|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Orthos wrote: Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote: 2) Yes, the encounters are too easy for an optimized group. My understanding is they are designed for a 4 PC group, using 15 point buy, with no more optimization or system mastery than shown by the iconics. In other words, beginners.
Most groups seem to use 20 or 25 point buy, allow 3rd party stuff, weird races from the ARG, have more than 4 players, even greater than standard item availability, greater than WBL chart treasure, and/or are clearly not beginners.
So yes. The encounters need scaled up if you want a serious challenge.
This so much. The Paizo team has time and time and time again stated that this is how they write the APs intentionally. And they expect that GMs with more capable, experienced, or larger groups will be willing and able to scale things up as needed to suit their party. And I'm glad they do so. I don't want the AP's to be runnable only by the DPR Champions of the month. The AP's are challenging to us especially to the Reign of Winter or (It's Amazing We're Still Alive) group, partly because of the limited chances you get to supply in that AP, and partly because the group created their characters with role-playing on a higher priority than message-board optimization. (The fact that the Google dice bot hates them so much makes their survival even more amazing.)
LazarX wrote: MagusJanus wrote: To be honest, I get tired of Pathfinder as well. My group handles boredom by getting creative.
And, well, let's face it... the APs are boring. They're Diablo-style dungeon crawls, pretty much; and PFS is basically trying to replicate an MMO. The result? I find both to be exactly what I don't want.
But, maybe that's me.
Boring to you maybe. Right now my spouse 5-Star V Michael Lazar, is running Dragon's Demand, Reign of Winter (Otherwise known as "It's Amazing We're Still Alive" group), and Wrath of the Righteous via Google Hangout. All three groups are pumped up every time they go. He also did a table of the sanctioned part of "Rasputin Must Die" at Origins, Burnt Offerings at Dexcon, and they were also quite pumped.
If the AP's you play are "flat and boring", then it's mostly on your GM, and probably at least partly on your group. Did you notice the "But, maybe that's just me" at the end of my post?
And, yes, to a degree it is the group. But it's not because the APs are run as being flat; it's because the group as a whole is used to dealing with far smarter villains than is found in your typical AP and ends up finding the entire thing to be, comparatively, a milk run. Kingmaker we play pretty well, but that's because that campaign is mostly about kingdom running; half of the conflict there comes from the group itself.
And again, the statistics and tactics and such like in an AP are deliberately written for beginners. Experienced players and GMs are expected to ramp up the difficulty on their own. That includes improving the given tactics of an enemy to something more befitting the level of challenge the players can efficiently oppose, as well as mechanically improving them to stand a better chance against player opposition.
Orthos wrote: And again, the statistics and tactics and such like in an AP are deliberately written for beginners. Experienced players and GMs are expected to ramp up the difficulty on their own. That includes improving the given tactics of an enemy to something more befitting the level of challenge the players can efficiently oppose, as well as mechanically improving them to stand a better chance against player opposition. Part of the reason that our AP groups are so fun is that Michael Lazar does exactly that. In one instance with the Wrath group, the Paladin sundered an evil weapon taken from one of the bad guys with Radiance. Not only did Radiance give her a hard time about doing so. (last time she sundered an artifact with it it blew up in her face), the spirit of the weapon possessed the Paladin until it was exorcised. This wasn't in the AP but something he added as DM's whim, and that became it's own plot driver.
Home DM's who do nothing but run the published material as is, are at best, mediocre DM's, and the APs serve them well enough. It the ones who understand that rules and material are springboards, not cages that are the ones who truly master the craft.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote: I don't think I've ever met anyone with any experience that thought "Paizo published it, so it must be balanced" was true. Not saying there couldn't be a few people like that out there, but I've never met them. I have.
To be fair, they don't say "everything Paizo makes is balanced" flat-out. Rather, they simply take it for granted that everything Paizo publishes is allowable in play - there's no discussion about if they can use something, they just show up with a new book and expect that they can use it, being honestly surprised if the GM objects.
Quote: However, I will say that it is almost always closer to that ideal than what players typically make. I'm not surprised, since the rules are set up to try ("try" being the operative word here) and create a narrow range where you can end up when putting together something new. The unspoken tradeoff is that more than a few character options are going to be completely ruled out, or at least made very unworkable, by sticking to those rules.
That said, I'm not suggesting that players make up their own materials whole-cloth. Rather, that there should be a much wider array of options out there for them to make characters with, without the inherent fear of "unbalanced" materials that seems to pervade the game's current design.
If it's already possible to make unbalanced characters under the current rules, then it's pretty clear the restrictions in place don't do their job very well anyway. So why not just allow for a wider set of options?
Likewise, players making such choices shouldn't happen in a vacuum; the GM should be part of the process so that the end result can be something satisfying for the player without being unmanageable by the GM.
As of the next game that I run - which will probably be CotCT in a month or so - I'm going to institute a "characters are built and leveled at the table using only the books" rule - so nobody can copy an uber-build.
I'm already hoping to avoid having to scale the AP up too much for PF heroes so i don't need powergamers rampaging over the 3.5 AP.
Also if anybody has a link to someone else's upscaling of the AP to PF rules, could you link me in a PM? Any prep I can minimize is great.
Alzrius wrote: If it's already possible to make unbalanced characters under the current rules, then it's pretty clear the restrictions in place don't do their job very well anyway. So why not just allow for a wider set of options? Because any options allowed for, need support. At some point you will have to put an upper limit because no matter how many you allow, there will always be some who say it's not enough. So you allow for as many options that you can decently support with followup material. Ultimately it's always has been up to the DM to balance hir games, not the books.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
LazarX wrote: Because any options allowed for, need support. What does "support" mean, in this context? An endless treadmill of feats/(prestige) class (archetypes)/magic items to do X, Y, and Z?
None of those are necessary, or inevitable. If you can just build the effect you want, including any restrictions or limitations that are part of it, then you don't need another book filled with feats that offer slightly different exception-based rules.
Quote: At some point you will have to put an upper limit because no matter how many you allow, there will always be some who say it's not enough. So you allow for as many options that you can decently support with followup material. The more you can create right out of the gate (by which I mean the more it's possible for the players to use the "core" materials to make whatever character concept they want), the less you need follow-up material to begin with. Someone saying "this isn't enough" is incumbent on the fact that they're looking at a limited set of pre-created choices, rather than just figuring out how to make the character they want to make instead of having to approximate it.
bugleyman wrote: Jaçinto wrote: I have not but my friends only want pathfinder. They don't like change and are afraid of offending the GM. Tired of D&D clones though TriOmegaZero. Believe me, I appreciate your conundrum. Thankfully, many of my friends are pretty open minded, but a few have very little interest in anything not Pathfinder. I used to have the same problem with D&D.
If you do manage to convince your friends to try something new, you might try Savage Worlds, Fate, BareBones Fantasy, or Dungeon World.
I'm in the same boat. My main PF group has no interest in switching up to another rpg system, so my wanting to play 5e will means starting a whole new group, which I don't really have time for. For the time being, I'm stuck.
But, the PF campaign we play is fun, so I just bite my tongue and play along so I can spend time unwinding from family life and enjoy my friends.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Alzrius wrote: Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote: I don't think I've ever met anyone with any experience that thought "Paizo published it, so it must be balanced" was true. Not saying there couldn't be a few people like that out there, but I've never met them. I have.
To be fair, they don't say "everything Paizo makes is balanced" flat-out. Rather, they simply take it for granted that everything Paizo publishes is allowable in play - there's no discussion about if they can use something, they just show up with a new book and expect that they can use it, being honestly surprised if the GM objects.
Assuming material is balanced and assuming material is allowed are two completely different things. If you run a table and do not outline what is and what is not allowed, you alone are to blame.
Alzrius wrote: ... they simply take it for granted that everything Paizo publishes is allowable in play - there's no discussion about if they can use something, they just show up with a new book and expect that they can use it, being honestly surprised if the GM objects... I always try to make it very clear up front what is and isn't going to be allowed in the campaign, long before it starts. I am working on one now that won't have PC choices of elves, orcs, summoners, guns, gunslingers, alchemist bombs, paladins, or combinations arcane and divine spellcasters. There are specific in-game reasons for each of those needing to be eliminated. (At least at the beginning of the campaign. Some of them may become a possibility later.)
.
.
Alzrius wrote: ...
That said, I'm not suggesting that players make up their own materials whole-cloth. Rather, that there should be a much wider array of options out there for them to make characters with, without the inherent fear of "unbalanced" materials that seems to pervade the game's current design.
If it's already possible to make unbalanced characters under the current rules, then it's pretty clear the restrictions in place don't do their job very well anyway. So why not just allow for a wider set of options?
Likewise, players making such choices shouldn't happen in a vacuum; the GM should be part of the process so that the end result can be something satisfying for the player without being unmanageable by the GM.
I will agree with that in theory. In real life, I simply don't have the time. I have a difficult time trying (and to a certain extent failing) to keep up with what the published rules say in the books we have (much less than a 1/3 of what's published).
Way back in 'yester year' I had the time to pour over the combinations possible with what ever new thing somebody proposed. Make some mock builds. Play some what if battles. Try and see if it could overpower everything else. Would just make things un-fun. Etc...
Maybe if I had more system mastery I could just look at something and tell if it was too far up into the mountains. I can't. I have to game it out. Even then, I am often just plain wrong.*
The other possibility is trying it in play. Personally, I would have no problem with this. The problem is that makes it a trial by use. Meaning if it does end up too over-the-top, we will need to bring it down some after the player has spent some time with the PC. Many players get very angry about that. Much more so than if it is just flat out denied in the beginning. If they wouldn't get so angry about changes after play has started, I might be more willing to do more trial-by-fire. But they do, so I don't.
I will also say, the current rules allow so much, I rarely see any actual need to introduce more 3rd party content or player invented material. Nearly every time someone will tell me what he wants to do, we can find a way to do it within the existing rules. Or at least come really damn close.
The only times I can't is when they want a specific power that simply isn't supported in the d20 type rule systems (like ritual blood magic). Or when they read about someone in a novel and want to be good at everything that character can do right from the start at first level. (Ex would be reading the Jhereg novels and wanting to make a Vlad that is an assassin, witch, sorcerer, duelist, ranger. Wanting it all at first level. And of course you have to be good enough at everything to hang with the big boys at their own specialties.)
*Once back in the early days one of the guys came up with something that eventually ended up almost word-for-word identical with greater contingency when it was eventually published. We rated it as a 3rd level spell. Everyone was amazed we rated it that low.
.
.
Alzrius wrote: ...
The more you can create right out of the gate (by which I mean the more it's possible for the players to use the "core" materials to make whatever character concept they want), the less you need follow-up material to begin with. Someone saying "this isn't enough" is incumbent on the fact that they're looking at a limited set of pre-created choices, rather than just figuring out how to make the character they want to make instead of having to approximate it.
Now reading this last one, I'm no longer sure what it is that you are actually wanting. Can you be more specific rather than just saying wider choices?
Orthos wrote: And again, the statistics and tactics and such like in an AP are deliberately written for beginners. Experienced players and GMs are expected to ramp up the difficulty on their own. That includes improving the given tactics of an enemy to something more befitting the level of challenge the players can efficiently oppose, as well as mechanically improving them to stand a better chance against player opposition. We'd have to rewrite significant amounts of entire APs to match the group's expectations. Not just adjust statistics and tactics, but actually adjust events that happen.
MagusJanus wrote: Orthos wrote: And again, the statistics and tactics and such like in an AP are deliberately written for beginners. Experienced players and GMs are expected to ramp up the difficulty on their own. That includes improving the given tactics of an enemy to something more befitting the level of challenge the players can efficiently oppose, as well as mechanically improving them to stand a better chance against player opposition. We'd have to rewrite significant amounts of entire APs to match the group's expectations. Not just adjust statistics and tactics, but actually adjust events that happen. Many do exactly that. I rarely make that extensive of changes, but it has happened.
I know, but when you're starting a rewrite sometimes after the first fight, the question of why you bothered with the AP at all comes up.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Usually my answer is to provide me with basic resources and a skeleton for a plot.
Orthos wrote: Usually my answer is to provide me with basic resources and a skeleton for a plot. Pretty much. I've rewritten AP's before, so they fit better into whatever setting I was running.
On the balanced/allowable stuff, DM's need to outline up front what is and is not allowed in the game. This list can certainly update from time to time, but if new stuff is suddenly not allowed, I'd like for there to at least be a reason. My DM changes what's allowed based on his mood, so one week my character is legit. Next week the book it's from is banned. SMH.
My take from the OP's rant: These sound like group issues, not system issues. Sure, the system allows for situations like the above to happen, but it's up to the players and DM to decide how the game is played.
I've ran several deep, story-heavy, little-to-no combat campaigns using just 3.5(which PF is based on). Locations weren't all mindless dungeon crawls. Towns weren't loot-dumps. It can be done. Talk to your DM about your issues with the style of play that your group utilizes.
MagusJanus wrote: I know, but when you're starting a rewrite sometimes after the first fight, the question of why you bothered with the AP at all comes up. I don't usually make all that extensive of changes. I just don't have the time or inclination.
Minor fights I don't usually change much if at all. Sometimes the minor pointless fights just get dropped or hand-waved aside.
Major or plot significant encounters get scaled up quite a bit if I expect it to be challenging.
Boss encounters probably need close to double the capability compared to published.
Plot stuff usually doesn't get changed much. Though sometimes the clues are so esoteric I have to make them a bit more obvious.
Sometimes the behaviors of certain NPC's just don't make sense, so I will change it a bit.
And occasionally (maybe even frequently) the PC's just go completely off the rails and I have to invent stuff for a while.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
MagusJanus wrote: I know, but when you're starting a rewrite sometimes after the first fight, the question of why you bothered with the AP at all comes up. OTOH, it's much better for experienced groups to try to do so than for novice groups to have to do so because it's a meatgrinder for them.
At least the experienced groups have some idea how to go about it. They're also less likely to walk away from the game entirely than someone trying it out for the first time and just being outclassed by everything.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote: MagusJanus wrote: I know, but when you're starting a rewrite sometimes after the first fight, the question of why you bothered with the AP at all comes up. I don't usually make all that extensive of changes. I just don't have the time or inclination. That's where my group is at. If we're going to end up rewriting everything save the plot idea and the name of the villain, why not save time and just make our own campaign?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: MagusJanus wrote: I know, but when you're starting a rewrite sometimes after the first fight, the question of why you bothered with the AP at all comes up. OTOH, it's much better for experienced groups to try to do so than for novice groups to have to do so because it's a meatgrinder for them.
At least the experienced groups have some idea how to go about it. They're also less likely to walk away from the game entirely than someone trying it out for the first time and just being outclassed by everything. You don't see me saying that every group has to play the way mine does.
MagusJanus wrote: thejeff wrote: MagusJanus wrote: I know, but when you're starting a rewrite sometimes after the first fight, the question of why you bothered with the AP at all comes up. OTOH, it's much better for experienced groups to try to do so than for novice groups to have to do so because it's a meatgrinder for them.
At least the experienced groups have some idea how to go about it. They're also less likely to walk away from the game entirely than someone trying it out for the first time and just being outclassed by everything. You don't see me saying that every group has to play the way mine does. I don't think I said that.
But if you're writing adventures to publish, you have to aim them at some level of difficulty. I think it's better to aim closer to the novice than the experienced, for the reasons I stated.
thejeff wrote: MagusJanus wrote: thejeff wrote: MagusJanus wrote: I know, but when you're starting a rewrite sometimes after the first fight, the question of why you bothered with the AP at all comes up. OTOH, it's much better for experienced groups to try to do so than for novice groups to have to do so because it's a meatgrinder for them.
At least the experienced groups have some idea how to go about it. They're also less likely to walk away from the game entirely than someone trying it out for the first time and just being outclassed by everything. You don't see me saying that every group has to play the way mine does. I don't think I said that.
But if you're writing adventures to publish, you have to aim them at some level of difficulty. I think it's better to aim closer to the novice than the experienced, for the reasons I stated. I know that. I'm not stating the APs have to change.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
zylphryx wrote: Assuming material is balanced and assuming material is allowed are two completely different things. If you run a table and do not outline what is and what is not allowed, you alone are to blame. I don't disagree, but just because the two are different doesn't mean that they aren't interrelated.
From what I can determine, there's a general train of thought that goes like so: "If you (implicitly) acknowledge that this material is balanced, then how can you have any non-personal reason for disallowing it at the game table? After all, if something is balanced then it by definition won't be disruptive. Ergo, this is you either pulling a power trip, or making your personal issues into my problem."
I don't agree with that line of thinking, but I've run into it more than once.
This puts the GM on the defensive, as they now have to swim upstream to say why this "balanced-ergo-non-disruptive" material is being disallowed anyway.
Kydeem d'Morcaine wrote: I always try to make it very clear up front what is and isn't going to be allowed in the campaign, long before it starts. I am working on one now that won't have PC choices of elves, orcs, summoners, guns, gunslingers, alchemist bombs, paladins, or combinations arcane and divine spellcasters. There are specific in-game reasons for each of those needing to be eliminated. (At least at the beginning of the campaign. Some of them may become a possibility later.) I think that's perfectly valid. That said - and I acknowledge that this is a different argument than the one I've mentioned up until now - the issue of "disallowed for in-game reasons, rather than balance issues" opens up its own can of worms.
Basically, this one runs afoul of what some people's ideas of "PC exceptionalism" means. Some people don't care that their characters don't fit the tone of the campaign world, because the nature of PCs is to be characters who break the mold. As such, it's not a big deal if their character is completely at odds with the in-game assumptions of the setting, since they think that's what they're supposed to be doing anyway.
I don't care for that idea, but it's not an unpopular one that I've seen.
Kydeem d'Morcaine wrote: I will agree with that in theory. In real life, I simply don't have the time. I have a difficult time trying (and to a certain extent failing) to keep up with what the published rules say in the books we have (much less than a 1/3 of what's published).
Way back in 'yester year' I had the time to pour over the combinations possible with what ever new thing somebody proposed. Make some mock builds. Play some what if battles. Try and see if it could overpower everything else. Would just make things un-fun. Etc...
Maybe if I had more system mastery I could just look at something and tell if it was too far up into the mountains. I can't. I have to game it out. Even then, I am often just plain wrong.*
"Supplement burnout" is a real thing; heck, I've blogged about it before.
Trying to keep up with all of the new materials that come out is, in my view, a herculean (if not impossible) task, both financially and in terms of time and energy. That's not what I'm talking about when I say keep the GM as part of the process - that process is incumbent not on having ever-growing lists of highly specific, and modular, components of building a character. Rather, I'm talking about having a method of making a character that doesn't have the restrictions that make such long lists of exception-based rules necessary in the first place.
Kydeem d'Morcaine wrote: The other possibility is trying it in play. Personally, I would have no problem with this. The problem is that makes it a trial by use. Meaning if it does end up too over-the-top, we will need to bring it down some after the player has spent some time with the PC. Many players get very angry about that. Much more so than if it is just flat out denied in the beginning. If they wouldn't get so angry about changes after play has started, I might be more willing to do more trial-by-fire. But they do, so I don't. I've run into that before, and I think it's a shame. You can be invested in a character without being attached to them; this strikes me as being something that's made the threat of death less present in every subsequent edition of the game, which I think is a shame.
Kydeem d'Morcaine wrote: I will also say, the current rules allow so much, I rarely see any actual need to introduce more 3rd party content or player invented material. Nearly every time someone will tell me what he wants to do, we can find a way to do it within the existing rules. Or at least come really damn close. I'll disagree with you here. I've had many instances of being disappointed by the rules either making a particular character concept impossible, or just making it so limited that it was essentially unplayable without the GM going out of his way to be compensatory in the course of the game (to a degree this is what the GM is supposed to do anyway, but if it's happening all the time then the character idea is one that's probably not working under the current game rules).
A popular example of this are characters that don't use magic items, even at high levels. Pathfinder just doesn't work very well with such a character idea.
Kydeem d'Morcaine wrote: The only times I can't is when they want a specific power that simply isn't supported in the d20 type rule systems (like ritual blood magic). Or when they read about someone in a novel and want to be good at everything that character can do right from the start at first level. (Ex would be reading the Jhereg novels and wanting to make a Vlad that is an assassin, witch, sorcerer, duelist, ranger. Wanting it all at first level. And of course you have to be good enough at everything to hang with the big boys at their own specialties.) The issue of what level you want X degree of power/versatility at is probably the one restriction I can get behind in the game rules, simply because the level progression is as close as the game system gets to an objective measurement of character capability/power. Even then, there's a lot of flexibility even within a single level.
That said, the idea of a particular concept not being supported by the system is one that I frown on, at least for a game system that purports to be about "options, not restrictions."
Kydeem d'Morcaine wrote: Now reading this last one, I'm no longer sure what it is that you are actually wanting. Can you be more specific rather than just saying wider choices? I'm referring to instances where the player knows exactly what they want their character to do, but there isn't currently an option to let them do it, requiring them to go on a supplement-hunt until they can find it.
Presuming that they can find it at all - which is by no means certain - it often comes with baggage that waters down the initial concept because it saddles them with additional materials that they didn't want in the first place.
As an example, suppose you want an arcane spellcasting character whose spellcasting stat is Wisdom rather than Intelligence (like what I thought the witch should be). That's not in the book, so you need to go hunting for some sort of class feature that will let you acquire that, despite knowing exactly what you already want to do.
Fourteen books later, you find (this is purely hypothetical to illustrate the point) a prestige class that grants that ability. But it only grants it at 3rd level, so you need to take three levels in that class - which grants several other class features that go against your initial concept for the character - in order to get it.
That's the problem that I'm ultimately referring to. There's no mechanism in the game for being able to figure out the "how do you do it?" and "what does it cost (if anything)?" for figuring out how to just let the player (with input from the GM) shift his casting statistic from Intelligence to Wisdom. Should you just hand-wave it, letting that change cost nothing? Should it cost a feat slot? Or maybe two feat slots?
There's no answer for these questions in the books; they'd rather you buy another book (or reference an SRD) for the answer - and if one isn't out there, well, keep checking the product catalogue.
I know a lot of GMs would say this is a small problem, easily-handwaved at a minor cost, but this is just one of the smaller (and easier) examples. What about, to use the aforementioned idea, you have a high-level character who doesn't want to use magic items? What about when you want a non-spellcaster whose main character abilities revolve around shapeshifting? What about when you want a barbarian shaman whose rage bonus increases the power of his spells, rather than his muscles? Ad infinitum.
That's what I'm talking about.
Orthos wrote: This so much. The Paizo team has time and time and time again stated that this is how they write the APs intentionally. And they expect that GMs with more capable, experienced, or larger groups will be willing and able to scale things up as needed to suit their party. While I respect the reason given. It also makes it useless than to buy a AP at least for me imo. If i have to rework the npcs I might as well save 120-140$ that a AP cost and just make my own. Still if the majority of the fans like the APS as is then who am I to say that hthey need to change. I do wish they would give npcs at least the main villains better feat and spell selections. Sometimes its like they dont even try to make a decent villain imo.
memorax wrote: Orthos wrote: This so much. The Paizo team has time and time and time again stated that this is how they write the APs intentionally. And they expect that GMs with more capable, experienced, or larger groups will be willing and able to scale things up as needed to suit their party. While I respect the reason given. It also makes it useless than to buy a AP at least for me imo. If i have to rework the npcs I might as well save 120-140$ that a AP cost and just make my own. Still if the majority of the fans like the APS as is then who am I to say that hthey need to change. I do wish they would give npcs at least the main villains better feat and spell selections. Sometimes its like they dont even try to make a decent villain imo. And that's a fair reason I think. I buy the APs primarily for the plots - the mechanics I can rework as needed, and have to anyway because I don't play in Golarion, but an AP comes with a story that's either better than something I can cook up on my own or saves me time in doing so. Tinkering the numbers into place - changing races, changing classes, doing minor plot edits/rewrites, etc. - I can do in my spare time. Writing a coherent story takes a lot longer and has a lot more opportunity to come out badly, where I can generally do better starting with the framework an AP gives and editing and altering from there as needed.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Alzrius wrote: ... I'm referring to instances where the player knows exactly what they want their character to do, but there isn't currently an option to let them do it, requiring them to go on a supplement-hunt until they can find it.
Presuming that they can find it at all - which is by no means certain - it often comes with baggage that waters down the initial concept because it saddles them with additional materials that they didn't want in the first place.
As an example, suppose you want an arcane spellcasting character whose spellcasting stat is Wisdom rather than Intelligence (like what I thought the witch should be). That's not in the book, so you need to go hunting for some sort of class feature that will let you acquire that, despite knowing exactly what you already want to do.
Fourteen books later, you find (this is purely hypothetical to illustrate the point) a prestige class that grants that ability. But it only grants it at 3rd level, so you need to take three levels in that class - which grants several other class features that go against your initial concept for the character - in order to get it.
That's the problem that I'm ultimately referring to. There's no mechanism in the game for being able to figure out the "how do you do it?" and "what does it cost (if anything)?" for figuring out how to just let the player (with input from the GM) shift his casting statistic from Intelligence to Wisdom. Should you just hand-wave it, letting that change cost nothing? Should it cost a feat slot? Or maybe two feat slots?
There's no answer for these questions in the books; they'd rather you buy another book (or reference an SRD) for the answer - and if one isn't out there, well, keep checking the product catalogue.
I know a lot of GMs would say this is a small problem, easily-handwaved at a minor cost, but this is just one of the smaller (and easier) examples. What about, to use the aforementioned idea, you have a high-level character who doesn't want to use magic items? What about when you want a non-spellcaster whose main character abilities revolve around shapeshifting? What about when you want a barbarian shaman whose rage bonus increases the power of his spells, rather than his muscles? Ad infinitum.
That's what I'm talking about. ...
What you're describing is something completely outside of a d20 type game. Or even most of the RPG's I have read about.
