163 réponses à ce sujet

[Magical Master]

Kail Pendragon:
 
The other is a possibility too in PnP.

I suppose, but the DM can also ramp up creature power if that occurs when he didn’t expect it to in order to compensate.  It’s more flexible than a game where you have to make the same monster for everyone.

Kail Pendragon: 

which is pretty generic and leaves open all possibilities, as usual, but also clearly states a predominance of a melee approach with superficial interest in arcane lore. Oh look, the same that is so often done in NWN (and not having those minor boni to spellcasting that DD grants in PnP surely doesn't help to change the trend).

Fair enough.  Then it becomes a balance issue.

Kail Pendragon:

how does taking SD 1 to get HiPS become untrue to character if the character is supposed to be able to meld into shadows?

If a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 was able to cast Epic Spells due to 1 Wizard level, would you think that was true to the character?

Personally, that doesn’t seem to make any sense to me as an accomplished spellcaster is represented by more than 1 spellcaster level.  Likewise, SD level 1 (or monk/paladin/whatever level 1) doesn’t seem to represent the mastery of melding into shadows.  Aka, it’s true to the character to take SD levels…but taking 1 SD level is like taking 1 level of Wizard to cast Epic Warding. 

Kail Pendragon: 

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.

 
Then, no offense to Grom, he’s going to get smashed into the ground without a significant gear advantage or a larger party than intended on a world where the accepted concept is different.

To show just how large the gap is, let’s look at a 40 fighter versus a 12 fighter/3 rogue/25 weapon master under default rules.  Let’s assume they hit for the same amount of damage (good assumption) and crits don’t matter (bad assumption, so this is even further in the weapon master’s favor…or the mob is crit immune.  Whatever).  The 40 fighter should have 400 base HP, another 320 from Constitution with +12 con gear, 40 from Toughness, and 80 HP from Epic Toughness IV.  That’s 840 fighter HP.  Weapon Master has the same but no Epic Toughness IV, so 760 HP.  You know what, let’s make it 720 HP and assume the WM couldn’t get Toughness.  Let’s call the Fighter’s AB 20 and his AC 26.  The absolute value doesn’t matter.  Based upon that, we get the following…

Fighter: 840 HP, 20 AB, 26 AC

WM: 720 HP, 25 AB, 30 AC

Let’s also assume they’re both hasted and the Fighter is going against a mob with 800 HP, 19 AB, and 25 AC (aka, weaker than the Fighter).  Let’s give them all 20 damage per hit and 5 attacks per round hasted.

Our fighter gets a 80%/55%/30%/5%/80% schedule, or 2.5 hits per round, which is 50 damage per round.  Thus, it takes 16 rounds to defeat his enemy.  During this time, the enemy is attacking him with a 70%/45%/20%/5%/70% schedule, or 2.1 hits per round, aka 42 damage per round.  In those 16 rounds, that’s 672 damage dealt to the fighter, so the Fighter winds up at 168 HP.

Our WM gets a 95%/80%/55%/30%/95% schedule, or 3.55 hits per round, which is 71 damage per round. Thus it takes 11.3 rounds to defeat the enemy (rounding to the nearest tenth).  The enemy has a 50%/25%/5%/5%/50% schedule, or 1.35 hits per round.  At 20 damage per hit and 11.3 rounds, that’s 305.1 damage dealt to the WM.

In short, for the WM to take that same 672 HP in damage, you would need to increase the enemy’s HP to 1762 instead of 800.

Modifié par Magical Master, 28 juillet 2011 - 10:23 .

[Shadooow]

Why should all characters be same? What you are saying is actually like "delete all classes and keep only fighter". Yes some character is stronger than other, and what? You still can have stronger character only because you get "power-stats", that is charisma, dexterity and wisdom 8 over the anyone who takes "recommended" stats.

There is nothing wrong if you want to give the pure classes some good advantage. But nerfing everyone else to the pure fighter power is absolutely wrong way to go.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 28 juillet 2011 - 10:58 .

[Magical Master]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Why should all characters be same? What you are saying is actually like "delete all classes and keep only fighter"

Where in the world did I say that?  Go on, point it out.  Please.

[Magical Master]

Lowlander wrote...

I was actually quesitoning why any builder of SP mod would nerf monk Wis bonus for clerics:

How about a really simple case?  38 Cleric/2 Monk

Str: 10
Dex: 16
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 16 -> 36
Cha: 8

Assuming enough gear for +12 to Dex and Wisdom, that's 9 Dex modifier and 19 Wisdom modifier.

A strength cleric would have 1 dex AC, 8 armor AC, 3 shield AC, and then we're assuming +5 armor AC and +5 shield AC?  That's 22 AC from armor and shield if so.

Our Cleric/Monk will have 9 dex AC, 19 Wisdom AC, and +5 armor AC, or 33 AC.  That's a gain of 11 AC without using a shield, meaning they can dual-wield with Divine Favor/Battletide/etc buffs.

Want to see something else that's fun?  Let's make the cleric strength based and have them use a 2H weapon.

Str: 15 -> 30
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wisdom: 15 -> 20
Cha: 8

Assuming they can get +12 strength and +12 wisdom from gear, that's 2 Dex AC, 11 Wisdom AC, and +5 armor AC for 18 total.  Normally using a 2H causes a loss of 8 AC with a +5 shield, now they only lose 4 AC (and gain skill dumps for Tumble, Discipline, and get Evasion).

And the fun part is that if the cleric uses Maximized Bull's, Cat's, and Owl's...they only need a total of 21 stats from gear (versus the 24 we just used above).  With Str, Dex, and Wis all capped the cleric gets 8 Dex, 11 Wisdom, and +5 for 24 AC.  Yeah, our cleric went from using a 1H and shield to using a 2H and *gained* 2 AC.

That said, the main concern is usually the full-fledged casting Cleric listed first with dex that has a huge AC advantage.  I'm also assuming the cleric is multi-classing rogue, bard, or assassin for a tumble dump regardless, if they're not doing that then that's another 4 AC from tumble from the monk multi-class.

Lowlander wrote...

This all started with the point that think that designers really worry about doing specifc nerfs for SP mods(HIPS was specifically mentioned), which I still say they don't, it is largely pointless. That isn't the same thing as including some different magic system that makes hundreds of changes and incidentally includes something like a wis nerf for shifters.

If I was building a SP module (which I still technically might), I would worry about that and other issues.  Of course, I'd be changing a bunch of stuff like EMS does (not changing it to what EMS is, but a sweeping overhaul of a lot of stuff).  Having one casting cleric in full plate and tower shield having 11 AC less than a dual-wielding cleric/monk is sort of an issue.

[WebShaman]

Spank, spank, spank!

That has got to hurt!

[Kail Pendragon]

Magical Master wrote...

Kail Pendragon:

how does taking SD 1 to get HiPS become untrue to character if the character is supposed to be able to meld into shadows?

If a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 was able to cast Epic Spells due to 1 Wizard level, would you think that was true to the character?

Absolutely yes. If the character's concept is that of a warrior that casts epic spells and Wiz 1 is all I need to make it happen and FTR 39/Wiz 1 is the best class combo to get all the features to build a proper character portrayal in game, then it is extremely true to character. classes are just a bundle of features thrown together with a couple of limits here and there (paladin's code of honor, alignment restrictions, etc.) they are not character at all.

Personally, that doesn’t seem to make any sense to me as an accomplished spellcaster is represented by more than 1 spellcaster level.  Likewise, SD level 1 (or monk/paladin/whatever level 1) doesn’t seem to represent the mastery of melding into shadows.  Aka, it’s true to the character to take SD levels…but taking 1 SD level is like taking 1 level of Wizard to cast Epic Warding.

That's a game mechanic concern. It has nothing to do with trueness to character.

Kail Pendragon: 

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.

 
Then, no offense to Grom, he’s going to get smashed into the ground without a significant gear advantage or a larger party than intended on a world where the accepted concept is different.

Aye. He's gonna have a more challenging gaming experience if the balance is set in order to take in account for some build combos. I don't think that stops him from being true to what he feels is right for himself (Grom plays on WoG btw), but I'd better let Grom speak for himself.

To show just how large the gap is, let’s look at a 40 fighter versus a 12 fighter/3 rogue/25 weapon master under default rules... 

Old school nostalgic fellas apart, FTR 40 has basically no reason to be in NWN and it's pointless to make such comparisons. They are simply misleading. You've got another 2 class slots to be filled, use them. Make comparisons between different multiclass builds geared towards different playing strategies (damage dealer, damage soaker, damage avoider, etc.) if you wanna get something meaningful. Otherwise I'll put a cleric with 11 wisdom in the equation and say it sucks vs something built with a minimum of cleverness. Come on! When one willingly chooses not to use game feautures he has no right to lament about the drawbacks.

[Kail Pendragon]

Lowlander wrote...

I was actually quesitoning why any builder of SP mod would nerf monk Wis bonus for clerics

You were actually being offtopic and irrelevant at the offtopic point too. Nice combo you pulled.

Oh, and it all started with your unfounded and false claims about an alleged lack of fair and clean play in the SP environment which is simply an impossibility.

BTW, you are still being pedantically off topic. Try another time, maybe you'll succed in understanding what this topic is actually about.

[Kail Pendragon]

Lowlander wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Oh, and it all started with your unfounded and false claims about an alleged lack of fair and clean play in the SP environment which is simply an impossibility.

You are confused. I said SP module designers need not be any more concerned about HIPS spammers than other exploiters/cheaters/console jockeys.  Yes you then had an unbalanced reaction to the word cheaters, but I wasn't alleging anything,  just using a common term for people who "alter games to their advantage".  Just consider it shorthand, it is commonly used for that activity, and  you know it. So take chill pill and deal with it.

The point is you can never stop exploiters in a SP game and it is worth a designers time to bother.  They only have to design for people who aren't going exploit.

The point is that it's still off topic  And that anyhow, there are designers that try to stop some behaviours, no matter how useless and what a waste of time it seems to you or me (and look, I agree it's a waste of time to go and care about HiPS spamming... wanna do it, do it, who cares?).

So let's forget HiPS and Wis AC and module designers wasting their time on idiotic stuff they would better not give a darn about (Aielund can easily be played without the EMS if on eso desires btw) and let's get back to the merits or lack thereof of multiclassing, shall we.

[MrZork]

Magical Master wrote...

Kail Pendragon:

how does taking SD 1 to get HiPS become untrue to character if the character is supposed to be able to meld into shadows?

If a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 was able to cast Epic Spells due to 1 Wizard level, would you think that was true to the character?

Personally, that doesn’t seem to make any sense to me as an accomplished spellcaster is represented by more than 1 spellcaster level. Likewise, SD level 1 (or monk/paladin/whatever level 1) doesn’t seem to represent the mastery of melding into shadows. Aka, it’s true to the character to take SD levels…but taking 1 SD level is like taking 1 level of Wizard to cast Epic Warding.

Seems like that comparison between the two class combos isn't really an argument against NWN multiclassing as much as it is an argument against the design of the shadowdancer class. Wizards can't take epic spells with one level (and can't take epic warding even with an epic wizard level - that fighter will have to have saved up 34 skill points to spend on spellcraft, which is expensive for a 2 skill point/level, non-INT build). I'd say that's a good class design decision. The fact that shadowdancers get HiPS at level one is why it seems like a character is gaining "mastery" over something so easily, more so than the fact that a multiclassed character gets whatever a shadowdancer gets at level one. It might be true that NWN shouldn't give HiPS at the first level of SD, but that's more a class design issue than a multiclassing issue.

(BTW, as I mentioned earlier, I happen to think some aspects of the various classes might be a bit better with some tweaking. But, I don't really have a problem with the multiclassing, per se.)

I have to agree with Kail et alia that these comparisons between a pure level 40 classX character and a multiclassed character seem misplaced. There is no reason to think, for example, that a Fighter 40 should be able to go toe-to-toe with some other class combo, even in pure melee. The game is designed to allow players to make characters with more than one class - particularly when there are 40 levels to play with - and a character who chooses not to do that may be choosing to build a less effective character. We would probably all agree that building a fighter with no points in discipline won't usually be as effective as one with it. But, no one is saying that it's a problem with the skill system that the character with no discipline points won't fair as well as one with a higher discipline skill. We would just say, "So, yeah, put some points in discipline and help strengthen that character." It seems like it isn't much different to say, "So, yeah, put some levels in a class and help strengthen that character."

Modifié par MrZork, 29 juillet 2011 - 08:07 .

