Blackborn's page

I think this was inspired by the Tzitzime, the Star Demons, who were winged women with skull-like faces and massive fanged jaws who descended to Earth during eclipses to devour humans.

I hope that one day we get to see a monster version of Tezcatlipoca as the Haunter of Graveyards, in which form he was a giant, headless skeleton, his viscera dripping blood and gore, and with his ribs hanging open to reveal his rotted but still-beating heart. The only way to defeat him was to walk up to him fearlessly and snatch the heart from his chest. Oh, and try not to get killed in the process.

Sounds somewhat similar to a mohrg. The heart thing is definitely way cooler, thematically.

Excited for B3, but I am hoping there will be a diversity of CR. Is it pretty varied, or are the creatures generally CR 10+ ?

I basically dislike all non-magical combat-centric classes. Outside of combat they fail to overcome most challenges. They force DM's to be accommodating. Most combat-centric classes can't even recognize when an NPC is lying to them. The only thing they can do is fight. Furthermore they are easily duped, eluded, or outright used. I've had a player's fighter single-handedly slay his entire party after a simple Dominate Person, after which the wizard in control simply had the fighter walk off a cliff. It's even easier with illusions. I've had an entire Good party slaughter innocents while failing to recognize a simple illusion. Suffice to say, they were afterwards arrested, and executed. Campaign over.

Obviously it was the DM who allowed the characters in the first place. But should the DM have his story-telling limited because of this? No. The less combat-centric a campaign, the more freedom a DM has. Unfortunately, most players like to play combat-centric characters, and this leaves DM's in a difficult spot, unless they just like dungeon after dungeon with no world interaction or non-combat encounters.

*I should note that in both above examples not all the characters in party were combat-centric.

Actually it does mean those things, going by the Paizo definition. If you're scheming or manipulating, you're LE or NE. I'll quote again:

He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable.

Regardless of whether the CE in question is out for personal gain or committed to the spread of evil, she is vicious, violent, and unpredictable. CE is not subtle.

Thankfully, his plans are haphazard,

Even if CE tries to be scheming, he's not very good at it.

Where is the Alignment thread?

Blackborn wrote:

CE cannot scheme. CE cannot masquerade as other alignments. Those fall under the umbrellas as LE and NE. As such, CE will quickly be recognized as such by all but the most oblivious of PCs and NPCs. CE cannot do something opposed to his evil nature, whereas CN can do whatever it wants because it has no nature.

I disagree.

C'mon. This is clearly a PC alignment discussion. Demons are outsiders with supernatural abilities and means beyond all but the most epic of PCs. Technically the standard zombie is "evil" but in reality it has no alignment. It's mindless and has nothing but the most primal of motivations (unless being controlled, of course).

As for you, kryt, fighters can be given flavor, as I said. I respect a player who can roleplay a compelling fighter. Mechanics-wise, though, they are still uninspiring, and the easiest to play. Most DM's campaigns are combat-centric, and fighters have the least problems in combat over the course of a campaign. Obviously they have trouble with certain types of foes, but ultimately it comes easily to them, and doesn't require much strategy or posturing. Personally, I run non-combat-centric campaigns, but whenever I'm not DM'ing I generally find myself annoyed with the fighter, who boasts at his battle prowess but is useless outside of it.

First I'd like to repeat: is there a master alignment thread? I did a brief search but the most recent thread I found was last posted to in 2010.

For the most part, I stick to Paizo's definitions, as I find they are consistent and logical.

A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

CE cannot scheme. CE cannot masquerade as other alignments. Those fall under the umbrellas as LE and NE. As such, CE will quickly be recognized as such by all but the most oblivious of PCs and NPCs. CE cannot do something opposed to his evil nature, whereas CN can do whatever it wants because it has no nature.

LG characters have the least amount of options to pursue, while CE characters have the most.

However, due to the paralysis of choice, it's FAR easier to play LG, unless you want more options.

The LG path is easy to see, most players just don't want to follow it.

CE has more options than CN? That's simply not true.

I agree that in terms of decision-making, LG is easy to play. But in terms of survivability, it is the most difficult, along with CE.

Being Lawful Good doesn't require much agony of decision in a standard D&D world with it's very sharply black and white creatures.

I'm sorry that your DM's have placed you in sharply black and white settings.

I do agree that decision making is relatively easy for LG, CE, and CN; however, for the first two, the stakes are very high. Unless the DM is incredibly accommodating, a LG or CE character will quickly find themselves in trouble, and will have a difficult time surviving in a well-crafted setting.

Is there a master alignment thread? I'd like to continue this conversation there. I also have some questions for others DM's regarding N characters. I did a brief search but the most recent thread I found was last posted to in 2010.

Most players use an evil character as an excuse to do evil things. Obviously this is not a problem with the alignment itself. Still, evil alignments are easier than LG to play because an evil character can masquerade as good to achieve their ends and suffer no consequences, whereas an LG character cannot commit one evil act without consequences, much less masquerade as another alignment.

As for my least favorite class, it is Fighter by far. It is the least imaginative, least flavorful, and easiest class to play. Obviously a character can be made flavorful by a player, but at its core it lacks any flavor whatsoever.

I have to say I would see televised gaming sessions being a lot more along the lines of televised poker rather than sports.

I was probably joking, mostly.

To stay relevant, I'm disappointed by all the paladin-hate. I think they are one of the more flavorful classes, and when roleplayed correctly are quite a treat to DM. Obviously they cause trouble in the wrong parties, but a DM should never allow a LG character in a morally flexible party.

Also, it's disappointing to see all the disrespect for LG. Anyone can play CN: do whatever you want, no consequences. Don't even get me started on evil characters. LG is the toughest alignment to play (besides N, but N is a joke anyway), because it has the highest stakes and the most limitations. One could argue it's easy to make decisions as LG, and that may be so, but it's no easier than CN (when it comes to making decisions). CN has more options, but there are no personal stakes to any decision, whereas LG has fewer options, but the highest stakes.

I dream of the day when d20 sessions will be broadcast on television like sports. Commentators and everything.

Commentator 1: Looks like he's gonna Power Attack. He's gonna need a lot more than that, though.
<player rolls>
Commentator 2: What is it? I can't tell.
<snap to camera 3, revealing a natural 20>
Commentator 1: CRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

I would like to take this chance to apologize for derailing this thread so severely.

That makes more sense. A god-fearing character who develops (or had all along) a quick temper, or battle-rage, or what have you. I take no issue with that.

They don't exist. How well the character does at a task is determined by a die roll outside of the campaign setting.

That die roll represents the imperfection of performance, situational circumstance(s), and the inherent chaos of reality.

From what I am reading it seems you don't so much have an issue with multiclassing but the issue is a player suddenly deciding to pick up a new class for a reason that has no basis in the game storywise or in his background story.

You're correct. But I'm also arguing that more often than not, multiclassing caters to meta-game players.

My whole point is to consider skills, abilities, and characters as a whole in a non-meta framework. What is your explanation/understanding of skills in the reality of a campaign setting?

I plan my guys from 1 to 20 before I even sit down to play.

This is the antithesis of how I believe the game should be played. But that's neither here nor there.

You're applying in-world logic to a metagame concept (at least in my opinion.) 'Trained' simply means that you have skill points in it. Whether those skill points developed by trial-and-error, by mentorship, or by suddenly breaking a personal plateau is something that will vary from character to character my friend.

Yes, I'm trying to turn a meta concept on its head and think of it terms of the reality of the campaign. As to your third sentence, I have already stated more or less the same.

If I want to play a "character" who loses his temper in battle and I worship a battle based deity maybe a barbarian/cleric is the way to go.

Or you could just play a barbarian who worships a War deity. The only reason to multiclass to cleric is if you want your character to be able to cast divine spells.

The classes just allow you to make a concept into a reality from my PoV.

I agree with this PoV, as long as the concept is logical and believable. In Pathfinder especially, it is of my opinion that such a concept can generally be achieved without multiclassing. If it cannot, it's probably too far-reaching, the endgame character of which is something that no individual with a consistent set of motivations and values would ever become.

I was a huge fan of prestige classes in 3.x, because they allowed players to advance and specialize while simultaneously being logical extensions of core/base classes.

TOZ, I'm not sure what you mean by "invested character resources to be better."

As I see it, "trained" (in regards to skills) means either a character has received some sort of training--whether personal, by trial, or by another--in said skill, or has an intrinsic knack for it.

kryt, I don't really have much to say regarding your character. He seems fleshed out in the roleplaying sense. I'm not sure what you mean by mean by "the 1-20 in a year syndrome."

Regarding your DM's style, how does he/she reunite the players again and again after they are separated for months at a time? Having "extended periods of time between adventures" is generally problematic. Between every few adventures, sure, but I would never give my players break after break. That's personal DM style, I suppose.

It's quite a leap to assert that the average multiclassing player builds up to it during downtime in the campaign. I'm not sure how much "downtime" your groups usually have. Does your DM just say that weeks pass between sessions, where the players are off doing their own thing?

But in the case of multiclassing, they are not existing skills that are improving, they are new skills that manifest spontaneously (generally).

edit: When you begin with a character, the class is an abstraction, but it's tied to the character's backstory. It's the justification for the character's skillset at creation.

wraith's examples were acceptable because the newly acquired skills are actually coming from somewhere, not just appearing out of thin air. There are some cases where I won't even allow my players to level up mid-dungeon or mid-adventure, depending on their class and the circumstances. Multiclassing is an even more extreme phenomenon when you think of it in terms of the reality of the game.

As I said, I have no problem with meta-game thinking in my games.

I know. I'm not saying you're a bad person or a bad player or DM; I just don't agree with meta-game thinking, min/maxing, or anything of the like. I respect hypothetical min/maxers, who build optimized characters on pen and paper, but I don't care to actually play with them because they often lose sight of the roleplaying. I'm not saying you're like this, mind you. The only way a min/maxer can maintain the roleplay is if her character's goal is to become the ultimate individual, which is quite flat.

The entire game requires meta thinking on some level. How is it metagaming to choose two classes you want to play, but not one?

Granted. The character creation is pure meta; there is no way around it. After that point, meta should cease in my opinion. Call me a purist.

If my character grows up and decides he wants to hunt people down, he may join the thieves guild to learn how to pick locks, and find magical traps. Later on he may meet a ranger and train under the ranger to know how to better target certain creatures.

Both of these examples are excellent uses of the multiclass mechanic, both of which I would allow in a campaign.

As I'm sure you have gathered from my posts, I believe multiclassing to often be purely meta-game thinking, and thus in direct conflict to the nature of any d20 system game.

I am trying to actually have a honest discussion about the mechanic of multiclassing and you are offering nothing to it. Furthermore, I have never said I hate multiclassing; I said I hate min/maxing. There is a difference. I have no problem with multiclassing when used appropriately, but most players do not use it for anything more than making their character more powerful on pen and paper.

Because every character is subject to DM approval.

Of course. But most DM's will allow multiclassing when they shouldn't, assuming they are rigorously roleplaying their campaign. Granted, many DM's and playgroups do not rigorously roleplay; I understand this.

I think you're confusing 'tunneling you into combat and not solving problems without it' with no roleplaying. You still play a role of something in 4th. It's the only setting where I ever enjoyed playing a paladin.

It sounds as if you're confusing roleplaying with simply acting as a character with a role (in 4.0: Controller, Defender, Leader, or Striker). I suppose you could consider that a form of roleplaying, but by definition, it is:

role-play

   [rohl-pley]
verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction:

Blackborn, you view your pcs as common every day people, don't you?

