Search Posts
typically (in our games) the rogue acts more as a distraction/nuisance or ends up delivering the final blow (usually as a surprise strike from a flanking/behind position). I do like your idea for remaining movement and sneak attack. It fits the "hit and run" rogue concept very well.
A Rogue that doesn't go toe to toe is generally a Rogue doing little damage, no sneak attack damage, and odds are, not doing anything useful at all. They're supposed to hang back, and wait for an opening (or something) because they're sneaky (or whatever). Is that what roleplaying is?It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."If you say so, but you're the one talking about how multi-classing is terribly broken and how all your players loved demihuman class cheese. if you think charging in "guns blazing" (as it were) is the only way a rogue can contribute to combat; then you and I have very different views of how a rogue can be a contributing member of the party.
It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."If you say so, but you're the one talking about how multi-classing is terribly broken and how all your players loved demihuman class cheese. and by taking away their ability to game the system the had to stop relying on the brute force approach and start thinking of how to actually cope with a weakness. A favorite example for me is the common "rogues cannot survive combat with out levels of xxxx".
we have found the opposite to be true... It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."
Dual-classing is nothing like multiclassing. I was unaware that my personal house rules were up for a vote. The op simply asked what house rules we have implemented that have made the game better for us.
The only real problem I see with banning multi-classing is that it increases the martial / caster disparity as this ban will really only hurt martial builds. Full casters will almost never multiclass anyway because they don't want to lose out on spellcasting levels. we have found the opposite to be true...
nope... no prestige classess. Most of the more interesting ones have been converted into full classes or archetypes anyway. If a player "must" play a prestige I will try to work with them to homebrew up either a full class or an archetype based around said Prestige.I have had a lot of "diehard" multiclassers give my games a try. Most end up staying with the game. But I have had a few who just say "f*** this" and walk away. It is not for everyone. Playing in a game where you are locked into a single class requires a different mind set. You do not have the advantage of going "my xxxx has a weak zzzz, I can just dip 3 levels of yyyy to compensate." Instead you have to find other ways of working with or around that weakness.
Maybe not, but at most you've had problems with humans multi-classing for 15 years. "Demihuman" multi-classing was hardly munchkin stuff. when the only thing players run is demi-human multi-classes it is a problem. And if you think demihuman multiclassing wasn't munchkin then you were lucky.
Multi-classing is not a recent development in the hobby. (there were rules for it in 1e. And it was a bad idea back then).Racial level limits were a really silly idea, but humans weren't affected by either rule. now humans can multi-class, still doesn't make it a good idea.
I am used to it. Multi-classing is a "hot button" and a deal breaker when it gets banned from the table for most folks.An advantage of having been in the hobby for so long (and most of it as a GM) is the development of a thick hide. (compared to the insults I get for "daring" to run Rifts relatively House Rule free, these were practically non-existent).
Then you don't have 40 years of experience with multiclassing I guess. no... but I do have 40 years of experience in the hobby.my apologies if that distinction was not clear.
Dual-classing is nothing like multiclassing. and Multi-classing came about not long after dual-classing. It was an option in 2e; 3.x just made it easier to pull off (still doesn't make it a good idea).
You must have a time machine, since you were playing this game system 25 years before its original release. Of course I can take you seriously after a preposterous claim like that. you do realize this system is an evolution of 3.x which in turn is an evolution of multiple iterations of D&D? Multi-classing is not a recent development in the hobby. (there were rules for it in 1e. And it was a bad idea back then).
My Mileage Does Vary. which is why I did say in my experience. Every argument for a multi-class concept that has ever been presented to me inevitably boils down to "I want x powers in addition to y powers and I want to avoid z built in downsides while doing it."
The Reason for my flat ban on multi-classing:
The Reason for a ban on 3p:
The Reason for the ban on Unchained:
The Reason for the Crafting Ban:
simple rules that made my games easier/better? PC crafting is banned (commission it or quest for it.)
How do I deal with the "disparity"? 1: utilize all 3 exp tracks (non-casters on the fast track, full casters on the slow track, everyone else on the middle track). Side note: I am toying around with creating a 5 track system for further refinement of this idea. 2: class skills no longer require a minimum of 1 skill point to gain the +3 bonus. 3: all classes get a minimum of 4 plus int bonus for skill points. (Minimum 4 per level). 4: For fighters ONLY each feat tree is condensed into its own "evolving" feat. (The fighter gets the next stage of the feat automatically when he/she qualifies for it or 4 levels after the last evolution, whichever is longer.
I just use the rule of "commission it or use what you find"
This is all really good stuff, Fergie, and exactly what this thread is about. Thanks! ah so it is things of that nature you seek... 5 Simple Rules to keep in mind as a player or gm. #1: What is good for one is good for all.
