Pathfinder 1E What is Pathfinder doing about multi-classing?

[Sadrik]

I reduced the options to three base classes (fighter, rogue, and wizard) and emulating most class features with feat progressions. This problem seems to not crop up in that environment.

This is for pathfinder which will not be presented in that way (there will be more than three classes) so I am not sure how useful this is.

 

[Volaran]

The problem I have with the Pathfinder implementation is that the "capstones" are so far beyond any other ability already granted to the class. They are borderline epic.

Just wanted restate here that these are abilities being granted to 19th-20th level single-classed characters...If Epic level is 21+, then those characters are, by definition, borderline epic. A power or two that fits that description doesn't really bother me.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Just given the Pathfinder Beta a quick glance...

They've given all classes scaling powers that advance the higher you go into a particular class, giving you encouragement to stay in one class all the way to 20. By doing this, the nonspellcaster classes all multiclass just as badly as spellcasters did before, without PrC's that do the equivalent of +1 spellcasting for them. In addition, the new things they added to Cleric, Wizard and Sorcerer make them more along the lines of Druid in terms of multiclassing(as in don't multiclass).

I'd almost say 4E's multiclassing works better.

 

[GlassJaw]

Just given the Pathfinder Beta a quick glance...

Well they say they are going to fix multiclassing and high-level play - two of the biggest problems with 3ed (and the two issues that don't have an easy fix) - but then they go ahead and release a "beta".

I've worked in software QA before and when two of the biggest features you are promising to your customers aren't implemented, you ain't at beta. Heck, you aren't really even at Alpha.

I like what Paizo has done so far with Pathfinder (more or less) but I also think their priorities are out of whack. I have more class and feat variants than I can shake a 10' pole at but nothing has fixed multiclassing or high-level play yet. I guess grappling is a decent fix but still, that's not one of the "showstoppers".

So far, Pathfinder is no more than a very nice-looking book of crunchy add-ons.

 

[billd91]

Well they say they are going to fix multiclassing and high-level play - two of the biggest problems with 3ed (and the two issues that don't have an easy fix) - but then they go ahead and release a "beta".

I've worked in software QA before and when two of the biggest features you are promising to your customers aren't implemented, you ain't at beta. Heck, you aren't really even at Alpha.

I like what Paizo has done so far with Pathfinder (more or less) but I also think their priorities are out of whack. I have more class and feat variants than I can shake a 10' pole at but nothing has fixed multiclassing or high-level play yet. I guess grappling is a decent fix but still, that's not one of the "showstoppers".

So far, Pathfinder is no more than a very nice-looking book of crunchy add-ons.

Don't forget one of the primary design goals: general backward compatability. Major changes to multiclassing and high level play may need to take a back seat to that design goal. They're not just making a new RPG, they're trying to keep a version of 3.5 available and in print.

 

[GlassJaw]

Don't forget one of the primary design goals: general backward compatability. Major changes to multiclassing and high level play may need to take a back seat to that design goal. They're not just making a new RPG, they're trying to keep a version of 3.5 available and in print.

Backwards compatibility is already taking a back seat. I'd gladly sacrifice some compatibility for some well-thought-out solutions to these problems. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, these are the things that should break backwards compatibility. If they don't, you haven't fixed the problem!

Pathfinder
Fixing 3ed:
Ur doing it rong

 

[Gailbraithe]

Well they say they are going to fix multiclassing and high-level play - two of the biggest problems with 3ed (and the two issues that don't have an easy fix) - but then they go ahead and release a "beta".

I think the problems you have with multiclassing are different than the ones they wanted to address. The multiclassing issue they wanted to address was the lack of strong incentive to not multiclass, and fix that they did.

And they have not said they are going to fix high level play. In fact, they have specifically said they don't know what to do about high level play, and have asked for suggestions on their boards.

Of course, the reason high level play in 3.5 is "broken" is because people foolishly assume that you should be able to do the same sort of dungeon crawling at 18th level that you did at 3rd. High level play is really supposed to be about running kingdoms, founding empires, etc.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The main problems of high level play are:

1. Rocket Tag, or having characters and monsters who can win in 1-2 turns of combat without breaking a sweat.

2. The DM having a really difficult time putting together adventures that challenge the party without resulting in a TPK. Higher level 3E tends to make this very difficult.

3. Player Characters becoming so complex that running them in or out of combat slows down the game.

These really aren't solvable without really nuking the system.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The main problems of high level play are:

1. Rocket Tag, or having characters and monsters who can win in 1-2 turns of combat without breaking a sweat.

2. The DM having a really difficult time putting together adventures that challenge the party without resulting in a TPK. Higher level 3E tends to make this very difficult.

3. Player Characters becoming so complex that running them in or out of combat slows down the game.

These really aren't solvable without really nuking the system.

I agree with your diagnosis, but not your prognosis.

 

[GlassJaw]

I agree with your diagnosis, but not your prognosis.

I think some nukage is needed. Not total nukage, but enough to move further away from backwards compatibility.

I think the problems you have with multiclassing are different than the ones they wanted to address. The multiclassing issue they wanted to address was the lack of strong incentive to not multiclass, and fix that they did.

How's that Clr 10/Wiz 10 working out for you? Multiclassed casters NEED to be fixed. It's not up for debate. If Pathfinder doesn't address it, it didn't do it's job as far as I'm concerned.

And they have not said they are going to fix high level play.

Actually they have. Heck, the CEO of the company said it's one of her primary objectives with Pathfinder.

Of course, the reason high level play in 3.5 is "broken" is because people foolishly assume that you should be able to do the same sort of dungeon crawling at 18th level that you did at 3rd. High level play is really supposed to be about running kingdoms, founding empires, etc.

*face in hands*