Quote from: Sacrosanct;772111Multiclassing sure as shit does, as it's often used to optimize builds with up to a half dozen classes in a build.  Multiclassing exploits occur just as much, if not more, than spell selection and usage.

That won't happen in 5e. Go ahead and build a multiclassed F/M/R in BASIC but keep in mind you DON'T get all your second or third class's profiencencies and notice how backloaded the classes are or that you need 5 levels in Fighter to get 2 attacks and look at a single classed character and see what you lose in comparison. Or that you need pretty solid ability scores in each class you pick up. A 6/7/7 F/M/R is versitile but only gets 4 chances to bump her stats or get a feat for example. It looks strong but straight classes with the proper subclass is probably better most times if you think your concept through. Very similar to FantasyCraft and Pathfinder that way. It gets stupid if you have 4-6 classes... go ahead and try it wth 4 classes.

Problem you would have at my table #1:  I've never heard of half those spells.  They are not in the books I own, so they would only be available by (a) going through in-game spell research or (b) questing after rumors of ancient spellbooks.  You could get all of them, but it would require gaming it out.

Problem #2:  It requires time to set up.  If you are going from cold (say you are ambushed in town) then half the party will be dead before you even attempt anything offensive.  Now I will grant that the hourly spells will typically be on when actively adventuring.  The spells that only last minutes will require a breakneck pace to be useful more than once, so absolutely not certain to be on in any given combat.  The spells lasting rounds obviously have to be cast in the particular combat.  All in all, good for when you can prepare for a known combat, not going to be in place for most combats.

Problem #3:  Critters seeing you cast all that crap on yourself will take a tactical retreat for a while to let the spells wear off.  

All in all, I would be alright with it. You found a combo of spells that will be a bitch to collect (which should make for some adventuring goodness) that you will probably only get to fully take advantage of a couple times in the campaign.

Perhaps inadvertently, you also did a good job of describing why I am excited about 5e.

Quote from: Marleycat;772119That won't happen in 5e. Go ahead and build a multiclassed F/M/R in BASIC but keep in mind you DON'T get all your second or third class's profiencencies and notice how backloaded the classes are or that you need 5 levels in Fighter to get 2 attacks and look at a single classed character and see what you lose in comparison. Or that you need pretty solid ability scores in each class you pick up. A 6/7/7 F/M/R is versitile but only gets 4 chances to bump her stats or get a feat for example. It looks strong but straight classes with the proper subclass is probably better most times if you think your concept through. Very similar to FantasyCraft and Pathfinder that way. It gets stupid if you have 4-6 classes... go ahead and try it wth 4 classes.

not sure if you're disagreeing or adding on to my comment.  I was talking about 3e, and disagreeing with his assessments that "an observable" person would notice that multiclassing was not an issue in min/maxing, as it very much is

Quote from: Marleycat;772119That won't happen in 5e. Go ahead and build a multiclassed F/M/R in BASIC but keep in mind you DON'T get all your second or third class's profiencencies and notice how backloaded the classes are or that you need 5 levels in Fighter to get 2 attacks and look at a single classed character and see what you lose in comparison. Or that you need pretty solid ability scores in each class you pick up. A 6/7/7 F/M/R is versitile but only gets 4 chances to bump her stats or get a feat for example. It looks strong but straight classes with the proper subclass is probably better most times if you think your concept through. Very similar to FantasyCraft and Pathfinder that way. It gets stupid if you have 4-6 classes... go ahead and try it wth 4 classes.

Prestige dipping is what most builds did.  Not base class dipping.
Pathfinder neutered prestige classes.
Fancy Craft, who give a fuck.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771986Hey, if they have fun, more power to them.


Just not at my table

I once gm'd a 3.5 game with gestalt rules (For those unfamiliar, a gestalt character essentially gets all or the best abilities of two classes...generally very uber)  Yay Gestalt Druid Wizard, God of all Summoning!

The characters were optimized, and the feeling I got from the game was 'escalation and record keeping'

It was not 'bad' because the pc's were uber.

It was bad because of too much focus on mechanics.

Not a good fit for me. Just my experience.

Quote from: cranebump;772037Rocks fall. Everybody dies. Roll new characters using this (hands over Moldvay Basic). You have 3 minutes.

To me, that is an elegant solution.


The real issue as I see it, is players like me care what the character is doing, so a simple ruleset is probably an advantage, but some players really, really enjoy builds and optimizing.

It's not always possible to keep them both happy.

Quote from: Old One Eye;772122Problem you would have at my table #1:  I've never heard of half those spells.  They are not in the books I own, so they would only be available by (a) going through in-game spell research or (b) questing after rumors of ancient spellbooks.  You could get all of them, but it would require gaming it out.

Problem #2:  It requires time to set up.  If you are going from cold (say you are ambushed in town) then half the party will be dead before you even attempt anything offensive.  Now I will grant that the hourly spells will typically be on when actively adventuring.  The spells that only last minutes will require a breakneck pace to be useful more than once, so absolutely not certain to be on in any given combat.  The spells lasting rounds obviously have to be cast in the particular combat.  All in all, good for when you can prepare for a known combat, not going to be in place for most combats.

Problem #3:  Critters seeing you cast all that crap on yourself will take a tactical retreat for a while to let the spells wear off.  

All in all, I would be alright with it. You found a combo of spells that will be a bitch to collect (which should make for some adventuring goodness) that you will probably only get to fully take advantage of a couple times in the campaign.

Perhaps inadvertently, you also did a good job of describing why I am excited about 5e.

You make good points about 'weaknesses' in the strategy of 'Buffmongering'  (I just made that up)  

But what irritates me is not that the Buffmonger can't be defeated.

What irritates me is that they even try, and that its a mass of tedious crap.

Every time I make the mistake of dming 3X/Pathfinder I realize how much I appreciate the simpler versions of dnd, like Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

I must have a learning disability.

Quote from: Bill;772209You make good points about 'weaknesses' in the strategy of 'Buffmongering'  (I just made that up)  

But what irritates me is not that the Buffmonger can't be defeated.

What irritates me is that they even try, and that its a mass of tedious crap.

Every time I make the mistake of dming 3X/Pathfinder I realize how much I appreciate the simpler versions of dnd, like Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

I must have a learning disability.

I get why someone might find that sort of how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin exercise intellectually interesting. What I don't get is how this kind of character/buff could ever be an actual problem at an actual table with real people. I'd expect all the people at the table over the age of 12 would just give the angel-pin-head guy the old fish eye  and say something like, "Cute build, very creative use of a laundry list of spells. But no. Now create a character that will actually be fun for everyone in play." And then they would actually play a fun RPG.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772135not sure if you're disagreeing or adding on to my comment.  I was talking about 3e, and disagreeing with his assessments that "an observable" person would notice that multiclassing was not an issue in min/maxing, as it very much is

For 3e I completely agree with you. It ruined the game for me. That and druids with wild spell and spontaneous summoning. I accidentally broke our game with one, not fun.

In a high level 3e campaign I ran, the powergamer of the group played a druid. Once she got Shapechange (17th level, I think?) the campaign was pretty much at her mercy.

The party had seen a Marut much earlier, and so... she turned into a Marut all the time. Two fist punches: one, save vs. Blindness. The other, save vs. Deafness. Every round. Plus lots of AC. Plus druid spells.

And the bitch of it was that the party was hell-bent on ridding the gameworld of this immense empire of necromancers... Marut were dedicated to fighting undead (more or less).

I didn't really have a solid game reason to tell her to stop turning into a Marut. I suppose the god robots might say she's doing it wrong, but it would seem extremely petty on both a rule and setting standpoint (and wouldn't have fixed the fact that druids are so OP).


Pretty much cured me of wanting to do mid to high level 3e.

Quote from: Will;772291In a high level 3e campaign I ran, the powergamer of the group played a druid. Once she got Shapechange (17th level, I think?) the campaign was pretty much at her mercy.

The party had seen a Marut much earlier, and so... she turned into a Marut all the time. Two fist punches: one, save vs. Blindness. The other, save vs. Deafness. Every round. Plus lots of AC. Plus druid spells.

And the bitch of it was that the party was hell-bent on ridding the gameworld of this immense empire of necromancers... Marut were dedicated to fighting undead (more or less).

I didn't really have a solid game reason to tell her to stop turning into a Marut. I suppose the god robots might say she's doing it wrong, but it would seem extremely petty on both a rule and setting standpoint (and wouldn't have fixed the fact that druids are so OP).


Pretty much cured me of wanting to do mid to high level 3e.

In a situation like that, I might have the enemy necromancers focus attention on the Marut. Presumably they had vast resources.

The actual Maruts might possibly come after her for impersonating them.

But essentially if there are hundreds of necromancers that create armies of undead, all trying to take out that undead hunting Marut druid, it's not so bad.

But I do admit I am not overly fond of uber characters, at least when the other characters are severely eclipsed.

Quote from: Will;772291In a high level 3e campaign I ran, the powergamer of the group played a druid. Once she got Shapechange (17th level, I think?) the campaign was pretty much at her mercy.

The party had seen a Marut much earlier, and so... she turned into a Marut all the time. Two fist punches: one, save vs. Blindness. The other, save vs. Deafness. Every round. Plus lots of AC. Plus druid spells.

And the bitch of it was that the party was hell-bent on ridding the gameworld of this immense empire of necromancers... Marut were dedicated to fighting undead (more or less).

I didn't really have a solid game reason to tell her to stop turning into a Marut. I suppose the god robots might say she's doing it wrong, but it would seem extremely petty on both a rule and setting standpoint (and wouldn't have fixed the fact that druids are so OP).


Pretty much cured me of wanting to do mid to high level 3e.

Sounds like she was doing everything within RAI/RAW just like myself. It's just that the class itself like the Cleric was so overpowered without even doing stupid things. I just thought it'd be fun to run a Wood/Wild Elf Druid to see if it could be done not ruin the game for everybody (myself included).

That's the problem I had. The necromancers WERE fixated on taking out the party, because the party's #1 goal was destroying the empire.

And I could have done the Marut thing... but she was doing a fantastic job doing what they wanted. ...

Again, I just didn't feel like I had a good justification. Plus, again... she'd just move on to some other horrible system problem.

Quote from: gleichman;772093I don't consider myself really able to comment on that specific of a case with any version of D&D having given up on a few decades back, but I have no reason to doubt you on this.

There is a serious desire in gamers (if one judges solely by popular games) for an endless parade of goodies- be it bonuses, spells, magic items, or... well anything that increases their in-game power. The thing is, that parade causes the very behavior they complain about.

There are a few exceptions. I find it useful with recruiting players to ask the following questions (along with others). A "No" at any point means that it would likely take too much effort to convert them to a non-destructive style of play.

• Are you willing to play a game where your character doesn't advance in power or skill?
• Are you willing to play a game where there is no treasure.

This problem area always existed in the hobby, but I do think this is one place where video games have made things worse.

Good idea.

One reason I like Fate is that it's easy to have treasure and character development without the power inflation of other games.

'Treasure' is just a special situation most times, like good old Sword and Sorcery... buy your ale and whores, and next adventure you are desperate for loot.