Why I dislike where 2E's Multiclassing is going


General Discussion

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
Moro wrote:

However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.

I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.

I think the biggest issue is that certain fighting styles are locked behind certain classes. Suddenly, you're no longer a bow-wielding Paladin of Erastil, you're a Paladin/Fighter using your Fighter dedication to learn to use a bow.

Which is made worse by the lack of higher level archery feats available to you leaving you with a number of class feats that do nothing for you and your main class ability not functioning for your weapon of choice. With blade ally granting melee only rune options till 10th level, and retribution being melee only, you have pretty much nothing going on till 6th, 10th and 16th level, and then you're all out of archery feats. With 8 wasted feats, you could multiclass twice though, so a paladin, ranger, fighter or something could fill in those gaps.

You're better off being paladin in name only, choosing the ranger and multiclassing cleric or something. It's certainly less intuitive, but as long as you don't expect classes to support different play styles it makes its own sort of sense. However, it is very unwelcoming to new comers.

I don't think a new player would even think a paladin is a good class for an archer. If he wanted an archer unless he read about the bow favored god, thought it would be a good idea to follow Erastil(What seems weird cause paladins are normally wealthy and the whole Erastil thing is being in a simple life isn't it?). If it is for new players it's better to just go ranger or fighter if they want to use a bow. If you are a veteran and want to play a bow wielding paladin you probably will pick the animal companion and wear the bow while riding in my opnion seems better than using the blade companion.


oholoko wrote:
I don't think a new player would even think a paladin is a good class for an archer. If he wanted an archer unless he read about the bow favored god, thought it would be a good idea to follow Erastil(What seems weird cause paladins are normally wealthy and the whole Erastil thing is being in a simple life isn't it?). If it is for new players it's better to just go ranger or fighter if they want to use a bow. If you are a veteran and want to play a bow wielding paladin you probably will pick the animal companion and wear the bow while riding in my opnion seems better than using the blade companion.

Fine. Use my other example instead. The iconic rogue is literally wielding two weapons at once- a rapier and a dagger- and yet all of the good TWF feats are locked behind fighter and ranger. You can technically just say you're switching between weapons each attack, but that doesn't feel as satisfying as things like Twin Parry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
oholoko wrote:
I don't think a new player would even think a paladin is a good class for an archer. If he wanted an archer unless he read about the bow favored god, thought it would be a good idea to follow Erastil(What seems weird cause paladins are normally wealthy and the whole Erastil thing is being in a simple life isn't it?). If it is for new players it's better to just go ranger or fighter if they want to use a bow. If you are a veteran and want to play a bow wielding paladin you probably will pick the animal companion and wear the bow while riding in my opnion seems better than using the blade companion.
Fine. Use my other example instead. The iconic rogue is literally wielding two weapons at once- a rapier and a dagger- and yet all of the good TWF feats are locked behind fighter and ranger. You can technically just say you're switching between weapons each attack, but that doesn't feel as satisfying as things like Twin Parry.

I do agree rogue should have gotten some twin wielding feats. But there is an advantage to wielding a rapier and a dagger... Agile and deadly and while i do think rogue should get a duel wielding (path?) of feats. I don't think it's bad to build a rogue with dual wielding in mind, yeah a fighter will be better at dual wielding but has no sneak or as many skill bumps and feats.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest issue I see with 2E multiclassing is that ultimately you are always your first class. Which works fine with some concepts but not with ones where you turned your back on your old life to pursue a new one.

If my Rogue decides to give up his life of crime and devote himself to the church. He's never going to become a Cleric or a Paladin, he will always be a Rogue. He might pick up a few divine tricks but that's the best this system offers.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

All that is really missing is a system for rebuilding a character to swap primary and secondary classes.

For example, that rogue that becomes a cleric would need to be rebuilt from a rogue with the cleric dedication feat to a cleric with nearly all of his class feats assigned as rogue multiclassing feats. Further retraining would be needed to really leave his roguish past behind.

