|
Post by Draxy on Nov 3, 2003 9:23:44 GMT -5
Ok, let's take a look.
Hussar: Oh, sure, he can change his class very often, but he does suffer some serious penalties for doing so.
Me: But he also has some very serious advantages for doing so. What you seem to see as a weakness, versatility as opposed to focus, the book (and obviously most players) see as simply a different style.
___________________________________________
Hussar: Let's ignore the 4+ characters for a while, since having that many classes actually makes your character much weaker than stronger. You simply do not have enough levels to spread around and make any sort of bid for power.
Me: What is all this about bid for power? Powerism is only a small portion of the problem, and perhaps not the worst one. It simply shows a trend and tendency.
But then too, of course you would have to ignore the low end characters (the most common sort) because that is where the most rampant multi-classing abuse is located. We can't have the level one barbarian/level one Wizard/level one Thief examined compared to a level three anything else or the whole arguement falls apart.
__________________________________________
Hussar: 2e had equal problems with multiclassing. For the xp of a 9th level fighter, I can make a 8th fighter/10 mage/ 11th thief. So, for one level of fighter and a few hp, I gain 10 levels of mage, and 11 levels of thief. All in the same amount of time as it took that poor human to reach 9th level. So, instead of speeding things along later in life, I suddenly gain 3 times as many levels as the single classed character. Since most characters in most campaigns have roughly equal xp, by the time your fighter hits 9th, I'll have my levels.
Me: Where do you get any of this? For the 125,000 points needed to reach 9th level as a Fighter, divided by 3 is 41,667/41,667/41,666. That makes for a 6th level Fighter/6th level Mage/7th level Thief. (Who, by the by, has an average of 23 hit points) The exp. are split evenly between the classes for multiclassed characters, as opposed to Dual Classed (or Triple Classed) human characters.
Nor is it an accurate comparison at all in other ways. The dual classed character, which is what the book calls it when a human can do it, can NOT jump back and forth between his classes. He must be lucky enough to have a 15 or better stat for the class he takes first AND a 17 or better for the class he takes second. Now if it is a non-human race that allows all three, well, a Half-elf is the ONLY one that does allow it, there are those pesky racial limits on how high you can advance there.
How many dual classed Fighter*7/Mage*8's have you seen? Honestly now, how many Fighters (unless they have several mega high scores, which the standard methods of character production from the book will produce about once per millenium without cheating) have you seen PLAY a such character for say, 7 levels with their probably best stat in Intelligence as opposed to in Strength?
Now, to have a triple classed character, as you used as an example, he would need to have atleast 15/17/17 as his best stats, MINIMUM, while the worst that a 3E character needs to have to do the same thing is a... hey, there is no minimum really.
Gee, THAT isn't going to promote just such idiocy as the second level Barbarian (so that he also gets uncanny dodge, which he retains after switching classes) now deciding to go Wizard. He only has, on average, triple the hit points of a third level Wizard and such a higher degree of survivability than the third level pure Wizard that NO ONE would think of doing such a ridiculous thing.
_________________________________________
Hussar; At least in 3e, the best I can do is still a 9th level character. 3/3/3. I have the fighter power of a 4th lvl fighter, second level mage spells and at best 4th level thief skills. Now, which multiclassing rules look more munchkin?
Me: This is ridiculous. It takes how many exp to become a 9th level 3E character? 36,000? TOTAL. And NO stat restrictions.
To become an 8th level Fighter/10th level Mage/11th level Theif, besides needing a minimum 15 Str, 17 Intel AND 17 Dex all three, but it also takes a MINIMUM of 125,000 PLUS 250,000 PLUS 220,000; for a total of 595,000 exp... enough to be a 20th level Barbarian/20th level Wizard/20th level Thief... who has about six times the average hit points and fifty times the equivalent power. Nor are EXP that much easier to come by in 2E compared to 3E to make up for that stupidity either.
So, who's less munchkined now?
_________________________________________
Hussar: The 2e F/MU/Th has a maximum hit points of 60(10*8+4*10+10*6+2)/3. Not too far off the max for a 8th level fighter, max for a 11th level thief and well over max for the mage.
Me: Maximum; the chances against maxing all your rolls are about the same of maxing all your stats. None and none, unless you cheat like a dog.
The average though for this mega character is a far more modest 44+5+2, or 51 hit points if it is dual classed... something that only humans can do as oppossed to races that also have those pesky maximum class level limits, or (5.5x8)+(2.5x8)+(3.5x8)/3=31 Plus 1/3 of both 2.5x2 and 3.5x2 for a total of 12/3 or 4 more, total 35 points now Plus 1/3 of 2 points for the 11th level as a Thief rounded up to 1 more point. The average is thus 36 points... average. less is as likely as more without cheating. But such a character can't officially exist any way, so...
_______________________________________
Hussar: The 3e character has a max of 60(10*3+4*3+6*3). Hey, what do you know? Exactly the same. So, hit points aren't a consideration.
Me: Except that it takes several times as many exp to get those hit points in 2e. 36,000 compared to 595,000. That's far more than a full order of magnitude of difference.
_________________________________________
Hussar: So, in every measurable way the 2e multiclass is far more powerful than the 3e. He has better attacks, more spells, greater thief abilities and the same restrictions. So, again, how is the 3e multiclass a munchkin?
Me: How in the heck do you get that, except by not understanding what 2e multiclassing is all about? As I showed, the minimum exp to get what you were describing would give me a 20/20/20 character in 3E. How is that even parity as opposed to being more powerful.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 3, 2003 23:36:04 GMT -5
Now, hang on just a second here. You can IN NO WAY compare xp between 2e and 3e on a point for point basis. It simply doesn't work. Xp is MUCH easier to come by in 2e. I can simply cast a first level mage spell and get 50 xp. Do that once a day for about two months or so, and now I'm 2nd level. Without leaving my house.
If you look at the xp values for encounters you realize that it takes about 13 and 1/3 encounters of a given CR to put a four man party up a level. A single mane demon in 2e is worth about 8000 xp. Never mind the bigger demons. With bonus xp in 2e, you simply cannot compare the two, they are FAR too different. And, given how much tougher 3e critters are, your chances of buying it in 3e are MUCH higher.
As far as dice rolls go, I thought we'd been through this already. A character with a single 18 is one in three. 2 eighteens are 1 in 6. That is hardly the unbelievable chances that you seem to be giving it. And, I don't even need 18's to multiclass, I can do it with 17's, which further increases my chances. Look at the rolls above, 2 out of the 6 that I rolled could do it, and 1 of yours could. Not all that unlikely.
About the xp thing, I don't have my PHB anymore, so I could be wrong about the xp. How much xp does a paladin need at 9th and would the math work then? It might have been paladin vs f/th/mu. If not, I have to go back and look again.
BTW, why can't I have a fighter/thief/mu at those levels? A half elf could do it. And, with higher scores, it is certainly allowable by the DMG. That's the thing right there, the players in 2e were ALWAYS rewarded in many ways for having very high scores. In 3e, high scores only affect die rolls. They do not affect level limits or anything like that. They ONLY affect die rolls. 2e actually REWARDS having munchkin stats. To the point where the only way I can have a character that I might want is to have munchkin stats. Without those high stats, I cannot play the character I want. How is that rewarding roleplaying?
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 4, 2003 0:08:11 GMT -5
Ahh, figured out where I made my mistake. The xp for a 10th level fighter (500000), makes me an 8th fighter/9th mage/10th thief. And, before that same fighter hits 11th (749 999), my triple classed character is 8th fighter (3xp from 9th)/10th mage/11th thief. So, in the xp to gain one level in fighter, I've gained just shy of three levels. If we make the fighter a paladin, now, I really rock.
Sorry, got the levels screwed up slightly. The point is, which would you rather be? A 10th level fighter or a 8th fighter/9th mage/10th thief? How is that an equal match? The triple classed character is going to fold spindle and maul the fighter. In 3e, the 9th level fighter is going to mop the floor with the 3/3/3 fighter/mage/thief. If anything, the multiclassed characters have been weakened too far.
I'm serious, think about it. That 9th level character has 1 attack per round, a single second level spell and a 4th level thief's abilities. And he's going to dance with a CR 9 creature? Not a chance. He'll be absolutely useless.
The main difference is, in 2e, once you've made your character, there is very little you can do game mechanics wise to individualize that character. He's pretty much set in stone. So, any munchkining that goes on, happens at 1st level. Whether it's taking an exotic race or a special kit, once the character is created, there is little you can do after the fact. In 3e, it is possible to customize your character at pretty much any point and come up with what you want to play.
You talk about the barbarian who takes a level in conjurer. Sure, I can't think of a good story or reason for that, so, I'll agree that that's pretty much power gaming. Granted, it doesn't help all that much, but it is power gaming. I can counter with the priest of Kosuth from FR that can cast any wizard fire spell as a priest spell and, at 5th level, can summon a fire elemental. Or the wizard who takes the witch kit where I can curse someone to death! Or the Paladin with the Inquisitor kit where I get Dispel Evil instead of remove disease, meaning I can automatically (pretty much) dispell any spell cast by an evil caster. The list goes on and on.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 4, 2003 8:07:58 GMT -5
Hussar: Now, hang on just a second here. You can IN NO WAY compare xp between 2e and 3e on a point for point basis. It simply doesn't work. Xp is MUCH easier to come by in 2e. I can simply cast a first level mage spell and get 50 xp. Do that once a day for about two months or so, and now I'm 2nd level. Without leaving my house.
Draxy: Sorry, but not according to the 2E DMG you can't. To get the indiviual exp award for spells it has to be cast in pertinent game situations to "over come foes or problems". Sitting in your house you are doing neither.
Too, while there is a pronounced difference, it is rationally about three to one. I'm downloading the Offical Conversions from WoTC right now. We'll see what they have to say, but I still garauntee that 36,000 in 3E does not eqaul 595,000 in 2E.
Hussar: As far as dice rolls go, I thought we'd been through this already. A character with a single 18 is one in three. 2 eighteens are 1 in 6. That is hardly the unbelievable chances that you seem to be giving it. And, I don't even need 18's to multiclass, I can do it with 17's, which further increases my chances. Look at the rolls above, 2 out of the 6 that I rolled could do it, and 1 of yours could. Not all that unlikely.
Draxy: Yep, we have been through this already. Look back on this thread and you'll find a formula Merkuri provided that states that the way we do it, with 7 rolls of 4d6 each, dropping the worst of each and the worst total roll, which is still less difficult than any of the Official ways to roll a character; it is 1 out of 7 characters that will have a single 18 and less than 1 out of 100 that will have two of them.
THAT is HIGHLY unlikely.
Hussar: In 3e, high scores only affect die rolls. They do not affect level limits or anything like that.
Draxy: Of course not. There ARE NO LIMITS in 3E. You can be a 7th level Barbarian/5th level Wizard-Conjuror (who will probably eat the straight twelvth level Barbarian for breakfast in anything other than a straight face to face fight) without restrictions. The fact that it makes no (even in game ideal) sense whatsoever is immaterial I suppose.
Hussar: 2e actually REWARDS having munchkin stats.
Draxy: Untrue. Non of the offical rules for character generation can produce "munchkin" stats without cheating the system more often than Halley's Comet wings by.
Hussar: To the point where the only way I can have a character that I might want is to have munchkin stats. Without those high stats, I cannot play the character I want. How is that rewarding roleplaying?
Draxy: Then Hussar, I pity your lack of imagination. If you have to be superman to play, I can see why 3E appeals to you as IT promotes such.
2E asks the question; will a person of barely average intellect be able to succesfully persue a career as an Arch Mage? It also answers it, not well. You can still play a mage with a Intelligence minimum of 9, but you probably aren't going to be a great Mage.
So what? If you have a 95 IQ (the rough equivalent of a 9 Intel.) your chances of being a top notch Nuclear Physicist aren't great either are they?
2E doesn't stop you from trying to be a great Mage though and unless the game is a run away Monte Haul fest you can become a well known and hugely respected Mage, of 20th level if you are human, and thus an Arch Mage by 2E's definition of it.
Why do you need the monster stats?
Too, using the Players Option Books, if the DM in the game allows such, you CAN have a character made to order. You still might not qualify for some classes and thus not be able to have exactly what you want (such as a Fighter with an 8 intel wanting to cast Wizard spells).. but sometimes that makes more sense than the 3E anyone can do (almost) anything nonsense.
