I'm thinking about starting up a Pathfinder game after I finish with my 4th edition one, and I was pondering ways to make characters a little sexier. In a nutshell I'm considering using the Unearthed Arcana gestalt rules, giving feats at every level instead of every other, and boosting each skill progression one rank higher (8+int gets skill focus for free). As a player, I love having lots of options for customizing who my character is, both from an optimization and roleplaying standpoint. My only worry is that given so many options, the disparity between power-gamers and casual players can grow even larger. It's tough for the turenamer/factotum who took toughness twice not to feel outshined by the warblade/egoist who shock troopers everything into a fine paste. Pathfinder classes seem more balanced overall (though the summoner does seem a little crazy just based on a read-through), so this might not be an issue. Is this a recipe for disaster, or the ingredients of an intriguing game?
The gestalt idea isn't a bad one. It is guaranteed though that the difference between a casual player's character and a power gamer will be more pronounced with this system.
Also, it will be more difficult to estimate the threats of encounter. It is guaranteed that you will be using higher CR creatures to put up against your PCs and this will make them level up faster as well.
The game style works though, and is definitely not a recipe for disaster.
I *strongly* recommend you pick up Super Genius Game's Guide to Horrifically Overpowered Feat, available here.
The book has an average 4.5/5 rating from three different reviewers, and despite the name it's designed to do exactly what you want. It lets even casual gamers get a major power boost to their characters, with gestalt-like options as one choice, but also different kinds of boosts to ensure you don't have to master two character classes to be at the same effectiveness as people who do know how to synergize a paladin/cleric or sorcerer/monk.
|
I'd start out going with a more normal game. Messing with a system usually necessitates expertise in that particular system to do effectively, and Gestalt in particular gives players a truly ridiculous number of options, which can be confusing and overwhelming for those new to the specific system.
I'm the last one to argue against house rules or alternate rules implementations, but I think they should be worked out once you've gained some serious system familiarity (doable after one or two short campaigns if you're generally good at systems).
Pathfinder works pretty well as-is, use a generous rolling method or high point-buy if you like powerful characters and just go with that for your first time out.
Something like this could be fun...once everyone's gotten used to the regular version.
Gestalt works fine. Limit it to no multiclassing, just one class on each side of the gestalt, if you're worried about complexity or game breaking.
A few extra feats would be fine. For skill points, consider instead letting each character gain an amount equal to half the base points the lower points class would have given.
For example, a Rogue//Barbarian would get 8 +2 +Int mod. skill points. A Ranger//Wizard would get 6 +1 +Int mod. skill points. And so forth.
IMO, that is a fairer way to do it than just blanket increased skill points. Rewards players more if they take two high skill point classes, if that's what they want to be good at.
A few extra feats would be fine. For skill points, consider instead letting each character gain an amount equal to half the base points the lower points class would have given.For example, a Rogue//Barbarian would get 8 +2 +Int mod. skill points. A Ranger//Wizard would get 6 +1 +Int mod. skill points. And so forth.
IMO, that is a fairer way to do it than just blanket increased skill points. Rewards players more if they take two high skill point classes, if that's what they want to be good at.
I like the intention behind the cconcept, but it goes against the idea that class features should overlap, not stack, in gestalt. Why not do the same with hit points or base attack bonus?
I'd start out going with a more normal game. Messing with a system usually necessitates expertise in that particular system to do effectively, and Gestalt in particular gives players a truly ridiculous number of options, which can be confusing and overwhelming for those new to the specific system.
I'm the last one to argue against house rules or alternate rules implementations, but I think they should be worked out once you've gained some serious system familiarity (doable after one or two short campaigns if you're generally good at systems).
Pathfinder works pretty well as-is, use a generous rolling method or high point-buy if you like powerful characters and just go with that for your first time out.
Something like this could be fun...once everyone's gotten used to the regular version.
All the players I have in mind are familiar with the system (or 3.5), but have different power-gaming tendencies.
Also, I'm thinking of doing away with class skills and letting players put ranks into whatever they want. I've never liked that fighters can't be diplomatic or rogues know about religion. I'm worried it might have some unintended consequences though.
|
|
All the players I have in mind are familiar with the system (or 3.5), but have different power-gaming tendencies.
Pathfinder's distinct enough from 3.5 to count as a different system for this specific purpose, IMO.
Also, I'm thinking of doing away with class skills and letting players put ranks into whatever they want. I've never liked that fighters can't be diplomatic or rogues know about religion. I'm worried it might have some unintended consequences though.
I reccomend Traits, they let everyone grab a couple of non-standard class skills if they desire. Throw in the Cosmopolitan feat and people can have quite the selection of skills.
That and perhaps allowing a couple of class skills to be swapped around based on concept, and you haqve the idea still mean something while still making the Fighter with social skills (or whatever) a valid concept.
Also, I'm thinking of doing away with class skills and letting players put ranks into whatever they want. I've never liked that fighters can't be diplomatic or rogues know about religion. I'm worried it might have some unintended consequences though.
That's basically how skills work in PF - everyone buys skills at a 1:1 ratio regardless of whether it's a class skill or not. Having a skill as a class skill just means that you get +3 to it if you have at least one rank in it. When you throw in traits, which can make things class skills, you really do get a situation where anyone can be good at anything. (Plus or minus a little for ability scores.)
Dottig for interest. I'd be interested to play a gestalt game. Hit me up if you need a player.
Also, I'm thinking of doing away with class skills and letting players put ranks into whatever they want. I've never liked that fighters can't be diplomatic or rogues know about religion. I'm worried it might have some unintended consequences though.That's basically how skills work in PF - everyone buys skills at a 1:1 ratio regardless of whether it's a class skill or not. Having a skill as a class skill just means that you get +3 to it if you have at least one rank in it. When you throw in traits, which can make things class skills, you really do get a situation where anyone can be good at anything. (Plus or minus a little for ability scores.)
Oh, interesting. I read the skill section twice, but somehow I didn't notice the absence of cross-class skills. In that case, I'd just let everyone treat all skills as class skills.
Hmm... maybe I should do /triple/ gestalt! Heh, it's fun to think about but definitely too much.
Uh oh, I'm becoming strangely attracted to the idea.