Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 flip Apr 30, 2008 15:10:42	If you havn't seen it yet: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a
#2 adidamps2 Apr 30, 2008 21:59:36	I can only say that I am glad to have the amount of 2E material I could need or want (for the most part), and not have to realy on WOTC. 4E is nothign I want to do with.
#3 Pennarin May 04, 2008 10:39:19	Looking good, flip. First hard info I've seen on how multiclassing is intended to be friendlier that with other editions. And it does, look easier and less complexe.
#4 zenrak May 05, 2008 0:23:35	With these rules, how could a half-elf preserver/druid/psionic (the best caster ever) exist? A shame. Guess I'll stay with older editions. I've never had a problem with strange multiclass options, so long as you justify it storywise.
#5 youngpreserver May 05, 2008 7:29:07	Nothing strange about my multiclassing choice, its just impossible to do it 2e edition style. The 4e rules are so limited. My hopes were so high. 3.X was rather dissapointing, I could only choose two of my three favorite classes. What limit in 3.5 are you speaking about? You can take a level in *every* class if you want... though it doesn't make for a very stable character. Even a bard would be able to beat up this kind of character. 3.5 supports two of my favorite character concepts: "Trifecta" Half-Elven Druid/Preserver/Psion and "Skav" Tari (Small Rat-man) Rogue/Defiler (typically wanders the wastes completely covered by crimson covered robes. Some of the other players used to find this character quite humorous in this fashion and said things like "Ootini!" which I never understood... that is until Scav was leading a captured caravan over a dune and I subconsciously started singing "Dink dink... dink dink dink DINK dink diiiiiink.... dink dink...." ala Space balls) -Jason
#6 Pennarin May 05, 2008 12:22:27	Wow, stating 3.x and 4E are more limited than 2E, all in a single statement. What AD&D were you playing, the same I was?
#7 xlorep_darkhelm May 05, 2008 14:12:27	Nothing strange about my multiclassing choice, its just impossible to do it 2e edition style. The 4e rules are so limited. My hopes were so high. 3.X was rather dissapointing, I could only choose two of my three favorite classes. Multiclassing needs to be limited, or else it gets horribly abused. The problem 3.x had was that it actually penalized too much. 4E definitely looks promising -- controlled, sure, but promising. I believe the idea is that someone is a certain class primarily, and then they somewhat dabble in a second class. If you wanted someone to be a combination of two classes, then maybe you should look at making a new class just for that. Honestly, I think the 4E idea just might work well for Dark Sun, just because in the literature (books, both novels and game/rulebooks) for Dark Sun that exists, people who were "multi-classed" tended to favor one class over the other. Sorcerer-Kings tended to be noted more for their Arcane power than for their Psionic power (yes, they were powerful psionic creatures, but that seemed always to be secondary to their arcane magic prowess), etc. The problem you might be facing is that there is no real good way to properly/easily blend any two (or more) classes together, and for it to still be balanced with everything else. I'd say the best bet is to make a new class that has features of the two or three classes you want the character to have, integrated together, paying attention to the overall power of the new class, and the storytelling aspects/lore surrounding it in order to make it all fit.
#8 greyorm May 05, 2008 14:38:44	Wow, stating 3.x and 4E are more limited than 2E, all in a single statement. What AD&D were you playing, the same I was? I am confused as well. Does not compute.
#9 adidamps2 May 05, 2008 14:51:53	Multiclassing needs to be limited, or else it gets horribly abused. The problem 3.x had was that it actually penalized too much. 4E definitely looks promising -- controlled, sure, but promising. I believe the idea is that someone is a certain class primarily, and then they somewhat dabble in a second class. If you wanted someone to be a combination of two classes, then maybe you should look at making a new class just for that. Honestly, I think the 4E idea just might work well for Dark Sun, just because in the literature (books, both novels and game/rulebooks) for Dark Sun that exists, people who were "multi-classed" tended to favor one class over the other. Sorcerer-Kings tended to be noted more for their Arcane power than for their Psionic power (yes, they were powerful psionic creatures, but that seemed always to be secondary to their arcane magic prowess), etc. The problem you might be facing is that there is no real good way to properly/easily blend any two (or more) classes together, and for it to still be balanced with everything else. I'd say the best bet is to make a new class that has features of the two or three classes you want the character to have, integrated together, paying attention to the overall power of the new class, and the storytelling aspects/lore surrounding it in order to make it all fit. this is were 2E succeeded IMO and 3.x failed...no comment on 4th Ed. SK were not really "multi-classed" they were "dual-classed" since they were human's, so it is normal that they would favor one class over the other..again, this succeeds were 3.x breaks down again...again this is all IMO.
#10 greyorm May 05, 2008 15:04:53	The problem you might be facing is that there is no real good way to properly/easily blend any two (or more) classes together, and for it to still be balanced with everything else. That's exactly it: it should be recalled that this is a game, not a simulation of reality. D&D is not and never was meant to simulate reality but to provide a set of rules by which one could explore dangerous dungeons and fight monsters using a few specific ability-focused avatars. It shouldn't even try to simulate farming or economics because that isn't the point of the game. I think gamers sometimes forget that Monopoly isn't even a remotely accurate simulation of economics or money, and Life isn't life. They're games that have rules that allow you to do certain things in keeping with the game's intentions: which, in D&D, is killing stuff and taking their treasure so you can become powerful enough to kill bigger things and take their treasure. Thus the rules of the game need to balance the abilities and resources of the characters in terms of those game behaviors and progress markers. And if that is unpalatable, there are much better game designs out there for those wanting their game rules to be rules for simulating (near-)reality or genre (ie: who want their games to be about exploring a realistic world that correctly simulates farming, economics, politics, peasant religious practices, and so forth -- or who want something other than dungeon crawls and power-up monster bashing).
#11 xlorep_darkhelm May 05, 2008 16:57:09	this is were 2E succeeded IMO and 3.x failed...no comment on 4th Ed. SK were not really "multi-classed" they were "dual-classed" since they were human's, so it is normal that they would favor one class over the other..again, this succeeds were 3.x breaks down again...again this is all IMO. I never said that 3.x worked. I'd argue that 2E was imbalanced where those who could "dual-class" were actually much more powerful than those who couldn't. 3.x totally crippled a multi-class character who was working on magic or psionics, and then it was attempted to be "fixed" with the "band-aids" like the Cerebrmancer Prestige Class. 4E seems to be heading in a somewhat improved direction, with balancing being actually taken into consideration, and it could work. However, it won't be as flexible as what 3.x was, and that is probably for the best -- because 3.x sacrificed playability for flexibility way too much. As I said before, if there isn't a workable class/multi-class option for you, maybe build a new class that better integrates the concepts instead.
#12 adidamps2 May 05, 2008 17:47:49	I never said that 3.x worked. I'd argue that 2E was imbalanced where those who could "dual-class" were actually much more powerful than those who couldn't. I was agreeign with you that 3.x didn't work so well, however I will say that 2E was far from overpowered or unbalanced as a multi/dual classer BtB, concidering racial limits, primary prerequisites, division of hit dice for multi classer and lack of new hit dice as a dual classer (until you surpassed the old classes lvl) and the multi class restriction of classes with other classes...hell the Gladiator couldnt even be part of a Multi class, and IIRC it couldn't be part of a dual class either. 3.x totally crippled a multi-class character who was working on magic or psionics, and then it was attempted to be "fixed" with the "band-aids" like the Cerebrmancer Prestige Class. I'm not sure how they got crippled...you advance in the class that you choose to advance when you go up lvls, with what, a max of 2 lvls differnce between them? 4E seems to be heading in a somewhat improved direction, with balancing being actually taken into consideration, and it could work. However, it won't be as flexible as what 3.x was, and that is probably for the best -- because 3.x sacrificed playability for flexibility way too much. I have nothing Positive to say abotu 4E... As I said before, if there isn't a workable class/multi-class option for you, maybe build a new class that better integrates the concepts instead. but then you have to hope either you as a DM or your DM hasn't made a God-like character by mistake in trying to create the character you wish to play. all-in-all I just prefer the 2e system for DS...it seems less complicated and much more structured with just the right amount of flexibilty to not worry about "breaking" the game. IMO
#13 xlorep_darkhelm May 05, 2008 18:52:33	I was agreeign with you that 3.x didn't work so well, however I will say that 2E was far from overpowered or unbalanced as a multi/dual classer BtB, concidering racial limits, primary prerequisites, division of hit dice for multi classer and lack of new hit dice as a dual classer (until you surpassed the old classes lvl) and the multi class restriction of classes with other classes...hell the Gladiator couldnt even be part of a Multi class, and IIRC it couldn't be part of a dual class either. Racial limits had really no control over what was and wasn't "overpowered". Either multiclassing & dual-classing was overpowered, underpowered, or neither. In part or in whole. And I can guarantee that a half-elf "Cleric-MU" in 2E *was* overpowered, as I had played one in a campaign one of my friends ran. It was insane how flexible I was in very short order in the campaign. Those restrictions you describe were unnecessary complications, but they honestly did nothing to prevent something from being overpowered. They just penalized players more than anything. I'm not sure how they got crippled...you advance in the class that you choose to advance when you go up lvls, with what, a max of 2 lvls differnce between them? Ok, for 3.x. If you are, let's say, a level 20 character, who was 10 levels Wizard, and 10 levels Psion, what is your caster level? What is your manifester level? What is the most powerful spells or powers you can cast/manifest? Exactly what can you do against a level 20 Wizard, or a level 20 Psion? Exactly what could you do even against a level 20 Fighter? Exactly, not much. The system was broken, it did not work. It penalized you for taking levels in a different class, and it penalized too much. WotC knew this, and released Prestige Classes like the Mystic Theurge or the Cerebrmancer as "stop-gap" solutions, more or less as band-aids over the broken mechanic that offered both spellcaster & manifester levels simultaneously. But even then, it was not a perfect solution. I have nothing Positive to say abotu 4E... I've listened to the podcasts, I've read what is on WotC's site about it, and I've seen the little pamphlets they've released for monsters & worlds and such. Honestly, I think 4E streamlines the mechanics, and provides more opportunity for *roleplaying* as opposed to *book-searching*. From what I've seen so far, it looks good. Sucks to have to buy new books, to be sure... but it happens. I'm actually rightly impressed with 4E, and I think it is a *better* fit for Dark Sun than previous editions of D&D. but then you have to hope either you as a DM or your DM hasn't made a God-like character by mistake in trying to create the character you wish to play. Which is why I said you have to balance it. Of course, if you don't, then too bad, so sad. 4E classes seem pretty darned straight-forward and simple, so maybe that means it would be easier to make good classes designed similarly to them. all-in-all I just prefer the 2e system for DS...it seems less complicated and much more structured with just the right amount of flexibilty to not worry about "breaking" the game. IMO I never liked 2E. To me, it was complicated, frustrating, and everything seemed to be its own separate little game. Wizards and Clerics worked off of completely different sets of mechanics, as did Psions, but then so did Thieves and Fighters as well. Nothing was similar, everything was mass confusion, always spending hours trying to explain to players how the heck to do anything. 3.x did a decent job organizing things, but there was still a *lot* of the old 2E clunkiness in it, and there was some additional misfit rules thrown in (like multi-classing's mechanics). 4E looks a lot more streamlined, and it looks like it opens up more room for making a game move forward, a lot more freedom in it all. But to each their own. If you like 2E, that's just peachy. Me, I detested it, and intentionally avoided ever running 2E games... ever, after my first few experiences with it and the frustration it brought. I like looser-fitting, more dynamic systems with less number-crunching and more story-telling in them.
#14 Pennarin May 05, 2008 19:13:52	What impressed me about 4E were the playtesting reports at conventions, stating that players were feeling good about themselves, and excited at doing - or rather inventing - tactical moves that are not written anywhere, and the DMs worked out the mechanics and dice throwing and stuff. At least, that's the way 4E was reported to have been presented at those conventions. Still, I have no idea how much of that super-playability will be present in the finished product.
#15 adidamps2 May 05, 2008 19:48:18	Racial limits had really no control over what was and wasn't "overpowered". Either multiclassing & dual-classing was overpowered, underpowered, or neither. In part or in whole. And I can guarantee that a half-elf "Cleric-MU" in 2E *was* overpowered, as I had played one in a campaign one of my friends ran. It was insane how flexible I was in very short order in the campaign. Those restrictions you describe were unnecessary complications, but they honestly did nothing to prevent something from being overpowered. They just penalized players more than anything. A 1/2 Elf m-u/cleric would only top out at lvls 12/14 more if the optional lvl bouns was used for execptional stats. that at most gives you access to only 6th lvl spells as a m-u and 7th lvl as a cleric. second you had to have atleast a 9 in both Int and Wis to multi as a 1/2 elf...not too tough unless you wanted to be a specialist priest or m-u were the prerequisites could jump up quit a bit...then you have to consider the lack of over all hit points..averaging out to 6 hp's MAX for this duel class combo, plus the xp to go up lvls..not like 3e were everything is uniform, you needed 4000xp just to go up to 2 lvl, were single classes would advance much quicker, so yes while possibly being more "flexibile" as you stated you are not advancing as quickly nor are you as hardy as single classed cleric (the m-u is barely making out hp wise this way)..and the things that you say "penalize you" is nothing more than a risk vs reward system in which you have to decide if it is worth it to "you" todo the things you want, unlike 3.x were it just basically gives it youi, with no real concern of the out come. oh and I left out the % for spell learning and max # spell or max spells per lvls.again limiting factors on how "powerful" you could be...you have to roll pretty damn good to be a decent m-u/cleric multi classer. Ok, for 3.x. If you are, let's say, a level 20 character, who was 10 levels Wizard, and 10 levels Psion, what is your caster level? What is your manifester level? [/b]What is the most powerful spells or powers you can cast/manifest? Exactly what can you do against a level 20 Wizard, or a level 20 Psion? Exactly what could you do even against a level 20 Fighter? Exactly, not much. The system was broken, it did not work. It penalized you for taking levels in a different class, and it penalized too much. WotC knew this, and released Prestige Classes like the Mystic Theurge or the Cerebrmancer as "stop-gap" solutions, more or less as band-aids over the broken mechanic that offered both spellcaster & manifester levels simultaneously. But even then, it was not a perfect solution. !: you're a 10th lvl caster 2: you're a 10th lvl manifester 3: thats the price one pays for multi-classing..a single class character is typically goign to be better at what they do at the same given character lvl as a multi-classer of the same given character lvl...thats the breaks..I don't find it completely broken other than the fact that any one can be anything..with unlimited multi-classing...this is self poisoning more than rule poisoning IMO. I've listened to the podcasts, I've read what is on WotC's site about it, and I've seen the little pamphlets they've released for monsters & worlds and such. Honestly, I think 4E streamlines the mechanics, and provides more opportunity for *roleplaying* as opposed to *book-searching*. From what I've seen so far, it looks good. Sucks to have to buy new books, to be sure... but it happens. I'm actually rightly impressed with 4E, and I think it is a *better* fit for Dark Sun than previous editions of D&D. Which is why I said you have to balance it. Of course, if you don't, then too bad, so sad. 4E classes seem pretty darned straight-forward and simple, so maybe that means it would be easier to make good classes designed similarly to them. I dont know what age you started playing at, but I picked up 2E at the age of 13..it was pretty straight forward to me and THAC0 wasn't to hard either. I never liked 2E. To me, it was complicated, frustrating, and everything seemed to be its own separate little game. Wizards and Clerics worked off of completely different sets of mechanics, as did Psions, but then so did Thieves and Fighters as well. Nothing was similar, everything was mass confusion, always spending hours trying to explain to players how the heck to do anything. 3.x did a decent job organizing things, but there was still a *lot* of the old 2E clunkiness in it, and there was some additional misfit rules thrown in (like multi-classing's mechanics). 4E looks a lot more streamlined, and it looks like it opens up more room for making a game move forward, a lot more freedom in it all. But to each their own. If you like 2E, that's just peachy. Me, I detested it, and intentionally avoided ever running 2E games... ever, after my first few experiences with it and the frustration it brought. I like looser-fitting, more dynamic systems with less number-crunching and more story-telling in them. this from a system of both 1 and 2 E which both essentially said "follow the rules if it suites you and your style of play other wise make it up as go and enjoy yourself"
#16 youngpreserver May 05, 2008 21:19:06	this from a system of both 1 and 2 E which both essentially said "follow the rules if it suites you and your style of play other wise make it up as go and enjoy yourself" Umm... Amen?! The complaints about 'too many rules' and 'rule searching' when it comes to character options isn't limiting... it's freeing. Skills flesh out the PC so fighter #1 doesn't look like fighter #2, feats allow you to do things you normally couldn't... P: "well I want my m/u to wield a sword" Gm: "Okay.. blow a feat..." P: "I also want some bonuses to spellcraft and knowledge arcane like the Stealthy feat here gives to hide and move silently but I can't find it..." Gm: "Call it 'magical education' and note that it gives you a +2 to each of those skills..." So 4th edition is going to bring back the shackles of 1st edition character creation... with assassins and witch hunters as classes because we can't define this player's character concept using the rules we already have... Wow, I'd love to spend money on this game! Where do I sign up? Or do I need to commit a crime first?! I swear, people sound like they want to go to prison because it's got 3 square meals and cable tv...
#17 xlorep_darkhelm May 05, 2008 22:02:02	A 1/2 Elf m-u/cleric would only top out at lvls 12/14 more if the optional lvl bouns was used for execptional stats. that at most gives you access to only 6th lvl spells as a m-u and 7th lvl as a cleric. second you had to have atleast a 9 in both Int and Wis to multi as a 1/2 elf...not too tough unless you wanted to be a specialist priest or m-u were the prerequisites could jump up quit a bit...then you have to consider the lack of over all hit points..averaging out to 6 hp's MAX for this duel class combo, plus the xp to go up lvls..not like 3e were everything is uniform, you needed 4000xp just to go up to 2 lvl, were single classes would advance much quicker, so yes while possibly being more "flexibile" as you stated you are not advancing as quickly nor are you as hardy as single classed cleric (the m-u is barely making out hp wise this way)..and the things that you say "penalize you" is nothing more than a risk vs reward system in which you have to decide if it is worth it to "you" todo the things you want, unlike 3.x were it just basically gives it youi, with no real concern of the out come. oh and I left out the % for spell learning and max # spell or max spells per lvls.again limiting factors on how "powerful" you could be...you have to roll pretty damn good to be a decent m-u/cleric multi classer. Always seemed cludgy, unnecessarily complex, and frustrating to both players and DMs in every 1e and 2e game I participated. !: you're a 10th lvl caster 2: you're a 10th lvl manifester 3: thats the price one pays for multi-classing..a single class character is typically goign to be better at what they do at the same given character lvl as a multi-classer of the same given character lvl...thats the breaks..I don't find it completely broken other than the fact that any one can be anything..with unlimited multi-classing...this is self poisoning more than rule poisoning IMO. There is a serious difference between someone being better, and someone else being completely unable to do anything to the other person. A 10 Wizard/10 Psion will do absolutely nothing to a 20 Wizard or a 20 Psion. Check the rules, they are designed in such a way with the spell rules and such that the multi-classed character is not merely penalized, but is crippled and ineffectual. Game after game after game I've done -- both run and played in -- demonstrated this fact completely. It isn't a matter of sacrificing a little, it is about rendering yourself completely and utterly useless in encounters at your level. I dont know what age you started playing at, but I picked up 2E at the age of 13..it was pretty straight forward to me and THAC0 wasn't to hard either. I'm not saying the basic mechanics were difficult. I'm saying that switching between the rules specific to Wizards, then to the rules specific to Clerics, and then the rules specific to Psions, etc, etc, etc. was frustrating. Nobody was, as friends of mine and I also tend to put it, "playing the same game" -- there were little differences and nuances that always ended up being hang-ups going from one class to the other. I plain loathed it, and preferred a system that was more free-form, and not so... rigid and diverse. Less rules, more playing. Less looking up junk in books, and more getting into the story. Oh, and I started into roleplaying games at about 9. this from a system of both 1 and 2 E which both essentially said "follow the rules if it suites you and your style of play other wise make it up as go and enjoy yourself" The rules exist, and therefore they are often used as the foundation for the games. 3.x was no better in that regard, honestly. Very crunchy, all numbers and arithmetic and such, detracted from the game I believe.
#18 xlorep_darkhelm May 06, 2008 11:09:34	More limited for multiclassing. My Preserver/Druid/Psion was possible in 2e, without any real penalty. You still had all the casting abilities of all the three classes and were only one or two levels behind the other characters. In 3.X you can at best have two classes and combine a PrC not to fall behind the other players... In 4e its even worst. You can only have a few powers from another class, not even put some real levels in class, talk about limited. In 2e, the triumvirat was rather balanced. You didn't have more actions in a round, just a bigger spell repertoire. Rather nice considering that a 5 level mage had 6 spells per day. Ok, first off, in 4E, it seems you won't be dealing with massive amounts of spells period. Second, the classes seem, from what I have seen, to be very similar in structure -- all of them. The differences are the abilities/powers they each have. Getting some of the powers from another class is actually pretty much exactly what is needed. The only thing it limits is that you can't perfectly blend 2 or more classes completely, in 4E, multiclassing is more about you have your main "primary" class, and then you also get some "secondary" class abilities. I think this is a good, a very good basis to build from. Is it perfect? nope. But you really can't perfectly blend two or more classes together... if you want your "triumvirate" as you put it, build a new class that has qualities of the three classes. In 4E, it looks that the simple design of the classes will help promote the ability to make new classes. Honestly, the Preserver/Druid/Psion in 2E was unwieldy IMO. You had a wide spell & power repertoire, and could easily out-do a lot of the other players in your party due to the flexibility your character offered. Quite often, a multi-classed character in 2E, in games I had participated, became the "primary" character in the group, to be relied on a lot more heavily because of that flexibility. It was a more fun thing to play, it provided flexibility, and was kind of overpowered in certain ways. It sure as heck wasn't as perfect as some people have suggested in this thread. Dual-class was different... I can't think of a single player I participated in 2E campaigns with that enjoyed dual-classing even remotely. Remember, there is balancing beyond the mechanics as well. There is a certain amount of balance to be had in distribution of the classes/class ideas among players as well. Multi-classing in 2E was *very* attractive to people, and those who weren't multi-classed soon regretted their decision as the campaign advanced forward and the multi-class character gains more and more flexibility at very little penalty. As opposed to 3.x campaigns where the multi-classed character gets so horribly penalized that it becomes no longer fun to do for most of them, unless they use the band-aid classes like the Cerebrmancer.
#19 greyorm May 06, 2008 23:20:09	I'm not saying the basic mechanics were difficult. I'm saying that switching between the rules specific to Wizards, then to the rules specific to Clerics, and then the rules specific to Psions, etc, etc, etc. was frustrating. Exactly. Most of these arguments that center around defending older systems from long-standing criticisms of them and how the system is really just fine end up sounding similar to arguments over Terraball's rules. There really are problems with some rules not being complimentary, being overly-complicated, not adding to the fun, or even being outright broken. And I disagree in so many ways with the "change it if you don't like it, rules are guidelines" argument, because of the fact that system does actually matter for a number of reasons. Not that you should never change the rules, but the idea that the rules aren't designed to accomplish something so any set of rules is just fine is an odd one. Really, if the rules don't work and you need to change them, that's not freedom and it's not good design: that's either rules not working (ie: the game is broken and doesn't do what it claims to do) or the group expecting the rules to do something they weren't designed for (like trying to play baseball by playing football or bringing a hammer when the instructions call for a screwdriver or everyone else brought screws).
#20 Zardnaar May 07, 2008 0:27:35	Multiclassing in 3.X works quite well IMHO except when it comes to spellcasters who get gimped for various reasons. My biggest beef with 3.X is the power level of the primary spellcasters and Psions at level 11+. 2nd ed multiclassing was a broken as hell, and dual classing was very abusable as well. Cleric/Mage was reasonably scary and had great saving throws IIRC. Mechanically 2nd ed sucked alot. We liked it because it was D&D but I like d6 Star Wars mechanics alot better for example. The impression I got form the article was that multiclassing didn't exist as such. You just take some feats and gain some class abilities from other classes. We played a gestalt game which was overpowered as ell but kinda fun. A gestalt charcter gain the best features of both classes and full class abilities. A fighter/wizard for example would have good wil and fort saves, d10 hit dice, spells, bonus wizard and fighter feats etc. I'm tempted to use this rule in a non gestalt game but add a level adjustment of +2 on it. You could be a 3rd level fighter or a gestalt Fighter1/Wizard 1. I chose +2 levels by asking my PCs what they would prefer. A Gestalt with a LA of +1 they would choose a Gestalt PC, at +2 o=it was iffy and no PC was willing to suck up a +3 LA except in a very high level game (18+). The LA was stackable with any racial one as well so you could be a level 1 Drow Gestalt or level 5 human, dwarf etc.
#21 Zardnaar May 07, 2008 2:07:23	I don't get it. Why is it so broken? I really what to now. The division of XP is a bother. A fighter/mage couldn't specialize (big impact on attacks per round) and still had to choose between casting and fighting each round. It just gave more options to the player. Sure a elf fighter/mage could wear a elven chainmail, but those were extremely rare at the time and were a great reward. Ok, a cleric/mage could boost players before battle, blast a few rounds, then heal the frontliners, but there is nothing special there, just more versatility and options. You still could only cast one spell per round. In a small group of three or four players, that is important. If your six or seven players, then that is another story. And ok a triumvirate is very versatile, but who played a thief or any other class, except the fighter, mage and cleric? Most of the flavor of the classes at the time came from roleplay. In 3.X now there was abuse! With all the mix of PrC, quicken spells and other feats. A gish (quicken spell/full attack) is really menacing and so is a mystic theurg (quicken spell/maximized spell). On average being a multiclass character meant you were only 1 level behind everyone else. Sometimes not even that. We had Elves tanking around in elven platemail casting spells like haste, or that spell that buffed your strength. Fighter/clerics, thief/wizards,and Cleric/Wizards seemed popular.
#22 xlorep_darkhelm May 07, 2008 12:11:08	I don't get it. Why is it so broken? I really what to now. The division of XP is a bother. The division of XP was a negligible penalty, noted when you sum up all of the XP the character gets through the life of the campaign, the penalty was not really much of a penalty at all, when you then compare to other non-multiclassed characters. It gave the appearance of being a penalty, without really being an effective one. The race restrictions didn't make it more difficult, it just limited what race you could be. And for the races that could multi-class and dual-class, it did nothing. A fighter/mage couldn't specialize (big impact on attacks per round) and still had to choose between casting and fighting each round. It just gave more options to the player. Sure a elf fighter/mage could wear a elven chainmail, but those were extremely rare at the time and were a great reward. Ok, a cleric/mage could boost players before battle, blast a few rounds, then heal the frontliners, but there is nothing special there, just more versatility and options. You still could only cast one spell per round. In a small group of three or four players, that is important. If your six or seven players, then that is another story. It is the versatility that was overpowering. Look at it this way, all other things being equal, would you rather have a Cleric/Wizard in the group, or a Wizard in 2E? Ok, now look at it in 3.x, would you rather have a Cleric/Wizard in the group, or a Wizard? For me, in 2E, I would sway the Cleric/Wizard would be more valuable because of the versatility. In 3.x, I would say the Wizard because the Cleric/Wizard would be ineffectual in combat situations -- creatures' resistances would be too high for the Cleric/Wizard's spells to be able to do, well, anything, especially in a group where the average character level is 11+. And ok a triumvirate is very versatile, but who played a thief or any other class, except the fighter, mage and cleric? Most of the flavor of the classes at the time came from roleplay. Once again, the versatility out-shined the penalties. In 3.x, the penalties crippled the character so much that it became pointless. In 3.X now there was abuse! With all the mix of PrC, quicken spells and other feats. A gish (quicken spell/full attack) is really menacing and so is a mystic theurg (quicken spell/maximized spell). WotC realized that multi-classing was horrifically broken in 3.x for anyone even remotely spellcasting, and thus the Mystic Theurge was born -- a Prestige Class that attempted to be used as a "band-aid" to fix the problem -- that problem being caster level, spell level, and being able to overcome the resistances that are in most of the higher level creatures (I won't even begin to bring up Epic creatures or levels, where the multi-classed Wizard/Cleric was just plain useless in just about every way imaginable). The Mystic Theurge blended the two classes together, by providing a +1 to arcane & divine spellcaster levels simultaneously. It helped overcome the glaring and overwhelming penalty that a higher-level multiclass character would have. But it was a band-aid, and it also was not perfect. The Cerebrmancer was the same kind of thing for the Wizard/Psion, more or less. Combining classes, stacking prestige classes on, etc -- those things could be exploited in 3.x as well, but in the end, a character that made one of the simplest multi-class decisions, picking a spellcaster (or manifester) base class, and combining it with, well, just about anything, rendered the spellcasting pretty darned ineffectual in a combat situation. Combining Divine, Arcane, or Psionic spellcasting/manifesting together in one character crippled the character doubly, it was not just making the character balanced (jack of all trades, master of none idea), if you have a character level 20, and a caster level of 10 (or less), going against encounters at your *character level* like 3.x rules wanted, your spells would do almost nothing to the creatures. Would you have a level 10 Wizard face off a CR20 creature and expect that Wizard to even remotely have a chance to win? Would you do the same to a level 10 Cleric? Ok, what about a level 10 Wizard & a level 10 Cleric, would they have a chance against an EL20 encounter? Would 10 level 10 Wizards have a chance against an EL20 encounter? Someone who was a 10 Wizard/10 Cleric (level 20 character) would be expected to be able to face CR20 creatures, and they'd just plain die. The resistances of the CR20 creature would be so high that virtually none of the spells could do, well, anything. The spell repertoire would be incredibly lower (what, level 4 - 5 spells at most? and not many of them at that). No, the multi-classing in 3.x just plain did not work in these scenarios. The flip-side, what I'd say was the other extreme, would be the 2E method. It was incredibly more powerful, in a sense a more proper blending of the two (or three) classes, but the results were that the character became so versatile that the character would start to simply out-perform anyone who wasn't multi-classed. That's why multi-classing was so popular -- people liked taking the center stage, to be the flexible, versatile characters who could handle more situations. Now, I'm not saying they were "godlike", just that they were better at things than non multi-classed characters. It was fun, to be true, and don't get me wrong on that, but if you look at the mechanics, it was a bit more powerful to be multi-classed than not being multi-classed.
