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?
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?
The end result is balanced, or are you saying that 16-17 BaB and 9th level spells at CL17 is underpowered?
As to what is gained, FUN is gained in being able to play out your character concept from the beginning rather than slogging through 6 levels, minimum, of something that is not at all an "Eldritch Knight".
heres a seemingly worthwhile 3.5 multiclass build, though it is a munchkin trap
Rogue 1 Wizard 5 Unseen seer 10 Arcane trickster 4
this build has a lot of versatility compared to a wizard, but it is also burning feats and skill points like mad. but it comes with a little perk caled immunity to all divination spells, meaning see invisbility, see ethereal, true seeing and the like do not let you see said individual. but it is playing catch up until level 12 if human, later if not.
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.Then why build the fighter/wizard/eldritch knight if the bard is better?
Of course, you should see my 7th level Sumo Wrestler/7th level Jockey...some builds just don't work as well as others....
Who would be a fighter 10/wiz 10 when they can be an EK? Who would play a rogue 10/wiz 10 when they can play an Arcane Trickster, or a Mystic Theurge, etc.?
The EK would use magic to beat a fighter, and fighting to beat a wizard. The AT would out-sneak a wizard and out-magic a rogue.
After all, what self-respecting AT would stoop so low as to engage in a fair fight? Hey, what do I look like, a paladin?
He's going to use his magic and stealth to make sure the odds are in his favor, and he'll get a full round in before anyone knows he's there. The next round, too. With his sneakiness and a good initiative bonus, his foes will be hard-pressed to beat him to the punch.
These multiclassed PrCs have strengths of their own. They pay a real penalty at low levels to learn their tricks, but they're fun to play.
The MT gets a lot of guff around here, but he's the king of pre-encounter buffs. Like any wizard or cleric, he likes to plan ahead, and by the time the battle starts, his party will have a lot of good benefits going on. A higher-level caster can get rid of some of those buffs, but probably not all of them, and it cost him an action just to try it. If the MT is summoning monsters while all this is going on, those poor enemy casters will have a hard time of things.
I ride dirtbikes. Among that crowd, people will say "It's 10% bike, 90% rider." That's demonstrably true, in my experience.
I'd say it's true of PCs, too. It's 10% what's on your character sheet, 90% what you do with it.
You quoted a list of characters who are not jacks of all trades and masters of none, and handwaved where I pointed out how "jacks of all trades and masters of none" suck balls in 3e.
Hey, you're the one implying they underwent a variety of careers. You explain it.
Then why build the fighter/wizard/eldritch knight if the bard is better?
If you have system mastery, you don't, because you sit down and calculate out the pitfalls. If you don't have system mastery, though, how do you know that a bard is a better fighter/wizard at 7th level than character who uses the prestige class specifically designed for fighter/wizard builds?
If, say, the Adept was sitting in the main section with the PC classes, it would be readily understood that it is a design mistake. Or at least that players should be warned up front that it's strictly inferior to playing a "real" caster. (Indeed, the 3.x DMGs went so far as to repeatedly warn that the classes were weaker than PC classes, even though they were off in a separate book).
However, the multiclass option just sits around and tempts people who don't have system mastery into bad builds (or builds that suck for a long time before catching up), with no warning. Is that a real problem? Well, Captain Marsh, who started this thread, ran into just that problem with his son's character.
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
So what is the built? Is he a fighter/wizard or a fighter/sorcerer or a fighter/bard?
Playing an eldritch knight is hard, but they can be more powerful than a pure fighter can. A big mistake is putting on a fullplate and trying to cast fireball all day, no good, more of that later.
Using Pathfinder rules you must remember there are feats that are not OGL/OGC. I suspect WoTC smack them over if they even hit that we can use feats like Practiced Spellcaster (from Complete Arcane and Complete Divine).
I’m not sure wants your son wants. A Wizard/fighter a Fighter/wizard or fighter/spellcaster. Does he want a Wizard with fighting skills or a fighter with that can cast some spells?
An eldritch knight based on a fighter/bard would give you better saves, better BAB, more skills, better skills, more hit points, inspire courage, and the ability to cast spells in light armor or medium mithral armor without suffering ACP and use shields, etc. He would be more of a fighter that can cast some spells than a spellcaster. If your son want the wizard spells but higher BAB and access to higher fighter feats such as Weapon specialisation I suggest changing the Prerequisites to.
This way his BAB will be better, his power attack, will be better and he would be able to take weapon specialisation as a level 1 eldritch knight and greater weapon focus at character level 11.
Lets talk about armor. A common mistake is to use armor. Don’t. He is a spellcaster. Use mage armor, shield, blur, Mirror Image, displacement, improved invisibility, Displacement, stoneskin. Heck, he don’t need armor.
If he wants armor, the he have some choices:
I’m not sure why he wouldn’t hold his ground vs. a wizard or a fighter. He only loose 2 level as a spell caster and you can always pick Practiced Spellcaster and he will have MUCH more hit points than a wizard and will be able to use weapons and have a great BAB, nice if you use stuff like Rays.
As for the fighter. Well he will lose 3 BAB, but he will have stuff like blur, Mirror Image, displacement, improved invisibility, fly. How will the fighter hit him? He can also use stuff like RoE, glitterdust, slow, grease. If he use UMD he will have access to a lot of cool wands. Heroism, Divine Favor, Barkskin. Or he cast just boost himself with stuff like enlarge person, greater magic weapon, etc. Or he can Summon monsters to help him.
Last piece of advice. A fighter/sorcerer is not a bad choice. The get some nice Bloodline powers, and eschew materials, Use magic device as a class skill and need not to prepare spells. I need not say charisma is nice to have from a role playing perspective.
Finally: Don’t be afraid to use house rules, but use theme wise.
Page 9 in Pathfinder Core rule book: The Most Important Rule - Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs.
Me, I would not Eliminate all penalties for multi-classing, I would perhaps adjust them somewhat or change the Prerequisites to some PrC. I might even change some PrC such as the Shadowdancer.
But remember there is a reason a level 10 fighter have better BAB and more feats than a eldritch knight. Fighters don’t have spells.
You quoted a list of characters who are not jacks of all trades and masters of none, and handwaved where I pointed out how "jacks of all trades and masters of none" suck balls in 3e.
Clean up your language and cool down
How about taking another look at the non-associated class mechanism? There was a thread about it a while back.
A wizard 4/fighter 2/eldritch knight 5 character is equivalent to level 10.
It saves a level. It's not much, but a little bit helps. If you went without a PrC, you might get:
Wizard 7/Fighter 6 = Level 10 equivalent.
How about taking another look at the non-associated class mechanism? There was a thread about it a while back.
A wizard 4/fighter 2/eldritch knight 5 character is equivalent to level 10.
It saves a level. It's not much, but a little bit helps. If you went without a PrC, you might get:
Wizard 7/Fighter 6 = Level 10 equivalent.
a cleric 7 / fighter 6 would also be level 10 equivalent, except it will be better than a single class in nearly every way.
It is a decent option, but it gives some complications of it's own
::waves at DM::Are you Pale from Necro or something?
Got it in one. :D
a cleric 7 / fighter 6 would also be level 10 equivalent, except it will be better than a single class in nearly every way.It is a decent option, but it gives some complications of it's own
You might have to count cleric and fighter as associated, thus removing that specific problem.
You might have to count cleric and fighter as associated, thus removing that specific problem.
a cleric 7 / fighter 6 would also be level 10 equivalent, except it will be better than a single class in nearly every way.It is a decent option, but it gives some complications of it's own
It also goes for rogue / fighter, bard / fighter, monk / fighter, druid / fighter. All these classes will have a higher BAB than a single class fighter thus making 3 attacks.. that might just be a bit off-putting for the single classed fighter.
If you have system mastery, you don't, because you sit down and calculate out the pitfalls. If you don't have system mastery, though, how do you know that a bard is a better fighter/wizard at 7th level than character who uses the prestige class specifically designed for fighter/wizard builds?
If, say, the Adept was sitting in the main section with the PC classes, it would be readily understood that it is a design mistake. Or at least that players should be warned up front that it's strictly inferior to playing a "real" caster. (Indeed, the 3.x DMGs went so far as to repeatedly warn that the classes were weaker than PC classes, even though they were off in a separate book).
However, the multiclass option just sits around and tempts people who don't have system mastery into bad builds (or builds that suck for a long time before catching up), with no warning. Is that a real problem? Well, Captain Marsh, who started this thread, ran into just that problem with his son's character.
Well put! And the Bard name doesn't exactly scream fighter/wizard from just the sound of it.
I suppose that's a problem we'll run into in this fashion, however. Multi-class builds done to enter a PrC WITHOUT really knowing what you're actually going to end up with. I'd advise a clear character concept from the start (going so far as to preplan level advancement as much as you can). Without such a roadmap (which can also serve as a crystal ball for what the end result looks like along the way), players will undoubtedly be dismayed by their results not matching their intent. We're unlikely to solve the multi-class penalties for certain builds, but with an understanding of their existence and effects on such a build, a player can then take steps to avoid such a build or attempt to mitigate those perceived problems.
I did some playing with spread sheet and multi classing. I've found that by the end, level 20 you will always be less off than the full class and not by little in most cases but by a lot. But I did notice that there are levels where multi classing can be more powerful. It's usually about 3 levels in the middle with some builds. You kind of boost up then stagnate for a bit while the other classes pass you but while in the sweet spot you are better than the rest. At least that's how it looks on paper.
Like did up paladin/bard/dragon disciple that comes out pretty awesome around 7-9th level but then drops off after that. By the end the straight Paladin or Bard are lot more powerful.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I don't understand the "Fighter 10/wizard 10 suxx" arguement.
It takes some cleverness, but is doable.
With the tweaks to dispel magic, the BBEG can pop off a dispel magic and remove one of the 10/10's buffs, or a greater dispel and remove up to 5. That's an action he has to take, either swift or standard.
Your acid arrows, glitter dust (to counter invisibility) sleet storm, black tenticles cloud kill and mage's hound all don't care about SR. With your mage armour, shield and one handed weapon, you can provide flanking oportunities if needed and your haste likely covers the party just fine.
You choose not to have cosmic power and you choose not to go all Lancelot-at-the-end-of-Exclaiber. But you aren't useless, if you're smart.
I'm generally okay with the multiclass PrC combos, yes you take a short term hit in effectiveness but it's not as if lvl 20 is particularly difficult to hit if you assume fast progression.
Further I think that a lot of people are looking back at 1e/2e multiclassing as being better than it really was. Going back to 1e the F/MU was okay the first couple of levels but afterwards being the equivalent of at least 1/2 levels behind in each class was a massive penalty.
Take for example the two most common multiclass options F/MU and F/MU/Th
At 30,000 XP assuming no bonus XP from high prerequisites a party with 5 characters might be the following.
Cleric 6
Fighter 5
Magic User 5
Thief 6
Fighter/Magic User 4/4
Fighter/Magic/Thief 3/3/4
Looks okay right? Except look at average hit points (not including con bonus).
Cleric 6 - 27.5
Fighter 5 - 27
Magic User - 12.5
Thief - 21
F/MU - 16
F/MU/Thief - 13
Other advantages
Cleric - level 3 spells (granted 1e cleric spells pretty much blow but prayer, locate object and dispel magic are decent picks)
Fighter - 2 Better Thac0, more weapon proficiencies, I can't remember when the fighter goes 3/2 but it's around this level)
Magic User - 3rd level spells
Thief - Better skill use, better backstab multiplier, better Thac0
The F/MU gets armored spellcasting, 2nd level spells and good weaponry but his HPs mean that he's not a good front-line fighter (the fighter and cleric are better beaters at this level). He's a good 5th character but he really can't replace the full magic user or the full fighter in the party.
The F/MU/Thief has a ton of versatility but his low HP make him a liability in most games (remember the bad guys have fireball at this level too - a 5th level fireball does 17.5 points of damage more than enough to knock this guy into the negatives). He's also likely limited to leather armor in order to use skills :(
On top of that there are the brutal demihuman level restrictions which made your F/MU cry as the rest of the PCs hit name level and the F/MU got stuck at 7th :(
In contrast the 3.x/Pathfinder model of multiclassing means that you take a short term penalty until you unlock a good PrC and start getting a good progression going. Sure it's a tax on versatility - D&D rewards specialists but whether the tax is too high or too low is definitely open to debate.
Some people look at the Wizard 5/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 2 and say this is a mediocre character, whereas some look at the Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 10/ Arcane Archer 4 and go this character has no significant weaknesses vis-a-vis the fighter 20 and is at least comparable in strength to the wizard 20. About the only class it really doesn't stack up against is the cleric/druid but that's because the cleric gets full progression spellcasting, 2 good saves, and 3/4 BAB progression for the cost of being crap at skills :| Still a fighter with +16/17 BAB that can time stop and self buff is a pretty decent character.
In contrast the duskblade (full BAB progression, half caster progression) gets a better BAB and much weaker spells as well as a limited spell selection. Sure he doesn't take a big hit at 6th-9th but his high end threat is much lower.
Sure I'd love for Pathfinder to have included a Gish base class in the APG (I think there is more call for an arcane fighter than a cleric/rogue base class) but they chose not to. Maybe they felt like the Eldritch Knight was enough or that people would be happy playing the 3.x Duskblade, I don't know.
But to say that pathfinder multiclassing suxx0r pretty much ignores the initial design goal of having a backwards compatible 3.x clone. Unless you were willing to abandon that goal you simply can't abandon the design choice that the 3.x team chose to make 10 years ago, and that choice was that spellcaster multiclassing is only worthwhile in conjunction with PrCs and that you take a short term hit qualifying for that PrC.
Druid admittedly had a unusual XP chart. It was a bit slower starting initially and then gained levels rapidly until it hit a plateau around Druid name level. The you had that limited number of slots available thing that was intended to be a break on advancement. Also note that the 12th-14th level progression on druids is brutal. You hit 12th faster than a priest but then you slow down a huge degree.
Fighter/Druid (an acceptable 2e multiclass) was pretty decent (d8 and d10 HP progression makes for okay HPs) but it was also pretty limited by the druid's armor intolerance. Druid/Mage was flexible but the lack of HP could definitely be crippling. Later on half-elves could go ranger/druid which was pretty decent but it was a crazy MAD multi-class with 5 out of 6 ability prerequisites.
|
I don't know. I like the concept of muticlassing and prestige classing, but not as much the 3E treatment of them. I like the Kit and multiclassing concepts of 2E much more as they address the conceptual issues from level 1 on without taking a hit to effectivness (unless you choose them on purpose).
Prestige Classes I love in concept, (though not the sheer number of them :) ), but they are often too rigid to really work. There are far to many that 1.) fit the concept of a character and 2.) your character can meet the prereqs for, but just do not do what they are intende to do unless you are the exact concept that the creater had in mind.
Saying that your DM can houserule is not helping anyone though, because most will outright say no for fear of "game balance" or lazyness :). Although I hate the Heirophant class, it was a good example of how I think many prestige classes should have worked. It offered a lot of option that you could take as you wanted, and it covered a lot of possibilities, (such as making your Cleric/Druid a Wizard feat-wise, or allowing you to enhance your spellcasting, or Turning, or make specific spells like a Domain spell castable more than 1/Day).
PF PRCs are way better off than they were in 3.X. Skills, prereqs, and extra toys were all changed in ways that make the classes stronger and more fun to play.
Remember the 3.5 Arcane trickster? Look at the PF version. More skills available, due to the redesign of how skills are acquired, more reasonable prereqs, and some goodies for synchronicity. the Invisible Rogue ability and Surprise Spells capstone ability make him a good sneak attacker, with the stealth and magic available to pull it off without getting himself killed for trying it.
The downside? He'll be a rogue3/wizard3 or sorcerer/bard4 at one point of his career. Pretty lame, but I just consider it paying his dues for choosing a more difficult path.
The other PrCs got some love, too. They mop the floor with their 3.X counterparts.
They also give us nice templates for other possible multiclassed PrCs, should a player want to try out an unusual combination. A monk/sorcerer (something like the Fist of Zuoken from Expanded Psionics Handbook) or a bard/druid PrC could be a lot of fun.
The "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" standard is still a great way for a party to go, but there are lots of ways to spice it up for particular character concepts. Not a problem for most players. With a little imagination, they'll find ways to stay relevant even at sub-optimum levels.
I'll try create a few multi-class PrC's while I am sick, good chance I'll post a few sometime this week.
hmmm there is the nightbane stalker in complete adventureer as a rogue / cleric type and a divine fist in complete divine for cleric / monk I think, the names might be a bit off.
I still want a Roguish Cleric or Monk/Cleric. In my opinion, neither have been done well as of yet.
I wouldn't mind actual prestige class templates, though. :)
Well the Inquisitor is a Rogue Cleric hybrid class. It's not totally awesome sauce but it clearly fits that role well.
Monks are simply an awkward class to multi-class with long term. So many of their abilities are tied to monk level so unless you do prcs which do monk advancement + extra stuff then they tend to be best for low level dips to get bonus feats and decent saves.
The core problem is that there really isn't an incentive to choose anything to multiclass with cleric. It's already got good armor and decent weapon selection as well as 2 good saves, good HPs, and full spell progression. Unless it's a cleric ++ PrC (and really what's the point cleric is already frakking awesome) there is virtually no reason to leave the class. Full BAB progression might get you a 4th iterative attack at high level but it's not worth slowing down spell access. Multiclassing rogue to get skills and sneak attack is a pretty weak option. Paladin can be okay as a dip (smite + divine grace is a nice feature) but outside of certain concepts it's almost always better to stay cleric.
So you are left with the cleric/arcane and cleric/psion options. Theurge definitely has issues with the mid-level power hit and honestly outside of a limited number of circumstances (where the party only has a single spellcaster and both bases need to be covered) I don't know what it brings to the table. It's got a ton of potential spells but if we assume that the average group plays 4 encounters a day and each encounter averages 2-3 rounds in length that means that unless there is a ton of time for pre-combat buffing and the theurge has a bunch of quickened spells prepared the theurge is often leaving a large number of spells uncast at the end of the day. After all they are still limited in the number of actions they can do per round. However if you make progression as a theurge too easy it will become the default strategy so I'm kinda torn.
The simple fact that theurge combines two of the best classes in the game makes me okay with them taking a decent size hit around 6-10th. I'd almost never recommend it outside of a 2/3-man or a 5+ man group but some people like "ultimate power".
|
|
Yah, but both are not that great. Most of the Divine Fist's abilities don't stack, (because Complete Divine was so horrible about editing and mechanics) and the few Rogue/Cleric classes are either focusd a lot on Rogue with minor Cleric abilities, (some that don't even stack with Cleric), or way to specific on a type of CLeric/Rogue like the Nightstalker which is LG only. Granted, it had some nice features but it didn't work much beyond it's very focused build. Another good example was the Divine Trickster, just failing beyond being a gnome prankster. Not meaning to sound harsh, as much as say that the few classes outthere are not really what I mean. They are for example a Monk/Cleric, but a very specific build type that does not work well for any other type of concept you might get from mingling those two concepts.
Another problem with Cleric/Rogue is that they tended to do things that PF made universal anway, such as Sneak Attack Undead. So the (or at least a) primary reward is pointless.
There was alot of talk about this subject when we went around about the fighter/mage base class a while back. I think multiclassing as presented is inherently flawed, particularly for casting classes. Unless that can somehow be changed, I think the better route is additional base classes as opposed to things like the eldritch knight that rely on multiclassing.
I saw it in the beguiler, the spell theif, and even the duskblade(certain quirks/issues notwithstanding). Fun classes (in my opinion ofcourse) can be created by having mixed base classes. And they are much easier to balance then multiclassing. After all, the paladin (fighter/cleric), bard (sorceror/rogue), and ranger (druid /fighter) all are already examples of this. If done right it can be a promising addition to the game. And I sincerly hope that paizo consideres in their far off publications to include such base classes.
Multi-class characters are always going to be behind someone who focuses on a single goal. It's just as true as in real life. You can't be great or knowledgeable about everything. If you want diversity you will have to accept a measure of sacrifice to other abilities. A fighter 8/ wizard 3 will have a lesser BAB than an 11th level fighter, but he also has the options of casting bears endurance, bulls strength, cats grace, spider climb, blur, invisibility, mirror image, darkness, see invisibility, protection from arrows, resist energy, expeditious retreat, feather fall, ray of enfeeblement, true strike, shield, protection from evil/good/etc. Sure the fighter is going to have to spend some feats in arcane armor training, but lots of these low level spells can change the battlefield in the favor of the fighter/wizard.
While this class combination is not nearly as strong straight up as a pure fighter or wizard, the character will have several spells at their disposal that they can use to ehance their role playing abilities and hold their own in combat.
|
|
I still want a Roguish Cleric or Monk/Cleric. In my opinion, neither have been done well as of yet.
I wouldn't mind actual prestige class templates, though. :)
Check out the latest issue of Kobold Quarterly, there is an article in there about just such classes for Pathfinder. Never played 2e, but from the sounds of it they would be akin to kits, changing around some of the base abilities of classes. The monk/cleric sounds like a lot of fun. All told there were 4 "remixes", ad they call them: monk/cleric, 2 styles of rogue/cleric, and bardish/cleric. Good stuff.
I may be mistaken, but I am getting the impression that the only factor that the individuals how are complaining about multi-classing are looking at are the combat statistics.
I do not believe that the effects of multi-classing should only be viewed of in relation to combat. What options are opened up outside of combat by multi-classing? What are the goals for the character that the player has in mind? What happens along the way to change those goals?
Are the players having fun (even if their characters do not meet the standards of the optimization crowd)? If they are having fun, why worry about having the "best" options for every choice in the character design and progression?
|
Funny, I hear about people who changed careers all the time, and they're never described as hopelessly behind people who didn't.
I've been inclined to agree with you for most of this thread, but I can't do it here.
Multiclassing isn't a career change, it's taking part in two careers at once; you don't ever stop being a Fighter after you've learned to be a Wizard - you still use all of your collected knowledge to succeed in your goals (even if some of the knowledge it a bit behind/dated). It's not like going from being a Garbageman to a Lawyer.
I may be mistaken, but I am getting the impression that the only factor that the individuals how are complaining about multi-classing are looking at are the combat statistics.
I do not believe that the effects of multi-classing should only be viewed of in relation to combat. What options are opened up outside of combat by multi-classing? What are the goals for the character that the player has in mind? What happens along the way to change those goals?
Are the players having fun (even if their characters do not meet the standards of the optimization crowd)? If they are having fun, why worry about having the "best" options for every choice in the character design and progression?
I think most people don't play in games that are 80%+ role playing and thus want a character that isn't worthless until level 20 and is less likely to die when confronting a Troll.
I may be mistaken, but I am getting the impression that the only factor that the individuals how are complaining about multi-classing are looking at are the combat statistics.
I do not believe that the effects of multi-classing should only be viewed of in relation to combat. What options are opened up outside of combat by multi-classing? What are the goals for the character that the player has in mind? What happens along the way to change those goals?
Are the players having fun (even if their characters do not meet the standards of the optimization crowd)? If they are having fun, why worry about having the "best" options for every choice in the character design and progression?
The effects of just about any rule are viewed through the lens of combat or out of combat utility and not roleplaying because the system itself is largely comprised of rules for combat or utility situations that have very little to do with roleplaying.
Besides, the current limitations of the multiclasing mechanics do much more to inhibit roleplay with arbitrary limitations than they do to enhance a character in any way.
I've been inclined to agree with you for most of this thread, but I can't do it here.
Multiclassing isn't a career change, it's taking part in two careers at once; you don't ever stop being a Fighter after you've learned to be a Wizard - you still use all of your collected knowledge to succeed in your goals (even if some of the knowledge it a bit behind/dated). It's not like going from being a Garbageman to a Lawyer.
Multiclassing between adventuring classes is more akin to going from being a Lawyer to being a Salesman, or Writer, or Judge, or Politician. You are largely still using a huge chunk of your existing skillset to help further your new career of choice every day.
|
|
... people don't play in games that are 80%+ role playing and thus want a character that isn't worthless until level 20 and is less likely to die when confronting a Troll.
That, too. I've said it before, but I feel it bears repeating: Pathfinder is a classic D&D setting featuring a guild (of people called 'Pathfinders'), who are impetuous maniacs who make their living by exploring dark, dangerous places and fighting things most normal people would run and hide from.
This is especially true for Pathfinder Society, the official pathfinder metacampaign/plot. While roleplaying can (and does, if Aziz the Great has anything to say about it) occur, is mostly focused on solving a potentially deadly problem; so wanting some sort of solidarity from a multiclass build isn't really that out of the question. Especially when it can get your character killed forever.
Edited for Moro's Editing. Edit. Edit. Edit.
I may be mistaken, but I am getting the impression that the only factor that the individuals how are complaining about multi-classing are looking at are the combat statistics.
I do not believe that the effects of multi-classing should only be viewed of in relation to combat. What options are opened up outside of combat by multi-classing? What are the goals for the character that the player has in mind? What happens along the way to change those goals?
Are the players having fun (even if their characters do not meet the standards of the optimization crowd)? If they are having fun, why worry about having the "best" options for every choice in the character design and progression?
Hows the weather up there on your high horse?
You can decry 'optimizers' all you like, but the truth of the matter is combat is a big part of the game. It is also where the overwhelming majority of the rules go. Do me a favor and count how many pages/words in the core rulebook describe things for combat. Then look at how many describe things pertain directly to roleplay.
Maybe you play in a roleplay heavy group, and combat is rare, but such is not the case in my group. We have large and complex combats that often take a long time (in the real world sometimes 2 hours or more for big fights). That is a long time to suck, regardless of what roleplay opportunities are presented to me because i know how to cast prestidigitation as well as swing a sword.
The fact that roleplay opportunities are opened does not make up for a loss in combat capability. You will still be involved in just as many fights. An interesting aspect to your character's personality/goals will not change that. And indeed because of hour unrestricted roleplaying is, and how open we have always been to changing things like the flavor of a class (to fit a homebrew campaign setting for instance), there is little we need from game designers in terms of roleplay. Give us an outline, we'll do the rest. In fact, for me at least, thats the fun part. Especially with a rarely used (in my group) character class, i get to set a certain standard for the behavior and traits of a typical class member.
Not to mention, whether I am a bard 26 charisma with a 30 diplomacy, or a gruff fighter with no ranks in social skills and a charisma of 6, I can still contribute and enjoy roleplay encounters. I can give the ungraceful direct (and upseting) comments that my diplomatic counterparts smooth out, and that can be fun. There is little i need from the game on that end.
Combat on the other hand has to be rigid, there have to be rules, and the way in which you contribute is defined between the covers of the rulebook, and there is very little you can do to change that. And no matter what your group, when it happens it is time consuming. If you are not contributing much or getting outshined at every turn, it wont be fun.
There is also a difference between worrying about the 'best' character options, and worrying about 'good' character options. The combat system is based on a whole bunch of assumptions. On of them is a 4-5 person party can take on a certain threat at a certain level. (you know CR). If my character is less able to contribute to beating an enemy then a straight character would, we have a problem, and my DM's life is harder (assuming his goal is not a tpk of course). He has to worry about gimpy McFinigan who decided to go fighter/wizard and cant really do either martial combat or magic very well. So really his 4 person party is 3 and a half people. And that CR[level+2] boss fight goes from hard but managable to party wipe.
Maybe this is not important to you. Maybe your group doesnt care much for the CR system, and just set up encounters where you mostly talk your way out. That is fine, but it is not what is presented between the covers of the pathfinder core rulebook. And it is that content that people are considering when they talk about problems with multiclassing.
... people don't play in games that are 80%+ role playing and thus want a character that isn't worthless until level 20 and is less likely to die when confronting a Troll.That, too. I've said it before, but I feel it bears repeating: Pathfinder is a classic D&D setting featuring a guild (of people called 'Pathfinders'), who are impetuous maniacs who make their living by exploring dark, dangerous places and fighting things most normal people would run and hide from.
This is especially true for Pathfinder Society, the official pathfinder metacampaign/plot. While roleplaying can (and does, if Aziz the Great has anything to say about it) occur, is mostly focused on solving a potentially deadly problem; so wanting some sort of solidarity from a multiclass build isn't really that out of the question. Especially when it can get your character killed forever.
No, multiclassing between adventuring classes is more akin to going from being a Lawyer to being a Salesman, or Writer, or Judge, or Politician. You are largely still using a huge chunk of your existing skillset to help further your new career of choice every day.Go over my post once more, if you please - I''m pretty sure you just misread what I wrote, told me I'm wrong, then reiterated my point. Astounding.
Perhaps I shouldn't have started with the word no...I was in effect agreeing with your point. Edited.
The CR system is hardly exact, some parties will wipe the floor with an equivalent CR foe whereas some CR appropriate challenges will give them a big problem.
Further the CR system generally is built on an assumption that the PC group is composed on 1 wizard, 1 cleric, 1 rogue, and 1 fighter. If the party is composed of 4 spellcaster then a lot of the CR system is suspect.
I definitely think that the Eldritch Knight takes a hit when initially multiclassing. He's inferior to the single class wizard in terms of battlefield control and blasting (largely a function of falling behind in terms of spells) and he's initially inferior to the fighter as pure melee (lower BAB, missing the first iterative attack) however he still possesses a good number of buffs that he can use on himself and the rest of the party, a decent number of utility spells, he has improved durability (Higher HPs, better fort save, some armor use), and he can actually melee to a degree.
As he continues to level he begins to make up some ground on the wizard and becomes a more an more potent front-line fighter. Eventually he'll get 4 iterative attacks and still have access to 9th level spells.
As a player do I want to have an eldritch knight in place of a pure caster or a pure fighter? Probably not but in a 5-man group I could definitely see a party gaining more out of an eldritch knight multiclass than a bard.
Now if you want to say that an Eldritch Knight should be just as powerful as a wizard while still being just as powerful as a fighter across all levels then I can't say I agree. Part of the problem is that a) you should pay some price for being a generalist - generalists simply aren't as good as specialists in the game and b)a wizard and fighter have dramatically different power curves. Adding levels of wizard to a fighter generally results in a stronger fighter whereas adding levels of rogue or fighter to a spellcasting class results in a slightly weaker yet more flexible caster.
Perhaps rather than arguing that multiclass characters should be as strong as full casters we should be arguing that full casters need to be reduced in power so that they don't dominate mid to high level play.
Now if you want to say that an Eldritch Knight should be just as powerful as a wizard while still being just as powerful as a fighter across all levels then I can't say I agree.
I keep seeing people bringing this up, and just have to point out that I've not seen anyone in any post in any of these threads ask for this at all.
Now if you want to say that an Eldritch Knight should be just as powerful as a wizard while still being just as powerful as a fighter across all levels then I can't say I agree.
I keep seeing people bringing this up, and just have to point out that I've not seen anyone in any post in any of these threads ask for this at all.
Some specificity for what the multi-classers do want, however, may help to organize response.
Some specificity for what the multi-classers do want, however, may help to organize response.Now if you want to say that an Eldritch Knight should be just as powerful as a wizard while still being just as powerful as a fighter across all levels then I can't say I agree.
I keep seeing people bringing this up, and just have to point out that I've not seen anyone in any post in any of these threads ask for this at all.
Well that's easy: they want to be able to multiclass and remain a capable and relevant character across all levels of their characters career. At no given point should a multiclass of X total character levels perform as if they are the equivalent of X-1, X-2, or X-3 character levels of a single-classed character.