| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'd like: first I'd like to be able to multi-classing casters without falling behind too much against a full caster. This could be accomplished by allowing spell slots to scale with character level, while new spells are the premise of the full caster. It would mean that the spells you do know could be heightened to usefulness while still calling behind a full caster who gets more powerful spells. My fear is it would be too powerful.
What can we expect: multi-classing out of a caster class will mean your spells and spell slots slowly fall into uselessness. Since they start with a higher utility than in pf1 it will take longer, but anything more than a few levels of another class will likely make spells other than utility spells sub optimal. I could live with this.
What do we know: at this point, nothing. Others may know more.
What I do find intriguing is the possibility that a caster class multi-classing into another caster class could have spell slots scaling as the combined class (so like a full caster) while only getting new spells from the new class. This would mean that there is no need for the mystic theurge as a cleric/wizard multi-class would do the job.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope that multiclassing wont be Feats that you can let you take other classes feats in place of your own. Would conflict with any character who ceases to advance in his original cass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did wonder if they might do it that way, but it wouldn't work: if you multi-classed into a casting class, where would your spell slots come from? and if you multi-classed into a martial class, where would your armour and weapon proficiencies come from? the only way I see this working is via the more traditional route.
One thing they might do is nerf multi-class spam by making you pick up a couple of class feats from the new class before multiclassing again, similar to the way they have done archetypes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I expect vmc or a hybrid feat system, sadly. I had brief moment of hope when it was mentioned that only taking 1-2 levels of fighter/rogue being worth it, needing to be fixed. Then, I saw how stripped down A/B/C is and tossed out among the levels to realize that they went overboard on stopping dipping. Archetype preview pretty much confirmed it further.
I assume classes will be easier to balance and design but you wont have the ability to make some really unique characters you did in PF1. Still a tiny bit of hope im wrong!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simplest solution is to increase the XP required per level of advancement. +125 per level for two-classed, +250 per level for three-classed.
At 20th - assuming I grok the XP requirements of 1,000 xp per level after 1st correctly - characters with 19,000 XP end up as follows:
Edited for Viable Functionality Based on Current Information
- single-class: 20th
- two-classed: 17th, very close to 18th.
- three-classed: 16th, starting towards 17th.
Tack on another 125 xp per class after the 3rd if desired.
What I do not want to see is the 3e-PF1 / 4e / 5e / PF1 VMC formats of multi-classing implemented. They're generally horrible unless level dipping for a purpose is worthwhile, or a paired-class prestige class is worth the price of admission. The VMC feats for "first five class features" type of multi-classing is a waste of printed words with rare exception.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simplest solution is to increase the XP required per level of advancement.
Variations can include "Old Skewl" Multi-classing - HD are averaged, not best-of, for example. Limitations like these would not require as steep of an XP requirement. Say, +500 XP per level per additional class.
If a 3e gestalt style of multi-classing is done, the XP cost is either per-each class level advanced simultaneously e.g. 1,000 xp per character level multiplied by the number of classes, or the cost is slightly reduced to, say, +750 XP per level per class after the first.
Adventures/modules/chapters/[insert nomenclature here] as a result are for "Characters that have earned X XP" rather than # level.
By the current PF2 playtest rules, a character that has earned 4,000 XP is 4th level.
A character with averaged-HD multi-classing in 2 classes having earned 4,000 XP is 3rd level part of the way to 4th (1,500 XP twice adds +2 levels). A gestalt character with 2 classes having earned 4,000 XP is just barely 3rd level (2,000 XP earned twice for 3rd level), or is part of the way to 4th (1,750 XP earned twice is still 3rd level with 500 XP left over towards 4th).An AD&D fighter-wizard-rogue using gestalt advancement pays 2,500 XP per character level instead of 1,000 XP per character level (or 3,000 XP per character level). An AD&D fighter-wizard-rogue using multi-classing advancement pays 2,000 XP per character level instead of 1,000 XP per character level.
you have a very novel definition of "simplest" for solutions :)
you have a very novel definition of "simplest" for solutions :)
Edited for viability. ;)
Once I started running the numbers, the originally suggested XP costs per character level were decidedly not viable. ^____^
Simplest solution is to increase the XP required per level of advancement.
Variations can include "Old Skewl" Multi-classing - HD are averaged, not best-of, for example. Limitations like these would not require as steep of an XP requirement. Say, +500 XP per level per additional class.
If a 3e gestalt style of multi-classing is done, the XP cost is either per-each class level advanced simultaneously e.g. 1,000 xp per character level multiplied by the number of classes, or the cost is slightly reduced to, say, +750 XP per level per class after the first.
Adventures/modules/chapters/[insert nomenclature here] as a result are for "Characters that have earned X XP" rather than # level.
By the current PF2 playtest rules, a character that has earned 4,000 XP is 5th level.
A character with averaged-HD multi-classing in 2 classes having earned 4,000 XP is 4th level part of the way to 5th (1,500 XP twice adds +2 levels). A gestalt character with 2 classes having earned 4,000 XP is just barely 4th level (2,000 XP earned twice for 4th level), or is part of the way to 5th (1,750 XP earned twice is still 4th level with 500 XP left over towards 5th).An AD&D fighter-wizard-rogue using gestalt advancement pays 2,500 XP per character level instead of 1,000 XP per character level (or 3,000 XP per character level). An AD&D fighter-wizard-rogue using multi-classing advancement pays 2,000 XP per character level instead of 1,000 XP per character level.
What I do not want to see is the 3e-PF1 / 4e / 5e / PF1 VMC formats of multi-classing implemented. They're generally horrible unless level dipping for a purpose is worthwhile, or a paired-class prestige class is worth the price of admission. The VMC feats for "first five class features" type of multi-classing is a waste of printed words with rare exception.
I think they are unlikely to mess with level advancement requirements. One of the stated reasons iirc was so you could see at a glance where you are towards the next level, this would change if they start messing with it. Which pretty much excludes Old school style. They might be able to make VMC work, but it would be difficult, especially as regards casters getting spell slots.
XP Costs by Level
*
*
*
*
- (header) 1-class / 2-class / 3-class
- 2nd level 1,000 / 1,125 / 1,250
- 3rd level 2,000 / 2,250 / 2,500
- 4th level 3,000 / 3,375 / 3,750
- 5th level 4,000 / 4,500 / 5,000
- 6th level 5,000 / 5,625 / 6,250
- 7th level 6,000 / 6,750 / 7,500
- 8th level 7,000 / 7,875 / 8,750
- 9th level 8,000 / 9,000 / 10,000
- 10th lvl. 9,000 / 10,125 / 11,250
- 11th lvl 10,000 / 11,250 / 12,500
- 12th lvl 11,000 / 12,375 / 13,750
- 13th lvl 12,000 / 13,500 / 15,000
- 14th lvl 13,000 / 14,625 / 16,250
- 15th lvl 14,000 / 15,750 / 17,500
- 16th lvl 15,000 / 16,875 / 18,750
- 17th lvl 16,000 / 18,000 / 20,000
- 18th lvl 17,000 / 19,125 / 21,250
- 19th lvl 18,000 / 20,250 / 22,500
- 20th lvl 19,000 / 21,375 / 23,750
Maybe laying out in a pseudo-chart helps?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would actually prefer that multiclassing be handled by archetypes and prestige archetypes. I think it'd be the easiest way to make character concepts without needing to worry about the fiddly bits, like whether or not, or how, scaling class abilities work. We know that spells will be much more static in their design, which is useful for multiclassing (fireball never gets worse just because you're not a Wizard: it's always a fireball), but I still feel like getting unique feats that mimic other class's features is an easier way to do it. You could have a whole string of general feats under Multi-Class feats that let you mimic other class features, or give you features resembling them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would actually prefer that multiclassing be handled by archetypes and prestige archetypes. I think it'd be the easiest way to make character concepts without needing to worry about the fiddly bits, like whether or not, or how, scaling class abilities work. We know that spells will be much more static in their design, which is useful for multiclassing (fireball never gets worse just because you're not a Wizard: it's always a fireball), but I still feel like getting unique feats that mimic other class's features is an easier way to do it. You could have a whole string of general feats under Multi-Class feats that let you mimic other class features, or give you features resembling them.
This approach can work if it doesn't suck goose eggs. So far what has been implemented along this vein across multiple iterations has been generally mediocre-to-horrible, leaning rather strongly towards the horrible end of the spectrum.
A "gish" (magus) is typically an arcane caster lobbing fireballs and other forms of arcane mayhem and foolishness. Players aren't going to want a pseudo-fireball at 13th level, they're going to want to be lobbing proper fireballs in reasonably close proximity to when Ezren is lobbing his fireballs.
The 2-class XP advancement above gets the fighter-wizard lobbing proper fireballs at 4,500 XP instead of 4,000 XP...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering all the things that have been said about multiclassing I am not hopeful - I'm really just hoping it isn't so unwieldy as to be unusable or so anaemic as to be be a complete waste of time and word count.
VMC-like would count as anaemic.
Callbacks to AD&D would count as unwieldy (apologies to The Mad Comrade).
Considering all the things that have been said about multiclassing I am not hopeful - I'm really just hoping it isn't so unwieldy as to be unusable or so anaemic as to be be a complete waste of time and word count.
VMC-like would count as anaemic.
Callbacks to AD&D would count as unwieldy (apologies to The Mad Comrade).
Depends on how they handle it.
VMC is definitely anemic to the point of being discarded in toto significantly more often than the various forms of "death from massive damage" across the various groups I've GM'd for/played with.
AD&D multi-classing being unwieldy is a fair statement. Gestalt is a bit easier to manage. Neither are unusable in PF2, since the only additional feat(ure)s being gained are class-specific.
Losing access to 10th level "stuff" and capstones seems to be a fairly hefty price to pay without being an intolerable one for those who are willing to do so.
I must have missed what has been said about multi-classing in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If multiclassing rules in this game are the same as VMC, this game is DOA for me.
As it is, they have already killed 2 of my character concepts off in this new system. VMC would kill off a 3rd.
So much for adding "more" customization.
Agreed re: VMC being PF2's multi-classing.
Gestalt might work, but what would be the downside? Compared to a normal character it is only gains, so pretty soon it would become standard (much to the annoyance of those who want to play pure classes).
Vmc would be difficult to implement effectively. How would casters get spell slots? What would be class abilities and when would you get them?
To me, the best solution would have to be something similar to the existing system; you give up advancement in one class to gain abilities and class feats of another. This does front load you with class abilities, but you lose out on the capstone and higher abilities.
Gestalt might work, but what would be the downside? Compared to a normal character it is only gains, so pretty soon it would become standard (much to the annoyance of those who want to play pure classes).
Vmc would be difficult to implement effectively. How would casters get spell slots? What would be class abilities and when would you get them?
To me, the best solution would have to be something similar to the existing system; you give up advancement in one class to gain abilities and class feats of another. This does front load you with class abilities, but you lose out on the capstone and higher abilities.
Re: gestalt
Actual character level is generally lower with everything that comes with that in PF2: fewer HD, the character-level-based [stuff] (+1 per level to All of the Things is based on character level, right?) and so on. As more XP is accrued and diluted this lag becomes more and more pronounced.
Using the above XP chart:
A 2-classed gestalt character doesn't attain their 20th character level until single-classed characters are 22nd level. A 3-classed gestalt character doesn't attain their 20th character level until the 2-classed characters are 22nd level and single-classed characters are almost 24th level.
Unlike in 3e/PF1 gestalt, where the only brake that might be applied is GM fiat. Standard approach I've used/seen in PF is to slide character level advancement one bracket to the left (from Fast to Medium to Slow) for 2-classed gestalt characters. Single-classed characters advancing on Medium = 2-classed gestalt advancing on Slow. Tri-gestalt characters mixed in to a group advancing on Medium pays double Medium advancement. There are a lot of ways to mix things up re: gestalt level advancement without requiring too much arithmetic.
To me, the best solution would have to be something similar to the existing system; you give up advancement in one class to gain abilities and class feats of another. This does front load you with class abilities, but you lose out on the capstone and higher abilities.
To me it looks like they've been systematically reducing the front-loading, which to me means this is more or less how they're doing multiclassing. (That is, if they're not multiclassing that way then there's no reason not to front-load, people like getting their toys ASAP.)
I don't think it'll be exactly like in PF1; I've gotten the impression from somewhere that class powers may well be based on character level not class level.
If multi-classed characters are getting their feat(ure)s based on character level - rather than class level - then multi-classing XP tracks makes it simpler to implement instead of some ... strange ... "VMC" type of system that eats a character's general feats unless the general feats are in trade for full multi-classing benefits.
The upside is that certain classes won't need to exist.
To me it looks like they've been systematically reducing the front-loading, which to me means this is more or less how they're doing multiclassing. (That is, if they're not multiclassing that way then there's no reason not to front-load, people like getting their toys ASAP.)
I don't think it'll be exactly like in PF1; I've gotten the impression from somewhere that class powers may well be based on character level not class level.
I certainly hope so. It would make a lot more sense from multi-classing that certain features remain competitive (spell slots I'm looking at you). Multi-classing would mean losing out on some class feats from one class in favour of class feats from another, but key class abilities would scale appropriately. The fact that not so much is front loaded means that there would be less power from multi-class spam, and more incentive to stay in the class you multi-class into.
EDIT: this could make for some interesting builds. A druid who takes early shapeshifting then multi-classes into a fighter for natural melee madness, or who takes an animal companion then multi-classes into rogue to get sneak attack with a flanking companion, for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some class powers definitely need to scale with character level. Spell slots of course, but also certain abilities from each of the martial classes so it's not just casters getting better after ducking out of their class. This of course has to be limited in some way, and also balanced against what a single class character gets who isn't simultaneously advancing in an ability from another class.
As for the limits, maybe you can only multiclass once, or maybe you can only advance a secondary / older class ability from one class at a time. For example, a Fighter / Rogue / Wizard who is gaining Fighter levels can only advance Rogue or Wizard at each new level of Fighter, not both of them. I would also say that you can't gain secondary bonuses past your actual levels in the class. For example, if you are a Wizard 5, then you can only benefit from "off class advancement" in Wizard for 5 other class levels - once you hit Rogue 6 / Wizard 5, you're no longer going to advance your spell slots at all until you start taking levels of Wizard again. This helps kill one or two level dips.
(EDIT: This can also be used to "catch up" a class you take later in your career. If you are a Wizard 10 who takes your first level of Rogue, maybe instead of advancing your spell slots you actually advance the level-based Rogue power by an additional level, so your Wizard 10 / Rogue 1 still casts as a Wizard 10 but is a Rogue 2 for certain purposes.)
As for single classed characters, this is handled either by giving single classed characters bonuses, or penalizing multi classed characters in some way. I would prefer the former but expect the latter. What I expect is that while you are advancing a secondary class, this "consumes" class feats, skills, hit points or something else from your current class. What I would prefer is for single class characters to instead get bonus feats, skills, hit points or whatever, like a favored class bonus.
While I like the idea of limiting advancement to twice your actual level, I think it's going to be too complicated in practice (I'm wiz5/rog6, but I have gone up 3 levels in rogue and 5 in wiz, so really I'm wiz10/rog9, but only for certain purposes). Picking a class to upgrade also works better if you multi-class at 2nd, then alternate, maximising your level bonus.
Level bonuses would only work if they are class level based, but like you say it may lead to balancing issues. The fact that not so much is front loaded helps, and I'm guessing that they are aware of the issues and have a plan.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fully expecting feat based multiclassing at this point. I doubt you'll be able to acquire spellcasting in a non-spellcasting class but will have to settle for whatever spell point abilities they had available.
I have two reasons for suspecting that this is the case. The first has to do with the mention that rangers who want spell casting options will need to take feats to gain spell point abilities. The second is the mention of the infamous healing barbarian being a follower of some deity or another. I'm guessing he took a multiclass feat to grab cleric channeling.
This shouldn't make too many characters impossible to build, but it may make it impossible to progress them in the way you'd hope. Characters like a rogue who found religion, or a fighter who discovered untapped magical powers, are both going to be built back to front if you want real spell casting.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have absolutely no idea what VMC is. If folk are going to use acronyms for obscure sh*t they should really define them.
I absolutely despised the insipid not really multiclassing at all that wizards did in 4th edition. I'm really hoping we're not getting that.
The fact that they're leaving it so late and the fact that they haven't shown us anything about it makes me nervous that they know people aren't going to like whatever it is we're getting.
Hoping to be wrong.
Ugh... wasn't having to multiclass in a particular order the reason why they removed the ×4 modifier on skill points at 1st level... don't bring in its even uglier sister!
I am hoping that archetypes (as feat chains) will address most of my multiclassing needs. For example: Instead of going Rogue 1/Wizard 1, my Wizard 2 can take Pirate to get a few physical skills and pirate weapon training! The archetype feats feel almost as front-loaded as an initial class-level if you consider that I'm also still progressing as a Wizard.
However I also hope we still get a meaningful ability to progress in a secondary or alternative profession after character creation. Such as the wise Fighter drawn to become a Cleric or Druid.
VMC = Variant Multiclassing (which is why it is so often short-handed down to "VMC").
In a very simple nutshell, you lose half of your general PF1 feats to get bits and pieces of a 2nd class scattered over 15 or 17 levels or something. IIRC the general gist of this "multi-classing" was that you got bits and pieces from the first few levels of your 'virtual second class' ... it isn't generally considered worth the price of admission.
go here for more of the run down. It's been out for a few years now ...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have absolutely no idea what VMC is. If folk are going to use acronyms for obscure sh*t they should really define them.
Or you could just use google? Try "pathfinder VMC"... It took me (and therefore could have taken you) less time to search for it than it took to write the following answer:
VMC is an extremely common acronym here for Variant Multi-Classing. It is a well known optional rule from Pathfinder Unchained, see the PRD for details.
Gobbling up most or all of five precious general feats has to be worth the price of admission, or the concept needs to be scrapped altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah VMC Fighter was the only one I ever seriously considered, almost solely for Armor Training II (and usually on a Martial that was getting bonus feats anyway... But outside of the occasional PFS-PbP, I'm stuck perma-GMing so I've never gotten to actually try it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a well known optional ruleWell known is in the eye of the beholder.
*looks at subscription tags*
*chuckles*
I'd like multiclassing not to use lower exp progression. I don't use EXP at all, the whole party stays the same level. This would make balancing my party a nightmare when I have to decide if this person is level 12 or level 13 this session, independently of that other person hitting level 15.
Agreed. Pf1 moved away from that, and are dedicated to simplifying things so it's unlikely they'll take this route. pf1 levelling progression (you go up when a pure class would, but only in one of your multi-classes) is here to stay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping it is something one can opt into or out of at any given level. Also, hoping it has no interaction with XP. Went to milestone levelling years ago, and would hate to have to ban multiclassing because of wonky XP costs. Otherwise it doesn't matter to me if it is feats or 3.x style or whatever else.
I'd like multiclassing not to use lower exp progression. I don't use EXP at all, the whole party stays the same level. This would make balancing my party a nightmare when I have to decide if this person is level 12 or level 13 this session, independently of that other person hitting level 15.
XP is an inherent balancing factor and resource unto itself. This is why the pre-3e iterations of the game had different experience charts for each class, solving the "tiering" problem of 3e/Pathfinder. The nicer, nastier "higher tier" classes were largely equalized against each other based on the amount of experience each took to advance in class levels. It is why the older adventure modules show a level range. It's why it was okay for the classes to not be at approximate parity with each other.
A simple fact of Pathfinder1/3e remains that not all classes are created equal. They are mysteriously considered equivalent to each other in terms of advancing in class level at precisely the same rate of advancement whether by milestone (fiat) or earned experience despite the demonstrable inequities between them.
q.v. linear progression (everyone else) vs. quadratic progression (primary spellcasters, some others).
It's no skin off my nose if my players want to steadily lose character levels in PF2 compared to their single-classed fellows.
"It says we should be 20th level?!"
"Uh huh. How many XP do you have?"
"19,000 same as everyone else."
"So what's the problem?"
"Uh ... it's not fair?"
"XP is as fair as it gets."
Milestone leveling makes sense in that it keeps things simple and saves people from having to use a calculator. It also removes options from consideration. I'd prefer to have options that can be ignored than to not have options at all.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, different characters at different experience levels and more importantly, power levels depending on if/when/how they multi-classed is a terrible idea. Thats a huge balancing act that is very difficult to manage, generally some will fall way behind or skip well ahead.
It's pretty much completely non-viable with the goal of keeping the math and bonuses in step.
Milestone leveling makes sense in that it keeps things simple and saves people from having to use a calculator. It also removes options from consideration. I'd prefer to have options that can be ignored than to not have options at all.I get that, in a sense, but if multiclassing is balanced around needing to manually adjust levels then it isn't an option that can be ignored. You either balance it that way, or you can't use multiclassing without imbalancing the party (unless everyone wants to multiclass).
I honestly think they can get the classes balanced well enough to not need exp based balancing, a level 8 fighter and level 8 wizard should both feel like level 8 characters. A level 8 fighter wizard should feel balanced with a blend of abilities between the two. I just dislike having party members not all be the same level, even if they're technically the same power level. Not my preferred solution to the problem is all I'm trying to say.
Sure, I get it. The classes in PF2 seem likely to be close enough in parity with each other to work just fine in a milestone campaign.
I feel that those willing to pay the particular piper re: multi-classing will be willing to pay said piper. Doing with milestones is pretty straightforward since the XP rate is flat-per-level.
"Now you're 4th level." (3,000 EXP = 4th single-classed) - The player of the multi-classed character uses the calculator on their phone or a simple writing implement and a bit of scrap paper to do the basic arithmetic to figure out their level.) You don't have to worry about it, the player does.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
XP is an inherent balancing factor and resource unto itself. This is why the pre-3e iterations of the game had different experience charts for each class, solving the "tiering" problem of 3e/Pathfinder. The nicer, nastier "higher tier" classes were largely equalized against each other based on the amount of experience each took to advance in class levels. It is why the older adventure modules show a level range. It's why it was okay for the classes to not be at approximate parity with each other.
I've heard this argument before, but my play experience in AD&D never bore it out. The old XP charts had weirdness in them like magic-users requiring more XP to level up when they were weakest, then advancing faster than fighters at high level.
Yeah, different characters at different experience levels and more importantly, power levels depending on if/when/how they multi-classed is a terrible idea. Thats a huge balancing act that is very difficult to manage, generally some will fall way behind or skip well ahead.
It's pretty much completely non-viable with the goal of keeping the math and bonuses in step.
Depth of capability sacrificed slightly for breadth of capability has a price.
All else being equal, missing 2 or 3 points of character-level-based omni-bonus shouldn't be the only determinant of whether or not the game is viable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... playing 'guess what level' for everyone at the table can't possibly go wrong. Fine for a house rule, I guess, but I'd be pretty irritated if it showed up officially in a rulebook.
Yeah, different characters at different experience levels and more importantly, power levels depending on if/when/how they multi-classed is a terrible idea. Thats a huge balancing act that is very difficult to manage, generally some will fall way behind or skip well ahead.
It's pretty much completely non-viable with the goal of keeping the math and bonuses in step.
Depth of capability sacrificed slightly for breadth of capability has a price.
All else being equal, missing 2 or 3 points of character-level-based omni-bonus shouldn't be the only determinant of whether or not the game is viable.
I'm unclear as to why. Though it wouldn't be the 'only' determinant, since it would impact skill masteries, a large quantity of feats and feat access, and HP as well as the 'omni-bonus.
Notably the traps blog shows that if your <skill> expert isn't an expert or master (which can only be achieved through levels), you're just... out of luck.
And since previous editions that used this type of system didn't do well at showing a price for depth vs breadth, I'm dubious there is a sacrifice being made.
XP is an inherent balancing factor and resource unto itself. This is why the pre-3e iterations of the game had different experience charts for each class, solving the "tiering" problem of 3e/Pathfinder. The nicer, nastier "higher tier" classes were largely equalized against each other based on the amount of experience each took to advance in class levels. It is why the older adventure modules show a level range. It's why it was okay for the classes to not be at approximate parity with each other.I've heard this argument before, but my play experience in AD&D never bore it out. The old XP charts had weirdness in them like magic-users requiring more XP to level up when they were weakest, then advancing faster than fighters at high level.
*looks at the XP charts*
Fighters advance at 250,000 xp per level starting at 9th level at a cost of 250,000 xp to attain 9th level.
Magic-users [Wizards] advance at 375,000 xp per level starting at 10th level once they earned the 375,000 xp to get there.
Getting those last class Hit Die was a beast pretty much across the board.
Illusionists have some true wonkiness ... but then, they are the forerunners of Specialist Wizards, with an itty bitty spell list.
Yeah... playing 'guess what level' for everyone at the table can't possibly go wrong. Fine for a house rule, I guess, but I'd be pretty irritated if it showed up officially in a rulebook.
*looks at the chart on the previous page*
How is there any possible element of guess work in this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'd rather have no multiclassing, even without multiclassing via VMC or archetypes, than AD&D multiclassing. Doesn't work with milestone leveling (one major non-starter), would be an ungodly nightmare to balance encounters for (another major nonstarter), Pretty much eliminates the whole purpose for many of the actually good design decisions of PF2e (again, major non-starter). Just a hand full of nope all around.
Honestly, I'd rather have no multiclassing, even without multiclassing via VMC or archetypes, than AD&D multiclassing. Doesn't work with milestone leveling (one major non-starter), would be an ungodly nightmare to balance encounters for (another major nonstarter), Pretty much eliminates the whole purpose for many of the actually good design decisions of PF2e (again, major non-starter). Just a hand full of nope all around.
My judgement on PF2's "good" decisions is pending the playtest documents in a few weeks, then eventually the final rules next year.
Milestone leveling is (as posted above) about a minute to figure out for multi-classed characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... playing 'guess what level' for everyone at the table can't possibly go wrong. Fine for a house rule, I guess, but I'd be pretty irritated if it showed up officially in a rulebook.*looks at the chart on the previous page*
How is there any possible element of guess work in this?
Because I've met too many people who've had to pull out a calculator to add single digit numbers.
But mostly because the DM has to add things that have both numeric DCs and skill requirements. If Bob the Thief doesn't have expert thievery yet because he's two levels behind, the party doesn't have a counter to the next trap.
And if Fred the Fighter is two levels behind that 2d10+5 damage that hits multiple times is simply going to shred him.
It isn't simply being +/- 1 or 2 points on checks. There are a whole slew of level and class based dependencies that you're just glossing over for a system that was really bad (and rather exploitable) in the first place.
Yeah... playing 'guess what level' for everyone at the table can't possibly go wrong. Fine for a house rule, I guess, but I'd be pretty irritated if it showed up officially in a rulebook.*looks at the chart on the previous page*
How is there any possible element of guess work in this?
Because I've met too many people who've had to pull out a calculator to add single digit numbers.
But mostly because the DM has to add things that have both numeric DCs and skill requirements. If Bob the Thief doesn't have expert thievery yet because he's two levels behind, the party doesn't have a counter to the next trap.
And if Fred the Fighter is two levels behind that 2d10+5 damage that hits multiple times is simply going to shred him.
It isn't simply being +/- 1 or 2 points on checks. There are a whole slew of level and class based dependencies that you're just glossing over for a system that was really bad (and rather exploitable) in the first place.
Fred won't be Fred the Fighter, he'll be Fred the Fighter-Rogue or Fred the Fighter-Rogue-Wizard. Fred the Fighter will already fall into the Scripted line of expectations. Fred the F-R and Fred the F-R-W have to pay attention a little more.
PF2 doesn't strike me as a system where the group lacking Thieving Proficiency Mastery at Y level is an absolute must-have. If it is, then that is not something that's come across ...
If having [Skill Proficiency Name at XYZ] are must exist in all parties or else, this is either a flaw or a feature in the game engine's design.