Favored classes and multiclassing.

[Mayhem]

Hell, if you look in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Elminster has class levels something like 1/2/3/15/20, or some-such. Would you accuse him of PG'ing?

If Elminsters player were at my gaming table, I'd be convinced they were giving sexual favours to the DM.

[danielmn]

Elminster has been placed on the ban list. The zhentarim have executed this order.

[Lucas Manderik]

Haha, nice. Well, I guess I had been thinking along a different line when I posted that. I mean, yeah, if a character were created as he was I would definitely agree that it is PG'ing, but seeing as how there are actual stories behind his levels (that is, I consider him an evolution to the state that he was, not a creation with expost facto background stories, and, in my opinion, the same is true for ALFA. No one is creating a level 41, or even level 2, character. If they want a character to go a certain direction, so long as they RP him as such and have IG IC reasons for changing to a class or picking up a class (the survivalist ranger moves to a city and notices a rogue using pick locks to get out of prison -- 'hey, that is useful, i think i should learn how to pick that up' and so he picks up a level of rogue, because he has been training heavily in the rogue skills that he wanted -- a fairly simple example, but somewhat necessary due to something I will get to in a second). THe problem I see is this -- we can't pick up an extra skill as a class skill no matter how much we RP it. Sure, you're a ranger that moved to the city, but guess what? You can NEVER pick a lock so long as you are simply a ranger without having the cross class cap in it. Yeah, the ranger in the city example is kind of weak, but what about this. You are a fighter, but also frequently on the wrong side of the law, as such you pick up lockpicking to help you get out of those sticky situations. It's a skill, anyone can pick it up. But you really burn time on it (not just a dinky +2 from a feat, I mean you really just train and train constantly to learn how to pick a lock in your free time as you travel, etc.) Once again, you can never be as good as a rogue of HALF your level. That's the big problem, in my opinion, until we can burn a feat in order to add a skill to our class skill tree (not just able learner, something that takes a single skill and raises the cap, etc.) we are going to have to multiclass to simply gain access to the skill sets that should be available based on RP reasons. In a PnP game it's an easy fix -- you spent the time, you get a +1 bonus on your pick lock skill checks because you have trained in it extensively during the sessions. But in a game with a console and an interface, it is a bit more difficult for a DM to do that...

Anyway, here's to hoping all goes well no matter how this goes!

[mr duncan]

yeah, if a character were created as he was I would definitely agree that it is PG'ing, but seeing as how there are actual stories behind his levels

I think this was sorta zelks point, you CAN come up with a story for whatever bizarre combo you want. You probably CAN rationalize just about any change you want to make to your PC.

This dosnt mean it should be done.

(the survivalist ranger moves to a city and notices a rogue using pick locks to get out of prison -- 'hey, that is useful, i think i should learn how to pick that up' and so he picks up a level of rogue, because he has been training heavily in the rogue skills that he wanted -- a fairly simple example, but somewhat necessary due to something I will get to in a second).

Sure, he picks up a level of rogue. In the effort not to be a lil powergamer, this responsible player also decides to keep these classes even, or nearly so. If he already has several levels in his first class, he needs to /commit/ to learning his new way of life for a while. No one ever told you not to multiclass in this thread, they have only said not to cherrypick the classes for their prized begining powers. If you wanna play your rogue/ranger, do so. Just commit to both classes.

Whats the likelyhood a rough wilderness man would scoff at the lockpicking rather than thinking its "neat and useful"? Even if this hillbilly did think picking locks was a good thing to learn, he wouldnt have the lifetime of finesse that comes from testing his skills on many countless locks and all the styles of tumbler design that are possible, this is why his cross class skills are capped.

THe problem I see is this -- we can't pick up an extra skill as a class skill no matter how much we RP it.

Your issue isnt that you cant get the skill, its that you cant get the skill and then be as good at it as the people who have been practicing said skill their whole life.

Why should the ranger be able to practice for even a few years and ever get as good as the rogue who has been practicing since he was 9 and being forced to open locks to feed himself an his orphan friends? (the answer, btw, is that he should NOT be able to match the guy doing it for his whole life... without making some major life changes himself.)

Ranger and rogue are a terrible example too... sadly they fit together mechanically like peanutbutter and chocolate, but they are prettymuch direct opposites in every RP way possible.

Sure, you're a ranger that moved to the city, but guess what? You can NEVER pick a lock so long as you are simply a ranger without having the cross class cap in it.

Right. The backwoods ranger bumpkin WONT EVER be as good as a city-bred rogue. His whole life has been sniffing bears asses and collecting berries, theres NO REASON he should be as good as the rogue cause he SAW a skill he thought might be useful.

He shouldnt even be taking the rogue class cause he "saw a useful skill", he should be taking rogue if he stayed in the city a long time and rubbed shoulders with the less savory cutters within its walls.

The scene you describe IS a player taking a cross class skill. If he turns his life into practice, practice, practice... that means taking levels of rogue.

That's the big problem, in my opinion, until we can burn a feat in order to add a skill to our class skill tree (not just able learner, something that takes a single skill and raises the cap, etc.) we are going to have to multiclass to simply gain access to the skill sets that should be available based on RP reasons.

This is not a problem at all, the fighter should NOT be as good as the rogue at picking locks. This game was not designed for you to be a one man solution to everything... but for you to need a PARTY of adventurers to succeed.

If picking locks is so terribly important, maybe your hillbilly ranger should make it a point to invite a rogue along with him on his next adventure, in order to gain the use of his uncanny skills with locks and traps?

If its really that Important to you to be more of a rennaisance man... play a multiclass and balance your classes. No one will complain at you for a ftr/rog with even (or even roughly close) levels. Even the example of the rogue/ranger wont set off any alarm bells if the classes are even, or sorta close.




J

[danielmn]

There is a reason bards are a class.

[Lucas Manderik]

Well, just wanted to say I don't really multiclass, I'm personally a big big fan of the "pure" class types, for the most part (but that is partially because I like playing pally's, who can't/don't multiclass well...

Anyway, I am looking at it too much from a PnP gaming standpoint, I think, where a dm knows the players and can make good judgment calls. He has a higher level of discretion than the DMs here, simply because all he has to say is "sure, you have that now" and you do and then if he decides he doesn't like it "whoops xyz happens throughout this story and you lose that or it's limited now." I agree that PG'ing exists and that people rationalize it, I'm not arguing that, I just believe that if you multiclass keeping the levels even is not a must for said character, generally it tends to be the right viewpoint (integrating ranger/rogue, for example, would most likely result in either a roguish ranger or a rangerish rogue which would be pretty even in between the skills). But in the sense of roleplaying, I see nothing wrong with leaving an old way of life for a new one. I think with the feats I was actually shooting and missing, adding it as a class skill (unless it has high prereqs, like high skill ranks in an associated skill, a minimum level, minimum BAB, whatever) wasn't really what I wanted (though I said it, I was typing as I was thinking) instead there is a feat (maybe in the Complete Adventurer?) that is something like "burn a feat get +4 ranks in skill X". That, I believe would be more appropriate. That ranger who was arrested (and an urban ranger, to me, is a ranger not because of the class description but because of the abilities and skills that the ranger entails, he doesn't take any survival skills, but the rest of the archetype fits him) sees picking locks and wants to learn hwo to do it, so he burns a feat and gets the equivalent of a beginning rogue at it, a fair trade off for giving up something he only gains every three levels, in my opinion.

Anyway, I don't mean to derail this thread bringing up skill intricacies, but am just trying to explain my point of view that whenever characters pick up skills they often have a learning curve in which they quickly pick up the basics, but beyond that it takes more and more time (diminishing returns). Unfortunately, I feel that 3.0 and 3.5 reflect this concept somewhat poorly (+1 point a level in a skill is a bit of a linear progression, and the DC's go up only by 5's for the most part, so every 5 levels "you reach a new ability" in a sense).

But yeah, honestly, the problem I see is primarily that because this is a computer game I guess, DM's aren't always there to monitor the players, and so PG'ing must be checked much more readily than in PnP (even if it has rotating DMs). However, I don't think that that should stop anyone who legitimately plays a character in a good RP way and has a good story behind him as well as good IG reasons to take X class (takes a level of cleric because he has become a man of faith) from taking said class. Sure, if it seems like a PG combo keep an eye on him, and if you're a DM that is suspicious PM him or whatever needs to be done, but I am of the opinion that until they prove they are doing it for the toys that it's okay. This, however, means that those that are found to PG should be dealt with very seriously, too (deletion of characters, reduction of Xp, etc.).

[mr duncan]

that is something like "burn a feat get +4 ranks in skill X". That, I believe would be more appropriate.

You can rejoice! We have this option, its called skill focus. You can get it for any skill you want, if you feel like burning multiple feats, you can get this for as many skills as you have feats.

Take a few points in the skill cross-class (hopefully you have a bonus from your stats too) and then get your +3 for "burning a feat on the skill" as you were just wishing for.


J

[Lucas Manderik]

that is something like "burn a feat get +4 ranks in skill X". That, I believe would be more appropriate.

You can rejoice! We have this option, its called skill focus. You can get it for any skill you want, if you feel like burning multiple feats, you can get this for as many skills as you have feats.

Take a few points in the skill cross-class (hopefully you have a bonus from your stats too) and then get your +3 for "burning a feat on the skill" as you were just wishing for.


J

That's not quite what I was talking about, that is a +2 mod on any skill, the exact feat I am thinking of (will have to dig through all my sourcebooks) is the equivalent of the Loremaster ability, I think. You take the feat and gain 4 ranks in a skill that you have 0 ranks in. Similar to the skill focus, but it only works on skills that you have not learned yet, and so acts like what i described with the learning curve. While it may seem just the same to you, I see them as two very different feats with two very different purposes. Skill focus is just that, you have focused on that skill and are a master of it (one of the reasons that it is required for the Exarch Pr Class), this one (can't remember the name) is you picking up an interest in something. "Oh hey, look, I think that is neat, I will learn the basics of it." Even dumb people (read, people with no int mod or with few skill points) can use it, since it is based on an interest and limited to only 4 points. It's far from OP in my opinion too, since you can get it once every three levels.

[mr duncan]

That's not quite what I was talking about, that is a +2 mod on any skill, the exact feat I am thinking of (will have to dig through all my sourcebooks) is the equivalent of the Loremaster ability, I think. You take the feat and gain 4 ranks in a skill that you have 0 ranks in.

Its a plus 3, and like the name says... it indicates someone who has put a bit of focus on learning the skill. If you want "skill mastery" you take the class that will let you build it up and /become/ a master.

Even dumb people (read, people with no int mod or with few skill points) can use it, since it is based on an interest and limited to only 4 points. It's far from OP in my opinion too, since you can get it once every three levels.

Skill focus can be taken by anyone, of any INT level and offers only one less skill point than what you are asking for. There no requirement to have the skill already, none. You can take this feat with zero skill points invested.... has nothing to do with being a "master" and everything to do with trading a feat for skill points.

It literally means you take the time you would have spent picking up a feat to get +3 in a skill instead. You asked for a feat in exchange for skill points, the only real argument left is that theres a ONE POINT difference to what you were asking for and what youll get.

We dont need a special feat that is the same thing but one more point of bonus.



J

[fluffmonster]

To clarify on the original question...

There are no restrictions on multiclassing except for monks and paladins. This is the way it has always been.

"Balanced" multiclassing is the opinion of the relevant commentators and is not a rule. I suspect it is not even the opinion of the majority of players. Two thirds of all PCs I've ever had in alfa have been "level-dippers". It is not uncommon. Fortunately, in nwn2, if you never tell anyone what your levels are, nobody except the DMs will know, and at the end of the day its only the opinion of the DM that is relevant anyway.

