Are there any character concepts that can not be done with existing classes and archetypes
Are there any character concepts that can not be done with existing classes and archetypes
One class that I have not seen a good way to make work:
This character is a sorcerer, who casts spells by spontaneous expressions of his will. But he is dissatisfied with the limitations of casting spells this way, and would like to acquire formal training so that he can read spells from magic books.
In other words, he is a Sorcerer who would like to learn to do what a Wizard does. This can be done by playing a multiclassed Sorcerer/Wizard, but that combination does not work out very well.
Are there any character concepts that can not be done with existing classes and archetypes
Not really, people can make the argument that any concept can be created.
But making a "furry" is pretty much right out as far as player races go as we've only got the basic races.. (Which I'm getting sick and tired of playing)
For the most part I think things are well covered, either through archtypes or multiclassing (though sometimes multiclassing produces some very subpar results). I would like to see an inventor type character who isn't magic based...though problems with this have more to do with the system as a whole rather than just a lack of it being out there as a class.
An archtype I would like to see would be a rogue variant that removes sneak attack all together in favor of a skill based mechanic. Something very noncombative. It irks me that if I design some scheming politician NPC he almost always either ends up as a bard or a rogue...neither of which actually fits (yes, I know what the expert and aristocrat classes are, and if I were making someone who warranted NPC classes I would use those).
i couldn't agree more on the multi-classing, i had the idea of a commando style character and it actually would take me to about 17th level before i get the feel i actually want.
yeah and if i am not mistaken, all archetypes replace just about anything except the main class feature.
Out of curiosity, what type of commando are you trying to make? I would think ranger, ranger/fighter, ranger/rogue would work for most of what I would want out of a commando...
What irks me the most is sneak attack being a rogue's main class feature...In my mind the rogue as presented is the assassin core class, and the thief was dropped.
3 levels Fighter to get Armor Training to move at full speed in medium armor, 4 levels Rogue to get the Fast stealth and ledge Walker Rogue talents, 7 levels Ranger to get Woodland stride.
so 14th level.
i think that these features for me gives the commando feel, than ranger also gains a few other things that work well for the feel as does the rogue
On that note, woodland stride should really be available as a feat with a few prereqs (skill focus (survival) and nimble moves maybe). It's circumstantial, and though it's useful it's not a really good or supernatural thing...
...it actually would take me to about 17th level before i get the feel i actually want.
That sums it up pretty evenly.
Or much earlier with ranger 7 rogue 2 with mithril armor and extra rogue talent feat.
Are there any character concepts that can not be done with existing classes and archetypesOne class that I have not seen a good way to make work:
This character is a sorcerer, who casts spells by spontaneous expressions of his will. But he is dissatisfied with the limitations of casting spells this way, and would like to acquire formal training so that he can read spells from magic books.
In other words, he is a Sorcerer who would like to learn to do what a Wizard does. This can be done by playing a multiclassed Sorcerer/Wizard, but that combination does not work out very well.
You could always use the 3.5 feat Arcane Preparation to allow a sorcerer to prepare some of their spell slots (good for casting metamagiced spells without needing a full round action). On the topic of 3.5 material, there's a prestige class in Complete Mage that's basically a mystic theurge for sorcerer/wizard characters.
If you want to cast spells spontaneously like a sorcerer while being able to learn spells like a wizard (basically avoiding the restrictions of either), IMO that's overpowered for a standard game.
An archtype I would like to see would be a rogue variant that removes sneak attack all together in favor of a skill based mechanic. Something very noncombative. It irks me that if I design some scheming politician NPC he almost always either ends up as a bard or a rogue...neither of which actually fits (yes, I know what the expert and aristocrat classes are, and if I were making someone who warranted NPC classes I would use those).
Scheming politicians can be alchemists, cavaliers (order of the cockatrice especially), clerics, druids (urban druids especially), fighters, inquisitors, monks, oracles, rangers (infiltrators and urban rangers especially), sorcerers, summoners, witches, and wizards as well as bards and rogues (or aristocrats and experts); paladins tend to be a bit too honorable to pull off the scheming part. All it takes is decent Int, Wis, and Cha and some investment in skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledge (Local), and Sense Motive. The problem you seem to be having with the combat focus of PC classes over NPC classes is an inherent part of the system (PC classes are supposed to be more combat effective than NPC classes).
<commando concept>
Either ranger or rogue (scout and/or sniper) work well. As Cult of Vorg mentions, ranger 7/rogue 2 with mithral breastplate and the Extra Rogue Talent feat gives you everything you seem to be looking for.
Dagger throwing specialist.
Dragonchess Player...I think PC classes are more effective than NPC classes...not just combat effective. What I'm looking for is so very close to the rogue it's frustrating. Rogue tallents are good and cover a lot of the ground I want covered, and the high skill points/specific class skills work well too...then there's this class feature that sticks out like a sore thumb, having nothing to do with anything but combat. Maybe I'll just have to write up my own archtype and sell the PDF to explain what I want...
As far as commandos go...I can see where you're coming from northbrb. I think in my mind "commando" is more vague, where to you there are specific abilities that need to be there. Maybe I'll try and write that up too...hmmm...
Are there any character concepts that can not be done with existing classes and archetypes
Depends on what you consider a character concept.
Basically, there are surely things the existing classes cannot cover, because imagination is infinite.
For example, a Space Barbarian (who can survive in the void of space, because he's a Space Barbarian! Oh, and he has learned to swim in a vacuum and has a DR against ray guns) would not work. But that's because it involves stuff that isn't really part of the range of possibilities the game was made for.
A "super ninja" doesn't work, either, but that's because people want them to be able to be better warriors than fighters, have better movement abilities than monks, be basically invisible all the time and can even do magic (basically all spells in the books, at will, as supernatural abilities). And don't get me started about what those people want for their ninja sword stats.
Superman wouldn't work, because Being invincible except when someone uses a rare, alien substance, and having almost infinite strength isn't really in the cards for PF.
ranger 7 rogue 2 with mithril armorIf the concept is dependent on getting a single, specific magic item in order to make it work, then it doesn't really work as far as I am concerned. Magic items other than the absolute basics should never be a must.
Yeah, no, really, no.
1. Mithril armor isn't magic.2. Mithril armor isn't specific, it's a material.
3. Mithril breastplate is the absolute basic at higher levels (unless you want mithril fullplate, or in some cases (eg dwarven paladins and fighters) adamantine fullplate).
If your concept is "someone who can move freely in advanced armor", then mithril armor is the way to go to. As a commando, you've got top-notch equipment - like mithril armor.
ranger 7 rogue 2 with mithril armorIf the concept is dependent on getting a single, specific magic item in order to make it work, then it doesn't really work as far as I am concerned. Magic items other than the absolute basics should never be a must.
Mithral is a special material, listed in the Equipment section of the Core Rulebook (pg. 154-155). By the time you hit 5th-6th level, you can easily afford a 4,200 gp mithral breastplate (+6 AC, +5 max Dex, -1 Armor Check) to upgrade from that masterwork 250 gp chain shirt (+4 AC, +4 max Dex, 0 Armor Check) you've been wearing since 1st-2nd level.
3.x/Pathfinder is specifically designed around players customizing their characters' equipment to match their concept.
Dagger throwing specialist.
Fighter (two-weapon warrior archetype) or fighter/rogue (sniper archetype); Combat Trick, Fast Getaway, Snap Shot, Sniper's Eye, Surprise Attack, Weapon Trick, and Hunter's Surprise are useful rogue talents; Deadly Aim, Double Slice, Far Shot, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Quick Draw, Rapid Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Dagger) feats; Dodge, Mobility, Shot of the Run, and Weapon Specialization can also be useful; invest in multiple +1 distance daggers (holy and seeking may also be worth it at higher levels), instead of one or two heavily enhanced weapons.
|
Yes.
You cannot make a great and powerful, respected politician who has twenty ranks in each social skill but no combat ability whatsoever. All Pathfinder characters, like all D&D characters, are combat characters. There's no way to give your specialist a large number of non-combat spells, skill ranks, and permitted wealth without also increasing his hit dice, BAB, saves, and other combat-only abilities.
