I strongly suspect PF2 goes in that direction in some heavily generalized manner---some things going as character level, some things becoming flat, little if anything going by class level, and taking as many classes as you want. I think that's part of why they changed spell duration/range/etc to not be CL-dependent. I presume they considered going the other way with spell parameters (from CL-based to char-level-based instead of flat); at a guess they found it too powerful, it'd be interesting to know for sure....But you say the caster problem is too high a cost... mmm. I wonder whether, if Paizo fixed that, we could multiclass again as in 3.5/PF1. Like, 2, 3 classes, to our heart's content.
If casters still progress in their save DC, according to character level instead of class level... but don't get any new spells, because they're advancing in another class after all... would that work? Or would it still be too high a cost?
Sadly, now that I've digested the sorcerer preview, I realise that spell slots scaling with character level will not work. For starters, the sorcerer gets spontaneous heightening on 2 of his spells, which can be picked to give spells equivalent to the highest spell slot available (so a sorc1/Ftr19 could pick summon (1) as a first level spell then spontaneously heighten it to summon (9) - the equivalent of summon IX in pf1).
Then it transpires that a wizard who learns a spell also learns every heightened version of it. Even if they didn't, they could have picked them up via scrolls and spell books, giving them all the power of a wizard (sans class feats) for just 1 level.
This is too powerful, so I guess we are back to spell slots scaling with class level not character level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly suspect PF2 goes in that direction in some heavily generalized manner---some things going as character level, some things becoming flat, little if anything going by class level, and taking as many classes as you want. I think that's part of why they changed spell duration/range/etc to not be CL-dependent. I presume they considered going the other way with spell parameters (from CL-based to char-level-based instead of flat); at a guess they found it too powerful, it'd be interesting to know for sure....But you say the caster problem is too high a cost... mmm. I wonder whether, if Paizo fixed that, we could multiclass again as in 3.5/PF1. Like, 2, 3 classes, to our heart's content.
If casters still progress in their save DC, according to character level instead of class level... but don't get any new spells, because they're advancing in another class after all... would that work? Or would it still be too high a cost?
Sadly, now that I've digested the sorcerer preview, I realise that spell slots scaling with character level will not work. For starters, the sorcerer gets spontaneous heightening on 2 of his spells, which can be picked to give spells equivalent to the highest spell slot available (so a sorc1/Ftr19 could pick summon (1) as a first level spell then spontaneously heighten it to summon (9) - the equivalent of summon IX in pf1).
Then it transpires that a wizard who learns a spell also learns every heightened version of it. Even if they didn't, they could have picked them up via scrolls and spell books, giving them all the power of a wizard (sans class feats) for just 1 level.
This is too powerful, so I guess we are back to spell slots scaling with class level not character level.
Ouch. Agreed. But I think spell slots by class level should be OK as long as spell parameters are either flat or (save DC in particular) based on char level. Though I'm not sure of the in-world explanation for the latter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not any different than a Ftr20 just using scrolls of Summon Monster 1-9, which is something the game supports, so I don't really see the harm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly not seeing a ton of reason multiclasssing can't work like it does now. Maybe it could get wonky with which class you get class feats for at a given level? But even that seems like it should be solvable. VMC is possible, perhaps even probable, but not the only option.
I will say that if you spend feats to multiclasss, you almost certainly do it for class features before feats. The class feats which aren't shared between multiple classes already almost all seem to revolve around altering a specific class feature. Getting feats without features is therefore pointless. You might get both, but you might also only get the features and none of the feats so you can't overtake the single classes character.
Honestly not seeing a ton of reason multiclasssing can't work like it does now.
Because in the blogs they've said with 2e multiclassing you only use one advancement table. So if your a cleric/barbarian, you're not going to be using the cleric class table And the barbarian class table like in 1e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly not seeing a ton of reason multiclasssing can't work like it does now.Because in the blogs they've said with 2e multiclassing you only use one advancement table. So if your a cleric/barbarian, you're not going to be using the cleric class table And the barbarian class table like in 1e.
If you’re a cleric4/barbarian3, and level up, how many tables are you using to level up?
You might look at both classes, if you aren’t sure, which class to level, but once you decided, you just need the one for the class you chose.
Still, we can only speculate
It's not any different than a Ftr20 just using scrolls of Summon Monster 1-9, which is something the game supports, so I don't really see the harm.
True for a sorcerer, but for wiz1/ftr19, he only needs to copy every spell (from spell books and scrolls) and he could have the same spells as a pure wizard.
And in pf2, the number of consumables you use is limited by resonance. Are you really going to want to carry around a load of scrolls that will cost you resonance for something that doesn't boost your combat effectiveness? I don't play many martials, but I wouldn't. Maybe playtesting will prove me wrong, but I would be surprised.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not any different than a Ftr20 just using scrolls of Summon Monster 1-9, which is something the game supports, so I don't really see the harm.True for a sorcerer, but for wiz1/ftr19, he only needs to copy every spell (from spell books and scrolls) and he could have the same spells as a pure wizard.
And in pf2, the number of consumables you use is limited by resonance. Are you really going to want to carry around a load of scrolls that will cost you resonance for something that doesn't boost your combat effectiveness? I don't play many martials, but I wouldn't. Maybe playtesting will prove me wrong, but I would be surprised.
that would assume the wizard can learn the higher level spells. I can definitely see multiclassing working so that you gain spell slots, but not spells to fill them with except heightened low level spells. So you might get Magic missile, and can prepare it in all of your spell slots, but fireball would be forever out of reach, unless you picked up that 5th level of wizard.
that would assume the wizard can learn the higher level spells. I can definitely see multiclassing working so that you gain spell slots, but not spells to fill them with except heightened low level spells. So you might get Magic missile, and can prepare it in all of your spell slots, but fireball would be forever out of reach, unless you picked up that 5th level of wizard.It's not any different than a Ftr20 just using scrolls of Summon Monster 1-9, which is something the game supports, so I don't really see the harm.True for a sorcerer, but for wiz1/ftr19, he only needs to copy every spell (from spell books and scrolls) and he could have the same spells as a pure wizard.
And in pf2, the number of consumables you use is limited by resonance. Are you really going to want to carry around a load of scrolls that will cost you resonance for something that doesn't boost your combat effectiveness? I don't play many martials, but I wouldn't. Maybe playtesting will prove me wrong, but I would be surprised.
why wouldn't they be able to learn it from a scroll or spellbook? They can cast it from a scroll or wand, and they have the spell slots. It makes no sense to say they can't get it in their spellbook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It's magic" is an effective standby. More seriously, why not? That's how it works in 5e when you multiclass.
Edit: I have no idea if they'll do it in that manner. It works in 5e because you can freely heighten, so the restrictions on heightening in PF2 don't affect the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why wouldn't they be able to learn it from a scroll or spellbook? They can cast it from a scroll or wand, and they have the spell slots. It makes no sense to say they can't get it in their spellbook.that would assume the wizard can learn the higher level spells. I can definitely see multiclassing working so that you gain spell slots, but not spells to fill them with except heightened low level spells. So you might get Magic missile, and can prepare it in all of your spell slots, but fireball would be forever out of reach, unless you picked up that 5th level of wizard.It's not any different than a Ftr20 just using scrolls of Summon Monster 1-9, which is something the game supports, so I don't really see the harm.True for a sorcerer, but for wiz1/ftr19, he only needs to copy every spell (from spell books and scrolls) and he could have the same spells as a pure wizard.
