Is all Multiclassing in PF Bad?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Earlier today(/yesterday depending on your timezone) I made a thread talking about how I was reexamining the idea that hit points were always a better option than skill points when it came to a favored class bonus. I don't know if skill points are now always a better option when it comes to favored class bonuses (baring racial ones), but now they look better than hit points to me.

Anyway, I've started questioning another bit of logic: Is multiclassing really that horrible of a thing to do? At least a specific kind of multiclassing. First I'll lay out what I know to be the detriments of multiclassing in Pathfinder

Level 20 capstones
Loss of favored class bonuses (half-elves not withstanding).
The Archetype system makes multi-classing for other class abilities less valuable
Prestige Classes, the most common multiclass option, are not all that greatIf there are others, make me aware of them, but those are the two I am familiar with.

I'll go ahead and argue that 10 of one class/10 of another is probably a bad idea in most cases. You're only gaining 1/2 of another classes abilities, which is going to be the weaker half, in exchange for your stronger 1/2 of abilities. So yeah, probably not a good trade off. The wrinkle in this is the rare prestige class worth the paper it's printed on. Good luck finding too many of those.

However, what about X levels of one/Y Levels of another/Z Levels of a Third? To put it more clearly, while Pathfinder discourages multiclassing in the simplest form (2 classes, 10 levels each), all the penalties are front-loaded. The moment you take the first level in any other class you've lost the level 20 capstone. If you take levels in more classes, all that's going to be lost is more favored class, which sometimes very valuable.

To bring the ramblings to a clear point of discussion: While clearly multiclassing of 2 different classes is discouraged in Pathfinder, players should not be discouraged from multiclassing overall. Instead, the players should be discouraged from multiclassing when doing so will only net them helpful abilities from a second or third (in case of 1+1+X prestige classes) class. Simply put; if you're going to multiclass, go hog-wild and take as many classes as could be beneficial.

[Drachasor]

Well, some races can have two classes count as favored classes. Whether multiclassing is beneficial or not really depends on the classes you are putting together and what you are doing with them.

Part of the problem too is that generally the Prestige Classes aren't very good in Pathfinder. It's annoying that their philosophy seems to be to provide options, but to make the ones they don't like crappy. That isn't to say all the PrCs are bad, but the vast majority are. Seems a lot worse than 3.5 to me.

There are a ton of abilities that depend on your class level though. So you do have to be careful about what you are multiclassing and why. Like 3.X, multiclassing a caster is just a bad idea. The same is true of half-casters pretty much. Though, there can be arguments for MCing a Witch to grab a hex for another class.

IMHO, they should have worked harder to make multiclassing attractive. Heck, something like the old 1E/2E multiclassing would have been nice.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I used to argue that PF's goal with multiclassing is to make staying in a base class for 20 levels a less-stupid choice rather than nerf it specifically (Fighters get things on odd levels now), though now that I've been reading the Paizo boards and see how many people are irrationally terrified of "multiclass munchkin builds" I'm not so sure.

That said, I wouldn't say all PF multiclassing is bad. For martial characters, a 1 or 2-level fighter dip is just as useful as it was in 3.5. A 1-level Rogue dip (or more likely a Ninja/Alchemist dip) has become a lot better due to the way class skills work. Overall the situation hasn't changed much: You either limit multiclassing to dips, use a theurge class, or wind up totally crippled.

[watchwood]

I gotta second what Cheesy there said.

Selective dipping and PrC's can work well, but for the most part multiclassing isn't that hot in Pathfinder.

[Greenish]

For martial characters, a 1 or 2-level fighter dip is just as useful as it was in 3.5.I'd be awfully tempted to go for 3rd level if I already had 2, just for full speed in medium armour. Probably not a great idea, but I like my movement speed.

Of course, most dips to fighter 2 would probably feature Lore Warden. :smalltongue:

Two levels of monk might also be decent dip, especially Maneuver Master. Evasion is pretty nice.


Biggest reason not to multiclass in PF is that classes actually get class features, even beyond the lower levels. Much like how casters in 3.5 only take PrCs that advance casting, and druids rarely leave the class at all.

[Spore]

The main problem is because most class features now scale somehow with the class level instead of HD or don't give static boni or boni dependant on attributes. Or both. Or none. The distribution seems arbitrary.

A Paladin 2 dip gives you Cha on saving throws and thus is powerful for characters 2-20. Dipping into Cavalier 1 for a Challenge damage bonus of 1 damage is a stupid idea. And then there is NO real way to not take a major hit on caster levels for all full casters and 2/3 casters (which is probably not a stupid idea considering the power of said classes).

This is the main problem with pathfinder: The prestige classes are utter troll dung. If you don't take some fitting 3.5 prestige classes into account, you are stuck with pure level characters or mundanes that dip 1-4 levels.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Personally, I never take the loss of a 20th level capstone into consideration. I've never seen one in play, and probably never will. Most of them aren't even that great to begin with.

I think you can make a decent martial character via multiclassing. Spell casters have a harder time, but I don't have much sympathy for them, particularly your tier 1/2 types. Also, I don't really miss 3.5's objectively superior prestige classes either. It's nice to have some cleaner builds out there.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh, I would disagree with that assessment. Many, yes, don't really add much, but then, neither did most 3.5 and 3.0 PrC. Several of them were simply meant to represent membership to in-world organizations. Arcane Trickster got some neat improvements though, letting it go beyond simply melding two classes.
Its capstone is truly a thing of beauty, because who hasn't wanted to sneak attack with a fireball?

[Alent]

This is the main problem with pathfinder: The prestige classes are utter troll dung. If you don't take some fitting 3.5 prestige classes into account, you are stuck with pure level characters or mundanes that dip 1-4 levels.

I've noticed the Paizo devs seem to be of the school of thought that "your job and role in society is your class" and they're so adamant about it that they keep introducing a new class or archetype for every roleplay occupation they want to represent.

They're so hung up on it, that they went and systematically changed all the PrCs' "good" saves to "Mid" saves just to spite them. I don't think there was but a single class in 3.5 that use "mid" saves? Arcane archer and Arcane Trickster somehow got a passable upgrades out of it, at least.

I've also noticed that Paizo seems to deliberately engineer the archetypes so that it becomes much more difficult to qualify for relevant PrCs if you take an archetype. I played a Kobold Trapsetter(rogue)/wiz/Arcane Trickster and had to get my DM had to houserule the Trickster to function off the Trapsetter class features. (we just matched the Trap progression. +1d6 trap damage:4 class levels. It was objectively weaker than the normal trickster.)

[Kudaku]

While multiclassing is not 'bad' per se, PF spent a significant amount of resources making sure that classes get fewer "dead levels", more class features as they continue to level up, and multiclassing means delaying or not ever getting those tools. That in itself is pretty strong incentive to stay single-classed.

If you heard the latest podcast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OotGtOhEF6s&feature=share&t=3s) Jason Bulmahn stated pretty clearly (abt 2.25 into the video) that the new "hybrid classes" currently being playtested are designed to offer class options for character concepts that previously could only be covered with multiclassing and even using MCing the character wouldn't work out very well mechanically - mixing barbarian and sorcerer is a good example.

I think MCing three different base classes and another few prestige classes on top of that (which is fairly common in 3.5 to make what you want) is a valid approach to building a character, but I think if you can make the same character (mechanically and conceptually) with a single class then that's the superior option since it requires much less attention to detail and system mastery.

One example of the latter is the PF Magus. Previously you'd need to multiclass fighter, wizard, and at least one arcane gish prestige class to make a viable arcane fighter/mage, now the Magus has pretty much abolished all of those builds by being a clear, concise and viable option.

[Spore]

I've noticed the Paizo devs seem to be of the school of thought that "your job and role in society is your class" and they're so adamant about it that they keep introducing a new class or archetype for every roleplay occupation they want to represent.)

Is there any clear quote on that?


If you heard the latest podcast Jason Bulmahn stated pretty clearly (abt 2.25 into the video) that the new "hybrid classes" currently being playtested are designed to offer class options for character concepts that previously could only be covered with multiclassing and even using MCing the character wouldn't work out very well mechanically - mixing barbarian and sorcerer is a good example.

Do they try and artificially limit character choices to be able to release more material? I do not think anyone could be so stupid to think that forcing people into pure classes would add to roleplaying.

With the advent of games like Skyrim, Fallout and other "free form" roleplaying games were your CLASS is "adventurer" and you just pick perks to fit a theme (or in best solo RPG manner, to optigod yourself) I do not think a mind set like mentioned above has any significant half-life.

[Kudaku]

Do they try and artificially limit character choices to be able to release more material? I do not think anyone could be so stupid to think that forcing people into pure classes would add to roleplaying.

Quite the opposite really - they're creating new classes to provide more options for people who want to play nontraditional characters that multiclassing doesn't handle particularly well.

Let's use the Bloodrager (barbarian sorcerer hybrid) as an example - the way 3.5 and PF is written Sorcerers and Barbarians have extremely little synergy. Instead they've made a baseline class that combines the concept from level 1.

[grarrrg]

Level 20 capstones
Loss of favored class bonuses (half-elves not withstanding).
The Archetype system makes multi-classing for other class abilities less valuable
Prestige Classes, the most common multiclass option, are not all that great
If there are others, make me aware of them, but those are the two I am familiar with.

Only Two huh? :smalltongue:

The level 20 thing is probably the most important factor, it fluctuates between SUPER IMPORTANT, and utterly pointless depending on if the game you're in will get anywhere near level 20.

Favored Class bonus mainly depends on how good the Racial options are for your class. For example, the majority of "Fighter Race" bonuses are bonuses to CMD. These are not all that impressive, and will overall not be missed. Whereas a Human Sorcerer can get an extra Spell Known at each level, which is pretty sweet.

The archetype thing is pretty hit or miss, mainly only an issue for PrC's, doesn't much effect base-class multi-classing.

Agreed on the PrC point though, most are pretty "meh" overall, but there are a few worth taking all the way, and a fair number that have good 'dippable' bonuses.


Anywho, there are some cases where multi-classing can be nice, and a few where PrC's are quite handy too.
Both Wizard and Druid don't gain much for actual class features after a point, and so are more open to take a PrC.

Cavalier for 4 levels can be a sweet multi-class option for a martial build, as it gives you access to the Horse Master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/horse-master-combat) feat which gives you a full progression Mount regardless of what other classes you take.

Halfling Opportunist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/halfling-opportunist) is an _almost_ straight upgrade to taking Rogue levels, and can benefit most other martial halfling builds as well.

For a gish-type Dragon Disciple is solid. The only thing you lose over straight Sorcerer is caster levels (which while important, are less so for a gish build).

Oracle can be dipped to gain CHA to AC and Ref Saves, and there are enough Curses that you can probably find one that fits your character, or just take a 'weak' Curse (and Curses still progress at 1/2 rate for non-Oracle levels).

Paladin can be good for CHA to all Saves.

Gunslinger is quite front-loaded, and since guns target Touch-AC, a Gunslinger can easily multi with a 3/4 Bab class and still hit things easily.

Even Casters can get in on the fun!
Dipping Undead Bloodline (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/undead-bloodline) Sorcerer will let any of your class's Mind spells effect Undead.
Oracle of Heavens (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/mysteries/paizo---oracle-mysteries/heavens) > Awesome Display can be pretty sweet on a Sorcerer.
Likewise, a Deaf Curse (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/oracle-curses) Oracle gets to apply free Silent Spell to all of his spells.

(yeah...the guy who wrote a "class dipping guide" is in favor of multi-classing...go figure...)


They're so hung up on it, that they went and systematically changed all the PrCs' "good" saves to "Mid" saves just to spite them. I don't think there was but a single class in 3.5 that use "mid" saves?

??
Here's how PF PrC saves work:
You no longer get a "+2 at first level" bonus on your good saves.
Your first level in a PrC counts as 2 levels for the purposes of Save progression.

I'm a fan of this, as it smooths out save progressions.
There is no massive save boost from multi-classing anymore. And it actually helps your bad saves slightly.
It still does nothing regarding non-PrC multiclassing though.

[some guy]

I don't think there was but a single class in 3.5 that use "mid" saves?

Quick jump: the scout and swashbuckler have "mid" saves due to battle fortitude and grace respectively.

[Psyren]

As grarrg said, there are plenty of good PrCs out there. The choice is now more one of flavor/concept than simply escaping dead levels than it was in 3.5., i.e. the choice is meaningful now. Cyphermage, Harrower, even Loremaster are for filling a specific theme now.



Do they try and artificially limit character choices to be able to release more material? I do not think anyone could be so stupid to think that forcing people into pure classes would add to roleplaying.

I don't think this is the case. What I do think though is that they're tailoring more to DMs that don't like the idea of multiclassing and especially hate some of the more frankenstein, patchwork builds that have achieved prominence in 3.5. Groups that are comfortable with multiclassing can do so at their table, or even become comfortable with it as they gain experience with the game; Paizo tends to be more concerned with those folks who don't have that experience.

[Spore]

Quite the opposite really - they're creating new classes to provide more options for people who want to play nontraditional characters that multiclassing doesn't handle particularly well.

Let's use the Bloodrager (barbarian sorcerer hybrid) as an example - the way 3.5 and PF is written Sorcerers and Barbarians have extremely little synergy. Instead they've made a baseline class that combines the concept from level 1.

And if I want to play a Cleric/Barbarian? Not even Rage Prophet is helping there. See what I mean?

You have added another class, but in core, you just reproduced dual classing from AD&D. Fixed dual iclasses instead of flexible multiclassing.

[Greenish]

Do they try and artificially limit character choices to be able to release more material?Most of their profits comes from APs (to the best of my knowledge), so that's doubtful.

Anyway, the multiclassing rules in PF are far easier to work with than the ones in 3.5 (which are bad enough that almost everyone ignores them).


With the advent of games like Skyrim, Fallout and other "free form" roleplaying games were your CLASS is "adventurer" and you just pick perks to fit a theme (or in best solo RPG manner, to optigod yourself) I do not think a mind set like mentioned above has any significant half-life.The class-and-level style has proven to be fairly enduring. Multiclassing is just a flourish on the basic form, and games don't have to allow it to be popular (case in point, WoW).


Likewise, a Deaf Curse (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/oracle-curses) Oracle gets to apply free Silent Spell to all of his spells.What happens if you go bard? :smalltongue:

[Kudaku]

And if I want to play a Cleric/Barbarian? Not even Rage Prophet is helping there. See what I mean?

Well, the Rage Prophet is fairly close but outside of that I'd have to say either play a straight multiclass Cleric Barbarian or introduce an appropriate 3.5 prestige class if one exists - I can't think of one off the top of my head.

[Greenish]

Well, the Rage Prophet is fairly close but outside of that I'd have to say either play a straight multiclass Cleric Barbarian or introduce an appropriate 3.5 prestige class if one exists - I can't think of one off the top of my head.Well, there's the Champion of Gwynharwyf, though that's for turning a straight barbarian into barbarian/paladin.

[Psyren]

Whatever class you would have used to be a cleric/barbarian in 3.5 is compatible with PF. Slap on rage powers and you're good to go.

[grarrrg]

Likewise, a Deaf Curse (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/oracle-curses) Oracle gets to apply free Silent Spell to all of his spells.What happens if you go bard? :smalltongue:

I'd suggest taking an archetype :smallbiggrin:



And if I want to play a Cleric/Barbarian? Not even Rage Prophet is helping there. See what I mean?

There's a domain (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/domains/paizo---domains/destruction-domain/rage) for that.
And a couple (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/rage) of spells (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blood-rage) too. :smalltongue:
The Domain is horribly, horribly WEAK as far as ACTUALLY Raging goes, but it's there.

[Spore]

Whatever class you would have used to be a cleric/barbarian in 3.5 is compatible with PF. Slap on rage powers and you're good to go.

Hard to pull off with 3.5 not being allowed in my party.

Much stuff comes close by default. I don't want to play something something rage something something divine, but a Barbarian/Cleric. And that is a terrible choice in PF by comparison.

[Greenish]

I'd suggest taking an archetype :smallbiggrin:Is there a bard archetype that gets to Silent Spell its spells?


I don't want to play something something rage something something divine, but a Barbarian/Cleric. And that is a terrible choice in PF by comparison.That's a horrible choice in 3.5, too.

There's nothing wrong with preferring a point-buy system over a class-based ones, but the solution to that is switching systems. (PS. Legend is a class-based system that does multiclassing very well. It still won't get you Barbarian/Cleric, though [since it doesn't have Clerics].)

[Lord Vukodlak]

Shame on Pathfinder for making the choice to stick with the base class all the way to 20th level worthwhile. Don't they know base classes are only supposed to exist so you can earn prerequisites for prestige classes!

[Slipperychicken]

With Guns Everywhere:

Gunslinger 1/Trench Fighter 3 gets you Dex to damage twice with a particular kind of firearm. After that you could either continue in Fighter, or progress something like Paladin or Luring Cavalier and get some burst damage.

[Drachasor]

Shame on Pathfinder for making the choice to stick with the base class all the way to 20th level worthwhile. Don't they know base classes are only supposed to exist so you can earn prerequisites for prestige classes!

I don't have a problem with sticking with a core class being viable. Problem is Pathfinder basically went to the other extreme of 3.5. Multiclassing is very difficult. I'd rather have seen a system where both options were viable.

Like some sort of generic PrC that would advance two classes to 15 over 20 levels, for instance (and kick in starting at 3rd or before). And then PrCs that actually gave you stuff equal to what you were giving up or close to it.

Problem is, Paizo sucks at balancing. Their philosophy is to say it doesn't matter and then try to make sure everything they put out is weak.* Not that they manage to even do that. Mostly though, that leaves us with really pathetic PrCs that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. If that's how they want it then they just shouldn't have them to begin with!

*Former is my take, latter is what they've officially said.

[Mygicmeen]

I made a Rogue/Duelist that seems to come out on top. 8 levels of rogue, 10duelist, and the last two i cant make my mind up on fighter or rogue....He cant do as much damage as a straight rogue, but I think he stands up in a fight a lot better. Plus I think he hits more from the Great bab from duelist. This is all pf stuff..

[Drachasor]

I made a Rogue/Duelist that seems to come out on top. 8 levels of rogue, 10duelist, and the last two i cant make my mind up on fighter or rogue....He cant do as much damage as a straight rogue, but I think he stands up in a fight a lot better. Plus I think he hits more from the Great bab from duelist. This is all pf stuff..

Well, the rogue is so bad in Pathfinder, I imagine it isn't hard to improve it. It's mostly an exception to the rule.

Though, an Eversmoking Bottle and Fog-cutting Lenses (or Goz Mask) is an easy way Rogue much more effective. Probably want to add in Sniper's Goggles at that point (head/eye slot is a little muddled with Fog-cutting Lenses since it says it takes a FACE slot so Goz Mask is probably better to use actually). But that's neither here nor there.

[Dalebert]

Am I missing something, or do witches not have a level 20 capstone?

[Frosty]

Having a second Grand Hex isn't a bad thing at all.

[Arutema]

What happens if you go bard? :smalltongue:

PF Bard can use performances with a visual component instead of an audible one (dance), and dropped the 3.5 quirk of requiring bard spells to have verbal components. - That's what I get for only skimming my CRB.

You do lose countersong, so just take an archetype that swaps that out.

[Greenish]

PF Bard can use performances with a visual component instead of an audible one (dance), and dropped the 3.5 quirk of requiring bard spells to have verbal components.Ah. Apparently no one told PFSRD that:
Every bard spell has a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music).

Well, that's what I get from using non-primary sources…

[Edit]: Nope, the Paizo SRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/bard.html#_bard) says the same thing.

[Arutema]

Re-reading my lastest edition of the CRB PDF, Bards do indeed need to vocalize to cast spells, and even the archaeologist, which swaps out all performances, does not remove this limit.

So a deaf Oracle/Bard is about as bad a multiclass as a Bladebound Magus/Witch.

[Coidzor]

You forgot 5. The designers are inherently hostile to multiclassing, prestige classes, and making a hybrid character they haven't already accounted for with an archetype, and will go back and alter the rules to spite you so that your character will become retroactively illegal.


Instead, the players should be discouraged from multiclassing when doing so will only net them helpful abilities from a second or third (in case of 1+1+X prestige classes) class. Simply put; if you're going to multiclass, go hog-wild and take as many classes as could be beneficial.

No. Players should not be discouraged from multiclassing. If you hate multiclassing as much as the designers do, you should just be honest with your players and forbid it in your games. To do otherwise is to be disingenuous.

:smallconfused:

[Lord Vukodlak]

Ah. Apparently no one told PFSRD that:

Well, that's what I get from using non-primary sources…

[Edit]: Nope, the Paizo SRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/bard.html#_bard) says the same thing.
The fact that all bard spells have verbal components is irrelevant.

The only important part is the line under the feat silent spell. "Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat." If that line was missing bards could cast silent spells. Nearly all spells have verbal components bards just have a special restriction against removing them.

[grarrrg]

So a deaf Oracle/Bard is about as bad a multiclass as a Bladebound Magus/Witch.

Performance still works.

Bard, prd (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/bard.html#_bard)
Bard, srd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard)


Each bardic performance has audible components, visual components, or both.

So there are some performances that work perfectly fine.

As for the Silent Spell...

The only important part is the line under the feat silent spell. "Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat." If that line was missing bards could cast silent spells.

Huh. Missed that part...

[Lord Vukodlak]

As for the Silent Spell...

The only important part is the line under the feat silent spell. "Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat." If that line was missing bards could cast silent spells.
Huh. Missed that part...
Exactly the restriction is not and has never been in the Bard's class description its in the feat Silent Spell, but the designers always refer to the silent spell feat so no exception to the rule has ever come up. The Deaf/Oracle's spells are silent as if using silent spell so its out.
But if one can find a method of casting silent spells that does not refer to the silent spell feat it be legal to apply to bard spells.


No. Players should not be discouraged from multiclassing. If you hate multiclassing as much as the designers do, you should just be honest with your players and forbid it in your games.
Pathfinder doesn't discourage multiclassing it just makes saying in one class appealing.
3.5 might as well of had classes stop at level 10.

[Larkas]

I don't have a problem with sticking with a core class being viable. Problem is Pathfinder basically went to the other extreme of 3.5. Multiclassing is very difficult. I'd rather have seen a system where both options were viable.

Like some sort of generic PrC that would advance two classes to 15 over 20 levels, for instance (and kick in starting at 3rd or before). And then PrCs that actually gave you stuff equal to what you were giving up or close to it.

Soooo... Like 3.5's multiclassing feats? :smallwink:

[Coidzor]

Pathfinder doesn't discourage multiclassing it just makes saying in one class appealing.
3.5 might as well of had classes stop at level 10.

As has been noted, it does both when really it should only be doing the latter if it's going to have multiclassing and prestige classing at all.

Pathfinder does in fact discourage multiclassing by intentionally gimping hybrid PrCs (hello, Battle Herald) and by having a design philosophy of actively working against synergy between classes as well as going so far as to retroactively change several abilities from scaling by HD to scaling by class level only. For starters.

[Greenish]

<…>going so far as to retroactively change several abilities from scaling by HD to scaling by class level only. For starters.What's this about then?

[Drachasor]

Soooo... Like 3.5's multiclassing feats? :smallwink:

No, more like a generic hybrid PrC where...
1. You can enter in once you reach level 3 (Class1/Class2/PrC)
2. Each level in the PrC is a Gestalt of Class1 and Class2
3. Every now and then the PrC only advances one class until you are 15/15 at level 20 (in terms of spells and all class abilities).
4. No feat cost.

Again, this is more like 1E/2E multiclassing or perhaps like classes such as the Mystic Theurge only without the painful leveling in places and more generic.

I did a writeup on this idea half a year ago or so and posted it here, but no one was interested enough in responding because my life is full of misery. : (


Pathfinder does in fact discourage multiclassing by intentionally gimping hybrid PrCs (hello, Battle Herald) and by having a design philosophy of actively working against synergy between classes as well as going so far as to retroactively change several abilities from scaling by HD to scaling by class level only. For starters.

I think things that didn't scale off class levels in a bad way, like Bardic Performance or Barbarian Rage got changed to scaling in a bad way (rounds/day).

Oh, and PF completely loves making more book-keeping like that. They probably doubled the little stuff to keep track of generally speaking. Counting rounds...bleh :P

[Novawurmson]

In PF (like in 3.5), multiclassing is almost always excellent in the short term: A dip in Barbarian is a nice boost in power for just about any melee class, a dip in Rogue will give you a spurt of skill points, a dip in any caster class will net you a few spells that (with good decision making) can give you some great flexibility, etc.

However, unlike in 3.5, almost every class grows quasi-exponentially: Almost every class has useful high-level abilities that are worth remaining single-classed.

Want to multi-class out of Inquisitor? Sure, but you're losing spellcasting, judgement progression, domain progression and bane progression, plus some useful goodies like Stalwart. Want to multi-class out of Magus? Ok, but you're losing spellcasting, arcana progression, arcane pool progession, heavier armor proficiency, etc. Want to multi-class out of Alchemist? Ok, but...

The longer the game progresses, the worse multi-classing generally becomes. Again, though: In the short term, it can be great, you just have to look at what you're gaining and losing.

[Larkas]

No, more like a generic hybrid PrC where...
1. You can enter in once you reach level 3 (Class1/Class2/PrC)
2. Each level in the PrC is a Gestalt of Class1 and Class2
3. Every now and then the PrC only advances one class until you are 15/15 at level 20 (in terms of spells and all class abilities).
4. No feat cost.

Again, this is more like 1E/2E multiclassing or perhaps like classes such as the Mystic Theurge only without the painful leveling in places and more generic.

I did a writeup on this idea half a year ago or so and posted it here, but no one was interested enough in responding because my life is full of misery. : (

Hmmm, I'd be very interested in reading that. Don't expect any useful input, though.

[Drachasor]

Hmmm, I'd be very interested in reading that. Don't expect any useful input, though.

Here's the thread I made. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293875) I originally wrote it up in the context of making a new class, but it wouldn't be too hard to change it to a PrC. A few ways to go about it though. I did get a couple responses, but nothing much.

[Larkas]

Here's the thread I made. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293875) I originally wrote it up in the context of making a new class, but it wouldn't be too hard to change it to a PrC. A few ways to go about it though. I did get a couple responses, but nothing much.

Hmmmm, the idea is solid, but the execution could be a bit more polished, I think. I'll take a better look when I have the time and see if I can come up with some constructive criticism for it. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

That's a horrible choice in 3.5, too.

Precisely this. It's a non-complaint.


No. Players should not be discouraged from multiclassing. If you hate multiclassing as much as the designers do, you should just be honest with your players and forbid it in your games. To do otherwise is to be disingenuous.

:smallconfused:

You've got it backwards. Paizo's job is to cater to the less experienced players and especially DMs, the ones that are more likely to ruin (or even break) a character via multiclassing than not. The experienced ones are in a much better position to encourage, discourage or tweak various multiclass/PrC options and so the game does not have to cater to them as much. by encouraging single-class builds, the players will gravitate towards them and the DM has less noise to filter. "I'm a Detective Bard" is much easier to parse than "I'm a Bard/Rogue with a Ranger dip heading for Fochlucan Lyrist" even if both are planning to be court spies. It's also much faster for even inexperienced members of both parties to gauge the power level of an archetype at a glance and make any necessary tweaks to either the build or campaign.

TL;DR It's not about hating or banning multiclassing, it's making single-class more attractive to make life easier on newer DMs.

[Ravens_cry]

TL;DR It's not about hating or banning multiclassing, it's making single-class more attractive to make life easier on newer DMs.
And players.

[Suddo]

With Guns Everywhere:

Gunslinger 1/Trench Fighter 3 gets you Dex to damage twice with a particular kind of firearm. After that you could either continue in Fighter, or progress something like Paladin or Luring Cavalier and get some burst damage.

Gunslinger 5 gives Dex to damage. Oh and it is always fun to go Blackbound Magus for a Axe Musket that can't be broken and go hog wild.

[Particle_Man]

One use of multi-classing is maybe to water down the Tier 1 casters a bit by a DM forcing them to take some levels in non-caster classes.

[Particle_Man]

In PF (like in 3.5), multiclassing is almost always excellent in the short term: A dip in Barbarian is a nice boost in power for just about any melee class, a dip in Rogue will give you a spurt of skill points, a dip in any caster class will net you a few spells that (with good decision making) can give you some great flexibility, etc.

However, unlike in 3.5, almost every class grows quasi-exponentially: Almost every class has useful high-level abilities that are worth remaining single-classed.

Somehow this makes me think of multi-classing in 1st/2nd ed, where the advantages in the short-term (basically hybrid classes) are outweighed by disadvantages in the long term (in this case, level limits).

[Drachasor]

You've got it backwards. Paizo's job is to cater to the less experienced players and especially DMs, the ones that are more likely to ruin (or even break) a character via multiclassing than not. The experienced ones are in a much better position to encourage, discourage or tweak various multiclass/PrC options and so the game does not have to cater to them as much. by encouraging single-class builds, the players will gravitate towards them and the DM has less noise to filter. "I'm a Detective Bard" is much easier to parse than "I'm a Bard/Rogue with a Ranger dip heading for Fochlucan Lyrist" even if both are planning to be court spies. It's also much faster for even inexperienced members of both parties to gauge the power level of an archetype at a glance and make any necessary tweaks to either the build or campaign.

TL;DR It's not about hating or banning multiclassing, it's making single-class more attractive to make life easier on newer DMs.

Eh, I think this is because they don't care about balanced options and they aren't good at making balanced options. So they purposefully just make a bunch of really weak options, with occasionally a better option sneaking through.

IMHO, it's pretty bizarre to make a bunch of PrCs and stuff like that when your whole plan is too make them worse choices than core classes. And it isn't like they couldn't have made RAW limits on multiclassing if they wanted (allowing house rules to allow more). They could have then designed PrCs with that in mind. Eh, they just didn't care.

[NightbringerGGZ]

When Pathfinder was planned out the designers didn't want players creating characters that were a combination of 5 or more classes like was seen towards the end of 3.5. Personally I think the over-estimated how prevalent such builds were and that the Paizo community tends to over-react to the multi-classing "problem", but it does mean that many of the classes gain some nice abilities at higher levels.

As to whether multi-classing is bad, it really depends on your build and goals. Taking levels in a Prestige Class will almost generally result in a character that is less powerful mechanically (though exceptions exist). Mid level abilities are generally powerful enough that you'll want 8 - 12 levels in a single class. Since the game doesn't support Epic levels, your capstone abilities generally aren't relevant to game play, so small dips in a single class can often be beneficial for much of the game.

[Psyren]

Eh, I think this is because they don't care about balanced options and they aren't good at making balanced options. So they purposefully just make a bunch of really weak options, with occasionally a better option sneaking through.

Are we talking about Paizo or WotC here? :smallwink:


IMHO, it's pretty bizarre to make a bunch of PrCs and stuff like that when your whole plan is too make them worse choices than core classes. And it isn't like they couldn't have made RAW limits on multiclassing if they wanted (allowing house rules to allow more). They could have then designed PrCs with that in mind. Eh, they just didn't care.

If anything, multiclassing in PF is easier because XP penalties were done away with and races have better stats. Some PrCs are actually easier to enter in PF, e.g. Arcane Trickster and Shadowdancer. So there's a good mix and the decision of whether to PrC/multiclass or not becomes much more difficult/meaningful, just as intended. If you enter a PrC, it should be because it fits your character concept, not because you feel like you have to in order to avoid a slew of dead levels.

"Worse" is subjective. The base classes can easily end up weaker in play than a multiclass or PrC combination depending on player skill.

[Drachasor]

Are we talking about Paizo or WotC here? :smallwink:

WotC wasn't perfect, but they weren't so afraid of multiclassing and new concepts that they deliberately made them bad. Paizo devs have explicitly stated they aim for mediocre crap (or however you want to word it). The intent is to avoid a power creep. The result is a lot of mediocre, or worse, crap.


If anything, multiclassing in PF is easier because XP penalties were done away with and races have better stats. Some PrCs are actually easier to enter in PF, e.g. Arcane Trickster and Shadowdancer. So there's a good mix and the decision of whether to PrC/multiclass or not becomes much more difficult/meaningful, just as intended. If you enter a PrC, it should be because it fits your character concept, not because you feel like you have to in order to avoid a slew of dead levels.

"Worse" is subjective. The base classes can easily end up weaker in play than a multiclass or PrC combination depending on player skill.

In some ways it is easier. In a lot of ways the trade-offs of multiclassing make it much, much worse. To the point of not being worth it even with the PrC fits a particular concept you are aiming for.

This is especially true with how a lot of abilities like Rage or Bardic Song work, where they are now "rounds per day" that scale with level, rather than uses per day. This makes multiclassing much harder with many classes, since the hit to effectiveness is greater. And while Paizo might have changed around the PrCs a bit, there are hardly any that are actually worth the hit you'd take. Again, even if it fits your concept.

Net result is that being true to a concept that requires/fits a PrC will get you proverbially punched in the face most of the time if you use that PrC.

That player skill line is a complete red herring, btw. When looking at balance one should assume equal player skill. Of course, Paizo Devs don't have a well-developed view on game balance.

[Psyren]

WotC wasn't perfect, but they weren't so afraid of multiclassing and new concepts that they deliberately made them bad.

So the legions of sucky (not to mention outright broken) PrCs they cranked out were totally unintentional? That's actually kind of frightening.

The simple fact is that if you make as much material as both these outfits make, some of it will be bad, or at least unsuited to various players. If you think something is bad, just don't use it, problem solved.



In some ways it is easier. In a lot of ways the trade-offs of multiclassing make it much, much worse. To the point of not being worth it even with the PrC fits a particular concept you are aiming for.

"Worth it" is totally subjective. Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it isn't for anyone else.

Rounds/day vs. uses/day is not much of a differentiating point. For starters, few combats last longer than 4-5 rounds, and second, there are usually feats that get you more of the former in PF if you really find yourself running short.



That player skill line is a complete red herring, btw. When looking at balance one should assume equal player skill. Of course, Paizo Devs don't have a well-developed view on game balance.

In armchair-theorycraft-land, yes. But in the real world, this is a foolish approach. Assuming equal player skill results in you trying to design a class that appeals to both Timmy and Tippy and pleasing neither.

[Kudaku]

Paizo devs have explicitly stated they aim for mediocre crap (or however you want to word it).

Oh boy, I'd absolutely love to see a reference for that quote :smallwink:

[Squirrel_Dude]

My only commentary on the discussion between you two is this:

So the legions of sucky (not to mention outright broken) PrCs they cranked out were totally unintentional? That's actually kind of frightening.It possibly was unintentional in regards to the fact that the developers (and they have said as much) didn't have a full understanding of the game's mechanics when they published early 3.5 material. Many of those ****e PrCs could have been considered to be solid to above average classes at the time of their creation.

Now, if we're talking later material, that excuse is no longer valid. *shrug*

[Talya]

There needs to be more synergies in PF, like the "Oradin Healer". That is one of the most elegant and non-cheesy useful multiclass combos in all of 3.5/pf combined. It's a brilliant concept. Sadly, most Pathfinder classes have absolutely no synergistic classes in which to multiclass. Nobody going primary witch is going to multiclass out (except for possibly the Winter Witch PrC, which is odd for PF in explicitly continuing all Witch class features). Oracle (with the obvious Paladin exception) and Sorcerer are very unfriendly to multiclassers, with a major part of their class power being based on their Mystery or Bloodline.

Conversely, the Wizard, which is barely changed at all, can multiclass freely and benefit from any full casting PrC.

PrC options in Pathfinder are so limited, you almost have to convert PrCs from 3.5 for anyone to ever use one, and even then, there are few situations where it's worth doing.

Hey, speaking of archetypes and prcs, is there anything like Magus that keys off of spontaneous casting and charisma, rather than wizardly intelligence?

I tend to only play classes where I can make good use of a high charisma, and I've noticed in pathfinder, that pretty much limits me to Bard, Paladin, Oracle, and Sorcerer.

[Kudaku]

Conversely, the Wizard, which is barely changed at all, can multiclass freely and benefit from any full casting PrC.

Part of the reason why the PF wizard can freely multiclass is because it's one of the (fairly few) classes that is fairly unchanged from the 3.5 version in that it gets very few class features as it levels up. Since you don't give up anything, prestige classes are more attractive.


Hey, speaking of archetypes and prcs, is there anything like Magus that keys off of spontaneous casting and charisma, rather than wizardly intelligence?

I tend to only play classes where I can make good use of a high charisma, and I've noticed in pathfinder, that pretty much limits me to Bard, Paladin, Oracle, and Sorcerer.

A spontaneous charisma caster? The Summoner springs to mind, but that's a bit of a specialist class. The Inquisitor keys off wisdom instead of charisma but is otherwise a very good mix of Bard and Paladin, with a dash of Ranger.

[Talya]

I think a good fix for multiclassing of spellcasters would be to allow "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" to apply to certain spellcasting-related portions of their previous class features.

For instance, a multiclassing sorcerer might not get any new bloodline powers while advancing another class, but they would continue to gain the granted spells of that bloodline when they hit the appropriate caster level, and their existing bloodline powers would continue to advance in level.

[Faily]

The most useful thing I've found with Multiclassing in Pathfinder so far is to unlock more Class Skills for much delicious +3 bonus to skills. This is rather useful, especially on the lower levels.

Other than that, Pathfinder is mostly geared towards rewarding your base class, which I don't mind personally. Though I will admit that some PrCs in Pathfinder Core got a much needed facelift from 3.5, like Arcane Archer and Dragon Disciple, imho.

[Psyren]

My only commentary on the discussion between you two is this:
It possibly was unintentional in regards to the fact that the developers (and they have said as much) didn't have a full understanding of the game's mechanics when they published early 3.5 material. Many of those ****e PrCs could have been considered to be solid to above average classes at the time of their creation.

Now, if we're talking later material, that excuse is no longer valid. *shrug*

I did think about that, but there are plenty of "late 3.5" PrCs that are weak as well. CPsi has 6 bad ones out of 8; MoI is half good, half bad; over half in CSco are bad, over half in ToM are bad (well, that might have more to do with Truenaming and Shadowcasting etc. Eberron at least has a higher percentage of good over bad, but Eberron also gave us Planar Shepherd which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of WotC's balance abilities.



Hey, speaking of archetypes and prcs, is there anything like Magus that keys off of spontaneous casting and charisma, rather than wizardly intelligence?

I tend to only play classes where I can make good use of a high charisma, and I've noticed in pathfinder, that pretty much limits me to Bard, Paladin, Oracle, and Sorcerer.

Bard IS what you want for this. Specifically, Arcane Duelist or Dawnflower Dervish.

[Canine]

Hey, speaking of archetypes and prcs, is there anything like Magus that keys off of spontaneous casting and charisma, rather than wizardly intelligence?

It isn't quite a Magus, but if you are open to psionics, the Wilder is a charisma based caster with 3/4 BAB, and good prestige class support to get more combat-oriented.

[Coidzor]

You've got it backwards. Paizo's job is to cater to the less experienced players and especially DMs, the ones that are more likely to ruin (or even break) a character via multiclassing than not. The experienced ones are in a much better position to encourage, discourage or tweak various multiclass/PrC options and so the game does not have to cater to them as much. by encouraging single-class builds, the players will gravitate towards them and the DM has less noise to filter. "I'm a Detective Bard" is much easier to parse than "I'm a Bard/Rogue with a Ranger dip heading for Fochlucan Lyrist" even if both are planning to be court spies. It's also much faster for even inexperienced members of both parties to gauge the power level of an archetype at a glance and make any necessary tweaks to either the build or campaign.

Even if you're correct, you're completely misunderstanding me if you think I have it backwards that I perceive that they've both done what you said by having single-class builds be more viable and worked to discourage multiclassing directly.

Further, even if this is Paizo's job rather than simply the prejudices of the design team, how do you get that it's the DM's job to discourage multiclassing? I was addressing Squirreldude speaking as a DM and advocating further system changes/house rules to discourage multiclassing at his table or others.

Hell, they could still have done what you're arguing they did and worked to support multiclassing and PrCs better than they have. The only decent PrCs PF has given us are happy accidents.


TL;DR It's not about hating or banning multiclassing, it's making single-class more attractive to make life easier on newer DMs.

The way I see it, it's both, and the one I don't have a problem with and the other I do. Though I have less problems with people who ban multiclassing rather than being disingenuous about it by erecting additional barriers and hoops to jump through, since at least they're being upfront and honest even if their preferences and biases leave me confused and dismayed.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I was addressing Squirreldude speaking as a DM and advocating further system changes/house rules to discourage multiclassing at his table or others.Is that what it appeared I was doing?That wasn't my intention. I was trying to sum up my brief cost-benefit analysis of multiclassing by saying that it's inefficient to only multiclass into 1 or sometimes 2 classes as compared to N number of classes because most of the costs of multiclassing in Pathfinder are absorbed when you take your second class.

My bad.

[Coidzor]

Is that what it appeared I was doing because that wasn't my intention. I was trying to sum up the brief cost-benefit analysis of multiclassing by saying that it's inefficient to only multiclass into 1 or 2 classes.

My bad.

I should've asked for clarification anyway, sorry.

[Psyren]

Even if you're correct, you're completely misunderstanding me if you think I have it backwards that I perceive that they've both done what you said by having single-class builds be more viable and worked to discourage multiclassing directly.

It might be my lack of sleep but I can't seem to parse this sentence at all.



Further, even if this is Paizo's job rather than simply the prejudices of the design team, how do you get that it's the DM's job to discourage multiclassing?

I didn't say that it was; rather, I said dip-heavy/"frankenstein" builds are likely to be intimidating/off-putting to DMs. Thus, the designers wanting to incorporate disincentive for multiclassing directly into the system is a reasonable stance to take.

Now, it's certainly true that not all multiclassing ends up in a frankenstein build - but it seems to me that accentuating the benefits of staying single-classed is a good way to avoid going down that road at all.



Hell, they could still have done what you're arguing they did and worked to support multiclassing and PrCs better than they have. The only decent PrCs PF has given us are happy accidents.

"There are no accidents" - Master Oogway

I'm going to guess up front that your definition of "decent" probably diverges too significantly from mine for common ground. There are plenty of PrCs in PF that caught my eye, plus I can bring in any number of the ones from 3.5 if all of those were somehow inadequate.


The way I see it, it's both, and the one I don't have a problem with and the other I do. Though I have less problems with people who ban multiclassing rather than being disingenuous about it by erecting additional barriers and hoops to jump through, since at least they're being upfront and honest even if their preferences and biases leave me confused and dismayed.

Then I'm sorry you feel that way, but I can't really control what you see or choose to see in something. All I can say is that I see it differently.

[Talya]

Bard IS what you want for this. Specifically, Arcane Duelist or Dawnflower Dervish.


yeah, but what if it's a magus you want?

See, don't get me wrong, I love a lot about pathfinder, so much was improved, but I think they dropped the ball on this one thing.

In d20, Magus would be a full BAB PrC that was accessible at level 6 and gave it's class features over 10 levels. Entering it would require at least one level of a class like Fighter or Swashbuckler, and at least three levels of Wizard or Sorcerer. Then it would continue advancing whichever you chose to use.

I actually believe this is superior design for hybrid classes than creating a new base class. In fact, even in 3.5, I don't believe Paladin should ever have existed in its current form... the Prestige Paladin was the right idea from the start.

This makes the classes more modular...the idea is you can pick any two base classes, and combine their abilities, and while remaining somewhat behind on both, you're better than 10 levels of each, and in theory, the versatility adds up to equal the usefulness of the power and focus of a single class.

Of course, none of the base classes were remotely balanced to start with, so it didn't entirely work.

I really think Pathfinder came close to getting it right. Ideally, a Prestige Class should offer alternatives that equal what you're giving up to get it, so that you have a real choice to make, without any system mastery at all. If you have a level of system mastery, you should be able to find synergistic elements that greatly increase your power and/or versatility. Pathfinder still has these, they're just fewer in number and a few of them are accessible without multiclassing at all. The latter is a good thing, the former, not so much. The Oradin is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We need more combos like that -- 3.5 has them in abundance. Unfortunately, with rare exceptions (like Druid), nobody stays in one class from 1-20 in 3.5, because there's no tradeoffs to make. The PrCs are blatantly better choices. There was a correction needed. I just think Pathfinder may have overcorrected. More accurately, the improved the base classes appropriately, but didn't improve (and actually, "nerfed") PrCs and now they aren't worth using.

Overall, I think I still prefer Pathfinder. I've mostly switched to it at this point.

[TuggyNE]

plus I can bring in any number of the ones from 3.5 if all of those were somehow inadequate.

"The nice thing about PF multiclassing is that it doesn't get in the way of adapting 3.5's classes to make it worthwhile."

Rightyo then?

[grarrrg]

Gunslinger 5 gives Dex to damage. Oh and it is always fun to go Blackbound Magus for a Axe Musket that can't be broken and go hog wild.

The "Gunslinger 1/Trench Fighter 3" post also mentioned "in a Guns Everywhere (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/firearms) setting"

"Guns Everywhere: Guns are commonplace. Early firearms are seen as antiques, and advanced firearms are widespread....The Gunslinger loses the gunsmith class feature and instead gains the gun training class feature at 1st level."

Gun Training is _normally_ gained at 5th, and gives DEX to Damage.
So his build is correct.


"Oradin Healer". That is one of the most elegant and non-cheesy useful multiclass combos in all of 3.5/pf combined.

:smallredface:


Oracle (with the obvious Paladin exception)... very unfriendly to multiclassers, with a major part of their class power being based on their Mystery or Bloodline.

Oracle is a _little_ friendlier than you might think.
Some good Revelations are not dependent on level (or low-dependent).
And your Curse will still advance at 1/2 rate for non-Oracle levels, so that helps a bit.

And then there's always Hell Knight Signifier (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/hellknight-signifer):
"level stacks with other divine spellcasting classes for determining the effects of those classes' ... mysteries."

So while you won't gain any new Revelations, the ones you do have will still grow in power. And Mystery Spells are (probably) a part of your Mystery, so you still gain those.


Conversely, the Wizard, which is barely changed at all, can multiclass freely and benefit from any full casting PrC.

Add Druid to that list.
After level 12 your Wildshape stops gaining forms and only gains duration and number of uses.
As for unique abilities, Venom Immunity at 9, Thousand Faces at 13, and Timeless Body at 15.
While useful, none of them are all that awesome.
This only leaves your Companion to worry about, but if you took a Domain, you'll still gain the bonus spell slots from a "+ casting" PrC anyway.

[Psyren]

And Cleric loses channel, which honestly you probably won't need too much anyway, so they can multiclass/PrC too.


"The nice thing about PF multiclassing is that it doesn't get in the way of adapting 3.5's classes to make it worthwhile."

Rightyo then?

Uh... what? No idea what you're getting at here.

[MeeposFire]

I actually like the idea of making base classes more worthwhile. I do not like the idea of making PRCs a bad idea though. I think they did hit the prcs a little harder than they needed to. I think just boosting the viability of the base classes was enough.

I think they did a great job of making even small near worthless things seem like a big deal. I have seen players complain because they don't want to leave a class due to a small gain in a relatively weak class ability. It was weaker than a feat but these players would not have thought twice about losing a feat. You see the same with the capstone abilities. Most of them are not that good and even if they are they are so rarely used that they don't really matter anyway. Even so players will freak out about losing them. As an outside observer to that I find it amusing.

[Hytheter]

Hey, speaking of archetypes and prcs, is there anything like Magus that keys off of spontaneous casting and charisma, rather than wizardly intelligence?

There's a 3rd party class called the Vanguard which basically seems to be Spontaneous Charisma Magus.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/super-genius-games/vanguard

[TuggyNE]

Uh... what? No idea what you're getting at here.

That if PF's design makes multiclassing with PF classes highly undesirable in many cases, at least one can still borrow from 3.5's rather more favorable setup wholesale in order to make it worth doing.

This is not much of a selling point, since in most respects PF is (or should be) designed to work fine on its own merits, with 3.5 material only there to fill in for unfortunate lacks and mistakes, and the filling needed as seldom as possible. Similarly, WINE is not a strong selling point of Linux.

[Drachasor]

Oh boy, I'd absolutely love to see a reference for that quote :smallwink:

I'll grant when I say "mediocre crap" I AM putting my spin on it. Hmm, pretty sure there's some stuff I couldn't find.

SKR on archetype power. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lp05?Archetypes-and-Game-Balance#2)

SKR on how they purposefully provide awful choices. (This is in a thread on PF's Vow of Poverty which is much, much worse than 3.5's). (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44) SKR has made some other comments basically amounting to "if I don't like it, I'll make sure the option is sucky." His stance is under the guise of "realism" even when it flatly contradicts reality.

There's also a whole "secret rules" thing in PF. Where they have hidden design principles they don't share. Doesn't sound so bad. Except they make FAQ rulings off those some unwritten design principles. FAQ rulings that flatly contradict the rules text (which they don't errata).

And they've generally taken a dim view of people discussing balance problems, particularly about things being too weak. It isn't like 3.5 didn't have a problem with weak stuff, but I felt when I got a 3.5 book over half the stuff in it was solid or had some decent use (even if it wasn't awesome). When I get a PF book...it's more like 10-20%.

Hmm, it's hard to give the full context to the above two and other quotes. There are a lot of threads where SKR was being a jerk about these and related issues -- such as equating being good at throwing things to making a water balloon tosser viable.

[Psyren]

PF VoP lets you have one magic item; with the right one you can easily outstrip 3.5 VoP. PF VoP also lets you use consumables, rather than requiring they be used on your behalf as in 3.5. So I find the belief that PF VoP is worse to be unsupported.


There's also a whole "secret rules" thing in PF. Where they have hidden design principles they don't share. Doesn't sound so bad. Except they make FAQ rulings off those some unwritten design principles. FAQ rulings that flatly contradict the rules text (which they don't errata).

Errata in PF just means "ruling we printed." Obviously, if there's no new print run, there's no printed errata. It's not some grand conspiracy to keep the text unchanged and you in eternal darkness; they're just not going to do a brand new print run for every rule change they make instantly.


That if PF's design makes multiclassing with PF classes highly undesirable in many cases, at least one can still borrow from 3.5's rather more favorable setup wholesale in order to make it worth doing.

This is not much of a selling point, since in most respects PF is (or should be) designed to work fine on its own merits, with 3.5 material only there to fill in for unfortunate lacks and mistakes, and the filling needed as seldom as possible. Similarly, WINE is not a strong selling point of Linux.

Then you misread my statement, because "filling in for unfortunate lacks and mistakes" is all I was advocating the 3.5 material for.

Plenty of PF PrCs do work on their own merits; Cyphermage, Harrower, Arcane Savant, Arclord of Nex, Loremaster, PFAA, PFEK, PFAT etc. They are better than any base class at very specific things, and that is the PrC philosophy in PF.

[Drachasor]

PF VoP lets you have one magic item; with the right one you can easily outstrip 3.5 VoP. PF VoP also lets you use consumables, rather than requiring they be used on your behalf as in 3.5. So I find the belief that PF VoP is worse to be unsupported.

Of course. The VoP character in PF can have a 400k magic item that is custom and has a bunch of stacked abilities of other items if the DM allows it in PF. Completely and utterly against the spirit of VoP, but SKR advocated it because he thinks VoP is stupid -- an attitude he incorporated into the ability.

VoP in D&D is bad, but generally it isn't so bad that half wealth character does better. Of course, in PF it is limited to monks, because it only makes sense for Monks to get it, right?

And consumable, by and large, are skippable things in D&D. At least the ones you use yourself. It's easy enough for someone else to do them, and the big ones (like wands of CLW) are something the monk won't do anyway.

I'm not saying VoP in 3.5 was perfect. Far from it. It was bad. But VoP in PF is much worse. But the "We want to make horrible options" attitude of the PF design staff that mucks up a lot of their products. It certainly had a role in PrCs and multiclassing.

Again, 3.5 certainly had a lot of bad options. It's just that Good:Awful ratio in PF is much worse. It's a bit like if you took 3.5's ratios of Awesome:Good:Decent:Mediocre:Poor:Bad:NeverTake and moved everything down one step. It's not that there aren't still good choices in PF. They are just far fewer in relative number.


Errata in PF just means "ruling we printed." Obviously, if there's no new print run, there's no printed errata. It's not some grand conspiracy to keep the text unchanged and you in eternal darkness; they're just not going to do a brand new print run for every rule change they make instantly.

Or consolidating the unofficial errata into one place, since it is in a bunch of FAQs. Or writing down, in most cases, precisely what the errata would be, because that would actually be helpful.

And to say errata should only be made for a new printing is insane. The point of errata is to have an easy reference for printings that are already out there. So yeah, PF completely fails here and they LIKE it that way.

[TuggyNE]

Or consolidating the unofficial errata into one place, since it is in a bunch of FAQs. Or writing down, in most cases, precisely what the errata would be, because that would actually be helpful.

This, in particular, is really rather important; Arcane Swordsage, on the one hand, and the RACSD project, on the other, show both how tricky it can be to nail down precise wordings and how important it is to do so. Just saying "well, something like this general sort of idea, you figure it out" is not good enough and is really rather unprofessional.

[Greenish]

In d20, Magus would be a full BAB PrC that was accessible at level 6 and gave it's class features over 10 levels.Or, you know, Duskblade. :smalltongue:


I actually believe this is superior design for hybrid classes than creating a new base class. In fact, even in 3.5, I don't believe Paladin should ever have existed in its current form... the Prestige Paladin was the right idea from the start.I rather like getting my concept together from the 1st level, instead of having to wait until midlevels for the PrC that makes the dislocated halves of my build play nice together.

[Psyren]

The FAQs ARE consolidated in one place. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq) But I guess clicking some links on a page, or using a "site:" google search is a massive chore or something.

The "good:bad ratio," if that even means anything for a system that's been out for less than half the time, is very subjective. I'll reiterate - if there's material you don't want to use, don't use it, and the problem is solved. It's not like you paid for any of it. I'm just not getting the need for all this whingy hostility towards one system for being no worse or better than the other.

[Greenish]

PFSRD seems to have included notes of most FAQ rulings in the relevant places, which is very handy.

[Drachasor]

The FAQs ARE consolidated in one place. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq) But I guess clicking some links on a page, or using a "site:" google search is a massive chore or something.

Are you being facetious here? Given how FAQs work that consolidation is pretty darn useless. If you look up a given page in a book, you can't be sure if there hasn't been a FAQ on something contained within it. A great deal of work would be required to check out if anything a character was using had a FAQ on it. To say nothing of checking out anything a character did.

What's more, not all the FAQs are FAQrattas. Some are regular FAQs that just answer a question. So there's a whole lot of "junk" in there if you are looking for changes.

There's a reason why errata for books is made the way it is. It's a lot easier to know the changes to the rules when you have a document that lists the changes in order with page number citations and the new wording. FAQrattas do not work this way, and do not clearly state what the new wording should be (the vast majority of the time). There have been plenty of times when a FAQ just raised more questions -- you can't be sure if a given one is intended to change the rules or if it is just poorly written. It can help to look them up in the forums, but that is more work still.

It's a byzantine and unprofessional mess.


PFSRD seems to have included notes of most FAQ rulings in the relevant places, which is very handy.

But they don't have all of them and plenty of those notes have notes stating it is unclear if there is a rule change or not.

[Elderand]

It's a byzantine and unprofessional mess.

Pathfinder is the worst thing ever for reasons that were exactly the same in 3.5 but it's only bad if the people at paizo do it !

[Drachasor]

Pathfinder is the worst thing ever for reasons that were exactly the same in 3.5 but it's only bad if the people at paizo do it !

In 3.5 the FAQ was not a source for rules. It officially had no place in the rule hierarchy. If the 3.5 FAQ disagreed with the text+errata, then the 3.5 FAQ was wrong! This is explicitly not the case in Pathfinder.

So no, the two aren't remotely the same.

[Elderand]

In 3.5 the FAQ was not a source for rules. It officially had no place in the rule hierarchy. If the 3.5 FAQ disagreed with the text+errata, then the 3.5 FAQ was wrong! This is explicitly not the case in Pathfinder.

So no, the two aren't remotely the same.

Because obviously the errata given by wotc were always perfect.

Why I fondly remember the crystal clear work of art that was the tome of battle errata.

[Greenish]

Well, 3.5 did do proper errata, most of the time. Mind, some had bad ideas (oh noes mounted scouts), some didn't fix the actual problems (hi there factotum), and some were just WotC giving you the middle finger (ToB errata), but they do have the ease of use Drachasor finds missing in PF. It's a fair point.

[Drachasor]

Because obviously the errata given by wotc were always perfect.

Why I fondly remember the crystal clear work of art that was the tome of battle errata.

D&D: Proper errata for books. Details text locations and changes. Sometimes not perfect (as is expected with all errata). Downloadable as one convenient file per book.

PF: Each book has a list of FAQs. It is often unclear whether a FAQ is changing the rules or not. It is unclear exactly what the new rule is or how it interacts with other rules a decent amount of the time. Answers can and do contradict each other. Naturally page numbers and revised text are not included. Not downloadable.

Saying the two are the same is ridiculous. Chaos was by far the exception for 3.5, but it is the order of the day for PF.

[Elderand]

D&D: Proper errata for books. Details text locations and changes. Sometimes not perfect (as is expected with all errata). Downloadable as one convenient file per book.

PF: Each book has a list of FAQs. It is often unclear whether a FAQ is changing the rules or not. It is unclear exactly what the new rule is or how it interacts with other rules a decent amount of the time. Answers can and do contradict each other. Naturally page numbers and revised text are not included. Not downloadable.

Saying the two are the same is ridiculous. Chaos was by far the exception for 3.5, but it is the order of the day for PF.

I'm not saying the two are identical, I'm saying I have seen in this thread and others plenty of people are more than ready to spew hyperboles about the flaws and designers of pathfinder while conveniently ignoring the same flaws in 3.5.

The unfairness and hypocrisy is blatant.

Most times a pathfinder thread comes up chances are that fair criticism and reasoned discussion of the system will fly out the window and be buried under reverse fanboyism and cry of how obviously evil the designers are and exist solely to ruin the game and probably bath in the blood of puppies and kittens.

[Drachasor]

I'm not saying the two are identical, I'm saying I have seen in this thread and others plenty of people are more than ready to spew hyperboles about the flaws and designers of pathfinder while conveniently ignoring the same flaws in 3.5.

The unfairness and hypocrisy is blatant.

This isn't that. How they handle their "errata" (or rather lack thereof) is blatantly worse and blatantly awful. There's a reason why book erratas for all books everywhere is done the way it is and not with a bunch of questions and answers.

And I'm not saying 3.5 was perfect. Overall it was handled better though, especially in this area.

[Psyren]

Are you being facetious here? Given how FAQs work that consolidation is pretty darn useless. If you look up a given page in a book, you can't be sure if there hasn't been a FAQ on something contained within it. A great deal of work would be required to check out if anything a character was using had a FAQ on it. To say nothing of checking out anything a character did.

Let's say I want to roll a monk, and I want to check all the FAQs related to flurry to see if I missed anything.

OMG so complicated! (https://www.google.com/search?q=paizo+faq&oq=paizo+faq&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l3j0l2.4923j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=flurry+site:http:%2F%2Fpaizo.com%2Fpaizo%2Ffaq)



What's more, not all the FAQs are FAQrattas. Some are regular FAQs that just answer a question. So there's a whole lot of "junk" in there if you are looking for changes.

Clarifications are not "junk." The most important aspect of a ruling is convincing your DM, and those work just as well as actual changes.



There's a reason why errata for books is made the way it is. It's a lot easier to know the changes to the rules when you have a document that lists the changes in order with page number citations and the new wording.

They have those; they are available on each product's page. (http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook) But they only update it when they do a new print run, because then they can capture the changes made regardless of the edition you purchased. (So if they, for example, come out with the sixth printing and errata something from the third printing, and you have the fourth printing, you don't have to try and backtrace your version in order to follow along - they do that for you.) They make it so that no matter which edition of the book made it to your FLGS, you can buy it and not worry; just match your print run to the right errata file.


In 3.5 the FAQ was not a source for rules. It officially had no place in the rule hierarchy. If the 3.5 FAQ disagreed with the text+errata, then the 3.5 FAQ was wrong! This is explicitly not the case in Pathfinder.

So no, the two aren't remotely the same.

You do realize that's worse, right? WotC basically hamstrung their own efforts to issue rulings, and now we have arguments like monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes that have been tearing apart the playerbase for over a decade now and are going strong, because WotC can't actually answer the questions anymore. You have rampant idiocy like the very designer of a class (Mearls and Hexblade or Marmell and Shadowcaster for instance) being unable to clarify or tweak anything, and the players desperately preserving their messageboard posts like the holy tablets of an ancient culture just because the official errata file is already a done deal. And you actually prefer that? Just, ugh.

[Drachasor]

You do realize that's worse, right? WotC basically hamstrung their own efforts to issue rulings, and now we have arguments like monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes that have been tearing apart the playerbase for over a decade now and are going strong, because WotC can't actually answer the questions anymore. You have rampant idiocy like the very designer of a class (Mearls and Hexblade or Marmell and Shadowcaster for instance) being unable to clarify or tweak anything, and the players desperately preserving their messageboard posts like the holy tablets of an ancient culture just because the official errata file is already a done deal. And you actually prefer that? Just, ugh.

My mistake. Being clear about rule changes, what those changes are, and where they happen is worse than being unclear and contradicting yourself.

Rushing out half-considered responses which change the rules that you later may or may not revise is also great. It's much better than just having proper errata.

Also, having hidden rules is awesome.

Clarity is the Enemy! PF is the best!

[Greenish]

OMG so complicated! (https://www.google.com/search?q=paizo+faq&oq=paizo+faq&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l3j0l2.4923j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=flurry+site:http:%2F%2Fpaizo.com%2Fpaizo%2Ffaq)I 'm not sure if your link is working as intended. It brings me to Google with the words "Paizo FAQ" searched (nothing about monks or flurry specifically). I'm using an old version of Safari.


For that matter, googling something like Paizo's monk FAQ may take you a while to come to the most recent (and sensible) ruling, and in process you'll probably exceed your daily portion of negative feedback. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I'm not sure if your link is working as intended. It brings me to Google with the words "Paizo FAQ" searched (nothing about monks or flurry specifically). I'm using an old version of Safari.


For that matter, googling something like Paizo's monk FAQ may take you a while to come to the most recent (and sensible) ruling, and in process you'll probably exceed your daily portion of negative feedback. :smalltongue:

It should be a google search for:

"flurry site:http://paizo.com/paizo/faq"

And no, the FAQ is a separate area from the boards so you won't run into any of the discussion leading to the ruling.

[Psyren]

My mistake. Being clear about rule changes, what those changes are, and where they happen is worse than being unclear and contradicting yourself.

Rushing out half-considered responses which change the rules that you later may or may not revise is also great. It's much better than just having proper errata.

Also, having hidden rules is awesome.

Clarity is the Enemy! PF is the best!

So how's that proper ToB errata working out for you?

The only thing that's clear about WotC is that they issue errata once and consider a matter settled for all time afterward. If your issue even made it that far.

[Drachasor]

So how's that proper ToB errata working out for you?

The only thing that's clear about WotC is that they issue errata once and consider a matter settled for all time afterward. If your issue even made it that far.

When that's the only argument against 3.5's system it is pretty high praise.

And WotC had a number of products with multiple revisions. Mostly core material, of course.

Anyhow, this is quite off-topic and so should be moved somewhere else or dropped. I didn't mean to derail the thread.

[Psyren]

When that's the only argument against 3.5's system it is pretty high praise.

The "only argument" is that their errata is a shoddy, incomplete mess that they will never revise, and intentionally shuts designers and developers out of providing meaningful information to the players so they can bicker and rage over "RAI" until the end of time?

Not exactly what I'd call praise.


Anyhow, this is quite off-topic and so should be moved somewhere else or dropped. I didn't mean to derail the thread.

For once we agree.