If you are saying that a [Fighter 1 / Wizard 5] shouldn't be any less as a whole than a [Fighter 6] or a [Wizard 6], I agree with you. I think everyone would agree with you. In fact, I think this point is so non-controversial that I do not understand why you would want to make it.
Because we do not currently have that. Didn't you read the thread? We even have James Jacobs above specifically saying that it's perfectly fine that a [Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 1] is definitely less as a whole than a Bard 7, and that it's similarly fine that a druid/cleric or sorcerer/wizard doesn't even have an EK level of viability*.
Yes, if you utterly ignore what we've been saying all thread, then you can invent, in your own head, a fantasy about us asking for gestalt characters. But that's not the complaints being unclear, it's you not paying any attention to their content.
*Whom, let it be clear, I totally respect. Looking at the same reality as I do and concluding that the power difference exists but the difference isn't a bad thing is fine. We disagree on a judgment, not the facts, and de gustibus non disputandum est, y'know? It's the people saying the power disparity doesn't exist that get under my skin.
|
Good call, but card games do bore me so.
And M:TG was not really prefectly balanced. Look at all the cards they printed and subsequently banned from competition. Plus, not everyone had equal access to the best card combos.
You didn't ask me to find a balanced game that YOU find interesting bro. :P
The balance of the game comes from the fact that you are not always going to get those gamebreaker cards. Either it is out of print, or it is too rare, or you just don't draw the darn thing. Unlike in D&D where every option is always available however many times the rules say. Making Magic that much more balanced.
Besides, asking for perfect balance is like asking for a perfect human. It's boring. Of course, that doesn't make it unworthy of being pursued.
Actually, I do know of a perfectly balanced game.
Rock, Paper, Scissors. As long as you don't play with those game breakers like Gun and Bomb. :P
I like multi-classing, in fact I prefer it to single classing... but I think reasonable arguments have been made here that point out that it can be under-powered and problematic - depending on the actual campaign realities. Luckily, my group is small (2 players and me as DM) so we mostly multi-class to fill all the niches a group needs to handle a wide variety of missions. Since we generally operate under the same 'handicap' there is no power level issue.
However, in thinking about the problem, I've got an idea that might help to partially address the power level problem - use the Slow character advancement experience column for single-class characters and use the Fast experience column for multi-classes.
For 05k EXP - Single Class: 2nd ... Multi: 3 total levels - 2nd/1st
For 10k EXP - Single Class: 3rd ... Multi: 5 total levels - 3rd/2nd
For 20k EXP - Single Class: 4th ... Multi: 6 total levels - 3rd/3rd
For 50k EXP - Single Class: 6th ... Multi: 9 total levels - 5th/4th
For 100k EXP - Single Class: 8th ... Multi: 10 total levels - 5th/5th
For 200k EXP - Single Class: 10th ... Multi: 12 total levels - 6th/6th
For 250k EXP - Single Class: 11th ... Multi: 13 total levels - 7th/6th
For 500k EXP - Single Class: 13th ... Multi: 15 total levels - 8th/7th
For 1Mil EXP - Single Class: 15th ... Multi: 17 total levels - 9th/8th
Of course, the benefits become less if you go with more than 2 classes and the DM would have to watch out for abuse - i.e. a multi-classer who leaves a class at low level and jacks up the other one using the Fast table, like so:
For 1Mil EXP - Single Class: 15th ... Multi: 17 total levels - 16th/1st The multi-classer could be higher level than the Single-classer and have an extra level of another class to boot.
But with reasonable requirements on keeping the levels relatively close, you'd have your 15th Class X working with a 11th/6th (or 12th/5th) Class X/Class Y.
Thoughts?
Monopoly is a one-dimensional game: you use money to build weapons to rob other people's money and you win when they're out of money points. Typical RPGs are more robust, and different characters can shine in different ways.
I have to agree; I found the Monopoly analogy rather weak. Never thought the purpose of roleplaying games was balance. Otherwise, what's the DM for? We might as well just play some of those Tunnels & Trolls pick-a-path adventures.
I don't think insulting anyone who doesn't enjoy imbalanced games is productive.Tell you what: when you find a perfectly balanced game that is INTERESTING to play, you let us all know.
I play to have fun; i.e. enjoy myself. If you do not enjoy imbalanced games, either the games you play in are perfectly balanced (doubtful), or you are not enjoying yourself. And if you are NOT enjoying yourself and STILL playing...
So, obviously you DO play imbalanced games and you DO have fun. So just stop. As I stated earlier, there is a difference between seriously discussing game balance and throwing a tantrum. Your original post (player resentment and DM headaches) refrences the latter, not the former.
Just because something is difficult or even close to impossible doesnt mean it is not a worthy goal, and something worth considering. Just because something is fun, doesnt mean it cannot be MORE FUN. I imagine MIB is like me, and there are certain classes/options (or combinations of classes/options) that he simply does not play because of their inherant flaws. I still have lots of fun playing the unflawed classes/options, that does not mean that I am somehow not allowed to consider the other parts of the game flawed and in need of revision.
I think MIB is among the least likely to throw a tantrum of any on this board. He generally backs up his points well. It is not throwing a tantrum to be concerned about DM headaches, or player resentment. Perhaps you play in a perfect world with ideal friends who never get mad.
I play with my actual friends, who I love and cherish, but that doesnt mean there isnt conflict, or even resentment. That is part of being normal human beings. And perhaps you have a diligent devoted DM who is never concerned about how much work he has to do to keep the game interesting and fun for everyone. I on the other hand have real people as my dm (or myself), where the added headache of accounting for a particularly weak character is not welcome.
Making the game play smoother and easier is not throwing a tantrum, and it is not an easy task. But it is definately worthy of discussion.
Good call, but card games do bore me so.
And M:TG was not really prefectly balanced. Look at all the cards they printed and subsequently banned from competition. Plus, not everyone had equal access to the best card combos.
You didn't ask me to find a balanced game that YOU find interesting bro. :P
The balance of the game comes from the fact that you are not always going to get those gamebreaker cards. Either it is out of print, or it is too rare, or you just don't draw the darn thing. Unlike in D&D where every option is always available however many times the rules say. Making Magic that much more balanced.
Besides, asking for perfect balance is like asking for a perfect human. It's boring. Of course, that doesn't make it unworthy of being pursued.
Actually, I do know of a perfectly balanced game.
Rock, Paper, Scissors. As long as you don't play with those game breakers like Gun and Bomb. :P
Rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock, on the other hand, is also perfectly balanced.
The thing is Magic was like that back in the day (The days before I played), but nowadays people are selling cards left and right. If you put down more money, you get a more powerful deck, which breaks that aspect of the balance (Especially since the game developers get none of that sweet cash). Legend of Five Rings did something interesting as far as this goes, they give you points for each pack you buy, and then sending in the codes on the packs lets you get more packs or specific rare cards. This saturates the market and lets even a casual buyer get that cool unique for their deck they would've had to open 30 packs to get or buy from a seller otherwise.
|
|
Rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock, on the other hand, is also perfectly balanced.
The thing is Magic was like that back in the day (The days before I played), but nowadays people are selling cards left and right. If you put down more money, you get a more powerful deck, which breaks that aspect of the balance (Especially since the game developers get none of that sweet cash). Legend of Five Rings did something interesting as far as this goes, they give you points for each pack you buy, and then sending in the codes on the packs lets you get more packs or specific rare cards. This saturates the market and lets even a casual buyer get that cool unique for their deck they would've had to open 30 packs to get or buy from a seller otherwise.
Depends on what you play. I play Standard and Draft tournaments at the local comic shop. Hard to get all the super broken cards when you're limited to the most recent blocks.
Plus you still have the fact that you will not always get the perfect draw. Sometimes you get mulliganed. So you may hit on that great combination that wins you the game, maybe more often than not if you're a good player, but you will always have those games where you never get the land you need, or you get nothing but land.
MtG is anything but balanced, especially if you are playing across the entire life of the game. What it does have is a constantly shifting equilibrium. Cards get introduce, they unbalance the game, they get exiled or the other decks get cards that counter that card.
In terms of design it's primary goal is first and foremost to sell cards. Spending more money generally results in a more effective deck. Is it an absolute certainty? Of course not there is still the random element of the draw impacting play. Further some decks are great vs a subset of other decks but get crushed by other decks. Simply put there is no universally optimal game solution.
Getting back to the problem of multiclassing, it's pretty much impossible to balance multiclass characters because currently there really isn't any sort of balance between the basic classes. In order to make a system that fixes the balance issues between multiclass and single class characters you'd need to first balance the classes across all 20 levels. I'm not sure that is a current design goal.
Further you'd need to decide what price the multiclass character needs to pay in order to unlock greater versatility. One of the key problems with the Gish is that the fighter part of the eldritch knight doesn't really add much in terms of versatility.
Fighter is awesome in melee and has high hit points, but his saves suck, he's one dimensional, he has limited skill points, and he's generally tied to a caster in order to beat certain challenges.
The wizard sucks in melee and has mediocre HPs, his saves aren't great but in general I like having a high will save, he has limited skill points, but he's also Reed Richards with a tool to solve just about every challenge in the game.
The Eldritch Knight is Reed Richards that can hit and is a bit more durable but ultimately the fighter half of the character isn't bringing a ton to the party (in some people's minds).
The trick is how do you penalize the eldritch knight in terms of maximum effectiveness without gimping him entirely. I think to a certain degree I agree that a better mechanic could be developed. I just don't see one being offered that isn't basically everyone gets to free gestalt ;)
In order to achieve balance, just give all characters the same BAB, caster level, spells, skills, saves, feats, and equipment. During gameplay, don't let any single player make any decision about a character's actions (since some players are better at some things than others). Instead, every character action must be decided by committee.
Hm. My bad. I really should have said EMOTIONAL toddlers.
If I arrived at a game with a "sub-standard" build because I thought it was fun to play, and I got s!$~ for it... hell, even if I got "the look" for wanting to play it, I would be very disappointed.
Anyhoo, I do want to clear something up. Actually, I believe that the Tome of Battle would actually be pretty balanced in Pathfinder. Two things keep it from my game:
1) I f!@@ing hate it.
2) Nobody has said, "Adam, I really want to play one of the classes in the Tome of Battle." If this were the case, we'd discuss the conditions of this allowance along with any other non-Pathfinder-core rule.
But I CAN totally understand why you'd think what you believed based on my previous posts. ToB messed up the 2nd to last campaign several times due to power issues, but I had a strict "Wide open anything published by WotC goes" policy and I didn't want to break it. My last campaign, ToB surprised me a few times, but all-in-all it wasn't terrible because everything else was more-or-less balanced... it was a high-powered campaign where the game rules really took a backseat to role-playing.
This time around, I just wanted a clean slate is all. The less muck from previous editions the better, but the option to include is always there if my players think that it's the best thing to enhance their character and there's no other way to do it in the current rules.
The more options one provides the less overall balance there is to be expected. i found D&D 4.0 boring due to the fact, that every class looked nearly identical.
3.5 i liked the options, my favorite 3.5 classes would be a long list, if we include ones that i read and nevor got a chance to play ( marked with an Asterisk), but would love to, i'd say, Rogue, Swordsage* Sorcerer, Shugenja, Psion*, Warlock*, Favored Soul*, Archivist* Jade Phoenix Mage*, Kensai*, Daggerspell Mage*, and Unseen Seer.
Can anyone see a theme? i just noticed a possible theme, i hope you guys noticed it too.
more options = less balance.
I like multi-classing, in fact I prefer it to single classing... but I think reasonable arguments have been made here that point out that it can be under-powered and problematic - depending on the actual campaign realities. Luckily, my group is small (2 players and me as DM) so we mostly multi-class to fill all the niches a group needs to handle a wide variety of missions. Since we generally operate under the same 'handicap' there is no power level issue.
However, in thinking about the problem, I've got an idea that might help to partially address the power level problem - use the Slow character advancement experience column for single-class characters and use the Fast experience column for multi-classes.
For 05k EXP - Single Class: 2nd ... Multi: 3 total levels - 2nd/1st
For 10k EXP - Single Class: 3rd ... Multi: 5 total levels - 3rd/2nd
For 20k EXP - Single Class: 4th ... Multi: 6 total levels - 3rd/3rd
For 50k EXP - Single Class: 6th ... Multi: 9 total levels - 5th/4th
For 100k EXP - Single Class: 8th ... Multi: 10 total levels - 5th/5th
For 200k EXP - Single Class: 10th ... Multi: 12 total levels - 6th/6th
For 250k EXP - Single Class: 11th ... Multi: 13 total levels - 7th/6th
For 500k EXP - Single Class: 13th ... Multi: 15 total levels - 8th/7th
For 1Mil EXP - Single Class: 15th ... Multi: 17 total levels - 9th/8thOf course, the benefits become less if you go with more than 2 classes and the DM would have to watch out for abuse - i.e. a multi-classer who leaves a class at low level and jacks up the other one using the Fast table, like so:
For 1Mil EXP - Single Class: 15th ... Multi: 17 total levels - 16th/1st The multi-classer could be higher level than the Single-classer and have an extra level of another class to boot.
But with reasonable requirements on keeping the levels relatively close, you'd have your 15th Class X working with a 11th/6th (or 12th/5th) Class X/Class Y.
Thoughts?
Resurrect 3.5's 20% XP penalty for each class with more than 2 levels difference? Or better, adjust %XP penalty to the actual variation between different XP progressions.
Never thought the purpose of roleplaying games was balance. Otherwise, what's the DM for? We might as well just play some of those Tunnels & Trolls pick-a-path adventures.Tell you what. You write an adventure where the party is all fifteenth level, with a fighter/ranger, a rogue/sorcerer, a cleric, and a wizard, where you offer all four characters the opportunity to shine and nobody feels like the party's less-capable sidekick.
The GM's job is hard, and imbalance between party members only makes it harder.
I'm sure that's what your experience has taught you. Mine, on the other hand, has taught me that I can join a pre-existing Living Greyhawk campaign with multiple DMs, min/maxed characters from hell, and players who outstrip me in experience, knowledge and probably talent as well, and have a damn fun time, whether my character takes 300+ damage in 1 round or I end up disintegrating the BBEG in the 2nd round by threading the needle through SR 29 and a nat 1 on the Fort Save. Or in the other 75% of the game: roleplaying and coming up with ideas of how to accomplish goals.
Turning it around, when I DM I make an effort to include every player equally regardless of each player's personality, which I find to matter far more than their character's class when it comes to DM face-time. In some adventures some players contribute more toward forwarding the plot than others; that doesn't (or shouldn't) mean the others are left out in any way.
We've had this discussion or one like it before, I'd hate to rehash it here. I just can't relate to the notion of "feeling like the...sidekick". The only time I can honestly say I've felt that way was back in '92 or '93 when our DM ran a PC in adventures he wrote. Enough said.
Zo
Choosing a different insult doesn't change your post: "Everyone who doesn't play like I do is worthy only of scorn."
No, I was really just clarifying. Lack of intelligence and lack of emotional maturity are two completely different things.
And you over-simplifying my opinion. Everyone who gets all emotional when their build doesn't perform at 120% efficiency is worthy only of scorn. Cry about it.
It's not about the other players all getting mad at the weak character's player. It's about the player of the weak character wondering why their choice, which is advertised as perfectly reasonable, is so much weaker than the rest of the party and weaker than level-appropriate opposition. That's a perfectly reasonable and adult question to be asking, and the answer from James Jacobs is that it's fine if some characters are weaker, because that's an interesting challenge.
No, it's not interesting to play the gimp.
The only instance where I see your opinion having any kind of merit is with novice players. If they are the type of person who wants to play an optimized build, a reasonably optimized build, or a "f@~$ it all I just wanna play this concept" build, the Dungeon Master should help this player during character creation. Other players know what they're getting into.
For Example, I was considering a Sorcerer/Druid/Mystic Theurge for the next campaign I get to play in until I fell in love with the Cavalier. I'd call that reasonably optimized due to my "Air Elemental wild shape shooting the f*~% out of things with while flying and being protected by elemental qualities" concept but certainly not a power build. Nobody at the table would have complained, and I absolutely wouldn't have b##~~ed or felt bad about the Fighter or the Inquisitor out-damaging me.
You can't gurantee a build is going to be or is entitled to be the best build for the task at hand. It will NEVER happen unless you dumb down this game so much it's not worth playing.
