Rule variations between PF1/3.5 - Stacking

[Lorddenorstrus]

3.PF IS a class based RPG. It's kind of in the name "class." Each of the classes are a complete aesthetic on their own. They are not just a single color. You're oversimplifying the classes for the sake of your argument. Which might be how you actually see them. Though that doesn't mean you aren't. Unearthed Arcana has a generic class variant that would be more supportive of the type of character building you seem to enjoy. Just needs some adaptation.



If the player actually wants to play as a druid with monk training, that would also include the fact that they got that training and the necessary mindset to complete it. I'm not against it at all. I'm against the bleaching of what classes represent just because a player wants to powergame.

To much stress on the class itself being the persons roleplay. Feels limited. Are all monks/druids etc the same in your game or do you differentiate them at all? There's more to character identity than the class you chose to represent them within the mechanical combat system D&D emulates. My table / group enjoy having powerful characters. Nothing wrong with it, and it certainly doesn't define the character they are choosing to RP as. That would feel oddly meta like knowing your level in an abstract way.

[pabelfly]

3.PF IS a class based RPG. It's kind of in the name "class." Each of the classes are a complete aesthetic on their own. They are not just a single color. You're oversimplifying the classes for the sake of your argument. Which might be how you actually see them. Though that doesn't mean you aren't. Unearthed Arcana has a generic class variant that would be more supportive of the type of character building you seem to enjoy. Just needs some adaptation.

If the player actually wants to play as a druid with monk training, that would also include the fact that they got that training and the necessary mindset to complete it. I'm not against it at all. I'm against the bleaching of what classes represent just because a player wants to powergame.

The game explicitly includes rules to have multiple character classes, and many prestige classes require characters that have taken levels in multiple classes.

The only issues I'd have with a character with multiple classes is either legality - ie, some classes don't work together because of alignment requirements, or with power level, ie the combination is too powerful compared to what everyone else is doing. I couldn't imagine saying a combination of classes is "wrong" simply because I don't think they belong together.

[Darg]

To much stress on the class itself being the persons roleplay. Feels limited. Are all monks/druids etc the same in your game or do you differentiate them at all? There's more to character identity than the class you chose to represent them within the mechanical combat system D&D emulates. My table / group enjoy having powerful characters. Nothing wrong with it, and it certainly doesn't define the character they are choosing to RP as. That would feel oddly meta like knowing your level in an abstract way.

There's a lot of nuance within the classes themselves, but that doesn't mean those nuances can't be pronounced within the structure of the class. Being limited is the whole point of classes in the first place. It's part of what I like about 3.x D&D; classes are limited and molded by the setting itself. Feel free to not require your druid/monk not be molded by the experience of training in a monastery or monk school. Paladins and monks have a special multiclass restriction in that once you level a different class you can't ever again level in paladin or monk. As the paladin entry says, the path requires a constant heart. Even druids and clerics have special restrictions based on the source of their spellcasting because they are also narratively driven to an extent.

The game explicitly includes rules to have multiple character classes, and many prestige classes require characters that have taken levels in multiple classes.

The only issues I'd have with a character with multiple classes is either legality - ie, some classes don't work together because of alignment requirements, or with power level, ie the combination is too powerful compared to what everyone else is doing. I couldn't imagine saying a combination of classes is "wrong" simply because I don't think they belong together.

I don't actually care about "power" or alignment requirements or whether I think the combination is "wrong." I care about whether the player is motivated by where they want to take their character or just because taking a class is an easy power hike with no intention of roleplaying the class. Classes are narratively driven to an extent and I expect players to understand and use that. Others take a more free form approach which is ok. I just don't like it; which is just my opinion.

[Lorddenorstrus]

There's a lot of nuance within the classes themselves, but that doesn't mean those nuances can't be pronounced within the structure of the class. Being limited is the whole point of classes in the first place. It's part of what I like about 3.x D&D; classes are limited and molded by the setting itself. Feel free to not require your druid/monk not be molded by the experience of training in a monastery or monk school. Paladins and monks have a special multiclass restriction in that once you level a different class you can't ever again level in paladin or monk. As the paladin entry says, the path requires a constant heart. Even druids and clerics have special restrictions based on the source of their spellcasting because they are also narratively driven to an extent.



I don't actually care about "power" or alignment requirements or whether I think the combination is "wrong." I care about whether the player is motivated by where they want to take their character or just because taking a class is an easy power hike with no intention of roleplaying the class. Classes are narratively driven to an extent and I expect players to understand and use that. Others take a more free form approach which is ok. I just don't like it; which is just my opinion.

Honestly if the focus is 100% RP vs design I'm surprised you don't play 5e where the numbers of the system are arbitrarily limited in a way that makes it so making a good char vs a bad char is not a huge difference frankly. But a 'competent' vs badly made char can be a devastating difference in 3.X/PF systems... which are hugely mechanical systems designed around build a bear like characters... exactly like people have mentioned. People design the character on paper / mechanically first... and just create an identity to the character after because the goal is to enjoy the interesting mechanics. There aren't any interesting mechanics they all got removed in 5e lol so all thats left is RP and extremely basic 101 level play for the combat.

Like, why play a system that STRESSES the mechanical aspect of it's base design when you have more interest in raw RP?

[glass]

Re the debate about 3.P and 5e being "class based" - maybe we could split the difference and say that they are class based, but much less strongly so than some other games/editions?

I don't actually care about "power" or alignment requirements or whether I think the combination is "wrong." I care about whether the player is motivated by where they want to take their character or just because taking a class is an easy power hike with no intention of roleplaying the class. Classes are narratively driven to an extent and I expect players to understand and use that. Others take a more free form approach which is ok. I just don't like it; which is just my opinion.

It is probably for the best that we sit at different tables, because I never have any intention of "roleplaying the class", whether my character has one class or twenty.

Also, I am not convinced there is such a bright line between mechanics and narrative when it comes to multiclassing.

For example, in a recent PF1 campaign I played a Theurge (the third-party base-class version of the Mystic Theurge). Because of the way that class works, I had pretty limited spell slots even in to middling levels, and I was the only real caster in the group and the only healer. The upshot of which is I had very few spell slots to spare for attack spells, and as it was a very dungeon-crawly AP we tended to get into a lot of fights each day. All of which combined to mean even as high as 9th level I spent a lot of my actions in combat casting Acid Splash, which at the level was a waste of everybody's time. I was motivated to find something better to do with my actions, so after a bit of digging. a couple of favourable GM calls, and some retraining between chapters, I came up with a way to get a decent at-will attack without compromising my spellcasting too much. It was arguably a power hike (it was definitely a stamina hike), but it was by no means "easy".

Anyway, the point is, were Henric (the character in question) able to express and opinion on the matter, he would have wholeheartedly agreed that seeking out a way to contribute more when he and his friends were fighting for their lives was the right move!

[Darg]

Honestly if the focus is 100% RP vs design I'm surprised you don't play 5e where the numbers of the system are arbitrarily limited in a way that makes it so making a good char vs a bad char is not a huge difference frankly. But a 'competent' vs badly made char can be a devastating difference in 3.X/PF systems... which are hugely mechanical systems designed around build a bear like characters... exactly like people have mentioned. People design the character on paper / mechanically first... and just create an identity to the character after because the goal is to enjoy the interesting mechanics. There aren't any interesting mechanics they all got removed in 5e lol so all thats left is RP and extremely basic 101 level play for the combat.

Like, why play a system that STRESSES the mechanical aspect of it's base design when you have more interest in raw RP?

I like the mechanics of 3e. Increasing numbers is part of that power fantasy. I'm not the only person who reads the the text before you get to the game rule information. Seriously though, I think you'd really like a generic class system. 3.5 is where I started and they have a really fleshed out class description. The whole point of the game is to have the RP and mechanics work together to create a cohesive whole which 3.5 does incredibly well in my opinion. PF definitely has less of a focus on the RP aspects which is why I haven't really explored it all that much.

Re the debate about 3.P and 5e being "class based" - maybe we could split the difference and say that they are class based, but much less strongly so than some other games/editions?


It is probably for the best that we sit at different tables, because I never have any intention of "roleplaying the class", whether my character has one class or twenty.

Also, I am not convinced there is such a bright line between mechanics and narrative when it comes to multiclassing.

For example, in a recent PF1 campaign I played a Theurge (the third-party base-class version of the Mystic Theurge). Because of the way that class works, I had pretty limited spell slots even in to middling levels, and I was the only real caster in the group and the only healer. The upshot of which is I had very few spell slots to spare for attack spells, and as it was a very dungeon-crawly AP we tended to get into a lot of fights each day. All of which combined to mean even as high as 9th level I spent a lot of my actions in combat casting Acid Splash, which at the level was a waste of everybody's time. I was motivated to find something better to do with my actions, so after a bit of digging. a couple of favourable GM calls, and some retraining between chapters, I came up with a way to get a decent at-will attack without compromising my spellcasting too much. It was arguably a power hike (it was definitely a stamina hike), but it was by no means "easy".

Anyway, the point is, were Henric (the character in question) able to express and opinion on the matter, he would have wholeheartedly agreed that seeking out a way to contribute more when he and his friends were fighting for their lives was the right move!

The whole point of a theurge is to give you access to both sides and improve upon them. In my opinion it kind of defeats the purpose of Mystic Theurge if you don't have the spell slots to back it up. By level 7 you should have ~50% more spell slots than a single class. The best part of multiclassing multiple casters is that you get an increased pool of prepared slots for spontaneous casting. Then again, I can see how PF's infinite cantrips would diminish the advantage of having a lot more spell slots. That and it makes a few of them overpowered (1,728,000 gallons of created water in 24 hours just at level 1 O_o). In just a few days you'd have created a veritable lake. If we assume people need to drink half a gallon of water a day, a single level 1 cleric doing this as part of their 9-5 can create enough clean drinkable water for over a million people to live on every day. I'm surprised dam collapse flooding isn't a more common weapon of mass destruction.

Feel free to not roleplay a class. It doesnt make sense to me, but I'm just one person. I don't get how people can play a paladin and just, not roleplay as a paladin. Or, why would anyone play a wizard and roleplay as a genuine swordmaster? Having systems and structures in place are there to facilitate and support a style of play, not just limit you.

[glass]

The whole point of a theurge is to give you access to both sides and improve upon them. In my opinion it kind of defeats the purpose of Mystic Theurge if you don't have the spell slots to back it up. By level 7 you should have ~50% more spell slots than a single class.

Why are you telling me that? I did not design the class, I only played it (and I would probably not do so again, for the reasons already noted).

Feel free to not roleplay a class. It doesnt make sense to me, but I'm just one person. I don't get how people can play a paladin and just, not roleplay as a paladin. Or, why would anyone play a wizard and roleplay as a genuine swordmaster? Having systems and structures in place are there to facilitate and support a style of play, not just limit you.

That came out of left field! I would not play a wizard as a swordmaster, not because of abstract ideas about "roleplaying the class" but because wizards are typically not very good with swords.

Funny you should mention Paladins, as they are closest to being an exception due to the whole Code thing. But even there, I have played several Paladins (it is one of my favourite classes) and they were each their own character, distinct from others of their class.

[JNAProductions]

Classes should be an inspiration-not a straitjacket.