163 réponses à ce sujet

[MrZork]

MrZork wrote...

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. [...]

Magical Master wrote...

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.

My last sentence is taken a little out of context. I guess I could have stated it explicitly, but I wasn't trying to say there aren't any multiclass splits that are less effective in melee than a pure fighter. That would be silly. I was talking about your statement that

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.

I was thinking about that, and the examples you had mentioned after (and to which Kail referred) in expanding on the point. You had compared pure level 40 builds against multiclassed characters and noted the advantage the multiclassed character had. (As in your post discussing F 40 versus F 12 / Ro 3 / WM 25.) The implication seemed to be that the disparity indicated a problem because a pure fighter should be as good as a fighter multiclass build in melee.

My point was that there isn't any reason to think that's the case. In other words, though reasoning like fighter is the explicit melee class, therfore pure fighter is as good as any other class at melee has a certain linguistic appeal, there isn't actually any reason for it to be true. It would be similar to thinking that pale masters are the game's explicit connection-with-undeath class, so a 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10 / PM 30) should be as good as any other class with powers. However, I doubt we would be especially surprised if there were a non-maximized PM build, a cleric build, or even a druid/shifter build with undead shape that was more effective.

Anyway, I hope that is more clear.

Modifié par MrZork, 30 juillet 2011 - 10:26 .

[HipMaestro]

A quote from the movie Troy...

Sean Bean (as Odysseus) to Brad Pitt (as Achilles):  "You have your swords.  I have my tricks.  We play with the toys the gods give us."  In the context of this topic, simply substitute "NWN" for "the gods".

Do not allow your personal bias to prevent you from accepting the global possibilities, nor sway you from learning to deal productively with that reality.  Diversity of perspective is what makes adventuring together the most fun and challenging of all.

You guys kill me! *lol*  Wouldn't miss it for the world!

[Magical Master]

Oh boy.  6-7 posts to respond to.  I'm going to try to condense this a bit, if I miss an important point I apologize in advance and feel free to rub it in my face or something.

Lowlander wrote...

In most mods I have played, the ONLY decent wisdom I have found is periapt of wisdom. I usually end up with a choice of Wisdom +7 or Natural AC +7 in Hordes for example.  Other than that I rememember a shield (you can't use) and the cloak of +2 to everything

I don't see the point of saying "There's horrible itemization in the mods I've played, therefore x."  That's like saying "All enemies in this mod have +6 damage reduction and no weapons above +5, therefore physical attackers suck."  If we use your example of Hordes, then the best wisdom a pure casting cleric can get is +7 (unless they use a specific shield found in Act 3).  How is it fair for a Wizard to get two rings of intelligence and easily cap int but a cleric can't get past +7?  I mean, Bioware was throwing belts with 10 strength or 10 dexterity on them around and boots with 10 constitution.  And saying a cleric, in general, has to choose between wisdom or natural AC just seems a bit outrageous.  Because you can't lose 7 AC and not get shredded by physical attacks in any halfway challenging mod.

In short, I think Bioware's itemization in Hordes was bad in general (+10 weapons with Keen/Haste/True Seeing/2 Regen/2d6 bonus damage) and while assuming +12 items for stats is probably unreasonable, I don't think assuming a few items with +4-6 of stats being available (just like the int rings) is unreasonable.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

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.

How close does it have to be?  Is this a Boolean sort of thing?  Either it is a proper character portrayal or it isn't?  Because I think we'd agree that it's not a matter of game mechanics.  If a 38 wizard/2 fighter is in full plate and sword but is completely ineffective in melee, that's not what we're talking about, because that's a balancing issue.  Aka, when you say "as closely as possible" do you really mean "as powerful as possible?"

Kail Pendragon wrote...

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.

Actually, I wasn't referring to "level 1" being particularly significant, just that a character with 4 mage levels has spent more time training as a mage than a character with 2 mage levels.  Or would you disagree with that?

Kail Pendragon wrote...

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.

So if some pure classes work well, doesn't that turn into a balancing/mechanics issue rather than a concept issue?  I have a feeling that if someone wanted to play a level 40 true neutral sorcerer you wouldn't think him as much of an idiot as a 40 fighter (please note the "as much" part).  But that seems to be due to mechanical issues, not concept, aye?

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.

Not really.  Haven't you talked about how you feel obliged to justify a class being in the character?  "Bob the sorcerer had a devout moment, so went and trained as a paladin for 1 level, then decided he'd rather be a sorcerer anyway."  If character is all that matter, then why do you care about justifying class choices within the character?

Lowlander wrote...

You mean 4 Fig/4 Rog has no tradeoffs in 3E, but  7 Fig/7 Thief in 1st Ed does??

