Multi-classing

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

Magical Master wrote...

I think you're actually being serious...

I said "assuming enough gear for +12 to Dex and Wisdom."  Slot-wise, there's...

Chest
Helm
Gloves/Bracers
Cloak
Ring 1
Ring 2
Boots
Belt
Amulet

You can't just assume the gear you need to make your build superior.

It is a faulty assumption in most modules and you conviently cut my quote before the most pertinent part.

It doesn't help having 9 slots, if decent wisdom typically only comes on one of them. It also happens to be the same one used for  Natural AC and you are trying to improve AC.

In most mods I have played, the ONLY decent wisdom I have found is periapt of wisdom. I usually end up with a choice of Wisdom +7 or Natural AC +7 in Hordes for example.  Other than that I rememember a shield (you can't use) and the cloak of +2 to everything.

So without using a the Periapt, you at +2, not +12.  Or you even with the Periapt, you are at +9, but I have +7 to natural AC.  Natural AC also tends to only come on that one slot.

So again, in actual SP module there is no real need to nerf Wis bonus for Cleric-Monks.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 29 juillet 2011 - 08:32 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

Magical Master wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Absolutely yes. If the character's concept is that of a warrior that casts epic spells and Wiz 1 is all I need to make it happen and FTR 39/Wiz 1 is the best class combo to get all the features to build a proper character portrayal in game, then it is extremely true to character. classes are just a bundle of features thrown together with a couple of limits here and there (paladin's code of honor, alignment restrictions, etc.) they are not character at all.

See, that underlined/bolded bit is the problem.  What's the difference between "character portrayal" and "proper character portrayal?"  Because the "spellcaster" Fighter 39/Wizard 1 seems to be the former and not the latter.  In short, I don't agree that classes are just a bundle of features with "limits."  They represent, at a minimum, time and training in that field.  And 1 level of Wizard doesn't seem like a "proper" amount of time to be casting Epic Spells.

I feel you are mixing up mechanics with character concepts. We might agree that having one level of wizard granting access to epic spells is lame design, but that has nothing to do with the character concept.

When I say "proper character portrayal" I mean having a build that realizes as closely as possible within the game mechanics the character concept I have in mind. If the character concept is properly realized by Ftr 39/Wiz 1 with epic spells than that build is true to character since it's a proper character portrayal. It's not for you to decide my (or anyone else's) character concepts, sorry. And you cannot say that something properly portrayed is not.

Also, classes are a bundle of features. Period. There's also no training time involved unless one optionally chooses to implement training, in the core rules. In fact, core rules let one become a wizard, for example, at any moment during the character's life. And even if training is involved, than it's a bundle of features too (related to skill, feat and class acquisition as in the DMG page 197 and following). Everything is a feature or a bundle of features in game mechanics.

Note that has nothing to do with balance, a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 might actually be an extremely weak character in a given world, it has to do with the concept.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Old school nostalgic fellas apart, FTR 40 has basically no reason to be in NWN and it's pointless to make such comparisons.

You've got another 2 class slots to be filled, use them.

How about Sorcerer 40?

Been there, done that: how about Sorc 38/Pally 1/Monk 1? And besides, it's irrelevant. Some pure classes work better than others, so what? Compare builds which are effective at doing what they are supposed to do in terms of efficiency otherwise you are left with the usual menaingless comparisons and figures.

I think this illustates the fundamental difference between you and Grom (and myself).  You view classes as something to be used, we view them as something to be played.

Aye, because I play characters not classes. I have always done and always will do; even if I choose to play a single class character I would still play the character not the class.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Otherwise I'll put a cleric with 11 wisdom in the equation and say it sucks vs something built with a minimum of cleverness. Come on!

To quote you, come on!  An optimized 40 fighter is nothing like giving a cleric 11 wisdom and I think you know that.

Ever heard of hyperbole? If you want to cripple your builds by avoiding to do what can be done to make them efficient, then why can't I do the same? The 11 Wis cleric is just a way to point out how silly your comparison is. You have three class slots total to make builds: use them cleverly in different ways and compare the results. But do not compare a crippled build (crippled of two useful class slots) to an efficient one.

I agree building characters is an enjoyable element, but that has nothing to do with the previous sentence.  We want to "hold it back" because we think creating a more balanced environment promotes *more* viable builds and creates a better gaming experience.

Which I told you elsewhere too, is perfectly fine. You have, like everyone, your own idea of a balanced environment and you have all the rights to recreate it. But that has nothing to do with being true to character.

And that makes sense.  You're not quite as good at fighting as a Fighter 8, you're not quite as good at thievery as a Thief 8, but you are able to do both pretty well.  You give up some advantage for not being pure class but gain other abilities and skills.  That's a conceptual trade-off for multi-classing.

It's the same in DnD 3.0/3.5 and in NWN. There is tradeoff. I know you are gonna say that the tradeoff is often menaingless (and I can easily concur with this) but then again that's a clear sign that you are "supposed" to multiclass "cleverly" (bear with me terms) if you want to have a build which works. And then again, how "balanced" a game ruleset is, how functional or broken it is etc. has little to do with being true to the character.


Just to be perfectly clear: it's all fine and dandy that you, MM, think that pure builds should be on more or less equal footing with multiclassed ones and that the power gap between different builds should be less extreme than what currently we have in vanilla (and not only vanilla) NWN and also that you are taking steps, in your projects, to achieve that result. I'm confident it's gonna be something good. But all that is something related to game mechanics and finding a certain kind of game balance. It has nothing to do with having certain multiclassing choices not being true to character.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

Magical Master wrote...

And that makes sense.  You're not quite as good at fighting as a Fighter 8, you're not quite as good at thievery as a Thief 8, but you are able to do both pretty well.  You give up some advantage for not being pure class but gain other abilities and skills.  That's a conceptual trade-off for multi-classing.

You mean 4 Fig/4 Rog has no tradeoffs in 3E, but  7 Fig/7 Thief in 1st Ed does?? How does that work exaclty? You may be able to keep up as fighter in 3E, but good luck keeping up as Rogue with +2 skill points on fighter levels, you will have it ignore many skills. In 1st edition All skill go up for each level, so all skills will be just one level back.

Consider even moreso for Fighter/Mage in each system compared to a 8h level straight character.

1st:    7th Fighter/7th Mage.
3E:    4th fighter/4th Mage.

Which has more tradeoffs again???

In 3E you average BAB, in 1st you have full bab, just one level back of a pure fighter.
In 3E  you are 4 levels behind in spell casting, in 1st again, just one level back.

The mechanics are diffent but the concepts and the advantages of multi-classing are much the same.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Kail Pendragon wrote...
Aye, because I play characters not classes. I have always done and always will do; even if I choose to play a single class character I would still play the character not the class.

Well said. I can put my signature to this and I think it answers the main question itself.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 29 juillet 2011 - 08:43 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_zDark Shadowz]

               As my response to all the posts in page 5 - depends on the server, if it's roleplay or action, and what equipment is available to improve upon the varying nature of the character and what the dm's were intending to achieve with the portrayal of classes in terms of playability. Discussing different variant states and bases from which a character may become "too overpowered" or "untrue to the character" due to multiclassing just spams up the pages.

Personally, back to the topic at hand, this is my opinion on multiclassing.
I multiclass.
Pretty much every character class rewards specialisation, but if everyone was pure-classed we'd have too few character-types and natures to choose from. It's easier to create a "resourceful" paladin if said paladin has had training as a scout (rogue) for searching out signs of evil, although then this could be considered a skill-dump, but if they cross-classed those rogue skills up until the point they took rogue for class, as compared to someone who skill-dumped after saving up their points, would they be "more allowed" to have rogue? Perhaps, on roleplay servers, after the initial character class has been picked, people could set up skill/feat requirements to multiclass into alternate standard character classes, thus "more deserved". On an Action server, it shouldn't really matter too much in this instance. A barbarian turned fighter, a very common instance on low-level servers, is a bit odd as well roleplay-wise, as you're comparing unrelenting rage, chaos incarnate, as compared to a fighter, rigorous training and intense discipline. Perhaps if the barbarian had Skill-Focus Discipline first, it would be more appropriate to turn fighter.

Another example is SD. Sure, shadowdancer may only take one level for Hide in Plain Sight, it's true, and yes, even to me it seems a bit odd, perhaps it should've been at level five or so, as it sort of seems to be the epitome of their training, but then, that's what prestige class requirements are for - so they actually do have the skills and the feats, the proper "training" required to perform such a feat. If the dm's on a server disagree that these skills are too cheap to attain, it's not hard to restrict the prestige class via scripts unless they have found the relevant training in-game to start progressing as such, like a hidden guild.

So, in my opinion, multiclassing is okay. I'm the kind of person who, probably, is a powergamer in denial, but if I think of a character concept, I tend to build the best I can to both match my idea as well as be generally a good build in it's own right. A powergaming build doesn't have to naturally be bad at roleplay, and nor does a roleplay build (such as a bard) have to suck at pretty much everything than singing.
If it's a resourceful paladin, or a gladiator who was taken as a slave from a barbarian land, then such combinations as Paladin/rogue and barbarian/fighter, (hell, even a wizard thrown into a zombie-apocalypse might want to pick up a sword to defend himself,) can all seem valid and non-skill-dumpy if you put some thought into your character's background, and where you want his nature to progress. A flexible character is a more interesting person to meet than someone completely and blindly devoted to fixed perceptions such as pure-class characters.

But, that's just my opinion.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par zDark Shadowz, 30 juillet 2011 - 03:17 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

MrZork wrote...

I have to agree with Kail et alia that these comparisons between a pure level 40 classX character and a multiclassed character seem misplaced. There is no reason to think, for example, that a Fighter 40 should be able to go toe-to-toe with some other class combo, even in pure melee. [...]

Magical Master wrote...

Try going toe-to-toe with a well built Fighter 40 in pure melee with a Wizard 14/Sorcerer 13/Druid 13 and let me know how that goes.

My last sentence is taken a little out of context. I guess I could have stated it explicitly, but I wasn't trying to say there aren't any multiclass splits that are less effective in melee than a pure fighter. That would be silly. I was talking about your statement that

Concept wise, I think the fact that a 40 fighter will lose to a 39 fighter/1 rogue in a straight up battle with identical gear is flat out idiotic.

I was thinking about that, and the examples you had mentioned after (and to which Kail referred) in expanding on the point. You had compared pure level 40 builds against multiclassed characters and noted the advantage the multiclassed character had. (As in your post discussing F 40 versus F 12 / Ro 3 / WM 25.) The implication seemed to be that the disparity indicated a problem because a pure fighter should be as good as a fighter multiclass build in melee.

My point was that there isn't any reason to think that's the case. In other words, though reasoning like fighter is the explicit melee class, therfore pure fighter is as good as any other class at melee has a certain linguistic appeal, there isn't actually any reason for it to be true. It would be similar to thinking that pale masters are the game's explicit connection-with-undeath class, so a 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10 / PM 30) should be as good as any other class with powers. However, I doubt we would be especially surprised if there were a  non-maximized PM build, a cleric build, or even a druid/shifter build with undead shape that was more effective.

Anyway, I hope that is more clear.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MrZork, 30 juillet 2011 - 10:26 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_HipMaestro]

               A quote from the movie Troy...

Sean Bean (as Odysseus) to Brad Pitt (as Achilles):  "You have your swords.  I have my tricks.  We play with the toys the gods give us."  In the context of this topic, simply substitute "NWN" for "the gods".

Do not allow your personal bias to prevent you from accepting the global possibilities, nor sway you from learning to deal productively with that reality.  Diversity of perspective is what makes adventuring together the most fun and challenging of all.

You guys kill me! *lol*  Wouldn't miss it for the world!
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Magical Master]

               Oh boy.  6-7 posts to respond to.  I'm going to try to condense this a bit, if I miss an important point I apologize in advance and feel free to rub it in my face or something.

Lowlander wrote...

In most mods I have played, the ONLY decent wisdom I have found is periapt of wisdom. I usually end up with a choice of Wisdom +7 or Natural AC +7 in Hordes for example.  Other than that I rememember a shield (you can't use) and the cloak of +2 to everything

I don't see the point of saying "There's horrible itemization in the mods I've played, therefore x."  That's like saying "All enemies in this mod have +6 damage reduction and no weapons above +5, therefore physical attackers suck."  If we use your example of Hordes, then the best wisdom a pure casting cleric can get is +7 (unless they use a specific shield found in Act 3).  How is it fair for a Wizard to get two rings of intelligence and easily cap int but a cleric can't get past +7?  I mean, Bioware was throwing belts with 10 strength or 10 dexterity on them around and boots with 10 constitution.  And saying a cleric, in general, has to choose between wisdom or natural AC just seems a bit outrageous.  Because you can't lose 7 AC and not get shredded by physical attacks in any halfway challenging mod.

