[MENTION=48762]Leif[/MENTION]: What if we just sblock the rules creation discussion? Easy to ignore then and, as I understand it, it's an entirely optionnal part of the game. Be a shame to loose you.
As for SD's last post, you just need to read the very top which is addressed to you, and then the very last reply, where SD asks our opinion on our class choice.
(I don't know if this came through, but me and SD are engaged in an entirely relaxed rule discussion, no tension or ill feelings at all (I know people sometimes assume otherwise when arguments start).)
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?
No problems with this. (I have no problems with Hygarr being multiclass either, by the way, it just means John will be too.)
[sblock=Rules discussion]
Initially written in reply to Leif, but leaving it in because... because I spent some time writting it, dmn it! : You do realize that our PCs live and die by the math and the stats, right? Fairness and equality are built or destroyed with math. All game designers certainly should do their maths, even if players can sometimes be forgiven for trusting them to have done it (until proven otherwise). Steeldragons is trying to design a game here though, so...
Oh, and my general philosophy on the subject, if I can pontificate for three seconds here, is: there is 100% balance and unbalanced; Strive for the first without expecting to reach it, remove the other whenever and wherever you find it. Like a pebble in your shoe: it certainly won't kill you, but it will diminish your walking experience, pretty sure, so why suffer it to be there when you know exactly where it is? Take three minutes to sit down and do things right. Right? Right.
Climbing off my soapbox now, though be forwarned: I'm keeping it near.
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.
Do the curves? Single class vs this or that combination (probably simpler to do the worst case and best case scenarios, actually). Excel does that rather well: XP earned vs level.
Good question. And short answer, turning 2nd gets you nothing other than another d10 + Con bonus of HP.
That's... Well, at least at first blush this doesn't make me terribly excited to reach second level as a player? I'd suggest bringing some of your 3rd level benefits down to 2nd (or up from first?) to spice it up a bit? Skill boosts seem the likeliest candidate for this. First level is the hardest to survive because you're so at the mercy of a single/a couple of bad dice rolls (another reason why a boost at first level is worth more than (if we get there) lagging behind at level 3 and up). Granted those extra HPs will go a long way to assuage that, but it's nice to have something to celebrate with as well! Maybe a cool medal too?
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...
That would work if all all features are roughly equal in power, yes. Often they aren't though (trading Receive Charge for Skill Mastery or Sneak Attack for example, would that be a fair trade?). If you don't want to evaluate each trade separately, a la ghestalt's Major's, you could possibly just rate each as Major or minor and allow free trade 1 for 1 in each category (my recommendation). If you truly want a single category free trade agreement, you could try to group powers in blocks that are all roughly equivalent. i.e. The equivalent of a Major power standing alone in his "group" while you group 2 or 3 lesser powers together and say: you can trade this as a block against any other block I have defined. Seems a bit more finicky though, right?
Averages on all numerical values you already have, I believe. Hm... In the same vein, how about considering the nb of weapon proficiencies as a numerical value that should be averaged as well (round down? round up?) instead of getting the best one?
Same thing for levels, maybe? Instead of keeping two seperate totals, maybe a "merged-class" character could keep a single total. When you reach a new level, in either class, you would take half of all numerical benifits and then *choose* to either fill up your 1, 2, 3, etc "3rd level power slots" with powers available at that level or wait until you hit level three in your other class to fill (some of) those slots? This would be a "trade temporarely abscent power for added flexibility (and synergy)" build, and it's on a 'pay now, benefits later', short term (within a level) model, which actually has a chance of working balance-wise... What do you think?
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?!
Well, for one he's first level in all of those categories: his Wizard class, for example grants him all of 1+Int 1st level spells per day compared to his single class companion who is tossing 3+int 1st AND 2+int 2nd level spells and is well on his way to getting third level spells, he's got half the skill points of his 4th level Thief opposite and his tohit as a fighter is a laugh compared to his 4th level Fighter opposite (both of those having been seriously diluted by the much lower skill points and tohit bonuses of his other classes (as a matter of fact, he's at +1 to hit vs +4 for the 4th level fighter)), etc, etc. In addition, and perhaps as importantly depending on the class, he's got none of the level-dependent class benefits that the others possess (such as two bonus feats for the fighter (one at second and one at fourth class level) or Evasion, Sneak Attack +2d6, Trap Sense and Uncanny dodge for the 4th level Thief). Plus, this is more minor and often house-ruled, but with that build he has to advance all of his classes together: if ever any one falls more than 2 level behind he'll suffer a -40% XP malus (-20% per class beyond his second, assuming that second one was his favoroured class). He's 'stuck' advancing all of them, so to speak. Finally, he's had to *earn* those four levels, they were not just given to him at first level for declaring "I am a multiclass character" like what is done in 1e/2e. This player has spent 6,000 XP on that jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none build! I personnaly wouldn't have, but he obviously thought it was worth it.
