Opinion About Multiclassing


Advice

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I think that sudden multiclassing without prior plans can be fun. When we discovered a shrine to Erastil in the wilderness my Bard converted on the spot and took his next 4 levels in Paladin. He didn't go to holy warrior school. He was just suddenly filled with righteous fury and swore an oath of vengeance on the enemies of the land and its people. This PC was a drunk who used to work for a Varisian circus and had a pet monkey, so it wasn't like he'd really been building towards it all along.

Silver Crusade

Bards need high attack/damage stats and "good enough" charisma. My experience is that Bards can be very effective combatants, while having good skills as well.


You can play the Bard more than one way. For instance, the Dirge Bard archetype might want to have high Charisma to use demoralization and high DC fear effects.


Scythia and Ed you both raise interesting points. Look at today's military. Everyone starts as just a grunt. Then they can move onto specialties. So an electrician can become a doctor. Now this is where Role playing comes in how was it he was an electrician to start and why does he want to become a doctor to use Scythia's example.
I actually have a character to use for this example. I am a Barbarian Titan Mauler Fighter Tower Shield Specialist. I started off Barbarian being from Land of the Mammoth Lords. I left my village after my father and brother were killed by giants. I wandered south seeing real troops in armor. I joined a mercenary company essentially switching to a fighter. Being somewhat smart he later joined The Pathfinder Society as a guard. This was all before we actually started our adventure.
Our group doesn't require or even ask why we Multiclass, the answer being for power. However most of our players role play how they are switching to the new class before they actually switch.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
SmiloDan wrote:

It's kind of like deviating from feat trees.

Just because you took Power Attack and Improved Bull Rush, it doesn't mean you have to take Greater Bull Rush and Bull Rushing Critical (or whatever that means).

You can choose to take Cleave instead, or even Improved Initiative or Point Blank Shot.

It's the same with skills. Just because you maxed out the Survival skill for 5 levels, it doesn't mean you can't take a rank in Ride or Swim at 6th level.

Classes are just classification constructs. They're part of a rule set that describes your character. Some characters become more specialized and focused, some become more versatile.

This is the best explanation I've seen so far. Bravo, sir!


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I've never seen a UMD build that makes more sense than just dipping, but if you have one, then go where the adventure takes you and may Cayden toast your journey.

Does this include 6/9 level casters that take UMD to get access to spells off-list? I've seen a lot of bards that are very good at UMD and are basically carrying a wagon-load of miscellaneous scrolls and wands for "just in case, you know."

Of course, bards also have skill points out the wazoo, so it may just be a case of "well, it was either UMD or Craft (little frog out of an eraser and push pins)..."

Why no, I don't know very much about Bard Builds. I was thinking more of Martial Builds that want to buff themselves a little.

But yes, may Cayden toast your journey!


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Multiclassing is a tool. As with any tool, it should be used when appropriate and not used when not appropriate.

3.X, for all of its strengths, ended up going down the path of "everything looking like a nail" with multiclassing (including prestige classes) as the hammer. It was very rare in 3.x that a character would stay in the same class from 1st to 20th level; the mechanical benefits of multiclassing/prestige classes was just too high and prestige classes were normally stronger thematically, as well.

In Pathfinder, base classes with archetypes can meet most mechanical and thematic requirements of a player, instead of "forcing" the character to have levels in at least two or three different classes to be "good" or "what they wanted to play." However, there are still some characters where multiclassing is mechanically and/or thematically the "best" option. It doesn't have to involve "unrelated specialties" or "sudden, unexplained changes;" for instance, a wizard could very well take a couple levels of archivist bard to focus more on the "researcher" aspect of the character (thematically appropriate and gains a couple nice mechanical benefits; losing two levels of spell progression from one of the "strongest" classes is a trade-off, but not always the worst idea*). It could also be part of the concept from the beginning (such as a gnome falconer ranger 2/wildblooded sorcerer (Fey/Sylvan) 8/arcane archer 2/sorcerer +X with a permanent enlarge person on their falcon companion that started with the goal of becoming a magical archer with a flying mount).

