| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, got to say I really love it. Gives quite a few option and works well for my group to realize most of the stuff they are planning on.
So I wanna share a bit about your experiences with dual classing and what additional rules and limits you set and add and maybe inspire each other.
I usually run it with the base assumption that one can not combine two martial classes (exceptions can be made). This rules out most of the munchkin stuff anyway - no flurry ranger with legendary progression, no legendary progression + full sneak attack, no flurry thaumaturge etc.
For spellcasters I am not ruling out having two since they usually run similar saves, similar hp pools and while they got more spellslots the additional spells don't get more effective or anything.
Some things I try to be cautious about:
-If the player wants to combine anything with monk it's to be carefully considered
Is it powerful? yes, but if they want to lean into it they can get flurry by level 10 either way
-Should I let them combine Magus with a spellcaster? Combining it with a martial would also be nasty but that guy could go nova multiple times as long
And a few things I like to add:
If the players want to combine any sort of (animal) companion with a summoner I give them the option for a custom feat that, instead of giving them an (animal) companion, lets the eidolon profit from the class specific boni that the companion usually would benefit from (focus spells, rangers edge, etc.)
the counterpoint being that the character usually wont be able to pick up the companion upgrad feats (that would certainly end up to strong)
Also a fun little thing one can add - make custom class names for your combinations
Fighting Class + Bard (especially with sarenrae focus) = Dervish
Monk + Spellcaster = Mystic Adept
Swashbuckler + Gunslinger = Musketeer (duh)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care for it to be honest. Unless the group is 2-3 players.
I prefer free archetype
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never run with Dual Class. Because of exactly this problem:
I usually run it with the base assumption that one can not combine two martial classes (exceptions can be made). This rules out most of the munchkin stuff anyway - no flurry ranger with legendary progression, no legendary progression + full sneak attack, no flurry thaumaturge etc.
For spellcasters I am not ruling out having two since they usually run similar saves, similar hp pools and while they got more spellslots the additional spells don't get more effective or anything.
I instead pretty much always run with Free Archetype. It gives a very similar freedom of combining two classes together and building something that feels a lot more unique. But it doesn't have the same balance problems.
If Free Archetype isn't powerful enough, I would go with a middle ground between Free Archetype and Dual Class. You still choose only one base class. You get the normal Free Archetype slots (perhaps getting the dedication at level 1 instead if you are starting the game at that level). You are able to pick feats from the archetype up to your full level (instead of half your level).
It still doesn't have the numerical balance problems that full Dual Class does. No full sneak attack with legendary attack proficiency, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another homebrew alternative to free archetype is class feat every level. This removes mostly restriction of don't have enought feat do all you want to do and don't forces the players to must have an archetype. Also this don't unbalance the game just turn the player little more versatile (that the same the free archetype really to, improves the char versatility).
I anticipate much to use them for simulating the movers and shakers' stats in any CS I'd run. The PCs and major NPCs, to be precise.
Running dual class, at least on paper, feels like either making a player micromanager two classes with the action economy of one, or giving players mythic tiers. If you allow players to double up caster+caster, martial+martial, you get mythic tier power IMO. If you force caster+martial you end up having players who are playing one class or the other on a given turn. It seems extremely boring. The rules advocate for this so you can run 2-3 players instead of 4, and IG that is fine, but in addition to allowing two 18s you ought to allow two apex items so your wizard gunslinger, druid rogue or ranger psychic can do both classes effectively. Haven't run this variant rule personally, so maybe I'm extremely off base
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience is gives the Players Tools to Mix it up
A Kobold surprising the enemy with a Dragon breath
A Champion with an inborn ability to Channel divine Powers
Ranger with an apex Predator of an 'pet'
I could probably list a dozen more examples but typing them from my Phone would be strenous :P
As already pointed, the main problema os dual-class is the chassis fusion. The game isn't properly prepared to deal with this, that's why many exploits can happen. So they need to be used carefully and always analised by GM (and a suggestion if you want to use dual-class in your games don't forbbid martial-martial or caster-caster, instead always analises the what the player want to do and just forbbid the cleary OP combinations).
This don't happen to feats, they are already prepared to prevent that mostly combinations overpower a char that's why we have a lot archetypes without too restrictive requirements, that's why Free Archetype and Ancestry Paragon are so used and well accepted because they don't break the game at same time expands the players options and versatility.
As already pointed, the main problema os dual-class is the chassis fusion. The game isn't properly prepared to deal with this, that's why many exploits can happen. So they need to be used carefully and always analised by GM (and a suggestion if you want to use dual-class in your games don't forbbid martial-martial or caster-caster, instead always analises the what the player want to do and just forbbid the cleary OP combinations).
This don't happen to feats, they are already prepared to prevent that mostly combinations overpower a char that's why we have a lot archetypes without too restrictive requirements, that's why Free Archetype and Ancestry Paragon are so used and well accepted because they don't break the game at same time expands the players options and versatility.
THis is waht I do - but it mostly comes down to not let people double down on martials because any combination of fighter/rogue/ranger with any martial (especially each other) is just asking to kick out the balance :P
I also ran free archetype, it's also fun
some of my players also use most feats of their caster classes in dual class to get an archetype (because they somehow don't really like the caster feats too much)
got to check out ancestral paragon again, might be interesting too
In my experience is gives the Players Tools to Mix it up
A Kobold surprising the enemy with a Dragon breath
A Champion with an inborn ability to Channel divine Powers
Ranger with an apex Predator of an 'pet'I could probably list a dozen more examples but typing them from my Phone would be strenous :P
All of those sound like concepts you can play without dual classing though? Like, I see a niche for dual classing, but kobolds already can use Dragon's Breath and Champions already channel the divine.
Huh. Does dual-class break the balance of the game so much and thus seldom used in actual gameplays? I thought it would be a great way to overcome the feat slot limitation. :(
Anyway, I have a question to you, Tactical Drongo. Your houserule bans the combination of two martial classes only. Then can I assume that I can still make a druid/barbarian, a druid/champion, a druid/fighter, or a druid/monk, since druid is a spellcasting class? I ask this because martial class feats would greatly increase the combat ability of a druid using Wild Shape.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. Does dual-class break the balance of the game so much and thus seldom used in actual gameplays? I thought it would be a great way to overcome the feat slot limitation. :(
Overcoming feat slot limitation is normally done by adding more feat slots. Either from the same class by just doubling the number of class feat slots, or Free Archetype which gives a second set of limited feat slots.
The thing about dual-class is that it gives the better of the proficiency bonuses of each of the classes. Better of HP, weapon proficiencies, skill proficiencies, armor proficiencies. It also gives all of the class features of both classes immediately.
A Barbarian Champion dual-class gets extreme damage, high HP, and high AC. As well as Lay on Hands and Champion's reaction. All starting at level 1.
A Barbarian with Champion archetype gets extreme damage, high HP, and average AC. At higher levels they can also get Lay on Hands and Champion's reaction.
And that probably isn't even the most extreme example. The saving throw proficiencies are equal at level 1, for example.
Basically, it can create characters that have no weaknesses.
Some combinations of class features are also a problem. Fighter's extreme accuracy with full sneak attack damage, Flurry ranger with sneak attack. Giant Barbarian damage with Fighter's legendary accuracy, ...
The least problematic combination of class features is a martial class with a spellcasting class. It creates a fantastic gish character - better than anything you can get through Magus or any type of archetyping. But other than that, it doesn't cause too many problems.
Also, with some combinations being more powerful than others, we get back to the PF1 metagame of having rules and analyses experts being able to create more effective characters than casual players.
-----
Now all of that critique of dual-class doesn't mean that dual-class is actually a problem. There is a reason that it is officially published as a variant rule. The game still works fine when playing with this rule set. But it does change some fundamental assumptions of how to balance encounters - which aren't taken into account in the standard encounter building rules or accounted for in published APs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how many of the people here talking about it have actually run a dual-class campaign.
It's clearly a power level booster, but in practice it's more manageable than a lot of people here seem to believe. A fighter/wizard is blatantly stronger than either by themselves, but you're not actually doing anything that a normal party couldn't do anyways, and you're doing it with worse action economy.
Some combinations of class features are also a problem. Fighter's extreme accuracy with full sneak attack damage, Flurry ranger with sneak attack. Giant Barbarian damage with Fighter's legendary accuracy, ...
