Stephen Amber Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 in 3e, you have to pay double for the cross-class skills for each increase in rank, making it very clear that you really shouldn't take skills outside your class. When taking a skill cross-class it's usually in anticipation of taking a different class later in which the skill is class or as an attempt to meet requirements for a prestige class. Thus the NWN conundrum of how to get the points in hide and qualify for the Blackguard. It's not as if points invested cross-class are wasted... there is usually a long term goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 (edited) "Fine. How do I convert an dwarven fighter/cleric level 11/11 from 2e to 3e?" you can't because that sorta character were one thing that were wrong with 2e. a 2e dwarven fighter/cleric or elven fighter/mage or any o' a host o' other combinations, were clearly superior to a single class character with same exp points. it were a mistake. why can't you reproduce a mistake? 'cause that were one of the things that wotc actually managed to get right with 3e. how can you convert to 3e? no problem. you end up with a dwarven fighter/cleric 4/9 (or even a 4/6 split) that fills exact same role in a 3e campaign and is more fun to play and offers more opportunities for customization. congrats. HA! Good Fun! Edited February 20, 2008 by Gromnir "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newc0253 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 (edited) better still, in 3e you can invent your own prestige class to cover any eventuality! turn that 2e dwarven fighter/cleric level 11/11 into a 3e epic mystic dwarven divine champion theurgistophilomancer exemplarsmith 7/7/5/2! Edited February 20, 2008 by newc0253 dumber than a bag of hammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 ^Thats exactly one of the things I hate about 3e. You shouldnt be able to be good at everything. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Amber Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 ^Thats exactly one of the things I hate about 3e. You shouldnt be able to be good at everything. I thought that the three class limit of NWN was perfect. NWN2 breaks that for some reason and boosts it up, Sawyer must have felt the munchkinism and just couldn't take it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Lajciak Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I think the 4-class limit in NWN 2 is just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediphile Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Actually, Jediphile, the dwarf you described as being 11/11 Fighter/Cleric would not be 22nd level in 3e. He would be 11th level, most likely 4 levels of fighter and 6 levels of cleric. Besides back when it went from 2e to 3e the best choice was to close down the 2e campaign to a satisfactory conclusion and start a brand new campaign with fresh 1st level characters in 3e. Thats what I did with transitioning from 1e to 2e, 2e to 3e, and 3e to 3.5e. No, it wouldn't. Looking only at levels, it would make him a 12th-level character, since you cannot convert xp values directly between 2e and 3e, as they are too different. However, in your example that still leaves us with the problem of the character magically losing the ability to cast 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells in the transition. For a new "edition" of the "same game", that does not seem particularly elegant to me. I had a on-going campaign of several years at the time 2e went to 3e, and since the rules would not allow smooth conversion, there was no choice, even if I had liked 3e. So it was an easy choice. If the rules force the choice, then the rules lose. Period. Besides, none of the players asked for the change. Those of them who like and play 3e today still don't. Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediphile Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 "Fine. How do I convert an dwarven fighter/cleric level 11/11 from 2e to 3e?" you can't because that sorta character were one thing that were wrong with 2e. a 2e dwarven fighter/cleric or elven fighter/mage or any o' a host o' other combinations, were clearly superior to a single class character with same exp points. it were a mistake. why can't you reproduce a mistake? 'cause that were one of the things that wotc actually managed to get right with 3e. how can you convert to 3e? no problem. you end up with a dwarven fighter/cleric 4/9 (or even a 4/6 split) that fills exact same role in a 3e campaign and is more fun to play and offers more opportunities for customization. congrats. HA! Good Fun! Really? Well, I might even agree with that, but 4e rules would not, it seems: It's easy to critique 3e multiclassing, but it'salso important to remember that they represent a massive, double-quantum leap from multiclass/dual-class rules in 1e/2e. We really like the configurability and freedom of 3e multiclassing, the way it's extensible even when you add new classes to the mix, and how it respects (to a degree, anyway) the changing whimsy of players as their characters evolve. But it's got some problems Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediphile Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 better still, in 3e you can invent your own prestige class to cover any eventuality! turn that 2e dwarven fighter/cleric level 11/11 into a 3e epic mystic dwarven divine champion theurgistophilomancer exemplarsmith 7/7/5/2! 