Ok. Well, first, I want to say to you all (and anyone who's reading along and/or might be interested in coming in), THANK YOU! This is part of the kind of stuff I'm hoping to expose and work through by playtesting this whole shibang. So this is all good stuff as far as I'm concerned...though, of course, don't want to spend all of our time speaking about game mechanics vs. actual playing and, hopefully, having fun!
Second, just to get it out of the way, [MENTION=48762]Leif[/MENTION], Weapon Specialization is a Theme available to Warrior clases (and those who can select it from their list). The fighter doesn't receive any "specialization" per say, thuogh the Combat Mastery bonus could certainly be viewed that way and at higher levels effectively acts that way. i.e. In the system, as is, using a weapon you are
not proficient with carries a To Hit penalty of -4 on the roll. Now, even at 1st level, fighter PCs have their +1 CM to offset that. By the time a fighter has +4 CM (8th level?), they effectively use any/all weapons they can get their hands on without penalty, proficient or not (and only fighters get Combat Mastery, btw. Paladins/rangers/barbarians do not. CM is the fighter's "thing.") To me, that's not really over powered or imbalanced. A fighter of 8th level out to be able to pick up a hammer they are not proficient with, for example, and have as easy a chance to strike as any other character who is proficient with it. I think it speaks to the "feel" of the Fighter as "the best there is at what he does." And those "feel" concerns have always been a primary concern before maths/percentages/numbers "balance."
But there you go. If you want to be specialized, then you need to take the theme, multi or single classed.
I can't speak for the difference the slower acquisition of themes will make, but yes, it's the unpayed for increase in HP+Tohit to a lesser extent, but mostly in class-specific abilities (spell casting to name a big one, skill advantages (Rogue's skill mastery in this case), fighter class powers, access to weapon and armor proficiencies, etc).
There's also 1) the slower acquisiton of Skill Points (thus fewer or less fast increasing of existing skills).
2) There is no inherent "To Hit" bonus per se beyond level. So the multiclass, rising in levels slower than others, actually (in theory/my mind) receives less/slower increase to their To Hit than the single.
3) I realize you guys haven't seen the XP charts. WoO takes a step back on that as well...with certain classes leveling faster than others. Fighters and Thieves, I believe, are basically the same (as purely non-magical classes). But it is also a sloping increase in levels. So you need 1000 to get to 2nd level. You need +1,000 more to get to 3rd. Then, at 4th and 5th, you need additional +1200 (I think it is, each), then +1500 to reach 6th and 7th. So increasing levels will [should] begin to fall behind, more noticeably than 1/2e. At least that's what I'm thinking/was hoping for.
As a pratical example, just by declaring John a multiclass character he gains 1 weapon proficiency, +1 Tohit, +1 to damage, the Rush ability, the Extra Attack ability, the Receive Charge ability and +2 to all skill rolls involving strength. Oh, and 1 extra HP. I don't think you can reasonably argue that this *won't* make him markedly better at facing the challenges ahead, especially at 1st level where the margin between life and death is the slimest. (For comparaison's sake, what *would* he gain for a second single-class Rogue level exactly?)
Good question. And short answer, turning 2nd gets you nothing other than another d10 + Con bonus of HP. At third, I believe is when you gain another Skill Point, another +1 to your Skill Mastery, another roll + Con. for HP, your Sneak Attack damage does up to +10 damage...I don't think you get another Weapon slot until 4th.
Though turning 2/2 in the multiclass Ftr/Thf will also get you nothing but HP and take twice as many XP.
I have indeed lived through 1e/2e multiclassing, usually as one of the few single-classed character at the table, and it has taught me two things (which I will now share with you
):
Thanky.
- The "slower leveling up" mechanics sounds good in theory but is not in fact what happens when you play multi and single class characters side-by-side. First level multiclass characters are markedly more powerful than single-classed, arguably slightly behind from levels 3 to about 7 (dependant on the exact mix), but then catch back up to single classed characters after 7th due to the semi-exponential nature of levels in the system (i.e. from this point onward they are either the same level or less than one level behind). [EDIT = see my next answer for the actual numbers if you want.]
We could argue this one way or the other and, more importantly, if it's possible to come up with a system that is balanced over this or that range of levels (it probably is at that!), but then comes the other thing:
- Advantage now, (maybe) pay later balance mechanics are fundamentaly flawed. That "maybe" is the rotten apple at the core of what could possibly be a workable concept if you managed to really balance the plus and minuses over X levels (which, as I said above, I do not beleive was achieved in the 1e/2e version). The reality is that very few games will play over the full range of levels necessary for the system to be balanced.