Not at all. Nothing I've said has remotely communicated this. I view my PCs as extraordinary individuals. They have more potential/ability in most things than the average person, but still have their limitations.

Basing your entire hatred of multiclassing on the characters you've seen is a stretch as well.

Thanks for being that token guy who disregards everything someone else has posted in an attempt to refute their points.

To reiterate my argument at its core yet again: the mechanic of multiclassing says that any character can acquire any skill set without question. I disagree with that. Is this so hard to understand? The matter of whether they will excel with that skill set is a moot point. Multiclassing makes sense sometimes, and should be allowed by DM's occasionally, if it also fits thematically.

Linguistically, the "role playing" defines and distinguishes the "game" from other games, so it is more essential. A great example of a game without the role playing is 4th edition, despite its claim to still be an RPG. Anyway, I'm off to work.

You keep posting links that mean nothing to me.

You know, I think the problem is, you're trying to reduce the game world to be like the real world, which the game cannot model properly. Thus you see things that don't match, and feel it is 'wrong' when it is only different.

This is a valid point; however, part of the d20 system is to imagine as if the setting is the real world. All worlds are balanced, or at least should be, to be a good setting. It's only logical that I draw correlations to our reality in order to critique a setting.

sidenote: If you're even acknowledging the DM in any regard of character building/development, or gameplay, you're cheapening the roleplay and emphasizing the game aspect. It is a different approach to the RPG; I simply have no taste for it. What makes d20 so timeless is the RP, not the G. Granted, there is no RPG without G, but the RP does and should come first.

So you have no desire to look at people who can do some of everything and do it well. In other words, you have no desire to actually persue the topic with an open mind.

I have acknowledged and reacknowledged the fact that it is possible. But basing your entire faith in multiclassing in 1 man, or 25 men, or 1000 men, is a stretch.

Blackborn wrote:

So, 25 individuals in the history of the world? These are beyond extraordinary individuals, and beyond typical PC's.

No, they're not.

Every military officer holds at least a bachelors degree. As well as maintains exceptional fitness. And is expected to perform leadership duties in a wide variety of tasks. Narrow it down to infantry, rangers, and special forces, and even though fewer examples remain, you still have thousands of people able to perform a wide array of tasks.

And none of them can do what a 6-8th level character can do.

You're forgetting that it's not a direct translation. The comparison is relative to the realms of Golarion and reality. Gerald Ford, in our world, was probably around a level 17 or 18 character. Albert Einstein would probably be epic level. In Golarion (or whatever setting you're using), an 8th level hero is extraordinary, but not there are plenty of them in the world.

Blackborn wrote:

I am contesting the fact that "someone can learn to do a lot of different things." It's simply not true; most people cannot learn to do a lot of different things. It's beyond their capacity.

Most people aren't PCs.

It took me longer than I thought to find this article. It says all that need be said on the subject of 'you can't learn to do a lot of different things'.

So, 25 individuals in the history of the world? These are beyond extraordinary individuals, and beyond typical PC's. I never said multiclassing was impossible as a concept, only that it is generally unlikely. Also, I already addressed this point:

edit: I understand that in d20, you're not playing the ordinary person. Even so, my point holds. Even the above-average cannot pursue anything they want and succeed. Now, if you want to play an epic campaign where everyone is the paragon of their race, then sure, go ahead and multiclass to your heart's content.

The benefits and synergistic combos are just too great not to, IMHO.

I rest my case.

Guess I had more to say. -_-

I have no desire to read that article. I get the point, though. My Jordan analogy was not the best.

I think I have exhausted anything valuable or otherwise I have to say. Apologies for derailing the thread. I am interested to hear others' points of view on multiclassing, both in concept and in practice.

Ghost edited my post before your remark, Shadowcat.

Michael Jordan is certainly a person people tell stories about. And yet he could not transfer his athleticism from basketball to baseball. It's a perfect example of an extraordinary person pursuing something outside their skill set and failing. The multiclassing system does not acknowledge this.

And sure, you could claim that being mediocre is the equivalent of failing, but that's simply not true. Jordan wasn't mediocre at baseball, he was bad, and displayed no ability at all. Carrying the analogy, it would be a fighter who took a level of rogue, only to discover he couldn't Move Silently after all, regardless of his Dexterity.

I am contesting the fact that "someone can learn to do a lot of different things." It's simply not true; most people cannot learn to do a lot of different things. It's beyond their capacity. Most people have a set of intrinsic qualities that lend them to a set of skills. Some things come easily, others come with difficulty or never at all. d20's Multiclass system does not reflect this; there is no failure when multiclassing; every character can automatically, without question, learn anything. The fact that they may or may not be mediocre at it is a moot point.

edit: I understand that in d20, you're not playing the ordinary person. Even so, my point holds. Even the above-average cannot pursue anything they want and succeed. Now, if you want to play an epic campaign where everyone is the paragon of their race, then sure, go ahead and multiclass to your heart's content.

I understand that classes are abstractions. A character doesn't recognize himself as a level 4 fighter. This is not to say that classes don't mean something, though. Class(es) represent the culmination of a character's intrinsic abilities, and development of said abilities. In some cases, new abilities can be learned. I would have no problem with a fighter multiclassing to ranger; it makes sense. But for drastic leaps in skill sets, a DM has to be honest and ask: is this logical? Is it believable that a fighting man would be able to take to the arcane scroll? A real world example would be someone who has trained to be an athlete their entire life. After playing in the NFL for a few years, he decides that he'd like to pursue a Chemistry degree. Now, I'm not stating that athletes are dumb, or that this is an impossibility, only that it is improbable, and would take a significant amount of time. I don't think it's a leap to say playing football and chemistry are as polarized as the classes of fighter and wizard.

And here is our huge sticking point. In my view, a character that needs a party is a pansy, a hyperspecialized under-developed non-character chess piece. If you can't tie your own damned shoes then why are you adventuring to begin with?

This post has left me flabbergasted. I have absolutely nothing to say.

What I meant is, no individual has the potential to be whoever they want. To believe otherwise is ignorance. No one has unlimited untapped potential. To overlook this is to remove the roleplay aspect. It's laughable to pretend that a man can grow up a warrior, then find he has a knack for reciting arcane incantations, and then finally realize he would like to be able to pick pockets and climb walls. I'm not suggesting that Fighter/Wizard/Rogue is a viable or good multiclass character; I'm only making a point.

edit: I'd be interested to see a brief outline of Tsuneh.

I want my players to have "real" characters more than anyone, with concrete desires and goals. And that's why I'm against multiclassing. No one can be anyone, if that makes sense. Real people don't have unlimited potential, which I think is what multiclassing pretends.

And yes, if my players are at least level 8, they will probably encounter bodaks at least once. And yes, more than likely at least one of them drops dead instantly. That said, I've never had a party not survive an encounter with bodak(s). I don't want my characters to die, but there have to be stakes. Most DM's play d20 with no stakes. They never allow their players to get in over their heads, which is bad DM'ing.

sidenote: While independent characters are great, you can't allow too much independence or you'll quickly find yourself alternating between four different storylines, which isn't fun for the players. If a character is so competent that she doesn't need a party to achieve her goals, something has gone wrong, most likely on the DM's part.

My issue with multiclassing comes down to my hatred of min/maxing. Every character should have weaknesses, and multiclassing seeks to remove these weaknesses. A rogue should instantly die to a bodak's death gaze, a fighter should be prone to charms, and a wizard most definitely should not be able to easily dodge that incoming fireball. Weaknesses force players to work together, rather than compete to see who can be the greatest. Multiclassing is the prostituting of classes. There are rare cases where it adds roleplay flavor to a character, or is justified thematically, but it's rare enough that I wouldn't be upset if multiclassing was removed entirely.

