"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.Who does the math isn't really the important bit for me, I do math just fine and could do exp based leveling and party-distribute that exp based on who actually was in each encounter of the night if I honestly cared to.
The problem comes from things like "single classes level now, but multiclass don't level until... Should it be next session? Two sessions from now? Halfway through next session?" And then I have to make a major plot point where it's natural for them to have that leveling experience after their nice big encounter or major development, which means twice and more the number of major events in the game, which makes all of those moments seem less special.
Math isn't the issue, I don't level my players after they kill a lone goblin just because it was the straw that broke the levels back is the problem. :)
^____^ Well, to be fair, I like to have a more exact idea of roughly when my players' characters will attain their next level than the rather vague milestones presented in the APs. They get you close - some much closer than others - so it isn't a significant change to map out when they'll hit their levels multi-classed or otherwise.
Usually I handle level advancement at "next sleep".
I've got a streak of grognard in me, sure ... but not to the ridiculousness of paying for level advancement and all of that silliness from the old rules!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best way to fix multiclassing is to not have classes.
Make everything feats and let people pick what they want when they level.
Maybe, but that's not Pathfinder. Paizo are attempting to upgrade the game and not lose the players who preferred 3rd edition D&D to the editions that followed it.
Dropping classes is a step too far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best way to fix multiclassing is to not have classes.
Make everything feats and let people pick what they want when they level.
If there is a problem with X ability being so powerful that everyone takes it or so weak that nobody wants it, then obviously Paizo didn't balance the abilities correctly in the first place.
I'd like this sort of thing, though a friend brought up a good point that at minimum the pretense of a class is good for helping newbies or people who don't memorise the rulebook out with what they want to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think having differing XP progressions is a good idea. Class abilities should be balanced well enough that it shouldn't matter if you multiclass or even swap out a class ability you don't like for another class ability that you do like.
Agree, though with the design ethos as currently shared, I would be remarkably surprised if wonky XP came into play.
Not much point having a fixed 1000 XP per level if you're then going to go and complicate it again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm certainly pro classless rpgs, but I don't know that it's a fit for pathfinder. For Pathfinder, working within, or purposefully rebelling against, a archetypical class are some of the things that make pathfinder work for me. And PF2e solves a lot of the issues I had with PF1e where there is a mismatch between my platonic ideal of a class and the ancillary abilities ascribed to that class. There are still some places where I'd rather see the reins loosened on what is core to the class and what is optional, but if I wanted to play M&M as a fantasy game, I'd play M&M as a fantasy game (or honestly HERO, but good luck finding enough people mad as myself to get a party together)
You know, for some reason I still find M&M mildly daunting. Like, I've memorised very large swathes of Shadowrun yet I'm reluctant to poke around with M&M.
I don't think having differing XP progressions is a good idea. Class abilities should be balanced well enough that it shouldn't matter if you multiclass or even swap out a class ability you don't like for another class ability that you do like.Agree, though with the design ethos as currently shared, I would be remarkably surprised if wonky XP came into play.
Not much point having a fixed 1000 XP per level if you're then going to go and complicate it again.
This is very true.
The devil currently lay in the details that have yet to be unveiled in full. :)
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.
AD&D 1st edition magic-users required the most XP to advance at the beginning of the game, when a 1st-level magic-user might have nothing more than 3 hit points and a single casting of detect magic per day.
By 7th level, a magic-user whose power level was beginning to exceed most others in the group required less total XP to advance than a fighter (60,001 vs 70,001 to reach 7th, 90,001 vs 125,001 to reach 8th, and so on). That disparity didn't balance out until higher levels.
There may be some merit to using multiple XP tables as a balancing technique, but historically D&D and its derivatives have not done a great job of it. The XP tables used in AD&D were too wonky to convince me that they were part of some carefully-considered balance rather than the folks at TSR jut eyeballing things and taking their best guess.
The only problem I had with the old class specific xp tables was the bonus xp each class got for various activities. The half elven fighter mage thief combo ended up bypassing the usual xp penalty for multi-classing and the high xp cost for leveling mages because the rogues freakish gold based bonus xp.
I think that was a 2nd ed thing. It's been quite a while.
As to the classless idea, I don't think we're there with PF2. It would probably be a pretty easy mod though if my guess about multiclassing is right.
Even a classless system has informal classes. Names come and go, but "Tank" and "Glass Cannon" are two typical ones. Use them to describe your character, and everyone knows what you can do, where you will be going in combat and what kind of support you need. It seems even a classless system needs some simple way to describe what you do and how you do it. The genius of d&d/pf is that the classes are largely intuitive; mention that you are a fighter and people will assume that you are a tank unless you qualify your statement. say your a sorcerer and people will think "Glass cannon". wizard="Battlefield controller", cleric="Healer", etc.
So baked in are these ideas that we have to explain when we have a build that goes against the mould ("Fighter Archer" or "Fighter maneuver master" or "Blastercaster" or "Negative Energy Cleric", etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of like Hybrid Multiclassing from 4e (this is also how 13th Age does multiclassing) where you can only have 2 classes but your advancement table becomes a combination of both tables based on a given formula, so you get key features from both classes but generally later than you would have otherwise.
I like the names for classes, but I end up using the role names over the class names. More so with newer classes where some of my players don't really know what they do. Ranged, heavy, support, skilled, are my go-to class names. If the class names disappeared, it wouldn't change much.
The game would feel different though, so I'd prefer the names to stay in the game in some form. If multi-classing works like archetypes, then you don't lose the titles of the classes and you'd be free to move some of the standard classes up to prestige classes, like the magus or cavalier.
I'm curious how class abilities stack up to feats overall. Would you be better off trading out your class abilities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do we know: at this point, nothing. Others may know more.
What we know:
1) Everyone uses a single table when leveling up, even multiclassed characters.2) Characters who take an archetype have to advance into an archetype with X number of feats before they can take a second archetype.
3) Prestige classes no longer exist. They are now Prestige Archetypes.
Now point 2 might seem irrelevant. But I expect that multiclassing will be just as restrictive, if not moreso, than archetypes. It would be extremely surprising if multiclassing was less restrictive then archetypes.
The significance of point 3 is even more speculative. But if prestige classes have been converted to "archetypes" in the new edition, it would indicate that multiclassing could very well have been converted in a similar manner.
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.
1) Spell points. 2) General feats or special multiclassing feats. It can work the feat way. It's wholly unsatisfying, but it does "work".
In my eyes it could easily work well as a bit of a cross between VMC and the way 5e works. And also kind of like prestige and archetype feats. I don't think we will have traditional multiclassing.
We know that multiclassing references a single table, like 5e does if I'm not mistaken. (books are on loan)
We know that most class features are mostly tied behind class feats now. Almost everything but a few more iconic features of that class, like spellcasting, and proficiencies. Sneak attack.
But we don't know 100% what might be available in feats. Additional Sneak Attack? Additional Spellcasting?
And they said that multiclassing won't be near as punitive now. Even for spellcasters. So I think that multiclassing spellcasters will possibly work like 5e multiclassing casters. Maybe not. But it would be an easy way to keep track of spells per day like in 5e.
It also looks like maybe feats will be how Ranger and Paladin get their casting? I'm not sure, but it could be how other people get casting too, possibly any class. Mark Seifter has said that you could easily make a Bloodrager in core with the Barbarian, and in the blog for Barbarian, they mentioned that their Barbarian was their primary healer in one game. I think that anybody can feat into spells, and probably other class features. Possibly as well as the respective base class.
So I think that like prestige/archetype feats, there will be an opening feat into each class, which gives you some of their basic abilities, or a scaled down version of their class abilities. From there, you can freely pick class feats from either class, but you can't switch to a third class until you have a certain amount of feats in your secondary class.
So. I think any character can take the opening multiclass feat or two to get some basic or scaled back version of main class features, and I think that from that point on you can freely take class feats from said class. I think that that means that anybody can pick up spellcasting from a feat or two. Anybody can pick up sneak attack. But you have to be vaguely committed to that, because you can't as a Fighter pick up spellcasting and then immediately pick up Sneak Attack.
I think that as long as the opening feat to a class doesn't suck, it should resolve the problems that VMC had, because just like the base class, you pick your class features after that.
So long as alignment and code of conduct allows, I could see things like a Rogue taking a feat to get some minor, or even major, Cleric casting. Maybe not with the same proficiencies, but they would get spell casting as a Cleric. From that point forward, they might pick up Extra Domain to gain a Domain. And then Extended Domain to gain the later power. Extra Domain again. Maybe Turn Undead.
I don't think that it will give proficiencies so much as the more flavorful class abilities. Proficiencies you might have to manually add.
I'm looking forward to finding out how it goes.
That sounds quite promising, Gabby. Thanks!
I'm against any form of multiclassing that doesn't let me not progress my first class.
I'm against any form of multiclassing that doesn't let me not progress my first class.
You know what, I get that too. Maybe there's some sort of way. Or maybe it doesn't matter, because only basic proficiencies increase in this manner anyways. But no. I get it. Even that would be the sort of thing you'd want to change in your multiclassing.
I'm not sure. But I think even if you start taking levels in a second class in the more traditional route, you might still be able to take feats from the first class. But I guess it's wait and see. I just can't stand the wait.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike multiclassing that does not advance your original class, but I understand that it's necessary to have to model things like "ex-Monks or Paladins who decided their former principles weren't right for them."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
As someone who does a lot of math in my daily life, options that remove a need to bust out a calculator in a game I play to help escape from said daily life are welcomed. There's enough math in the game even using milestone leveling, I'd rather a solution to multiclassing that isn't adding more.
|
I want multiclass characters to be on par with single class characters as far as staying relevant and contributing to success of the party are concerned
Ideal multiclassing IMO would add more options / more variety in abilities but not at the cost of becoming a deadweight
Some of the greatest fun I had in RPG was with a homebrew system that allowed your character to be good at two distinct fields
PF2 classes already allow for diversity within a class. I hope for a mutliclass system that allows this between classes
My 2 cents...
I agree with the likes of Fuzzy-Wuzzy (feline avatars for life!) that the shift away from front loaded class features suggests a more traditional approach to multi-classing.
There is clearly overlap with feats, that it may be unnecessary to multi-class to achieve a particular concept in the same way it was required in the past.
Given the overlap we've seen thus far with feats, I think it unlikely that feat based multi-classing will be the approach. If you already have to blow feats slots on things like archetypes to get the kind of character your after, diluting it further for multi-classing would limit versatility. That said, the amount of unchained material that has crept in does make this a possibility as VMC.
On the topic of archetypes, I'm wondering if you have to take a certain number of levels in a class before being able to pick up a 3rd or 4th class to further discourage dipping.
What do we know: at this point, nothing. Others may know more.What we know:
1) Everyone uses a single table when leveling up, even multiclassed characters.
That's what I assumed, but it's good to know.
2) Characters who take an archetype have to advance into an archetype with X number of feats before they can take a second archetype.
3) Prestige classes no longer exist. They are now Prestige Archetypes.Now point 2 might seem irrelevant. But I expect that multiclassing will be just as restrictive, if not moreso, than archetypes. It would be extremely surprising if multiclassing was less restrictive then archetypes.
The significance of point 3 is even more speculative. But if prestige classes have been converted to "archetypes" in the new edition, it would indicate that multiclassing could very well have been converted in a similar manner.
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.1) Spell points. 2) General feats or special multiclassing feats. It can work the feat way. It's wholly unsatisfying, but it does "work".
I agree. It can work, but it's unsatisfying.
And they said that multiclassing won't be near as punitive now. Even for spellcasters. So I think that multiclassing spellcasters will possibly work like 5e multiclassing casters. Maybe not. But it would be an easy way to keep track of spells per day like in 5e.So I think that like prestige/archetype feats, there will be an opening feat into each class, which gives you some of their basic abilities, or a scaled down version of their class abilities. From there, you can freely pick class feats from either class, but you can't switch to a third class until you have a certain amount of feats in your secondary class.
So. I think any character can take the opening multiclass feat or two to get some basic or scaled back version of main class features, and I think that from that point on you can freely take class feats from said class. I think that that means that anybody can pick up spellcasting from a feat or two. Anybody can...
That's pretty much how I see it working. You pay a class feat to get a special multiclass feat, giving the base features of the new class. Since Base features of a class scale with [I]character level[/], not class level (I am speculating) you continue to scale your base features in your old and new class, and extend them via any class feats you pick up.
Not sure if class feats from either class would be permitted, but it would make things easier (am I going up as a wizard or a fighter? which class feat list do I pick from?) and two feats from each class must be picked before multiclassing again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking through the wizard preview, I found this bit of information:
As a wizard goes up in level, they gain more spells that they can cast (either one extra spell of their highest level, or two of a new level) and their proficiency at spellcasting also increases. They start as trained, but rise to the rank of legendary at 19th level.
This suggests that level matters for some things (like getting new spells), So I don't think we will be getting away from the traditional Fighter x/Wizard x. The way I see this working is, say you are a 5th level fighter and at the next level you take a level of wizard. You get spell slots as a 6th level character, but spells known as a 1st level wizard. Your cantrips are automatically raised to 3rd level, and your 1st level spells can be heightened and cast as 3rd level spells (so e.g. Magic Missile could do I think 9 Missiles?). This means that some spells (e.g. Mage Armor and Shield) are raised to relevance at level, but you won't have access to the sexier spells that a 6th level wizard would have (e.g. haste or Fireball). This would provide balance while still making the character relevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well If wizard spells DC continue to improves by character level instead of class level I don't think multi-classing is going to hurt them AS much as it used to. I feel like before at higher levels noone is going to fail vrs your 1st level spells. that seems to change. So leveling in wizard gets you more spells and more versatility with them but I think with the way its working you might be able to get away with a level of wizard throw your one or 2 spells out there and get some reward for your 1 level of wizard. Likewise say your other levels were fighter at least your to hit bonus won't suffer greatly from that level of wizard.
