Talk:Unfledged (3.5e Class)

Ratings

	Fluffykittens opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	19 dead levels? "Tagalong: The presence of an unfledged is ignored when determining appropriate opposition or dividing the base XP award by the number of characters in the party. The unfledged still receives experience for the encounter." GOD NO GOOD GOD NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOO

Dead Levels: Dead levels encourage use of the classes main feature. This is good. I am well aware of the standard reasons for avoiding dead levels. They don't apply to a class you aren't supposed to stick with long enough for advancement to take place.

Tagalong: Since the unfledged is not supposed to be useful to the party, it woud be unfair to penalize the other party member's XP for her presence. --Ideasmith (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Jota opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

There's essentially no reason for this to exist, as far as I can see. You have four class abilities (Metamorphosis, Sudden Metamorphosis, Instant Metamorphosis, and Contingent Metamorphosis, that are all irreversible, transforming the character from sheet A into the one from sheet B. Tagalong and Illiteracy do nothing, and nothing positive for the character, respectively. Partial Metamorphosis essentially makes you a warrior, adept, or expert, depending on what your dormant talent is. While this class grants you the opportunity to cycle between those three, it only works as a derivation of the dormant talent, which means two of the three are likely to be very limited in function. I can't even say this works well as a story-telling mechanic because the metamorphosis is irreversible, as opposed to lasting for, say X rounds (where X equals unfledged class level). The metamorphosis happens and then that's it. There really isn't any "showing flashes of hidden talent" because you can't show more than the tiniest bit (Partial Metamorphosis) without this being permanent, eliminating and potential for flashes because from there on it's just a constant stream of light. Why not just be one of the said NPC classes in the mean time and use some sort of character-rebuilding if necessary when the transition finally takes place for real?

Well, this is very much like a codified way of using the Commoner class with character-rebuilding when the transition takes place. --Foxwarrior (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am replying to Jota here:

Tagalong: If tagalong did nothing, I would not have needed the draconian multiclass restrictions that keep it from breaking the game.

Partial Metamorphosis: I forgot to update the ACF's when I added partial metamorphosis. Will fix.

flashes of hidden talent: Neither Bilbo nor Garion showed "flashes of hidden talent", and I fail to see why preventing their stories from being emulated is needed for a "story-telling mechanic". (Although I could certainly imagine a cool fantasy story which had such, even if I can't think of an example. I am mulling over a feat intended to emulate such, and even have an idea how to balance it.)

NPC classes: Writing rules for doing it that way came out clunky, and forced characters to have abilities that didn't fit. --Ideasmith (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

XP is a river; everyone needs it, everyone gets it, and the distribution of it doesn't really affect anything in the game in the long run. Therefore, Tagalong does nothing mechanically functional and thus does nothing at all. Ya dig? - TG Cid (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Insofar as the rest of your party is composed of greedy powergamers, Tagalong means that they're not obliged to be annoyed by the Unfledged's presence in the party, since Tagalong means they are not diverting XP from their precious river. --Foxwarrior (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Aarnott is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.

Although I understand the reasoning behind tagalong, I'm not a huge fan of it as it is. I don't have a better suggestion, sadly. The class itself is fine for the most part, although it could really be shortened. The various metamorphosis abilities aren't really necessary IMO. The whole point for this class is plot device, so really I'd just handwave it and let the player decide when is appropriate. I'd put a "like" on this article if it was shortened and streamlined. It's really just a cool idea for a player to implement an age-old plot device. And if that floats their boat for character building, that's cool with me. It doesn't need a lot of the extra text and rules since it really deals with the role-playing side of things more than the rules side of things.

Tagalong: Will keep an eye out for better ideas.

Metamorphosis: Given how many DMs ignore fluff not backed by mechanics, I do think rules are needed for this.

Streamlining: As character classes go, this seems pretty short to me already. Do you have any more specific suggestions?--Ideasmith (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he'd suggest getting rid of all that stuff: you could probably get rid of the level restrictions on Dormant Talent (it's not like Pinocchio is a 9th level character, after all), throw out Metamorphosis, Sudden Metamorphosis, and Contingent Metamorphosis (Instant Metamorphosis is the most versatile one), and given that the Unfledged already unlearns all sorts of things when Metamorphosing, you can throw out Illiteracy as well. --Foxwarrior (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've now done most of that. I left in Illiteracy in to give the player more control of how much the character unlearns - which can be important to matching the fluff - and because Garion started out illiterate.--Ideasmith (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

	Havvy opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Make it a variant rule and I won't complain. Make it a class and I'll go WTF? Classes should never be touching rules involving how the DM gives experience. Ever.

Wouldn't the variant rule form of this just be "Players can choose to play as an Unfledged"? It takes up the class portion of a character's description, after all, and I don't see how it could sensibly not do that. --Foxwarrior (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have to be: my attempts at a non-class version of this have not come out usable. Might reduce confusion, though.--Ideasmith (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I have some idea how to do it: it would involve playing a creature with CR sufficiently lower than its level; that way you could more easily apply this to similar concepts like "The Ugly Whale", where one player plays a 12 HD whale in a level 12 party, only to discover when he grows up that he was really an Aboleth. --Foxwarrior (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking of adding some sort of 'this is treated as a class for convenience' wording a the beginning and then calling it a variant rule. I don't understand your idea, which seems to still be forming. --Ideasmith (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	A class with 18 dead levels? lolnothx

"The presence of an unfledged is ignored when determining appropriate opposition or dividing the base XP award by the number of characters in the party." A class with that class feature should have penty of dead levels.--Ideasmith (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A PC class shouldn't even have that class feature. That just makes it even worse. In truth, at most, it should be an NPC class, and even then that should just be DM fiat instead of an actual class whose plan is to become a superman at some point in the campaign. In short, it's useless, doesn't contribute to anything, is an uninteresting concept, and just in total a waste of space. If you want to make something that appears useless but turns into something cool, something like this would be a much better way to do it. --Ghostwheel (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So to a player who would emulate someone who becomes a rogue partway through the adventure and never changes back (Bilbo Baggins), or becomes a spellcaster partway through the adventure and never changes back (Garion) I should recommend ... a class that changes into a paladin-type on a daily basis? A desire to play through a become-an-adventure origin story is not a desire for routine flashy transformation. I would no more recommend champion to a player with the former than I would recommend unfledged for the latter. (Though if a player wanted both, I might recommend unfledged with a champion as dormant talent.)--Ideasmith (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The examples you gave are either a character rebuilding (already present in PHB2), or are NPCs who later became PCs and the DM was all like, "So what do you want to play? A rogue huh? Well, there's a commoner halfling in the party, but with a little work we can make him the rogue you want to be. That work for you? Cool? Cool, thanks for compromising and being willing to play a halfling even if you totally wanted to make a tiefling in the first place, since one was already in place to use and trusted by the party." In short, not only is the class nt viable from a mechanical viewpoint, but it's also redundant from a flavor viewpoint as what it does is already accomplished in published sources, or is handled by the DM and player with a process so simple that there is no actual need for mechanics for it. --Ghostwheel (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Rebuilding: I do not have PHB2, and even if I had it there are plenty of D&D GMs who don't.

NPC Class: If Tolkien wrote The Hobbit the way you want me to run an equivalent game, the first half of the book would have been from Thorin’s point of view. Tolkien knew better than that. If you want the reader to take joy in a character’s sudden and unexpected competence, give the character’s point of view from the start. If a player wants to take joy in a character’s sudden and unexpected competence, let the player play the character from the start. Insisting on playing the character as an NPC up til the moment of upgrade is just uncool.

