Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arterion 05-30-05, 01:43 AM	All right, I've been toying with the idea of this for a while, and finally did an example progression for it. Basically, I miss multi-classing like it used to be in 2e. To take up the slack, a lot of PrC's have been created, such as the Mystic Theurge, or the Eldritch Knight. Which these are nice, they're, for one, a headache to keep up with, and two, not very interesting. Gestalt rules can make this more fun, but unfortunately, Gestalt characters are generally considered "high powered" for special games, not an everyday generic character that's balanced with non-gestalt characters. So I thought I would try to find a way to Gestalt that would be balanced. I thought first from the 2e approach -- to just split your XP between two classes and advance them indivudally. This doesn't work very well in 2e, unfortunately. So then it hit me, why not just make a new Core class that's completely compatible with the current system, without needed any extra rules or XP charts or anything else? It turned out to be really simple. Thus, I present to you, the Gestalt [Class1/Class2] Core class. For the example, I will use the Gestalt Fighter/Wizard. Hit Die: d7 Class Skill: All skills on both the Fighter and Wizard class lists Skill Points at 1st Level: 2 + Int modifier x 4 Skill Points Each Additional Level: 2 + Int modifier Fighter/Wizard Spells Per Day Level BAB Fort Ref Will 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fighter Wizard Special 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 1 1 Fighter Bonus Feat, Scribe Scroll, Find Familiar 2 1 2 0 2 4 2 1 2 Fighter Bonus Feat 3 2 3 1 3 4 2 1 2 3 4 3 3 1 3 4 2 1 3 3 5 4 4 1 4 4 3 2 4 4 Fighter Bonus Feat 6 4 4 1 4 4 3 2 1 4 5 Wizard Bonus Feat 7 5 4 2 4 4 3 3 2 5 6 8 6 5 2 5 4 3 3 2 6 6 Fighter Bonus Feat 9 7 5 2 5 4 4 3 2 1 7 7 10 7 5 2 5 4 4 3 3 2 7 8 11 8 6 3 6 4 4 4 3 2 1 8 9 Fighter Bonus Feat 12 9 6 3 6 4 4 4 3 2 1 9 9 13 10 7 3 7 4 4 4 3 3 2 10 10 Wizard Bonus Feat, Fighter Bonus Feat 14 10 7 4 7 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 10 11 15 11 7 4 7 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 11 12 16 12 8 4 8 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 12 12 Fighter Bonus Feat 17 13 8 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 13 13 18 13 8 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 13 14 19 14 8 5 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 14 15 Fighter Bonus Feat 20 15 9 5 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 15 15 Wizard Bonus Feat Effective Level: The Fighter and Wizard columns show the effective level in each class. For all purposes, treat yourself as having a class level in each individual class equal to the effective level. Class Features: Refer to the Wizard and Fighters classes for a description of each class feature. For any class-level-dependant features, such as caster level, refer to the effective level in the individual class. For character-level based effects, such as those that refer to hit dice, use the actual level. --- This seems balanced to me. It's slightly weaker caster versus a Fighter 1/Wizard 9/Eldritch Knight 10, but has more hit points, virtually equal saves, more feat selections, and familiar progression throughout all the level. The trick to making the progression is that you increase the effective level of both classes every odd level, and only one class every even level (alternating between the two.) You don’t really need the chart; I just made for illustration purposes. What do you think? This should work for any two core classes. I’m not sure how it would work with PrCs, though I think if you substitute the effective level progression with a PrC, it should be fine, so long as you meet the prereqs. Though I would suggest the rule of no dual-progression classes. No Mystic Theruge, for example. Comments? If you like it, I'll make a three class Gestalt, which will probably get you to 11/11/11 as opposed to 15/15.
HailSpork 05-30-05, 05:38 AM	A few things that seem unnecessary: d7 hp: Obviously, there is no d7. It's really not necessary anyway. I suggest either use a d6 or a d8, but not an average of 2 dice. Besides, it skews the results towards the center. Skill points per level: Why do you start at 2+int, then change to 4+int? Neither wizards nor fighters even have 2+int. I suggest you start with 2+int and stay with it. You also use highly irregular BAB and saves. Also, it seems a little overpowered. Instead of comparing it to a Fighter 1/Wizard 9/Eldritch Knight 10, try comparing it to a Fighter 4/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10: BAB: 17 vs 15 Fort: 13 vs 9 Ref: 6 vs 5 Will: 9 vs 9 Spells known: 33+int vs 43+int (not including level 0 spells) Spells per day: Equal Bonus feats: 5 vs 11(!!) This is as many bonus feats as a fighter, with nearly the spell capacity of a full wizard. Additionally, it is much easier to multiclass. If you intend this to be on par with a standard PC class, you have severely overpowered it. If you intend this to be on par with gestalt, it's a little underpowered. Might I suggest instead: Hit Die: d8 Starting Proficiencies: Proficient in all simple and martial weapons. Proficient in light armor and light shields, though spells with somatic components are difficult to cast in such armor. (Arcane spell failure applies) Class Skill: Climb, Concentration, Craft, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge(All), Profession, Ride, Spellcraft, Swim (Note: I dropped decipher script and handle animal) Skill Points at 1st Level: 2 + Int modifier x 4 Skill Points Each Additional Level: 2 + Int modifier Mageknight or Arcane knight or such (Fighter/Wizard isn't a concept, it's multi-classing) Spells Per Day Level BAB Fort Ref Will 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Special 1 0 2 0 2 3 0* Bonus Feat, Scribe Scroll 2 1 3 0 3 3 1 Find Familiar 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 Bonus Feat 4 3 4 1 4 3 2 0* 5 3 4 1 4 3 3 1 6 4 5 2 5 3 3 2 Bonus Feat 7 5 5 2 5 3 3 2 0* 8 6 6 2 6 3 3 3 1 9 6 6 3 6 3 3 3 2 Bonus Feat 10 7 7 3 7 3 3 3 2 0* 11 8 7 3 7 3 3 3 3 1 12 9 8 4 8 3 3 3 3 2 Bonus Feat 13 9 8 4 8 3 3 3 3 2 0* 14 10 9 4 9 4 3 3 3 3 1 15 11 9 5 9 4 4 3 3 3 2 Bonus Feat 16 12 10 5 10 4 4 4 3 3 2 0* 17 12 10 5 10 4 4 4 4 3 3 1 18 13 11 6 11 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 Bonus Feat 19 14 11 6 11 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 20 15 12 6 12 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 *If you have bonus spells from high intelligence Caster level = class level Starts with 2+int 1st level spells known, all 0th level spells known (in book), learns 1 spell per level automatically (though may scribe more) Bonus feats may be from either the wizard list or the fighter list. If you compare this to the bard, it should seem fairly balanced. This class is a little more powerful of a spell caster due to the versatility of a wizard with the spell progression of a bard. It has less bonus feats than a fighter, but more than a wizard. It has two strong saves. It starts with more weapon proficiencies than the bard (same as the fighter), though only minimal armor (and then you face the risk of arcane spell failure). If it helps, you can look at this forum post: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=369413
Arterion 05-30-05, 03:36 PM	A few things that seem unnecessary: d7 hp: Obviously, there is no d7. It's really not necessary anyway. I suggest either use a d6 or a d8, but not an average of 2 dice. Besides, it skews the results towards the center. No. A d7 is the hit die. Either add the results of a d10, a d4, and take half, plus your Con, or use random number generation. Skill points per level: Why do you start at 2+int, then change to 4+int? Neither wizards nor fighters even have 2+int. I suggest you start with 2+int and stay with it. Sorry, that was an error, I fixed it. You also use highly irregular BAB and saves. No, I used normal BAB and saves, they're just based on the effective levels. The point of this class was to allow 2e-style multiclassing while keeping balance and without having to rewrite the level system. Instead, I created a core class that emulates the old style of multi-classing. Also, it seems a little overpowered. Instead of comparing it to a Fighter 1/Wizard 9/Eldritch Knight 10, try comparing it to a Fighter 4/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10: BAB: 17 vs 15 Fort: 13 vs 9 Ref: 6 vs 5 Will: 9 vs 9 Spells known: 33+int vs 43+int (not including level 0 spells) Spells per day: Equal Bonus feats: 5 vs 11(!!) This is as many bonus feats as a fighter, with nearly the spell capacity of a full wizard. Additionally, it is much easier to multiclass. The class does not have "nearly the spell capacity of a full wizard." It has 25% less, or five levels less. Furthermore, you've failed to compare hit points, skill points:skills available, speed of progression, XP penalties, and a number of others factors. My class is designed to be different. That's the point. It's a way to multiclass (not dual class, which is what 3e rules are) without having to change all the rules for 3e. And it pulls it off really well. If you intend this to be on par with a standard PC class, you have severely overpowered it. How? You still need to demonstrate that. Yes, my class has more bonus feats. It also has less BAB, less saves, less hit points, and a more even progression. The "spells known" is mostly irrelvant for a wizard. If you intend this to be on par with gestalt, it's a little underpowered. I clealy explained my intentions. First two paragraphs of the post. Might I suggest instead: I appreciate you help, but my class is fine. It wasn't meant to be based on a "concept," it was meant to be a multiclass. I explained all of this in my post.
Thanatos02 05-30-05, 04:17 PM	A few notes. No. A d7 is the hit die. Either add the results of a d10, a d4, and take half, plus your Con, or use random number generation. Actually, d7 isn't a hit die. To be a hit die, you require dice. That's the concept. Now, it's close if you (d10+d4)/2 but the number is actually 3.5, rounded up to 4 which is also the result of a d8. Save yourself the time, and try not to assume your players are carrying random number generators. People still use dice, you know. ^.~ No, I used normal BAB and saves, they're just based on the effective levels. The point of this class was to allow 2e-style multiclassing while keeping balance and without having to rewrite the level system. Instead, I created a core class that emulates the old style of multi-classing. To be fair, you haven't used normal BAB. You took two different ones and tried to smash them together. What you end up with is similar to a Medium Base Attack Bonus but is needlessly different. The same goes for your saves. You create your own, but it doesn't mesh with existing saves. I recommend, if you're adamant on medium saves, that you consider the Medium Save progression as found on the Duelist in Complete Warrior. How? You still need to demonstrate that. Yes, my class has more bonus feats. It also has less BAB, less saves, less hit points, and a more even progression. The "spells known" is mostly irrelvant for a wizard. Why are spells known irrelevant to a Wizard? To be fair, spells known is an advantage a wizard has over a sorcerer. Is this a concept to be negated? I appreciate you help, but my class is fine. It wasn't meant to be based on a "concept," it was meant to be a multiclass. I explained all of this in my post. In the future, if you don't want to know what other people think, I recommend you don't ask "What do you think?" Instead, don't bother to post it, becuase you're going to get feedback even if you don't want it. Multi-classing is a concept. It's a concept of a warrior-wizard. It's fairly common. It's commonly refered to as a "gish" or "gish-concept" because the githyanki fighter-wizards on the astral carried the title "gish". Furthermore, elves had a tendancy in 2ed Ed. to be Warrior/Wizards, and bringing back a multi-class in 3rd Ed. is a throwback to those old concepts. It's a good idea. But I'd still recommend a d8 Hit Die (the average turns out the same and it can be represented with dice), Medium BaB and 2 good or two medium (as duelist) saves. Skills should be as both classes, Int. + 2, 6 spell levels with spells as a Wizard (known and cast), ect. You got a lot right, don't ruin a chance to make it a little better by getting your back up against a wall.
Arterion 05-30-05, 07:52 PM	The point of this exercise was not to emulate old multi-class combinations by making new classes. The point was to allow people to actually multi-class without changing the basic rules, such as how experience is gained and so on. I made rules for that once, but they were too complex for even me to understand sometimes, and I made them! The hit die is a d7. It is a hit die. That's what they called it in 2e, that's what I'm calling it now. Just because you don't HAVE a d7 doesn't mean it's not real. They can be made as those little cylindrical side-rolling dice. Using a d8 hit die and using a what you're calling a standard progression is NOT the paradigm for multiclassing, in any edition. In other words, If you were to alternate between levels of fighter and wizard, you'd also get a BAB that didn't follow the good/medium/poor progression. If you were to average the hit dice of 10 levels of fighter, and 10 levels of wizard, it would be a d7/level. The method used here would work for any class (wizard/cleric, fighter/theif, wizard/theif, and so on.) If we have to make new classes for each thing, it's too much work, and basically, still isn't multiclassing. As far as "spells known," a wizard knows no spells. He has spells he can prepare, from his spellbook. The number of spells in his books is important, but the "free" spell each level turn out to be not so important for the most part, considering a Wizard could, with 20th level wealth, easily have every spell in the PHB in his spellbook(s). That's really no major advantage. A 15th level wizard could have the same number of spells as a 20th level wizard. Unlike the sorcerer, where the spells are static based on level. The problem with reccomending "use medium bab" and "use so and so saves" is that that would require 110 classes, if we assume all the possible combinations from the core classes in the PHB alone. Clearly, this method fails. The BAB progression is very regular -- it's the exact same as the level of the fighter. There's no wierd merging or anything. Just taking the better of the two. The same for saves. You know, multiclassing. :-)
slade_caizer 05-31-05, 12:43 AM	Ok...so standard multiclassing isn't good enough and gestalt is too much. *shrug* That sounds like a personal problem to me, but I'll go with it. Using a 3/4 BAB seems appropriate if you want to mix Wiz&Ftr. Keeping skills at 2+Int and merging the lists seems alright. Having two good saves in conjunction with that 3/4 BAB...well I think we're working on an arcane version of the Cleric here, people. It works for one class. I'll say 'ok' for now. Now how to handle those bonuse feats? Let's see...a fighter would get 11 in 20 levels while a wizard gets 4. (11+4)/2=7.5 In most cases I find rounding down to be good (and typical of WotC). The exception would be in figuring up HP using the average method, but that's neither here nor there. So let's say that's 7 feats. Perhaps something like a bonus feat at 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th would work. Let them choose from options allotted to either fighter or wizard. I'd say probably leave the familiar out since it can be taken through a feat. Instead of giving Scribe Scroll leave that 1st level feat open. Now let's see...BAB, saves, skills, feats...I'm guessing that should leave proficiencies, HP, and spellcasting. Wizards normally have a handfull of weapons available. Fighters normally get them all (barring exotic, but you know what I mean). I'm thinking simple weapons should be a good compromise. Light armor proficiency seems good. I'm not sure how to handle ASF. I'd probably leave it in place as well, but it's still under debate in my mind. I'm thinking buckler use seems ok. It'd leave a hand open for casting while giving armor options. I'd ponder losing the buckler's AC bonus if casting with that hand (like fighting with two weapons). Now how do we work on HP? A d4 offers 3HP per level while the d10 gives 6. 3+6=9, 9/2=4.5 If we round up that's 5 or down to 4. In the end we're still debating a d6 or a d8. I'd say it all depends on how heavily you want to focus on the casting. I'll suggest leaning toward the d6, but using a d8 would again be using the cleric pattern. For spells available, I'd suggest something like sorcerer progression. New spell levels at 4th and every even thereafter. Go ahead and leave the caps at 4 spells per day for each level. As for spells known...I'd leave it advancing as wizard (2 new spells each level), but of course the use of a spellbook leaves few limits to spells known. I'm still thinking this could be over-powered, but it seems at first glance to be only as over-powered as the cleric may be. The unbalancing part may be the spell selection.
Arterion 05-31-05, 01:10 AM	That's not the point of this class. It's a "metaclass." I'm not trying to make a more balanced way to gestalt, not a new hybrid class. I'm progressing two classes at a 3/4 rate and taking the better of each class, and combining the features. And for the last time, the hit die is a d7. ;p
HalfMunchkin 05-31-05, 01:19 AM	This is a D7.Click Here (http://dozensofgames.com/7sideddice.html)
HailSpork 05-31-05, 05:54 AM	That's not the point of this class. It's a "metaclass." I'm not trying to make a more balanced way to gestalt, not a new hybrid class. I'm progressing two classes at a 3/4 rate and taking the better of each class, and combining the features. And for the last time, the hit die is a d7. ;p I'm not sure what you want out of your post. You don't seem to want any feedback, and have ignored any given, to the point of complaining when people do. I honestly don't see the need for making metaclasses. It is FAR more complicated than the current multi-class system. It's also more complicated than the gestalt system. If you're not trying to create a gestalt and not trying to make a new hybrid class, then what the heck are you trying to do? Also, I want to point out that averaging a d4 and a d10 is not the same as randomizing between 1 and 7. The point of this exercise was not to emulate old multi-class combinations by making new classes. The point was to allow people to actually multi-class without changing the basic rules, such as how experience is gained and so on. I made rules for that once, but they were too complex for even me to understand sometimes, and I made them! I fail to see the problem with multiclassing. The rules are designed to make multi-classing easy. It's simple: Take a level of wizard, then a level of fighter, repeat. If you're worried about wanting abilities of both classes at level 1, consult the 3.0 DMG.
Arterion 05-31-05, 06:59 AM	I fail to see the problem with multiclassing. Because it's not multiclassing. It's dualclassing renamed. What I'm offering is actual multiclassing. As for complaining, if I ask for help with a divine caster who isn't a druid, and you keep offering me druid builds, YES, that would irritate me. And that's basically the same sort of thing you're doing. At 20th level, the character I made would have the best qualities of a 15th level wizard with combined with a 15th level fighter. Just as in Gestalt. Only he would be level 20, and not 15. That's how it balances with normal classes. The point was to make a Gestalt version that is balanced with normal classes. I think a 5 level hit in both classes is roughly even. Making new hybrid classes would take too much work. All the progressions are normal, just based on the effective levels, no the main ones. I think you all just don't understand what I'm doing. Go look at 2e multiclassing, then read my class again, and it will make sense to you.
The nameles one 05-31-05, 08:03 AM	Basically you just took the BAB, saves and skills from normally multiclassed Fighter 10/Wizard 10, the added more bonus feats and spell's per day. The problem here is that this is far too powerful in normal play, making multiclassing completely useless. If you really want balanced Gestalt, just multiclass. And this is not dualclass renamed, you dont advance in two classes here, only in one. Actually the regular multiclass is closer to the old dualclasses than this. And that D7 hit dice wins the "Unofficial "Wtf?" of the day."
lostone 05-31-05, 08:45 AM	What the nameless one said. :D If you want the 2E multiclassing system, play 2E. WotC has done there best to make 3E multiclassing balanced, and from what I have seen it usually is. But your character has more than a multiclassed fighter/wizard would have in 3E. If you want a fighter/wizard, play a fighter/wizard/eldritch knight, that comes out rather nicely.
HailSpork 05-31-05, 09:48 AM	As for complaining, if I ask for help with a divine caster who isn't a druid, and you keep offering me druid builds, YES, that would irritate me. And that's basically the same sort of thing you're doing. Well, here's the thing: So then it hit me, why not just make a new Core class that's completely compatible with the current system, without needed any extra rules or XP charts or anything else? It turned out to be really simple. You asked for comments on creating a wizard/fighter hybrid class. We keep offering you comments on creating a wizard/fighter hybrid class, and you keep saying that you only want comments that match your original post. So, if this is what you want, here it is: W0w!! That post was amazing! I'm going to use it in like every game I play. It's l33t!! Sarcasm aside, here are a few suggestions: 1) Ignore our comments and every other comment on this board and use the build you created in the first place. This is overpowered compared to regular classes; but don't worry, if you take this option, you'll be ignoring this sentence anyway. 2) Use some of the suggestions made here to balance the build. 3) Use gestalt and make the multi-class players "lose" every 4th level. They still get the stat increase, still get a feat on level 12, and it still counts for purposes of maximum skill ranks. However, no ability progression, no hit points, no skill points, etc. This may be a little overpowered early on, but should even out in the long run (just like 2nd ed multiclassing). 4) Use gestalt and only give gestalt players half the XP. This ends up at 1k shy of 4th level at level 5, 7th level by level 10, almost 11th level by level 15, and level 14 by level 20. 5) Play 2nd ed. As for the d7: if you're trying to create a core-styled class, either pick a d6 or d8. If you're trying to just average out wizard advancement with fighter advancement, then it doesn't matter. I think you all just don't understand what I'm doing. Go look at 2e multiclassing, then read my class again, and it will make sense to you. The 3rd ed multiclass system is not 2nd ed dual classing or 2nd ed multiclassing, but more of a hybrid between the two. It doesn't have the simultaneous advancement of multiclassing. It doesn't have the total recommitment of dual classing (and the need to completely regain xp until you reach your current level+1 until which time you only have access to the abilities of your second class and mysteriously lose access to your original class).
Germytech 05-31-05, 01:13 PM	Wow, what a thread. You asked for comments on creating a wizard/fighter hybrid class. This is part of the issue, I believe. Arterion never asked for comments on creating a wizard/fighter hybrid class. He asked for comments on whether the "metaclass" he had created (in which you can merge any two known classes, see the TITLE of this thread) works as well as he had hoped. This is why Arterion is (rightfully) frustrated. He does not want gestalt (which is slightly overpowered compared to core). He does not want 3E multiclass (which causes an extreme hit for any two classes that you want to take evenly). He wants a method by which he can take any two classes and merge them, from 1st-level, and have it be balanced with the core classes. Arterion: I believe I know what you are trying to do, and I commend you for it. :) Let me know if I'm off track: in essence, you would like to create a "metaclass" that resembles the abilities of the mystic theurge/eldritch knight/etc, that is balanced from 1st-level as a core class. You do not want a 20th-level character with 20th-level abilities in two classes (gestalt and overpowered) You do not want a 20th-level character with 10th-level abilities in two classes (3E multiclass and underpowered) You do want a 20th-level character with 15th-level abilities in two classes (your "metaclass"), and I think it looks good. Here are my comments: I would suggest not using averages. Although I agree that d7 is a legitimate hit die, it is still not core, and I believe your goal is to remain as close to the core rules as possible, right? I would suggest using the "best" hit die at any level. So, on levels where the effective level is just fighter or both fighter and wizard, the hit die would be d10. For the only wizard effective levels, a d4. So, your 20th-level metaclass fighter/wizard would have Hit Die: 15d10+5d4 I would do the same for skill points, but agree that the skill list for your metaclass would be all the skills from both classes. So, a druid/rogue would have Total Skill Points: 15*(8+Int)+5*(4+Int) I like your "effective level" idea, but I admit it is a little awkward. I think if you use it for class abilities, you should use it for hit die and skill points in the same way. If not, I'm almost thinking of taking the better for every level (as with the gestalt), and I do not think it would be too overpowering. (You are, after all, still taking a 5 level hit). So your Druid/Rogue would have a d8 hit die every level and 8+Int skill points every level. The Fighter/Wizard would have a d10 and 2+Int. I would personally prefer either of those suggestions, instead of the averages. But, otherwise, I think it works and looks (at first glance, anyway) relatively balanced. Hope I've offered something constructive.
Kintara 05-31-05, 01:21 PM	If you want a "d7" to randomize like it's supposed to, then roll a d8, and re-roll the 8s. Using two dice creates a curve. My only issue is that it seems like a lot of feats, but I think I could probably make a more powerful character if I used a couple prestige classes. It might be worth comparing to a Bard, though (i.e., to see if 3/4 is the right proportion).
Endarire 05-31-05, 02:18 PM	See Szatany's Ultimate Adventurer (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=368537&origin=) for a similar concept. -EE
Thanatos02 05-31-05, 04:15 PM	Szas's Ultimate Classes are good family fun, and the Adventurer looks good. I signed off last night to do some consideration. I do a lot of work with number crunching, because I tool around with the d20 system a good bit. I'm cooking up a skill-based magic system with a fellow designer, and I'm heavily involved in making new Prestige Classes and Core Classes in my setting. The thing is, I want good balance, and good balance is more then just eyeballing it and hoping. As anyone with eyes can tell, on these boards, some people get right into the guts of the system to make sure things come out right. (More then I can say for some 3rd party printings!) As any 2nd Ed. stalwart will tell you, 3rd Ed. is not 2nd Ed. It's got the D&D name, and it's kind of similar, but the underlaying mechanics that drive the game are totally different. That's because in 2nd Ed. the mechanics specific as opposed to 3rd's universal mechanics. What I mean by this is that in every instance where mechanics were used to adjucate a 2nd Edition aspect (say, experiance points to next level), the rules were formed to fit that one praticular need. A Wizard, for example, takes longer to level up then a Thief did, and a Warrior took less then a Wizard and more then a Thief. This was to balance out power levels. A Wizard was more powerful at level 10 then a Warrior was. Certain races could not exceed levels in some classes, and could not be members of every class. This was a meta-game rule construction to give Humans an edge. More then this, 2nd Ed. imposed a kind of Power Plateau where power stalled at higher levels. This is all different from 3rd Ed. Moreso, these are all very important notes. Because of this, simply taking the avg. of two classes and putting them together while providing class abilities at every level won't work. Obviously the OP noticed this while he was working, and attempted this. It finally occured to me what the OP was doing, though - using this as an experiment to see if it was balanced. If so, he would apply the same basic strategy to every other class combination he was interested in. I figure the main reason he refused to apply a Medium Atk. Bonus was because if he needed to measure Full against Medium or Medium against Poor, he'd end up with something neither Medium or poor. However, the problem with this is, it's still wonky. It's probably why they came up with Prestige Classes in the first place, actually. Becuase averaging those BaB's is going to be a headache forever, and adjucating class abilities is just as bad. My general math and final recommendations in the next post, actually.
Thanatos02 05-31-05, 04:16 PM	So, you want a perfect multi-class, hm? You're not the only one, that's for sure. It's the reason they came out with the Fochulian Lyrist, Eldrich Knight, Mystic Theurge, Spellsword, Arcane Trickster... well, obviously it doesn't work, and you're looking for a way to get that progression just right. It's a mess in 3rd. First, some problems. You're not working with Core anymore. The second you diverge from class building practices, you're getting into dangerous territory. This is because not only do we need the class to be mechanically balanced and thematically correct, we need to make the class able to be played. Accessable. There's no reason for the player to be a math major just to have his character swing a sword and cast a spell and be balanced. The question is, how does one accomplish it? You say you lose 5 spell levels, to cast as a level 15 Wizard at level 20. That's fine, except you're level 20. You don't actually lose any levels, you just stagger your appearant level. This would be better served as actual staggered progression. Somewhere in your spell progression, there are 5 levels where nothing changes. However, your DC is 20 now - not what you had in mind! What this means is you've done it the most balanced way you could - but it's complicated, and no other design in the game follows that procedure. Is there another way? You don't want to "dual" class, (3rd Multiclassing isn't Dual classing either, because the character can utilize all class abilities all the time and can do so regardless or "Primary Stat" a concept which doesn't actually exist.) so taking 5 levels off just to level Fighter is out of the question. But what happens if you do? Fighter5/Wizard15 BaB: +12/+7/+2 Fort/Ref/Will: +9/+6/+9 Hit Die: 5d10+15d4 (Average 80) Spell Caster: Level 15 4/4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1 Bonus Feats: 3 Fighter, 3 Wizard Special: Access to Weapon Specialization, Heavy, Medium, and Light Armor, All Simple, All Martial Weapons, Sheilds, Summon Familiar, Scribe Scroll, Access to Spell Mastery. Compare this to your class. It's not perfect, but surprisingly close, actually. Compare an imaginary class. Level20 BaB: +15/+10/+5 Fort/ref/Will: +12/+6/+12 Hit Die: 20d8 (Average 80) Spell Caster: Level 20 6/5/5/5/5/5/4 Bonus Feats: 6 Fighter or Wizard Special: Medium and Light Armor, All Simple Weapons, 3 Martial Weapons (One bow, 2 melee?), Summon Familiar, Scribe Scroll Similar to a Bard. I'm not suggesting it as a solution to your multi-classing woes, just something I'd consider pretty balanced from a gish perspective. It looks ok compared to the Fighter5/Wizard15. Probably a little stronger, but no access to level 8 spells, which is a biggy considering magical power is a tad exponential. Hit points are the same too, surprisingly. What about Prestige Classes? Let's try Eldrich Knight. It was designed with the Gish in mind, but does it match up? Now, to get into it, we need level 3 spells, which means level 5 Wizard, and 1 Fighter. Fighter1/Wizard5/Eldrich Knight10/Fighter2/Wizard2 which is really Fighter3/Wizard7/Eldrich Knight10 so.... BaB: +16/+11/+6 Fort/Ref/Will: +12/+6/+9 Hit Die: 3d10+7d4+10d6 (Average 59) Spell Caster: Level 16 4/4/4/4/4/4/3/3/2 Bonus Feats: 2 Fighter / 1 Wizard Special: Summon Familiar, Scribe Scroll, All Simple, All Martial Weapons, Light, Medium, and Heavy Armor, Sheilds Of course, we're doing PrC's now, so those later Wizard levels might be able to be turned into Archmage levels, and that's good. Of course, since we're multiclassing, go ahead and consider fewer Fighter levels at the high end for a higher magic curve, or more Fighter for a higher Feat and BaB curve. All in all, your mixture is similar to most of these, which tells me that the system available to us is not as smooth as a universal averaging of classes but provides a general power balance throughout your level progression that is pretty even with the other classes. There is some give in Save, BaB, HP, and Spell Progression, but all in all... it makes me question the need. Especially since this is no more confusing the creating a slightly complex and totally unprecedented set of new progressions. I believe that this commentary is more along the lines of what you were initially looking for. This is designed to pass judgement on you or your creation, which I honestly think is a noble endeavor as a player, a DM, and a designer hopeful. However, I wonder if the smooth average progression is enough to warrent a new class and an unusual class ability design. (EDIT: Of all those, though, I think the one I'd go with is the Fighter5/Wizard15. Hm. Not what I expected.)
Arterion 05-31-05, 07:45 PM	Hey! Someone understands! Yay. Okay, let me use numbers. 1) Taking the better of the two options of the effective levels seems like a good idea. I'm going to consider this more. The only downside I see right off is that you then have a variably hit die and skill point number at each level. While that's not necessarily bad, I did try and stick with the basic 3.5 paradigms for classes, just deviating on progressions. 2) The Fighter 5/Wizard 15 does turn out, at level 20, to be very similar. However, I was trying to avoid some problems it would create. For example, it's not a smooth progression as you level up. The early levels are rough. That's something I wanted to smooth out. Second, in the case of the Fighter/Wizard, it's very comprable. But in the case of a very class-feature-rich class, it would not be so. What about a Druid/Wizard? My class would give you effectively 15 levels in each by 20. Now, granted, Mystic Theurge would make you a better spellcaster of each sort, but my class would give you the features of each class. While not all of them are necessarily useful, I think a Druid/Wizard, though having less powerful spells, would be a lot more flavorful as a character than your druid/wizard/MT combo. 3) The Ultimate Adventurer class is really neat, and I like it! Unfortunately, it compounds the problem of being underpowered at lower levels. The main difference is that his class figures everything out at the beginning, and comforms to the 3.5 progression paradigm, and mine ignores them and has you take the better of the classes as you progress. Also, his class puts you at 13/13 or 9/9/9 which might be a little on the weak side for casting classes, especially considering the hybrid caster PrC's can get you to 17/17 in terms of spellcasting abilitity. Additionally, Neither the Cleric nor the Wizard gets any really good class features as they progress. 4) My class does turn to be more powerful than a straight core class progression, but most people use PrCs to get a more powerful character, and I don't think my class is more powerful than an optimized build using PrCs.
Thanatos02 05-31-05, 11:47 PM	I'm not sure, exactly, that I would use Mystic Theurge for the prospective Druid/Wizard. Unlike Fighter/Wizard, which is a pretty straightfoward combination, what you want out of Druid/Wizard is more complicated. When you multiclass Fighter/Wizard, do you do it for the combat feats or the higher BaB, ability to use a weapon, and moderate HP total? Probably the latter package - the Feats arn't any good without the BaB and front-line-ish HP. They're good, but they're icing on the cake. With Druid/Wizard, are you multiclassing for the shapechange, the woodland abilities, or the spellcasting? You're probably not doing it for the Avg. d6 Hit Die or the Medium/Poor BaB average, or the skill points, so it's probably one of the first three. The thing is, it's not really fair to expect them all. Unlike the Fighter/Wizard, where it really is fair to expect an average Medium progression to your combat abilities shored up with Magic, the ability to shapechange, cast both Druid and Wizard spells pretty well, Wizard feats, and woodland abilities is a bit much. Sure, it's not full, but it's still very hefty. Especially since shapechanging is one of the most powerful abilities in the game. I'll have to do the math, but I'll go back and compare Druid/Wizard multiclasses along with Druid/Wizard/PrC's and see what the end result is. But I'm pretty sure that it's not unfair to expect you to focus on one aspect of the Druid for your multiclass - expecially since Druid/Wizard with Shapechanging isn't a combination I remember being allowed in 2nd Ed.
Arterion 06-01-05, 12:57 AM	Most people build a Druid/Wizard using the Arcane Hierophant from RoW. It's really, really good. Probably better than a Druid/Wizard with my system. The difference is, again, that my system is a smooth progression from level 1. Compare the two and tell me what you think.
Tenzhi 06-01-05, 05:08 AM	(3rd Multiclassing isn't Dual classing either, because the character can utilize all class abilities all the time and can do so regardless or "Primary Stat" a concept which doesn't actually exist.) The end result is pretty much the same, however. In the end you advance in two classes seperately and can use all of the class' abilities. You can even eventually acquire over three classes in either system using this technique ("Dual Class" was really a misnomer in 2nd Ed). @Arterion: What you've done looks pretty good to me as far as the standard 3E XP progression goes - but personally, I find it easier to use the Level-Independent XP variant in UA along with normal Gestalt rules with the added clause that Gestalts have to gain XP for each class in order to gain a level. But I definitely sympathize with your wish for better multi-class rules.
Arterion 06-01-05, 09:32 AM	The end result is pretty much the same, however. In the end you advance in two classes seperately and can use all of the class' abilities. You can even eventually acquire over three classes in either system using this technique ("Dual Class" was really a misnomer in 2nd Ed). @Arterion: What you've done looks pretty good to me as far as the standard 3E XP progression goes - but personally, I find it easier to use the Level-Independent XP variant in UA along with normal Gestalt rules with the added clause that Gestalts have to gain XP for each class in order to gain a level. But I definitely sympathize with your wish for better multi-class rules. I was looking for a way around changing XP rules. Even if we do, though, splitting 20th level XP doesn't work out to the right levels in each class. You end up with either an 18/18 character or a 16/16/16, which is WAY too powerful compared to a normal character (though it's more balanced than normal gestalt, which gives it to you for free.) Though I do prefer the level independant XP rewards. And I do think 2e named multi- and dual-classing backwards. Kinda like I.S.P. and P.P.E. in Rifts.
Tenzhi 06-02-05, 01:31 AM	You end up with either an 18/18 character or a 16/16/16, which is WAY too powerful compared to a normal character (though it's more balanced than normal gestalt, which gives it to you for free.) Two 18th level characters are better than a gestalt 18/18 yet the gestalt 18/18 had to gain the same XP as the two 18th level characters (and three 16th level characters are even more powerful than a 16/16/16 Gestalt). And as I recall two 18th level characters also provide an equal challenge as a 20th level character (and again the 18/18 gestalt isn't as powerful as two 18th level characters). And then there's the fact that in most of the discussions about Gestalts and LA, +2 is the number most often put forward (though it is agreed that LA is a roughshod way of trying to balance Gestalts with regular classes for scaling reasons). And of course if you go into Epic the gestalts will just keep falling further and further behind. 17/17 is really a bit too weak, as would definitely be 15/15/15 (or 14/14/14 if that's what you're aiming for). A 16/16/16 character has a great deal of versatility, but in the end it's just a 16th level character and will be hard-pressed to keep up with a 20th level party.
Arterion 06-02-05, 02:01 AM	I think 15/15 or 11/11/11 is fairly well balanced with a non-gestalt character. Any higher and it would be silly not to use the gestalt rules. 18/18 leaves you no reason no to pick two classes. As for CR, you have to realize a CR is considered versus a party of 4 people. That is to say, an 18th level creature is going to be approximately a 10% resource hit for 4 18th level characters, and two 18th level creatures would be a 10% resource hit for 4 20th level characters.
Tenzhi 06-02-05, 02:16 AM	I think 15/15 or 11/11/11 is fairly well balanced with a non-gestalt character. Any higher and it would be silly not to use the gestalt rules. 18/18 leaves you no reason no to pick two classes. I think 15/15 is a bit on the weak side - the minimum necessity being 17/17 in my eyes. 11/11/11 runs into exactly the same problem as a level 10/10 character does now in terms of relative strength not being well-enough compensated by versatility. As for CR, you have to realize a CR is considered versus a party of 4 people. That is to say, an 18th level creature is going to be approximately a 10% resource hit for 4 18th level characters, and two 18th level creatures would be a 10% resource hit for 4 20th level characters. And an 18th level character is a 10% resource hit for four 18th level characters. And a 20th level character (or two 18ths) is a 10% resource hit for four 20th level characters. An 18/18 gestalt in this equation will be a 10% resource hit for four 18th level characters because in the end it can only function as an 18th level character in an encounter - the only reason it's treated as being more than that PC wise is due to versatility and perhaps a few more resources to draw on in the long haul. In an individual encounter, however, it is weaker than a 20th level character.
Arterion 06-02-05, 04:29 AM	Sacrificing three levels for 17 levels is just not enough. 15/15 and 11/11/11 are the most you can give without making it too powerful. A 10/10 is much, much weaker than an 11/11/11, no matter how you look at it. Even comparing them is silly.
Tenzhi 06-02-05, 04:49 AM	Sacrificing three levels for 17 levels is just not enough. 15/15 and 11/11/11 are the most you can give without making it too powerful. A 10/10 is much, much weaker than an 11/11/11, no matter how you look at it. Even comparing them is silly. A 10/10 is exactly one level weaker than an 11/11/11 in respects to most powers. And hence the 11/11/11 lags behind a 20th level character in performance in nearly exactly the same ways that people complain about with standard multiclassed characters. Its BAB will max out at +11 which assures that any fighter classes it has are a waste, its spellcasting is that of an 11th level caster making its spells useless for hanging out with 20th level characters. It's a character doomed to less than mediocrity. A 16/16/16 is still weak compared to a 20th level character, but at least it has a small chance to keep up encounter by encounter.
Arterion 06-02-05, 05:00 AM	An 11th level Fighter has SIX bonus feats. That's substantial. The lower BAB and saves are the trade-offs. There has to be some downside to having all the class features of three classes, up to level 11. A Fighter/Wizard/Rogue would have an insane number of skills, feats, and class ability. He wouldn't be particularly good in any one area, but his versatility beats any straight 20. And all in all, he'd be roughly equal to a Wizard/Fighter/Rogue/Arcane Trickster/Eldritch Knight combo. Maybe slightly lower BAB, but many more feats, skills, and class features. Realize that trying to learn three different professions my default makes you a very talanted generalist, but an exceedinly poor specialist. Any 3-way multiclass IS going to be mediocre at everything -- much like a Bard would be. Compare a Fighter/Wizard/Rogue to a bard. His bab is a bit lower, but all in all, the F/W/R comes out ahead. More spells and slots, more feats, and more theif skills. You can't have everything, which is exactly what 16/16/16 would give you.
Tenzhi 06-02-05, 05:23 AM	An 11th level Fighter has SIX bonus feats. That's substantial. The lower BAB and saves are the trade-offs. There has to be some downside to having all the class features of three classes, up to level 11. Six fighter bonus feats isn't substantial for a character who cannot get involved in combat. Yes, there has to be some down side, but here the downside far outweighs the bonus. A Fighter/Wizard/Rogue would have an insane number of skills, feats, and class ability. He wouldn't be particularly good in any one area, but his versatility beats any straight 20. His versatility would be meaningless as everything he would face would resist his spells and be unassailable in combat. A multiclass character must remain competitive with a single class character. You can't have everything, which is exactly what 16/16/16 would give you. 20% less than a 20 fighter, 20% less than a 20 caster, and following the regular gestalt rules 20% less on HP/HD and 20% less on skills - not to mention an ability point and a feat behind. That's a significant amount less than "everything." And since you'll be travelling with a level 20 party you'll be facing challenges for 20th level characters even though round by round you only act as a 16th level character. That is also significantly less than "everything."
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-02-05, 08:48 AM	I'm not entirely sure how relevant this bit of information is going to be, but I'll post it anyway. Gestalt characters, if I remember correctly, have an ECL of 1.5 times their gestalt level, IE, a 15th-level gestalt character is ECL 15. This may be horribly wrong, but bear with me. Solution: multiply the experience tables by 1.5. You now need 1,500 exp to reach level 2, and 4,500 exp to reach level 3, etc. Just a thought.
lostone 06-02-05, 10:09 AM	Gestalt characters, if I remember correctly, have an ECL of 1.5 times their gestalt level, IE, a 15th-level gestalt character is ECL 15. This may be horribly wrong, but bear with me.I don't suppose you remember where you saw that at? I don't remember ever seeing that.
Thanatos02 06-02-05, 10:32 AM	Looking at class progressions, at something akin to 16/16/16, the only reasons not to be multclassed is BaB, Spell Progressions and DC, and, possibly, certain special abilities that scale by level. Druids, Bards, and Monks come to mind. Also, if I could, a couple of thoughts. First, after all is said and done, how would we apply it to Prestige Classes? Certain PrC's have nothing to do with the divergence of multiple classes and everything to do with special niches of simply flavor. An X/X/Wizard would only have a base spell DC of 11+Spell Level+Int. As Tenzhi stated, this isn't enough to force someone to fail a save very often at 20th level, but I would propose that a player who has triple-multiclassed is requiring his Wizard spells to do things other then Fireball people. If the player could force a 16+Spell+Level or 20, then he might be too powerful. Practiced Spellcaster might be just what the doctor ordered though. How that would work depends on how the level structure works. Level 16 or 15 base save seems almost like a Medium BaB progression. 11/10 is low. A Wizard doesn't expect to hit people with his staff at level 20, but spells are more versitile then attacks. Not all spells get saves. Some utility spells are still very much useful. A 11/10 Spell caster level isn't quite as weak as a +10 BaB, but it's worth considering. Is this the price of skills and of being able to swing a sword too? (How able is he at doing the latter - is triple multiclassing reaching the point of diminishing returns unless it's multiclassed into, say, Ranger or Paladin?) One last consideration - assumed level is diminished, does this diminish the total capacity for each class? Would a Ranger/Fighter still cap out at, say, +15/+9/+4 or whatever? I still have reservations about 2nd Ed - style multiclassing because I wonder if, for all the complexity and good intentions, that the system isn't made for it. I don't have the MotW though, so I can't compare Druid/Wizard with the PrC. However, any class with a scaling level progression that effects its class skills can be used to measure the success of strict multiclassing, so I might go in that direction.
Arterion 06-02-05, 10:45 AM	Tenzhi, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Allow me to explain: Fighter/Wizard/Rogue 8th level magic, +16 BAB, 10 Fighter bonus feats, 4 Wizard bonus feats, and 16 levels of rogue abilities far, far too much. Heck, that's even more powerful than standard gestalt rules, considering you have a third class that's only VERY SLIGHTLY less powerful than a 20th level character. Yes, an 11/11/11 is going to have a lower BAB than anyone else. That's part of the trade off. But you gain a TON of other abilities that are useful both in and out of combat. Not to mention you can buff youself, AND have improved exasion as well as uncanny dodge. The total effectiveness of an 11/11/11 in combat could be less than that of a 20 Fighter, but realize, his versatility out of combat is immense. Even in combat, I contend that an 11/11/11 could hold his own, provided he had time to cast a few spells beforehand. Greater Invisibility and he's doing his normal damage +6d6 every round from his sneak attack. If you were to have a 16/16/16 vs. a 20 Fighter, there's no question the 16/16/16 would win. He's only got 20% less fighter prowess, yes, but he's got 16 levels of rogue and wizard abilites, too. Ultimately you're saying this: 4 Levels of Fighter -4 Less BAB -2 Less Bonus Feats -2 Less Fort save -d10 to d7 hit die. (30% less average hit points rolling, 25% less using half+1) IS EQUAL TO 16 Levels of Wizard -8th level spells -Scribe Scroll and 3 Bonus Feats -Familiar -4 Will Save -Additional Class Skills PLUS 16 Levels of Rogue -Sneak Attack +6d6 -Increase to 8+Int skill points (6+Int skill points more than before) -Evasion, Improved Evasion -Three Rogue Special Abilities -Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge -Trap Sense +5 -Additional Class Skills -4 Reflex Save All I can say is -- HECK YES. SIGN ME UP FOR THAT TRADE! I will trade 4 BAB and 2 Fort and 2 Bonus Feats and 25% Hit Points for all that any day!! Who in their right mind wouldn't? No, sir, as you can see, 16/16/16 is far far far FAR too powerful to even consider allowing -- either in a normal game OR gestalt.
Arterion 06-02-05, 11:00 AM	Looking at class progressions, at something akin to 16/16/16, the only reasons not to be multclassed is BaB, Spell Progressions and DC, and, possibly, certain special abilities that scale by level. Druids, Bards, and Monks come to mind. Also, if I could, a couple of thoughts. First, after all is said and done, how would we apply it to Prestige Classes? Certain PrC's have nothing to do with the divergence of multiple classes and everything to do with special niches of simply flavor. I think the "niche" PrC's would be fine to sub for a level of a core class in the progression. Any sort of hybrid PrC wouldn't be allowed. I think that's running standard with any sort of Gestalt. An X/X/Wizard would only have a base spell DC of 11+Spell Level+Int. As Tenzhi stated, this isn't enough to force someone to fail a save very often at 20th level, but I would propose that a player who has triple-multiclassed is requiring his Wizard spells to do things other then Fireball people. If the player could force a 16+Spell+Level or 20, then he might be too powerful. I'm not sure how level factors into to save DC. If anything, extra feats will help with that more than anything. Practiced Spellcaster might be just what the doctor ordered though. How that would work depends on how the level structure works. I'd highly reccomend that feat for anyone taking any sort of significant multiclass, be it my gestalt, or normal multiclassing. Though it might be good, with my class, to set the caster level to the real levels, not the effective levels. That's how a bard it setup, and I don't see the difference between an 11/11/11 with one being Wizard having a Caster Level of 20. He has 6th level spells, just like the Bard. That might make it a little easier. Level 16 or 15 base save seems almost like a Medium BaB progression. 11/10 is low. A Wizard doesn't expect to hit people with his staff at level 20, but spells are more versitile then attacks. Not all spells get saves. Some utility spells are still very much useful. A 11/10 Spell caster level isn't quite as weak as a +10 BaB, but it's worth considering. Is this the price of skills and of being able to swing a sword too? (How able is he at doing the latter - is triple multiclassing reaching the point of diminishing returns unless it's multiclassed into, say, Ranger or Paladin?) One last consideration - assumed level is diminished, does this diminish the total capacity for each class? Would a Ranger/Fighter still cap out at, say, +15/+9/+4 or whatever? Admittedly, a 3 way multiclass maxing your BAB at 11 is rather low. But on the other hand, you're gaining an immensly versatile base of "everything else." In a 3-way multiclass, you're going to almost be assured one of them will be a good BAB class, so it's almost always going to be +11. Exception might be the Cleric/Rogue/Wizard, but he's not meant to see much combat. You're basically trading "hard power" like BAB and saves for "soft power" like class features, spellcasting and so on. You do, as a player, have to play the game a little smarter to turn the versatility into power. I still have reservations about 2nd Ed - style multiclassing because I wonder if, for all the complexity and good intentions, that the system isn't made for it. I don't have the MotW though, so I can't compare Druid/Wizard with the PrC. However, any class with a scaling level progression that effects its class skills can be used to measure the success of strict multiclassing, so I might go in that direction. Well, it didn't work well in 2e, but it sure was fun. If we can make it work as least as well in 3e, I'm sure it'll be great. Something I haven't even went into yet is making new feats. I could see making a feat like Practiced Spellcaster to raise your BAB by one, not to exceed what your best BAB progression class could have if your effective levels in that class were equal to your real level. Considering you have a whopping SIX fighter bonus feats by 11th level, spending them all on BAB would get you up to +17, which is really good for any 20th level character. A similar feat could be designed for saves, too.
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 02:24 AM	Ultimately you're saying this: 4 Levels of Fighter -4 Less BAB -2 Less Bonus Feats -2 Less Fort save -d10 to d7 hit die. (30% less average hit points rolling, 25% less using half+1) IS EQUAL TO 16 Levels of Wizard -8th level spells -Scribe Scroll and 3 Bonus Feats -Familiar -4 Will Save -Additional Class Skills PLUS 16 Levels of Rogue -Sneak Attack +6d6 -Increase to 8+Int skill points (6+Int skill points more than before) -Evasion, Improved Evasion -Three Rogue Special Abilities -Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge -Trap Sense +5 -Additional Class Skills -4 Reflex Save And you're saying that three 11th level characters glued together with Sovereign Glue, having 1/3 the hit points and only one action split among them are equal to a 20th level character, when in reality they're closer to a 14th level character.
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 02:29 AM	In a 3-way multiclass, you're going to almost be assured one of them will be a good BAB class, so it's almost always going to be +11. Which makes it nearly pointless to take a Good BAB in a 3-way, as you end up with Wizard +1 in BAB at the cost of 9 levels of spellcasting.
Arterion 06-03-05, 02:29 AM	And you're saying that three 11th level characters glued together with Sovereign Glue, having 1/3 the hit points and only one action split among them are equal to a 20th level character, when in reality they're closer to a 14th level character. You're failing to prove that. You're just saying it. If you compare what you're trading for what you're getting, you'll see that it's an even trade. With 11/11/11 you get a very general character, much like a Bard. That's how it's supposed to be.
Arterion 06-03-05, 02:30 AM	Which makes it nearly pointless to take a Good BAB in a 3-way, as you end up with Wizard +1 in BAB at the cost of 9 levels of spellcasting. I'm not following you...?
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 02:38 AM	You're failing to prove that. We all know (or at least should know) what an 11/11/11 character is capable of - exactly what do I need to prove? It is essentially three 11th level characters of different classes that only get one action per round and have 1/3 the hit points (and one set of equipment among them, ta' boot). And they further have to contend with the fact that some of their class abilities might be hampered by others. This is what the gestalt is - I don't need to prove that anymore than I need to prove that a 20th level fighter has a BAB of +20. And do I really need to prove that three 11th level characters under such restrictions aren't nearly the equal of a 20th level character? Should I follow that up by proving that a Great Wyrm Red Dragon is more powerful than your basic kobold?
Arterion 06-03-05, 02:42 AM	But you're not. You're saying "Oh, it's too weak" without explaining how. I contend that a Fighter/Wizard/Rogue 11/11/11 is about on the same power level as a Bard 20. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 02:46 AM	I'm not following you...? What's the point of taking a good BAB class in a 3-way combo? You get no appreciable benefit from it and a great deal of detriment. Indeed, the 3-way itself becomes pointless as weak as you have it. Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, and Monk aren't really viable in a 3-way gestalt as they largely rely on combat which isn't very feasible for such a character. Wizard, Sorceror, and Cleric are only marginally viable if you take them all three together as a means of increasing your spellcasting pool, but missing 9 caster levels will really hurt you more in the long run than it's really worth.
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 02:49 AM	But you're not. You're saying "Oh, it's too weak" without explaining how. I explained how: three 11th level characters aren't the equal of a 20th. A 11/11/11 gestalt is weaker than three 11th level characters. It can't be explained much plainer than that.
Kintara 06-03-05, 03:19 AM	Well, you're getting a progressively poorer and poorer BAB and save progression. A level 11/11/11 Fighter/Wizard/Rogue would get 7/7/7 for saves and a BAB +11, right? That's certainly a lot poorer than the Bard's 6/12/12 saves and BAB +15. The Bard is definitely a better spellcaster, with nine more caster levels and more higher levels spells. A Wizard would get Scribe Scroll, and two bonus feats. Not much. Oh, and a familiar. Wizards get a better selection, but nine caster levels, and a bunch of extra slots? The +4 BAB is pretty nice, but let's see what the Fighter feats can do. What would they do? I'm not sure what I'd take. Do you take Rogue feats, or Wizard feats? [Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack], [Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot], [Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Critical], [Combat Expertise]? They're useful, but kind of diffuse, or just make up for what's lost. Please feel free to show me what to take here to give some focus. The Evasion, Sneak Attack +6d6, and Special Ability (Skill Mastery...?) would be nifty. Evasion wouldn't work quite as often as it would with the Rogue, as the multiclass has a mediocre base save, but a good Dex will help. A Bard has an extra +5 Reflex, and the same goes for Will. The Sneak Attack is nice, and harder to quantify. I'm not sure if it would be worth full Bardic Music. Someone whose played a Bard can appreciate the power of Bardic Music. Skills would be about the same, after you consider that the Wizard would have a higher Int. I'd say the Bard is better because of the superior spellcasting abilities, though if you didn't have a trapfinder, you'd probably appreciate having the multiclassed dude.
Arterion 06-03-05, 05:01 AM	I explained how: three 11th level characters aren't the equal of a 20th. A 11/11/11 gestalt is weaker than three 11th level characters. It can't be explained much plainer than that. There again. You're just saying it. You're not explaining it. Stating something is not an explaination.
Arterion 06-03-05, 05:07 AM	What's the point of taking a good BAB class in a 3-way combo? You get no appreciable benefit from it and a great deal of detriment. Indeed, the 3-way itself becomes pointless as weak as you have it. Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, and Monk aren't really viable in a 3-way gestalt as they largely rely on combat which isn't very feasible for such a character. Wizard, Sorceror, and Cleric are only marginally viable if you take them all three together as a means of increasing your spellcasting pool, but missing 9 caster levels will really hurt you more in the long run than it's really worth. I'm sorry if you can't see how six fighter feats translated into "appreciable benefit." The three way isn't weak at all. Again, compare it to the Bard. You have explained how it's weak. It's not as good as a specialist class in any way. It would be insane to give them all the casting power of caster, all the fighting ability of a warrior, and all the rogue abilities to boot. If you're going to play like that, why even have classes? Why not just let you players tell you what happens? Yes, 9 casters levels is alot. It's two levels of spells. But you'd be getting six fighter feats and 11 levels of rogue abilities to compensate for that, and taking PRacticed Spellcasters gives you a CL of 15, which, at 20, isn't bad at all. Any combat class would be a great addition to a three way like this. You keep ignoring the fact that you've got 11 levels of wizard AND rogue to make you better in combat. I don't know how much better it can get than Greater Invisibility and a 6d6 sneak attack.
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 05:10 AM	There again. You're just saying it. You're not explaining it. Stating something is not an explaination. I can also state that a 20th level Fighter has a BAB of +20. Would you need further explanation of such a statement?
HailSpork 06-03-05, 05:21 AM	A 15/15 rogue/wizard will have the same BAB, 2 more spell levels, and 2d6 more sneak attack than an 11/11/11 rogue/wizard/fighter. If you're gestalting the saves, you'd end up with 5/9/9 compared to 7/7/7. The rogue wizard would also lose 6 fighter feats but gain 1 wizard feat and 1 rogue ability or extra feat. What's better than greater invisibility and 6d6 sneak attack? Quickened greater invisibility and 8d6 sneak attack. Btw, with your d7, how would you do rounding? Would you round up (making it almost impossible to roll a 1) or round down (making it almost impossible to roll a 7)? Or, would you be sticking to random number generators?
Kintara 06-03-05, 05:27 AM	Just roll a d8, and ignore the 8s. That works.
Arterion 06-03-05, 05:27 AM	Well, you're getting a progressively poorer and poorer BAB and save progression. A level 11/11/11 Fighter/Wizard/Rogue would get 7/7/7 for saves and a BAB +11, right? That's certainly a lot poorer than the Bard's 6/12/12 saves and BAB +15. The Bard is definitely a better spellcaster, with nine more caster levels and more higher levels spells. A Wizard would get Scribe Scroll, and two bonus feats. Not much. Oh, and a familiar. Wizards get a better selection, but nine caster levels, and a bunch of extra slots? An 11th level wizard is a MUCH better spellcaster than a 20th level Bard. They both have 6th level spells, but the Wizard has access to many many more spells, and more useful spells, plus, the -wizard- (not Bard) has a larger number of slots. Coupling that with a familiar (polymorph anyone?) and three feats -- the Wizard is clearly a better caster in this instance. Again, Practiced Spellcaster would help, too. I also mentioned that it might make sense to have the caster level be 20 instead of 11. Given that the Bard is only a secondary caster (as would be an 11/11/11), but still gets full caster level, we may just go ahead and make a three way multiclass count all it's levels (not just its effective levels) toward caster level. If we do that, the Wizard 11 (CL effective 20) is clearly a superior caster to the Bard. The +4 BAB is pretty nice, but let's see what the Fighter feats can do. What would they do? I'm not sure what I'd take. Do you take Rogue feats, or Wizard feats? [Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack], [Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot], [Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Critical], [Combat Expertise]? They're useful, but kind of diffuse, or just make up for what's lost. Please feel free to show me what to take here to give some focus. You just said it. Those six feats pretty much make up for a lower BAB. The Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, alone are good. Not to mention the fact that you can actually get Weapon Specilaization, because you have levels of Fighter. That right there gives you +2 to more to hit and damage. Unlike the Bard, you can use any martial weapon you want, and Martial Weapons are clearly better than the bard's selection. While it's not quite the same as the Bard's combat prowess, it's not bad. I think the average damage would be on par with the bard. You might be hitting slightly less, but you have more feats to make the attacks mean more, and you also have spells and sneak attacks to help. The Evasion, Sneak Attack +6d6, and Special Ability (Skill Mastery...?) would be nifty. Evasion wouldn't work quite as often as it would with the Rogue, as the multiclass has a mediocre base save, but a good Dex will help. A Bard has an extra +5 Reflex, and the same goes for Will. The Sneak Attack is nice, and harder to quantify. I'm not sure if it would be worth full Bardic Music. Someone whose played a Bard can appreciate the power of Bardic Music. Skills would be about the same, after you consider that the Wizard would have a higher Int. I'd say the Bard is better because of the superior spellcasting abilities, though if you didn't have a trapfinder, you'd probably appreciate having the multiclassed dude. I already explained that the bard wasn't a better caster. Even with a higher CL -- that only affects numeric variables, more importantly damage, and given that the Bard doesn't have many damage spells anyway, it works out. The 11 Wizard has more slots than the bard, certainly, and overall, better spells. The only real advantage the Bard might have in casting is a higher CL, which, I already agreed it might be a good idea to change the 11/11/11 to have a CL of 20. Bardic Music is really good, as it Bardic Lore. What you're getting instead of Bardic music/lore are all the rogue abilities. Evasion, Imp. Evation, Uncanny Dodge, Imp. Uncanny Dodge, a special abilitiy, and a sneak attack 6d6. Overall, not a bad trade for Bardic Music. I still stand by the fact that an 11/11/11 Ftr/Wiz/Rog is on par with a 20 Bard -- the core class it most emulates. It's just a little different. Once again, I point out that developing a few feats, some that raise BAB and saves, (much like Practices Spellcaster raises CL) would be a good idea. We could make them qualify as bonus feats where applicable. I think with those additions, as well as making caster level equal to actual level (not effective leve), it would make the three way multiclass at 11/11/11 be rather effective.
Arterion 06-03-05, 05:30 AM	I can also state that a 20th level Fighter has a BAB of +20. Would you need further explanation of such a statement? No, because that's a rule of the game. You're trying to make abstract claims of balance and just say them, an expect them to be law. You have to put arguments behind such statements. I mean, maybe you are, but I'm not the type of perons who believes something is true just because it's been said enough times.
Kintara 06-03-05, 05:33 AM	An 11th level wizard is a MUCH better spellcaster than a 20th level Bard. They both have 6th level spells, but the Wizard has access to many many more spells, and more useful spells, plus, the -wizard- (not Bard) has a larger number of slots. Coupling that with a familiar (polymorph anyone?) and three feats -- the Wizard is clearly a better caster in this instance. Again, Practiced Spellcaster would help, too. I also mentioned that it might make sense to have the caster level be 20 instead of 11. Given that the Bard is only a secondary caster (as would be an 11/11/11), but still gets full caster level, we may just go ahead and make a three way multiclass count all it's levels (not just its effective levels) toward caster level. If we do that, the Wizard 11 (CL effective 20) is clearly a superior caster to the Bard.More slots? A Bard 20 gets 4/4/4/4/4/4/4. A Wizard 11 gets 4/4/4/4/3/2/1.
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 05:35 AM	I'm sorry if you can't see how six fighter feats translated into "appreciable benefit." The same way I can't see how shoes are an appreciable benefit for something without feet. Six fighter feats would have a questionable benefit if freely given to a 20th level wizard - and with the BAB that's essentially what's going on. It would be insane to give them all the casting power of caster, all the fighting ability of a warrior, and all the rogue abilities to boot. That would be a 20/20/20 which no one is advocating. Yes, 9 casters levels is alot. It's two levels of spells. But you'd be getting six fighter feats and 11 levels of rogue abilities to compensate for that, and taking PRacticed Spellcasters gives you a CL of 15, which, at 20, isn't bad at all. It's three levels of spells, actually. And aside from that handicap, the DC for your saves/dispels is going to make many spells pointless. The rogue levels grant a few nice benefits, but they won't make up for the 9 level difference in power between this character and a regular 20th level character. I don't know how much better it can get than Greater Invisibility and a 6d6 sneak attack. From the view of the opposition - an appropriate AC for 20th level encounters or easily-acquired immunity to critical hits is much better. There's a reason a wizard doesn't seriously bother with combat at that level.
Arterion 06-03-05, 05:38 AM	More slots? A Bard 20 gets 4/4/4/4/4/4/4. A Wizard 11 gets 4/4/4/4/3/2/1. Sorry, my mistake. I read the chart wrong. For some reason I thought the bard had 3/3/3/3/3/3/3.
Kintara 06-03-05, 05:40 AM	Sorry, my mistake. I read the chart wrong. For some reason I thought the bard had 3/3/3/3/3/3/3.Oh, I see. Anyway, I think that if you give the multiclass a full caster level, that would make a significant difference. Edit: Another minor point, the Bard's proficiency selection is pretty nice, actually. It really has most of what you would need. Plus, it has the Whip, which would surprise you with its tactical usefulness. Mostly, I mention this as just something noteworthy.
Arterion 06-03-05, 05:45 AM	The same way I can't see how shoes are an appreciable benefit for something without feet. Six fighter feats would have a questionable benefit if freely given to a 20th level wizard - and with the BAB that's essentially what's going on. There you go again. Just making claims, with no argument. It's three levels of spells, actually. And aside from that handicap, the DC for your saves/dispels is going to make many spells pointless. The formula for spells saves is: 10 + Spell level + Ability modifier Caster level is irrelevant. The rogue levels grant a few nice benefits, but they won't make up for the 9 level difference in power between this character and a regular 20th level character. Ah, but you see, an 11/11/11 doesn't have a 9 level power difference versus a 20. An 11 does, but not an 11/11/11. From the view of the opposition - an appropriate AC for 20th level encounters or easily-acquired immunity to critical hits is much better. There's a reason a wizard doesn't seriously bother with combat at that level. That's really beside the point. We're compating the character's effectiveness to that of the Bard, which is the closest class. I'll compare to any other class if you like. You have looked at the CR charts and made some judgements based on that. Unfortunately, CR only takes into account combat, and even then, it's only a rough guideline. If you look at the character's total effectiveness in a game, an 11/11/11 F/W/R is going to be about that of any other 20th level character. You have to realize you're not supposed to be really good at any one thing, but passable at everything. I think you just don't like the concept, so you're attacking it. The character would be quite playable and quite balanced. I'm sorry if multiclassing like this isn't your style.
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 05:49 AM	No, because that's a rule of the game. Exactly. And I've already made mention of one of the rules in this very thread that point to why three 11th level characters are not the equal of a 20th level character. Not that I should have to, as it's pretty much a given in said rules. If they are equal, they should provide an equal challenge. Quick: what's the CR of three 11th level characters? How about one 20th level character? Which one provides the tougher challenge, and did I really have to spell it out for anyone to know the answer who was at all familiar with the rules of the game? Barring that simple answer, you can also run an encounter to test it. But again, anyone who has the least familiarity with the rules can make a safe prediction of the outcome.
Arterion 06-03-05, 05:49 AM	Oh, I see. Anyway, I think that if you give the multiclass a full caster level, that would make a significant difference. Yes. And I think that's the best way to do it. An 11/11/11 is a secondary caster, just like a bard -- and since the bard gets full caster level, I think an 11/11/11 should, too. This also gives the Cleric/Wizard an advantage over the Mystic Theruge. Even though the Mystic Theurge would get 9th level magic, it still only have a 17 CL, and slightly fewer hit points and a slightly lower BAB. The saves for the 15/15 would be slightly lower, BUT you'd have 3 wizard bonus feats, and your familiar and turning ability would be significantly better than the Mystic Theurge. The "class feature" advantage is even more pronounced if you do a Druid/Wizard. (Though the Familiar Companion of the Arcane Hierophant is hard to beat!)
Arterion 06-03-05, 05:52 AM	Exactly. And I've already made mention of one of the rules in this very thread that point to why three 11th level characters are not the equal of a 20th level character. Not that I should have to, as it's pretty much a given in said rules. If they are equal, they should provide an equal challenge. Quick: what's the CR of three 11th level characters? How about one 20th level character? Which one provides the tougher challenge, and did I really have to spell it out for anyone to know the answer who was at all familiar with the rules of the game? Barring that simple answer, you can also run an encounter to test it. But again, anyone who has the least familiarity with the rules can make a safe prediction of the outcome. Once again, CR is only a general guideline AND only measure how something would likely pan out IN COMBAT (and the game is about more than combat.) Furthermore, there is an inherent flaw in using CR with classes. A Cleric 20 and a Fighter 20 both have a CR of 20, but the Cleric is pretty much agreed to be clearly the more powerful of the two. You can't use CR ratings to balance classes. It just doesn't work. CR is assuming that the classes are already balanced, and until we've figured out how to balance the class, the CR stuff shouldn't come into play at all.
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 07:04 AM	There you go again. Just making claims, with no argument. The argument is that six fighter feats are of questionable worth to a character with a wizard's BAB. The formula for spells saves is: 10 + Spell level + Ability modifier Caster level is irrelevant. My mistake. I was thinking of overcoming Spell Resistance. Ah, but you see, an 11/11/11 doesn't have a 9 level power difference versus a 20. An 11 does, but not an 11/11/11. It does have a 9-level power difference - all of its abilities are 9 levels weaker than they would be at 20th level. That's really beside the point. We're compating the character's effectiveness to that of the Bard, which is the closest class. I'll compare to any other class if you like. And it has weaker attack ability and weaker spellcasting ability than the Bard. Unfortunately, CR only takes into account combat, and even then, it's only a rough guideline. Indeed. But it serves to give us a rough idea of how the character will fare in an encounter-by-encounter basis. It may show more versatility outside of combat, but if it can't effectively hang with a 20th level party it's not really balanced. I think you just don't like the concept, so you're attacking it. If you think that then you obviously weren't paying attention. Conceptually, this is the sort of multi-classing that I'm looking for in a game as was evidenced in my first post. Regardless of whether I think you're handling it just right, I think you've got the right idea - as I said right off. Judging from the earlier posts in this thread, I might rather posit that you are so enamoured of your own idea that you're obstinately defensive of it; but more likely we're both just highly opinionated and passionate about it. But who are we to judge one another's character, eh?
Tenzhi 06-03-05, 07:06 AM	CR is assuming that the classes are already balanced, and until we've figured out how to balance the class, the CR stuff shouldn't come into play at all. If you assume that the classes aren't already balanced, then it hardly matters which class any given multiclass is compared to.
Arterion 06-03-05, 07:36 AM	The argument is that six fighter feats are of questionable worth to a character with a wizard's BAB. Questionable worth? They are of equal worth, in that they offer the exact same benefit. Not only that, but unlike a Wizard, an 11/11/11 can take feats that are Fighter-only. And those are the best ones. My mistake. I was thinking of overcoming Spell Resistance. A difference of caster levels is imporant for overcoming SR, but we already proposed a fix that, by using the caster level of 20 instead of 11. It does have a 9-level power difference - all of its abilities are 9 levels weaker than they would be at 20th level. Yes, but there are three times as many. The consummation of all the abilites compensate for the fact that they are individually weaker. Thus, there is no difference in the character's overall effectiveness. And it has weaker attack ability and weaker spellcasting ability than the Bard. Neither of these statements are true. Access to six level of Wizard spells is much more potent that access to six level of Bard spells. The 11th level Wizard may have fewer slots, but I think it's very important to point out that the governing ability score -- Intelligence -- has a powerful synergy in that is also determines skill points each level. Charisma has no useful synergy for a Fighter/Wizard/Rogue. As far as combat ability goes, the 11/11/11 is going to have a lower BAB than the Bard, but more feats to compensate. The Weapon Focus and Specialization feats, combined with other feat, is going to result in roughly equal damage per encounter from a melee bard or a melee Fighter/Wizard/Rogue. For one example, The Two Weapon Fighting series of feats could offer the F/W/R double the normal number of attacks, and more chances to his is going to mean more hits, which is going to mean more total damage. The Bard could have these, too, but not by virtue of class bonus feats, which is the discussion at hand. Furthermore, the F/W/R is going to be able to use more effective weapons, two handed weapons, or even exotic weapons he gains proficency with by means of a bonus feat. As I said, while the BAB of the F/W/R is lower, the extra feats offer him a chance to have extreme flexibility that results in a roughly equal damage per encounter. Indeed. But it serves to give us a rough idea of how the character will fare in an encounter-by-encounter basis. It may show more versatility outside of combat, but if it can't effectively hang with a 20th level party it's not really balanced. You haven't demonstrated how it can't "hang" with a 20th level party. At all. You've merely said it. You can't use the CR system to prove this, because the fact is, an 11/11/11 is a 20th level character, and would have a CR of 20. What you have to prove is that it's weaker overall than most other CR 20 characters. If you think that then you obviously weren't paying attention. Conceptually, this is the sort of multi-classing that I'm looking for in a game as was evidenced in my first post. Regardless of whether I think you're handling it just right, I think you've got the right idea - as I said right off. Judging from the earlier posts in this thread, I might rather posit that you are so enamoured of your own idea that you're obstinately defensive of it; but more likely we're both just highly opinionated and passionate about it. But who are we to judge one another's character, eh? What you want to do it take my idea, which is very well-balanced, and make it more powerful. It's obvious you're looking at multi-classing as a solution for having a more powerful character, not simple another alternative. You haven't don't anything but attack my idea. You have proposed we use 16/16/16, which I have already demonstrated is far too powerful. You can claim 11/11/11 is too weak, but unless you are going to offer us some alternative, and demonstrate how it is not too powerful, then I have to assume 11/11/11 is the best option. I don't really see how it is that weak, especially considering I've already mentioned special feat access that could be used to raise BAB or saves, and I've already mentioned using the real level instead of the effective level for determining caster level.
Arterion 06-03-05, 07:42 AM	If you assume that the classes aren't already balanced, then it hardly matters which class any given multiclass is compared to. "CR is assuming that the classes are already balanced, and until we've figured out how to balance the class, the CR stuff shouldn't come into play at all." I used boldface type to point out your equivocation error in reading my text. You have misunderstood "the class" (referring to the 11/11/11) to mean "all classes." While the core classes may or may not be balanced -- that is a seperate debate entirely -- the CR system assumes that they are, as I clearly said. You cannot introduce a new core class (such as the 11/11/11 class) until you have ensured that it is balanced. Therefore, you cannot refer to the CR system as proof that the 11/11/11 class is unbalanced, as it must be balanced before it is introduced to the CR system.
HailSpork 06-03-05, 12:56 PM	Questionable worth? They are of equal worth, in that they offer the exact same benefit. Not only that, but unlike a Wizard, an 11/11/11 can take feats that are Fighter-only. And those are the best ones. There's only 1 fighter-only feat, and while it's really good for a melee tank, a character that tops out at level 20 with a BAB of 11 isn't going to get much use out of weapon specialization. They just can't hit enough to make it worth entering melee, particularly since the wizard casting ability limits armor (something bards aren't subject to). 6 fighter feats are useful, but not that useful. Personally, I'd probably take (not in this order) dodge, weapon focus (rays), ray weapon specialization*, point blank shot, precise shot, improved crit range (rays). Aside from perhaps mobility, I can't think of too many fighter feats that would be useful for a character with such a low BAB. Remember that many of the bard's 6th level spells are more powerful than a wizard's 6th level spells. The 11/11/11 is more powerful than 3 level 11 characters, despite the limitation of 1 action per round, just because the abilities meld together. In order for the level 11 charater to turn invisible, he needs to cast 1 spell. For the 3 level 11 characters to turn invisible, it takes 3 spells. The multiclass character can then buff himself and start throwing 4 scorching rays per turn, each at 10d6 damage. Or, even worse, greater invisibilty and polymorph into an 11-headed hydra for 11 attacks, each doing about 8d6. Alternatively, the multiclass character can bypass the 1 action per round by using quicken spell. Also, instead of fighter/wizard/rogue, compare cleric/wizard/rogue... Now you have two classes of spells up to level 6, sneak attack, evasion, etc. You're getting metamagic feats that apply to either class, you can imbue your familiar with spells to bypass the limit of 1 spell per round, and thanks to practiced spellcaster, both classes are caster level 15. BAB drops to 8, but that's ok. Still, the 11/11/11 character will probably be weaker than a level 20 character. I don't see that as a problem. I played plenty of 2nd ed, and one thing I clearly remember about multiclassing is that it's stronger early on and weaker as the other characters progress faster than you; particularly after 9th level, when the xp theme drops from doubling each level to increasing by the same amount each level.
Thanatos02 06-03-05, 02:36 PM	Hm. Fighter Feats I'd take as a multi-class Wizard/Rogue/Fighter? Dodge - Mobility Expertise Improved Initiative Weapon Focus (or Greater Weapon Focus) Weapon Specialization You know, just off the top of my head. Don't forget there is Fighter/Barbarian/Cleric, Wizard/Cleric/Druid, Rogue/Fighter/Ranger, and other non-spellcasting classes that would make excellent use of their mesh of abilities. (Scout/Ranger/Rogue?)
Arterion 06-03-05, 09:25 PM	There's only 1 fighter-only feat, and while it's really good for a melee tank, a character that tops out at level 20 with a BAB of 11 isn't going to get much use out of weapon specialization. They just can't hit enough to make it worth entering melee, particularly since the wizard casting ability limits armor (something bards aren't subject to). 6 fighter feats are useful, but not that useful. Personally, I'd probably take (not in this order) dodge, weapon focus (rays), ray weapon specialization*, point blank shot, precise shot, improved crit range (rays). Aside from perhaps mobility, I can't think of too many fighter feats that would be useful for a character with such a low BAB. That extra damage is important. It means that, over the course of an encounter, when you DO hit, you'll hit for more damage. This is very important, because you need to do more damage with a hit to compensate for hitting less. Remember that many of the bard's 6th level spells are more powerful than a wizard's 6th level spells. I strongly disagree. The Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is designed to be the most powerful thing in the game. The 11/11/11 is more powerful than 3 level 11 characters, despite the limitation of 1 action per round, just because the abilities meld together. In order for the level 11 charater to turn invisible, he needs to cast 1 spell. For the 3 level 11 characters to turn invisible, it takes 3 spells. The multiclass character can then buff himself and start throwing 4 scorching rays per turn, each at 10d6 damage. Or, even worse, greater invisibilty and polymorph into an 11-headed hydra for 11 attacks, each doing about 8d6. Alternatively, the multiclass character can bypass the 1 action per round by using quicken spell. Also, instead of fighter/wizard/rogue, compare cleric/wizard/rogue... Now you have two classes of spells up to level 6, sneak attack, evasion, etc. You're getting metamagic feats that apply to either class, you can imbue your familiar with spells to bypass the limit of 1 spell per round, and thanks to practiced spellcaster, both classes are caster level 15. BAB drops to 8, but that's ok. Still, the 11/11/11 character will probably be weaker than a level 20 character. I don't see that as a problem. I played plenty of 2nd ed, and one thing I clearly remember about multiclassing is that it's stronger early on and weaker as the other characters progress faster than you; particularly after 9th level, when the xp theme drops from doubling each level to increasing by the same amount each level. Again, it's weak in any one area that a 20th level character, but it's versatility gives it roughly equal overall effectiveness.
HailSpork 06-03-05, 09:55 PM	That extra damage is important. It means that, over the course of an encounter, when you DO hit, you'll hit for more damage. This is very important, because you need to do more damage with a hit to compensate for hitting less. With a BAB that low, you'll be pretty lousy in melee, even with weapon specialization. Ranged Spell Specialization does not require any levels in fighter. (btw, I double-checked this, it's not a fighter bonus feat). I strongly disagree. The Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is designed to be the most powerful thing in the game. Only because Sorcerers and Wizards get 6th level spells at 11th/12th level. Bards don't get 6th level spells until level 16, and that's only if they have a 22 charisma. Otherwise, it's level 17. By this time, the sorcerers and wizards have 8th or 9th level spells, which are more powerful than the bard's 6th level spells. However, some of the bard's options at each level are more powerful than the wizard's option. For example, Otto's Irrisistable Dance is a 6th level bard spell, 8th level wizard spell. Same with Charm Monster, Mass and Greater Shout. Project Image and Greater Scrying are 6th level bard spells, 7th level wizard spells. The rest of the bard's 6th level list are either unique to bards or 6th level wizard spells. The sorcerer/wizard list is more versatile, however. Again, it's weak in any one area that a 20th level character, but it's versatility gives it roughly equal overall effectiveness. I disagree, but I'm not that worried about it. If somebody wants to play it, then I suppose it's strong enough for them. Otherwise, they'll find out the hard way whether or not it's powerful. It probably depends which classes you mix with it. Fighter/Rogue/Wizard doesn't seem to be worth it. Wizard/Cleric/Druid is probably more than powerful enough.
Arterion 06-04-05, 12:21 AM	With a BAB that low, you'll be pretty lousy in melee, even with weapon specialization. Ranged Spell Specialization does not require any levels in fighter. (btw, I double-checked this, it's not a fighter bonus feat). Care to offer more than subjective opinion? Only because Sorcerers and Wizards get 6th level spells at 11th/12th level. Bards don't get 6th level spells until level 16, and that's only if they have a 22 charisma. Otherwise, it's level 17. By this time, the sorcerers and wizards have 8th or 9th level spells, which are more powerful than the bard's 6th level spells. The levels at which you get the spells is not relevant here. Both have 6th level spells, I don't see how what level they get them at matters. However, some of the bard's options at each level are more powerful than the wizard's option. For example, Otto's Irrisistable Dance is a 6th level bard spell, 8th level wizard spell. Same with Charm Monster, Mass and Greater Shout. Project Image and Greater Scrying are 6th level bard spells, 7th level wizard spells. The rest of the bard's 6th level list are either unique to bards or 6th level wizard spells. The sorcerer/wizard list is more versatile, however. With the exception of a few spells, the sorcerer/wizard 6th level is list far better than the Bard's, both in power and versatility. Tenser's Transformation, Antimagic Field, True Seeing, Disintegrate... just a couple amazing spells from the 6th level wizard list. I disagree, but I'm not that worried about it. If somebody wants to play it, then I suppose it's strong enough for them. Otherwise, they'll find out the hard way whether or not it's powerful. It probably depends which classes you mix with it. Fighter/Rogue/Wizard doesn't seem to be worth it. Wizard/Cleric/Druid is probably more than powerful enough. I don't see why you'd take levels of cleric and druid? Why two divine casters? Especially coupled with the Wizard levels? To me, that seems very weak -- much weaker than putting in a non-caster. But anyway, I think if you were to play a 20, while someone else played an 11/11/11, you'd quickly see your opinion of them being weak is, well, wrong. ;p
Tenzhi 06-04-05, 04:07 AM	Questionable worth? They are of equal worth, in that they offer the exact same benefit. Combat feats are of questionable worth to a character who shouldn't be involved in combat. A difference of caster levels is imporant for overcoming SR, but we already proposed a fix that, by using the caster level of 20 instead of 11. Hopefully you also have the skill caps at 20th level. It would seem the way to go since you're treating it as a 20th level character anyway. I didn't see mention of it in the opening post, but perhaps I overlooked it. Yes, but there are three times as many. The consummation of all the abilites compensate for the fact that they are individually weaker. Thus, there is no difference in the character's overall effectiveness. Indeed, it is essentially three 11th level characters rolled into one. What you label as a strength I label as a weakness. Someone with forty 1st level classes would have 40 times as many powers - but they would also be severely lacking in a 20th level campaign. Quality versus quantity. As far as combat ability goes, the 11/11/11 is going to have a lower BAB than the Bard, but more feats to compensate. The Weapon Focus and Specialization feats, combined with other feat, is going to result in roughly equal damage per encounter from a melee bard or a melee Fighter/Wizard/Rogue. Weapon Focus can be taken by the Bard as well, so it isn't a factor. I sincerely doubt that the +2 to damage will make up for 20% less chance to hit. For one example, The Two Weapon Fighting series of feats could offer the F/W/R double the normal number of attacks, and more chances to his is going to mean more hits, which is going to mean more total damage. If he's lucky it might even out the number of hits with his lower BAB. As I said, while the BAB of the F/W/R is lower, the extra feats offer him a chance to have extreme flexibility that results in a roughly equal damage per encounter. Prove that it results in equal damage - bearing in mind that the Bard can get +4 to attack and damage pretty much whenever he wants as long as there isn't a silence effect. You've said it, but I don't see the numbers to back it up. Prove that it's a better spellcaster - you've said it, but all the proof given thus far points to the Bard having more spells of equivalent level and the ability to cast in light armor without arcane spell failure. This latter fact may also help the bard be a better melee combatant as well. What you want to do it take my idea, which is very well-balanced, and make it more powerful. Very well-balanced in your opinion. I'm not the only one who has expressed doubts about that here - I've just been very vocal about it. It's obvious you're looking at multi-classing as a solution for having a more powerful character, not simple another alternative. It amazes me how things that aren't true are obvious to you, whereas things that should be apparent elude your senses. You haven't don't anything but attack my idea. Again, look at my first post. And even recently where I said I think you have the right idea even if I don't agree with how you're handling it. It seems I've done something other than attack your idea. You have proposed we use 16/16/16, which I have already demonstrated is far too powerful. Indeed. And you've changed my opinion on it. I think the 18/18 and 16/16/16 is a bit too much. For the two classes I'm going with what the designers seem to think is balanced for that sort of scenario - 17/17; and for three-classes I'm aiming for 14/14/14. I have an idea of how to easily incorporate that into my preferred XP progression but I have yet to run the numbers on it. I don't really see how it is that weak, especially considering I've already mentioned special feat access that could be used to raise BAB or saves, and I've already mentioned using the real level instead of the effective level for determining caster level. If you have to create more special rules to make up for its weakness, that right there shows you that it is too weak. "CR is assuming that the classes are already balanced, and until we've figured out how to balance the class, the CR stuff shouldn't come into play at all." I used boldface type to point out your equivocation error in reading my text. You have misunderstood "the class" (referring to the 11/11/11) to mean "all classes." I didn't misunderstand your use of "the class" - I was merely pointing out that if, say, the bard is not balanced with the fighter or the cleric then this comparison of a F/W/R to the bard is pointless. If the classes are not balanced, any individual comparison to them to determine balance is inherently flawed. If they are balanced then CR can be used as a rough gauge of power and an individual comparison isn't completely necessary.
HailSpork 06-04-05, 05:18 AM	Care to offer more than subjective opinion? Well, the multiclass you've suggested has a BAB on par with a wizard of the same level, is restricted by armor the same way wizards are. The only difference in melee combat is sneak attack and a few bonus feats. These are useful, but not if you don't have the BAB to hit or the AC avoid a hit. This build simply won't hold up in melee combat. Perhaps weapon specialization in a ranged weapon might be useful, but then the only problem you've circumvented is the AC problem; he still can't hit. That leaves you with touch attacks. If you want to specialize in ranged touch attacks, you don't need to be a fighter. You just nead weapon focus (ranged touch attacks). So, weapon specialization is not useful to the build. QED. With the exception of a few spells, the sorcerer/wizard 6th level is list far better than the Bard's, both in power and versatility. Tenser's Transformation, Antimagic Field, True Seeing, Disintegrate... just a couple amazing spells from the 6th level wizard list. So, to sum up what you just said, some of the 6th level bard spells are more powerful than 6th level wizard spells, but the wizard has more versatility in his spell options? Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, However, some of the bard's options at each level are more powerful than the wizard's option... The sorcerer/wizard list is more versatile, however. I don't see why you'd take levels of cleric and druid? Why two divine casters? Especially coupled with the Wizard levels? To me, that seems very weak -- much weaker than putting in a non-caster. But anyway, I think if you were to play a 20, while someone else played an 11/11/11, you'd quickly see your opinion of them being weak is, well, wrong. ;p Because your BAB is already going to be terrible, no matter what you put in with it. If you mix in a bunch of casters, you'll at least have a near-inexhaustible spell supply, not to mention a sickeningly high versatility. It also helps that clerics and druids share Wisdom as an important attribute.
Tenzhi 06-04-05, 05:31 AM	It's nice to see that someone else understands what I'm getting at. Another good combo might be Paladin/Bard/Sorceror. If nothing else, it keeps the ability score necessities from being spread too thin. But personally I limit the trifecta of classes to 3 of the big 4, or two of the big 4 and a favoured class. And I limit the gestalt to 2 of the big 4, 1 of the big 4 and 1 of the secondary classes, or any class in combination with a favoured class. But that's just me.
HailSpork 06-04-05, 05:35 AM	Indeed. And you've changed my opinion on it. I think the 18/18 and 16/16/16 is a bit too much. For the two classes I'm going with what the designers seem to think is balanced for that sort of scenario - 17/17; and for three-classes I'm aiming for 14/14/14. I have an idea of how to easily incorporate that into my preferred XP progression but I have yet to run the numbers on it. I think 17/17 is a bit too powerful. Compare to the Eldritch Knight (yes, I know that it has a rougher beginning few levels with less blending and what not, but I'm bringing it up for balance purposes). The bonus feats aside, a ftr 4/wiz 6/Eld Kni 10 is fairly close to the end result of a fighter/wizard. A final BAB of 17, 15 levels worth of wizardly progression, 4 bonus fighter feats, 1 bonus wizard feat (plus all of the starting wizard feats). It's a little behind on the familiar progression down just a bit on HP, and short 4 feats of a level 15 fighter. It's also short 2 wizard feats of a level 15 wizard. And yet, it's a decent build. It seems to me that 15/15 is more than adequate. And for some people, this build is appealing. Personally, I'd rather play a straight wizard or a straight fighter.
Tenzhi 06-04-05, 05:47 AM	Fair enough. I think 15/15 is too weak - however, as a player I could live with it if I had to, and as part of my problem with it comes from the effective HD (with a normal Gestalt it would only be 15 HD) Arterion's method of handling that would make it easier to swallow. I can see the case for the ending BAB, too. Average of a poor BAB and good BAB at 20 is +15. Of course, the average of a Good, Average, and Poor BAB at 20th level would also be +15 - which is about where the F/W/R should fall IMO. I could even handle the 11/11/11 with the Caster Level set to 20 and the BAB upped to +15 (and, of course, the skill cap should be for a 20th level character as well).
HailSpork 06-04-05, 05:48 AM	Another good combo might be Paladin/Bard/Sorceror. Bards have to be unlawful. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. 11/11/11 has a lousy BAB no matter how you look at it, which makes it completely pointless to incorporate a high-BAB class into it. On the other hand, I think it's possible to make some very powerful builds with 11/11/11. Personally, I'm fine with it ending up weak once you reach 11/11/11. As I said before, my memories of 2nd ed multiclassing were that it was very powerful early on, but was surpassed in the later levels. I know I did plenty of multiclassing in Baldur's Gate 1, but barely touched it in BG2. In fact, depending on how the levels are staggered, this would be quite powerful at low levels.
Tenzhi 06-04-05, 05:56 AM	Bards have to be unlawful. Details... ;) As I said before, my memories of 2nd ed multiclassing were that it was very powerful early on, but was surpassed in the later levels. The moment everyone else went to second level, a tri-class build started becoming very weak. And it just got worse from there - the problem was that advancing was a slow and arduos task in 2nd Ed to begin with and just became thrice as bad when you multi-classed with three classes. And worse - some of your classes were harder to advance than others. Once everyone passed 9th level or so and stopped gaining HD, however, you began to catch up a bit in power.
Arterion 06-05-05, 02:29 AM	Combat feats are of questionable worth to a character who shouldn't be involved in combat. A 10% chance to hit is the same, no matter where you add it. Hopefully you also have the skill caps at 20th level. It would seem the way to go since you're treating it as a 20th level character anyway. I didn't see mention of it in the opening post, but perhaps I overlooked it. That is how it's presented. It followed normal class rules except for what's listed. Weapon Focus can be taken by the Bard as well, so it isn't a factor. Dead wrong. It is a factor. We're comparing class features. The Bard could take WF, but doesn't get special bonus feats with which to take it. If he's lucky it might even out the number of hits with his lower BAB. Thank for for conceding the argument. You're saying the 11/11/11 is roughly equal to a bard after using the fighter bonus feats to compensate for the lower BAB. That's all I was looking for. Given that the 11/11/11 will have better weapons and probably Weapon Specialization, it's going to result in, likely, more damage too -- or at least equal damage. Prove that it's a better spellcaster - you've said it, but all the proof given thus far points to the Bard having more spells of equivalent level and the ability to cast in light armor without arcane spell failure. This latter fact may also help the bard be a better melee combatant as well. The sixth level Bard spell list is much smaller and much less effective than the Wizard list at 6th level. I don't need to argue this fact. The game designers have done it for me -- in exhange for the BEST spell list in the game, the Wizards are balanced by having the worst everything. I think that speaks for itself. If you have to create more special rules to make up for its weakness, that right there shows you that it is too weak. The class itself is a "special rule." Every class has special rules. This is the weakest argument I've heard from you yet. I didn't misunderstand your use of "the class" - I was merely pointing out that if, say, the bard is not balanced with the fighter or the cleric then this comparison of a F/W/R to the bard is pointless. I CLEARLY stated and RESTATED that I said the system assumed that they were. Please STOP telling me I said something I didn't, just to disagree with me. "CR is assuming that the classes are already balanced, and until we've figured out how to balance the class, the CR stuff shouldn't come into play at all." "While the core classes may or may not be balanced -- that is a seperate debate entirely -- the CR system assumes that they are, as I clearly said. You cannot introduce a new core class (such as the 11/11/11 class) until you have ensured that it is balanced. Therefore, you cannot refer to the CR system as proof that the 11/11/11 class is unbalanced, as it must be balanced before it is introduced to the CR system." If the classes are not balanced, any individual comparison to them to determine balance is inherently flawed. If they are balanced then CR can be used as a rough gauge of power and an individual comparison isn't completely necessary. The CR system is irrelevant to this topic entirely. It's used to determine how challenging something is to a party of four characters of a particular level. You have to balance a new class with the other classes before you can even look at CR, because CR assumes you have already done that. CR has no place in a class balance argument. I've already said this once, and you've offered no reasoning to suggest it is incorrect. -- Having said all of that, I've made some suggestions that might help making this more customizable. A feat to raise BAB, a feat to raise saves, and using character level as caster level. Even if the class is slightly weak in an area, giving more levels isn't the best or only solution to making it more powerful. In any event, if you can consistantly show me how a character build with similar, but better, features than the 11/11/11 with normal classes and PcCs, then the 11/11/11 is probably too weak. If you can't, then it's probably too strong. The way I see it, you'd be hard pressed to make a character with normals rules that have all the features of an 11/11/11. If you can, please post the two builds and show one one is better than the other.
Tenzhi 06-05-05, 03:26 AM	A 10% chance to hit is the same, no matter where you add it. Untrue. For instance, a +2 to hit is a much greater boon to a 1st level character than a 20th. Dead wrong. It is a factor. We're comparing class features. The Bard could take WF, but doesn't get special bonus feats with which to take it. We're not comparing class features, we're comparing end ability. Thank for for conceding the argument. You're saying the 11/11/11 is roughly equal to a bard after using the fighter bonus feats to compensate for the lower BAB. You'd think within the context of my post - what with the follow-up asking you to prove it with numbers - you couldn't have possibly come to this conclusion. If you're lucky, I was conceding the argument; if you're lucky, lightning might strike the same place 20 times. The sixth level Bard spell list is much smaller and much less effective than the Wizard list at 6th level. I don't need to argue this fact. The game designers have done it for me -- in exhange for the BEST spell list in the game, the Wizards are balanced by having the worst everything. I think that speaks for itself. Some would say the Cleric has a better spell list altogether. Some might also say it is the Sorceror who actually has the worst everything The class itself is a "special rule." Every class has special rules. This is the weakest argument I've heard from you yet. The Paladin doesn't have any special rules - it just has core rules. Feats are not a special rule - but abnormal access to feats is; caster level is not a special rule - but abnormally determined caster level is. I CLEARLY stated and RESTATED that I said the system assumed that they were. Please STOP telling me I said something I didn't, just to disagree with me. I didn't tell you you said something you didn't. I merely posited that if the bard is unbalanced, comparisons to it in order to determine balance are flawed. If you are making said comparisons then you, like the system, are assuming the classes are balanced with each other. Given that, then CR is a good rough gauge of power. The CR system is irrelevant to this topic entirely. It's used to determine how challenging something is to a party of four characters of a particular level. Indeed. And thus is a gauge of relative power. And thus can be said to determine whether one thing is more or less powerful than another. You have to balance a new class with the other classes before you can even look at CR, because CR assumes you have already done that. CR has no place in a class balance argument. I've already said this once, and you've offered no reasoning to suggest it is incorrect. If this were a new class I might agree with you - however it is not, in fact, a new class. It is a combination of old classes that have already been "balanced." It is a combination of three such classes that is less powerful overall than three characters of equivalent level in each of the individual classes. But this point is quickly becoming moot. A feat to raise BAB, a feat to raise saves, and using character level as caster level. There is no feat that can raise BAB. I wasn't greatly bothered by the saves. And I have already admitted that using character level as caster level alleviates part of the problem. My main issue with the class now is the BAB. As I said in a recent post - if the BAB were more properly averaged out to +15 I would be able to accept the class as a player. As compared to the Bard who already has a +15 BAB and can get a +4 to attack and damage most of the time (for a total with Weapon Focus of +20/+15/+10 to attack as opposed to the F/W/R's meager +13/+8 with Greater Weapon Focus).
HailSpork 06-05-05, 07:34 AM	Perhaps what you could do is make up a chart that staggers your multiclassing levels. In effect, it'd work like gestalt, except that you don't get to increase each class each level. You pick a primary and secondary class (and a tertiary if you're going 3 ways): Here's a short example up to 10th level: Lvl Prim Sec 1 0* 0* 2 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 3 6 4 4 7 5 4 8 6 5 9 6 6 10 7 7 Lvl Prim Sec Tert 1 0* 0* 0* 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 5 3 3 2 6 4 3 3 7 4 4 4 8 5 5 4 9 6 5 5 10 6 6 5 *See the DMG 3.0 on level 1 multiclassing. The 3.5 FAQ has stated that this still works, there just wasn't room in the 3.5 book; some of the skill points and such would need to be updated... I kind of just made this chart up on the fly, it may not be completely even or such. If you judge the advancement of BAB on this chart, it should stagger it enough to compensate for the lack of fewer levels; kind of like the gestalt build of wizard 19/fighter 1//sorcerer 20 that has a BAB of 20, only not nearly as abusive. It's also a little more complicated, and picking which is primary and such my end up with comletely different numbers. Anyway, I'll run some numbers later. I'm too tired now. If there's interest, do more.
HailSpork 06-05-05, 08:42 AM	Actually, I see one problem already; each class levels up to level 6 at a different level; level 6 is important because every class gets +1 BAB and +1 to each saves. I'll rework the charts when I run numbers later. There may be more problems like that.
Arterion 06-05-05, 09:47 AM	Untrue. For instance, a +2 to hit is a much greater boon to a 1st level character than a 20th. It's still the same bonus. It's just as useful. It's a ~10% increase to hit probability. You may not see it, but that's how it is. We're not comparing class features, we're comparing end ability. Wrong. Dead wrong. We're trying to balance a class. This doesn't take into account any racial abilities or general abilities that all characters get. You'd think within the context of my post - what with the follow-up asking you to prove it with numbers - you couldn't have possibly come to this conclusion. If you're lucky, I was conceding the argument; if you're lucky, lightning might strike the same place 20 times. Backpeddle much? You admited it would be roughly the same. That's all I was trying to prove. The end. Some would say the Cleric has a better spell list altogether. Some might also say it is the Sorceror who actually has the worst everything As you pointed out before, we have to go by the game designer's idea of balance, which demostrates that the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is far superior to any other spell list. To quote your own argument, if you don't think the classes are balanced to begin with, your efforts to claim this one is unbalanced is frivolous. The Paladin doesn't have any special rules - it just has core rules. Feats are not a special rule - but abnormal access to feats is; caster level is not a special rule - but abnormally determined caster level is. Oh please. Don't give me this semantical bullcrap. Every class has "special rules" to make it work. Don't give me some case about "Well, those are core rules." IF you'll noticed, the title of this post points out it is a CORE class. So by your semantical ring-around-the-rosises, any rules pertaining to this class are "core" rules. I didn't tell you you said something you didn't. I merely posited that if the bard is unbalanced, comparisons to it in order to determine balance are flawed. You're the one saying the classes are unbalanced, not me. If you are making said comparisons then you, like the system, are assuming the classes are balanced with each other. Given that, then CR is a good rough gauge of power. CR doesn't have anything to do with class levels. If every creature had class levels, there would be no need for CR. CR is designed for monsters, who have no classes, and to calculate challenges against a balanced party of 4 individuals. Indeed. And thus is a gauge of relative power. And thus can be said to determine whether one thing is more or less powerful than another. Fine. So, by this argument, since the 11/11/11 is 20th level, thus CR 20, and any other 20th level character is CR 20, they are balanced. End of discussion. Allmighty CR has determined it for us, case closed. If this were a new class I might agree with you - however it is not, in fact, a new class. It is a combination of old classes that have already been "balanced." It is a combination of three such classes that is less powerful overall than three characters of equivalent level in each of the individual classes. But this point is quickly becoming moot. It IS a new class! Please indicate where this class is printed in the RAW. There is no feat that can raise BAB. I wasn't greatly bothered by the saves. And I have already admitted that using character level as caster level alleviates part of the problem. My main issue with the class now is the BAB. As I said in a recent post - if the BAB were more properly averaged out to +15 I would be able to accept the class as a player. As compared to the Bard who already has a +15 BAB and can get a +4 to attack and damage most of the time (for a total with Weapon Focus of +20/+15/+10 to attack as opposed to the F/W/R's meager +13/+8 with Greater Weapon Focus). I clearly explained how a feat to bolster BAB or saves would work. It would be a feat specific to this class. Since the class is new, the feat would have to be new as well. The fact that is isn't printed somewhere is irrelevant. I laid out that it would give you +1 BAB not to exceed your the maximum your BAB could be if all your levels were in your highest BAB class. Same for saves. Very similar to the mechanics for Practiced Spellcaster. I think you've gone beyond thinking my class was weak to just trying to win some sort of p*ssing contest. I'm not here for that. So if you're going to keep spewing the same crap, please, spare yourself. I've offered solutions to your concerns, and yet you STILL attack both me AND this class. I just don't get it.
Thanatos02 06-05-05, 01:11 PM	First of all, I don't think any personal attacks have been made, either about a person nor the class (idea in praticular). What I see is a debate on the balance level of 11/11/11 vs, say, 16/16/16. Much like the debate on exponential vs. linear power scaling on magic user classes, this argument is highly subjective because as much as it's already been discussed, I doubt that either build has been playtested to any degree. (Sidenote - exponential power curve might explain why a Magic-using class is loathe to give up even a single class level when multi-classing, so consider that.) HailSpork has some interesting ideas. Has anyone matched his recent concept up with the previous concepts? Every Core class is built on Core rules. Semantics or not, this is an important consideration, and isn't an insult. Rather it is a reminder. At one point, I was all setup to detail how every class is a modular composite of various peices that are put together like Legos with an eye for balance. Paladins, for example, don't really have anything special. They've got Level 4 spellcasting (divine - cleric w/alteration), Full BaB, special abilities, saves, Hit die, Skill Points, ect. Everything that is taken into account when one builds a regular class is taken into account with the Paladin. So, if my explaination is incorrect, or I'm missing something, please explain. If you honestly have a problem with commenting on semantics, don't become angered over the assertion that these classes are not new. Let's be clear! They are an amalgamation of pre-existing classes whose balance has been pre-determined by Wizards (but whose balance is debated hourly on the Baords, natch). While the combination in this way is not listed in the books, nor is it listed quite this way anywhere I've seen, the idea is also not new. I would say that these classes are nothing new because they are an alteration of previous existing rulesets and ideas, and that they are new simply from a rules perspective. But let's not get heated under the collar. It doesn't help and it doesn't get anyone anywhere except locked, and then we can't talk about the classes here anymore. I don't want that. It's interesting.
HailSpork 06-05-05, 03:15 PM	Let me jump in a bit with the argument between the two of you... It's still the same bonus. It's just as useful. It's a ~10% increase to hit probability. You may not see it, but that's how it is. No. If your base attack is low enough, a +2 bonus takes you from needing nat 20's to needing nat 20's. This is particularly true if you want to make use of power attack or combat expertise. As you pointed out before, we have to go by the game designer's idea of balance, which demostrates that the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is far superior to any other spell list. To quote your own argument, if you don't think the classes are balanced to begin with, your efforts to claim this one is unbalanced is frivolous. I don't think any class has the best spell list. Druids have a lot of really good spells (quill blast comes to mind). The best spell list comes from a whole party of different spellcasters working together. That said, there are some tasks that the sorcerer/wizard is just plain better at. Making things "disappear" comes to mind. (although invisibility is limited to sorcerer/wizard and a few PrC's, I'm actually referring to the short summary of Disintegration here). However, there are many cases where other classes have a spell that is more powerful than a sorcerer/wizard; there are many cases where another class has the same spell at a lower level (Sending comes to mind) or considerably cheaper (druid's scry comes to mind). Oh please. Don't give me this semantical bullcrap. Every class has "special rules" to make it work. Don't give me some case about "Well, those are core rules." IF you'll noticed, the title of this post points out it is a CORE class. So by your semantical ring-around-the-rosises, any rules pertaining to this class are "core" rules. This has been bothering me since the beginning of the thread. If there's one thing this idea isn't, it's a core class. If you want to make a core class, you have to make 110 (quoting your numbers) classes. You have to use standardized BAB's, Standardized saves, and name each one of them. Annd definately, definately, no d7's. That's a core class. This is why I was so angry so early on when I kept offering ideas for making a core class. What you want is a new multiclass system. I think the term "meta-class" is much more accurate. Fine. So, by this argument, since the 11/11/11 is 20th level, thus CR 20, and any other 20th level character is CR 20, they are balanced. End of discussion. Allmighty CR has determined it for us, case closed. Actually, I'm thinking that 11/11/11 may be about right, provided the BAB is a little higher. If you multiclass with a fighter, you should be able to get a BAB of 16, and I'll try to represent that when I work on my earlier concept. I clearly explained how a feat to bolster BAB or saves would work. It would be a feat specific to this class. Since the class is new, the feat would have to be new as well. The fact that is isn't printed somewhere is irrelevant. I laid out that it would give you +1 BAB not to exceed your the maximum your BAB could be if all your levels were in your highest BAB class. Same for saves. Very similar to the mechanics for Practiced Spellcaster. I agree with Tenzhi on this one. You really shouldn't do a feat that's (this version of multi-class)-only. And giving out BAB is not a good idea either. Btw, Practiced Spellcaster is a useful feat for people who multiclass. However, it can also be used on classes with low caster levels (like rangers or paladins), monsters with racial hit dice, and a few other things like wild mages. Well, I'm going to try working on the chart I was talking about earlier.
HailSpork 06-05-05, 04:29 PM	I ran some numbers on a Fighter/Wizard. I actually decided to keep the independent level 6's, because it helps buff the BAB. Here's the chart out to level 20. I ended it at 15/14. Lvl Prim Sec 1 0* 0* 2 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 3 6 4 4 7 5 4 8 6 5 9 6 6 10 7 7 11 8 7 12 8 8 13 9 9 14 10 10 15 11 10 16 12 11 17 12 12 18 13 13 19 14 13 20 15 14 Here's the numbers on a Fighter(primary)/Wizard(secondary) Lvl BAB F/R/W HP Spells 1 0 1/0/1 1d10(5.5) 2/0 2 1 1/0/2 1d10+1d4(8) 3/1 3 2 3/0/3 2d10+1d4(13.5) 4/2 4 3 3/1/4 3d10+1d4(19) 4/2 5 3 4/2/4 3d10+2d4(21.4) 4/2/1 6 4 5/2/5 4d10+2d4(27) 4/3/2 7 5 5/2/5 5d10+2d4(32.5) 4/3/2 8 6 6/3/6 6d10+2d4(38) 4/3/2/1 9 7 7/4/7 6d10+3d4(40.5) 4/3/3/2 10 8 7/4/7 7d10+3d4(46) 4/4/3/2/1 11 9 8/4/7 8d10+3d4(51.5) 4/4/3/2/1 12 10 8/4/8 8d10+4d4(54) 4/4/3/3/2 13 11 9/5/9 9d10+4d4(59.5) 4/4/4/3/2/1 14 12 10/5/10 10d10+4d4(65) 4/4/4/3/3/2 15 13 10/5/10 11d10+4d4(70.5) 4/4/4/3/3/2 16 14 11/6/11 12d10+4d4(76) 4/4/4/4/3/2/1 17 15 12/7/12 12d10+5d4(78.5) 4/4/4/4/3/3/2 18 16 12/7/12 13d10+5d4(84) 4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1 19 17 13/7/12 14d10+5d4(89.5) 4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1 20 18 14/8/13 15d10+5df(95) 4/4/4/4/4/3/3/2 This chart doesn't note it, but there are bonus feats at levels 1,3,6,8,11,14,16,19. The end result is a BAB of 18, saves a little better than strong/weak/strong (14/8/13 vs 12/6/12), and spells as a level 14. 95 hit points at level 20 (not including con modifier) is about 4.75 per level (would be about a d9 if one existed). This is using average die rolls of (1+die size)/2. A 20th level fighter would have 110 hp. Here's the same with the wizard being the primary. Lvl BAB F/R/W HP Spells 1 0 1/0/1 1d10(5.5) 2/0 2 1 1/0/2 1d10+1d4(8) 3/1 3 2 3/0/3 2d10+1d4(13.5) 4/2 4 3 3/1/4 3d10+1d4(19) 4/2 5 3 4/2/4 3d10+2d4(21.4) 4/2/1 6 4 5/2/5 4d10+2d4(27) 4/3/2 7 4 5/2/5 4d10+3d4(29.5) 4/3/2/1 8 5 6/3/6 5d10+3d4(35) 4/3/3/2 9 6 7/4/7 6d10+3d4(40.5) 4/3/3/2 10 7 7/4/7 7d10+3d4(46) 4/4/3/2/1 11 8 7/4/8 7d10+4d4(48.5) 4/4/3/3/2 12 9 8/4/8 8d10+4d4(54) 4/4/3/3/2 13 10 9/5/9 9d10+4d4(59.5) 4/4/4/3/2/1 14 11 10/5/10 10d10+4d4(65) 4/4/4/3/3/2 15 11 10/5/10 10d10+5d4(67.5) 4/4/4/4/3/2/1 16 12 11/6/11 11d10+5d4(73) 4/4/4/4/3/3/2 17 13 12/7/12 12d10+5d4(78.5) 4/4/4/4/3/3/2 18 14 12/7/12 13d10+5d4(84) 4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1 19 15 12/7/13 13d10+6d4(86.5) 4/4/4/4/4/3/3/2 20 16 13/8/14 14d10+6df(92) 4/4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1 It takes a small hit to BAB (-2) but gets spells a little earlier. The hp and saves fall behind at a few levels (they mostly catch up in the end) The difference on 3-way multiclassing will probably end up higher, as it should be, to make up for the lower level at level 20. I'll probably aim for 12/11/11. Btw, how important is it to make level 20 the same level for each class? A few questions: Is there any concern about working this stuff into epic levels? Is this open to any race? (ie, in 2nd ed, humans couldn't do it) Is this open to any class? (ie, in 2nd ed it didn't work with druids, bards, paladins; sorcerers, barbarians, and monks didn't exist) [edit: I looked at 3.0 dmg, page 40 and saw that "apprentice-level" fighters get a feat.]
legophreak 06-05-05, 04:39 PM	If Arterion believes his version to be within the confines of the game, while others believe that a true 20th level character, or a different modification of that is better then why doesn't someone roll up versions of those characters and throw them into the grand ol' combat arena. Have each character build duke it out against what WoTC considers "balanced" classes (albeit straight core, or prestige) so you can truly see who's cuisine...i mean character reigns supreme. Unfortunately for doing this, CR would need to be brought into play, unless the 2 characters fight each other, then you could base the relative equality on ECL of each character. Me personally, i believe the 3E version of multiclassing was created to move away from the 2E multiclass, but that's just me. d20 was created as a gaming standard, a base for a ruleset to build on. Taking away from those standards or that ruleset is in a sense breaking away from d20 and alternately creating a new gaming schematic. just my 2 cents
Thanatos02 06-05-05, 05:13 PM	No. Fighting another class, one-on-one proves nothing. I should qualify that statement. Fighting another class, one on one, even a similar class to prove balance proves nothing for certain reasons. 1: D&D is primarily designed to be a team endeavor. That is, the game is not balanced around if one character can beat a second. While it will prove which is the better duelist, this branches into my seocond assertion. 2: Dueling generally involves 'builds'. A character is built to fight a second, so Feats, skills, spells, and others are designed to combat a single character of equal level. This leaves out a number of valid Feats, spells, and skills that are designed to take advantage of a multitude of non-dueling or even non-combat endeavors. Leaving these out skews things terribly. 3: It may be possible to design 2 parties. This actually involves experimentation. How does a "control" party fare in a situation? How does a multi-class party fare? How does a generalized party with a single multiclass designed in this manner fare? Ect. Trouble is, we might as well just playtest the sucker. 4: Magic item selection. Feat selection. Core-only? Splatbooks? Which ones...? ect. Arguments develop about validity. these things stop one-on-one fights from being productive judges of value.
HailSpork 06-05-05, 05:27 PM	Though it is a lot of fun. Last time I played an arena game, it was 11th level with the stats 20/18/16/14/12/10 (including stat mods for levels) and 70k worth of swag. CN Human Barb 1/Ranger 2/Fighter 8 with a tripping halberd and the feat from Complete Warrior pertaining to halberds. Of course, if I wanted to win, I'd do a wizard who spends all his gold on scrolls of time stop and gate; arcane disciplie+4xheightened, extended sanctuary and I let my Pit fiend do the talking. Anyway, fighting each other is prone to problems with abberant dice rolls, different tactics, tactical incompatibility (like sending a melee character against a flying character or sending an elementalst against the appropriate half-dragon; granted, it wouldn't be that extreme a problem...) Heck, not even a running campaign can truly gauge the balance of a class, though it can help. If it were possible to measure, there wouldn't be as much debate over monks or over pirates vs ninjas. To give you an example of how much a difference tactics make, I had two concurrent campaigns. In the higher level one, we fought a dragon and the GM was very good with draconic (pertaining to dragons, not harsh) tactics. It was a very difficult fight, and we barely won. In our other game, about 2 or 3 levels lower, we fought a bigger dragon. The GM's focused on the wrong targets and we took the dragon down with minimal injury.
legophreak 06-06-05, 12:33 AM	No. Fighting another class, one-on-one proves nothing. I should qualify that statement. Fighting another class, one on one, even a similar class to prove balance proves nothing for certain reasons. 1: D&D is primarily designed to be a team endeavor. That is, the game is not balanced around if one character can beat a second. While it will prove which is the better duelist, this branches into my seocond assertion. 2: Dueling generally involves 'builds'. A character is built to fight a second, so Feats, skills, spells, and others are designed to combat a single character of equal level. This leaves out a number of valid Feats, spells, and skills that are designed to take advantage of a multitude of non-dueling or even non-combat endeavors. Leaving these out skews things terribly. 3: It may be possible to design 2 parties. This actually involves experimentation. How does a "control" party fare in a situation? How does a multi-class party fare? How does a generalized party with a single multiclass designed in this manner fare? Ect. Trouble is, we might as well just playtest the sucker. 4: Magic item selection. Feat selection. Core-only? Splatbooks? Which ones...? ect. Arguments develop about validity. these things stop one-on-one fights from being productive judges of value. Yeah, you are right when you say a one on one isn't a very good benchmark. While it would be fun, it was an off the cuff remark on my part. The only true way to see if this is compatible is to play-test it with other characters classes of various levels combating against different monsters of various CR's and HD. Only problem with that, is that it almost seems too much like work... D&D should not be made to feel like work to me.
Arterion 06-06-05, 08:43 AM	First of all, I don't think any personal attacks have been made, either about a person nor the class (idea in praticular). What I see is a debate on the balance level of 11/11/11 vs, say, 16/16/16. Much like the debate on exponential vs. linear power scaling on magic user classes, this argument is highly subjective because as much as it's already been discussed, I doubt that either build has been playtested to any degree. (Sidenote - exponential power curve might explain why a Magic-using class is loathe to give up even a single class level when multi-classing, so consider that.) HailSpork has some interesting ideas. Has anyone matched his recent concept up with the previous concepts? Every Core class is built on Core rules. Semantics or not, this is an important consideration, and isn't an insult. Rather it is a reminder. At one point, I was all setup to detail how every class is a modular composite of various peices that are put together like Legos with an eye for balance. Paladins, for example, don't really have anything special. They've got Level 4 spellcasting (divine - cleric w/alteration), Full BaB, special abilities, saves, Hit die, Skill Points, ect. Everything that is taken into account when one builds a regular class is taken into account with the Paladin. So, if my explaination is incorrect, or I'm missing something, please explain. If you honestly have a problem with commenting on semantics, don't become angered over the assertion that these classes are not new. Let's be clear! They are an amalgamation of pre-existing classes whose balance has been pre-determined by Wizards (but whose balance is debated hourly on the Baords, natch). While the combination in this way is not listed in the books, nor is it listed quite this way anywhere I've seen, the idea is also not new. I would say that these classes are nothing new because they are an alteration of previous existing rulesets and ideas, and that they are new simply from a rules perspective. I guess it would be most accurate to say that none of the individual abilities of the class are new. Indeed, all of the class features are drawn from other core classes that already exist. In that respect, there really isn't anything new or even non-standard about it. Even the progressions are standarf in respect to the "effective" class levels. That might be a little confusing, but once you understand the principal, it works. Having said that, even though the individual components of this class certainly isn't new, the class itself is very new. Nothing in the printed 3e has anything even remotely similar to this. Even similar classes built using a variety of PrCs and core classes fail to duplicate this class -- primarily because all the bonus feats and special class abilities remain intact. This results is entirely new combinations that can't be looked simply in respect to a combining of three existing classes. I guess what I'm saying is that anytime you put classes together in this fashion, there is a certain synergy that end up putting the two classes (or three classes) at a greater advantage than simply the sum of the individual parts. The name of the game is being very strategic in how you use all the class features together. Many new possibilities are opened up when it comes to building an 11/11/11 character. The right selection of feats, spells, and classes can results in very powerful builds. On the other hand, it's also possible to very poorly optimize the builds, resulting in weaker characters. I think playing an 11/11/11 should come with the understand that you will never have a high BAB or high level spells or high level class abilities. It's using these lower-level abilities together in a new way that allows you to compensate for being weaker in a specific area. The F/R/W we've been talking about is very clearly going to fall short compared to either the Fighter, Wizard, or Rogue. That doesn't mean the class is weak because it has no clear advantage over any class at level 20. The fact that is somewhat competent in just about any field is what makes it balanced. Remember, a 11/11/11 F/R/W could have 23 ranks in Open Lock. Not even a 20th level Bard can have that. That said, these characters are going to be very useful in a party, especially if it's a small party, but solo, they are going to fare somewhat poorly against any one class that's level 20. Fortunately, D&D is designed as a party-based game. If you have a single 11/11/11 character, he's going to have to face things that are between 4-6 CRs lower than if he were in a party. That means the 11/11/11 really only needs to be able to handle a ~CR 15 creature without being overhwhelmed, and I certainly think it's capable of that. But let's not get heated under the collar. It doesn't help and it doesn't get anyone anywhere except locked, and then we can't talk about the classes here anymore. I don't want that. It's interesting. Thanks for brining everything down a level. :-)
Arterion 06-06-05, 09:16 AM	Let me jump in a bit with the argument between the two of you... No. If your base attack is low enough, a +2 bonus takes you from needing nat 20's to needing nat 20's. This is particularly true if you want to make use of power attack or combat expertise. This is true. If the thing you're trying to hit has an AC of ~15 more than your attack modifier, hitting it is going to be nearly impossible. Assuming the total attack modifier of an 11/11/11 sits somewhere around +21 (+11 BAB, +2 Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, +3 Magic Weapon, +3 Str/Dex, +2 Buff Spell) that would mean, opponents would need an armor class of ~36 in order to be in that category of being a futile target to try and melee, and >40 to require natural 20's. Touch touch attacks would be a good option here. Most high CR critters (like dragons) have natural armor bonuses protecting them, making touch attack very easy. A Maximized Scorching Ray comes to mind. :-) I don't think any class has the best spell list. Druids have a lot of really good spells (quill blast comes to mind). The best spell list comes from a whole party of different spellcasters working together. That said, there are some tasks that the sorcerer/wizard is just plain better at. Making things "disappear" comes to mind. (although invisibility is limited to sorcerer/wizard and a few PrC's, I'm actually referring to the short summary of Disintegration here). However, there are many cases where other classes have a spell that is more powerful than a sorcerer/wizard; there are many cases where another class has the same spell at a lower level (Sending comes to mind) or considerably cheaper (druid's scry comes to mind). As far as this goes, the game designers have indicated that the sorcerer/wizard spell list is the most powerful thing in the game. Consider: Druid -Medium BAB -Two Good saves -Druid Spell List, all spell access -Max base 5 spells per day progression -Divine caster - can wear armor -Simple + Druid weapon proficiency -Animal Companion -Wild Shape -Druid Class Features Wizard -Poor BAB -One Good save -Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List, spellbook only access (VERY expensive) -Max base 4 spells per day -Arcane Caster - cannot wear armor -No simple, only Wizard weapon proficiency -Familiar (if the character pays 100gp for it) -4 bonus feats Having done that little comparison, I think the only thing under Wizard that would indicate that it's even remotely balanced with the druid is the fact that it has access to the Sorcer/Wizard spell list. If we assume: Familiar = Animal Companion 4 Bonus Feats = Druid Class Abilities The the Druid has the following advantages; -Cast in Armor -Simple Weapon Proficiency -All Spell Access -One BAB category -One extra good save -Wild Shape -More spells per day That has to be compasated with ONE thing -- the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. I think it's pretty clear that the game designers considered it the most powerful element in the game, and by giving it to a class, almost everything else has to be sacrificed. Now, agreeing with the game designers is a different issue entirely, but from the balance perspective, I think we have to honor that the Sorcerer/Wizard list is considered the most powerful by far. This has been bothering me since the beginning of the thread. If there's one thing this idea isn't, it's a core class. If you want to make a core class, you have to make 110 (quoting your numbers) classes. You have to use standardized BAB's, Standardized saves, and name each one of them. Annd definately, definately, no d7's. That's a core class. This is why I was so angry so early on when I kept offering ideas for making a core class. What you want is a new multiclass system. I think the term "meta-class" is much more accurate. While it's not anything new in terms of the components, it's entirely new in that the current system doesn't have anything comprable. There are some similar classes using PrCs and normal multiclassing, but nothing that give full access to class features of different classes. It's an entirely new concept, and looking at it as just a combination of existing classes doesn't really work out from a balance perspective. It's something new, and you have to look at what it can do -- not what it's individual components are. In truth, there are 110 new classes, it's just easier to explain the rules for creating them than to try and print them all. Actually, I'm thinking that 11/11/11 may be about right, provided the BAB is a little higher. If you multiclass with a fighter, you should be able to get a BAB of 16, and I'll try to represent that when I work on my earlier concept. I agree with Tenzhi on this one. You really shouldn't do a feat that's (this version of multi-class)-only. And giving out BAB is not a good idea either. Btw, Practiced Spellcaster is a useful feat for people who multiclass. However, it can also be used on classes with low caster levels (like rangers or paladins), monsters with racial hit dice, and a few other things like wild mages. Well, I'm going to try working on the chart I was talking about earlier. Well, I don't see any other good options. Perhaps at 5, 15, and 20 giving it a special class feature that allows it to raise BAB or saves by 1 would be more appropriate. Feats just seemed to be the first thing that came to mind. While it may not be normal to have a feat specific to a class, I can think of a number of feats that are specific to one class, and don't really see a problem in doing it in this case. Let me write it down: Augmented BAB [Fighter, General] Prerequsite: Gestalt class Benefit: You increase your BAB by one. This may not raise your BAB higher than your highest-BAB class would have if it were equal to your character level. Special: This feat may be taken as a fighter bonus feat. Augmented Saves [General] Prerequsite: Gestalt class Benefit: You increase all of your base saves by 1. This may not raise your good saves higher than the maximum good save for your character level, and may nor raise your poor saves higher than the maximum poor save for your character level. Special: This feat can be taken as a bonus feat, whenever one is allowed by a class, even if it is not included in the list of bonus feats available. There, it's a little awkward, but I think it does the trick.
HailSpork 06-06-05, 05:20 PM	While it's not anything new in terms of the components, it's entirely new in that the current system doesn't have anything comprable. There are some similar classes using PrCs and normal multiclassing, but nothing that give full access to class features of different classes. It's an entirely new concept, and looking at it as just a combination of existing classes doesn't really work out from a balance perspective. It's something new, and you have to look at what it can do -- not what it's individual components are. I'm not debating the newness of this. I'm saying it's not a core class. Well, I don't see any other good options. What did you think of my suggestion from posts 79 and 83? I've been waiting for feedback before I work on the 3-way multiclass numbers. It *should* solve the BAB problem without having special feats as well as provide a method to instantly create a hybrid* class. *note: multiclass in 3.x refers to the newer multiclass system, dual-class doesn't make sense. For lack of a better name, I'm calling it a "hybrid class".
Arterion 06-07-05, 12:39 AM	On p83, your first chart makes sense, but it's 2 levels slower than my original one. I don't understand the second chart at all.
HailSpork 06-07-05, 01:48 AM	The second and third chart are examples; the second chart is if fighter is your primary class, the third chart is with wizard as your primary class. It shows the level by level Base Attack Bonus, Fort/Reflex/Will saves, Hit Dice(average hp), and spells per day partitioned by spell level.
kilpatds 06-07-05, 10:01 PM	The second and third chart are examples; the second chart is if fighter is your primary class, the third chart is with wizard as your primary class. It shows the level by level Base Attack Bonus, Fort/Reflex/Will saves, Hit Dice(average hp), and spells per day partitioned by spell level. I generally liked it. I'm tending to agree that an 11/11/11 is fairly useless, but the chart (with the weird pseudo-gestalt combining of BAB and saves) looked quite powerful. I'd certainly be quite interrested in playing a Fighter/Bard according to that progression. I'd say at the end, primary casters take a fairly sizeable hit (from the lost levels of spells. No stat buff until 5th level, no polymorph until 10th), but non primary casters get a nice boost... but that sounds like a very familiar refrain. Question: Progression of two 3/4 BAB classes. Do they end up with a BAB of 9 at 12th level, instead of the normal 8? (17th level also is one high, but it looks like they end up with a end BAB of 15, as per normal) A progression that looks a little bit smoother to me is: Primary = INT(0.75 * char_level) Secondary = MAX(INT((char_level+1)*0.75)-1,0) I'm not familiar enough with the codes to put that in the nice table format... but at no level does the BAB for two 3/4 BAB classes exceed 3/4. End BAB for two 3/4 classes is 14, end BAB for the example F/W is 17, for the W/F its 16.
TwistedShadow 06-07-05, 10:25 PM	If your looking for a way to do the Gestalt rules in Unearthed Arcana but have such characters balanced with regular characters, there is a simple answer that covers it for you without having to invent classes or anything like that. Follow the Rules of the Gestalt Characters in the Complete Arcane but with one small add on, the character takes a level adjustment I recommend +4 but you could do +3 or +5 as well depending on your position on the matter. So what you get is that while this character gets a seemingly sweet deal other players who are not going that route will out pace them for levels at almost 2 to 1. With the adjustment here are the comparision Level____Normal___+1LA_____+2LA_____+3LA _______+4LA______+5LA 1_______1,000____2,000____3,000_____4,00 0______5,000______6,000 2_______3,000____5,000____7,000_____9,00 0______11,000_____13,000 3_______6,000____9,000____12,000____15,0 00_____18,000_____21,000 4_______10,000___14,000___18,000____22,0 00_____26,000_____30,000 5_______15,000___20,000___25,000____30,0 00_____35,000_____40,000 6_______21,000___27,000___33,000____39,0 00_____45,000_____51,000 7_______28,000___35,000___42,000____49,0 00_____56,000_____63,000 8_______36,000___44,000___52,000____60,0 00_____68,000_____76,000 9_______45,000___54,000___63,000____72,0 00_____81,000_____90,000 10______55,000___65,000___75,000____85,0 00_____95,000_____105,000 11______66,000___77,000___88,000____99,0 00_____110,000____121,000 12______78,000___90,000___102,000 ___114,000____126,000____138,000 13______91,000___104,000__117,000 ___130,000____143,000____156,000 14______105,000__119,000__133,000 ___147,000____161,000____175,000 15______120,000__135,000__150,000 ___165,000____180,000____195,000 16______136,000__152,000__168,000 ___184,000____200,000____216,000 17______153,000__170,000__187,000 ___204,000____221,000____238,000 18______171,000__189,000__207,000 ___225,000____243,000____261,000 19______190,000__209,000__228,000 ___247,000____266,000____285,000 20______210,000__230,000__250,000 ___270,000____290,000____310,000 If you look at the rate of advancement you see that while the Gestalt gives an advantage +3 thru +5 keeps a balance, the Gestalt gets the advantages of both classes but is left behind in terms of advancement by the regular characters so while the Gestalt gets lots of options his power is still limitied by his level. I think that its a pretty reasonable trade off.
HailSpork 06-07-05, 11:07 PM	Interesting point. I compared the BAB of two 3/4 progression, and I get the following chart: Lvl Hybrid Normal 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 2 4 2 3 5 3 3 6 4 4 7 4 5 8 5 5 9 6 6 10 7 7 11 8 8 12 9 8 13 9 9 14 10 10 15 11 11 16 12 11 17 13 12 18 13 13 19 14 14 20 15 15 The fact that it gets ahead a little at levels 12, 16, and 17 is balanced by it falling behind at levels 2-4 and 7. Honestly, I just threw this chart together. The chart you proposed is: Lvl Pri Sec BAB @ Normal Lvl Lvl 3/4:3/4 3/4 BAB 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 3 2 2 1 2 4 3 2 2 3 5 3 3 3 3 6 4 4 4 4 7 5 5 4 5 8 6 5 5 6 9 6 6 6 6 10 7 7 7 7 11 8 8 8 8 12 9 8 8 9 13 9 9 8 9 14 10 10 9 10 15 11 11 10 11 16 12 11 11 12 17 12 12 12 12 18 13 13 12 13 19 14 14 13 14 20 15 14 14 15 It falls behind at levels 2-4, 7-8, 12-16, and 18-20
jaerad 06-07-05, 11:28 PM	I just wanted to posit something on a side comment someone (who shall remain nameless) made about gestalt BABs. You do not get a +20 BAB by staggering levels. You follow progressions, not the numbers on the table. The table on Fractional BAB/Saves is convienient for looking at progressions, just ignore the fractions. :) Basically, following progressions intead of simple "the table says +1" ends up with a +11 (I believe, too lazy to check atm) BAB. As a side note to that, Gestalt characters are actually slightly underpowered in one regard: There is a firm cap on saves. Since you follow progressions, you do not get a +2 bump for good saves if you've already gotten it. Think of it like this: you don't start over with good saves. You take up where you left off on the progression. There's a post on this forum somewhere about it. It was really awesome, and really made me happy since it eliminated the stupid "gestalt is overpowered because fighter 1/sorc 19 has a +20 bab."
Tenzhi 06-08-05, 05:19 AM	Backpeddle much? You admited it would be roughly the same. That's all I was trying to prove. The end. There's a difference between backpeddling and correcting a misperception - I was doing the latter. You're the one saying the classes are unbalanced, not me. Not at all. I made statements from both points of view on class balance as they applied to the argument - prompted by your statements about CR and the debatability of class balance. Of course, earlier on you did say this: "A Cleric 20 and a Fighter 20 both have a CR of 20, but the Cleric is pretty much agreed to be clearly the more powerful of the two." Which is, in fact, an implication that the classes are unbalanced. But I'll drop the CR argument in any case as its application towards balance has been a topic of great debate anyway. It IS a new class! Please indicate where this class is printed in the RAW. Right in the PHB. This is not a new class, it is just a new method of multi-classing; it is merely a combination of three already-balanced classes. In this combination they act much like three different characters in those classes working together under severe limitations - as I've pointed out time and again. I clearly explained how a feat to bolster BAB or saves would work. It would be a feat specific to this class. Since the class is new, the feat would have to be new as well. The fact that is isn't printed somewhere is irrelevant. I laid out that it would give you +1 BAB not to exceed your the maximum your BAB could be if all your levels were in your highest BAB class. It's not something you should have to spend feats on. It should naturally be accounted for in the progressions - same with saving throws. Anything else is a jury-rigged fix. But it looks like HailSpork may have a better handle on it. I think you've gone beyond thinking my class was weak to just trying to win some sort of p*ssing contest. I'm not here for that. So if you're going to keep spewing the same crap, please, spare yourself. I've offered solutions to your concerns, and yet you STILL attack both me AND this class. I just don't get it. Win? It's nearly impossible to win any sort of argument on these boards. Even while someone is making concessions to their opponent's argument they won't dare admit that they might be wrong - rather, they'll say things like "You're wrong! That's not broken... but, uh, here's how you fix it." I just want to see this idea - which I've said was a good idea in concept a number of times - implemented in an acceptable fashion. And "acceptable" doesn't mean acceding to my every whim - as I stated earlier, while the 15/15 may not be where I'd prefer it power-wise in my games I could accept it as a player. Furthermore, you've altered my opinion on where the power-level should lie in my own games - not an easy or oft-accomplished task. I may disagree with you in various matters, but I'm not out to attack you.