Obviously, this thread has gone far afield of the original question-- in a direction where my advice would be wholly unsuitable, since I don't really know how to improve a person's confidence and my reaction to this kind of disrespect is almost always some form of intimidation or violence. All I can do is wish Kelsey luck on that score.
On the other hand, if after finding a way to resolve the more pressing issue, Kelsey still finds level-dipping PCs to be problematic, I can help. I've never liked the d20 multiclassing rules, so finally-- after too many years-- I changed them. Thank you, Paizo, for showing me how!
First, read Gestalt Characters.
Now:
- At first level, PCs select one or more classes. Per the Gestalt rules, they gain the first level abilities from all of their classes.
- Add up the classes. NPC Classes and Prestige Classes count for half. Call this number your XP Factor, or X, and your current level Y.
- To gain a level, you must gain a number of XP equal to (X+Y-1) * 1000. (Use a table. It's easier.)
- When the PCs gain a level, they do not choose a class, instead advancing one level in all of their classes.
This system easily handles standard Pathfinder classes and character types like the Mystic Theurge and the Eldritch Knight. You pick your class or classes, and you roll.
It doesn't handle what AD&D called "dual classing"-- actually changing your character class-- or Prestige Classes well. Making those work would properly would require changing the skill system and possibly the ability boost system. I'm still working on that.
Obviously, this thread has gone far afield of the original question-- in a direction where my advice would be wholly unsuitable, since I don't really know how to improve a person's confidence and my reaction to this kind of disrespect is almost always some form of intimidation or violence. All I can do is wish Kelsey luck on that score.
On the other hand, if after finding a way to resolve the more pressing issue, Kelsey still finds level-dipping PCs to be problematic, I can help. I've never liked the d20 multiclassing rules, so finally-- after too many years-- I changed them. Thank you, Paizo, for showing me how!
First, read Gestalt Characters.
Now:
- At first level, PCs select one or more classes. Per the Gestalt rules, they gain the first level abilities from all of their classes.
- Add up the classes. NPC Classes and Prestige Classes count for half. Call this number your XP Factor, or X, and your current level Y.
- To gain a level, you must gain a number of XP equal to (X+Y-1) * 1000. (Use a table. It's easier.)
- When the PCs gain a level, they do not choose a class, instead advancing one level in all of their classes.
This system easily handles standard Pathfinder classes and character types like the Mystic Theurge and the Eldritch Knight. You pick your class or classes, and you roll.
It doesn't handle what AD&D called "dual classing"-- actually changing your character class-- or Prestige Classes well. Making those work would properly would require changing the skill system and possibly the ability boost system. I'm still working on that.
Kelsey MacAilbert is dealing with munchkins,
gestalt Characters will make it worse.
Everyones already said the important stuff. So I'm just offering morale support for the OP.
Kelsey MacAilbert is dealing with munchkins,
gestalt Characters will make it worse.
Kelsey's problems run far deeper than munchkinism, and I think I addressed that. There's nothing you can do within the rules-- or by changing the rules-- that can make that problem better or worse, because Kelsey's group clearly does not give a damn about the rules.
The Gestalt rules only exacerbate the problems inherent to Pathfinder's class system. Change the underlying class system, and the Gestalt rules are simply a higher-power variant. Attach the Gestalt rules to a substantial XP penalty, and they are as balanced as anything else.
Kelsey MacAilbert is dealing with munchkins,
gestalt Characters will make it worse.
I agree. Those house rules will only make it harder to pace the advancement of her groups characters. They break a lot of the default pacing built into adventure paths and pre made modules. The last thing she probably needs is to also have to figure out a whole new level pacing system from scratch.
The behavior you've described is inappropriate on many levels.
End the campaign. Not with an in-game rockfall, but with an out of game whisper.
Tell the players that if they want to play, they'll have to either run a game, or be prepared to leave their validated sheets with you. Limit it to the CRB. Hell, limit it to the Beginner Box. Then add powers on a line-item-veto basis.
A GM needs to be able to control the PCs in order to balance the game and keep it fun.
Ditch these losers and game with your friends (even if you have to teach). If they're your "friends" tell them to start acting like it, or get new friends.
This is important if you want to have fun. The game is only fun with people you like.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
My advice is don't. Ever. A lot of GMs (including me) have control issues - I can't tell the story I want if they're too powerful, I can't design challenging encounters without resorting to charm monster every session, etc. But all that matter is your palyers have fun and come back.
Learning to say yes is a tough skill. There's a way to say yes that keeps your players coming back for more. And saying no to clear rules is another way to lose control of your game, and in a way most of us don't want. It's a way or the game to become more about us than about friendship, storytelling and good times.
Now, I am not saying this is you, and I don't know your sklls as a GM. But I know my time with Paizo friends and several great (some might say Iron) GMs, and I know that players rave over GMs who can say yes to darn near anything.
If your beef is level dipping, I'd let it go, and thank my stars that level-dipping is the problem instead of Doomspeak bards and Spell Perfection (disintegrate).
You're the boss at the table, so this is just my advice, but I'd find a way to say yes and die on a different hill.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Learning to say yes is a tough skill.The problem turns out to have been that the players routinely lied to the GM about the contents of a rule supplement she didn't have, and shouted at her until she agreed to allow them to break clearly written rules (such as the Druid/Monk doing a flurry of blows with natural weapons despite the class description explicitly saying you can't do that).
In short, the players bullied her into saying "yes" way more often than necessary. It's an unhealthy group, and there's probably no way to fix it short of just walking away and looking for a better one.
Yeesh. So the control dynamic is different. I guess I'd respond by letting them keep their stupid nonrule and using other 'non'rule breakdowns against them. "No...this type of undead are immune to disintegrate...they're from a book I found from a different publisher." But even then, you're either showing what happenes when everyone jacks the rules for the sake of powergaming, or you are getting in your tpk before never seeing those tards aagin.
If someone's actualyl going to raise their voice until you let them use a rule they don't ahve down correctly, from a book no one can produce, you already don't ahve control of your game. Have a meeting and find out if you can still play together. If you're not looking for the same things, use this community to find you some better players. Tinalles here seems to be a good start at a new table.
Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?You know what else is munchkin?
A wizard/cleric going from apprentice/acolyte to archmage/hierophant in less than a year of setting time.
Totally agree on that. Balance doesn't suffer, but the storytelling is robbed of its verisimilitude with that in-game pace.
I intend to try a system of acquiring XP that goes as such:1 hour of training (an the player explains how the character does that without me interfering, it's mostly a thought experiment to intensify character inpersonification) = 1000 XP. When you acquire XP the usual way, it goes into a bank of your character's XP. This is the available XP you have to train. That way, you're losing no time at low lvl, but it helps explaining why most adventurers you meet wouldn't be lvl 20+. Because it's hard, not because they're just NPCs. I also plan to make this rate higher according to settlement's alignment when it matches the character's but it's all very hypothetical.
I hope this will help me plan large-scale events in advance; for example, if I plan a war day-to-day, it helps to know that 100K XP = 100 hours training in an appropriate environment, so I can plan the next 2 weeks counting on the PCs being the same lvl. Of course, a session with 6 encounters might be in-game a weeks long or more, especially at higher lvl. But this is only a gain in storytelling in my opinion.
This affects the curent post this way: if your players can go on and tell hour-by-hour how their character trains, it becomes futile to put them limits in terms of multiclassing or level-dipping; they most likely will put themselves more limits than you do because they will make decisions from a character's point of view.
All that is still hypothetical, but I'll sure get back when I've tried the system with my group.
Yes. The issue was the way the players were acting and not following the RAW and my inability to make them follow to the RAW. Their level dip builds were all completely illegal.I don't want it. Imagine a Wisdom Sorcerer (there is an arcana that allows this) with a level of Monk. Imagine a Druid with a level of Monk, for that matter. Imagine a Wizard with a level of Crossblooded Sorcerer. I want none of these things. So, how do I ban this in a way that does not overstep my bonds as GM?These things normally make the character weaker. That druid monk one is an example.
The druid would have higher AC with armor than trying to pump that wisdom modifier.
In that case the issue is not level dipping, but cheating or uninformed players. This is important because blaming the level dipping should not be the focus. You may want to start checking character sheets after every level up from now on.
I don't want it. Imagine a Wisdom Sorcerer (there is an arcana that allows this) with a level of Monk. Imagine a Druid with a level of Monk, for that matter. Imagine a Wizard with a level of Crossblooded Sorcerer. I want none of these things. So, how do I ban this in a way that does not overstep my bonds as GM?These things normally make the character weaker. That druid monk one is an example.
The druid would have higher AC with armor than trying to pump that wisdom modifier.the trick is wildshape, keep wis to AC, become a large or huge creature, and you can FoB while in animal form (monks can attack with ANY part of their body, but you couldn't add natural attacks to the mix)
if you buff wis to the max, you're ac is just as good as with armor, plus it stacks with bracers of armor, and all your druid buffs.
Those bracers of armor are expensive. It is cheaper to drop a feat on heavy armor prof, and get the wildshape(maybe wrong name) enhancement so you get the armor bonus while wildshaped. You also don't lose a caster level. If you get a shield you can get the enhancement to that also. I did the math before the other post, and the armor gets you a pretty close AC either way, and you have gold left over for other things.
Those bracers of armor are expensive. It is cheaper to drop a feat on heavy armor prof, and get the wildshape(maybe wrong name) enhancement so you get the armor bonus while wildshaped
Its even cheaper to pick a fighting form like velociraptor, show up at the armorer and say "I need a set of masterwork barding for this..." turn into the raptor and let them measure you for your new duds. Doubling the cost of the armor is trivial compared to a +3 item enhancement.