Intelligence, Classes, and Experience

Multiclassing has faced as well as posed a number of difficulties in D&D. Back in AD&D, the Player's Handbook gave very specific multiclassing options, based upon race. 3rd Edition removed both racial level caps as well as race-based multiclassing, but limited multiclassing through Alignment requirements, as well as arbitrary limitations (Monk and Paladin, I'm looking at you).

After reading through my previous postings, I'm certain most can figure out my thoughts regarding Alignment restrictions on classes. And trying to convince me that you can never gain another level in a certain class because you took one level of something else? No thanks.

The system I grew up on, which had been based out of AD&D, had no multiclassing or alignment restrictions. This worked out just fine for many years, until we ended up with players who started taking four or more classes in order to gain various 1st level benefits and abilities.



Yeah, like that. Only not 1/11th of a class each level, but 11 first level classes all at once.

Our DM decided this was just silly, and so it was ruled that the total number of classes you could have was limited by your character's intelligence. This made sense. Certain classes were considered to be "worth more" than others, like Paladin (because it combined both Fighter and Cleric) and Ranger (Fighter, Druid, and Mage - AD&D, remember). Overall, the system seemed logical and also helped prevent any more Multiclassing Minmaxing. The biggest problem I had with it was the feeling of obligation to "fill up" with the maximum number of classes that the character's Intelligence could support, so as not to waste it.

So over the past few days, I've put together a ruleset on multiclassing for my own system. In this system, your total number of "effective classes" is what determines your experience needed per level. No more taking a class just for one level.

Taking more classes than your Intelligence would allow can be done. Doing so, however, increases the experience needed for each level based upon how many beyond the "maximum" you took, even above what would normally be required just by having the additional classes. As any college student knows, it's much harder to remember everything when you're taking too many classes.

On the other side of the coin, if you take fewer classes than your Intelligence can support, you gain a discount on the experience needed each level, based upon the difference between the number you were allowed and how many you took. You can learn faster, because you're capable of learning more than what is being presented.

On a previous topic, I asked my wife how she viewed magic users in D&D - whether the power was coming from within, being channeled, or simply using ambient energy, or even something completely different. She reminded me of how Steven Brust has things set up in his Jhereg series: Dragaeran sorcery is more or less grabbing available energy and tossing it, while Eastern witchcraft is mentally and physically taxing on the practitioner. And then there's Pre-Empire sorcery. Let's not get into that.

Taking that into consideration, I see a correlation between Brust's witchcraft and Druids, so I would most likely leave Constitution as the power source for them. Equating Dragaeran sorcerers with Mages, however, still doesn't give me a well-defined source of power. The Dragaerans pull energy through their link with an artifact-level magic item, which basically gives them an inexhaustible supply of mana. I can't really have that.

I've tinkered with a number of options: Base mana off of Cunning, to represent craftiness through the handling and redistribution of ambient mana. Base it off of Perception, to represent the ability to see or notice the surrounding power in order to use it. Base it off of Luck, to represent the idea that ambient power levels can vary from location to location. I've even considered the option of reworking Shadowrun's system of magic, where spells don't take mana, but instead have a chance of draining you when you cast one. Fail too many "Drain" checks, and you're unconscious. Trying to balance that in a d20 system, though, would take a great deal more work than I'm willing to expend on just this one aspect right now, and still leaves Mages with a potentially inexhaustible supply of power.

I briefly considered making each Mage subclass (Illusionist, Transmuter, Evoker, etc.) have a different stat that it uses for power, but I think that would just make things far too complicated and confusing. And it still wouldn't answer what stat to have Mages use. At this point, I'm tempted to either stick with Constitution, or assign it to Perception, the latter mainly because I don't have a lot tied to that stat yet.

Suggestions?

Ability Scores and Casting - Multiclassing

Reviewing everything I've posted so far on spellcasting mechanics, it came to my attention that basing some classes' mana off of Constitution also would alter the dynamics of multiclassing. AD&D and 3rd Edition both use a spells/day system, so multiclassed spellcasters, even if both classes used the same stat for spells, don't have to worry about sharing a mana pool. In the system I grew up on, however, each casting stat has its own mana pool (ie: Intelligence gave Arcane mana, Wisdom gave Divine). This meant that while you could play a Mage/Illusionist, or a Cleric/Druid, you wouldn't gain any additional casting power, just another spell list to choose from.

By making Constitution the casting stat for Mages, Druids, and Rangers, I've now reduced the effectiveness of a Mage/Druid or Mage/Ranger multiclass combination.

I also have a system I've developed to give Fighters and other melee-based classes more versatility and variety than AD&D without making them quite as powerful as 3rd Edition's tireless killing machines. This system uses Endurance points, also based on Constitution. They aren't magical abilities, but I can still see arguments for a Mage/Fighter using a single pool for both casting and the fighting abilities. After all, if you've drained your body by channeling arcane or nature-based force, why would you still have just as much Endurance?

Effectively, though, this would mean that hardly any melee-based class would want to multiclass with Mage or Druid, while Rangers would end up being almost at a disadvantage since they come prepackaged with both spells and the fighting abilities. Power-wise, anyway. The benefit, still, would be increased versatility despite the lack of additional power. Whether this would be worth the increased Experience cost to level, I'm not sure. I guess that would vary, depending on the person.

On the other hand, it would open up Cleric/Druid as a more potent multiclass option, since Clerics draw power from Faith. Paladin/Druid would still have the problem of splitting Constitution between Endurance and Mana. Mage/Cleric would still be just as effective as before. The Thief class gets a few Endurance based abilities, but not as many, which means multiclassing into Mage or Druid might be a slightly more attractive option than it is for the more combat-focused melee classes.

Confessions of a Gamer Parent

I love my son. He is intelligent, curious, creative, and adorable. He is frequently well-behaved, despite being in the "Terrible Twos" range. As much as he may frustrate me at times, I am deeply proud of him and am, daily, glad of the fact that he is in my life. I would not give him up for anything...

But I would appreciate the option of paying someone to watch him for a few hours, maybe twice a month.

At present, that's just not an option for financial reasons. Even when I do have some spare cash, though, I simply do not know any babysitters in our area. The nearest relatives are an hour away, and have enough physical difficulties that it would be, at best, hard on them to keep up with a toddler.

This comes about because: for the past couple of months I have been making the 1.5-2 hour drive, every other week, to play Shadowrun with the old Tuesday Group(tm). But as much as I enjoy seeing the guys, and getting out for a game, this is just not a sustainable situation for a few reasons.

1) Again, money: Gasoline is not cheap. Purchasing nothing else, a round trip costs about $13. That may not sound like much, but seeing as how my current job is giving me no work, has not given any work for about two weeks, and doesn't expect to have any additional work until the middle of the month, I'm counting every penny.

2) Time: The game goes from 7pm to 10pm - three hours. Often, I'll end up spending another hour just talking with my friends, reviewing the game, making plans for the next one, etc. But the game itself is three hours, which means I'm spending at least as much time on the road as I am at the table. This also means I'm leaving home at around 5pm and not returning until midnight or later.

3) Fairness to my wife: She's been wonderful and sweet, and was the one who insisted I start going to the games, but there is no equal and opposite reaction here. I go off and have fun in tabletop gaming, leaving her to watch our son. She does not have a group of friends to go hang out and game with for hours at a time, and so I have no way to reciprocate the favor.

Ideally, we'd love to find a local gaming group that both of us can participate in together. I actually do know of a couple of people in the area who are gamers, and would most likely welcome us to the table.

But our son, as bright and talented as he is, is still a toddler. He is not going to sit still on a lap for several hours while Mommy and Daddy are bashing goblins. While he is getting close to the point where he might enjoy similar pursuits, he most likely will not have the attention span to maintain that interest for an extended period of time. For the moment, then, unless we game in our own home (and oftentimes even then) we will expend more time and energy trying to wrangle with him than with monsters.

The experience has given me a new appreciation for what my parents must have gone through while raising me, and adds a new perspective to the memories I have of their tabletop games during my early years. I could argue that they had an advantage in the fact that my mother was frequently the DM, since I imagine a lot of players would be more willing to put up with having a kid around (alternately wanting to play, seeking attention, making noise, and then running off when focus is lost only to return five minutes later wanting to play the game again) if it meant that they didn't have to run a game themselves, and the DM is generally more forgiving of having the game they've put together interrupted when the disturbance is caused by their own child. Still, I imagine they may have lost some players, or simply had fewer of them, due to my presence. And I'm certain I kept them from playing as often as they may have liked.

Maybe I'll see about trying to run a local game myself. I've been working on a system, and looking for opportunities to playtest it, but I've currently got absolutely zilch as far as campaign ideas go. I'd also have to overcome my anxiety of inviting strangers into my house, since there really isn't any local gathering place I'm aware of that would look too kindly on playing D&D, no matter what version or variant. And, of course, there's the cleaning to do.

*glances around*

Maybe we could try the local Hardees instead. They ARE open 24 hours...

Responsibility and Me

The past couple of years, I've noticed a trend in my behavior with games. It is not a new behavior for me, but is one that I'd suppressed for several years and now has a new reason behind it.

My first forays into online gaming were with MUDs. I searched through hundreds of them, trying to find one that seemed worthwhile, and eventually settled in a Roleplay-required place that wasn't too different from what I had become accustomed to, gameplay-wise. I created a vast number of characters but could never seem to stick to one for long. I kept coming up with concepts for characters, creating them, and then letting them falter and languish when my concept or idea failed to come to fruition quickly enough, or when I got too bored with level-grinding. After all, it's a game. Why should I spend too much time devoting actual work-like energy into it? Finally, I decided I was tired of the cycle, and made up my mind to create a "throw-away" character, one that I wouldn't care one way or another what happened with. No predestined goals, no background, no real concept, but I promised myself I'd make it to the maximum level. I even used a random name generator, so I wouldn't assign the character any hidden meaning or goals that way.

This "throw-away" still exists. I have been playing him for over eight years now. For over three of those years, he was a key governmental figure in one of the game's kingdoms. I gave my all to that game, that faux-government, to make the in-game environment feel as real as I could, to give the people who worked with me a real sense of connection and achievement. I held the position for longer than any other character, and even when real life took precedence with moving, finding and maintaining a job, and marriage, I did my best to remain accessible to those who depended on me in the game, albeit by messages rather than direct contact. Three days after my forced retirement, due to my "increased absence", everything I worked on was tossed out.

It's taken me years, but I'm finally coming to terms with some of my disappointment and bitterness (this site, which I came across recently, has helped). I've sought solace in other games, but I never seem to stay satisfied with one for very long. None have the depth I'd felt in the MUD, despite the beauty of graphics and the potential for RP, the latter of which I find to be severely lacking in most cases. And in all cases, I've intentionally avoided any duty or responsibility that anyone has tried to assign to me. After all, it's a game. Why should I bother putting too much energy into something that will, ultimately, have no effect on real life? Especially since any work I do will likely end up being undone once I'm no longer there to sustain it.

Fantasy Earth Zero

For a while now I've been getting extremely dissatisfied with the online games I'd been playing. Mabinogi just doesn't hold my attention at all, anymore. I'm tired of spamming instrument playing to try and master rank 1, and I swear my guild only does dungeon runs when I'm away from the keyboard. Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) is occasionally diverting, but for some reason (and I'm not even certain I can pin it down) it just isn't holding my interest either.

I was just about ready to try going back to City of Heroes, since they had a Free Play weekend coming up, when a friend of mine told me about a game that someone else had mentioned to them. It was made by Square Enix, he'd said, and had the feel of Final Fantasy Tactics. He wasn't able to play, or even look at much of it (he's having some computer issues involving Port 80, which I'm heading out to help with in a couple days), and wanted me to check it out.

So I do a search for this game, called Fantasy Earth Zero, and the first thing I find is a Wikipedia entry saying that it's not even released in the US. Well that can't be right, I'm thinking, and continue on until I find the download page. Turns out that I downloaded the client on the day that the first Open Beta was due to release. I'd never beta-tested an online game before, so this was pretty cool for me.

When the server for Open Beta finally went up (several hours past the original launch time), I went in and started playing with the character creation stuff while my wife was finishing up installing it on her computer. We made characters, tried to enter the game with them, and hit the first major roadbump: Gamepot or whoever was in charge of FEZ's Open Beta release wasn't expecting the flood of players it got. They'd only opened up 2 of the 5 kingdoms for people to join and play in, just to get a feel for how things worked in the US version, had only one server, and only 800 slots for characters in each of those kingdoms. They quickly set up a second world/server, but they still only had a capacity of 800 for each of the kingdoms. It was very, very late in the day before they got the population limit raised (my wife had already gone to bed).

Day 2, we went in and started going through the tutorial quests. The controls were very foreign to me at first. The only way to turn around is to change your camera angle, since your directional buttons only allow for forward, back, and strafing. The mouse, by default, changes your camera angle as you move it, which was very disorienting at first. Over time, however, I got used to it (and by the time Open Beta was over, I had trouble going back to other games!).

The Party system seemed a bit glitchy - it would kick my wife and I out of a party when transitioning, so we would need to reform the party when going to a different area. Aside from that, it didn't really feel like we could do much to help each other, aside from just whack at the same monster. The game lacks any sort of ability to heal other people, with your own toon's healing dependent solely upon potions or food items, or sitting at one of the mana crystals when in a war (which will get you yelled at, since healing your character by camping the crystal takes HP away from the crystal).

Overall, it seemed cute and mildly distracting, but seemed to lack any real substance. I had already told my wife that the female character model was complete with "bounce effect", something which was lacking from most other games (even Mabinogi, whose signature character Nao is notorious for it). A closer look, however, revealed something even more revealing: the outfit female characters start with, an exceedingly low-cut peasant-style blouse, actually seems to show the top curve of the areolae. Looking around at other outfits available, it seemed like the newbie outfit was the only one which did this, despite the fact that other tops seemed to cover even less. When it came to clothing below the waistline, the starting outfit was tame, with a knee-length skirt (despite the slit up the back). Other female armors had skirts ranging from mini-length to practically non-existent, with various styles of undergarment. But it was the peasant-blouse starting gear that really disturbed us, and we were just about ready to uninstall.

Then we tried our first war. The game's major selling point, in most of what I'd read, seemed to be the massive combat capability: 50vs50 PvP. I have never been a fan of player-vs.-player gaming, whether in the MUD, on MMOs, or even on Facebook apps. So I was exceedingly surprised to find myself enjoying this. After talking about it with my wife, we think it's because of the scale of it. Most PvP is one-on-one, or maybe a small group. It ends up feeling very personal. But on this scale, it doesn't feel that way. It's like Capture the Flag with more rules.

The system isn't perfect. Of the three classes available to us in the Beta (Warrior, Scout, and Sorcerer) it seemed like the side with the most Warriors would consistently win, despite the game's internal balancing that said otherwise. I'd started off making a Sorcerer, focusing on the lightning spells, only to find out that was one of the worst choices to make. In theory, lightning spells are faster to cast than fire or ice, whereas fire does Damage over Time and ice slows or halts the enemy. Due to lag issues, the lack of auto-targeting, and the differences between fighting AI-run monsters and actual people, it seemed I could never get a spell to hit another PC. Occasionally, if I targeted ahead of them (so they would run into it) I could manage a hit. Even that seemed to work better with the bow-based scout abilities, though.

Warriors, however, have at least 2 high-damage Area of Effect abilities that are centered on the warrior character itself, which is a much safer bet for a PC than trying to aim an AoE (spell or arrow-based) at a distance. For one, since it surrounds the PC, the warrior is going to hit anything close-by, preventing attacks on the warrior. And two, the warrior is built to go wading into battle like that.

I did enjoy playing a Bow-Scout, though, for the ability to stand at the top of a cliff and rain arrows down at enemies at the bottom. If you did it right, you could even stand at the bottom and hit enemies at the top. I also enjoyed playing a Dagger-Scout, to a lesser degree. Being able to potentially one-shot sneak-attack was nice, and the ability to disarm was a wonderful piece of chaos, but most of the time it seemed I was little more than a suicide bomber. Warriors can do about as much damage with one of their abilities, and they don't have to be hidden to do it. I guess the one class I didn't enjoy as much was Sorcerer, but I also didn't try out the fire or ice magic as much. I'd also like to have tried out some of the sword-and-shield warrior abilities, but I was having too much fun smashing everyone to bits with a two-handed weapon.

One of the biggest concerns about the game, though, ended up being saboteurs: people loyal to the other kingdom making characters in ours, and intentionally wasting resources in battle to give the other side an advantage. There was no way to prevent it from happening, and the only countermeasure would be to do the same thing to them. If there was a way to report possible saboteurs, that would at least help the issue.

First Open Beta ended on the 10th, with 2nd Open Beta scheduled to start on the 17th (2 days!). We're told there will not be a character wipe after 2nd Open Beta, and anyone who was involved in a GM-run war during the first OB will get a code in their email to receive a nifty weapon once OB2 opens up. Despite the issues, I'm looking forward to it, as is my wife. I've actually been having trouble playing other games since it went down.

Magic Systems

I've recently been considering a possibility which would basically nullify a lot of work I'd already done. I spent a good amount of time compiling a list of all the 3rd Edition spells and cleric domains, to have a "Master List" of all the available magic in the game. It is a huge list, yet for all that's available it still seems very restrictive in some ways, and there are still only a handful of spells that are regarded as being essential.

So, I've been thinking about pulling out the entire magic system currently in place, and replacing it with a modified version of the (Revised Second Edition) BESM system. I very much like and appreciate the potential for customization in the BESM magic system, which gives every caster the ability to be unique, even if the technical aspects of the spell are the same. It means, in my case, figuring out how to interpret the rules of the Tri-Stat system for a modified d20 system with 10 stats using mana-based casting.

It makes magic potentially much more powerful. This is especially noticeable with direct-damage spells, since the minimum amount (other than 0) that an ability can deal is 15 points. Even using the damage reduction rules for armor found in the 3rd Ed. Unearthed, that leaves a lot of damage for a low-cost spell. The only way to effectively block magic, then, is with magic. This makes a certain amount of poetic sense, following the whole "fire with fire" mentality.

However, magic is also effective against physical attacks, which means that unless the NPCs/monsters have magic, the party will quickly be unassailable if they have a mid-level caster in the party with a Force Field effect. There are ways around this, but not by swarming the party with low-level critters.

On further consideration, this apparent boost to magical power might be what is needed to balance out the static energy level idea that I was considering.

Using the BESM system for magic means that each caster is going to be more unique, but it will also take more time to create a magic-using character. In this regard, I think the positive benefits outweigh that aspect, at least so long as there are only a limited number of people rolling casters at the same time.

I also like the aspect of being able to improve existing abilities and spells as you progress. The idea of a Mage gaining a level, and choosing to improve, for example, a Fireball-esque spell in order to deal higher damage or have a bigger blast radius sounds really nifty.

Chances are I'll end up trying it.

Namaste

If, a year ago, someone brought up 3D movies in conversation, the first image to pop into my head would have been the cliche 1950's crowd with the two-tone red and blue cardboard glasses. 3D was a gimmick, used to hype sub-standard movies in order to bring in audiences.

No more.

James Cameron has taken 3D technology and used it for what it should always have been: to provide a fully immersive experience within a fully detailed environment. He took a film that was fully capable of standing on its own, and enhanced it, rather than making 3D the sole selling point. 3D technology, while it may not become the standard viewing method for some time, now has a benchmark. All 3D films, probably for at least the next decade, will be compared to Avatar to gauge their opulence and detail.

Now to the film itself. Spoilers will likely abound. You have been warned.

Where to begin?

The flora and fauna of Pandora is perfectly balanced between alien and familiar. You may not know what something is called, but it looks (and acts) familiar enough that you know what it's Earth-based counterpart is, or could be, with some few exceptions.

Just by looking at the ocular anatomy, you can tell that this world is much more dangerous than Earth. Practically every creature on the planet has two sets of eyes, one facing forward and one more to the sides. If you remember your Biology, forward facing eyes are the mark of a predator, whereas side-facing eyes are a typical prey's defensive mechanism. Everything on that planet, then, is both a predator and prey. Even the Na'vi, though they lack the second set of eyes, because that lack is made up for by their unusually large, sensitive, swiveling ears.

The wildlife isn't all that's familiar. Plot elements are similar to things seen elsewhere, and although this has been used as a criticism to harp on the plotline's predictability, I believe Mr. Cameron did it right. He gave us familiar elements to associate with, first off so that we wouldn't be overwhelmed by what was unfamiliar, and second so that we would not miss too much if our eyes were overwhelmed with the details put into this fantastic world.

Still, here's what I was reminded of: Linking to the animals? Matrix, jacking in, which was further reinforced by the explanation of how everything was linked in an electric network. The flying creatures, who only bond to one rider? Dragonriders of Pern. The term "I see you" is very closely related to the one-word title up above. And the general storyline and message in general? Fern Gully for grown-ups.

This doesn't belittle the film, in my eyes. Yes, I've seen elements of it elsewhere, but not blended in this manner. And quite frankly it's about time we adults were reminded of the direction our world is going. I don't even necessarily mean what we're doing to destroy the planet. I'll leave that sermon to Al Gore. What I'm talking about is our direction as a society: our might-makes-right attitude, using violence as a default means to the end we desire. We can't even get along with other humans, so what possible hope do we have of peaceful relations with non-human sentient life?

Fern Gully started from the position that the Earth, that Nature, was salvageable, if we humans could do right by it. Mr. Cameron doesn't even give us that much credit, and I can't say I disagree. Avatar starts with Earth being devoid of Nature, perhaps completely sapped of all life, and only gives us the message that, despite our overwhelming majority of asshats, humanity can still be redeemed by the actions of those few who are willing to do right by Life in general, rather than being sheep led to the slaughter by those who had enough greed and ambition to gain apparent leadership.

I saw an article, the day before I saw the movie, that told of a trend among those who saw Avatar. Apparently, there are a number of people who have, since viewing it, become depressed or even suicidal: depressed because they could not live on Pandora, suicidal in the hope that they might be reborn as a Na'vi. It's nothing new that people who come to associate with and love a world they experience through fiction have a desire to live there, or be the people they've read about or seen in the movie. I know I spent a good amount of time in my teen years wishing I actually had a Pernese dragon to ride, so I understand the wish that Pandora were real.

And maybe it is, or a place much like it. We can't, at this point, prove its lack of existence any more than we can prove it does exist. But for the sake of that place, should it be real, I hope we never find it.