Quote from: Piestrio;692425Min/maxers can see no point to the game outside the numbers.
.

Absolutely true.  The forums out there are ablaze with people saying how broken the rules are because of X and Y build examples.

"Why would anyone ever play any class other than a druid 16/pal 4?"

Those examples?  They are all level 20 characters.  It's like that these players start all of their characters at level 20 from the get go.  If you have to get to level 20 for your character to really shine?  What's the point?  If your character doesn't start really giving you the experience you want until level 20?  You're not playing the same game I am.

The really big irony is that these are the same people who bitched and moaned that they were getting robbed of 3 levels of gameplay because the really cool powers didn't start until level 4.  If you're starting at level 20 anyway, or playing Monty Haul so you level up ever 5 minutes, what the hell are you bitching about level 1-3 for?

Some people.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692423Well, you all can see this first hand now.

Exactly.  Which was the point.

I don't have any love for min-maxers myself.  If the average min-maxer saw the character builds I like to play they would call me a "basketweaver."  I actually played a lowly peasant with very little combat ability once, just for the hell of it.  I do however understand what the designers did, and why they did it.  Their anti-multi-classing attitude affects me as well since I like custom characters with lots of different options.  The minimum ability scores thing is nothing more than a speed bump. It's the loss of ability improvements/feats that is the real killer, as I already said. Not that it matters, because I have more than one reason not to invest in Next.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692432I don't have any love for min-maxers myself.  If the average min-maxer saw the character builds I like to play they would call me a "basketweaver."  I actually played a lowly peasant with very little combat ability once, just for the hell of it.  I do however understand what the designers did, and why they did it.  Their anti-multi-classing attitude affects me as well since I like custom characters with lots of different options.  The minimum ability scores thing is nothing more than a speed bump. It's the loss of ability improvements/feats that is the real killer, as I already said. Not that it matters, because I have more than one reason not to invest in Next.

If you're a "basketweaver," what do you care if multi-classing is not mechanically optimal?

Quote from: hamstertamer;692414False.  It was designed as a sabotage against players who want to multi-class for whatever reason.



Again false. It affects everyone that multi-classes.  It does not matter their motive.



So, you agree then it was a deliberate sabotage against multi-classing, but you are fine with it because you believe those dirty min-maxers have it coming.

You are the prime example of what institutionalized specialization has done to D&D. Its not completely your fault. WOTC has done a lot of damage in this area and you may just be a victim.

What is institutionalized specialization ? It the slow boiling frog of numbers creep and mathematical wankery that defines the modern D&D game. The core of the issue is that only numbers matter. How big a bonus can you drum up against the rising tide of CRs and DCs coming at you like a tidal wave of bullshit. "You must be this tall to ride" is the name of the game. Characters are so specialized at doing their "thing" that they have ceased to be adventurers and now represent cogs on the great adventuring wheel. Each cog must be large enough to carry its share of the chain. To this end attributes are custom ordered, feats carefully selected, entitled wealth spent on specific purchases of gear all in the name of ensuring a given cog is strong enough to bear its burden. Variety is the death of effectiveness. Trap options are everywhere and its up to the player to be a good little worker insect and avoid them, keeping to the one true path that provides those glorious high numbers.

Then end result are aventurers who can ONLY operate in their little niche. Poking their head out of their one-trick universe means a catastrophic failure rate because only the numbers matter. A natural result of this play dynamic are obsessive charoppers.

Remove the need for hyper-specialization from the play dynamic and the problem will fix itself.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692404Increasing AC too much also has a huge effect because the scale is much lower.  You don't have ACs into the 30s, so a +1 bonus in Next is equivalent to a +2-3 bonus in 3e.  Giving a 20th level fighter a +10 bonus to AC would make him unhittable.  
.

unless he was fighting another 20th lvel fighter or equivalent of coure ...

Point is if you have ever fenced, spared or whatever, or you have ever read a book or seen a film where there are skilled fighters this is how it actually works and how it works in the fiction.

1st level guy versus 20th level guy the 1st level guy doesn't lay a point on the 20th level guy for the whole fight.
As it stands in order to compete with high level monsters high level fighters need magical armour.
A 20th level fighter in a fight with a Cloud giant. If the fighter is wearing simple chain mail he will have AC5 call it 3 for dex. The cloud giant will need what a 4 to hit him? so will hit 85% of the time (we won't give it a + for str) so the fighter will get hit nearly all the time for what 3d10 +12 damage ? a hit .... he can't doge the giants blows etc...
Or the fighter wakes up in the night attacked by a spectre, he can't avoid the spectres blows, he now has AC10 , give him 8 for dex... the spctre will hit him on what a 4 (? Spcrets have 8hd or 7?) and level drain the crap out f him. the fighter can't use his combat skills to avoid it he is as prone to it as a 0 level human. .....
But a 17th level monk has -3 AC with no armour on  because .....

Quote from: hamstertamer;692432It's the loss of ability improvements/feats that is the real killer, as I already said. Not that it matters, because I have more than one reason not to invest in Next.

Dude.  You're getting a TON of class features by selecting a new class that far outweigh what you would have gotten if you just chose a feat or ability boost.

Seriously man, just stop whining for a moment and think first.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692421First, please stop telling that D&D is a role-playing game. I'm starting to think you have a mental illness.

What is your malfunction?

D&D is about playing a character within a setting. Either you play the character as a reflection of yourself within the situation or you adopt a personae and roleplay according. Either works as well as anything between. Nothing about D&D preclude playing a character of varying background, personality and circumstances. What matters is what the player is interested in doing and has fun at.

Personally when I play I look at my stats and circumstances and create a personality that fits. I rarely play a reflection of myself because I done it so often it boring. The challenge for me these days is to be successful despite the self-impose flaws of my characters.


When I play I look at my stats and circumstance and create a personality that fits. When I referee I don't care if the player is a hardcore charop maestro or plays angst ridden character that throws milk at barbarians. My job is to adjudicate the consequences to what the player do as their character

From  a recent game

QuoteMe: I've got 8 charisma.
GM: And you sure are getting the most out of it.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692421No it's to encourage people NOT to multi-class.  We talking about the loss of ability improvement/feat option.  

Yes those are exactly the consequences of the design.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692421"That if somebody take multiple classes they are spreading their attention resulting a loss of expertise compared to a person focusing on a single class." That explanation does not make sense and has nothing to do with their design goals, even if that was their bullshit in-game reason.  It was purely meta-game.

Professional versus amateur athletes. On the average professional are way better because they can focus all their time on their chosen sport. Not just a little better but to point where amateur athletes can't even begin to compete. So yeah to me it make sense that multi-classing sucks compared to taking a single class.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692421Your prediction will be wrong.  In fact, people on this very thread are crowing about the fact that it will decrease multi-classing.  How can we know it, and you don't?

I agree that incidence of multi-classing will drop.  Reread what I said. I said "more than a few". This was in response to everybody saying that people will just stop multi-classing all together.

Quote from: Piestrio;692425Min/maxers can see no point to the game outside the numbers.

I suspect hamstertamer is so locked into an obsessive mindset that doesn't even understand the very idea of trading mechanical advantages for non-mechanical (fiction based) advantages.

I have to reluctantly agree after he said that people who roleplay in D&D were mentally deranged.

@Hamstertamer,

You do realize that if you referee D&D Next that you could always like..like

you know house rule the game.

Remove the minimum abilities.
Use the total level of all classes to determine when to get feats or ability increases.

Just saying.

Quote from: estar;692444@Hamstertamer,

You do realize that if you referee D&D Next that you could always like..like

you know house rule the game.

Remove the minimum abilities.
Use the total level of all classes to determine when to get feats or ability increases.

Just saying.

[Denner]He's not paying money for an incomplete ruleset...[/Denner]

Quote from: estar;692442I have to reluctantly agree after he said that people who roleplay in D&D were mentally deranged.

Jesus Christ, some people on here are retarded.  

I didn't suggest that you had a mental illness because I disagreed with your definition of what D&D was or what a RPG was or even what fucktard Piestrio said, it was because of your condescending attitude and your repetition as if i didn't understand.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692449Jesus Christ, some people on here are retarded.  

I didn't suggest that you had a mental illness because I disagreed with your definition of what D&D was or what a RPG was or even what fucktard Piestrio said, it was because of your condensing attitude and your repetition as if i didn't understand.

You fairly clearly don't.

Quote from: estar;692444@Hamstertamer,

You do realize that if you referee D&D Next that you could always like..like

you know house rule the game.

Remove the minimum abilities.
Use the total level of all classes to determine when to get feats or ability increases.

Just saying.

More condescending, what a surprise!

You do realize that I don't have to play next,  and I definitely don't have to buy it.

You know that I can spread the word that it's the gorgnard's revenge edition.

Just saying.

....

Quote from: Bobloblah;692451You fairly clearly don't.

What? I don't even know.

So you're going to actively try to sabotage a game you don't like rather than just not play it?

Man, you sure are a piece of work.