So, 25 individuals in the history of the world? These are beyond extraordinary individuals, and beyond typical PC's.Every military officer holds at least a bachelors degree. As well as maintains exceptional fitness. And is expected to perform leadership duties in a wide variety of tasks. Narrow it down to infantry, rangers, and special forces, and even though fewer examples remain, you still have thousands of people able to perform a wide array of tasks.
And none of them can do what a 6-8th level character can do.
You're forgetting that it's not a direct translation. The comparison is relative to the realms of Golarion and reality. Gerald Ford, in our world, was probably around a level 17 or 18 character. Albert Einstein would probably be epic level. In Golarion (or whatever setting you're using), an 8th level hero is extraordinary, but not there are plenty of them in the world.
|
Is there a current system like that? 3.P allows something along those lines with the right mindset (especially if you were to open up a selective version of Gestalt. I'd like to try a Fighter/Incarnate some time.)
Kirth broke PF down into a point-buy style system, but I doubt anyone I play with would want to use it.
|
|
Gerald Ford, in our world, was probably around a level 17 or 18 character. Albert Einstein would probably be epic level.
You know, I think the problem is, you're trying to reduce the game world to be like the real world, which the game cannot model properly. Thus you see things that don't match, and feel it is 'wrong' when it is only different.
You keep posting links that mean nothing to me.
You know, I think the problem is, you're trying to reduce the game world to be like the real world, which the game cannot model properly. Thus you see things that don't match, and feel it is 'wrong' when it is only different.
This is a valid point; however, part of the d20 system is to imagine as if the setting is the real world. All worlds are balanced, or at least should be, to be a good setting. It's only logical that I draw correlations to our reality in order to critique a setting.
sidenote: If you're even acknowledging the DM in any regard of character building/development, or gameplay, you're cheapening the roleplay and emphasizing the game aspect. It is a different approach to the RPG; I simply have no taste for it. What makes d20 so timeless is the RP, not the G. Granted, there is no RPG without G, but the RP does and should come first.
So you have no desire to look at people who can do some of everything and do it well. In other words, you have no desire to actually persue the topic with an open mind.
I have acknowledged and reacknowledged the fact that it is possible. But basing your entire faith in multiclassing in 1 man, or 25 men, or 1000 men, is a stretch.
Linguistically, the "role playing" defines and distinguishes the "game" from other games, so it is more essential. A great example of a game without the role playing is 4th edition, despite its claim to still be an RPG. Anyway, I'm off to work.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? '4E isn't roleplaying' as well? What other flawed gaming memes will you pull out next? (Don't answer that, I really don't want to know.)
I have acknowledged and reacknowledged the fact that it is possible. But basing your entire faith in multiclassing in 1 man, or 25 men, or 1000 men, is a stretch.
Basing your entire hatred of multiclassing on the characters you've seen is a stretch as well.
Linguistically, the "role playing" defines and distinguishes the "game" from other games, so it is more essential. A great example of a game without the role playing is 4th edition, despite its claim to still be an RPG. Anyway, I'm off to work.
I think you're confusing 'tunneling you into combat and not solving problems without it' with no roleplaying. You still play a role of something in 4th. It's the only setting where I ever enjoyed playing a paladin.
I'm sure TOZ would agree you roleplay just as much in Pathfinder as you do in 4th or WoW, right? They're all roleplaying games.
Linguistically, the "role playing" defines and distinguishes the "game" from other games, so it is more essential. A great example of a game without the role playing is 4th edition, despite its claim to still be an RPG. Anyway, I'm off to work.
You can freakin' roleplay while playing LEGOs, or WoW, or diceless systems where people take turns roleplaying on messageboards.
It's like the more you speak, the less you say.
I think you're confusing 'tunneling you into combat and not solving problems without it' with no roleplaying. You still play a role of something in 4th. It's the only setting where I ever enjoyed playing a paladin.
It sounds as if you're confusing roleplaying with simply acting as a character with a role (in 4.0: Controller, Defender, Leader, or Striker). I suppose you could consider that a form of roleplaying, but by definition, it is:
role-play
[rohl-pley]
verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction:
Blackborn, you view your pcs as common every day people, don't you?
Not at all. Nothing I've said has remotely communicated this. I view my PCs as extraordinary individuals. They have more potential/ability in most things than the average person, but still have their limitations.
Basing your entire hatred of multiclassing on the characters you've seen is a stretch as well.
Thanks for being that token guy who disregards everything someone else has posted in an attempt to refute their points.
To reiterate my argument at its core yet again: the mechanic of multiclassing says that any character can acquire any skill set without question. I disagree with that. Is this so hard to understand? The matter of whether they will excel with that skill set is a moot point. Multiclassing makes sense sometimes, and should be allowed by DM's occasionally, if it also fits thematically.
I am trying to actually have a honest discussion about the mechanic of multiclassing and you are offering nothing to it. Furthermore, I have never said I hate multiclassing; I said I hate min/maxing. There is a difference. I have no problem with multiclassing when used appropriately, but most players do not use it for anything more than making their character more powerful on pen and paper.
Because every character is subject to DM approval.
Of course. But most DM's will allow multiclassing when they shouldn't, assuming they are rigorously roleplaying their campaign. Granted, many DM's and playgroups do not rigorously roleplay; I understand this.
|
|
Of course. But most DM's will allow multiclassing when they shouldn't, assuming they are rigorously roleplaying their campaign. Granted, many DM's do not rigorously roleplay; I understand this.
That doesn't make multi-classing bad.
And again with talking down to other players. What did your comment about roleplaying add to the discussion, besides your own feeling of superiority?
As I'm sure you have gathered from my posts, I believe multiclassing to often be purely meta-game thinking, and thus in direct conflict to the nature of any d20 system game.
As I'm sure you have gathered from my posts, I believe multiclassing to often be purely meta-game thinking, and thus in direct conflict to the nature of any d20 system game.
The entire game requires meta thinking on some level. How is it metagaming to choose two classes you want to play, but not one?
The classes are just bags of mechanics anyway.
If my character grows up and decides he wants to hunt people down, he may join the thieves guild to learn how to pick locks, and find magical traps. Later on he may meet a ranger and train under the ranger to know how to better target certain creatures.
Whether the backstory comes first or second is really immaterial.
As I said, I have no problem with meta-game thinking in my games.
I know. I'm not saying you're a bad person or a bad player or DM; I just don't agree with meta-game thinking, min/maxing, or anything of the like. I respect hypothetical min/maxers, who build optimized characters on pen and paper, but I don't care to actually play with them because they often lose sight of the roleplaying. I'm not saying you're like this, mind you. The only way a min/maxer can maintain the roleplay is if her character's goal is to become the ultimate individual, which is quite flat.
The entire game requires meta thinking on some level. How is it metagaming to choose two classes you want to play, but not one?
Granted. The character creation is pure meta; there is no way around it. After that point, meta should cease in my opinion. Call me a purist.
If my character grows up and decides he wants to hunt people down, he may join the thieves guild to learn how to pick locks, and find magical traps. Later on he may meet a ranger and train under the ranger to know how to better target certain creatures.
Both of these examples are excellent uses of the multiclass mechanic, both of which I would allow in a campaign.
|
|
I know. I'm not saying you're a bad person or a bad player or DM; I just don't agree with meta-game thinking, min/maxing, or anything of the like. I respect hypothetical min/maxers, who build optimized characters on pen and paper, but I don't care to actually play with them because they often lose sight of the roleplaying. I'm not saying you're like this, mind you.
That's fine then. I thought otherwise from your previous posts.
wraith's examples were acceptable because the newly acquired skills are actually coming from somewhere, not just appearing out of thin air. There are some cases where I won't even allow my players to level up mid-dungeon or mid-adventure, depending on their class and the circumstances. Multiclassing is an even more extreme phenomenon when you think of it in terms of the reality of the game.
But in the case of multiclassing, they are not existing skills that are improving, they are new skills that manifest spontaneously (generally).
edit: When you begin with a character, the class is an abstraction, but it's tied to the character's backstory. It's the justification for the character's skillset at creation.
It's quite a leap to assert that the average multiclassing player builds up to it during downtime in the campaign. I'm not sure how much "downtime" your groups usually have. Does your DM just say that weeks pass between sessions, where the players are off doing their own thing?
|
|
But in the case of multiclassing, they are not existing skills that are improving, they are new skills that manifest spontaneously (generally).
Not really. The rules are too abstract for that. 'Trained' doesn't mean you've spent years studying that skill, it means you've invested character resources to be better at that skill.
TOZ, I'm not sure what you mean by "invested character resources to be better."