I would imagine that the time required for this rebuild should be proportional to the character's level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:


I don't think a new player would even think a paladin is a good class for an archer. If he wanted an archer unless he read about the bow favored god, thought it would be a good idea to follow Erastil(What seems weird cause paladins are normally wealthy and the whole Erastil thing is being in a simple life isn't it?). If it is for new players it's better to just go ranger or fighter if they want to use a bow. If you are a veteran and want to play a bow wielding paladin you probably will pick the animal companion and wear the bow while riding in my opnion seems better than using the blade companion.

I'm not sure what the current paladin code is like, but past versions had requirements on restricting wealth, so it's not unreasonable to connect paladin to Erastil. Though the old requirement that a paladin wear the most advanced and expensive armor they have access to would seem a bit odd with Erastil. Still, of the gods that can have paladins, 2 of the 7 have ranged chosen weapons, so it's bound to come up.

The blade feats are the only way to spend paladin feats on archery which is why I'm using them. I agree that a player probably shouldn't go paladin for archery. I don't know if an animal companion is a better choice though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:

The biggest issue I see with 2E multiclassing is that ultimately you are always your first class. Which works fine with some concepts but not with ones where you turned your back on your old life to pursue a new one.

If my Rogue decides to give up his life of crime and devote himself to the church. He's never going to become a Cleric or a Paladin, he will always be a Rogue. He might pick up a few divine tricks but that's the best this system offers.

Okay but at the same time as you call the current system unrealistic and say that it hurts concepts, I honestly find that a lot of PF1 multiclassing hurt concepts too.

A soldier who has never learned a single magic trick in his life can just suddenly swap careers before fighting through a week or two of monsters and decide to start studying magic.
And at the end of that week or two of monster fighting he'll have learned as much magic as the person who spent years of their life just to get to level 1 in their spellcasting class. The soldier just up and starts casting spells like the wizard was at level 1, except he put in nothing even slightly comparable to the effort and just teleported across career paths.

On the other hand, as to that rogue example, I'd say that someone who grew up as a rogue, started the game as a rogue, and then turns to the church, will still think like a rogue. The way they do things will always be rogueish. They'll pick up their new talents as a cleric or paladin or whatever, sure, and that's how they pick up the class feat(ure)s of their adopted class. But unless they invest some serious time and effort into specifically reconditioning themselves out of the headspace they spent most of their life developing (i.e., retraining), they're not going to just jump out of how they grew up and survived. Especially not by just punching monsters for a few weeks. The rogue in particular is a bad example just because the class at this point has a somewhat tangential connection to actual thievery, and the plentiful skill feats and upgrades let you throw yourself into basically any skillset if you want to.

And before someone reverses it into a cleric having a crisis of faith and turning into a rogue who wants nothing to do with his former beliefs, I'd say that working through the crisis enough to even function as an adventurer would be aptly represented by retraining out of cleric, and anything less is unlikely to lose you the favor of your deity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Also, keep in mind that the core rulebook will expand on the available options, and then of course there will be follow-on books that provide even more options.

Whatever book elaborates on the options for paladins of Erastil should cover archer paladins.


ErichAD wrote:

I'm not sure what the current paladin code is like, but past versions had requirements on restricting wealth, so it's not unreasonable to connect paladin to Erastil. Though the old requirement that a paladin wear the most advanced and expensive armor they have access to would seem a bit odd with Erastil. Still, of the gods that can have paladins, 2 of the 7 have ranged chosen weapons, so it's bound to come up.

The blade feats are the only way to spend paladin feats on archery which is why I'm using them. I agree that a player probably shouldn't go paladin for archery. I don't know if an animal companion is a better choice though.

