| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Penknight |
Posted - 05 Sep 2006 : 04:59:00
I have been looking over my old copy of the CBoE at the bladesinger and it talks about your "bladesinger level." Now, the simple fact is that you are multi-classed, so does that mean your bladesinger level is your highest class level, or do you take your classes and add them together?
For example, if you have a bladesinger that is a 10F/11M, are you a level 11 bladesinger or a level 21 bladesinger? I am needing to know for my character, and would really appreciate any help. Thanks!! |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kuje |
Posted - 10 Sep 2006 : 02:32:43
Careful guys. :) |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Sep 2006 : 02:20:00
Hey! I'd like it to be known that I am one of the very rare college students who doesn't get inebriated. ;) |
| warlockco |
Posted - 10 Sep 2006 : 02:16:22
Its because most of us here try to use the beer sponge that is called a brain.    |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 09 Sep 2006 : 18:34:51
It's truly amazing the type of responses that are gotten here at Candlekeep on such topics, compared to the WotC boards... |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 08 Sep 2006 : 23:40:02
There are times when I've walked onto the strip with a foil and looked down at it and said, "You are not an epee." It doesn't always help. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 08 Sep 2006 : 19:21:08
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Speaking a fencer, there's a large difference between even very similar weapons (like foil and epee - both thrusting weapons of identical length) in the same sport/discipline. While you can fence both (and many do), the style of your dominant weapon tends to seep into your bouts with the other weapon, even when it's blatantly obvious to you that you shouldn't fence that way (like how, or if, you parry, or how you hold your arm).
That's why I've always thought that 3e's system of knowing all possible martial weapons is unbelievably stupid. Just because I can use a long sword doesn't mean I can use a rapier (trying to use a rapier like a long sword generally results in a shattered rapier), and both are radically different than an axe or, even more obviously, any kind of bow.
Edit: That's also why I liked 2e's dual-classing mechanic of ignoring THAC0 and other things based on your first class while you're training in your second. I started in foil and then went to epee, and had to heavily retrain myself to do things differently. I didn't fence foil again for several months, until I had gotten the new movement patterns relatively set.
That does remind me of when I used to LARP, we had a guy that had Kendo training. And Head strikes were illegal in the system we played, so he constantly got in trouble. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 08 Sep 2006 : 18:00:48
Speaking a fencer, there's a large difference between even very similar weapons (like foil and epee - both thrusting weapons of identical length) in the same sport/discipline. While you can fence both (and many do), the style of your dominant weapon tends to seep into your bouts with the other weapon, even when it's blatantly obvious to you that you shouldn't fence that way (like how, or if, you parry, or how you hold your arm).
That's why I've always thought that 3e's system of knowing all possible martial weapons is unbelievably stupid. Just because I can use a long sword doesn't mean I can use a rapier (trying to use a rapier like a long sword generally results in a shattered rapier), and both are radically different than an axe or, even more obviously, any kind of bow.
Edit: That's also why I liked 2e's dual-classing mechanic of ignoring THAC0 and other things based on your first class while you're training in your second. I started in foil and then went to epee, and had to heavily retrain myself to do things differently. I didn't fence foil again for several months, until I had gotten the new movement patterns relatively set. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 08 Sep 2006 : 01:10:34
I definately liked the stacking of multiclassing in 1E and 2E much better than how it is done in 3E. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 07 Sep 2006 : 23:07:11
That's a pretty interesting way of looking at things.... Though I've never heard of the RPG itself.
3E's cross-class-stacking just seems incredibly unrealistic, to the point of being video game-y, to me. I know that if I 'took levels in Physicist,' and then in 'Chemist,' while there would be a little bit of cross-over between the two fields that allowed me to more rapidly grasp certain new concepts, or apply them more holistically, the core disciplines of the two fields wouldn't combine to give me a greater knowledge of a whole.
Now, I've never had any personal combat training, but I imagine it would be a bit jarring even going from, say, a street-fighting style you picked up in your younger days in NYC, to the 5 years of meditative training in tai chi you had in some monastary. Beyond very basic knowledge, how much would the two paths 'stack'? |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 07 Sep 2006 : 19:24:55
There are only a few classes that would ever allow the odd level to be taken here or there in 3e style. Fighter and thief and maybe sorcerer (depending on how you define how a sorcerer's power works). Spellfire wielder, if I used that class (I don't). Maybe warlock, if I allowed the class in the Realms (again, I don't).
Everything else requires too much intensive work to learn initially and is too complex to advance a little at a time. You either need to concentrate on it fully, or split time evenly between it and something else. This is especially true for wizard, bard, and ranger, and arguable for cleric depending on how you want to run godly interactions.
On a completely unrelated note, I liked the elven philosophy in Earthdawn that you walked a wheel of life, and each time the wheel turned you changed to a different class (the wheel usually turned after you became at least moderately powerful in the class you were in). |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 07 Sep 2006 : 18:41:42
quote:
Agreed. A 10 F/11 W would be level 11. The concept of adding things together started with 3e, and personally, I like 2e's system more.
Agreed.
I find it hard to believe that all skills and techniques one learns throughout one's lifetime are completely 'stackable' with no hindrances or penalties due to clashing philosophies, training techniques, and personal experiences. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 06 Sep 2006 : 05:06:06
Agreed. A 10 F/11 W would be level 11. The concept of adding things together started with 3e, and personally, I like 2e's system more. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 05 Sep 2006 : 07:10:52
If your character is 10 F/11 M gains a +6 to his AC as I see it. You may have two classes, but you are still counted as a level 11 character. |
| Penknight |
Posted - 05 Sep 2006 : 05:50:18
Ok, the way it reads quoted directly from the CBoE is as follows:
Their defense is equal to their level divided by 2, plus 1. All fractions are rounded down. Thus, a 6th-level Bladesinger gains a +4 to AC (6th level /2=3+1= +4 AC). The same goes for 7th-level Bladesingers (7 / 2=3.5-.5=3+1= +4 AC). This does not apply to rear or missile attacks, for it is nearly impossible to defend against those while casting a spell.
Does that mean that my character is just a level 10F/11M? What do I add to his AC? I haven't played 2nd Edition for awhile, and this was always my favorite character and I want to use him again. Now, however, we (my group and I) are having a debate about how you decide the plus to their AC. Can someone clear this up for me please? |
| scererar |
Posted - 05 Sep 2006 : 05:07:17
your Character is total level whatever. ex. 3fighter/5wizard/4cleric = 12th level character. 3E
the 2E method was level whatever/ level whatever ex. 5 fighter/ 5 wizard = 5 level fighter/ 5 level wizard separately
I like the 3E way better |
|
|