As I see it, "trained" (in regards to skills) means either a character has received some sort of training--whether personal, by trial, or by another--in said skill, or has an intrinsic knack for it.
kryt, I don't really have much to say regarding your character. He seems fleshed out in the roleplaying sense. I'm not sure what you mean by mean by "the 1-20 in a year syndrome."
Regarding your DM's style, how does he/she reunite the players again and again after they are separated for months at a time? Having "extended periods of time between adventures" is generally problematic. Between every few adventures, sure, but I would never give my players break after break. That's personal DM style, I suppose.
It's quite a leap to assert that the average multiclassing player builds up to it during downtime in the campaign. I'm not sure how much "downtime" your groups usually have. Does your DM just say that weeks pass between sessions, where the players are off doing their own thing?
I plan my guys from 1 to 20 before I even sit down to play.
Many classes don't require you to learn another class from an in game PoV.
Example:
If I am a ranger I already have the weapon and armor proficiencies, and skills of a barbarian. I just need to learn to channel my aggression(rage), and continue with the rest of the class as I level.
Another example of a class being just a bag of mechanics:
I want to play a character who spread his faith in his deity as he goes.
I could play a bard who calls himself a cleric. The bard can heal and while he is not an actual "cleric" he may fit my version of a cleric.
If I want to play a "character" who loses his temper in battle and I worship a battle based deity maybe a barbarian/cleric is the way to go.
The classes just allow you to make a concept into a reality from my PoV.
I plan my guys from 1 to 20 before I even sit down to play.
This is the antithesis of how I believe the game should be played. But that's neither here nor there.
You're applying in-world logic to a metagame concept (at least in my opinion.) 'Trained' simply means that you have skill points in it. Whether those skill points developed by trial-and-error, by mentorship, or by suddenly breaking a personal plateau is something that will vary from character to character my friend.
Yes, I'm trying to turn a meta concept on its head and think of it terms of the reality of the campaign. As to your third sentence, I have already stated more or less the same.
If I want to play a "character" who loses his temper in battle and I worship a battle based deity maybe a barbarian/cleric is the way to go.
Or you could just play a barbarian who worships a War deity. The only reason to multiclass to cleric is if you want your character to be able to cast divine spells.
The classes just allow you to make a concept into a reality from my PoV.
I agree with this PoV, as long as the concept is logical and believable. In Pathfinder especially, it is of my opinion that such a concept can generally be achieved without multiclassing. If it cannot, it's probably too far-reaching, the endgame character of which is something that no individual with a consistent set of motivations and values would ever become.
I was a huge fan of prestige classes in 3.x, because they allowed players to advance and specialize while simultaneously being logical extensions of core/base classes.
My whole point is to consider skills, abilities, and characters as a whole in a non-meta framework. What is your explanation/understanding of skills in the reality of a campaign setting?
From what I am reading it seems you don't so much have an issue with multiclassing but the issue is a player suddenly deciding to pick up a new class for a reason that has no basis in the game storywise or in his background story.
They don't exist. How well the character does at a task is determined by a die roll outside of the campaign setting.
That die roll represents the imperfection of performance, situational circumstance(s), and the inherent chaos of reality.
From what I am reading it seems you don't so much have an issue with multiclassing but the issue is a player suddenly deciding to pick up a new class for a reason that has no basis in the game storywise or in his background story.
You're correct. But I'm also arguing that more often than not, multiclassing caters to meta-game players.
If I want to play a "character" who loses his temper in battle and I worship a battle based deity maybe a barbarian/cleric is the way to go.Or you could just play a barbarian who worships a War deity. The only reason to multiclass to cleric is if you want your character to be able to cast divine spells.
I should have gone into detail, but the character in question was actually a cleric first.
That makes more sense. A god-fearing character who develops (or had all along) a quick temper, or battle-rage, or what have you. I take no issue with that.
I plan my guys from 1 to 20 before I even sit down to play.This is the antithesis of how I believe the game should be played. But that's neither here nor there.
I am going to pick the same things that I would have chosen anyway depending on the concept. The difference is that instead of doing it after I am told to level I just do it before I start to play. I rather get the "work" out of the way so I can get to playing. There have been times when the campaign threw a wrench into my plans, but I just swap out a feat and keep going. In case you are wondering I don't show up with clones of my last character every time I play even if the concepts are similar. I get bored to easily to do that.
PS:My groups sometimes level in the middle of a session so knowing what I will take next makes things go faster.
I would like to take this chance to apologize for derailing this thread so severely.