Between veterans i think it's bound to happen between newbies i doubt it will. But i do think animal companion is better, i mean technically you can charge with the horse and gain the benefits. Right now you will probably wear heavy armor after a certain level because of the weird benefit of having +1 AC what is pretty good. So a bow wearing heavy armored pally is not bad when riding a horse.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It often seems like to me that what some people are arguing for is an a la carte classless system, for which case Pathfinder or D&D aren't the best choices of game. If you want ability A, F, and T from Ranger, and ability B, P, and Q from Rogue, there's no way to properly balance all choices, and frankly IMO the 3e style multiclassing, while fun, is not balanced in the slightest, because there are too many options which fall through the cracks either by not synergizing at all or synergizing FAR too well (fighters, barbarians, and rogues for instance stack VERY well compared to wizard/clerics or even wizard/sorcerer, something you would have thought stacked well.) I'd kind of wish to see it altered in D&D5, too, as some of the craziest thought experiments (such as the 'Coffeelock' and the 'Fighter/Ranger Crossbow snipers') involve multiclassing at their heart. (admittedly the latter has a problematic feat contributing too)

As for the "turning your back" storyline, I don't understand why it has to be so mechanically focused, when instead one could work it into background and skill choices, rather than going so far as to take several levels of a class solely for the purpose of switching out partway through and having abilities that run often counter and non-complementary to the entire rest of your character. Not to say someone is 'doing it wrong', I just often have a hard time understanding the desire to have the mechanics exactly match from edition to edition, as I've always more focused on implementing the core concept of a character using the existing rules in the edition given, and kind of see it as a fun challenge if I can still implement the spirit of a character regardless of rule set.

I've made Pathfinder characters using 5e and Save Worlds rules, I've made Star Wars characters from West End Games' d6 system in WotC's Star Wars Saga (2007) rule set - they still had the same core concepts of how they fought, how they excelled, how they lived, regardless that in one version they had a +9 to Medicine checks and the Weapon Focus feat, and in another they had a d8 Medicine skill and the Trademark Weapon edge.


after thinking on it a bit, a few things that might help make multiclassing or customization a bit easier:

-engage with it earlier: you don't really get to start customizing your character or try to realize even the most basic design of the character you sat down to play until levels ~2-4 (which is a significant real-life time investment, especially if your group is bi-weekly or monthly, or just plain unproductive), when you get your first general feat and have enough class feats around to consider swapping one. I've gone on about this at length previously, so i'll avoid elaborating further here.

-grant a general feat at level 1: your character shouldn't hinge 100% on being human if you want to step out of the base class' cookie-cutter layout earlier than level 4 (it gives humans the options to break out or specialize even further as well).

-add level 1 dedication feats for archetypes/multiclasses: let people start customizing their character to fit their idea from the get-go, otherwise the "engage with it earlier"problem rears it's head again.

-adding more class feats for each level bracket: this is largely a consequence of the system--as more books get released, more class feats will get added to each one's list, (presumably) allowing for more diverse builds and making dedication feats more enticing by extension. this could also be greatly improved by the next one:

-beefing up existing class feats: boring, lackluster--call it what you want, many of the existing class feats just grant tiny numerical bonuses or aim to grant basic competence in a playstyle (such as archery), rather than being something to make you truly excel in the field you're investing in (and excited to choose!). the fighter, for example, has basically stayed at the PF1E baseline it had previously (though now with half the feats over their career)--it just dragged every other class down to make itself seem better by comparison (such as hogging most of the TWF or archery feats). the fighter isn't an exemplar of fighting, able to execute feats of martial skill beyond the ken of his peers and really make people want to be like him/play a fighter, he's just used his law degree to make anyone else using the weapon without fighter credentials illegal (and is crowned the "best" by default).

-a retraining clause (noting extreme in-character development) to allow a complete rebuild of a character following taking a dedication feat series: for example, say a rogue found religion and changed their ways would be a rogue until they could afford the cleric or paladin dedication, and then (with GM go-ahead) rebuild his character as a cleric or paladin with the rogue dedication. sort of "flip" your character's levels and dedication, if that makes sense? im sure people may allow this already as a houserule, but actually print a note about it in the book, so people with stickler DMs have at least some leg to stand on (and noting to others that having that sort of dramatic character arc is both supported by story and mechanically goes a long way).


KohaiKHaos wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

The biggest issue I see with 2E multiclassing is that ultimately you are always your first class. Which works fine with some concepts but not with ones where you turned your back on your old life to pursue a new one.