And in pf2, the number of consumables you use is limited by resonance. Are you really going to want to carry around a load of scrolls that will cost you resonance for something that doesn't boost your combat effectiveness? I don't play many martials, but I wouldn't. Maybe playtesting will prove me wrong, but I would be surprised.
If you're a wiz1/ftr19 you can't learn spells of a higher level than you can cast because you literally don't understand what the heck they imply. They're too advanced for you, regardless of your Arcana skill. It's always been like this, no? I think in previous editions too you couldn't learn spells you couldn't cast from a book.
Maybe I'm just tired. It's 11 pm here. But I thought that was the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why wouldn't they be able to learn it from a scroll or spellbook? They can cast it from a scroll or wand, and they have the spell slots. It makes no sense to say they can't get it in their spellbook.that would assume the wizard can learn the higher level spells. I can definitely see multiclassing working so that you gain spell slots, but not spells to fill them with except heightened low level spells. So you might get Magic missile, and can prepare it in all of your spell slots, but fireball would be forever out of reach, unless you picked up that 5th level of wizard.It's not any different than a Ftr20 just using scrolls of Summon Monster 1-9, which is something the game supports, so I don't really see the harm.True for a sorcerer, but for wiz1/ftr19, he only needs to copy every spell (from spell books and scrolls) and he could have the same spells as a pure wizard.
And in pf2, the number of consumables you use is limited by resonance. Are you really going to want to carry around a load of scrolls that will cost you resonance for something that doesn't boost your combat effectiveness? I don't play many martials, but I wouldn't. Maybe playtesting will prove me wrong, but I would be surprised.If you're a wiz1/ftr19 you can't learn spells of a higher level than you can cast because you literally don't understand what the heck they imply. They're too advanced for you, regardless of your Arcana skill. It's always been like this, no? I think in previous editions too you couldn't learn spells you couldn't cast from a book.
Maybe I'm just tired. It's 11 pm here. But I thought that was the case.
Yes Roswynn, but the entire discussion was started with the supposition that multi-classed characters get spell slots by character level balanced by the fact that they don't get new spells. now we know they do get new spells (spontaneous heighten for sorcerers and auto heighten for wizards), I am arguing that can't be true.
Yes Roswynn, but the entire discussion was started with the supposition that multi-classed characters get spell slots by character level balanced by the fact that they don't get new spells. now we know they do get new spells (spontaneous...why wouldn't they be able to learn it from a scroll or spellbook? They can cast it from a scroll or wand, and they have the spell slots. It makes no sense to say they can't get it in their spellbook.that would assume the wizard can learn the higher level spells. I can definitely see multiclassing working so that you gain spell slots, but not spells to fill them with except heightened low level spells. So you might get Magic missile, and can prepare it in all of your spell slots, but fireball would be forever out of reach, unless you picked up that 5th level of wizard.It's not any different than a Ftr20 just using scrolls of Summon Monster 1-9, which is something the game supports, so I don't really see the harm.True for a sorcerer, but for wiz1/ftr19, he only needs to copy every spell (from spell books and scrolls) and he could have the same spells as a pure wizard.
And in pf2, the number of consumables you use is limited by resonance. Are you really going to want to carry around a load of scrolls that will cost you resonance for something that doesn't boost your combat effectiveness? I don't play many martials, but I wouldn't. Maybe playtesting will prove me wrong, but I would be surprised.If you're a wiz1/ftr19 you can't learn spells of a higher level than you can cast because you literally don't understand what the heck they imply. They're too advanced for you, regardless of your Arcana skill. It's always been like this, no? I think in previous editions too you couldn't learn spells you couldn't cast from a book.
Maybe I'm just tired. It's 11 pm here. But I thought that was the case.
Sorry, my following of your discussion had been erratical at best. In that case I'd better back off and avoid sticking my nose into discussions I haven't been involved in since the start =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it helps, I'm confused too. I don't consider gaining new levels of the same spell to be the same as gaining entirely new spells. Like I specific a couple posts ago, you might learn all the levels of magic missile, but because you don't actually get 3rd level casting as a wizard, you don't learn enough about magic to learn the 3rd level spell fireball.
If it helps, I'm confused too. I don't consider gaining new levels of the same spell to be the same as gaining entirely new spells. Like I specific a couple posts ago, you might learn all the levels of magic missile, but because you don't actually get 3rd level casting as a wizard, you don't learn enough about magic to learn the 3rd level spell fireball.
You must be able to get 3rd level casting to cast 3rd level Magic Missile. If you have 3rd level casting, you would expect to be able to learn 3rd level spells (from scrolls and spellbooks). You could use GM Fiat, but it is inelegant and still doesn't stop the sorcerer from spontaneous heighten.
Remember what is now a heightened version of a spell was once a separate spell. In that case it is like getting a higher level spell (e.g. invisibility(4) being Greater Invisibility). A sorcerer getting invisibility (4) from spontaneous heighten is getting a 4th level spell, not an upgraded version
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm kind of confused too but It doesn't really matter to much until we get the full preview of how it works.
If it helps, I'm confused too. I don't consider gaining new levels of the same spell to be the same as gaining entirely new spells. Like I specific a couple posts ago, you might learn all the levels of magic missile, but because you don't actually get 3rd level casting as a wizard, you don't learn enough about magic to learn the 3rd level spell fireball.You must be able to get 3rd level casting to cast 3rd level Magic Missile. If you have 3rd level casting, you would expect to be able to learn 3rd level spells (from scrolls and spellbooks). You could use GM Fiat, but it is inelegant and still doesn't stop the sorcerer from spontaneous heighten.
Remember what is now a heightened version of a spell was once a separate spell. In that case it is like getting a higher level spell (e.g. invisibility(4) being Greater Invisibility). A sorcerer getting invisibility (4) from spontaneous heighten is getting a 4th level spell, not an upgraded version
I disagree with pretty much everything you have to say here, but it's kind of a pointless argument. As Vid says, we don't have the rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Per the posts of Iron_matt17 in the Martial lowdown : a prep guide thread, all Martial classes get the following progression for getting Class features :
Level 1- Class features
Level 3- Class features
Level 5- Class features
Level 7- Class features
Level 9- Class features
Level 11- Class features
Level 13- Class features
Level 15- Class features
Level 17- Class features
Level 19- Class features
with some class features advancing at even levels (such as a Monk's Incredible Movement)
We also know that Skill feats come at every even level. So the levels table starts looking like this :
Level 1- Class features (including Signature Skills)
Level 2 - Skill feat
Level 3- Class features
Level 4 - Skill feat
Level 5- Class features
Level 6 - Skill feat
Level 7- Class features
Level 8 - Skill feat
Level 9- Class features
Level 10 - Skill feat
Level 11- Class features
Level 12 - Skill feat
Level 13- Class features
Level 14 - Skill feat
Level 15- Class features
Level 16 - Skill feat
Level 17- Class features
Level 18 - Skill feat
Level 19- Class features
Level 20 - Skill feat
Note that I included Signature Skills in the class features because of our multiclassing topic
One important rule for multiclassing is that, for simplicity's sake, the order in which you take your class levels must not matter so that a Paladin 3/ Ranger 2 has the same kind of abilities no matter his starting class nor the order in which he gained his levels. So I am betting that when you take a level in a new Class, you get its Signature Skills. Yeah for versatility
I could add some character level-based bits to this advancement table, such as the ability increases. I think you, dear reader, get the gist of it
I think all characters advance with this table, including multiclass
Based on this table, I surmise that the basic rule for advancement, though counterintuitive, is that you gain your new classes' class features only when your character level gets odd. So if you are Paladin 1, getting Ranger 1 will not give you anything special and you have to wait till Paladin 2/ Ranger 1 or Paladin1/ Ranger 2 to get actual Ranger goodies
And considering the possibility of multiclassing beyond 2 classes, that you actually choose at odd character levels which of your classes' class features you gain.
Meaning that a Paladin 1 who later gets Ranger 1 then Rogue 1 has to choose at that time (accessing 3rd level) whether he will get Ranger goodies as a Ranger 1 or Rogue goodies as a Rogue 1
If such is the case, taking even levels in a class before branching out in another class makes the most sense
I get that this all looking overly complicated within our usual pattern of PF1 multiclassing
But in PF2 it just might be described as : "Each time your character reaches an odd level, you can choose to get them a level in a new class. Each time your character reaches an even level, you choose which of their existing class you advance."
Or even simpler : "Each level you choose which of their existing class your character advances in. At odd levels, you can instead choose to get them a level in a new class."
We'll soon see how wrong I am and what I missed :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For one: starting Skill points. Starting with a rogue not only gives you some signature skills, but also skill points (6+INT?), while starting as fighter or barbarian gets you only 3+Int (4+Int?) starting skill points.
Also there are class features and class feats.
I just don't believe that all martial classes get class features every odd level, and class feats as well.
Lastly: proficiency seems pretty tied to classes, with only some ways to get them higher than the class grants them.
The question is, what if your two classes both grant you Trained in Reflex saves? What if both get you Expert?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, in switching to a new class, you do the following:
Skills: as in pf1, starting skills remain as your first class. Signature skills from the new class are added, but you have to use skill proficiency to improve them.
Other proficiencies: take the higher of the 2 levels. If the new class would get a proficiency increase, you get one. That way a non martial multi-classing into a martial gets an immediate boost, but remains a couple of levels behind pure martials, while a non caster multi-classing into a caster similarly remains a few levels behind in spell dcs.
Because of the way dcs work, you will only ever be a point or 2 behind a pure caster. While the difference between master and legendary is big, it is not that big.
Finally spells are scaled according to your casting class. A martial taking 1 level of a caster class gets 1st level spells and advances as the new class would.
Now this might seem much as in pf1, but the way classes are structured now means a greater balance between the 2 classes. Numbers don't run away with you because of the new proficiency system and spell dcs are not too far behind. You don't have the sexier spells a pure caster gets, but you have better combat proficiencies (if multi-classing as a martial) or skill proficiency/feats (if multi-classing as a rogue)
Starting skills was a problem in 3.x too.
Frankly, I won't consider that a solved problem until the order in which you get your classes does not matter.
PF1 solved that by adding the +3 class bonus instead of the *4 multiplier.
I never liked that, so my solution, which may be a better fit here, was a flat starting bonus, so it didn't matter which class you took first, it'd still be the same number of ranks.
Most of the other multi-class stuff I solved by splitting power level from skill/ability/"class" level. Which meant you could be a novice in terms of training but have a fair bit of raw power behind your "simple" abilities.
Honestly not seeing a ton of reason multiclasssing can't work like it does now. Maybe it could get wonky with which class you get class feats for at a given level? But even that seems like it should be solvable. VMC is possible, perhaps even probable, but not the only option.
I will say that if you spend feats to multiclasss, you almost certainly do it for class features before feats. The class feats which aren't shared between multiple classes already almost all seem to revolve around altering a specific class feature. Getting feats without features is therefore pointless. You might get both, but you might also only get the features and none of the feats so you can't overtake the single classes character.
For feat based multiclassing, I see three options on how to handle feats with class abilities required to use them. One is to make those feats useless, only allowing the player to pick those feats that don't require an ability. The second is to give the player the option to gain class abilities as either one of their classes. A fourth level fighter with rogue multiclass could take his fifth level fighter ability or his first level rogue ability. Or the abilities are granted as feats as you say.
I fully expect to see a dedication feat that gives you some central ability from a class, a signature skill, and some weapon or armor proficiencies as well as access to feats that require the class you've dedicated to. It's the simplest way to do it, and the one that leans most heavily on the design principles we've seen so far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starting skills was a problem in 3.x too.
Frankly, I won't consider that a solved problem until the order in which you get your classes does not matter.
PF1 solved that by adding the +3 class bonus instead of the *4 multiplier.
I never liked that, so my solution, which may be a better fit here, was a flat starting bonus, so it didn't matter which class you took first, it'd still be the same number of ranks.
Most of the other multi-class stuff I solved by splitting power level from skill/ability/"class" level. Which meant you could be a novice in terms of training but have a fair bit of raw power behind your "simple" abilities.
Ranks per se have gone, instead your "ranks" are equal to your character level, so it won't matter if you multiclass or not.
What they have instead are proficiencies; each class gets a number of skills (from class and background) that are marked as trained. Every other level (or every level for rogue), they get a skill proficiency increase. They can either get trained in a new skill, or increase their proficiency level (trained to expert to master to legendary).
We know that gaining mastery requires having it as a signature skill. What we don't know is if there are level limits or feat requirements.
But even fighters get reasonable skills at start (3+background iirc), which would be the equivalent of 8 in pf1 (there are half as many skills now). So Even if you start as a Fighter and later multi-class, you still have a fair amount of skills. I only see this as a problem if you are planning to multiclass rogue; it would make sense to start as rogue to get more skills (I think they start with 8+background, but I'm not sure). Even then it wouldn't be essential.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is worse, not only because it messes up multiclassing, but also it denies dabbling. Oh sure, you could still dabble, but the granularity level really works against it. Additionally, it really begs the question of why they even have skills in the first place, instead of minor feat trees.
Really, they are moving away from numbers having any meaning, towards simple pass/fail. The latter has the advantage of allowing lots of leveling without impacting the flavor or narrative, it makes level itself lose meaning, which allows everyone to level up more often.
It is not the only way to achieve that, but it is the most common, and businesses like following the herd. Less risky they say.
But as I've said before, what kept me playing d20 was that numbers had direct meaning.
In the end, if pf2 really is as bad as I think it will be, I'd like to still help it be the best it can be at what it does, then I can hopefully get my own system out that goes the other direction to support the stuff that piazo is leaving behind. After all, if piazo stops handling it, then they are not direct ckmpetition anymore.
Still makes me sad though that such things are so undervalued by the industry at large.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is worse, not only because it messes up multiclassing, but also it denies dabbling. Oh sure, you could still dabble, but the granularity level really works against it. Additionally, it really begs the question of why they even have skills in the first place, instead of minor feat trees.
Not really sure what you mean by dabbling. Do you mean dipping a few levels of another class to get their class abilities? Characters that did that excessively could easily become overpowered, since most classes in pf1 front loaded their class abilities. This has been heavily reduced to prevent that, but if you are dedicated you can pick up a meaningful number of class abilities.
Not sure what you mean by granularity level, either. Do you mean having to take entire levels in one class or another, without being able to mix bits of the same class in one level?Really, they are moving away from numbers having any meaning, towards simple pass/fail. The latter has the advantage of allowing lots of leveling without impacting the flavor or narrative, it makes level itself lose meaning, which allows everyone to level up more often.
Yes they are moving away from simple numbers, but not towards pass/fail. They are moving towards Crit pass/pass/fail/crit fail, which is a much more complex system than simple numbers, and those simple numbers do affect the outcome, but so does proficiency (especially Master/legendary).
And I find crit fails can impact the narrative/flavour more than crit successes. When I talk about old times with old friends I used to play with, more often than not it's "Do you remember the time yu failed to do this..."
And levelling is part of the narrative. You have become a greater warrior/ more astute caster/ More mystical priest because of your many adventures...it's basic to most stories. It doesn't matter f it means you level up more often - if it bothers you level up by milestone.
It is not the only way to achieve that, but it is the most common, and businesses like following the herd. Less risky they say.
But as I've said before, what kept me playing d20 was that numbers had direct meaning.
In the end, that was a problem. At High level, a Cleric's will save had such a high number that any will save that was a reasonable challenge for them was an automatic fail for anyone else.
Ditto Reflex saves and Rogues/MonksDitto Fortitude saves and Fighters/Rangers/Paladins/barbarians
Ditto Armour class against Martials attacks
etc., etc. (I exaggerate a little, but you get the picture)
In the end, if pf2 really is as bad as I think it will be, I'd like to still help it be the best it can be at what it does, then I can hopefully get my own system out that goes the other direction to support the stuff that piazo is leaving behind. After all, if piazo stops handling it, then they are not direct ckmpetition anymore.
Still makes me sad though that such things are so undervalued by the industry at large.
If it's that bad, they'll find out in the playtest. Mostly from what I've seen I'd say it won't be that bad. Much of it will be rather good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is worse, not only because it messes up multiclassing, but also it denies dabbling. Oh sure, you could still dabble, but the granularity level really works against it. Additionally, it really begs the question of why they even have skills in the first place, instead of minor feat trees.Not really sure what you mean by dabbling. Do you mean dipping a few levels of another class to get their class abilities? Characters that did that excessively could easily become overpowered, since most classes in pf1 front loaded their class abilities. This has been heavily reduced to prevent that, but if you are dedicated you can pick up a meaningful number of class abilities.
Not sure what you mean by granularity level, either. Do you mean having to take entire levels in one class or another, without being able to mix bits of the same class in one level?
I was meaning skills.
In 3.x, the *4 multiplier on skill points led to a couple issues certainly, but it meant that I could dabble in many skills.
Sure my 2+int sorcerer could max out 2+int skills, but I also had the option to not max out that many skills, and instead put half as many ranks in twice as many skills, or even put 1 rank into eight skills and use the int ranks to bolster a few of those to higher degree.
This basically meant that I had far more flexibility in what and how much I was trained in various skills without any additional complexity what-so-ever.
Heck, if you just gave a flat bonus of skill ranks (or perhaps your int score in skill ranks) and shifted cross-class to simply reduce max ranks instead of double cost, then it would have solved all the initial problems that paizo sought to solve with their pf1 skill ranks plus bonus system without losing any of the flexibility. But paizo went and screwed over the dabblers by seriously handicapping the number of skill ranks available, which skyrocketed the opportunity cost of dabbling in skills.
The complexity was no less than what I did, and yet pf1 ended up with far less benefit.
PF2 headed even further, more complexity, removal of even more older benefits, all to add pointless new benefits.
Really, they are moving away from numbers having any meaning, towards simple pass/fail. The latter has the advantage of allowing lots of leveling without impacting the flavor or narrative, it makes level itself lose meaning, which allows everyone to level up more often.Yes they are moving away from simple numbers, but not towards pass/fail. They are moving towards Crit pass/pass/fail/crit fail, which is a much more complex system than simple numbers, and those simple numbers do affect the outcome, but so does proficiency (especially Master/legendary).
And I find crit fails can impact the narrative/flavour more than crit successes. When I talk about old times with old friends I used to play with, more often than not it's "Do you remember the time yu failed to do this..."
And levelling is part of the narrative. You have become a greater warrior/ more astute caster/ More mystical priest because of your many adventures...it's basic to most stories. It doesn't matter f it means you level up more often - if it bothers you level up by milestone.
Crit/pass/fail is still pass/fail. What makes it pass/fail is the removal of meaning of the actual numerical results and basing meaning on a selection of categories determined by the results in way that the exact numbers used does not matter.
Pass/fail systems is the essential componant to allow infinite levelling while maintaining all results being based emtirely on rekative level rather than absolute level.
Basically, it is making checks entirely subjective.
It doesn't matter if you got a 3 or a 33 if you ended up in the same result category.
The 3.x system however, had some objectivity to it.
For example, if you took part in a swordmaking contest, and you took last place, if your check result was a 33 for making that sword, you still made a really nice masterwork sword that could be sold fof a ni e profit despite losing the contest. Yet if you won the contest with a 13, then your sword still sucks and might not sell at all.
Pass/fail systems can't handle that.
And I find crit fails can impact the narrative/flavour more than crit successes. When I talk about old times with old friends I used to play with, more often than not it's "Do you remember the time yu failed to do this..."
On the contrary, that isn't about crits, that is about the GM's ability to tell a story and make it memorable.
To use Alexandrian as an example,
which is better,
Player: We search the trolls' lair.
DM: You find a +1 goblin-bane longsword and a +3 longsword.
or
Elrond knew all about runes of every kind. That day he looked at the swords they had brought from the trolls' lair, and he said, "These are not troll-make. They are old swords, very old swords of the High Elves of the west, my kin. They were made in Gondolin for the Goblin-wars. They must have come from a dragon horde or goblin plunder, for dragons and goblins destroyed that city many ages ago. This, Thorin, the runes name Orcrist, the Goblin-cleaver in the ancient tongues of Gondolin; it was a famous blade. This, Gandalf, was Glamdring, Foe-hammer that the king of Gondolin once wore. Keep them well!"
Same mechanical result, yet one is far more memorable and amazing than the other.
The GM is everything. The GM makes or breaks the game. The GM makes things interesting or dull. The GM sets the tone and theme. The GM does all these, not the dice, not the mechanics.
Good mechanics make it easier while fading into the background. Bad mechanics make it harder and draw everyone's focus onto the mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And levelling is part of the narrative. You have become a greater warrior/ more astute caster/ More mystical priest because of your many adventures...it's basic to most stories. It doesn't matter f it means you level up more often - if it bothers you level up by milestone.
Character growth is essential to a story, and while I find character advancement in d20 to be in need of fixing, I would not say lots of leveling is the only answer.
Truth is, I would not mind lots of leveling if they totally overhaul the entire numerical system and change what levels actually mean.
I did that actually myself, changed what levels mean.
But at the moment, in 3.x and pf1, levels mean something specific, a basic overall power in addition to skill and expertise.
This is the crux of the issue.
In 3.x terms, you can have real people you gain lots of skill points and experience, yet remain at level 1-2 in terms of raw power.
But because power and skills are tied, you can't represent that in the system. There are several issues I have with this, and the first step to solving any of them is to separate raw power from skill/life-experience.
PF2 does not seem to be doing that, rather it seems to be doing what every mmo does, ignoring the problem and/or detaching the system from the narrative so you can go where ever mechanically speaking and just handwave the narrative to fit.
That is the popular way to handle it, but not a desirable way for me. I hate that solution. It goes against everything d20 was built on, and goes against everything I want in an rpg.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, that was a problem. At High level, a Cleric's will save had such a high number that any will save that was a reasonable challenge for them was an automatic fail for anyone else.
I might debate just how problematic that is.
For the most part, this is really a problem mostly because of the modern idea that all encounters should be roughly cr appropriate. That all encounters should be within a few levels of difficulty.
To me, that is very gamist and horrible.
To me, you should be going through a story, not a game world, and that means your enemies should be story appropriate, not game balanced. Players should find tactics and strategies based on the story not game mechanics.
If you travel through kobald territory, kobalds should be fighting you, regardless of your level.
Meanwhile, the party encounters a high level wizard and keeps overcoming the party's will save except the cleric, then that is the cleric's chance to shine and be the "tank" while the rest of the party works on an indirect strategy to overcome the wizard without exposing themselves to the wizard's spells.
To me, that is perfectly fine and awesome stuff.
Which is not to say I'm opposed to "fixing" it, cause I'm not, but the idea that everybody must be equally capable of handling all problems within a very narrow range of variance is wrong. The entire concept of "reasonable challenge" is itself wrong. That is a gamist thing. Only in competitive games is there a place for balance and "reasonable challenge."
What you seem to want is often called "E6" or "P6" d20 gaming.
G'head, look it up, we'll be here.
d20 and by extension every OGL-based game system descended from it is built on advancing in levels to one degree or another. It has featured lots of leveling for its entire existence, much moreso than in the pre-3e era. AKA Before August 2000.
Prior to the advent of "the d20 system", it was uncommon to see player characters higher than about 12th level.
With the advent of "the d20 system" it became and remains fairly routine for player characters to attain 15th-20th level within six months, a year or a few years of in-game time.
I suggest that "P6" is better suited to what you're looking for from this game.
If it's that bad, they'll find out in the playtest. Mostly from what I've seen I'd say it won't be that bad. Much of it will be rather good.
Right now, with 3.x or slightly less so with pf1, players who are like me can play with the more gamist minded players at the same table in the same sessions.
My concern is that being the minority will see every major company out there shift to only the gamist players, leaving those of us who are not gamist players struggling to find enough like-minded individuals to actually form stable gaming groups.
Just look at all the other systems out there. It is a serious pain to find someone who even knows the same system as someone else.
Only Paizo and wotc have games that are easy to find players for.
Wotc has already abandoned nearly everything aside from combat minis.
If paizo does the same, it will still be popular, but it will become extremely difficult to find a game I can actually stomach playing.
It would be like having all movies and tv shows removed except for spanish soap operas. If you like those shows, you're fine, but if you don't, then you are totally screwed, trying to find bootleg copies of stuff from an older time.
Right now, with 3.x/pf1, I can play with a group and still get a little bit of what I want from the game.
But as has been happening more and more, players seem to be dividing into two camps, with a sad little third camp of outcasts. The freeform players who want the story and narrative but shun all the gamist nonsense by shunning systems entirely, and the gamist players who play combat minis with story sprinkles, and the third camp of all the little "other systems" games that have very small player bases.
I am a story/narrative focused player/gm, but yet I see great value in a system for supporting that without needing the system to devolve into pure combat minis.
Right now, there is still a fair number of folks straggling inbetween these extremes, but the player base has been slowly polarizing over the years. I'm concerned that pf2 is going a route that supports only the gamist style and therefore will not only deny playing together, but will continue, and enhance, the polarizing effect among players.
My concern is that 20 years from now, people like me will be so obscure, that the artform of great gming will be lost before ever being recognized for what it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is everything. The GM makes or breaks the game. The GM makes things interesting or dull. The GM sets the tone and theme. The GM does all these, not the dice, not the mechanics.
I couldn't disagree more.
The gm, first and foremost, is just 1 person in the gaming group. What matters is not that the gm is good, it's that the group plays well together and that it has a good social contract, either explicit or implicit, with room for everyone to enjoy the game while keeping in mind each individual's particular likes and dislikes.
Furthermore, saying that the mechanics do not set tone and theme and can't be interesting or dull strikes me as a very skewed view of the hobby. If that were the case we wouldn't need different mechanics for different games, settings and stories. But we do - Pathfinder, as flexible and full of options as it is, doesn't handle horror scenarios well - those are better served by a system like Call of Cthulhu or Dread, for instance, while science fiction is better off with Eclipse Phase or the Star Wars rpg.
Even within the same genre, different groups will want different experiences. While Pathfinder or D&D will cater to those who want classes and levels, the Riddle of Steel and Blade of the Iron Throne are better for heavily simulationist games centered on realistic, tactic, detailed combat, for instance. BotIT also has narrativist leanings and a very good magic system for sword & sorcery games, while The Burning Wheel is both a good simulation of a lot of common narrative tropes and quite immersed in the classic LotR mythology.
Then there's Fate, which can very easily make a narrative-based game out of most settings, be them superhero, wuxia, steampunk and so on, by its sheer flexibility and modular options, and stays lighweight and clear enough as to have become one of the most successful rpgs of this decade.
System matters. Each group will tend, through trial and error, to find the games that most closely appeal to its members' needs and interests, and stick with them. Each system gives a very different experience within the same group, and even *across* groups, though in that case the level of practice and chemistry of a group *will* matter. To think otherwise is plausibly a matter of simple lack of understanding.
Moreover, considering *gming* an artform, instead of *roleplaying together*, with the players an essential and inescapable part of the process, sounds perhaps a little elitist, and most of all way off base. To think of oneself as a great gm and be worried that one's great art won't have the time to be recognized as such appears both ludicrous and a little worrying.
That said, I wish everyone who's not satisfied with PF2 (or 1, or any other game) a good game design experience, and happy gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean technically you could probably disagree more. I suppose you could think that the DM had no purpose in the game at all and in no way effected the enjoyment. That would be disagreeing more.
I mean technically you could probably disagree more. I suppose you could think that the DM had no purpose in the game at all and in no way effected the enjoyment. That would be disagreeing more.
I bet you play gnome prankster bards all the time, Vid ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean technically you could probably disagree more. I suppose you could think that the DM had no purpose in the game at all and in no way effected the enjoyment. That would be disagreeing more.I bet you play gnome prankster bards all the time, Vid ;)
>.>
<.<...who told you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, if you took part in a swordmaking contest, and you took last place, if your check result was a 33 for making that sword, you still made a really nice masterwork sword that could be sold fof a ni e profit despite losing the contest. Yet if you won the contest with a 13, then your sword still sucks and might not sell at all.
PF2 can handle this situation fine from what we've seen. Even if they're rolling against the same or a similar DC, the trained, expert, master, and legendary smiths are rolling for their respective baselines provided the actual check given is "make a sword as you otherwise would". A legendary smith churns out a legendary sword with the same ease of a trained smith turning out a crummy but acceptable sword. A crit success means that you've made something exceptional for your category.
To me, you should be going through a story, not a game world, and that means your enemies should be story appropriate, not game balanced. Players should find tactics and strategies based on the story not game mechanics.
