So I am rolling an idea around in my head that revolves around everything save 1/3 and 2/3 casters being banned with multi-classing also being banned. Summoner would be banned as well, just for good measure more than anything.
So the list of playable classes would include: Alchemist, Bard, Bloodrager, Hunter, Inquisitor, Investigator, Magus, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Paladin, Ranger, Skald, Spiritualist, Warpriest.
I'm becoming more and more of a fan of locking players to PCs whenever I play on Roll20 or in person, as it prevents people from starting with Barbie McBarbarian, then transitioning to Mega Maggy the Magus and ending with Willy Wise the Wizard.
The game would likely start at 1 but never go above 15 or so, definitely stay below 17.
What do you guys think about the playable class list? I'm thinking 15 point buy and stats cap at 16 from point buy with attribute bonuses going higher.
|
Doing all of that might be overdoing it. Let's go through them one by one.
No multiclassing
Pathfinder doesn't really give you a lot of extra power for multiclassing, generally going single-class is more powerful. I'm not sure what your precise objection is, it looks a bit more aesthetic. Personally I try not to look at a PC as "being a class", but as being a concept, with the classes making it work "under the hood". I don't think such a rule as you're proposing would break anything, but I don't really see the need either. You might want to give half-elves something to make up for dual-talented being useless then.
15 pt buy, nothing above 16 before racials
I'd go with 20 pt buy, but with the same 16 before racials. You're already looking at disallowing most SAD classes.
Also: if you compare the average point buy you'd get with roll 4d6 keep best 3, you'd be getting closest to 20.
I personally find it hard to make 15pts work on a MAD class without dumping anything non-essential into the depths. That will often be Charisma and/or Intelligence.
Since you're also looking at disallowing 9-circle casters, a lot more problems will need to be solved with skills. If you push people towards dumping abilities, you're making that much harder. I don't think that's a particularly enjoyable squeeze to be in as a player.
No 9-circle casters
I think this is attractive and interesting. It'll have serious repercussions;
- Those classes were the most motivated to go higher than 16 pre-racial anyway.
- Some world-altering/scenario-breaking spells disappear.
- A lot of "expected" spells disappear or will be accessed much later. Particularly important are Restoration and Raise Dead, which can now be accessed at level 10 (War Priest, Alchemist, Inquisitor) and 13 (War Priest). That means ability drain and negative levels become much more powerful, something to be well aware of as a GM.
On the whole I think removing 9-circle casters is quite doable. Especially interesting if you apply the same rule to normal NPCs, but occasionally use monsters that can innately cast as for example sorcerers (naga) or clerics (solar). Those monsters become much more special and may be sought out by the PCs for services only they can provide.
It could work, depending on what the opposition is. If you are using 9-level casters, but the PCs aren´t, that could lead to some issues later on. Overall, 15 PB is lowish and can disadvantage classes that rely on more abilities, but should be playable.
Banning players from changing PCs can be a pain, though, especially if the old one dies. It can cause player fatigue and be a pain for a player, especially when a class turns out to not be what s/he had in mind. I´d say keep it under control, but allow exceptions.
I presume the unchained summoner is also banned - do you want to prevent any scaling summons or just the eidolon? I have not heard of big issues with the USummoner.
How would you actually enforce locking players to PCs? Seems like it could lead to a lot of PC suicides in order to roll a new character.
No multiclassing is fine, and the PB is fine.
Overall, if you provide a narrative for these chargen rules, that will likely lead to a better outcome than simply giving the rules.
|
All 2/3 and 1/3 casters works fine (though I'd probably count Kineticist in that category, for the record...and allow the Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue if someone wanted to play one, since that's a 6-level caster).
You don't really get condition removal until 7th, and Raise Dead isn't available until 13th (though if somebody is going Hunter Reincarnate comes around at 10th and a Paladin with Ultimate Mercy can manage well before that...theoretically as early as 6th), but none of that is crippling or anything.
Expanding the 'no full casters' thing to NPCs is actually how I'd build a low magic world, for the record. There's some cool world stuff you can do if you go that route.
I'm not sure there's a real need to ban Unchained Summoner (though classic Summoner should definitely be banned). I'm also not sure banning multiclassing is super necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything, so sure.
As others have noted, I'd go 20 or even 25 point-buy to make MAD characters more viable as compared to SAD ones (while keeping the cap of 16 pre-racial, and maybe limiting dumping). And there are certainly SAD 6-level casters (Mesmerist can be built that way for example).
Locking players to PCs is a bit odd to me, but then, I've never seen people do the character-hopping thing in any game with a real story. They get invested in their characters. Maybe require written backgrounds? That'll increase investment and the work it takes to switch characters.
A flat ban on switching just seems likely to (as others note) get you people arranging for their characters to commit suicide, and that's no fun.
