C&C - A preliminary review

[tzor]

But I started out with a non uniform non linear system C&C. D&D is curently a uniform linear system. You need the later in order to do any true form of multiclassing. I'm comparing systems, not parts of the system in isolation. Isolating the parts merely create variations which act as strawmen either for or against your case.

[Manxome]

If you were trying to decide which system was better, then yes, comparing different parts in isolation might give you unrepresentative results (though I was under the impression that D&D was non-linear).

But I don't see one single person in this thread attempting to argue that D&D is better than C&C. I see people trying to convince you that non-uniform advancement is unbalanced and pointless and unnecessarily complicated and should never be used. You specifically made a system-neutral claim about uniformity of advancement:

Uniform advancement is not a "necessary" component of game balance. It's a prety nice component to use. If I were to design a game I would probably use it because if you do it right it is simplier, but it is not necessary. If I were twenty years younger, or if I had the time to crank through a number of differential equations I'm sure I might be tempted to work on a non uniform non linear advancement system that would work, but that's no longer my cup of tea.

And you've made many related statements in this thread.

It is not necessary to even mention either C&C or D&D to discuss this. You're the one who is introducing straw men, and you've introduced at least 2 already (including linear vs. non-linear advancement and the quality of D&D).


Incidentally, your claims about multi-classing, in addition to being a red herring, are also wrong, unless you have something strange and specific in mind when you say "true form of multiclassing."

[tzor]

Reminds Manxome of the subject of the thread. I can hardly see how the subject of the thread is in fact a strawman.

It when then claimed that C&C was wrong because it had different experience tables. It was then claimed that only a true uniform system could ever be balanced. It was my goal to prove both these assertions wrong.

In my view a "true" multi-classing system is one where a character at any level can take the next level of any available class. So if you had a FTR3/WIZ2, his next level could be either FTR4/WIS2, FTR3/WIZ3, or FTR3/WIZ2/ROG1 and all three combinations would be an equivalent 6th level character. In D&D terminology this was unique to 3E thinking. This notion demands not only that each class is balanced between each other but that each level must be balanced because taking any level in any class was the equivalent of advancing the total character by one level.

[angelfromanotherpin]

You're the one who is introducing straw men, and you've introduced at least 2 already (including linear vs. non-linear advancement and the quality of D&D).

I can hardly see how the subject of the thread is in fact a strawman.

No-one claimed that your review of or references to C&C are straw men. Even if they had, just being the subject of a thread does not immunize anything against being a logical fallacy.

Anyway...

It when then claimed that C&C was wrong because it had different experience tables. It was then claimed that only a true uniform system could ever be balanced. It was my goal to prove both these assertions wrong.

Well, keep trying. Your 'arguments' so far consist of statements of preference bereft of support, but tangled in discussion of elements which are at best tangentially related.

edited: for clarity

[Crissa]

Look: Non uniform advancement is like fractions.

You have one class that advances when they have 1/4 of a cup of xp. The next class advances when they have 1/3 of a cup of xp.

Maybe they're 'balanced' when they both have 1 full cup of xp, but at no point along that path are the two classes balanced.

Maybe we don't care, because the abilities of one class split into three better than four, but...

...As Frank said, it's another variable in the equation we don't need to have making things more complex.

-Crissa

[Neeek]

1190750087[/unixtime]]
It when then claimed that C&C was wrong because it had different experience tables. It was then claimed that only a true uniform system could ever be balanced. It was my goal to prove both these assertions wrong.

Well, you've done a really bad job thus far. Mostly because your side of the argument is simply wrong, so trying to defend it is an exercise in futility.

If you can't address the basic argument against your position, you've lost the argument. In this case, the basic argument against your position is that there is no way with an increasing power scale to have both A = B and A + 1 = B, and in a non-uniform system, that's not only definitely going to happen, it's supposed to happen. Is the D&D system perfect? No, but the uniform scaling system is not the problem, and was one of the best things WotC did with 3ed. It allows a starting point for game balance, whereas the old system (and C&C system, evidently) was guaranteed to be unbalanced just by having the level system work the way it did.

There simply are zero benefits to a non-uniform system of power increase. It's more complicated without actually making anything work better.

