Im not really a Roleplayer. I play roleplay games as I like to tinker and improve on designs like someone would alter a car design. In Pathfinder quests, story, and the like are challenges to acquire experience, gold, items, and the like to keep progressing. Its like a job in game and out.
Playing in groups can be difficult even with people you know as you can change to behavior to not offend people, constantly putting up a mask. New groups are more difficult as trying to make a good impression, while still hoping to have fun. With all the trouble and anxiety I just want to play the game friends, not one or the other.
Personally I hate railroading, decisions being made meaningless by rolling dice, and the like as that leads to Powergaming even when I dont want it to. Want to negotiate? Hope you have enough additions to Diplomacy. I find that hypocritical to encourage roleplay and then tell people to rollplay.
Ive never played Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, but Ive heard of and looked up some plans that would be interesting to try out and quite stronger than Pathfinder would allow. It might be a better game for me.
--------------------------------
My question is should I go looking somewhere else for more powerful character that would be worth all the trouble? Im far less experienced in other tabletop roleplaying games.
Care to elaborate?
To be clear this isnt just about power, but non-linear improvement of a player character. In a linear game like Pathfinder that can mean more benefits per level rather than every single benefit short of more Spells in Spellbooks being dependent on leveling up.
Ive heard a game called Runequest allows "real time" improvement without a level system. Its just fascinating that games dont have something as simple as working out to build strength actually building strength instead of something unusual like more experience.
3.5 is not better for what you want.
If anything, PF's selling point way back when (besides advertising as "3.75 so you don't have to go 4e") was making characters more powerful overall, and more versatile. While rationalizing and nerfing some other stuff.
Ten years later, even a fighter can be swimming is skills, which was unheard of in ye olde 3rd.
Few games don't rely on xp at all.
A lot of games don't rely on level or classes, or much less so. In fact, nowadays that's probably the majority. Although the latest generation might be coming back to that approach, if with more flexibility. Kinda lost touch with the newest stuff.
Some games have at least part of xp tied to skill/ability usage, but that's uncommon - because it quicky becomes clunky if not handled really well. In turn, those tend to be simpler systems, with less room for optimisation.
Downtime training affecting abilities would be too powerful in a game like PF as it is. Or so prohibitingly hard and expensive as to be irrelevant.
Retraining is the closest you'll get, because what is HP retraining if not physical conditioning ?
Besides, any ability above 18 is abnormal, pretty much. PF is part of a tradition of PCs quickly becoming exceptional, if not mythical heroes, likely to change the world on their own. Lifting heavy stuff has its limits. Plus, yes that tends to happen off screen, much like the long hours of caring for your amors and weapons, and everything else we don't go into details as much because it's not all that interesting.
Also, roleplaying is taking into account what your character is bad at, as much as what he's good at.
If you have never bothered learning diplomacy, you should be bad at negotiating. No matter what the player above says, the character will fumble, use the wrong arguments, be accidentally insulting, etc. Instincts only take you so far.
And vice-versa, if the player is not the most socially adept, but his character is a genius con-artist/negotiator/diplomat, his performance shouldn't harm his character's too much.
Of course, a particularly clever or eloquent approach could net you some bonuses, and that's what circumstance bonus are for, should the GM want to.
But : you make choices in building your character, that defines who he is, weaknesses included.
Don't ignore those.
Plus, godlike all-powerful heroes are boring.
That said, there's a lot here, and I'm unclear what your actual issue is. Levels ? Everything being tied to levels ? Roleplay ? Characters having flaws ? A specific style of GMing ? Optimization ? The most detailed and numbers heavy system possible ? (is it still Rolemaster ?) Diceless systems ?
If it's the GMing thing, talk to yours.
Honestly I dont even know. Yes I would like to have a perfect character by the time I stop using said character like its a 100% completion game. Yes I look up feats and spells that are more valuable so I dont waste time and slots hunting for junk if I have limited space.
I want to make a character that can be interesting and useful. There are plenty of ideas that could work, but they just get labeled Overpowered or Game Breaking regardless or actual factors, story, or my intent at roleplaying. Unless I try a weak character that has major ingame handicaps while story wise I could make a Mary Sue or a Murderbobo so long as gameplay wise its balanced(IE, isnt better than anything else). Overall I just see hypocrisy in so much like "be a Roleplayer, not a rollplayer" in games where you still have heavy dice rolling being more important than roleplaying..
From 3.5 D&D I like the Archivist and Spell-to-power Erudite as Seekers of Knowledge that go around accumulating spells as both a power and a motivation integrated together.
Classes as too limiting. You cant pick a class and just decide you want to learn magic. You have to pick a class and keep going in areas as classes are how you grow. Weapon Proficiencies, skill points, hit points, special powers, and magic are tied to class levels more than anything else. You alter than by statistics, but no matter how much your mental stats increase that Fighter is never learning magic.
If I see them ingame, I want to see Invincible characters used narrative like Saitama from One-Punch Man. I just read people arguing about game balance far more than stories.
Now "Blah Blah Blah, I want an Invincible character." That is what every discussion ends up translated as to other people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I find that hypocritical to encourage roleplay and then tell people to rollplay."
These aren't necessarily different. A good GM will consider the action you've described and then apply modifiers and whatnot to your approach.
