The Prestige Classes that let you combine two base classes are good, but the problem is that they only allow you to combine the two specific base classes the designers had in mind for them. They are also numerically limited, meaning that your character can only really function as imagined once they reach 6th-8th level and the Mystic Theurge actually stops working properly in Epic levels.
The existing rules allow for all manner of level-dipping and Prestige Class trickery, but the one thing they do not allow is multiclassing as it was originally conceived: progression in two or three classes simultaneously.
What I'd like to see is a system in which multiclassing costs a resource, probably a feat, and then your abilities in your primary class would continue to advance at a reduced rate while you took levels in another class. Class abilities like those of the Arcane Trickster could be converted into feats.
What I'd like to see is a system in which multiclassing costs a resource, probably a feat, and then your abilities in your primary class would continue to advance at a reduced rate while you took levels in another class. Class abilities like those of the Arcane Trickster could be converted into feats.
See 4th ed.
The existing rules allow for all manner of level-dipping and Prestige Class trickery, but the one thing they do not allow is multiclassing as it was originally conceived: progression in two or three classes simultaneously.
Well you could always play with Gestalt Characters if yo really want it in your games. Allow people to Multi-class their Gestalt characters and if you do something like multi-class Rogue/Sorcerer and Paladin/Sorcerer the levels for Sorcerer stack. It's powerful but it gets you being good at 2 or 3 things.
Alternately you could add some 2nd ed mechanic that allow you characters to either Dual Class (essentially using the Multi-classing system as it is now) or Multi-class which allows you to take two or three classes at level 1, average the numeric values between them (BAB, Saves, HD, etc.), and allow the player to advance each class individually by dividing all xp received by each class. This way you get more power then a normal character but advance 2 or 3 times slower.
The existing rules allow for all manner of level-dipping and Prestige Class trickery, but the one thing they do not allow is multiclassing as it was originally conceived: progression in two or three classes simultaneously.Well you could always play with Gestalt Characters if yo really want it in your games. Allow people to Multi-class their Gestalt characters and if you do something like multi-class Rogue/Sorcerer and Paladin/Sorcerer the levels for Sorcerer stack. It's powerful but it gets you being good at 2 or 3 things.
Alternately you could add some 2nd ed mechanic that allow you characters to either Dual Class (essentially using the Multi-classing system as it is now) or Multi-class which allows you to take two or three classes at level 1, average the numeric values between them (BAB, Saves, HD, etc.), and allow the player to advance each class individually by dividing all xp received by each class. This way you get more power then a normal character but advance 2 or 3 times slower.
The dual classing will only be good if the campaign sticks to low levels. That's not that much different from LA's from 3.5.
The dual classing will only be good if the campaign sticks to low levels. That's not that much different from LA's from 3.5.
I'm not talking about Dual Classing as it was in 2nd but as multi-classing as it stands in PF. It's just a way to differentiate the names. If you could just as easily switch the names.
has anyone tried a witch/ninja/arcane trickster or a magus/ninja/arcane trickster?
See 4th ed.
The hybrid multiclassing rules in Player's Handbook 3 function more or less as I would want, except that it must be selected at 1st level and it doesn't really cost any resources. My main objection is that it requires the use of the rest of the Fourth Edition rules which, while acceptable, are not as suitable to my tastes as the Pathfinder rules.
The system I proposed is functionally little different from using the standard rules with "multiclass patch" Prestige Classes except that it does not require a dozen new Prestige Classes to be designed every time a new Base Class is introduced. It is certainly less powerful than the multiclassing system presented in either AD&D 2e or D&D 4e.
What you called making for versatlie characters in 3.5, Paizo and many others including myself, called it a system for making single classing a supremely suboptimal choice for character development.
Yes, I would certainly agree that this is an issue and I find the rules in Pathfinder vastly superior in this regard. I think the majority of the problem in the system lies not with the multiclassing rules themselves, but with the proliferation of Prestige Classes.
Multi-class support exists enough in Pathfinder to make multi-classing a viable option but not one better than single-classing which is in thier view the design goal.
I would disagree that multi-classing is a viable option. It certainly isn't viable for spellcasters.
Well you could always play with Gestalt Characters if yo really want it in your games. Allow people to Multi-class their Gestalt characters and if you do something like multi-class Rogue/Sorcerer and Paladin/Sorcerer the levels for Sorcerer stack. It's powerful but it gets you being good at 2 or 3 things.
Yeah. I have done this before and it has worked well enough, but it means that every character is effectively multiclassed and it makes them much more difficult to keep track of. I'm not trying to make every character multiclassed, only to make it a viable alternative to remaining single-classed; Gestalt is a campaign option that is only suitable for certain games with certain styles.
Note that characters under my proposed system would still be losing out on higher-level class abilities and that multiclassing and gaining multiclass abilities would cost them Feats.
Alternately you could add some 2nd ed mechanic that allow you characters to either Dual Class (essentially using the Multi-classing system as it is now) or Multi-class which allows you to take two or three classes at level 1, average the numeric values between them (BAB, Saves, HD, etc.), and allow the player to advance each class individually by dividing all xp received by each class. This way you get more power then a normal character but advance 2 or 3 times slower.
I would be agreeable to this, but you would lose out on a great deal of the flexibility that Pathfinder offers in multiclassing; it would once again become an option that may only be selected at 1st level and it would require a great deal of additional work.
Some sort of expansion of the Unearthed Arcana Generic classes, which at the moment are Expert, Spellcaster and Warrior? As they stand, they omit divine spell casting completely, and there are no options for adding minor spell casting to expert and warrior (as bard, paladin and ranger). But they might be a good starting point.
It certainly is viable for spellcasters... Unless you're really of the "I must have my cake and eat it too" school. Multi-classing means diverting your focus, so it stands to reason that you're going to lose some spellcasting effectiveness. Considering what I've seen done with standard builds in various examples, saying that multi-classing spellcasters is not viable is a rather extreme position to take.
I would disagree that multi-classing is a viable option. It certainly isn't viable for spellcasters.
I don't think it viable without a prestige class, which means Arcane Trickster for your rogue/(sorcerer or wizard). With requirements of 2d6 sneak attack and 2nd level spells, that means rogue 3 and wizard 3 or sorcerer 4. So what do you do up to level 6-7, and what if you don't happen to care for Arcane Trickster special features? With all the options for rogues and sorcerers and wizards, decide you want to combine them, and your only option is the ranged legerdemain etc.
It certainly is viable for spellcasters... Unless you're really of the "I must have my cake and eat it too" school. Multi-classing means diverting your focus, so it stands to reason that you're going to lose some spellcasting effectiveness.
Key word here being "some". A Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is not comparable to a single-classed character of the same level in any fashion, and cannot contribute meaningfully to a CR 20 encounter.
Splitting experience points between two or three classes, as was standard in AD&D, produced a character who was consistently between 1 and 3 levels behind a single-classed character. Using the Pathfinder progression charts for the classes would produce similar results. These characters were not considered problematic or unbalancing for twenty-five years.
Splitting experience levels between classes produces characters whose class features lag behind everyone else's; the only areas in which they can keep up are purely numerical bonuses like BAB and Saving Throws, which are practically meaningless for spellcasters and other feature-heavy classes. The people who designed the game recognized that this was a problem, which is why in the 3.5 revision they published numerous Prestige Classes whose sole purpose was to make these characters viable.
Pathfinder exacerbates this issue by giving every character class considerable class features in addition even to their spellcasting. In effect, every class in Pathfinder is "feature-heavy".
I'm not advocating returning to AD&D multiclassing or allowing multiclass spellcasters to keep their full spellcasting progression. I'm not even advocating that multiclass characters be substantially more powerful than Prestige Classes like the Mystic Theurge or the Eldritch Knight allow them to be. I am suggesting that we replace one solution to the multiclassing problem-- a solution that really only works between 8th and 16th level-- with a more elegant solution that requires less design work and continues to scale normally from first level into epic.
Multiclassing in Pathfinder is a suboptimal strategy and it is always going to be a suboptimal strategy, but there is no reason for it to be an abysmal strategy and certainly no call for accusing me of "wanting to have my cake and eat it too" when I propose that it should remain only somewhat suboptimal.
Considering what I've seen done with standard builds in various examples, saying that multi-classing spellcasters is not viable is a rather extreme position to take.
I would love to see a standard build in which a multi-classed spellcaster is even remotely comparable to a single-classed spellcaster.
Thanks, but I'll try putting something together off the prestige bard in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (thanks LazarX)I am indeed looking for something specific, i.e. a prestige class for the rogue/sorcerer character of my son, who's currently more interested in the sorcerer side, whilst, as the GM, I want him to have the trap-finding skills so I don't have to lay off with the traps, and the party needs him to have rogue combat skills and HPs to offset a total lack of martial characters. In all the multitude of 3.5 prestige classes, I have Arcane Trickster and Dagger Spell Mage to work with (I don't have all the splat books). I'm looking for something more rogue oriented. It will almost certainly wind up overpowered, but I guess that doesn't matter too much as long as he knows that, and why I'm allowing it.If you ask in the Homebrew Forum nicely, I am sure someone will attempt to make a prestige for you.
You could check out Unseen Seer from 3.5 It was an arcanist/rogue....though you won't find any real "tanky" combos along that line as arcanist/rogues tend to be tricky-finesse based characters. Daggerspell Mage being a possible exception....though I never thought they were any good.
I've played a character from first to 14th level as 1/2 Rogue and 1/2 Wizard. I was able to contribute to a CR20 encounter. I didn't have Arcane Trickster as most of my DMs thought PrCs like that were too powerful so they didn't allow it in 3.X (along with Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, and similar ones). The thing was that I still had a good selection of skills, a 4d6 sneak attack, 4th level spells, and item creation feats. My strategy for playing the character was much different from how I play a straight Rogue or Wizard (particularly in spell choices here). It's all in how you use what you have.
The problem with trying to boost multi-classing is how do you do it and still be fair to those who want to stay a single class. PrC designed to fit certain combos seem the best option. You could do certain elements with Feats (which are already offered in some cases) but I personally think a Feat that gave +1 to effective spellcasting level to a limit of your character level would be out side the scope of a Feat for power level. To use my character above, if I had that Feat I'd take it every time over Extra Rogue Talent, one that gave me +1d6 to my Sneak Attack, +1 to my BAB to the limit of a Rogue equal to my Character Level, or really any other Feat. Magic is just a lot more versitile then those other options.
Now if you have special multi-classing mechanics where you get some increase in power from your other classes when you go up in another; you get back into Multi-classing being more optimal then single classing as you are getting a class level plus some extras too. Then there is the option of having a seperate XP total for each class like 2nd Ed. I'd think this would be a bigger problem for CR then multi-classing, as is, ever would.
That's not the point. There are many ways to multi-class, and they're not going to have equal viability. A straight Wizard/non-Wizard 10/10 is going to have problems.
Yes. But I am talking very specifically about the kind of multiclassing that the current rules were originally intended to emulate, the kind of multiclassing that existed for twenty years before 3e and thirty years before Pathfinder; if that kind of multiclassing cannot be emulated under the current rules, there is something wrong with those rules and they need to be fixed.
If you're talking about old-fashioned AD+D multi-classing, it's simply not doable within the d20 ruleset. ... The fact that it can't be done is not a "fault" in D20, it's just that D20 is a very different game than AD+D.
I would like to apologize first for the tone of my previous posts. I've been in a mood most of the night and taking offense where it would seem none was intended.
Considering that d20 was supposedly the continuation of the AD&D rules, it strikes me as exceedingly odd that its inability to handle a common and popular character archetype would be anything other than a flaw. The multiclassing rules in d20 were not designed for Prestige Classes and two-level dips, they were designed to replicate the multi-classed and dual-classed characters of AD&D. The fact that they were unsuitable to this purpose led the designers of the Revised Edition to seek solutions.
I am proposing an alternate solution to a problem that the original designers already conceded exists; I find it baffling that someone would devote effort into arguing that it is not a problem and never was a problem when one solution to that problem has already been presented.
Do you think that allowing a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 to have the class features of a Wizard 15 and a Cleric 15 is going to seriously unbalance the game in any way that a Wizard 5/Cleric 5/Mystic Theurge 10 would not?
Correction: the closest one can come to would probably be the Gestalt rules in Unearthed Arcana.
I'm not interested in using a high-powered campaign variant to a fix a problem that can be solved elegantly without increasing the power level of the campaign. I am trying to fix a fundamental flaw in the game's class system.
Mind you though that that old style multi-classing came with it's own heavy restrictions, it existed in a game with level limits and you wound up paying for a class even after you had maxed out it's level cap. You could not have for instance a Fighter/Wizard 10/10 in that system either as you would cap at Fighter 7 assuming your str was 18, earlier if it was less.
Yes. No penalty at all until the campaign reached that level, and then suddenly your advancement comes to a screeching halt. I would not wish to return to that system.
You could check out Unseen Seer from 3.5 It was an arcanist/rogue....though you won't find any real "tanky" combos along that line as arcanist/rogues tend to be tricky-finesse based characters. Daggerspell Mage being a possible exception....though I never thought they were any good.Thanks, but I'll try putting something together off the prestige bard in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (thanks LazarX)I am indeed looking for something specific, i.e. a prestige class for the rogue/sorcerer character of my son, who's currently more interested in the sorcerer side, whilst, as the GM, I want him to have the trap-finding skills so I don't have to lay off with the traps, and the party needs him to have rogue combat skills and HPs to offset a total lack of martial characters. In all the multitude of 3.5 prestige classes, I have Arcane Trickster and Dagger Spell Mage to work with (I don't have all the splat books). I'm looking for something more rogue oriented. It will almost certainly wind up overpowered, but I guess that doesn't matter too much as long as he knows that, and why I'm allowing it.If you ask in the Homebrew Forum nicely, I am sure someone will attempt to make a prestige for you.
I don't have Complete Mage (and won't be spending £30 odd on a copy). Is there a good online resource for 3.5 Prestige classes, that rates whether or not they're over-powered, because that's a concern as well. I'm not looking for a 'tanky' combo, just not completely squishy. We might have used Daggerspell Mage if we'd had the book starting out, but now its too much trouble to tweak the feats (i.e no dagger or two-weapon feats chosen).
'Have your cake and eat it too' always bugs me. If I have my cake, you better believe I'm going to eat it. Otherwise, do I really have it?
If we're given an option, I don't want to "have" the cake. Just to eat it.
I don't have Complete Mage (and won't be spending £30 odd on a copy). Is there a good online resource for 3.5 Prestige classes, that rates whether or not they're over-powered, because that's a concern as well. I'm not looking for a 'tanky' combo, just not completely squishy. We might have used Daggerspell Mage if we'd had the book starting out, but now its too much trouble to tweak the feats (i.e no dagger or two-weapon feats chosen).
You could check out Unseen Seer from 3.5 It was an arcanist/rogue....though you won't find any real "tanky" combos along that line as arcanist/rogues tend to be tricky-finesse based characters. Daggerspell Mage being a possible exception....though I never thought they were any good.
No online resources that I know of....though it wouldn't surprise me if it was listed out somewhere.
It's still a d4 hit dice character, so squishy it is. It just is a really, really cool concept and gets some pretty nice abilities (grabbing divination spells off of any spell list in the game a couple times? Yes please.....at least 3.5 spells!)
You could check out Unseen Seer from 3.5 It was an arcanist/rogue....though you won't find any real "tanky" combos along that line as arcanist/rogues tend to be tricky-finesse based characters. Daggerspell Mage being a possible exception....though I never thought they were any good.I don't have Complete Mage (and won't be spending £30 odd on a copy). Is there a good online resource for 3.5 Prestige classes, that rates whether or not they're over-powered, because that's a concern as well. I'm not looking for a 'tanky' combo, just not completely squishy. We might have used Daggerspell Mage if we'd had the book starting out, but now its too much trouble to tweak the feats (i.e no dagger or two-weapon feats chosen).
No online resources that I know of....though it wouldn't surprise me if it was listed out somewhere.
It's still a d4 hit dice character, so squishy it is. It just is a really, really cool concept and gets some pretty nice abilities (grabbing divination spells off of any spell list in the game a couple times? Yes please.....at least 3.5 spells!)
But then I've got to learn to GM the divinations! :(
(Seriously, I am GM'ing for the first time, and I feel I'm just about keeping on top of new features as they level up, but only just.)
Interesting set of ideas here.
I do like the concepts of multi-classing as they stand, I really don't want to mess about with halving experience or any such.
I don't like the way that some combinations basically don't work or need a tailor-made prestige class to work. The feats mentioned from 3.5 - the Ascetic feats or Practised Caster - were brought in to correct this failing, and something along those lines would work in Pathfinder too.
The way I see it, a fighter/ranger gets to combine his primary aspects - BAB, hit dice, feats etc very well. All he loses out on is his capstones in either class, really: compared to a pure member of either class he has more versatility but less specialisation but on the balance no less 'power'. Now a wizard/sorcerer, on the other hand, loses out big time: compare him to a pure member of of either class and he's very weak.
Now it's easy to import 3.5 material to a Pathfinder game, but not all DMs allow it, and besides those feats were not that good.
The way I would do it would be to introduce 'specialist' feats instead. Something like this:
Spell Casting Specialist
You are focussed on casting spells, but not necessarily from the same class.
Prerequisite: Levels in two or more spell-casting classes.
Benefit: You may increase your effective casting level when casting a spell from any of your classes by up to half the combined levels of your other spell-casting class or classes, up to the limit of your character level, to spell variables and to caster level checks. You do not gain any additional spells known or per day from this feat.
Martial Arts Specialist
You are focussed on your skill in unarmed combat as well as combat in general.
Prerequisite: Levels in the Monk class and any other class.
Benefit: You may add half of your levels in your non-monk classes to your level in the monk class to determine your unarmed combat damage. You may use your total base attack bonus minus two as the basis for your flurry of blows class feature, rather than your monk level.
That's my point, eating it is synonymous with having it!'Have your cake and eat it too' always bugs me. If I have my cake, you better believe I'm going to eat it. Otherwise, do I really have it?If we're given an option, I don't want to "have" the cake. Just to eat it.
Not to be off-topic, but thought I'd spread some enlightenment on this idiom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_one%27s_cake_and_eat_it_tooOn topic, I like multiclassing, but some combinations could definitely use some help. Especially caster classes. But outside of multiclass feats, or perhaps fractional caster level increases (like the Magic Rating found here http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/unearthedMagic.html ), I don't know how to do it, being more or less a novice at RP systems.
Considering that d20 was supposedly the continuation of the AD&D rules, it strikes me as exceedingly odd that its inability to handle a common and popular character archetype would be anything other than a flaw. The multiclassing rules in d20 were not designed for Prestige Classes and two-level dips, they were designed to replicate the multi-classed and dual-classed characters of AD&D. The fact that they were unsuitable to this purpose led the designers of the Revised Edition to seek solutions.
I think you are missing what the design considerations for 3e multiclassing actually were. They were not designed to "replicate the multi-classed and dual classed characters of AD&D," but to provide a single straightforward mechanic for any character to advance in more than one class. Both AD&D multiclassing and dual classing had hefty restrictions: only demi-humans could multiclass and only in certain combinations by race, they had to split XP between the classes and had level limits, hp were averaged, etc.; only humans could dual class and they had to have a 15 in their prime requisite(s) for their original class and a 17 in the prime requisite(s) for their second (or successive) class(es), they couldn't use any of their original class abilities until their second class level exceeded the first without forfeiting all XP gains, they could never gain additional levels in earlier classes once switched, etc. 3e multiclassing simplified and streamlined the process, while allowing more options.
One of the consequences of the 3e multiclassing design, however, was the inability to advance in more than one thing simultaneously as characters gained levels or to "reset" the XP needed to gain levels after switching to a new class. Prestige classes were, among other considerations, a "patch" to the 3e multiclassing rules to allow characters to more closely resemble 1st/2nd Ed AD&D multiclassed or dual classed characters. This was quickly (within the first year of 3e) demonstrated with the publication of Sword and Fist, Defenders of the Faith, Tome and Blood, and Song and Silence, with Masters of the Wild following a bit later.
|
On topic, I like multiclassing, but some combinations could definitely use some help. Especially caster classes. But outside of multiclass feats, or perhaps fractional caster level increases (like the Magic Rating found here http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/unearthedMagic.html ), I don't know how to do it, being more or less a novice at RP systems.
The supp Trailblazer by Bad Axe Games has develop a system where multi-class spell casters can nearly / all retain their super powers...er...spells depending on the combo while balancing it out with less spell slots.
Well IMHO I found I like the multi-classing. I multi-classed to a cleric at lvl 3 so we'd have a secondary healer and increased my power as a magical combatant. Not to mention I can always heal myself without waiting for other players. And since There's the mystic theurge PRC so I can continue my spell advancement for both, I have no complaints.
Martial Arts Specialist
You are focussed on your skill in unarmed combat as well as combat in general.
Prerequisite: Levels in the Monk class and any other class.
Benefit: You may add half of your levels in your non-monk classes to your level in the monk class to determine your unarmed combat damage. You may use your total base attack bonus minus two as the basis for your flurry of blows class feature, rather than your monk level
You actually use your monk level + BAB from all other classes as the BAB for your flurry already - all you'd be missing out on were the extra attacks that mirror the TWF feats, and that's a reasonable thing to miss out on.
You actually use your monk level + BAB from all other classes as the BAB for your flurry already - all you'd be missing out on were the extra attacks that mirror the TWF feats, and that's a reasonable thing to miss out on.Martial Arts Specialist
You are focussed on your skill in unarmed combat as well as combat in general.
Prerequisite: Levels in the Monk class and any other class.
Benefit: You may add half of your levels in your non-monk classes to your level in the monk class to determine your unarmed combat damage. You may use your total base attack bonus minus two as the basis for your flurry of blows class feature, rather than your monk level
My point was that this would allow the multiple attacks.
|
Well, the major flaw comes when you look at spellcasters. Everyone always gets BaB Saves, HP, and HD, and most of the time, the features you do gain when multiclassing non-spellcasting classes do improve upon themselves, or are based on character level to some point.
But not spells themselves. A suggestion, rather than make it a feat, is simple have Caster level increase just like BaB and saves do. There is either full progression, or poor progression. Every level in a class that normally grants spells or effective spellcasting levels, is the full progression, (or however it normally progressed, if not +1 each level).
However, for classes that do not progress spellcasting, they have the poor progression, which is essentually either +1/2 or +1/3 spellcasting level, depending on your power level. The only thing that this does not improve is new spells/spell levels. Only a level in a spellcasting class or PC offers new spells and or spell levels. But, Duration, Caster Level, etc. . . do continue to grow, at a slower rate.
A side note, these are not retroactive. So a 19 level Ftr can't take 1 level of Wiz and get super spellcasting for a level 1 Wizard. They are simply a level 1 Wizard as far as spellcasting.
Trailblazer page 27.
-- david
Papa.DRB
..... But not spells themselves. A suggestion, rather than make it a feat, is simple have Caster level increase just like BaB and saves do. There is either full progression, or poor progression. Every level in a class that normally grants spells or effective spellcasting levels, is the full progression, (or however it normally progressed, if not +1 each level).
However, for classes that do not progress spellcasting, they have the poor progression, which is essentually either +1/2 or +1/3 spellcasting level, depending on your power level. The only thing that this does not improve is new spells/spell levels. Only a level in a spellcasting class or PC offers new spells and or spell levels. But, Duration, Caster Level, etc. . . do continue to grow, at a slower rate. .....
I, too, agree with the total lack of support for multiclassing.
The best route to go are the feats. WotC had released multiclass feats in 3.5, particularly with the Ascetic (Monks) and Devoted (Paladin) feats, but I have seen some that mixed Fighter/Ninja, Druid/Ranger, Fighter/Swashbuckler, Cleric/Bard, and a few others.
They were not overpowering either. They offered a small benefit plus combined the levels for one or two class features.
I don't know why Paizo won't take this route and release "Multiclass" feats.
A simple model could be to choose two classes, when you level up you you have 5 points to choose between their BaB, saves, spells (potentially by school), feats, and unique abilities. The higher BaB costs 1 point, a bonus feat or spell is 2 points, and then the unique abilities are 3 points. (Paizo Could decide balanced point values)
The above template would let me be a monk with some casting ability with high unarmed strike damage. My BaB would suffer for some access to spells, but my fists wouldn't HAVE to. I could choose to delay fist damage in favor of some off class...
I think this would work better with prestige classes than with straight up classes, because some base classes are by this scheme fairly unbalanced. For example, full spell-casting is big, but how big depends upon what spells you can cast.
The other possibility is releasing prestige classes with archetypes to combine different features of classes, and perhaps guidelines for making archetypes as well.
|
|
Personally, I wish that instead of having a single prestige class, that they all worked as archtypes for most styles of class. Especially the ones that are regional based like the Hell Knights or Eagle Knights.
So you could have a general Prestige class that a Rogue, Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, etc. . . might all gain benefits accoding to their base class, rather than getting specific bonuses or featues, that might not help at all. I see both of those classes being optimal for Clerics, Paladins, (Black Guards), Fighters, or any warrior style class, but it is just way to costly for most when you weigh the benefts to what your base character class(s) lose.
Same would be true for making PC's based off of a multiclass combonation.
I personally want to see one for
Cleric/Everything
Paladin/Monk
Paladin/Rogue
Paladin/Sorcerer or Oracle (more about divine grace-like abilities and Cha)
Sorcerer/Wizard
Cleric/Oracle
Barbarian/Bard or Cleric (shaman style, but not Druid)
|
|
Trailblazer page 27.
-- david
Papa.DRB..... But not spells themselves. A suggestion, rather than make it a feat, is simple have Caster level increase just like BaB and saves do. There is either full progression, or poor progression. Every level in a class that normally grants spells or effective spellcasting levels, is the full progression, (or however it normally progressed, if not +1 each level).
However, for classes that do not progress spellcasting, they have the poor progression, which is essentually either +1/2 or +1/3 spellcasting level, depending on your power level. The only thing that this does not improve is new spells/spell levels. Only a level in a spellcasting class or PC offers new spells and or spell levels. But, Duration, Caster Level, etc. . . do continue to grow, at a slower rate. .....
?
Trailblazer PDF @ RPG Now. Page 27 is the table and information on the caster level progression for caster, non-caster, etc. characters. Just pointing out that someone has done this work already.
-- david
Papa.DRB
?Trailblazer page 27.
-- david
Papa.DRB
The only thing that this does not improve is new spells/spell levels. Only a level in a spellcasting class or PC offers new spells and or spell levels.
Any solution that does not grant progress in spells per day and spells level is not a solution at all. Reduced progression in these is penalty enough.
The only thing that this does not improve is new spells/spell levels. Only a level in a spellcasting class or PC offers new spells and or spell levels.Any solution that does not grant progress in spells per day and spells level is not a solution at all. Reduced progression in these is penalty enough.
I'll go ahead and disagree with you here. Lower level spells are still pretty effective when cast as a higher caster level. The saves might suck a little more, but that's really not a high price to pay. In a system like this you're giving up specialization not power, which is really the goal to be sought.
The only thing that this does not improve is new spells/spell levels. Only a level in a spellcasting class or PC offers new spells and or spell levels.Any solution that does not grant progress in spells per day and spells level is not a solution at all. Reduced progression in these is penalty enough.
I disagree. Such a solution that does increase spell level and spells/day is open to abuse, such as dipping one level of wizard and then taking the next nineteen in fighter. Increasing casting level is adequate enough outside of prestige classes.
|
|
Trailblazer PDF @ RPG Now. Page 27 is the table and information on the caster level progression for caster, non-caster, etc. characters. Just pointing out that someone has done this work already.
Oh, cool. I'll need to check that out. That is what I figured, but I hadn't heard of it. Thanks.
Any solution that does not grant progress in spells per day and spells level is not a solution at all. Reduced progression in these is penalty enough.
I said this to avoid someone taking one level of Cleric, one level of Wizard and 18 of ________ and getting super spellcasting + everything cool tat non-casters get. (Monk, jumps to mind.)
I don't have a problem with some limited spell level increase, but I think it would need to be case be case, (class by class), and not formulaic at all. Maybe every 4 levels would be a good base, +1 for Arcane, +1 fo how well it augments class combo, etc. . .
I'd like to make a fine point here. Some people have been complaining that Paizo will do not much support for multiclassing. In this regard, it is important to remember that Paizo has only published two rulebooks to date. Yes there have been AP's, Golarion, etc. but in terms of rules heavy books, there has only been Core and APG. Ultimate Magic is coming in late April. If we don't see anything encouraging caster/stuff multiclassing there, then we can expect very little multiclass support in total. Ultimate Magic is going to be very telling of what course Paizo's taking in a number of issues.
Trailblazer PDF @ RPG Now. Page 27 is the table and information on the caster level progression for caster, non-caster, etc. characters. Just pointing out that someone has done this work already.Oh, cool. I'll need to check that out. That is what I figured, but I hadn't heard of it. Thanks.
Any solution that does not grant progress in spells per day and spells level is not a solution at all. Reduced progression in these is penalty enough.I said this to avoid someone taking one level of Cleric, one level of Wizard and 18 of ________ and getting super spellcasting + everything cool tat non-casters get. (Monk, jumps to mind.)
I don't have a problem with some limited spell level increase, but I think it would need to be case be case, (class by class), and not formulaic at all. Maybe every 4 levels would be a good base, +1 for Arcane, +1 fo how well it augments class combo, etc. . .
I am not so sure, I think it depends how it is done. I think paying one feat for one level of increased spell-casting is reasonable, to the limit of the character level. So, for example, you could have a cleric 10/ monk 10, casting as cleric 20 but with to all intents and purposes no feats. Losing all those feats would hurt the monk side of things a great deal, as well as the cleric side, not an unfair exchange.
@Erik, that's a good point well taken. It may be there is more to come.