Just as the question asks above. Is it worth it?
Thanks
I haven't yet played the Pathfinder rules, but just from how Class and Cross Class skills are handled in Pathfinder it is better. In 3.5, it used to be that if you even had an inkling of going with Rogue at sometime in your character's career, you had to take it at 1st level or miss out so much on all those x4 1st level skills. Now it's not a problem at all. Skill wise high level characters are really much better off than they were in 3.5.
Magic using classes I suspect will still take a hit though, as a Fighter 5/Wizard 5 will not be nearly as effective as a Wizard 10 will be in a party of 10th level characters, even with the Fighter levels to back him up. Perhaps this has changed, I don't know.
So, when multi-classing between non-magic using classes probably, and between magic-using classes maybe.
Just as the question asks above. Is it worth it?
Thanks
Sure, sometimes. :) And anytime that it's just what your character really needs, roleplay-wise.
The capstone abilities are very nice, but way off. The mid-level abilities are also pretty good, but not unmissable/delay-able for the most part.
You miss out on more with the non-casters multi-classing than you did previously, but there's still reasonable trade-offs.
If you're mostly a non-spellcaster -- quite possibly.
If you're mostly a spellcaster -- not usually.
There are a lot of downsides to multiclassing now, for any class. That doesn't make it "not worth it," though... rather, it's a meaningful decision which can be based as much on roleplay considerations as mechanical ones. Really, the answer to this question is different for each and every character.
|
Yes non Caster ( Depending on what you what your charter to do )
No Caster ( At high levels given up caster levels is very costly for your casting ability )
Most non Casters are front loaded with their special ability's. So you can get a better over all effect if you mulitclass ( with the right combinations ) then you can with out. One very good example is evasion is a level 2 ability for monks and rogues. This ability is very much worth taking because it will reduce the amount of damage from area affect spells. The same can be said for the Paladins ability Divine Grace where you get your Cha to all saves. Then there's the fist two levels of Fighter where you can pick up two bones feats. One level of monk will give you your Wis to your ac and the 2nd level will give you evasion. One level of barbarian will give you fast move. So it relay depends on what you want to do with your build.
Most Casters are back loaded because of there spell casting. There are a few exceptions to that rule and they involve getting something really nice for just a few level of a none casting class. One that comes to mind 2levels of Monk for Wis bones to AC and Evasion mixed with Cleric or Druid. You lose to caster levels to get a really high AC and evasion. This build is not a melee but a pure Caster. You max out your Wis and close to max Dex. As far as arcane casters are concerned there are even fewer options because there casting Stats don't really add much for the melee side. With the possible exception of taking two levels of Paladin as a Sorcerer for the uber saves.
Are you also including prestige classes?
I'm specifically thinking about Wizards. They have hundreds of thousands of dead levels. Filling that up with a prestige class is a no-brainer unless you need a powerful familiar. And then there are prestige classes out there that advance that aswell.
This is if you DM will convert some 3.5 prestige classes. Loremasters are better than nothing though
Are you also including prestige classes?
I'm specifically thinking about Wizards. They have hundreds of thousands of dead levels. Filling that up with a prestige class is a no-brainer unless you need a powerful familiar. And then there are prestige classes out there that advance that aswell.
This is if you DM will convert some 3.5 prestige classes. Loremasters are better than nothing though
Not really true anymore. Their specialist bonuses advance based on their wizard level, so every level or every 2 levels they're getting a boost on their specialty. They get bonus feats at 3, 5, 10, 15, 20. It looks like they're getting 15 dead levels but typically their getting an improvement on something they already have, not a new ability. Now it can be argued that they get more out of new class features than maximize existing ones, but honestly 20 rounds a day of improved invisibility is a nice perk for a 20 illusionist.
Yeah man, multi-classing is great. I hear people arguing the opposite based on lvl 17-20 abilities, but in all honesty how many campaigns actually start at 1 and end at 20. The best guess is to build your character based on 10-12 levels of advancement. So if you start at LVL 1, multi-classing is the bomb. If you start at lvl 8 or 9, maybe then there is more vailidity to one class, but then again how many sessions you going to play at 20?
Please note that I preach from the perspective of a cheese-free campaign. My group uses the Pathfinder rulebook. No 3.5 power-up books and gamebreaking combos. If you play in an anything goes game, multi-classing really only gets better.
They get bonus feats at 3, 5, 10, 15, 20.
Ok. I assume level 3 one is a typo, or im blind :D
Anyway, my conjurer is now level 5 right. On the one hand I have awesome prestige classes leading to fun stuff all the way to level 20. On the other hand I have standard action teleport at level 8 and something at level 20. The teleport is GREAT, but is it better than the prestige? NO
And the reason I say SOMETHING at level 20 is: Who gets to level 20? Who stays at that level? Level 20 capstone means NOTHING to me...
In general, PF tries to make multiclassing an even trade with sticking with one class, but even then it works best when you can find two classes that have a synergy. The aforementioned Fighter/Rogue is pretty classic. One class gives you mad feats, the other gives you mad skills. But in an example of how PF made sticking with one class more tasty, fighters now have a decent set of class features that you can work towards instead of just a trunk full of feats.
Personally i think that fighter with 3 lvl's wizard is just about awesome :D
IMO...
Shield
Enlarge person
Expeditious retreat
Mirror image
Bear's endurance
Bull's strenght
... Makes for awesome boosts for a fighter and gives you some neat utility spells too^^
Munchkin-wise i dont know if it's a good build, i mean you could probably have someone cast those spells for you (some of them), but it gives flavor to the fighter :D
I suppose it depends on if you have a Wizard in your party or not. Remember it is very important to leave your wizard on even levels for the extra BAB if you are primarily a fighter. Level 3 is not wise even if you get your 2nd levels spells on it. You dont dont lose much going to level 4 wizard since you will get that BAB just the same with Fighter.
I suppose it depends on if you have a Wizard in your party or not. Remember it is very important to leave your wizard on even levels for the extra BAB if you are primarily a fighter. Level 3 is not wise even if you get your 2nd levels spells on it. You dont dont lose much going to level 4 wizard since you will get that BAB just the same with Fighter.
And then why not 5th with Haste and Fly and Fireball and .. hey, now you qualify for Eldritch Knight!
I suppose it depends on if you have a Wizard in your party or not. Remember it is very important to leave your wizard on even levels for the extra BAB if you are primarily a fighter. Level 3 is not wise even if you get your 2nd levels spells on it. You dont dont lose much going to level 4 wizard since you will get that BAB just the same with Fighter.
Well I could see how the +1 to BAB would justify taking another lvl from 3->4 wiz, without it hurting too much, but i dont see what it would get me that a fighter lvl wouldn't? More spells? In that case I would rather get my +1 BAB from fighter and get more HP/feat/whatever. As soon as you have those 2nd lvl spells I think you have all that a fighter would want from wizard lvls without sacrificing too many fighter lvls :)
If you're mostly a non-spellcaster -- quite possibly.
If you're mostly a spellcaster -- not usually.
I agree for high level games, but in reality most games don't make high level so the multi-class spellcasters don't lose quite as much as it looks like they will on paper, imo.
Just as the question asks above. Is it worth it?
Thanks
Wow, what a loaded question.
Just in the core classes there are tens of thousands of possibilities just by level 10. (statistics was never my big thing, but I'm getting almost 185,000 possibilities). Over 30 million possibilities by level 20.
Trying to evaluate which of those is best, which is worst, and which are "worth it" is beyond my capability.
Really, your question is far too broad to give a simple or accurate answer.
However, in general, the best abilities on most classes are found at their highest levels - especially spellcasters (you don't see apprentices walking around casting Meteor Swarms or Miracles). So multiclassing in such a way that you end up with two core classes at level 10 each usually means that neither of your classes will get their best abilities - you'll be walking around trying to kill epic monsters with a double-helping of lowbie abilities. Hardly ever "worth it".
But, multiclassing as 19/1 or 18/2 or 17/3 is usually not too painful, and often quite "worth it", especially if you "dip" into a level or two of a class that gets really good stuff at low levels.
Also, multiclassing can be necessary to get a certain prestige class. If that prestige class is solid enough, the multiclassing to qualify for it is probably "worth it".
Unless you're careful, you may lose some raw power. In return, you usually gain some versatility. Trading power for versatility is only conditionally "worth it" - when you need power to kill something super dangerous, it's not "worth it", but when you need skills/abilities outside of yoru core class, then it is "worth it". So, from day to day, even from encounter to encounter, you may waffle back and forth between "worth it" and "not worth it".
So trying to speculate without even knowing what classes or even what kinds of multiclassing you are contemplating is futile.
In the end, it may just boil down to this: It's "worth it" if you enjoy the character you are creating. If your enjoyment is based off of raw power, then often it won't be "worth it". If you like versatility, then it's usually going to be "worth it". And if you like to roleplay a fun and interesting character, then it will always be "worth it".
Just as the question asks above. Is it worth it?
Thanks
In Pathfinder, only in rare cases, or for role-playing reasons. Whereas previous D&D versions (2.x and 3.x) more or less expected you to multiclass to get a balanced character (except if you were a spellcaster), Pathfinder pretty much corrals you into a single class. You are now quite penalized for multiclassing because so many abilities are level-dependent. If you're a ranger or druid, forget about it if you want a useful companion (unless you are a ranger/druid). If you're a spellcaster, multiclassing sacrifices your most powerful spells so the penalty is greater the higher level you are. That's especially true since spells have been nerfed over several D&D releases so that low-level spells mostly work only against low-level opponents, so losing your highest-level spells is a great loss. Monks and paladins also have level-dependent abilities that are unfriendly to multiclassing. The only classes that can still multiclass without undue penalties are fighter and rogue; or barbarian with rogue. As you can see, Pathfinder has gone quite out of its way to make multiclassing undesirable and impractical. Even though it's still possible in theory, it definitely results in significantly weaker characters. That includes most racial paragons, and most "prestige" classes unless they use one of the classes I mentioned to qualify (except perhaps the dragon disciple).
I think it depends a LOT on your RP group. If you've got mostly optimizers or a DM that throws real strong challenges at you, multi-classing a caster is going to put you behind in the necessary numbers. If your group is mostly Role Play oriented, and you've noticed other players multi-classing, it's probably fine. As said before, non-casters tend to fare better than casters in multi-classing
That said, I once made a Dragon Disciple Epic level character in 3.5, and it was the weakest character in the group. Keep a close eye on what stacks, how your spells are affected, the number of attacks and level of damage they do, and what other abilities are diluted.
I agree for high level games, but in reality most games don't make high level so the multi-class spellcasters don't lose quite as much as it looks like they will on paper, imo.If you're mostly a non-spellcaster -- quite possibly.
If you're mostly a spellcaster -- not usually.
I think this is almost backwards. My rogue is multiclassing into wizard, when my rogue/ wizard is casting magic missile the straight wizard is casting fireball. I think a 3rd level wizard misses 2 levels of spellcasting a lot more than a 7th level wizard.
... Track, ranger wands...
Track is now a level-dependent bonus, 2 levels of ranger isn't helping much. Also I believe that you don't get the wands until lvl 4 ranger because your caster level is 0 until then. However, the multiclassed character has better saving throws. As I said, fighter/rogue works. A quick dip in ranger for skills, saving throws and either TWF or a bow feat can work too if that's what you're after. You're right that the perspective changes depending on level and what you want to achieve. Earlier, I was thinking mostly of levels above 10.
Also I believe that you don't get the wands until lvl 4 ranger because your caster level is 0 until then.
Explicitly not the case, actually. Don't recall this from 3.5, but recently poring over the magic item rules it stuck out at me:
Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.
Well... big question: is there an honest chance of it getting to 20?
If so: The fighter's capstone is better for sheer beatdown than either of those dips. Dual-wield scimitars (which you have enough +attack to get away with) and 30% of your attacks do triple damage. That kicks ass all over situational +1d6 or +4 Strength.
However, there are some strong arguments in both utility and survival for deviating from Fighter. Rogue 4 / Barbarian 2 gives you fast movement, 6+ rounds of rage, evasion, improved uncanny dodge, +2d6 sneak attack, one rage power (Superstition, probably) and two rogue talents (which can easily replace two lost fighter feats, among other options). And you've only lost 1 base attack.
Fighters get something you want at every level except for the armor training levels, as long as you still want combat feats. Unless you have some ridiculously high stat-gen system, you probably won't be able to use a ton of armor training. Bravery is dumb but it's free, so whatever. Obvious outs are 2 (two feats), 4 (three feats and Weapon Spec if that's what makes you happy), 5 (a Weapon Training), or 6 (another feat). After this, you're seeing an increase of Armor Training levels to good levels, so you might as well stop.
You may also want to look at 7th level, as that is the level where fighters no longer take movement penalties for heavy armor, in addition to the extra armor protection.
They get bonus feats at 3, 5, 10, 15, 20.Ok. I assume level 3 one is a typo, or im blind :D
Anyway, my conjurer is now level 5 right. On the one hand I have awesome prestige classes leading to fun stuff all the way to level 20. On the other hand I have standard action teleport at level 8 and something at level 20. The teleport is GREAT, but is it better than the prestige? NO
And the reason I say SOMETHING at level 20 is: Who gets to level 20? Who stays at that level? Level 20 capstone means NOTHING to me...
Yes either 3 is a typo or Sudafed didn't agree with me that day :) I included level 20 because they get a feat at that level, not cause campaign's go that high. The point is, wizards do get SOMETHING or an improvement to something almost every level, The diviner in particular has caught my eye. Surprise round, I failed my perception check, I go anyways.. roll initiative, 47, I go first, time stop
I think this is almost backwards. My rogue is multiclassing into wizard, when my rogue/ wizard is casting magic missile the straight wizard is casting fireball. I think a 3rd level wizard misses 2 levels of spellcasting a lot more than a 7th level wizard.I agree for high level games, but in reality most games don't make high level so the multi-class spellcasters don't lose quite as much as it looks like they will on paper, imo.If you're mostly a non-spellcaster -- quite possibly.
If you're mostly a spellcaster -- not usually.
Hmm, Evocation spells... not the best way to judge this point imo.
Hmm, Evocation spells... not the best way to judge this point imo.I think this is almost backwards. My rogue is multiclassing into wizard, when my rogue/ wizard is casting magic missile the straight wizard is casting fireball. I think a 3rd level wizard misses 2 levels of spellcasting a lot more than a 7th level wizard.I agree for high level games, but in reality most games don't make high level so the multi-class spellcasters don't lose quite as much as it looks like they will on paper, imo.If you're mostly a non-spellcaster -- quite possibly.
If you're mostly a spellcaster -- not usually.
+1
Multiclassing is all about tradeoffs between versatility and focused power. A rogue/wizard that can cast spells like expeditious retreat, invisibility, knock, spider climb, etc. (possibly even in addition to the one or two spell-like abilities from rogue talents) is a lot more versatile than a normal rogue, let alone a normal wizard. A single classed wizard will have more focused ability in casting spells (approriately), but will not be able to do as much when not casting spells as the rogue/wizard.
Another way to put it: would you rather have a wizard 5 that can cast 3rd level spells or a rogue 2/wizard 3 that can cast 2nd level spells, can sneak about without invisibility (and is even better with it), can Sneak Attack (including with ranged touch spells like acid arrow and scorching ray), and has Evasion? It's really a matter of preference (and character concept).
Mu. It depends on your desired course of action. Every character I've multi-classed made sense for the character from an RP standpoint before considering the mechanics. And often, the mechanics support the decision. I've heard that "Mystic Theurge SUCKS!11eleventyone" on many different forums, but I'm doing it because the character's path reflects it.
So yes, it's worth it. And no, it's not. The core 11 classes in PFRPG are SOLID. They don't NEED to multi-class. But there's SO MANY OPTIONS for multi-classing. Always ask yourself why you're doing it in the first place, then make your decision based on the response.
Mu. It depends on your desired course of action. Every character I've multi-classed made sense for the character from an RP standpoint before considering the mechanics. And often, the mechanics support the decision. I've heard that "Mystic Theurge SUCKS!11eleventyone" on many different forums, but I'm doing it because the character's path reflects it.
So yes, it's worth it. And no, it's not. The core 11 classes in PFRPG are SOLID. They don't NEED to multi-class. But there's SO MANY OPTIONS for multi-classing. Always ask yourself why you're doing it in the first place, then make your decision based on the response.
I have to thank you for saying that. I think that a lot of things can end up in: is it worth it for character power level? I usually try to make multiclassing a concept as much as a question of being "powerful enough for a given level".
I my opion no matter what you do (in PF that is) you will always have MINIMUM power for a given level. Even if you took a level in a different class, that class will always gain something for you; fx. the wizard who multiclass to fighter will get a. much better base attack no matter what level, b. great hit points, c. if done creatively an awesome character and concept result.
I'm not intending to say that multiclassing can't be bad. If you're going for a powerful wizard, you shouldn't multiclass. Really. Unless you prestige class into something that gives you new spell levels you won't be a powerful wizard, if you stop following the wizard path (sorry, but isn't that slightly obvious?).
However if you want to be the greatest swordmage in history, running straight wizard is probably not what you want to do. I'd suggest looking at the requirements for Eldritch Knight (as well as the PrC, Pathfinder really udgraded it).
Of course not everything is concept - just as everything shouldn't be about getting a powerful character. I'd say that a for a character to be successful you have do "what the character wants" and what makes a cool concept go hand in hand with a character who's good at doing just what the concept is about doing.
Basically, however, yes, multiclassing is worth it, if you're feeling that your character will fit the option well.
If you're playing Half-Elf of course multiclassing is even cooler (hint hint multitalented!).
A player in my current Council of Thieves game rolled significantly worse than the rest of the group. Playable stats, but barely above the Elite Array:
Str 10
Dex 11
Con 13
Int 15
Wis 14 (16)
Cha 11
He's aiming to be the party's artificer, with Skill Focus: Spellcraft from half-elf. Currently Wiz1/Clr1 and very happy with his enormous number and variety of spells per day.
So yeah, theurges happen naturally. :)
So yes, it's worth it. And no, it's not. The core 11 classes in PFRPG are SOLID. They don't NEED to multi-class.Unless you're a barbarian. Barbarians have big ugly multi-level gaps, where you're picking from the dregs of a not-too-hot talent list or getting weak defensive powers. 6-10 are ugly levels for barbarians; for five levels, you're getting some weak immunities (the low-level fear and the sick chain), a little bit of DR, and the dregs of a talent pool. Level 11 gives you a generic +1 to hit and damage, and then you're stuck waiting for nine more levels, until your capstone ability is...another +1 to hit and damage! Whee!
Or a monk after level 12 or so. The extra stuff you get after level 12 is pretty weak, IMO; you're probably better off buying a Monk's Robe and taking some levels in another melee class.
Hmm, Evocation spells... not the best way to judge this point imo.If you prefer:
"When my rogue/wizard is casting Magic Weapon, the straight wizard is casting Haste."
"When my rogue/wizard is casting Expeditious Retreat, the straight wizard is casting Fly."
"When my rogue/wizard is casting Obscuring Mist, the straight wizard is casting Sleet Storm and Stinking Cloud."
Nice assumption there: Comparing a rogue 4/wizard 1 to a wizard 5 in spellcasting ability only. Why don't you look at a multiclassed caster that doesn't give up 4 levels of casting ability? Stacking the deck that way proves nothing other than your prejudices.
For a real comparison, look at the rogue 2/wizard 3 vs. wizard 5 in my post above.
When multiclassing (including a prestige class) with a cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer, giving up more than 2 levels (or perhaps 3) of spellcasting progression over the course of the character's entire career (progression) is most likely not worthwhile. There's a bit more leeway with a bard, since spells are not as central to the class. With minor spellcasters (paladin, ranger), the spells are such a minor part of the class that the loss of casting levels from multiclassing will probably not be missed.
|
When multiclassing (including a prestige class) with a cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer, giving up more than 2 levels (or perhaps 3) of spellcasting progression over the course of the character's entire career (progression) is most likely not worthwhile. There's a bit more leeway with a bard, since spells are not as central to the class. With minor spellcasters (paladin, ranger), the spells are such a minor part of the class that the loss of casting levels from multiclassing will probably not be missed.
As with everything, it depends on character concept. I love playing melee heavy gishes. With the improvements to the fighter class and eldritch knight, it's a little easier to make a melee heavy caster type. Judicious spell choices that are more about melee, buffing and options ( access to select spell compendium spells helps too! ) makes this concept viable - if that's what you want to play.
Or a monk after level 12 or so. The extra stuff you get after level 12 is pretty weak, IMO; you're probably better off buying a Monk's Robe and taking some levels in another melee class.So yes, it's worth it. And no, it's not. The core 11 classes in PFRPG are SOLID. They don't NEED to multi-class.Unless you're a barbarian. Barbarians have big ugly multi-level gaps, where you're picking from the dregs of a not-too-hot talent list or getting weak defensive powers. 6-10 are ugly levels for barbarians; for five levels, you're getting some weak immunities (the low-level fear and the sick chain), a little bit of DR, and the dregs of a talent pool. Level 11 gives you a generic +1 to hit and damage, and then you're stuck waiting for nine more levels, until your capstone ability is...another +1 to hit and damage! Whee!
I would play a pathfinder monk to 20. I would play a 3.5 monk to 2..maybe?
lots of monk goodies increase with monk level..