Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This game is a new thing even if it has its roots in Pathfinder TT and is trying to remain true to those roots. In the old table top days, multipurpose characters always seemed to be at a disadvantage in many aspects compared to those who were single purpose. But here in PFO we are all in a sense multipurpose. I think that we have the opportunity to do some original thinking in creating a PFO character.
It is my impression that we seem to have a blind spot around the term "class". We seem to be mired in the idea that character class drives all our in-game choices. I propose that we refocus our thinking on characters having a personal purpose that drives our in-game choices.
We know a few things so far (and subject to change) about how characters can be built in PFO.
1) We know that there will be four classic archetypes in the beginning of early enrollment (namely fighter, wizard, cleric, and rouge) each with its own specific feats and skill trees.
2) We know that if you build a character with only feats and skills from a particular archetype you gain bonus effectiveness in those feats/skills.
3) We know that there are "general" feats and skill trees which can be used by all characters regardless of archetype.
4) We know that there will be essentially a "crafter" archetype with its own feats and skill trees.
5) We know that as time goes on toward open enrollment that new archetypes with their own feats and skill trees will be added to PFO.
What if we began to think of our characters as having a purpose rather than a class? What if we thought of our characters as who they want to be rather than what they want to do? By that I mean looking at our characters as having a goal, and to achieve that goal they have to become proficient in specific feats and skills. It may be that to achieve their personal goals they will focus on the feats and skills of a particular archetype. It can also mean that they will need a variety of feats and skills from a number of archetypes to realize their goal, their purpose, their reason for being alive and keeping alive.
In many ways this way of thinking could be seen as focusing on purposes aligned with labels like "Enforcer", "Champion", "Outlaw", Trader", or "Assassin". As an example, what if your character's purpose was to bring law and order to the wilderness? I believe that you would be looking for feats and skills that aid you in achieving that goal. If your personal preference as a player is that you like to play spell casters you might build a character with both fighter and wizard skills (can you say magus?). I think that you might choose a lawful alignment and reinforce that with the use of the Enforcer Long Term PVP Flag. This has nothing to do with "class".
By looking at our characters as having purpose I think we can achieve some new ways to be immersed in PFO without the obfuscation of the idea of class.
[EDIT] Not everyone can play their favorite class at the start of EE, but EVERYONE can play a purpose.
Thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I see restricting yourself to a single class as a limitation rather than something desireable. If I feel it will make my character better at the role I want him to play, I'll start mixing in elements of other classes as soon as they become available. Though a rogue covers most of what I want for him, I could see where mixing in elements if ranger, rogue, barbarian, or fighter could help. Or where a bit of bard might make him more fun to RP.
Too early to say yet but I'm not going to lock myself into a class if I don't feel forced into it by dedication bonuses. I would rather stay true to my character, than a role that was predefined by someone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some are finding it difficult, with the Pathfinder brand name, to make the mental transition from defined "class roles" to the planned skill based system. Partially because of D&D's long history and partially because of GW's use of the terms like "class types or "archetype paths" and the promised rewards for following their skill paths.
I can understand the frustration expressed that there will not be all of the core "classes" at EE. Some people are just very competitive and feel that they will be behind in the planned implementation schedule. Some feel that the "flavor" of their chosen character will not be possible without the right skill path.
It really comes down to what way that you look at it. No matter what GW does there will be a group howling that it isn't fair, won't work, will wreck the game, etc..., etc..., etc... I know because I have been on the Howler's side, a few times, myself.
Maybe some "special" singular quests for merit badges to unlock the skill trees for "alternate" archetype paths would mollify the disappointment. I don't know.
Harad, your take on how to look on the situation is very well written and makes a lot of sense. Much angst could be relaxed if we would all look at the situation that way. As long as those that choose alternates from the basic 4 can feel somehow different (when they get their skill trees) then things will work out.
Sure is fun reading the fracus though. =P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Suppose you put all of the class features from the PnP game into a list, assigned an XP cost and prerequisites to each of them, and allowed everyone to pick out the features they wanted a la carte.
