| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... basically just characters with doubled spells or reagents that are more powerful for the sake of being more powerful, but not otherwise more interesting?
I'm not sure why you would want to have that as a rule in your game.
Dual classing is already a serious power increase, but you could use it to have characters that fill more roles if you have a very small number of players, so I see a point in that, at least.
I think my sentence was not very well constructed, and can see how it is unclear. I did not intend to say that the spells or reagents were more powerful, but that the characters were more powerful without really being more interesting.
I don't see why not, you don't get 2 focus pools though so sorc/sorc kinda loses out if you wanted to focus on bloodline focus spells.
I can't see Sorc/Sorc being all that different than Wiz/Sorc other than having a slight advantage of a single casting stat although you could do a similar thing with Cleric/Druid and should be just fine.
Ranger/Ranger for 2 different Hunter's Edge would be pretty strong though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's generally just going to be weaker than picking a different class for your second class.
Like a Ranger+Monk is going to have legendary unarmed defense, legendary perception, LLM saves, Master martial. A Ranger+Ranger is going to have two different hunter's edges, but is down -2 for AC, and a save.
Double the same class, lets look at it class by class
Alchemist - more formulas probably? 2 paths is probably handy but there isnt exactly synergy going on and from what I know the number of potions you get is enough either way
barbarian - more paths means more anathema, but also more hurt, this would probably be imbalanced damage wise but besides that pretty boring, also several paths are mutually exclusive
bard - well the multiple paths is kinda nice but in the end there is not that much going on for bard in this
champion - you can't have multiple paths so you basically just get extra feats, except if the gm houserules it
cleric - this one profits probably the most, better armor prophiciency, more cantrips, better spell progression -> ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
druid - to a lesser degree you can already have multiple orders, so not much new going on
fighter - plain double feats and not even an option to houserule
monk - also just double feats, martials really loose out here
ranger - two hunters edges sound interesting, now we have two options: you have one with both effects which would be really imba or you can use only one at a time, which would be okay since you have to tactically choose in which case it would be interesting
rogue - why would you? you could sneak attack with spells at level 4+ or get a arsenal of lethal toxins which scale with your class dc? I mean it is not bad but you REALLY loose out
sorcerer - two spell lists with the same attribute is pretty good, more focus spells are also nice, especially since sorcerer has imo a few of the best
wizard - to be honest I have no big idea since I usually stop readins spellcasters after 's' but multiple thesis sounds pretty good though
but double down on one class seem really bland and boring when you can have all the stuff two classes deliver
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...you realize Mountain Stance can't be used while wearing any armor, right?
*sad trombone*
monk stances in general don't work with armor
and you wouldn't get any benefit from from the defensive prophiciencies either
still, that combo would open up several interesting combos with lots of focus spells, solid reactions etc
but you either go stances and unarmored or monastic weaponry and wear whatever armor you like, both looks pretty good