In short, I think Bioware's itemization in Hordes was bad in general (+10 weapons with Keen/Haste/True Seeing/2 Regen/2d6 bonus damage) and while assuming +12 items for stats is probably unreasonable, I don't think assuming a few items with +4-6 of stats being available (just like the int rings) is unreasonable.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

When I say "proper character portrayal" I mean having a build that realizes as closely as possible within the game mechanics the character concept I have in mind. If the character concept is properly realized by Ftr 39/Wiz 1 with epic spells than that build is true to character since it's a proper character portrayal.

How close does it have to be?  Is this a Boolean sort of thing?  Either it is a proper character portrayal or it isn't?  Because I think we'd agree that it's not a matter of game mechanics.  If a 38 wizard/2 fighter is in full plate and sword but is completely ineffective in melee, that's not what we're talking about, because that's a balancing issue.  Aka, when you say "as closely as possible" do you really mean "as powerful as possible?"

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Also, classes are a bundle of features. Period. There's also no training time involved unless one optionally chooses to implement training, in the core rules. In fact, core rules let one become a wizard, for example, at any moment during the character's life. And even if training is involved, than it's a bundle of features too (related to skill, feat
and class acquisition as in the DMG page 197 and following). Everything is a feature or a bundle of features in game mechanics.

Actually, I wasn't referring to "level 1" being particularly significant, just that a character with 4 mage levels has spent more time training as a mage than a character with 2 mage levels.  Or would you disagree with that?

Kail Pendragon wrote...

And besides, it's irrelevant. Some pure classes work better than others, so what? Compare builds which are effective at doing what they are supposed to do in terms of efficiency otherwise you are left with the usual menaingless comparisons and figures.

So if some pure classes work well, doesn't that turn into a balancing/mechanics issue rather than a concept issue?  I have a feeling that if someone wanted to play a level 40 true neutral sorcerer you wouldn't think him as much of an idiot as a 40 fighter (please note the "as much" part).  But that seems to be due to mechanical issues, not concept, aye?

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Aye, because I play characters not classes. I have always done and always will do; even if I choose to play a single class character I would still play the character not the class.

Not really.  Haven't you talked about how you feel obliged to justify a class being in the character?  "Bob the sorcerer had a devout moment, so went and trained as a paladin for 1 level, then decided he'd rather be a sorcerer anyway."  If character is all that matter, then why do you care about justifying class choices within the character?

Lowlander wrote...

You mean 4 Fig/4 Rog has no tradeoffs in 3E, but  7 Fig/7 Thief in 1st Ed does??

Except we're talking about a Fighter 7/Rogue 1 (or more like Fighter 38/Rogue 2) in NWN taken solely for skill dumps, not two classes being leveled up together.  I actually don't know anything about any DnD edition prior to the 3rd, so I probably was giving the designers more credit than I should have on this topic.  We can talk about it further if you'd like, but I'm not it's of any particular importance and you'd probably just have to fill me in on a lot.

zDark Shadowz wrote...

Sure, shadowdancer may only take one level for Hide in Plain Sight, it's true, and yes, even to me it seems a bit odd, perhaps it should've been at level five or so, as it sort of seems to be the epitome of their training, but then, that's what prestige class requirements are for - so they actually do have the skills and the feats, the proper "training" required to perform such a feat.

I think it's more the issue that a 10 Rogue/30 SD is no better at Hiding in Plain Sight than a 39 Rogue/1 SD.  It's not a matter of the difference being too much or too little, it's that *no* difference exists.  That's the concept problem, the exact difference is a balance problem.

Mr. Zork wrote...

My point was that there isn't any reason to think that's the case. In other words, though reasoning like fighter is the explicit melee class, therfore pure fighter is as good as any other class at melee has a certain linguistic appeal, there isn't actually any reason for it to be true. It would be similar to thinking that pale masters are the game's explicit connection-with-undeath class, so a 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10 / PM 30) should be as good as any other class with powers. However, I doubt we would be especially surprised if there were a  non-maximized PM build, a cleric build, or even a druid/shifter build with undead shape that was more effective.

