There is no logical consistency in saying a player can go 2 rogue then 12 wizard, but cannot go 12 wizard then 2 rogue. Why would one be more OP or cheesier than the other when they arrive at the same 12/2 wizard/rogue build?
The PrCs aren't amazing, they're just neat role-play enhancers and more snowflakey when they're gated behind people with a long, annoying process
A 19 cleric/1 divine champ or 17 cleric/3 divine champ is now essentially reaping all the rewards of cleric and gets access to final tier spells while having paladin abilities (smite evil/lay on hands) with none of the alignment strings attached. The 5 level gap is meant to grill spellcasters is what I'm getting from having ran theory builds.
1) A level is not a level. To get to level 2 on this server costs nothing as we all begin at level 2. In contrast to get to level 11 costs 10,000 XP (the difference between 10th and 11th). To get to 20th level costs 19,000 XP.
2) In time they are not equal. This is more difficult to measure because people play at different rates, but for the same level of activity a character will level much more slowly down the road than at the beginning.
3) In usefulness over the life of a character they are not equal. What you do at 1st and 2nd lasts for your whole career. Twentieth level may have zero usefulness to you as you may never reach it but it will definitely be toward the end.
It would hardly affect game balance at all because I don't think there's any prestige class that the first level of is more valuable than the 12th level of some other class.
Another proof that it does not affect game balance is this: 15-5 builds are allowed.
If a 15-5 build is not over-powered, then it is impossible to believe a 15-1 is over-powered.
In conclusion, the way the rule would be logically coherent is to say that, if you multiclass, you cannot take levels in a class that will increase the gap between the two classes to more than 10. But if you already have 10 or more levels in a class, decreasing that gap is allowed.
There is no logical consistency in saying a player can go 2 rogue then 12 wizard, but cannot go 12 wizard then 2 rogue. Why would one be more OP or cheesier than the other when they arrive at the same 12/2 wizard/rogue build?
My own personal opinion is that the rule is actually a good thing, and I enjoy it.
From what I can see, a good chunk of your arguments appear to be built on the assumption that the rule is purely in place to prevent certain powerbuilds. While this is surely part of the idea (I didn't write the rules, so I can only guess in the end what the full intentions of the authors were) I'd say it serves other useful functions as well.
For one, it means that you'll have to do your "dip" (or at least part of it) earlier on in your character's lifespan.
I'm not sure what the first statement means, but the second one is mostly covered with my points above I feel. Mastering something (reaching the higher levels in a class) should take a lot more time and effort to do than becoming an amateur. Another analogy is the runner or weightlifter who used to be out of shape. When he's very overweight, he loses weight and makes big gains very quickly because it's easy. But to refine your physique to bodybuilder competition or competitive marathon runner practice, it's going to take a lot more dedication. This makes logical sense to me.
So it's reasonable to believe that after a certain threshold (say, level 10) a character no longer has the time, energy, mental focus, or whatever else to take up learning an entirely new field of study.
Legion raises an important point--it's often that a one-level dip is for purely power reasons and is not roleplayed as an aspect of the character.
There is no logical consistency in saying a player can go 2 rogue then 12 wizard, but cannot go 12 wizard then 2 rogue.
How can one "enjoy it"? That's a sort of baffling assertion without explanation in this specific instance.I could try to guess, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.No mystery to it, I just like the rule being in place and I think it serves a good purpose. We have a difference of opinions is all, nothing wrong with that. I personally don't get why people like orange chicken and spring rolls but I acknowledge that it's possible! :lol:
It makes no more inherent sense to say a character development goes 2+10, then 10+2, as I already said.Wrote a paragraph or two on this already, there is a difference. I know it's easy to just rotate the numbers back and forth and say "but they both add up to 12" but that's conveniently ignoring half the argument presented.
almost all PCs have "lifespans" on the server in the single digitsI feel like this particular 'statistic' is up for debate at least. The level 10-12 range is very attainable even for the casual player, and certainly I wouldn't say "almost all" players are below level 10. A while back, Soren ran the average level for various areas and I think even the Outskirts (where all the new level 2s pass through) was 12.
Certainly there's nothing magical about the number 10I'm sure they could have just as easily picked 5 or 15, yes. Gotta pick a number somewhere, might as well be 10. That's the thing with drawing lines- you could always have drawn it slightly left or right. If it was 15, there'd be a whole separate group of people upset about that, I'm sure.
Pelor almighty!jesus christ
I'm pointing out that dipping is on the cheap at low levels and highly costly at high levels. That's why rewarding it at low levels and forbidding it at high makes no sense in terms of the stated goal of the rule.I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Low levels are cheaper, yes. You can either choose to use those cheap, quick levels to diversify your skills/abilities by multiclassing or you can choose to rapidly progress in a single main class. It's not "rewarding" or "punishing" one playstyle over another. It's literally just you picking what you want out of a build. Do you want 2 classes worth of abilities but only half the progression in each, or do you want 1 class and twice the progression? There's nothing broken about that system, it's a pure give and take. One is not inherently more "powerful" than the other.
There is nothing in game requiring us to do anything to keep our skills from rusting. If that's how you like to RP, fine, but don't force your interpretation on me :)
Because no one addressed this, I'll repeat it: Prestige classes should not be only the ambition of a brand-new character. They should be something to shoot for when a high level starts looking for something to cap her career with.This is your opinion, which is fine. Not sure how anyone is supposed to "address" it though. Personally I think characters should have their classes within 10 levels of each other because I feel like ignoring the RP of that second class until post-level-15 is kind of lame. There's nothing wrong with that opinion either, neither of us are going to be "right" or "wrong" here. I feel like we've both sort of made our points as to why each side has ups and downs.
the things that make for dynamic RP, rather than the static view of character Legion embraces.It's not really fair to suggest that this rule is either "side with me and enjoy dynamic RP" or "disagree with me and enjoy BORING STATIC characters." This whole discussion is way more complex than that, and I feel like you grasp that. So if you're wanting to be taken seriously, the best thing you can do is take alternate view points seriously too.
It's reasonable to believe that after a certain threshold (say, level 10) a character no longer has the time, energy, mental focus, or whatever else to take up learning an entirely new field of study.
3) Re-leveling: Alright, so a new player doesn't know about this in-house rule and accidentally goes to 12th before taking her first in her second class. She can apply for a re-level and fix it by dipping earlier on the re-level. But if that's okay, why the prohibition in the first place?Aside of balance issues - which I would say to be dire enough to greatly promote certain builds - the idea of the rule is to encourage certain kind of approach to playing on PoTM. There's arguably a burden of history to it.
About allowing picking levels that lower the gap - I think it's decently common for people to aim their builds to be "finished" before level 20. So, people would still go for those builds of 15 fighter 1 wizard.
Aside of balance issues - which I would say to be dire enough to greatly promote certain builds
She has to trade 16th level in her existing class for 1st level in another. If that is a good trade, then 1st level in the other class is clearly over-powered already.
Mm..QuoteAside of balance issues - which I would say to be dire enough to greatly promote certain builds
Once more, which builds? It blocks paths, not builds.
Let's say your hypothetical 15-1 build is OP and would wreck everything.That's a bit of an exaggeration of what I said.
Then a much more powerful form of it exists as a 15-5 build that *is* allowed. True, it takes longer to get there, but the rule by itself won't stop anyone from building it.
QuoteAbout allowing picking levels that lower the gap - I think it's decently common for people to aim their builds to be "finished" before level 20. So, people would still go for those builds of 15 fighter 1 wizard.
In previous posts I've argued why this is a fear without much of a foundation. A 1+15 build might have some appeal, but if a character is already 15th, she is quite powerful to take a first level in something else.
She has to trade 16th level in her existing class for 1st level in another. If that is a good trade, then 1st level in the other class is clearly over-powered already.
Secondly, if 1st level in this second class is a prestige class, it will require approval. So it is policed through an already existing mechanism.
Because that's when they can apply a full skill dump. He could take it early, and put a few points into a valuable skill. Or he could take it late, and put 40 saved points into all the rogue skills he needs, as well as gaining 4 AC.
Because the 10 level spread requirement forces the player to take the classes earlier in his progression, which often times applies the drawbacks earlier, and also applies the rewards slower.I never said it eliminates it. I said it made it harder. Which you also agree with. Which is why I personally like the ruling.
I never said it eliminates it. I said it made it harder. Which you also agree with. Which is why I personally like the ruling.
I'm not sure if anyone cares how newbies feel, but I've abandoned my hope of having Hestiana become a Divine Champion because the process is so encumbered by political and mechanical mires that my reaction is "Nope".
As level 11, I'd have to take it on my next level apparently, which will probably hit this weekend. I do not feel like it's a good bet, so I won't stop leveling until some undefined future time when I am given an answer, and since I am insignificant newcomer and like four people even know who I am, I doubt it would be approved in the end anyway. I'm not sure how I'm to "show quality roleplay" if nobody is watching. Maybe next year sometime. She would have been 15 cleric, 5 DC. Pretty much a style decision...she'll actually be more potent as a pure cleric in the end. I'll console myself with casting implosion, I guess.
Anyway point is, if you implemented this system to make prestige classes uncommon, it worked, at least on me.
I'm not sure how I'm to "show quality roleplay" if nobody is watching. Maybe next year sometime. She would have been 15 cleric, 5 DC. Pretty much a style decision...she'll actually be more potent as a pure cleric in the end. I'll console myself with casting implosion, I guess.
[...] As level 11, I'd have to take it on my next level apparently [...]
I stand corrected, but that surprises me. I understand the reasons not to encourage that, but I do not recall it being against the rules per say.
1) Legion's assertion about not starting something late in life is not an accurate characterization of the present rules. You can do it...if you have started two careers already.
Legion rationalizes:QuoteIt's reasonable to believe that after a certain threshold (say, level 10) a character no longer has the time, energy, mental focus, or whatever else to take up learning an entirely new field of study.
Then why can I take up something entirely new all the way to 16th level?
1) Legion's assertion about not starting something late in life is not an accurate characterization of the present rules. You can do it...if you have started two careers already.
Legion rationalizes:QuoteIt's reasonable to believe that after a certain threshold (say, level 10) a character no longer has the time, energy, mental focus, or whatever else to take up learning an entirely new field of study.
Then why can I take up something entirely new all the way to 16th level?
It's just an example Iridni. Whether it's level 10 or level 16 his point still holds. I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you, but you should really try to consider alternate viewpoints before declaring them as wrong or "rationalizations."
Iridni RenYesterday at 10:34 PM
I'm just guessing because of not knowing how it actually works. But I would think assuming the standard client (not something rigged to try to break the server), the server timeout is longer than the client or at least equal.
My reasoning is that you want people who have slow connections and are willing to tolerate lag to be able to play.
Maybe I'm just having trouble following what is said but could someone outline what the 10-level rule is doing compared to the 5-level rule? Do they do something more effective together?
1) Legion's assertion about not starting something late in life is not an accurate characterization of the present rules. You can do it...if you have started two careers already.
Legion rationalizes:QuoteIt's reasonable to believe that after a certain threshold (say, level 10) a character no longer has the time, energy, mental focus, or whatever else to take up learning an entirely new field of study.
Then why can I take up something entirely new all the way to 16th level?
It's just an example Iridni. Whether it's level 10 or level 16 his point still holds. I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you, but you should really try to consider alternate viewpoints before declaring them as wrong or "rationalizations."
That's a post from more than 20 months ago :)
But!
"Rationalize" is in not inherently pejorative. It means the person used reason...but the reasoning may not be correct.
From Discord, here is an example:QuoteIridni RenYesterday at 10:34 PM
I'm just guessing because of not knowing how it actually works. But I would think assuming the standard client (not something rigged to try to break the server), the server timeout is longer than the client or at least equal.
My reasoning is that you want people who have slow connections and are willing to tolerate lag to be able to play.
Above, I'm rationalizing my choice, but admitting I don't know for certain.
to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable
Synonyms: account (for), attribute, explain, explain away
justify, explain (away), account for, defend, vindicate, excuse, make excuses for, make allowances for, give an explanation for, provide a rationale for, make acceptable; extenuate