Brilliant Gameologists Forum

The Thinktank => Min/Max It! => : Thistledown Thurbertaut August 31, 2010, 04:32:21 AM

: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut August 31, 2010, 04:32:21 AM
Yo BeeGees!

I'm currently playing in a tabletop campaign in which the DM and group adhere to multiclass xp penalties.  Obviously this makes many of the juicier charop builds too expensive for regular advancment.

I am considering bringing in a new character.  The original build was for a pixie hellfire warlock ur priest eldritch disciple (with a Binder dip or shape soulmeld feat to offset nasty Hellfire damage).

That idea is now right out.

I am considering a streamlined version along the lines of warlock/hellfire/ur priest/eldritch disciple.  Oh and for this PC the DM is allowing me to make the Pixie's favored class Warlock as it is an unseelie pixie...

So.  My question is, how do xp penatlies apply or not to dual progression classes.  Do prestige classes apply against the multiclassing limit?  For example does Hellfire warlock still count as warlock? 

i.e: if I take HF warlock 3 and Binder 1 and Warlock is my favored class, do I take the xp hit for having Binder and HF warlock out of balance?

2nd question/example:  If I forego Binder in favor of Shape Soulmeld so I only have HF Warlock, 3 Ur Priest 2, and the rest in Eldritch Disciple and Warlock, how does this affect the xp penalties?  How do dual progression prestige classes affect this? Do I start taking penalties at ED 1 or 5?  Assuming a build with warlock as favored, would I start taking xp penalties at Ur Priest 2, Eldritch Disciple 4?   How does one make the dual progression classes work properly when using multiclass xp rules?


Please help me make this work!

Note:  I hate this rule!
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: weenog August 31, 2010, 04:40:21 AM
Prestige classes, racial HD, racial paragon classes, and your favored class are all ignored completely when checking for imbalanced multiclassing.  As long as all your classes which aren't those things are within 1 level of the highest-leveled one, you're fine.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut August 31, 2010, 04:51:42 AM
Can you please give me some pager numbers to reference to my group, particularly for the prestige class exemption (when I asked them they said Prestige classes count...)
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Maat_Mons August 31, 2010, 05:15:49 AM
The fact that prestige classes are ignored when determining multiclass XP penalties was accidentally left out of the 3.5 DMG.  This was never addressed in errata, but it is addressed in the FAQ, and the SRD states the rule. 

Here's the quote from the FAQ:
In the previous version of the D&D game, having levels in a prestige class never caused you to pay the experience penalty for being a multiclass character without uneven class levels. (The prestige class levels didn’t count when checking to see if you had a penalty.) The section on prestige classes in the new Dungeon Master’s Guide no longer mentions that you don’t suffer an experience penalty for having levels in a prestige class. Is this a change or an error?

It’s an error. Having levels in a prestige class won’t give you an experience penalty.

Here's the quote from the SRD:
Prestige classes offer a new form of multiclassing. Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the Requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class.  Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: fuinjutsu August 31, 2010, 05:25:16 AM
may i ask why they adhere to these inane rules?
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut August 31, 2010, 06:00:33 AM
Basically the DM wants game balance.  I'm the only optimizer in the group so if I do it then everybody would need to, includung the DM with his encounters.
He also disallows Tome of Battle.  He takes the view that ToB balances melee vs. caster to not include the fact that in a typical party the casters are buffing melee.

I like the customization that free multiclassing allows including dips but the DM is of the view that the xp penalties were specifically made to penalize people for dipping.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: weenog August 31, 2010, 08:22:11 AM
Riiight... and I supposed favored classes make you better at being that class, rather than encouraging dipping that class, or being it mainly and dipping something else.  :rollseyes
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Gavinfoxx August 31, 2010, 09:00:13 AM
Ack, just play PHB only Wizard20 and tear his campaign apart...
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Nachofan99 August 31, 2010, 10:52:12 AM
Play a commoner 20 and see if your DM "balances" that.

Then tell him he needs to L2P.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Mixster August 31, 2010, 10:59:03 AM
Play a spell to power erudite and laugh everytime he says that no prestige classes is "balanced".

Honestly, those things can rip apart entire armies.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Benly August 31, 2010, 11:14:34 AM
Or instead of taking an antagonistic "Teach that uppity DM what's what!" stance, you could talk it out. I mean, that's occasionally an option. Point out the prestige class exemption in the FAQ and SRD. Also point out that applying XP penalties to PrCs encourages dipping, because you will be penalized for being (for example) Wizard 5/PrC 1 at level 6 but not for being Wizard 2/Fighter 2/Cleric 1/PrC 1. Likewise, you would be penalized for Wizard 5/PrC 10 at level 15, but not for being Wiz2/Ftr2/Clr1 and then two levels each of five different prestige classes.

If the DM wants "clean" builds without multiclassing all over the place, that's fine. Some DMs consider multiclassing and especially PrCs to be a bigger commitment for your character than others. However, applying XP penalties to prestige classes is counterproductive. If he's concerned about party balance, it might behoove you to think about party balance as well: Ur-Priest is an extremely potent class and if the rest of your party isn't optimizers he is entirely within his rights as a DM to be concerned about the effects of a dual-progressioned ur-priest on things.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Hallack August 31, 2010, 11:33:18 AM
On the XP penalties.  Really if you do not mind being 1 level behind the party the XP penalty is not that big a deal.

You'll get one level behind early on but after a few levels that increased XP you get for being lower level will pretty much counter your XP penalty.

So if you are wanting to play another juicier build and your party is not overly optimized that go for it.  Plus, may even show the DM that XP penalties are not going to do much.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: fuinjutsu August 31, 2010, 04:30:15 PM

He also disallows Tome of Battle.  He takes the view that ToB balances melee vs. caster to not include the fact that in a typical party the casters are buffing melee.


In other words, he thinks there's a "correct" way to play D&D.  *sigh*

Just play a straight warlock with a UMD boosting soulmeld and a willingness to burn XP on item crafting?

I mean dual advancement sounds like it will make you too powerful for your table.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: PhaedrusXY August 31, 2010, 04:35:21 PM
The fact that prestige classes are ignored when determining multiclass XP penalties was accidentally left out of the 3.5 DMG.  This was never addressed in errata, but it is addressed in the FAQ, and the SRD states the rule.  

Here's the quote from the FAQ:
In the previous version of the D&D game, having levels in a prestige class never caused you to pay the experience penalty for being a multiclass character without uneven class levels. (The prestige class levels didn’t count when checking to see if you had a penalty.) The section on prestige classes in the new Dungeon Master’s Guide no longer mentions that you don’t suffer an experience penalty for having levels in a prestige class. Is this a change or an error?

It’s an error. Having levels in a prestige class won’t give you an experience penalty.

Here's the quote from the SRD:
Prestige classes offer a new form of multiclassing. Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the Requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class.  Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing.
Point this out to them, but expect them to still insist on doing it there way. Then make a druid 20.

Posting here  (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=8121.msg309902;topicseen#msg309902)might also help (well... help you feel better, at least. :P )
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Bozwevial August 31, 2010, 04:48:07 PM
He also disallows Tome of Battle.  He takes the view that ToB balances melee vs. caster to not include the fact that in a typical party the casters are buffing melee.
...and yet by themselves, the melee classes would be slaughtered. So that doesn't make Tome of Battle overpowered, it just means that casters are really fucking overpowered.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: awaken DM golem August 31, 2010, 05:55:16 PM
Uh-oh.
 :D
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: idontmuchcareforit August 31, 2010, 06:21:33 PM
I'm ok with banning martial adepts.
If and only if you also ban everything in Tiers 1-3.

Show your DM Fochlucan Lyrist from complete adventurer, and ask him how someone would get through all 10 levels of that class in 20 levels without xp penalties.  When he can't answer, ask him how one would even get into the class without xp penalties.  This should be proof that prestige classes do not count towards uneven advancement.
If you DM really, seriously insists on this strange, strange houserule...


I looked through my tried and true builds and figured this'd work(modified for your ridiculous situation):
Human(if he'll let you use the "first class is favored class" ability)
bard7/paladin2/human paragon1/sublime chord2/human paragon2/paragnostic apostle3/human paragon 3/sublime chord3-4

Look how stupid that looks.  Why can't you just play a powerful character without needing 2 hours of book work to work around his crazy rule?
I think that this would be the build to use.  It's very versatile.  It's powerful.  It's durable.  It's fairly easy to play.  But, and here's the kicker, it's stupid complicated to flavour.  That sounds bad, but honestly it's a good thing because it will be the ideal example of the problem that your DM is causing by enforcing his own vicious version of the xp penalty rule.

This isn't even as powerful as a wizard20, honestly.

if he won't let you use favored classes... idk... fighter2/barbarian2/half-orc paragon2/frenzied berzerker3
and then advance each base class i suppose.  If he won't allow completed classes (half orc-paragon) to be discounted, then... try this build

[spoiler]wizard20[/spoiler]
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Benly August 31, 2010, 06:37:00 PM
I'm ok with banning martial adepts.
If and only if you also ban everything in Tiers 1-3.

The thing is, some people Just Don't Like the ToB even if they can't articulate why. If the DM doesn't like it, no amount of complaining or number-crunching will convince him it's a good idea.

Also, the tier system measures the upper range of a class's performance. If you measure classes by their performance in the hands of people who aren't trying all that hard (which, here's the important bit, seems to describe most of the OP's play group), things pan out very differently: ToB is a high performer even with very little effort in it, while a wizard or cleric who is being played as... well, as the rulebooks seem to imagine they'll be played rather than as optimizers play them will not utterly blow past the non-Tier 1 classes until level 15 or so.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: idontmuchcareforit August 31, 2010, 06:48:34 PM
Also, the tier system measures the upper range of a class's performance. If you measure classes by their performance in the hands of people who aren't trying all that hard (which, here's the important bit, seems to describe most of the OP's play group), things pan out very differently: ToB is a high performer even with very little effort in it, while a wizard or cleric who is being played as... well, as the rulebooks seem to imagine they'll be played rather than as optimizers play them will not utterly blow past the non-Tier 1 classes until level 15 or so.

At level 5, core wizards almost keep pace with fighters in damage against 1 target, but far outpace them in damage vs. multiple targets (think fireball).  Since a fighter offers basically nothing but damage to the party, and the wizard can fly, scout, divine, research, open locked things, cause save-or-die's, use encounter ending spells, change his entire list of abilities every day and countless other things, this is a balance problem.
Yes, he lacks durability.  No, it doesn't make him easier to kill.  The school of abjuration is better than any Mithril Fullplate.
I rest my case.

Sorry for thread derail.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Benly August 31, 2010, 07:11:13 PM

At level 5, core wizards almost keep pace with fighters in damage against 1 target, but far outpace them in damage vs. multiple targets (think fireball).  Since a fighter offers basically nothing but damage to the party, and the wizard can fly, scout, divine, research, open locked things, cause save-or-die's, use encounter ending spells, change his entire list of abilities every day and countless other things, this is a balance problem.
Yes, he lacks durability.  No, it doesn't make him easier to kill.  The school of abjuration is better than any Mithril Fullplate.
I rest my case.

Sorry for thread derail.

I am fully aware of what core wizards can do. Please read the actual post I made, which is not that wizards aren't broken in core but that wizards don't break the game without players who know how and are inclined to break it with them. With low-skill or low-effort players, wizards seem balanced. If you actually follow the advice the books give you on how to play a wizard, you will end up with a wizard who is unimaginably bad by charop standards. With low-skill or low-effort players, ToB classes suffer very little compared to use by medium-skill players; eliciting high performance from ToB classes is very easy and intuitive once you've read the book. Therefore, in the context of low-skill/low-effort players, ToB classes can seem more unbalanced than wizards.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Sinfire Titan August 31, 2010, 07:22:24 PM

He also disallows Tome of Battle.  He takes the view that ToB balances melee vs. caster to not include the fact that in a typical party the casters are buffing melee.


In other words, he thinks there's a "correct" way to play D&D.  *sigh*

There is: Kill shit and loot the corpse!

But that's beside the point.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Mixster August 31, 2010, 08:21:15 PM

He also disallows Tome of Battle.  He takes the view that ToB balances melee vs. caster to not include the fact that in a typical party the casters are buffing melee.


In other words, he thinks there's a "correct" way to play D&D.  *sigh*

There is: Kill shit and loot the corpse!

But that's beside the point.

Unless you're a diplomancer.

Or a monk
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: McPoyo August 31, 2010, 09:13:36 PM

He also disallows Tome of Battle.  He takes the view that ToB balances melee vs. caster to not include the fact that in a typical party the casters are buffing melee.


In other words, he thinks there's a "correct" way to play D&D.  *sigh*

There is: Kill shit and loot the corpse!

But that's beside the point.

Unless you're a diplomancer.

Or a monk
Then that would be:
-Make them give you all their loot, then kill themselves
or
-Die and give the party all your gear

Diplomancer and monk, respectively.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Sinfire Titan September 01, 2010, 12:56:13 AM
-Die and give the party all your gear

It would work that way if so many Monks hadn't taken VoP. For them, it's just "Die and try not to embarrass us too badly in the process".
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: McPoyo September 01, 2010, 02:14:13 AM
-Die and give the party all your gear

It would work that way if so many Monks hadn't taken VoP. For them, it's just "Die and try not to embarrass us too badly in the process".
Can always sell the body for profit.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Sinfire Titan September 01, 2010, 03:46:45 AM
-Die and give the party all your gear

It would work that way if so many Monks hadn't taken VoP. For them, it's just "Die and try not to embarrass us too badly in the process".
Can always sell the body for profit.

O.o
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: jojolagger September 01, 2010, 04:18:57 AM
In other words, he thinks there's a "correct" way to play D&D.  *sigh*
There is: Kill shit and loot the corpse!
:clap
Just checking If I can siggy this.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut September 01, 2010, 04:41:06 AM
Original poster checking back in here with more perspective.


I understand where my DM is coming from...from his perspective it's like this:  If you have core melee classes in a balanced party then the spellcasters are buffing the party.  If he allows ToB classes then they get buffed as well and they would totally overshadow the core classes. 

Thing is , my DM hasn't had the education I have received on these boards and still feels like FIghters, Rangers, Paladins and Monks hold their own.  I tried to explain to him once why Monks sucked but he didn't believe me.


Another one of his arguments is that the Tier system is stupid because it doesn't take into account things like a Fighter 20 is going to have the leadership feat, be the general of a vast army, be loaded with magic items (which wizards have to spend xp to create), and be buffed by his wizard cohorts casting 9th level spells.  He takes a holistic view of balance.

Sadly this means that normal fighters, paladins, and monks would be overshadowed by the Warblades, Crusaders and swordsages.  His stance is that if one player uses them then all need to, including him making his NPC adversaries such.


He  also doesn't like Psionics.  I haven't even bothered to ask him about Incarnum.
 
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Sinfire Titan September 01, 2010, 04:46:49 AM
In other words, he thinks there's a "correct" way to play D&D.  *sigh*
There is: Kill shit and loot the corpse!
:clap
Just checking If I can siggy this.

Go ahead.

I understand where my DM is coming from...from his perspective it's like this:  If you have core melee classes in a balanced party then the spellcasters are buffing the party.  If he allows ToB classes then they get buffed as well and they would totally overshadow the core classes. 

That perspective is all wrong: Melee classes are not balanced. Neither are casters. If a caster buffs another caster (Wizard/Cleric buffing a Druid), that second caster will be much more powerful.

The Bo9S classes are not balanced against the Core melee, they are balanced against PH2 Melee classes (save for the Dragon Shaman, but that's a special exception). If the DM allows Duskblades, there is no reason he shouldn't allow a Warblade (they are damn near the same thing)



The idea that all classes in Core are Balanced has been proven false. Casters are so far ahead that it isn't funny. An all caster party will fare much better than an all noncaster party. And by "much", I mean they will be able to defy the CR mechanic entirely (case and point: 3rd level Wizard VS the Tarrasque=Wizard wins, hands down).

Core-noncasters cannot defy the CR mechanic (then again, they both suffer from poor design).




Want a good example? Rogue VS Wizard at opening a Master-level lock (DC 40). The Rogue cannot physically use Open Lock to bypass this item until well past 10th level, while the Wizard can get around it starting at 3rd level (1st if CArc is allowed). Yes, the Wizard can only do this once or twice a day at 3rd level, but that's more than the Rogue is capable of for the next 7 levels.

It just gets more ridiculous from there. That same Wizard can sodomize Undead encounters, but the Rogue is going to just sit there and twiddle his thumbs. The Wizard will be able to fight flying creatures starting at 3rd level (earlier if he picks Medium Range spells), but the Barbarian can't do so unless he's specifically built as an Archer (a concept that runs contrary to the flavor of the class, and is very niche). Note that the Wizard is capable of doing this with only class features, no magic items needed.

This is why the idea of Core being even remotely balanced is appalling. Show this to your DM. He needs to understand that he is very much wrong about Tome of Battle.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: weenog September 01, 2010, 04:48:47 AM
Another one of his arguments is that the Tier system is stupid because it doesn't take into account things like a Fighter 20 is going to have the leadership feat, be the general of a vast army, be loaded with magic items (which wizards have to spend xp to create), and be buffed by his wizard cohorts casting 9th level spells.
For this at least, you should probably point out to him that everyone else can do the same thing, while still being a real class capable of accomplishing things on their own.  And that the bard, sorcerer, and cleric will all do it better because they'll have higher Cha scores (might not want to point out right away that a magic-using general can buff their own army rather than the waste of space PCs, that seems a little advanced and might confuse the poor guy).
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: jojolagger September 01, 2010, 04:53:39 AM
Another one of his arguments is that the Tier system is stupid because it doesn't take into account things like a Fighter 20 is going to have the leadership feat, be the general of a vast army,
The wizard will have an army of casters, which is almost always better.
Another one of his arguments is that the Tier system is stupid because it doesn't take into account things like a Fighter 20 is going to be loaded with magic items (which wizards have to spend xp to create) and be buffed by his wizard cohorts casting 9th level spells.
With one Feat the wizard can get as a bonus feat the wizard can cripple any item related build. Craft construct, and a furtive Filcher homunculus. "What's that, you wizard friend needs his component pouch to buff you? You mean this pouch?"

So the Fighter is equal to the wizard because the fighter has a wizard minion? What about the wizard having a wizard minion?

Have you considered asking about turenaming or Shadow magic?

: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Sinfire Titan September 01, 2010, 05:02:53 AM
Have you considered asking about turenaming or Shadow magic?

I'd hope not! Truenaming is one of the five subsystems that is universally-agreed to be broken (as in "Red Ring of Death" broken, not Planar Shepherd broken).

Shadow Magic? About on par with the Ranger past level 7. Before that? Far too limited in daily abilities to be of any use.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: mBelchezere September 01, 2010, 05:04:10 AM
Okay, I can't fathom what you're going through man. Honestly I probably would've already left that group and lost their numbers, but thats just me and I've been spoiled by multiple house rules that "DO" keep the party balanced for those in my group that love to build a god-killing whatever they want at lvl 1. Our DM just adjusts his CR and HP on the monsters or stacks on a template or 2, but we've also instituted a recent rule where we have revolving DM's. Keeps everyone in the game and lets you plan for the future of your character by how many lvls you up the party before your triumphant return!!!! Which is another "balance" oriented ruling we have, "THE BUBBLE", if you miss or are DMing for an encounter or so your character lvls as the party and no one is ever allowed to be above the party lvl.

Now as for your predicament , if they want balance but you want to optimize just try making a Karsite Binder 15/ KoTSS 5 or if you can't force them to see reason with the earlier given ruling on prestige classes just do full binder. But also you need to go on wizards and get the new vestiges. You will have all the freedom you could want, be more than able for any situation that arises, plus at high lvls since your group doesn't optimize you'll get that sweet revenge you know you want :evillaugh :devil bc you are now binding 4 beings into yourself and can take on most anything thats thrown at you by this sad sad little DM of yours.

Oh yeah, are they allowing Unearthed Arcana with the LA buy off? It just helps get rid of the LA +2 of the Karsite.  Also you should definitely take leadership if you have a high charisma which you should if you're a binder.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut September 01, 2010, 05:23:08 AM
I'd like to ask that people not make disparraging remarks about my DM in this thread.  He is a friend and I'd like to show him this thread.  I asked for helpful suggestions not to turn this into another "My DM is an idiot thread" like the link someone posted.

He has cited that requiring material components is a check against spellcasters which many people here seem to overlook.

So far no one has said anything that negates his assertion that ToB makes core melee classes obsolete.

If someone felt like being civil and eloquent so I can show him a properly thought out perspective on the matter, I'd love to be able to articulate why classes like Monk and Paladin suck that DOESN'T rely on "x classes are better."  In other words if one was playing core-ish only why would one choose to not play a monk?  And please no "Just play Druid 20" suggestions.  We all know casters are god, but not everyone wants to play a caster all the time.

Help me out here!

Thanks...
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: weenog September 01, 2010, 05:51:58 AM
Requiring material components is a check against spellcasters which many people don't mention because it goes without saying, and because in a lot of cases, it doesn't mean much.  Any generic material component that doesn't have a cost of 1 gp or higher is in your spell component pouch, if you have the pouch, you have it, and spare component pouches are cheap.  Spells that cost a bunch of money to cast are generally avoided,  and if not they're accounted for in gear suggestions (if those suggestions are made at all) or expected to be taken out of the leftover money in the gear suggestion, according to how much the player thinks they'll need.  Fake spells (mainly shadowcraft illusions) don't require the components of the spells they're faking, they aren't that spell.

ToB doesn't need to make the core melee classes obsolete, they've been that way since well before ToB came out.  They've been obsolete since other core characters have been able to do their jobs better than them while still being able to do other stuff, whether it's via summoning, creating walls, self-buffing up into a Fighter Plus, hijacking a brute monster with mind-affecting spells, or killing things without bothering to damage their hp by way of save-or-die effects, ability damage or the like.

Monk specifically sucks because it doesn't play well with itself -- its abilities don't cooperate.  Its two main features are mobility and flurry of blows, and you can't flurry while you're playing hit and run because flurry requires a full attack action.  Late on you get fun stuff like Abundant Step (based on dimension door, so you're not allowed to take ANY actions after you do it, let alone flurry or stunning blow).

Even your bonus feats don't work well with what you're given -- take your 2nd-level bonus feat, for example.  You get either Combat Reflexes, or Deflect Arrows.  Deflect Arrows is pretty pointless because you aren't going to be at long range for long, your ranged options are terrible, you don't get any good weapon proficiencies there and your class features don't support hanging back, so you'll be getting up close ASAP.  Combat Reflexes would be nice if you could threaten a significant area, but you don't have any reach weapon proficiencies so even if you did get into threatening position, people can just 5' step away and laugh at your Combat Reflexes while they do what they were going to do.

6th-level bonus feat isn't doing much better, you've got Improved Disarm based on BAB (which you're behind on) and Str (which you're ALSO behind on, because you need too many abilities and can't afford to have any one or two of them very high), or Improved Trip mainly based on Str (great, no BAB involvement means you only lose once, not twice).

At 1st level you get Improved Unarmed Strike (not great, but not terrible) and either Stunning Fist or Improved Grapple -- Stunning Fist isn't too bad, except the save DC relies on your Wis (which you're behind on, because you need too many abilities and can't afford to have any one or two of them very high).  Improved Grapple has the same problem as Improved Disarm.

Probably the best thing you can do with monk is dip levels 1 and 2 to get Improved Grapple and/or Combat Reflexes on a character with the strength, BAB, and reach to make use of them, like a build heading for a Fist of the Forest, Bear Warrior and War Shaper.  Course at that point you're not really being a monk, you're just dipping it and probably taking as few levels of the core classes as you can get away with.

I could go on, but ripping into the core monk is old, tired, and boring, you can see this stuff for yourself if you really take a look at it.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Benly September 01, 2010, 11:16:50 AM
I'd like to ask that people not make disparraging remarks about my DM in this thread.  He is a friend and I'd like to show him this thread.  I asked for helpful suggestions not to turn this into another "My DM is an idiot thread" like the link someone posted.

He has cited that requiring material components is a check against spellcasters which many people here seem to overlook.

So far no one has said anything that negates his assertion that ToB makes core melee classes obsolete.

If someone felt like being civil and eloquent so I can show him a properly thought out perspective on the matter, I'd love to be able to articulate why classes like Monk and Paladin suck that DOESN'T rely on "x classes are better."  In other words if one was playing core-ish only why would one choose to not play a monk?  And please no "Just play Druid 20" suggestions.  We all know casters are god, but not everyone wants to play a caster all the time.

Help me out here!

Thanks...

The essential problem of Casters Vs. Everyone Else is that casters get more actual options.

For example, at level 1, a fighter's options, if he has been built with an eye towards versatility, are "hit a guy" or "knock him down and then hit him". Possibly "unsettle him a little".

The wizard, with no special effort, has the options "hit a guy", "knock him down and hit him", "make him run screaming", "make him instantly lose consciousness", "make him fall in love with me", and "make him weak as a kitten". Or, if he wants, he can make the fighter ten feet tall, or enchant the fighter's sword.

At higher levels, the fighter will probably add the option "hit him really hard" and possibly "push him around, and then hit him". The wizard, meanwhile, can choose to hit everyone within a 20' radius, or choke them all with poisonous vapors, or curse him into uselessness, or molest them to death with tentacles from the shadows, or make them so scared they just die. Or he can turn the fighter into a hydra - or, for that matter, he can turn one of his skeletal underlings into a hydra, so that it can now hit things really hard even better than the fighter. And unless the fighter has sunk some seriously hardcore work into "hit him really hard" at the expense of the other options, his "really hard" won't be as big as the wizard's "really hard" anyway even aside from the hydra thing.

Of course, this is just combat options. Out of combat, the wizard maintains an equally absurd array of options while the fighter gets two skill points per level and hence may be able to ride a horse or look scary. (The wizard, for comparison, can spacewarp anywhere he feels like going, and as mentioned can make people so scared they die.)

Druids and clerics get the same variety of options as the wizard, albeit with different special effects.

The monk gets the same options as the fighter, except he's not as good at "hit him really hard". The paladin and ranger get the same options as the fighter plus "cast a few spells that are inevitably and by design massively weaker than what the real casters have at this level". Barbarians get the fighter options but are a bit better at hitting really hard. Rogues get the fighter options with better out-of-combat skills and lose the ability to hit things really hard if they don't have lungs to stab.

The basic point of ToB is to let non-caster classes have options that aren't "hit him really hard" - or, if they choose to go that route, at least make them good enough at "hit him really hard" that they're better at it than some random schmuck the wizard turned into a hydra.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: BeholderSlayer September 01, 2010, 12:17:40 PM
I'd like to ask that people not make disparraging remarks about my DM in this thread.  He is a friend and I'd like to show him this thread.  I asked for helpful suggestions not to turn this into another "My DM is an idiot thread" like the link someone posted.

He has cited that requiring material components is a check against spellcasters which many people here seem to overlook.

So far no one has said anything that negates his assertion that ToB makes core melee classes obsolete.

If someone felt like being civil and eloquent so I can show him a properly thought out perspective on the matter, I'd love to be able to articulate why classes like Monk and Paladin suck that DOESN'T rely on "x classes are better."  In other words if one was playing core-ish only why would one choose to not play a monk?  And please no "Just play Druid 20" suggestions.  We all know casters are god, but not everyone wants to play a caster all the time.

Help me out here!

Thanks...

Okay, I'll try to help and be constructive. I'll even do it from a DM's perspective, as I spend a lot of time "behind the screen" (I don't roll with a screen, but you get the point).

Material components are fairly negligible. You get all the cheap ones for just carrying a pouch. You may also carry multiple pouches, so trying to disarm a character of their pouch won't do much for you. The few spells with expensive components are often actually expensive focuses, which are not expended in the spellcasting. The few that are components can be replicated by spells with cheap components.

Trying to argue that ToB classes don't make core melee classes obsolete is an exercise in futility. They do, there's really no way around that. However, as a DM, he needs to consider whether the core melee classes *SHOULD* be viewed as desirable. Technically, you can make a pretty powerful barbarian, so I don't really view that class as incredibly awful (though it requires a specific style of build). As a DM, I take the following perspective: ToB classes are what the Fighter, Paladin, and Rogue (Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage respectively) should have been in the original print. In order to create intra-party balance, characters of all classes need to be somewhat on the same level. Wizards, clerics, and druids played intelligently make the other classes look like Skippy the Punk. ToB classes played with even an average level of intelligence bring melee closer to the power level of casters, possibly to a similar level as a caster played with average intelligence.

ToB classes help remove the mindlessness of melee combat. Instead of a player being relegated to "I press A and auto-attack!" every...single....round...they get a selection of abilities that act like magic. ToB classes allow melee characters to actually participate in the strategic game, rather than being hopelessly relegated to smashing on their "attack button" (I can't help but compare core melee to video games, they're just that mindless). You see, D&D encounters are a fast, lethal game where if you can't do something more than auto-attack, you lose. Martial adepts make melee classes able to participate in a similar strategic setting as spellcasters. The only remotely viable strategic maneuver that a fighter can do is trip, and the party wizard can do it more effectively than the fighter at level 1. By level 8, tripping is virtually impossible for the fighter. Now, he has invested in a tactic that doesn't work anymore. Creatures are too large, too strong, flying, or whatever, and cannot be affected by his trips.

Disarm, sunder, and the other core melee strategic options are bad. Disarming quickly becomes nearly impossible after level 1, and never really matters all that much in the grand scheme of combat. Sundering destroys your loot, and your party will hate you for it. Grappling is a good way to get yourself eaten alive, if you can even pull it off. Pretending that non-spellcasting humanoids are a threat beyond level 7 is a mistake, and spellcasters don't care if you can grapple them because they laugh at being grappled (Dimension Door, Teleport, Travel domain, freedom of movement, etc.).

In summary: the core melee classes were poorly designed as an afterthought to the magic system. Ignoring this clear and simple fact is a mistake. What the Tome of Battle brings to the table for melee classes is the ability to participate where they could not. If it is not yet clear why this is true, I can continue to explain in a later post.

Monks are bad because they have no relevant class features. They pay through the teeth for enhancement bonuses that are something like 4 to 8 times more expensive than a +1 sword (don't feel like looking it up). Stunning fist is a joke, as it targets the strongest creature save and doesn't even have a relevant effect (being stunned doesn't matter). Evasion comes on a ring, or with spells. Disease and poison immunity don't matter, as by the time you get them you've stopped caring about disease and poison (they are both low level threats, and even then are hardly a threat). Spell resistance isn't useful, as by the time you get it spellcasters have a myriad of options with SR: No that obliterate you. IIRC, you don't have any way to get reach, even when enlarged (maybe that was just a houserule from my last DM, though). You have 3/4 BAB and you are a melee-focused class. You are subpar in almost every way to any other melee class, and none of your class features matter.

Paladins are bad because their class features are terrible, with perhaps the notable exception of level 2. Smite Evil grants negligible bonus damage a small number of times per day. Your spells aren't great. You can't turn undead, even though you get it as a class feature. Also, you're highly restricted in your actions due to that pesky "Paladin's Code" thing that gets in the way of smart gameplay consistently. Rather than actually doing your job, you spend time considering how this might affect your alignment. You are, in pretty much every way, worse than even a fighter since you're a melee class without bonus feats.

In summary, again, ToB classes bring to the table the ability for melee classes to actually participate is a reasonable way to the strategic nature of a fast, deadly game where if you can't do more than hit point damage you lose. When I DM, I hand players the ToB and say "Use this" because I want them to have fun, rather than be a waste of space. In fact, I combine the core classes with the ToB classes to some level.

When spell casters are changing the nature of reality with a standard action, being the "big dumb guy with a sword" that only has the ability to pewpewpew for fairly negligible damage as a full round action isn't fun.

Sorry for the Wall of Text.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: snakeman830 September 01, 2010, 12:46:56 PM
Fighters are terrible because they can't do anything that someone else can't also do.  They have no class features at all.  Anyone that was so inclined could pick up the basic feat chain that a Fighter will use and probably do the Fighter's job decently well.  Heck, a Druid beats out the Fighter with a level 1 class feature in melee.  A wolf is a better tripper than a Fighter (they never have to choose between damage and tripping, or being tripped/disarmed in return) for example.  If the Druid decides to buff it (and herself at the same time), it definitely leaves the Fighter behind, and again, that's level 1.

Never mind that the Cleric rapidly becomes better than the Fighter in the Fighter's job in addition to performing his own.  Never mind that the Wizard's familiar can tank better with a Polymorph (starting at 7th).  Heck, the Wizard himself can make a fine showing at level 3 with Alter Self.

Even other Core melee classes have abilities that are helpful besides hitting things.  

Paladins for example:  A little bit of healing saves party resources.  The Mount can be incredibly useful in a number of situations (especially if you go with something besides a horse).  Detect Evil prevents ambushes. Some of their spells can be rather useful, and they can use Divine Feats, which provide a decent range of options.  Now, they're still not that great of a class, but at least they can do something to help..

Oh, and they still are about as good as the Fighter in combat (better against Evil foes)

Barbarians can be surprisingly effective trapmonkeys at times.  Between their Trap Sense and DR, they can locate traps with less risk of being seriously hurt (although, it's still better to just have the Rogue do it)  He also has a lot more survivability in combat and can dish out more damage.  Hmm, isn't that the Fighter's role?  Oh, and he still has 2 more skill points and a decent list of class skills.

Against most foes in the MM, a Rogue that catches a foe by surprise (or has a flanking buddy which can be a summoned monster or the Wizard's familiar, for example) consitantly deals more damage than a Fighter not built for ubercharging can.  Situational, but so is ubercharging (moreso, actually).  Plus, with Ambush feats, the Rogue can do things besides damage.  Oh, and of course out-of combat, the Rogue shines almost as much as the casters.

Rangers, while being more designed for ranged combat, can do ok in melee, especially against favored enemies.  Most of their class features relate to out-of-combat use, though, whcih also makes them rather useful.

Monks have other problems.  As noted above, their class features don't work together.  You basically have to choose between what feature you actually want to use each round, because you can't combine them.  Every other class in the game gives some abilities that work well together.  Not the Monk.  On top of that, a Monk needs 4 ability scores high just to function and pays through the nose to deal with Incorporeal enemies at all.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: McPoyo September 01, 2010, 12:54:26 PM
Adding on to BeholderSlayer's post, just because spellcasters can buff the fighters and barbarians, they could also buff themselves the same way and do the same job. Polymorph, shapechange, divine power, and the myriad other buffs (and let's face it, a 20% or 50% miss chance guaranteed no matter the guy's attack rolls is better than trying to boost AC to relative levels passed level 7) make them just as dangerous, if not more so, than the fighter and barbarian.

And any class can take Leadership.

The sad fact, is that anything a fighter can do to become a threat in combat, a wizard/sorcerer/druid/cleric/whatever could do as well, plus their regular tricks.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: BeholderSlayer September 01, 2010, 01:25:56 PM
Adding on to BeholderSlayer's post, just because spellcasters can buff the fighters and barbarians, they could also buff themselves the same way and do the same job. Polymorph, shapechange, divine power, and the myriad other buffs (and let's face it, a 20% or 50% miss chance guaranteed no matter the guy's attack rolls is better than trying to boost AC to relative levels passed level 7) make them just as dangerous, if not more so, than the fighter and barbarian.
Very, very true. In fact, sometimes it's more beneficial to just buff themselves. Take the example of Polymorph, and let's say you chose an animal familiar. You may share your polymorph, and now you have two hydras that act on the same initiative count. They wade in, kill everything in one round, and the fight is over. You can't get that kind of efficiency, even if you polymorphed the fighter instead.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Nunkuruji September 01, 2010, 01:48:36 PM
Moderately browsing over this, it seems like a good opportunity to play a War Weaver, and just take a reserve feat if you want to zap things like a warlock.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: jojolagger September 01, 2010, 03:13:56 PM
He has cited that requiring material components is a check against spellcasters which many people here seem to overlook.
I've seen high power caster builds here carry several component pouches. Like 15 or 20 of them. If someone can steal 15 pouches from you before you can react, your doing it wrong.

Also
Fighter vs. Wizard
Originally Posted by Comus[spoiler]
"Hi. I'm a low-level Fighter. I can hit things with my sword pretty good. I've got a bow, too."

"Hello. I'm a low-level Wizard. I can end encounters in a single round if I'm lucky, but only a few times a day."

***

"Hi. I'm a mid-to-high level Fighter. I can hit things with my sword - really well. And I can shoot a bow pretty well too."

"Hello. I'm a mid-to-high level Wizard. I can warp the very fabric of space and time, kill people by thinking about it, and generally do anything you can imagine - and then I do it again, upside-down, in the dark, with my head in a bucket of water."

***

"Hi. I'm a near-epic level Fighter. I hit things with my sword using incredible, near legendary skill, and can hit a copper piece with my bow from a thousand feet away."

"Hello. I'm a near-epic level Wizard. While I was introducing myself, I used my incredible, godlike power to summon an army of Solars. They're going to make me a sandwich, because all of my enemies are dead. I killed them back in time."[/spoiler]

And
Wizard Vs. ToB
Originally posted by woodenbandman[spoiler]
“I had a friend who thought that wizards weren't as strong as ToB, so he challenged me to a duel, level 15, no items. I haven't actually fought him yet, but here's sort of how it plays out:

If he's wearing light armor, he's likely a swordsage, and thus theoretically has teleportation maneuvers. Win initiative with Moment of Prescience (which I'm sure he'd disapprove of, because using your class features is soooo unfair), then dimensional anchor and quickened web.

If he's wearing heavy armor, then just use quickened web followed by maximized cloudkill.

Next round, throw out a forcecage. He can't go anywhere. dispel the web.

Now you just cast invisibility. He's taking huge CON damage for a few rounds.

Then hit him with a save or die effect. Then polymorph into something big and kill his ass. And use Limited Wish to imitate divine power/righteous might.

With this handy guide, you've just won without using dice. At all. He will literally never win initiative, and you can counter anything he throws. This is a core generalist human wizard 15, by the way, no gear. I was planning on saying after the fight, "You mean I was supposed to actually build a character, rather than just pick spells?" I can't even imagine what'd happen if I pulled a Shadowcraft Mage.”[/spoiler]

Monks are bad because without using 3.0 stuff, they can only get +x to there main weapons, not weapon abilities.
Monks are bad because they a class focused on hitting stuff with only 3/4 BaB.
Monks are bad because they have stuff based off almost every stat, and have trouble focusing on one stat.
Monks are bad because timeless body doesn't stop you from dieing.
Monks are bad because because at level 20, with flurry of blows, even if you hit with every attack (which won't happen) you only deal 10d10+(5*STR bonus)+ (*5 times amulet of natural fists bonus) which assuming Str of 24 and +5 amulet maxes out at 155, and averages 110 damage.
Monks are bad for more reason too, I just don't want to type far to much.
Compared to the level 20 monk, a wizard at that level can kill people back in time, drop a nuke with 1 mile/CL radius, and have his own demi-plane.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut September 01, 2010, 04:36:38 PM
OK Ok!  I get it!  I want my DM to actually read this thread so let's not keep saying the same points.  I really appreciate the feedback and thoughtfullness tho! 

And yeah...one of the other regular players was a Monk...I believe he died at 2nd or 3rd level because he waded into Melee combat with an Ankheg that ambushed us because "he needed to test himself in combat".  He got eaten pretty quickly.  Now he is playing a Wizard.  Ha!

Interestingly he plays his wizard pretty smart.  He flys around invisible, summoning celestial riding dogs, hell hounds, and (recently) some metalic angel guardian thing to keep enemies from swarming us while occasionally peppering them with scorching rays, fireballs, and pyrobursts. 

Last game I was being chided for playing my smartly built Dragon Fire Adept BFC and being called cheesy for it.  I responded with, "Hey!  I'm not cheesy I'm effective...look at the wizard!"  The wizard player grinned and admitted that "Yes the way he is playing the wizard is cheesy."  But I disagre...if you have these abilities, it would be stupid to NOT make the best of them.  In that sense my group considers even light optimization and playing with a smart tactical focus to be cheesy.

I've tried to point out the many times that we would have dies were it not for the combination of our party synergy and tactical expertise.  Like the time my DFAs slow breath kept the trolls from taking full round actions and rending us, or the way the wizard keeps on summoning hell hounds so that the enemies have bigger fish to fry rather than all laying into us with crossbows...

I've tried to explain to them what REAL cheese is...some of the many game breaking yet perfectly RAW combos we see around here even without dipping and igniring the multiclass xp rules.

I doubt that this thread will change the mind of my DM or group but I am glad I have something to show him that more adequately and eloquently expresses the lessons I have learned from these boards and makes a case that playing smart and effectivly doesn't make me some horribly infantile munchkin.

Bravo.  :clap
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: jojolagger September 01, 2010, 04:56:01 PM
I've tried to explain to them what REAL cheese is...some of the many game breaking yet perfectly RAW combos we see around here even without dipping and igniring the multiclass xp rules.

I doubt that this thread will change the mind of my DM or group but I am glad I have something to show him that more adequately and eloquently expresses the lessons I have learned from these boards and makes a case that playing smart and effectivly doesn't make me some horribly infantile munchkin.
I'll see if I can find the link to "The Very Best of CO.pdf". It was in someones sig. Would be the perfect way to show what real cheese is.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut September 01, 2010, 05:02:14 PM
Yeah I've mentioned in passing to them a few crazy things that can be done, like maximizing force missle damage or the Hulking Hurler build.  They aren't really amused and frankly neither am I.  I have an aversion to serious chesse.  Optimizing a character for survivability and tactical fun is where I am at.  I like challenges and it's been fun to -almost- but not die a few times.  made the battle seem fun and worth it when we had to struggle. 
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: jojolagger September 01, 2010, 05:14:10 PM
I'm not saying to use the cheese in the pdf, I'm just pointing out that being able to says, "that isn't cheese, This is cheese." when they complain about some basic min maxing, will help your case.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut September 01, 2010, 05:23:28 PM
Part of the issue I think is that DnD is *so* system heavy.  Sure you can houserule and talk your DM inot making exceptions or finagling or homebrewing like any RPG but for the most part the RAW is the RAW.

In some games like Marvel Super Heroes or White Wolf there is a certain amount of leewy to "stunt" yourself new abilities or find creative ways to work with the ones you have. 

Basically the system FORCES one to minmax if one wants to be good.  Say you roll an 18 stat and you play a Fighter...are you REALLY going to put that into Wisdom?  In some games you can get away with the role play vs. roll play.  IN those games you could have a 15 Str and 18 wisdom and say you are a grizzled old veteran and have fun playing the character.  But in DnD such noble high-browed sentiments will get you killed in the mechanics of combat.  Hence the fun and sometimes rote predictability of min-maxing...
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: idontmuchcareforit September 01, 2010, 06:03:27 PM
The class balance of 3.5 is so poor that a brand new player picking wizard spells would likely be more powerful, by accident, than a veteran fighter, especially after level 6..  And if he picked bad ones?  Well then the next day he could prep more of the spells that he found use for, and new ones in leiu of the ones that he didn't.  Whereas a fighter who picked the twf tree, or the spring attack tree, or the whirlwind tree, or basically any tree that isn't tripping or archery, will be disappointed.  for the life of the character.  Even if they did pick their feats carefully and with much research, they'll have the show stolen from them by the third grader playing the wizard after level 9.  Monks are even worse.  Paladins are about the same.  Barbarians are about the same, but have the luxury of being the most powereful first level character IMHO.
Having a mind for min/maxing and tactics is nice, but it doesn't fix a bad game.

That's what I was getting at, Benly.

Tome of Battle fixes this nonsense.


A DM has every right to restrict the Class tiers that his players have access to.  I do so in EVERY campaign I run, and I insist on it in EVERY campaign I play in.  Arbitrarily banning some classes because of (let's face it) ignorance, is a poor alternative to reading or "Allowable until proven ban-worthy", or just having faith in the tier system.


The idea that casters are balanced by their duty to buff the weaker classes is absolute nonlogic.  Just think where the party would be if the fighter wasn't there.  They'd be short one fighter, and tall one summoned bison.

Thistledown:  Seriously, show your DM Fochlucan lyrist(cadv) and ask him how someone would even get into the class without xp penalties.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Benly September 01, 2010, 06:07:47 PM
Having a mind for min/maxing and tactics is nice, but it doesn't fix a bad game.

That's what I was getting at, Benly.

Tome of Battle fixes this nonsense.


A DM has every right to restrict the Class tiers that his players have access to.  I do so in EVERY campaign I run, and I insist on it in EVERY campaign I play in.  Arbitrarily banning some classes because of (let's face it) ignorance, is a poor alternative to reading or "Allowable until proven ban-worthy", or just having faith in the tier system.

Asking someone who doesn't post on charop forums to "just have faith in the tier system" is a losing proposition. The point I was trying to make is not "ToB is too strong for underoptimizers!", my point is that it is entirely reasonable for people used to underoptimizing to look at ToB and see it as overpowered without seeing wizards as overpowered. It's not that they are ignorant, stupid, or bad people, it's that their point of comparison is a different one from that presumed by the tier system.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: BeholderSlayer September 01, 2010, 06:32:45 PM
I doubt that this thread will change the mind of my DM or group but I am glad I have something to show him that more adequately and eloquently expresses the lessons I have learned from these boards and makes a case that playing smart and effectivly doesn't make me some horribly infantile munchkin.

I have run into DM's like this, and typically they fall into a few common pitfalls. They typically believe that fighters fight, clerics heal, rogues do traps and locks, and wizards kill stuff with fire. Once a person is able to remove this mindset from their point of view (if they can at all), the facts of reality set in.

If you play the game the way it is playtested, exactly, no party will typically live beyond level 10. Enemies become too strong, and have too many hit points for the party to defeat them. Since your pewpewpew tactics cannot one-round a creature, your party gets one-rounded. Playing the game using actual tactics and strong spells results in the party being able to defeat the threats before them. If you are playing mid to high level D&D and not using smart tactics, you die.

Utilizing strong spells does not make you a munchkin, it makes you smart. Nobody wants to fail, and that's exactly what happens if you don't use strong tactics after a certain point. Utilizing the tactics I mentioned in my first paragraph results in death even in an "easy mode" campaign after a while. Using them in a "hard mode" campaign results in your death at level 1.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: idontmuchcareforit September 01, 2010, 06:35:09 PM
, my point is that it is entirely reasonable for people used to underoptimizing to look at ToB and see it as overpowered without seeing wizards as overpowered. It's not that they are ignorant, stupid, or bad people, it's that their point of comparison is a different one from that presumed by the tier system.

Looking at something, and fearing it's power because you lack understanding of it is basically the definition of ignorance.  I did not mean to imply that their ignorance of the interclass balance in a stupid game reflects their character or their intelligence.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: BeholderSlayer September 01, 2010, 06:35:40 PM
oops, i hit quote instead of edit
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Benly September 01, 2010, 06:46:02 PM
, my point is that it is entirely reasonable for people used to underoptimizing to look at ToB and see it as overpowered without seeing wizards as overpowered. It's not that they are ignorant, stupid, or bad people, it's that their point of comparison is a different one from that presumed by the tier system.

Looking at something, and fearing it's power because you lack understanding of it is basically the definition of ignorance.  I did not mean to imply that their ignorance of the interclass balance in a stupid game reflects their character or their intelligence.

"fearing its power" is over-glorifying the situation. It is a logical response on the basis of their play experience to say "this looks overpowered and kind of silly, I don't want to play with it".
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: idontmuchcareforit September 01, 2010, 06:50:32 PM
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut September 01, 2010, 06:55:34 PM
I should qualify by saying that I am the new guy to the group and at least two of the others have been playing DnD for years together and never got deep into any kind of optimization.

That said the DM has stated that if he were to play a dragon to the fullest of their tactical potential it would likely end in a TPK...
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: BeholderSlayer September 01, 2010, 07:01:43 PM
I should qualify by saying that I am the new guy to the group and at least two of the others have been playing DnD for years together and never got deep into any kind of optimization.

That said the DM has stated that if he were to play a dragon to the fullest of their tactical potential it would likely end in a TPK...
I got the same story from the other DM in my group. Then we killed two dragons, one of them a ghost mature adult red, in 3 rounds.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: idontmuchcareforit September 01, 2010, 07:06:24 PM
It all depends.  I've been wiped by CR appropriate encounters in my early 3.5 days.  But now... the 4 person ECL10 party that I dm for will be fighting 2-3 back to back CR21 encounters and I doubt anyone will die.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: archangel.arcanis September 01, 2010, 07:11:49 PM
Depending on how your group is made at least the DM acknowledges that the group is weaker than it should be. That is a start. It is a problem when your tactically sound character devastates every encounter because you didn't play "me bash" and the DM can't figure out what the problem is.

The way I finally got that DM to understand what the problem was was to get them to build a character and ask why for every choice. That helped the realize that some of their choices were really stupid, not just weak but actually hurt the character more than if they had chosen nothing. I followed that up by asking them to pick a theme or concept for a character. They went and built the character to fit their concept and I did the same thing but didn't limit myself to just a single class the way they would normally do. Once they saw that I was picking the abilities that fit what they wanted in a character and that was more important than picking a class and making your character fit into the class's strengths and weaknesses it all kind of opened up. The DM still can't optimize but they can understand it a lot better and had begun working on better tactics than finding a monster with a higher strength and bigger weapon.

For the DM's view they need to keep in mind several weaker, but still capable, enemies will do much more in taxing the party than a single enemy.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut September 01, 2010, 07:46:40 PM
Actually so far my DM seems to favor the hordes of lessers rather than the Big Bad.  Our encounters tend to be with groups of things: trolls, ghasts, skeletons, a whole guild of thieves, a vampire and it's spawn etc...

 Of course we are getting higher in level now, almost 9th so we shall see what happens next...
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: awaken DM golem September 01, 2010, 08:45:41 PM
Th Th ... some other points ...

In 1e and 2e there was such a thing as terminal classes.
You could take Elf to level 8 maximum, in class Y.
You could take Halfling to level 4 in Class Z, but uncapped if a Thief.

WHY ?
No that's the wrong question. It's even wrong to ask the question.
Gygax said so, and so it was ... and it was "good".

3.0e and 3.5e continue this History, in the thinnest of fashions.
Having a "favored" class is this leftover.
4e goes ahead and ditches the idea altogether (but it has it's own quirks).

So anyways ...
if you accept the claims made in the previous posts,
about the power level of Core Wiz or Cleric or Druid 20,
then it doesn't really matter what kind of multiclass fun / nonsense happens.

If the DM insists on keeping it,
well you can either build around it,
which requires having a good idea how it works ...
[tangent] the math gets complicated in a hurry, and the rules have never been fully figured out [/tangent]
or
ignore it completely and make a good build of less multi-wacky stuff.

Pixie = carnivore ...  :rollseyes
Pixie has a rather good racial hd. You could always give it that.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Benly September 01, 2010, 08:52:01 PM
The best counterargument I can think of to the XP penalties for PrCs specifically (rather than the whole ToB argument) is to point out that with XP penalties applied to PrCs anyone taking a PrC the most obvious, normal, and books-recommended way (five or more levels of a base class, then start a PrC) will take an immediate XP penalty.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: weenog September 01, 2010, 09:03:13 PM
The best counterargument I can think of to the XP penalties for PrCs specifically (rather than the whole ToB argument) is to point out that with XP penalties applied to PrCs anyone taking a PrC the most obvious, normal, and books-recommended way (five or more levels of a base class, then start a PrC) will take an immediate XP penalty.

That's sane, but what happens when it turns out you're dealing with the sort of mindset that thinks taking a PrC should impose an immediate XP penalty, assuming PrCs are all inherently overpowered just for being prestigious, and further assuming that the XP penalty is the counterbalance for that?
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: McPoyo September 01, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
The best counterargument I can think of to the XP penalties for PrCs specifically (rather than the whole ToB argument) is to point out that with XP penalties applied to PrCs anyone taking a PrC the most obvious, normal, and books-recommended way (five or more levels of a base class, then start a PrC) will take an immediate XP penalty.
prcs aren't involved for penalties. It only involves base classes.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Benly September 01, 2010, 09:08:36 PM
The best counterargument I can think of to the XP penalties for PrCs specifically (rather than the whole ToB argument) is to point out that with XP penalties applied to PrCs anyone taking a PrC the most obvious, normal, and books-recommended way (five or more levels of a base class, then start a PrC) will take an immediate XP penalty.
prcs aren't involved for penalties. It only involves base classes.

In the OP's first few posts:

So.  My question is, how do xp penatlies apply or not to dual progression classes.  Do prestige classes apply against the multiclassing limit?  For example does Hellfire warlock still count as warlock? 
Can you please give me some pager numbers to reference to my group, particularly for the prestige class exemption (when I asked them they said Prestige classes count...)
I like the customization that free multiclassing allows including dips but the DM is of the view that the xp penalties were specifically made to penalize people for dipping.

The OP was asking for help convincing his playgroup that PrCs don't count against multiclassing. I am offering a very simple example which makes clear that counting PrCs for multiclassing penalties makes no sense. I'm not sure how you got from this the idea that I believe PrCs are supposed to count for multiclass penalties.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Thistledown Thurbertaut September 01, 2010, 09:18:38 PM
Well I can see the DM countering that if you want a PrC with no penalties then you have to play a race for whom your base class is favored...

You all have been a great help thanks!

I'll let y'all know what his response is after I show him this thread...
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: McPoyo September 01, 2010, 10:23:52 PM
The best counterargument I can think of to the XP penalties for PrCs specifically (rather than the whole ToB argument) is to point out that with XP penalties applied to PrCs anyone taking a PrC the most obvious, normal, and books-recommended way (five or more levels of a base class, then start a PrC) will take an immediate XP penalty.
prcs aren't involved for penalties. It only involves base classes.

In the OP's first few posts:

So.  My question is, how do xp penatlies apply or not to dual progression classes.  Do prestige classes apply against the multiclassing limit?  For example does Hellfire warlock still count as warlock? 
Can you please give me some pager numbers to reference to my group, particularly for the prestige class exemption (when I asked them they said Prestige classes count...)
I like the customization that free multiclassing allows including dips but the DM is of the view that the xp penalties were specifically made to penalize people for dipping.

The OP was asking for help convincing his playgroup that PrCs don't count against multiclassing. I am offering a very simple example which makes clear that counting PrCs for multiclassing penalties makes no sense. I'm not sure how you got from this the idea that I believe PrCs are supposed to count for multiclass penalties.
I misread your post :P

Also, that was already answered in page one.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: fuinjutsu September 02, 2010, 12:19:35 AM
So far no one has said anything that negates his assertion that ToB makes core melee classes obsolete.

They are supposed to.  Because you need to splatbook pretty heavily to make a Paladin not suck horribly, and Barbarian and Monk builds typically never have more than 5 and 2 levels of reach respectively - Prc's are just that much better that what the base class gives.  And there are no Fighter builds, just builds that dip two levels of Fighter for bonus feats.

The simple matter is that even with other players spending their resources to buff him, a straight Fighter is STILL less useful in combat than many other classes' animal buddies.

NOTE: THE KEY RESOURCE IN D&D IS NOT STAT BONUSES, MONEY, XP, SPELLS, OR HP.  THE KEY RESOURCE IS EFFECTIVE ACTIONS.

You get 1 full round or 1 move and 1 standard action per round.  You have to use them effectively as possible.  This is why spellcasters automatically win over non-spellcasters in combat from level 5 on.  Because they have spells that "hurt the enemy or help my party, 100% of the time", while nonspellcasters have to hope they roll high on attack rolls or skill/attribute checks.

A caster can play without any action waste, or play with a chance of action waster for higher potential gains.  Noncasters always suffer action waste at least some of the time, and typically for less effect even when they succeed.

TOB effectively allows melee casters.  Which puts everyone on more even footing.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: The_Mad_Linguist September 02, 2010, 03:58:35 AM
No, the key resource is MONEY.

Specifically REAL WORLD MONEY.

With REAL MONEY you can go to the STORE and at the STORE you can buy REAL PIZZA.

PIZZA you can serve to your DM and he will be GRATEFUL and NO LONGER HUNGRY.

And if your DM is SATIATED, you will end up with ALL THE LEVELS.  ALL OF THEM.

And then you will be HAPPY and HAVE PIZZA.
: Re: XP Penalties and Dual Progression
: Sinfire Titan September 02, 2010, 05:59:53 AM
No, the key resource is MONEY.

Specifically REAL WORLD MONEY.

With REAL MONEY you can go to the STORE and at the STORE you can buy REAL PIZZA.

PIZZA you can serve to your DM and he will be GRATEFUL and NO LONGER HUNGRY.

And if your DM is SATIATED, you will end up with ALL THE LEVELS.  ALL OF THEM.

And then you will be HAPPY and HAVE PIZZA.

:rofl