2e had rules for creating your own classes from scratch - no bloody need for prestige classes (which would force you to go through a core class first). Sure, it was a trade-off - the more powerful the class got, the more it cost to reach the next level of experience - but then doing it any other way would have been unbalanced. Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonors Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 You guys know that newc was (I hope) being sarcastic, making fun of all the supplementary material in 3e that came out to make you super-awesome-perfect (just like kits in 2e). But the quote above about the problem with multiclassing being the 'gish' (god how stupid a name is that), I have to say: exactly, except that isn't a problem. A fighter/mage can never be both a comparable fighter and mage as a similar single class. When you multiclass, you take the costs with the benefits. This is why I thought the mystic theurge was a joke when I first saw someone mention it for a potential prestige class for nwn/nwn2. Same with eldritch knight. But let's wander back to 4e for a second, in a related way. The fighter-mage type will actually be easier now because there is no penalty for casting in armor. At all. Is this a good implementation of a rule that was broken or a 'give them everything all the time' philosophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediphile Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 You guys know that newc was (I hope) being sarcastic, making fun of all the supplementary material in 3e that came out to make you super-awesome-perfect (just like kits in 2e). But the quote above about the problem with multiclassing being the 'gish' (god how stupid a name is that), I have to say: exactly, except that isn't a problem. A fighter/mage can never be both a comparable fighter and mage as a similar single class. When you multiclass, you take the costs with the benefits. This is why I thought the mystic theurge was a joke when I first saw someone mention it for a potential prestige class for nwn/nwn2. Same with eldritch knight. But let's wander back to 4e for a second, in a related way. The fighter-mage type will actually be easier now because there is no penalty for casting in armor. At all. Is this a good implementation of a rule that was broken or a 'give them everything all the time' philosophy? It's a fair question. After all, where does the balance lie? I mean, on the one hand, you might want a game that lets you play the character you can imagine (which none of the incarnations of D&D have done well so far...), but on the other hand, you also need to make the rules mean something - if someone wants cover more areas, then it has to cost somewhere. Otherwise it smells like the rules are catering to munchkinism rather than attempting any sort of balanced and fair play. The wizard/warrior combination is the extreme example, since those are exactly the two archetypes that are the furthest apart. Add to that how the basic principle of not just RPGs but, well, anything really is that you can either be decent at lots of things, or you can be really good at something while being terrible at something else. Most RPGs are built toward that, either by enforcing fixed archetypes (as in D&D) or by setting up rules that lets you excel at something only if you focus the development of the character exclusively toward that goal while sacrificing others (like 5th edition Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, or pretty much any of White Wolf's games). Those who say that 2e had problems in that regard are not wrong IMHO, which isn't to say that it couldn't be forced to not be wrong through houserules or similar (which I did IMC). It's not really fair to have an elven fighter/mage, who is almost a good a wizard as the human who chose to focus exclusively on that class while giving up the benefits of armor and weaponry. That's the exact reason I thought 3e multi-class rules were better than in 2e. They did not permit characters to convert if made under the old rules, however, and they also punished all the multi-class options about equally (not counting the "outside preferred racial multi-class combination" rules), which might be a bit over the top. I mean, I already put severe restrictions on the warrior/wizard combination in my 2e campaign (and might have had none for that reason), but a fighter/thief isn't quite as unbalancing, nor is the fighter/cleric, if you consider that there is already a paladin in the game... 4e seems to revert more towards 2e, however, which is also not the right idea IMHO. I've had players who wanted to do fighter/wizard combinations for the sake of basically having a character similar to the 3e arcane archer. If such a character were limited magic that affects fired arrows and similar as well as limiting his warrior abilities to the bow, that does not sound so bad. Then again, another player wanted a wizard/thief so he could enhance his thieving skills with magic spells. That may not sound so bad, but then again, how can I allow a combination that allows the multi-classed thief/mage to have better thieving skills that the single-classed thief who dedicated his development exclusively toward that class? Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newc0253 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 You guys know that newc was (I hope) being sarcastic, making fun of all the supplementary material in 3e that came out to make you super-awesome-perfect (just like kits in 2e). i'm never sarcastic. oh no, sir. i love prestige classes. i think they're a fantastic idea. and they make a lot of sense! it fills my heart with joy to think they're probably the future of D&D. dumber than a bag of hammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) what is point of 4e quote? am relaying why you can't do 1e multi-class nonsense in 3e... is 'cause multi-class dwarven fighter/cleric is clear superior to single class character with same exp. how does jedifilly quote 'bout 4e change that fact? regardless, we doubt even jfilly would isuggest that based on his quote that the dwarven fighter/cleric 11/11 in 4e will be clear superior to a single class human cleric with same exp point totals. such stoopidity were a 1e mistake that were purged... and good riddance. 'course then, as did happen with 1e and 2e and 3e, tsr/wotc or whomever will release loads of crap to keep sales going forward. kits or prestige classes or custom classes or whatever. 4e will, like 3e, only be good if dms is very careful with just how much additional crap they allow beyond the core books. the more crap = the more difficult to balance. HA! Good Fun! Edited February 21, 2008 by Gromnir "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonors Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Ok, it is too much fun so I have to remind everyone that while 1/2e multiclassed characters were overpowered, dual class humans were just.....seriously amazingly awesome (and by awesome, I of course mean overpowered and not awesome). Anyone who played BG (especially all the way through) new this. I remember my 7 fighter/ lots of mage. Actually, if you wanted to have an effective fighting cleric (with more than one attack per round), this was the only way to go, with very very very very little negative to it since you get a pretty much an equivalent cleric with more attacks (same weapons, oddly), and some more hitpoints (since you could actually use the 17 and 18 con). Bioware fully understood this, and Anomen was made like this (Anomen was actually an amazingly well put-together character from a powerplaying perspective). Whatever, 1/2e multi- and dual- classing sucked, of this there can be no doubt. BUUUUUUTTTTT.....back to 4e. I'm personally looking forward to the truly wholly logical breasts on dragonborn females! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 side note: never actually seen a dual-classed character played fair from level 1 in a pnp group. another flaw of 1e? dual worked in bg, where a single player plays a party and can get to mid-levels after 40 hours o' gameplay. in pnp though... a 7/x fighter/mage were a gimp from the time he/she dualed until time you got 8 levels o' mage... 'least compared to others in your party. and you know how long it took to get 8 levels o' mage playing 1 pnp game session a week in 1e? longer than 40 hours that is for damn sure. to dual you needed ridiculous stats and you had to voluntarily gimp self and your party to achieve munchkin status. 'course the gimping made them balanced, no? no. 1e dual made even less sense than multi-class. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonors Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 [more sidenote]Yeah, during the "wait until you magically get your old powers back" time wasn't too easy, BUT....you still had your hitpoints, and you were fighting better monsters and getting much more experience points with an 8th level party than a 1st level party, so it wasn't too long 'til you were back in the game. Of course, this is no big deal in BG where you just go hunting some anhkegs. Honestly, I never saw a 1/2e dual class happen in pnp either. 15 for each 'primary stat' for the 1st class and 17 for each of the 2nd class was just insane. But with BG, just hit re-roll and reassign and you are ok.[/sidenote] In 4e, apparently, they are trying to increase the 'sweetspot' from 5-10th level (aroundish) to pretty much all the levels, with like 40 levels and each century of levels having some different 'theme'. I know I'm getting it wrong, but there is alot of crap over at enworld and I am not digging through it all to find out. So, how does that affect multiclassing? Having a more spread out advancing might make taking a couple of levels in a secondary class less detrimental to the first class, but not too beneficial overall. Or, from browsing the relatively large number of core classes (maybe that is just my impression though), are they trying to discourage multiclassing by having classes that cover everything (like the f/mu class and whatever the warlord is)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newc0253 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 [more sidenote]Yeah, during the "wait until you magically get your old powers back" time wasn't too easy, BUT....you still had your hitpoints, and you were fighting better monsters and getting much more experience points with an 8th level party than a 1st level party, so it wasn't too long 'til you were back in the game. fighting better monsters? using 1st and 2nd level spells? the orc is right: dual classing meant the former fighter is crouching behind his buddies for 7 levels worth of fights, tossing off cantrips. a slow and dull way to play through any module or campaign. dumber than a bag of hammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 [more sidenote]Yeah, during the "wait until you magically get your old powers back" time wasn't too easy, BUT....you still had your hitpoints, and you were fighting better monsters and getting much more experience points with an 8th level party than a 1st level party, so it wasn't too long 'til you were back in the game. fighting better monsters? using 1st and 2nd level spells? the orc is right: dual classing meant the former fighter is crouching behind his buddies for 7 levels worth of fights, tossing off cantrips. a slow and dull way to play through any module or campaign. and also d*mn unrealistic as he already knew how to fight, but forgot it for another 8 lvl-s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Actually, Jediphile, the dwarf you described as being 11/11 Fighter/Cleric would not be 22nd level in 3e. He would be 11th level, most likely 4 levels of fighter and 6 levels of cleric. Besides back when it went from 2e to 3e the best choice was to close down the 2e campaign to a satisfactory conclusion and start a brand new campaign with fresh 1st level characters in 3e. Thats what I did with transitioning from 1e to 2e, 2e to 3e, and 3e to 3.5e. No, it wouldn't. Looking only at levels, it would make him a 12th-level character, since you cannot convert xp values directly between 2e and 3e, as they are too different. However, in your example that still leaves us with the problem of the character magically losing the ability to cast 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells in the transition. For a new "edition" of the "same game", that does not seem particularly elegant to me. I had a on-going campaign of several years at the time 2e went to 3e, and since the rules would not allow smooth conversion, there was no choice, even if I had liked 3e. So it was an easy choice. If the rules force the choice, then the rules lose. Period. Besides, none of the players asked for the change. Those of them who like and play 3e today still don't. i can only say 'gestalt' as an option for moving such chars to 3e and over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newc0253 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) i can only say 'gestalt' as an option for moving such chars to 3e and over gestalt? bless you. Edited February 21, 2008 by newc0253 dumber than a bag of hammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Lajciak Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Actually, Jediphile, the dwarf you described as being 11/11 Fighter/Cleric would not be 22nd level in 3e. He would be 11th level, most likely 4 levels of fighter and 6 levels of cleric. Besides back when it went from 2e to 3e the best choice was to close down the 2e campaign to a satisfactory conclusion and start a brand new campaign with fresh 1st level characters in 3e. Thats what I did with transitioning from 1e to 2e, 2e to 3e, and 3e to 3.5e. No, it wouldn't. Looking only at levels, it would make him a 12th-level character, since you cannot convert xp values directly between 2e and 3e, as they are too different. However, in your example that still leaves us with the problem of the character magically losing the ability to cast 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells in the transition. For a new "edition" of the "same game", that does not seem particularly elegant to me. I had a on-going campaign of several years at the time 2e went to 3e, and since the rules would not allow smooth conversion, there was no choice, even if I had liked 3e. So it was an easy choice. If the rules force the choice, then the rules lose. Period. Besides, none of the players asked for the change. Those of them who like and play 3e today still don't. i can only say 'gestalt' as an option for moving such chars to 3e and over Yep, that's what I said too, but it was ignored. Perhaps that was because the mechanics are non-core, coming from Unearthed Arcana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonors Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 GAHHH.....just lost my post...... ok....here is some 4e news.... AN article from WOTC that looks to me like it is saying that 4e is better because it removes any risk of dying from your character (how is that good?). I imagine the author might have meant something else, but this is what it sounds like to me. http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dred/20080220a Here is a looooong string of discussions on this at enworld. http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=21...age=1&pp=30 This looks less appealing to me, but I'll reserve judgement until I actually see things myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Amber Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 AN article from WOTC that looks to me like it is saying that 4e is better because it removes any risk of dying from your character (how is that good?). Sounds like save or die effects are gone(like finger of death), and traps might be less potent. That's about all I got out of that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelfiredragon Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 This month, we Strength through Mercy Head Torturor of the Cult of the Anti-gnome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newc0253 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 um, maybe i missed it, but was there anything in that description of 4e rogues doing things like picking locks and disarming traps? in fact, was there anything in that description that wasn't purely combat-orientated? call me being old-fashioned, but that looks like a description of a Diablo character, not a D&D one. dumber than a bag of hammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts