Guest_Lowlander_*
Kail Pendragon wrote...
denying the monk WIS bonus to AC is implemented
or denying skillpoint saving etc
Kail Pendragon wrote...
...... what do the forumers here think of multiclassing?
If the legacy forums were back I could tell you more promptly. I don't remember now where it got implemented. To be more precise, it's about limiting Wis bonus to AC to builds heavy on Druid/Cleric and with token level(s) of Monk without harming "true" monkish builds.Lowlander wrote...
Kail Pendragon wrote...
denying the monk WIS bonus to AC is implemented
or denying skillpoint saving etc
Which SP modules do this? Why would a SP module be be keen on nerfing Monks or messing with skillpoint saving? The same goes for messing with HIPS in SP modules.
I have probably played 50 of the top mods. I don't recall any that did any of these things.
And even alignment based restrictions are often just a matter of getting alignment shifts before leveling the new class...Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...
Kail Pendragon wrote...
...... what do the forumers here think of multiclassing?
The folks who actually designed NWN didn't make any restrictions about how many levels have to be taken in any class, so they obviously intended for the players to take however many levels of any class they choose when multi-classing. Any restrictions they did intend are alignment based, and are hard coded into the game engine. Build your pc to suit yourself, and RP that pc however it pleases you.
You see, but Grom said it felt wrong for him to do that. I do not think he is concerned in any way by what I or you or anyone else does with their own builds, he's not judging those that go for a single monk lvl for Wis AC or a couple of bard levels for tumble and UMD dumps etc. He's saying that he personally doesn't like to do that and wants to know how others see the matter. At least, that's what I got.As I've stated before.... in a MP environment, why should anyone care what's on anyone else's stat sheet? Do you enjoy RPing with that player/pc? If you do, then continue interacting with them. If you don't enjoy RP'ing with that player/pc, then avoid them. Unless you're a DM on that particualr PW, and some house rules are being broken, what's on anyone else's stat sheet is none of your business. Whining, sniveling, complaining, etc. about what's on someone elses stat sheet shows serious signs of control issues. Get over it.
Kail Pendragon wrote...
You see, but Grom said it felt wrong for him to do that. I do not think he is concerned in any way by what I or you or anyone else does with their own builds, he's not judging those that go for a single monk lvl for Wis AC or a couple of bard levels for tumble and UMD dumps etc. He's saying that he personally doesn't like to do that and wants to know how others see the matter. At least, that's what I got.
Guest_Lowlander_*
Kail Pendragon wrote...
If the legacy forums were back I could tell you more promptly. I don't remember now where it got implemented. To be more precise, it's about limiting Wis bonus to AC to builds heavy on Druid/Cleric and with token level(s) of Monk without harming "true" monkish builds.
It wasn't me to make that module, so you can keep your sarcastic tone for yourself. Besides shield and armor AC are unexistant in shifted shapes and there the single monk level simply grants a big AC boosts (and other side benefits) at no other cost but one class slot. Another case of benefitting from the wis AC at one class slot cost is Cleric 26/Rogue 13/Monk 1 or somesuch epic dodging battle cleric for example. No matter the reasons behind it anyhow, apparently someone thought that those benefits were undue in his module. Which is all that matters. As a matter of fact, some builders do take action "against" specific playing/building/etc. possible behaviours and use of the game features (Aielund uses the EMS ssytem for example which alters a whole deal of stuff). Which stilll has nothing to do with the topic at hand and personal like/dislike of multiclassing.Lowlander wrote...
Kail Pendragon wrote...
If the legacy forums were back I could tell you more promptly. I don't remember now where it got implemented. To be more precise, it's about limiting Wis bonus to AC to builds heavy on Druid/Cleric and with token level(s) of Monk without harming "true" monkish builds.
Sure Kail.
It barely even makes sense to bother on a PW let alone a SP mod. I mean throwing away armor/shield you are losing 11 Points of AC right there. 16 if you factor that a Cleric can echant his own shield to +5.
