|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before 3rd Edition, most, if not all, character classes demanded minimums in certain ability scores for a character to take them. I suggest these be reinstated. It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be, and would be a good obstacle to power-gaming/system abuse.
To preempt the inevitable argument "I want to make this character with this combination of class levels, and have this contrived justification for why it should be possible to <for example> take levels in Alchemist despite having an Intelligence of 7 because I just want that Mutagen," let me say: A thing is at least as much defined by what it is not as by what it is. The very fact that this game operates on character classes (rather than games like GURPS or CHAMPIONS where you get a pool of points that you can arrange in almost any combination of abilities the game can offer) means that by choosing to play this game, you're choosing to play within the limits of certain character concepts (in which there is still lots of room for individual variation). The game is about telling a story (not just telling a story, but living it!), and the mechanics exist as a vehicle toward that end; they're a critical part of the game, but subordinate to storytelling, just like the gas tank of a car is subordinate to the car's passengers and their desire to get where they want to go.
Without further ado, my personal, rough suggestions as to what ability minimums I would require for the Pathfinder classes published to date (yes, of course I know it's kind of too late, but think of this as a model for the future, or home games of course):
Alchemist: DEX 13, INT 13
Antipaladin: STR 11, CHA 15
Arcanist: INT 15, CHA 13
Barbarian: STR 13, CON 11
Bard: INT 11, CHA 13
Bloodrager: CON 13, INT 9, CHA 11
Brawler: STR 11, DEX 11, CON 11
Cavalier: STR 11, CHA 13
Cleric: WIS 15, CHA 11
Druid: CON 11, WIS 15
Fighter: STR 11, DEX 11
Gunslinger: DEX 15, INT 9, WIS 13
Hunter: DEX 11, WIS 13
Inquisitor: STR 9, DEX 9, WIS 13
Investigator: INT 13, WIS 11
Magus: STR 9, DEX 9, INT 13
Monk: DEX 13, WIS 15
Ninja: DEX 15, INT 13
Oracle: CON 9, CHA 15
Paladin: CON 11, CHA 15
Ranger: DEX 11, CON 13, WIS 11
Rogue: DEX 13, INT 9
Samurai: DEX 11, CHA 13
Shaman: INT 9, WIS 13, CHA 11
Skald: CON 11, INT 9, CHA 13
Slayer: STR 11, DEX 11, WIS 11
Sorcerer: INT 13, CHA 13
Summoner: INT 11, CHA 13
Swashbuckler: DEX 13, INT 11, CHA 13
Warpriest: STR 11, WIS 11, CHA 11
Witch: INT 15, CHA 11
Wizard: DEX 11, INT 15
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not my cup of tea, I must admit.
IMO, if you want something to require an attribute of X then you just scale it on X instead in such a way that you need X to make it worthwhile. Want mutagen to require int? Make it grant no bonuses at an int of 9 or lower, only a +2 at int 11, and +4 at int 13. Then add a pre-requisite to the greater/grand/true mutagen discoveries.
Spellcaster classes should be extra obvious, IMO. They already scale on ability score, so minimums seems redundant. If someone wants to play a horrifically untalented wizard with an int of 10 or 11, then let them.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely hated that they added this back to 5th Edition.
The beauty of the game lies with the fact you can play any class a number of different ways. For example, you can play an alchemist as a melee fighter, a blaster, a ranged fighter, a pseudo-caster, or a combination of them. Why ruin that with pointless ability score requirements? Some classes, like spellcasters and swashbucklers, already have ability score requirements for some of their class features.
Pathfinder does a rather good job rewarding characters that don't multiclass. The game already cripples you if you lack the ability scores relevant to your class. As a result, I can't see any good reason to implement ability score requirements. It's redundant at best and a giant punch in the face at worst.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist: DEX 13, INT 13
Antipaladin: STR 11, CHA 15
Arcanist: INT 15, CHA 13
Barbarian: STR 13, CON 11
Bard: INT 11, CHA 13
Bloodrager: CON 13, INT 9, CHA 11
Brawler: STR 11, DEX 11, CON 11
Cavalier: STR 11, CHA 13
Cleric: WIS 15, CHA 11
Druid: CON 11, WIS 15
Fighter: STR 11, DEX 11
Gunslinger: DEX 15, INT 9, WIS 13
Hunter: DEX 11, WIS 13
Inquisitor: STR 9, DEX 9, WIS 13
Investigator: INT 13, WIS 11
Magus: STR 9, DEX 9, INT 13
Monk: DEX 13, WIS 15
Ninja: DEX 15, INT 13
Oracle: CON 9, CHA 15
Paladin: CON 11, CHA 15
Ranger: DEX 11, CON 13, WIS 11
Rogue: DEX 13, INT 9
Samurai: DEX 11, CHA 13
Shaman: INT 9, WIS 13, CHA 11
Skald: CON 11, INT 9, CHA 13
Slayer: STR 11, DEX 11, WIS 11
Sorcerer: INT 13, CHA 13
Summoner: INT 11, CHA 13
Swashbuckler: DEX 13, INT 11, CHA 13
Warpriest: STR 11, WIS 11, CHA 11
Witch: INT 15, CHA 11
Wizard: DEX 11, INT 15
Why would an alchemist require a minimum dex?
Why is the paladin/antipaladin cha requirement so high?Why does the cavelier/samurai require cha?
Why does a ninja need int?
Many of these are either unreasonably high or completely irrelevant to training as the class.
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
This idea is dumb.
I don't have any qualms about stating it that way.
It has 0 purpose whatsoever. It has no redeeming qualities that can even be argued as such.
Hell, half of them lack a fundamental understanding of the class they're referencing (ah yes, Slayer requires Wis 11....when all class features with DCs or per day uses are INT BASED), or any potential build changes (No Str based Rogues, because I almight-ily declare they must be Dex based!).
Your idea is terrible and you should feel bad for spending the time to write it down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know it's bad when Rynjin gets mean about.
I guess in any group where power gaming is a genuine problem, then sure you can have some sort of system like this, but it just imposes more limitations on the classes than they need.
Power Gaming however, usually isn't a problem. If you want to avoid min maxing, then just ditch point buy altogether since it is the root of all evil when it comes to power gaming anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before 3rd Edition, most, if not all, character classes demanded minimums in certain ability scores for a character to take them. I suggest these be reinstated. It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be, and would be a good obstacle to power-gaming/system abuse.
To preempt the inevitable argument "I want to make this character with this combination of class levels, and have this contrived justification for why it should be possible to <for example> take levels in Alchemist despite having an Intelligence of 7 because I just want that Mutagen," let me say: A thing is at least as much defined by what it is not as by what it is. The very fact that this game operates on character classes (rather than games like GURPS or CHAMPIONS where you get a pool of points that you can arrange in almost any combination of abilities the game can offer) means that by choosing to play this game, you're choosing to play within the limits of certain character concepts (in which there is still lots of room for individual variation). The game is about telling a story (not just telling a story, but living it!), and the mechanics exist as a vehicle toward that end; they're a critical part of the game, but subordinate to storytelling, just like the gas tank of a car is subordinate to the car's passengers and their desire to get where they want to go.
Without further ado, my personal, rough suggestions as to what ability minimums I would require for the Pathfinder classes published to date (yes, of course I know it's kind of too late, but think of this as a model for the future, or home games of course):
Alchemist: DEX 13, INT 13
Antipaladin: STR 11, CHA 15
Arcanist: INT 15, CHA 13
Barbarian: STR 13, CON 11
Bard: INT 11, CHA 13
Bloodrager: CON 13, INT 9, CHA 11
Brawler: STR 11, DEX 11, CON 11
Cavalier: STR 11, CHA 13
Cleric: WIS 15, CHA 11
Druid: CON 11, WIS 15
Fighter: STR 11, DEX 11
Gunslinger: DEX 15, INT 9, WIS 13
Hunter: DEX 11, WIS 13
Inquisitor: STR 9, DEX 9, WIS 13...
I think it is an excellent idea, but ninja should have a wis requirement, not int. Although most of their "real-world" work involved cha, pathfinder doesn't really push it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surprised at the hostility and complete rejection myself. Is it such a terrible idea that a fighter should at least have high-average strength and coordination, or a gunslinger really quick on the draw?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess no-one here is worried about being diplomatic on this one.. To quote the big L: "You're not wrong, you're just an #!@hole."
That said, the overall assessment is accurate. Ability score minimums add nothing to the game other than to restrict classes to the types of playstyles you feel are the "correct" ones. This is not fun for anyone. Either they agree with you and don't need the minimums to enforce that, or they disagree and will find the minimums getting in the way of their fun, which is alienating at best.
It helps if you do not think of classes as bags of flavor, and instead think of them as bags of mechanics. At that point it's just at matter of coming up with a good head-canon way of making it work. If they have a poor arrangement of ability scores the class mechanics will punish them enough without the DM stepping in.
Example: An int 9 alchemist? Perhaps he just has the one recipe-for-dummies that makes mutagen work, but the extracts require a level/type of innate magical potential the alchemist does not possess. Maybe they will someday (ability score bonuses into int), but not today. That said, he is *well* behind an alchemist with even a paltry 14 int because he cannot use his extracts, and that's often reason enough not to go this route.
PS: You minimums do not take into account archetypes/choices that dramatically change the class. Why should a Sage Sorcerer have 15 cha when they cast with int? Why should a Scarred Witch Doctor have 15 int when they cast AND hex based on con, with their only int-based feature being skills? Why should a Bloodrageer need Cha when they can swap spells for SR, and at that point don't use Cha at all? Why should an Arcanist take high Cha if they intend on spending all their exploit points on item creation and metamagic (Cha only affects DCs and such, which those choices do not have)?
These are only a few examples of where an ability score minimum system would either (A) get overly complicated or (B) be outright broken.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The very fact that this game operates on character classes (rather than games like GURPS or CHAMPIONS where you get a pool of points that you can arrange in almost any combination of abilities the game can offer) means that by choosing to play this game, you're choosing to play within the limits of certain character concepts (in which there is still lots of room for individual variation).
The very fact that this game operates on a system where classes can be taken modularly level-by-level in any combination (rather than games like AD&D where it's locked in at character creation) means that by choosing to play this game, you're choosing to play within the paradigm of class-as-mechanics (in which there is near-infinite room for individual character concepts).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Surprised at the hostility and complete rejection myself. Is it such a terrible idea that a fighter should at least have high-average strength and coordination, or a gunslinger really quick on the draw?
What if its a dex fighter? Strength rogue? Strength alchemist? Sorcerer archetype that uses wisdom or intelligence as their casting stat? An elf that doesn't want to spend 3 stat points to qualify for druid's con?
Basically, these requirements don't take into account creative uses of classes. Creative uses of classes such as strength rogues, or fencing fighters are not powergaming, and aren't silly dipping.
Also, Ninjas use charisma for their ki pool. Slayers use int, and so on.
|
|
Before 3rd Edition, most, if not all, character classes demanded minimums in certain ability scores for a character to take them. I suggest these be reinstated. It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be, and would be a good obstacle to power-gaming/system abuse.
Sorta, on one hand you could use this system to essentially make certain classes rarer (like paladins in AD&D). But, I don't really think it would stop power-gaming. A fighter is still weaker then a wizard irregardless if wizards are less common then fighters. It would also severely limit multi-classing as an option, btw multi-classing is usually a sub-optimum choice why limit it further.
However that being said, no one can stop you from implementing it in your own homebrew if that's what you want. Some old schoolers will love this, but most won't.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that the game isn't just about mechanics - they're servitors to the game (and to the comments about Slayers and Ninja and whatnot, why did pre-3rd Edition Druids require a Charisma of 15 to qualify for, and 2nd Edition Psionicists require a minimum Intelligence of 12 despite their powers being chiefly Wisdom-based back then? Same underlying idea; as for the specifics of the Slayer, I'm willing to concede that one if I need to - I found the Advanced Class Guide classes uninspired for the most part, and didn't look at them with as much care as I did others) - nobody's more in favor of creativity than I am, but if you're going to say "anything goes" with regard to what a character class can be, then why have character classes in the system at all? Think of it this way: Limits on what a class is capable of means more options for new ideas to look forward to. It's the nature of the beast, as Gary Gygax himself once said.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
mechanics - they're servitors to the game
Your idea makes them less able to serve. You actually reduce the number of roleplaying experiences that they can enable. You've made Pathfinder less of a roleplaying game than it was before.
if you're going to say "anything goes" with regard to what a character class can be, then why have character classes in the system at all?
As an option for those who are less interested in customizing. Sort of like how LEGO sets have instructions so that those who aren't interested in designing something of their own can still play. That doesn't mean that when someone tries to build something that's not in the instructions that you should intervene and "preserve the integrity" of the picture on the package. Same goes with classes in Pathfinder: it's fully intended that you can take pieces a-la-carte to build something of your own, and at the same time, the class system offers "LEGO instructions" for people who are less interested in designing.
Think of it this way: Limits on what a class is capable of means more options for new ideas to look forward to.
Preventing someone from using Class X to enable their concept means they get to look forward to someday seeing their concept published as its own class later on so they can play it then? Huh? Why not just let them play their concept now? Weren't you just saying that mechanics should be serving the storytelling? Yet now you're saying that when you tell somebody they're not allowed to tell the story they want, they should be excited that maybe someday they can?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Surprised at the hostility and complete rejection myself.
We attack the idea, not the person -- though I think Rynjin was jesting. The OP's explicitly said they want to do this to punish players for 1-level dipping. Any house rule designed to make the game less fun will receive very harsh criticism. That should go without saying.
Is it such a terrible idea that a fighter should at least have high-average strength and coordination, or a gunslinger really quick on the draw?
Yes, because there's no good reason to gate classes like that. Why have a minimum Dexterity when a low-DEX character makes for an awful gunslinger anyway? And some classes already have abilities with minimum ability scores to be useful or work at all, like grit and spellcasting. Like I said earlier, it's redundant at best and a punch in the face at worst.
I think it is an excellent idea, but ninja should have a wis requirement, not int. Although most of their "real-world" work involved cha, pathfinder doesn't really push it that way.
Really? Do me a favor. Look up the ninja class on a PRD. Press CTRL+F on your web browser and type in the word "Wisdom" to see how many times in appears in the ninja's class description. Then do the same for Charisma.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a lot of absolutely unnecessary hostility in some of the responses. Please, either dial it back a bit or just don't say anything at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(How) will this make the game more fun to play?
This does seem to be a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem to me. To the extent that the stat minimums are de-facto requirements for an effective character (wisdom-based casters need wisdom), it does nothing. To the extend that the the stat minimums reflect only stereotypes (paladins need high charisma), it limits player creativity. And to the extent that they actually eliminate viable builds (all fighters must be strength-based, all sorcerers must be charismatic), it's an actively fascist idea that makes the game less fun.
Any time a game master starts talking about "preserving the purity of our precious bodily fluids" -- excuse me, "preserv[ing] the integrity of what the class is supposed to be," that's a pretty good sign that the GM is more interested in ideology than actual fun.
One level dips are not bad for the game though.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is an excellent idea, but ninja should have a wis requirement, not int. Although most of their "real-world" work involved cha, pathfinder doesn't really push it that way.
That doesn't make sense to me, considering Pathfinder based the ninja's ki pool on Charisma, not Wisdom.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
and the mechanics exist as a vehicle toward that end; they're a critical part of the game, but subordinate to storytelling,
This is weird, because it's contrary to the rest of your post. By this logic, we should divorce mechanics from their "flavor". Mechanics exist solely as a vehicle, so rules like "Any Nonlawful" or "only agile rogues" or "ninjas have to have an east asian style" should be done away with to help take away from the mechanics' ability to hinder what the player wants to play. If they're just a vehicle, they shouldn't be coming with their own flavor-based handicaps. If I want to play an idiotic mutating berserker from a savage nuclear fallout, and alchemist 1/barbarian 8/monk 3 with low Int and mediocre Wis is the best way to achieve that*, it should be possible. That is, if we really do believe that the primary purpose rules have is to expedite the story.
*The example's a mite improbable, but I didn't have time to dig up one of the sorts of builds you're complaining about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since my opinion was requested...
I can't see any good reason for this, can't see any benefit or enjoyment this would add to the game, and really cannot for the life of me understand why someone would want to do this.
I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone else who's said similar things so I won't reiterate their comments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(How) will this make the game more fun to play?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am honestly, kinda amazed at this. Whilst I did play AD&D a couple months back, and vastly enjoyed it. That is not what this kind of gaming crowd is looking for.
The statistic limitations are a terrible idea in my opinion. I have seen a couple clerics tank their charisma, and role-play it well. They aren't there to spread their religion they are there to crush heads of infidels, and often times come along as zealots.
However! I do believe this could be a FANTASTIC way for more old style players to enjoy the Pathfinder system. Though in such a scenario it would be best of them to play with rolling stats.
However, it is a horrible choice for the crowd that pathfinder is aiming for, a major source of it's appeal is to make oddball characters, Gunslingers that aren't that great at shooting, but their grit pulls them through the day. Or Gunslingers who don't have much grit, but are overall more skilled and tougher in a fistfight.
("Rant Time!" I dislike the system as a whole, but the rogue INT requirements drive me up the wall, I have in the past played a half-orc rogue, that tanked his intelligence, and played the Thug archetype, he also had a 12 dex, but had a good STR and CON, he would intimidate the crap out of people, then start smacking them with his sap. And was one of my favorite characters to date.) Rant Time ended
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP's explicitly said they want to do this to punish players for 1-level dipping.
You might want to double-check the meaning of the word "explicitly." You could argue I did it implicitly, but otherwise that's simply not true (as a matter of fact, that specific practice was nowhere in my mind when I composed this).
Any house rule designed to make the game less fun will receive very harsh criticism. That should go without saying.
I'm kind of sick of the way the word "fun" is used here and elsewhere. Do you really think I'm against fun? It's like you're accusing me of being the malicious flying blue glove from Yellow Submarine or something. Power-gaming (as in "abusing the game's mechanics to the point that the game is nothing but a kind of arms race fought with 5th-grade mathematics") ruins the game. Rules like this are intended to keep the game fun by sealing off one of the biggest traps that threaten to defeat the game's raison d'etre.
Any time a game master starts talking about "preserving the purity of our precious bodily fluids" -- excuse me, "preserv[ing] the integrity of what the class is supposed to be," that's a pretty good sign that the GM is more interested in ideology than actual fun.
If I'm not mistaken, this is what's called a "strawman." Disagreeing is one thing, but what good is disagreeing when you don't really understand what you're disagreeing with (a long, pain-in-the-ass rabbit hole begins there, I'll be the first to say)?
Let's get metaphysical: In order for something to be something, it has to just as much be not other things - and if it changes too much, the point comes where it is no longer what it was in any way shape or form. A game has to retain a certain essence, otherwise it is no longer that game. I'm NOT the one saying "There Is But One True Way," but, to use a rather pedestrian example, you can like sushi and you can like Mexican food, but if you go to your favorite sushi place only to discover that it's become a Mexican restaurant, that's not what you came for, is it (if that doesn't make any sense, forgive me; I tried)? Me? I like my fantasy games to have clear-cut classes, but if I play a comic-book superhero game, I prefer those to be much more freeform. That doesn't mean you have to feel the same way, but it does mean that if people are playing a given game, the players need to see eye-to-eye, on a certain level, on what it means to be playing the game, otherwise it's not much fun for anyone. This is the problem with talking about the game in a setting like this as opposed to an individual table, and the limits of how broad an audience the publishers can appeal to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin is clearly having a bad hair day, but he summed it up nicely otherwise I think.
Class stat reqs were enforced back in retro dnd because stats didn't really do much outside of character creation. Even then, it was a pretty bad system and, like level caps, it got ignored a lot. Your argument doesn't hold a lot of weight.
*edit*
I also don't see how this has anything to do with powergaming. Multiclassing is already bad - and you just made it worse. The most powerful classes in the game are barely affected by your changes - their primary prereq is their caster stat anyway, and they tend to have plenty of points to throw around so who cares? A bunch of weak classes on the lower end of the scale (Ninja, Rogue, Monk, Cavalier etc) actually get worse because they are stat starved already. If anything you've just succeeded in making the problem of power gaming worse by increasing the gap between tiers.
Monk and rogues especially, the two weakest core classes in the game, have high stat requirements that actively reduce the number of options they have to contribute. Why?
Meanwhile, Wizards have to put 15 into INT - which they were already - and an 11 in DEX. You are actually encouraging them to power game more because now they may as well pump DEX (which wizards wanted anyway) over a more 'flavourful' stat for their concept, like STR/WIS/CHA.
How can you say this is in the name of 'reducing powergaming'?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP's explicitly said they want to do this to punish players for 1-level dipping.You might want to double-check the meaning of the word "explicitly." You could argue I did it implicitly, but otherwise that's simply not true (as a matter of fact, that specific practice was nowhere in my mind when I composed this).
Any house rule designed to make the game less fun will receive very harsh criticism. That should go without saying.I'm kind of sick of the way the word "fun" is used here and elsewhere. Do you really think I'm against fun? It's like you're accusing me of being the malicious flying blue glove from Yellow Submarine or something. Power-gaming (as in "abusing the game's mechanics to the point that the game is nothing but a kind of arms race fought with 5th-grade mathematics") ruins the game. Rules like this are intended to keep the game fun by sealing off one of the biggest traps that threaten to defeat the game's raison d'etre.
While you may feel that way, I believe everyone else here is saying that they do not feel that.
In fact, quite the opposite. I, for one, would feel such a limitation to be nothing more than a DM telling me that I'm having fun the wrong way and that I should stop because it offends his sensibilities. Needless to say, I would not view this favorably. In fact, I would view it as the DM being willing to sacrifice my ability to have fun to improve his ability to have fun without my having say in the matter, which is the definition 2a in the dictionary under "not cool, bro."
Having ability score minimums will NOT stop power-gaming in any way, it will simply change what the strongest combination will be (if even that). There will still be a weakest and a strongest, and there's no guarantee that it even closes the gap between those two endpoints.
As was already said, if you pick a class with an inappropriate ability score spread you are already being punished by existing mechanics simply by not being able to utilize many of the abilities that come with that level. And if you aren't, then you probably shouldn't be (with *maybe* one or two exceptions, such as mutagen).
If you really want to stop power-gaming munchkins, ask that the players play only a single base class from 1-20 (or the minimum number of classes needed to reach a prestige class that they intend to play 1-10, if playing one of those). With this, the ability score minimums would be unneeded as the classes' own abilities would fully enforce any sensibility of ability score choice.
My advice? Man up and talk to any players that are causing problems and enforce a gentleman's agreement that each player should avoid optimizing their character well beyond that of the other players *or* that they should help other players optimize (whichever works for you particular group). My group, for example, actually does a mix of both. I help others with their characters a bit, then I hold myself back a bit so that we're all close in power level and can have fun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin is clearly having a bad hair day, but he summed it up nicely otherwise I think.
Class stat reqs were enforced back in retro dnd because stats didn't really do much outside of character creation. Even then, it was a pretty bad system and, like level caps, it got ignored a lot. Your argument doesn't hold a lot of weight.
Yeah, when it takes like 15 con to get ONE more HP, having differing ability scores doesn't matter much. Oh, and to get more than +2 you have to be warrior. No exceptions. Heck, it took 19 to get a better saving throw than standard.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules like this are intended to keep the game fun by sealing off one of the biggest traps that threaten to defeat the game's raison d'etre.
I'm not fully convinced that you understand the relationship between Pathfinder's reason for being and Pathfinder's mechanics.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this is a stupendously terrible idea that hamstrings people's abilities to do fun and interesting things. Multiclassing, as a general rule, is already generally going to make you weaker than if you just stuck in your base class.
So what if the 7 Int Barbarian takes a level in Alchemist for Mutagen? He's going to have to hope the DM doesn't smack him with some Int Drain or he'll be a drooling mess on the floor.
If you are the DM and want to implement this for your group, go nuts. I don't (and likely never will) play with you anyway, so I couldn't care less. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would prefer to run with this houserule of yours than the normal way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kind of sick of the way the word "fun" is used here and elsewhere. Do you really think I'm against fun?
Yes.
It's like you're accusing me of being the malicious flying blue glove from Yellow Submarine or something. Power-gaming (as in "abusing the game's mechanics to the point that the game is nothing but a kind of arms race fought with 5th-grade mathematics") ruins the game.
... and if I needed any further support for that belief,... you just provided it.
Power gaming can be fun. People who power-game do so because they like it.
If you don't like power-gaming, don't power-game, and don't play with people who do. Passive-aggressive rule proposals because you don't like the way they are having fun are themselves not fun, but obviously you don't want fun -- because you are proposing rules to prevent people from having fun.
If I'm not mistaken, this is what's called a "strawman.Any time a game master starts talking about "preserving the purity of our precious bodily fluids" -- excuse me, "preserv[ing] the integrity of what the class is supposed to be," that's a pretty good sign that the GM is more interested in ideology than actual fun.
You're mistaken. It's a description of your ill-advised position.
People are enjoying themselves in ways that you feel violates "the integrity of what the class is supposed to be," and having fun doing it. You are explicitly trying to prevent this -- therefore, you are more protective of integrity than of actual fun.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, I think that PF actually deals with the problem of class dipping much better than 3.5
By introducing the favoured class bonus, PF made a really big statement. It makes dipping less attractive, and makes PrCs also much less attractive. That, and to be effective in multiple classes you typically need to have high attributes anyway.
Secondly, even if level dipping were a problem, I really don't like using attribute gates to solve it. High attributes already contribute significantly to character power. That 18 strength fighter is likely one or two levels more powerful than the otherwise identical 14 strength fighter.
I dislike attribute gates on feats as well for the same reason. They simply serve to punish less fortunate characters and limit their options.
I guess in PF most people have moved from the roll method for character generation to point-buy (especially in PbP). I do understand that once you have a level playing field (point buy attributes) that attribute gateways can be a useful way to lower power to a degree. That is they can force a character to be less optimised. The classic example of this was the intelligence gateway for combat expertise and things like the trip feat tree.
That actually worked well... until the brawler came around. I wonder how many one level dips dumb trip builds will be taking in brawler now?
If you dislike single level dipping (and to be fair, I agree with the point, I don't like it), a simpler house rule may be that you have to take at least X (pick a number that works for you, 3, 5, whatever) levels in that before you can pick up another new class. A lot of high level PbP 3.x games used to do this with PrCs - you had to complete or at least do a certain number of levels in them before you could acquire another one.
It's obviously an interesting question you have raised. Thus it is a pity that some of the verbage used in the discussion by people is quite so brutal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maqybe instead of "how do I stop you from playing the game in a way I don't like" you should be thinking about "how do I make playing the game more enjoyable for my way".
I'd just like to quote this for the benefit of the OP.
Obviously, you think people are playing the game "wrong" and you want to stop it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, some of you guys are being way too heated towards the OP. Seriously, this sort of thing isn't necessary. You can disagree without being aggressive about it.
Onto the idea itself, I strongly disagree with the idea of ability score minimums. It doesn't really add anything to the game except a high level of complexity. Power gamers are going to power game, and people not skilled with mechanics aren't going to be taught much. Meanwhile, multiclassing or using unusual ideas for what a class could represent suffer. I don't like that. Reflavoring a class to fit a totally different fluff is cool. A while back, somebody reflavored a Ninja into something not Japanese at all. It sounds amazing. I want players to do stuff like that, and don't quite feel like trying to enforce the default flavor of the class with entry requirements will help with that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any house rule designed to make the game less fun will receive very harsh criticism. That should go without saying.I'm kind of sick of the way the word "fun" is used here and elsewhere. Do you really think I'm against fun? It's like you're accusing me of being the malicious flying blue glove from Yellow Submarine or something. Power-gaming (as in "abusing the game's mechanics to the point that the game is nothing but a kind of arms race fought with 5th-grade mathematics") ruins the game. Rules like this are intended to keep the game fun by sealing off one of the biggest traps that threaten to defeat the game's raison d'etre.
The only effective way to stop a powergamer is don't invite them to your table. Pathfinder's a team game meant to be enjoyed with friends and fellow gamers. If a player's behavior comes at the expense of everyone else's fun, they need to leave. Don't play with them for the same reason you wouldn't play with a guy who acts like a competitive prick at any other tabletop game.
Limiting options won't stop someone that powergames the way you describe. Ability score requirements won't hinder them at all unless you make them really prohibitively high.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there's a lot of straight up hostility in this thread.
The above isn't really my thing, but I don't have an interest in simulating older editions of D&D with Pathfinder. If a GM instituted this rule at their table I'd be pretty worried because they might not understand what I enjoy about Pathfinder.
It's like the concept of racial gates on classes. I LIKE being able to be a dwarf wizard. I'm happy to play a high-Dex, high-Con ninja who does sweet acrobatic tricks thanks to a mix of ki and magic items.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you really want to stop power-gaming munchkins, ask that the players play only a single base class from 1-20 (or the minimum number of classes needed to reach a prestige class that they intend to play 1-10, if playing one of those). With this, the ability score minimums would be unneeded as the classes' own abilities would fully enforce any sensibility of ability score choice.
Which, given Pathfinder's anti-multiclassing design, will actually produce a MORE powerful character nine times out of ten than allowing them to take that level dip.
If you really want to stop power-gaming munchkins, ask that the players play only a single base class from 1-20 (or the minimum number of classes needed to reach a prestige class that they intend to play 1-10, if playing one of those). With this, the ability score minimums would be unneeded as the classes' own abilities would fully enforce any sensibility of ability score choice.Which, given Pathfinder's anti-multiclassing design, will actually produce a MORE powerful character nine times out of ten than allowing them to take that level dip.
Half tempted to just give everybody a favored class bonus every level regardless of whether they are multiclassing or not.
|
|
I, for one, like fiddly numbers. If it's baroque, don't fix it!
I suppose it's worth mentioning that someone else's comment to me about this thread is that there's a great deal of "frame of reference" disparity going on here - the pedigree, background, and length of one's gaming career can all have an impact on just how one feels about the prospect of ability score minimums.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, like fiddly numbers. If it's baroque, don't fix it!
I suppose it's worth mentioning that someone else's comment to me about this thread is that there's a great deal of "frame of reference" disparity going on here - the pedigree, background, and length of one's gaming career can all have an impact on just how one feels about the prospect of ability score minimums.
Frame, schmame. I'm still looking for the "how is it more fun to play" part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since people seem to be freaking out about this for some inexplicable reason, I might as well add my two cents.
I see what you want to do with this idea and I can understand why you'd find it irritating for players to take nonsensical dips just to get more powerful. Your alchemist with 7 INT example makes it rather clear. However, I feel this isn't a particularly good way to do it. If you're DMing, you're well within your rights to just tell a player no when they try something like that, so this kind of system is adding a lot of complications to try and solve the problem in a roundabout way. I'm sympathetic to your problem, this just doesn't seem like a particularly effective way to handle it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not going to stop powergaming. There isn't a single rule that will stop powergaming. That's because the essence of powergaming is to work within the rules to squeeze the most out of it.
Having more restrictive rules will make a powergamer's character less powerful, but he won't be powergaming any less; he may even try harder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea was to make certain classes more special by giving them stiff requirements for stats. The classic example is the paladin. When you did roll for stats, in the old days often 3d6 in order, and you managed to get that 17 charisma that would let you be a paladin, that was something special. Paladins were also quite powerful to match - the requirement was taken to be the "cost" of having the class. This is old tech today, and it's pretty clear that such costs actually aren't a good way to limit certain options. One entertaining consequence was that since all classes had at least one stat requirement in 2nd edition, it was quite possible to make a character that could not choose any class...
Further, in a scene where point buy and level-by-level multiclassing exists, it's a non-starter. We left those stat limits behind specifically because doing so allowed for new things. The systems back then were not better than the ones we have today, and guess what, the games we played with them are still things we're allowed to remember fondly.
That said, I find the hostility in this thread shameful. A bit more thinking and a bit less lashing out would do everyone good.