| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestlt I care not for class names...
After all, maybe I want to play a rogue similiar to Dragon Age or Neverwinter Online. I would actually pick Ninja over Rogue 9/10 for these ideas since they are near magical in prowess. But just because the classss name is ninja does not mean i mandate pajamas. You are just a magical rogue. Simple.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, it's a game of concepts. My players tell me what sort of thing they want to play, and I help them get to where that mechanically works. The names really don't matter.
Well the fighter class description lists it as a moving and powerful general and an inspirer of hearts. But if someone wanted ti play that role i would suggest a Cavalier over Fighter...
Will all of the 3rd party material and even expanded Paizo material all the synonyms are getting taken too. Maybe you like the rage mechanic and end up playing a barbarian but you don't want to "savage illiterate brute" motif so when people ask "What are you?" you say: Warrior... So, did you take NPC class levels?
Ultimately I use the prototype to tell people what to expect: "I am a wizard." I am totally NOT a wizard, but you expect me to cast arcane spells, know stuff about magic, carry a staff and spellbook... Sure. I do all the normal Wizard stuff :)
I also bind the souls of devils within myself and usurp their unholy powers to fuel my own... But... like... you don't need to know that part. And so you don't.
Plus I find some names don't translate as well into a prototype. Oracles seem to defy their namesake... What's the curse? What's the mystery? Heal or Harm? UGH! Why don't you just foretell doom like you are supposed to!?!?!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think multi-classing, prestige classes, and archetypes go a long way towards playing against type. Even races have become more flexible with the addition of more choices plus alternate traits and feats. The combinations are endless and I think they promote creativity.
For instance folks may assume the ranger is a forest traveling archer. Well if you apply the urban ranger archetype you can change that to a street wise skirmischer used to living in crowded cities. Thats just one of myriad ways to reshuffle the flavor of a class. Add race and traits and its even more open to creativity.
I believe this to be a strength of PF that other simpler, tighter, and more exclusive systems lack. YMMV
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This actually hasn't been my experience at all. To me and my gaming group, a class name is usually just a very basic description of the mechanical abilities it has. People might make assumptions on your class based on the abilities you tell them you have but beyond that, I haven't found the class name to limit the concept. In fact, everyone in my group has a tendency to avoid the trope connected to their class.
you're the guy who did the power tier thread...
like this topic though, it harmonizes well with me.
Will all of the 3rd party material and even expanded Paizo material all the synonyms are getting taken too. Maybe you like the rage mechanic and end up playing a barbarian but you don't want to "savage illiterate brute" motif so when people ask "What are you?" you say: Warrior... So, did you take NPC class levels?
Ultimately I use the prototype to tell people what to expect: "I am a wizard." I am totally NOT a wizard, but you expect me to cast arcane spells, know stuff about magic, carry a staff and spellbook... Sure. I do all the normal Wizard stuff :)
I also bind the souls of devils within myself and usurp their unholy powers to fuel my own... But... like... you don't need to know that part. And so you don't.
Plus I find some names don't translate as well into a prototype. Oracles seem to defy their namesake... What's the curse? What's the mystery? Heal or Harm? UGH! Why don't you just foretell doom like you are supposed to!?!?!
my current character is a Kitsune sorcerer, but if anyone looked at him, they'd see a human in adventurer garb with a crossbow on his back. If they asked him who he was, he would say his name and then that he is the captain of the golden fox mercenary company(leadership).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed something the longer I've been playing; we project a LOT of things onto the classes that just aren't in the rules. And when someone decides to color outside those pre-conceived notions, while still playing by the rules of the game, people will flip out. Lawful rogues? Paladins with stealth training? Barbarians who like theatre?
There's nothing in the rules saying you can't do these things... we just tend to cling really hard to preconceptions even if it isn't in the rules that those preconceptions are how the world works.
My thoughts are below. What are yours?
That you're looking for a different type of game, either a totally point based game such as GURPS, or a nearly statless one such as Amber Diceless Roleplaying.
Part of choosing to play a game is accepting that it's defined by it's design constraints. You don't try to get chess out of checkers.
had a barbarian who was a knight, he liked people calling him the mountain. wielded a greatsword and just went crazy with it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my friends and I were discussing whether there needed to be a PC-level "noble" class, sort of an upgraded aristocrat. My position was no, because we already had one. Charismatic, widely educated on many topics, capable of giving inspiring speeches to his allies, trained in swordplay, and with a smattering of useful magics he learned at the well-heeled academy he attended? Yeah, we can do that. Just cross out the word "bard" at the top of the page, write "noble" in its place, and bingo! All done.
One of my friends and I were discussing whether there needed to be a PC-level "noble" class, sort of an upgraded aristocrat. My position was no, because we already had one. Charismatic, widely educated on many topics, capable of giving inspiring speeches to his allies, trained in swordplay, and with a smattering of useful magics he learned at the well-heeled academy he attended? Yeah, we can do that. Just cross out the word "bard" at the top of the page, write "noble" in its place, and bingo! All done.
or rogue, or cavalier, or swashbuckeler, or investigator, or slayer, or...
Chelish diva bard ia even famous
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. My rogue proselytizes more than most clerics or similar characters of faith. Has to do with her being a repentant follower of Sarenrae looking to claw her way back into the land of morality after a hard 60 years of stealing, murdering, and everything else horrible. Works for the pathfinders so she can travel around and spread the word of Sarenrae's redemption, using her fist to subdue evil long enough to be offered redemption. It's rare that she meets an NPC and doesn't offer them a pamphlet about Sarenrae's religious services in the area.
I've been mistaken for a cleric or paladin on a few occasions. It's only when the sneak attack dice land that people go "wait, what?"
Sooo...
Your character is Leliana.
|
|
One of my friends and I were discussing whether there needed to be a PC-level "noble" class, sort of an upgraded aristocrat. My position was no, because we already had one. Charismatic, widely educated on many topics, capable of giving inspiring speeches to his allies, trained in swordplay, and with a smattering of useful magics he learned at the well-heeled academy he attended? Yeah, we can do that. Just cross out the word "bard" at the top of the page, write "noble" in its place, and bingo! All done.or rogue, or cavalier, or swashbuckeler, or investigator, or slayer, or...
Cavalier would probably work, but the key element of the conversation was a leadership role, with mechanics to back up the concept of someone who does more inspiring of the troops than actual fighting. Also, this was shortly after Pathfinder came out, so none of the other options existed.
That said, yes, you can slap "noble" on the end of almost any concept if you so desire.
I've been trying to show shades of this too. Mechanically, my character is a barbarian. High strength, greataxe, tries to turn monsters into debris fields.
But you look at Samantha? Well, I toyed with having a tiny human rageball girl, then figured I'd let the height/weight dice decide ... and they agreed with me. So we get to Sandpoint and the winner of the strength contests is 5'0, almost carryable by some party members (not counting gear), and standing triumphant.
And with Int 13, as well as the party's adventuring journal.
As far as how she describes herself? Generally, 'warrior' or sometimes 'fighter'. She may or may not start calling herself a barbarian, depending on how her life goes, although she's thinking of it sometimes.
As said earlier, though, you can refluff a class so its mechanics work for you while you call yourself something else.
Edit: Finished the essay. I like the 'Accountant of the Missing' title, but then again I'm also remembering that picture of Amiri in the Ultimate Campaign book juggling those receipts. And if we could manage inventing double-entry bookkeeping in the 1300s in real life ...
had a barbarian who was a knight, he liked people calling him the mountain. wielded a greatsword and just went crazy with it.
@Bandw2
Got the reference ; )
had a barbarian who was a knight, he liked people calling him the mountain. wielded a greatsword and just went crazy with it.
@Bandw2
Got the reference ; )
well i didn't so this is weird.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never played, but once toyed with, a concept I called Bunny the Barbarian. She was the embodiment of all the "spoiled princess" behavior you can think of... unless she got pissed, in which case she was a titan of death.
"Eww, go down in that icky dungeon? There's like... dirt and stuff down there! It would totally ruin my cute dress!"
"What? Hit him? But I'd break a nail!"
"Oh... my... god... I had another episode. I'm covered in blood. Someone get me a washcloth, now! No, not *that* one, I can't wipe blood off with a blue cloth, it would totally clash with my outfit!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look at the names identifying collections of system mechanics
as nothing more than names
used to identify collections of system mechanics
Heh. My rogue proselytizes more than most clerics or similar characters of faith. Has to do with her being a repentant follower of Sarenrae looking to claw her way back into the land of morality after a hard 60 years of stealing, murdering, and everything else horrible. Works for the pathfinders so she can travel around and spread the word of Sarenrae's redemption, using her fist to subdue evil long enough to be offered redemption. It's rare that she meets an NPC and doesn't offer them a pamphlet about Sarenrae's religious services in the area.
I've been mistaken for a cleric or paladin on a few occasions. It's only when the sneak attack dice land that people go "wait, what?"
Sooo...
Your character is Leliana.
That's the one from those Dragon Age games, right?
Mm... Maybe? There could be similarities, but I'm not nearly familiar enough with Leliana to know. I certainly didn't have her in mind when putting my rogue together.
What you described was almost her entire life before the grey warden met her. She grew up as part of a band of thieves and she was very good at what she did. When she learned how little the woman she looked up to cared about her, she became disillusioned with the group and took advantage of the no-questions-asked shelter that the local chantry provided to her. Seeing the good spread by the chantry, she wanted to be a part of it and swore off her past. Once she meets up with the gray warden, she believes that her unique skills should be put to use in order to help bring to pass the will of the maker (which would be destroying the darkspawn, which is the plot of dragon age origins in a nutshell).
So she's essentially a rogue with rogue skills, but she's a priest of the local religion and sings his praises and spreads his word.
Also she's the best romance option period.
I had a Bloodrager (spell eater) for whom the entire class was really just a manifestation of her heritage. She was a dhampir, the daughter of a vampiric chancellor who had served a literal lich king, and all the powers were really just her cursed half dead blood awakening. She wasn't learning spells or using any kind of rage ability, that was simply her dark birthright.
Eh, I read the wiki on her. My character is pretty different. For starters, no betrayal by my characters' mentor, the change of heart was more a "I'm really getting tired of killing all these people" with a heaping dose of getting caught in the act by a Sarenrite priest who offered the Redemption or Death deal. The proselytizing is her probation, though it's not been a very onerous task as she's began to really believe in the message she's spreadingI'd go on about it, but I'm on a tablet and its only tangentially related to the thread. Suffice to say, she's a rogue that only looks like a rogue in that she does extra heaps of damage in certain conditions and has a bunch of extra skill points.
yeah, the character backgrounds are pretty different, but I just immediately saw the similarities in character concepts. Good characters who truly believe the word they spread, but with the skills and past of the underworld.
in the book Inner Sea Gods depending on the god any class could be a priest of said god, with Nethys wizards could be his priests and actually rise up higher in the churches hierarchy faster then a cleric
The tropes of each class can be handy and there's nothing wrong with them - playing a straight-up knight in shining armour Paladin, living tower of rage Barbarian, robe and beard Wizard does not mean creativity has been limited.
Even then, I don't think those tropes are all that binding - how many Paladins are wearing a mithral breastplate and fighting with a composite bow, rather than a shield and full harness with sword and lance?
Lawful rogues? Spies, scouts, bodyguards, couriers, even the odd assassin are all perfectly good candidates.
Civilised barbarians? Right up to the point they let go, sure. The majority of my barbarian NPCs aren't savage primitives, they're lower-class warriors who don't have the benefit of formal training in arms.
Lay priests? There's no requirement to be a divine caster to be a devout follower of a god, and there are many duties of a temple that would be inefficient if left to clerics - Experts or Aristocrats would outnumber genuine invested Clerics, and Clerics wouldn't even be the majority of priests with PC classes - Bards, Fighters, Paladins, even a few Rogues would be right in there with them.
I look at the names identifying collections of system mechanics
as nothing more than names
used to identify collections of system mechanics
That's how I see it as well.
Which is why I post things like this Halfling swashbuckler who is actually a Barbarian.
And this knight-in-shining-armor with zero levels in Cavalier (Not a Paladin or Samurai either).
I also usually use capital letters to indicate I'm talking about the class and lower case letter to indicate I'm talking about the concept. (e.g.: A Fighter is the class who gets a bunch of bonus feats and sucks at everything else. A fighter is just someone who fights, no matter what class levels he uses).
In-game, most classes are indiscernible from at least 2~4 others. Specially when you take archetypes in consideration. So NPCs (and hopefully, the PCs as well) will rarely, if ever, call a character by its class name.
As Pathfinder is a class-based system, it makes more sense in my mind to embrace the class description when creating a character and bringing that concept to life.
While you may be able to select the "Monk" class and then by virtue of your selections, make it very "not-a-monk," that doesn't seem to be the goal of a class-based system.
As so many people really dislike the idea of classes, I'm kind of surprised that Paizo hasn't gotten around to making a classless variant yet.
Perhaps one of the 3PP will get to it. Basically strip all mechanics away from the classes, and then assign a point value to each mechanic. Figure out a good starting amount of points that a character gets, and then they can pick and choose the mechanics that they want, within their point budget.
@Tormsskull here: [Eric Morton Presents] Custom Class Builder (coming soon)
As Pathfinder is a class-based system, it makes more sense in my mind to embrace the class description when creating a character and bringing that concept to life.
While you may be able to select the "Monk" class and then by virtue of your selections, make it very "not-a-monk," that doesn't seem to be the goal of a class-based system.
As so many people really dislike the idea of classes, I'm kind of surprised that Paizo hasn't gotten around to making a classless variant yet.
Perhaps one of the 3PP will get to it. Basically strip all mechanics away from the classes, and then assign a point value to each mechanic. Figure out a good starting amount of points that a character gets, and then they can pick and choose the mechanics that they want, within their point budget.
the one that i always bring up is my knight who was mechanically a barbarian.
I also, have a current character that is a sorcerer but is a mercenary captain, does any class scream mercenary captain? not really.
I've noticed something the longer I've been playing; we project a LOT of things onto the classes that just aren't in the rules. And when someone decides to color outside those pre-conceived notions, while still playing by the rules of the game, people will flip out. Lawful rogues? Paladins with stealth training? Barbarians who like theater?
Agreed, but isn't there actually something in the rules saying rogues have to be an unlawful alignment?
|
|
I've noticed something the longer I've been playing; we project a LOT of things onto the classes that just aren't in the rules. And when someone decides to color outside those pre-conceived notions, while still playing by the rules of the game, people will flip out. Lawful rogues? Paladins with stealth training? Barbarians who like theater?Agreed, but isn't there actually something in the rules saying rogues have to be an unlawful alignment?
nope!
@Tormsskull here: [Eric Morton Presents] Custom Class Builder (coming soon)
Thanks for sharing. Sounds interesting. I look forward to seeing it completed.
Because that game would not be the replacement 3.75 that's Pathfinder's main selling point. You might please a couple of hundred and anger thirty thousand by doing so.
Why would people be upset by a variant? There are a lot of variant rules right now that don't see much use. I don't imagine a variant rule such as this would be a "replacement" of anything, simply an optional rule such as the kingdom building rules or mass combat rules.