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 some people indicate that Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 10/ Generic +1 spellcasting PrC 4 should be better than a gestalt (fighter -3/wizard -3). Obviously almost everyone agrees that full gestalt is too powerful (all of the strengths, no weaknesses) so your target is somewhere in between.
Some people think the additional flexibility is worth the hit to maximum utility whereas others feel that multiclassing reduces maximum utility far too much. Further we also have to compare the eldritch knight to other "gestalt" base classes like the bard (wizard/rogue), paladin (fighter/cleric), ranger (fighter/druid), etc. Should the high-end utility of the multiclass PrC combo be that much higher than a single-class Bard or Paladin?
Further there is the problem of where to penalize the multiclass PrC combo. Currently the penalty is front-loaded, you generally have to take the hit while you are multi-classing and for the first level or two of the PrC. Otherwise there would be no incentive not to leapfrog from PrC to PrC in order to avoid the penalties.
So basically you need to come up with a system where there is a slight penalty for multiclassing caster (this problem is less profound with noncasters) but that the end result is (class -2/class -2) or (class -1/class -1). Further you generally want to make it so that you enter a PrC no earlier than 6th level (basic design choice). Eldritch Knight can be improved slightly by giving +1 spellcasting at level 1 but some people would argue that's not enough.
Another option would be to count non casting multiclass levels at some fractional rate for unlocking spells.
Thus a fighter 2/Wizard 4 might be counted as a level 5 wizard in terms of caster level and spell access (4 x 1 + 2 x 0.5). Other caster benefits such as bonus feats and abilities would not be received.
A final design choice would be to allow multiclass PCs the ability to buy off the penalty in a manner similar to how some variants allowed people to buy off +LA adjustments. The eldritch knight multiclasser would take a hit initially but he could devote extra XP to buying off that penalty so that after a few levels the fighter 2/wizard 4 isn't treated as a level 6 character in terms of XP but rather as a level 5 character. Thus they could end their career as a Fighter 2/Wizard 19.
All of those choice pretty much mean breaking with the established 3.x ruleset. I think that's acceptable but not currently in the goals/interest of Paizo as a company. I think it's definitely something worth addressing if Paizo ever makes a pathfinder 2.0 down the road or releases a variant options book ala Unearthed Arcana.
For me, it all about the fun, it has to be because I didn't think out my character and I am kind of stumbling through her development. Currently my Bard 4/Ftr 1/ DD 2 is having a blast, (I plan on taking lvls of EK as well), she has a AC of 27, and 85 hp, I cast mirror image before combat and go to work. I stand there and take shots, flank for the single class rogue, keep meanies off the single class Sorcerer, and occasionally hit the bad guys, (and not do a ton of damage). There is a Cleric 6/Ftr 1 that does pretty much the same thing, and then when the battle is over we heal, we've only had 1 party member drop. If I had a complaint, it would be that my spell capability stinks, but it is what it is, and I am able to do some fun stuff, oh yeah, I'm the face of the party too. Am I a great fighter or spellcaster nope, am I a great party member, you better believe it. Am I having fun, absolutely.
As far as I can see none of my multi-classed players are weak compared to the single classes, only thing I would change is the caster level.
Stack all the casterlevels up on top of eachother and count non-caster levels as 1/2, that way you have a decent casterlevel for your level, and every character has a single casterlevel for all his / her classes.
A fighter 6 / wizard 6 will have a BAB +9 and casterlevel 9, still got the spells of a 6th level wizard, but less likely to be dispelled more powerful spells more likely to penetrate SR.
Because imbalances lead to resentment pretty quickly, and create additional headaches for the GM.If they are having fun, why worry about having the "best" options for every choice in the character design and progression?
Only if you play with intellectual toddlers.
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.
It is unfortunate that you interpreted my comments as an attack. But even if you did interpret it that way, I do not believe that that gives you the right to be deliberately insulting.
Several other constuctive comment and points.
I feel that the interpretation that a multiclass character cannot contribute in combat, or at least not effectively, is incorrect. For example, the much insulted fighter 10/wizard 10 has a BAB of 15, Fort of 10, Reflex of 6 and Will of 10. This puts them in the realm of those abilities with the all of the other medium BAB progression characters.
Quick combat stat comparision:
FTR 20, BAB 20, Fort 12, Reflex 6, Will 6, no spells
Wizard 20, BAB 10, Fort 6, Reflex 6, Will 12, level 9 spells
FTR 10/Mage 10, BAB 15, Fort 10, Reflex 6, Will 6, level 5 spells
BARD 20, BAB 15, Fort 6, Reflex 12, Will 12, level 6 spells
Rogue 20, BAB 15, Fort 6, Reflex 12, Will 6, no spells
Cleric 20, BAB 15, Fort 12, Reflex 6, Will 12, level 9 spells
FTR 1/Mage 9/EK 10, BAB 15, Fort 10, Reflex 6, Will 10, level 9 spells
As JFK68 suggested, they can easily aid in flanking, allowing better attack odds for all and to allow the rogue to gain sneak attack damage.
A comment that comes up often is the "suck" when you start off multiclassing. It may depend on your choices on when you take levels. If you plan on going the EK route, then you may want to consider starting off as a wizard for 5 level, then doing the fighter level followed by the EK levels and mixing in a few more wizard levels.
If you discuss this with your GM ahead of time, and perhaps convince them to allow you to change that "weapon proficiency: shortbow" into a "weapon focus: shortbow" when you take the fighter level and gain all martial weapons, you can build in the roleplaying aspect of your weapon training along with the mechanical aspect of the feats. Add in the magical knack trait and the effect of your spell casting is reduced.
Another comment that has come up is the "your spells will fizzle against CR appropriate SR". This may be the case with direct damaging spells, but less so if the caster makes the most of their spell list, such as taking things like blur, invisibility, displacement and greater invisibility cast on allies, or battlefield control spells like black tentacles.
Only if you play with intellectual toddlers.Because imbalances lead to resentment pretty quickly, and create additional headaches for the GM.If they are having fun, why worry about having the "best" options for every choice in the character design and progression?
Because everybody just loves participating in games wherein they are placed at a significant disadvantage when compared to the other players, and those who do not are mental midgets, right?
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.
If they are having fun, why worry about having the "best" options for every choice in the character design and progression?Because imbalances lead to resentment pretty quickly, and create additional headaches for the GM.
That is why I mentioned "having fun".
There are so many different ways that imbalances can crop up in a game, and of different priority for different people, that I don't believe that we will ever be able to resolve them all to everyones satisfaction.
Part of a GM's job, in my opinion, is to guide the players if they are making choices that will have a less than desired outcome. This applies to all aspects of character development. One that jumps to mind is the ranger's choices for favored enemy and terrain. Another is when a player plans on taking "X" PrC when they reach Y level, when the GM will not/does not allow that PrC class.
|
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.
That... that honestly doesn't make any sense.
I will be using a Fighter-Wizard (aka Eldrich Knight) as my example, but it's really more general than that.
If you are saying that a [Fighter 1 / Wizard 5] shouldn't be any less as a whole than a [Fighter 6] or a [Wizard 6], I agree with you. I think everyone would agree with you. In fact, I think this point is so non-controversial that I do not understand why you would want to make it.
As long as your class levels are arranged somewhat intelligently, multiclassing shouldn't make a character significantly less effective overall.
But if you are saying that a [Fighter 1 / Wizard 5] shouldn't be any less as fighting than a straight up [Fighter 6] and shouldn't be any less at casting than a straight up [Wizard 6], I think you are nuts.
Multiclassing makes a character more versatile. In order for the game to be fair and balanced, this versatility has to come at a cost, usually in effectiveness. A multiclass character can do more, but each of the things he can do is less effective.
The "fighter mage" camp seems to want a class that can fight as well as a paladin and cast as well as a sorcerer, which is utterly broken in every conceivable way.
The Eldrich Knight is an excellent "Fighter Mage", and can be configured somewhat by mixing up now many Fighter and Wizard levels you take.
The Bard is an excellent "Red Mage", with perhaps too much emphasis on skills and party support. But even so, the "Melee Bard" guide treantmonk put together demonstrates how this class can work as a "gish".
If you want to play a multiclass character, play it. Pathfinder supports the concept; they provided rules for it and even a race that excels at it.
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.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.
The argument is that Eldritch Knight currently functions as a gestalt character of (X-3)/(X-3). At 20th level the EK functions as a fighter equivalent to a 17th level fighter, however he also functions as the equivalent of a 17th level wizard.
I don't think anyone would contest that a Fighter 17 that can cast 9th level spells is better than a Fighter 20. Granted the Fighter 20 has plenty of feats that the EK won't have due to bonus feats but seriously 7th+ level spells pretty much crush any fighter feats mercilessly.
Now the question is whether a Wizard 17 with 4 attacks is the equivalent of a 20th level Wizard. Some people would say yes, some people would say no. Both have 9th level spells although the 20th level wizard has more spells. The 20th level wizard also has a higher caster level. I'm tempted to just stipulate that the wizard 20 has a slight edge in many conditions. Of course the EK is actually quite a bit better vs grapplers and can always go anti-magic and beat down with his iterative attacks.
I totally concede that at 6th-10th the EK definitely lags behind either the single class fighter and the single class wizard but it's almost impossible to create a mechanic that doesn't force the multiclass character to pay at least some penalty for their additional power.
Now if you are saying that a multiclass Wizard 9/Fighter 1/EK 10 should be functionally the equivalent to a gestalt Fighter 20/Wizard 20 then no I don't think you are going to find many buyers for that idea.
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.
Just out of curiosity (I'm not being snarky, it's a genuine question), but wasn't this the exact situation of Multiclass characters in AD&D 1st-2nd Edition?
I played very few AD&D on Pen and Paper (never liked it too much... now, many people would call me a blasphemer, but the entire 'Strength 18/xx' or the 'half attacks per round' for example were kind of ridiculous for me), but I played it a lot on CRPG - like the old Gold Box series (Champions of Krynn, Secret of Silver Blades, Gateway to the Savage Frontier...), which were based on 1st edition (despite what they declared on the manuals, the entire 'Ranger rolls 2d8 at first level, has a mix of Druid spells (first 3 spell-levels) and Wizard spells (first 2 spell-levels), and deals double damage on Giants' was 1st Ed), and the whole Baldur's Gate/ Planescape: Torment/ Icewind Dale (1 and expansion - 2 was 3rd Ed) series (which were 2nd Ed). And Multiclass characters were always lagging behind other characters.
Their hp were low (half HD + half Con bonus from each HD of each class - for example, a Fighter 2/ Thief 3 with Con 16 had (1d5+1)x2 + (1d3+1)x3 hp, scoring an average of 17 hp), their abilities were sub-optimal (with the same xp, I had Magic-Users which already could cast Fireballs (being 5th level), and Fighter/ Magic Users which still had only Stinking Clouds (they were 2nd level spells in previous editions) and Magic Missiles (being Fighter 4/ Magic User 4) ). However, they compensated with their versatility, since you could (for example) use Fighter weapons with your F/MU and help the other characters. Of course, if your intention was to be the main Fighter OR the main Magic User... well, good luck to you (and your group, as well).
And what about Dual Classes ? Suddenly you were not crippled - you were WORSE. You kept only the hp of your previous class - all other abilites were FROZEN until your new class was of a higher level than your old class. After that, your suppressed memories - poof ! - magically appeared back, and you became a true Gestalt character. Basically, 'From Zero to Hero' - except that your party was already hitting high levels...
Example: Fighter 7 (3/2 attacks, excluded Specializations) with Thac0 13 and 56 hp decided to become a Magic User - he returned to Thac0 20, forgot all his saves (taking the saves of a Magic User 1) and started to - ping, ping - peashot creatures like Gorgons and Hill Giants with Magic Missiles (1 PER DAY) for 1d4+1 damage ! The power, the power ! He was basically a Magic User 1st in every aspect, save the fact that he had still 56 hp (and he couldn't roll hp anymore until 8th level).
At 8th level... his Thac0 returned to 13 (the best value among that of a Fighter 7 and a Magic User 8), his saves used the best values among the two classes, he could use Longswords and Longbows again (Dagger, Dart and Quarterstaff only for 7 levels, sorry) and he returned to his 3/2 attacks per round. Ah, and of course, while doing this (70.000 xp to be a 7th level Fighter + 90.000 xp to be an 8th level Magic User), the straight Fighter of the group was 8th level already and the Magic User was 9th level. Of course, since level-up was much slower in 1st/2nd Edition, the chances to reach those levels were not so high as today (especially trying to use only Sleep spells against creatures with 5+ HD, which was the expected target of the rest of the party).
Personally I think there are benefits from the new (3.x and PRPG) Multiclass system (yes, even for casters - at least, they are not 'sitting ducks' when they finish their spells; they can always try to contribute to the party, rather than sitting on the edge of the road after casting a couple of spells) - but of course, you have to suffer a bit (for a few levels) and you have a better future taking the various 'Gestalt-PrC' made for them (Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster) rather than splitting the classes apart.
Of course, as always, YMMV.
If you are saying that a [Fighter 1 / Wizard 5] shouldn't be any less as a whole than a [Fighter 6] or a [Wizard 6], I agree with you. I think everyone would agree with you. In fact, I think this point is so non-controversial that I do not understand why you would want to make it.
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.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
As long as your class levels are arranged somewhat intelligently, multiclassing shouldn't make a character significantly less effective overall.
But it does exactly that.
But if you are saying that a [Fighter 1 / Wizard 5] shouldn't be any less as fighting than a straight up [Fighter 6] and shouldn't be any less at casting than a straight up [Wizard 6], I think you are nuts.
This is what I was pointing out that nobody is asking for, so not, that's not what I'm saying.
Multiclassing makes a character more versatile. In order for the game to be fair and balanced, this versatility has to come at a cost, usually in effectiveness. A multiclass character can do more, but each of the things he can do is less effective.
This is how multiclassing is supposed to work in theory; in practice, it doesn't quite work out that way because the costs are so prohibitive.
The "fighter mage" camp seems to want a class that can fight as well as a paladin and cast as well as a sorcerer, which is utterly broken in every conceivable way.
Again, noone sane is asking for that, and I have yet to see an insane poster in these threads.
The Eldrich Knight is an excellent "Fighter Mage", and can be configured somewhat by mixing up now many Fighter and Wizard levels you take.
The Eldritch Knight would be an excellent "Fighter Mage", except it takes 5 levels of being a nearly single-classed Wizard to get into it, and another 3-4 levels before your character begins to feel or function like a "Fighter Mage".
You spend literally half of your character's career playing as something that is NOT what you want your character to be.
The Bard is an excellent "Red Mage", with perhaps too much emphasis on skills and party support. But even so, the "Melee Bard" guide treantmonk put together demonstrates how this class can work as a "gish".
The problem with the Bard is that so much of it's Class functions are tied up in all of that Performance stuff. There's not enough meat there without singing and dancing to pull off a "Fighter Mage".
If you want to play a multiclass character, play it. Pathfinder supports the concept; they provided rules for it and even a race that excels at it.
Yes, and also be prepared to fall behind very quickly, and then spend several levels playing catch-up with your Prestige Class, and then be prepared to have your campaign end just as you are becoming a fully functional contributor to your party.
Only if you play with intellectual toddlers.Because imbalances lead to resentment pretty quickly, and create additional headaches for the GM.If they are having fun, why worry about having the "best" options for every choice in the character design and progression?
Or are ACTUALLY playing D&D and not RP&TS (roleplaying and townships). Believe me, balanced for a pimped out gish is NOT balanced for a class not bending the rules.
|
The Eldrich Knight is an excellent "Fighter Mage", and can be configured somewhat by mixing up now many Fighter and Wizard levels you take.The Eldritch Knight would be an excellent "Fighter Mage", except it takes 5 levels of being a nearly single-classed Wizard to get into it, and another 3-4 levels before your character begins to feel or function like a "Fighter Mage".
You spend literally half of your character's career playing as something that is NOT what you want your character to be.
Thats really my big problem with the 3e multiclass system. To really pull it off you need a PrC. Which as Moro stated means you spend X number of levels really playing something else till you can play what you want. Which is why i agree they need a better system.
Perhaps the best solution would just be base classes of each possible combo but... my that would be a lot of classes. :)
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.
That's not a specific character build/ability. That's a system request as variable as the tier system for evaluating individual classes' relative power levels. In other words, you're asking for something that, depending on the multi-classes involved, the solution may very well be different for each one, and different for various level combinations as well. Too broad a request for organized/specific responses.
Just taking a random stab here, but has anyone ever experimented with basing spell DC's off of character level instead of spell level? That seems like it may alleviate some of the problems with multiclassing with a spellcaster. Not sure how it would work though..
It is unfortunate that you interpreted my comments as an attack. But even if you did interpret it that way, I do not believe that that gives you the right to be deliberately insulting.
I have a strong distaste for people who feel there is something wrong with valuing the mechanical side of the game over roleplay. That is certainly what your comment sounded like to me. If i am mistaken, I apologize, but my view in that at least is not going to change. Good roleplay alone is not justification for mechanical deficiencies.
I feel that the interpretation that a multiclass character cannot contribute in combat, or at least not effectively, is incorrect. For example, the much insulted fighter 10/wizard 10 has a BAB of 15, Fort of 10, Reflex of 6 and Will of 10. This puts them in the realm of those abilities with the all of the other medium BAB progression characters.Quick combat stat comparision:
FTR 20, BAB 20, Fort 12, Reflex 6, Will 6, no spells
Wizard 20, BAB 10, Fort 6, Reflex 6, Will 12, level 9 spells
FTR 10/Mage 10, BAB 15, Fort 10, Reflex 6, Will 6, level 5 spells
BARD 20, BAB 15, Fort 6, Reflex 12, Will 12, level 6 spells
Rogue 20, BAB 15, Fort 6, Reflex 12, Will 6, no spells
Cleric 20, BAB 15, Fort 12, Reflex 6, Will 12, level 9 spells
FTR 1/Mage 9/EK 10, BAB 15, Fort 10, Reflex 6, Will 10, level 9 spellsAs JFK68 suggested, they can easily aid in flanking, allowing better attack odds for all and to allow the rogue to gain sneak attack damage.
A comment that comes up often is the "suck" when you start off multiclassing. It may depend on your choices on when you take levels. If you plan on going the EK route, then you may want to consider starting off as a wizard for 5 level, then doing the fighter level followed by the EK levels and mixing in a few more wizard levels.
Strategically this is probably a good route, but if someone actually wishes to play a character that is a fighter mage, he will spend a good portion of is career (one quarter) without being able to do so. They will just be a mage who eventually decides to learn to use a sword (or other weapon). I for one dont like waiting 6 levels for my character to start playing as I wish to. I admit, I am biased here, as my group tends to play lower level games, and stop at mid to upper mid levels. So a good portion of my groups gaming happens outside the range of where that idea comes together. (at levels 6 and 7)
I also think there is a very large mistake in assuming a descent BAB somehow makes someone a descent combatant. You are right in saying a fighter 10/wizard 10 has the basic stats of a non full bab character who is likely melee based. And he could indeed provide flanking for rogues and fighters. But I highly doubt anyone would enjoy being a flanker as their combat role. I know I would not.
The rogue, the bard, and all other non-full BAB classes that expect to be in melee have class features to support this. The cleric has spells specifically designed for this. The lower BAB/HD is accounted for by the class. A fighter/wizard mix does not account for this as well. Certainly there are spells that can help, but these arrive much later then is neccessary to have the character keep up in combat ability.
A rogue does not simply swing a sword, nor do full bab characters. They have features that make them good at it. Sneak attack and a host of rogue talents can lend themselves to a rogue in combat, a cleric has divine power and things like the strength or war domain powers. A fighter 10/wizard 10, has only the class features offered by a level 10 fighter, and buffs that most characters of that level have replicated in magic items by then.
Swinging a sword for 1d8 a couple times, even if you hit does not mean you are contributing in combat (in my opinion). If you want to see what I would expect of a fighter mage you can look to 2 things. 1 the ironmage homebrew class that is floating around on these boards, and the second would be the genius guide archon.
If you discuss this with your GM ahead of time, and perhaps convince them to allow you to change that "weapon proficiency: shortbow" into a "weapon focus: shortbow" when you take the fighter level and gain all martial weapons, you can build in the roleplaying aspect of your weapon training along with the mechanical aspect of the feats. Add in the magical knack trait and the effect of your spell casting is reduced.
Another comment that has come up is the "your spells will fizzle against CR appropriate SR". This may be the case with direct damaging spells, but less so if the caster makes the most of their spell list, such as taking things like blur, invisibility, displacement and greater invisibility cast on allies, or battlefield control spells like black tentacles.
Black tentacles wont fizzle, it just wont work against on CR apponents, the CMB will be too low. But you are right in saying that a multiclass caster should not focus on offensive spells. But there in lies the problem, the multiclass caster has little to no offense. He has half the offense (or worse) of a fighter, and a few buffs that like I said are likely covered by magic items at the level you get them.
As for the 'retraining' of weapon profficiency to weapon focus, that would be nice, but i know at least a handfull of dms that dont allow such things. And it certainly is not accounted for in the rules.
Like I said before I think multiclass casting in general is a failure, and not just the fighter/mage. I would much rather see more base classes. It allows for something unique that does not need to be directly compared to the base classes it is composed of. And there is no need to wait for potentially months of real time to be able to see your character idea come to life.
|
Only if you play with intellectual toddlers.+1. The last time I has someone feel resentful that someone else was more powerful in a game, the guy was also about as mature as your average middle-schooler and whined about EVERYTHING. Then he yelled at my brother for helping himself to some chips he brought to the game. Class, real class. I never was so happy to see someone go back to jail...
So you guys like being a 5th level character in a 10th level party? I like how you blanket everyone who complains about differing power levels as stupid children.
Just taking a random stab here, but has anyone ever experimented with basing spell DC's off of character level instead of spell level? That seems like it may alleviate some of the problems with multiclassing with a spellcaster. Not sure how it would work though..
I would be in favor of using 1/2 progression for non-linked classes (Fighter and Cleric or Fighter and Wizard) and full progression for linked classes ie same type of casting (divine or arcane) (Paladin and Cleric or Bard and Wizard).
Fighter 2/Wizard 4 would have 2nd level spells but effects tied to character level (spell DCs and durations) would be based upon a caster level of 5.
Bard 2/Wizard 4 would have 2nd level spells but effects tied to character level would be based on a caster level of 6.
I'd probably add an ability to mystic theurge that makes divine and arcane spell casting classes linked.
So the Wizard 3/Cleric 3/MT 1 would have 3rd level wizard spells/ 3rd level cleric spells but a caster level of 7.
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.That's not a specific character build/ability. That's a system request as variable as the tier system for evaluating individual classes' relative power levels. In other words, you're asking for something that, depending on the multi-classes involved, the solution may very well be different for each one, and different for various level combinations as well. Too broad a request for organized/specific responses.
That's about as specific an answer as you can give to such a broad question. It was asked for someone to add some specificity to "what multiclassers want". Specific character builds or abilities weren't asked for.
That's about as specific an answer as you can give to such a broad question. It was asked for someone to add some specificity to "what multiclassers want". Specific character builds or abilities weren't asked for.
I'd lay dollars to donuts that the multiclass penalty discussion began with a character build that didn't turn out as CR appropriate. But rather than analyzing the design that disappointed, we have to sift through 'multiclassing in general is inferior', please fix. Please note, even single class builds can fail to be CR appropriate.
If 'what multiclassers want' is defined that broadly, perhaps the answer is a different game than one built on functionally different classes and levels. The discussion then becomes one about reimagining the system from the beginning, really beyond the scope of a thread accomplishment.
Or are ACTUALLY playing D&D and not RP&TS (roleplaying and townships). Believe me, balanced for a pimped out gish is NOT balanced for a class not bending the rules.Only if you play with intellectual toddlers.Because imbalances lead to resentment pretty quickly, and create additional headaches for the GM.If they are having fun, why worry about having the "best" options for every choice in the character design and progression?
:Rattle:
:Rattle:It's ok. There, there. Who's a good D&D Player? You! You're a good D&D Player. Just ignore those bullies. Who wants a snickerdoodle?
*Waves cookie*
Sorry, but you DID just accuse people of not playing the game correctly...
I was elaborating on my previous point about not playing games that are 80+% RP.
I was elaborating on my previous point about not playing games that are 80+% RP.Logic doesn't work on them, otherwise they wouldn't ban Tome of Battle for being overpowered and then look down on people for complaining about being underpowered.
Tome of Battle is overpowered, or at least unbalancing, but that's neither here nor there.
That's about as specific an answer as you can give to such a broad question. It was asked for someone to add some specificity to "what multiclassers want". Specific character builds or abilities weren't asked for.I'd lay dollars to donuts that the multiclass penalty discussion began with a character build that didn't turn out as CR appropriate. But rather than analyzing the design that disappointed, we have to sift through 'multiclassing in general is inferior', please fix. Please note, even single class builds can fail to be CR appropriate.
If 'what multiclassers want' is defined that broadly, perhaps the answer is a different game than one built on functionally different classes and levels. The discussion then becomes one about reimagining the system from the beginning, really beyond the scope of a thread accomplishment.
If you're looking for a specific scenario, read the original post. Yes the thread did sort of evolve into "multiclassing in general is inferior" as most of these threads do, because it is.
Hoping for this thread to accomplish something is sort of silly; at best Paizo's design team will take note of what the players like and dislike about how Pathfinder's multiclassing and file that information away in the back of their minds when they are developing new system material. At worst, everyone just shrugs and looks to homebrews or 3PPs to fix it.
|
|
Tome of Battle is overpowered, or at least unbalancing, but that's neither here nor there.
My point being that Loopy has banned Tome of Battle for being overpowered. Then he comes in here and says people who resent other players for being more powerful than them are 'intellectual toddlers'. So he kind of insults himself.
|
|
If one wants to discuss system flaws, that is one thing. If one wants to discuss feelings of inadequacy, I can sell you a 2010 Ford Compensator.
EDIT: I'm being testy, which does not reflect well on the central thesis of the argument. Feel free to ignore this.
This is why I don't play Rifts. :) And no problem, I think I get the gist of your point. I drive a Chevy S10 btw, so I'll pass. :P
Although you only said you have played the 5th in a 10th, but not if you enjoyed it. :P
|
|
I find that Magic Rating and Fractional BAB (and Saves) from Unearthed Arcana, and available at the various online SRD sites, serve as a minor 'fix' for quite a bit of my multi-classing woes.
It will never be as sexy as back in 2nd edition, when my elven PC was a 7th Fighter / 7th Wizard, and had the same exp total as the 8th level Wizard in the same party, but it's not totally dire, with the right tweaks (UA OGL tweaks, progression feats like Natural Bond or Swift Hunter, decent multi-class PrCs like the Pathfinder Eldritch Theurge).
If one wants to discuss feelings of inadequacy, I can sell you a 2010 Ford Compensator.
I just use really big dice...red ones!
With flames painted on them!As long as I'm having fun I couldn't give two hoots about anyone elses PC build compared to mine.
Yep it sucks you have to wait a few levels while you multiclass and you ain't going to pull off all those tricks single class PCs can. Compared to 1ed and even 2ed when multiclassing or dual classing really did cripple you what we have in Pathfinder is a joy.
|
|
LOL. It's so sad, because I actually LIKE the Palladium systems. I even crunched 5+ rule books worth of materials into 3 GM cheat sheets for easy refrence (and a flow-chart) so I could play and run the game smoothly.
Then I remember back to every time I ever played the game, and wonder why I like it so much. Kinda like the Star Wars pre-quels, I keep thinking that if I stay loyal, they will relize how much they love me...
Your dedication to GMing is an inspiration to us all sir. :) Now get some counseling about the Star Wars prequels before I hold an intervention on your arse.
Strategically this is probably a good route, but if someone actually wishes to play a character that is a fighter mage, he will spend a good portion of is career (one quarter) without being able to do so. They will just be a mage who eventually decides to learn to use a sword (or other weapon). I for one dont like waiting 6 levels for my character to start playing as I wish to. I admit, I am biased here, as my group tends to play lower level games, and stop at mid to upper mid levels. So a good portion of my groups gaming happens outside the range of where that idea comes together. (at levels 6 and 7)
I do think this is a legitimate concern with caster multiclasses. EK is probably balanced at high levels but it does mean you are a single classed wizard for part of your career and a weak combo for at least 2 or 3 levels.
In contrast the Duskblade (closed content) offers less high end power but is definitely a gish character from 1-20.
I also think there is a very large mistake in assuming a descent BAB somehow makes someone a descent combatant. You are right in saying a fighter 10/wizard 10 has the basic stats of a non full bab character who is likely melee based. And he could indeed provide flanking for rogues and fighters. But I highly doubt anyone would enjoy being a flanker as their combat role. I know I would not.
The EK definitely shouldn't expect to be a front-line meatshield but it's definitely useful as a striker (not just giving flanking bonuses but actually threatening from the flanks). It can self-buff, utility cast and do some battlefield control. It's not good at any one of them but it's ok.
The rogue, the bard, and all other non-full BAB classes that expect to be in melee have class features to support this. The cleric has spells specifically designed for this. The lower BAB/HD is accounted for by the class. A fighter/wizard mix does not account for this as well. Certainly there are spells that can help, but these arrive much later then is neccessary to have the character keep up in combat ability.
The Wizard 5/Fighter 1/EK 1 has probably memorized haste, blur, enlarge person as buffs and has a handful of battlefield control spells like web, glitterdust, and grease. He's got better HP than the wizard, can hit with the elven curveblade in melee or shoot a longbow. He's not awesome (the cleric 7 is clearly vastly superior- but lets be honest the cleric is basically a fighter/divine caster gestalt base class).
A rogue does not simply swing a sword, nor do full bab characters. They have features that make them good at it. Sneak attack and a host of rogue talents can lend themselves to a rogue in combat, a cleric has divine power and things like the strength or war domain powers. A fighter 10/wizard 10, has only the class features offered by a level 10 fighter, and buffs that most characters of that level have replicated in magic items by then.Swinging a sword for 1d8 a couple times, even if you hit does not mean you are contributing in combat (in my opinion). If you want to see what I would expect of a fighter mage you can look to 2 things. 1 the ironmage homebrew class that is floating around on these boards, and the second would be the genius guide archon.
Spell buffs do of course mean that you aren't having to spend GP on items that replicate those buffs. Haste as a memorized spell means you don't have to have boots of speed. Fly means you don't need winged boots or wings of flying.
By the time the EK unlocks the 6th-9th level spells his spells easily trump the fighter's utility (still locked in at doing full attacks each round). The EK can teleport around, engage in battlefield control, buff a whole group, and still be decent in melee or ranged combat (obviously not as good as the fighter but can easily keep up with 3/4 progression like a bard).
The EK lags behind the cleric but as I said above the cleric and druid clearly violate the 3/4 BAB gets partial spellcasting progression rule. As if divine spellcasting is really that much weaker than arcane :|
I have a strong distaste for people who feel there is something wrong with valuing the mechanical side of the game over roleplay. That is certainly what your comment sounded like to me. If i am mistaken, I apologize, but my view in that at least is not going to change. Good roleplay alone is not justification for mechanical deficiencies.
I have no issues with your view or preferences. And while I agree that good roleplay alone is not justification for mechanical deficiences, I have some doubts as to whether we will be able to agree on exactly what those deficiences are. :)
But I also like the roleplaying aspect of the game. I prefer that that aspect of the game, or the out of combat play, not to be left out when people are discussing rule changes that have a large impact.
I for one dont like waiting 6 levels for my character to start playing as I wish to.
I agree and sympathize with that.
Over in one of the Advanced Player's Guide threads, it was suggested that Paizo look at the old apprentice rules that dealt with multiclassing at 1st level (ex: being a 0 level fighter and wizard with some class features from both, but not the full complement until you reach 2nd level). To me, this would also be the place to explore a way for multiclassing to be able to progress further or in different ways that in what is available in the Core. Even if the rules are optional ones, they would available and "approved" by Paizo.
Black tentacles wont fizzle, it just wont work against on CR apponents, the CMB will be too low. But you are right in saying that a multiclass caster should not focus on offensive spells. But there in lies the problem, the multiclass caster has little to no offense. He has half the offense (or worse) of a fighter, and a few buffs that like I said are likely covered by magic items at the level you get them.
For the most part, the CMB part is linked to the caster level, which will be in range, if not the same number, as a full caster (admitedly you have to have the magical knack trait and only 2 levels in something else - yes, also taking the EK). I think that we may have to agree to disagree on some of the rest.
Like I said before I think multiclass casting in general is a failure, and not just the fighter/mage. I would much rather see more base classes. It allows for something unique that does not need to be directly compared to the base classes it is composed of. And there is no need to wait for potentially months of real time to be able to see your character idea come to life.
I don't think that they will be able to write enough base classes to cover every possible variant that players can come up with. And I think that that would be a serious pain to GMs and Writers, to have to know all these classes.
I believe that it would be more effective to work out the kinks in the current multiclass systems (for those that have them). Paizo has shown themselve to be flexible in accepting the community's input. Now may be a good time to attempt to use that influence on multiclassing and the advanced player's guide.
If you are very worried about a "dip" point in an eldritch knight progression, change the prereqs:
That lets a Ftr3/Wiz3 get in, or Ftr2/Wiz4, etc. It allows a far more even progression - it's the lop-sided requirements of EKn that causes the *slight* slump it has.
ok, wild stab here to fix casterlevel for multiclass characters:
ranks in spellcraft = casterlevel
Casting classes get a free rank in spellcraft each level they gain.
It probably won't get much support, but it will allow multiclass casters to function as casters at least as competent as paladins / rangers and bards with a little investment of skillpoints.
A few feats to make fighter mages more interesting might work:
(random examples)
* Spell Channel(combat)
Prerequiste: Arcane Strike, Combat Casting, BAB +3
When using Arcane Strike, you can cast an arcane spell which targets one or more creatures as part of the swift action to activate Arcane Strike and channel it through your weapon, if you do not strike a creature within one round of casting the spell is wasted.
* Blade Weave Casting
Prerequiste: Combat Casting, expertise, Able to cast 1st level spells
When wielding a weapon you can use the full defense action and still cast a spell defensively. When using this feat you can not move, except for a 5 foot step.
No idea if they are any good just made them up, but a few feats to make multiclass concepts more appealing might help alot.
If you are very worried about a "dip" point in an eldritch knight progression, change the prereqs:
From: 3rd level arcane spells, all martial weapons
To: 2nd level arcane spells, BAB +4, all martial weapons That lets a Ftr3/Wiz3 get in, or Ftr2/Wiz4, etc. It allows a far more even progression - it's the lop-sided requirements of EKn that causes the *slight* slump it has.
How about :
This bypasses the 5th level wizard level, which is a dead BAB level and also makes the PrC equally attractive to sorcerer and wizards.
allowing access to fighter 1 / wizard 4, or fighter 2 / wizard 2.
|
|
YEs you lose abilities in one class when you go into another if you want to take a level in each base class, all those classes where level 1 has a +0 BAB that is what you get.
I guess that technically assuming appropriate alignment changes ect you can have a bard/cleric/druid/monk/rouge/sorcerer/wizard which is a 7th level character with a BAB of +0...
What is the complaint you still have one very versatile character....
Please, let's not ever walk down that road of non-think again.
The complaint would be one of the most ineffective individuals ever known to Pathfinder; the saves would be hilarious in a "why bother rolling?" kind of way, and the fact that at 7th level you're facing dangers that none of your level 1 class features and abilities are even remotely capable of handling. Granted, you'd have access to a wide variety of skills - none of them would do you much good in a fight, except for the ones that let you run, hide, or otherwise escape, but you'd be tops as far as making Knowledge:Local checks, crafting clubs, and dancing jigs goes - and sure, you've got access to a plethora of 1st level spells, cantrips/osirions(sp?), so on and so forth - so there would be a bit of versatility, but in the end you'd be a king among insects. The kind of guy that 1st level adventurers look up to before they hit level 2.
I have no issues with your view or preferences. And while I agree that good roleplay alone is not justification for mechanical deficiences, I have some doubts as to whether we will be able to agree on exactly what those deficiences are. :)
But I also like the roleplaying aspect of the game. I prefer that that aspect of the game, or the out of combat play, not to be left out when people are discussing rule changes that have a large impact.
Do you actually think a mechanical change that improved multiclassing would impact roleplay? Perhaps it is because I almost always use homebrew world, but I usually have found very little about the mechancis determine the goals/behavior of my character. ofcourse stats might influence it some, but its not the main driving force.
You are right in we will likely disagree on what we value, and I am ok with that, I am just uncertain as to how changing what I value impacts what you do.
I agree and sympathize with that.
Over in one of the Advanced Player's Guide threads, it was suggested that Paizo look at the old apprentice rules that dealt with multiclassing at 1st level (ex: being a 0 level fighter and wizard with some class features from both, but not the full complement until you reach 2nd level). To me, this would also be the place to explore a way for multiclassing to be able to progress further or in different ways that in what is available in the Core. Even if the rules are optional ones, they would available and "approved" by Paizo.
It would be nice to see a 'redone' multiclass set of rules. But i dont see it happening. It is too big a diversion from 3.5. Perhaps someday way down the line in PFRPG 2.0 we might see it. But untill then, I just dont see it happening.
For the most part, the CMB part is linked to the caster level, which will be in range, if not the same number, as a full caster (admitedly you have to have the magical knack trait and only 2 levels in something else - yes, also taking the EK). I think that we may have to agree to disagree on some of the rest.
Traits are not something we normally use. So for the most part unless there is something specific, I am talking about within the core rules. And I honestly still do not see EK as a solution, it is a very boring prestige class. To me a class with nearly no class features is not a class, its a template. If this is to be a prestige class there needs to be class features that combine the classes involved, like the arcane archer does. Even dragon disciple does a far better job of it then EK.
I don't think that they will be able to write enough base classes to cover every possible variant that players can come up with. And I think that that would be a serious pain to GMs and Writers, to have to know all these classes.I believe that it would be more effective to work out the kinks in the current multiclass systems (for those that have them). Paizo has shown themselve to be flexible in accepting the community's input. Now may be a good time to attempt to use that influence on multiclassing and the advanced player's guide.
I dont think there are as many combinations as you think. I am not talking every concept, I am talking about the merging of major class archtypes.
Ranger, Bard and Paladin, Summoner, Inquisitor are already great examples of this.What is still needed (in my opinion ofcourse) comes to around 10 or 12 additional base classes. That could concievably come from one or two books. And I am not saying it needs to be here tommorrow, or even in a year, but I would like to see it over the lifespan of this product. Certainly there are already lots of examples of these that exist to draw on from the purposes of experience. Duskblade, Swashbuckler, Beguiler, [genius guide] archon come to mind immediately, but I am quite certain there are more.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Tell you what, next time we play Monopoly, whatever piece you like best starts with zero money, because that piece should be an unusual piece that is a challenge to play. Thing is, I'll tell you that that piece is just as effective as the others, except that I'll take away all your money as soon as you try to buy something. Plus, we play a variant of Monopoly where games generally take months, and you're locked into that one piece. You can roleplay a penniless hobo in a game of real-estate tycoons, that's fun, right?
And you know, under those circumstances, it's still likely that Dave Arneson would have won.
But I sense I'm drifting off-topic.
Man-in-Black, I'll call your analogy a little too weak for these purposes. Monopoly is a one-dimensional game: you use money to build weapons to rob other people's money and you win when they're out of money points. Typical RPGs are more robust, and different characters can shine in different ways.
Just taking a random stab here, but has anyone ever experimented with basing spell DC's off of character level instead of spell level? That seems like it may alleviate some of the problems with multiclassing with a spellcaster. Not sure how it would work though..I would be in favor of using 1/2 progression for non-linked classes (Fighter and Cleric or Fighter and Wizard) and full progression for linked classes ie same type of casting (divine or arcane) (Paladin and Cleric or Bard and Wizard).
Fighter 2/Wizard 4 would have 2nd level spells but effects tied to character level (spell DCs and durations) would be based upon a caster level of 5.
Bard 2/Wizard 4 would have 2nd level spells but effects tied to character level would be based on a caster level of 6.
I'd probably add an ability to mystic theurge that makes divine and arcane spell casting classes linked.
So the Wizard 3/Cleric 3/MT 1 would have 3rd level wizard spells/ 3rd level cleric spells but a caster level of 7.
Interesting idea. What if we based spell save DC's completely off of character level? Maybe half your level, rounded up + ability mod + ten? That way an EK and a wizard, of the same character level, casting their highest level spells, would have the same chance to affect you. Bards and other non full progression casters would benefit as well.
Does that make any sense?
I see no penalty for multiclassing.
Really, you don't?
Even those in these threads who are not in favor of any changes to how PF approaches multiclassing seem to see the penalties; they just seem to believe that those penalties are acceptable.
You are the first I have seen state that they see none at all.