|
If you want Feats, I would rather it either do one entire spell level, or a few effective levels, but I really don't think that is a good trade, simply because some combos wouldn't actually be that restricted. For example, Fighter gets plenty of bonus Feats. Would you let a pure Fighter sinply trade a feat to get full spellcasting without multiclassing? That would kind of make it pointless to play a full caster, well some casters anyway.
|
I'm very happy that Pathfinder discourages the heavy kind of multi-classing that was so prevalent with optimizers in 3.5. I really wouldn't like to see these kinds of feats again.
+1. Some of the concepts were ridicolous (4 or 5 classes or prestige classes), and everybody had planned their characters to level 20 right from the start (feats, skills, spells, magic items, etcetera).
I'm glad to see the opposite effect in PF, due to favored class mechanics and most prestige classes feeling more balanced now.
I don't ever want to see such bloat again, or prestige classes such as Master of the Unseen Hand or Daggerspell Infiltrator and whatnot.
@Erik, that's a good point well taken. It may be there is more to come.
I noticed the dueling weapon ability and gloves in the APG would be awesome for a duelist character. Doesn't "fix" the duelist, but it throws it a bone. There were some interesting new spells, too.
I like the approach, so far, with all the big books. I expect that, as usual, the Paizonians are paying attention to these boards and doing their best to improve the game.
What I don't like I houserule. Same as it ever was... =)
|
|
Some of the concepts were ridicolous (4 or 5 classes or prestige classes), and everybody had planned their characters to level 20 right from the start (feats, skills, spells, magic items, etcetera).
While I can't say I like more than 3 classes at most, some people like to play that way and I see no reason to restrict them.
Personally, I wish more people would plan their characters progression out, both to speed up level advancement and to have an RP idea of who/what they want. Withan idea, you can change as the game progresses, so there really isn't any bad there.
This would be my first post... So first let me say hello etc:
I've been playing RPG's since 2nd edition AD&D and I've played and DM/GM'd at just about every power level from 1st through mid epic. Also played/ran many other systems, but that's fairly irrelevant here.
I lurked(mostly) on the Character optimization forums on WotC several years ago before I lost interest in 3.x due to inherent balance issues.
4th edition D&D made me sick, and 3.x was so broken it was basically unplayable and not much fun once it became a constant case of looking for 20's or 1's. Pathfinder seems to have fixed the overwhelming majority of those exploits and produced a much more balanced and reasonable system.
So far in pathfinder games I've played a Fighter2/Rogue 3, a Straight Ranger, Straight Cleric, Straight Paladin, Paladin4/Cleric/4/Holy Vindicator2, Monk2/Cleric3, Barbarian1/Paladin4. All of which were quite viable and certainly didn't slow the party down. And I'm currently running a low level game.
~Snip~
The real problem I have with 3.5 prestige classes is that, from the DMG (p.176),the best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself
but there were never, AFAIK, any guidelines on designing them, something which I've been struggling with recently, just a bewildering array of more and more examples in each new book.
So, please, please, please, Paizo, would you be able to give us a set of basic, clear guidelines on how to design our own prestige classes?
The following is a tool I've used before, it's basically what it says it's a class construction engine. I've found it reasonably balanced if that's your goal, but like most things it can be broken. Obviously not cannon, but a functional tool none the less. Of course, your millage may vary.
http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/media/classconstruction.pdf
As to Pathfinders general suitability for multi-classing... Multi classing is still viable. But in 3.x it was the ONLY option. If you weren't multi-classing(Outside of Druid/Cleric obviously) you were just plain wrong.
Now Single classes are viable, but multi-classing is certainly still viable.
You won't be as good at Arcane spell casting if you are a Multi-classed wizard as a non-multi-classed wizard will be.
But that does not mean you can't be effective. Though you will have to plan ahead more. Making a multi-classed character as you go, picking and choosing on the fly changing your goal as you go can be very entertaining(I will never forget Chalikor Leventhis, the "Schizophrenic Elf"). But it's not going to be as powerful as either a single classed character, or a well thought out pre-planed character.
While this does mean that characters that use spells to enhance meele/ranged attacks will probably be the most combat viable, in no way does that make it the only option.
So far I haven't played all that much Pathfinder, but Paladin, Monk, Barbarian and Cleric are all still Very suitable for 1-2 level dips. Domain powers almost seem to make Cleric MORE suitable for multi-classing.
So I guess it depends on what your goal is from Multi-Classing. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're meaning.
|
|
Some of the concepts were ridicolous (4 or 5 classes or prestige classes), and everybody had planned their characters to level 20 right from the start (feats, skills, spells, magic items, etcetera).While I can't say I like more than 3 classes at most, some people like to play that way and I see no reason to restrict them.
Personally, I wish more people would plan their characters progression out, both to speed up level advancement and to have an RP idea of who/what they want. Withan idea, you can change as the game progresses, so there really isn't any bad there.
I've played with guys whose typical characters were, for example, fighter/cleric/craftmaster/paladin/hammer of moradin and rogue/fighter/duelist/warshaper/eldritch knight.
The end result was often that while these guys were optimized in *one* area, they didn't feel or play like high-level characters. For example, that hammer of moradin build had high saves, could craft artifacts and was doing ridiculous damage with hammers, but that was all. No access to healing or spells above 2nd level. And when all the PCs are more or less "one-trick ponies", it often leads to unexpected problems; just as much as with multiple high-level spellcasters in the party.
I've played with guys whose typical characters were, for example, fighter/cleric/craftmaster/paladin/hammer of moradin and rogue/fighter/duelist/warshaper/eldritch knight.
Where is this Craftmaster prestige class? I never heard of it from one of the WotC material?
.
..
...
....
.....
*Nice friendly greeting*
HELLO!
Welcome to the boards.
::
|
|
Where is this Craftmaster prestige class? I never heard of it from one of the WotC material?
I've played with guys whose typical characters were, for example, fighter/cleric/craftmaster/paladin/hammer of moradin and rogue/fighter/duelist/warshaper/eldritch knight.
I think it is in 'Races of Stone'? It may be that I have the name of this class wrong, because I don't have the book (another player used to bring it to our 3.5 sessions). From what I recall, it's a dwarven prestige class with five levels, and basically it lets you apply your Wis modifier to warhammer damage rolls plus you can craft magical items (or was it only weapons and armor?) as if your CL was 5 X your Craftmaster level. You still need to be able to cast 2nd level divine spells, IIRC, to qualify for this class. In a way it's the dwarven equivalent to Corellon's Champion, or whetever that elven divine PrC was that let you apply your Dex modifier to longsword damage.
|
|
I've played with guys whose typical characters were, for example, fighter/cleric/craftmaster/paladin/hammer of moradin and rogue/fighter/duelist/warshaper/eldritch knight.
The end result was often that while these guys were optimized in *one* area, they didn't feel or play like high-level characters. For example, that hammer of moradin build had high saves, could craft artifacts and was doing ridiculous damage with hammers, but that was all. No access to healing or spells above 2nd level. And when all the PCs are more or less "one-trick ponies", it often leads to unexpected problems; just as much as with multiple high-level spellcasters in the party.
Are you sure this wasn't more of an issue with conflicting desires from the game or playstyle? Where you the DM, (I presume) or another player?
I don't see how they can't have any access to healing? Cleric and Paladin, crafter, . . . seems like making wands, scrolls, and potions would be right up ther alley, not to mention other items that thy might uniquely craft.
Don't get me wrong, these characters look to me like they would be a long time prior to having any real pay off, and wouldn't be something I would actually want to play, but not at all something that can only do one or to things. If so, that's the DM's fault for not presenting enough variaty of encounters, (traps, rp, religion, fights, etc. . .), so don't take this as me trying to bsh you or anyone.
Sure there are going to be unexpected problems, but any build is going to have that. Especially if everyone else misunderstood the players intentions, (for example not wanting to be the party healer, caster, or tank).
I'm fine with how multi-classing works now. Mainly, multi-classing is used to meet the pre-requisites for prestige classes anyway. As long as the prestige classes are in line with the power levels of the base classes, everything is fine.
Before PF, the prestige classes were so much more powerful, you'd be gimping yourself by using your base class only. Now the tides have turned.
For straight mult-classing between base classes only, it would be very hard to balance, either one is more powerful than the other. Then you would see more multi-classing because mult-class + prestige classes would be better than single classes (which is what happenned in 3.5).
This just goes to show though, that everyone who was multi-classing before wasn't doing it because of RP reasons, it still comes down to optimization, twinking and powergaming. Kudos to those people who still multi-class right now even though it's "less viable".
I'm very happy that Pathfinder discourages the heavy kind of multi-classing that was so prevalent with optimizers in 3.5. I really wouldn't like to see these kinds of feats again.+1. Some of the concepts were ridicolous (4 or 5 classes or prestige classes), and everybody had planned their characters to level 20 right from the start (feats, skills, spells, magic items, etcetera).
I'm glad to see the opposite effect in PF, due to favored class mechanics and most prestige classes feeling more balanced now.
I don't ever want to see such bloat again, or prestige classes such as Master of the Unseen Hand or Daggerspell Infiltrator and whatnot.
Problem is that there is discouraging silly multi-classing, and discouraging ALL multi-classing. Multi-class and you automatically start to lose out on favoured class bonus for a kick off. Losing out on level-dependent abilities and capstones which most classes now have just hurts more.
Multi-classing without using a prestige class is very penalising.
Maybe we should change the name then :)
Prestige Classes should be better than Core classes, in my opinion. They require special training and focus, and well they are suppossed to be prestigious.
I'm not sure they should be better, but they should be by and large more focussed - better at one thing, not as good at others - than core classes.
|
|
I've played with guys whose typical characters were, for example, fighter/cleric/craftmaster/paladin/hammer of moradin and rogue/fighter/duelist/warshaper/eldritch knight.
The end result was often that while these guys were optimized in *one* area, they didn't feel or play like high-level characters. For example, that hammer of moradin build had high saves, could craft artifacts and was doing ridiculous damage with hammers, but that was all. No access to healing or spells above 2nd level. And when all the PCs are more or less "one-trick ponies", it often leads to unexpected problems; just as much as with multiple high-level spellcasters in the party.
Are you sure this wasn't more of an issue with conflicting desires from the game or playstyle? Where you the DM, (I presume) or another player?
I don't see how they can't have any access to healing? Cleric and Paladin, crafter, . . . seems like making wands, scrolls, and potions would be right up ther alley, not to mention other items that thy might uniquely craft.
Don't get me wrong, these characters look to me like they would be a long time prior to having any real pay off, and wouldn't be something I would actually want to play, but not at all something that can only do one or to things. If so, that's the DM's fault for not presenting enough variaty of encounters, (traps, rp, religion, fights, etc. . .), so don't take this as me trying to bsh you or anyone.
Sure there are going to be unexpected problems, but any build is going to have that. Especially if everyone else misunderstood the players intentions, (for example not wanting to be the party healer, caster, or tank).
In this particular group I am a player (I also play in other groups, and run Pathfinder in one), and yes, there were/are some conflicts in playstyle and goals; however, that was not the biggest issue here. You see, there are certain things in high-level 3E play that are more or less explicit to any group's survival: access to healing and "buffs", the "Big Six" items and group dynamics. Most of our characters have had powerful magic items, often way beyond the wealth-by-level guidelines. But as far as group dynamics go, IME most optimizers tend to suffer from "my-guy-is-the-coolest-ever" syndrome; you finetune your character to perform ridiculously well in one or two things, and self-sufficient enough to manage pretty nicely on your own, while forgetting about how he should perform as a member of the *group* (claiming to play a cleric, and yet only taking 3 or 5 levels in it). And, as you said, quite often the payoff for specialized builds won't be apparent until at higher levels (12th or 15th).
One or two PCs having two levels of paladin or three levels of cleric does not amount to a lot of healing; the problem becomes even deeper if the DM is againt "Magic Marts" and free access to potions, scrolls and wands. Crafting is another thing some DMs don't allow; in this case we rarely have the time to do *any* crafting, and the DM thinks "real" adventurers should be questing for magic items, not making them. Also, please note those Craftmaster levels in the build I mentioned were intended to give that extra Wis bonus on damage rolls, not because you can craft artifacts.
High-level play in 3E is swingy at best, and chaotic at worst; both to players and DM alike. A single initiative roll or spell on the first round may decide the outcome of the whole encounter. Sometimes a single spell or clever use of a magic item resolves the whole adventure without the PCs even breaking a sweat. For example, I've seen a druid wipe out every bad guy in the adventure with a single use of 'Creeping Doom' in 3.0. Another time a single spell ('Dominate Person') on the party's strongest melee guy lead to a TPK.
Gamemastering is a fine art, in which you have to understand the game and the needs, expectations and desires of your players; you have to make sure everything is balanced, often changing things on the fly if need be. It's even more important in 3E, I think, because PF rules include many revisions that help with this. But in 3E the balance feels much more fragile; for example, if none of the PCs have access to spells beyond 2nd or 3rd level, they are going to be royally screwed sooner or later. And a fighter 3/rogue 4/sorcerer 5 is not equal to a 12th level singleclassed PC in power; he may have some tricks up his sleeve in certain situations, but he's a low-level spellcaster and mediocre at melee by 12th level standards.
I agree that prestige classes should be "prestigous", and perhaps even a bit more powerful than core classes to a certain degree; however, it should not feel as mandatory as it does in 3E. Besides, in 3E this is often illusionary; you get more abilities and bonuses on your saves, but the price may be steep. And while some PrCs are truly awesome when compared to the core classes, others lead to suboptimal builds or those one-trick ponies that are often useful only in marginal situations. I suspect that not even the in-house designers had any kind of formalized rules for designing prestige classes, because there are so many on both ends of the power curve.
Another thing: I think there should be some kind of mechanical "sacrifice" involved when you multiclass, whether it's into a PrC or another core class. However, losing spell levels or attacks may be too high a price in the long run (as I noted above). On the other hand, the benefits should not be so good that it feels you *have* to do it with every PC. And I think PF balances this way better than 3E; it's tempting, but not necessary, because all classes get really nice high-level abilities. And yet I think 4E got multiclassing even more "right"; you have to burn a feat (or replace your paragon path with a class at 11th level) and only gain minor advantages for it, plus the ability to retrain and pick powers from another class. As we know, this is a bit like how archetypes work in PF (sans losing a feat), and perhaps a something like this will be used for multiclassing in the next edition?
|
I see two groups.
Group 1) I want it all. BAB, Saves, HP, and Spell casting.
Group 2) You can't have it all because of game balance.
I'm in group 2. In 3.0 and 3.5 multiclassing was the way to go. Almost all classes where fronted loaded. Taking 2 to 4 levels in class X made your character better. Really to good if you know the system. Pathfinder made it where Taking class X. Was good but some times not as good as staying single class.
Casters need there section. Casters in 3.0, 3.5, and pathfinder your maxim level dip is 2. Past the 2 level dip your in to painful caster level penalty. The real hard part is casting stats past level 10. If by this time you have not maxed out your spell DC's. The chances of you affecting a target with a spell is low. That means at character creation you make a caster or something else.
My opinion of the old multiclassing. 2nd ed multiclassing is broken. You where 1 to 2 levels behind the group. But you haded full class ability's of all the classes.
For example my old Fighter/Mage/Thief
Elf
Fighter 8
Mage 8
Thief 9
There is no way to balance this with any single class from 2nd ed. That wold put her party at level 10 - 11. This is not something that should be recreated in any why. If your in a game with munchkins that's your call. It how ever is not something you can do from a balance point of view.
If you want Feats, I would rather it either do one entire spell level, or a few effective levels, but I really don't think that is a good trade, simply because some combos wouldn't actually be that restricted. For example, Fighter gets plenty of bonus Feats. Would you let a pure Fighter sinply trade a feat to get full spellcasting without multiclassing? That would kind of make it pointless to play a full caster, well some casters anyway.
Your arguement is flawed. A full spellcasting level would never be a fighter bonus feat, and unless the feat maker was a complete bonehead it wouldn't increase spellcasting beyond your total character level. Plus, such a feat could only be taken a number of times equal to some arbitrary number. Such as your casting stat or total spellcaster levels.
Many people argue against multiclassing and prestige classes, but laude archetypes. It just makes me want to smack my forehead. The simple solution is multiclass archetypes. I've been working on such an idea for months, but life is life and I have no time to playtest, so anything I create will never be balanced since I can't put it in play.
Maybe we'll get lucky and Paizo will take the plunge.
My opinion of the old multiclassing. 2nd ed multiclassing is broken. You where 1 to 2 levels behind the group. But you haded full class ability's of all the classes.
For example my old Fighter/Mage/Thief
Elf
Fighter 8
Mage 8
Thief 9
There is no way to balance this with any single class from 2nd ed. That wold put her party at level 10 - 11. This is not something that should be recreated in any why. If your in a game with munchkins that's your call. It how ever is not something you can do from a balance point of view.
Is the general consensus that AD&D split-classes were overpowered? I only really played in 2 campaigns so don't have the experience to judge. Were level limits seen as the balance (often conveniently house-ruled away)? My experience of 3.5 over 5th level is limited to Neverwinter Nights 2, my impression being that the multiclassed arcane caster lost at least 2 caster levels, meaning losing the highest level spells, which hurt enough to think about carefully. Doesn't this apply in PnP, or is there some angle I've missed?
How much of the problem is multi-classing as such, and how much is a proliferation of increasingly powerful prestige classes, and/or people dipping into several (which I don't think was intended, as most were tied to an organisation which would expect loyalty)?
Although I think Prestige classes stopping at 10th level probably encourages dipping.
|
|
It's so broken. Finding a starting point is hard.
1: Not only did you have full casting but you Had full thief, and full fighter ability's.
2: Fighter adds full attack bonus ( Under the old rules the only way to get more attacks was to be a fighter.)
3: Sneak attack worked different under 2nd ed. Back stab damage was multiplied by the damage dealt. You could back stab with fire balls. So you where looking at 8D6 X 3 back stab. Even using 3rd ed you could sneak attack with a scorching ray. Level 5 Scorching Ray 4D6 + Sneak Attack 3D6 = 7D6.
4: Fighter with Rogue : Full BAB, Full Sneak Attack, Evasion. Why wold you ever not do it?
5: Full or 3/4 BAB with full arcane casting? With out reducing your casting effectiveness.
6: Full BAB with full Divine Casting? Fighter that can cast heal and dose not need a healer at all.
7: Full casting of Divine and Arcane? Why in the world wold you ever not do this. If its only costing you 2 caster levels in each?
Finding a balance is hard. Making something broken is not. It's not the ones that don't go well to gather that's the problem. It's the ones that work really well together that start your problems. My personal favored from 2nd ed was Fighter/Cleric. Self healing tank that never need the cleric to heal him. And using the old fighter/mage is a bad example of how bad a character combo can get. Figther, Wizard by the why armor and spells work is not a good combo under 2nd ed. With 3.0, 3.5, and pathfinder. They moved the saveing throws from static numbers. To based off casting stat. This made the combo lose alot of the effectiveness it found in 2nd ed. Increasing the Fighter, Cleric combo becous divine spells got a boost in self buffing.
It's so broken. Finding a starting point is hard.
1: Not only did you have full casting but you Had full thief, and full fighter ability's.
2: Fighter adds full attack bonus ( Under the old rules the only way to get more attacks was to be a fighter.)
3: Sneak attack worked different under 2nd ed. Back stab damage was multiplied by the damage dealt. You could back stab with fire balls. So you where looking at 8D6 X 3 back stab. Even using 3rd ed you could sneak attack with a scorching ray. Level 5 Scorching Ray 4D6 + Sneak Attack 3D6 = 7D6.
4: Fighter with Rogue : Full BAB, Full Sneak Attack, Evasion. Why wold you ever not do it?
5: Full or 3/4 BAB with full arcane casting? With out reducing your casting effectiveness.
6: Full BAB with full Divine Casting? Fighter that can cast heal and dose not need a healer at all.
7: Full casting of Divine and Arcane? Why in the world wold you ever not do this. If its only costing you 2 caster levels in each?Finding a balance is hard. Making something broken is not. It's not the ones that don't go well to gather that's the problem. It's the ones that work really well together that start your problems. My personal favored from 2nd ed was Fighter/Cleric. Self healing tank that never need the cleric to heal him. And using the old fighter/mage is a bad example of how bad a character combo can get. Figther, Wizard by the why armor and spells work is not a good combo under 2nd ed. With 3.0, 3.5, and pathfinder. They moved the saveing throws from static numbers. To based off casting stat. This made the combo lose alot of the effectiveness it found in 2nd ed. Increasing the Fighter, Cleric combo becous divine spells got a boost in self buffing.
That wasn't my question, though. I was asking about AD&D. I've never played 2nd edition, so can't comment. As I remember, a split-class MU/rogue would have BAB something better than a pure mage but not as good as a pure rogue and so on. The MU/rogue couldn't cast wearing armour, which forced more cautious behavior, and I don't recall her ever 'backstabbing' with a spell. And although, in principal you might have full casting, a pure mage would always be higher level for the same XP, and always have the edge on casting.
There's also the point that, normally, you'd have to compromise on ability (i.e. highest stat in Int or Dex, but you couldn't have both). In fact you still do, because your 1 ability point every 4 levels can't boost at least two primary ability scores. (Or perhaps because I've not played PnP at high levels, I underestimate the impact of ability boosting items.)
|
|
Under 2nd ed rules you. Picked the best of what the classes you hade. So as a fighter/thief/mage. You used the figther bonus to hit, the rogue skills and back stab, and full arcane casting.
Under 2nd ed there where not ability boost items. So there was realy not a need to have the max posible ability. Not using armor in 2nd was not a big deal it was easy to get your AC down to a -10 as a mage and it was not hard.
Under 3.5, and pathfinder it's very imporatan to max your primary stat. Thats the problem with alot of the caster X with any other class. If they share the same casting stat it's much better. But you still only want to do 2 level dip in any other class.
It's so broken. Finding a starting point is hard.
1: Not only did you have full casting but you Had full thief, and full fighter ability's.
2: Fighter adds full attack bonus ( Under the old rules the only way to get more attacks was to be a fighter.)
3: Sneak attack worked different under 2nd ed. Back stab damage was multiplied by the damage dealt. You could back stab with fire balls. So you where looking at 8D6 X 3 back stab. Even using 3rd ed you could sneak attack with a scorching ray. Level 5 Scorching Ray 4D6 + Sneak Attack 3D6 = 7D6.
4: Fighter with Rogue : Full BAB, Full Sneak Attack, Evasion. Why wold you ever not do it?
5: Full or 3/4 BAB with full arcane casting? With out reducing your casting effectiveness.
6: Full BAB with full Divine Casting? Fighter that can cast heal and dose not need a healer at all.
7: Full casting of Divine and Arcane? Why in the world wold you ever not do this. If its only costing you 2 caster levels in each?
The problem, calagnar, is that you are not treating the multi-class character in isolation, they have to compare the level 8/8/9 character up against a level 11 character. That's when you see that in any are they are 2-3 levels behind the pure-classed character. They may have full BAB, but they are still +3 behind the level 11 fighter, so they may as well be on 3/4 BAB. They may have d10 dit dice, but they are 2-3d10 behind on hit points just the same, so they may as well be on d8s. The same goes for skills, spells, all the way down the line.
So were they broken? Nope, you have traded in specialisation for versatility, that's all.
Now look at the equivelant in Pathfinder, which would probably be something like Fighter 1/Wizard 3/Rogue 1/Eldritch Knight 6.
You have 8 levels of spell-casting, like the 2nd edition.
You have a total of +8 BAB, like the 2nd edition.
You probably have scraped the skills for the rogue, but have lost out badly on the sneak attack and other rogue abilities, although you could catch these up a little by taking Arcane Trickster levels and sacrificing BAB.
Under 2nd ed rules you. Picked the best of what the classes you hade. So as a fighter/thief/mage. You used the figther bonus to hit, the rogue skills and back stab, and full arcane casting.
But you were lower level. You had the full THAC0 for a Fighter of your level, but you were 2-3 levels lower-- kind of like a Fighter with a couple of levels of Rogue. You had full arcane casting, but you were a couple levels lower-- kind of like a Wizard with a couple levels of Fighter.
You keep arguing that this is horribly broken, but if it were so broken then why has so much design gone into making it possible again? Why are there Feats that make class features stack? Why are there Prestige Classes that give you all of the same benefits?
I'm not proposing anything that changes how powerful a Cleric/Wizard or a Wizard/Rogue is. All I'm proposing is a change to the way it works so that you don't need dozens of specific Feats and Prestige Classes for every possible class combination.
Under 3.5, and pathfinder it's very imporatan to max your primary stat. Thats the problem with alot of the caster X with any other class. If they share the same casting stat it's much better. But you still only want to do 2 level dip in any other class.
All the more reason not to worry about multiclass characters. Not only do they not have as many of their class features as single-classed characters, they have to divide all of their ability score increases and stat buff items between them.
|
|
Personally, I prefer the approach that Paizo has taken: primarily archetypes and/or alternate versions of classes instead of tons of similar base classes and prestige classes (i.e., sandman bard instead of bard/rogue, ninja rogue instead of monk/rogue, etc.); I also tended to use the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, as well. However, there are still some concepts that are difficult to pull off mechanically without multiclassing/prestige classes/new base classes (the APG base classes, for example).
I think there could be a bit more support for multiclassing, but the Paizo staff seems to be filling in some of the gaps (i.e., holy vindicator, nature warden, rage prophet, etc. in the APG). With Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, I expect to see even more of the gaps filled in (either with archetypes, alternate versions of classes, or a handful of prestige classes); they also seem to be taking a "whole system" view when designing new options, so I don't expect too much overlap (or 20+ different versions of one concept).
Ditto. Such PCs are also easier to balance against the various APs and Pathfinder Society scenarios.
One thought we had was to allow the players to play on class using fast progression and could multiclass normally, or use the slow progression, play a gestalt character, and no multiclassing. Never tested it, looks OK on paper though.
That wasn't my question, though. I was asking about AD&D. I've never played 2nd edition, so can't comment. As I remember, a split-class MU/rogue would have BAB something better than a pure mage but not as good as a pure rogue and so on. The MU/rogue couldn't cast wearing armour, which...It's so broken. Finding a starting point is hard.
1: Not only did you have full casting but you Had full thief, and full fighter ability's.
2: Fighter adds full attack bonus ( Under the old rules the only way to get more attacks was to be a fighter.)
3: Sneak attack worked different under 2nd ed. Back stab damage was multiplied by the damage dealt. You could back stab with fire balls. So you where looking at 8D6 X 3 back stab. Even using 3rd ed you could sneak attack with a scorching ray. Level 5 Scorching Ray 4D6 + Sneak Attack 3D6 = 7D6.
4: Fighter with Rogue : Full BAB, Full Sneak Attack, Evasion. Why wold you ever not do it?
5: Full or 3/4 BAB with full arcane casting? With out reducing your casting effectiveness.
6: Full BAB with full Divine Casting? Fighter that can cast heal and dose not need a healer at all.
7: Full casting of Divine and Arcane? Why in the world wold you ever not do this. If its only costing you 2 caster levels in each?Finding a balance is hard. Making something broken is not. It's not the ones that don't go well to gather that's the problem. It's the ones that work really well together that start your problems. My personal favored from 2nd ed was Fighter/Cleric. Self healing tank that never need the cleric to heal him. And using the old fighter/mage is a bad example of how bad a character combo can get. Figther, Wizard by the why armor and spells work is not a good combo under 2nd ed. With 3.0, 3.5, and pathfinder. They moved the saveing throws from static numbers. To based off casting stat. This made the combo lose alot of the effectiveness it found in 2nd ed. Increasing the Fighter, Cleric combo becous divine spells got a boost in self buffing.
Apologies. Of course that should be AD&D 1st Ed (I was forgetting that 2nd ed was still AD&D). Whoops :)
I think it is in 'Races of Stone'? It may be that I have the name of this class wrong, because I don't have the book (another player used to bring it to our 3.5 sessions). From what I recall, it's a dwarven prestige class with five levels, and basically it lets you apply your Wis modifier to warhammer damage rolls plus you can craft magical items (or was it only weapons and armor?) as if your CL was 5 X your Craftmaster level. You still need to be able to cast 2nd level divine spells, IIRC, to qualify for this class. In a way it's the dwarven equivalent to Corellon's Champion, or whetever that elven divine PrC was that let you apply your Dex modifier to longsword damage.Where is this Craftmaster prestige class? I never heard of it from one of the WotC material?
I've played with guys whose typical characters were, for example, fighter/cleric/craftmaster/paladin/hammer of moradin and rogue/fighter/duelist/warshaper/eldritch knight.
Found it, Battlesmith, no need for divine caster level to qualify, in fact. But creating artifacts is not on there, but I assume you meant just magic items in general. I thought I missed a PrC that legitly created artifacts.
|
|
Your arguement is flawed. A full spellcasting level would never be a fighter bonus feat, and unless the feat maker was a complete bonehead it wouldn't increase spellcasting beyond your total character level.If you want Feats, I would rather it either do one entire spell level, or a few effective levels, but I really don't think that is a good trade, simply because some combos wouldn't actually be that restricted. For example, Fighter gets plenty of bonus Feats. Would you let a pure Fighter sinply trade a feat to get full spellcasting without multiclassing? That would kind of make it pointless to play a full caster, well some casters anyway.
I think you misunderstand. I was refering to an idea of a character trading in feats to increase total caster level, (including spells per day, spell level, caster level, etc. . .), and I was mentioing that some classes could abuse this easier tha other, like the Fighter which wouldn't be suffering as much because they would still get bonus feats.
I think you misunderstand. I was refering to an idea of a character trading in feats to increase total caster level, (including spells per day, spell level, caster level, etc. . .), and I was mentioing that some classes could abuse this easier tha other, like the Fighter which wouldn't be suffering as much because they would still get bonus feats.
If you do this via any class it still gets it's class features - it's just that in the case of the fighter, bonus feats ARE class features.
Bottom line, the fighter still misses out on those general feats if they want the spell-casting ability. They still get their class features for being a fighter, just as a monk gets their class features. Indeed, the classes that don't have spell-casting themselves are chock full of class features, the whole point of this is that they keep those features, and I do not think it's particularly broken - consider:
Level 1 - fighter, 1st level feat(s) & bonus combat feat etc.
Level 2 - wizard.
Level 3 - fighter, feat spent on upgrading spell-casting only to 2nd level, bonus combat feat.
Level 4 - wizard.
Level 5 - fighter, feat spent on upgrading spell-casting only to 4th level.
Level 6 - wizard.
The pattern is established, you have, in effect, 3/4 BAB, -1 level of spellcasting ability, two bonus combat feats instead of four, and the only general feats not spent on improving spell-casting ability are those spent at first level.
If you go Eldritch Knight it's easier because you just need to spend two feats to get your spell-casting equal to your level, and you have better BAB and hit dice too - but they miss out on bravery, weapon training and armour training, as well as wizard class features (they do get a few other than spells).
I think you misunderstand. I was refering to an idea of a character trading in feats to increase total caster level, (including spells per day, spell level, caster level, etc. . .), and I was mentioing that some classes could abuse this easier tha other, like the Fighter which wouldn't be suffering as much because they would still get bonus feats.Your arguement is flawed. A full spellcasting level would never be a fighter bonus feat, and unless the feat maker was a complete bonehead it wouldn't increase spellcasting beyond your total character level.If you want Feats, I would rather it either do one entire spell level, or a few effective levels, but I really don't think that is a good trade, simply because some combos wouldn't actually be that restricted. For example, Fighter gets plenty of bonus Feats. Would you let a pure Fighter sinply trade a feat to get full spellcasting without multiclassing? That would kind of make it pointless to play a full caster, well some casters anyway.
Ah yes, we are on the same page then. I am glad.
As for dabblers comment, that is exactly what I was thinking.
Advanced Spellcasting
Prerequisites: one or more levels in a spellcasting class, spellcraft ranks equal to character level
Benefits: choose a spellcasting class you have one or more levels in. Increase your spellcaster level in that class by one, as if you had gained a level in that class.
Special: you may take this feat multiple times. You may not take this feat if your current spellcaster level is equal to or greater than your total character level.
Hhmmm, it does seem overpowered though. Not sure how to word this, but you shouldn't be able to take this feat without having equal spellcaster class levels. So if you have three levels in wizard, then you can only take this feat three times. It allows early entry for most prestige classes, so maybe this feat is too much for the game.
What do other people think?
I like it. I would suggest one of two options for limiting it:
1) You may not take this feat more times than you have actual levels in the casting class you are gaining spell-casting levels in.
or
2) You may not take this feat more times than you have points in your casting ability modifier.
I concede you, it IS powerful ... but in most cases can you afford to put almost every general feat you get into this? Yes, you can in theory with luck and good items create a Mystic Theurge with casting levels at Cleric 20 and Wizard 20, but they will have virtually no feats for metamagic, item creation or anything else for that matter. Far more likely your MT will go for full casting in one class and use the other as a supplement.
It seems overpowered when applied to the full spellcasting classes. Getting 90%+ of a level in another class at the cost of 1 feat seems too much.
Hhmmm, it does seem overpowered though. Not sure how to word this, but you shouldn't be able to take this feat without having equal spellcaster class levels. So if you have three levels in wizard, then you can only take this feat three times. It allows early entry for most prestige classes, so maybe this feat is too much for the game.
But you are only getting 90% of one level in another class you have already had to dip into. By the same token, +1 to hit with a weapon is 90% of one level of most combat classes ...
|
|
But you are only getting 90% of one level in another class you have already had to dip into. By the same token, +1 to hit with a weapon is 90% of one level of most combat classes ...It seems overpowered when applied to the full spellcasting classes. Getting 90%+ of a level in another class at the cost of 1 feat seems too much.
Hhmmm, it does seem overpowered though. Not sure how to word this, but you shouldn't be able to take this feat without having equal spellcaster class levels. So if you have three levels in wizard, then you can only take this feat three times. It allows early entry for most prestige classes, so maybe this feat is too much for the game.
Make a character with this feat. Make them level 12. Then make one of each of the other two classes. If the base classes are weaker then your way over powered. I know for a fact any time you get 80%+ in two classes it will be over powered. And don's use classes that have bad combinations like a fighter/wizard. Use some optimization and make a Fighter/Orale or Fighter/Cleric or Ranger/Rogue. Classes that work well to gether and incresses your over all power.
Make a character with this feat. Make them level 12. Then make one of each of the other two classes. If the base classes are weaker then your way over powered. I know for a fact any time you get 80%+ in two classes it will be over powered. And don's use classes that have bad combinations like a fighter/wizard. Use some optimization and make a Fighter/Orale or Fighter/Cleric or Ranger/Rogue. Classes that work well together and incresses your over all power.
I can see your point there, the area where it comes into effect is that the fighter/cleric can get better BAB and hit dice than cleric alone and then add the bonus feats and some combat abilities from fighter, lose a level in casting and still be able to buff so much that you can beat any fighter on the block.
Where your point falls down is that you can pretty much do that with a pure cleric anyway, and the pure cleric is only a few hit points, feats and BAB behind the fighter cleric combination and has many more uses of channelling and can do it a lot better.
Ranger/rogue? Not an issue, ranger spell-casting isn't so hot as all that.
Hhmmm, conversely you could create a series of feats that grant class features, but with the same restrictions.
Advanced Combat Training
Prerequisites: base attack +1
benefit: Increase your base attack bonus by +1. You may not take this feat if your base attack is equal to your hitdice.
Special: you may take this feat multiple times. You may only take this feat a number of times equal to the total levels you posess in classes that gran you full base attack. For example, a fighter 1/ranger 2/rogue 3 can take this feat once, but if the character takes 10 more levels in rogue then he can take the feat 2 more times.
Advanced Backstabbery (playtest name)
Prerequisites: +1d6 sneak attack, 2 or more levels in classes that do not grant sneak attack.
Benefits: You gain +1d6 sneak.
Special: you may take this feat multiple times. You may take this frat once for every two levels you have in classes that do not grant sneak attack.
Feats are valuable, but is all this too much?
Hhmmm, conversely you could create a series of feats that grant class features, but with the same restrictions.
Advanced Combat Training
Prerequisites: base attack +1
benefit: Increase your base attack bonus by +1. You may not take this feat if your base attack is equal to your hitdice.
Special: you may take this feat multiple times. You may only take this feat a number of times equal to the total levels you posess in classes that gran you full base attack. For example, a fighter 1/ranger 2/rogue 3 can take this feat once, but if the character takes 10 more levels in rogue then he can take the feat 2 more times.Advanced Backstabbery (playtest name)
Prerequisites: +1d6 sneak attack, 2 or more levels in classes that do not grant sneak attack.
Benefits: You gain +1d6 sneak.
Special: you may take this feat multiple times. You may take this frat once for every two levels you have in classes that do not grant sneak attack.Feats are valuable, but is all this too much?
Both of the features you quote here are linear. If you have 9d6 sneak attack, that's 10% less powerful than 10d6 sneak attack. +8 BAB is 20% less powerful than +10 BAB.
Spell-casting isn't linear. If you have two levels less spell casting at level 10, you are not 20% less powerful, you are 50% less powerful. That makes a whole lot of difference when you are trying to build an effective multi-classed character; if you have to drop too many spell-casting levels, you may as well have not bothered. Yet if you don't drop enough levels, you don't get enough of any other class to fulfil the concept.
I don't have an issue with my multi-classed character being only half as powerful in either class as a pure classed character. Problem is, with spells and sometimes other class features, he's not half as powerful, he's 25% as powerful or even less, and this is the problem we are trying to address.
Again, the best route is the multiclass feats done in the 3.5 books. Paizo can easily emulate, and expand, on it. Using up feat slots to make your multiclassed character a little more efficient is worth the price.
Come on Paizo! Out with them!
This might be an interesting niche for a product designed for unusual parties. What do you do when nobody wants to play the cleric? If you can convince someone to take a level dip and then a feat so their <fighter/rogue/wizard> levels stack with that cleric level for channel, that would make for an interesting party.
What I'm saying is that the multiclass feats that existed in 3.5e could be used for heavy optimization, but they could also be used to let a party fill a role in unusual ways.
I'd love to see a book of balanced ways to lift parts of core classes and drop them into other classes.
Until everyone in the party takes it, and you now have 4 characters channeling...A GMs nightmare. (especially at low levels)
I like it. I would suggest one of two options for limiting it:
1) You may not take this feat more times than you have actual levels in the casting class you are gaining spell-casting levels in.
or
2) You may not take this feat more times than you have points in your casting ability modifier.
I concede you, it IS powerful ... but in most cases can you afford to put almost every general feat you get into this? Yes, you can in theory with luck and good items create a Mystic Theurge with casting levels at Cleric 20 and Wizard 20, but they will have virtually no feats for metamagic, item creation or anything else for that matter. Far more likely your MT will go for full casting in one class and use the other as a supplement.
But as the character can still only cast 1 spell per round, how game breaking would it be? So a 20th level character has more resources to play around with, cool, it's a 20th level character...twice as many rounds of 9th level spells, but it's a character that needs Int and Wis stats, which have used up cash resources boosting 2 stats instead of 1.
It says in the prestige class section of the CRB that you have to meet all the prerequisites for taking a level of a prestige class before you reach that level.