#2: Actions have consequences.
#3: Events do not stagnate.
#4: The GM is god (to a point).
#5: Have Fun.
The 4 phrases of a Good GM
1: ok.
2: Ok, But...
3: No, But how about?
4: NO!
Use of option 4 should be rare. But when used DO NOT ever try to defend your use of it with anything more than "Because I do not want that in my game world." (anything else just gives the "problem player" an excuse to try to argue why they are "right.") If done properly your players should end up nervous when you use option 1 because it means you have seen how their "special" can create complications for them during play.
Be respectful of others. (this should not need to be further defined or detailed).Again, I disagree. Remember, not everyone who gets into RPGs is a 40-year-old adult who already made all their stupid teenage mistakes decades ago. Some of these kids are going to get into Pathfinder with childhood buddies or college friends and have bad experiences because they think hiding... The problem I have with this idea is I know many teens who are just getting into the hobby. They know the difference between trollish and respectful behavior. There is a saying at my FLGS...
Asking for tips on how to balance combat and non-combat scenes in an adventure or campaign, Asking how to deal with disruptive trollish players, Asking how to pad out an adventure polt, and asking how to "fix" a plot "derail" is fine (that is what the advice forum is for imo). But trying to define in fine detail on a point for point basis what is and is not acceptable behavior at the table? That is an impossible task. As Amanuensis shows that will vary from table to table (no offense btw but I would leave a game where Scry and Fry were allowed as I find it to be unfun even with the "protections/counters" in place). Hence why the simple rule of "be respectful of the others at the table" is so much better a guide line to use. If need be add in a second rule of "be aware of what the group considers fun."
Maybe it's unnecessary for you, but this isn't the case for everyone. What do you have to lose from them doing what may be necessary for them? If the answer is "nothing," then why are you even bothering with this thread? The belief that further detail is "required" for some individuals is... Disturbing but does not surprise me any longer.A few more from off the top of my head then... Gnome is not a valid improvised weapon.
Dont Scry and fry Dont bring a Hack & Slash to a Political game.Dont bring an "optimized" char to a casual group. Dont bring a "there's an app for that" mage to the table. Dont bring a char that can solo the campaign. etc, etc, etc, ad nausea... the list is never ending. Be respectful of others. (this should not need to be further defined or detailed).
At the time I didn't understand that being more powerful was an issue. It's only in hindsight [and after a few conversations with the Co GMs] that I understood that my character was the reason they kept cranking the encounter levels up and auto-hitting the rest of the party.Did you dial back once you noticed the power divide? Or change to a new character? ok... My point is no matter what "rules" we put forth here in this thread they are all going to boil down to "be respectful of the others at the table."If you try to codify it into individual dos and don'ts in order for it to comprehensive it will total well into the thousands (possibly the millions). And in addition will create loopholes for the troll at the table to dance through.
Did you dial back once you noticed the power divide? Or change to a new character?
I disagree. The goal of the game is for everyone to have fun.If you are having fun at the expense of the rest of the table you are being a D***. Case in point:
Or to put it another way...
There is no secret set of complex rules.
1: Don't be a D***.
up the CR by 3. If they still insist it is to easy then up the CR by another 3.Continue this trend until they stop complaining it is to easy.
I use the Palladium Fantasy setting with a heavy dose of home brew modification.
I like the idea of just eliminating the Arcane/Divine spells division altogether.
Why not just eliminate the Arcane/Divine spells division altogether?
I was actually wondering recently whether something like this would be effective (remembering, of course, the AD&D progressions), so it's good to see it's been successfully used. It works And quite well. I am still debating on the exact track for various classes however.Certain Archetypes could raise or lower the track for a class. (the Skirmisher Ranger for example should be a fast track not medium).
I'm not, so I wasn't sufficiently familiar with older versions of D&D (or were you referencing other RPGs in a broad sense? I realize in retrospect I said 'hobby' when I was actually referencing 'd&d and its direct progeny')It is older than that.In both cases, casters start with a fairly limited list of spells from which they may choose, which increases regularly throughout their careers. This makes much more sense to me than the "run wild in the candy store" mentality Paizo endorsed in its rules.Thought I'd point out this mentality isn't something Paizo came up with, it's the very same philosophy brought into the hobby during 3.0 In D&D there was the silly percent chance to learn a spell... but only in D&D. Every other system to come into existence after tossed that concept first. (a concept that was almost universally house ruled out of existence in every home game). Many of us were surprised that it took until 3.0 before that rule was tossed completely by D&D. In fact if you look at the untold number of house rules used with 2e and combined them into a system you would get 3.x. It is why many greybeards like myself find the claims of its "innovativeness" so absurd.
In both cases, casters start with a fairly limited list of spells from which they may choose, which increases regularly throughout their careers. This makes much more sense to me than the "run wild in the candy store" mentality Paizo endorsed in its rules.Thought I'd point out this mentality isn't something Paizo came up with, it's the very same philosophy brought into the hobby during 3.0 It is older than that.
This makes much more sense to me than the "run wild in the candy store" mentality Paizo endorsed in its rules. and every RPG ever written uses this same formula "here is the list of spells/powers/skills/feats/etc... PCx may select y number from this list at level z" But they also all (including Pathfinder) at the very beginning of the core rules state a variation of RULE ZERO. To claim an industry standard is ridiculous places you in a rather precarious position in discussions/debates.
This is magic, not mathematics. Gotta disagree with you on this point. Magic is as much Science as it is Art.(gods... I cannot believe I am on this end of that argument...)
This makes much more sense to me than the "run wild in the candy store" mentality Paizo endorsed in its rules. This is the part that is bothering me the most... They are not advocating this in any semblance.What they have done is provide a basic frame of reference that everyone can be familiar with. The GM is then free to build on that frame as he see fits. it is just good business sense... make the Basics as broad as possible and allow for modification at the End-users point. (It is easier to take away than to add to).
And I see your idea as unreasonable unless you are in a campaign world where magic is rare. Your wizard will know which spells exist in the game. Much of this conversation is centering on the Wizard... I am curious however on how you cope with the Sorcerer? They just "know" their spells No learning/memorization involved.What about divine caster? again no learning involved there.
I just use the caveat of "all spells/powers/skills/feats/etc... are subject to GM approval" that seems to keep the peace far better than anything else. Its a meta-game issue more than anything I think... Some GMs do not like (or out-right hate) preplanned 20 level builds.I admit I am not a fan of them... But I do understand some players get a form of enjoyment from it. The only concession I require from those players is that they do not bring a build guide to the table. They can look over them to hearts content any other time but by the time they get to the table they should have a general idea of the direction they wish to take said character. (And yes I did have a Player "snit-fit quit" because of the request).
Wasn't this thread about balance or something? These multi-topic necro threads always confuse me. Depends on what you mean by balance I would think. Personally I think ditching the learning limit on spells (can't have this spell until you are this character level) would help the system not detract from it (but I am in the minority there).
it still is about balance... trouble is you cannot have a discussion about balance without addressing player preferences. And you cannot have that conversation without "entitlement" rearing its ugly head.
That objection will always exist. Regardless of weather it is enforced via RAW or GM caveat.
I just use the caveat of "all spells/powers/skills/feats/etc... are subject to GM approval" that seems to keep the peace far better than anything else.
OK. He seemed to allow every book under the sun, so it does not surprise me. Playing as a Thykreen cleric was fun though. I never really did learn the rules too well though.your Gm ignored it.I still don't see any good reason that acquisition of new spells should be automatic. I miss the days of mages having to roll to learn each new spell they got; it helped rein in their power somewhat. I wish the rule hadn't been discarded in later editions... no one really learned the rules very well to 2e... It was one of the big stumbling blocks to entry into the hobby (the massive number of rules that is).
Does the spellcraft check in your game have a specific formula to find the DC or is it random?I am talking about he spells they gain from leveling up, extra spell are a diferent thing. How do you do it in your games? Current formula is: DC is equal to 15 + spell level + any circumstantial modifiers (Language/racial variations etc...)And if learning from a scroll the DC goes up by +10 automatically. The reason for the scrolls DC bump is due to how I run scrolls: Anyone who can read a scroll can cast from the scroll.
I still don't see any good reason that acquisition of new spells should be automatic. I miss the days of mages having to roll to learn each new spell they got; it helped rein in their power somewhat. I wish the rule hadn't been discarded in later editions... your Gm ignored it.
I am talking about [t]he spells they gain from leveling up, extra spell[s] are a di[f]ferent thing. How do you do it in your games? I assume the wizard has been doing research during his off/down time on those two spells and at level up has finally doped out how those spells work.
I am talking about he spells they gain from leveling up, extra spell are a diferent thing. How do you do it in your games? I do not know how anyone else handles it... I make it require a spellcraft check to covert the spell into a form the PC understands and can repeatedly duplicate.But I imagine I run magic different from most folks though...
I run it like so... Levels 0 - 2 Common
This is just a benchmark however individual spells may be higher or lower in availability based on relative power, local custom, etc... I do not allow 3rd party or old 3.5 in my games.
|
