Alt systems (Forked Thread: Revised wizard)

[Kerrick]

Forked from: Revised wizard

I should note I have some widesweeping changes that will effect how the classes will need to be balanced (in my games at least).

We were getting a bit off-topic, so I decided to fork this part of your post to a new thread.

Stats apply to things a bit differently. Skill points are based on int+wis+(1/2 listed class bonus) instead of int + class bonus.

Interesting. I kept the # + Int, but I boosted the minimum to 4 + Int, so everyone gets a fair number of skill points. Course, I also got rid of cross-class skills, a la Pathfinder.

dex is used to hit for all attacks (not just for finesse weapons)

That's a bit odd. I couldn't see someone using Dex with a Strength-based weapon like a mace or greatsword.

and CHA is used for will saves. - this was to avoid CHA as a "dump stat" for half the classes.

I was batting that idea around myself. I changed paladins' casting stat to Cha, but decided to keep Wisdom for Will saves - if you swap them, then Wisdom becomes the dump stat, because only clerics/druids (and rangers/paladins, to a lesser degree need it; it modifies the same number of skills as Charisma (albeit more widely-used ones), so it's really a wash.

All creatures (player and enemy, add their CON score to their hp. undead add whatever the con score was when alive.

I added Cha bonus to hit points for undead.

Arcane Spell failure is skill based (dex & spellcraft) instead of a flat %, and Armored Caster/Improved Armored caster are feats which reduce the DC. The bard gets Armord Caster for free as his class feature.

Did you see the link I posted for ASF? I do a very similar system, complete with the Armored Caster feats.

Caster classes stack with other classes partially. 1/2 of all other HD/class levels add to your caster level, & spells per day, to a maximum of your level in the class. So a fighter 10 Wizard 1 casts as a Wizard 2. A Fighter 6 Wizard 5 Casts as a Wizard 8. A Wizard 8 Cleric 8 casts both as level 12. This is so that multiclassing doesnt kill you as a caster. in the case of PrCs that add to caster level/spells known/per day, use the better value. (if less than half of the prc levels add to caster, use 1/2, else use its progression for those levels)

Got something like that too.

and I'm not liking the 3.5 DR and will likely continue using 3.0 DR...

I use a mix of the two - I kept DR /magic, but each plus of the weapon bypasses 5 points of DR. So, a +2 weapon vs. 15/magic would bypass 10 points of it. I also borrowed a bit from Monte Cook's alt DR system; each plus of the weapon can bypass a minimum effect (material, alignment, etc.)

Good thing I'm compiling all this stuff to pdf on my PC and then distributing to the players cDont want to confuse them too much.

You should really check out Project Phoenix. We're using a lot of the same rules, and I think it's something that you and your players would like. I could use playtesters, and your advice was invaluable when I was doing the monk.

 

[Hawken]

I still don't think non-casting classes should add to caster level. There's no magic involved in the class, so it doesn't make sense that a caster's skill in a casting class would increase while he is learning a non-casting class.

A solution to the issue is this:

Add up the caster level for all spellcasting classes, that is the caster level.

Ex: Cleric 10/Wizard 10. With this method, the character would have a caster level of 20, but he would only have the spell casting ability of a 10th level cleric and a 10th level Wizard. He would have far fewer spells and few spell levels compared to a 20th level Wizard or a 20th level Cleric, but the power of his spells would be on par with either.

And, for SR,he would still be able to play with the big boys rather than lagging far behind and requiring feats or certain classes (Mystic Theurge, etc.).

 

[Sylrae]

The Dex to hit is because you dont really aim with strength. for things like a greatsword i was open to maybe doing it, but thats why the feat is there. dex made more sense as the default.

and yeah, swapping cha for will saves would make wis a dump stat, thats why I use wis for skills now and draw emphasis away from the class for the skills. I'm trying to make the stats as non-dumpy as possible. lol, it often results in a few less skill points over all though so maybe a +2 in general would be good.

cha to undead could be a good idea for hp.

i was contemplating adding caster stat to all spell damage since they kindof get the short end of the stick because of the 20-28 extra hit points everyone/everything has. (I often give the monsters less hitpoints if theres a big group of them, to speed up combat.)

I look at your site once in a while Kerrick. you have some good stuff on there. Your rule Ideas are quite similar to mine. not exactly the same, but similar.

to Hawken, the reason for the adding of all other HD to caster level (not just spell power, but also spells known & spells per day, to a 50% degree) is because if you don't, the exponential progression of spellcasters kills you and makes multiclassing something you want to avoid at all costs. Thats why nobody ever plays a monster caster with hd. your casting is absolutely useless. This way the power scales a bit closer to how it would if you didnt multiclass.

cause via standard, a wiz3fighter5 isn't as good as a fighter 8, or a wiz8. its more like a fighter 6, because by that level, the 3rd level wizard stuff isnt nearly as useful. the gap only gets bigger as you go up in level.

a wiz3clr3drd3 should be about as good as a wiz9, clr9, or drd9. but it shouldnt be as good as a wiz9clr9drd9. so this multiclass rule would make the character cast spells from all 3 classes as if level 6. because of exponential spell power growth thats pretty close to what we want.

With some work it could probably be slightly refined, but it would be hard to figure out the exact fraction necessary to make the character be worth his salt.

 

[Kerrick]

I still don't think non-casting classes should add to caster level. There's no magic involved in the class, so it doesn't make sense that a caster's skill in a casting class would increase while he is learning a non-casting class.

It's not so much "learning" as "inherent power". A Wiz 20 has a lot of power and knows how to access it all. A Ftr 10/Wiz 10 has more or less the same amount of power, but can't access as much of it - a good portion of it is tied up in his fighter training, but he can "channel" some of that power over to his wizard side to improve the strength of his spells. If you don't allow any levels from non-caster classes to add to the caster rating, no one will multiclass like that because it would be a suboptimal choice.

to Hawken, the reason for the adding of all other HD to caster level (not just spell power, but also spells known & spells per day, to a 50% degree) is because if you don't, the exponential progression of spellcasters kills you and makes multiclassing something you want to avoid at all costs. Thats why nobody ever plays a monster caster with hd. your casting is absolutely useless. This way the power scales a bit closer to how it would if you didnt multiclass.

That and the fact that most spellcasters don't even have class abilities to fall back on. A fighter 10/druid 10 is going to be a lot more effective, overall, than a fighter 10/wizard 10.

cause via standard, a wiz3fighter5 isn't as good as a fighter 8, or a wiz8. its more like a fighter 6, because by that level, the 3rd level wizard stuff isnt nearly as useful. the gap only gets bigger as you go up in level.

There's a 3-page thread over in the General RPG forum on this very subject, and several interesting solutions. I came up with my own, which is similar to the UA Magic Rating system.

 

[Sylrae]

so lets hear it. (or provide a link to where it is on your site)

 

[Hawken]

It's not so much "learning" as "inherent power". A Wiz 20 has a lot of power and knows how to access it all. A Ftr 10/Wiz 10 has more or less the same amount of power, but can't access as much of it - a good portion of it is tied up in his fighter training, but he can "channel" some of that power over to his wizard side to improve the strength of his spells. If you don't allow any levels from non-caster classes to add to the caster rating, no one will multiclass like that because it would be a suboptimal choice.

Power is not perhaps the best term to use to describe this. Levels are a measure of skill, while what you can do with your levels is power. Yes, a F10/W10 has the same skill level (20 class levels), but the F10/W10 sacrifices raw power and a bunch of spells for the abilities of a fighter. He's going to have way more HP, BAB, Fort saves and feats than the W20. That's his compensation. If you want the F10/W10 to have a higher caster level, then he should take prestige classes that provide for such; eldritch knight or something.

That's the sacrifice of multi-classing. IF you want a caster with a caster level equal to his spellcasting then you either don't multi-class or you multi-class into another class or a prestige class that increases your caster level. Multi-classing isn't broken or in need of a revision. You need to revise what you're trying to do.

You guys (Kerrick and Sylrae) are trying to get the best of both worlds without giving up anything in return. That's 2e multi-classing and you know it. That was changed specifically for 3.X. If you want to do it your way, incorporate the Gestalt class rules from UA.

Or give up something. If you want to advance as a Fighter AND still get caster level for your Wizard, then you have to forego something from your new class proportionate to what you want to keep improving in your existing class. That's multi-classing. However, what you guys are trying to do is give up a little (only spellcasting advancement; spells/day, new spell levels) while getting a lot (all Fighter benefits AND caster level improvement).

I hate using the term 'balance', but when it comes to multi-classing, the process itself, not so much the classes involved, has to be balanced. You are Class A, you want something from Class B; you give up something equal from Class A to what you want from Class B.

Ironically, 4E has a good attitude about multi-classing and its simple. Everything in 4E is reduced to a power. If you want a power from one class, you lose a power in your class. The only thing is you have to spend a feat to do it which I would never condone.

So, you want to multi-class, then break it down:[tt]
Fighter
BAB +1
Saves F +.5/R +.4/W +.4
HD D10
Skills: 2 + Int

Wizard
BAB + 1/2
Saves F +.4/R +.4/W +.5
HD D4
Skills 2 + Int

Special Abilities:
Fighter--Combat Feat every even level (or house rule them to get it every lvl)
Wizard--Spell casting progression and caster level.

The Fighter combat feat is (for the sake of this discussion) 'equal' to the casting progression (spells/day) and the caster level of a wizard.

So, to make the trade 'even' since you are wanting to increase your caster level as a fighter, he will need to give up something in addition to the fighter feat. I'd suggest either the Fighter BAB or HD. On the levels where a fighter feat is due, you keep the feat, but do not gain the fighter HD or BAB, instead still advancing in those areas as a wizard. On the fighter levels where no feat is due, you gain either the fighter BAB or HD, but not both.

This way, your wizard advances as a fighter, maintains his caster level advancement and gets fighter feats along with improved Fort saves. For five levels he will gain either the fighter HD or BAB, not both, which will give him a considerable edge over any other wizard. He is sacrificing spellcasting progression for increased HD, BAB, Fort saves and combat feats. Even if you just do it for two levels, you're getting a decent boost to your Fort save and two feats--something that is very good considering the shortfall of feats wizard's normally face.

 

[Sylrae]

*sigh* you just don't get it. The problem, is that the 3e multiclass system doesnt work well with casters AS IS. a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 has all the things that a Wizard 10 has, plus what a Fighter 10 has. Unfortunately A Fighter10/Wizard10 is nowhere near as good as a Fighter10/Rogue10.

In 3e/3.5e D&D, Noncaster's progress in a linear fashion. Casters progress Exponentially. which means, that level 2 of wizard is more than level 1 wizard x2. Level 2 wizard is more like level 1 wizard * 2.5. Not Multiclassing makes a wizard be about as good as a fighter (a bit worse at low levels, a bit better at high levels, and around equal in mid levels).

But when you multiclass with a caster, the 3.5e system makes your character useless if you do anymore than take a 1-2 level dip unless you took prcs to compensate for it. prcs in this case are just a clutch to band-aid how multiclassing is for casters. logically, any given 15th level character should be roughly equally useful.

A cleric 7 wizard 8 should be as useful as a wizard 15 or a cleric 15, even though its not as powerful at casting in either. but the exponential design in caster classes means that under the regular system, a cleric7/wizard8 is about as useful as a wizard 12, and maybe about as useful as a cleric 12. Its like you missed out on 3 levels completely, because as you gain levels, the things youre missing out on become worth more and more.

what if I wanted to make a bard4/sorc4/wiz4/cler4/drd4. That character should be as useful as any 20th level version of any of the 5 (albeit not as powerful, given the trade for versatility). However, that character would be complete crap. I'd be surprised if they were as useful as a 14th level character, let alone 20th.


You seem to have an 'if it ain't broke, dont fix it' attitude about almost all of 3e, but the thing is, in alot of areas, it is broke, so we're trying to fix it (hence 3.5e revisionists.....). You're also a bit more critical of our ideas than we are of yours. Youre changing LA because you feel that what you gain from an LA is less than what you gain from a class level (if I understood your argument correctly). The same issue presents itself with caster classes and multiclassing. a multiclassed caster sucks compared to anything else, with the exception of a caster with la and racial HD.

And while I agree with you that the LA system is suboptimal, I dont really think your system is much of an improvement, it seems like its almost the same as savage progression, except instead of breaking it all down into something like a class, you give it on normal class levels, and then have them take levels where they get nothing... and your system wont account for racial HD. I dont know how you can see the problem with LA and not see the problem with casters, cause theyre virtually the same problem. Am I saying I know how to fix LA? No. Can we Fix Casters? yes. Will we eventually fix LA? hopefully.

If you look at it, you'll notice Monsters with LA and racial hit dice who are non-casters that are used as players, are much more useful than those who are caster-ish. This would also address that issue.

A minotaur Fighter 12 is a 20th level character. An illithid Wizard 5 is a 20th level character. The Minotaur is a much better character (not just more powerful, but better all around).
Why? because at level 15 the first 5 levels of wizard are considerably less useful than they would have been for levels 1-5.

Contrary to what simple addition tells you, an Illithid Wizard 5 is not a level 20 character. It's a level 17 (18 tops) character.

 

[Sylrae]

Also, youre a bit rude in your posts (not alot, but a bit) when responding to ours, in a condescending sort of way. and that's not cool.

Multi-classing isn't broken or in need of a revision. You need to revise what you're trying to do.

I disagree. Clearly so does Kerrick. If I were to Argue that LA is not broken, you would disagree. personally I think most of the Problems from LA (assuming you dont make them take all of the LA up front,) Come from this same flaw in multiclassing. And your comments like this are an example of you being condescending and kindof rude. I dont make comments like this when I respond to you (or anyone else posts) that I disagree with, as long as their idea is not completely retarded, and this, is a very valid idea.

You guys (Kerrick and Sylrae) are trying to get the best of both worlds without giving up anything in return. That's 2e multi-classing and you know it. That was changed specifically for 3.X. If you want to do it your way, incorporate the Gestalt class rules from UA.