Sans Mechanics: While there are DMs who could do this without rules, there are also GMs who couldn't. And there is a big difference between 'not needed' and 'not useful'. --Ideasmith (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

How the rebuilding rules work:

• Player: Hey, I think my character would work better as this/this would fit better for the campaign/I think it would be a lot more enjoyable for myself or the others this way/can we change it to this?
• DM: Yes/no/yes but with these stipulations.

That's about it. Not that complicated. And does it without needing to be shoehorned into a special class.

I wouldn't even say that Bilbo actually *gained* any sudden competence--only the confidence to believe in himself. Sure, he did some cool things, but those were either good rolls, or just the actual attempt was there. Before that he rarely horribly failed at anything--have you ever thought that maybe those powers (class abilities) were already there? There was no actual flashy metamorphosis. For all we know, he was just as mundane at the start as at the end, and the only thing that changed was his self-confidence to do things he would not have done before. And how is playing him as an NPC "not cool"? If you can't make an NPC someone the party can relate to or feel good about, you're not a very good DM. And the only reason I'm insisting is because you keep on bringing up the same referece over and over and over and over. For no other reason. Stop using those two as your only references and I'll stop using that as an example of how to model those stories in D&D. --Ghostwheel (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Rebuilding: How does this help PCs emulate Bilbo-Baggins-like characters?

Shoehorning: Not sure what you mean here. Are you are saying that the promising student feat should be easier to use?

The GM playing PC's 'as NPCs': Playing likeable NPCs is a great thing that can totally be done without hijacking PCs. And totally should be. I am sure there are groups where taking over PCs is appropriate. For all I know, you might even belong to such a group. Shall we discuss why I understand such groups to be far from universal?

Add in that your suggested timing seems designed to spoil the player's fun by moving the contrast the class gets its appeal from into what amounts to character background.

Confidence: Lack of confidence is extremely appropriate fluff for this class, and metamorphosis is not stated or implied to be 'flashy'.

Tolkien: Citing The Hobbit doesn't seem to need explanation. Why wouldn't you be citing The Hobbit?--Ideasmith (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Tarkisflux is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.

This class removes a useful PC from the game, it is true. But it also provides class abilities that instruct the DM in how to construct encounters for the party, so the removal is not a very big deal. If anything the character is a big decoy / target / likely piece of collateral damage, but it's not sapping XP or causing the party's challenges to be harder by virtue of being present. This character might as well not be there aside from the space they take up, and as such is not actively hindering the party as long as the DM is following the guidelines presented here. That said, it is likely to make encounters substantially easier after they finally stop being an unfledged. Any DM who was designing encounters for the party with the unfledged in it was not designing encounters for when the unfledged is replaced with a real character. The unfledged's abilities and player decision parts of that make it unclear when that might actually happen, so some amount of encounter weirdness or extra DM work is likely to occur. But if you can tolerate that weirdness and are comfortable with a PC at the table who doesn't contribute until they decide to make their grand entrance, this does the job well enough I guess. I'm not sure it wouldn't work better as a template though.

That reminds me: if you're fighting against an Unfledged, what's their CR? --Foxwarrior 22:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An opponent unfledged who doesn’t use metamorphosis resembles an opponent sorcerer who doesn’t use magic, and XP rewards should be adjusted in the same manner (which may be not at all, depending on why the opponent’s main ability wasn’t used). --Ideasmith 02:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.

Okay, I still think that the "become-an-adventurer story" is more coherent and sensible when implemented using the existing system known as "experience points", but I suppose that if a player wants to play a totally useless comic relief/dramatic hostage character while still reserving the option to become a contributing member of the party at a later date, this may be the best way to do it. You should really allow the player to change their Dormant Talent during downtime, however; that way it could be more effectively used as a means to hook in a newbie player who is currently more interested in spectating. Okay, so multiclassing restrictions are a fairly heavy-handed way of solving the tagalong problem. It means that you can't play, say, a Tome Fighter 5 // Unfledged 10, despite that being, relative to the other members of the party, weaker than an Unfledged 4 is in a level 4 party.