*- if the rest of the party is of "lower tier" classes (or other 9-level casters that are also multiclassing) and the group wants to extend the range of levels before wizards dominate most situations; the two levels of archivist bard can also be useful if no one else in the party can deal with magical traps easily


Well said Dragonchess. Part of the reason Hybrid class were created was so PCs wouldn't have to Multiclass. About half make sense and are pretty cool. Some like the Arcanist made me go what? Wizard/Sorcerer combination? Some I think fail miserably partly because the combination really isn't that great to start. Brawler in my mind fails at being a good hybrid class. Monks and fighters on their own are both solid classes but they don't compliment each other. Fighters rely on both weapons and armor. Monks can't wear armor and after mid level do more damage then any weapons available. Now Monks and Wizards or Clerics they do work well together. Wizards can't use armor and Monks gives them a boost to AC nice saves and fighting potential. Wizards offer a Monk versatility and power not normally available to them. Even Cleric Monks are not too bad. Both rely on Wis the compliment each others abilities. The only drawback is the cleric would have to forgo armor.
Multiclassing is a wonderful tool especially for minmaxing characters provided the loss of upper levels can be compensated by the second or third class. As far as character theme I have found in most cases that can be accomplished with role playing and character building with the primary class.


@Derek Dalton - I disagree about the Brawler. Wanting to combine some martial arts action or even just plain old wrestling with a more typical armored fantasy warrior type seems like a common desire to me.

@Dragonchess Player - At this point that flying archer might be better off taking the Undersized Mount feat or taking a couple of levels in Eldritch Guardian for a magic bird (hawk and falcon seem close to me) which can grow to Medium size at will. I think that just underscores what's been said about how Pathfinder has made it easier to achieve your thematic goals though. Instead of waiting 10 levels to be a gnome who flies around on a bird you can do it in 1-2 levels now.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Devilkiller wrote:
I think that sudden multiclassing without prior plans can be fun. When we discovered a shrine to Erastil in the wilderness my Bard converted on the spot and took his next 4 levels in Paladin. He didn't go to holy warrior school. He was just suddenly filled with righteous fury and swore an oath of vengeance on the enemies of the land and its people. This PC was a drunk who used to work for a Varisian circus and had a pet monkey, so it wasn't like he'd really been building towards it all along.

Interesting. I would think that one doesn't just become a Paladin. That's the kind of job one should have to be recruited for — probably by the god concerned.


I get what the Brawler was trying to do. I just don't think it really succeeded. The Shield user archtype is the only one I have considered playing the base and the rest of the archtypes just don't do anything for me.
Bard to Paladin? Okay not sure how that works as far as playability. Now older systems 2nd, 3.0 and 4th D&D which Pathfinder is based off of have stated in various guides and supplements talking about Paladins have all given options and ideas on a character just becoming a Paladin. The iconic Paladin in Pathfinder actually was blessed to be a Paladin. Her training was more about mundane things weapons and armor.
Erastil in my mind should be Neutral more then Lawful Good. He's more about protecting his flock and nature and saying screw you to the rest of the world.
Most of our group plan their characters out getting an idea of what they want out of them by mid level and higher. This method works for most of us since we know if we are going to Multiclass at what level and what we might need to do so. It's especially important for qualifying preresiquites for Prestige Classes. Shadow Dancer is usually a Prestige Class I take for sneaky type characters. It's a good solid Prestige Class but expensive, three feats.


"Bard to Paladin? Okay not sure how that works as far as playability."

Why do you think that? I would say playability should not be a problem if the concept clicks. Mechanically, I think it works with either class as a dip - a few levels of bard in a mostly paladin build provide utility via skills and versatile performance that help a paladin manage non-combat encounters better (for motivational speeches, badass boasts or just knowing when someone is laying the buffalo chips extra thick for you) while a few levels of paladin make a bard a more capable warrior and a truly fearless hero. Conceptually, paladins are meant to be not just holy warriors, but a source of inspiration for other people, and the bard concept ties in with that pretty well. A paladin/bard can go ham like nobody´s business :) .

Overall, the abundance of archetypes and the variant multiclassing rules usually allow you to pull off a concept very well without multiclassing, but sometimes it can work. Sure, the capstone features are great, but very few campaigns ever get to level 15, much less level 20.


Scythia wrote:

I don't like multi-classing on a conceptual level. Then again I tend to see gaining levels as being similar to job training and education, so the idea of taking a level of a different class out of nowhere feels like someone in the first year as an electrician journeyman saying "I'm a doctor now".

I think it depends on whether you see the class as how the character defines themself "I am a fighter"or as an OOC description for a combination of abilities, and their self definition is "I am a bloke you don't mess with in a punch up", which makes dipping into 'because I have some nasty tricks up my sleeve' quite logical.

For example I have a witch / bard (archaeologist) that probably makes no sense if you think of him as a 'witch', but as the character is a historian/scholar/Varisian entertainer, the bard levels are 'spending more time travelling with the family caravan' rather than 'spending more time learing arcane arts'. It's not a change in the character's personality or roleplay.


Bard to Paladin switch is just a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying it isn't possible just different. There is a chapter in Ultimate Campaign about retraining. In it, it talks about retraining into a different class then the one you are in currently. The point I'm getting to is they mention certain classes are easier to train into if the two classes are similar. Fighter to Ranger, Cleric to another Divine class, or Arcane Class to another Arcane class.
I read how the character went from Bard to Paladin thought it was interesting just thought it weird. Bard in temperament are somewhat different then a Paladin even if the same alignment.


Neriathale wrote:
Scythia wrote:

I don't like multi-classing on a conceptual level. Then again I tend to see gaining levels as being similar to job training and education, so the idea of taking a level of a different class out of nowhere feels like someone in the first year as an electrician journeyman saying "I'm a doctor now".

I think it depends on whether you see the class as how the character defines themself "I am a fighter"or as an OOC description for a combination of abilities, and their self definition is "I am a bloke you don't mess with in a punch up", which makes dipping into 'because I have some nasty tricks up my sleeve' quite logical.

For example I have a witch / bard (archaeologist) that probably makes no sense if you think of him as a 'witch', but as the character is a historian/scholar/Varisian entertainer, the bard levels are 'spending more time travelling with the family caravan' rather than 'spending more time learing arcane arts'. It's not a change in the character's personality or roleplay.

I see classes as a description for a set of skills and abilities, much like how "plumber" means someone who is skilled in and able to work with pipes and sinks. Whether or not the plumber self identified as such is less important. Even if the plumber considers what they do to be "consorting with the royalty of a magical kingdom", I still wouldn't hire a plumber to act as an ambassador.


Interesting analogy Scythia. In that case most General Contractors are actually a little bit of everything. Another way to look at it is this. A standard police officer usually wants to be promoted moving up the chain of command. They take tests and learn new things some becoming Detectives or specialized such as Undercover. The analogy being multiclassing or going into a Prestige class.
Most of my characters at some point multiclass. Usually I play a Divine class so the obvious choice is a martial class almost always fighter. The extra two feats and proficiencies are why. No I'm not the best fighter obviously and depending on how many levels I split as a cleric I could still become Pope.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Devilkiller wrote:
@Dragonchess Player - At this point that flying archer might be better off taking the Undersized Mount feat or taking a couple of levels in Eldritch Guardian for a magic bird (hawk and falcon seem close to me) which can grow to Medium size at will. I think that just underscores what's been said about how Pathfinder has made it easier to achieve your thematic goals though. Instead of waiting 10 levels to be a gnome who flies around on a bird you can do it in 1-2 levels now.

Money is a lot more fungible than class levels; especially since the character needs to dedicate half of their feats (including the ranger combat style feat at 2nd level) in the first nine levels to meet the arcane archer entry requirements (plus, possibly taking Boon Companion). Buying a scroll of permanency (enlarge person) is 3,625 gp; with a caster level check DC of 10, that's an 80% chance of success at CL 5, 85% at CL 6, etc. to successfully use it.


Scythia wrote:
Neriathale wrote:
Scythia wrote:

I don't like multi-classing on a conceptual level. Then again I tend to see gaining levels as being similar to job training and education, so the idea of taking a level of a different class out of nowhere feels like someone in the first year as an electrician journeyman saying "I'm a doctor now".

I think it depends on whether you see the class as how the character defines themself "I am a fighter"or as an OOC description for a combination of abilities, and their self definition is "I am a bloke you don't mess with in a punch up", which makes dipping into 'because I have some nasty tricks up my sleeve' quite logical.

For example I have a witch / bard (archaeologist) that probably makes no sense if you think of him as a 'witch', but as the character is a historian/scholar/Varisian entertainer, the bard levels are 'spending more time travelling with the family caravan' rather than 'spending more time learing arcane arts'. It's not a change in the character's personality or roleplay.

I see classes as a description for a set of skills and abilities, much like how "plumber" means someone who is skilled in and able to work with pipes and sinks. Whether or not the plumber self identified as such is less important. Even if the plumber considers what they do to be "consorting with the royalty of a magical kingdom", I still wouldn't hire a plumber to act as an ambassador.

A plumber isn't a guy who is good at fixing pipes. A plumber is a guy who fixes pipes. A guy who can't fix pipes and fixes pipes is a terrible plumber, but he's still a plumber. A guy who is brilliant at fixing pipes but works as a doctor is a doctor.

If a guy is brilliant at diplomacy and works as a plumber fixing pipes, I'd make him an ambassador instead of a plumber. At least until I really needed a pipe fixed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought a plumber was a guy that ran around jumping everywhere and saved a princess from a fire breathing turtle and his army on a regular basis.


HyperMissingno wrote:
I thought a plumber was a guy that ran around jumping everywhere and saved a princess from a fire breathing turtle and his army on a regular basis.

There isn't a lot of money in that side of plumbing. I'm not even convinced that there's a lot of 'princess' in it either, as it were.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BadBird wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
I thought a plumber was a guy that ran around jumping everywhere and saved a princess from a fire breathing turtle and his army on a regular basis.
There isn't a lot of money in that side of plumbing. I'm not even convinced that there's a lot of 'princess' in it either, as it were.

Plumbers get a lot of coins on their quests!


SmiloDan wrote:
BadBird wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
I thought a plumber was a guy that ran around jumping everywhere and saved a princess from a fire breathing turtle and his army on a regular basis.
There isn't a lot of money in that side of plumbing. I'm not even convinced that there's a lot of 'princess' in it either, as it were.

Plumbers get a lot of coins on their quests!

Consider the implications of a paycheck that can be delivered in the form of small change. Heroics aside, a sensible princess has to understand that she can do a lot better. I mean, does the poor guy even have a car? Would he have to be jumping on all those minions if he could afford even a beat-up old truck?


BadBird wrote:
Consider the implications of a paycheck that can be delivered in the form of small change. Heroics aside, a sensible princess has to understand that she can do a lot better. I mean, does the poor guy even have a car? Would he have to be jumping on all those minions if he could afford even a beat-up old truck?

Have you seen the places that guy goes to? A truck wouldn't be able to navigate unless it unless it had a spring underneath it or something.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
BadBird wrote:
If a guy is brilliant at diplomacy and works as a plumber fixing pipes, I'd make him an ambassador instead of a plumber. At least until I really needed a pipe fixed.

"I'm just a cook." -- Chief Petty Officer Casey Ryback


Derek Dalton wrote:

No I am simply pointing out Pazio with Pathfinder has made almost any race playable and even fun compared to the older editions of D&D which Pathfinder is largely based off of. They did away with level caps and made it so any race can play any class even giving tips on how to do it.

Hmm, I don't agree that demihumans (which is what they were called back in 1st/2nd ed AD&D) were that bad off. In 1st edition they did have some pretty sever level limitations, but they could multiclass, and it worked a lot differently back then. That difference made up for not being able to advance to as high a level. Even so, advancement in those systems was glacial compared to Pathfinder. And the racial traits they got back then tended to give them some big advantages over humans.

That PC demihumans could not be clerics, or paladins for that matter, in 1st ed, now that was really stupid.


Devilkiller wrote:
I think that sudden multiclassing without prior plans can be fun. When we discovered a shrine to Erastil in the wilderness my Bard converted on the spot and took his next 4 levels in Paladin. He didn't go to holy warrior school. He was just suddenly filled with righteous fury and swore an oath of vengeance on the enemies of the land and its people. This PC was a drunk who used to work for a Varisian circus and had a pet monkey, so it wasn't like he'd really been building towards it all along.

We had something happen in our campaign that is kind of similar. One player had a ranger, who found a magic sword with some interesting properties. These properties worked very well for a rogue, and he started taking levels in rogue. Then we found some more magic items related to the first. Which turned out to be a set of magic semi-artifacts dedicated to an evil god. We managed to get the items off him, without killing him, and turned them over to a good temple. Which then got robbed by the followers of the gods. But he was given a scroll to help us deal with the villain. By using the scroll we were able to kill the guy, but using the scroll marked the player with ... the favor of another deity. Which this character decided to start worhipping. Now this character is a ranger/rogue/warpriest. And is still damned effective and useful.


That PC demihumans could not be clerics, or paladins for that matter, in 1st ed, now that was really stupid.

Clerics yes, Paladins and Monks no. It wasn't until 3rd that they got rid of that. 2nd ed offered a Paladin like option it was stupid actually. Give up abilities of a multiclass Cleric Fighter for minor Paladin like abilities. Not the full abilities but minor ones.

Scarab Sages

I disagree that a Bard and Paladin have a different outlook based only on class.

Bard: They are inspiring to others, able to grant bonuses to attacks, skills, or saves. They are encouraged to have a high charisma, enabling them to be a diplomat for the party. They can cast spells based on CHA, which can buff themselves or their allies, with very few direct attack spells.

Paladin: They are inspiring to others, giving bonuses against fear. They are are encouraged to have a high charisma, enabling them to be a diplomat for the party. They can cast spells based on CHA, which can buff themselves or their allies, or directly smite their enemies.

Paladins are forced to be Lawful Good, but there need not be any conflict between being a lawful good bard and a lawful good paladin. Some gods such as Shelyn would prefer their paladins to have bard levels.


Paladins are for the most part based of Lancelot from King Arthur. No carousing, whoring or otherwise having the typical fun of an adventuring group sometimes. This was mostly how Paladins were played up until 4E and Pathfinder. According to the rules a Paladin now just worries about his church code and the law. So if hookers are legal he can get one. Overall Paladins are not the party animals of the group.
Bards were and are the party social animals. Paladins and Cavaliers are more courtly Bards were more tavern down the road. Not that a Bard were not courtly.
So that is why I say I think it's an odd combination. Mechanics for the class and all work fine. Just seems an odd multiclass combination to me is all.


the system need to be balanced about multiclassing, something that i have done since 3.5 days (and now are used in 5th) is that i have created a multiclass general progresion and i will share it with you:

BAB: you need to take just the lowest base attack from both classes, if you take both classes that gives you the same progresion, you only takes 1.