If my Rogue decides to give up his life of crime and devote himself to the church. He's never going to become a Cleric or a Paladin, he will always be a Rogue. He might pick up a few divine tricks but that's the best this system offers.

Okay but at the same time as you call the current system unrealistic and say that it hurts concepts, I honestly find that a lot of PF1 multiclassing hurt concepts too.

Admittedly the current system is a little more robust as far as options go. Over the years we've gotten Multiclassing, Variant Multiclassing and Feat dip like Amateur Gunslinger and Eldritch Heritage. not to mention the hybrid classes and archetypes

That's just it, there should be several ways to go about it because no one form of multiclassing captures every concept.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:

The biggest issue I see with 2E multiclassing is that ultimately you are always your first class. Which works fine with some concepts but not with ones where you turned your back on your old life to pursue a new one.

If my Rogue decides to give up his life of crime and devote himself to the church. He's never going to become a Cleric or a Paladin, he will always be a Rogue. He might pick up a few divine tricks but that's the best this system offers.

While I'm not opposed to having an alternative to the current set-up, I have no problem with excluding "100% switch from one class to another". The times that a PC's class would absolutely *have* to be switched based on events or choices is very, very, very rare, probably due to the GM acting outside of RAW.

Believing you *have* to switch from Rogue to Cleric because your PC had a religious experience cuts you off from a lot of good roleplaying. There's nothing that stops a Rogue from changing their alignment if they want to be more devoted, and is far more interesting to see a class not designed for devotion work within a Paladin's code. Slowly gaining a proficiency in divine magic, and not easily discarding the Rogue abilities your PC worked hard to train for, keeps a continuity with your character's backstory. Even if you go all-in for Cleric, you'll never forget that you started out as a Street Urchin Rogue, and I think the inability to totally overwrite your PC's origins is a feature, not a bug.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2's multiclassing is frankly terrible at doing any multiclassing that isn't planned at character creation. (I'd say that the system itself is pretty bad at this, but that's another topic.) It very much so gets in the way of "natural" or "based on in-game events" multiclassing. Thanks to being class feat based, you can only do it every other level. This prevents a character taking the dedication feat at an appropriate time, unless they happen to be leveling to an even level. And then the dedication feats with their 16-in-an-ability-score requirement further limit your ability to take one. This forces you to wait up to five levels to take your dedication when you have only a 14 in that ability score. And that's if you have a 14 (which, to be fair, you probably should have if you're trying to multiclass into something). Oh, and I hope you didn't already have an archetype!

Of course, if you had planned your multiclass originally, no problem! You've likely already solved those issues.

Or, you could just be playing PF1 and just multiclass into the dang class at any level, provided you met alignment requirements, of which three classes had any, and if you had an archetype already, who cares! That doesn't matter!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Archive wrote:

PF2's multiclassing is frankly terrible at doing any multiclassing that isn't planned at character creation. (I'd say that the system itself is pretty bad at this, but that's another topic.) It very much so gets in the way of "natural" or "based on in-game events" multiclassing. Thanks to being class feat based, you can only do it every other level. This prevents a character taking the dedication feat at an appropriate time, unless they happen to be leveling to an even level. And then the dedication feats with their 16-in-an-ability-score requirement further limit your ability to take one. This forces you to wait up to five levels to take your dedication when you have only a 14 in that ability score. And that's if you have a 14 (which, to be fair, you probably should have if you're trying to multiclass into something). Oh, and I hope you didn't already have an archetype!

Of course, if you had planned your multiclass originally, no problem! You've likely already solved those issues.

Or, you could just be playing PF1 and just multiclass into the dang class at any level, provided you met alignment requirements, of which three classes had any, and if you had an archetype already, who cares! That doesn't matter!

I am not sure but i think retraining of feats helps this aspect a lot, i mean i am not sure if it helps with the 16 really steep requirement(to me a 12-14 for the base dedication and 16 for the advanced feats would be better) but if you did find multiclassing in the middle of the way. You can literally take a month off and retrain 4 feats to become more of your 'new' class.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Whenever there is a huge change in the character, the character has a life changing moment and want to change into a different character, it is just so much better to talk to the GM and remake the character. This of course breaks the kind of "organic change" some people like, but personally I believe it is not that important. You got a Rogue that by plot twist gets divine powers, shuffle papers, rebuild the character, and you got narratively much better result. This applies to both editions, especially in PF1 it was much easier to just rebuild characters if players wanted big character changes instead of dipping into classes and realizing that multiclassing gets you just an ugly mess unless you planned it 5 years in advance.


ENHenry wrote:
It often seems like to me that what some people are arguing for is an a la carte classless system, for which case Pathfinder or D&D aren't the best choices of game.

That would be one approach, as as you suggest perhaps a different game system would be best, but the player doesn't pick the game system, the DM does. Thus, folks suggest modifications to the rules to be able to use the rules to be able to fulfill their conceptions.

Perhaps original D&D multiclassing (two-three classes advancing simultaneously) could be combined with 3.5/PF1 multiclassing and D&D4/PF2 multiclassing into PF2. Each approach to multiclassing is useful, depending on the character.

But with regard to a "classless" system, there is another alternative. They could present "build your own class" rules. Then, if my conception is "Fallen Paladin turned to Shadow Sorcerer Thief" then perhaps I could make a character that otherwise might be best expressed as a mix of 3.5/PF1 multiclassing combined with original D&D multiclassing.

That is, play a Paladin for 2 levels, fall, then advance as both sorcerer and rogue at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
Moro wrote:


Yes, sarcasm. I don't believe the devs hate freedom.

However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.

I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.

I was actually a big fan of the 2nd Edition D&D form of multiclassing, minus the race restrictions, though, so I readily admit that I may not be the typical audience.

I mean, AD&D 2e multiclassing pretty much was the definition of commitment, considering you literally could never take levels in your previous class. Though you may be thinking of Dual Classing, which was honestly a hot mess and with the tighter math of Pathfinder in any form a Dual CLass character could not survive due to leveling at half the rate of either class, and only got a slight bonus if they had god stats due to needing a 16 in all their prime requisite stats to get the 10% bonus XP.

I think someone else already explained that you have it backwards, but wanted to note that because of the way XP was distributed and leveling was done, multiclass characters were fine in 2nd edition.

Typically a multiclass with 2 classes would be about a level behind a single-classed character at a given level, and would be fine in terms of power - for example, a 3/3 Fighter/Mage was just fine in the same party with a 4th level Fighter and 4th level Cleric. Things got a little weird, particularly with the Rogue, because different classes needed different amounts of XP to attain certain levels, but generally, multiclasses were ok without being overpowered. Since 3.0 changed the dynamics of leveling and how levels scaled, I think multiclassing has taken a hit and has been very hard to balance.

But my main point was that 2nd edition multiclassing gave a list of set multiclass combinations that were possible, and made it more difficult to unintentionally end up gimping your character by choosing a couple of classes that did not mesh well together.

Grand Lodge

A 3/3 fighter/mage is a 6th level character. That they can stand with level 4 characters is not glowing praise.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
A 3/3 fighter/mage is a 6th level character. That they can stand with level 4 characters is not glowing praise.

The rules were completely different in AD&D 2E. It does not compare at all to 3.x or pathfinder. A 3 Fighter / 3 Mage was not a 6th level character there.


David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
A 3/3 fighter/mage is a 6th level character. That they can stand with level 4 characters is not glowing praise.

Not really. I mean, 2nd Edition AD&D multiclass characters were very good, but in practice they wouldn't stand a chance in encounters made for a 6th level character, nor would they face such challenges, because, until "name level" (around 9th or 10th), XP requirements for each class doubled (making a long wait for level 2, let me tell you). After name level you needed static XP in the millions or hundreds of thousands, and multiclass characters fell behind, but it usually didn't matter because demi-humans had maximum levels anyway and would probably retire before then anyway.

Part of the issue is that they divide their hit points by the number of classes they have, every time they level. They also only use their best THAC0 from an individual class; it's not added between classes.

The advantage of being a multiclass character was that you were quite strong and capable at 1st level (before the dividing of XP lowered your effectiveness at each class), and you were able to use some interesting combos (a fighter/mage with Haste could become quite the blender).

Dual class was a whole different thing. Don't even get me started on bards (who had to be human dual class fighter/rogues before they could start being bards, THANKS GARY GYGAX).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
A 3/3 fighter/mage is a 6th level character. That they can stand with level 4 characters is not glowing praise.

They are talking about 2nd edition multiclassing, a 3/3 fighter/mage was not a 6th level character. It was a 3/3 fighter/mage character, it doesn't translate to 3rd edition terminology. XP was tracked per class and each class had its own XP->level chart such that characters would be much different class level and have relatively equivalent power levels. Thieves level faster than fighters who leveled faster than Wizards. Character classes weren't designed to stack rather the best one took priority.


Frozen Yakman wrote:
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
A 3/3 fighter/mage is a 6th level character. That they can stand with level 4 characters is not glowing praise.
They are talking about 2nd edition multiclassing, a 3/3 fighter/mage was not a 6th level character. It was a 3/3 fighter/mage character, it doesn't translate to 3rd edition terminology. XP was tracked per class and each class had its own XP->level chart such that characters would be much different class level and have relatively equivalent power levels. Thieves level faster than fighters who leveled faster than Wizards. Character classes weren't designed to stack rather the best one took priority.

Hey Yakman, remember the days of calculating out the perfect level for dual classing a Baldur's Gate character? Wasn't Imoen so frequently dual classed that she was officially a thief/magic-user in BG2?

I forget, did demi-humans have max levels in BG, or did they dispense with that when you could get up to level 23 or whatever in Throne of Bhaal?


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dracomicron wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
A 3/3 fighter/mage is a 6th level character. That they can stand with level 4 characters is not glowing praise.
They are talking about 2nd edition multiclassing, a 3/3 fighter/mage was not a 6th level character. It was a 3/3 fighter/mage character, it doesn't translate to 3rd edition terminology. XP was tracked per class and each class had its own XP->level chart such that characters would be much different class level and have relatively equivalent power levels. Thieves level faster than fighters who leveled faster than Wizards. Character classes weren't designed to stack rather the best one took priority.

Hey Yakman, remember the days of calculating out the perfect level for dual classing a Baldur's Gate character? Wasn't Imoen so frequently dual classed that she was officially a thief/magic-user in BG2?

I forget, did demi-humans have max levels in BG, or did they dispense with that when you could get up to level 23 or whatever in Throne of Bhaal?

She was indeed a thief/magic-user in BG2 but I didn't really play with her that much in BG1 (nor BG2).

I'm 99% sure race-specific level caps were dropped in all the infinity engine games.


Frozen Yakman wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:

I forget, did demi-humans have max levels in BG, or did they dispense with that when you could get up to level 23 or whatever in Throne of Bhaal?

I'm 99% sure race-specific level caps were dropped in all the infinity engine games.

Thanks, been so long since I played those. Blast from the past, Bioware's BG site was the first internet forum I ever frequented.

HA! Good fun! (tm Gromnir Il-Khan)

On-topic, I tend to think that there should be more than one way to represent multi-classing. I like the idea of taking class feats to represent a character's major sideline, but there should be a mechanism built in for characters to have a sudden life change and shift focus entirely to a new class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
Moro wrote:

However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.

I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.

I think the biggest issue is that certain fighting styles are locked behind certain classes. Suddenly, you're no longer a bow-wielding Paladin of Erastil, you're a Paladin/Fighter using your Fighter dedication to learn to use a bow.
Hard disagree. They have actually made it so you don't need feats just to "learn to use a bow". You can effectively use a bow without any combat feats now. No more tax. Erastil paladin taking the Blade Ally and using Blade of Justice with their bow is perfectly viable in combat. No need to take the fighter archetype, although the option is there if you want to be a more combat oriented paladin and sacrifice some of your more "paladin-y" abilities.

Hmm where's the feat to get around Volley? You know the penalty for Erastil's favored weapon?

OH wait.

Yeah, you can use a bow. Everyone can use a bow. You want to build for bow well you need to go fighter or maybe ranger. Tell me, where is a Bow Paladin getting their hit bonuses from? Besides spells.

Should be decoupled from Fighter and tossed into the Feat pool. But what would be we call a Feat designed to boost your Combat abilities?


MerlinCross wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:

I think the biggest issue is that certain fighting styles are locked behind certain classes. Suddenly, you're no longer a bow-wielding Paladin of Erastil, you're a Paladin/Fighter using your Fighter dedication to learn to use a bow.

Hard disagree. They have actually made it so you don't need feats just to "learn to use a bow". You can effectively use a bow without any combat feats now. No more tax. Erastil paladin taking the Blade Ally and using Blade of Justice with their bow is perfectly viable in combat. No need to take the fighter archetype, although the option is there if you want to be a more combat oriented paladin and sacrifice some of your more "paladin-y" abilities.

Hmm where's the feat to get around Volley? You know the penalty for Erastil's favored weapon?

OH wait.

Yeah, you can use a bow. Everyone can use a bow. You want to build for bow well you need to go fighter or maybe ranger. Tell me, where is a Bow Paladin getting their hit bonuses from? Besides spells.

Should be decoupled from Fighter and tossed into the Feat pool. But what would be we call a Feat designed to boost your Combat abilities?

This is the problem with the Fighter as a class. For other classes, roles are things like "Unarmed combat", "Sneaking around", and "Killing a single target dead". These are all relatively specific, so it isn't as much of a problem to enact role protection and say no one else can be as good as them at things. Meanwhile, the fighter's role is "Be good at combat". Thus, no one else can be as good as the fighter at fighting, and you have to be a fighter to be competent with bows.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

1st and 2nd edition dual-class is not the same as multi-class of 1st and 2nd edition or of 3rd edition.

Dual-class was "you stop at X level and start doing a new class. You keep the old hit points of the original class but have to use the new class's to-hit, saving throws, and everything else or you don't gain any experience. Upon reading X+1 levels you regain all the talents of the old class but continue leveling up with the new class. You can never again train in the old class."

Multi-classing was "you have 100,000 experience points. You are spending 50,000 XPs for Thief and 50,000 XPs as Fighter, making you a 6th level fighter and 7th level thief, compared to the 7th level fighter or 8th level Rogue you'd normally be. But you can backstab and use Thief abilities." The 6/7 Fighter/Thief would be the same experience as the 7th level Fighter or 8th level Thief. That said, depending on your race you might be stuck with a 5th level Fighter and 7th level Thief because of racial maximums... and about the only class that either had very high maximums or none at all was Rogue.

3rd edition became "oh I feel bored with being a Fighter I'm going to become a Wizard despite it needing years of training to learn because I feel like it and oh hey I don't like Wizard after all so next level I'll go in with Gunslinger... no, Swashbuckler! Yeah, Swashbuckler looks good..." and every so often people found combinations that were uber-powered and broken.

For instance, the Asimar who takes three levels of Rogue and one level of sorcerer and then immediately becomes an Arcane Trickster because of their racial spellcasting.

This new system looks far superior to 3rd edition. That you can't just alter your path willynilly isn't a bad thing. Seriously, if you dislike your old class that much? Make a new character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

1st and 2nd edition dual-class is not the same as multi-class of 1st and 2nd edition or of 3rd edition.

Dual-class was "you stop at X level and start doing a new class. You keep the old hit points of the original class but have to use the new class's to-hit, saving throws, and everything else or you don't gain any experience. Upon reading X+1 levels you regain all the talents of the old class but continue leveling up with the new class. You can never again train in the old class."

Multi-classing was "you have 100,000 experience points. You are spending 50,000 XPs for Thief and 50,000 XPs as Fighter, making you a 6th level fighter and 7th level thief, compared to the 7th level fighter or 8th level Rogue you'd normally be. But you can backstab and use Thief abilities." The 6/7 Fighter/Thief would be the same experience as the 7th level Fighter or 8th level Thief. That said, depending on your race you might be stuck with a 5th level Fighter and 7th level Thief because of racial maximums... and about the only class that either had very high maximums or none at all was Rogue.

3rd edition became "oh I feel bored with being a Fighter I'm going to become a Wizard despite it needing years of training to learn because I feel like it and oh hey I don't like Wizard after all so next level I'll go in with Gunslinger... no, Swashbuckler! Yeah, Swashbuckler looks good..." and every so often people found combinations that were uber-powered and broken.

For instance, the Asimar who takes three levels of Rogue and one level of sorcerer and then immediately becomes an Arcane Trickster because of their racial spellcasting.

This new system looks far superior to 3rd edition. That you can't just alter your path willynilly isn't a bad thing. Seriously, if you dislike your old class that much? Make a new character.

When did you get appointed minister of approved fun?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

30 years ago. I'm a quiet and decent high dictator.


Tangent101 wrote:
30 years ago. I'm a quiet and decent high dictator.

I can remember when the great minister was chosen by himself. It was a glorious day for the fun loving people...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracala wrote:

I'm gonna do exactly what I saw someone else do with another thread get some very negative thoughts out of my head. My biggest concern with the new system is the way that the Multiclassing works, as I saw someone mention in another thread that's been locked now, "the new system makes it so that you can have the features of another class without losing the features of your original class."

Well my question is, what if I didn't want some of those features from my first class at all? What if I am Purposefully trying to opt out of those features? Do I not need a way to do that? What if the things I wanted were the Feats from the two classes more than anything else? What if I wanted to Multiclass just because I liked the Feats from the 2 classes I wanted to combine, and didn't necessarily care about the Baseline Features?

What you suggest sounds to me a bit like - 5e's way of multiclassing. And let me tell you - it is unredeemably BROKEN. You get Multiclass-combinations (usually characters where the combinations are just "like that" because of a gamemechanical combinaton, NOT because it fits to the story of this character) which are so much broken that no singleclass character will EVER be even remotely similar in "powerlevel". Not half in powerlevel. Not third in powerlevel.

The Multiclassing approach of PF2 was one of the things which I immediately liked on it, one of the thing which made me go "I have to convince my group converting from 5e to PF2". Tomorrow we will have our first PF2 Session ;-)

MagicSN


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
oholoko wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
30 years ago. I'm a quiet and decent high dictator.
I can remember when the great minister was chosen by himself. It was a glorious day for the fun loving people...

There were cookies involved. Chocolate chip, fresh from the oven, still soft and oh so delicious...


MagicSN did you read any of the rest of my posts? You know that a lot of the first page is trying to ask what I meant right? You should really go try to read what I meant to say because I like the 3.X way of Multiclassing, but think it should be more limited in number of allowable classes to take, so that the situation in PFS doesn't happen again where people are taking the first level of Multiple classes. I also dislike what I call "FeatClassing" because it limits my freedom to make the character I want to create, due to Only taking up Class Feats (and quite a number of them at that).

I even did a side by side comparison for myself where I Multiclassed Rogue & Alchemist, keeping them within 2 levels of each other, and "FeatClassed" an Alchemist with the Rogue Archetype. I came to the conclusion that I had Much more freedom of Class Feats, Despite the fact that I would never touch Class Feats above lvl 10. The real trade-off being that the "FeatClassed" Alchemist had more Alchemic Formulae & a Straight/"FeatClassed" Rogue would have more Skill Feats/Skill Increases(which from what's available I didn't see as necessary).

There's also the matter of Class Only Archetypes in the future which will Also be based on Class Feat Slots, and thus will compete unlike how they currently do(since they replace Class Features).

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Why I dislike where 2E's Multiclassing is going All Messageboards

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