Anachronity
2018-12-19, 02:53 PM
Pretty much anyone still playing 3.5/PF 1.0 is probably doing so because of the ludicrous number of degrees of freedom which the systems allow. Recent positive experiences with Spheres of Power/Might, Dreamscarred Press (with moderation), and Oslecamo's Monster Classes (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=270.0) (though a few are a bit poorly-worded) have left me to wonder how necessary all those limits and restrictions really are when...
1) It's entirely possible to build a flat-out busted character, in any of a large variety of ways, with a minimum of supporting material.
2) They can get in the way of playing the character you want to play.
So I had a fun idea of how to make characters for a 3.P campaign which I haven't had the chance to try yet.
This is a bit more of a freeform and open-ended character creation method, and so requires a group with some degree of self-restraint. I think it might work well with my group, which is much more oriented on a game with a good story and satisfying narrative. But there are doubtlessly other groups out there for whom it would be disastrous. It also helps if both the players and especially the GM have a firm grasp of game balance, what reasonable numbers are for a given hit die total, and so on.
The idea is that you create a party of 'target characters', roughly balanced with respect to eachother, using whatever consistent or semi-consistent constraints you see fit.
e.g.
25 (Pathfinder) point-buy
4th-level
standard WBL, no item worth more than 5k
2 traits and a bonus feat at 1st-level
etc. etc. etc.
You let your players know what those constraints are, but make it clear that they can deviate from that guideline in any way that they see fit.
-Maybe that 30 Strength that would be busted on a barbarian is a cool extra dimension for the otherwise-frail necromancer, who gained his unnatural strength in a bargain with fell powers.
-Maybe rather than playing a sorcerer, they play a fighter who slowly gains bloodline powers and spell-like abilities similar to the progression for the various half-X monster templates.
-Maybe you want to use a sketchy, overpowered feat or class in a narrow and unabusive way. Or compensate for a weak class in a way that would be unfair if a strong class did the same thing (e.g. tier-based gestalt).
Once they've made their character, they then compare them to the 'target characters' on a number of different criteria. Not just 'who would win in a fight', but scenarios like 'You're beset on all sides by an endless army of undead in a swamp, and fatigue is beginning to set in. How would your character handle this?' and so on.
If they're better than one or two target characters in some scenarios, then they're probably fine. If they're better than all the target characters, or one or more of them on all scenarios, then it's back to the drawing board.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Has anyone tried something similar before?
1) It's entirely possible to build a flat-out busted character, in any of a large variety of ways, with a minimum of supporting material.
2) They can get in the way of playing the character you want to play.
So I had a fun idea of how to make characters for a 3.P campaign which I haven't had the chance to try yet.
This is a bit more of a freeform and open-ended character creation method, and so requires a group with some degree of self-restraint. I think it might work well with my group, which is much more oriented on a game with a good story and satisfying narrative. But there are doubtlessly other groups out there for whom it would be disastrous. It also helps if both the players and especially the GM have a firm grasp of game balance, what reasonable numbers are for a given hit die total, and so on.
The idea is that you create a party of 'target characters', roughly balanced with respect to eachother, using whatever consistent or semi-consistent constraints you see fit.
e.g.
25 (Pathfinder) point-buy
4th-level
standard WBL, no item worth more than 5k
2 traits and a bonus feat at 1st-level
etc. etc. etc.
You let your players know what those constraints are, but make it clear that they can deviate from that guideline in any way that they see fit.
-Maybe that 30 Strength that would be busted on a barbarian is a cool extra dimension for the otherwise-frail necromancer, who gained his unnatural strength in a bargain with fell powers.
-Maybe rather than playing a sorcerer, they play a fighter who slowly gains bloodline powers and spell-like abilities similar to the progression for the various half-X monster templates.
-Maybe you want to use a sketchy, overpowered feat or class in a narrow and unabusive way. Or compensate for a weak class in a way that would be unfair if a strong class did the same thing (e.g. tier-based gestalt).
Once they've made their character, they then compare them to the 'target characters' on a number of different criteria. Not just 'who would win in a fight', but scenarios like 'You're beset on all sides by an endless army of undead in a swamp, and fatigue is beginning to set in. How would your character handle this?' and so on.
If they're better than one or two target characters in some scenarios, then they're probably fine. If they're better than all the target characters, or one or more of them on all scenarios, then it's back to the drawing board.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Has anyone tried something similar before?