I've done something similar to this and it worked out well. Partial casters are my favorite classes in Pathfinder, honestly.
- You should consider adding the Kineticist (since it's essentially a caster without spell slots), and consider adding the Unchained Summoner since it's not really any less manageable than the Spiritualist. Maybe consider allowing classes archetyped in order to gain spellcasting, like the one for the fighter in AA.
- A low point buy an setting a cap before racials seems more appropriate when you're actually playing with full casters, since all the 2/3 casters are going to want to fight at least a little bit which makes a lot more of their stats relevant. If you like low point buy that's fine, but I would personally go with 20. I'd rather have a high point buy and restrictions on dumping than a low point buy and caps.
- I sympathize with your aim to limit multi classing, but I think "no multiclassing whatsoever" is going to unnecessarily cut off a lot of potentially worthwhile character concepts. Most of the "abusive' uses of multiclassing are just a 1-2 level dip, so to prevent people from doing this you could just say "If you want to multiclass, 3 of your first 7 levels must be in the second class" or something like that. Alternatively allow VMC and ban other multiclassing.
Are you also banning non-casters? Like barbarians, fighters, rogues, slayers, and swashbucklers?
You might want to institute a house rule where divine casters and alchemists get "early entry" to the necessary healing spells since that's the primary obstacle that the game expects players to deal with that this party might not be able to deal with, but other than that it'll work just fine.
|
|
Really guys, the healing is not that big a deal. I've run two APs now with only an Oracle for this kind of healing through the essential levels in question (it's 5-6, for the record) and in neither case was it a big deal. And the Oracle didn't actually get most of the condition removal spells until level 7, when a Warpriest or Investigator can get them.
Now, having a Warpriest, Investigator, or Alchemist (the latter two with Infusion) to have those spells on hand is pretty essential. But if you've got one, and a Wand of CLW plus the willingness to use it, plus maybe a few scrolls or access to a city? You'll do fine.
Eh, I might overvalue it a little bit but I've fought enough mummies to be a bit paranoid about being able to use the right scrolls at the right CR.
A skald is also helpful, they can at least spell kenning for emergencies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In more or less all of my games I ban character switching to prevent people from playing optimal at all levels, but allow retraining rules and expanding them to allow players to retrain point-buy at a high cost. I've been in games where 3/4 the party was playing new characters at level 1, 7, 13 and on, and it was probably one of the most annoying aspects of the game if the GM is aiming for a cohesive central party.
There isn't a narrative reason for limiting the class choices, I just don't want full casters in the game. If I create this game on Roll20, I'll probably make content extra long to make full-casters nonoptimal by default.
20 point buy seems reasonable.
Martials would be permissible.
The kineticist is interesting, but the class is, in essence, a full casting class that specializes into a set amount of spells/abilities that it can spam forever.
The grim reality that I am running into is that I currently live in the middle of nowhere. The only place I can really play a regular game is on Roll20.net, and unfortunately, the GMs that are typically recruiting in an active sense are the GMs that struggle to retain players due to either their attitudes, game world view or their approach to the GM and player dynamic.
I have come to the realization that if I want to enjoy myself on Roll20, I have to run the game because the other GMs I've played with are, lets say to be nice, sub-par. My overall experience as a player on roll20 has turned me off of playing there in general. The time investment has turned me off of GMing since my life is quite a bit more busy these days.
My overall experience on roll20 is that is a hive of power-gamers who want to always be at their optimal peak (hell, one guy wanted to bring in a new character EVERY TIME WE LEVELED UP, absolutely absurd and GMs who treat their players like crap, introduce a slew of houserules that are not clearly defined and understood by anyone and act like people knowing the rules or optimal way to do something is a crime against nature since they know they can most likely replace anyone who drops or is kicked by the time the next session comes along.
I ran a game that was all bards, and everyone had a ton of fun. I highly enjoyed the casual nature, the emphasis on actual *gasp* roleplaying since the players knew their characters would struggle with fights: it wasn't, "oh no, enemies, lets go murder them," but instead worked more like, "Crap! enemies, lets try to sneak or speak our way past them instead of fighting." The players did things that were cool, like just casually walking past a guard patrol of the place they were infiltrating, and because they did nothing to alert the patrol to the fact that they didn't belong, they just ignored the party. "Ok, everyone, act cool and wave or something as we walk past, and, er, Billy talk to Jilly about what you're going to say to the Bossman."
Hell, we went sessions without fighting anyone. They completed entire pieces of content without fighting anyone, and we were laughing our arses off the entire time.
Hmm. This post has turned into a rant about Roll20 and how disheartening it is. I just want to play a game where I am allowed to show up and have fun instead of it being a damned job. I sometimes muse that Roll20's GM and Player base is mostly comprised of people who were exiled from their local groups with a smattering of people who just want to play the game and have fun.
I'm one of those weird a+$$$!%s who actually care about the game even if I'm a player. If I play, I get into it, and I don't like wasting my time—which is what Roll20 feels like from time to time.
I guess my attempt here is to make something that I'll find new or interesting.
|
|
That sucks. I'm sorry that happened and wish you good luck i your next game.
And this might well work fine for achieving something new or interesting, you'll have to try it and see.
As for Kineticists, they are significantly less like full casters than they are like the 4 or 6 level kind. Yes, they theoretically get a high level spell or three (at, y'know, high levels), but so do Inquisitors or Bards (Overwhelming Presence, I'm looking at you). And they utterly lack most of the stuff that makes full casters so powerful as compare to everyone else.
|
|
I'm sad to hear your experiences have been so bad. I haven't really played on Roll20 so don't have a first-hand perspective.
Personally I don't consider powergaming a dirty word, but I'm not likely to switch characters at the drop of a hat. I know from experience that different people have different triggers for frequent switching;
- Many people go through an experimental phase where there's so many different things to play that it's hard to stick with one. This tends to subside after a couple of years (!) but can be rather disruptive until then.
- Some people have a "greener grass" problem where any actual character can never measure up to at least some possible other build. Never mind that the other candidate is different every time. It may be worth investigating if the current PC's build is bad (one trick pony alert) so that while theoretically neat, it'll disappoint often in practice.
- Lack of investment in the character reduces the threshold for wanting to switch to something newer and shinier. A GM can do various things to promote investment and thus make people more likely to hold on to the current PC.
- Classes that genuinely suck at either lower or higher levels. Low-level suck will cause drop-outs or frustration that getting to the good bits takes too long. High-level suck can be numeric, or a case of stagnation. Both a friend of mine and I had this with gunslingers/zen archers; while thoroughly effective, past level 5/6, almost nothing "new" is happening. Both PCs then started taking Inquisitor levels and "found God" (Gorum, Erastil). Some multiclass combinations actually work very well to illustrate a character's development/growth/changing interests.
I think it helps to make it clear to your players what you expect (sticking with characters most of the time) and promote investment. If someone's been made to write a 1-page background for the character with a few story hooks, and you're demonstrating your commitment to actually doing something with those hooks, the player will be more interested in sticking with the character to see how it plays out.
If the campaign story is strongly tied to the PCs (vengeance against the guy that wronged them, investigating the secrets of their family) then switching PCs becomes less attractive. Meanwhile, take care when integrating new players to also give them a stake.
In more or less all of my games I ban character switching to prevent people from playing optimal at all levels, but allow retraining rules and expanding them to allow players to retrain point-buy at a high cost. I've been in games where 3/4 the party was playing new characters at level 1, 7, 13 and on, and it was probably one of the most annoying aspects of the game if the GM is aiming for a cohesive central party.
?
What?
So they play a Fighter from 1 to 6, then "accidentally" fall into their sword.
Then roll up a Warpriest at 7th level, to "accidentally" fall drunkenly into the lavapit at 12ish level.
To intruduce a Wizard as their next char for 13+?
WHAAAHHTTT?
P.S.
Pathfinder has made multiclassing a newbie-trap for 95% of all builds. The 3.5 times of multiclassing for fun & profit are long over. Nowadays it is more a: "You want better fluff? - Here, this is how much power you will have to pay for it!"
I'm sad to hear your experiences have been so bad. I haven't really played on Roll20 so don't have a first-hand perspective.
Personally I don't consider powergaming a dirty word
I honestly don't hate power-gaming, but there is a point where it is going from building a power character to abusing a GM's leniency on character swapping.
Hmm, I'll have to review Kineticists.
In more or less all of my games I ban character switching to prevent people from playing optimal at all levels, but allow retraining rules and expanding them to allow players to retrain point-buy at a high cost. I've been in games where 3/4 the party was playing new characters at level 1, 7, 13 and on, and it was probably one of the most annoying aspects of the game if the GM is aiming for a cohesive central party.What?
So they play a Fighter from 1 to 6, then "accidentally" fall into their sword.
Then roll up a Warpriest at 7th level, to "accidentally" fall drunkenly into the lavapit at 12ish level.
To intruduce a Wizard as their next char for 13+?
WHAAAHHTTT?
You would be amazed. It is that or they bring some 1-trick pony that is built to 1-shot everything. Hell, I had one dude show up with some crossblooded sorcerer that would burning hands for 21 fire damage on average at level 1 with its spell increased to 5th level through traits and feats. Then, the moment the character outlives its usefulness, its time to get risky with the burning hands and defensive casting until the spell fails or something doesn't outright die from the damage.
I know, it sounds absurd, but that is the common trend on Roll20 from my experience.