#23 greyorm May 07, 2008 15:22:46	I don't get it. Why is it so broken? I really what to now. Likely because D&D is a niche-specialty game: if Character X can do everything Characters Y and Z can do, Characters Y and Z don't have any real role to fill in the adventuring party. Especially when Character X gains all of the benefits and none of the disadvantages of Characters Y and Z. If you can fight, sneak, heal, and cast spells, you don't need to rely on the other characters in the party for essential adventuring functions. In a way, it is like having a 9th-level character adventuring with 1st-level characters: guess who gets overshadowed? Same thing.
#24 xlorep_darkhelm May 07, 2008 15:37:43	Likely because D&D is a niche-specialty game: if Character X can do everything Characters Y and Z can do, Characters Y and Z don't have any real role to fill in the adventuring party. Especially when Character X gains all of the benefits and none of the disadvantages of Characters Y and Z. If you can fight, sneak, heal, and cast spells, you don't need to rely on the other characters in the party for essential adventuring functions. In a way, it is like having a 9th-level character adventuring with 1st-level characters: guess who gets overshadowed? Same thing. Precisely my point. The game can quickly devolve into "The Adventures of Bob the Rogue/Wizard/Cleric with Special Guest Appearances by ."
#25 adidamps2 May 07, 2008 19:55:24	it's a good thing I play a Role PG and not a game entirely dependant upon who mechanically can do everything. even if you have a player who is a thief/cleric/mage in a party with a priest, a mage, and a thief...it's not going to kill what those 3 can do, just because the other can do all three of there jobs. especially concidering that PC stats will not be the same and there's a good chance spell repertoire will differ also. not to mention the fact that XP is a factor, esp in earlier editions...a 10th lvl thief only needs 160K, a 10th lvl m-u needs 250k xp, and a 10th lvl priest needs 450k xp...BTW if we keep the party near even in xp we can see the multi classer is going to be a we behind. hell lets use the highest 10th lvl xp chart here of the priest...every one gets 450k xp so the priest is 10th lvl the rogue is 12th lvl the M-u is 11th lvl the Tf/Pst/Mu is 10/8/9..doesn't look like a show stopper to me plus we're not taking into account how the 2 thieves spend their % points on the thief abilities or which Diety the priest is worshiping (which determines spell selection for hte priest). a party with good roleplaying skills is not goign to care if soem one else in the party is a swiss army knife of classes, it's not going to kill anything in this case.
#26 adidamps2 May 07, 2008 20:09:01	BTW this issue with 3.x and the multi-classer can easily be fixed by not using their total Character lvl, but the average lvl from all of the classes they have..so the 20th lvl character, thats a 10/10 w-u/clr should be treated as a 10th lvl as far as figuring out EL/CR encounter difficulty determinations.
#27 xlorep_darkhelm May 07, 2008 23:22:42	BTW this issue with 3.x and the multi-classer can easily be fixed by not using their total Character lvl, but the average lvl from all of the classes they have..so the 20th lvl character, thats a 10/10 w-u/clr should be treated as a 10th lvl as far as figuring out EL/CR encounter difficulty determinations. Except that is a house rule. Of course house rules can be made, but the rules as stand are severely broken.
#28 Duke5150 May 08, 2008 0:02:48	I house rule, or change anything that myself or my players do not like. If someone wanted to run a preserver/druid/cleric I would allow it, and change what needed to be changed. I do not use XP penalties at all. I don't remove feats unless they clash with other abilities of that character making both useless. I own 2e, but I played 2.1. I own 3.5 but I play 3.6, as I modify each edition to my own liking. I have one player who is creating a Thrikreen preserver. it will be very interesting to see him casting 2 spells at once. Balance is not an issue since monsters can be changed to become weaker or stronger very easily. Everything can be changed very easily. my 3.6 edition also has limb removal and the sharpness ability. Since I'm not going to be upgrading to the 4e rules I am updating and changing my 3.6 rules to include more content and options. I am about to play in a game Using a Halfgiant barbarian and am looking forward to playing under the rules of that DM. including any houserules he added. Keeps the game fresh, new and interesting.
#29 Zardnaar May 08, 2008 0:44:37	BTW this issue with 3.x and the multi-classer can easily be fixed by not using their total Character lvl, but the average lvl from all of the classes they have..so the 20th lvl character, thats a 10/10 w-u/clr should be treated as a 10th lvl as far as figuring out EL/CR encounter difficulty determinations. Probably more like level 15. The MM or DMG has an obscure rule in it that a non associated class only adds half its levels to a challenge rating. I would treat a level 10/10 Wizard Cleric for example as a CR 15 encounter. Depending on the way it was built such a character would be really good or suck. I think I houseruled NPC classes are only worth about half there level for CR. A level 20 commoner is only CR 10 if that, although by the rules as written its CR19. They seem to have learnt form the suck that is the Cerebremancer, Mystic Theurge, and Psionic Theurge with new PrCs which have dual spellcasting progression and class abilities. The Arcane Hierophant (Druid/Wizard, Races of the Wild), Ultimate Magus (Sorceror/Wizard, Complete Mage), Abjurant Champion (Fighter/Wizard) and Fochluan Lyrist (Bard/Druid/Rogue, Complete Adventurer) are good examples of the new PrCs which are better than the original ones. Arcane Trickster isn't to bad and theres also new classes like the Duskblade (Fighter/Wizard) and Beguiler (Wizard/Rogue)which are in the Players Handbook 2. I'm actually surprised Athas.org didn't design an Ascendent type PrC for Psion/Wizard with their Avangion/Dragon rules.
#30 Zardnaar May 08, 2008 4:42:22	Versatility isn't overpowered and there were serious penalties. A cleric/mage couldn't wear armor and had less HP then a regular cleric. He wasn't the mighty medic that could go in the frontlines anytime he wanted. And if he does, no one is there to blast the monsters. A fighter/mage or figther/cleric can't specialize. A major down. Also, there is one thing a mage/druid/psion cannot do, make purée out of is ennemies. Only a figther can do that. Actually one of the complaint alot of ppl have about 3.5 is that a Druid/Wizard/Psion can puree an enemy and do it beter than a fighter usually via wildshape or polymorph effects. A 2nd ed Cleric/Wizard could wear armor but not cast wizard spells . They usually put the armor on after using the wizzie spells first or used spells like Mage Armor or bracers of armor. There AC was usually about the same as a fighters and often better.
#31 Zardnaar May 09, 2008 7:19:38	Well, that is just a result of the 3.5 druid. Don't blame the mixture of classes (After all, the druid wouldn't be able do wildshape into anything very menacing with all these classes), blame de designers. But I was talking about 2ed. If you blame the 10th level athasian druid of 2ed, well it is the DM who oked the creatures the druid can wildshape into (After all the druid can only morph into creatures native to is reserve). The DM can only blame himself. Well a single class wizard could also cast mage armor or get some bracers of defense. Nothing here is the result of multiclassing. Yes, a cleric/mage could put on an armor during combat. But it is ridiculus. It takes alot of time to do that. A one piece armor, a chainmail for example, takes one round do put on with some help, two rounds with no help and double that time if the armor has some metallic parts. Armors made of many pieces, like a platemail, takes 1d6+4 rounds to put on... with some help. Triple that time if you put it on alone. You can do it more quickly. Sacrifice one AC point to put on an one piece armor in one round (you cannot go higher then AC 8 with the penalty). If you put on an armor composed of many pieces, your AC improves by one point (starting from 10) for every round you work on putting the armor on. A cleric/wizard who cast arcane spells then wears armor is not very useful to a group of adventurers. Remember he still has to take the armor off if the group faces more then one enemy in a day. Still waiting to hear some solid arguments about 2ed multiclassing being overpowered. Its been a while but the problems with multiclassing. 1. You were generally only a level behind except at the highest levels. An elven Fighter/Wizard for example hit about as often as a human fighter for example and often more due to buff spells. Elves could also wear even pltemail and elven chainmail and still cast spells in armor. Not to relevent on Athas but this was 2nd ed in general. Most Fighter/Mages IIRC were elves and rarely half elves. 2. Wizard/Clerics had lotsa spells and in effect were wizards with more hit points due the the clerics increased hit points. They woiuyld usually burn through there arcane spells and then don armor out of combat and tank around and buff up and throw around hold persons spells just like a normal cleric. Had really good saves as well. 3. Wizard/Thief. Knock, Fly, dimension doorm invisabilty etc etc etc. 4. Fighter/Mage/Rogue. You could be a level 7/7/7 one of these or be a level 9 character or so The big thing with muticlassing was that only demihumans could do it, and there was virtually no mechanical reasons not to. Most demihumans had at least one class with a high (lvl 15-19) limit or none at all depending on some worlds rules. The only reason to be a human was to play a Paladin (yippie) or try and abuse the dual classing rules.