Let's take the same situation from several angles using your diplomacy and applicable modifiers.
The setup: A person has a ring you need to get into a temple and we'll assume you're telling the truth in the various approaches I put out.
Approach 1: The blunt player just says "Give me that ring, I need it"
The DM will probably have you roll diplomacy, but will apply a -5 or even -10 modifier to the roll. They may not even have you roll given your lackluster approach and lack if diplomacy
Approach 2: The player gingerly inquires "I could really use that ring. I need it to enter a temple." the DM will probably have you roll diplomacy at a -5 or worse, because you didn't really say anything convincing.
Approach 3: The player says "Hello friend; I am on an important quest from the governor and that ring is a lynchpin to getting into a temple to complete it." The DM may be generous here and give or +0 or -2, as you're polite and explaining the situation.
Approach 4: The player says "Dear friend, I am on an important quest from the governor regarding the peace of the realm; I have a sealed letter from him requesting your assistance. To assist me I require that ring you have to get into the temple." The DM will probably give you a +2 or even +5 as you've shown that what your doing is legitimate and important.
Approach 5: The player says "Dear friend, I require your assistance in an important quest regarding the peace of the realm. The governor themselves have sent me here and I have a sealed note begging your assistance. Additionally, I will gladly compensate you handsomely for your ring as I know this is an imposition." The DM will probably give you a +5 or even a +10 because you're offering compensation, evidence of the problem, and its a virtuous act; certainly hard to pass up.
Approach 6: The player says "Dear friend, I require your assistance in an important quest regarding the peace of the realm. The governor themselves have sent me here and I have a sealed note begging your assistance. Additionally, I will gladly compensate you handsomely for your ring as I know this is an imposition. Additionally, a statue will be built in your honor and I will be in your debt; performing any deed you deem necessary." The DM will probably give you a +10 or even more because you're offering compensation, evidence of the problem, its a virtuous act, you're offering further assistance with any issue the person may have, and furthermore you've promised them honor and prestige for this sacrifice.
This isn't Roll-play just because you roll dice. It's role-play because what you did in the game matters. Just because you fail a dice roll even with a good approach doesn't mean anything is wrong with the game; it means that maybe this commoner is especially selfish, or maybe they're in on the plot, or some other contrivance.
Note: If it was truly important to the plot the DM (if they're any good) has other ways of getting the ring you can take, possibly hiring unsavory characters to get it, or something else.
__________
Also, many times you will be afforded automatic successes or failures by a good DM if your approach to a task is unfailable or would simply be allowed so much time to complete that rolling is pointless.
Classes as too limiting. You cant pick a class and just decide you want to learn magic. You have to pick a class and keep going in areas as classes are how you grow. Weapon Proficiencies, skill points, hit points, special powers, and magic are tied to class levels more than anything else. You alter than by statistics, but no matter how much your mental stats increase that Fighter is never learning magic.
You do realize that that's what multiclassing is for.
Or GURPS, Hero, Runequest or any Whitewolf game.
Classes as too limiting. You cant pick a class and just decide you want to learn magic. You have to pick a class and keep going in areas as classes are how you grow. Weapon Proficiencies, skill points, hit points, special powers, and magic are tied to class levels more than anything else. You alter than by statistics, but no matter how much your mental stats increase that Fighter is never learning magic.You do realize that that's what multiclassing is for.
If youre talking about old 2nd edition Half-elf Multiclassing where you had 2-3 classes that leveled simultaneously(at a penalty), or 3.5 Gestalt Multiclassing then youre right.
In Pathfinder the closest equivalent to a "real" or "freeform" or otherwise "class breaking" character would be a hybrid class like the Inquisitor that has combat, skills, and spells on one character. Even then they are still highly limited to what that class is programmed to be able to.
I forgot to ask this, but does Pathfinder have official rules for level 21+ in single classes, Gestalts, and other specials from 3.5?
Most Pathfinder players I know only know how to Power game. It is SO easy to Power game in Pathfinder. And some classes are worse than others like say an Alchemist
I don't find that fun myself for a few reasons.
1) Challenge goes down the hole. With no challenge where's the peril, the story, the characters? Should be able to get some threat going without cranking it up to 11.
2) I find it hard to actually make a character and personality when everything is min maxed power game to stupid levels.
3) If I have to use a guide and follow everything it says to the letter..., am I playing my character? Or am I just borrowing someone else's sheet?
Classes as too limiting. You cant pick a class and just decide you want to learn magic. You have to pick a class and keep going in areas as classes are how you grow. Weapon Proficiencies, skill points, hit points, special powers, and magic are tied to class levels more than anything else. You alter than by statistics, but no matter how much your mental stats increase that Fighter is never learning magic.You do realize that that's what multiclassing is for.If youre talking about old 2nd edition Half-elf Multiclassing where you had 2-3 classes that leveled simultaneously(at a penalty), or 3.5 Gestalt Multiclassing then youre right.
No, I mean if your fighter wants to learn magic, then just take levels of a spellcasting class. It's not a complicated concept.
I dont think you understand or care about the Anti-class system argument here.
What can you do that isnt dependent on class selection?
Can you master a skill beyond what a class's default skill points allow? Can you learn magic if your class doesnt have any or grow beyond a limited number? Can you hit things with weapons without proficiencies, high Base Attack Bonus, and feats?
There are of course ways to expand things. Many class with limited spells can use a Favored Class Bonus with certain races to go beyond what that limit is by default. Human's as a race have an extra Feat and an extra Skill.
Every character should be able to grow into a 20+ BAB, 800+ skill point, tier 9 Arcane/Divine/Psychic Spellcaster with infinite Feats that can do anything so long as the Player can think about it. Id be more comfortable without limits beyond imagination and effort.
Why are you griping about a game you're not even playing yet. You seem to have no concept how it works, so just play the game first. If you want access to abilities that aren't class dependent, then just try out PF 2nd edition as it is more like GURPS than previous versions of the game. I've never cared for games that build like that to be honest and GURPS fantasy was always boring to me.
Scrabble is a very limited game. All you can do is make English words for points. You can’t even buy property, build houses or hotels, and you don’t even accumulate money! Every Scrabble player should get money, be able to buy property, and build houses and hotels.
I dunno. Maybe you want to play Monopoly instead? I could make the same sort of analogy with any other game. Egads, you can’t touch the soccer ball with your hands?! You can’t have a dozen cards in your hand for poker?! What do you mean when you touch me in a game of tag I am “it”?!
If you don’t want to play by the rules of the Pathfinder game, there are surely other games for you to play. People have suggested a number to you already. What exactly are you looking for from the members of the forum here?
Can you master a skill beyond what a class's default skill points allow? Can you learn magic if your class doesnt have any or grow beyond a limited number? Can you hit things with weapons without proficiencies, high Base Attack Bonus, and feats?
Yes. Each class gives out a certain number of skill points per level: 2, 4, 6, and the rogue class gives 8. That is the default. In addition, the character gains bonus skill points for Intelligence. In addition, humans gain an extra skill point at each level. In addition, if the character specializes in one class, he or she gains a favored class bonus. That bonus could be an additional skill point.
The number of skill points spent on single skill is capped at the character's level. If you meant beyond the cap rather than beyond the default, Pathfinder offers other ways to boost the skill bonus. Each class has a list of class skills. The character receives a +3 bonus on class skills. Each skill is associated with an attribute, for example, Acrobatics is associated with Dexterity. The attribue modifier is added to every skill check. The feat Skill Focus can give another +3 to a skill check. A few other feats, such as Alertness and Deceptive, give +2 to two separate skills.
Some classes have other ways to give bonuses to skills. An Investigator can spend a point from his or her inspiration pool to add a 1d6 roll to a skill check. A monk with the Ki Mystic archetype can spend a ki point to gain +4 to a skill check. A wizard could cast Crafter's Fortune to gain a bonus on craft checks or Heroism to gain a bonus on attack rolls and skill checks. A bard can cast Glibness to gain a bonus on Bluff checks.
I still have not mentioned all the possibilities, leaving off indirect methods such as a Headband of Vast Intellect.
As for magic, gnomes are born knowing a little magic, which gives them spell-like abilities that they can use once a day. These abilities are weak, because giving strong magic to a 1st-level character would imbalance the game. The feat Eldritch Heritage can give any race similiar weak magic. Some archetypes, such as Eldritch Scoundrel archetype for rogues, gives spells to non-spellcasting classes. But for powerful magic, a non-spellcasting character would need to multiclass to a spellcasting class and learn several levels of that class.
A character can hit things without weapon proficiencies. The odds of doing so are less than the odds of hitting with proficiencies. High BAB is better at hitting than low BAB--this is rather obvious, so I am unsure what ChaosTicket wants to know.
Is he asking whether he can make a character exceptionally good at something without investing in improving the ability? No, Pathfinder is about customization in order to create the desired character concept. Customization involves tradeoffs, to try to keep the power level balanced. The system is not perfect, so some tradeoffs are more profitable than others, but if one tradeoff is way more powerful, Paizo will rewrite a key ability to nerf the option.
Every character should be able to grow into a 20+ BAB, 800+ skill point, tier 9 Arcane/Divine/Psychic Spellcaster with infinite Feats that can do anything so long as the Player can think about it. Id be more comfortable without limits beyond imagination and effort.
And ChaosTicket wants this all at 1st level, too. Right? This had better be a joke, because it invalidates all the questions ChaosTicket asked.
ChaosTicket wrote:
Every character should be able to grow into a 20+ BAB, 800+ skill point, tier 9 Arcane/Divine/Psychic Spellcaster with infinite Feats that can do anything so long as the Player can think about it. Id be more comfortable without limits beyond imagination and effort.
And ChaosTicket wants this all at 1st level, too. Right? This had better be a joke, because it invalidates all the questions ChaosTicket asked.
Every character has potential above the above, except for the skills. Nobody gains enough skill points to reach the limit of every skill.
Every choice in Pathfinder prevents others due to limitations on statistics, feats, abilities, and spells (on some classes). Its costly to deviate, and because of that Min-Maxing and Power-Gaming are prevalent so you dont waste imitated resources. You cant have it all because game balance is made for limited characters following certain stereotypes like the Brainless Fighter, The Brainy Bookworm Wizard, the Talking Bard/Face.
Now should characters start AT the highest limit? If you are going past level 20, yes and then the next goal is about 30 BAB, 30 points in every skill, and make up a whole new tier beyond 9. Then go to level 40, 50, 60, and so on.
Pathfinder to me is defined by what you cant do. You are limited not by imagination, but by game rules allow. A Fantasy game to consider anything "too fantastic" is just hypocritical. "Be anything you want so long as someone else allows it."
My goal here is to find a way to break the game limitations or at least just express my distaste of those limitations. If you like limitations then I dont know why you are here other than to tell me the obvious like "go find another game" or say "yes there are limitations".
I believe Im being reasonable and asking "why?" to everything I can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because if it was possible to go full power build to the point of doing everything(Cough, Hello Wizard), what's the rest of the team doing?
And if they also go full power build, doesn't that just turn the game into Mega Rocket Tag?
Now who says one player character has to do everything? Its that every character SHOULD be able to so long as the player can think of it. Teach the Wizard martial arts. Give the Fighter a Spellbook. Break out of the character molds, and Game Developers please stop punishing people for it, please!
And as for MEGA ROCKET TAG. Isnt that what roleplaying already are? Some people rush to get to using magic or powerful combinations of abilities and then when they get them they use them because other things are inefficient or ineffective. There are plenty of abilities that are wasted.
Magic is widely regarded as broken because the game tries to to make things into dice rolls while magic can break that system. Use Glibness to gain a +20 or +30(3.5) to Bluff. Fly over things. Use Flesh to Stone to eliminate a threat in one turn.
Breaking an already broken system is better than stagnation and "Status Quo is God". Force it to evolve.
But it's not broken, as evidenced by the good success pathfinder has found. You are demanding change to an existing game that isn't necessary because other games fill that niche.
Your suggestions, objectively, are bad.
Its not really a suggestion, but a dream goal.
Total freedom can be anarchy.
Ive been playing Dungeons and Dragons for about 20 years and Pathfinder for about 1/10th of that time. Things rarely change for the better using "balance" as the reasoning for every negative action.
Balance the classes against one another. Fighter still cant use skills. Balance the enemies against players. Enemies of every level that kill you in one hit.
I still see breaks in balanced gameplay like pressure for every character to pick a specialization, and so on. Its a complaint that the GM is railroading players, but its the game that does it. I still try jack-of-all-trades characters and suffer for not min-maxing.
Honestly Im just talking to a deaf crowd. Anyone with similar views probably left to other games long ago. Reason why Im here and not on other game forums is that Im still trying to salvage Dungeons and Dragons & Pathfinder rather than abandon them. If anything I should be over in the 5th edition Forum and pointing out the problems with that game.
Its not really a suggestion, but a dream goal.
Total freedom can be anarchy.
Ive been playing Dungeons and Dragons for about 20 years and Pathfinder for about 1/10th of that time. Things rarely change for the better using "balance" as the reasoning for every negative action.
Balance the classes against one another. Fighter still cant use skills. Balance the enemies against players. Enemies of every level that kill you in one hit.
I still see breaks in balanced gameplay like pressure for every character to pick a specialization, and so on. Its a complaint that the GM is railroading players, but its the game that does it. I still try jack-of-all-trades characters and suffer for not min-maxing.
Honestly Im just talking to a deaf crowd. Anyone with similar views probably left to other games long ago. Reason why Im here and not on other game forums is that Im still trying to salvage Dungeons and Dragons & Pathfinder rather than abandon them. If anything I should be over in the 5th edition Forum and pointing out the problems with that game.
I'm not sure what you're trying to salvage here.
Those of us that have problems with the game end up turning to either home brew or third parties. And PF1 isn't going to see any more support so your goals are indeed going to fall on deaf ears. Because those of us that remain in PF1 have probably set it up to our own liking.
Do you want to let the Wizard punch people? Let him. I'm sure you can find something to let him do so without losing Wizard abilities. Not sure why you still have a Monk on the team then but hey.
Which is probably another point. If you remove all the limits, what's to stop people from just going Wizard all the time? I mean, nothing stops them really now outside of maybe the first 5 levels but in this limitless full power min max version what stops people? All the Magic, Skill, and for the first couple levels enough Martial power to get over that hump.
Why play anything but Wizard?
I'm not sure what you're trying to salvage here.
Those of us that have problems with the game end up turning to either home brew or third parties. And PF1 isn't going to see any more support so your goals are indeed going to fall on deaf ears. Because those of us that remain in PF1 have probably set it up to our own liking.
Do you want to let the Wizard punch people? Let him. I'm sure you can find something to let him do so without losing Wizard abilities. Not sure why you still have a Monk on the team then but hey.
Which is probably another point. If you remove all the limits, what's to stop people from just going Wizard all the time? I mean, nothing stops them really now outside of maybe the first 5 levels but in this limitless full power min max version what stops people? All the Magic, Skill, and for the first couple levels enough Martial power to get over that hump.
Why play anything but Wizard?
Opening the game up after 20 years(for me) of Same Old, Same Old.
Yes why not make everyone a Spellcaster? Why not just allow every character to learn everything? The limit sholdnt be class balanced, but rational problems. For example would a Gestalt Cleric/Wizard advance the rate as a single class Wizard or Cleric?
There are already Magic class and archetypes for basically every class. Pick an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and make yourself Invisible. Take a Bloodrager and cast your own buff spells.
Im playing from the perspective of an experienced player that always takes mild-moderate-major magic classes and hates lower grinding levels before class features and magic become character defining. I gave up on Meathead classes a long time ago as being low tier and highly limited in what they can do.
From that perspective I dont know why the rules makers still insist that purely physical classes should be viable, while hypocritically nerfing magic again and again. My answer to that is "Can I play as Cthulu?"
Classes keep gaining more and more unnatural abilities that are "definitely not magic" that its blurred. Why not just give everyone magic already?
In my opinion powergaming does not depend on a rules set. Some make it easier than others, yes. But in general it depends on the playing group.
I always knew DnD as a powerful System which was more focused on dice rolling than story telling. Pathfinder has its roots on DnD / ADnD and therefore it also focusses more on dice rolling. In addition with each supplement rulebook there were more powerful classes, archtypes, spells or whatever.
So yes, Pathfinder supports powerplaying. But thats only a basic orientation. It depends on the players and the group what happens. You can tell a story in the pathfinder universe and skip nealy all battles. You can also make a dice wars where everything depends on dice rolls.
It depends on the game master.
Simple take the story of every adventure path you like. Cancel all battles on the way to the end and tell a huge fight. The players normally win anyway. Its only ressource management. If you tell a story you do not need that. Describe battles and let the players feel the atmosphere. Describe glory actions, teamwork, maybe some bad luck, whatever. Let the players decide what they like to do and adjust the story.
All in all Storytelling is easy possible.
What i really appreciate in pathfinder is that there is a huge new story every half a year and lots of background information you can easy use. And if you get society scenarios too you have a lot of small story chapters at hand you can throw in at any time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opening the game up after 20 years(for me) of Same Old, Same Old.
Yes why not make everyone a Spellcaster? Why not just allow every character to learn everything? The limit sholdnt be class balanced, but rational problems. For example would a Gestalt Cleric/Wizard advance the rate as a single class Wizard or Cleric?
There are already Magic class and archetypes for basically every class. Pick an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and make yourself Invisible. Take a Bloodrager and cast your own buff spells.
Im playing from the perspective of an experienced player that always takes mild-moderate-major magic classes and hates lower grinding levels before class features and magic become character defining. I gave up on Meathead classes a long time ago as being low tier and highly limited in what they can do.
From that perspective I dont know why the rules makers still insist that purely physical classes should be viable, while hypocritically nerfing magic again and again. My answer to that is "Can I play as Cthulu?"
A character that can do anything or that can do everything sounds *INCREDIBLY* boring to me.
Characters are defined by their limitations and weaknesses as much as they are their strengths. D&D/PF is built around the concept that individual characters are insufficient to overcome all challenges - relying on a well-crafted *party* that works cooperatively to overcome the campaign's obstacles is the CORE design philosophy at the center of D&D.
If you're interested in a free-form roleplaying system - as others have already suggested - they are many and plentiful. I would encourage you, in fact, to check them out. Our group found BESM/the Tri-Stat system to be a terribly entertaining diversion a decade or so ago.
D&D/Pathfinder is not your game if that's what you're looking to do. And in fact, after dipping our toes in the waters of RPGs that diverge from D&D, our group - that has *also* been playing together over twenty years (not sure why you keep repeating that as though it lends particular weight to your arguments) - made the conscious decision that gaming was more fun for us *with* those inherent limitations than it was without them.
I find it shocking that - for someone who has played RPGs for so long - that you *haven't* ever been curious about trying other RPG systems until now. You really missed out on the RPG boom of the late nineties/early 2000's.
I'm not sure what you're trying to salvage here.
Those of us that have problems with the game end up turning to either home brew or third parties. And PF1 isn't going to see any more support so your goals are indeed going to fall on deaf ears. Because those of us that remain in PF1 have probably set it up to our own liking.
Do you want to let the Wizard punch people? Let him. I'm sure you can find something to let him do so without losing Wizard abilities. Not sure why you still have a Monk on the team then but hey.
Which is probably another point. If you remove all the limits, what's to stop people from just going Wizard all the time? I mean, nothing stops them really now outside of maybe the first 5 levels but in this limitless full power min max version what stops people? All the Magic, Skill, and for the first couple levels enough Martial power to get over that hump.
Why play anything but Wizard?
Opening the game up after 20 years(for me) of Same Old, Same Old.
Yes why not make everyone a Spellcaster? Why not just allow every character to learn everything? The limit sholdnt be class balanced, but rational problems. For example would a Gestalt Cleric/Wizard advance the rate as a single class Wizard or Cleric?
There are already Magic class and archetypes for basically every class. Pick an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and make yourself Invisible. Take a Bloodrager and cast your own buff spells.
Im playing from the perspective of an experienced player that always takes mild-moderate-major magic classes and hates lower grinding levels before class features and magic become character defining. I gave up on Meathead classes a long time ago as being low tier and highly limited in what they can do.
From that perspective I dont know why the rules makers still insist that purely physical classes should be viable, while hypocritically nerfing magic again and again. My answer to that is "Can I play as Cthulu?"
Classes keep gaining more and more...
Because if you can play as Cthulu, the heck do you do? You have basically won the game at that point. I don't know many GMs that would like to continue running a game where the players are all powerful deities.
As for why not let everyone learn everything, Well if you remove all the restrictions what do you have. Full power gaming. There's no downside at all to most people to dip into Alchemist, grab Mutagen and Vivisectionist archetype, and go full Bloodrager.
So we should just let every martial get Mutagen? For free? Yeah doesn't that mess with the numbers unless we let the monsters get Mutagen like buffs to keep them up to speed?
No I'm just curious here. You have a group that can do everything, across all the classes with little to no down side. What kinds of characters are they? What's their motivation? How do you role-play "I'm good at everything"? Better question, how do you balance the game if at any level the party could just fully break whatever system you have in place?
I don't know what you seem to want other than GURPS.
Sounds like they want to play Exalted
There are different trains of thought here. The largest is concerned with Game Balance, and not roleplaying. The much smaller one is about roleplaying.
I would like to know, how would you roleplay a character like Cthulu, Superman, Galactus?
I dont know what anyone else's goal here is. Mine is trying to find some way to break the limits. Find a Goal and when you reach it, then what?
If you reach level 20, then do you go past that? Ive read some people dont want to go past level 10.
Or would you go back to level 1 and try to be stronger?
I work to be stronger, to better myself and my characters. If you accept you have limitations then what goal do you have in life?
For me a person or character that cant grow is as dead as a corpse. Maybe Cthulu's level is a goal. Or maybe the goal is to develop a better person. Id like to do both in a roleplaying game to go from an inexperienced nobody to...whatever you can think of. I remember when I found out that people could becomes gods in Pathfinder and that is still a possible goal. Reach that, and then what? travel to other planes, planets, galaxies, universes? Keep going and dont give up.
Do you look for more?
There are different trains of thought here. The largest is concerned with Game Balance, and not roleplaying. The much smaller one is about roleplaying.
I would like to know, how would you roleplay a character like Cthulu, Superman, Galactus?
I dont know what anyone else's goal here is. Mine is trying to find some way to break the limits. Find a Goal and when you reach it, then what?
If you reach level 20, then do you go past that? Ive read some people dont want to go past level 10.
Or would you go back to level 1 and try to be stronger?
I work to be stronger, to better myself and my characters. If you accept you have limitations then what goal do you have in life?
For me a person or character that cant grow is as dead as a corpse. Maybe Cthulu's level is a goal. Or maybe the goal is to develop a better person. Id like to do both in a roleplaying game to go from an inexperienced nobody to...whatever you can think of. I remember when I found out that people could becomes gods in Pathfinder and that is still a possible goal. Reach that, and then what? travel to other planes, planets, galaxies, universes? Keep going and dont give up.
Do you look for more?
And that's fine for you.
I seek the end of a story. Or at least the end of the current Campaign. If it ends at level 15, what impact do the missing 5 levels of growth have on my character? Why should they have an impact? The BBEG is dead, the party hopefully wrapped up things or have the means to do what they wanted, and the players might only want another session or two. Why do we need to hit 20?
Why do you feel the need to just keep going? When do you end?
At the same time, people don't want to go beyond level 10 because that's when balance usually starts being easy to break. And if it's only one person breaking it, what does the GM do if they can't talk the play out of easing up? Tell the other players how to build better? Because any monster sent out to challenge the stronger character can probably wipe the floor with the others.
I just have to laugh. IF you finish the story, move on to another adventure. Keep going. Why do you want it to end? So long as you have a goal is should continue. For me why Im hear is to continue on my goals.
Oh and thanks for proving my point about people caring more about game balance than story.
I just have to laugh. IF you finish the story, move on to another adventure. Keep going. Why do you want it to end? So long as you have a goal is should continue. For me why Im hear is to continue on my goals.
Oh and thanks for proving my point about people caring more about game balance than story.
I'll move on to another adventure yes.
My level 15 character isn't going to join the next game my group makes up.
Because I'll just roll over everything. There's little to no reason for the level 1s to do anything besides sit there and twiddle their thumbs in combat. One round of bomb tossing, cleaves, Save or Die, etc and my 15 will wipe the room.
And if the DM does give something that's a challenge, if it even so much as looks at the other characters they'd probably blow up. Why is this sudden destroyed balance a bad thing in your eyes?
So yeah, my level 15 or whatever character goes off to do their own thing at the end of the campaign.
Why would I want to use them again if I basically get the ending I want? And more to the point, my GM goes off to run a different game. That means trying to see if I can continue with that character in a another game run by a different Gm with possible different rules(Oh you picked Summoner? Yeah I don't want a Summoner).
So I ask you, why do you want to keep playing the same character?
I just have to laugh. IF you finish the story, move on to another adventure. Keep going. Why do you want it to end? So long as you have a goal is should continue. For me why Im hear is to continue on my goals.
Oh and thanks for proving my point about people caring more about game balance than story.
To a certain degree game balance is REQUIRED for a decent story. You have to have moments of suspense, the players need to face risk, tasks they're ill suited to or cannot accomplish alone and the deaths of party members or allied npcs. They also need to be able to overcome these things without it being a 1 round and done and for most players it needs to occur in a universe and setting that allows them to suspend disbelief. It doesn't have to have a logical in game explanation for every single aspect of reality, but it does have to follow a degree of logic.
The boards are a rotten place in general to hunt for story over game balance, people who frequent boards tend to be people who like to crunch numbers, and mess with systems. Story is an issue for your personal table.
It also doesn't help that often people talking about "story" have a tendency to be talking about characters that don't actually fit well in the in game reality.
So I ask you, why do you want to keep playing the same character?
I already told you about 2 posts ago. To progress. I wouldnt understand why you dont want to keep characters alive rather than dumping them like old toys.
Circular discussion by this point, but can you start a character better than you, personally, have ever before?
I dont know what your goal is, or if you even have one.
So I ask you, why do you want to keep playing the same character?
I already told you about 2 posts ago. To progress. I wouldnt understand why you dont want to keep characters alive rather than dumping them like old toys.
Circular discussion by this point, but can you start a character better than you, personally, have ever before?
I dont know what your goal is, or if you even have one.
And I told you. To tell a story.
If you want to play the same character for the next 40 years go for it. Going to find it hard to get the numbers to keep up with you after about 10 of those years.
From what I'm reading of you, we should have had more Harry Potter movies as an adult, Lord of the Rings books that dealt with Fordo going with the elves, and should demand another Indiana Jones movie because he's not done progressing yet.
Why should these characters be tossed away? We want to see them become gods! They aren't done yet! Doesn't matter if they had a happy ending or their story can continue off screen, we must simply keep going.
I don't see a difference between those in roleplay. Every story has an end. Or at least should have an end to me. I'd rather not be on a treadmill the entire time as one character.
Can I start a character than I have before? Depends on what you mean by better. If you mean strong, yeah I can probably build the character better. Drop stats to min max, follow guides, number crunch everything...., but that doesn't feel like my character. That feels like just stats.
So let me try asking again. I got into PF1 about... oh geeze. 2012? I played a Paladin. Now this game broke up due to outside reasons, but do you or do you not believe I should STILL be playing with the Paladin 6 years later? Because my GMs would love to suddenly have to deal with a Level 20 or higher character by this point out of no where and I think playing the same character with not that much of a change in personality to be boring even if he could do everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just have to laugh. IF you finish the story, move on to another adventure. Keep going. Why do you want it to end? So long as you have a goal is should continue. For me why Im hear is to continue on my goals.
Oh and thanks for proving my point about people caring more about game balance than story.
This is a great point for me to repeat what I said in my last post, but from another angle.
Playing the same character endlessly sounds *INCREDIBLY* boring to me.
From a story perspective - not a game balance one - one of my greatest joys in playing D&D has been giving my characters a satisfying conclusion to their adventure. Our game world is also persistent, meaning that while I may move on and play a new character, my old characters are still there, doing whatever it was that they were doing.
Noviliel, my character from Rise of the Runelords, founded the country of Storval, using Xin-Shalast as her new capitol. I feel immense satisfaction every time I think of her ruling her new nation, and I know it's taking up a ton of her time. She's busy; her adventuring days are behind her.
Gulthor, my Hellknight from Wrath of the Righteous? He founded a new Hellknight order (the Order of the Lesion) and then ascended to become the new demigod of the Hellknights. And when we looked to Hell's Rebels, our group smiled with satisfaction at the knowledge that our Hellknight formerly of the Order of the Godclaw, and our Mythic Paladin of Iomedae surely were behind the Glorious Reclamation in some capacity. But he's mega-retired. He's building a demiplane, building his following, building his church - he's busy, and his adventuring days are behind him.
Frag, my goblin alchemist from Iron Gods? He ended the campaign with a 44 Intelligence, and became a slum lord ruling over Scrapwall in Numeria, where he and his cohort continue to work at unlocking the secrets of creating the Philosopher's Stone. He's busy, and his adventuring days are behind him.
And each of these three characters - three of dozens that I've played over the years - are so different, so unique, so fun to play. Living out their little lives - the very essence of roleplaying - was so fun, so pleasurable. My current character, Lossenmel, is a lazy, mercurial, quick-to-anger/quick-to-laughter alcohol-themed alchemist. All he wants to DO is escort Ameiko to become Empress of Minkai so that he can live out the rest of his days on a fat, cushy retirement. His whole goal is to retire. I'll smile fondly when I think back to him lazing about in the lap of luxury, too.
And I have more characters whose lives I want to explore. I want to know what makes them tick, I want to know what challenges them, I want to know where they excel. I want to explore their relationships with their new friends - I want to experience the new characters that my friends' imaginations have produced. I want them to succeed... and I want them to have their reward at the end of their journey.
My opinion of the statements that you've made thus far are that you have an extremely elitist attitude of your preferences rather than simply asking what game system would be a good fit for those preferences, while accepting that there are a large number of role-playing systems for a reason. Someone out there is willing to cater to yours, and you've received earnest, helpful advice trying to lead you there. Instead, you just seem to want to put down those that enjoy PF/D&D for its method of storytelling. Yes, game balance is *part* of that equation - as I said, it is THE core, fundamental principle behind PF/D&D. Game balance is not an enemy to storytelling, and it's baffling to me that you think that limitations somehow hold storytelling back. As I said, characters are defined by their weaknesses as much as their strengths.
It sounds to me like you want to play multiplayer Skyrim. And honestly, I think that's okay - I bet it'd be a blast. I have good news for you, Bethesda is hoping to sell you Fallout 76 soon, complete with built-in griefing so that high level characters can prove their "superiority" over the little pissant noobs.
D&D/PF is not the game to explore the method of character fantasy that you're seeking.
Well you had a solid point, and then you ended with insults.
Am I a snob? Thinking about it, yes I am. Ive played so many games Ive just gotten to the point where instead of hoping for dedicated settings like dividing Medieval Fantasy from Science-Fiction, Id rather have a kitchen sink multiverse where, for example, heroic Orcs with Psychic Powers and Space Ships fight against imperialist Dwarves that worship Capitalist Eldritch Abominations in the Wild West.
Id rather have a sandbox game. Make you own races, characters, plot, setting, etc. Basically I want to play the game and drive it as a player making my own path rather than be railroaded, but at the same time not be a GM as then I wouldnt play.
Its true Im looking in the wrong place to hope Pathfinder will be able to stretch into an open world.
Now that Ive said this in different ways on every post Ive made in this thread, I dont get why this is news to anyone. This thread ended a long time ago but people keep posting.
Because you keep adding in new things for us to pick up on.
I can't think of a system that will give you the full freedom that you seem to want. Short of maybe GRUPS, and even then you'd have to find a GM willing to let you have that freedom.
Because you keep adding in new things for us to pick up on.
I can't think of a system that will give you the full freedom that you seem to want. Short of maybe GRUPS, and even then you'd have to find a GM willing to let you have that freedom.
Full options palladium system base rifts. Good luck finding literally anyone else who wants to play it.
So, what you want to do is write a book co-operatively? My suggestion then is to find an online roleplaying forum and join an RP that lacks stats and has a lazy plot. Because you'll not find a pulp-genre RP sandbox that lacks any cohesive narrative easy to find otherwise. It just violates too many standards of tabletop gaming to function.
Its mostly about refining existing things, like a full tier 9 spellcaster with free feats and/or full BAB.
Basically talking about Munchkinism vs status quo.
I admire Munchkins. They think outside the box to come up with cunning plans to be an ideal of Freedom.
Or just go play a D&D videogame to have fun.
Its mostly about refining existing things, like a full tier 9 spellcaster with free feats and/or full BAB.
Basically talking about Munchkinism vs status quo.
I admire Munchkins. They think outside the box to come up with cunning plans to be an ideal of Freedom.
Or just go play a D&D videogame to have fun.
The problem with "Munchkinism" is that it usually isn't about the RP or the character or any personal goal most the time. Usually it's to "Win" or prove your own mastery of the system. Or because you hate the DM and just want to break everything.
There's a place for Balance and Story but when people usually go full Munchkin, they don't care about either.
That and munchkinism is very rarely about actual in game creative solutions. Rather than breaking a seige on a tavern by throwing casks of burning moonshine or something like that, the strategy is more "I swat down all the attacking losers because I'm AC50 with DC30 save/loses at L10, aren't I grand?" Creative only in which sourcebooks got pillaged for the cherry picked stuff.
This.
Rifts is by Palladium, they use a weird system partly derived from Early D&D with rules for Mega damage (basically, giant robots and big monsters have armor/body that each point of is equal to normal hit points, and only mega damage weapons and magic can damge it just think about trying to destroy a tank with normal rifle fire)... depending on what yu do, it can take power gaming to ridiculous extents...
Chaosium is the classic, d100 based "basic roleplaying" system.
What you think is creative is relative to your own beliefs.
Think of any problem at all. How do you solve it?
There are problems with every facet of a roleplaying game from at least character creation onward.
#1 character creation, which races are better? Many different races to choose from with factors that give short and long term advantages.
1B, Starting statistics cannot be altered, You can add bonuses but higher starting point means a higher average and peak.
1C, Classes are not equal. Some are better to start with and others acquire special abilities at later points.
#2 economy, a fundamental way to control actions. a GM can use it against players and players need it to be able to act freely.
2B, Money is a basic need. If people cannot afford the tools they need then a campaign ending could be as lacking a potion.
2C, similar to 2B, advanced Magical Items being available to buy, loot, or create or being prevented from doing so is another effective ways to control actions.
#3 challenges that arent thought puzzles, but just high difficulty rolls solved by the above.
3A Enemy difficulty caused by just Armor Class Vs total Hit Bonuses.
#4 straight railoading from a GM in the plot.
4A Hunting for McGuffin, forced to talk to certain characters to unlock the next part of the script, or making decisions you dont know are going nowhere because theyre not according to the script.
Solve those problems. Wait, let me guess you say they arent problems, theyre features? Well if thats the case can I have unlimited money, weapons, perfect stats and so on? Oh wait, I dont want to have the game finished with no difficulty, I just want to have control rather than be pulled around.
You look to solve an adventure. Im trying to be prepared for the problems that turn an adventure into an inflated play by the GM and the players just being the actors or possible the rats in the maze. If That is impossible, then what is there to do at the table if someone makes Roleplaying pointless in a Roleplaying game. usually I just focus on the Game. That can be difficult if a game is shallow in its actual gameplay. 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons is the most shallow RPG Ive seen.
To me, Munchkin means "free of control". Youve beaten the GM's control, you make your own choices. If your choices are to have a high defense, why is that bad? You understand the system and youve beaten it. GMs often use their own understanding of the system and Rule Lawyering to control players.
I would like a GM to create a setting, but let the players make their own story and characters. I keep hoping the GM wont be an enemy.