Pathfinder Tristalt GM-Coop game - Page 5 - Myth-Weavers

Notices


Pathfinder Tristalt GM-Coop game

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudra View Post
... I have no idea of how tristalt even work and I'm interested
Tristalt is just a silly nickname for gestalt but with three class per level. The original gestalt rules can be found here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/cl...Characters.htm
(There are a couple of extra points, like people basically always use fractionals too, unless they're silly, etc)

Technically, the word "gestalt" just means something which is more than the sum of its parts, so the word could be used to apply to doing the same thing with any number of classes. Regular gestalt would be "two-class gestalt", tristalt is "three-class gestalt", etc, but most people just say "gestalt", "tristalt", "quadstalt", whatever (and people rarely say anything other than gestalt because tristalt onwards is ridiculous ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
(Batman is of course a L1 Investigator with no Alchemy and the Rich Parents trait)


THE BAT IS EVERY MARTIAL CLASS AT THE SAME TIME. HE IS A LEVEL 20 EVERYTHING ABOUT TO ASCEND INTO GODHOOD. HOW DARE YOU BLASPHEME HIS NAME!!!!



At least give my man the Sleuth Archetype, man...

If I was to build a tristalt batman in this game it would be Investigator | Vigilante | Monk 15, just to keep it simple

Update: Ashen and I have been making some progress, we are ironing out the official concept (tone, mechanics, story elements) and should have something more substantial to report on soon lol. Maybe even an ad relatively soon...ish... lol

Even got another toss in for potential GM via PM...

Let's dance

While I don't have many posts here on MW, I am an incredibly active poster on Paizo, and have been playing PF since the Alpha, and 3.x since 2000.

Unsure if I would be able to fully run a game, but I can help with rules, including things beyond 20+. There's a ton of support out there, including epic for PF, custom monster creation rules, divine rules, massively expanded mythic rules, etc. I even have access to some monsters with CRs up into the 100s/1000s.

Depending on what the final setting ends up being, and what worlds are available, I might have an idea or two for a game, provided I had some GM support.

As for classes/characters, sometimes in these games, its not about *power* level, but rather *interesting* concept. I have some concepts that aren't super powerful OP, but they are hella interesting characters.

My suggestion, if you're worried about martial classes being too weak, is to consider the Legendary Classes line from Legendary Games. They recently did a *fantastic* rework on the Shifter, for example.

If nothing else, I will definitely want to play in this!!

Personally I think that Spheres of Power do a wonderful job of evening the playing field with martials, but that is just me.

Other possibility: Give martials some other bonus. Full martials for example get more points to buy stats with or extra feats, whatever. Half martials get a bit and everything that has a full caster gets nothing.

I'm not just being flippant about martials - even if the martial characters were in some way balanced with the casters, a gestalt made up of only martials is almost certainly going to be worse than a more mixed one. In that scenario, a mixed one would probably beat out a pure caster gestalt too, but the point is that martials "overlap" more than casters. Plus, part of me thinks, you're fighting a losing battle balance-wise anyway, so why even bother?

I'd also suggest restraint on third party material, etc. This sort of game is already pretty crazy, and whilst PF might not have such diverse stuff as 3.5, there's already a hell of a lot of material there. Once you start getting into third party you've not only got all those RAW vs RAI vs what's actually sensible arguments, you've got the fact that the stuff isn't even consistent as now different bits are made by completely different groups with different ideas of how the game should be. Perhaps more importantly, it's just a lot more for people to grok - which is particularly relevant to DMs. Players can just ignore extra options more freely than DMs, who may have to DM for such characters (and yeah, they could say "no X, Y or Z in this game", but that's not exactly ideal either).

If you're going to do any houserules at all, I'd aim to keep them as simple as possible and also ideally things which affect character creation but not round-by-round play - for example, "have a feat every level" is easy to state and actually isn't even something you need to remember once you've built your character. Loads of little tweaks here and there, as much as we might prefer them, cause a disproportionate amount of confusion for people - which is maybe OK for a regular game, but doesn't seem worth it in anything large-scale with multiple DMs, etc.

Just my opinion, anyway. Plus, Spheres of Might, eww.
(SoM is actually OK, but it's not great - it's fiddly and not terribly elegant, plus some of their design decisions are IMO... well, a bit odd)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
I'm not just being flippant about martials - even if the martial characters were in some way balanced with the casters, a gestalt made up of only martials is almost certainly going to be worse than a more mixed one. In that scenario, a mixed one would probably beat out a pure caster gestalt too, but the point is that martials "overlap" more than casters. Plus, part of me thinks, you're fighting a losing battle balance-wise anyway, so why even bother?

I'd also suggest restraint on third party material, etc. This sort of game is already pretty crazy, and whilst PF might not have such diverse stuff as 3.5, there's already a hell of a lot of material there. Once you start getting into third party you've not only got all those RAW vs RAI vs what's actually sensible arguments, you've got the fact that the stuff isn't even consistent as now different bits are made by completely different groups with different ideas of how the game should be. Perhaps more importantly, it's just a lot more for people to grok - which is particularly relevant to DMs. Players can just ignore extra options more freely than DMs, who may have to DM for such characters (and yeah, they could say "no X, Y or Z in this game", but that's not exactly ideal either).

If you're going to do any houserules at all, I'd aim to keep them as simple as possible and also ideally things which affect character creation but not round-by-round play - for example, "have a feat every level" is easy to state and actually isn't even something you need to remember once you've built your character. Loads of little tweaks here and there, as much as we might prefer them, cause a disproportionate amount of confusion for people - which is maybe OK for a regular game, but doesn't seem worth it in anything large-scale with multiple DMs, etc.

Just my opinion, anyway. Plus, Spheres of Might, eww.
(SoM is actually OK, but it's not great - it's fiddly and not terribly elegant, plus some of their design decisions are IMO... well, a bit odd)
I like how you claim 3.5 has more classes than PF, yet a quick Google search shows about 40 for PF and 44 or so for 3.5.

Now, I get your dislike of 3pp, but where WotC crapped out splatbook after splatbook with more and more classes, that's the realm of 3pp for PF.

Ie, all that diversity you claim is lacking in PF is covered in many ways by 3pp. Psionics, binding, shadow magic, incarnum, Tome of Battle, etc??

All exists in Pathfinder, but were created by 3pp, some of which were given Paizo's blessing(Like Dreamscarred Press and psionics. One of the main reasons Paizo took so long to tackle psionics/Psychic magic was because of how freakin well done, and well received DSP's psionic work was).

Aside from your stated enjoyment of building crazy characters, I'm unsure why you're in this thread? The vast majority of your posts have been nothing but negative comments, crapping on Pathfinder, crapping on this concept, trying to dissuade the GMs from running it, and just being really unpleasant. Like, I actually groan when I see another new post from you, because I know it's going to be filled with more negativity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordmonkeysama View Post
Like, I actually groan when I see another new post from you, because I know it's going to be filled with more negativity.
That's great. I, on the other hand, don't groan when I see a post from you because I don't know who you are, or really care - unless you have anything meaningful or constructive to add?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordmonkeysama View Post
I like how you claim 3.5 has more classes than PF, yet a quick Google search shows about 40 for PF and 44 or so for 3.5.
My quick google search turned up a list about double that for 3.5, and that's only looking at base classes. For prestige classes, the WoTC prestige class index has 782 entries.








Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2019-03-18 09:00:08am local time
Myth-Weavers Status