| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After seeing the race builder from the play test for Advanced Race, I think it would be cool have a class builder system to create new strange classes or archetypes
somebody else want something like this?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it would be nice, this would work even less than the race builder.
It's more of an art than a science.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An archetype/class builder without the appropriate flavor is like mashing french fries, champagne and foie gras in a mixer to get a miraculous liquid of tasty stars. You'll only find some kind of light-brown paste.
The system already allows for pretty much every concept. And if it isn't the case yet, it's that you didn't search on the boards or in what 3PP have in store.
Ninja'd by Cheapy btw.
well now we have ARG I am more sure than ever that would be great to have a point buy class builder. Since Paizo has state it would not be more new classes, a class builder would be a great solution for those who want more classes like the Artificer that will not be published in Ultimate Equipment. Maybe in NPC Codex, you get hundreds of NPC and system to create new options and combinations, I meant we have a system to create new monsters, magic items and now new races the only thing missing are classes. Please Paizo make a point buy class builder and publish it in NPC Codex.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
The system already allows for pretty much every concept. ...
The problem comes from having a concept and having to obtain a level of this and a level of that only to end up with some of what you want and a lot of what you don't.
Not everyone is into the lego block characters, which is all you can make from a class based system.
If they decide against making more classes then they should just make a classless version of d20(or just publish mine when I finish it)
If they decide against making more classes then they should just make a classless version of d20(or just publish mine when I finish it)
Or they could just make more Archetypes and Prestige Classes instead of full classes.
Point to me a specific character concept, and you can be sure that there is an official or 3PP way of doing it single-classed thanks to base classes, archetypes and feats.
Is that a challenge?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real challenge here is to find something that isn't covered by Paizo, 3PP designers or even at some point by a cool content provided by the fanbase. With the right combination of contents, you can pretty much play anything and be efficient at it.
If you really want to give it a try, be imaginative. The last time people complained about this very "issue", each and every character concept had an answer. This means no artificer or true shapeshifter since these have already been extensively covered.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After seeing the race builder from the play test for Advanced Race, I think it would be cool have a class builder system to create new strange classes or archetypes
somebody else want something like this?
This was attempted once in a system call bESM D20. They attempted to assign a point value to all the current 3.0 classes at the time and provided a point buy value. They even illustrated how classes like the fighter in 3.0 were grossly underpowered when compared to full spell casters.
That being said, there are inherent flaws with this approach to class building. The biggest problem is that while you can assign values to class features, its really hard to determine how these features will interact over the coarse of 20 levels. Another major problem you run into is min/maxing on an even more grotesque scale than before, especially if you allow players to custom build their class from level to level.
Pathfinder has already given us some (albeit shaky) guidelines for designing base classes.
-We know that BAB and Hit Dice are tied together. (This is one of those guidelines I really, really, really don't agree with).
-We know that One or Two good saves are standard. Three good saves should be considered a class feature.
-We know based on past precedence that if you have a full BAB you should really only have up to 4th level spells. 3/4 BAB you should have up to 6th level spells if you have class features at every level OR up to 9th level spells if you do not receive a class feature at every level. 1/2 BAB is almost a guarantee that you will get up to 9th level spell casting.
If you have browsed the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (UA) book (which is OGL) then you can make certain other assumptions about abilities.
-If you look in Unearthed Arcana you will find a section detailing three "Base" classes. These are even more stripped down versions of classes than their 3.5 counterparts. These classes can best be described as a "Fighter", an "Expert" and a "Spell Caster". Each receives some bonus feats. If you look at some of the bonus feats that they can take you will find things like Sneak Attack, Turn Undead, ect. The reason I point this out is that it can provide you with a base line for what class features you could considered on the same power scale as a Feat.
To be honest while a set of class building guidelines would be nice, I don't think its either necessary or as useful as you may think. It can cause all sorts of problems with the game. Namely it means Paizo will have to retroactively show the "math" behind all their class designs. While this may sound great in theory, forcing them to proof their designs, think of how it will limit us. No you'll have people saying "This isn't fair, I can't do this because I don't have enough points, and that's dumb, it shouldn't cost that much or that little, blah, blah, blah". Another angle of this argument will be "NO YOU STUPID NOOB, you can't do that because the RAW don't let you do that so you can't build your class that way. And the fact is once you set class building rules in print, they may as well be written in stone. Its a good idea in theory but a bad idea in practice. At least right now we still have the freedom to design a class the way we see fit, free from a set of full on rules telling us how it must be done.