Except we're talking about a Fighter 7/Rogue 1 (or more like Fighter 38/Rogue 2) in NWN taken solely for skill dumps, not two classes being leveled up together.  I actually don't know anything about any DnD edition prior to the 3rd, so I probably was giving the designers more credit than I should have on this topic.  We can talk about it further if you'd like, but I'm not it's of any particular importance and you'd probably just have to fill me in on a lot.

zDark Shadowz wrote...

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.

I think it's more the issue that a 10 Rogue/30 SD is no better at Hiding in Plain Sight than a 39 Rogue/1 SD.  It's not a matter of the difference being too much or too little, it's that *no* difference exists.  That's the concept problem, the exact difference is a balance problem.

Mr. Zork wrote...

My point was that there isn't any reason to think that's the case. In other words, though reasoning like fighter is the explicit melee class, therfore pure fighter is as good as any other class at melee has a certain linguistic appeal, there isn't actually any reason for it to be true. It would be similar to thinking that pale masters are the game's explicit connection-with-undeath class, so a 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10 / PM 30) should be as good as any other class with powers. However, I doubt we would be especially surprised if there were a non-maximized PM build, a cleric build, or even a druid/shifter build with undead shape that was more effective.

Actually, it would be more like "fighter is the full BAB class with absolutely no special tricks or abilities outside of pure fighting ability, therefore in a straight up brawl with absolutely no special abilities factored in the fighter should win." This is ignoring prestige classes for the moment.  The problem with the Fighter 39/Rogue 1 winning is that there's no traps to be set, no Sneak Attacks to be delivered, no stealth to sneak up on the Fighter 40, no special gear or scrolls to be UMDed, no nothing, just a straight up brawl.  Moreover, *adding more Rogue levels only makes it more likely for the Fighter 40 to win.*  Adding 1 Rogue level guarantees a win 99.9% of the time, but adding additional Rogue levels reduces this chance?  How does that make sense, conceptually?

With your Pale Master example, it would be more fair to say "A 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10/PM 30) should be the best at undead related powers, such as summoning undead."

HipMaestro wrote...

Sean Bean (as Odysseus) to Brad Pitt (as Achilles):  "You have your swords.  I have my tricks.  We play with the toys the gods give us."  In the context of this topic, simply substitute "NWN" for "the gods".

Except there *are* no tricks in this example.  In a straight up battle, Achilles will beat Odysseus.  Yet that doesn't happen in NWN.

MrZork wrote...

The implication seemed to be that the disparity indicated a problem because a pure fighter should be as good as a fighter multiclass build in melee.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

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

Just to touch on this a bit....

To be clear, I don't think all builds should be exactly equal at everything.  I have no qualms with a Fighter/WM being much better at offense than a Fighter, or a Fighter/DD being much better at defense.  But I do think multi-classing should always come with a trade-off.  A Fighter can't match a Fighter/WM at offense, but he can have better defense.  A Fighter can't match a Fighter/DD at defense, but he can have better offense.  I'm all for a variety of builds promoting different specializations, strengths, weaknesses, and tricks.

My main concern is the power gap that Kail mentioned.  I mainly play in a world where 1% is a significant difference.  Take a look at despotism.enjin.com/home/m/1283718/article/267070/page/3  We have 10:30 before the boss berserks and starts killing people with 1 hit.  In 10:30 we got the boss to 300,000 out of 51,000,000 HP, which is 0.6%.  Our damage per second as a group at the time was about 60,000.  In other words, we needed 5 more seconds to beat the boss versus losing.  5 seconds out of 630 seconds total.  If we had done 1% more damage each by that point, we would have won instead of wiping.

In NWN, 1 AB or 1 AC is typically a 10% or so difference (exact value depends upon the current AB/AC gap).  To me, if the only advantage a weapon master had over a fighter was 2 AB, that's a 20% damage difference, which is huge for tightly tuned content.  Most content in NWN is not tuned to nearly that level, which is fine, because most players don't want to play at that extreme of a level.  But when I see some builds having a 10 AC or 10 AB advantage over others...you can't tune anything to be reasonable for both.  And I die a little bit inside when people dismiss a "few points" of AB or AC as not significant.

Modifié par Magical Master, 30 juillet 2011 - 09:41 .

[Kail Pendragon]

Magical Master wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

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.

How close does it have to be?  Is this a Boolean sort of thing?  Either it is a proper character portrayal or it isn't?  Because I think we'd agree that it's not a matter of game mechanics.  If a 38 wizard/2 fighter is in full plate and sword but is completely ineffective in melee, that's not what we're talking about, because that's a balancing issue.  Aka, when you say "as closely as possible" do you really mean "as powerful as possible?"

I thought it was pretty clear what I said in the humble ordinary english I can put together: I have a character concept I have to render in game; I use the game mechanics to build a character build which represents that character concept within the specific game mechanics as faithfully as possible (100% being ideal, but that has to clash with the game mechanic limits generally speaking). It has nothing to do with power, it has to do with faithfulness to the concept.

So if character build X is the one that better renders my character concept in game, then using that build I'm being true to character.

Actually, I wasn't referring to "level 1" being particularly significant, just that a character with 4 mage levels has spent more time training as a mage than a character with 2 mage levels.  Or would you disagree with that?

Which is irrelevant to the fact that an hypothetical Ftr 39/Wiz 1 which has access to epic spells can be true to character if that build i swhat properly renders the character concept in game. And btw, try Ftr 20/Bard 4/PM 16 with 8 Cha as a realistic NWN example of a fighter with epic spells (up to 3) but no ordinary spellcasting power.

Game mechanics, from the player's perspective, are a given. They can be balanced or not, lame or not, etc. but once one chooses to play by those mechanics, then he has to make a character build for his character concept. The build that better renders the character in game is the right one, no matter whether it's a crippled build power wise or whether it's one taking advantage of game features. What matter is faithfulness to character. Balance considerations are just irrelevant and are actually off topic here.

So if some pure classes work well, doesn't that turn into a balancing/mechanics issue rather than a concept issue?  I have a feeling that if someone wanted to play a level 40 true neutral sorcerer you wouldn't think him as much of an idiot as a 40 fighter (please note the "as much" part).  But that seems to be due to mechanical issues, not concept, aye?

You are mistaking completely what I am saying. Why should the player picking a Ftr 40 build be considered an idiot if that build properly represents his character in game? Similarly, why should one feel untrue to character if what better represents his character in game is Cleric 38/Monk 2? One should build as one feels is right for his character without preconceptions.

Not really.  Haven't you talked about how you feel obliged to justify a class being in the character?  "Bob the sorcerer had a devout moment, so went and trained as a paladin for 1 level, then decided he'd rather be a sorcerer anyway."  If character is all that matter, then why do you care about justifying class choices within the character?

The character has no classes. Only the character build has. All that matters is that the character build properly represents the character in game, in as much as being true to character is concerned.

[MrZork]

Magical Master wrote...

Mr. Zork wrote...

My point was that there isn't any reason to think that's the case. In other words, though reasoning like fighter is the explicit melee class, therfore pure fighter is as good as any other class at melee has a certain linguistic appeal, there isn't actually any reason for it to be true. It would be similar to thinking that pale masters are the game's explicit connection-with-undeath class, so a 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10 / PM 30) should be as good as any other class with powers. However, I doubt we would be especially surprised if there were a non-maximized PM build, a cleric build, or even a druid/shifter build with undead shape that was more effective.

Actually, it would be more like "fighter is the full BAB class with absolutely no special tricks or abilities outside of pure fighting ability, therefore in a straight up brawl with absolutely no special abilities factored in the fighter should win."

Maybe, but why? It still seems like there is an assumption that a pure build in a class that is supposed to be good at something must therefore be better at that thing than a multiclassed build. There just is no reason to think that a pure fighter should be best in a straight-up melee comparison. Fighter turns out to be an incredibly useful class for melee builds, but the idea that a pure fighter must be the best just doesn't follow. It seems a little like "if some is good, then most must be best" thinking.

This is ignoring prestige classes for the moment. The problem with the Fighter 39/Rogue 1 winning is that there's no traps to be set, no Sneak Attacks to be delivered, no stealth to sneak up on the Fighter 40, no special gear or scrolls to be UMDed, no nothing, just a straight up brawl.

But what there is is the opportunity to use something that rogues are particularly good at, which is using their tumble ability to avoid attacks in combat. Those other skills are rogue skills, but so is tumble. You may think that +4 tumble AC is too much potential for that one rogue level (and I am sympathetic to that view), but a case can also be made that a 40th level character should be able to combine his other experience to make better use of one level of rogue training than a 1st or 5th or whatever lower level character could. Someone with lots of combat experience (even if it was previously non-rogue) may see more or better opportunities to integrate the tumble skill than someone with less experience.

Moreover, *adding more Rogue levels only makes it more likely for the Fighter 40 to win.* Adding 1 Rogue level guarantees a win 99.9% of the time, but adding additional Rogue levels reduces this chance? How does that make sense, conceptually?

Maybe because, in this fairly narrow example, the level split sweet spot for the trade-off in fighter training and rogue training occurs at one late level of rogue. Expanding the analysis to more examples may yield a different sweet spot. A fighter with two levels of rogue may do better in a combat situation where he has to dodge spells (evasion) and a fighter with three levels of rogue may do better in a combat situation where he is dealing with more than one opponent or sneak attacks (uncanny dodge). But, regardless of where the optimal sweet spot is for a particular example combat situation, there is still no reason to believe that sweet spot should always be at a level split of fighter 40 / rogue 0 when the combat focuses on melee.

With your Pale Master example, it would be more fair to say "A 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10/PM 30) should be the best at undead related powers, such as summoning undead."

But not just at summoning undead; that's not the only undead-related power in the game. The druid/shifter with undead shape likely has access to more undead-related powers than the pure PM does. Meanwhile, a build with more arcane caster or cleric levels in the mix can summon undead and potentially do a better job of making them strong for combat. I'm not saying the pure PM wouldn't get some nice summons, but you can see that other classes that aren't inherently undeath focused can potentially use undeath to as great an advantage as the pure PM. Combine them with PM and it's even more true, whether or not the level 30 PM has better unbuffed summons. So, PM is the undeath-powers class, but a pure PM doesn't necessarily come out on top in the use of undead-related powers. Why should it be different for fighters with regard to melee?

Once again, I am just saying that because a class is supposed to be good at something doesn't necessarily mean that a pure build of that class should be always best at that thing.

Modifié par MrZork, 31 juillet 2011 - 01:47 .

[WebShaman]

I do not intend to get into the "meat" of the argument here - suffice it to say that I am in the MM camp here - I hold that MCing should come with negatives that offest the advantages. That in the end, level 40 (as an end point here) should all be fairly balanced. To be blunt, that each and every level should be fairly balanced, regardless of amount of classes taken.

Clearly a rules thing here.

One thing I would like to point out - Epic Spell Casting in NWN is severely flawed in it's implementation. The PnP version will not allow someone to cast epic spells without being able to cast 9th level, etc. The PRC does a great implementation of how the Epic Spellcasting System is supposed to work (from the PnP version). Note that NWN2 also goes the Bioware NWN route, and totally messed it up (why they did not use the PRC implementation is beyond me, seeing as all the work had already been done).

Therefore, we can clearly see that the rules did not mean for a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 to be able to cast Epic Spells. This came about in NWN because due to economic restraints, the implementation led to this allowance.

Purely a game mechanic failure here.

So my question is, how can one create a character concept that does not work (but does due to the rules not being properly implemented)? Such does cause me a bit of trouble. I see the same problem with the Paladin/Rogue due to the Sneak Attack not being possible to "turn off" - though it should be. Such are things that are implemented in a PC game version of a Pen and Paper game.

[MrZork]

WebShaman wrote...

I do not intend to get into the "meat" of the argument here - suffice it to say that I am in the MM camp here - I hold that MCing should come with negatives that offest the advantages. That in the end, level 40 (as an end point here) should all be fairly balanced. To be blunt, that each and every level should be fairly balanced, regardless of amount of classes taken.

Clearly a rules thing here.

One thing I would like to point out - Epic Spell Casting in NWN is severely flawed in it's implementation. The PnP version will not allow someone to cast epic spells without being able to cast 9th level, etc. The PRC does a great implementation of how the Epic Spellcasting System is supposed to work (from the PnP version). Note that NWN2 also goes the Bioware NWN route, and totally messed it up (why they did not use the PRC implementation is beyond me, seeing as all the work had already been done).

Therefore, we can clearly see that the rules did not mean for a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 to be able to cast Epic Spells. This came about in NWN because due to economic restraints, the implementation led to this allowance.

Purely a game mechanic failure here.

So my question is, how can one create a character concept that does not work (but does due to the rules not being properly implemented)? Such does cause me a bit of trouble. I see the same problem with the Paladin/Rogue due to the Sneak Attack not being possible to "turn off" - though it should be. Such are things that are implemented in a PC game version of a Pen and Paper game.

Okay, I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now and I'll admit to being lost, because this time it's clearly not just a joke or hypothetical example and it's coming from someone whose expertise on wizards I've never doubted. How can a Fighter 39 / Wizard 1 get epic spells. I've not been with the game as long as most of you, but I was pretty sure there was no way to do this, both because the NWNWiki is pretty clear on the issue and because I have run into it before when trying work a reciprocal damage build with no more than 20 levels of wizard and I couldn't get epic spells (yes, with 19+ INT and 40+ spellcraft).

So, apologize again for not knowing what's going on here, but can someone please explain how this F 39 / W 1 ends up with an epic spell?

[MrZork]

And, of course, after getting a phone call just before posting, I come back to hit 'Submit' and see that Lowlander has beaten me to the question. At least I know I'm not the only one confused by the epic spell comment. ;-)

[Weiser_Cain]

I love multiclassing and a dip in a class, say monk is fine in my book, it even works in character, say you spent a summer learning to focus and throw a punch without leaving yourself open to getting stabbed in the guts.
People that don't like it should just not do it and TRY NOT TO RUIN THE FUN OF OTHERS.

[WebShaman]

From the Wiki :

Epic spells are obtained by taking the associated feats after obtaining either epic status in a primary spellcasting class or level 15 in the pale master class. These spells require a certain number of spellcraft ranks in order to be learned.

So the Fighter 39/Wiz 1 can't cast Epic Spells, obviously. I am sure MM was just using that as an example to compare it with the SD level 1 getting HiPS. Though one could re-edit it, of course, so that it was possible.

Still, there is the Pale Master conundrum.

@ Weiser_Cain - nobody here is trying to "ruin the fun of others". You will notice that none of what is being discussed here is being "forced" on anyone. What you do in a SP game is your business.

We are also expressing opinions here - as you are.

And there is obviously a HUUUUUGE difference in a Monk 1/Cleric 1 and a Monk 1/Cleric 39 - being that the first one does not have SPs to burn (re: do a massive skill drop in Tumble, Discipline), whereas the latter can.

This is obviously not what you have described - being that you have really only described the "first case" and not the second one. So yes, in the first example, it works as you have stated and is in character. In the second, however, it does not and therefore is not in character.

Normally, in the PnP version of the game, it is not possible to do a massive skill point drop (one cannot "save up" skill points). This echoes reality, as it is also not possible to "save up" one's skill points (assuming there was such a thing in the first place, of course! ) Instead, such gets applied as one goes along, as one gets them. This is how the PnP version of the game works, btw.

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

WebShaman wrote...

Normally, in the PnP version of the game, it is not possible to do a massive skill point drop (one cannot "save up" skill points). This echoes reality, as it is also not possible to "save up" one's skill points (assuming there was such a thing in the first place, of course! ) Instead, such gets applied as one goes along, as one gets them. This is how the PnP version of the game works, btw.

NWN is NOT PnP. Nor do I believe the folks at Bioware who created the game ever intended for it to be. It's a computer game that is "based" on the 3.0 rule set of D&D.

As is evident by the fact they were never published with the game manual that comes with NWN, there were never any "rules" set, or implied, by the game creators other than those that are hard coded into the game engine. It actually states that in the game manual, btw. The only way to add to, or change those hard coded rules, is to do so by scripting. That then falls under the category of "house rules". The nice thing about "house rules" is that if you don't like or agree with them, you don't have to play at that "house". 

So, fortunately for all of us, multi-classing and skill point dumping are soley up to the discretion of the player, until the player decides to play at someone else's "house". 

Modifié par Gregor Wyrmbane, 01 août 2011 - 05:33 .

[Shadooow]

Lowlander wrote...

WebShaman wrote...

And there is obviously a HUUUUUGE difference in a Monk 1/Cleric 1 and a Monk 1/Cleric 39 - being that the first one does not have SPs to burn (re: do a massive skill drop in Tumble, Discipline), whereas the latter can.

I think there is unanimous agreement that the NWN game mechanics are not perfect.  But IMO they are perfectly servicable.

Cheese like the above would be the result of the play environment. The mechanics do enable such cheese, but if you were playing on slow leveling server, then you would likely never see anything like that as it would take months/years to reach level 40 and it would be utterly pointless to wait that long for a skill dump.

Play on a powergaming, instant or weekend long rise to level 40 and you encourage this and other cheese.

I have no problem with the mechanics, because when you encourage cheese you get cheese. It is that simple, most people drawn to the cheese servers expect this, so there are likely few complaints.

Now if you play on Pre-Epic (level 20) capped, slow levelling server, you will see an absolute minimum of cheese and the closest thing to an Old school PnP D&D experience. Multiclassing tends to be tamer because with only 20 levels, Fighters will be wanting to maximize their BAB, and Casters will be wanting to max their spell casting and no one wants to wait till level 20 (months) to do a massive skill dump. When I played on such a world there were many pure Rangers, pure rogues, pure monks, pure clerics, pure wizards...

The mechanics will never be perfect, but the environment can make all the difference in the world while barely touching the mechanics.

I agree with this. The problem is that I dont know any such PW that would be favored by players. At least not action based as I dont enjoy (hardcore) roleplay.

I little OT: I was planning my own PW and told my friends that I want to levelling to be as slow as possible and special Q at lvl 20 that will unlock epic levels which should take weeks until someone do it. And what they told me? That they dont want to fiddle with 1lvl days, that they want it fast or they wont play my module. Ok so I made that fast, what happened? They were max lvl in two weeks and then they asked me to make another challenges so they can play with their max lvl characters further... <_< So I ended up like everyone else.

And as long as you can do something at max lvl, player will start make powerbuilds using skill dumps etc even if the levelling time would be very long (but the longest the less player will try it). Persistent world that wont offer anything for max lvl characters only new start are not viable imo, tried that and once they made few characters, they left my module.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 01 août 2011 - 08:12 .

[zDark Shadowz]

/* Marking this post as off-topic, and not even going to bother making numerous quotes */

40 Fighter is a weird build. A build designed to learn as many feats as possible -- but having special training elsewhere (such as multiclassing with rogue) is just being smart - to make the most out of learning different skills, to see things from another viewpoint, and to fight with the benefits of another perspective. A pure fighter may very well miss out on the fact that a 30 Fighter 10 Torm gets the same amount of feats, but improved saving throws, healing and smite as well... and don't forget Divine Wrath. The favor of the gods behind a fighter

Prestige classes are "extensions" of your primary, instead of being a class by itself. It sounds kind of lame to say this, but if you blind your character from training that could benefit it, such as teaching a fighter to hit where it hurts and to duck and roll efficiently (using a rogue level) then that's your own loss. If you, as a player, aren't intelligent enough to make your character see that training in another profession may help them in their primary, then that's your own ignorance.

A football player may very well learn how to dance to help increase their co-ordination skills for football in real life.

[Magical Master]

Sorry, been busy.  Back into the fray!

Kail Pendragon wrote...

I use the game mechanics to build a character build which represents that character concept within the specific game mechanics as faithfully as possible (100% being ideal, but that has to clash with the game mechanic limits generally speaking). It has nothing to do with power, it has to do with faithfulness to the concept.

I don't understand how you determine faithfulness.  For example, since we're using the Fighter 39/Wizard 2 example, what makes that more or less faithful than a Fighter 38/Wizard 2 or Fighter 37/Wizard 3?  Or referencing the Cleric 38/Monk 2, how is that more faithful than Cleric 39/Monk 1 or Cleric 35/Monk 5?

To repeat myself from earlier,

"Actually, I wasn't referring to "level 1" being particularly significant, just that a character with 4 mage levels has spent more time training as a mage than a character with 2 mage levels.  Or would you disagree with that?"

Lowlander wrote...

It makes more sense than arguing that a particular build is superior because you load him up with custom items not typically found.

I don't see why you thinking having +5 Intelligence rings is normal, but having +5 Wisdom or +5 Charisma rings is not.  I'm thinking over the SP mods I've played and I don't recall a single one that didn't have lots of custom items.  The same is true (even more so) for PWs.

Lowlander wrote...

Besides A level 39 something/rogue 1 is silly build almost anywhere but a server that does instant or near instant 40th level. Play anywhere reasonable paced level progression and you will never see such a build

You'll see those builds wherever the hardest content is at level 40 and people are expected to play level 40 characters for a long time.  Doesn't matter if it takes an hour or three months to hit 40.

MrZork wrote...

It still seems like there is an assumption that a pure build in a class that is supposed to be good at something must therefore be better at that thing than a multiclassed build.

You mean like assuming a pure Wizard will be better at arcane spellcasting than a multi-classed Wizard?

MrZork wrote...

But what there is is the opportunity to use something that rogues are particularly good at, which is using their tumble ability to avoid attacks in combat.

....

Maybe because, in this fairly narrow example, the level split sweet spot for the trade-off in fighter training and rogue training occurs at one late level of rogue.

I think Tumble is broken in concept, mechanical implementation, and balance.  AFAIK, in DnD you can't even use Tumble in medium or heavy armor.  I don't see how a person in full plate and tower shield is going to be able to emply tumbling skill to move away from an attack.  The idea of tumbling is different than the idea of dodging aside (and Dodge is a Fighter bonus feat).

And actually, as long as you took the rogue level at level 7 or later, the Fighter 39/Rogue 1 will win.

Weiser_Cain wrote...

I love multiclassing and a dip in a class, say monk is fine in my book, it even works in character, say you spent a summer learning to focus and throw a punch without leaving yourself open to getting stabbed in the guts. People that don't like it should just not do it and TRY NOT TO RUIN THE FUN OF OTHERS.

...really?  You think people who limit multiclassing or adjust class abilities/benefits are out to ruin the fun of others, instead of trying to *improve* the fun of others?

Webshaman wrote...

So the Fighter 39/Wiz 1 can't cast Epic Spells, obviously. I am sure MM was just using that as an example to compare it with the SD level 1 getting HiPS.

Correct.  My point was that a Wizard 1 being able to cast Epic Spells doesn't make sense conceptually, since we associate more levels in a class with more training in a class, and 1 level of Wizard isn't sufficient training for Epic Spells.  Maybe the Epic Spell isn't a very good Epic Spell and for whatever reason the character winds up actually being worse off by learning to cast it, aka it's not unbalancing.  But it still doesn't make sense conceptually.

Lowlander wrote...

I have no problem with the mechanics, because when you encourage cheese you get cheese. It is that simple, most people drawn to the cheese servers expect this, so there are likely few complaints.

This is pretty much what I said when I entered the thread where I was talking about concept and result.  It's when you have people who don't want cheese and people who do want cheese on the same server that you get an issue.  You can't balance for both, but you can balance for either.

zDark Shadowz wrote...

A football player may very well learn how to dance to help increase their co-ordination skills for football in real life.

Or...they could just do football drills that increase their coordination.

Modifié par Magical Master, 06 août 2011 - 10:23 .

[Shadooow]

Lowlander wrote...

You'll see those builds wherever the hardest content is at level 40 and people are expected to play level 40 characters for a long time.  Doesn't matter if it takes an hour or three months to hit 40.

It certainly does matter. If it takes 3 months to reach level 40, why would anyone build a fighter39/Rogue 1, when a Fighter36/Rogue4 (or even more Rogue) would be just as effective and allow benefit of Rogue skills for months, not just when they reach level 40. When you allow instant (an hour is instant) level 40, you are pretty much asking for the cheesiest end loaded build anyone can come up with.

MM is right there. If the majority of the PW content is at maximum level for peoples like me it has sense to maximalize the potentional of my character whatever it takes. And remember if we are talking about some time to get at maximum level, be sure that powergamers like me can do it in 1/4 ammount of time.

Sure the longer it takes the less players will do it but the longer it takes the less players will be willing to even play there.

[Magical Master]

Lowlander wrote...

Remember what this specific part of hte conversation was about. The necessity of nerfing cleric/monk AC Wisdom bonus. So you are arguing that if module creater goes through the trouble of creating custome items that specifically benefit the cleric/Monk, then you create the conditions necessary to consider nerfing it? That is kind of silly.

The items benefit a 40 cleric.  The items benefit a 20 cleric/20 fighter.  The items benefit a 26 cleric/4 bard/10 RDD.  They're items which give more spell slots and higher spell DC for cleric spellcasting.  Aka, not providing them is being unfair to cleric builds that *don't* use the monk AC.  It is only cleric/monks that forego armor that create an issue.

If the items were only useful for a Cleric/Monk combination, then yes, that would be silly.  However, they're extremely valuable for Clerics *and* valuable for Monks individually.  It's the combination that is problematic.

Lowlander wrote...

It certainly does matter. If it takes 3 months to reach level 40, why would anyone build a fighter39/Rogue 1, when a Fighter36/Rogue4 (or even more Rogue) would be just as effective and allow benefit of Rogue skills for months, not just when they reach level 40. When you allow instant (an hour is instant) level 40, you are pretty much asking for the cheesiest end loaded build anyone can come up with.

As ShaDoOoW said, if the true difficulty is group content (PvE *or* PvP) at level 40 and people expect to be playing that level 40 character for months or years, they'll put up with a harder leveling experience to reap the benefits at max level.

Lowlander wrote...

It isn't multiclassing (the topic at hand) that is cheese. The multiclassing mechanic is perfectly fine. It is more Epic levels and Prestige classes that are cheese.  Level cap pre-Epic and maybe drop a few cheese prestige classes (RDD) and  you would have a very AD&D like experience.  Again instant leveling would encourage cheese, but with 6 months to level 20, not many people would do a 19/1 build and it would matter much if they did.

I agree that a level 20 cap eliminates a ton of issues, not the least that stat scaling (Dex and Wisdom specifically) doesn't get so crazy.  However, like I said, it's not the length of time that encourages cheese but rather where the content is at.  On World of Greyhawk, where Grom/Kail/Web play (and where I played a bit and still have a few characters, I think), level 40 is retirement so cheese makes less sense.  But I've also played on other servers (more RP focused, interestingly enough), where leveling is just something to get done and the real game begins at 40.

Entirely environment dependent.

[Elhanan]

Easier solution is not to play a WIS based Monk; leave it as a bonus when available.

[WebShaman]

Let us examine the "level limit" and where the actual content is.

I propose that it doesn't matter what the level limit is - PGers will still max out the system. Be it level 40, 30, 20, 12, etc - the PGers will use the rulesystem to create the best possible Character builds possible. And it doesn't matter how long this will take - PGers are known to be quite obsessive in nature, especially when it comes to creating the "ultimate build" for a unique environment.

I myself have been guilty of this, I know Kail has as well, and I rather suspect that most PGers and Build makers have been (and are) as well.

As for "limiting" XP rate, bleh. A PGer will find ways to create "XP circles", ways of running from encounter to encounter to hit the new spawns as they come, balanced with rest cycles, so that it becomes an endless "circle" of XP generation. When it starts to fade, on to the next one...and so on. As a result, due to Build optimization and such tactics, PGers tend to level very quickly, often much more quickly than the environment is created for.

My MM build came to being due to such "limitations" imposed on various criteria - level max, MC combo limitations, etc. I found that by using a standard class (and remaining in that class) and maxing out all the available resources available for that class (Wizard) that I was able to significantly alter how that class worked, to the point that the limits imposed were not adequate enough to prevent the Build from excelling.

Trying to "nerf" the Build resulted in having to change a horde of standard resources in the game itself (spells, etc) to the point that it ended up causing an almost endless chain reaction of balance issues. And such nerfing makes "normal" Wizards and Sorcs practically useless.

Heck, I once played on a PW where one did not get any XP from kills, etc - only DMed episodes. Highest level was level 6 (a Paladin, btw) and that had been reached after 4 YEARS of play! Perma death as well. I can tell you that the characters there were maxed out PG builds! When XP and Character Death is on the line (permanent), one creates the toughest, best build one can!

So normally, one only has "normal" builds where the encounter system is relatively easy, and where the story and characters themselves have center stage, and not the challenge. PGers will become bored very quickly and normally move on to something more challenging.

Playing on WoG for example, really brings out the PGer in me! Of course, it simulates "real D&D" encounters so far in the best fashion I have seen adapted into NWN. Finally, some really challenging encounters, and ones that are not so "cookie cut" but instead there is some real thought behind them! Naasty AI and spell/special ability use! Almost feels like a DM is running them. Almost.

I rather suspect that HG (Funky & Co) is also like this. Been meaning to try it for awhile now...probably should.

[Shadooow]

WS: exactly

Just HG is the "easy" server I think + there is too much changes, even I was confused and couldnt make powerbuild (and you actually cant make powerbuild cos you need ultrarare race book which you cannot get so easily, but even then it doenst seem to have much sense as its rather about items.

[HipMaestro]

WebShaman wrote...
As for "limiting" XP rate, bleh. A PGer will find ways to create "XP circles", ways of running from encounter to encounter to hit the new spawns as they come, balanced with rest cycles, so that it becomes an endless "circle" of XP generation. When it starts to fade, on to the next one...and so on. As a result, due to Build optimization and such tactics, PGers tend to level very quickly, often much more quickly than the environment is created for.

Yeah, I've come to the realization that to PGers, XP is just something in the periphery of the gaming experience. And for many others, alignment is also regarded in the same periphery.  Those alignment managers take yet another aspect of the game out of the equation.  And the fact that you need a party of 5 present while your sacred build can glean enough XP to progress in early levels is so inspiring.  I'll pass.

For me, true PGing is just plain boring, taking exploitation to nth degree.  When I reach level 40 on a 40 cap server I retire the character.  It becomes like playing as a DH... what's the point?  Stand there and swing a bat?  Woot! The majority of the impetus needed to play the game has been removed and all that is left is a retiree witha bat (or a sword, if you prefer)... retired from playing the game as it was intended.  Obviously, my sentiment is based on the lack of appreciation and nonrespect for PvP, though I recognize the necessary vicarious thrills some experience from uberness, essentially negating all the challenge, not of the building challenge but rather of developing resourcefulness and strategy on the playing field.  So powerbuilt that it is not necessary to devise an approach anymore unless the environment is altered so drastically that only PGers can progress.  Sort of an eternal viscious cycle, wouldn't you say?

Why not remove XP entirely from NWN along with alignment and the class prereqs?  Dilute the experience enough and the original "character" (meaning "uniqueness") is no longer recognizable (like some servers I played that didn';t even remotely resemble NWN with all the custom modifications... but with luscious eye candy in case you get bored studying the new ruleset).

Whatever floats your boat, PGers.  I adapted and enjoyed all the idiosyncracies of the game in its original form (and continue to), including the MC penalties, the alignment restrictions and class prereqs, playing with the tools at hand.  It becomes far too tedious for me to be continually learning a new set of tools when I would rather just be playing. Or I'd just go out and buy another game that had redefined D&D completely like...

Pathfinder, which happily, I will never fork over gelt to experience first hand. 

But that's just me... out on the periphery, softly humming.

*end of rant*

Modifié par HipMaestro, 07 août 2011 - 05:13 .