Spells, attacks, heals, buffs etc. should scale with character level not class level.
- Thread starter Bazgrim
- Start date
Yep, once a person starts just making stuff up and is clearly just there for the "engagement" it's time to put them on ignore and move on.Keep in mind there is an "Ignore" option in these forums... I would suggest using it.
Happy gaming all.
Col Kurtz
Well-known member
well 8 pages of why and no. lmao
One thing that would make multiclassing very interesting is remove the 1/2 skill point restriction for off class skills.
But, i cringe that any input would extend the life of this thread
Explain to me again Sir Bedevere how sheep bladder may be employed to prevent earthquakes?
One thing that would make multiclassing very interesting is remove the 1/2 skill point restriction for off class skills.
But, i cringe that any input would extend the life of this thread
Explain to me again Sir Bedevere how sheep bladder may be employed to prevent earthquakes?
Shear-buckler
Well-known member
Alright, lets conclude the thread then.
The feat "practiced spellcaster" should be added to the game to increase the viabilty of spells for caster multiclassing. The number of caster levels granted would be up for balance consideration.
Thanks for participating.
The feat "practiced spellcaster" should be added to the game to increase the viabilty of spells for caster multiclassing. The number of caster levels granted would be up for balance consideration.
Thanks for participating.
Jack Jarvis Esquire
Well-known member
/not signed
Mand O'Lin
Singer of Songs Drinker of Drinks
While I, too, fear the continuation of this thread...
This idea I can get behind. Non-class skills still cost 2 skill points per rank, but are no longer limited in rank to (level + 3) / 2.
Ooh, I would really like to be able to buy full skills for all classes. Even if I had to pay double price for the off-class skills like we do now. Just being able to buy them to full amounts would be wonderful.well 8 pages of why and no. lmao
One thing that would make multiclassing very interesting is remove the 1/2 skill point restriction for off class skills.
But, i cringe that any input would extend the life of this thread
Explain to me again Sir Bedevere how sheep bladder may be employed to prevent earthquakes?
That’s something I’d enjoy enough that I don’t even care whether it would effect game balance.
Buddha5440
Well-known member
I could go for that (except for class restricted skills). Allowing cross-class skills to be taken up to 23 (instead of 11.5(?)) while still costing the 2 points/lv would make a lot more sense than scaling everything based on character level.
Last edited:
calouscaine
Grouchy Vet
This makes sense, though, I would argue that some 'class' based skills really shouldn't be. Not sure when things such as open lock or disable became a rogue only thing at least in D&D, is it like that in 5e now? I know with 3.5 they were trained only skills, meaning they had to have invested points to use, but I don't recall them specifically being class restricted like umd. But, I've always been against class locked skills, because anyone can spend five to thirty minutes to learn how to open a basic lock with tools instead of a hammer, or which wire to cut when it comes to a trap.
Besides, that's one reason why every class had different skill point pools too. . .it would help prevent over powering skills, at least with 3.5. . .and yeah, I know ddo certainly left that train station ages ago. . .
ShinuzukaRakam
Active member
To be fair, the comparison was between "BAB 1 and no other bonuses" and "DC of 1", not just "BAB 1" and "DC of 1".
As for the comparison itself, a BAB of 1 can absolutely be the total to-hit that a Fighter has at level 1, given certain circumstances: +0 Ability Modifier, no gear, no enhancements, and no feats.
With a +0 Ability Modifier, no gear, no enhancements, and no feats, the wizard would have a spell DC of 11 at level 1. This comes from the standard DC calculation: 10 + Spell Level + Ability Modifier.
If those level 1 Fighter and level 1 Wizard both went up against an enemy with 25 AC and +25 saves, there would absolutely need to be a natural 20 or natural 1 in order to land the attack or the spell, respectively.
As for the follow-up of the Fighter having a BAB 1 and to-hit bonuses adding up to 30, I may be missing some bonuses, but it's not easy to be getting an extra +29 (after the BAB). I'm coming up with Level 1 Drow Fighter, 1 BAB + Weapon Enhancement Bonus (+1) + 18 Strength (+4) + Heroic Completionist (+1) + Racial Completionist (+1) + Past Life: Fighter (+3) + Arcane Past Life: Enchant Weapon (+3) + Primal Past Life: Ancient Power (+6) + Iconic Past Life: Razorclaw Shifter (+3) + Kensei: Light Blades (+1) + Kensei: Action Boost Attack (+8) + Harper Agent Core 1 (+1) + Inquisitive Core 1 (+1) + Drow: Vermin Lore (+6) + Drow: Xen'drik Weapon Training (+3) + Drow: Ambidexterity (+1) - Two-Weapon Fighting Penalty (-4). There's about +40 with all of these things factored in, but it's also factoring in a lot of Past Life bonuses and Racial Enhancements, and even a second Universal Action Point Tome that is not in the live game at this time.
If we remove all the Past Lives and Universal Enhancements, we get Level 1 Half-Orc Fighter: 1 BAB + 20 Strength (+5) + Kensei Core 1 (+1) + Kensei: Action Boost Attack (+8) + Weapon Enhancement Bonus (+1) = +16. Still a ways to go for that +30 to-hit.
Similarly, if a Wizard actually had a DC of 1, that would require them to have a -10 to their DC, at least, and even more negatives if they had a positive Ability Modifier, and I cannot begin to fathom how that would happen. Even at a -4 Ability Modifier (the lowest it can be before the Wizard cannot even cast a spell in the first place, due to being helpless and unable to act because of a 0 Ability Score), that still leaves at least a -6 coming from elsewhere.
Shear-buckler
Well-known member
No. The claim was that BAB and DC are equivalent mechanics and "1 BAB vs 1 DC" was a cherry picked example where they happen to produce equivalent results. The poster was conflating BAB with to-hit.
The "+30 to-hit" in the counter example was a just a random number and can be replaced with basically any positive number and the point remains exactly the same.
Last edited:
ShinuzukaRakam
Active member
I'm not saying BAB and Spell DCs are equivalent mechanics. In fact, "To-Hit" and "Spell Save DC" are much closer to equivalent mechanics, because both are more directly involved in "Add a d20 to X pre-computed value, compare to a target number". In To-Hit's case, it adds the d20 to itself and compares against the enemy's AC, and for a Spell Save DC, the DC is actually the target number being compared against the d20 added to the enemy's Save Bonus.
I was only trying to highlight the actual numbers used in both examples, and point out where some were possible, some were possible but not always feasible, and others simply didn't make sense to begin with.
BAB 1 being the entirety of someone's To-Hit Bonus is entirely within the realm of possibility, whereas DC 1 is involving some sort of mechanics I'm unaware of. Even using the base 11, using that against an enemy with +25 saves has the exact same effect as if the DC was only a total of 1, and compared to a To-Hit of 1 (comprised solely of BAB) against an enemy with 25 AC, it does actually produce the same result.
BAB 1 with a +29 bonus to reach +30 To-Hit is also entirely possible, but if we're then trying to compare that to someone's DC of 1 (or the base 11), then we're starting to compare characters who are distant enough from each other that the comparison is actually becoming sort of irrelevant.
As for my stance on the subject at hand, I believe that a level 3 Wizard should cast a spell at the same power level as any other level 3 Wizard who casts the same spell. If a level 20 Wizard were to cast Web, for example, it should absolutely be better/stronger than a level 3 Wizard's version of the spell, even if that level 3 Wizard had 17 levels of Fighter, for example. Regardless of being a 20th-level character, that character is still only a 3rd-level Wizard.
In regard to abilities that scale with Class Level, abilities that scale with Character Level, and other abilities that do not directly scale on their own with any levels, the fact that each of those abilities is different is part of what makes them all unique, and why trade-offs exist: so that a player must make a choice that has a significant lasting impact on their character's capabilities. If any one of those 3 types of abilities were removed and corresponding abilities were adjusted to fit into either or both of the other groups, then there would be less impact resulting from a player's choice, which I feel would diminish the fun of mechanical character-building.
Shear-buckler
Well-known member
Haha yes THANK YOU! That is literally the point I made in the post you quoted and the posts leading up to it.
I know you are not saying BAB and Spell DCs are equivalent mechanics, the other poster was saying that. My point was that they are not the same and that the other poster must be conflating BAB with to-hit for his posts to make any sense.
Ehm, the numbers are irrelevant, if the claim that was made was true it would be true for any set of numbers regardless if they are representative of an in game scenario or not. Here one set of numbers was cherry picked to make the incorrect claim that DC and BAB are equivalent and the other set of numbers was just to show that an other set of numbers shows the absurdity of that claim.
That line of reasoning brings me straight to the evasion example. Why would not the following be equally valid"If a level 20 rogue evades it should absolutely be better/stronger than a level 10 rogue/10 paladins evasion"?
Either way web is a poor example, as it's not affected by caster levels.
If we look at a damage spells instead and compare it to a martial feat like cleave it makes thing a bit more clear. Do you believe that a level 3 fighter should use cleave just as well as a level 3 fighter / 17 wizard? Well that is just not the case because cleave damage scales from your gear and other attributes.
Spell damage on the other hand uniquely scale primarily with class level and a level 5 wizard will get the same scaling as a level 5 wizard / x fighter (ofcourse the spell power would be different). What this means in practice is that the damage spells of the 5 levels of wizard will be completely useless only a few levels after level 5 and there is nothing one can do about it.
If that level 5 wizard/ x fighter was able to boost their caster level with a feat all it would do is extend the usefulness of the spells your learned as a level 5 wizard. A level 5+x wizard would still be a stronger spellcaster as higher level spells are stronger. This would line up much more closely to the martial classes and would increase the viability of spells in multiclassed caster builds.
I get that in principle and you would be correct if everything was perfectly balanced as it is. My position is that spells for mutliclassed casters are so woefully underperforming that the trade-offs involved are less impacting and fun than they could be.
Last edited:
EvilDragon
Well-known member
I once made a post about 'shared' caster level system like how BAB works a bit in a shared concept. It seems people think it'd be too overpowered and unbalanced, but I failed to see the issue they saw.
* original post:
I am not sure the point of nothing should scale from class level, but I definitely agree some stuffs are too underperformed.
Last edited:
Shear-buckler
Well-known member
Yeah that seems to be the knee-jerk reaction, but when pressed about examples they come up short.
One example was that favoured soul beacon of hope tier 5 heal SLA at max caster level with only 5 favoured soul levels would be too strong, but I really don't see it. It's a tier 5 ability so it should be strong. If you spend 5 levels, 31 APs and your only tier 5 slot for an ability it's fair that it's actually useful. Compare it to tempest dance of death, that's a far more powerful ability and works exactly the same for 5 and 20 ranger levels.
Yeah I actually diagree that nothing should scale from class level. The main balance issue comes from multiclassing and that spells primarily scale off of caster level instead of gear.
Chacka
Well-known member
It's actually interesting how many straw man arguments you find in this thread from people who dislike the idea that multiclass characters get full functional abilities.
This makes me think that if the opposition's only means is to find straw man arguments, then it appears to me that they don't actually have a real argument against the idea. They basically know they are wrong, but they don't want to admit it for reasons other than objectivity.
Yes, it opens up the likelihood of more options for multiclass character builds if everything that currently scales with the class level were to scale with the character level. However, this is not overpowered according to my definition. (Something is overpowered for me if it becomes so powerful that it stops being fun after a short period when it is no longer new.)
More options for different working (but not OP) multiclass builds are a GOOD thing!
Even as someone who usually plays pure classes, I can see that multiclassing can be a lot of fun. However, multiclassing only makes sense if you don't end up with a character who has no abilities that actually work.
And to mention it again, it is ONLY about spells and other abilities that currently scale with the character level. If you change one thing, you don't have to change something else too!
You don't have to change every ability to character level scaling. If you see something would be really too powerful, you can simply leave it alone. But the general rule can certainly be scaling with the character level, while the general rule currently is scaling with the class level.
Especially for spells, I absolutely don't see a reason why they shouldn't scale with the character level. Most of the opposition here only sees that such a character gets something, but the fact that such a build has a BIG trade-off if it multiclassed is obvious.
For example, if you multiclass 3 paladin levels as a sorcerer, you completely miss out on all level 9 spells from the sorcerer class, and this is certainly a BIG trade-off.
And while I'm on it, I would also remove the maximum caster level. Sure, it might be necessary to rebalance many spells before doing it, but I see no point in having a maximum caster level at all.
I want ALL my spells to be useful at ALL character levels!
And just to mention it again, this is NOT about getting more power and making DDO easier!
If you ask me, you could basically remove all class/character level scaling from DDO. Here are some of the benefits of having no character/class level scaling:
This makes me think that if the opposition's only means is to find straw man arguments, then it appears to me that they don't actually have a real argument against the idea. They basically know they are wrong, but they don't want to admit it for reasons other than objectivity.
Yes, it opens up the likelihood of more options for multiclass character builds if everything that currently scales with the class level were to scale with the character level. However, this is not overpowered according to my definition. (Something is overpowered for me if it becomes so powerful that it stops being fun after a short period when it is no longer new.)
More options for different working (but not OP) multiclass builds are a GOOD thing!
Even as someone who usually plays pure classes, I can see that multiclassing can be a lot of fun. However, multiclassing only makes sense if you don't end up with a character who has no abilities that actually work.
And to mention it again, it is ONLY about spells and other abilities that currently scale with the character level. If you change one thing, you don't have to change something else too!
You don't have to change every ability to character level scaling. If you see something would be really too powerful, you can simply leave it alone. But the general rule can certainly be scaling with the character level, while the general rule currently is scaling with the class level.
Especially for spells, I absolutely don't see a reason why they shouldn't scale with the character level. Most of the opposition here only sees that such a character gets something, but the fact that such a build has a BIG trade-off if it multiclassed is obvious.
For example, if you multiclass 3 paladin levels as a sorcerer, you completely miss out on all level 9 spells from the sorcerer class, and this is certainly a BIG trade-off.
And while I'm on it, I would also remove the maximum caster level. Sure, it might be necessary to rebalance many spells before doing it, but I see no point in having a maximum caster level at all.
I want ALL my spells to be useful at ALL character levels!
And just to mention it again, this is NOT about getting more power and making DDO easier!
If you ask me, you could basically remove all class/character level scaling from DDO. Here are some of the benefits of having no character/class level scaling:
- Remove the number inflation that is bad for immersion.
- Make it much easier to balance the game for the game and quest designers.
- It would most likely be much easier to code and result in fewer bugs.
- In general, it would most likely lead to better server performance because there is much less to calculate.
- It is much closer to the initial ideas of Dungeons & Dragons.
- It is a lot easier to understand for players.
- You wouldn't need a minimum level for items, and therefore, no items in multiple versions where only the minimum level is the difference.
But if you only multiclass 2 paladin levels, you don´t miss out on lvl 9 spells, and get divine grace, which works quite well with a sorcerers charisma.
In the current game, that would mean you miss out on the tier 5 sorcerer core enhancement and in return get a +8 to all saves.
Now, if Divine Grace scaled with character levels instead of paladin levels, you would easily get +30 to all your saves.
Chacka
Well-known member
But I'm talking about multiclassing into three levels of Paladin because it still makes sense. And even if you only take two levels of Paladin, it's a significant trade-off to have only one level 9 spell instead of three, not to mention one fewer level 8 spell.
And here, I'm not even talking about the level 20 capstone enhancement you miss, which is also a big trade-off. For me, the fact remains that there is no point in making the spells you actually have weaker than those of a pure sorcerer with the same character level!
I also want to point out that your example regarding Divine Grace is at least questionable. If Divine Grace caped at 62 is considered overpowered on a sorcerer, why wouldn't it be overpowered on a pure Paladin if he gets up to 62 to all saves from that? (by the way another example of ridiculous number inflation in DDO)
Furthermore, not every ability needs to scale with character level. Each ability can be evaluated individually. If you genuinely believe that character-level scaling on a specific ability is overpowered, then you can propose alternative solutions. I'm talking about the fact that most abilities/spells could scale with character level (and not the class level), and this would only make something that is currently underwhelming balanced (and not op)!
By the way, I have the impression that you are trying to find a single weak point in my argumentation. If this is indeed the only weak point you've found, it seems like I'm quite right, especially when your counterargument against that weak point is even weaker.
I agree on the number inflation thing ... and after playing a paladin myself, it might actually be a bit overpowered, but the lvl 20 paladin doesn´t have the offensive spellcasting power of a lvl 18 Sorcerer at the same time.
And I mean, that´s what multiclassing is about: You sacrifice power for utility/flexibility.
I think the idea of adding the practiced spellcaster feat to increase caster level by 4 is a great idea.
And I absolutely agree on that as well, but who should be the judge of that ? Every ability, every feat, enhancement, spell would have to be re-evaluated. Overhauling all of that would be an absolute nightmare with the amount of abilities in game and most likely won´t be any more balanced as what we have right now.
No, I already gave several examples of why I think scaling spells by character level is a bad idea.
And just like the other guy, here you state your opinion as fact.
Why would training as a fighter or rogue make your magic missile any stronger ? Or your buffs last longer ?
Why should the power of any spell scale by character levels that have nothing to do with spellcasting ? Just like a lvl 1Fighter/Lvl 19 Wizard doesn´t get the BAB of a lvl 20 fighter, or the lvl 1 rogue/Lvl 19 barbarian doesn´t get 20d6 sneack attack dice, etc.
Just to be clear: I`m absolutely fine with increasing the viability of multiclass builds, but I don´t think scaling spells by character level would be the right way.
Shear-buckler
Well-known member
Cool.
4 is the number in PnP which is designed around spending 90% of the time at levels 1-10. That is very different from DDO so copying the number straight over without consideration is a job half-done. Let's say it increased caster levek by up to 5, is that OP? If so, what specifically becomes OP with the extra level?
Phoenicis
Savage's Husband
Your definition is not the only one, and by extension apparently not the one most in this thread find 'correct'.
- Status