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

[Wulf Ratbane]

It bears a bit of resemblence to Ryan Stoughton's DM helper thingy.

This I am familiar with. I didn't use Ryan's helper, but I have often gone back to the dataset he generated at that time for all sorts of other projects.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

If nothing else, though, Pathfinder has reawakened my willingness to say "screw the published rules." If Pathfinder disappoints me, I'm going to make my own 3.75, and I've been squeamish about house-rules for quite a while.

I'm in the exact same boat, and I've been anticipating this for the past year or so. I think I will probably be making an entire Player's Book for my next campaign. Its not going to be easy, but it will be interesting.

 

[Kerrick]

In addition, for the spell progression, I would use this for every spellcasting class if it weren't too cumbersome to apply.
SpellProgression(class) =Min ( classlevel*2, (characterlevel/2 +classlevel/2)) )

This looks a lot like a system I came up with (and posted here

All character classes have a magic rating, which increases by level much like base attack bonus. For a multiclass character, add up the character’s magic ratings from each of her classes to find the character’s total magic rating.

For example, a 6th-level wizard/4th-level rogue is treated as a 7th-level caster for determining the range, duration, and other effects of her spells. Her summon monster spells last for 7 rounds, her lightning bolts inflict 7d6 damage, she rolls 1d20+7 for dispel checks, caster level checks to overcome spell resistance, and so forth. She still doesn’t get 4th-level spells (as a normal 7th-level wizard would).

The following restrictions apply, however:

*Only the highest bonus is used.

*A character's effective caster level in any spellcasting class cannot be increased by more than three times the base value. For example, a Clr 15/Wiz 2 would normally gain 15 levels from his cleric side (so he would cast spells as a Wiz 17), but by this rule, he would be limited to Wiz 8 (he'd gain three times his base value, or +6).

*A magic rating gained from a class can't be added to that class - in this case, you use the next higher rating for the highest-level class. For example, a Clr 10/Wiz 8 would add 8 levels to the cleric, not 10.

A character's caster level in any spellcasting class cannot be increased to more than double the base value in this manner, however. For example, the Clr 15/Wiz 2 from above would gain two effective caster levels added to his cleric class (but he wouldn't gain any new spells); he would gain 6 effective caster levels to his wizard class, and 2 of those levels would be actual caster levels. So, in effect, he'd be a Clr 17/Wiz 4 with access to 7th level cleric spells and 2nd level wizard spells (as a Wiz 4).

If the character gains an equal bonus from all classes, the bonus levels from one class are divided equally among them all. For example, a Clr 10/Wiz 10 would gain +10 effective caster levels and +2 actual levels; these would be split evenly - Clr 20 (11)/Wiz 20 (11). That is, the character would have an effective cleric and wizard caster level of 20, and an actual caster level (for access to spells) of 11.

To borrow Wulf's examples as checks:

Clr 1/Wiz 19 = Clr 2 (3)/Wiz 20 (20)

Bbn 10/Clr 10 = Bbn 10/Clr 12 (11)

Wiz 10/Clr 10 = Wiz 20 (11)/Clr 20 (11)

So Trailblazer is certainly on course to be a Heartbreaker to the Pathfinder standard.

I thought Trailblazer was an adjunct/supplement for Pathfinder, hence the similarity in names.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But something needs to be given up to balance the increased ability. I don't think it has to be a 1-1 loss of ability since everything is still being channeled through the character's single set of actions (compared to 2 single class characters with the same class levels).

I don't understand. A fighter/wizard 9 (character level 12) is giving up (as a fighter) +3 BAB, 2 bonus feats, a general feat (two, in Pathfinder), 3d10+Con HP, +2 Fort save, and +1 Ref save, or (as a wizard) one-and-a-half levels of spell progression, three caster levels, a bonus feat, a general feat (two, in Pathfinder), +2 Will save, +1 Fort save, and three levels of familiar progression.

What more does the character need to give up?

I have a feeling people are looking at this suggestion and still thinking partially in current multiclass rules, where this fighter/wizard 9 is a fighter 9/wizard 9 and gets (for example) 9d10+9d4+Con HP or whatever. The fighter/wizard 9 doesn't get similar charater features twice ... it just takes the best from among its constituent classes.

I'm not a big fan of ECL issues, particularly adding them later in the character's career. They work best for balancing low-level characters but, I believe, tend to become increasing irrelevant as characters grow in power as each benefit given by whatever adds the ECL becomes a smaller proportion of the whole character.

I'm not a big fan of ECL, generally speaking, either. But you've overlooked the fact that when it comes to class-features progression -- especially, but not limited to, spellcasting -- the features are getting more powerful as a proportion of character power, not less.

If you're a goliath (+1 ECL), the difference at 9th level is probably not even noticeable. If you're a wizard, the difference is 5th level spells. That's a huge distinction, and it has to be balanced. I have so far been unable to think of a better way to do it, while keeping the rules recognizable, than ECL.

Plus, this ultimately means that a multiclass character falls further and further behind his single class peers.

I simply don't understand this. If a fighter/wizard 15 (ECL 20) is "behind his single class peers" (i.e., those at 20th level), where exactly should he be? Just how much more powerful should he be?

 

[Voadam]

More or less. What 3.5 needs is a monster building matrix that is flexible and easy to change.

Agreed. Applying the advancement rules templates or creating a whole monster from scratch is a cumbersome process. Making it easier would be a benefit.

I have a good foundation already with Upper Krust's work as I adapted it for Grim Tales, but that system is needlessly complex-- it's ground up design. It's great for designing a monster for publication and making sure it's balanced to the right CR. It's not so useful for "I need a CR9 Giant and I have 5 minutes prep time."

I am thinking something along the lines of a one page sheet per monster type that lists all the stats you need across all CRs up to 25 or so.

As HD increases, by monster type, you can pick special abilities (remember 1e's *, **, *** system?) a la carte, or by CR increase.

Want to add poison or disease to your CR9 Giant? Here's how powerful it should be, and here's how much it will increase the CR.

Definitely a useful approach.

I don't know, since I haven't read it. Should I? Doesn't Expeditious Retreat Press also have a monster builder book?

Definitely.

Foe Factory Modern is based off of Spycraft NPC minion rules. I have never seen Spycraft but I picked up Foe Factory for use in my D&D games.

It provides bullet stats for creating quick foes with the numbers tied to the Average PC level of the party. So instead of providing sheets of 25 levels of CR you get one set that is easy to update to the appropriate CR you want. It shows how to get different flavors of foes through the numbers whether you want mooks, brutal tough guys, quick assassins, bricks, etc. It is a much quicker foe creation system than standard d20.

It also provides various single powers with fractional CR increases, you just round off at the end to get the end CR.

The downside is it is tailored for modern games so there is less spellcasting baddy stuff and it is designed to balance around guns and other d20 baseline assumptions.

Currently Adamant is selling it for $1 as part of the d20 master kit line which will be retired entirely at the end of August so I would jump on getting it now while it is on sale and before it is gone.

 

[Voadam]

You need to check every "solution" against these three cases, at minimum:

Wiz1/Clr19 (Or Clr1/Wiz19)
What should this character's total spell package look like?

Bbn10/Clr10
Two classes with no bonus feats, one non-caster, one full caster, in an even split.

Wiz10/Clr10
I think most folks agree that this caster should have the functional power of at least Wiz15/Clr15 (Mystic Theurge power level).

I don't think the "Feat" solution has enough feats to keep up with what a more in-depth, but straight up mechanical solution should provide.

I'd add in

Wiz 1/Ftr 19

and

Ftr 1/Wiz 19

For the caster/non caster dipping route.

My current house rules (caster level = character level, and spells known and spell slots stack) is fine for the three dipping ones IMO but is only halfway to the desired power level for the two fully half caster builds (and might be OK for the brb10/clr10, depends on what the concept is really going for, self buffing I think it would be viable).

 

[Chacal]

This looks a lot like a system I came up with (and posted here

All character classes have a magic rating, which increases by level much like base attack bonus. For a multiclass character, add up the character’s magic ratings from each of her classes to find the character’s total magic rating.

It's quite close indeed.
I'll highlight some differences:
+ you use (almost) no divisions
- you use more caps and ifs

I noticed that you put a cap on the Caster Level, which I
didn't. I'm still torn on this issue, but I believe the DCs are already lower than those of a single classed caster, because of the spell progression and the division of resources between the multiple spellcasting stats. I want the casters to have a significant chance to bypass SR.

Maybe using this:
BCL: Base Caster Level
Full Spellcasting class: 1/ class level
Half Spellcasting class: 3/4 class level
Non Spellcasting class: 1/2 class level

Additionally, each full spellcasting class after the first impose a -1 malus to the BCL.

I'm losing track of all the systems presented in all these threads. Maybe this could be a wiki project:
We could have a page for each method (or group of methods when there is only a small variation) with a section of examples (wiz X/ftr ...)
and a section addressing BC
with links to the relevant threads.


Chacal

 

[billd91]

I don't understand. A fighter/wizard 9 (character level 12) is giving up (as a fighter) +3 BAB, 2 bonus feats, a general feat (two, in Pathfinder), 3d10+Con HP, +2 Fort save, and +1 Ref save, or (as a wizard) one-and-a-half levels of spell progression, three caster levels, a bonus feat, a general feat (two, in Pathfinder), +2 Will save, +1 Fort save, and three levels of familiar progression.

What more does the character need to give up?

I think I understand you a little better now, but I'm still a bit dubious about a few of the issues of equalizing the classes. For one thing, it might not really fit the concept (though, frankly, it's hard to find a systemic solution that would fit all multiclassing concepts). I would favor a mechanism that allows a PC to focus on one or the other class as their main focus or at least reflects the trade-off for a character with a foot in both worlds. Ultimately, I'm not really sure cropping off a bit at the top due to ECL really has the right feel to it.
I do think that the issue of picking up a multiclass late in career is particularly sticky. Imagine a 10th level character shifting careers. He's got to wait until level 13 until he sees benefits and then they really kick in.

I'm not a big fan of ECL, generally speaking, either. But you've overlooked the fact that when it comes to class-features progression -- especially, but not limited to, spellcasting -- the features are getting more powerful as a proportion of character power, not less.

If you're a goliath (+1 ECL), the difference at 9th level is probably not even noticeable. If you're a wizard, the difference is 5th level spells. That's a huge distinction, and it has to be balanced. I have so far been unable to think of a better way to do it, while keeping the rules recognizable, than ECL.

I simply don't understand this. If a fighter/wizard 15 (ECL 20) is "behind his single class peers" (i.e., those at 20th level), where exactly should he be? Just how much more powerful should he be?

With respect to the spellcasting, I think 5 levels is an awful lot. Heck, with my prestige class suggestion, I'm sure some people would even complain bitterly about 2-3 caster levels. But I've never felt that ECLs worked very well with casters in particularly. I agree that it's recognizable as far as the rules go.

One thing going for your solution is it would be very familiar to 1e/2e players in its effect. Full powers for each class, at roughly equal levels, and a little behind their peers was the norm. Too close behind their peers (typically 1 level) and they were, I believe rightly, perceived as being too powerful. Falling increasingly behind would correct that thanks to ECL.

 

[Chacal]

Talented Spellcaster
Benefit: Upon selecting this feat, choose one of your classes that allows you to cast spells. Half the sum of all your other class levels, rounded down, is added to the selected class for purposes determining spells known, caster level, and spells per day(and whatever else I can't remember right now).
Special: You lose the benefit of this feat if you gain more levels in a class that is not the class you chose with this feat. Prestige classes do not count towards this limitation. You can only take this feat once.

I'm not sure I understand the Special part. If a Wiz 6 Ftr 4 takes this feat, he loses it if he raises anything other than Wiz ? If it is the case, it is a feat intended for non spellcasters that multiclass late and do not move after that (it reminds me of the 1e "multi"classing rules for humans). Is it the intent ?

Chacal

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I do think that the issue of picking up a multiclass late in career is particularly sticky. Imagine a 10th level character shifting careers. He's got to wait until level 13 until he sees benefits and then they really kick in.

I agree. You have to choose between one of two problems: not letting a character multiclass late in his career, or dealing with, "Damn, Bob, you learned a lot in that last fight, huh?" (And yes, this totally eliminates "dipping," the good points of which are often overlooked.)

On the other hand, I think this system, so far as I've seen, is pretty well balanced. I haven't felt that about any of the other suggestions I've seen (including my own).

With respect to the spellcasting, I think 5 levels is an awful lot.

Well, compare it to a balanced mystic theurge. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but IMO the mystic theurge, while a tremendous kludge, is a pretty well-balanced class, and this method seems to reach the same power level. That works pretty well for me. And this method has the (IMO huge) advantages of not requiring 25 different multiclass-oriented prestige classes to avoid suckage.

I'd like to see some folks try to break it. I haven't been able to, but I tend to have blind spots when I've cobbled together a rules subsystem. The closest I've come to breaking it is by deliberately stretching a PC so absurdly thin that it's clearly not survivable, and I don't think willful absurdity in application is much of a knock against any rules.