Actually, it would be more like "fighter is the full BAB class with absolutely no special tricks or abilities outside of pure fighting ability, therefore in a straight up brawl with absolutely no special abilities factored in the fighter should win." This is ignoring prestige classes for the moment.  The problem with the Fighter 39/Rogue 1 winning is that there's no traps to be set, no Sneak Attacks to be delivered, no stealth to sneak up on the Fighter 40, no special gear or scrolls to be UMDed, no nothing, just a straight up brawl.  Moreover, *adding more Rogue levels only makes it more likely for the Fighter 40 to win.*  Adding 1 Rogue level guarantees a win 99.9% of the time, but adding additional Rogue levels reduces this chance?  How does that make sense, conceptually?

With your Pale Master example, it would be more fair to say "A 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10/PM 30) should be the best at undead related powers, such as summoning undead."

HipMaestro wrote...

Sean Bean (as Odysseus) to Brad Pitt (as Achilles):  "You have your swords.  I have my tricks.  We play with the toys the gods give us."  In the context of this topic, simply substitute "NWN" for "the gods".

Except there *are* no tricks in this example.  In a straight up battle, Achilles will beat Odysseus.  Yet that doesn't happen in NWN.

MrZork wrote...

The implication seemed to be that the disparity indicated a problem because a pure fighter should be as good as a fighter multiclass build in melee.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Just to be perfectly clear: it's all fine and dandy that you, MM, think that pure builds should be on more or less equal footing with multiclassed ones and that the power gap between different builds should be less extreme

Just to touch on this a bit....

To be clear, I don't think all builds should be exactly equal at everything.  I have no qualms with a Fighter/WM being much better at offense than a Fighter, or a Fighter/DD being much better at defense.  But I do think multi-classing should always come with a trade-off.  A Fighter can't match a Fighter/WM at offense, but he can have better defense.  A Fighter can't match a Fighter/DD at defense, but he can have better offense.  I'm all for a variety of builds promoting different specializations, strengths, weaknesses, and tricks.

My main concern is the power gap that Kail mentioned.  I mainly play in a world where 1% is a significant difference.  Take a look at despotism.enjin.com/home/m/1283718/article/267070/page/3  We have 10:30 before the boss berserks and starts killing people with 1 hit.  In 10:30 we got the boss to 300,000 out of 51,000,000 HP, which is 0.6%.  Our damage per second as a group at the time was about 60,000.  In other words, we needed 5 more seconds to beat the boss versus losing.  5 seconds out of 630 seconds total.  If we had done 1% more damage each by that point, we would have won instead of wiping.

In NWN, 1 AB or 1 AC is typically a 10% or so difference (exact value depends upon the current AB/AC gap).  To me, if the only advantage a weapon master had over a fighter was 2 AB, that's a 20% damage difference, which is huge for tightly tuned content.  Most content in NWN is not tuned to nearly that level, which is fine, because most players don't want to play at that extreme of a level.  But when I see some builds having a 10 AC or 10 AB advantage over others...you can't tune anything to be reasonable for both.  And I die a little bit inside when people dismiss a "few points" of AB or AC as not significant.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Magical Master, 30 juillet 2011 - 09:41 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

Magical Master wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

When I say "proper character portrayal" I mean having a build that realizes as closely as possible within the game mechanics the character concept I have in mind. If the character concept is properly realized by Ftr 39/Wiz 1 with epic spells than that build is true to character since it's a proper character portrayal.

How close does it have to be?  Is this a Boolean sort of thing?  Either it is a proper character portrayal or it isn't?  Because I think we'd agree that it's not a matter of game mechanics.  If a 38 wizard/2 fighter is in full plate and sword but is completely ineffective in melee, that's not what we're talking about, because that's a balancing issue.  Aka, when you say "as closely as possible" do you really mean "as powerful as possible?"

I thought it was pretty clear what I said in the humble ordinary english I can put together: I have a character concept I have to render in game; I use the game mechanics to build a character build which represents that character concept within the specific game mechanics as faithfully as possible (100% being ideal, but that has to clash with the game mechanic limits generally speaking). It has nothing to do with power, it has to do with faithfulness to the concept.

So if character build X is the one that better renders my character concept in game, then using that build I'm being true to character.

