So what sort of range would you like stats to fall under, or don't you think it matters? For me I normally like as small a range as possible, so when I improve a stat it really feels like I'm doing something important and not making 29 strength into 30; however this compromises slightly on fine manipulation in the mechanics (more increments allows for more complexity) so I think a range of 1-10 would be sufficient, I guess if they are using a D20 systems it will probably have to be higher. I do think there should be a finite limit on how much you can improve a stat - even with equipment - as there should be a limit to what is humanly (and dwarfly, elfly, etc.) possible, with some races reaching higher limits than others. I also think classes should have higher limits in some stats (as in my understanding a class seems like a shaping of the soul, giving you more of an affinity for some stats) and these benefits should stack with races.

 

Now multiclassing, though not entirely related to this point, is with respect to whether some classes get statistical benefits. I think that an experience penalty is not half as a severe penalty as there needs to be, and I'm in favour of characters both not getting full benefits of a class (so things like statistical maximums suffering and limitted access to special abilities or perks) and also gaining additional flaws and weaknesses. Why? Well to me it seems like multiclassing might be a sure fire way to fracture a soul lore wise if taking a class is shaping a soul, and also it would stop exploitative players doing things like taking one level in a class to wear a particular item that is class specific. Furthermore, if you are privy to full benefits of one class as well as getting some of the benefits of others, why wouldn't you multiclass (I'm playing Icewind Dale II on HoF mode right now, and there's not a single character I'm not multiclassing with as most reach there full benefits at level 20 of that class whereas the maximum level is 30)? I think multiclassing needs to have a severe penalty to avoid exploitative play (not experience, as if you play for long enough you can usually level up to the maximum anyway), but it should be possible as multiclassing in IE games is tremendous fun and allows for more unique and specialised character builds.

 

So what do you think? Also I'm sorry if these points have already been covered, but I did run a search and didn't find anything with this specific focus.

Edited October 5, 201213 yr by Jojobobo

My opinion is that there should be no hard caps on stats. Multiclass, if the game has it, penalty should just be imperfect synergy. A Rogue Wizard can't sneak attack with his fireball, and his fireball and sneak attack will be separately weaker than a pure class. Maybe some will synergize better, but the Rogue Fighter still will have a weaker sneak attack, even if he has a stronger basic attack.

The question is worded oddly. Here is how I would do it if it were up to me.

 

1. Personally, I would like two have a few multifacted ability scores instead of many. That ensures all ability scores have value to all classes.

 

2. Certain races should have stat bonuses or penalties. All characters should be able to dump as many points as they like into a stat. Classes should not give stat bonuses. IMHO, all classes should have some need of every stat.

 

3. I do not like 3E style multiclassing if this is to what are referring to as far as multiclass penalties go. Instead of players adding levels of classes to their character, there should be set multiclass types like how 2E DnD did it. In that, players did inherent class restrictions and I fully support that.

Edited October 5, 201213 yr by Shevek

What were your problems with the questions? Not that I can change them now, but it's good to know! I will say that "so" is supposed to be "to" in the second question, and "Range" shouldn't be capitalised in the first.

 

Hmmm, restricting the range of what classes a certain class can multiclass into (if I'm understanding you properly) is an interesting idea - one that I could get behind. That being said it might hamper creativity a little bit.

 

I guess I was just trying to get a feel of what other people thought, I don't think any of these options are bad just some are more preferable to me personally.

Personally I don't like the core attributes (strength, dexterity, constitution etcetera) to rise that much after character creation, hopefully we're playing mature characters who have reached their optimal physical and mental limits. Of course there are always weird quirks that can serve to invest a character with additional potency, but i've always felt these should be harshly limited so that the characters has a more solid and defined base upon which to build. The problem I have with system such as the newer interpretations of D&D is that the constant advancement of a stat renders the beginning choice fairly moot, my half orc barbarian who began his career with twenty strength is a weakling compared to himself at thirtieth level, how has that happened?

 

My own role play system used scores of 2d6 plus 3, giving a range of 5-15 with an average ability score of ten. Most tasks and challenges were resolved by attribute checks on a d20, meaning that the characters attributes were intrinsically valuable. There were racial modifications, but apart from the highest levels of magical interference (which always carried some dread price) the characters were bound by the limits of their own form. One thing that was good about the system however was that every point felt like a significantly different tier, to the lucky Shay whose fifteen dexterity was boosted to sixteen through the racial modifier any normal task of agility was trivialised.

 

Multiclassing I don't really care about, i'd rather we have a wide range of skills available for every class but with significant penalties the further one travels from ones designated role. Thus you can have the fighter who knows a bit about lockpicking, thanks to a rakish youth, but that decision to broaden his skill base will cost him. Above all I don't want to be a master of everything, I want a clear role as either an expert of a select few skills or to be of middling ability with many.