No, I'm pretty sure I'm completely right in saying that you're going to keep insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you, because you just did that. Again.
If that's how you want to look at it, I can't stop you. I have such little regard for your opinion that it barely registers on my ego-o-meter.
It sounds like what you want is Gestalt Classes. They gain the full power of both classes. Regular multiclass is about choices: How much full power do I sacrifice to gain the bonus of flexibility.A multiclass spellcaster shouldn't have the full benefits of a straight class spellcaster of the same level.
...
IMHO, it should be that the Wizard have 20th level powers, but -only- in a very narrowly defined area (for example, -only- enchantments) - balanced by the fact that they are only getting a narrowly defined area of the Fighter ability as well.
If you can understand the metaphor, the classes should be reduced in power vertically, not horizontally.
I don't think that is a good multiclassing method, but it would be a very interesting method of allowing gestalt classes - start with the merged classes, and trim "vertically". I can't imagine allowing any sort of gestalt without some extra penalty, but this could allow it (perhaps) with a shift to the XP method (Slow/Medium/Fast), which I had already thought was a good start to balancing them.
|
Yes, I'm too lazy to read this whole thread, so I'll risk asking this question even if it has been asked:
Q: Can you please confirm that there are no multiclassing XP penalties in PRPG? (looked a while ago and couldn't find it)
James says it best: Fighter1/Wiz5/EldritchX is best. The weapon specialization feat is worth it on its own (ray ray ray!!!)
I like how 4E approaches the concept of multi-classing where you retain your core class and dabble in the other, or you can choose a hybrid class (not official rules yet, but available in DDI) where you share features of two classes. By choosing features from other classes you become more diverse, but the base mechanics like AC, to hit, and saves don't take a big hit. But like any system, even with 4E you can make some bad choices due to lack of synergy between classes.
So there is no magical answer, unless you choose a system that does not have classes like GURPS, where everything is free to choose.
Yes, I'm too lazy to read this whole thread, so I'll risk asking this question even if it has been asked:
Q: Can you please confirm that there are no multiclassing XP penalties in PRPG? (looked a while ago and couldn't find it)
James says it best: Fighter1/Wiz5/EldritchX is best. The weapon specialization feat is worth it on its own (ray ray ray!!!)
Absolutely nothing in Pathfinder cost XP. Spells with XP components now have expensive material components (or MORE expensive material components). Dying only gives you negative levels which are one or two restorations away from being gone. Creating magic items is a matter of time, gold, and skill checks. The death of a familiar penalizes your character with temporary penalties rather than XP loss.
Favored class rules now give you bonuses in the form of +1 hp or +1 skill rank any time you take a level in your favored class.
It's a design decision. The old favored enemy rules punished players for creative ideas and didn't increase the enjoyment of the game in any way, shape, or form.
You won't find the favored class XP penalty rules in Pathfinder. Why would you want to?
I see. So, the job isn't hard, because you can do it perfectly. Of course, you're not going to tell me how you do it perfectly, but rest assured that if I can figure out how to be you all the time, I'm doing it right.
I'm really not sure where I said anything that could be paraphrased that way, sarcastically or not. I'm not as concerned with "perfection" as you are, I guess. I just like to have fun. That's my test for "doing it right". I have no problems with Pathfinder RPG as it exists now, and I utilize the rule-set to have fun roleplaying sessions with my friends. YMMV. I could state my opinion further, but it seems you're offended by it. Take to heart the fact that I don't care when, where, how, or why you play.
Zo
If that's how you want to look at it, I can't stop you. I have such little regard for your opinion that it barely registers on my ego-o-meter.I think that's his entire complaint. Your ego.
Psh. My ego is totally f*~&ing awesome.
EDIT: BAH!
How are you keeping people engaged when there's a significant chunk of the game where they can contribute absolutely nothing?
Why are you assuming that anyone's game has that particular problem? I know my doesn't. Never has to the best of my memory, and, if it did, it'd be much more likely to be my fault as DM than anything to do with character builds on the game system.
You brushed off my question without answering it, and that's exceedingly annoying. How are you keeping people engaged when there's a significant chunk of the game where they can contribute absolutely nothing?
Your previous question (actually, your sarcastic declarative statement posited erroneously as a reiteration of my opinion) was a straw man and, as such, unanswerable. As is your quoted question; I don't accept your premises. You find annoyance where none is intended, and in turn annoy where such is unnecessary. Let's try to remain civil.
Zo
|
How are you keeping people engaged when there's a significant chunk of the game where they can contribute absolutely nothing?Why are you assuming that anyone's game has that particular problem? I know my doesn't. Never has to the best of my memory, and, if it did, it'd be much more likely to be my fault as DM than anything to do with character builds on the game system.
:)
I'm not taking sides here, but I think that a Cleric 3, Sorcerer 4, Fighter 2, Rogue 1, Druid 3, Wizard 3, Bard 4 would have plenty to FAIL at in that 20th level fight for your life. . .
I'd concider myself a fairly creative Dungeon-Storyteller-Gamemaster, but I'll say, I can't think of a lot of things to let this character shine that a 10th level character couldn't mop the floor with. On the other hand, they can (extremely poorly) step in to many a role, can boast that they are a student of all the major magic types, (just not that they have learned to intergrate or expand them at all), probably have a lot of nifty skills that may, work 1 out of 20 times.
I'm not taking sides here, but I think that a Cleric 3, Sorcerer 4, Fighter 2, Rogue 1, Druid 3, Wizard 3, Bard 4 would have plenty to FAIL at in that 20th level fight for your life.
And, in all seriousness, where and when has anyone actually played that character? If it were so deficient a build, it would never live to see 20th level. More to the point, can't anyone fabricate a scenario that a priori "proves" whatever contention the fabricator seeks to prove?
As usual, the "X is underpowered" (and it's variations of "X is overpowered", "X is broken", "X is unbalanced", et cetera) don't amount to anything more than, "I don't like the way X works." or "I do like the way X works."
I'm not taking sides here, but I think that a Cleric 3, Sorcerer 4, Fighter 2, Rogue 1, Druid 3, Wizard 3, Bard 4 would have plenty to FAIL at in that 20th level fight for your life.And, in all seriousness, where and when has anyone actually played that character? If it were so deficient a build, it would never live to see 20th level.
Ummm.. welll... my halfling Rogue 4, Monk 2, Barb 2, Fighter 2, Wizard 3, Cleric 3, Psion 2, Psychic Warrior 2 lived to 20th level [actually 31st eventually (Sept 2000 - Sept 2008, fwiw.)] Surviving is what he did best actually.
Was he powerful - hardly. Was he useful? Always. He could always squeeze in to give a flank, drew off plenty of attacks, would step in with a Staff of Healing or Staff of Life. And when whatever critter was around finally said "agh, enough of this halfling", a flurried sneak attack with a flaming/shocking/spell-storing Kama would prove *quite* effective.
Well, discussing with someone who dismisses your words wholesale and doesn't believe a thing you say is rather fruitless after all.Words.Yes, and I've a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
I wonder what he'd say if I told him the point-buy equivalent of my rolled stats was negative.
|
Well, discussing with someone who dismisses your words wholesale and doesn't believe a thing you say is rather fruitless after all.
Had I read something believable, I might have been more receptive to the idea that he had a uniquely useful badly managed character. Really, his main selling points were that he could flank stuff, sometimes someone tried to attack him, he muled the party's happy sticks, and once he hit level 31 or so, was actually really, really powerful (sic). I've known wizards/clerics who could summon things that could do all that and more, and would be kind enough to bring you a bag of celestial potato chips.
Either way, I'd prefer if the conversation was kept on sane ground, not "Well, in 3.5 I once paid a hefty XP penalty several times over and made this wacky dude, the party didn't have to prepare Gate/Planar Ally; Greater, so obviously this is admissible evidence of how multiclassing like a psychopath is actually a workable option." I'm not trying to knock the guy's fun or anything, but just because it might have worked (under whatever circumstances he claims to have made them work) in doesn't mean that anyone else in the history of D&D will ever pull it off again.
Now, about that bridge... are you interested?
EDIT:
I wonder what he'd say if I told him the point-buy equivalent of my rolled stats was negative.
I won the bridge from Shakespeare in a game of Pazaak.