One thing you may want to consider is that pathfinder has added emphasis and advantages to being single classed. Unlike 3.x where multiclassing was almost always the best way to go about making martial characters, in pathfinder there are quite a few incentives to being single classed through your whole career. You might want to present that fact and examples of it to your dm in order to get pathfinder to appeal to him more, as opposed to showing him what he doesnt like.
On the other hand, a big part of the appeal of Pathfinder's skill system is that you CAN have a lock-picking Fighter or a wand wielding paladin or such quite easily; playing a single classed character who defies being pidgeonholed into a narrow-role is both easy, and more importantly IMO, fun.
You dont need a healer; a majority of the classes in the game easily cover out of combat healing, and in-combat healing is a losing proposition. You dont need a rogue to disable traps, as creativity, magic, and durability can make it past traps (albeit at additional cost). There is no tank; good play, and everyone being responsible for their own defense (whether its via a fighters AC or a wizard using Mirror Image) will keep everyone alive.
Core 4, in my opinion, simply does not work effectively in pathfinder. You could do it if you liked, but its a silly thing to worry about with the way the system works.
That said, multiclassing is not really a 'feature' of the system. Deep and varied single classed options with archetypes are.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've tried to present these things to him, but he's kind of a stubborn old guy. He automatically assumes multi-classing or prestige classing is a lame excuse for more "power" or to get features he doesn't feel fit a character.
Let's take the Arcane Trickster for example. He looks at that build and immediately assumes you just want to play a rogue that can toss out fireballs. He doesn't take into account how freaking AWESOME it would be to play a rogue who enhances his rogue skills and does rogue stuff with magic. He feels if you want to sneak around just be a rogue, if you want to cast magic play a wizard. Stop mixing the 2. Same with the skills. If you want to pick locks, be a rogue. If you want to fight, be a fighter. NO MIXING!!! :)
I'm a huge fan of archetypes, but my main goal is getting multi-classing and prestige classing accepted. I have lots of character ideas that I would love to play in our game but my DM won't let go of his old ways. I need to show him these kind of builds can be fun and full of flavor.
Edit: I should also add that my DM doesn't allow archetypes either. We're only allowed the Core Rulebook when he DMs, even though he gifts us books like the APG, just to turn around tell us it's not allowed.
No offense, but your friend seems like a bit of a douche. Inflexible douche.
|
I've tried to present these things to him, but he's kind of a stubborn old guy. He automatically assumes multi-classing or prestige classing is a lame excuse for more "power" or to get features he doesn't feel fit a character.
Let's take the Arcane Trickster for example. He looks at that build and immediately assumes you just want to play a rogue that can toss out fireballs. He doesn't take into account how freaking AWESOME it would be to play a rogue who enhances his rogue skills and does rogue stuff with magic. He feels if you want to sneak around just be a rogue, if you want to cast magic play a wizard. Stop mixing the 2. Same with the skills. If you want to pick locks, be a rogue. If you want to fight, be a fighter. NO MIXING!!! :)
I'm a huge fan of archetypes, but my main goal is getting multi-classing and prestige classing accepted. I have lots of character ideas that I would love to play in our game but my DM won't let go of his old ways. I need to show him these kind of builds can be fun and full of flavor.
Edit: I should also add that my DM doesn't allow archetypes either. We're only allowed the Core Rulebook when he DMs, even though he gifts us books like the APG, just to turn around tell us it's not allowed.
Some "old school" DMs still play under the very restrictive (player-limiting) philosophy of 1st and 2nd ed AD&D. In those days, the DM held all the reins (generally). The "modern" mode of thinking is to allow characters to play what they want, and what they envision, and multi-classing, prestige-classing, skill/feat-taking, trait choices all lend to more unique character builds. In this age, "is it fun for the players" is Rule #1. In the old days, "challenge (or defeat) the players" was often Rule #1.
In terms of everyone having a good time, there's little for the GM to gain by imposing hefty restrictions on character flexibility. Certainly, it is up to the GM to only allow options which he or she feels fit into the game world, and this can vary widely from one campaign to another. However, in the interest of everyone's fun, the GM is obligated (IMO) to be flexible, and to even consider modifying aspects of the game world to accomodate player desires.