So how much Wisdom for 16 points of AC? 42 Wisdom to break even on AC. And this was important to nerf in a SP mod? Sure Kail.
Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 25 juillet 2011 - 09:00 .
Guest_Lowlander_*
Kail Pendragon wrote...
It wasn't me to make that module, so you can keep your sarcastic tone for yourself.
I imagine you want to keep being pedantically off topic and ignore the point that no matter whether monk Wis AC got limited in any SP module (which is just an example) there is a huge variety of modifications to the vanilla game done by various builders in SP modules just for the sake of it. Like Evasion not working with medium/heavy armor. Like, big deal. And still it has been done. Or evasion removed from shifted monk 1 builds. So if evasion was so handled, wouldn't it be at least believable that something like wis AC could get a similar treatment? And even if it wasn't, the point that game features get altered by module builders so that they cannot be used as in the vanilla game by players remains true.Lowlander wrote...
Kail Pendragon wrote...
It wasn't me to make that module, so you can keep your sarcastic tone for yourself.
I imagine it wasn't anyone.
Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 25 juillet 2011 - 10:52 .
Long time no see MM! If there's anyone that knows about limiting monk AC and where it has been implemented that should indeed be you, ehMagical Master wrote...
Kail can attest that I've disagreed with him on a lot, but he's right on this one. Limiting Monk AC when shifted or for low Monk levels has been done in many places.
There's definitely much more than that and better ones tooMaic23 wrote...
That's the only decent 1-5 level multiclass I can think of (...which isn't much of a "cheeze" play)
Kail Pendragon wrote...
If there's anyone that knows about limiting monk AC and where it has been implemented that should indeed be you, eh
Kail Pendragon wrote...
So, just to try to stay on topic: what do you think of multiclassing as presented by Grom?
Here's where we differ. I have no need for the fighter class to mean anything at all but the features it has (full bab, frontloaded feats, bonus combat feats, etc.) and that is true for any class. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to me that FTR 39/Rogue 1 is superior to a FTR 40 and that seems to be a rather intentional design choice. The game is pretty much geared towards multiclassing and the character concept can be obtained through proper multiclassing choices. That said, a system where features are acquired individually and not bundled together as monolitic "classes" IMO is a much better one.I think the two main factors are the concept and the result.
Concept wise, I think the fact that a 40 fighter will lose to a 39 fighter/1 rogue in a straight up battle with identical gear is flat out idiotic. Thus, I take steps to correct it. For any given environment, it's important for the players to have the same general concept (such as class meaning something, like a fighter excelling at fighting), but it really doesn't matter what the concept actually is in an absolute sense.
Which can be summed up as NWN is not really well balanced to start with and I think many will agree with this statement.Which brings me to result, which is what happens due to the concept. I can easily make a world where the only casters that can survive will be a Sorcerer + Monk/Rogue + Paladin/Blackguard build and where melee builds have to be along the lines of Fighter 12/Weapon Master 28 to deal damage if people desire that, but it's a conscious choice to promote those sorts of builds that eke out every last bit of power. The environment is then going to be brutal for anything else and you wind up *having* to have certain things. AB tuned for a PM build and don't have a PM tank? Don't bother trying. Saves tuned for a Sorc/Paladin? Go home or die if you don't have it. The gap in power becomes vast and limits the number of builds and mandates having certain builds to meet requirements (aka, a Dwarven Defender is unable to tank effectively because it doesn't have enough AC, or the reverse where the PM can't tank because he doesn't have enough damage reduction).
I think that makes an inferior game. But that's an opinion and some people due genuinely prefer such a world, which is why I said the only thing that matters is that people agree on a concept so there's not a rift in opinion over the result. People can find the environment that suits them.
