With the advent of Favored class mechanic and just the awesome level based abilities that all classes have, have you noticed your party members frown when you multi-class?
Nope, i think all those rewards for not multiclassing were to give players the feel that they don't need too to be good (3.5 logic for melee classes)
Anyway, Monk X/Alchemist (Vivisectionist) 1 or Rogue 1 is awesome
I didn't want to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of multi-classing, but rather how your party members seem to be irked.
Are they thinking that you are weakening your character and through transference the party?
The reactions you get tend to depend a lot on your class/role and the class/role that you're multiclassing into. If a rogue takes a dip into ranger, people won't notice much difference. If a barbarian takes a fighter dip, again, not much difference. But if the wizard suddenly decides he wants to take a level in barbarian, then you start getting strange looks.
|
Pro: You can make a very good character. The character can cover meny jobs in the party not just one. The character can do meny things a single class character could not.
Con: It's very easy to make a bad multiclass character. It's easy to get to spread out and not be good at any one thing. It's easy to lose focuse of the character and find out to late that your character dose not preform as intended.
Single Class characters get all the Pro. and only a few of the Con. They are generaly easyer to make for a none optimizer. I have seen more then my fair share of builds that made me cringe. Mainly becous of knowing they wold not function as the player intened. As a DM on more then one ocasion. I handed a character sheet back to a player and told them to fix it. I don't care what you make but you need to bring a level of knowlage to character creation. And if your going up in to the 14+ range. You better have a path to power. If you don't or I know your path to power dose not work i'll tell you to fix it.
|
|
Meh, I find people I play with in PF seem to have this fascination with doing everything while staying in one class. Now this isn't all the groups but a majority, when I suggest what I'm doing with my character they tend to suggest every possible solution other than multi-classing and then when I refute most of it (generally it would border on creating the char for me) they wrap it up with something akin to " Well as long as you aren't a waste of space..blah blah blah" Now albeit I make concepts and Mechanical advantages I go for tend to be multi-classed. And so far the craziest build I have done has shut up most people who now call me overpowered and such ..go figure.
The character is a Half-elf who looks like the embodiment of multiple evil creatures but is truly a good guy and has made himself on the saying that justice comes in many forms, thus the multi-class; so far at level 7 He is 2 pally/1 monk/1 wiz/1 sorc/ 2 Dragon Disciple
The sorc is Crossblooded Draconic/ Primal Elemental, he is also Abyssal blooded and has Fey Foundling. Has 91 Hp at level 7 and a 18 str, punches things with his fists and casts a variety of spells for most occasions.
Edit: Oh and His job is melee combatant
The reactions you get tend to depend a lot on your class/role and the class/role that you're multiclassing into. If a rogue takes a dip into ranger, people won't notice much difference. If a barbarian takes a fighter dip, again, not much difference. But if the wizard suddenly decides he wants to take a level in barbarian, then you start getting strange looks.
Ah, so complementary classes (e.g. Rogue/Fighter), most people wouldn't blink an eye. I see. So as long as your still satisfying your role in you group (e.g. tank, dps, trap finder, healer, etc...), there shouldn't be any dirty looks?
Exactly. When most people make their characters for a party, they assume certain people are playing certain classes to fulfill a certain role. Now, if you work out something ahead of time like, say, a wizard/cleric going for Mystic Theurge and they think it's fine, go for it. But if they're expecting you to be on Fireball duty, and suddenly find out you're dropping in 3 levels of cleric and diluting your arcane abilities, they might get annoyed.
Four of six characters in my current group have multiclassed, and a fifth is considering it. We're all third level. Our group consists of a wizard/fighter, a zen archer/wizard, a fighter/rogue, a ranger/bard, a summoner, and a cleric. I admit I gave the fighter/rogue an odd look (he's going more fighter than rogue, which I didn't expect). The ranger/bard's player likes rangers and bards, and she thought we needed a more cordial "face".
The cleric is thinking about dipping into barbarian. The group is encouraging it because it totally fits the character but the player is worried about raging and not being available if someone needs a cure spell. That's what potions are for we said.
My takeaway was that if your character has a distinct personality, I'll encourage diversification even if it's not "optimal". If your character has no personality, and all I have to go by is your class, I might spend a minute quietly wondering "how is this going to work?"
Also I have never seen so many half elves in one group---three! That's like one and a half elves!
|
My two current PFS characters will have three classes apiece, respectively (fighter/barbarian/cleric, and rogue/paladin/fighter).
Multiclassing lends itself well to PFS, because, with characters retiring at 12th, there's no impetus to remain "straight" to achieve some ultra-powerful benefit at level 13 or higher.
If your fellow players are expressing irritation with your character choices, you may be playing in the wrong group.
I have to object to this gross overstatement. The suggestion seems to be that one should always play whatever you feel like no matter what. If I'm playing a paladin and someone else decides to play an evil cleric, but the rest of the party are patrons of the paladin's deity, that player needs to be slapped. Or a party of 4 that direly needs a fighter, and the fourth player decides to play ANOTHER fop rogue.
As far as optimization is concerned though, I don't generally care when people play something that's suboptimal if it's fun. But I do get annoyed when they play something just atrocious and are completely unable to contribute. I had someone playing a half-orc diviner wizard...who went up into melee with a greataxe and no defensive buffs to get clobbered again and again.
Play what you want to play, sure, but play at the level of the rest of your group. If they all want to play a power-gamed party and you want to play a Rogue1/Ranger1/Sor2/Noble3 with a con of 8 and narcolepsy, don't complain if you can't contribute and they leave you in the dust.
To the original question, though, it's just straight up better to be straight class more often than not, unless you're working towards a very specific concept and/or prestige class.
|
|
I am just starting a Kingmaker campaign. I have a small group of players. I think they are all excited about the game and would if they could show up for every session. But life often intervenes, and I expect to have two players at the table half the time.
I decided to use the “gestalt” rules. So every player’s character gets the best of two class’s BAB, Hit Dice, and saving throws. They have the normal Feat and ability point boost progression. In order to increase a character’s versatility, they get both classes skill lists as class skills, and I decided to give them x2 skills. In other words, one player has a Fighter / rogue, so her character has 2+int mod + 8+int mod in skills (I think the total comes out to be 14 skill points a level).
So far I have one player who has chosen a ½ elf Sorcerer/ Alchemist, another a Cleric / bard (either of Cayden Caylen or Desna) another a Druid/ Barbarian (Kellid) and a Fighter/ Rogue. . I am making an elven inquisitor/ Magus, as a DM “pc”
I have encouraged a couple of the other players to make up an adventure each, and to place it on their maps so we can rotate DMing a bit.
I may have created a bunch of little monsters, but we shall see how it goes. I have encouraged this to make sure there is redundancy in the party, and so that the characters are more versatile with overlapping skills. This way I think I will also be able to “split the party”.
I think the Action economy of 1 standard action, move action a round, and the fact that they only have the hit dice of a 1st level character, will help keep them in check. We shall se how it goes.
So to answer your question, I think it depends on the game. I have a game, where I am requiring my players to multi class…
I like that both options are available. I also like that it is now worthwhile to make a single class character. I like that and Arch Mage” is no longer a prestige class, but a single class well built wizard.
Well i think it all depends on the game and the players and GM in the game.
|
|
I agree with this statement in a way... most concepts can be realized without multi-classing at all thanks to the options for differing racial traits, classes and archetypes, skills, feats and other traits.
Because of that, I encourage players not to multiclass their characters unless there is a particular prestige class they are aiming for - I am also a bit restrictive on multiclassing, though, house-ruling that a character can't multiclass with the same "role" of character (i.e. no fighter/barbarian, no sorcerer/wizard, or more esoterically no inquisitor/cleric or...
So my upcoming ninja character who is a Summoner/Fighter/ Ninja/EK would be perfectly fine in your game or would that be frowned upon, cause I've worked out the abilities and there are things you can't do as a single classed char.
There's a difference between "all-in" multiclassing (fighter 10/rogue 10) and splash multiclassing (fighter 18/rogue 2). Splashing isn't really bad. It's the "all-in" kind that is pretty bad.
Splashing is defined as 1-2 levels in another class. Anything more is a bit overkill unless prestige classes are involved. Usually the splash occurs after a significant number of levels in a base class (typically 4 or more).
|
|
There's a difference between "all-in" multiclassing (fighter 10/rogue 10) and splash multiclassing (fighter 18/rogue 2). Splashing isn't really bad. It's the "all-in" kind that is pretty bad.
Splashing is defined as 1-2 levels in another class. Anything more is a bit overkill unless prestige classes are involved. Usually the splash occurs after a significant number of levels in a base class (typically 4 or more).
Im confused, How is All-in Multi-classing any worse than Splashing? How is either choice "bad"? Though I know you just picked two classes for your example, what does the Fighter/Rouge really lose that isn't supplemented by what he gained through multi-classing ( In this case a crap-ton of skills [yay Perception and Acrobatics] Sneak attack, Rouge Talents Evasion and Uncanny Dodge) Its a thing people give up to gain versatility or because it fits the char. In either case they aren't getting the lvl 20 ability so why care much then?
|
|
So my upcoming ninja character who is a Summoner/Fighter/ Ninja/EK would be perfectly fine in your game or would that be frowned upon, cause I've worked out the abilities and there are things you can't do as a single classed char.I agree with this statement in a way... most concepts can be realized without multi-classing at all thanks to the options for differing racial traits, classes and archetypes, skills, feats and other traits.
Because of that, I encourage players not to multiclass their characters unless there is a particular prestige class they are aiming for - I am also a bit restrictive on multiclassing, though, house-ruling that a character can't multiclass with the same "role" of character (i.e. no fighter/barbarian, no sorcerer/wizard, or more esoterically no inquisitor/cleric or...
Yes, it'd be fine... so long as a few assumptions were also true:
-That "EK" means Eldritch Knight
-That Summoner and Fighter are being taken to fit the Eldritch Knight requirements
-That Ninja is being included as a genuine part of the conceptual design, not for mechanical reasons.I mostly just use the rule to avoid "dipping."
Ah, Okay Then you have a reasonable rule there, pretty much to stop someone taking say..cleric for those nice domain powers or Barb for fast movement and rage.
This character was conceptually from a ninja clan that specialized in conjuring creatures through pacts, He is the son of the current leader, learned to bind the soul of a once great Shinobi who was tasked with seeing the young man develop into a great Shinobi himself. He had a weapon that only ninja of great prowess (and subsequently the leaders) could wield and still be stealthy called a zanbato (Large Katana)
So it started off Summoner...Gained 3 levels of Fighter (Weaponmaster)... And either went into Ninja or Ek or both depending on what he wanted to do. The Eidolon was ..well..a ninja spirit conjured from the shadows. He had the umbral Bloodline power via Eldritch Heritage.
None of that could be done, to my knowledge, with any one class...
Im confused, How is All-in Multi-classing any worse than Splashing? How is either choice "bad"?
PF drastically increased the benefits of running a single class. You really want to make your character as single-classed as possible. Going fighter 1, fighter 1/rogue 1, fighter 2/rogue 1, fighter 2/rogue 2, etc is about the worst thing you can do when it comes to taking advantage of straight class mechanics. For instance, getting to fighter 5 for weapon training (which is a huge bonus) should be a priority. After that, 2 levels of rogue really won't alter your combat ability too much. Weapon training compensates for 1 level of BAB lost through rogue.
The best bet is to either run a class straight, go 1-2 levels max in a second class (thereby getting the maximum benefits from straight class while picking up the hard-to-duplicate benefits from the splash), or go a prestige class route.
Though I know you just picked two classes for your example, what does the Fighter/Rouge really lose that isn't supplemented by what he gained through multi-classing ( In this case a crap-ton of skills [yay Perception and Acrobatics] Sneak attack, Rouge Talents Evasion and Uncanny Dodge) Its a thing people give up to gain versatility or because it fits the char. In either case they aren't getting the lvl 20 ability so why care much then?
It's about *when* you gain the abilities, not what abilities you gain. For instance, if you're focusing on offense, you want to have the weapon training *pronto*. A blanket +1 bonus to hit and damage that stacks with Weapon Focus is pretty good. You don't want to dwell on the rogue class too long because now you're farther away from Greater Weapon Focus and the next weapon training.
As a GM I was asked by my players not to invite another (relatively new) player back to our games just because he created and wanted to play a rogue 1/sorcerer 1/gunslinger 1.
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in my players.
|
|
PF drastically increased the benefits of running a single class. You really want to make your character as single-classed as possible. Going fighter 1, fighter 1/rogue 1, fighter 2/rogue 1, fighter 2/rogue 2, etc is about the worst thing you can do when it comes to taking advantage of straight class mechanics. For instance, getting to fighter 5 for weapon training (which is a huge bonus) should be a priority. After that, 2 levels of rogue really won't alter your combat ability too much. Weapon training compensates for 1 level of BAB lost through rogue.
The best bet is to either run a class straight, go 1-2 levels max in a second class (thereby getting the maximum benefits from straight class while picking up the hard-to-duplicate benefits from the splash), or go a prestige class route.
There is opinion and Fact rolled into that first statement, True Paizo has made single classing viable to a hurtful stance it seems but in no way does it trump or lose to multi-classing epecially since there are some magic items to supplement it, a fighter 5/ rouge 5 would have a Bab of 8 sneak attack 3d6 and weapon training 1 not at all bad for a frontline character [not including the bonus of a higher reflex and other rouge goodies] if he wanted to hit more, he could get duelist gloves and his weapon training would be 2 higher still at the most he is 4 lower to hit an one less to damage than the straight fighter.
It's about *when* you gain the abilities, not what abilities you gain. For instance, if you're focusing on offense, you want to have the weapon training *pronto*. A blanket +1 bonus to hit and damage that stacks with Weapon Focus is pretty good. You don't want to dwell on the rogue class too long because now you're farther away from Greater Weapon Focus and the next weapon training.
That can be applied to anything really, not particularly multi-class vs Single classed, that same stance can be taken on feat selection or loot acquisition as well as other things.
but for example I want 3 feats at level 5 I could take 5 levels of of fighter or 3 fighter and 2 rouge or 3 rouge and 2 fighter.. in both cases I gained what I wanted, but traded the progression in which I can get them.
|
|
As a GM I was asked by my players not to invite another (relatively new) player back to our games just because he created and wanted to play a rogue 1/sorcerer 1/gunslinger 1.
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in my players.
Sounds like that player was going for a cool gunmage type of character ..I am curious at what they all were playing
Sounds like that player was going for a cool gunmage type of character ..I am curious at what they all were playingAs a GM I was asked by my players not to invite another (relatively new) player back to our games just because he created and wanted to play a rogue 1/sorcerer 1/gunslinger 1.
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in my players.
The others were a paladin, fighter, and sorcerer.
|
|
The others were a paladin, fighter, and sorcerer.Sounds like that player was going for a cool gunmage type of character ..I am curious at what they all were playingAs a GM I was asked by my players not to invite another (relatively new) player back to our games just because he created and wanted to play a rogue 1/sorcerer 1/gunslinger 1.
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in my players.
Im more disappointed in the DM that did not tell him befor he started. That the character wold not work well in the game machanices. The player did not know enough about the machanices of the game. Instead the GM let him make a cripled character. GM FAIL!!
|
If your fellow players are expressing irritation with your character choices, you may be playing in the wrong group.I have to object to this gross overstatement. The suggestion seems to be that one should always play whatever you feel like no matter what. If I'm playing a paladin and someone else decides to play an evil cleric, but the rest of the party are patrons of the paladin's deity, that player needs to be slapped. Or a party of 4 that direly needs a fighter, and the fourth player decides to play ANOTHER fop rogue.
As far as optimization is concerned though, I don't generally care when people play something that's suboptimal if it's fun. But I do get annoyed when they play something just atrocious and are completely unable to contribute. I had someone playing a half-orc diviner wizard...who went up into melee with a greataxe and no defensive buffs to get clobbered again and again.
Play what you want to play, sure, but play at the level of the rest of your group. If they all want to play a power-gamed party and you want to play a Rogue1/Ranger1/Sor2/Noble3 with a con of 8 and narcolepsy, don't complain if you can't contribute and they leave you in the dust.
To the original question, though, it's just straight up better to be straight class more often than not, unless you're working towards a very specific concept and/or prestige class.
You pretty much backed TOZ's statement up with your comment though.
To the op, I am working on a Barouge right now in a SS AP. Group has not even noticed or cared. So MC being bad in PF is just a particular opinion. I havent experienced any multi-class hate from my groups.
Im more disappointed in the DM that did not tell him befor he started. That the character wold not work well in the game machanices. The player did not know enough about the machanices of the game. Instead the GM let him make a cripled character. GM FAIL!!The others were a paladin, fighter, and sorcerer.Sounds like that player was going for a cool gunmage type of character ..I am curious at what they all were playingAs a GM I was asked by my players not to invite another (relatively new) player back to our games just because he created and wanted to play a rogue 1/sorcerer 1/gunslinger 1.
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in my players.
The "new" player had years of experience playing v3.5 and was new only to Pathfinder (and our group).
There is opinion and Fact rolled into that first statement, True Paizo has made single classing viable to a hurtful stance it seems but in no way does it trump or lose to multi-classing
It depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to be good at offense, then it doesn't make sense to avoid or delay weapon training. Weapon training is better than sneak attack (+1 hit and +1 damage > 3.5 avg precision damage in most cases). If you're trying to be as defensive as possible, there's more wiggle room. But a fighter/rogue is usually asked to be as offensive as possible.
Fighter 5/rogue 5 is a terrible choice *for offense*. You lose one weapon training (4 levels away from it), Greater Weapon Focus, and 2 BAB total (1st level and 5th level rogue). You're minus 4 hit versus a full fighter. Fighter 8/rogue 2 is only minus 2 hit and 1 level away from weapon training 2.
There's a line where versatility gained too severely degrades offensive output. With PF, that line is pretty close to 1-2 levels in another class.
As a GM I was asked by my players not to invite another (relatively new) player back to our games just because he created and wanted to play a rogue 1/sorcerer 1/gunslinger 1.
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in my players.
I seriously doubt it was entirely because of the class choices.
I got a group of 7 players at the moment
- Halfling Rogue 3/Wizard 3/Arcane Trickster 6
- Dwarf Barbarian 11/Alchemist 1
- Dwarf Paladin 4/Sorceror 1/Dragon Disciple 7
- Human Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 6
- Elf Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 3/Arcane Archer 3
- Dwarf Druid 12
- Half-elf Summoner 12
The majority is still multi-class, though the AA, MT and to a lesser extent EK and DD are fairly typical PrC multi-classes.
The Barbarian is nearly single-class, and will advance as a barbarian most likely without any other levels, the druid and summoner are likely to stay single class as well.
I do encourage multi-class casting a bit since I allow all casting levels to stack to determine the effectiveness of a spell and allow non-caster levels to count as half a caster level each.
|
|
There is opinion and Fact rolled into that first statement, True Paizo has made single classing viable to a hurtful stance it seems but in no way does it trump or lose to multi-classingIt depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to be good at offense, then it doesn't make sense to avoid or delay weapon training. Weapon training is better than sneak attack (+1 hit and +1 damage > 3.5 avg precision damage in most cases). If you're trying to be as defensive as possible, there's more wiggle room. But a fighter/rogue is usually asked to be as offensive as possible.
Fighter 5/rogue 5 is a terrible choice *for offense*. You lose one weapon training (4 levels away from it), Greater Weapon Focus, and 2 BAB total (1st level and 5th level rogue). You're minus 4 hit versus a full fighter. Fighter 8/rogue 2 is only minus 2 hit and 1 level away from weapon training 2.
There's a line where versatility gained too severely degrades offensive output. With PF, that line is pretty close to 1-2 levels in another class.
You are correct they would be 4 lower to hit what a regular fighter but like I said they can supplement this through other things such as feats and playstyle. +1 to attack and damage seems to be a tradeoff for 3.5 damage and really in this case it'd be 10.5 damage which is alot more than +2 to hit and damage. The rouge/fighter would just flank more and take advantage of its rouge talents rather than just swinging for its offense. And I could tell you If i made a rouge/fighter that was split evenly he would be no less effective at it than a full fighter at offense
You are correct they would be 4 lower to hit what a regular fighter but like I said they can supplement this through other things such as feats and playstyle. +1 to attack and damage seems to be a tradeoff for 3.5 damage and really in this case it'd be 10.5 damage which is alot more than +2 to hit and damage. The rouge/fighter would just flank more and take advantage of its rouge talents rather than just swinging for its offense. And I could tell you If i made a rouge/fighter that was split evenly he would be no less effective at it than a full fighter at offenseThere is opinion and Fact rolled into that first statement, True Paizo has made single classing viable to a hurtful stance it seems but in no way does it trump or lose to multi-classingIt depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to be good at offense, then it doesn't make sense to avoid or delay weapon training. Weapon training is better than sneak attack (+1 hit and +1 damage > 3.5 avg precision damage in most cases). If you're trying to be as defensive as possible, there's more wiggle room. But a fighter/rogue is usually asked to be as offensive as possible.
Fighter 5/rogue 5 is a terrible choice *for offense*. You lose one weapon training (4 levels away from it), Greater Weapon Focus, and 2 BAB total (1st level and 5th level rogue). You're minus 4 hit versus a full fighter. Fighter 8/rogue 2 is only minus 2 hit and 1 level away from weapon training 2.
There's a line where versatility gained too severely degrades offensive output. With PF, that line is pretty close to 1-2 levels in another class.
It is also a question of whether your "role" for the party is offense or min/max dpr.
A rogue 5/fighter 5 may very well be the most offensive (no pun intended!) character in the group. As long as he does enough damage be adequate in the role, he lost nothing by multi-classing.
Of course he is not as optimized as a DPR Olympic champion fighter, but does he need to be? I'd say no, unless your definition of adequate offense means he MUST one shot (or two shot) everything.
P.S. I am one of the few who misses 3.5 style multi-classing/prestige classes. I for one enjoyed mixing classes for odd combos and concepts. Although archetypes help alleviate this a lot, it is still one of the areas I am disappointed with in Pathfinder.
With the advent of Favored class mechanic and just the awesome level based abilities that all classes have, have you noticed your party members frown when you multi-class?
My group does not really care if you don't make the best possible character as long as you are good enough to pull your weight. When it gets to the point where 3 of us are about 95% as effective as four of us then we might start to ask questions since that puts pressure on others to do more, and it may get them killed. Most groups are probably not going to care if you don't go with the most optimal choice.
The reactions you get tend to depend a lot on your class/role and the class/role that you're multiclassing into. If a rogue takes a dip into ranger, people won't notice much difference. If a barbarian takes a fighter dip, again, not much difference. But if the wizard suddenly decides he wants to take a level in barbarian, then you start getting strange looks.
This is true also. Whenever I play I normally go last to make sure that if anyone does something I don't agree with I can make a character to cover it.
I have never myself met anyone who actually had a problem with what class/multiclass another player chose to use, although I could see someone getting angry if a player made poor choices that left them unable to contribute to the party in a meaningful way... But it has never in my experience come up.
I love multiclassed characters myself, although being somewhat of an optimizer I have often found certain combinations too weak...
Though of course, in my opinion, flavour/story trumps all in game.
My favourite characters I have made have almost all been multiclassed though, and the campaign I am in right now has an awesome barbarian/alchemist, and a wicked inquisitor/zen archer monk..
They just hit level 20 and the Inquisitor/Monk has an AC in the 50's...
fun fun fun.
<3
|
As a GM I was asked by my players not to invite another (relatively new) player back to our games just because he created and wanted to play a rogue 1/sorcerer 1/gunslinger 1.
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in my players.
I don't blame them. If he is relatively new to Pathfinder, then he's going to be overwhelmed trying to make that character work. If he was an experienced player, I'd be more open, but it still reeks of cheese. It's also possible that the character isn't the real reason for the reluctance, maybe the player has poor personal hygiene and they don't want to point it out.
Didn't he? Going right into gross overstatements himself.*rant*You pretty much backed TOZ's statement up with your comment though.
Unless I misunderstood your statement completely, which is a possibility, then no I didn't.
I understood your statement to be "game mechanics be damned, play what's fun, even if it's terribad. people who would ask you to play something that's not awful are jerks."
My statement is: learn what's not awful and play that.
That's much more succinct than my "rant". That better?
|
|
I understood your statement to be "game mechanics be damned, play what's fun, even if it's terribad. people who would ask you to play something that's not awful are jerks."
Yep, you misunderstood. I said nothing about game mechanics and everything about playstyles.
If the people you are playing with are pissed about your character, you probably have clashing playstyles and need to resolve that, be it by adjusting your style or finding a different group.
Note the use of the qualifier "may" in my original statement. I didn't judge any side as better or worse, or even say that you must play a certain way. Just that you need to make sure the group suits you and you suit the group. You yourself stated that a player should play at the groups level, so I'm not sure why you think you disagree.
That better?
|
|
Paizo has definitely made multiclassing and taking prestige classes much more painful than they were in 3.5. I don't think that I've seen either in a Pathfinder home game. They are far more common in Pathfinder Society because the level 12 limit means you are never going to reach ultimate single class power and a single level dip is inconsequential to many classes.
Yep, you misunderstood. I said nothing about game mechanics and everything about playstyles.
If the people you are playing with are pissed about your character, you probably have clashing playstyles and need to resolve that, be it by adjusting your style or finding a different group.
Note the use of the qualifier "may" in my original statement. I didn't judge any side as better or worse, or even say that you must play a certain way. Just that you need to make sure the group suits you and you suit the group.
That better?
Still have to say I disagree though. I appreciate the sentiment, but it's just not terribly practical advice. In context I know what you're saying, but the generality of the statement suggests leaving a group because you don't want to play what role/class is needed. I mean, again, I would almost never be "pissed" about someone playing some character. The groups I play in are big enough for redundancy, but a lot aren't. Finding another group might mean not playing with your 4 best friends and seeking out strangers. Even if I were to be gently prodded into changing my character I'd basically be okay with it and take it as an opportunity to learn a different class.
In context of people being mad about you not playing straight class, it depends greatly on class dynamics. Nonetheless, as counterpoint to your advice, I'd suggest that if you are in a group and people are annoyed with what you play, that maybe you should be a bit more open and play something they're okay with. Maybe you'll have fun playing their way instead of picking up your toys and leaving (blatant hyperbole, I know).
|
|
Still have to say I disagree though. I appreciate the sentiment, but it's just not terribly practical advice. In context I know what you're saying, but the generality of the statement suggests leaving a group because you don't want to play what role/class is needed....
Nonetheless, as counterpoint to your advice, I'd suggest that if you are in a group and people are annoyed with what you play, that maybe you should be a bit more open and play something they're okay with. Maybe you'll have fun playing their way instead of picking up your toys and leaving (blatant hyperbole, I know).
Which is exactly what I've been saying. You're disagreeing with your own position.
If the group plays differently than you, and it is causing friction, you or they need to change, or find a new group.
Again, you or they need to change. Or you need to find a new group.
If you don't play with roles, and your group does, then you may need to adjust your thinking to suit the role-based thinking of your group.
If people are annoyed about the way you play, and you can't reconcile your playstyles, then you are playing in the wrong group. I never said you HAD to pick up your toys and leave. Only that you MAY.