Both of my source material examples began the story with no available class abilities, then gained a bunch of levels worth all at once, in the middle of an encounter. How does the approach you describe handle that?--Ideasmith 04:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

...hmm. Sandbagging? --Foxwarrior 05:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If by “sandbagging” you mean the character choosing (on purpose) not to use their abilities, neither Bilbo Baggins nor Garion does any such thing.

If by “sandbagging” you mean the player choosing not to apply the character’s abilities: When one plays a Bilbo/Garion style character, it is important that the GM know that One is doing so, and have some understanding of the consequences. Writing the mechanics out helps with communication considerably - it removes ambiguity concerning what the character can/can't do.--Ideasmith 20:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that in that case it's the other way--the dwarves were the actual party, and then another player came in and wanted to play something, so the DM was all, "How about you play that NPC that's done some stuff but nothing really awesome yet?" and then Bilbo became a PC with actual abilities rather than just an NPC with no noteworthy abilities.

That said, I don't particularly remember Bilbo doing anything noteworthy by himself that wasn't due to his artifact sword (the ring), though it's been a while since I read the book so I may be wrong. --Ghostwheel 20:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If Tolkien wrote The Hobbit the way you want me to run an equivalent game, the first half of the book would have been from Thorin’s point of view. Tolkien knew better than that. If you want the reader to take joy in a character’s sudden and unexpected competence, give the character’s point of view from the start. If a player wants to take joy in a character’s sudden and unexpected competence, let the player play the character from the start. Insisting on playing the character as an NPC up til the moment of upgrade is just uncool.

I have been rereading the relevant sections, and Tolkien makes it quite clear that Mr. Baggin’s accomplishments are mostly his inborn talent finally kicking in. --Ideasmith 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you made me excited enough about this class, I'd go back and reread the relevant sections too, but I'm not. So how do you know that he's not just getting his second or third level in Rogue instead of Commoner and putting some skills up to 6 ranks because of that? --Foxwarrior 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

First because levels are gained at the end of an adventure, not upon waking up being tied up by a giant spider. Second because Bilbo gained more than one level worth of combat ability. Third because a rogue only gets so many skill points per level. Fourth because the PC would be stuck with however many levels of commoner. --Ideasmith 02:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it's not a rule. You level whenever the DM allows it. -- Eiji-kun 06:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

First I don't think that's actually a rule, although I might be wrong. Second, maybe the giant spider just wasn't as strong as he thought. Third, they still get enough to max out a skill and a half. Fourth, nobody said Bilbo was good at D&D (did they?). --Foxwarrior 06:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the fourth one is a little bit misleading; in a game where lots and lots of classes are allowed, one can probably assume that the point of adding another class is to make a build that was previously suboptimal into something actually relevant. --Foxwarrior 06:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

PH page 58: “The DM assigns XP to the characters at the end of each adventure based on what they have accomplished….When a character earns enough XP, he or she attains a new level”--Ideasmith 02:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The over fifty spiders Bilbo fought were powerful enough to capture the rest of the party. Gandalf thought the party worth sending against Smaug, who was a match for an army.--Ideasmith 02:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you assume a third level party, that kinda works.--Ideasmith 02:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The only non-rogue abilities displayed by Bilbo are tagalong and metamorphosis,. What classes do you have in mind? And how many classes do you think should be used to cover Tolkien’s Middle Earth?--Ideasmith 02:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that the game is not designed to support noncombat PCs. It's never going to support noncombat PCs. This class does not make it able to support noncombat PCs. If you want to play a game where a character without the ability to do anything useful is just as viable as a character built for combat, you need to do more than make a new Commoner class filled with non-abilities; you need to play under an entirely different system. It's fine to put a roleplay focus on things, but the fact of the matter is that giving a character nothing useful does not enable roleplay that was not already possible. If you want to play a Bilbo Baggins who starts as a nobody and ends as an awesome rogue, then what you do is start him off as a level 1 (i.e., near-useless and non-notable) rogue and simply roleplay him as not knowing what he's doing. That way, you're not destroying the balance of the game. --DanielDraco 23:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This suggested alternative involves being weaker for a longer period of time. A 6th level unfledged is clearly more powerful that a 1st level rogue, and it takes much, much longer to go up a five levels than it does to use instant metamorphosis (assuming an average of 8 encounters before instant metamorphosis gets used). --Ideasmith 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dormant Talent: Have expanded the promising student feat to cover the entire dormant talent. (It isn't a class feature because I got very tired of people treating it as the point of the class.)

Metamorphosis: Thank you for catching that.

Tagalong/Multiclassing: It is indeed heavy-handed, but I have yet to think up a better way. --Ideasmith (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

	Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	I see this is still a non-class class. I don't think the idea is viable, sorry.

	ThunderGod Cid opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	A class dedicated to not filling a role or being a party liability is a pretty ridiculous concept. It basically is a waste of space; its class features even reflect that. Seriously.

This class isn't dedicated to being a party liability. This class is dedicated to ceasing to be a party liability.--Ideasmith 22:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But it remains a liability until it stops being one. --Ghostwheel 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ceasing to be a liability is a feature of the class it becomes, not this class. That is to say, an Unfledged is unavoidably a liability, and stops being a liability by not being an Unfledged anymore. Something which he could have done by never taking levels in it to begin with. --DanielDraco 23:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Already being an asset is a feature of the class the unfledged becomes. Ceasing to be a liability (as Bilbo Baggins does about halfway through The Hobbit, and Garion does about a fourth of the way through the Belgariad) is not. I can tell the difference just fine, thank you.--Ideasmith 04:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you can't, because you've still failed to explain what motivation there is to take any levels in this class, whatsoever. The whole point of the class is to evolve into some other class; but why not just start out as those classes? Hell, your entire concept could be better served by just having someone start with an NPC class, like "Commoner" or something. This is absolutely extraneous in every sense. --71.82.214.138 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

One might be a fan of a similar character from fiction, and want to play a similar character. One might want to gain a bunch of levels worth of abilities all at once, at a dramatically appropriate moment (without messing up play balance, of course). I am considering how to revise the class description to make this clearer.

Since commoners have no equivalent of Metamorphosis, someone playing one would be permanently stuck as a liability, something I don’t approve of and which your earlier comments implied that you disapprove of. --Ideasmith 20:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually they do. It's just not a commoner class feature, it's a global variant rule: Retraining. PHB2 has the retraining rules. Oh, the time it takes to retrain? Obviously it was the 1st half of the story where he was a useless commoner, he was busy secretly picking up stabbing tips by watching everyone else. Ding, problem solved. -- Eiji-kun 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So instead of playing what amounts to a commoner with metamorphosis, one should instead play a commoner with an ability which, from your description, amounts to metamorphosis with training required. I don’t see how the training requirement improves the balance at all. I do see how these it makes it harder to play a character who, at a dramatically appropriate moment, suddenly and unexpectedly becomes a capable adventurer. And that assumes access to the book in question. Nothing you’ve told me about this PHB2 makes me inclined to shell out money from my limited gaming budget for it, or even try to find out whether I can find if for sale, or suggest that others do so. --Ideasmith 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

DanielDraco dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

I am of the opinion that this is a very stupid class. It adds nothing to the game, mechanically. I'm not sure why you would ever want to play one. It makes you suck for a while, and I have no idea what the hell the player of an unfledged would do in combat to not be incredibly bored. Weave a basket and give it to the enemy as a peace offering? But Ideasmith has, at least, made a decent case that it achieves a very specific roleplay goal which is otherwise difficult to achieve. So if you really really are all about character development from a roleplay standpoint, and you want to play a character who's useless until he has a sudden revelation, I guess this provides a way to do that.

Early Discussion

This class seems like just a way for someone to procrastinate in choosing a class. Its inclusion in a game would only be damaging, because that character will not pull their weight until they get out of the class and because any player that takes it will probably be lazy in other ways as well. --DanielDraco 13:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular benefit is incidental.

This class, like many D&D classes, is intended to help players emulate fictional characters.

D&D is played for fun. If a player who otherwise adds to the fun is playing a character who is not helping the party overcome challenges, this class might be exactly what is needed.--Ideasmith 00:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A class that makes them...even less effective? --DanielDraco 00:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with DD on this one. --Ghostwheel 00:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read any of this. --TK-Squared 00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What he's saying is that this class is bad because it disrupts the fun of others. D&D is indeed played for fun but one must still respect the fun of your team. I shall explain.

The first issue is that the gimmick of the class literally is "Be useless", you kinda say it right there in Making an Unfledged. The PC is gonna be dead weight. But they're actually worse than dead weight due to Tagalong. "Yay! Now the monsters coming at our party are weak frail goblins, which are now an appropriate encounter... for me. Meanwhile the rest of the party stand around bored, destroying the weaklings with no sense of challenge."

Included with that is the troubling flavor and concept. As DD said, it really embodies the "can't decide a spot" class, unfortunately well. Binders and Factotums did it better if you want to play a "I can do anything" class (nevermind actual wizards, who really DO embody all the roles in a party).

You WANT to be able to help your party overcome challenges, thats your entire purpose for playing, to BE someone, whatever that someone is. Plus, if you really wanted to be useless... :P ...play a monk. -- Eiji-kun 00:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Overcoming challenges is nice, but is not central to why I play RPG’s.

I don’t see how any of the classes you suggest fit the fictional characters I gave as examples. Neither Bilbo Baggins nor Garion starts out as an “I can do anything” character. Bilbo never becomes one, and while Garion does become a powerful spellcaster, the key word there is ‘become’. Similarly, neither Bilbo nor Garion is permanently useless; they both become quite effective party members.

A useless character won’t be annoying, (or, for some groups, at least not as annoying,) if the players and GM know that he is supposed to be useless. Thank you, Eiji-kun, for pointing out that this information might not reach the other players; I will have to add suitable advice to the warning.

Also thanks for pointing out that problem with Tagalong (even if you exaggerated it). A possible revision might be: Ignore the presence of the tagalong when determining appropriate opposition or dividing the base XP award by the number of characters in the party. The tagalong still receives experience for the encounter.

But Bilbo Baggins is the equivalent to a rogue. And I'm not sure who Garion is. You could just say that the storyline started with Garion as one class (nobody specializes in being useless) and due to a radical transformation, becomes another class. The archetype you are going for can be fulfilled with the Factotum much more easily, with retraining of classes being the transformation that occurs over time. This class literally just says "I do not contribute, ignore me." In a cooperative storytelling game, this is not fun for everybody else. --Havvy 04:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So with that being the consensus...do we want joke classes with no actual use on the wiki? Certainly we have our fair share of joke material, but generally it's also actually (hypothetically) useful. Should we add the April Fools category and keep it on the grounds of being amusing? --DanielDraco 06:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to others on if it's April Fools stuff, but I will say that April Fools SHOULD be useful, even if in a highly circumstantial or unbalanced way. The one exception I've given to was "Bonus Feat" feat.

...well, this is "unbalanced" in the "too weak/doesn't work" sense, so, I guess it works there. -- Eiji-kun 07:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Towards the end of The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is definitely a rogue. Towards the beginning of the novel, however, he is definitely not any sort of adventurer. This lack is made very clear in the novel, to humorous effect. At no point in either The Hobbit or The Ring Trilogy does Mr. Baggins use abilities from several different classes, the way I understand a Factotum does: when he uses a class ability, it is always a rogue one.

As for Garion, while nobody specializes in being useless, kitchen chores are useful. Garion specialized in kitchen chores (not cooking: Aunt Pol was the cook). When Garion becomes a spellcaster, he remains a spellcaster, of that type, for the remainder of The Belgariad. At no point in The Belgariad does Garion use abilities from several different classes, the way I understand a Factotum does: when he uses a class ability, it is always a spellcaster one, and always from the specific type of spellcaster he turned into in the first place.

Cooperative storytelling is about stories. Some stories are about characters who ignore anything that does not help them win, but most aren’t. A story can, for example, be about a group of champions who rescue the helpless, and, if possible, take them to safety. And if the party is doing this on the way to a more urgent rescue, and the detour to safety would make an unacceptable delay, then the rescued victim might prefer to accompany the champions. And if a player in such a group playing such characters plays such a rescued victim, who by luck develops sorcerous powers which help the party accomplish their mission and then joins the merry band in defending the helpless, then that player is contributing to the story just fine.

I am now convinced me that the ‘chose class when using Metamorphosis’ thing has to go. It seemed like a good idea: It made describing Metamorphosis a lot easier and I prefer giving players more, rather than fewer options, but this discussion is the last straw. I will just have to figure out how to describe Metamorphosis without it.--Ideasmith 15:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The class is now revised. The revision was much less difficult than I expected, and it looks like a great improvement. Thank you.--Ideasmith 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If I did it: An Eiji Take

Thinking on how the theme of the class would be possible period, the best I could come up with is a class which is the Diet Mimic. That is, no powers of his own but he can borrow the powers of his fellow party members. Team fighter? He's picked up a greatsword. Team sorcerer? Have a few spells. These temporary powers are based on his allies, and in turn he supports his allies in tasks that are common between them. It suffers in that it's a commoner when alone, but plan for contingency there somehow.

Turning into a class he's experienced in the past is optional. I've always been of the opinion that the point of making a class is to encourage you to take Class 20. If that's not a viable option, then its a poor class. Anyway, food for thought. -- Eiji-kun 00:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've finally gotten rid of that 'chose class when using Metamorphosis' thing, I'm not about to put it back in, let alone expand it beyond all sanity while adding a weird restriction--Ideasmith 04:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Balance

If you accept that the class you morph into must be balanced to the campaign's balance point, what part of this class is unquantifiable or even strong? You only get one Dormant Talent, so the only times when you benefit from being able to suddenly transform is when other people can't identify that you're Unfledged but can identify that you're not one of the useful classes, Impressive Metamorphosis, and that one hour of free preparation time.

I guess you can use time regression to get visions of the future without anyone ever knowing that you are an unfledged psion.

In the SGT, the Unfledged almost always does better than its Dormant Talent build, since you get a couple of spell levels and an hour as a free action for your first encounter (this applies less when the Dormant Talent's advantage involves using abilities a long time before combat), so you could argue that the Unfledged is unbalanced at every balance point.

So I'd say this class has to either be at Very Low (which doesn't exist) or "Not balanced according to wiki guidelines". --Foxwarrior 17:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's unquantifiable precisely because its power depends upon the campaign's balance point. In a VH campaign, you'll be morphing into a VH class. In a L campaign, you'll be morphing into a L class. It cannot be considered to be at any one balance point for the same reason that Leadership cannot be considered to be at any one balance point. Except that Leadership adds a useful NPC to the game, rather than removing a useful PC from the game. --DanielDraco 21:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

When you morph into a VH class, you won't be an Unfledged any more. At no point is an Unfledged character ever as strong as a Monk. --Foxwarrior 22:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The tagalong class feature indicates that you aren't counted when determining appropriate opposition or xp awards. You don't bring the party down by not keeping up like a monk would, you just take up space and try to avoid attacks. So while it's bizarre and you are individually weaker than a monk, it's not counted in the same way that the weakness normally would be. Thus, unquant. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Revision

The recent discussion has me considering the following changes:

• Revising the class fluff to make the point clearer
• Changing Metamorphosis so that it must, rather than may, happen upon level gain
• Adding a version of Instant Metamorphosis which is under the GM’s control.
• Making the preparation for instant Metamorphosis part of the Dormant Talent and only changeable when it is
• Dumping Impressive Metamorphosis
• Adding some sort of warning about encounter-planning
• Adding CR info to Tagalong
• Revising the multiclass rules to avoid odd interactions with Tagalong--Ideasmith 02:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tagalong

Some players may wish to play a character who has not yet realized their potential, in a party where the other characters are competent. Because this Tagalong is so useless, their presence does not add to the number of characters in the party when dividing experience.

The Tagalong's level is as normal for a member of the party, but their CR must be lower than that:

Level	Maximum CR
1	¼
2	⅓
3	½
4	1
5	1
6	2
7	2
8+	Level -6

Metamorphosis (Ex): In addition to the normal qualities of the creature, the Tagalong can attempt to transform into a creature of the same level, with CR equal to its level, as a Standard action. This has a 50% chance to fail each time it is attempted.

Metamorphosis can be made more limited, but that's not really a balance thing. An option to play at a lower balance point in order to reduce the level/CR gap could be added (I'm thinking +1 or +2 levels' worth of (ostensible) CR gap per balance point). --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your tagalong writeup. Here is a possible revision:

== The Tagalong ==

Some players may wish to play a character who has not yet realized their potential, in a party where the other characters are competent. Because this Tagalong is so useless, their presence :Similarly, if an tagalong is part of the opposition to a D&D party, and the DM is making sure that metamorphosis is not a factor, the tagalong should be ignored.

The Tagalong's ECL or CR (whichever is appropriate, and ignoring Dormant Talent and Metamorphosis) must be lower than the relevant party level as follows:

Party Level	maximum CR	maximum ECL
1	¼	*
2	1/3	*
3	½	1
4	1	1
5	1	1
6	2	2
7	2	2
8+	Level -6	Level -6

* If using ECL, a tagalong should not be started at this party level.

In addition to the normal qualities of the creature, the Tagalong also has the two abilities described below, which are not counted in the determination above and will not normally be relevant to encounters while the tagalong remains a tagalong.

Dormant Talent (Ex): Every tagalong has a Dormant Talent, which can be accessed using the Metamorphosis class feature described below.

The Dormant Talent is written up as a character, permissible for play by the rules in use, whose level is equal to the average level of her party, rounded down. (If the tagalong is in play long enough for this number to increase, the dormant talent is revised each time the number so increases. The new dormant talent may be as similar to the previous one as the player desires.) The Dormant Talent has one or more abilities which require preparation (such as spellcasting), then the details of up to one hour of preparation for them is also written up as part of the Dormant Talent.

Metamorphosis (Ex): At any time, a tagalong may cease being a tagalong, replacing her current abilities and alignment with her dormant abilities (see above). This ability may be activated by either the player or the DM, and the tagalong need not be concious or otherwise capable for it to activate.

This is not reversible short of a wish. Whether a wish is sufficient is up to the dungeon master.

Dormant Talent and Metamorphosis can be made more limited, depending on desired campaign feel or character concept, but that's not really a balance thing.--Ideasmith (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty similar, and I would agree with it, but the whole Dormant Talent mechanism makes demands of people who haven't decided what they want to play yet, and that slightly limits the spectrum of potential purposes it could be used for. --Foxwarrior (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It does have that disadvantage, but it also has advantages:

• It doesn't stop the game mid-combat to create what is mechanically a new character.

• For those players who have decided what they want to play, it allows foreshadowing, as occurs in the source material I'm using.

• Feedback is less likely to involve stuff like suggesting the factotum class.

Some option for deciding later would indeed be useful (The promising student feat is intended as such for the unfledged), but not at the cost of mid-combat character creation.--Ideasmith (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's about time I got this onto its own page. How do you wish to handle credit?--Ideasmith (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)