I'm with Vidmaster7.
Multiclassing must come with a Trade-off.
A fighterX/sorcererY (X>Y) will be delayed in weapon proficiencies, probably armor and save proficiencies. But if he'll get cantrips and spells and bloodline powers that have scaling DC's with character level (but a not as high ability score) that should be a good trade.
The reverse character (Y>X) will be delayed in spell proficiencies, spell levels and probably save proficiencies. His spell DC's and bloodline powers still scale, and he'd gain weapon and armor proficiencies.
I'm with Vidmaster7.
Multiclassing must come with a Trade-off.
A fighterX/sorcererY (X>Y) will be delayed in weapon proficiencies, probably armor and save proficiencies. But if he'll get cantrips and spells and bloodline powers that have scaling DC's with character level (but a not as high ability score) that should be a good trade.
The reverse character (Y>X) will be delayed in spell proficiencies, spell levels and probably save proficiencies. His spell DC's and bloodline powers still scale, and he'd gain weapon and armor proficiencies.
Yelp and with attributes being spread out a bit more it might not be as bad moving into a drastically different class like from fighter to sorcerer.
I'm with Vidmaster7.
Multiclassing must come with a Trade-off.
Agreed. A lot depends on how powerful class feats are, but with traditional class abilities now often defined as class feats (like familiars, wildshaping, animal companions), I'd say very; which means that the trade-off is that you can't access new feats in your old class, just like a wizard can't get new spells unless he levels up. Then too, some class abilities don't kick in until a certain level and if you haven't reached that level you won't get those abilities. These will mean that you will fall behind vs. a pure class, made up for by other abilities from your new class.
A fighterX/sorcererY (X>Y) will be delayed in weapon proficiencies, probably armor and save proficiencies. But if he'll get cantrips and spells and bloodline powers that have scaling DC's with character level (but a not as high ability score) that should be a good trade.
The reverse character (Y>X) will be delayed in spell proficiencies, spell levels and probably save proficiencies. His spell DC's and bloodline powers still scale, and he'd gain weapon and armor proficiencies.
Not so sure on this. How would you define when proficiencies increase? what if (for the sake of argument) I multi-classed from a wizard to a sorcerer. Both (presumably) get increases in spell proficiency, but if you add them together you can easily get legendary long before a pure class, whereas if you take the highest you fall so far behind a pure caster that it makes the character unusable. The only way to keep on track is if I get proficiency as if were a pure class, though that seems a little too powerful. If some of the proficiency increase is controlled by class feats, however, I am giving up access to some (but not all) of my proficiency increase for greater versatility.
Just because I multi-class, I should not be forced to make do with Master proficiencies everywhere while pures have legendary; proficiency really matters in pf2 and is more important than dcs (though they also contribute to dcs). Some reduction in some of my classes proficiencies is acceptable, but I'd like to think that I would be able to get legendary something as a multi-class. I would accept that I would forfeit some cool abilities (read: class feats), but not all my proficiency. Many times the reason to take the class is to gain proficiency, if you don't gain enough, what's the point?
I kind of wonder if you would get mastery in wizard and mastery in sorcerer spells. so they would be separate in that case. But I suppose you could alleviate this by allowing the classes to still take legendary as a feat just require a certain character level.
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.
To me, archetypes only become a replacement for multiclassing when the game provides a way for players to build their own classes/archetypes. Otherwise, players will always end up trying to fulfill their character conceptions by walking a line between published classes/archetypes.
...
Not so sure on this. How would you define when proficiencies increase? what if (for the sake of argument) I multi-classed from a wizard to a sorcerer. Both (presumably) get increases in spell proficiency, but if you add them together you can easily get legendary long before a pure class, whereas if you take the highest you fall so far behind a pure caster that it makes the character unusable. The only way to keep on track is if I get proficiency as if were a pure class, though that seems a little too powerful. If some of the proficiency increase is controlled by class feats, however, I am giving up access to some (but not all) of my proficiency increase for greater versatility.Just because I multi-class, I should not be forced to make do with Master proficiencies everywhere while pures have legendary; proficiency really matters in pf2 and is more important than dcs (though they also contribute to dcs). Some reduction in some of my classes proficiencies is acceptable, but I'd like to think that I would be able to get legendary something as a multi-class. I would accept that I would forfeit some cool abilities (read: class feats), but not all my proficiency. Many times the reason to take the class is to gain proficiency, if you don't gain enough, what's the point?
I guess that also depends on whether you are multiclassing evenly or not.
I can see a fighter 10/sorcerer 10 not having legendary weapon proficiencies, and not having legendary spellcasting.
A Fighter 15/sorcerer 5 though has his legendary weapon prof like any fighter 13 seems to have, so it just depends how early he's taking the sorcerer levels. If it's a 3/1 all the way, he'd gain it at 17th (F13/S4).
But yeah, the stacking of proficiencies is a serious issue.
I guess Its going to depend on how well the options are going to work together If the combination of arcane and martial some how makes you just as strong as a character that just went single class and got legendary. In other words is say master in bot arcane and martial as good as legendary in one.
The best way to fix multiclassing is to not have classes.Maybe, but that's not Pathfinder. Paizo are attempting to upgrade the game and not lose the players who preferred 3rd edition D&D to the editions that followed it.
Dropping classes is a step too far.
Perhaps. To me, it looks like they're already going too far. Going classless, or having a way to build your own class, might be a saving grace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of wonder if you would get mastery in wizard and mastery in sorcerer spells. so they would be separate in that case. But I suppose you could alleviate this by allowing the classes to still take legendary as a feat just require a certain character level.
Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it happening. I doubt if the two are separate (they are essentially the same thing), and I have wondered if they are tied to the new knowledge skills (one for each type of magic), being at master while pures are at legendary would be acceptable if I could get access to legendary later, but it would still hurt.
I was just thinking about this. In pf1, BAB went form +0 (first level non-martials) to +20 (20th level Martials), a range of 21. In pf2, we have profiency, which isn't exactly analogous, but it ranges from untrained (-2) to legendary (+3), a range of 5. An increase in profiency is roughly analogous to +4BAB, which is 4 levels of martial. I can accept being the equivalent of 4 levels behind in one class (possibly even both), but not 8 levels if I have made a significant investment in that class, that would make that investment worthless.
Of course, the analogy is not exact. Much of the point of the proficiency system is to ensure that the maths isn't hugely different between best and worst, so proficiency is probably nearer to 2 levels, but the power of your character comes from having access to better feats and abilities with higher proficiency, so falling too far behind does seriously nerf your power, so there needs to be a trade-off.
I think the devs have been thinking about this for some time, so it wouldn't surprise me if the whole system has been developed with multi-classing in mind from the ground up. Nobody wants an overpowered behemoth, but everybody wants a viable character. It's how I would do it.
Okay, I don't have a lot of details about what exactly I would want and whether I see it as possible, likely, unlikely and whatnot, BUT
I really would like TRUE multiclassing. Like, see that girl? Her name's Ameiko Kaijitsu, she's an aristocrat1/bard3/rogue1 (old stats, but you get my drift).
So, I want to be able to choose which class I gain a level in every time I level up, essentially.
Now, that appears to leave some classes in the cold - spellcasters traditionally DON'T WANT to multiclass, because they'll miss out on higher level slots and spells.
I'm not sure... I don't see it as a huge loss, as long as other classes are worth it. If your sorcerer misses out on extra 3rd level slots but can take a level in fighter and be able to use martial weapons, heavy armors, AoOs, and a big fat d10 extra hp (or whatever the equivalent will be in 2e) I call it a win. (Oh, of course in the old system your save DC got left behind and everybody saved against your spells - but this time, as long as you're trained, you keep adding your level, so even if you don't get to shift from expert to master, eh, just 1 point...?).
I don't want it to be the min-maxer option, necessarily. I don't really care if a player gearing for optimization finds dipping in various classes useful, it's okay I guess, what *I really care about* is that, for thematic purposes, I can multiclass in what would fit my character and *not be left at a disadvantage* for that.
I run games, so the priority isn't even my npcs as much as the possibility for my players to mix and match to their hearts' content. In 5e that's often not really a good idea because you miss out on bonuses tied to each single class' advancement called ASIs, Ability Score Improvements - each class gets them at different levels, in different quantities. They also, importantly, can be traded off for feats, which are almost always a better option if your DM uses them (I do of course, everyone does). It seems to me that PF, with a unified advancement table, isn't prone to this problem - as far as I'm understanding what's going on.
Of course I would *love* to be able to create multiclass npcs. The more a character can be customized to fit a particular concept, the better, imo. Not to the extent of M&M, which I've seen mentioned - that's a little too complex for me, at least at first and second blush, although I might be interested in giving it another whirl considering it's always a d20 system, so it's much more familiar to me than most other games. But PF has the big advantages that 1) this edition looks far simpler and yet with very customizable characters and in-depth, tactical combat, and 2) you already have all the work done for you (you don't have to point-build your ancestry and background and class and spells from scratch, the tropes are already there with appropriate mechanics, you just pick from a number of options at every level).
