Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[Dogbert]

so I'm curious what people think of a hypothetical setting/system where, instead of choosing a race, like elf or dwarf, you chose your character's "magical race-neutral based on birth archetype" ie, their astrological sign. Because it's fucking fantasy and stars influencing peoples' traits makes as much sense as finger tutting and shouting for three seconds while holding bat shit and immolating someone a quarter of a mile away.

Exalted was rather popular, this is not weird at all.

[Prak]

And a friend pointed out to me that Elder Scrolls has done something like this pre-Skyrim (I don't know much TES lore, having started with Skyrim, which downgrades the constellations' importance to a bunch of minor bonuses you don't really give a shit about). So I feel pretty good about this idea, especially as it cuts past the bioessentialism and "legitimized race science" of the whole, well, race thing, and also lets me play with the fantasy astrology thing in a way that players have to give a shit about.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

And a friend pointed out to me that Elder Scrolls has done something like this pre-Skyrim (I don't know much TES lore, having started with Skyrim, which downgrades the constellations' importance to a bunch of minor bonuses you don't really give a shit about). So I feel pretty good about this idea, especially as it cuts past the bioessentialism and "legitimized race science" of the whole, well, race thing, and also lets me play with the fantasy astrology thing in a way that players have to give a shit about.

TES is the most hilarious example you could have chosen, because "legitimized race science" is baked into the setting and gameplay.
Of course, TES 6 will have race be purely aesthetic so people will have to mod back in actual RPG mechanics because that's how Bethesda rolls.

[Prak]

I mean, yes, you're right, TES was just the thing my friend mentioned when I asked for thoughts on the "astrological signs in place of race" idea on a server.

[Koumei]

I've seen "Choose your Element that influences you" as a replacement for race, and that worked just fine. There's no reason why star signs couldn't work just as well. I briefly started the "Soulled Out" game where instead of "being born with pointy ears or a beard or w/e" your "this is normally race stuff" was determined by the fiend that held shares in your soul (in a holding across the Styx (for tax purposes)). Godbound just about has your actual power be your race (as in, you choose to be a godbound of Fire and Sword, you get Fire and Sword powers that seem like class abilities but also suggestions for how that affects your appearance, possible ability score changes and so on). And Dungeons: the Dragoning did a weird "select a base race -> select an Exaltation -> select classes in the FFG style" thing but you could absolutely look at cutting the first bit out and having players choose a sudden power source thing (links to actual Exalted neither needed nor recommended).

[Thaluikhain]

So, it's been argued previously on this forum that multi-classing isn't a great idea, because levels get more powerful as they increase. For example, if you are at level 5, you'd want to get to level 6 in your class which is impressive, and not get level 1 in some other class which noobs get for turning up.

Aaaaaaan recently I was playing the Spelljammer game via browser at playclassic (even more buggy than the original, grindy, but still weird enough to be worth playing, IMHO) and noticed some of the essentially useless spells were useless because they required the magic-user to be in melee (which they should avoid), but they' be actually useful for a fighter (which should be in melee).

So, random thought, assuming you wanted people to take the odd class from some other class, would having low-ranking stuff that synergises better when you aren't primarily from the class that gets it be a worthwhile idea?

[OgreBattle]

For me, 5e Hexblade 1 granting "CHA to melee attacks" and Paladin 2 granting smite and shield reaction, then the rest of the levels in sorcerer or warlock, is a great example of a small multiclassing dip opening up character concepts.

So... you lose 1 to 2 levels of sheer arcane power, but gain some in utility, different roles, durability.

So something ideal for me would be...

The Core Classes that go to 20: Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard (5e)
The 1-3 lvl Dip Classes: Rogue (Sneak Skill), Fighter (Additional actions), Barbarian (Rage, for transformation casters), Hexblade (Caster stat to melee)

[deaddmwalking]

So, it's been argued previously on this forum that multi-classing isn't a great idea, because levels get more powerful as they increase. For example, if you are at level 5, you'd want to get to level 6 in your class which is impressive, and not get level 1 in some other class which noobs get for turning up.

Generally the Den has reached a consensus that 3.x style open multi-classing is bad. That does not mean that all multi-classing is bad, or even that the Den is right in their conclusion.

