Some rules to make the level-based system work.

[Alansmithee]

Honestly, I don't see why a charismatic, intelligent fighter shouldn't be punished in comparison to a combat brute. Most complaints about 3.5 that don't deal with the obvious difference between casters and non-casters seem to be about "why cant my fighter also do (charisma skill) and (int skill) and (other random skill)?" It's to represent the opportunity cost involved with being good at something. A champion weightlifter can't also be the world's greatest neurosurgeon and the greatest actor and a gold-metal gymnist. Someone who is focused should always be better at his task than someone non-focused. And if it takes dex to fire a bow, if two people both specialize in archery, the guy with higher dex should always be better.

[Username17]

And if it takes dex to fire a bow, if two people both specialize in archery, the guy with higher dex should always be better.

...to an extent. Of course, the question remains "should two archers have a different dexterity?" If you allow the two characters to have a different dexterity, than of course the character with the higher dexterity should be a better archer. No question or discussion on that point.

But you wouldn't necessarily allow two characters to have different stats. In FFXI, my human ranger and your human ranger have precisely the same stats. And there is nothing objectively wrong with that.

If you allow there to be two different numbers on a character sheet, that should mean something. The guy with the bigger number should be better at the things that number adds to. If that isn't true, then the numbers are meaningless and are simply another source of confusion. And let's face it - we really don't need another source of confusion in an open-ended RPG. Really, we don't.

----

Every number should matter, or it should be deleted from the game. If some stat doesn't matter for any reason, it is a waste of our fvcking time. There are countless ways to deal with this problem - but allowing a stat to limp along doing nothing is not a productive one.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1096299121[/unixtime]]

Now, diminishig returns has the opposite problem - eventually it makes single classing a sham. See, there's only so far that returns can diminish. So either you take another level of Fighter and you get a bonus to-hit or you don't. If you keep getting a bonus every level, the returns aren't diminishing. But if you don't get anything next level, you actually have no reason to take that level - your choice is literally something or nothing. Once you've made the returns zero for a level, you've put up the wall and people multiclass or they're stupid.

I dont' know, if your specialty is hitting people you might be willing to get a +2 every 3 levels or a +1 every 2 levels later on to further advance it. Casters already wait 2 levels per new spell level, so would a rogue or fighter wait 2 levels to advance their attack bonus or skill bonus at higher levels? I don't know, and it's totally player dependant. If he decides he wants to be the absolute best in the land, he can be, if he decides he'd rather multi, then he can. But diminishing returns ultimately puts that choice in the player's hands.

And it's not as though gaining the level will always do nothing, it'll still be giving you more bonuses.

the system would work something like this. You take up all your relevant bonuses, from strength, buff spells, magic weapons, BaB, rage, feats, etc. You add them all up to get a number.

Now you look up that number on a table, and that table applies diminishing returns to you.

This way, you could have your bonus item costs be entirely linear, since the diminishing returns is built into the bonus system, not the item cost system.

Note: just because taking a single level of Swordsman needs to get you a 14th level swordsmanning package at 14th level doesn't mean that Fighter has to only be one level long. Fighter could come with a new package of whup-ass every level. Certainly, noone seems to have a problem coming up with a new wizard schtick to add in every level for 20 levels, and there are thousands of Fighter prestige classes. If only one out of every fifty of them actually had a unique schtick to give out, you could still have 20 levels that offered a schitck that scaled to your power level.

There's a whole wide world of archery, mounted combat, exotic weapons, fisticuffs, and other fighting styles which could each get the same treatment.

Paying 1 level to become the ultimate swordsman is bullshit and it's the reason you'll never ever see non-casters balanced with casters if you use a system like that.

Once you stop gaining bonuses in your chosen area of fighting, you simply pick up a level of caster for buff magic or a level of barbarian for rage or whatever, but you wont' bother advancing as a fighter, there's simply no reason to.

There's simply too many ways around your system to overspecialize, which oddly enough involve taking levels of cleric and barbarian instead of just taking full fighter, because full fighter forces you to take archery after you've mastered swordsmanship.

The answer is not to prevent people from specializing, you cannot do that. If people can't improve their schtick through fighter, they'll use barbarian or cleric, but they will always keep trying to improve it. Only with a system like diminshing returns where all your bonuses are thrown in the same pile and then appropriately diminished to a sane power level, can things actually work.

[Username17]

I dont' know, if your specialty is hitting people you might be willing to get a +2 every 3 levels or a +1 every 2 levels later on to further advance it.

Look, you might be willing to give up class features in order to have the word "Warrior" on your character sheet, in order to show how much of a "Warrior" our character is. There are really people who do that sort of thing.

But that doesn't make it game balanced.

If level 72 of Fighter doesn't give an attack bonus, and you're supposed to take it because level 73 does - that means that the 71st level Fighter with a single Wizard level is unbalanced vs. the 72nd level Fighter at 72nd level. For the purposes of game balance, every character level has to be considered not only as part of an open ended campaign, but also as if it was the first level and the last level. Indeed, it might easily be all of those.

Many campaigns begin at a level other than first. All campaigns ultimately end at some finite character level. Sometimes campaigns are so short (or give out XP so slowly), that they begin and end at the same level. To be "balanced", your system has to be balanced at each level between characters who crawled to that level on their tongue all the way from first and characters who popped into existence at that level like Athena. To be balanced, your system has to be balanced between two characters right now as well as twenty levels from now.

You can't let people sell their futures for power, because in some games those futures will never ever come. You can't force people to suffer naked through the wilderness for future power because there is no guaranty that either the powerful future or the painful past will actually be role played.

Diminishing returns can't ever work, because in the long run it is ultimately going to have to include levels where, at least for a while, one configuration or another is strictly superior to another. And that's unacceptable, because those levels might span the entire length and breadth of a campaign.

Fundamentally, you can't tie numeric bonuses to class levels unless those class levels are tied to character level. Period. So unless you want to have people choose their class EQ style at the beginning of their life and never ever be allowed to leave it (which would work if you had enough classes to actually account for everything that anyone might want to play in your game), you can't tie numeric bonuses to class level if you want things to work and be balanced in the larger sense of the game as a system rather than the game of you and your personal homies in your personal living room.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1096330404[/unixtime]]
If level 72 of Fighter doesn't give an attack bonus, and you're supposed to take it because level 73 does - that means that the 71st level Fighter with a single Wizard level is unbalanced vs. the 72nd level Fighter at 72nd level. For the purposes of game balance, every character level has to be considered not only as part of an open ended campaign, but also as if it was the first level and the last level. Indeed, it might easily be all of those.

So what if one level is slightly off balance? I mean it's ok to have slight depressions where level 3 you may not be as powerful until you hit level 4, nobody cares really, and casters deal with power jumps all the god damn time, since they get a new spell level (and more powerful spells) every other level.

You'll never balance it perfectly anyway, so why bother. So long as a level 20 fighter is roughly equivalent to a level 20 wizard and a level 10/10 fig/wiz then you've done a decent job.

You can't let people sell their futures for power, because in some games those futures will never ever come. You can't force people to suffer naked through the wilderness for future power because there is no guaranty that either the powerful future or the painful past will actually be role played.

Right, and I'm not advocating that. Having a single level where your attack bonus may not go up doesn't matter in the huge scale of things. It's a difference of 1 point. And it immediately goes away next level.

I mean you're advocating against any kind of fractional advancement. If you gain only a 1/2 a point of fortitude saves then somehow that's not right. I mean if fractional increases bother you so much then ultimately you've got to increase your die size, and you have to turn it into the d100 system or the d1000 system, that way you can always handle very small increases in power that actually give you something in a die roll. Otherwise we are almost always going to be stuck with some kind of dead levels, whether they're in BaB, saves or whatever. A +1 modifier is pretty big in D&D. That's a 5% shift, and you just can't go handing them out all over the place.

Diminishing returns can't ever work, because in the long run it is ultimately going to have to include levels where, at least for a while, one configuration or another is strictly superior to another. And that's unacceptable, because those levels might span the entire length and breadth of a campaign.

We are talking 1-2 levels only. And like I said, I don't even think it's possible to eliminate this kind of minor fluctuation in a level based system. Wizards already tolerate it, as do rogues (who gain sneak attack only every other level). I don't see wtf your problem is with fighters possibly gaining progressions like this.

What's the big deal, so you're slightly underpowered for 1 level in such a way that nobody is even going to especially notice? Do you notice right now the times your character has +2 1/2 fortitude save instead of +2? Do you really complain about it? We deal with that shit all the damn time and we really don't care. The edge is so small and virtually invisible.

Remember all BaB in my system goes in a pool, so there's no way to avoid the diminishing returns, if your pool is up to a level where it takes 2 points to get a +1 bonus, taking levels in another class isn't going to help the situation, since it wont' speed your progression, so there is no way to cheat the system.

Condensing the fighter class into 1 fucking level where you become the ultimate swordsman just by taking 1 fighter level just doesn't work. Everyone will be fighter 1/barbarian 1/cleric X. That's what character level scaling abilities do. They encourage everyone to be a class dipping whore. And that's stupid. All that accomplishes is building your system around the fact that everyone might as well pick up caster levels or totally suck, because besides having really good combat bonuses, there isn't much for a fighter to really do. And if you move all the power into class abilities away from BaB, you'll have the same damn problem with multiclass wizards only now you can't multiclass fighters either.

The goal is to get a multiclasser to about 75-85% effectiveness in each of his chosen areas, assuming he splits up his training evenly. If he goes 3 ways, fighter/rogue/cleric for instance, then he should be about 65% or so in each. The only system that is going to support that is diminishing returns.

[Username17]

So what if one level is slightly off balance?

Because sometimes that will be the entire game. It's OK for one level to be "off-balance" when you are designing and playing a game for your friends, because you all agree ahead of time to suck it up and keep playing before and after that.

But when you are designing the game in the abstract, that's not OK. It's fine for there to be disparities in homebrew, but even a small disparity in a card game is a horrible structural problem. A game designed for people at large is closer to the card game model - since the other people playing it didn't actually design it, they don't know where the pitfalls and lost levels are, and won't be able to account for it in game.

So power disparities are going to be magnified and encountered unawares all the time. Not by every play group, but by many of them - and that means you're flubbing your duty as game designer.

A game designer has a responsibility to make things as balanced as they can, and if you accept known power disparities because "so what" - then you're going to end up screwing over the games of other people who actually don't know about these power disparities that you can't be bothered with.

If you can't be bothered to design something balanced, why the fvck are you trying to design anything at all?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1096350185[/unixtime]]
A game designer has a responsibility to make things as balanced as they can

Right, as balanced as they possibly can... but I don't think it's possible to eliminate all balance differences between levels. Sooner or later you have to accept some minor power swings. As long as they're approximately equal, it doesn't really matter much and you shouldnt' be losing sleep over it.

Remember that kinda shit already occurs with sneak attack, wizard casting progression and all sorts of other stuff. And it's no big deal, we live with it and we don't even complain about it. I don't think I've ever seen someone sayng "you should get a new spell level every wizard level."

This "problem" that you're going crazy about is incredibly minor compared to the real problems we have to actually deal with. I don't see why you care so much.

So if people play a campaign that doesn't ever involve level gaining there might be a slight 1 point swing, big fucking deal.

If my game is balanced to the point that the biggest imbalance is a 1 point swing, then I will consider that an awesome job. If that's the biggest problem with a diminishing returns system, then I say, "hell yeah, I think we have a solution."