 

Personally i'd like something like that, but I trust Obsidian to deliver the goods whatever system they use.

What were your problems with the questions? Not that I can change them now, but it's good to know! I will say that "so" is supposed to be "to" in the second question, and "Range" shouldn't be capitalised in the first.

 

Hmmm, restricting the range of what classes a certain class can multiclass into (if I'm understanding you properly) is an interesting idea - one that I could get behind. That being said it might hamper creativity a little bit.

 

I guess I was just trying to get a feel of what other people thought, I don't think any of these options are bad just some are more preferable to me personally.

 

The problem with 3E multiclasses is that players take a dollop of this class and that class just to get certain key bonuses. Also, that kind of multiclassing works very VERY badly when multiclassing a martial class with a spell casting class. There are some fixes to this but none are particularly elegant. WoTC essentially made Prestige Classes as a way to apply a bandaid fix to the many flaws in 3E multiclassing.

 

The IE games used set multiclasses and those worked very very well in my view. This was in part due to the to-hit calculation being based on THAC0 instead of a straight AB bonus. Also, it helped that experience tables were not done on a linear curve. So, the same XP it woulld take to be a 20th level Fighter could allow you to make a Fighter (14)/Wizard (14).

 

I would like it if they at at least added multiclass variants of the "core" classes (fighter/rogue, wizard/priest, rogue/priest, fighter/wizard, etc).

Edited October 5, 201213 yr by Shevek

I'd have multi-classing in the same way as BG1&2, & IWD. Provided it fits with their class system. Multi-classing ala 3rd was kind of horrible.

Prefer no multiclassing with the closest you can get to being a 'fighter-mage' for instance being a skill tree you can take in the mage class that allows you take certain aspects of the fighter class for instance. Actual multiclassing tends to be too easily abused or broken I find.

 

Scale of 1-10 for the attributes. While I liked the attribute spread in the IE games which was pretty much 1-20 that was the absolute maximum, and I agree with Nonek that the attributes shouldn't change much after character creation since I find the set attributes help define who a character is (for instance, Minsc with the strength score of 18 was the strong guy), though minor (and I mean very minor) increases can be okay. I'd also like it that all attributes are important for all classes, sure having one attribute be more important for a class is fine but the others shouldn't become dump stats and overspecialisation like that should result in penalties, like your character not being able to understand that wooden swords are not as good as metal ones if they have the IQ of a lemon.

Another skewed poll that is missing viable responses. What about abilities in the 1-100 range?

My feeling on multi-classes penalties is basically the 3E approach: When you level up, you select a class to advance, and you gain all the benefits of that class only. Character level determines how much XP is required to advance any of your classes, of course. This means that a level 10 character might have 10 levels in one class, be 1/1/5/3, or any other combination -- but not matter what, he/she has the same amount of XP. I don't support 2E-style multi-classing at all (simultaneous advancement in multiple classes), as it leads to the type of balancing problems discussed in the poll answers.

 

Just to be clear here: Class related benefits shouldn't be front loaded (like they were 3E), and (generally speaking) skills gained from one class shouldn't be usable to satisfy per-requisites for abilities in another class.

Edited October 5, 201213 yr by MReed

Well, we don't know if multiclassing is even in much less what form it will take. That is largely dependent on their rpg system. That being, 2E multiclassing was ten times better.

I don't want D&D. I certainly don't want 3E D&D. A different set of attributes, with something outside taht 3-18 range.

 

And no multi-classing, for the love of Commodore 64!

Honestly, I think the extreme flexibility within the parent class descriptions of Update 15 is intended precisely to counter multiclassing completely.

 

Adding multi-/dual-classing adds a layer of complexity concerning balance, I imagine, thus allowing substantial flexibility within specified limits of a main class description would probably be easier to implement. Not that I'm against multiclassing--I usually do it--but the D&D classes you could combine in BG, for example, were far stricter in actual practice (limitations) than the classes described in U15.

 

I'm thinking that adding multiclass to very flexible classes like this would be too much work for Obsidian...

 

As for stats, I'm good with what Obsidian decides. /shrug

I guess I am against multi-classing. It has always been something of a tricky creature, and either one takes a power hit for role-playing purposes when doing (which is perfectly acceptable) or they are exploiting cheesy loop-holes to power game (which is fine too, but introduces other problems in the long run).

 

I like the idea of advanced classes that might allow for flexibility or kits that are acquired sooner to help specialize characters

 

As for stats, again, they always present an interesting problem. Increasing stats is a great way of providing the player a metric for the power of his character. However, every fighter is a Herakles about a couple levels. Maybe there is a way to re-conceptualize a stats. Slower progression with the raw stats (i.e. dexterity) and a quicker progression for applied stats (something like quickness? an application of a raw stat to a specific activity - of course, this could be taken care of by a robust skill system).

I think multiclassing could work very well with the core classes. Just like the IE games, all classes should not be allowed to multiclass.

I think that multiclassing should be handled like it was in 3/3.5E, the only penalty is that a multiclass character isn't as specialized as a single class.

 

Take a rogue/wizard character for example. The character will be less effective than a pure wizard(because they will have to focus somewhat on roguish abilities like stealth instead of magic) or a pure rogue(because they have to focus somewhat on magic instead of rogue talents). So while a pure rogue could fell mighty beings with a well placed sneak attack or a pure wizard could shoot down dragons from the sky with lightning, the rogue/wizard cannot. However,the rogue/wizard can invoke magic in ways a pure rogue could not, or evade deadly blasts that a pure wizard could not.

 

Also, there should be no special stat ranges for any race or class. Every character should have the ability to raise whatever attribute they wish how they wish.

 

TL;DR version

 

The penalty of multiclassing should simply be being less effective at specialized things than a pure class.

Edited October 6, 201213 yr by KaineParker

Another skewed poll that is missing viable responses. What about abilities in the 1-100 range?

 

That is Elders Scrolls system.

If u follow BG, IW, ToEE, u`ll now it is 1-20 or 1-18...

So what we want?

Another skewed poll that is missing viable responses. What about abilities in the 1-100 range?

The "no limit" option was meant to encompass this, as 1-100 is a very high range for your typical rpg, and another way of saying no limit is 20+. A strength score of 57 just becomes increasing dilute and irrelevant (what does it actually mean in practical terms) then having a smaller scale, and if this was the case where would I stop? 1-1000 ranges, 1-1000000? What would be the point in including them? Do you think there is even a slight possibility of the P:E team going that high when there is little to no precedence for it?

 

I own the PnP World of Darkness system, and I very much like the relatable system it has. At 10 strength - which is typically the maximum at superhuman proportions without any extra abilities (your average human could only have 1-5) - it states that you'd be able to lift a large tree trunk. There you have a real world example of what such strength could do rather than just being a number (diminishing or increaing strength scores also have a practical example listed).

 

I do very much like Nonek's idea of slow progression, as an adult person shouldn't have an exponential ability to grow once past a certain age. However I do think it's important to remember this is a fantasy game too, so characters probably should be a bit more changeable than in the mundane world.

 

I guess I only included multiclassing as an idea as Tim said they were "looking into it", maybe Ieo is right and the scope of flexibility in the class descriptions is an allusion to the fact they're are leaning against multiclassing. Still, this is a good way to see how multiclassing should be implemented if it is going to be or just to get a feel for overall support for it anyway.

Edited October 7, 201213 yr by Jojobobo

No cap on stats is the apex of stupidity.

 

A human can become infinitely strong? Really?

I can't answer your questionaire because I feel that the minimum starting attribute should not begin at one. Also, I think attributes should have related real-world equivalent or description. I also do not agree that attributes should at all be influenced by class & species but rather by magical alteration and perks that permit a higher than normal attribute. Multiclassing should be perk dependent or be the result of time dilation in the game, where the story passes over a period of time and the characters are presumed to be in training or leisure, whichever the player decides.

I'm happy with D&D style stats personally, but whatever.

I'd much prefer that there not be multi-classing, although I would like to have the opportunity extensively to customize builds via feats.

No cap on stats is the apex of stupidity.

 

A human can become infinitely strong? Really?

 

With Thor's Belt and Wristbands of Hercules, why not. Well not infinitely, but maybe the strength of one hundred men?

 

Or to put it in another way, if you're already as strong as you can be, and then add a strength enhancing magic item,

it does nothing because you're already at max?

I can't answer your questionaire because I feel that the minimum starting attribute should not begin at one. Also, I think attributes should have related real-world equivalent or description. I also do not agree that attributes should at all be influenced by class & species but rather by magical alteration and perks that permit a higher than normal attribute. Multiclassing should be perk dependent or be the result of time dilation in the game, where the story passes over a period of time and the characters are presumed to be in training or leisure, whichever the player decides.

What would you have it begin at then? Also I never said a starting character's values should begin at one, it's just the bottom of the range. Usually a race in an rpg game will have a value higher than the lowest possible value as their base for a stat but things like spell effects, their background/history or injury could lower it to the minimum value. Not having one as a minimum value on any size scale seems very peculiar to me, even if it is just theoretical as most characters would not have enough stacking negative modifiers to reach that value.

What would you have it begin at then? Also I never said a starting character's values should begin at one, it's just the bottom of the range. Usually a race in an rpg game will have a value higher than the lowest possible value as their base for a stat but things like spell effects, their background/history or injury could lower it to the minimum value. Not having one as a minimum value on any size scale seems very peculiar to me, even if it is just theoretical as most characters would not have enough stacking negative modifiers to reach that value.

 

Well, I rather like Rolemaster then. 1-100 with attributes above 100 quite possible.