In 2nd edition, a multi-class character gained XP and divided it between both (or all three classes) evenly. With 1,000,000 XP you could be a 12th level Fighter. Or you could be a Fighter 9/Wizard 11/Thief 11. It should be apparent that this character is very different from a 3.x Fighter 4/Wizard 4/Thief 4.

Even dual-classing, which worked a little more like 3.x in that you chose the classes one at a time allowed you to add the new class by spending the XP of a 1st level of the new class, not the equivalent of the next level of your existing class. Ie, in 3.x going from a Level 1 Fighter to a Level 1 Fighter/Level 1 Rogue costs +1600 XP (the same as going to a Fighter 2). By contrast, in earlier editions it would have been the same as requiring 900 XP to gain that first level of Rogue. There is a lot we can talk about how all of the special rules around it were dumb, but there was at least a recognition that picking up a lower level in a class wasn't worth as much as picking up a higher level in your existing class.

Setting that aside, having two sets of class-abilities adds versatility. Sometimes versatility is the same as raw power. A character that is Level 5/Level 5 might overcome a lot of Same-Game-Test that a straight 10th level character couldn't on their own. On the other hand, some of their class abilities may seem extremely weak against level-relevant foes. This becomes less true the more 'hit point ablation' is the solution to your problems. A 10th level wizard could cast baleful polymorph or dominate monster; a 5/5 character can't do that. But if you were only going to cast Cone of Cold with your 5th level spell slots, you're not actually giving up that much by being stuck with fireball. But this doesn't point to a problem with multi-classing as much as it points to the power-disparity between casters/non-casters. A caster giving up casting levels is a bad trade. It is less clear that giving up +2d6 Sneak Attack, Improved Trap Sense, Improved Uncanny Dodge and Improved Evasion isn't worth 3rd level spells (and a spell-list that lets you cast any spell on your list with a scroll).

Ultimately, it isn't that multi-classing couldn't be good as much as how much extra work that creates for the designers around game balance. Trying to prove what combinations are BETTER than straight classes adds a level of complexity that is extremely difficult for a designer to address. Going back to the same-game test, imagine running the test for a Fighter at 1st, 5th, 15th, and 20th. Then run the test for a Wizard at 1st, 5th, 15th, and 20th. Now try Fighter 1/Wizard 4; Fighter 2/Wizard 3; Fighter 3/Wizard 2; Fighter 4/Wizard 1. You went from running the test 2x for a 5th level character to running it 4 additional times - you're doing 3x more work and that's only with 2 classes!!! The level of complexity increases dramatically as you add more classes.

That doesn't mean that allowing multi-classing is BAD, but it does mean it is HARD. And doing something HARD well and avoid creating problems isn't really something you can do without plugging everything into a computer and running 'Ultimate Warrior' simulations.

So, back to your question. Is giving a character low-level abilities from another class a potentially good idea? YES. There are options like GESTALT that have been tested and do make characters more effective without creating ULTIMATE POWER. Allowing all of your players to Gestalt even at a reduced rate (ie, at 5th level you pick up level 1 in your gestalt choice) can allow them to choose synergistic powers... That's fine. Where people run into problems is when you really do need to make a trade. Usually giving up +1 level of your existing class isn't worth picking up 1st level powers of a new class. If it is, that could indicate a problem with your class design.

At the end of the day, you want players to be able to play the character they envision. You can get there with CLASSPLOSION, but that has some of the same problems with adding a lot of extra work. You can also offload abilities that are currently class abilities and make them selectable. Taken to an extreme, you don't have classes at all. Giving everything a points value (the option chosen by a lot of game systems) also has balance issues.

So, if you want to give players the option to pick up class abilities from a different class, ideally you'll be evaluating it to make sure that it doesn't create a major balance headache, or that if it does, you're ready to step in with an artifact sword.

[Kaelik]

Ultimately, it isn't that multi-classing couldn't be good as much as how much extra work that creates for the designers around game balance. Trying to prove what combinations are BETTER than straight classes adds a level of complexity that is extremely difficult for a designer to address. Going back to the same-game test, imagine running the test for a Fighter at 1st, 5th, 15th, and 20th. Then run the test for a Wizard at 1st, 5th, 15th, and 20th. Now try Fighter 1/Wizard 4; Fighter 2/Wizard 3; Fighter 3/Wizard 2; Fighter 4/Wizard 1. You went from running the test 2x for a 5th level character to running it 4 additional times - you're doing 3x more work and that's only with 2 classes!!! The level of complexity increases dramatically as you add more classes.

To follow up and expand on this point. This "freeness" of multiclassing does make multiclassing an impossibly too complex problem.

You can't write multiclassing rules that create balanced classes for Wizard 7, Fighter 7, Wizard 6/Fighter 1, Wizard 5/Fighter 2, ect. and then every other possible multiclass combination.

What happens is you either

1) Make it so multiclassing without absurd synergy is WAY weaker then single classing, in which case people almost never do it until they find the specific trick that brings it close to single classing in power (3e/3.5 caster multiclassing).

2) Make it so that multiclassing without absurd synergy is about as strong as single classing, in which case people either completely ban multiclassing because they see a bunch of overpowered synergy characters or everyone plays a multiclass with 7 class names that are extremely specific because there are like 6 good builds that are better then everything else, and they all combine a bunch of multiclasses that synergize. (3e but NOT 3.5 multiclassing for Fighter types, assuming you compare them to single classed fighters and never notice how they all suck next to casters.)

or 3) Change the multiclassing rules to deprive this freedom. (2e multiclassing, where you can "only" be someone who has devoted an equal amount of XP to all your classes and you can't have more then 3, so they can effectively compare a Fighter/Mage/Thief with a Fighter and a Mage and a Thief and a Fighter/Thief and a Fighter/Mage and a Thief/Mage and keep them all the samish.)

I have personally decided for my Heartbreaker that "multiclassing" doesn't exist and you get one class that determines your resource management system, and then later on you can get "Prestige Classes" that operate as subclasses or jobs or whatever you would call them where they give you the abilities of the Subclass while you keep getting main class abilities, and sometimes your main class interacts with your job, but not by changing the resource schedule and usually it gives stuff that no class ever would.

That is kind of another version of 3.

[OgreBattle]

Every edition of D&D can't keep two classes balanced with each other from 1 to 20, or even one class balanced against CR enemies from 1 to 20.
I figure the problem doesn't even start with open multiclassing but single classes going for 6+ levels and hitting those "Wizard gets a new tier of spells that change the game" points

The Fighter2/Rogue2/Wizard2 isn't totally left behind by the Wizard6 right? But Wizard7 gets 4th Level Spells and the game changes.

So I think the only sane solution to Open Multiclassing (other than "no multiclassing we have classplosion") is you have multiclassing within a Tier that caps at lvl6.

Then leveling up to Tier II means picking your 1st level in a Tier II class. Let the FIghter6 take their 7th Character Level as the "Here's the Tier II arcane caster with three 4th level spell slots" class1. He's got his pile of Feats and Skills from Tier I and can cast Solid Fog among other 4th lvl spells. If he instead goes down the "this is what Fighters are expected to take in Tier II" the class features are Tome Prowess & Feats stuff like parrying magic and improved delay to interrupt enemy actions.

[merxa]

5e, somehow, managed to make multiclassing a worthwhile option, certainly only some types of multiclassing are viable, and most are not, so it seems mostly a fluke than anything else. The other reason multiclassing works in 5e is because there aren't really that many 'high' level powers worth getting -- getting access to an extra level 1,2,3 spell is often as useful for many builds as getting a higher spell, and low level class abilities are often some of the best available. Multiattacking is the big loss for some classes, but most classes besides the fighter get stuck at 2 attacks in various ways so usually multiclass builds get that extra attack a level or two later, unless they are using their spellcasting bonus which will often stack with their multiclass choice anyway.

I think multiclassing could be universally viable in a system that decouples class and level, so 'level' becomes the condition to qualify for a choice of class abilities. This system would have plenty of other quirks to work out, but just letting people pick appropriate level powers of whatever class they want wouldn't be one of them.

[deaddmwalking]

I think multiclassing could be universally viable in a system that decouples class and level, so 'level' becomes the condition to qualify for a choice of class abilities. This system would have plenty of other quirks to work out, but just letting people pick appropriate level powers of whatever class they want wouldn't be one of them.

There's always a psychological component that you have to consider. While picking up '7th level abilities' from a '7th level abilities list' at 7th level can be mechanically balanced, most people like the idea of characters developing in expected ways. If a rogue gets +1d6 sneak attack at 1st level and +5d6 at 7th level, people will see that as a natural progression even if it isn't clear exactly what a rogue is doing and why another character can't duplicate it, or even why a lower-level rogue couldn't SOMEHOW get extra dice of damage with a really good hit. Long story short, people are going to object if someone starts doing something completely new and different without a narrative explanation.

To a lot of people, playing an RPG should create a narrative arc that is similar to what you'll find in books or movies. A character that inexplicably develops new powers in the middle of the second act violates narrative conventions.

That is not an insurmountable problem. Choosing a power-source and then choosing among higher level powers offered by that power-source doesn't create the same cognitive dissonance - you could have characters that have vastly different powers and the same power source (like Jedi, or standard D&D Sorcerers) and that's mostly fine, but it's usually gratifying if powers follow a theme.

Standard D&D allows a Wizard to know a spell that creates blades of ice and another spell that transports them thousands of miles in an instant. Outside of stories that are directly inspired by D&D, you virtually never see that.

So while jumping from one Tier 1 class to a completely different Tier 2 class offers a lot of upside mechanically, it's not as easy to actually implement. A lot of people don't think Batman should turn into Thor because he went from level 6 to level 7.

[merxa]

I don't think any of those problems are insurmountable exactly. People have different thresholds on narrative consistency, so that will always be a continuum you can adjust as needed. As mentioned, besides 'level', you could have someone pick 'themes' or 'power sources' or just multiple 'classes' that they can draw from when selecting abilities. There are other ways to limit these choices, the big one being 'prerequisites' which isn't a very popular option but very good in enforcing kits, themes, narratives.

The problem of course with prerequisites is you end up with the original problem, gatekeeping high level abilities with lower level ones, which may or may not satisfy some sense of narrative. But we should be careful here lest we end up with a 'fighters can't have nice things' thread -- I never heard anyone tell me it was narratively jarring when wizards went from level 8 to 9 and suddenly learned how to 'teleport'. However if the fighter dings level 9 but decided to multiclass and gain a '5th level spell slot', I think the reaction is a little different. Maybe it's just purely a marketing problem for the fighter -- when the monk spontaneously learned dimension door at level 12 no one seemed to care, besides maybe the one playing the monk, secretly rebuilding their next character to be a reskinned sorcerer so he could have done this 4 levels earlier.

Giving a level 9 fighter a '5th level spell slot' might be too jarring, but i think that's mostly just in the words used. Giving a 9th level character a 5th tier power is normal table stakes (and if we cut d&d leveling in half, then we can just say level 5 characters get access to 5th tier powers). Now gatekeeping some or potentially even all of the 5th tier powers with prior tiers doesn't seem on the face of it a terrible decision, presumably anyone picking 5th tier powers will have already selected numerous lower tier powers which would ideally give them a list of satisfying 5th tier powers to select from. Of course this could easily go sideways, people could lose the game in 'character creation', but that's where the work would go in creating the design.

[Kaelik]

Giving a Fighter 8/Wizard 1 a 5th level spell slot is one of those "option 2, everyone is some weird combination of multiclasses" things.

The designers intentionally made Fighter/Wizards worse then fighter or Wizards (not really, but only because Fighters are so bad, if it were Rogue/Wizard it would be true) to avoid that specific trap. Everyone thinks they are granted the endless freedom to freely multiclass, but what they are actually granted is the ability for all Fighters, Wizards, and Fighter/Wizards to be the inferior minions no one can adequately explain the existence of to the Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Wizard 1/Courier 1/Cleric 1/Favored of Ultima 1/Wizard 1/Spellsword 1/Wizard 1/Rogue 1 who picks the best ability at every level including weird synergistic abilities that voltron into something better then anything else.

[merxa]

some of that veers into table etiquette -- I have, as many of us probably have, sat down at a number of tables running all sorts of systems to only to have some player or GM slap down their cock extension character that obsoletes the party. Sure, a well designed system will assist people in not accidentally making a character that's just better than everyone at everything, and maybe the system should even try to stop the most obvious abuses that would create such a monstrosity, but that's first and foremost a social problem. I think most systems make the opposite mistake, and try too hard to stop abilities from being any good, so then they just go unused instead which hardly seems like a better solution. If you bother writing an ability, it should be really good, all sorts of character concepts should want that ability, people should feel awesome when they use it, otherwise what's the point?

[deaddmwalking]

I agree that a lot of systems give non-abilities and make a big deal about them, like a +1 defense against attack rolls made by traps. That's bad.

Even worse, some systems have hundreds of abilities like that and they let you choose 2 or 3 when 20 or 30 wouldn't really make a difference in terms of power-level (and might be more satisfying).

There's a sweet-spot where abilities are meaningful, you have enough choices to get abilities that you can create the character you envision, and there are enough good options to ensure that two players can have very different characters and still feel that they're 'equal'.

And then you have to consider whether certain abilities should be class-specific, and therefore reserved for people who advance in that class. If God of Thunder is a class, they're going to get a whole bunch of Lighting/Thunder/Thor powers that are exclusive to that class; you won't want to also make those abilities Feats that everyone picks. If you WANT lots of people to have Elemental themed powers, they should be feats and God of Thunder isn't an appropriate class.

Players need a few choices that are character-defining, and that can include a resource management system or a group of exclusive abilities. Ideally they'll also have selectable abilities that are role-specific and that can include things like weapon-specific abilities, special movement modes, etc. Ideally having two players with the same class and different role-specific abilities will feel distinctly different; having two different classes with the same role-specific abilities should also feel different.

[Kaelik]

I think most systems make the opposite mistake, and try too hard to stop abilities from being any good, so then they just go unused instead which hardly seems like a better solution. If you bother writing an ability, it should be really good, all sorts of character concepts should want that ability, people should feel awesome when they use it, otherwise what's the point?

If you bother to write AN ABILITY it should be good. But Being a Wizard 3/Fighter 3 is not an ability!

I would certainly prefer the game be balanced around single classed characters with only the most cheesed multiclass characters catching up to them then the game being balanced around multiclass voltrons with only the most broken classes being worth taking single classed.

Balancing around multiclassing being mostly bad creates a lot more room for characters, since each single class can be created and viable which is a wider range and more likely to be what players actually want then 7 powerful multiclass builds that are all really distinctively weird.

[OgreBattle]

A game with dedicated multiclassing should probably limit classsplosion. So instead of Fighter Ranger Barbarian it's more like "Summoner Necromancer Diviner are all Wizard"

Warrior: Gets bigger numbers and does Rage, Skillful Swordplay, Commanding based on how class progresses
Rogue: Does the Skill and Sneak Attack stuff (Don't think Sneak attack and Sneaking is really worth its own class but D&Dism)
Wizard: INT Arcane magic
Cleric: WIS Bible Magic
Druid: WIS Heathen Nature Magic
Sorcerer/ Warlock: CHA Build a Monster like a Soulborn

Rogue + Wizard = Smart Bard
Sorcerer + Rogue = Charismatic Bard
Warrior + Sorcerer = Paladin or Hexblade or a Sorcerer that grows claws and wades into melee

You mash these classes together for 5 levels so ya War1/Rog1/Wiz1/Cle1/Sor1 can be Link from Zelda in Tier1, then your first pick of Tier II gives you powers to go fight CR7+ monsters

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...that gives me another random idea.

Do you need a paladin if you can have a cleric/fighter? Likewise rangers and druids could be the same class but crossed with fighters or clerics. Assassins could likewise be fighter/thieves.

Like how the old bard needed someone to multiclass 4-5 times or whatever, only less complicated.

[OgreBattle]

I figure so. Paladin and Ranger and Bard stuff can all be handled by Skill (tracking, diplomancy, courage music), Spell (Shiny hitspark Smite, Healing, Aura), or Feat thats acquired by your guy in plate guy in leather or guy in cloth

Taking more Warrior levels makes your base stats bigger, gives you action points
Taking more Sneak levels makes your skills bigger to set up devastating ambushes and not get ambushed and hit the construct in a hurty place and so on
Taking more Caster levels makes your fireballs and fog clouds bigger and more slots to use.

[Kaelik]

Hmmm...that gives me another random idea.

Do you need a paladin if you can have a cleric/fighter? Likewise rangers and druids could be the same class but crossed with fighters or clerics. Assassins could likewise be fighter/thieves.

Like how the old bard needed someone to multiclass 4-5 times or whatever, only less complicated.

I'm pretty sure writing 999 balanced classes is less work the designing a free multiclassing system that is balanced with 5 classes and covers the same area.

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...that gives me another random idea.

Do you need a paladin if you can have a cleric/fighter? Likewise rangers and druids could be the same class but crossed with fighters or clerics. Assassins could likewise be fighter/thieves.

Like how the old bard needed someone to multiclass 4-5 times or whatever, only less complicated.

I'm pretty sure writing 999 balanced classes is less work the designing a free multiclassing system that is balanced with 5 classes and covers the same area.

True, I was thinking of a less than free multiclassing system, with only certain combinations allowed, but then those can be fine tuned. The cleric/fighter doesn't just take the paladin's theme, it also takes some of the paladin's word count.

A cleric/fighter is something definitely worth having, but a cleric/thief less so. Better to have it than not, if it can be made to work, there's going to be some interest, but that one's much more expendable. Keeps the numbers manageable, you can always bring out more combinations later.

[deaddmwalking]

I'm pretty sure writing 999 balanced classes is less work the designing a free multiclassing system that is balanced with 5 classes and covers the same area.

That's almost certainly true.

But making 5 classes that cover the broad archetype and using selectable features to cover the 999 concepts you want to support with classplosion is also possible. For example, Turn Undead is a feature that happens to be available to all clerics, but that never really made sense. The god of heroes probably has no special interest in undead. If Turn Undead is a selectable feature, anyone with a special interest in undead (like a Ranger with favored enemy undead) could potentially choose it. Effectively, that means that a Ranger is a Warrior with tracking/wilderness survival skills, and some type of 'favored enemy' ability. As long as 'Warrior' comes with meaningful abilities BESIDES the selectable abilities, you can cover a wide variety of concepts by combining the class options with a variety of selectable abilities.

Now, it's also a certainty that exhaustively testing every combination of selectable abilities is difficult enough to the point of impossibility. We see this with spells. Spell selection can have a big impact on character efficacy - so trying to balance the selectable abilities to some degree and then making adjustments after play-testing is going to happen. Even then, like in Magic: the Gathering, something might get missed until after it is discovered by the players.

[JonSetanta]

Hmmm...that gives me another random idea.

Do you need a paladin if you can have a cleric/fighter? Likewise rangers and druids could be the same class but crossed with fighters or clerics. Assassins could likewise be fighter/thieves.

I asked the same question to some friends 20 years ago.

It's been a long time, but I seem to recall both a brief low-level (6 I believe) dungeon crawl and a tournament arc to try out each.

The only benefit of the 3.x Paladin was the CHA bonus to saves, which I believe a certain Cleric spell can emulate anyway.

[OgreBattle]

Cleric Thief will probably do what most folks want the 3e Monk to do "I am very mobile and Hold Person execute wizards"

More thoughts on this...

Fighter: Extra actions and Bigger Stats
1- + Combat Style (includes barbarian rage and stuff)
2- + Extra Action per rest
3- + Combat Style
4- + Attribute and a Feat
5- + Extra Action per rest

Rogue: Has a pool of points like Ki to do Just As Planned, Warlord and Ninja Monk stuff. Then Sneak Attack as a D&D Commandment
1- Sneak Attack 1d6, Awareness Trap Stuff
2- + Just As Planned
3- Sneak Attack 2d6
4- + Just As Planned
5- Sneak Attack 3d6

Caster: Spheres are the main thing
1- Sphere Pick
2- +Spell Slot
3- Sphere Pick
4- +Spell Slot
5- Sphere Pick

Sorcerer / Soulborne / Warlock / Build a Monster
1 - + Monster Feature Slot
2 -+ Attribute
3 - + Monster Feature Slot
4 -+ Attribute
5 - + Monster Feature Slot

So from lvl 1 to lvl5 you pick from the same Tier I stuff, but it can increase in use and scaling like Tome Spheres.

Then lvl 6-10 is Tier II Picks. The Fighter can be revealed to have Fire Giant Blood and grow hueger at lvl6

Lvl 11-15 is Tier III Picks. The Rogue comes back from sexual relations with a succubus and now has Lvl11 Monster Fucker powers