As in all things, you should RP to your build and build to your RP. If a build requires a lot of rationalization gymnastics, you might need to rethink it.

[Kest]

"Balanced" multiclassing is the opinion of the relevant commentators and is not a rule. I suspect it is not even the opinion of the majority of players.

And thank god for that.

[Vintenar]

To clarify on the original question...

There are no restrictions on multiclassing except for monks and paladins. This is the way it has always been.

"Balanced" multiclassing is the opinion of the relevant commentators and is not a rule. I suspect it is not even the opinion of the majority of players. Two thirds of all PCs I've ever had in alfa have been "level-dippers". It is not uncommon. Fortunately, in nwn2, if you never tell anyone what your levels are, nobody except the DMs will know, and at the end of the day its only the opinion of the DM that is relevant anyway.

As in all things, you should RP to your build and build to your RP. If a build requires a lot of rationalization gymnastics, you might need to rethink it.

Good points there. What concerns me are, if a DM logs on and sees a character that is somewhat unique, or exists on the fringes of builds, will they be more or less likely to want to include them in events/treasure/rewards?

In my opinion, the most iconic characters are the ones who multiclass. Look at all the examples, such as Conan who was a savage Barbarian that learned to steal things to get his way and became a Rogue. Artemis Entreri has 4 levels of Rogue, 1 of Ranger and 14 of Fighter (not to mention the others), because he is a survivalist who wishes to track his opponents (ranger), surprise or elude them (rogue) and finally defeat them in combat (fighter). In fact, if one looks, they will find many different famous characters who are multiclass implied.

Real life is another perfect example... how many people out there change their professions from time to time, or what is needed or offers jobs?

I almost wonder if it would not be beneficial for their to be a forum specifically for character concepts that people are currently working on, with commentary and critiquing from both DMs and the community.

[danielmn]

This relevant commentator says fluff is full of hot air.

On a serious note, what fluff says is very much accurate. As long as you aren't monk/pally of orders that don't allow multi- you can pretty much do whatever you want to here as far as multi is concerned. Everyone else has.

[NickD]

Rogue x/Ranger 1/Warlock 1 ftw

[Zelknolf]

I call argumentum ad populum on fluff! Just because a large number of people hold an opinion does not make it accurate or valid, and your attempts to justify your habits as a PGer with fallacy are lulzable!

lulzable, I say!

Also, I think it's pretty clear that we answered the original question "Can I multiclass like an MFer?" very early in the thread: "Yes, because no one will act even if you do so unscrupulously. But you really shouldn't be unscrupulous." seems to be the consensus, with varying defintions of what constitutes "unscrupuluos."



To the "Elminster has a story" comment, his story starts with being made a chosen of Mystra because Mystra was - for some inexplicable reason - scampering about and smearing her new(ish) divine power on random passerbys. Even though it killed everyone else she tried that on. He was a ridiculous expression of Greenwood's astounding ego and lack of authorial integrity from day one.

To the "burn a feat and get 4 ranks in a new skill" comment, you're thinking of a class feature of a prestige class: the Loremaster. One especially keen on developing skills could do that 5 times (on Loremaster levels 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 -- with other options being about as powerful as a feat, except that they stack with their like-purposed feat counterparts). They're a class that requires an investment of 7 levels as a bard, wizard, sorcerer, or cleric (9 for non-humans), 4 feats (one of which is a skill focus: knowledge), 20 skill points, and 7 spells (easy for wiz/clr -- pretty steep when applied to bards and sorcerers). And they acquire skills easily because they're, y'know, loremasters. Their entire class is centered on the concept of "these characters know a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff, so much so that they get identify, legend lore, and analyze dweomer as extraordinary abilities -- that is to say that it is uncounterable, undispellable, has no outward signs of casting, and is unaffected by dead/wild magic. They're just smart enough to pull the results of powerful divinations out of their (likely extremely cluttered) heads." It's a skill focus for everyone else.