Stop the 1 Level Class Dip


Prerelease Discussion

301 to 350 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

kyrt-ryder wrote:
While I will defend multiclassing all day long, it's worth noting that I have actually played more characters that did not multiclass than those that did.

I have only played one single-classed D&D character in the twenty-five years I've been roleplaying. It was my very first character, he was technically illegal, and I never did it again.

Not once.

As a matter of fact, the only rules environment under which I am willing to play Pathfinder (sorry, Paizo) makes playing a single-class character impossible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me as +1 for character not being defined by class, and classes being bags of mechanical benefits. I play PF for mechanical options, and if multiclassing gets me where I want, I use it. That being said, PF2s everything is feats it's possible to make multiclassing unnecessary, but I don't think it will. If they make multiclassing totally useless and inferior option (and other than some damage stacking, it's mostly inferior now), they are killing a part what made 3.x/PF fun.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

From the way they were talking it sounds to me like their solution might conceptually resemble Variant Multiclassing from Unchained more than it does conventional multiclassing in PF1. So, you pick a primary Class and then a secondary Class that you only get some of the stuff from, but you can't just keep picking bits from different ones.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, or restrictive to concept stuff. Indeed, if done properly, it might make something like Eldritch
Scoundrel just what a standard Rogue/Wizard multiclass looks like. Which would be cool. Or Magus a standard Fighter/Wizard. Or Bloodrager a Barbarian/Sorcerer.

I'm on board with that if done properly.

Im not on board. I might not be able to see the way forward here. Help me out. VMC which is very restricted like it was in 4E, basically, whatever your first class is your class, and you can add a single piece of one other class to diversify a little. A hybrid system, but not really a multi-class. Or you pick a single class and then you can cherry pick the class feats of other classes until you dont resemble your beginning class at all. That's all I can see and I want to be in the middle of all that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Or you pick a single class and then you can cherry pick the class feats of other classes until you dont resemble your beginning class at all.

Except for your Class Abilities of course.

Frankly this sounds like the best multiclassing solution Paizo might have on the table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

From the way they were talking it sounds to me like their solution might conceptually resemble Variant Multiclassing from Unchained more than it does conventional multiclassing in PF1. So, you pick a primary Class and then a secondary Class that you only get some of the stuff from, but you can't just keep picking bits from different ones.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, or restrictive to concept stuff. Indeed, if done properly, it might make something like Eldritch
Scoundrel just what a standard Rogue/Wizard multiclass looks like. Which would be cool. Or Magus a standard Fighter/Wizard. Or Bloodrager a Barbarian/Sorcerer.

I'm on board with that if done properly.

Im not on board. I might not be able to see the way forward here. Help me out. VMC which is very restricted like it was in 4E, basically, whatever your first class is your class, and you can add a single piece of one other class to diversify a little. A hybrid system, but not really a multi-class. Or you pick a single class and then you can cherry pick the class feats of other classes until you dont resemble your beginning class at all. That's all I can see and I want to be in the middle of all that.

I would be ok with a VMC that looked like the Eldritch Heritage feat chain, and less OK with one that worked like Unchained VMC.

Though, I would really prefer the current multiclass system PLUS a robust set of feat chains like Eldritch Heritage.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
Or you pick a single class and then you can cherry pick the class feats of other classes until you dont resemble your beginning class at all.

Except for your Class Abilities of course.

Frankly this sounds like the best multiclassing solution Paizo might have on the table.

Wait, are class feats not now what was class abilities?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

From the way they were talking it sounds to me like their solution might conceptually resemble Variant Multiclassing from Unchained more than it does conventional multiclassing in PF1. So, you pick a primary Class and then a secondary Class that you only get some of the stuff from, but you can't just keep picking bits from different ones.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, or restrictive to concept stuff. Indeed, if done properly, it might make something like Eldritch
Scoundrel just what a standard Rogue/Wizard multiclass looks like. Which would be cool. Or Magus a standard Fighter/Wizard. Or Bloodrager a Barbarian/Sorcerer.

I'm on board with that if done properly.

Im not on board. I might not be able to see the way forward here. Help me out. VMC which is very restricted like it was in 4E, basically, whatever your first class is your class, and you can add a single piece of one other class to diversify a little. A hybrid system, but not really a multi-class. Or you pick a single class and then you can cherry pick the class feats of other classes until you dont resemble your beginning class at all. That's all I can see and I want to be in the middle of all that.

I would be ok with a VMC that looked like the Eldritch Heritage feat chain, and less OK with one that worked like Unchained VMC.

Though, I would really prefer the current multiclass system PLUS a robust set of feat chains like Eldritch Heritage.

In an ideal world PF2 would allow unimpeded multiclassing and open selection of abilities available to the additional classes scaling on character level.

They will never be as good at that class as someone who stick with it, but the abilities they took from it will be just as strong as someone who took the class 1-20


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
Or you pick a single class and then you can cherry pick the class feats of other classes until you dont resemble your beginning class at all.

Except for your Class Abilities of course.

Frankly this sounds like the best multiclassing solution Paizo might have on the table.

Wait, are class feats not now what was class abilities?

Look up the Leveling Up Blog.

Characters have two separate resource pools of 'class-based capability'

They have Class Feats, and Class Abilities.

Liberty's Edge

Planpanther wrote:
Im not on board. I might not be able to see the way forward here. Help me out.

Well, first off, that's purely my theory (plus the fact that lots of other stuff in 2E is similar to Unchained stuff), based on them saying you can't cherry pick bunches of different classes and...a certain tone, maybe? I could easily be wrong.

Planpanther wrote:
VMC which is very restricted like it was in 4E, basically, whatever your first class is your class, and you can add a single piece of one other class to diversify a little. A hybrid system, but not really a multi-class.

I said 'conceptually similar' not 'identical', I'd expect it to be a lot more comprehensive than VMC is, and a lot better mechanically.

Planpanther wrote:
Or you pick a single class and then you can cherry pick the class feats of other classes until you dont resemble your beginning class at all. That's all I can see and I want to be in the middle of all that.

Well, one possibility is that you can grab other Class's stuff but only with General Feats...which the current indications seem to be you only get 5 of ever (at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th probably). So even if this is true, I doubt it's gonna be as bad as all that.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Look up the Leveling Up Blog.

Characters have two separate resource pools of 'class-based capability'

They have Class Feats, and Class Abilities.

The difference, for the record, seems to be that Class Abilities are stuff you just get for having the Class (like Sneak Attack), Class Feats are the ones you get to choose (the equivalent of Rogue Talents or Alchemist Discoveries and the like).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It's been a while since I ran a TTRPG campaign, but as regards exchanging character sheets, we didn't. I asked each player to write an IC biography of his/her character. Those got passed around. Sometimes not all at once (some characters are more reticent than others). Specifics of number "what's your dexterity score?" and abilities ("do you have cleave?" "what's on your spell list?" "what spells do you have prepared?") were between the player and the GM. But "Shazammy went to the Acadamae in Absalom" or "Strongheart prefers a bow, but he's pretty good with a sword when he needs to be" would be in the bio.

Worked for us, anyway. But we may have been lucky in not having anyone in the group who felt he could or should micro-manage other peoples' characters.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Folks against multiclassing are forgetting that EVVERY Class in the ACG are built from multiclass concepts.

Arcanist: Wizard/Sorcerer
Brawler: Fighter/Monk
Skald: Barbarian/Bard
Etc.


Tim Statler wrote:

Folks against multiclassing are forgetting that EVVERY Class in the ACG are built from multiclass concepts.

Arcanist: Wizard/Sorcerer
Brawler: Fighter/Monk
Skald: Barbarian/Bard
Etc.

And that is why we should have:

- More base classes.
- Very thematic archetypes.

Multiclasing is fun. And I totally agree with people saying that your class does not matters, only your abilities and how you name them in play. An assassin for example could be a million thing, and I like that.

However dip is too strong. I think you should be able to multi class and build decent characters with it. But I would like some form of comittement for both your classes. Like at least 5/6 levels in each before you get all the goodies. I am well aware that this is hard from a design perspective but still.

I mean, Mutagenic Warrior is a perfect example of what I want. Still, Alchemist 1/Figther 2 is better. That’s not normal.

Swashbuckler or Gunsliger are basically Dip classes. That’s not normal. Mesmerist stand on his own and get better and better goodies at each level, that’s good.

And Slayer (or Assassin as we should call it) should be a base class. Since like forever. Because people wants Rogue to be Thief. Or Rogue should have powers that trade their ability to steal for better martial proficiency.

But I like multiclassing a lot. But not just one level or two, from sometimes classses with huge backgrounds like Paladin or Monk, just to have CHA everywhere or WIS on AC. It is not fair from a mechanical standpoint, and it is just stupid from a roleplay perspective. Even more when you are not starting with a dip character but leveling him yourself. One day you just learn martial arts and ho to jump 20ft after a good night of sleep, but suddenly you have to be loyal? Nonsense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You referenced monk. You didn't learn it suddenly, rather the things you had been studying and practicing suddenly clicked with a flash of enlightenment.

Paladin is even easie (assuming the character qualifies in terms of alignment of course.) The character commits themselves to uphold the principles of good and justice, swears a relevant oath and recieves the blessings as he transcends his current level.


N N 959 wrote:
Dracala wrote:
This is how I like to play, why are you telling me its wrongmcbadfun? Just because other people like to take tiny dips into other classes so that they're not really competent? Just because you have this outdated conception that goes back to AD&D?

There is no authoritative 'wrongmcbadfun' argument. When someone counters "Well, that's what's fun for me," there is no further discussion. If poking red hot needles in your arm is what's fun for you, then so be it. No on can tell you that you're "wrong." Paizo doesn't really care how you play the game, they only care that you purchase and promote their product in a positive light. They've never required anyone to follow their rules, unless we're talking about PFS, which we are not.

My perspective is that the game lost something on the way to multi-classing, something fundamental. I'm reinforced in this believe by all you people who insist you can't create your character concept without multi-classing. That tells me, unequivocally, that the mechanics are what drive the sense of character. I am of the firm believe that if the pure class mechanics were stronger and more compelling, suddenly people will find that they do want to play a fighter, a ranger, or rogue, from 1-10, if not 1-20. Call it a hunch.

You still haven't answered the one question I Actually Asked of you, or look at my conceptual characters, or even take note that I agreed with you. So what did you do? Besides look at that last paragraph? I reiterate my question 959

Dracala wrote:
959, I posted some characters I've made back on Page 3, first post. Can you tell me how I'm powergaming/minmaxing/whatever you wanna call it? Because I would Love to know your opinion of my characters. (Btw, that Bloodrager/Shaman has more levels of Bloodrager than Shaman, the Monk/Brawler actually has close levels on the two classes, and the other two only have 4 levels in rogue and fighter respectively).

Also multiclassing gives Variety that One Classing just cannot give, because soloclassing is Still tied down to its core concepts (which Yes give rise to the mechanics of said class). When someone would like to mix some of those concepts, they multiclass, because if every class had Every conceptual thing, then there would Only be One Class.

Take for example my Shaman/Bloodrager nowhere in her concept did I really care about Spells At All (I Was Tied down to them because of the classes themselves), what my concepts did include were the Mammoth Spirit(Shaman/Oracle only), and a Mounted Barbarian.

Or how about my Hunter/Fighter, I went into fighter because A) I was a Frontliner (still only used Medium Armor and my Great Club which my Hunter levels allowed for) and B) for my Familiar to be able to fight side by side with me and my Animal Companion using our Teamwork Feats. That's not something I could get out of only Hunter, because Hunter's aren't built to have a Familiar, I got that outside of classes by using Feats, and my Familiar can't just Gain Feats by itself. So outside of the Fighter levels, how could it have fought with me tactically?


Dracala wrote:
You still haven't answered the one question

Because my goals isn't to stop people from multi-classing my goal is to convince Paizo to stop mechanically penalizing players who don't multi-class. Outside of pure casters, I don't know that the best of any of the core game competencies is held by a pure-class build.

What is clear from the dialogue is that better mechanics for pure classes (casters being the exception) would make pure classes more attractive, whether people will cop to it or not. But it has to be done in a way that multi-classing can't suck the marrow out of it.

After listening to the blog posted, it's clear Paizo gets it. They not only recognize that much of the 1-2 level dips are simply exploitative, but that parties of 1 Clown/2 Zebra/1 MacGiver are bad for game play.

There's nothing more I need to try and convey to Paizo until we see what they do. And on that note, I think Faere-Dragon may have insight. They could use some sort of point-buy system where trying to acquire abilities outside your functional class/role is costly, so you're not going to be the best at skills and damage. But we'll see. The important thing for me is Paizo is already on top of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I will still happily play in the upcoming system, because the Class Feats don't matter to me at all, the concepts do. So if I want to go say 8 in one class and 12 in another I will happily do that (like I said about my Monk/Brawler). I will Nowhere be as strong as either of those classes taken to max, and I shouldn't be, but I will Still have fun with them.

Oh btw, I do tend to plan out my characters from lvl 1-20, building characters that I like the concept of is how I started out in D&D cuz I had noone to play with when I first got into it....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Dracala wrote:
You still haven't answered the one question

Because my goals isn't to stop people from multi-classing my goal is to convince Paizo to stop mechanically penalizing players who don't multi-class. Outside of pure casters, I don't know that the best of any of the core game competencies is held by a pure-class build.

What is clear from the dialogue is that better mechanics for pure classes (casters being the exception) would make pure classes more attractive, whether people will cop to it or not. But it has to be done in a way that multi-classing can't suck the marrow out of it.

After listening to the blog posted, it's clear Paizo gets it. They not only recognize that much of the 1-2 level dips are simply exploitative, but that parties of 1 Clown/2 Zebra/1 MacGiver are bad for game play.

There's nothing more I need to try and convey to Paizo until we see what they do. And on that note, I think Faere-Dragon may have insight. They could use some sort of point-buy system where trying to acquire abilities outside your functional class/role is costly, so you're not going to be the best at skills and damage. But we'll see. The important thing for me is Paizo is already on top of it.

And as of right now I see no reason to actually multi class unless it gives abilites you'd like to have for your role/character AND if it fits the character.

You know, how it's actually supposed to be played. I'd willingly play Barbarian for 20 levels solo or with an archetype. I feel the "Strengths" of multiclassing are overhyped in this thread.

I'll see what they'll do(Which is nothing but empty words for now, I mean how do you nerf Multiclassing without making levels 1-4 complete trash to play even as "Pure") and if I dislike it, I'll have no reason to use it. I'll roll back to the old system.

"BUT BUT BUT, The brokenness, the mechanical bonuses, it doesn't fit the characters!!!" Yeah here's the thing, I actually have a measure of TRUST in my players. If we're playing something really stupid or silly, 1 Clown/2 Zebra/1 MacGiver sounds like just the thing to roll for it. If we're in a more serious game though(And even then we break 4th wall, make jokes and meme), well I'd like to have a reason or two as to WHY you're multiclassing besides just numbers.

Heck this doesn't even stop at multiclassing, I start getting worries when someone slaps on 2 Archetypes at the same time(Bladebound Hexcrafter Magus WAT?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:
I mean, Mutagenic Warrior is a perfect example of what I want. Still, Alchemist 1/Figther 2 is better. That’s not normal.

Um, how? I mean if you sit there and slowly level up both classes(I dunno, keeping it at 1-2 favoring Fighter) then maybe?

I'd also think such a build might be harsh on the Stats(You'll need good STR and CON for being in melee, Okay Wis to have a good Will, and suddenly you'll need Okay INT as well to take advantage of most the Alchemist abilities besides Mutagen).

Also this feels more the fault of bad archetype than mutliclassing. Could have done more with it. That and if you actually level up both classes this stops being a dip.

Honest question, when does it stop being a Dip? Level 3? 4?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SteelGuts wrote:

Multiclasing is fun. And I totally agree with people saying that your class does not matters, only your abilities and how you name them in play. An assassin for example could be a million thing, and I like that.

However dip is too strong. I think you should be able to multi class and build decent characters with it. But I would like some form of comittement for both your classes. Like at least 5/6 levels in each before you get all the goodies. I am well aware that this is hard from a design perspective but still.

Some dips in PF1 are too strong, while others can be very weak.

We know that PF2 puts some of the abilities of the first character level into Background and Ancestry. Assuming that they are going for about the same amount of power total as a first level character (which I freely admit is a big assumption), going for a multiclass character will not be as good as PF1 because you will not get the parts that came from Background and Ancestry a second time.

The PF1 early save bumps will not be there because those are based on training. Going Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian in PF1 gave you a huge Fort save unless you used the optional rules from Pathfinder Unchained. In PF2, it is unlikely to do that and could actually result in a lower Fort save than would have otherwise been possible.

Skill feats come in every other level, so you need to dip two levels to get to those.

There are enough mechanical differences in how the class talents (now called class feats), proficiencies (armor, weapon and skill) and other things are handled that it is quite likely most of the things people have complained of will no longer be an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
Skill feats come in every other level, so you need to dip two levels to get to those.

I suspect/hope that chart is by Character level rather than Class Level.

Thus you get class abilities, class feats and skill feats at any given level based on the class you took that level in.

At the very least hopefully class level for these character resources is treated as half character level if that is higher than the actual class level (character level as effective Class Level would be better.)


MerlinCross wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:
I mean, Mutagenic Warrior is a perfect example of what I want. Still, Alchemist 1/Figther 2 is better. That’s not normal.

Um, how? I mean if you sit there and slowly level up both classes(I dunno, keeping it at 1-2 favoring Fighter) then maybe?

I'd also think such a build might be harsh on the Stats(You'll need good STR and CON for being in melee, Okay Wis to have a good Will, and suddenly you'll need Okay INT as well to take advantage of most the Alchemist abilities besides Mutagen).

Also this feels more the fault of bad archetype than mutliclassing. Could have done more with it. That and if you actually level up both classes this stops being a dip.

Honest question, when does it stop being a Dip? Level 3? 4?

Well add one level in Vivisectionist and you get three arms 1d6 Sneak Attack and the possibility of Extra Discovery. Just pick buff and INT will not be an issue. And you will have use poison. But that was not the best example. Barbarian Heavy Armor Alchemist 2 Vivisectionist with three arms and 2 handed weapon and shield is a good example of dip that goes South. That +4 Alchemical/Rage in STR is stupid.

I think after 2 levels it is not a dip anymore. Considering much games finished before level 12-15 (and I am being optimistic here) 3 levels represent 1/5 of your character at minimum. But it is arbitrary of course.


SteelGuts wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:
I mean, Mutagenic Warrior is a perfect example of what I want. Still, Alchemist 1/Figther 2 is better. That’s not normal.

Um, how? I mean if you sit there and slowly level up both classes(I dunno, keeping it at 1-2 favoring Fighter) then maybe?

I'd also think such a build might be harsh on the Stats(You'll need good STR and CON for being in melee, Okay Wis to have a good Will, and suddenly you'll need Okay INT as well to take advantage of most the Alchemist abilities besides Mutagen).

Also this feels more the fault of bad archetype than mutliclassing. Could have done more with it. That and if you actually level up both classes this stops being a dip.

Honest question, when does it stop being a Dip? Level 3? 4?

Well add one level in Vivisectionist and you get three arms 1d6 Sneak Attack and the possibility of Extra Discovery. Just pick buff and INT will not be an issue. And you will have use poison. But that was not the best example. Barbarian Heavy Armor Alchemist 2 Vivisectionist with three arms and 2 handed weapon and shield is a good example of dip that goes South. That +4 Alchemical/Rage in STR is stupid.

I think after 2 levels it is not a dip anymore. Considering much games finished before level 12-15 (and I am being optimistic here) 3 levels represent 1/5 of your character at minimum. But it is arbitrary of course.

If you wanted numbers well that's the way you go for it then I suppose. You can easily break the game if you gather as many floating numbers as you can. Though Vestigial Arm looks to have all sort of ruling arguments.

Also you're just asking to be charmed or controlled. Finally, The hell kind of character is this even? Yeah I'd let it go in a one shot or just a sillier game but what? Okay so Barbarian is smart enough to make a chemical concoction to make himself stronger and....that's as smart as he is? Oh and can make spells too? What?

NO I'd want an explanation besides "But numbers" before running this mix max insanity. Mutagen Warrior might not be as good but sounds a whole lot easier to explain. Hell, Fighter/Alchemist sounds easier(Dad was an alchemist, got special training in the army, was saved due to the power of alchemy, etc etc)

I'll defend multiclassing as an option yes. But I'm not going to let any minmax build at my table. Multiclass or Pure.


Who said he was a barbarian in the story?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
BretI wrote:
Skill feats come in every other level, so you need to dip two levels to get to those.

I suspect/hope that chart is by Character level rather than Class Level.

Thus you get class abilities, class feats and skill feats at any given level based on the class you took that level in.

At the very least hopefully class level for these character resources is treated as half character level if that is higher than the actual class level (character level as effective Class Level would be better.)

The comments in the leveling blog, especially this one makes me believe the chart is not off total character level, but rather by class levels.

Given what they say in the blog on proficiency, it looks like anything done as a proficiency (which includes armor, weapons, skills, and saving throws) will be off total character level. The trick will be when you get the skill and class feats that build the proficiencies.

I’m not sure exactly how it will work, but I think that feats will be off each class chart and am pretty sure that proficiency will be total class level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:
I mean, Mutagenic Warrior is a perfect example of what I want. Still, Alchemist 1/Figther 2 is better. That’s not normal.

Um, how? I mean if you sit there and slowly level up both classes(I dunno, keeping it at 1-2 favoring Fighter) then maybe?

I'd also think such a build might be harsh on the Stats(You'll need good STR and CON for being in melee, Okay Wis to have a good Will, and suddenly you'll need Okay INT as well to take advantage of most the Alchemist abilities besides Mutagen).

Also this feels more the fault of bad archetype than mutliclassing. Could have done more with it. That and if you actually level up both classes this stops being a dip.

Honest question, when does it stop being a Dip? Level 3? 4?

Well add one level in Vivisectionist and you get three arms 1d6 Sneak Attack and the possibility of Extra Discovery. Just pick buff and INT will not be an issue. And you will have use poison. But that was not the best example. Barbarian Heavy Armor Alchemist 2 Vivisectionist with three arms and 2 handed weapon and shield is a good example of dip that goes South. That +4 Alchemical/Rage in STR is stupid.

I think after 2 levels it is not a dip anymore. Considering much games finished before level 12-15 (and I am being optimistic here) 3 levels represent 1/5 of your character at minimum. But it is arbitrary of course.

If you wanted numbers well that's the way you go for it then I suppose. You can easily break the game if you gather as many floating numbers as you can. Though Vestigial Arm looks to have all sort of ruling arguments.

Also you're just asking to be charmed or controlled. Finally, The hell kind of character is this even? Yeah I'd let it go in a one shot or just a sillier game but what? Okay so Barbarian is smart enough to make a chemical concoction to make himself stronger and....that's as smart as he is? Oh and can make spells too? What?

NO I'd want an explanation besides...

He was an Alchemist, with a bright future before him, but one day an experiment turned south. The beast inside was released when the wrong potion had side effects. Now the character has anger issues, and a strange awful mutation as a reminder. But on the other side he knows how to release his inner monster.

Two level dip for your background. After that all Barbarian. Done. Of course, how much roleplay is enough depends on the table. To be honest that was the kind of monstruosity I was talking about when I said that I don’t generally like dip. And I would not allow a monster like that at my table. But you get my feeling of what I dislike about dipping.

But as I said before multiclassing is not bad. But how the classes are manufactured matter. If you get a lot of goodies from the first few levels you will be able to gain a lot without loosing much. That bad. And with enough time and imagination roleplay will always be able to justify rollplay. Of course people are not obligated to do that kind of monter, and DM can still refuse. But within a game with such a complex system, fights and mechanics, it is not a surprise that people think they should build the best character possible on a concept, here « drugged berserker » or « Mr Hyde » for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

'That kind of monster.'

Abandons a successful career as an Alchemist to go berserk as a beatstick (albeit the best beatstick in PF1 without any spells)

I'm not really following. Sure the character was fairly good at what it did but it's certainly not breaking any campaigns.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still feel your losing too much(only 1 dice sneak attack, really?). A d actually the more I think on it the more I'm coming back to, decent build, odd Rp. Your range is bad, your spell casting is completely bad(even focusing on buffs which Alchemist does have for melee, STR Mutageun gives penalties to INT which can hurt), again your Will is probably in danger, and to top it all off it seems to go nuts only once per fight. Sure you can space your rages out but last I checked Mutatgen is going to last 20 minutes(which is good or bad depending on what you want) and it's going to take an hour to brew up another. Heck, spend a feat for Armor have and go Sythnisit Summon instead of Barbarian. Faster pounce, Evo points + Discoveries can make for good combo, and two spell lists to pull from to brew.

And I don't see this as a problem with multiclass but minmaxers and maybe the problem of thousands of players at thousands of type writers.

Which is going to make any changes they do moot anyway. Minmaxers are going to minmaxer that what they do. Only way to stop them is to limit everything and even then they'll find a way to make stupid characters.

Again this is my lack of experience, but I'm not ready to throw something under the bus due to people deciding to abuse the system. And DMs that don't handle it. And those that say "It's not the DMs place to fix the game", no but it is to fix players. Get on it for once.

Now the flip side is Pazi just doesn't test everything. Question, how bad was multiclasing at the start? Probably not as bad as it can be now due to just all the info. I'm willing to bet when they make Archetypes they don't test how it might work in multiclass. Or at least not all of the, or with combos, with X race and feats. The playing public has enough free time to math things out though. So even if multiclassing is fine at launch, um anyone want to take bets on how long that will last for some players?


MerlinCross wrote:

I still feel your losing too much(only 1 dice sneak attack, really?). A d actually the more I think on it the more I'm coming back to, decent build, odd Rp. Your range is bad, your spell casting is completely bad(even focusing on buffs which Alchemist does have for melee, STR Mutageun gives penalties to INT which can hurt), again your Will is probably in danger, and to top it all off it seems to go nuts only once per fight. Sure you can space your rages out but last I checked Mutatgen is going to last 20 minutes(which is good or bad depending on what you want) and it's going to take an hour to brew up another. Heck, spend a feat for Armor have and go Sythnisit Summon instead of Barbarian. Faster pounce, Evo points + Discoveries can make for good combo, and two spell lists to pull from to brew.

And I don't see this as a problem with multiclass but minmaxers and maybe the problem of thousands of players at thousands of type writers.

Which is going to make any changes they do moot anyway. Minmaxers are going to minmaxer that what they do. Only way to stop them is to limit everything and even then they'll find a way to make stupid characters.

Again this is my lack of experience, but I'm not ready to throw something under the bus due to people deciding to abuse the system. And DMs that don't handle it. And those that say "It's not the DMs place to fix the game", no but it is to fix players. Get on it for once.

Now the flip side is Pazi just doesn't test everything. Question, how bad was multiclasing at the start? Probably not as bad as it can be now due to just all the info. I'm willing to bet when they make Archetypes they don't test how it might work in multiclass. Or at least not all of the, or with combos, with X race and feats. The playing public has enough free time to math things out though. So even if multiclassing is fine at launch, um anyone want to take bets on how long that will last for some players?

Yes of course it is not the best build outhere but around 4-6 it can be a beast. It did more than two characters of the same levels together dammage wise. But yes I got your point and it is indeed a good one. Minmaxing will always be a thing that does not depends on the system. To be honest the more I speak with you the more I think that you are probably right. But it is hard for me because like I said earlier in the post I got way more bad experiences with dip than good ones for the moment.

I just hope they make the progression by giving abilities all over the classe, and not only in the first two levels. I am looking at you Swashbuckler.


SteelGuts wrote:


I just hope they make the progression by giving abilities all over the classe, and not only in the first two levels. I am looking at you Swashbuckler

On this I feel we can all agree (so long as the first few levels aren't weakened to achieve it.)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:


I just hope they make the progression by giving abilities all over the classe, and not only in the first two levels. I am looking at you Swashbuckler
On this I feel we can all agree (so long as the first few levels aren't weakened to achieve it.)

Of course.

We need characters that are already basically competent at the thing they do by level one, but that means that you have front-loaded classes and thus encourage dipping.
That's why I suggest separating what a character can get at level one from what her class gives at level one.
You can have some basic abilities that sinergize well with some classes, but there's no reason others couldn't have: weapon finesse (even dex-to-damage), fast movement, bravery, even bloodlines maybe... Why not separate them from class choice, so you get to make the build you want without being forced to multiclass? That also leaves less 'goodies' to get from a dip into a class, because that wouldn't give as much for just one level.
Let's see what Ancestry and Background are, because they could be a step in this direction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just hope it works out that the best starting package of ancestry, background, and class isnt heavily weighted towards one set so that we see the same character over and over.


Planpanther wrote:
I just hope it works out that the best starting package of ancestry, background, and class isnt heavily weighted towards one set so that we see the same character over and over.

This is a big concern for me - I don't want to see "optimal ancestries" for every role. I don't want every wizard to be an elf because of one incredible ancestry feat, or every barbarian to be a half-orc because that's what the ancestry feats cater towards.

Or even worse, eventually seeing a huge influx of grippli rogues, or a sudden surge in oread monks, because the ancestry feats are unbalanced.

To me, racial choice is so strongly tied to flavor/backstory decisions, I'm a little scared to see too many mechanics get involved.


Yeap, some synergies are unavoidable, and I dont mind that. I dont want there to be a gulf between them making one the most obvious choice. I also dont want to see anymore "reactionary" traits. Hopefully, background is more rooted into the character from the ground up, not just at level 1. I hope PF2 can avoid Ronco chargen of "just set it and forget it".


kyrt-ryder wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:


I just hope they make the progression by giving abilities all over the classe, and not only in the first two levels. I am looking at you Swashbuckler
On this I feel we can all agree (so long as the first few levels aren't weakened to achieve it.)

You can't have it both ways. If the class gets stronger as you progress, than that means it has to start out relatively weak or characters are too powerful too early. If it's strong early, then people are going to exploit it. Based on the podcast referenced earlier, Paizo recognizes that there is a ton of class exploitation that results from multi-classing. Based on their words, this manifests itself in the fact that overwhelming majority of dips are 1-2 levels, based on some poll that Jason refers to. Paizo clearly sees a problem with taking two levels in something and not touching that class again. To that I say, amen.

More to the point, Paizo clearly sees the value in characters adhering to functional roles i.e. limited to a sphere of game influence and not encroaching every other class. This is reinforced in their discussion and recognition of the problem with casters being able to do everything. Players who want characters who can do it all are at odds with the class system and the foundation on which the game works. Paizo seems to recognize this, the only question is will they have the intestinal fortitude to do something about it in the face of forum outrage. Hope springs eternal, but I fear the vocal minority will make such a stink about their favorite frankenstein builds no longer being able to outperform a straight up fighter at damage, Paizo's resolve will weaken.

And even if they get it right to start with, it is inevitable some clever designer will want to insert a workaround in the next splat book, and we'll be back where we started, for both casters and multi-classing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe im wrong, but I think you have it backwards. The 1-2 level dip isnt the problem. The problem is the fact that some classes are only worth having 2 levels in at all.


Planpanther wrote:
Maybe im wrong, but I think you have it backwards. The 1-2 level dip isnt the problem. The problem is the fact that some classes are only worth having 2 levels in at all.

This I can get behind. Swashbuckler, gunslinger and fighter being the prime examples (ok fighter got better with WMH)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Planpanther wrote:
Maybe im wrong, but I think you have it backwards. The 1-2 level dip isnt the problem. The problem is the fact that some classes are only worth having 2 levels in at all.

or that their are so many concepts that don't fit a single class, that taking aspects of others to make the idea work should be encouraged (And the hybrids try to cover some of the most popular mix concepts and builds, Swashbuckler kind of covers a sword lord worthy of the name, as in a weapon-master who thru pure skill and no or little armour beats his opponents, it works, as long as you want a western european one, so that's a good start) or Slayer taking up the more Assassin Creed style rogue, more of a combatant, less on the thievery also covers enforcers and thugs, War Priest tries to be 'not LG holy warrior', they are also bringing back (to an extent) ADnD 2e Multiclass mechanics,


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Planpanther wrote:
I just hope it works out that the best starting package of ancestry, background, and class isnt heavily weighted towards one set so that we see the same character over and over.

Starfinder Themes don't tend to cause that.

I'm hoping that Ancestry takes the place of things like Eldritch Heritage, the blood legacies from Legacy of Dragons, Draconic Heritage from Legacy of Dragons, and some of the Dhampir traits.

Background is your early training. I expect there to be some backgrounds that work much better with some classes than others. There still should be opportunities for things like the fighter with a background in a church/religion.


N N 959 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:


I just hope they make the progression by giving abilities all over the classe, and not only in the first two levels. I am looking at you Swashbuckler
On this I feel we can all agree (so long as the first few levels aren't weakened to achieve it.)
You can't have it both ways. If the class gets stronger as you progress, than that means it has to start out relatively weak or characters are too powerful too early.

They do start out relatively weak, just as relatively weak as they do now.

[Qyote]If it's strong early, then people are going to exploit it.

What is there to exploit if level 5 of any class is no less valuable than level 1 of any other class?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:


I just hope they make the progression by giving abilities all over the classe, and not only in the first two levels. I am looking at you Swashbuckler
On this I feel we can all agree (so long as the first few levels aren't weakened to achieve it.)
You can't have it both ways. If the class gets stronger as you progress, than that means it has to start out relatively weak or characters are too powerful too early.

They do start out relatively weak, just as relatively weak as they do now.

Quote:
If it's strong early, then people are going to exploit it.
What is there to exploit if level 5 of any class is no less valuable than level 1 of any other class?

This. If EVERY level is meaningful, useful and worth taking, then it's not an exploit. It's then a matter of choice, not power. So IMO, it's NOT that some starting levels are too strong but often subsequent levels are FAR, FAR too weak.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno.

There's so many layers of context and table conventions and everything else that I don't really care about this issue.

Frankly, you're always going to have some characters that are more powerful than other characters in certain circumstances. If you didn't, it would be a bland system - that was my complaint about 4E - it felt like every single class was the *same* class, just with different skinning on it (I don't claim to be an expert on 4E, but we did play and run it for several years).

I don't really care about level dips. There will always be options that are better than other options, and people who want to min/max their character will choose those options.

*shrug*

These things wax and wane. In my prior campaign, we had one guy who dipped into like 5 classes, and for part of the campaign he was a monster. Then as things progressed, he started complaining about how his character was under powered ... and it was - because the level dips meant that he didn't have a focus and while the single class characters developed a small set of great powers, he had a large bag of more limited powers.

I never cared, and I'm not sure why other people do. Sure, it makes balancing encounters a bit harder - so what? That's the challenge for me, just like the challenge for them is overcoming the encounters.

And that crazy mythic fighter that can do hundreds of hit points per round turns out to be completely useless when the task isn't to crush some foe but instead sneak into an enemy keep or to smooth talk their way out of a situation.

To say it differently, if your campaign is purely murder hobos who kill things and take their stuff, you will have all sorts of problems with players who min/max. If that's not the only focus and you mix it up, then I believe it becomes less of an issue.


With no BAB, Saving throw modifier bonus, or skill points, I think all of us are pretty much in the dark about what leveling up is going to look like on a level by level basis. Of course it would have been nice to see this, a better view of what the character advancement table will look like, before we got glimpses of individual classes so we can understand what it means that any of the feats are available at x levels, but mechanics (game mechanics) are not as sexy as the story related stuff so it will probably be august before we have any idea if leveling up from level 2 to level 3 is going to be close enough to the same mechanically as going from 3 to 4 for us to know much about how multi-classing will work. If most feat choices are based off of a character level table, it might make a huge difference if you are "dipping" at an odd level or an even one.

Liberty's Edge

Actually...we pretty much know exactly what non-class specific effects leveling has:

-Every level, everything with a Proficiency Bonus gets +1 (This is: Skills, Attack Bonus, Saves, and probably Armor Class), and your HP go up by an amount based on Class + Con Mod (10 + Con for Fighters, for example).

-If it's an even level, you get a Skill Feat and a Class Feat.

-If it's an odd level, you get +1 Skill Proficiency, which can either get you a new skill or raise your Proficiency in an existing skill, some non-selectable Class Features, and a General or Ancestry Feat (Ancestry seems to come at 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 while General comes at 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19).

-If the level is a multiple of 5 (5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th) you get bonuses to multiple ability scores (probably +2 to four of your choice, but we don't know that for sure)

And...that's pretty much it. Now, without knowing what all the types of Feats do, that's sure not everything, but it's enough to know leveling generally looks pretty similar. We also know not a lot about some 1st level stuff (what Proficiencies you start with, skill or otherwise, it completely up in the air, for example).

Now, the generic-ness of this table is one of the major reasons I'm suspicious we won't get precisely the same kind of multiclassing as in 1st, but it also makes things like archetypes that can apply to multiple Classes or something like Variant Multiclassing but much better pretty easy to insert.


THe big question for me is if those first level abilities are going to be called feats or not. If they are, then it seems likely that multi-classing will just get you the first level class feat of the class you are moving into and possibly a proficiency rank, although that is pretty much still up in the air.

If first level abilities do not work like feats, it seems like multi-classing is going to remain a complicated mess.

Liberty's Edge

Unicore wrote:

THe big question for me is if those first level abilities are going to be called feats or not. If they are, then it seems likely that multi-classing will just get you the first level class feat of the class you are moving into and possibly a proficiency rank, although that is pretty much still up in the air.

If first level abilities do not work like feats, it seems like multi-classing is going to remain a complicated mess.

First level abilities are not Feats...for the most part. You do get one Class Feat at 1st, but you also get Class Abilities (Sneak Attack, for example) and Reactions (like Nimble Dodge on a Rogue or Attack of Opportunity on a Fighter), which do not seem to be choosable.

Which is why I don't think we're just gonna be taking levels in multiple Classes. However they do multiclassing, it's gonna be something other than that.


Jason posted on Facebook yesterday, that:

Jason Bulmahn on Facebook wrote:
This literally could not be MORE relevant to my current work on Pathfinder. Like I had a team discussion on this today!

And then a link to this video:

Break Points - Balancing the Nath with the User Experience

This could a) be quite related to this discussion and b) show that the finer points of the math behind the system are still being tweaked and that this is definitely a big part of what they need the playtest to do (whether to confirm that the math is solid or whether it requires more finetuning).


kyrt-ryder wrote:
What is there to exploit if level 5 of any class is no less valuable than level 1 of any other class?

That's exactly the problem Paizo needs to solve. Level 3 of the same class has to be stronger than level 1 of any other class. That isn't true now in a number of classes outside of casters.

You want to add flavor? Knock yourself out. But you aren't going to be able to outdo anyone of the same class at the thing that class was designed to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone may have mentioned this but I only read the first page, martial classes need options for optimization or powergaming to stay relevant. A swash dip doesn't make you better than a wizard but you suck a little less now. Players stick to single classes to get those higher level abilities but some don't plan that far ahead since martial has that short life expectancy.

Leave martials alone! We have nothing to give!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:

Jason posted on Facebook yesterday, that:

Jason Bulmahn on Facebook wrote:
This literally could not be MORE relevant to my current work on Pathfinder. Like I had a team discussion on this today!

And then a link to this video:

Break Points - Balancing the Nath with the User Experience

This could a) be quite related to this discussion and b) show that the finer points of the math behind the system are still being tweaked and that this is definitely a big part of what they need the playtest to do (whether to confirm that the math is solid or whether it requires more finetuning).

I expect the major issue is what the video discusses as a feature. There's a contingency of gamers who view games as something to beat. They "win" the game by finding those break points that essentially break the game. While this is more true on MMORPG's, these people play RPGs as well. If you read the PFS forums, players frequently find builds that flat-out trivialize scenarios. And while the players that do this are quick to come on forums and talk about how the nominal builds are "bland with boring tropes," they are also usually the least invested and the first to move on to another system once they accomplish their goal. In other words, not a group the game should cater to.

What's worse is that in todays climate, designers and publishers get most of their feedback online. So Paizo is typically going to hear from the people adversely affected, not the people who love it. Those that complain the loudest or the most aren't always representative of the community at large. On-line forums simply represent the group of people most motivated to complain.

The problem with unfettered multi-classing is something this video highlights: It's hard to anticipate the break points. If people are playing a Fighter from 1-20, then the designer has a fairly good idea of what that experience is going to be for the player, where those break points are, and how to smooth it out.. But when you're playing X Clown /Y Zebra, who knows what that feels like without trying every combo of Clown and Zebra on the back drop of all the feat choices all the teammates against all the monsters. Not really feasible when you have like 15 classes and umpteen archetypes.

301 to 350 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Stop the 1 Level Class Dip All Messageboards