[Kail Pendragon]

Lowlander wrote...

As I said before I don't like builds that use alignment changes. Even if you manage find all the potential alignment changes in a module and use them at the right time to give you the alignment you want, this is pretty much an exploit IMO.

What if alignment changing means were very easily available? Just to stay IC, say tithing a small amount of gold to a proper temple to get an alignment shift; would you still feel it as an exploit?

I don't like extreme back loaded builds that take 1 level of something at 40 for massive skill dumps. It isn't so much that I consider them extreme power building. On the contrary they strike me as extreme stupid building. Why would deprive yourself of all those skills for your whole career, only to take them all when you are about to retire.

Maybe there are PWs where you start at level 40, then those builds make sense. In which case I wouldn't consider those builds sutpid, but I would consider the PWs lame an have zero interest in them.

PvP worlds are mostly or completely played at lvl 40. Those are the typical environments justifying the lvl 40 single skilldump. I guess there are modules built for lvl 40 characters, in that case they don't really differ from a module built for a lesser level.

Anyhow, I concur that single late level skilldumps are not the wisest building choice if one has to play the build from the ground up. I'd rather give up a little final (lvl 40) power in exchange for enhanced playability.

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

MrZork wrote...

Magical Master wrote...

Kail Pendragon:

how does taking SD 1 to get HiPS become untrue to character if the character is supposed to be able to meld into shadows?

Personally, that doesn’t seem to make any sense to me as an accomplished spellcaster is represented by more than 1 spellcaster level. Likewise, SD level 1 (or monk/paladin/whatever level 1) doesn’t seem to represent the mastery of melding into shadows. Aka, it’s true to the character to take SD levels…but taking 1 SD level is like taking 1 level of Wizard to cast Epic Warding.

Seems like that comparison between the two class combos isn't really an argument against NWN multiclassing as much as it is an argument against the design of the shadowdancer class. Wizards can't take epic spells with one level (and can't take epic warding even with an epic wizard level - that fighter will have to have saved up 34 skill points to spend on spellcraft, which is expensive for a 2 skill point/level, non-INT build). I'd say that's a good class design decision. The fact that shadowdancers get HiPS at level one is why it seems like a character is gaining "mastery" over something so easily, more so than the fact that a multiclassed character gets whatever a shadowdancer gets at level one. It might be true that NWN shouldn't give HiPS at the first level of SD, but that's more a class design issue than a multiclassing issue.

Not to stray too far off topic, but I'd like to point out something about the SD class since it seems to be used so much as an example. HIPS is much maligned because of a bug/feature that disables the action cue of all hostile creatures within sight of the character every time you hit your stealth button. But as has been pointed out before, HIPS really isn't all that powerful a feat, especially around adversaries with True Seeing active. At least the game designers must not have thought so, and that's why they gave it at first level. 

Just because you take 1 level of SD and can now use HIPS doesn't mean you've gained "mastery" of the SD class. SD gives you some sort of added benefit every level, for the first 10 levels. Every level you take gives you a feat, or an upgrade to summons, concealment, damage reduction, or armor class. It takes a minimum of 10 SD levels to gain "mastery" of the class itself. That's a minimum of 18 total character levels to achieve that mastery. When you consider this, HIPS doesn't seem to be "all that".

Of course, this is only relevant if we're talking RP. In a PvP focused environment, the HIPS bug/feature can wreak havoc if used by someone cheesy enough to spam it. Just like Knockdown. ;^)

[Kail Pendragon]

Lowlander wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...
Old school nostalgic fellas apart, FTR 40 has basically no reason to be in NWN and it's pointless to make such comparisons. They are simply misleading. You've got another 2 class slots to be filled, use them

Agreed and even for old school nostalgia, there was multi-class in 1st edition, but not for Humans which had a pretty aggravating Dual classing ability. Demi-humans could multiclass (even to triple classing). I still remember my very first AD&D character. He was an Elven Fighter/Magic User. After that I had affinity to Dwarven Fighter/Thief. I don't remember actually ever playing a single class character in 1st edition.

Back then you would generally only be 1 level behind when multiclassing. So My buddy the Ranger was 8th level, I was Ftr7/Thief7. I could fight like a full fighter, backstab like a full thief, full traps/locks/stealth...  Seems quite advantageous to me.

It was advantageous because of the exponential growth of XP requirements to lvl up which helped not losing too many levels compared to single classed characters and because one would get the best of both worlds (or of all wworlds with triple classing) getting to select the most advantageous THAC0, saves, etc. There were class level limits for demihumans though which woul deventually balance the equation...

So I don't get why old school 1st Edition players are any more put off of by multiclassing, it was there pretty extensively from the beginning. Unless they are thinking of Basic/Expert when Dwarf/Elf were classes. Then there was no multi-classing.

And even then Elf was basically a FTR/MU.
Ah, Elf FTR/MU was my favourite combo and I have fond memories of adventures involving the search for mithril armor. Great stuff.

[Kail Pendragon]

1st edition Bard was a mess, anyone with some sanity wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole. But aye, multiclassing was pretty much canon in ADnD and the lvl caps were often either practically out of reach or extended and multiclassing was one of the key advantages of playing a demihuman. Same as now it's generally self crippling not to multiclass, the same hold true back then with demihumans.

[Magical Master]

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Absolutely yes. If the character's concept is that of a warrior that casts epic spells and Wiz 1 is all I need to make it happen and FTR 39/Wiz 1 is the best class combo to get all the features to build a proper character portrayal in game, then it is extremely true to character. classes are just a bundle of features thrown together with a couple of limits here and there (paladin's code of honor, alignment restrictions, etc.) they are not character at all.

See, that underlined/bolded bit is the problem.  What's the difference between "character portrayal" and "proper character portrayal?"  Because the "spellcaster" Fighter 39/Wizard 1 seems to be the former and not the latter.  In short, I don't agree that classes are just a bundle of features with "limits."  They represent, at a minimum, time and training in that field.  And 1 level of Wizard doesn't seem like a "proper" amount of time to be casting Epic Spells.

Note that has nothing to do with balance, a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 might actually be an extremely weak character in a given world, it has to do with the concept.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Old school nostalgic fellas apart, FTR 40 has basically no reason to be in NWN and it's pointless to make such comparisons.

You've got another 2 class slots to be filled, use them.

How about Sorcerer 40?

I think this illustates the fundamental difference between you and Grom (and myself).  You view classes as something to be used, we view them as something to be played.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Otherwise I'll put a cleric with 11 wisdom in the equation and say it sucks vs something built with a minimum of cleverness. Come on!

To quote you, come on!  An optimized 40 fighter is nothing like giving a cleric 11 wisdom and I think you know that.

Lowlander wrote...

You are really artifically stacking the deck here. +12 dex and 
especially +12 wis items, really? How many SP modules have that, and on
what items?

....

So I will take my  natural armor +12, thank you very much. Where does that leave us again?

I think you're actually being serious...

I said "assuming enough gear for +12 to Dex and Wisdom."  Slot-wise, there's...

Chest
Helm
Gloves/Bracers
Cloak
Ring 1
Ring 2
Boots
Belt
Amulet

There's also technically weapon and potentially an off-hand weapon and shield, but let's discount those for a moment.  That's 9 slots not counting those.  If you have 3 items with +4 Dex and three items with +4 Wisdom (which still leaves 3 slots for other stats/armor/whatever), that's +12 to Dex and Wisdom.  If you have +6 items, you only need four items, leaving 5 slots open.  Etc.  Stats stack in NWN.

Lowlander wrote...

I don't like extreme back loaded builds that take 1 level of something
at 40 for massive skill dumps. It isn't so much that I consider them
extreme power building. On the contrary they strike me as extreme stupid
building. Why would deprive yourself of all those skills for your whole
career, only to take them all when you are about to retire.

Maybe
there are PWs where you start at level 40, then those builds make
sense. In which case I wouldn't consider those builds sutpid, but I
would consider the PWs lame an have zero interest in them.

Many PWs start at level 1, go up to a max level (be it 20, 30, 40, or whatever) and then have PvM high end dungeons so you can keep playing your character at that point.  The level cap is not viewed as "retirement" at all.

Lowlander wrote...

The only limit on multiclassing is local rules and imagination.  I don't
see why people want to hold it back.  Building characters in an
enjoyable element of NWN.

I agree building characters is an enjoyable element, but that has nothing to do with the previous sentence.  We want to "hold it back" because we think creating a more balanced environment promotes *more* viable builds and creates a better gaming experience.

MrZork wrote...

There is no reason to think, for example, that a Fighter 40 should be
able to go toe-to-toe with some other class combo, even in pure melee.

Try going toe-to-toe with a well built Fighter 40 in pure melee with a Wizard 14/Sorcerer 13/Druid 13 and let me know how that goes.

Lowlander wrote...

Back then you would generally only be 1 level behind when multiclassing.
So My buddy the Ranger was 8th level, I was Ftr7/Thief7. I could fight
like a full fighter, backstab like a full thief, full
traps/locks/stealth...  Seems quite advantageous to me.

And that makes sense.  You're not quite as good at fighting as a Fighter 8, you're not quite as good at thievery as a Thief 8, but you are able to do both pretty well.  You give up some advantage for not being pure class but gain other abilities and skills.  That's a conceptual trade-off for multi-classing.

[Kail Pendragon]

Magical Master wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Absolutely yes. If the character's concept is that of a warrior that casts epic spells and Wiz 1 is all I need to make it happen and FTR 39/Wiz 1 is the best class combo to get all the features to build a proper character portrayal in game, then it is extremely true to character. classes are just a bundle of features thrown together with a couple of limits here and there (paladin's code of honor, alignment restrictions, etc.) they are not character at all.

See, that underlined/bolded bit is the problem.  What's the difference between "character portrayal" and "proper character portrayal?"  Because the "spellcaster" Fighter 39/Wizard 1 seems to be the former and not the latter.  In short, I don't agree that classes are just a bundle of features with "limits."  They represent, at a minimum, time and training in that field.  And 1 level of Wizard doesn't seem like a "proper" amount of time to be casting Epic Spells.

I feel you are mixing up mechanics with character concepts. We might agree that having one level of wizard granting access to epic spells is lame design, but that has nothing to do with the character concept.

When I say "proper character portrayal" I mean having a build that realizes as closely as possible within the game mechanics the character concept I have in mind. If the character concept is properly realized by Ftr 39/Wiz 1 with epic spells than that build is true to character since it's a proper character portrayal. It's not for you to decide my (or anyone else's) character concepts, sorry. And you cannot say that something properly portrayed is not.

Also, classes are a bundle of features. Period. There's also no training time involved unless one optionally chooses to implement training, in the core rules. In fact, core rules let one become a wizard, for example, at any moment during the character's life. And even if training is involved, than it's a bundle of features too (related to skill, feat and class acquisition as in the DMG page 197 and following). Everything is a feature or a bundle of features in game mechanics.

Note that has nothing to do with balance, a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 might actually be an extremely weak character in a given world, it has to do with the concept.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Old school nostalgic fellas apart, FTR 40 has basically no reason to be in NWN and it's pointless to make such comparisons.

You've got another 2 class slots to be filled, use them.

How about Sorcerer 40?

Been there, done that: how about Sorc 38/Pally 1/Monk 1? And besides, it's irrelevant. Some pure classes work better than others, so what? Compare builds which are effective at doing what they are supposed to do in terms of efficiency otherwise you are left with the usual menaingless comparisons and figures.

I think this illustates the fundamental difference between you and Grom (and myself).  You view classes as something to be used, we view them as something to be played.

Aye, because I play characters not classes. I have always done and always will do; even if I choose to play a single class character I would still play the character not the class.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Otherwise I'll put a cleric with 11 wisdom in the equation and say it sucks vs something built with a minimum of cleverness. Come on!

To quote you, come on!  An optimized 40 fighter is nothing like giving a cleric 11 wisdom and I think you know that.

Ever heard of hyperbole? If you want to cripple your builds by avoiding to do what can be done to make them efficient, then why can't I do the same? The 11 Wis cleric is just a way to point out how silly your comparison is. You have three class slots total to make builds: use them cleverly in different ways and compare the results. But do not compare a crippled build (crippled of two useful class slots) to an efficient one.

I agree building characters is an enjoyable element, but that has nothing to do with the previous sentence.  We want to "hold it back" because we think creating a more balanced environment promotes *more* viable builds and creates a better gaming experience.

Which I told you elsewhere too, is perfectly fine. You have, like everyone, your own idea of a balanced environment and you have all the rights to recreate it. But that has nothing to do with being true to character.

And that makes sense.  You're not quite as good at fighting as a Fighter 8, you're not quite as good at thievery as a Thief 8, but you are able to do both pretty well.  You give up some advantage for not being pure class but gain other abilities and skills.  That's a conceptual trade-off for multi-classing.

It's the same in DnD 3.0/3.5 and in NWN. There is tradeoff. I know you are gonna say that the tradeoff is often menaingless (and I can easily concur with this) but then again that's a clear sign that you are "supposed" to multiclass "cleverly" (bear with me terms) if you want to have a build which works. And then again, how "balanced" a game ruleset is, how functional or broken it is etc. has little to do with being true to the character.


Just to be perfectly clear: it's all fine and dandy that you, MM, think that pure builds should be on more or less equal footing with multiclassed ones and that the power gap between different builds should be less extreme than what currently we have in vanilla (and not only vanilla) NWN and also that you are taking steps, in your projects, to achieve that result. I'm confident it's gonna be something good. But all that is something related to game mechanics and finding a certain kind of game balance. It has nothing to do with having certain multiclassing choices not being true to character.

[Shadooow]

Kail Pendragon wrote...
Aye, because I play characters not classes. I have always done and always will do; even if I choose to play a single class character I would still play the character not the class.

Well said. I can put my signature to this and I think it answers the main question itself.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 29 juillet 2011 - 08:43 .

[zDark Shadowz]

As my response to all the posts in page 5 - depends on the server, if it's roleplay or action, and what equipment is available to improve upon the varying nature of the character and what the dm's were intending to achieve with the portrayal of classes in terms of playability. Discussing different variant states and bases from which a character may become "too overpowered" or "untrue to the character" due to multiclassing just spams up the pages.

Personally, back to the topic at hand, this is my opinion on multiclassing.
I multiclass.
Pretty much every character class rewards specialisation, but if everyone was pure-classed we'd have too few character-types and natures to choose from. It's easier to create a "resourceful" paladin if said paladin has had training as a scout (rogue) for searching out signs of evil, although then this could be considered a skill-dump, but if they cross-classed those rogue skills up until the point they took rogue for class, as compared to someone who skill-dumped after saving up their points, would they be "more allowed" to have rogue? Perhaps, on roleplay servers, after the initial character class has been picked, people could set up skill/feat requirements to multiclass into alternate standard character classes, thus "more deserved". On an Action server, it shouldn't really matter too much in this instance. A barbarian turned fighter, a very common instance on low-level servers, is a bit odd as well roleplay-wise, as you're comparing unrelenting rage, chaos incarnate, as compared to a fighter, rigorous training and intense discipline. Perhaps if the barbarian had Skill-Focus Discipline first, it would be more appropriate to turn fighter.

Another example is SD. Sure, shadowdancer may only take one level for Hide in Plain Sight, it's true, and yes, even to me it seems a bit odd, perhaps it should've been at level five or so, as it sort of seems to be the epitome of their training, but then, that's what prestige class requirements are for - so they actually do have the skills and the feats, the proper "training" required to perform such a feat. If the dm's on a server disagree that these skills are too cheap to attain, it's not hard to restrict the prestige class via scripts unless they have found the relevant training in-game to start progressing as such, like a hidden guild.

So, in my opinion, multiclassing is okay. I'm the kind of person who, probably, is a powergamer in denial, but if I think of a character concept, I tend to build the best I can to both match my idea as well as be generally a good build in it's own right. A powergaming build doesn't have to naturally be bad at roleplay, and nor does a roleplay build (such as a bard) have to suck at pretty much everything than singing.
If it's a resourceful paladin, or a gladiator who was taken as a slave from a barbarian land, then such combinations as Paladin/rogue and barbarian/fighter, (hell, even a wizard thrown into a zombie-apocalypse might want to pick up a sword to defend himself,) can all seem valid and non-skill-dumpy if you put some thought into your character's background, and where you want his nature to progress. A flexible character is a more interesting person to meet than someone completely and blindly devoted to fixed perceptions such as pure-class characters.

But, that's just my opinion.

Modifié par zDark Shadowz, 30 juillet 2011 - 03:17 .