In First Edition, the Advanced Class Guide gave us six "hybrid" classes, each descended from two base classes. For example, the Arcanist is a Sorcerer/Wizard hybrid. It occurs to me that second edition's dual class option might be a way to approximate these hybrid classes, although each hybrid has something unique that's probably not available in second edition. For example, the Arcanist's Arcane Pool. What do folks think of this idea? Cool? Waste of time?
IAC I'm going to try building a couple of these to see how they come out. If I come up with something that looks interesting I'll post a stat block or two here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dual classing doesn't really strike me as a good way to represent those first edition classes so much as make overpowered versions. An arcanist had LESS spells than the wizard or sorcerer, didn't it? Giving it twice as many feels silly when you can already do things like multiclass or take Arcane Evolution on the sorcerer. Arcane Pool feels like something you can represent with focus spells and metamagic feats too.
Similarly, dual classing monk and fighter wouldn't make a brawler. It would make a character that gets legendary proficiency in both weapons and armor. Compared to just doing a fighter with the monk or martial artist archetype, which hits the character concept just fine.
Plus we have gotten some of those hybrid classes ported over and they no longer feel like hybrids. They are pretty distinct things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual Classes are not the same as Hybrid Classes, and have much more in common with Gestalt play in 3.5 than any of the bespoke 1e creations you're talking about. You'll see the difference between a 1e Bloodrager and a 2e Sorcerer/Barbarian, for instance, and there's no real way to replicate a Skald's raging song with a Barbarian/Bard. Most of the 1e Hybrids had a number of mechanics unique to them, not just poached from their "parent" classes.
Where did I say Dual Classes are the same as Hybrid Classes? As for the unique mechanics, I did mention that.
What hybrid classes have been ported over? Did I miss something?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
. It occurs to me that second edition's dual class option might be a way to approximate these hybrid classes, .
Right there bud. Ok, you said approximate, but they aren't even a good approximation so semantics won't get you anywhere.
Swashbuckler and Investigator we're hybrid classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where did I say Dual Classes are the same as Hybrid Classes? As for the unique mechanics, I did mention that.
What hybrid classes have been ported over? Did I miss something?
Investigator and Swashbuckler have been transferred over as their own classes.
Warpriest is a Doctrine of Cleric( although its quite different from 1e)
The Flexible caster class archetype refers to a wizard with the archetype as an Arcanist. (And at the very least does the whole mix prepared/spontaneous thing).
I believe thats about it at the moment. I would say their are elements of Slayer in various classes but I wouldn't say its been ported over.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say their are elements of Slayer in various classes but I wouldn't say its been ported over.
I would. They renamed it Ranger for some reason though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say their are elements of Slayer in various classes but I wouldn't say its been ported over.I would. They renamed it Ranger for some reason though.
Ranger did eat a lot of what I would consider to be the Slayers butter but there is a small thing that makes me hesitant to call it the Slayer. WIth nature being an automatic skill and several of the rangers feats being tied to nature, It imposes a Theme( although one that could be ignored) on to the class that def makes it feel more ranger. Slayers always felt a bit more urban or at the very least didn't innately have a connection to nature.(which without archetypes the 1e ranger certainly did)
But I can see where you are coming from.
|
What hybrid classes have been ported over? Did I miss something?
Investigator and Swashbuckler, though as Captain Morgan said they no longer feel like hybrids. The Swashbuckler came out before one of her parents, for starters, though the Investigator can be a precision-dealing alchemist if he wants to be, just not a magical one.
That said, I do think that Dual-Classing could capture some of what you're looking for and it's certainly a cool idea if you wanted to keep playing those concepts. Some (Skald) won't match at all, but others (Warpriest, Hunter) can probably be worked into something that feels similar. Slayer probably nails it on the head out the box.
Sorcerer/Barbarian sounds like a fun challenge to make feel like a Bloodrager, though Oracle/Barbarian might work even better. Grab Wounded Rage so you can buff up and saunter towards melee with some fun spells then switch to hitting people once they start hitting you (or, y'know, wade into melee and have that happen immediately). Add Moment of Clarity just in case and you're golden. Plus, some Bloodline/Mystery spells are Somatic-only single actions and those work fine while raging...
...Actually, speaking of which, Crowe's backstory is pretty much perfect for a Tempest Oracle/Barbarian dual-class. Arguably better for that than for an Elemental Bloodrager, really.
Hybrid classes were kind of a silly idea in PF1, I don't think there's any reason to port the concept beyond there just being concepts that fall into the gap between two existing classes. The "hybrid" classes that were most successful and best designed were the ones that broke away from the obligation to their parent classes and did their own thing (Investigator) while others really suffered by trying to take in equal parts from the parents (Hunter).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO Hybrid classes was a good solution for PF1 one that 3.5 basis doesn't allow too much customization.
In PF2 due how class feats and archetypes works there's no need for such thing. As already pixierose said, many of these class concepts ended being a "subclass", archetype or class archetype in PF2.
I generally assume that optional rules are optional for good reason, but that the reason is not "they screw up game balance" or whatever. So I think that dual classes are probably a viable optional rule. But then you have to wonder what character concepts they would support. I thought "maybe hybrids". You all are telling me either "no way" or "maybe, but not very well". Maybe I should just go back to Harnmaster (which, btw, has no classes at all).
Dual-class is an optional rules usually used by tables with 2-3 players in order to compensate the lack of different classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally assume that optional rules are optional for good reason, but that the reason is not "they screw up game balance" or whatever. So I think that dual classes are probably a viable optional rule.
Did you read the Dual Class rules? Because this covered in them.
Dual-classing in two similar martial classes to double up on their advantages can result in characters who, instead of increasing their flexibility, become drastically more powerful in one focus. For instance, a fighter/ranger with the flurry hunter’s edge gains access to incredibly accurate press actions, and a barbarian/fighter has the barbarian’s high damage plus the fighter’s high accuracy. One way around this is to simply disallow combinations that double down on a narrow ability, and instead encourage dual-class characters that open up narrative options and increase the character’s flexibility. The other solution is to raise the challenge from the opposition, treating the party as if the characters were a level higher. However, this is a choice that affects the whole group, even if only one character is built to mow down foes.
But then you have to wonder what character concepts they would support. I thought "maybe hybrids"
Was the point of this thread to figure out what Dual-Class is for, or how to convert hybrid classed characters? Because your thread title makes it sound like the latter and now you're talking about the former.
As to what Dual-Class is for, the rules have that covered too:
If you're interested in making hybrid classes, people have made numerous suggestions on how to do it better which don't require variant rules. Free Archetype would be a much better variant to apply but isn't strictly necessary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the core philosophy difference here is whether this is a coop 4+ person game or a 2-3 person game.
In a 2-person game a hybrid fighter/cleric and a wizard/rogue (using classic tropes) would be both necessary and effective. In a 4-person game you are just stepping in each other’s toes. In designing the class you get something that is OP as hell or just bad at two classes.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m glad they have dual classing in the GMG. But I think that is intended for small groups only. Just my take.
I generally assume that optional rules are optional for good reason, but that the reason is not "they screw up game balance" or whatever.
There are a few cases where the combination is more powerful than the sum of its parts.
But other than that, at least for dual-class, the balance considerations are regarding if you have some characters built with the optional rule and others not.
Free Archetype is generally considered reasonably balanced - meaning that if one character had it and the other three did not, the one character with Free Archetype would be only slightly more powerful than the others.
Dual Class can add quite a bit more power though. So all of the characters would need to be built with that in order to not feel significantly less effective.
Consider making a battle wizard character using:
Magus alone.
Fighter with Free Archetype Wizard.
Wizard with Free Archetype Fighter.
Dual Class Fighter/Wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dual classing is fun for building hybrid concepts that PF2 will never allow and the power budget is more manageable than it looks if you follow the guidelines, though it does clearly throw normal balance out the window too.
It's really good for small groups, or if you're very good at managing encounter balance and your players want to play more open characters.
FA is great for remaining closer to the core assumptions of the game while still providing a nice degree of flexibility. TBH a lot of the tables I've seen have basically started treating FA as a standard rule almost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH a lot of the tables I've seen have basically started treating FA as a standard rule almost.
Insert Mr. Burns' "Excellent" gif here
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion free dual class (can get your same class twice) is the only real way to get back to PF1 type balance. Specially for enabling hybrids, with some special "hybrid" combo if you select the right pair of classes. Could even be expanded for more classes if people wanted.
Outside of dual class and heavy modifications of certain classes (*cough*"Summoner"/Manifester*cough*) there is just no way to get the same level variation and power.
I don't really mourn the loss of pf1 type balance
I generally assume that optional rules are optional for good reason, but that the reason is not "they screw up game balance" or whatever. So I think that dual classes are probably a viable optional rule.Did you read the Dual Class rules? Because this covered in them.
** spoiler omitted **
But then you have to wonder what character concepts they would support. I thought "maybe hybrids"Was the point of this thread to figure out what Dual-Class is for, or how to convert hybrid classed characters?...
Yes, I read them.
The point was to use Dual-Class to try to come at least close to the hybrid classes in first edition.
BTW, I now remember that there were eight hybrid classes in the Advanced Class Guide, not just the six I recalled earlier. That's why I missed the investigator and the swashbuckler.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dual-classing doesn't really emulate 1e hybrids very well. 1e hybrids combined ideas from other classes, but didn't really just mash two classes together outright. A wizard/sorcerer dual class doesn't feel or play like an Arcanist.
Speaking of, the one downside to a dual-class game is that if you're following the dual class guidelines, everyone is going to be some kind of spellcaster (or alchemist), which may not be to everyone's tastes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One option that I think may work for hybrid classing is to give a multiclass dedication free at level 1 and remove the restriction on half level on the advanced class feat archetype feat.
So you would pick your base class as normal, then choose the dedication as well - though it would need to be a multiclass dedication. Then at each level when you get a class feat, you could effectively pick feats from both class feat lists.
Sort of a build-your-own-hybrid style that shouldn't end up increasing the power balance of the character much.
I generally assume that optional rules are optional for good reason, but that the reason is not "they screw up game balance" or whatever. So I think that dual classes are probably a viable optional rule.Did you read the Dual Class rules? Because this covered in them.
** spoiler omitted **
But then you have to wonder what character concepts they would support. I thought "maybe hybrids"Was the point of this thread to figure out what Dual-Class is for, or how to convert hybrid classed characters?...Yes, I read them.
The point was to use Dual-Class to try to come at least close to the hybrid classes in first edition.
BTW, I now remember that there were eight hybrid classes in the Advanced Class Guide, not just the six I recalled earlier. That's why I missed the investigator and the swashbuckler.
Then you've got your answer, I guess. But again, you can already emulate those classes just fine.
Slayer- Ranger
Warpriest- Warpriest
Swashbuckler - Swashbuckler
Investigator - Investigator
Arcanist - Flexible caster
Skald - Barbarian MC Bard
Bloodrager - Barbarian MC Sorcerer
Shaman - Witch MC Oracle
The top five are all perfectly viable characters. The bottom three have issues: rage essentially shuts down spellcasting, and there's no wandering spirit mechanic. But none of the right hybrid classes are better emulated by adding Dual Class.
One option that I think may work for hybrid classing is to give a multiclass dedication free at level 1 and remove the restriction on half level on the advanced class feat archetype feat.
So you would pick your base class as normal, then choose the dedication as well - though it would need to be a multiclass dedication. Then at each level when you get a class feat, you could effectively pick feats from both class feat lists.
Sort of a build-your-own-hybrid style that shouldn't end up increasing the power balance of the character much.
You'd still need to be careful. There are feats which would benefit one class more than their native class. Certain Strike for a barbarian, for example.
I also don't think that would emulate the PF1 hybrid classes better, just let you make your own new hyrbid things.
One option that I think may work for hybrid classing is to give a multiclass dedication free at level 1 and remove the restriction on half level on the advanced class feat archetype feat.
So you would pick your base class as normal, then choose the dedication as well - though it would need to be a multiclass dedication. Then at each level when you get a class feat, you could effectively pick feats from both class feat lists.
Sort of a build-your-own-hybrid style that shouldn't end up increasing the power balance of the character much.
Hm. Could you use the free archetype rule for that?
Hm. Could you use the free archetype rule for that?
Well, since it is effectively a houserule for your table or for theorycrafting characters - sure. Makes sense.
At that point it starts bordering on Dual Class quite a bit. But with just the class feats you don't have the increased stats and both sets of core class features. So it isn't quite Dual Class.
Btw regarding the guidelines making casters more likely. Considering how many hybrid classes where 3/4 bab 2/3 caster...
Maybe in the future we can see more wavecasters than Magus/Summoner. For me they are what fits the hybrid classes.
Yet once the most classes from PF1 was published in someway and every book give at last 1 class from PF1 I think that next book probably will give us some Tian Xia classes like Samurai, Ninja or maybe a First World book giving us a Shifter. I don't expect a hybrid class in next book. But maybe I'm betting wrong and Paizo releases more wavecasters, maybe the Inquisitor as a wavecaster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't imagine a 2/3 caster once the paizo released the psychic as a 2 spellslot per level as a fullcaster. So what would be a hybrid caster in PF2? A martial that have 1 spellslot per level? As the spells works in PF2 this will worse than a wavecaster. Currently the wavecaster was the best balance solution that Paizo designers created to do a balance between caster and martial. IMO is an elegant solution that even allows the player to choose if it will focus in martial abilities or in spellcasters abilities using class feats.
"Wavecaster"? Whut dat?
Ah. I thought that might be it.