Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 4525142" data-attributes="member: 23619">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. 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.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. 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.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 modIts a subtle but notable difference and would make the Wiz8/Clc7 have the same base Save DCs as a 15th level single class caster. 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.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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification