Crazy Jerome
First Post
Warning: Extremely ivory tower musing herein.
Various versions of D&D have discouraged various powergaming combos via stacking limits. One of the more obvious ones is the explicit bonus types that don't stack in 3E. Another is the similar but scaled down "item" or "feat" bonuses not stacking in 4E. You can also think of the 3E/4E item "slots" as a similar mechanic, albeit with a different slant. Up until now, most such restrictions have been on relatively small pieces of mechanics--a particular modifier or weapon proficiences, for example.
What if instead stacking limits were applied on larger pieces--major chunks of abilities from class, race, theme, etc?
For example, consider a fighter/ranger multiclass. Whatever else a fighter or ranger gets, they both get considerable combat ability. Under a non-stacking system, you'd pick one or the other (probably as a one-time thing). The "combat package" from each does not stack--the +N to hit, bonus damage, any maneuvers, etc.
Doesn't that leave a lot on the table for some beloved and obvious combinations, though? Yep, that's why each class needs several of these major chunks of abilities. A straight ranger might have combat, woodlore, and even some magic (for starters). When you play such a character, maybe you get to pick two. If you multiclass into ranger, you can pick one to add to what you already have. If you already have combat, you'll probably pick one of the other ones.
The real benefit of this approach, however, is how it interacts with races, themes, or any other organization scheme you care to use (paragon paths, guild membership, etc.) None of these stack. So you give elves their own version of woodlore. An elf taking ranger is now different than a human fighter multiclassing into ranger for woodlore, because the elf already has it.
So where does increased power come in, then? From levels, and only levels. That is, as a character levels up, whatever abilities they have, from whatever source, are eligible to become more powerful. Presumably, you'd get some picks at each level, where you could choose to enhance an existing "chunk" or add a new one. (Perhaps adding a whole new class or theme is more costly than adding a new capability from an existing race, class, or theme.)
Finally, this means you can actually get pretty restrictive with which classes get access to certain capabilities. For example, let's say you want to lump "sailing" under fighters or "thieving" totally under rogues. That's ok now, because anyone can pay the cost, add the needed class, and pick up exactly that chunk. So the design can simply put abilities where they make the most sense for the majority (or even plurality) of cases, and forget about it.
Might not be anything to this, but I've been thinking a lot lately about the inherent conflict between levels being mainly about power, in a game that wants to be "additive" with class, race, theme, etc, but the stacking of those things tends to increase power.
Various versions of D&D have discouraged various powergaming combos via stacking limits. One of the more obvious ones is the explicit bonus types that don't stack in 3E. Another is the similar but scaled down "item" or "feat" bonuses not stacking in 4E. You can also think of the 3E/4E item "slots" as a similar mechanic, albeit with a different slant. Up until now, most such restrictions have been on relatively small pieces of mechanics--a particular modifier or weapon proficiences, for example.
What if instead stacking limits were applied on larger pieces--major chunks of abilities from class, race, theme, etc?
For example, consider a fighter/ranger multiclass. Whatever else a fighter or ranger gets, they both get considerable combat ability. Under a non-stacking system, you'd pick one or the other (probably as a one-time thing). The "combat package" from each does not stack--the +N to hit, bonus damage, any maneuvers, etc.
Doesn't that leave a lot on the table for some beloved and obvious combinations, though? Yep, that's why each class needs several of these major chunks of abilities. A straight ranger might have combat, woodlore, and even some magic (for starters). When you play such a character, maybe you get to pick two. If you multiclass into ranger, you can pick one to add to what you already have. If you already have combat, you'll probably pick one of the other ones.
The real benefit of this approach, however, is how it interacts with races, themes, or any other organization scheme you care to use (paragon paths, guild membership, etc.) None of these stack. So you give elves their own version of woodlore. An elf taking ranger is now different than a human fighter multiclassing into ranger for woodlore, because the elf already has it.
So where does increased power come in, then? From levels, and only levels. That is, as a character levels up, whatever abilities they have, from whatever source, are eligible to become more powerful. Presumably, you'd get some picks at each level, where you could choose to enhance an existing "chunk" or add a new one. (Perhaps adding a whole new class or theme is more costly than adding a new capability from an existing race, class, or theme.)
Finally, this means you can actually get pretty restrictive with which classes get access to certain capabilities. For example, let's say you want to lump "sailing" under fighters or "thieving" totally under rogues. That's ok now, because anyone can pay the cost, add the needed class, and pick up exactly that chunk. So the design can simply put abilities where they make the most sense for the majority (or even plurality) of cases, and forget about it.
Might not be anything to this, but I've been thinking a lot lately about the inherent conflict between levels being mainly about power, in a game that wants to be "additive" with class, race, theme, etc, but the stacking of those things tends to increase power.
