Why the class limitation in the Advanced Class Guide?

[Quandary]

Even with that restriction, you still have other options to be able to stack abilities via other classes:
Can't m-class with Rogue? OK, how about Ninja, or Vivisectionist?
Can't m-class with Barbarian? Great, why not a Rage Domain/Anger Inquisition Cleric/Inquisitor/Paladin?

The mutual exclusivity restriction for Alt Classes like Rogue/Ninja make sense, because those pretty much are Archtypes with 1:1 alterations,
but the ACG classes are more equivalent to Magus:Wizard or Inquisitor:Cleric or Sorceror:Wizard.

[Morbius X]

I don't agree with these "classes" not being able to multiclass with the "parent" class. And who says these are not Alternate Classes? Clearly they are.

I allow the Ninja/Rogue in my games and it works out just fine. To find an in-game explanation for why a Ninja could not "learn the ways of the Rogue" really had no explanation at all.

The same with, say, Ranger/Slayer. What is it inherent about the Slayer that prevents him from having a deeping connection to the divine and gaining Ranger abilities? (spellcasting, animal companions, etc.)

Paizo made the mistake of calling this book "Advanced Class Guide" when it should have been called "Ultimate Alternate Classes" or "advanced Alternate Class Guide" because that's exactly what this.

If it hasn't popped up already, get read to see House Rules threads forming that allows multiclassing with theses "classes".

[Morbius X]

Actually, there is no reason multiclassing still can't work. When I look over what, say, a Ranger 10/Slayer 10 has, there are no overlaps of abilities. Unless you take Slayer talents like Favored Terrain, but I would simply rule them separately and you obviously can't take the same terrain twice (so a Ranger 10 has 2 Favored Terrains at +4 and +2 and a Slayer 10 would have 5 if he chose all 5 at +10, +8, +6, +4, +2).

[GreyWolfLord]

I don't have a problem with it or that rule. If one doesn't like it, can't they always use rule 0 for their games?

[Kyonko]

I'm expecting a lot of errata to be released when we get the second printing of the ACG, more then any other Paizo product to date.

As for being on topic, I'm simply thinking that the rule is for the play test only. But if goes into the printing of the book, then it will be expanded upon and given a decent explanation. If not... then what GreyWolfLord said, Rule Zero.

[Cr500cricket]

I'm with Morbius here. I have made as many combinations as I can think of to get OP but I haven't found anything too bad.(If there is anything with skald or bard tell me I Do Not Play Bards

[Dekalinder]

Kyonko wrote:

I'm expecting a lot of errata to be released when we get the second printing of the ACG, more then any other Paizo product to date.

I'm expecting a lot of bugs, loopholes, and inconsistency with absolutely no errata for the next 2 years. You can call me pessimist, but you know i'm just being realist.

[voska66]

Liam Warner wrote:

I just spotted the rule that if you take a hybrid class you can never take any levels in either of its alternates. I'm just wondering what the reasoning behind that is since I could in theory be a wizard 20/sorcerer 20 with all the abilities and spells of both (say blasting spells in the sorcerer slots and utility ones in the wizard) but I can't be an arcanist 11/wizard 9 to get a familiar I can talk to at a significant loss in max level spells?

This is not set in stone. They did that for the play test but weren't sure if they would allow it or not. I don't see a reason for not allow it it. I mean you can multiclass a Magus with fighter and/or wizard which is the two classes it is based off. Same with Inquisitor except it would Ranger/Cleric. Bard would be rogue wizard. So hybrid classes already exist but they haven't be labeled as such.

If not allowed house rule it.

[Lemmy]

Dekalinder wrote:

Kyonko wrote:

I'm expecting a lot of errata to be released when we get the second printing of the ACG, more then any other Paizo product to date.

I'm expecting a lot of bugs, loopholes, and inconsistency with absolutely no errata for the next 2 years. You can call me pessimist, but you know i'm just being realist.

OTOH, I believe Paizo will keep its track record and release a great book with some flaws here and there... Then they will release horrible errata that nerfs some slightly-above-mediocre martial option while completely failing to address any real problem.

It's all but an official company's tradition by now.

[thaX]

Uh... Ninja is the Rogue class alternative, none can multi-class with the rogue alt classes. (ninja = Rogue)

[voska66]

Morbius X wrote:

Actually, there is no reason multiclassing still can't work. When I look over what, say, a Ranger 10/Slayer 10 has, there are no overlaps of abilities. Unless you take Slayer talents like Favored Terrain, but I would simply rule them separately and you obviously can't take the same terrain twice (so a Ranger 10 has 2 Favored Terrains at +4 and +2 and a Slayer 10 would have 5 if he chose all 5 at +10, +8, +6, +4, +2).

This situation already occurs with the rogue if you go Ranger/Rogue an select favored terrain via a rogues talent.

[LazarX]

Right now, with these classes STILL IN BETA, it's easier to say no multi-classing with the original base classes for now. It's a lot less painful to lift a ban later than issue one now.

On the other hand, I can definitely see one good reason for not allowing such, and it should have even been expanded to not allow multi-classing with another hybrid that uses one of the same base classes.

You can't multi-class a class with itself which is what you effectively would allow if what the OP desired was granted.

[thaX]

When they re issued the revised version, the wording is such that the hybrids can't multi class with other hybrids that have the same alternative as well as not being able to not go into the actual alternative class.