Actually, I wasn't referring to "level 1" being particularly significant, just that a character with 4 mage levels has spent more time training as a mage than a character with 2 mage levels.  Or would you disagree with that?

Which is irrelevant to the fact that an hypothetical Ftr 39/Wiz 1 which has access to epic spells can be true to character if that build i swhat properly renders the character concept in game. And btw, try Ftr 20/Bard 4/PM 16 with 8 Cha as a realistic NWN example of a fighter with epic spells (up to 3) but no ordinary spellcasting power.

Game mechanics, from the player's perspective, are a given. They can be balanced or not, lame or not, etc. but once one chooses to play by those mechanics, then he has to make a character build for his character concept. The build that better renders the character in game is the right one, no matter whether it's a crippled build power wise or whether it's one taking advantage of game features. What matter is faithfulness to character. Balance considerations are just irrelevant and are actually off topic here.

So if some pure classes work well, doesn't that turn into a balancing/mechanics issue rather than a concept issue?  I have a feeling that if someone wanted to play a level 40 true neutral sorcerer you wouldn't think him as much of an idiot as a 40 fighter (please note the "as much" part).  But that seems to be due to mechanical issues, not concept, aye?

You are mistaking completely what I am saying. Why should the player picking a Ftr 40 build be considered an idiot if that build properly represents his character in game? Similarly, why should one feel untrue to character if what better represents his character in game is Cleric 38/Monk 2? One should build as one feels is right for his character without preconceptions.

Not really.  Haven't you talked about how you feel obliged to justify a class being in the character?  "Bob the sorcerer had a devout moment, so went and trained as a paladin for 1 level, then decided he'd rather be a sorcerer anyway."  If character is all that matter, then why do you care about justifying class choices within the character?

The character has no classes. Only the character build has. All that matters is that the character build properly represents the character in game, in as much as being true to character is concerned.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

Magical Master wrote...

I don't see the point of saying "There's horrible itemization in the mods I've played, therefore x."  That's like saying "All enemies in this mod have +6 damage reduction and no weapons above +5, therefore physical attackers suck."  If we use your example of Hordes, then the best wisdom a pure casting cleric can get is +7 (unless they use a specific shield found in Act 3).  How is it fair for a Wizard to get two rings of intelligence and easily cap int but a cleric can't get past +7?  I mean, Bioware was throwing belts with 10 strength or 10 dexterity on them around and boots with 10 constitution.  And saying a cleric, in general, has to choose between wisdom or natural AC just seems a bit outrageous.  Because you can't lose 7 AC and not get shredded by physical attacks in any halfway challenging mod.

It makes more sense than arguing that a particular build is superior because you load him up with custom items not typically found.  This is why in character building forums most of the builds were discussed with mundane gear, not with +12 stats and +10 swords.

I also think there was some thought behind the where stats occur on the standard items that force tradeoffs and actaully might even be gauged  to keeping Monk AC in check because the Natural AC/Wisdom tend to come on the same slot.

I also think that Cleric skipping the Natural AC for Wisdom isn't exactly going to have a rougher time in melee than the mage who can't wear armor, but can use the amulet slot for Natural AC, because he is using rings for Int. Clerics are a powerhouse class of melee presense, buffing and some other offensive spells.

Actually, it would be more like "fighter is the full BAB class with
absolutely no special tricks or abilities outside of pure fighting
ability, therefore in a straight up brawl with absolutely no special
abilities factored in the fighter should win." This is ignoring prestige
classes for the moment.  The problem with the Fighter 39/Rogue 1
winning is that there's no traps to be set, no Sneak Attacks to be
delivered, no stealth to sneak up on the Fighter 40, no special gear or
scrolls to be UMDed, no nothing, just a straight up brawl.  Moreover,
*adding more Rogue levels only makes it more likely for the Fighter 40
to win.*  Adding 1 Rogue level guarantees a win 99.9% of the time, but
adding additional Rogue levels reduces this chance?  How does that make
sense, conceptually?

(snip to similar point)
But I do think multi-classing should always come with a trade-off.  A
Fighter can't match a Fighter/WM at offense, but he can have better
defense. 