Gestalt is too beefy. 3.x is too - but only for casters. hence the half-way between. and comments like "You guys (Kerrick and Sylrae) are trying to get the best of both worlds without giving up anything in return. That's 2e multi-classing and you know it." are another thing where youre being condescending and rude.

Now I'm going to say something condescending. Kerrick has had lots of good ideas. I dont always completely agree with them, but they're always worth at least listening to and considering. Often I would only tweak them in some small way, but agree he has the right general Idea. I make contributions, and recieve advice in return. You criticize ideas without providing any useful suggestions, insult people in the process, shut down even valid ideas, and then provide little of value either to the conecept at hand, or another concept, unless nagged for suggestion after you sit there and bitch. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about, and provide crappy examples or explanations for your reasoning (if you can call it that). Either stop being such a jerk, or provide something useful. The ideal situation would be if you did both.

On the off chance that that's not how you normally are, and youre just having a couple days, then I apologize for my assertions, because I only have the past couple of days to look at to see how you act.

 

[Hawken]

I'm not going to get into the condescending or rude stuff. I have no control how you take what I say and I'm not going to apologize for it either. I've neither directly insulted you or anything you've written here. If anything I've said was taken by you as condescending or rude (and this probably will be), then thicken up your skin and stop being so easily offended.

I am a direct person and I'll tell you the truth no matter how offensive or rude it may be to you. Do I care about your feelings? No. I don't know you from the bums I see on street corners. I have no idea what you're feeling at any given moment nor am I going to try to guess or try to guess how you will take what I post here. Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to sugar-coat anything just for the sake of your delicate sensibilities. You're not the only one here. Kerrick hasn't called me out for being rude or anything like that. He's taken what I said constructively, explained himself so I could see where he was coming from and attempting to do and we move on, rinse and repeat. Instead of getting all emo about this, why don't you try it his way.

I've never personally insulted you and I won't--though I am tempted now that I know I can get under your skin. I'm fairly good at playing Devil's Advocate and I can be harsh because whatever you're doing or proposing has to stand up to harsh scrutiny. If it can't, you don't have it right yet. And if you take it personally, then you may as well move back in with your parents and let them take care of you and shelter from all the meanies out there until you can get some thicker skin.

The problem, is that the 3e multiclass system doesnt work well with casters AS IS. a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 has all the things that a Wizard 10 has, plus what a Fighter 10 has. Unfortunately A Fighter10/Wizard10 is nowhere near as good as a Fighter10/Rogue10.

More accurately, the problem is that the 3.x multiclass system doesn't work well for what you want. In this example, you're comparing a 20th level character (F10/W10) to two different 10th level characters (F10 and a W10). That's apples and oranges. If you are going to use comparisons to validate your points, you need to start comparing Granny Smith vs. Delicious Red.

And how exactly is a F10/W10 nowhere near as good as a F10/Ro10? As good at what? If anything, the F10/W10 would dance around the Rogue multiclass and be nearly infinitely more versatile. Combat-wise, the Rogue would maybe have a higher damage output, possibly, in 1-on-1 combat, but that's a big maybe. In all other areas, the W10 would dominate where his spells would more than make up for the Rogue's skills and negate the need/use of sneak attack and could summon fodder to deal with any pesky traps.

Noncaster's progress in a linear fashion. Casters progress Exponentially.

Negative, both progress linear. Level 1, then 2, then 3, etc. The "power bump" that casters get when accessing a new spell level is compensated for by their lower BAB, HD, skills, feats and lack of class abilities (in the case of the Sorcerer and Wizard) and their limited number of times a day they can access those spells. It basically works out, the challenge is to equate what each of the factors are valued at in relation to other classes. A rogue's sneak attack could be comparable to a fighter's bonus feat, but how does it compare to a monk's slow fall or flurry of blows or a cleric's domain power or a druid's wild shape? That's the trick. If a value could be assigned to all class abilities, including spell casting and caster level, then it would be much easier to solve the multi-class issue.

But when you multiclass with a caster, the 3.5e system makes your character useless if you do anymore than take a 1-2 level dip unless you took prcs to compensate for it. prcs in this case are just a clutch to band-aid how multiclassing is for casters. logically, any given 15th level character should be roughly equally useful.

That's not true at all. If you take two 15th level characters, one a straight caster, the other a 10th level caster and 5th level non-caster, they have roughly the same power level. In spells, no way. But what the multiclass sacrifices in magic, he gains in extra versatility and strength by changing his HD, BAB, Saves, and likely gaining more skills, feats and special abilities. All of those things compensate quite well for the loss of spellcasting. Spellcasting is just another class ability, not some special thing with a life of its own. You just have to figure out a way to assign a value to it that is comparable to other class abilities.

A cleric 7 wizard 8 should be as useful as a wizard 15 or a cleric 15, even though its not as powerful at casting in either. but the exponential design in caster classes means that under the regular system, a cleric7/wizard8 is about as useful as a wizard 12, and maybe about as useful as a cleric 12. Its like you missed out on 3 levels completely, because as you gain levels, the things youre missing out on become worth more and more.

what if I wanted to make a bard4/sorc4/wiz4/cler4/drd4. That character should be as useful as any 20th level version of any of the 5 (albeit not as powerful, given the trade for versatility). However, that character would be complete crap. I'd be surprised if they were as useful as a 14th level character, let alone 20th.

Again, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot when you keep referring to spellcasting as an exponential thing when it isn't. The limited number of times per day is what keeps the power curve balanced. Yeah, a 20th level Wiz can drop big flaming rocks out of the sky, but how many times can he do it before someone puts a knife in his kidneys or an axe through his face?

As I've mentioned before, I have no problem increasing overall caster level for multiclassing into spellcasting classes. I think a Wiz8/Clc7 should have a caster level of 15, because he has 15 levels of a spellcasting class. What he should NOT get is an increase in caster level when he does not increase his spellcasting classes. That's like saying that a 15th level fighter taking a level of wizard should get a bonus fighter feat because he's now a 16th level character and 16th level fighters get a bonus feat. You wouldn't let that happen, so why allow it from the casting point of view?

And another simple thing to fix this is adjust the save DC calculation of spells to be this:
10 + 1/2 caster level + ability mod
instead of
10 + spell level + ability mod

Its a subtle but notable difference and would make the Wiz8/Clc7 have the same base Save DCs as a 15th level single class caster.

You seem to have an 'if it ain't broke, dont fix it' attitude about almost all of 3e, but the thing is, in alot of areas, it is broke, so we're trying to fix it (hence 3.5e revisionists.....). You're also a bit more critical of our ideas than we are of yours. Youre changing LA because you feel that what you gain from an LA is less than what you gain from a class level (if I understood your argument correctly). The same issue presents itself with caster classes and multiclassing. a multiclassed caster sucks compared to anything else, with the exception of a caster with la and racial HD.

My attitude isn't "if it ain't broke...", although that does apply. Its more like "Is it broke? If so, in what way? And how can it be fixed?" I'm a bit more critical of your ideas because you're putting forward more ideas to criticize (constructively) than I have.

I've been exceedingly critical of your ideas, Sylrae, because, from what you've posted in regard to your eldritch blast, you seem to have little concept of how a small change can result in a game breaking problem when it is not carefully adjusted to fit in with the overall system. And instead of trying to figure out how to make your solution work, you insist that your way will and does work without any consideration. Kerrick you seem to listen to more than me, even when he's basically saying what I'm saying and maybe in a way that's less offensive to you. If that's what it takes, I've no problem shouting out to Kerrick and letting him 'nice' it up for you.

Regarding my LA thread, I believe I was quite clear in that it was a work in progress and that solution I started with was something I had just come up with. However, my premise that LA decreases in value/use as levels increase is a given fact. I'm just trying to find a way to mitigate or even out that decrease. I haven't really posted more because Kerrick mentioned some rules someone else is already working on to solve the issue and I was basically tabling that to consider other things.

Gestalt is too beefy.

Too Quarter Pounder with Cheese beefy? Or too Double Whopper beefy? Gestalt is just about what you're shooting for. You want caster level increase with non-caster level class advancement. BAB, Saves and HD all increase with class advancement because they are traits of a class--things that make up a class. Spellcasting is a special ability granted by certain classes so there is no way you can justify increasing caster level by advancing in non-caster classes. And I've already mentioned totalling caster level for multiple caster classes is fine with me. Right now, the quick and easiest fix is to take the Practiced Spellcaster feat--which would fill in nicely for those caster levels missing from taking non-caster classes. And you could adjust the feat so it could be taken more than once or increase the levels it covers.

Practiced Spellcaster covers 4 HD of caster level. You could change it so that it covers 50% of missing caster levels (from non-caster classes) and you could take it a second time to cover 100% of missing caster levels up to your total character level. So, that F10/W10 would cast all of his allotted 10th level wizard spells as a 20th level caster. And even a Rog15/Wiz5 would cast as a 20th level caster. With all the adjustments you and Kerrick are doing on caster classes, you could easily fit these feats in there as available feats like what the wizard gets every 5 levels.

That Practiced Spellcaster feat, my adjustment above to spell DCs, and my rule about combining caster levels from different casting classes seems to fix the problem quite nicely.

You criticize ideas without providing any useful suggestions, insult people in the process, shut down even valid ideas, and then provide little of value either to the conecept at hand, or another concept, unless nagged for suggestion after you sit there and bitch. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about, and provide crappy examples or explanations for your reasoning (if you can call it that). Either stop being such a jerk, or provide something useful. The ideal situation would be if you did both.

This explains why you get frustrated with me! Based on this response, you don't even bother to read my posts, or you read only selective parts, or you're only using selective parts to try to give an ounce of truth to this statement.

Do I criticize ideas? Yes--that's what this thread is for. Present an idea. Others post to criticize it. Revise your idea, present again for more criticism. Rinse and repeat.

Do I provide useful suggestions? Yes--in nearly every one of my posts about the things Kerrick or you have come up with I have provided suggestions. Now, whether you find any use in them or not, is not up to me or in any way my responsibility. But the use is there at the very least to provide you with an alternative point of view about your proposal.

Insult people in the process? No--and you can go back through any post here. I have never personally insulted anyone. You can take any meaning you want from my words, you can read it however you want, but the only offense in my words is what you perceive. I offer none of my own. If I am a little too direct or blunt for you, too bad. Deal with it, that's life.

In fact, from your post, one could easily come to the conclusion you called me a jerk. I don't see it that way though. If you perceive me as a jerk, that doesn't mean I am a jerk, just that that is how you think. Same with the part about bitching and crappy examples. That's your perception. If you think that way about me, I won't try to help you anymore, but I sure as Hell will comment on it if I feel like it.

Shut down valid ideas? Sure--if they really were valid I wouldn't be able to shut them down, find fault with them or whatever. I do have a talent for picking out weaknesses and faults, so, instead of taking offense, try to give it some consideration. Harsh I may be, but it is honesty not malice that motivates me. I'm not going to say anything just to hurt or ridicule you.

If you see little value in what I contribute, then do us both a favor and ignore it and don't even bother to comment on it if you don't feel it worthy of your time. But I don't 'sit and bitch' and no one here has had to press me for a suggestion either. I really don't know where you came up with that part.

I have no idea what I'm talking about, offer crappy suggestions and have questionable reasoning ability? Really? If you're looking for credentials, I started playing D&D roughly about 30 years ago, when I was 6 years old. When I was 7 I DM'ed my first adventure and since then, I've played or DM'ed consistently hundreds of games and campaigns. I had virtually all books and supplements from every edition (and read them all--except for 4th, which I don't even like looking at). I've played games by the rules, and come up with more rules that I've forgotten than you may likely ever think up. With dozens of happy players to show for my DECADES of effort, I'd say I've got a pretty good idea what I'm talking about when it comes to D&D.

Crappy suggestions? How so? Wherein lays the crap that you allege I am offering forth? I've solved your problem with multi-class spellcasters faster than you have, in a logical and simple manner and without ripping the existing rules apart. I've offered both you and Kerrick competent, insightful, and intriguing ideas whether you agree with them or not. At the very least, they should have made you consider further what you were putting out. --And on the subject of crappy suggestions, I copied and showed about two dozen players what you suggested with your eldritch bolt and I'll just leave it that if you think I'm rude and condescending, their opinions of your idea would having you running for your mommy. So, you want to dish out crappy suggestions? Go ahead. I admit defeat. Your crap is far crappier than my crap will ever crap.

As for my reasoning ability, look back through my posts here. I've always backed up or supported in some way the things I've suggested or how I've come up with my ideas, or why they make sense. And where that's been lacking, I've admitted to them being hastily put together and requested refinement. But you, you lay out accusations and throw veiled insults without showing where or how to support your point.

One thing you may want to consider Sylrae is that 'revisionist' means one who revises, not to throw out the existing and come up with something totally outside the scope of the existing rules. The idea is to make the rules fit better, to revise them, not to ignore them and come up with your own stuff.



Kerrick, this is your forum. I'm not here to cause trouble. But I will defend myself against accusations. If you want me gone, say so. If you feel I'm out of line or disruptive, call me on it. I'm not going to mince words and I couldn't give a crap about political correctness. I call it the way I see it and I'll do that as honest and straightforward as I can. I'm not out to hurt feelings or cause any problems but I'm not going to play wet-nurse and sugar coat things or hold someone's hand because they don't think I'm nice.

 

[Sylrae]

I'm not going to get into the condescending or rude stuff. I have no control how you take what I say and I'm not going to apologize for it either. I've neither directly insulted you or anything you've written here. If anything I've said was taken by you as condescending or rude (and this probably will be), then thicken up your skin and stop being so easily offended.

I am a direct person and I'll tell you the truth no matter how offensive or rude it may be to you. Do I care about your feelings? No. I don't know you from the bums I see on street corners. I have no idea what you're feeling at any given moment nor am I going to try to guess or try to guess how you will take what I post here. Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to sugar-coat anything just for the sake of your delicate sensibilities.

I dont have a problem with bluntness, you just seemend to be being intentionally condescending and arrogant, so I decided to call you on it. If that's not what you were doing, than fine.

You're not the only one here. Kerrick hasn't called me out for being rude or anything like that. He's taken what I said constructively, explained himself so I could see where he was coming from and attempting to do and we move on, rinse and repeat. Instead of getting all emo about this, why don't you try it his way.

I've never personally insulted you and I won't--though I am tempted now that I know I can get under your skin. I'm fairly good at playing Devil's Advocate and I can be harsh because whatever you're doing or proposing has to stand up to harsh scrutiny. If it can't, you don't have it right yet. And if you take it personally, then you may as well move back in with your parents and let them take care of you and shelter from all the meanies out there until you can get some thicker skin.

I tend to confront people when they're being rude toward me, whether it really offends me or not.

As I've mentioned before, I have no problem increasing overall caster level for multiclassing into spellcasting classes. I think a Wiz8/Clc7 should have a caster level of 15, because he has 15 levels of a spellcasting class. What he should NOT get is an increase in caster level when he does not increase his spellcasting classes. That's like saying that a 15th level fighter taking a level of wizard should get a bonus fighter feat because he's now a 16th level character and 16th level fighters get a bonus feat. You wouldn't let that happen, so why allow it from the casting point of view?

And another simple thing to fix this is adjust the save DC calculation of spells to be this:
10 + 1/2 caster level + ability mod
instead of
10 + spell level + ability mod

Its a subtle but notable difference and would make the Wiz8/Clc7 have the same base Save DCs as a 15th level single class caster.

This would sortof solve the issue. A wizard rogue, wizard fighter, wizard/noncaster would still be a pretty crappy character. in comparison. They would be versatile, but I dont think the versatility would make up for the power loss. it wouldnt be quite enough versatility. following your logic though, not all caster levels should stack. divine classes wouldnt be able to logically stack with arcane. clerics get their power from a god. druids from nature, arcane casters from within themselves.

My attitude isn't "if it ain't broke...", although that does apply. Its more like "Is it broke? If so, in what way? And how can it be fixed?" I'm a bit more critical of your ideas because you're putting forward more ideas to criticize (constructively) than I have.

I've been exceedingly critical of your ideas, Sylrae, because, from what you've posted in regard to your eldritch blast, you seem to have little concept of how a small change can result in a game breaking problem when it is not carefully adjusted to fit in with the overall system. And instead of trying to figure out how to make your solution work, you insist that your way will and does work without any consideration. Kerrick you seem to listen to more than me, even when he's basically saying what I'm saying and maybe in a way that's less offensive to you. If that's what it takes, I've no problem shouting out to Kerrick and letting him 'nice' it up for you.

Yes, the eldritch jolt wasn't my best idea. With a straight wizard, and 3.0e DR, the ability wasnt too powerful, but it was still slightly too good. and as you pointed out (repeatedly) if you misinterpret the ability to be meant to overcome DR completely (which it was never meant to do) then it is WAY too powerful.

Regarding my LA thread, I believe I was quite clear in that it was a work in progress and that solution I started with was something I had just come up with. However, my premise that LA decreases in value/use as levels increase is a given fact. I'm just trying to find a way to mitigate or even out that decrease. I haven't really posted more because Kerrick mentioned some rules someone else is already working on to solve the issue and I was basically tabling that to consider other things.

I have an idea about that, I'll get to it at the end.

Too Quarter Pounder with Cheese beefy? Or too Double Whopper beefy?

rofl. Too beefy as in too powerful.

Gestalt is just about what you're shooting for. You want caster level increase with non-caster level class advancement. BAB, Saves and HD all increase with class advancement because they are traits of a class--things that make up a class. Spellcasting is a special ability granted by certain classes so there is no way you can justify increasing caster level by advancing in non-caster classes. And I've already mentioned totalling caster level for multiple caster classes is fine with me. Right now, the quick and easiest fix is to take the Practiced Spellcaster feat--which would fill in nicely for those caster levels missing from taking non-caster classes. And you could adjust the feat so it could be taken more than once or increase the levels it covers.

Practiced Spellcaster covers 4 HD of caster level. You could change it so that it covers 50% of missing caster levels (from non-caster classes) and you could take it a second time to cover 100% of missing caster levels up to your total character level. So, that F10/W10 would cast all of his allotted 10th level wizard spells as a 20th level caster. And even a Rog15/Wiz5 would cast as a 20th level caster. With all the adjustments you and Kerrick are doing on caster classes, you could easily fit these feats in there as available feats like what the wizard gets every 5 levels.

Gestalt is a completely different can of worms. and Gestalt removes the ability to freely multiclass, makes La&ECL races unviable, and would not solve the problem in the least, unless all characters were caster + noncaster.

That Practiced Spellcaster feat, my adjustment above to spell DCs, and my rule about combining caster levels from different casting classes seems to fix the problem quite nicely.

fighter abilities, taken at low levels, stay useful throughout the course of advancement. spells dont stay useful all the way up. magic missile is not particularly useful at level 15.

This explains why you get frustrated with me! Based on this response, you don't even bother to read my posts, or you read only selective parts, or you're only using selective parts to try to give an ounce of truth to this statement.

I read your posts. You seem to ignore the issue. of come up with solutions that dont solve the problem.

Do I criticize ideas? Yes--that's what this thread is for. Present an idea. Others post to criticize it. Revise your idea, present again for more criticism. Rinse and repeat.

Do I provide useful suggestions? Yes--in nearly every one of my posts about the things Kerrick or you have come up with I have provided suggestions. Now, whether you find any use in them or not, is not up to me or in any way my responsibility. But the use is there at the very least to provide you with an alternative point of view about your proposal.

See my last section

Insult people in the process? No--and you can go back through any post here. I have never personally insulted anyone. You can take any meaning you want from my words, you can read it however you want, but the only offense in my words is what you perceive. I offer none of my own. If I am a little too direct or blunt for you, too bad. Deal with it, that's life.

In fact, from your post, one could easily come to the conclusion you called me a jerk. I don't see it that way though. If you perceive me as a jerk, that doesn't mean I am a jerk, just that that is how you think. Same with the part about bitching and crappy examples. That's your perception. If you think that way about me, I won't try to help you anymore, but I sure as Hell will comment on it if I feel like it.

You seemed to be being arrogant and belittling. Just the odd snarky remark you make mostly.

Shut down valid ideas? Sure--if they really were valid I wouldn't be able to shut them down, find fault with them or whatever. I do have a talent for picking out weaknesses and faults, so, instead of taking offense, try to give it some consideration. Harsh I may be, but it is honesty not malice that motivates me. I'm not going to say anything just to hurt or ridicule you.

Lol. yes I feel terrible. lol. I meant that you dismiss the idea, even dismiss the problem, without addressing it. Or claim the problem doesn't exist in the first place.

If you see little value in what I contribute, then do us both a favor and ignore it and don't even bother to comment on it if you don't feel it worthy of your time. But I don't 'sit and bitch' and no one here has had to press me for a suggestion either. I really don't know where you came up with that part.

I just disagree with denying that the problem even exists when its mentioned, and dont consider it a useful way to get to a solution.

Crappy suggestions? How so? Wherein lays the crap that you allege I am offering forth? I've solved your problem with multi-class spellcasters faster than you have, in a logical and simple manner and without ripping the existing rules apart. I've offered both you and Kerrick competent, insightful, and intriguing ideas whether you agree with them or not. At the very least, they should have made you consider further what you were putting out. --And on the subject of crappy suggestions, I copied and showed about two dozen players what you suggested with your eldritch bolt and I'll just leave it that if you think I'm rude and condescending, their opinions of your idea would having you running for your mommy. So, you want to dish out crappy suggestions? Go ahead. I admit defeat. Your crap is far crappier than my crap will ever crap.

Again, if you take a wip rule (eldritch jolt) and misinterpret what it was supposed to do in the first place (granted it didnt accomplish the goal as it was which was why i wanted suggestion) then of course it will be sub par. Your 'solution' to the caster multiclass issue doesnt solve the problem. it's yet another band-aid. it you made the DC be based on all class levels (which you outright stated you would disagree with) that would have solved the problem.

'Your crap is far crappier than my crap will ever crap.'
That's got to be the most idiotic insult I've ever heard.

As for my reasoning ability, look back through my posts here. I've always backed up or supported in some way the things I've suggested or how I've come up with my ideas, or why they make sense. And where that's been lacking, I've admitted to them being hastily put together and requested refinement. But you, you lay out accusations and throw veiled insults without showing where or how to support your point.

When I put forth ideas that need work, I say they need work. I say they need suggestion. I haven't been throwing insults veiled or otherwise. I said you weren't helping solve the problems, coming up with solutions that don't address the problems, and speaking in an arrogant and insulting manner.

Kerrick, this is your forum. I'm not here to cause trouble. But I will defend myself against accusations. If you want me gone, say so. If you feel I'm out of line or disruptive, call me on it. I'm not going to mince words and I couldn't give a crap about political correctness. I call it the way I see it and I'll do that as honest and straightforward as I can. I'm not out to hurt feelings or cause any problems but I'm not going to play wet-nurse and sugar coat things or hold someone's hand because they don't think I'm nice.

Nobody want's you to play 'wet nurse' or sugar coat things, I was just commenting on you being insulting, unnecessarily. If you want me to 'show where or how to support my point' I can make a list of quotes if its absolutely necessary.

In regard to the Idea of monsters & CR. Maybe the best idea would be to turn each monster into a class. Make the number of levels in the class be the same as the CR of the monster (even in the cases where you gain more than one HD per level), and adjust all the abilities accordingly. There are some class/race calculators available online. they aren't perfect but they definitely help.