Does Pathfinder penalize multiclassing too much?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
The Exchange

I also don't see a, for instance, fighter4/wizard1 as a sucky combo...He can cast mage armor and shield (probably from wands)to boost AC instead of worrying about armor and he can pick up some decent buff spells to make him true strike or any of the other stuff that is useful for 1st level spells. Also if he took Wizard at 1st he's gotten some good usage out of stuff like color spray or sleep.
Then he starts EldKni-ing and just gets better at both.


I am with folks that are not seeing a real issue here. A fighter 6/wizard 4 or any combo should not be as good a wizard as a 10th level wizard or as good a fighter as a 10th level fighter.

The only real issue is caster level , which can be a b*~**. A feat to handle this would be nice or the magical knack trait. To me Eldritch Knight is a good fit. At 17th level which is the end of it if you were a fighter 1/wizard 5 you would end up as a 15th level caster have a BAB of +13 and count as an 11th level fighter for feats, You would not have 9th level spells like a 17th level caster or a +17 BAB like a full fighter. But all in all you end up with a good mix

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Fake Healer wrote:
It sounds like what you want is Gestalt Classes. They gain the full power of both classes. Regular multiclass is about choices: How much full power do I sacrifice to gain the bonus of flexibility.

Let's fiddle with an abstract game.

Fighters get one attack, Sword Swing, and it is +level to hit and does 3 x level damage. Wizards get fireball, which is +level to hit and does 2 x level damage to multiple guys. Eldritch knight levels count as both wizard and fighter levels, but you need three levels of both wizard and fighter to take it.

A level 16 fighter hits at +16 and does 48 damage. A level 16 wizard hits at +16 and does 32 damage to multiple guys. A fighter3/wizard3/EK10 hits at +13 and does barely more damage than the wizard to one guy, while being completely worse at multiple guys.

That's non-synergistic multiclassing in 3e in a nutshell. If you use a class like eldritch knight or mystic theurge, it's like gestalting two level (X-3) characters together at the same time, and that's significantly weaker than a level X character. Being "flexible" isn't terribly useful because most of the non-synergistic multiclasses are spellcasters, and a level 16 spellcaster is more flexible than a level 13 spellcaster superglued to a level 13 anything.

In the specific real-world case of the EK, an EK is still a better spellcaster than it is a melee character, so he'll never have any reason to buff himself up and enter melee. Even if he did, he has major spellcasting failure issues unless he wasted all his feats, in which case he has major damage issues.

It would be perfectly reasonable to make a fighter prestige class that worked like the Duskblade, or a wizard prestige class that made wizards a little tougher at the cost of a caster level or two. But cramming those both into one class doesn't work, nor does requiring the number of dump levels that prestige class requires.

Nobody's asking for the full power of two classes. People generally want one class with one or two things from another class: a wizard who is sneaky, or a rogue with some magical tricks, or a fighter with a few buffs or blasts, or a wizard who can wear armor. Those are really easy desires to accommodate with prestige classes, but it takes a little bit more work to find out what people want, figuring out a good tradeoff, and working that into a full PrC.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I am with folks that are not seeing a real issue here. A fighter 6/wizard 4 or any combo should not be as good a wizard as a 10th level wizard or as good a fighter as a 10th level fighter.

There's no problem with an X/Y/PRC being as good an X as an X or as good a Y as a Y. You just don't want it to overshadow both X and Y at once.

Fake Healer wrote:

I also don't see a, for instance, fighter4/wizard1 as a sucky combo...He can cast mage armor and shield (probably from wands)to boost AC instead of worrying about armor and he can pick up some decent buff spells to make him true strike or any of the other stuff that is useful for 1st level spells. Also if he took Wizard at 1st he's gotten some good usage out of stuff like color spray or sleep.

Then he starts EldKni-ing and just gets better at both.
SRD wrote:

To qualify to become an eldritch knight, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.

Weapon Proficiency: Must be proficient with all martial weapons.

Spells: Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I am with folks that are not seeing a real issue here. A fighter 6/wizard 4 or any combo should not be as good a wizard as a 10th level wizard or as good a fighter as a 10th level fighter.

The only real issue is caster level , which can be a b&@%*. A feat to handle this would be nice or the magical knack trait. To me Eldritch Knight is a good fit. At 17th level which is the end of it if you were a fighter 1/wizard 5 you would end up as a 15th level caster have a BAB of +13 and count as an 11th level fighter for feats, You would not have 9th level spells like a 17th level caster or a +17 BAB like a full fighter. But all in all you end up with a good mix

well make him fighter2/Wizard6/Eldritch Knight 10, and you get your classic Elf Fighter 12/Mage 15 of second edition with level limits...So multi classing does balance out in the end. He has a Bab of +15 and a caster level of 15


When I play an Eldritch Knight, not getting spell levels after 6th is ok for me. You tend to stick to self buffing & others that effect YOUR combat. After 6th level spells, you start getting spells that are mainly the domain of straight up wizards. Yes, you could use them, but they are really, thematically speaking, the type of spells you would normally look to.


Fake Healer wrote:
It sounds like what you want is Gestalt Classes. They gain the full power of both classes. Regular multiclass is about choices: How much full power do I sacrifice to gain the bonus of flexibility.

+1

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Let's fiddle with an abstract game...

To get to a point where there is true balance between characters of all classes across each level (to include all the possible multi-class combos), you would have to ensure that the mechanical benefits provided by each class level were same as those provided by every other class at each level. So not only would the mechanical benefit gained by by taking Fighter level 10 be same as the benefit earned by another character that takes his 10th level of Wizard, but also the mechanical benefit gained at Fighter level 11 would have to be the same as that gained by Wizard level 1 to account for the player that wants to play a Fighter11/Wizard1 without falling behind the power curve of either the Fighter 12 or Wizard 12.

I think that's really the type of balance being discussed here. It wouldn't be impossible to do this, but it would be a difficult process and I doubt everyone would agree (which would dump you right back into the same old arguments we're having now). It seems something of a fool's errand.

-Skeld


James Jacobs wrote:

My take: Multiclassing becomes less and less desirable the more players you have in a game. In a one-player, one GM situation, multiclassing is a good option because it helps your one PC be more versatile. But in a group of five or so... multiclassing is less of a good option, mostly because chances are very good that there's already someone in the group who's not multiclassed and will be a constant reminder of how much better they are at what they do, compared to the multiclassed character's stuff.

My theory: Multiclassing should rarely, if ever, be a route taken by players seeking to make powerful characters. It should be a route taken by players seeking to make unusual characters who are a challenge to play.

I've found that multiclassing in large groups works well too. When have the basic classes of Arcane Caster, Devine Caster, Rogue, and Melee type covered you are more free to multi-class and find a niche for yourself. You just have to take the view that the melee guy has it covered so you don't have to be the max damage per round type. The Wizard also has it covered so you don't have to have the highest level spells possible. So Eldrich Knight isn't such a bad trade off in group like that.

When you have just 4 players multi-classing hurts more than it helps. With less than 4 players multi-classing fills in the gaps.

I personally like multi-classing to make interesting characters. Sure they aren't the best at doing a specific thing but they are more fun to play. I like the idea of a fighter bard for example what takes the Leadership feat at Level 7. I picture this a great leader type. But I know they will never be as good as straight bard or fighter.


I think the big problem with multiclassing is that it makes it a lot easier to not get what you think you're getting.

Which is another way of saying 'system mastery,' and is a problem people will potentially run into all over the place.

Backing up, this is the problem a lot of people have with monks: they expect a tough, deadly guy whose weapons are his hands. KAPOW! Bruce Lee knocks your freakin' head off.

But that's not really what a monk is. A monk is a more versatile, battlefield-manipulating dude who can run up to the big bad, grab his staff of Uberness, and run off going 'ha ha ha suck it' or start beating the big bad with his own staff. He can pull arrows out of the air, stun with a touch, and blip around the place like a badly lagging MMO.

So new folks get very frustrated, fast, because what they want doesn't fit.

Multiclassing is a lot like that; a lot of the options are very good, and you can make even some of the awkward ones work if you have the right goals.

Eldritch Knight is GOOD. But he's not a better fighter than a fighter and he's not a better wizard than a wizard -- why would he be? He's a decent fighter with a lot of tricks up his sleeve, he's a decent wizard with durability and some nice combat training (Improved Critical: ray. Sickening Critical: ray. ZOMG)

But if you don't appreciate or get the nuances of the rules, it's going to seem weak, because it's not 'about' the things you are probably looking for.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Personally, I'm glad my group has multiclassed.

It keeps the characters interesting, and when players can't make it, there's a backup. The backup cleric may not be as good of a cleric as the straight cleric, but it's better than no cleric at all.

What I found is that the players each felt they had roles - and picked classes and prestige classes that fit that role. So we've got a cleric/crusader/wizard/abjurant champion and a spirit shaman/wizard and a fighter/tempest/legendary dreadnaught, and a druid/swordsage/master of many forms/stormlord etc. ... all because the stuff they took fit their character concept.

Your mileage may vary, of course, and it's definitely true that not all of the characters 'feel' identically powerful at all times - but there's definitely times at which each of the characters shines.

I do have to say that high level druids are very very nasty - talk about cherry picking - they're able to cherry pick on a round-by-round basis what the best creature is for the occasion.


A Man In Black wrote:

What's the point of a level system if you explicitly say, "Well, you're just going to be better/worse than everyone else at this level"? How do you balance a system where characters are weaker than par at some levels and stronger than par at other levels if you can't guarantee that everyone will play at both level ranges? Sucking at low levels and being okay (or awesome) at high levels is a terrible way to balance a game.

There's a strong tendency, going all the way back to Gygax, for game designers to feel that it's okay to punish people who try to play the game in a way other than the way the designers intended. I'm extremely disappointed to see that attitude on display here, especially when talking about the intended path for taking a published prestige class!

Sorry, but no. Balance is the often seen as the Holy Grail of any RPG and it is nothing but anathema to me. Why should character A be balanced with character B? If you opt to take X levels in class 1 instead of class 2 then you're obviously not going to be as good at class 1 or 2 as any single-classed variant. Your strength lies elsewhere - versatility. It can't be classified, categorised or calculated. But it will be self evident in any game where you use it to your advantage.

Just my opinion, of course.


BabbageUK wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

What's the point of a level system if you explicitly say, "Well, you're just going to be better/worse than everyone else at this level"? How do you balance a system where characters are weaker than par at some levels and stronger than par at other levels if you can't guarantee that everyone will play at both level ranges? Sucking at low levels and being okay (or awesome) at high levels is a terrible way to balance a game.

There's a strong tendency, going all the way back to Gygax, for game designers to feel that it's okay to punish people who try to play the game in a way other than the way the designers intended. I'm extremely disappointed to see that attitude on display here, especially when talking about the intended path for taking a published prestige class!

Sorry, but no. Balance is the often seen as the Holy Grail of any RPG and it is nothing but anathema to me. Why should character A be balanced with character B? If you opt to take X levels in class 1 instead of class 2 then you're obviously not going to be as good at class 1 or 2 as any single-classed variant. Your strength lies elsewhere - versatility. It can't be classified, categorised or calculated. But it will be self evident in any game where you use it to your advantage.

Just my opinion, of course.

preach on friend. Many of my multi-class on paper looked poor but in combat and RP they rocked


Captain Marsh wrote:

Stuart -

I want PCs to be incredibly unique, not 'stovepiped.' I know the classes allow a lot of variation, but in my game I want more. I've always liked the idea of multi-classing. If it WAS a goal of PF to minimize it, then I'll have to house rule it back toward 3.5.

-Marsh

3.5 is the only way you're going to get what you're looking for me thinks.


Captain Marsh wrote:
But as I looked him over, I thought: This guy just wouldn't stand a chance against a straight-up 10th level wizard or fighter.

This is a very good thing, AFAIC. Decrease in straight power for an increase in versatility during the game. Sounds proper and appropriate.

Captain Marsh wrote:
What do you think?

Hell no.

Aside: This weird dismissing of the value of versatility over straight power in the 3.x years is somewhat inexplicable to me. Kinda freaky, actually.

Liberty's Edge

I think multiclass works ok with non-casters, but needs tweaking with caster types. When I seek the causes I can't help thinking that, if every class contributes to BAB or saves, maybe every class should contribute to caster progression.

One way to measure the problems in multiclassing is to use the CR calculation method. Take a CR 12 for example, is equivalent to two CR 10s, not two CR 6s, right?

Then you should make multiclass work in a way that a fighter 6 / rogue 6 is more or less as good a fighter as a fighter 10 and as good a rogue as a rogue 10. I guess this works now more or less due to ability sinergy, and BAB and saves stacking.

But, a cleric 6 / wizard 6 is nowhere close in cleric abilities to a cleric 10 or a wizard 10. It's event worse than two 6th level characters together, so less than a CR 8 (and we were aiming for a CR12!)

I guess one try would be to create multiclass feats to make other classes contribute to caster level at it's class minus 2 levels or such...


midknight wrote:
One way to measure the problems in multiclassing is to use the CR calculation method. Take a CR 12 for example, is equivalent to two CR 10s, not two CR 6s, right?

Note the two CR10s even get twice the actions per round of any single CR12 creature. A team of a cleric 10 and wizard 10 completely outclasses both the power and versatility of the theoretically same-CR single Clr 3/Wiz 3/MT 6.


midknight wrote:

One way to measure the problems in multiclassing is to use the CR calculation method. Take a CR 12 for example, is equivalent to two CR 10s, not two CR 6s, right?

Also note this breaks down if you have characters with different levels in their classes. What about a PC who is a fighter 2/rogue 6?


A couple of the comments here raise a really important game-fun point:

Multi-classing should be a really cool way to bring the rules to life in interesting fashion.

It should be tricky, yes.

But with care and cleverness, a player should be able to do something interesting and not be automatically penalized for it.

Optimally, I would say (as a DM) to a new player, "Start with a single class, with an appropriate matching race, and you'll be pretty well optimized out of the box."

But to a more experienced player, I'd say, "Go for it, mix and match, I bet you'll come up with something far more interesting and just as powerful."

What I think I'm discovering though is that in these rules as written that won't happen.

-Marsh


Can I just go back in time and resurrect all of the Gish threads from 7-8 weeks ago?

Multiclassing is a very sticky issue in systems that use Level progression, because the option is almost always too attractive to pass up (3.5) or not worth it at all (Pathfinder), unless certain restrictions as to how character levels are gained are set into place (2nd Edition).

Even then it's a crapshoot without some very arbitrary limitations, such as the demihuman level caps from the olden days.

Prestige classes can close the gap a bit, perhaps, but I've said it before and I'll say it again now, Official sets of "Alternate Class Abilities" that can only be chosen at first level, like the old 2nd Edition Class Kits, would probably be a simpler and more elegant solution. You can find all sorts of these things in unofficial publications all the time; the problem is that they're not legal for PFS play, and many a DM looks a bit sideways at a player who requests to use such 3PP material.

You could probably cover almost every possible "multiclass combination" with one soft cover splatbook full of such Kits. Heck, Paizo already covered quite a few possible ways to tweak base classes in their Golarion book.


James Jacobs wrote:
To be honest, I'm kind of okay with that. Not all multiclass combos make sense, especially if they're two very similar spellcasting classes. If you want to play a cleric AND a druid, a much better option would be to play one and take Leadership to get a cohort of the other.

What makes it not make sense, though, is the mechanics, not the thematics. The idea that a priest of Gozreh would combine the paths of both cleric and druid is not conceptually any weirder than the idea of a barbarian/ranger. It simply happens that the former is mechanically hopeless and the latter works rather well.


A big problem with third party material I find balance issues, that is also a problem with players being in general blind to such issues.


see wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
To be honest, I'm kind of okay with that. Not all multiclass combos make sense, especially if they're two very similar spellcasting classes. If you want to play a cleric AND a druid, a much better option would be to play one and take Leadership to get a cohort of the other.
What makes it not make sense, though, is the mechanics, not the thematics. The idea that a priest of Gozreh would combine the paths of both cleric and druid is not conceptually any weirder than the idea of a barbarian/ranger. It simply happens that the former is mechanically hopeless and the latter works rather well.

A multiclass druid / cleric is probably better served by a PrC catering to those specific needs, advance as a cleric caster and pick up some druid abilities along the way, possibly integrated spell lists, you just need a DM and a player with a flexible attitude.

Scarab Sages

I think Pathfinder has it right on multiclassing. Over a long campaign, it is a real trick for a character to hone and tell a 'hero's story' of progression and growth if he is constantly diving into sidelights of other careers. While Fafhrd and Conan had some thieving skills, they were primarily warriors and the stories were better told because of it. When the big bad monster entered the room, you could see the warriors tensing their muscles and preparing their weapons for dire combat.

AD&D 1st ed. really held this at its core, allowing multiclassing only in ways that fit clear fantasy tropes (elven fighter/mage, halfling fighter/thief) and even in so doing, made clear that other paths would likely lead to more raw power (Merlin the human wizard is a more powerful mage than Elrond the fighter/mage). In that game, it was easy to sit a new player down into an existing group and have him quickly visualize how each PC fit into the group's thematic style. In a long campaign, this was valuable as it allowed the players to focus on the growth in character, rather than the growth in mechanical power.

AD&D 2d ed. opened the door to the multiclassing chimera with its kits and players options. These put players into the DMs world with mix-and-match options that quickly made planning a game session a nightmare for the DM. Even worse, any new player had to download into his brain the full scope of abilities the kits allowed the other PCs in order to know what roles were available and what options would not be redundant.

3.0 and 3.5 rebuilt the problem with the proliferation of base classes and prestige classes (and most DMs lost their core authority when they treated anything published as if it was suitable for their game) but in the process made following one class for 20 levels unsurvivable in a game where free multiclassing and PRC'ing was allowed. By late 3.5, if you sat down to a table with a Sorcerer 10 you were likely to have the first casualty in a party with a duskblade 10, fighter1/wizard5/eldritch knight 4, rogue4/fighter2/cleric4.

Pathfinder brought the game back to sanity. With core classes that are truly core and that are competitive with any of 3.5's prestige class builds, as a DM I am no longer having to defend the exclusion of this broken class or that overpowered combination; my players WANT to be a Wizard 10! Even better, as I add in new players, I don't have to add to the exposition an hour letting the player of the Rogue4/Duskblade5/Thief Acrobat 1 what exactly he is capable of doing in combat so that they don't build a Rogue 10 that is irrelevant.

As a player, I find now, and have always found, that a true multiclass character is a rare concept to be played out. The players who like multiclassing almost always do so for the mechanical benefits (I want to play a fighter who can hurl fireballs so that he can hurt a lot of opponents without having to rely on the wizard; I imagine a cleric who is pious but is also capable of really kicking butt with his god's favored weapon) and doesn't truly embrace the 'gestalt' concept (a Fighter/Cleric, for example, seems much more like a medieval Knight with a religious code rather than the Templar often cited; the base cleric already is a medieval Templar and not a parish priest). If the player really does want the gestalt, then they almost never mind that they can cast spells as well as a Merlin, or swing a sword as well as Conan. They accept the weakness as a trade-off for the versatility.

A few multiclass examples to consider under PFRPG as irrelevant:
Cleric/Druid--Cleric with Animal and Plant Domain
Fighter/Wizard--Bard (low/mid levels)
Monk/Wizard--Monk2/Wizard remaining since almost never do you intend your monk to be lobbing fingers of death or animating an army of zombies; usually this ideal is just for a wizard who is more than he appears
Rogue/Wizard--Bard
Fighter/Cleric--Paladin with a possible loosening/adjustment of the alignment requirements and special powers should LG be untenable for the player's concept
Fighter/Thief--Ranger, especially the 'Spell-less Ranger' just put out by Kobold Quarterly

For my table, I will always discourage the idea of a Prestige Class being used as a band-aid for multiclassing. Down that road lies the 'kit hell' that made running AD&D 2d Ed. impossible. Instead, use the base classes with creativity to scratch your multiclass itch. I always imagined Conan as a Barbarian 17/Rogue 3 and Merlin as a Druid 4/Wizard(Diviner) 16. As a DM, I strongly encourage you to hold the line on letting your game become a string of numbers, maximized to allow a player to feel that the victory is in having the highest possible modifier to ever possible situation.

The game is the story, and the best stories happen when everyone can imagine the scene and the characters clearly. PFRPG's restoration of classes to their core place accomplishes that at my table.

Liberty's Edge

My take on the multiclass thing:
Its all about caster levels. A melee characters primary stat more than any other is BAB. It determines how well their abilities work and how effective they are...and if they take levels in a non-melee class, it still gets better, abet at a slower rate.

The primary stat for spell casters is caster levels. It determines how powerful their spells are and how long they last, but it does not scale at all when they take non-spellcasting classes.

Feats like Practiced Spellcaster and the Magical Knack trait help make up for the loss of effectiveness, but aren't entirely good. You have to actively replace another ability with bolstering your caster level. If I was to home game, I might use a rule like this:

For every three levels in a class that does not provide caster levels to a spellcasting class you possess, your caster level in that class increases by 1.

This rule would work for eldrich knight characters as well as mystic theurges. An eldrich knight (Ftr/Wiz/EKn) would get bonus caster levels from his fighter levels, but not from his Eldrich Knight levels, as the Eldrich Knight class already grants caster levels to his wizard class. For a mystic theurge (Clr/Wiz/MyT), cleric levels would bolster wizard levels, wizard levels would bolster cleric levels, but Mystic Theurge levels wouldn't provide any additional bonus levels to either above and beyond what the class already does.

Shadow Lodge

midknight wrote:
I guess one try would be to create multiclass feats to make other classes contribute to caster level at it's class minus 2 levels or such...

I don't think it's quite fair to have a 19th level fighter throw on a single level of wizard at the end and suddenly be able to cast Wish. Which under the system you propose, is a perfectly viable option.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

BabbageUK wrote:
Why should character A be balanced with character B?

Because otherwise there's no reason to have such a complicated, rules-heavy system where characters of level X are balanced with monsters of level X.

Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:
I think Pathfinder has it right on multiclassing. Over a long campaign, it is a real trick for a character to hone and tell a 'hero's story' of progression and growth if he is constantly diving into sidelights of other careers. While Fafhrd and Conan had some thieving skills, they were primarily warriors and the stories were better told because of it. When the big bad monster entered the room, you could see the warriors tensing their muscles and preparing their weapons for dire combat.

Unless you want to play characters who dabble in many careers over their story arcs. (I could make a big list of fictional characters that do that, but let's just start with Han Solo, Cu Chulainn, and Achilles and go from there.) Of course, that's not the way the designers intended it, so you get a weaker character for doing that. Sorry!

Skeld wrote:
To get to a point where there is true balance between characters of all classes across each level (to include all the possible multi-class combos), you would have to ensure that the mechanical benefits provided by each class level were same as those provided by every other class at each level.

I know, but I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for the patch solutions that make popular multiclass combinations playable to actually work. The OP isn't complaining about not being able to multiclass bard/sorcerer; nobody is complaining about being able to play bard/sorcerer.

James Jacobs said he was just fine with eldritch knights being weaker than other characters because "it's not fair to Charlie or Lucy if a third player basically wants to be able to upstage them both at once". The problem is that nobody's asking to upstage them both at once; people are asking for a character who is just as capable of handling CR X foes at level X as a straight fighter or wizard, and EK builds aren't that.

"Unusual characters who are a challenge to play" is code for "We've given up on trying to balance this, so it's a feature not a bug."

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
midknight wrote:
I guess one try would be to create multiclass feats to make other classes contribute to caster level at it's class minus 2 levels or such...
I don't think it's quite fair to have a 19th level fighter throw on a single level of wizard at the end and suddenly be able to cast Wish. Which under the system you propose, is a perfectly viable option.

Caster level is not the same as level in a spellcasting class. Caster level determines duration, spell effects and difficulty to dispel. Levels in a spellcasting class determine caster level, spells known, and spells per day.

Using your example, a Ftr19/Wiz1 would not be able to cast Wish. He could cast magic missle with 5 missles or have a mage armor that lasts 18 hours (which I'll conceed is a bit much, but not nearly as overpowered as what you were suggesting).


A Man In Black wrote:


Unless you want to play characters who dabble in many careers over their story arcs. (I could make a big list of fictional characters that do that, but let's just start with Han Solo, Cu Chulainn, and Achilles and go from there.) Of course, that's not the way the designers intended it, so you get a weaker character for doing that. Sorry!

You know what they say about jacks of all trades. They're the master of none. Your character may be weaker at a direct comparison of the specialties of a class, but he'll have wider choices of options usable in more situations.


But, but, but, if I don't get everything I want, how am I supposed to win the game!?!?!?

/end sarcasm

The original poster has a good reason behind his complaint. He wants his son to have fun (I assume) and his son really won't get what he wants out of that character build. So he's going to houserule something.

That's perfect and awesome and what D&D is all about (as far as I'm concerned).

It's not about campaigning against, and complaining about, the current multi-classing rules set that are just fine and make you actually pay a cost for diversity. Shall we call them anti-cherry-picking rules?

I'm sorry that you can't multiclass 10 fighter/10 wizard and be able to out-fight the 20 fighter one on one and out-blast the 20 wizard one on one. I'm also sorry that you can't solo the monster that it takes a 20 fighter and 20 wizard to beat... thems the breaks.

I actually wouldn't see the problem in allowing half of all non-spellcasting classes to count towards effective spellcasting class levels.

Do you sit around playing chess complaining about how all of your pieces can't move like the queen does and the whole game is out of balance because of it?

Liberty's Edge

Bill Dunn wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:


Unless you want to play characters who dabble in many careers over their story arcs. (I could make a big list of fictional characters that do that, but let's just start with Han Solo, Cu Chulainn, and Achilles and go from there.) Of course, that's not the way the designers intended it, so you get a weaker character for doing that. Sorry!
You know what they say about jacks of all trades. They're the master of none. Your character may be weaker at a direct comparison of the specialties of a class, but he'll have wider choices of options usable in more situations.

Yeah, but jack of all trades are generally at least passable at multiple roles, even if they aren't masters. Multi-class characters (specifically spellcasters) are generally not even competent, especially at higher levels.

Is a Ftr10/Bbn10 as good as a Ftr20 or a Bbn20? Not quite, but its at least in the same league. (Can hit as often, will do almost the same damage, really just lacking the cap abilities)

Is a Ftr10/Wiz10 as good as a Ftr20 or Wiz20? Nope, and probably wouldn't even earn a bench spot in the minors. (Won't hit near as often, damage will be much lower all counts, spells will automatically be dispelled/countered by level appropriate foes. The only enemies the character is really capable of dealing with will be below party level.)


Robert Little wrote:
Is a Ftr10/Wiz10 as good as a Ftr20 or Wiz20?

That depends on the parameters. He's a better wizard than the Ftr20 and a better fighter than the Wiz20.


Pale wrote:
It's not about campaigning against, and complaining about, the current multi-classing rules set that are just fine and make you actually pay a cost for diversity. Shall we call them anti-cherry-picking rules?

Like I pointed out earlier, a 7th level bard outfights, outcasts, outskills, and out-class-features the 7th level fighter/wizard/eldritch knight. The latter isn't paying a premium in power for greater diversity; he's paying a premium in power to be inferior in diversity.


Pale wrote:
Shall we call them anti-cherry-picking rules?

Let's just call them anti-fun-and-options rules

Pale wrote:

I'm sorry that you can't multiclass 10 fighter/10 wizard and be able to out-fight the 20 fighter one on one and out-blast the 20 wizard one on one. I'm also sorry that you can't solo the monster that it takes a 20 fighter and 20 wizard to beat... thems the breaks.

It's not about being able to outdo either of those level 20 characters, it's about the Ftr10/Wiz10 being mechanically unable to contribute meaningfully to any encounter that is a challenge for the Ftr20 and Wiz20.

But then, I suppose he can hang back in the peanut gallery/cheerleading section and trade high fives with the Monk20!


Captain Marsh wrote:

Now that we've been playing PF for a few months, here's one of my beefs:

PCs escalate in power dramatically as they level up. That's a really good thing, I think.

But it makes multi-classing -- and the more complex, unique characters produced by multi-classing -- less playable.

My son just made up a really cool, 10th-level eldritch knight type character, with lots of texture.

(We mingle 3.5 and PF rules pretty freely, with some tweaking.)

But as I looked him over, I thought: This guy just wouldn't stand a chance against a straight-up 10th level wizard or fighter.

Or against the kinds of monsters that I would put against a typical 10th level party.

So here's one possible solution:

1. Eliminate all penalties for multi-classing.

2. Each time a character adds a new class, they receive one bonus feat. (Or maybe, if that's too big a boost, one new trait.)

What do you think?

--Marsh

1) you could drop the favoured classes and just give everyone + 1 hp / skillpoint per level

2) allow BAB fractions to stack for BAB calculation, multiclass characters do not have to worry (as much) about 'dead' BAB levels this way.

poor BAB is 1/2 BAB per level
Average BAB is 3/4 BAB per level
Good BAB is BAB per level

3) Determine caster level based on a system similar to BAB,
Base Caster Level (BCL) ?

poor BCL fighter, barbarian, rogue, monk
average BCL Ranger, Paladin
Good BCL bard, wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric

poor is 1/2 CBL per level
average is 3/4 CBL per level
good is 1 CBL per level

might add paladin and ranger to good BCL, making implementation a bit simpler.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Moro wrote:

It's not about being able to outdo either of those level 20 characters, it's about the Ftr10/Wiz10 being mechanically unable to contribute meaningfully to any encounter that is a challenge for the Ftr20 and Wiz20.

But then, I suppose he can hang back in the peanut gallery/cheerleading section and trade high fives with the Monk20!

Yeah, I've seen that about monks.

However, the Ftr10/Wiz10 isn't worthless. He's not as good of a fighter, but he's still a fighter, and that gives you two fighters in the battle.

On the other hand, should you need arcane power, he's still a wizard, just not as good as the 20th level one.

I've seen battles where having multiple casters has made a huge difference, and having a Ftr20, a Ftr10/Wiz10 and a Wiz20 works out just great.

No character will shine in all occasions, but that doesn't mean they're worthless. 'Cept maybe that monk 20 :) Until he takes Vorpal Hands at 21 ...

Holy crap! He's flurrying me with vorpal hands! AAAIIEEE-thunk


gbonehead wrote:
Moro wrote:

It's not about being able to outdo either of those level 20 characters, it's about the Ftr10/Wiz10 being mechanically unable to contribute meaningfully to any encounter that is a challenge for the Ftr20 and Wiz20.

But then, I suppose he can hang back in the peanut gallery/cheerleading section and trade high fives with the Monk20!

Yeah, I've seen that about monks.

However, the Ftr10/Wiz10 isn't worthless. He's not as good of a fighter, but he's still a fighter, and that gives you two fighters in the battle.

On the other hand, should you need arcane power, he's still a wizard, just not as good as the 20th level one.

I've seen battles where having multiple casters has made a huge difference, and having a Ftr20, a Ftr10/Wiz10 and a Wiz20 works out just great.

No character will shine in all occasions, but that doesn't mean they're worthless. 'Cept maybe that monk 20 :) Until he takes Vorpal Hands at 21 ...

Holy crap! He's flurrying me with vorpal hands! AAAIIEEE-thunk

Hahaha, I'm picturing a human cuisinart!

No, the Ftr10/Wiz10 with his 15/10/5 BaB and 5th level spells with Save DCs that are laughable for a CR20 encounter is going to have a hard time hitting, and be loaded with a boatload of ineffective spells. Sure, he can hang out with the monk and pop off a Magic Missile or two (only to have the opposition give him a funny look as the missles tickle his spell resistance funnybone). Perhaps he can load up with out of combat utility spells so that the real mage can focus on spells that can make or break an encounter, but as far as taking part in the actual battle, he's going to be a bump on a log.

The Fighter/Mage of earlier editions had the advantage of buff spells to enhance his battle prowess, but since 3.0, 3.5, and PF contain a whole slew of spell-in-a-can magic items that duplicate just about every useful buff from spells of 5th and lower that a Wizard has available, that advantage is moot for the most part if your group has items anywhere near the appropriate wealth by level.


OK, so what's your solution? Make multiclassing viable in such a manner that no one bothers to take a single class to 20 anymore? Where's the middle ground?

Would it be fair to give the Fighter/Wizard a BAB of 20 and a CL of 20? Do you think that the loss of feats and higher level spells is enough to keep that character from making the Fighter 20 and Wizard 20 stand in the back and play double-dutch with the Monk 20 while he does everything himself?

Just askin'.


One of the issue I have with Multi-Class is it's not worth it if you are a caster. There is no synergy in caster levels. You can't go bard/wizard as the spell levels are different and the caster levels are different. It's not like a fighter/rogue where BAB stacks.

I've been thinking of way to fix this.

Maybe each character gets a Class point per level.

Each point can be used Once per day. Not sure exactly what they'd do though but assume they are useful for something. Maybe they could be roll two dice pick the best, give an additional move action, give an additional attack, heal X damage, restore 1 ability damage, or such. Each use would cost X class points.

Now you could permanently spend the class point for a list of things when you multi-class. Maybe it's +1 Caster level, +1 class level towards a specific class feature, maybe it's +1 spell level. Each would have specific cost in class points. You'd have to be at least level 1 in the class of the feature you are boosting. For example maybe you blow a bit to get increase sneak attack or the next level of

This way you give yup a nice to have but not critical to the class to gain some multi-classing synergy where none existed before.

What's everyone's thoughts on this?


fighter wizard 10 just seems a dumb build really, there is a perfectly suited PrC to handle that better.

fighter 2, wizard 8, eldritch knight 10 ?

seems a much better deal

BAB +16
17th lvl caster

Suddenly I am not feeling so sorry for the multiclass anymore, it won't be as good as the fighter or the wizard, but it can manage to do quite a bit of either.

fighter 1, wizard 5, eldritch knigh 10, arcane archer 4, is also a possibility.

BAB + 17
17th lvl caster


Pale wrote:

OK, so what's your solution? Make multiclassing viable in such a manner that no one bothers to take a single class to 20 anymore? Where's the middle ground?

Would it be fair to give the Fighter/Wizard a BAB of 20 and a CL of 20? Do you think that the loss of feats and higher level spells is enough to keep that character from making the Fighter 20 and Wizard 20 stand in the back and play double-dutch with the Monk 20 while he does everything himself?

Just askin'.

No, I posted my thoughts on a solution earlier in the thread. To reiterate, I really think the use of "Alternate Class Features" (such as the Kobold Quarterly's Spell-less Ranger, or the war college trained Fighter in the Golarion book) would be a great way to augment the classes so that multiclassing isn't necessary in order to realize the character concept you may have in your head of a Fighter/Mage or any other concept you can think of.

By taking a full 20-level class and playing with addition and subtraction of alternate class features, you make the sacrifices necessary for game balance. If you think of the Ranger as something of a Fighter/Druid multiclass, or of the Paladin as a Fighter/Cleric, then you'll see my point. Yes, the Paladin is a little over the top at the moment but the example serves, and nobody is pointing at the Ranger and crying that it is far too powerful.


Remco Sommeling wrote:

fighter wizard 10 just seems a dumb build really, there is a perfectly suited PrC to handle that better.

fighter 2, wizard 8, eldritch knight 10 ?

seems a much better deal

BAB +16
17th lvl caster

Suddenly I am not feeling so sorry for the multiclass anymore, it won't be as good as the fighter or the wizard, but it can manage to do quite a bit of either.

That's nice, except for the first 5-6 levels where you don't really get to PLAY an Eldritch Knight, you get to play any combination of Fighter 1/Wizard 5, and by then your game (if it were going to make it all the way to level 20 in the first place) is 30% over.

What would be wrong with a base class that evenly spreads those 16-17 Caster Levels and 16-17 BAB over a full 20 levels? If it's not unbalanced at 20, why can't you play it from the start?


* you could make an inquisitor like class, with arcane spells and call it a bladesinger.

* You could lower the entry requirement for Eldritch Knight a bit, say :

proficient all martial weapons
able to cast arcane spells
BAB +3

you could get into the class as:

fighter 2, wizard 2 or wizard 4, fighter 1 or fighter 3, wizard 1

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ah the multi-class thread is back again. Guess I will repost what my group does and it seems to work for us.

For multiclassing what we do is this. You get half of the other classes levels in special class abilities and spells. So for examples

8th level character
4th level fighter
4th level wizard

He has the skills, bab, saves of a 4th level fighter and wiz combined as normal. Same with the general level aspect like bonus feats and stat mods. But for the special class abilities he counts as a
6th lvl fighter
6th lvl wizard.

For so would cast as a 6th level wizard etc. They are still not as good as a single class but with more options and variety. We have not found them over powered nor underpowered.

Least it works for us so far with no real major problem. The only time this breaks down a bit is dual spell casting classes.


Moro wrote:


No, I posted my thoughts on a solution earlier in the thread. To reiterate, I really think the use of "Alternate Class Features" (such as the Kobold Quarterly's Spell-less Ranger, or the war college trained Fighter in the Golarion book) would be a great way to augment the classes so that multiclassing isn't necessary in order to realize the character concept you may have in your head of a Fighter/Mage or any other concept you can think of.

By taking a full 20-level class and playing with addition and subtraction of alternate class features, you make the sacrifices necessary for game balance. If you think of the Ranger as something of a Fighter/Druid multiclass, or of the Paladin as a Fighter/Cleric, then you'll see my point. Yes, the Paladin is a little over the top at the moment but the example serves, and nobody is pointing at the Ranger and crying that it is far too powerful.

Yeah, custom classes or tweaking existing classes is how I would handle it as well. (And would be a great addition to the APG... which I think it will be.)

I think what most people want out of a Fighter/Wizard is a Bard without the perform component.


::waves at DM::


Dark_Mistress wrote:

Ah the multi-class thread is back again. Guess I will repost what my group does and it seems to work for us.

For multiclassing what we do is this. You get half of the other classes levels in special class abilities and spells. So for examples

8th level character
4th level fighter
4th level wizard

He has the skills, bab, saves of a 4th level fighter and wiz combined as normal. Same with the general level aspect like bonus feats and stat mods. But for the special class abilities he counts as a
6th lvl fighter
6th lvl wizard.

For so would cast as a 6th level wizard etc. They are still not as good as a single class but with more options and variety. We have not found them over powered nor underpowered.

Least it works for us so far with no real major problem. The only time this breaks down a bit is dual spell casting classes.

That actually seems like a very good middle ground.


Moro wrote:


That's nice, except for the first 5-6 levels where you don't really get to PLAY an Eldritch Knight, you get to play any combination of Fighter 1/Wizard 5, and by then your game (if it were going to make it all the way to level 20 in the first place) is 30% over.

What would be wrong with a base class that evenly spreads those 16-17 Caster Levels and 16-17 BAB over a full 20 levels? If it's not unbalanced at 20, why can't you play it from the start?

Frankly, I'm not sure that's much of an improvement. If the PC wanting to be an eldritch knight goes with F1/W5/EK1, by the time he's hit that 7th level, the slow-down in advancement he's encountered has come at a time in which the differentiation between highly optimized and non-optimized is low. In other words, any ground he's lost was lost at the most advantageous time to lose it. What's really gained by any base class method that produces the same end result?

51 to 100 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Does Pathfinder penalize multiclassing too much? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.