Mechanical restrictions of levels....

[SteveMaurer]

I understand why 1/19 class splits are not allowed.   But why is it that splits like: 18/2(+3) aren't allowed?  In other words, say an 18th level fighter switching to Cleric for levels 19 through 23 (the minimum of 5 you have to have)?   What's the big deal about level 20?

This doesn't affect me personally at all, but I just can't figure out what the terrible exploit for allowing that would be.    Maybe I'm just not devious enough.

Can anyone help me out?

[Thunder Pants]

when the rule was originally introduced level 20 was the max (the server has been around since before the expansions were released), now however save/attack bonus is uniform for every character class after level 20, so a character that leveled up to 18 fighter before starting on cleric path could be seen as trying to max out his attack bonus since it's going to go up by 1 per level regardless of the class he picks after 20

[SteveMaurer]

when the rule was originally introduced level 20 was the max (the server has been around since before the expansions were released), now however save/attack bonus is uniform for every character class after level 20, so a character that leveled up to 18 fighter before starting on cleric path could be seen as trying to max out his attack bonus since it's going to go up by 1 per level regardless of the class he picks after 20

Thanks for replying, but you've confused me more.   Wouldn't a PC who switches to Cleric at level 21 have a higher BAB than one who chooses the new level at 19?

This confused me to no end.   Where is the advantage?

[Thunder Pants]

very true, which is why i think most of the reason that it's the way it is, is because thats how it was when the rule was created, about 6 years ago, when 20 was the max level

[ycleption]

For better or for worse, many of the systems here on Layonara are consistant, rule based systems that apply to everyone, rather than individualized determinations. The big deal about level 20 is that BAB and base saves all change, so many of the power builds rely on favorable multi-classing before level 20 to maximize certain things. The five level requirement helps avoid that kind of thing, while still allowing considerable flexibility for characters. It also helps make sure characters actually have RP investment in their classes, rather than just taking a level or two of certain classes for mechanical benefit. I don't think there's anything magical about five levels its just a compromise number. I guess why would you think that 2 or 3 is any better?
The example you give (fighter to cleric) probably wouldn't be a problem, so far as I know. But as a CA, I don't want to have to deal with every single possible multi-class situation, and decide whether something would be a problem or not. Having a rule like that to apply across the board - whether or not it in the particular case the rule is serving its purpose - just makes life easier. I don't want to have to have a catalogue in my head of all possible power-builds that we don't allow.

[SteveMaurer]

The example you give (fighter to cleric) probably wouldn't be a problem, so far as I know. But as a CA, I don't want to have to deal with every single possible multi-class situation, and decide whether something would be a problem or not. Having a rule like that to apply across the board - whether or not it in the particular case the rule is serving its purpose - just makes life easier. I don't want to have to have a catalogue in my head of all possible power-builds that we don't allow.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is any actual unacceptably strong "power build" that is actually hindered by the level 20 rule.  So far as I can tell, there's not.

You're saying the rule is there because, well, dad gum it, that's the way we've always done it round here, and just because nobody can think of any exploit actually fixed by this rule, doesn't mean there isn't one.  Somewhere.

That is different from the "5 minimum levels in any new class you pick" rule, which clearly impedes certain exploits, like taking one level of paladin for a sorcerer, to add your CHA mod to your saves.

[lonnarin]

1 lvl of paladin with 39 levels of sorcerer would be the ultimate cheese build.  Woot! I get +12 on all saves!  Not to mention taking only the 1st level of shadowdancer for HIPS and abandoning it.  Monk/fighters also are super powered I have heard, thanks to the AB giving them something like 8 attacks a round.  Though, I do wish there was more open leeway to combos like sorcerer/monks, druid/rangers, rogue/druids, monk/rogues and the like.  They seem to mesh well with a good RP basis. (wujen and ninjas, for example!)  And I see very little wrong with a Voraxian Paladin/Fighter.  In pure RP aspects, Vorax would probably like them.

[miltonyorkcastle]

It also helps make sure characters actually have RP investment in their classes, rather than just taking a level or two of certain classes for mechanical benefit.

