Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5957222" data-attributes="member: 54877">I'd only be interested in something like this as a possible necessary piece of well-done multiclassing/gestalt rules. Basically, such rules deal with character breadth of power, whereas levels are dealing with depth of power. Capping power for a given class, by capping levels at a reasonably small number, such as 10, is one way around the problem of exponential power gains at higher levels messing up character breadth options. Presumably, higher level play in such a system would have classes stacking, but not in the usual way of increased attack chances, better saving throws, etc. &nbsp;For example, in a simple game, you play your fighter to 10, then if the game goes on, you pick up something like knight and play that to 10, stacking on more options, and so on, as often as you care to do this. If in the same system, you decide to play a fighter/wizard from the start, the fact that you are only behind 5/5 to his fighter 10 can be made acceptable in the system. He can''t stay ahead of you in fighter levels forever, if you both pursue. So it is just a matter of what you get now versus what you get later.&nbsp; While he is getting his 10 knight levels, you are rounding out your fighter/wizard levels.&nbsp;A gestalt is going to work better in such a system, because such stacking is already presumed. &nbsp;There is also an implied &quot;E6&quot; type of effect, in that since abilities are not stacking directly, once you've level 10 in a class, the next class you pursue will have a bit of overlap. Then any such optional rules to allow more synergistic power besides straight stacking would, in effect, become the higher level power. (For example, your 10/10 fighter/mage doesn't hit any better than a 10th level fighter, but he can set his sword on fire to do extra effects when he hits, and he hits quite well.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5957222, member: 54877"] I'd only be interested in something like this as a possible necessary piece of well-done multiclassing/gestalt rules. Basically, such rules deal with character breadth of power, whereas levels are dealing with depth of power. Capping power for a given class, by capping levels at a reasonably small number, such as 10, is one way around the problem of exponential power gains at higher levels messing up character breadth options. Presumably, higher level play in such a system would have classes stacking, but not in the usual way of increased attack chances, better saving throws, etc. For example, in a simple game, you play your fighter to 10, then if the game goes on, you pick up something like knight and play that to 10, stacking on more options, and so on, as often as you care to do this. If in the same system, you decide to play a fighter/wizard from the start, the fact that you are only behind 5/5 to his fighter 10 can be made acceptable in the system. He can''t stay ahead of you in fighter levels forever, if you both pursue. So it is just a matter of what you get now versus what you get later. While he is getting his 10 knight levels, you are rounding out your fighter/wizard levels. A gestalt is going to work better in such a system, because such stacking is already presumed. There is also an implied "E6" type of effect, in that since abilities are not stacking directly, once you've level 10 in a class, the next class you pursue will have a bit of overlap. Then any such optional rules to allow more synergistic power besides straight stacking would, in effect, become the higher level power. (For example, your 10/10 fighter/mage doesn't hit any better than a 10th level fighter, but he can set his sword on fire to do extra effects when he hits, and he hits quite well.) [/QUOTE]

Verification