I absolutely feel Roleplaying and Optimizing are, for the most part, separate from each other. You can have one or both going on with a character quite easily.
I am not gonna lie, I definitely optimize characters when I play and when I DM. I expect some of my players to do it. It's a fun part of the game for some people and I totally get that. I just hate Prestige Classes as a vehicle to that end.
...
LOL, That's because no one believes you kryt-ryder.
Sure I'll give you the fact that people with multiple prestige classes can have an interesting story, but that isn't saying much. Anyone with a 5th grade reading lvl and a basic imagination can come up with some hairball background/story that justifies his classes.
In truth. I'm willing to bet 95% of backgrounds are generated AFTER the charater has been created. So basically a power-gamer/character op'er creates his broken guy and then says "Oh yeah. I'll fit all this into his background so my ridiculous fighter-1/thief-3/harrier-2/Eldritch knight-3/assasin-2/shadowrancer-2 makes sense..." Riiigghhhhttt LOLOL.
p.s. I know the class combination does not make sense. It was only used to make a point
I don't get mentality like this. Like ... at all. You can call it cherry picking but thats what feats do as well.
An Example is let's say you were playing 3.5 edition and a fighter. Then someone came along and picked up 2 to 3 different prestige classes to fit their character to give them JUST the right abilities they liked for their character. Of course now he's a munchkin/powergamer/whatever other name you wanna call them.
THEN those 3 prestige class abilities he was after gets rolled into one prestige class, or better yet, one CLASS (like if it looked like the NEW Pathfinder Fighter) and because it's published as one thing, it's now ok.
Some of you people are REALLY hung up with labels. Hell even labels with classes. If someone in my gaming group wants to dip around to make the character they want, then fine. Apparently the core class or one prestige class didn't have what they were looking for.
I myself had to do something I didn't care for. I like my character design of 3.5 edition of an unarmored fighter (The duelist). They destroyed that in Pathfinder by letting them wear light armor and beating elaborate defense into the ground where you HAVE to wear the armor.
Alright, honestly, I don't care WHAT your character concept is, I fail to see how 4 or 5 prestige classes is EVER neccessary.
I'm not saying that multiple prestige classes are bad. Hell, I had a character in first 3.0 then 3.5 Forgotten Realms, a Fighter/Wizard mage slayer character. Since he was essentially an "enforcer" for Mystra (dedicating himself to stopping those that would abuse magic), I took both Divine Champion and Arcane Devotee. I didn't take these for mechanical reasons obviously, as it was honestly a very sub-optimal choice, but damn, was it PERFECT for the concept.
But 4 or 5 prestige classes? That IS powergaming in my mind, whatever you call it. Any character concept, and the mechanics neccessary to create that character, can be had in two prestige classes, maybe in the extremely rare cases, three tops. Sure, you may not get the exact mechanics you're looking for, but you get mechanics that allow you to do just about the same thing, just maybe with a different set of rules.
Considering that, if you're trying to get an exact set of mechanics, then your purpose is to create the "most effective" (read MUNCHKIN) character you can, at least that's the way I see it.
Prestige classes have entry requirements and fluff because they represent specific character archetypes or organizations that you must either learn or become a member of. If you want to be a character of that archetype, or a member of that organization, then take the prestige class, if not, leave it alone.
In my opinion, your type of optimization and roleplaying definitely are mutually exclusive. Am I saying that you can't roleplay a good story with a 4 or 5 prestige class charcter? No. I'm saying that it stretches credulity and detracts from the roleplaying.
That's my question. Why do people jump on optimizers just because they milk the mechanics? Like I said the mechanics are a framework, roleplay the pretty details above, you can be a good smith and craft a really strong sword and still make it pretty with various decorative items.
I'll answer this specifically from my perspective, I don't know about anyone else.
The mechanics we're talking about specifically here are Prestige Classes and Base Classes. I'm usually the DM and if someone in my group spends hours pouring over the feats to find just the right combo for their character, I don't consider that powergaming. However, classes are different. Many people, myself included, see classes (prestige or base) as a roleplaying aspect of the game. It's like saying "What's your career?" "What kind of job does your character have?" Now if the response is to list off 4-5 different classes, that seems like your character isn't well defined with regards to roleplaying because you're not adhering to the spirit of what a class is. It seems like you're character is bouncing around in career.
EDIT: The post above seems similar to my line of thinking.
My point was that we don't need two differently flavored EKs.
OK. But why not have them?
|
I don't have a problem with multiple PrCs, what I have a problem with is that characters built with multiple PrCs tend (when not played from level 1-up so that they have to live with all those levels of such before the synergies pick up) to be much stronger than characters others build for fun. Then it becomes a matter of "well if you want your character to be this strong do this, and this, and this." increasing the power level of the game all around. Killing the ability of any player who just wants to come and sit down at the table and when leveling up take mounted combat for his rogue because in the last few fights he made good use of a horse despite the fact that without multiclassing the horse will be obsolete in a few levels.
That's my only problem with people who cherry pick PrCs they tend to kill casual gaming unless people don't mind that that one character is stronger than the others and the DM just ignores the fact that he can't challange the character without killing the rest of the party.
Granted this isn't always true, but it has been the case 90% of the time in my circles.
|
I'm usually the DM and if someone in my group spends hours pouring over the feats to find just the right combo for their character, I don't consider that powergaming.
However, classes are different. Many people, myself included, see classes (prestige or base) as a roleplaying aspect of the game. It's like saying "What's your career?" "What kind of job does your character have?" Now if the response is to list off 4-5 different classes, that seems like your character isn't well defined with regards to roleplaying because you're not adhering to the spirit of what a class is. It seems like you're character is bouncing around in career.
That's right. Many of the PrC's are organisations, who would want to see some sort of loyalty, in return for training you in their signature abilities, their secret handshake, and access to their hidden lair.
Much of the time, a player just wants to cherry-pick some class feature, and walk off, taking these secrets to another, possibly rival guild. This doesn't seem like a recipe for a long, peaceful life.
That's my question. Why do people jump on optimizers just because they milk the mechanics? Like I said the mechanics are a framework, roleplay the pretty details above, you can be a good smith and craft a really strong sword and still make it pretty with various decorative items.
Well you actually provided the answer to your own question. People don't like optimizers because THEY MILK THE MECHANICS OF THE GAME. (I don't know how to bold letters so please excuse the CAPS). I mean can a optimizer honestly look anyone in the eye and say "I chose these 5 prestige classes for the concept I'm building, not because I want my guy to be uber-powerful" with a straight face? Nope. You said it yourself in your post, you are exploiting/milking the mechanics of the game not trying to fit into the concepts of the prestige classes.
Perhaps the problem is that there is NO restrictions on how many classes or PrC someone can take. No minimum stat requirement either just skill or an ability.
I have a classic example going at the moment of a warmage changing to dragon disciple. He is hung up on claw attacks. I have ruled, I think fairly, that his character will draw AoO if he uses his claws in combat as his character has *never* had any "training" to warrent not getting AoO using a claw attack. He is still a warmage but with claws.
His response was "Okay I'll take a level of Monk and I also get all the monk's abilities"
Now game mechanics wise this is okay and do-able but to me it just sums up what is wrong with multi-classing. I bet he will take some paladin levels too just to get the saving throw bonus and access to martial weapons. That just sucks.
Lets check we're talking the same language...Powergaming = bending the rules to make the most powerful character possible...
I had a an idea for a Forgotten ralms/Waterdeep campaign I was about to play in. The character was going to eventually dance around with a pair of scimitars (and possibly a pair of flame blades when I could afford the req magical device/s) doing lots of moderate attacks. A non-muscle fighter type. To boost the damage I took Swashbuckler lev 3 and Fighter 2 for the feats. I took Dervish for the dance ability and to wield scimitars as light weapons (finnese). I wanted Weapon Specalisation which I could've get from Fighter 4 but given the Swashbuckler ranks I'd started to envision him as a sea type. Pious Templar give Weapon Specalisation in your Gods Weapon and in Forgotten Realms there is a sea/adventurer type god who uses scimitars. This also gave him mettle which I'd always wanted to see how mettle/evasion would work, so presto. For some of the feats I needed I could either take a couple of Ranger levs or a lev of Dread Pirate. The Dread pirate was slightly clunkier but gave me some background...
So you went from just wanting to dance around and fight with two scimitars (which you could have done with Swashbuckler/Fighter/Dervish) to Weapon Specialization through Pious Templar (funny you never mentioned religion in the original character concept) which also gave you Mettle , then for some extra feats and abiltiies (not listed)you took Dread Pirate. In other words after the initial prestige class of Dervish (which effectively completed you original character concept) you continued dipping into prestige classes to make your character more powerful...What side were you arguing for again?
|
|
I had a an idea for a Forgotten ralms/Waterdeep campaign I was about to play in. The character was going to eventually dance around with a pair of scimitars (and possibly a pair of flame blades when I could afford the req magical device/s) doing lots of moderate attacks. A non-muscle fighter type. To boost the damage I took Swashbuckler lev 3 and Fighter 2 for the feats. I took Dervish for the dance ability and to wield scimitars as light weapons (finnese).
and right there you would have been fine.
