| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Half tempted to just give everybody a favored class bonus every level regardless of whether they are multiclassing or not.If you really want to stop power-gaming munchkins, ask that the players play only a single base class from 1-20 (or the minimum number of classes needed to reach a prestige class that they intend to play 1-10, if playing one of those). With this, the ability score minimums would be unneeded as the classes' own abilities would fully enforce any sensibility of ability score choice.Which, given Pathfinder's anti-multiclassing design, will actually produce a MORE powerful character nine times out of ten than allowing them to take that level dip.
It's not even really the favored class bonus. That's a drop in a lake.
It's more the extremely strong tie of nearly ALL abilities to class level progression with very very few abilities that progress outside that class, the subpar design nature of prestige classes in comparison to straight through base classes, level 20 capstone abilities, the presence of mid- and high-level class abilities that weren't present in 3e/3.5, and archetypes.
To compare. In 3.5 there was really never any reason to take... say... wizard or sorcerer past level 5 because other than their spell progression they got no/almost no class-based abilities whatsoever, and EVERY casting prestige class would continue their spell advancement PLUS give them other interesting abilities along the way. In Pathfinder, sorcerers get bloodline abilities and wizards get school abilities, and neither of these are progressed with 99% of prestige classes. In addition, Pathfinder PrCs tend to be slower progressing and slightly nerfed compared to their 3.5 counterparts, thus further lowering the usefulness of using them.
And with the advent of archetypes and hybrid classes, the few remaining reasons for multiclassing are starting to fade. Bard/Rogue used to be a popular combination in 3.5 in some groups, but now you'll just play an Archeologist or Sandman Bard and get the same results. Eldritch Knights and other "gish"-type builds have been all but completely replaced by Magus. Not every possible combination has been done, of course, but homebrew stuff on the forums like Multiclass Archetypes and various 3rd-party producers are well on the way to filling those gaps.
Thus every time I see someone trying to prohibit multiclassing in Pathfinder, it kind of seems like they don't recognize the changes to the system have already gone a long way to dissuade doing so in the first place, and nine times out of ten a multiclassed character is going to be significantly less capable - except perhaps within a limited set of specializations - than a straight-classed character of the same level and general build. In complete opposition to 3.5, where multiclassing was practically required to keep up with the pace of the game at mid- and high-levels.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before 3rd Edition, most, if not all, character classes demanded minimums in certain ability scores for a character to take them. I suggest these be reinstated. It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be, and would be a good obstacle to power-gaming/system abuse.
Okay, so two goals;
- Preserving the integrity of the class
- Obstacle to power-gaming/system abuse
I'm going to focus on your "class integrity" posts, because they're more interesting and seem to be your main point.
To preempt the inevitable argument "I want to make this character with this combination of class levels, and have this contrived justification for why it should be possible to <for example> take levels in Alchemist despite having an Intelligence of 7 because I just want that Mutagen,"
This is the "BADWRONGFUN" that people are accusing you of.
let me say: A thing is at least as much defined by what it is not as by what it is. The very fact that this game operates on character classes (rather than games like GURPS or CHAMPIONS where you get a pool of points that you can arrange in almost any combination of abilities the game can offer) means that by choosing to play this game, you're choosing to play within the limits of certain character concepts (in which there is still lots of room for individual variation). The game is about telling a story (not just telling a story, but living it!), and the mechanics exist as a vehicle toward that end; they're a critical part of the game, but subordinate to storytelling, just like the gas tank of a car is subordinate to the car's passengers and their desire to get where they want to go.
It's interesting you bring up the car analogy, because that's the one I had in mind as well. (Bear in mind that I know very little about cars; I've got a drivers' licence but I can't name more than a few brands of car.)
I tend to think about characters as cars. It's a sort of second skin you pull around you when you go into the game. It has a certain appearance; color, may or may not have a roof, big or small and so forth. These are the things that are visible IC. Your character has a certain style, does things in a certain way.
And then there's the mechanics inside the car. It's got an engine, it uses some kind of fuel. And you can see some of that from the outside, by noticing the enormous black clouds puffing from the exhaust, hearing the roar of the engine and so forth. But most of it is in fact hidden. I personally can't tell from looking at a car whether a car runs on diesel or gasoline. If you know what to look for you can probably tell, but it's mostly hidden. You could probably take quite a few cars and put in an entirely different engine, and the car would still run, still look mostly the same from the outside. Maybe it gets more powerful, faster, or more fuel-efficient. Character class is like the engine of a car. It is not the concept of the character, it's the mostly-hidden mechanics that enable the car to do all the things that its exterior pretends it is capable of.
Quite often I see people who equate Class with Concept. They say "this character is a rogue, therefore he should have the Rogue class". (That sort of thinking seems to be one of the main reasons why new players roll up Rogues.) But you can execute the concept of a rogue in a variety of classes.
Basically, you want a sleek black car that's good at parking in small spaces. But that really doesn't limit your choice of car engine all that much.
The point is that the game isn't just about mechanics - they're servitors to the game (...) - nobody's more in favor of creativity than I am, but if you're going to say "anything goes" with regard to what a character class can be, then why have character classes in the system at all? Think of it this way: Limits on what a class is capable of means more options for new ideas to look forward to. It's the nature of the beast, as Gary Gygax himself once said.
So what's the point of having classes then? I see them as cohesive, hopefully balanced packages of mechanics. I've played a lot of White Wolf and some Shadowrun, and I've got some basis for comparison with classless systems. Classes do a lot for game balance. They prevent overspecialization. A wizard can't "sell off" his HP to gain even more caster level. That's something that is pretty easy in many classless games. But then it often happens that you end up with a party where some characters are so much more fragile or tough than the others, that you can't really run them in the same combat. The goons that would challenge my computer geek vampire have no chance against your warrior vampire. The goons that would challenge your warrior vampire are certain death for my computer geek vampire. Classed systems like PF do a lot to mitigate these things by in effect making certain purchases of abilities mandatory.
Let's get metaphysical: In order for something to be something, it has to just as much be not other things - and if it changes too much, the point comes where it is no longer what it was in any way shape or form. A game has to retain a certain essence, otherwise it is no longer that game. I'm NOT the one saying "There Is But One True Way," but, to use a rather pedestrian example, you can like sushi and you can like Mexican food, but if you go to your favorite sushi place only to discover that it's become a Mexican restaurant, that's not what you came for, is it (if that doesn't make any sense, forgive me; I tried)? Me? I like my fantasy games to have clear-cut classes, but if I play a comic-book superhero game, I prefer those to be much more freeform. That doesn't mean you have to feel the same way, but it does mean that if people are playing a given game, the players need to see eye-to-eye, on a certain level, on what it means to be playing the game, otherwise it's not much fun for anyone. This is the problem with talking about the game in a setting like this as opposed to an individual table, and the limits of how broad an audience the publishers can appeal to.
I'm guess that what irritates you is seeing a "kitchen sink party", where everyone is some extremely weird character that resulted from stacking a variety of classes, archetypes on a nonstandard race. And everyone seems to be running against stereotype in his class.
This is something that happens very easily in PF. In my personal experience, once you start taking choice bits from the buffet of options, it's easier to make an odd character than to make a "normal" character. Is that bad? Well, maybe a little bit. When you make an odd character, you generally want to be acknowledged as being "the odd one". But if everyone is too busy being strange, there's no normal people left to call you odd. Someone needs to play the "straight man" / only sane man.
As an example, consider a party with a tiefling, a necromancer, a nagaji and a barbarian. Probably more than one of the players were thinking that they were gonna be the sarcastic outsider, but it turns out that they're all trying to be the odd one out, and nobody's really satisfied.
And it's not really surprising this happens. Many people playing RPGs are teenagers or students, still in a rebellious phase. And quite a few older people like the chance to escape from having to be relatively normal at their job.
---
So what specifically goes wrong to irritate you, and is there hope?
To continue my car analogy, maybe your players put a weird engine in their car and then don't close down the hood again. They managed to make a Slayer/Alchemist/Monk that fills the "rogue" niche, but they're not presenting it as "the shadowy guy", but as "the guy with all the weird class abilities".
The obvious solution is to explain your aesthetic concerns to your players, and to ask them to try to work more on portraying the concept of the character, not the mechanics that power it.
Second, explain the straight/sane man concept to them, and challenge some of them to play that - on the outside! - while they can use the mechanics they like on the inside to be just as awesome. I've seen it in practice a couple of times, and it's a really nice addition to the party.
I suppose it's worth mentioning that someone else's comment to me about this thread is that there's a great deal of "frame of reference" disparity going on here - the pedigree, background, and length of one's gaming career can all have an impact on just how one feels about the prospect of ability score minimums.
Honestly, I'd consider that rather insightful when both GMs and players of a variety of gaming and game design backgrounds all agree a proposition is bad.
So, why is Power Gaming bad again?
So, why is Power Gaming bad again?
Usually in the context of discussion, powergaming means building and playing your character in an overly competitive way at the expense of your fellow gamer's fun. Powergamers care more about maximizing the effectiveness of their character or playing the system than roleplaying or being a team player. This is bad because D&D/PF is a team game. If someone isn't being a team player, that makes the game less fun for everyone else.
The key is the attitude of the player. Simply optimizing your character doesn't necessarily mean you're a powergamer.
Because, at its heart, it makes the other players have to choose between power gaming too or becoming irrelevant. C.f. The warrior vs computer geek vampires above.
That is not the point here, though. This objection is based on a desire for other styles of gaming, if I read the OP right.
So, why is Power Gaming bad again?Usually in the context of discussion, powergaming means building and playing your character in an overly competitive way at the expense of your fellow gamer's fun. Powergamers care more about maximizing the effectiveness of their character or playing the system than roleplaying or being a team player. This is bad because D&D/PF is a team game. If someone isn't being a team player, that makes the game less fun for everyone else.
The key is the attitude of the player. Simply optimizing your character doesn't necessarily mean you're a powergamer.
Isn't that called metagaming, which is something else, and is explicitly banned in the rules of the game?
There really is no need to place additional rules in place. In fact, it would be a lot easier for OP to avoid these issues (s)he is citing by just having a "no multiclassing" house rule. It was a common one in many 3.x games that I have played.
But I digress, power gaming is only an issue when you are putting limits on the players resources and it is affecting their fun level.
Usually, letting players have higher (usually rolled) stats, and being more lenient on WBL guidelines gets rid of the power gaming aspect because the power they seek is incorporated into the game. If you do this, you can usually just throw encounters at them that are 1 or 2 CR higher and everything balances out.
If you get super picky about the integrity of the game and needing to follow every exact numerical guideline when it comes to WBL and XP and controlling the balance of the game, then you really have to consider which side of the screen has the most power gaming going on.
Isn't that called metagaming, which is something else, and is explicitly banned in the rules of the game?
Normally, I consider "metagaming" to be "using player knowledge to direct character activity." Reading ahead in the module, for example. Or, more subtly, being genre-savvy enough to know that there's only room for two more chambers on the map, and hence two more encounters, so I can burn half my spells in the next room.
Powergaming is different -- you don't need to use illicit knowledge to design a character to hog the spotlight and make everyone else useless. The key aspect, of course, being that my powerful character is only a problem if it keeps the others at the table from having fun.
If you get super picky about the integrity of the game and needing to follow every exact numerical guideline when it comes to WBL and XP and controlling the balance of the game, then you really have to consider which side of the screen has the most power gaming going on.
QFT.
|
|
Because, at its heart, it makes the other players have to choose between power gaming too or becoming irrelevant. C.f. The warrior vs computer geek vampires above.
That is not the point here, though. This objection is based on a desire for other styles of gaming, if I read the OP right.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make.
It's entirely possible that the computer geek is just as twinked out as the warrior; just for entirely different challenges.
Or maybe they're not really twinked out at all. But the warrior PC has been spending XP on fighty abilities and the geek hasn't. After some playtime, their combat stats are so divergent that it's hard to write a combat featuring both.
One of the benefits of a class-based system is that you can try to keep at least some aspects of characters in the same ballpark, like HP and saving throws. It also provides more of a basis for comparison.
Reading ahead in the module, for example. Or, more subtly, being genre-savvy enough to know that there's only room for two more chambers on the map, and hence two more encounters, so I can burn half my spells in the next room.
Important distinction: Not all metagaming is cheating. Reading ahead in the module is cheating. Getting conveniently paranoid after rolling a 1 on a Perception check is metagaming, but I wouldn't call it foul play.
Not to say it's good. Metagaming is just a different shsade of annoying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading ahead in the module, for example. Or, more subtly, being genre-savvy enough to know that there's only room for two more chambers on the map, and hence two more encounters, so I can burn half my spells in the next room.Important distinction: Not all metagaming is cheating.
Agreed. Sometimes metagaming can even be helpful -- for example, if it helps you overlook gaping plot holes and infer how the game master wants/expects you to act instead of how a sensible person would act when confronted with that situation. ("What? The landlord has disappeared on the night of the full moon? We better go find him before the werewolf does!") ("What? The bad guys decamped in the night, leaving a giant wooden badger behind? We'd better bring that into the camp instead of setting fire to it where it stands!") ("What? Harry's name has been entered illegally into the Triwizard Tournament? We'd better force him to compete instead of just sitting out all the challenges, scoring no points, and possibly saving his life!")("What? We need to get the Ring to Mount Doom? We better put it in the hands of a witless halfling on foot and not use a greater teleport spell or anything!")
If I was presented this for a Pathfinder game I wouldn't necessarily be discouraged.
I would ask the GM to simply assign my ability scores.
And some players might be okay with that.
But a great deal of the rest of us would very much not. We have our own ideas for how we want our characters to work out, what we want their strengths and weaknesses to be, and the various puzzle pieces we want to use to put that chassis together. I personally would not be at all interested in a game where a GM showed up and handed me a sheet and said "This is the character I want you to play". Because that's not MY character, I didn't do anything to create him or her, I have no personal, emotional, or interest-based attachment to it like I would a concept put together and brought to life by my own imagination.
I think that's the major problem I have with this whole situation. I have always seen classes, like almost every other mechanical part of D&D/PF, as merely building blocks or puzzle pieces toward putting the character I want together. It's one of the main reasons I tend to houserule AWAY a lot of race, alignment, etc. prereqs for things in my own games.
I personally would not be at all interested in a game where a GM showed up and handed me a sheet and said "This is the character I want you to play".I wouldn't necessarily either. I just hate going half-way toward that with something like ability score restrictions.
Heh, fair. I just wouldn't even start down that road, much less go halfway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stat and Race requirements were removed from D&D in 3.0/3.5 and Pathfinder because they were awful and annoying.
All they did was shoehorn your characters into specific roles and certain methods of play, instead of allowing you to do uncommon things with your characters.
They did nothing to stop powergamers, and just made the game less fun for players who wanted to create unique characters. And it was one of the more-commonly ignored rules in 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D BECAUSE it was awful and made playing less fun.
This is a bad idea and you should feel bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
("What? Harry's name has been entered illegally into the Triwizard Tournament? We'd better force him to compete instead of just sitting out all the challenges, scoring no points, and possibly saving his life!")
There was a magically binding contract that made it so anyone chosen by the goblet had to compete or else... though the "or else" was never really explained it would presumably be very bad. Get your facts straight here.
("What? Harry's name has been entered illegally into the Triwizard Tournament? We'd better force him to compete instead of just sitting out all the challenges, scoring no points, and possibly saving his life!")There was a magically binding contract that made it so anyone chosen by the goblet had to compete or else... though the "or else" was never really explained it would presumably be very bad. Get your facts straight here.
I know I'm contributing to a tangent here, but...
However, Orfamay has a point. Sometimes it's okay to metagame if it will make the game easier or more fun to play. It's up to the GM to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Like I said earlier, attitude is what matters when determining problem players. If a player is cheating or abusing mechanics to gain a competitive edge in a non-competitive game at other's expense, then they either need to change their behavior or leave the table. The problem lies with how they're playing the game, not what they're doing to achieve their goals. For this reason, limiting options won't stop a these kind of problem players.
If I was presented this for a Pathfinder game I wouldn't necessarily be discouraged.
I would ask the GM to simply assign my ability scores.
And some players might be okay with that.
But a great deal of the rest of us would very much not. We have our own ideas for how we want our characters to work out, what we want their strengths and weaknesses to be, and the various puzzle pieces we want to use to put that chassis together. I personally would not be at all interested in a game where a GM showed up and handed me a sheet and said "This is the character I want you to play". Because that's not MY character, I didn't do anything to create him or her, I have no personal, emotional, or interest-based attachment to it like I would a concept put together and brought to life by my own imagination.
I've found that pregenerated characters work very well for one-shots or very short games, generally allowing a roleplaying heavy scenario to start with characters tied into the area or events without spending days on character generation. Works especially well for con-games.
I wouldn't want to use it for a long term campaign.
I'd consider that a reasonable exception, yes. I've never been to a con so I have no experience with that sort of thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be because you have a popularly reviled idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before 3rd Edition, most, if not all, character classes demanded minimums in certain ability scores for a character to take them. I suggest these be reinstated. It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be, and would be a good obstacle to power-gaming/system abuse.
I'm sorry that the level of power gaming in your home group has driven you to this. Power gamers can cause no end to headaches for DMs by virtue of destroying the balance of power within parties of PCs.
Trying to game the system for mechanical advantage against the DM is a pretty bad plan - the DM can game the system a lot better.
I've had to deal with some power gamers who, without intending to, reduce the amount of fun to be had by their fellows.
I wouldn't want to use this idea, but if you feel the need to institute such a rule for your campaign, I'd bee a bit more systematic and equal with it - something like "13 in two of these three stats" (even that is more limiting than I like but at least it keeps everything on an even field).
Some ways to help avoid this desire is to play campaigns up to 20th (or even beyond). The perks that 20th level characters get as a single class start are, in most cases, pretty impressive.
I am sorry that the thread has not headed the way you desired. That does not mean you have a bad idea though. It just means that for the majority of the posters here believe it is.
A simple thing to do could be to concede that this is not the gaming community for your idea, as represented by the strong feeling that people here have against it.
No matter it's controversial nature, it is still a great rule, for you. Simply said this is one of the rules that people dislike, it's the cult classic of movies, it's the song that only a couple people like, but when they like it boy do they like it.
I am sorry that your idea does not work for the people on here, and hope that you can find a better gaming system/ community forum, that will embrace it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry that the thread has not headed the way you desired. That does not mean you have a bad idea though. It just means that for the majority of the posters here believe it is.
A simple thing to do could be to concede that this is not the gaming community for your idea, as represented by the strong feeling that people here have against it.
No matter it's controversial nature, it is still a great rule, for you. Simply said this is one of the rules that people dislike, it's the cult classic of movies, it's the song that only a couple people like, but when they like it boy do they like it.
I am sorry that your idea does not work for the people on here, and hope that you can find a better gaming system/ community forum, that will embrace it.
Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but in this case I feel like it's putting the words "Fat Free" on candy. It was already fat free, but somehow it makes people feel better to put the label on it.
What I'm saying is, the game already punishes such "power-gaming" in various ways that makes those patterns almost universally suboptimal, without any need for further intervention. As such, this rule does nothing more than add a label of "low int is a bad idea!" to a class where that is already obvious.
To go further, even if you accept the assumption that dipping into classes while having inappropriate ability scores causes problems, this "fix" doesn't solve it. Even the example given of taking Alchemist to get Mutagen despite a low int isn't solved because then the character would just take a level of Mutation Fighter or Mutagenic Mauler.
It's liable to cause a gulf between players and DM due to undiscussed playstyle preference differences, it doesn't solve the problem it sets out to solve, and it adds extra bookkeeping for both player and DM alike.
EDIT - TL;DR: It's not even a good idea within the mindset and assumptions given by the OP, no need to even reach into playstyle differences.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I just pop in to mention that this thread has completely failed to go in any direction resembling any of the directions I'd initially intended it to go?
The discussion doesn't really have much to work with. You haven't really provided much clear support for your suggestion. So far, the only arguments to justify ability score requirements I've seen from you are:
1) Hinder munchkins (problem players that use their system mastery to build and play competitively in a non-competitive game at the expense of their fellow gamers' fun).
2) Preserve the integrity of classes.
3) Other editions of D&D do it.
In addition to the numerous reasons why the suggestion is a bad idea that strikes many as loathsome, the fine people of this discussion gave the following rebuttals to the above points.
1) It will do little to hinder munchkins. Even if it did, the problem with munchkins lie with their motivations, not their methods.
2) Class features define a class, not ability scores. So it's better to let the class features decide the minimums, which they do anyway. Class features are highly dependent on ability scores. Some class features (spellcasting, grit, etc) don't work without a minimum ability score. So even for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of classes, enforcing ability score minimums not only makes no sense, but is also redundant at best.
3) Pathfinder is not AD&D, 4th Edition, or 5th Edition. Pathfinder reinforces the idea of using the system to create character concepts with classes as a foundation. This is why Paizo introduced archetypes and hybrid classes and gave many classes talents or features like sorcerer bloodlines. Additionally, other editions had way better reasons to hinder multiclassing or remove it entirely. AD&D's multiclassing worked entirely different from 3rd Edition's. 4th Edition basically removed multiclassing because every class gets all their features at 1st level. 5th Edition centers everything around proficiencies and was deliberately designed for low-level play. As a result, multiclassing is very strong in 5th Edition, which is why the game made it an optional rule with many limitations.
"I'm Hiding In Your Closet," the discussion will obviously stagnate since you haven't provided any good counterarguments to the above rebuttals.
I think it is an excellent idea, but ninja should have a wis requirement, not int. Although most of their "real-world" work involved cha, pathfinder doesn't really push it that way.That doesn't make sense to me, considering Pathfinder based the ninja's ki pool on Charisma, not Wisdom.
Pardon my mistake! I dragged the old 3.5 wis for ki ninja into early pathfinder. Of course pf ninja is cha, my mistake.
Will check back in soon.
Before 3rd Edition, most, if not all, character classes demanded minimums in certain ability scores for a character to take them. I suggest these be reinstated. It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be, and would be a good obstacle to power-gaming/system abuse.
.
Much of what you're looking for is baked into the rules already. A wizard with an int of 5 can't cast spells, and an Alchemist of the same level of stupidity can't use extracts.
And I really doubt that there are folks looking to make 8 cha sorcerers.
Not really.
The OP proposes a minimum intelligence of 15 for wizards, not 6 (and not 10, the minimum to cast any spells at all). In addition, the OP proposes a minimum dexterity of 11 for no reason whatsoever.
There are a number of character concepts I might want to explore that would not be legal under the OP's asininely-stupid-and-fun-destroying scheme. For example, I might want to focus on a wizard specializing in summoning and buffing spells, which don't need high save DCs. (In fact, this particular build is even suggested and analyzed in detail in one of the high-profile guides.)
I might also be interested in playing a clumsy or even comedy relief incompetent wizard. (Literary examples would include Rincewind or Gilderoy Lockhart.)
Apparently, the wizard class is not "supposed" to include iconic wizards like the Sorcerer's Apprentice.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In as far as using old school ability score requirements to give guidance to newer players so's that they wind up with decent characters, I think the OPs idea isn't entirely meritless. Also this needn't be a polarizing discussion. If I were to adopt this, I would reduce the math, looking towards older editions to draw inspiration. Consider:
Fighter - ST 9
Rogue - DX 9
Wizard - INT 11
Cleric - WIS 11
Barbarian - ST 9, CON 9
Ranger - ST 9, WIS 11
Paladin - ST 9, CHA 11
Bard - DX 9, CHA 11
Monk - ST 9, DX 9, WIS 11
Sorcerer - CHA 11
Druid - WIS 11
You could also limit Favored Class Bonuses to those who have 4 points higher than these metrics, (so, 13+ for physical stats, 15+ for mental stats), thus enabling "fairer" multi-classing practices in both directions: at once discouraging dips into classes with unmet ability score pre-reqs while enabling ability score synergy dual classing.
Keeping the spirit of your proposal but being far less punitive about it?
|
|
In as far as using old school ability score requirements to give guidance to newer players so's that they wind up with decent characters, I think the OPs idea isn't entirely meritless. Also this needn't be a polarizing discussion. If I were to adopt this, I would reduce the math, looking towards older editions to draw inspiration. Consider:
Fighter - ST 9
Rogue - DX 9
Wizard - INT 11
Cleric - WIS 11Barbarian - ST 9, CON 9
Ranger - ST 9, WIS 11
Paladin - ST 9, CHA 11
Bard - DX 9, CHA 11
Monk - ST 9, DX 9, WIS 11
Sorcerer - CHA 11
Druid - WIS 11You could also limit Favored Class Bonuses to those who have 4 points higher than these metrics, (so, 13+ for physical stats, 15+ for mental stats), thus enabling "fairer" multi-classing practices in both directions: at once discouraging dips into classes with unmet ability score pre-reqs while enabling ability score synergy dual classing.
Keeping the spirit of your proposal but being far less punitive about it?
This is.. better. I would remove the idea of them being prerequisites entirely and instead use the linking of favored class bonuses as the impetus for "proper" classing of the character. Put the requirements somewhere reasonable (15 for a single-stat character, 13 for mult-stat) and say you get favored class bonus if you meet that. This would replace the "you get one favored class" rule. Half-elves could get one favored class with no pre-requisites instead of their current ability, which would give them some potential usefulness for single class characters and a reputation as odd-balls.
With the above approach it becomes less a punishment and more of a gentle nudge, with both drawbacks and advantages depending on the build a character was going for.
Why not just house rule "no multiclassing?"
Or is some multiclassing okay while other times it isn't?
|
|
You'd still have to modify it for classes that change key stats. There are... a lot.
The big issue with that, insofar as the context of the original discussion goes, is that it doesn't solve the OP's key issue of dissuading 'powergaming' multiclassing. You may or may not consider that a good thing.
Nothing stops powergaming. The best you can do is tame it by letting it optimize as long as they also help others optimize and do not make their own character way better.
But yes, it still needs to be adjusted if you commit to an archetype that switches the prime attribute, but there are only about 4-5 of those that I can recall. Though a couple others exist that remove the need for a normally important attribute (such as Untouchable Bloodrager losing casting, which is the only cha-based thing they have). It would take effort, but isn't undoable.
Why not just house rule "no multiclassing?"
Or is some multiclassing okay while other times it isn't?
I think their problem was just as much people making odd builds within one class, such as a Wizard with only 13 Int because all they want it for is casting polymorphs so 13 (+6 from headband) is plenty. I personally have no problem with such things, but evidently OP does.
My current character in a Skulls and Shackles campaign has 3 levels in Soulknife, 2 Levels in Nomad, 2 levels in Elocator, and the rest in Dark Tempest. RP-wise, he's a womanizing swashbukler (Mind blade is emulating a rapier) with an incredible ability to escape irate husbands (personal gravity, Nomad's Step, and other things) This concept would be impossible without multi-classing.Why not just house rule "no multiclassing?"
Or is some multiclassing okay while other times it isn't?
Well apparently you are wrong in the way you play?
Idk I'm still trying to understand the premise here.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or is some multiclassing okay while other times it isn't?
Multiclassing in support of a well-defined character concept is fine. If you're building Gandalf, remember he's a wizard who wields a legendary sword; if you're building the Grey Mouser, remember he's a rogue who can go toe-to-toe with the finest swordsmen in the world (and who thinks he can cast spells).
Multiclassing in support of an ill-defined collection of Phenomenal Kozmic Powers!!!!1!1one!!!eleven!! is ... also fine. But it grinds the gears of certain frustrated novelists and film directors who think that you're having badwrongfun and therefore must be stopped.
|
Before 3rd Edition, most, if not all, character classes demanded minimums in certain ability scores for a character to take them. I suggest these be reinstated. It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be, and would be a good obstacle to power-gaming/system abuse.
Fine list and can be used for several things:
Increase certain class rarity (for population breakdown of NPC classes and as an option for player availability)
Forces MAD on classes that would otherwise not require it.
Some pointers:
- If you want a few classes to be rarer you I would bump the min primary stat from 15 to 17s and require 3 min stats in the array.
- All casters should have 3 minimum stats requirements. The third stat requirement for Wizards can be tied to a specific stat (Say Con 15 to 17 for Necro specialists, 15-17 Cha for Enchanters, the 15-17 being the range you pin down, but it should be high).
- Consider using rolls instead of PB for stats. Traditionally you rolled your stats first and then saw what was available to play. Not required, just a consideration.
If you have an older group or players or players who like older editions of the game, I see nothing wrong with bringing over minimum stat requirements to PF. If it has a function in your game and you think it would improve the quality of the game within your circles then don't bother taking the attacks here seriously. Everyone plays a different game and wants different things out of their games.
So I would run with it - just a go a bit little harsher on the stat requirements for some of the more powerful/rarer classes in your game combined with your "easier" list you posted by Rainzax for the basic, non-caster classes.
Good luck
Ah yes. That stereotype. Anyone who doesn't like powergaming of whatever type is a "frustrated novelist or film director".
Or is some multiclassing okay while other times it isn't?Multiclassing in support of a well-defined character concept is fine. If you're building Gandalf, remember he's a wizard who wields a legendary sword; if you're building the Grey Mouser, remember he's a rogue who can go toe-to-toe with the finest swordsmen in the world (and who thinks he can cast spells).
Multiclassing in support of an ill-defined collection of Phenomenal Kozmic Powers!!!!1!1one!!!eleven!! is ... also fine. But it grinds the gears of certain frustrated novelists and film directors who think that you're having badwrongfun and therefore must be stopped.
Nope. But anyone who tries to stop powergaming to their view of correct play ,... which is what this is explicitly about, make no mistake,... is a "frustrated novelist or film director." Because they're not interested in a cooperative game.
How about "Finds their preferred playstyle not to match with yours."
How about not. Because they're not enforcing their playstyle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, if your main criteria for a good gm are "knows the rules cold and runs scrupulously by the book combat", you would have hated it. I never had any complaints.
My main criterion for a good GM is "wants the entire table to have fun." Which the opening poster clearly does not meet.