Hi everyone,
I've never been much of a fan of multiclassing, and in the rare times that I do it usually is a 1 class starter than change to long-term class to justify a story element. Like a character started off as one class, but by level two realized that the first class was not what he wanted to be, so continues leveling up as the second class.
The other type of multiclassing that I like was true multiclassing from previous editions where you have two or three classes and you level them all up equally. So like:
Level 1 - Cleric
Level 2 - Fighter
Level 3 - Cleric
Level 4 - Fighter
etc.
With Pathfinder Core rules, are there any two or three classes that lend themselves well to this style of approach?
it depends on what your goal is, but for the most part no. the pathfinder system doesn't really favor that style (every other level switching) if you're looking at overall effectiveness (if you're looking at a story driven progression, by all means go for it).
Splitting your levels evenly between classes doesn't work very well in Pathfinder. There are some classes that can sort of pretend to be that sort of true multiclass (e.g. if you would want to split your levels between fighter and cleric, you can get a similar but better result by being an inquisitor or paladin).
There are a lot of cases where one or two levels of a class and full levels of another class are handy, though. One common example is taking two levels of monk for martials, for nice bonus feats and much better saves. Casters don't like losing caster levels, but occasionally another casting class grants something at first level to make it worthwhile, like the Heavens Oracle's Awesome Display powering up a Sorcerer's pattern spells or a couple of Crossblooded Sorcerer bloodline arcana powering up a wizard's spells.
So, either a one level dip, or exact equal parts level multiclassing?
I was hoping to find an exact equal that would work. My group treats classes as a way of life, rather than simply a selection of skills and abilities. So simply picking up a level of barbarian or wizard is quite difficult. Fighter or rogue is a bit easier.
it depends on what your goal is, but for the most part no. the pathfinder system doesn't really favor that style (every other level switching) if you're looking at overall effectiveness (if you're looking at a story driven progression, by all means go for it).
That's what I was afraid of.
If the group as a whole does not optimize very much, there are a few you can do that won't leave you too far in the dust.
If you say I want to have a few buff spells but be mostly a fighter for the faith (and don't want the limitations of a paladin), you could mix fighter and cleric. It won't be too horrible and could fit your story line very well. But your overall power will not be as high as a straight fighter, cleric, or inquisitor.
That is just the way the system is designed.
Or if you did an even (or almost even) split to qualify for a PrC.
I've seen a paladin 2 / sorc 3 / dragon disciple X that did very well.
Similarly a ftr 2 / wiz 1 / eldritch knight X (using Aasimar for early entry).
I've seen some close to even rogue/martial builds that were not to bad.
I saw one guy playing a ftr 4 / magus 6 that was very happy with how it was working out.
Is going the gestalt route for a few levels an option?
some of this depends too on what level range you're considering... taking your fighter/cleric example as a base:
- at 2nd level you're only 1 BAB and one feat behind a fighter but you have 2 domain powers, a couple spells, and maybe even a variant channel or some other buff to make up for it. not a bad trade off
- at 4th level you're still only 1 BAB and feat behind a fighter, but now you're missing out on wpn specialization; in exchange you have the same cleric stuff as at 2nd plus... 1 extra 1st level spell? that's not nearly as good
- at 8th level you're still only 1 BAB behind a fighter (but only 1 ahead of a cleric) but you're missing 2 feats (and are just finally getting wpn spec instead of greater wf), weapon training, and the ability to move full speed in heavy armor (or 3-4th level cleric spells and the second powers from each domain). now you're missing some key fighter abilities and only have spells that are mostly outdated (though the "animal's other-name-for-stat" spells might still be useful for off stats or people who haven't prioritized belts/headbands).
- at 16th you're only 2 BAB behind (until your next cleric level) but that's only 2 better than a straight cleric and it leaves you 3 levels away from the final iteration (which a fighter just got); you're also missing 4 feat, 2 weapon training upgrades, and an extra +2 max dex on your armor and are only up to 4th level spells (which will still be mostly all buffs that you can only use if you get a chance to buff before combat or are willing to sacrifice attacks for).
as you can see, the longer you do it the less beneficial it becomes. its not so bad that you're always just gonna be dead weight at all, but there's pretty much always a more powerful way to do it than the old-school multiclass. if you're starting at first level and likely only playing to 8th it shouldn't be too bad- if you're looking at potentially playing til 16+ consider a different route (if you're concerned about maintaining a competitive power level).
on a less technical note: if your issue is the way your group views classes (as a lifestyle rather than a set of skills/abilities acquired that level) then talk to your GM about being part of a culture/order/sect/whatever that embraces a variation of that lifestyle- if you want to be fighter/cleric (but not oldschool multiclassed) talk to him about a militant religious order where everyone is trained in heavy armor/martial combat first and continues some of that training throughout their religious career (then start with 1 fighter level and go mostly cleric from there with an excuse to pick up additional fighter levels and/or combat feats when you want to). you could do a similar thing for just about any class combo (trained by a military or school that valued armed and unarmed combat for a fighter/monk; an assassins guild or aggressive thieves guild for fighter/rogue; a warrior-poet/skald mentor for a barbarian/bard; a band of gypsy could explain a multitude of combinations of bard, rogue, witch, sorcerer, illusionist...)
We play house rules where a person can multiclass and use 1/2 xp (keeps you essentially 2 levels behind. Then you average hit points, skill points and saves from the two classes you want to play. You then get all the abilities of both classes (very first edition). Seems to be working out ok.
That sound horrifically restrictive, for the sake of being restrictive.
it sounds to me more like an attempt at a 'balanced' form of gestalt (i think they're averaging HP but gestalting everything else in exchange for earning half xp)
We play house rules where a person can multiclass and use 1/2 xp (keeps you essentially 2 levels behind. Then you average hit points, skill points and saves from the two classes you want to play. You then get all the abilities of both classes (very first edition). Seems to be working out ok.
I was a fan of this in 2nd edition, and it sounds like a good option for PF multiclassing if your intention is to take 50/50 on two classes all the way (as long as no one finds some weird way to abuse it). Being a couple levels behind seems to be a much more appropriate cost for being a half-n-half multi-class character rather than having the correct player level but being so far behind on both classes' abilities down the road. This is similar to the way CRs add together (i.e. two CR 5s is a CR 7, not a CR 10).
It works out for special abilities and spell casting levels the best. It stinks being a 5th level cleric/5th level fighter and having 3rd level spells, when you can be 8th/8th effectively loosing a few hitpoints gaining bab as a fighter and all the feats up to 8th level. Like I said it works pretty well for us (we have used it in two adventures now, the characters aren't over powered or under powered, and seem to have a very first edition feel to multiclassing.