If you travel through kobald territory, kobalds should be fighting you, regardless of your level.
Yes, kobolds should be fighting you if that's what they do and they're still there.
But if every single fight is easy enough, then pragmatically speaking most of them are going to play out the same way. I don't see the advantage of yet another goblin ambush over informing high-level players that they are travelling through goblin lands and confirming that they intend to fight off, kill, or knock out any goblin ambushers that would try. This does nothing to break believability of the setting but prevents boring repetitive encounters (which, unless there's a notable in story reason to actually make them fight against something they can splat faster than they can roll and list initiative) these encounters would be.On the other end of the spectrum, I have absolutely no issue with overpowered encounters, but it puts the pressure on the DM to not simply stomp her players and to arrange the encounter such that the danger is palpable and appropriate in story but that the players can triumph at either some form of escape or narrow victory.
Wotc has already abandoned nearly everything aside from combat minis.
I'd rather not get snarky, so I'll try not to come across as rude, but this is absolutely false. 5e is ridiculously easy to run inside your head, and I'm generally too lazy to provide maps.
But as has been happening more and more, players seem to be dividing into two camps, with a sad little third camp of outcasts. The freeform players who want the story and narrative but shun all the gamist nonsense by shunning systems entirely, and the gamist players who play combat minis with story sprinkles, and the third camp of all the little "other systems" games that have very small player bases.
Personally at least I believe that the mechanical system should be fun, it's how the players interact with the game. A badly thought out or clunky system is going to be unpleasant even if the players are invested in the story. I also think that the setting and events within it (i.e. "story") should be interesting for players, it's how they perceive the world and part of what they're here for. I don't think the two conflict. Hell, you can get in character even in video game RPGs and have a blast playing as your character would, I don't think I've ever played one without getting on some level invested in a bunch of NPCs that I know for a fact are reading preset dialogue and are randomly generated. If you're playing a game with a character, then I don't think it's a sliding scale between rules and RP. IMO it's a sliding scale between rules and no rules and RP gets paired up besides it.
My concern is that 20 years from now, people like me will be so obscure, that the artform of great gming will be lost before ever being recognized for what it is.
You're a great GM if your players enjoy it. You're a better GM if all of you enjoy it. If you can work out what your people want, and blend it with what you want so you end up leaving the session all having had a blast, then you win.
The GM is everything. The GM makes or breaks the game. The GM makes things interesting or dull. The GM sets the tone and theme. The GM does all these, not the dice, not the mechanics.I couldn't disagree more.
The gm, first and foremost, is just 1 person in the gaming group. What matters is not that the gm is good, it's that the group plays well together and that it has a good social contract, either explicit or implicit, with room for everyone to enjoy the game while keeping in mind each individual's particular likes and dislikes.
Furthermore, saying that the mechanics do not set tone and theme and can't be interesting or dull strikes me as a very skewed view of the hobby. If that were the case we wouldn't need different mechanics for different games, settings and stories. But we do - Pathfinder, as flexible and full of options as it is, doesn't handle horror scenarios well - those are better served by a system like Call of Cthulhu or Dread, for instance, while science fiction is better off with Eclipse Phase or the Star Wars rpg.
Even within the same genre, different groups will want different experiences. While Pathfinder or D&D will cater to those who want classes and levels, the Riddle of Steel and Blade of the Iron Throne are better for heavily simulationist games centered on realistic, tactic, detailed combat, for instance. BotIT also has narrativist leanings and a very good magic system for sword & sorcery games, while The Burning Wheel is both a good simulation of a lot of common narrative tropes and quite immersed in the classic LotR mythology.
Then there's Fate, which can very easily make a narrative-based game out of most settings, be them superhero, wuxia, steampunk and so on, by its sheer flexibility and modular options, and stays lighweight and clear enough as to have become one of the most successful rpgs of this decade.
System matters. Each group will tend, through trial and error, to find the games that most closely appeal to its members'...
I'm not saying system doesn't matter, rather system is like choosing between crayons, colored pencils, watercolor, or oil paint.
No matter which you choose, it isn't the medium that makes a picture good or bad, it is the artist.
When it comes to rpg, the gm is the artist. Sometimes one system or another might be better, but regardless, the gm is more important to the result, just like the artist makes or breaks a picture and not the crayons vs paints.
For example, if you took part in a swordmaking contest, and you took last place, if your check result was a 33 for making that sword, you still made a really nice masterwork sword that could be sold fof a ni e profit despite losing the contest. Yet if you won the contest with a 13, then your sword still sucks and might not sell at all.PF2 can handle this situation fine from what we've seen. Even if they're rolling against the same or a similar DC, the trained, expert, master, and legendary smiths are rolling for their respective baselines provided the actual check given is "make a sword as you otherwise would". A legendary smith churns out a legendary sword with the same ease of a trained smith turning out a crummy but acceptable sword. A crit success means that you've made something exceptional for your category.
Yet, the needed inclusion of "for your category" is still just more evidence of being subjective instead of objective.
If it is objective, I can compare results between the master and the legend. I can't do that with subjective results because the results don't scale between the two.
To me, you should be going through a story, not a game world, and that means your enemies should be story appropriate, not game balanced. Players should find tactics and strategies based on the story not game mechanics.
If you travel through kobald territory, kobalds should be fighting you, regardless of your level.
Yes, kobolds should be fighting you if that's what they do and they're still there.
But if every single fight is easy enough, then pragmatically speaking most of them are going to play out the same way. I don't see the advantage of yet another goblin ambush over informing high-level players that they are travelling through goblin lands and confirming that they intend to fight off, kill, or knock out any goblin ambushers that would try. This does nothing to break believability of the setting but prevents boring repetitive encounters (which, unless there's a notable in story reason to actually make them fight against something they can splat faster than they can roll and list initiative) these encounters would be.
On the other end of the spectrum, I have absolutely no issue with overpowered encounters, but it puts the pressure on the DM to not simply stomp her players and to arrange the encounter such that the danger is palpable and appropriate in story but that the players can triumph at either some form of escape or narrow victory.
If you can't produce 15 sufficiently different encounters for goblins (kobalds woukd be tok easy), thdn you need some serious practice.
But that wasn't my point anyway. My point was the issue of looking at mechanics, of looking at story.
Wotc has already abandoned nearly everything aside from combat minis.I'd rather not get snarky, so I'll try not to come across as rude, but this is absolutely false. 5e is ridiculously easy to run inside your head, and I'm generally too lazy to provide maps.
I was talking about being a combat game. I was not meaning physical objects.
Personally at least I believe that the mechanical system should be fun, it's how the players interact with the game. A badly thought out or clunky system is going to be unpleasant even if the players are invested in the story. I also think that the setting and events within it (i.e. "story") should be interesting for players, it's how they perceive the world and part of what they're here for. I don't think the two conflict. Hell, you can get in character even in video game RPGs and have a blast playing as your character would, I don't think I've ever played one without getting on some level invested in a bunch of NPCs that I know for a fact are reading preset dialogue and are randomly generated. If you're playing a game with a character, then I don't think it's a sliding scale between rules and RP. IMO it's a sliding scale between rules and no rules and RP gets paired up besides it.
It is part of how you look at it.
To me, though I know I'm a minority group here, the rules are like a language. We here are not concerned about the fact that we are having a discussion in english (aside from being able to understand each other). We know it so well that the english itself fades into the background and the actual topic of discussion is what we are focused on and thknking about, while the word choice, grammer, etc, are handled almost subconsciously both in writing and reading.
To me, the rules shoukd be like that. Going through the story, we shoukd be using the system nearly unconsciously to better communicate and understand what is going on.
You're a great GM if your players enjoy it. You're a better GM if all of you enjoy it. If you can work out what your people want, and blend it with what you want so you end up leaving the session all having had a blast, then you win.
Would you apply this to any other artist?
I mean sure, as long as people like your art, awesome. But yet, there is so much more going on, and artists do indeed look at each other as being better or worse in various ways and not just successful vs unsuccessful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying system doesn't matter, rather system is like choosing between crayons, colored pencils, watercolor, or oil paint.
No matter which you choose, it isn't the medium that makes a picture good or bad, it is the artist.
When it comes to rpg, the gm is the artist. Sometimes one system or another might be better, but regardless, the gm is more important to the result, just like the artist makes or breaks a picture and not the crayons vs paints.
The GM is the artist?
So the rest of the group is the audience, hazarding a guess?
And therefore the fun had by the participants depends entirely on the GM, not on the players too, right?
Also, the players aren't making art, they're just passively responding to the GM-delivered inputs?
And if a GM has fun because a player role-played well? Hypotherical scenario. What then? How do you see such an event?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I dm in reaction to my players DM's that railroad you into a story can be fun at times but I find that the interaction makes for a much more enjoyable game for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, if you took part in a swordmaking contest, and you took last place, if your check result was a 33 for making that sword, you still made a really nice masterwork sword that could be sold fof a ni e profit despite losing the contest. Yet if you won the contest with a 13, then your sword still sucks and might not sell at all.PF2 can handle this situation fine from what we've seen. Even if they're rolling against the same or a similar DC, the trained, expert, master, and legendary smiths are rolling for their respective baselines provided the actual check given is "make a sword as you otherwise would". A legendary smith churns out a legendary sword with the same ease of a trained smith turning out a crummy but acceptable sword. A crit success means that you've made something exceptional for your category.
Yet, the needed inclusion of "for your category" is still just more evidence of being subjective instead of objective.
If it is objective, I can compare results between the master and the legend. I can't do that with subjective results because the results don't scale between the two.
...A master longsword will *always* be better than an expert longsword.
To me, you should be going through a story, not a game world, and that means your enemies should be story appropriate, not game balanced. Players should find tactics and strategies based on the story not game mechanics.
If you travel through kobald territory, kobalds should be fighting you, regardless of your level.
Yes, kobolds should be fighting you if that's what they do and they're still there.
But if every single fight is easy enough, then pragmatically speaking most of them are going to play out the same way. I don't see the advantage of yet another goblin ambush over informing high-level players that they are travelling through goblin lands and confirming that they intend to fight off, kill, or knock out any goblin ambushers that would try. This does nothing to break
You think if someone can't create 15 kobold or goblin encounters making them all different they need practice? Huh. A bit condescending perhaps? Just spitballing here.
They're kobolds by the way, not kobalds. Sorry, I apologize, can I ask if you're on a mobile or if you perhaps have a writing condition? Absolutely meaning no offense.
Uhm, also, I can assure you D&D 5e is much more than "a combat game". It's much more roleplaying-intensive than what most PF1 rules deign themselves to simulate, considering a lot of feats and class features are all about beating enemies into submission.
That said I can see how an inexperienced GM would mistake it for a "combat game".
Grammer? Shoukd? Are you sure you know English all that well?...
And again with the GM as an artist. A bit of a hipster "artist" in some cases. This is getting intellectually stifling, and at the same time intriguing and on some levels fascinating, like a horrible car crash.
Yeah I dm in reaction to my players DM's that railroad you into a story can be fun at times but I find that the interaction makes for a much more enjoyable game for everyone.
It appears there's a precious, disregarded by the bourgeoisie, vocal minority of 1, that might think otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet, the needed inclusion of "for your category" is still just more evidence of being subjective instead of objective.If it is objective, I can compare results between the master and the legend. I can't do that with subjective results because the results don't scale between the two.
In game terms the master and the legend have different + bonuses on their attack rolls and can be enchanted to different degrees. This has been explicitly covered. The legend sword is flat out better than the master sword.
If you can't produce 15 sufficiently different encounters for goblins (kobalds woukd be tok easy), thdn you need some serious practice.
But that wasn't my point anyway. My point was the issue of looking at mechanics, of looking at story.
I think past a point with some in setting logic, a lot of goblin encounters in certain areas will play out the same. In those cases there is no advantage to playing them out and you should glaze over them IMO. If they are planning traps or whatever experienced PCs are going to be aware of it most of the time in advance and so you can summarise it in a few lines of dialogue.
Sorry, I can't quite understand what you're trying to say there so I'm not going to respond to that second point.
I was talking about being a combat game. I was not meaning physical objects.
OK, fair enough. I've usually heard "combat minis" to complain about more specific games like 4e that people perceive to restrict options to what can be done on a battlemap. 5e isn't too bad for this IMO, just a bit more rules sparse and flavour tied to FR than I'd like.
It is part of how you look at it.
To me, though I know I'm a minority group here, the rules are like a language. We here are not concerned about the fact that we are having a discussion in english (aside from being able to understand each other). We know it so well that the english itself fades into the background and the actual topic of discussion is what we are focused on and thknking about, while the word choice, grammer, etc, are handled almost subconsciously both in writing and reading.
To me, the rules shoukd be like that. Going through the story, we shoukd be using the system nearly unconsciously to better communicate and understand what is going on.
This is fair enough and your opinion, you can enjoy whatever sorts of games you like. I do however still take issue with your earlier comment of "shun all the gamist nonsense" as, whether you intended it or not, it comes across as denigrating to anyone who actually enjoys the game elements. I'm not all about combat for instance (best moments when running have been when my players have circumvented combat or used a bunch of lore and setting logic I gave them to pull off ridiculous things) but plenty of my players enjoy it and so I owe it to them to give them some of the stuff they enjoy.
Would you apply this to any other artist?
I mean sure, as long as people like your art, awesome. But yet, there is so much more going on, and artists do indeed look at each other as being better or worse in various ways and not just successful vs unsuccessful.
Sure, on a personal level you want skill. Hell, I even like gloating. But in most cases your only audience as a DM are your players, and if your players enjoy it enough they tell their friends. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fair to strive for "objective DMing skill" if you have a big audience, like if you stream. But if you only run games for your friends your first priority is that they have a good time. Basically the difference between DMing and most other artforms is that you're explicitly performing for the pleasure of a small select group of people.
For feat based multiclassing, I see three options on how to handle feats with class abilities required to use them. One is to make those feats useless, only allowing the player to pick those feats that don't require an ability.Honestly not seeing a ton of reason multiclasssing can't work like it does now. Maybe it could get wonky with which class you get class feats for at a given level? But even that seems like it should be solvable. VMC is possible, perhaps even probable, but not the only option.
I will say that if you spend feats to multiclasss, you almost certainly do it for class features before feats. The class feats which aren't shared between multiple classes already almost all seem to revolve around altering a specific class feature. Getting feats without features is therefore pointless. You might get both, but you might also only get the features and none of the feats so you can't overtake the single classes character.
I find this very unlikely. Not only is it inelegant design (you can pick from X class feats but not from Y or Z categories) but it doesn't actually open up much for options. The feature independent feats are already shared between many classes. A fighter has no reason to dip barbarian if it only lets him get stuff like Sudden Charge and Whirlwind Attack that he could already get.
The second is to give the player the option to gain class abilities as either one of their classes. A fourth level fighter with rogue multiclass could take his fifth level fighter ability or his first level rogue ability.
This is indeed possible, but would basically be the equivalent of PF1 multiclassing as we know it. I don't see what really prevents this from working at the moment.
I fully expect to see a dedication feat that gives you some central ability from a class, a signature skill, and some weapon or armor proficiencies as well as access to feats that require the class you've dedicated to. It's the simplest way to do it, and the one that leans most heavily on the design principles we've seen so far.
It is possible, though again, I think it has to grant access to class features before class feats can even enter the equation. There's also a question of how spell casting works within this framework, because you almost certainly aren't taking levels in wizard if you don't get to cast spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is everything. The GM makes or breaks the game. The GM makes things interesting or dull. The GM sets the tone and theme. The GM does all these, not the dice, not the mechanics.
I'm not saying system doesn't matter, rather system is like choosing between crayons, colored pencils, watercolor, or oil paint.
No matter which you choose, it isn't the medium that makes a picture good or bad, it is the artist.
When it comes to rpg, the gm is the artist. Sometimes one system or another might be better, but regardless, the gm is more important to the result, just like the artist makes or breaks a picture and not the crayons vs paints.
Art, be it performance, visual or otherwise, is entirely subjective to the audience/viewers.
TTRPGs, in the context of 2-dimensional visual art - watercolors, crayons, oil-based paint or pencil-and/or-ink to use your examples - are collaborative art projects that are improvised and ongoing from a starting point until the project (the story/campaign) is completed. They are a combination of canvas (setting), medium (game system) and the collaborative artists themselves (GM and players).
Picasso is widely considered one of the best artists to have ever existed.
Picasso's art elicits no emotional response from me other than mild revulsion and for the most part doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Eyes pointed every which way, deformed heads and bodies and monochromatic color palettes are not something I find appealing. For me Picasso's art is barely a notch above the kind of art one sees out of elementary school art class.
Give me one of the Renaissance-era artists any day of the week over Picasso.
Show me a Picasso campaign/GM, I'll take a pass instantaneously.
For feat based multiclassing, I see three options on how to handle feats with class abilities required to use them. One is to make those feats useless, only allowing the player to pick those feats that don't require an ability.Honestly not seeing a ton of reason multiclasssing can't work like it does now. Maybe it could get wonky with which class you get class feats for at a given level? But even that seems like it should be solvable. VMC is possible, perhaps even probable, but not the only option.
I will say that if you spend feats to multiclasss, you almost certainly do it for class features before feats. The class feats which aren't shared between multiple classes already almost all seem to revolve around altering a specific class feature. Getting feats without features is therefore pointless. You might get both, but you might also only get the features and none of the feats so you can't overtake the single classes character.
I find this very unlikely. Not only is it inelegant design (you can pick from X class feats but not from Y or Z categories) but it doesn't actually open up much for options. The feature independent feats are already shared between many classes. A fighter has no reason to dip barbarian if it only lets him get stuff like Sudden Charge and Whirlwind Attack that he could already get.
There wouldn't be a need for manual restrictions on feats, the player would just have options that did nothing for them. If variant multiclassing is the model, then multi-classing fighter isn't going to be worthwhile for anyone. Even if improved, I wouldn't expect multiclassing to be worthwhile for all class combinations.
Casting is the bigger problem though. From what we've seen, I would expect a player to only have spell access if their primary class is a spell caster, and that you wouldn't be able to gain spell casting through multi-classing. However, it's also possible that caster level advancement is present on all classes, but inaccessible without access to spells either through a class ability or proficiency in a spell list. For instance, taking the multiclass feat for sorcerer could give you access to their bonus bloodline spells, or a rogue could take the rogue spell casting rogue talents and get a spell list of one.
I'm not sure which version is better. I'm leaning a little more toward casting being locked to primary casters, but leaving caster progression as an available resource for all players is probably the cleaner solution, but harder to balance. We'll know this isn't the case as soon as we see a caster that isn't a full caster, but we only have bard left at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't see them denying spellcasting if you multi-class. What would be the point in multi-classing into a cleric, druid, bard, sorcerer or wizard if you can't get spells? It's the main class feature, not to mention the source of too many tropes.
No, looking closely at the sorcerer thread I am more convinced than ever that multiclassing will go the traditional route with this. spellcasters don't even get expert at spellcasting until they are 12th level - and that's if they are pure. That means that multiclassed chracters are only ever likely to be 1 proficiency level behind, and more likely will be the same proficiency most of the time.
This means dcs will be the same or slightly less for most of the time; the only thing separating pure from multiclass is what level they can cast spells up to. a 5th level x/5th level sorcerer will have 3rd level spells; a 10th level sorcerer will have 5th level spells. Proficiency level will be the same, so dcs (all else being the same) will also be the same.
I'm not saying system doesn't matter, rather system is like choosing between crayons, colored pencils, watercolor, or oil paint.
No matter which you choose, it isn't the medium that makes a picture good or bad, it is the artist.
When it comes to rpg, the gm is the artist. Sometimes one system or another might be better, but regardless, the gm is more important to the result, just like the artist makes or breaks a picture and not the crayons vs paints.
The GM is the artist?
Yep.
So the rest of the group is the audience, hazarding a guess?
Absolutely.
And therefore the fun had by the participants depends entirely on the GM, not on the players too, right?
Yes. Just like reading a choose your own adventure book, but far more flexible and open ended.
And just like such books, the author determines how enjoyable the story is to you. And I don't mean it as they decide to make it more or less enjoyable, but that their style of writing, genre choice, and other like elements of storytelling will be of a style that the reader may or may not like as much as from other authors.
Also, the players aren't making art, they're just passively responding to the GM-delivered inputs?
Yes. Though hardly the only option. There are some players who really should be the gm instead because their entire focus is on making a good story instead of actually playing.
But I would not describe it as passive. After all the act of making a choice is not passive.
And really, the GM is authoring a story, it is the players who provide the inputs. Just like a choose your own adventure book.
And if a GM has fun because a player role-played well? Hypotherical scenario. What then? How do you see such an event?
You see that as somehow contradictory to anything I've said?
The GM, great ones anyway, do it because they like it. Nothing about that denies them enjoying the players making silly voices or bumbling about the narrative realm.
Yeah I dm in reaction to my players DM's that railroad you into a story can be fun at times but I find that the interaction makes for a much more enjoyable game for everyone.
If you're railroading, then just go write a book instead.
No, to me, this is more like a live version of a choose your own adventure book. Choose your own adventure books still have authors who write their vision, but yet, the appeal of such books is that the audience gets to interact with the story and make choices that affect the outcome.
The entire point for playing an rpg is to do the same thing, but with far greater freedom in making those choices.
And that means writing the story in reaction to the player's choices.
Being a reaction to the players does not make it any less true of the GM being an author of a story for the audience of the players.
I do hope that the Mystic Theruge will be available and improved.