Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[Raven Crowking]

Please. Show me a CR 10 foe that is anything other than a trivial challenge for a 20th level wizard.

Pick a CR 10 foe. Show me your CR 20 wizard. I guarantee that I can write an encounter using your foe and your wizard that is challenging. And, I bet, so can 90% of the people on EN World. I am not the only one here who has made changes to the baseline. I assume that the average person here can do the same. That isn't arrogance; that's an assumption of standard competence.

Give a CR 10 challenge that would be more than trivial to a 20th level wizard. Under any assumptions.

Um.....You are aware of the difference between a creature's Challenge Rating and the Encounter Level of an encounter that might feature said creature, aren't you? If not, that might explain why you can't create an challenging encounter for a lvl 20 character using a CR 10 foe.

If you meant to say that an EL 10 encounter isn't challenging to a party of lvl 20 characters then...so long as you change the meaning of the term "EL" to match any adjustments to the relative power of lvl 20 characters....you are correct by definition.

EDIT: The obvious exception, of course, is when the EL 10 encounter is part of a series of encounters, and the character is drained due to previous encounters to the point where the EL 10 encounter is challenging.

It would also explain comments like "you have made the fundamental mistake of changing the nature of the challenge without realizing you have done so."

No. I realize that I have done so. What you fail to realize is that the advantages of specialization are not absolute, given any campaign environment in which conditions exist that can limit the specialist in his trade.

The cost is paid right now, you don't advance in your "primary" class, and often get benefits that are less useful than those you would get by going up a level in your primary class.

If you'd like to make this argument, you can use a wizard as base class, and at each level see what benefits are gained from taking either a wizard or a fighter level. Then you could start as a fighter and see what benefits are gained at each level by taking a barbarian level. For my purposes, the first six levels would be sufficient for you to demonstrate your point.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, this:

Once again, completely untrue. In 1e, there were only a handful of balance problems in the rules, but they were clearly better than the alternatives, to the point where characters who did not take those options were significantly hampered by comparison. By contrast, the only thing you have shown with your "fighter dip" argument is that the 20th level wizard is better off.

Doesn't actually answer this:

and "Given that it is easier to balance three things than fifty-three things, the sheer number of options in 3e make unbalanced combinations more probable to exist (including race, class, template, feats, skills, spells, and equipment); in fact, greatly unbalanced combos do exist, both in greater number and with greater potential balance problems than in 1e".

Your statement is only that the ones in 1e are more obvious.....which is, again, debatable based upon playstyle.


RC

 

[Lanefan]

All the number-crunching regarding "dipping" seems to be avoiding or ignoring one key point: does the character have an in-character *reason* to dip? If yes, then more power to ya. If no, then the RP in RPG has taken a sad back seat to numbers management...

Also, the most common dip seems to be one level of Rogue...presumably for maximum benefit you'd start as a Rogue to get all the extra skill points, then take up your real class at 2nd and keep going from there...

Lanefan

 

[molonel]

Also, the most common dip seems to be one level of Rogue...presumably for maximum benefit you'd start as a Rogue to get all the extra skill points, then take up your real class at 2nd and keep going from there...

One level of Rogue is rarely a dip I see, either for melee builds or spellcasters. The skill set - no Concentration, no Knowledge: Arcana or Knowledge: Religion, no Spellcraft - means that you're behind on important skills for a spellcaster at level 2, and low hit points makes it extremely unwise for a melee character. I can see doing something like that for an in-character reason, but we're talking about a dip, so it seems you're talking about a 1-level tap for maximum advantage. And rogue isn't really an advantage, in that regard, except perhaps a Wilderness Rogue variant that goes into Ranger.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Moderator/
Raven Crowking and Storm Raven - please stop arguing with one another from this point onwards. Please do not refer to one another again in this thread and it would probably do you both some good if you put each other on 'ignore' for a week or so.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Molonel, what dips do you see?

 

[MerricB]

You know, the more play I see of D&D 3e, and the players get more comfortable with the system, the less I see "random" dipping into classes.

I still see quite a few multiclass characters, but almost without exception they're trying to get the benefits of particular prestige classes: Mystic Theurge, Arcane Hierophant, Fochluchan Lyrist.

In my AoW campaign, the paladin is a Ftr 4/Paladin 14. It gives him the benefit of Weapon Specialisation and Melee Weapon Mastery, but he's lost quite a bit of paladin abilities. So much so, that the Holy Avenger he has is much less good than it should be.

"Dipping" when playing a spellcaster is almost always a particularly bad move. There are very few classes that actually give you abilities that mesh with your spellcaster abilities.

Fighter/Barbarian combinations I see a bit of, (Ftr 4/Brb X). However, it isn't a no-brainer. You're giving up something when you do it. Barbarian 1/Fighter X is also quite nice, but becomes less effective as levels are gained.

RC: A 1e elf fighter/magic-user can wear armour. There are numerous references in the 1e rules to this. There aren't "restrictions" on armour/weapons in 1e, rather you begin being unable to use any, and you are granted the ability to use them. We can find corrobative evidence in the AD&D adventures with pregen characters.

S1: Tomb of Horrors
#5: Elf F5/MU 11 - +1 chainmail, +3 shield
#10: Half-Elf C5/Ranger7/Magic-User 6 - +2 chainmail, +1 shield (interesting combo; not listed in PHB, although C/R is)

A1: Slave Pits of the Undercity
#9: Elf Ftr4/MU 4 - Elfin chain & shield

DL6: Dragons of Ice
Gilthanas - Elf Ftr 5/MU 6- Chainmail & Shield.

The true cost of multiclassing in 1e was the level limit, and - often - reduced hit points.

Cheers!

 

[Lanefan]

RC: A 1e elf fighter/magic-user can wear armour. There are numerous references in the 1e rules to this. There aren't "restrictions" on armour/weapons in 1e, rather you begin being unable to use any, and you are granted the ability to use them. We can find corrobative evidence in the AD&D adventures with pregen characters.

S1: Tomb of Horrors
#5: Elf F5/MU 11 - +1 chainmail, +3 shield
#10: Half-Elf C5/Ranger7/Magic-User 6 - +2 chainmail, +1 shield (interesting combo; not listed in PHB, although C/R is)

A1: Slave Pits of the Undercity
#9: Elf Ftr4/MU 4 - Elfin chain & shield

DL6: Dragons of Ice
Gilthanas - Elf Ftr 5/MU 6- Chainmail & Shield.

Interesting. I'd always assumed that was why Elven chain ("elfin chain") was so rare and-or outrageously expensive, because it had been designed by the Elves so they *could* cast spells out of it. But from this it seems the base assumption was that a multi-classed Elf could cast arcane out of any armour. Fascinating.

Lanefan

 

[MerricB]

Interesting. I'd always assumed that was why Elven chain ("elfin chain") was so rare and-or outrageously expensive, because it had been designed by the Elves so they *could* cast spells out of it. But from this it seems the base assumption was that a multi-classed Elf could cast arcane out of any armour. Fascinating.

Elfin chain had the advantage of weighing half as much as regular chain (15 lbs, instead of 30 lbs) and not reducing movement rate.

Elfin chain is also an example of Gary changing his mind in UA. He notes in the 1e DMG, in italics: "There is no magical elfin chain mail." (DMG 28) In UA, magical elfin chain mail.

Note, all magical armour in AD&D weighs as much as clothing and does not restrict movement. (DMG 164)

By UA, Elfin Chainmail is described as "magical armour of a sort that is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothin without revealing it is there. Because of its incredible lightness and flexibility, thieves can utilize it, though it may slightly hinder their activities." (UA 104)

Cheers!

 

[Storm Raven]

Oh my God. A 20th level wizard with no operable magic items in an antimagic zone is a 20th level commoner. Nothing more, nothing less. Taking one level of fighter is not only NOT a no-brainer. It's completely irrelevant. Spellcasters are among the least likely to multiclass in 3rd Edition games with classes that don't give them caster level progression.

However, even in that circumstance, the single classed wizard is likely to be more useful. Because (a) not all of your encounters are going to be in an antimagic zone where the straight caster is straight up more effective, and, (b) even when confronted by an antimagic zone, the wizard can cast spells outside the region that have effects in the region that are more useful than wading in with a (nonmagical) sword trying to emulate a hit point starved 10th level warrior. Gate for example, or Greater Planar Binding to try to obtain an extradmiensional being with significant melee power to enter the area spring to mind as possibilities (just off the top of my head).