What penalties to multi-classing are you talking about?
The only thing I have seen, and I think its for the good, it now makes perfect sense to play a character to 20th without multi-classing where as before it seemed that you were almost encouraged to multi-class as there was no benefit to stick to the one.
Multiclassing is okay for martial types (whose abilities scale linearly), but it cripples casters (whose abilities scale exponentially). A fighter 4/wizard 4 is maybe half as powerful as an 8th level wizard.
Multiclassing is okay for martial types (whose abilities scale linearly), but it cripples casters (whose abilities scale exponentially). A fighter 4/wizard 4 is maybe half as powerful as an 8th level wizard.
Yea, I was being a bit dense...I've been sorting out some of my player's PCs who wanted help with their Fighter and Rogue and was in *bash things* mode!
Multi-classing for spellcasters is poor but martial classes its pretty much okay.
I see no problem with an eldritch knight personally..
what is it a fighter 1 / wizard 5 / eldritch knight 4 ?
+7 BAB
8th level caster
10 + 5D6 + 4D10 hp
It might come down to trading some power for versatility, I dont think this is a bad deal, it just wont overpower a single fighter or wizard anymore.
I had an idea where multi-classed characters get (sum of other class levels)/2 as effective class level on some or even all their class abilities (either automatically or with a feat, or a mix of the two).
So say we have a fighter 4/ wizard 4, he'd, say, get +2 on his caster level for being a wizard and get school abilities like a 6th-level wizard, and would be considered a fighter 6 for bonus feats. With the Improved Multiclassing(Wizard) feat, he might even get spells per day like a 6th-level wizard.
I don't think this is new to Pathfinder.
When the PCs at my table were in the level range of 20-30, the ones who had multiclassed felt way underpowered compared to the single class characters.
I don't personally have an issue with this; if you choose a class and then a prestige class that stacks well, this won't be an issue. If you're a character with 3 or 4 or more classes, odds are you've been trying to cherry-pick class abilities, and if you get behind the power curve, that's your tradeoff for cherry picking.
In terms of casters, there's feats out there that help with the caster level issue, most notably Practiced Spellcaster from Complete Arcane.
But, if you're going to mix casting and non-casting classes, your caster level is going to suffer. That's not a flaw, it's by design.
I had an idea where multi-classed characters get (sum of other class levels)/2 as effective class level on some or even all their class abilities (either automatically or with a feat, or a mix of the two).
So say we have a fighter 4/ wizard 4, he'd, say, get +2 on his caster level for being a wizard and get school abilities like a 6th-level wizard, and would be considered a fighter 6 for bonus feats. With the Improved Multiclassing(Wizard) feat, he might even get spells per day like a 6th-level wizard.
In 3.5 there have been several feats to facilitate multi-classing by combining some class abilities, while they might be a bit too strong for a typical feat I think it is a fine solution if you feel a certain multi-class combination is just underpowered compared to single class characters.
Take this example fighter/3 cleric/5 gets hit and is able to step out and grab a quick 2d8+5 that did not cost him or the group 1gp. Add Strength Domain and lookout. Can anyone say Rightous Might. Also the ability to cast buffs on one's self should not be misscounted. Wait till the Knight dim-doors right next to the NPC caster and you will see the power in multi-classing. Also, a wizard with a good Armor with transformation and stone skin is a crushing machine. Used properly, even in Pathfinder multiclass can be a powerful option.
The main thing with multi-classing is that it eliminates some kind of weakness, but it doesn't make a character stronger typically just more versatile.
Take this example fighter/3 cleric/5 gets hit and is able to step out and grab a quick 2d8+5 that did not cost him or the group 1gp. Add Strength Domain and lookout. Can anyone say Rightous Might.
Righteous Might is a 5th level spell; the cleric 8 gets it in one more level, whereas your fighhter 3 mix needs to be 12th, minimum.
yah I know the spells levels They were just examples of good spells for someone who is susposed to be a fighter to cast on ones self without having to have another PC use their action to buff you.
In re. the OP. It's not a problem.
(It's you game though, change it how you would like to.)
I would say fighter 3 cleric 5 is a bit weaker than a cleric 8.
I am using a different slightly complicated method of calculating CR for classed characters, this would put the cleric 8 on the same scale as a fighter 3 / cleric 6, which seems about right to me CR 7 both.
I would say fighter 3 cleric 5 is a bit weaker than a cleric 8.
I am using a different slightly complicated method of calculating CR for classed characters, this would put the cleric 8 on the same scale as a fighter 3 / cleric 6, which seems about right to me CR 7 both.
Are you counting that the 8th cleric is the party healer/caster where as the fighter/cleric is meant to tank. Or what about heavy armor access which cleric does not get in PF? AC is important for upfronters. Also, bonus feats for fighter will help balance power which if you use only PF materal will not be as big deal but if you allow 3.5 alot of power can be had for the price of 2 fighter levels or three. Depends on the build. Infact once had a cleric9/fighter3 that single handed took a red dreagon that was meant to be a "real" challenge. retired the PC after that because he way outclassed the other PCs. (And I was not trying to power game that is just how the numbers worked out. Way more into concept than numbers.)
We use the table from Unearthed Arcane for giving caster levels based on non-casters. It's a simle fix, so is allowing the feat practiced caster. At least they got rid of the "you have to be within 2 levels unless it's favored" crap. Now if you multiclass there's no XP penalty, you just have to think out your builds.
EDIT: I think the "class nerfs" and "designed drawbacks" help limiting the cheezy munchkins from overpowering their characters viacherry picking, but I'd like to see it as balanced multiclassing as single classing. It's just a hard thing to do and while keeping powergamers happy.
All this is an example of why I dislike multiclassing. It is too easy for someone to create a weaker character just because the 'abilities don't stack', or because he took one too many levels in one of his classes. I generaly create customized 20 level classes for players who are looking for something fancy. It takes a lot of time and you have to be careful about balancing it, but it works well.
For example: one of my players liked the druid class, but seemed to also want to do close combat using weapons (not wildshape). So, I created a ranger/druid hybrid class for him. I thinned out his spell progression so that it was at around bard strength(in between ranger and druid), gave him fewer wildshape uses, and gave him ranger combat feats, favored terrains, and a few other ranger abilities.
Another example was that one of my players wanted to play a bard, but with more melee capabilites. He was thinking of taking levels in duelist (which would have been horrible for a bard), so I hunted down the 'snowflake wardance' bard ability for him and made his class talent based so if he didn't want a certain bardic song, he could pick a different ability instead. Bards are performers and dancers as well as singers, so I made all the shadowdancer uncanny dodge and evasion abilities avalable to him as talents.
There was a book for 3.5 in 2005 called Buy the Numbers. It let you build classless PC by using XP purchases. I'd like to see this for Pathfinder and may even take a whack at it myself.
One of PFRPG goals was to remove dead levels and make staying in-class a better option. A lot of work went into achieving this. If you want to dip into other classes to cherry pick abilities and end up with just as good a character then I would suggest you play 3.5.
Why aren't you happy with what you're getting from your chosen class?
For me, the move away from multi-classing is a good one.
Isn't a system where you can multi-class without losing any strength a bit like a system where all the classes are basically the same, maybe you should try 4.0 ;)
Stuart -
I want PCs to be incredibly unique, not 'stovepiped.' I know the classes allow a lot of variation, but in my game I want more. I've always liked the idea of multi-classing. If it WAS a goal of PF to minimize it, then I'll have to house rule it back toward 3.5.
-Marsh
No it wasn't a goal to minimize it, rather to make single class viable, I think it worked fairly, I can't say multiclass is a problem to me more likely to get into a prestige class than a single class character I think, but pretty balanced in the end.
|
Stuart -
I want PCs to be incredibly unique, not 'stovepiped.' I know the classes allow a lot of variation, but in my game I want more. I've always liked the idea of multi-classing. If it WAS a goal of PF to minimize it, then I'll have to house rule it back toward 3.5.
-Marsh
The problem is, you have a Fighter 3 / Wizard 3 / Cleric 3 / Bard 3 sitting right next to Fighter 12, Wizard 12, Cleric 12 and Bard 12.
At some point, the multiclasser will come to the conclusion that his PC is just way behind everybody else.
I love to multiclass but I do like that fighter can be taken for more than 2lvs without feeling like you are missing out. I like the fixes and still dont see how mulitclassing hurts.
Fighter 3 / Wizard 3 / Cleric 3 / Bard 3 .
That would be a fun build. What do you do? Oh, a little of everything. HA HA.
Are you counting that the 8th cleric is the party healer/caster where as the fighter/cleric is meant to tank. Or what about heavy armor access which cleric does not get in PF? AC is important for upfronters. Also, bonus feats for fighter will help balance power which if you use only PF materal will not be as big deal but if you allow 3.5 alot of power can be had for the price of 2 fighter levels or three. Depends on the build. Infact once had a cleric9/fighter3 that single handed took a red dreagon that was meant to be a "real" challenge. retired the PC after that because he way outclassed the other PCs. (And I was not trying to power game that is just how the numbers worked out. Way more into concept than numbers.)I would say fighter 3 cleric 5 is a bit weaker than a cleric 8.
I am using a different slightly complicated method of calculating CR for classed characters, this would put the cleric 8 on the same scale as a fighter 3 / cleric 6, which seems about right to me CR 7 both.
cleric 9/ fighter 3 is pretty decent cleric always has been a pretty powerful character by itself, but I think a 12th level cleric is still a better choice from a party perspective.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take: Multiclassing becomes less and less desirable the more players you have in a game. In a one-player, one GM situation, multiclassing is a good option because it helps your one PC be more versatile. But in a group of five or so... multiclassing is less of a good option, mostly because chances are very good that there's already someone in the group who's not multiclassed and will be a constant reminder of how much better they are at what they do, compared to the multiclassed character's stuff.
My theory: Multiclassing should rarely, if ever, be a route taken by players seeking to make powerful characters. It should be a route taken by players seeking to make unusual characters who are a challenge to play.
My take: Multiclassing becomes less and less desirable the more players you have in a game. In a one-player, one GM situation, multiclassing is a good option because it helps your one PC be more versatile. But in a group of five or so... multiclassing is less of a good option, mostly because chances are very good that there's already someone in the group who's not multiclassed and will be a constant reminder of how much better they are at what they do, compared to the multiclassed character's stuff.
My theory: Multiclassing should rarely, if ever, be a route taken by players seeking to make powerful characters. It should be a route taken by players seeking to make unusual characters who are a challenge to play.
unusual characters a great way to describe a multi-class
|
As for casters, my DM (from whom I've stolen this idea for my games) uses the optional rule (now house-rule) from Unearthed Arcana of Magic Rating.
All the caster levels of caster classes stack (some people don't like stacking divine & arcane - but this can make sense depending on the character). Non-caster classes count as 1/4 caster level, so a wizard 5/rogue 4actually has a CL 6. In his games, a cleric 3/sorcerer 4/mystic thuerge 1 would have a caster level of 8 for his cleric and sorcerer spells.
Magic rating (as a house rule, of course) helps multi-classing casters to not be too penalized. Caster level is balanced, but because they didn't single class, they lose access to higher level spells and the special class abilities of higher levels.
This sounds like a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Are folks griping because multiclassing carries penalties? Of course there are penalties. If there weren't, anyone who multiclassed would be jack of all trade gods compared to those who stayed in one class. The system is working as designed... the difference is that Paizo made single classing even more desirable by rewarding them with extra goodies at higher level. Whether that was a good idea I don't know, but I've sure been enjoying the perks and have yet to even want to multiclass... not even to go into a Prestige Class.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dork Lord, the Pathfinder rules give a PC all sorts of little goodies to stay in one class; the favored class bonuses serve as a very clear example.
Since 3rd Edition rolled out, there have always been disadvantages to multi-classing, usually stronger than the advantages. (Particularly for the spellcasting classes. But a 3rd / 3rd/ 3rd Level Rogue / Ranger / Barbarian is still on par with a 9th-Level Barbarian in 3.5.) Those disadvantages have been sharpened, and the advantages dulled, in Pathfinder.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James -
I don't want a player who comes up with something unique to have to accept that their build will always be second-rate.
I like the idea that someone can come to the table with a really cool mix-and-match -- a monk who walks the arcane path, a sniveling rogue who's constantly cadging help from his goddess -- and be at parity.
Otherwise, you wind up with a lot of halfling rogues, elven rangers, gnome illusionists, etc.
My sense is that Paizo is in fact trying to offer players more options by coming up with cool new classes (oracle, etc.).
I just prefer a mechanic that allows more flexible character builds without a mechanics penalty.
I, for one, DON'T think that a fighter 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight 10 or however that pans out is a second rate character. That's the "best" way to do a fighter/wizard multiclass, I think... but another good option is to ONLY take 2 or 4 levels of fighter and do the rest in wizard. An even split between a spellcasting class and a non spellcasting class is where the problems show up.
But it's worth looking at a character concept and examining the hopes of the player. If a player wants to do a multiclass character for reasons that essentially boil down to "I want to be as good a fighter as Charlie's character AND as good a spellcaster as Lucy's character," then it's not fair to Charlie or Lucy if a third player basically wants to be able to upstage them both at once. Now, if that player said, "I want to play a fighter who augments his swordfighting with magic spells," fighter/wizard isn't the only option. Play a bard. Play a cleric of Nethys. OR play a multiclass character with whatever split between levels (and prestige classes) works best.
We WILL continue to offer new options for classes. Of the new base classes, none are really trying to be a "fighter/wizard" replacement, though, because we feel that role has already been pretty well covered by the eldritch knight. We WILL be focusing more on giving the bard some more "buff the weaponplay" type spells, I believe, so that might end up being a stronger option as well, since the bard's already a pretty strong contender for a fighter/wizard who uses his magic to augment his fighting. (He's not as good at being a melee fighter who relies on magic for ranged attacks... your best bet there is probably still an eldritch knight type thing).
I think that this is where the PrCs should come in. One area I always thought they should be used. Yes, that makes a boring PrC, but it will help. That is the Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, or the Arcane Trickster. Either use PrCs for unique concepts, or to help the multiclass characters out.
I DM an Eldritch Knight in my group and he's the most powerful member in the party consisting of a full-time Hexblade, Favored Soul, and a multiclassed OA Samurai/Psychic Warrior/Elocator. Except for when he runs out of spells, but he can still last a good while before being taken down even at that point.
There aren't really penalties for multi-classing as much as there are opportunity costs. You multi-class, you don't advance in an aspect of your character development as much as someone who doesn't. It makes perfect sense since you are deliberately devoting your efforts away from it to get something else.
good stuff
+1
[...]If a player wants to do a multiclass character for reasons that essentially boil down to "I want to be as good a fighter as Charlie's character AND as good a spellcaster as Lucy's character," then it's not fair to Charlie or Lucy if a third player basically wants to be able to upstage them both at once.[...]
I just prefer a mechanic that allows more flexible character builds without a mechanics penalty.
Yes. I so true. A fighter 8/ rogue 4 won't be as good as a fighter as a level 12 fighter. Nor will he be as good as a rogue as a level 12 rogue. But he will be able to do stuff none of the other classes can do on their own.
I for one love to multiclass and none of my multiclass characters have been powerful, but they have been fun. Had I played them using Pathfinder they would have been much more powerful and much more fun and some of them would not have been multi-classed at all or at least less multi-classed. My 3.5 Paladin, Cleric, Divine Agent, would now probably be a Paladin 14/Bard 2 or a level 16 cleric.
Does Pathfinder penalize multiclassing too much? No they don't.
The Favored Class is now flexible. In 3.x all races had one predetermined Favored Class. Now you can choose freely. You can be an elven rogue 1, fighter 1, barbarian 10 without getting XP penalty.
Edit: And as Maezer pointed out: They took out the experience penalty for multiclassing so you can now multiclass as you wish.
You want to be a fighter/rogue but focus on fighter and still find traps? In 3.x you had cross class-skills, now you don't. One skill point equals one rank.
You want mechanic that allows more flexible character builds? Look at Page 9 in the core book: The Most Important Rule -
"Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs."
One piece of advice. You want a mechanic that allows more flexible character builds without a mechanics penalty. If by "without a mechanics penalty" you mean that a multi classed wizard should be as good as a pure wizard AND have all the bonus from his fighter levels then you will get into trouble. But it's your game.
[...]We WILL be focusing more on giving the bard some more "buff the weaponplay" type spells, I believe [...]
Yeeeeeeeees! And some new Bard feats like improved Inspire greatness ;-)
The hybrid prestige classes do okay in making up for the multiclassing problem—after you have several levels in them. On the way to effectiveness, though, you journey through the Valley of Major Suck.
A 7th level fighter 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight 1 is worse at both fighting and raw spellcasting than a 7th level bard (1 lower BAB, 1 fewer spell of both 1st & 2nd levels, 2 fewer levels for caster level-dependent effects). That he also has fewer skill points, can't cast in armor, and lacks the bard's host of special abilities just piles on insult.
A 6th level cleric 3/wizard 3 is worse.
Incidentally, there's no way at all to effectively multiclass cleric/druid, sorcerer/wizard, bard/wizard, or bard/sorcerer. I think bard/cleric and bard/druid are lacking, too, but I'm less definitive on them.
|
Creative Director
|
The hybrid prestige classes do okay in making up for the multiclassing problem—after you have several levels in them. On the way to effectiveness, though, you journey through the Valley of Major Suck.
And that's kind of the point. If you want to do something like this, you'll need to be patient.
Incidentally, there's no way at all to effectively multiclass cleric/druid, sorcerer/wizard, bard/wizard, or bard/sorcerer.
To be honest, I'm kind of okay with that. Not all multiclass combos make sense, especially if they're two very similar spellcasting classes. If you want to play a cleric AND a druid, a much better option would be to play one and take Leadership to get a cohort of the other.
|
|
Even WotC realized this at some point, and made the Duskblade and the Beguiler as an answer to "Fgt/Wiz and Rog/Wiz don't work" problem.
Of course that would call for a base class to cover every multiclass combo out there, which is of course impossible.
Arrrgh... bring back the 2ed multiclass system !
PrC are ok to fill the role of multi-classing in the most popular class combinations.
A prestige class for a bard sorcerer is fairly easy to create, I created a feat at some point to make it viable, but a PrC would probably fit better. Any class combination of two classes can be made into a PrC, I do not like to see an overabundance of rarely used PrC taking up space though.
|
Maybe it's just me, but it makes perfect sense to me that a multiclass fighter/wizard (to go for the most popular option) isn't as powerful as a dedicated member of either of those classes. He's dividing his focus, and abilities tend to be more powerful as one advances in level. So a wizard that skips a few levels in order to gain the ability to be a decent melee combatant is sacrificing his magical power.
I think some people when they multiclass are really just looking for gestalt characters. Gestalt characters are fine, but only if everyone in the party gets to play them. And if that were the case, then I would expect the vast majority of NPCs to be gestalt as well, and for other monsters to be pumped up in some manner.
This is actually my biggest complain with a great many of the prestige classes...often they seem like half-assed attempts to multiclass without suffering as many penalties.
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but it makes perfect sense to me that a multiclass fighter/wizard (to go for the most popular option) isn't as powerful as a dedicated member of either of those classes. He's dividing his focus, and abilities tend to be more powerful as one advances in level. So a wizard that skips a few levels in order to gain the ability to be a decent melee combatant is sacrificing his magical power.So what is he good at?
Multiclassing and PrCs like Eldritch Knight create characters who are bad at many things, and being bad at two things is not a substitute for being good at one thing in a game of specialists. It might be possible to create PrCs that add a portion of the specialty of one class to another class, but non-synergistic multiclassing as a PrC entry and being-bad-at-everything-two-classes-do is a non-starter for a PrC concept.
He is either a fighter that can magical buff himself and use his magic to suppliment his fighting or he is a Magic-user that has a better chance to hit and take more damage in melee as he delivers his spells via close quarters. He can also do more stuff at range and has various opportunities open to him that a fighter doesn't.
A fighter can't cast spells. That guy can but it doesn't mean that his spells should be equal to a dedicated wizard's spells. It means he gave up a degree of power for additional flexibility. If that trade is stupid to someone then they shouldn't go for it.Even the Duskblade, arguably an excellent example of a class designed to make a fighter/mage mix that worked really well, imposed a good amount of limits. Reduced hit points, very limited spell list with no buff spells, etc...
It sounds like what you want is Gestalt Classes. They gain the full power of both classes. Regular multiclass is about choices: How much full power do I sacrifice to gain the bonus of flexibility.