Author Topic: An idea on multiclassing.  (Read 66142 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #200 on: October 11, 2008, 12:18:24 PM »
Elennsar, please don't make us start over the whole "D&D should not be classless" debate. Every now and again we get to that point. Let's just continue with the assumption D&D works on a class system and move on.

Quote
The big differences are that:
1. In Tome of Battle every maneuver has limited uses each round and pretty much just does variations of damage and maybe a special effect thrown in far too late (compared to spellcasters) to make a difference, and
2. Warrior-type commands in FFT are not only FREE TO USE but have much longer lasting effect or even just as good effects as spells themselves, but with much shorter range and usually only 1 target. You can do these all day. No per-encounter.

ToB characters still have much better options than the average Fighter. They don't always border the quasi-magical, either. As for per-encounter, that's what Adaptative Style and the recovery mechanics are for. I recall the main reason my DM usually gets pissed at ToB is because of Shadow Jaunt - the maneuver that lets you Dimension Door 50 feet as a move action.

Quote
I consider Fighter bonus feats the wrong way to go about gaining class features.
Feats should provide scaling bonuses, or more options as a character levels (at certain points), but not actual combat routines.
Maneuvers were almost there... almost there... but still not implemented the way I want them to.
Seriously, Fighters need the FFT fix wherein you pick your command such as "Attack" and it does the standard D&D "I move and attack", or you can dip in to your specially readied custom list to do an "Armor Break" or "Mind Break" move, or maybe pull out a "Teleport" or "Silence" as needed since you've learned those on the side.

I agree. The main thing about Fighter versus Mage in FFT, though: the fighter usually deals more damage than the mage on average, among other things because the mage has a reduced hit chance. When buffs aren't always assumed to work (Haste is a pretty big one in FFT), they suddenly drop somewhat in importance. Part of my adaptation of the Brave/Faith system included the thought that you should always save against buffs. If you passed, you got buffed. If you failed, the spell failed. This prevents a Wizard from being an utter melee monster by buffing himself AND tossing impossible DC save or dies on top of that.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #201 on: October 11, 2008, 12:26:33 PM »
Kuro, don't mistake asking whether or not classes are actually useful for saying "classes are bad! We should drop them!".

They should not be kept purely because D&D up until now has used them. If they work? Great! If they don't? Then why are we using them -other- than tradition?

I'd be perfectly willing to use them if it wasn't for the fact that having hundreds of classes (FF style or any other) is not appealing, and having a dozen classes may result in "hey, we want this class too!" over and over again if its a "try do multiple settings".

Its too much to keep track of, at best.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

ZeroSum

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #202 on: October 11, 2008, 01:27:53 PM »
I'd like to see a better argument then "but it'd be fun!" can provide
If fun isn't the number one priority for you and your players then I think you and I don't share enough common ground to come to an agreement.  That said, I believe fun should always be the number one priority in all games because, at its essence, a game is a means to have fun.  The rules just tell you how, but if everyone agrees something else would be more fun there's no reason to tie yourself down by the rules.  For example, the rules of Monopoly don't state that landing on Free Parking gives you any bonus but a lot of people just use that to redistribute cash.

Quote
There's "special' and then there's nigh (or actually) unique. Being a female samurai is (at most) unusual. Being a female Templar (as in the historical order) is unique, if not outright literally impossible.
So in a game system where the characters are aspiring to become legendary you don't want them to become legendary?

Quote
As for Middle-Earth: Read the books with some actual attention to what things are, not to "hey its magic so obviously its a wizard". Gandalf and the others are outsiders. Wizards in an entirely seperate sense than a class. The elves meanwhile are not using magic in any but the most low level sense (despite the fact they're beings not to be taken lightly, so saying "they're just low level" is false.)
Well, I'm not well-versed in Tolkien and I have no desire to be, really.  But, if a world has DMPCs that are incapable of being expressed in D&D well, there's not much wrong there since the DM can just fiat those.  New Racial feats, Alternate Class Features, Racial Prestige or Paragon classes can take care of that.  Sure, it takes some work, but anything can be built with some work.  At its core, Gandalf manipulates magic, the elves are good at archery and Aragorn is a man of the wilderness.

Quote
The circumstances that are the reason why some guy invented a phallic symbol for the upper class burghers do not exist. Developing a rapier would be developing a waste of steel.
I'm missing something here.  What's preventing someone, anyone, in your setting from developing rapier fighting?  It might take years, but people have in the past and will in the future come up with new ways of pounding the crap out of each other.  So why can't anyone do it in your setting?  Why can't one of your PCs?

Quote
I don't care how awesome Inigo is (In my book, somewhere more awesome than Gawain)...this is not the setting for him. If you want to play in the setting, one of the things you're accepted is that playing him and playing in this setting are mutually exclusive.
Because his fighting style hasn't been developed?  I still don't see why it's impossible for someone to develop it.  I mean it's not some extreme concept that would shake the very foundations of reality, it's just a fighting style.

Quote
As for huscarls: http://www.regia.org/huscarl.htm Specifically: "Huscarls could best be described as ministers and attendants upon the king (or eorl) who specialised in, but were not limited to, war." Being a knight is an entirely seperate role. Now, learning to fight with sword-shield/lance more on horseback as opposed to two-handed axe/sword-shield on foot, that would presumably be doable, but that wasn't the point. Moving on.
They're fighters who are in service to some liege.  A knight is, surprise, surprise, a fighter in service to some liege.  There's no reason that a huscarl couldn't, if he were moved to another realm, learn to be a knight.  He might not want to.  He might not be good at it at first.  He might not be suited to it.  But he could, if he wanted to, learn it.

Quote
I don't want to reward "hey I'm really good at using this system".
Then why play a skill-based game?  Why not just play a luck-based game like Chutes and Ladders instead?

Quote
Anyone who's good at (ab)using the game system will benefit from that whatever the rules are. So I do not want to encourage doing so still further.
A necessary evil of making rules where people can do better if they play well -- people will do better if they play well.  You want to punish good play?  You want to make good play irrelevant?  What's the point?

Quote
Come up with a believable (however uncommon) character that is fun, interesting, and cool.
But not unique.  Because it's impossible for living legends (which is what PCs are supposed to be, eventually) to be unique.

Quote
Ideally, the game system will give you interesting things to do with your interesting person. Will you necessarily be the best Dragonslayer? No.
I'm not saying every PC should be best at everything, just that if they want to do something different from normal they shouldn't be punished for creativity and desire.

Quote
As for class: What's wrong with class as a lifelong commitment?
Because it means that 5 classes equate to 5 primary builds.  So if you want to do something that's not within one of the 5 classes you need a new class or you can't do it.  Again, we're at the options and fun problem.

Quote
If you just want "a set of skills that anyone can learn", then why have classes?
Because classes are a useful way to encapsulate a generally connected set of skills.  Choosing to learn to be an archer doesn't mean you have to learn to be the best archer.  You can always quit learning archery as your primary goal and then use those skills to help you in another endeavor.

Quote
I don't mind a cleric who uses archery, but if he wants to be a great archer, as opposed to a cleric who prefers a bow to a blade, then that would require focusing on that...which doesn't allow for "being a cleric".
But he doesn't want to be a great archer and he doesn't want to be a Cleric who happens to use a bow -- He wants to be a Cleric who focuses his Divine power towards using archery to smite foes.  He'll find synergy between the tools his god gives him and the skills the rest of the world can teach him.

Quote
Being a member of a class means that you're not just "a guy who prefers swords to bows" or "a guy who can heal people" or "a guy who fights evil with moral conviction".
In essence, yes, it is.  A Cleric is a Cleric because he studies what his god teaches.  No more.  No less.  Sure, maybe there exists a god in your world so jealous that he'll shut off any Cleric that stops exclusively studying as a Cleric but that doesn't mean every god in every world has to be like that.

Quote
Because if you can multiclass freely, you basically are playing one of two things:
1) (Ab)use the system for the most powerful combination of abilities.
Which is any different from seeking power in any other way how?  You might as well just ban the most powerful class since use of it must be abuse of the system for the most powerful combination of abilities.  (Since when you ban combinations of classes all you've got left is the combination of abilities within the class.)
Quote
2) My character has a collection of (unconventional) abilities.
Which is a most horrible thing because as we know all PCs are boring, cookie-cutter implementations of the base classes, equivalent in every way to how WotC made the most simple class progression.

Quote
If the latter, I really don't get why having "Fighter" and "Cleric" helps you build the character. You'd be better off with "Okay, you have 200 points, divide them as you see fit."
Like I said, because they link related abilities into a progression.  I mean, yeah, I guess you could rewrite it all as classless, but that's a ton of work.  Levels prevent someone from getting full BAB as well as full spell progression no matter what you give up.  As it is, the best you can do, I believe, is 18 CL/18 BAB though it might be lower.  The opportunity cost to get that is pretty high, too.

Quote
If the former, I have no sympathy for you.
Because you want to play a skill-free game, which D&D is not and never was supposed to be.  If you remove skill it's pretty much just the DM's story time.  Then again, maybe that's what you want?