The point is, a GREAT campaign is built organically, with GMs and players working together for the highest degree of fun, developing the story collaboratively. Unfortunately, some old school GMs simply don't see it that way. It's their game world, and they control all the pieces - if you don't like it, find another group.
If it helps, ask him why he's concerned about the "power" some combinations may create, and ask him to demonstrate how these combinations may be "over-powered." Ask him why his adventures and campaign objectives can't be tailored to accomodate differences in power levels. After all, more powerful characters just means more powerful opponents.. As long as everyone's having fun, what difference does it make?
Having said all of this, as a GM who comes from the 1st Ed AD&D days himself, I can definitely see how the power shift from GM to player in 3rd Edition/Pathfinder can be frustrating. In some ways, I DO think that power (in the guise of "preference") has over-shifted in the players' favor. The complexity and depth of the rules and player options have tied the GMs hands in a lot of circumstances where, "back in the day," hand-waving results was more common. I recently had an argument with a meta-gaming player regarding the DC of a saving throw he should have made. I had adjusted DCs due to party strength "on the fly," and this did NOT sit well with the player who had been able to draw some very accurate conclusions from "the numbers" in the encounter. This sort of "loss of control" for the GM can be frustrating for all concerned, and is (IMO) a limitation of a rules-heavy system like Pathfinder. Don't be surprised if your DM resists based on this reason alone...
Summary? Changing his mind could be a lost cause. Not to say you shouldn't try, but the type of mentality and gaming-style you're describing tends to resist harder the more you push. You may simply find yourself having to play within the GMs limitations, or finding another group.
Good luck to you.
No offense, but your friend seems like a bit of a douche. Inflexible douche.
Yeah, if he wants to play D&D 2nd E, that's allright, but he shouldn't complain about not having any player left to play with after you start your own Pathfinder game and steal all his players from him.
If you want HIM to be the GM, that's another story. You can't force someone to run an entire game with a system that he doesn't know/like. Instead, you should start your own game and ask him to play as a PC. After a while, he will probably see the good aspects of Pathfinder and maybe he will start his own Pathfinder game.
However, some people will remain old school their entire life.
He's my grandpa actually, and yes, he's a bit of a douche when it comes to the game. That's why I can't talk to him about this stuff and instead need to show him.
Try to explain to him that you cannot play a character like Conan the Barbarian without multiclassing. Conan is a Fighter/Barbarian that can sneak! Fighter and Barbarian cannot sneak without multiclassing into Rogue or taking cross-class skills.
I come to the community today for some character builds for a one shot I plan on running. My group's gaming experience is nearly all 1st and Second edition D&D. Our DM is really into the "Core 4" philosophy, and my goal with this and other one shots is to show that the game can still be a blast with fun prestige and multiclass builds, and this philosophy stilll upheld. My DM doesn't allow multiclassing, prestige classing, or even having ranks in skills that "belong" to another class. No device disabling fighters or wand wielding rogues here. I'd like to open his mind.
The posted builds should be 10th level and use 25 point buy. All builds must be multiclassed with at least one other class. No companions unless necessary for the class, such as a Cavalier's mount. No Summoners.
Feel free to post random builds you think would just be plain fun. In particular I would like to see a Shadow Dancer and Arcane Trickster build.
Listen, I am going to be blunt. People can change their minds, but not other people's. To be honest, if you want to "convert" your GM, you're going about it entirely wrong. I told my friends all about Pathfinder and its changes, and my GM was skeptical about the changes as well.
That is, until I started GMing for the group. Within four sessions, I had everyone convinced that, while not always the best changes, Pathfinder was an extremely fun game and most of them have decided to switch their "preferred system" from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
But I didn't do this by throwing a book at my usual GM, only to say "Hey, I want you to GM this game for us instead of the one you learned and are comfortable with. So yeah, chop chop and get to reading." If you want to convert your GM to Pathfinder, then you need to take up the mantle of GM and play a game for him. Show him why Pathfinder is fun. Encourage all of your players to try every option they can. Even if your GM doesn't play a super awesome multiclass Fighter / Wizard / Eldritch Knight who has maxed out Disable Device, watching another player do it and have fun while playing can be an eye-opening experience.
That's my goal with running some one shots between story arcs in his game. The game is a lot of fun other than all the crazy restrictions. He tells a great story and really brings the game to life. He knows the system pretty well, he just has his own idea on how the game should be played, and then forces us to play like that. I've got to get him in the player chair, playing a character that plays like an ass kicker but isn't just your everyday fighter that our group sees every single game.No offense, but your friend seems like a bit of a douche. Inflexible douche.
Yeah, if he wants to play D&D 2nd E, that's allright, but he shouldn't complain about not having any player left to play with after you start your own Pathfinder game and steal all his players from him.
If you want HIM to be the GM, that's another story. You can't force someone to run an entire game with a system that he doesn't know/like. Instead, you should start your own game and ask him to play as a PC. After a while, he will probably see the good aspects of Pathfinder and maybe he will start his own Pathfinder game.
However, some people will remain old school their entire life.
You might consider some builds which are not multiclass, but which still buck traditional roles.
Urban Ranger (trapfinder and fighterish frontman), Witch (non-traditional spellcasting with LOTS of options in Hexes), Inquisitor (divine-fighter-skillmonkey) and a bard might be a good start?
Prestige classes, especially in Pathfinder, and the exact opposite of a 'power' choice. They really are, "Do this if you REALLY want to push a flavorful concept in EXACTLY this manner."
I come to the community today for some character builds for a one shot I plan on running. My group's gaming experience is nearly all 1st and Second edition D&D. Our DM is really into the "Core 4" philosophy, and my goal with this and other one shots is to show that the game can still be a blast with fun prestige and multiclass builds
Multiclassing will usually result in sub-optimal characters when it comes to character power. You give up higher-level abilities.
Just wanted to throw that out. The characters can still be tremendous fun. If you have a character concept in mind that makes most sense with more than one class, go for it!
About PrCs I have to say that they have become a lot less all-pervasive in Pathfinder. That's partially because it now makes sense to keep taking levels in, say, wizard or fighter, and partially because Paizo doesn't crank out PrCs like they're an assembly line.
My DM doesn't allow multiclassing, prestige classing, or even having ranks in skills that "belong" to another class. No device disabling fighters or wand wielding rogues here. I'd like to open his mind.
I might agree with the first two - actually, I don't. Especially multiclassing. It's stupid - but the last one? He's a lost cause.
What you need is a few things: A blunt instrument (shovel, baseball bat, lead pipe, something like that.), a bag of quick lime, a nice, secluded place, and an alibi. May I suggest the rest of your roleplaying group for the latter. You could make a group activity out of the whole thing.
To get a little more serious for a moment: What reason does he give you for restricting the hell out of everything? Too powerful? Badwrongfun? The game needs to be more like Diablo 2?
@KaeYoss
The reasons I'm given are power creep and badwrongfun. It's hard to explain his reasoning because it doesn't make any sense. Basically, if one wanted to be a Battle Cleric, he would tell you to be a Fighter who's religious because being a cleric is just an excuse to use spells to heal and buff yourself. Screw your concept, Clerics are band-aids and fighter's fight, that's how we did it back in the old days. Everything is supposed to fit in neat little boxes.
Oh. Well, may I refer you again to the part of my post between "what" and "thing".
Besides murdering the guy, you only have to other options: Just talking to him, telling him that you hate this restrictive approach and that options are good, or leaving the game.
Or all three. Start with the talk, and when he refuses to acknowledge that 'Nam is long over, leave the game. And then murder him.
@KaeYoss
The reasons I'm given are power creep and badwrongfun. It's hard to explain his reasoning because it doesn't make any sense. Basically, if one wanted to be a Battle Cleric, he would tell you to be a Fighter who's religious because being a cleric is just an excuse to use spells to heal and buff yourself. Screw your concept, Clerics are band-aids and fighter's fight, that's how we did it back in the old days. Everything is supposed to fit in neat little boxes.
Oh. Well, may I refer you again to the part of my post between "what" and "thing".
Besides murdering the guy, you only have to other options: Just talking to him, telling him that you hate this restrictive approach and that options are good, or leaving the game.
Or all three. Start with the talk, and when he refuses to acknowledge that 'Nam is long over, leave the game. And then murder him.
Dudenotcool, you can't murder your own grandfather... or can you? :)
|
First, don't expect to change his mind, no matter what you choose to do.
However, to make your game fun, choose some archetypal characters that aren't well-represented by the Big Four. For example:
- Witch-Doctor Death Priest
- Fu-Manchu Imperial Court Sorcerer
- Battle Skald
- Technomancer-Geometrician
- Errol Flynn Musketeer
- Shaolin Sorcerer
Design the adventure with this sort of cast of characters in mind, then build the synergies that way.
Ideally, though, I'd start by picking your grandfather's brain. Where is he getting his inspiration? Is he a Lankhmar and Conan fan? Then design Conan, Fafhrd, and the Grey Mouser. Build things he likes to see, and break his inflexibilities to do so.
What you need is a few things: A blunt instrument (shovel, baseball bat, lead pipe, something like that.), a bag of quick lime, a nice, secluded place, and an alibi. May I suggest the rest of your roleplaying group for the latter. You could make a group activity out of the whole thing.
Sometimes someone else just says exactly what you were thinking so you don't have to.
you can't murder your own grandfather... or can you?
I can't. My grandfather is already dead.
you can't murder your own grandfather... or can you?I can't. My grandfather is already dead.
What about the other one? :P
What about the other one? :Pyou can't murder your own grandfather... or can you?I can't. My grandfather is already dead.
You may not want to know the answer. Like maybe he only has one, and all the wrongness that suggests :O.
|
My Adveice: Don't try to much at once. Multiclassing AND prestige classes AND nontraditional classes AND 25Point buy (which might strnghten his believe that this is all powermongering).
Start slow. do an adventure with non traditional classes, standart buy. Next time, look for fitting multiclass or prestige class builds.
Hint: Masters of the fallen fortress is a free promotional adventure you can find here , with exemplar characters taken from the advanced players guide. It might be a good place to start.
|
|
I think his favorite reference is The 13th Warrior. He's a big warrior fan, he's never been a fan of magic.
Ah, that's going to be a problem, then. Think old-old school fantasy. The wizard was the guy with the long beard and pointed hat, and the guy with the beard and the hat was the wizard. The wizard never jumped around or wielded a sword. Similarly, the knight was always the knight, and the sneaky thief was always the sneaky thief. There were never sneaky knights.
He comes from 0e/1e. Did he allow for multiclassing for demi-humans, as per the 1e rules?
Multiclass characters are in no way more powerful than single class characters. Thinking otherwise is an opinion that has no basis in game mechanics. Say you have a Fighter 1/Rogue 1. Your grandfather will say this is just a fighter with sneak attack, but the reality is much different.
The Fighter needs STR and the Rogue needs DEX. Right away, simply by making the choice to multiclass, you have a conflict that can only be resolved by either watering down your stats or sacrificing one to the other.
Let's compromise and go with DEX for a finesse build. The Rogue would be useless without DEX, and you're going to want him in light armor anyway or his skills go down the drain, so you need the DEX for AC. Simply by making this choice, you are greatly limiting your damage potential, even with Weapon Finesse.
Now remember that this Fighter 1/Rogue 1 is a level 2 character.
A level 2 Fighter stacking STR and CON:
STR 18 (10 + racial)
CON 18 (17)
CHA 8 (-2)
Avg WBL = 175g
He would have 2 BAB, 23 HP, 15 AC (scale mail) and Greatsword netting him about 8.25 DPR, not counting feats. No real skills to speak of.
A level 2 Rogue stacking DEX and CON:
DEX 18
CON 18
CHA 8
WBL = 140g
1 BAB, 20 HP, 16 AC (leather), Longsword/Shortsword combo netting about 7.9 DPR with Weapon Finesse, TWF, and sneak attack. Max rogue skills.
Fighter 1/Rogue 1:
DEX 18
CON 18
CHA 8
1 BAB, 22 HP (assuming you start as Fighter at level 1), 16 AC (leather), ~8 DPR (add weapon focus). Level 1 rogue skills.
OR
STR 18
CON 18
CHA 8
1 BAB, 22 HP, 15 AC (scale), greatsword with 8.25 DPR (good luck feinting or flanking to get off a sneak attack with this setup), and crappy rogue skills (-4 armor check penalty, no DEX bonus).
Basically what you get from multiclassing is a Rogue with 1 extra feat, 1-2 more HP, and worse skills. OR, you end up with a Fighter with 1-2 less HP and really, really bad rogue skills.
Multiclass means compromise, and compromise means sacrifice. If you can get your grandfather to see that, he may come around.