| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, it isn't possible to play a stereotypical clumsy, bumbling wizard given the OP's restrictions and have the mechanics match the roleplay. If that was what you wanted to play you're out of luck, sorry - dextrous wizards only.Fat Freddie 'Five-Bellies', a morbidly obese conjurer, who has become so accustomed to having unseen servants do everything for him, that the weight just piled on, and he has to use clairvoyance to aim at the lavatory.
He usually wears a bemused and forlorn expression on his syrup-glazed face, and huffs, puffs, and complains at every exertion, declaring he's about to die, despite the fact his legs barely move, as he's carried along via magical flight.
How about Fat Freddie?
NOOOOOO! Minimum Dex requirement! Back to the drawing board!
*jots this down for a villain idea next time she GM's*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simplicity?
Cutting down on the power-gaming and the focus on build mechanics over actually playing the game? Locking down all of the features and possibilities in character build mechanics removes creativity and improvisation during play?The build game is one of the biggest attractions to PF/3.x for some people. It drives me away. I quite like actually playing the game and I get sucked into the build game, but it mostly frustrates me.
Builds aren't characters. You equate them again in that last line and I almost missed it, because in a game like PF, it's so easy to think of them as the same thing.
Eh, in many ways, builds are characters- Their the engine that runs a character, and if that engine is very different from the outside, then you end up with a feeling that something is OFF. That things don't quite FIT. You feel slightly uneasy, as you pass your acrobatics check. This feeling runs over you, and you can't escape it. It perviates every d20 you roll. Your character's actions never fit the mechanics. They don't seem to WORK.
Crunch and fluff in pathfinder is tightly interwoven- They are still separated, but the line can be thin, and grows thinner the more you build your character. You can't build a suave character without charisma, because charisma represents how suave your character is. You can't have a Barbarian without Strength who's backstory is how he wrecked face when angered, because the mechanics speak otherwise. He can't have done that in his backstory, because his crunch doesn't fit his fluff. How did he wreck face? He can't.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not also forget that things like Class Skills and Feats can make up for absolutely ABYSMAL stats, and this could be the intention from the get-go.
I want to create a Knight who is a total sleaze-bag and no-one would EVER actually LIKE this guy or think much of him at first glance.
Charisma 6.
Sucks at Diplomacy, is horrendous at Bluff...
But holy freaking GOD is he FANTASTIC at Intimidate. This guy rolls a 2 and scores a 35.
He makes you s#+$e your pants. He KNOWS exactly HOW to, through training, and he WILL scare you.
...
except, wait, Cavaliers NEED a Charisma of 15 MINIMUM because all Cavaliers are Chivalry-worshipping fops in shining armor. They're TOTALLY Paladin Lite, right? I mean, of 'course they are, because that's how The DM thinks they should be played, and screw everyone else, right?
---
WHO the character is - their background, their personality, their fears and motivations, etc. - that is fluff and doesn't really have hard-coded rules. These are immeasurable qualities.
WHAT the character is - their profession, their physical and mental abilities, their training, etc. - that is mechanics, because every single quality here is a MEASURABLE ability.
You need both a Who and What to create a character, and the moment you put a hard requirement on the WHAT you are off-balancing the character, and invariably the Who will be affected as well.
|
But why must builds be cookie-cutter? Because that's easier for the lazy GM? That's really the only reason to enforce cookie-cutter characters.The phrase "Lazy GM" really grinds my gears. The laziest of GMs still has exponentially more work to do than a player. If they want to impose limits that make the work more manageable for them that's their prerogative.
Not playing and running a game without those limits is on the flip side the player's prerogative.
- Torger
Well, as a GM who spends a lot of my free time (and I have a lot of free time) working on my games, those rare times I actually get to play GMs that dumb down the rules to make all the players cookie cutter grinds my gears.
But really, there is no reason whatsoever to limit characters like the OP is suggesting unless the intent is to enforce cookie cutter builds, and again in doing so you just encourage min-maxing. Because trust me, I can min-max with the best of them, but I choose not to because I prefer to make my character a bit less min-maxed but go with a concept. Take my concept(s) away and force me to play cookie cutter, then you are making min-max my concept because that's the only thing left to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New house rules on ability score requirements is not in any way dumbing down the rules. These are house rule ideas on where you put your ability scores and that there are some requirements, the rules in all other ways are still the same and have not been dumbed down.
How do some ability score requirements for each class enforce cookie cutter characters? How do these house rules on requirements force you to only roleplay certain characters, and restrict your roleplaying and character types to only cookie cutter original types?
Furthermore, would your barbarian really not have at least 13 str and 11 con?
Would your druid not have wis 15?
Would your paladin not have cha 15 and your magus have both rubbish str AND dex?
I get being opposed to any form of ability score requirements, but this doesn't push cookie cutter characters. Years of playing many diverse characters and I can say that all of my characters could fit into this, except one in recent memory, and most of my npcs would be just fine, except a single str 10 fighter.
That defensive character could have been adjusted to fit the house rule fighter requirements, lower a non-essential stat by 1 and make the 10 str an 11. It would not have altered the concept or roleplaying of that bodyguard fighter in any way or made them cookie cutter.
In high power play with many high ability scores, making these requirements would not be hard at all. 11s, 15s, easy. In games where the average ability score is 15, making a 9 or two isn't an issue or a restriction.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends greatly on what point buy budget you're working under.
A low-powered 10-pointbuy game would force players into preset scores, with little room to adjust.
Want to play against type, subvert the tired old cliche?
Not likely, if the GM insists how you spend half your points (or more).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, would your barbarian really not have at least 13 str and 11 con?
Would your druid not have wis 15?
Would your paladin not have cha 15 and your magus have both rubbish str AND dex?
Depends. I have a dwarven paladin whose Charisma is 13. I've started clerics with only 14 Wisdom and would do the same with a Druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, would your barbarian really not have at least 13 str and 11 con?
Would your druid not have wis 15?
Would your paladin not have cha 15 and your magus have both rubbish str AND dex?
So these rules are either meaningless or pointlessly restrictive... And they more often than not encourage the most obvious choice of attribute selection.
How does that encourage creativity and roleplay again? Because the way I see it, all it does is push more cookie-cutter builds and punish players who dare to try and think out of the box.
And, since you asked...
Both built at multiple levels. Neither increased the required attributes at any point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do some ability score requirements for each class enforce cookie cutter characters? How do these house rules on requirements force you to only roleplay certain characters, and restrict your roleplaying and character types to only cookie cutter original types?
Many characters would have the minimums listed, but it's extremely presumtuous to assume they're a given, in all cases.
Firstly, they imply that he expects every character is to be played as single-classed throughout their career.
"Why wouldn't a wizard have at least 15 Int?"
Ditto druid/cleric...Wis, etc.
Sure, when I plan on taking a casting class all the way to level 18+, I usually do put at least a 15 in their casting stat, so I can improve it every 4 levels, and cast 9th level spells without being dependent on stat-boosting items.
But I don't always plan to take a class all the way, sometimes it's spice to the main dish.
By enforcing high minimum stats, and by the contempt he holds multiclassing (as a tool only fit for munchkins), the OP prevents (or at least highly discourages and impedes) players from creating a horde of character ideas, which would require multiclassing and a flatter stat array.
So; "Why wouldn't a wizard have at least 15 Int?"
Hmmm, maybe... maybe to represent that he isn't very good at being a wizard?
And that, having discovered he isn't cut out to be a wizard, he chose to do something else? Or was kicked out of wizarding class?
How many people, every year, flunk college, or are forced by circumstance to abandon their studies?
- You realise this isn't what you want to do with your life, you've only got this far with your studies, using some minor natural talent, but the classes are now going over your head?
- Family business fails, suddenly your parents can't afford tuition fees?
- Dear Old Grandpa kicks the bucket, and you no longer have to humour the evil old goat, you can cash in your inheritance and leave the career you hate?
Roy from Order of the Stick could almost have been a good example of the last trope. Although the writer chose to have him flip old Eugene the bird, and go to Fighter School, just to spite him, it could easily have been written that he grudgingly did one term at Wizard School, before rebelling, and Roy could have been a Wizard 1/Fighter X.
Kess, the iconic Brawler, is obviously single-classed, to fit a specific need as a pregen. But a player could easily take her written background, and run with it, to justify a Wizard/Brawler mix. The private tutors and finishing schools she kept absconding from could very well have been trying to teach her the ladylike arcane arts ("Let's all examine your unseen servant needlepoint work. What do you mean, the dog ate it? And why do you have that bruise? Do you not WANT to attract a husband?).
Aren't those concepts more interesting than the boring, conveyor belt character generation methods that encourage "This character's a born genius, so put 20 in INT, high Dex, screw everything else, ...err what? personality? Well, he's always wanted to be a wizard, never considered being anything other than a wizard, wants to be the most powerful wizard he can be. Let's see you make saves vs that DC, LOL."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, would your barbarian really not have at least 13 str and 11 con?
If his mother drank too much fermented yak's blood, while she was expecting him, maybe his stats would be worse.
If he was born into a tribe that expected every member to learn the iconic skills of the barbarian class, and forced him to do so, despite being the runt of the family."You learn to ride, or you get left behind. You get left behind, you die. If we come back this way, and we see you walking, you will be killed. We do not recognise people on foot as being one of the Horse Clan."
Once he's acquired his obligatory cultural barbarian level, and proven he's not holding the tribe back, someone could give him a break, and suggest that he's not really warrior material, but the shaman could use an assistant, now he/she's getting old.
Isn't that more interesting than "MONGO SMASH!"?
I'd like to point out that the ability score minimums given in the OP actually ban one of my favorite character concepts: she was a Drunken Master/Sensei Monk who dipped a level of Oracle for charisma-to-ac. She put dexterity as her lowest stat and was, of course, terrible at dexterity based things like Acrobatics and Stealth; with AC and Initiative being based on charisma, however, she was basically able to Jack Sparrow out of the way of anything trying to hit her. She was also suave as hell, which a more conventional Monk wouldn't have been able to do.
This character would be impossible under the OP's parameters.
That's the point. To eliminate one level dips and reinforce the one class role.
Why this can't be done by saying "no multiclassing" is still beyond me.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We just don't understand why anyone would want to prevent multiclassing, in the first place.
There seems to be a bizarre idea that splitting ones focus between two classes is a 'munchkin' tactic, that results in overpowered characters.
Usually, it's the exact opposite.
At first, the character has some neat trick up their sleeve, that makes them seem well-built, but as a campaign goes on, those tricks become less and less relevant.
Maybe the level 1 ability of that other class does have a fortunate synergy with the 7 levels in your main class. But I bet it's not as synergistic, as having your main class' level 8 ability.
But if you are finding that a 1 or 2 level dip in a class is giving abilities that are breaking a level 10+ campaign, then you should probably re-examine that specific class for being overly front-loaded, or containing poorly-worded, or badly thought abilities. And then talk to your group about removing that class from your game, rather than banning the multiclassing that allows non-optimisers to make interesting characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a legacy idea from 3e/3.5, mostly. Where the base classes were usually very... well, basic, with few bells and whistles, and there was almost always a Prestige Class that would not only advance the things you wanted out of a base class - spells, sneak attack, high BAB progression, smite evil/good, favored enemy, bard songs, rage, or whatever your core trick was - as well as giving you something else useful on top of it.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, in 3.5 it was pretty pointless to take a Wizard or Sorc past level 5, because at that point you almost always qualified for some PrC that would not only continue to progress your casting at the full rate, but would also give you interesting, flavorful, useful, or powerful class abilities on top of it. It was pretty much the same with other base classes as well, to a lesser or greater degree.
And in addition to all that, there were feats or PrCs that would often allow you to advance multiple base classes' abilities together - such as one feat that would allow Bard/Rogues to advance both their song and their sneak attack at a rate of both classes' advancement rather than one or the other, another feat that would do the same for Rogue/Rangers advancing both their sneak attack and their favored enemy progression. There were prestige classes that were designed to merge two classes into one - kind of a precursor to hybrid classes, I suppose - and allow near-full advancement of all the core abilities.
Despite almost NONE of this being true in Pathfinder (in fact quite the opposite, as I've said multiple times), since it's built so heavily on the ex-3.5 player base, a LOT of people have trouble letting go of the old assumption that multiclassing = power.
But if you are finding that a 1 or 2 level dip in a class is giving abilities that are breaking a level 10+ campaign, then you should probably re-examine that specific class for being overly front-loaded, or containing poorly-worded, or badly thought abilities. And then talk to your group about removing that class from your game, rather than banning the multiclassing that allows non-optimisers to make interesting characters.
That was kind of the other thing. In 3.5 almost ALL classes were somewhat frontloaded. And a lot of the abilities remained useful even if you only took a level or two, unlike Pathfinder where nearly everything is tied strongly to class level. In 3.5 an ability grabbed at level 1 could be super useful the entire campaign; in Pathfinder it'll be a powerful option for a level or two, but once you reach level 6 or 7 or so it'll become less so, and continually less so as the campaign progresses.
Not only did Pathfinder eliminate some frontloading and make it less useful to have classes dipped, but it also spread class abilities over the entire class progression, further reducing the allure of not being single-classed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe no one's put this in here yet.
You need both a Who and What to create a character, and the moment you put a hard requirement on the WHAT you are off-balancing the character, and invariably the Who will be affected as well.
"Whoooo are you? Who-o? Who-o?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was kind of the other thing. In 3.5 almost ALL classes were somewhat frontloaded. And a lot of the abilities remained useful even if you only took a level or two, unlike Pathfinder where nearly everything is tied strongly to class level. In 3.5 an ability grabbed at level 1 could be super useful the entire campaign; in Pathfinder it'll be a powerful option for a level or two, but once you reach level 6 or 7 or so it'll become less so, and continually less so as the campaign progresses.
The main exception, of course, being single-level dips that are used to gain Feats, or abilities as powerful as Feats.
Swashbuckler is a very strong single-level dip for Swashbuckler's Finesse, Panache, and a few of the first-level Deeds. The same goes for Gunslinger for basically the same reasons (but with Guns).
Fighter is often worth a single or double-level dip because of the Bonus Combat Feats.
Master of Many Styles Monk is great for its first-level ability to allow 2 Style Feats and its Bonus Style Feat.
Oracle is worth a single-level dip because Curses use your entire HD to calculate their effects.
There are a few others that're extremely useful.
Other classes are better "Chassis" - they're not great for most single-level dips, but as the bulk of class progression, they're great, especially when supplemented by those single-level dips: Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Bloodrager, Alchemist, Warpriest, etc.
Full casters can use single-level dips, too, but more for fluff purposes or for atypical builds, since it puts their spell progression back a level. 3/4 and full BAB classes make the best use of class dips.
---
Still, these dips only typically serve to make character builds come online more quickly. Few dips result in a vastly more-powerful character than a single class.
An Oracle 1 / Barbarian/Bloodrager 11, for instance, may, in some ways, be more powerful than a Barbarian/Bloodrager 12, simply because that single level dip can allow the Barbarian/Bloodrager to Rage Cycle as early as Level 10.
Then again, if the game progresses to level 20, however, that single level dip might actually be worthless after a time, simply because Barbarians and Bloodragers can naturally Rage Cycle at lv17, but don't gain Mighty Rage until lv20 (meaning an Oracle 1 / Barbarian/Bloodrager 19 is redundant and underpowered).
And, again, none of these dips result in ANY build that is more powerful than a full-progression Wizard or Cleric.
There is nothing more Powergame-y than a Wizard or Cleric. These "restrictions" not only do NOTHING to stop this powergamey nature, they effectively punish other classes for not being either class.
Furthermore, would your barbarian really not have at least 13 str and 11 con?
Would your druid not have wis 15?
Would your paladin not have cha 15 and your magus have both rubbish str AND dex?
So these rules are either meaningless or pointlessly restrictive... And they more often than not encourage the most obvious choice of attribute selection.
How does that encourage creativity and roleplay again? Because the way I see it, all it does is push more cookie-cutter builds and punish players who dare to try and think out of the box.
And, since you asked...
Both built at multiple levels. Neither increased the required attributes at any point.
Goodo, and I can recall a character and npc of mine that wouldn't fit into the requirements, but two is a very small number. What about the rest of your characters? Would they fit just fine? Would there be no real problem as your chars meet the 9s, 11s or 15s?
I suspect you don't hammer your core and essential ability scores for every single character.
I like the low cha paladin. Reminds me of a thread on paladins being offensive to others and falling.
Furthermore, would your barbarian really not have at least 13 str and 11 con?If his mother drank too much fermented yak's blood, while she was expecting him, maybe his stats would be worse.
If he was born into a tribe that expected every member to learn the iconic skills of the barbarian class, and forced him to do so, despite being the runt of the family."You learn to ride, or you get left behind. You get left behind, you die. If we come back this way, and we see you walking, you will be killed. We do not recognise people on foot as being one of the Horse Clan."
Once he's acquired his obligatory cultural barbarian level, and proven he's not holding the tribe back, someone could give him a break, and suggest that he's not really warrior material, but the shaman could use an assistant, now he/she's getting old.
Isn't that more interesting than "MONGO SMASH!"?
How does a 13 str and an 11 con force you to play a mongo smash brutal and stupid character? 13 str is +1 to hit and damage, it isn't very strong, and it doesn't mean they have nothing left for mental stats.
You could roleplay a barbarian however you want, you can assign your skills and feats as you wish, and strength and just a touch of fitness & hardiness doesn't mean they will be brutes. Ability scores are one thing, but what people roleplay is their choice. Who your character is, how they view the world and whether they have any depth is quite separate to a 13 strength.
Do you see this, or does 13 strength mean a character will be a primitive brute in your view?
I'm against it for one reason.
there is no advantage to any single person mechanically to be required to have these stats. (for the most part the class wants those stats anyway. GMs should give advice on people new to the game to not make poor character choices, not the game engine. and finally fluff does not make a class.)
just gona repost this
I grew up playing previous editions of the game and I'm late to the party, so I'll just say "no thanks" to this idea for all the stated reasons.
-Skeld
same basically
i never got to play a paladin with all my 3d6 rolls.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect you don't hammer your core and essential ability scores for every single character.
Nope. But I sure would like to have the option.
But again, I say:
These rules are either meaningless or pointlessly restrictive... And they more often than not encourage the most obvious choice of attribute selection.
How does that encourage creativity and roleplay again? Because the way I see it, all it does is push more cookie-cutter builds and punish players who dare to try and think out of the box.
Many of the proposed ability scores make no sense. Why does a Sorcerer need Int 13? Why does a Witch need Cha 11? Why are the prerequisites for these classes steeper than the ones for Wizards, which is a more powerful class?
What if I want a dumb brute, thug-like Rogue?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect you don't hammer your core and essential ability scores for every single character.Nope. But I sure would like to have the option.
But again, I say:
These rules are either meaningless or pointlessly restrictive... And they more often than not encourage the most obvious choice of attribute selection.
How does that encourage creativity and roleplay again? Because the way I see it, all it does is push more cookie-cutter builds and punish players who dare to try and think out of the box.
Many of the proposed ability scores make no sense. Why does a Sorcerer need Int 13? Why does a Witch need Cha 11? Why are the prerequisites for these classes steeper than the ones for Wizards, which is a more powerful class?
What if I want a dumb brute, thug-like Rogue?
Stop ruining the integrity of the perfect and untouchable class system they've continually remade and adjusted since it's inception.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does a 13 str and an 11 con force you to play a mongo smash brutal and stupid character? 13 str is +1 to hit and damage, it isn't very strong, and it doesn't mean they have nothing left for mental stats.
Do you see this, or does 13 strength mean a character will be a primitive brute in your view?
It doesn't force them to be; however, if a player were to join a group, whose GM presented their players with these kind of stat requirements, it would heavily imply that they had very rigid, narrow, old-fashioned views on how every class 'ought' to be played, and that anyone who stepped out of line would be punished. Probably in the 'old-skool' ways, laid out in the 1E DMG, which included terrible advice promoting passive-aggressive lightning bolts or grudge monsters from nowhere, sudden and arbitary failure of powers, etc.
Given that we can't read the GM's mind, and many aren't willing to discuss what exactly their issues are, it's easier to just take the easy road, and play in the most boring, obvious way possible.
I didn't get that from the initial post. Ability score requirements are different to restrictions on roleplaying and actions in game and at the table. I think I see where you are coming from though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My true opinion of this idea is unprintable on these forums due to the rules regarding profanity and insulting other posters.
Classes are nothing more than collections of mechanical abilities to be used, in combination with other game elements, to realize a character concept. They are not concepts themselves. They are not backgrounds, personalities, identities, or anything else. The characters themselves are unaware that classes exist, much less that they have one.
Class is not concept, concept is not class.
I can't help but imagine this guy saying things like 'If your barbarian takes a bath, he gets penalized' or 'your monk has to say at least one confusing koan per day'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I grew up playing previous editions of the game and I'm late to the party, so I'll just say "no thanks" to this idea for all the stated reasons.
-Skeld
Ditto. Ability score requirements SUCKED.
|
|
Like the choir I'm opposed to this, because it doesn't add benefit to the game, it existed in previous editions and was removed, and perhaps the removal was because of its lack of flexibility, or just taking up page word space better used else where.
In specific your proposed values also preclude some pretty classic archetypes, namely the elven ranger, who probably doesn't want to put a 15 in con to meet the minimum of 13.
I'd honestly like to see multi classing work better, I seem to recall in 2nd edition you tracked your class XP separately, and so if you had a party with a level 10 fighter, an fighter/mage with the same total XP would be 7/7 (or something like that) but the penalty for multi classing was an XP penalty, and the penalty was worse if your separate classes were more then 1 apart. So a 1 level dip would penalize you a lot more then a balanced multiclass.
I really don't know what the power curve would look like with a Pathfinder/3.5 based game, but if multi classing was more like a gestalt combined separately tracked XP approach could it be balanced?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My true opinion of this idea is unprintable on these forums due to the rules regarding profanity and insulting other posters.
Classes are nothing more than collections of mechanical abilities to be used, in combination with other game elements, to realize a character concept. They are not concepts themselves. They are not backgrounds, personalities, identities, or anything else. The characters themselves are unaware that classes exist, much less that they have one.
Class is not concept, concept is not class.
That's a fun way to play. I usually play like that.
There are other fun ways to play to.
I'm sure there are.
I am incapable of seeing how the proposed system could possibly be one of them.
|
|
You're mixing your editions there: AD&D multiclassing was like gestalt, you advanced both classes, splitting your xp between them. Since xp needed was more exponential, you were usually only a level or so behind in each class. That sounds overwhelming, but I don't recall it playing out as that much of advantage.
Jeff is correct; 1st edition gestalt multiclassing did result in characters that were generally only 1 or 2 levels behind a single-classed character of the same xp.
It varied dependent on how much xp each class required, since they all had their own xp track (Thief required 1251 for level 2, Cleric 1501, Fighter 2001, Wizard 2501, etc, doubling each level till mid-level), which was changed to a universal xp track in 3rd Ed.You could gestalt two or three classes together, but you only used the better abilities from each class, they didn't stack.
A 1st Ed Fighter 4/Thief 5 would use the same attack bonuses as a level 4 fighter, so he'd be one behind his Fighter 5 ally.
A 3E/PF character in a level 5 party would more resemble a Fighter 3/Rogue 2, since the benefits of both classes contribute to the whole. Such a character would also be [1 BAB] below the Fighter 5 in his party.
It was common to have parties of mixed level, and it wasn't seen as a problem, since levelling was generally not that big a deal, except for casters who unlocked a new level of spells.
Many Thieves would hit 3rd level, sometimes 4th (for pro-active players), while the Wizards were still 1st, since thieves could earn the necessary xp faster than a guy with 4 hp and one spell per day.
|
To weigh in on multiclassing in previous editions because it's coming up now:
The Buck Rogers RPG (which I guess you can kinda construe as a zero-magic Second Edition with a much better skill system... a "2.5e," if you will.) actually had two ways you could do it:
1. Standard old-school dual-classing: You pick your first class (let's say Medic, because that's the example they use in the book,) you gain a few levels in that, and then you switch classes (in the book's case, rogue.) You start gaining hit points per level (up to 9th, because Second Edition) as if you were a rogue instead, your THAC0 doesn't improve until you get enough rogue levels to drag it past the medic's abysmal THAC0 progression (This would be equivalent to taking four levels of rogue with Pathfinder for a +3 BAB, and then you start taking fighter levels, and you don't get a BAB upgrade until you get fighter 4. Edited because I can maths good.)
2. Multiclassing. This is actually closer to the 3.5 Gestalt character, where you picked two classes (again, using Buck's example, we'll pick rogue and medic.) You used the worst Hit Die, better THAC0 progression, pick four skills from both classes' eight career skill choices to serve as your eight career skills, and used the average of both classes' XP progression tables. (So if you dropped one class, there's a small chance you can actually lose a level!)
Now, someone else said there should be a way to make multiclassing a little more feasible, and there was a way in 3.5e. Certain feats were released in (at the very least) the Complete series and I think PHB2 that allowed you to, say, combine your rogue and ranger levels for purposes of sneak attack progression and favored enemy progression.
Yep, those were the feats I was referencing in my "legacy" post above. PF not only has nothing like them, but from the dev team has said on the subject of class design and other topics I get the impression they would be actively opposed to such things, as it goes against their "encouraging single-classing" design intent.
Yep, those were the feats I was referencing in my "legacy" post above. PF not only has nothing like them, but from the dev team has said on the subject of class design and other topics I get the impression they would be actively opposed to such things, as it goes against their "encouraging single-classing" design intent.OTOH, PF has a more of that built in than 3.5 did.
And they do have a few feats - Boon Companion comes to mind.
Except that Boon Companion works on straight classes, as well.
It increases your effective Druid level by 4, up to your max HD, in order to determine your Animal Companion's stats.
A pure Paladin with an Animal Companion from an Archetype, or a pure base Ranger with an Animal Companion also benefit from this Feat.
And the Feats spoken of are specifically "Your X-class and Y-class levels stack for the purposes of N"
Channel Smite is the closest to this sort of Feat, and even that is given very loose requirements of "Channel Class Feature", meaning any one of several classes (at least 4) can meet these requirements by themselves.
There is also Shapeshifting Hunter in UC, which advances ranger's favored enemy and druid's wild shapes per day for those two classes.
Alchemist: DEX 13, INT 13
Antipaladin: STR 11, CHA 15
Arcanist: INT 15, CHA 13
Barbarian: STR 13, CON 11
Bard: INT 11, CHA 13
Bloodrager: CON 13, INT 9, CHA 11
Brawler: STR 11, DEX 11, CON 11
Cavalier: STR 11, CHA 13
Cleric: WIS 15, CHA 11
Druid: CON 11, WIS 15
Fighter: STR 11, DEX 11
Gunslinger: DEX 15, INT 9, WIS 13
Hunter: DEX 11, WIS 13
Inquisitor: STR 9, DEX 9, WIS 13
Investigator: INT 13, WIS 11
Magus: STR 9, DEX 9, INT 13
Monk: DEX 13, WIS 15
Ninja: DEX 15, INT 13
Oracle: CON 9, CHA 15
Paladin: CON 11, CHA 15
Ranger: DEX 11, CON 13, WIS 11
Rogue: DEX 13, INT 9
Samurai: DEX 11, CHA 13
Shaman: INT 9, WIS 13, CHA 11
Skald: CON 11, INT 9, CHA 13
Slayer: STR 11, DEX 11, WIS 11
Sorcerer: INT 13, CHA 13
Summoner: INT 11, CHA 13
Swashbuckler: DEX 13, INT 11, CHA 13
Warpriest: STR 11, WIS 11, CHA 11
Witch: INT 15, CHA 11
Wizard: DEX 11, INT 15
Full Casters Min of 15 in their casting stat make senses, most of the others don't really make any, and seriously.
To encourage people using point buy to buy that extra point despite not getting any more bonus out of it.
You mean for the purpose of breaking a built.
|
|
To encourage people using point buy to buy that extra point despite not getting any more bonus out of it.You mean for the purpose of breaking a built.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
Since you get one point stat bumps every 4 levels, you're going to be on odd numbers for part of your career no matter what.
Well of course, but most people new to the game that use point buy aim for even numbers on every stat, because "why buy one more point that isn't going to increase my bonus?"
Uneven stat requirements gives a reason for putting that one more point in Str or Dex. Now, it's not a very good reason, and experienced players will look towards the future, planing for where their 4th level increases will go. (My half-orc fighter has uneven Dex, Int, and Cha to leverage the fact he only gets three bumps in regular PFS play.) But new players tend not to without coaching.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the stat minimums for one reason:
I don't want to play premade characters.
You see, I look at classes as toolkits, they are a group of premade abilities. I often outright ignore the flavor of a class and look only at what it can mechanically do.
When I make a character, I generally fully make the character in my head, and then sit down and try to build them within the rules (I still have several characters that I use as my "How good is this ruleset?" when checking out new game systems. The more of my barometer characters it can successfully build, the better I consider the system to be).
Which means I will dip into classes, feats, etc with no regard what-so-ever to how it was "intended" to be used.
And thats what I see things like minimum ability scores and alignment restrictions to be, arbitrary limitations forcing the class/ability/whatever to be used in only one specific way.
Good example for me from 3.5 was the Warlock class. It had to be evil or chaotic, simply because the flavor text said so. Nothing about the actual things it could do fit that, it was just nonsense to force people to play the class as the writer envisioned it instead of using it to build their own characters.
Same thing with the Monk, IMO. The idea that every last person that can punch really hard has to be an uber disciplined martial artist is just silly, there are plenty of back ally brawler archetypes out there, so why limit the class mechanics to only one narrow view?
Give me the tools to make the character the way I want to make them, and then get out of my way. Any limitations that aren't required for game balance need to be abolished with extreme prejudice, not expanded upon.
To encourage people using point buy to buy that extra point despite not getting any more bonus out of it.You mean for the purpose of breaking a built.I don't understand what you're saying here.
Since you get one point stat bumps every 4 levels, you're going to be on odd numbers for part of your career no matter what.Well of course, but most people new to the game that use point buy aim for even numbers on every stat, because "why buy one more point that isn't going to increase my bonus?"
Uneven stat requirements gives a reason for putting that one more point in Str or Dex. Now, it's not a very good reason, and experienced players will look towards the future, planing for where their 4th level increases will go. (My half-orc fighter has uneven Dex, Int, and Cha to leverage the fact he only gets three bumps in regular PFS play.) But new players tend not to without coaching.
So you do understand. To be fair, uneven stats are less of a problem in Pathfinder than 3e/3.5, but it can still be annoying.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be,
The idea of "integrity of what the class is supposed to be" is pretty much everything I disliked about D&d 4e and 5e, though 5th is slightly less egregious.
You don't need a minimum strength score to be an acrobat, or a minimum charisma score to be a singer, or a minimum intelligence score to be a teacher. Classes represent a character's training and self-identification, rather than their natural strengths. Forcing characters to set ability-based limits on classes is telling players "you're playing a video game character with strict fixed options, not a fluid human being with the ability to adapt, learn, and be individualistic in a way meaningful enough to be worth roleplaying.
Why can't a rogue be slow and thoughtful, striking carefully with intelligence but not speed? What kind of monastery kicks its initiates out for only being slightly more agile than the average person? Why does a fey-blooded sorcerer, whose magic comes unexpected and unstudied, need to have a near-genius intellect? Strength requirements for equipment, as seen in some games, actually makes sense, but this—this is just lunacy.
There's a much easier way to fix this as a GM: Require characters (or potential ones) to explain every class they've trained in. Oracle with a Paladin dip? Make sure that player knows why their character joined a holy organization, and how they were able to leave it without incurring divine disappointment. Archetyped barbarian dip, on a LG monk? If the player can't explain why/where their serene and principled fighter learned how to tap into a primal source of brutal rage, don't allow it. It's as simple as that.