[Manxome]

1190750087[/unixtime]]Reminds Manxome of the subject of the thread. I can hardly see how the subject of the thread is in fact a strawman.

It when then claimed that C&C was wrong because it had different experience tables. It was then claimed that only a true uniform system could ever be balanced. It was my goal to prove both these assertions wrong.

You realize your second paragraph there is an apt counter-argument to your first? The thread has expanded to encompass more than one subject. The new claims are related to the original topic, certainly, but that doesn't mean that the statement "D&D is not balanced" somehow magically becomes a valid counter-argument to "non-uniform advancement is not balanced."

I really don't have any way to respond to someone who thinks that "the combination of non-linear advancement and permanent level loss creates problems" is a logical argument against "non-uniform advancement is not balanced" except to say "you are extremely confused."

1190750087[/unixtime]]In my view a "true" multi-classing system is one where a character at any level can take the next level of any available class.

There is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in applying this to a non-uniform and/or non-linear advancement system. Assign each level of each class an XP cost, permit any character to take that level at a cost of that much XP. Problem solved. A FTR3/WIZ2 can become a FTR4/WIZ2, a FTR3/WIZ3, or FTR3/WIZ2/ROG1 for an appropriate XP cost.

Those might not all be equal in power if, say, a level of wizard is worth more than a level of fighter. You still have all the problems of non-uniform advancement that you have with a single-class non-uniform advancement system. But adding in flexible multiclassing is trivially easy and introduces no new flaws.

See also: Final Fantasy Tactics and JP
(FFT is not balanced, but multi-classing isn't what breaks it.)

[tzor]

Well part of the problem is based on the fact that i am a lousy debater. I brought up the level loss to point out that a linear system does not support any way for level disparities to equalize over time. A non linear system makes it harder for higher levels to advance relative to lower characters for the same experience pool and thus over time any gap that forms is narrowed. The key to balance is to match opposing forces, and well divergent exp gains verses non linear levels are such opposing forces.

I got to look at the PHB at home and managed to look at the first few tables for the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Assassin. I have to go somewhere tonight but I managed to get a quick diagram to post.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The key to balance is to match opposing forces, and well divergent exp gains verses non linear levels are such opposing forces.

Well folks, we tried, but I think it's clear at this point that tzor is off in his own little reality when it comes to this discussion. In fact, based on the above snippet, I think he may be well on his way to the wonderful world of Timecube.

[Maj]

But are multiple tables really "needlessy complex?"

Absolutely.

I have no idea where the idea of balance equates in any way to simplicity, so I'm not even going to touch that one.

I'm sorry I only have that one example of reasons I despise the rules - I discarded the book more than two and a half years ago, and have put effort into forgetting it.

[tzor]

1190761997[/unixtime]]Well folks, we tried, but I think it's clear at this point that tzor is off in his own little reality when it comes to this discussion.

Fine then I'll lust shut up now.

Darn whippernsappers. Back in my day we used to walk up non uniform non linear experience tables bearfooted and in the snow to gain a level and we liked it. Bla bla bla mumble mumble.

[Fwib]

Maybe you should have displayed them on a log scale?

[RandomCasualty]

Yeah, there's no need to have multiple tables if you can avoid it. Those sort of fine tweaks are fine in computer games where you can pretty much write whatever numerical code you want (and it doens't even have to make sense). But in an RPG, you want things that are easy to remember, and easy to look up.

The gain from having multiple XP tables is simply not enough to warrant doing it.

Oh... and having different characters of the same level be of different power levels is contrary to the base concept of a level system anyway.

[Manxome]

1190834701[/unixtime]]Oh... and having different characters of the same level be of different power levels is contrary to the base concept of a level system anyway.

I'm not sure about that. One could argue that the base concept of a level system is that characters advance in discrete packages, where they get a bunch of advancement at one time and then remain basically the same until the next jump. It's a packaging scheme.

Using those packages as a rubric for measuring overall power is certainly a nice feature, but I wouldn't argue it was the base concept.

[JonSetanta]

1190814645[/unixtime]]
Fine then I'll lust shut up now.

Darn whippernsappers. Back in my day we used to walk up non uniform non linear experience tables bearfooted and in the snow to gain a level and we liked it. Bla bla bla mumble mumble.

tzor, you're a grognard, but a lovable grognard. Nothing wrong with that, except in a Vancian/anti-Vancian debate.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

There simply are zero benefits to a non-uniform system of power increase. It's more complicated without actually making anything work better.

Then let's stop equating levels with power. Let's say you could take a level of Ftr or 2 levels of rogue, but each level of rogue only gave you one thing (say, either +1d6 sneak attack or trapfinding), while the level of fighter--in some hypothetical way--kicked ass.

That would work. However, it would end up looking like the current system because you'd want, like, 40 levels of rogue to exist while only 20 levels of fighter existed.

And then you're back to square one--but with increased options because class levels become more finely tuned for those with lower advancement rates. That could work. I mean, if you tell your players you can have 10 levels of wizard or you can have 9 levels of wizard and 2 levels of fighter for the same amount of XP, that's very nearly a valid choice.

[Manxome]

You still have the original problem: If 10 levels of wizard is balanced against 9 wizard and 2 fighter, then at some point someone is going to have 9 wizard and 1 fighter and the pure wizard he's grouped with is going to be either stronger than or weaker than him.

The only way you can get around that problem is if you say that fighter levels are worth half a wizard level and you can only take them two at a time, so your power still advances in discrete steps on the same scale as wizards. And at that point, the fact that fighter has twice as many levels doesn't really matter, except maybe that when you advance you have the option of a "half level" of fighter and another half-level of something else as opposed to two half-levels of fighter. Which I suppose might be a nice feature in some system...

[RandomCasualty]

1190988098[/unixtime]]

Then let's stop equating levels with power. Let's say you could take a level of Ftr or 2 levels of rogue, but each level of rogue only gave you one thing (say, either +1d6 sneak attack or trapfinding), while the level of fighter--in some hypothetical way--kicked ass.

That would work. However, it would end up looking like the current system because you'd want, like, 40 levels of rogue to exist while only 20 levels of fighter existed.

And then you're back to square one--but with increased options because class levels become more finely tuned for those with lower advancement rates. That could work. I mean, if you tell your players you can have 10 levels of wizard or you can have 9 levels of wizard and 2 levels of fighter for the same amount of XP, that's very nearly a valid choice.

But now you can't take advantage of open multiclassing, have a lot more tables for people to memorize and run into other problems, like no longer being able to equate levels with power.

So many things work by level, whether it's hit dice or skill ranks that it would be problematic to hand out more levels to some people than to others. In fact, whenever we stop scaling things by level, people tend to either suck or be really awesome. The idea is for level to play more of a role, not less.

After all, if you think two levels of fighter abilities are worth one wizard level, then why not just do the obvious thing and hand out two levels worth of fighter abilities in one fighter level?

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Which is, in essence, what would happen.

You'd pretty much buy your levels with XP. You could save up for the next level of wizard or buy a level of fighter right now.

Of course, you're right: it humps the saver a bit--for a half-level or one-third-level or whatever--but it's a possible paradigm. And, hell, probably not a very good one, but if you want to avoid rewriting 3E, you could just say if you take 1 level of a crap class you get 2, slap your hands together, and call it done.

We know a Wiz10 is a straight-up solid build. But could a Bbn5/Brd5/Ftr4/Rgr6 or a Ftr4/Mnk11/Pal5 with 10th-level gear adventure with him and not feel outclassed? Probably. I dunno.

[JonSetanta]

Heh ... Barbarian Bard...

[tzor]

1191034338[/unixtime]]Heh ... Barbarian Bard...

Applaud his performance politely. Whatever you do, don't make him angry.

[Cielingcat]

1191034338[/unixtime]]Heh ... Barbarian Bard...

So he plays metal?

[Voss]

Goffik Rok!

Or even just plain old Gothic Rock. That pun works on too many levels.

[JonSetanta]

1191113383[/unixtime]]

1191034338[/unixtime]]Heh ... Barbarian Bard...

So he plays metal?

Gwar. Definitive BarbBard.