I can't even find a discussion on this, is everyone so happy that there aren't any? (or am I just lousy with the search function)
so why are there no Multi Classing penalties?
With the new skill point system there is hardly any penalty for taking one or two levels of whatever gives a major advantage.
One level Wizard with focus on Conjuration = +2 to AC and Acid Dart as Standard action (Ranged Touch Sneak Attack), which Rouge wouldn't want it?
this looks too good to be true.
Well, there's still a couple of things that make sticking to a single class attractive:
|
I for one am glad it is gone - I never found it a useful replacement for the older 2nd edition rules. I can't begin to count the number of times I have had a character (or made a character) and thought "hey, it would be pretty interesting to take a level of X!" only to look at my favored classes and realize a hefty XP penalty was due to me.
In other words, it was an unnecessary handcuff that was too often worked around by optimization, and too limiting to characters casually multiclassing. It reinforced the need to plan ahead, which is a serious drawback to making organic characters in 3rd Edition.
|
I for one am glad it is gone - I never found it a useful replacement for the older 2nd edition rules. I can't begin to count the number of times I have had a character (or made a character) and thought "hey, it would be pretty interesting to take a level of X!" only to look at my favored classes and realize a hefty XP penalty was due to me.
In other words, it was an unnecessary handcuff that was too often worked around by optimization, and too limiting to characters casually multiclassing. It reinforced the need to plan ahead, which is a serious drawback to making organic characters in 3rd Edition.
i agree
its good its gone
Having one less level in your primary class is a penalty in and of itself.
Wait a minute, PF drops them? I missed that... Is it stated anywhere explicitly in the beta?
Wait a minute, PF drops them? I missed that... Is it stated anywhere explicitly in the beta?
I don't know whether it's written out, but the fact that favoured classes work differently now very strongly suggests it. (New FC rules on page 11)
I for one am glad it is gone - I never found it a useful replacement for the older 2nd edition rules. I can't begin to count the number of times I have had a character (or made a character) and thought "hey, it would be pretty interesting to take a level of X!" only to look at my favored classes and realize a hefty XP penalty was due to me.
In other words, it was an unnecessary handcuff that was too often worked around by optimization, and too limiting to characters casually multiclassing. It reinforced the need to plan ahead, which is a serious drawback to making organic characters in 3rd Edition.
This is pretty much how I feel about it. Going into 3rd edition I was still very much in the mindset of 1st edition, with specific race roles and class combinations that are possible and favorable. Favored class seemed to make sense to me at the time to "enforce" that, while opening it up for the oddballs a bit.
But it basically didn't work, as Jal says. Heck, my very first character had 8 (non-prestige) classes before level 20. So it didn't encourage sticking to role much (which I still believe in, to a degree).
I find the new favored class mechanic much more effective.
Would a rogue love an at-will ranged acid attack? Sure - but he needs surprise or invisibility to make it a sneak attack. The +2 AC is the same as wearing leather armor, and doesn't stack.
gone, not missed, and frequently not enforced per many DMs house rules, including mine.
I loathe the Multiclassing Penalty mechanics, and I equally loathe the new Pathfinder Favored Class mechanics. We shouldn't put any limits on multiclassing, and we shouldn't offer rewards to entice players to stick to certain class/race stereotypes - we should just let players create characters that are interesting that they want to play.
[...] we should just let players create characters that are interesting that they want to play.
But what's to stop players from doing that now? In our new campaign two characters won't be getting the favored class reward. They don't have a problem with it because they are playing class/race combos that they find interesting.
[...] we should just let players create characters that are interesting that they want to play.But what's to stop players from doing that now? In our new campaign two characters won't be getting the favored class reward. They don't have a problem with it because they are playing class/race combos that they find interesting.
Because giving players extra HP or Skill Points just because they are playing a stereotypical class/race combo isn't fair. Why should they end up with 20 less skill points at Level 20 because they didn't make an Elven Ranger or a Dwarven Fighter?
Because giving players extra HP or Skill Points just because they are playing a stereotypical class/race combo isn't fair. Why should they end up with 20 less skill points at Level 20 because they didn't make an Elven Ranger or a Dwarven Fighter?
I understand what you're saying, but for me its not that big a deal. I see it as a small bonus, not enough to base my race/class decisions on.
Because giving players extra HP or Skill Points just because they are playing a stereotypical class/race combo isn't fair. Why should they end up with 20 less skill points at Level 20 because they didn't make an Elven Ranger or a Dwarven Fighter?
Totally agreed. Some players won't play some class/race because it doesn't give them extra HP or skill points.
While I can understand that there was a need to find another rule for removing multiclassing XP penalties, this one doesn't favor flavor choices.In 3.x, you could make a elf fighter without any difference from a dwarf fighter (aside racial abilities of course). But now, the dwarf fighter has bonus skill points or hp. I really "hate" this rule. A player can be penalized for making unusual choices.
Because giving players extra HP or Skill Points just because they are playing a stereotypical class/race combo isn't fair. Why should they end up with 20 less skill points at Level 20 because they didn't make an Elven Ranger or a Dwarven Fighter?Totally agreed. Some players won't play some class/race because it doesn't give them extra HP or skill points.
While I can understand that there was a need to find another rule for removing multiclassing XP penalties, this one doesn't favor flavor choices.
In 3.x, you could make a elf fighter without any difference from a dwarf fighter (aside racial abilities of course). But now, the dwarf fighter has bonus skill points or hp. I really "hate" this rule. A player can be penalized for making unusual choices.
Ahhh... Just wondering... Since when has "not recieving a bonus" become a penalty? It is not as if you get negative hp or skillpoints if you choose something "unusual". I for one think it's great having these differences, since it emphasices the cultural differences that are between, say, elves and dwarves. There is nothing wrong with an elven fighter, heck!, you can be a great elven fighter, but most elves are just more inclined to other classes! And if it's such a bother, house rule the thing.
I'm not crying over the fact that the xp penalty thing for multiclassing has gone... It was kind of silly and really put a dampener on some character builds i've thought up....
That's just my 2 cents...
Ahhh... Just wondering... Since when has "not recieving a bonus" become a penalty? It is not as if you get negative hp or skillpoints if you choose something "unusual". I for one think it's great having these differences, since it emphasices the cultural differences that are between, say, elves and dwarves. There is nothing wrong with an elven fighter, heck!, you can be a great elven fighter, but most elves are just more inclined to other classes! And if it's such a bother, house rule the thing.I'm not crying over the fact that the xp penalty thing for multiclassing has gone... It was kind of silly and really put a dampener on some character builds i've thought up....
That's just my 2 cents...
If everyone but you receive +1 bonus on something, you are penalized in a very similar way than if you have -1 and others no malus/bonus. The difference is still 1.
A lot of players who want to play fighters, will choose dwarf or human, not elf or gnome...Some combinations of race/classe won't be in the game because they lack a bonus some are entitled to. PathfinderRPG give base races more bonuses for what reason ? To make them still interesting choices with the powerful races that appear later. Same for classes.
I really prefer to ease multiclassing for some race favored classes than giving bonuses to single favored classes.
Can we keep the "Favoured Classes are Evil" stuff out of here? There's already a thread of that, and I don't want to repeat all my arguments for the new FC rules.
I'll just state that I like them and that I think they should stay.
Well if PF drops those penalties, imho they should mention it explicitly in the book somewhere.
|
Well if PF drops those penalties, imho they should mention it explicitly in the book somewhere.
I think PRPG is supposed to be taken in a vacuum, that is, "here is the rules for a role playing game" it happens to be based on the 3.5 SRD, but it isn't 3.5, it is PRPG. So we shouldn't need to have rules that explicitly state what rules are being left out from 3.5, or for the more general we don't need rules that are just negation rules where their is no expectation that the rule should be different.
The PRPG Players Handbook specifies you need x XP to be level y. That says it right there, and unless a rule is written that says "if your multi class you need x*1.5" then you need x, and that is all that needs to be said.
Can we keep the "Favoured Classes are Evil" stuff out of here?
What we can establish, though, is that Pathfinder doesn't entirely remove all multiclassing penalties, it merely shifts them.
-Matt
What we can establish, though, is that Pathfinder doesn't entirely remove all multiclassing penalties, it merely shifts them.
No, we can't. Those aren't penalties. I know you think they are, but I think otherwise. Again, take that to the appropriate threads.
My Dm and our group as a whole have assumed to this point if it isnt listed as a change in the PFRG then the old rule from the PHB still applies. So in this case there is still an XP penalty for allowing your class levels to get too far apart. Maybe we are handling it wrong, but thats how we see it since the book is a beta and not a complete document at this point.
That being said I am all for removing this rule. I know it opens a door for power gaming. The truth is though that the rules should allow for that style of play if thats what one prefers. People tend to get on here and try to make the rules bend to their style of campaign when that shouldn't be the goal. The goal is to create a system where everyones tastes are accomodated by the rules. For the record my group is a far cry from power gaming, but I think if someone needs to get a one level dip in something to build a character concept they really want to play they shouldn't get slaped on the wrist for it. Dumping the xp penalty allows that, sure someone who runs a high octane power game can get more milage from the change than that. But shouldnt that be an option for people who like to min/max to the fullest as well? In the end if you have good players and good DM you shouldnt have to worry about players building something that breaks the intended tone of your game...not because the rules wont let them, but because they wont want to.
Multiclassing XP penalties were the first thing I threw out of 3e. It makes no sense to me to apply a huge penalty just because you want your character to be versatile instead of specialized. Multiclassing cuts your power by level drastically enough, why penalize it more?
I also use fractional BAB, because anyone who's ever tried a fochlucan lyrist knows that the BAB is horrible at low levels.
I also throw out epic attack and save bonuses, and just continue with normal BAB and save rates, because 20th level is arbitrary. The game actually starts playing like epic level closer to 12th level, and I hate the discontinuity between the non-epic and epic rules.
So I say good riddance to an arbitrary rule that was as bad as 2e racial level limits and class restrictions.
My personal preference is heavily multiclassing with lots of dipping for maximum versatility with the goal of making a "classless" character. Factotum doesn't cut it for me after playing one, but it's a really handy level 1 dip to take advantage of class skills (able learner makes them permanently class skills).
Ahhh... Just wondering... Since when has "not recieving a bonus" become a penalty? It is not as if you get negative hp or skillpoints if you choose something "unusual". I for one think it's great having these differences, since it emphasices the cultural differences that are between, say, elves and dwarves. There is nothing wrong with an elven fighter, heck!, you can be a great elven fighter, but most elves are just more inclined to other classes! And if it's such a bother, house rule the thing.
You are indirectly penalizing players that choose to play characters that do not fit established fantasy tropes by denying them HP or Skill Points. And you're not emphasizing any cultural differences at all - you're just giving free points away to Legolas and Gimli. Why should my 10th level Elven Monk have 10 less skill points then an Elven Wizard just because there wasn't one running around in The Lord Of The Rings? You may not be directly erasing points off of my character sheet, but the fact of the matter is that my character is at a disadvantage compared to those that are playing variants of old tropes, and you're quibbling over semantics whenever you say that I'm technically not being penalized.
Besides, the PC races are already written in such away that they tend to mechanically synergize with their traditional favored classes. We really don't need any more reinforcement of race/class combo stereotypes that have been continually reinforced for the past 54 years.
Also: the rate at which you gain solid class abilities and the capstone abilities of some of the classes will more the likely serve to not only discourage people from multi-classing, but might even discourage them from taking Prestige Classes. Sure, you might get some neat abilities from taking levels in Shadowdancer, but your Sneak Attack dice pool is going to be reduced and you won't get Master Strike at 20th level. It's not as cut and dry a decision to multi-class or take Prestige Classes anymore.
Seriously, dude, keep it in the other thread, and don't derail this one.
Here's a link, in case anyone forgot where it was:
gone, not missed, and frequently not enforced per many DMs house rules, including mine.
Actually, I've not yet run into any PC that I am aware of that warranted the multiclassing XP penalty since pretty early 3e outside of these boards.
I like the new mechanic. Having to pay more XP to multiclass was very much a penalty. Now when you stay in your favored class you get a small bonus.
I like the RP portion of this as well. In most worlds dwarves are armored fighters and half orcs are savage barbarians. This is not true for every specific person of course. But if you hang out in that culture where a lot of other people are focused on the same class and skill set that you are, then you will tend to pick up a little more from your peers then if you are the only half orc wizard in your village.
I'm not sure about the penalties, but I would like to see what can be done to make multi-class characters not as handicapped as single-class characters.
At least in older editions of the game, a multi-class character only lagged a step behind, not a country mile. So how can this be "fixed?"
Isn't this what prestige classes are for?
-Campbell
I'm not sure about the penalties, but I would like to see what can be done to make multi-class characters not as handicapped as single-class characters.
At least in older editions of the game, a multi-class character only lagged a step behind, not a country mile. So how can this be "fixed?"
Take a look at the prestige class download. They have a class that is the iconic Fighter Mage build. You do the build right and you are short a little on BAB by about 2 or 3 points, but you still get 9th level spells and a very high caster level for spell penetration and save DC's.
The only issue is that you will have to have both a high STR and INT... But this is true for any multi class character. At least with a spell caster you can self buff to eliminate all of the disadvantages and still have plenty of room left over for power spells and major combat ability.
A hasted, stoneskin, displaced, flying character that can make four attacks a round with a greataxe while casting a quickened Hold Monster one round and on the following round make a single attack and cast Meteor Swarm is all kinds of awesome.
Isn't this what prestige classes are for?
-Campbell
In a perfect world, there would be no need for PrCs like this.
Prestige classes do not continue the class abilities of the base classes that you must need in order to take it in the first place; plus most of them top out at ten levels. They are like Chinese food--good for a while, but leave you hungry for more later on. The biggest drawback to taking a prestige class, if you ask me, is that you lose out on all the cool, new options that the base classes now get. To top it all off, you will end up with three classes (the pre-req two classes and the PrC) as opposed to two when you're dealing with MAD.
I also happen to play in a couple games where prestige classes are almost non-existent and there must be a story tie in with a really, really good reason to be taking it. Awesome sauce or not.
And I completely agree with KaeYoss.
Well make some choices man. I mean, We're talking about getting additional abilities while multi-classing while still keeping the 'core' parts of the 'core' class progression, and that *is* what prestige classes are for. Not all of them do, but some do.
The base classes (as they stand) *should* pull characters away from multi-classing, and the 3.5p/3.75 revisions do. It just seems the thing everyone is complaining about has the solution within the rules.
|
|
Actually if you look through the PF Beta there isn't a specific section on multiclassing at all. There are some legacy phrases here and there but multiclassing rules are absent. In the absence of anything new we're assuming it's 3.5 status quo and with the goal of backwards compatibility this is an easy assumtptiom to make. But that would mean the XP penalties should still be here...
The specific restrictions on multiclassing paladins and monks appear to have disappeared, as they used to be in the class descriptions, in 3.5.
I'm happy to see them go, as I thought there were certain combinations that should be allowed or even encouraged, such as Paladins taking the occasional level of Cleric or Fighter, to alter their emphasis on Melee or Casting. I don't see either option as 'abandoning their path', since they should be able to take that training in the same temple as before.
Actually, I've not yet run into any PC that I am aware of that warranted the multiclassing XP penalty since pretty early 3e outside of these boards.But is that because they saw the multi-class penalty and thought "To Heck with that!"?
Not really Snorter, as the people I've played with saw the point of it : precisely to prevent "dipping" 1,2 or 4 levels to get the cool, early abilities from 2 or 3 classes before going off on a wholly different tangent.
...precisely to prevent "dipping" 1,2 or 4 levels to get the cool, early abilities from 2 or 3 classes before going off on a wholly different tangent.
I have a player who has played Sorcerer to level 11 then picked up Paladin for 2 levels just to get the paladin Charisma bonus to saving throws. Combined with his Cha boosting magic items, his saves AND his Diplomacy are out of control. I personally preferred having paladins not be allowed to multiclass, or at the very least, do not let them multiclass with low bab progression classes since they are at their core a melee, fist in your face sort of class.
His saves are crazy because he could multi into Paladin for a couple of levels which wouldn't have been possible before. He's not even playing a "melee" paladin since the god he worships is a god of subtlety and charm. Its really sort of a pain, but apparently perfectly legal by the new rules.
I have a player who has played Sorcerer to level 11 then picked up Paladin for 2 levels just to get the paladin Charisma bonus to saving throws. Combined with his Cha boosting magic items, his saves AND his Diplomacy are out of control. I personally preferred having paladins not be allowed to multiclass, or at the very least, do not let them multiclass with low bab progression classes since they are at their core a melee, fist in your face sort of class.
His saves are crazy because he could multi into Paladin for a couple of levels which wouldn't have been possible before. He's not even playing a "melee" paladin since the god he worships is a god of subtlety and charm. Its really sort of a pain, but apparently perfectly legal by the new rules.
This was allowed in the previous rules. The rule did not allow you to go back to paladin, not enter originally.
Out of curiosity, what alignment is this god? and of the player?
|
|
His saves are crazy because he could multi into Paladin for a couple of levels which wouldn't have been possible before. He's not even playing a "melee" paladin since the god he worships is a god of subtlety and charm. Its really sort of a pain, but apparently perfectly legal by the new rules.
He's not playing a melee paladin, because his BAB sucks, and he can't wear armour. His smite will never hit, he's halfway to getting spells and turning undead...No, paladin is a class for the long-term view. There are far more abusable combinations, in my view.
I get your point, that this build may be driven by mechanics, more than the setting (though he could make a case for it being in-character), but quite frankly, if he forgets to pick up any 6th level spells, and all he gets is some better saves, then he's shooting himself in the foot. He needs good saves, since the opposition will be getting to pound on him, as he fails to pull his weight against them.
Think what he could be doing as a Wizard13; 3 7th-level spells/day, on top of those missing 6th level spells. Eeek!
|
Ahhh... Just wondering... Since when has "not recieving a bonus" become a penalty? It is not as if you get negative hp or skillpoints if you choose something "unusual". I for one think it's great having these differences, since it emphasices the cultural differences that are between, say, elves and dwarves. There is nothing wrong with an elven fighter, heck!, you can be a great elven fighter, but most elves are just more inclined to other classes! And if it's such a bother, house rule the thing.I'm not crying over the fact that the xp penalty thing for multiclassing has gone... It was kind of silly and really put a dampener on some character builds i've thought up....
That's just my 2 cents...
If everyone but you receive +1 bonus on something, you are penalized in a very similar way than if you have -1 and others no malus/bonus. The difference is still 1.
A lot of players who want to play fighters, will choose dwarf or human, not elf or gnome...
Some combinations of race/classe won't be in the game because they lack a bonus some are entitled to. PathfinderRPG give base races more bonuses for what reason ? To make them still interesting choices with the powerful races that appear later. Same for classes.I really prefer to ease multiclassing for some race favored classes than giving bonuses to single favored classes.
Yet I have played a lot of elven DEX-based "finesse" fighters or rogues (or even multiclassed into both), and I still think it's a very effective build vs. human/dwarven "tank" -- even with the "penalty" included (+2 to DEX more than makes up for it).
Also, I don't think there's nothing wrong in having racial "stereotypes", such as dwarves excelling at melee combat and elves at being more dextrous and better with bows than the rest. If we got rid of that, the only viable option would be to go point-buy all the way -- i.e. every race would have access to exactly the same abilities that you buy (no penalties or bonuses or special abilities for free). But that would be, in my opinion, foolish and probably only benefit the "powergamers" in the end.
And, the way I see it (both as a DM and a player), one of the biggest problems in 3E is the players multiclassing to rack up small bonuses (+X to this and +Y to that) or "uber combos" from three or even more Prestige Classes. This usually results in PCs that are very effective at something (usually at higher saves or attack/damage bonus), *but* completely helpless in many situations. For example, one of the 3.0 campaigns I play in our 12th level characters have access to *second* level divine spells, even though there are three divine spellcasters in the party. No access to Dispel Magic, Restoration, Raise Dead or any decent cure spells (usually at least one PC dies per session, and he has to "sit out" a couple of sessions until the adventure is finished). Try fighting CR 12 monsters and spellcasting NPCs if a simple chasm or Dominate or Blade Barrier if the party has no resources to overcome it.
And, if there is no mechanical "lure" (i.e. bonus) to encourage "singleclassing", I fear that the same trend might continue in PF -- although now every class has better high-level abilities. Me? I would make multiclassing cost a Feat *every* time you multiclass into a new core class, just as you have to do in 4E. That would reduce needless powergaming and weird power-curves in the game a *LOT*.
Out of curiosity, what alignment is this god? and of the player?
Gods do not have alignments in my world. Here is the general description of Shea (the goddess his character worships):
Shea (Daughter of Ultimus and Dromilla)
Shea's aspects are magic, subtlety, charm, wind, music, and the arts. Arcane spellcasters who do not particularly care for Dromilla’s attachment to death tend to worship Shea. Diplomats, artists, and nobility often call upon Shea for guidance. Those who consider themselves of high taste and station often prefer Shea over other gods.
So I allowed him to make a paladin of that goddess even though it didn't make much sense to me. She would not really favor crude sorts running around with swords and all the chop chop blood spewing stuff. That's really not her bag, but, in the interests of going with his character idea I let it happen. It really did happen "organically" meaning that the goddess existed in my campaign world since the campaign began, and he got to 11th level as a sorcerer and then in the campaign his PC had a life changing event which caused him to take of the name of Shea. That was all on the up-and-up. When he started talking about playing a paladin of Shea I was intrigued and started to consider how it would work out. I allowed him to imagine a more subtle and less combat oriented paladin, though now in doing so I see the combination of class levels that gives him +8 to all saves, all the time. That's better than any Cloak of Resistance. Anyway, yes, I get that he loses spell levels, but all of the paladin abilities he gets, BESIDES the saving throw boosts, make a generally nice character. I'm not saying there was no cost to his decision, just that this particular combination (high charisma sorcerer + paladin of a goddess who favors charm and subtlety) makes for a really strong character.
That's all I'm saying lol
I would make multiclassing cost a Feat *every* time you multiclass into a new core class, just as you have to do in 4E. That would reduce needless powergaming and weird power-curves in the game a *LOT*.
Really it should be more, but that would do.