Stop the 1 Level Class Dip


Prerelease Discussion

351 to 400 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thunderlord wrote:
Leave martials alone! We have nothing to give!

Monte Cook wants this "nothing" that you speak of as well!


N N 959 wrote:
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.

This sounds like a problem with splats and not just a focus on multiclassing though.

Are they going to be able to test everything in the first book of 2e? Yeah sure they're doing it now. Book 2? yeah probably, get that hype built up some more. Book 3? 4? Ultimate Magic just hit for 2e, and Ultimate Combat is coming in a couple months, quick we need people to test clown/lawyer/juggler with a monkey handling focus with spells that favor control and use of water....

You see where I'm going with this. Sooner or later that idea of "This is the experience they will have" is going to be buried under so many new rules, builds, bonuses, etc. I suppose like what we have now. APs seem to be built around 4 players but not the expected experience of say, the prewritten characters(I actually saw someone that would only let players in if they played the classes of the Iconics in the book, really?) So the solution is to either A) Have Paizo make a patch for it in Errta rulings or FAQs, or shock of shock, B) DM decides what gets used and what is allowed.

Ban X books. Limit Archetypes, favor 1 Multiclass only or even use Variant Multiclassing or what's the term, Gelsht? What's the term for "Here's a pool of points, BUY what abilites you want"?

So yeah, they can try to fix the problem all they want. As new books come out though, pretty sure some things will fall through the cracks due to any number of reasons or a DM feels something still tested and legal is too strong(Leadership is a completely valid and tested Feat. Why is it banned everywhere?). Either case, it's going to be on the DM to deal with what goes on at their table.


MerlinCross wrote:

This sounds like a problem with splats and not just a focus on multiclassing though. ***I suppose like what we have now.

The problem is, without question, exacerbated by new material and lack of cohesion throughout the product transitions. The difference is that with 1e, Paizo was working with a legacy system and WotC wasn't really experienced enough to anticipate the problem.

Paizo won't have that as an excuse this time around. They've seen and experienced the mess that has resulted. So I'm hoping that they bake something into the system that stops this, and then retain the resolve to not undo that with new offerings, because we all know damn well, the first things some new contributor is going to do is come up with a way to short-circuit whatever restrictions were intended to keep things balanced. And one can imagine that such a work around will be immediately praised by all the min/maxers and Paizo will be tempted to feel like they did the right thing. But let's be honest, the forums are dominated by the Veruca Salt mentality.

Quote:
Either case, it's going to be on the DM to deal with what goes on at their table.

If that were the solution, they wouldn't need 2e, because GMs can solve all the problems in 1e. Its a fact that the more burden you put on the GM to make the game work, the fewer GMs you are going to have. There are many PFS players who love Core because it tones down the power gaming and simplifies the GMing. If Paizo wants 2e to work, you can't expect the GM to fix it. It has to work as written. It has to be manageable by an average GM, who doesn't want to stress out over game-breaking builds, or teams of players who don' have any synergy because they are all some variant or Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Monk.


N N 959 wrote:


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.

You keep arguing that allowing characters to become powerful through multiclassing (and I don't actually agree that this is the only reason, or even the main reason that people multiclass) is bad in some way for the game, but given that what happens in my campaign here has zero effect on what happens in your campaign wherever you are, I am still struggling to understand why you are so vehemently opposed to multiclassing being an option.

My personal opinion is that the ideal position for Paizo to take is to say "here are loads of things you can do with the game - be it multiclassing, multi-alignment paladins, fifteen different furry races, fantasy guns or whatever..." and you, as the referee can then say "in my campaign we are excluding <insert whichever of these is your personal bugbear>, but it is a lot easier to write all the rules and check that they work than not include them and expect refs to cobble together a house ruling to get what they want, which hasn't had any sort of playtesting.

But then I also realise that you talk a lot about roles. I assume that you believe in the concept of the 'balanced party' with each character having a different role, and all of the standard ones - damage dealer, damage absorber, healer, crowd control - being present. If you don't start with that paradigm then the generalist / multifocussed / unusual characters make more sense in the party.


Neriathale wrote:
I am still struggling to understand why you are so vehemently opposed to multiclassing being an option.

That may be because I'm not against multi-classing. I'm against multi-classing be allowed to do the things Steelguts talks about in one of his earlier posts.

Paizo obviously sees/believes that a lot of the 1-2 dips are driven by the desire to exploit what a class has to offer. They are trying to address this while still giving people the option to grab mechanics that are not part of their main class. How well they succeed at this will no doubt affect their bottom line.

Quote:
My personal opinion is that the ideal position for Paizo to take is to say "here are loads of things you can do with the game - be it multiclassing, multi-alignment paladins, fifteen different furry races, fantasy guns or whatever..." and you, as the referee can then say "in my campaign we are excluding <insert whichever of these is your personal bugbear>, but it is a lot easier to write all the rules and check that they work than not include them and expect refs to cobble together a house ruling to get what they want, which hasn't had any sort of playtesting.

That would be a grave mistake by Paizo. A game can't be all things to all people. Paizo is far better off to pick a vision for the game, ideally the thing that really drives the genre. Do that thing really really really well. Write the rules to not only support, but protect that thing. If the game supports something else, great. But they're going to make far more money by having the best vanilla ice cream in town and nothings else, rather than doing a mediocre job at ten flavors.

I'll repeat what I said above. You don't put the onus on the GM to make the game work. That barely works for trained GMs and sure as hell won't work for people who've never GM'd. That is a recipe for failure.

Quote:
I assume that you believe in the concept of the 'balanced party' with each character having a different role, and all of the standard ones - damage dealer, damage absorber,...

The accurate identification of the actual roles aside, it has nothing to do with what I believe, but how the game was designed from Day 1. I've played the game with classes that fill the traditional roles and it is hella fun. In fact, it was so fun in AD&D, I'm still in search of that feeling in PF. D&D 4e, ime, was an abandonment of those roles and I think we can all agree it was an abject failure. Having well defined functional roles is critical to this game on many levels. The irony of this discussion is that multi-classing is actually benefited by having strong roles.

Fortunately, it's clear from the specific words of Jason Bulman and Co. that Paizo believes in those roles and that those roles are critical to how the game is suppose to work. It's clear folks in this thread don't get it. All they see is "restriction." But guess what AD&D didn't succeed because it was a fantasy land of unfettered choices. It is precisely the consequence of choice that makes the choice meaningful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
The accurate identification of the actual roles aside, it has nothing to do with what I believe, but how the game was designed from Day 1.

I don't believe that to be true. Anything, everything, should be measured by what it is, not by what it was intended to be. A synchronized rotor may be intended for warplanes, only to be used for movie projection. A video game about jumping can become a puzzle as to how to avoid jumping. I can freely use my pile of semiconductor chemistry without worrying about whatever deity made the materials had in store for silicon. I don't want to have a single path that is working as intended, I want to be able to see creativity from people who are not the original designers. I want cheese, I want it to be a fascinating example of fascinating rules, and for whatever gimmick I think up in my out-of-touch-with-reality moments, I want to feel I can make a unique and personal path to it. I don't need my glorious nonsense to be at the highest levels, but I want it above the lowest. I want to be able to grow outward as I improve with a system, not simply doing the best thing better.


The Sideromancer wrote:
I don't believe that to be true. Anything, everything, should be measured by what it is, not by what it was intended to be.

If what it is, is what it was meant to be, they wouldn't be making 2e. They wouldn't be specifically addressing the caster / martial disparity and the 1-2 exploitative level dipping.

The game has had too many chefs in the kitchen over the decade or so that 3.0 came out. The designers have more experience with this system and they see things that are problematic. I agree with them. I only hope they can actually fix them.

Quote:
A synchronized rotor may be intended for warplanes, only to be used for movie projection.

A rotor designed for movie projection and not warplanes is gong to be a lot more profitable, serve its intended role better, result in happier customers, and generate more good will. Anyone who sees something being used outside of what it was designed for, has an opportunity to design for purpose and profit from it.

Quote:
I want cheese

I don't, and neither does Paizo or PFS. More to the point, you can always make the game as cheesy as you want. But cheese is not what made AD&D work and it's not going to support Pathfinder. The designers know this, thankfully.

PFS is more or less a proving ground for PF system and player mentality. There is a Core campaign which has arisen. it's limited to the Core classes. There is no Gestalt/Mythic campaign. Cheese doesn't sell, not in the long term, and more importantly, it isn't sustainable for a community system which relies on GMs learning on the fly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The entire point there is being a change is because they are taking it as what it is, and what it is isn't what they want. If it was only looked at through the lens of what was intended, there would be no problems. I actually dislike the centralization of a few Core classes in PF since it makes it harder to make good cheese: What's the point of branching out if the easy way is so much better?

Now I may be less familiar with the tabletop genres, but I know there are video games that run on cheese. Want to complete an ingame objective in dwarf fortress? Too bad, there isn't one. Want to make computers out of game mechanics or conquer realms put in there specifically to be impregnable? There's a reason this game is in the museum of modern art.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

The problem is, without question, exacerbated by new material and lack of cohesion throughout the product transitions. The difference is that with 1e, Paizo was working with a legacy system and WotC wasn't really experienced enough to anticipate the problem.

Paizo won't have that as an excuse this time around. They've seen and experienced the mess that has resulted. So I'm hoping that they bake something into the system that stops this, and then retain the resolve to not undo that with new offerings, because we all know damn well, the first things some new contributor is going to do is come up with a way to short-circuit whatever restrictions were intended to keep things balanced. And one can imagine that such a work around will be immediately praised by all the min/maxers and Paizo will be tempted to feel like they did the right thing. But let's be honest, the forums are dominated by the Veruca Salt mentality.

Psst, hey. What's game breaking about base game multiclassing. With no archtypes. And about have the classes. And probably feats. OH I'd love to hear what was some game breaking min/max back then. Oh and then compare it to what we have now. I'm SURE it still holds up.

Yeah no, when the splat books start rolling out, we're probably be back here again. And I doubt it's going to be some new writer that goes "Mwhahaha, with this we can completely break the game! Those FOOLS that tried to hold us back, bwhahahaahahah". No it's going to happen for a very real and common reason. Time and Money. I mean look at the apparent mess that was Ultimate Wildness. Did it include some game breaking combo to be used? To my knowledge no but they didn't seem to play test or check that enough so it was a bit of a flop at least to the forum going public. 2e's books and splats are still going to have to be judged, tested, and checked on a time table, something the general public as a whole is better at doing. Time goes on, the math is going to happen and we'll be right back here again.

I suppose we should just remove classes then. But it doesn't matter what you do, the min/maxers will break the game. No reason to restrict the rest of us.

N N 959 wrote:
If that were the solution, they wouldn't need 2e, because GMs can solve all the problems in 1e. Its a fact that the more burden you put on the GM to make the game work, the fewer GMs you are going to have. There are many PFS players who love Core because it tones down the power gaming and simplifies the GMing. If Paizo wants 2e to work, you can't expect the GM to fix it. It has to work as written. It has to be manageable by an average GM, who doesn't want to stress out over game-breaking builds, or teams of players who don' have any synergy because they are all some variant or Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Monk.

That is bull and you know it. There's a number of reasons to make 2e(Money, trimming it down, competition, they bloody want to, etc).

And do they love core, or do they love all the rules PFS puts in to make it even easier,....wait PFS puts in rules? OH NO THEY AREN'T PLAYING THE PURE GAME! Quick we must go shut them down. The only way to fully enjoy the game is to play it AS is. The Purity must be preserved!

Here's an idea for the average GM. Say no. This is hard? This is really so hard? "Hey guys I'm still getting the rules down can we just play with core?" shouldn't be seen as a BAD thing and no player should expect to have ALL the content at any bloody point. If only because said GM doesn't want to have to buy EVERY book.

GM should be allowed to have SOME input in the characters that come to the table. Not full input otherwise GM would start playing the game themselves for the players. And the same time, GM should have some trust in their players and maybe work with them on a clear expectation of what to make. Otherwise, heck moving away from classes, you start getting people showing up with Centaur rogues, Android Clerics, and Vishkanya Fighters.

Flip side is PLayers, if your DM is average DON'T Try and 'game' them. Don't try to let their inexperience let you get away with even STUPIDER builds. If you make a Labyrinthine mess of a character(Even Pure, OH hello Wizard!) with numbers, bonuses, stats, items, etc etc that make you just a 1 man show; maybe don't do it! They need to learn but don't just toss them into the deep end of the pool!

So yes I do expect the GM to fix it. Because it's their table. If they don't want Elves, I don't expect Paizo to go "OH well remove elves". If they don't want to use rule X, I don't expect Paizo to remove it in the next book. Hey, how many average GMs do you know that's going to use the new weight mechanics, even if they easier than now. WELL let's just remove... and this joke has run it's course.

Never mind "Work as written" is a bloody moot point given we have Rules as Written and Rules as Intended arguments all the time. Yeah no, you aren't getting your perfect game across all tables dude. Speaking of;

Quote:


But let's be honest, the forums are dominated by the Veruca Salt mentality.

You don't say? Yeah I'm beginning to wonder why I even come to these forums anymore when every other topic makes me want to pull my hair out.

EDIT:

Quote:
community system which relies on GMs learning on the fly.

Is this assuming PFS guys don't go home and try to learn the system they are running or do they just pause everything for a week?


I think it's assuming that the new generation of gamers won't have the time/interest/attention span to gain a thorough understanding of the game before diving in and judging it on that first experience.


MerlinCross wrote:
That is bull and you know it. There's a number of reasons to make 2e(Money, trimming it down, competition, they bloody want to, etc).

No, it's not bull. If 1e was the perfect game, they wouldn't waste money coming out with a revamped version. If money were the primary motivator, they'd just come out with a bunch of new content for 1e, or just keep tweaking it. And while I am certain that the hopes that they'll make more money is a motivator, they could also lose money if 2e is a flop.

But yes, the fact that they "want to" has to be a primary reason. I'm surprised they've held out this long. You've got a bunch of highly creative gamers who have been trying to build on and patch up a leaky ship since Paizo took on 3.5. It was inevitable that these people would want to build this thing up from its foundation.

Now, if they come out with 3e in two years, then yes, I'll be much more suspicious of their motivation.

Quote:
Here's an idea for the average GM. Say no. This is hard? This is really so hard?

Yes, it's absolutely a horrible design to expect that game to work by requiring GMs to have to make these types of judgment calls as soon as they open the box. It's also a huge cop out on the part of the rules designers. The game has to work, as is. Without the GM having to figure out that a legal player choice is going to make his or her life miserable. If Paizo can't get that right, then they shouldn't even waste their time with 2e, because we might as well keep playing 1e.

Kyrt-ryder hits the nail on the head. Sometimes you get one shot at making someone a convert. If players can't wrap their head around the game quickly or get a warm and fuzzy after their first go, you may not get another chance. There are far too many competing products for a gamer's dollar to put the burden on a GM lacking system mastery. Doing so is just flushing development dollars down the toilet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

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. ...

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. ... But we'll see. The important thing for me is Paizo is already on top of it.

I Love how you said this a page ago, and yet you're Still arguing with everyone as if trying to convince Paizo to Still not allow Multi-classing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not that he wants multiclassing removed...

... He just wants multiclassed characters crippled compared to monoclassed characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

It's not that he wants multiclassing removed...

... He just wants multiclassed characters crippled compared to monoclassed characters.

Specifically, he wants multiclassed martial characters nerfed relative to the poor, belabored single-class spellcasters.


In all fairness he's coming from a paradigm of tight dungeon corridors heavily trapped with treasure hidden behind hidden trapped passageways with very frail mages with a very limited supply of powerful Magic who support the martials they depend on...

The biggest problem is that game isn't Pathfinder, nor is it Pathfinder's predecessor.

It's a very old version of dungeons and dragons.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

In all fairness he's coming from a paradigm of tight dungeon corridors heavily trapped with treasure hidden behind hidden trapped passageways with very frail mages with a very limited supply of powerful Magic who support the martials they depend on...

The biggest problem is that game isn't Pathfinder, nor is it Pathfinder's predecessor.

It's a very old version of dungeons and dragons.

It would be really easy for me to pile onto the guy trying to drag the game, kicking and screaming, back into the older paradigm he prefers.

But then, I remembered that's the same treatment I've always gotten from these forums when trying to fix the multiclassing system so that it functioned more like AD&D-- eg. coherently-- such that it also stopped rewarding the same counter-intuitive and anti-immersion character builds he's complaining about it.

Find myself suddenly losing my taste for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's incoherent about PF1 Multiclassing from your point of view Faerie?

Myself, I'm of two separate minds on the concept.

Option A [a more Pathfinder Approach] is to keep multiclassing, but restructure the game so all abilities scale with character level. Diving into a class for one or ten levels is- for those specific abilities gained at those levels- no different from riding it 1-20. The difference is in the number of abilities from the class one can stack together.

So a Barbarian 10 Ranger 10 is just as good [but far less Barbarian-ey or Ranger-ey] compared to a Barbarian 20 or Ranger 20.

As for how to handle this with spellcasting classes, for starters Caster Level would be Character Level. As to actual Spellcasting Progression, perhaps a default of Spellcasting Levels plus 1/2 levels in other classes, with feats available to bridge the gap between caster level and spellcasting level might work.

Option B [the option I've chosen in my own campaigns]: Scrap multiclassing entirely and replace the classes with something far broader and more flexible. In my case, a Hero could represent any martial class that could be published and probably many that could not. Dabbler is for the mid-caster types [and in my specific case has a special use for a skill of some kind. Perform, Alchemy, Spellcraft, Craft, Religion, Stealth, Etc Etc] and Mage is for the Full Caster types.


Honestly I really like your Option B Kyrt, its the kind of thing I wish I could have, because there's a lot of things that spellcasters cover, that I Love, but that I then have to take Spellcasting to get, which I don't really like... >.<

Like as three examples from the characters I posted, the Animal Companion love of the Hunter, Alchemist Discoveries(Read Sciencey and Strange), and Shaman Spirits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
What's incoherent about PF1 Multiclassing from your point of view Faerie?

The entire "classes are packages of abilities" mindset, in contrast to the concept of "class". If characters are picking "packages of abilities" each level, those packages should be part of the class design.

It is, honestly, not so much the ease of adding new classes to a character that bothers me-- though I think there needs to be some practical limits-- but rather the ease with which a character stops advancing in a class while still practicing all of its class abilities.

Dipping. Is. B*@@@*+#.

Then, there is also the fact that the multiclassing rules in 3.X do not support the characters that multiclassing was designed for: characters that are equally competent in two or more fields, but less powerful in either than a focused character.

There is simply no g*+!%$ned way to build such a character in Pathfinder that is not a useless lump for the majority of their adventuring career.

That's infuriating, and I'm sick to death of it being treated like a feature by people who have no respect for the game's legacy.

kyrt-ryder wrote:


Myself, I'm of two separate minds on the concept.

I've tried two solutions in Pathfinder, and honestly, both were terrible.

My option A was that characters use fixed-progression Gestalt with a progressive Level Adjustment for each additional class-- with variations for NPC classes and Prestige Classes.

My option B was similar to your option A. Taking your first level in a new class cost a feat, you had to keep a minimum class level for your character level, and you got additional class abilities based on your non-class levels.

My current approach for Sellswords & Godwars is that you get a Talent every even level-- class, race, or other-- multiclassing costs you a talent, and the main thing it does is let you take talents from the new class.

Non-Humans can take one additional class. Humans and Bards can take a talent that removes this limitation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I should note, none of the complaints I have about Pathfinder's multiclassing system are Paizo's fault-- they didn't design this garbage, they really were not at liberty to correct it, and now that they do have the opportunity... they appear to be taking it.


Dracala wrote:
I Love how you said this a page ago, and yet you're Still arguing with everyone as if trying to convince Paizo to Still not allow Multi-classing.

False.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

It's not that he wants multiclassing removed...

... He just wants multiclassed characters crippled compared to monoclassed characters.

Totally false. By your own admission, you don't even play Pathfinder anything close to the rules, so what are you doing in this thread? What does it matter what 2e does for you? I almost only play PFS, so it matters a great deal.

FaeirieGodfather wrote:
Specifically, he wants multiclassed martial characters nerfed relative to the poor, belabored single-class spellcasters.

If by "nerfed" you mean stopping someone with a legal RageChemist/Barbarian from trashing a game? Then yeah.

In typical forum form, people misrepresent what someone says so it sounds ridiculous. The truth doesn't support your narrative,so you twist it into something you can argue against.

The bottom line is Paizo sees it just as I see it. That's all that matters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
If by "nerfed" you mean stopping someone with a legal RageChemist/Barbarian from trashing a game?

You mean for a whole 20 min/day? If 20 min/day thrashes a game/adventure that's more a problem with your adventure/game than multiclassing... :P


graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
If by "nerfed" you mean stopping someone with a legal RageChemist/Barbarian from trashing a game?
You mean for a whole 20 min/day? If 20 min/day thrashes a game/adventure that's more a problem with your adventure/game than multiclassing... :P

He plays PFS, his entire sessions are only an hour :P


N N 959 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

It's not that he wants multiclassing removed...

... He just wants multiclassed characters crippled compared to monoclassed characters.

Totally false. By your own admission, you don't even play Pathfinder anything close to the rules, so what are you doing in this thread? What does it matter what 2e does for you? I almost only play PFS, so it matters a great deal.

Do you think I would invest so much time and effort remolding the rules if they weren't a hot stinking pile of garbage compared to the potential of the baseline framework? [Point for emphasis, it's the rules in relation to their potential, as far as games go PF ranks quite highly for me otherwise I'd use some other foundation.]

If there weren't a great deal of room for improvement I suspect Paizo would be using some other method to revitalize the game rather than a new edition with sweeping changes.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
If by "nerfed" you mean stopping someone with a legal RageChemist/Barbarian from trashing a game?
You mean for a whole 20 min/day? If 20 min/day thrashes a game/adventure that's more a problem with your adventure/game than multiclassing... :P
He plays PFS, his entire sessions are only an hour :P

Out of game maybe an hour but every session is an hour in game? Honestly curious as PFS never worked for me though the few PFS online games I looked at didn't seem to work like that.


I'd like to keep the feel of 1-level class dips, the idea that my character is a dilletante with a powerful abilities along one path (spellcasting, swordplay, etc) but also a hint of the strength of other disciplines. I'd just rather see it done better. As it stands now, either a 1 level dip is crazy good or else not worth delaying other more relevant features. There are exceptions of course, I never regret a level of fighter or monk on a martial despite it never breaking a build, but the point isn't always to make someone equal parts monk and slayer, sometimes it is just to pick up a bit of martial arts and spiritual discipline on a bounty hunter. So VMC would not be ideal unless I could opt out if progression and pick them up midway through without intense retraining.

Also, please don't make combining thematically jarring abilities impossible, I find it incredibly fun stringing a bunch of unrelated or opposed abilities together and thinking of a story which encompasses all of them in one place.


Several times I've seen comments to the effect that folks are bothered by how class abilities stop advancing if you multi class out of a class... I just don't get that. I've always assumed you practice what you know - if your character is a ranger 1 / wizard 19, he still practices all his rangery stuff that he knows - it doesn't atrophy because he didn't take more ranger levels. It doesn't get better because his focus has been on other things, but that doesn't suddenly make him forget what he knew.

Then again, I am firmly against the idea that 20 levels of a single "class" = "character". Maybe that's the difference.


The problem isn't multi classing, it's that some multiclassing is objectively stronger than a single class focus. The actual solution is just heavily incentivizing commitment to a class, which given class feats, and how unique and character defining they seem to be (Also restricted by class level I'm assuming) this is already a thing.

Let a player make an Eldritch Knight, splitting Fighter and Wizard levels, focusing on reactions and counterspelling, so long as that same EK is never gonna have the same legendary level of mastery of steel and magic like a Fighter and Wizard would respectively.

Really, the new "All options are feats and the base class and archetypes(?) give a few free features" design choice promotes multiclassing and general PC diversity. Who need PrCs when you can design your own within the system?

At least I hope that's how it works.

P.S. A lot of this has probably already been said. Sorry. Threads too long for me right now. Haha


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
The problem isn't multi classing, it's that some multiclassing is objectively stronger than a single class focus.

Over the course of the game as a whole that is objectively untrue.

In fact I would say the problem with multiclassing is that it's too easy to make characters that don't keep up with the single classed characters. Especially past level 10.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:
The problem isn't multi classing, it's that some multiclassing is objectively stronger than a single class focus.

Over the course of the game as a whole that is objectively untrue.

In fact I would say the problem with multiclassing is that it's too easy to make characters that don't keep up with the single classed characters. Especially past level 10.

This is partly because many people in this thread are falling for the “squeaky wheel” fallacy. Multiclass characters have a way of peaking on a particular level or range of 2-3 levels. However both before and after that range they are dismal. No one ever notices the “broken” crappy build from level 3-8 or from 12-20 they just see “OMG MARGINALLY ABOVE THE CURVE FOR WHAT I THINK LEVEL 9-11 SHOULD BE!!”

You also don’t ever hear about the multi class builds that stay inside the power curve of the table they play at because the player knows where the edge is for their group. Or the builds that lag behind for all 20 levels.

959 wants to “fix” a few rogue levels of a few interesting combinations by taking a hacksaw to the thing that 9/10 pathfinder players say is the thing they like best about the system; customizability.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:
The problem isn't multi classing, it's that some multiclassing is objectively stronger than a single class focus.

Over the course of the game as a whole that is objectively untrue.

In fact I would say the problem with multiclassing is that it's too easy to make characters that don't keep up with the single classed characters. Especially past level 10.

I conflated multiclassing and 1 level dipping. Sorry. 1 level dips into Monk and Fighter were often far better than a straight shot of either. That's what I was speaking on. As I said in my post, I want both actul multiclassing and single class focus to both be valid paths of character development.

Dipping has always irked me. It's gamey as hell (PFS only runs so high, so it's rewarded to front load characters) and often lacks the thematic cohesion a "proper" (Subjective, I know) multiclass or PrC aims for. Seriously, how many Paladins took one level in Oracle?


BigDTBone wrote:


959 wants to “fix” a few rogue levels of a few interesting combinations by taking a hacksaw to the thing that 9/10 pathfinder players say is the thing they like best about the system; customizability.

No. That's wholly inaccurate. I've repeatedly talked about problems on both sides of the power curve and power gaming is only one part of a multi-facted problem. But don't let the truth interfere with your narrative.

The only people who are threatened by fixes to the multi-class system are min/maxers who can't stand the idea of coming in second at anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


959 wants to “fix” a few rogue levels of a few interesting combinations by taking a hacksaw to the thing that 9/10 pathfinder players say is the thing they like best about the system; customizability.

No. That's wholly inaccurate. I've repeatedly talked about problems on both sides of the power curve and power gaming is only one part of a multi-facted problem. But don't let the truth interfere with your narrative.

The only people who are threatened by fixes to the multi-class system are min/maxers who can't stand the idea of coming in second at anything.

And GMs who can't stand the idea of characters in their world falling behind their peers just because they don't fall into the pretty little boxes of published classes.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


And GMs who can't stand the idea of characters in their world falling behind their peers just because they don't fall into the pretty little boxes of published classes.

That already happens in this system. It's one of the inherent problems with multi-classing in a system where the classes were designed to go from 1-20. Another inherent problem is the breaks that the video talks about. Paizo needs to try and fix both, and based on the blog, it's pretty clear where they think the problem lies with the former.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:
The problem isn't multi classing, it's that some multiclassing is objectively stronger than a single class focus.

Over the course of the game as a whole that is objectively untrue.

In fact I would say the problem with multiclassing is that it's too easy to make characters that don't keep up with the single classed characters. Especially past level 10.

I conflated multiclassing and 1 level dipping. Sorry. 1 level dips into Monk and Fighter were often far better than a straight shot of either.

That's because both of them suck. Seriously, the Fighter class lacks features in a game where feats are usually junk and to get anything better than junk usually requires stacking a LOT of them together, and most of the Monk's features don't really help it excel.

Quote:
I want both actul multiclassing and single class focus to both be valid paths of character development.

Total agreement here. Multiclassing should be no better or worse than monoclassing.

Quote:
Dipping has always irked me. It's gamey as hell (PFS only runs so high, so it's rewarded to front load characters)

It does run high enough for the 'front loading' [more accurately back-draining. The front ends of these classes are about right, it's the backs that are lacking] to start falling apart compared to the good classes that are solo [in my experience Multiclassed builds start coming together around level 5ish most of the time, and start showing signs of fatigue around level 10]

Quote:
and often lacks the thematic cohesion a "proper" (Subjective, I know) multiclass or PrC aims for. Seriously, how many Paladins took one level in Oracle?

How many Paladins are the pet favorites/projects/'throw powers at a person and see what sticks' of some Good god?

That being said... why are you looking for cohesion? The least cohesive characters I've ever seen are Character = Class, including Monoclassed characters under that philosphy [granted under that philosophy heavily multiclassed characters have less cohesion.]

The greatest cohesion comes from characters as 'people' [quotes because fiction] with backgrounds, motivations and goals. A complete persona and identity that may or may not draw some degree of inspiration from the published flavor of one or more of their classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


And GMs who can't stand the idea of characters in their world falling behind their peers just because they don't fall into the pretty little boxes of published classes.
That already happens in this system. It's one of the inherent problems with multi-classing in a system where the classes were designed to go from 1-20. Another inherent problem is the breaks that the video talks about. Paizo needs to try and fix both, and based on the blog, it's pretty clear where they think the problem lies with the former.

I've proposed a fix once or twice in this thread and you never address any of my ideas. Here's one of them in case you'd like to give it a go:

Quote:

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 sticks with it, but the abilities they took from it will be just as strong as someone who took the class 1-20


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Total agreement here. Multiclassing should be no better or worse than monoclassing.

By design, it has to be worse. The very nature of having a class that is comprised of two or more classes means you're not going to be better at doing what either of the those classes were designed to do. You don't get that, but that's okay.

But that doesn't mean a MC character is "useless" or crippled. You should multi-class because you want the variety, not because it leads to a superior outcome.

Quote:
Quote:
Dipping has always irked me. It's gamey as hell (PFS only runs so high, so it's rewarded to front load characters)
It does run high enough for the 'front loading' [more accurately back-draining. The front ends of these classes are about right, it's the backs that are lacking] to start falling apart compared to the good classes that are solo [in my experience Multiclassed builds start coming together around level 5ish most of the time, and start showing signs of fatigue around level 10]

There's a reason why PFS only goes to about 11 for the majority of content. Playing PFS for the last couple of years as a GM and player, it's has become apparent that past level 5 or so, the games starts to become unwieldy for the average player. A lot of PFS players, especially those born after AD&D was a thing, start to lose interest in characters by about level 5. The system mastery needed to make good decisions and manage the myriad challenges that authors expect players to deal with, becomes overwhelming. There's a reason why Paizo wants to simplify the game, because you need a GM with a Masters in Pathfinder to run a game at levels beyond 12. The interactions and character options become convoluted and the magic number aspect of how the rules work make it even more difficult for a GM to easily and accurately resolve ambiguities. Every time Paizo released a new set of classes, experienced GMs in PFS were calling it quits because the complexity creates to much burden.

A lot of the theory crafting here seems to be divorced from reality, despite acknowledging it's out there. PFS has to get it right from 1-10. Particularly from 1-5. It doesn't matter how awesome class options are at 11-20 if the vast majority of players never get there. To wit, all the posters who keep advocating that the power curve has to keep rising as you level up, seem to be oblivious to the problem that this presents for the GM. If Paizo has any hope to get more players past lvl 10, then it has to keep the game as manageable as possible. Introducing more feats and more abilities is counter-productive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"We want more players past 10. Let's make every AP cap around level 15." Logic then Paizo?

Also you have to have data to back up such a claim right? Because in my own expedite with PFS, the level to start giving up is 3.

Also if there's no power curve, why improve? pathfinder should be run at level 5 and we should go higher, it just breaks. For 2e lets stay at level 1 eh?


MerlinCross wrote:
"We want more players past 10. Let's make every AP cap around level 15." Logic then Paizo?

I've been a player in around five or six APs. None of them got past level 1. But then I'm only playing those in PbP games. EDIT: Wait, maybe I did get to level 2 in a couple of them.

Quote:
Also you have to have data to back up such a claim right? Because in my own expedite with PFS, the level to start giving up is 3

lol...well, I was trying to be conservative, but yeah, the attrition at level 3 is ridiculous. When I've asked players about this, they say that the game either is too hard or they just aren't sure what to do with their character i.e. don't know what class to take and what feats to choose.

I'm firmly of the belief that emphasis on builds, has undermined the propensity of players learning how to actually play the game. People seemingly jump at the chance to play Tier 1-2 game so they can try this new build they were thinking of. But they can't stick with them past level 3. I'll add to this, the fact that new players have no concept of building a character along the the functional roles. Jason Bulhman talks about this in his blog and I've experienced it first hand in PFS.

This phenomenon is a big reason why I believe D&D 3.x/PF has lost touch with a crucial aspect of the game. Or rather, they've failed to protect it. The splat books bring in money, but the proliferation of choices isn't all good.

Quote:
Also if there's no power curve, why improve? pathfinder should be run at level 5 and we should go higher, it just breaks. For 2e lets stay at level 1 eh?

There is a power curve, but if it's going to get higher at every level, it has to start out exceedingly low, an idea contrary to the power-classing people are actually advocating. The problem is that current players are used to the meat of several classes early. If PF2e changes that, people are going to complain that the classes feel too bland.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
To wit, all the posters who keep advocating that the power curve has to keep rising as you level up, seem to be oblivious to the problem that this presents for the GM.

Great idea. Let's create a highly linear level progression without any of the ramping up the Pathfinder system expects.

Bear in mind that a level 19 character is literally expected by the CR system to be 512 times as powerful as a level 1. Not 19 times as powerful, 512 times [every two levels is double the CR of two levels prior]

Let's take away spell levels as they have been known to D&D more than four decades and create a game with a more static magic that doesn't have a rapidly rising power curve that presents problems for micromanaging GMs who have power issues and can't roll with the flow.

Lets take away the biggest things that connect Pathfinder to its past and turn it into something fresh, new, and completely unrelated.

Of course if I wanted that I could use Fate or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or Burning Wheel or Hackmaster or d6 Fantasy or Savage Worlds


kyrt-ryder wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
To wit, all the posters who keep advocating that the power curve has to keep rising as you level up, seem to be oblivious to the problem that this presents for the GM.

Great idea. Let's create a highly linear level progression without any of the ramping up the Pathfinder system expects.

Bear in mind that a level 19 character is literally expected by the CR system to be 512 times as powerful as a level 1. Not 19 times as powerful, 512 times [every two levels is double the CR of two levels prior]

Let's take away spell levels as they have been known to D&D more than four decades and create a game with a more static magic that doesn't have a rapidly rising power curve that presents problems for micromanaging GMs who have power issues and can't roll with the flow.

Lets take away the biggest things that connect Pathfinder to its past and turn it into something fresh, new, and completely unrelated.

Of course if I wanted that I could use Fate or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or Burning Wheel or Hackmaster

Hilarious. I'd love to see the number of games that start out at level 1 and make it to 20. I'd love to see the number of GMs who have run a level 1 game and then eventually run a successful campaign past level 15.

The thing that has connected Pathfinder to it's past? It sure as hell ain't game play past level 10. AD&D didn't even go past level 10, depending on the class. The biggest part of what connects Pathfinder to AD&D is the dice. Not a whole let else. Monte Cook totally screwed up casters, or rather totally screwed over martials.

If Paizo can get any sizable group of people to complain about what happens after level 10, I'll consider PFS 2e to be an outstanding success.

And just so you can't twist my words, I actually like the non-linear power spikes in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to go on record as one.

I've ran 3 games from 1 - 20, 2 games from 10-20 (1 was 3.5) 1 game from 1-30 (that one was 3.5)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's funny is inagain in my experience, the level 3 death has close to nothing to do with the rules. But the other part of the game, the people. Something you seem to have a high or low expectation of, I can't tell yet N N.

Make the rules as streamlined as you want, if someone can't figure out how to build their character the easier rules won't help. What does help is people. Ask the GM, ask the other players, go online(bloody heck people play wiki games all the time what makes Pathfinder such a wall that can't be over come?). You start simple and learn. Even in core with no mutliclass, I wouldn't give a new player a Wizard.

Rules are not meant to reduce player choice to "Play this with X, y, and z." Otherwise what's the difference between hat and following a power guide online outside of higher numbers.

Oh and question. If makin a character long term is the problem now, removing all the stuff in the first couple levels is going to just destroy it for new players. "Oh yeah you can play, you can't do stuff till level 5 but sure you can play", yeah there's a winning sale.

Edit: Side question, how many games of DnD go to max level in any edition? How many table top games go to max power/level/whatever?


Vidmaster7 wrote:

Just to go on record as one.

I've ran 3 games from 1 - 20, 2 games from 10-20 (1 was 3.5) 1 game from 1-30 (that one was 3.5)

Out of how many attempted?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Just to go on record as one.

I've ran 3 games from 1 - 20, 2 games from 10-20 (1 was 3.5) 1 game from 1-30 (that one was 3.5)

Out of how many attempted?

What do you mean?

The games I attempted to run to 20 went to 20. When I want to run a short game I run a shorter game...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Just to go on record as one.

I've ran 3 games from 1 - 20, 2 games from 10-20 (1 was 3.5) 1 game from 1-30 (that one was 3.5)

Out of how many attempted?

What do you mean?

The games I attempted to run to 20 went to 20. When I want to run a short game I run a shorter game...

"But surely you must of wanted to run more than one game to 20, after all the rules are there for it. How many failures did you have?"

Is probably the question. Never mind jobs, families, holidays, sickness and other such RL issues can kill games. Realated question, how long did it take?


I can only think of one game where I thought hey I will run this to 20 and it didn't. Usually I plan out my story and run it until the story ends. I like a big cinematic type game.

Um the fist time probably 2 years with a break in the middle we took them to 10 they held on to their characters and then some time later when I thought of a continuation to their story it went to 20.

The shortest was pathfinder 1-20 in the span of 6-8 months I would say. playing for 6-8 hours a week. I will say I had stopped using experience by that point and did free form leveling that just went with my story.
Edit: actually it might of been 9 months now that I think about it.


MerlinCross wrote:
What's funny is inagain in my experience, the level 3 death has close to nothing to do with the rules. But the other part of the game, the people. Something you seem to have a high or low expectation of, I can't tell yet N N.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Quote:
Oh and question. If makin a character long term is the problem now, removing all the stuff in the first couple levels is going to just destroy it for new players. "Oh yeah you can play, you can't do stuff till level 5 but sure you can play", yeah there's a winning sale.

And that's part of the challenge Paizo is faced with. You can't neuter classes at low level, but if you put all abilities in at the start, it's just going to get cherry picked. If characters are too powerful at the start, then you can't just keep boosting them every single level. Conversely if the designers like power spikes, then you have to have flat spots.

It's impossible for Paizo to make everyone happy. They can't fix problems compared to the legacy system without creating new ones. Paizo has to decide what they want the game to be and go with that and just hope that the changes result in new players to replace the ones that don't like the new system.

Quote:
Edit: Side question, how many games of DnD go to max level in any edition? How many table top games go to max power/level/whatever?

No, not "whatever." The fact that these games don't go very high means balancing characters on the belief that what happens at level 20 actually matters is a fundamental mistake. For Pathfinder Society, the game has to be solid from 1-10 and even more so from 1-5. The game has to work out of gate and through the first quarter mile. Designers claiming that it all works by level 20 are out of touch. Designing the best part of a class to occur at point where nearly no one experiences it, is not a "whatever," it's a failure.

351 to 400 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