Quote
Whether you are the greatest roleplayer ever or not, you're using the system not as a way to construct the character you always wanted to play, in the sense of role play, but to construct an unbeatable character.
There's a difference between wanting to make a strong character for its own sake -- you'd always just make Pun-Pun or Diplomancer or Omnifiscer if that was your goal.  You'd never really make a Hobbit-Knight if you just wanted the strongest character.  However, if your goal is to just be the best Hobbit-Knight you could be then you're just looking at a Halfling Outrider.  Maybe with a Paladin base, maybe not if you don't want to depend on a god or crusade.

Quote
Even if you can roleplay that fabulously, you're saying roleplaying is secondary (close or distant depending).
On the contrary, if you choose to play not Pun-Pun or other Tier -1 creations then you're doing it either because you'd find it unfun to play a Tier -1 character or you'd rather play something that fits your character concept.  Either way, playing a Halfling Outrider that's been optimized, maybe with a Ranger/Paladin base to stack Special Mount and Animal Companion, does not require you to be doing so merely for power's sake.

Quote
If you want to become an assassin, that's an option...the fact that your martial training will fade as you focus elsewhere is the price you pay.
It's a false dichotomy.  An assassin, someone trained to kill stealthily, is not going to lose his combat prowess merely because he's killing people quietly.  He might not be as effective in a stand up, knock down fight with someone who didn't care about stealth, and he might not be able to deal with a whole battalion of enemy soldiers but he doesn't forget how to fight.

Quote
"an assassin/fighter is better than a fighter and as good as an assassin" means that there's no reason to play either a "pure" assassin or a a "pure" fighter.
Unless there are high-level fighter abilities that you'd rather have than the high-level assassin abilities or vice versa.  And "better" here doesn't mean "a Fighter 5/Assassin 5 does everything a Fighter 10 would do plus everything an Assassin 5 can do" but it could, because Fighter is a good base for an Assassin, mean "a Fighter 5/Assassin 5 does everything a Fighter 7 would do plus everything an Assassin 5 can do".

Quote
Role playing games are about playing a role. A gallant knight is a role. A guy who can slay dragons with his penis is not a role. It may be part of the role you're playing, but it isn't a role.
A gallant knight is an archetype.  A gallant knight who slays dragons with his penis is an implementation of that archetype.  Pretending to be the gallant knight who slays dragons with his penis is roleplaying as much as pretending to be a high wizard who "advises" kings with enchantment magic is roleplaying.  If your group wants to say "No Sir Hump-a-Lumps" then that's their prerogative, but just because you say "Sir Hump-a-Lump is unreasonable" doesn't mean everyone has to agree.  And, because there are groups that would like a Sir Hump-a-Lump, means that it's a good thing if the rules can make that happen, and the rules will either have generic, abstract options that you can put together to make Sir Hump-a-Lump through multiclassing and advantageous feat selection or the rules need a Sir Hump-a-Lump class, the Obscene Offender or something.  Replace Sir Hump-a-Lump with any odd, but not necessarily impossible or common character concept, obviously.

Quote
Classes work better (than otherwise) in a specific setting, since you can design classes for that setting. In a generic system, they're not so good, because there's a thousand possible things that people can play, even if not in a given system, and even with free multiclassing, you have to work within the fact the classes don't necessarily have what abilities or ability you want.
That's the point of a moderately generic system -- that you don't have to tailor base classes for every setting.  Only the setting concepts that can't be made with base classes get tailored -- and those get tailored as prestige classes.  Red Wizard of Thay, Knight of the Rose, etc.

Quote
If we're trying to represent "every possible character", only extremely flexible and extremely customizable classes, however much or little multiclassing goes on, are going to be able to do that at all. And classes that wide open...why have classes?
Because it's easier to comprehend 5 base classes than it is to comprehend the 50 or more abilities they represent.

So, using D&D 3.5 Core as is, I want to make a "ninja".  What do I think a "ninja" should be?  Martial combatant who gains a combat advantage through stealth and deception but also has a sense for the wild and is capable of tracking down a target they've been sent to kill.  (If using the word "ninja" here trips you up, replace it with "gaggleheim" and it'll make more sense.)  Well, Fighter isn't a very stealth-oriented class, so I'm not going to be straight Fighter.  Rogue isn't a very martial class, so I'm not going to be a straight Rogue.  Ranger doesn't really have the trickery and deception that I want, so I can't really justify straight Ranger.  Monk isn't very martial and his stealth doesn't give him a combat advantage.  The other classes are even worse.

So I'm thinking I need some Rogue because the combat advantage through stealth thing is spot on.  I need some Fighter or Ranger to make myself a better martial combatant.  I'll toss out Monk because it doesn't add anything the other classes can't add.  (Oh no, a power decision...  For shame.)

So this is going to be in a campaign starting at 1st and running through 6th, for example sake, so I have 6 levels to play with.  Well, Rangers get an animal companion and spellcasting at 4th level, neither of which I really want or need.  However, they get Tracking and wilderness capability.  Also, their 2nd level is useful if I wanted to be a TWF or archery "ninja", so I'll keep Ranger 2 in mind.  Though thematically Endurance makes sense for my character it's actually a useless ability so I'll toss it out since in a world where sleeping in your armor isn't very useful and you're very likely to be able to march onward to infinity why would a successful "ninja" learn that ability, and I want to be a successful "ninja", not a corpse.

I need some Rogue levels and Fighters don't learn anything for their 3rd level, so I'll take, at most 2 Fighter levels.  Rogues, however, shouldn't really stop at Rogue 2, so now I'm looking at at most 1 Fighter level and 3 or 4 Rogue levels.  Well, now here comes a roleplay decision:  Do I want more martial training (an extra [Fighter] feat) or more stealth training (Uncanny Dodge, Rogue skills)?  Well, I want my "ninja" to be stealthier.  So I'll do Rogue 4/Ranger 2 and fight with two short swords because I think it'd look cool.

Look, I had to make up a "ninja" class because I couldn't work it out with the generic base classes that don't have any possible way of combining to make a setting-specific idea, proving that multiclassing is useless and should never be used ever for any purpose except by people trying to make the game unfun for everyone.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #203 on: October 11, 2008, 02:13:46 PM »
Zero:

1) If you can only have fun with something that doesn't really make sense/fit in the setting/pass my personal biases (asking me to DM over a campaign full of rogues is a terrible idea, for instance. Doesn't mean I want to stop them in general, but don't ask for it when you're accepting me DMing), you need help.


2) Being a legend doesn't require you to be a totally unique character. Beowulf fights basically similarly to most people he runs into, he does better, but he's not unique in that regard.


3) If you're not familiar with the setting or interested in becoming familiar, don't use it as an example.

4) The fact that the reasons that justified the development of the rapier don't exist, therefore you'd be making a weapon of limited usefulness. And would suffer accordingly if you used it. So, there's no motivation. "Rapiers are cool!" is not applicable.


5) See above. Sure, if you want to develop a fighting style that will be brutally slaughtered, you're welcome to do so...but don't moan when it happens.

6) Assuming that there's a difference between "a warrior who got 'sir' before his name" and "knightly abilities", then there is a gap. If its just a matter of "Sir Jon Axelsson" instead of "Jon Axelsson", be my guest.


7) I want to reward character skill. Not player ability to master the rules.

8) Above.


9) Unique means unique. Most PCs are not one-in-infinite. One in millions is rare enough level of ability. One in tens of thousands is enough that you'd usually stand out, after all.


10) Not being allowed to do something is not being "punished for it". Its saying that this isn't one of the available options. Otherwise, you're "punished" whenever you play in Rokugan for the fact you can't play an elven Jedi.

Quote
As for class: What's wrong with class as a lifelong commitment?
Because it means that 5 classes equate to 5 primary builds.  So if you want to do something that's not within one of the 5 classes you need a new class or you can't do it.  Again, we're at the options and fun problem.

11) I can think of four things off the top of my head, six depending on how you want to count it, for a Fighter, without any trouble.

Sword/axe guy. Spear guy. Archer guy. Guy on horseback with one of the above. Hell, seven (or five) if "guy with more than one of the above" counts.

12) And you can deal with the fact that unless you do focus on being an archer, your skills will fade with lack of time to practice and keep them honed as you focus elsewhere.

13) And subject to the limitations of a cleric to do so (Since he's unable to devote the time to fully mastering archery), that's fine. Assuming such powers exist (not necessarily a given, though I'm not against them existing).

14) A cleric is a Cleric (note capitalization is used, by me at least, to mean the class) because he's dedicated to learning a particular set of things, not just because he prays to his god and gets answers. Hell, a commoner could be a perfectly fine priest if that's prestiyl as you want to be.

If you want to be a priest who is rewarded beyond that, you have to accept that you'll be rather busy with what your god wants you to become as part of doing his work.

15) I'm against having a most powerful class. All options should be as close to equal as reasonable (fighting with a dagger might be a bad idea, but that'd be spelled out to begin with).

16) There's a reason "conventional" is what it is, as opposed to something else. If instead of using sword and shield, using axe and shield worked better, there wouldn't be the standard of sword-and-shield. Beyond that, most people learn what is the normal way of doing things. PCs are better than most people, but that doesn't make them weird "mutants" (in the sense yours truly is a mutant as an autistic).

17) Having a limited number of points, and being unable to buy both, or having a rule that its just not possible to do both (as stated, not enough time/energy to keep honed).

18) As stated, I want to reward character skill. Not player skill. "I can build awesomely powerful characters!" is great in a game where that's the goal...to build the most powerful person possible and win all the time. That's not a rpg.

19) And if there are no hobbit knights, at all, ever? (Say, a racial allergy of equines.) Or a racial pyschological sense its "better" to fight on the ground with your own two feet firmly planted on the soil.

20) The "that" in question is the optimized character.

21) Not really, no. If you focus on learning the ways of the assassin and keeping your skills at that sharp, your ability in unrelated abilities will fade because you're simply not able to mantain it.

22) The statement assumes that you do what fighters do better this way than as a pure fighter. If not, disregard. Similarly, you do things you do as an assassin better.

23) I'm torn between giving you fu and just giggling at calling the guy Sir Hump-a-Lump.

No room for other comments.

24) The problem is that D&D isn't moderately generic. Its specifically high fantasy with particular assumptions on how human abilities work (as in, nonmagical power), chi, magic, and other races. d20 might be generic. D&D is not.

25) I'm reasonably sure that GURPS, in this particular sense, is not hard to understand. Picking GURPS as the classless system I know best, not as the best.

Ninja is fine here. Its a recognizable word for what you mean.

As for tossing out monk: If it doesn't fit him to have monk levels, he shouldn't have monk levels. If it does fit, they should be added. (So far I agree on what levels to take, incidently).

26) Multiclassing should not be done simply to allow you to play whatever it is you want regardless of whether or not it fits in with the setting. This is both a fluff and crunch statement.

Jedi with lightsabers and how effective they are in the films (or books for that matter) would be rather unbalanced, not to mention out of place, in my setting.


Whew. Long post.  Hope all of this is clear (both my answers and the post). If anything seems unclear or fishy, please ask.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

ZeroSum

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #204 on: October 11, 2008, 03:57:44 PM »
Please at least leave my response in the quotes so I know what you're responding to.  It's tough to backtrack and figure out what each of your points references, especially since I didn't number mine.

1) If you can only have fun with something that doesn't really make sense/fit in the setting/pass my personal biases, you need help.
I'm not saying that you have to allow everything, just that there should be a better reason than "I don't feel like it" to disallow it.  If it'd cause a serious problem then that's up to your group to decide however that decision gets made in your group.

Quote
Doesn't mean I want to stop them in general
That's exactly what you're saying when you say the system (not the setting) shouldn't support multiclassing.

Quote
2) Being a legend doesn't require you to be a totally unique character. Beowulf fights basically similarly to most people he runs into, he does better, but he's not unique in that regard.
He's not necessarily but Achilles most definitely was.  Just because not all legends are unique doesn't mean none of them can be.  Being uniquely skilled in some regard is a legendary feat.

Quote
3) If you're not familiar with the setting or interested in becoming familiar, don't use it as an example.
I was just trying to follow up on what (I think) you introduced.

Quote
4) The fact that the reasons that justified the development of the rapier don't exist, therefore you'd be making a weapon of limited usefulness. And would suffer accordingly if you used it. So, there's no motivation.

5) See above. Sure, if you want to develop a fighting style that will be brutally slaughtered, you're welcome to do so...but don't moan when it happens.
People don't expose themselves in a way that pointy weapons are useful?  Everyone has (or most armor provides) DR/Bludgeoning or Slashing then?  That's a setting decision that the player and his character would have to figure out how to deal with.  However, if your player feels like making a character commit suicide why stop him through DM fiat?  Why not just let him live in the world and make his way or not?

Quote
6) Assuming that there's a difference between "a warrior who got 'sir' before his name" and "knightly abilities", then there is a gap.
Then what are those "knightly abilities" that a huscarl is fundamentally incapable of learning?  Horsemanship?  I think he can ride one.  Maybe his Dex isn't very good and he started with 0 ranks in ride because he's a Str/Con axe-fighter build, but he can learn by investing future skill points into Ride and future wealth into +Dex items.

Quote
7) I want to reward character skill. Not player ability to master the rules.
What's character skill?  Character skills are Hide, Listen, Spot, Appraise, etc.  What is player skill except rules mastery?  What do you want to reward?

Quote
9) Unique means unique. Most PCs are not one-in-infinite. One in millions is rare enough level of ability. One in tens of thousands is enough that you'd usually stand out, after all.
So given that your imagination is your limitation, you'd rather be Pascal Van Hentenryck than Alan Turing?

Quote
10) Not being allowed to do something is not being "punished for it". Its saying that this isn't one of the available options. Otherwise, you're "punished" whenever you play in Rokugan for the fact you can't play an elven Jedi.
The question was what do you want to do good character building skill?  You want to make character building skill irrelevant so that if I roll the dice to see if I'm a Wizard or a Rogue or a Commoner with Spot or Appraise or Craft (Paper) I'm equal in ability?  How is that fun?

Quote
11) I can think of four things off the top of my head, six depending on how you want to count it, for a Fighter, without any trouble.

Sword/axe guy. Spear guy. Archer guy. Guy on horseback with one of the above. Hell, seven (or five) if "guy with more than one of the above" counts.
That's not what I meant.  Look at my "ninja" example instead.  "Ninja" is something you can't do in core without multiclassing but it's pretty simple once you multiclass.

Quote
12) And you can deal with the fact that unless you do focus on being an archer, your skills will fade with lack of time to practice and keep them honed as you focus elsewhere.
Why do skills have to fade?  Where's the fun in that?  Oh crap, I didn't take Wizard 10.  Now I can't cast my 5th level spells anymore because despite the fact that I cast Wall of Force every day in battle is meaningless.  How is that logical?  Oh crap, I took Weapon Focus(Longsword) as my bonus feat and I've forgotten how to make a Far Shot despite the fact ninety percent of the time I'm shooting at my enemies a half mile away.  Great idea!

Quote
13) And subject to the limitations of a cleric to do so (Since he's unable to devote the time to fully mastering archery), that's fine. Assuming such powers exist (not necessarily a given, though I'm not against them existing).
And the fact that he's studied archery for a level and took Fighter 1 for the Point Blank Shot feat means he doesn't have enough divine power to call forth a Blade Barrier.  There is a trade off already -- there's no need to make it worse.

Quote
14) A cleric is a Cleric (note capitalization is used, by me at least, to mean the class) because he's dedicated to learning a particular set of things, not just because he prays to his god and gets answers. Hell, a commoner could be a perfectly fine priest if that's priestly as you want to be.
A cleric is a Cleric because his god gave him his divine favor and the cleric studied to gain that power.  He invested in it.  It doesn't mean a Cleric can't also focus elsewhere and retain his god's blessing.  Like I said, a jealous god might require it, but not every god has to be jealous.

Quote
If you want to be a priest who is rewarded beyond that, you have to accept that you'll be rather busy with what your god wants you to become as part of doing his work.
And maybe you can do your god's work by Fighting with a bow.  Again and again, why does a Cleric have to be punished for also being a Fighter?  If I'm a Carpenter and start studying Masonry do I become a worse Carpenter even though I'm now building wooden decks with stone walls around them?

Quote
15) I'm against having a most powerful class. All options should be as close to equal as reasonable (fighting with a dagger might be a bad idea, but that'd be spelled out to begin with).
Right, but that's impossible.  A class will be most powerful because the system is too complex to make it fun and equal.  Therefore, obviously anyone who chooses the most powerful class is doing so to win the game, not to make a realistic character and thus that class must be banned.  But then you just go onto the next most powerful class.

Quote
16) There's a reason "conventional" is what it is, as opposed to something else. If instead of using sword and shield, using axe and shield worked better, there wouldn't be the standard of sword-and-shield.
At one point in history the Queen's Gambit was a great opening in chess and was the standard.  However, someone figured out how to make the Ruy Lopez perform better.  And that got beaten by the Dragon.  Conventional's only conventional until someone finds its weakness, which could take a long time.  Maybe one of the PCs is the one to find that weakness.

Quote
Beyond that, most people learn what is the normal way of doing things. PCs are better than most people, but that doesn't make them weird "mutants" (in the sense yours truly is a mutant as an autistic).
But they could be a weird mutant!  They could be an absurdly unlikely combination!  That could be more fun than just "better than average."  I'm not even saying they have to be all-powerful to be weird, just that they could be weird, whether that gives them a disadvantage, no advantage or a distinct advantage.

Quote
17) Having a limited number of points, and being unable to buy both, or having a rule that its just not possible to do both (as stated, not enough time/energy to keep honed).
So you're left with either arbitrary rules in the supposedly generic system or you end up with Cuddles and Bobo.  Saying "no, you can't" is inelegant and the growth of "no you can't"s will prevent anyone from understanding it all.

Quote
18) As stated, I want to reward character skill. Not player skill. "I can build awesomely powerful characters!" is great in a game where that's the goal...to build the most powerful person possible and win all the time. That's not a rpg.
What's character skill?  Maybe you mean you want to reward making good choices during the game session and not reward making good choices during character building?  If that's the case then how in the world do you intend to balance that?  How do you intend to make that work?  "Here's a list of things you can do.  I know all it really means is you get to choose what your 100 HP and your 15 damage/round looks like but you can be anything.  Except a Hobbit-Knight."

Quote
19) And if there are no hobbit knights, at all, ever? Say, a racial allergy of equines.)
Racial penalty to Ride skill.
Quote
Or a racial psychological sense it's "better" to fight on the ground with your own two feet firmly planted on the soil.
Racial penalty to attack when mounted.  Ridiculed by other hobbits.  There's a reason very few people make Half-Orc Wizards, but the game doesn't say no, the fact that they wouldn't be fun to play does.  If someone thinks it'd be fun to be a Half-Orc Wizard though, why not let your PC do it?

Quote
20) The "that" in question is the optimized character.
So I can't take a character concept and then optimize it and still be primarily roleplaying?  Stormwind Fallacy much?  I can both roleplay and optimize at once.  Period.  That's not debatable.  I could build a combination I think would be fun to play because it has the capabilities I want first then roleplay that.  I could choose a concept and then optimize it and roleplay that.  Just because I do one before the other doesn't mean it was my primary focus, just that I did it in that order.

Quote
21) Not really, no. If you focus on learning the ways of the assassin and keeping your skills at that sharp, your ability in unrelated abilities will fade because you're simply not able to maintain it.
How is being an Assassin unrelated to being a Fighter.  You're still, at your core, physically killing someone and I'm pretty certain you'd be using that ability consistently.

Quote
22) The statement assumes that you do what fighters do better this way than as a pure fighter. If not, disregard. Similarly, you do things you do as an assassin better.
I don't think anyone thinks a Fighter 5/Assassin 5 should be a better Fighter than Fighter 10.  It should, however, be a better Fighter than a Fighter 5.

Quote
23) I'm torn between giving you fu and just giggling at calling the guy Sir Hump-a-Lump.
Do what your hump-stick tells you.

Quote
24) The problem is that D&D isn't moderately generic. Its specifically high fantasy with particular assumptions on how human abilities work (as in, nonmagical power), chi, magic, and other races. d20 might be generic. D&D is not.
That's why I said "moderately".  D&D, however, is fairly generic.  Assuming the overall setting follows high fantasy D&D should be at least 80% fit once you move the fluff about a bit.

Quote
25) I'm reasonably sure that GURPS, in this particular sense, is not hard to understand. Picking GURPS as the classless system I know best, not as the best.
I'm working off a base assumption that the connotation of a class is easier to understand, assimilate and assemble than the denotation of a class.  That is to say, it's easier to think "Rogue" than "Reflex +2, Sneak Attack +1, Trapfinding, BAB +1, Reflex +1, Evasion, Sneak Attack +2, Trap Sense +1, Uncanny Dodge, Sneak Attack +3, ...".  In fact, I had to look up the Rogue class just to figure out what order those first few abilities come in.  However, if I want stealth or combat advantage bonus or trapfinding or evasion in D&D I can assume Rogue is something to check out.  I don't have to remember all the little abilities individually I just have to understand the class.

Quote
26) Multiclassing should not be done simply to allow you to play whatever it is you want regardless of whether or not it fits in with the setting. This is both a fluff and crunch statement.
Then your setting needs specific limits on what you can do, not the system. As far as I understand this was supposed to be a system discussion, not a setting discussion.

Quote
Jedi with lightsabers and how effective they are in the films (or books for that matter) would be rather unbalanced, not to mention out of place, in my setting.
A lightsaber is really just a fancy energy weapon.  (Not necessarily "brilliant energy", but "flaming" has a similar feel.  As does certain spells which could be a part of a use-activated or command-word "weapon".)  So it's not necessarily out of place or unbalancing.  Even if it were then again, that's a setting issue, not a system issue and I'm unclear as to how we got here.

Let's try to trim down this massive debate.  With respect to an action-adventure roleplaying game system rather than the fluff, assuming a class-based system:
  • Do you agree with my assumption that fun is the primary goal of a game?
  • What do you find most fun about this genre of game?  Why do you play this genre instead of any other?
  • Why should or should not a class be a lifelong commitment?
  • Why actively punish someone who strays from a class?
  • Given two classes with an area where they overlap, for example, Fighter plus Rogue equals Assassin, should it be less powerful, as powerful or more powerful (in general, not in a particular field) than one of the two classes alone?

Again, I only want to talk game system here, not fluff for now.  We'll work our way to fluff later.


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #206 on: October 11, 2008, 05:11:50 PM »
Sorry, its a habit. Will try and remember. By the way, all quotes are copying just the plain text.

Quote
I'm not saying that you have to allow everything, just that there should be a better reason than "I don't feel like it" to disallow it.  If it'd cause a serious problem then that's up to your group to decide however that decision gets made in your group.

I don't recall suggesting "I don't like it". Other than, as stated, that asking to play something I'm uncomfortable with DMing (either lack of the knowledge to do it right or discomfort with the concept or any other reason), don't do it. I'm not the only DM out there, after all. I'd certainly hope I'm not even the only one available.


Quote
That's exactly what you're saying when you say the system (not the setting) shouldn't support multiclassing.

Not really, no. If the system is generic, then I'm genuinely not sure that classes help, because there are hundreds if not thousands of posible character types for "all fiction", and certainly scores for "all fantasy". If its not generic, it should have classes that fit the specific situation.

Quote
2) Being a legend doesn't require you to be a totally unique character. Beowulf fights basically similarly to most people he runs into, he does better, but he's not unique in that regard.
He's not necessarily but Achilles most definitely was.  Just because not all legends are unique doesn't mean none of them can be.  Being uniquely skilled in some regard is a legendary feat.

Right. However, "PCs" in general should not be unique. Now, if you wanted to run a PC that was unique in some respect, in a particular campaign, get back to me.

Quote
I was just trying to follow up on what (I think) you introduced.
Right. Just noting that it'd be better all around to stick with things that we don't have to argue on "hey, that's not how X worked" with only one of us knowing the setting in depth. No harm, no foul. Just not as good as it could be, which seems to describe a lot of life.

Quote
Rapier guy. (simplified, but the subject)
Rapiers don't penetrate armor well. Even mail is not particularly vulnerable to piercing weapons. As for DM fiat: In a setting where there's no reason for it to be developed...then there's no reason anyone would get it in their head to do it.

Besides, I'd rather exclude something than deal with character death over stupid (as in stupid character) ideas. Your mileage may vary.

Quote
Then what are those "knightly abilities" that a huscarl is fundamentally incapable of learning?  Horsemanship?  I think he can ride one.  Maybe his Dex isn't very good and he started with 0 ranks in ride because he's a Str/Con axe-fighter build, but he can learn by investing future skill points into Ride and future wealth into +Dex items.

Well, what makes a knight what he is besides the general "warrior in service of a lord"?

Horsemanship, for one thing. And not just "I can ride". A knight is a better rider. A knight is focused on mounted combat and taking advantage of that, less familiar with foot combat. Can't benefit from "crazily awesome" at both, though your warrior is certainly welcome to do either.


Quote
Character skill.
Simple. I want to reward a character who is able. If you're a 5th level character, you're more able than a 3rd level character. If you're Wisdom 14, you're wiser than a Wisdom 10 guy. Etc.

Quote
Ninja guy.
And why exactly is a pure-rogue character unable to do what a ninja does?

That's a specific question I'd like answered. Its a valid point that some things can't be done with the core classes, but I'd like to change them (for other reasons as well as this one), so I'd like to know.

Even though you're not seeing any ninja in my setting, that's this setting. Elsewhere? I've other problems, but I wouldn't want to say everything I dislike doesn't exist. (even in my setting).

Quote
Fading skills.
If you don't practice a skill regularly, it fades. Doesn't mean that you forget how to use Far Shot because you know how to use swords as well, but you're not going to be able to keep up "I'm a great archer" and "I'm a great swordsman'. Mind you, I don't think this should weaken characters asuming you're active in general.

"Fun" or not, there are only 24 hours in the day, and you need at least 6 of rest (including sleep). That leaves 18 hours to practice and have a life outside practice.

Weapon Focus I: Longsword is not enough to cost you anything as an archer. But if you want Weapon Focus III: Longsword, you're going to be a little weaker as an archer because you're not able to keep up with it.

Quote
Tradeoffs.
If you want to say "he studied archery a little", that's NOT a full level of fighter. That's a level of RBAB (Ranged Base Attack Bonus). Maybe a feat.

Quote
Clerics.
As stated, a cleric has to be dedicated to his God(dess?). If you just want "a guy who is a priest/rabbi/whatever", then its not a problem to learn whatever. If you want to play a guy who dedicated his life to his God, you're going to have to be so focused and dedicated. If you want to play a cleric more marital than standard, there's the warrior priest form of the class. But if you want to focus on "I'm a warrior", you're moving away from "I'm a dedicated servant of my God" into "I'm a warrior'.

So while your god won't "punish you", nor will he reward you as much as someone who is fully dedicated to Him.

Quote
And maybe you can do your god's work by Fighting with a bow.  Again and again, why does a Cleric have to be punished for also being a Fighter?  If I'm a Carpenter and start studying Masonry do I become a worse Carpenter even though I'm now building wooden decks with stone walls around them?

Again, he's not "punished". He's focusing on being a Fighter instead. So let's say you're a 10th level cleric when it hits you that you really want to be a better archer. You're already as good as the class permits you.

So you decide to focus harder on being an archer, ignoring other parts of what makes a cleric a cleric and not just any ol' guy "doing his god's work". Some of (but not all of) your cleric levels will eventually be lost, though you can replace them with Fighter (archer) levels fairly easily.

Gods do not bless mortals with power lightly.

As for carpenters: As stated, you're unable to keep both skills honed to a fine edge. Not all skills demand exclusive focus, but the amount of whatever-it-is that makes a full out class does require full out focus. If you want to "know some healing magic", spend a feat. If you want to have all the powers of a Devoted Servant of Heironeous, then you have to have all the dedication to that path that Heironeous demands.

Quote
At one point in history the Queen's Gambit was a great opening in chess and was the standard.  However, someone figured out how to make the Ruy Lopez perform better.  And that got beaten by the Dragon.  Conventional's only conventional until someone finds its weakness, which could take a long time.  Maybe one of the PCs is the one to find that weakness

And maybe not.

Quote
But they could be a weird mutant!  They could be an absurdly unlikely combination!  That could be more fun than just "better than average."  I'm not even saying they have to be all-powerful to be weird, just that they could be weird, whether that gives them a disadvantage, no advantage or a distinct advantage.

Example statistic (I think I'm remembering the percent right): About 10% of people are left handed. That means the vast majority of people should be left handed, including PCs in that "people" category.

Note, in this particular case, I'd prefer right handed characters, I don't really care.

I'm just using it as something I have a rough idea on how uncommon it is.  For purposes of my sanity, no characters can have Asperger's syndrome. (Unless the player does...as someone who has it, I can barely explain it. Understanding all the quirky fucked up foibles...the good and the bad ones...is something we're not there yet on. When we are, consider this limitation removed.).

Quote
What's character skill?  Maybe you mean you want to reward making good choices during the game session and not reward making good choices during character building?  If that's the case then how in the world do you intend to balance that?  How do you intend to make that work?  "Here's a list of things you can do.  I know all it really means is you get to choose what your 100 HP and your 15 damage/round looks like but you can be anything.  Except a Hobbit-Knight."

As stated in an earlier part of this post. I want to reward the fact that the character is wise, whether or not the player is. I don't want to reward "how can I build the best character".

One unbalanced thing I do want to reward is the Ability to do Somethng Amazingly Awesome. Like "25 xp for making the DM laugh", but more extreme. IC or OOC, someone who can come up with something that is just "Whoa. That is the most awesome thing ever." deserves something lasting to show for it, even if its just a sloppily drawn star on their character sheet.

Quote
Hobbit knights.


Or saying "No, hobbits do not become knights." A race which is afraid of water is not going to produce sailors.

A race afraid of horses will not produce knights.

Now, in most settings, one should go for "less good at" as much as possible, but that's not the point. Some things are literally impossible (a dwarf using a longbow). Some are just improbable (a half-orc monk).

Quote
So I can't take a character concept and then optimize it and still be primarily roleplaying?  Stormwind Fallacy much?  I can both roleplay and optimize at once.  Period.  That's not debatable.  I could build a combination I think would be fun to play because it has the capabilities I want first then roleplay that.  I could choose a concept and then optimize it and roleplay that.  Just because I do one before the other doesn't mean it was my primary focus, just that I did it in that order.

It does mean that you chose a character based not on "fun to roleplay", since presumably you could create a less powerful version or do something else, but on "really powerful".

Quote
How is being an Assassin unrelated to being a Fighter.  You're still, at your core, physically killing someone and I'm pretty certain you'd be using that ability consistently.

The difference between killing someone in a more-or-less fair fight and killing someone by sneaking up on them and stabbing them in the back is rather significant.

Quote
I don't think anyone thinks a Fighter 5/Assassin 5 should be a better Fighter than Fighter 10.  It should, however, be a better Fighter than a Fighter 5.

I disagree. Assuming for the sake of this statement that "Fighter" means a particular set of abilities, rather than generic "I can fight".

Generic "fighting skill" is presumably higher. Fighter skill/s are not. (and the fact that the game has generic fighting skill be all that fighters have is sad and dull).


Quote
Do what your hump-stick tells you.
Right now its telling me to giggle. Because while pretty funny, it isn't really what fu is for.

Sure was tempting there though. Because that was definately one of those You Amused the DM things.
In this case, the other guy in the discussion, but still.


Quote
I'm working off a base assumption that the connotation of a class is easier to understand, assimilate and assemble than the denotation of a class.  That is to say, it's easier to think "Rogue" than "Reflex +2, Sneak Attack +1, Trapfinding, BAB +1, Reflex +1, Evasion, Sneak Attack +2, Trap Sense +1, Uncanny Dodge, Sneak Attack +3, ...".  In fact, I had to look up the Rogue class just to figure out what order those first few abilities come in.  However, if I want stealth or combat advantage bonus or trapfinding or evasion in D&D I can assume Rogue is something to check out.  I don't have to remember all the little abilities individually I just have to understand the class.

If there was "and" in there instead of "or", I'd say that's fine. It ought to be possible to be stealthy without being a Rogue or find traps without being one (especially these two) and evasion...well, I dislike it but that's for other reasons. Those aside, fine to be here.

That's the thing to me. A class should grant special abilities that just being skilled at stuff doesn't. Anyone can have Ride 20. Only someone with Mounted Combat V can ______ (if I think of something, I'll add it).


Quote
Then your setting needs specific limits on what you can do, not the system. As far as I understand this was supposed to be a system discussion, not a setting discussion.

And the system should note that. D&D is at least loosely based on Greyhawk. What classes, races, monsters, deities, and spells it has should be based on that.

Now, having other settings using the same basic rules but different whatever, fine.

Not sure Greyhawk is a good setting to use as the game's base, mind.

In fact, very unsure that it is.

Quote
Let's try to trim down this massive debate.  With respect to an action-adventure roleplaying game system rather than the fluff, assuming a class-based system:

Do you agree with my assumption that fun is the primary goal of a game?
What do you find most fun about this genre of game?  Why do you play this genre instead of any other?
Why should or should not a class be a lifelong commitment?
Why actively punish someone who strays from a class?
Given two classes with an area where they overlap, for example, Fighter plus Rogue equals Assassin, should it be less powerful, as powerful or more powerful (in general, not in a particular field) than one of the two classes alone?

Okay. Answering in order.

1) Yes, but I would not say that "it's fun!" alone means something should be acceptable.

Ideally, something is fun and fitting within the parameters of what's happening. Both are important. Fun is the goal, but if you can only have fun outside the parameters, you need something with a different set.

2) It is the best genre for "interesting people doing interesting things", in regards to individual people. Historical or fictional, other-world or Earth, it allows for people who are interesting and who can do stuff that's interesting and meaningful.

So basically, I do it because its a good way to play asskickers...but asskickers who are interesting, and not just asskickers. Anyone can do a guy with a rapier. Not many people can pull off Inigo.

3) I don't think a class should be a lifelong commitment. But if you want to change classes, I do think that your abilities in the old class should fade as you focus on learning how to be a member of the new. A blackguard overwrites being a paladin, for instance, its not "paladin/blackguard". As for why, already stated.

4) Its not "actively punishing someone" to say that "okay, you choose to be a rogue, your abilities as a fighter are fading and being replaced by your new rogue abilities". Now, if you just lost your fighter abilities and tough luck, that would suck. You'd suddenly drop in character power.

5) I would say about as powerful. A fighter/rogue should not be overall better at "rogue stuff" or "fighter stuff" by being an Assassin. On the other hand, he should not be worse at one other than as one set is focused on the point of waning abilities elsewhere.

Not just "not increasing". If you sit for ten years and never touch a sword, you'll lose your ability as a swordsman.

Unless you're Zorro, and he bribed the DM.

As for fluff: Fluff does relate, but fine by me.




Siggy: Let's just say there are two types of arguements.

"lol u pokemon suk"
"u suk"

And this kind. Anything complicated inevitably becomes long and drawn out. And speaking as someone who is naturally long winded (can't speak for Zero here), everything becomes more complicated. Especially simple things, because Murphey is a dice rigging bastard.


Note (to Zero): Is there a reason you said "action-adventure" and not fantasy? Doesn't matter, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 06:24:54 PM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

ZeroSum

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #207 on: October 11, 2008, 07:59:24 PM »
Sorry this one's so dense.  I formatted it slightly differently so we could retain context.

C-c-c-combo-breaker!
I think that we have some core difference that would need to be worked out to get deeper into that tangent we went off on.  Suffice it to say we disagree on a lot of things because we disagree on a lot of base assumptions and I want to clear that up first.  Hence the trimmed debate.

From now on in this discussion I'm going to use Capital and/or bold when referencing a keyworded game feature like Fighter or Hide.  I'll use brackets only when speaking about feat tags or groups of feat tags that should make sense, such as for [Fighter] or [Wizard] bonus feats.  (There are no [Wizard] feats but Wizards get to select from some small list of feat categories for their Bonus Feats.
Quote from: Z
Do you agree with my assumption that fun is the primary goal of a game?
Quote from: E
1) Yes, but I would not say that "it's fun!" alone means something should be acceptable.
But "it's fun!" should at least get something considered, right?  So if Dylan the DM is running a game of core D&D 3.5 and I say, "Hey, can I do a gunslinger?  I think that'd be fun," do you think D should at least consider it before saying no?
Quote from: E
Ideally, something is fun and fitting within the parameters of what's happening. Both are important. Fun is the goal, but if you can only have fun outside the parameters, you need something with a different set.
And who sets the parameters?  If Rule 0 says the DM can change the rules then Rule -1 says the player can choose not to play.  For example, when I DM I propose a setting then if any of the players want something that I haven't thought of or think something should be removed from the setting we come to an agreement rather than me just saying, "Nope, not gonna do that."
Quote from: Z
What do you find most fun about this genre of game?  Why do you play this genre instead of any other?
Quote from: E
2) It is the best genre for "interesting people doing interesting things", in regards to individual people. Historical or fictional, other-world or Earth, it allows for people who are interesting and who can do stuff that's interesting and meaningful.
I find it interesting that you say "interesting" rather than "amazing" or "special".  So I really want you to answer this question:  If you were playing a physicist would you rather play a character who becomes as well-known as Leonard Kahn or would you rather play a character who becomes as as well-known as Albert Einstein.  Because I gotta say, Leonard Kahn is interesting, but Einstein is amazing.
Quote from: E
So basically, I do it because its a good way to play asskickers...but asskickers who are interesting, and not just asskickers. Anyone can do a guy with a rapier. Not many people can pull off Inigo.
Yes, you'd rather play Inigo than really great swordfighter who is otherwise uninteresting even if they have the same stat block.  This indicates that at some basic level you understand that the stat block is a stat block and the role play is the role play.  So would you rather play Inigo with a stat block of Fighter 10, Focus Rapier, Spec Rapier, Weapon Focus Rapier, Weapon Spec Rapier, Improved Critical Rapier, Expertise, Dodge (which is a boring, sub-optimal build) or would you rather play Inigo with a stat block that includes Swashbuckler and Swordsage and maybe some good duelist prestige class, a build which is less boring and more optimized?
Quote from: Z
Why should or should not a class be a lifelong commitment?
Quote from: E
3) I don't think a class should be a lifelong commitment. But if you want to change classes, I do think that your abilities in the old class should fade as you focus on learning how to be a member of the new. A blackguard overwrites being a paladin, for instance, its not "paladin/blackguard". As for why, already stated.
But what does that add to the game?  Sure, trading Paladin levels for Blackguard levels makes sense and is well backed by both fluff and crunch, but if I'm a Rogue 5 and want to take a level of Fighter does that mean I should become a Rogue 4/Fighter 2?  Or maybe my first Fighter level is free but if I do it again I become a Rogue 4/Fighter3?  How is this a good thing?  Why can't I be a Rogue that starts out 100% Rogue but then becomes 83% Rogue/17% Fighter.  It doesn't mean I've given up being a Rogue entirely for 13.3 fights, just that I've split my attention.
Quote from: Z
Why actively punish someone who strays from a class?
Quote from: E
4) Its not "actively punishing someone" to say that "okay, you choose to be a rogue, your abilities as a fighter are fading and being replaced by your new rogue abilities". Now, if you just lost your fighter abilities and tough luck, that would suck. You'd suddenly drop in character power.
How is it not punishing someone if you take away their abilities?  Just because I never took Rogue 5 I'm going to lose Uncanny Dodge?  Even if I use it every fight where I get caught flat-footed?  What about the Rogue 12 that in all his years never got caught flat-footed?  He never used his Uncanny Dodge ability over the course of 8 levels.  Does that mean he loses it?  When would he lose it then?
Quote from: Z
Given two classes with an area where they overlap, for example, Fighter plus Rogue equals Assassin, should it be less powerful, as powerful or more powerful (in general, not in a particular field) than one of the two classes alone?
Quote from: E
5) I would say about as powerful. A fighter/rogue should not be overall better at "rogue stuff" or "fighter stuff" by being an Assassin. On the other hand, he should not be worse at one other than as one set is focused on the point of waning abilities elsewhere.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.  What I'm asking is simple:  Given that there is logical overlap between Fighter and Rogue when focusing on assassination, (or any other two Classes that have some overlap in abilities, and they all will), should a Fighter 3/Rogue 3, from an overall power level perspective (such as if you were to assign them to tiers), be higher, the same as, or lower than a Fighter 6 or a Rogue 6.  Not talking "fighter stuff" or "rogue stuff" or "assassin stuff".
Quote
Not just "not increasing". If you sit for ten years and never touch a sword, you'll lose your ability as a swordsman.
But characters aren't lifeless when not adventuring.  Maybe Al the Axeman doesn't go hacking the heads off of dragons anymore but Al's the chief of the city guard, he trains his troops, he practices.  He might not be meeting any CR 12 monsters on a daily basis but he's not a vegetable.  You think he should drop from level 12 to level 11 just because the difficulty of his work has tapered off, whether or not he's still active?
Quote from: E
As for fluff: Fluff does relate, but fine by me.
Fluff needs to be divorced from mechanics for two reasons.  One, fluff is supposed to be mutable.  This is why though Fighter exists in Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance they all mean something slightly different.  Two, if fluff is the only thing protecting something from being broken then you've fallen into the area where interpretation of fluff is the only wall between arguments.  So if I make a Lightning Warrior class and the fluff says, "The Lightning Warrior would never do something to hurt an innocent" you'll have person A saying, "Well, that Orc child isn't an innocent because he's innately evil," and person B saying, "It doesn't matter if he's got the [Evil] type, if he hasn't done anything wrong he's innocent."  Then you get into a big stupid RAI vs. RAW debate and everything goes down the tube.

Quote
Anything complicated inevitably becomes long and drawn out.
Only because we keep spawning tangents.
Quote
And speaking as someone who is naturally long winded (can't speak for Zero here), everything becomes more complicated.
I try not to be long winded, I've just found that being complete is more useful in an asynchronous interaction medium.
Quote
Is there a reason you said "action-adventure" and not fantasy? Doesn't matter, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something.
Trying to emphasize that this is MacGyver rather than Law and Order.  Things are fast-paced and full of action, not tedious and full of explanation.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #208 on: October 11, 2008, 08:13:18 PM »
Okay. People?



Shiny Object mode ON!

We're losing focus. Back to the multiclassing discussion, now. If you want to continue arguing between each other, do so in PMs; we could use the space to debate mechanics instead.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


woodenbandman

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #209 on: October 11, 2008, 11:24:55 PM »
We've lost the thread. It's just devolved into "I'm right" "No, I'm Right"

I have to say, though, ZeroSum and everyone else besides Elennsar is right.

Risada

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • Wearing this outfit in the name of SCIENCE!
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #210 on: October 11, 2008, 11:34:23 PM »
We've lost the thread. It's just devolved into "I'm right" "No, I'm Right"

I have to say, though, ZeroSum and everyone else besides Elennsar is right.

I guess you mean....

We've lost the thread again.

ZeroSum

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #211 on: October 12, 2008, 01:47:02 AM »
I'm trying to get a basic set of assumptions so that we can consider the reasons, causes and effects of multiclassing.  Plus, it's Elennsar's thread, so I guess he gets to choose when we've strayed too far from target.

I mean, I can propose a system all day long but Elennsar's just going to disagree because we're not working from the same basis.  If I can get him to agree with my basis then we can get a working system.  However, I'm starting to believe it's not possible to get him to agree with my basic assumptions.  If I come to that conclusion then I'll just abandon the thread since we'll have no way of working it out.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #212 on: October 12, 2008, 02:23:32 AM »
Quote
I mean, I can propose a system all day long but Elennsar's just going to disagree because we're not working from the same basis.  If I can get him to agree with my basis then we can get a working system.  However, I'm starting to believe it's not possible to get him to agree with my basic assumptions.  If I come to that conclusion then I'll just abandon the thread since we'll have no way of working it out.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


ZeroSum

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #213 on: October 12, 2008, 02:46:00 AM »
It's Elennsar's thread.  If you want to go about this debate in another way there's nothing stopping you.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #214 on: October 12, 2008, 03:13:14 AM »
Quote
It's Elennsar's thread.  If you want to go about this debate in another way there's nothing stopping you.

Being the OP gives you no special privilege on directing threads (nothing personal, Elennsar, but I don't think an OP should have that kind of responsibility/power).
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #215 on: October 12, 2008, 05:07:59 AM »
Answering in the order (more or less) I read these.

I agree with ZeroSum here. We need to hammer out what we're working from and go on from there.

This thread isn't "multiclassing". It was originally specifically my idea (offered for commentary) on multiclassing and has become a general what-we-think-we-should-do (since everyone commenting thinks the core system is failing in some respect).

So, if you want a "Multiclassing" thread without any of the arguements, make your own. If you want to take part in hammering out something we can all work from, this is currently the thread to do it in.

I don't have (and don't want) the responsibility/power to dictate anything here. But the "Hey this is off topic guys" belongs to the person who started the topic...and personally, I think that its currently on the desired topic. Said topic:

Multiclassing as is doesn't work very well (For a variety of reasons) and the game classes aren't very good at supporting what we'd like to see (and combining them can cause issues that need to be dealt with).

Anyone who wants a seperate topic, make a seperate thread. This is the one we appear to be discussing at the moment.

As stated, I don't have the power or desire to make anyone do that, but stating that "we need to focus!" on something other than that belongs on other threads.

If Robby gets to dictate (to any degree) what happens in his rebalancing threads, I claim a similar (if lesser) authority to do so in this one.

Either accept the topic is part of this particular thread and contribute here, make another thread and psot there, or just stop complaining.

This is advice, not requirements. I've no interest in holding the thread to "my topic". I just don't think anyone other than the OP has any ability to dictate that.

Suggest? Go for it. Insist? Don't.

Now, to business.

Zero: Dense is fine. If I have trouble reading, I'll ask on that part.

So.

Quote
But "it's fun!" should at least get something considered, right?  So if Dylan the DM is running a game of core D&D 3.5 and I say, "Hey, can I do a gunslinger?  I think that'd be fun," do you think D should at least consider it before saying no?

Yes. I'm assuming that core is 80% settingless so far as specific this-does-or-does-not-exist (so the DM is making stuff up as he needs to). If he does have a specific setting, then this doesn't apply. Barring that being specifically in the player's way (which should be told to the players ASAP)...definately consider. At least if the rules work ("No, because the rules for guns suck." is valid.) Now, if the player as a way around that, I hope the DM looks at it first.

Quote
And who sets the parameters?  If Rule 0 says the DM can change the rules then Rule -1 says the player can choose not to play.  For example, when I DM I propose a setting then if any of the players want something that I haven't thought of or think something should be removed from the setting we come to an agreement rather than me just saying, "Nope, not gonna do that."

The setting maker/s. Emphasis on saying maker/s instead of "maker" or "makers". The DM should consider any player suggestions. If its his world, he's not oblgiated to use them, but he is obligated to think them over and hear out why the player thinks it would be better. "It's fun!" is not enough of a reason. We know that no one suggests anything that is actively unfun. What makes this make the setting/story/etc. better beyond momentary enjoyment?

Again, this is a time for explainations, not arguements. Were my setting in the equivalant of 1400-1500, I'd be a lot more open to rapiers. As stated, Inigo is cool. Doesn't mean that they'd exist yet, but you'd have an opportunity to be the guy who changed that.  In the equivalant of 1200-1300 or so (maybe earlier), you don't.

Quote
I find it interesting that you say "interesting" rather than "amazing" or "special".  So I really want you to answer this question:  If you were playing a physicist would you rather play a character who becomes as well-known as Leonard Kahn or would you rather play a character who becomes as as well-known as Albert Einstein.  Because I gotta say, Leonard Kahn is interesting, but Einstein is amazing.

Kahn is a bad example for someone who isn't familiar with physicists. But let me answer in general.

What I mean here is this. I want to play people who are interesting...as in (grabs dictionary.com)
engaging or exciting and holding the attention or curiosity

Hannibal is one of those people, for instance. He's also amazing.

But I'd rather be interesting but not amazing than amazing without being interesting. One of the reasons I prefer lower power...when it defies all the odds, a triumph is a lot more impressive than when you expected nothing less.

Hope that clears it up.

Quote
Yes, you'd rather play Inigo than really great swordfighter who is otherwise uninteresting even if they have the same stat block.  This indicates that at some basic level you understand that the stat block is a stat block and the role play is the role play.  So would you rather play Inigo with a stat block of Fighter 10, Focus Rapier, Spec Rapier, Weapon Focus Rapier, Weapon Spec Rapier, Improved Critical Rapier, Expertise, Dodge (which is a boring, sub-optimal build) or would you rather play Inigo with a stat block that includes Swashbuckler and Swordsage and maybe some good duelist prestige class, a build which is less boring and more optimized?

I'd rather do what works best to represent what abilities he has.

In terms of Inigo being interesting, what is interesting about him is not that he's the greatest living swordsman.

"You killed my father. Prepare to die." is more interesting than whether or not he can duel left handed.

So, while having interesting abilities is a good thing, what makes Inigo interesting is 95% about his personality and only 5% on how we represent his abilities.

Swashbucklers in general do not interest me. As in, that approach to combat.

Quote
But what does that add to the game?  Sure, trading Paladin levels for Blackguard levels makes sense and is well backed by both fluff and crunch, but if I'm a Rogue 5 and want to take a level of Fighter does that mean I should become a Rogue 4/Fighter 2?  Or maybe my first Fighter level is free but if I do it again I become a Rogue 4/Fighter3?  How is this a good thing?  Why can't I be a Rogue that starts out 100% Rogue but then becomes 83% Rogue/17% Fighter.  It doesn't mean I've given up being a Rogue entirely for 13.3 fights, just that I've split my attention.

Becausing splitting your attention is going to weaken your ability to keep your skills as a rogue kept fully honed. (And yes, something more like 4/3 with the first free is what I'm thinking.)

If you want to learn "some swordplay", you don't need a full Fighter level. If you want the whole package, you're biting off considerably more.

Mind you, I would not want to charge a full level's advancement for "some swordplay". Say, half a level.

Quote
How is it not punishing someone if you take away their abilities?  Just because I never took Rogue 5 I'm going to lose Uncanny Dodge?  Even if I use it every fight where I get caught flat-footed?  What about the Rogue 12 that in all his years never got caught flat-footed?  He never used his Uncanny Dodge ability over the course of 8 levels.  Does that mean he loses it?  When would he lose it then?

You're losing abilities in one area and gaining them elsewhere. Now, if you just became a Rogue 4/fighter 1, that would be punishing you. And would be a horrible idea.

You're 6th level, you should be 5/1. Now, if you want to (or it appears you should) overwrite more, you're a 4/2. Etc.

Keeping advanced skills up is difficult enough without having to learn something else at the same time.

Quote
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.  What I'm asking is simple:  Given that there is logical overlap between Fighter and Rogue when focusing on assassination, (or any other two Classes that have some overlap in abilities, and they all will), should a Fighter 3/Rogue 3, from an overall power level perspective (such as if you were to assign them to tiers), be higher, the same as, or lower than a Fighter 6 or a Rogue 6.  Not talking "fighter stuff" or "rogue stuff" or "assassin stuff".

My bad. Misread! Um...

I would say this. A fighter 3/rogue should be slightly weaker than a fighter 6 or a rogue 6, but being able in both areas gives him more diverse abilities.

However, if made weaker, I'd like to make it so he's not charged as much. I'm not sure how to balance that, but that is my desire. Other than "trying to keep two sets of abilities up to snuff at the same time is hard", which just means one will wind up neglected, he shouldn't suffer for his choice.

Quote
But characters aren't lifeless when not adventuring.  Maybe Al the Axeman doesn't go hacking the heads off of dragons anymore but Al's the chief of the city guard, he trains his troops, he practices.  He might not be meeting any CR 12 monsters on a daily basis but he's not a vegetable.  You think he should drop from level 12 to level 11 just because the difficulty of his work has tapered off, whether or not he's still active?

Probably not. But the fact that for someone lower level that might still be "challenging" enough to advance a little doesn't apply...Al has maxed out. If he wants to advance, he needs more of a challenge.

So, while someone who hasn't done anything fightingwise in ten years will be rusty, Al will presumably just be static.

Quote
Fluff needs to be divorced from mechanics for two reasons.  One, fluff is supposed to be mutable.  This is why though Fighter exists in Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance they all mean something slightly different.  Two, if fluff is the only thing protecting something from being broken then you've fallen into the area where interpretation of fluff is the only wall between arguments.  So if I make a Lightning Warrior class and the fluff says, "The Lightning Warrior would never do something to hurt an innocent" you'll have person A saying, "Well, that Orc child isn't an innocent because he's innately evil," and person B saying, "It doesn't matter if he's got the [Evil] type, if he hasn't done anything wrong he's innocent."  Then you get into a big stupid RAI vs. RAW debate and everything goes down the tube. ]

I disagree. However, I would also say this. If a Lightning Warrior would "never do something to hurt an innocent", it needs to be defined what exactly that means. For instance, using paladins here.

A paladin respects legitimate authority. We need a definition of legitimate authority. Is that "according to the laws of the land, even if that places someone who is a tyrant on the throne"?

That said, fluff is important for deciding what the mechanics are writing up...but using it to balance is tricky at best, agreed.

Posting to the next three in one piece:

Quote
Only because we keep spawning tangents.

I try not to be long winded, I've just found that being complete is more useful in an asynchronous interaction medium.

Trying to emphasize that this is MacGyver rather than Law and Order.  Things are fast-paced and full of action, not tedious and full of explanation.

Tangents are useful or distracting, depending. But it seems that we also have a topic with a lot of issues to sort through.

As for your long-windedness: So far so good.

As for emphasizing stuff: Works for me. I don't think Law and Order is too slow (though its not fitting here), but agreed on the point. Characters do things, though sometimes they don't have a choice about waiting around.

I'd rather a slower pace than some action movies but a faster pace than L&O.


I'm fairly sure we don't have the same basis. I am reasonably sure that we can find enough common ground to build something both of us can play with. After all, while I disagree with a multiclass being the best way to make a ninja as just fine, I do want that to become "so we need a better method of making ninja", so we can work it out.

It does mean that our views on "characters with wide ranges of ability" don't mesh up well.

Personally, I'd like to make it so that "reasonably competent archer" is possible for your cleric (without multiclassing). If he wants to be a really good archer, that'll demand more of his attention then he can spare without sacrifice.

Doing that with abilities, so that class abilities are stuff that is special to that class, and not just "any type of character in this field should be able to learn it", would be a great improvement. After all, its ludicrious and cruel to make a Ranger have to take rogue levels to learn how to find well hidden traps.

But its not ludicrious or cruel that only single classed Fighters can fully master (Level V) a weapon or weapons.

So this is going to involve some class tweaking as well as adjusting multiclassing. I think that'll be a good thing. Having dozens of classes when what we really need is the ability to play a concept within a class that there's no reason for it to exclude (why can't fighters be swashbucklers? Because WotC is made of fail and lose.) is unnecessary clutter.

As opposed to necessary clutter, whatever the fuck that is.

Can't say I agree with you on everything, but if you had the power to make the game in the image you're wishing, I'd like to be one of the people playing, if only to see how you do things.

Hope the same can be said at least in part for me.

P.S.: Still curious why a single classed rogue fails at being a ninja. PM it if necessary, but tell, damnit.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 05:40:44 AM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

SiggyDevil

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Magmar, the ultimate butthead
    • Feybook Project
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #216 on: October 12, 2008, 07:13:44 AM »
With a massive list of grouped character abilities, the 'classes' might not necessarily be as such.

They would be more like easy-to-grab feat chains/spell lists that you slap on in bunches.

So, your party and combat role would be more determined by what and how you combine your picks rather than any single predefined role.

And that's all I'll add to the subject if you want to direct and multiquote this flow.

Single classed ninja fails because ninja as by stereotype is a semi-caster. They use 'jutsu' or handsigns, which are essentially spells, to get around, change shape, and disappear.
That's a Rogue/Wizard gestalt or maybe some kind of Class/Class/Double PrC combo, but sure as fuck no fullclassed Rogue.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #217 on: October 12, 2008, 07:20:40 AM »
Ninja by heavily mythologized well past any reason stereotype.

Now, I'm not against that stereotype in fantasy in and of itself, but insisting that a ninja has wild crazy powers is about as reasonable as insisting that oh, the Templars should.

Still, good answer. Doesn't mean I agree that makes sense as what a ninja is, but that's seperate.

As on classes: I wouldn't do a massive list.

Being a guy with an axe is not necessarily wildly different than a guy with a sword. Now, if axes are different in terms of their benefits vs. drawbacks, that might be worth doing. But as written now? No.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #218 on: October 12, 2008, 12:26:03 PM »
Quote
Single classed ninja fails because ninja as by stereotype is a semi-caster. They use 'jutsu' or handsigns, which are essentially spells, to get around, change shape, and disappear.

Dude, keep your shitty Naruto out of my ninja.

Quote
Now, I'm not against that stereotype in fantasy in and of itself, but insisting that a ninja has wild crazy powers is about as reasonable as insisting that oh, the Templars should.

Do you believe a Templar would be well represented by a Paladin with a heavier emphasis on Smite and the religious angle? I believe he could, but I don't know your take on it.

Quote
Being a guy with an axe is not necessarily wildly different than a guy with a sword. Now, if axes are different in terms of their benefits vs. drawbacks, that might be worth doing. But as written now? No.

That should be represented by the mechanics of weapons and weapon feats, methinks. As is now, maybe the feats kinda got that part nailed down.

Quote
Personally, I'd like to make it so that "reasonably competent archer" is possible for your cleric (without multiclassing). If he wants to be a really good archer, that'll demand more of his attention then he can spare without sacrifice.

I think the image of someone going "My bow is guided by my God" is incredibly cool, personally. At present, archer cleric is a working build, isn't it?

One thing about multiclassing that I think you should try accepting for the sake of argument, Elennsar, is that while dipping sounds like powergaming a lot of the time, sometimes it IS part of a concept - and it's not up to us to decide when that is or isn't true, but any specific players/DMs. We want to make things so that staying in a single class can be just as benefitting as PrCing out multiple times. That's a pretty daunting task, but we're getting somewhere (I think).

As for the whole discussion on thread: the problem with multiquote arguments that span several pages is that we can easily lose track of what we were doing before it happened. Which is why I suggested we could use the focus in the first place.  :D Since you started the thread with a mechanics discussion, I don't think things should change into a meta-discussion about multiclassing in general.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #219 on: October 12, 2008, 01:30:22 PM »
Quote

Do you believe a Templar would be well represented by a Paladin with a heavier emphasis on Smite and the religious angle? I believe he could, but I don't know your take on it.

Yup. More smite, probably more Strength of My Faith, and less healing and that sort of thing.

Other than the LG alignment issue, it is a very good fit. (Like everyone else on Earth, LG is more frequently an ideal than a reality. But it was the intent.)

However, a Templar should probably not have a Special Mount, and should probably not have various magical powers ::looks at the wizard/sorcerer here.:: ...I am unsure if spellcasting is out or not. (My impression is yes.)

But yes, basically, a smiting, religious-focused paladin would fit perfectly.

Quote

That should be represented by the mechanics of weapons and weapon feats, methinks. As is now, maybe the feats kinda got that part nailed down.

Yeah. Point being, "Axeman" shouldn't be different unless axes are different to begin with. As is, you could use Warhammer Fantasy's (the rpg) "hand weapon" to cover both and you really wouldn't be simplifying much from D&D now. Shame.

Since after all, there's a reason for one or the other, and it isn't the looks. Seperate topic, however.

Quote
I think the image of someone going "My bow is guided by my God" is incredibly cool, personally. At present, archer cleric is a working build, isn't it?

One thing about multiclassing that I think you should try accepting for the sake of argument, Elennsar, is that while dipping sounds like powergaming a lot of the time, sometimes it IS part of a concept - and it's not up to us to decide when that is or isn't true, but any specific players/DMs. We want to make things so that staying in a single class can be just as benefitting as PrCing out multiple times. That's a pretty daunting task, but we're getting somewhere (I think).

As for the whole discussion on thread: the problem with multiquote arguments that span several pages is that we can easily lose track of what we were doing before it happened. Which is why I suggested we could use the focus in the first place.   Since you started the thread with a mechanics discussion, I don't think things should change into a meta-discussion about multiclassing in general.

I don't agree...but that's my Germanic barbarian blood biasing me. (On the idea of bow cleric as awesome). I'm fine with the idea other than the fact that the guy's own talent/training won't be as high with what that means. It is something that if you aren't so biased is cool. And should not be prevented. Don't know how well it works now.

As for dipping: Here's my thing. I'd like most characters to have most "basic" abilities available to them. If you want to be a guy who can bitchslap evil with terrifying holy power, you are a paladin. End of bloody discussion.

But you should be able to get "the fury of my ancestors" via a feat.

So I would like to make it so that all valid concepts (we can do without sneak attacking 'dins) without dipping as much as prevent it. That way being a class as "this is what you are" doesn't force you into an overly narrow range of things. Class features should be what defines a Paladin as something other than a guy with a pyschotic obsession with morality. Class features should be what defines a Fighter as someone other than any other fighting man.

That's the root of my objection, even assuming no malicious (so to speak) intent. Being a Fighter should mean something far more serious than "a bit of swordplay", and being able to pick up "a bit of swordplay" should be doable without finding a way to justify fighter levels on your rogue.

As for focus:

Well, I'd be fine with having the meta-discussion on a seperate thread while we hash out the mechanical effects from there here. But I do think that the meta-discussion is valid and related to the general topic at hand.

Can't decide what to do with multiclassing if we don't have a common basis for "and what does being a fighter mean anyway".

So...my proposal.

This thread: Mechanical application of what we hammer out from any sorta-kinda agreement (we do have different perspectives and not even God Almighty is going to change that, but we seem to have at least compatible wishes as to the end product)
Thread #2: Handling discussing what to do about combining classes and prestige classes and how it all should work in terms of "what this is about". The current subject.
Thread #3: Beating the classes into shape so that they can work for what we intend. We all seem to agree that classes as written are poor at supporting what we want supported. Let's fix that.

So. How's that?

And speaking of things I'd like to request/insist on: "There is a specific character I want to be!" is not a good thing, either.

Nothing against wanting to be James Bond or Conan or Aragorn or all that, but a lot of perfectly interesting and awesome people would make horribly broken PCs.

Stick with "I'd like to be like (name)." and we can go places. But the first balanced literary or cinematic badass we run into will probably be the last.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.