spell selection than your 10th-level Sorcerer, but you can cast more spells.

My 20th-level Fighter can deal a lot more damage in Melee, and has a bunch of extra Feats that let him dominate the battlefield, but he doesn't have the spells, Domain powers, or Saves of your 20th-level Cleric.

This doesn't mean that there should be any attempt to balance the 10th-level Sorcerer against the 20th-level fighter, or even a 10th-level Sorcerer against a 2nd-level Sorcerer.

That said, there are plenty of ways to make a character that looks very powerful in one way, but whose weaknesses are even more visible.

For example: multiclass into several classes with good Fort saves and watch it go through the roof! Of course, your Reflex and / or Will saves will most often be very feeble if you go this route.

Another example: multiclass into several spellcasting Prestige Classes and pick up the special abilities from their first few levels. You get lots of useful powers, yes, and you can easily do it without losing spellcaster progression. However, take a look at what's happened to your BAB (and, usually, your Ref and Fort saves).

So in this case, you've gotten a big advantage, but you've picked up a disadvantage to compensate. In the end, it pretty much evens out.

That's what the goal in 3e balance is about - to promote fun by having characters of the same level have the smae amount of power. That way, certain character types don't "run the show" while the others are stuck to the sidelines (as with Wizards and Clerics in 2e), and everyone's PC can have a meaningful impact on the scenario.

 

[Vuron]

Dear god akunin is channeling Ruin Explorer!

Anyway I agree wholeheartedly with Akunin, your character should just get rebuilt to suit your whims each time a new supplement comes up. Otherwise why not just take the experience and starting money and just rebuild your character from scratch each level?

 

[Akunin]

I think that an issue raised in the first post was ignored, when it should be the crux of the issue; sometimes, dying is actually a benefit to the player, and anything that encourages rapid character changeover is a poor design decision. But when doing so opens up more racial options, lays a garden path to easy prestige classes, and allows optimization for that level of gameplay, there'd better be something major there to keep dying from being too good.

There are several ways to prevent this from being abused:

Verisimilitude: It's sometimes hard to justify a new character "popping into" the scenario. If your party is knee-deep in undead while exploring The Crypt of Necromantic nastiness, you're unlikely to just "run into" a high-level friend who'll jump in, save the day, and join the party. Make the player who chooses to start over wait a bit until the storyline can accomodate him.

Rule 0: Let's say the party is in the aforementioned meat-grinder of a dungeon, the Bard is now a zombie, and the Fighter has no choice but to mow him down. The player decides that a Bard wasn't a good idea for this adventure, so he presents the DM with his half-dragon Cleric / Radiant Servant of Pelor. The DM has final say on what classes and races are allowed in his campaign. If the game started with the characters at level 1, he's perfectly justified in not allowing a +ECL race to be used, as the other players did not have that same option. And if Pelor is not one of the deities in your campaign world, who's to say that the Prestige Class even exists for followers of your campaign's sun god?

Prestige Classes are a DM's tool for building unique organizations and specialized occupational paths for characters. Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's gonna be fair game.

As a DM, I have a list of what books are allowed for character construction, and whether items like Feats or Equipment can be chosen freely or whether the player needs to check with me about it. In that list are which Prestige Classes are a part of my setting, and restrictions on taking them if necessary (for the ones that require joining an organization or which are by invitation-only, as opposed to something anyone devoting enough effort could get into). If the Prestige Class isn't on the list, then sorry. It's not a part of the setting. I don't care how cool it'd be to have a Bladedancing Ninja with levels in the "Double-Bladed Goodness from the Jungle Planet of Death" Prestige Class - we're playing in the Realms.

Make it clear to the players "this is what you can play in this game" and if you get a character sheet for a "Half Fiendish Troll Fighter 5 / Overpowered Net Prestige Class 3, specializing in Unbalanced Home-brew Weapon #7" your player has no right to complain when you tell him "Oh, hell no!"

Penalties: A lot of DMs I know require that players bringing a new PC into the campaign do so at a level below the previous character's level. It prevents players from making "disposable" PCs, as those who keep killing off characters are going to be coming back with lower and lower levels, just as if they had a character brought back from the dead. If the player wants to advance in levels, they'll need to find a character concept and stick with it.

