Good point on the multiclass trouble points.
So, if instead of getting 3-5 core class features right at first level, if instead 2 class abilities for the first three (or so) levels was the distribution, with later levels adding at most 1 class feature and building off the early one, you think this would better facilitate meaningful multiclassing in the d20 system?
It'd be a step in the right direction, though there are other things to consider. Those sweet, sweet save bonuses at 1st level heavily incentivize dipping. That maximized first hit die incentivizes taking high-HD classes first, if one is going to MC. The x4 skill multiplier in 3.0 and 3.5 really incentivizes taking a rogue level first, though I think PF may have fixed this particular issue. Basically anywhere that 1st level in a class gives more numbers than later levels or than other classes creates these system mastery incentives.
And then there're the spells and caster levels. Caster classes need to be written in such a way as to not punish casters for the simple sin of MCing into anything other than a full-CL PrC. And of course, it'd be nice if spells didn't get so crazy at high levels, both for balance reasons and so that giving up those high level spells wasn't such a shot-in-the-foot.
|
And then there're the spells and caster levels. Caster classes need to be written in such a way as to not punish casters for the simple sin of MCing into anything other than a full-CL PrC.
This is easily fixed with feats.
Those sweet, sweet save bonuses at 1st level heavily incentivize dipping. That maximized first hit die incentivizes taking high-HD classes first, if one is going to MC. The x4 skill multiplier in 3.0 and 3.5 really incentivizes taking a rogue level first, though I think PF may have fixed this particular issue.
This is easily fixed with standardized saves based on character level and "class save" bonuses. As is just allowing a player to always have a single HD maximized, sorted out upon gaining a new level if need be. And yes, skills have a "class skill" bonus that fixed the "x4" issue.
Honestly, aside from shifting a few 1st- and 2nd class features to 2nd- or 3rd- level for each class, there doesn't seem to be as much work as you might think.
I'm leaving out the "high-level spells are problematic" because that is an entirely separate issue than the multi-classing issue.
Because "I moonlighted as a fighter before becoming a master of many styles for a bit, then I decided to give the barbarian lifestyle a try, dabbled in occultism, and became a cleric for a bit" probably isn't anywhere close to anybody's idea for a well-realized, interesting character.
If your idea for multiclassing is actually related to your concept, that's great and I endorse that. If you're just cherry-picking mechanical boosts, that's the sort of min-maxing that's always annoyed me.
|
I can understand that. I havent really experienced it much at the table so its not so bothersome for me. Im the multi-classing guy in my group and i've never had more than 3 classes for one character.
That said, lots of folks think MC is the way of the gimp in PF. I dont believe that, but if its a prevalent belief, what makes MCing (front loaded classes in particular) such a problem?
Could I get some opinions further explaining on why front loading and dipping is bad? For me its certainly a feature right now would like to know why that bad.
I don't like front-loading because it incentivizes dipping for purely min-maxing purposes. I don't like dipping for purely min-maxing purposes because it creates tension between building your PC for personalization/story/adaption and for effectiveness.
There will always be some tension between p/s/a and effectiveness, but designing toward the ideal of no tension results in just enough tension to reward min-maxers a bit for their system mastery but not so much that less savvy/interested players are left in the dust.
And then there're the spells and caster levels. Caster classes need to be written in such a way as to not punish casters for the simple sin of MCing into anything other than a full-CL PrC.This is easily fixed with feats.
How so? I've seen many easy feat-fixes, but I've yet to see a good feat-fix to an underlying system issue.
Those sweet, sweet save bonuses at 1st level heavily incentivize dipping. That maximized first hit die incentivizes taking high-HD classes first, if one is going to MC. The x4 skill multiplier in 3.0 and 3.5 really incentivizes taking a rogue level first, though I think PF may have fixed this particular issue.This is easily fixed with standardized saves based on character level and "class save" bonuses. As is just allowing a player to always have a single HD maximized, sorted out upon gaining a new level if need be. And yes, skills have a "class skill" bonus that fixed the "x4" issue.
Honestly, aside from shifting a few 1st- and 2nd class features to 2nd- or 3rd- level for each class, there doesn't seem to be as much work as you might think.
I'm leaving out the "high-level spells are problematic" because that is an entirely separate issue than the multi-classing issue.
I think we have different ideals. I've come to some of the same conclusions than you (fixing saves), but shifting a few features back a level or two is a halfway measure for me, and I disagree about high level spells and probably PF's approach to class skills. Long story short, I'm interested in radical, radical improvement. I'm not interested in backwards-compatibility or even traditionalism, so I never expect to see what I want in print.
|
|
Fair.
In order to appeal to my new player audience (lately, 5e defectors), I like to minimize the subtractive changes of house rules, instead focusing on lowering barriers to realizing a character concept and other additive changes. So yes, I wax conservative on the "rewrite all classes" spectrum. A second benefit to this approach is being able to run content with minimal changes.
So in that vein, to give an example of a feat that facilitates multi-classing, how about a feat that advances spellcasting of a previous class when you take a different at an appropriate ratio, or a feat that lets you advance class features of a previous class when you take a different class at an appropriate ratio, or a feat that let's you combine the effects of two class features you have from different classes, or a feat that let's you use the same stat for two different class features you have from different classes, or a feat that lets you combine otherwise separate resource 'pools' from different classes. That sort of stuff.
That said, I haven't experienced too many problems with multi-class exploit. I can say that the Barbarian is a killer 1-level dip. But it hasn't broken my game by any measure.
In order to appeal to my new player audience (lately, 5e defectors), I like to minimize the subtractive changes of house rules, instead focusing on lowering barriers to realizing a character concept and other additive changes. So yes, I wax conservative on the "rewrite all classes" spectrum. A second benefit to this approach is being able to run content with minimal changes.
This is a major goal of mine as well. D&D has always had too many hoops to jump thru to do anything off-track, IMO, even when other considerations create no need for such hoops.
So in that vein, to give an example of a feat that facilitates multi-classing, how about a feat that advances spellcasting of a previous class when you take a different at an appropriate ratio, or a feat that lets you advance class features of a previous class when you take a different class at an appropriate ratio, or a feat that let's you combine the effects of two class features you have from different classes, or a feat that let's you use the same stat for two different class features you have from different classes, or a feat that lets you combine otherwise separate resource 'pools' from different classes. That sort of stuff.
Fair enough, feats do provide a quick and easy solution to just about any problem.
That said, I haven't experienced too many problems with multi-class exploit. I can say that the Barbarian is a killer 1-level dip. But it hasn't broken my game by any measure.
Yeah, level-dipping has never been 3.x's #1 problem. It's just that for me...3e-style MCing, and 3.x overall could be so much more. :)
|
|
The trick with spreading out front-loaded class features is doing it in a way that doesn't run counter to being able to quickly realize character concepts.
This is why I like the frontloading of certain classes. I can understand counter arguments about how the rogue, monk, and fighter have a lot of bang out the gate, but end the race a mile behind. Casters are terrible at MC, but I always saw it as a feature to unlock their power.
I really didn't care for the hybrid system of 4E. It felt like you were locked into your starting class, but could emulate another single class feature. It didn't really make characters feel uniquely distinct. Basically, the worst PF classes make the best dips to help realize some pretty cool concepts. Paizo has created their own classes and even hybrids to really negate the necessity for MC changes, with perhaps the exception of caster classes. All IMO of course.
Because "I moonlighted as a fighter before becoming a master of many styles for a bit, then I decided to give the barbarian lifestyle a try, dabbled in occultism, and became a cleric for a bit" probably isn't anywhere close to anybody's idea for a well-realized, interesting character.
A talented warrior from a tribal culture who channels the totem spirits he worships to enhance his combat prowess using sacred fetishes. That was an easy one!