I have been rping since d&d 1st edition had come out in the 70's. I as well as many but not all the people I have gamed with have played single class characters. I have played a few computer rp games but prefer table top ones instead. IMO milti classing just seems like number crunching for the sake of having that godly character.
If that's what other people like to play but don't view it the same way as myself I would love to hear why. I am no way saying single class doesn't number crunch either
Sometimes multi-classing is more about flavor than mechanics; even with all the work Pathfinder's put into new classes and archetypes, there are some concepts you really can't cover by single-classing.
Sometimes multi-classing is more about flavor than mechanics; even with all the work Pathfinder's put into new classes and archetypes, there are some concepts you really can't cover by single-classing.
IMO milti classing just seems like number crunching for the sake of having that godly character.
For my next character, it's really kind of both. Story-wise, she's been rescued from a past that, while not her fault, she's pretty guilty about, so she'll use the ability she was born with and the training she's received to do everything she can to save people now. Optimization-wise, a character with all the martial goodness of a reach paladin, while being able to use a level of life oracle and a pair of boots that give fast healing to heal the party to full in between every combat, as well as paladin channeling and lay on hands in combat if necessary, is going to be very, very helpful to the party. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Multi-classing allows you to make a character that isn't like anyone else's. Mechanically, my level 7 human sorcerer isn't much different from all the other level 7 human sorcerers. But there are very few multi-class paladin/slayer/sorcerers out there, so making one of those feels a lot more creative.
In general, character concept tends to come first for me, and I'll do what I need to do to meet my character concept, whether it's standard single-classing, archetypes, or multi-classing. I tend pretty heavily toward archetyped single-classing, though - I've gotten my inspiration for a few characters from reading the descriptions of a class or archetype.
I enjoy multiclassing both from a mathematical and story standpoint.
Mathematically speaking, a lot of builds come online with just a few short dips. So, I dip. A lot.
Concerning stories... I had a rogue who eventually started studying magic and became an Arcane Trickster; she was very intelligent from the get-go, so learning a few spells from the wizard as a pastime turned into a huge shift in her career (and simultaneously made her immensely more powerful because wizard). I played a couple of Fighter/Rogues in 3.5 and loved them; they were essentially fighters who fought dirty. If you ever play a paladin that falls, you essentially HAVE to multiclass if your character isn't going to behave by the standards of their code.
Also, sometimes it's just fun to say "I want to multiclass" when it isn't necessarily the smartest thing to do. Sometimes the concept of a character starts with the multiclass.
I tend to not multiclass unless I need to do so for the concept or if the class is not adding anything to my concept after a certain level.
Multi-classing allows you to make a character that isn't like anyone else's. Mechanically, my level 7 human sorcerer isn't much different from all the other level 7 human sorcerers. But there are very few multi-class paladin/slayer/sorcerers out there, so making one of those feels a lot more creative.
Yes from a mechanics point of view a sorc could be a sorc could be a sorc. I think the thing that brought me over to pathfinder 6 months ago, other than my dislike for 4th ed was the addition of the bloodlines variety. Then I found a few of the other books that include shamans, brawlers, inquisitors and such.
Perhaps I got used to the games I had played in were roughly 60/40 rp/hack and slash. I normally gm that way as well, occasionally it flips the other way or goes 50/50. Every one has different styles of play and what they like. Perhaps one of the reasons i got into the white wolf games as well was they are more like 80/20 rp/dice rolls.
I just find it interesting as to what peoples preferences are.
I often multiclass in order to better realize a concept. That said, the cost is often quite high.
I seldom multiclass between more than two classes.
I tend to only multiclass if it fits the idea of the character, but I try hard as I can to stay a single class. I like concepts that come online as soon as possible, and I find multiclassing, while sometimes needed or useful in achieving that concept, delays it overall. My pet project for the longest time was building a Magus that two weapon fought with her fists. There was a lot of back and forth between dipping monk, using 3pp feats to get somewhat scaling unarmed damage, etc. Ended up finding a 3pp sorcerer bloodline (one of the variations of Giant) that gave monk unarmed damage equal to sorcerer level. Used one of the Magus archetypes that use Charisma, take Eldritch Heritage at level 3, done. Much easier than splitting classes and delaying spell casting and features.
That said, there are certain times I'd be willing to delay a feature for a level or two if the dip makes the overall concept better.
I definitely prefer single classing. The odd prestige class aside it's very uncommon that I come up with a concept that can't be represented by a single class and the unintended (or perhaps intended but poorly thought out) synergy game that can make multi classing quite powerful appeals to me not at all. I like a simple A -> B -> C advancement rather than a character that feels patched together.
Of course there are some wonderful and unique character concepts that are best represented but multi classing that come from a place of wanting a cool unique character and I think that's great. I rarely have to go there though.
- Torger
I have been rping since d&d 1st edition had come out in the 70's. I as well as many but not all the people I have gamed with have played single class characters. I have played a few computer rp games but prefer table top ones instead. IMO milti classing just seems like number crunching for the sake of having that godly character.
If that's what other people like to play but don't view it the same way as myself I would love to hear why. I am no way saying single class doesn't number crunch either
I like multiclassing, but I'm a minmaxer. Taking a level of oracle to add my cha to my ac instead of my Dex, then 2 levels of pally to do the same to my saves is generally too good to pass up, esp. since I almost always play a summoner. That's just me though :-D
I'm not generally a fan of multiclassing without some sort of good, story-based justification for it. DKFever's example is a good one - I'm sure there's plenty of good, synergistic, system-based reasons for combining summoner, orcale and paladin. But there's no way I'd allow that in my game - you can't dip into a class like paladin like that. Years of combat training suddenly come from where, exactly?
Multiclassing has its place but it has to respect a games' internal consistency. I don't consider it a players "right" at my table when advancing their character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For any class with spells, single class.
For classes without spells, multiclass.
I tend to Multiclass Fighter, Monk and Rogue together to represent characters who create their own fighting style as they learn. With brawler's arrival, I do the same for it. Those four as far as I note tend to have few class features that demands constantly leveling into the class (Sneak atack being an exception), and those that remain can often be archetyped out.
I do this to either; make certain combat styles more viable or interesting, such as Archer Sneak attacker. Most of the time, Rogue becomes the Main class, with the others having varying levels of dipping, in order to keep Sneak attack valid.
My favorite so far has been a Thug / Scout rogue who mixes in Sohei, and fighter liberally to use Dazzling Display, and Unarmed combat + Bow. Basically a Hawkeye- like character that alternates between trick archery and unarmed melee. Having the ability to always act in a surprise round from Sohei, and SNap Shot from Rogue talents also means usually means I get the first shot too.
Multiclassing is rarely the optimized choice in Pathfinder. It's usually done to realize character concepts that aren't really possible with a straight 20 in one class (for example, my highly charismatic and very drunk Oracle 1/Monk X).
I like multiclassing, but I'm a minmaxer. Taking a level of oracle to add my cha to my ac instead of my Dex, then 2 levels of pally to do the same to my saves is generally too good to pass up, esp. since I almost always play a summoner. That's just me though :-D
Yeah, this is 100% not worth losing three caster levels of Summoner and weakening both your eidolon and your Summon Monster SLA's. You're not optimizing, you're getting distracted by shinies that are less important than building up what you already have.
Single classing. I would likely multiclass if it weren't such a binary thing. That you get absolutely nothing from previous classes is a bit weird, imo. I don't know what the right line would be for things to still gain. I would just like something like that even if it were just +1 or 2 to a couple class skills for that class, a single extra spell slot.... something.
Multiclassing is rarely the optimized choice in Pathfinder. It's usually done to realize character concepts that aren't really possible with a straight 20 in one class (for example, my highly charismatic and very drunk Oracle 1/Monk X).
Yeah, this is 100% not worth losing three caster levels of Summoner and weakening both your eidolon and your Summon Monster SLA's. You're not optimizing, you're getting distracted by shinies that are less important than building up what you already have.I like multiclassing, but I'm a minmaxer. Taking a level of oracle to add my cha to my ac instead of my Dex, then 2 levels of pally to do the same to my saves is generally too good to pass up, esp. since I almost always play a summoner. That's just me though :-D
If he's willing to get Magical Knack, and suffer taking Extra evolution feats towards the end, I could see it being a worthy exchange. I personally wouldn't do the paladin part, because having all of this sprinkled divine support, before going Summoner (Even of celestials) seems kinda off to me.
Kind of like: Iomedae is all: "We'll bring an oracle into the world, but only a little bit of one, and then he's SOOL, so he better take up a proper profession to further our work."
Then again, that could just be a nagging feeling that comes with not Single classing Oracle and Sorceror (Coincidentally my two favorite classes to theorycraft around themes)
Magical Knack doesn't help with spell level progression. The Summoner wouldn't get 2nd level spells until 7th level.
Just because you have the abilities doesn't mean you need to develop them. My Oracle 1/Monk X got the ability to create her own booze at level 1 and that was all she needed.
Single classing. I would likely multiclass if it weren't such a binary thing. That you get absolutely nothing from previous classes is a bit weird, imo. I don't know what the right line would be for things to still gain. I would just like something like that even if it were just +1 or 2 to a couple class skills for that class, a single extra spell slot.... something.
I did like the feats in 3.5 and 4e that allowed you to continue leveling up some class features after you started multi-classing.
Alas, Pathfinder is not a very multiclassing-friendly system outside of dipping for specific abilities. There seems to be some intent to replace that with archetypes that mix and match features from different classes, but those are often restricted to a specific flavor and don't cover anywhere close to all the things one might wish to combine.
Dual class thief/mage
/oldeditionjoke
Dual class thief/mage
/oldeditionjoke
Gnome Fighter/Illusionist > human dual class thief/mage, yo. So much cooler, much magic, wow.
I like multiclassing in theory crafting to see what I can make. I find it doesn't help much in most cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Single class. I got really tired of having to multiclass in 3.5 to feel effective and plot out a bunch of break points and prerequisites for the practically obligatory prestige classes...ugh. It was a real relief in Pathfinder for single class to be perfectly acceptable, though I suppose in some ways they might have gone too far. While I prefer not to multiclass myself, I think it should still be a better option that it currently seems to be.
Yeah, I think Pathfinder made the right move by adding some incentives for staying in a single class for 20 levels. In 3.5 there was no mechanical incentive to stay single-classed past level 5 (Unless you were a druid). However, I think Pathfinder might have gone a bit too far in the other direction, especially after the recent SLA ruling that really hurt the viability of the multiclass-friendly prestige classes. Not to mention prestige classes just generally feel weaker than sticking with your base class.
I've been in love with making a character my own by multiclassing since first edition. My favorite PC ever, the one named "Cayzle," was a dual classed fighter 7 and magic-user 14. The gnome cleric / illusionist, named "Brom Thymol Blue," was also a great one. My first PC in college was a monk and cleric.
For me, the joy of multiclassing is to be unique. I also enjoy the optimization game of finding unusual abilities that work together and making them into a whole. I also really enjoy making character backgrounds that use multiclassing to tell a story.
HOWEVER, I love love love Third Edition (and Pathfinder) because of the game design of what class levels are. In these games, a "level" is a quantum unit. A level is a building block. The idea of game balance is that a level of fighter is equal to a level of wizard is equal to a level of rogue. The idea is that you can build a viable character out of levels of different classes.
Now, that philosophy did lead to abuse, as we saw in 3E by the end, with too many classes and too many prestige classes. There were some insane builds out there. But I would argue that if designers of splat books are careful to create balanced rules that do not lend themselves to abuses, they too can be valuable building blocks in making characters.
Speaking of which, it's a funny coincidence to come to these forums and see this conversation. Because just today I released the beta version of my own prestige class splat book for Pathfinder.
The book is . If you are interested in prestige classes and multiclassing, please click to check out this free 80-page, 30,000-word PDF.
I think the biggest turn off for me with multi classing was warching a group play years ago and I swear everybody at the table had a minimum of 3 classes. There were about 4-5 players. It seemed to me that they wanted everything represented, and there was very little teamwork. I have seen single class disfunctional teams as well, but the players spent more time flipping through char sheets to see if they could do something that it bogged the game down. Was just glad I wasn't playing or I would have either pulled my hair out or tried my luck with a greekfire explodie jacket pvp kill.
I've done both in the past, but in more recent years, I've stopped multiclassing. To be honest, cap-skills are one reason, even though few characters ever reach them (they're just that somewhat unattainable, yet alluring goal to work towards), but that's not really it either.
I like clerics. A lot. Clerics don't have cap-skills because someone at Paizo apparently messed up and forgot about them. Or something :D
In truth, I don't multiclass on most characters because I'm the exact opposite of a min-maxer. I play a character for the character -behind- the numbers. That still, to this day, leads me to situations where I'm playing someone semi-useless at higher levels because frankly, I don't bother with the number-crunching and the scouring of every sourcebook ever released for a feat that allows me to further tweak every roll average 0.05 percent more in my favor. I roleplay ... whereas rollplaying doesn't do much for me. A good evening of playing doesn't have to involve a single rolled dice (I play in a way of the wicked campaign, where we recently had a 12 hour mega-session which mostly went with our villanous scumbags celebrating a great victory by getting blitzed out of their brains and singing lewd songs we came up with on the fly, and doing evil things to our prisoners ... didn't need dice for that, but everyone had a blast).
To each their own, really. If people enjoy tweaking their characters, I say good for them. I play with several people like that, and they are all great players. To me, though, the focus isn't so much on how massive a bonus I can squeeze out of a character for any particular skill or situation, but more on who the character is. Others choose a different path, and that's just as valid.
The point being, that if we all played the same way for the same reasons, things would get pretty stale pretty fast.
But at heart, I think I feel much the same way you do, Thorazeen, that it seems like number crunching for the sake of a godly character and that's just ... not me.
It really depends on the character I'm trying to develop.
If it can be realized by using a single class (possibly with an archetype or two), then I won't multiclass. Also, some classes (like summoner) are really hurt by multiclassing (although a 1-2 level dip in one other class may be acceptable).
Sometimes, however, I want specific mechanical functionality that can be "best" realized by multiclassing and/or taking prestige class levels (for instance, a musket master gunslinger with 4 levels in monk of the sacred mountain to fire a culverin or double hackbut without being knocked prone).
Excellent example, Dragonchess. I like multiclass combos that let you advance in BALANCED but unusual ways.
For example, in my new splat book of prestige classes, I have one that lets you advance two companions. If you were a druid/summoner, you could use this prestige class to advance both your eidolon and your animal companion. But you get no spells per day progression.
You could also advance a familiar or a cohort.
So long as all the creatures are of the same type ... felines, canines, equines, etc. You could be a "lion whisperer" or a "dog whisperer."