3 by 20

[Blame The Rogue]

i'm disagreeing with the level of impact you think a change to this rule will have on the server chad, though i value your opinion, and every opinion posted here

builders bear in mind things like the 26FvS/4BG thorsson mentioned when balancing mobs, so i don't see a change in this rule having a big impact on server balance. any new builds made possible by a change in this rule still wont measure as high as the build listed above

no, i don't wish this to lead to another "nerf FvS thread"

[chad878262]

You can disagree, but I can provide examples where one or two level dips increase power levels. Case in point, a FS could take one level of Cleric (instead of 3) to gain evasion and EDM, while also taking 2 other classes of 1 or two levels and still ending up with full caster level.. FS26/C1/SD1/F2 could have 2 epic feats, HiPS, Evasion/EW, and EDM w/ CL30. In addition, classes like Archmage and Hierophant which are specifically balanced based on the fact that you can't afford to take more than one class that does not gain CL (once Archmage no longer requires only specific classes) no longer have such an issue. So all of a sudden Archmage becomes a path to hit CL30 on a Gish by taking 6 AM levels for +3 CL allowing a total of 7 non-caster level classes, the same thing could be done with Hierophant for divine gish Clerics. The nwn2db is littered with epic builds that have 3 classes of 1 or 2 levels each to maximize power which 3b30 makes impossible. If you want 4 classes, the max level for your highest class is 21 instead of 26, this is a big difference.

Again, the balance of the server is based on 3b20. While 3b30 provides for a couple power boosts as well as allowing certain builds to avoid or reduce an XP penalty eliminating the rule all together allows for builds that certain classes were specifically designed to avoid.

I appreciate your idea's, but in this case there are many discussions that have taken place around this rule and so my vote would not be to allow for removal of three levels per class rule.

[Atlas]

-

[Blame The Rogue]

the sheer number of possibilities that become available with a change to this rule, builds less powerful than the current "top dogs" listed previously, and the answer is no due to a handful of builds you feel are op? i think that's where specific build rules need to be applied, not blanket arbitrary rules, limiting creativity

again, we can agree to disagree. my vote would be yes to a change to the current rule

[Snarfy]

... 7 pages long, and I haven't read one valid argument to change the 3x20.

Look, it's very simple... just go to the nwn2bd building site and flip through all the cheeze-tastic builds that incorporate 1 level dips into builds for no other reason than pure power, then come back here and say with a straight face that players here would take 1 level dips in classes for RP reasons(haaaaaahaha! Good one!) or any other reason than mechanical advantage(if the rule were changed, which it likely never will be).

Even the most hardcore RP'er would be hard pressed to find the motivation slip in 1 level of a non-synergy class for RP reasons or flavor alone.

C'mon.

[Blame The Rogue]

there are quite a few posts with valid points of view imo

we can agree to disagree though. always a valid option

thank you for your input

[Boddynock]

In DnD the Classes follow a power hierarchy and arch type system.

Can you cite that in any way? If not that is just wishful thinking.

A Fighter starts off as a lowly mercenary and can possibly work his way into a lofty station as a Knight for instance, but a Paladin is a lawful good religious holy Knight on a crusade by virtue of class selection in the character creation screen.

Also not true, the position a paladin or fighter holds is entirely dependent on roleplay. A person can be born in a noble house and knighted despite being a level 1 fighter, or a rogue. A paladin isn't a knight unless he has been knighted by some paladin order, which requires RP. A "harper agent" isn't a harper unless they actually join the harpers. In the same way a PC can be a priest without taking any divine levels. The idea that a PCs station in the world is a function of character class selection is wholly 100% untrue.

The Man at Arms is a completely made up class for BGTSCC derived from the secular Knight class of DnD, which had a lawful restriction. The premise is that you could be a Villainous Warden or Evil Baron or Duke who oppresses the peasantry type.

And? Any martial character could still introduce himself as a man-at-arms, since the title simple means, typically, professional soldier (It was also typically applied to heavy calvary of a certain period of history, but BGTSCC has neither earth's history nor mounted combat).

The base class arch types are in fact supposed to be the most important role playing aspect of this game. Your character is first and foremost supposed to be known for what base class he is.

That is also simply not supported by anything in the rules. I have played plenty of campaigns where I simply lied about what my character was, including one notable tabletop campaign where I played a necromancer but was a good enough bullshitter that literally EVERYONE, PC and NPC alike, thought I was a paladin. Only the DM and I knew what my actual class was.

The only discrepancy in this is that some base classes like the Fighter and the Rogue, are supposed to be so mundane and common that that character who is one isn't exalted above his or her peers for it. So a Rogue could use his skills to become a Bounty Hunter and capture or kill wanted men with his trap skill, and so forth.

Actually, the only discrepancy is classes like druid, paladin, and perhaps a few others. You could also RP a sorcerer as a witch, a shaman as a witch doctor, a rogue or fighter as a scout. And the classes I mentioned above are known as paladins and druid specifically because of the (gasp) extremely heavy role-play requirements of the class.

What does that mean? It means that RP > mechanics. Class name is OOC knowledge, the only reason paladins are known as paladins and druids as druids is because they are required to follow specific and narrow supporting role-play.

[Blame The Rogue]

i don't believe there's any documentation on that one way or the other

both are welcome to your points a view

a bit off topic though. let's not let the thread get derailed

[Mallore]

A minimum of 10 in that class to be recognized as it by NPcs if not they just don't care.

Quite difficult in the case of Bodyguard, Tempest, Shadow Thief, Fist of the Forest...

Most prestige classes you won't reach level 10 until quite late; and then there's all the weapon masters, frezerkers and assassins that never reach 10, but see that as their defining class. But oh no, guys, Mallore says otherwise.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Nit picking statements can often color ones opinion to be thought of as hard line or misunderstood. I am sorry you miss the tongue and cheek. Perhaps it was my wording that lead you to make such a silly personal statement at the end of your comment. So I will just take that you agree with the thought as well regardless of its intention.

[AC81]

It comes back to this:
When considering 1 level dips being allowed RP is irrelevant. What is the difference between 1 level or 3 - minimal for RP. Mechanically it is huge. Now we can talk all day about good RP intentions but the reality is that people will abuse this because NWN2 and DnD in general is based around mechanics. Also, this server has been balanced for 3 level dips for the last 8 years. Changing things now would be too much, especially with all the updates currently needed.

3b30 is realistic and is currently being discussed.

[Blame The Rogue]

respectfully disagree

rp is never irrelevant

in many cases taking 3-4 levels in a class is actually more powerful than taking 1, and is currently capable within the current system

the blanket rule 3 by 20, and even 3 by 30 if it goes that way, is ineffectual in blocking all op builds. as thorsson previously stated, specific build rules is the only way to achieve the desired result of blocking all builds staff and players deem too powerful

all the blanket rule does is block a few, not all, and hurt rp and creativity in the process

but if 3 by 30 becomes the new standard, it is at least a step in the right direction, but i will always lobby for no blanket rule, which is ineffective, and specific build rules like no monk/druid, which are effective, and don't stifle rp

[Flasmix]

I'm confused. Are people calling for changing the 3x20 into 3x30 or abolishing it completely?

I've read the entire thread and don't even know what's going on anymore.

[Mallore]

I'm confused. Are people calling for changing the 3x20 into 3x30 or abolishing it completely?

I've read the entire thread and don't even know what's going on anymore.

I think there is three different arguments in one thread


All I was arguing for was to be able to take either master of disguise or guild theif or another possibility as my third class somewhere in my 20s. If rp goes that way. I suppose 3x30


Some how level dips (which is crazy to me) came into the argument. The idea of being able to take 1 of just a class.


I think there is a third argument. But I'm confused by it.

[chad878262]

I wonder what the community at large would think if we said "no cleric/paladin/black guard with favored souls"? Oh, right we had that thread already... Simply put a blanket rule is easier to implement than individually going through and outlawing a dozen or more specific builds. Or worse completely remaking classes like some servers have done where, for instance shadow dancer gets hips much later. To some extent it's about priorities and what is realistic to create and enforce.

I'm confused. Are people calling for changing the 3x20 into 3x30 or abolishing it completely?

I've read the entire thread and don't even know what's going on anymore

There are arguments for both as well as those who prefer it to be left as is...

[Atlas]

-