Class building is largely something you have to learn to do on your own through trial and error. It does take a certain amount of system understanding and mastery to do correctly. Its also why no matter how good your class designs look on paper, you have to remember these key words: PLAY TEST, PLAY TEST, PLAY TEST. Because you won't see your own designs flaws while you're in the honeymoon phase of building that class.
I would say before you ask for official class building rules try this instead. Use the forums. Use the Advice Forum for bouncing small questions and small ideas off people to see what the reaction is. Use the rules Forum if you have any questions about how something is suppose to work. And then use the "Home Brew" forum to acid test your new class ideas.
What's the worst that happens. We tell you your class idea is borked and you need to take it back to the drawing board. Yeah that criticism is harsh, but at least you have feed back, and that's something you can't get off a class building chart.
These are the rules I follow for class building.
-Inspiration, Precedence, Construction, Critique, Play Test, Refinement.
Hope it helps.
-AK
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well now we have ARG I am more sure than ever that would be great to have a point buy class builder. Since Paizo has state it would not be more new classes, a class builder would be a great solution for those who want more classes like the Artificer that will not be published in Ultimate Equipment. Maybe in NPC Codex, you get hundreds of NPC and system to create new options and combinations, I meant we have a system to create new monsters, magic items and now new races the only thing missing are classes. Please Paizo make a point buy class builder and publish it in NPC Codex.
They've already stated they wouldn't do this. Something along the lines of Jason's head almost exploding when asked to do the Race Builder, and races are infinitely easier to make than a full class.
Besides, point-buy whatever is a piss-poor replacement for a good designer.
An archetype/class builder without the appropriate flavor is like mashing french fries, champagne and foie gras in a mixer to get a miraculous liquid of tasty stars.
What a lovely analogy!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't talk about multiclassing. Point to me a specific character concept, and you can be sure that there is an official or 3PP way of doing it single-classed thanks to base classes, archetypes and feats.
Since when does multiclass mean multiconcept? Only by lego standards.
If I multiclass its because my character learned something the wasn't given by her current class, and usually is part of the concept because classes don't tell me my character, they only tell me what my character has learned. She might have a level of fighter because her father forced her through such classes. Even though she doesn't like it, she still learned it.
But what if my character is fighter that never uses armor? Why stick myself with armor training? Why ask someone else to make an archtype that I will use once or twice?
Design a classfree system and then you don't need someone else to make more stuff all the time.
Concepts are more for characters then classes from a player's perspective.
And here is a concept for you,
a martial artist spell caster.
|
|
Since when does multiclass mean multiconcept? Only by lego standards.
By nature, each class is a different mechanical and thematic concept. Similarities or shared backgrounds exist, but saying that a rogue is the same character than a wizard is non-sense.
If I multiclass its because my character learned something the wasn't given by her current class, and usually is part of the concept because classes don't tell me my character, they only tell me what my character has learned. She might have a level of fighter because her father forced her through such classes. Even though she doesn't like it, she still learned it.
But what if my character is fighter that never uses armor? Why stick myself with armor training? Why ask someone else to make an archtype that I will use once or twice?
Design a classfree system and then you don't need someone else to make more stuff all the time.
Concepts are more for characters then classes from a player's perspective.
Player's perspective doesn't matter when we speak about a system's mechanics. By playing Pathfinder, you are agreeing to play in a system based around classes. There are a lot of class-less systems out there that propose this alternative.
And here is a concept for you,
a martial artist spell caster.
You're not even trying. These are the community (and soon to become 3PP) options.
Sensei monk 2/Kensai magus X with Magical Knack trait ; Sage bloodline sorcerer X/monk 1 ; Ninja/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster for short multiclassing options.Simple magus with stone fist spell or Improved unarmed Strike feat ; or Staff Magus or Geisha Bard for single class options. (Just ask your DM to replace your exotic weapon proficiencies with your fists ; flavorful and balanced.)
I don't know of a 3PP option but wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a sneaky character who casts spells from the shadows is a concept that can be made with rogue/wizard. But this concept is neither the rogue nor the wizard.
The classes are given a concept to hold the class together and some people(I call them lego players) build characters off the class concepts instead of making their own concept and making it work.
First you said single class so those monk mixes are out, second spell list heavily flavors your spellcaster, third imp unarmed does really poor dmg with no way to improve fourth you only address attacking, what about the unarmored defense?
Classes/archtypes/etc are limited and limiting but some may like that, I don't, I just happen to love the rest of the system.
All I am trying to say is that if they don't make more classes then maybe they can make classfree character generation that works with the d20 system.
I will agree that there are some class concepts that have not yet been addressed by the existing character classes in play and for which and archetype/alternate class design may not be a solution. Still these classes will tend to be the exception rather than the norm.
For the "Martial Artist/spell caster" I would recommend going back to 3.5 Material like Complete Arcane for the "Enlightened Fist". This is one of those instances where I feel PrCs can actually shine. You have two base concepts and a Fusion PrC class is what I would recommend over designing an entirely new base class.
Fact is that the 3.5 material is largely still compatible as is with a few minor tweaks. Granted once again you have to seriously look at the PrCs before allowing them into your game as some are grossly unbalanced while other are so underpowered that they are near unplayable. Shoring up these design flaws is a good way to practice your own class building skills as its much easier to build and balance a PrC than a full base class.
|
|
Having a sneaky character who casts spells from the shadows is a concept that can be made with rogue/wizard. But this concept is neither the rogue nor the wizard.
You mean, like the shadow bloodline ?
If you have an heroic performer who smites evil while inspiring allies, you are both a paladin and a bard system-wise.First you said single class so those monk mixes are out, second spell list heavily flavors your spellcaster, third imp unarmed does really poor dmg with no way to improve fourth you only address attacking, what about the unarmored defense?
1. Read again and see that there aren't only multiclass builds suggested.
2. I don't see spellcasters with ridiculously small spell lists in there neither.3. IUS isn't meant to deal huge damage, it's meant to be used as a weapon without provoking, all the while channeling spells and powers through it. Add to this the fighter feats and magical enhancements from magus levels, and you get a solid damage-build.
4. Did you really read the previous builds ? Sage sorcerer/Monk 1 bases your (high) AC AND spellcasting on wisdom. Sensei monk gives you your Wisdom to AC and attack rolls. Kensai adds your Intelligence to AC in top of Dex and Wis with a single monk level. There are more defense-oriented options than the opposite, and even then, you still have solid spellcasting options and buffs in addition to low MAD. Just add style feats on top for optimization fun.
All I am trying to say is that if they don't make more classes then maybe they can make classfree character generation that works with the d20 system.
Frankenstein-y classes built around exactly what you want to play would be both terribly bland and unbalanced. It's the perfect way to get full-BAB classes with sneak attack and inspire courage.
Writting archetypes is more an art blending fluff with innovative and balanced crunch than a science you can reproduce by spending points.
|
|
The problem comes from having a concept and having to obtain a level of this and a level of that only to end up with some of what you want and a lot of what you don't.......
The system already allows for pretty much every concept. ...
Read again, and repeat till you understand the statement or have a specific question about what you don't understand in the statement.
I didn't talk about multiclassing. Point to me a specific character concept, and you can be sure that there is an official or 3PP way of doing it single-classed thanks to base classes, archetypes and feats.
And yet you can only really give me multiclass options without even paying any attention to my complaint about the problem, next you assume I like or want MAD third you assume I would play classless with a munchkin
Next you should never ignore design possibilities because of how someone might break it. There will always be someone who breaks it but the only way to prevent breakage is to remove all the fun elements, therefore one has to balance fun vs breakage and the preferred balance will not be the same for everyone, it is also why we have GMs who arbitrate things and have sole power over what goes and what doesn't.
|
|
And I would like to state that I am a player who is on the roleplaying side of things. I like to be creative and to have organic and realistic characters.
Some people like build by stats, and I like build by character. Both methods should have viable options and be taken into account.
I used Major creation to kill a an elephant-thing and its rider. Didn't matter how much damage it did, I liked the idea and I played it. Not everyone is out to see how much (dmg, healing, etc) they can output.
|
|
Read again, and repeat till you understand the statement or have a specific question about what you don't understand in the statement.
I answered this issue in the very first post I adressed to you : basically, according to your needs, you're playing the wrong system. Any other answer was meant to show that whatever you want to play, options already exist for it.
Pathfinder RPG is based on classes mechanics, not on crafting your own ; the same way global imbalance is a part of the design intent (like between casters and warriors). Except of course homebrew realm, which is integral part of the game if you want to craft new rules.Some months ago, there was SGG which I believe suggested the idea of a "how to design classes" 3PP supplement to help people crafting their own classes and archetypes, I don't know if it was written.
Next you should never ignore design possibilities because of how someone might break it. There will always be someone who breaks it but the only way to prevent breakage is to remove all the fun elements, therefore one has to balance fun vs breakage and the preferred balance will not be the same for everyone, it is also why we have GMs who arbitrate things and have sole power over what goes and what doesn't.
Thank you for the design lesson about how to balance fun and breakage, but I'll pass on this one. I think I wrote enough material to at least support my emphasis on both values.
And I would like to state that I am a player who is on the roleplaying side of things. I like to be creative and to have organic and realistic characters.
Sheesh. Please stop being offensive. We get it, according to your claims, you are a true roleplayer and not a vile rollplayer. Hence you are right, and other inferior, "lego players" who like the current system are wrong, since loving both roleplay and mechanics is impossible.
Just warning you, this is first grade stormwind fallacy, and it is doubtful you will get anywhere with this argument on these boards.I have yet to see people crafting a character based on what the class can achieve ; instead of searching what class allows them to play their base concept.
And even then, I don't see what the problem is to have a player develop a character from the mechanics. At least he's trying to have a role and a character, and this isn't more original than another player inspired by a book.
|
|
If you can point out a d20 system with no classes I would love to hear of it.
The D20 system doesn't entirely operate on classes, just character generation and a few class-feature-only abilities.
That I'm a roleplayer isn't an argument it was letting you see where I'm coming from. I am not saying that munchkin is bad or wrong, just saying that we shouldn't make options only for munchkins.
If you think about it all a class is, is an ability package. Doesn't need fluff to work, people just made them from simple concepts and others just used for ease but there is no need to limit oneself to packages. (items can be bought or sold individually though they have packages as well)
|
|
The big difference is the direction of crafting, you might create a concept by selecting available lego blocks(the classes and abilities and the fluff that comes with) and then you build them in tandem or by building fluff after you have the mechanical build.
But then you can make a concept of the character and what they know, what they are good at etc, then try to represent that in the game system.
Classes are good for the first method but terrible for the second method because it turns into grabbing this for a couple things and grabbing that for a couple things and both of those end up coming with things that dont fit the character.
|
|
Never said they don't exist (I am making one myself) that doesn't make them well known however. (would never have heard of ninja burger if a friend of mind didn't bring it one day)
It is not the point to say "go find some third party game if you hate us", the point is a counter-suggestion because someone said they were not likely to make more classes ...etc
Thats when you decided that we could make anything as is, and I then tried to point out that as versatile as the system is, it can't make anything we want, it has limits.
I agree on the difficulty of achieving balance, and I'm aware of the work of shadow studios (I'm not sure about the name) and also the generic class option from Unearth Arcana (the one a I hate most thats why I ask for a point buy system). And I don't see the harm in having a class builder, specially if Paizo will not publish more new classes. Just for the record I don't like multiclassing, and although I like much more the concept of archetypes than prestige classes, there is concepts you can't create with them.
Things like this is why I love and hate Pathfinder, they publish a lot of cool things I like but they never publish the ones I want.