Practically any class added to a straight fighter will improve it, without any negative compesating factors. If you expect otherwise, you are really looking at the wrong game system.  classes are simply part of the toolbox to build your character. It would be like building a racing car where the rules say you can use an engine/Turbos/Nitrous in any combo and you are complaining that using Nitrous doesn't have any drawbacks. Then you complain that if you don't use it you will trail those who do.  That would be insane.  It is in there as part of the rules precisesly to give you benefits. Not everything has to have a drawback.

Besides A level 39 something/rogue 1 is silly build almost anywhere but a server that does instant or near instant 40th level. Play anywhere reasonable paced level progression and you will never see such a build. If you did, it would be the poorly designed one.

And it could make sense conceptually. Because if dumb fighter spends his whole training time practicing, cut/thrust, cut/thrust you are going to plateau at some point. Where the smart fighter recognized the plateau and went to study for a time with the acrobats/tumblers and now he is just that much better at ducking/rolling and evading more of your blows.

I would say life/game isn't fair, but in this case it is perfectly fair because you have exaclty the same tools in your toolbox to build an effective character as the next guy. 

Your insistence that a poorly designed character using half or less the available tools, should somehow have benifits to compensate for poor use of available build tools strikes me as ridiculous.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

Magical Master wrote...

Mr. Zork wrote...

My point was that there isn't any reason to think that's the case. In other words, though reasoning like fighter is the explicit melee class, therfore pure fighter is as good as any other class at melee has a certain linguistic appeal, there isn't actually any reason for it to be true. It would be similar to thinking that pale masters are the game's explicit connection-with-undeath class, so a 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10 / PM 30) should be as good as any other class with powers. However, I doubt we would be especially surprised if there were a  non-maximized PM build, a cleric build, or even a druid/shifter build with undead shape that was more effective.

Actually, it would be more like "fighter is the full BAB class with absolutely no special tricks or abilities outside of pure fighting ability, therefore in a straight up brawl with absolutely no special abilities factored in the fighter should win."

Maybe, but why? It still seems like there is an assumption that a pure build in a class that is supposed to be good at something must therefore be better at that thing than a multiclassed build. There just is no reason to think that a pure fighter should be best in a straight-up melee comparison. Fighter turns out to be an incredibly useful class for melee builds, but the idea that a pure fighter must be the best just doesn't follow. It seems a little like "if some is good, then most must be best" thinking.

This is ignoring prestige classes for the moment.  The problem with the Fighter 39/Rogue 1 winning is that there's no traps to be set, no Sneak Attacks to be delivered, no stealth to sneak up on the Fighter 40, no special gear or scrolls to be UMDed, no nothing, just a straight up brawl.

But what there is is the opportunity to use something that rogues are particularly good at, which is using their tumble ability to avoid attacks in combat. Those other skills are rogue skills, but so is tumble. You may think that +4 tumble AC is too much potential for that one rogue level (and I am sympathetic to that view), but a case can also be made that a 40th level character should be able to combine his other experience to make better use of one level of rogue training than a 1st or 5th or whatever lower level character could. Someone with lots of combat experience (even if it was previously non-rogue) may see more or better opportunities to integrate the tumble skill than someone with less experience.

Moreover, *adding more Rogue levels only makes it more likely for the Fighter 40 to win.*  Adding 1 Rogue level guarantees a win 99.9% of the time, but adding additional Rogue levels reduces this chance?  How does that make sense, conceptually?

Maybe because, in this fairly narrow example,  the level split sweet spot for the trade-off in fighter training and rogue training occurs at one late level of rogue. Expanding the analysis to more examples may yield a different sweet spot. A fighter with two levels of rogue may do better in a combat situation where he has to dodge spells (evasion) and a fighter with three levels of rogue may do better in a combat situation where he is dealing with more than one opponent or sneak attacks (uncanny dodge). But, regardless of where the optimal sweet spot is for a particular example combat situation, there is still no reason to believe that sweet spot should always be at a level split of fighter 40 / rogue 0 when the combat focuses on melee.

With your Pale Master example, it would be more fair to say "A 'pure' PM build (say Wiz 10/PM 30) should be the best at undead related powers, such as summoning undead."

But not just at summoning undead; that's not the only undead-related power in the game. The druid/shifter with undead shape likely has access to more undead-related powers than the pure PM does. Meanwhile, a build with more arcane caster or cleric levels in the mix can summon undead and potentially do a better job of making them strong for combat. I'm not saying the pure PM wouldn't get some nice summons, but you can see that other classes that aren't inherently undeath focused can potentially use undeath to as great an advantage as the pure PM. Combine them with PM and it's even more true, whether or not the level 30 PM has better unbuffed summons. So, PM is the undeath-powers class, but a pure PM doesn't necessarily come out on top in the use of undead-related powers. Why should it be different for fighters with regard to melee?

Once again, I am just saying that because a class is supposed to be good at something doesn't necessarily mean that a pure build of that class should be always best at that thing.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MrZork, 31 juillet 2011 - 01:47 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               I do not intend to get into the "meat" of the argument here - suffice it to say that I am in the MM camp here - I hold that MCing should come with negatives that offest the advantages.  That in the end, level 40 (as an end point here) should all be fairly balanced.  To be blunt, that each and every level should be fairly balanced, regardless of amount of classes taken.

Clearly a rules thing here.

One thing I would like to point out - Epic Spell Casting in NWN is severely flawed in it's implementation.  The PnP version will not allow someone to cast epic spells without being able to cast 9th level, etc.  The PRC does a great implementation of how the Epic Spellcasting System is supposed to work (from the PnP version).  Note that NWN2 also goes the Bioware NWN route, and totally messed it up (why they did not use the PRC implementation is beyond me, seeing as all the work had already been done).

Therefore, we can clearly see that the rules did not mean for a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 to be able to cast Epic Spells.  This came about in NWN because due to economic restraints, the implementation led to this allowance.

Purely a game mechanic failure here.

So my question is, how can one create a character concept that does not work (but does due to the rules not being properly implemented)?  Such does cause me a bit of trouble.  I see the same problem with the Paladin/Rogue due to the Sneak Attack not being possible to "turn off" - though it should be.  Such are things that are implemented in a PC game version of a Pen and Paper game.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

WebShaman wrote...
Therefore, we can clearly see that the rules did not mean for a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 to be able to cast Epic Spells.  This came about in NWN because due to economic restraints, the implementation led to this allowance.

It has been a while, but I tried this before and needed to be Wiz 21 to get an Epic spell.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

WebShaman wrote...

I do not intend to get into the "meat" of the argument here - suffice it to say that I am in the MM camp here - I hold that MCing should come with negatives that offest the advantages.  That in the end, level 40 (as an end point here) should all be fairly balanced.  To be blunt, that each and every level should be fairly balanced, regardless of amount of classes taken.

Clearly a rules thing here.

One thing I would like to point out - Epic Spell Casting in NWN is severely flawed in it's implementation.  The PnP version will not allow someone to cast epic spells without being able to cast 9th level, etc.  The PRC does a great implementation of how the Epic Spellcasting System is supposed to work (from the PnP version).  Note that NWN2 also goes the Bioware NWN route, and totally messed it up (why they did not use the PRC implementation is beyond me, seeing as all the work had already been done).

Therefore, we can clearly see that the rules did not mean for a Fighter 39/Wizard 1 to be able to cast Epic Spells.  This came about in NWN because due to economic restraints, the implementation led to this allowance.

Purely a game mechanic failure here.

So my question is, how can one create a character concept that does not work (but does due to the rules not being properly implemented)?  Such does cause me a bit of trouble.  I see the same problem with the Paladin/Rogue due to the Sneak Attack not being possible to "turn off" - though it should be.  Such are things that are implemented in a PC game version of a Pen and Paper game.

Okay, I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now and I'll admit to being lost, because this time it's clearly not just a joke or hypothetical example and it's coming from someone whose expertise on wizards I've never doubted. How can a Fighter 39 / Wizard 1 get epic spells. I've not been with the game as long as most of you, but I was pretty sure there was no way to do this, both because the NWNWiki is pretty clear on the issue and because I have run into it before when trying work a reciprocal damage build with no more than 20 levels of wizard and I couldn't get epic spells (yes, with 19+ INT and 40+ spellcraft).

So, apologize again for not knowing what's going on here, but can someone please explain how this F 39 / W 1 ends up with an epic spell?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               And, of course, after getting a phone call just before posting, I come back to hit 'Submit' and see that Lowlander has beaten me to the question. At least I know I'm not the only one confused by the epic spell comment. ;-)