I wanted Weapon Specalisation which I could've get from Fighter 4 but given the Swashbuckler ranks I'd started to envision him as a sea type. Pious Templar give Weapon Specalisation in your Gods Weapon and in Forgotten Realms there is a sea/adventurer type god who uses scimitars.
Okay, so my question is this, did you have this build planned from level 1, so that from the very beginning you had a religious type character, or did you realize that having Pious Templar was better for the build in game and suddenly the character found religion, or did you not really play up his religious nature and just said that he worships the god, so that you could have pious templar levels without role playing any serious religious devotion i.e. just had the class levels with no particualar emphasis on what being a pious templar represented.
This also gave him mettle which I'd always wanted to see how mettle/evasion would work, so presto
And here you've completely lost me, in what way does wanting a combination of class skills represent roleplaying. That was just wanting to combine class features, no thought to character, If there hadn't been a dread pirate class would you have then taken said ranger levels?
|
|
And here we see the problem with this discussion. I wanted stuff that Dervish didn't give - 2WF amongst others. I needed specalisation so that my character was COMPETENT at the role he was taking.
You already had and could get 2wf from the fighter/swashbuckler levels. And you said yourself you could have gotten Specialization from level 4 fighter. Instead you went sideways and added pious templar levels.
I even would have accepted that you got dread pirate because you saw the character as a sea based type. but you didn't take it for that reason, you took it to get extra feats, granted it fit the flavor you saw developing, but at the same time it seems if dread pirate hadn't been there you would have taken some class or the other to get it, flavor be damned. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting, you'd change the flavor to fit the class combo you're developing, not take classes to fit the flavor of the character.
Also I'm only seeing you talk about 2 base classes and three PrCs. Apparently I'm missing a base class, I'm assuming a dip of rogue for the evasion but you didn't specify, then I have no idea what your 4th PrC is, I'm seeing dervish, pious templar, dread pirate.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually, the 'discovering religion' can be part of a character development.
Another 'in game' reason to gain a prestige class is to encounter someone with it or an organization. To use the dervish for example, if a fighter or ranger encounters a dervish and finds he's a)more mobile b)harder to hit (high dex) and doesn't hit as hard but a lot more often (again due to high dex/finessable scimitars) I can see the player (and the character) wanting to study their ways and learn from them. This is an adventure seed. Now if my player's ranger has been built to, say, fight giants, and I have a big giant adventure, but he wants to stay in the desert for 6 months (and the rest of the party doesn't mind) I'll go on a tangent for those months.
I don't find the prestige classes overpowering. I find that you want to consider whether or not going into them is a worthwhile investment a feature, not a bug.
|
I have the impression that this thread does no longer serve its purpose.
It was intended to point out that the prestige classes where desinged badly and inferior to the mighty core classes.
Now this has become yet another room for flamming the infidels:
----------------
do(
RP: "You are a power gamer!",
PG: "No, I am not a power gamer!",
PG: "Ok, maybe I am, but I am also a Roleplayer tm!"
RP: "No, you cannot multiclass in Roleplayer because you have Lvls of Powergamer"
)while== Thread is dead;
----------------
Is there a slight possibility to go back ranting about poor PrC-design?
I think the internet exaggerates this stuff. There are groups out there that power game but I think most groups a lot more tame. All these PrCs look tastey but if players actually have to earn then they are harder to attain and often disappointing. Most of the prestige classes I've seen have been when players get the opportunity to build their characters fully realized.
I'm sure you're right, but in a counter-example (perhaps to prove the rule) I just got involved with a 12-14th level Living Greyhawk campaign (long story short: I live in Bangkok and gaming groups are hard to find) and created a 'fully realized' F7/C3 dwarf with 2 levels of Battlesmith. I wrote a page and a half of back story before opening Heroforge. I had help with character creation from the DM, and the mechanics of the character turned out fairly solid.
My character, however, is NOTHING compared to the pre-existing PCs, for example a halfling who scampers around on a boar routinely doing 120+ on a charge. Things like multiple ranks in Craft: Ale and choosing feats based on my conception of the character's personality may be counter-intuitive but I wouldn't have it any other way.
I don't dislike PrCs per se, however it seems like 75% of the discussions I read on this and other forums (though here it may have something to do with the PF beta testing, etc.) revolve entirely around number crunching. Far be it from me to tell others how to play, it's just surprising to see how many people take what are essentially arbitrary statistical mechanics so seriously.
Zo
And here we see the problem with this discussion. I wanted stuff that Dervish didn't give - 2WF amongst others. I needed specalisation so that my character was COMPETENT at the role he was taking.You already had and could get 2wf from the fighter/swashbuckler levels. And you said yourself you could have gotten Specialization from level 4 fighter. Instead you went sideways and added pious templar levels.
I even would have accepted that you got dread pirate because you saw the character as a sea based type. but you didn't take it for that reason, you took it to get extra feats, granted it fit the flavor you saw developing, but at the same time it seems if dread pirate hadn't been there you would have taken some class or the other to get it, flavor be damned. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting, you'd change the flavor to fit the class combo you're developing, not take classes to fit the flavor of the character.
Also I'm only seeing you talk about 2 base classes and three PrCs. Apparently I'm missing a base class, I'm assuming a dip of rogue for the evasion but you didn't specify, then I have no idea what your 4th PrC is, I'm seeing dervish, pious templar, dread pirate.
His 4th would be thief Acrobat for Kip-Up.
And Lastknight. I don't see what your problem is. You make it douns like sitting down, before you even roll a 1st level character, and saying "I want my character to be able to do xyz, how can I do that" is wrong. It seems at least, that your saying having any idea of what you want your character to be, and setting goas that will allow him to do that, is wrong. Considering feat, skill, bab, and any other requirements a PrC may require, is it so wrong to try and at least build a framework of how you see your character? There are ALOT of very interesting character concepts that provide lots of roleplaying potential that are difficult to model off of 1 or 2 base classes and 1 PrC. Whats wrong with that? Stephens character sounds like it would be pretty fun to roleplay, and he took things that fit thematically for it, altering the base concept slightly after looking at what was and was not available within the rules, to keep his character competent and useful to the party. Its hardly powergaming (the build he did would be passed up by most power gamers...its very flavorful, but mechanically, not any stronger than many 1 class +1 PrC combos, and in fact has a few levels, that during play, are going to suck some) when your not bending the rules, and aren't a spotlight hog.
I Like I said...I don't see what the problem is....heck, quite a few characters from popular fantasy fiction (DnD and non DnD) are difficult to create using only a couple of three classes.
I have the impression that this thread does no longer serve its purpose.
It was intended to point out that the prestige classes where desinged badly and inferior to the mighty core classes.Now this has become yet another room for flamming the infidels:
----------------
do(RP: "You are a power gamer!",
PG: "No, I am not a power gamer!",
PG: "Ok, maybe I am, but I am also a Roleplayer tm!"
RP: "No, you cannot multiclass in Roleplayer because you have Lvls of Powergamer")while== Thread is dead;
----------------
Is there a slight possibility to go back ranting about poor PrC-design?
PrC design is pretty much a mechanics discussion...so, seems like while there may be the occasional sidetrack by soemone who comes along and says "I see talk of mechanics in comparing one character vs another...POWERGAMERS!!!! DIE!!!!!" (Possibly a slight exaggeration) the threads been on topic.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. With what Pathfinder did, and what seems to e their goal with PrC's, I think of the 10 PrC's in the core book, only one its utter failure. 4 of them do a really nice job of making multi-class arcane casters viable, and the other 5 are varying levels of solid (from plain solid to rock solid) alternatives to the respective classes for end level advancement. do you have a specific gripe about the PrC's in PF, or...just a general "meh" about the fact that none overpower the base classes?
...What would you prefer in combat, a beautiful gold sword that gets bent on a single blow, beautiful but made with a poor mechanical foundation? or a beautiful steel sword, one that focuses on function first and is then decorated with maybe a gem pommel or silver wire or some gold leaf, that will see you through?
The big problem with dipping as I see is really one of poor class design. I think Paizo helped in some ways with the core classes but overall there are still tons of issues. Classes are designed which are balanced over-all but often have one or two abilities at low levels that are better than the rest of the class. The 2 classic examples are assassin and shadow dancer.
If your rogue picks up one level of each of these classes and suddenly you have poison use, death attack, hide in plain site, and your sneak attack bonus hasn't suffered a bit. I'm sure you could quite easily figure out a way to roleplay why a rogue would have explored these particular options and if you have a GM worth his salt he will make you roleplay joining the assassin's guild and killing someone to join it (then hunting you down for leaving the guild...).
There are other similar examples where people take a level or two of a class to pickup one or two key abilities.
The problems I see with it are
#1 it highly favors players who game the system.
#2 it favors people who have a larger pool of books to work from
As I said in a post higher up I am usually Ok if a player wants to work his way through stuff in character this way because there are a lot of roleplay issues and it can be fun to deal with. I won't let players come to my table with a character like this. Of course I tend to start my games at 1-4th level anyways so most of those issues never come up.
Dragon Disciple is a martial arcanist. Sort of a sorcerer flavored version of Eldritch Knight.My point was that we don't need two differently flavored EKs.
A 'niche' is a very tiny place. "Martial Arcanist" is a very big concept.
Eldritch Knight and Dragon Disciple are quite a bit different from each other, they get their benefits in different ways, they get completely different powers and benefits. They are more different even than for example the rogue and the assassin.
One capstone power does not justify the whole prestige class. YMMV, but really, that would be just poor game design.
I think a big part of the problem here is that folks don't value Kill People Forever as a class skill. That's because this whole mindset of "What does this class bring to my PC and my party". Well hate to break it to you folks but it's a pretty damned cool ability for a guy who goes out and kills people for a living... AKA an assassin. It's not such a stellar ability for someone who goes out adventuring but if you happen to actually be paid to kill people, quite nice.
So if you have an assassin who actually assassinates people, it's a good class. If you are interested in picking up the class for adventuring, not so cool. Maybe this makes it more an NPC prestige class? Perhaps. But personally I think an ability that makes a class more appealing for what it's designed to do (you know assassination) and less appealing otherwise is a solid change.
I'm sure you're right, but in a counter-example (perhaps to prove the rule) I just got involved with a 12-14th level Living Greyhawk campaign (long story short: I live in Bangkok and gaming groups are hard to find) and created a 'fully realized' F7/C3 dwarf with 2 levels of Battlesmith. I wrote a page and a half of back story before opening Heroforge. I had help with character creation from the DM, and the mechanics of the character turned out fairly solid.
I find that any time you have a group that starts at higher levels there is a huge tendency to power game. If the GM is interested in curtailing it he can but otherwise someone in the group is bound to bring something crazy to the table. This is one of the reasons I prefer groups that start at lower levels and work their way up.
...What would you prefer in combat, a beautiful gold sword that gets bent on a single blow, beautiful but made with a poor mechanical foundation? or a beautiful steel sword, one that focuses on function first and is then decorated with maybe a gem pommel or silver wire or some gold leaf, that will see you through?The big problem with dipping as I see is really one of poor class design. I think Paizo helped in some ways with the core classes but overall there are still tons of issues. Classes are designed which are balanced over-all but often have one or two abilities at low levels that are better than the rest of the class. The 2 classic examples are assassin and shadow dancer.
If your rogue picks up one level of each of these classes and suddenly you have poison use, death attack, hide in plain site, and your sneak attack bonus hasn't suffered a bit. I'm sure you could quite easily figure out a way to roleplay why a rogue would have explored these particular options and if you have a GM worth his salt he will make you roleplay joining the assassin's guild and killing someone to join it (then hunting you down for leaving the guild...).
There are other similar examples where people take a level or two of a class to pickup one or two key abilities.
The problems I see with it are
#1 it highly favors players who game the system.
#2 it favors people who have a larger pool of books to work fromAs I said in a post higher up I am usually Ok if a player wants to work his way through stuff in character this way because there are a lot of roleplay issues and it can be fun to deal with. I won't let players come to my table with a character like this. Of course I tend to start my games at 1-4th level anyways so most of those issues never come up.
Dennis has pretty much summed up my feelings on PrC. I guess its a problem of RAW v RAI
I guess the PrC were designed to add flavor to a PC, to make Bob the Fighter a bit different from Bill. I don't imagine it was intended that players would change classes more than they change their pants. But what happened is that players dipped their PCs toes into a PrC to get a cool ability at low level and then swop to another to get the next cool ability. The assassin/shadowdancer/rogue example is a classic example of what is wrong with PrC as they stand. And I make no apologies for this statment: Its smacks of powergaming.I believe that a PC should make some sort of major commitment before taking a PrC and after. Make it part of the PCs backstory that he wants to be a pirate etc. It should be roleplayed out, after all we are playing a roleplaying game aren't we?
I assume it's been said on this thread already, but one of the goals of the PFRPG crew was to make the core classes viable 20th level builds. Lowering the disparity in power between the PrCs and the core classes is a step in that direction.
Zo
It smacks of power-gaming because it is. Let me set the record straight, I don't begrudge someone for trying to make themselves the most awesome character in the game or make him as bad-ass as possible, but let's at least be honest with it.
In truth, I blame the game designers. They should have as RAW that only 1 at max 2 prestige classes can be pursued at the same time. Let the power-gamers house rule all they will, but the cheeze-fest needs to stop.
...What would you prefer in combat, a beautiful gold sword that gets bent on a single blow, beautiful but made with a poor mechanical foundation? or a beautiful steel sword, one that focuses on function first and is then decorated with maybe a gem pommel or silver wire or some gold leaf, that will see you through?The big problem with dipping as I see is really one of poor class design. I think Paizo helped in some ways with the core classes but overall there are still tons of issues. Classes are designed which are balanced over-all but often have one or two abilities at low levels that are better than the rest of the class. The 2 classic examples are assassin and shadow dancer.
If your rogue picks up one level of each of these classes and suddenly you have poison use, death attack, hide in plain site, and your sneak attack bonus hasn't suffered a bit. I'm sure you could quite easily figure out a way to roleplay why a rogue would have explored these particular options and if you have a GM worth his salt he will make you roleplay joining the assassin's guild and killing someone to join it (then hunting you down for leaving the guild...).
There are other similar examples where people take a level or two of a class to pickup one or two key abilities.
The problems I see with it are
#1 it highly favors players who game the system.
#2 it favors people who have a larger pool of books to work fromAs I said in a post higher up I am usually Ok if a player wants to work his way through stuff in character this way because there are a lot of roleplay issues and it can be fun to deal with. I won't let players come to my table with a character like this. Of course I tend to start my games at 1-4th level anyways so most of those issues never come up.
OK, you brought up a class combination of PrC's that I actually looked at...
There is no reason a person can't be a rogue/shadowdancer/assassin. I can see shadowdancer abilities being useful to an assassin, so a character who went rogue 5, and then spent the next 15 levels between assassin and shadowdancer would be ok. Theres nothing that says the two are mutually eclusive, and I could actually see a guild of shadowdancer/assassins being in existence.
As to #1, in part, Paizo curtailed that abit, since most of the PrC's printed now have the abilities you really want either
1) base their power off the level in the PrC (assassin's death attack is a good example here)
or
2) Have the really unique cool ones buried deeper in than a level or two dip (pretty much all of them actually)
and as to #2
Having the books doesn't mean being able to use said books, so I don't see how thats really an issue. I have yet to play with a group in almost 25 years of playing DnD where the DM didn't limit book usage. Whether it was by game setting, books he or she personally found abusive, or whatever criteria they used, they have all restricted them. And In the groups I've played in, we tend to share books, so we all have access (maybe not equal, but generally, I'll let a friend borrow a book to read, and they do the same for me) to the same books.
Wow this discussion is missing the point. Stop using level 20 characters to evaluation Prestige Classes! Seriously how often are you going to be playing a level 20 character. Go look at what those classes do in a level 7-12 game.
at around level 10 most PrC's are extremely nice. They simply don't scale well for high level games (well except Mystic Theurge which is best around character level 25 or so).
I've removed some posts. Name-calling is not acceptable.
Like I was saying before I was verbally assaulted.....
MY CRITIQUE, on the issue of Prestige Class design and how certain rules lead to exploitation, is that the best way to limit this would have been to limit Prestige classes to 1 or 2. This would have allowed for an extremely large amount of character options, without as much room for exploitation.
OK, you brought up a class combination of PrC's that I actually looked at...
There is no reason a person can't be a rogue/shadowdancer/assassin. I can see shadowdancer abilities being useful to an assassin, so a character who went rogue 5, and then spent the next 15 levels between assassin and shadowdancer would be ok. Theres nothing that says the two are mutually eclusive, and I could actually see a guild of shadowdancer/assassins being in existence.
I don't think you actually understood my post. Maybe you should go back and re-read it.
As to #1, in part, Paizo curtailed that abit, since most of the PrC's printed now have the abilities you really want either
1) base their power off the level in the PrC (assassin's death attack is a good example here)
or
2) Have the really unique cool ones buried deeper in than a level or two dip (pretty much all of them actually)
To some extent they did. But the example I posted of dipping 2 levels to skim the assassin and shadow dancer 1st level ability demonstrates that this is not 100% solved. The death attack DC scaling is a big help but it's not a complete fix. Because even if the death attack ability was worthless (which it's not) the character still gains HIPS and poison use and doesn't lose any sneak attack levels. Heck in the case of the assassin it's worth a 1 level dip because you can get 1/2 level ahead of your rogue counterparts on sneak attack.
Again note: I only really have issues with someone bringing a premade with this stuff on it to my table. If someone wants to roleplay joining the assassin's guild for a level then quitting it in my campaign then I'm Ok with it.
But 4 or 5 prestige classes? That IS powergaming in my mind, whatever you call it. Any character concept, and the mechanics neccessary to create that character, can be had in two prestige classes, maybe in the extremely rare cases, three tops. Sure, you may not get the exact mechanics you're looking for, but you get mechanics that allow you to do just about the same thing, just maybe with a different set of rules.
Lets check we're talking the same language.
Powergaming = bending the rules to make the most powerful character possible.
If I decide to make a frontline fighter who use only daggers and leather armour (a very sub-optimal concept) and then min/max and cherry pick PrC's to get him to the point that he is functionally competent at frontline fighting it isn't powergaming. It may not be the way uou like to see character designed, but it isn't powergaming.
And yes, it can take more than 2-3 PrC's to do that if your concept is sufficiently bizzarre or sub-optimal.
I had a an idea for a Forgotten ralms/Waterdeep campaign I was about to play in. The character was going to eventually dance around with a pair of scimitars (and possibly a pair of flame blades when I could afford the req magical device/s) doing lots of moderate attacks. A non-muscle fighter type. To boost the damage I took Swashbuckler lev 3 and Fighter 2 for the feats. I took Dervish for the dance ability and to wield scimitars as light weapons (finnese). I wanted Weapon Specalisation which I could've get from Fighter 4 but given the Swashbuckler ranks I'd started to envision him as a sea type. Pious Templar give Weapon Specalisation in your Gods Weapon and in Forgotten Realms there is a sea/adventurer type god who uses scimitars. This also gave him mettle which I'd always wanted to see how mettle/evasion would work, so presto. For some of the feats I needed I could either take a couple of Ranger levs or a lev of Dread Pirate. The Dread pirate was slightly clunkier but gave me some background...
Fighter/Swashbuckler/Dervish with ranks in Acrobatics, Knowledge (religion) and Swim would have fit the character concept just fine.
You didn't NEED Evasion and Mettle. You wanted Evasion and Mettle so you could break the game and essentially ignore two different kinds of effects at least half the time.
Your munchkinizing and trying to come up with an excuse for it.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't play the character you want to play, hell, if you're playing with a bunch of other powergamers and munchkins, by all means, min/max your character to hell and back for all I care.
But honestly, it was players like you that made me quit this hobby for quite a few years. I didn't like playing next to them, and I sure as hell didn't like DMing for them.
Okay, that last part was a little personal. I don't know you, and I've never played with you, and for my assumption there, I apologize.
I honestly think we're totally gonna have to agree to disagree here, and go our seperate ways.
That's my question. Why do people jump on optimizers just because they milk the mechanics? Like I said the mechanics are a framework, roleplay the pretty details above, you can be a good smith and craft a really strong sword and still make it pretty with various decorative items.Well you actually provided the answer to your own question. People don't like optimizers because THEY MILK THE MECHANICS OF THE GAME. (I don't know how to bold letters so please excuse the CAPS). I mean can a optimizer honestly look anyone in the eye and say "I chose these 5 prestige classes for the concept I'm building, not because I want my guy to be uber-powerful" with a straight face? Nope. You said it yourself in your post, you are exploiting/milking the mechanics of the game not trying to fit into the concepts of the prestige classes.If you are ROLL playing, not Role-playing yes the mechanics monkey always wins...but I at least perfer Role-Playing and lets be honest in a Role-Playing campaign, how would the character even know about most of the prestige classes in the first place...unless you've seen one or heard of it through RP where would you start looking for a Eldritch Knight?
You see, it's this kind of attitude that makes me contemplate quitting forums, people pull that 'roll playing vs role playing' crap.
Tell me something, why does he have to hear about these classes? Why can't a fighter/mage begin developing a mixed combat style of his own? Who's to say he couldn't be the first 'Eldritch Knight' ever in the campaign world?
That's what I'm talking about, mechanics are the foundation, the framework under the decorations. If you had to compete in a crash derby, would you rather have a modern alluminum car? Or an older steel one? They've both got a beautiful paint job (read: Story, roleplay), its just one is more functional than the other
See, I always kinda saw the multi-class fixing PrCs to pretty much be exactly that. Yes, there are organizations that use Eldritch Knight as their prestige class, but considering the archetype is just "An effective multi-class warrior/arcane caster" I don't see why a character couldn't develop the abilities on their own.
But see, my arguement here is that your character developing their own style of combining swords and sorcery still fits at least with my concept of the archetype.
Dragon Disciples don't need to find some organization to get in touch with their inner dragon.
But a Red Fist Avenger (I don't even know if this got transferred to 3.5, but it was a pretty cool concept back in 3.0) would definitely require membership and training a the Red Fist monestary.
To me it's a case by case basis whether the character would need to meet in-game requirements to gain a prestige class, depending on the archetype.