You cannot make a complete pacifist. The game does not work with a true pacifist, although you can make a false pacifist wizard or cleric (who doesn't kill anyone personally but is just fine with allowing others to kill on his behalf).
You can't make a craftsman who makes beautiful and powerful magic items respected across the lands, but still only has one hit die and no combat ability (or base attack bonus). Unless your lands are very, very small and provincial.
You can't make a child properly, though you can sorta kinda make a child-like character and say 'this person is a child'.
You can't make a vampire. Not really. I know, the dhampir exists. Not the same. By that same token, you can only kinda make a werewolf character. Note that some will call this a feature of the game.
You can't make a character who shuns magic and refuses to use magical items at high levels. Well, I mean you CAN but it doesn't work properly.
You can't make a complete incompetent who bumbles through life but manages to get everything right through luck. Or rather, if you try then you make more work for the DM. Or you die fast.
You can't make a loner unless you're the only player.
You can't make a spoiled rich kid who buys his way through his troubles. Sooner or later, he'll have to swing a sword or cast a spell.
You can't make a normal guy who manages to kill the powerful BBEG because he's just that motivated for whatever reason. At some point, you'll gain enough levels that you're not a normal guy any more at all. That point usually comes pretty quickly. Not to mention that the character's passions and motivations don't give you a mechanical bonus to anything.
You can't make anything from Call of Cthulu at all. Pathfinder adventurers are almost always more powerful than their foes, and they kinda have to be in order for it to work.
There's lots and lots of stuff you can't do in Pathfinder.
You can't make a craftsman who makes beautiful and powerful magic items respected across the lands, but still only has one hit die and no combat ability (or base attack bonus). Unless your lands are very, very small and provincial.
Hit dice and base attack bonuses are abstractions, but you can surely make a craftsman that is teh suxxors in combat but can craft wonderful items, at least if you go by the old "rolled stats" that mean the DM can more or less set NPC stats (within the common range).
In his youth:
1st level commoner, Str8/Dex12/Con10/Int16/Wis13/Cha13
Craft (his chosen type) +12 (1 rank +3 class +3 int +3 skill focus +2 mw tools)
Can create masterwork items without even rolling, and with the aid of his two apprentices he can create truly outstanding items with little problems (DC 30+).
Combat stats: 3 (1d6) hit points, 11 AC, attack knife -1 (1d3-1).
When he's the legendary master craftsman:
7th level old commoner, Str 5/Dex 9/Con 7/Int 17/Wis 15/Cha 15
Craft +27 (7 ranks +3 class +4 int +3 skill focus + 6 magical tools +2 masterwork tools +2 master craftsman)
Can create truly outstanding items without even rolling, create magical items (has one item creation feat), and create masterwork items at increased pace.
Combat stats: 10 (7d6-14) hit points, 9 AC, attack knife +0 (1d3-3).
You can't make a craftsman who makes beautiful and powerful magic items respected across the lands, but still only has one hit die and no combat ability (or base attack bonus). Unless your lands are very, very small and provincial.Hit dice and base attack bonuses are abstractions, but you can surely make a craftsman that is teh suxxors in combat but can craft wonderful items, at least if you go by the old "rolled stats" that mean the DM can more or less set NPC stats (within the common range).
In his youth:
1st level commoner, Str8/Dex12/Con10/Int16/Wis13/Cha13
Craft (his chosen type) +12 (1 rank +3 class +3 int +3 skill focus +2 mw tools)
Can create masterwork items without even rolling, and with the aid of his two apprentices he can create truly outstanding items with little problems (DC 30+).
Combat stats: 3 (1d6) hit points, 11 AC, attack knife -1 (1d3-1).When he's the legendary master craftsman:
7th level old commoner, Str 5/Dex 9/Con 7/Int 17/Wis 15/Cha 15
Craft +27 (7 ranks +3 class +4 int +3 skill focus + 6 magical tools +2 masterwork tools +2 master craftsman)
Can create truly outstanding items without even rolling, create magical items (has one item creation feat), and create masterwork items at increased pace.
Combat stats: 10 (7d6-14) hit points, 9 AC, attack knife +0 (1d3-3).
