3 by 20

[vbaddict]

These threads where two groups that enjoy BGTSCC in different ways debate an issue are always interesting to me. It's fun to see how the staff manages the balancing act to allow the greatest number of players the largest amount of enjoyment without creating an overwhelming workload.

Some like to plan out a mechanically strong build ahead of time. Others like for their build to spontaneously evolve from wherever their RP happens to lead them. I started concerned for the RP based builders. But at this point I'm left reassured that the staff's approach accommodates both groups.

johnny's a rogue. a darn good one. he's in the local thieves' guild. johnny talks guild into hiring younger brother jimmy. jimmy stays about a month, but decides being a thief isn't for him. and with the war going on, he decides to join the militia in the next town down the road

At first it was easy to get bogged down in details. What does the mechanical progression of Jimmy's early story look like?

No Rules
Level 1: Rogue
Level 2: Fighter
Level 3: Fighter
Level 4: Fighter
Level 5: Fighter
Level 6: Fighter
Level 7: Fighter
Level 8: Fighter

3b20
Level 1: Rogue
Level 2: Rogue
Level 3: Rogue
Level 4: Fighter
Level 5: Fighter
Level 6: Fighter
Level 7: Fighter
Level 8: Fighter

Would the player of the 3b20 progression be accused of not playing his sheet? Would the RP for this progression need to be different? Would anyone other than the player controlling Jimmy need to know he had 3 rogue levels instead of 1? It's hard to say. But then we learn the DM team can be petitioned and none of these questions matter anymore.

After hearing how DMs approach these requests, it seems every RP based build would be promptly approved. I've read posts by the brilliant build strategists in the Tips and Tricks forum. I then picture builds based on RP. I can't imagine a build randomly evolved from RP holding a candle to what we see in the Tips and Tricks forum. The RP builds would be so much weaker than anything preplanned that approval would be a no brainer.

Perhaps most of those concerned about 3d20 handcuffing RP were not aware that the DM team could be petitioned.

[Blame The Rogue]

Simply put a blanket rule is easier to implement than individually going through and outlawing a dozen or more specific builds.

the blanket rule is not effective. it does not achieve what it is intended to do. just because it may be easier doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. especially when it doesn't even work

the only way to effectively keep power to what is determined acceptable levels is to make specific build rules

as engine and build knowledge go, i'd consider thorsson to be in the top 5. when he says it's ineffective at its intended function, then i am going to trust his judgement 100%

so the arbitrary build rule not only fails in its job, it also hurts rp

it was mentioned petitioning dm on case to case basis for having less than 3 levels in a class. that's going to overwhelm the dm team very very quickly

imo, 3 by 30 is a step in the right direction, but no blanket rule would be better

nothing anyone says will ever convince me that taking 1 level in any class is not rp valid. or that's it's evil. or that it will ruin balance entirely. or that the world will end

specific build rules are all that is needed. more rules like no monk/druid

[Boddynock]

Boddynock, you go to one of the relevant DnD source books and cite for me that classes are really only labels, and don't even matter. If that was the intended system at all then this game would be a watered down thing like The Elder Scrolls, where you can just dip in everything--feat, skills, etc, and there wouldn't even be class selection, but arch type suggestions, again like The Elder Scrolls, and the character creation screen would probably look a great deal more like that as well.

But that isn't going to happen, because DnD has always been primarily about classes as important arch types that are tied to the lore of the setting.

That is not how debating works, I am making the claim that there is no evidence to support classes as anything more than OOC classifications, meaning that you are asking met o prove a negative. The burden of proof here lies on you, the claimant, not me. Also, I'm not sure if you have never played D&D or what, but you literally can dip into everything if you want.

There are Paladin Orders who train Paladins. You can't be a Paladin unless you are called by a lawful good deity to service and are trained to be one by more senior Paladins within an Order, or either those serving a temple.

You're right, and also proving my point. The only classes that are known in game exclusively as their OOC class name are classes with extremely heavy RP requirements that ensure that they do so.

Also, a Blood Mage could be born into a noble family just as easily as a Fighter could be, yes. That doesn't mean anything.

And they could both be knighted, since they are nobles. Regardless of one being a bloodmage, or a wizard, or a druid, or a rogue, or a fighter. RP > Mechanics, again you prove my point.

By selecting the Paladin class in the creation or level up screen you are agreeing to the appropriate role play of the class. Meaning your character has been called by a Paladin Deity and received training and Knighthood within an appropriate Order in one of the feudal realms, or otherwise the erstwhile equivalent within the culture of another more exotic realm.

Training is not the same as knighthood. Nothing in the entry for paladins in the Core Rulebook requires that they be knighted. You are free to RP your paladin as having been knighted with an appropriate backstory or RP, with DM permission of course, but that is not the default status of a paladin unless there is some rule claiming it to be the case.

Roleplaying your class is part of playing a character. There is no segregation between class and personality. The personality of a Fighter is never going to be anything like that of a Wizard unless he multi classes as one because different people seek out different paths.

There is absolutely segregation between class and personality, otherwise all paladins would act exactly the same because they are paladins. Despite being individuals and serving different orders or deities. And roleplaying class is ONLY a part of roleplaying your character for, and I cannot apparently say this enough, classes that have roleplay requirements. Warlocks must have a pact, druids must do whatever druids do, but outside of a few specific examples, class is simply a guide to roleplay, not a strict requirement. And I suppose no fighter can be a stern analytical tactician, having an astute mind and a steady logical approach to things (like a wizard would)?

The game mechanics are supposed to be a part of role play as much as anything else.

Everything in this game serves to enhance or guide roleplay to a degree, yes, but classes are still an OOC designation in most cases. Rogues can be: theives, pickpockets, cat-burglars, acrobats, lock-smiths, trappers, etc. Fighters can be bodyguards, caravan guards, mercenaries, knights, soldiers, sharp-shooters, men-at-arms, etc. You are trying to extend the specific RP requirements of one class onto others and extrapolate some meaning that isn't supported by the rules with it. It doesn't work, your character sheet is, in it's entirety, OOC information until you bring it IC through role play.

[AC81]

Mechanics must be considered people. Say what you all want about RP or anything else. The facts are that 1 level dip builds can reach MUCH higher power levels than 3b20 or 3b30. That's a simple fact. Instigating a 1 level dip policy would require a complete server rebalance. If that isn't going to happen then this whole topic is a mute point and will only result in talking in circles. Nothing constructive or new has been brought forth so far.

[Blame The Rogue]

let's use an example

two builds and their class level splits

26/2/1/1

26/4

now let's say both builds end up with the exact same stats. ab. damage. ac. hps. saves

why would the first build be any less valid than the second?

imo, it isnt less valid than the second. no less valid mechanically. no less valid for rp

specific build rules are what is required to maintain balance imo. no server rebalance will be necessary

[chad878262]

The first one has abilities from four classes, the second only two... I respect Thorsson as well, but simply put one level dips do increase power levels. 21/3/3/3 is a significant investment which doesn't allow builds to grab free powerful abilities without investing a bit more.

[Blame The Rogue]

the example given was based on no particular classes

meaning that each build had "exactly the same power level"

it seems obvious we will never agree on this subject, so i will respectfully agree to disagree with you, and allow the thread to continue forward

[Snarfy]

now let's say both builds end up with the exact same stats. ab. damage. ac. hps. saves

But they wont, because you can always make the 1 level dip version better, and no-one in their right mind is going to pass on going for those improvements given the free reign to do so.

let's use an example

two builds and their class level splits

Here's a more specific(albeit rushed) example:

26/2/1/1

Cheeze-it-up Ranger

26/4

Sans-cheeze Ranger

See the difference?

[Tsidkenu]

Here's the bit vbaddict omitted from his build:

....
Level 21: Fighter (Epic Prowess; Expose Weakness)

3b20 exists to curb mechanics, not RP. And I dare say the majority of builds that would utilise 1 level dips do so for mechanical reasons primarily, secondarily justified by some snippet of RP.

BtR, if you're an exception, that's good! But that fact isnt gunna change the 3b20 rules for the other 99 who aren't.

[Keenar]

FVS26/Paladin2/Cleric1/SD1 or fighter1 - Full caster level, Paladin saves, Cleric domains(evasion and some other goodie), EDM from 1 level of cleric, EW, and HIPs with tumble or an extra feat. I dont see the HIPS being that good as you would likely have a very low Dex. Full caster level

FVS21/Paladin3/Cleric3/SD3 - CL only at 25 with PSC.


as it is now you have to choose which of those class bonus you would want to get to keep your CL at 30. That being do you want evasion and EW, or do you want Paladin saves? With out it you can just take whatever you want. and this is just the easiest build to point out. there are a lot more classes that would become way more powerful. Mostly casting classes though, from what i can think of.

[Blame The Rogue]

different classes have abilities and feats that vary in strength and purpose

i intentionally did not use specific classes in my example, to emulate two builds of similar "power", made in two different ways

the first FvS example you listed would be one of those builds that staff may want to make a rule against

as thorsson stated, the 3 by 20 rule doesnt work. it only prevents "some" power builds, but not all. all the while interfering with rp, and preventing builds that are not op

only build specific rules will effectively block what is deemed op builds

[Tsidkenu]

We already have a rule against it. It's called 3b20.

[Blame The Rogue]

we don't have a rule against it

we have a 3 by 20 blanket rule that is not 100% effective, and interferes with rp, as well as preventing some builds that are not op

[Tsidkenu]

Right...

So you reckon if you made a fs 26/ pal 2/ sd 1/ cler 1 a dm won't notice and delevel it to a point which it is legal, with no xp refund?

Give it a try, buddy, and let me know how you get on, since there's no rule against that build now!

/sarcasm

[Young Werther]

Mechanical things in no order off the top of my head. Skill access off 1 dip is kinda a big deal.

Palemaster 1 = +2 AC
Bard 1 = tumble, +1 ab and damage for party/self, spellcraft
monk 1 = wis to AC, flurry
cleric 1 = turn undead feats, domains, spellcraft, armor + shield prof
fighter 1,2 = 1,2 feats, weapon + armor + towersiheld
rogue 2 = evasion, EW, tumble + other skills
barb 1 = temp +4 str (really cool imo)
SD 1 = hips, tumble
SD 2 = evasion, EW, uncanny dodge (gets listed twice it's that OP)
dragonslayer 1 = tumble, +1 caster level, weapon + armor + towershield prof.
Pal 2 = saves
BG 2 = saves
warlock 1 = dex buff, sneak buff, bluff buff or saves


...and others I don't doubt. All these besides the dragon slayer and SD can be taken without feat investment but requires multiclassing. Some people don't mind the XP penalty from multiclassing either.

Like Maecius said in his post on the first page I've come to appreciate the challenge of building in the 3b20 and think it's fun this way.