It's a hard option, and some players will object to it, but if players are using character death as a way to "tune" their PCs to favor the current scenario (we're getting killed by a certain type of monster, I'll make a Ranger / we're out of healing, I'll make a cleric...), you as a DM may need to correct the situation. Sometimes, that requires taking a hard-line approach.

Even a lesser approach, such as not allowing the PC to choose his magical gear, or not allowing a character brought in as a replacement to begin with Prestige Class levels can alleviate this problem.

 

[Crothian]

Rebuild my character every level? You know how cool that would be?

As a low level sorcer I can take spells like sleep that are helpful then, and when it becomes useless I can just trade it out. And Extra Slot will be great cause I can continuely make it a higher level slot. I can try out a feat, see if I like it and then trade it out later. Or even better, at higher levels I can trade out all my early feats for more powerful feats that I never had the prerrequyisites for earlier. This is even better then banking feats, knowing I can just trade it out later. Skill points? I know next week I've got to sneak into a castle, so I'll load up those skills, and then trade them out later when I don't need them anymore. Hey, I can do the same for feats and spells, too. I don't have to take responsibility for bad character mistakes cause I can always redo them later.

Personally, when I make a character I have a general plan. But I'm not rigid in that plan. Role playing can effect the character and how it developes. When new products come out, the PCs can look at them to see if something fits the character. For instance when Song And Silence came out their was Disguise spell and that worked better for what the Bard wanted then still spell. It made an easy trade. When MotW came out, the Druid was allowed to trade out a feat, so he could qualify for the Shifter class.

I think in real life people have to live with their choices. Granted, RPGs aren't always totally realistic, but some things are better realistic. While your playing if the PCs makes a bad descion and a few hours later he finds out he mad the wrong choice, do you let him go back and change it? To me redifing the character every level is no different.

 

[bret]

Several people have said they would allow an unused feat to be swapped out.

How about a feat that (when it was used) turned out to not work very well?

I had this happen recently. It was partially because I was rushed creating a high level character, and partially because I was playing with some of the rules I hadn't used yet.

I created a Paladin with the Trip feat. In my opinion, for this particular character that turned out to be a bad choice. Basically, unless the opponent is small a human doesn't have a very good chance of tripping someone.


Sometimes you don't realize this until after you've played through an encounter or two.

 

[Akunin]

In a case like that, I'd probably allow the Swap. If it had mediocre or poor results, but you used it continually, I'd not allow it. Butif you wanted to adopt a certain fighting style, it turned out to not work for the character, and you wanted to change it shortly after taking it, sure.

 

[Humanophile]

There are several ways to prevent this from being abused:

Verisimilitude: It's sometimes hard to justify a new character "popping into" the scenario. If your party is knee-deep in undead while exploring The Crypt of Necromantic nastiness, you're unlikely to just "run into" a high-level friend who'll jump in, save the day, and join the party. Make the player who chooses to start over wait a bit until the storyline can accomodate him.

This is true, but I think most DM's would have the good sense to not play with anyone who comes in with a stack of premade characters unless everyone at the table wants to play a Diablo style hackfest. Having to sit out of play for a little while is a good "penalty" for dying, but someone intent on remaking their character, it's a negligible drawback.

Rule 0: Let's say the party is in the aforementioned meat-grinder of a dungeon, the Bard is now a zombie, and the Fighter has no choice but to mow him down. The player decides that a Bard wasn't a good idea for this adventure, so he presents the DM with his half-dragon Cleric / Radiant Servant of Pelor. The DM has final say on what classes and races are allowed in his campaign. If the game started with the characters at level 1, he's perfectly justified in not allowing a +ECL race to be used, as the other players did not have that same option. And if Pelor is not one of the deities in your campaign world, who's to say that the Prestige Class even exists for followers of your campaign's sun god?

Prestige Classes are a DM's tool for building unique organizations and specialized occupational paths for characters. Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's gonna be fair game.

As a DM, I have a list of what books are allowed for character construction, and whether items like Feats or Equipment can be chosen freely or whether the player needs to check with me about it. In that list are which Prestige Classes are a part of my setting, and restrictions on taking them if necessary (for the ones that require joining an organization or which are by invitation-only, as opposed to something anyone devoting enough effort could get into). If the Prestige Class isn't on the list, then sorry. It's not a part of the setting. I don't care how cool it'd be to have a Bladedancing Ninja with levels in the "Double-Bladed Goodness from the Jungle Planet of Death" Prestige Class - we're playing in the Realms.

Make it clear to the players "this is what you can play in this game" and if you get a character sheet for a "Half Fiendish Troll Fighter 5 / Overpowered Net Prestige Class 3, specializing in Unbalanced Home-brew Weapon #7" your player has no right to complain when you tell him "Oh, hell no!"

If the player wants to play a cheap class/race/spell/gear/what have you combo, the only thing stopping him is the DM, preferably with a heavy, blunt object. That applies no matter when they enter game. But ECL+ races and gear are specifically written to apply to characters entering the game at greater than first level. Most DM's I know would accept that these are balanced (which is a dispute for another thread, but for the sake of arguement I'll say they are), and as such, allow the characters to come in with what they're "due" for coming in. Which is fine if you were talking a CRPG style exchange of numbers, but many of the cool special abilities and inherent neatness factor can make simple raising seem a weak choice in any case, unless new characters lose more than one level.

And if you're talking the chance to handpick gear and class spread, I see no reason not to come in first level as a dual Toughness Human Sorcerer with Sleep, Daze, Monster Summoning I, and all sorts of other spells that start out great but peter out soon, and when I get to a level where those choices are useless, remake my character without any of those "flaws". I know many a character who'd give up a full level to take back some earlier choices, and when you throw in the chance to chose your magic items to fit, you'll overpower an organically grown character of even a couple of levels ahead of you. That, IMHO, is horrible game design. (It does make me wonder how many classes are balanced on the "build to level" design, as an aside. I see several things that should be built as more forgiving, and that are quite underpowered if you're forced to live with them over any length of time.)

And if you allow any prestige classes, you run the risk of characters being homemade for them. As prestige classes are most often cooler and/or more powerful than standard classes, characters who can ignore the drawbacks and build required "from the ground up" come in at an advantage.

Penalties: A lot of DMs I know require that players bringing a new PC into the campaign do so at a level below the previous character's level. It prevents players from making "disposable" PCs, as those who keep killing off characters are going to be coming back with lower and lower levels, just as if they had a character brought back from the dead. If the player wants to advance in levels, they'll need to find a character concept and stick with it.

It's a hard option, and some players will object to it, but if players are using character death as a way to "tune" their PCs to favor the current scenario (we're getting killed by a certain type of monster, I'll make a Ranger / we're out of healing, I'll make a cleric...), you as a DM may need to correct the situation. Sometimes, that requires taking a hard-line approach.

Even a lesser approach, such as not allowing the PC to choose his magical gear, or not allowing a character brought in as a replacement to begin with Prestige Class levels can alleviate this problem.

Losing a single level isn't, IMHO, harsh enough. Given the choice of raising a sub-optimal, organic character or rebuilding from scratch, if both cost a level, you'd be a fool to chose the former, power-wise. And even if you have the most noble intentions coming in with a new character, getting all your abilities in one fell swoop can be overwhelming to you and likely even the DM. Personally, I'm hard on this kind of thing, but I'm trying to find the right balance between not bending over players who have honest reasons to change characters or whos characters die "naturally", and making sure that characters who have survived from level one have more than nostalgia, allies, and other roleplaying bonuses to hold over the heads of these fresh-faced whippersnappers.

 

[jollyninja]

i would impose a small experience penalty, ie 10% of the ammount required to go from present level to next level to switch out an old feat. it's not much but i think it is a reasonable reflection of the character going back and relearning some stuff. i also allow removal of old class levels to be replaced with new classes but once again, it's an experience penalty to do so. i'm all for flexability within reason and there has to be some consequence to players making poor decisions.

i would allow switching out used feats that did not work out as well as expected simply because i remember one of my characters taking monkey grip with a great sword so that he could fight 2 weapon with that and his bastard sword. DO NOT DO IT, IT SUCKS -6 to all primary attacks, -4 to secondary, requires 5 feats to even pull off, not worth the time. after one fight i realised that while it would have looked more frightening then anything that could realisticly be expected from my 5' 6" character (one sword 6' long, the other 5' LOL) who also only weighed 190 lbs. it was completley ineffective and i quit doing it immediately. but i never got those feats back. now however my boy would become a tempest and kill everything in his path.