Author Topic: An idea on multiclassing.  (Read 66138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ZeroSum

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #520 on: October 14, 2008, 09:57:28 PM »
Please look at these two posts from the first two pages:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2162.msg63476#msg63476
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2162.msg63728#msg63728

One says, "Here's what's wrong: *foobar*"
The other says, "Which is more powerful, a single Wish or this laundry list of what you would get using this new multiclass system: *foobar*"

Both very plainly pointed out why the idea wouldn't work.

I even tossed in an idea on how to even it off some but abandoned it since it would still be overpowering at worst or overcomplicating at best.

So no, you can't even parse helpful posts so why should anyone give a damn about the tangent you've brought this upon?

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #521 on: October 14, 2008, 10:03:33 PM »
1) No, what you've done is say how the idea sucks, and how I shouldn't do it and how its antifun and how I'm an idiot and someone who can't accept criticism and so on and so forth.

If you don't like this idea, then comment that it doesn't appeal to you (Even if it could work) and move the hell on with life. Or suggest places that might be better in the first place, instead of after exhausting all variants on "you suck".

2) No, you're a group that would constantly mock the entire idea of doing it this way until you made someone either quit the site or give up on the idea, and not give a shit which happened.

You're not giving advice. You're just saying why you don't want to do it.

Jaron: I was told that after A) you guys said how much you think 4e sucks (which is a -great- reason to trust using 4e instead of oh, Spycraft) and B) you guys said how much my idea and me personally sucked.

2) Again, after demonstrating that you're not remotely concerned with whether or not it is a good advice or if it fits/appeals.

3) 4e IS NOT my system. Saying "it is your system because you can't multiclass" is like saying that GURPS is my system solely because it uses d6.

4) No, you don't. You know that I want restrictions that 3.5 doesn't have. Beyond that, you have very little understanding of what I want.

5) I have not said anything REMOTELY resembling "You have to talk to me about my theories". If you don't want to comment, for whatever reason, then don't comment in this thread or any others I make regarding the subject! You're not forced to say anything. If you do say something, actually be helpful, instead of insulting and suggesting I use a bad system which doesn't do what I want other than possibly in some narrow aspect of said what-I-want.

Zero:

And the comments on why the initial idea wouldn't work were noted, acknowledged, and the idea dropped. What am I supposed to do, type in large font and all caps that "MY INITIAL IDEA SUCKS, THANKS GUYS FOR POINTING IT OUT I OWE YOU ONE"?

I can tell helpful posts from unhelpful posts. The post pointing out that it wouldn't work as desired and would instead be very broken was helpful. The posts saying that limiting multiclassing would suck and that I have no imagination and so on have not.

If you're not interested in the subject, then don't comment on the subject.

A general note: Nothing in the forum description indicates any goddamn reason that this is 3.5 or even D&D specific. Did someone forget to update it to point that out?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2008, 10:06:45 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.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #522 on: October 14, 2008, 10:10:48 PM »
Elennsar, once more:  THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 4ED AND 3.5ED IS THAT IT USES A SYSTEM LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 

This is someone who doesn't like beer telling you that they don't like breweries, but you should go to one, because you seem to like beer.  Meanwhile, someone's being douche who's running around the wine party telling everyone else they should drink his beer.  At first, the people mentioned that maybe he shouldn't have peed in his beer.  He dropped the peeing in the beer idea eventually, but the wine drinkers still told him his beer was not what they wanted.  After he was told, repeatedly, that they don't like beer and think beer doesn't taste nearly grapey enough for them, and then told he should go to a brewery, he's still spouting off about how unfair it is that no one will comment on the taste of his tasty beer.  Meanwhile, the wine drinkers are getting REALLY annoyed.

That's you, and your little beer.  We don't like your beer.  Your first beer was peed in, after all.  We told you where people who at least like beer in general are found, and where you can sample other beers and see how your beer compares, and maybe learn a thing or two about beer making.  At yet you're still trying to shove beer down the throats of people who only like wine, and refusing to listen because they told you already that they don't like breweries, so you think that only a sucker would go to a brewery now and sample other beer and talk with people that like beer.  And you're still trying to tell us that we should use more hops, barley, and pee in our wine.

Meanwhile, I've got this nice bubbly muscat and I'm going to enjoy it, and no, I still won't try your beer, nor will I tell you what hops to pee ratio you should use.

JaronK

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #523 on: October 14, 2008, 10:21:03 PM »
Jaron: I have an idea for you.

Instead of repeating yourself until you trigger the collapse of the internet, why don't you actually read what I typed?

4e is not what I want. "It has no multiclassing!"...so? I can HR that in 3.5 now and leave the game totally as is otherwise. (It'd be a stupid idea, but it doesn't require paying $100+ for books, which is also a stupid idea if that's the only reason to get 4e).

No one is forcing you to comment on this. No one is forcing you to pay attention to this thread. No one is forcing you to have anything whatsoever to do with my idea. If you're not interested, then don't post! I'm not going to shrivel up and die because you're not commenting.

Meanwhile, because you would rather say insulting comments than no comments, even though you don't have any interest whatsoever in my idea, you've been mocking it for several pages, and you've stated that you don't think 4e is a good system, and somehow that works out as "I think you should try 4e!"

If this is a "3.5 D&D" subforum, it doesn't say so. It says a "house rules" forum.

So you have three basic choices:

1) Contribute. You may or may not want to do this but you've some ideas on what to think about.
2) Ignore this.
3) What you're doing, which is mock, mock, mock, mock, mock and more mockery. Its sort of "We don't like your idea, and we're going to keep saying so forever and forever." If you're going to post in a thread discussing the idea, I'm going to point out why I think it is a perfectly reasonable idea.

If you don't care for a discussion on why drinking beer might not be a bad idea, then don't get in a conversation with a guy who thinks drinking beer is preferable to wine.

I'm not forcing my idea on anyone. You, on the other hand, are acting as if me saying what I think this is a good idea, in a discussion of the idea, is forcing something on you.

Is it literally impossible to just say "I don't care for this, best of luck, going to do something that intersts me." and then ignore this thread because it does nothing whatsoever to change the game that you happen to be playing?

Seriously. If I was your DM or influencing your DM to try this, you might have a reason to be annoyed. If I was posting all over the place that people should do this because free multiclassing is EVIL, you would have a reason to be annoyed.

That's not what I'm doing.

So either contribute to the discussion without insulting the idea, or ignore the discussion. I really don't care which, but "take part in the discussion to mock the idea and suggest something you think sucks to someone who you think sucks" is not a good option. 
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.

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #524 on: October 14, 2008, 10:26:11 PM »
Jaron, Ejo, guys, how about we just ignore Elennsar from now on? I mean just boycott the guy. Not only in this thread but everywhere. He is obviously not going to listen, so why bother doing him favours and trying to help him?

No point blowing a gasket on the little pouty kid.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #525 on: October 14, 2008, 10:28:06 PM »
If you've been doing favors, its been concealed extremely well. As in, invisible to the point of being absent.

I really don't give a shit if you ignore me, since the alternative is you misreading what I write, warping it into something else, or insulting me over it.

So really, ignoring would be less rude than what you are doing.
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.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #526 on: October 14, 2008, 10:30:43 PM »
Jaron: I have an idea for you.

Instead of repeating yourself until you trigger the collapse of the internet, why don't you actually read what I typed?

4e is not what I want. "It has no multiclassing!"...so? I can HR that in 3.5 now and leave the game totally as is otherwise. (It'd be a stupid idea, but it doesn't require paying $100+ for books, which is also a stupid idea if that's the only reason to get 4e).

No, 4E has generic classes that have trees leading to the abilities that they want.  A Controller cannot do what a Defender can do, or what a Striker can do.  Everything you've stated is there.  You've got basically generic archetypes with abilities that you can chose as you level up, and each person gets special abilities that the other classes can't touch.  I didn't even mention multiclassing in 4ed, did I?  So why did you quote me as saying "It has no multiclassing?"  I never said that.  Once again, you're not reading what I typed.  I read what you typed though.  That's why I'm handing you everything you want on a silver platter, but you refuse to see that.

Quote
Meanwhile, because you would rather say insulting comments than no comments, even though you don't have any interest whatsoever in my idea, you've been mocking it for several pages, and you've stated that you don't think 4e is a good system, and somehow that works out as "I think you should try 4e!"

I don't like that method, but it's the method you state you like, so I recommend it to you.  

Quote
1) Contribute. You may or may not want to do this but you've some ideas on what to think about.

I did.  I showed you how your system works in practice.  You refuse to look.

Quote
2) Ignore this.

Still haven't given up on you.

Quote
3) What you're doing, which is mock, mock, mock, mock, mock and more mockery. Its sort of "We don't like your idea, and we're going to keep saying so forever and forever." If you're going to post in a thread discussing the idea, I'm going to point out why I think it is a perfectly reasonable idea.

Nope, not mocking you (well, a little with the pee thing, but that's what I think beer tastes like).  Primarily giving you the data you need to understand the results of what you're claiming to want.  You just refuse to hear.

Quote
If you don't care for a discussion on why drinking beer might not be a bad idea, then don't get in a conversation with a guy who thinks drinking beer is preferable to wine.

If that guy is running around shouting about beer in a wine party, that's his problem, not mine.  Suggesting he go to a brewery where people like beer is contributing and helping him out.

One last time:  4ed is what you've been suggesting.  Try it.  You might like it, and decide to stick with it, and be very very happy.  You might not like it, but it's still closer to what you want by far, and modify it from there with a community that shares your goals.  Or, if it doesn't help at all, then you'll realize that you don't like the consequences of your idea, and go back to the drawing board.  No matter what, you'll be better off.  There's no downside here!  I'm giving you the exact thing you claim to want!  

JaronK

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #527 on: October 14, 2008, 10:37:23 PM »
1) You're handing out nothing but misreading and insults. I don't want generic classes. I do want specific, if broad, classes.

2) After stating that you think the game and my method suck.

3) The only time you did that was in the original what-if-we-do-multiclassing-like-this. In terms of "what if we make classes more restrictive", you've not done a single thing remotely constructive.

4) Correction. Still haven't given up mocking and criticizing. If you're interested in helping, then help. Saying that you think this is a bad idea and that the game should not go there is not helping.

5) Primarily mocking. If you're interested in helping, then at least some of it should be helpful sounding, not insulting-this-is-a-bad-idea-sounding. You're not interested in the concept of what I'm pondering at the moment, and you're not even "well, its not how I'd do it, but it could work". You're just against doing it.

6) No, you're not giving me a single thing I want. And as stated, this isn't, unless its written in invisble text, a "3.5 site". It may be more 3.5 than 4e, or more D&D than GURPS, but it is not "D&D 3e/3.5 house rules only. Anything else: STAY OUT."

As stated, 4e is NOT what I want. I don't want generic classes, I don't want simply "sure its like Diablo II classes".

So, either ignore or actually help, instead of assuming that because 4e has something like how Diablo II characters gain abilities and I said something like Diablo II's classes would be good that it is what I want, and recommending it after saying how that's fifty kinds of suck.
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.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #528 on: October 14, 2008, 10:46:07 PM »
this isn't, unless its written in invisble text, a "3.5 site". It may be more 3.5 than 4e, or more D&D than GURPS, but it is not "D&D 3e/3.5 house rules only. Anything else: STAY OUT."

Of course it's not. But each of your ideas has been formatted for 3.5, and you have continuously rejected suggestions to move them to a system that they would fit more easily into. Additionally, the majority of this forum's community (but not the forum itself) is 3.5 focused at the moment.

dman11235

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #529 on: October 14, 2008, 10:50:46 PM »
I've never played Diablo II.  I have no idea how it works.  Yet I still think that your system pretty closely resembles 4E.  What you want, rather.  You want classes that have abilities that no other class has: check.  Multi-classing to replace, or eliminate previous class abilities (to "represent replacing knowledge" or whatever): check.  You want classes to be archetypes: check.  Really, everything you want is 4E.  Seriously, look at it, then come back.
My sig's Handy Haversack: Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #530 on: October 14, 2008, 10:54:27 PM »
I have continuously rejected suggestions to move them into a badly designed system suggested by people who dislike it even more than I do.

As for the community: Well, if you're not interested, then why are you posting?

No one is saying "you all should do this". I think it would be a good thing to do X. If you agree, then we should see what we can do to make X workable. If you don't agree, you're not required even read this thread, let alone post in it.

It'd be like me posting something in a forum for Civilization II about doing something for the Crusades and people arguing that the Crusades are a BAD ERA AND WE DON'T WANT TO PLAY THAT.

Well, if you don't...no one is making you use any modification here. That does include mine.

Dman: I've a better idea.

"Why don't I -not- waste a hundred bucks on a badly designed system that contains flaws of its own, above and beyond any flaws of D&D and of how exactly they handle it"?

So...I am not going to try 4e unless there's some reason to think it actually works. And so far, none of the people suggesting it have shown any.

If you're interested in what I mean by Diablo II classes in regards to this...ask. Asking what I mean is a good way to find out what I mean. Insisting that because I don't want (or do want) something that a system that has that is obviously a good idea is...a bit much.
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.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #531 on: October 14, 2008, 10:55:22 PM »
God, what a martyr complex.  You just want to be mocked, so you'll take anything, even me trying desperately to help you, as mocking.  Then you get to play victem and pretend that all your problems are not from you, but rather due to mean people on the internet.  A smarter person would notice how everyone else seems to see something wrong with him and wonder, is there something wrong?  

But my god man, you're as dumb as Aylreth.  I don't know why I've been bothering to try and help a bigoted fool like you, but I'm done now.

Oh, and that?  That was mocking right there.  That's what it looks like.  Not "here, try this system which would work better for you."  See, now you can get off on your martyr complex, because mean ole' JaronK from the internet mocked you.  Don't mess with me again or I'll staple captions to your kittens.

JaronK

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #532 on: October 14, 2008, 11:00:36 PM »
Jaron, if you're desperately trying to help, it does not show at all.

"You should try 4e! It sucks, but so does your idea of limiting characters, so the two are made for each other!"

About as helpful as saying because I mentioned liking RTSes that I should play Warcraft (I).

Probably less.

If you don't like an idea, and you mock that idea, and you mock that person, then do you really think that person is going to take any suggestions from you as actually intended to be helpful?

Are you that oblivious to how people feel about being insulted?
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.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #533 on: October 14, 2008, 11:03:44 PM »
About as helpful as saying because I mentioned liking RTSes that I should play Warcraft (I).

If you like RTS games, then you should play Warcraft I. It's a fun game.

Graphics are a little out of date, and I'm glad they dropped the roads mechanic, but it's still fun.

Plus the dungeon crawl levels in it seemed so much more impressive (in the scope of the rest of the game) than in the later games.

Risada

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • Wearing this outfit in the name of SCIENCE!
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #534 on: October 14, 2008, 11:08:59 PM »
Elennsar, did you at least read some stuff on 4e?

'cause I'm playing one 4e PbP campaign here at BG and I say this: 4e isn't as bad as it wants to look like. It just makes (in a way) what you proposed for the multiclass issue.

I have continuously rejected suggestions to move them into a badly designed system...

Badly designed? Maybe. But even so you should take a peek at it...

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #535 on: October 14, 2008, 11:11:10 PM »
See, now that's helpful.

And I agree, other than the terrible graphics and the fact the races are a bit too similar, its pretty solid even now. Blizzard got the "design a RTS that works" down pretty well there. Not perfectly, but they did hit about 70% of it. Maybe 80%.

Point is, when you say that after saying that you think RTSes suck, that becomes a heck of a lot less meaningful.

"Here, you should try this steakhouse." from a vegan really isn't all that meaningful. Unless the vegan is saying "a friend of mine who isn't a vegan said it was good", but that's basically getting the advice of the vegan's friend indirectly.

Speaking of which: Orcs> humans? Or Humans>Orcs?

My impression (as someone who has primarily/nearly entirely played humans on I) is that it is slightly unbalanced in favor of orcs. The AI being what it is, maybe not so much in practice. But vs. a human player, I think orcs have a bit of an advantage.

Risada:
1) Yes.  I'll drop the link to the primary thing on it that makes me think WotC has become even more stupid with age if you're interested. I also read some of the things on it here, though 'xactly what is escaping my mind at the moment (its been quite a while, and I didn't bookmark them).

2) See 1. I'm not paying (time or money) for something that looks that discouraging.
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.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #536 on: October 14, 2008, 11:21:54 PM »
"Here, you should try this steakhouse." from a vegan really isn't all that meaningful.

Unless it's a really good steakhouse.

For example, I hate the bar scene, but the one right next door to where I worked in Indy was packed every night. If someone who does like the bar scene were to ask about one, I would recommend it to them. I would go so far as to say "I hate the bar scene, but this place is always busy and the drunks who stumble over form it seem to have been enjoying themselves."

Were you to think lowly of that honest, frank, and useful advice, it would be an insult to both of us, especially since you came to me for that advice in the first place.

Now stop insulting yourself and everyone else here and look into 4E or another system with a similar class mechanic as the grounds for your ideas instead of mocking and mangling 3.5.

woodenbandman

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #537 on: October 14, 2008, 11:25:01 PM »
Hey Elennsar, not everyone here hates 4e. I think it looks alright. I read through it, it looked like a solid system.

But I like 3.5 because it matches my playstyle, like 4.0 would probably match yours.


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #538 on: October 14, 2008, 11:27:34 PM »
Other than the fact that it probably wouldn't and the other reasons its a bad system.

Saying that its a good thing for my play style because it is limiting multiclassing is like saying Warcraft is a good game because I like RTSes.

Now, if it does it WELL, that might be more appealing. But saying "it does" is not.

So...enough with mentioning 4e already.
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.

Risada

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • Wearing this outfit in the name of SCIENCE!
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #539 on: October 14, 2008, 11:29:51 PM »
Now, if it does it WELL, that might be more appealing. But saying "it does" is not.

So...enough with mentioning 4e already.

Maybe you could put an effort and try it out? You don't need to buy the books; since you would be doing the "test drive", download from the interwebs. I assure you, THAT is free.