Reading through the playtest classes I'm struck by a couple things.
First, the majority of the classes seem pretty freaking awesome. I'd really not expected much from this book, but it seems ready to throw my expectations on their head.
Second, I'm not really sure why the multiclassing limitations were introduced (at least in the majority of cases). I can sort of see the argument with the bloodrager (adding in a dash of barbarian with rage powers might be over the top), but the majority of these classes seem like they wouldn't be unbalanced even if they multiclassed with their cousins. This is especially true in the case of something like Arcanist / wizard / sorcerer, which seems like it would end up flatly worse than the alternative.
Anyway, this leaves me curious as to what the reasoning was behind the multiclassing limitations. Is it purely a flavor thing? Is there a balance concern I'm not seeing? Is it simply an attempt to nip a ton of potential balance problems in the bud? I don't expect an answer, but I'd love one. Very interested in what is going on inside those devious designer brains.
I think it was "Let's avoid the hundred ruling questions it will bring if we DON'T do this, and honestly it limits very few builds."
As all things, tables can handwaive it if it fits. Usually it won't. Paizo don't want to go through all the cases where they overlap.
I think it was "Let's avoid the hundred ruling questions it will bring if we DON'T do this, and honestly it limits very few builds."
As all things, tables can handwaive it if it fits. Usually it won't. Paizo don't want to go through all the cases where they overlap.
That and these classes were designed along Paizos design line of "Reduce Multi-classing, or make it less powerful". These classes take the most common multi-class builds and turn them into full on classes to use.
I'm not at all surprised that they disallowed multiclassing between these and the base classes they're drawn from. Paizo wants to eliminate multiclassing in general, and creating these dual-class classes will remove some of the demand for doing so.
It seems weird to me, though, because the Magus is a total fighter/Wizard, and doesn't have this restriction at all.
That was pretty much my thought. I can't think of a reason I'd want to mutliclass wizard with arcanist, but it seems highly unusual within a system that typically prides itself on leaving that option open to have explicitly prohibited it.
It may well be though that there is an excellent reason for the decision, hence the reason for my original question.
:)
The wizard with the arcanist is pretty bad, but a Blood rager dipping barbarian could get pretty nasty (double your rage rounds, double your fun...)
The wizard with the arcanist is pretty bad, but a Blood rager dipping barbarian could get pretty nasty (double your rage rounds, double your fun...)
Bloodrage with Barbarian Rage would leave you exhausted after using them together. Seems like pretty big draw back to me. Exhausted for 1 hour before you are back to normal. You wouldn't be fatigued as that would have wore off but two doses of fatigue make you exhausted.
Another draw back would rage powers. Most if not all the good rage powers require a Barbarian level of 8 or 10. So you would severely delay access to those powers. Then you would delay you bloodrage powers as well. I think you'd be at disadvantage multiclassing these two classes. I'd have to playtest to be sure though.
Also both rages won't stack as they are both moral bonus so kind of waste there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They just don't want me dipping Master of Many Style with my Brawler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They just don't want me dipping Master of Many Style with my Brawler.
Which is weird because the way the Brawler is built it almost has gaps in the design that the MoMS Monk would fill perfectly.
I have to say all it would take to kill most of the overpowered combos would simply be adding lines like what anarchitect suggests.
They just don't want me dipping Master of Many Style with my Brawler.Which is weird because the way the Brawler is built it almost has gaps in the design that the MoMS Monk would fill perfectly.
Screamingly so and it's causing me much duress.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I have always loved about the d20 system was making multiclassing as unrestricted as possible. Pathfinder core handled potential multiclass abuse right by not restricting multiclassing but making class advancement work in such a way that you would most likely benefit mechanically to stick with one class--but people with a very particular concept in mind could take multiple classes if they wanted. Paizo even made multiclassing easier by getting rid of the favored class issue where you were penalized xp if you didn't multi in a favored class.
The one thing multiclassing never handled well was spellcasting. So the spellcasting hybrids make a lot of sense, not as a way to get rid of multiclassing but to sidestep its problems. But likewise, precisely because multiclassing spellcasters is generally non optimal and kludgy, that's also why in those cases it makes no sense to restrict it... it's not like any of the abilities will stack, so anyone tempted to multiclass is looking for some rather obscure add on, likely for the sake of flavor, and maybe playtesting would prove otherwise were it allowed, but I can't see the harm in it. I can see the harm in restricting the potential for that creativity however, and think it is a monumental step backwards to the days of pointless restriction, which is not what I play this game for.
For the classes that are not spellcaster hybrids, as they all have stuff that improve with advancement, that is "restriction" enough from any sort of multiclassing--- and of course, you'd just disallow stuff like rage abilities from stacking if necessary. Honestly, I can't see a monk/brawler or fighter/brawler have more problems or balance issues than, say, a barbarian/brawler. No, not even with a dip into master of many styles.
Frankly I think if these would break by unrestricting multiclassing, that is a flaw with the class design, not multiclassing.
I think DeathQuaker summed up everything I feel about this...
Witch's familiar and shaman's familiar would be a trainwreck.
It does cut down the number of ways you can acquire channel energy.
It means you don't have to figure out how to combine rage and bloodrage. But, and I may be missing something here, do rage and bloodrage actually differ in any way?
I think DeathQuaker summed up everything I feel about this...
Seconded.
I can understand for the Playtest but some just need a single line to handle most rule questions.
Such as Rage/Bloodrage, Witch/Shaman Familiar, Channel Energy, etc.
One of the things I have always loved about the d20 system was making multiclassing as unrestricted as possible. Pathfinder core handled potential multiclass abuse right by not restricting multiclassing but making class advancement work in such a way that you would most likely benefit mechanically to stick with one class--but people with a very particular concept in mind could take multiple classes if they wanted. Paizo even made multiclassing easier by getting rid of the favored class issue where you were penalized xp if you didn't multi in a favored class.
The one thing multiclassing never handled well was spellcasting. So the spellcasting hybrids make a lot of sense, not as a way to get rid of multiclassing but to sidestep its problems. But likewise, precisely because multiclassing spellcasters is generally non optimal and kludgy, that's also why in those cases it makes no sense to restrict it... it's not like any of the abilities will stack, so anyone tempted to multiclass is looking for some rather obscure add on, likely for the sake of flavor, and maybe playtesting would prove otherwise were it allowed, but I can't see the harm in it. I can see the harm in restricting the potential for that creativity however, and think it is a monumental step backwards to the days of pointless restriction, which is not what I play this game for.
For the classes that are not spellcaster hybrids, as they all have stuff that improve with advancement, that is "restriction" enough from any sort of multiclassing--- and of course, you'd just disallow stuff like rage abilities from stacking if necessary. Honestly, I can't see a monk/brawler or fighter/brawler have more problems or balance issues than, say, a barbarian/brawler. No, not even with a dip into master of many styles.
Frankly I think if these would break by unrestricting multiclassing, that is a flaw with the class design, not multiclassing.
We've got to stop meeting like this.
Possibly just ease of use. All of the hybrids classes I think pull from existing spell lists. I could see some of headaches from figuring out how the spells per level might stack/change
Although again, from what I have seen, multiclassing won't improve a lot of the new characters by much.
The Spells per level wouldn't stack. You would simply get a second progression.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just aesthetically, I don't like the idea of a class being self-aware that it is a hybrid of two classes.
As written the Bloodrager is the easiest but isn't so much Broken as just Uber-Barbarian with Blastiness for the opening salvo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Barbarian/Bloodrager could be fixed by giving them rage, then making bloodrage a feature that allows them to do the other stuff by raging.
Shaman/Witch familiar precedence would have to be worked out. Combine everything?
I'm actually worried over one class and it's in ability to take its parent -class: The Swashbuckler. What if I am playing in a world where gunslingers are common but I'm mostly a swashbuckler? I understand there being crossover issues with grit vs. panache but that would come up anyway if I took the Amateur Gunslinger feat (which seems the easiest way to get access to some firearm-action as the swashbuckler).
It seems they could make a simple addition, combine the two into one pool and still allow levels in swashbuckler/gunslinger.
I thought Familiar levels stacked already with the earliest one taking precedence...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll chime in and agree with DeathQuakers sentiments. Restricting class building options is a poor choice. The diversity, possibilities, and crunch are all what make creating characters so much fun.
@Combatbunny: You forgot Fluff.
@Lucus_Palosaari: They already have stated there will be a Gun User Archetype for the Swashbuckler.
Why would they allow it? You could never multiclass with an alternate class version before. This just keeps it consistent by stating rules that have already existed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they allow it? You could never multiclass with an alternate class version before. This just keeps it consistent by stating rules that have already existed.
The difference being that these are not actually Alternate classes, they just act like them in this one specific way. Most of them are too different.
Though the Skald, Hunter, and Warpriest definitely seem like Alternate classes that aren't as good as the original.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skald, Hunter, and Warpriest would be better as Archetypes.
Wait a Cleric with the Crusader Archetype is slightly better than the Warpriest... Just add in 2 Archetypes that stacks with the Crusader but not each other that add either the Weapon or Armour feature from the Warpriest!
How do they "just act like them?" The other alternate classes in the other Ultimate books draw off several of the same mechanics with their own twist just like these do. Is there something fundamental about them that distinctly separates them from their constituent parts?
How do they "just act like them?" The other alternate classes in the other Ultimate books draw off several of the same mechanics with their own twist just like these do. Is there something fundamental about them that distinctly separates them from their constituent parts?
Besides the unique class features most of them have that distinguish them pretty well from the classes they're hybrids of?
Barring, again, the Skald, Hunter, and Warpriest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Anti-Paladin, Samurai, and Ninja are more of Super-Archetypes. These... Well these are more like bad attempts at merging classes, though not completely horrible attempts... What of the Magus? It is a Hybrid of Fighter & Wizard.
Again the Magus is a great example of a successful hybrid. Some of these are nearly there but not quite.
Like I said, each of the already existing alternate classes already do their own in thing as well as drawing from preexisting mechanics. Both the ninja and samurai introduce entirely new mechanics as well. I agree there's some cheese in grouping classes so that an alternate class can cover multiple classes instead of just one but I don't think should necessarily allow them to be multiclassable with their base/core selves.
The only thing the magus has in common with a wizard is that he has a spell book. He has no schools, which is the real corner stone of the class, mechanically. If he had one, I would argue it would have been an alternate class instead.
Alternatively, he gains no feats or proficiencies like a fighter, else it might have been an alternate class of that. It's distinctly its own thing.
Personally I think most could lose the restriction while others could drop to only one if any.
Like a Bloodrager could be slightly reworked to use basic rage with the "Bloodrage" stuff being special Rage Powers and then just classify it as a Barbarian Alternate Class instead of Barbarian & Sorcerer both being cutoff.
EDIT: That is what I am getting at. A lot don't have a lot in common with the base.
@Axaelas Fayth --- any idea where it is (forum link?)? I have tried a few searches and reading through the swashbuckler thread to no avail so far.
To the general topic, I can understand why they'd want to restrict but also think it likely is restricting creativity. Outside of PFS and other highly controlled situations though, I'd be curious a year after the book releases how often GMs just handwave away the matter when its clear a character should get to multi-class in a restricted class.
And as for the power-level of these "hybrids" vs. the other alternate classes and new base classes --- I think there is a reason that Paizo is trying to term them as a whole new type of class-type. These are neither straight alternative classes like the samurai/ninja (because they meld together two, sometimes with original mechanics), nor are they new base classes like the magus/gunslinger/alchemist/etc (because they don't generally create a whole new system like those classes do, they just adapt older class designs, sometimes heavily).
My 2 CP on the discussions
In some cases the hybrids would stack with the original class and that would cause issues. These classes are kind of like watered down gestalt classes. The only way open multiclassing should be allowed is if it is explicitly stated that they don't stack with the original class. As an example the if a class gives you druid casting up to. 6th level spells and then you take levels in the actual druod class then have to track spell as if you were running two different casters.
Yeah. You can dispel effects and such with rage powers alone as is. It would seem to make sense.
You would have to remove the ability to cast spells as well as the bloodlines parts of it though.
@Lucus_Palosaari: It is in the Blog Post Thread from when they announced the Swashbuckler and such.
@Buri: You misunderstand. I am saying leave the casting though maybe give them a custom list of mostly buffs. and make the bloodline part something akin to the Totem Rage Powers.
@wraithstrike: I can see somethings stacking but things like casting and such don't stack. Sneak Attack, Rage, even Bloodline/Arcane School Progression could stack while Casting and some things like that wouldn't stack.
The spellcasting classes are not a problem at all. Sorcerer/wizards and cleric/oracles are already valid (and weak) multiclassing options. Even those classes that share spellcasting attributes would not be very strong. These options are weak because there is no way to make the caster levels stack.
To break the system in regard to multiclassing, I would look for options that are granted by both an old class and a new class and that don't scale with level.
The thing is most things scale in level at least somewhat.
@Buri: You misunderstand. I am saying leave the casting though maybe give them a custom list of mostly buffs. and make the bloodline part something akin to the Totem Rage Powers.
And I'm saying you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you choose to keep the spell casting as is and reflavor the bloodlines to be totem.... things... then you're really just changing the second alternate class to magus instead of sorcerer to be consistent with the other ACG classes. To introduce a class in that book that gives it a stark advantage over the others would be counter to game balance. The other classes in there that have a spell casting component have the relevant casting class as an alternate class. To take that away for just one of the classes would be weird.
I would venture to guess they added bloodlines to give you something for the 2nd alternate class attached to bloodrager. If it wouldn't have been that then it would have been something else. The double alternate class deal is a clear theme for the book. Consistency is important for good rules.
At least one class cast just like a druid but.is limited to 6th level spells. I can see the argument now that if you go into the druid.clas that the restriction no.longer applies or trying to annoy PF into removing it.
You misunderstand, I am saying cut them all down. I am simply using Bloodrager as it is the one that I am playing across from.
Honestly most could easily be cut down and altered to make them entirely separate or an alternate to a single class. Heck some don't even need to be cut down.