I've seen others express similar concerns.
Can't we just drop the Favored Class mechanic?
Reasons:
It removes diversity from the game. Players will feel like they are at a mechanical disadvantage if they play something other than a "favored class". Elves with their bonuses to int and dex would make great rogues, but I'd get penalized for doing that.
As a mechanic, it's unnecessary.
Adds absolutely nothing to the game other than to enforce stereotypes and to "put a box" around people's creativity.
By removing it, you could put in more art. :)
I never really had that much of a problem with favored classes in 3.x, but that's because, when I did get to play, I played as humans. I do understand the problems other people ran into with favored classes and such, but I don't think Paizo's really doing that much of a disservice to the player regarding favored classes. All taking levels in a favored class gives you now is a whopping 1 hit point per level. If you take 20 levels in a racially favored class, you'll be up 20 hp over someone who doesn't. It's not a massive difference, and it doesn't do anything that negatively impacts a PC like the XP penalty used to.
The benefit is that it helps to provide a bit of mechanical reinforcement for those interested in embracing and following a race's fluff. Dwarves are often warriors. They should make good fighters, because that's a natural proclivity of the race. The favored class mechanic helps to reinforce this, which actually helps explain why so many dwarves may be fighters rather than paladins. It's a good idea overall.
I wouldn't shed much of a tear if it was to go, but favored clsses were the only way I differentiated subtypes for races in my campaign setting - the different societies those races hailed from encouraged different classes, and it encouraged that. I'd do the same with Pathfinder.
I think there is no penalty to them now they should keep them how they are
I never really had that much of a problem with favored classes in 3.x, but that's because, when I did get to play, I played as humans. I do understand the problems other people ran into with favored classes and such, but I don't think Paizo's really doing that much of a disservice to the player regarding favored classes. All taking levels in a favored class gives you now is a whopping 1 hit point per level. If you take 20 levels in a racially favored class, you'll be up 20 hp over someone who doesn't. It's not a massive difference, and it doesn't do anything that negatively impacts a PC like the XP penalty used to.
So, what you're saying is - the rule doesn't matter. Shouldn't a rule that doesn't matter be removed from the game?
So, what you're saying is - the rule doesn't matter. Shouldn't a rule that doesn't matter be removed from the game?I never really had that much of a problem with favored classes in 3.x, but that's because, when I did get to play, I played as humans. I do understand the problems other people ran into with favored classes and such, but I don't think Paizo's really doing that much of a disservice to the player regarding favored classes. All taking levels in a favored class gives you now is a whopping 1 hit point per level. If you take 20 levels in a racially favored class, you'll be up 20 hp over someone who doesn't. It's not a massive difference, and it doesn't do anything that negatively impacts a PC like the XP penalty used to.
I don't see how you can possibly get "the rule doesn't matter" from what DoS said. He said that the bonus was minimal enough that it doesn't force players to choose the favored class - which is what you were complaining about, yes?
I don't see how you can possibly get "the rule doesn't matter" from what DoS said. He said that the bonus was minimal enough that it doesn't force players to choose the favored class - which is what you were complaining about, yes?So, what you're saying is - the rule doesn't matter. Shouldn't a rule that doesn't matter be removed from the game?I never really had that much of a problem with favored classes in 3.x, but that's because, when I did get to play, I played as humans. I do understand the problems other people ran into with favored classes and such, but I don't think Paizo's really doing that much of a disservice to the player regarding favored classes. All taking levels in a favored class gives you now is a whopping 1 hit point per level. If you take 20 levels in a racially favored class, you'll be up 20 hp over someone who doesn't. It's not a massive difference, and it doesn't do anything that negatively impacts a PC like the XP penalty used to.
Exactly. It's a minimal difference that does still help reinforce flavor without really penalizing players for going against type. It strikes me as a very clever choice, and one I'm rather happy about seeing. I don't think it *needs* to be removed, though I'm also not going to raise holy hell if they do remove it. I think it's perfectly justified in staying for now, though. Especially with compatibility being a cornerstone of Pathfinder, and considering how many other races have favored classes.
I think it should stay.
It adds a bit of flavor to the game and does not penalize anyone for not following their racial favored classes.
If you wish, for your home game, it is easy to remove.
Or modify, like change the 1 HP per level to 1 skill rank point per level.
You don't favored class to retain backwards compatibility. It wasn't even needed in 3rd edition.
And the favored class mechanic does introduce a penalty - it penalizes players for making creative class choices for their characters. Half-elf fighter/wizard? Sorry, pick one you're "good at".
Elven rogue? No dice.
It's only going to push players into stereotypical roles. The game will suffer as a result, IMHO.
I think it should stay.
It adds a bit of flavor to the game and does not penalize anyone for not following their racial favored classes.
If you wish, for your home game, it is easy to remove.
Or modify, like change the 1 HP per level to 1 skill rank point per level.
Don't kid yourself. Just because there isn't a minus sign in front of the number, doesn't mean it's not a penalty.
Players are being penalized for making creative race/class combinations. That's what it boils down to, pure and simple.
And the favored class mechanic does introduce a penalty - it penalizes players for making creative class choices for their characters.
How does it punish players who don't follow favored classes?
I seem to be missing the part of your argument.
Odd... I don't recall seing problems with elven rogues in 3.5...
Being down a few hit points CAN sometimes make or break a character, but I certainly wouldn't say that a player is being penalized for playing against type. Perhaps being rewarded for playing within it, but that's a common factor in any game, and it helps make race actually matter.
As for the half-elf example... He's got a lot more problems going on than missing out on some HP by only picking one favored class, unless he's aiming for Ultimate Magus.
|
I would prefer it went back to being a penalty for mutliclassing as opposed to a bonus for being a single class.
In 3E, if you paced your multiclass evenly you didn't lose XP. If you took a prestige class, you didn't lose XP. But at the same time your allies aren't gaining anything.
In 3P, you don't get the extra HP when you level the other class. You don't get the extra HP when you take a prestige class. And unlike 3E, your allies are gaining extra HP.
I understand why favored class was made into a bonus, but the idea of favored class was to allow character of a certain race to avoid XP penalties for mutliclassing.
I prefer to keep them even though I usually play humans. Personally, while I like the idea that dwarves naturally lean towards fighters and elves naturally lean toward wizards, the current rules don't impose any penalties for playing a "non-favored" class, you just don't get the minor benefit. Of course, I would have preferred they changed the favored class benefit to allow you to either gain +1 HP or +1 skill points. Additional skill points seems more "realistic" for a class that you are "naturally" good at, at least compared to making you harder to kill (+1 hp).
|
I would prefer it went back to being a penalty for mutliclassing as opposed to a bonus for being a single class.
In 3E, if you paced your multiclass evenly you didn't lose XP. If you took a prestige class, you didn't lose XP. But at the same time your allies aren't gaining anything.
In 3P, you don't get the extra HP when you level the other class. You don't get the extra HP when you take a prestige class. And unlike 3E, your allies are gaining extra HP.
I understand why favored class was made into a bonus, but the idea of favored class was to allow character of a certain race to avoid XP penalties for mutliclassing.
I thought if it hasn't been changed or isn't included its the same as before, I haven't seen anything on multiclassing, so doesn't that mean that it's the same. So in addition to preventing xp penalties it also gives you a +1 not the other. Unless I just missed the section on multiclassing or in the favored classes that says differently.
And the favored class mechanic does introduce a penalty - it penalizes players for making creative class choices for their characters. Half-elf fighter/wizard? Sorry, pick one you're "good at".
Ummm...
I don't PARTICULARLY like the favored class/ bonus HP thing myself, but your example..."pick one"... Well, if that's what ANY character has to do, Human or otherwise (one of their classes 'more favored'), I don't see the 'un-fairness' there, except you that you can argue with Paizo's specific CHOICES of race/class combos...
(Humans and Half-Elves should not be complaining, in my eyes.)
The basic assumption is that the class you want to be most advanced in, should be your 'favored class', so you will get most of the benefits. I don't think it's too much to give this 'slight advantage' to single class characters, and characters who stay with the core classes vs. PrC-ing.
I think if the favored class is staying though, there should be a note to the effect of "the racial favored classes are context specific, and are meant to reflect the prevailing cultures within the Pathfinder world, Golarion." Certainly if you're playing Eberron or Dragonlance, etc. certain 'racial culture' assumptions would be very different.
Here's the thing about favored class - it just doubly enforces what the core mechanic already has in place - sticking with a single class is the best way to go. Why do we need yet another "cherry on top" to say "yea, you shouldn't multi-class".
See, there's ALREADY a huge benefit in sticking with a single class - you get all the high level benefits from being in a single class. Multi-class characters already suffer in the extreme power department, in favor of more of a variety of powers. Why does the favored class mechanic have to reward people who are already going to be more powerful by virtue of being in a single class?
If anything,we should be giving +1 hit point per level to people who multiclass. They're the ones who need it.
That, and it just enforces stereotypes. Elves don't get favored class rogue, even though they've got perfect stats for it. They did get favored class rogue in alpha 2, but was replaced with Ranger in alpha 3.
The whole concept is just stupid. It was in 3rd edition, and it still is. It should just be dropped. It is completely and totally unnecessary.
See, there's ALREADY a huge benefit in sticking with a single class - you get all the high level benefits from being in a single class. Multi-class characters already suffer in the extreme power department, in favor of more of a variety of powers. Why does the favored class mechanic have to reward people who are already going to be more powerful by virtue of being in a single class?
While this may be true for certain classes, most martial classes can gain a lot of benefits from multiclassing. A dash of ranger or barbarian on a fighter opens up a lot of possibilities.
|
|
You know, Favored Class is one of those things that isn't necessary, but it isn't a game breaker, and it certainly isn't difficult to remove if your game group doesn't like it. (+1 hp when you take your favored class is hardly a disincentive to move away from favored classes.
It's certainly not like what I perceive to be a more critical component - condensing skills, or feats. (Or removing multiclass restrictions! Bravo!)
|
You don't favored class to retain backwards compatibility. It wasn't even needed in 3rd edition.
And the favored class mechanic does introduce a penalty - it penalizes players for making creative class choices for their characters. Half-elf fighter/wizard? Sorry, pick one you're "good at".
Elven rogue? No dice.
It's only going to push players into stereotypical roles. The game will suffer as a result, IMHO.
I agree that it's not needed for compatibility - if it were to stay or go, it is so terribly insignificant compared to other changes that are seen to maintain compatibility that it shouldn't really be part of the argument.
HOWEVER, I like it and think it should stay (the way Pathfinder has it). To say that you are being penalized by not making a choice which provides you some benefit is like saying humans are penalized because they don't get darkvision, or elves are penalized because they don't get +2 to strength, or wizards are penalized because they don't get the same number of feats a fighter does.... they're all for different purposes.
If you want to play an elven wizard, then here are some extra HP. If you want to play an elven rogue, you don't get the extra HP - you aren't being penalized, you just haven't chosen to follow a path which leads to getting extra HP (just like your elven rogue won't be able to cast spells like a wizard....).
The game will not suffer, the sky is not falling. Don't get all dramatic about it.
If you choose not to play an elven rogue because you're being somehow forced to play a wizard just because you get an extra hp per level... well, that's a whole different topic.
Characters have class and race based bonuses (and weaknesses). That's just a factor of the game and the way it works. I suspect that those who most fervently argue against having favoured classes are probably a similar group to those who rail against even having classes or archetypes.
... and they probably don't remember the class progression limitations suffered by non-humans in earlier editions of the game. :)
I honestly think it's a non-issue. No more penalty for mulit-classing and you get +1 hp/level for taking your favored class. Big deal.
But the OP wants to hold on to the idea that not being rewarded is a punishment. "I'm not getting what he's getting and it's just not fair!"
|
|
My groups have never used Favored Classes or Multi-class restrictions. We just simply ignore those rules. Works out fine. So it's neither here nor there if PRPG has those rules or not: Either way we are not going to use them.
That's a great attitude to have - once the rules are set in stone. :) At this point Paizo is still fiddling with the rules, and saying "do whatever you want, I'll just change them to whatever I want later" doesn't provide any sort of constructive feedback.
Obviously if, after the rules are printed and released as final, we still see issues that weren't addressed the way we'd like them to be we are free to change them to our heart's content (just as we are with any gaming system). This is about development now, though. We're supposed to be thinking about the big picture, not just our own groups at this point.
|
|
Okay would someone please tell me where it says in alpha 3 that there are no penalties for multiclassing? what page is that said on? can someone tell me or is this one of those people keep saying it so others on the board pick it up and take it for truth things that happened all the time with 4E speculation.
|
I think THE key design flaw in 3.5 from a character race and class perspective is that there is NO incentive to stay single class. It is far easier to optimize with multiple classes and prestige classes. Since first edition, various races have had iconic classes that are associated with them. The Elven Wizard, the Dwarf Fighter, the Gnome Illusionist. These ideas go back to 1st edition and didn't just appear out of no where for 3rd edition.
So here we are playtesting the PFRPG. Essentially the OP is saying that he doesn't like it that he doesn't get the bonus HP if he multiclasses or chooses a non favored class combo. To me that screams of wanting your cake and eating it too. A +1 hp per level for taking levels in your races favored class is a very minor incentive to do so. Certainly not enough that the game is grossly imbalanced or unfair to players who choose to play a non favored class/race combination. I think the iconic class/race combinations are a large part of what makes the game feel like D&D. The original intent of the favored class mechanically was to provide an inherent mechanism to limit multiclassing. In PFRPG, the penalty is removed entirely and now there is a slight benefit to staying with the favored class instead of a penalty for not doing so.
In the bigger scheme of the cosmos, the +1 hp per level is not a big deal if they decide to drop it. Personally, I think favored classes are good for the game and encourage novice players to think about making race and class choices that work well together from the start. This rule does NOT stifle creativity. It just offers a small reward for players to play the iconic class/race combinations. I fail to see any problem here beyond a player wanting to be able to gain all the benefits without any sacrifices in building their character.
Okay would someone please tell me where it says in alpha 3 that there are no penalties for multiclassing? what page is that said on? can someone tell me or is this one of those people keep saying it so others on the board pick it up and take it for truth things that happened all the time with 4E speculation.
It doesn't say that there is a penalty.
P.11 explains what favored class is and does.In one of the threads, Jason confirmed that there were no XP penalties for multiclassing.
Okay would someone please tell me where it says in alpha 3 that there are no penalties for multiclassing? what page is that said on? can someone tell me or is this one of those people keep saying it so others on the board pick it up and take it for truth things that happened all the time with 4E speculation.
It doesn't actually say in the Alpha. However, Jason confirmed it in this thread.
I agree, favored class should be removed. If it was cut right now, things would be still alright balance wise with the exception of maybe the half elves.
|
|
It doesn't actually say in the Alpha. However, Jason confirmed it in this thread.
Yeap. Jason kinda glossed over the fact that favored class was to keep multiclassing in check.
Elven Fighter 10/Barbarian 1/Rogue 1 for example. I'm a fighter, I can rage, and I have sneak attack.. oh and I'm a skill monkey thanks to rogue.
The new favored class design doesn't penalize for that. If anything, it penalizes someone that doesn't want to play a racial stereotype...
Like our "Iconic" Elven Rogue.
A Elven Rogue in 3.5 would be as unaffected by favored class as an Elven Wizard. HOWEVER, in 3P if the Elf is anything other then a Wizard or Ranger, he gets penalized regardless of if he's planning on multiclassing or not.
While I agree that 1 extra hitpoint per level isn't game breaking, it's unfair to the guy that didn't mutliclass or the guy that did multiclass but didn't splash classes.
I like the new favored class mechanic; it encourages players to pick the iconic/stereotypical combinations, and it's not abusive to people who want to get creative.
Because it's not as abusive as a 20% XP penalty when it kicks in, it handles the many-multiclass situation just as well as many-base classes. One of the characters in my 3.5 game has five classes (two base, three prestige) because that's what he was looking for to build his character. I don't have any problem with the game handing out an 'attaboy' for the halfling rogue and not to the halfling cavalier.
The way I look at it is - there's a finite amount of weirdness in the world. If every PC party has goblin druids, half-drow barbarians, azer monks, aasimar sorcerers, etc., they're bogarting all the weirdness for themselves. Unusual combinations should be unusual.
|
|
I like the new favored class mechanic; it encourages players to pick the iconic/stereotypical combinations, and it's not abusive to people who want to get creative.
Funny you should say "it encourages players to pick the iconic/stereotypical combinations" when the Rogue Iconic is an elf... and elves don't favor rogues, dwarves don't favor rangers, and gnomes don't favor druids.
So the rules encourage players to pick iconic combinations, but 3 classes when Iconic characters that go against those combinations.
I really don't think 1 hitpoint encourages anyone to be honest. It's a poor mechanic that's indirectly penalizing characters that weren't an issue before.
As I've stated before, if they are going to keep favored classes, they should at least make it a reward for following the genre rather than a penalty for doing what you wish.
+1 HP is not ideal, IMHO, I'd prefer a bonus feat or two, or even a limited choice of feats, or bonus skill points, but it is *an acceptable* compromise.
|
|
I really don't think 1 hitpoint encourages anyone to be honest. It's a poor mechanic that's indirectly penalizing characters that weren't an issue before.
And you're stating the same strange perception that the OP did... that NOT getting a bonus is somehow like a penalty. The absence of a bonus is not a penalty. That seems pretty straightforward. If you were playing an elf wizard, and were in the party with a half-orc fighter, would you feel penalized because the half-orc got a bonus to strength and you didn't? Or that the halfling rogue has so many more skill points than you? I doubt it (and if you did, then there are other problems to deal with anyway).
And if you compare it to before, I think that 20% XP penalty was much more of a problem for straying outside your favoured class. SO let's compare... 3.5 you end up with an XP penalty of 1/5th if you happen to multiclass; 3.P you have no penalty for multiclassing or taking any class that is not favoured (and note that you now have two favoured classes to choose from).
Sheesh, it seems like any deterrent to multiclassing and playing outside your favoured classes has been removed altogether.
Oh, and if you do happen to play the class to which your race has an affinity, you get a few extra HP.
|
|
hmarcbower, calling favored class in 3E a penalty is not much different then half the things WOTC has said about 3E. It's just not true.
Being your Favored allows you to avoid a 20% penalty for uneven multiclassing. EVERY CHARACTER has a 20% penalty if they're multiclassing is out of whack. Favored class in 3.5 isn't a penalty or a negative, it's a positive. It doesn't count against the multiclassing limits.
I don't want class splashing. I don't want unlimited unrestricted multiclassing. That's what the change to favored class causes. You can splash a level or two of a bunch of classes just to get quick abilities and never worry about losing XP.
If we get IMPROVED saves, bab, and spellcasting for mutliclassing like a lot of people want, then suddenly unlimited unrestricted multiclassing becomes a huge problem. The 20% atleast keeps that in check at the tables that actually enforce it.
And it is a penalty.. it's a penalty to the character that didn't do anything wrong. The purpose of favored class was to ENABLE you to multiclass freely in certain combinations. 3P has changed that and now made the guy that didn't even multiclass the loser.
I'd almost agree with SirUrza except: I ignore multi-classing XP penalties and it hasn't broken anything in my game. Arcana Evolved does away with the penalties and even allows limited stacking of spellcasting ability between spellcasting classes.
It hasn't broken a darn thing.
FWIW, I never thought multiclassing was that game breaking. Yes, I ran a game where the human swashbuckler/scout/fighter/dervish tended to get the most hits in combat, but she also took more hits than the gnome fighter and human cleric who were both in full plate...and they weren't combat slouches either. The character who was worst in a fight was the half-elf wizard/rogue/arcane trickster.
I see multiclassing as a way to make a character concept work that is outside the normal rules mechanics. "My character is dedicated to fighting a certain kind of foe, but I don't really care about nature" means that the character will probably multiclass ranger with something else. If the person in question isn't sure which way they want to go, getting a benefit from a favored class is a good suggestion of what to choose. A halfling might chose rogue, a dwarf fighter, a gnome bard, etc. But if the player chooses to make a gnome ranger/rogue because she likes the flavor, she isn't penalized for it like under the old 3.X rules. She just doesn't get 1 extra HP. Wow. What a terrible price to pay. I think I'll cry.
I hated the XP penalty under the old rules set. It made my attempts at making more unusual combinations more difficult and was more stifling to my creativity than otherwise. I see the new version as inline with the racial and/or regional feats that pop up in various books: They're a bit better than the normal because they encourage you to play to type. But if you choose not to, there are still plenty of other options to choose that are still good--just not extra good.
So that's my two cents.
In contrast to SirUrza, I DO want uninhibited multiclassing. It's a basic fundamental design goal of the 3rd edition rules, and an immense improvement over 2nd edition. Want a barbarian with a grudge against orcs and a little extra training in weapons? Splash some ranger and fighter on there and have fun! Want a few little arcane magical tricks for your rogue while also being dedicated to the god of thieves? A bit of sorcerer on your rogue/cleric can give you just the right flavor.
In 3.x, I multiclassed heavily, and never batted an eye at XP penalties, because I always played humans. This was due in part to my preference for the race's feel, but also because it allowed me to avoid any annoying xp headaches. Had I had a really kick-ass idea for an elf paladin/sorcerer/eldritch knight, I would have been unfairly penalized, despite it being a rather iconic character concept (because gish spontaneous casters are neat). Now, I don't have to worry about anything other than being behind a single classed, favored classed character's hp by one per level. I think I can manage. Maybe I'll earmark a feat for Improved Toughness...
3rd edition shifted the design paradigm of the older versions of the game away from FORCING you to play with certain archetypes, into allowing you to go to town. Favored Class was something of a restriction - it encouraged sticking to certain archetypes and it allowed the feel of the races to continue. But it did penalize players who would multiclass for flavor, ability, or to just try and keep up with the full casters of the game. Pathfinder just takes it to being a very minor reward for staying within racial flavor while still being true to the "every combination" approach of 3rd edition's design philosophy. I like it a heck of a lot more than 4.0's "only one multiclass for you!" philosophy, honestly.
4E's design philosophy to me seems more like:
Only one Multi-class for you! Scratch that, that's too much and will take away from the role of your base class, here, have Tumble, are you happy? That's the best you'll get, go defend, stop trying to be a Striker!!! *Mean angry face for emphasis*
SirUrza,
You are certainly making some valid points about uninhibited multiclassing, and I agree that multiclassing needs to be limited. I just don't like that humans & half-elves were the only ones who weren't highly limited in what combinations they could choose. Why can't an elf or even a dwarf play that Paladin / Sorceror / Eldritch Knight combo? That's why most players play humans: bonus feat, bonus skill points, and they can do whatever the hell they want! Why should players be so limited in their choices if they want to play a different race? How is that fun? How does it serve game balance?
Simply put, the 3e Favored Class system is a terrible mechanic to limit passive-aggressive munchkinist multiclassing. There needs to be a simpler, more direct means of doing so. In my gaming groups, we've simply been limiting the number classes, including prestiges class, that a player can take to just 3. For us, it's been a good limitation, although there have been times that I thought about bumping up that number to 4 classes.
Ultimately, however, I think that multiclassing should be done away with entirely. A class should be a single, specialized approach to combat & everything else from there could be accomplished with feats, which would effectively make multiclassing unnecessary. I think IRON HEROES really does this quite well (if you ignore & delete their silly multiclassing rules).
|
|
I'm glad they did away with the XP penalty for multiclassing, at least. If the intention of favored class is to avoid abuse of multiclassing, though, the solution is to build classes so that their coolest features come later, or scale up with class level. Front-loading a class with the most important benefits at 1st or 2nd level is an open invitation to dip.
I think we all agree that keeping or dropping the 1 hp/lvl won't matter that much either way. That being the case, why bother with an extra rule that adds this extra bit of complication for no great purpose? Races will naturally gravitate toward certain classes based on their stat modifiers and any potential synergy between racial & class features.
If the rule is kept, however, I like the earlier poster's recommendation of awarding a bonus skill point instead of hit point for favored classes. After all, if a race is predisposed toward a certain profession, then members of that race would be better at the skills associated with it, but wouldn't necessarily be tougher & able to take more hits for following that chosen path.
|
|
So basically what you're all saying is that you're all fine with a person in your group starting out at level 1 as a rogue, getting lots of skills and sneak attack. Then level 2, actually progressing as whatever class his actual character is going to be. Because that's what this opens up.
If a character doesn't like Orcs, said character doesn't need ANY levels in Ranger for favored enemy and it's even worse of a waste of a level from a character stand point if your adventure NEVER encounters an orc.
So basically what you're all saying is that you're all fine with a person in your group starting out at level 1 as a rogue, getting lots of skills and sneak attack. Then level 2, actually progressing as whatever class his actual character is going to be. Because that's what this opens up.
Yes, exactly. I don't care if someone wants to level dip. If they do so, they lose out on some of the abilities of whatever their "real" class is. That's the balancing factor.
If a character doesn't like Orcs, said character doesn't need ANY levels in Ranger for favored enemy and it's even worse of a waste of a level from a character stand point if your adventure NEVER encounters an orc.
If you take the time to take a favored enemy and it NEVER comes up in game, then your DM is a jerk. Either s/he should make sure that you do encounter an orc occasionally, or s/he should note during character creation that it is unlikely you're going to encounter orcs, and you might wish to choose something else.
The point is that I don't see class as your character's job. To me, it is a set of things you can do. If you like the abilities of several different classes because that what fits your character concept, then I don't have a problem with you taking levels in those different classes. Because, if you do, you lose out on the cool higher level abilities of those classes that your single-class comrades have.
So basically what you're all saying is that you're all fine with a person in your group starting out at level 1 as a rogue, getting lots of skills and sneak attack. Then level 2, actually progressing as whatever class his actual character is going to be. Because that's what this opens up.
Yeah. Sure. Why not? Heck, with the changes to the skill system that they've done with Pathfinder, there's significantly less benefit from doing so (8 skill points verses 32), so I don't think there'll be as many people trying to pull it off.
And, of course, there was nothing in 3.x to stop a character from pulling this either, unless his "main class" was going to be something other than his favored class and he wasn't a half-elf, human, or halfling. A dwarf fighter would have been well advised to take that first level of rogue. Same with the half-orc barbarian. Now? Not as much of an incentive.
|
|
Yes, exactly. I don't care if someone wants to level dip. If they do so, they lose out on some of the abilities of whatever their "real" class is. That's the balancing factor.So basically what you're all saying is that you're all fine with a person in your group starting out at level 1 as a rogue, getting lots of skills and sneak attack. Then level 2, actually progressing as whatever class his actual character is going to be. Because that's what this opens up.
How's it a balancing factor? Statistically most character don't get played or live long enough to make it to level 10-15. Immediate gains out weight the long term loses that will likely never be the case.
If you take the time to take a favored enemy and it NEVER comes up in game, then your DM is a jerk. Either s/he should make sure that you do encounter an orc occasionally, or s/he should note during character creation that it is unlikely you're going to encounter orcs, and you might wish to choose something else.
But your character doesn't like orcs and according to the theory above, that's a good enough reason to take a level of Ranger. Not your DM's job to tell you how to make your character. And not your DM's fault for no orcs if you're playing a pregenerated module/adventure path with no orcs in sight.
Because, if you do, you lose out on the cool higher level abilities of those classes that your single-class comrades have.
As I said, statistically most characters don't get played long enough to see those higher levels.
Well, tossing my hat in one this one...
I would like to see multi-classing clamped down some. Overall, I have no problem with it. It's the level of cherry picking that really gets to me.
When the multi-classing is done as part of the character's development, or to fulfill a overall character theme. Then yes, the system works and does what it is intended.
It's when you have somebody take their first level as Paladin (Cha of 6, Wis of 8) solely for the opportunity to get 5 ranks Knowledge-Religion with a martial class, then at 2nd level loses his Paladin-hood, turning LN because the class served it's purpose. That is where I have the problem.
Even if racial favored classes were dropped, I would like to see your first class taken be listed as your Favored Class. Stick with it, and you gain the perk. Deviate from it, then no perk for you.