Various role-playing RPG game stuff not deserving its own thread

[rusty_shackleford]

having to choose between more levels in your class or prc was lame and gay

[Lhynn]

I liked it in 3rd edition where they made "prestige" classes, and there were alternative prestige class rules for upgrading fighters into them.

What the **** am I reading?

[UltraFan123]

having to choose between more levels in your class or prc was lame and gay

I think prestige classes in general usually gave you better stuff than the base class, hence why they were "prestige" classes.

For example [Eldritch Knight], 9 out of 10 levels advanced spellcasting while all the 10 levels gave Basic Attack Bonus and hit die comparable to that of a fighter or barbarian.

So if you maxed out the prestige class + 9 levels of either wizard or sorcerer + the single level of fighter for the martial weapons proficiency, then at level 20 you had the spellcasting ability of a level 18 wizard/sorcerer with the attack bonus and hit die of a cleric.

At least that's how I like to build eldritch knights.

[Lhynn]

having to choose between more levels in your class or prc was lame and gay

5e solved it by implementing subclasses. You go 2-3 levels deep into a class, you get to pick a flavor for it, as you advance you get unique abilities and unique flavor skills that have mostly non combat applications.
Its a really good way of doing it. Probably the single best implementation of Eldritch knight across any medium too.

[Rand]

Prestige classes, when well designed, are literally tailored to make appropriate hybrids without faffing about with back-and-forth multiclassing that cuts you off from high level stuff.
Multiclassing even fucks you for critical stats like BAB and saves (and at low levels boosts you unbalancedly because of the big 1st class level numbers).

Why does it **** you? The numbers in the book tables are rounded. Exclusively down. Even though the mathematical progressions are often fractional by class level. Usually halves or thirds, but there were some 0.75s if I remember right.
Take certain classes at certain levels and you get nothing, because all the fractions frrom your various classes that would have collectively added up to a point or more were dropped for the tables, and you normally just add the table increases.
Do this over enough levels and you can be many points behind a single class, and in 3.5 that could be very significant.

If one were to build the entire class structure as a well-thought-out progression from common NPC classes to expert specialist classes to hero classes, it would be excellent for my preferred playstyle.

[Kalarion]

Medieval sheriff could be a cool class idea, but I don't know what it would be called or how it would be different than a fighter.

Shreeve.

It would have some social utility (resolving disputes between townsfolk), some tracking utility, and some face utility (managing relations and setting up/managing posses, manhandling/staring down ruffians). Rogue BAB, Fighter HD, good fortitude/reflex, bad willpower. Bonus fighter feats every 3 (4?) levels. Something like that.

EDIT: add ideas for class template.

[J1M]

I never understood why rangers and paladins were a base class. And it bugged me.
I liked it in 3rd edition where they made "prestige" classes, and there were alternative prestige class rules for upgrading fighters into them.
It makes sense. You start off with the martial basics, then a few levels up, you get your specialized class things. Wilderness scout **** for rangers and priestly magic for paladins.

Yep yep.

The sourcebook was called "Unearthed Arcana" and featured the paladin, ranger, and bard as prestigious character classes.

By making those 3 professions into prcs, then you could choose if you wanted to lean more into combat or more into magic depending on how you built your character.

Not to mention that "Unearthed Arcana" had plenty of very good ideas overall.

I think the biggest advantage to doing something like this is that it allows you to add a lot more flavor (Red Wizard of Thay vs. Generic Wizard) and it allows for the basic Fighter or Thief class to perhaps only have 5 levels, at which point you pick another path to advance in.

[J1M]

having to choose between more levels in your class or prc was lame and gay

5e solved it by implementing subclasses. You go 2-3 levels deep into a class, you get to pick a flavor for it, as you advance you get unique abilities and unique flavor skills that have mostly non combat applications.
Its a really good way of doing it. Probably the single best implementation of Eldritch knight across any medium too.

I don't like the subclass model they used for a few reasons:
-fundamentally eliminates multiclassing
-if any amount of power is shifted into the subclass allocation, you essentially have a number of base classes equal to the subclass list
-designers will quickly start making subclasses that trade a base class feature for more subclass power
-in practice most people start at level 3 because there are no interesting choices for making a character at level 1, again meaning subclass = base class
-proliferation of subclasses that are nearly identical, such as the martial character that can cast a few spells (eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcane archer, etc)
-pressure to create the same number of subclasses for all classes results in quite a few duds (more subclasses than something should have, interesting mechanics spread too thin)
-choice paralysis for new players

[mynameismortis]

Anyone who has tried this game?

[Irenaeus]

Anyone who has tried this game?

Full of women soldiers and girlbosses.

[Lhynn]

You are completely out of your depth man, you dont even know what you dont know.

I don't like the subclass model they used for a few reasons:
-fundamentally eliminates multiclassing

I wish, but no, multiclassing still happens all the time.
Multiclassing has always been ********, very few multiclasses can be justified, and the overwhelming mayority are taken to minmax instead of because of character identity or character development.

-if any amount of power is shifted into the subclass allocation, you essentially have a number of base classes equal to the subclass list

I dont understand. Are you talking about powerbudget of a given subclass?

-designers will quickly start making subclasses that trade a base class feature for more subclass power

No they wont, classes are static, subclasses are the ones bringing new stuff. So in actuality theres no such a trade.
What did happen was that rules from tasha allowed to trade class features for new class features, in an effort to balance the system, but thats neither here nor there.

-in practice most people start at level 3 because there are no interesting choices for making a character at level 1, again meaning subclass = base class

I dont see this as a negative, you are simply pointing it out. The fact is, the choice of starting as a level 1 rookie without a real identity beyond the base class is objectively better than the alternative. If you want to start a character with a set identity, then starting them at level 3 is fine, or even at level 6 if you wanted them to be more experienced. The fighter can start as a lowly soldier, or a guard, or a maybe as a part of a peasant militia, or perhaps the son of a warrior trained through his childhood, the players can then build their own characters identity from there.

-proliferation of subclasses that are nearly identical, such as the martial character that can cast a few spells (eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcane archer, etc)

They are actually very different.
- Eldritch knight is a heavy duty fighter with low level spellcasting support, both protection and offensive type spells.
- Arcane trickster is a rogue with access to enchancement and illusion spells
- Arcane Archer is a ranged specialist with magic trickshots and no spellcasting

None of them are remotely similar. They are all very different flavors and all of them have good character example in fiction.

-pressure to create the same number of subclasses for all classes results in quite a few duds (more subclasses than something should have, interesting mechanics spread too thin)

This is not true either, some classes have only 3 subclasses, others have like 8 in the PHB alone, other have 2 distincts and very influential choices of "subclasses" (warlock patron + subclass).
Not even sure why you bring this up as a negative, its not even worth considering.

-choice paralysis for new players

lmao, lol, lmfao. Subclasses have very strong identities and most players will probably have thought of the direction their character will go in during the first or second session, depending on development or whatever cool **** they saw recently that inspired them
Not even worth considering as creating any sort of choice paralysis, since its pretty much a single choice and its staggered to level 2-3.

[Stack of Turtles]

-in practice most people start at level 3 because there are no interesting choices for making a character at level 1, again meaning subclass = base class

anyone who would do that is bad at roleplaying and should be banned from the game

Never allow someone to decide what his character is before starting to play, it's trannycore.

[J1M]

-in practice most people start at level 3 because there are no interesting choices for making a character at level 1, again meaning subclass = base class

anyone who would do that is bad at roleplaying and should be banned from the game

Never allow someone to decide what his character is before starting to play, it's trannycore.

This is the overwhelming majority for how campaigns have been started for the last 10 years.

[Maledict]

Is Expeditions Viking and Expeditions Conquistadors any good? I find Rome too woke.

[Stack of Turtles]

-in practice most people start at level 3 because there are no interesting choices for making a character at level 1, again meaning subclass = base class

anyone who would do that is bad at roleplaying and should be banned from the game

Never allow someone to decide what his character is before starting to play, it's trannycore.

This is the overwhelming majority for how campaigns have been started for the last 10 years.

never been in a campaign that started like that one single time

It sounds like you're playing with Critical Rollers who just wanna act out their preconceived characters.

[Lhynn]

anyone who would do that is bad at roleplaying and should be banned from the game

Never allow someone to decide what his character is before starting to play, it's trannycore.

This is the overwhelming majority for how campaigns have been started for the last 10 years.

never been in a campaign that started like that one single time

It sounds like you're playing with Critical Rollers who just wanna act out their preconceived characters.

Na, Ive seen it. Sometimes you have an idea for a campaign and dont want through growing pains.
I personally enjoy level 1, being so fragile adds a lot of excitment to the story, especially if your DM treats your characters as disposable from the start.

[Stack of Turtles]

This is the overwhelming majority for how campaigns have been started for the last 10 years.

never been in a campaign that started like that one single time

It sounds like you're playing with Critical Rollers who just wanna act out their preconceived characters.

Na, Ive seen it. Sometimes you have an idea for a campaign and dont want through growing pains.
I personally enjoy level 1, being so fragile adds a lot of excitment to the story, especially if your DM treats your characters as disposable from the start.

Oh, I believe people DO it. I just think it's STUPID.
"I didn't want to go through growing pains with my movie marathon so I decided to start with Die Hard 2"

[Lhynn]

"I didn't want to go through growing pains with my movie marathon so I decided to start with Die Hard 2"

Its more like people wanting to start in Die Hard 1 instead of starting with the character working the transit, getting married, having children, moving to do patrolling at night, children all grown up, trouble with the wife, christmas is coming.
John McClane was by no means inexperienced at the start of Die Hard 1.
Like, I enjoy going through all the stuff before your character becomes an action star, but some people dont.

[Stack of Turtles]

"I didn't want to go through growing pains with my movie marathon so I decided to start with Die Hard 2"

Its more like people wanting to start in Die Hard 1 instead of starting with the character working the transit, getting married, having children, moving to do patrolling at night, children all grown up, trouble with the wife, christmas is coming.
John McClane was by no means inexperienced at the start of Die Hard 1.
Like, I enjoy going through all the stuff before your character becomes an action star, but some people dont.

The analogy is supposed to be from the perspective of the viewers, not the characters in the movie. They're missing the beginning of the story.

[Lhynn]

"I didn't want to go through growing pains with my movie marathon so I decided to start with Die Hard 2"

Its more like people wanting to start in Die Hard 1 instead of starting with the character working the transit, getting married, having children, moving to do patrolling at night, children all grown up, trouble with the wife, christmas is coming.
John McClane was by no means inexperienced at the start of Die Hard 1.
Like, I enjoy going through all the stuff before your character becomes an action star, but some people dont.

The analogy is supposed to be from the perspective of the viewers, not the characters in the movie. They're missing the beginning of the story.

I know how its supposed to work, im telling you how it actually works. The first levels of experience are deemed unimportant to the story you want to tell. You dont start a story about the Knights of the Round Table at level 1.

[Stack of Turtles]

Its more like people wanting to start in Die Hard 1 instead of starting with the character working the transit, getting married, having children, moving to do patrolling at night, children all grown up, trouble with the wife, christmas is coming.
John McClane was by no means inexperienced at the start of Die Hard 1.
Like, I enjoy going through all the stuff before your character becomes an action star, but some people dont.

The analogy is supposed to be from the perspective of the viewers, not the characters in the movie. They're missing the beginning of the story.

I know how its supposed to work, im telling you how it actually works. The first levels of experience are deemed unimportant to the story you want to tell. You dont start a story about the Knights of the Round Table at level 1.

I get it. I'm saying those people are wrong.

The story of King Arthur starts by explaining how he was born.

[rusty_shackleford]

Its more like people wanting to start in Die Hard 1 instead of starting with the character working the transit, getting married, having children, moving to do patrolling at night, children all grown up, trouble with the wife, christmas is coming.
John McClane was by no means inexperienced at the start of Die Hard 1.
Like, I enjoy going through all the stuff before your character becomes an action star, but some people dont.

The analogy is supposed to be from the perspective of the viewers, not the characters in the movie. They're missing the beginning of the story.

I know how its supposed to work, im telling you how it actually works. The first levels of experience are deemed unimportant to the story you want to tell. You dont start a story about the Knights of the Round Table at level 1.

That's exactly how Pendragon, the most well known RPG specifically for playing as Knights of the round table, goes.
You start as a young squire, in fact. Your character ages, and dies. And you play as your heir.

It's considered one of the best tabletop RPGs ever made fyi

[Lhynn]

You start as a young squire, in fact. Your character ages, and dies. And you play as your heir.

And Im saying not every table needs to be about this. Are you autistic? (You are)

[rusty_shackleford]

You start as a young squire, in fact. Your character ages, and dies. And you play as your heir.

And Im saying not every table needs to be about this. Are you autistic? (You are)

They should know they're playing wrong tho

[J1M]

anyone who would do that is bad at roleplaying and should be banned from the game

Never allow someone to decide what his character is before starting to play, it's trannycore.

This is the overwhelming majority for how campaigns have been started for the last 10 years.

never been in a campaign that started like that one single time

It sounds like you're playing with Critical Rollers who just wanna act out their preconceived characters.

I'm not talking about myself. I'm telling you a statistic.

Perhaps you are unaware that in 5e, level 1 and 2 are basically like a tutorial mode where you are limited in action and not in danger.

[Stack of Turtles]

This is the overwhelming majority for how campaigns have been started for the last 10 years.

never been in a campaign that started like that one single time

It sounds like you're playing with Critical Rollers who just wanna act out their preconceived characters.

I'm not talking about myself. I'm telling you a statistic.

It's a figure of speech

[J1M]

never been in a campaign that started like that one single time

It sounds like you're playing with Critical Rollers who just wanna act out their preconceived characters.

I'm not talking about myself. I'm telling you a statistic.

It's a figure of speech

Implying someone is playing with critical rollers is a figure of speech? Since when, Tuesday?

Sounded a lot more like a personal attack.

[Stack of Turtles]

I'm not talking about myself. I'm telling you a statistic.

It's a figure of speech

Implying someone is playing with critical rollers is a figure of speech? Since when, Tuesday?

Sounded a lot more like a personal attack.

That would be a strange way to take it
I didn't say you WERE one.

Statistically, most D&D players must be critical rollers by now. You don't have to literally be playing with them yourself (that was the part that was a figure of speech) but they're the kind of person you're talking about.

[J1M]

It's a figure of speech

Implying someone is playing with critical rollers is a figure of speech? Since when, Tuesday?

Sounded a lot more like a personal attack.

That would be a strange way to take it
I didn't say you WERE one.

Statistically, most D&D players must be critical rollers by now. You don't have to literally be playing with them yourself (that was the part that was a figure of speech) but they're the kind of person you're talking about.

I agree that is the type of person that we are talking about and also that this is the average person in the hobby now.

I assume we also agree that is a great shame.

[Stack of Turtles]

Implying someone is playing with critical rollers is a figure of speech? Since when, Tuesday?

Sounded a lot more like a personal attack.

That would be a strange way to take it
I didn't say you WERE one.

Statistically, most D&D players must be critical rollers by now. You don't have to literally be playing with them yourself (that was the part that was a figure of speech) but they're the kind of person you're talking about.

I agree that is the type of person that we are talking about and also that this is the average person in the hobby now.

I assume we also agree that is a great shame.

yes I hate them and I hope they die
or at least all their characters get killed and their precious plot points abandoned until they are hollow broken shells of shattered hopes and dreams
and then die