Is Paizo's Pathfinder really compatible with 3.5?

[Remathilis]

System mastery is a symptom of trying to "win" the game.

Then by converse, wouldn't un-optimization equate to losing?

Actually, I thought SysMast was a symptom of Rat-Bastard DMs, Goodman Modules, and Paizo AP's, but I could be wrong.

This is a problem that exists only from the perspective of you looking down at a character sheet.

Classes don't exist from the characters perspectives (although levels might.)

Arguing narrativism doesn't do much here; the point of the rant was not whether a wizard is less a wizard then a multi-classed uber-caster, its the fact that statistically he's under performing.

Take my fighter example; the ftr/PDK/KP has a boatload of options available to him; bolstering allies, bonuses to saves, new offensive and defensive manuevers, better skill choice, etc. What did he surrender for it? seven feats (while nothing to sneeze at, he gained well over seven unique abilities in this build). The trade-off ratio doesn't equal.

 

[Andor]

Arguing narrativism doesn't do much here; the point of the rant was not whether a wizard is less a wizard then a multi-classed uber-caster, its the fact that statistically he's under performing.

Take my fighter example; the ftr/PDK/KP has a boatload of options available to him; bolstering allies, bonuses to saves, new offensive and defensive manuevers, better skill choice, etc. What did he surrender for it? seven feats (while nothing to sneeze at, he gained well over seven unique abilities in this build). The trade-off ratio doesn't equal.

The thrust of the multi-classing mechanic is allowing the character to choose breadth vs depth. Usually a MC gains depth and looses breadth although your particular example is the other way around since he'd lose access to the upper level fighter specialization feats in exchange for his abilities. Is it worth it?

That very much depends on who you ask. It probably depends on the exact party composition and campaign type. From a pure damage output stance I suspect he's lagging the straight fighter who has access to the mastery feats. And at some tables that's what would matter.

My point is that there is no one "right" way to play the game in any aspect, including character creation and growth. There may be wrong ways, a hyperactive, caffine overdosed teenager trying to figure out why his bard 1, psion 1, sorcerer 1, wizard 1, healer 1 makes a poor front line fighter type is not doing himself or his team any favors no matter what he claims to be trying to roleplay.

Can multiclassing be abused? Absolutely, but that's part of the GMs job, to rein in the guys who haunt the CharOps boards.

But if you can intelligently apply those choices to optimize your character for your campaign at your table of course he's going to be more effective than a character who is optimized for some different set of circumstances. If he wasn't, what's the point of haveing options anyway?

If you mean that some PRCs are strictly, under all circumstances and for all purposes better than the base class... then I agree with you. Because that sets up a sub-optimization trap. Less severe than our Mt Dew sucking friend, but still a trap. There are, I think, only a few such PRCs out there. I suppose there shouldn't be any, but that 3e contains some mistakes across a couple of dozen books and a few thousand pages is no great shock and (IMHO) not rant worthy.

 

[Remathilis]

The thrust of the multi-classing mechanic is allowing the character to choose breadth vs depth. Usually a MC gains depth and looses breadth although your particular example is the other way around since he'd lose access to the upper level fighter specialization feats in exchange for his abilities. Is it worth it?

Are you referring to the +1 to hit and +2 to damage he'd lack from GrtrWpnFocus & GtrWpnSpec? He'd still qualify for most other feats and while he'd have to be a bit more selective in his choices, he's certainly no worse off than the barbarian or paladin that regard.

(Unless you're referring to Weapon Supremacy in PHB2. Then the fighter finally has a high-level goal to aim for.)

That very much depends on who you ask. It probably depends on the exact party composition and campaign type. From a pure damage output stance I suspect he's lagging the straight fighter who has access to the mastery feats. And at some tables that's what would matter.

Again, see above.

My point is that there is no one "right" way to play the game in any aspect, including character creation and growth. There may be wrong ways, a hyperactive, caffeine overdosed teenager trying to figure out why his bard 1, psion 1, sorcerer 1, wizard 1, healer 1 makes a poor front line fighter type is not doing himself or his team any favors no matter what he claims to be trying to roleplay.

Awww, I thought one the great features of 3e was the fact that a brd1/psi1/sor1/wiz1/hlr1 is a viable character concept if you don't mind being underpowered. We all can't be clr5 after all.

(thats not a dig at you, btw.)

Can multiclassing be abused? Absolutely, but that's part of the GMs job, to rein in the guys who haunt the CharOps boards.

But if you can intelligently apply those choices to optimize your character for your campaign at your table of course he's going to be more effective than a character who is optimized for some different set of circumstances. If he wasn't, what's the point of having options anyway?

No question. I actually don't mind some level of optimization, the PC quoted above would be laughed away from our table (if he wasn't slain due to normal play). However, when certain builds clearly overpower all others, somethings got to give.

If you mean that some PRCs are strictly, under all circumstances and for all purposes better than the base class... then I agree with you. Because that sets up a sub-optimization trap. Less severe than our Mt Dew sucking friend, but still a trap. There are, I think, only a few such PRCs out there. I suppose there shouldn't be any, but that 3e contains some mistakes across a couple of dozen books and a few thousand pages is no great shock and (IMHO) not rant worthy.

Actually, PrCs are a double-edge sword. 60% of all PrCs aren't worth the ink used to print them because they take away from a classes given role (warrior, nuker, healer, trapfinder), 10% are so good they're no brainers (archmage, radiant servant) except in very specialized builds, and 20% are flavorful, unique, but not over-powering or watering down. I'd say 10% are worthy enough choices to be balanced, but against the other 30% of too-goods (or simply good), they fall in with that bottom 60%.

Such is life.

 

[nightwyrm]

When we talk about the power of multiclassing, shouldn't we distinguish between casters and non-casters. Wizards 20, druid 20, cleric 20 aren't optimal (in the sense that you can grab a fullcasting PrC and get more stuff), but those classes are still stronger than most non-caster characters you can build with a bunch of multiclassing and PrCing. A caster can take PrCs to increase their power, but only because those PrCs are able increase their spell casting. The most important thing in a caster PrC is spell casting advancement. If a PrC doesn't have full casting, it needs to have really good features to be considered, and probably anything less than 8/10 casting is useless no matter what feature it gets.

A ftr 2/barb 3/PrC X/PrC Y/PrC Z is messy and inelegant, but is probably still behind the power curve compared to a druid 20 or wiz 20.

If you want to nerf a caster, force him to multiclass into something that doesn't advance his casting.

 

[Remathilis]

If you want to nerf a caster, force him to multiclass into something that doesn't advance his casting.

I saw a lot of "low-power" variants that forced spellcasters to multi-class one caster/one non in alteration, so that at 20th level, they only had 10th-level caster powers. IMHO, it missed the point; if I want to be a caster, I want to be a caster, not a half-caster. It'd be better just to remake caster classes with progression like bards than force me to to be a fighter/wizard.

But that's just me.

 

[pawsplay]

System mastery is a symptom of trying to "win" the game.

At it's core, system mastery is about understanding the language that underpins RPGs.

Going back to the OP... I don't mind the idea of twinks, I just wonder if the final result will be such that new published products will need to dual-stat in order to be Pathfinder-ready. That would be a shame.

 

[DaveMage]

I don't mind the idea of twinks,

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Sometimes its hard to find players to fill out your game, and you have to deal with twinks and noobs. 3E didn't handle either very well without a lot of effort, especially in mixed groups.

 

[BryonD]

Then by converse, wouldn't un-optimization equate to losing?

Only if you have a "win/lose" mindset to begin with.

 

[BryonD]

System mastery is understanding the system so that you can make it do what you want. You need a certain level of system mastery if you want to make a powerful character on purpose, but there's nothing preventing you from making a subpar character after you've understood the system. Also, powerful and weak characters can also still be made by accident by someone without system mastery.

I never quite understood what ppl mean when they accuse others of trying to "win" the game. Which "game" are they talking about? When I try to fight my DM's monsters, or when I try to solve a NPC murder, or when I try to accomplish my character's goals, am I not trying to "win" whatever challenge my DM places before me?

If you don't understand what I mean, then read the post I replied to.

Clearly being more powerful is a requirement and completely trumps playing a character.