Rule variations between PF1/3.5 - Stacking

[Lorddenorstrus]

So; For many years I played specifically 3.5. Eventually mixing PF1 in. As MOST things appear to be the same with few variations. Besides some obv class changes. Were any base rules that I am unaware of changed going from 3.5 to PF on how typings stack. ??

Recently was debating with someone the rules legality of stacking modifiers. Because for some reason they thought you could only gain an X to Y once. Example Nymph Scaled Fist monks wouldn't be able to get Cha to AC twice. This person thought it was "Armor + Cha ability mod + Cha ability mod" not stacking. Correct me if wrong but do not the abilities retype the ability modifier to be a different source which is how stacking works to begin with? Monk changes X stat to be Miscellaneous bonus to AC. Nymph gives Cha mod to AC but as a Deflection typed bonus.

because the original debate was the Oracle ability that rekeys Dexterity ability modifier to be keyed of Charisma. It's still categorized as Dexterity modifier is it not? Just numerically changed to a different source. So a Misc / Deflection typed bonus even if they key off the same stat as different typed bonuses should stack. Unless my understanding of stacks has been vastly wrong for many years.
I mean we have Enhancement bonuses to natural armor.. and regular Natural armor stacking as it's 2 different typed Natural ACs...

[glass]

AFAIK, there are no actual RAW differences in the stacking rules between 3.5 and PF1 (although the FAQ for the latter made some changes if you go with it).

In both 3.5 and Pathfinder, stacking is about how you combine multiple bonuses. If you only actually have one bonus, you just add that bonus with no need to invoke the stacking rules. You only have one Charisma bonus, so assuming that the abilities mentioned in question are actually both worded as "add you Charisma bonus" they are redundant.

If one or both of them are instead worded as "a bonus equal to your Charisma bonus", that creates an actual extra bonus which can potentially be stacked. The PF1 FAQ says to (partially) ignore that distinction, but treating untyped (but not typed) bonuses equal to an ability bonus as being the actual ability bonus.

EDIT: Not sure I understand your last paragraph, but it you're asking if it makes any difference whether the new bonus is a straight-up addition or a substitution, it doesn't IMNSHO.

[Darg]

I mean we have Enhancement bonuses to natural armor.. and regular Natural armor stacking as it's 2 different typed Natural ACs...

Natural armor works just like normal armor does. It's not a stacking effect. Enhancement bonuses to armor modify the armor, not your AC. If you have a chain shirt and you use magic vestment on your actual shirt at +3, you'll still only have a +4 AC bonus from the chain shirt.

[Kurald Galain]

So; For many years I played specifically 3.5. Eventually mixing PF1 in. As MOST things appear to be the same with few variations. Besides some obv class changes. Were any base rules that I am unaware of changed going from 3.5 to PF on how typings stack. ??
Yes, it is a rule in PF that you can't add the same ability to a roll twice, unless they have different types.

Nymph gets a deflection bonus, Scaled Fist gets an untyped bonus, so they stack.
On the other hand, Oracle (Nature or Lore) gets an untyped bonus, Scaled Fist gets an untyped bonus, so they don't stack.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Yes, it is a rule in PF that you can't add the same ability to a roll twice, unless they have different types.

Nymph gets a deflection bonus, Scaled Fist gets an untyped bonus, so they stack.
On the other hand, Oracle (Nature or Lore) gets an untyped bonus, Scaled Fist gets an untyped bonus, so they don't stack.

So pf changed stacking rules slightly then because i recall on 3.5s rules compendium pg 21

Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect.

Which is why monk abilities in 3.5 all specifically state they cannot stack with the monk itself. (Ex ninja ac bonus stating it cant stack with monk) it gets called out because i presume otherwise it would stack due to the rules compendium statement there. Which filters the bonuses as an untyped class bonus vs PF referring to the bonuses as an actual "+charisma" giving them a 'type' then? If im understanding correctly.

I would also note I don't actually see a specific rules differential in PF.. other than a post on a FAQ a single time.... PF couldn't make a Rule Compendium like 3.5 did to Clarify anything? lol

[Darg]

So pf changed stacking rules slightly then because i recall on 3.5s rules compendium pg 21

Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect.

Which is why monk abilities in 3.5 all specifically state they cannot stack with the monk itself. (Ex ninja ac bonus stating it cant stack with monk) it gets called out because i presume otherwise it would stack due to the rules compendium statement there. Which filters the bonuses as an untyped class bonus vs PF referring to the bonuses as an actual "+charisma" giving them a 'type' then? If im understanding correctly.

I would also note I don't actually see a specific rules differential in PF.. other than a post on a FAQ a single time.... PF couldn't make a Rule Compendium like 3.5 did to Clarify anything? lol

Paizo declared the FAQ to be errata. Honestly better than the 3.5 rules compendium which is riddled with a few missing rules and minor errors here and there after it declares that it has precedence over previous sources. For it being authoritative they leave a person like myself in a quandary of whether I can actually trust the accuracy or intent of what is on the page.

The pathfinder SRD has relevant FAQ questions and answers on the pages they relate to which is honestly really helpful.

As for monk/ninja AC bonus, they are adding your wisdom bonus. The type of bonus is wisdom. Fist of the Forest's AC bonus however is an untyped bonus equal to your Con bonus though, so it can stack with Deepwarden's.

[Lorddenorstrus]

As for monk/ninja AC bonus, they are adding your wisdom bonus. The type of bonus is wisdom. Fist of the Forest's AC bonus however is an untyped bonus equal to your Con bonus though, so it can stack with Deepwarden's.

I don't think this is true, because otherwise they wouldn't have needed to add "this doesn't stack" to the abilities. Other than to prevent it from stacking by specifically stating it. Prior to PF the untyped bonuses weren't +wisdom it seems to be from the wording. Just "class ability X number" is the bonus as it's untyped and so long as the abilities are not the same ability. Irregardless of what stat they source their # from they would stack per "untyped bonuses stack that aren't the same ability." Not the same source, the same ability. Pathfinder specifically seems to be trying to change it from the Class ability as the source to "ability modifier" being the source. Which, for the sake of game balance is probably the better perspective numerically. But for say, RAW? I don't believe so if I'm reading correctly.

Edit;

PF and 3.5s Monks both have the same wording of "add Wisdom bonus" as in the # not specifically stating "add Wisdom Modifier." Which I find interesting. Because come Oracle PF words it "You may add your Charisma modifier, instead of your Dexterity modifier," Specifically stating Modifier. Which would make the AC tally be 10 + x x x + Dex modifier. If oracle that line becomes + Cha modifier. Why do the monks not state modifier? Considering it's an Untyped Class ability and the wording it looks more like the bonus would be the Untyped Class ability itself as Source with the # being changed per a modifier + a flat attachment for class level.

If it wasn't for PFs FAQ intentionally trying to straighten out the ambiguity I would actually think it'd stack in PF to tbh unless they have a different rule specifically for how untyped bonuses stack.

[Darg]

I don't think this is true, because otherwise they wouldn't have needed to add "this doesn't stack" to the abilities. Other than to prevent it from stacking by specifically stating it. Prior to PF the untyped bonuses weren't +wisdom it seems to be from the wording. Just "class ability X number" is the bonus as it's untyped and so long as the abilities are not the same ability. Irregardless of what stat they source their # from they would stack per "untyped bonuses stack that aren't the same ability." Not the same source, the same ability. Pathfinder specifically seems to be trying to change it from the Class ability as the source to "ability modifier" being the source. Which, for the sake of game balance is probably the better perspective numerically. But for say, RAW? I don't believe so if I'm reading correctly.

Edit;

PF and 3.5s Monks both have the same wording of "add Wisdom bonus" as in the # not specifically stating "add Wisdom Modifier." Which I find interesting. Because come Oracle PF words it "You may add your Charisma modifier, instead of your Dexterity modifier," Specifically stating Modifier. Which would make the AC tally be 10 + x x x + Dex modifier. If oracle that line becomes + Cha modifier. Why do the monks not state modifier? Considering it's an Untyped Class ability and the wording it looks more like the bonus would be the Untyped Class ability itself as Source with the # being changed per a modifier + a flat attachment for class level.

If it wasn't for PFs FAQ intentionally trying to straighten out the ambiguity I would actually think it'd stack in PF to tbh unless they have a different rule specifically for how untyped bonuses stack.

The reason they state "bonus" over modifier is so that it won't add a negative modifier. Bonuses are always positive. Modifiers can be negative or positive.

[Lorddenorstrus]

The reason they state "bonus" over modifier is so that it won't add a negative modifier. Bonuses are always positive. Modifiers can be negative or positive.

I suppose? But it seems questionable to think of it that way. Considering the ability has ways to negate it such as just actually wearing armor. I would hope in my mind, if I was the game dev by adding the negatable lines that if a rando player for some reason decided to make a monk with Bad wis they'd just wear armor to negate the -2 or something. Although "(if any)" or a number that isnt 0. For bonus makes me think if the modifier was negative it'd still apply so long as not wearing armor tbh. Of course this becomes an English debate of can a bonus be negative which I'm not sure on. *shrug* I really think this just shows.. that wording of abilities should've been uniform across classes for a specific reason to prevent future problems.

(trying to google negative bonus out of curiosity brought up random legal stuff n bank related things so idk)

[Darg]

I suppose? But it seems questionable to think of it that way. Considering the ability has ways to negate it such as just actually wearing armor. I would hope in my mind, if I was the game dev by adding the negatable lines that if a rando player for some reason decided to make a monk with Bad wis they'd just wear armor to negate the -2 or something. Although "(if any)" or a number that isnt 0. For bonus makes me think if the modifier was negative it'd still apply so long as not wearing armor tbh. Of course this becomes an English debate of can a bonus be negative which I'm not sure on. *shrug* I really think this just shows.. that wording of abilities should've been uniform across classes for a specific reason to prevent future problems.

(trying to google negative bonus out of curiosity brought up random legal stuff n bank related things so idk)

These are common D&D terms. Pathfinder is an update on 3.5. Whatever they didn't specifically mention (like defining what a modifier actually is) you can expect to be the same as it was in 3.5. You can question the validity to it, but ability damage and drain does exist which can drive your modifier negative to become a penalty and you won't always have the time to get into armor to take an armor check penalty to AB and negate the wisdom penalty. Personally I think the game is more nuanced than you think it is.

[Kurald Galain]

The reason they state "bonus" over modifier is so that it won't add a negative modifier. Bonuses are always positive. Modifiers can be negative or positive.

Yes, that is correct.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary/#TOC-Modifier-

[glass]

As for monk/ninja AC bonus, they are adding your wisdom bonus. The type of bonus is wisdom. Fist of the Forest's AC bonus however is an untyped bonus equal to your Con bonus though, so it can stack with Deepwarden's.EDIT: Pathfinder Ninjas do not add their wisdom bonus to anything AFAICT.

That aside, whether "wisdom" is a bonus type is debatable, but ultimately irrelevant. You only ever have one wisdom bonus, so there is never another bonus of the same "type" for it to stack with (or not). You cannot add a single bonus twice, any more than you can claim arbitrarily high bonuses to attack rolls by adding the bonus from Weapon Focus multiple times (okay, that would also fall foul of the "same source" rule, but there is a fundamental reason than that why you cannot do it).

[Lorddenorstrus]

Ninjas do not add their wisdom bonus to anything AFAICT.

https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/classes/baseCad/ninja.html#google_vignette

They have AC bonus class feature from lvl 1 just like a monk stating it keys off wis. What do you mean they don't?? It specifically in the description also states it doesnt stack with Monks AC bonus ability as well.

https://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=2823.0

Guides to ninja reference the AC bonus ability as well.

[ixrisor]

You cannot add a single bonus twice, any more than you can claim arbitrarily high bonuses to attack rolls by adding the bonus from Weapon Focus multiple times (okay, that would also fall foul of the "same source" rule, but there is a fundamental reason than that why you cannot do it).

You can definitely add constant numbers to your armour class (or attack bonus or whatever) more than once, so why would you not be able to add variable bonuses more than once? For example, a manifested ghost with battle dancer levels should add its charisma to its armour class twice, once as a deflection bonus and once as an untyped bonus.

[Lorddenorstrus]

You can definitely add constant numbers to your armour class (or attack bonus or whatever) more than once, so why would you not be able to add variable bonuses more than once? For example, a manifested ghost with battle dancer levels should add its charisma to its armour class twice, once as a deflection bonus and once as an untyped bonus.

Exactly its typing that matters and the untyped abilities unless stated otherwise stack even if the abilities draw from the same source for a #. That example is easier as Deflection + untyped.

If the abilities give "+stat mod to ac" then its not untyped... that itself is a typed bonus. Similar to dex mod to AC. So its either typed or not and ive always understood monks to be untyped class bonus. Not sure why PF which copied 3.5s monk wording 100% would try to change the typing of the bonus... with out changing its wording.

[Kurald Galain]

https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/classes/baseCad/ninja.html#google_vignette
That's not the Pathfinder ninja class.


Not sure why PF which copied 3.5s monk wording 100% would try to change the typing of the bonus... with out changing its wording.
They are fixing it in a single central spot in the general rules, instead of trying to fix it in every individual instance where it is mentioned (which is both more work and runs the risk of missing one). That strikes me as the smart approach to rules writing.

[Lorddenorstrus]

That's not the Pathfinder ninja class.


They are fixing it in a single central spot in the general rules, instead of trying to fix it in every individual instance where it is mentioned (which is both more work and runs the risk of missing one). That strikes me as the smart approach to rules writing.

I specified 3.5/PF at the top. My table plays 3.P basically. So interactions between the 2 are expected. My og point bringing up ninja was comparing 3.5 ninja to 3.5 monk as both AC bonuses are the same so they called out them not stacking intentionally. Meaning if they hadnt called it out its presumed they would stack. So they had to call it out.
Because the AC bonus is untyped..

Also i disagree on 2nd point they need to word the classes in a way anyone could read the class and understand. Playing the game 'correctly' shouldnt require the devotion = to getting a phd in D&D by reading hundreds of books and trying to be a walking computer for interactions. Anyone could grab monk not read their FAQ and make a mistake. Digital format was one of PFs overly ignored strength. Shoulda used erratta more often tbh. Owning books as pdf allows redownload for erratta. And most people I've met that play non 5e use pdfs.

[glass]

https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/classes/baseCad/ninja.html#google_vignetteFair enough. The rest of your post was talking about Pathfinder, so I thought you meant the Pathfinder Ninja (and TBH, I had forgotten the 3.5 Ninja existed).


You can definitely add constant numbers to your armour class (or attack bonus or whatever) more than once, so why would you not be able to add variable bonuses more than once? For example, a manifested ghost with battle dancer levels should add its charisma to its armour class twice, once as a deflection bonus and once as an untyped bonus."A deflection bonus equal to your Charisma bonus" and "your Charisma bonus" are not the same thing. You could have 1000 of the former, but you would only get the benefit of one due to the stacking rules. You can only ever have one of the latter, so there is no need to invoke the stacking rules.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Yeah it just circles back to is or is not the Monks AC bonus an untyped bonus. or is it an Ability modifier bonus.

Personally I see it as the ability is the source and the # just happens to key off of a stat.

Which should be the 3.5 ish view on it considering how the Monk AC bonus has always been viewed as a 'blank' typing that just stacks unless an ability states it does not.

I think the Monk AC bonus working virtually different than ever other AC bonus of this type is important to. Other bonuses that are keyed to a stat mod always state X stat mod (Ex; add Charisma modifier to AC). So as someone mentioned earlier and I had to reread into things to verify myself. If someone drains your Stat Modifier those abilities apply a negative. But the monk ability as it's wholly unique is instead X+ conditional if yes + stat. X being the 1-5 level bonus of being a monk itself then your stat mod only if the mod from stat is a positive number. With the ability removing your stat # if it goes negative. So shouldn't be looked at on the AC tally as "+ Wis/Cha mod" as it isn't actually that. It's an ability filtering to add both the flat monk chunk and only positive #s from a stat mod.

[glass]

Yeah it just circles back to is or is not the Monks AC bonus an untyped bonus. or is it an Ability modifier bonus.It really doesn't, for the reasons stated twice now. You could consider "wisdom" to be a type, or you could consider it untyped, but it does not make any difference in practice since in neither case is there ever another Wisdom bonus for it to stack with.


Personally I see it as the ability is the source and the # just happens to key off of a stat.The ability is what allows you to add your Wisdom bonus. Nothing more, nothing less (well, a bit more, because it also adds a level-based bonus, but that is irrelevant for our current discussion).


AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD.(PF1 version, but I assume that the 3.5 version is similar. AoN has the advantage of not being as add infested as the 3.5 online SRDs I am aware of).


Which should be the 3.5 ish view on it considering how the Monk AC bonus has always been viewed as a 'blank' typing that just stacks unless an ability states it does not.The 3.5-ish view and the PF1 view (even if you go with the FAQ) are identical with regard to the Monks Wis-to-AC:

It stacks with any and all other bonuses. But you actually have another bonus for that to matter.

[Lorddenorstrus]

size snip

It becomes relevant with the 3.P mix because i had a player try to make a Monk/Oracle and be a scaled fist monk for Cha twice. The oracle ability stated ability modifier monk does not.

Im the DM im allowing it despite 1 player disagreeing. But i just figured id recheck the rules in relation to it.

[glass]

It becomes relevant with the 3.P mix because i had a player try to make a Monk/Oracle and be a scaled fist monk for Cha twice. The oracle ability stated ability modifier monk does not.No, it still doesn't. Whether you consider your Charisma bonus to be typed or not, you still only have one.

A scaled fist monk/natures whispers oracle has two abilities allowing them to add their Cha to AC. First one adds it, second one sees it is already being added and therefore has nothing to do. Neither ability generate a second bonus, so the stacking rules are not involved.

This interaction is exactly the same in 3.5 and PF1, and both with and without the FAQ.

That said, treating it as if it did work is unlikely to break anything. Even unchained Monks are not that strong.

[Kurald Galain]

That said, treating it as if it did work is unlikely to break anything. Even unchained Monks are not that strong.

On the other hand, an Oracle build with one level of monk for double their primary stat to AC is... somewhat cheesy, at least.

[Darg]

On the other hand, an Oracle build with one level of monk for double their primary stat to AC is... somewhat cheesy, at least.

I hate dips unless they are to qualify for a PRC that continues that growth in some way. It's gaming the mechanics rather than being an expression of character growth.

[Gnaeus]

I hate dips unless they are to qualify for a PRC that continues that growth in some way. It's gaming the mechanics rather than being an expression of character growth.

I love dips. They are one of the best things about 3.PF and absolutely to be encouraged. Its like picking out the right lego to fit in your spaceship, you are a worse builder if you don't do it. There does not need to be any RP difference between Oracle X and Oracle x-1, Monk 1.

[Darg]

I love dips. They are one of the best things about 3.PF and absolutely to be encouraged. Its like picking out the right lego to fit in your spaceship, you are a worse builder if you don't do it. There does not need to be any RP difference between Oracle X and Oracle x-1, Monk 1.

I like class based RPGs because classes are meant to represent the character. Sure, you could use the lego analogy. The way I see it is as if you got the right pieces for the spaceship, but completely ignore the aesthetics and it's a jumbled mess of rainbow colors. Sure, you can justify it after the fact just like you can justify anything, but it just rings hollow to me. If the AC bonuses stacked, the real reason for that oracle/scaled fist dip is because you wanted that AC bonus, not because you wanted to be an oracle/monk multiclass. It's the same reason druids and other shapeshifters dip monk. They mechanically synergize, but they don't actually want to play a lawful neutral druid monk. They just want to be a better shapeshifter. Honestly it would be better represented by simply making an archetype that supports that.

[Gnaeus]

I like class based RPGs because classes are meant to represent the character. Sure, you could use the lego analogy. The way I see it is as if you got the right pieces for the spaceship, but completely ignore the aesthetics and it's a jumbled mess of rainbow colors. Sure, you can justify it after the fact just like you can justify anything, but it just rings hollow to me. If the AC bonuses stacked, the real reason for that oracle/scaled fist dip is because you wanted that AC bonus, not because you wanted to be an oracle/monk multiclass. It's the same reason druids and other shapeshifters dip monk. They mechanically synergize, but they don't actually want to play a lawful neutral druid monk. They just want to be a better shapeshifter. Honestly it would be better represented by simply making an archetype that supports that.

What kind of terrible lego build only has one color? Your black ship is better with some well selected purple or red highlights. If you WANT a rainbow ship, thats awesome. And you should absolutely do that. But you certainly shouldn't feel the slightest pressure to only use grey bricks if you want to use others.

Class based RPGs are the worst. No one should have an identity like "Fighter" Luckily, 3.PF (or 5e) is not truly a class based RPG. It gives you building blocks so you can have the exact number of fighter pieces and druid pieces and template pieces you want. The best reason that a shapeshifter or oracle should dip monk is because they want the stuff you get from that level of monk. No better reason exists or could exist. Archetypes are fine, but are only actually a substitution if you have an archetype covering every possible combination of every possible class from Monk 1/Druid 9 to Druid 1/Monk 9 with every other single class in the game you may want to throw in for good measure, in case you wanted to be a rogue 1/monk 1/druid 8 or something.

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair, there are thousands of multiclass options and only a very small handful that I'd consider cheesy.

Like, druid 9 / monk 1 is not a "jumbled mess of colors" but is a "black spaceship with an accent". I see nothing wrong with a druid who has trained (in a monastery) to be better at unarmed combat at the expense of spellcasting; and a good GM can tell the difference between an actual reason and a sloppy after-the-fact justification.

Conversely, if you end up with something like paladin 2 / monk 3 / bloodrager 1 / slayer 4 / cleric 1, then that would be a "jumbled mess of colors".

[glass]

On the other hand, an Oracle build with one level of monk for double their primary stat to AC is... somewhat cheesy, at least.I did wonder about that. But as an "even level" caster Oracles are already half a level behind "odd level" casters. Taking a monk dip makes that a full spell level, which is a pretty high price to pay for a few extra points of AC.

[Darg]

What kind of terrible lego build only has one color? Your black ship is better with some well selected purple or red highlights. If you WANT a rainbow ship, thats awesome. And you should absolutely do that. But you certainly shouldn't feel the slightest pressure to only use grey bricks if you want to use others.

Class based RPGs are the worst. No one should have an identity like "Fighter" Luckily, 3.PF (or 5e) is not truly a class based RPG. It gives you building blocks so you can have the exact number of fighter pieces and druid pieces and template pieces you want. The best reason that a shapeshifter or oracle should dip monk is because they want the stuff you get from that level of monk. No better reason exists or could exist. Archetypes are fine, but are only actually a substitution if you have an archetype covering every possible combination of every possible class from Monk 1/Druid 9 to Druid 1/Monk 9 with every other single class in the game you may want to throw in for good measure, in case you wanted to be a rogue 1/monk 1/druid 8 or something.

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.


To be fair, there are thousands of multiclass options and only a very small handful that I'd consider cheesy.

Like, druid 9 / monk 1 is not a "jumbled mess of colors" but is a "black spaceship with an accent". I see nothing wrong with a druid who has trained (in a monastery) to be better at unarmed combat at the expense of spellcasting; and a good GM can tell the difference between an actual reason and a sloppy after-the-fact justification.

Conversely, if you end up with something like paladin 2 / monk 3 / bloodrager 1 / slayer 4 / cleric 1, then that would be a "jumbled mess of colors".

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.

[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.