You are very rarely going to hit level 20, and a lot of classes don't have capstone abilities that are that outstanding anyway. So you're not giving up a lot on the back-end for taking a second class, the real sacrifice is that your main class abilities will be a level or 2 behind for the mid-levels for unlocking your best abilities (a Level 9 cleric can cast 5th Level spells, a level 8 Cleric/Level 1 whatever cannot).
Personally, I strenuously dislike "dipping" and don't do it for my characters since it feels like the sort of abuse that "XP penalties for mutliclassing" was supposed to prevent in older versions of d20 games, so it feels like I'm abusing an exploit when I do it. I like VMC as a concept but it often doesn't help much. If you're planning for a PRC or have a story-inspired reason for swapping classes, go ahead though.
The combination of the Duelist and the Swasbuckler is designed to let you riposte without using your immediate action right? Since otherwise the Swashbuckler parry is kind of better (except that it costs the immediate action to riposte), remember that the Duelist is a 6+ year old class at this point and hasn't been updated much. The Inspired Blade and the Magus go together fairly well, though the issue is that the Kensai can't wear even light armor else suffer arcane spell failure even if proficient and is a 3/4 BAB class. You're a frontliner so that's not great.
|
A single Level of Empyreal Sorcerer is worth losing the potential of Perfect Self for a Monk. Mage Armor at will, Silent image, Vanish, True Strike, Shield, and Protection From Evil are all great spells that don't lose utility quickly.
I disagree on this. While those are useful buffs, they are all available as cheap wands that you can buy and hand to someone that can cast the spell on you or you can just UMD. Monks usually are not great at UMD, but they can be adequate with a trait. The loss of BAB, Ki, Damage and AC progression and so on hurt for a long time.
|
|
A wand of Mage Armor is my goto on any monk, and I will usually have one ASAP. an hour per charge is up when you need it without needing to worry about handing off. Vanish is too short duration to be that useful for non-rogues imo, and True Strike can be handled via qinggong. Also, you can activate the wands yourself with UMD investment. UMD is really one of the best skills in the game as it is.
The dip can be useful on a non-standard build, especially if you are going for a PrC. But in most situations, it's going to hurt more than it helps.
1)Is multiclassing, giving up class futures of lvl 19-20, really useful?
What do you think about?
Depends, will multi-classing help me portray the character I'm envisioning?
If so, then I won't think twice about what I could've done as a single class in the (unlikely) event that the campaign actually reaches 20th lv.2)What do you think about an Elf Swashbuckler(Inspired Blade archetype) lvl 15/ Duelist lvl 5?
And an Elf Magus(Kensai archetype) lvl 15/ Swashbuckler(Inspired Blade archetype) lvl 5? Better Duelist lvl 5?
Wich of these will help you best portray the character you're envisioning?
Go with that.
See, with a good amount of base classes and a healthy dose of archetypes, I can nail just about any fantasy character concept with just a single class. And that's really how it should be. No one should have to wait until level 6+ to finally begin to play the character they have in mind.
In 3.5, it was nearly mandatory. The incentive to remain in your base class was incredibly low, because there just wasn't enough reward for staying loyal to whatever class you were. In Pathfinder, you have a good slew of high level abilities to look forward to, your favored class bonus, no pre-reqs, and well... not having to wait. Just go forth and be amazing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If multiclassing is fun and lets you play the character you want to play, then I'm all for it.
If staying in a single class is fun and lets you play the character you want to play, then I'm all for it.
Most of my characters have been single class, but some have been multiclass. One of my favorites was a dwarf barbarian 1/magus 6 or 7.
Sometimes dipping can be fun and flavorful. I had a ranger 1 (favored enemy githyanki)/warlock (3.5) with a silversword greatsword--and (supposedly) tons of githyanki hunting him down for that theft.
Unless the game is an unusual one you'll probably be at levels 1-18 a lot longer than you'll be at levels 19-20. I usually multiclass. I find that the first level or two of Monk are particularly packed with feats and abilities. Four levels of Paladin with Oath of Vengeance is also tough to beat unless you're in a campaign without Evil foes (or playing with a DM who will just change everything's alignment to cancel out your abilities)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not addicted to multi-classing, I can stop any time I want.
Just not today, then it's the weekend, the Super Bowl is a huge trigger for me, and then of course, we have February to get thru...
If you pick the right mutliclass, it can be awesome. How many sessions do you play at 20th level? Usually 1-3. If you multiclass early it will give you the benefits for dozens of sessions. Maybe a hundred.
Multiclassing can be worth it - for flavor, power level and the interesting thought exercise to pull it.
I think there are two arguments speaking against multiclassing: Increasing rewards per level for sticking with a class and the limited actions per turn. It doesn't help much to have five different swift actions available, because you can only use one.
On the other hand, level 1 of a class / archetype usually offers some strong bait to make it interesting from the beginning. And if you take only few levels, you are more able to cherry-pick optional class powers - assuming level requirements aren't too harsh.
Finally, multiclassing is not restricted to dipping. If your classes have some nice synergy, the combination can be good from the beginning to the end. I will throw in Sa'El, mostly built with Core rules:
Fighter 5, rogue 5, wizard 3, arcane trickster 4, eldritch knight 3
5d6 sneak attack (add Accomplished Sneak Attacker for 6d6), impromptu sneak attack 1/day
5th level spells (CL 9, add Magical Knack for 11)
3+1 combat bonus feats, 2 rogue talents
BAB 14 (slightly below a 3/4 class)
Base Fortitude 9
Base Reflex 9
Base Will 8 (so quite well-rounded, in average between classes with 1 good save and those with 2)
Can wear mithral full plate with just 5% arcane spell failure, assuming you spend two feats to get Arcane Armor Mastery. Can move full-speed with it, assuming the GM allows mithral and armor training I to stack.
Needs good Str, Dex, Con and Int, consider 13 to 14 to start. Wisdom and charisma can be dumped.
He is not the strongest build ever, but quite versatile.
Generally, you won't spend a whole lot of time in the 19-20 range. If you do manage to make it to that level I don't think its much of a problem considering the number of terrifying items/spells you have access to at that point anyway. The capstone is just beating a dead horse.
I personally love multiclassing and prestige classes. For years, I've played systems that allow much more customization than Pathfinder(BESM and The Hero System). Both of which basically give you the ability to make your character exactly how you want them to be. Since returning to the D&D-style systems I've noticed that sticking to just one class usually doesn't allow me to fulfill the concept I have. Sometimes archetypes help, but not always.
I don't know about "any race can be any class" since halfling barbarians and dwarf bards are going to be pretty poor compared to dwarf barbarians and halfling bards.
Personally, if I were designing the game from the ground up I would just drop racial penalties. No need to tell anyone "well, you're dumber because you're a [whatever]." Not only does this touch on uncomfortable issues like "intelligence is heritable" but it also stands in the way of letting people play what they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually allow canceling a +2 stat with a -2 stat. Allows a lot more class/race combos.
I usually allow canceling a +2 stat with a -2 stat. Allows a lot more class/race combos.
The race creation rules say the standard approach is +2 to one physical, +2 to one mental, and -2 to one other so I'm happy to let people move those around if it helps their concepts. It's just sometimes irritating that the rules stand in the way of playing an elf who is tough, or a dwarf who is charming, or whatever concept is impeded by racial penalties. It's just that this sort of thing really ought not be a houserule, stat penalties for the circumstances of one's birth are sort of an archaic mechanic that we'd be better off dropping entirely.
I have a dwarven Oracle, he's charming, and holds his own, despite the -2 to Charisma.
Magical headbands exist for a reason. :-)
I will throw in Sa'El, mostly built with Core rules:
Fighter 5, rogue 5, wizard 3, arcane trickster 4, eldritch knight 3
** spoiler omitted **
He is not the strongest build ever, but quite versatile.
He looks like he'd be fun to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about "any race can be any class" since halfling barbarians and dwarf bards are going to be pretty poor compared to dwarf barbarians and halfling bards.
Personally, if I were designing the game from the ground up I would just drop racial penalties. No need to tell anyone "well, you're dumber because you're a [whatever]." Not only does this touch on uncomfortable issues like "intelligence is heritable" but it also stands in the way of letting people play what they want.
Depends on the game system. HarnMaster, for example, is extremely humanocentric. One could play an elf, half-elf, or dwarf, I suppose, but those races seem much better in context as NPCs — or as PCs who tend not to reveal their non-human status.
As for Pathfinder, "any race can be any class" is not the same thing as "some classes are better suited to one non-human race than to another". Somebody wants to play a dwarf bard, more power to him. It's not always about "how do I get the best game mechanics out of my choices?"
I think racial differences in abilities are an important way of distinguishing the races. Otherwise you might as well just do away with non-human PCs… or NPCs, I suppose.
The "demihuman" level limits in AD&D generally came along with an ability to multiclass which humans lacked. Anyhow, those rules are long gone in Pathfinder, so now everybody has the options to enjoy multiclassing or choose to leave it alone.
When it comes to dwarven bards and such I think that "playing against type" is a pretty common trope. Having a -2 or lacking a +2 in your class's prime requisite (to use an old AD&D term) probably won't doom you to failure, especially if you're not directly competing with another more optimized PC who is trying to steal your spotlight. I guess that can be one of those cases where multiclassing might help give your PC something a little different to make him or her stand out.
@Captain Yesterday - March Multiclassing Madness? Have you filled out your class leveling matrix?
@Saldiven - I’m playing a 13th level Viking in one current campaign and enjoying the Swift action demoralize. For other classes I’d think that Cornugon Smash or Enforcer would be better ways to get a quick demoralize than Viking levels.
I don't know about "any race can be any class" since halfling barbarians and dwarf bards are going to be pretty poor compared to dwarf barbarians and halfling bards.
People keep saying that and yet I keep seeing the dwarf bard9/fighter1 do over 100 damage on his full attacks.
I've never seen a UMD build that makes more sense than just dipping, but if you have one, then go where the adventure takes you and may Cayden toast your journey.
Does this include 6/9 level casters that take UMD to get access to spells off-list? I've seen a lot of bards that are very good at UMD and are basically carrying a wagon-load of miscellaneous scrolls and wands for "just in case, you know."
Of course, bards also have skill points out the wazoo, so it may just be a case of "well, it was either UMD or Craft (little frog out of an eraser and push pins)..."
|
|
I don't know about "any race can be any class" since halfling barbarians and dwarf bards are going to be pretty poor compared to dwarf barbarians and halfling bards.People keep saying that and yet I keep seeing the dwarf bard9/fighter1 do over 100 damage on his full attacks.
There is a huge misconception that bards need a high charisma. They only need the minimum CHA to cast spells of the highest level they have.
You only need high cha if you are using spells that require a saving throw, which for a 3/4 caster you should be avoiding. Most of the good bard spells are buffs or condition removers, which do not need a save.
I've never played a bard with a starting CHA above 12.
Bards don't need high CHR but that is also like saying a fighter doesn't need a high STR. Bards should have a high CHR because almost all their abilities and spells and skills depend on a high one.
Archer fighters need high dexterity, not high strength. They want decent strength sure, but if you want their best build (or at least one of their best builds) dex is the king stat.
A fighter using dex to damage doesn't need str. So does a bard wanting to do combat. 12 to 16 is a +2 to a decent amount of skills, 2 rounds of bardic performance, and +2 to spell DCs. Which if you're doing buffs and such you don't really care about your DCs.
So they have reasons to have a good charisma 16, but they work fine and well with a 12.
|
|
Bards don't need high CHR but that is also like saying a fighter doesn't need a high STR. Bards should have a high CHR because almost all their abilities and spells and skills depend on a high one.
No they really don't. Performance rounds depend on it, but leveling up increases to more than you would need. Spell DCs, but as a 3/4 class, spellcasting is never your pure focus. Versatile Performace is still useful because enough ranks overcome a slightly lower starting CHA.
All you need is 12 at first level, pick up a +2 CHA headband sometime around 5th level, and then upgrade it to a +4 by the time you need to cast 5th level spells.
That's you're big hang up. Bards aren't "meant to have high charisma and int". IF you go high charisma and int and no offensive stats of course you'll suck in combat. Just like if a rogue when high in and charisma to be good at skill and suck at combat.
A Bard works wonderfully well if you have an int 7, you still get 4 skills a level, which is more than the fighter, cha 12, now you can cast your spell that a fighter doesn't get, and then pumping up your combat stats just like a combat person would do. Now you don't have to dump this hard to have a combat bard. But of course a class will suck in combat if you have 10/12/12/18/13/18
One of the organizing principles of Pathfinder from the beginning was to make every class playable from level 1 to level 20, as opposed to D&D 3.5 which was generally a race to get to the prestige class you wanted (all the PrCs in the core rules are mostly to ensure compatibility with 3.5, compared to non-prestige classes they're mostly poor choices though). This is why every class gets something every level (aside from BAB,, save, and HP upgrades), so that you won't have dead levels that tell you to stop being this class and not that other class.
That you can just stick in one class and continue to be useful is one of my favorite things in Pathfinder, and though I feel dipping is exploitative, I have no problem with making a multiclass investment that's at least 3 or 4 levels in the secondary class (I just think "I'm going to take one level of this class for all the sweet stuff they get at level 1" is kinda cheesy, so I don't personally do it.)
I think the capstones are there in part to encourage you to stick with your class for 20 levels, but in practice you almost never play past level 15 or so anyway.
TBH, I dipped my magus in a level of barbarian at 1st level for the speed bonus (he's a dwarf, and I had just got done playing another slow race (gnome dragon shaman (3.5 class converted to PF) and was sick of being slow).
The rage, extra hit points, etc., was just gravy.
But really tasty gravy. It added a lot of versatility, and allowed me to start out with Power Attack at 1st level (even though I started out at 4th or 5th).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like multi-classing on a conceptual level. Then again I tend to see gaining levels as being similar to job training and education, so the idea of taking a level of a different class out of nowhere feels like someone in the first year as an electrician journeyman saying "I'm a doctor now".
I understand that a player might want things that aren't all offered in a single class, but I'm willing to work with them and design a custom archetype or feat chain, or some other way to get them the extra stuff they want.
One of the reasons I hated old style D&D was it kept the power level often too low. It also was a racist game Humans could go to level twenty and play all classes. Halfling could be unlimited Thieves that was it every other race had a level limit. It was stupid how they did it as well. They'd talk about how elves were the best wizard yet only be 12th level. Dwarves made the best fighter 10th level limit.
They did it with multiclassing screwing people left and right. They made a DM god answerable to no one. Had a lot of players b~+*@ about how unfair the rules were.
It wa hardly an issue for the following reasons.
1. Most campaigns ended before players hit 10th level. Very few got that much farther.
2. Demi-humans had multi-classing that was pretty close to 3.X's gestalt. Elves were considered good wizards because Fighter/Mus could cast in armor.
3. Most players had respect for the work that DM's did instead of being self-entitled whiners. Some DMs were power tripping jerks, but there were jerks on the other side of the screen as well.
I don't like multi-classing on a conceptual level. Then again I tend to see gaining levels as being similar to job training and education, so the idea of taking a level of a different class out of nowhere feels like someone in the first year as an electrician journeyman saying "I'm a doctor now".
I understand that a player might want things that aren't all offered in a single class, but I'm willing to work with them and design a custom archetype or feat chain, or some other way to get them the extra stuff they want.
I was wondering if folks took this into consideration in their multi-classing plans. It seems to me incumbent on a player who wants to multi-class, even if it's just a dip, to come up with a back-story that makes sense. A game where folks just suddenly take a dip in some often radically different class seems more likely to be a "rpg" without much role-playing to me. As you say, sort of like the journeyman electrician who suddenly becomes a doctor. Or the fighter who suddenly says, in effect, "I spent four years studying magic last week, so now I'm mage".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of like deviating from feat trees.
Just because you took Power Attack and Improved Bull Rush, it doesn't mean you have to take Greater Bull Rush and Bull Rushing Critical (or whatever that means).
You can choose to take Cleave instead, or even Improved Initiative or Point Blank Shot.
It's the same with skills. Just because you maxed out the Survival skill for 5 levels, it doesn't mean you can't take a rank in Ride or Swim at 6th level.
Classes are just classification constructs. They're part of a rule set that describes your character. Some characters become more specialized and focused, some become more versatile.