Hey everyone,
so this is my first thread so whats up?
back on track here:
Are you allowed to multiclass between several archetypes for a single class? and if so how would that work? would I gain the benefits of the first level of say burgalur and than the first level benefits of a normal rogue if that was my first multiclass?
If it is true that you can in turn take a new level in each specialty archetype that can lead to some abusive sneak attack damage (fifth level stacking up 5d6 sneak), and that is just for the rogue.
Just a little food for thought.
Points?
I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.
I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.
This is correct. An archetype of a fighter is still a fighter, whether he's a weapon master, a two-weapon fighter, or a polearm fighter. You're not a weapon master5/polearm fighter 2, you're a fighter7 with the weapon master and polearm fighter archetypes.
But does that then mean your decision on your class is final and you can never take a different route with it even if you multiclass?
essentially that means you limit your class choice if you pick a specialty archetype, for instance my cleric friend can take rogue levels I cant even tho I am the rogue and it should be easy for me to pick up said skill I dont have that I can now never get.
playing devils advocate ;)
I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.This is correct. An archetype of a fighter is still a fighter, whether he's a weapon master, a two-weapon fighter, or a polearm fighter. You're not a weapon master5/polearm fighter 2, you're a fighter7 with the weapon master and polearm fighter archetypes.
So you are essentially two classes but your levels in fighter persist as normal?
Thus generalized features of the class dont overlap and the specific ones the archetype denotes are what changes?
If that is so then what about level based advantages for said abilities? do you use your fighter level or you polearm archetype level?
But does that then mean your decision on your class is final and you can never take a different route with it even if you multiclass?
essentially that means you limit your class choice if you pick a specialty archetype, for instance my cleric friend can take rogue levels I cant even tho I am the rogue and it should be easy for me to pick up said skill I dont have that I can now never get.
playing devils advocate ;)
I assume you mean 'class ability' and not 'skill', as you can take any skill you want, whether it's class skill or not.
Here's the counter to your 'devil'. When you build a sorcerer, you can't build a draconic bloodline sorcerer, and then decide that 'oh no, my ancestor the dragon? Well, he was making eyes at my ancestress the elemental, so I'll multiclass as sorcerer(draconic) and sorcerer(elemental)'.
It's the same sort of thing. Same for a wizard who takes a specialized school, he can't change that by multiclassing as a different type of wizard.
But does that then mean your decision on your class is final and you can never take a different route with it even if you multiclass?
essentially that means you limit your class choice if you pick a specialty archetype, for instance my cleric friend can take rogue levels I cant even tho I am the rogue and it should be easy for me to pick up said skill I dont have that I can now never get.
playing devils advocate ;)
You choose your archetype or archetypes at the outset, making sure it's a legal combination if you take more than 1. Your cleric friend can take rogue levels and pick an archetype at the time of taking the 1st rogue level. Since the book just came out, the rogue should be allowed to go back and pick an archetype. But yes, your decision is final. Remember: archetypes aren't classes, they're class variants. In the end, all archetypes belong to the class that they come from, so my weapon master is still a fighter. You can't multiclass fighter and fighter, so why could you multiclass weapon master (fighter variant) and polearm fighter (fighter variant)? You could have more than archetype per class, as noted above, and still multiclass; you might end up with some bizarre combination of 4 archetypes (say, 2 from ranger, 2 from rogue, for example, such as guide, shapeshifter, burglar, and investigator). But that's getting a tad complicated.
I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.This is correct. An archetype of a fighter is still a fighter, whether he's a weapon master, a two-weapon fighter, or a polearm fighter. You're not a weapon master5/polearm fighter 2, you're a fighter7 with the weapon master and polearm fighter archetypes.So you are essentially two classes but your levels in fighter persist as normal?
Thus generalized features of the class dont overlap and the specific ones the archetype denotes are what changes?
If that is so then what about level based advantages for said abilities? do you use your fighter level or you polearm archetype level?
No. You are one class, fighter. Generalized class features progress in this case as normal, giving you the features of a fighter 7. Any existing abilities of the fighter that aren't replaced are based off the fact that you're still a 7th level fighter under the hood. The archetype replaces specific features with new features as noted in each archetype. You do not have a separate level for each archetype.
I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.This is correct. An archetype of a fighter is still a fighter, whether he's a weapon master, a two-weapon fighter, or a polearm fighter. You're not a weapon master5/polearm fighter 2, you're a fighter7 with the weapon master and polearm fighter archetypes.So you are essentially two classes but your levels in fighter persist as normal?
Thus generalized features of the class dont overlap and the specific ones the archetype denotes are what changes?
If that is so then what about level based advantages for said abilities? do you use your fighter level or you polearm archetype level?
There is no 'level' for polearm vs weapon master.
In fact, that's not even a valid combination. No fighter archetype can be used with another fighter archetype.
However, if we use Rogue as an example instead...
If you had an Investigative Scout (Investigator and Scout), then at level 7 you'd be a 7th level Investigative Scout Rogue. For any abilities for either Investigator or Scout, you'd be considered 7th level.
But does that then mean your decision on your class is final and you can never take a different route with it even if you multiclass?
essentially that means you limit your class choice if you pick a specialty archetype, for instance my cleric friend can take rogue levels I cant even tho I am the rogue and it should be easy for me to pick up said skill I dont have that I can now never get.
playing devils advocate ;)
I assume you mean 'class ability' and not 'skill', as you can take any skill you want, whether it's class skill or not.
Here's the counter to your 'devil'. When you build a sorcerer, you can't build a draconic bloodline sorcerer, and then decide that 'oh no, my ancestor the dragon? Well, he was making eyes at my ancestress the elemental, so I'll multiclass as sorcerer(draconic) and sorcerer(elemental)'.
It's the same sort of thing. Same for a wizard who takes a specialized school, he can't change that by multiclassing as a different type of wizard.
nice sarcasm. What I meant by devils advocate was dont get offended. Yes I meant class ability not skill, I will make sure my references to Pathfinder itinerary remains perfectly in line for you sir that way you dont have to point out just how stupid I must be for reffering to something indirectly. I am aware of what skills are I have been playing for ten years.
with that said I dont see why you couldnt.
If a sorceror wants to be a wizard he can be a wizard. If you start as a wizard illusionist couldnt you in turn go back and learn all the spells an evoker could learn and multiclass to an evoker and illusionist? The answer is yes you can (atleast in all other versions of DnD I have played this is perfectly legal).
So my question is this: I dont see why you cant? for instance let me put it to you in this respect.
Lets say I start my career dealing poison. so I take the rogue archetype poisoner. I am then bound to those specifications FOREVER. That means two years down the line when I start being a cut purse or a cat burgular acrobat looks like I picked the wrong profession to start in i guess right?
I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.This is correct. An archetype of a fighter is still a fighter, whether he's a weapon master, a two-weapon fighter, or a polearm fighter. You're not a weapon master5/polearm fighter 2, you're a fighter7 with the weapon master and polearm fighter archetypes.So you are essentially two classes but your levels in fighter persist as normal?
Thus generalized features of the class dont overlap and the specific ones the archetype denotes are what changes?
If that is so then what about level based advantages for said abilities? do you use your fighter level or you polearm archetype level?
There is no 'level' for polearm vs weapon master.
In fact, that's not even a valid combination. No fighter archetype can be used with another fighter archetype.
However, if we use Rogue as an example instead...
If you had an Investigative Scout (Investigator and Scout), then at level 7 you'd be a 7th level Investigative Scout Rogue. For any abilities for either Investigator or Scout, you'd be considered 7th level.
I know mdt, I was pulling it out of my head and I know you can't combine fighter archetypes. Purposes of example only. My APG is at home on the shelf. And if you'll note, I do say that there's no level, I just do it by example instead of plain statement. We agree on how things work, just phrase things way differently.
I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.This is correct. An archetype of a fighter is still a fighter, whether he's a weapon master, a two-weapon fighter, or a polearm fighter. You're not a weapon master5/polearm fighter 2, you're a fighter7 with the weapon master and polearm fighter archetypes.So you are essentially two classes but your levels in fighter persist as normal?
Thus generalized features of the class dont overlap and the specific ones the archetype denotes are what changes?
If that is so then what about level based advantages for said abilities? do you use your fighter level or you polearm archetype level?
There is no 'level' for polearm vs weapon master.
In fact, that's not even a valid combination. No fighter archetype can be used with another fighter archetype.
However, if we use Rogue as an example instead...
If you had an Investigative Scout (Investigator and Scout), then at level 7 you'd be a 7th level Investigative Scout Rogue. For any abilities for either Investigator or Scout, you'd be considered 7th level.
dude you are missing the point.
I am not talking about combining archetypes.
I am talking about taking one level in one and one level in another and whether or not that is allowed. So I take one level in two weapon fighter and then a level in polearm.
I am talking about taking one level in one and one level in another and whether or not that is allowed. So I take one level in two weapon fighter and then a level in polearm.
And that's not allowed. You cannot take the same class twice as part of multiclassing.
I am talking about taking one level in one and one level in another and whether or not that is allowed. So I take one level in two weapon fighter and then a level in polearm.And that's not allowed. You cannot take the same class twice as part of multiclassing.
Where does it say you cant if its essentially a different class?
for instance I can take a level one in wizard in dnd and a level one in illusionist. That IS legal. you double your spells effectively but you lose levels of spells, not too bad. But if you do that with a rogue and his archetypes things get wirey.
I dont see where it states in pathfinder that it is different?
nice sarcasm.
Wasn't being sarcastic, sorry if it came off that way.
What I meant by devils advocate was dont get offended. Yes I meant class ability not skill, I will make sure my references to Pathfinder itinerary remains perfectly in line for you sir that way you dont have to point out just how stupid I must be for reffering to something indirectly. I am aware of what skills are I have been playing for ten years.
Ok, now who's being rude? I was simply clarifying why I was addressing class abilities when you posted about skills. That was me saying 'Hey, I think you mean this, so I'm responding to it, since what you posted doesn't jive'.
with that said I dont see why you couldnt.
If a sorceror wants to be a wizard he can be a wizard. If you start as a wizard illusionist couldnt you in turn go back and learn all the spells an evoker could learn and multiclass to an evoker and illusionist? The answer is yes you can (atleast in all other versions of DnD I have played this is perfectly legal).
You can learn the spells, but you can't get the school benefits of both. You have to choose it at first level, and once chosen it can't be changed.
Arcane School: A wizard can choose to specialize in one school of magic, gaining additional spells and powers based on that school. This choice must be made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. A wizard that does not select a school receives the universalist school instead.
That's pretty specific.
So my question is this: I dont see why you cant? for instance let me put it to you in this respect.Lets say I start my career dealing poison. so I take the rogue archetype poisoner. I am then bound to those specifications FOREVER. That means two years down the line when I start being a cut purse or a cat burgular acrobat looks like I picked the wrong profession to start in i guess right?
Are you asking if you can house rule it, or are you asking if there are rules against it? If the former, Rule 0 is in effect, if your GM is ok with it, then go for it. If you're asking per the rules, then no, you can't. You did pick the wrong profession. That's per RAW.
If you're asking opinions, then, I would probably allow someone to 'change' their archetype (probably not using their archetype specific benefits for one level while they 'retrain' them), but it would be a house rule.
I know mdt, I was pulling it out of my head and I know you can't combine fighter archetypes. Purposes of example only. My APG is at home on the shelf. And if you'll note, I do say that there's no level, I just do it by example instead of plain statement. We agree on how things work, just phrase things way differently.
Oh, absolutely, wasn't arguing with you. :) Just responding to the OP. I was hoping that since he didn't get your example, a more explicit one would help him. :) No issues with your explanation on my end.
And I just wanted to clarify for the OP that the fighter doesn't overlap, sorry.
I am talking about taking one level in one and one level in another and whether or not that is allowed. So I take one level in two weapon fighter and then a level in polearm.And that's not allowed. You cannot take the same class twice as part of multiclassing.Where does it say you cant if its essentially a different class?
for instance I can take a level one in wizard in dnd and a level one in illusionist. That IS legal. you double your spells effectively but you lose levels of spells, not too bad. But if you do that with a rogue and his archetypes things get wirey.
I dont see where it states in pathfinder that it is different?
1) Illusionist hasn't been a separate class from wizard since 1E. In Pathfinder, an illusionist is a wizard, one that specializes in illusion magic. You'll note that your illusionist class is found under the wizard class heading, making it part of the wizard class, not a separate subclass. So no, it isn't legal. Not anymore, not since I was in middle school.
2) Archetypes are not classes. They are variants. Not separate classes. All those archetypes are listed under one class heading, eg investigator and scout are found under the rogue class. So if you take either one or both, you're still a member of the rogue class with the appropriate archetypes. Archetypes aren't classes, so you can't multiclass them.
No. You are one class, fighter. Generalized class features progress in this case as normal, giving you the features of a fighter 7. Any existing abilities of the fighter that aren't replaced are based off the fact that you're still a 7th level fighter under the hood. The archetype replaces specific features with new features as noted in each archetype. You do not have a separate level for each archetype.I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.This is correct. An archetype of a fighter is still a fighter, whether he's a weapon master, a two-weapon fighter, or a polearm fighter. You're not a weapon master5/polearm fighter 2, you're a fighter7 with the weapon master and polearm fighter archetypes.So you are essentially two classes but your levels in fighter persist as normal?
Thus generalized features of the class dont overlap and the specific ones the archetype denotes are what changes?
If that is so then what about level based advantages for said abilities? do you use your fighter level or you polearm archetype level?
That makes sense except I am talking about purposefully taking a level in pole arms fighter and then taking a level in two weapon fighter. Then I would be a second level fighter and a first level of each archetype.
If that is not allowed then picking an archetype is a finality and you can never be any other kind of fighter/rogue/wizard ever for that character which seems unusually limiting for a DnD/Pathfinder game. Think about it like this:
If I was a wizard, and after about five years adventuring I decided that that school I didnt pay attention to a long time ago when I became an illusionist would be really handy to learn. So I go back to level one generalist wizard, I get all the level one abilities of said generalist wizard because I am going back to learn a new level, essentially like I am taking a level in a different class because it is entirely different and makes sense that you can learn it, after all a wizard could go back and study anything he wants to.
I am talking about taking one level in one and one level in another and whether or not that is allowed. So I take one level in two weapon fighter and then a level in polearm.And that's not allowed. You cannot take the same class twice as part of multiclassing.Where does it say you cant if its essentially a different class?
for instance I can take a level one in wizard in dnd and a level one in illusionist. That IS legal. you double your spells effectively but you lose levels of spells, not too bad. But if you do that with a rogue and his archetypes things get wirey.
I dont see where it states in pathfinder that it is different?
I don't have my APG, but I believe the preamble to the class archetypes section says they are 'whole' and cannot be picked and chosen, you must take all the options. It also states that each archetype is still considered a member of the base class.
Under multiclassing, it specifically says that to multiclass you take a level in a new class, not your existing class. Those two things together handle it.
I know mdt, I was pulling it out of my head and I know you can't combine fighter archetypes. Purposes of example only. My APG is at home on the shelf. And if you'll note, I do say that there's no level, I just do it by example instead of plain statement. We agree on how things work, just phrase things way differently.Oh, absolutely, wasn't arguing with you. :) Just responding to the OP. I was hoping that since he didn't get your example, a more explicit one would help him. :) No issues with your explanation on my end.
And I just wanted to clarify for the OP that the fighter doesn't overlap, sorry.
No problem on my end either. I find sometimes my explanations work fine for me, not others. I'll be working from yours for the rest of this thread I think;)
I am talking about taking one level in one and one level in another and whether or not that is allowed. So I take one level in two weapon fighter and then a level in polearm.And that's not allowed. You cannot take the same class twice as part of multiclassing.Where does it say you cant if its essentially a different class?
for instance I can take a level one in wizard in dnd and a level one in illusionist. That IS legal. you double your spells effectively but you lose levels of spells, not too bad. But if you do that with a rogue and his archetypes things get wirey.
I dont see where it states in pathfinder that it is different?
1) Illusionist hasn't been a separate class from wizard since 1E. In Pathfinder, an illusionist is a wizard, one that specializes in illusion magic. You'll note that your illusionist class is found under the wizard class heading, making it part of the wizard class, not a separate subclass. So no, it isn't legal. Not anymore, not since I was in middle school.
2) Archetypes are not classes. They are variants. Not separate classes. All those archetypes are listed under one class heading, eg investigator and scout are found under the rogue class. So if you take either one or both, you're still a member of the rogue class with the appropriate archetypes. Archetypes aren't classes, so you can't multiclass them.
Ah now see that makes sense but it feels limiting. because I am a poisoner I can never be a rogue type without that ability even though someone else is allowed to multiclass and get it I cant?
I don't have my APG, but I believe the preamble to the class archetypes section says they are 'whole' and cannot be picked and chosen, you must take all the options. It also states that each archetype is still considered a member of the base class.
Under multiclassing, it specifically says that to multiclass you take a level in a new class, not your existing class. Those two things together handle it.
This is correct, it's in there, I read that part. It's because of that inability to pick and choose, at least in part, that you can't take archetypes that both work from the same class feature, I imagine. Otherwise you could just cherry-pick what features you want from all the archetypes as well as the core class itself, which could get annoying real fast. Also, I'm already weeping for clerics as it is, that would make me cry that much more with their lack of love;p
That makes sense except I am talking about purposefully taking a level in pole arms fighter and then taking a level in two weapon fighter. Then I would be a second level fighter and a first level of each archetype.If that is not allowed then picking an archetype is a finality and you can never be any other kind of fighter/rogue/wizard ever for that character which seems unusually limiting for a DnD/Pathfinder game. Think about it like this:
If I was a wizard, and after about five years adventuring I decided that that school I didnt pay attention to a long time ago when I became an illusionist would be really handy to learn. So I go back to level one generalist wizard, I get all the level one abilities of said generalist wizard because I am going back to learn a new level, essentially like I am taking a level in a different...
*sigh*
I understand what you want to do. I am not arguing that I can not see where that might happen. What I have been saying is, it is not allowed per RAW. I've said a couple of times if you want to house rule it to allow, then fine. You do have some issues, the biggest is that doing so would massively boost your saves, while at the same time masssively boosting low level spells (but stunting high level spells). Again though, if you want to house rule it, go for it. Or ask your GM if he will.
But RAW, it's not allowed.
I am talking about taking one level in one and one level in another and whether or not that is allowed. So I take one level in two weapon fighter and then a level in polearm.And that's not allowed. You cannot take the same class twice as part of multiclassing.Where does it say you cant if its essentially a different class?
for instance I can take a level one in wizard in dnd and a level one in illusionist. That IS legal. you double your spells effectively but you lose levels of spells, not too bad. But if you do that with a rogue and his archetypes things get wirey.
I dont see where it states in pathfinder that it is different?
I don't have my APG, but I believe the preamble to the class archetypes section says they are 'whole' and cannot be picked and chosen, you must take all the options. It also states that each archetype is still considered a member of the base class.
Under multiclassing, it specifically says that to multiclass you take a level in a new class, not your existing class. Those two things together handle it.
Yeah I guess that does. Just a little debate I had going with some friends. My dad played 1E and he was telling me about his old character who had multiclassed between generalist wizard and illusionist, makes sense now haha
This is correct, it's in there, I read that part. It's because of that inability to pick and choose, at least in part, that you can't take archetypes that both work from the same class feature, I imagine. Otherwise you could just cherry-pick what features you want from all the archetypes as well as the core class itself, which could get annoying real fast. Also, I'm already weeping for clerics as it is, that would make me cry that much more with their lack of love;p
I don't have my APG, but I believe the preamble to the class archetypes section says they are 'whole' and cannot be picked and chosen, you must take all the options. It also states that each archetype is still considered a member of the base class.
Under multiclassing, it specifically says that to multiclass you take a level in a new class, not your existing class. Those two things together handle it.
LOL
Well, at least they got a whole heap of new options for domains, and some are quite nice. :)
|
I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.This is correct. An archetype of a fighter is still a fighter, whether he's a weapon master, a two-weapon fighter, or a polearm fighter. You're not a weapon master5/polearm fighter 2, you're a fighter7 with the weapon master and polearm fighter archetypes.So you are essentially two classes but your levels in fighter persist as normal?
Thus generalized features of the class dont overlap and the specific ones the archetype denotes are what changes?
If that is so then what about level based advantages for said abilities? do you use your fighter level or you polearm archetype level?
There is no 'level' for polearm vs weapon master.
In fact, that's not even a valid combination. No fighter archetype can be used with another fighter archetype.
However, if we use Rogue as an example instead...
If you had an Investigative Scout (Investigator and Scout), then at level 7 you'd be a 7th level Investigative Scout Rogue. For any abilities for either Investigator or Scout, you'd be considered 7th level.
dude you are missing the point.
I am not talking about combining archetypes.
I am talking about taking one level in one and one level in another and whether or not that is allowed. So I take one level in two weapon fighter and then a level in polearm.
Simple Answer: No. Regardless if your are an investigator, an acrobat, a swashbuckler, a burglar, or a scout, you are still a rogue in all five. So no.
Long Answer: In 3.0 or 3.5, and now in 3.5 (and assume in previous editions, though I have not played those) you could NEVER multiclass multiple times in the same class. Otherwise you would have things like the a Rogue 20 and a Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1. The former has 10d6 sneak attack and the latter has 20d6 sneak attack. Or you have people who are Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1/Monk 1 and have a +40 to all saves. Or a Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1 who has 20 bonus feats. Actually, if you could this in 3.5, no one would ever play a Fighter 20 since by doing it this multiclass Fighter you are much better than a Fighter 20 (in 3.5) since all he had was bonus feats. As for your wizard and illusionist example, assuming you meant an illusionist, as in a wizard with the specialist school illusion, no you could NEVER do that. EVER. Because regardless of your bloodline/school/archetype/what-have-you, you are still a wizard. And you can't multiclass into your own class. So the answer is no, you cannot take a level in one archetype, and then a level in a different archetype if both archetypes are for the same class. Once you start taking levels in a particular archetype, you are stuck with it unless your DM allows you to "retrain".
EDIT: fricken ninjas...
Ah now see that makes sense but it feels limiting. because I am a poisoner I can never be a rogue type without that ability even though someone else is allowed to multiclass and get it I cant?
How is this unfair? Your character chose to be a poisoner, deliberately learning certain abilities in lieu of others. The guy who multiclasses into rogue might stay core rogue, in which case he looks at you and says 'wow, you can do some neat things, wish I could do that!' or maybe goes into poisoner himself with the same limitations as you or maybe another archetype, such as scout.
Yeah I guess that does. Just a little debate I had going with some friends. My dad played 1E and he was telling me about his old character who had multiclassed between generalist wizard and illusionist, makes sense now haha
AH, yeah, 1E added new stuff with classes, all the time. It was kind of a pain keeping track of the new classes and such.
This is correct, it's in there, I read that part. It's because of that inability to pick and choose, at least in part, that you can't take archetypes that both work from the same class feature, I imagine. Otherwise you could just cherry-pick what features you want from all the archetypes as well as the core class itself, which could get annoying real fast. Also, I'm already weeping for clerics as it is, that would make me cry that much more with their lack of love;p
LOL
Well, at least they got a whole heap of new options for domains, and some are quite nice. :)
True, but those options are nearly all they got. Every other class got as many spells or more, even rangers and paladins. they got few feats that really applied for them directly, and only a few magic items as well. But that's neither here nor there:)
How is this unfair? Your character chose to be a poisoner, deliberately learning certain abilities in lieu of others. The guy who multiclasses into rogue might stay core rogue, in which case he looks at you and says 'wow, you can do some neat things, wish I could do that!' or maybe goes into poisoner himself with the same limitations as you or maybe another archetype, such as scout.Ah now see that makes sense but it feels limiting. because I am a poisoner I can never be a rogue type without that ability even though someone else is allowed to multiclass and get it I cant?
Actually now that I think of it its not really that big of a deal because my sorceror or whatever friend has to select his archetype too for the rogue multiclass too so it ends up being the same for everyone.
Plus now that I think of it I choose an archetype usually because I dont want said ability lol so why would I ever multiclass back to get it
I would say no, as they're still the same class, just different flavors.This is correct. An archetype of a fighter is still a fighter, whether he's a weapon master, a two-weapon fighter, or a polearm fighter. You're not a weapon master5/polearm fighter 2, you're a fighter7 with the weapon master and polearm fighter archetypes.So you are essentially two classes but your levels in fighter persist as normal?
Thus generalized features of the class dont overlap and the specific ones the archetype denotes are what changes?
If that is so then what about level based advantages for said abilities? do you use your fighter level or you polearm archetype level?
There is no 'level' for polearm vs weapon master.
In fact, that's not even a valid combination. No fighter archetype can be used with another fighter archetype.
However, if we use Rogue as an example instead...
If you had an Investigative Scout (Investigator and Scout), then at level 7 you'd be a 7th level Investigative Scout Rogue. For any abilities for either Investigator or Scout, you'd be considered 7th level.
dude you are missing the point.
I am not talking about combining archetypes.
I am talking about taking one level in one and one level in another and whether or not that is allowed. So I take one level in two weapon fighter and then a level in polearm.
Simple Answer: No. Regardless if your are an investigator, an acrobat, a swashbuckler, a burglar, or a scout, you are still a rogue in all five. So no.
Long Answer: In 3.0 or 3.5, and now in 3.5 (and assume in previous editions, though I have not played those) you could NEVER multiclass multiple times in the same class. Otherwise you would have things like the a Rogue 20 and a Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue...
Well yeah but in 3.5 they had that handy tax for experience so no one ever did that...
but I was thinking first edition, that is where I had heard it done and because my teacher was a 1e guy I inturn assumed that it was possible to do so in all versions. I apologize for my misconception
Well yeah but in 3.5 they had that handy tax for experience so no one ever did that...
but I was thinking first edition, that is where I had heard it done and because my teacher was a 1e guy I inturn assumed that it was possible to do so in all versions. I apologize for my misconception
No problem, we're all guilty of not changing mental edition gears sometimes. I still get to beat on my best friend for thinking about 2E stuff. He still relies on 2E fluff, despite the fluff changing, which makes some conversations really frustrating.
Oh, and that Rogue1 (x20)? He had all his class levels within one of each other. He would have had no XP penalty in 3.5. Just the penalty of being bludgeoned by his fellow players for his cheese, but that's a metagame thing;)
|
Well yeah but in 3.5 they had that handy tax for experience so no one ever did that...
Except that in the rogue 1/rogue 1 .. example, you are never more than 2 off, so all your multi-classing is balanced.
Edit: see what happens when reading forums at work and get distracted by work before I finish typing.. Sigh. Ninja'd :P
|
I allow multi-classing into the same class at my table, they just have to make different "core" choices (Archetype or core class ability, such as god and domains, bloodline, arcane school, et al).
I help balance this out by only allowing the "+2" for having something as a good save once no matter how many classes have a good save, and then using the fractional saves/BAB rule. Oh, and I only allow combinations if they meet the rule of three: cool, fair and sensible (world-wise). Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/... for bonus feats breaks the second rule quite squarely and is thus banned.
So if you want to be Sorc (Draconic)/Sorc (Elemental) in my games, it's all good.
I understand that Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/... (or the same, with fighter) is a degenerate case of such allowances in most games, but I also see the argument of "Why should it be easier for someone who is just picking up fighter to learn awesome unique two-weapon techniques and I can't, just because I started as weapon master?"
The fighter archetypes in particular are so different from base fighter that they essentially *are* a different class. Note that not a single fighter archetype leaves even half the class features intact.
Actually, Fighter (Two-Weapon) 10/Fighter (Weapon Master) 10 sounds like an interesting character.
As far as playing as close to RAW as possible whilst being fair, the idea of multi-classing into the same class *has* to be banned. Luckily for my table I'm willing to play outside the rules sometimes.
I allow multi-classing into the same class at my table, they just have to make different "core" choices (Archetype or core class ability, such as god and domains, bloodline, arcane school, et al).
I help balance this out by only allowing the "+2" for having something as a good save once no matter how many classes have a good save, and then using the fractional saves/BAB rule. Oh, and I only allow combinations if they meet the rule of three: cool, fair and sensible (world-wise). Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/... for bonus feats breaks the second rule quite squarely and is thus banned.
So if you want to be Sorc (Draconic)/Sorc (Elemental) in my games, it's all good.I understand that Rogue 1/Rogue 1/Rogue 1/... (or the same, with fighter) is a degenerate case of such allowances in most games, but I also see the argument of "Why should it be easier for someone who is just picking up fighter to learn awesome unique two-weapon techniques and I can't, just because I started as weapon master?"
The fighter archetypes in particular are so different from base fighter that they essentially *are* a different class. Note that not a single fighter archetype leaves even half the class features intact.
Actually, Fighter (Two-Weapon) 10/Fighter (Weapon Master) 10 sounds like an interesting character.As far as playing as close to RAW as possible whilst being fair, the idea of multi-classing into the same class *has* to be banned. Luckily for my table I'm willing to play outside the rules sometimes.
That was my exact point. Why can johnny rainbow over here claim a power that I can NEVER no matter what EVER have lol
Well yeah but in 3.5 they had that handy tax for experience so no one ever did that...Except that in the rogue 1/rogue 1 .. example, you are never more than 2 off, so all your multi-classing is balanced.
Edit: see what happens when reading forums at work and get distracted by work before I finish typing.. Sigh. Ninja'd :P
At first I regretted my mistake because its like the nineth misconception i single handedly put on this thread haha but then I realized that it distracted you from work to see my error which made me smile
Bwahaha! its all coming together now..
|
|
Well yeah but in 3.5 they had that handy tax for experience so no one ever did that...Except that in the rogue 1/rogue 1 .. example, you are never more than 2 off, so all your multi-classing is balanced.
Edit: see what happens when reading forums at work and get distracted by work before I finish typing.. Sigh. Ninja'd :P
At first I regretted my mistake because its like the nineth misconception i single handedly put on this thread haha but then I realized that it distracted you from work to see my error which made me smile
Bwahaha! its all coming together now..
but distractions from work are pleasant. you are like some happy clown. Bringing happy distracting mistakes into the dull dreary workplace.. :P
Also, my wording was that work distracted me from this thread.. :)
Well yeah but in 3.5 they had that handy tax for experience so no one ever did that...Except that in the rogue 1/rogue 1 .. example, you are never more than 2 off, so all your multi-classing is balanced.
Edit: see what happens when reading forums at work and get distracted by work before I finish typing.. Sigh. Ninja'd :P
At first I regretted my mistake because its like the nineth misconception i single handedly put on this thread haha but then I realized that it distracted you from work to see my error which made me smile
Bwahaha! its all coming together now..
but distractions from work are pleasant. you are like some happy clown. Bringing happy distracting mistakes into the dull dreary workplace.. :P
Also, my wording was that work distracted me from this thread.. :)
Ah quick pro quo good sir
I will take the clown comment as the best compliment of my day hahah
Yeah I guess that does. Just a little debate I had going with some friends. My dad played 1E and he was telling me about his old character who had multiclassed between generalist wizard and illusionist, makes sense now haha
Even in 1st edition, the only demi-humans that could be illusionists were gnomes, and Illusionist/Magic-User wasn't a legal multi-class combination.
Arguably, a human could dual-class it, but... ugh. That would be a rather horrid dual class.
I think its clear myself. You can not take the same class twice. And archetype is the same class, just a specialized version of that class is all.
I think its clear myself. You can not take the same class twice. And archetype is the same class, just a specialized version of that class is all.
+1
That was my exact point. Why can johnny rainbow over here claim a power that I can NEVER no matter what EVER have lol
That's more a problem with multiclass rules and the fact that you can pick up levels in multiple class in the space of a few weeks, though you've spent years learning your 1st class. A more modular game design could fix it, I suppose.
Yeah I guess that does. Just a little debate I had going with some friends. My dad played 1E and he was telling me about his old character who had multiclassed between generalist wizard and illusionist, makes sense now hahaEven in 1st edition, the only demi-humans that could be illusionists were gnomes, and Illusionist/Magic-User wasn't a legal multi-class combination.
Arguably, a human could dual-class it, but... ugh. That would be a rather horrid dual class.
Yeah my dad played a human woman named Iris. Infact my dad and his friends came up with the idea for the Demi-lich long before that ever went to print, Iris "Damned Queen" had supposedly split her soul 9 times. She was a level fourty four magic user. level 22 illusionist level 22 magic user.
The stories about Iris were quite impressive actually lol
It wasnt a terrible build because my dad had fun playing it... after all that is the point of a game.. plus she was an evil bad ass lol
That's more a problem with multiclass rules and the fact that you can pick up levels in multiple class in the space of a few weeks, though you've spent years learning your 1st class. A more modular game design could fix it, I suppose.
That was my exact point. Why can johnny rainbow over here claim a power that I can NEVER no matter what EVER have lol
I mean I am not complaining really I LOVE LOVE LOVE the archetypes, frankly they are just awesome. However, I have never encountered anywhere else in gaming where it was literally IMPOSSIBLE to get a said ability of a class. That, to me, is just ridiculous.
|
I mean I am not complaining really I LOVE LOVE LOVE the archetypes, frankly they are just awesome. However, I have never encountered anywhere else in gaming where it was literally IMPOSSIBLE to get a said ability of a class. That, to me, is just ridiculous.That's more a problem with multiclass rules and the fact that you can pick up levels in multiple class in the space of a few weeks, though you've spent years learning your 1st class. A more modular game design could fix it, I suppose.
That was my exact point. Why can johnny rainbow over here claim a power that I can NEVER no matter what EVER have lol
Ever played a specialist Wizard ? (pre-Pathfinder, that is)
I see no problem with multiclass archetypes. I agree though that by the rules it would be allowed since you multiclasss into class not archetypes but if player in my game had good reason for wanting two archetypes I'd allow it. But wouldn't allow it just to be an option any one could take, I'd want a good reason first.
Ever played a specialist Wizard ? (pre-Pathfinder, that is)I mean I am not complaining really I LOVE LOVE LOVE the archetypes, frankly they are just awesome. However, I have never encountered anywhere else in gaming where it was literally IMPOSSIBLE to get a said ability of a class. That, to me, is just ridiculous.That's more a problem with multiclass rules and the fact that you can pick up levels in multiple class in the space of a few weeks, though you've spent years learning your 1st class. A more modular game design could fix it, I suppose.
That was my exact point. Why can johnny rainbow over here claim a power that I can NEVER no matter what EVER have lol
unfortunately once. I played (Ironically my onlyy multiclassed character ever) a gregory biggs the thief necromancer haha.
Pretty lame for a specialist wizard... but the new sub schools and powers and stuff in the APG... Porn just became absolete...
I see no problem with multiclass archetypes. I agree though that by the rules it would be allowed since you multiclasss into class not archetypes but if player in my game had good reason for wanting two archetypes I'd allow it. But wouldn't allow it just to be an option any one could take, I'd want a good reason first.
yeah I could see that as a good house rule, that way no one abuses it, as long as you keep the abilities outside the archetype to scale with the actual levels in the class it would actually be a doable and possible fun/interesting concept. Weapons master two weapon fighter with two scimitars high dex and the dancing dervish feat? throw a drow face on him and two weak sword names and you got drizzt do urden haha
Well yeah but in 3.5 they had that handy tax for experience so no one ever did that...Except that in the rogue 1/rogue 1 .. example, you are never more than 2 off, so all your multi-classing is balanced.
Edit: see what happens when reading forums at work and get distracted by work before I finish typing.. Sigh. Ninja'd :P
The (20x) rogue 1 would also have the awesome BAB of +0 and the incredible Fortitude and Will saves of +0. :)
The (20x) rogue 1 would also have the awesome BAB of +0 and the incredible Fortitude and Will saves of +0. :)Well yeah but in 3.5 they had that handy tax for experience so no one ever did that...Except that in the rogue 1/rogue 1 .. example, you are never more than 2 off, so all your multi-classing is balanced.
Edit: see what happens when reading forums at work and get distracted by work before I finish typing.. Sigh. Ninja'd :P
so we should definitely allow that to happen haha
"You want to multiclass to level one again?, well ok..."