So this is more of a hypothetical question at the moment so I don't have any specific examples. I was trying to think of a way to give non dual classers something to offset the versatility that a dual classer has and came up with the idea of giving them double class feats.
Mostly I'm just hoping to see if other people believe this to be a good solution and if anyone see a way for this to be more unbalanced than it seems
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... giving them something that a dual classed character gets anyway?
It would help a little, but not by that much imo. The real power of the dual classed characters are their ability to get so many optimal math bonuses and the automatic class features. Class feats are a bonus, but giving a free class feat doesn't go far enough imo.
I would approach it from the other angle and drop the power of the dual class option a bit.
For the record, I really disagree with the book where it says it gives more versatility not power in most cases. In many cases it is a straight and noticeable power upgrade.
I agree that it will likely be a power increase but I am planning on running a game with dual class characters to see if it is a notable power increase, I reckon it will be less about the rules themselves and more in how each group approaches it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... giving them something that a dual classed character gets anyway?
It would help a little, but not by that much imo. The real power of the dual classed characters are their ability to get so many optimal math bonuses and the automatic class features. Class feats are a bonus, but giving a free class feat doesn't go far enough imo.
I would approach it from the other angle and drop the power of the dual class option a bit.
For the record, I really disagree with the book where it says it gives more versatility not power in most cases. In many cases it is a straight and noticeable power upgrade.
Fighter - Precision Ranger or Fighter - Barbarian is going to be a fairly obvious and significant boost. Wizard/Cloistered Cleric is going to be a minor boost more about fleibility.
It depends what the players do. If you stop a few of the worst excesses and get player copperation in that regard, then maybe a couple of feats would be enough.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... giving them something that a dual classed character gets anyway?
It would help a little, but not by that much imo. The real power of the dual classed characters are their ability to get so many optimal math bonuses and the automatic class features. Class feats are a bonus, but giving a free class feat doesn't go far enough imo.
I would approach it from the other angle and drop the power of the dual class option a bit.
For the record, I really disagree with the book where it says it gives more versatility not power in most cases. In many cases it is a straight and noticeable power upgrade.
Fighter - Precision Ranger or Fighter - Barbarian is going to be a fairly obvious and significant boost. Wizard/Cloistered Cleric is going to be a minor boost more about fleibility.
It depends what the players do. If you stop a few of the worst excesses and get player copperation in that regard, then maybe a couple of feats would be enough.
If you still want to allow some of those "worst excesses" class combos without the worst excesses themselves, look carefully at what sorts of synergistic martial combat features you can never get with multiclass and tweak it to make sure the dual class character doesn't get two of those. Hunter's Edge, scaling barbarian Rage, fighter legendary weapons, monk/champion legendary AC, etc.
So, funnily enough my first thought with the dual-class variant was a Redeemonk. An unarmored Champion using Divine Weapon through his handwraps, with his reaction being the Redeemer’s ‘You don’t really want to do that, buddy. Find another way to live, or I’m going to have to stop you.’
Sure, the Legendary AC bonus doesn’t really matter here, as it’s going to be the same if he goes unarmored or in the beefiest of plate, but the imagery would be awesome.
So this is more of a hypothetical question at the moment so I don't have any specific examples. I was trying to think of a way to give non dual classers something to offset the versatility that a dual classer has and came up with the idea of giving them double class feats.
Mostly I'm just hoping to see if other people believe this to be a good solution and if anyone see a way for this to be more unbalanced than it seems
Are you proposing the equivalent of Gestalt rules?
Because within PF2 there's no multiclassing. There's class dedications...but they work different.
So I can only assume you mean to have a single character take the best of either class and get all the class features underneath.
My short answer is...don't do that in the first place.
Edit: Seems like dual classing might be something from a new book, anyone got any clarification?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like dual classing might be something from a new book, anyone got any clarification?Dual classing is one of the variant rules from the new Gamemastery Guide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A single class does not always have enough feats at every level to provide adequate and compelling options for a single classed character with double class feats. In my experience, having a wealth of feats means multiclass dedications abound.
In that case, non-dual classed characters are going to be exceedingly unsatisfying in comparison.
If a player is dead set on being non-dual classed in a dual class game, then I would go out of my way to grant them custom bonuses. Extra spell slots, extra HP, custom feat options, the works.
What I would do is allow the single class character more uncommon/rare options than the dual classed players. Let them be creative in qualifying for regional feats/ racial feats. Maby even give them a magic item to start with that grows with them as they level or a special animal companion/familiar with slightly boosted abilities or a 3 for 1 action economy. It really depends on how "Powerful" the dual combos are.
To piggyback off of Mark, there are a couple of things to remember for Dual classed vs. single.
First is that the Dual class PCs can easily have the best starting proficiencies in everything. Instead of a Warpriest (baseline gish) having delayed expert in everything except fort saves, go with a Fight/Cleric dual class. At level 1 you have expert prof in
-all 3 saves
-all simple and martial weapons
-perception
plus you get expert armor at 11 instead of 13 and spellcasting at 7 instead of 11. Instead of waiting till level 7 to get expert in only your deity's favored weapon, you get master in a whole weapon group at 5.
The second thing is stacking same on same. The easiest example is taking two spellcasting classes. A Wizard has 3-4 spell slots per spell level for about 31 at level 15. A Wizard multiclassed as cleric has about 1-2 per spell level extra, but not for the 2-3 highest slots. Again this level 15 PC now has about 39 spell slots. They also have only expert in Divine vs. Master in Arcane. A Dual-Class Wizard/Cleric has 3-4 arcane slots per spell level and then another 2-3 divine slots per spell level. This hypothetical level 15 Wizard/Cleric now has 57 spell slots, plus 2 to 5 fully maxed heal/harm slots as well (along with master prof in both traditions). This both increases versatility and means your work day can last much longer. Even at level 1, you are looking at 3 slots per day vs. 5 + free font slots.
in summery, Dual Class PCs will have either no or few weaknesses or have significantly more resources per day, or both.
Specifically, it's basically the Gestalt Rules.Seems like dual classing might be something from a new book, anyone got any clarification?Dual classing is one of the variant rules from the new Gamemastery Guide.
That seems like it would be very unbalancing.
I'm surprised they included it as an option.
Some classes have much high synergy and power than others.
With the way casting classes were changed, dual classing with 2 casters probably isn't a strong option (due to action economy, but they will have increased versatility of spells and a longer working day). But taking a martial class, even if you're already martial is going to be very strong due to the various types of bonuses they can get. Precision ranger is very strong if you stack that on a fighter.
I like it from a player perspective, cause it would make my character stronger...but seems like it would be difficult to keep balanced between players.
I don't think I like the concept.
Isn't the point of Dual-Class heroes to be ridiculously overpowered?
with the dual classes rules, some combinations are exceptionally overpowered, others are simply more versatile.
Just like PF1 gestalt rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the dual class rules but I think that balancing dual class heroes against normal ones seems as good as impossible
If I had a table where one wants to not play dualclass I would warn him and advise him just to take something similar to his own class and double down on what he wants to do (like fighter + ranger for everything archery and 2 weapon fighting or something along the lines)
but admittedly some combos are crazy strong and hard to balance
like the fighter/ranger DMW already said (flurry with that hurts)
or what I noticed (playtest) swashbuckler+rogue -> finisher sneak attacks are crazy strong and probably not within system limits
and a rogue with full spell progession can cause a lot of really nasty damage (although it is mostly more recources then a rogue with one or two spellcasting dedications)
but many combos mostly strike me as adding mostly versatility to the characters reportoire
.
but non dual class heroes beeing balanced against regular ones? seems not possible to me - or at least really, REALLY hard
mostly because the core abilities that make a class are its bread and butter, the class feats are just the cheese on top of it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I have my Gamemastery Guide PDF and skimmed through it:
My first recommendation would be that everyone in the party should be dual classed if at all possible, for obvious balance reasons.
If you have a player who strongly insists on being single classed and who is unwilling to take on an acceptable second class, the best option I saw in the Gamemastery Guide that gives anything close to an acceptably appropriate power boost is "Ancestral Paragon", which grants extra ancestry feats. In this case, I might even throw in an extra ancestry feat at 1st level.
Alternatively, you could give them their choice of a free non-multiclass archetype, with an extra class feat for that purpose at 1st level.
But even these options are still weaker than actual dual classing.
|
I agree with David here, I think perhaps granting Ancestral Paragon and a bonus Archetype Feat at Level 1 is probably one of the best ways of bridging the power/flexibility gap left between Dual and Single Classed PCs.
You might even consider giving the single Classed NPC a moderate WBL boost to make up the difference as well in the form of unique items and runes they have access to through their contacts and background.
So, you'd start off with the dual class characters being flatly better, move to them being flatly better a portion of the time, possibly find a golden balance point in the middle, and eventually drag down at the end to them being terrible due to low proficiency, as your single classed characters come up on 20... then overtake again if the game keeps going?
That sounds like a terrible plan.
...and make encounter building insanely hard and make the lower level people feel bad. Having people of different levels is a bad idea in any RPG.
I think my advice is... just don't.
I'm wondering what the situation is that would require the two styles being blended? Are some players demanding dual class? Are some adamantly refusing?
This seems to require a compromise... we will play it with dual class for one (short) campaign, then we will play it without for one (short) campaign, then we will evaluate things going forward.
I wouldn't allow some characters to be dual classed while the others were single classed any more than I'd allow some of my players to use PF2 rules and some of my players to use PF1 rules. It's just gonna end in tears.
Hmm, I'd start with double class feats. I think it needs to actually be better at it's single class than the dual classers are at theirs.
I'd probably give a free stat increase (4 stats) at level 1 to compensate.
Probably not
Dual class characters are somwhat tougher (with higher average saves, the higher of both of their classes hit points and more recources to heal)
but not much stronger
they have more options, yes, but if you rule out characters going double down on a specific niche (like fighter + ranger for extreme atack power) they mostly have additional options, which make them... not much stronger
they still have roughly the same attack and armor modifiers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was me as GM, I would say to anybody who wants to dual class, fine, but you dice for your stats not point buy!
So...is this supposed to solve problems?
Because I mostly see this causing trouble - besides the point that we don't have point by in the first place| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was me as GM, I would say to anybody who wants to dual class, fine, but you dice for your stats not point buy!So...is this supposed to solve problems?
Because I mostly see this causing trouble - besides the point that we don't have point by in the first place
This.
Like... Just don't mix dual-class and single-class characters in the same party. Trying to solve the "problem" by tanking the attacks/saves/skills/etc of dual-classed characters just leads to other problems around not being able to meet the expected DCs for a given level of party.
Yeah, simply don't allow combinations that are overly powerful (like Fighter & Ranger) and what you have a characters with more options but not more powerful. It means no player has a niche that only they can fill, which is probably good.
But like a fighter wizard dual class still can only do the things that a fighter or wizard could do, but there's not exactly a ton of synergy to gain, except some spells that can only be cast on yourself. And the best ones that come to mind are like True Strike, but you could already get that with Wizard multiclass dedication anyways.
Yeah, simply don't allow combinations that are overly powerful (like Fighter & Ranger) and what you have a characters with more options but not more powerful.
So given that the general metric for explaining Tier lists in PF1e was how well could a class fill multiple niches. Can you explain why being drastically better at a variety of fields and having less weaknesses isn't a more powerful option?
Even if we only allow martial/caster combos it still ends up with things that are just outright better than being only one class. Unless I am missing some downside somewhere?
Like, any martial is benefited by having a cloistered cleric as a side... Or bard... or even sorcerer even if only to throw those extra casts of blink and other defensive spells on themselves.
Yeah, simply don't allow combinations that are overly powerful (like Fighter & Ranger) and what you have a characters with more options but not more powerful.So given that the general metric for explaining Tier lists in PF1e was how well could a class fill multiple niches. Can you explain why being drastically better at a variety of fields and having less weaknesses isn't a more powerful option?
Even if we only allow martial/caster combos it still ends up with things that are just outright better than being only one class. Unless I am missing some downside somewhere?
Like, any martial is benefited by having a cloistered cleric as a side... Or bard... or even sorcerer even if only to throw those extra casts of blink and other defensive spells on themselves.
The fighter ranger is a specific case of higher weapon proficiency than any one else (and get upgrades to their base proficiency earlier) and the ranger is a specific case of having an ability which reduces MAP.
In effect, a fighter could end up making 4+ attacks a round at only a -4, which would be only -2 compared to other classes. Having an effective 10% better chance to hit is a big deal in this system.
In PF2 I don't see more options as being that powerful, because everyone in your party will have more options (assuming everyone is dual classes which has been the general recommendation). So everyone get's more options together. However, certain abilities of classes synergize in a way that upsets the underlying math of the game.
But like a fighter wizard dual class still can only do the things that a fighter or wizard could do, but there's not exactly a ton of synergy to gain, except some spells that can only be cast on yourself. And the best ones that come to mind are like True Strike, but you could already get that with Wizard multiclass dedication anyways.It is way different.
You will be hitting melee until they swap on the healer/blaster, which is also a melee, without realizing that you are also a healer/blaster, and you will find yourselves simply swapping roles in the most overpowered way ever.
"I hit them with my reach weapon, and if they dare moving away from me I throw fireballs"
Dual Classing is simply meant to help small groups.
In a party of 3 members, let's say with no healer, there could be for example a ranger/druid who will deal with damage and healings, when needed.
His actions will however be 3 per round, so he will simply be more versatile, and because of that the party could somehow manage to deal with premade adventures, even with 1 player less.
Edit: Humble Gamer, I think we're in general agreement on this topic.
The thing is more options aren't a problem. Everyone in the party will have more options on what they can do. Everyone is still limited by the 3 point action economy. The fact that the fighter cleric might suddenly heal himself doesn't mean he's breaking the system, it just means the cleric doesn't need to run over and heal him. And when he's healing himself he's not using actions to attack.There might be other examples of dual class besides fighter and flurry ranger that shouldn't be allowed, but it's the first example I thought of that would disrupt the math.
I want to make a Fighter/Monk with free hand + shield. Insane!
Swashbuckler (i know its still playtest till next month) + rogue
sneak attack + finisher is nasty
certainly a combination I would not allow
Casters are really difficult because the best synergy they get is more spells slots. They still just get 1 spell/round most of the time, and there arent as many synergist effects in their features or feats.
Casters / Fighter also get access to a more reliable third action strike with Bows, it does add toe the potential DPR of the team.
It seems clear that the dual-class rules are a significant upgrade, so for a non-dual-class character to pull their weight they will need something (or several somethings) equally significant.
The only thing that springs immediately to mind is more stat boosts and higher caps, but I would worry that that was simultaneously too much and not enoguh, if you know what I mean. The balance point, if one exists, would be difficult to find.
I agree with both the people who were saying that single-class people should be better at their class than dual-classers, but also that finding enough feats for double picks would be hard. Therefore I would suggest that some bonus class feats would be a good idea, but is obviously not enough on its own.
Beyond that, something like the option of giving single classers more-powerful ancestries is a possibility, but obviously they would have to be created from whole cloth.
_
glass.
My suggestion for people concerned about what dual class combinations to allow would be consider not allowing dual class as per those rules.
Instead, allow the player to pick their primary class, and allow them to pick a secondary class. Give them the 2nd level Multiclass feat for that secondary class for free at first level.
Then give them a free class feat that has to be spent on an archetype feat. You might modify the level limitations for this starting multi-class to allow them to buy feats at normal level, instead of the half level normally forced.
You have granted them a definite increase in versatility, which will increase their power a little, but not massively, as we already know the 'tweaks' to keep archetypes from being too synergistic between classes has already be put in place.
If you have someone who insists they don't want to play outside their own class... offer them a bonus class feat at first and every even level that can only ever be used for their main classes feats.
That seems like a decent balancing act, providing strong chance for increased variability and breadth but still utilizing Second Editions primary architecture to keep any builds withing a general power scope.
Another option, but I think would probably be significantly weaker, would be to offer them the chance to get an extra heritage and racial feat at first level and then either an extra racial or general feat at each other odd level (the opposite of what they normally get). Would probably add more flavor than ability, although there are some flavorful racial options that might be quite useful to some builds, so some people might actually consider it if it were given as an option. (potentially especially for one of the 1/2 racial options, or other flexible heritages)