Modular Class feature options --> Design, build, and play style with themed characters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Not sure I can TL/DR this post, so I will try to bold the important parts.

******
For starters, I know, terrible thread title. I've had this bubbling in my brain for a bit, and pieces of theses thoughts have cropped up in a few of my recent posts. Also, I know I'm talking about "theme" characters again. It's apparently a keyword for me; you could start a drinking game . . . . . Please don't; I don't wish alcohol poisoning on anyone.

First question: Are there any alternate rules for making modular choices with class features? I know there are alternate racial features for races, and there are archetypes of classes. But is there any other way to kind of pick and choose class features? I feel like VMC might be this, but I know almost nothing about it. I suppose 3pp sources could also be acceptable, as long as they balance well.

Second question: How do or would modular options affect game design and class balance? If you make a house rule or GM fiat this issue, how much impact might it have? I realize that game designers put tremendous effort into the development of their systems. That time translates (generally) into an expertise that most of us players, and many GMs can't match, and for this we give them our time, attention, and most importantly perhaps money (they gotta eat too).

I'm wondering how much modular rules hamper or help design from a character balance perspective. I can see the danger with min/maxers or power gamers. (Please avoid offense if this is how you identify as a gamer. Math and mastery are not bad traits. Selfishness, over-competitiveness, and condescension are. That's the personal context I know these terms from.) Those types of players find ways to beat any system though. How much does this issue effect game design overall?

As I've mentioned before, my other go to game system is the diceless Marvel Role-playing Game. You build with points, so all character options are basically modular. I love the freedom of that system to build exactly the character I wish. With Pathfinder, I love the solid mechanics, the setting and theme, the art, and all of the creative and pre-made content. White Wolf, I love conceptually. I feel like they try for a balance between creative freedom, story, and mechanics; but the formatting/editing of their materials makes me not enjoy that system as much as I feel I should. Is this issue a big enough one that it defines a system? Is it not possible to "have it all" in this case?

Third issue: Is there any correlation between a themed build and min/maxing? There's nothing wrong with optimizing, but we've all seen the players who take it to the extreme to the detriment of character or story development. As I define theme though, it is where concept/flavor and mechanics intersect. A big part of many themes is the combination of powers or abilities.

I think most of us like to have a character who's good (maybe even the "best") at one or a few things. You're also probably going to have things you don't want for your character. I think those gaps/flaws/penalties help define a theme as much as the strengths. In the course of choosing options that help you express your concept, it's likely you're going to get combos where the numbers add up. I don't think this is inherently right or wrong, but does this make every thematic builder a little bit of a min/maxer? Allowing for differences in build and play styles, does that thought change how you might approach a build or character for yourself? For a group?

Thanks to those who have held on. All of this musing leads to the biggest question/issue for me.

BIG QUESTION: WHAT CHOICES DO YOU MAKE IN PLAY WHEN YOUR BUILD STICKS YOU WITH A FEATURE YOU DON'T WANT? There is amazing versatility in this game, especially if you allow for 3pp. However, as long ad you're working with a finite set of options, and trying to follow the rules for balance's sake, there is a limit to how well you can match a concept. When you've chosen the right race, the best traits and feats, the ideal class, and the most choice archetype combos, it's still possible you might be left with a feature you just don't like. Something that just doesn't fit who or what you want your character to be/do.

As I said above, limitations help a theme as much as what one can do. I know good practice is to try and avoid "one trick ponies". I think there is a difference between that though, and finding as many creative uses for what you do have or specialize in as possible. Also, when you limit yourself from certain abilities, I think it helps to encourage team dynamics. You don't always have the right/best or even effective answer, but maybe someone else does. Versatility is great, yes button, or off theme/against character not so much.

Rough example (NOT ABOUT QUALITY OR POWER OF CHARACTERS): thematically Superman < Green Lantern < Beast Boy. The powers of all three are hugely versatile, but each one is progressively more defined in his concept.

So, you have the power/feature/spell/whatever that doesn't fit. How do you handle that as a player? I get that you might be able to just ignore or not use it, unless it's some type of always on and detectable effect. From a role-play perspective that might be best. But what happens when you find yourself in a situation where that feature comes into play?

Can you avoid the temptation to use the non-thematic ability? How do you keep yourself from slipping into the ability, or using metagame knowledge that that ability is the quickest solution to the encounter? What about if it's a life or death situation for your character or a party member?

I want to be a team player, both as a player and a character, but I'd rather not have that particular conflict or option. I'd rather not have the ability, so it's never a choice between good tactics and good role-play. If that ability comes out in the emergency, it feels like a yes button or deus ex machina. All of the sudden you manifest this thing you've never had before, and then ignore again. Feels like bad storytelling (or at least a tired fantasy/anime trope).

Anyway, that's all the ramble. Thanks to those who saw it through. Any answers, thoughts, links, tips, or comments welcome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Eric Morton was working on a classless approach, or at the very least a class abilities by point buy kind of concept...um....Custom Class Builder thread. That was a few years back, no idea if it was ever finished.

Rogue Genius Games released the Talented series, that broke class (and maybe the class’ archetypes) abilities down into talents that you could choose for greater flexibility...


Thanks so much. That may be exactly what I'm looking for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If someone was like I want to be Spiderman or Nightcrawler or whatever, and I couldn't think of a combination that got close enough to what they are looking for, I would probably just pick a 3/4 BAB, two good saves, 6th level caster chassis and build exactly what they want.

Okay, we are going to add Spring Attack at level 6, Improved Spring Attack at 14, and Greater Spring Attack at 18. Give you some sort of Dimensional Slide like the Arcanist, and Dimensional Dervish at 8, followed by Dimensional Savant at 12. Maybe some sort of actual Teleport SLA... how's that, Nightcrawler?

I let people build custom races in my Kingmaker campaign, so I am more than willing to work with people on concept characters...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the Rolemaster RPG system lets you choose what things to add each time you level. it uses a point buy system where each item has a different point cost based on your class. Any class can learn anything, it just costs a variable number of points. (i.e. a fighter can learn spells at a high cost, whereas a wizard can learn spells at a low cost).

It's not the answer for Pathfinder, but there are games out there that have a system in place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The archetypes are meant to retheme characters somewhat. Between archetypes and a DM that's fine with refluffing mechanics, you can usually get by alright. The only ability I've had to replace for a character was a vivisectionist who didn't want the furry maker ability. I don't think a character's theme is an important measure for min/maxing, you can support a character's theme in the same way with every choice or not.

Modularity is one of those things that can be good or bad depending on what the rest of the game looks like. If your modular chunks are too small, then you end up with many useless decisions. If they're too big, players will feel like they don't have that much choice on what their character is. If the modular pieces are all meant to be equally valuable, then you can end up with situations where each choice seems pointless and may as well be randomized.

As a player, I tend to accept the non-thematic ability for what it is. In real life I have skills I don't need and don't use, but come up from time to time. I don't like talking about the history of scientific movements, but I sure read and wrote about them in college and can't just ignore what I know. I'll grudgingly bring out the tool if it seems necessary as both a person and when playing a character. If it's something flexible, I'll stick to theme. I won't memorize spells that are outside of the character's theme just because they're the best or whatever, but I will memorize them when they are specifically needed.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Hero system rpg is the ultimate in building your own style. Instead of premade abilities, you get complex rules on how to create your own abilities for your character. I love the system, though it's not without it's own issues, not the least of which being a massive core rulebook that makes the pathfinder core rules look tiny by comparison.

For pathfinder, I draw great enjoyment from stitching together a character from a myriad of classes, feats, and other options. If a particular class has an ability that I want, but another that doesn't fit, I'll first look for an archetype to trade it out with. If that doesn't work, I'll consider multiclassing out before gaining said ability. If that doesn't work either, then I'll either invent a rationalization for my character to have said ability, or scrap the idea and try a different build. Sometimes you just can't achieve the thing you want within the limits of the system.


gnoams wrote:
The Hero system rpg is the ultimate in building your own style. Instead of premade abilities, you get complex rules on how to create your own abilities for your character. I love the system, though it's not without it's own issues, not the least of which being a massive core rulebook that makes the pathfinder core rules look tiny by comparison.

Sounds you like the HERO system for the same reason I like Marvel. Both infinetly custumizable, but yours has more mechanical support. Trade off, complex but clear, vs. streamlined but abstract.

Thanks to all for the feedback. I'm glad you were able to parse through my text wall to get to the meat. I've enjoyed the different viewpoints.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The D&D 3.5 Generic classes might offer you something of what you want. There are 3 classes (warrior, expert, and spellcaster--not the NPC classes) where each class is nothing but BAB, skills, saves, and Bonus Feats. The bonus Feats are used to gain either feats or class features.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm


Sysryke wrote:

Are there any alternate rules for making modular choices with class features?

How do or would modular options affect game design and class balance?

I already consider the 1e Pathfinder System to be highly modular. I find that with the current rules I have tremendous ability to cobble together various and sundry Feats, Class Abilities and Spells together to create very powerful effects.

There are common variants to the system. There is Variant Multi-Classing--VMC--and there are Gestalt characters. I'm not very familiar with them.

Sysryke wrote:
Is there any correlation between a themed build and min/maxing?

I think my answer to that question is "no." I have a varied approach to building characters. Sometimes a character starts with some game mechanic that makes me smile, and then I put it together, map it out, and then look at what I wrought and say, "Hey handsome, tell me about yourself." I look at the elements I put together for mechanical reasons and let those elements tell me a story. Sometimes, I get the concept first, then I think, "What would this character be like?" And sometimes I do both at once: I have some mechanically-fleshed-out builds and I have some concepts, and I marry them together.

I think it is usually a bad idea to flesh out your character concept too much before you play it. Sometimes, the characters tell you more about themselves as you play with them, and you get to know your character by roleplaying them. People on these forums probably suppose I am a highly mechanical gamer who treats his characters like game pieces on a board, but that's only because I use the rules to build a character. But I roleplay my characters by roleplaying them.

Sysryke wrote:
WHAT CHOICES DO YOU MAKE IN PLAY WHEN YOUR BUILD STICKS YOU WITH A FEATURE YOU DON'T WANT?

I don't have that exact problem very often, and when I do, it's usually not a very big deal. I had a character with a couple of levels in Cavalier, and that gave her a Mount that she didn't particularly want. Mostly, I just didn't play with it. Much more common is when a particular build feature I work into my character doesn't work the way I expect it to. Sometimes, I get to retrain, sometimes it's a matter of live and learn. Live through this character's story path and learn for when you build your next character.

Sometimes, my build works pretty well, just not as expected. When I played an Arcane Trickster, I found he was not nearly as good a Wizard as I hoped, but he was SUPERB at sneaking around, infiltrating, and gathering information. Sometimes, my characters have unexpected weaknesses. Sometimes, my characters technically work well, but are just not very exciting to play. One example of this was a 3.5 Bear Warrior/Fist of the Forest under a Vow of Poverty, and he was themed after the Lorax. My character was the Once-ler repenting the destruction of the Truffula Forests, abandoning his factories, swearing his Vow of Poverty and becoming a Fist of the Forest in the service of the Holy Order of the Lorax, and sometimes going into Rages where he transforms into a Brown Bar-ba-Loot! But playing him was surprising uninspiring. go figure.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Modular Class feature options --> Design, build, and play style with themed characters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion