[Tome] AwesomeTome v2 clarification

[TarkisFlux]

The break points could be any levels, really. You could decide on all prime numbers, or multiples of two, or whatever. The thing is that the NEXT level available should have several PRCs that you can suddenly qualify for. Most PRCs are 5 or 10 levels long, and most PRCs become available to take on your 6th or 11th level. If you want to have a bunch of base classes that end at 8, you should have a bunch of PRCs that become available at level 9.

The problem with your system, besides that you are a retard, is that when you are level 8, you can easily get into PrCs that became available at level 5.

There is no reason to exclude a 12 level class because it qualifies for PrCs that other classes qualified for at level 8 or 10 or 6.

This. While there is some degree of level inappropriateness with taking a PrC a few levels after someone else could have qualified for it, solving that problem while still retaining PrCs at all requires writing lots of new PrCs or writing special case prereqs and is probably more work that it's worth to block/correct.

But if you want to include shorter classes and not have them look weird or all have PrC options to continue with, just stop the core book at 10. Then you write the 'epic' book for 11-20 with lots of PrCs in it instead of base classes and the wish economy bits and whatever else. You get the same content in the end, with a smaller book load for entry level games and adjusted expectations for the end of various character concepts.

[Lokathor]

Open Multiclassing is fucked and we all know this because it can't hand out level appropriate abilities at all levels. When you go into a new class, the first level of that class is probably not giving a level appropriate ability compared to whatever your total level is. By extension, going into PrCs is just as fucked if you're not going into them at the level they're intended for you to enter them. Which means that to keep things straight, you really should always be entering a PrC at the soonest possible level. Which is why you need to have PrCs designed around specific entry levels be available to any class that can't go to 20 on its own.

But if you can do that, then sure, put non-20 classes into the core.

[Judging__Eagle]

Well, then we obviously need a better multiclassing dynamic that isn't shit.

The crudest, and simplest; and possibly most effective is as follows:

Every time you take a level in a class; you take the level of the class that is the next in your Challenge Rating progression; and only gain what that class would have for that level.

So you're a 19th level Barbarian, and take your 20th level in Druid, and you get an 8th and 9th level spell slot, can Wild Shape into a Huge Elemental type 1/day. It's not great, but it makes multiclassing suck a lot less.

A dynamic like that seriously can kill the "spellcasters can't step off the level appropriate train ever" problem.

Ideally, using the approach Frank wrote up for his Final Fantasy d20 mod where Spellcaster level, and Character level helped to detemine the highest level spells that a character could cast.

So a 10th level character with 1 level in black mage and 1 level in white mage; and 8 levels in Fighter or Rogue could cast more/better spells than a 1st level Black or White mage; but a 5th level Red Mage would be a better spellcaster than the 10th level character, since they have more than 1 level in any specific spellcasting class.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I'd suggest trying to make standardized progressions for the various power schedules, and just have PrCs give you, "+1 level of X", but that seems a bit much like making a new edition.

Oh wait, I just did suggest it.

---

J.E.'s method ("And now I take the 17th level of Wizard...") sounds a little better, now that I think about it.

[Kaelik]

JE's method is shit.

When you take the level 17 of Barbarian you get the ability to do X in a Rage, but you don't get the ability to Rage.

Whoops, fucking retarded.

And no, taking PrCs a couple levels behind the earliest level possible is not a big fucking deal when your class is designed around that.

IE, the Conduit gets casting as an 8th level Sorcerer at level 10, which means at level 11 it gets to take PrCs that Wizards were getting into at level 8. But that is totally fucking okay, because PrCs that advance spellcasting totally are fucking fine at any level.

Wizards already take PrCs they qualify for at level 6-10 at every level. Because fuck you, Wizard 5/X 3/Y 4/Z 6 is already a viable build.

Not to mention the scaling up of spheres for the Conduit.

[TarkisFlux]

JE's method is hard for lots of people to swallow in my admittedly anecdotal experience. Whether it's mechanically sound or not is irrelevant if no one will use it because it 'feels wrong'. And I'm pretty sure it's mechanically dodgy too, but can't be assed to get into it here.

There's 2 basic multiclass scenarios: alternate class progression/specialization and multiple base class builds. People who are worried about level appropriateness worry more about the latter than the former because it's a worse problem with really large level appropriateness differences, and that sucks because you could just get a fucking cohort to do it instead (among other reasons).

So you'd probably be better off just telling people that they can only take 1 base class ever and then doing PrCs for all of their growth away from the core class bits. If someone wanted a wizard/thief, they can get into arcane trickster with either 3rd level arcane spells and some skills OR 3d6 SA and some different skills OR 7d6 DA and some even differenter skills OR whatever else you want to make a valid class entry point. And then when you take it you get a different level 1 and maybe level 2 ability based on which class you got in with (to patch up weaknesses), and then all of the abilities of the class are appropriate for 6-20 (because multiclass patch PrCs may as well go all the way).

Alternate class feature / specialization PrCs are easy to do in the same style if you wanted, but seem less mandatory. Being a level or two behind in appropriate abilities can be managed by having other abilities, the whole class splice thing is predicated on it. As long as the divergence isn't too large there are plenty of in-game patches for it. You may want to hack the knees off of cohorts to make room for that sort of thing though. Being 2 levels down is cohort levels down as it stands, and that's pretty crappy because of the comparison even if being a basically gestalted 8 wizard/8rogue in a party with a 10 cleric doesn't seem like a bad gig. Setting cohorts at 4 levels down instead leaves you a bit more room to let people branch out into different things, trading level appropriateness for a broader selection.

[Lokathor]

JE's Method is actually worse than just letting people get a few levels behind on their class abilities they're earning.

[Bihlbo]

JE's method is hard for lots of people to swallow

Maybe because it's basically no different than building a game in which every level has a huge list of crap from which you have to select your class ability. Seriously, there's no reason for classes at all in that setup.

There's 2 basic multiclass scenarios: alternate class progression/specialization and multiple base class builds.

How are either of these much different than simply building another class? After you get beyond the iconic classes, isn't every class out there just this?

If I had my druthers:
You pick a class. This is your class, you have none other.

Your class abilities are selected from a small list, much like the rogue special abilities but spread out over every class ability gained, or a better example is the Midnight wildlander. Via the variety in these lists you are able to build characters with multiple capabilities and playstyles, divergent from one another as much as samurai/fighter/barbarian/knight, for instance.

Prestige classes are sets of alternate class ability choices, unlockable through gameplay and player agency more than through base mechanic requirements, that appeal to multiple classes. Through these one turns a cleric or a fighter into a paladin.

If you want to describe your character as something like a "thief-acrobat" rather than "a rogue, just like a quarter of the rest of the guys here" then certain ability choices give the character identity and come with fluff. "I was a rogue, but after studying with Mu-Yngg the Pillar during the winter months in the tower-city of Hgaa, I became a thief-acrobat. I expect you to not associate me with my lessers again."

[TarkisFlux]

JE's method is hard for lots of people to swallow

Maybe because it's basically no different than building a game in which every level has a huge list of crap from which you have to select your class ability. Seriously, there's no reason for classes at all in that setup.

While there's no reason for classes in this setup, that's not why everyone who I've ever seen complain about it has complained. It mostly takes the form of "why the fuck did you get to skip X?" or "why can you do Y but not Z?". It's a lot of narrative dissonance basically.

But yeah, it's basically classless at that point and promotes really fucking bizarre cherry picked builds because the decent abilities don't all get granted on the same schedule.

There's 2 basic multiclass scenarios: alternate class progression/specialization and multiple base class builds.

How are either of these much different than simply building another class? After you get beyond the iconic classes, isn't every class out there just this?

More or less, but doing this saves space. You don't have to write a class for every path to archmage or mystic theurge or whatever, and it allows people to voltron together unplanned combinations. If you wanted to mandate that sort of thing you could just break all the classes up into chunks dungeon crusade style and make people take new things at some level multiple (and not before), which also has the same benefits compared to classplosion + lots of reused abilities (though I guess you could classplode and just have all the abilities be pointers to a big ability list, which is still a lot more work than is currently being discussed).

If I had my druthers

Go find them then and write that. Maybe it'll make it into this project even.

[Judging__Eagle]

Regarding the crudeness of my idea, that was the point. It's not a polished idea, and it needs work. The objective was to spit out the idea. Editing is best done from multiple critical angles.

As for the notion of dissonance, honestly, the amounts of times in Narratives that an adventurer picks up a new set of training, and is badass at it is fairly common, as is the one where the adventurer picks up a new set of training and is a novice about it.

The problem with D&D is that it doesn't know if it wants to be Heroic Epic like Cuchulain the Hound, or Picarequese Treadmilling like Cudgel the Clever; so it hamfists both, and fails at either.

If it's heroic pulp, characters should have laundry lists of level appropriate powers they can pick up each challenge rating; and always have level appropriate powers. A person who is a level 5 Rogue/1 Fighter (Odysseus) should be on par with someone who is a level 5 Barbarian/1 Druid (Cuchulain) because the powers they got at 6th level are 6th level powers.

If it's supposed to be Vancian picaresque; then it should follow the Warhammer Fantasy RPG model where you have a level or two in Thief, then Rogue, then Scoundrel, then Apprentice Wizard (Cudgel); or Rogue, Gladiator, Barbarian, Adventurer (Conan).

The difference between the two types is how the story is expected to progress and the characters to develop.

Are the characters supposed to be treadmilling through their core concepts with slight variations from story to story (picaresque); or are the characters supposed to come to a final end and die in a way that defines their story (heroic)?

It's a more fundamental problem in RPGs than even the Tomes wasn't meant to tackle; and I don't know if this project could do so either.

For the most part, picaresque is part and parcel with how RPGs are actually played; so that model should be looked at and thought about.

[Kaelik]

JE, the problem is not that we are complaining about how we think Barbarian 5/Ninja 1 should be weaker. The problem is that your system is premised on the idea that all classes get equally level appropriate abilities at all levels, and the only difference is theme.

1) If that were true, it would create a system were no one was theme protected at all, and that would suck. If anyone can take one level of Fire Mage and get level appropriate fire powers as good as yours, you would feel like shit.

2) That isn't true, lots of classes give abilities that are level appropriate at all levels, or that combine with other abilities to be level appropriate. There is no way to make that system work with classes like Barbarian, Fire Mage, or Assassin where a large part of their level appropriatness scales off a basic ability they gain early.

3) The problem is that in trying to make Barbarian 5/Druid 1 equal to whatever, you actually just did is make Barbarian 4/Druid 1/Barbarian 1 much fucking better than Barbarian 5/Druid 1. Your system makes maximum cherry picking of synergistic abilities the real route to power.

Right off the bat, Wizard 1/Sorcerer 1/Wizard 1/Sorcerer 1/ect is just flat better than Wizards or Sorcerers, or use Cleric, whatever.

And who in their right mind wouldn't spend their fifth level on Druid 5, because fuck, that shit is the bomb. Everyone ever is going to have one level in 6 different classes at level 6.

Even if you rewrite all the classes to do away with this problem, still, you are just creating a thematic wasteland where one party member is the best ice mage one level, and then two levels later, someone else is the best ice mage, and he is the best assassin. That is dumb, your idea sucks on every possible level.

It doesn't work as a simple fix, because it creates even more unbalanced results than before, and the results are even less sensible. It doesn't work as a simple fix because to defeat that, you have to literally rewrite all the fucking classes in the game. And it doesn't work as a complex fix, because the end result is a thematic wasteland of shittiness that no one will enjoy playing.

[Sajber]

About 6 months back I made myself two PDFs, for the same reasons you guys want to make another revision. It's a Player's Handbook and GM's Guide (the latter being quite a bit shorter than the first), and it's basically copy-pasted, edited and compiled from the various Tome threads and errata around on the Den, and some fluff changes.

I don't have rules/lore/D&D history mastery over anything, more or less, and I made them for fun and for use in our campaign, and we're still using them. I made them with the main idea that it should be easy to read and take in, even for those players who wants to do the minimum amount of pre-play work (of which my group has several), but still contain all the wonderful things the Tomes have to offer.

I'd be happy to upload the PDFs (and the original Word files, if that helps) if you guys want to have a look at them. I expect them to be quite far away from what a cursory reading of this thread seems to indicate what you guys are after, but they might give some inspiration or, more likely, an example of how you guys might NOT want to do things. =P

So, if you're interested, I could upload them sometime later tonight or tomorrow.

[codeGlaze]

I'd like to take a look at what you put together.

[Username17]

People really like the idea of open multiclassing, because if it could work, it would do just about everything people want a multiclass system to do. It would let people make hybrid themed characters who grew organically, yet under the direction of the player, and produce level appropriate results. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. It can't work. There's no simply or complex fix, open multiclassing is simply fucked.

The best you can do is give people cards that they prepare like they were Magic Users or Card Hunters. And even then there's just obviously much more synergy between some things than others - and your synergy groups are going to end up being your "classes" whatever the fuck you end up labeling the pieces.

-Username17

[nockermensch]

Well, the document should give a directive regarding multi-classing, at least. Even if it's a "don't do that".

[sabs]

Well, then we obviously need a better multiclassing dynamic that isn't shit.

The crudest, and simplest; and possibly most effective is as follows:

Every time you take a level in a class; you take the level of the class that is the next in your Challenge Rating progression; and only gain what that class would have for that level.

So you're a 19th level Barbarian, and take your 20th level in Druid, and you get an 8th and 9th level spell slot, can Wild Shape into a Huge Elemental type 1/day. It's not great, but it makes multiclassing suck a lot less.

A dynamic like that seriously can kill the "spellcasters can't step off the level appropriate train ever" problem.

Ideally, using the approach Frank wrote up for his Final Fantasy d20 mod where Spellcaster level, and Character level helped to detemine the highest level spells that a character could cast.

So a 10th level character with 1 level in black mage and 1 level in white mage; and 8 levels in Fighter or Rogue could cast more/better spells than a 1st level Black or White mage; but a 5th level Red Mage would be a better spellcaster than the 10th level character, since they have more than 1 level in any specific spellcasting class.

That's horrible.. you know that right?
It means that a 10/10 Wizard/Fighter is significantly worse than a 10/10 fighter/wizard.

It's just.. gah. That's the worse idea for multiclassing I've ever heard.

[codeGlaze]

That's horrible.. you know that right?
It means that a 10/10 Wizard/Fighter is significantly worse than a 10/10 fighter/wizard.

It's just.. gah. That's the worse idea for multiclassing I've ever heard.

That's already been said a few times.

That being said, I think if anything is going to happen with multi-classing, multi-classing should be streamlined instead of being more opaque.
Trying to keep track of WHEN you picked up a class level over ... even 10 levels is both annoying and difficult. Any patches should definitely not include the need for that.

Well, the document should give a directive regarding multi-classing, at least. Even if it's a "don't do that".

I can agree to something along those lines.

[Bihlbo]

Aside from getting charop benefits from certain combinations, I see lots of reasons why someone would want to multiclass. Maybe your character lived life as a barbarian for a time, then in his years in a city and as a pirate he was a rogue, then he joined a band of marauders and mercenaries and became a fighter. Maybe your character felt betrayed by his god and turned his back on society and religion, changing from a cleric to a barbarian. Maybe your rogue has so many contacts within wizardry circles that it makes more sense to learn something from them than it does to keep getting better at avoiding traps he'll never see.

But multiclassing sucks. Lots of people have tried too many times to make it work, and all of those attempts are available to people playing the game, so if they want to multiclass they can tack on one of those methods without anyone even suggesting it. But the game is better without multiclassing.

