Multiclass Archetypes Master List
Like any content, MCAs run the gamut from underpowered to overpowered. We try to maintain a balanced approach to swaps and trades, but no system is perfect.
By all means hit us up on our current thread:
and ask us about any particular MCA that interests you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well first off, let us examine this:
As I read, the core classes in Pathfinder are greatly balanced...
Personally I don't think this is the case. The classes are not equally balanced with each other, but they do contribute meaningfully to the game in terms of roleplaying potential and each offers vastly different game-mechanic opportunities, that run the gamut from bone-shattering melee combatants to stealthy operatives to reality warping spellcasters.
Having said that, we have as a design principle, attempted to keep within the total power curve of all classes, as well as holding the power of each specific MCA to a general equality with the Primary class of that MCA.
I'll try to get back to you on some of those MCAs in your list. I appreciate your interest in our project and am gratified that you seek to qualitatively examine their relative merits! ;)
I am a submitter and occasional oddball critic of the MCA classes.
In my experience, most homebrew classes end up underpowered, and particularly when you try to make multi-talented classes, like the MCAs all are. They do this because half plus half is not full in terms of classes. The most obvious way to show this is to use regular multiclassing; a Wizard 10 / Fighter 10 is almost certainly inferior to either a Wizard 20 or Fighter 20 (if you wish to contest this, please turn to some "wizards rule" thread). This is because specialization is generally rewarded, and overspecialization is rewarded more.
Many core classes are specialists - the fighter and wizard are overspecialized in one narrow area each. It is very hard to beat the fighter in simple damage per round, and very hard to beat the wizard in control and utility. And these are generally the two classes every new creation is tested against.
The more diverse a class is, the more diverse class abilities it has, the less focus it has and the less synergies in its most important area. If we look at the ranger, that is an excellent class on paper, with 4 levels of spells, full base attack, plenty of skill points, and numerous class features. It is 50% fighter, 40% druid, and 50% rogue. That sounds good on paper. But still, in play the ranger is pretty lackluster with conditional abilities. The ranger is second best at everything, and often a distant second. A lot of non-focused abilities does not make a good class.
Thus my line about MCA classes is often that they need more focus, and that in order to equal one full class, you don't need 1/2 of two other classes, you need 2/3 of two other classes. Now, I feel there is an awareness of this in the MCA team (even tough they can use a reminder now and then) and MCA classes often have both with and depth to their powers. This is more me on a soap box talking ideals that a concrete complaint.
Hi Lance!
I worked on the MCA project, though I did design work on only a minority of individual MCAs. That said, I've read most of them and done editing on a lot of them. None of the ones I've looked at will break a game by being too powerful. Some of them might be, as Starfox mentioned, less capable than more focused core class builds... but I think that's fine. Every play group has a different emphasis on power, and a real RP-focused group isn't going to have issues with the MCAs. My 2¢! :)
Another MCA-er here, 'ello.
And I've said it before, I'll say it again- including an MCA in your game is generally, IMHO, no different than including an Aasimar or Tiefling or Drow. Sure, they'll seem a tad stronger at the very start, but it'll even out before you know it.