I mean, all of these are options that the variant specifically advises you to avoid in the first place.
Yeah, I don't think I am saying anything ground breaking here.
Yes, two characters are going to outperform one dual-class character for the most part.
But I think the reason that people prefer Free Archetype over dual-class is because it solves pretty much the same problem, but does it without risk of unbalancing the encounter math.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FA is much easier and doesn't change assumptions of the game nearly as much, but I'm not sure it really solves the same problem per se.
FA is good because you can pretty much just bolt it onto a regular game and to be honest, change absolutely nothing else to make it work.
Dual classing on the other hand is best with a very small party (which requires you retooling adventure math even with dual classing) or in more homebrew adventures when the GM has more control over encounter design.
But if you want to make tiny parties feel more feature complete, or enable unique concepts that you can't accomplish in the default rules, free archetype isn't really going to get you all the way there.
I wonder how many of the people here talking about it have actually run a dual-class campaign.
It's clearly a power level booster, but in practice it's more manageable than a lot of people here seem to believe. A fighter/wizard is blatantly stronger than either by themselves, but you're not actually doing anything that a normal party couldn't do anyways, and you're doing it with worse action economy.
Some combinations of class features are also a problem. Fighter's extreme accuracy with full sneak attack damage, Flurry ranger with sneak attack. Giant Barbarian damage with Fighter's legendary accuracy, ...I mean, all of these are options that the variant specifically advises you to avoid in the first place.
It isn't going to horribly distort things if you follow the variant advice, but even then you wind up with characters with no real weak points. Their offensive power won't necessarily sky rocket (though there are some solid self buffs martials wind up with) but the improved defenses mean you'll need tougher encounters to actually make the players feel endangered. It creates some additional complexity for the GM.
It also makes building more complicated for players, which raises the question of who it is for outside of smaller parties. Generally newer players are the ones who need an easier time but additional complexity is a worse way to provide that than just giving them an extra level or using the weak template on enemies. So you're left with folks who either want to power game or play a multitalented character with no drawbacks. (Which is basically power gaming still in practice.)
That's not inherently bad, but a lot of people prefer to use the default settings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah, I'm not saying there aren't serious downsides, just that I think it's more manageable than some people are suggesting.
Ironically, the people I've had express the most interest in dual-classing have been newer players, particularly ones with backgrounds in non-TTRPG fantasy media. Shows and games where characters blending magic and martial abilities is a much blurrier thing than Pathfinder's more traditional hard split, something that really only the Magus explores right now.
Oh yeah, I'm not saying there aren't serious downsides, just that I think it's more manageable than some people are suggesting.
Ironically, the people I've had express the most interest in dual-classing have been newer players, particularly ones with backgrounds in non-TTRPG fantasy media. Shows and games where characters blending magic and martial abilities is a much blurrier thing than Pathfinder's more traditional hard split, something that really only the Magus explores right now.
Yeah and if those players can handle the complexity they are the perfect case for dual classing. In my personal experience, though, baseline PF2 is already more than complicated enough for those folks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve now run two complete campaigns from 1 to 20 with smaller parties, and I eventually came to the following conclusion: for martial/caster or caster/caster combinations, treat them as if they’re one level higher than they are, and for martial martial combinations, treat them as two levels higher.
I’ve seen the following combinations:
Druid/Cleric: not especially problematic. They have more spell slots, but their spells are still the same level of accuracy, just more versatile and can cast more.
Rogue/Witch: a little stronger by being able to use occult magic to buff themselves and debuff enemies.
Investigator/Wizard: not a lot of synergy here, although devise a strategem is great for high-level attack roll spells.
Fighter/Swashbuckler: game-breaking. With them in the party, PCs could go toe-to-toe with PL+4 foes consistently.
So overall I agree that only martial/martial combinations are a big problem, so if you’re running a dual class game you want to make sure everyone is at the same level of game-breaking so that you can adjust the encounter balance accordingly.
I've usually seen dual class in homebrew games where the power boost if factored in or for smaller parties in normal games. For instance, I played a 2 person party with some extra bodies involved [one person had an animal companion and an eidolon] that worked pretty well.
The dual class I absolutely love is a rogue/investigator for maximum skill monkey: you have enough class/skill feats to take any archetype that interests you, no matter how niche or situational: heck some time you can take the three feats you need to exit the archetype all in the same level! ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how to rule out most of the munchkin stuff when the dual class, regardless the combination, is munchkin itself ( any of us may be subjective towards what's more or less munchkin, but it's a fact every combination is munchkin).
Plus, the limit on martial classes would result into "everybody martial + spell caster".
Seems kinda boring ( leaving apart everybody doing anything).
I mean, do you consider skill classes like rogue or investigators technically martials? Though admittedly, rogues plenty stronk
(I find it kinda weird to just split classes into "casters and non casters" x'D)
Edit: How did I typo investigator as thaumaturge? Anyway, I'm also curious of whether inventor breaks math when combined with other martials because inventor gives access to lot of interesting options, but doesn't have particularly damage heavy bonuses nor has particularly great defensive stats, its one of those classes that doesn't have legendary proficiency outside of skills
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how to rule out most of the munchkin stuff when the dual class, regardless the combination, is munchkin itself ( any of us may be subjective towards what's more or less munchkin, but it's a fact every combination is munchkin).
Plus, the limit on martial classes would result into "everybody martial + spell caster".
Seems kinda boring ( leaving apart everybody doing anything).
I mean, do you consider skill classes like rogue or thaumaturges technically martials? Though admittedly, rogues plenty stronk
(I find it kinda weird to just split classes into "casters and non casters" x'D)
IMO it's really fighter/martial that creates issues: other martials need actions to get their damage buffs. Rangers need to hunt prey, barbarian has to rage, inventor overdrives, investigator needs devise so doubling up on them means more actions wasted to buff which mitigates things. Even rogues often need to spend extra actions [or get others to use extra actions] to get flatfooted. The fighters just get a free +2 to hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know OP mentioned magus + caster, and while I play FA and not not DC; I can say that the extra slots doesn't really make the magus that much stronger. You'll probably see more highest level slot spellstrikes, but it doesn't really increase the upper limit of their power until level 19, where 10th level slots become available; a wizard magus is also able to use spell combination to get some truly devastating single target spells, but this is only at level 20.
For the most part, the result will be a magus who doesn't whine as much about not having enough slots (even though magi have plenty of slots for their role)
IMO it's really fighter/martial that creates issues: other martials need actions to get their damage buffs. Rangers need to hunt prey, barbarian has to rage, inventor overdrives, investigator needs devise so doubling up on them means more actions wasted to buff which mitigates things. Even rogues often need to spend extra actions [or get others to use extra actions] to get flatfooted. The fighters just get a free +2 to hit.I fail to see how to rule out most of the munchkin stuff when the dual class, regardless the combination, is munchkin itself ( any of us may be subjective towards what's more or less munchkin, but it's a fact every combination is munchkin).
Plus, the limit on martial classes would result into "everybody martial + spell caster".
Seems kinda boring ( leaving apart everybody doing anything).
I mean, do you consider skill classes like rogue or thaumaturges technically martials? Though admittedly, rogues plenty stronk
(I find it kinda weird to just split classes into "casters and non casters" x'D)
I think any combination of Figther, Ranger, Barbarian and Rogue with another martial creates issues. A bit less so for Investigator and Swashbuckler.
I don't know, I prefer to ignore Dual Class as much as possible to be honest. Would only consider it for a 2-3 person campaign. If I want deeper character creation, FA is more than enough.
I think any combination of Figther, Ranger, Barbarian and Rogue with another martial creates issues. A bit less so for Investigator and Swashbuckler.
It's really no a big deal with fighter out of the way. Take Ranger/Barbarian: Hunt Prey has the concentration trait and you can't use that when you rage. Sure you can use moment of clarity but that's yet another action you have to use. Barbarian/rogue you 1/2 rage damage bonus on agile weapons and that's the kind of weapon they need for sneak attack. Ranger [flurry]/rogue has good weapon synergy but can struggle with actions between hunt prey and the extra actions to get flatfooted.
You can replace rogue with investigator in the above for why they don't work so well with the addition of needing int and inventor needs int too.
Disclaimer: I've only theorycrafted dual classed characters
Dual Classing is in the same state it's always been, a little too cheesy, cumbersome, and outside the expected math of the game. You can mitigate it with a bunch of restrictions, but at that point it feels like you're just making extra work for not that much extra fun.
In class-based systems like PF2 each class has highs and lows that give them character (Saves, skills, AC, spell-access, weapon capability, etc). With Dual Classing you end up with way more highs than lows and the system feels more flat.
I've found that Double Class Feats gets you very close to the baseline capabilities I came to expect in PF1, and Free Archetype comes up surprisingly close behind that. They do this without taking away the base-class's highs and lows nearly as much or as easily. So I prefer these options greatly over Dual Classing.
...
I’ve seen the following combinations:...
Investigator/Wizard: not a lot of synergy here, although devise a strategem is great for high-level attack roll spells.
...
Just a point of note, Devise a Stratagem does not work for spell attack rolls w/o house rules.
Devise a Stratagem not affecting spells is a big part of why casting is good for investigators to pick up.
For barbarian/rogue, you can just grab a non-agile finesse weapon and build for full Str and do pretty well.
I think you mean an agile, non-finesse weapon. But those two traits go together so often it is hard to keep them separate on which one does which.
Hmm... There are actually more of those than I thought there would be.
Hatchet, Light Hammer, Boarding Axe, Hand Adze, and a few more uncommon options.
Edit: No, you probably are looking for non-agile weapons and just still making STR attacks in spite of the finesse trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, non-agile finesse.
Agile halves rage damage, so you take finesse to qualify for sneak attack even if you don't actually use the trait to maximize your damage mods.
Yeah, realized that after I posted and looked up the Rage action again afterwards.
So the only weapon that I see that is common and martial proficiency or lower is the Reinforced Stock - which does 1d4 damage one-handed or 1d6 two-handed. Are there any others that I have missed?
Though it probably wouldn't be hard to convince the GM to let you have a Dueling Spear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've got the good ol' rapier. And a lot of uncommon options.
Just a point of note, Devise a Stratagem does not work for spell attack rolls w/o house rules....
I’ve seen the following combinations:...
Investigator/Wizard: not a lot of synergy here, although devise a strategem is great for high-level attack roll spells.
...
Oops, I totally forgot it was just strikes!
Lots of ins and outs to Dual Classing. I'm still on the fence, myself. I note that, give 23 classes so far, including next year's Kineticist, that's 253 possible dual class combinations, and that's without considering subclasses. The mind boggles. :-)
A quick look at just the names of these 253 combinations gives me a reaction ranging from "that looks interesting" through "why would anybody do that?" to "is that even possible?" The answer to the last, RAW, is of course yes, but in the context of the setting, maybe not so much.
Might be interesting to see The Rules Lawyer or Nonat1s do a Tier list of these 253 combinations. :-)
I'd think that monk/rogue might do pretty well too, especially with Stumbling Stance. For that matter, a rogue/alchemist bomber would be a pretty serious effectiveness upgrade too, for both the sneak attack and the chassis upgrade.
Good choices. I think both Rogue and Alchemist will likely do well with a lot of other classes.
Unfortunately bombs are martial so you wouldn't upgrade the proficiency. You're probably better off with Alchemist+Investigator.
Huh. Disappointing.
Alchmist/Investigator gets a lot uglier for the action economy, though. Possibly a Raging Thrower alchemist/barbarian?
I'd think that monk/rogue might do pretty well too, especially with Stumbling Stance. For that matter, a rogue/alchemist bomber would be a pretty serious effectiveness upgrade too, for both the sneak attack and the chassis upgrade.
You can toss pretty well by adding rogue feats [strong arm and far throw] + alchemist ones [Far Lobber-Uncanny Bombs] for a 70' range increment and -1 per extra increment.
|
|
Oh right I have one thing I want to check about dual classing:
Are you supposed to get class key ability score boost for both classes? I myself read it as "You choose between your classes which boost you get" since it doesn't make sense to me that if you pick two int based classes that you'd get boost twice. There is also that some classes have "str or dex boost" so that implies to me that additional classes adds just third option instead of giving you second boost