Skills, spells, and special abilities: as always

Saves: you cannot have good saves for your 3 saving throws. if both classes gives you good saves in all your saves, you must choose one of the 3 (wichever you want) as your poor save.
Note: only monks start playing with +2 on all his saves, and that must remain in play.


Very few pre-written adventures get that high in level. Have fun with your character! Whether fun is creating a sub-optimal, but enjoyable character or ultra-optomized goblin killer, mult-classing may be warranted.


My general advice about multi-classing is don't, unless you have a specific goal and target in mind.

If you're unsure about whether or not you should multiclass, you probably shouldn't. If you think you want to try adding a little something different to your character but your not sure what and you're worried about if it will negatively impact you mechanically...don't do it.

If you have a specific concept in mind or have a specific target of an ability you want to pick up. Then you can do it, and it will probably be okay. But there's still a good chance that you'll be mechanically weaker than if you had stayed single classed. Of course, the game isn't about what is the most mechanically advantageous course of action to take, so do what you want if it's fun.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Interesting. I would think that one doesn't just become a Paladin. That's the kind of job one should have to be recruited for — probably by the god concerned.

But then, according to fluff, you don't just become a Sorcerer or Bloodrager either - you just suddenly find out that you had it in you all along. Or you may suddenly be imbued by an outside force and end up as an Oracle or Witch, or make a pact that turns you into a Summoner or Medium. Lots of classes have fluff that's depending on outside influence or "deus ex machina" out of nothere revelations - and in the end, it's just that: Fluff.


Novels and movies all have done this spontaneous class thing. While I hated the movie Dungeon and Dragons did this in the first and third movie. So a Bard suddenly a Paladin after touching an alter works for me.


Imbicatus wrote:


Paladins are forced to be Lawful Good, but there need not be any conflict between being a lawful good bard and a lawful good paladin. Some gods such as Shelyn would prefer their paladins to have bard levels.

Just to throw this out there, we do have a bardadin in one of our games and he kicks ass when the dice aren't throwing 1's, 2's, and 3's at him.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Ajit Shyama, Shadow Caller wrote:
and in the end, it's just that: Fluff.

I get a sense here of "fluff is unimportant. Only crunch matters." Maybe I'm misreading it. If not, well, I disagree.


Derek Dalton wrote:

Paladins are for the most part based of Lancelot from King Arthur. No carousing, whoring or otherwise having the typical fun of an adventuring group sometimes. This was mostly how Paladins were played up until 4E and Pathfinder. According to the rules a Paladin now just worries about his church code and the law. So if hookers are legal he can get one. Overall Paladins are not the party animals of the group.

Bards were and are the party social animals. Paladins and Cavaliers are more courtly Bards were more tavern down the road. Not that a Bard were not courtly.
So that is why I say I think it's an odd combination. Mechanics for the class and all work fine. Just seems an odd multiclass combination to me is all.

There is absolutely zero reason that a character must be played as it's hypothetical stereotype, short of a few things like a Paladin following a code - which they don't have to like, and which only forces their actions, not their personalities. Frankly, people who feel like characters should always be played to a stereotype are at serious risk of being excruciatingly dull. There's nothing that says you can't have an ornery, sarcastic and outgoing Paladin or a bookish, reclusive Bard - in fact, it's likely going to make for a more interesting character more often than not.


Never said he couldn't or shouldn't play the Bard Paladin I said why I thought it was weird overall. Not a class combination I'd play but that's me.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Ajit Shyama, Shadow Caller wrote:
and in the end, it's just that: Fluff.
I get a sense here of "fluff is unimportant. Only crunch matters." Maybe I'm misreading it. If not, well, I disagree.

I'd say Jedi-Yes, "Unimportant from a certain point of view". If someone wants to take sorcerer levels, saying "No, you can't, you don't have the power in your blood" is a jerk move (unless it was previouly established that this should be a low-magic campaign or something). Same if someone wants to become an Oracle or Witch or whatever. If someone wants to take levels in one of these "external influence/sudden reveal required" classes, they should get the opportunity.

The sudden emergence of these powers can be used as a plot hook, but it shouldn't be denied to a PC on the basis of "Sorry, you were just not born a sorcerer"/"Nope, your God doesn't want you to become a Paladin".

Fluff is the wrapping that turns the hard, cold numbers on a piece of paper into actual characters with personality, so it's definitely important. But if it's treated as ironcast, then it's to rigid to be any fun - fluff should be soft and fuzzy and able to be shaped into a comfortable form. Not used to bash people over the head with.


Our group has never said no to multiclassing. We might ask why. Now if you want to play a stupid character combination that hurts the party we as a group tell you don't you are being stupid. We are blunt because we get together maybe three times a month and we want to enjoy ourselves not have to deal with disruptive players. Now if someone wants to play a combination we hadn't considered but might work we allow it. If it works we don't worry about how he or she came to be or anything like that. Usually we use that a GM working with a player about the details using it in a campaign. If it doesn't we allow people to make changes until it works or it doesn't and they switch the character back to something more workable.


Derek Dalton wrote:
Paladins are for the most part based of Lancelot from King Arthur. No carousing, whoring or otherwise having the typical fun of an adventuring group sometimes. This was mostly how Paladins were played up until 4E and Pathfinder. According to the rules a Paladin now just worries about his church code and the law. So if hookers are legal he can get one. Overall Paladins are not the party animals of the group.

In general, Paladins and Rangers were quite different animals early on. Rangers had to be good as well before 3E, and the paladin code was iirc harsher.

However, this changed with 3rd edition. In fact, in 3E paladins had more leeway regarding the code than in Pathfinder, only falling for gross violations of the code (which I generally regard as "Lawful good for warriors"). Yes, in general, paladins were not meant to be particular party animals, and the stereotype is still the pure as driven snow knight of holy virtue. Then again, playing with the stereotype is half the fun. So as long as you don´t get a frequent flier discount on atonements (looking at you, grey guards) and try to do the good and responsible thing, you are probably in the clear. Carousing war hardly ever banned unless your patron deity/order was really big on monasticism - now, habitual drunkenness is another story. Even the whoring would probably depend on the society - if it is legal and not seen as dishonorable, there would likely not be a fixed issue about it. Is it worse than getting a decent girl pregnant and leaving her to fight and possibly die in some gods-forsaken hellhole when the call comes? Adventurers´ dangerous and likely short life does not lend itself very well to being a good spouse.

In general, I have not seen a problem with multiclassing from a roleplaying perspective in any group I have been in, but it could be because the players in general chose classes that fit their character. Paladin, cleric, sorcerer etc levels should not come out of the blue, but campaigns - particularly in middle or high levels - usually have a lot of unusual events which could prompt such a development.


In mechanical terms 4 levels of Paladin with Oath of Vengeance bolted onto a high Charisma Bard works really well. The fact that this particular PC had the Dirge Bard archetype, which grants fear based powers and necromantic spells, made the combination even stranger from a roleplaying perspective. The fact it was unusual and unexpected is part of what made it fun though. A man who is immune to fear but able to frighten even ghosts with his righteous fury was fun to play.

It seems pretty natural to me that a deity (or perhaps just some universal force of Good) could suddenly fill a PC with holy power. At least in this PC’s case the weapons and armor he used didn’t change any. He just devoted himself to “Stag God”, began declaring oaths of holy vengeance, and start smiting evil a lot. Folks might not expect a guitar playing Paladin who drinks, curses, and has a monkey familiar, but none of those things are actually against the Paladin’s Code of Conduct.

By the end of the campaign the PC had 4 levels of Paladin and 13 levels of Bard, but I think folks tend to remember him as a Paladin.

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Opinion About Multiclassing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.