So, yeah, I would say it's roughly balanced vs other 4th level PC, probably a little underpowered, actually.
Or you want a barbarian who can sling arcane spells? Or a Druid/Assassin/Spellthief?
Sure. What's your concept? It could work, could actually be pretty cool. (I presently have a spell-casting monk playing in another game that I think is pretty cool if you want to have a look?) Also remember that having wildly differing and/or numerous primary stats means you have to spread those ability points around, making you sometimes a lot less effective in any one field (random rolls are rarely used in 3e character creation).
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.
Hm, well for one there is the aformentionned -20% XP malus for having two classes more than 2 level apart. Unless Ranger is his favored class, he's not going to be happy. Secondly, you do understand that to get that 1st level in the ranger class as his 7th character level, this player will have to earn the same amount of XP as the *other* 6th level players, players that will likely use that level to gain their 7th class level in their choosen field? That's 6,000 XP to gain 1st level ranger powers... Granted that sometimes can be an advantage, but it would seem better to make sure the ranger is your favoured class, take that 1st ranger level early and go on from there... He'll also be seriously disadvantaged in terms of Tohit and HPs compared to said 'bastard' who's been a ranger all along (and I did mention level-dependant feats, right?). And then, not to be too inquisitive, but what exactly differentiates this guy from the one that decides to be a 1e/2e mage/fighter from the start for the power it will give him, likely without paying a cent for it, certainly not at 1st level or at 8th level and above? On the other hand, I can see *exactly* where the 3E character is paying for his choices. We can argue as to wether the price is worth the advantages, but that's a numbers optimization game, not a basic system decision.
As an aside, first level abilities in prestige classes are usually very nice, but nothing compared to the ones you get when you keep *advancing* that class. That said, what you're talking about *can* become a problem at higher levels (10+), where, with the number of options available, it's very hard to predict what can become utterly unbalancing. Even there the leveling system is not the root cause though, but too-sweet prestige class bonuses at first level (and (one hopes) unforseen/unplanned synergies), which is an entirely different problem to my mind and not one built into the system. It's the DM's job, as with all systems, to tell his player "I don't allow that combinasion in my game" or the actually recommended in the rules "you need a teacher to gain that class, go find one".
Lastly, I do find it a bit ironic that what you're decrying here is exactly the worst thing about 1e/2e multiclassing: getting "1st level package" abilities for free. At least here, he's actually paying for them a little (with XPs and missed opportunities to advance his top-level classes toward those juicier and juicier high-level abilities), right?
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.
I must say that hasn't been my experience at all, and I have been actively gaming in 3E ever since its inception -- making it my longuest-running system by quite a few years! It should be noted that my heart lives in the low levels though, the formative years of a hero's life, so the higher-level shenanigans affect me less (while 1st level 1e/2e multiclassing really gets under my skin (obviously
). I *have* sometimes seen what you describe when high-level games are pitched right from the get-go (12+ or therebout and it can get pretty crazy if you rise above 15). But in all honesty, have you ever started a level 12+ 2e game? You'll get exactly the same thing, just different methods (I vividely remember a Dragon magazine minotaur that was simply insane, and some package/magic/item combinaisions that could turn your hair white!).
