Suggested solution to Biscotti level dipping: Signature Ability


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Lausth wrote:
No......I am saying stop making people wait for x levels that can be a month or a year depending on how frequent your party plays

WE AGREE... So I'm not getting the no.

Dark Archive

graystone wrote:
Lausth wrote:
No......I am saying stop making people wait for x levels that can be a month or a year depending on how frequent your party plays
WE AGREE... So I'm not getting the no.

We actually dont.....but ı guess you have your fun and ı have mine.Still dont like boring early levels because of other people.

EDİT:BTW stop giving gunslinger and swashbuckler as an example.There are 42 other classes that didnt built for multiclassing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:
dont like boring early levels because of other people.

None of us do. The difference is you seem to want 'protection' in place to grant good things early but discourage multiclassing.

I don't


I l know I'm not alone in hoping these suggestions aren't adopted. There are many of us for whom part of the pleasure of the game is finding and using these sometimes funky, sometimes powerful, combos. I want multi passing to be viable.

Dark Archive

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lausth wrote:
dont like boring early levels because of other people.

None of us do. The difference is you seem to want 'protection' in place to grant good things early but discourage multiclassing.

I don't

I actually want that protection so we actually have a shot at better things.I honestly dont care about multiclassing.İt is just the only way.İf ı say something like "Pazio please buff everyone at early levels but dont do anything and let be angry GM's angry" it wouldnt do anything.Right.

EDİT:It may not seem like ıt but ı actually want people to have more fun with this game.


dragonhunterq wrote:
I l know I'm not alone in hoping these suggestions aren't adopted. There are many of us for whom part of the pleasure of the game is finding and using these sometimes funky, sometimes powerful, combos. I want multi passing to be viable.

I guess the question is, if we assume that these unanticipated interactions that have a multiplicative effect are going to happen since they are going to print a lot of options after the CRB, whether it's worth putting them in the CRB. Maybe it's best to start with a clean-ish slate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lausth wrote:
dont like boring early levels because of other people.

None of us do. The difference is you seem to want 'protection' in place to grant good things early but discourage multiclassing.

I don't

I actually want that protection so we actually have a shot at better things.I honestly dont care about multiclassing.İt is just the only way.İf ı say something like "Pazio please buff everyone at early levels but dont do anything and let be angry GM's angry" it wouldnt do anything.Right.

Education is a thing.

If GMs can learn this crazy complex system they can certainly be taught that a Fighter 2 Barbarian 1 Rogue 2 Ranger 2 with all the benefits classes of those levels deserve (complete with scaling based on BAB or Character Level) is no more powerful than Any Class 7 (assuming of course that all classes are actually allowed to gain new powerful abilities as they level, rather than just a subset of them.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I wouldn't stick the /core abilities that make a class function recognizably as that class/ behind a Signature Ability, but you could stick a desirable secondary ability behind such a thing, sure. In fact, the third party D20 game Spycraft did just this. You got the Signature Ability of the first class you took at level 1, and no matter how much you multiclassed afterwards, that was it.

Now, PF2E doesn't necessarily have to be so restrictive as that. Maybe you let multiclassers still get those secondary abilities by paying feats for them. That's still an opportunity cost. Just depends really on how you balance them.

*cough* Quoting myself here, but I do still think this is a solution that makes it work all around. You can front load classes a bit, without worrying about it being unbalanced, because multiclassers won't automatically get all of the front-loaded abilities. But at the same time the multiclassers still have a route to end up getting all the signature abilities of all their classes, just by spending feats on those abilities instead of something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Sideromancer wrote:
Why is this a problem that needs to be solved?

The problem is that in order to combat dipping Paizo has nudged a lot of really important abilities back to level 3-4 which makes low level play really really really unfun for certain classes or archetypes.

The biggest problem here imo isn't dipping, it's the stuff Paizo's already done to combat dipping and how it can negatively impact gameplay.

What people seem to be missing here from the OP is that 'delay the cool feature until level 4' is already a big part of PF's class design. The OP's suggestion is just being able to get rid of that for your first class. There's nothing anti-dipping there at all.


dragonhunterq wrote:
I l know I'm not alone in hoping these suggestions aren't adopted. There are many of us for whom part of the pleasure of the game is finding and using these sometimes funky, sometimes powerful, combos. I want multi passing to be viable.

There's a vast difference between viable and is clearly the optimal choice. What melee class doesn't benefit immensely from swashbuckler? Half the call to paladinhood is the sweet sweet charisma to saves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Star Wars: Saga Edition was a d20 system that completely lacked abilities gained at fixed class levels: Every base class (all 5 of them) had the same table of new talent at odd levels and a bonus feat at even ones with only BAB differing (everyone except the high BAB Soldier and Jedi had medium with low BAB being NPC class exclusive.). Based on the leveling up preview P2E looks to be doing something vaguely similar. If the "class feats" (Really hope they change that name) are well balanced it's perfectly possible to have an iconic major ability work at level 1 and not have multiclassing be OP. Saga instead simply made higher level characters more versatile in ability instead of more powerful to the point there was a single talent for a base class in the entire system that couldn't be taken by level 5 (Uncanny Dodge II couldn't be taken till level 7 as you needed the talents Acute Senses, Improved Imitative and Uncanny Dodge I to qualify for it. That's as deep as any talent tree went.).

Not that Saga's mutliclassing system was perfect, but the problems were largely linked to the skill system.

Spoiler:
You were only trained or untrained barring skill focus or the like and, barring int boost or the skill training feat, picked all your trained skills at level 1. This disproportionately favored starting as a Scout (Had good proficiency feats, plus the second highest skill points, and picking Evasion as a talent option was great in a system with AoE attacks everywhere.) or Noble (highest skill points and some of the swift action buff talents are good for most classes), even if you were going force user: A Scout taking Force Sensitivity as their first level feat then taking their future levels as Jedi was a better build than full Jedi (admittedly this was how virtually all pre-TPM heroic Jedi worked with examples like Luke, Mara, Kyle, Corran, ect. following that even in their official builds) even if you lost some HP (starting HP was bigger in Saga Edition, but still meant less at higher levels) and a point of BAB (meant less in a system without extra attacks automatically gained at higher BAB). A common house rule of being able to take Skill Training in a new class skill instead of one of the listed starting feats helps remedy this a little, but it's still imperfect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What melee class doesn't benefit immensely from swashbuckler? Half the call to paladinhood is the sweet sweet charisma to saves.

Any melee class that can't afford good Charisma. Monks for starters.

Usually Fighters lack the skill points to have any practical use for charisma.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Any melee class that can't afford good Charisma. Monks for starters.

Usually Fighters lack the skill points to have any practical use for charisma.

Swashbucklers don't actually need charisma. It's a failing of the class design.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What melee class doesn't benefit immensely from swashbuckler? Half the call to paladinhood is the sweet sweet charisma to saves.
Any melee class that can't afford good Charisma. Monks for starters.

The Scaled Fist archetype is my personal favorite. Dragon Style built in and charisma to everything. Helloooooo, Apsu!

Silver Crusade

graystone wrote:

I'm going to guess you've never seen any real optimization...

Gunslinger just has NO real impact past 5th: it's not a munchkin/optimization thing but a reality thing. It's abilities just aren't very good past 5th.

"20 magic missiles a day at 1st level": this isn't munchkin but illegal/impossible...

"I once had a player with four different classes at what I think was level 10 or so. He did so solely to have an optimized skill-monkey, and had mods (as in for all of his skills) around 30 and inspiration dice.": and? It's not hard to get a lot of skill bonuses without dipping and making skill checks at 10th isn't that impressive. Anything that character can do a wizard can do better... :P I have a phantom thief Urogue that has every skill as a class skill and really can't fail a check, all single class...

"I recall the best munchkiner I know telling me that multiclassing is highly optimal in PFS where you will never reach higher levels where high-level abilities show up." This is the closest thing I can see to being right. If you aren't getting very high in level before you stop, multiclassing can get you viable results: It just not a winning strategy long term. So if you're only going to 5th or 6th, it might be some issue but that lessens drastically after that.