I propose: there's no multiclassing. I don't think it's worth considering how unhappy that might make someone. The rules assume your character picks one base class and maybe eventually takes prestige class levels.

Prestige classes should have far less prerequisites, reduced to only those which actually need to be there for the PrC to work (like you have to have a spellcaster level if the PrC grants +1 spellcaster level, etc). Prerequisites need to be there to prevent characters from picking up abilities that are too good for the level and to prevent morons from making a broken build; they should never be there as an entrance tax.

Replacement class abilities should be suggested as a way for players to make one class more like another, or to obtain some variety for their character that was previously obtained through multiclassing. There are lots of replacement class abilities available in tons of sources like Dragon magazine, WotC splats, setting guides, even Pathfinder. Go hunt for them. Maybe we make some for Tome as well. Replacement class abilities are a controlled change that can achieve balance, where multiclassing is not.

[CatharzGodfoot]

And this is why there isn't a massive compiled and revised "Tome" edition. Because people instantly start saying shit like "let's get rid of the fire mage and the knight", and then the next idiot comes along proposing the worst multiclassing idea ever, and finally somebody gives up and says "no multiclassing!".

It takes only moments for a Tome re-write to become an overly ambitious doomed-to-fail attempt to fix all of a dozen people's mutually incompatible pet D&D peeves.

If you want to write your own D&D heartbreaker based on the Tomes, go for it. But please don't call it a Tome update. That just confuses the issue.

[codeGlaze]

So what would a Tome update be, in your opinion?

[Sigil]

And this is why there isn't a massive compiled and revised "Tome" edition. Because people instantly start saying shit like "let's get rid of the fire mage and the knight", and then the next idiot comes along proposing the worst multiclassing idea ever, and finally somebody gives up and says "no multiclassing!".

It takes only moments for a Tome re-write to become an overly ambitious doomed-to-fail attempt to fix all of a dozen people's mutually incompatible pet D&D peeves.

If you want to write your own D&D heartbreaker based on the Tomes, go for it. But please don't call it a Tome update. That just confuses the issue.

Maybe Catharz is right. Because, while I think I'm pretty fucking right about classes, it's pretty obvious many others think I am not (and for a variety of different reasons). I propose we drop the whole 'core' thing for the time being, and instead do this:

1. Start actually formatting OGL shit that isn't already, so we have a PDF that is, at least, a complete game.
2. Post a thread about contributing to the project. Should have a tutorial on the basics of how to access the repository, how to edit things, how to create personal forks, etc.
3. Once we have an OGL replacement (or even while working on it), then we (whoever that is) can start a Tome variant of our design and call it "Complete Tome" or whatever, and instead of trying to beseech the forum for consensus can just do it, and then present it in IMOI.

[codeGlaze]

Maybe Catharz is right. Because, while I think I'm pretty fucking right about classes, it's pretty obvious many others think I am not (and for a variety of different reasons). I propose we drop the whole 'core' thing for the time being, and instead do this:

1. Start actually formatting OGL shit that isn't already, so we have a PDF that is, at least, a complete game.
2. Post a thread about contributing to the project. Should have a tutorial on the basics of how to access the repository, how to edit things, how to create personal forks, etc.
3. Once we have an OGL replacement (or even while working on it), then we (whoever that is) can start a Tome variant of our design and call it "Complete Tome" or whatever, and instead of trying to beseech the forum for consensus can just do it, and then present it in IMOI.

I agree with the above sentiment. It's a good starting point.

Is this the opinion you mean?

Alright, if we want non 20th level classes in, we should have MORE of them than just the knight in the core, so it isnt the odd duck out. We would also probably want classes to stop at 5, 10, 15, OR 20 levels; levels at which you usually start qualifying for new PRCs. Sub 20 classes should provide an obvious path for advancement beyond it, like the knight that comes packaged with PRCs, or the conduit that flat out gives you level appropriate spellcasting you can advance.