-snip-
Whatever the case, the net result is the same: the price rarely, if ever gets paid.
Ok. I see what you're saying with all of this. And yeah, makes sense.
Mechanically, right now, at first level, it makes no senses *not* to be a 1st level fighter/rogue vs a single-classed rogue, and choices that are so much better than the alternatives are the hallmark of an unbalanced system.... That's not necesseraly a bad thing, you know: unbalanced choices are what gives a particular system its specific flavour vs that other one over there. But you should be aware that that's what you're doing at the time; namely telling gamers "This system wants you to do this, and will reward you for doing it".
Well, other than if you don't want to wait to increase your levels, no. I suppose you're right.
You're forcing me to pull out my 2nd edition stuff now, but alright.
<rumages around>
Apologies. But appreciated.
Here we are: at - let's say - 150 000 XP, a single level Figher is 8th level while a multiclass Fighter is 7th level on his fighter side, same thing for a Cleric, a single class Rogue is 9th level while a multi-class rogue is at 8th on his rogue side and finally, a single class wizard is 9th level while a multiclass wizard is smack in the middle of 7th level. And the differences get smaller and smaller from there: they're catching up! not falling behind. So, yeah, pretty much as I remember it. The examples you give (3/3 vs a 6th level party) seem to be assuming a 3E-like flatter progression curve, or even a downright 3E single-scale character (as opposed to class) ladder: this was not the case in AD&D... Though it might be in Orea? See my second point on the Pay Later balancing mechanics above though.
I don't actually know. But see above re: XP needed to increase level.
You could look at the 4E Ghestalt rules for ideas if you want: they develloped something similar there. I just read through once as I haven't played a lot of 4E, but as I recall they basically classified class abilities as Major or Minor and you could swap between the Minors pretty freely (up to your maximum number and only between two classes, of course), and then you had choices to make as to the Majors, each taken two classes at a time (if you wanted to combine classes 1 and 3, then you could take this Major+packaged Minor from class 1 OR this single Major from class 3 instead, etc).
I might do that. You don't like the multiclasses choose 5 or 6 features at start of play from each class' options? I thought that soudned kinda fair...
My turn to ask: could you qualify that a little? Seems... extreme to say the least.
Yes. Ok. Yeah that was a bit of hyperbole. And to be fair I have never played 3e. I only know what I've gleaned from reading what's available online. But I just do not like that a 4th level character could conceivably be a Fighter/Thief/Mage/Cleric. By 4th level you can do everything? you cover all of the archetypes of the game? Why do you need a party?! Or you want a barbarian who can sling arcane spells? Or a Druid/Assassin/Spellthief? Or you take 5 levels in Mage, not because you have this cool idea for a mage character, but just to take that uber-powered Prestige Class for your 6th...once you've got that, screw 'em, you're gonna be a ranger for some dual-wielding action...like the other ranger PC has had this whole time. Bastard.
I guess what I'm trying to say is to my eyes, 3e kinda took optimization and powergaming and made them their own thing...even the FOCUS of the game beyond "being the best you can be with what you are"....you change the very nature of what you are at every level! Yes, there have always been/will always be people looking to make their characters as powerful as possible/optimizing/powergaming. That's just the nature of humans, as you noted. In 1e you always wanted to get as much/higher powered magic stuff as possible. Since the game didn't increase your "power level" any other way. In 2e, as I recall, everyone was diving for the latest splat book to find the "coolest" kit that would give you all kindsa extra bells and whistles that a "normal/plain" thief/fighter/whatever wouldn't have. Dragon was always putting out this/that class, race, magic item, etc... that might or might not fit into a given game/campaign/world and/or might make things way outta balance/control.
But 3e seems to have taken them [optimizational thinking/powergaming] out of the box and given them an entire shrine all their own. It turned D&D into a game of "Character
Builds" not character concepts or, as i draw the distinction, "Character
Creations." What can I do to make my numbers the highest they can be...and who cares what the PC concept is, cuz "taking a level in this
gets me that!" It became about stats and, well, "power" [hence "power-gaming"], not about imagination or creativity.
It's not really something I like/want to encourage...and as you note below, it goes to the flavor of the game...not the numbers or maths.
I know it did a lot to "balance" things across the board...but the cost was it lost, it seems to me quite a bit, of what D&D was.
For reference, I define "balance" in this context as: characters of the same level being able to pull the same amount of weight in the party (if you're significantly better at something important, then you should also be significantly *worse* at something else important, etc, etc). Along with its obvious corrolary: have the same overall chance of survival for the duration of the time needed to rise to the next level (dead PCs tend to contribute a lot less to the party's activities than you would expect
). This last is difficult if you want to keep squishy mages and other things of that ilk, but it should be read as roughly: mages should die about as often as fighters if each is played equally well (in D&D, that usually means: successfully sticks to his class roles).
