Feedback: Multiclassing


General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi, the following comes from a Pathfinder lover who has bought many books, played and DM'd several campaigns.

First off, the whole concept of taking out of class options instead of advancing in two classes separately is great.
- It gets rid of the "1st level in another class is better than 7th in mine" problem
- Advancement is more streamlined
- It's practically impossible to make something that is off flavor

What I found to be one minor flaw, is the balance.
Now I know that taking outside-of-class features should be somewhat worse than your in-class alternatives. Sure.

The problem is, level 6 and above we have "Gain one SUBCLASS feat. For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites,
your SUBCLASS level is equal to your actual level."
Pretty strong eh? However, the current requirement arrangement is really rough for low level characters.

If the adventure starts at 1st lvl and a player has a character concept that requires multiclassing, story-wise, they're screwed. How can a barbarian become a priest over a week? (My favorite character of all time is a half-orc barb that is also a tribal cleric of some god of strength, varying by setting).

Another thing is that often you must trade 4th lvl feats for 1st level features.

The solution is pretty simple.
1) Make Dedication feats accessible from the 1st level. Some things may need to be tweaked around it, but it's well doable.
2) Make 1st level archetype class feats and features accessible on 2nd level. Nothing that scales obviously.
3) Make other feats and features accessible as though the SUBCLASS level was HALF your character level.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't really agree with you there. I think the current multiclassing is the way to go. You begin your path at lvl 2, getting slightly better every 2 levels or so. It's something that takes time, and it should.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryder052 wrote:

3) Make other feats and features accessible as though the SUBCLASS level was HALF your character level.

They actually do this already. It's just the cleric that has it equal to your level, not half your level, which I suspect is a typo.

That said, I don't mind that you can't multiclass until after level 1. I can RP the Barbarian as a priest, and just wait until level 2 to have that apply mechanically. Or, depending on the character, have the Barbarian actually be a STR focused cleric, and not mechanically get Rage until later. Not to mention many classes don't get first level feats (and the ones that do tend to also have second level feats that are more impactful, so giving up a second level feat is more of a commitment than giving up a first level one), or that it would incentivize humans even more over the other ancestries (since they could multiclass, and pick up a class feat at first level, if they chose). All that's enough reason for me to keep it at 2nd level, and it's not like 1e characters didn't have to wait until second level to multiclass, anyway.


Rameth wrote:
It's something that takes time, and it should.

Of course it takes time, and that is exactly why multiclass characters should be possible from the 1st level. Because they had their whole lives before the campaign to gain the necessary abilities.

Tholomyes wrote:
I can RP the Barbarian as a priest, and just wait until level 2 to have that apply mechanically.

No, you can't roleplay a cleric without having the abilities of a cleric. That is roleplaying a mental illness or a charlatan.

Tholomyes wrote:
Or [...] have the Barbarian actually be a STR focused cleric, and not mechanically get Rage until later

That would be slightly better for roleplaying, but mechanically far from ideal. You might roleplay the primal instincts being dormant until something happens. But again, is this something every barb subclasser suffers from? Oh wait, there isn't even a barb archetype!

Tholomyes wrote:
Not to mention many classes don't get first level feats (and the ones that do tend to also have second level feats that are more impactful, so giving up a second level feat is more of a commitment than giving up a first level one), or that it would incentivize humans even more over the other ancestries (since they could multiclass, and pick up a class feat at first level, if they chose).

All this can be resolved with proper balance of the low level archetype features.

Tholomyes wrote:
it's not like 1e characters didn't have to wait until second level to multiclass, anyway

Why create 2e if not to improve upon 1e?

Bottom line is:
Early multiclassing should not be any better than not multiclassing at all. But it should be an option.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to get too caught up in specific examples, but a barbarian priest could take the acolyte background to add weight to their roleplay as a priest. It seems to work fairly well for that character type too, mechanically.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryder052 wrote:


Early multiclassing should not be any better than not multiclassing at all. But it should be an option.

I'm willing to live with "level 2" being "early". Otherwise, you need some form of mini-gestalt rules and, quite frankly, even though I wouldn't mind that I'd rather see Paizo spend its time and page count on things that I think are more important.

Don't forget, every change they make is one less change they're making elsewhere :-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryder052 wrote:


No, you can't roleplay a cleric without having the abilities of a cleric. That is roleplaying a mental illness or a charlatan.

I don't really see how that's true. You can be a priest and not have channel energy or spells, a priest is just someone who is an evangelical figure for a religion.

The powers associated with a Cleric aren't required to roleplay a priest.

Quote:


That would be slightly better for roleplaying, but mechanically far from ideal. You might roleplay the primal instincts being dormant until something happens. But again, is this something every barb subclasser suffers from? Oh wait, there isn't even a barb archetype!

In 2 hours your last sentence will no longer be true.

Quote:


Why create 2e if not to improve upon 1e?

Just so I understand this, What exactly did you do in PF1 to solve this problem?

You could not be a member of two classes until level 2 in PF1 (or any version of 3.X). Allowing people to Archetype at level 2 seemed extremely appropriate.

I don't really think it makes any sense to be able to master two things at once. If that's what you're after, I am sure someone (Paizo eventually) will release Gestalt rules for the system. That seems to be more akin to what you desire.

Liberty's Edge

I don't dislike the current multiclassing, but there are certain concepts in PF1 that became their own classes (or really involved archetypes) that it doesn't work as well with. I suspect people have forgotten how difficult it was to manage a melee wizard before the magus became an official thing.


@RPing a priest without abilities:
Ok, you probably CAN do it, but then your character gains the second level and BAM, now they are DIVINE spellcasters? Bye, immersion.

Midnightoker wrote:
Just so I understand this, What exactly did you do in PF1 to solve this problem?

That's my problem. Nothing. I begged my DM to raise the starting level to 2.

Can anyone actually come up with an argument as to WHY it should not be allowed to have balanced archetype dedication options on first level?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryder052 wrote:

@RPing a priest without abilities:

Ok, you probably CAN do it, but then your character gains the second level and BAM, now they are DIVINE spellcasters? Bye, immersion.

Midnightoker wrote:
Just so I understand this, What exactly did you do in PF1 to solve this problem?

That's my problem. Nothing. I begged my DM to raise the starting level to 2.

Can anyone actually come up with an argument as to WHY it should not be allowed to have balanced archetype dedication options on first level?

Why "Bye Immersion"? At some point between 1st and 2nd level, you completed your studies, and proved your faith, and your god rewarded you.


I have to strongly agree that you should be able to take multiclass dedication on level 1. You couldn't do it in pathfinder 1 is in fact the strongest reason I can think of to allow it. The whole point of a different multiclass system is to have advantages over the design of PF1e.

If it matches the concept of "What your character has been training for for years" waiting till level 2 to enable it (often a very short amount of playtime in your average in-game, possibly less then a week from starting).

The base dedication feat is hardly what you might call strong (especially after the rebalance on the fighter one). Even if they were a little strong being that they only require level 2 to take, I'm willing to trade the tiniest amount of balance on level 1 options for a much larger impact on character concept. (which let's be honest it's not like every level 1 class feat has the same "power" as is anyway).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryder052 wrote:


Can anyone actually come up with an argument as to WHY it should not be allowed to have balanced archetype dedication options on first level?

Its a lot of work for very little gain. Very few people have a real problem with having to wait ALL the way until level 2 to multiclass.

Especially when a great many campaigns (or PFS characters) start at level 2 or 3 anyway


3.5 had optional 1/2 class levels that no one (to my knowledge) ever used. So you could start as two classes but you only gained part of each and then at second level you would increase to 1x/1y

Silver Crusade

ElbowtotheFace wrote:
3.5 had optional 1/2 class levels that no one (to my knowledge) ever used. So you could start as two classes but you only gained part of each and then at second level you would increase to 1x/1y

I actually DID use them once. I quite liked them. For the 2 sessions until we hit level 2 :-).

As I said above, I like the idea. It is definitely something Paizo should do. In some splat book AFTER the release of the Core Rulebook :-)

Liberty's Edge

The half-classes is how 4e (and 13th Age) did hybrid classes, and it works better than you might think. I wouldn't mind seeing something similar used in PF2, possibly in place of recreating the PF1 hybrid classes. Pick two classes and get some reduced abilities for both, then as you level, pick class feats at from either as though you were a slightly lower level (and have slightly fewer spell slots).


The only thing that feels iffy to me about the new multiclass system is the two feat restriction before you can take another dedication. I can understand the desire to prevent people from cherry-picking the frontloaded multiclass dedications, but what bugs me about it is that single-class characters can become pirates faster than multiclass characters. I don't think this is good. I would suggest to separate the multiclass and prestige dedications for the purposes of this restriction.


Ryder052 wrote:

@RPing a priest without abilities:

Ok, you probably CAN do it, but then your character gains the second level and BAM, now they are DIVINE spellcasters? Bye, immersion.

I think you're overstating the point. It can work extremely well, provided that it fits in the arc, as evidenced by Goldmoon in Dragonlance. Barbarian -> Cleric. That's hardly the only example, just an easy one considering the subject and source material.

Ryder052 wrote:
Can anyone actually come up with an argument as to WHY it should not be allowed to have balanced archetype dedication options on first level?

I can't see a downside to letting players have access to multiclass archetypes at first level. The existence of gish classes like Investigator, Hunter, or Magus in Pathfinder First Edition demonstrate that there's a desire for this. There's a certain old school mentality that players need to wait and earn it...but a first level character has to wait for a lot and I don't see why multiclassing has to be one of those things.

That said, I think that you're undermining your otherwise reasonable suggestions by making some extreme statements.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(1.3 update)
I feel like Paladin & Rogue Archetypes should both grant Simple Weapon Proficiency
& Rogue should also grant hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and shortsword.

I'm not sure about Paladin not granting Martial Weapons... Perhaps give option of Martial Weapons OR Heavy Armor?
...Maybe with default of just increasing Armor Proficiency by 1 or 2 tiers, so a character with no or Light needs to forgo gaining Martial if they want Heavy (or even Medium) Armor, but a character already with Medium Armor can gain Heavy Armor & Martial. Deity Weapon always being included...?


You gain deity's favored weapon, I don't know if that's enough unless you're targeting a specific weapon in your deity choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk dedication seems a bit funny. You get proficiency in unarmed attacks if you need it, a situation that only occurs for wizards, and you get to bump the damage of your unarmed strikes up to 1d6. Most dedication feats are pretty light, but this is almost nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, SOMETHING for Unarmored Defence and Speed (not necessarrily equal to real Monk) seems like basic bone to throw Monk Dedication.


Quandary wrote:
Yeah, SOMETHING for Unarmored Defence and Speed (not necessarrily equal to real Monk) seems like basic bone to throw Monk Dedication.

On the other hand- monk feats, having been designed for monks who were presumed to act like monks, didn't have anything prohibiting you from using them in armor. So other than monk moves and unarmored expertise, all of the monk dedication feats can be used by someone in any kind of armor you can name.

I don't know if it's totally unreasonable to ask multiclass monks to not wear full plate mail.


Also worth noting the Paladin Dedication only grants Trained in Deity's Favored Weapon, NO damage improvement if it is Simple (Fist or real Weapon).

EDIT: Relatedly, Real Paladins would get damage increase for Fists, but do Cleric get anything for Favored Weapon: Fists?
I noticed suggestion Clerics should get Deific Weapon damage dice to (Favored) Simple Weapons for free (currently via Deadly Simplicity Feat)
but regardless of that, it seems mere Trained in Unarmed/Fist is absolutely worse than other Simple Weapons...
Perhap upgrade Proficiency by 1? Would that be too much if Deadly Simplicity/Deific Weapon was given for free?


PossibleCabbage wrote:

...So other than monk moves and unarmored expertise, all of the monk dedication feats can be used by someone in any kind of armor you can name.

I don't know if it's totally unreasonable to ask multiclass monks to not wear full plate mail.

Styles also have unarmored as a requirement. There's still a few good things left though.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Feedback: Multiclassing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion