|
Having played systems like Star Wars Saga, which was pretty much built from the ground up to be a dip-friendly d20 system, I find Pathfinder's dipableness is kind of... meh.
I understand that Paizo was moving away from that, changing the multiclass penalty into a multiclass bonus, and giving capstone powers, but if you find the modular element of the game fun there just seems to be something lacking.
This isn't as big of an issue with spellcasters since they have always been geared towards rewarding deeper investment, but for the martial classes things can feel really constrained when your trying to create certain character concepts. Because the martial classes have much less flexibility than spellcasters you tend to have to invest in several levels to grab enough different class features that help round out the character concept.
I guess I feel like rather than playing with legos, I'm playing with an erector set. They both have a lot of modular parts, but the erector set isn't as fine grained in delivering certain effects, or you have to scale up the model (with characters it means needing to reach upper mid levels) to get the details you want.
Perhaps the APG will fix some of this feeling I have, perhaps we'll have some alternative class features that will make dips into various classes more worthewhile. Unfortunately the new base classes don't seem to tickle my dipable mood. A lot of those concepts seem to be coming into their own at higher levels rather than at first level.
It would be great to see some "limited base classes" which would be kind of an inversion of prestige classes. Rather than being a class with prerequisites, these are base classes that only go for 3 to 5 levels, designed to jump you into a concept and then let you branch out.
With a flexible DM most concepts can work with a base class anyway.
3.5 was more dippable and it was terrible... to be a decent martial character it was almost essential to plan your build with a PrC in mind. Straight fighters were barely ever played, and they were sub-par to a well built multiclass.
The game was designed with the intent to make going 1-20 in a class more appealing. They specifically tried to keep classes from being front heavy and making it more rewarding to stick with a class. This by definition will make dipping into several classes less appealing. I highly doubt this will change in the APG.
To many, the "dippableness" of 3.5 or as some may even say the "dip requirement" to make effective builds of the flavor you wanted was a big problem. Peek into a 3.5 character optimization forum and try to find a build with two or fewer composite classes. It didn't happen. The classes were too easy to dip into and come out with big gains with little loss. There was no incentive to stay in classes for the long haul when you could pick up the big useful features in the first 2-4 levels.
In Pathfinder you can still dip. You can take your fighter 2 for bonus feats and barb 1 for increased move and rage, monk 1 for wis to ac or paladin 2 for divine grace and some goodies. To get the really yummy class features, you have to commit. From a roleplay as well as mechanics standpoint, that's as it should be.
All of the classes now have a decent reason to dip, and you could do a viable martial character switching it up between them. You lose out on some of the better things they get at higher levels though. Thats the penalty for dipping.
Star Wars Saga is one of the most dippable d20 games I have seen. So much so that I can't see a reason to stay in any non-prestige class more than 3 levels. Personally, I don't like this style as much.
I was going to say, wasn't one of the design philosophies for the PFRPG based around making it more worthwhile to play a class for the entire span? That's a conscious effort to make it less worthwhile to "dip".
Not for nothing, but this is kind of like test driving a corvette and going, "Yeah, that's good and all, I just wish it had more cargo room and off-road ability."
The class system was designed with the opposite intent of what you're looking for, so yeah, you aren't going to be satisfied with it.
If you are disappointed with Pathfinder, then you would hate 4e. It's nearly pointless to multiclass in 4e.
For my part, I like the Pathfinder philosophy. I feel it's more balanced. In 3rd/3.5, there was rarely a reason not to take a prestige class, and martial classes could almost always benefit with at least 1 level of something else. Now, I feel the benefits = the drawbacks.
|
SAGA was designed to be dipable, but a fatal flaw in the design was talent trees. The only reason to take another class was to gain access to a talent tree... but from a design perspecitve this is pretty much a pigeon hole, forcing people to take another class to get what they want. Five class, two with d10 HD and full BAB, two with d8's and 3/4 BAB, and one with a d6 HD... the only difference is choosing your skills (which don't even really matter at high levels with SAGA's skill system).
The idea that SAGA was trying to espouse, IMO, was flexibility. They instead made their class system an accounting nightmare (and even worse when you take their prestige class bloat into account). There are two ways to fix this IMO:
1) Go the PFRPG route and make singular classes better over the long haul. When SAGA first came out, this wasn't a bad way to go unless you were playing a Jedi (you essentially had to go Force Adept/Disciple or Knight-Apprentice/Master-Sith Lord).
2) Cut out all the classes (including prestige) except two (lets say Soldier and Scout) with open talent trees for both classes. This lets you customize your character with little fussing.
I wouldn't call SAGA flexible, but I would call it gangly. With all of the splat books that came out, none of which utilized earlier books, you ended up with all sorts of silly problems that would arise from rules contradicting one another and silly superpowerful abilities. Hey, that kind of sounds like 3.5... weren't they trying to fix that?
:p
The class system was designed with the opposite intent of what you're looking for, so yeah, you aren't going to be satisfied with it.
Not really true. Being viable to go from 1-20 in a single class is not the same thing as making multi-class characters inherently weaker.
Paizo went too far in trying to accomplish their goal. Now the game is too far towards single classes being the only viable option. Both single AND multi classing should be equally viable, ideally.
I like the way pathfinder is taking with reduced need of multi/prestige classing. I don't think they went too far when it comes to combat and skill classes, but I think they could've made multiclassing casters easier. That was one of my issues from 3.5 - non-casters required 314 different classes, casters had to take from a set few of prestige classes and had to take them.
However:
Another thing that I think could have helped make multiclassing more viable without interfering with the system much would have been fractional BAB.
This I agree with, and I've always played that way since 3.0. I round of all BAB and Base Saves after they're added together for different classes. It isn't that hard, and makes things far more logical.
The class system was designed with the opposite intent of what you're looking for, so yeah, you aren't going to be satisfied with it.Not really true. Being viable to go from 1-20 in a single class is not the same thing as making multi-class characters inherently weaker.
Paizo went too far in trying to accomplish their goal. Now the game is too far towards single classes being the only viable option. Both single AND multi classing should be equally viable, ideally.
I have yet to be convinced of this, though I haven't spent much time at high levels. A couple level dip in rogue is amasing for a barbarian, or vise versa. Monk and ranger also make for great classes to dip into for a few levels, depending on your build. And there are very few abilities that you can't do without.
If you are disappointed with Pathfinder, then you would hate 4e. It's nearly pointless to multiclass in 4e.
Except the new Hybrid system. And seriously, do you people get off on randomly attacking 4e?
But no D&D system is designed around self-building your own class as a basic design.
Another thing that I think could have helped make multiclassing more viable without interfering with the system much would have been fractional BAB.
It would be great to dip a level into both Monk and Rogue, but losing 2 BAB? That's brutal if you're trying to do some kind of martial character. If you wanted to spice things up with a level or Sorcerer or Cleric to make things more interesting and you're now down 3 BAB. That just shuts the whole build down, which is unfortunate as some interesting characters could get chiseled out of those combinations.
You look like those guys on 2nd edition that loved multiclassed characters... cheesy as they were. Not saying you are. But looks like you want a lot without loosing anything, this simply doesn't make sense.
In my opinion class based systems should be...
Single class friendly: Yes
Multiclass friendly: Sure
'Dippable': Hell NO
If a game is 'dippable' then it might as well be a component based classless system (ala D6 star wars).
And this game is still the antithesis of "dippable."
|
Paizo went too far in trying to accomplish their goal. Now the game is too far towards single classes being the only viable option. Both single AND multi classing should be equally viable, ideally.
A couple level dip in rogue is amasing for a barbarian, or vise versa. Monk and ranger also make for great classes to dip into for a few levels, depending on your build. And there are very few abilities that you can't do without.
The problem is though, that Rogue or Monk should both be (at minimum), as good a choice for muliclassing for all/most classes. Both make pretty terrible mulitclassing options for Spellcasters, though thematically, Monk should be awesome comboes for Cleric, Paladins, and Wizards, who seem to have so much in common. Sorcerers a bit as well.
Unfortunatly, they are usually not, unless your looking for either a Rogue/Monk with a touch of spellcasting, or simple want a boost in skill points. In many other ways, it is generally counterintuitive for a Cleric, Bard, Paladin, Wizard, or Sorcerer to take much in the way of multiclassing, without houserulling the increased spellcasting like stacking BaB and Saves. Immagine if BaB and Saves worked for multiclassing the way that spellcasting does, and you took the highest bonus?
I think there's ton of dip potential in PRPG.
Casters have to worry about progressing their Caster levels, but besides that there's tons of great synergies opened by dipping. As has been said, there's also benefits to NOT doing so, but I think it's struck just about the perfect mix.
Starwars SAGA is wierd, it was building on the substantial heritage of a classless skill-based system (D6) which had already done a good job portraying the 'feel' of the movies IMHO (SAGA also did a good job), which is a very different feeling than normal D&D themery.
I think there's ton of dip potential in PRPG.
Where exactly? I believe even the stated objective is to encourage and make classes 1-20 playable. More and more "bonuses that increase with level" were added to the game.
I think there's ton of dip potential in PRPG.Where exactly? I believe even the stated objective is to encourage and make classes 1-20 playable. More and more "bonuses that increase with level" were added to the game.
Fighter 1-2: Feats and Martial Weapons/Heavy Armor, Fighter 3: Armor Training 1 (full Move in Medium)
Barbarian 1: Rage, Fast Movement, Barbarian 2: Rage Power
Paladin 1: Smite, Paladin 2: +CHA->Saves, Swift Self-Lay on Hands, Paladin 3: Immune: Fear (+Bonus to Allies), Immune: Disease, Mercy (Fatigued/Shaken/Sickened)
Monk 1: 3 Feats, Good Saves, Monk 2 Evasion
Rogue 1: Sneak Attack, Skills, Rogue 2: Rogue Trick
Sorceror/Wizard 1: BL/School powers (incl. familiar), spells + spell list
Cleric/Oracle 1: Domain/Foci powers, spells + spell list, channel (Cleric)
That makes me happy for a dip. Sure, there's some great class abilities that I might get a bit earlier if I don't, but I find this state of affairs good and balanced. If that doesn't cut it for you, so be it, I'm not go to wallow in your own unhappiness for you when I think it's great.
Fighter 1-2: Feats and Martial Weapons/Heavy Armor, Fighter 3: Armor Training 1 (full Move in Medium)
Barbarian 1: Rage, Fast Movement, Barbarian 2: Rage Power
Monk 1: 3 Feats, Good Saves, Monk 2 Evasion
Rogue 1: Sneak Attack, Skills, Rogue 2: Rogue Trick
Sorceror/Wizard 1: BL/School powers (incl. familiar), spells + spell list
Cleric/Oracle 1: Domain/Foci powers, spells + spell list, channel (Cleric)That makes me happy for a dip. Sure, there's some great class abilities that I might get a bit earlier if I don't, but I find this state of affairs good and balanced.
Almost all of that is leftover from 3.5, not added in Pathfinder.
And for Wizard, Sorcerer, Channel, and certain Rage Powers, the abilities are progressive based on level. As is Sneak Attack.
Almost all of that is leftover from 3.5, not added in Pathfinder. And for Wizard, Sorcerer, Channel, and certain Rage Powers, the abilities are progressive based on level. As is Sneak Attack.
I specifically pointed out abilities that are effective at all levels regardless of level in dip class. A little extra healing AoE on the side is just dessert to Domain abilities, Familiars or the other stuff I mentioned. But the system Paizo has made clearly is enough for ME and many others to dip in these classes... If it were much better, NOBODY would NOT dip.
Monk 3 is good for fast movement and bumping your CMB up one thanks to maneuver training.
True, it's +1 BAB and +2 effective BAB for Maneuvers, and untyped +2 vs. enchantments.
I didn't mention the bonus Feat at Monk 2 either, Combat Reflexes is popular with the kids these days...A Monk 3/ Barbarian X is going to be Jumping around VERY high... :-)
|
Good lord! Enough of the edition wars garbage. That stuff is seriously getting old and the participants look like whiny babies crying for attention.
Pathfinder is what it is. Now there is nothing that keeps you from dipping into Prestige Classes at all. You said in 3.5 it was rewarding to do so and you wished there were some classes like Prestige Classes you could dip into for 3-5 levels. Ummm well those are STILL called Prestige Classes and you can still dip to your heart's delight.
It sounds to me though, that you are playing the wrong system. You want something like GURPS where your character is customized 100%. The d20 system uses classes which predefine a LOT of your options. It forces you to fit your concept to their classes. GURPS on the other hand is designed to fit the system around your concept.
I'm NOT saying it is wrong of you to want more customization at all. I think GURPS is the best mechanics in the industry. What I'm saying is I think you might be happier with that system than d20. I think it might be a better fit for you is all.
Heck I've been trying to figure out a way to retool d20 to be customizable like GURPS. No sucess yet, darn it.
Seriously, check out GURPS and see if you like it better.
|
|
Good lord! Enough of the edition wars garbage. That stuff is seriously getting old and the participants look like whiny babies crying for attention.
Pathfinder is what it is. Now there is nothing that keeps you from dipping into Prestige Classes at all. You said in 3.5 it was rewarding to do so and you wished there were some classes like Prestige Classes you could dip into for 3-5 levels. Ummm well those are STILL called Prestige Classes and you can still dip to your heart's delight.
It sounds to me though, that you are playing the wrong system. You want something like GURPS where your character is customized 100%. The d20 system uses classes which predefine a LOT of your options. It forces you to fit your concept to their classes. GURPS on the other hand is designed to fit the system around your concept.
I'm NOT saying it is wrong of you to want more customization at all. I think GURPS is the best mechanics in the industry. What I'm saying is I think you might be happier with that system than d20. I think it might be a better fit for you is all.
Heck I've been trying to figure out a way to retool d20 to be customizable like GURPS. No sucess yet, darn it.
Seriously, check out GURPS and see if you like it better.
Screw GURPS! GURPS is for weenies! HERO is where it's at!
;)
Good lord! Enough of the edition wars garbage. That stuff is seriously getting old and the participants look like whiny babies crying for attention.
Pathfinder is what it is. Now there is nothing that keeps you from dipping into Prestige Classes at all. You said in 3.5 it was rewarding to do so and you wished there were some classes like Prestige Classes you could dip into for 3-5 levels. Ummm well those are STILL called Prestige Classes and you can still dip to your heart's delight.
It sounds to me though, that you are playing the wrong system. You want something like GURPS where your character is customized 100%. The d20 system uses classes which predefine a LOT of your options. It forces you to fit your concept to their classes. GURPS on the other hand is designed to fit the system around your concept.
I'm NOT saying it is wrong of you to want more customization at all. I think GURPS is the best mechanics in the industry. What I'm saying is I think you might be happier with that system than d20. I think it might be a better fit for you is all.
Heck I've been trying to figure out a way to retool d20 to be customizable like GURPS. No sucess yet, darn it.
Seriously, check out GURPS and see if you like it better.
Check Loopy's rules out from his last game here. On the left near the bottom there are the character creation rules. They needed some reballancing and overpowered melee, but worked pretty well. The basic idea was that there were multiple levels of abilities with different powers. At different levels, you got a different teir of power. Some abilities scaled with level.
|
|
Good lord! Enough of the edition wars garbage. That stuff is seriously getting old and the participants look like whiny babies crying for attention.
Pathfinder is what it is. Now there is nothing that keeps you from dipping into Prestige Classes at all. You said in 3.5 it was rewarding to do so and you wished there were some classes like Prestige Classes you could dip into for 3-5 levels. Ummm well those are STILL called Prestige Classes and you can still dip to your heart's delight.
It sounds to me though, that you are playing the wrong system. You want something like GURPS where your character is customized 100%. The d20 system uses classes which predefine a LOT of your options. It forces you to fit your concept to their classes. GURPS on the other hand is designed to fit the system around your concept.
I'm NOT saying it is wrong of you to want more customization at all. I think GURPS is the best mechanics in the industry. What I'm saying is I think you might be happier with that system than d20. I think it might be a better fit for you is all.
Heck I've been trying to figure out a way to retool d20 to be customizable like GURPS. No sucess yet, darn it.
Seriously, check out GURPS and see if you like it better.
Screw GURPS! GURPS is for weenies! HERO is where it's at!
;)
HEROES worked well for supers for me, but I didn't care for it as a generic system :)
|
|
Check Loopy's rules out from his last game here. On the left near the bottom there are the character creation rules. They needed some reballancing and overpowered melee, but worked pretty well. The basic idea was that there were multiple levels of abilities with different powers. At different levels, you got a different teir of power. Some abilities scaled with level.
Cool will check it out thanks!