[Sigil]

Yeah, that's the one. If we have a game with a level cap of X, it should support going to level X with the same character you started the game as. You could also drop the level cap, but that's a pretty big fucking overhaul that affects a lot of shit. Or could split the game up Dungeon Crusade/Dark Heresy style, but thats really just writing several separate games that work on the same system and have the same setting.

[Judging__Eagle]

I'll be honest, I don't see a need for "theme protection". Mostly because it can't happen in the first place, and that it doesn't actually happen in the second place.

The roles that actually exist in D&D are the same that exist in any conflict; and thus war games, and examinations of war needs to be studied for the roles that it demands of its participants.

Since any sort of "binary results" system is little different from war game, and the major concerns that we are having have to do with what the character can bring to their war party; that fundamental issue can't be forgotten.

However, the themes of conflict aren't some that any one character can completely cover with overlapping at all. Unless the engine is much more abstracted, and there are only a few roles, and any of your checks ever are your "role checks".

Thus far, in my continued dissection of Sonshi's "Art of War" military forces seem* to break down into the following six roles:

-Assault/Defense
-Missile
-Command/Communication

-Reconnaissance
-Observation
-Supply

*:

"Seems" because he doesn't talk about pikers and archers (but does use the character for "crossbow" and "crossbow trigger" as part of his phrasing). However, he explicitly, and emphatically compresses "engaging/'conventional'" and "flanking/assaulting/'unconventional'" forces as having to be a "vice versa" unit type that have to be able to switch between both roles. He talks about archers. The break down of an army from duos & trios (specifically duos & trios, which must have meant something whose meaning might be lost in modernity); to squads, platoons and upwards to armies. To how commands and orders are to be communicated. The use of sentries and war camps. The employment of Espionage units. As well as the fact that he regarded armies as "self supplying"; where gathering wood and water, cooking food, and other support roles were filled by the soldiers themselves; not camp followers or support troops.

Most characters in a D&D game get a mix of them; and giving one character archetype arbitrary "role protection" is just that, arbitrary; and is going to cause more long term problems than not.

Someone can say that a "Warlock" who summons a powerful Demon should have their "Has a powerful Minion" schtick, protected; but that's a false argument. It also means that the character with a lumbering war-pet is suddenly "not allowed" (and I've seriously as many players with war-mounts in 2e and 3e games as I've seen NPC wizards with demon minions).

What you're arguing for isn't "role protection", but "theme protection"; the ice mage shouldn't expect an other character to pick up Ice Mage training, and somehow be 'better' than them. Which is fair; but isn't what I believe would happen with the method I'm doing the equivalent of throwing pasta at the wall.

The method that I'm imagining is more where the characters are picking either different Roles that they are picking up (and shuffling roles among the party; or trying to cover different bases) or they are changing their Themes for organic character development reasons.

Perhaps a better method is to have "type" and "power source" be separated along the lines of City of Heroes which would offer both theme and role protection.

Perhaps an other method would be for the basic roles that a character can take up have 20 levels of progression; and characters pick a power based on the dynamic they want to progress for their character concept.

And we make the aesthetic elements entirely window-dressing; or grouped and seperated so that the "broken" combos between a Role and a Theme can't be crossed (also, as in CoH).

So, suppose that there are six Roles

Force
Missile
Command
Intelligence
Observation
Supply

And that there are four Themes [borrowing from After Sundown's Universal, Infernal, Astral and Orphic]

Heroism
Pain
Madness
Death

So, assuming that at first you need Roles to be 10 levels deep; and each Theme gives something to each role.

You could have 10 * 6 * 4 = 240 options; and any character could be one of 12.96 million combinations of powers.

I'm not saying that this is possible, or should be done; just looking at how the issue of roles, themes, and character progression could be examined and evaluated.

[Sajber]

Okay, here links to the documents:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s3ykni3bl8lsm ... 1.2%29.pdf

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zju02eh5z0q0t ... 1.0%29.pdf

Hope you get something out of them!