Kitchen Sink Roleplaying

[Username17]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole class/subclass system. Can you take any class for your "class" and any class for your "subclass"? So could you be Ninja (Time Mage) or a Time Mage (Ninja)?

Or are there two separate lists of classes used for classes and subclasses?

Yes to both. A subclass is a subset of the abilities available to the base class that are selected to be iconic but not role demanding. Kind of like Final Fantasy XI would be if there were more than a tiny fraction of the available class/subclass combinations that were worthwhile.

Of course, that leaves the possibility of options that exist only as a full or sub-class. The Giant Racial class, for example, will probably be a subclass and prestige classes like Demigod and Dragon Knight can jolly well exist as full classes exclusively.

But it's important to note that you don't actually get to attain more character concepts as you level up. You can get different character concepts. You can stop being an Artificer and start being an Iron Lich. I'm cool with that. But you don't get to start as a Ninja, stay a Ninja, and become an Artificer on top of that - because that's more powers than someone else who is playing either an Artificer or a Ninja is entitled to.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

I'm still a bit confused. Does each class have it's own list of applicable subclasses, or are all subclasses up for grabs regardless of your base class?

[mean_liar]

RC2 is arguing for an effects-based system.

(I think) Frank's conceit is that concepts would be on rails but that there would be a ton of concepts available.

Either would work for a Kitchen Sink game. The problem with effects-based - and I don't think it's a big problem - is that the players have to respect each other's schtick; to some extent an on-rails system bypasses this because the expectations of class performance are much clearer.

My general problem with Frank's setup is the frontend work required to generate classes and subclasses. The concepts are pretty tight and you want a raft of them.

[Prak]

See what confuses me is that it looks like Frank's basically saying "No, you can't play a ninja whose abilities are explained as time magic." and that's my sticking point a little bit, but then I also know that sometimes your character concept just doesn't work with the system and you just have to go with a different concept or system. A Ninja whose abilities work through time magic would work fine in M&M, and so maybe that's where that kind of thing stays.

[Mask_De_H]

See what confuses me is that it looks like Frank's basically saying "No, you can't play a ninja whose abilities are explained as time magic." and that's my sticking point a little bit, but then I also know that sometimes your character concept just doesn't work with the system and you just have to go with a different concept or system. A Ninja whose abilities work through time magic would work fine in M&M, and so maybe that's where that kind of thing stays.

Mechanically, yes, that's what he's saying. I've been futzing about with this concept for a bit now, and that's the point. Keep the classes well defined, and you keep the system solid. However, as long as the character concept fits in the setting from an explanatory standpoint, then there should be no problem in describing your ninja powers as time Mage abilities. It's like Roland or the Sorcerer as proto Weeaboo Fighters.

[Doom]

My own little worry here is when you 'change' class. You're a ninja...later, you're a lich.

Do you really forget everything you knew about being a ninja? I could see some things disappearing, but I'd like a lich that was once a ninja to know something about stealth and gimmicks, as opposed to a lich that was once a mage, which would know something about magic, even if that magic doesn't really mesh any better with lich magic (if that's the kind of lich Frank intends) than ninja gimmickry.

One jarring thing about DnD4.0 (and other games that have it) is the ability to 'rewrite' your character. I know in this age of "don't make it possible for a player to screw up" that I may be in the minority, but the idea of a character suddenly forgetting how to speak/read/write three languages on a whim just makes no sense to me (barring unusual circumstances, like turning into a fungus or something).

[CatharzGodfoot]

Doom, it's iconic in a lot of material that transformation and greater power comes at a cost. Often that means the loss of abilities you once had. Probably not the best example, but in 2e wizards had the ability to learn new spells. Lichs did not, and this was considered part of the cost of 'immortality'.

Some prestige classes might have abilities which look like evolutions of the abilities of earlier classes, and taking such PrCs would be a lot less jarring.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Transformations should go from less powerful to equally/more powerful.

While it makes sense to me that after a years-long training montage a mage can become a Shinsanken Monk or a barbarian can become a Gadgeteer Knight, going from Seraphim Lord to rogue (or plucking abilities off of that list) is just dumb.

It doesn't break the game (Suspension of Disbelief-wise) for me for a fighter to bust out with a Necrotic Web, but it does break the game for me for a wizard to give up the ability to summon demons to be able to swing a sword slightly better than average.

This has three ramifications. For one, the martial classes should go extinct after a certain point. For two, the game must be extraordinarily careful not to print lower-level abilities that are more powerful than higher-level abilities. For three, under no circumstance should a person be allowed to trade a higher-powered ability for a lower-powered one.

[Quantumboost]

This has three ramifications. For one, the martial classes should go extinct after a certain point.

Fuck no.

We're talking about a whole different game than 3e D&D. When you say "martial classes" in this context, you are dismissing the Hero, the Monk, and the Rogue based on how they generate their special effects.

"Martial" effectively means "guy whose combat style involves using weapons, which are possibly hands", and while it includes comparative mundanes like Green Arrow and Jackie Chan it also includes Thor and Sun Wukong. You are suggesting that Thor should go extinct as a character concept at high levels because his powers trigger off of muscles instead of... something that happens to be not muscles. That is straight unacceptable and you should feel bad for suggesting it.

[TheWorid]

This has three ramifications. For one, the martial classes should go extinct after a certain point.

Fuck no.

We're talking about a whole different game than 3e D&D. When you say "martial classes" in this context, you are dismissing the Hero, the Monk, and the Rogue based on how they generate their special effects.

"Martial" effectively means "guy whose combat style involves using weapons, which are possibly hands", and while it includes comparative mundanes like Green Arrow and Jackie Chan it also includes Thor and Sun Wukong. You are suggesting that Thor should go extinct as a character concept at high levels because his powers trigger off of muscles instead of... something that happens to be not muscles. That is straight unacceptable and you should feel bad for suggesting it.

I'm guessing he meant "martial" in the 4E sense where it rules out magic. So, "martial" characters have to die out because they cease to be plausible after a certain point, and are replaced with other things that make sense: a Knight jumps ship to a magically enhanced Rune Knight eventually, or something along those lines.

Not trying to misrepresent you if that's not what you meant, but it mirrors my thoughts on the matter.

[Username17]

The concept is basically like that of ChronoTrigger. You can be a Swordsman who doesn't use magic for anything, but by the time you get to the Magus Battle, you'd better fucking know Lightning. Because without it you basically can't do shit to the barrier.

A Thor clone doesn't stay "a dude with a hammer" at high levels. He goes the full nine yards and becomes a dude with a hammer who flies around and throws thunderclaps. So if you don't like the fantastic extensions that your class path is headed for, you'l have to jump ship to a PrC that has the kinds of fantastic extensions you like (effectively swapping your role out for a different one). But the key is that none of the available choices involve you not having fantastic stuff to do at high levels. The Avenging Hero option eventually learns Luminaire. The Scoundrel Rogue option eventually learns Steal Heart.

And if you don't want things to progress to that point, your only option is to not play at the higher levels where the enemy is seriously a Rimtursar.

-Username17

[Doom]

Doom, it's iconic in a lot of material that transformation and greater power comes at a cost. Often that means the loss of abilities you once had. Probably not the best example, but in 2e wizards had the ability to learn new spells. Lichs did not, and this was considered part of the cost of 'immortality'.

Some prestige classes might have abilities which look like evolutions of the abilities of earlier classes, and taking such PrCs would be a lot less jarring.

I don't mind there being a cost....but there still should be a residue. For your lich, he can't learn new spells, but he still knows his old spells, spells that came from before he was a lich.

Similarly, a ninja who became a lich probably won't be so good at disguise anymore (undead horror, after all), probably can't do a few other things like a 'real' ninja, but still should be able to perform some of his old tricks, eh?

But, if I go from ninja to lich, and my lich is exactly like the lich that came from a wizard or came from a paladin or whatever...that's a system that would have to have alot going for it to overcome such a turnoff for me.

If the 'cost' of immortality is complete obliteration of identity, I may as well die and roll up a new character.

[TheWorid]

I don't mind there being a cost....but there still should be a residue. For your lich, he can't learn new spells, but he still knows his old spells, spells that came from before he was a lich.

Similarly, a ninja who became a lich probably won't be so good at disguise anymore (undead horror, after all), probably can't do a few other things like a 'real' ninja, but still should be able to perform some of his old tricks, eh?

I was wondering that, too. It isn't as much of a problem with classes that involve physical changes (like becoming a lich or a cyborg) because that has a large impact on what you can do. However, particularly with learned abilities like thievery, having them outright disappear is jarring.

One could explain it away somewhat by saying that when you switch classes, you get out of practice in your old combat styles, your technical knowledge grows rusty, etc. But if nothing remains whatsoever, it is hard to stomach. It's an excellent set-up for maintaining game balance and being able to easily identify characters, but it either needs clarification or a bit extra. Perhaps some sort of "residue feat" that gives you just a small portion of old classes, enough to maintain continuity but not enough to wreck balance.

[K]

Similarly, a ninja who became a lich probably won't be so good at disguise anymore (undead horror, after all), probably can't do a few other things like a 'real' ninja, but still should be able to perform some of his old tricks, eh?

I would fight ninja liches.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's not that when you get to lich king from barbarian you forget how to hulk out and swing an axe, it's because your lich king abilities overshadow your barbarian abilities.

The idea of higher-level characters still relying on low-grade bullshit like Magic Missile and Tide of Iron is insulting to our intelligence. At level 25, the fact that you still know Combat Challenge should mean fuck-all because you upgraded to God of Thunder or Planesweeper or Legendary Dreadnaught or Lord of the Immortal Sword.

Let's go back to Black Forest for a bit. The fact that you are a swineherd or a tailor is really important to how those stories unfold. When you advance to the heroic tier the difference between a Street Urchin wizard and a Blacksmith Apprentice wizard is so small that it doesn't even matter. Similarly, when you advance to paragon tier the difference between a warlock Artificer Knight and a paladin Artificer Knight is so small that it means fuck-all to how adventures unfold.

It's not as if you suddenly forgot the proper way to ride mundane horses or how to cast magic missile or all that. It's just that when you get to the point the game just doesn't give a care so you might as well erase it off your character sheet.

[Blicero]

And if you don't want things to progress to that point, your only option is to not play at the higher levels where the enemy is seriously a Rimtursar.

That's why I really like the idea of having separate tiers of advancement that each consist of several levels. Within a tier, you wouldn't necessarily learn any new techniques that are OMGWTF more powerful than the ones you already know, you'd just get better and better at mastering your tier's level of techniques. So, at Tier 1, you might get better and better at learning to run on walls or become invisible or whatever, but you'll never be able to fly or turn invisible. Then, as soon as you reach Tier 2, BANG!!, you learn how to turn invisible or fly, and then you refine that ability over the course of the tier, learning new tier-appropriate techniques and refining those as well.

That way, the game would have several clear potential stopping points for a campaign that would pretty much say, "If you never want your game to go beyond LotR, DON'T GO TO THE NEXT TIER!!!111!" And advancing a tier would actually mean something, unlike in 4E.

[RobbyPants]

It's not that when you get to lich king from barbarian you forget how to hulk out and swing an axe, it's because your lich king abilities overshadow your barbarian abilities.

The idea of higher-level characters still relying on low-grade bullshit like Magic Missile and Tide of Iron is insulting to our intelligence. At level 25, the fact that you still know Combat Challenge should mean fuck-all because you upgraded to God of Thunder or Planesweeper or Legendary Dreadnaught or Lord of the Immortal Sword.

Let's go back to Black Forest for a bit. The fact that you are a swineherd or a tailor is really important to how those stories unfold. When you advance to the heroic tier the difference between a Street Urchin wizard and a Blacksmith Apprentice wizard is so small that it doesn't even matter. Similarly, when you advance to paragon tier the difference between a warlock Artificer Knight and a paladin Artificer Knight is so small that it means fuck-all to how adventures unfold.

It's not as if you suddenly forgot the proper way to ride mundane horses or how to cast magic missile or all that. It's just that when you get to the point the game just doesn't give a care so you might as well erase it off your character sheet.

Is the idea that you can only "switch classes" when you gain a new tier? That makes sense in some ways, but it's not really class switching; it's just getting a new set of abilities which may or may not be similar to what you were doing earlier. So a knight becoming a Holy Knight Templar (or whatever) might not seem like a "class switch", but a knight becoming a Fire Lord would. Either way, they're both assumed to be viable, level-approrpiate actions.

I agree with you, but the posters above were complaining about Frank's comment of you can only be a time mage or a ninja, not both. I'm getting the impression that they were thinking about something akin to "retraining" or multiclassing or something, which is causing confusion. I think people are discussing two things here: switching classes whenever and gaining a new class when you get a new tier (and stopping to advance your lower tier class).

[RandomCasualty2]

That way, the game would have several clear potential stopping points for a campaign that would pretty much say, "If you never want your game to go beyond LotR, DON'T GO TO THE NEXT TIER!!!111!" And advancing a tier would actually mean something, unlike in 4E.

Honestly, I'm not even sure if you would even want to have your game take up multiple tiers. Combat between high level characters should look and feel different anyway to the point that you should probably just ditch the idea of a square based battlemap entirely.

If you watch any of the combat scenes in Advent Children, that's pretty much what a high level combat should look like. And you can't do something like that so long as you're clinging onto crap like 5 ft squares and that bullshit.

[Blicero]

But distinct tiers would be the perfect time to announce a fundamental shift in the way combat is played.

The "squares" characters take up could get bigger as they tier up. So tier 1 might be 5 fight for a human-sized dude, then tier 2 might be 20 or 30 (representing the ability to take on platoons of enemies with the same difficulty it would have taken to fight a small group before), and so on.

Without distinct tiers, you'd just have to choose some random point where armies suddenly become a level-appropriate challenge for an individual character. And that point would pretty much become the end of one tier and the start of another in everything but name. So you might as well make gameplay as a whole, not just spacing, revolve around tiers.

[RandomCasualty2]

But distinct tiers would be the perfect time to announce a fundamental shift in the way combat is played.

The "squares" characters take up could get bigger as they tier up. So tier 1 might be 5 fight for a human-sized dude, then tier 2 might be 20 or 30 (representing the ability to take on platoons of enemies with the same difficulty it would have taken to fight a small group before), and so on.

I thought about this actually, but the problem is that you run into the fundamental problem of having to need a complex set of rules for cross-tier creatures. If at any point, your heroes go against a tier 2 as tier 1s, or vice versa, you're going to run into a bunch of rules problems.

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed that you're better off just having it be separate games. If anything you can create a system where you can convert a higher level character from the tier 1 game to the tier 2 game. But having a separate game for each is the simplest way to do it I think. It really lets you get "balls to the wall" with the high level system without being constrained with making it backwards compatible.

[Crissa]

I would rather not erase lower-level things from the characters sheet, but instead make them merely mechanically unimportant. Or important in that way that when you have two people with the same initiative roll you then go to a backup stat to choose them, and then a rolloff. It's a backup stat that only have meaning when you're faced with an equal answer.

-Crissa

[MGuy]

I'm with Crissa about not wanting things from lower level to disappear. Especially not if the way its done is just to make another character for what could be considered another game because of scope and a completely different set of abilities.

I prefer (and am building my own game around) the FF Tactics route where all your abilities from level 1 are use able but you gain bigger and better abilities that just do more or different things as you level up. I don't want single heroes to all of a sudden be something more than one person nor do I like the idea that when you get a new set of abilities all of the things you did before essentially don't matter (compare) anymore.

[Username17]

I would rather not erase lower-level things from the characters sheet, but instead make them merely mechanically unimportant. Or important in that way that when you have two people with the same initiative roll you then go to a backup stat to choose them, and then a rolloff. It's a backup stat that only have meaning when you're faced with an equal answer.

-Crissa

If you don't replace the character's abilities with different abilities and instead merely add, you end up with mandatory "builds." Where to get the key tie breakers you need to be the best Angel Knight you can be, you need to have leveled up in Ranger and then Dragon Slayer. When I face the Mummy King, I don't give a rat's ass if he was a swine herd or a stableboy when he was growing up, I don't care a whit whether he started adventuring as thief or a spear catcher. I only care that he's a fucking Mummy King. And as it happens, the game gets objectively worse if it makes any difference what he was back when he was those other things. First, because it makes it take longer to generate the Mummy King, and secondly because it punishes organic characters by giving relative penalties to characters who didn't go through the "right" lifepath to become whatever class they are now.

It's fine for a Hero to become an Angel Knight subHero, or a Necromancer to become an Angel Knight subNecromancer. But the moment you could possibly have a Halo Burst fail instead of succeed because you weren't an Avenging Hero back before you took the Angel Knight prestige class - you are abandoning any real pretense of open character development.

-Username17

[MGuy]

I would rather not erase lower-level things from the characters sheet, but instead make them merely mechanically unimportant. Or important in that way that when you have two people with the same initiative roll you then go to a backup stat to choose them, and then a rolloff. It's a backup stat that only have meaning when you're faced with an equal answer.

-Crissa

If you don't replace the character's abilities with different abilities and instead merely add, you end up with mandatory "builds." Where to get the key tie breakers you need to be the best Angel Knight you can be, you need to have leveled up in Ranger and then Dragon Slayer. When I face the Mummy King, I don't give a rat's ass if he was a swine herd or a stableboy when he was growing up, I don't care a whit whether he started adventuring as thief or a spear catcher. I only care that he's a fucking Mummy King. And as it happens, the game gets objectively worse if it makes any difference what he was back when he was those other things. First, because it makes it take longer to generate the Mummy King, and secondly because it punishes organic characters by giving relative penalties to characters who didn't go through the "right" lifepath to become whatever class they are now.

It's fine for a Hero to become an Angel Knight subHero, or a Necromancer to become an Angel Knight subNecromancer. But the moment you could possibly have a Halo Burst fail instead of succeed because you weren't an Avenging Hero back before you took the Angel Knight prestige class - you are abandoning any real pretense of open character development.

-Username17

First off I will say that I am totally fine with it taking longer to generate the MK. I am totally willing to make that sacrifice.

Secondly, if you want to be the "best you can be" I don't exactly see how rebuilding your character at level 6 is any different than planning your character out at level 1 IF you're aiming to be the best around. However the easy fix to this problem, that would allow for those who want to to keep their old abilities, is to simply allow for Ability Retraining. That way for those who want to rebuild their character over and over again there is a mechanic in game that won't break verisimilitude and those who don't wanna rewrite their character sheet can avoid doing so.

As for it "punishing" an organic character I don't really see how a character who gets rewritten every tier into something totally different with no thought given to his previous life choices can even be considered "organic" at all.

I agree with your comment afterward about abilities shouldn't be worse because you didn't choose a certain path. I'm not endorsing that kind of design myself. I am thinking that Halo Burst would be a stand alone ability whether or not you were a sub necromancer with Whithered Touch or an avenging Hero with Counter Swing. All of these abilities would work separate from each other with maybe Counter Swing being more useful than Whithered Touch in the situations where you would be using Halo Burst.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Secondly, if you want to be the "best you can be" I don't exactly see how rebuilding your character at level 6 is any different than planning your character out at level 1 IF you're aiming to be the best around.

If you give players fewer opportunities to cycle old behavior into new bonuses the less min-maxxing you'll end up with. Duh. If being a Fighter/Angel Knight makes you a better character than a Barbarian/Angel Knight then the class system has failed.

Now while you could carefully arrange bonuses and permutations so that a Fighter/Archlich ends up just as powerful as a Wizard/Archlich that's just too much work for too little payoff You're an Archlich now, you do Archlich things. Casting magic missile or using Tide of Iron is beneath you. No matter what you did in the past, your movelist bottoms out at Wave of Darkness anyway. So why risk the chance that someone goes 'oh wait, I have a super secret barbarian ability that makes Wave of Darkness get a +2 bonus to attack!' when they're not even supposed to be using their shitty barbarian abilities? At the very best it's a shit-ton of extra work for the designers and at the worst it means your class system becomes unbalanced again.

As for it "punishing" an organic character I don't really see how a character who gets rewritten every tier into something totally different with no thought given to his previous life choices can even be considered "organic" at all.

Same reason that once you actually get accepted into college no one gives a shit what your grades were in high school. You're playing a new ball game now, kick all that kiddy shit to the curb.

However the easy fix to this problem, that would allow for those who want to to keep their old abilities, is to simply allow for Ability Retraining.

No, that's not a fix. That's what 4E tried to pull to epic failure.

One of the big reasons why 4E epic does not feel like epic is because they force you to do the same basic bullshit you did at level 1 at level 21. This is because the game still wanted your level 1 shit to matter oh-so-much. But if your level 1 shit is still supposed to matter 20 levels later then there's only so much room for growth the challenges (and thus the scope of your character) can actually have.

The only way you can actually have a transformation from 'heroic' to 'epic' tier is to get epic abilities that completely overshadow your heroic tier abilities. If you try to keep old bullshit like Combat Challenge or Tide of Iron relevant then this means downgrading so-called epic challenges. This means either you have to transform the old stuff to something suitably epic (losing your old functionality in the process) or slapping on so many new abilities onto your character sheet that you don't have time to use your old shit--and if you're doing the latter then you might as well erase your old stuff to save space.

Now I'm not saying that a character has to lose everything at once when upgrading from fighter to Angel Knight, but you honestly might as well. It reduces min-maxxing and creates a greater sense of awe. You're not learning a new trick, you're doing your first class change ever. Cecil becoming a paladin is awesome and will be remembered for all eternity, the black mage learning Fire3 is a yawnfest. But the underlying fact that at some point you need to start erasing and rewriting your character sheet is non-negotiable if you want to play a game with stark power scaling.

At the very best you end up like a 3E wizard and you have a huge chunk of spells you never use except when you want to hog even more spotlight. And that's when the system breaks down. When it's working as intended you end up like the 4E wizard, who can't do anything cool because the game demands that they spend at least three rounds a combat at level 21 spamming At-Wills they've had since level 1. :facepalm