EDIT: This is just an example; the same thing could be done with most other non-combat roles (such as politician). However, if they fit in an adventuring party is another thing. There is no issues with making a pacifist, I could very well make that kind of character as it doesn't even refer to rules in any way. If my party would want to keep me around is an issue, though.
Well, if you allow 3.5 material, you can make all kinds of broken characters with the right application of overpowered feats and poorly thought out prestige classes.
I suppose some kind of prestige class could be made to allow characters to prepare one spell per prestige class level. That might work.
As for the skill guy who does not sneak attack, that is another one that does not seem to be supported. For 3.5, I made a Greater Expert class which was greater than the Expert, designed to be balanced against the PC classes. Lots of skill points. No sneak attacks.
As for "Superman", I've considered a rule that anyone with DR has to have a weakness. What this means is that for a Barbarian there could be some item, (like maybe, mistletoe?) that gets past the guy's DR. This is motivated by a theory that DR can not exist without something that gets past the DR.
|
|
Then I suppose the extent of our disagreement depends on the use of the phrase 'character concept'.
When people say 'character concepts' for a game I typically think of 'playable character concepts'.
The commoner you propose would not be playable, I think we both agree. It's not that the rules are insufficient to simulate such a thing, but that the thing itself is incompatible with the game (unless it is played very, very differently from the norm).
So if the question is "Are there any character concepts that can not be done with existing classes and archetypes" and your definition of character concept is "playable character concepts" I hope you see the problem.
Utgardloki...any chance you'd be willing to throw what you wrote up? I'm strongly considering adding in the akashic from Arcana Evolved. Might add the man-at-arms from Iron Heroes too.
Then I suppose the extent of our disagreement depends on the use of the phrase 'character concept'.
When people say 'character concepts' for a game I typically think of 'playable character concepts'.
The commoner you propose would not be playable, I think we both agree. It's not that the rules are insufficient to simulate such a thing, but that the thing itself is incompatible with the game (unless it is played very, very differently from the norm).
It's very playable if your DM accomodates the game to it. If your quests include "Smith the legendary sword" it works fine. If your quest is "kill the dragon", of course it won't work to do it with the old master smith that can't fight.
You complaint seem to be that you can't make a character that can't fight effective in a campaign that focuses on fighting. That isn't really a fault of the system, it's a fault of logic.
shuriken
|
|
It's very playable if your DM accomodates the game to it. If your quests include "Smith the legendary sword" it works fine. If your quest is "kill the dragon", of course it won't work to do it with the old master smith that can't fight.
And I've never seen an AP that does this. I mean, there's a few that have a single "smith the sword" quest in 'em, but that's never the focus. There's always lots and lots of combat.
In fact, the focus of Pathfinder is the combat. I don't think that should be in doubt. Non-combat characters are therefore not compatible with Pathfinder rules. This isn't a bad thing; Pathfinder and D&D were never intended for such characters. They were intended for heroic knights and powerful magicians. If you want to play King Graham, who loses a fight with everything that can fight, you probably shouldn't play him in a Pathfinder game.You can make a non-combat stat block for Pathfinder. I don't doubt that. But as a character, he will be pretty lacking.
So perhaps I should amend my previous answer.
Yes, there are lots of character concepts that are impossible to build effectively (or to play in a standard Pathfinder game) with the rules as they are.
No, there is no character concept that cannot be given a stat block with the rules as they are.
But the second statement could be said about every single game system ever. So if that's your contention, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I'm still looking for a viable way to manage a Touch-spell caster. Monk/Magus, maybe, but that'll have to wait for the Magus Archetypes to come out (if it is even in there).
So if the question is "Are there any character concepts that can not be done with existing classes and archetypes" and your definition of character concept is "playable character concepts" I hope you see the problem.
Utgardloki...any chance you'd be willing to throw what you wrote up? I'm strongly considering adding in the akashic from Arcana Evolved. Might add the man-at-arms from Iron Heroes too.
What I wrote up for the Greater Expert was simply the Expert with the addition of a Skill Focus feat every other level.
There is a sensible concept that I am not sure can be done with existing Pathfinder rules: a Pugalist, who concentrates on unarmed fighting but lacks the spiritual training and interest of the Monk.
My thought is I may have to make another class. Perhaps base it on the Fighter, but without armor proficiencies, and with some of the abilities of the Barbarian and the Monk.
|
|
There is a sensible concept that I am not sure can be done with existing Pathfinder rules: a Pugalist, who concentrates on unarmed fighting but lacks the spiritual training and interest of the Monk.
Check out the Brutal Pugilist barbarian Archetype. And the Brawler Rage Power. And Greater Brawler. By 4th level with some Feat investment, you can be quite scary, with both grappling and just bare-knuckle fighting.
A studious spell caster that isn't stat reliant (more of a practice makes perfect sort of theme instead of yet another spell casting prodigy).
i would like to see a spell caster that can attempt to cast spells that he shouldn't be able to cast at his level, maybe with drawbacks to failing to cast them.
Personally, if it requires more than 5-6 levels before you really start getting into the concept of the character, it is not a pullable concept.
One of my problems with multi-classing to get a concept feel is when all you really want is a single class feature and actually don't want any of the other class features.
One of my problems with multi-classing to get a concept feel is when all you really want is a single class feature and actually don't want any of the other class features.
Oh that too.
Like if I take a level of fighter suddenly I know every single martial and simple weapon in existance, how to wear up to full plate and how to use up to towershields.
Personly I really dislike that. I'd love to be able to somehow drop much of my prof for exotic prof or other class features. (A fighter starts off with about 20-30 feats from all those martial weapons he can use.)
One of my problems with multi-classing to get a concept feel is when all you really want is a single class feature and actually don't want any of the other class features.Oh that too.
Like if I take a level of fighter suddenly I know every single martial and simple weapon in existance, how to wear up to full plate and how to use up to towershields.
Personly I really dislike that. I'd love to be able to somehow drop much of my prof for exotic prof or other class features. (A fighter starts off with about 20-30 feats from all those martial weapons he can use.)
Sounds like an argument for a system without classes, where you buy the abilities you want instead of getting them bundled.
Yes and no. near the end of 2nd edition, they released a series of books where you bought things with CP.
I made a necromancer cleric who had access to both divine and arcane necromantic magics, and was also able to fight with the AB of a fighter and somewhat able to sneak around like a rogue and preform combative manuvers like a monk.
Combined I had a very good character concept, a scythe wielding necromantic warrior.. Compaired to each of the bases though, I couldn't specilize as far as a fighter, I lacked much of the rogues abilities.. and well.. I could only cast necromancy spells.
If a concept is ruined because the weapon is flaming instead of keen, or the armor is made from dragonscales rather than mithril something is very wrong.
So wear boots of striding and springing instead.
If your concept is so rigid that it's "ruined" because you need to take into account choices in equipment to achieve it, then 3.x/Pathfinder is not the system for you. As a class-based system with only a little overlap of abilities between classes, you are forced to make trade-offs. There are numerous equipment and magic choices to mitigate or even alleviate the trade-offs, but even with them no one character can be good at everything. This is a deliberate design feature to promote group activity and not a flaw.
This thread is moving away from "can I create a character to match a concept" to "Pathfinder doesn't let me make my own classes." That's a completely different argument.
I'll tell you one place where there is some rigidity. It would make sense to make my current character, a Sorceress/Bard/Druid, a Detective, gaining some of the abilities in the Detective Archetype for the Bard in the Advanced PLayer's Guide.
But I've already established her as a Bard with abilities that would be lost if she were to switch over to being a Detective. It would work better if this could be defined as a Prestige Class that she could take and gain the abilities without losing what she has, perhaps at the cost of abilities she might gain in the future.
But this is a minor detail since the character is evolving accoring to her opportunities, so the opportunity to gain the abilities of a Detective are just not open to her, even if she is trying to do some detective work in the campaign.
If a concept is ruined because the weapon is flaming instead of keen, or the armor is made from dragonscales rather than mithril something is very wrong.So wear boots of striding and springing instead.
If your concept is so rigid that it's "ruined" because you need to take into account choices in equipment to achieve it, then 3.x/Pathfinder is not the system for you. As a class-based system with only a little overlap of abilities between classes, you are forced to make trade-offs. There are numerous equipment and magic choices to mitigate or even alleviate the trade-offs, but even with them no one character can be good at everything. This is a deliberate design feature to promote group activity and not a flaw.
This thread is moving away from "can I create a character to match a concept" to "Pathfinder doesn't let me make my own classes." That's a completely different argument.
That is his point. The concept should be in the character themselves, not the equipment. Its the difference between a guy who is good with a whip and a guy who has a good whip. The latter can be ruined by having the wrong good whip and not the right good whip but if there was nothing to increase the characters goodness with a whip beyond just having a good whip then the problem is with in the classes.
Of course with him, he wants medium armor.. why does he want medium armor? That is where you do start to push a bit.
Much like one of my friends, you have also immediately jumped on the "cannot be good at everything" argument flaw. There is a difference between being good and being great. I was trying to explain to a friend on how I want to be able to make an agility based fighter but the current fighter set up doesn't really allow that. (This was in 3.5) Mostly because of the lack of things like evasion or uncanny dodge. I didn't want the sneak attacks/trap finding of rogue, nor most of the prof of fighter.
This is why I enjoyed the black books of 2nd edition, and unearthed arcana for 3.5. The three generic classes I'd use them to develop my characters to be driven in their specific goals.. which would naturally open up weaknesses while not at the same time making me this "superman" esc character.
i also feel that a character concept should be achievable early in character development, within the first 5 levels or so.
im not saying that within 5 levels i want to be the best at something but i do want the feel of the character to be there within the first 5 levels.
It is difficult for me to believe my 100+ year old dwarf or elf character is level 1 for some reason XD
i also feel that a character concept should be achievable early in character development, within the first 5 levels or so.
im not saying that within 5 levels i want to be the best at something but i do want the feel of the character to be there within the first 5 levels.
Same here. I'm constantly cramming numbers to try and get the "effect" of the character to appear as early as possible.
I had a character, Mavros Thanatos, who was a plague rat. (Nezumi) I've managed to cram together flaws and feats, to try and get him down to the point he is shown to be a "master" of disease and poison. Very feat heavy, luckily my DM allowed me to drop scribe scroll in favor for poison spell. (Which at level 3, bloomed when I took poisoned blood.. see the APG feats book)
Lucky lou is another character, I've been constantly crunching numbers on him, and he is terrible at everything, only his luck feats allow him to shine. (unless it cooking, he is wonderful at that.)
The reason though for this crunching is most games i've played we start at level 1, and work up to about level 3 where we stop playing that campaign and start up another one for someone else. End result of course is characters who never shine unless they are basic characters.
If we start at a higher level, I'm less likely to take flaws as I can more easily spread my feats out.
You cannot make a great and powerful, respected politician who has twenty ranks in each social skill but no combat ability whatsoever. All Pathfinder characters, like all D&D characters, are combat characters. There's no way to give your specialist a large number of non-combat spells, skill ranks, and permitted wealth without also increasing his hit dice, BAB, saves, and other combat-only abilities.
You cannot make a complete pacifist. The game does not work with a true pacifist, although you can make a false pacifist wizard or cleric (who doesn't kill anyone personally but is just fine with allowing others to kill on his behalf.
I can and have.
My court bard hates the sight of blood, especially when it comes from sentient creatures, doubly so when it comes from herself or persons for whom she cares. Her main weapon is a whip. She's used it in combat to trip and disarm warriors, sometimes with the addition of some good ol' fashioned grease to help along the process. She has no offensive spells whatsoever, and has no plans to take any. She has yet to kill anyone. If diplomacy fails, she intimidates, or charms. Her party, though, they are machines built specifically for murder, and that is how she advances.
That said, when she was solo, she was frequently assaulted because hired goons don't tend to have the mental faculties required to form their own opinion about the use of excessive force to maim and kill another person, it's in the job description.
I think it is possible, it just depends on the campaign. If someone is willing to run one that is pure social interaction and solving political puzzles in the style of "what percentage of public opinion do we lose if we treat with the goblins versus hiring a group of adventurers and what are the long term costs to the community in either case?" I would be incredibly surprised, and shocked and alarmed. And I may or may not want to play... hmmm...