My thought on this are:
1. Power-gamers are everywhere, including a little bit in each and every one of us
2. Systems that offer choices that are clearly superior to others ("free carrots") are a power-gammers dream playground, especially if they can make them play off one another
3. 1e/2e is multiclassing is one of those unbalanced choices
4. 3E, to my mind, actually offers a more level playing field in terms carreer choices, at least in the lower levels
5. At higher levels, where the whole rainbow of insane to "reasonable" optimization is possible (and some of 3E's math choices come back to haunt certain single classed PCs), I tend to eyeball my build's power-level (and therefore the need to re-optimize or not) based on the others build present at the table (am I weaker where I should be? Do I shine where I want to?). Concept stays the same though, as that's usually the first thing I come up with. In my experiece concept is usually not at all affected by wether I take a level of the Sky Dancer prestige class (the more optimized option) or do my light-body chi tricks by buying another psi power instead (the cheaper option, freeing me to do something else with that level and its attendent Feat pre-requisite).
[Balance]
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.
I... Your point? The dice roll the same for everybody, so the random aspect is a non-issue as far as balancing various options aganst each other are concerned. Balancing has never been about "will this specific character succeed at this specific roll in this specific situation", but "will this character or build succeed in his area of expertise, on average, as often as this one in his, and are those areas comparable in importance?". If we consider a thousand 1st level fighter/thief vs a thousand single class thief, does one have a clear advantage over the other? If yes (and it's definitively an emphatic "yes!" here), is that unbalance something we want to build into the system for whatever reason? What are those reasons?
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.
With exactly the same concept, you're refusing a mechanichal advantage for no reason and at no cost to yourself. 1e/2e multiclassing, seen from the other end, is a mechanichal advantage that's encouraging you to come up with a concept that fits OR tempts you simply to choose it *despite* concept (or lack thereof) because it's so tempting. (This, by the way, is exactly what you said you disliked about 1st level prestige class packages). I have, as I've mentionned, often been one of the only single-class character at the 1e or 2e table. There's a very good reason why the demographics were so skewed and it has nothing to do with random chance, I assure you.
You seem to expect players *not* to be influenced by the carrot you're putting in front of them, to, in other words, decide= "I will put the purity of my concept above being good at what adventurers do most" (that being combat). You also seem to assume that, knowing the advantage is there beforehand, they will not be encouraged to come up with concepts skewed to take advantage of it. Both of those assumptions are a little optimistic in my opinion.
Sadly, the net result at the end is likely going to be that people that do *both* of the things you say you want to encourage (come up with strong concepts and stick with them), will end up with characters that are mechanichally worse than those that followed the carrots. They will therefore get less satisfaction from the game since they will succeed less often. To be blunt, I have personnaly lived that frustration more than once and it's not fun. (I'm older now and can take things with a grain of salt, but I distincly remember feeling
punished by the system for sticking to my guns). From a a game-design point of view, it's clearly a loose-loose.
I strongly believe that carrots should be (carefully) put where you want the most people to go (cool "capping" abilities at 3rd, 5th, 20th, etc, for example, to encourage people to
stick with it when they have so many other choices (I'm talking about 3E here, of course)). Conversely, if what you want is a game that is driven by strong concepts rather than by mechanically advantageous choices, then there should ideally be no carrots *at all*: each choice should
au contraire have its fair price -- payed in full *before* the carrot is obtained in all cases. This and only this will give you a level playing field where concepts can go where they please without undue railroading by choices that are so much better than others. (See M&M for an example of the leveless playing field I have ever seen: now *that's* ultimate balance! We don't want to go quite that far, granted, but still.)
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.
Yes, that would be balanced if that were the case. That's the whole careful act of balancing classes with differing abilities against each other. That's not what we're talking about here.
See my last post for what John gains for declaring "I am multiclass" instead of "I am a fighter-themed rogue", *everything else being equal*. What does he loose? Where is his compensating weakness except in an hypothetical future that may not come to pass? That choice is not balanced *now*, nor will it be in the near future (only after we've risen to - say? - 5th level or something?) This, in short, is a huge carrot shouting "pick me, pick me!". It is, to my mind, the furthest thing from "a level playing field", the thing we're striving to achieve.
(And, on another note, if playing a Fighter instead of mage really puts you behind, then the system is *really* strangely balanced
; As you know, all three editions are actually balanced the other way around, with mages strongly disadvantaged at low levels. It's one of the unbalanced/favored choices deliberately built in the system for flavor, arguably partly compensated by the
cool factor at low levels... But that's another discussion entirely
).[/sblock]
). Are you planning to implement the Feature-swapping thing you were considering, SD, or should I just go with the rules as writen on page 6 of the thread?
