![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On playing a 10th level One-Trick Pony
2022-Nov-20, Sunday 15:26
Still plugging away at at some D&D homebrew. I'm maybe a third done and currently writing up a bunch of spellcasters. Since I hate the way D&D does magic, I'm giving every class its own theme and very limited list of powers. Pyromancers blow things up (or make food spicy or inspire courage or see through flames), shadewrights control shadows and darkness, glamourweavers do Fair Folk-style trickery like changing leaves into gold or making people lose their way or cursing people, and so on. There are no generalists because I think generalist wizards is one of D&D's worst design problems. Rather, wizards should have to be creative to figure out how to work their limited magical area of expertise into a solution to the problems they face. A pyromancer is great in a fight but less so when you need to sneak into an enemy camp, and so on.
But in doing this, I've found that the general approach in the 3.X community is actually the complete opposite--there's a lot of character design strategies that are based around coming up with a single strategy and making sure it applies to all situations. Like the infamous spiked chain tripper of yore, but even more so. For example, there are oracle (a Charisma-based caster) builds that involve putting everything into Charisma and then making Charisma apply to everything. Take the Lore Mystery and then add Charisma to Armor Class and Reflex saves instead of Dexterity, take Lore Keeper to add Charisma to Knowledge skills instead of Intelligence, take the Spirit Guide archetype to get some shaman powers but use Charisma instead, take the Noble Scion of War feat to add Charisma to Initiative checks, take two levels of Paladin to add Charisma to all saves, and then just stack +Charisma items.
This is one of those things that just rubs me the wrong way, but it's an inherent part of character customization. With a large enough group of options, it becomes possible to cherry-pick a group of abilities that synergize extremely well in a way that the disparate designers of those abilities never intended. The only way to avoid this is to have a gentleman's agreement, to redesign the available powers (my take), or to have players who don't care, because the simple truth is that D&D is a game and having a character who can't affect the game world to the same degree as others is not fun.
You'll often see the terms "SAD" and "MAD" (single attribute dependent" and "multiple attribute dependent") used in these discussions, where classes like the wizard are SAD because they basically only need Intelligence but monks are MAD because they need Dexterity to hit, Wisdom to defend, Constitution for hit points, Strength for damage, etc etc. And it's obviously easier to power up a SAD class because there's only one number to raise, and since you can only wear one hat, two rings, one belt, one set of gloves, and so on, if you can dedicate all of those to your one trick that trick goes much higher than if you have to spread that power out.
That's why a huge part of my RPG design philosophy is to bring down the ceiling. If there are no Angel Summoners then the BMX Bandits in the game don't feel put out. People can branch out rather than having to expend all their capabilities keeping up with higher and higher numbers.
I guess my main point is that I'm trying to use Pathfinder to make a game that feels more like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. We'll see if I succeed.
But in doing this, I've found that the general approach in the 3.X community is actually the complete opposite--there's a lot of character design strategies that are based around coming up with a single strategy and making sure it applies to all situations. Like the infamous spiked chain tripper of yore, but even more so. For example, there are oracle (a Charisma-based caster) builds that involve putting everything into Charisma and then making Charisma apply to everything. Take the Lore Mystery and then add Charisma to Armor Class and Reflex saves instead of Dexterity, take Lore Keeper to add Charisma to Knowledge skills instead of Intelligence, take the Spirit Guide archetype to get some shaman powers but use Charisma instead, take the Noble Scion of War feat to add Charisma to Initiative checks, take two levels of Paladin to add Charisma to all saves, and then just stack +Charisma items.
This is one of those things that just rubs me the wrong way, but it's an inherent part of character customization. With a large enough group of options, it becomes possible to cherry-pick a group of abilities that synergize extremely well in a way that the disparate designers of those abilities never intended. The only way to avoid this is to have a gentleman's agreement, to redesign the available powers (my take), or to have players who don't care, because the simple truth is that D&D is a game and having a character who can't affect the game world to the same degree as others is not fun.
You'll often see the terms "SAD" and "MAD" (single attribute dependent" and "multiple attribute dependent") used in these discussions, where classes like the wizard are SAD because they basically only need Intelligence but monks are MAD because they need Dexterity to hit, Wisdom to defend, Constitution for hit points, Strength for damage, etc etc. And it's obviously easier to power up a SAD class because there's only one number to raise, and since you can only wear one hat, two rings, one belt, one set of gloves, and so on, if you can dedicate all of those to your one trick that trick goes much higher than if you have to spread that power out.
That's why a huge part of my RPG design philosophy is to bring down the ceiling. If there are no Angel Summoners then the BMX Bandits in the game don't feel put out. People can branch out rather than having to expend all their capabilities keeping up with higher and higher numbers.
I guess my main point is that I'm trying to use Pathfinder to make a game that feels more like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. We'll see if I succeed.