[Username17]

Look, getting "nothing" vs. getting "something" is not a minor power discrepency, it's the game designer being a lazy fvckwad. If you feel compelled to say "Here's your level, you don't get anything" then you might as well not give out the level at all.

And if you don't eventually say that, you're not dealing with diminishing returns. Diminishing returns only works at all in a point-buy system, and even then only poorly. Diminishing returns doesn't work at all in a level system, because every level is supposed to give out a total amount of relative power at a measured and defined rate.

If you give out less than the last level, you aren't playing a level system at all. If you don't give out less than the last level, you aren't playing diminishing returns. You can't do both at once. There's a reason that diminishing returns concepts are themselves diminishing in games - and it's because they generate a lot of problems and don't solve anything (although they do postpone some problems, that's not the same thing and isn't especially helpful from a game design perspective).

The latest iteration of GURPS, for example, has flattened the cost of stats. Why? Because diminishing returns was dumb. You can't show a single thing that is actually solved by diminishing returns, for the same reason that Point Buy doesn't actually deliver balanced characters - because diminishing returns is a dumb idea.

The fact that you'll eventually be creating imbalance as blatantly obvious as comparing small numbers to zero is beside the point - it is merely illustrative of the inherent flaws of the concept.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1096389319[/unixtime]]Look, getting "nothing" vs. getting "something" is not a minor power discrepency, it's the game designer being a lazy fvckwad. If you feel compelled to say "Here's your level, you don't get anything" then you might as well not give out the level at all.

But you are getting something, you're just getting a fractional point instead of a full point, and depending on what magical gear you've got, and feats and all that other stuff, that fractional point may actually become a real point for some people.

And if you don't eventually say that, you're not dealing with diminishing returns. Diminishing returns only works at all in a point-buy system, and even then only poorly. Diminishing returns doesn't work at all in a level system, because every level is supposed to give out a total amount of relative power at a measured and defined rate.

Look when you have multiclassing you've got to have diminsihing returns because multiclassed guys already get hit with it. A cleric 10/wiz 10 actually gets less and less from his levels, compared to what the full wizard gets. In fact he has diminishing returns applied to what he's getting when he splits his level, but the full wizard does not. In a true diminishing returns system the same concept is applied to the full wizard and things are kept even.

If you give out less than the last level, you aren't playing a level system at all. If you don't give out less than the last level, you aren't playing diminishing returns. You can't do both at once. There's a reason that diminishing returns concepts are themselves diminishing in games - and it's because they generate a lot of problems and don't solve anything (although they do postpone some problems, that's not the same thing and isn't especially helpful from a game design perspective).

Sure you can... you give out 1 point per level say... though diminishing returns tells you the value of that point. a 5 point attack may translate to a straight +5, where a 15 point attack may only be a +12 for instance. And as the point values get higher you get diminished more and more. You're still however getting the same amount of "points" per fighter level, it's just those points have less impact numercially the more you have.

The latest iteration of GURPS, for example, has flattened the cost of stats. Why? Because diminishing returns was dumb. You can't show a single thing that is actually solved by diminishing returns, for the same reason that Point Buy doesn't actually deliver balanced characters - because diminishing returns is a dumb idea.

Actually point buy is perhaps one of the best character creation methods made because it does use diminishing returns. A linear 1:1 ratio for stats is lame as hell, because there's absolutely no reason a mage won't be an intelligence whore. Hell, they already do it with diminsihing returns but at least they think twice about it sometimes.

Without diminsihing returns you have no way to prevent specialization aside from just pure caps, and caps suck. They're just metagame tools to force every single wizard to have max int and then put points elsewhere.

When you have caps you might as well not even have ability scores or skill ratings. You just say that everything you care about is automatically maxed out and just roll d20+level*3 or whatever level paradigm you want. Because no diminishing returns just encourages that lame ass full throttle specialization and one dimensionality until you tell a guy where he must stop at some arbitrary point. And that arbitrary point becomes the place that everyone goes up to, simply because specialization is so awesome.

You counter specialization by making generalization dirt cheap where over specialization makes you pay out your ass. So depending on how valuable you personally think specialization is, you can decide when you want to stop or if it's willing paying out the ass for that additional +1. Meanwhile, if I do decide to learn a new trade, I'm getting a huge power boost in comparison, because as stated before, entry level stuff is dirt cheap.

That's the only way you control overspecialization. If you do a linear cost system, you might as well just say that every wizard starts with max int... because there's no reason to ever not to. ANd the only reason you don't put all your points to int is because you slap them with some lame ass cap. The fact that you have to cap them alone says that your system basically sucks. You are simply unable to discourage specialization so you have to outright prevent it at a certain level. You take away the player's ability to choose, and instead present them with a static statistic that everyone is going to have.

[Username17]

But you are getting something, you're just getting a fractional point instead of a full point, and depending on what magical gear you've got, and feats and all that other stuff, that fractional point may actually become a real point for some people.

It doesn't matter if it's a real point to "some people", the important part is whether it's a real point to a specific character. If a specific character can ever come back and report that it is not, you've failed.

In a level-based system, being 11th level is supposed to provide the same real bulge over 10th level that 4th does over 3rd - or 25th over 24th. And since you are claiming that returns are going to diminish past the point where you even see a real bonus each level - then that obviously aint happening.

Problem 1: If you don't get a bonus every level, then by definition you've failed the level system.
Problem 2: If you get a bonus from your class level, then sooner or later a multiclass character is going to be 20 points behind in bonuses, they won't be able to do anything, and they might as well go home.

You can't resolve those problems by giving people bonuses to crazy-ass secondary stats that don't directly affect game play. You can't even resolve the second problem by attenuating growth. Sooner or later can be made later with diminishing returns, but if it happens at all, then your system has failed.

---

At the extreme end, you could have every doubling of your class level provide a static bonus - such that a multiclassed character was always mystic theurged instead of increasingly behind. Say, you get +3 for each doubling of the level, making a Fighter/Mage at a -3 penalty at every level, which is your idea of solving things, right?

Well, unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Not the least because that's actually just a fancy way of having more levels in a class cost more like AD&D, but also because it doesn't fix things for characters who don't keep adding to their old classes. A character who takes some finite number of Fighter levels and then stops will eventually have payed some small relative amount for nothing, because their sword swipes can't actually hit. A character who takes some finite number of blaster levels and then stops will eventually be in the same boat, because their blasts eventually will be unable to harm enemies.

Your system is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't really solve any problems, it just makes there be arbitrarily more "levels" to go through before those problems become untennable. But since you'll have to go through levels faster in order to get to the same part of the story - really it's just adding several layers of bookkeeping and grossly inflating a bunch of numbers for no tangible gain.

Characters need more levels, the problems are just as bad, and happen at higher levels. Everything is exactly as bad as it was except that there are bigger numbers to keep track of when it happens.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1096398520[/unixtime]]
Problem 1: If you don't get a bonus every level, then by definition you've failed the level system.

Why? I don't increase my saves every level, if I'm a wizard my BaB doesn't go up every level. Merely because I haven't gained a "Bonus" doesn't mean I havent' gained anything from the level. I've still gained HP at minimum.

Well, unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Not the least because that's actually just a fancy way of having more levels in a class cost more like AD&D, but also because it doesn't fix things for characters who don't keep adding to their old classes. A character who takes some finite number of Fighter levels and then stops will eventually have payed some small relative amount for nothing, because their sword swipes can't actually hit. A character who takes some finite number of blaster levels and then stops will eventually be in the same boat, because their blasts eventually will be unable to harm enemies.

Well, yes you are at times required to put some emphasis into something to keep it competetive. But so what. I really don't want a fighter 1/wizard 20 to be very competetive in melee. If he is then the fighter 21 is getting hosed unbelievably. We want the fighter 10/ wiz 10 to be good, but not the guy who put in just one level. Maybe that one level gives him some minor bonus but he'd better be augmenting it wtih buffs to stand any chance.

Characters need more levels, the problems are just as bad, and happen at higher levels. Everything is exactly as bad as it was except that there are bigger numbers to keep track of when it happens.

Maybe.

I don't really know how it'll work out, but I'm definitely going to try it. I've spent the past couple weeks working on getting the system up and running and seeing how it does.

I can certainly say however that the answer doesn't lie in caps or reducing the entire fighter class to 1 level.

In terms of concept, diminishing returns is the only way to limit specialization organically. Whether it works in practice or not remains to be seen.

[Username17]

I really don't want a fighter 1/wizard 20 to be very competetive in melee.

Then don't let people get to 21st level. In a freely multiclassing system, the 21st level character who happens to have a level of Fighter should have a comparable number of Fighting Options against 21st level opposition as a 1st level Fighter does against 1st level opposition. And he needs to be as effective with those options as any other 21st level character.

This idea that somehow people who aren't taking more levels of class X should somehow be falling behind is horribly bad for game balance. When you can freely multiclass, then taking levels of whatever should not cause you to fall behind in anything.

If we were playing a system in which you were stuck on rails from the get-go, then you would have something to stand on when you talk about people being behind the curve when they are behind in class levels. But when people can multiclass whenever they want and all levels cost the same, that paradigm just can't function.

---

Fighting classes can be balanced with options, and cannot be balanced with bonuses, so long as all levels cost equally. If our level gain system looked like AD&D, then you could balance classes with bonuses, but if it doesn't, you can't. The paradigms are different and you just can't expect to ever make a balanced game if you don't play to the paradigms that you actually have.

Now, maybe you want to just get rid of multiclassing, and replace it with a number of classes that provide various mixes of fighting and spellcasting. That could actually work with the kind of bonus jiggering you seem to be talking about. But if a Wiz 20/Fgt 1, a Wiz 21, a Wiz 1/Fgt 20, and a Fgt 21 are all the same level, you just can't do things that way. Not even a little bit.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1096400020[/unixtime]]
Then don't let people get to 21st level. In a freely multiclassing system, the 21st level character who happens to have a level of Fighter should have a comparable number of Fighting Options against 21st level opposition as a 1st level Fighter does against 1st level opposition. And he needs to be as effective with those options as any other 21st level character.

Dude, that's completely batshit nuts, and impossible unless you want fighter to be a level 1 class. Basically you're saying that you get ALL the benefits of being a full fighter from one level, and you should be every bit as competetive as a fighter 21 at melee combat. That's fucking insane. I don't know why you keep suggesting this. It's stupid and can't ever work.

This idea that somehow people who aren't taking more levels of class X should somehow be falling behind is horribly bad for game balance. When you can freely multiclass, then taking levels of whatever should not cause you to fall behind in anything.

Its unavoidable when one of your classes revolves around hitting people wtih swords or sneak attacking them. You have a certain level at which you are proficient at hitting people with swords. That level will naturally be worse if you don't improve your fighter level, it has to be, because future fighter levels are taken to make you better at that shit.

If you say that you can't fall behind, then you are saying you only ever need 1 level of fighter. Ever. Similarly you only need X levels of rogue ever. Just get the skills you want and get out. So then you are still fucking single class fighters up the ass.

If we were playing a system in which you were stuck on rails from the get-go, then you would have something to stand on when you talk about people being behind the curve when they are behind in class levels. But when people can multiclass whenever they want and all levels cost the same, that paradigm just can't function.

Your paradigm breaks with multiclassing. If I can't get more bonuses by taking further fighter levels, then I take barbarian, or I take cleric buff magic. I WILL find a way to get more bonuses and you can't stop that.

Fighting classes can be balanced with options, and cannot be balanced with bonuses, so long as all levels cost equally. If our level gain system looked like AD&D, then you could balance classes with bonuses, but if it doesn't, you can't. The paradigms are different and you just can't expect to ever make a balanced game if you don't play to the paradigms that you actually have.

"Options" are basically bonuses. If you are getting another attack, that's basically a bonus to damage, if you get rage, that's bonuses, if you get karmic strike, that's just another cute way of sneaking in additional attacks. It'd be nice if your paradigm could actually work.. but it can't.

After fighter level 1 you're staring emptyeyed at us and telling people that they have to start learning archery now with their swordsman. You say my system breaks at high levels, which may be true, but yours breaks after first level!

You run out of shit to give them, and if the extra shit you give them is actually worth it then you'll end up with a fightre 1 versus a fighter 20 still sucking in melee combat. So one of two things happen, either the fighter 20 gains virtually nothing but useless abilities after level 1 and thus sucks, or he gains powerful abilities and still blows away the fighter 1, it just won't be with "bonuses" and you can gain some sense of false satisfaction from it.

You just have to accept that people who stop investing in something eventually will fall behind. I don't care if they fall behind in abilities, or they fall behind in bonuses, it really doesn't fucking matter. If the abilities matter then they're as good if not better than the bonuses. Regardless their abiltiy to fight will be behind the other guy who exclusively focused in melee combat, AND IT SHOULD BE.

Yeah, lets dispel that myth right now... if you focus exclusively on something ,you should be better than the guy who focused enbtirely on something different and took a 1 level dip in what you do. He shouldn't be as good as you are. If you think he should be, then you're system isn't even remotely sound and I might as well not even argue with you because logic has long left your thought process.

The real question is how close is each guy. And the way you close the gap is by diminishing returns. That's what diminishing returns do. They say that the guy who spent 10 hours practicing something is a lot better than the guy who spent 1. But the guy who spent 220 isn't that much different from the guy who spent only 210. And that makes perfect sense.

[Username17]

Dude, that's completely batshit nuts, and impossible unless you want fighter to be a level 1 class.

Wizards get to do a new thing every level. Fighters have to do that as well or there shouldn't be any more fighter levels.

There's lots of things for a Fighter class to do after level one. Here are some examples:

Lead Troops
Learn a New Fighting Style
Ignore Hostile Environments
Pick on Specific Enemies
Defend Self or Others from Specific Attacks

And that's just a couple of ones that don't have a "magical" feel to them. You could also have the Fighter turn into a bear or have their weapons burst into flame, or fly around, or whatever.

What new levels of Fighter can't do is "provide bonuses" - because that's what getting character levels is supposed to do for you. Class levels introduce new abilities, and character levels advance them. As soon as the levels of Fighter are relegated to providing "bonuses" - then you have made the Fighter into a fvcking heroine adict, he has to keep taking levels just to keep from feeling bad - not to actually accomplish things like the spellcasters.

---

If you honestly don't forsee allowing Fighters to get any new abilities after level one, then yes, Fighter is only one level long. But in that case Fighter is only one level long, and pretending that it isn't doesn't help anyone. It's just playing bait-and-switch with the PCs in a gratuitously rude fashion.

You can have more than one level of character classes in a free-multiclassing environment, but you have to accept that every class is going to be offering a comparable amount of new diversity to the Wizard.

Your paradigm breaks with multiclassing. If I can't get more bonuses by taking further fighter levels, then I take barbarian, or I take cleric buff magic. I WILL find a way to get more bonuses and you can't stop that.

No, you won't. Bonuses can't accumulate out of any class levels. They can only come out of character levels, so no there is no amount of multiclassing that you can pull that will somehow allow you to get numeric bonuses. That's the whole fvcking point.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1096404651[/unixtime]]
Wizards get to do a new thing every level. Fighters have to do that as well or there shouldn't be any more fighter levels.

There's lots of things for a Fighter class to do after level one. Here are some examples:

Lead Troops
Learn a New Fighting Style
Ignore Hostile Environments
Pick on Specific Enemies
Defend Self or Others from Specific Attacks

All of which pretty much suck compared to just killing shit with your sword.

Lead troops? I mean come on who is going to use that for a level. Learning a new style... well we already know how often people split between weapno focus sword and focus bow... Or you could learn favored enemy, which is significantly worse than fighter BaB.

Basically you decry diminishing returns as not being good, and then you implement this crap. Basically you're doing diminishing returns too, but only for people that don't multiclass. You get away from diminishing returns by simply getting the fuck out of the class before it goes sour on you.

Haven't you learned anything by the existing "2 levels and go away" fighter class? I mean seriously... people don't have to stay in the class and pick up your extra abilities which happen to be ass compared to the main frontloaded "fighter BAB" bonus you're getting early.

You're creating classes suited to people who just want to dip and get the fuck out. I want to create classes that cater to single classers and multiclassers, not just some wizard looking to get fighter BaB in one shot.

I'd never make a fighter in your game. At level 1 I get a potential +10 bonus to attack over a mage then at level 2, I get some shitty conditional favored enemy ability, wtf? Yeah, I think I'm gonna switch to barbarian and get rage... I mena why not? I can get a bonus to all combat rolls or some weird ass bonus for leading troops... gee I wonder which I'll take.

Your system can easily be cracked simply by a guy taking 1 level of a bunch of classes and cherry picking all the shit that gives him bonuses. Barbarian rage, fighter BaB, cleric buff magic, and then you're looking at a mountain of bonuses that keeps advancing simultaneous in multiple bonus granting disciplines. His rage scales, his fighter BaB scales, his cleric buffs scale, and so you've ended up allowing a guy to specialize to a more incredible level than ever before. Imagine the cleric archer with fighter BaB, the rage of a 20th level barbarian and the arcane buffing capability of a wizard. MIght as well add sneak attack of a 20th level rogue to the mix too.

Min/maxing would be completely unstoppable in your system. You're just looking at your party's powergamers and saying "Ok guys, go totally crazy"

What new levels of Fighter can't do is "provide bonuses" - because that's what getting character levels is supposed to do for you.

Look there will always be ways of getting more bonuses. By saying "fighter levels don't", your'e just telling people to look elsewhere. And they will, because PCs aren't dumb. If I want more bonuses, I'll take a level of barbarian to get rage, or cleric buff spells or druidic wildshape. And there isn't anything you can do about it aside from removing all of these elements from the game. Which is a heck of a revision and one that'll leave the game very bare.

Class levels introduce new abilities, and character levels advance them. As soon as the levels of Fighter are relegated to providing "bonuses" - then you have made the Fighter into a fvcking heroine adict, he has to keep taking levels just to keep from feeling bad - not to actually accomplish things like the spellcasters.

Everybody is a heroine addict to a degree. The rogue's skil ranks dissolve to nothing without attention, the fighter's BaB goes away and the wizard can't penetrate SR and is left with outdated spells.

You really can't revamp the game to eliminate this, because you've got classes like rogue and fighter entirely based on improving old stuff. Killing something with a sword is worth more than one level. It's your entire combat schtick, and it's all you'll ever really need if you do it well enough, in combat anyway.

People have to have incentive to come back for more, otherwise they abandon the class for something more profitable. If wizards didn't get higher level spells or rogues didnt' advance their skills constantly and sneak attack, everyone would be a multiclass whore.

If you honestly don't forsee allowing Fighters to get any new abilities after level one, then yes, Fighter is only one level long. But in that case Fighter is only one level long, and pretending that it isn't doesn't help anyone. It's just playing bait-and-switch with the PCs in a gratuitously rude fashion.

What is your hang up with abilities? An ability is generally just a bonus in a colorful wrapper. Favored enemy? That's a bonus... flaming weapon, that's a bonus. Leading troops, that's ultimately granting numerical bonuses to others. So what we are talking about wtih abilities is simply bonuses by another name in nice packaging with flashy colors. We could say a +1d6 bonus fire damage with each hit or we could say it makes a flaming weapon. But we are saying the same damn thing. We are talking about bonuses, plain and simple.

However, this time we are talking about conditional bonuses. So you get a broad general awesome bonus at 1st level and then get these minor weenie conditional bonuses at higher levels. What good is that?

No, you won't. Bonuses can't accumulate out of any class levels. They can only come out of character levels, so no there is no amount of multiclassing that you can pull that will somehow allow you to get numeric bonuses. That's the whole fvcking point.

Your abilities are numeric bonuses... So I take smite evil or rage, or divine favor. Wtf you think that's doing for me? It's giving me bonuses.

Your lack of foresight on this matter really makes me wonder how well you thought this system through. You list favored enemy and flaming weapons in your list of abilities and then try to tell me how you can't any more bonuses out of the abilities. Even the ability to negate penalties, like fighting in hostile environments are bonuses, they're just very specific conditional bonuses. So basically the onyl thing that changes is that all your secondary bonuses have to be very specific. They apply only against certain attack forms or against certain types of foes or whatever. But this doesn't change the fact that they're bonuses being called an ability.

Maybe first you need to get the idea out of your head that playing dressup with bonuses and calling them "abilities" doesn't change what they are. Smite evil is a conditional bonus. Sneak attack is a conditional bonus, Making a flaming sword is a conditional bonus. All of these are in fact bonuses and you can get a huge number of them and stack them all up.

I'll get favored enemy (dragon), flaming sword, divine favor, sneak attack and rage. All of them are going to act and scale at 20th level of ability. So I'm getting huge damage bonuses from each. It's just a matter of which can be applied to any situation.

And you have no way of controlling people to prevent them from stacking all this shit up to make "ultimate bonus man".

Trying to tell me that a flaming sword isn't providing a bonus or that favored enemy isn't providing a bonus is just outright puzzling to me.

[Username17]

All of which pretty much suck compared to just killing shit with your sword.

This discussion is apparently over. If you think that abilities to do things that are not "hitting people with a sword" suck, then you really should just leave all characters at first level. There's no good god damned reason to even have level advancement if you think that the ability to lead troops is a waste of space on a character sheet.

Yeah, I think I'm gonna switch to barbarian and get rage... I mena why not? I can get a bonus to all combat rolls or some weird ass bonus for leading troops... gee I wonder which I'll take.

No you aren't. You seem to seriously not be getting this concept at all. Numeric bonuses, whether from Rage or Buffs, or Weapon Focus or any of that shit should not exist as class features. At level one of a character class you can hit people with a sword or shoot an arrow or fire lightning bolts out of your fingertips as befits a character of your character level. There is nothing and should be nothing to "stack" with that, only to supplant it in situations where that would be a good idea.

The idea is to increase your "tool box" with each level of any class. And to increase your "power" with each passing character level. That's the only way you're going to make level dips not suck and still not eventually overshadow powering through a single character class.

So as things progress, you'll find enemies that are more difficult generally, but also which feature more immunities and weird abilties - thereby requiring more different abilities to take them down.

If all you want is to swing a sword or shoot fire bolts, there's no reason to even go to second level, because that's a concept that you can play adequately at first level. If you want people to be playing character concepts at 20th level that can be expressed at 1st level, then the 3e multiclass system is not for you - you should go back to the AD&D class system and stop wasting my time.

Everybody is a heroine addict to a degree.

And every instance of that is a legacy to a different character class mechanic that is incompatible with open multiclassing. If you make your PC's abilties expire without feeding the addiction, then you aren't really playing open multiclassing, are you?

Stop jumping back and forth between descriptive discussion of the game as it is, and constructive argument about the way the game as it should be. When I say that there shouldn't be class-level dependent bonuses, I'm fvcking serious, and you going off about how people will just go into classes that provide numeric bonuses out of class levels is just plain mysterious. What part of "there won't be any" did you not understand?

Am I going to have to burn this information into your dick before you can read and understand it? This is going out the other side of funny and into sad.

Class level dependent numeric bonuses only work if the class levels are directly tied to character level. Period. No exceptions. If you want to have open multiclassing and prestige classes, where class level is therefore in no way tied to character level, then the numeric bonuses are going to have not be dependent upon class levels. No exceptions. No "but there's still rage", no "but there's still self buff spells", nothing. All of those things have to work a different way, such that they are themselves tied to character level, or simply not exist.

That's not the only way to do it, but it's the only way to do it if you want a level based system with open multiclassing and level cost equivalency.

-Username17

[Desdan_Mervolam]

And?

Really, for the kind of systemic flexability you want, you really can't use a level-based system. The closest you can get is passing out character points that can be redeemed for BAB, Saves, skills, abilities and feats/class abilites. At that point the only difference between a level-based system and a pure point-buy like GURPS or BESM is when you get to apply your character points(Which as you have pointed out, is purely by the grace of the DM no matter what).

-Desdan

[Oberoni]

No numerical bonuses at all?

I mean...the game is so very full of them at the moment. You gave a few examples earlier, Frank...do you have any more? Maybe slightly specific ones? Give us some insight into your idea here.

[Username17]

No numeric bonuses. At all.

Each and every level will give you a collection of potential combat actions and all of them will scale. Or they will give you access to immunities/resistances and all of those will scale too. Or they will give a combination of the two.

I don't really see many classes needing to be more than a few levels long, especially prestige classes. So, for example, let's say that you want to take levels of Necromancer, a class which I am making up right now. Their abilities are as follows (combat actions are italicized, non-combat and continuous abilties are plain text):

Level / Goodies
1 Zombie Servant, Resistances, Fear
2 Animate Dead, Preserve Corpses
3 One of Us, Death Bolts,
4 Speak With Dead, curse
5 Death Vision, Call Spirits

OK, every level should give you some cool adventuring and a new tool in your combat toolbox. So, for example, at first level the Necromancer can have a Zombie carry his stuff and be something of a bodyguard, and can use a fear blast. The Zombie should scale up so that it can carry enough to matter (and also be a vaguely appropriate roadblock) at whatever level you happen to be. The Fear effect, similarly, should scale up so that it has a reasonable chance of spooking whoever it is that you happen to be opposing at whatever level you happen to be.

At second level of the class, you can keep corpses minty fresh, but the important thing is that you can animate the dead in combat. If you jump right in and get this at the earliest level, we're talking about animating a crappy corpse or two (because a crappy corpse or two can turn the tide of battle and is a valuable member of your toolbox), but when you are higher level you can get really big swathes of the damn things (because an individual animated corpse isn't worth crap at this level, so you are mostly in it for the area control aspect).

At third level you get to insinuate yourself into groups of undead because you are magically delicious, and are thus the party "face" when it comes to the walking dead (something which scales up so that you are an appropriately effective face for your level). That's a pretty major non-combat ability, and it comes with a relatively minor addition to your toolbox of being able to inflict ranged damage that happens to be with black bolts of "pure death" (which again none-the-less scales to your character level so that it's always a worthwhile combat action), but sice this is the first direct damage available in the necromancer toolbox, this is probably a god send to the 3rd level character who has been slogging straight through.

With the fourth level of the class, you can really rip the crap out of mysteries in your campaign, because you can speak with the dead. And you get the ability to curse enemies in combat, which is a nice addition to the toolbox because practically noone is immune to "curses", as they aren't even a damage type, just a circumstance penalty.

At fifth level, you get the totally sweet Wraith Vision from LotR, so you not only can sense the presence of the Ring, but you can see in the dark and tell the living from the dead. Perhaps even more importantly, you can call level appropriate spirits, which is a great addition to your tool box beause you can now do combat summons in places where there aren't any bodies lying around.

And so on. If you wanted, you could split that up a bit more so that the "spirit" style necromancy was a prestige class, and you could fit in other fun Necromancer abilities like Healing, Respawning, and Powerful Undead Creation (such as Vampire Investment or some such).

The only reason for there to be level limits on any of this is if the bottom end of an ability can't be scaled down past a certain minimum level, or if for flavor reasons you want one toolbox item to be dependent upon another. For example, the abilty to call spirits of any kind is kind of over the top for characters of less than 5th level, because there aren't any spirits that happen to be weak enough for a 2nd level character to summon. Alternately, you don't want people to get the whole Death Vision thing until they already feel like the undead to other undead, because any creature with Death Vision would thematically seem a bit undead anyway.

If you want to keep open multiclassing in a level based system, I am now convinced that this is the only way to keep things going.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

It works great for wizards who cast individual spells anyway, but what about a fighter type whose primary function is making attack rolls (and thus the bonuses on those rolls are the most important).

[RandomCasualty]

1096415692[/unixtime]]
This discussion is apparently over. If you think that abilities to do things that are not "hitting people with a sword" suck, then you really should just leave all characters at first level. There's no good god damned reason to even have level advancement if you think that the ability to lead troops is a waste of space on a character sheet.

Leading troops, as in an army is a waste of time. I mean you use it once in an engagement that probably isn't even numerically decided (because for one D&D has no mass combat system and second armies of low level soldiers suck ass).

Being a good general should always just be a flavor ability because mass combat in D&D is purely flavor. We have no way to quickly resolve it beyond "DM decides who wins"

Would you take an ability that hinged off of leading low level peices of crap? I wouldn't..

I'm not sure where you're getting this binary concept of things. Apparently in your mind, you're either the ultimate fighter, or you're not, there's no inbetween. And that kinda sucks for a guy who wants to actually focus on purely physical combat. Because you let him get whatever the hell he wants except more combat bonuses, and that sucks.

If you want to throw non-combat abilities in the mix at certain fighter levels, fine... I'm all for it, but don't replace improving fighting skill or damage with crap like "lead troops", Because as much as you cojmplain about fighter level 3 being a "dead" level. The level that you get lead troops and nothing else is even more dead. Just because the little ability box is filled in for that level doesn't mean you're actually get a good deal, I'd take the +1 BaB over a shitty ability like that anyday.

If all you want is to swing a sword or shoot fire bolts, there's no reason to even go to second level, because that's a concept that you can play adequately at first level. If you want people to be playing character concepts at 20th level that can be expressed at 1st level, then the 3e multiclass system is not for you - you should go back to the AD&D class system and stop wasting my time.

Huh? How about the fact that you're fighting more difficult stuff. Swing a sword well enough to kill a minotaur. A 1st level guy cna't do that. Kill a dragon with a lance, 1st level guy can't do that either.

Yeah, a first level character can swing a sword. You know someone who isn't proficient can swing a sword too, but it's a hell of a lot different from a master warrior doing it. That's why you have levels, to differentiate Conan from some random guardsman.

Giving fighters non-combat abilities is fine... but dont' talk like that's the purpose of the level system. I mean where have you been all these years? Being a high level fighter means you kick ass as a fighter among other things. Kicking ass as a fighter means good attack rolls adn good damage rolls, in a word: bonuses.

And every instance of that is a legacy to a different character class mechanic that is incompatible with open multiclassing. If you make your PC's abilties expire without feeding the addiction, then you aren't really playing open multiclassing, are you?

Diminishing returns alleviates part of the addiction and makes it manageable.

In your system as I stated before, fighter is going to be a 1 level class because it's most potent ability is handed out at 1st level, and it gets a bunch of filler crap at later levels. I'll be amazed if you can get a guy to take more than 1 level of it.

Your system happens to go the other way with multiclassing. Instead of discouraging it like the current system, your system totally encourages it. It's like every class is the 3.0 ranger and totally frontloaded. So you've solved the problem of people not wanting to multiclass but how the hell do you get them to stick to their existing class?

[Username17]

1096425971[/unixtime]]It works great for wizards who cast individual spells anyway, but what about a fighter type whose primary function is making attack rolls (and thus the bonuses on those rolls are the most important).

If you think that the primary function of a player character is making attack rolls, then it doesn't really matter what you do, because those characters are going to suck.

If, however, you wanted to give a Fighter-type character a decent toolbox, that wouldn't be at all hard. A level might look something like this:

Special Mount, deadly charge, smite fiends, defensive strike

So you get a cool mount that is itself appropriate to your level. Possibly a gryphon or a pegasus. Whatever. Also, you get a couple of special attacks added to your toolbox. The deadly charge manuver lets you perform a reckless charging attack that does a crap tonne of damage (and the attack and damage bonuses scale to your level, naturally). Meanwhile, the smite fiends ability lets you do a special combat manuver that negates the special resistances of fiends, but otherwise has somewhat lackluster capabilities (which are nonetheless scaled to your level). The defensive strike is just a rather ordinary, even crappy attack mode that happens to give you defensive bonuses.

And so on. Every level of a fighting class can give you weapons options to your tool box which are geared towards allowing you to retain the usefulness of your sword in more situations, such that your response to every enemy can be "I hit him with my sword" - despite the fact that your opponents are themselves incorporeal, flying, or just made of stone.

Maybe you'll end up throwing your sword at your enemy and having it come back, maybe you'll just switch between sword and bow really fast, the point is that if you want to have a sufficiently large tool box of weapon manuvers to handle whatever enemies happen to come your way, you should be able to do that. But there really are flying and incoporeal monsters and shit that show up later, the basic "sword attack" is obviously insufficient for your goals. Whether you respond by getting new sword manuvers or the ability to throw firebolts, you'll ultimately need something.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Ok... step back for a moment.

The deadly charge manuver lets you perform a reckless charging attack that does a crap tonne of damage (and the attack and damage bonuses scale to your level, naturally).

The defensive strike is just a rather ordinary, even crappy attack mode that happens to give you defensive bonuses.

Contrasted with...

No numeric bonuses. At all.

Bonuses can't accumulate out of any class levels.

Numeric bonuses, whether from Rage or Buffs, or Weapon Focus or any of that shit should not exist as class features.

So which is it then?

[Username17]

There's no contradiction there. The manuver has a character-level dependent bonus associated with it. The bonus doesn't come out of your class levels, it comes out of your character levels. The two are not the same unless you are playing AD&D.

So for example, the defensive strike manuver is a part of your toolbox that is "less attack, more defense". Your attack and defense, however, are part of your character level. So once defensive strike is in your toolbox, you don't need to keep taking more sword-fighting levels if you don't want to. And if you decide to use firesword instead, then the fact that defensive strike is in your toolbox isn't actually all that important.

However, sometimes you'll fight glass jawed monsters that hit really hard, and having defensive strike in your toolbox will be just the thing. Sometimes you'll fight ice monsters against whom having firesword will be the pajamas. Regardless, at no time should you be having to take a level of "doesn't get more obsolete" - that's bullshit.

-Username17

[Alansmithee]

It seems you are trying to turn all pc's into sorcerers. I mean, if everyone is a sorcerer, all their saves, atk, etc. will be the same, and their "class abilities" come in the form of what spells they take. So if you want to be "melee badass" you take melee spells. If you want to be "necromancer" you take all summon/animate/death spells. And, alot ofl spells scale up with level. In my opinion, part of what makes a character is what they can't do. The limits in d20 I have no problem with. If someone has worked for years studying magic, they shoudn't be able to just spend a month fighting with a sword and be as good as someone who spent years fighting. Again, its the opportunity cost. People shouldn't be able to do everything as good as everyone else. Without differing bonuses and abilities, characters end up being more similar, not less.