The Fighter in our example has about the equivalent IQ of Forest Gump. I'm sorry, but "stupid is as stupid does" does not apply to understanding the intricasies of spell casting anymore than it applies to understanding the intricacies of Temporalistics. Not everyone can do everything.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 4, 2003 8:18:31 GMT -5
By the way, I just downloaded that converter and while it is level dependant to an extent, most rationally leveled 2E characters converted to 3E experience wise are about the three to one exchange (actually closer to 3.1 to 1) that I've seen posted on the WoTC site before as a working average.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 4, 2003 9:44:15 GMT -5
Hussar: Ahh, figured out where I made my mistake. The xp for a 10th level fighter (500000), makes me an 8th fighter/9th mage/10th thief. And, before that same fighter hits 11th (749 999), my triple classed character is 8th fighter (3xp from 9th)/10th mage/11th thief. So, in the xp to gain one level in fighter, I've gained just shy of three levels. If we make the fighter a paladin, now, I really rock.
Draxy: Problems again. The Paladin can not be a Half Elf AND has a different (higher) experience point track than a Fighter.
Hussar: Sorry, got the levels screwed up slightly. The point is, which would you rather be? A 10th level fighter or a 8th fighter/9th mage/10th thief? How is that an equal match?
Draxy: You are doing it again. You are comparing a minimum exp triple class to amxed out exp single class. The Fighter is 2 exp away from being 11th level and the triple class you are describing is at minimums. What's the beef here?
Let's make everything even, yes? 750,001 exp Fighter; level: 11.
Compare to a 250,000/250,000/250,000 Fighter/Magic User/Thief. That makes our boy a : Ftr*9/MU*10/Thf*11.
That is potent. But is it out of order?
Since you have a triple classed character over there from a non-human race the comparison is a stretch, so we'll make the Fighter a Half Elf too, realizing that this is the only way such a comparison could be made and thus does not represent anything other than a single very limited example.
We should give the fighter the same stat numbers as the triple classed boy too, to make it fair. Since we are dealing with an average here we'll just use a single roll from that excellent resource roller you provided.
I got a 16, 10, 14, 12, 08, 08, 17. We'll drop one of the 08's.
So, our Fighter wants the best in your POV tacticly, as that is what such a triple class seems to be aimed for in your usage, since you want him to be able to fold, spindle and mutilate the single class fighter.
Fighter (11th level) 14str, 16con, 17dex, 12int, 10wis, 8cha. We get avg. HP: (9x5.5)+16 for the high Con + 6 for levels 10 and 11= (49.5 rounded to 50)+16+6= 72. That is average.
Now, our (F*9/MU*10/Thf*11) We'll keep the str and dex the same, but we have to do something with that Intel or our Mage is going to be limited spell wise. Let's make the Intel the 16 and make the Con the 12. the other stats stay the same too. Average HP for this boy is now (5.5x9)+(2.5x9)+(3.5x9) all divided by three. (50)+(23)+(32) rounding all three of his numbers up... which isn't really cosher but serves for this example. 95 (thew sum) divided by 3 = 32 after rounding up yet again. This boy is getting alot of breaks. Now, we add in 2 more for 10th level as a mage (as we rounded down before) and another 3+2 or 5 for 10th and 11th thief levels for the same reasons; each is now divided by three and rounded to nearest. So +1 for the level as a mage and +2 for the two levels as a thief.
Grand total of 35 hit points average for our triple classed lad. Do you begin to see the point yet? 3 class boy has less than half the total HP on average.
He also isn't going to be running around in Full Plate Armor, or even Platemail Armor as a half elf and still casting spells. He is not wearing any armor in fact. His base AC is (because of his high Dex) a 7. Our 11th level fighter almost can not miss him in a straight up encounter. Our fighter though, without magic items, can easily have a AC of 1 or 0 (and by 11th level he darned well better if he's doggo on magic items) with armor and shield. A difference in AC of 7 just there and plus the additional 2 from level vs level as Fighter. The difference there is 9. OUCH!
That means in a sword fight between the two, something 3 class boy better avoid like the plague. On average, with all else being equal, which isn't fair but isn't fair in both directions equally, he will hit on a 12 with no bonuses or penalties, while the fighter hits him on a 3 or better in the same manner.
3 class man hits 40% of the time and pure fighter hits 85% of the time...
...with over twice as many hit points to his name.
Our F*9/MU*10/T*11 better keep his distance or he will be the one folded, spindled and mutiliated in short order.
Focus vs versatility. Now, which do I like better? I like versatility myself too, but it is hardly the only way to go.
Hussar: I'm serious, think about it. That 9th level character has 1 attack per round, a single second level spell and a 4th level thief's abilities. And he's going to dance with a CR 9 creature? Not a chance. He'll be absolutely useless.
Draxy: Here I disagree too. He'll have to be more circumspect, but the same demon that our 11th level fighter smacks face to face, our 9/10/11 triple boy had better be circumspect with too or he gets eaten for lunch. It's all stylistic.
Hussar: The main difference is, in 2e, once you've made your character, there is very little you can do game mechanics wise to individualize that character. He's pretty much set in stone.
Draxy: No way in Hell. Especially if he's human and has a few good stats; but even without that, in 2E you can do alot of playing around in the margins. The other races are more limited to balance their inherent racial powers, as that is what 2E was all about... balance and playability.
Hussar: So, any munchkining that goes on, happens at 1st level. Whether it's taking an exotic race or a special kit, once the character is created, there is little you can do after the fact. In 3e, it is possible to customize your character at pretty much any point and come up with what you want to play.
Draxy: No munchkining need be done in 2E. In fact the base system discourages it, and the only real limit to what you can do is your background... which has a meaning in 2E as it does in life, while it is rendered worthless in 3E, where you can be raised a Barbarian all your life and suddenly be a master of magics the next month. THAT is ridiculous.
I'll get to more later.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 4, 2003 9:58:43 GMT -5
Umm, Draxy, I think that 34% is slightly better than 1 in 7. Last time I checked, that was pretty close to 1 in 3. Now, 2 18's is 1 in a hundred. But, you don't ANY 18's to multiclass, only 15's and 17's. Meaning that your chances are FAR better. Heck, you even rolled a multiclassable character out of 6 rolls. 1 in 6!!! That's hardly rare. That's pretty good odds actually. Given the number of characters created out there, the odds of getting a character with stats allowing multiclassing is not too bad.
Also, while it does say that about CLERIC spells, there is no limitation on wizard spells in the DMG. Go back and reread the section.
2e certainly does reward high stats. It allows me to get higher levels. Not only that, but a single stat 16 or higher can give me a 10% bonus on ALL xp earned. How is this not directly rewarding munchkin dice rolling conventions? Why should a fighter with a 15 strength earn less xp than a fighter with a 17? That is a direct bonus for munchkins.
Your example of the barbarian/conjurer. Let's see, you've said he's 7th/5th. Let's step him up to a 12th level barbarian. On average the b/wiz has (12*6+4*5+12)/2 = 52 hp. The Barb has 72 hp. Not much more admittedly. The b/wiz has 3rd level wizard spells. Means, at range, the best he can do is summon monster 3 (conjurers usually don't get fireballs). Wow, a single CR2 critter. Oh yeah, that's going to slow the barbarian down. The Bwiz has a BAB of 9/4. Two attacks per round. The Barb has 12/7/2 giving him 50% more attacks. The 12th level barbarian also has damage reduction and twice as many rages per day. Give him a bow, he creams the bwiz. Stand them toe to toe, and he still creams the bwiz. Either way, the straight up barbarian wins.
The only multiclassing that makes ANY sort of sense as far as power goes is prestige classes which add to your basic abilities. And, even then, you are still far better off retaining your single class.
As a lark, my group created 4 15th level characters. I handed them the dmg and told them to take anything they wanted up to the limit of gold for a 15th level character. One also took leadership and had an 11th level cleric cohort. So, loaded to the brim, as munchkin as they could get, I ran them through the Iron Fortress module. By the end of the module, 1 of the four characters gained a level. One regained his level after losing it to resurection and two were a level down after being resurrected twice. 5 character deaths, ALL in combat at 15th level in an unmodified published module. That's what I mean when I say that the critters in 3e are just far and away more powerful than 2e. Are the PC's more powerful? Possibly. Are the critters? Most definitely. I watched a cloud giant in that module pump out well in excess of 100 points of damage in a single round. ONE round. NOTHING in 2e could even compare. One round, one splattered 15th level monk. You simply can't do that in 2e without resorting to poison or spells or dragons.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 4, 2003 10:10:44 GMT -5
Draxy, don't be daft. Number one, it's 2e, give him the defense he would have. Stone skin. Now he's immune to the first 7 or more attackes from the fighter. Since stoneskin is permanent until discharged, at least it is in my PHB, that means he's got free range on the fighter for at least 3 rounds. Toss in flame shield, shield spells, and hey, a haste spell, now he's kicking the fighter's butt all over the field.
You can't have it both ways. For some reason you think a 3e 5th level conjurer can make a dent in the barbarian, but the 10th level mage can't hurt an 11th level fighter? Gimme a break. This is a character with access to 5th level wizard spells as opposed to the 3e character who has 3rd level spells. Improved invisibility and quadruple damage backstabs. Toasty fighter.
No matter how you slice it, the 2e character has 27 character levels. Sure he's a level or two behind in fighter. But, he's given up three levels in fighter to gain 18 levels in other classes. Ooo, that's such a sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 4, 2003 10:17:34 GMT -5
Nothing in 3e stops you from doing the same thing you are talking about. Nothing. If I want to be a mage with a low INT, there is absolutley nothing stopping me in 3e, same as 2e, so I don't really see your point or why you feel the need to insult me.
3e DOES NOT REWARD HIGH STATS!! Can I say it any plainer than that. YOU GAIN NO REWARD FOR HAVING A HIGH STAT! Not only that, but an 18 is not so much better than a 14. A total bonus of 2. Whoopee. A 14 in 2e is worthless. It is no better than a 9 in most cases. To get any sort of a bonus, you must have higher than a 15. MUST. How does that not promote higher die rolls? Not only that, but you are directly rewarded with 10% more xp for having a 16 or better. Again, rewarded for being a munchkin.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 10, 2003 7:37:35 GMT -5
Okay, I think we've beatent this one to death. I just want to make a couple of final points. One of the major complaints I see about 3e is the whole multiclass system. There is one very easy and simple fix for that. Simply remove the favoured class rule. There. Problem solved. Now, all multiclass characters, whether with 2 or more classes, must keep all of their classes within 1 level of each other or suffer a 20% xp penalty. Boom. Instant fix of a problem that I don't personally see, but is a problem for some people. Simple, easy, effective. One other point I would like to make is this idea that 3e promotes high ability scores. I would just like to point out that having a high ability score in 2e has much, much farther reaching consequences than in 3e. In both editions, skills and attacks are affected by high abilities. In 3e, spells become somewhat more difficult to save against, which is something that doesn't happen in 2e. However, in 2e, not only do I get all the in game bonuses from having high abilities, and not only am I allowed to gain higher levels as a multiclass, but also, I gain 10% to all xp I earn so long as I have a 16 or better in my prime requisite. In Draxy's example fighter, Draxy gives him a 17 dexterity. Instead, if he has a 17 strength (which is far more realistic), 10% of all of his experience has come from a single die roll. Not through role playing, not through any sort of ability on the part of the player or the character, not through any other reason than he has a 17 strength. A score which even Draxy will admit is hardly difficult to roll. In the example fighter, he would have gained 75 000 xp through nothing but a simple die roll. Now, that is why I say that 2e promotes high die rolls. For me the arguement has never been is 2e or 3e munchkin? For me, the point has always been both systems are equally guilty of munchkinism. It is neither easier nor more difficult in either system to power game. That Draxy does not like 3e is obvious. However, to base that dislike on a false idea and then to spread that idea is wrong. Draxy has been wrong all through this discussion. He has stated that it is virtually impossible to have high scores in a character. Both me and Merkuri proved him wrong. He has stated that 3e rewards high scores more than 2e. Again, I have proven him wrong. He has stated that a 2e multiclass is weaker than a 3e multiclass. Here I disagree, but I will admit the jury is still out on that one. Anyone else want to take a shot?
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 11, 2003 3:03:08 GMT -5
Hussar, instead of turning this into another long, idiotic "I'm right and you're not" where only opinions are concerned I'll conceed that your opinions are of no less (or more) value than mine and just leave it at that. But you've got one thing stated that is just plain wrong. Period.
I've got the screen with my electronic DMG open right in front of me.
Hussar:"Also, while it does say that about CLERIC spells, ..."
NOTE: Here we were discussing bonus experience points from casting spells... there is simply nothing else that fits for this otherwise unannotated statement.
Hussar"...there is no limitation on Wizard spells in the DMG. Go back and reread the section."
Hussar, did YOU read it? Table 34, individual Class awards; sub-section Wizard, directly physicly under the the header Wizard. How it can be missed I don't know.
"Spells cast to overcome foes or problems: 50XP/spell level"
THAT is absolutely what I said was there before. It is not talking about Clerics, it is talking DIRECTLY about Wizards.
As I've said before, you must actually know the rules to critique them.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 11, 2003 3:25:35 GMT -5
So, out of all of the above, all of the critiques that I posed, the best you could do was a simple misquote that I made from a book I have not picked up in three years. And, in typical 2e fashion it is so vaguely worded as to be meaningless. To solve a problem. Well, if I have a piece of paper in front of me that I cannot read, then I have to cast read languagues. And, tomorrow, since I cannot read the paper, I have to do the same thing. I have overcome the problem therefore I should get 50 xp per day.
Now, both you and I would squash the player for doing this. But, according to the rules, he is doing nothing wrong. He is solving a problem. If I create 100 continual lights to light my tower (It's a big tower), how much xp should I get? I've solved the light problem. I needed to cast 100 spells to do it. Should I not get 15 000 xp for doing so (150 /spell*100 spells)?
Be that as it may. Out of all the criticisms I posted above, this is the best comeback you can make? That I misquoted a book? What about all of the other comments that I made? What about getting xp for high ability scores?
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 11, 2003 3:32:34 GMT -5
They are, as I stated, opinions. Nothing more. nothing less. I disagree with you at almost every turn, but as you yourself pointed out, "...we've beaten this one to death."
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 11, 2003 4:34:55 GMT -5
How is gaining xp for having a high ability score an opinion? It isn't. It is a second Edition FACT! It is straight out of the rules. You're just giving up on this one because you know you are wrong. You realize that you have absolutely no rebuttal to what I've said. 2e promotes high ability scores because characters gain bonus xp simply for having a high prime requisite score. That is not opinion, that is fact.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 13, 2003 3:32:29 GMT -5
Hussar: How is gaining xp for having a high ability score an opinion? It isn't. It is a second Edition FACT! It is straight out of the rules.
Draxy: *sigh* "Once more into the breach dear friends."
Gaining XP for a high ability score is a part of both first and second edition. It was meant from the beginning to reflect the fact that a person with, for instance, a high dexterity, has an easier time learning to preform and preforming actions highly dependant upon that trait.
Now, it is also something of a balance in and of itself, UNLESS you cheat the system or get pretty darned lucky on your rolls. The only four classes that are able to gain such a benefit easily are the base ones since you must have a 16 or higher in ALL of a classes prime requisites to gain said bonus. This FACT is designed to give parity to those basic classes. If you take a basic class, you will probably advance more quickly than in an exotic one.
IE: a Ranger, to get the 10% bonus needs a 16 or more in Strength, Dexterity AND Wisdom, all three.
It is a balancing mechanism, unless you throw the rule book out of the window, in which case it is house rules; a thing no game can reasonably survive.
Hussar: You're just giving up on this one because you know you are wrong. You realize that you have absolutely no rebuttal to what I've said.
Draxy: Hussar, I really thought you had more common sense than this. This sounds like something out of a sixth grade school yard.
I have, for God knows how many pages, rebutted everything you've said. There just is no sense to it. It HAS BEEN, as YOU said, "been beaten to death".
Hussar: 2e promotes high ability scores because characters gain bonus xp simply for having a high prime requisite score. That is not opinion, that is fact.
Draxy: Wrong. Cheating promotes high ability scores to gain what some people believe needs to had... an extra advantage. The game makes getting such a score difficult at best (remeber the base system is 3d6, six times, not the BS that is normally done) and thus gives a compensatory benefit for actually acheiving it.
Draxy
|
|