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

[Roman]

On another note, why not simply allow Practised Spellcaster feats to stack?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm no longer sure that the issue is fixable while maintaining B-C.

Folks are WAY too hung up on backwards compatibility when it comes to the PCs.

Change the PCs all you want. If the 3e FIGHTER is an "apple" and the PF FIGHTER becomes an "orange" it doesn't make a whit of difference to me. I can still use everything I own.

If you throw out the mentality that all the monsters and all the NPCs have to be built using the exact same rules as the PCs-- as 4e wisely did-- then you have a whole lot more flexibility to make the necessary fixes to the PCs.

Aside:
[sblock]Walking back from that position just a little bit, if you change the core class mechanics as necessary, but such that the 3e classes remain a possible but sub-optimal build using those mechanics, you're good to go.[/sblock]

At any rate PF has already made drastic changes to the core classes. If they can change skill ranks as drastically as they have, there's no reason they couldn't change the 1st level "save stacking" at the same time (using the one time "class save bonus" as SWSE). That's admittedly a very small part of the multiclass fix but it should at least be on the table already.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Folks are WAY too hung up on backwards compatibility when it comes to the PCs.

Change the PCs all you want. If the 3e FIGHTER is an "apple" and the PF FIGHTER becomes an "orange" it doesn't make a whit of difference to me. I can still use everything I own.

I completely agree. But I'm not entirely sure that JB does. Hopefully I'm wrong, and the next year will see some innovative changes in the way PF handles character generation and advancement.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I completely agree. But I'm not entirely sure that JB does. Hopefully I'm wrong, and the next year will see some innovative changes in the way PF handles character generation and advancement.

GlassJaw posted a thread about "Sizzle and Steak" a few days ago and a few PF fans took it really personally. Touchy. And I can say with confidence that GlassJaw is a PF fan and is rooting for its success.

Anyhow I just don't get it.

Jason seems more than willing to tinker with things-- but he's not addressing anything of substance.

It's real hard to make the argument that you can't address some of the fundamental fixes because you're holding the line on BC, and then turn around and give us rage points and bloodlines. If I have to put up with changes to BC, I want fixes for the mechanics. We have 8+ years' worth of "kewl options" to sift through already.

If Pathfinder ends up being a Heartbreaker it's going to be a huge squandered opportunity.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Jason seems more than willing to tinker with things-- but he's not addressing anything of substance.

Again, i completely agree.

If Pathfinder ends up being a Heartbreaker it's going to be a huge squandered opportunity.

Yes.

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. (To be honest, even if Pathfinder doesn't disappoint, I'll be using more house-rules than I have in years ... see, for example, my thread on further changes I'd make to the Pathfinder skills.)

 

[billd91]

I'm no longer sure that the issue is fixable while maintaining B-C. Patchable, maybe, but not very well. I think RangerWickett's suggestion shows that he reached the same conclusion.

I'm not quite ready to give up on the task yet.

(1) Classes in a multiclass no longer have their own levels. A character isn't a fighter 4/wizard 4. He's a multiclassed fighter/wizard 4.

(2) Multiclassing must be decided as early as possible. If a PC gains a level without adding a new class to a multiclass, that decision can't be changed. (EDIT: Giving this some thought, I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary. As long as the player pays the ECL before gaining the additional class, it may work fine. For instance, say a fighter 6 wants to multiclass into a fighter/wizard at the next available chance. The ECL for a fighter/wizard 6 is 8, so the player has to stay at fighter 6 until he gains enough XP for 8th level, at which point he becomes a fighter/wizard 6.)

I've been batting around the idea of multiclassing spellcasters requiring the use of a generic or "scratch" prestige class or at least the rump of one. I don't think we really need to do this for fighter-types very much since the abilities tend to stack much more nicely.
Maybe there should be a couple of options: full BAB+spellcaster combinations, mid BAB+spellcaster combinations, and multiple spellcaster combinations. Each option would list the BAB and additional spellcaster level schedules appropriate for the combination. A full BAB/spellcaster combo would give up a couple levels of spellcasting over the course of the character's career, keep the full BAB. Mid BAB/spellcaster would keep regular speed for both. Multiple spellcaster would allow both spellcasting classes to advance in full, perhaps even at the BAB of the lower of the two (though higher might not be bad).
Any special features of a class would be picked up level by level by the prestige class, the PC picking which class to get the next one from as long as they all follow in the same order, none being skipped, of the original classes.
A character would be able to qualify for the prestige class after 1 full level in each class.
That's my quick brainstorm, anyway.

(3) A multiclassed character is fully functional in all classes. For every class, you gain all features. For those features in common (e.g., BAB), the PC gains the most favorable from among all classes.

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).

(4) Multiclassing itself has an ECL cost. This ECL is +1 per five character levels (counting the ECL itself), plus 1 per additional class.

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

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Jason seems more than willing to tinker with things-- but he's not addressing anything of substance.

It's real hard to make the argument that you can't address some of the fundamental fixes because you're holding the line on BC, and then turn around and give us rage points and bloodlines. If I have to put up with changes to BC, I want fixes for the mechanics. We have 8+ years' worth of "kewl options" to sift through already.

If Pathfinder ends up being a Heartbreaker it's going to be a huge squandered opportunity.

I'm not sure it's really worth forking this to an entirely new thread, which is why I'm asking here...

How much of this (multiclassing), and some of the other little tweaks and bits floating about are you thinking of folding into your Trailblazer thingy? Are you thinking of tossing the whole 3.5 monster building approach out the window and taking an approach more like Adamant's Foe Factory?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

How much of this (multiclassing), and some of the other little tweaks and bits floating about are you thinking of folding into your Trailblazer thingy?

My original intent was not to step on Pathfinder's toes. If PF had a "fix," and it was good enough, then it was my opinion that varying from that didn't serve anybody's interests.

So I held off waiting for the Beta.

Now I am not sure, simply because the Beta really didn't tackle the big problems-- so I still don't know-- and most of the things they have added simply aren't to my taste. I can't get around that. (Neither am I condemning it.)

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

But I at least intend to ensure that the "to taste" portions of Trailblazer are mechanical in nature, and not change for change's sake.

There will be (hell, there already are, in my blog and on threads here) ample previews of what Trailblazer will be changing, how and why.

Are you thinking of tossing the whole 3.5 monster building approach out the window

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

and taking an approach more like Adamant's Foe Factory?

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

 

[Urlithani]

I just wanted to throw my $.02 in. I think it's ok to use and give up feats in order to have increased spellcasting abilities while multiclassing.

Talented Spellcaster
Prerequisite: Ability to cast spells
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.

Supplemental Spellcasting:
Prerequisite: Ability to cast spells
Benefit: Upon selecting this feat, choose one of your classes that allows you to cast spells. One-third of 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.
Special: You lose the benefit of this feat if you gain more class levels in the selected class than any other single class you have levels in. You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you take this feat, apply it to a different class.

Wayfarer's Weapon Style
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on your BAB for each class you have levels in that does not grant a full BAB. For example, Lothro is a Wizard2/Rogue1/Fighter4. His BAB is +5. Lothro takes this feat and is granted an additional +2 BAB, giving him a +7 BAB for having levels in wizard and rogue, which do not grant a full BAB. You cannot gain a BAB bonus higher than your total class levels, and Prestige classes do not count for determining bonuses gained from this feat.

I know some people voiced that they don't feel that giving up feats is fair, but I feel it's okay, as you have to give a little to get a little. I know that what I posted has quite possibly been discussed, and the intellectual scope of this thread has gone beyond what I can keep up with. So just take it for what it's worth!

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

There will be (hell, there already are, in my blog and on threads here) ample previews of what Trailblazer will be changing, how and why.

I'll have to start checking your blog then. It never occurred to me that you'd be posting stuff there. I'm still kinda in the "ENWorld is a forum" mindset, and haven't looked much at other folks blogs.

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

Yeah, that sounds like the kind of monster hotness I can _seriously_ get behind.

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

Adamant's Foe Factory: Modern is actually a large step in the direction you're talking about, but it's focused on Modern NPCs. Still I messed around a bit with it, using the GT cost of special abilities and then ranking the monsters on the 1 - 10 scale that seemed right.

Most (all?) of the Foe Factory: Modern is OGC, so I don't think there's any need for concern as far as that's concerned. The main inspiration for it apparently was spycraft's system of NPC generation. I don't know jack about spycraft, but I thought the Foe factory was ripe for pillaging to use for simpler monster design.

It bears a bit of resemblence to Ryan Stoughton's DM helper thingy. I'm not sure how Foe Factory came up with their numbers for stuff though.

You make a monster generator like you're talking about? Show how some of the "classic" monsters translate and how to do that kind of conversion? I guarantee I'll be buying a copy of it. Even if it doesn't come with a nifty spreadsheet thingy like the GT Creature Creator did.

Although I admit I bought the Creature Creator just for the spreadsheet, since I already had GT.