It just occured to me after reading that last post...
How many of you who use the point-buy system have lots of multi-class characters in your group? The same question to the 4d6 method folks?
-Roth
I use a 32 point buy, and 2 of my players have multi-class characters, a monk/psychic warrior, and a rogue/cleric. I think, when using point buy, you need to use a higher-than-standard point total to make some multi-classing options practical.
In addition, monster stats are simply gimmicked around to make them an appropriate challenge for the "standard group" at level X. The iron golem in the MM might just be an "average" one, but it's still got 33 frickin Strength! Considering that the game assumes the standard 4d6 method, I'm going to guess that the monsters are designed with this in mind. I wouldn't run around adding the elite "template" to everything. Too much time, effort, and not all that logical. However, adding it to "boss" monsters is a great idea.
We are trying the point buy system with the Savage Tide Adventure Path, and I have the heroes 28 points each.
It was met with mixed reactions in the group. Our min-maxer powergamer and his brother both didn't buy any scores higher than 14 in order to "maximize" their points. As a result, their characters are more average than the rest, and don't really stand out in the group that much. The other 3 players took a few scores high and a few scores low, which actually turns out to work better as they are very good at a few things, and average at everything else.
But as the DM I am pleased with the relative power level of the group, and it really makes you think hard about how you spend your feats and skill points. The adventures so far have been quite challenging, but the group has not had a single party member die yet and they are having a lot of fun.
Interestingly enough, in the lowest point buy campaign I play in (25) there are more multiclass characters (3 of 5) than in the highest (1 of 5) but it always seems that, no matter what the point buy, multiclass is more of a player choice, something they may do even if it is not optimised.
I would like to see more creative multiclassing, and I often try, but sometimes it can be difficult even without taking ability points into account. Many mods, for instance feature traps and such that a multi classed rogue cannot cope with, or situations that require spells that a multi classed wizard does not have access to... In my Merchants of Astephel campaign there are two characters with level adjustments and a MC character, so I tend to create adventures with Multiclass and LA villains, which can be fun, and situational challenges that are adapted to their adjusted levels.
I think in the low-power, low level 25 point buy campaign, many players took multiclass levels for survivability rather than flair, feeling that a Bbn or Ftr Level would make their caster tougher and more resilient. I am playing a cleric, but I considered taking a ranger level for that reason, (and because my character really doesn't like orcs at this point) among others.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I think in the low-power, low level 25 point buy campaign, many players took multiclass levels for survivability rather than flair, feeling that a Bbn or Ftr Level would make their caster tougher and more resilient. I am playing a cleric, but I considered taking a ranger level for that reason...
Not to be overly critical or anything, but how does a ranger level make you more survivable than another cleric level? They use the same hit die, the both have high Fort saves (ranger would boost Reflex slightly), and Track, +1 BAB, and Favored Enemy is all you get at level 1 versus more spells (possibly higher level ones, too) as a cleric which equates to more healing. I'm not sure what your logic is here and invite you to explain it.
I think in the low-power, low level 25 point buy campaign, many players took multiclass levels for survivability rather than flair, feeling that a Bbn or Ftr Level would make their caster tougher and more resilient. I am playing a cleric, but I considered taking a ranger level for that reason, (and because my character really doesn't like orcs at this point) among others.
Our experience has been that multiclassing weakens characters. A Ftr2/Wiz2 will get wiped out by either a Ftr 4 or a Wiz 4 -- and might get wiped out by a Ftr2 and Wiz2 working together (two actions per round by weaker characters may very well beat one action per round by a more powerful character).
IMO multiclassing is cool for roleplaying and character concepts, but makes for bad strategy and weakened firepower.
For what it's worth :)
Jack
It just occured to me after reading that last post...
How many of you who use the point-buy system have lots of multi-class characters in your group? The same question to the 4d6 method folks?
Those extra high stats you get from the 4d6 method would SEEM attractive to DM's and players who like to play multi-class characters? But is that really the case?
In my group (created with the 4d6 method) we have two players who chose to multi-class. Two players out of nine. Interesting.
Just on a side note, one of those players is a rookie, and one a veteran player.-Roth
In my experience multi-classing has little to do with the stats. With my players it would not matter what system was used to generate stats nor would it matter how good the stats are. None of these are a real factor impacting multi-classing choices.
Now my players never saw cheese they did not like so that is a factor. Essentially the players multi-class along the same lines as what they already are. Their just looking for more abilities or feats. So Fighters always multi-class as Psychic Warriors for example. Its not the Psionic Points that are the real draw (I once had a player do this with a Wisdom of 8 - he could not even use his psionic points), they are just icing - its the feats or powers (increased speed or access to evasion for example) that draw the multi-class.
Now magic using types, in my game, only multi-class when they are headed for Mystic Thuerge or Cerbermancer as spell casters loose a lot when they start multi-classing and it is rare indeed that anything they might pick up would be worth the loss of spell power.
In addition, monster stats are simply gimmicked around to make them an appropriate challenge for the "standard group" at level X. The iron golem in the MM might just be an "average" one, but it's still got 33 frickin Strength! Considering that the game assumes the standard 4d6 method, I'm going to guess that the monsters are designed with this in mind. I wouldn't run around adding the elite "template" to everything. Too much time, effort, and not all that logical. However, adding it to "boss" monsters is a great idea.
All of this is fine when one is using something like a 25 point buy or 4d6 drop the lowest. The problem starts up when you start having hero PCs with things like a 36 point buy or some rolling method that gives lots of exceptional stats. The hero's are exceptional only goes so far for game balance purposes. Characters with truly exceptional stats are the equivalent of Level Adjusted +2 or +3 normal 25 point buy characters. In other words you might think of your players as only being 2nd level but in reality they are closer to 4th or even 5th level. Needless to say the game breaks down. The DM, in desperation, starts pulling out bigger baddies and some where down the line the players start to find their characters dying at the hands of an unfair DM ... because they can dish out obscene damage with their min maxed super heros but of course they can't take it - they don't have enough hps.
At the end of the day one should probably shy away from amazing point buys for simple game balance reasons. Your players want exciting action packed fights. High point buy characters are essentially egg shells armed with sledge hammers and the opposition they meet are going to be the same. Combats will tend to last few rounds – either the players slaughter the monster or the monster slaughters the players – there is less chance for real tension as it tends to be over to quickly for tension to build. The DM can get around this somewhat by using lots of mooks but at the end of the day every fight should not be a skirmish battle – Skirmish battles are loads of fun but when every single fight is one and the big bad monster is not really an option that hurts the game for both the players and the DM.
|
Our experience has been that multiclassing weakens characters. A Ftr2/Wiz2 will get wiped out by either a Ftr 4 or a Wiz 4 -- and might get wiped out by a Ftr2 and Wiz2 working together (two actions per round by weaker characters may very well beat one action per round by a more powerful character).
IMO multiclassing is cool for roleplaying and character concepts, but makes for bad strategy and weakened firepower.
For what it's worth :)
Jack
Mostly, I agree -- especially when it comes to the spellcasting classes.
But when you really break it down, there really isn't as much of a difference as you might think...
Ftr 2/Wiz 2 -- BAB +3, Base Fort +3, Ref +0, Will +3, can cast 1st level spells, has four feats (five if you count scribe scroll), average HP 16
Cleric 4 -- BAB +3, Base Fort +3, Ref +1, Will +3, can cast 2nd level spells, has two feats, average HP 18
Also, many times the reason to multi-class with a spell-casting class is for a specific prestige class, which can often times more than make up for the potential lack made at the beginning.
Character creation can be such a festive social interaction, and rolling the dice is a major, and magical, aspect of that experience. There is risk with each tumble, and voodoo as people wish for a good roll while others might shout encouragement or boo at the results from the sidelines.
The rewards must mean more to me than perfect balance between characters.
|
Character creation can be such a festive social interaction, and rolling the dice is a major, and magical, aspect of that experience. There is risk with each tumble, and voodoo as people wish for a good roll while others might shout encouragement or boo at the results from the sidelines.The rewards must mean more to me than perfect balance between characters.
That is the key advantage of rolling up characters instead of point-buy - it's just more fun.
I think in the low-power, low level 25 point buy campaign, many players took multiclass levels for survivability rather than flair, feeling that a Bbn or Ftr Level would make their caster tougher and more resilient. I am playing a cleric, but I considered taking a ranger level for that reason...Not to be overly critical or anything, but how does a ranger level make you more survivable than another cleric level? They use the same hit die, the both have high Fort saves (ranger would boost Reflex slightly), and Track, +1 BAB, and Favored Enemy is all you get at level 1 versus more spells (possibly higher level ones, too) as a cleric which equates to more healing. I'm not sure what your logic is here and invite you to explain it.
That was eventually why I decided against it. It seemed to make sense for two reasons: RP flavor, as we had been stranded in the wild since first level, as shipwrecked slaves, and my only friends were three barbarians and a rogue, (to be more accurate a Bbn/Rng, a Bbn/Wiz and a Bbn/Ftr) which sounds like a really bad sitcom *g*. I am also playing a Cleric of Farlanghn with the animal domain with my eye on the Horizon Walker prestige class eventually. So a ranger made sense from a "cosmetic" perspective (no rouge jokes please) and in an RP way. The last (sorta reason) being that my character really really dislikes orcs (they enslaved us, hunted us, captured all the nearby human settlements) and admired what the Bbn/Rng did with her favored enemy skills. It also suits my skill set. Survival is my best skill, followed by intimidate, both of which might work well with a Ranger's abilities. I guess I misspoke when I said it was for survivability, but I was trying to be brief. Sorry for the confusion.
Eventually however, I came to the conclusions that you laid out above and decided to take my fourth level in Cleric. Being the party's highest level caster, and finally having a 16 wisdom made that 4th Cleric level an offer I couldn't refuse. The armor thing would not have been an issue on the island where we all wore leather and rags, but now that I have heavy armor, I don't want to mess with my beautiful AC to take some flavor that I could provide anyway through RP.
I may not get extra damage against them, but Orcs are still my "favored enemy" and while I can't track or have an animal companion, I can use my survival and speak with animals Domain ability, and have even attracted a parrot (yar!) who follows me everywhere but is not very brave, who will at least answer a few questions if no other animals are around. Again, I did not mean to sound like an idiot, I was just omitting the details for brevity.
P.S: I am, unfortunately, not very logical at all, which is why I surround myself with math-heads, carpenters and engineers *g*
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Hehe, I totally understand, Zero. I was just curious as to your rationale. As for your 'favored enemy' thing, if your group has access to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book, look into taking a feat called 'Foe Hunter.' It has some regional requirements based on the setting but those could be waived, imo, for use in other settings. It basically gives you the favored enemy ability against a specific type of monster (orcs are one of the ones it specifically mentions). Just a thought.
We use the 'Roll-4d6-drop-the-lowest-six-times-and-place-them-in-the-order-you-want' method for my regular group (my ongoing campaign).
I then use the 'Point-buy' system when I play with my old friends for a one-shot stand-alone module/adventure. As already mentioned above, with this method the players arrive at my house with their characters ready-to-play.
The best of both worlds...
Ultradan
NO NO NO !!!
The PCs are the Heroes in a world of average folks. They should have the exceptional (or at least better) stats. Someone above mentioned giving PCs the Elite array.
When a tribe of goblins raids a peasant village or even when two nations go to war it is generally a situation of averages vs. averages. Similarly, when PC adventurers assault the lair of the goblins who have been raiding peasant farms, they are going against average goblins.
Rez
Rez, I agree that most monsters should be average, but always using the 'commoner' array of 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 seems a bit silly. Average doesn't have to mean identical.
The 'commoner' array is equivalent to a 15 point-buy system. I usually add some variability to that - 10+2d4 point buy (12 to 18 range, expected value of 15) and then build the monsters as I see fit. That can mean some monsters are unusually fast, or tough, or smart, etc., but they sacrifice something somewhere else. A 15 point-buy can give you a 15, 10, 10, 10, 9, 8, or a 12, 12, 12, 10, 9, 8, etc.
I use the same system with elite monsters, except I use 20+2d4 (22 to 28 range, expected value of 25). That also dovetails nicely into PCs getting a 28 point buy, as heroes they are the best of the best.
NO NO NO !!!
The PCs are the Heroes in a world of average folks. They should have the exceptional (or at least better) stats.
Does having great dexterity make you a hero? No (only in my opinion, of course). It's the PCs actions (whaterver their stats may be) that makes them heroes.
My PCs are pretty average when it comes to ability scores. When the PC paladin goes toe to toe with a much bigger/stronger bully at the local tavern, telling him "Leave the lady alone and let's take this outside...", win or lose the paladin will have caught the attention of a few patrons (including the lady).
In short, courage makes heroes.
Ultradan
In addition, monster stats are simply gimmicked around to make them an appropriate challenge for the "standard group" at level X. The iron golem in the MM might just be an "average" one, but it's still got 33 frickin Strength! Considering that the game assumes the standard 4d6 method, I'm going to guess that the monsters are designed with this in mind. I wouldn't run around adding the elite "template" to everything. Too much time, effort, and not all that logical. However, adding it to "boss" monsters is a great idea.All of this is fine when one is using something like a 25 point buy or 4d6 drop the lowest. The problem starts up when you start having hero PCs with things like a 36 point buy or some rolling method that gives lots of exceptional stats. The hero's are exceptional only goes so far for game balance purposes. Characters with truly exceptional stats are the equivalent of Level Adjusted +2 or +3 normal 25 point buy characters. In other words you might think of your players as only being 2nd level but in reality they are closer to 4th or even 5th level. Needless to say the game breaks down. The DM, in desperation, starts pulling out bigger baddies and some where down the line the players start to find their characters dying at the hands of an unfair DM ... because they can dish out obscene damage with their min maxed super heros but of course they can't take it - they don't have enough hps.
At the end of the day one should probably shy away from amazing point buys for simple game balance reasons. Your players want exciting action packed fights. High point buy characters are essentially egg shells armed with sledge hammers and the opposition they meet are going to be the same. Combats will tend to last few rounds – either the players slaughter the monster or the monster slaughters the players – there is less chance for real tension as it tends to be over to quickly for tension to build. The DM can get around this somewhat by using lots of mooks but at the end of...
Saern, I feel like you just described my game! Todays in battle had my party faced off against 14 Goblin Rog3, 4 Goblin Rog5, and a Goblin Wiz9 at the same time. (Average party level is 10th.)
One character got below 50% hit points, no one else even came close to being "hurt".
Now don't get me wrong, everyone (including yours truly) had a great time today. However, there was almost no real danger to the group.
Am I throwing lvl 10 challenges at a group who is really 12th or 13th? Feels like it.
-Roth
One character got below 50% hit points, no one else even came close to being "hurt".
Now don't get me wrong, everyone (including yours truly) had a great time today. However, there was almost no real danger to the group.
Am I throwing lvl 10 challenges at a group who is really 12th or 13th? Feels like it.
-Roth
Too many low level monsters. If there are more then 8-12 enemy mooks chances are the encounter is either way overpowered or your trying to overwhelm you players with numbers - overwhelming ones players with numbers worked pretty well in 1st and 2nd Ed. but its just giving the players easy kills in 3.5. These Rog3 Goblins probably needed a natural 20 to hit most of your PCs by this point. They simply where no significant threat.
In my experience multi-classing has little to do with the stats. With my players it would not matter what system was used to generate stats nor would it matter how good the stats are. None of these are a real factor impacting multi-classing choices.
This has usually been my experience, as well. The decision to multiclass or even go for a PrC (or not) is almost always driven by the character concept, instead of the character's ability scores. Some character concepts are too complex to fit into a single class, so the player will multiclass. Some character concepts mesh with certain PrCs, so the player will develop the character to qualify for the PrC. Other concepts fit neatly in a single class, so the character will spend all 20 levels in the same class. The few exceptions are the uber-munchkin types who multiclass only to stack abilities, usually combat-related ("Concept? My character wants to be the greatest (weapon)-fighter ever.").
Now magic using types, in my game, only multi-class when they are headed for Mystic Thuerge or Cerbermancer as spell casters loose a lot when they start multi-classing and it is rare indeed that anything they might pick up would be worth the loss of spell power.
Pimary casters run into serious limitations when it comes to multiclassing/PrCs. Losing more than one (or possibly two) levels of spellcasting ability is usually not worth the abilities gained. However, character concept will usually trump gameplay in this, too (at least to some extent). This also is something where overall party compostion plays a role. A Sorcerer 6/Fighter 1/Spellsword 8 (CL 10) can work fine in a party with a Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 7 (CL 12); no 7th or 8th level spells, but two arcane casters with spells of 5th and below (plus their ability to act as a secondary combatant and locks/traps specialist respectively). Add a Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 9 (CL 12 each) to this group and they can wipe the floor with most encounters considering all of the magic available to them. With a strong front-line combatant to round out the party as the fourth member (and deal with magic resistant foes), you have a party that can defeat almost anything you can throw at them in the CR 15-18 range, unless they screw up and don't plan/use good tactics.
Todays in battle had my party faced off against 14 Goblin Rog3, 4 Goblin Rog5, and a Goblin Wiz9 at the same time. (Average party level is 10th.)
Too many low level monsters.
Definitely. DMG pg. 49 mentions this. "Encounters with more than a dozen creatures are difficult to judge. If you need thirteen or more creatures...then those individual monsters are probably so weak that they don't make for a good encounter."
Except at low levels, encounters in the party level to party level +4 range should not contain more than about 8-10 foes. Otherwise, the individual foes are too weak to pose a real threat. The exception is designing an "easy if handled properly" encounter; however, by their nature, they are specific to the individual circumstances of the encounter (terrain, specific magic in effect, etc.). Having the 14 Rog 3's attack from 30ft with bows while the party is climbing an obstacle or negotiating a double-rope bridge (one rope to stand on, one rope to hold onto) to get into range of the wizard and his Rog 5 minions, causing the PCs to lose their Dex bonus and be subject to Sneak Attack damage, would make that encounter more challenging. Or maybe give all the Rog 3's the Swarmfighting feat (CW) and have them attack in groups that maximize Swarmfighting bonuses and flanking opportunities.
Hehe, I totally understand, Zero. I was just curious as to your rationale. As for your 'favored enemy' thing, if your group has access to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book, look into taking a feat called 'Foe Hunter.' It has some regional requirements based on the setting but those could be waived, imo, for use in other settings. It basically gives you the favored enemy ability against a specific type of monster (orcs are one of the ones it specifically mentions). Just a thought.
*arches eyebrow* excellent... Thanks for the suggestion! I might hactually have a chance of getting that one by the DM, as my character is originally from Faerun. The game is in greyhawk, but a Bermuda Triangle effect carried some of us through to the island.
We use the 'Roll-4d6-drop-the-lowest-six-times-and-place-them-in-the-order-you-want' method for my regular group (my ongoing campaign)...
There was a system we used in the past that I rather liked: roll 4d6/drop one -- roll seven times, keeping stats in order. The player could then drop one roll and switch two (not necessarily in that order).
I like players having to deal with non-optimized characters (and I like doing it myself). All-in-all it seemed to have been a successful system.
Jack
Thanks for the suggestions guys.
True, there were alot of monsters in that encounter.
I failed to mention that the adventuring party consisted of eight PC's.(one player was sick this week and couldn't make it so we didn't have the ninth PC available)
I love the guidlines in the DMG and try to follow them when I can. I figured the Wiz9 counts for the first 4 PC's, and the 4 Rog5's take the other 4 PC's, with the extra Rog3 guys helping to make sneak attacks and flanking a possibility for the main baddies. Didn't work out as well as I had hoped though...
For the record that scenario is not an original creation, it was part of the published adventure and meant for a party of 6 PC's.
-Roth
I failed to mention that the adventuring party consisted of eight PC's.(one player was sick this week and couldn't make it so we didn't have the ninth PC available)
For the record that scenario is not an original creation, it was part of the published adventure and meant for a party of 6 PC's.
Instead of increasing the number of foes, increase the foes' levels by one to account for the increased party size (following the CR system, if x is the party level, then x+5 is the CR of 6 PCs and x+6 is the CR of 8 PCs; so the monsters should each gain a level to make up the difference).
There was a system we used in the past that I rather liked: roll 4d6/drop one -- roll seven times, keeping stats in order. The player could then drop one roll and switch two (not necessarily in that order).
I like players having to deal with non-optimized characters (and I like doing it myself). All-in-all it seemed to have been a successful system.
I'm a fan of the Organic Characters method in the DMG, which is very similar to what you described above. When I DM, I usually offer the party (all characters must use the same method) a choice: 32 point buy or organic (reroll 1's, start over if total mods are less than +5). The organic method provides a "natural" feel to the characters and can stimulate some interesting backgounds/concepts.
Dragonchess Player, Yesterday, 04:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Rothandalantearic wrote:
I failed to mention that the adventuring party consisted of eight PC's.(one player was sick this week and couldn't make it so we didn't have the ninth PC available)
For the record that scenario is not an original creation, it was part of the published adventure and meant for a party of 6 PC's.
Instead of increasing the number of foes, increase the foes' levels by one to account for the increased party size (following the CR system, if x is the party level, then x+5 is the CR of 6 PCs and x+6 is the CR of 8 PCs; so the monsters should each gain a level to make up the difference).
Maybe I am reading your post wrong Dragonchess...
Using your formula I should have made some of the NPC's CR16?
Or perhaps you meant to say the EL should be 16?
The second one seems to make more sense to me...
-Roth
|
I should be DMing a STAP game starting in January, and I want to get people thinking about their characters tonight.
Does anyone think the following choices reasonable?
1. Gestalt PC with elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8), OR
2. Single-classed PC with elite array (as above), and 6 additional points spread as player likes (on 1-for-1 basis).I'm thinking each player should get the choice of which method they prefer.
I don't have a lot of experience with gestalt characters, but from my limited experience with the system, mixing gestalt and non-gestalt characters doesn't work very well, ability bonuses notwithstanding. There's a significant power difference there.
I don't have the gestalt rules -- are such characters so much better that single-classed PCs need so many points to make up the difference?
Jack
I should be DMing a STAP game starting in January, and I want to get people thinking about their characters tonight.
Does anyone think the following choices reasonable?
1. Gestalt PC with elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8), OR
2. Single-classed PC with elite array (as above), and 6 additional points spread as player likes (on 1-for-1 basis).
Dragonchess Player, Yesterday, 04:29 AM--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Rothandalantearic wrote:
I failed to mention that the adventuring party consisted of eight PC's.(one player was sick this week and couldn't make it so we didn't have the ninth PC available)For the record that scenario is not an original creation, it was part of the published adventure and meant for a party of 6 PC's.
Instead of increasing the number of foes, increase the foes' levels by one to account for the increased party size (following the CR system, if x is the party level, then x+5 is the CR of 6 PCs and x+6 is the CR of 8 PCs; so the monsters should each gain a level to make up the difference).
Maybe I am reading your post wrong Dragonchess...
Using your formula I should have made some of the NPC's CR16?
Or perhaps you meant to say the EL should be 16?
The second one seems to make more sense to me...
-Roth
I was using the CR system to show that a party of eight is effectively one level more powerful than a party of six (eight 10th level characters would be a CR 16 encounter, while six would be a CR 15 encounter). To chalenge the party of eight the same as a party of six, the foes need to be one CR higher (which is best done by increasing each foe's class level by one in this case).
Scaling an adventure for higher and lower levels or numbers is a lot easier when you understand why the CR system works the way it does.
Ah, much clearer now, thank you.