Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

A question about gamer types...


Gamer Talk

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Hitdice wrote:
rando1000 wrote:

I guess it comes down to how you see classes. If they're "character building kits", then jumping in and out of them to get the effects you want is perfectly justified. If they're representations of professions or orders within the campaign world, multiclassing requires a little more explanation. Different answer this question differently, and maybe even differently for different classes.

For example, I see multiclassing into Wizard as a big deal. You can't pick up a book and a week later be a 1st level Wizard, IMO. But a Sorcerer is a natural caster. You could be walking along and one day BAM! You can cast first level spells. Would I restrict a player's class choices based on this? No. But would I require some sort of explanation in story for the Wizard? Yes.

it's funny how much less some classes are RP-intensive than others. I'd let a player take a level in Fighter or Rogue with no RP required; However, if you start out as a Monk and multi-class into Paladin, we're going to have to have a conversation about character motivation, never mind alignment.

Alignment is LG, why do you need to have a conversation about that?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Celendria deBois wrote:

I've noticed in the couple of years, especially since Pathfinder has come out, that more and more of the players are number crunchers looking for the optimum damage output and less that are role-players... I am not saying that this is wrong, just an observation.

I know that each group is different, but is that what most old-time DMs are finding as well? Are gamers by and large just number crunchers now? Up until games like WoW, Rifts, etc I've just not heard RPGers consistently talk about "damage builds", etc.

Again, I'm only asking a question, not meaning this as a flame

Message board posters then to distort the picture. Most people who don't go into heavy theory crafting or looking for uber dps among all others simply don't post on these boards, so don't be fooled into considering them as a representative sample.


Some styles of game play benefit more from message board discussions than others do. Theories about building more combat effective characters, for example, benefit greatly from message boards. Attempts to solve in-game mysteries for home games do not so benefit, since everyone must take the player's view of things at face value and have no way to know that he overlooked something important (since he would not mention something that he overlooked, and the readers of his post would not suspect it if there is no reason for them to).

So message board discussions tend to favor subjects and gaming approaches where a common knowledge base can be assumed and familiarity with the poster and his gaming group is not required.

Taldor

Riuken wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
rando1000 wrote:

I guess it comes down to how you see classes. If they're "character building kits", then jumping in and out of them to get the effects you want is perfectly justified. If they're representations of professions or orders within the campaign world, multiclassing requires a little more explanation. Different answer this question differently, and maybe even differently for different classes.

For example, I see multiclassing into Wizard as a big deal. You can't pick up a book and a week later be a 1st level Wizard, IMO. But a Sorcerer is a natural caster. You could be walking along and one day BAM! You can cast first level spells. Would I restrict a player's class choices based on this? No. But would I require some sort of explanation in story for the Wizard? Yes.

it's funny how much less some classes are RP-intensive than others. I'd let a player take a level in Fighter or Rogue with no RP required; However, if you start out as a Monk and multi-class into Paladin, we're going to have to have a conversation about character motivation, never mind alignment.
Alignment is LG, why do you need to have a conversation about that?

Because a dude who spent all of his life practicing their body and mind, with a certain philosophy, suddenly wants to don a full-plate and take a sword and expect to be good at it? PLease...


Well -- just because he gained proficiency with heavy armor does not mean that he will necessarily be wearing it. Whether he uses martial weapons depends on whether he has enough monk levels to make flurrying worthwhile. If he keeps the same equipment but just starts detecting and smiting evil, why not? Maybe he wanted to become a Champion of Irori all along.

But I would definitely discuss this with the player to get a better idea of what he has in mind and (more importantly) ensure that he has no wrong ideas about how the class features might combine.


Hama wrote:
Riuken wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
rando1000 wrote:

I guess it comes down to how you see classes. If they're "character building kits", then jumping in and out of them to get the effects you want is perfectly justified. If they're representations of professions or orders within the campaign world, multiclassing requires a little more explanation. Different answer this question differently, and maybe even differently for different classes.

For example, I see multiclassing into Wizard as a big deal. You can't pick up a book and a week later be a 1st level Wizard, IMO. But a Sorcerer is a natural caster. You could be walking along and one day BAM! You can cast first level spells. Would I restrict a player's class choices based on this? No. But would I require some sort of explanation in story for the Wizard? Yes.

it's funny how much less some classes are RP-intensive than others. I'd let a player take a level in Fighter or Rogue with no RP required; However, if you start out as a Monk and multi-class into Paladin, we're going to have to have a conversation about character motivation, never mind alignment.
Alignment is LG, why do you need to have a conversation about that?
Because a dude who spent all of his life practicing their body and mind, with a certain philosophy, suddenly wants to don a full-plate and take a sword and expect to be good at it? PLease...

Yeah exactly; it works fine mechanically, but there are some RP questions there. I'd be fine with a situation where one of my players designs a monastery/holy order that's a Monk/Paladin multi-class level by level class swap (that made sense, right?), theres' plenty of empty space in my campaign setting. If the same player levels up to 12 as a Monk and then wants to dip into Paladin just for Smite, he's going to have to convince me.

tl;dr: Sometimes"with a certain philosophy" is the part that really requires hashing out.


A paladin isn't allowed to use Flurry of Blows? I don't see a conflict. Fighters are proficient with full plate and swords as well, but a monk/fighter cross-class has very little trouble.

Shadow Lodge

Hama wrote:
Because a dude who spent all of his life practicing their body and mind, with a certain philosophy, suddenly wants to don a full-plate and take a sword and expect to be good at it? PLease...

Not all Paladins wear full plate.

Taldor

I would ask the monk player about his character suddenly gaining the knowledge of using 25+ weapons with proficiency and the ability to wear armor properly, even though he only wore robes for his entire life.


But that issue exists with the rogue/fighter multiclass, too. It's an inherent issue in multiclassing/putting ranks in Linguistics.

Shadow Lodge

Would the monk player even use any of those weapons/proficiencies? If he doesn't, is it even an issue that he technically gained them?

Taldor

That is why i changed linguistics, and discourage multiclassing...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like to view multiclassing as any different from single-classing. Both are a means to achieve a result: to fulfil a concept.

That guy with fighter levels and rogue levels doesn't think of himself as a multiclasser. That's an absurd break of the 4th wall to do so. Instead, he thinks of himself as a dirty fighter, preferring to get his sword into the vulnerable parts of an enemy when they're distracted rather than a straight up brawl. That concept requires multiclassing to achieve but is not a scattered concept.

You can do the same with many combinations. A fighter/wizard prior to the advent of the magus might be thought of similarly to a magus.

The stigma against multiclassing is something that grates on me.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:
The stigma against multiclassing is something that grates on me.

Indeed, because half the time it's invisible to characters in the game world. There is little actual in-game difference between a fighter and a fighter/rogue. The fighter/rogue may be more underhanded than the fighter, or he may focus more on surprise attacking his foes, but no one is going to look at him and think he is multiclassed.

It is of course somewhat different when a character gains spells or some other ability that can actually be observed. But weapon proficiencies? They just mean you hit more often with that weapon.


I like multiclassing; I've always liked it. Yes, I DO sacrifice some high-end utility... but that's OK. Not even LOOKING at Prestige Classes, I have tons of fun with Rogue/Wizard splits, Druid/Ranger splits, etc., etc. ad. infin.

Heck, Rogue/Fighter is lots of fun, too, and more effective in the long run than tacking on Assassin...

Now, some multiclass options are really not-optimal... but I've seen people have fun with some of the oddest combinations.

I enjoy drawing from two (or three) class ability "pools" to make my persona. Usually two, and usually lopsided in progression (Rogue7/Wizard13 is a favorite for a 20-level run, f'r'instance).

Add in Traits and Feats and such (not archetypes. Hate 'em) and you can -- if you spend a little time planning -- make a nifty adventurer. Maybe s/he won't be "the Ultimate" fill-in-the-blank-single-class-hero. But it's always fun.

Meh. YMMV.

Osirion

Alitan wrote:
I like multiclassing; I've always liked it. Yes, I DO sacrifice some high-end utility... but that's OK.

The class system tends to be pretty rigid. Take a look at any of a dozen or so classic fantasy characters, such as Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, Conan, or Elric of Melnibone, or Merlin, or even good old Drizzt, and they tend to all be multi-classed in some way (particularly in their writeups in Gods, Demigods & Heroes, or Dieties & Demigods or Hall of Heroes or whatever, and even when they *aren't* technically multiclassed, like later writeups of Drizzt, they still have abilities from other classes arbitrarily strapped on).

Even in D&D fiction (in editions where humans explicitly couldn't multi-class anyway!) a fair number of signature characters ended up multi-classed. And now that it's legal, it still happens. The first non-iconic Pathfinder NPC I read fiction about was Eando Kline, a bard / sorcerer / rogue.

I myself don't multiclass much (or Prestige Class or Archetype practically ever), being a vanilla sort of guy, but ever since reading about the option in the 3.X Unearthed Arcana, I've totally been on board with Fractional BAB, Fractional Saves and Magic Rating to make multi-classing a bit more palatable. (And the player who wanted to explore a Monk / Rogue multi-class was very appreciative of that!)


So, to summarise the on-topic discussion:

- "roleplaying" and "rollplaying" co-exist independently on orthographic axes for each gamer/gaming group, or, the level of quality of one does not in any appreciable way necessarily impact on the other.

- all sorts of gamers have existed through all eras of gaming, and although it is possible that certain eras have displayed preponderances for different styles of play, on the whole these have been very minor shifts, and generally not worth discussing.

- online messageboards and fora are a poor representation of the interests and trends of the overall gaming population, as a) the types of subjects that benefit most from online discussion tend to be rules/number-based, and b) this attracts a certain demographic of gamer.

- the increased complexity of RPGs such as PF and D&D means that rules advice, discussion, and theorycrafting become more important, even necessary, to enjoy the game fully.

- it is possible that, given time restraints in real life, some players find it necessary to focus on one aspect of the game over the other.

- neither munchkin players with lifeless characters, nor drama queen thespians with deficient rules knowledge, tend to be most gamers' favourite co-adventurers.

Anything I missed?


littlehewy wrote:


orthographic axes

I can not find stats for the Orthographic Axe.

Is this official PF cannon or is it homebrew??


littlehewy wrote:
- the increased complexity of RPGs such as PF and D&D means that rules advice, discussion, and theorycrafting become more important, even necessary, to enjoy the game fully.

You have most of it right... I leave this one point as a bit incorrect. You don't need all this complexity to enjoy the game. You can sit down grab a die and have fun without any attention paid to the complexity. BUT 3e D&D all the way through to Pathfinder have built in a series of prerequisites for many of the classes and feats this means that if you want a certain ability or combination of abilities then you need to preplan in order to get them in a timely fashion. It's this preplanning that theory crafters love to explore.

I once tried to remove the need for preplanning builds by removing all prerequisites from feats and to a lesser degree classes. The backlash from my players was telling. They actually LOVED all the fiddling with rule bits and prerequisites in order to build a strong character mechanically. And by making it easy to just have the build you want I actually removed their fun. Much later I read an article by someone about the old Diablo 2 game and why it was fun for so many people. They explained that players got a sense of superiority by discovering new "power builds" and this theory crafting approach kept the game going long after any new content had dried up.

So you are right that theory crafters are an important aspect of d20 games. But you are wrong that you NEED them to have fun. After all I get my fun from the interaction of my character with the game world, its NPCs, and the other PCs. Everyone finds fun it their own way. Theory crafters just have their own niche carved directly into the rules of these games. And that's not a bad thing really, if they are having fun.


Aranna wrote:

stuff

Ok, I hear that. Would you mind rephrasing all that in a succinct dot point? It's the wee hours of the morn here, I've just had a cup of warm milk, and brain=lazy :)

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / A question about gamer types... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.