Modular Multiclassing-- Thoughts? (d20 System)

[SirWayne]

This one requires a bit of setup, so bear with me.

As some of you might remember from a few months ago, I'd been working with BESM d20 (a poor hybrid of BESM and... well, the d20 system, that was pretty much an all-around failure) as part of an online gaming group. Recently everyone else has discovered that the system really does suck that badly, and it's fallen on a few volunteers (>_>) to overhaul it.

Most of the problems are fundamental-- as we all know, point-based systems are inherently imbalanced on the specialization vs. generalization lines... if you can put all your proverbial eggs in one basket, it almost always behooves you to do just that. In D&D, it's abetted somewhat by having free multiclassing... but also, as we all know, multiclassing can be a good (Fighter/Rogue is a staple) or bad (Monk/Wizard... is not) idea, and starting over at level 1 isn't cool in any event (if you're a 14th level Ranger, getting spellcasting as a level 1 Wizard just doesn't even matter).

OK, now for the point.

One idea I had was to allow a multiclasser to select essentially any level in a base [not Prestige] class up to one level less than his highest class. For example, a 16th level Rogue could, upon levelling up, take his next level as, say, Cleric 15. He would get only the benefits of that level (most notably one each 5th and 8th level spell slot (or, in my game, 16 spell points plus the Wis-based modifier (UA rules), two bonus spells (Clerics essentially learn spells like Wizards do, no class except Warmage-types get "everything"), +1 BAB, +1 Reflex save, and his d8 hit die. (No Domains, for example, because those are granted at level 1, and no proficiencies, because in BESM everybody is proficient with weapons and Armor are handled through feats.)

For ability "chains," like Flurry or Wildshape and its add-ons, you get them in order. Monk 9 would only grant the normal Flurry of Blows if that was the only "level" of the ability that you had. Of course, as you get the rest; the chain improves as normal. As for abilities that are basically bonus feats, like for the Ranger's ITWF, they wouldn't do anything until you picked up the prerequisites. (Alternately, it could just grant you the first feat in that chain... but that might be a problem for feats that require different prerequisites-- it doesn't make much sense to take Monk 6, pick Improved Trip, and gain Expertise instead.)

The chief problem I can see is in bookkeeping; it requires players to keep a chart of all their levels specifically, and not just the total of each class (but since this is an online group, adherence to character sheets isn't a problem), and there's obviously power issues-- some choices are obviously better than others.

But the idea doesn't seem that bad-- I mean, if you want to be a Fighter who can throw Fireballs, grabbing Wiz 5 and 6 won't give you much more than that, and you won't have to be an Eldritch Knight [and thereby get spells you might not want]-- in the abstract. And by having a lot of variant classes that are reorganized to be more balanced against each other (essentially variant classes would get different things, but at the same relative levels), there's a lot of options that hopefully won't be too overpowered.

I'm sure I'm missing something-- I literally thought about this just Friday morning after a too-long session of X-Men Legends 2, heh-- and I'm wondering why I've never heard of this before, and I know I'm not the first to think of it. So I figured if anybody could set me straight, it'd be y'all. :]

And... I guess that's about it. Most of my other changes aren't nearly so drastic* (like adding an "Arcane Shot" alternate to unarmed attacks that use wands and the like instead of guns to determine damage, or redoing the BESM classes to change more problematic Attributes (like Alternate Form) into class-specific abilities that are more spread out), although if any of you folks are curious about the finished product, I'll probably have a Web page up in a few days (pending critique of the above).

* Some of the D&D classes got some alterations as well. Mostly it was to make them more powerful (like the poor Hexblade), but some of them just got some basic mechanical tweaks (like Clerics, who get two spells per level like Wizards and learn the rest through scriptures like... well, Wizards; and Druids, who basically cast like Spirit Shamans(CD)).

Anyway, thanks, and feel free to tell it like it is-- I have a thick skin.... *chuckles*

Edit: Added a few things. Probably a lot more that I forgot, too.

[Aycarus]

I think this idea was proposed somewhere in the threads previously. Ultimately, the player is punished under such a system for applying local optimization.

If he is currently a first level fighter and wants a level in wizard in order to expand his repertoire, only to continue in fighter levels thereafter he will still find that his wizard level made him weaker than a character that took 19 fighter levels followed by a single wizard level. Now, both characters have the same set of levels, but one is inherently weaker than the other. As a consequence, this option does not actually assist in providing more balance to the multiclass problem.

[Username17]

Anyway, thanks, and feel free to tell it like it is-- I have a thick skin, what with years of being like the only conservative in my gaming circles.... *chuckles*

Heh. Yeah, they're going to rib you for that, especially right now. Whether you're part of the Libertarian Right, the Religious Right, or the Pro-Business Right, you have something to be ashamed of with the current government, and many people are not going to let you forget it. The Libertarian Right is left with a supposedly "Right Wing" government that has expanded governmental intrusion into personal space, performing illegal levels of domestic spying and curbing expressive and lifestyle rights to a degree not seen for some time. The Religious Right is left with a government that has strengthened Islam beyond anything the world has ever seen, and which deliberately tiurns its back on the people of Mississippi in order to promote theft. The pro-Business Right is left with a supposedly Right Wing government that has raided the coffers of the US so much that the economy - the Business Environment itself - has tanked down to 1929 levels of business risk. Ouch. No matter what your conservative principles are, these last few years have left you open to people making fun of you.

Of course, it's not really fair. George W. Bush represents Conservative principles in much the same way as Stalin represents Communism - but that's never stopped Conservatives from using that straw man against Liberals, so I suppose turn about is fair play. In that spirit: Ha Ha! Now the incompetent dictator is on your "side". History now gets to paint you in an unfairly harsh light for all time!

--

Any way, You could have a system in which after 20 levels everyone had a "Level 1 Ability" and a "Level 2 Ability" and a "Level 17 ability" and so on. In this model, every character would be able to do a couple of things at a reasonably level-appropriate level of proficiency. They would also have a bunch of flavor abilities based on whatever it was that they did before. So a character who takes up being a Wizard would have "Character Level 5, 6, and 7 Magic" - which means that for all intents and purposes, he'd be a Wizard. The fast that he has Levels 2-4 of being a Ranger is largely meaningless, as it allows the character to basically defeat CR 4 Ranger challenges, which could be done better with a Cohort The fact that he has Level 1 of Rogue is completely flavor, as the character's Wizarding is literally able to summon things that can solve CR 1 Rogue challenges.

Anyway, for such a system to be functional, you've obviously got to drop the whole idea of accumulated BAB and Save Bonuses. That's no way going to work. After all, otherwise a character multiclassing into Fighter is never going to do anything.

---

An alternate concept is to give characters level-scaling abilities every level. That is, if a character gets a level of Spellcasting, she gets spells that are always level-appropriate. If a character gets a level of Fighter, she gets a fighting style that is level appropriate. And if a character takes a few more levels of anything else, those abilities continue to scale.

This still requires BAB to not add together. Instead, each fighting style comes with a BAB - good, bad, or indifferent - and it goes off at that level when you are using it. So if you have the "Sneak Attack Style" that always has a 3/4 BAB progression and always des a crap tonne of damage. If you have the "Cleaving Attack Style", you do less damage but have a Full BAB progression on your attacks with it and get extra attacks if you drop enemies.

-Username17

[SirWayne]

Aycarus--

Now, both characters have the same set of levels, but one is inherently weaker than the other. As a consequence, this option does not actually assist in providing more balance to the multiclass problem.

While the first part is true (some choices are unmistakably better than others), I don't see it being that much of a problem. This is largely because--

1) It is at least better than the current multiclassing "system," where you have no choice but to start over at level 1, and thus all multiclassing has problems, instead of only select levels.

2) By only getting one level at a time, the effects of built-in class synergy are reduced. While it's in all ways better to take Sor 19 instead of Sor 1, it's a tougher call between Sor 14 (one 6th level slot, 3 7th level slots) and Sor 19 (one each 8th and 9th), and that's a gap of five levels. (Admittedly, I do use the spell point system, but in that case any one-level dip in magery doesn't get you that much, due to how spell points scale.) Also, for non-casting classes, there is frequently no difference when you multiclass (Ranger 12 gets you nothing but spell points, Ranger 1 gives you three quasi-feats)-- although most of the base classes will get some abilities, however minor, to at least make sure they're not getting empty levels everywhere.

3) The modular system only applies to D&D, d20 Modern, and BESM base classes. If a player wants Real Ultimate Power, he typically has to PrC to do it-- all this rule does is let him qualify more easily. Since the d20 System revolves around the level, not the class; this rule seems like a logical progression.

Anyway, while it's true that these choices won't be completely balanced (or well at all, in the case of spellcasting classes), it at least seems better than the current system, and I can't see any major reasons not to implement it, y'know?

Frank--

Heh. Yeah, they're going to rib you for that, especially right now. Whether you're part of the Libertarian Right, the Religious Right, or the Pro-Business Right, you have something to be ashamed of with the current government, and many people are not going to let you forget it.

Yeah. :/ It's gotten to the point where I just refer to myself as "conservative," and not even "Republican." I mean, yeah, the party of "smaller government" passing a close-to-$300B "transportation" bill? The Republican President not vetoing it? Dealing with the problem of schools wasting money by giving them more money? I just... man.

But then I've got some views out of the typical Right Wing anyway. For example, I'd be for drug legalization (as the "drug" in question, marijuana, is less dangerous than legal drugs, like... alcohol), if America wasn't a welfare state. I'd rather not spend any more of my tax dollars on hippies, thanks.

(And yeah, it's always fun when folks bash on Bush for being "too Right-wing" when he's one of the best examples of a Moderate I can point to in politics. Unfortunately, his moderation tends to be in the worst places.... But that's all neither here nor there.)

Any way, You could have a system in which after 20 levels everyone had a "Level 1 Ability" and a "Level 2 Ability" and a "Level 17 ability" and so on.

That's basically what I'm shooting for. You define your character as he progresses (as at least in the case of casting, the later levels are unequivocably better than the early ones-- the anime classes will probably be "balanced" that way too), not necessarily what his biggest pile of levels happen to be in. One of the goals was exactly that, to get some "flavor" abilities (like a Paladin who can call down Flamestrikes) without completely sinking a build in needless levels or by PrCing.

Anyway, for such a system to be functional, you've obviously got to drop the whole idea of accumulated BAB and Save Bonuses.

What makes you say that? It seems that getting a guaranteed BAB is a good reason to multiclass into Fighter (plus a feat, since you would obviously not take an odd level of Fighter), but since that's the opposite of your example, I'm sure I'm missing something.

(That being said, in BESM d20 having attack bonuses be defined by skills would make the combat classes more palatable, since only they would get them as "class skills," and since I'm dividing skills into combat vs. social, there's no way to get around it by sinking, say, Bard SP into Swordery. However, skill-based combat seems to be a bad idea in d20, so for right now that's been dropped.)

What would you suggest?

An alternate concept is to give characters level-scaling abilities every level.

I like this idea, and in a way that's sort of what I would be emulating by making class-specific Attributes. Also, either way, I'd be using "character level" as the parameter for pretty much everything. Getting rid of caster level (excepting class-based bonuses, like Arcane Power or Wild Surge) seems like an easy way of not only controlling spell scaling, but shutting down Blasphemy abuse; and it's all good for level-dependent abilities like Stunning Fist.

But it does seem like a lot of work to come up with theoretically 20 different scaling abilities per class (of which there are a lot)... not to mention that it'd be a bit more bookkeeping. But it does sound interesting. (That being said, some of the abilities classes get or will be getting auto-scale anyway. Not the least of which is-- sigh-- spellcasting, since the rule where "You only have to pay to Augment powers if they're damage-dealing" in UA kicks the Evoker in the pants even more than Conjuration [Creation] did, and that's going the way of small government (:().)

Edit: Let me add-- in case it's not already obvious-- that this is just one facet of the changes, and as such I'm thinking up a lot of it off the top of my head. So if something seems rather poorly thought out... well, that's probably the case. >_>

[Neeek]

1142243591[/unixtime]]

But it does seem like a lot of work to come up with theoretically 20 different scaling abilities per class (of which there are a lot)... not to mention that it'd be a bit more bookkeeping. But it does sound interesting.

If you adopt the character level scaling system, you pretty much get rid of classes. You just have a big list of abilities and pick one each level.

[Crissa]

But then I've got some views out of the typical Right Wing anyway. For example, I'd be for drug legalization (as the "drug" in question, marijuana, is less dangerous than legal drugs, like... alcohol), if America wasn't a welfare state. I'd rather not spend any more of my tax dollars on hippies, thanks.

That's not conservative, it's just ignorant. 'Hippies, haha.' Welfare, haha. Conservatives who spout this line have two things in common: They don't recognize what government 'welfare' has done for them, and they generally have not ever been in a dire position and so would not recognize how painful being poor is.

--

Anyhow, I think the problem here is that you started your theory on a bad premise. You state that BESM d20 is poor, but then give no reasoning behind this. Then you go onto how level 1 can happen at any level, and therefore is sometimes non-synergystic. BESM is a valiant attempt to make abilities stack.

Wizard and Monk, for instance, won't synergize as long as BAB requires every level and the spell list does not stack with personal abilities.

This is the same reason ECL doesn't work: Paying with levels, which are expected to stack, for abilities which don't stack, just doesn't work.

-Crissa

[Username17]

What makes you say that? It seems that getting a guaranteed BAB is a good reason to multiclass into Fighter (plus a feat, since you would obviously not take an odd level of Fighter), but since that's the opposite of your example, I'm sure I'm missing something.

As Crissa said, things have to stack or not stack. If some things stack and other things don't stack, then multiclassing between a stackable and a non-stackable quantity is never going to work. The classic example is D&D BAB, in fact.

Consider the Wizard who decides after level 6 to take up Fighting - he can't. After having taken 5 levels of Wizard (or 9 levels of Bard), you're 3 BAB behind your level, even if you take Barbarian levels for the rest of your life, your BAB will always be worse than that of a Cohort.

But it does seem like a lot of work to come up with theoretically 20 different scaling abilities per class (of which there are a lot)... not to mention that it'd be a bit more bookkeeping.

As Neek said, you'd probably want to axe the concept of the Base class for a project like this. Although you don't probably want to go as far as completely eliminating classes altogether.

What you have is very short progressions where every ability scales with level and is a meaningful tactical and strategic option for whatever level your character happens to be. If you're the guy who summons Astral Constructs to fight for him, those Astral Constructs are tough enough to be tactically meaningful whatever level you are. If you're the guy who tunnels through dimensions, you have a good enough weight limit and fine enough accuracy that it's an important strategic option at whatever level you happen to be. The reason that abilities come in progressions at all is for flavor. If you hand out a strategic ability like "make it winter" you probably want to make sure that a character has a bunch of snow powers before that happens, right?

And so you'd have that as the capstone ability of a 3-5 level class of Frost mage, where anybody could take a level of it and throw snowballs (that do enough damage to matter at every level), but only a few people have the fortitude to take all the levels and cause it to be Winter. It's still a lot of abilities, so much so that I strongly suggest working on this in a Level 1-10 environment before you try to make it work 1-20.

And yeah, it's always fun when folks bash on Bush for being "too Right-wing" when he's one of the best examples of a Moderate I can point to in politics.

Well, no. Moderates compromise, and Bush doesn't do that at all. He's the most extremist president the United States has ever had. Nixon compromised from time to time, Bush doesn't.

The fact is that politics is really complicated, and when people talk about "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" they are being disengenuous. There aren't just two monolithic positions that people can agree with one or the other more. There are lots of issues and little agreement even between people of the same political party of how to handle any particular one.

For example: economic power. The questions of how much influence you think that the government should wield, how much influence corporations should wield, how much influence individuals should wield, how much influence NGOs should wield, who should decide what corporations and NGOs should do with the influence they wield, and how much say individuals or the electorate should have in how the government uses its influence are all separate questions with more than two answers. Idenifying as a conservative, liberal, socialist, or anarchist is a virtually meaningless label in the face of those questions that are actually very complicated.

The fact that Bush frequently disagrees with you and other self-described "conservatives" doesn't mean that he's a moderate. It just means that he is an extremist with a set of views that are extremely unpopular. That's why there are currently more Americans who think that Elvis is alive than think that George W. is doing a good job.

if America wasn't a welfare state.

If America wasn't a what in the what now? I don't know what you think a "Welfare State" is, but there's a reason that almost every nation on Earth is one, and the few that aren't are extremely nasty pieces of business (Saudi Arabia and North Korea for example). Every nation is justified in its existence to its citizens by something. So for example, North Korea is justified by threatening to kill any citizen who dares to oppose it and by propagandizing its citizens that neighboring states would do likewise (which is actually true, because its neighbors are China, South Korea, Russia, and Japan). Saudi Arabia justifies its existence by claiming that its Monarchy is divinely appointed by Allah, and in any case supported by US weapons.

A welfare state, OTOH, justifies itself to its citizens simply on the pragmatic notion that if everyone plays to the social contract, then people are better off with the state in control of things than they would be without it. So you have to pay taxes (that's bad), and you have to follow laws (that's bad too), but the country sponsors currency, makes roads, protects your life and property, makes sure that water is drinkable and that noone is using your backyard as a toxic waste dump. So in the balance, being a citizen of the United States is a better deal than going off and making your own way as a hermit in the woods.

That's a welfare state. The alternative is a nation that terrorizes its citizenry. The stick instead of the carrot. The only reason I could see for people to think that was a good idea is that they didn't know what the word actually meant.

-Username17

[SirWayne]

Heh, I guess I deserved that one. No, what I mean by "welfare state" is just argumentative shorthand for "People who can get handouts from the government [that is, 'welfare'] who don't deserve it," which is of course true-- the American bureaucracy is far better at waste and mismanagement than doing whatever it is they're supposed to be doing. That's all. What Frank is talking about is just a normal aspect of government. I have absolutely nothing against the concept of government supporting people who pay taxes and deserve the aid; the "hippie" comment was when those who are not contributing or deserving get the same benefits.

Now admittedly, I haven't been keeping up on domestic politics like I ought to be, so if the situations where you get more money from the government by being on disability or suing someone because you screwed up your life with drugs than if you're below the poverty line has changed, then great. But I doubt it.

As for Bush being a "moderate," I mean more where his decisions generally fall on the political spectrum [a good mix of both, more "right" than "left," overall]. I never associated "moderates" with "compromise," because politics, at least in America, isn't really about compromise... it's about getting your party to bloc vote and then trying to convince a few on the other side to jump ship for various reasons.

Politics is imbalanced. We need an errata. >_>

(Anyway, I'm stopping there; the political quip was more just an icebreaker. After 2004 and spending about an hour a day on my LJ and forums arguing with Angry Liberals, that was about it for me, heh.)

---

OK, I see what you mean about BAB. Let me post some of my other concepts here (and sorry about that; I just have a terrible memory):

-It's still a CP-based system, where you spend "character points" to get Attributes beyond those in your class. While the list is much more restricted than in BESM d20 (where many of them, like Alternate Form, got shuffled to being class-specific abilities), it's still where customization comes from. The more limited a class is, the more bonus CP it provides.

-The system is more statistic-based than in D&D (since it's meant to replace an anime system). Classes offer you bonus stat points every other level [or so], and the ratio they're provided in is dependant on the class (Fighter might be Str, Dex, Con, Str, Int, Con, Str, etc.).

-Most non-spellcasting damage is probably going to come from "Special Attacks," which are always linked to your primary attack. So while I did create the aformentioned "arcane shot" attack, it will typically be weaker (especially for non-Sorcerers, since damage is Cha-based) than a Barbarian using his axe. Special Attacks can grant a few extra abilities, too.

-The Attribute Ranks system (you have to buy more ranks in an Attribute to make it better) is sort of deliberately non-stacking. In a way, that's what I'm shooting for... the strength of your abilities is level-dependant (like if you only have Paladin 5 but are level 10 you get one Smite, but it's at +10 damage), but not your utility thereof (you... still only have one Smite, and none of the feats that improve them [that I'm adding to the class]).

Spellcasting only gives you a few spells known and a limited number of SP every time you "multiclass" into it, and a lot of the more problematic spells are nerfed or gone (like Polymorph probably now just grants a rank of Alternate Form, instead of doing silly stat-replacement). I do still expect casters to dominate, but not to the extent that they do in D&D-- just because we recognize that warriors need a special effects budget too, so they're getting one.

-Also, in BESM all spells require an attack roll (even AoE spells, if their Defense roll beats your attack roll, they're assumed to have dodged or something). So going into a class with favorable BAB is still useful, especially if it's on a level that gives you some Dex or a feat like Weapon Focus or something.

-A lot of abilities are simply level-dependant in that they don't stack, but you can't get them until later on, like Hide in Plain Sight.

* This one is just an idea, not sure whether I'd be implementing it or not. But one thing I was considering was to merge SP and "Energy Points" (what BESM uses to power some of its Attributes), where casters get the first, others get the second, but they all go into the same pool if you happen to have both. It takes some of the bite out of multiclassing either way. The obvious problem is that high-level casters get a ton of SP, and high-level Fighters would not; and we don't want everyone to take Sorcerer 18 just to get some 9th level spells and yummy power points. I think with some refining that idea could work, though....

Also, I want to thank you guys for replying. My players are kind of harping on me to get this revision done ASAP, and your help is definitely... well, er... helping.

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
The political discussion needs to stop, folks. We're here to talk about gaming.
[/TGFBS]

[SirWayne]

Heh, I don't think the intervention was necessary; since I'd bowed out anyway (knowing better than to argue with people more informed on something than I am) and I don't think the thread was in any danger of derailment. But nothing wrong with pre-emptive milita-- I mean, administrative action. ;]

Anyway....

Just as a clarification, I doubt I'd try this in [more or less] stock D&D, since the classes aren't remotely balanced with each other (for it to work classes need level-appropriate abilities through the entire class progression, not just the first four; and that's simply not the case in D&D). However, in BESM d20; everything is point-based, so it's not difficult to just offer bonus points at higher levels and try to approximate the advantages of spellcasting [which are milder anyway, given what else the other classes are getting] that way.

[Username17]

-The system is more statistic-based than in D&D (since it's meant to replace an anime system). Classes offer you bonus stat points every other level [or so], and the ratio they're provided in is dependant on the class (Fighter might be Str, Dex, Con, Str, Int, Con, Str, etc.).

Ouch. That kind of system is what we call a divergent system. As people advance, the range of potential bonuses increases. Furthermore, it's an accumulatory system, which means that in order to end up at the high end of the range you need to make a series of proscribed stops along the way. That is the opposite of a system in which open multiclassing is a good idea or even possible.

In such a setup, a character who doesn't take all the fighter levels they can ends up farther and farther behind on the numeric curve - and since the Random Number Generator is static (it's still a d20 being added no matter what you do), a multiclassed Fighter is always eventually incapable of Fighting. In any divergent system, characters essentially lose options over time by not getting the bonuses that the specialists are getting. If one guy has a +40 to-hit, there is nothing your character can roll with his +20 to-hit that will make contact with an enemy scaled to your party.

Multiclassing then is the opportunity to lose more options slower - which means that while you may be balanced in the short run by having multiple options that are somewhat behind, in the long run you'll eventually have lost all of your options and be completely meaningless.

If you want to keep a divergent accumulatory system, you have to drop multiclassing altogether. If people want to play Fire Warriors and Mystic Theurges, they have to have base classes that give them mixed bags of options that keep up with their level rather than advancing various options alternately over time.

knowing better than to argue with people more informed on something than I am

Only one thing to do about that. I guess you'll have to get informed.

And I don't mean "listen to talk radio", I mean actually go out and find out what terms really mean and what the historical effects of various actions of domestic policy have been. You may be shocked to discover that you're actually in favor of a "Welfare State" (as it means that the government attempts to justify your loyalty to it), "Outcome-Based Education" (as it means that you check to see which of your programs worked, and dicontinue the ones that didn't and expand the ones that did), and even "New Math" (as it means to expose younger children to higher math gradually rather than all at once in Highschool or Junior High).

Then if you still have opinions that are radically different from mine, you can at least hold your own in explaining why. I think an uninformed electorate is possibly the most dangerous thing on the planet, and that's something we should all be willing to agree on.

-Username17

[SirWayne]

Only one thing to do about that. I guess you'll have to get informed.

Well, I'm "informed" enough, or at least as much as I need to be to vote. And in 2004 when I was "into" politics, I'd check out both sides for talking points and then research stuff online. But nowadays I don't talk about it that much, and that's mostly because it's depressing (like listening to folks talk about who to support for President, and not wanting to say any of them in office, heh). That's all.

I mean actually go out and find out what terms really mean and what the historical effects of various actions of domestic policy have been.

Heh, "what terms really mean" is about where my patience with politics ends. Many, many times I've been arguing with somebody only for them to pull a bait-and-switch with semantics. I try to call things what they are, such as, for me, a "welfare state" being more akin to quasi-socialism (where the government takes from those who contribute and gives to those who do not), as compared to "being a responsible government," and the two are not the same thing.

But anyway, like FBMF said, moving on....

---

That kind of system is what we call a divergent system. As people advance, the range of potential bonuses increases.

Right. That was actually a major problem with BESM d20, where if you were a "combat specialist" you could be looking at +30 to your attack rolls at level 8... while a more normal player could be at +10 or worse... and there is simply no challenge you can make which can be relevant to both (as the weaker build is off the RNG).

But....

Furthermore, it's an accumulatory system, which means that in order to end up at the high end of the range you need to make a series of proscribed stops along the way.

...I don't know how accurate that is. Fundamentally, a combat class is a combat class: Martial Artist, Strong Hero, and Barbarian will all advance your ability to stab things with swords at roughly the same rate. Martial Artist does so via bonus attacks, and Barbarian by better attacks (via Rage), but there is not a tremendous difference between them.

So when I see...

That is the opposite of a system in which open multiclassing is a good idea or even possible.

...I'm not sure I agree, because multiclassing is essentially there to add breadth, not depth. If you compare a min-maxed Ftr 20 to a "normal" Ftr 20 (which we know is a joke because nobody takes those levels), there will not be an entire RNG difference between them. That will probably not be the case with a Ftr 2/Rgr 2/Brb 1/HxB 2/PrC X vs. Ftr 20, either. The former build has more stuff, but they are not impossibly far off on how good they are at their primary schtick (combat).

The difference I see is that in D&D Ftr 10/Wiz 10 rather sucks (though not as much as, say, Sor 10/Clr 10), but in a modular multiclassing system it can actually be a decent choice. And the reasoning for that is that if you take those levels of Wizard right in the middle, you can pick up buffing spells (like Tenser's) that will probably push you ahead of a straight-classed Fighter when you use those spells. And they should-- that's what the Wizard levels are for.

Really, though, I'm just not seeing how different things are going to be. The mojo is still in PrCs, and they are explicitly exempt from modular multiclassing.

If the point was about stat increases, well, that can always be discarded-- it was just an idea in the first place. And again, I don't see it being tremendously imbalanced... a class will typically not advance more than 6 stat points in its prime requisite, and if jumping around different classes to try to grab the same stat is an issue, we can always just cap them (in fact, I was doing that already, where your race determines what your max stats are but does not give them to you for free). Or we could throw the concept out... allowing casters to focus on their main stat is probably a bad idea, because overhauling the saving throw system would then be even more imperative, and that just seems like unnecessary work. @_@

in the long run you'll eventually have lost all of your options and be completely meaningless.

How long is "eventually?" It seems like it would be well into Epic levels (just because even the worst classes at combat are still getting something for free), and I have no desire to even try to make an infinitely-scaling system.

If you want to keep a divergent accumulatory system, you have to drop multiclassing altogether. If people want to play Fire Warriors and Mystic Theurges, they have to have base classes that give them mixed bags of options that keep up with their level rather than advancing various options alternately over time.

If you can get approximately the same benefit of "being a Mystic Theurge" by multiclassing as you can be being in a PrC (which again, are their own thing), what's the difference? Ditto for the "Fire Warrior." Sure, a focused class is better, but if the multiclassing system can roughly accomodate the concept, then that saves us the need to create tons of variant classes.

Anyway, gotta cut that short there. Going to meet up with some friends to discuss character concepts for a Hunter game. Now that's a system that needs some help....

(Also, thanks, Frank, you've given me a lot of stuff to think about. :])

[Crissa]

Yeah... That's... Hmm.

I'm not going to reply, as that'll get fbmf mad.

-Crissa

[SirWayne]

Probably just as well, heh. I apologize for bringing politics up in the first place-- like I mentioned before it was just supposed to be one of those humanizing icebreakers we "newbies" use to avoid being lost in the shuffle.

(On the bright side, I could've talked about religion instead. So instead of arguing about the semantics of the welfare state it could've been how y'all are going to hell. ? (...yeah, I figured that was probably the worse idea....))

---

Here's something else I was curious about. Following the idea of making most class point-based instead of just spellcasters, I came to the ones that are "partial casters" already (like Paladins). How imbalancing would it be to give them lower-level casting, and then making abilities like Smite cost EP instead of just flat uses per day? The issue there I'm certain would be scaling... some part of me rankles at a Pal 1/Clr 19 being able to deliver 300 Smites (if it started at 1 point) per day, heh.

[Crissa]

...The part fbmf wouldn't like would be snarky remarks about not understaanding how stacking BAB works...

Now, my problem is how multiclassing works that would make Pal 1/Clr 19 be the same as Clr 19/Pal 1.

See, either you want them the same, or you want them different. But should the Pal 10/Clr 10 have spells that work on the same targets as the Clr 20? Should they be able to hit the same targets as the Pal 20?

-Crissa

[SirWayne]

Heh, I see. The only comment I saw from FBMF was regarding the political "discussion," so I figured that's what you meant. After all, I don't think snark has ever really been discouraged here, has it? If not, that hasn't stopped you good folks.... >_>

Admittedly, I'm not entirely sure what the point about "stacking BAB" is supposed to be saying, either. I assume it's referring to how BAB is incremental and stacks and you have to keep increasing it to be meaningful against enemies with level-appropriate defense... and my point was that there's more to hitting things than BAB, and in any event as long as these means are class-specific, I don't see the gap between them being that much bigger in a modular system than they are in Core.

But should the Pal 10/Clr 10 have spells that work on the same targets as the Clr 20? Should they be able to hit the same targets as the Pal 20?

To the latter point... don't they already? A Pal 10/Clr 10 is looking at +17 BAB (compared to +20 for Pal 20) and roughly the same "benefits," except that the Cleric multiclass is simply better due to his buffing spells (having Righteous Might alone trumps the Paladin 20's innate advantages).

In a modular system the Pal 10/Clr 10 can take his Cleric levels at higher level points and thus come out ahead with better spells. A Cleric going into Paladin doesn't benefit as much (even with the suggested EP rule that would merge with Cleric spellcasting)-- he would pick up the spells of the Paladin list he doesn't already have, maybe get Smite and the other abilities-- but it's still there.

As for the spellcasting side of it... I would probably simply make the spellcasting level = character level normally, so a Pal 10/Clr 10's spells are just as powerful as a Clr 20's, except that the latter case has more spells (not having any gaps in his list) and more points to cast them with. Given that the system assumes a lot of combat, and with the possibility of converting limited-use abilities over to points; having more MP/EP/SP/PP/*P is a solid advantage.

(Bear with me if I'm missing something in what you're saying, Crissa, I think my first experience with White Wolf chargen tonight has fried something in my brain. @_@)

[Username17]

I think I can tie the obvious response in to D&D sufficiently closely that fbmf will have to live with it.

OK, words in politics or D&D have specific meanings, and if you use them in sentences where you intended them to mean something else that makes intuitive sense to you, then you end up with a sentence which to everyone else is confusing at best and actually broken or offensive at worst. So in D&D a word like "permanent" has a proscribed meaning, saying that something is a "permanent effect" means that it lasts until dispelled or suppressed by anti-magic. That's substantially less long than is "instantaneous", and while there are English constructions out of which that makes sense, there are many other English constructions which don't support that interpretation. Nevertheless, when people talk about D&D, they agree to use the word in that manner.

Similarly, when someone uses the word "welfare state", they mean a set of governmental justifications where the average citizen is encouraged to buy into the program through mass-appeal services. These are in almost all cases socialist institutions like Fire Departments, Police Protection, Waste Management, and Highway Services, though occassionally people can be bought off through the establishment of pay-as-you-go services like the Post Office.

---

Meanwhile, the problem with the attribute bonuses is that it's a separate system that works like BAB - and is cumulative with BAB. So people pretty much have to get the appropriate Base Attribute Bonuses if they want to do any particular task, or they just won't be good. So if you want to be a caster it isn't enough to get decent spells, you also need to have a Base Save DC bonus from your attribute bonuses that goes all the way back to 1st level or your Save DCs aren't good and your spells don't work.

And yes, you could have people multiclass between Strong Hero, Barbarian, and Muscleman with little problem - but multiclassing between Strong Hero and Wizard is going to suck even if the character gets full BAB and Spellcasting! His Strength won't be large enough to hit with a sword consistently, and his Intelligence won't be high enough to have spells that work.

So really you might as well set it up like D20 Modern only with no multiclassing in the base classes. People take "Strong Hero" or "Smart Hero" until they are ready to branch out into crazy crap and then they can multiclass freely within the proscribed archetype.

-Username17

[SirWayne]

Frank-- Well, within reason. The problem with semantics is that often there is no "governing body" besides a dictionary-- if that-- and it all depends on the connotations society has regarding certain phrases.

...that being said, if you Google for "definition 'welfare state'," you get hits like this. Which I probably should've done in the first place before bandying terms around... well, that was my mistake, and thanks for correcting me.

---

Point made about the attribute issue. My thought had been to basically make it gratis and not actually change anything, where Fighters just became beefier and Sorcerers are always too sexy for their shirts; but I wasn't sure if it'd be workable in the first place, so it would be better to just drop it, yeah.

Let me ask you this one, though-- what about removing stats from attack rolls (put to damage instead... Str for melee, Cha for magic, etc.) and using a skill-based system instead, where it's the combat classes that get "Heavy Machine Gunnery" as Class skills and you have to multiclass into them to keep up with defense?

It seems like a bad idea all around, but I'm curious as to how bad, especially when just making it stat/level-oriented is easier to control in the first place.

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Final Warning: The political discussion, no matter how cleverly disguised and/or integrated, ceases. Now.
[/TGFBS]

[Crissa]

The you get the guy who can't hit nor can do damage with your Smart Hero.

Augh.

It's bad enough in WoW you deal with the guy who needs one stat being balanced with the guy who needs two. It just doesn't work out.

-Crissa