Just to defend my profession, we mechanic engineers are broad area generalists with some specializations here and there :)
I'm writing from the perspective of an electrical engineer what's also done basic electrical installation/repair: I didn't find my ability as an engineer improved by basic electrical work. I'm not disparaging engineers in the least, just disagreeing on the backwards compatibility of less complicated work in terms of improving the quality and performance of more intricate and complicated work of the same discipline.
It's much the same as practicing basic addition and subtraction isn't a substantial boon to your theoretical physics theorem. I don't see how basic car repair equates to improvement in avionics, astrodynamics, rocket propulsion, computational fluid dynamics or hydroacoustics and it's not like you find electric or ion propulsion in a land vehicle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really understand this at all.
What's integral and important varies from person to person. I, for example can't understand how someone could like burn but I accept that they do. Multiclassing isn't a dealbreaker for me, but I have several things that are.
|
This just killed my interest in PF2, if it survives the playtest.I don't really understand this at all. One feature, no matter how much I dislike it, shouldn't be enough to completely kill my interest in the game. Like if Paizo were to devote a whole chapter in the CRB to personally insulting me in great detail and at length, that wouldn't kill my interest, though I would question why this is a valid use of space.
Like the number of multiclassed PF1 characters I've played can be counted on one hand. Multiclassing isn't *that* important.
To me multiclass is also a very important core aspect of the game.
Its on the level of bonded acuracy, or saving throws... a main aspect of the game.
But... but PF doesn't have bounded accuracy?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But... but PF doesn't have bounded accuracy?This just killed my interest in PF2, if it survives the playtest.I don't really understand this at all. One feature, no matter how much I dislike it, shouldn't be enough to completely kill my interest in the game. Like if Paizo were to devote a whole chapter in the CRB to personally insulting me in great detail and at length, that wouldn't kill my interest, though I would question why this is a valid use of space.
Like the number of multiclassed PF1 characters I've played can be counted on one hand. Multiclassing isn't *that* important.
To me multiclass is also a very important core aspect of the game.
Its on the level of bonded acuracy, or saving throws... a main aspect of the game.
Exactly, and thats one aspect of the game. So if it gets, i can understand why many people would not like (i would prefer it to have, but its my opinion). All the same i think multiclass and how it is handled is a main aspect of the game system and can draw or repulse players varying by taste.
How 4ed handled multiclass was the third worst thing i hated most.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This just killed my interest in PF2, if it survives the playtest.I don't really understand this at all. One feature, no matter how much I dislike it, shouldn't be enough to completely kill my interest in the game. Like if Paizo were to devote a whole chapter in the CRB to personally insulting me in great detail and at length, that wouldn't kill my interest, though I would question why this is a valid use of space.
Like the number of multiclassed PF1 characters I've played can be counted on one hand. Multiclassing isn't *that* important.
The number of single classed characters I've played with more than 1 lvl, could be counted on one hand. Most of them are pregens.
Generally, I hate classes because I can almost never create a character that fits my concept with only one class.
@RafaelBraga
I thought at first you meant to disallow those below the minimum.
But if just penalties, don't make them penalties.
For an example why, look at WoW and when they first started the rest xp bonus thing.
At first, they started with a penalty. Everyone hated it. Then they flipped it, keeping the math and outcome the same, they simply switched to having a bonus instead, by setting the norm to be what the penalty would have resulted in, then adding a bonus equal to the original penalty that applied whenever the penalty would not apply.
Everyone loved it and yet the result is the same.
The same effect was found in the medical field.
Present a patientwith two options,
A) 3% chance of dying
B) 97% chance of survivingOverwhelmingly people chose B over A even though they have the same result.
Maybe its just me, cause i understand very well the principle youre using and its impact in psychology, but i prefer game system where classes, traits, perks, and so on, lessen a penalty instead of giving a bonus, cause lessing a penalty to me sounds like you still can do the other action and that action maybe better sometimes, then when you give a bonus, seems like youre better doing this "everytime".
A practical example:
Lets say youre playing a x-com like game and you have a soldier armer with assault rifle. The soldier isnt very trained and have the options of shotting a single shot, o fire 2 shot in automatic mode at -20.
You may design a feat and say that you have +10 to hit when firing in automatic mode, i am very ok with that, cause it is the same as designing a feat saying that you have only -10 when firing in automatic mode.
Now lets say that untrained you can only fire single shots, and a feat allows you to fire automatic mode for 2 shots without penalty. Ammunitions problem aside, you will ALWYAS want to fire automatic mode, and youre plain better in everyway to someone that doesnt have that feat. Thats a bad system...
You're not understanding,
Try this version of your example,
A)
Single shot +0 vs 100
Multishot -20 vs 100
B)
Single shot +20 vs 120
Multishot +0 vs 120
(Obviously, the enemy defense is adjusted to match for the same result chances as A)
This is the sort of inversion I'm talking about. A has a penalty but no bonus, B has a bonus but no penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, bounded accuracy is a gamist bandaid for when your other mechanics, or game expectations, cause problems.
Fix the base mechanics and game expectations, then you won't need bounded accuracy.
So I obviously understand wanting to multiclass in a level based manner, but I don’t agree that it’s the best way to go about things. From a game OR story point of view.
From a story perspective, even if you decide that you’re quitting one class to do another, rather than blending the two, you’re eventually barely going to have any use for your original abilities. Like, they’re there, and they’ll help, but honestly they’re not completely necessary. If you move jobs over from being a fry-cook to being a brain surgeon, eventually you should really just refrain out of fry-cook and into straight brain surgeon. If you’re doing more of a blend, like from Waitress to Hostess, your proficiencies and abilities from one will likely be useful in the other. No particular reason to switch over, just grab the Hostess feats.
Flavor wise, you probably won’t use your Fry-Cook abilities in the Brain Surgeon class, so you have no penalty in going straight Brain Surgeon. It makes sense story wise if you just eventually forget those abilities. No reason to be Fry-Cook 1 Brain Surgeon 19. And if the classes are similar enough, you’re not missing out on much by being Waitress and taking Hostess feats.
Game wise, it’s getting rid of a lot of our level dipping. If there’s a certain thing that you want in PF1, a level dip could get you to it. Sometimes too easily. Let’s give the example of Will Saves. If you wanted to build the highest Will Save, even with just CRB, at a quick glance, you could have a level 7 character with a higher base Will Save than a level 20 character because of how front loaded classes were. And were forced to be. They still are, even if less so.
Fighter 1 would grant you Heavy Armor Proficiency and Martial Weapon Proficiency. On top of that, you’d get an extra BAB. You’d also get a Bonus Feat.
Rogue didn’t just give you Sneak Attack, but it also gave you extra skill points, free Weapon Finesse(on an Unchained-Rogue) a lot of class skills, and some proficiencies if you somehow didn’t have them.
Proficiency is a large part of how all of this works in PF2, and it’s understandably harder and harder to justify level dips giving what they do.
So we’ve got this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't care about multiclassing as much in 2e if they didn't remove 1e style archetypes from the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't care about multiclassing as much in 2e if they didn't remove 1e style archetypes from the game.
Yep. Now a bunch of abilities are going to be class locked with no hope of getting them on another class outside the archetype type that Mark said was theoretically possible but not contemplated for the playtest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Firstly, there are a lot of problems with classes to begin with. Hence why I hate classes.
Good flexible multiclassing eases some of those problems while still suffering others, and creating a few new ones.
For the most though, vmc-like multiclassing only grabs the worst of all worlds with the singular exception of balance.
Frankly, I'm not certain why level dipping is such a problem beyond a couple minor issues (like the doubling up on the +2 for good saves) which could easily be handled in much better ways (like saying "If any of your classes marks a save as a good save, then you get a +2 bonus to that save. This bonus can only be applied once to each save.).
Frontloading abilities can often be solved by stretching things out or by using structures akjn to the Traditions in Spheres of Power.
Having some more explicit character level based resources that are across classes can also help . For example, having a stamina pool that powers magic as well as mundane feats of awesomeness.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem I have with this style of multi-classing is that it costs class feats. What if I have a cool idea for an archetype plus multi-class, that's 6 feats right there; and I haven't even got any class feats for my own class yet. The problem with hanging so much on one resource is that it gets pulled in too many directions; I'd prefer to be able to give up other resources (skill feats, ancestry feats or general feats) so that at least I could get a fair amount of class feats for my actual classes.
Then too it seems that certain options of the new class will be off the table. Again, disappointing. If I have a cool idea for combining two such features from two classes - can't be done (unless there's an archetype).
At the moment, I'm shooting the breeze, until I see the full document and playtest it, I won't know how this works in practice. I'll live with it, but I won't necessarily like it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the benefit of doing multiclassing the same way which we do archetypes and thus the same way we do prestige classes is this largely eliminates the need for stuff like the mystic theurge or arcane trickster where you're two classes mashed together as a PrC.
Instead you can just be a wizard/cleric or a Rogue/Sorcerer or whatever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While that is true, I feel unsatisfied.
It might be that the rules when presented fully make it a bit more satisfying, but I liked 'the old way' of multiclassing. Yeah, it had it's problems, but I think they could have been reduced, in the new edition.
Only so many more days till I have the book in hand.
[I'm writing from the perspective of an electrical engineer what's also done basic electrical installation/repair: I didn't find my ability as an engineer improved by basic electrical work. I'm not disparaging engineers in the least, just disagreeing on the backwards compatibility of less complicated work in terms of improving the quality and performance of more intricate and complicated work of the same discipline.
It's much the same as practicing basic addition and subtraction isn't a substantial boon to your theoretical physics theorem. I don't see how basic car repair equates to improvement in avionics, astrodynamics, rocket propulsion, computational fluid dynamics or hydroacoustics and it's not like you find electric or ion propulsion in a land vehicle.
The two examples aren’t similar to multiclassing; they’re more like making a skill check in a class that has it as a signature skill. A closer example would be an electrical engineer who switched to nuclear physicist. Would there be much overlap? I doubt there would, in truth, but it’s a closer analogue to a multiclassing split for PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm maybe we can all work something out from between now and the end of the playtest. I want classic multi-classing myself move into other class gain their stuff instead.
[I'm writing from the perspective of an electrical engineer what's also done basic electrical installation/repair: I didn't find my ability as an engineer improved by basic electrical work. I'm not disparaging engineers in the least, just disagreeing on the backwards compatibility of less complicated work in terms of improving the quality and performance of more intricate and complicated work of the same discipline.
It's much the same as practicing basic addition and subtraction isn't a substantial boon to your theoretical physics theorem. I don't see how basic car repair equates to improvement in avionics, astrodynamics, rocket propulsion, computational fluid dynamics or hydroacoustics and it's not like you find electric or ion propulsion in a land vehicle.
I agree with ENHenry, the original quote this responded to is more like what was represented in 3.x as skill synergies.
I see no reason to select only one multiclass method. I really don't. Any particular character might be limited to only one method, to avoid the confusion of mixing them, but to give a character two possible ways to multiclass seems fine to me.
I do have a draft to house-rule classic multiclassing, but I need to see the complete rules to work it out in detail.
(Also, I won't be using it during the Playtest, as to not screw with the survey data.)
I will post it in the Playtest forum, after the reset, once it's closer to final, and some kinks have been ironed out.
_________
more possible ways to multiclass: But what do you call them? Variant multiclass was mechanically not that great (except for corner-cases, I think), but it being called "Variant" was enough for some GM's to decline it.
Archetype-Multiclassing?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ugh..... So not only is archetypes in 2e unable to do the primary purpose of archetypes, I can't even have a character change from being one class to another anymore, you're locked into your advancing your first level class regardless of how illogical that is for some characters.....
Pretty sure that's what Retraining in the Core rules will be for, while Multiclassing will be for blending.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still mulling it over, but I have to say this kind of multiclassing is far better for characters that blend two classes throughout their career but seriously leaves dippers in the cold.
I think a lot of it depends on just how many feats you'll have to spend to get access to the things you want. I won't be pleased if you only get useful stuff in a second class by level 9 and you're locked out of a third class or archetype by level 12, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So rather than talk about how you all liked old multiclassing let's come up with some new builds with the new VMC style multiclassing.
I imagine that a rogue going into bard will be insane and might just be one of my first characters. I'm sure there will be some bard spells or abilities that can cause flat footed. Might even make him ranged, since I imagine the flat footed spells will be at range as well. how I imagine some turns going:
First round go first and enemies are flat footed Start performance (if you can get performance from multiclassing which might be a bit too strong) fire off two arrows for sneak attack.
Second round: cast a spell that causes flat footed condition, fire off an arrow for sneak attack.
That sounds like a pretty damn good two turns. I'm excited to see the Occult spell list to see how viable this is.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if Multiclassing is an archetype, we have also been told during the archetype preview that you can't advance in more than one archetype untill you "close" the previous one. Witch means that if you start a multiclass archetype you can't select other archetypes for your current class untill you close the multiclass, probably at the very high levels.
Ugh. this is shaping up to be even more horrible than immagined.
I'm waiting for the full rules but this is as close ad a dealbreaker i can think of.
So rather than talk about how you all liked old multiclassing let's come up with some new builds with the new VMC style multiclassing.
Given the changes to the concept of what Proficiency means; I imagine the fear is that with traditional multiclassing it would be too easy to create a Super-Novice by picking two wildly different classes (Wizard/Rogue) at 2nd level and stacking all those frontloaded proficiencies.
Something to watch out for while testing any traditional multiclassing house rules. I am considering allowing characters to adopt a new class at 5th level (and every four levels thereafter); but only under the condition they become ex-members of their previous class(es), and are prohibited from ever gaining levels in them again.
So rather than talk about how you all liked old multiclassing let's come up with some new builds with the new VMC style multiclassing.
I still want to test-build a Pirate-Wizard, but now I'll also be considering Fighter or Rogue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if Multiclassing is an archetype, we have also been told during the archetype preview that you can't advance in more than one archetype untill you "close" the previous one. Witch means that if you start a multiclass archetype you can't select other archetypes for your current class untill you close the multiclass, probably at the very high levels.
The only catch is that you cannot take another dedication feat until after you have taken a specified number of archetype feats from the first one.
You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the pirate archetype.
You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the Gray Maiden archetype.
I've managed to forget when you get class feats and the progression tables. I think it's probably one at level 1 and then every even number afterwards, but assuming every odd number after instead to hedge it wouldn't delay it by much.
So:If multiclassing is instead "three other feats" because multiclassing is a big thing, then you're still out by level 8.
Monks (as they have one of the clearer class ladders so far) get class features at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19. Which is to say, every odd number. If this is the stuff that can be taken with multiclassing, but if you have to do so on even levels, then you can be out of the required investment by level 6 (if it's the same as the archetypes, which we don't fully know but seems like a fair guess).
I'm guessing you probably can't multiclass with your Lv1 (or human granted) bonus class feat, but if you can then you're out of the mandatory section by Lv4 (or level 6 still if you have to take specific features and feats don't count, but possibly level 2 if they very much do count).
If there's no other restriction, a wizard-rogue-pirate-fighter sounds possible at least, if not optimal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, once a rogue always a rogue? And there it dies all my hype.I guess we could extend the new, extremely generous, retraining rules to include "class levels"...
But generally I feel like you sign up to play a class at level 1 because you wanted to play that class, and not a different class. So even if you want to become a magic rogue, you still wanted to be a rogue to begin with. So if you simply do not want to be a rogue anymore, why couldn't we handle this with "make a different character"?
Since "I decided I don't want to play that character anymore" was never a problem for multiclassing to solve.
I don't plan characters out, and I have literally had characters change direction mid-campaign.
For example, I had a religious halfling that was monk/sorcerer (more half and half at this point). Events happened and she switched to being a cleric as part of reaffirming her faith and seeking to be strong for others.
Edit, to me class is more about representing character, not being a thing I want to play.
I think back to the multiclassing among my characters and my friends' characters. It was never about playing a different character. Sometimes the unfolding story turned the character in a new direction. Sometimes the original class was not 100% appropriate for the character concept and eventually the character needed another class.
For example, in D&D 3.5, my daughter played a halfling rogue. Alas, the party ended up fighting lots of undead. Undead were immune to sneak attack in D&D 3.5. She loved being the stealthy character, but she needed a different form of combat. She multiclassed to barbarian.
In the same game, I played an elf cleric archer. I had chosen elf because of the racial proficiency in longbow and the Dexterity bonus. My cleric and the bard could sneak alongside the rogue, so that the rogue did not have to scout alone. The stealth became a part of my character, too. But he could not maintain the skill ranks when cross-class skills in D&D 3.5 cost two skill point per rank. He decided to embrace his elven heritage and became an arcane archer (an elf-only class in 3.5), which gave more skill points and had Hide and Move Silently as class skills. That prestige class first required a level of wizard to become arcane. Fortunately, the exact wording of the arcane archer's Imbue Arrow ability said "spells" rather than "arcane spells", so my cleric attached high-level cleric spells to his arrows rather than 1st-level wizard spells.
Pathfinder is more flexible than D&D 3.5, so its characters have less need for multiclassing to maintain the character concept. Oddly, I found multiclassing in Pathfinder necessary with NPC party members, because they arrived with a background that one class does not necessarily fit.
In my Jade Regent campaign, NPC Ameiko Kaijitsu, human aristocrat 1/bard 3/rogue(rake) 1 was supposed to join the party, helping in some parts and sidelined in other parts to avoid overshadowing the low-level PCs. The adventure path suggested that I could substitute her half-sister Amaya from the Council of Thieves adventure path. I did so, because Amaya would not need to be sidelined. She was expert 1, and her suggested 2nd level was bard. I made her 2nd level fighter instead, since the 8-player party was heavy in spellcasters. Then at the end of the 1st module, three players moved out of state, a fourth player quit upon the birth of his son, and two new players joined. The party lost its cleric but needed a healer, so Amaya discovered oracle powers for her 3rd class. I eventually archetyped oracle to support expert skills and swapped out the level of expert for another level of oracle, but she was still fighter 1/oracle 3.
In my Iron Gods campaign, the party recruited NPC Val Baine, the daughter of the lost wizard, in the search for her father. Val was just a background NPC without a class. My players suggested Savage Technologist barbarian. But I had already played her as studying wizardry under her father. This time, I mixed classes via homebrew archetype, and made her a wizard-like savage-technologist-like bloodrager. The players loved Val Baine as a bloodrager. The success of her mixed-class via archetyping shows that multiclass by level is not the only path for fitting class to background (by the way, in PF2 her Background would be Barkeep), but it required the power of GM fiat to create an appropriate archetype.
Will PF2 multiclassing have the flexibility that I want as a player and need as a GM? We will see.
I will definitely give it a try to see how it works. True multiclassing in 1e obviously didn't work very well (thus why we got an entire hardcover book to allow it).
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like people are ignoring the way easier access to retraining will fit in to the multiclassing story. If you want to have your Rogue turn into a Fighter with a little Rogue instead of making a Rogue with a little Fighter perhaps you can retrain into Fighter and take the Rogue multiclass feats instead of taking the Fighter multiclass feats.
The system seems to keep you from doing two things.
1) Dipping to pick up an overly strong low level ability in some random class. This seems fine to me, it's a balance thing.
2) Splitting your character in two, so you hit level 20 with the abilities of two level 10 characters. I'm also fine with this, because that's often a recipe for a high level character who's far weaker than expected.
Other uses of multiclassing that I've seen in practice feel like they'll work just fine with the right combination of Multiclass Archetypes and retraining.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking forward to experimenting with class combinations you just wouldn't do in PF1 because of the power hit. I think this opens up a lot.
I'm looking forward to experimenting with class combinations you just wouldn't do in PF1 because of the power hit. I think this opens up a lot.
I know one of my players seems to be happy that their idea of "barbarian who went to wizard school" seems viable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen so many people on these forums saying that this is a deal breaker to them. I just can't understand it. I've never played nor seen in my games a character multiclassing with 3 or more classes. The only reason I think people do 1 or 2 level dips is to exploit the system and min max their character. And it wasn't even that good since there were only 2 or 3 classes that dipping was even worth it.
I want a robust system where you can multiclass any combination of classes and still be viable. This seems like a really good step.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So rather than talk about how you all liked old multiclassing let's come up with some new builds with the new VMC style multiclassing.
I imagine that a rogue going into bard will be insane and might just be one of my first characters. I'm sure there will be some bard spells or abilities that can cause flat footed. Might even make him ranged, since I imagine the flat footed spells will be at range as well. how I imagine some turns going:
First round go first and enemies are flat footed Start performance (if you can get performance from multiclassing which might be a bit too strong) fire off two arrows for sneak attack.
Second round: cast a spell that causes flat footed condition, fire off an arrow for sneak attack.
That sounds like a pretty damn good two turns. I'm excited to see the Occult spell list to see how viable this is.
Daze is a Bard cantrip that makes a target flat footed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like people are ignoring the way easier access to retraining will fit in to the multiclassing story. If you want to have your Rogue turn into a Fighter with a little Rogue instead of making a Rogue with a little Fighter perhaps you can retrain into Fighter and take the Rogue multiclass feats instead of taking the Fighter multiclass feats.
The system seems to keep you from doing two things.
1) Dipping to pick up an overly strong low level ability in some random class. This seems fine to me, it's a balance thing.
2) Splitting your character in two, so you hit level 20 with the abilities of two level 10 characters. I'm also fine with this, because that's often a recipe for a high level character who's far weaker than expected.
Other uses of multiclassing that I've seen in practice feel like they'll work just fine with the right combination of Multiclass Archetypes and retraining.
The "dipping" was the most annoying thing, and the thing which caused us to ban multiclassing in our home games (we used the Variant MultiClassing from Unchained, which was so weak by comparison only one person in our group even tried it.) I've seen too many Fighter/Rogue/Barbarians over the past 20 years, and Barbarian/Beastmorph Alchemists and Paladin/Oracles over the past 10 years, more than I've ever cared to see. It's like barbarians, rogues, and fighters were the cinnamon sprinkled into the recipe of every pie imaginable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just an observation from some things i am reading over and over on this forum:
"Dipping to pick an overpowered ability"
I know sometime people lets the reasoning and logic aspect slip, but the obvious answer is very simple:
If an ability is overpowered, the problem is on the ability, not the multiclass.
When abilities properly scales with level, the dip is non-problem.
Its very common in logic and argumentation, when we unnaware blame the true cause of a problem on something that has in reality no relation with the problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "dipping" was the most annoying thing, and the thing which caused us to ban multiclassing in our home games (we used the Variant MultiClassing from Unchained, which was so weak by comparison only one person in our group even tried it.) I've seen too many Fighter/Rogue/Barbarians over the past 20 years, and Barbarian/Beastmorph Alchemists and Paladin/Oracles over the past 10 years, more than I've ever cared to see. It's like barbarians, rogues, and fighters were the cinnamon sprinkled into the recipe of every pie imaginable.I feel like people are ignoring the way easier access to retraining will fit in to the multiclassing story. If you want to have your Rogue turn into a Fighter with a little Rogue instead of making a Rogue with a little Fighter perhaps you can retrain into Fighter and take the Rogue multiclass feats instead of taking the Fighter multiclass feats.
The system seems to keep you from doing two things.
1) Dipping to pick up an overly strong low level ability in some random class. This seems fine to me, it's a balance thing.
2) Splitting your character in two, so you hit level 20 with the abilities of two level 10 characters. I'm also fine with this, because that's often a recipe for a high level character who's far weaker than expected.
Other uses of multiclassing that I've seen in practice feel like they'll work just fine with the right combination of Multiclass Archetypes and retraining.
IMHO, the solution to that problem isn't to gut multiclassing and make it less customizable, but rather make every level of every class a worthwhile choice, so that when choosing not to advance further in a class such as Fighter or Rogue you are actually giving up options that are just as good as those of the class you are moving into.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen so many people on these forums saying that this is a deal breaker to them. I just can't understand it. I've never played nor seen in my games a character multiclassing with 3 or more classes. The only reason I think people do 1 or 2 level dips is to exploit the system and min max their character. And it wasn't even that good since there were only 2 or 3 classes that dipping was even worth it.
I want a robust system where you can multiclass any combination of classes and still be viable. This seems like a really good step.
I posted three counterexamples to your claim about exploiting the system an hour and a half before you posted the claim. Remember when you preview your post before submitting it to glance upward at new posts in case any would change what you want to say.
Minmaxing in roleplaying games is a powergaming strategy that if a tradeoff between abilities is permitted, then maximize the abilities the player intends to use at the cost of minimizing the abilities he don't intend to use. This applies to chosing archetypes, feats, and gear in a single class. Dipping another class is not an immediate tradeoff, so it is not really minmaxing. Dipping delays class abilities rather than trading them away entirely.
For example, in ENHenry's comment about Fighter/Rogue/Barbarians multiclassing above (I glanced up during my preview), combining fighter class levels for extra feats and barbarian class levels for the strength boost from rage and the pounce from Greater Beast Totem, does not give up anything, because both classes are full BAB. I don't know what the rogue levels are doing in the mix, but that does have a tradeoff in a +0 BAB at 1st level.
I fit the "mixmax" name ironic because in mathematical game theory, minmax means the strategy of maximizing the minimum possible payoff. That is rigorously proven better than the obvious strategy of maximizing the expected payoff in a zero-sum game, because a savvy opponent can manipulate the expectations so that the new expected payoff is the minimum payoff. The powergaming minmax strategy is very vulnerable to the weaknesses that the mathematical minmax strategy prevents. For example, the GM could send a flying opponent against a character who gave up ranged attacks in order to maximize his melee attack.
Also ironic, Variant Multiclassing is a tradeoff, giving up feats for abilities from another class, so it can be minmaxing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just an observation from some things i am reading over and over on this forum:
"Dipping to pick an overpowered ability"
I know sometime people lets the reasoning and logic aspect slip, but the obvious answer is very simple:
If an ability is overpowered, the problem is on the ability, not the multiclass.
When abilities properly scales with level, the dip is non-problem.
Its very common in logic and argumentation, when we unnaware blame the true cause of a problem on something that has in reality no relation with the problem.
That's ignoring the fact that level one abilities are deliberately powerful so that level one characters are playable and distinct.
The game design goals of having level one characters be powerful enough to be fun and have enough abilities that they play different is in opposition to the game design goal of having level based multi classing. The devs seem to have given up on the latter to embrace the former.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if someone want 2 powerful lv one abilities from a pool of 10+ classes he is completely locked out?
A class system is restrictive enough, a class system without multiclass is something better left buried in the 90s. Its a HUGE stepback.
Just an observation from some things i am reading over and over on this forum:
"Dipping to pick an overpowered ability"
I know sometime people lets the reasoning and logic aspect slip, but the obvious answer is very simple:
If an ability is overpowered, the problem is on the ability, not the multiclass.
The ability is balanced within the class (reduced proficiencies), but not when combined with other classes that don't have those same balancing restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen so many people on these forums saying that this is a deal breaker to them. I just can't understand it. I've never played nor seen in my games a character multiclassing with 3 or more classes. The only reason I think people do 1 or 2 level dips is to exploit the system and min max their character. And it wasn't even that good since there were only 2 or 3 classes that dipping was even worth it.
I want a robust system where you can multiclass any combination of classes and still be viable. This seems like a really good step.
I posted three counterexamples to your claim about exploiting the system an hour and a half before you posted the claim. Remember when you preview your post before submitting it to glance upward at new posts in case any would change what you want to say.
Minmaxing in roleplaying games is a powergaming strategy that if a tradeoff between abilities is permitted, then maximize the abilities the player intends to use at the cost of minimizing the abilities he don't intend to use. This applies to chosing archetypes, feats, and gear in a single class. Dipping another class is not an immediate tradeoff, so it is not really minmaxing. Dipping delays class abilities rather than trading them away entirely.
For example, in ENHenry's comment about Fighter/Rogue/Barbarians multiclassing above (I glanced up during my preview), combining fighter class levels for extra feats and barbarian class levels for the strength boost from rage and the pounce from Greater Beast Totem, does not give up anything, because both classes are full BAB. I don't know what the rogue levels are doing in the mix, but that does have a tradeoff in a +0 BAB at 1st level.
I fit the "mixmax" name ironic because in mathematical game theory, minmax means the strategy of maximizing the minimum possible payoff. That is rigorously proven better than the obvious strategy of maximizing the expected payoff in a zero-sum game, because a savvy opponent can manipulate the expectations so...
I don't really see how your post relates to mine at all. sorry. I'm not talking about those that dip into a class just for roleplaying reasons, or to better fit their character concept. I'm talking about the Barbarian1/fighter1/rogue1/whatever x characters that are obviously not thinking about character concepts at all and just trying to optimize their character.
I see no reason that a legitimate character concept (not just I want to make a melee character that does the most damage possible) using the level dip system can't be created or even improved with the new proposed archetype system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if someone want 2 powerful lv one abilities from a pool of 10+ classes he is completely locked out?
A class system is restrictive enough, a class system without multiclass is something better left buried in the 90s. Its a HUGE stepback.
It does have multiclass. just not the kind you want I guess.
So if someone want 2 powerful lv one abilities from a pool of 10+ classes he is completely locked out?
Not exactly it appears that you just don't get all of the level one abilities at once. Obviously I am working with incomplete information here but it looks like classes get about double the abilities at level one that they get at every other level. You just only pick up half the level one abilities with the multiclass option.
A class system is restrictive enough, a class system without multiclass is something better left buried in the 90s. Its a HUGE stepback.
Class systems are far more user-friendly and require less system mastery than classless systems. There is still multiclassing in the the sense that you can grab abilities form another class you just don't define your character as Class A X/Class B X.
EDIT: It seems like a lot of classes grant a class feat at first level if it was changed so that all classes grant a class feat I think you could allow level based multiclassing provided that the new class doesn't grant weapon, skill, or save proficiencies and doesn't grant a class feat at level one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if someone want 2 powerful lv one abilities from a pool of 10+ classes he is completely locked out?
A class system is restrictive enough, a class system without multiclass is something better left buried in the 90s. Its a HUGE stepback.
Yes, you are locked out from taking multiple front loaded abilities that are core to a class concept and intended to carry you through a more gradual growth from a strong base.
You last sentence is a nonsequitor. PF2 has a multiclass system.
Actually, the way this seems to be handling this proficiencies (with things like master and legendaries being given above level 10 in the previews) make multiclass even less atractive from the perspective of "just acumulating bonuses".
All casters increases their proficiency in casting above level 10.
Probably things like melee characters will have some similar dependancy on level.
Dipping seems a really good way to reduce the force of your character with the previews so far.
And multiclass is the only way to make a magus-like character in the core, a hybrid of figher/wizard.
That all said, again, giving overpowered, non level dependant, abilities at level 1 or 2 is a problem of the design choice on this, not that "level multiclass dont work".
For example, if everybody would have to dip a level in rogue to get dex-to-damage, i would be completely fine, since its a very powerful ability, but giving 1 level of progression just to get it, is a fair investment specially if delaying your progression on your main thing. And all the high level abilities previewed are fairly powerful and delaying them would be a real tradeoff on the game table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, the solution to that problem isn't to gut multiclassing and make it less customizable, but rather make every level of every class a worthwhile choice, so that when choosing not to advance further in a class such as Fighter or Rogue you are actually giving up options that are just as good as those of the class you are moving into.
IMO, the more likely outcome in that case is even MORE multiclassing to cherry-pick, not just certain classes repeatedly, but all classes, which would lead eventually to a classless system, and if people were concerned that Pathfinder won't look like Pathfinder in PF2, imagine its lack of similarity in a classless system -- Mutants and Masterminds, anyone?
One alternative instead would be to top-load all classes to make the first 3 or 4 levels of very low worth, so that in order to start getting "the good stuff" you need to stick with it. This however likely would not be very well received. "What do you mean my barbarian gets no rage until 4th level?!?!"
Much as I enjoyed the simplicity of 3e multiclassing, I believe it has failings when you are required to "front-load" a class with the key features you need to make it feel like that 'concept'. Wizards have to come with spellcasting; fighters need to get something besides just better hit points and a plus to hit, clerics need to be able to cast spells and do something about undead, etc. For the martials specifically, perks stack really, really well because they aren't usually level-gated. If it fits your character strengths, Evasion is just as good whether you get it at 2nd or 10th level (save that 12,000 gold!) as is rage, or an extra combat feat, or a fighting style, etc. Though spellcasting is level-gated, having even 1st level spells offers enormous power to a character of even higher levels, everything from a plethora of utility spells to the ability to use certain wands or rods automatically where the chance would otherwise be very dicey (via Use Magic Device). However as noted the effect is most felt under martial 'dips.'
Paizo is just trying a different way to allow that customization but while carefully controlling what the "package" gives at each "level." I'll be curious to see how it is received. I know while 4th ed was not my favorite, the ability to mix class abilities with its feat-based multiclassing was a pretty cool feature that made it 'feel' like my Fighter knew a smattering of magic, or my Wizard could throw out an undead-blasting spell when it counted without giving him all the things that the cleric had.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yah traditional multi-classing has this problem where for a lot of character concepts it is bad except for a few if you have system mastery you can pick out the best combos and make it overpowered. The archetype based multi-classing solves both of those issues.
It doesn't let you completely change course though which is a bit unfortunate. Some of that could be addressed through the retraining rules though.