I would like to suggest a rule that prevents PCs from having more than three classes total (including not more than one prestige class). From AD&D 1st ed., triple classing was supported, but quadruple classing was not.
Reason 1) high level play. The more classes you add, the more complicated the character becomes to run.
Reason 2) cherry picking. A limit on classes would discourage it (making it unnecessary to punish players with XP penalties or bribe them with class-exclusive abilities to stay with one class to the end)
Reason 3) realism(!) Yes, I know, it's fantasy--but a person with four or more classes is pretty hard to justify from a story telling standpoint, especially if the character is relatively young.
Frankly, I suspect that many quadruple+ builds are more about acquiring cool powers than about realizing a character concept. When you play in a group, no one has to be good at everything, after all.
Even if a rule like this is not created, it might still be a suggestion presented in a sidebar somewhere...
|
1) Complicated is subjective.
2) You call it cherry picking, other people call it making a character and getting to an ability that they want to use.
3) *cough* In a fantasy game/book how do you know what classes that guy in armor has? You don't. He can be a Ranger/Sorc or a Fighter/Barbarian/Duskblade/Rogue or a Paladin.
House rule it however you want. If you're running the game you get to make the rules.
If the party you play with wants to make it a guideline then go for it.
However, do not put an opinion out there and say this is how it should be. If someone else likes making multi-class characters let them and move on.
|
I believe in Metaclassing
I'm opposed to Multiclassing. What is needed with PATHFINDER is a commitment to Metaclassing (Say it! Good boy! Here's a cookie!)
METACLASSES: What Are they?
The Metaclass is a new class category made up of two core classes running simultaneously. The Metaclass thus does not have a Level 20 limit (Fighter 10/ Wizard 10) rather it advances to 20 in each of its core classes thus resulting in a Metaclass that is far more powerful than any single core class by the single virtue that the PC must strive to greater heights.
Examples:
HEXEN(aka Witch): Sorcerer/Druid who must advance through 20 levels (of twice the experience cost as any core class).
HEXEN
LEVEL...........CORE LEVELS
1.................Sorcerer(1)/Druid(1)
2.................Sorcerer(2)/Druid(2)
3.................Sorcerer(3)/Druid(3)
4.................Sorcerer(4)/Druid(4)
5.................Sorcerer(5)/Druid(5)
and soforth.
METACLASSES
- EXECUTIONER (FIGHTER-THIEF)
- THUG (FIGHTER-THIEF)
- SCOUT (FIGHTER-THIEF)
- GUILD ARTISAN (WIZARD-THIEF)
- GUILD WEAPONMASTER (FIGHTER-THIEF-WIZARD)
- HEXEN (DRUID-SORCERER)
- CRUSADER (FIGHTER-CLERIC(WAR))
- FORESTER (FIGHTER-WIZARD)
Certainly there areclasses that on the surface look identical (scout, thug) but they are not. each metaclass has its own priorities of skills and feats, and minimum abilities.
CAMPAIGN SPECIFIC METACLASSES
- CHELAXIAN ARISTOCRAT (FIGHTER-WIZARD)
- MYSTARAN ELF (FIGHTER-WIZARD)
- ISLE OF DREAD ZOMBIEMASTER (CLERIC(DEATH)/WIZARD(NECROMANCER))
- SHADOWELF RADIANT SHAMAN (WIZARD-FIGHTER-CLERIC(VARIANT SUN))
So when some meta like the Shadowelf Radiant Shaman gets to what are pretty much sixty levels of combined power, She is ready for the road to Immortality (a quest to become a god).
|
Keeping this short and sweet, I'll just say I agree that multiclassing restrictions just isn't a real good idea. Some people min max or whatever, have the DM take care of that. If it becomes a serious problem, they can put a stop to it. However putting more restrictions in the game isn't a viable option to me.
By the way, there is no perfect min/maxing setup. There's always SOMETHING out there waiting to kick its ass.
|
1) Complicated is subjective.
2) You call it cherry picking, other people call it making a character and getting to an ability that they want to use.
3) *cough* In a fantasy game/book how do you know what classes that guy in armor has? You don't. He can be a Ranger/Sorc or a Fighter/Barbarian/Duskblade/Rogue or a Paladin.House rule it however you want. If you're running the game you get to make the rules.
If the party you play with wants to make it a guideline then go for it.
However, do not put an opinion out there and say this is how it should be. If someone else likes making multi-class characters let them and move on.
I would agree that most restrictions like that should be campaign-restricted, rather than part of the core rules, but it wouldn't hurt to make some of the more flagrant and annoying cherry-picks less attractive. Not maximizing hit points at first level would join the changes to skill ranks as helping to limit the first level dips that most people make just for hit points or what-have-you.
In a campaign I just started, I didn't maximize first level hit points, but I did go with the suggested Constitution method listed in the Beta for bonus hit points. Making the first level bonus a static number based on a character's Con score evens out the playing field and seems to let players make their first level choice based on what they really, rather than what provides the biggest material benefit.
To a large degree, the changes made to the core classes have done a lot to change barbarians a one-level dip to get rage and 12 more hit points, or fighter from a two-level dip to get extra feats and +2 BAB. It would be nice if Paizo is able to do the same thing with prestige classes, so that players can choose a prestige class for reasons other than the super-bonuses they provide.
Many moons ago children, a character with more than one class split xp between the classes and thus advanced at a noticeably slower rate than single class characters. Why is it that so many cry when someone suggests that you play a fighter for 20 levels, rather than fighter3/rogue2/arcane archer4/blackguard6/favored soul5? It is because their character has no cohesive conception and thus has been replaced by "You know what would be cool?" (Which usually isn't.)
If you think multiclassing is too out of control, then rein it in. I am imposing a limit of 2 classes in my campaign, but all the players are up on making good stories for their characters so nobody has a gripe. Part of what I think the problem is lies in the concept of prestige classes. When I first heard the term, I thought it was an elite version of a core class, which is how I think it should be (which would not count as a different class for multiclassing purposes). Instead, there are a jillion prestige classes that are all cool concepts, but really do not deserve to be "classes", but rather some kind of concept package that is acquired by meeting conditions, not by changing classes.
Sorry. Multiclassing is a pet peeve. Resume your normal programming:))