Multiclassing (99 problems)

[tivadar27]

This bastardized multiclassing system really doesn't let me build the characters I want to build. It's good for "splash" type multiclassing to some extent, but the fact is that you can't make a 50/50 split with it, as your secondary class is pretty much always secondary.

In addition, the multiclass characters don't feel like being a member of the subclass. They don't get a lot of the iconic stuff, such as channel energy, dexterity to damage, and the like. You don't *have* to give these out, but this system as a whole really feels subpar.

[CactusUnicorn]

I love the multiclass system. I think it is really good. I love that I can take as much of Fighter I want while still being a full level 20 Sorceror. My only complaint is that not ever class has one yet. My initial idea was Barb with Sorc multiclass. However I forgot Sorc isn't core 4 (it always seems like it is to me). I can't wait for the full game so I can do this. I may end up homebrewing my own based off Wizard.

[OntosChalmer]

I'm glad the multiclass system will work for you, CactusUnicorn, but there are people who want to build a character, 50/50, in two classes. Not 90/10.

[The Raven Black]

Worst is 10/90 actually. The playtest system just does not allow it

If you want to excel at being a Wizard, you MUST begin play as one

[Seisho]

Of course you must play a wizard to excel at being one...what do you expect, play a fighter and excel at being a wizard? o.O

[JulianW]

Seisho wrote:

Of course you must play a wizard to excel at being one...what do you expect, play a fighter and excel at being a wizard? o.O

Exactly that

In Crimson Throne I played exactly that, a fighter (& blacksmith) that wanted to learn magic.

Started as fighter 1. Went to wizard school and took a bunch of levels in wizard, then ultimately in eldritch knight. Did lots of crafting magic arms & armour.

[Phantasmist]

I'll admit that pathfinder 1e multi-classing system needed work, but so does this one. Still some like it, so I won't argue to much, but ultimately it's not my cup of tea. Wouldn't mind a complete rewrite.

[Seisho]

JulianW wrote:

Seisho wrote:

Of course you must play a wizard to excel at being one...what do you expect, play a fighter and excel at being a wizard? o.O

Exactly that

In Crimson Throne I played exactly that, a fighter (& blacksmith) that wanted to learn magic.

Started as fighter 1. Went to wizard school and took a bunch of levels in wizard, then ultimately in eldritch knight. Did lots of crafting magic arms & armour.

I would do that with reatrining the base class and give it the fighter archetype and the warrior/blacksmith background

and you effectively didnt play a fighter who excelled at being a wizard, you played a wizard with a fighter dip - which just happened to come before wizard levels, this is basically the only part not possible anymore

[JulianW]

Seisho wrote:

I would do that with reatrining the base class and give it the fighter archetype and the warrior/blacksmith background

Which would probably work fine - save that the retraining rules explicitly forbid retraining class in the playtest book.

[tivadar27]

Note: I've opened a thread with a concrete new proposal

[Gorbacz]

The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of characters:

1. Optimized builds where the player knows EXACTLY what he or she is doing (1 level dip of Fighter, multiclassing into a PrC, some hyper specialized build that requires X levels of Y and A levels of B).

2. Thematically cool characters that end up cripplingly weak. Rogue 3/Monk 2/Sorcerer 3 is hopelessly behind almost every level 7 singleclassed character.

And the problem is that 3.5/PF doesn't tell you that. It relies on meta-knowledge, gleaned from forums and optimization guides, to save you form shooting yourself in the foot. If nobody at the table has that meta-knowledge (read: a group of newbies) then at some point John who made the Rogue/Monk/Sorcerer will discover that Jane and her Druid are just simply that much better than he is.

[JulianW]

Gorbacz wrote:

The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of characters:

1. Optimized builds where the player knows EXACTLY what he or she is doing (1 level dip of Fighter, multiclassing into a PrC, some hyper specialized build that requires X levels of Y and A levels of B).

2. Thematically cool characters that end up cripplingly weak. Rogue 3/Monk 2/Sorcerer 3 is hopelessly behind almost every level 7 singleclassed character.

This is probably the root of the problem / question.

Are people to be stopped from doing #1 to make sure no one can accidentally do #2 ?

[tivadar27]

Once again, see the suggestion in the thread I posted above, it proposes a concrete solutions where:
1) Characters have to give up some of their stat boosts to multiclass.
2) Multiclassing needs to be done in 4 level chunks.
EDIT: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vaah?Better-proposal-for-traditional-multiclas sing

[Gorbacz]

JulianW wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of characters:

1. Optimized builds where the player knows EXACTLY what he or she is doing (1 level dip of Fighter, multiclassing into a PrC, some hyper specialized build that requires X levels of Y and A levels of B).

2. Thematically cool characters that end up cripplingly weak. Rogue 3/Monk 2/Sorcerer 3 is hopelessly behind almost every level 7 singleclassed character.

This is probably the root of the problem / question.

Are people to be stopped from doing #1 to make sure no one can accidentally do #2 ?

If your goal is to attract new players and make the game more accessible for folks who don't do system mastery, yes.

[tivadar27]

Gorbacz wrote:

JulianW wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of characters:

1. Optimized builds where the player knows EXACTLY what he or she is doing (1 level dip of Fighter, multiclassing into a PrC, some hyper specialized build that requires X levels of Y and A levels of B).

2. Thematically cool characters that end up cripplingly weak. Rogue 3/Monk 2/Sorcerer 3 is hopelessly behind almost every level 7 singleclassed character.

This is probably the root of the problem / question.

Are people to be stopped from doing #1 to make sure no one can accidentally do #2 ?

If your goal is to attract new players and make the game more accessible for folks who don't do system mastery, yes.

Except it's completely unnecessary. You can have traditional multiclassing and prevent cheese factors while still making things simple for new players (by simply telling them not to multiclass). As it is, archetypes add a layer of complexity for new players anyways, this system isn't simpler anyway.

Note that my proposal wouldn't allow for multiclassing before level 5 anyway, so people would have had plenty of time to get up to speed before the option even became available.

[Gorbacz]

tivadar27 wrote:

(by simply telling them not to multiclass)

"Hi Jane, well, you see, you are a new player so just please don't multiclass because you can't handle it. John here can multiclass because he's smarter, I mean, more experienced than you".

If you can't tell what kind of problems does telling players "please don't do that unless you're *that tall*" bring, I don't know what to tell you.

[tivadar27]

Gorbacz wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

(by simply telling them not to multiclass)

"Hi Jane, well, you see, you are a new player so just please don't multiclass because you can't handle it. John here can multiclass because he's smarter, I mean, more experienced than you".

If you can't tell what kind of problems does telling players "please don't do that unless you're *that tall*", I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe that you're so caught up in one frame of mind that you can't see anything outside of it. This is EXACTLY WHAT 5TH EDITION DOES. So please don't come on here and suggest that this is a crazy way to do it. It works in the most popular tabletop out there, and if *you* can't see *that*, I don't know what to tell you.

[pauljathome]

tivadar27 wrote:

Once again, see the suggestion in the thread I posted above, it proposes a concrete solutions where:

1) Characters have to give up some of their stat boosts to multiclass.
2) Multiclassing needs to be done in 4 level chunks.
EDIT: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vaah?Better-proposal-for-traditional-multiclas sing

I quite like the new multiclassing rules. They satisfy the goals of being new player friendly and limiting abuse.

For example, if I want a good melee bard I'd be very, very tempted to take a level of fighter. If I want a good archer cleric I'll likely be tempted to take whatever class gets archery in the final version. My rogue who wants a dash of spell casting (Arcane Trickster) can afford to get just that.

They need to be playtested and tweaked, mind. But I think the fundamentals are just fine.

[tivadar27]

tivadar27 wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

(by simply telling them not to multiclass)

"Hi Jane, well, you see, you are a new player so just please don't multiclass because you can't handle it. John here can multiclass because he's smarter, I mean, more experienced than you".

If you can't tell what kind of problems does telling players "please don't do that unless you're *that tall*", I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe that you're so caught up in one frame of mind that you can't see anything outside of it. This is EXACTLY WHAT 5TH EDITION DOES. So please don't come on here and suggest that this is a crazy way to do it. It works in the most popular tabletop out there, and if *you* can't see *that*, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm going to amend to this myself. First, your post was insulting and condescending. That being said, me responding aggressively isn't going to help anything, and I regret responding that way.

What I said about 5e remains valid. The system indicates that multiclassing is optional and for players who know the system well. That doesn't, by any means, suggest that someone new is dumber, just that they haven't had an opportunity to experience the game. It works. 5e works.

[master_marshmallow]

They need tweaks, I want to see more of the core options and the chance to mess with my proficiency (the analogues to BAB, caster level, saving throw progression, etc). I'd also want each archetype line to be mutually exclusive as far as progression goes. That way you can take an archetype, a multiclass, and a prestige all at once. I love that concept, but I'll admit the execution needs work.

[epicmusic42]

Gorbacz wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

(by simply telling them not to multiclass)

"Hi Jane, well, you see, you are a new player so just please don't multiclass because you can't handle it. John here can multiclass because he's smarter, I mean, more experienced than you".

If you can't tell what kind of problems does telling players "please don't do that unless you're *that tall*" bring, I don't know what to tell you.

Telling a new player to hold off on something shouldn't be an issue if you're not rude about it. I've run AD&D for my younger siblings and some of their friends and regularly had to tell kids that they shouldn't do something I was letting n older and/or more experienced player do. It's a matter of actually explaining why you're saying not to do something rather than just flat out saying no.

Example: "Hey Jane, you said this is your first time playing a tabletop RPG so I would prefer you not multi-class. I want you to have fun and even with years of experience I sometimes find myself not having fun when I multi-class since it can be really hard to make functional characters. I know John is multi-classing and his build sounds really cool, but he also has even more experience than me so he knows how he can still have fun with his character. If you're really really sure you want to multi-class why don't we ask John to sit down with us and try to build a character that you'll be able to have fun with still."

You notice how I tried to make it clear that I'm concerned about Jane not having fun and that it's not something she can never do? This goes a long way. Just, explain your reasons and provide some assistance if they still want to try.

Trust me, if my 8 Charisma self can get a 6 year old to understand why she can't play a thief in AD&D, but my friend that's in Calculus can, you can explain to an adult why you don't want them multi-classing as a new player.

That being said, I definitely agree with you on not being a huge fan of the inability to multi-class. I can appreciate giving me alternatives to having to multi-class in order to reap any of the benefits, but I'd still like the option of multi-classing if I want.