The main thing we want to achieve with this system remains keeping optimized multi-role builds from being far more desirable than single-role builds. This keeps the role feeling more special/distinct, and also doesn't penalize players that don't really pay much attention to optimization from feeling outclassed by others that do (e.g., we don't want to see "You're just a pure Fighter? No, I think we'll hold out for a Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue or a Fighter/Paladin/Ranger for our melee character.").
We've heard and agree with all your arguments about how a carrot at the end of the progression doesn't really achieve this, and that you don't want to be locked out of getting a capstone.
So what we're proposing now is the idea of a "Dedication" or "Focus" bonus.
Essentially, whenever you only have feats from one role slotted (rounded out with generic feats that aren't role-specific), you'll gain a bonus to doing what that role is supposed to do. This bonus is pegged to making the pure build competitive with the best synergistic multi-role build, may shift over time as new synergies are discovered, and may scale up in power based on your level (becoming similar in power to tabletop's Capstone at 20th level if high-level synergies are really powerful).
For example, if we decide that Paladins are supposed to be the best in the game at melee damage vs. evil targets, but testing determines that there's a synergistic Paladin/Ranger/Fighter build that does better without losing any real effectiveness in other areas, we may tweak the Paladin Dedication bonus to increase Smite Evil damage. This gives us the ability to shore up specific corner-case issues without having to rebalance the feats of a whole role (which may propagate out to cause further issues).
Your bonus is entirely dependent on what you have slotted, not what you know. If you build a Fighter 5/Barbarian 5, you get the Fighter bonus if you only slot Fighter feats, the Barbarian bonus if you only slot Barbarian feats, and no bonus while you slot feats from both (or neither) roles. And there may remain situations where you prefer the synergy of two or more roles to whatever the individual bonus is. If we scale the bonus in power by level, it will likely be based on the highest-tier feat you have slotted.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Im not sure Im blurring the line, not exactly anyway. We still need to see what will be skills, and what will be feats. Its set in stone for the PnP game but who knows what they will change up for PFO at this point.
I was trying to explain it for most of the others. Everyone seems to be focused on classes. We need to get out of the class mentality for this game.
and from above post, cool I have not seen that. Where was that from?
Been trying to keep up, but life is kinda busy now.
I like mulit-class(role) characters, but i feel that some classes need to stay pure-Paladins, Monks and Druids come to mind.
I played with a very good DM for some time, He made every player sit out there character for about 4-6 game sessions when they went to multi-class there character(It takes time to learn a new skill set), If it was made very clear when characters where roled that it was to be a multi-classed character then no time out was needed, but 2nd level had to be taken in the other class.
If players picks 1 primary class they get the standard training time, a time penalty is given for every class skill trained outside of there primary class.Once they have reached 5th level in the 2nd class all penalty's are dropped for that class, But if they trained in a 3rd class then that skill would get the time penalty.
Since on tabletop there are restrictions that forbid ex-monk/ex-druid to further advance in the said classes, maybe make certain class specific skills trainable only if the requirement is met?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If players picks 1 primary class they get the standard training time, a time penalty is given for every class skill trained outside of there primary class.Once they have reached 5th level in the 2nd class all penalty's are dropped for that class, But if they trained in a 3rd class then that skill would get the time penalty.
In reading Ryan's posting history, it seems to me that he's a proponent of the "where's the fun?" school of game design. He'll gladly take concepts from EVE, for example, but strip out pieces that he thinks aren't fun.
I, personally, can't see where "sitting out" or "slowing down" is fun. Participating is fun, playing is fun; watching and waiting aren't.
Why is a multi-classing penalty necessary? I've never understood.
In older games, where multi-class characters were "more capable" than single-class, the penalty was presumably about balance, because, with the class system, designers felt they needed to focus on equality of outcome rather than the simpler equality of opportunity. Here we're going to have equality of opportunity (everyone can train everything), dedication bonuses for balance, and no iron-bound classes causing the old-school restrictions.
Aren't those sufficient?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is a multi-classing penalty necessary? I've never understood.
As one who prefers to build a character concept rather than a class, I agree entirely.
The penalty for multi-classing is definitely there in the PnP version - a third level Fighter 1/Bard 2 still only has a BAB of +1, for example, so you need to decide whether the skills and abilities you get from the second class are worth the hit. Sure, having the +3 BAB would be nice, but so is the ability to cast minor magic and have a greater range of skills (and at higher level).
Sure, the Bard could cast CLW a couple of times, but he also has lower average hit dice and is limited to light armour. Do those CLW spells (which mean he is not attacking, of course), balance the extra AC, hit points, Fighter Feat and BAB of the fighter? Chances are that the spell will effectively be negated in the next round by the damage dealt by the straight-build fighter anyhow.
Which is better? Well a straight build 3rd level Fighter would almost certainly knock the stuffing out of a Fighter 1/Bard 2, but I would contend that the Fighter/Bard has a broader set of abilities (and is more fun to play... ;) ), which balances the lack of combat ability and armour restriction somewhat. There is no need to add in any further multi-class penalty, nor give the straight Fighter any further bonus.
If players picks 1 primary class they get the standard training time, a time penalty is given for every class skill trained outside of there primary class.Once they have reached 5th level in the 2nd class all penalty's are dropped for that class, But if they trained in a 3rd class then that skill would get the time penalty.In reading Ryan's posting history, it seems to me that he's a proponent of the "where's the fun?" school of game design. He'll gladly take concepts from EVE, for example, but strip out pieces that he thinks aren't fun.
I, personally, can't see where "sitting out" or "slowing down" is fun. Participating is fun, playing is fun; watching and waiting aren't.
Why is a multi-classing penalty necessary? I've never understood.
In older games, where multi-class characters were "more capable" than single-class, the penalty was presumably about balance, because, with the class system, designers felt they needed to focus on equality of outcome rather than the simpler equality of opportunity. Here we're going to have equality of opportunity (everyone can train everything), dedication bonuses for balance, and no iron-bound classes causing the old-school restrictions.
Aren't those sufficient?
Most modern mmo's players can get to level cap in a hand full of weeks, and then start the fun stuff(end game raids ect), PFO will take about 2.5 years to reach the same point.*note i like the journey more than the end game, so longer is better for me.
PFO time will be a factor with class/role builds, adding to the time it takes to reach end game(yes i know there is no real end game) might make players think about how to progress there character. I'm happy to take four years to get my multi-class character to there max potential. A skill based system is something i have been waiting for, no more 20th level max, a multi-class rogue/mage that's 10th/10th is very under powered in any 20th level content.In PFO we can get to 20th/20th and be a fully viable character.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do developers consider may be skills and feats for the "non-supported" classes? Not from EE day zero, but as they (developers) get a handle of what the basis would be, even before the implementation, it might be suitable to publish that. 80% accurate would be target.
This might appease those wanting to be druids or monks in EE.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fighter 1/Bard 2 is +2 BAB.
Bard 2 is +1.
Fighter 1 is also +1.I am pretty sure that they aren't meant to be added, but that you use the maximum bonus. In other words, the '+1' means '+1 to attack rolls' rather than 'add another 1 to your BAB'. Otherwise, a 4th Level Fighter would end up with +1 at 1st level, +3 (1+2) at second, +6 at third and +10 at fourth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/facepalm
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do I take it from your rather unnecessarily snarky "let's laugh at the guy who has misinterpreted the rule" response that you think otherwise?
I must admit that I was never really clear on the point. Obviously you don't add the BAB for each level of a single class, so it seems logical to me that you don't do it for multi-classing either. After all, if you are a trained fighter you will be learning combat. If you become a Bard you will learn a little combat, but not to the same level as the Fighter. Therefore, there will be point where what you are learning in combat techniques is simply going over old ground.
I have never seen anything that really clarifies the point to my satisfaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Non martial classes only get bonuses on BAB in a staggered fashion, and not at each level. So yes, you add the BAB bonuses up if you're a multiclass and one of you classes gets a +X.
Reference in the second paragraph.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Alternate explanation: The BaB and saving throws in the table replace the BaB and saving throws from prior levels in that class. but the values from multiple classes add together.
The bard keeps learning about how to fight, but he does so at a slower rate; 2/3 per level instead of 1 per level. (But note that the bard can sing to give himself and all allies in earshot +1 to hit and +1 to damage; a bard using inspire courage has the same to-hit value as a fighter of the same level until level 6 (when the fighter gets multiple attacks) or level 9 (when the fighter's +9 BaB exceeds the bard's 6 BaB +2 morale bonus from inspire courage.)
A fighter and a bard together are better than two fighters or two bards because of the synergy between them.
I hope that the combat system in PFO allows for e.g. synergy between attacks which use the keywords of a bashing weapon, a piercing weapon, and a slashing weapon. It might be theoretically possible for a dwarven war monk to apply the combo himself, by using a shod foot and a dwarven ugrosh, but the team that has one person that uses a greatclub to knock down a foe, another with a trident to pin him to the ground, and then a third with a greataxe to chop while he is down should be more effective than a team of three people who each try to pull off the combo independently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no clue what BAB is... I will get up to speed with Pathfinder soon.
I always thought 3rd edition had nerfed multiclassing plenty to make it on an even level. No matter your class, your level increased at a same rate. In AD&D, multiclassing got crazy... You chould be 9 fighter and 9 wizard, and someone who focuses is only 10th level.
In D20 if you were 9/9 then the other guy was 18.
How is it different in Pathfinder?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
BAB replaces THAC0.
Instead of rolling to hit AC 0 and using armor modifiers to change the roll, AC starts at a base 10 and armor adds to that value.
The To Hit roll is then made against that.
Base Attack Bonus (Class bonus to hit. Fighters have +1 per level, Rogues/Clerics have +3/4th per level, Mages get +1/2 per level) + Stat bonus (Str for melee or Dex for ranged) + any magic weapon / feat modifiers
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no clue what BAB is... I will get up to speed with Pathfinder soon.
I always thought 3rd edition had nerfed multiclassing plenty to make it on an even level. No matter your class, your level increased at a same rate. In AD&D, multiclassing got crazy... You chould be 9 fighter and 9 wizard, and someone who focuses is only 10th level.
In D20 if you were 9/9 then the other guy was 18.
How is it different in Pathfinder?
in Pathfinder a 17/1, 15/3, 10/8 and 9/9 are all total level 18. Some combinations suffer (though there are feats and prestige classes to help many of those), others have good synergies, and all are legal. All benefits (hit points, saves, BAB=base attack bonus, skill points, spell slots..) stack, so that a Ftr6/Brb6/Ran6 is comparable to (or better than) a Ftr18 in terms of base attack, hit points and saves.
In AD&D, you would use the best THACo and saves, split the hit point dice, etc. Also, above level 9 the level benefits were not exactly linear, and the xp table were near exponential and per class (a thief 12 and wizard 9 would be about same total xp and power level, and a fighter 8 going against a fighter 9 would have to get through his army first). Finally, multiclassing was off-limits for humans and restricted for everyone else.
sum = not really comparable, and neither is directly relevant to PFO. But don't expect to see any elven ftr/rog/wiz in pathfinder society.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ahh lol, Base attack bonus.
I know what that is. LOL feel like a retard now. When I saw you guys calculating the bonuses I thought it was a multiclass level hit for Pathfinder specifically.
That in itself doesn't matter much for some builds. I had a wizard/Rogue that never used his bow after 5th level, and we played a power game up to 30th level. Granted it took a couple magical items to not need a Base Attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LOL feel like a retard now.
I helped my wife, an engineer and physics graduate so not stupid or afraid of numbers, design a Pathfinder character for our game. I started by saying how easy it was. After about twenty minutes I realised that it is only easy when you know how to do it.
I think many of you are looking at this from a very... hmmm... shall we say optimistic viewpoint?
The reason that multiclassing needs to be penalized or at the very least staying single class needs to be incentivized is simple. Multiclassing is nearly ALWAYS better. More efficient. Stronger in every possible way.
If there isn't some reason to stay in a single character advancement path(call it class or whatever you like) is that it then makes it impossible for someone who would like to do so to be able to be competitive in the game.
This IS a PvP game. Most of the players will be participating in PvP, and I doubt anyone's going to go in thinking they want to lose every single fight they get into. Most players will want to be the top dogs. Whether they're successful or not means very little. If multiclassing makes you're character 20% stronger, who's not going to do it? 10% stronger? People will STILL do it. I've seen many people in MMO's dismiss a character build out of hand for even less than that.
Despite whatever anyone thinks, within a WEEK of EE coming out people will be on here and at other boards posting their 'Ultimate Super PvP Awssassin' builds. While there's no way to stop that, I for one would like to see there be some chance of a cleric or a ranger or a wizard to stay in their one class and have a shot at being competitive. I've played too many different tabletop and MMO games to believe otherwise. Inevitably, spreading your advancement will end up being stronger than sticking to just a single path unless GW puts in systems to prevent this.
I don't really care WHAT they are, so long as there's a chance of single class characters being in the same 'weight class' as the guy who wants to take whatever he can to make himself as cool as possible as fast as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Zanathos:
In TT (3.0-3.5) the multi class was indeed more powerful than the single class at the lower and mid levels. It wasn't until the higher levels when the single class character caught up and then blew past the multiclass.
I expect that to be the way it is in PFO. If you follow the "flavor of the month" builds you will be kicking butt with multi class builds for the entire first year/year and a half of the game. Until one day, the characters that devoted all their time on one path suddenly have the upper tier powers that blow away your potpourri of tricks and it's going to take you at least 6 months to get a similar power (and by that time they are capping with even more awesome powers).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In TT (3.0-3.5) the multi class was indeed more powerful than the single class at the lower and mid levels. It wasn't until the higher levels when the single class character caught up and then blew past the multiclass.
I expect that to be the way it is in PFO. If you follow the "flavor of the month" builds you will be kicking butt with multi class builds for the entire first year/year and a half of the game. Until one day, the characters that devoted all their time on one path suddenly have the upper tier powers that blow away your potpourri of tricks and it's going to take you at least 6 months to get a similar power (and by that time they are capping with even more awesome powers).
I truly hope that's the way PFO plays out. Anything that can discourage Flavour-of-the-Month thinking will likely also encourage thinking of your character as a personality and not a pile of points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I truly hope that's the way PFO plays out. Anything that can discourage Flavour-of-the-Month thinking will likely also encourage thinking of your character as a personality and not a pile of points.In TT (3.0-3.5) the multi class was indeed more powerful than the single class at the lower and mid levels. It wasn't until the higher levels when the single class character caught up and then blew past the multiclass.
I expect that to be the way it is in PFO. If you follow the "flavor of the month" builds you will be kicking butt with multi class builds for the entire first year/year and a half of the game. Until one day, the characters that devoted all their time on one path suddenly have the upper tier powers that blow away your potpourri of tricks and it's going to take you at least 6 months to get a similar power (and by that time they are capping with even more awesome powers).
I think that style is also realistic. Just like the person who spends their young adulthood picking up a variety of skills will make more money that the person who keeps studying all the way through a masters for the first 10-15 years or so. Then suddenly one day the person withe masters has access to jobs the "multi skilled" person doesn't have.
Zanathos:
In TT (3.0-3.5) the multi class was indeed more powerful than the single class at the lower and mid levels. It wasn't until the higher levels when the single class character caught up and then blew past the multiclass.
I expect that to be the way it is in PFO. If you follow the "flavor of the month" builds you will be kicking butt with multi class builds for the entire first year/year and a half of the game. Until one day, the characters that devoted all their time on one path suddenly have the upper tier powers that blow away your potpourri of tricks and it's going to take you at least 6 months to get a similar power (and by that time they are capping with even more awesome powers).
Heh. I played 3.0 and 3.5 for many years. Your gaming groups were doing it wrong if single class characters could pass the multiclassers, with the enormous amount of grotesquely overpowered prestige classes in them. Every new book by WoTC had more ridiculously OP stuff than the last - my friends called it the 'Magic, the Gathering' effect because WoTC followed the same formula in 3.0 and 3.5 that they did in Magic. Make every new supplement 10% stronger than the one before it. Did you LOOK at the insanity in Book of 9 Swords?
Pathfinder did better. Instead of prestige classes they made Alternate Advancement Paths the way to go. It allows them to not have to throw away the old stuff and add in cool NEW stuff. Whoever came up with them deserves a giant raise and attaboy's from now until the end of time.
I do hope that you're right about the higher tier stuff being significantly stronger than the low level stuff. That is definitely one of the problems in 3.0 and 3.5 - you get too many shiny cool things at 1st and 2nd level... ESPECIALLY with Prestige Classes!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know, I made that exact same argument against D&D in a group playing D&D.4 (I left not long into the campaign - D&D.4 didn't sit right with me at all). They just couldn't understand my problem because, as they put it, 'you don't need to buy the book to use the new class.'
They just didn't get it.
You know, I made that exact same argument against D&D in a group playing D&D.4 (I left not long into the campaign - D&D.4 didn't sit right with me at all). They just couldn't understand my problem because, as they put it, 'you don't need to buy the book to use the new class.'
They just didn't get it.
My roommate is an official GM for most of the game systems in the world right now, so he get access to most Beta test stuff early. In case you didn't know, since 4.0 has been such a disaster(or more appropriately, Pathfinder kicked it's TAIL!) they're already working on 5.0, in addition to shutting down the Open Gaming License. Several people I know(strangely enough, not including my roommate) have play tested the new 5.0 system, and to be honest it's not good. WoTC still hasn't figured out that people don't want to play a tabletop RPG that draws it's inspiration from an MMO. Strict advancement paths and 2 or 3 options for character advancement isn't what players want in a tabletop game. They just don't get it.
Of course, WoTC's response is, 'Just wait for the expansions!'
/sigh
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Heh. I played 3.0 and 3.5 for many years. Your gaming groups were doing it wrong if single class characters could pass the multiclassers, with the enormous amount of grotesquely overpowered prestige classes in them. Every new book by WoTC had more ridiculously OP stuff than the last - my friends called it the 'Magic, the Gathering' effect because WoTC followed the same formula in 3.0 and 3.5 that they did in Magic. Make every new supplement 10% stronger than the one before it. Did you LOOK at the insanity in Book of 9 Swords?Pathfinder did better. Instead of prestige classes they made Alternate Advancement Paths the way to go. It allows them to not have to throw away the old stuff and add in cool NEW stuff. Whoever came up with them deserves a giant raise and attaboy's from now until the end of time.
I do hope that you're right about the higher tier stuff being significantly stronger than the low level stuff. That is definitely one of the problems in 3.0 and 3.5 - you get too many shiny cool things at 1st and 2nd level... ESPECIALLY with Prestige Classes!
Never saw Book of 9 swords, but by and large you could avoid most dipping inbalances by declaring the 4 level minimum (on 20 level build). While certain combos like Fighter/Barbarian or Rogue/Shadowdancer were no brainers (and the front loaded ranger was a pure dipping class), the pure casting classes always ended up better off at high levels staying true.
I really didn't pay attention to all the crazy ish WotC was hurling but the basic 3-3.5 rulesets did play to that tendency.
Maybe it was your group that was playing it wrong by not reigning in some of the wackier crap.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Zanathos:
In TT (3.0-3.5) the multi class was indeed more powerful than the single class at the lower and mid levels. It wasn't until the higher levels when the single class character caught up and then blew past the multiclass.
I expect that to be the way it is in PFO. If you follow the "flavor of the month" builds you will be kicking butt with multi class builds for the entire first year/year and a half of the game. Until one day, the characters that devoted all their time on one path suddenly have the upper tier powers that blow away your potpourri of tricks and it's going to take you at least 6 months to get a similar power (and by that time they are capping with even more awesome powers).
Heh. I played 3.0 and 3.5 for many years. Your gaming groups were doing it wrong if single class characters could pass the multiclassers, with the enormous amount of grotesquely overpowered prestige classes in them. Every new book by WoTC had more ridiculously OP stuff than the last - my friends called it the 'Magic, the Gathering' effect because WoTC followed the same formula in 3.0 and 3.5 that they did in Magic. Make every new supplement 10% stronger than the one before it. Did you LOOK at the insanity in Book of 9 Swords?
Pathfinder did better. Instead of prestige classes they made Alternate Advancement Paths the way to go. It allows them to not have to throw away the old stuff and add in cool NEW stuff. Whoever came up with them deserves a giant raise and attaboy's from now until the end of time.
I do hope that you're right about the higher tier stuff being significantly stronger than the low level stuff. That is definitely one of the problems in 3.0 and 3.5 - you get too many shiny cool things at 1st and 2nd level... ESPECIALLY with Prestige Classes!
I will have to disagree with you as well. At lower levels a multiclass character is better. At higher levels focused characters are the power.
In AD&D I will agree that multiclassed characters done with a power gamer mind set will outperform always.
When you talk about 10th level characters in 3.0 and 3.5... You either have a 10th level fighter or a 5/5 fighter/mage. The 10th level fighter will destroy a 5/5 unless the player is useless.
Dont get me wrong, I agree that WotC put out more and more OP stuff with every book... They followed Palladium in this lol. Still though most of the prestige classes were not that great. (some were ridiculous though)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know, I made that exact same argument against D&D in a group playing D&D.4 (I left not long into the campaign - D&D.4 didn't sit right with me at all). They just couldn't understand my problem because, as they put it, 'you don't need to buy the book to use the new class.'
They just didn't get it.
Hey Sadurian, finish your profile setup and send me a message when your done.