Multiclass complaints are hilarious, because the strongest things in 3.x were most assuredly NOT multiclassed.
They were straight wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, artificers, archivists, etc, etc.
Multiclassing occured for three reasons.
1) To make a non-caster more powerful
2) To fit a theme
3) You really want to be a "powergamer" but have no freaking clue at all what you're doing.
Whenever others whine about multiclassing being for munchkins or create bizarre combos like "half dragon rogue/fighter/ranger/assassin" I laugh, because that character is so terrible.
to be honest for a benchmark hakway between the two systems star wars seda was probably 3.75 though notbthematically.
Establish prerequisites for multiclassing. Make sure they have at least shown an interest in the new class (skills, feats, RPing) before they launch into it. I have, and my players don't seem to mind having to plan ahead a little and spend some skills / feats / time doing it. Of course, I'm sure some would scream about it. The idea of a barely literate Barbarian suddenly launching into a career as a Wizard was always a bit much. Have them hang out / study... take Spellcraft, learn a language etc. It isn't any different than having prerequisites for prestige classes.
I've probably just committed heresy of course, but oh well...
I wouldn't say heresy so much as choosing to "fix" something that isn't broken. That is to say, it seems like you're trying to add a mechanical penalty to something that, mechanically, is already a bad idea.
I mean, your Barbarian->Wizard is already probably picking that combo for concept or RP reasons -- certainly he's not picking it for powergaming reasons unless he's a spectacularly bad powergamer.
As long as the game steers away from full-csater-level-progression PClasses, as Pathfinder Core largely does, there isn't a mechanical problem with multiclassing since no mutt you can put together really holds a candle to straight-class wizard/cleric/druid.
You forget the aptly named Abjurant Cheese build. And any multi-classing which did not cost a caster level, made casters even more sick in 3.x.Multiclass complaints are hilarious, because the strongest things in 3.x were most assuredly NOT multiclassed.
That's prestige class, not multiclass.
I don't think multi-classing should be impossible (that's one of the nice things about 3.x) just a bit logical / orderly. And the ease of multi-classing core / base classes with no prerequisites has always made me wonder. You spend years prepping to be a first level what-ever and have to meet prerequisites to do prestige classes... why shouldn't there be some requirements for doing a second / third / etc. base class? Those prerequisites might vary by race to reflect background (and maybe by traits now as well) but there should be some in-game level of interest to hop into a new base class. Imo, of course.
I see that for you a geater issue is realism - actually you are right in this.. as an example, just think about a Fighter1/Wizard1 and a Wizard1/Fighter1. There something strange in the timetable :P
Said this, if this is a problem, enforce planning. Player wants to roll a Fighter/Wizard? Have the fighter buy 1 rank of spellcraft at level 1.
The results of his studies will be clearer a level after that.
Luckily, there are no more cross class skills costing 1 points ;)
If you start knowing that you want a, say, fighter/wizard combo, you could use 0-level multiclassing rules for that - it would be a logical thing rules wise, and if you have the story to back it up, its even better. Otherwise, changing classes could be houseruled with "you need to take a skill or feat specific to the class in question a level before you change classes" if you see the need for this.
Barbarians and wizards: in AD&D1e/UA, Barbarians weren´t allowed to associate with wizards or use magical items.
Stefan
If you start knowing that you want a, say, fighter/wizard combo, you could use 0-level multiclassing rules for that - it would be a logical thing rules wise, and if you have the story to back it up, its even better.
Stefan
I loved the 0th level multiclassing rules in 3.0 DMG. I wish they were brought over to 3.5.
Multiclassing was the only thing I disliked about 3.5, conversely it's the only thing I like in 4th edition. I'm surprised to hear others feel the same way, most people just argue up and down with me that it's the best part of 3.5. When it come to 4th edition I really can't stand roles, powers, power sources and all of the fluff changes, but that's just me others seem fine with it.
Calling Pathfinder 3.75 might not be accurate but it isn't an insult either. As for the changes I would have gone a little further, for example I would have up'd the fighters (and possible the paladin and rangers) hit die to d12's, the monk up to d10's. I would have had a stepped AC so when you rolled 10 higher then the base AC you just hit twice, 20 three times. A middle of the line save progression, and a few more resistances on high level fighters then just bravery. I would had also stripped the animal companion out of ranger and druid, simply making it a set of feats. Nerfed spellcasters a little more, and some more odds and ins.
Paizo's couldn't really afford to make all of those changes, backwards compatible was a selling point, just as it's nothing like 3.5 was a selling point for 4th edition. Honestly I'm not sure if Pathfinder 2e, which is at least 8 years off, is going to change even further from 3.5, or if 5th edition, which is conceivably a lot closer, will bring back a lot of 3.5 elements.
I loved the 0th level multiclassing rules in 3.0 DMG. I wish they were brought over to 3.5.If you start knowing that you want a, say, fighter/wizard combo, you could use 0-level multiclassing rules for that - it would be a logical thing rules wise, and if you have the story to back it up, its even better.
Stefan
You could easily port them to 3.5, I think. For PF, you could use these rules here: Apprentice levels
Stefan
Not even TSR obeyed that rule if you checked the composition of the Heroes of the Lance.
But really, Dragonlance tossed aside the AD&D rules (and even the Dragonlance-specific rules!) at least as often as it upheld them. Here's a world with no clerics! Except, you know, the one in the party. And it's got these cool wizards that are school-specialized by alignment! Except, you know, the one in the party. Who also spontaneously gains about 15 levels for no good (enough) reason. Etc.
(And don't get me started on Gord the Rogue!) :)
|
Not even TSR obeyed that rule if you checked the composition of the Heroes of the Lance.
Barbarians and wizards: in AD&D1e/UA, Barbarians weren´t allowed to associate with wizards
Stefan
Well, two things: Dragonlance wasn't "stock" D&D (Greyhawk was, at the time), and the entire world was going to hell in a hand basket (necessity makes strange bedfellows).
Bad example, really.
Actually, Dragonlance is a bad example of anything. Kender weren't hunted for sport by every race. That alone make the setting illogical to the extreme...
|
|
That's prestige class, not multiclass.You forget the aptly named Abjurant Cheese build. And any multi-classing which did not cost a caster level, made casters even more sick in 3.x.Multiclass complaints are hilarious, because the strongest things in 3.x were most assuredly NOT multiclassed.
Er, what exactly is the difference? Is it not true that multi-classing rules apply when you take prestige classes (with the exception of the XP penalty for extra classes).
S.
That's prestige class, not multiclass.You forget the aptly named Abjurant Cheese build. And any multi-classing which did not cost a caster level, made casters even more sick in 3.x.Multiclass complaints are hilarious, because the strongest things in 3.x were most assuredly NOT multiclassed.
Er, what exactly is the difference? Is it not true that multi-classing rules apply when you take prestige classes (with the exception of the XP penalty for extra classes).
S.
Multiclassing is in general a side venture, prestige classes are meant to be a continuation of your original class.
In other words, a fighter who goes exotic weapon master or a barbarian that goes into frenzied berserker is still a fighter or barbarian at heart. A fighter that goes into wizard is something different.
Or at least I think that's how it was planned. Prestige classes are pretty weird, and I think I prefer 4e's paragon classes better.
|
|
Multiclassing is in general a side venture, prestige classes are meant to be a continuation of your original class.That's prestige class, not multiclass.You forget the aptly named Abjurant Cheese build. And any multi-classing which did not cost a caster level, made casters even more sick in 3.x.Multiclass complaints are hilarious, because the strongest things in 3.x were most assuredly NOT multiclassed.
Er, what exactly is the difference? Is it not true that multi-classing rules apply when you take prestige classes (with the exception of the XP penalty for extra classes).
S.
Considering how many PrCs require stuff from two classes, this is hardly true 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time, really.
Considering how many PrCs require stuff from two classes, this is hardly true 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time, really.Multiclassing is in general a side venture, prestige classes are meant to be a continuation of your original class.That's prestige class, not multiclass.You forget the aptly named Abjurant Cheese build. And any multi-classing which did not cost a caster level, made casters even more sick in 3.x.Multiclass complaints are hilarious, because the strongest things in 3.x were most assuredly NOT multiclassed.
Er, what exactly is the difference? Is it not true that multi-classing rules apply when you take prestige classes (with the exception of the XP penalty for extra classes).
S.
But in most of those cases, the PrC is meant to be a continuation and combination of both classes.
It doesn't always succeed, mind you, but the concept is still "This class(es) but with more x."
I see that for you a geater issue is realism - actually you are right in this.. as an example, just think about a Fighter1/Wizard1 and a Wizard1/Fighter1. There something strange in the timetable :P
Pretty much. The strongpoint of 3.x for me as a DM is the ability to construct a coherant world.
Said this, if this is a problem, enforce planning. Player wants to roll a Fighter/Wizard? Have the fighter buy 1 rank of spellcraft at level 1.The results of his studies will be clearer a level after that.
Luckily, there are no more cross class skills costing 1 points ;)
This is pretty much what I'm talking about. Nothing too drastic just requiring them to think ahead, take the odd skill / feat and RP the interest. I'd like a reason for the new class. It cuts out a lot of odd moves / combos if people have to think it through and carry through on it.
I wouldn't say heresy so much as choosing to "fix" something that isn't broken. That is to say, it seems like you're trying to add a mechanical penalty to something that, mechanically, is already a bad idea.
I am not trying to add a significant barrier, just justify the move and have them plan ahead. A lot of multi-classing doesn't work in the long run. Making them plan ahead usually avoids later issues. If they really want to it provides in-game background and lets you know they are pursuing it for a reason besides simple mechanical advantage. Hopefully.
I mean, your Barbarian->Wizard is already probably picking that combo for concept or RP reasons -- certainly he's not picking it for powergaming reasons unless he's a spectacularly bad powergamer.
I've seen both. The concept can be justified, if that's the right word, with time and RP.
As long as the game steers away from full-csater-level-progression PClasses, as Pathfinder Core largely does, there isn't a mechanical problem with multiclassing since no mutt you can put together really holds a candle to straight-class wizard/cleric/druid.
I agree, especially in PF. It's not so much a mechanical issue for me as a simulation / world issue. Most of my problems with multi-classing in 3.0 / 3.5 had more to do with prestige class combinations rather than core / base classes.
That's prestige class, not multiclass.You forget the aptly named Abjurant Cheese build. And any multi-classing which did not cost a caster level, made casters even more sick in 3.x.Multiclass complaints are hilarious, because the strongest things in 3.x were most assuredly NOT multiclassed.
Sorry, but I tend to think "multi-class" for any combo of core / base or prestige classes. My terminology was probably confusing. The Barbarian - Wizard core class combo was just one of the odder ones I ran into in the past.
I don't think, with the exception of some multiple prestige class combos, that it was ever more powerful than a straight Wizard (for example). I think a lot of the advantages were short term with a long term loss in power level. Even more so in PF given the new capstone abilities. That never stopped people from coming up with some oddities though. I just like my oddities to be... explainable oddities :)
|
To me, Pathfinder, or 3.75, is what 4E should have been but fell sort of that goal. WoTC 4E is not really dnd, but rather something with the name given to it.
In short, Pathfinder is the latest incarnation of DnD; whereas, 4E is not. Nothing against 4E, mind you; it just doesn't give off the dnd flavor and feel that IS dnd to me.
Note: this is my personal opinion from over 30 years of gaming, and in no way should be construed as anything other than my own opinion.
|
|
To me, Pathfinder, or 3.75, is what 4E should have been but fell sort of that goal. WoTC 4E is not really dnd, but rather something with the name given to it.
In short, Pathfinder is the latest incarnation of DnD; whereas, 4E is not. Nothing against 4E, mind you; it just doesn't give off the dnd flavor and feel that IS dnd to me.
Note: this is my personal opinion from over 30 years of gaming, and in no way should be construed as anything other than my own opinion.
|
|
To me, Pathfinder, or 3.75, is what 4E should have been but fell sort of that goal. WoTC 4E is not really dnd, but rather something with the name given to it.
In short, Pathfinder is the latest incarnation of DnD; whereas, 4E is not. Nothing against 4E, mind you; it just doesn't give off the dnd flavor and feel that IS dnd to me.
Note: this is my personal opinion from over 30 years of gaming, and in no way should be construed as anything other than my own opinion.
|
|
My main issue with this is that some of the things I've attempted to use were not backwards compatible. For example, a heavy warhorse isn't NEARLY that same in the two editions.
That is correct. A PF heavy warhorse is different from a 3.5 heavy warhorse. Hit points, attacks, feats... lots of things have changed.
But if you take a 3.5 Heavy Warhorse and you bring it into a PF game, you'll find it's pretty easy to bring it up to speed. It has a score for all the major abilities, it has skill points, and it has feats.
As opposed to, say, a Heavy Warhorse from WFRP. Or GURPS. Those stat-blocks won't have Strength, Dex, Con, Int, etc. They won't have skill points and they won't have feats, at least not like 3.5/PF require.
So the numbers have changed a little. So what? It still has all the basic attributes required. A 3.5 character will be behind a PF character in power as-is, but can be brought into a PF game pretty easily.
Races have been problematic, Feats changed to odd usage, the name of some do not match their usage while others. When I stopped thinking of the game as D&D things got alot easier to deal with.
These are my experinces, others will have different ideas. It is these ideas I would like to draw upon, to gain more insight on some problem-solving tactics.
True, a lot has changed. But what makes PF mostly backwards-compatible with 3.5 is that you can import stuff from 3.5 and make it work in PF with minimal work required. Minimal work, of course, does not mean no work.
Most of the changes are better, in my opinion. Cleave and Dodge became much more powerful, and the collapse of the skills was great. In some areas, I think the game didn't change enough, but I appreciate the changes that were made.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I only read the first page here, so I really don't know how this topic has progressed and I am sure to repeat something said already.
To me, the idea that PF is the D&D 3.75 comes from the excitement that all the books they bought for Wizard's D&D 3.5 were not going to be completely useless when they started to play a different rpg rule set.
I was excited when Wizards announced 4th edition, because I loved what was done with 3rd edition and I thought and hoped that they were going create an edition that was what Pathfinder ended up becoming. To my disappointment, I found that if I wanted to use 4th ed, none of the many books I already owned could be used in any way. In fact, I felt that 4th ed did not fit in line with the D&D traditions. But that is another story.
I have to admit that I didn't really want to play Pathfinder at first. I didn't know anything about it, and I already knew most everything about 3.5 and did not want to learn a whole new system. Then my friend convinced me to play Curse of Crimson Throne with the PF rules and my rpg world changed.
Now, CotCT was written for 3.5, but we created PF characters. So far, the DM has had little problem picking up 3.5 books and doing impromptu conversion so we can have the experience the adventure path was written for. As for 3.5, I still look through the books for material that I can use in my own games, but mostly I stick with what PF provides.
"Backwards Compatibility" does not mean the PF and 3.5 games should be interchangeable. If there is something in both systems then Pathfinder should be used. If you find something in 3.5 that is not in PF, then you can use it with little or no reworking to use it. I think that is what is meant by the phrase. I do not think that PF rules should be used in part in a 3.5 game, the balance is different enough that just about everything PF will overpower 3.5.
The Pathfinder system is different enough though that should it have been developed by Wizards it would have been titled, and rightly so, Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition. You do not need to use anything from the 3rd edition of D&D game to play the game, but there is the option to do so.
For me, this is a smart decision. First of all, 3.5 was a great starting point and foundation for the development of Pathfinder. It worked, it was tested, and had few real flaws. Second, though Pathfinder is a completely different system, it looks familiar to the experienced players. Lastly, the ability to use books from a different system lets players feel like they are free to create any character concept and not forced into anything. This was important when PF first came out, but now with more and more material being released it is far less likely that people will go to 3.5 for material.
So, yes, in a way we can use the 3.5 books, but there is less of a need to do so, and there was a great marketing reason to point it out.
|
|
The biggest indicator of backwards compatibility to me was my ability to run an entire 3.5 Adventure Path using Pathfinder with not more pre adventure prep than I would have needed for a Pathfinder AP.
Any adjustments I needed to make were done on the fly.
What is this orc's perception? Same as his spot in 3.5 or the average of spot and search if search was higher.
What is this goblin shaman's cmd since the party monk is trying to grapple him? Well let's see, 10 + str mod + dex mod + size.
What if I needed to know that dark creeper's stealth modifier? It'll be the average of his hide and move silently.
These slight changes were always done in my head. My players never knew it was going on. Many of them didn't even know I wasn't running a Pathfinder AP. If that doesn't earn the title "backwards compatible" in the RPG arena, I don't know what does.
If you want to look at it from another perspective, there is not a fantasy rpg that I am aware of that is as backwards compatible with 3.5 as Pathfinder is.
Tam
|
|
To me, Pathfinder, or 3.75, is what 4E should have been but fell sort of that goal.
My ideal D&D 4e would be a mash up between Pathfinder and the actual D&D 4e, 4e created some great little rules and mechanics that would make PF a better game IMHO e.g. Second Wind, Action Points, At Will powers etc. Also 4e took some ideas that Pathfinder did that bit further e.g. collapsing the skill list.
Overall I probably prefer PF to 4e but wish it had more significant changes from 3.5 - as it is I have read and run 3.5 and 4e but have not, and likely will not, read PF cover to cover like most RPG books, instead it will simply be a reference for me to play PF (and so I won't be running it).
So yes, PF for me is a 3.75 unfortunately in Pathfinder I either wanted a 3.5 or a full on 4th edition with the significant changes needed to give it that name.
|
|
I loved the 0th level multiclassing rules in 3.0 DMG. I wish they were brought over to 3.5.If you start knowing that you want a, say, fighter/wizard combo, you could use 0-level multiclassing rules for that - it would be a logical thing rules wise, and if you have the story to back it up, its even better.
Stefan
If you liked those rules, you might want to check out Learning Curve: Apprentice-Level Characters from Tricky Publishing
Go to Link