Recent Chat Activity (Main Lobby)
Join Chat

Loading Chat Log...

Prefer not to see ads? Become a Community Supporter.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Playing as a 'Non-Committal'

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    edinburgh
    Posts
    4
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Playing as a 'Non-Committal'

    Hi everyone, as this is my first post may i begin by offering greetings to you all.

    I have recently begun playing with the 3.5 D&D rules and am loving it so far. But to come straight to the point, it occurs to me that there is seemingly nothing stopping a player becoming what i would call a 'Non-Commital': that is, a character who continually multi-classes every time he levels up, until he is level 1 in all classes, then continues until he is level 2 in all classes, etc. i.e. a character whose profession is to learn anything and everything available to him, without ever dedicating himself to any particular class. (Ofcourse, Paladin and Monk classes would be limited)

    I wished to ask if this has been discussed elsewhere, if so please point me in the right direction.

    Also, has anyone had experience of attempting to play as a 'Non-Committal'? How useful would he be? Is this just for players who want an insanely difficult challenge? What pre-requisites would apply? (A high INT comes to mind to balance skills)

    Any thoughts on the matter welcome...

  2. #2
    ronpyatt's Avatar
    ronpyatt is offline Dallas Organizer & Admin Golden d20 Award
    Player/GM: Either
    LFG: LFG
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Irving
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,556
    Blog Entries
    16
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Assuming you are talking about core classes only, there are a few alignment restrictions on becoming a Paladin, Monk, and Barbarian. Once you leave the Monk class you cannot come back. Barbarians are never Lawful, and the Monk and Paladin classes require Lawful alignment. The Druid requires a Neutral alignment. You might be able to pass through each class once, but your selection will begin to diminish.

    I would begin with Barbarian (Neutral), as I like the bigger hit starting hit points. Then Rogue, Sorcerer, Druid (Lawful Neutral), Monk, Ranger, Bard, Paladin (Lawful Good), Cleric, and Wizard.

    If you decide to include all the WOTC books, then you'll have a fun time trying to figure out how to jump from one class to another without loosing too much and you may never get a 2nd level in any class.

    I tend to think of Paladins, Monks, and Druids as committal class archetypes, as they dedicate themselves to their lofty ideals. However, I could see someone loosing interest in their goals.

    A high INT is good. As a GM, I might want (or require) the PC to start off with all their stats at 18. Since the PC would never really leave 1st level, that character may be at a disadvantage that could benefit high ability scores. After Level 5, the player would begin to feel left behind.

    Ron-2.0

  3. #3
    Ed Zachary Guest
    Player/GM:
    LFG:
    Quote Originally Posted by ronpyatt View Post
    I would begin with Barbarian (Neutral), as I like the bigger hit starting hit points.
    I'd begin with Rogue... for the Skills.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Beaverton
    Age
    42
    Posts
    446
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Behold the Omnimancer

    The Non-Committal character
    To make this character ‘fly’ you need twenty core classes. The alignment that allows access to all the core classes below is Chaotic Neutral, which somehow seems appropriate. Our classes are:

    Artificer (Eberron Campaign Setting)
    Barbarian (PHB)
    Bard (PHB)
    Cleric (PHB)
    Druid (PHB)
    Fighter (PHB)
    Ninja (Complete Adventurer)
    Psion (Expanded Psionic Handbook)
    Psychic Warrior (Expanded Psionic Handbook)
    Ranger (PHB)
    Rogue (PHB)
    Scout (Complete Adventurer)
    Sorcerer (PHB)
    Soul Knife (Expanded Psionic Handbook)
    Spellthief (Complete Adventurer)
    Warlock (Complete Arcane)
    Warmage (Complete Arcane)
    Wilder (Expanded Psionic Handbook)
    Wizard (PHB)
    Wujen (Complete Arcane)

    More simply summarized as the:
    Art/Barb/Bard/Cl/Dr/F/N/Ps/PW/Ra/Ro/Sc/So/SK/ST/Wa/Wm/Wi/W/Wu
    Better summarized as the Artijen or perhaps the Omnimancer.

    Why these twenty? Because those five D&D supplements are ones that I own and happen to be at hand. It is rather spellcaster and rogue heavy since I lack the Complete Warrior and Complete Divine books.

    But how does our Omnimancer stack up?

    Base Attack Bonus: +3
    Fort Save: +12
    Ref Save: +12
    Will Save: +26(!)
    Skill Points: 90
    Average Hit Points: 83.5 hp

    Let’s compare that with standard 20th level characters
    Fighter
    BAB: +20/+15/+10/+5
    Fort Save: +12
    Ref Save: +6
    Will Save: +6
    Skill Points: 44
    Average Hit Points: 114.5 hp

    Rogue
    BAB: +15/+10/+5
    Fort Save: +6
    Ref Save: +12
    Will Save: +6
    Skill Points: 184
    Average Hit Points: 72.5 hp

    Wizard
    BAB: +10/+5
    Fort Save: +6
    Ref Save: +6
    Will Save: +12
    Skill Points: 44
    Average Hit Points: 51.5 hp

    The problem is Base Attack Bonus. Virtually none of the non-traditional core classes give a +1 BAB at 1st level. Even if you replaced three classes with the three classes from Complete Warrior (the Hexblade, the Samurai and the Swashbuckler) and all three give +1 BAB at 1st level that is still only a +6/+1 total, which is pathetic.

    On the good side -- the Omnimancer has amazing savings. In fact classes with a +2 will save at 1st level are not that rare. I bet with a more complete collection of D&D 3.5 core books, you could find twenty (after all you already 13/20ths of the way there with my paltry collection!). That would mean you could create a character with a base will save of +40! Take that evil mind controlling demons o' darkness!

    So, to summarize. This character can't hit the broad-side of a barn. It has worse hit points than a fighter, worse skill points than a thief, and has access to no spells over 1st level. And it seems likely that your guardian spirit, intelligent psi-crystal and familiar will hate each other. In short, except for saves, it is a complete basket case of a character concept, mechanically speaking.

    Gary
    Last edited by gdmcbride; 02-27-2007 at 04:48 AM.

  5. #5
    Ed Zachary Guest
    Player/GM:
    LFG:
    Quote Originally Posted by gdmcbride View Post
    So, to summarize. This character can't hit the broad-side of a barn, and has access to no spells over 1st level.
    As I said... "And that character would also be the weakling of the party. Any single class or double class character would be much more powerful." Basically, it would be an aimlessly wandering punching bag.

  6. #6
    ronpyatt's Avatar
    ronpyatt is offline Dallas Organizer & Admin Golden d20 Award
    Player/GM: Either
    LFG: LFG
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Irving
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,556
    Blog Entries
    16
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gdmcbride View Post
    More simply summarized as the:
    Art/Barb/Bard/Cl/Dr/F/N/Ps/PW/Ra/Ro/Sc/So/SK/ST/Wa/Wm/Wi/W/Wu
    Better summarized as the Artijen or perhaps the Omnimancer.

    Base Attack Bonus: +3
    Fort Save: +12
    Ref Save: +12
    Will Save: +26(!)
    Skill Points: 90
    Average Hit Points: 83.5 hp
    Now, lets look on the brighter side. This character might make for an excellent Solo adventurer (being both the weakest and strongest character in the party).

    Now, it would work if every character in the party had a max of 1 level per class.
    It would be interesting to see just such a party stacks up against the usual CR20 encounter with everyone at 20 first levels. Can it be done?

    Diversity would be determined by the number of core classes you could find to fit your taste. How many core classes are there in D&D?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Beaverton
    Age
    42
    Posts
    446
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ronpyatt View Post
    Diversity would be determined by the number of core classes you could find to fit your taste. How many core classes are there in D&D?
    According to Wikipedia as of February 2007, WOTC has published 43 core classes outside of the big 11 in the PHB. I'm sure more are on the way.