I guess I would suggest looking at the Dresden RPG. At least that is what I think it was called. It sounds more like what you are looking for. I know some people really like that kind of loose anything goes type of game.
I personally don't like them because it is way to dependent on the whim of the GM. What I did last time was really effective, but maybe he gets bored with repetition or is in a bad mood today so it doesn't work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote: Alzrius wrote: There's no answer for these questions in the books; they'd rather you buy another book (or reference an SRD) for the answer - and if one isn't out there, well, keep checking the product catalogue.
I know a lot of GMs would say this is a small problem, easily-handwaved at a minor cost, but this is just one of the smaller (and easier) examples. What about, to use the aforementioned idea, you have a high-level character who doesn't want to use magic items? What
What you're describing is something completely outside of a d20 type game. Or even most of the RPG's I have read about.
I guess I would suggest looking at the Dresden RPG. At least that is what I think it was called. It sounds more like what you are looking for. I know some people really like that kind of loose anything goes type of game.
I personally don't like them because it is way to dependent on the whim of the GM. What I did last time was really effective, but maybe he gets bored with repetition or is in a bad mood today so it doesn't work. There are also point-buy systems like Hero, that let you build up damn near anything out of generic bits of powers.
And they're not at all "loose anything goes types of games"
But they're also a big change from d20.
thejeff wrote: Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote: Alzrius wrote: There's no answer for these questions in the books; they'd rather you buy another book (or reference an SRD) for the answer - and if one isn't out there, well, keep checking the product catalogue.
I know a lot of GMs would say this is a small problem, easily-handwaved at a minor cost, but this is just one of the smaller (and easier) examples. What about, to use the aforementioned idea, you have a high-level character who doesn't want to use magic items? What
What you're describing is something completely outside of a d20 type game. Or even most of the RPG's I have read about.
I guess I would suggest looking at the Dresden RPG. At least that is what I think it was called. It sounds more like what you are looking for. I know some people really like that kind of loose anything goes type of game.
I personally don't like them because it is way to dependent on the whim of the GM. What I did last time was really effective, but maybe he gets bored with repetition or is in a bad mood today so it doesn't work. There are also point-buy systems like Hero, that let you build up damn near anything out of generic bits of powers.
And they're not at all "loose anything goes types of games"
But they're also a big change from d20. Yeah, but I didn't think that was what he was describing. He seems to want more of "no restrictions anything I can think of even if it was never imagined in the books should be a working possibility" type of thing. I don't think a point-buy type of system will get where he wants to go.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kydeem d'Morcaine wrote: What you're describing is something completely outside of a d20 type game. Or even most of the RPG's I have read about. I don't believe that it is. I believe that the d20 System can do this; only the character-creation rules would need much of an overhaul.
Kydeem d'Morcaine wrote: I guess I would suggest looking at the Dresden RPG. At least that is what I think it was called. It sounds more like what you are looking for. I know some people really like that kind of loose anything goes type of game.
I personally don't like them because it is way to dependent on the whim of the GM. What I did last time was really effective, but maybe he gets bored with repetition or is in a bad mood today so it doesn't work.
I'm not interested in finding another rules system, though (partially due to the sparsity of finding players of another system where I am). Rather, I'm interested in making the one I like do what I want it to do.
That said, I agree that a less-rigid system would require a higher caliber of GM, since it puts more of a burden on them with regards to running it.
thejeff wrote: There are also point-buy systems like Hero, that let you build up damn near anything out of generic bits of powers.
And they're not at all "loose anything goes types of games"
But they're also a big change from d20.
Point-buy is the answer, I think. I just don't believe that you need to switch to another RPG to have that. Likewise, it's not a question of "anything goes," but rather a question of "being able to play the character concept you want, rather than having to fight the system to try and get something remotely close."
Kydeem d'Morcaine wrote: Yeah, but I didn't think that was what he was describing. He seems to want more of "no restrictions anything I can think of even if it was never imagined in the books should be a working possibility" type of thing. I don't think a point-buy type of system will get where he wants to go. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think that a point-buy system wouldn't get there, since that's pretty close to what I'm looking for.
Likewise, I wouldn't call what I want "no restrictions." I do think that the system should be able to accomodate anything - in terms of character concept - and that a flexible-enough point-buy system will be able to accomplish that.
ALzrius,
Any system that relies on the DM to work against it in order to make it work is really only part system, and partly a game of "mother-may-I." The more DM fiat is needed, the less of a system it is, and the more of a story hour. But then we have Rule Zero. Starting with a very restrictive system, the DM can loosen it at will, with very little effort -- so if the group really trusts the DM, they tell him to go for it; if not, they simply ask him to stick to the RAW. Starting with a very loose, permissive system means that tightening it up requires careful consideration of rules interactions and unintended consequences -- it's a lot harder to do in that direction. If the group trusts the DM, they can let him try; if not, the game cannot possibly work, at all, and never gets off the ground.
I'd posit that Paizo wanted to reach the largest possible audience with Pathfinder, so they tried for a reasonably tight system that could be loosened to taste usiong Rule Zero. Granted, a lot of people, myself included, feel that they failed to achieve a reasonable "defensive design" -- some so-called "options" are so constrained as to be pointless or even counterproductive, and others are so open-ended as to be infinitely useful and essentially unconstrained. But the failure to achieve that design doesn't mean that the effort, in itself, was done without consideration.
Someone around here has been praising a point-buy d20 class builder system. Damned if I can remember the name of it though. Sorry.
Didn't really work for me, but it might be close to what you're looking for.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote: ALzrius,
Any system that relies on the DM to work against it in order to make it work is really only part system, and partly a game of "mother-may-I."
We've been down this road before, Kirth, and I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Any system that relies on the GM creating and enforcing some degree of limits is far and away better than a system that imposes strict limits by itself (I'm speaking purely in terms of character creation, here) to me. That's because the GM can change their mind, make up a new campaign, have a new GM take over, etc. In other words, the system can become whatever the people playing it need it to be.
If the system itself sets the limits, then it can't be anything other than what it is. It's static, rather than dynamic, which will impose limits far less changeable than any GM.
Quote: The more DM fiat is needed, the less of a system it is, and the more of a story hour. I disagree completely, simply because GM "fiat" is always needed; some systems acknowledge that more than others, is all. The only way to reduce reliance on a referee is to either make the game extremely limited in what actions the players can attempt, or so chock-full of rules that it runs all calculations for you, but this in turn requires more rules to deal with unexpected interactions between the existing rules, which in turn requires more rules to deal with those interactions, etc.
No matter how large a set of rules you make, you can't take adjudication out of the picture if you're going to allow the "anything can be attempted" nature of a role-playing game.
Quote: But then we have Rule Zero. Starting with a very restrictive system, the DM can loosen it at will, with very little effort; if the group trusts the DM, they tell him to go for it; if not, they ask him to stick to the RAW. Starting with a very loose, permissive system means that tightening it up requires careful consideration of rules interactions and unintended consequences -- it's a lot harder to do in that direction. If the group trusts the DM, they can let him try; if not, the game cannot possibly work, at all. You seem to be reiterating my earlier point here, though I'm not sure what you mean about "tightening a very loose system." If you mean taking a system where most any character concept can be created, then this would be disallowing certain concepts - or maybe certain options in building characters.
That can work too; having a system where almost anything can be made would require a setting that's virtually omni-versal, and not every campaign will be like that.
That said, I mentioned previously that GM-player interaction is the bedrock of such a system, since it's not concerned overly much with balance.
Quote: I'd posit that Paizo wanted to reach the largest possible audience with Pathfinder, so they tried for a reasonably tight system that could be loosened to taste usiong Rule Zero. Granted, a lot of people, myself included, feel that they failed to achieve a reasonable "defensive design" -- some so-called "options" are so constrained as to be pointless or even counterproductive, and others are so open-ended as to be infinitely useful and essentially unconstrained. But the failure to achieve that design doesn't mean that the effort, in itself, was done without consideration. I have no doubt that they took great consideration into account. I don't hold the limits of Pathfinder against Paizo - they inherited Third Edition's limits.
Personally, I'm against "defensive design" in the first place, largely because I don't like its premise ("the players can't be trusted not to create overpowered munchkins") or its results ("enforcing its conception of balance-as-combat-parity-in-every-fight").
Not all options will be the same; that's not only a given, it's a good thing. Players that have an idea that they want to role-play will presumably not try to break the game when they make their character. Players that want to roll-play a min-maxed character that can run roughshod over the game world, the other players, and even the GM will find a way to do so, no matter what the game rules are.
"Why constrain the role-players in an ultimately futile attempt to constrain the min-maxers?" is what I'm asking.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote: Someone around here has been praising a point-buy d20 class builder system. Damned if I can remember the name of it though. Sorry. I think I know whom you mean. :)
As a note, I hope that doesn't make my earlier comments seem disingenuous in that I held back from mentioning that I'd already found a system that solved all of my issues with the standard d20 System. I just didn't want people to think I was shilling for a supplement that I liked, rather than raising some real points.
Quote: Didn't really work for me, but it might be close to what you're looking for. I'd be interested in hearing why it didn't work for you.
Alzrius wrote: thejeff wrote: Someone around here has been praising a point-buy d20 class builder system. Damned if I can remember the name of it though. Sorry. I think I know whom you mean. :)
As a note, I hope that doesn't make my earlier comments seem disingenuous in that I held back from mentioning that I'd already found a system that solved all of my issues with the standard d20 System. I just didn't want people to think I was shilling for a supplement that I liked, rather than raising some real points.
Quote: Didn't really work for me, but it might be close to what you're looking for. I'd be interested in hearing why it didn't work for you. Looking for different things in a system. We may have gone back and forth about this in an earlier thread. Unless that was a different fan.
In short: PF is already far more of a "builder's game" than I'm interested in. Eclipse opens that up even more. On a quick skim, it seems pretty easy to abuse and since it's a mechanical system it has the same issues with "It's in the rules, so I can use it."
Mostly though, I like simpler, looser systems and am not really attached to D20. This doesn't solve any problems I have.
Jaçinto wrote: After playing multiple editions of D&D and then Pathfinder for years[...] "any situation" you maybe pick... Dude, D&D is back in 5th and truly it looks like conna be a great edition. I dont gonna buy or play it, but realy, its good.
True 20 is THE SYSTEM and VERSION of 3.X check it too
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote: Looking for different things in a system. We may have gone back and forth about this in an earlier thread. Unless that was a different fan. Hm, I thought I was the only fan of this particular system on here, but I don't recall that conversation. Oh well.
Quote: In short: PF is already far more of a "builder's game" than I'm interested in. Eclipse opens that up even more. Rules-light it's not; I'll grant you. Opening it up even more is exactly what it's supposed to do, and that's not going to be everyone's cup of tea.
Quote: On a quick skim, it seems pretty easy to abuse and since it's a mechanical system it has the same issues with "It's in the rules, so I can use it." I sort of addressed this above; that's only true if the GM doesn't exercise any options regarding what to allow/disallow, or review any of the modifications (via corruption or specialization) that players might want to make to literally anything in the book.
Any system in general, and a point-buy one in general, will be open to abuse. What's most important in avoiding that is in having players that don't want to abuse the system to begin with. That's certainly far better, in my mind, than any attempt at defensive designing.
Quote: Mostly though, I like simpler, looser systems and am not really attached to D20. This doesn't solve any problems I have. That's cool.
Alzrius wrote: No matter how large a set of rules you make, you can't take adjudication out of the picture if you're going to allow the "anything can be attempted" nature of a role-playing game. It's a spectrum, not a pair of endpoints. You can increase or decrease the amount of ad hoc adjudication that's needed, by tightening or loosening the rules set. Technically-speaking, you cannot remove all the toxins in a water supply, either, but you can decrease them drastically.
Alzrius wrote: I'm not sure what you mean about "tightening a very loose system." The system you're advocating -- very rules-lite, no real written rules for character creation, just make something up and ask the DM if it's OK -- is what I'm calling a "very loose system." The rules element is very small compared to the Magical Story Hour element. To tighten that system, as you very correctly point out, "requires more rules to deal with unexpected interactions between the existing rules, which in turn requires more rules to deal with those interactions, etc." Most players/DMs are not equipped with the system mastery and insight to successfully do that.
So, for groups that want a tight rules system (minimal fiat), they can't use a looser system, at all.
In contrast, if you start with a rules-heavy system and simply remove/overrule/suspend rules as needed, you can still play the kind of game you're advocating. It's a LOT easier to ignore unwanted rules than to competently add them. Therefore, to make the system appeal to the broadest base possible, Paizo kept a very rules-heavy approach, then emphasized Rule 0 and the ability to ignore rules at will -- "These are guidelines, not rules, and the DM can allow anything he/she wants."
Yes, I understand you don't like having all those icky rules there that you have to override. But it's still easier to do that than to start with very few rules and try to make new ones up that won't create serious conflicts or unplayability down the road.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Alzrius wrote: No matter how large a set of rules you make, you can't take adjudication out of the picture if you're going to allow the "anything can be attempted" nature of a role-playing game. It's a spectrum, not a pair of endpoints. You can increase or decrease the amount of ad hoc adjudication that's needed, by tightening or loosening the rules set. Technically-speaking, you cannot remove all the toxins in a water supply, either, but you can decrease them drastically.
Alzrius wrote: I'm not sure what you mean about "tightening a very loose system." The system you're advocating -- very rules-lite, no real written rules for character creation, just make something up and ask the DM if it's OK -- is what I'm calling a "very loose system." The rules element is very small compared to the Magical Story Hour element. To tighten that system, as you very correctly point out, "requires more rules to deal with unexpected interactions between the existing rules, which in turn requires more rules to deal with those interactions, etc." Most players/DMs are not equipped with the system mastery and insight to successfully do that.
So, for groups that want a tight rules system (minimal fiat), they can't use a looser system, at all.
In contrast, if you start with a rules-heavy system and simply remove/overrule/suspend rules as needed, you can still play the kind of game you're advocating. It's a LOT easier to ignore unwanted rules than to competently add them. Therefore, to make the system appeal to the broadest base possible, Paizo kept a very rules-heavy approach, then emphasized Rule 0 and the ability to ignore rules at will -- "These are guidelines, not rules, and the DM can allow anything he/she wants."
Yes, I understand you don't like having all those icky rules there that you have to override. But it's still easier to do that than to start with very few rules and try to make new ones up that won't create serious conflicts or unplayability down the road. Actually the system he's advocating is Eclipse: the Codex Persona., which is a d20 point based character building system compatible with 3.5 and PF.
Definitely not rules-lite and all about rules for character creation.
No Magical Story Hour required. At least not more than PF.
Even beyond that there are certainly rules-heavy non-class based systems that allow much more freedom in character design that D&D does. Mostly point based. Both Hero and GURPS are classics in that area.
I'm actually the one who likes the rules light, trust the GM approach. :)
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote: It's a spectrum, not a pair of endpoints. You can increase or decrease the amount of ad hoc adjudication that's needed, by tightening or loosening the rules set. I'm not suggesting that it's a pair of endpoints. I'm suggesting that if the rules are written to constrain choices, rather than add to them, then increasing the amount of mechanics will tighten the system to the point of choking the people trying to play the game.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Technically-speaking, you cannot remove all the toxins in a water supply, either, but you can decrease them drastically. I don't think that analogy works very well here. I'm talking about rules that don't try to constrain the players because they trust that the player-GM interaction will solve issues of "balance," versus those rules that are written with the idea that the players are trying to make over-powered munchkins, and restrictive rules are the only thing that can stop them.
Kirth Gersen wrote: The system you're advocating -- very rules-lite, no real written rules for character creation, just make something up and ask the DM if it's OK -- is what I'm calling a "very loose system." Okay, I think I see what's going on here: that's not at all the system I'm advocating.
Kirth Gersen wrote: The rules element is very small compared to the Magical Story Hour element. To tighten that system, as you very correctly point out, "requires more rules to deal with unexpected interactions between the existing rules, which in turn requires more rules to deal with those interactions, etc." Most players/DMs are not equipped with the system mastery and insight to successfully do that. I agree that most players and GMs aren't equipped to deal with the level of system mastery that such a series of cascading rules would require. But as I said above, I don't think that the only answer to this is a rules-light system. Rather, I think what you need is a flexible set of rules that aren't written around the idea of exception-based design.
For an example of this, look at the difference between the feats Skill Focus and Alertness.
Skill Focus grants you a +3 bonus to any single skill of your choice, made when you take the skill. That's the sort of dynamic flexibility I'm talking about; you have a single feat that applies to whatever single skill you need it to apply to.
Alertness, by contrast, grants you a +2/+2 bonus to Perception and Sense Motive. If you want to have a +2/+2 bonus to some other pair of skills, Alertness can't help you - you have to find another feat. If there isn't another feat out there that grants you the specific pair you're looking for, you're out of luck.
Alertness is an example of the problem, because it's needlessly restrictive by being limited to two specific feats, instead of letting you pick whatever pair you want the same way Skill Focus does for a single skill. If I want a feat that's +2/+2 for Swim and Use Magic Device, by the RAW there's nothing for me out there. Yes, that combination isn't narratively intuitive, but that's easily solved via one sentence's worth of imagination ("my rogue grew up on a sailing vessel, and spent some time studying under the ship's wizard").
Now, this is a comparatively small problem; it's easy to Rule 0 another feat that's a +2/+2 bonus to Swim and UMD. But it's an example of the larger problem - that degree of flexibility isn't in the rules, at least where character creation is concerned. Things are rigidly specific in what they do, how you get them, and how they interact with everything else. That degree of specificity is killing the flexibility I'd prefer the system to have - that doesn't require less rules per se, it just requires that they be able to handle more.
That does still require some interaction between the player and the GM, simply because having that much flexibility will allow for enough options that everyone will want to check and make sure they're on the same page. But then, that's how I think it should work anyway.
Alzrius wrote: For an example of this, look at the difference between the feats Skill Focus and Alertness. That's a really excellent example, and I agree completely: at home I actually replaced all those +2/+2 feats with a single "Skill Synergy" feat ("Choose any two skills other than Perception..."). Note that I still included a caveat, because without it the new, more flexible rules are practically begging people to boost Perception through the roof, and that's not the intent. Granted, that's a problem with Perception being too good, not with the feat -- but Perception as a super-skill, in turn, is too big a problem for that kind of simple fix.
Another issue I have (and I suspect you share) is how the multiclassing rules do not work -- at all -- and how Paizo is attempting to patch that by adding whole books full of hybrid classes, instead of addressing the root issue.
In any event, I appreciate the illustration of your point and your correction of my misunderstanding.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Alzrius wrote: Likewise, I wouldn't call what I want "no restrictions." I do think that the system should be able to accomodate anything - in terms of character concept - and that a flexible-enough point-buy system will be able to accomplish that. That's not a reasonable expectation for what is essentially a class based war-game. Actually it's not a reasonable assumption for ANY game, but for D20 it's a lot less so. Maybe you're too young to remember when the choices were literally nothing more than fighter, cleric, magic-user, and thief. No archetypes, no kits, nothing. The problem that this is not a rules loose narrative system like Storyteller, but a rules tight war-game that has been piling roleplaying additions on it since Chainmail.
On the other hand, you need flexibility on the player side as well. Instead of huffing when you can't pound your square peg in a round hole, filing some of the sharp corners a bit. Try to find parts of the concept that you can live with out.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Another issue I have (and I suspect you share) is how the multiclassing rules do not work -- at all -- and how Paizo is attempting to patch that by adding whole books full of hybrid classes, instead of addressing the root issue.
I hear that repeated often. About the only time I've seen someone offer up a solution was the Multi-Class Archetype, which parallels pretty closely what Paizo is doing with the Advance Class guide hybrid classes. Do you have a third way?
LazarX wrote: I hear that repeated often. About the only time I've seen someone offer up a solution was the Multi-Class Archetype, which parallels pretty closely what Paizo is doing with the Advance Class guide hybrid classes. Do you have a third way? Trailblazer simply treats spellcasting and so on more like BAB, so that a fighter 10/wizard 10 not only has BAB +15, but also has caster level 15th (or whatever, I don't have it in front of me). That's a third way.
3.5 had a lot of multiclass feats like Devoted Tracker and so on. That's a fourth way.
Similarly, my houserules provide a lot of class synergy features that you can choose when multiclassing, to make almost any class combination viable without gimping the PC. They're broader in scope than the 3.5 patches but more costly, as they're talents rather than feats. That's a fifth way.
I'm sure there are others as well.
LazarX wrote: With those kind of rules, why would anyone stay single class? Because a wizard 17 is still infinitely more powerful and more versatile than a fighter 10/wizard 7.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote: That's a really excellent example, and I agree completely: at home I actually replaced all those +2/+2 feats with a single "Skill Synergy" feat ("Choose any two skills other than Perception..."). That's an example of where the solution is both an obvious one, and is simple to fix - I suspect a lot of GMs have done the same thing. The problem (at least to me) is that there are a lot of other areas where the solution is neither obvious nor simple.
Quote: Note that I still included a caveat, because without it the new, more flexible rules are practically begging people to boost Perception through the roof, and that's not the intent. Granted, that's a problem with Perception being too good, not with the feat -- but Perception as a super-skill, in turn, is too big a problem for that kind of simple fix. Skills are sort of a wonky area, in terms of reforming character-generation to be more flexible. That's because the skills themselves are technically a separate area of the game, but there's a lot of overlap in terms of how the PCs interact with the skill system.
My suspicion is that the answer here is to have skills offer a comparatively modest "baseline" of effects that a particular skill can offer, and then have enhanced results limited to some sort of ability that characters can take. There aren't many examples of this in the d20 rules, however; the big one is that if you're a rogue, you know how to Disable Devices for magic traps as well as the mundane kind.
Now, it's probably more elegant to just have everyone be able to disable magic traps, but if you want to grant enhanced use of a skill, it shouldn't be limited to a particular class, since that comes with a large amount of baggage - it's combinations like that that are the source of my frustration.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Another issue I have (and I suspect you share) is how the multiclassing rules do not work -- at all -- and how Paizo is attempting to patch that by adding whole books full of hybrid classes, instead of addressing the root issue. Quite right. I couldn't agree more here.
Kirth Gersen wrote: In any event, I appreciate the illustration of your point and your correction of my misunderstanding. Not at all. Looking back, I was somewhat unclear in what I was trying to say, so I appreciate the chance to better elucidate my position.
LazarX wrote: That's not a reasonable expectation for what is essentially a class based war-game. Actually it's not a reasonable assumption for ANY game, but for D20 it's a lot less so. Maybe you're too young to remember when the choices were literally nothing more than fighter, cleric, magic-user, and thief. No archetypes, no kits, nothing. The problem that this is not a rules loose narrative system like Storyteller, but a rules tight war-game that has been piling roleplaying additions on it since Chainmail.
On the other hand, you need flexibility on the player side as well. Instead of huffing when you can't pound your square peg in a round hole, filing some of the sharp corners a bit. Try to find parts of the concept that you can live with out.
I disagree. As thejeff already pointed out, I've found a d20 variant that already does this to my satisfaction.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kirth Gersen wrote: LazarX wrote: I hear that repeated often. About the only time I've seen someone offer up a solution was the Multi-Class Archetype, which parallels pretty closely what Paizo is doing with the Advance Class guide hybrid classes. Do you have a third way? Trailblazer simply treats spellcasting and so on more like BAB, so that a fighter 10/wizard 10 not only has BAB +15, but also has caster level 15th (or whatever, I don't have it in front of me). That's a third way.
3.5 had a lot of multiclass feats like Devoted Tracker and so on. That's a fourth way.
Similarly, my houserules provide a lot of class synergy features that you can choose when multiclassing, to make almost any class combination viable without gimping the PC. They're broader in scope than the 3.5 patches but more costly, as they're talents rather than feats. That's a fifth way.
I'm sure there are others as well. In my own games, I made a feat to do something like this. 1/4 of the sum of all other classes count towards the spellcasting. If the other class is a spellcasting itself, the player can give up the spellcasting and count 1/2 of them towards the primary spellcasting class.
e.g. Bard 4/Fighter 6/Wizard 10 with the feat would cast as a Bard 8 (4 + 1/4*16) or Wizard 12 (10 + 1/4*10). If they give up their bard casting, they could cast as Wizard 13 (10 + 1/4*6 + 1/2*4).
Didn't 3.5 have a feat that did that too? I think it was Practiced Spellcaster or something, added +__ caster levels to your lowest level casting class if you possessed more than one class, but your total caster level could not exceed your HD.
Josh M. wrote: Didn't 3.5 have a feat that did that too? I think it was Practiced Spellcaster or something, added +__ caster levels to your lowest level casting class if you possessed more than one class, but your total caster level could not exceed your HD. Yeah, but it sucked, because it only increased CL for purposes of damage dice, range, etc. -- it didn't give you access to higher-level spells.
3rd edition tried to patch the failure of the multiclassing system by adding prestige classes (eldritch knight, mystic theurge, sacred fist, and so on and so forth). The typical problem there was that, by the time you qualified, you were so gimped that your teammates had traded you in for someone useful. As soon as you straight-up admit that "A wizard/cleric is pretty much a lost cause, so here's a work-around, kinda," you've admitted that multiclassing doesn't work, from the very start.
Here's another reason I am, at least for now because I can't tell the future, opting out of pathfinder. How fast is this game getting on par with 3.X supplement bloat? There is simply getting to be too much to deal with now. I am aware of things like the SRD but still it's just too much. You can barely do anything without someone saying "Well in this supplement here it says that is supposed to work this way while this book here says if you do that, this also happens." And then I have to get the Tylenol. I tell you, all the arguing I have had to deal with from people about multi-book spanning RAW and RAI has actually caused me to have to get fillings from the tooth grinding just so I don't deck someone. Yes I have considered sending the bill to my group.
|
