|
I'm a bit surprised that the official schedule for the Pathfinder Beta playtest doesn't 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.
I'm sorry I still disagree with this, quit trying to tell me I'm "playing it wrong" and forcing me through arbitrary rules to set a cap on my multiclassing. If you want to do it at your table fine, but that doesn't mean how you feel the way the game should be played should be forced down everyone else's throats.
The thing about screwing about with multiclassing is that many prestige classes make it a virtual imperative to multiclass if you want to attain them before you die of old age. Also sometimes if you are trying to play a certain concept that isnt covered by a base class or single prestige you need to have the flexibility to take a little from this and a little from that to get what you want in a character. I understand that there are crappy min/max players out there who can abuse the system, but there is no need to discourage creative character design just because a vocal few are obsessive about building the best meatgrinder.
|
|
I'm sorry I still disagree with this, quit trying to tell me I'm "playing it wrong" and forcing me through arbitrary rules to set a cap on my multiclassing. If you want to do it at your table fine, but that doesn't mean how you feel the way the game should be played should be forced down everyone else's throats.
Sorry...but it's my bad in this case. For some reason the forum did a double post, spawning a second thread on this topic from one of my posts.
In any case, I don't think that I'm trying to force the way that I feel the game should be played down anybody's throats. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the range of opinions on this issue.
eh I cap it myself, and make players give in game resons for it, as well as in game training. To be honest they system my need a bit of an overhaul , but then it does work.
I've never understood why this is such a problem. I generally dm, but when I get a chance to play, I tend to multiclass to great degrees. I played a dragonlance character a couple of years ago who was a cleric 3/paladin 2/cohort of kiri-jolith 7/dragon rider 2/and one of the knight orders. The character had exactly the abilities I wanted. It was a powerful but not a dominant build. And believe me, achieving the pre-reqs both mechanically and storywise drove my character through his entire progression. He would have been much less interesting as a single class cleric.
|
Multiclassing is one of the best things about 3.5 (and making it less free is one of the worst things about 4e), in my opinion. So I hope to God they don't change it to make it harder. Class-specificity is part of D&D, one that I always found a bit irritating under the old dual-classing rules (or else the multiclassing-for-demihumans rules with their annoying level caps) but the easy multiclassing of 3.x and even moreso in Pathfinder RPG is great. That the XP penalty is gone is one of my favourite changes in PFRPG.
Also, I am in favour of as many Prestige Classes as you want and can qualify for (not a trivial modification in many cases).
I don't know I do think the system needs looked at myself. I have played around with a few ideals from using the multi xp charts to having to have stats so high to take the 2nd class.
I do myself think that allowing any class any time as many as you want is a mistake. I t brakes the story teller in me that sam the wizard took 18 years to master level 1 and bob the rogue found a spell book 6 days back gained a level and is now a wizard 1.
I think there needs to be a mechanic in play that makes it harder , so that if ya want to go that way you can but it's not as easy as gaining a level in the class you have.
|
|
I don't know I do think the system needs looked at myself. I have played around with a few ideals from using the multi xp charts to having to have stats so high to take the 2nd class.
I do myself think that allowing any class any time as many as you want is a mistake. I t brakes the story teller in me that sam the wizard took 18 years to master level 1 and bob the rogue found a spell book 6 days back gained a level and is now a wizard 1.
I think there needs to be a mechanic in play that makes it harder , so that if ya want to go that way you can but it's not as easy as gaining a level in the class you have.
Even so, I don't see that we could do anything other than bring back the XP penalty without seriously breaking backwards compatibility (and surely multiclassing is generally a happier thing for non-casters to do? They need All The Help They Can Get as it is), because 3.5 stuff would then be full of characters that wouldn't exist under the new rules.
Of course, as I say, I want freer multiclassing, so I'm pretty happy with things as they are.
Creative Director
|
Multiclassing should not be limited or "made harder" to achieve, since that limits the options on building characters. The ability to freely multiclass is one of the greatest innovations of 3rd edition, in fact.
The problem is that it shouldn't be a sneaky way to maximize your saving throws and the like—that's an area that I know Jason's working on to address.
I got no prob with it as a whole, to each his own. But something does need done to bring in the min/max super+27 saves. Among other things.
I have no issue with it being easy as a whole but I know how to say no as well. The rules do need some adjustment to stop abuse , but how far ya can go and keep BC well that's the real issue
|
Multiclassing should not be limited or "made harder" to achieve, since that limits the options on building characters. The ability to freely multiclass is one of the greatest innovations of 3rd edition, in fact.
The problem is that it shouldn't be a sneaky way to maximize your saving throws and the like—that's an area that I know Jason's working on to address.
The simplest solution I can think of to address the actual problem is: No saving throw can be better than the Good saving throw progression for the character level, and no saving throw can be weaker than the Weak progression. That would also work with Bab, i.e. no matter how many times you change class, you can never be a worse fighter than weakest fighter out there, a single class Wizard. It's simple, easy to apply and doesn't overly disadvantage or advantage anybody with respect to multiclassing.
It's not just saves, it's class features too. I can see 1-level dips that allow you to always win initiative, gain feats XY and Z for free, provide a round-about way to get a high powered feat, allow you to spontainously increase your strength etc. Not everyone looks at classes as "classes", some see them simply as a grouping of special abilities. The best way to avoid the cherry picking is to spread out the class features over an even 20-level progression.
Though I do agree with the "Only 1 prestige class" limitation. You can't really call them Prestigous if everyone has them, and quite frankly I've never seen an RP heavy character with multiple prestige classes, the only characters I've seen with more than 1 were built for power.
Is dipping for saves really that good a strategy?
I think under Pathfinder it's not as good of a strategy as it used to be. 1 level dips mean your character falls behind of class feature progression. Rogues lose talents, barbarians lose rage powers, etc.
The bigger thing that bothers me is that if you take a PrC it screws up your saves.
Fractional save bonus rules already exist and are easy to implement.
|
|
Each PC should only be permitted to have a single prestige class. They are supposed to be prestigious after all...
Even if there weren't prestige classes out there that only had five levels, I'd disagree. There's no reason for the game to limit what players want to accomplish with their characters around their own tables. That's the GM's job.
Limits on this sort of stuff belongs solely in the realm of Organized Play rules, not the books themselves.
Personally, let people "dip" all they like. IMO, they're just creating weaker characters for themselves.
|
fun playtesting side note on multiclassing. I wanted to make a multiclassing system more like 2nd ed D&D, so I use gestalt set it on a xp track that was inbetween medium and slow, made you average hitpoints between the two classes, averaged skillpoints and averaged saves. I disallowed same type multiclassing (no Fighter/Barbarians) and presto! 3.5/2nd ed multiclassing (not good for games with prestige classes)
make a good level 10 ability that is even better with the level 10 ability of a different class. I would LOVE to see Fighter/Wizards 10/10.
If you can fix multiclass spellcasting you will get a friggin metal (and i mean implemented) yeah yeah, I know, not backwards compatible.
Each PC should only be permitted to have a single prestige class. They are supposed to be prestigious after all...
Even if there weren't prestige classes out there that only had five levels, I'd disagree. There's no reason for the game to limit what players want to accomplish with their characters around their own tables. That's the GM's job.
Limits on this sort of stuff belongs solely in the realm of Organized Play rules, not the books themselves.
Personally, let people "dip" all they like. IMO, they're just creating weaker characters for themselves.
The more I think about, I'm shifting back to allowing PCs to have any amount of prestige classes. I think one big problem is the possibility of obscure synergies causing broken builds and that being far more common with multiple prestige classes in the mix. But, from my own personal experience, I have only seen them on WotC char op boards and nothing even remotely close to that in any of my campaigns. If other people have players that actually run the sorts of PCs that you see on the char op boards, I can understand if they think prestige classes need limiting.
Each PC should only be permitted to have a single prestige class. They are supposed to be prestigious after all...
Even if there weren't prestige classes out there that only had five levels, I'd disagree. There's no reason for the game to limit what players want to accomplish with their characters around their own tables. That's the GM's job.
Limits on this sort of stuff belongs solely in the realm of Organized Play rules, not the books themselves.
Personally, let people "dip" all they like. IMO, they're just creating weaker characters for themselves.
This is generally what I've seen also.
I would actually like to see some feats where multi classed characters can keep advancing some of their class abilities, how you could balance this with the whole dipping thing is probably a real challenge.
No problem Prime Evil I understand how that can happen.
Generally I think this is an issue best covered by the DM and players in the pregame talk. You know the talk everyone has were you discus character concepts, progression ideas, and what everyone wants/ expects from the game. Otherwise I feel these sorts of things get to the point of abritration from the publisher which is something I avoid. I feel that the designers of a prestige class should include the role-playing and fluff quests that are part of the prestige class in the write up. The fact that few prestige classes have this is something I see has a failing on the developers part.
The problem is that it shouldn't be a sneaky way to maximize your saving throws and the like—that's an area that I know Jason's working on to address.
James: Please have a look at the solution I presented to this issue. I'm kind of boggled that something like this wasn't implemented with 3.5 and has been left unaddressed in the rules thus far.
It is perfectly backwards compatible, and even more importantly it's easy-to-use:
The problem is that it shouldn't be a sneaky way to maximize your saving throws and the like—that's an area that I know Jason's working on to address.James: Please have a look at the solution I presented to this issue. I'm kind of boggled that something like this wasn't implemented with 3.5 and has been left unaddressed in the rules thus far.
It is perfectly backwards compatible, and even more importantly it's easy-to-use:
the way we have pretty much always done it is
Saves, add up the number of 'good save levels' check what base save this should get you, add up the number of 'poor save levels' check what base save this level would get you Now add the two together.For attack Base attack = Good attack x1, + medium attack x 0.75, + poor attck x 0.5.
the way we have pretty much always done it is
Saves, add up the number of 'good save levels' check what base save this should get you, add up the number of 'poor save levels' check what base save this level would get you Now add the two together.For attack Base attack = Good attack x1, + medium attack x 0.75, + poor attck x 0.5.
Yep, that's exactly how I've done it too. However, since putting formulae in a rulebook is seemingly forbidden, I took that and boiled it down into a chart following the same format that every class already uses.
Nice to see we're on the same page. :)
Isn't something like that presented in Unearthed Arcana? Fractional BAB and Saves? I think that's the mathy way of doing what you are talking about.
Isn't something like that presented in Unearthed Arcana? Fractional BAB and Saves? I think that's the mathy way of doing what you are talking about.
It is, but counting and adding are much easier than multiplication for math-deficient players (such as mine). The way this was laid it out in UA was more complicated and less approachable than the method I derived.
*shrug* fair enough I just wanted to make sure i understood the idea correctly, and that it was in fact the same idea.
Weakening multiclassing is not the way to go. In fact, some combinations can use some boost to make them more viable.
I'm firmly against a hard cap on anything to do with multiclassing. Since we're obviously trying to prevent sneaky powergamers from getting their min-max fix, the GM better use his judgement to limit things, as in all things concerning powergamers.
I always say that if the player can tell me why he needs all those classes, show me how they fit into the character concept (and "most powerful creature in the world" is not a character concept I'm accepting), he can go and take them all. Some optimisation is always OK, but I won't let it go too far.
I have a limit on PrCs, but it's not a hard one. Usually, I won't allow dipping into several PrCs to have a killer combo or something, but getting another PrC after you finish the first is usually no problem, and if there is a reason (other than min-maxing) to start a new PrC before the old one was finished, It's okay with me.
GM adjudication is one of the greatest advantages RPGs have over other games (epecially computer games), and we should use it whenever appropriate.
I would actually like to see some feats where multi classed characters can keep advancing some of their class abilities, how you could balance this with the whole dipping thing is probably a real challenge.
I forget if you participated, but in this forum there are several threads that dealt with this topic.
A very widely accepted method in those threads was to add half your non-spellcaster levels to advance your spellcasting (as in Book of 9 Swords). A less accepted view, but with still a fair amount of support, is to add half of your other levels to advance all of your class abilities. In both cases they would cap at double your class level (so a fighter 12/wizard 2 would have the abilities of a fighter 13/wizard 4). These would either be built into the multiclassing rules or would come about from an Improved Multclassing feat or some such.
I'll admit that at first glance, they sound overpowered. But running the numbers and playtesting it in my campaigns, it actually works out very nicely and feels like the right balance of being behind the rest of the party, but not so far behind your abilities are too weak.
But I suppose if people want to discuss this, I'd recommend resurrecting one of those old threads (I think one entitled KaeYoss' Multiclassing or some such was probably one of the more thorough ones), so people can see the previous discussion and not rehash the same points. :)
|
|
I would actually like to see some feats where multi classed characters can keep advancing some of their class abilities, how you could balance this with the whole dipping thing is probably a real challenge.
Something like Magic Rating but applicable to other class features would be neat.
And yeah, Fractional BAB / Saves all the way. No dipping for awesome saves, no Tiefling Sorcerer 1 / Rogue 1 stuck with a BAB +0 at ECL 3.
|
|
Fixes like this (and other stuff that would break backwards compatibility) would be really cool in a PFRPG Unearthed Arcana, actually.
In general, in fact (and as I am a big Rolemaster fan, I guess this is sort-of natural for me) I think that rules variants in a companion volume would be great.
Hmmm, maybe I should post a thread.
|
|
And yeah, Fractional BAB / Saves all the way. No dipping for awesome saves, no Tiefling Sorcerer 1 / Rogue 1 stuck with a BAB +0 at ECL 3.
I don't have a problem with the Tiefling Sorceror 1 /Rogue 1 with a +0 BAB. I guess I'd have to see some actual usable builds using dipping-for-saves/BAB that look game-breaking (and BAB-dipping can't work out that well, can it?)
I don't have a problem with fractional saves or BAB, other than that I'd probably want it to be optional for the backwards-compatibility virtue (another cool thing to put in an Unearthed Arcana style options book; Rolemaster Companion I introduced the almost-universally used fractional DP and smoothed stat bonus option...).
|
|
A very widely accepted method in those threads was to add half your non-spellcaster levels to advance your spellcasting (as in Book of 9 Swords). A less accepted view, but with still a fair amount of support, is to add half of your other levels to advance all of your class abilities. In both cases they would cap at double your class level (so a fighter 12/wizard 2 would have the abilities of a fighter 13/wizard 4). These would either be built into the multiclassing rules or would come about from an Improved Multclassing feat or some such.
But I suppose if people want to discuss this, I'd recommend resurrecting one of those old threads (I think one entitled KaeYoss' Multiclassing or some such was probably one of the more thorough ones), so people can see the previous discussion and not rehash the same points. :)
I've done a couple of searches and have had no luck finding such a thread to bump back up (or just quote from).
Anyone else able to find this? It sounds neat, and I remember liking it the first time around, but I can't find it now!
I've done a couple of searches and have had no luck finding such a thread to bump back up (or just quote from).
Anyone else able to find this? It sounds neat, and I remember liking it the first time around, but I can't find it now!
Sorry, I have more time now to dig around than I did when I posted the first message.
I'd say this thread is probably the best one.
There are several others, but looking back at them, they each seem to have bits and pieces, whereas KaeYoss' thread has a nice condensation of most everything.
A very widely accepted method in those threads was to add half your non-spellcaster levels to advance your spellcasting (as in Book of 9 Swords). A less accepted view, but with still a fair amount of support, is to add half of your other levels to advance all of your class abilities. In both cases they would cap at double your class level (so a fighter 12/wizard 2 would have the abilities of a fighter 13/wizard 4). These would either be built into the multiclassing rules or would come about from an Improved Multclassing feat or some such.
I'll admit that at first glance, they sound overpowered. But running the numbers and playtesting it in my campaigns, it actually works out very nicely and feels like the right balance of being behind the rest of the party, but not so far behind your abilities are too weak.
But I suppose if people want to discuss this, I'd recommend resurrecting one of those old threads (I think one entitled KaeYoss' Multiclassing or some such was probably one of the more thorough ones), so people can see the previous discussion and not rehash the same points. :)
I read many of those threads and I think they are a bit too open ended and often lopsided. I would much prefer feats that target specific class features, particularly the features that quickly become obsolete. Animal Companions, Familiars...
I read many of those threads and I think they are a bit too open ended and often lopsided. I would much prefer feats that target specific class features, particularly the features that quickly become obsolete. Animal Companions, Familiars...
One big problem with that as a general strategy is that it leaves out all the other classes WotC and other companies have published. My players really like several of those, and a piecemeal solution that only addresses the core OGC classes doesn't work for all of our needs. Maybe some general guidelines can help us to create our own solutions, but stacks and stacks of feats (many of which we need to come up with) aren't what my players are looking for.
Since we have different aims, I guess at least one of us won't be happy with the final solution then. Hopefully the final result will please one of us.
|
|
Since we have different aims, I guess at least one of us won't be happy with the final solution then. Hopefully the final result will please one of us.
Whatever happens, I can't see it being enormously different from what we have now, at least so that numbers in existing 3.5 statblocks don't end up too far off.
One big problem with that as a general strategy is that it leaves out all the other classes WotC and other companies have published. My players really like several of those, and a piecemeal solution that only addresses the core OGC classes doesn't work for all of our needs. Maybe some general guidelines can help us to create our own solutions, but stacks and stacks of feats (many of which we need to come up with) aren't what my players are looking for.
Since we have different aims, I guess at least one of us won't be happy with the final solution then. Hopefully the final result will please one of us.
The problem I see is exactly all those stacks of books. If you make a change that affects the game retroactively how are you going to test out all those combinations of classes? With a feat that effects a single class feature or a set of class features you can much better predict and test how that will impact the game.
|
I have no problem with the way Pathfinder has implemented Multiclassing so far.
If a player wants to maximize his saves by switching classes, that is fine. He gets great saves, can't hit a thing, and can't cast a spell worth preparing.
I look at all these multiclassing builds and just shrug. Sure they get some cool abilities, and get crap for BAB and loose out on spell progression. Sounds like balance is built in to me.
While I am not a fan of taking a dozen prestige classes, I figure if it works for someone else that is fine.
Muticlassing has its own penalties built right in.
1) You need to have the basic ability scores to to succeed and meet requirements.
2) You gain really fantastic saves at the expense of BAB and spell progression.
3) You gain really cool abilities at the expense of other cool abilities.
I think there are enough penalties built in to balance the positves of multiclassing.
What Krome said. Multi classing is generally a losing proposition. There are some exceptions but generally benefits from multi classing are short term and not worth delaying higher level class benefits.
|
|
*snip*
I pretty much agree with that, although I'm open to looking at broken builds. It's always seemed to me, though, that it's pretty much fixed as is.
On another note, is there any XP penalty for multiclassing anymore? The lack of mention of it at all in the favoured racial classes designer's note on page 11 of the Beta, or anywhere else so far as I am aware, implies not. On the other hand, there's not really anything about multiclassing in there at all.
|
|
What Krome said. Multi classing is generally a losing proposition. There are some exceptions but generally benefits from multi classing are short term and not worth delaying higher level class benefits.
If multiclassing is a "losing proposition" then the fix probably needs to go the other way (making it a little more attractive). Or do you mean that multiclassing for saves is a losing proposition?
My personal opinion on it is that, although D&D is a class based system, the Multiclass and Feat rules allow you, with sufficient classes to select from and character levels to work with, to build a diverse character that does not fit tightly into the boxes provided by the established character class system.
As a player or GM, sometimes I did not want to design an entire 20 levels, or random level prestige class, to create a wardancer priestess, when I could use one or two feats, and have all wardancers level x monks/level y clerics, but always be considered a wardancer, whether they were far enough along in their training to do all the wardancer tricks or not. Because sometimes, just because you want multiple classes doesn't mean you are trying to get mechanical advantage out of it. And sometimes, multiclassing is the only way to mechanically combine the class features which you want your character to possess.
Granted, I expected my PCs to also be able to justify directions their characters grew in. If they were part of the warpriestess order, that was handled at character creation, and was something apprentice levels were great for, when they were an option. Also, if the party rogue has been extensively trained in UMD, and has been disarming magical traps over their entire career, it is natural that they would learn something about how magic works, enough to pick up a spellbook and figure out how to cast spells like a wizard.
Some folks who were into the WoTC Character Optimization boards might refer to this as the "Stormwind Fallacy", which, as I understand it, simply states that wanting to combine certain mechanical features in a single character (like a BAB of 16, or Full Flurry of Blows, and an effective caster level of 17), does not, in fact, mean you are doing so outside of flavor and character reasons. I tend to agree with this, as it is one of the few things which allows any d20 system to compete with more freeform, level light or levelless gaming systems, where such things can, depending on the system, be done.
Multiclassing never penalized prestige classes (PrC's where exempt like favored classes where) only core classes, and I haven't seen anywhere in beta yet where you take penalties for having more than one class.