Multiclassing and resource management systems.

[Mask_De_H]

Just curious, but do DrPraetor and Frank personally know each other? Because Praetor speaks of Frank like he interacted with him face to face several times.

Yeah, they know each other. Frank has the most wonderful friends

@DrP: First off, D&D being significantly open-ended is a relatively modern invention. Second, a TTRPG is open-ended by default. It is open-ended in the stories that can be told with it and the ideas that can be expressed through it. To ensure that functionality, the mechanics need to be hemmed in and rigidly defined. Even in a MTP game, you need solid operators to prevent things from going Cops and Robbers on you. Given how you have no idea how to cogently explain your fucking "open-ended" system and your ideas are a shambling chimaera of the shittiest parts of various D&Ds, you'll have to excuse me if I don't follow your reasoning.

You can't even grasp that the system you're proposing is not a single system to govern the use of abilities in one game, but a confused kludge of multiple resource allocation systems that you believe is one system because you want to cram all of them into the same power. Nor do you realize there is no fucking way that can work. What you want is for everything to be distinct, except when it isn't, except when it is again. That is crazy people talk. There is a way to make an open multiclass system; give everyone the same resource allocation schedule (or everyone in an arbitrarily defined power source the same resource allocation schedule), let them freely choose abilities from a list, and let the class come after abilities have been chosen. It's not like you had to hunt for this idea, since Frank and I had discussed it on the page before you started derping up the place again.

We have constantly told you that what you want, in the way you describe it is either impossible, insane, or both. We have been saying this since page one. You are either failing to understand what we are saying, failing to understand your own system, or are being willfully obtuse. Regardless, it has long since passed the point of good faith.

[Josh_Kablack]

And the scripts aren't just going to be mandatory because of your character's build. They are going to be super obviously better than having a bunch of abilities that run off the same resources. And people will feel forced to make builds that force them into scripts! People will literally ask you "What's your character's 'opener'?" because it will be so obvious that your character is going to be a mishmash of powers from different nominal resource management systems and themes that what they'll really want to know is what the fuck the script your character is locked into does. Is it a Tekken Juggle based on a series of stunlocks and pushes? Is it a Damage Engine of ever bigger attacks to power up even bigger attacks? is it a Hammer & Anvil where you go on the defensive for a couple of rounds while your finishing move comes online? Is it a Baton Pass, where you give big buffs to the rest of the party?

And you'll answer what kind of script you're running, because that will be the actually important information.

Now I kinda want to play a game set up to be like this.

....


....


but better at it than 4e was

And while Champions certainly has a place in my heart, I don't think that anyone is confused that their point system isn't horrendously abusable.

I gotta disagree here. Experience has shown that Eric is totally confused about all things Champions. double-

[Username17]

Yeah, I could see a game where you selected various wacky abilities that had their own internal logic on when they could and could not be used and tried to arrange it so that the effects of the abilities you had were synergistic even as the use restrictions of the different abilities were self reinforcing so that your five moves of doom script turned into an ultra-combo that allowed you to punch far above your weight. I really don't know what kind of flavor skin you'd want though - even comic book super heroes are usually tighter in theme than what you'd end up with for characters in such a game (note: I said usually, I am aware of Martian Manhunter). Giant fighting robots maybe? That would at least be thematic when you fired off an ice beam and then rocketed into the air to come down with a power kick and then vented steam in all directions and then fired a bunch of missiles out of the steam cloud...

Anyway, at the core level you can make a game where character abilities come off a big list and have resource systems that are at the very least mutually transparent, or you can make a game where people have non-transparent resource systems and then individual characters have to get the abilities that are attached to each resource system in a segregated fashion. These are not the same game. The former doesn't really need classes at all, and probably doesn't even benefit from having more than very soft classes. The latter benefits substantially from having classes and having hard classes is an even greater benefit.

However, since this thread is nominally about "multiclassing and resource management", I think we're by default talking about the latter type of system. One in which you use resource management systems like Essentia and Fury and WoF and Spell Prep that are completely non-transparent and that's totally OK. Because you have hard classes so that the fact that one ability only makes sense in the context of spending points to activate and another doesn't won't break anything because some characters have points to spend to activate abilities and others don't. And their available ability lists reflect that.

-Username17

[Ice9]

I was pretty firmly on the side of open multiclassing, for the reason that while eventually a class may exist for most concepts, it usually takes a number of books for that to happen and some GMs will complain about using those books anyway.

However, I've changed my mind. An RPG where different classes use entirely different resources systems (and not just "some classes have a resource system, others suck") is something I've thought would be awesome for a while, and that I'd be willing to give up open multiclassing for. And they do seem likely to be non-compatible.

Of course, a game like that would probably be a pain in the ass to balance. But that's true about a lot of cool things.

[PhoneLobster]

I don't know, if you are firmly on the side of multi-classing I don't really see why you want altogether much of hard class system at all.

But the main thing I don't get about this whole conversation is the distinct multiple resource systems per class business.

Just how many resource systems and just how distinct do people really think would be a good idea?

Frank is talking it up like multiple resourcing systems would be at least be good option, and I know his examples of lists of classes for class based D&D knock offs usually rack into the high teens or low twenties.

Is that really a unique resourcing system per class? Because that seems pretty damn crazy.

Or are there groups of classes that presumably could internally multi class fairly freely (at least resource mechanic wise) since there may be 18 or some crazy number of classes but they fall into three resourcing systems used by six classes each or some such madness?

Because if the whole thing is really "Well of course the big problem with multiclassing is you can't go bat shit insane and write 18+ different resourcing systems no one ever remembers the full details of" then it seems like less of a problem.

Not that it is the whole thing. As I would have pointed at basically everything else in potential RPG design BEFORE "have 18+ distinct resourcing systems" as being potential problems with excessively open multiclassing within a supposedly fairly firmly class based system...

[Username17]

We do not have to achive perfect balance in order to have a good game. In fact a segment of the player base actually want's imbalance. These are our minmaxers, to them being able to staple stuff from class A class B and class C together to make something mindblowing is a feature not a bug.

When I read people posts on this forum I often fear we let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Yes, to exhaustively test every possible combination would be impractical and pointless. In a computer game, you actually have to test what happens when you use piercing strike while wearing a blue cloak or a red vest in case the game crashes due to a missing animation frame or something stupid. But in an RPG you don't, because that sort of interaction is interpreted by reasonable human beings and it just doesn't fucking matter. So yes, in a meaningless facile way you're always going to have gajillions more options than you could ever hope to playtest.

But the thing is: you don't need to compare every single little thing. Yes, "Accurate Strike" gets a bigger comparative bonus from a damage buff and "Damaging Strike" gets a bigger comparative bonus from a to-hit bonus. And yes, we don't fucking care because that sort of thing makes people happy to find and isn't really a big deal anyway.

What we're talking about is playtesting broad sections of the game space. A character who is on Fury Points + Power Points is playing a pretty fundamentally different game than the character who is on Fury Points + Backlash. They are as distinct as 3e Wizards and Sorcerers and they are going to need to be tested separately.

We're not saying that having millions of possible power combinations makes the game untestable. It makes it untestable exhaustively, but no one gives a shit because it runs on wetware and syntax errors are smoothed over automatically by mind caulk. We're saying that having what is in essence over two hundred actual resource systems is something that is outside what is plausible to even think about.

In this system I'm assuming the monsters also use the same diverse recharge mechanics?

Probably not all of them. In the 17 classes example (which still doesn't include a Ranger, Scout, Shaman, Swashbuckler, or Ninja and could thus be expanded with a few more novel takes on resource mechanics) it already covers more classes than there probably needs to be as far as monster classes go.

4e's monster classes are: Artillery, Brute, Controller, Lurker, Minion, Skirmisher, Soldier. And it has "role modifiers" of Leader, Elite, and Solo. Even assuming that you made Leader its own role (as it probably should have been in the first place), you're still looking at like 8 monster classes. Which means that you're already looking at less than half the PC options.

Fundamentally, the "monster classes" are giving you a fighting role but not giving you a theme, so they are much smaller in number than PC spots. The monsters make up for that by having much weirder racial templates and also by having a huge turnover. That huge turnover is a big deal on a lot of levels: for a monster that shows up for one battle and then dies, the Wizard's Spell Memorization won't look any different from the Hero's Feats. Both have a short list of special moves they can do and can use each one over and over again - the fact that one can change up what they are doing for another day and the other can't doesn't really come up for a one episode villain.

Now, I'm not stupid like James Wyatt in thinking that it literally makes no difference, after all it is possible for any villain no matter how minor seeming to escape and show up again later. And these villains may interact with the story and so on and so forth. But during that battle, Feats and Spell Memorization look pretty much the same.

Off the top of my head:

• Artillery - probably works best with something akin to Spell Memorization. They have some powers for the battle and they shell you with them. But I could see them operating on Precision instead: if they are allowed to sit unmolested in one place they can shell you effectively.
• Brute - probably works best with something skin to channeling - where the monster periodically hulks out and does something really impressive. Either that or Fury, where they get progressively more dangerous as they get wounded and pound on people. I could see either way.
• Controller - probably wants something like Patience, or possibly Spell Prep. If the monster is all about locking the PCs down, access to their powers is something that wants to get harder for the monster as the battle progresses so that the PCs can eventually do stuff.
• Leader - probably something like Life Essence honestly. With the Leader giving out bonuses to minions until you drop the Leader.
• Lurker - seems obviously to want to be something like catches. I mean, nothing says "You've activated my trap card" like a giant spider.
• Minion - I think the entire point of the minion is that they don't have resources to track. They want and need to be super simple because they come in groups of 10 and 20. So obviously they do Feats.
• Skirmisher - 4e never did come up with a reason for these guys to exist. But if I were to have a monster class called Skirmisher, it seems that the purpose would be to move in, get some attacks going, withdraw, and then come back to do it again. To me, this sort of harrying sounds like they would want to be on something like the Monk's Fighting Styles program. So they literally have to disengage from combat in order to recharge and then return to the fray.
• Soldier - 4e never sold me on how these were different from Brutes with better numbers. So I could see cutting them entirely, or possibly just picking Fury or Channeling for Brutes and then picking the other one for Soldiers and calling it a day.

But of course, many "monsters" would actually be PC classes and if 4e taught us one solitary thing it is that such monsters absolutely have to work just like player characters or the players will get super pissed. So to that extent, the fact that a Gnoll Druid would be a Druid and a Drow Illusionist would be an illusionist does necessarily mean that team monster would have access to every resource system that team player does.

-Username17

[mlangsdorf]

Frank, I don't suppose we could get you to start a Kickstarter or something to write this game up? At least for a first few levels? Because what you have so far sounds pretty fantastic.

[fectin]

Actually, if your classes were strongly partitioned like that, you could probably do really easy multiclassing, with separate xp tracks for each class. Then it's suddenly not a problem that barbarians are also often priests (especially if you call priests Totemists or something), it's just what they do.

[tussock]

If you want WOF monsters and classes then some powers need that mechanic, built into the spell. Stance sets, stealth conditionals, drain effects, or whatever can all be on a per-spell basis, and classes list them as thematically appropriate.

And you call them strikes for Fighters, and tricks for Rogues, and spells for Wizards, but they all go in the same level-appropriate slots and having a 2nd class list to fill them with just has some cost structure or another attached, which is cheaper if you have to use higher-level slots for them like Paladins and Rangers do for their spells.

No deal.

If you give everyone "level appropriate slots" and the players get to choose abilities off different lists with different resource management systems attached... everyone is going to end up looking the same. Because having two powers that are ramped up by your Rage Bar is obviously less useful than having one that does that and another that can be used at the start of battle whilst your Rage Bar is empty.

I'm assuming a Barbarian would have an at-will strike or two to use before he was Raged-up (so monsters have cause to engage). If he swaps that out for an encounter power at some additional cost, like maybe peak rage options, who cares?

So every character is going to be heavily scripted. More heavily scripted than a 4e character is,

I'm a just have to stop you there. I've seen 2e/3e Druids in action. They have spells with a huge casting time, and spells that last over from yesterday, and spells that give them encounter powers, and spells that give them at-will attacks, and actual at-will non-magic stuff, and spells that act like the classic fire-and-forget. And they have class powers that stop them casting other spells for a while, and cancel out some of their ongoing spells but not others. That's build-up, cool-down, at-will, encounter, prep, and crafting all in one class. And level-based pets, and spontaneous summons, and ....

And to say every druid builds the same and runs out one script all the time is a lie. They don't. Druids have as many different builds and combat possibilities as any characters, and more than most.

Yes, your Barbarian can choose some cross-class opening combo set, or he can choose to make his Rage combos grow ever higher and easier to activate and chain in flexible ways and last longer and .... At the point you fail to provide level-appropriate Barbarian options to put together, people stop taking Barbarian powers. And that's a good thing.


That's kinda the point even. If your Rage-meter class is overly sad-in-the-pants while the Rage-meter warms up, he's not going to play well opposite the Cool-down class anyway. Give each something worth taking in their own set and they can both play together and not need to borrow from each other.

[DrPraetor]

MDH - yes, I heard you the first four times you said what I proposed was impossible. Except that Frank said it was undesirable because of tailored resource trade-offs it supposedly excludes (not the same) while Kaelik is autistic and reads autotranslation of the den into Romanian so we'll set that aside for now.

Pt. 1 - We can agree that having blue wizards and red wizards, who get the same number of MP but different spell lists, can be balanced?

Pt. 1A - Frank seems to be taking it for granted that blue wizards can be balanced against green wizards, while green wizards have some wacky resource mechanic that depends on how many monsters you kill? To me, this is the one that (transparently) just isn't going to fly.

Pt. 2 - Apparently there is disagreement over whether Sorcerers and Wizards - who get the same spell list but DIFFERENT resource management mechanics - can ever be balanced? People say no?

My position is: I think this is absurd - it's much harder to balance different spell lists than it is to balance different resource mechanics off of the same list. On the other hand, it's much easier to see that Sorcerers and Wizards aren't balanced one vs. the other, say, Sorcerers vs. Clerics. But obscurity isn't the same as balance.

I would take things a step further - if you can balance Wizards (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 1) vs. Clerics (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 2), and then also balance Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1) vs Sorcerers (RM 2 / SL 1); then, to within the needed balance precision, Shugenja (RM 2 / SL 2) will then be balanced against Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1), even if your playtest never got around to the Shugenja. Then, I'm saying that Shugenja/Sorcerer is an acceptable multi-class as is Wizard/Cleric but Wizard/Shugenja is not. It's not going to be perfect - some ability lists are going to prefer a resource mechanic with more choices but fewer uses per day, some abilit lists the opposite. But it doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be better enough than D&D 3rd for people to notice.

Furthermore, returning to the topic of the thread, I'm saying that people will end up preferring such a system to one in which Barbarian/Necros can't exist, even if that alternate system has a cooler mechanic for Necros to trade armor-piercing on their skeleton mages for hurling death rays at people and also lets you harvest dark energy from corpses somehow.

Finally, I do think such a system benefits somewhat from having hard classes, because buying things off of an open-ended list with points is very intimidating, and because people like a variety of package deals. Also it's going to be much easier to write with hard classes.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Frank, I don't suppose we could get you to start a Kickstarter or something to write this game up? At least for a first few levels? Because what you have so far sounds pretty fantastic.

I would donate to a 10KF kickstarter. I might even switch over what I was donating to Fate Core.

[John Magnum]

if you can balance Wizards (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 1) vs. Clerics (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 2), and then also balance Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1) vs Sorcerers (RM 2 / SL 1); then, to within the needed balance precision, Shugenja (RM 2 / SL 2) will then be balanced against Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1), even if your playtest never got around to the Shugenja.

This is blatantly fucking daft. It basically assumes that major (anti)synergies between abilities and resource systems are impossible. The same thing goes for your blithe assertion that it's easier to balance the same ability for multiple resource systems than it is to balance multiple abilities on the same resource system.

You know what tries to balance the same abilities on multiple resource systems? GURPS, Champions, any of the point-based games. Now, maybe you want to do this on a per-ability basis somehow instead of just assigning a generic cost modifier to "at-will", but that's still bonkers. "Teleport" is a different ability when used at-will, chargeup, and cooldown with completely different use-cases.

[Kaelik]

I would take things a step further - if you can balance Wizards (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 1) vs. Clerics (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 2), and then also balance Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1) vs Sorcerers (RM 2 / SL 1); then, to within the needed balance precision, Shugenja (RM 2 / SL 2) will then be balanced against Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1), even if your playtest never got around to the Shugenja. Then, I'm saying that Shugenja/Sorcerer is an acceptable multi-class as is Wizard/Cleric but Wizard/Shugenja is not. It's not going to be perfect - some ability lists are going to prefer a resource mechanic with more choices but fewer uses per day, some abilit lists the opposite. But it doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be better enough than D&D 3rd for people to notice.

Praetor, you are still dumb as shit, and you still can't read. D&D Sorcerer and Wizard are nearly the same fucking resource mechanic. They both have X per day abilities off the same list.

We are talking about having really different resource mechanics, like for example, the fucking Arcane Swordsage. Do you really think that in any possible way it is balanced to just let the Arcane Swordsage use all the abilities off the Wizard spell list with its completely different mechanic? What about the Totemist.

Those are different resource mechanics, and both of them are absurdly overpowered when using the fucking Wizard spell list instead of the abilities drafted for their lists.

[Username17]

I'm assuming a Barbarian would have an at-will strike or two to use before he was Raged-up (so monsters have cause to engage). If he swaps that out for an encounter power at some additional cost, like maybe peak rage options, who cares?

Once any of your powers cost points to activate, having another power that runs off the same power points is inherently worse than having a new power that runs off a new reserve. And obviously so. If you let berserkers trade their Fury-costing maneuvers for maneuvers that don't cost fury they are obviously going to do that until they only have one fury-using move left. And anyone who has the option of taking a fury move when they don't have one is obviously going to because otherwise they can't spend fury points on anything. And so on for every resource management system. Psionic power points only make sense if basically all of your manifestations cost psionic power. If you could trade your powers known off for new powers that were usable X/day or whatever you would and the game would be a lot less cool.

Pt. 1 - We can agree that having blue wizards and red wizards, who get the same number of MP but different spell lists, can be balanced?

Yes. That is the Final Fantasy system, and something like that is a prerequisite for Final Fantasy Tactics style multiclassing.

Pt. 1A - Frank seems to be taking it for granted that blue wizards can be balanced against green wizards, while green wizards have some wacky resource mechanic that depends on how many monsters you kill? To me, this is the one that (transparently) just isn't going to fly.

You know, the best D&D classes all run on their own weird resource systems. Wizards run on spell preparation, Psions have power points, and so on. And I've personally written a lot of them, like the Dungeonomicon Monk, the Fire Mage, the Soldier, the the Crusader, the Conduit, the Totemist, and the Marshal. These are all things I've actually done for 3rd edition, and it makes 3rd edition a better game.

It's not like the whole "classes stand alone and have their own resource management system" is some wacky wild idea. That's already the part of 3e that actually works! The game tells you that you can make a Cleric/Psion, but I doubt anyone on this thread is confused enough to think you actually can. Those classes are not miscible at all. And that's fine, because the part of 3e that is actually good is the part where you pick a class with its own sovereign resource management system and then you run up its levels (and/or jump into a PrC) until the campaign ends. That's the part of 3e that is good. So why pretend that we're doing anything else? Why cut out the shit that's awesome and funcitonal in order to save the parts that are shitty and don't work?

Pt. 2 - Apparently there is disagreement over whether Sorcerers and Wizards - who get the same spell list but DIFFERENT resource management mechanics - can ever be balanced? People say no?

Wizards and Sorcerers get very similar and largely mutually transparent resource systems. Go ahead and try that with a Fire Mage and a Psion. Or a Crusader and a Druid. Or fucking anything at all that has a recycle rate measured in minutes or rounds and something with a recycle rate measured in hours or days.

I would take things a step further - if you can balance Wizards (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 1) vs. Clerics (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 2), and then also balance Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1) vs Sorcerers (RM 2 / SL 1); then, to within the needed balance precision, Shugenja (RM 2 / SL 2) will then be balanced against Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1), even if your playtest never got around to the Shugenja.

This is horse shit. You're seriously in the "Horses are Mammals, Socrates is a Mammal, therefore Socrates is a Horse" territory there. Let's consider Warlock casting for a moment. We'll call it "RM 3". It's basically balanced as long as you don't get a single ability on its spell list that can be repeated for credit. So with SL 1 (or whatever), it's fine. But if you shove in a spell list that has summons or charms or wealth generation or healing or some shit, then it instantly becomes broken. The fact that you showed that spell list X was balanced using a casting mechanic that the Warlock's spell list was also balanced with does not show that the Warlock's casting mechanic would be balanced with spell list X. In fact: we're pretty fucking positive it wouldn't be.

-Username17

[Starmaker]

I would take things a step further - if you can balance Wizards (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 1) vs. Clerics (resource mechanic 1 / spell list 2), and then also balance Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1) vs Sorcerers (RM 2 / SL 1); then, to within the needed balance precision, Shugenja (RM 2 / SL 2) will then be balanced against Wizards (RM 1 / SL 1), even if your playtest never got around to the Shugenja.

This is horse shit. You're seriously in the "Horses are Mammals, Socrates is a Mammal, therefore Socrates is a Horse" territory there. Let's consider Warlock casting for a moment. We'll call it "RM 3". It's basically balanced as long as you don't get a single ability on its spell list that can be repeated for credit. So with SL 1 (or whatever), it's fine. But if you shove in a spell list that has summons or charms or wealth generation or healing or some shit, then it instantly becomes broken. The fact that you showed that spell list X was balanced using a casting mechanic that the Warlock's spell list was also balanced with does not show that the Warlock's casting mechanic would be balanced with spell list X. In fact: we're pretty fucking positive it wouldn't be.

-Username17

DrPraetor was technically correct. His position is not

Warlock casting + Warlock list = ok
Cleric casting + Warlock list = ok
therefore
Warlock casting + Cleric list == ok

it's

Warlock casting + Warlock list = ok
Cleric casting + Warlock list = ok (new class, the witchalock)
Warlock casting + Cleric list = magically ok (new class, the purple mage)
therefore
Cleric casting + Cleric list == ok

- which may be very well true but completely fucking undoable on first principles in any game that actually features a variety of casting mechanics.

[Mask_De_H]

I don't know, if you are firmly on the side of multi-classing I don't really see why you want altogether much of hard class system at all.

But the main thing I don't get about this whole conversation is the distinct multiple resource systems per class business.

Just how many resource systems and just how distinct do people really think would be a good idea?

Frank is talking it up like multiple resourcing systems would be at least be good option, and I know his examples of lists of classes for class based D&D knock offs usually rack into the high teens or low twenties.

Is that really a unique resourcing system per class? Because that seems pretty damn crazy.

Or are there groups of classes that presumably could internally multi class fairly freely (at least resource mechanic wise) since there may be 18 or some crazy number of classes but they fall into three resourcing systems used by six classes each or some such madness?

Because if the whole thing is really "Well of course the big problem with multiclassing is you can't go bat shit insane and write 18+ different resourcing systems no one ever remembers the full details of" then it seems like less of a problem.

Not that it is the whole thing. As I would have pointed at basically everything else in potential RPG design BEFORE "have 18+ distinct resourcing systems" as being potential problems with excessively open multiclassing within a supposedly fairly firmly class based system...

The whole thing is that you can't reasonably mix multiple (like, more than two) resource allocation systems in a class without creating stark synergies and antisynergies and make an (already hardcore) system even more bugfuck to design, play and playtest.

You could build vertically instead of horizontally; Crusader, Druid, Marshall are all Winds of Fate already and the difference between Illusionist and Wizard is whether your powers are At-Will or Encounter. Just pick your favorite resource allocation systems and build 2-4 options around them.

For example: The Rage Bar/Super Meter mechanic could have the Berserker, who gets meter from hitting and being hit and the Dervish, who gets meter from moving and being missed. Sky's the limit on spell slot, At-Will and WoF classes, and you could probably rework Incarnum to be less bad for the Essentia classes

[PhoneLobster]

What I'm trying to say is what the hell is the advantage of confusing people with multiple distinct class based resource systems. Everything that has done that in D&D to any significant degree is stupid splat book ass that everyone agrees is a pile of crap.

Starting with Psionics and continuing on through true names and so on. Many players refuse to touch such material simply BECAUSE they dont want another assy new resourcing system.

Why should we regard distinct additional class based resource systems as a good thing when there are so many bad examples of exactly that?

And on top of that at what point are there just too many distinct resource systems because the suggestion on this thread that it basically is a big obstacle to pretty much ALL free multiclassing in such a system suggests that the probably situation is a distinct resourcing system per individual class, and probably rather a lot of individual classes...

The 3 resources with 6 classes each thing... Is actually a pretty bad system already considering if you were pulling this off with a 3.x D&D for instance some of those resources are probably god damn true names or those stupid spirit bindings or some crap. But that would require some rather big provisos where the resourcing system doesnt give an ass if you multiclass within the same resource sub family of classes.

Not that, you know there aren't a dozen much bigger reasons why multiclassing is problematic...

[PhoneLobster]

Hell to go further there are a lot examples here where one or more classes are on WoF and the rest are on, well, anything, which is far superior to being the asshole stiffed over with WoF.

And I think that WoF is a particularly good example of where having multiple distinct individual class resourcing systems is really a bad idea.

First of all. It will be the resourcing system everyone else either laughs at, or yells at for being the frustrating burden to the rest of the party.

But more importantly all the fundamental justifications for WoFs existence in the first place as a resourcing system REQUIRE it to be your exclusive resourcing system. If it genuinely is as Frank and Lago demand far superior to allowing actual player choice on tactics... that doesn't stop being true because someone picked the class that ISN'T a WoF class in the same mixed resourcing system game.

And if WoF has any chance at all of not alienating players and rubbing their face in endless frustrating situations where they cannot pick the tactic they want... then the system REALLY cannot be permitted to co-exist side by side with another player who's resourcing system DOES permit them to repeatedly pick the tactic they want to in the same turns that WoF is screwing over the other guy..

So yeah. Multiple separate fundamental resourcing systems for separate classes... seems like a really bad idea and WoF seems to be the perfect poster boy for a resourcing system that really doesn't want to be playing with others if it wants to go and do its thing.

Why is the idea of having WoF next to a 3.x Druid and a 2e Psion and a splat book true namer even considered a good thing?

[tussock]

I'm assuming a Barbarian would have an at-will strike or two to use before he was Raged-up (so monsters have cause to engage). If he swaps that out for an encounter power at some additional cost, like maybe peak rage options, who cares?

Once any of your powers cost points to activate, having another power that runs off the same power points is inherently worse than having a new power that runs off a new reserve. And obviously so. If you let berserkers trade their Fury-costing maneuvers for maneuvers that don't cost fury they are obviously going to do that until they only have one fury-using move left. And anyone who has the option of taking a fury move when they don't have one is obviously going to because otherwise they can't spend fury points on anything. And so on for every resource management system. Psionic power points only make sense if basically all of your manifestations cost psionic power. If you could trade your powers known off for new powers that were usable X/day or whatever you would and the game would be a lot less cool.

Woah up there. Why is your Rage-pool not tied up in the number and quality of your Rage feats? Max per-event, Max total, various sources to seek out; so you need to keep taking Rage powers to keep them all maxed out to get the most out of it.

The at-will Brb attack can build the Rage meter quicker as it hits, and while you can do more damage with an at-will Fighter stack or get cool stunlocks going with a Monk stance instead, those other class abilities don't add Rage. Casting Fireball doesn't add Rage. Getting a pet doesn't add Rage.

And you can totally be a Necro-Barbie-Witch where he likes to scream dark curses and bring the people he rage-kills back as zombies, but you've got weaker pets than a full necro and a less kick-ass rage than a full barb and your curse reduces enemy AC to help the pets which sort of works.

The Brb doesn't then necessarily take an Assassin power, because there's a default rest feature that sort of works without stealing from his rage stack, and Barbie can take the Shield-biter meditation to start a nearby combat with some free Rage anyway.

[Mask_De_H]

Because those assy example of resource management were assy because they were ill designed, not intrinsically assy? And people who aren't us really dug power points and the Crusader's WoF and whatever the fuck the Warblade does. And there are whole other games that people enjoy with alternate resource allocation mechanics (SR magic and Drain, Warmahordes/Magic of Blue and Focus/Essentia, Weeaboo Fightan Majik and WoF/quickie spell prep, 4e Essentials and the everything at will, etc.)

And this isn't D&D. Fuck D&D

E: @Tussock-At that point, why the fuck do you even have the resource allocation systems? You're making a character that's shitty at a bunch of things, steps on the toes of other classes, and has abilities that are non-functional with the basic chassis of the class (rage). There are other ways to solve this problem, instead of shoving a square peg through your thick skull. For fuck's sake man, I asked this exact same question you are belaboring and got a reasonable, concise answer earlier in the thread.

For what you want to do, go free ability selection on one resource allocation style. Apply class after the fact. This isn't a goddamn difficult concept to grasp.

[PhoneLobster]

And people who aren't us really dug...

Someone somewhere liked every single resourcing system in every incarnation of D&D. Someone somewhere liked 2E Psionics for fucks sake.

Who cares. What is important is that basically no one liked all of them at once. And indeed those that DID like obscure resourcing systems at best believed they were SUPERIOR to standard resourcing systems (and should replace rather than coexist with them) and at worst were openly hostile to other rival obscure resourcing systems (plenty of pro 3.x Psionic gamers would refuse to even play in the same game as "weeaboo fighin magic" resourcing systems).

And "Not D&D" continues this trend handily in the form of WoF, a system that it's adherents proclaim to be a superior REPLACEMENT not addition to traditional resourcing systems, and who designed and justified in terms of other resourcing systems being supposedly utterly incapable of achieving the same compatible goals.

When you are messing with the fundamental resourcing system at that sort of level on a class by class basis you will have multiple players sitting at the table trying to play very different games at the same time. Common sense tells us we are going to be lucky if they even all know the rules of all the other games being played at the same table. The history of one of the biggest examples of multiple resourcing systems in table top RPGs tells us that adherents of mulptiple distinctly different resourcing systems don't like playing with each other.

I don't give a crap if this isn't D&D. D&D can still act as an example of this having been tried in practice and turning out to be unpopular and generally crappy.

[Mask_De_H]

And people who aren't us really dug...

Someone somewhere liked every single resourcing system in every incarnation of D&D. Someone somewhere liked 2E Psionics for fucks sake.

Who cares. What is important is that basically no one liked all of them at once. And indeed those that DID like obscure resourcing systems at best believed they were SUPERIOR to standard resourcing systems (and should replace rather than coexist with them) and at worst were openly hostile to other rival obscure resourcing systems (plenty of pro 3.x Psionic gamers would refuse to even play in the same game as "weeaboo fighin magic" resourcing systems).

And "Not D&D" continues this trend handily in the form of WoF, a system that it's adherents proclaim to be a superior REPLACEMENT not addition to traditional resourcing systems, and who designed and justified in terms of other resourcing systems being supposedly utterly incapable of achieving the same compatible goals.

When you are messing with the fundamental resourcing system at that sort of level on a class by class basis you will have multiple players sitting at the table trying to play very different games at the same time. Common sense tells us we are going to be lucky if they even all know the rules of all the other games being played at the same table. The history of one of the biggest examples of multiple resourcing systems in table top RPGs tells us that adherents of mulptiple distinctly different resourcing systems don't like playing with each other.

I don't give a crap if this isn't D&D. D&D can still act as an example of this having been tried in practice and turning out to be unpopular and generally crappy.

And the history of another of the biggest examples of multiple resourcing systems in table top RPGs (Shadowrun) tells us that adherents of multiple distinctly different resourcing systems will play with each other. The history of your example (D&D in abstract but 3.X in the specific) tells us that people don't like playing things from expansion material and get really uncomfortable when Fighters get nice things, not what you suggest. They also don't like it when shit doesn't work or is nonsensical (like 2e Psionics), which is reasonable. This also applies to the Shadowrun example, as the roles people tend to dislike (Decker/Rigger in 3e, anything Matrix-based in 4) are the ones with the most convoluted and nonsensical rules interactions.

It also tells us that poorly handled resource management systems will be accepted differently depending on how they are presented. Psionics were poorly handled, as were the Crusader's WoF alike and the Swordsage's pseudo-spell prep. They were well-regarded anyway. The Truenamer and the Magic of Blue were poorly handled resource systems and they were panned because nobody know what the fuck they were supposed to be and they didn't work right. Hell, casters and non-casters play well with each other in D&D until the GTFO abilities start coming online en masse, and some people never figure that part out. People champion the disparate resource management systems as ways to promote co-existence and balance within D&D classes that are anything but. If your claims were valid, 4e would have been much more successful and there would have been more instances of all-melee or all-caster parties before that.

What you say is unpopular is shit you don't like (you singling out WoF, which you have thrown spectacular bitchfits about is proof enough of that). What you say is crappy was crappy due to poorly made rules, not due to the concepts being crappy.

Like always.

[MGuy]

I personally would've liked True Naming and shit to work. I've no problem with there being multiclassing in a game but when you start wanting open multiclassing you should start asking yourself whether or not you even want "classes" at all. If what you want, as the end result, is for players to be able to mix and match abilities to do what they want maybe classes just aren't the way to go.

[DrPraetor]

"Teleport" is a different ability when used at-will, chargeup, and cooldown with completely different use-cases.

It is, but we're missing the forest for the trees here (in a thread about multiclassing!) the maneuver-control mechanic is not the crucial question.

The crucial question is: how many of these GTFO abilities does a multi-class character actually get? If you can fly AT ALL, this is (as Frank points out in a sister threat about GTFO abilities) a much bigger deal than whether you fly once per day, or at will, or have to eat a kitten in order to fly, or spend spell points to fly, etc..

Suppose that an Air Mage 6 gets Flight (and nothing else great), while a Dark Mage 6 gets Gaseous Form (and nothing else great).

- If an AM 3/DM 3 gets neither, then multiclassing is a lie. Refer to the SRD.
- If an AM 3/DM 3 gets both, then multiclassing is obligatory.

But this is not an impossible problem! The solution is pretty simple:
- An AM6 gets 3 GTFO/major abilities off of the level-appropriate air mage list, which needs to have at least 3 gems on it.
- A DM6 gets 3 GTFO/major abilities off of the level-appropriate dark mage list, likewise.
- A DM3/AM3 gets 1 ability off of each of the two lists (or a total of 2 abilities, which come from their choice of the two lists.)

Tada! The math to make this happen is not, in fact, especially hard. A proper and uniform distribution of gems takes a bit of work but is hardly impossible.

Going back to Frank's favorite necromancer - "having a ghast following you around" is a GTFO/major ability and you take it instead of adding a really desirable spell like gaseous form to your list. That's how you balance the resource management for Necros - who are never going to trade having more better undead for being able to throw a stupid bone spear, that bone spear had better shed a stinking cloud when it hits, and then the uses per day of that bone spear is less important than having more undead.

So again, you can have each class (magic-using and otherwise) be a unique flower so that it takes forever to figure this out, or you can make a single game that runs all the stuff on either a single resource system, or on a few resource systems which are (as Sorcerer vs. Wizard, or as Feeding Schedule vs. Lunar Schedule) "transparent", so that you can actually tell what is going on.

So the real heavy game-balance lifting for the resource management is not done at the "how many times may you teleport per day?" stage; because it has to be so, because "how many teleports" is such a minor issue compared to "can you teleport at all? How about magic jar, can you do that too?".

Now once we have that set aside, we move on to ask, how are we going to apportion the use of Flights, Gaseous Forms, Ghoul Buffs, etc.? And we can have some resource management system for the maneuvers, and we can have several of them that the player can just choose. Like the Sorcerer/Wizard distinction, these resource management systems have to be fairly transparent with eachother, you need each maneuver to have a level and you need the total number of levels of moves you get to do in the typical set of fights in a given adventure be more or less a wash.

Personally I think that's okay, it has to be so to make multi-classing work (which again, is the point of the thread - how do you make multi-classing work?).

Furthermore, Frank - yes, your Crusaders and Fire Mages are cool additions to 3rd edition. But they are not balanced with eachother. They're better balanced than most of the 3rd edition material - since the fighters are better than fighters and the casters aren't as good as wizards - but that isn't a very high bar.

Anyway I've got another thread in which to write this stuff up - which is why I regard the various assertions of "we already told you this is impossible why are you still talking!" to be just laughable.

[MGuy]

stuff.

If you can just cherry pick abilities, at any level you want what's the point of having classes? Basically what you laid down has already been discussed. You basically have it where people at whatever level can get whatever ability they want from whatever class. If you're just going to do that then what really is the difference between classes?

There's other concerns about which is better between Gas form and flight and whether or not gas form is a once a day thing vs flight being an all day thing because that distinction DOES matter. There's also the question of whether or not it atters if you have multiple GTFO abilities of a similar nature and whether or not it is more valuable to have access to multiple lists of class stuff than limiting yourself to one. Or in other words are you screwing yourself by NOT multiclassing in your set up or not?