All of that said, I do wish to point out that my ideal concept does not eliminate powerbuilding...it just closes the gap. I want both a PM and DD to be able to tank successfully, and I don't want them to be insanely better than a pure fighter who focused on tanking (but all three can be significantly better than a strength focused weapon master). I want to promote a variety of builds that give advantages which aren't effectively absolute or gamebreaking. Having 20 more AC than another build that's reasonable means either one is going to get crushed or the other won't ever be hit due to the d20 system. I don't want either scenario.
Aielund's the prime single player module that comes to mind off-hand on limiting shifted Monk AC as a side note, though I'm sure there are many others.
Kail Pendragon wrote...
Which can be summed up as NWN is not really well balanced to start with and I think many will agree with this statement.
Kail Pendragon wrote...
Thanks for your builder's perspective; now, if I may, what's your take as a player? Does it feel wrong to you to take advantage of certain multiclassing benefits? Does it feel like it's not true to the character, as Grom mentions in his opening post?
WebShaman wrote...
Ouch, what a spanking!
WebShaman wrote...
I agree with MM here - I feel that a 40th level Fighter should be able to go toe-to-toe with a Fighter 39/Rogue 1.
The problem here is made worse in NWN, due to skill point saving. As one gets Rogue 1 at level 40, one can do massive skill dumps in main skills here, like UMD, Tumble, Hide, etc. This hugely offsets the minor increase that the Fighter has in Discipline here, IMHO.
WebShaman wrote...
What if we stay under Epic levels? How does it look now?
Fighter 20 vs Fighter 19/Rogue 1? Yep, still bad, though not as lopsided (especially if scroll use is set as it should be, and not to Bioware default).
Modifié par Magical Master, 28 juillet 2011 - 03:30 .
The other is a possibility too in PnP. Apart the fact that PnP is generally a lvl 20 environment and that there's a bunch of base classes and PrCs to choose from, eh.Magical Master wrote...
It's not spectacularly balanced in the first place, but I'm not sure it's fair to claim an imbalance due to unorthodox multi-classing in a game based upon DMing. Look at RDD, for example. It's a class that requires sorcerer or bard levels and it gives a bonus to melee. Yet in NWN it's effectively changed from into "Take 20+ levels of fighter, a token Sorc/Bard level or three, and then 10 RDD levels." One isn't imbalanced, the other is more problematic.
That's not RDD. RDD is give any character build qualifying for it the associated features. Same as any other class."Give Sorcerers and Bards a melee presence in exchange for less caster levels"
It is known that certain dragons can take humanoid form and even have humanoid lovers. Sometimes a child is born of this union, and every child of that child unto the thousandth generation claims a bit of dragon blood, be it ever so small. Usually, little comes of it, though mighty sorcerers occasionally credit their powers to draconic heritage. For some, however, dragon blood beckons irresistibly. These characters become dragon disciples, who use their magical power as a catalyst to ignite their dragon blood, realizing its fullest potential. Dragon disciples prefer a life of exploration to a cloistered existence. Most are barbarians, fighters, or rangers who have dabbled as sorcerers or bards. Occasionally, a serious spellcaster explores the path to further a goal of finding out more about his draconic heritage, though at the expense of most of his arcane studies. Clerics and druids rarely choose to become dragon disciples. Already adept at magic, many pursue adventure, especially if it furthers their goal of finding out more about their draconic heritage. All dragon disciples are drawn to areas known to harbor dragons.
WebShaman wrote...
...
Why is UMD "reserved" for Rogues and Bards? Fighters should at least be able to put cross-class skills into it.
I think this pretty much "breaks" things, IMHO. Having certain skills that are limited to certain classes (like Perform, for example, and the before-mentioned UMD).
Skills and Feats should not be limited to class IMHO. Stuff like Magic, Sneak Attacks, etc are fine, as well as BaB, but the rest...bleh.
Pathfinder handles such much better IMHO.
Prerequesities are maybe hardcoded but can be rescripted. My module check for being able to cast spells of X lvl. Neverlethess RDD barbarians are probably weakest of all, and others like paladin/rdd dont lose anything or almost nothing (fighter/rdd).Failed.Bard wrote...
Half of the "problematic" builds derived from RDD are due solely to Bioware completely butchering the prerequisite check, and sadly, the handling of it is hard-coded. For RDD, the requisite is the ability to cast first level arcane spells spontaneously, not level 1 in sorc/bard.
Had that bug not slipped through (and yes, it is a bug, I even saw it admitted as such once but I can't find the quote right now), you wouldn't have 6 charisma half-orc barbarians taking one bard level to qualify for RDD.
The same could be said for pale master. The ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells (vampiric touch specifically in 3.5) became level 3 in an arcane class, which is a huge shift in base class requirements to get it.
Too be honest though, from the players side of it, it really does come down to what the servers rules are for multi-classing. If they've set up the dungeons so that only tumble dump pal 28/bard 2/ rdd 10 can survive the dungeons there, that's what players are going to make.
I may not like how Bioware implimented much of the class and skill content, but it comes down to the server. The servers set their own rules and balance how they see fit, and the players play in the servers that have the things they like in them.WebShaman wrote...
...
Why is UMD "reserved" for Rogues and Bards? Fighters should at least be able to put cross-class skills into it.
I think this pretty much "breaks" things, IMHO. Having certain skills that are limited to certain classes (like Perform, for example, and the before-mentioned UMD).
Skills and Feats should not be limited to class IMHO. Stuff like Magic, Sneak Attacks, etc are fine, as well as BaB, but the rest...bleh.
Pathfinder handles such much better IMHO.
WotC fixed that in D&D 3.5, all skills are either class, or cross-class, there are no exclusive ones. I had to rewrite all the skill lists (again) for my server when I implimented that part of the 3.5 rules.
Actually, if NWN had been made under 3.5 like NWN2 was, there'd have likely been even more class combinations people would dislike. Assassins, for instance, are considered to be spontaneous casting arcane magic users, meaning they should qualify as both Arcana Archer and RDD requisites, though not pale master as 3.5 requires vampiric touch as a known spell. With assassins also getting HiPS at 8th in 3.5, they'd be far more problematic to balance for that SD ever was.
That's a slightly different topic though.
ShaDoOoW wrote...
...
As for assassin where have you get he gets acces to RDD? I dont know about this at all. But indeed the assassin/AA is very powerfull combination. But still better than useless class which is assassin in NWN1.
Beginning at 1st level, an assassin gains the ability to cast a number of arcane spells.
...
An assassin casts spells just as a bard does.
Upon reaching 6th level, at every even-numbered level after that (8th and 10th), an assassin can choose to learn a new spell in place of one he already knows. The new spell’s level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged, and it must be at least two levels lower than the highest-level assassin spell the assassin can cast. An assassin may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that he gains new spells known for that level.
The prerequisite is the ability to cast arcane spells without preparation, not to be able to cast 1st lvl arcane spells spontaneously. Cantrips are good enoughFailed.Bard wrote...
Half of the "problematic" builds derived from RDD are due solely to Bioware completely butchering the prerequisite check, and sadly, the handling of it is hard-coded. For RDD, the requisite is the ability to cast first level arcane spells spontaneously, not level 1 in sorc/bard.
In PnP DnD gear bringing up cha to 10+ would let said barbarian qualify for RDD.Had that bug not slipped through (and yes, it is a bug, I even saw it admitted as such once but I can't find the quote right now), you wouldn't have 6 charisma half-orc barbarians taking one bard level to qualify for RDD.
Well, actually there are some, like Grom above, it doesn't come down to that. Those like him wouldn't adopt specific multiclassing practices because of the feel of "wrogness" that they get from it.Too be honest though, from the players side of it, it really does come down to what the servers rules are for multi-classing. If they've set up the dungeons so that only tumble dump pal 28/bard 2/ rdd 10 can survive the dungeons there, that's what players are going to make.
Retour en haut