Hmmm...That kinda seems like what they are doing. There was a system like that for some version of pnp D&D, but I can't think which book or edition...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On one side, i agree strongly with what you wrote, Harad.
To see a purpose rather than a class in a character is exactly how i build my chars in TT PF, and before in 3.5.
It does not matter how you achieve things. Important is, what feats and abilities you got at level x. Do not look at the class names, look at what your char can do.
I am totally powerplayer in TT, but when it comes to classes, all that matters is skills/feats/class abilities.
From a RPing pov, envision a char not as a class, but as a person with abilities.
That said, i do not agree multipurpose/multiclass chars were on a disadvantage in TT. Multiclassing was in 3.5 and is in PF a very powerful tool to me. The char i was most fond of in 3.5 was a human Bard 7 / Druid of Mielikki 1 / Rogue 2 / Sublime Chord 1 / Fochluran Lyrist 2.
The groups half-orc fighter 4 / barbarian 9, buffed with stoneskin before combat and swift bardic music and greater invisibility in round 1 was a combat machine.
With the help of my multiclass "bard"...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Suppose you put all of the class features from the PnP game into a list, assigned an XP cost and prerequisites to each of them, and allowed everyone to pick out the features they wanted a la carte.Hmmm...That kinda seems like what they are doing. There was a system like that for some version of pnp D&D, but I can't think which book or edition...
It was "unearthed arcana", i think...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree completely with Harad. We all, including GW, need to move away from using class names as a goal for a Character's being.
I plan to be a bandit, not by some class name, but through my actions. For this purpose I would draw upon many skills and feats, in order to maximize my effectiveness as a bandit.
Harad's idea if doing away with the class based nomenclature and using the role names associated with the flags might be a good solution.
Now as for GW's concern that this may move PFO further from PFRPG and thus lose potential customers, based on the conversations I have had, many PFRPG players already feel that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Knowing how I play, I'll either end up a Fighter/Rogue Hybrid with people skills and a bucket-load of crafting skills, or a Wizard/Fighter of the same persuasion.
And I'm okay with this. I'm okay with being 'less effective' at skills A, B and C if I can use skills A, B, C, D, E and F.
Also, specialists might be rather handy in Pathfinder Online.
The majority of the Players are going to end up becoming very PvP or Crafting Orientated ... so what happens when an Escalation hits, and nobody's really 'skilled' to deal with it?
Vampire Nest attacking the nearby Settlements? Time to put out a call for the specialist Undead-Slayers Players.
Dragon pillaging the Farms and Lumber Mills? Dragon-Hunters, HOOOOOO!
Need to convince the nearby NPC Elf settlement to sign up rather than fight over resources? Diplomats needed!
Need a very specific bit of construction to make a less-than-perfect Settlement-site actually work? Specialist Builders are what you need!
I must admit I do resent the Class-system, because if I want to be stealthing around in Full-Plate, and I'm willing to shell out the time and resources to make it work, I should be able to do it.
Will I be as successful as the full-'classed' Rogues? Oh hell no, but I will be viable if I'm willing to put out for the right gear and enchantments, and in a stealth-based 'team', being able to field a full-plated Fighter who doesn't clank every time he so much as twitches a muscle would be a god-send for the inevitable knock-down drag-out fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've never been a fan of rules-led class-based systems. If someone wants to play a skilled sword-and-board man then he is a warrior or fighter by profession and training. Why can he not also have the ability to train an animal companion, cast some minor spells and pick a few pockets.
It was D&D that set the class system rolling, and it has no real foundation in myth or fantasy literature. Conan was a thief, but he was an ill-educated beserking thief who would wear full plate armour when it was available. Gandalf was a powerful mage but could swing a sword like the best of them. And so on.
I much prefer the GURPS pick-and-mix character generation system where you define your character as a personality and role, then pick out the features that suit that concept best. One of my favourite characters was a Celtic female warrior who had been trained as a druid until she lost her powers. She had combat skills and would go beserk in combat, but also had non-magical 'spell-like abilities' like ventriloquism, mimicry and esoteric medicine.
I want to play a nature-based witch character, all nature spells and companion animals, but without the armour and weapons. Gingerbread cottages are optional. As it stands, I am looking at having to multiclass Witch/Druid when they come out, or possibly Cleric/Wizard until then. I'd love to be able to just create my character as I want it, without having to compromise abilities or 'buy' skills that I don't want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The classes are indeed dear to me because they are what one grew up on. But I have to admit I'm a bit surprised they have lasted so long as I was always a fan of the multi class character. My fave "classes" are probably Barbarian/Rogue/Shadowdancer and Ranger/Bard/Arcane Archer.
So I welcome this system with open arms. Start with the primary colors and treat the others like they were prestige classes to add later. I mean I actually do remember waaaay back in the day when Paladins and Rangers actually were prestige classes you gained after X amount of fighter levels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The classes are indeed dear to me because they are what one grew up on. But I have to admit I'm a bit surprised they have lasted so long as I was always a fan of the multi class character. My fave "classes" are probably Barbarian/Rogue/Shadowdancer and Ranger/Bard/Arcane Archer.
So I welcome this system with open arms. Start with the primary colors and treat the others like they were prestige classes to add later. I mean I actually do remember waaaay back in the day when Paladins and Rangers actually were prestige classes you gained after X amount of fighter levels.
I remember those days fondly. The rules sets got a little better, up to a certain point, as time went on. 4.0, I spite thee from Hell's Heart! =P
There will be archetype paths for those that want the "flavor" of the old class system. It will be up to us, the players, to create the organizations to promote and support those iconic character builds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
4.0, I spite thee from Hell's Heart! =PPreach the Word, brother.
They were doing so well with 3.0 and 3.5, too.
Hence the open revolt.
Hence Pathfinder.
Doesn't there seem to be a similar "revolt" as we shift to PFO?
*. Classless System
*. Limited Core Rules Cross Over
*. Conflict over Alignment by some if PFO players
*. Rejection of PFRPG players of PFO direction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pure classes tend to be at a disadvantage compared to multi-class monstrosities. That's why the dedication bonus. It's to make up for their disadvantage.
Interesting questions about Dedication Bonus:
1. What is the nature of the bonus? What application and how much?
2. How much is someone able to deviate from the dedication, without losing the bonus?
3. Once the bonus is gained, is it retained permanently, allowing the character to pursue a new "dedicated path"?
4. How many Dedication Bonuses can someone have, or have active?
5. Are Dedication Bonuses passive or are they bonus skills or feats that have to be activated?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. We don't know.
2. As far as we know, it's activated as long as you don't have abilities/feats slotted for classes outside your own. General feats and such don't count against.
3. It's permanent, but it's only active if you remain dedicated to your class.
4. You can only have one dedication bonus active because you're aren't dedicated if you're doing more than one class. You could have more than one but only one can be active.
5. *shrug*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rather than look at it as 'Pure Class', look at it as Specialising.
A sword-and-board fighter who piles all his energy and training into being the best darned sword-and-board fighter in the world is likely to be able to beat another character in melee combat. He might, however, be at a disadvantage when having to survive on a long trek through the wilderness or trying to look for clues in a low-life tavern. He will also be at a disadvantage when facing something that can only be killed by magic or reached by missile weapons.
It's a trade-off. I want to use a longbow efficiently, but that means I'll have to sacrifice some of my wizard training. Is it a worthwhile trade-off? Only if I decide that the ability to use the longbow is more important to me than training for that next wizard ability.
I am not sure that I see a 'dedication bonus' as a good idea. I would see the high level of effectiveness at your chosen specialist role as reward enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's just a poor pick when discussing dedication bonuses. Eventually that fighter will just be badass at both.
I think a better example would be a rogue/ranger. Give up some rogue bonuses for a buff in two weapon fighting and an animal companion.
If they have a stealthy companion that gets a good bonus for flanking that may be my build. A wolf would make sense since they are pack hunters.
Plus as ranger and rogue are both have stealth and perception I would imagine it wouldn't hurt my stealth capabilities.
