|
In Pathfinder, all classes now have to give something up in order to gain from multi-classing, even the fighter. The point is to keep multi-classing from being the choice that it is stupid not to take. I might even play an Eldritch Knight sometime since the PrC is much improved over the old version. The old EK lost spellcasting to gain a high BaB, but the designers neglected to include hit points as a class feature. It was used almost entirely by ray specialists. The new Dragon Disciple actually gains spellcasting levels, a vast improvement over the old one which gave a few crummy spell slots while granting zilch to the caster level. The same for the Arcane Archer. Some multiclasses actually seem to me to be MORE viable than they ever were...
I'm with you there, I don't really feel that there's a penalty, per se, it's just a matter of sacrifices, give up one skub to gain a sprocket. I'm fairly confident (I believe I've expressed this before) that people can make an Eldritch Knight work (and work well) given the opportunity, it just takes a specific goal and some planning on the part of the player.
I wonder what he'd say if I told him the point-buy equivalent of my rolled stats was negative.Exactly what he said to the first post. He's already decided you hold no value in the conversation, therefore talking to him is the same as speaking to a wall.
Edit: Told you so.
Good point. (For the record, I never had an XP penalty).
But really he's right - I mean what *are* the odds of anyone matching the uber-kewlness that was my character. I don't see how anyone could be as unique and wonderful as me - it was totally one in a million.
|
|
Edit: Told you so.
"Public forum, differing sides. If I wish to participate on one side, I am allowed. If you do not wish to discuss with me, you need not reply to me... The very nature of a forum like this is that anyone with an opinion can contribute it. You don't have to like it, and you can ask me to stop. I may even oblige."
If walls could talk... well, they'd be as clever as me.
But really he's right - I mean what *are* the odds of anyone matching the uber-kewlness that was my character. I don't see how anyone could be as unique and wonderful as me - it was totally one in a million.
Well, being slightly more intelligent than your average summoned Dire Badger (in that you can use magic items) is no mean feat I tell ya what. Of course, the chances are pretty good, depending on whether or not someone playing 3.5 has a DM that allows them to ignore multiclassing penalties and the party is willing to pick up the slack.
|
|
If walls could talk... well, they'd be as clever as me.Of course, I actually listened to that persons argument, instead of dismissing it out of hand. But I don't mind dancing with you, as long as you like.
My terms are as follows: Capoeira; a bridge in Brooklyn; Gypsy music; Freestyling allowed.
If you lose: you have to buy the bridge.
If you win: you win the bridge.
Regardless, I didn't dismiss any argument, there wasn't anything solid enough to merit being considered an argument. I merely questioned a story (and rightfully so, I suspected something was up when I read "epic levels" directly after a slew of multi-multi-multiclassing), and how that story can contribute to this discussion in any way other than "I got a special allowance and I succeed because of it; I am multiclassing, and you can too!" It's like saying you got a strike when you've been bowling with gutter guards.
|
I'll give you that it was anecdotal evidence. But we don't want to get into an argument of the merits of personal experience vs playtesting here. :P I suppose I was razzing you back because I do the exact same thing you did when I have nothing to contribute.
I'd take that dance, but I only accept sure bets. :)
If walls It's like saying you got a strike when you've been bowling with gutter guards.
Or Bowling on The Wii.
You brushed off my question without answering it, and that's exceedingly annoying. How are you keeping people engaged when there's a significant chunk of the game where they can contribute absolutely nothing?Your previous question (actually, your sarcastic declarative statement posited erroneously as a reiteration of my opinion) was a straw man and, as such, unanswerable. As is your quoted question; I don't accept your premises. You find annoyance where none is intended, and in turn annoy where such is unnecessary. Let's try to remain civil.
Zo
You should just stop. He's going to make anything you say seem unreasonable no matter how reasonable and valid your actual point is. I wouldn't do what I've done (poke and prod with borderline non sequiteur and snarkyness)... I'd just completely ignore it. See what it's done, feeding it? You've gotten so worked up that your proceeding arguments have taken on a tinge of negativity which actually does invalidate your opinion for many others. Take a deep breath and try to explain in detail your opinion. Don't worry about what our resident wordsmith and post destroyer has to say about it.
"We'd like to foster a positive, friendly community here at paizo.com, so please be polite in your postings. By policing ourselves we can make sure the signal-to-noise ratio stays high, and we can prevent some sort of overly-moderated catastrophe community."
Peace, man!
This has been an interesting thread, for the most part. You make the bunny cry. Why must you make Cuddles sad?
Perhaps the OP's assertion that the EK with its multiclass prereq (at character level 10) produces a substandard level 10 character has not been adequately demonstrated to justify asserting that multiclassing in Pathfinder is an inoperable approach to character building with CR appropriate results.
Racist. We'll have none of your positronic discrimination here.Race? Hmm...
What kind of stats would an Electron have in PF?
-
Doh...
Perhaps the OP's assertion that the EK with its multiclass prereq (at character level 10) produces a substandard level 10 character has not been adequately demonstrated to justify asserting that multiclassing in Pathfinder is an inoperable approach to character building with CR appropriate results.I agree, but I'd also like to point out that no one has attempted to explain what "substandard" even means. Hence, both sides are right.
I also see a difference in opinion on what multiclassing means.
Without a clear definitions of some of these terms, it can be difficult to have a discussion that may actually help resolve the issue (or apparent issue, depending on your current view :) ).
what we need is more Hybrid PRCs.
heres 2 sets that we need
Cleric/Rogue
Monk/Caster
Here Are Some hybrids that can be fixed by feats
Sadistic Stalker [Multiclass]
Prequisites; Sneak attack +1d6, Favored Enemy
Benefit; you rogue levels as well as your ranger levels stack for the purpose of sneak attack and favored enemy. if you choose a favored enemy normally immune to flanking or sneak attack, you may ignore those immunities for foes of that chosen type. in addition, if either one of these 2 classes count as favored, both count as favored and you may recalculate accordingly.
Special; a rogue may take this feat in place of a rogue talent
Bear Warrior [Multiclass)
Prerequisites; Wildshape, Rage
Benefits; your levels in druid and barbarian stack for the following purposes, Rage rounds, wildshape duration, and daily wildshape uses. this does not entitle you to extra spells per day nor does it entitle you to rage powers beyond what your barbairan level allows. when wildshaped into an Ursine Form your rage bonuses to strength and constituion increase by 2.
if either one of these 2 classes count as favored, they now both do, and you may recalculate accordingly.
Special; A barbarian may take this feat in place of a rage power
what we need is more Hybrid PRCs.
This is one thing that I think prestige classes do well. I agree, but I'd like to see them be very basic like the Arcane Trickster, Eldrich Knight, and Mystic Theurge. Just take the most fundamental aspects of the classes and, if there's room in the class balance, allow for personalization. I wouldn't want very specific themes for these classes so they can stay wide open for many different character concepts.
what we need is more Hybrid PRCs.This is one thing that I think prestige classes do well. I agree, but I'd like to see them be very basic like the Arcane Trickster, Eldrich Knight, and Mystic Theurge. Just take the most fundamental aspects of the classes and, if there's room in the class balance, allow for personalization. I wouldn't want very specific themes for these classes so they can stay wide open for many different character concepts.
Mystic Theurge:
Because being a god as ONE caster just isn't enough.The basic themes are alright though. Like Eldrich Knight: You're a guy who fights and can cast magic. You try to blend the two sometimes in some way. Arcane Trickster: You're tricksy and you cast spells. Arcane Hierophant: You're a druid that knows arcane magic for some reason!
Exactly. These Prestige Classes give the HOW and leave the WHY and the details up to the player. That MAY not be the original intent of the concept of prestige classes but it's important for this aspect of them, IMO. This guideline also makes it easier for a DM to create alternates. For example, it shouldn't be VERY difficult to come up with a Divine Shade (Cleric/Rogue) prestige class thanks to the Arcane Trickster.
|
. . . For example, it shouldn't be VERY difficult to come up with a Divine Shade (Cleric/Rogue) prestige class thanks to the Arcane Trickster.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a Divine Trickster (Cleric/Rogue). Something along the lines of like native american Coyote, Loki, or WtA's "Old Man Manyskins". Almost a Divine Bard, in some senses, perhaps.
Hopefully, it would not be Deity, Race, or Alignment restricted, (though Chaotic probably moreso than Lawful).
. . . For example, it shouldn't be VERY difficult to come up with a Divine Shade (Cleric/Rogue) prestige class thanks to the Arcane Trickster.Personally, I wouldn't mind a Divine Trickster (Cleric/Rogue). Something along the lines of like native american Coyote, Loki, or WtA's "Old Man Manyskins". Almost a Divine Bard, in some senses, perhaps.
Hopefully, it would not be Deity, Race, or Alignment restricted, (though Chaotic probably moreso than Lawful).
And let us not forget the RCC of the dark ages. You KNOW that if magic were real, those a-holes would've had some Cleric/Rogues.
Again, you're saying that you are having fun, so there's no problem. This doesn't refute any claim that there's a situational problem. If your car explodes if you try to turn right, does that mean that there's no problem as long as you always turn left?
The game works fine as long as you play it exactly the way the designers intended, which is much more narrow than the game the designers promised. It's frustrating to see the designers telling people outright that it's supposed to work that way, that people who go off of the invisible path should be punishe- sorry, should face "a challenge" for doing so.
Does nobody see why friction would come from "a constant reminder of how much better they are at what they do, compared to the multiclassed character's stuff"? That's not a good way to design a cooperative game.
Point taken, but wouldn't you agree that it's nearly impossible for a game designer to engineer a rule for every conceivable outcome in a game this complex? Hypothetically speaking, if the game designers fixed the problems people have stated exist in multi-classing, the fighter vs. wizard situation, the BAB vs AC problem that exists at higher levels, etc. wouldn't other problems arise, demanding further fixes? Isn't that the REASON for new versions of game systems? Of course, I'm being intentionally naive here, profit is a motive as well.
I view this and any other RPG system much like the US Constitution or the Bible: a guideline that requires interpretation in order to apply to every conceivable circumstance. In 3.5 many people thought there was little reason to not multi-class. Paizo fixed that and now people think there isn't any reason to multi-class.
In every system there are trade-offs to be made. While I don't think the problem is as drastic as your exploding car analogy, it could be likened to putting 4 18" subwoofers and a 2500 watt amp in the back of a Geo Metro; others might tell you you're using the wrong framework to accomplish your goal. However it can be done (though it won't be pretty) and you may have to resort to your own ingenuity to do it.
@ Loopy: I hope I _haven't_ come across as negative, as I don't feel that way. MiB has strong feelings about problems he sees with the rule-set, and he's absolutely entitled to his opinion. I've learned a lot about how I view the game by reflecting on posts he and others like him have made in the past. I'd personally just like to be able to discuss differences of opinion, however strongly held, in a civil if not courteous fashion. I certainly don't want to disqualify or disregard someone's views simply because I don't agree with them and/or the manner in which they're delivered.
Zo
Point taken, but wouldn't you agree that it's nearly impossible for a game designer to engineer a rule for every conceivable outcome in a game this complex?No, but when they engineer a specific rule to resolve an extant issue, a rule that promises to solve that issue, I expect it to solve the issue. Moreover, I don't expect the game designers to say that the bug is actually a feature.
I'm not demanding a fix for the bard/sorcerer. I'm expecting that the fighter/wizard fix to work, and for the game designers' response when called out on that failure to not be handwaving and euphemisms about multiclass characters being weaker by design.
The Eldritch Knight is a trap, and that's a failure.
all of the hybrid classes are a trap.
whether that be single class or multiclass.
if everybody really wants a gestalt when they multiclass. here is an idea.
Gestalt template
as per unearthed arcana
total ecl changes;
level 1-4 no change in ECL
levels 5-9 +1 ECL
levels 10-14 +2 ECL
Levels 15 and up +3 ECL
ECL change is treated as per the 3.5 level adjustment rules.
As one who subscribes to the idea that, as much as possible, the RPG world should simulate as closely as possible the "real world" (in terms of physics, relationships, etc.), might I add one thing?
Although it makes no sense, I agree, to intentionally punish or weaken multiclass characters, can no one else look around them in the real world and see that "multi-classed people" are actually at a disadvantage?
For example, I am a physician. If I were also a ditch-digger, and split some of my time to focus on this, do you think I would have many patients? Or, for that matter, would I have many people hiring me to dig ditches? Of course not -- because I would do neither job well. And it wouldn't mean that I am being "punished" by the Eternal Gamemaster or what-have-you -- it's just the way the world works. I might be interesting, and my life might be fun, but I would not be employable. If I were to go adventuring, it might be hard finding a party to take me along as a physician or a ditch-digger, especially if they could find an individual who has focused all of his or her time on professional development in the one field in which they needed an expert.
Jack of all trades, master of none, and all that. Seems to me that anyone playing a multiclass character, as many have noted above, just needs to accept that it is the way the world turns. It's part of the territory, in gaming and in reality.
Jack of all trades, master of none, and all that.
And the converse to some degree as well. Boy that Rainman could count. Not much good at anything else but take him to Vegas and BAM! You're in the money. Or you've got a ball-peen-hammer-smashed hand. Either way, BAM!
Zo
Elven Curve Blade specialist Eldrich Knight with critical feats is pretty awesomepants.
I have to ask this then.
What WOULD make the EK not a trap class?
It can't be full spellcasting, because then there isn't a reason not to take it.
It can't be being a full fighter, again because then I can either be a fighter, or a just as good fighter but with the addition of spells.
a few posts above you, i mentioned a gestalt template. it is intended to replace the prestige class system to a degree. it has scaling level adjustment, based on character level. it starts off powerful, but is intended to slowly balance out. i was thinking of restricting it humans only. it may give humans a nice edge, but other races already have abiltiies humans shouldn't bother trying to replicate through feats. the idea was based off the old human schtick. giving humans exclusive access to the above listed gestalt template kind of balances out in the end. humans really got nerfed, when all the other races got buffed. the value of a feat was reduced, as was the value of the skill point, and the fact anyone can choose thier own favored class. all this weakens the value of humans, and the 1/2 elf/orc have the exact same racial bonus as humans. really i would ban the 1/2 races and make it an rp thing.
Elven Curve Blade specialist Eldrich Knight with critical feats is pretty awesomepants.
I'm inclined to agree, but WITHOUT HAVING ACTUALLY PLAYED ONE FROM 1-20, though, I can't say for sure.
I've played the PrC-happy 3.X, and PF. Straight classes caught up with the endless multiclassing of other concepts, finally. The PrCs, with their revamped skill points and class abilities, don't give the players a world of suck (I'm looking at you, Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, Dragon Disciple, and even Duelist).
Let people play what they want. Multiclassing is still a good way to play a different character concept, now more than ever. Straight classing is now worth doing, too. It's a wash.
Multiclassing gives versatility at the cost of focus (to quote the 3.X PHB), and any player wanting to do it would know that. Level dips are now penalty free, so a monk-wizard isn't that stupid of an idea, particularly if he rolled a high Wis.
A cleric-rogue with a PrC based on the Arcane Trickster is doable. A cleric-druid might work, if you want it to.
I think PF fixed much of what was wrong with 3.X, and carries the torch higher for both straight and multiclassed characters better than ever.
Let's give it a few years of real play before we say it doesn't work on paper.
I'm repeating myself, but in the world of dirtbike riders, it's 90% rider, 10% bike. That's VERY true. A skilled rider can do things on a dirtbike that others can't do, regardless.
In PF, it's 90% player, 10% character sheet. Good players know they've traded something for something else.
A rogue 1/cleric 1/fighter 18 has plenty of options, depending on the player and his group. It's not weak. A straight fighter 20 is a better fighter, but not as versatile. I'd play either, and have a good time.
|
The eldritch knight, for example, is only a temptation to make weak characters, with no warning that you're making a weak character and Jason Buhlmahn lying to your face that it makes a strong character.
I happen to agree with you that multiclass needs a fix but really there is no need at all for this. There is no reason to make personal attacks, not to mention what does or does not make a strong character is often a matter of opinion.
|
Also, the said blog states that EK is "quite capable" which is semantically different from "strong". And it does state that the PF EK is pretty much the same as 3.5, which means "yeah it still sucks donkey balls, but we made a few adjustments to reduce the amount of suckitude", aslong as the reader is aware of the trap that EK's were.
People... just roll a Duskblade and move along. :)
I was looking at Seltiyel last night and although not the ideal optimized character you cant say he sucks or is underpowered. He can be a tough cookie to deal with in battle and if he scores a critical on you you might as well say goodnight with the conditions and damage output inflicted. Its been said like almost a thousand times multi class characters will be behind the single classed characters, but you know what its only logical after all they are trying to learn to do two things. Once the Prc levels star to kick in then you really see a multi class character rise and be on par with a single class character.
Agreed. He's not as "optimized" as some people would make him, and he's not nearly as rich as a PC. He could still give you a run for your money, though. That spell critical is nasty.
I believe Paizo has done very well in multi-class so far, and I fear people crying for optimizing will create the abomination we saw in the end of 3.5 era. I don't think a character who has 15+ BAB, d10 hit dice and cast 7th up spell is "weak". Heck, those spells are definitely better than any of the fighter bonus feats, and d10 hit dice makes you tougher than straight wizard.
Now we're talking about figther-mage, and then perhaps monk/mage and then what? druid/rogue? paladin/monk? paladin/wizard?
Anyone remember the arcane hierophant, argent fist, duskblade or abjuration champion?
Maybe histroy will repeat itself, we'll see.
Maybe someone's suggested this before, but what about giving the multi-class character in question just the abilities from the specific level of the class taken, using ECL as the level. You'd "subtract" the previous level from the new level to find the bonuses. Count caster level similar to BAB.
So taking 6 levels of fighter and then 1 level of wizard would just give you:
+1 caster level
1 2nd level spell slot and 1 4th level spell slot
access to the wizard's class skills
2+Int mod skill points
and any specialist school abilities, based on a wizard level 1.
It's not pretty, and I haven't really given it much (any) thought, but then again, I don't have a problem with multi-classing the way it is. Playing a rogue/wizard right now actually.
Zo
In a recent thread which I can't seem to find, the idea of the second class not counting as full character level was discussed.
Examples:
Wizard 8 is a level 8 character
wizard 4/fighter4 is a level 6 character
wizard 4/fighter 6 is a level 8 character
Now I am sure I don't have it presently exactly as intended, but the idea works similar to the idea that certain monsters benefit more from certain classes than other classes when trying to figure out CR.
Another example: A giant will benefit more from a level of fighter, than it would a level of wizard since the fighter level gives it more BAB, Hit Points, and all weapons and armor proficiencies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated Pathfinder made multi-classing less desirable instead of a must do*. That was an extreme shift, but no matter what you do people will complain, and all classes don't mix well and people have to accept that with certain choices, at least for now.
*I know not everyone feels this way, but many people do.
I think before we need to decide which class should work well together(reasonably), and decide which ones just wont work without a feat similar to swift ambusher or ascetic rogue. The ones that can't be fixed with a feat would need a hybrid class such such as the beguiler or a PrC.
I will also add that I don't think there is anything wrong with losing power for versatility as long as the PrC keeps the character viable.