Character Equality

[Mercule]

Meh. Irrelivant. The arc of the power curve isn't what makes D&D, D&D. It's the existance of a level-based power curve, in the first place. In other words, it doesn't matter.

I do think there are probably bounds on that openness, though. But, they probably have more to do with good overall game design, not just it being D&D. If you reach an asymptotic curve at fifth level, that's not enough room for advancement in pretty much any game. Or, if the slope is shallower than 1, there probably isn't enough payoff to hold a player's interest. Of course, the entire idea of mapping a power curve is sketchy, at best, but we can pretend, right.

 

[Odhanan]

I disagree with the first post.

Indeed, I think like others that D&D is linear enough. I really think that some people are going way over the line when discussing almighty game balance. I think the 'rules' shouldn't be perfectly balanced for two reasons:

1/ the rules are different than the game. The game in practice isn't the same thing as theorical rules - the practice of GM and players, their actions and the campaign circumstances make a difference in how this or that ability is more or less useful, and it varies constantly.

2/ If you want players to feel they have a choice in their abilities and characters build, you have to get them to feel that there *is* a choice. If everything's strictly equal within a game, then there is no real choice in gameplay but just in flavor. I don't want that. I want my players to be rewarded by their smart character builds.

 

[Kanegrundar]

D&D is just fine how it is. Sure, there's the occasional balance issue, but overall it's a pretty balanced and flexible, which is the big issue for me. I hate being shoehorned.

Kane

 

[Mokona]

I see a lot of complaints about creating encounters and NPCs for D&D games by DMs. Are any of you who voted for "just right" swayed by the argument that a linear power curve would make game prep easier?

By linear growth I really meant that two level 20 characters would be roughly equal even if one was 10/10 in two classes and the other was single classed to level 20. Because character effectiveness doesn't really decrease as you take damage until you hit 0 HP, it isn't going to be 100% true that twenty 1st level characters = 1 20th level character.

Also, one thing that the D&D miniatures game has taught me is that actions are the most important ability available to PCs and NPCs alike. Five PCs will often clean up on a single villain unless that NPCs is much more powerful than them because they get five times as many attacks/actions per round. An equal number of NPCs to PCs need to be lower level than the PCs or run the risk of Total Party Kill.

 

[Kelleris]

By linear growth I really meant that two level 20 characters would be roughly equal even if one was 10/10 in two classes and the other was single classed to level 20. Because character effectiveness doesn't really decrease as you take damage until you hit 0 HP, it isn't going to be 100% true that twenty 1st level characters = 1 20th level character.

I'll leave others to decide whether or not a linear power prgression would actually make game prep easier (suffice to say, I seriously doubt it), but I'm going to call you on this. The "problem" of non-linear power progression and the problem of multi-classing are two different problems. The former is not seen as a real problem by most designers, and the later is the subject of a good deal of attention.

For one thing, the basic multiclassing rules actually cover quite a number of situations well. For instance, I would happily take a Ranger 10/Barbarian 10 against a single-class Barbarian 20 or Ranger 20, and have every expectation of equal contribution. Nor is this limited to purely martial classes. I'd feel pretty good fielding a Fighter 10/Cleric 10 alongside a Righter 20 or Barbarian 20. In either case, I'd expect my 20th-level guy to maul two 10th-level guys, and frankly taht's the way I like it. Even some weird combinations, like Paladin 10/Rogue 10, can be made to work out without too much difficulty.

The problem with multiclassing comes when one class refuses to synergize with another, which is what multiclassing is all about (obviously). The wizard and sorcerer are the worst offenders in this regard, because the abilities they get only want you to solve problems in one way: the unassisted magic way. In fact, they aggressively deter multiclassing because they are explicitly incompatible with things like skill use or fighting in armor. If there were more things like Complete Adventurer's swift-action spells, which allow a character to gain the benefits of wizardry without just switching over to wizardry full time for that round, wizard multiclassing would be increasingly more viable.

Again, look at the solutions profferred to fix multiclassing imbalance, such as the Eldritch Knight prestige class or the Practiced Spellcaster feat. Both of these offer a great deal of power to weak multiclasses to close the gap. Do they make that character progress in a more linear way? Go look at the Mystic Theurge before you answer that question.

Multiclassing imabalance and non-linear power progressions are conceptually distinct matters. I've been quite happy with solutions to the former that retain the latter, which I favor.

 

[Andre]

For one thing, the basic multiclassing rules actually cover quite a number of situations well. For instance, I would happily take a Ranger 10/Barbarian 10 against a single-class Barbarian 20 or Ranger 20, and have every expectation of equal contribution. Nor is this limited to purely martial classes. I'd feel pretty good fielding a Fighter 10/Cleric 10 alongside a Righter 20 or Barbarian 20. In either case, I'd expect my 20th-level guy to maul two 10th-level guys, and frankly taht's the way I like it. Even some weird combinations, like Paladin 10/Rogue 10, can be made to work out without too much difficulty.

The problem with multiclassing comes when one class refuses to synergize with another, which is what multiclassing is all about (obviously).

But notice that the examples you give of effective multiclassing use classes that are, for the most part, linear (using Mokona's definition of the term). Right now, 2 Ftr-10's are pretty equal to 1 Ftr-20. There are situations where the Ftr20 would be superior, others where 2 Ftr10's would be, but for the most part, there's not a lot of difference there. Same with Barbarians, Rangers, even Rogues (who get some pretty good abilities beginning at level 10).

But spellcasting classes are the least linear - they have huge jumps in power every other level (when they get a new level of spells). Two Wiz10's are nowhere close in power to one Wiz20. Hence, they have the most difficulty multiclassing. Gaining the abilities of a level or two of a base class in no way compensates for the loss of abilities from higher levels in their spellcasting class.

Thus the two issues do relate: multiclassing "synergizes" well with classes that are similar, lacking significant jumps in power from one level to the next. Your Ftr10/Clr10 matches up well against a Ftr20, but is clearly underpowered compared to a Clr20. Multiclassing fails miserably in classes that increase in power exponentially. Which is what this thread is all about - are the power progressions in D&D too steep? YMMV, but I still think they are, at least in the spellcasting classes.

 

[Bihor]

I see a lot of people here comparing a 20th level PC and 2 10th level PCs, but the difference is 100000 XPs.
To compaire PCs, I think you need to look at the XP they hearn.

Two 10th level (90000 XP each) are compare with a 14th (91000 XP) level or 15th (105000 XP).

And good players can use a multiclass PC with grate efficensy, you need to use the ability of one class to complete the other class.

 

[Kelleris]

But notice that the examples you give of effective multiclassing use classes that are, for the most part, linear (using Mokona's definition of the term). Right now, 2 Ftr-10's are pretty equal to 1 Ftr-20. There are situations where the Ftr20 would be superior, others where 2 Ftr10's would be, but for the most part, there's not a lot of difference there. Same with Barbarians, Rangers, even Rogues (who get some pretty good abilities beginning at level 10).

Actually, I don't think that two Fighter 10s are anywhere near the league of a Fighter 20, and said so in my post. I also used one dedicated spellcasting example - a Cleric/Fighter - and pointed out that everything about the way the Wizard and Sorcerer classes are built aggressively discourages multiclassing. To those two I would add the Bard, but for a different reason. Bards already get some of basically every set of skills available in D&D, and so there's no reason to multiclass; you simply use feats, skills, spell selection, stat assignment, and the way you play the character to emphasize one of the many possibilities.

But spellcasting classes are the least linear - they have huge jumps in power every other level (when they get a new level of spells). Two Wiz10's are nowhere close in power to one Wiz20. Hence, they have the most difficulty multiclassing. Gaining the abilities of a level or two of a base class in no way compensates for the loss of abilities from higher levels in their spellcasting class.

Again, I disagree. If your approach to everything is to cast a spell at it, then yeah, you should be a single-classed wizard. But if you want a character who uses skills synergistically with spells, then you're good to multiclass. The weakness problem remains, because the wizard class really hates being diluted, and so feats and PrCs like the ones I mentioned are important. However, note that mixing say Rogue in with Druid, or Barbarian in with Cleric doesn't necessarily weaken the character. It forces you to focus in certain ways to utilize your abilities, of course, but a character that multiclasses and doesn't do that is just poorly-built to begin with, since multiclassing is all about utlizing a wider set of abilities as nearly simultaneously as possible.

Thus the two issues do relate: multiclassing "synergizes" well with classes that are similar, lacking significant jumps in power from one level to the next. Your Ftr10/Clr10 matches up well against a Ftr20, but is clearly underpowered compared to a Clr20. Multiclassing fails miserably in classes that increase in power exponentially. Which is what this thread is all about - are the power progressions in D&D too steep? YMMV, but I still think they are, at least in the spellcasting classes.

Well, I think a Fighter 10/Cleric 10 would do just fine against a Cleric 20 if built to emphasize both sides of his strengths. Of course, in that particular case it's probably unbalanced toward the Cleric side because Cleric is somewhat broken vis-a-vis the Fighter class. This isn't really a problem with linear or non-linear progression, though, it's just a recognized fact that Fighters at high levels are weaker than Clerics at those levels. Maybe your problem is that D&D isn't consistently nonlinear?

But all that aside, I never said they weren't related, just that they were conceptually distinct. There could very well be fixes that affect both, but I think the game already offers solutions to the multiclassing problem that work while leaving D&D's power progression curve intact. The poster I was responding to seemed to conflate the issues, and I don't think that's right.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I've started this new discussion so as not to derail the topic found here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=140322&page=1&pp=50


Want a swashbuckler? Play a fighter/rogue. Want a holy warrior? Play a cleric/fighter. Want an ascetic mystic? Play a monk/wizard. Want a ninja? Play a monk/rogue. Prestige classes and new base classes are presented all the time to fill out these roles but one of the reasons those classes are needed is that multiclassing often doesn't work. Because character classes are not linear it is very difficult to build a Ftr 10/Wiz 10 that belongs in the same party as a Clr 20. It is very easy to build a multiclass character that just drags the party down with it.

I would have to say most of the multiclasses you mentioned do work well, Ftr/Rog, Clr/Ftr, Mnk/Rog all work very well.
I agree that PRCs or new core classes shouldn't be needed to fill certain roles, I've always felt that. But to make the game linear would mean that at level 20 you wouldn't be able to take on hordes of weaklings. 1 level 20 character could easily handle several level 10 (or even higher level) characters in a linear game this would not be the case. Therefore you'd need more levels.

 

[Kelleris]

I would have to say most of the multiclasses you mentioned do work well, Ftr/Rog, Clr/Ftr, Mnk/Rog all work very well.
I agree that PRCs or new core classes shouldn't be needed to fill certain roles, I've always felt that. But to make the game linear would mean that at level 20 you wouldn't be able to take on hordes of weaklings. 1 level 20 character could easily handle several level 10 (or even higher level) characters in a linear game this would not be the case. Therefore you'd need more levels.

This is basically my problem with the idea. I don't want to be 500th level before I can take on a few hundred lowly orc warrior 1s; that's just not D&D to me. If you're going to spool levels out that high, I'd just as soon drop the idea of levelling altogether and go with a total point-buy system. And I typically dislike those.