The real challenge here is to find something that isn't covered by Paizo, 3PP designers or even at some point by a cool content provided by the fanbase. With the right combination of contents, you can pretty much play anything and be efficient at it.
If you really want to give it a try, be imaginative. The last time people complained about this very "issue", each and every character concept had an answer. This means no artificer or true shapeshifter since these have already been extensively covered.
I've seen your coverage of others' concepts in this thread. Your idea of matching the concept is very loose compared with mine.
For example: I haven't been able to come up with what I consider a good expy of Erza Scarlet from Fairy Tail. I've come close, but not close enough for me. I suspect that what I've come up with would count as close enough for you.
|
|
You are bringing anime characters and physics on a discussion about Pathfinder RPG system. There is a reason you can't play a perfect goku expy by the Pathfinder RAW : simple overall balance. While you can fly, shoot fireballs and create your own demiplanes, the game isn't intended to let you do a Gomu Gomu no Gatling with the equivalent of a 75+ Strength and invulnerable plot armor (except maybe through crow strike...). There aren't even epic rules right now, so don't expect to play an anime expy soon when other systems are already intended to be used for this purpose.
The only concept I know that currently allows you to summon different kinds of items with a martial character and still cast spells is my own Glyph Scholar magus. I think there is also a 3.5 of Pf prestige class that can draw any item he wishes from a magic cavern, up to a delimited value.
@Maxximilius: Your arguments might be more convincing if you didn't keep moving the goalposts. Or, maybe you're just not telling people where the goalposts are; I haven't quite figured it out, yet.
Edit: When did I bring up physics?
|
|
Where the heck am I "moving the goalpost" ? All it comes down is "I can't do X in this system", where X has a good reason for not being able to be reproduced by a class builder.
This thread is about "we have no class builder". Each following post explained why there aren't currently any in PFRPG and why there will probably be none in the future ; and showing examples of other systems that allow you what you are searching for in your games if you don't want the classical class/archetypes system.
And you brought anime physics the second you complained about not being able to reproduce a shonen anime character expy within the system. Again, there is a reason you can't build goku or luffy, and that's because they would have off-the-charts levels.
Where the heck am I "moving the goalpost" ? All it comes down is "I can't do X in this system", where X has a good reason for not being able to be reproduced by a class builder.
This thread is about "we have no class builder". Each following post explained why there aren't currently any in PFRPG and why there will probably be none in the future ; and showing examples of other systems that allow you what you are searching for in your games if you don't want the classical class/archetypes system.And you brought anime physics the second you complained about not being able to reproduce a shonen anime character expy within the system. Again, there is a reason you can't build goku or luffy, and that's because they would have off-the-charts levels.
And what reason is that? why are you against having a class builder? I agree that for reproducing a Dragon Ball character first we need epic rules (I hope we get it soon), but I really don't see any reason for no having a class builder, and I think something like Erza's magic can be reproduced perfectly in 20 levels with a class builder.
Never said they don't exist (I am making one myself) that doesn't make them well known however. (would never have heard of ninja burger if a friend of mind didn't bring it one day)
I actually game with Mike, the guy who created Ninja Burger. He's pretty fun to game with. He has worked on several games and has shared them with us. He even brought us Ninja Burger T-Shirts!
|
|
Erza wasn't always so powerful and her powers can easily be split and scaled to go from level 1 to level 20 though you ignore the possibility and assume we want to break the system and make characters that are super-powerful, truth is that Erza, as is, is probably only level 10-15. There are even magic items that act similar to her powers.
The only good reasons you give for not including things are for the examples you suggest(which are above and beyond ours) and not for the examples we suggest. Perhaps you can't refute our examples?
Either way, just because you don't want the extra rules doesn't mean they can't be designed, if you don't like them then disallow them in your games(allowable by way of Rule 0), it's that simple.
It's like Munchkin,You can play with one set or include whatever ones catch your fancy.
The real challenge here is to find something that isn't covered by Paizo, 3PP designers or even at some point by a cool content provided by the fanbase. With the right combination of contents, you can pretty much play anything and be efficient at it.
If you really want to give it a try, be imaginative. The last time people complained about this very "issue", each and every character concept had an answer. This means no artificer or true shapeshifter since these have already been extensively covered.
I've seen your coverage of others' concepts in this thread. Your idea of matching the concept is very loose compared with mine.
For example: I haven't been able to come up with what I consider a good expy of Erza Scarlet from Fairy Tail. I've come close, but not close enough for me. I suspect that what I've come up with would count as close enough for you.
That just requires monkeying with the magic item rules. Xquiping just involves swapping magic items, so having manaquins who you can exchange gear with as a teleportation effect would accomplish that. It would be expensive but then so is Erza's wardrobe in universe. Also, in universe shes like a scary level 60 fighter. Not much you can do about that.
|
|
The only good reasons you give for not including things are for the examples you suggest(which are above and beyond ours) and not for the examples we suggest. Perhaps you can't refute our examples?
Either way, just because you don't want the extra rules doesn't mean they can't be designed, if you don't like them then disallow them in your games(allowable by way of Rule 0), it's that simple.
It would be appreciable if you understood that I didn't say you were a munchkin for asking class building rules. I'm saying such rules would be hard to come with, would dismiss a designer's work as a simple formula of various-sized lego blocks added together, and give bland and abusable classes - NOT that you would do it. Try yourself creating an innovative base class or an archetype and submit it on the boards, you'll understand that it's not only adding some pre-conceived features together, but a matter of appropriate rule sets and mechanics.
Just look at Words of Power : it's a mish-mash of complicated rules and exceptions where only some options are really viable, and it requires intense study of the subsystem to even know them... and classes are a way, way more complicated mechanic. If you have full-BAB, what features to add to your class ? Are these features innovative, or even required ? Are there already class abilities that would be balanced and work for what you have in mind ? Isn't using an existing class ability at full-efficiency power creep, and making the original class using it obsolete ? In that case, do I nerf it ? By how much ? Is it still enjoyable/faithful while nerfed ? How do I balance this out both fun and mechanic-wise ? How could I modify the existing feature with an unique power ? Would other people be interested in playing this concept with this execution/would this execution give people interest in trying the concept ?
|
|
I have created classes, (maybe I will submit them sometime) I have created games too. It is easier to create a system for the players to create with then to create a system that relies on the designers making continuous add-ons (the later does however make more money).
Also my suggestion was a step further to make a classless character generator for the D20 system, compatible with the PF universe.
Besides, removing those limits will split the player base into two halves, those who optimize and thus make bland classes that focus on their party role(sometimes relying on the player for fluff) the other group will be those who are set free to create all kinds of wild, crazy, and interesting characters.
The former group will eventually start branching out from their bland choices simply because they are tired of playing the same things and thus they will then appreciate being able to mostly optimize while including little things to change up their characters and make them "stand" out, at least from that groups circles.
AKA, the complete blandness will be a short term phase that only certain players fall into, while allowing everyone more freedom and creativity.
Classes don't ever grant creativity. They grant inspiration sometimes, particulary for those who need it, and they make building characters faster, but they limit creativity.
Classes don't ever grant creativity. They grant inspiration sometimes, particulary for those who need it, and they make building characters faster, but they limit creativity.
Having played dozens of different systems over a long gaming career, I have found that the only limit to creativity is the player and/or GM expectations. Anyone creative enough can work within a given system to achieve the desired goals. Some are easier with different systems but I have found very few to be impossible. Usually the ones that are impossible are the ones that are too specific. The example of some anime character mentioned before would be an example. Instead of creating that exact character, a creative player would try to get something that matched the concept.
Class based systems have their strengths and non-class based systems have theirs. Neither is actually superior overall (some specific games are).
I think a Class-Build Guide would not have the desired effect. I think it would be much more difficult to create. Races have limited impact on your character. They tend not to grow stronger (with a few exceptions like Spell Resistance). Classes do and how one ability interacts with a class isn't the same as how it interacts with another. For example, if you assigned a point value to Pounce, what value should it have and should it vary based on class-chassis? If it does vary, should it also vary by archetype or even spell selections? Should it matter if you have chosen a different race? There are way too many variables to take into account. This holds for many other things as well. I chose pounce because it's an ability that more than half the classes in the game would start off interested in yet every class could find value in.
I didn't forget it. It was addressed and I thought the conversation had moved on. Personally, I don't like classless systems for my fantasy games. I also don't like class-based systems for my sci-fi or modern games.
|
|
... Anyone creative enough can work within a given system to achieve the desired goals. ...
I am not sure, within a system anyone who is creative can build interesting things but not always what they want Take classes for example, they force features of what the designer saw, on to the character, whether I want them or not. I also get sent multiclassing trying to get the features I want.
True I could ignore the features I don't want to use with my character but then I am effectively weaker then the others of the group because I do not have the option of changing those features without invoking rule 0
This can be seen in my concept of a spellcasting (support and movement focus) fighter, sure they have the magus but she preps spells where as I am looking for spontaneous, don't want the magus arcana, spell combat is wanted but taking the class is the only way to get it, the spell list is alright but not exactly what I am looking for, etc, etc, etc I could go on forever about this or eldritch knight
Can I make an interesting character? yes. Is it what I envisioned before even looking at the rulebook? Not really. It isn't really about how wide the bounds of the system are, it's how versatile the system is within those bounds.
|
|
And again, you'll never get a good class builder because :
1. It would be horribly hard to create and use, full of exceptions and power degrees for each ability reducing/increasing it's overall cost, including in relation to other abilities (like Words of Power);
2. The only way to balance it while avoiding abuse would be to make the characters it builds inferior to the classical ones, even by comparing a base class with the exact same custom-built class (like Words of Power) ;
3. A time-consuming system to create which is hard to use and results in inferior characters is a waste of time and money both for the designers and the players. So, not worth it.
The only way a character builder could work would be by making it the new class system deep-rooted in the future Pathfinder RPG 2.0 Core Rulebook.
... Anyone creative enough can work within a given system to achieve the desired goals. ...I am not sure, within a system anyone who is creative can build interesting things but not always what they want Take classes for example, they force features of what the designer saw, on to the character, whether I want them or not. I also get sent multiclassing trying to get the features I want.
You made the claim that classes limit creativity. They don't. A creative player can work with the system. A non-creative player will only see limitations. It doesn't matter what the system is. Creative players push limitations and non-creative ones are bound by them.
True I could ignore the features I don't want to use with my character but then I am effectively weaker then the others of the group because I do not have the option of changing those features without invoking rule 0
Invalid argument. Ignoring features you won't use is the exact same as not having them. You are at the same power level either way. Besides, you can look for archetypes or multiclass options (including prestige classes) that allow you to achieve your goals. You may not always find them but then that just means that your GM is able to work with you. If your GM does not allow for that, it isn't a limitation of the system but a limitation placed by the GM. I'm a GM that doesn't allow a lot of 3PP stuff nor do I homebrew much. I am one of those GMs that has limitations on his game. My players have yet to be non-creative within the system.
This can be seen in my concept of a spellcasting (support and movement focus) fighter, sure they have the magus but she preps spells where as I am looking for spontaneous, don't want the magus arcana, spell combat is wanted but taking the class is the only way to get it, the spell list is alright but not exactly what I am looking for, etc, etc, etc I could go on forever about this or eldritch knight
Is being a spontaneous caster a must or can you find a way to deal with preparation? Sometimes we make our concept too rigid and we paint ourselves into a corner.
Can I make an interesting character? yes. Is it what I envisioned before even looking at the rulebook? Not really. It isn't really about how wide the bounds of the system are, it's how versatile the system is within those bounds.
Sometimes the concept is not really appropriate for the system. For example that anime character mentioned before doesn't feel like sword-and-sorcery. I don't watch nor like anime but from what I've seen of it, it doesn't feel like classic sword-and-sorcery so I don't see it as a problem. I see it as a player trying to play something not appropriate. That being said, there is no reason why it just can't be created by the GM and player. That's the beauty of the system: you are only limited by you and your GM. There is nothing that says you can only use certain books or certain company products except the GM. In fact, the simple fact that Pathfinder even exists shows that the limitations are GM and player placed and not system placed.
|
|
...Creative players push limitations and non-creative ones are bound by them....
This is not entirely true, imagine a piece of paper, now imagine a tree drawn on the paper. The tree is like classes, it can go lots of places but there are always lots of white space not covered by the tree drawing.
All players are bound by those limits, whether they push them or not. Creative players have ideas and want to try out those ideas only to find that sometimes they can't without killing the idea itself, because they have to conform to the classes.
Some players also use classes as a crutch, taking the fluff tied to the class and options to create a concept rather then creating the concept on their own, it is these that are usually the non-creative players.
I don't mean to imply that you can't be creative with classes only that they limit creativity. Some people prefer having limits to push against, others don't want to have to push the limits and would rather be able to simply create some ideas and play them.
...
Invalid argument. Ignoring features you won't use is the exact same as not having them. You are at the same power level either way.
....
Invalid argument. I was comparing my char to others of the same lvl. If I am not using 3 powers I have and everyone else is using all their powers, then I am less powerful then they are, which can lead to several bad things.
Sometimes I want a single ability from a class but not anything else at all from the class. If I take that class then I got a whole slew of powers that I am not using, essentially spending a full lvl to gain the power of a single feat, this can quickly leave me far behind other players who are playing more traditional things or don't care about the concept they play.
...
Is being a spontaneous caster a must or can you find a way to deal with preparation? Sometimes we make our concept too rigid and we paint ourselves into a corner.
....
It is not always about concept, I as a player very much dislike preparation. I do not like playing prep magic, period.
...
Sometimes the concept is not really appropriate for the system.
....
The system for the most part should not care, only the setting should care. There might be certain things that don't work for lack of rules support, but look at how d20 is used for all kinds of settings, but is still pretty much the same system.
Besides sometimes you can't find people who play a system, or perhaps such a perfect system doesn't exist , therefore you play whatever system you can play, just to play. Should I never be able to play what I want?
...
That's the beauty of the system: you are only limited by you and your GM.
....
Please read,
...
Which the point is to minimize rule 0 for the purpose of this conversation, if it wasn't (edit) the point (edit) then the conversation wouldn't occur
....
What you suggest is rule 0. Some people or even GMs, have a problem with rule 0, or just don't allow it (the latter sounds like you from your comments) Therefore having the rules available helps those who want to avoid rule 0.
The point of the system is after all to make playing easy and fair. Otherwise you can always just play with no rules at all except rule 0 if you wanted.
Further, I am working on a classless d20 system, but can I find players for it? Can I find someone else to GM it, so I can play?
Unknown, but I can almost guarantee that there won't be very many, which makes finding a good group that much more difficult.
|
|
What you suggest is rule 0. Some people or even GMs, have a problem with rule 0, or just don't allow it (the latter sounds like you from your comments) Therefore having the rules available helps those who want to avoid rule 0.
The point of the system is after all to make playing easy and fair. Otherwise you can always just play with no rules at all except rule 0 if you wanted.
Further, I am working on a classless d20 system, but can I find players for it? Can I find someone else to GM it, so I can play?
Unknown, but I can almost guarantee that there won't be very many, which makes finding a good group that much more difficult.
Everything is rule 0. From the moment you choose a character to the instant you throw your dice, the DM is theorically the one who decides what gets into the game and what doesn't... especially when we are peaking about rules from any X custom builder, even an official one like Races Builder or Words of Power.
If a group is so good to play with, that he's playing lego with Pathfinder RPG shouldn't be so much of a problem. (Also, just for information d20pfsrd has the support/spontaneous magus archetype from a 3PP in stock.)
actually I think the system words of power is pretty good. And sincerely say that the class builder will be bad without seeing is just a prejudice.
|
|
It's not prejudice, it's stating the inevitable. To make a balanced class-building tool usable by anyone, it has to suck at doing effective, original characters. Otherwise you get custom rogues better than true rogues, or custom spellcasters more versatiles than wizards ; all the while losing the crunch that gives soul to "real" classes.
There is a classless Pathfinder homebrew system created by one of the board members here. I've never tried it out, though. A BALANCED Skills and Powers type system for character creation is ONE of my wildest dreams.