I think it will be rise of the rune lords or iron gods.
Any thoughts?
Why?
I think a party composed of a Bloodrager, Warpriest, Investigator, and Arcanist would make a pretty good party. If you have another player, a Skald would work well. Hey, look! The entire party are casters! LOL!
I would certianly be interested in playing that game!
Why?
Most the players in my group play the same class the same way in every game so i thought it's time to shake things up
Why?Most the players in my group play the same class the same way in every game so i thought it's time to shake things up
It's just as easy to say "You have to play something you've never played before with me as a GM. Change it up. Here's a reward I'm giving you for switching it up: (insert reward here)"
Otherwise the always barbarian guy will play a bloodrager exactly like he plays the barbarian, the always wizard guy will play an arcanist exactly like he plays the wizard, the always rogue guy will play a slayer exactly like he plays a rogue, and the always cleric guy will play a shaman exactly like he plays a cleric.
Besides that, there's nothing wrong with playing the same thing every time. Some people like playing what they like playing. I have a friend who HATES playing casters. He will always be a barbarian, fighter, cavalier (if he can find an archetype without a pet, because he hates the paperwork of ACs), etc. He doesn't want the complication of spell lists, etc. He wants to charge crap and hit it with his sword. That's what is fun for him. I would never tell him "You can't be a martial this time, you have to be a wizard." If after playing a full orc barbarian for 17 levels, I tell him he needs to pick something besides a full orc barbarian for this next game, there's a 9/10 chance he'd pick a bloodrager. Or a viking fighter. Or anything as close to a barbarian as he could get his hands on. If I managed to get him to play a wizard, you know what he would probably do? Charge the enemy with his quarterstaff. Some people just play a certain way. You shouldn't punish them for that.
|
Did this with a side game when the APG came out, with one caveat: you could play a base class, but it was required to have an archetype. Was a good way for all of us to learn a bit more about the game and stretch our wings a bit. Some of my players who used to play the same character every time never looked back when they discovered new options.
Recommend doing this with a one shot or module first to see how you players react.
This seems like a plan with little upside to me.
For each player, it is a binary choice. Would they prefer to play and ACG character or something else. IF the answer was an ACG character, limiting it did nothing. IF the answer was something else, the player is less happy then he would have been otherwise.
Basically, the only positive thing it does is reduce GM ennui, which seems like a pretty selfish reason to reduce player happiness to me.
Basically, the only positive thing it does is reduce GM ennui, which seems like a pretty selfish reason to reduce player happiness to me.If it does that then it's a very good reason to restrict classes. A bored GM is likely to lead to a lot less fun for everybody.
I would submit that a GM that can only relieve boredom by changing classes isn't going to run a very good game anyway. If that is the limit of the GMs creativity, then it isn't a game I'm going to be interested in.
Lets not insult the OP, eh?
I'd suggest talking to the players about your issue with them always being the same class- rather than just restricting them to playing other things.
Discussing the issue is going to be a better fix than basically just saying "You can't play that, because I said so" which is essentially what you are doing. Any "out of game" issue should be settled by talking it out, not by forcing rules changes on the players.
Either way, I hope the game works out well for you and them.
-S
This can sound a little harsh, so...DIPLOMACY CHECK!
I get you want to change things up. It can get a bit dull when people play the same thing over and over. But...your players are having fun, right? That's important too and forcing them to play different classes will probably just lead to resentment. I get you want to send monsters against a bunch of different types of dudes, but if your players hate you for it, what's the point? If you feel you're just phoning it in as you said, perhaps you should step down if you can? Take some time off, see if someone else wants to run the group. Or maybe join another group as a player? That will shake things up.
*roll roll roll* Did I make my check?
P.S. How old are you guys? I notice younger players (In the 13-17 range usually) tend to play the same characters more often.
70, 45, 43, 40, 38, and 34. I'm the youngest
A 70 year old player? That is awesome!
Why?Most the players in my group play the same class the same way in every game so i thought it's time to shake things up
It's just as easy to say "You have to play something you've never played before with me as a GM. Change it up. Here's a reward I'm giving you for switching it up: (insert reward here)"
Otherwise the always barbarian guy will play a bloodrager exactly like he plays the barbarian, the always wizard guy will play an arcanist exactly like he plays the wizard, the always rogue guy will play a slayer exactly like he plays a rogue, and the always cleric guy will play a shaman exactly like he plays a cleric.
That reminds of the time my old GM made the barbarian play a different class. He chose a druid and played it exactly like it was a barbarian. He cast one spell the entire time, and even then he did not understand it because he did not read the magic section.
Sounds like a neat idea!
Guys, he's not chaining the players in the basement and forcing them to play these classes. I'm sure if they don't seem interested they'll let him know, one way or another. It's like sending a guy to an ice cream parlor with five bucks and instructions to try something new. If he really can't stand any new flavors, nobody's forcing him to spend your money. :P
So I say, go on and get them to try some new styles on for size! And as an aside, are you going to be converting NPCs, or will the heroes be the only ACG characters?
EDIT: And with regards to "Are the players having fun? That's your top priority", the GM having fun is really important, too. GMs like to switch things up on occasion, in my experience.
I say go for it. A core only game gives you 11 classes to choose from. The ACG gives you 10. You can build just about anything you'd want from the 10 ACG classes (though a good healer is alluding me still, a sufficient one is not).
If you don't want to be quite so stringent you could make them at least play archetypes from the ACG. Most give some nice twists to their standard class at least.
But really I see no issue with them just playing ACG classes. Your running an ACG only game! I know people who run core only, so why not ACG only.
So are you going to be converting NPCs, or will the heroes be the only ACG characters?
Converting most of them. The idea is that the deities feel humanity has become to mighty for there own good and that they are culling the hurd. Mechanically anyone who has more than 5 class levels in the same class dies. So multiclass characters are usually safe. Hence humanity created the hybrid classes so they could continue to advance and avoid the gods curse and maybe remove it by challenging the gods.
I'll give it a fluff job on the story if i do it but thats the jist of it.
As far as divine toons getting their abilities they follow an ideal rather than a deity.
Though some of the most fanatic followers of gods are granted them boon to be able to pass the level cap though they will be npcs.
The three basic classes commoner, adapt, and warrior however will be uneffected by the curse.
Before anyone asks "humanity" is a blanket term for all sentient races is able to take a class.
The curse causes them to age rapidly at the time they reach their 5th level in one class they make a max age roll 2d4 months till they age to dust.
Cool idea!