Quote from: hamstertamer;692398 You do realize that was a dumb statement as well as being a trite one.

Anyway back to the discussion at hand, the whole idea of the hidden trap in their multi-classing system was to make multi-classing a bad option. If they don't like multi-classing then fine, just remove it, but don't punish people who do.  In other words, if someone wants to be a thief/magic-user the game  shouldn't try to demotivate them for wanting to.

Jesus Christ. "Punish" really?
 
It's called making trade offs, you know "choices"?

Show me on the doll where WOTC touched you.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692398Anyway back to the discussion at hand, the whole idea of the hidden trap in their multi-classing system was to make multi-classing a bad option. If they don't like multi-classing then fine, just remove it, but don't punish people who do.  In other words, if someone wants to be a thief/magic-user the game  shouldn't try to demotivate them for wanting to.

It only "punishes" people who are designing characters for maximum power (min-maxers) and who want to multi-class. It does not punish people who don't care about maximum power and are multi-classing because it allows them to play a particular character concept that they want to play -- regardless of what doing so do does to their character's power level in the eyes of min-maxing players.

You are correct, if the game were being designed with min-maxers as the only target audience, then removing multi-classing would be a good thing as it is a "trap option" for min-maxers who aren't yet skilled at charop. Fortunately, D&D Next does not seem to be designed around the needs and desires of min-maxers and multi-classing can be very useful for people who aren't min-maxers.

Quote from: JonWake;692339If only there were some way to increase your stats as you level...

No kidding.  I pointed this out on the WoTC forum, and the response was, "I shouldn't have to wait a few levels to be able to multi-class to what I want."

My response to that was, "Well, you chose to allocate your highest stats the way you did, and you chose to go into a class that needed an attribute that you didn't put as a high one.  So based off of your choices, that's the price to pay to get what you want."  No accountability for choices.  

Quote from: JonWake;692342Hit points represent that.

This is true.  Quite literally in fact, as "avoiding taking the brunt of the hit" is expressly pointed out in the definition of hit points.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692335Further I don't see how it makes "more sense."   That last statement just doesn't make any sense at all. I'm a level 20 wizard with a 12 intelligence, check out my spell book.  I'm a level 20 fighter with a 14 intelligence but I never had what it took to cast one arcane spell. Make sense? nope.
.

It makes complete sense.  If you've spend years in your background studying to be a mage and are level 1, you don't need a 15+ INT because you've had years of study to learn it.  What doesn't make sense is that a character with an INT of 10 (or whatever) can do absolutely no studying of magic whatsoever with the exception of looking over the mage's shoulder a few times, and a few days later when they get the XP, suddenly have the same casting ability as that mage who spent years learning how to do it.  Therefore, if you want to learn a skill in a MUCH shorter time frame than the person who spent years, you're going to have to need to be exceptional in the appropriate attribute.

Also, and this is a general comment, you needed a 17 in AD&D to dual class.

Quote from: JonWake;692365That will break the game.  ACs will outpace to hit modifiers, so instead of getting more accurate as you level, you'll actually get less accurate while HPs continue to increase, making fighters perpetually more difficult to hit and damage, leaving everyone else in the dust.

Its inconsistent, but it works at the table.

Increasing 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.  

Quote from: The Traveller;692373That's weird. Why not just use skills?

Because then you'd have another modifier mechanic to worry about: skill modifier.  And it's unique to skills and may not be the same as your modifier to attack, or to save.  With proficiencies, it's the same modifier for everything, which keeps it really simple to remember.

Quote from: RandallS;692403It only "punishes" people who are designing characters for maximum power (min-maxers) and who want to multi-class. It does not punish people who don't care about maximum power and are multi-classing because it allows them to play a particular character concept that they want to play -- regardless of what doing so do does to their character's power level in the eyes of min-maxing players.

You are correct, if the game were being designed with min-maxers as the only target audience, then removing multi-classing would be a good thing as it is a "trap option" for min-maxers who aren't yet skilled at charop. Fortunately, D&D Next does not seem to be designed around the needs and desires of min-maxers and multi-classing can be very useful for people who aren't min-maxers.

Yup, and I admire your ability to say it with fewer insults than myself

Quote from: hamstertamer;692398 You do realize that was a dumb statement as well as being a trite one.

Anyway back to the discussion at hand, the whole idea of the hidden trap in their multi-classing system was to make multi-classing a bad option. If they don't like multi-classing then fine, just remove it, but don't punish people who do.  In other words, if someone wants to be a thief/magic-user the game  shouldn't try to demotivate them for wanting to.

The incorrect assumption here that options have to have a mechanical advantage or at least balanced. Again D&D is about roleplaying a character as well as being a game. Because of this I feel that options in a RPG are better off being setup to reflect the genre or setting. Which implies that sometimes this calls for  options that are clearly better in terms of game mechanics.

To me the way the multi-class option is setup reflects the designer's opinion of how the implicit game world works.  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.

My prediction that  there will be more than a few players who play multi-class characters in Next. That the reason for doing so would be much like if that world existed. Because circumstances of the character or desires of the player made that ideal choice despite the consequences of the mechanics.

Quote from: RandallS;692403

QuoteIt only "punishes" people who are designing characters for maximum power (min-maxers) and who want to multi-class.

False.  It was designed as a sabotage against players who want to multi-class for whatever reason.

QuoteIt does not punish people who don't care about maximum power and are multi-classing because it allows them to play a particular character concept that they want to play -- regardless of what doing so do does to their character's power level in the eyes of min-maxing players.

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

QuoteYou are correct, if the game were being designed with min-maxers as the only target audience, then removing multi-classing would be a good thing as it is a "trap option" for min-maxers who aren't yet skilled at charop. Fortunately, D&D Next does not seem to be designed around the needs and desires of min-maxers and multi-classing can be very useful for people who aren't min-maxers.

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.

*facepalm*

Quote from: hamstertamer;692414So, 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.

That's not what he said at all.  "not catering to min/maxers" does not equal "sabotaging multi-classing."

They are completely independent of one another.

Quote from: estar;692406The incorrect assumption here that options have to have a mechanical advantage or at least balanced. Again D&D is about roleplaying a character as well as being a game. Because of this I feel that options in a RPG are better off being setup to reflect the genre or setting. Which implies that sometimes this calls for  options that are clearly better in terms of game mechanics.

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

QuoteTo me the way the multi-class option is setup reflects the designer's opinion of how the implicit game world works.  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.

No it's to encourage people NOT to multi-class.  We talking about the loss of ability improvement/feat option.  "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.

QuoteMy prediction that  there will be more than a few players who play multi-class characters in Next. That the reason for doing so would be much like if that world existed. Because circumstances of the character or desires of the player made that ideal choice despite the consequences of the mechanics.

[/QUOTE]

Your 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?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692416That's not what he said at all.  "not catering to min/maxers" does not equal "sabotaging multi-classing."

They are completely independent of one another.

No they are not "completely independent of one another." I was making the point that it was really about sabotaging multi-classing, he just said it in a different way, because for him having a fair and liberal multi-class system is "catering to min/maxers." So in that sense he agrees with the design goals which were, undeniable, to sabotage it.  You even said it yourself, when you said you loved what they did in multi-classing because of what it did min-maxers.  So it's game design with an agenda behind it, you recognized it immediately and so did I. We just disagree about if it's a good thing or not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692311Multiclassing: Boy, are some people throwing a shit fit about this.  Most notably that you need to have a min stat before multiclassing.   But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants.

Well, you all can see this first hand now.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692422No they are not "completely independent of one another." I was making the point that it was really about sabotaging multi-classing, he just said it in a different way, because for him having a fair and liberal multi-class system is "catering to min/maxers." So in that sense he agrees with the design goals which were, undeniable, to sabotage it.  You even said it yourself, when you said you loved what they did in multi-classing because of what it did min-maxers.  So it's game design with an agenda behind it, you recognized it immediately and so did I. We just disagree about if it's a good thing or not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692416That's not what he said at all.  "not catering to min/maxers" does not equal "sabotaging multi-classing."

They are completely independent of one another.

Min/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.

If my supposition is correct the game will be better off without him and his ilk.

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

Indeed. I bet the Gaming Den is on fire.

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

Stunning.