Monk is 3/4 BAB Blackborn.

True. I originally had 3 BAB. I will correct my post.

It's even more silly when extended to Fighter2/Ranger1/Monk2, when he gets another monk bonus feat, a BAB, and +1 to all saves.

(I'm only referring to 3.5 at the moment. Multiclassing has been balanced more by Paizo, but for me there is still the roleplay aspect)

In my opinion, multiclassing is a cheap way to fix a character's weaknesses (in a fighter's case, saves). Moreover, there is rarely a significant penalty to doing this. And, as always, the issue of meta-gaming.

Human Fighter 2/Monk 1/Ranger 1 (3.5)

Fort/Ref/Will: 7/5/2
BAB: 3
6 Feats (1st level, human bonus, 2 fighter bonus, monk bonus, level 3 standard)
Favored enemy
(Not to mention a decent class skill list at this point)

He has sacrificed 1 BAB, and netted +3 Fort, +3 Reflex, +1 Will, a favored enemy, and an extensive skill list. Improved Grabble is not useless to a Fighter, nor is Combat Reflexes.

Uh... Blackborn... just to check, if someone DID have a good explanation for why their character is multi-classing (and preferably explains it as a growth of their personal character without 'profession dabbling', which I personally hate xD) would you have been cool with it?

Absolutely. I already said that, in my example of a player multiclassing to fighter. But it has to be believable as well, in terms of the campaign and character in question. A player can develop new skills, but I am not of the camp who agrees said skills/abilities can come about suddenly and spontaneously. In my experience, a player is rarely multiclassing for roleplay reasons.

*rolls eyes* Multiclassing unbalanced. There's a good one. I love the 'roleplay vs rollplay' vibe too. Such utter garbage. Even threw training in there.

What idiocy.

I have played 3.x with those who would multiclass every level. They'd take Fighter 2 for 2 feats, Monk 1 for saves, and Rogue 1 just for class skills. It's nonsense. I wasn't DM so I couldn't say anything. I've never heard a good argument for multiclassing.

Let's look at a level 4 3.5 char with multiclassing:

Human Fighter 2/Monk 1/Ranger 1

Fort/Ref/Will: 7/5/2
BAB: 3
6 Feats (1st level, human bonus, 2 fighter bonus, monk bonus, level 3 standard)
Favored enemy
(Not to mention a decent class skill list at this point)

I for one am glad Pathfinder has made multiclassing less viable and desirable. It was unbalanced to the point of silliness in 3.x. I rarely let my players multiclass; it is one of the least thematic mechanics in the game. So in the middle of a campaign a rogue decides he wants to "delve into the arcane arts" and can suddenly cast spells? Or a fighter, who has known nothing but gripping a sword her entire life, now decides she's going to become a disciplined monk and trade her sword for fists? Nine times out of ten multiclassing makes no sense. DM's should rarely allow it, but then again most DM's are not strict about the roleplay aspect. If a player of mine wanted to multiclass, I would generally design an adventure around it (such as a rogue player discovering he has a bloodline), the end of which resulted in the player being able to multiclass (to sorceror, for example). More often than not, I simply won't allow multiclassing. It caters to players who want to play 3.x/Pathfinder like a video game, which personally as a DM I will not allow. One of the few multiclassing options that makes sense is taking some fighter. It's believable that any class would decide that she wants to be able to handle a weapon better, and it's something that could be achieved by training in a relatively short amount of time. Even so, I won't allow a player in the middle of a dungeon to multiclass into fighter. She will have to suspend her level up, and then seek out training once outside the dungeon. Only then can she multiclass to fighter.

The archetypes system is much more consistent and believable then the multiclass system, and I am grateful to Pathfinder for making it a core mechanic of the game.