But the game is built around the rolling of dice. No matter how much codification there is to "balance" characters, the randomness of the dice can not be negated...which it seems the developers of 3e+ have been constantly trying to do.
Well, my concept has always been "a quick roguish fighter or fightery rogue", so that's a non-issue here. See my comment above on a system favoring certain equally valid and/or cool out-of-system concept choices as well. Also my comment on all human beings being wired to optimize, to which I will add: more is always better, especially in terms of general capacity (if it turns out that it doesn't fit IC, it can always not be used... but it just *might*).
But even then, it's the rare, commited roleplayer that will make an in-game roleplaying decision that even temporarely disadvantages him or her (and that's actually one of the things I live to see and experience as I absolutely *love* those sort of things!). But volunteraly mechanichally cripple his PC's day-in-day-out combat abilities for no compensating IC drama? I mean I've seen (fantasy) blind, limping and/or voluntarely ugly/shocking/unsympathetic characters played, and played well for no compensating crunch benefits beyond a lowered stat and, most importantly, loads of pathos/character consistency benefits
. (Also see my "John can't lockpick" decision, if I can toot my own horn for a moment
). But volunteraly taking a, to my mind concept neutral, -1 tohit, -1 to damage and/or -1 HP etc because of concept? *That* I have yet to see. Expecting it to be a driving force in character creation certainly seems overly optimistic.
Well, that says something, since I don't see/understand not choosing the best mechanical option as "giving yourself a -1." You're not giving yourself anything. you're being what your PC is. Your PC doesn't have it any "worse" because some other PC gets a +1 to this or that...and you have +1 to that and this which they don't have. By this thinking, picking a fighter instead of a mage makes you automatically behind because you can't cast spells. I've nerfed my fighter because he's not a magic-user? No, I'm playing a fighter. There's no reason she would WANT/know how to cast spells. That's not the character.
The reverse though (taking advantages *despite* concept because they *are* system advantages) I have sadly seen all too often.
Absolutely. And that's the kind of thinking and playing, I said in the last post, there's nothing I can do about. Those people will do that, regardless of what I put in the system. In the case of multiclassing, I could just take it out and not have MC at all. That's the only way to stop that. But I think that detracts more than it protects...if that makes sense.
YMMV, of course, but that's my two cents.
And I very much appreciate it. All good food for thought.
I don't know, sd, Binder Fred has some points to make, but, darn it, it just seems like solving a statistics problem rather than playing a game the way he says it. Are we going for 100% character parity here, or we going to play a game to have fun? There are all kinds of rp ways to equalize things later on, but you know that. And it may not even be an issue, anyway. Personally, I have never seen a multi-class fighter/thief who was so awesome as to overshadow the rest of the party and totally dominate play. Maybe you have?
No. I haven't either. But I certainly don't want BF feeling his character has been "slighted" because he's single classed either.
The easiest solution, I think, is to just have Hygarr be a Fighter...with Weapon Specialization, as you said. With later themes, you might be able to take something which would give him a little roguey stuff (as a single-classed Fighter I think those options are limited to Assassin and Bounty Hunter, off the top of my head)...HOWEVER, you are free to use your Skill Points to acquire things like lockpicking, trap-finding/removing, stealth, sleight of hand, etc...and increase them along the way. So you wouldn't have a Rogue-theme, but could certainly choose and power up [almost any] rogue skills.
However, I will pose this...and only if there is no objection will we proceed with it...but a part of me, now, is very interested to see just how this would all pan out in actual play. I kinda want to see if the Fighter-Thief and a straight Thief (or straight Fighter) are somehow disproportionately endowed...,beyond the extra chunk of features at level 1. But if that's going to be "less fun" for either of you or spend the whole game thinking "well if I had been able to. multiclass, then I'd have had a +2 for blah blah blah..." every time you roll a die, then nevermind. I certainly don't want that.
...Eh...Scratch that. Perhaps my initial/gut thought/ruling for all single classes was the right in the first place. John stays a Thief, Leif's Dwarf can be a single Fighter, and Lwaxy's Gnome Illusionist.
As I said it's up to you guys, but I don't want to spend a ton more time with deciding this.
Leif, if you're good with a single Fighter (with some thiefy skills if you like), then let's just do that. BF, we copacetic?
...Ok, so I guess it's not up to you guys. hahaha. Apologies for the streaming consciousness of the passed few paragraphs.