So... what balance problems remain if we just get to pick which class we level up? What disadvantages are there? I'm sure there's *something*, but I'm not good enough a number-cruncher (like at all) to understand the implications.
Oh, and what is likely. God, I dearly hope Paizo gives us a system more or less like this, but... I can see they would want to implement something like VMC, or archetypes, or I dunno.
I wouldn't hate archetypes for multiclassing... but it restricts options. Because you might still want an archetype for your class, like, say, pirate (really!) or duelist or god knows what, and in that case archetypes and multiclassing occupy the same feat slots, so you're limited. Not a huge problem... Still. Something to consider.
I also dearly hope PF doesn't follow 4e's lead regarding multiclassing. The early mechanics were simply ridiculous (you call *that* multiclassing) while the later ones stuck you into a hybrid dual class version of the 2 classes you chose at the start... Ugh! No thanks!
It would be awesome to be free to choose a new class each level. Hey, sure, maybe not entirely scott-free if that's unbalancing. But I'd really like for my friends to start off in a class, see if they like it, and if they're still uncertain after a couple levels, or wanna try something different, or have this amazing idea for an unexpected development, BAM, your next level is something else!
...
... make it so, please...
It's easy to jump to the conclusion that VMC style multiclassing might be on the horizon since everything PF2e is "feats feats feats", but if you unpack it a bit I don't think that's particularly likely.
The system Gabby the Ferocious outlined seems far more likely, based on the stated goals of PF2e. Flexibility and choice are supposed to be the theme.
VMC locked in certain class features at the cost of an unchanging number of feats, and doled them out at specific character levels.
A system where you gain access to other class's class feats and can take as many or as few as you like at your own pace is so much better than VMC that there is scarcely any comparing the two.
I just hope there is a way to relatively painlessly dip for certain abilities. I'm hoping there isn't a "main" class type mechanic, because it would be a shame to not be able to start as one class then focus on another for the rest.
I also hope you can multiclass without limit. If it's locked to one or two classes, then I'll be pretty unhappy unless archetypes really pick up the slack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it Multiclassing will work.
You have a level 14 human who is 10 level fighter and 4 levels rougue. you level up to 15 and decide to take another level in rogue. Now you qualify for another class feat. You can ethier choose to take any feat a level 5 rogue can or you could take anything a level 10 fighter can. I doubt there will be way to gain both at the same time, your just going to be able to pick and choose what you want between however many classes you choose to take.
I also don't see it being possible to trade out general or skill feats for more class feats. Pazio seems to be treating these feat types as different currencies and dont think you will be able to trade out as you like between them, if you could I see you running into the skill feats will never get picked conundrum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of wonder if you would get mastery in wizard and mastery in sorcerer spells. so they would be separate in that case. But I suppose you could alleviate this by allowing the classes to still take legendary as a feat just require a certain character level.
Looking at the sorcerer preview, it looks like your proficiency may be tied to the four schools of magic rather than class based casting. It could be possible to have two classes working from the same proficiency at the cost of not expanding your spell list.
I'd like this sort of thing, though a friend brought up a good point that at minimum the pretense of a class is good for helping newbies or people who don't memorise the rulebook out with what they want to do.The best way to fix multiclassing is to not have classes.
Make everything feats and let people pick what they want when they level.
If there is a problem with X ability being so powerful that everyone takes it or so weak that nobody wants it, then obviously Paizo didn't balance the abilities correctly in the first place.
There are many good reasons I've seen for having classes. Not a single one of them would fail to work for a classless system that has themed sets of prepicked choices.
=========
In any case, my preference for multiclassing, is to use xp as spendable currency, and if done right (as I'll describe below) you can still maintain that "easy to see how much to go to reach next level" thing someone upthread said they wanted.
Take a table if costs for levels, but make entry the cost from one level to the next, not total cost.
Then, gaining a level costs as much xp as on that chart for that lvl if the class plus how many other classes one has.
I.E. a 2nd lvl ftr wants to pick up a level of rogue. The 1st lvl of rogue costs the same as gaining second level, because lvl 1 plus 1 other class. Then, once the ftr2/rog1 wants to get 3rd lvl of fighter, it now costs lvl 4, 3rd lvl plus 1 other class.
That makes even a dip very expensive if you want to reach the highest levels, but yet multiclassing remains viable, even for mixes of 3 or 4 classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what I don't get, because I'm an ass, is: why penalize multiclassing, actually? I mean, what's that multiclass characters gain that we must rein 'em in?
No seriously, I don't know. I don't get it. Because they're more versatile? Shitty reason imo. B/c they can dip? Bah. Maybe. But casters still sacrifice a lot to multiclass. And even non casters are trading the cool stuff in the higher levels for... cool stuff in other classes, but it's not exactly optimal, most of the times.
I must be wrong of course, b/c it appears multiclassing must have a cost. Everyone says so. So what am I missing?
PF1 currently has four types of multiclassing: Level based (taking a level in a new class instead of your primary class when you gain a level), archetype based (for example, the Viking archetype lets a fighter rage like a barbarian), feat based (Eldritch Heritage, Amateur Gunslinger, etc.), and Variant Multiclassing (per Pathfinder Unchained).
So far, the only form of multiclassing that I know of for PF2 consists of archetype based feat chains. Have any other forms of multiclassing been either described or precluded yet?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what I don't get, because I'm an ass, is: why penalize multiclassing, actually? I mean, what's that multiclass characters gain that we must rein 'em in?
No seriously, I don't know. I don't get it. Because they're more versatile? S*%&ty reason imo. B/c they can dip? Bah. Maybe. But casters still sacrifice a lot to multiclass. And even non casters are trading the cool stuff in the higher levels for... cool stuff in other classes, but it's not exactly optimal, most of the times.
I must be wrong of course, b/c it appears multiclassing must have a cost. Everyone says so. So what am I missing?
You're not seeing the need for the cost because the cost is already built in to the multiclassing model(s) you're used to.
The crucial thing is that a double-classed Nth-level fighter/wizard must not be equivalent to an Nth-level fighter plus an Nth-level wizard all rolled up in one smirking package w/o compensatory disadvantages. Because then it's mechanically stupid to play a single-classed character, and that sucks.
"But that's not how multiclassing works! The fighter/wizard has to split their levels!" Now, yes. In 1st & 2nd ed AD&D a fighter/magic-user would just split their XP between their two classes and be at whatever level that put them at. Since the XP progression was typically factors of two for quite a few levels, they ended up being about one level lower (in each of their classes) than they would have been with the same XP single-classed. Since character power did not double every level, this made multi-classing hideously attractive. That is, it had a cost, but not enough of one.
(They tried to make up for this by restricting multi-classing based on race and restricting how high a given race could go in a given class, and let's just say it didn't work well.)
Enter 3/3.5 ed, instead of splitting XP the fighter/wizard splits their levels. Now that's a serious cost! Especially for the caster, who not only loses high-level spells but also casts the ones they've got at a lower CL. Which turns out to be too high a cost for many people to stomach.
So Pathfinder Unchained experimented with VMC. Keep your full levels in your main class, get a taste of a second class whose powers function at your full level. Of course, there had to be a price, or it would become mechanically stupid not to VMC. So it costs half your feats. This is kinda cool and seems balanced, but is very limited in terms of what multi-classed character concepts it can implement.
PF2 seems likely to be experimenting further. The only thing we know for sure they won't do is say that you can add extra classes to your character w/o affecting any of their abilities, because, again, it would become stupid to single-class. So there has to be a cost, old or new.
Hope that helps.
But what I don't get, because I'm an ass, is: why penalize multiclassing, actually? I mean, what's that multiclass characters gain that we must rein 'em in?
No seriously, I don't know. I don't get it. Because they're more versatile? S*%&ty reason imo. B/c they can dip? Bah. Maybe. But casters still sacrifice a lot to multiclass. And even non casters are trading the cool stuff in the higher levels for... cool stuff in other classes, but it's not exactly optimal, most of the times.
I must be wrong of course, b/c it appears multiclassing must have a cost. Everyone says so. So what am I missing?
You're not seeing the need for the cost because the cost is already built in to the multiclassing model(s) you're used to.
The crucial thing is that a double-classed Nth-level fighter/wizard must not be equivalent to an Nth-level fighter plus an Nth-level wizard all rolled up in one smirking package w/o compensatory disadvantages. Because then it's mechanically stupid to play a single-classed character, and that sucks.
"But that's not how multiclassing works! The fighter/wizard has to split their levels!" Now, yes. In 1st & 2nd ed AD&D a fighter/magic-user would just split their XP between their two classes and be at whatever level that put them at. Since the XP progression was typically factors of two for quite a few levels, they ended up being about one level lower (in each of their classes) than they would have been with the same XP single-classed. Since character power did not double every level, this made multi-classing hideously attractive. That is, it had a cost, but not enough of one.
(They tried to make up for this by restricting multi-classing based on race and restricting how high a given race could go in a given class, and let's just say it didn't work well.)
Enter 3/3.5 ed, instead of splitting XP the fighter/wizard splits their levels. Now that's a serious cost! Especially for the caster, who not only loses high-level...
It does help, Fuzzy. I did know about the pre-3.5 multiclassing rules (I've read some of those old books many years ago) - but since in 3.5 multiclassing was almost okay, and PF (except for Unchained VMC) is 95% similar, I was wondering why that model couldn't work.
But you say the caster problem is too high a cost... mmm. I wonder whether, if Paizo fixed that, we could multiclass again as in 3.5/PF1. Like, 2, 3 classes, to our heart's content.
If casters still progress in their save DC, according to character level instead of class level... but don't get any new spells, because they're advancing in another class after all... would that work? Or would it still be too high a cost?
Anyway... a halfling can only multiclass as a thief and fighter... heh. I'm not too sorry I was born at the end of the '80s...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like this sort of thing, though a friend brought up a good point that at minimum the pretense of a class is good for helping newbies or people who don't memorise the rulebook out with what they want to do.The best way to fix multiclassing is to not have classes.
Make everything feats and let people pick what they want when they level.
If there is a problem with X ability being so powerful that everyone takes it or so weak that nobody wants it, then obviously Paizo didn't balance the abilities correctly in the first place.
There are many good reasons I've seen for having classes. Not a single one of them would fail to work for a classless system that has themed sets of prepicked choices.
=========
In any case, my preference for multiclassing, is to use xp as spendable currency, and if done right (as I'll describe below) you can still maintain that "easy to see how much to go to reach next level" thing someone upthread said they wanted.
Take a table if costs for levels, but make entry the cost from one level to the next, not total cost.
Then, gaining a level costs as much xp as on that chart for that lvl if the class plus how many other classes one has.
I.E. a 2nd lvl ftr wants to pick up a level of rogue. The 1st lvl of rogue costs the same as gaining second level, because lvl 1 plus 1 other class. Then, once the ftr2/rog1 wants to get 3rd lvl of fighter, it now costs lvl 4, 3rd lvl plus 1 other class.
That makes even a dip very expensive if you want to reach the highest levels, but yet multiclassing remains viable, even for mixes of 3 or 4 classes.
The experience leveling system has been simplified for PF2. Its clear XP use is going by the wayside. Honestly, I believe it's in PF2 just for nostalgia's sake. So I wouldnt expect anything like XP cost to affect multi-classing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you say the caster problem is too high a cost... mmm. I wonder whether, if Paizo fixed that, we could multiclass again as in 3.5/PF1. Like, 2, 3 classes, to our heart's content.
If casters still progress in their save DC, according to character level instead of class level... but don't get any new spells, because they're advancing in another class after all... would that work? Or would it still be too high a cost?
I strongly suspect PF2 goes in that direction in some heavily generalized manner---some things going as character level, some things becoming flat, little if anything going by class level, and taking as many classes as you want. I think that's part of why they changed spell duration/range/etc to not be CL-dependent. I presume they considered going the other way with spell parameters (from CL-based to char-level-based instead of flat); at a guess they found it too powerful, it'd be interesting to know for sure....
Some concepts are not well expressed by acquiring levels.
In 3e/Pathfinder1, these concepts are generally templates. For monsters and NPCs the XP cost is paid on the back end, increasing CR by a little, some or a lot. They've already done the [stuff] to get the [template].
One example: Lichdom as we are presently accustomed to it is going to be really tricky to shoehorn into a single general feat taken at 11th level or later. Could this be handled by an "ancestry + ancestry feats swap" mechanism? Maybe ... other than that over the decades of liches of various sorts existing throughout the history of the game the single universal constant is that the specific process undertaken to become a lich is unique to each creature. Liches especially among the ranks of the undead should have the opportunity with the new edition to be as unique as the creature they were when mortal.
Maybe XP remains another currency, one that has value as what is "bought" with experience points is most commonly character level advancement. One could also "buy" templates (such as lichdom, becoming a free-willed vampire, fully embracing one's heavenly ancestry).
If, for example, a PC becomes a Lich by way of "paying experience points" in a flat-per-level-XP-cost system we'll already know what level-equivalence they have in concrete terms - that of the sum of XP earned and spent. Or, XP "costs" are a concrete version of ECL / monsters as PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly suspect PF2 goes in that direction in some heavily generalized manner---some things going as character level, some things becoming flat, little if anything going by class level, and taking as many classes as you want. I think that's part of why they changed spell duration/range/etc to not be CL-dependent. I presume they considered going the other way with spell parameters (from CL-based to char-level-based instead of flat); at a guess they found it too powerful, it'd be interesting to know for sure....But you say the caster problem is too high a cost... mmm. I wonder whether, if Paizo fixed that, we could multiclass again as in 3.5/PF1. Like, 2, 3 classes, to our heart's content.
If casters still progress in their save DC, according to character level instead of class level... but don't get any new spells, because they're advancing in another class after all... would that work? Or would it still be too high a cost?
I really, REALLY hope you're right...