The "five levels in each approved class before 20" rule applies more to initial approvals than to added classes. For instance, say you were approved for a fighter/rogue at submission, but you really didn't care about the rogue class. You just want the 1st level skill spread and evasion (even though the character fully intends to always wear full-plate, use a greataxe, and really behaves nothing like a rogue), so you take three levels of rogue and never plan to take another rogue level until epic, if that. Since rogue was not a class you added after the initial approval, it does not fall under the "take five levels in a row" clause for newly approved secondary/tertiary classes. While the fighter/rogue example is clearly not some super-power build example, it does show that it is easy to squeeze mechanical benefits from a class without really investing in the class, and without that class really being a vested part of your character. In other words, the rogue class is really not an aspect of the character, there is little to no "rogue-ishness" about the character, so why have any levels of rogue in the first place? If it's just for the extra skills, sneak attack, and evasion, there is clearly no point in taking the class from a RP perspective. Mechanically enforcing five levels in each taken class before 20th ensures a significant investment in each class, and the mechanical investment will be enough that it reflects in the character's RP before the character reaches epic status.

If you're just looking at how the rule discourages "ultra power builds," it may in fact not do as good of a job at that as our other class rule enforcements, such as the monk multiclass restrictions, or the RP difficulty in getting Red Dragon Disciple approved.

[Hellblazer]

I thought the five in a row was only for the classes approved after reaching level 20? Ie from level 21 to 25 = 5 level taken consecutively.

[SteveMaurer]

Mechanically enforcing five levels in each taken class before 20th ensures a significant investment in each class, and the mechanical investment will be enough that it reflects in the character's RP before the character reaches epic status.

Understand that I have no quarrel with the "when you switch to a class, you need to take at least 5 levels in it" rule.   It's completely reasonable for all the reasons you cited above.

But again,  there appears to be no mechanical, or roleplaying, reason to put in an artificial rule that says, effectively, "no switching classes at level 17, 18, 19, or 20".

In fact, in certain situations, this hinders roleplaying.   Say that a paladin does manage to do something to become a Champion of Toran.  From the rules as stated, if that paladin happened to be high sub-"epic", they could not actually become the Champion that they are, even if they intend to be a champion for the rest of the levels that they gain.   They would have to remain a paladin until level 20.

[darkstorme]

In fact, in certain situations, this hinders roleplaying.   Say that a paladin does manage to do something to become a Champion of Toran.  From the rules as stated, if that paladin happened to be high sub-"epic", they could not actually become the Champion that they are, even if they intend to be a champion for the rest of the levels that they gain.   They would have to remain a paladin until level 20.

They could always request the removal of XP to return them to just before level 16, and take the PrC that they are approved for on the next level.  If the event occurred on a GM quest (for whatever reason), a relevel might even be supported.  So I don't think it's the "hindrance to RP" that you suggest it is.

Now, additionally, there is something special about level 20 - or rather, about the transition from 20 to 21.  Three million XP..  Saying "I'll take my remaining levels of X at level 21" could just as easily be "I'll take my remaining levels of X at 35", since nowhere after 20 (and nowhere before, save for the early levels where experience is exponential) has that kind of a leap.  So even though 20 is no longer a firm level cap, the requirement is in place partially to ensure that the pre-epic character doesn't fall into the power builds detailed in previous posts.  Since there is a demarcation between epic and non-epic characters, a pre-epic character should be "complete" before they step into a larger world.

Just my two cents.

[Dorganath]

In fact, in certain situations, this hinders roleplaying.   Say that a paladin does manage to do something to become a Champion of Toran.  From the rules as stated, if that paladin happened to be high sub-"epic", they could not actually become the Champion that they are, even if they intend to be a champion for the rest of the levels that they gain.   They would have to remain a paladin until level 20.

CoT is a PrC requiring one or more CDQs.  It is not something someone can just one day decide they're going to do. It's a path, and not something one can just sub for or and receive at any old level, even if something significant happens to the character at level 17 to drive them that direction, there still needs to be a path of development, and it would be a wonderful WLDQ goal.

It's not overly restrictive of RP because it is known up front, and it would also be flagged during the resubmission and approval process.

This rule is as much about avoiding twinkie, munchkin power builds as it is encouraging players to think about the long-term development of their characters just a bit. That's not to say they have to have the lives of their characters fully mapped out or stick to it even, but we don't want multi-classing to be a matter of maximizing in one respect or the other or simply "on a whim".

In full fairness, the rule is held over from the time when the game stopped at level 20 and then once the expansions came out, when an ECDQ (now WLDQ) was required to progress past level 20.  Neither of these conditions still exist, but the reasoning for having the rule in the first place is still valid, that being what I just described above.

[ycleption]

You're right, it can make things difficult at those levels.

So far as I know, that situation has only come up a few times, and once the team made the character an offer to be deleveled somewhat, and another the character withdrew the request before that kind of option could be explored fully. I don't think there's been a time, however, when the CA team has said "absolutely no way will we allow you to multiclass, simply because you've hit level 16."

I guess the real question is what would you suggest as an alternative that avoids the problems you bring up, while still addressing what the rest of us have brought up, and being fair across the board both for initial submissions and later multiclass requests? (Obviously I don't have any real say in the matter, but I honestly am interested to hear what a better system would be, that addresses all of the concerns raised).

edit: just as a note, I was writing this before Darkstorme or Dorg had posted... so uh, yeah. What they said.

[SteveMaurer]

Well it sounds like there is some flexibility allowed, which is what I was looking for.

But as a general principle, I think that some of these hard rules  to try to stop "twinkie" or "munchkin" builds are worse than the disease.   First, because they cut off legitimate choices of growth for characters.  And second, because they don't actually do much to restrict munchkinism.

Power gaming in a low XP world has little to do with "builds" at all.  Instead, all you really need is a reasonably efficient wizard or fighter and a single minded devotion to the commitment of genocide against the race of giants.   And none of these class changing restrictions - not even the 5 levels in a class one - hinder that.

[Dorganath]

Well it sounds like there is some flexibility allowed, which is what I was looking for.

But as a general principle, I think that some of these hard rules  to try to stop "twinkie" or "munchkin" builds are worse than the disease.   First, because they cut off legitimate choices of growth for characters.  And second, because they don't actually do much to restrict munchkinism.

Power gaming in a low XP world has little to do with "builds" at all.  Instead, all you really need is a reasonably efficient wizard or fighter and a single minded devotion to the commitment of genocide against the race of giants.   And none of these class changing restrictions - not even the 5 levels in a class one - hinder that.

Noted.  This is a well-reasoned, lucid argument.  That said, we're not likely to jump and change existing rules that have served the entire community well for years because one person stands up and says, "I disagree."
 
 But just so that this isn't a surprise later, if the "flexibility" you're seeking is considered critical by you and your character's future, it will take a very good (in the eyes of the CA and GM Teams), non-mechanical justification for the CAs to approve it.  As was mentioned, I'm not aware of any variance being granted in the past, and what ever flexibility you may be perceiving should not be taken as a guarantee we will flex.  So I highly recommend making such a plea before it becomes too late to take 5 by 20, so that if your request is denied, you still have a viable pre-epic multiclass path open to your character.

[SteveMaurer]

But just so that this isn't a surprise later, if the "flexibility" you're seeking is considered critical by you and your character's future, it will take a very good (in the eyes of the CA and GM Teams), non-mechanical justification for the CAs to approve it.

Thank you for the admonition to warn the GM team ahead of time.  I think that is so important, it really should be emphasized somewhere when you're stating them.

Generally my only expectation is that if, for example, the GM team decides to give out a really rare PrC, because it's well-justified by in-world events, that you'll let the PC take it - because, well, it's well-justified by in-world events.  And if it isn't justified, there will be no PrC at any level.

That said, as I stated before, I really don't have any self-interest in this (at least that I can see).  Kibitzing rules systems is just an old habit of mine, which comes from my having written rules for  Champions/Hero Games, playtested for the Chaosium (RuneQuest, etc.) and R. Talsorian (Cyberpunk, the mecha games), writing up secret societies published by West End Games (Paranoia), and writing a couple of articles for Dragon Magazine.   I know it can be annoying at times, but everybody should be allowed at least one quirk.
   :rolleyes: