Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Multiclass Advice


Advice


In the campaign i'm starting up this weekend, one of the house rules i'm thinking of putting in is an extended training time for multiclassing. What i mean is, if a PC wants to multiclass they have to find another person (PC or NPC) who has at least 3 class levels in the class they are multiclassing into, in order to train them in that class.

The only reason i'm doing it is because fluff wise, it doesn't make sense that someone who spent their entire young adult life training in one class to suddenly be able to take another completely different class.

I know i'm taking some stuff from AD&D for this, where you had to seek out a trainer for your class in order to level up (not to mention pay gold... AD&D was harsh)

I just would like advice on how long such training would last. I'm running skull and shackles, so there will be downtime on the ship for this stuff to happen, i'm assuming 1d3 week per stage of the class' starting age. IE: Self taught classes like Barbarians take 1-3 week of training, while a wizard with the advanced study starting age would take 3-9 weeks. Also while training in the new class, they will have the basic abilities of the class, such as BAB, saves, and as training goes along they will learn more of the starting class abilities.

What are your thoughts on this, and is it too restrictive? I will allow the PCs to continue advancing in the second/third/fourth class as long as they are actually using the abilities of said class (i hate people who dip into a class for a couple passive benefits but never actually use the class features) Also, if the PCs utilize a trainer outside of their crew/party members for training, what should the cost be?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That seems, a bit much too start with.


You don't want to slow down your campaign because your players need to search a coach to multiclass and than train with him.

Just assume that they work on their training every day a little bit and let them multiclass whenever they want.


meibolite wrote:

In the campaign i'm starting up this weekend, one of the house rules i'm thinking of putting in is an extended training time for multiclassing. What i mean is, if a PC wants to multiclass they have to find another person (PC or NPC) who has at least 3 class levels in the class they are multiclassing into, in order to train them in that class.

The only reason i'm doing it is because fluff wise, it doesn't make sense that someone who spent their entire young adult life training in one class to suddenly be able to take another completely different class.

[..]

What are your thoughts on this, and is it too restrictive?

I'm basically sympathetic to this idea (I'm not crazy about Joe the fighter picking up a spellbook on Tuesday and being a wizard on Wednesday).

BUT...I would recommend adding the possibility of starting the campaign as a multi-classed/dual-classed character. For instance, you could start the campaign at level 2, opening up the possibility of starting a PC as a fighter 1/wizard 1. Or you could borrow the "apprentice level" rules from the 3.0 DMG and let a PC start as a fighter 0/wizard 0.

I'm a big fan of the "apprentice level" rules myself. YMMV.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You want more backstory and roleplay, reward it.


It does seem like a lot, but one of the reasons i'm doing it is because some of the players in the group i'm with are munchkins, and while I don't want to say they can't multiclass, I still want to keep some of the realism of the setting, I don't believe it is possible for say a Paladin 3 to all of a sudden become a Paladin 3/Monk 1 at level 4 because he just wants some of the passive benefits of the monk without having trained at all in the monastic ways. I did like the old way of where you actually had to go train to level up, but I'm only using that for classes you don't already have. If the classes are close enough together, say Paladin and Cleric, i'll halve the training time, but for drastically different class types like Fighter and Wizard, i'll keep the times up. I kind of want to use the 4e classifications of Martial/Divine/Arcane/Natural to determine training.


@Noir If they were training in the same type of class, like barbarian - fighter, then they could work on their training easily, but if like Hogarth said, Joe the fighter pickign up a spell book and learning how to cast arcane spells overnight when Sarah the wizard took 14 years to learn how to do it, and he's just as effective hurts the suspension of disbelief. If any of my players are planning on multiclassing, i'll ask them up front, and make sure that the party meets a new "crew" member who is trained in that, and all this training would take place on the ship during down time anyway, basically when they are travelling from point A-B


That could cause problems when advancing the plot and forces the PCs to not take classed in favor of the GM's Time Table (ie the can only multi class when they have the time to spare in game). What I suggest is reminding them from the begining that if they intend to multiclass that they need to rp their intention. A wizard who wishes at some point to take a level of warrior spends rp free time reading up on tactics and doing exercises. Remind them that in a diverse party they have people that can show them tricks and techniques of a variety of trades and that can be mentioned, or rped through as well.

People for some reason envision it as a fighter picking up a spell book and is now a wizard too rather than it has been an interest for some time, I dropped out of wizard school when war broke out and now I am returning to a skill that has remained dormant, my recent studies have really unlocked something that previously I could not master.


Although it makes sense to take some training time, I prefer to have that in the PC's background and in the PC's spare time.

Find some other ways to stop munchkinism.
Pathfinder already did a lot of that, granting every class nice features in higher levels, and moving some features to later levels to prevent dipping.


Speaking as a GM, I favor the hey, the training happens in the background approach. It was less things for me to juggle. Multiclassing isn't always the best method for power in Pathfinder because of the way the core classes are set-up along with Archetypes.

I would ask my Players where they think their characters are going and to develop in that direction. IE, they could be roleplaying their character trying to learn these things in their down time.

I mean it doesn't matter if there is a die roll for time or not, it is really coming down to you as saying is there enough time or is there not.


meibolite wrote:
@Noir If they were training in the same type of class, like barbarian - fighter, then they could work on their training easily, but if like Hogarth said, Joe the fighter pickign up a spell book and learning how to cast arcane spells overnight when Sarah the wizard took 14 years to learn how to do it, and he's just as effective hurts the suspension of disbelief.

Note that I also think it would hurt suspension of disbelief if you were to say "no, you can't start out as an elven fighter/wizard even though they have a whole society built around the idea; you have to spend your first 100 years of life learning one and then spend several weeks of your life learning the other".


meibolite wrote:
@Noir If they were training in the same type of class, like barbarian - fighter, then they could work on their training easily, but if like Hogarth said, Joe the fighter pickign up a spell book and learning how to cast arcane spells overnight when Sarah the wizard took 14 years to learn how to do it, and he's just as effective hurts the suspension of disbelief. If any of my players are planning on multiclassing, i'll ask them up front, and make sure that the party meets a new "crew" member who is trained in that, and all this training would take place on the ship during down time anyway, basically when they are travelling from point A-B

Why not simply require them to announce what the next level will be when they are first advancing to a new threshold.

For instance:
Upon reaching level 3, the player must determine what class he will take upon reaching level 4, giving him 1 full level worth of in-game time to attempt to incorporate the style and fluff that fits the character's organic progression. Pushing the player to role-play the character into the new class as much as possible.

This will likely not hurt your munchkin players much as they probably have an advanced build they are working off of that is several levels pasts their present level. So you can get more of an in-character reason and justification for the new level without placing in-game restrictions.

In stead of requiring something of the character, training time that might frustrate the storyline
you require something of the player, forethought and some semblance of respect for character arc and persona.

It might end up a win-win that your group will buy into.


I actually like your idea MC, and that would work better in my campaign too :) and time constraints aren't really a problem in this campaign, as i'm spreading the time out by a factor of 7 or so, so what normally takes a day in the adventure path is going to take a week story wise with a few exceptions. I want the Shackles to be bigger than they are currently, as well as to fight that problem that hogart mentioned of you are now all of a sudden way more powerful after a couple weeks than you were for the last 10 years (if we are talking humans). I don't want my characters to go from level 1 to 20 over the course of a couple months to a year.

It won't really change much mechanically with the AP, as I'll have the characters make their work checks the same time, but they get assigned to the same task weekly rather than daily, and it allows more time for their blood to boil with Plugg and the lot :)

I do like the idea of "forcing" my players to role play by announcing their intended path to the next level. Would it be fair to say that they cannot multiclass until the end of the first path though? since all they can really focus on is survival?


I'd caution against forcing the single class through the end of the adventure path.

Some players see the ability to freely multi-class as one of the parts of the game they truly love (refugees from the 2nd edition single class plantations) and they like bending the character archetypes to fit their vision of a character rather than bending the vision to meet a stringant rule set.

That being said, it is your game, but I'd err on the slide of letting them slide. You're more likely to preserve everyone's fun level by not making it a make or break issue.


True, i guess i'm just worried about one of the players who completely broke our friend's campaign by carrying around a bonsai rose bush, and had all spells per day as entangling roots, and pretty much locked up every combat before it happened. Including against the BBEG who happened to have a garden full of plants with contact poisons... got tangled up in his own poisons and just died right then and there. He's one who really knows how to break the game lol.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I see leveling up as gaining skills you have learned in the past level. If during the last level a fighter has been spending time reading a spellbook and working at becoming a wizard, then he should be just fine becoming a level 1 wizard. Just the same as if a fighter has spent the last level practicing fighting moves he becomes a more powerful fighter.

Leveling happens more "in the last few weeks" opposed to the last few years simply because of trial and error that happens in combat. Now due to actual combat the PCs have become more intense in training and more focused on what works.

Taldor

I'm going to echo what MC has said here. My group, or at least most members of my group, tend to min-max because that's what they enjoy. One player actively plans every step the character will take throughout the campaign, from skills, to feats etc, with several variant builds that he can take if the campaign skews in such a way as to make him want to adjust the character.

He finds it incredibly frustrating if his choices are limited so I tend to leave the door as open as I can (so to speak). I might ask for an rp reason for his choices but really the game is about everyone having fun so I'm very leery of stuff like "forcing" the players into a certain path.

Just talk to them about your intentions and what your vision of the game/story is. They might really dig the idea if you're upfront why you're doing this but resent you if you force this on them.

Sczarni

I'm not convinced that multi-classing is as beneficial in PF as it was in 3.x...

You could always let that character build a Barbarian/Ranger/Fighter/Rogue up to level 5 or 6 and then just spring a Will save on them... That'll teach 'em.


There are very few multiclass builds in Pathfinder that outperform single class builds. There may be some benefit if you're going for a quirky role, but the optimum builds are almost always pure classed except the wizards that dip crossblooded sorcerer to get two arcana. Munchkins who multiclass are probably shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Multiclass Advice All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.