    Gary

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Beaverton
    Age
    42
    Posts
    446
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ronpyatt View Post
    Now, it would work if every character in the party had a max of 1 level per class.
    It would be interesting to see just such a party stacks up against the usual CR20 encounter with everyone at 20 first levels. Can it be done?
    The character would never survive a standard CR20 creature. It can't hit it and it has no spells that would hurt it.

    A pit fiend would laugh at your pathetic attempts to hit it (you would have to roll a 20) and would be completely immune to your first level spells. All the while, you would be meat for its massive array of melee attacks.

    If all the characters in the party were only first level, then that would mean you best healing spell would be cure light wounds. Yay. You are pit fiend food.

    Gary

  9. #9
    Ed Zachary Guest
    Player/GM:
    LFG:
    Quote Originally Posted by Menelaus View Post
    But to come straight to the point, it occurs to me that there is seemingly nothing stopping a player becoming what i would call a 'Non-Commital': that is, a character who continually multi-classes every time he levels up, until he is level 1 in all classes, then continues until he is level 2 in all classes, etc. i.e. a character whose profession is to learn anything and everything available to him, without ever dedicating himself to any particular class. (Ofcourse, Paladin and Monk classes would be limited)
    First of all it should be the role of the DM to review the character concept with the player before the campaign starts. If that character makes no sense what so ever, then it should not be allowed in the game.

    And that character would also be the weakling of the party. Any single class or double class character would be much more powerful.

    As a DM, I would not allow any of the following to multi-class together:
    - Bard, Sorcerer and Wizard
    - Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger
    - Bard, Monk and Rogue
    - Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger and Monk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    edinburgh
    Posts
    4
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Being that there are 54 core classes then, perhaps a group of 3 Non-Commitals could be slightly more balanced? Could style them as Gary suggested, with differing emphasis, i.e. 'omimancer', 'polytheist', 'warrior'. perhaps all could share some of the rogue classes and skills.

    I agree with Ron that 'Non-Commitals' require extraordinarily high abilities across the board, (reflecting the reason that extremely few would be capable of this)

    Still would seem to be an uphill struggle to play, but then who wants RPing to be easy?

  11. #11
    ronpyatt's Avatar
    ronpyatt is offline Dallas Organizer & Admin Golden d20 Award
    Player/GM: Either
    LFG: LFG
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Irving
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,556
    Blog Entries
    16
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I often hear that you can do anything with D20, because it's so flexible. This 20-Class-Character thing kind of highlights an extreme example of its lack of flexibility, but it has merit. Creating complex characters can be fun. Too many choices often leads to player frustration. Many players want a clear path they can follow.
    The D20 class system does pigeonhole archetypes, or at the very least punishes diversity. As game balance pushes players to create characters suited to the environment. You can't expect to have a pushover taking on a bunch of rabid orcs, and a mage that can only ever cast magic missile, because they'll will be a drag on the party or be dead by level 3. Other players are most likely not going to want your character playing in any reindeer games.
    Now, to defend the system, I'd say that in an effort to show diversity or appeal to the multi-classer in all of us, they've come out with more and more core classes that appear to reflect paths that in the past would have been achieved only by multiclassed characters.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richardson
    Age
    48
    Posts
    1,289
    Blog Entries
    32
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ronpyatt View Post
    Now, to defend the system, I'd say that in an effort to show diversity or appeal to the multi-classer in all of us, they've come out with more and more core classes that appear to reflect paths that in the past would have been achieved only by multiclassed characters.
    Obligatory heckling: Now, if they'd make abilities modular, and call them, say, "skills", they wouldn't need to make so many classes. Now where have I heard that before? *cough*RuneQuest*cough*GURPS*cough*Fudge*cough* ... sorry, let me get some Robitussin.

    Actually, I've seen third-party attempts to bring that sort of modularity to D&D ... for example, "Buy the Numbers" or OGL Universal Fighter/Monk/Ranger/Rogue. I also like True20's reduction of classes to three "Roles" -- Adept, Expert, Warrior -- and allow free multiclassing to get magic, skills, or combat feats for a particular character. Alas, I haven't actually tried any of them.
    "On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
    - Charles Babbage (1791 - 1871)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Beaverton
    Age
    42
    Posts
    446
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ronpyatt View Post
    I often hear that you can do anything with D20, because it's so flexible. This 20-Class-Character thing kind of highlights an extreme example of its lack of flexibility, but it has merit. Creating complex characters can be fun. Too many choices often leads to player frustration. Many players want a clear path they can follow.
    D20 does have its limitations. There are things you simply cannot do with the core rules as written.

    As a simple example, I want to play a well-travelled monk who has seen so much that he has memorized the landscape (represented by a class skill in knowledge (geography) with max ranks). The monk cannot take knowledge (geography) as a class skill. There is, I believe, a feat somewhere in a supplement that gives you bonus knowledge skills as class skills, but I seem to recall it has a name like 'university education', which violates the concept I am shooting for.

    You could, of course, create a new core-class (or simply modify the existing one) or create a new feat.

    Also, if you do create a feat (or find one that does the trick) you are substantively punishing this monk concept for what most would admit is really just background color -- knowledge (geography) is normally not that useful of a skill. A human monk gets eleven feats in her entire 20-level career. By forcing them to spend one on getting this bit of color, you are making them less powerful than monks that color within the lines.

    This mentality is repeated through out the d20 system. Sure, you can play that innovative character concept -- you just suck when dice are rolled compared to people who play well-tuned niche-focused characters.

    This isn't necessarily bad, but does encourage a certain style of roleplaying.

    Gary

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Age
    39
    Posts
    21
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gdmcbride View Post
    D20 does have its limitations. There are things you simply cannot do with the core rules as written.

    As a simple example, I want to play a well-travelled monk who has seen so much that he has memorized the landscape (represented by a class skill in knowledge (geography) with max ranks). The monk cannot take knowledge (geography) as a class skill. There is, I believe, a feat somewhere in a supplement that gives you bonus knowledge skills as class skills, but I seem to recall it has a name like 'university education', which violates the concept I am shooting for.

    You could, of course, create a new core-class (or simply modify the existing one) or create a new feat.

    Also, if you do create a feat (or find one that does the trick) you are substantively punishing this monk concept for what most would admit is really just background color -- knowledge (geography) is normally not that useful of a skill. A human monk gets eleven feats in her entire 20-level career. By forcing them to spend one on getting this bit of color, you are making them less powerful than monks that color within the lines.

    This mentality is repeated through out the d20 system. Sure, you can play that innovative character concept -- you just suck when dice are rolled compared to people who play well-tuned niche-focused characters.

    This isn't necessarily bad, but does encourage a certain style of roleplaying.

    Gary
    Or you could just take your ranks of Knowledge(Geography) as cross-class, and just bite the bullet on the extra skill points and having a lower maximum rank. Chances are, he'll still have more ranks than anyone else in the party.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Beaverton
    Age
    42
    Posts
    446
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gurusloth View Post
    Or you could just take your ranks of Knowledge(Geography) as cross-class, and just bite the bullet on the extra skill points and having a lower maximum rank. Chances are, he'll still have more ranks than anyone else in the party.
    That's changing the concept to fit the rules, and your right ... that is what the system wants you to do. That was sort of my point. Conform to system expectations or prepare to suffer in terms of relative effectiveness.

    Compare that to a HERO system (for a rules-heavy example) or a FATE (for a rules-light), both of which have basically no system expectations. In Hero you can make an intelligent trash bag from the planet Xeno with the singular mutant power to turn tooth paste into radioactive salami uncontrollably but only on Tuesdays. Or you could make a Monk who is a master of geography.

    It's not good. It's not bad. It is just the reality of the rules.

    Gary

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •