Multiclassing and Archetypes

Friday, July 27, 2018

One of the trickiest parts of the rules is multiclassing. At its heart, multiclassing allows you to build almost any character you can envision, taking parts from multiple classes to build the perfect version of your character. Making these rules play well with the rest of the game, unfortunately, has always been a challenge. Concepts that really should work together just fell flat, leaving you with a character who could not perform at its level and keep pace with single class characters. This was especially the case for certain classes, like most spellcasters, that had a central class feature or features that you would fall sharply behind in if you weren't constantly progressing in that class.

Suffice to say, when it came time to redesign the system for the Pathfinder Playtest, we knew that multiclassing needed work.

Then came the rules for archetypes. The new design for this emblematic part of the game allows archetypes to be taken by any class, so you can decide exactly how much you want to invest into an alternative path for your character. The more we worked on that system, the more it began to sound like it shared almost exactly the same goals as multiclassing. Our thought was, shouldn't they just be the same system?

Multiclass archetypes are one of the more experimental parts of the Pathfinder Playtest. So much so that there are only four of them in the book, one for cleric, one for fighter, one for rogue, and one for wizard. Just like ordinary archetypes, you must take a special dedication feat to gain access to the archetype, but you cannot be of the same class as the archetype (so you can't take the rogue dedication feat if you are already a rogue). Let's take a look at one of these feats.

Wizard Dedication Feat 2

Archetype, Dedication, Multiclass

Prerequisites Intelligence 16, trained in Arcana


You cast spells like a wizard and gain a spellbook containing four arcane cantrips of your choice. You gain access to the Cast a Spell activity and the Material Casting, Somatic Casting, and Verbal Casting actions. You can prepare two cantrips each day from those found in your spellbook. You're trained in spell rolls and spell DCs for casting arcane spells and in attacks you make with arcane spells. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Intelligence. You can use wands, scrolls, and staves, but only for spells of a spell level you can cast. Arcana is a signature skill for you.

Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the wizard archetype.

Right away, this lets you cast a few simple cantrips; allows you to use wands, scrolls, and staves; and makes Arcana a signature skill for you (meaning you can advance your proficiency in the skill to master and legendary). Like other dedication feats, once you've taken Wizard Dedication, you gain access to other wizard archetype feats, each of which makes you a more powerful master of the arcane arts. Take a look.

Basic Wizard Spellcasting Feat 4

Archetype

Prerequisites Wizard Dedication


Add two level 1 spells to your spellbook. You gain a single level1 spell slot that you can use to prepare a level 1 spell from your spellbook. At 6th level, add two level 2 spells to your spellbook, and you gain a level 2 spell slot that you can use to prepare a level 2 spell from your spellbook. At 8th level, add two level 3 spells to your spellbook, and you gain a level 3 spell slot that you can use to prepare a level 3 spell from your spellbook.

Even though you can cast spells, the spell level of your cantrips and arcane powers is half your level rounded up.

This feat pays dividends all the way up through 8th level, giving you more spells you can cast, and if you take it later on in your career, you get all of that spellcasting all at once. Better still, there are additional feats you can take to gain spells of up to 8th level! But let's say you want to be even more of a wizard—you want to get some of the other class features that make wizards fun to play. Take a look at these feats.

Arcane School Feat 4

Archetype

Prerequisite Wizard Dedication


Select one school of magic from those found in the wizard class. You gain the level 1 school power tied to your school and a pool of Spell Points equal to your Intelligence modifier that you can use to cast that power.

If you already have a pool of Spell Points, use the higher ability score to determine the pool, as normal, and your Spell Point pool increases by 1.

Basic Arcana Feat 4

Archetype

Prerequisites Wizard Dedication


Gain a level 1 or level 2 wizard feat of your choice.

Advanced Arcana Feat 6

Archetype

Prerequisites Basic Arcana


Gain one wizard feat. For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your wizard level is equal to half your level.

Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time you select it, you gain a new wizard feat.

There's even a feat that gives you additional spell slots of every level except for your two highest, giving you more versatility in your spellcasting. It's important to note that these powers come at the cost of some of the flexibility of your primary class, but not at the cost of core features. A cleric who multiclasses into fighter will keep all of her spellcasting abilities, but she will have to trade out some of the feats that allow her to be better at casting heal or at using domain powers in exchange for increased proficiency in weapons and armor, added hit points, and the ability to make attacks of opportunity. You might even choose to multiclass into several classes. You could play a cleric who, in addition to all her cleric spells, also has up to 8th-level druid spells and 8th-level wizard spells, though such a three-tradition spellcaster would have few cleric feats to speak of!

Well, that about covers the rules for multiclassing in the Pathfinder Playtest. If these archetypes work, you can expect to see one for each class in the final version of the game, giving you the flexibility to build characters that draw on more than one class to make their concept click. We hope you'll give these a try during the playtest and let us know what you think!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
551 to 600 of 1,191 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Umm, but in 1e you also reduce your clericness to increase your whatever-issness. Your criticism is coming across as "Its different so I don't like it".

That is also assuming there aren't class features at all that every cleric gets(which might be the case but I really can't remember)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:

Umm, but in 1e you also reduce your clericness to increase your whatever-issness. Your criticism is coming across as "Its different so I don't like it".

That is also assuming there aren't class features at all that every cleric gets(which might be the case but I really can't remember)

If there are we don't know about it?

But we DO know that channeling is only accessed by a feat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

That means that giving up half of those for spellcasting does SUBSTANTIALLY reduce your "clericness".

Skill feats, to my understanding, only affect skills, and ancestry feats don't seem to really substitute in for these at all.

You are correct that spending 4 class feats is a significant expense. However it is also far superior to the best 3.5 multiclassing feat ever written: "Practiced Spellcaster" which 'only' raised your "effective caster level" by up to 4.

Four feats (40% of your total) let a Fighter cast an unlimited number of scaling cantrips, but also grants them a 1st through 8th level spell every day, cast just like a wizard or cleric (or druid, or bard, or sorcerer of a given tradition come CRB). Also as near as I can tell, this won't cost you your capstone feats either. Whereas losing access to the capstone was the entry cost of multiclassing in 3.x & PF1... but I may be wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Multiclassing in 4E took a while for them to release and even then it was in a state of brokeness that 3E exhibited which was that if you didn't know what you were doing you would end up with a worst mechanical class. Also the other form of multiclassing in 4E was odd in that conceptually it was much more involved than just take x,y, and z feats but I don't remember how well it worked. Halfway through the game you could just change class progression to a ranger or rogue but I dont remember how viable it was.

Multiclass in 4e was bad. If you wanted to be, say, a fighter/wizard, it only gave you the option to be a fighter with a small dash of wizard.

However, that can be fixed, if the things you get with the "multiclass feats" are actually good. A feat called "multiclass wizard" that gives you 1 cantrip, is much different than a feat called "multiclass wizard" that gives you full progression as a wizard and a cherry on top. Somewhere in the middle, there's the sweet spot which Paizo needs to find.

Multiclass in 3.P edition was very good, for some builds or concepts. But it did not work well for many other builds. Things like a witch/bard, or a Sorcerer/Druid, or a Cleric/wizard, or even a Monk/rogue did not work well with 3.P, and might do with PF2.0. Probably the new multiclass will make some of the older multiclass builds no longer viable, and will open the doors for new builds that before were not even a possiblity.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Umm, but in 1e you also reduce your clericness to increase your whatever-issness. Your criticism is coming across as "Its different so I don't like it".

That is also assuming there aren't class features at all that every cleric gets(which might be the case but I really can't remember)

If there are we don't know about it?

But we DO know that channeling is only accessed by a feat.

This is incorrect. As I mentioned before, classes get class talents every odd level. Leveling up blog:

Quote:

That's why every class gets specific class talents (which include spells for spellcasters) at 1st level and every other level thereafter, increases to skills every other level, and feats at every level!

...
Every class has special feats just for them, which you gain every other level. When your cleric hits 2nd level and gets that cleric feat...

And channel energy is a class talent for clerics that all clerics get. It is not "only accessed by a feat". Cleric blog:

Quote:
At 1st level, clerics get several class features, including their deity and domain, anathema, channel energy, and of course, divine spellcasting (which we'll talk more about in a bit).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
So it takes almost half of your 10 class feats, and by the way all your class abilities are also now class feats so you don't get anything real from your "main" class either, and by the way everything that was a feat in PF1 is ALSO a feat so you get none of those either?

Ah, I think you may have a slight misunderstanding of the advancement system in the playtest. Playtest characters get class talents (like PF1's class features) every odd level and class feats every even level, I believe. They also get ancestry feats, skill feats, and general feats. So spending 4/10 class feats on a MC archetype still leaves you with all of your other goodies.

See e.g. the leveling up blog: http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lklr?Leveling-Up

From that blog:

"How does gaining feats at every level shake out? Every class has special feats just for them, which you gain every other level. When your cleric hits 2nd level and gets that cleric feat, do you want to become a better healer? Learn another of your deity's domains? Turn undead away from you? Your class feats give you these options, so you're not locked into the same path as every other cleric."

So you ONLY have 10 class feats to get a LOT of what was core in the cleric before.

That means that giving up half of those for spellcasting does SUBSTANTIALLY reduce your "clericness".

But not moreso than giving up half your cleric levels does. The core concept of multiclassing is that you trade in some of your class abilities for some abilities from a different class. PF2 is just using Feats, instead of levels, as the vehicle for those class abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to imagine some class features are granted via multiclass archetypes (I have to imagine MC rogues get a sneak attack, which is a class feature and not feats). So it's possible that the cleric dedication chain lets you snag channeling (or a weaker version thereof) somehow.

I mean, Arcane School is a Wizard class feature not a feat, right?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, Clerics get channeling and a domain right out the gate. And even if they spend half their class feats, they still retain their full 10th level casting. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I'd much rather give up a few feats on a cleric than access to my highest level spells.

This form of multiclassing is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper unless you are trying to emulate something that took 1 level dips in 3 or more classes. And that sort of thing was only really viable on martial builds anyway, and frankly with how flexible you the basic characters will be I'd be surprised if you find yourself missing much functionality from those builds.


At this rate, why not just ditch classes entirely?

Class features are already feats, BAB/casting progression are already standardized, why essentially reprint each class as an archetype, when you can just use a single base class, and grab the class features you like as you go, to the extent that you want them?

The problem I see with this approach, is that if my fighter does decide to dabble into wizard, he will not be able to switch gears and just focus on casting for the rest of his career.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dairian wrote:

At this rate, why not just ditch classes entirely?

Class features are already feats, BAB/casting progression are already standardized, why essentially reprint each class as an archetype, when you can just use a single base class, and grab the class features you like as you go, to the extent that you want them?

The problem I see with this approach, is that if my fighter does decide to dabble into wizard, he will not be able to switch gears and just focus on casting for the rest of his career.

Yeah, but unless your fighter decided to become a wizard before level 6, he's gonna wind up with higher level spell slots from this method. And frankly if you want to spend 3/4 of your career as a wizard, it seems the best course of action would probably talking your DM into letting you retrain into wizard with the fighter multiclass archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I have to imagine some class features are granted via multiclass archetypes (I have to imagine MC rogues get a sneak attack, which is a class feature and not feats). So it's possible that the cleric dedication chain lets you snag channeling (or a weaker version thereof) somehow.

I mean, Arcane School is a Wizard class feature not a feat, right?

Probably? ((PF2 terminology gives me a headache, as it overlaps things it shouldn't, and has naming similarities with things that aren't actually related)

More than likely a cleric MC feat exists that grants some form of channeling, yes.

----
On a similar subject, I'm curious how easy it will be to pile on like abilities. Especially when future classes come up. Stacking witch and wizard, or Druid, cleric and inquisitor seems like a real potential problem. Can you effectively double your spells slots through multiclassing by 12th level? If you can blow general and class feats on multiclassing, I suspect you can.

This feat based multiclassing needs a lot of future-proofing and I'm not sure any exists.

Also given some of the more mechanically lackluster previews, I'm not convinced that some core classes won't be made obsolete in short order. That the best way to be ranger or paladin isn't just to snaffe a few MC feats and simply refer to your character as a different class or profession.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Indeed, Clerics get channeling and a domain right out the gate. And even if they spend half their class feats, they still retain their full 10th level casting. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I'd much rather give up a few feats on a cleric than access to my highest level spells.

And this is the other obvious problem. Spellcaster that picks up MC features from another class is obviously better than the other way around. Wizards that want light armor and that dodge reaction from rogues can do so easily at a fairly low cost, plus whatever else rogue dedication gives. With the same investment, Rogues just pick up a few cantrips, wand use, and then a couple spell tricks that aren't level appropriate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
This... is really disappointing. Even having read the justifications and clarifications through the thread, it still feels like it's cheating to know that the "Healer Barbarian" was still at least part Cleric. Oh well, just that much more reason to try my own hand at a non-Cleric Healer build. Probably Sorc or Alchemist.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
This... is really disappointing. Even having read the justifications and clarifications through the thread, it still feels like it's cheating to know that the "Healer Barbarian" was still at least part Cleric. Oh well, just that much more reason to try my own hand at a non-Cleric Healer build. Probably Sorc or Alchemist.
It's also important to note that the barbarian came in a post with a list of all the classes I had seen do some healing, in addition to the specification that she was very weird compared to the others; she became popular on that thread due to people being interested in the barbarian that healed. It's not like I posted in the thread about healers and made it just about barbarians.

What's unfortunate is we didn't have the complete picture, so people got the idea that there were viable non-magical options for healing.

Not "a barbarian/cleric" can heal.

Dragonborn3 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
This... is really disappointing. Even having read the justifications and clarifications through the thread, it still feels like it's cheating to know that the "Healer Barbarian" was still at least part Cleric. Oh well, just that much more reason to try my own hand at a non-Cleric Healer build. Probably Sorc or Alchemist.
It's also important to note that the barbarian came in a post with a list of all the classes I had seen do some healing, in addition to the specification that she was very weird compared to the others; she became popular on that thread due to people being interested in the barbarian that healed. It's not like I posted in the thread about healers and made it just about barbarians.

What's unfortunate is we didn't have the complete picture, so people got the idea that there were viable non-magical options for healing.

Not "a barbarian/cleric" can heal.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
I am quite disappointed to hear that. When you said a barbarian was functioning as the primary healer, I expected it to be an actual barbarian and not a Barbarian/Cleric multiclassed character. Casters are still required to be the healer, it's just you get the "cleric feat" version of mutliclassing instead of 3.5e style multiclassing.

Stop it, you're embarrassing yourselves. It's been clarified over and over that she was mostly using the Medicine skill and items and used her cleric multiclass to prep combat buffs, not healing magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dairian wrote:

At this rate, why not just ditch classes entirely?

Class features are already feats, BAB/casting progression are already standardized, why essentially reprint each class as an archetype, when you can just use a single base class, and grab the class features you like as you go, to the extent that you want them?

The problem I see with this approach, is that if my fighter does decide to dabble into wizard, he will not be able to switch gears and just focus on casting for the rest of his career.

Well, I think "this gets rid of classes eventually" is really a slippery slope. It is, currently, impossible to have fighter features, rogue features, wizard features, and cleric features since you don't have enough class feats to buy all those dedications. Classes are iconic and you're still getting over half of what you get in total from your level 1 class even if you spend all your class feats on archetypes and multiclassing.

As for "I fall into something and find I love it and want to do only that" style character changes, I figure that's something one can achieve via retraining. I suspect a lot of "I gave up the sword in order to cast spells" character concepts were motivated by how 3.x multiclassing required you to let your swordsmanship lapse, so aren't really necessary anymore however. I mean, I don't know why someone who is regularly involved in deadly combat wouldn't want to be good at as many different ways to stay alive and dispatch their enemies as they can.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I know a lot of people have been complaining about this being a lot like 4e multiclassing, which they dislike. Personally, I prefer it being more like 4e multiclassing. I mean, ultimately, I prefer the idea of gradually learning to be the second class while still advancing your primary class over, for example, the idea that it takes longer to learn to be a first level Fighter if you do a one level dip at second level or at 10th, but either way you don't get better at your primary class.

As for characters that just stop being one class and become another, that hasn't really been a viable option since the days of AD&D. In 3.x/Pathfinder 1, if you spend eight levels as a Fighter and then suddenly become a Wizard, at level 9 you're a Fighter with a couple of spells that probably aren't compatible with your armour, and by level 20 you're just a bad Fighter and a marginally less bad Wizard. In either case, if you want to completely swap from one to the other, you're going to need a chat with your GM. In PF1, that's probably going to involve exchanging levels of Fighter for levels of Wizard as you level up; in PF2, it's probably going to involve some multiclassing of Wizard using the retraining mechanics, before then rebuilding as a Wizard multiclassed with Fighter, before finally removing the Fighter aspects with more retraining.

I mean, ultimately, if you don't want the class you start out as to fundamentally define your character throughout the campaign, then you're probably better off playing a game that doesn't actually use classes. There are a lot of really good ones to choose from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:


On a similar subject, I'm curious how easy it will be to pile on like abilities. Especially when future classes come up. Stacking witch and wizard, or Druid, cleric and inquisitor seems like a real potential problem. Can you effectively double your spells slots through multiclassing by 12th level? If you can blow general and class feats on multiclassing, I suspect you can.

I think this is the one thing I'm worried about right now?

Like, I think I think I'd hate it if it turned out that the ultimate caster build was simply to multiclass wizard into cleric and druid to get a fair few more spell slots, as it reverts some of the limiting and standardisation PF2 seems to have in place.

If casters can already burn feats on new spell slots then it more or less works out the same, but I think it would be a shame if tri-casters became too common just because of a massive spell count advantage.

Otherwise I think I like this, a little sad that it's only a few of the classes but as mentioned, it makes sense for a playtest.

I really do like how this looks like it might play with rogue as the starting class though, as it's grafting a few interesting abilities onto a skill feat loaded chassis. I've always liked the idea of arcane tricksters but always hated what I've seen in these games, this looks like it might play better for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Eight feats is rather a lot to be a tri-caster though. Especially when some of those feats can already get you additional spell slots or a specific spell cast at your highest level.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I have strong reservations about this system as it reminds too much of 4th ed 'multiclassing system...which even the designers and the most diehard fans said was inferior to 3.x.

Also enough with the feats...or change the game name to Featfinder.


I also dislike the term "Feat" but my reason is semantic. A "feat" is an unusual or exceptional action you perform... not a purely statistical bonus. For example Arcane Strike is a 'feat', Dodge is not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really am disliking the overwhelming feat emphasis of PF2..

I really didnt think MC was that bad in PF1

Training to become great in any class takes serious dedication and so if a PC wants to MC there should absolutely be some significant drawbacks attached.

I hate the idea that a caster can retain pretty much full casting ability, but just by 'spending' a few feats can all of a sudden completely change the nature of their character.

A sorceror that wants to MC to a monk should and would have to put their magical development on hold whilst they learn the ways of a monk and how those ways can integrate with that of his original class. It should NOT be easy.

TBH I would prefer MCing to be handled with PrC rather than this path that Paizo seem intent on.... it reeks of VMC... which I though was thematic gibberish in PF1.

Thematic relevance is something that I feel has been lost in PF for a while now :(((


3 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:

I really am disliking the overwhelming feat emphasis of PF2..

I really didnt think MC was that bad in PF1

Training to become great in any class takes serious dedication and so if a PC wants to MC there should absolutely be some significant drawbacks attached.

I hate the idea that a caster can retain pretty much full casting ability, but just by 'spending' a few feats can all of a sudden completely change the nature of their character.

A sorceror that wants to MC to a monk should and would have to put their magical development on hold whilst they learn the ways of a monk and how those ways can integrate with that of his original class. It should NOT be easy.

TBH I would prefer MCing to be handled with PrC rather than this path that Paizo seem intent on.... it reeks of VMC... which I though was thematic gibberish in PF1.

Thematic relevance is something that I feel has been lost in PF for a while now :(((

Both those concepts were completely worthless in PF1 though. Multiclassing only worked for very specific concepts. Nothing wrong with actually opening up character ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was more or less what I was expecting and I am pleased by it. I was hoping to have monk multiclassong available in the playtest but alas~


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never expected people to be up in arms over too many feats, but *shrug*. After thinking it over, I think I'm liking it more and more. The fact that you get 10-12 class feats, at most, means that you're spending probably half your class feats to be a competent caster with multiclassing, since I'd count the extra spells per day as as much a necessity as higher spell levels, which makes the choice to multiclass much more of a choice. I'd personally like to see the dedication be less strict, as I think there's perfectly room for a rogue who dabbles in magic, and only gains cantrips, but I guess I'll withhold judgement until I see just what other options you can pick up from multiclassing besides what we've seen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerer/Monk in PF1? Well, someones not made for a longshot, thats for sure - with the new system that might actually be a viable character.
I am somewhat saddened that we get neither monk nor sorcerer to test

Hey Mark, any chance we get additional mcs during the playtest?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like it on the surface but not sure about the nitty gritty portion. It seems, at least in potentially the fighter's case that the advancement penalty is being shifted. 3.P asked Spellcasters to sacrifice spell progression in advanced for multi classing, whereas PF2 only asks them to give up Feats and not the core of the spell casting capability.

By comparison, the fighter in PF2 still seems to be a class that is literally defined by their feats at least as far as class progression seems to go. Going back in the thread and even to the fighter blog, both of which seem to imply a rather minimal if any investment from a would be multiclasser. A caster can multi class and advance as a caster, but a fighter by comparison essentially has to put a pause on their own development in some respect.

AOO, Proficiencies, "other buffs" and the largest selection of feats are or will in all likelyhood be available in some form through either advancement or multiclassing, with the fighter just kind of holding on to such things for a limited time. The fighter really needs more of an identity outside of "Feat Master".

In addition it seems that, at least from the Bard example that casters MC-ing into fighters get a lot of passive increases. Things that they can throw a feat or two at, mark on the sheet and basically never manage it past that. It's always on and requires no real further investment. The fighter meanwhile, will further have to juggle their available actions against a flood of new and active abilities that require constant managing to consider the use of.

Kinda seems like a step closer/regression to 3.0 fighter in that respect, let alone 3.5/PF, but I'm fully admitting that I could have just been reading this entire thing wrong or just missed some sort of detail.


technarken wrote:

Now I want to build the nerdiest of all wizards who is so dedicated to his wizardry that he took the Dedication Feat to prove it.

And the Fighteriest Fighter. And the Rogue to end all Rogues. And a Cleric of Desna AND Cayden that ships the 2.

I think there is potential in allowing multiclass archetypes to be taken by characters with that class. But I dunno, I don't have the book.

You can't. The post explicitly states that a Rogue can't take the Rogue Dedication. Likewise, Wizard cannot take Wizard Dedication.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm a huge fan of this system, in it in exchange for a decent stat commitment and a significant number of your fests you get to import additional flavour and capability from another class. It's powerful but with steep costs and it's both more forgiving and more open than PF1 multiclassing.

If we were to be fair to PF1 multiclassing it was something that could yield massive payoffs with sufficient system mastery but significantly more often was a terrible idea. Someone going "My new character will be a even split Oracle/Druid!" was setting themselves up for a disaster. The new system is easier to use, less prone to insane backfires and sidesteps a lot of the dip issues that made very low level characters samey and boring and kept them from doing their thing until level 3.
How many people have played a class that didn't start working until then to avoid people dipping in for core class features?

This is just a huge step forward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

Each background, class, and feat has a meaning. I need to piece together the meanings properly so that her story supports the campaign's story. Most players say that a GMPC is an abomination to be avoided in all cases. My players like my GMPCs, such as Amaya Kaijitsu and Val Baine, because I make sure that those GMPCs raise up the PCs the same way the campaign raises them up. I don't need a PF2 character identical to the PF1 character, but I would need to paint the same art of the character.

PF2 seems to have the pieces necessary, though the price is higher than in PF1. In PF2 multiclassing costs feats. In PF1 it is free but turns its back on the previous classes, which might sabotage progress.

This is basically all I was trying to say, though I might disagree that a Feat is a higher price to pay than that you pay in PF1.

Honestly I think it is generally wrong to say that multi-classing costs more in PF2. It costs a class feat in PF2, which in PF1 terms ends up being one of many class choices or features gotten by your class.

In PF1 you lost just such a feature, and you also lost a 'slot' of level advancement for any class based ability that was based on class level. The only exceptions I can think of would be prestige classes designed to be enticing which basically advanced significant properties of your original class as its own feature, or stacked with another class for the purpose of such a shared feature.

The biggest aspect of multiclassing that you might be able to say costs more is that with the dedication, it makes more than one shallow multi-class dip impossible via the dedication completion requirement.

Someone talked about someone having a fighter 10/wizard 4 from PF1 and said, compared it to a PF2 14th level fighter taking four class feats. I think that is not quite right, since you normally get a class feat every 2 levels, that would make spending four feats more like spending 8 of your levels on being a wizard. That said, I think multi-classing seems to be pretty powerful, and pretty flexible, save for the ability to quickly and easily reflect someone pivoting their life rather than dipping an extra direction.

Note that because of the dedication requirement, and getting class feats ever two levels, that sort of would equivalent to making the requirement that you can't take another level in a third class until you have taken at least 6 levels of your second class. That is a relatively big back-loaded cost, if your plan includes/requires a third class.

I just remembered how historically, multi-classing certain classes was sometimes tied to specific races. And someone asked how one could reflect the half-elf's ability to favor multi-classing. One could reduce the number of feats to fulfill the dedication requirement for a multi-class dedication by one or even completely removing it. (although the latter would be rather powerful)

I see why they are using the archetype method to drive multi-classing. With the framework used by skills, specific class based skills are granted proficiency at specific levels. If you use character level to determine when they get those raises, They advance higher and broader. If you only advance based on class level on skills, If you have two classes that share a similar strength, if you use class level those will lag behind significantly compared to a single classed character. There is a more complicated way of generally using class level, but in classes that both grant a particular skill, allowing both classes to stack to reach the level the class with the higher level requirement grants the particular skill advance.

All that said, the feat method is far more elegant, and does look like it would offer a lot of relatively simple options. It does however prevent builds that relied on more than one short dip into other classes. Note: specific such builds might still be design-able as an archetype, either a thematic one or a prestige one. If one defined a sort of Arcane Trickster form of archetype, someone without wizard or rogue levels might be able to gather a set of abilities that get them there, but doing so as a single progression, only requiring one dedication completion, instead of two, for instance. There could even be some special multi-class archetypes that might not match a specific base class. For instance, one could define a Magus Archetype which opens up some fighter and wizard options to a character through a single dedication.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

As a PbP DM/Player only, everything up to now, excepting action/reaction has been good. The action/reaction stuff has the potential to really screw up PbP, and was leaning me towards no to PE2.

This on the other hand, assuming it goes forward pretty much as is, and all of the classes are covered, would be the one thing that has me saying yes to PE2.

-- david


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HidaOWin wrote:
Someone going "My new character will be a even split Oracle/Druid!" was setting themselves up for a disaster.

Speaking of which, I have a player that managed to create a monstrosity of uselessness that was primarily focused on damage and did 1d4+1+1d6...at level 14. (It was something like Dex slayer 5/shadowdancer 9 that was focused on sneak attacks.)

Said person's first character was going even on Ranger/Rogue (it was a 2/2 split when they died).

This is also the player with the mystic theurge, by the way.

So really, anything that will curb the trend of having very not-useful multiclassed characters is extremely welcome to me.


Will the dedication feats be in their own section or will they be among general feats, and what about class feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:


Thematic relevance is something that I feel has been lost in PF for a while now :(((

Yeah, both races and multiclassing feel purely mechanical, with no theme or fluff attached. Some of it even feels completely at odds with the established setting, which is very jarring, since the setting is built into the game. (Which makes it a weirdly high cost for both using the default setting or trying to homebrew around the Golarion bits)

The other bit that really bothers me with both races and multiclassing is organic characters seem either difficult or hugely disadvantaged. Taking some of these dedication feats while pile the equivalent of up to five feats on you (per Mark talking about wizards taking fighter dedication), but you've got to plan for them at level 1, or take them very late. If something happens to your character that makes them want to embrace a change in direction, it can be 4-9 levels before you can sort that out! At that point there may not be time to even bother.

Though I do disagree on one area- multiclassing in 3.x was really fairly bad. It wasn't a problem for pure martial characters (usually), but this just seems to shift the problems somewhere else. If you're planning for a class that shares a primary attribute (or an important secondary for your specific build) there is virtually no cost. if it doesn't, it can be very difficult indeed, other than to just accept performance problems for 4-5 levels, or playing a burden on the other PCs until all your needed feats click into place and you're suddenly Voltron.


Selene Spires wrote:

I have strong reservations about this system as it reminds too much of 4th ed 'multiclassing system...which even the designers and the most diehard fans said was inferior to 3.x.

Also enough with the feats...or change the game name to Featfinder.

Except 4e had 3e multiclassing and the words broken mess of a system were used to describe it. 4e did strike upon the best implementation which was a cross combination of an archetype and background that had its own progression. I'd need to look at them more to elaborate but it because made characters far more distinct than 3.x multiclassing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like this approach to multiclassing. It's a very elegant and flexible system that can be easily expanded.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, one thing that occurred to me, is I wonder if half-elves or humans might have an ancestry feat that reduces the number of follow-on feats your dedication requires. Like, say, a Half-Elf multiclass mastery ancestry feat that says "This counts As an arcehtype feat for each dedication feat you select."

Words are failing me right now, but basically it would reduce by 1 the number of archetype feats you'd need before selecting another dedication, meaning you can pick up that pirate/rogue/wizard combo a little faster if you wanted. Or heck, a druid/fighter/cleric/wizard/pirate, if only just barely.

I haven't read the half-elf/Half-Orc thread all the way through, so perhaps someone else already mentioned it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

Sorcerer/Monk in PF1? Well, someones not made for a longshot, thats for sure - with the new system that might actually be a viable character.

I am somewhat saddened that we get neither monk nor sorcerer to test

Hey Mark, any chance we get additional mcs during the playtest?

Monk 1/Empyreal bloodline or Scaled Fist monk 1/(most other bloodlines would give you your casting stat to AC. In fact, I think of empyeral sorc/zen archer monk to be one of the better foundations for Arcane Archer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Multiclassing in 4E took a while for them to release and even then it was in a state of brokeness that 3E exhibited which was that if you didn't know what you were doing you would end up with a worst mechanical class. Also the other form of multiclassing in 4E was odd in that conceptually it was much more involved than just take x,y, and z feats but I don't remember how well it worked. Halfway through the game you could just change class progression to a ranger or rogue but I dont remember how viable it was.

They released 4e multiclassing the day 4e was released in the PHB 1.

The way it worked was that you took a feat in order to multiclass into another class.

This allowed you to take feats that had that class as a requirement, as well as other class feats that allowed you to improve your multiclass character.

Part of these multiclass character feats then allowed you to replace an encounter power when you were 4th level with any encounter power of your multiclass, a utility power, and a daily power.

This meant you did not have all the power of a wizard (for example), but you would have around 1/3 of the powers of the wizard ability (or at least the equivalent amount of power) when you hit level 10. The ability to replace powers also continued into the paragon levels, where you could choose to advance more in your multiclass with additional powers instead of taking a paragon path.

I think you are thinking about Hybrid class perhaps, which came out in the PHB3. These were similar more to the original idea of multiclassing that was found in AD&D 1e and 2e where you start with multiple classes at the same time.

The multiclassing idea that we read in the article about PF2e multiclassing sounds straight up like it is from the 4e PHB 1, but modified to have the multiclass feats be a little bit more powerful than they were originally.

From the sounds of it, PF2e is sort of a 4.75 edition as it seems to take elements of 4e but also of 5e as well. Thus you have better advancement so a 20th level character is actually far better and more proficient than a 1st level characters (ala 4e, as opposed to 5e where you only have a +6 difference), but at the same time other things which seems similar to 5e.

I'm not sure what the aim of PF2e is in it's design though.

(PS: I actually enjoyed playing 4e as opposed to many here, but I'm not sure a PF2e based on a 4.75 D&D is what is going to appeal to many of those who came to PF originally because of 4e and who wanted to have more of 3e/3.5).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
HidaOWin wrote:
Someone going "My new character will be a even split Oracle/Druid!" was setting themselves up for a disaster.

Speaking of which, I have a player that managed to create a monstrosity of uselessness that was primarily focused on damage and did 1d4+1+1d6...at level 14. (It was something like Dex slayer 5/shadowdancer 9 that was focused on sneak attacks.)

Said person's first character was going even on Ranger/Rogue (it was a 2/2 split when they died).

This is also the player with the mystic theurge, by the way.

So really, anything that will curb the trend of having very not-useful multiclassed characters is extremely welcome to me.

Slayer 5 solely do more than that damage... from the +2/+2 bonus at level 5 alone. Shadowdancer sucks. Its a problem with shadowdancer, nothing to do with multiclass.

2/2 ranger/rogue is VERY solid... VERY SOLID! Strait better than both ranger 4 or rogue 4.

Mystic Theurge can be really strong or really bad, depending of how the player dominates the game mechanics.

So, dont seems a problem with the multiclass system, but more of a problem of giving high level characters to new players. If he plays the average 3 game sessions per level... by level 14 he will have a very solid grasp of the mechanics (after around 40 sessions) and will do great use of all the combinations you gave (except shadowdancer, cause they suck in any situation).


You're misremembering the multiclassing rules. At least what I was referencing was the fact that you went relegated to just the multiclassing paragon path. You could take any paragon path you multiclassing into.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
doc roc wrote:


Thematic relevance is something that I feel has been lost in PF for a while now :(((
Yeah, both races and multiclassing feel purely mechanical, with no theme or fluff attached. Some of it even feels completely at odds with the established setting, which is very jarring, since the setting is built into the game. (Which makes it a weirdly high cost for both using the default setting or trying to homebrew around the Golarion bits)

If all we read about a race is its mechanics in the rulebook, then it will feel purely mechanical. A few references to their culture that are immediately translated as a mechanical rule do not break that feeling.

One of my players wanted to play an exotic race, and she chose strix. That is a very unusual race; for example, they fly. But the mechanical description in the Advanced Race Guide was not enough to give the full exotic feel of the strix. She bought the Pathfinder Tales book Nightglass by Liane Merciel, and read about the culture of the strix. She based the backstory of her character on the book.

Voss wrote:
The other bit that really bothers me with both races and multiclassing is organic characters seem either difficult or hugely disadvantaged. Taking some of these dedication feats while pile the equivalent of up to five feats on you (per Mark talking about wizards taking fighter dedication), but you've got to plan for them at level 1, or take them very late. If something happens to your character that makes them want to embrace a change in direction, it can be 4-9 levels before you can sort that out! At that point there may not be time to even bother.

I agree that the new dedication-based multiclassing will be hard to accomplish spontaneously. The Wizard Dedication requires Intelligence 16 and trained in Arcana. That has to be planned either from the beginning or at 5th, 10th, or 15th level when the stats gain a boost. Pirate Dedication requires Dexterity 12 and trained in both Acrobatics and Sailing Lore. Training in Sailing Lore would require a skill feat or the Sailor Background, so that requires planning, too.

They remind me more of the Prestige Classes. Those usually had a few feats as requirements, and since feats were two thirds as common in D&D 3rd Edition than in Pathfinder 1st Edition, qualifying for a Prestige Class required a few levels of taking the right feats. I had a D&D 3.5 elf cleric archer who spent 2 levels preparing to take the Arcane Archer prestige class after he organically decided that was the proper direction for his development. And he started as an archer.

Organically developing a character level by level will probably not benefit from the dedication feats. Furthermore, a dedication is not a radical change in lifestyle; instead, it is an additional set of abilities. The character still gains more core abilities of the original class.

I mentioned my GMPC Amaya of Westcrown in two comments in this thread. She was based on an existing character, and had a radical life change that made her a Fighter and led her to move to Sandpoint and join the party. But at 3rd level, she had another radical change. Storywise, she had a radical discovery with the potential for a change, and the party had lost its healer, so she multiclassed to oracle. She spent the next 14 levels gaining more levels of oracle, but never gave up her fighter level. In the PF2 system, she would still primarily be a fighter forever and ever but with a secondary oracle multiclass. I would probably see if I could rewrite her from scratch as an oracle with a fighter multiclass dedication.

Voss wrote:
Though I do disagree on one area- multiclassing in 3.x was really fairly bad. It wasn't a problem for pure martial characters (usually), but this just seems to shift the problems somewhere else. If you're planning for a class that shares a primary attribute (or an important secondary for your specific build) there is virtually no cost. if it doesn't, it can be very difficult indeed, other than to just accept performance problems for 4-5 levels, or playing a burden on the other PCs until all your needed feats click into place and you're suddenly Voltron.

I find that organic characters have a strength that is not apparent in theorycrafting. Or rather, it is apparent only after the theory expands to take the entire party and its environment into account. Organic characters who like their teammates develop in accord with their team. That enhances teamwork, the most powerful tactic in the game. For example, my Iron Gods campaign had the strix skald Kirii mentioned above, a magus Elric, a fighter/investigator Kheld, a gadgeteer gunslinger/rogue Boffin, and a heavily-archetyped bloodrager Val Baine. No frontline combatants, which did not matter because the party had no vulnerable characters either. They skirmished, with the strix attacking from above, the magus leading with wand attacks before spellstriking, the fighter with a reach weapon, the bloodrager charging with a sword in one hand and a pistol in the other, and the gadgeteer gunslinger controlling opponent movement with a grapple gun. No-one could have planned this style, but it worked so well that I had to bump up all the challenges by one or two CR.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

So, one thing that occurred to me, is I wonder if half-elves or humans might have an ancestry feat that reduces the number of follow-on feats your dedication requires. Like, say, a Half-Elf multiclass mastery ancestry feat that says "This counts As an arcehtype feat for each dedication feat you select."

Words are failing me right now, but basically it would reduce by 1 the number of archetype feats you'd need before selecting another dedication, meaning you can pick up that pirate/rogue/wizard combo a little faster if you wanted. Or heck, a druid/fighter/cleric/wizard/pirate, if only just barely.

I haven't read the half-elf/Half-Orc thread all the way through, so perhaps someone else already mentioned it.

Well, we already know there’s a Human Ancestry Feat that lets you take an additional Class Feat. And Archetype Feats are a form of Class Feat. So, humans (and by extension, half-elves and half-orcs) already have an easier time multiclassing than other races.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Charlaquin wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

So, one thing that occurred to me, is I wonder if half-elves or humans might have an ancestry feat that reduces the number of follow-on feats your dedication requires. Like, say, a Half-Elf multiclass mastery ancestry feat that says "This counts As an arcehtype feat for each dedication feat you select."

Words are failing me right now, but basically it would reduce by 1 the number of archetype feats you'd need before selecting another dedication, meaning you can pick up that pirate/rogue/wizard combo a little faster if you wanted. Or heck, a druid/fighter/cleric/wizard/pirate, if only just barely.

I haven't read the half-elf/Half-Orc thread all the way through, so perhaps someone else already mentioned it.

Well, we already know there’s a Human Ancestry Feat that lets you take an additional Class Feat. And Archetype Feats are a form of Class Feat. So, humans (and by extension, half-elves and half-orcs) already have an easier time multiclassing than other races.

Sure, but that would only help you with one dedication. My proposal would help with character concepts that would require stacking them up like beer cans (although it would take three dedications before it paid off, so it'd be a very weird character).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
You're misremembering the multiclassing rules. At least what I was referencing was the fact that you went relegated to just the multiclassing paragon path. You could take any paragon path you multiclassing into.

Nope, I read the multiclassing rules yesterday just to make sure I wasn't imagining the similarities between PF2e MC that was listed in the article and the 4e ones listed in the 4e PHB.

I actually have the 4e PHB in a file case around 20 feet from me presently.

With paragon paths you could take one from your original class or the one you multiclassed into, OR you had the option with the appropriate feats to simply eschew the paragon path and take more powers from your chosen multiclass.

From the looks of it, PF2e seems to be straight up the original 4e MC rules, but with the Multiclass feats being slightly more powerful.

However (and this is the caution we all should probably take), that may also just be due to how they wrote the MC article and when we actually get the official playtest rules they will turn out differently.

(Edit: My thoughts right now is that this PF2e is turning out to be more like a D&DE 4.75 version, which is more like 5e in many ways with some 4e ideas also. Thus, MC probably will have the 4e MC ideas, but probably with some more powerful options for MC tossed in and some ideas from 5e in there as well??)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say 95% of my characters have been multi-class. The last time I had a character that did not multiclass I was playing 4th edition. PF2 does use the same model of multi-classing as 4th but it is not the same. 4th gave water downed class abilities in very small amounts, where as the PH2 is giving out the same abilities if in smaller amounts, that can be increased at the cost of more feats. I am very glad for that. You can get more out of this new system of multi-classing than most builds in both PF1 and 3.5. And to do that I used excel spread sheets.

The only real drawbacks I see in this system compared to PF1 and 3.5 is the high cost of early entry with the 16 stat requirement, limited number of multi-classes, and needing to plan your character out all the way before starting, in order to know which class is going to be your main class.

From what I have seen so far, I think multi-classing is going to have a much higher floor for the low end of the power scale. As for the high end? It looks to be a bit low not including game braking builds, just the powerful ones. Will not know for sure until I look closely through what is in the play test.

I plan to be testing the Fighter/Wizard and maybe adding a dash of a third class at the higher levels.

Remember not all power gamers are bad, some of us just like to play low risk characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RafaelBraga wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
HidaOWin wrote:
Someone going "My new character will be a even split Oracle/Druid!" was setting themselves up for a disaster.

Speaking of which, I have a player that managed to create a monstrosity of uselessness that was primarily focused on damage and did 1d4+1+1d6...at level 14. (It was something like Dex slayer 5/shadowdancer 9 that was focused on sneak attacks.)

Said person's first character was going even on Ranger/Rogue (it was a 2/2 split when they died).

This is also the player with the mystic theurge, by the way.

So really, anything that will curb the trend of having very not-useful multiclassed characters is extremely welcome to me.

Slayer 5 solely do more than that damage... from the +2/+2 bonus at level 5 alone. Shadowdancer sucks. Its a problem with shadowdancer, nothing to do with multiclass.

2/2 ranger/rogue is VERY solid... VERY SOLID! Strait better than both ranger 4 or rogue 4.

Mystic Theurge can be really strong or really bad, depending of how the player dominates the game mechanics.

So, dont seems a problem with the multiclass system, but more of a problem of giving high level characters to new players. If he plays the average 3 game sessions per level... by level 14 he will have a very solid grasp of the mechanics (after around 40 sessions) and will do great use of all the combinations you gave (except shadowdancer, cause they suck in any situation).

Okay, 1d4+3+1d6. The extra 2 damage was not saving that character until a full rebuild, especially since it kept making 1 attack per turn against DR 10.

What I also didn't mention is that he was planning on going for an animal companion mount. Ranger/Rogue isn't too bad (though Ranger 4 would still be a lot more solid the way he was going).

Let's just say the mystic theurge plays very much like a sorcerer 6 and cleric 5 and leave it at that.

I'm going to note: he's played for at least 4 years now, 1-2 times per week, across 12 different characters. He's...decently fine at building single-classed characters, even though they generally overspecialize in one thing. As soon as multiclassing gets involved, it suddenly doesn't work. At the point the shadowdancer was created, he'd played two different characters up to level 12.

The thing is - all these concepts are workable with enough skill and optimization. I don't remember how I made the shadowdancer functional, but I managed to turn it into a contributing party member somehow. The problem's that they all flop really hard if you can't do that. (I'm not sure it's possible to save the ninja 2/monk X that focuses on Pressure Points.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So at 14th level he didn't have a Slashing Grace equivalent feat or any magical equipment and was using a dagger and NOT power attacking at all?

And was using a single weapon, not two weapon fighting?

And his summoned shadow (hello always flanking!) wasn't doing any damage?

Mythic Theurge at 11th level (even going Cleric/Sorc) would have caster level Sorc 8/ Cleric 7- which is enough for 4th level spells of both, so he'd have access to 3 fireballs per day (plus potentially a bonus) AND cure critical wounds?

It sounds more like you just hate multiclassing and are trying to illustrate it with builds where the person would literally HAVE to be going out of their way to be as ineffective as you're describing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

So at 14th level he didn't have a Slashing Grace equivalent feat or any magical equipment and was using a dagger and NOT power attacking at all?

And was using a single weapon, not two weapon fighting?

And his summoned shadow (hello always flanking!) wasn't doing any damage?

Mythic Theurge at 11th level (even going Cleric/Sorc) would have caster level Sorc 8/ Cleric 7- which is enough for 4th level spells of both, so he'd have access to 3 fireballs per day (plus potentially a bonus) AND cure critical wounds?

It sounds more like you just hate multiclassing and are trying to illustrate it with builds where the person would literally HAVE to be going out of their way to be as ineffective as you're describing.

+1 called starknife being thrown at range without Deadly Aim, and yes. He didn't use his shadow companion in the one session that character went through before being rebuilt.

He's still level 9 right now (so Cleric 3/Sorc 4/Theurge 2). Spells I remember him casting recently: Protection from Evil, Hold Person, Comprehend Languages, Magic Missile, Stone Shape. Checking, he has both Dispel Magic and Haste, but he's used neither thus far because he's expecting to need the slots later. Edit: And Spiritual Weapon, now that I check, is a standard preparation.

And I'll specifically note that these are all builds he's very serious about.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

At Slayer 5/Shadowdancer 9 a +1 Starknife with deadly aim would be doing 1d4+1d6+9 at a minimum-- maybe that's not stellar, but when you're short changing +8 damage (maybe more if he has a STR mod, point blank shot) that's a big difference.

He could also be at that level throwing 3 per round off just his BaB- plus two weapon fighting, plus rapid shot potentially.

Underselling builds to make them seem worse isn't very effective when it's obvious that there's something you're leaving out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had forgotten that re-training was intended to be a core part of this edition, and that does alleviate my concerns to some extent, depending on how those rules pan out, and if they extend to class levels.

"work with your GM" is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the merits and flaws of a rules system, particularly as part of a playtest.

As others have pointed out, this isn't really multi-classing in the classic sense, and is so far really the only change I take any major issue with, at least in the context of how the rest of pathfinder 2e as revealed so far.

On it's own it is an interesting system, and if layered over a single "Adventurer" class, or the npc classes of old (warrior, expert, adept) would represent a really interesting shift away from classic dnd, and into something much more versatile, and customizable.

As things are shaping up, it feels like paizo is trying to have it both ways, push the envelope, but not TOO far, and for my dollar I would have preferred they pick a side, rather than try to split the difference.

Still excited to see the rulebook, as they have already proven that at the very least PF 2e will have lots of great ideas to steal from for my home-brew system.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dairian wrote:

At this rate, why not just ditch classes entirely?

Class features are already feats, BAB/casting progression are already standardized, why essentially reprint each class as an archetype, when you can just use a single base class, and grab the class features you like as you go, to the extent that you want them?

The problem I see with this approach, is that if my fighter does decide to dabble into wizard, he will not be able to switch gears and just focus on casting for the rest of his career.

Well, I think "this gets rid of classes eventually" is really a slippery slope. It is, currently, impossible to have fighter features, rogue features, wizard features, and cleric features since you don't have enough class feats to buy all those dedications. Classes are iconic and you're still getting over half of what you get in total from your level 1 class even if you spend all your class feats on archetypes and multiclassing.

As for "I fall into something and find I love it and want to do only that" style character changes, I figure that's something one can achieve via retraining. I suspect a lot of "I gave up the sword in order to cast spells" character concepts were motivated by how 3.x multiclassing required you to let your swordsmanship lapse, so aren't really necessary anymore however. I mean, I don't know why someone who is regularly involved in deadly combat wouldn't want to be good at as many different ways to stay alive and dispatch their enemies as they can.


Nathanael Love wrote:

At Slayer 5/Shadowdancer 9 a +1 Starknife with deadly aim would be doing 1d4+1d6+9 at a minimum-- maybe that's not stellar, but when you're short changing +8 damage (maybe more if he has a STR mod, point blank shot) that's a big difference.

He could also be at that level throwing 3 per round off just his BaB- plus two weapon fighting, plus rapid shot potentially.

Underselling builds to make them seem worse isn't very effective when it's obvious that there's something you're leaving out.

I don't remember what exactly the first iteration of the character had (and I can't check after the GM deleted the campaign to clear up old ones), but it didn't have Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, or TWF. It was focused on moving, sneak attacking, and then using called to bring it back.

I have been reminded by the GM to note that there was a dearth of combat feats on that character in general, and apparently Skill Focus (perform [sing] and [dance]) was taken instead to make it a Michael Jackson reference. This is not something I actually recall being the case, but I would not be surprised.

Edit: Uh, apparently he took Rogue Talent -> Ninja Trick -> Pressure Points on this too, but I can't confirm this.

Off the top of my head, the biggest changes in the rebuild were Deadly Aim, Blinkback Belt, and Rapid Shot to make it significantly less focused on single-hit sneak attacks.

551 to 600 of 1,191 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Multiclassing and Archetypes All Messageboards