Community

Feb 7, 2013 -- 7:47PM, Another_Rules_Lawyer wrote:

Feb 7, 2013 -- 1:45PM, Rastapopoulos wrote:

"Themes" inside more basic classes can be a good way to dry out excessive data from the core rules.
Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, etc, are all of the "Warrior" class, except they gain different bonuses at leveling, while sharing some features, like To Hit, HD, etc.
Future classes in suplements could be simply new "themes" for the base classes.
It's more or less how it was in AD&D.
 

It would be interesting if...........    done right.

 
Pretty much what I was thinking.

Feb 7, 2013 -- 1:45PM, Rastapopoulos wrote:

I want to be able to "multiclass" between fighter and paladin, even if it doesn't really mean strictly multiclassing, but taking abilities from more than one Warrior theme.
I would hate to be limited to something like "you've chosen the fighter theme, now you can't ever become a paladin".

One the other hand, if it's "you can take abilities from any theme at will", it kinda defeats the purpose of having different themes in the class.


I suppose we would need to have something like "Ability Trees".
There's the Fighter ability tree and the Paladin ability tree, for example.
As you gain levels in Warrior, you either advance on the Fighter tree you're already in, or start on the Paladin tree from the base, from there choosing which to increase at each level (or at any X levels, whatever).


Anyway... I'm not sure that would work better than just having separate classes.
Just throwing some ideas here... 

The "Ability Tree" would be the way to go, like you would need the Smite Evil ability before you could get Banish Demon.

I cant say I like a ability tree idea simply because, depending on arrangement, it would force you to take some abilities you would never use. Same issue in games like Diablo 2 for instance. That seems more like a punishment to a player than anything.

Feb 7, 2013 -- 9:00PM, Another_Rules_Lawyer wrote:

Feb 7, 2013 -- 8:54PM, White_Lightning wrote:

*snip*

I cant say I like a ability tree idea simply because, depending on arrangement, it would force you to take some abilities you would never use. Same issue in games like Diablo 2 for instance. That seems more like a punishment to a player than anything.

But it would open up more options than building a specific class with only that ability tree.  For instance, say that a paladin is represented by chosing specific talent trees under the warrior class, rather than being a whole separate class.  In this case, if you want your character to be the more martial, less supernatural-ability type, you can chose not to take the supernatural tree, or only the beginning of the tree, but, because you decided to be more martial, your flavor integrity would be maintained because you wouldn't suddenly get the most powerful supernatural ability if you didn't take all those before it in the tree.

But again you still have the possibility of picking crap that doesn't mean a hill of beans to use, thus wasting whatever it is you had to use them to get to said talent your after.

If you are wanting more options under a base chassis, then the best option is to drop class names altogether, re-work the basic 4 as how monster types are as in 4e (Brute, Soldier, Skirmisher, Lurker, etc.) then have a theme, kit, or whatever to get what you want.

That way you don't have to worry about having to take talents that are useless for what you want to make and have the means to focus more on the things you want. Also you don't have to worry about having to decided what class fits under what as these are defined by the kit, theme or whatever you use that has the mechanics to clearly define them as a paladin or fighter.

Feb 7, 2013 -- 8:18PM, justmike1976 wrote:

one problem is being able to multiclass a fighter and pally. they really need to controll what classes you can multiclass. what sense does it make to be a fighter/pally/barbarian/ranger/monk. you should be restricted to only being able to multiclass with classes from diffrent main classes like fighter/thief ect

Mechanics-wise?
Because you like this ability from the ranger, and that ability from the fighter.
The single-class should always have the edge on what he does against the multiclass, but giving players options to mix and find a middle ground is a good thing.


Story-wise?
For an infinite number of reasons your story can give you. But mostly because it makes sense.
Say you are a fighter, but at some point in his life your characters converts to worshiping the god of the Paladins and you decide he now wants to follow the steps of a Paladin. Or maybe your paladin has spent so much time in the wilds that he now thinks it's important to learn a bit of the ways of a ranger.
If the mechanics tell you you can't ever do that it's bad mechanics.



I see a lot of people arguing against too many multiclassing options, class-dipping, and such stuff.
But 99% of these people are only thinking in terms of game mechanics.
Remember that in an RPG the mechanics exist to serve the story, to offer players and DMs standard ways to resolve things they would like to do in the story.


I know we must also think about "power-gaming" and "mega-combos" and try to avoid such things.
If there's a sweet spot where a Fighter 3/Barbarian 1/Ranger 2/Paladin 4 (just shooting some random numbers) will make a much stronger fighting character... that's a bad thing and many players may come to do such character merely to be stronger than others.

But we should avoid such things by adjusting details in the classes and abilities, thus not allowing these "overpowered formulas" to be possible.
NOT by limiting the overall multiclassing rules, because then we'd be punishing players who like to multiclass for story reasons, and when a set of rules goes against the storytelling in an RPG that's a bad design.

Feb 7, 2013 -- 9:16PM, White_Lightning wrote:

Feb 7, 2013 -- 9:00PM, Another_Rules_Lawyer wrote:

Feb 7, 2013 -- 8:54PM, White_Lightning wrote:

*snip*

I cant say I like a ability tree idea simply because, depending on arrangement, it would force you to take some abilities you would never use. Same issue in games like Diablo 2 for instance. That seems more like a punishment to a player than anything.

But it would open up more options than building a specific class with only that ability tree.  For instance, say that a paladin is represented by chosing specific talent trees under the warrior class, rather than being a whole separate class.  In this case, if you want your character to be the more martial, less supernatural-ability type, you can chose not to take the supernatural tree, or only the beginning of the tree, but, because you decided to be more martial, your flavor integrity would be maintained because you wouldn't suddenly get the most powerful supernatural ability if you didn't take all those before it in the tree.

But again you still have the possibility of picking crap that doesn't mean a hill of beans to use, thus wasting whatever it is you had to use them to get to said talent your after.

If you are wanting more options under a base chassis, then the best option is to drop class names altogether, re-work the basic 4 as how monster types are as in 4e (Brute, Soldier, Skirmisher, Lurker, etc.) then have a theme, kit, or whatever to get what you want.

That way you don't have to worry about having to take talents that are useless for what you want to make and have the means to focus more on the things you want. Also you don't have to worry about having to decided what class fits under what as these are defined by the kit, theme or whatever you use that has the mechanics to clearly define them as a paladin or fighter.

Then I guess we shouldn't have class abilities come in at specific levels, either, so that you can just get whatever abilities you want by multiclassing into the class from which you want certain abilities.  That way you won't have to waste all those levels just to get the abilities you want.

One easy way to normalize multiclassing is through standard progression. Lets say all class features are categorized as either minor or major. Every class starts out with X major and minor features, and you must have more minor than major features. Assume the generic class progression is something like this:

Character Level*	Major Features	Minor Features
1	2	3
2	2	4
3	3	4
4	3	5
5	4	5
6	4	6
7	5	6
8	5	7
9	6	7
10	6	8

* I'm just showing up to level 10, since it seems WotC is using different progressions for 11+.

Now, if you want to "dip" into other class features, you have to start with a minor feature, then at best alternate between a minor then major in that class. Classes can come with their own prebuilt feature progressions. This also allows for complete customization (with DM/group approval).

A major feature might include MDD, +1 max spell level, evasion/mettle, major maneuvers, etc. Minor features are those with situational benefits or limited uses: minor maneuvers and more spells/spell points, skill training (probably 2 trainings per minor feature slot), etc.

I would prefer no feature be as simple "+1 WAB" or "+1 MAB", and have those be a function of MDD or spell level progression.