|
It just seemed that you are argueing against yourself a few posts back? I think the opposite is true, but that's fine. I am also a fan of fractional BAB and Saves, and Dark Mistress's idea.
Yeah fractional BAB, Savess and other stuff is likely the best way to do it. But we found it was to much work to little return. YMMV
|
Yeah fractional BAB, Savess and other stuff is likely the best way to do it. But we found it was to much work to little return. YMMV
Really, it isn't so bad unless you go into a lot of different progressions. Lets take Cleric and Rogue. Bth have 3/4 base attack, (+0, +1, +2, +3, +3, . . .), So if you take Cleric 1, Rogue 1, you would normally have base attack +0. With Fractional, it is +1, just like if you had gone Cleric 2 or Rogue 2. usually, you don't even need fractions. If they ghave the same progresion, just use it as if you are not multiclassing, basically.
It just seemed that you are argueing against yourself a few posts back?
How so? (just curious)
Yeah fractional BAB, Savess and other stuff is likely the best way to do it. But we found it was to much work to little return. YMMV
Really?
Well, like Beckett said, even if you don't use fractional saves/bab, you can get most of the benefits by unifying progressions (which just means that you treat a fighter2/barbarian2 the same as a fighter4 for all saves (or, if he were a fighter2/monk2, just for fortitude saves). Same with equivalent bab charts).
If you don't use fractional bab, you tend to get multiclassed characters with poor bab but excellent saves. Which isn't necessarily unbalanced, just weird.
Are you referring to the eldritch warrior and arcane trickster classes?
I was. But also as said divine casters have some of the most stat intensive classes which only adds to their issues.
Ah, that's an interesting point that I never addressed.
I seem to have a very different view of "stat intensive" classes than most people, as I've found out from past discussion.
Some people feel that, to play a cleric, you MUST to have a WIS of 16 or higher, a CHA of 14 or higher, and STR and CON of 12 or higher. And that, if any of these stats are below these thresholds (for instance, if you've cranked con to play a barbarian/cleric and your wisdom suffered), you are a failure of a character.
The way I see it, though, is that you have the OPTION of maximizing any of the above stats. A cleric can get along just fine with a wisdom of 13 and a charisma of 18. They should take feats that maximize their channel energy class feature (and possibly some divine feats if they have access to those) and cast spells that don't allow saving throws.
Similarly you can build a more physical cleric who isn't great in any mental department, but can rock out with a mace (or their deity's favored weapon). I've done that. He was a dwarf with a greatsword an an 17 STR who loved to cast divine favor and death knell, and if that game had lasted a little longer, I would have happily branched out into barbarian.
Clerics aren't "stat intensive", they're "stat friendly". The options for building a good cleric are far more diverse than the options for building a good wizard. And that's a BENEFIT to multiclassing, not a drawback.
Of course, both of those viewpoints are completely dependent on such arbitrary constructs as "base power" or "required stats", and I don't think either is definitively correct. This is just how I choose to look at it.
If I had my way, all classes would be 'stat-intensive' to some degree or another, because it's interesting to have different strategies within a given class (I love that musclebound monks, agile monks, and wise monks are all extremely viable characters). In fact, for the system I'm working on all the primary magic-users have two spellcasting stats (the deathcult-rockstar Diabolists use Int primarily and CHA as a secondary stat, while the in-tune-with-the-world's-voice Songmages use charisma primarily and wisdom as a secondary). But that's enough tangent for one post.
|
|
How so? (just curious)
I think I might have been a little confussed too, but this is what I mean
"What issues does a cleric multiclass have that a wizard multiclass doesn't (other than the fact that wizards are cooler and more PrCs have catered to them)?
To get back to your point: a clerical spell progression isn't quite as useful as a wizard spell progression, so a PrC that caters to both divine and arcane casters will always be less powerful to clerics. If that's the issue you're raising then I understand it completely, sure. But dipping into another core class doesn't progress your spellcasting anyway, and because clerics are already decent in combat they get more from a fighter-dip than a wizard would.
Unless you're saying that clerics are just flat-out better than wizards (that their casting is just as good and they have other bonuses to boot). In which case your argument is actually "Clerics are the best class ever so there is no incentive for them to take non-cleric levels"."
|
|
Some people feel that, to play a cleric, you MUST to have a WIS of 16 or higher, a CHA of 14 or higher, and STR and CON of 12 or higher. And that, if any of these stats are below these thresholds (for instance, if you've cranked con to play a barbarian/cleric and your wisdom suffered), you are a failure of a character.
To be fair, you don't have to have all those abilities. A Cleric does need to keep bumping up Wis to at least 19 though or not be able to use their best spells by 17th level. That essentually means a starting Wis of 13 or 14 is minimum.
Because Clerics are partial (melee) warriors, they need some Con for extra HP and (3E) Concentration checks. So a +0 - +2 is essentually needed, depending on your party build. You also need a half decent Str, (again +1 or +2) or you will not be able to hit much with your partial melee, but also not connect often with your touch attacks. Int and Dex are both pretty important for everyone, but they are generally the dump stats for Cleric just because they basically must have other stuff.A Wizards can get by perfectly fine with 10 Str and Con, High Dex and Int (Cha for Sorcerer), and 8's in everything else. I Fighter can still be pretty effective with max Str and Con, 12+ Dex (depends on armor), and 8 in all else. In my personal experience, though, it just doesn't work for Clerics. I'm not sure about Druids, I think they would be better off. Just my opinion. I also don't really wish the cleric would change so much as that all classes got the same treatment. That is, needed more stats at a certain basic minimum.
|
|
The higher level you go the more fractions you get into and have to keep track of. Like if you wanted to really do it accurately then each cleric/rogue/monk ect is a .75 per level while each level of sorc/wiz is .5 and of course fighter/pal ect is 1. Thats with out getting into PrC's which some have different fraction counts. Thats just a BAB, it can just end up a lot of math and we felt it didn't add enough for the extra math is all.
It's not hard, just reward vs work ratio is all.
How so? (just curious)I think I might have been a little confussed too, but this is what I mean
"What issues does a cleric multiclass have that a wizard multiclass doesn't (other than the fact that wizards are cooler and more PrCs have catered to them)?
To get back to your point: a clerical spell progression isn't quite as useful as a wizard spell progression, so a PrC that caters to both divine and arcane casters will always be less powerful to clerics. If that's the issue you're raising then I understand it completely, sure. But dipping into another core class doesn't progress your spellcasting anyway, and because clerics are already decent in combat they get more from a fighter-dip than a wizard would.
Unless you're saying that clerics are just flat-out better than wizards (that their casting is just as good and they have other bonuses to boot). In which case your argument is actually "Clerics are the best class ever so there is no incentive for them to take non-cleric levels"."
The first piece you quoted challenges the idea that clerics don't multiclass as well as wizards. The second piece you quoted suggests that clerics actually multiclass better than wizards. The third was an attempt to see your own counterpoint from a different point of view (in case I had misunderstood it). I still don't see the incongruity.
I'm the other hand, I'm starting to feel like I'm grilling you, which isn't the case at all; I just make a habit of trying to understand when and how I've miscommunicated something. It's no big deal either way.
A Wizards can get by perfectly fine with 10 Str and Con, High Dex and Int (Cha for Sorcerer), and 8's in everything else. I Fighter can still be pretty effective with max Str and Con, 12+ Dex (depends on armor), and 8 in all else. In my personal experience, though, it just doesn't work for Clerics.
My experiences have been very different from yours.
A cleric with a 16 wis and a 10 cha is better at attack magic and worse at turning. A cleric with a 13 wis and a 16 cha is better at channeling energy (which you really have to take a few feats to take full advantage of), but they are just as good at casting any non-offensive spell, and even their offensive spells are only 10%-15% less likely to work. A cleric with a 13 wis and a 10 cha but a 17 str or con is better at melee to compensate for their mystical deficiencies. A cleric with a 10 or 8 str can focus more on spellcasting and keep a crossbow around for backup.
A cleric with 18 wis, 18 cha, 18 str, and 18 con would be overpowered.
When you say they "need at least X" in a stat, you are creating a good enough/not good enough dichotomy which I think is false. This isn't binary, it's completely fluid: being slightly worse in one field makes you slightly better in another.
If a cleric has a 10 STR instead of a 14, that probably means they also have a 16 CHA instead of a 14. That's not always a balanced trade-off, but it is if you build around it. A cleric who never enters melee can contribute just as much to the group if he's better in other areas. I think that, when you say clerics of certain builds "don't work", your view of what "works" and what doesn't is colored by unreasonable expectations.
To make a long post short, just because a cleric CAN be good at many things doesn't mean they HAVE to be good at all of them at once.
|
|
It is to a certain point. But on the other hand, the concept for the cleric, from day one, has always been a military religious soldier. It has certain jobs based on it's role in the group that it should do. Being able to talk to and convert people, being able to heal, being able to call upon divine wrath, ward against things, and be a decent combatant are the major ones.
I'm talking specifically of a generic cleric vs a generic everyone else. So when I say funtion, I don't mean function at all as much as function at what the class is suppossed to do.
But when it comes to multiclassing, they suffer all the normal penulties that spellcasters do, but are not offered much to compensate. Taking a few levels in rogue doesn't get them all that much. Taking levels in fighter might get them a few more feats, but to be honest the feats that they would want they don't qualify for until it is to late to get much real use out of them.
... at what the class is suppossed to do.
This is exactly what I meant when I mentioned "unreasonable expectation". Your notion that a cleric "needs" to be fairly good at everything is just an arbitrary bias.
Now, others may share that bias, sure. And if you want to talk about people's perceptions of balance, then sure, that's valid, but if you're talking about what actually is/isn't balanced mechanically I don't think such expectations are relevant. In terms of actual power, and synergy between abilities, hybrids multiclass more gracefully than full-blown casters.
Whether a multiclassed cleric meets player expectations for "what a cleric should do" and whether a multiclassed cleric is an effective character are two different discussions.
To bring the discussion back towards raw class power (and away from discussions of what he should/shouldn't be good at): like I said earlier, a cleric gains less in terms of combat ability because he loses less in terms of spellcasting. Cleric spellcasting is not as potent as arcane spellcasting, and clerics are not as reliant on their spellcasting as wizards are (which is why clerics have better-everything-else than wizards in the first place)
And a cleric gains much more from that handful of bonus feats or sneak-attack than a wizard would. Getting more of something you already have is much better than getting more of something you are bad at: see my earlier posts about specialization and synergy.
|
|
I think that my point is that saying those things are what the cleric is, isn't an unreasonable expectation. Again, I'm just talking about the generic class, not all the possible ways it can be played. That is specifically what the discription says the Cleric is.
Balance is a different issue, and really not one that can be used as any form of measuring stick, as different groups play the game with different goals and houserules. Many of those groups all play by the rules, but they focus on different aspects of the game which throughs off any official concept of balance. I've played in a lot of those different types of groups, so I understand and I can accept your opinion, but to make that standard hurts other playstyles, which is why I disagree.
I also wish that WotC would have, and PF will make two completely seperate games. One for home games and one for organized play, and keep all the super balance rules in the organized play side, and give the home games a little more optional rules and freedom. Not that that would happen, but I think it would be a lot more fun.
Beckett: okay I guess that's fair enough.
What you've basically told us, since we're setting aside 'balance' for now and only talking about player expectations, is that a player who wants his cleric to do everything that a cleric is supposed to do will only take cleric levels. You note that there is no incentive for such a player to take rogue levels or fighter levels or what-have-you.
That's perfectly true. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean you are complaining because taking a rogue level doesn't make you a better cleric?
A cleric/rogue isn't a cleric, he's a cleric/rogue. You shouldn't expect him to perform exactly as a cleric does, you should expect him to perform as a cleric/rogue does: as a cleric who's magical abilities are slightly worse, but who is more resourceful, dealing more damage in melee (sometimes) and training in more skills (which sometimes is a balanced trade-off and sometimes isn't, but then, we aren't talking about balance).
So in short, yes, taking non-cleric levels makes you a worse cleric. But that can't possibly be construed as a problem with the system.
use these:
Mystic Theurge
Arcane Knight
Arcane TricksterAs already mentioned, they achieve very similar dynamics to 2E multiclassing.
Anything you do to achieve the same effect will be extremely unbalancing for said Prc's.
This issue has already been dealt with under 3.5, and above PrC's should be compatable with PRPG.That only deals with some combinations though.
What about cleric/rogue, cleric/fighter, ranger/wizard (a rather perfect elven combo and no the arcane archer isn't it). I also have to point out all these combos will need some hit die advancement as well, since many of the core classes got one.
Or rogue/warlock, druid/ranger, binder/swordmage, incarnate/monk, or...?
A general fix works SO much better in my opinion than a big stack of band-aid prestige classes that would probably just cover the most common cases and ignore the vast majority of combinations anyway!
use these:
Mystic Theurge
Arcane Knight
Arcane TricksterAs already mentioned, they achieve very similar dynamics to 2E multiclassing.
Anything you do to achieve the same effect will be extremely unbalancing for said Prc's.
This issue has already been dealt with under 3.5, and above PrC's should be compatable with PRPG.That only deals with some combinations though.
What about cleric/rogue, cleric/fighter, ranger/wizard (a rather perfect elven combo and no the arcane archer isn't it). I also have to point out all these combos will need some hit die advancement as well, since many of the core classes got one.
Or rogue/warlock, druid/ranger, binder/swordmage, incarnate/monk, or...?
A general fix works SO much better in my opinion than a big stack of band-aid prestige classes that would probably just cover the most common cases and ignore the vast majority of combinations anyway!
More or less I agree. The only part I don't care about is non-core classes, many are just plain broken (either underpowered or over powered) so I don't worry if a general multiclass fix works for them. If needs to work though for all core classes at least, if one can be achieved. I like the idea earily that basically said take the classes and add half their level round down to add to the other classes for functions. So a 6 fighter / 6 cleric is getting the feats and class powers (feats that require min level in fighter )of a level 9 fighter and the casting and class powers of a level 9 cleric. I am just not sure it is balanced, but more or less it is what the PrC multiclass builds do so maybe it is. Really tempted to try it. Might allow for it in my next AP I run. Just as an aside I am running RotRL and my group is loving it, great AP really.
|
|
Not really saying balance should be ignorred as much as it is gauged by completely different standards in different games, so it is hard to say that it is a good point to prove something.
The Rogue/Cleric is a specialist in a sense. It is sort of outside of what I am trying to say (in the abilities and expectations side, not multiclassing). I think that a Cleric of a Rogue deity should be able to play a Rogueish Cleric. A lot better than the rules as presented allow for, anyway.
PC's could simple continue a base progression rather than starting it's own and being stuck with it regardless of what your earlier class(s) are. So, a Cleric that went into Loremaster would simply continue 3/4 BaB and Good Fort & Will, while a Wizard continued with 1/2 BaB and Good Will. I can see HP dropping to d4 or 6 as it is less training and keeps balance a bit, but doesn't hurt or help the base class overly much.
Yes, I do agree that clerical PrCs should be more powerful than wizard PrCs in terms of their non-spellcasting abilities (actually, they usually are; the problem is when a wizard-intended PRC happens to be a very good thematic fit for some clerics, such as loremaster).
If what you want is a cleric with a dash of rogue (but not the full-blown rogue's skills or SA), I think the trickery domain is a good place to start. Suppose there was another domain that better represented the "dirty fighting" side of things?
Ruthlessness Domain?
I am fond of the "roguish cleric" (i.e. priest of Mask) archetype. I think it's under-represented considering how many gods are outright scoundrels.
That's perfectly true. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean you are complaining because taking a rogue level doesn't make you a better cleric?
A cleric/rogue isn't a cleric, he's a cleric/rogue. You shouldn't expect him to perform exactly as a cleric does, you should expect him to perform as a cleric/rogue does: as a cleric who's magical abilities are slightly worse, but who is more resourceful, dealing more damage in melee (sometimes) and training in more skills (which sometimes is a balanced trade-off and sometimes isn't, but then, we aren't talking about balance).
This actually makes a lot of sense.
In a way, you can think of a cleric as sort of like a bard - pretty strong at a lot of things, but not that focused. Taking levels in Fighter or Rogue focuses you in those aspects. Interesting, thanks for a new look at my favorite class Hydro.
|
Agh! I hate the 3.5 trickery domain. I usually either house rule out Hide as the bonus class skill in favor of Forgery, or get rid of Bluff and add Move Silently (sometimes I rename the domain as Stealth then).
As it was you got half a skill assortment instead of a full set. It really made making a theifesque-cleric still hard to pull off. So close sometimes is far worse than not at all.
I've been using a combined "Sneak" skill for ages. And the gnome cleric I played in a core-3.5 game was too clumsy to sneak anyway (I ignored hide and just took the domain to get bluff).
Getting one stealth skill and not the other is pretty weird, though.
|
|
I've been using a combined "Sneak" skill for ages. And the gnome cleric I played in a core-3.5 game was too clumsy to sneak anyway (I ignored hide and just took the domain to get bluff).
Getting one stealth skill and not the other is pretty weird, though.
Agreed, and it made multiclassing so very tempting but not really worth it. If you multiclassed from Cleric into Rogue you'd want to dump several ranks into Move Silently immediately (thereby not gaining much in the way of other skills) and if you multiclassed in to cleric you'd not be able to increase your skills without double cost in skill points.
I was so glad when Heroes of Battle came out, gaining access to Guerilla Scout as a feat made this kind of multiclass a little more acceptible (though again it was a patch feat of sorts).
|
|
I agree with the Hide + Move Silently = Sneak. However, it does make sense if the Cleric in Full Plate or Breastplate can't sneak past guards (especially in 3.5 when there is no way period they can afford another class skill), but if he stands still, no one sees him. It's not about sneaking into places, it's about not being found when you walk into places and go where you are not suppossed to. . .
But just an opionion.
Dragonlance had a similar Domain, Treachery. Once 1/day you got sneak attack as a rogue of your cleric level, similar spells to Trickery Domain, and I want to say Bluff and Hide as class skills, or Half Cleric level in bonus. SOmething like that.
Why were any changes made from 3.0 to 3.5?Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, et. al. are not "patches", they are the rules the designers intended for multi-classing casters.Then why weren't they in the 3.0 DMG?
So Wizards could sell more books...