Is multiclassing and PrCing in Pathfinder bad?

[Petrocorus]

Good morning.

I'm getting interested in Pathfinder recently, and i starting to read it. One thing that make me perplex is that i keep reading here that, in Pathfinder, multiclassing and PrCing is far less common and tend to be a bad thing more often than not. Apparently, Pathfinder pushes you to stay in your class. But i don't really understand why.
What makes multiclassing bad in PF?
Is PrCing really bad too?

[Dusk Eclipse]

It isn't that it is bad to multiclass in PF, it is that in many cases it is better to stay single classed, why? Because of the favoured class rules (GASP), yeah that much maligned rule in 3.5 got a pretty neat overhaul by rewarding to stay on you favoured class, normally you can take either a +1 HP per level or a +1 SP, but there are some alternate FCB are waaay stronger, for example the FCB for human sorcerers is an extra spell known (level 1 lower than the highest you can cast) per level!

As for prestige classes, well most of them aren't that good, and thanks to archetypes it is easier to cover certain archetypes with a single class.

Haven said that, there are still some merits for some dips, for example monk (usually master of the many styles) as always is pretty decent in some builds

[Elricaltovilla]

Good morning.

I'm getting interested in Pathfinder recently, and i starting to read it. One thing that make me perplex is that i keep reading here that, in Pathfinder, multiclassing and PrCing is far less common and tend to be a bad thing more often than not. Apparently, Pathfinder pushes you to stay in your class. But i don't really understand why.
What makes multiclassing bad in PF?
Is PrCing really bad too?

Most scaling bonuses you get in Pathfinder run off of your Class Level, meaning that if you take levels not in that class, those scaling abilities stop scaling. Very few offer any sort of 1/2 progression or anything for taking a different class. Pathfinder also updated a lot of classes to include things like... actual class features (for wizards, sorcerers and other classes) or capstones (for pretty much everyone), which serve to encourage you to get into one class and play it all the way through.

In addition, Pathfinder has put a lot of effort into the Archetypes setup. If there's class features you want on a fighter or something that aren't normally part of the class, the best place to look isn't in a PrC, it's in an archetype. You'll likely have to trade some stuff you don't want to trade for other stuff you do want to get, and you can't pick and choose your benefits (usually), but they're how Pathfinder does unusual class ideas.

Prestige classes have sadly been relegated to "roleplaying choices." They generally are tied to setting specific organizations and don't offer much in the way of improved class features (though there are still some gems out there). They get far less support than base classes and archetypes get.

[Red Fel]

Good morning.

I'm getting interested in Pathfinder recently, and i starting to read it. One thing that make me perplex is that i keep reading here that, in Pathfinder, multiclassing and PrCing is far less common and tend to be a bad thing more often than not. Apparently, Pathfinder pushes you to stay in your class. But i don't really understand why.
What makes multiclassing bad in PF?
Is PrCing really bad too?

It's not that multiclassing is bad, per se, so much as single-classing has gotten better. Many classes have substantially improved progressions and capstones. Archetypes allow you to take a class in exciting new directions. Hybrid classes, as well as some archetypes, allow you to combine the functionality of multiple classes without the annoyance of multiclassing. Favored class bonuses give a very nice incentive to stay in a class. In short, it's not that PF is multiclass-unfriendly, but rather that it's single-class-friendly.

As for PrCing, well, that's a mixed bag. A number of PrCs are quite good, and a number of them require a certain degree of multiclassing (or at least dipping). Eldritch Knight (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/eldritch-knight) and Dragon Disciple (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/dragon-disciple) are very popular PrCs, for instance. I'm also a big fan of the Champion of Irori (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/c-d/champion-of-the-enlightened), which is basically a Paladin/Monk theurge that's pretty good at what it does. But again, the flip side is that single-class progressions are pretty solid, some from beginning to end. The two main reasons to take a PrC were (1) the class features, and (2) theurging; when you can do both of those with a single-class progression, as you can in PF, there's less need to take a PrC unless you specifically want what it offers.

There's also the fact that most campaigns don't seem to make it past the mid-teens, which means that seriously advanced progressions won't see their endgame. Keeping things simple is a plus when you expect your character to be finished between levels 12 and 15.

[Kurald Galain]

Many classes benefit from a one- or two-level dip in some other class. For example, a melee character may want one level of barbarian or bloodrager (for its rage ability), and a wizard may want a level of sorcerer (for its damage boost).

[Ssalarn]

As others have noted, multiclassing or taking a PrC in Pathfinder isn't bad, it's just that single class options are much more competitive and generally include some nice perks (like Favored Class Bonuses and capstone abilities) that the PrCs don't get. There's also usually an archetype or hybrid class that will let you accomplish what you used to need a PrC or multiclass dip for. There's still good reasons to PrC or multiclass though.

For example, if you want to play a character who mixes blade and spell into his combat style, Magus is a much superior option to Eldritch Knight, but Eldritch Knight opens up a lot of combinations of abilities you can't get from a Magus or an archetype. Paladin/Sorcerer/EK for example would be totally different than a Magus, and a Gunslinger/Wizard/ EK would have a better BAB than taking the Spellslinger Wizard archetype that uses guns. I find that broad character ideas (something like "broadsword wielding arcane gish") are generally going to be better covered by archetypes or hybrid classes, while really specific character ideas (a paladin-mage who gets Divine Grace, Aura of Courage, has a snarky familiar, and transforms into a dragon before smiting evil) are where you're going to want to bring your PrCs and multiclass options into play. The other thing PrCs can be good for is combining two archetypes; maybe you want to do something crazy like an Eldritch Guardian / Spellslinger / Eldritch Knight whose koala familiar fights alongside him with a musket-axe.

[Secret Wizard]

To answer OP: Yes.

[Snowbluff]

To answer OP: Yes.

This.

Especially with the nerfs to SLAs and requirements, even Eldritch Knight is unpopular now. Even then, and eldritch knight misses out on things like getting around ASF and it's spell progression is so bad that a Magus actually has equivalent casting for most low levels.

With most class options being pretty awful and newer classes receiving less support, you should just play a caster. Casters have more fun. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Many classes benefit from a one- or two-level dip in some other class. For example, a melee character may want one level of barbarian or bloodrager (for its rage ability), and a wizard may want a level of sorcerer (for its damage boost).

There is in fact a dipping handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?230500-Pathfinder-Dipping-for-Fun-and-Profit-(mostly-Profit)) by our very own grarrrg on this very subject.

In addition, Unchained has recently dropped with even more options - most notably Variant Multiclassing, which while not quite as amazing as it sounded when initially pitched, still allows you to grab choice tidbits from another class while still allowing all your primary class features and favored class bonuses to fully scale. Effectively it's a way to multiclass while staying single-classed.

[Snowbluff]

In addition, Unchained has recently dropped with even more options - most notably Variant Multiclassing, which while not quite as amazing as it sounded when initially pitched, still allows you to grab choice tidbits from another class while still allowing all your primary class features and favored class bonuses to fully scale. Effectively it's a way to multiclass while staying single-classed.
Well, the VMC options stay around regardless of you staying in one class, right? So that can alleviate some of the problems, if you can find a strong option.

[Pex]

Pretty much. Prestige classes exist because of 3E legacy, but notice after all this time there haven't been any new ones. Pathfinder deliberately chose not to use them, so there's no support.

Multiclassing isn't terrible, but if you have a character concept that requires multiclassing your best bet is to look for an archetype that fits your need. Archetypes are alternative class features that let you stay single glass but give you stuff that simulate multiclassing or specialize in an area akin to a prestige class.

Edit: There are also "hybrid classes" which are 20 level classes that simulate specific multiclassing, such as Skald combining Barbarian and Bard and Warpriest combining Cleric and Paladin. (They say it's combining Cleric with Fighter but the class abilities given are Paladin.)

[Psyren]

It's also worth noting that PF is backwards compatible, so if there's a PrC option you really wanted from 3.5 you can get it in here with only minor alterations in most cases. They simply chose to avoid that route in official/first-party product.


Well, the VMC options stay around regardless of you staying in one class, right? So that can alleviate some of the problems, if you can find a strong option.

Yes - though they don't consider it a "good idea," you can combine VMC with regular MC in the same character. (However, you cannot VMC and MC the same class.)

[Snowbluff]

Yes - though they don't consider it a "good idea," you can combine VMC with regular MC in the same character. (However, you cannot VMC and MC the same class.)
TT^TT

Why would you say this, Paizo? It would be so good.

[Gnaeus]

Pretty much. Prestige classes exist because of 3E legacy, but notice after all this time there haven't been any new ones. Pathfinder deliberately chose not to use them, so there's no support.

I see some 75 or so Paizo created PRCs on the PFSRD, so I don't really think thats true. Not many must haves, and certainly some losers, but there are some worth having. Souleater is pretty good in certain builds for example (for its energy drain ability and soul eating familiar mostly).

[Doctor Awkward]

Class level dependent benefits were already mentioned. Certain archetypes granting feat chains that would otherwise be a tax are another part.

Really it just hoses mundanes more than it does spellcasters. Generally a spellcaster still prestiges out whenever they can, they just also get some nifty bonuses on top of that.

Mundanes are, of course, still getting it in the earhole. Cuz, y'know, Pathfinder.

[Gnaeus]

Class level dependent benefits were already mentioned. Certain archetypes granting feat chains that would otherwise be a tax are another part.

Really it just hoses mundanes more than it does spellcasters. Generally a spellcaster still prestiges out whenever they can, they just also get some nifty bonuses on top of that.

Not really sure about that either. Druid, Witch and Shaman are really shooting themselves in the foot to PRC. Sorcerer gets all those spells known from favored class, so they dont want to either (Dragon Disciple is way better than in 3.5, but not as good as straight sorc). Wizards and Clerics its kind of a wash. They get more class abilities in PF than in 3.5, and the best PRCs weren't open, but they can still take things like loremaster. You will have to explain exactly what you mean with regards to mundanes. They were better off dipping in 3.5, and still usually better off dipping in PF.

[Occasional Sage]

Chevalier (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/c-d/chevalier) is pretty good, especially at only three levels. The Evangelist is just amazingly ridiculous, mostly because of its Aligned Class (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/evangelist#TOC-Aligned-Class-Ex-) feature.

Note that Evangelist was released in Inner Sea Gods, a 2014 Paizo release. So yeah, PrCing gets support.

[Doctor Awkward]

Not really sure about that either. Druid, Witch and Shaman are really shooting themselves in the foot to PRC. Sorcerer gets all those spells known from favored class, so they dont want to either (Dragon Disciple is way better than in 3.5, but not as good as straight sorc). Wizards and Clerics its kind of a wash. They get more class abilities in PF than in 3.5, and the best PRCs weren't open, but they can still take things like loremaster. You will have to explain exactly what you mean with regards to mundanes. They were better off dipping in 3.5, and still usually better off dipping in PF.

archetypes like Tetori and Lore Warden prevent you from taking PrC's because a lot of their features then become meaningless.

I mean, yeah they function just fine as 20th level classes, but I had more fun when I built a character myself, not had Paizo build it for me.

[Gnaeus]

The Evangelist is just amazingly ridiculous, mostly because of its Aligned Class (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/evangelist#TOC-Aligned-Class-Ex-) feature.

Note that Evangelist was released in Inner Sea Gods, a 2014 Paizo release. So yeah, PrCing gets support.

Evangelist is good. I can't say I'd call it amazingly ridiculous. At least not without looking at Inner Sea Gods. You basically lose one level of your class features and a feat, and in exchange you get some free AC, some nice skill bonuses, a language, and your deity boons from Deific Obedience early (at low level, mostly some low level deity specific spell likes). I think it would be decent in a lot of builds, but its no planar shepherd.

[grarrrg]

If you are playing to/starting at level 20, then you are _probably_ better off sticking with one class for 20 levels. This is due to _most_ classes having quite solid capstone abilities.
And even then there are still some classes that don't get all that much at higher levels though (especially Cleric), so they may want to shop around for a PrC.

If the game is _NOT_ going to reach level 20 (and/or 9th level spells aren't a possibility), then Multi-classing and PrCing become much tastier options.

And there are still interesting combinations to be had, even if the game is going to level 20 (Gundolon anyone?).

But anywho...most PrC's are VERY specialized, or just "meh".


There is in fact a dipping handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?230500-Pathfinder-Dipping-for-Fun-and-Profit-(mostly-Profit)) by our very own grarrrg on this very subject.

I should really finish updating that thing for the ACG classes... That stupid book added so much in so many places that my brain is just kinda "bleh".


Evangelist is good. I can't say I'd call it amazingly ridiculous....I think it would be decent in a lot of builds, but its no planar shepherd.

This is Pathfinder, the fact that nothing compares to Planar Shepard is a GOOD THING.

[Gnaeus]

archetypes like Tetori and Lore Warden prevent you from taking PrC's because a lot of their features then become meaningless.

I mean, yeah they function just fine as 20th level classes, but I had more fun when I built a character myself, not had Paizo build it for me.

That isn't my experience at all. Lore Warden is very dip friendly. I don't see anything in it that becomes meaningless if you dip another class or a PRC. On the other hand, I have found Lore Warden to be very persuasive when I am thinking of taking a fighter dip. Free Combat expertise helps a lot of feat chains. And at level 1 if I am in another class or PRC that gives heavy armor proficiency, I am basically getting free skill points and class skills for nothing, and since most of the lightly armored classes penalize you for wearing heavy armor, you are again often trading class features you don't want for good stuff. Most anyone who was considering a 2 level fighter dip for feats will love lore warden.

Tetori does give some strong disincentives to dipping. But not all monk archetypes do.



This is Pathfinder, the fact that nothing compares to Planar Shepard is a GOOD THING.

Not arguing that. Still, its a PRC that comes to mind when I hear that a class is Amazingly Ridiculous.

[Snowbluff]

Evangelist is good. I can't say I'd call it amazingly ridiculous. At least not without looking at Inner Sea Gods. You basically lose one level of your class features and a feat, and in exchange you get some free AC, some nice skill bonuses, a language, and your deity boons from Deific Obedience early (at low level, mostly some low level deity specific spell likes). I think it would be decent in a lot of builds, but its no planar shepherd.

Well, it's closer to Uncanny Trickster or Legacy Champ, right?

[Psyren]

Generally a spellcaster still prestiges out whenever they can, they just also get some nifty bonuses on top of that.


Not really sure about that either. Druid, Witch and Shaman are really shooting themselves in the foot to PRC. Sorcerer gets all those spells known from favored class, so they dont want to either (Dragon Disciple is way better than in 3.5, but not as good as straight sorc). Wizards and Clerics its kind of a wash. They get more class abilities in PF than in 3.5, and the best PRCs weren't open, but they can still take things like loremaster.

Yeah, that.



I mean, yeah they function just fine as 20th level classes, but I had more fun when I built a character myself, not had Paizo build it for me.

The folks who had/have no trouble taking the reins themselves are also the folks with the system mastery to bring in all the 3.5 stuff they feel is lacking, or houserule the class features to continue while they PrC, or whatever else.

[Kurald Galain]

If the game is _NOT_ going to reach level 20 (and/or 9th level spells aren't a possibility), then Multi-classing and PrCing become much tastier options.
Also, consider the facts that (1) your game will probably spend 95% of its time at levels below 20, and (2) PF has retraining rules.

[Blisstake]

Pretty much. Prestige classes exist because of 3E legacy, but notice after all this time there haven't been any new ones. Pathfinder deliberately chose not to use them, so there's no support.

Now where on earth are you getting this? Paizo has published a number of non-core prestige classes since release, some of which are quite good. Hell, they even published a campaign setting book entirely dedicated to adding new prestige classes. I'm especially a fan of the 3 prestige classes they released in their deity hardcover.

Edit: Anyway, to answer the original question, it all depends on the classes. Multi classing as a summoner, for example, is bad, because all their power comes from spells, eidolon, and class features, non of which carry over well to the abilities of another class. More physically inclined classes benefit from multi-classing, as their abilities are generally useful regardless of how many levels they take in it. Prestige classes are a mixed bag. Some are great and provide plenty of options while some are just awful.

[Talya]

The only really good synergistic combo for multiclassing in pathfinder I've ever seen is the Oradin combat-healer.

There is a bit of irony for me that Pathfinder removed all the restrictions for multiclassing and opened up the game to combine whatever you want without penalty - and in the process also made multiclassing so unappealling that hardly anybody ever does it. And their PRC design is HORRIBLE. Any Base Class 10/PrC 10 combo ends up with what amounts to two sets of level 10 abilities. Nothing is progressed. the PrCs themselves have abilities that cap out on par with what a 10th level base class gets, and they never advance enough core class features to make them worthwhile.

Winter Witch is... tolerable. It's a definite power downgrade with the lost caster level, but its the only one I know that advances all the base class abilities of note, so you end up being a rather focused witch with a lost caster level. But if you want to play Queen Elsa of Arendelle, it's a decent choice.

[Molosse]

As an aside there are several PrC's in Pathfinder that serve to, in many cases, combine and add to the various classes that make it up. The Battle Herald PrC for example, if you find a nice combination of classes that hopefully doesn't utilize spell-casting, allows you to improve two sets of class abilities which is always nice.

I will say however that PrC's similar to the Battle Herald have less of an appeal to me ever since the introduction of Variant Multiclassing while PrC's such as Stalwart Defender and the like, with unique abilities separate from that any base class, become more appealing for certain builds.

[Petrocorus]

Thank you all for the quick answers.

Have you notice any common 3.5 character concepts that you couldn't make easily with PF? Or that were really worst because of the PrC abilities?


... but there are some alternate FCB are waaay stronger, for example the FCB for human sorcerers is an extra spell known (level 1 lower than the highest you can cast) per level!

One additional spell known per level? That's 54 spells at level 20 instead of 34. Isn't this overpowered compared to the other races?


For example, if you want to play a character who mixes blade and spell into his combat style, Magus is a much superior option to Eldritch Knight, but Eldritch Knight opens up a lot of combinations of abilities you can't get from a Magus or an archetype. Paladin/Sorcerer/EK for example would be totally different than a Magus, and a Gunslinger/Wizard/ EK would have a better BAB than taking the Spellslinger Wizard archetype that uses guns. I find that ... him with a musket-axe.
So, the Sorcadin is still a thing? On a related note, is the Magus really good or has it the flaws of the Duskblade?


It's also worth noting that PF is backwards compatible, so if there's a PrC option you really wanted from 3.5 you can get it in here with only minor alterations in most cases. They simply chose to avoid that route in official/first-party product.

In you experience, does people port a lot of 3.5 material (notably feats and PrC) into PF?



This is Pathfinder, the fact that nothing compares to Planar Shepard is a GOOD THING.
I'm thinking to start a new campaign as a DM. I'm hesitating between 3.5 and PF and since i've never DM 3.5, both would require some works. PF would require more obviously, but since it's supported (while 3.5 is not, obviously), notably by DSP, and the books are not really expensive, i'm really willing to get informed about PF before making a decision.

However, whatever is my choice, you can bet that Planar Shepherd will be banned outright.

On a related note, what books are really useful and what books are passable?

[Vhaidara]

Well, the Sorcerer one doesn't really take off until level 4, since the extra spell must be 1 lower than your normal highest.

As far as concepts of 3.5, not at all. It's generally easier, once you include the good quality third party.

Magus is about on par with duskblade. The funny thing is, while Duskblade was generally locked into THF, that's the only combat style not really supported by Magus. Their main thing is Spell Combat, which is TWF with a weapon in one hand and a spell in the other. There are archetypes for shield, for archery, for unarmored, even one for making it Cha based.

As far as what books to buy, it really comes down to ease of reference. I prefer having a PDF for things I look through often enough, but the PFSRD has almost everything on it within about a month of release. For example, they have all of Psionics (almost), most of Path of War, the beginnings of Akashic, and the first book of Occult Mysteries (binder port by Radiance House)

[Snowbluff]

As far as concepts of 3.5, not at all. It's generally easier, once you include the good quality third party. With third party material, you might as well be playing a 3.PF game. It's more common around here, but otherwise it doesn't happen as much.

If you are using 3rd party, Dreamscarred Press gets a hardy recommendation, which is what Keledrath is really saying here. :smalltongue:


Magus is about on par with duskblade. The funny thing is, while Duskblade was generally locked into THF, that's the only combat style not really supported by Magus. Their main thing is Spell Combat, which is TWF with a weapon in one hand and a spell in the other. There are archetypes for shield, for archery, for unarmored, even one for making it Cha based.

Oh, magus is now almost entirely obsolete, so you are probably better of with a Eldritch Knight, thanks to Sacred Geo, Blade Adpets, and the Variant Multiclassing.



One additional spell known per level? That's 54 spells at level 20 instead of 34. Isn't this overpowered compared to the other races?
This is like reason #5 why multiclassing and PrCs suck.


In you experience, does people port a lot of 3.5 material (notably feats and PrC) into PF? Very rarely.


On a related note, what books are really useful and what books are passable?
Advanced Class guide and Unchained are pretty bad. You're better sticking with Core Rulebook/Advanced Players Guide/Ultimate Magic/Ultimate Combat out of the major releases.

[Vhaidara]

I heartily disagree with Snowbluff's assessment of Unchained. Unchained Summoner is an atrocious limitation of creative expression, but the Monk and Rogue modifications are great. Skill condensing is well done, the poison rework is great, VMC is bad, but has the potential to be fixed into something actually cool.

[Snowbluff]

Monk and Rogue

Your mouth is moving and making sounds, but I don't understand them. :smalltongue:

[Talya]

One additional spell known per level? That's 54 spells at level 20 instead of 34. Isn't this overpowered compared to the other races?


Almost everyone has access to that favored class bonus through trivial means. Some more trivial than others.

[Elricaltovilla]

VMC is bad, but has the potential to be fixed into something actually cool.

I really wouldn't bank on anything like that. Honestly, the more I hear about Unchained, the more disappointed I become.

[Petrocorus]

If you are using 3rd party, Dreamscarred Press gets a hardy recommendation, which is what Keledrath is really saying here. :smalltongue:

DSP is one of my incentive to go into PF.



Oh, magus is now almost entirely obsolete, so you are probably better of with a Eldritch Knight, thanks to Sacred Geo, Blade Adpets, and the Variant Multiclassing.

You mean Sacred Geometry and the Blade Adept archetype for Arcanist?



Advanced Class guide and Unchained are pretty bad. You're better sticking with Core Rulebook/Advanced Players Guide/Ultimate Magic/Ultimate Combat out of the major releases.
So, the ACG is good only for a few of his hybrid classes?


I heartily disagree with Snowbluff's assessment of Unchained. Unchained Summoner is an atrocious limitation of creative expression,
I've read here that Summoner really needed some nerfs.


Almost everyone has access to that favored class bonus through trivial means. Some more trivial than others.
How?

[Vhaidara]

Elric, I meant fied by us, not by Paizo. We know what we're doing.


I've read here that Summoner really needed some nerfs.

The thing is, they nerfed it in the wrong way. All they did was preassign a bunch of evolution points and add in some alignment restrictions for certain forms of eidolon (and move pounce back to level 10, which was a good call).

The problem with the Eidolon was that it was a fantastic beatstick, and if you needed to roll a skill check, you just cast some variation of Evolution Surge and picked up Skilled, which let it replace the Rogue as well as the Fighter. The thing is, you can still do that. So they nerfed it, but in the wrong way.

It was the caster equivalent (and reverse) of trying to fix the Fighter by giving it more numbers: Yes, it helps, but it doesn't really help with the problem.

[Extra Anchovies]

DSP is one of my incentive to go into PF.

It's one of the best reasons to, IMO. The other, for me at least, is archetypes. I don't like having to multiclass.


You mean Sacred Geometry and the Blade Adept archetype for Arcanist?

If you allow Sacred Geometry in your game, don't expect casting to be balanced. There was a thread a few months back where some mathy people figured out your odds of success reached 100% at 14 ranks.


So, the ACG is good only for a few of his hybrid classes?

Anything useful in the ACG is on the SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) (that isn't the official paizo PRD, but it has most of the DSP conversions, so it's better than the PRD).


I've read here that Summoner really needed some nerfs.

It did, but apparently not the sort Unchained gave it. Can't wait for that book to hit the SRD.

[Snowbluff]

DSP is one of my incentive to go into PF. You can just as easily back port it into 3.5, if you don't like PF for any other reason.



You mean Sacred Geometry and the Blade Adept archetype for Arcanist?
Yep. Quicken a spell, spellstrike gives you an extra attack with. That's better than spell combat. The VMC for Magus gives spell strike, too.

Sacred Geo can be pretty broken, but as the primary caster in a Curse of the Crimson Throne game, it really helps the metamagic feel more dynamic and fun. Keep in mind that PF doesn't have anything close to persistent spell, split ray, or twin spell.


So, the ACG is good only for a few of his hybrid classes?
I didn't like any of them. Arcanist was only really worth mention because of the above trick.

[Psyren]

There is a bit of irony for me that Pathfinder removed all the restrictions for multiclassing and opened up the game to combine whatever you want without penalty - and in the process also made multiclassing so unappealling that hardly anybody ever does it.

Feature, not bug.



In you experience, does people port a lot of 3.5 material (notably feats and PrC) into PF?

Our group ports feats, items, spells and base classes (some with upgrades) all the time. PrCs not as much, because we like the favored class bonuses too much, but I don't see that as a negative.



I'm thinking to start a new campaign as a DM. I'm hesitating between 3.5 and PF and since i've never DM 3.5, both would require some works. PF would require more obviously, but since it's supported (while 3.5 is not, obviously), notably by DSP, and the books are not really expensive, i'm really willing to get informed about PF before making a decision.

The books are actually free if you don't mind reading the PRD/PFSRD/Archives of Nethys and stuff. The entire system is OGL.


I heartily disagree with Snowbluff's assessment of Unchained. Unchained Summoner is an atrocious limitation of creative expression, but the Monk and Rogue modifications are great. Skill condensing is well done, the poison rework is great, VMC is bad, but has the potential to be fixed into something actually cool.

VMC isn't even bad - a couple of the options are underwhelming (looking at you Fighter), but you can get some really cool stuff out of it otherwise. There's another thread where folks are posting some of the better combinations.

[Talya]

How?


Most obviously:
Humans, Half Elves (racial heritage) and Half Orcs (Orc Blood) all qualify to take human racial favored class bonuses.
Aasimar can with an alternate racial trait (Scion of Humanity.)

Drow, Gillmen, & Goblins already have this as their favored class bonus for the Sorcerer.

Okay, so it's not all of them, but it's hardly uncommon. Heck, it covers the best races for sorcerers even without the favored class bonuses.


Feature, not bug.



Obviously it's a design decision, it was intentional.
I just don't like it. I like the idea of making it appealling to stay in one class, I just think they took it too far. PrCs should be a new focus, not a power upgrade. But they also shouldn't cripple your advancement, which Pathfinder PrCs tend to do.

[Psyren]

But they also shouldn't cripple your advancement, which Pathfinder PrCs tend to do.

I think "cripple" is much too strong. Any 10/10 casting PrC is fully capable within its tier, and PF has plenty of those; the class features are just gravy. 9/10 and 8/10 are only the smallest of dips in effectiveness, and in many cases what you get does make up for it.

Not to mention that the PrCs that did come over from 3.5 got a shot in the arm. Arcane Archer doesn't totally suck anymore; neither does Dragon Disciple. AT is easier to enter, and EK has class features other than "BAB + spells." Applying those principles to the remainder from 3.5, you should have no problem updating the (non-broken) ones.

[Talya]

I think "cripple" is much too strong. Any 10/10 casting PrC is fully capable within its tier, and PF has plenty of those; the class features are just gravy. 9/10 and 8/10 are only the smallest of dips in effectiveness, and in many cases what you get does make up for it.


Not really. A casting PrC doesn't allow wizards their automatic spells. It doesn't give sorcerers or oracles their bonus spells. Clerics effectively lose their domain powers (because any ability that falls too far behind your hit dice in level effectively becomes useless by that point.) And I haven't seen a PrC that gives anything close to what you sacrifice for it.

Now, the winter witch, despite the lost caster level, it was not horribly designed. Advancing hex progression full bore is what makes it okay. The witch ONLY loses 1 caster level...the problem is they don't get anything remotely close to the value of that caster level in return, but still, it's better than most casting PrCs.

[Pex]

I see some 75 or so Paizo created PRCs on the PFSRD, so I don't really think thats true. Not many must haves, and certainly some losers, but there are some worth having. Souleater is pretty good in certain builds for example (for its energy drain ability and soul eating familiar mostly).

I plead myopia. I was thinking only of prestige classes in published books not additional online content.

[Gnaeus]

Have you notice any common 3.5 character concepts that you couldn't make easily with PF? Or that were really worst because of the PrC abilities?

Monster races. ECL was usually terribly balanced, but PF basically just said "don't do it unless everyone is doing it, and then use CR as ECL"


So, the Sorcadin is still a thing? On a related note, is the Magus really good or has it the flaws of the Duskblade?

Sorcadin is very much a thing. Paladin and Sorcerer are probably the 2 PF classes that got the most love in the changeover. Add to that the improved Dragon Disciple and you get a character that is unplayable in 3.5 and quite passable in PF.



I didn't like any of them. Arcanist was only really worth mention because of the above trick.

I think they're fantastic. I am loving my Shaman to death (I like witch a lot, so no surprise). My friend's hunter is awesome, and I'm building a swashbuckler for a backup character.


I plead myopia. I was thinking only of prestige classes in published books not additional online content.

They do come from published material. usually from the setting sourcebooks. Paizo doesn't print stuff to PFSRD. Fans put Paizo (and other) published products on PFSRD.

[grarrrg]

One additional spell known per level? That's 54 spells at level 20 instead of 34. Isn't this overpowered compared to the other races?

Keep in mind, of those extra 20, 3 are 0-th level spells, and none are 9th level (three bonus 8ths though).

And there are always things like Pages of Spell Knowledge, or that ring, or...


So, the ACG is good only for a few of his hybrid classes?

It is also atrociously edited.
I'd suggest holding out for the ACG 2: Electric Boogaloo


VMC isn't even bad - a couple of the options are horrendous (looking at you Gunslinger),

Tweaked that for you :smallwink:


If you allow Sacred Geometry in your game, don't expect casting to be balanced. There was a thread a few months back where some mathy people figured out your odds of success reached 100% at 14 ranks.

The post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363930-Sacred-Geometry-and-Arithmancy&p=17889602&viewfull=1#post17889602).
Starting at level _5_ (3rd level spells) you have a 98.82% chance of success with your highest level spells, and it only improves from there.
Level 13 (7th level spells) is where the 100% success rates start.
14 Ranks is the max needed for 100% success with everything ever.

It's a stupid broken feat.

[Petrocorus]

And what campaign setting do you use with PF? Does some of you use PF in Eberron?

[Ssalarn]

And what campaign setting do you use with PF? Does some of you use PF in Eberron?

We do! Eberron is one of my favorite settings and I find Golarion kind of... lacking. It's a little too kitchen sink.

As an aside to some other commentary: I actually think the ACG classes are mostly pretty cool, particularly brawler, hunter, investigator, and shaman.

[Psyren]

Not really. A casting PrC doesn't allow wizards their automatic spells. It doesn't give sorcerers or oracles their bonus spells. Clerics effectively lose their domain powers (because any ability that falls too far behind your hit dice in level effectively becomes useless by that point.) And I haven't seen a PrC that gives anything close to what you sacrifice for it.

There are plenty of domain powers (and school powers) that don't need to scale to be useful - just pick one of those, it's not hard. Foresight for instance is great even if you PrC out of Wizard, and likewise the Memory domain is solid and doesn't care about your cleric level.

As for bonus spells known - again, these are just gravy, you get plenty just from your class progression.

Witch is specifically designed not to want to PrC, except for Winter Witch (which was also made into an archetype anyway.)



I think they're fantastic. I am loving my Shaman to death (I like witch a lot, so no surprise). My friend's hunter is awesome, and I'm building a swashbuckler for a backup character.

Brawler is also great (and yay, we can dump Wis) while Bloodrager is a badass.


I plead myopia. I was thinking only of prestige classes in published books not additional online content.

As was mentioned, these all do come from published books. There is at least one splat dedicated to PrCs exclusively (Paths of Prestige) and the rest can be found in the Golarion books (e.g. Inner Sea X.)


And what campaign setting do you use with PF? Does some of you use PF in Eberron?

Our own setting is a giant mishmash of Golarion, Eberron, and FR with some custom bits tying it all together. The deities come from FR and Golarion (our DM doesn't like Eberron's agnostic focus) but several of the Eberron cities are there, like Sharn. The lightning rail can get to any major city, and the Worldwound's epicenter is somewhere in the Underdark.

[Snowbluff]

As for bonus spells known - again, these are just gravy, you get plenty just from your class progression.


Eeehhh... not really. Every level, you use one spell. The question becomes "is this one class feature worth this x level spell." The answer is often no.

[Psyren]

Eeehhh... not really. Every level, you use one spell. The question becomes "is this one class feature worth this x level spell." The answer is often no.

Are you saying a sorcerer without the FCB wouldn't be T2?

And if they are still T2, then what exactly is the problem?

[Snowbluff]

Are you saying a sorcerer without the FCB wouldn't be T2?

And if they are still T2, then what exactly is the problem?
That's like a hefty third of all of your spells coming from FCB. Having these extra spells lets you pick up more utility. It's pretty much the same reason people tell you not lose CL on a Sorcerer. Less CL means less higher level spells know. Any one of those spells can be vastly superior to the entirety of the PrC in question, which would mean that you're trading in levels to become just worse. Ergo, PrCs are bad for a sorcerer.

Whether or not you're T2 isn't important.

[Psyren]

Whether or not you're T2 isn't important.

That's where we disagree - T2 means you can handle everything (CR-appropriate) the game throws at you already and then some, so not getting the favored class bonus is not a big deal. Casters are strong enough as it is, so if one wants to PrC for concept reasons I'm all for it.

[Snowbluff]

That's where we disagree - T2 means you can handle everything (CR-appropriate) the game throws at you already and then some, so not getting the favored class bonus is not a big deal. Casters are strong enough as it is, so if one wants to PrC for concept reasons I'm all for it.
And then a PrC wouldn't improve your abilities in that capacity, either. The class features will be less effective than the new spells. It's still worse. Whether or not you're for it doesn't change that fact.

From a T2 perspective, this let's you fill a wider variety of spells to more swiftly solve your problems. As far as sorcerer based build theories go, spells with long casting times and a bunch of utility spells get thrown out in favor of spells that are more immediately effective. Circumventing this is a very useful option.

[Psyren]

The class features will be less effective than the new spells.

This really depends. Many class features are always on, whereas spells have an action cost associated. Thus having more spells does not always translate to more effectiveness for your character, because at most you're still only able to cast two of them per round. This is similar to Treantmonk's fallacy regarding focused specialist wizards being less versatile than generalists - in practice they aren't, because the number of schools of magic you can represent at each spell level is actually unchanged.

For example, take Rage Prophet, widely seen as a subpar PrC. In broad terms it is, but it gives you some useful passive benefits, like the ability to add your Con modifier to your spell save DCs and your concentration checks. This one class feature can easily eclipse three feats (Combat Casting, Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus) and even stacks with all of them, whereas staying pure Oracle would not have given you that. Similarly, there is the Cyphermage, which can cast from scrolls using his caster level and ability modifier, and even scribe two scrolls per day.

So long as you are intelligent about picking the right PrC, you can easily find one whose benefits outweigh the FCB you're giving up.

[squiggit]

Witch is specifically designed not to want to PrC, except for Winter Witch (which was also made into an archetype anyway.)
The archetype came first. And you actually need the archetype to enter the PrC.

[Petrocorus]

This is similar to Treantmonk's fallacy regarding focused specialist wizards being less versatile than generalists - in practice they aren't, because the number of schools of magic you can represent at each spell level is actually unchanged.

"Treantmonk's fallacy"?

But Treantmonk is known to have made a plea (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1145491) for the Focused Specialist and explained that, in practice, they were more versatile than generalists in day-to-day adventuring.


We do! Eberron is one of my favorite settings and I find Golarion kind of... lacking. It's a little too kitchen sink.

As an aside to some other commentary: I actually think the ACG classes are mostly pretty cool, particularly brawler, hunter, investigator, and shaman.

How did you adapt the Eberron races. Did you just give a +2 in a relevant stat? Have you created favoured class bonuses?

[Molosse]

Elric, I meant fied by us, not by Paizo. We know what we're doing.



The thing is, they nerfed it in the wrong way. All they did was preassign a bunch of evolution points and add in some alignment restrictions for certain forms of eidolon (and move pounce back to level 10, which was a good call).

The problem with the Eidolon was that it was a fantastic beatstick, and if you needed to roll a skill check, you just cast some variation of Evolution Surge and picked up Skilled, which let it replace the Rogue as well as the Fighter. The thing is, you can still do that. So they nerfed it, but in the wrong way.

It was the caster equivalent (and reverse) of trying to fix the Fighter by giving it more numbers: Yes, it helps, but it doesn't really help with the problem.

That's not wholly true, they also fixed the Summoners horrifically effective Spell List. Bringing it down to a much more manageable level.

[Dusk Eclipse]

"Treantmonk's fallacy"?

But Treantmonk is known to have made a plea (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1145491) for the Focused Specialist and explained that, in practice, they were more versatile than generalists in day-to-day adventuring.



How did you adapt the Eberron races. Did you just give a +2 in a relevant stat? Have you created favoured class bonuses?

I don't know which conversion they use, but I personally use this (http://pf-eberron.wikidot.com/) one, which is really good in my opinion

[Ssalarn]

How did you adapt the Eberron races. Did you just give a +2 in a relevant stat? Have you created favoured class bonuses?

For some of the races, I've replaced them with Pathfinder materials that mimic their intent: instead of the 3.5 Warforged, I use the Ironborn from In The Company of Monsters ( [url=http://paizo.com/products/btpy8mtw?In-the-Company-of-Monsters). They're awesome, and actually better at representing Warforged as they're described in the setting than the original Warforged mechanics. They can also use the Warforged feats pretty much unchanged.

For shifters, I use the skinwalkers from Blood of the Moon and tweak the shifter feats to work with that race.

For changelings, I basically use the base race from 3.5 but add racial modifiers of +2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Con (the Con hit was mainly because in all the Eberron novels they seem to make a point about how the changelings can make themselves look tougher, but aren'the actually particularly robust).

Kalashtar got a +2 floating stat and are otherwise pretty much the same.

[Ssalarn]

That's not wholly true, they also fixed the Summoners horrifically effective Spell List. Bringing it down to a much more manageable level.

Yeah. Really, the spell list was a more important fix than the eidolon. The eidolon created niche protection issues, but was manageable. The Summoner spell list though, brought potent spells online earlier than anyone else in the game could access them, played havoc with crafting, and belied the Summoner's supposed status as a 2/3 caster. With a little bit of system mastery, the Unchained Summoner is still functionally just as much of a full caster as an arcanist or shaman, but his focus is much more tightly wound into the role of a conjurer-type.

The eidolon fix basically just removed the level 1 pounce abominations and made eidolons more predictable, if a bit less versatile.

[grarrrg]

That's not wholly true, they also fixed the Summoners horrifically effective Spell List. Bringing it down to a much more manageable level.

The spell list was not a problem in and of itself. Confined solely to the Summoner, the 'reduced spell level' thing wasn't an issue.
Most spells they got at "Wizard equivalent" character levels or later. Some of the spells they could cast a whole whopping _1_ character level before the Wizard could (I'm sure there are a couple lower than that, but those spells aren't really on the "powerful/must have" list, so they weren't an issue).
And they had their "9 levels of spells" crammed into 6th levels of spell slots, which further restricted them.
And the list is VERY biased towards "summoning" and "buffing" spells.
So as a 6th level caster with 8th/9th level spells, they were acceptable (note: they only got access to _4_ actual 9th level spells, two from Spells, two from "Summoner Monster 9/Gate").

The REAL problems were due to things like "what can we put in wands?", "how much do wands/scrolls of it cost?", and "I can select _any_ off-list spell to add to my list?".
Once you get outside of the Summoner, THEN things get stupid.

[Elricaltovilla]

I dunno grarrrg, the summoner list is pretty stripped down, but they stripped out most of the stuff you wouldn't use on a wizard anyway. I mean most of their spell list is from the conjuration and transmutation schools, which are two of the best schools you can pick from and as far as 9ths go, gate is basically the tops. It's only one step away from Wish, and that's only because you have to use the solar you gated in to actually cast wish for you.

I'm willing to bet that if you gave a Wizard or a Sorcerer the summoner's spell setup, they'd be able to function in combat at basically the same level of effectiveness.

[deuxhero]

I see some 75 or so Paizo created PRCs on the PFSRD, so I don't really think thats true. Not many must haves, and certainly some losers, but there are some worth having. Souleater is pretty good in certain builds for example (for its energy drain ability and soul eating familiar mostly).

Keep in mind a large chunk of that 75 are from 3.5 Paizo material that wasn't reprinted (I think some of them have had minor updates in PFS legality documents because a chunk of 3.5 Paizo stuff is compatible, or has been in the past before the setting books were updated, but I'm not sure).

[Ssalarn]

I dunno grarrrg, the summoner list is pretty stripped down, but they stripped out most of the stuff you wouldn't use on a wizard anyway. I mean most of their spell list is from the conjuration and transmutation schools, which are two of the best schools you can pick from and as far as 9ths go, gate is basically the tops. It's only one step away from Wish, and that's only because you have to use the solar you gated in to actually cast wish for you.

I'm willing to bet that if you gave a Wizard or a Sorcerer the summoner's spell setup, they'd be able to function in combat at basically the same level of effectiveness.

A smart Summoner who uses summon eidolon to pop in his eidolon as a trump card summon also gets to leverage his SLA, meaning that at any given time he has more of the highest level spells available than any other class. The fact that he can only use those SLA "slots" to cast the most versatile and powerful spells in the game is not a downside.

[Blisstake]

The spell list was not a problem in and of itself. Confined solely to the Summoner, the 'reduced spell level' thing wasn't an issue. Most spells they got at "Wizard equivalent" character levels or later. Some of the spells they could cast a whole whopping _1_ character level before the Wizard could (I'm sure there are a couple lower than that, but those spells aren't really on the "powerful/must have" list, so they weren't an issue).
And they had their "9 levels of spells" crammed into 6th levels of spell slots, which further restricted them.

Personally, I think getting certain spells 1 level early is a big deal, especially if you're comparing a half caster to a full caster. Summoners are supposed to have worse spell access than a wizard/sorcerer, especially if those spells happen to be some of the best out there.

At any rate, they certainly didn't need all those powerful spells what with their eidolon, and access to a faster-casting, longer-lasting, plenty-per-day summon monster as an SLA.

[Gnaeus]

Keep in mind a large chunk of that 75 are from 3.5 Paizo material that wasn't reprinted (I think some of them have had minor updates in PFS legality documents because a chunk of 3.5 Paizo stuff is compatible, or has been in the past before the setting books were updated, but I'm not sure).

Some are, yes. I'm not sure why that matters much, and as was pointed out earlier, they are still printing new sourcebooks with new prcs.

[Psyren]

"Treantmonk's fallacy"?

But Treantmonk is known to have made a plea (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1145491) for the Focused Specialist and explained that, in practice, they were more versatile than generalists in day-to-day adventuring.

That's in fact what I was referring to. When I said "Treantmonk's fallacy," I meant "he was the one that pointed out this phenomenon" not "he was the one that committed it." (Similar to how Stormwind was the guy who pointed out that roleplay and optimization are unrelated etc.) In other words, naming it after him because he identified it, not blaming him for doing it.


I dunno grarrrg, the summoner list is pretty stripped down, but they stripped out most of the stuff you wouldn't use on a wizard anyway. I mean most of their spell list is from the conjuration and transmutation schools, which are two of the best schools you can pick from and as far as 9ths go, gate is basically the tops. It's only one step away from Wish, and that's only because you have to use the solar you gated in to actually cast wish for you.

I'm willing to bet that if you gave a Wizard or a Sorcerer the summoner's spell setup, they'd be able to function in combat at basically the same level of effectiveness.

Moreso in some cases. Before, they got some spells earlier than even wizards did, never mind sorcerers.


Personally, I think getting certain spells 1 level early is a big deal, especially if you're comparing a half caster to a full caster. Summoners are supposed to have worse spell access than a wizard/sorcerer, especially if those spells happen to be some of the best out there.

At any rate, they certainly didn't need all those powerful spells what with their eidolon, and access to a faster-casting, longer-lasting, plenty-per-day summon monster as an SLA.

Agreed.

[Petrocorus]

So you all confirm that there are no less diversity of possible buildable characters in PF?

Is the Game Mastery Guide necessary?


That's in fact what I was referring to. When I said "Treantmonk's fallacy," I meant "he was the one that pointed out this phenomenon" not "he was the one that committed it." (Similar to how Stormwind was the guy who pointed out that roleplay and optimization are unrelated etc.) In other words, naming it after him because he identified it, not blaming him for doing it.


OK, sorry, i misunderstood.

[Elricaltovilla]

It's very difficult to not be able to construct a workable build in PF. In many cases, these can usually be done by single classing or with no more than a couple levels of dipping.

There are always edge cases, and you won't always get exactly what you want (or it won't be the most "optimal" allocation of resources). But yes, you can build pretty much whatever.

[Psyren]

So you all confirm that there are no less diversity of possible buildable characters in PF?

I can't answer this as I've never quantified builds between the two. What I can tell you is that I am still finding new things to build in PF to this day, and of course both Paizo and third parties like DSP are still making content.

Certainly if you do 3.P you will have far more options than are available in 3.5 alone or PF alone, but there are more than enough just in PF.


Is the Game Mastery Guide necessary?

No - the GMG is like the DMGII from 3.5, it's more geared towards subsystems, advice and technique than baseline DMing knowledge. The CRB has the DMG basic stuff like how do you design an encounter and how do you award XP/treasure, while the GMG has stuff like how do you deal with a disruptive player or how do you run a chase sequence or how do you build a campaign setting/cosmology. All great information, but if you're running APs or one-shots you can probably live without it.