I've only been playing this game for a couple of years. I'm sure you've seen horrors I could only imagine.

I'm willing to say I may well have been wrong here. I honestly thought that most people who openly took only a couple of levels in a class would be perfectly happy to admit that they were doing so because they wanted the mechanical benefits of doing so. I think what gave me that impression is that I just find it so difficult to imagine the flavor reason to take only a few levels in a class. I look forward to your post outlining several, and I'm sure you'll be completely right about them. I'm dead serious, this is me admitting I've lost the argument.

I'll also comments on the original posters proposition while I'm here. I think restricting major features of a class to third level is going to do too much to hurt people who have valid flavorful reasons to multi-class. (And I would have said this from the very beginning. If someone is multiclassing half and half between two different classes because that's the character they want to play, not getting one of their classes fundamental features until 6th level is too much of a slap in the face.)


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I honestly thought that most people who openly took only a couple of levels in a class would be perfectly happy to admit that they were doing so because they wanted the mechanical benefits of doing so.

Well there IS some multiclassing for power but it's mostly a low level issue as they are only stronger before the straight classes get those 'anti-dipping' abilities. So it can be an issue in a low level one shot but in a continuing game, it's trading early power for latter lameness.

As to mechanical benefits, the majority of multiclassing I see is because of that but not IMO for power. Some people want the mechanics of their character to match what image they have of it. Often that will mean a single class just isn't a perfect match/fit. The Inspired Blade/Investigator is a good example of this. It lets you be a better 'rapier wielding smart guy' than the straight class by letting you be a viable combatant from the start and gets you some physical skills you can add d6's too. It's been described as 'sherlock holmes with a rapier': either straight class was missing either the 'rapier wit' or the ability to help much with their rapier.


QuidEst wrote:


Dipping isn't badwrongfun, but I'm going to have a less pleasant time if it's strongly optimal (especially to make multiple dips). If that's the case, I would feel like there was a tradeoff between character power and that character's thematic cohesion.

Dipping all over the place means having to test every combination of every ability from every class, and makes it much easier for broken combinations to get through. (For both "trap option" and "game-breakingly powerful" values of broken.)


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I honestly thought that most people who openly took only a couple of levels in a class would be perfectly happy to admit that they were doing so because they wanted the mechanical benefits of doing so.

Why is this a problem?

Everyone has different goals for each of their characters, why is it 'bad' for players to use the rules to realize those goals into the character's capabilities?

Some of the most interesting characters have stories wholly divorced from the published fluff of their class or classes.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Problem isnt mechanichal benefits right now in 1e.Problem is anoying 5 level of wait that is put on almost every class in 1e.We are not saying multiclassing is broken in its current state.We are saying because of multiclassing ,good abilities that is needed for a class to shine is pushed for at least 5 levels in almost every class.Which is why multiclassing is a problem.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I honestly thought that most people who openly took only a couple of levels in a class would be perfectly happy to admit that they were doing so because they wanted the mechanical benefits of doing so.

Why is this a problem?

Its not a problem in terms of you are a horrible munchkin, no doughnut for you.

It IS a problem in terms of game design Where you want fantasy archetypes to have some definitive character and not have every martial character be a blended brown mess of every bucket of paint that was lying around because thats the mechanically optimal choice unless you play the game post level 15.

If its not the mechanically optimal choice, if dipping is so bad, then this shouldn't matter at all right?


Lausth wrote:
Problem isnt mechanichal benefits right now in 1e.Problem is anoying 5 level of wait that is put on almost every class in 1e.We are not saying multiclassing is broken in its current state.We are saying because of multiclassing ,good abilities that is needed for a class to shine is pushed for at least 5 levels in almost every class.Which is why multiclassing is a problem.

Its a little from column A, its a little from column B...


Lausth wrote:
Problem isnt mechanichal benefits right now in 1e.Problem is anoying 5 level of wait that is put on almost every class in 1e.We are not saying multiclassing is broken in its current state.We are saying because of multiclassing ,good abilities that is needed for a class to shine is pushed for at least 5 levels in almost every class.Which is why multiclassing is a problem.

And ALL we're saying is that it isn't multiclassing itself that's the issue but the DEV's worrying about it: much like they worry SO much about dex combat that you need 3 feats and tying one hand behind your back before you can get dex to damage...

It's why I said, if you make the classes all good enough at all levels, there isn't any power gain from multiclassing as you lose as much as you gain: this makes it a flavor/preference issue instead of a powergaming one. So I advocate for better class design and not any limit to multiclassing or ability gating do to signature abilities.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Multiclassing in pathfinder got seriously nerfed from 3ed. If anything, I think it could use a little boost in pf2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I honestly thought that most people who openly took only a couple of levels in a class would be perfectly happy to admit that they were doing so because they wanted the mechanical benefits of doing so.

Why is this a problem?

Its not a problem in terms of you are a horrible munchkin, no doughnut for you.

It IS a problem in terms of game design Where you want fantasy archetypes to have some definitive character and not have every martial character be a blended brown mess of every bucket of paint that was lying around because thats the mechanically optimal choice unless you play the game post level 15.

In 3E sometimes a splash of this or a splash of that was the optimal way to create a martial character. Still suboptimal compared to the strongest characters possible, but it made your stickslinger a little less fragile [save stacking] and a little more flexible.

Like combining a few different paints on the palette to create the desired shade.

In PF1? Forget it. Sometimes you can get close to not losing out in the short term, but in the long term you always pay the Piper [and when I say long term I'm talking more around level 10 than level 15]

Quote:
If its not the mechanically optimal choice, if dipping is so bad, then this shouldn't matter at all right?

While it might not always be the mechanically optimal choice, it can certainly sometimes be the ideal choice for a given character.

One of my favorite characters back when I was a player [in fact my very first long term 3.5 characters] was a huge mismash of classes. Her name was Shayla, and she was an run-away Circus Acrobat turned Adventurer. As for her classes? She started the game as a chaotic neutral Monk 2 [forever unable to advance as a monk because of her alignment] heading towards Swashbuckler 1. Then she went on to dip into Duskblade, Arcane Duelist, Pious Templar, Dervish and finish out with many levels in Duelist.

Her story had absolutely nothing to do with her classes, just mechanics under the hood of a very interesting girl experiencing a brand world with a group of newfound companions who would slowly become precious friends.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Suggested solution to Biscotti level dipping: Nothing IMO. I like the option to dip or not and don't feel the need to have one set of options 'punished' because it wasn't your first pick.

Your options are currently punished in PF1e. Investigators don't get studied combat until level 4. URogues don't get Dex to Damage until level 3. These are the types of level-locked class-defining abilities that BigNorseWolf is talking about. The developers are already of the mind-set that dipping for class-defining abilities is undesirable, to the detriment of single-classed characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serum wrote:
graystone wrote:
Suggested solution to Biscotti level dipping: Nothing IMO. I like the option to dip or not and don't feel the need to have one set of options 'punished' because it wasn't your first pick.
Your options are currently punished in PF1e. Investigators don't get studied combat until level 4. URogues don't get Dex to Damage until level 3. These are the types of level-locked class-defining abilities that BigNorseWolf is talking about. The developers are already of the mind-set that dipping for class-defining abilities is undesirable, to the detriment of single-classed characters.

To the detriment of the game as a whole, IMHO


Serum wrote:
The developers are already of the mind-set that dipping for class-defining abilities is undesirable, to the detriment of single-classed characters.

Yes, which is why I suggested making classes good enough at all levels so that dipping isn't an issue: this is more a fear of the DEV's than an actual issue IMO. I'd rather not see ANY level/class lock system, which is what my post was about because I don't WANT them to make multiclassing harder/more difficult. I don't see trading one limitation for another as progress.


the only way they could get rid of multiclassing is if classes all went away and you had just a giant pool of abilities to choose from.

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Suggested solution to Biscotti level dipping: Signature Ability All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion