|
Is it just me, or are the rules on how to multi-class missing from the Beta? There are references to multi-classing, but I can't find anything on details around how to handle it. I know its fairly simple, from the d20 SRD, but just find it odd not to be in here. Maybe it's one of the things coming up when they do the Prestige Classes add-on later.
mmm iw ould think its just work as if you added a new level, just began in level one... now that there is no x4 in initial skills its even less of a trouble
my only question is... the +3 in class skills goes to BOTH classes?
+3 max, they don't stack. (I *just* read that, but don't remember where I saw it...)
It's written on page 52, paragraph "Acquiring Skills" : "You gain a +3 bonus on all class skills that you put ranks into. If you have more than one class and both grant you a class skill bonus, these bonuses do not stack."
|
Not only are multiclassing rules missing from the beta, but also the official schedule for the Pathfinder playtest doesn't seem to include any opportunity to review the rules for multiclassing. Does this mean that the 3.5 rules will be carried across to the Pathfinder RPG unchanged?
Personally, I have a couple of suggestions / comments:
The improvements to the various core classes go a long way towards discouraging 'class dipping' (taking only one or two levels of a single class in order to cherry-pick the low-level abilities from multiple classes), but I wonder if a minor change to the multiclassing rules is needed to further discourage this phenomenon. Perhaps there should be a maximum limit to the number of different classes that a PC can have (2-3)? Or perhaps the rate of progression should be slowed proportionally to the number of classes that a character has (eg -10% experience penalty for each class beyond the first).
Each PC should only be permitted to have a single prestige class. They are supposed to be prestigious after all...
Multiclassing can sometimes do strange things to a character's saving throws at high levels. With the right combination of classes, it is possible to build some abusive combinations. I'm not really sure what should be done about this, but it needs to be addressed - possibly in the high level playtest period.
|
|
To me that sounds unnecessarily complicated, with the emphasis on unnecessary.
Though the fixes you propose make sense to a degree, they seem to me more the stuff of house ruling than official book material.
You are right that the fixes I propose may be a bit too complicated, but I still think that the existing multiclassing rules could do with a few tweaks to prevent some of the obvious abuses. Does anybody else have any suggestions?
|
I don't really understand all this angst against multi-classing, even single-level dipping.
One of the beauties of 3rd Edition is the ease with which it handles multi-classing. I'm not suggesting it's perfect, but if you have a character concept that suggests a level or three of this, and a level or four of that, you can do it. Even if it means a single-level dip into Rogue for sneak attack and skill points, or few-level dip into Fighter for bonus feats, what's so wrong with that? Even better if the player works this into his back-story or personality - one of Gadren Lamm's street kids who relied on his charm and petty thievery to make a living, before falling in with a group of adventurers and learning the skills of a true swordsman he always admired. A lawful character might dedicate his entire life to one discipline, but a chaotic character might lack focus and explore different paths at different points in his life. Why is this described as "abusive"? Let players choose their own paths.
I'm all for encouraging a player to stick with one class all the way through, but I think multi-classing rules could be enhanced where they're lacking a bit, such Gish characters, rather than being nerfed.
I don't really understand all this angst against multi-classing, even single-level dipping.
I think what's being talked about is the *attitude* of some of the players in this regard. There are certain types who do what you described, but do so in order to 'win' the game, rather than enhance their RP immersion. With mature players there isn't a problem with the multiclassing rules as they stand (beyond a livable hiccup with the saves).
Peace,
tfad
|
|
I don't really understand all this angst against multi-classing, even single-level dipping. One of the beauties of 3rd Edition is the ease with which it handles multi-classing. I'm not suggesting it's perfect, but if you have a character concept that suggests a level or three of this, and a level or four of that, you can do it. Even if it means a single-level dip into Rogue for sneak attack and skill points, or few-level dip into Fighter for bonus feats, what's so wrong with that?
The flexibility of 3.5 multiclassing is definitely something that should be preserved. The problem is that some players use the multiclassing rules to break the system - gish builds are a good example.
The aim of any changes to the multiclassing rules should be to preserve the flexibility of the current system, whilst discouraging abuses.
These are Training Levels which represent meeting certain criteria, and being trained in certain abilities during that part of the comprehensive package (the entire Class, 1-x levels).
If characters are required to spend money and / or time to multiclass, perhaps the cost to acquire basic training in a new class could be set at 1000 GP x the Character's current level x the number of classes that the character currently has levels in?
Thus, a level 4 fighter who wanted to multiclass as a rogue would need to pay 1000 GP x 4 x 1 = 4000 GP. However, a level 2 fighter / level 2 rogue who wanted to multiclass as a sorcerer would need to pay 1000 GP x 4 x 2 = 8000 GP.
This approach will discourage characters from dipping into more than one or two classes without requiring any radical changes to the 3.5 multiclassing rules. It ensures that the cost of multiclassing scales upwards as characters go up in level. And it penalizes characters who spread themselves too thinly.
It also has the advantage of removing excess funds from the game. And it gives high-level characters something to spend all of their loot on (other than magic items). The major disadvantage of this approach is that the in-game logic behind it may not hold up to close scrutiny.
An alternative approach might be to charge characters a certain amount of XP to gain the basic training necessary to multiclass. A price of 1000 XP x the Character's current level x the number of classes that the character currently has levels in would certainly work.
So, if it is in a Core-dip, Neo-Core Splat-dip, or PrC-dips, it is first and foremost the GM's to dispense, and this ought to be an adventure itself: travelling to the elite facility to begin the transformative conditioning. Only after the training period is complete does the character gain full use of their new training.
In some of the early 3.0 material, there was some sense that entering a Prestige Class should involve some sort of adventure - players couldn't just wake up one morning with the abilities of an archmage or blackguard. However, over time this idea was diluted and eventually seemed to fade away altogether.
Perhaps characters should always be required to complete a mission or quest of some kind in order to acquire a prestige class? If game mechanics are desirable, perhaps the quest should require the character to face at least three seperate challenges of a difficulty level commensurate with their current level of experience?
I'm sorry I must disagree with the idea that dipping and such is "game breaking" or "rule breaking" it is neither, read the stormwind fallacy again. IF a player is taking the power level of his character to a level that the DM is uncomfortable then the DM needs to simply talk to that player. Most player's I know are willing to back off a little if they are simply asked. If the DM decides to "show the player up" then he is engaging in a losing game where he and the player go back and forth trying to out each other.
I do not think we should try and cut out optimizing or "power gaming" if the DM and players involved don't want that level of play they need to talk and decide this before hand. Not have it arbitrarily shoved down their throats.
|
|
I'm sorry I must disagree with the idea that dipping and such is "game breaking" or "rule breaking" it is neither, read the stormwind fallacy again. IF a player is taking the power level of his character to a level that the DM is uncomfortable then the DM needs to simply talk to that player. Most player's I know are willing to back off a little if they are simply asked. If the DM decides to "show the player up" then he is engaging in a losing game where he and the player go back and forth trying to out each other.
I do not think we should try and cut out optimizing or "power gaming" if the DM and players involved don't want that level of play they need to talk and decide this before hand. Not have it arbitrarily shoved down their throats.
I'm not suggesting that class dipping is 'game breaking', nor am I suggesting that multiclassing should be nerfed in any way.
What I *am* suggesting is that multiclass characters should not be given a free lunch.
The notion that multiclassing should have a cost that is not entirely unreasonable - chararcters should give up something in exchange for the increased flexibility that multiclassing provides. Under this approach, class dipping is still a valid choice for players, but it is one that has a financial price attached.
Introducing a financial cost for basic class training allows the GM to control the amount of multiclassing that he or she wants in the campaign by tweaking the amount of treasure that is handed out. And it also addresses the fact that many high-level campaigns have obscene amounts of cash floating around. Beyond a certain point, there is very little worth buying in the game except for magic items - and allowing characters to stock up on too many magical goodies contributes to the power inflation that often occurs at high levels.
Sure, it is possible to prevent this by direct GM intervention. But players who enjoy character optimization tend to dislike this sort of heavy-handed approach - they want to work within the RAW without interference.
I am not falling prey to the Stormwind Fallacy - the belief that roleplaying and power gaming are always mutually exclusive. However, I also don't believe that character optimization is the only valid style of play. In my experience, certain multiclass combinations give characters such a huge advantage over single-class builds that even those players who are not particularly interested in character optimization are forced to adopt multiclass builds just to keep up with the power curve.
In my opinion, single-class builds should not be totally eclipsed by multiclass builds. And the more that I think about it, the more I think that fairest way to achieve this is by placing a financial price on multiclassing. This approach allows those players who love optimization to try out different multiclass builds without dominating the game to the detriment of other playing styles.
But right now you do give something up: the new higher level abilities that the core classes get. As a fighter your weapon and armor training doesn't progress, as a wizard/ sorcerer your special abilities shouldn't progress, as a rogue you don't get new talents, as a cleric your domains shouldn't increase (or your turn undead, unless it's a class feature).
Granted SOME prestige classes give a few or some of the original abilities back, but you aren't getting your capstones, you've replaced them with something else.
My current pathfinder DM is only allowing use of the Core 3 (pathfinder versions when available), becuase he doesn't want to deal with some of the exact issues you are talking about. He didn't say, "ok you can take them but it will cost you." He said, "they aren't available for this campaign." Which is fair, if I want them I would have to find a new DM or new campaign. To say the system should make what is a DM/Player decision for the DM/Player is not a good idea.
I'm not saying that adding a cost to multiclassing wouldn't work (and work well), for YOUR campaign I'm just saying I don't want that forced into mine.
It's only a free lunch if the player and dm decide to let it be so.
The notion that multiclassing should have a cost that is not entirely unreasonable - chararcters should give up something in exchange for the increased flexibility that multiclassing provides. Under this approach, class dipping is still a valid choice for players, but it is one that has a financial price attached.
Personally I really don't like the idea of a financial cost to multiclassing. First off, I already think there is enough of a cost by having lower level class abilities than fellow single-class PCs (in the case of spellcasting, I think the trade off is too great, but that topic has been hammered away to oblivion in many threads if you search for them). Yeah, it's possible to tweak saves a bit much, but overall, there is a decent trade off between flexibility and abilities as powerful as your companions.
Secondly, it just doesn't always make sense in game. It's taking the meta-game notion of classes and forcing a concrete in game restriction. In some cases, sure the training cost concept makes sense. But in many cases it doesn't. In fact, I would say the majority of multiclass PCs I've seen in my campaigns didn't fit the concept of "I've always been a fighter, but now I found religion and want to spend all my time healing"... or "now I want to learn how to be sneakier"... or whatever. Most multiclass PCs were more a blended concept - I want to be a religious figther (other than paladin), or I want to be a sneaky wizard or whichever. The concept right from the start is a blended one. They just happen to have to take only 1 at first level. (I actually used to like the apprentice rules in 3.0 to handle that.)
They aren't X and later want to spend money training to be Y. They are a blend of both from the start and consider themselves walking the line between those classes from day 1. Making them spend money to learn half of that, but not the other half doesn't make sense. "I'm a sneaky fighter who can easily learn how to do crazy powerful attacks with my weapons just by fighting every day, but I need to spend THOUSANDS of gold pieces to figure out how to sneak better and stab people in the back?!"
It simply doesn't make any sense to me, personally.
P.S. That all being said, I agree that multiclassing should be distinctly discussed and addressed at some point in the playtesting cycle.
And I could maybe buy into your idea of limiting the number of prestige classes a PC can take. Maybe not 1 overall, but 1 before 10th level, 2 before 20th, etc. Since if you enter a prestige class as soon as you can, you will typically not be able to get all the way to 20 with it, and might want to enter another at the highest levels.
Multiclassing is a complex problem which will have to be addressed in the future. For me in 3.5 I have a problem converting one of my favorite 1e/2e characters without a lot of multiclasing. What finally worked was Swashbuckler 3 (from Complete Warrior), Wizard 4, Ruthar 3 (from Races of the Wild), Bladesinger 10 (from Complete Warrior). It took me 2 base classes and 2 prestige classes to finally properly duplicate my 2e fighter-mage with the bladesinger kit. The only base class which even came close was the 3.0 Psychic Warrior which had its own problems.
I am going to try for the same feel with a PF Bard but some of the spells are missing. For a fighter-mage character there really is no good way other than a 2 or 3 class build.
Doug
|
Multiclassing is a complex problem which will have to be addressed in the future. For me in 3.5 I have a problem converting one of my favorite 1e/2e characters without a lot of multiclasing. What finally worked was Swashbuckler 3 (from Complete Warrior), Wizard 4, Ruthar 3 (from Races of the Wild), Bladesinger 10 (from Complete Warrior). It took me 2 base classes and 2 prestige classes to finally properly duplicate my 2e fighter-mage with the bladesinger kit. The only base class which even came close was the 3.0 Psychic Warrior which had its own problems.
I am going to try for the same feel with a PF Bard but some of the spells are missing. For a fighter-mage character there really is no good way other than a 2 or 3 class build.
Doug
You're sort-of asking for more classes there, though, aren't you? They can't modify the 3.5 classes that much (and the ability to make characters with a bunch of other classes is, as James Jacobs said, a good thing).
Sorry for the thread necro.....
I searched the Beta....
Were multi-classing rules included?
Sorry for the thread necro.....
I searched the Beta....
Were multi-classing rules included?
No, you just use the same rules as 3.5. Class skill bonus only applies once for any given skill.
No, you just use the same rules as 3.5. Class skill bonus only applies once for any given skill.Sorry for the thread necro.....
I searched the Beta....
Were multi-classing rules included?
Coolness, so that would be this, then?
that would be this, then?
Indeed.