The subject line refers to MC characters being generally weaker than single-classed ones. The trade-off of delaying high level power for low-level versatility doesn't seem like a good bargain to me. What house rules could be implemented to make MC builds more attractive in high-level campaigns, without fundaentally altering how 3E-style multiclassing works in PF?
Making multiclassing competitive with single-classing
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
To me, the point of multiclassing is the versatility and it does not need to be buffed up in any way. Sure, a Fighter who dips into Wizard won't have the full base attack progression of a pure Fighter of equal level, but he can cast some spells and has a better Will save. In my mind, a weak multiclass build is just a poor choice on the player's part and an example of a lack of synergy between two classes. Any character can be used poorly. I'm currently playing a character who's a paladin/bard (archaeologist variant) and it has actually turned out to be quite cool despite the seeming lack of synergy.
EDIT: One thought that occurs to me is to use the variant rule where classes with a +0 BAB count the +0 as +.5, so that taking levels in wizard and then rogue means you'll have a +1 BAB at 2nd level, just like a rogue would. This will not give you the full rogue BAB progression or the wizard, but somewhere in between.
EDIT: One thought that occurs to me is to use the variant rule where classes with a +0 BAB count the +0 as +.5, so that taking levels in wizard and then rogue means you'll have a +1 BAB at 2nd level, just like a rogue would. This will not give you the full rogue BAB progression or the wizard, but somewhere in between.
Last edited:
Mad Hamish
First Post
It depends on a lot of things.
If you're a full spellcasting class you can basically rule the idea out for power and it would take almost a complete rewrite of the game to make it worth considering.
A 50/50 ranger/rogue is pretty effective
In other cases a dip can be well and truly worth it.
quite a few classes can get a fair bit out of a dip into fighter (a bonus feat, all armour proficiencies, martial weapon proficiencies, if you take it at 1st level additional hp and earlier access to feats with a BAB requirement)
A dip in Barbarian gives a fighter (for instance) the ability to self buff for damage, fast movement, a couple of levels of dip gives uncanny dodge and a rage power and additional hit points (again, especially if you start with barb).
A fighter could possibly get enough out of a level or 2 of inquisator or cleric to be worthwhile (ability to use cure wands, possibly some domain powers would be useful)
A barbarian could gain a fair bit by picking up levels of fighter (weapon specialization for a start)
Some of the abilties can be worth a delay in getting mid level abilities of the base class (and anything that stops you getting the Paladin capstone ability should be followed up on)
If you're a full spellcasting class you can basically rule the idea out for power and it would take almost a complete rewrite of the game to make it worth considering.
A 50/50 ranger/rogue is pretty effective
In other cases a dip can be well and truly worth it.
quite a few classes can get a fair bit out of a dip into fighter (a bonus feat, all armour proficiencies, martial weapon proficiencies, if you take it at 1st level additional hp and earlier access to feats with a BAB requirement)
A dip in Barbarian gives a fighter (for instance) the ability to self buff for damage, fast movement, a couple of levels of dip gives uncanny dodge and a rage power and additional hit points (again, especially if you start with barb).
A fighter could possibly get enough out of a level or 2 of inquisator or cleric to be worthwhile (ability to use cure wands, possibly some domain powers would be useful)
A barbarian could gain a fair bit by picking up levels of fighter (weapon specialization for a start)
Some of the abilties can be worth a delay in getting mid level abilities of the base class (and anything that stops you getting the Paladin capstone ability should be followed up on)
Take a page from 3.5
In a couple of the complete books there are some feats that let classes stack for specific class abilities. One was for scout/ranger and the classes stacked for favored enemy and skirmish if I remember correctly. If you don't have the books (C. Scroundrel and C. Adventurer I think) you can probably make your own or find them online somewhere. One of my favorite is for monk/sorcerer, use Charisma instead of wisdom for monk abilities, sorc levels stack for AC bonus and you can burn spell slots to get a bonus on attack and damage.
In a couple of the complete books there are some feats that let classes stack for specific class abilities. One was for scout/ranger and the classes stacked for favored enemy and skirmish if I remember correctly. If you don't have the books (C. Scroundrel and C. Adventurer I think) you can probably make your own or find them online somewhere. One of my favorite is for monk/sorcerer, use Charisma instead of wisdom for monk abilities, sorc levels stack for AC bonus and you can burn spell slots to get a bonus on attack and damage.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Something to bear in mind in that regard though is that with the APG a lot of things that were classes in 3.5 are now archetypes in PFRPG.
Personally, I would not bother making the multiclassed character 'competitive' - it gains from versatility, a single classed character gains from depth.
Remember - part of the change to the base classes was to balance them with the prestige classes that were becoming almost a given in some 3.X games. Paizo wanted the balance shifted so that a prestige class was about focus, not power.
I don't think that it is a problem, let alone one that needs 'fixing'.
The Auld Grump
Qik
First Post
I'd basically second this.
Beyond that, I believe that the onus is on the player to plan multiclassing in a way which maintains a mechanically sound build (which can certainly be done with proper forethought). Since this is certainly possible within RAW, I've never felt any impetus to strengthen multiclassing.
Of course, with that being said, you can do whatever you like in your game.
Ahnehnois
First Post
You might consider:
*Adopting some form of Base Magic Bonus; which helps multiclass casters somewhat (or look to Trailblazer's magic system)
*Pooled fractional saves and BAB
Also, since PF core classes have their capstones, it becomes (even more) imperative for multiclass characters to go for a prestige class, which should have a similar ability at level 10. No fix there.
*Adopting some form of Base Magic Bonus; which helps multiclass casters somewhat (or look to Trailblazer's magic system)
*Pooled fractional saves and BAB
Also, since PF core classes have their capstones, it becomes (even more) imperative for multiclass characters to go for a prestige class, which should have a similar ability at level 10. No fix there.
I agree that it is not a problem, but I think that the OP wants to make multiclassing more attractive if I am not mistaken(I could be, it has happened a time or two before). The purpose of the group of feats for multiclassing seem to fall in line with what he was wanting to do. The archetypes do away with some of the feats, but he could easily make his own. It is always easier to tweak a few things than to start from scratch and they give him a place to start from.
Glade Riven
Adventurer
It's going to be tricky, since that goes against Paizo's design philosophy for Pathfinder. Personally, I like how d20 modern and SW Saga handle multiclassing, but other than synergy feats houserules or just regular houserules, I don't think the system will give you exactly what you want. Not without serious redesign.
One item out of Book of 9 Swords may work for an adaptation - for every 2 levels of non-spellcaster progression, you recieve 1 level of progression in your spells per day. For instance, a Wizard 2/Fighter 4 would be able to cast spells as a 4th level wizard. Or a Cleric 2, Wizard 6 could cast as either a 6th level cleric or a 7th level wizard. I wouldn't let a player be able to learn a higher level spell through this method, although that would encourage the use of metamagic specialization.
No clue how that would play out.
Mad Hamish
First Post
If you don't let people learn higher level spells it's pretty pointless for anything but a minimal dip if you are a spellcaster or you end up with a fair few spells that get cast all the time
e.g. quickened shield, quickened divine favour
if you do then a 1 or 2 level dip in a spellcasting class becomes almost irresistable for non-spellcasters.
Similar Threads