Hell, Master Samurai were one of the first Prestige classes to get Greate Cleave, but I wouldn't allow a character to take it just because the Great Cleave mechanic fit their "character concept" unless that character were in fact a Samurai, or some middle ages fantasy equivilent (I can never remember how to spell mideval).
|
|
And Lastknight. I don't see what your problem is. You make it douns like sitting down, before you even roll a 1st level
I don't have a problem, I was merely pointing out what impression I got from what he said. If that's how he wants to do it, and it works in his game, more power to him. However he said the reason he did it was to be Competent in his role. and I garuntee that he could have been competent in his role as just a fighter/swashbuckler/dervish/dread pirate in my games, heck he could have been competent without the dread pirate levels. Which means that the basic assumption in games he plays in are games at a higher power level. Which is also fine, but if he sat down at my table, with some of the guys I game with, I can't help but wonder if his "competent" warrior, wouldn't be a lot stronger than thiers. Now that's not even saying it is, but I have experienced games where players literally had their character sit down and eat an apple while the other players character handled the enemy, without help. That's not what I'm saying this guy did, but that's generally what I've seen happen when someone who works with that kind of planning, sits down with guys who don't.
character, and saying "I want my character to be able to do xyz, how can I do that" is wrong. It seems at least, that your saying having any idea of what you want your character to be, and setting goals that will allow him to do that, is wrong. Considering feat, skill, bab, and any other requirements a PrC may require, is it so wrong to try and at least build a framework of how you see your character? There are ALOT of very interesting character concepts that provide lots of roleplaying potential that are difficult to model off of 1 or 2 base classes and 1 PrC.
that's actually not true at all, since the game at least in 3.5 gave you the tools to create your own classes, and even had a section on how to do it. So you could if you couldn't find a class that does xyz actually build a class that does x/y/z without the added benefits of stacking multiple first level saves, and granting a bunch of miscelaneous abilities since odds are he had to get approval from his DM on the build, couldn't he have easily made a custom class or single PrC to develop it. And once again, if it's his style of play and his groups more power to them, it's really only an issue if he's going to groups that don't follow that style of play.
Whats wrong with that?...
You see, it's this kind of attitude that makes me contemplate quitting forums, people pull that 'roll playing vs role playing' crap.
Please don't.
Most folks on the boards appreciate talking to folks who are capable of talking about things without resorting to flinging around highly charged buzz words.
Tell me something, why does he have to hear about these classes? Why can't a fighter/mage begin developing a mixed combat style of his own? Who's to say he couldn't be the first 'Eldritch Knight' ever in the campaign world?
That's what I'm talking about, mechanics are the foundation, the framework under the decorations. If you had to compete in a crash derby, would you rather have a modern alluminum car? Or an older steel one? They've both got a beautiful paint job (read: Story, roleplay), its just one is more functional than the other
Ultimately there are differing opinions on what exactly prestige classes are for. Fixing multi class rules, yes. Exploring a niche character concept, yes. A class associated with a campaign oriented organization? Yes.
It's sort of all these things, plus it is a smorgasborg of class features for those who want to look at them as that.
My vision of what I think the game should look like is probably disturbingly like the goals of the 4e designers.
Players should be presented with options at every level of play that are roughly equivalent in power but significantly different and interesting to play.
When a player gets to 6th level he should be able to look at the options for prestige classes or base classes and say "I want to be more like this character" and take that fork. Then again at a later level it should be similar. Given a balanced set of class choices players can focus on building their characters and any mechanical decisions will be a consequence of that.
The game system should be designed around this concept otherwise it is frustrating as a GM and as a player when one or more characters wind up stealing the spotlight. The game is fun when everyone has a chance to shine. When some characters in a campaign are significantly weaker than others it becomes not fun for those players.
Thanks Dennis, I appreciate the concern. I guess part of it is such different views on roleplaying. To me, roleplaying is about playing a fun character with a good story in an interesting environment with friends. It's about getting into character and living that role.
Why do people insist that making the most of a mechanical system means I don't roleplay? Roleplay and Character Optimization are not mutually exclusive. Kind of like how you can eat ice cream, and you can eat chocolate chip cookie dough. The two don't go together automatically, but to alot of people it sure is a good combination when it does.
The frustration is when you have people of disparate philosophies in the same group. If everyone in your group is an experienced gamer trying to squeeze every last drop out of the system then it's fun and interesting for everyone. If one of your group were to join another group where the people just want to show up on weekends and play then suddenly your character is much more powerful and hoarding all the glory. (Not always, I've played a power gamed wizard who was totally focused on abilities that helped the other players, then everyone shines.)
I tend to fall somewhere in the middle but tend to avoid power gaming groups (I'm not intending that phrase as an insult) because of the style of play I prefer. Doesn't mean I don't see it as a legitimate way to play the game, it's just my personal preference.