Sorry, its a habit. Will try and remember. By the way, all quotes are copying just the plain text.
I'm not saying that you have to allow everything, just that there should be a better reason than "I don't feel like it" to disallow it. If it'd cause a serious problem then that's up to your group to decide however that decision gets made in your group.
I don't recall suggesting "I don't like it". Other than, as stated, that asking to play something I'm uncomfortable with DMing (either lack of the knowledge to do it right or discomfort with the concept or any other reason), don't do it. I'm not the only DM out there, after all. I'd certainly hope I'm not even the only one available.
That's exactly what you're saying when you say the system (not the setting) shouldn't support multiclassing.
Not really, no. If the system is generic, then I'm genuinely not sure that classes help, because there are hundreds if not thousands of posible character types for "all fiction", and certainly scores for "all fantasy". If its not generic, it should have classes that fit the specific situation.
2) Being a legend doesn't require you to be a totally unique character. Beowulf fights basically similarly to most people he runs into, he does better, but he's not unique in that regard.
He's not necessarily but Achilles most definitely was. Just because not all legends are unique doesn't mean none of them can be. Being uniquely skilled in some regard is a legendary feat.
Right. However, "PCs" in general should not be unique. Now, if you wanted to run a PC that was unique in some respect, in a particular
campaign, get back to me.
I was just trying to follow up on what (I think) you introduced.
Right. Just noting that it'd be better all around to stick with things that we don't have to argue on "hey, that's not how X worked" with only one of us knowing the setting in depth. No harm, no foul. Just not as good as it could be, which seems to describe a lot of life.
Rapier guy. (simplified, but the subject)
Rapiers don't penetrate armor well. Even mail is not particularly vulnerable to piercing weapons. As for DM fiat: In a setting where there's no reason for it to be developed...then there's no reason anyone would get it in their head to do it.
Besides, I'd rather exclude something than deal with character death over stupid (as in stupid character) ideas. Your mileage may vary.
Then what are those "knightly abilities" that a huscarl is fundamentally incapable of learning? Horsemanship? I think he can ride one. Maybe his Dex isn't very good and he started with 0 ranks in ride because he's a Str/Con axe-fighter build, but he can learn by investing future skill points into Ride and future wealth into +Dex items.
Well, what makes a knight what he is besides the general "warrior in service of a lord"?
Horsemanship, for one thing. And not just "I can ride". A knight is a
better rider. A knight is focused on mounted combat and taking advantage of that, less familiar with foot combat. Can't benefit from "crazily awesome" at both, though your warrior is certainly welcome to do
either.
Character skill.
Simple. I want to reward a character who is able. If you're a 5th level character, you're more able than a 3rd level character. If you're Wisdom 14, you're wiser than a Wisdom 10 guy. Etc.
Ninja guy.
And why exactly is a pure-rogue character unable to do what a ninja does?
That's a specific question I'd like answered. Its a valid point that some things can't be done with the core classes, but I'd like to change them (for other reasons as well as this one), so I'd like to know.
Even though you're not seeing any ninja in my setting, that's this setting. Elsewhere? I've other problems, but I wouldn't want to say everything I dislike doesn't exist. (even in my setting).
Fading skills.
If you don't practice a skill regularly, it fades. Doesn't mean that you forget how to use Far Shot because you know how to use swords
as well, but you're not going to be able to keep up "I'm a great archer" and "I'm a great swordsman'. Mind you, I don't think this should weaken characters asuming you're active in general.
"Fun" or not, there are only 24 hours in the day, and you need at least 6 of rest (including sleep). That leaves 18 hours to practice and have a life outside practice.
Weapon Focus I: Longsword is not enough to cost you anything as an archer. But if you want Weapon Focus III: Longsword, you're going to be a little weaker as an archer because you're not able to keep up with it.
Tradeoffs.
If you want to say "he studied archery a little", that's NOT a full level of fighter. That's a level of RBAB (Ranged Base Attack Bonus). Maybe a feat.
Clerics.
As stated, a cleric has to be dedicated to his God(dess?). If you just want "a guy who is a priest/rabbi/whatever", then its not a problem to learn whatever. If you want to play a guy who dedicated his life to his God, you're going to have to
be so focused and dedicated. If you want to play a cleric more marital than standard, there's the warrior priest form of the class. But if you want to focus on "I'm a warrior", you're moving
away from "I'm a dedicated servant of my God" into "I'm a warrior'.
So while your god won't "punish you", nor will he reward you as much as someone who is fully dedicated to Him.
And maybe you can do your god's work by Fighting with a bow. Again and again, why does a Cleric have to be punished for also being a Fighter? If I'm a Carpenter and start studying Masonry do I become a worse Carpenter even though I'm now building wooden decks with stone walls around them?
Again, he's not "punished". He's focusing on being a Fighter
instead. So let's say you're a 10th level cleric when it hits you that you really want to be a better archer. You're already as good as the class permits you.
So you decide to focus harder on being an archer, ignoring other parts of what makes a cleric a cleric and not just any ol' guy "doing his god's work". Some of (but not all of) your cleric levels will eventually be lost, though you can replace them with Fighter (archer) levels fairly easily.
Gods do not bless mortals with power lightly.
As for carpenters: As stated, you're unable to keep both skills honed to a fine edge. Not all skills demand exclusive focus, but the amount of whatever-it-is that makes a full out class does require full out focus. If you want to "know some healing magic", spend a feat. If you want to have all the powers of a Devoted Servant of Heironeous, then you have to have all the dedication to that path that Heironeous demands.
At one point in history the Queen's Gambit was a great opening in chess and was the standard. However, someone figured out how to make the Ruy Lopez perform better. And that got beaten by the Dragon. Conventional's only conventional until someone finds its weakness, which could take a long time. Maybe one of the PCs is the one to find that weakness
And maybe not.
But they could be a weird mutant! They could be an absurdly unlikely combination! That could be more fun than just "better than average." I'm not even saying they have to be all-powerful to be weird, just that they could be weird, whether that gives them a disadvantage, no advantage or a distinct advantage.
Example statistic (I think I'm remembering the percent right): About 10% of people are left handed. That means the vast majority of people should be left handed, including PCs in that "people" category.
Note, in this particular case, I'd
prefer right handed characters, I don't really
care.
I'm just using it as something I have a rough idea on how uncommon it is. For purposes of my sanity, no characters can have Asperger's syndrome. (Unless the player does...as someone who has it, I can barely explain it. Understanding all the quirky fucked up foibles...the good and the bad ones...is something we're not there yet on. When we are, consider this limitation removed.).
What's character skill? Maybe you mean you want to reward making good choices during the game session and not reward making good choices during character building? If that's the case then how in the world do you intend to balance that? How do you intend to make that work? "Here's a list of things you can do. I know all it really means is you get to choose what your 100 HP and your 15 damage/round looks like but you can be anything. Except a Hobbit-Knight."
As stated in an earlier part of this post. I want to reward the fact that the character is wise, whether or not the player is. I don't want to reward "how can I build the best character".
One unbalanced thing I do want to reward is the Ability to do Somethng Amazingly Awesome. Like "25 xp for making the DM laugh", but more extreme. IC or OOC, someone who can come up with something that is just "Whoa. That is the most awesome thing ever." deserves something lasting to show for it, even if its just a sloppily drawn star on their character sheet.
Hobbit knights.
Or saying "No, hobbits do not become knights." A race which is afraid of water is not going to produce sailors.
A race afraid of horses will not produce knights.
Now, in most settings, one should go for "less good at" as much as possible, but that's not the point. Some things are literally impossible (a dwarf using a longbow). Some are just improbable (a half-orc monk).
So I can't take a character concept and then optimize it and still be primarily roleplaying? Stormwind Fallacy much? I can both roleplay and optimize at once. Period. That's not debatable. I could build a combination I think would be fun to play because it has the capabilities I want first then roleplay that. I could choose a concept and then optimize it and roleplay that. Just because I do one before the other doesn't mean it was my primary focus, just that I did it in that order.
It does mean that you chose a character based not on "fun to roleplay", since presumably you could create a less powerful version or do something else, but on "really powerful".
How is being an Assassin unrelated to being a Fighter. You're still, at your core, physically killing someone and I'm pretty certain you'd be using that ability consistently.
The difference between killing someone in a more-or-less fair fight and killing someone by sneaking up on them and stabbing them in the back is rather significant.
I don't think anyone thinks a Fighter 5/Assassin 5 should be a better Fighter than Fighter 10. It should, however, be a better Fighter than a Fighter 5.
I disagree. Assuming for the sake of this statement that "Fighter" means a particular set of abilities, rather than generic "I can fight".
Generic "fighting skill" is presumably higher. Fighter skill/s are not. (and the fact that the game has generic fighting skill be all that fighters have is sad and dull).
Do what your hump-stick tells you.
Right now its telling me to giggle. Because while pretty funny, it isn't really what fu is for.
Sure was tempting there though. Because that was definately one of those You Amused the DM things.
In this case, the other guy in the discussion, but still.
I'm working off a base assumption that the connotation of a class is easier to understand, assimilate and assemble than the denotation of a class. That is to say, it's easier to think "Rogue" than "Reflex +2, Sneak Attack +1, Trapfinding, BAB +1, Reflex +1, Evasion, Sneak Attack +2, Trap Sense +1, Uncanny Dodge, Sneak Attack +3, ...". In fact, I had to look up the Rogue class just to figure out what order those first few abilities come in. However, if I want stealth or combat advantage bonus or trapfinding or evasion in D&D I can assume Rogue is something to check out. I don't have to remember all the little abilities individually I just have to understand the class.
If there was "and" in there instead of "or", I'd say that's fine. It ought to be possible to be stealthy without being a Rogue or find traps without being one (especially these two) and evasion...well, I dislike it but that's for other reasons. Those aside, fine to be here.
That's the thing to me. A class should grant special abilities that just being skilled at stuff doesn't. Anyone can have Ride 20. Only someone with Mounted Combat V can ______ (if I think of something, I'll add it).
Then your setting needs specific limits on what you can do, not the system. As far as I understand this was supposed to be a system discussion, not a setting discussion.
And the system should
note that. D&D is at least loosely based on Greyhawk. What classes, races, monsters, deities, and spells it has should be based on that.
Now, having other settings using the same basic rules but different whatever, fine.
Not sure Greyhawk is a good setting to use as the game's base, mind.
In fact, very unsure that it is.
Let's try to trim down this massive debate. With respect to an action-adventure roleplaying game system rather than the fluff, assuming a class-based system:
Do you agree with my assumption that fun is the primary goal of a game?
What do you find most fun about this genre of game? Why do you play this genre instead of any other?
Why should or should not a class be a lifelong commitment?
Why actively punish someone who strays from a class?
Given two classes with an area where they overlap, for example, Fighter plus Rogue equals Assassin, should it be less powerful, as powerful or more powerful (in general, not in a particular field) than one of the two classes alone?
Okay. Answering in order.
1) Yes, but I would not say that "it's fun!"
alone means something should be acceptable.
Ideally, something is fun and fitting within the parameters of what's happening. Both are important. Fun is the goal, but if you can only have fun outside the parameters, you need something with a different set.
2) It is the best genre for "interesting people doing interesting things", in regards to individual people. Historical or fictional, other-world or Earth, it allows for people who are interesting and who can do stuff that's interesting and meaningful.
So basically, I do it because its a good way to play asskickers...but asskickers who are interesting, and not just asskickers. Anyone can do a guy with a rapier. Not many people can pull off Inigo.
3) I don't think a class should be a lifelong commitment. But if you want to change classes, I do think that your abilities in the old class should fade as you focus on learning how to be a member of the new. A blackguard overwrites being a paladin, for instance, its not "paladin/blackguard". As for why, already stated.
4) Its not "actively punishing someone" to say that "okay, you choose to be a rogue, your abilities as a fighter are fading and being replaced by your new rogue abilities". Now, if you just lost your fighter abilities and tough luck, that would suck. You'd suddenly drop in character power.
5) I would say about as powerful. A fighter/rogue should not be overall better at "rogue stuff" or "fighter stuff" by being an Assassin. On the other hand, he should not be worse at one other than as one set is focused on the point of waning abilities elsewhere.
Not just "not increasing". If you sit for ten years and never touch a sword, you'll lose your ability as a swordsman.
Unless you're Zorro, and he bribed the DM.
As for fluff: Fluff does relate, but fine by me.
Siggy: Let's just say there are two types of arguements.
"lol u pokemon suk"
"u suk"
And this kind. Anything complicated inevitably becomes long and drawn out. And speaking as someone who is naturally long winded (can't speak for Zero here), everything becomes more complicated. Especially simple things, because Murphey is a dice rigging
bastard.
Note (to Zero): Is there a reason you said "action-adventure" and not fantasy? Doesn't matter, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something.