possible pseudo gestalt idea.

[vasilidor]

This may need to go into homebrew, I Do Not Know.

Any way the general idea is to recreate the old 1 - 2 edition variation of multiclassing, and cap everything at level 12.

the basics I have in my head thus far: start with one class, you are stuck with it until level 12 when you can pick a second.
the character improves every time it would gain enough experience to go from 12 to 13th level.
you do not get new hit dice, but can replace old ones with better ones. do not roll hit dice, but use max at first level and then 1/2 for every level up.
you gain more skill points equal to the difference of the old class and the new class or +2 per level (no intelligence bonus at this point) at each level up.
the base attack bonuses and base saving throw bonuses over lap. so if you made it to rogue 12 and are now going fighter, your base attack does not improve until you hit level 9.

Why cap at level 12?
because the game has a tendency to break down past that level. not all ways, but often enough to be an issue. hit points tend to bloat, and the game starts feeling like "more of the same, just bigger numbers." past that point.
and I like the idea of level 7 spells and higher being the province of gods. in this particular setup gods would be CR 13-20.
I know that there are ways to get the BIGGER NUMBERS that are not excluded by this setup, and that if played long enough every character would have max ranks in every skill and level 6 spells for every class that could go so high.

[Rebel7284]

I think that E6 is a very similar idea for very similar purposes. While that gets a feat at every virtual power up past level 6, your idea gets to progress a class feature which is slightly more powerful on average. Of course, your base level cap is also twice as high which also means more power. Anyway, this idea probably would work just fine in play, although since class features often grow in power exponentially, especially casting, the power progression past level 12 might be a little bumpy.

[Crake]

I use this idea for my e6 games, with the caveat that, if players wish, they can either begin gestalting, and once they're fully gestalted be treated as an ECL 7 character, which means slower xp gains, or they can choose to continue gaining feats until (or not) they decide to gestalt. Allows players to remain single classed and have the advantage of gaining feats at a faster rate, rather than forcing characters to gestalt if they don't particularly want to.

I also allow players to gestalt in my normal games, where each gestalt level costs the level *500 xp (so to gestalt your first level, it costs 500 xp, to gestalt your second level 1000 etc), and your total xp spent on levels is used to determine your ECL, and that's worked out rather well for my games so far. There's some more rules for it to cover more specific use cases that have cropped up, which you can find in my signature if you're interested.

[Nifft]

Sounds viable.

It reads almost like an update of AD&D Dual Classing.

How would you deal with PrCs? (If you include them.)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Wizard // legacy champion seems like a good combo here...

Also, psionic manifesters can increase their effective manifester levels to improve their manifesting such that they get the equivalent of much higher level powers via augmentation. A shaper psion can nab the equivalent of astral construct IX at level 4 with enough monetary and feat-based resources tossed at it.

[Crake]

Wizard // legacy champion seems like a good combo here...

Also, psionic manifesters can increase their effective manifester levels to improve their manifesting such that they get the equivalent of much higher level powers via augmentation. A shaper psion can nab the equivalent of astral construct IX at level 4 with enough monetary and feat-based resources tossed at it.

Except wizard//legacy champion doesn't work the way you think it does. Gestalt takes the best progression at any given level, if you have wizard progression and "+1 progression to X class", it's basically the same thing, and doesn't advance any faster.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Except wizard//legacy champion doesn't work the way you think it does. Gestalt takes the best progression at any given level, if you have wizard progression and "+1 progression to X class", it's basically the same thing, and doesn't advance any faster.It is "pseudo"-gestalt.

[sreservoir]

Here's partial gestalt E6 variation (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-5LkAkR2g9Nvi-mCOJ2cU1-xWF0zT_V-hlkcqhqG6NE/edit) (picked up from the "High Priests" thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?529338-High-Priests-and-Archmages-Plot-Magic-in-E6)) as food for thought.

With that said, game is already well and truly broken at 12th level; there few standout game-breakers at 4th that you need to address, but imo 5th-level spells is where everything goes to hell. The setting-breaker density at 4th is low enough and mostly concentrated in Core that you can go through them individually and work them in as setting-makers, but 5ths just aren't even shy about throwing around effects that totally invalidate entire mechanics at enough density to set the tone. You can still deal with stuff like teleport individually, of course, but in aggregate it just kind of gets out of hand. You can make a tight E8 work with an iron fist, just about, but the reception of E6 specifically is not exactly coincidental.

(Part of it, to be fair, is that nearly everyone gets a little power-spike around 5th-6th, while going to 8th disproportionately benefits casters and casters ... I mean yeah, binders and soulborn too, but that's basically accidental. Going to 12th has this problem too, since a lot of stuff gets shoved around 10th.)


It is "pseudo"-gestalt.

We're spitballing rules as we go along, and your reaction is to wilfully choose the gratuitously broken interpretation?

[Rebel7284]

We're spitballing rules as we go along, and your reaction is to wilfully choose the gratuitously broken interpretation?

To be fair, that sort of post is completely in character for MaxiDuRaritry. Including the lack of disclaimer that any potentially broken interpretations are being used.

[vasilidor]

Sounds viable.

It reads almost like an update of AD&D Dual Classing.

How would you deal with PrCs? (If you include them.)

I am glad it reads that way. it was where I got the idea. As far as PrCs go, I would take it on a case by case basis. something like mystic theurge from 3.5 would be useless do to the lack of class features beyond +1/+1 caster levels, where by the time you qualified you would be maxed out in both the base classes. otherwise I think you would just get the class features you got the levels for until you ran out of PrC levels and then have to take something else.

As far as game breaking spells go, there are a few I would probably toss from the core rule book at fifth and sixth level. A few others that I would absolutely enforce spell components on (one of the biggest fails I have seen is the lack of enforcement of spell component rules, but that is a table problem - not a rule problem)

[Crake]

Here's partial gestalt E6 variation (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-5LkAkR2g9Nvi-mCOJ2cU1-xWF0zT_V-hlkcqhqG6NE/edit) (picked up from the "High Priests" thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?529338-High-Priests-and-Archmages-Plot-Magic-in-E6)) as food for thought.

With that said, game is already well and truly broken at 12th level; there few standout game-breakers at 4th that you need to address, but imo 5th-level spells is where everything goes to hell. The setting-breaker density at 4th is low enough and mostly concentrated in Core that you can go through them individually and work them in as setting-makers, but 5ths just aren't even shy about throwing around effects that totally invalidate entire mechanics at enough density to set the tone. You can still deal with stuff like teleport individually, of course, but in aggregate it just kind of gets out of hand. You can make a tight E8 work with an iron fist, just about, but the reception of E6 specifically is not exactly coincidental.

(Part of it, to be fair, is that nearly everyone gets a little power-spike around 5th-6th, while going to 8th disproportionately benefits casters and casters ... I mean yeah, binders and soulborn too, but that's basically accidental. Going to 12th has this problem too, since a lot of stuff gets shoved around 10th.)

Yeah, but if the idea of running an e12 setting is that level 12 characters are exceptionally rare, and are the equivalent of level 20 characters under standard assumptions, then you can come up with reasonable explanations as to why the setting breaking abilities haven't broken the setting yet, or create supplemental rules for it, like, wizards need to undertake dangerous experimentation that may lead to their death to try an develop spells of certain kinds, like, imagine a teleport mishap occuring while a spell is still in it's beta stages, that's like, instant, gruesome death material right there, and may explain why maybe only one wizard in the entire setting has successfully developed the teleport spell, and keeps it as a closely guarded secret. Lets you add flavour to the setting in that regard.

[DMVerdandi]

It could be cleaner. I like the AD&D multiclassing too, but there is an elegance to it, and one that doesn't translate well.


Alright. So based on what you are asking for, I am going to share a bit of my theorum with you.

Lets say, instead of that

>Hit die are restricted based on size.
small max out at 3
Medium 6
large 12
Ad infinitum.

What this does is make sure that big honkin dudes have dumb amounts of hit die at level up, but normal humanoids stay kind of realistic. This is like E6, but... Better.

>Advanced Multiclassing [AKA dual,tri,quad] adds 1 LA per class, at max +3.

Now, if you wanted say, a barb/rogue/fighter/wizard, you CAN.
but they level up pretty slow, and would be pretty fragile. Would require more grinding.
tri-stalt hits kind of a sweet spot.

Take gestalt rules for Hit die, proficiencies and class features.
Cannot use regular multiclassing and advanced multiclassing, and must choose advanced multiclassing feat at character creation.

>Shield AC = Damage Reduction
This is going to be necessary in this kind of setting.




this I'd love to play.

[sreservoir]

Yeah, but if the idea of running an e12 setting is that level 12 characters are exceptionally rare, and are the equivalent of level 20 characters under standard assumptions, then you can come up with reasonable explanations as to why the setting breaking abilities haven't broken the setting yet, or create supplemental rules for it, like, wizards need to undertake dangerous experimentation that may lead to their death to try an develop spells of certain kinds, like, imagine a teleport mishap occuring while a spell is still in it's beta stages, that's like, instant, gruesome death material right there, and may explain why maybe only one wizard in the entire setting has successfully developed the teleport spell, and keeps it as a closely guarded secret. Lets you add flavour to the setting in that regard.

This does not work well with having PCs add gestalt levels after hitting 12th. Obviously, the PCs have to be expected to reach 12th level, or else there's no point writing rules for what happens after they do. If so, then either they have access to a whole host of setting-breakers because that's what 12th-level characters can do, or you have to play a game with the that doesn't actually resemble the standard game at 12th level, because you've removed half the things 12th-level characters can do.

Like, you can work individual pieces into your setting, but that's what I mean by "You can make a tight E8 work"—that's feasible if you limit yourself to 4th-level spells, with 5ths as rare exceptions achieved only by very important people in the settings, and spot-remove a few problem pieces. Then you can have things like teleport being a rare ability that only one wizard in the whole setting has developed, and as a default the PCs can only get access to it through specific build options that you can deny or work into the setting.

[vasilidor]

whether or not a character would reach level 12 would be entirely based on how long said characters were around. As far as NPCs go the most powerful humans would be 1-2 classes at level 12, with the longer lived races having 2-3 or 3-4 max. If you look at the 5th level spell teleport, there are built in reasons that you do not want to use it outside of emergencies. resurrections require rare gem stones, and the gods do not hand out power to just anyone.

I should also state that I love the spheres of might and spheres of power products for my games and will be using them as default NPC building. yes, my players will be allowed to use them, but I may not require them to do so this time.

[RandomPeasant]

Honestly, the degree to which stuff is "setting-breaking" is kind of overstated. teleport doesn't break the setting. In fact, it has a fairly limited effect on the setting, because the shipping volumes it generates are pretty tiny. It changes how you have to write adventures, but if you're writing 12th level adventures the exact same way you wrote 8th level adventures, you should just leave people at 8th level because that's the game you want to play (and there's nothing wrong with that, understanding your preferences is good).

As far as the idea itself goes, I'm not sure how well it'd work in practice. It's mechanically interesting, but my concern is that a lot of people's character concepts aren't going to be things that naturally scale on the axis of "add another class". If you tell someone "you hit 12th level, you need to stop being a Wizard and pick up Rogue (or at least Sorcerer)", I think that may be less popular in practice than just telling people "we're playing E12, after 12th level you gain minor bonuses instead of new class levels". And the people who do have a Gestalt character concept probably want to just play that concept. If I want to play a Druid//Bard or Warblade//Incarnate or whatever Gestalt build, I don't want to suffer through 12 levels as just a Druid or just a Warblade.

[Crake]

This does not work well with having PCs add gestalt levels after hitting 12th. Obviously, the PCs have to be expected to reach 12th level, or else there's no point writing rules for what happens after they do. If so, then either they have access to a whole host of setting-breakers because that's what 12th-level characters can do, or you have to play a game with the that doesn't actually resemble the standard game at 12th level, because you've removed half the things 12th-level characters can do.

Like, you can work individual pieces into your setting, but that's what I mean by "You can make a tight E8 work"—that's feasible if you limit yourself to 4th-level spells, with 5ths as rare exceptions achieved only by very important people in the settings, and spot-remove a few problem pieces. Then you can have things like teleport being a rare ability that only one wizard in the whole setting has developed, and as a default the PCs can only get access to it through specific build options that you can deny or work into the setting.

Not every 12th level character is going to have access to the setting breaking abilities of a 12th level wizard you know. A level 12 fighter//rogue for example isn't going to have to worry about anything being removed from their character. The idea would be that the players go into the game knowing the restrictions at hand, and are either going to have to work around those restrictions to get the abilities they want, or build characters which don't run into those restrictions at all. Your assumption that everyone is going to be playing the toppest of top tier characters is the underlying issue that is breaking the idea in your mind.

[vasilidor]

one option I was thinking about was the ability to just pick new class features once you hit 12. super genius games came out with some customizable characters for pathfinder that I thought were awesome. You get to cherry pick your characters abilities as you level. The essential idea that I want to do is have new abilities to always be a thing, while having a cap on raw power. The issues I have with E6 is once you hit level 6 you can no longer really get new things, your character cannot go out and learn to use a sword if they are a wizard or cannot use magic if they went all fighter. This is also why I tried to make a no-class pathfinder that caps at 12 of which I have a basic core kind of done and 0 testing. I thought this might be a simpler, easier way to go about it.

[RandomPeasant]

I think if that's what you want, you probably want a system other than D&D. The nature of a classed system is that people will have a particular area of competence. You lose (or more accurately trade off) the ability to pick up new specializations as you go, but gain the ability to have strong character identities. You can be a "Paladin" or a "Scout" in a classed system in a way that you can't in a classless one because there are "Paladin Abilities" and "Scout Abilities" your character gets that others don't. But if you want someone to be able to pivot from smiting demons in service to the gods to sneaking around gathering intelligence for an army, what you want is just to use a system that doesn't have classes.

[vasilidor]

I like the idea of levels though.

guess I am trying to have my cake and eat it. One issue I have with most point buy systems is the roll under mechanic which does not really allow for granular difficulty. you roll under your skill rating with the die you are given and sometimes this makes for some pretty poor game play in my opinion. like a airplane pilot failing a role on a routine landing. no, the wind did not gust at the last moment or anything, he just screwed up something he has done a thousand times before hand without issue because the dice said so. or this other thing that is supposed to be routine in your profession kills you because crit fail on the roll. even though you are a professional, there are no outside forces interfering, and you have all the right tools to get it done safely and did all the right things and the DM should not have even made you roll.

Yes, bad experience left bad taste in my mouth. my character was a NASA pilot, former combat pilot, in a Call of Cthulu game. crashed every landing because of dice.

[RandomPeasant]

I like the idea of levels though.

Levels don't require classes. You could easily imagine, for example, a derivative of 4e D&D where you kept the standardized power progression and simply allowed people to pick whatever abilities they wanted. Such a system would be leveled, but classless.


One issue I have with most point buy systems is the roll under mechanic which does not really allow for granular difficulty.

I would not describe that as a problem with "most point buy systems". In fact, before reading this post, it is not a problem I would have associated with point buy systems at all. My reference point for Point Buy is Shadowrun, which uses dicepools that do not have this problem.

[Gnaeus]

One issue I have with most point buy systems is the roll under mechanic which does not really allow for granular difficulty. you roll under your skill rating with the die you are given and sometimes this makes for some pretty poor game play in my opinion. like a airplane pilot failing a role on a routine landing. no, the wind did not gust at the last moment or anything, he just screwed up something he has done a thousand times before hand without issue because the dice said so. or this other thing that is supposed to be routine in your profession kills you because crit fail on the roll. even though you are a professional, there are no outside forces interfering, and you have all the right tools to get it done safely and did all the right things and the DM should not have even made you roll.

Yes, bad experience left bad taste in my mouth. my character was a NASA pilot, former combat pilot, in a Call of Cthulu game. crashed every landing because of dice.



I would not describe that as a problem with "most point buy systems". In fact, before reading this post, it is not a problem I would have associated with point buy systems at all. My reference point for Point Buy is Shadowrun, which uses dicepools that do not have this problem.

Agree with Random.

1. Plenty of point buy games have dice pools or the like and the chances of failing a common low DC task for a highly experienced character approach 0. Aside from shadowrun, I’m also thinking of games like Star Wars or World of Darkness. Even GURPS, where you crit fail on Natural 18, that’s a 1 in 216 chance, and if you take Luck, about 1 in 40000. Most non d20 games work off some kind of bell curve where assuming the D20 roll isn’t an auto failure or success because it’s outside a 20 point range, skilled characters tend to be less able to roll a 1 and fail a task in which they are extremely skilled.

2. You said it yourself, DM shouldn’t be making you roll obvious stuff. And if he does, barring a cinematic game played totally for laughs, there’s no reason that even a crit failure means combat pilot crashing your plane under optimal conditions. That could be like a bird strike or minor equipment malfunction requiring later repairs. That’s like saying “ok, over the next year of downtime, you drive your car 2.5 times a day. Roll 875 times and on a crit fail you get plowed by an 18wheeler and die. Seems more like a DM fail than a system fail to me.

[vasilidor]

Agree with Random.

1. Plenty of point buy games have dice pools or the like and the chances of failing a common low DC task for a highly experienced character approach 0. Aside from shadowrun, I’m also thinking of games like Star Wars or World of Darkness. Even GURPS, where you crit fail on Natural 18, that’s a 1 in 216 chance, and if you take Luck, about 1 in 40000. Most non d20 games work off some kind of bell curve where assuming the D20 roll isn’t an auto failure or success because it’s outside a 20 point range, skilled characters tend to be less able to roll a 1 and fail a task in which they are extremely skilled.

2. You said it yourself, DM shouldn’t be making you roll obvious stuff. And if he does, barring a cinematic game played totally for laughs, there’s no reason that even a crit failure means combat pilot crashing your plane under optimal conditions. That could be like a bird strike or minor equipment malfunction requiring later repairs. That’s like saying “ok, over the next year of downtime, you drive your car 2.5 times a day. Roll 875 times and on a crit fail you get plowed by an 18wheeler and die. Seems more like a DM fail than a system fail to me.

I know gurps has the roll under pass/fail if it is under/over the skill/stat. it reflects poorly on the fact some things are more difficult than others.

[JNAProductions]

I know gurps has the roll under pass/fail if it is under/over the skill/stat. it reflects poorly on the fact some things are more difficult than others.

Are there no modifiers to difficulty?

[Gnaeus]

Are there no modifiers to difficulty?

So many modifiers to difficulty that there are other rules simplifying the modifiers to difficulty.

[vasilidor]

Are there no modifiers to difficulty?

I do not remember, it has been a few years since I looked at it and a new edition has come out. I am of the opinion the only time you really should roll for something is if there is A: a reasonable chance for failure (not only a crit 1 would fail, you need a by the dice chance to not make the DC) and B: the consequences of failure have an impact on the story. this needs to be more than your character dies or something equally bad.
in a game I am running on and off, I made the group do survival checks to watch the weather, find or create shelter, not get lost etc. each had a in-game consequence for failure. they had a compass and a high enough survival check to not get lost using it without rolling, so I skipped those, but they could have possibly picked a bad location to set up camp in (never pitch your tent or shelter up in a bowl, it does not take much rain to fill it.) with possible disease or hypothermia being a consequence of failure. I like to roll for random hazards and this can determine if a skill roll is even going to be a thing. I also use random encounters, but not all encounters lead to combat.

[JNAProductions]

I do not remember, it has been a few years since I looked at it and a new edition has come out. I am of the opinion the only time you really should roll for something is if there is A: a reasonable chance for failure (not only a crit 1 would fail, you need a by the dice chance to not make the DC) and B: the consequences of failure have an impact on the story. this needs to be more than your character dies or something equally bad.
in a game I am running on and off, I made the group do survival checks to watch the weather, find or create shelter, not get lost etc. each had a in-game consequence for failure. they had a compass and a high enough survival check to not get lost using it without rolling, so I skipped those, but they could have possibly picked a bad location to set up camp in (never pitch your tent or shelter up in a bowl, it does not take much rain to fill it.) with possible disease or hypothermia being a consequence of failure. I like to roll for random hazards and this can determine if a skill roll is even going to be a thing. I also use random encounters, but not all encounters lead to combat.

I fail to see what in point buy stops you from... Just doing that still.

I doubt GURPS has you roll for driving to the corner store to pick up some milk-it's both really easy, and uneventful.

[vasilidor]

Each of those tasks I wrote out for the characters require separate survival checks and have different difficulties. finding a half decent spot to shelter in when you are in the woods? super easy, trying to figure out the weather when you can barely see the sky? hard. trying to start a fire with no matches or lighters? very hard. with matches and lighters? still can be difficult, but no where near as without. then there is trying to find ones way with a compass vs. without a compass. one is easier than the other. rolling against a fixed flat score to succeed or fail for all of the tasks does not sit right with me.

[JNAProductions]

Each of those tasks I wrote out for the characters require separate survival checks and have different difficulties. finding a half decent spot to shelter in when you are in the woods? super easy, trying to figure out the weather when you can barely see the sky? hard. trying to start a fire with no matches or lighters? very hard. with matches and lighters? still can be difficult, but no where near as without. then there is trying to find ones way with a compass vs. without a compass. one is easier than the other. rolling against a fixed flat score to succeed or fail for all of the tasks does not sit right with me.

And, not having read GURPS in quite some time... I'm pretty sure that's NOT how it's resolved. Dark Heresy, which has a "Roll under" mechanic, though on d100 rather than 3d6, has classes of difficulty. Really easy stuff is +40. Roll under your stat +40. Really hard stuff is -40, or roll under your stat -40.

If GURPS doesn't do something similar, I'd be flabbergasted.

[Gnaeus]

And, not having read GURPS in quite some time... I'm pretty sure that's NOT how it's resolved. Dark Heresy, which has a "Roll under" mechanic, though on d100 rather than 3d6, has classes of difficulty. Really easy stuff is +40. Roll under your stat +40. Really hard stuff is -40, or roll under your stat -40.

If GURPS doesn't do something similar, I'd be flabbergasted.

Degree of success is determined by amount you roll under. Thus providing more variation than most D20 systems I’m aware of. And again, modifying the roll by difficulty is so encouraged as to be actively problematic that you have too many things modding your difficulty (a problem it sometimes shares with d20). But generally range from +10 (near certain success) to -10 (near certain failure)

The gamist part is the auto crit fail on an 18 on 3d6 (17 or 18 if your skill isn’t very high). But again, that’s 1 in 216, maybe with rerolls, and nothing says you crash your plane on 18 piloting, just that something bad happens.

[vasilidor]

Last I knew, gurps was under or bust, no modifiers by RAW unless you are penalizing the player. same with multiple other RPG's with similar mechanics. I am aware of a couple of newer versions of BESM that do not have these issues though as that game switched to variable TN with stat+skill modifiers. even ran a ghostbuster game in it. I feel as though this thread has been entirely derailed though now.