Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
Recruiting to playtest Steel Dragon's World of Orea RPG: D&D 1 & 2e base +
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Binder Fred" data-source="post: 6162067" data-attributes="member: 63746"><p>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). 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?)</p><p></p><p>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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />):</p><p></p><p>- 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.]</p><p></p><p>We could argue this one way or the other and, more importantly, if it's <em>possible</em> 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:</p><p></p><p>- <em>Advantage now, (maybe) pay later</em> 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 <em>be</em> balanced. Some will play a campaign from levels 3 to 6, others will start at level 10 while still others will peter out before they even reach level 2. This means the price, the thing that suppossedly balances the system, is rarely paid in full, if ever. </p><p></p><p>I add the "if ever", because in addition to the above, in practice it's been my experience that in long campaigns where you would have the <em>potential</em> to balance the multi-class mechanics, characters in fact tend to either die or be temporarely phased out. Strangely enough, they are rarely replaced by characters that are at a disadvantage (real or imagined) at the present campaign level. Imagine that! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> People will always try to get the best deal. It's in human nature and it's a good thing: people *should*, and system designers should expect them to. Even if you are a player that believes in strong character concepts and characterization (and I do), the system is in fact *promoting* certain choices, in this case encouraging you to replace your dead character with this perticular concept that has advantageous mechanics now, at this level, and keep that other concept, just as interresting but presently disadvantaged, for later. Power gammers won't be so lazy as to wait for their characters to die either, of course, phasing the most advantageous character in and out as needed. Whatever the case, the net result is the same: the price rarely, if ever gets paid. </p><p></p><p>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 <em>flavour </em>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".</p><p></p><p></p><p>You're forcing me to pull out my 2nd edition stuff now, but alright. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> <rumages around> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p></p><p>My turn to ask: could you qualify that a little? Seems... extreme to say the least. </p><p></p><p>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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />). 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).</p><p></p><p></p><p>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*). </p><p></p><p>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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />. (Also see my "John can't lockpick" decision, if I can toot my own horn for a moment <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />). 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.</p><p></p><p>The reverse though (taking advantages *despite* concept because they *are* system advantages) I have sadly seen all too often. </p><p></p><p>YMMV, of course, but that's my two cents.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Binder Fred, post: 6162067, member: 63746"] 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). 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?) 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 :)): - 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 [I]possible[/I] 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: - [I]Advantage now, (maybe) pay later[/I] 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 [I]be[/I] balanced. Some will play a campaign from levels 3 to 6, others will start at level 10 while still others will peter out before they even reach level 2. This means the price, the thing that suppossedly balances the system, is rarely paid in full, if ever. I add the "if ever", because in addition to the above, in practice it's been my experience that in long campaigns where you would have the [I]potential[/I] to balance the multi-class mechanics, characters in fact tend to either die or be temporarely phased out. Strangely enough, they are rarely replaced by characters that are at a disadvantage (real or imagined) at the present campaign level. Imagine that! :) People will always try to get the best deal. It's in human nature and it's a good thing: people *should*, and system designers should expect them to. Even if you are a player that believes in strong character concepts and characterization (and I do), the system is in fact *promoting* certain choices, in this case encouraging you to replace your dead character with this perticular concept that has advantageous mechanics now, at this level, and keep that other concept, just as interresting but presently disadvantaged, for later. Power gammers won't be so lazy as to wait for their characters to die either, of course, phasing the most advantageous character in and out as needed. Whatever the case, the net result is the same: the price rarely, if ever gets paid. 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 [I]flavour [/I]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". You're forcing me to pull out my 2nd edition stuff now, but alright. :) <rumages around> 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. 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). My turn to ask: could you qualify that a little? Seems... extreme to say the least. 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). 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. The reverse though (taking advantages *despite* concept because they *are* system advantages) I have sadly seen all too often. YMMV, of course, but that's my two cents. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
Recruiting to playtest Steel Dragon's World of Orea RPG: D&D 1 & 2e base +
Top