How do I get over my dislike of "mundane" classes?


Advice

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Something I've noticed over the years is I seem to have a strong aversion to playing classes that get by on their wits and steel alone, like Fighters and Rogues. I've always struggled to find them interesting, especially since they don't really interact with the mystical or spiritual sides of the world played in. By the time a campaign reaches the end-game, a wizard and cleric will be discussing the complex magical doohickeys they need to realign to stop the BBEG, and the fighter's just standing around with a bored or confused look on their face.

I've always found more martial classes interesting if they've got some kind of "gimmick" like the Champion's god-given powers or the Magus' spells, and the recently released Thaumaturge is heavenly to me, where by contrast, Fighter and Rogue are classes I've only ever taken as supplements to other more magical classes so they're able to use swords and or to qualify for things like prestige classes in the olden days, and even then I've tried to avoid them in favor of more "gimmicky" classes that just seem inherently more interesting.

This, I feel, is a really bad habit to have for my roleplaying. The best roleplayers are the ones who can take any class and make an interesting character out of it, but I just feel like I'm going to spend any time out of combat or if there aren't any traps to disable standing around waiting while the interesting people are talking...how do I get over this?


There are just different views of the world.

While casters have a more intimate view of the magic and the essence of the universe but usually don't care about martials focus in weapons, battle and tactics usually treating weapons as simply tools that can be useful for those who still don't understand the beautiful of the magic.
Fighters and specially the Rogues treat magic as convenient tool to improve their weapons and skills. They don't care about how magics affects the world, magic is just a way to improve their weapons, armors and to help them to be more effective in that they are focus their life, to smash their opponents and to be more sneak and efficient for rogues.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I enjoy playing Mundane classes, because in a world of gods, magic and monsters, there's something extra heroic about being just a guy with a few inches of steel between yourself and doom. It always feels like you have to be even cleverer than a wizard to survive in a world like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Something I've noticed over the years is I seem to have a strong aversion to playing classes that get by on their wits and steel alone, like Fighters and Rogues.

I don't think this is a problem that needs fixing.

I also prefer some classes over others. I tend to favor INT based classes whether they are magical or not. My favorites so far are Witch and Investigator, though I am hoping to try out an INT Psychic sometime.

I also prefer as non-human ancestries as possible. Android, Automaton, Poppet, Anadi ... things like that.

I find that I can make a believable and interesting character out of those much more easily than I can a Human CHA caster or a Dwarf STR warrior.

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
This, I feel, is a really bad habit to have for my roleplaying. The best roleplayers are the ones who can take any class and make an interesting character out of it, but I just feel like I'm going to spend any time out of combat or if there aren't any traps to disable standing around waiting while the interesting people are talking...how do I get over this?

It feels like the core of the problem you are describing here is making well rounded characters. The system requires and provides for all classes having combat utility. Whether that is hitting things with sharp objects or throwing out spells of some variety. But that guarantee is not extended to out of combat utility. That you have to take into account yourself when choosing skills and feats.

So add a gimmick.

Perhaps spend a couple skill feat slots on Skill Training(arcana) and Trick Magic Item. At mid levels even with an INT of +0 you can still roll Aid checks out of combat without much risk of being just a hindrance. You could even make attempts to cast low level buff spells yourself from items. And you can participate in the plotting and planning regarding the complex magical doohickeys without feeling like you are stepping outside of what your character would believably be able to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"The best roleplayers are the ones who can take any class and make an interesting character out of it..."
I disagree with this premise as it's only addressing breadth, when the greatest RPing/acting comes from depth (or its semblance!). Yes, many good roleplayers/actors can do this, especially if they have a stock of personalities to draw upon or can improvise. Yet would we say that Sally Field's a poor actress because she hasn't played lead in an action film like Charlize?*

Heck, one might use the flash of magic as a distraction from actual character development; as a crutch even. I'm reminded of Butcher's Codex Alera where elemental magic's so prevalent that mastering it cannot be used as a shortcut for character development (like is too common in the genre); no "fire guy must have a fiery temperament" here. The main two earth/wood users are so different one would hardly connect them, nor even think of them as "earth/wood users" first when there's so much more to them. The same can be said for the central two water users, etc. in that their "class" is quite secondary, only determining what tools these fleshed out personalities have available, not who they are.

IMO the best RPers make the class (and mechanics in general) invisible. They are the PCs remembered by name, dialogue, & RP choices rather than class, magic, & crazy rolls. Which is to say that a dislike of certain classes has no bearing on what you can or cannot bring to the table in terms of character.

*Was going to default to Meryl Streep, except she has!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The best roleplayers are those who had fun playing all together. Anything more than this is you trying to impose your vision how some have to play. If everyone is having fun so everything is alright.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree this doesn't actually seem like a problem. Not every class needs to be for every type of person, and unless you're being forced to play mundane class then you don't actually need to learn to like them.

I think you're also conflating mrchanical contributions with roleplaying. Your wizard isn't roleplaying when they apply fly or invisibility sphere or teleport anymore than a fighter is roleplaying when they swing a sword. The decision to cast the spell can be roleplayed, but you don't need to be the one casting to participate in that. You can help the casters strategize about their options as they are willing to tell you what those options are.

If you really wanted mechanical representation for this, you could also take the Martial archetype and/or the Battle Planner skill feat.


I agree wholeheartedly with all the suggestions of "play characters you like and don't fret about all the rest"

But if you want to do something with that fretting, you might look at the "constraints" of playing mundane characters as a creative challenge.

For example, one year I only used my 50mm fixed-focus lens for photography. Another year I only shot black-and-white images. In both cases, the constraints I put on myself actually helped me be a more creative photographer.

You might find that your roleplaying takes on new depths if you see mundane characters as 'creative constraints' that push you to new ways of roleplaying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I also agree that you should have fun playing characters that are interesting to you.

That said, I really like the way PF2 makes it easy to really change up a class with archetypes and skill feats.

I think the key is to pick a purpose for the character that is deeper than "Smash stuff" or steal everything, or even blast monsters with spells.

In game, there is no reason why a fighter or a rogue cannot be a legendary scholar of the planes, the divine, or of arcane magic, and capable of working complex rituals. But even those are not truly purposes. Maybe you have an archeologist who is researching a civilization in a particularly dangerous location and so they have just inevitably had to learn how to fight well to be able to protect their dig site. Or a cultist who has been possessed by spirits that make them fight with rage even though they were striving to be a pacifist. Or dedicated acolyte of desna, who happens to live in a location where you have to sneak around a lot and sork with unsavory characters around town.

Liberty's Edge

Pick up skill feats with a focus on what they do out of combat.

Delve deep into your PC's background. Their deity, or lack thereof.

If you only optimize for combat, you will inevitably be bored when there is no combat.

Liberty's Edge

Also, think about all the interesting NPCs in the setting who are "mundane". LO Legends has several of them.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the same boat as op, I tend to prefer magical classes over strictly mundane ones x.x

That being said I think that 2e mechanics solved that with how multi class works, back in 1e the fighter and it's martial cousins like the slayer look just ugly to me despite all the potential they have for damage and such.

Now in 2e the fighter has clear edge over other classes because of their proficiency scaling to legendary AND you can pick a magical dedication and end with a good deal of spells even if you use them just for utility and some buff

Also I'm pretty into the thaumaturge as well, I liked the occultist and really miss the magic but as I said I can just take a casting dedication to get some spells and be done n.n


I am the opposite. Fighters, rogues, monks without ki. Are some of my favorites.

I think it's about what we wish we could be or what we see in ourselves.

To an extent

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It might be worth seeing what you and the GM can do to make the criminal underworld or martial politics (eg war) as fascinating and deep and impressive as any of the more cosmic parts of the setting. There is a magic to people, and thus there is a terrible magic to conflict, and the ability to swear your sword to this king or that and thus change the political landscape is a great power indeed. A high-level Wizard might be able to reshape parts of the world, but only a Fighter can comfortably hew through an entire army of the rank-and-file without a shred of worry, and that has serious implications for how history moves forwards.

As far as rogues are concerned... Not every rogue is a Thief, of course, but looking to stories of thieves and tricksters could be good inspiration for how slyness can counter the mightiest magic. You might not necessarily understand that magical doohickey, but you may well be Legendary in all the myriad skills used to unlock its powers, or you might have stolen it from your foes yourself.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ms. Bloodrive wrote:
Also I'm pretty into the thaumaturge as well, I liked the occultist and really miss the magic but as I said I can just take a casting dedication to get some spells and be done n.n

Yeah, Thaumaturge feels kind of like the solution I've been waiting for, but part of me also feels like I shouldn't need an entire new class to get more invested in non-casters, and I feel like it doesn't help with my stated goal, which is to become a more flexible player.

If I'm playing the same handful of classes every time, that means if the recruitment for a game has a large number of people applying with similar classes I'm out of luck to be picked because I'm just another face in the crowd, as opposed to playing whatever class has fewer applicants so my odds of getting picked to play are higher.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Ms. Bloodrive wrote:
Also I'm pretty into the thaumaturge as well, I liked the occultist and really miss the magic but as I said I can just take a casting dedication to get some spells and be done n.n

Yeah, Thaumaturge feels kind of like the solution I've been waiting for, but part of me also feels like I shouldn't need an entire new class to get more invested in non-casters, and I feel like it doesn't help with my stated goal, which is to become a more flexible player.

If I'm playing the same handful of classes every time, that means if the recruitment for a game has a large number of people applying with similar classes I'm out of luck to be picked because I'm just another face in the crowd, as opposed to playing whatever class has fewer applicants so my odds of getting picked to play are higher.

Thaumaturges use a lot of magic, so I'm not sure what you mean by "mundane" if you're including them.

I'd thought your stated goal was to be a better roleplayer, not a more flexible player. Those overlap, but it's like depth vs. breadth. And it seems like you should have enough breadth if you can play "a handful of classes". And by "enough" I mean be you should able to find a distinct & useful role to play in a large party, even if by taking a different spell selection than other casters. Since you mentioned you're fine with martials with magic gimmicks, between that and casters you should be able to fill every role a party a party may need inside or outside of combat: tank, face, infiltrator, healer, skirmisher, etc.

What RPing (in the broader sense of finding a niche within a party) do you feel is missing by not playing "mundane" classes? I ask because I can think of none.

On the other hand, I'd say that thinking of classes (mundane or not) as character-defining is backward IMO. Yes, classes corral, inform, and empower one's options, but there's a lot of breathing room in terms of flavor, party roles, and playstyle. Often in PFS when a stranger tells me what class they're playing it hardly helps! But when a person begins with their PC's name, appearance, and an introduction, that's RPing IMO, even if in neither case have they told me their combat/non-combat roles.

Also, many of the classic fantasy heroes and leaders would fall into those "mundane" classes, them being low on innate magic, yet fleshed out characters (as much as any that share their stories that is).

Of course, we just might have different definitions we're working with on what roleplaying means! You might be thinking system mastery, while I'm thinking more in terms of filling narrative niches or party roles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find free archetype helps a lot without unbalancing the game


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I've always found more martial classes interesting if they've got some kind of "gimmick" like the Champion's god-given powers or the Magus' spells, and the recently released Thaumaturge is heavenly to me, where by contrast, Fighter and Rogue are classes I've only ever taken as supplements to other more magical classes so they're able to use swords and or to qualify for things like prestige classes in the olden days, and even then I've tried to avoid them in favor of more "gimmicky" classes that just seem inherently more interesting.

For the "non-magical" martial characters, you may want to look at the "gimmicks" that they already have access to:

Fighters - they have access to several feats that are efficient from an action-economy/MAP perspective (Double Slice, Reactive Shield, Sudden Charge, Dual-Handed Assault, etc.) and/or obviate needing a skill check (Brutish Shove, Intimidating Strike, etc.). Combat Flexibility at 9th (and Improved Flexibility at 15th) can give you the opportunity to "learn" a combat option (or two) when facing a specific foe/situation.

Rogues - focus on skills and skill feats. Their main "gimmick" is gaining a skill feat at every level and a skill increase at every level after 1st.

Depending on what sort of character you are looking for, an archetype could be a good addition: for example, dwarf Ratted-Out Gun Runner rogue with Pistol Phenom Dedication in Outlaws of Alkenstar.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Castilliano wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Ms. Bloodrive wrote:
Also I'm pretty into the thaumaturge as well, I liked the occultist and really miss the magic but as I said I can just take a casting dedication to get some spells and be done n.n

Yeah, Thaumaturge feels kind of like the solution I've been waiting for, but part of me also feels like I shouldn't need an entire new class to get more invested in non-casters, and I feel like it doesn't help with my stated goal, which is to become a more flexible player.

If I'm playing the same handful of classes every time, that means if the recruitment for a game has a large number of people applying with similar classes I'm out of luck to be picked because I'm just another face in the crowd, as opposed to playing whatever class has fewer applicants so my odds of getting picked to play are higher.

Thaumaturges use a lot of magic, so I'm not sure what you mean by "mundane" if you're including them.

I'm not, that's the thing. Thaumaturge makes me excited in ways that Fighter just doesn't, and if the goal is to become more comfortable playing something like fighter, Thaumaturge is counterproductive. It's like how if you want more vegetables in your diet after you've been eating cake all the time, switching from cake to pie doesn't help you.

Quote:
I'd thought your stated goal was to be a better roleplayer, not a more flexible player. Those overlap, but it's like depth vs. breadth. And it seems like you should have enough breadth if you can play "a handful of classes". And by "enough" I mean be you should able to find a distinct & useful role to play in a large party, even if by taking a different spell selection than other casters. Since you mentioned you're fine with martials with magic gimmicks, between that and casters you should be able to fill every role a party a party may need inside or outside of combat: tank, face, infiltrator, healer, skirmisher, etc.

To me, a flexible player IS a better roleplayer. If you're willing to play different types of characters, you're able to fit in with different styles of party better, and more groups will want you in there.

Quote:
What RPing (in the broader sense of finding a niche within a party) do you feel is missing by not playing "mundane" classes? I ask because I can think of none.

That's just it...for me, to use a different food metaphor, Fighters feel like the chocolate sauce on an ice cream sundae. I can eat vanilla ice cream just fine (a full caster) or chocolate ice cream (things like Magus, Thaumaturge, Ranger or Barbarian), but eating just a bowl of chocolate sauce with no ice cream at all is off-putting.

Quote:
On the other hand, I'd say that thinking of classes (mundane or not) as character-defining is backward IMO. Yes, classes corral, inform, and empower one's options, but there's a lot of breathing room in terms of flavor, party roles, and playstyle. Often in PFS when a stranger tells me what class they're playing it hardly helps! But when a person begins with their PC's name, appearance, and an introduction, that's RPing IMO, even if in neither case have they told me their combat/non-combat roles.

It's just that whenever I've seen Fighters and Rogues discussed, they mostly tend to follow very similar patterns, Fighters being white-bread boring outside combat and Rogues all being this.

Quote:
Also, many of the classic fantasy heroes and leaders would fall into those "mundane" classes, them being low on innate magic, yet fleshed out characters (as much as any that share their stories that is).

I know, and that's part of the problem: those characters also have a lot of other skills and stuff, like leadership or whatnot, and Fighters generally don't get enough skills to make that work. To make a decent fighter, all three of your physical stats have to be high, and then at least ONE of your mental stats has to be dumped, and it's usually Intelligence since Wisdom is needed for will saves and charisma can help with Intimidate, the only social skill most fighters HAVE. The most mundane classes I've ever played are things like the Cavalier in 1e, who had more skills to use.

Besides, it feels like as the game progresses that stuff feels less and less relevant, as almost every campaign I've seen has some big magical set-piece near the end, whether that's closing the Worldwound, destabilizing some archmage's demiplane, mucking about with time-travel, etc. The most a Fighter can do in those situations is stand around until the casters have finished the important work, and then join in for the boss fight. Just tonight I was playing with some friends, and we spent almost 4 hours discussing how our wizard and cleric were going to engineer flooding an ancient complex with holy water to dissolve a massive horde of zombies, and my cavalier character basically stood around watching. I spent most of that time listening to the other players talk because this was a situation where the casters were doing all the work.

Quote:
Of course, we just might have different definitions we're working with on what roleplaying means! You might be thinking system mastery, while I'm thinking more in terms of filling narrative niches or party roles.

It's kind of a narrative thing. I do tend to be drawn to specific character archetypes, and I feel like I need to open myself up to more archetypes, and things like fighters and rogues just have so little compared to more mystical classes. Even the BARBARIAN has mystical stuff from their rage powers. Any time I've tried to play a character with Fighter or Rogue on the sheet, it's always been a stepping stone to some more mystical thing like Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

1e has a real problem with full casters being able to do everything. 2e needs its martials. It kinda sounds like those expectations are creeping over into your view of martials

It is actually vey easy as a fighter to end up with a ton of skills and you don’t really need to maximize all 3 physical skills starting at level 1. I have an elven Archeologist who carries a big maul and is extremely good at finding traps, disabling traps, jumping so high in the air at will he trivializes many environmental challenges and he has an additional lore skill feat that make him exceptionally good at recalling knowledge about important campaign knowledge areas. Dumping Charisma for intelligence is fine if you have 2 people in the party carrying the face load.

My fighter started with a 16 STR, 14 dex, 12 Con 12 Int and 14 Wis and 10 Cha. In combat I move around a lot and leave people prone all over the battlefield. It is fun and dynamic, and every turn is different. I don’t have the best defenses, but I have a champion that helps mitigate that and we fight in clouds of fog all the time which helps too. 3rd action hiding in a cloud adjacent to an enemy with an AoO is very effective. Don’t build your fighter to try to do the same special attack every round. Take at least 2 that are useful in different situations. Sweep and improved knockdown have worked very well for me. My fighter contributes in exploration, in combat and with investigations.

But rogues are a lot of fun too. There are about 100 different ways to go with Rogues. Proficiency boosts and skill feats go a very long way in accomplishing mission objectives in PF2. Spells often can give moderate bonuses, but durations are short and you are not bypassing many social encounters in PF2 with spells alone and not skills.


No, you do not need to open yourself to more archetypes. I'm not seeing why this issue would be an issue, or at least seem to nag you so. This is gaming, and there's no objective value to any mastery of it. And IMO only the subjective value to your and your table(s) are what matters when it comes to how proficient you are at any of the many aspects of RPGs.

And it seems to me that if you're willing to play casters and magic-themed martials then you can play every role available.
What's more central to RPing flexibility than playing every role?
"Mundane martial" does not answer "What role will you be playing in our party?" very well, yet you can rise to fill every role when asked. Every one.

As to roles, you answered thusly:

---
Quote:

What RPing (in the broader sense of finding a niche within a party) do you feel is missing by not playing "mundane" classes? I ask because I can think of none.

That's just it...for me, to use a different food metaphor, Fighters feel like the chocolate sauce on an ice cream sundae. I can eat vanilla ice cream just fine (a full caster) or chocolate ice cream (things like Magus, Thaumaturge, Ranger or Barbarian), but eating just a bowl of chocolate sauce with no ice cream at all is off-putting.

---
That answer sidesteps the question of what roles you fail to provide due to lack of interest in "mundane" classes. When discussing roles in a party, "Fighter" & "Rogue" only hint at different sets of answers without actually answering what role(s) the PC will play.
To build on your analogy it's like the party asking whether you can provide chocolate, pecan, or strawberry flavors to the upcoming ice cream buffet and you saying you'll provide chocolate, but hate chocolate sauce all while you could just as easily bring the chocolate ice cream instead because that satisfies the party's need for chocolate too. Like mentioned above, you can provide every flavor a party may want, especially since nobody asks "Can you bring a PC that hardly uses magic? Thanks." (Other than maybe a Superstitious Barbarian or if for a specific low-magic campaign that is.)

---
Separately, Fighters can ignore Dex due to Bulwark, which opens up either Int or Cha (or both to a lesser degree) or if you require Dex that opens the Rogue MCD for those skills. And Thief Rogues of course can ignore Str and pump Charisma (not needing the Int so much due to having nearly all the skills anyway).


I think the solution is just "play a fighter". You can pick something to be good at and you'll be really, really good at it. Then you figure out what sort of person this is, who lacks any sort of supernatural talent besides your gear nevertheless can break down exactly where to stab a Pit Fiend for best effect and how you're nevertheless comfortable facing down the horrors of the abyss with nothing but your wits and skill.

Make a character where their mundanity juxtaposed with the fact that they're a nigh-unstoppable killing machine(the envy of everybody around them when it comes to stabbing) happens to be the major theme of the character.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:


I've always found more martial classes interesting if they've got some kind of "gimmick" like the Champion's god-given powers or the Magus' spells, and the recently released Thaumaturge is heavenly to me, where by contrast, Fighter and Rogue are classes I've only ever taken as supplements to other more magical classes so they're able to use swords and or to qualify for things like prestige classes in the olden days, and even then I've tried to avoid them in favor of more "gimmicky" classes that just seem inherently more interesting.

I think this may be related to how 2e evolved from 1e.

I may be wrong, but you seem to be somehow uncomfortable with the lack of versatility ( or to better say it, the increase value of the party as a whole), having to renounce to something in order to get something else.

The spellcasting proficiency opposed to the martial proficiency is a good example, and also the reason why you may find a magus more appealing than a fighter.

Everybody plays with a specific mindset and approach, and I think there's nothing wrong in aiming for a versatile character, but I also recognize this 2e ( especially without the FA variant rules) pushes the party in a specific direction, where every single member is required to contribute fulfilling all the possible tasks.

Let's take the rogue for example.

Their rackets enhance your gameplay in different ways.

This is IMO ap much neat by lvl 10, with the improved sneak attack.

- a ruffian could debuff the enemy AC ( clumsy 1 ) or make them vulnerable to specific damage ( vulnerable p, s or b).

- a scoundrel could remove the enemy reactions, making it easier for spell caster to cast, and allies to freely move without triggering aoo.

- a trickster would make the target spell caster stupified 2, giving them a sensible chance of waste their turn.

And so on.

Leaving apart the trapfinding, infinite skills ( social, exploration, downtime, combat), and so on.

A magus, compared to them, feels more clunky and limited ( 4 spells per day, mostly used to perform spell strikes, while being starved from true strike).

They can indeed provide support by memorizing support stuff like invisibility, stone skin, haste and so on, but in the end it would be spellstrile + true strike or strike x2 + recharge.

The champion is indeed pretty good in terms of versatility, compared to a magus, especially you play tank.

Many reactions and healing powers while being a combatant ( below the average in terms of dmg, obv) makes it a very interesting choice as well as fun to play.

A jack of all trades can be possible with specific classes, but bearing in mind to also specialize towards a specific direction.

I'd work around at the current party, trying to enhance it or fill the gaps the party may have.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

YES, versatility has always been important to me...in a play-by-post recruitment, I can't be sure what bases will eventually be covered or not, so I want to try and cover as many as possible so at least SOMEONE in the party can interface with that aspect. It's admittedly a habit that got drilled into me with computer games like Neverwinter Nights and Elder Scrolls, where you kind of HAVE to be a "do-everything" kind of PC to see all the content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
YES, versatility has always been important to me...in a play-by-post recruitment, I can't be sure what bases will eventually be covered or not, so I want to try and cover as many as possible so at least SOMEONE in the party can interface with that aspect. It's admittedly a habit that got drilled into me with computer games like Neverwinter Nights and Elder Scrolls, where you kind of HAVE to be a "do-everything" kind of PC to see all the content.

Talking about videogames, Baldur's gate may show you how a party is meant to be.

There's no pg that can do all by themselves, and every class has perks which can advantage the all party.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
YES, versatility has always been important to me...in a play-by-post recruitment, I can't be sure what bases will eventually be covered or not, so I want to try and cover as many as possible so at least SOMEONE in the party can interface with that aspect. It's admittedly a habit that got drilled into me with computer games like Neverwinter Nights and Elder Scrolls, where you kind of HAVE to be a "do-everything" kind of PC to see all the content.

You still haven't said what these bases are that you think a player couldn't cover with either a caster or a magic-themed martial. AFAICT every role covered by these classes you dislike playing could instead be covered by a class you do like playing.

I think it's less a habit than a perception that classes have unique roles. They don't, not when it comes to "tank", "striker", "face", etc.


To me, Fighters, Rogues, and any other character with minimal magic is the best. They're facing off against great challenges and terrible monsters with only their strength, skill, cunning, and things they acquire through those means. Spellcasters draw on powers outside themselves, which doesn't speak to me as much. Of course, I practice martial arts of several kinds and I like seeing physical combat in movies, shows, anime, manga, etc.

Stories about wizards and such are fun, but usually, the focus is on a guy with a sword, and that's for a reason. I have a hard time wanting to play a full caster. They're very useful, but I have a harder time getting into the character.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Castilliano wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
YES, versatility has always been important to me...in a play-by-post recruitment, I can't be sure what bases will eventually be covered or not, so I want to try and cover as many as possible so at least SOMEONE in the party can interface with that aspect. It's admittedly a habit that got drilled into me with computer games like Neverwinter Nights and Elder Scrolls, where you kind of HAVE to be a "do-everything" kind of PC to see all the content.

You still haven't said what these bases are that you think a player couldn't cover with either a caster or a magic-themed martial. AFAICT every role covered by these classes you dislike playing could instead be covered by a class you do like playing.

I think it's less a habit than a perception that classes have unique roles. They don't, not when it comes to "tank", "striker", "face", etc.

Yes, but that doesn't make me more flexible in the kinds of characters I can roleplay. Not every party's going to WANT some kind of caster or magic-themed martial, if they're going for a more "grounded" style of story (Outlaws of Alkenstar, for example). By contrast, some parties will want nothing BUT casters (Strength of Thousands, for example). And I want to be able to play whatever is needed to fill out the narrative roles in the party, to maximize the chances I get picked from the recruitment thread. If I really, really wanna play a magus, and someone else has already submitted one, I'm out of luck because odds are mine will suck compared to theirs, since I barely know how to play this edition, and it feels like the kinds of characters I like to play are limited to JUST the Magus and maybe the Thaumaturge. I'd MURDER for a divine-themed bounded caster/martial!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're just trapping yourself in a hypothetical hole you dug yourself, and you're only looking downward digging further. I'll help you if you ever do run into such a situation, but it seems a non-issue to me or at least a worry for problem that doesn't yet exist.

You want to learn how to roleplay X? Play X.
That's the ultimate answer to the OP. Obviously there are classes you dislike that you want to play anyway (for personal standards nobody else holds you to BTW), so go do it. It's like most everything in gaming, sports, or life in general; if you want to be able to do X, go do X, be willing to fail, then pick yourself back up and do X again.

From what I see, you keep oscillating between (or perhaps conflating) classes, party roles, and roleplaying, and in ways that undercut your capabilities. Take your last example where you lament somebody else having a Magus when you really want to play a Magus. What happened to you being fine playing a "handful of classes"? Now it's just two, one of them brand new? What about all those casters? If anything it feels like you're milking the thread for who knows what purposes as you're evading all attempts to reassure and/or advise you. So yeah, I'm hiding this thread.
Cheers.


Rather than playing a magus, wouldn't be better to just play a druid?

- offensive spells
- healing spells
- unlimited battle forms
- best Animal Companion progression
- familiar
- fly
- offtank ( just casting stoneskin on themselves and go wild form)

Or even a summoner

- combatant + spell caster
- excellent offtank ( fast healing)
- wide choice of traditions
- flying speed
- either offensive and defensive spells

But there will always be somebody with a specific class, meant to do specific stuff, that will outshine you.

If you feel that you are not enough proficient with this 2e and your character would "suck" Compared to another one of the same class, just ask for suggestions in order to let it work.

But if we are talking about a 1d12 maul magus meant to just do damage, and you are aiming for a versatile magus meant to cover up for all roles, it's just obvious that the former would result into a better dps, as they push that way.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / How do I get over my dislike of "mundane" classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.