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
601 to 650 of 1,191 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Well, Shadow Dancer is hard to pull off. Most MC builds are hard to pull off - Theurge is one of the easiest imo

I made some MC builds myself for NPCs I set against the players, some worked better, some...not
And some worked only for what I've used them for

Once I've build (for rather low level) some Kineticist/Rogues who used partially electric attacks, partially telekinesis - they gave each other bonus on their attacks and they had additional movement option. But that's a combination I would never play in Mid-High Level since either the kinetic blast falls flat or the sneak attack dmg would be to low to really matter.

On another session I build a shadowdancer (archeologist bard) it worked kinda good but the dmg was...mediocre at best (besides that, good build)

I know that the classical Multiclassing CAN work. But as GM who build a LOT of Npcs by hand and scrapped several again I also know that it can be total crap.

VMC worked much better. While the Rogue Kineticists vanished again (the campaign was unfortunately over) and the shadowdancer will be more remembered for her gambling then her combat skills I pulled a few pretty cool stunts using the vmc system.

A Fighter in (iron)wood armor riding a giant tiger, A Kineticist/Monk (you guess what kineticist archetype) with HORRENDOUS damage, thugs that totally unexpected pulled out some bombs and much much more.

I am really, really, REALLY happy that MC goes this way. I already know like a dozen Ideas that I want to make real using this:

Caster/Fighter -> A Hellknight Signifer
Fighter/Mage -> Assistant to the Signifer, dabbling in Arcane arts
Monk/Rogue -> A masterful Assassin (And I guess this is a really good combo if you want to build a ninja)
Druid/Fighter -> A guardian of nature
Ranger/Rogue -> A bounty hunter (a.k.a. Slayer)
Any Class/Cleric -> Priests, Zealots, Cultist, much more
etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My only complaint is that multiclass archetypes clash with other archetypes. If they had made the dedication feat as a multiclass dedication feat instead of a multiclass, archetype dedication feat it would be possible to have the basics of a character concept by level 4 (3 if human). That would still be bad, but much better than the current system where you have to wait until level 8.

Or just declare no more than 3 archetypes, though ths may see some players front loading their archetypes to maximise their power.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
[quoting me along with some others expressing the same thing]

That is not acceptable. I made a post as an initial reaction as if I'm harping on about it and then haven't posted on the issue since. You don't get to post a bunch of other people posting the same thing and make out as if I'm dogpiling on Mark and ignoring what has subsequently been revealed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
[quoting me along with some others expressing the same thing]
That is not acceptable. I made a post as an initial reaction as if I'm harping on about it and then haven't posted on the issue since. You don't get to post a bunch of other people posting the same thing and make out as if I'm dogpiling on Mark.

He is right though, this thread reads partially like people want to misunderstand what mark stated. At some points it was physically painful to read through the stuff that literally said the opposite of what they quoted from mark.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
He is right though

How these threads work, ESPECIALLY with how long they are by the time I get to post (they go live somewhere between midnight and 4am my time), is I see information and I then post a reaction to it. Sometimes that information is clarified and when I get to that post I either make an additional post that clarifies my opinion (if it causes me to change my opinion), I post a follow up post as to why that additional information doesn't change my opinion or I keep silent as I await further information before posting anything else.

In this case Mark's clarification was, while good to see, didn't completely change my opinion. Instead I am awaiting the full rules to see how the healer operates in the new edition and what is and isn't possible to fill it without multiclassing. Mark's clarification was most of the time the barbarian didn't use his cleric spells. It's rare for someone to cast Remove Blindness/Deafness so it could be that the statement was true however the barbarian did cast his cleric spells for specific conditions. Or it could be those conditions simply don't exist anymore or can be removed through downtime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interestingly, while people are saying there is now no need for the simpler hybrid classes, the multi-classing feats for those classes would also possibly alleviate some of the concerns around the dedication feat requirement before being allowed to take a second dedication.

For example, in PF2 a PF1 Bard-Barbarian-Sorcerer equivalent would require a minimum of 4 class feats, while Bard-Bloodrager* would only require 1.

*Not to mention the Skald-Sorcerer, Sorcerer-Skald, Skald-Bloodrager, Bloodrager-Skald, or Bloodrager-Bard, which altogether makes at least 6 different ways of translating Bard-Barbarian-Sorcerer to PF2.

Edit: on second thoughts, I should probably have used Fighter-Rogue-Alchemist as my example, as Barbarian-Skald raises questions about how the two different kinds of rages interact (and I know next to nothing about skalds), while combinations of Investigator, Slayer, Fighters, Rogues and Alchemists may be less problematic (or at least I know more about those classes).


Nathanael Love wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

@Nathanael Love: Ah, I didn't see that the feat count wasn't in the blog. Thanks. Per this post from Mark upthread, it takes a total of 4 feats to get 8th level spells.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

Overall I am really happy with the specific examples shown and their implications for feat-based multiclassing. The scaling notation of the Cantrip confused me at first. But now that I understand it I am very happy with it. I like that a basic Bookish Rogue is so easily built with just Wizard Dedication, or you can take Basic Wizard Spellcasting if you desire all the classic arcane trickster spells.

I am curious how it will progress beyond 3rd level spells. How many more feats does it cost to gain those 8th level spell-slots?
I imagine at least two, but dread it will be as many as five.
Just two more, your minimum guess!
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?

you get 11 class feats, and there is no law that says you have to take all 4 of the feats, I can think of examples where you would not want to.

In addition, your main class still gains class abilities, so you aren't abandoning that completely.
I would say that 4 class feats out of 11 is a more than reasonable cost. It still leaves you 7 class feats to spend as you please. This makes it better than pf1 where you would have to spend 15 levels (3/4 of your "resources") to achieve the same effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
[quoting me along with some others expressing the same thing]
That is not acceptable. I made a post as an initial reaction as if I'm harping on about it and then haven't posted on the issue since. You don't get to post a bunch of other people posting the same thing and make out as if I'm dogpiling on Mark.
He is right though, this thread reads partially like people want to misunderstand what mark stated. At some points it was physically painful to read through the stuff that literally said the opposite of what they quoted from mark.

Couple notes for the record:

1) I have literally no problem with the Medicine skill (since it was mentioned in the top post of this). Heck, I've been hoping the Medicine skill is downright awesome, non-magical healing is something I've wished was a viable option for a long time now.

2) Like JL, that original post was very much gut reaction. After all the talk of Barbarian Healer with no mention of magic at all, let alone the "white mage" Cleric, to suddenly be revealed that both of those had a (small, but still present) hand in it... it just feels like many conversations I've been in would have been very different if the Cleric aspect had been mentioned early on.

3) And this is the last one: A significant part of my initial post is the comment that this merely furthers my drive to build a non-Divine (preferably totally non-magical if at all possible) Healer build to see if it's even possible for one, and if it is possible just how viable it is. And thoroughly document the results, including how effective it is and any issues I run across. Before I was flip-flopping on whether I wanted to do one of my dedicated healer builds (I have a lot of stuff I specifically want to test in the Playtest but that one post managed to cement in Healer as a thing that I am going to build. Possibly multiple times. That seemed worth noting.

---

Official record stuff over... like Mark himself has mentioned in the past, this is only connected by the barest sliver to Multiclassing, and we really should drop the healer stuff and go back to multiclassing. On that end.....

I wonder how effective a Monk/Fighter will be. We know they're getting the full 5 feats out of it (Monk gets literally no armor or weapon proficiency besides Unarmored and Unarmed after all) but will it interfere with anything?


Ramanujan wrote:

Interestingly, while people are saying there is now no need for the simpler hybrid classes, the multi-classing feats for those classes would also possibly alleviate some of the concerns around the dedication feat requirement before being allowed to take a second dedication.

For example, in PF2 a PF1 Bard-Barbarian-Sorcerer equivalent would require a minimum of 4 class feats, while Bard-Bloodrager* would only require 1.

*Not to mention the Skald-Sorcerer, Sorcerer-Skald, Skald-Bloodrager, Bloodrager-Skald, or Bloodrager-Bard, which altogether makes at least 6 different ways of translating Bard-Barbarian-Sorcerer to PF2.

Sorry for double post, but this reminded me of something else: Skalds. They need to come back eventually, if only as a Composition, because they are one of the ACG classes that absolutely cannot be done simply by Multiclassing... unless Inspire Rage is a default Bard thing now and we just don't know it, but I kinda doubt that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm wondering if we could maybe do prestige archetypes that more thoroughly glue together two classes once you have 2 feats plus the dedication in two classes?

So Barbarian gives you rage, and Bard gives you the song and in whichever order you get those you can take a prestige archetype to have a song that inspires rage.

Of course I'm not sure about the comparative value of "being able to do something at level 1" versus "being able to do it eventually"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am fully willing to admit that PF1/3.x MC is deeply flawed and frequently frustrating. I still love it though. I absolutely hated VMC and the original 4e style of MC (though I'll admit I never actually played 4e, just reading the core book was enough for me to abandon the edition.)

PF2 MC does look a lot like both VMC and 4e style, though with some significant improvements. Both of those systems felt largely meaningless to me. In the VMC's case, it was often more like a straight downgrade. This at least feels like your character actually somewhat becomes a member of the target class.

This looks to fix some of the problems of the PF1 style but it also adds a lot of new ones. I particularly dislike that it interferes with archetypes. Though in fairness, I think that moreso speaks to the new version of archetypes being a problem than the new version of MC. I really think that any version of archetypes that doesn't allow you to be your chosen archetype at lvl 1 is not succeeding at its job. That was one of the best parts of the PF1 version of archetypes after all. If you also can't simultaneously have an archetype and MC, that's also an issue to me.
Archetypes in PF1 were modifiers you put on a class. So you weren't for example, being a Pirate and a Rogue simultaneously, you were a Rogue whose chosen lifestyle had a significant impact on his style of being a Rogue. It made the Rogue class different, it didn't prevent the Rogue from choosing a new direction in his life later and becoming a Wizard. And for that matter if he happened upon the right wizard tutor, he might even have a Wizard archetype right out the gate as soon as he got his first level of Wizard. That was flavorful, thematic, and made sense. I don't get that feel at all from this version.

I'm willing to give it a chance, but MC is super important to me. A very large percentage of my characters multi-class. Less so in PF1 than in 3.5, since archetypes make it easier to attain thematic aspects without having to leave the original class, but I still MC regularly. So if the system doesn't allow me to make the characters I want to make, it's probably the single most potentially deal-breaking aspect for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shinigami02 wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:

Interestingly, while people are saying there is now no need for the simpler hybrid classes, the multi-classing feats for those classes would also possibly alleviate some of the concerns around the dedication feat requirement before being allowed to take a second dedication.

For example, in PF2 a PF1 Bard-Barbarian-Sorcerer equivalent would require a minimum of 4 class feats, while Bard-Bloodrager* would only require 1.

*Not to mention the Skald-Sorcerer, Sorcerer-Skald, Skald-Bloodrager, Bloodrager-Skald, or Bloodrager-Bard, which altogether makes at least 6 different ways of translating Bard-Barbarian-Sorcerer to PF2.

Sorry for double post, but this reminded me of something else: Skalds. They need to come back eventually, if only as a Composition, because they are one of the ACG classes that absolutely cannot be done simply by Multiclassing... unless Inspire Rage is a default Bard thing now and we just don't know it, but I kinda doubt that.

Contagious rage, which allows you to give some of the benefits of your rage to the rest of your party (also with fewer drawbacks) is a thing that was mentioned in the Barbarian thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Chaotic_Blues wrote:
I can't say that I'm a fan of this idea. It feels like it's pandering too much to power gamers.

Funny I had the exact opposite reaction *chuckles* In all my years of playing multi-classing has typically caused more trouble than it was worth. Typically those in the party that didn’t multi-class felt their value diminished in the face of multi-classed characters with the sudden power boost and versatility.

I am looking this new approach. Looks like it may curb some of the issues I have seen, at the same time allow for quite a bit of diversity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm excited to build a monk that rather than using class feats to get ki points, instead uses it to multi-class into wizard or cleric,(and or eventually druid, sorcerer, or bard) to get some mystical martial artist in a new way, especially one not connected to wisdom.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

Hold up a second here. Isn't PF1 multiclassing much *worse* on this count? Eating choice resources (levels) for "not good enough spellcasting." It takes what, three or four class feats in the playtest model (out of 10?) to get 8th level spellcasting.

So compare, e.g., a Fighter 16/Wizard 4 in PF1 to a Fighter/Wizard in the playtest who sinks 4 class feats into Wizard MC. Who's better off here? Pretty clearly it's the playtest MC (both in terms of fighting prowess and in terms of having "good enough spellcasting").

So, genuine question: What kind of "characters do [you] like to build/play [that] will NEVER be able to exist" in this kind of system?

I have some concerns about this system and will push it hard in the playtest. But I'm not following your concern as articulated in this post, would be interested to hear more.

Fighter 16/Wizard 4 is a bad analogy to Fighter with 4 Wizard feats in PF2.

1) If a new player wanted to play a Fighter 16/Wizard 4, I'd tell them to try Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 10, then decide whether they want more casting or more fighting after that.

2) The new multiclass system costs Class Feats, which are what give you class features. Since you only get Class Feats at every other level, you're losing EIGHT levels of fighter for your wizard stuff, not 4. (You get to keep fighter HP and proficiency progressions, but that's about it.)

3) The extra spells gained by the Basic Wizard Spellcasting Feat are PITIFUL compared to the PF1 Eldritch Knight. You get ONE spell per day per spell level and you know TWO spells per spell level, vs having 4+ spells per day per level in PF1 and DOZENS of known spells.

A Fighter 4/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10 in PF1 beats the pants off of a Fighter 20 with 4 Wizard Feats in PF2.

The PF2 build has 12ish more HP, 3ish more BAB, and probably a better Fort Save. (Assuming we equate "Full BAB" to "Legendary with weapons" and "Good Fort Save" with whatever PF2 does.)

The PF1 build has MUCH better spellcasting, which is where the real power comes from.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
2) The new multiclass system costs Class Feats, which are what give you class features. Since you only get Class Feats at every other level, you're losing EIGHT levels of fighter for your wizard stuff, not 4. (You get to keep fighter HP and proficiency progressions, but that's about it.)

I know this much is incorrect, since class *Features* are granted on odd levels and class *Feats* are granted on even levels (plus 1st for martials). So a Rogue who multiclasses as much as possible has a full progression sneak attack, a Cleric who multiclasses as much as possible has a full progression channel and spellcasting. By spending feats, you're choosing to take stuff like "spells" instead of "Sudden Charge" or "Power Attack" or that thing that lets you suplex dragons.

I figure though that Fighter feature where you gain a new class feat for 24 hours every day is going to be super nifty if you're MCing a lot.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:


The PF2 build has 12ish more HP, 3ish more BAB, and probably a better Fort Save. (Assuming we equate "Full BAB" to "Legendary with weapons" and "Good Fort Save" with whatever PF2 does.)

A lot more than 12ish hit points (PF2 doesn't roll hp). The PF2 version would have 200 before race, Con, magical adjustments, and feats like toughness (and feats that also stack with toughness, which we know exist). The PF1 version would have 10+ 16.5 (3 more fighter levels)+ 15 (6 wizard levels) + 55 (10 EK levels), so an average of 92 before adjustments for Con and etc.

Quote:


A Fighter 4/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10 in PF1 beats the pants off of a Fighter 20 with 4 Wizard Feats in PF2.

Yep. Now flip it around, and take a wizard with 4 fighter feats. Full spellcasting, any armor they like (which doesn't interfere with casting), martial weapons, slight shift in saving throws. 80 less HP than the fighter, but still almost 30 more than the PF1 F/W/EK (120). Plus whatever choice fighter feats they want to pick up. Now the PF2 multiclass character beats the pants off the PF1 character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The new multiclassing rules are the one thing I am worried about with the new version of Pathfinder.

My group switched to Pathfinder after trying 4e. One of the main reasons was the 4e multiclassing rules.

Our favorite campaigns in 3.0/3.5 relied on the multiclassing rules as the main hook. One example was a campaign where the players started as commoners and then moved into the standard classes after after a few levels. That sort of thing is something that just wasn't possible in 4e.

The proposed system also takes away the ability to change your characters direction after a few levels. Yes, you could just roll a new character and retire the old, but at least in my group, people wanted to keep the character they started with. You really have to know what you want to be at character creation.

If PF2 is moving to a multiclass system similiar to 4e, there is a good chance my group would seriously consider switching to 5e.


Personally, I hope the addition of Cleric Devotion allows people to make Pseudo Paladins to fill the slot for those who wanted Holy Warriors, but couldn't do LG.

I'm curious about the potential for a Rogue Cleric Devotion of Cayden.

Also I'm wondering if Rogue Fighter Devotion does a decent Swashbuckler.

I kind of hope that the debotions stay Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue. Those are the core 4 after all.

As much as a Paladin Sorcerer (Heavenly) Devotion is interesting, I like the idea of giving that to the core 4.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no Core 4 in Pathfinder. There is a Core 4 in D&D, which Paizo owes nothing to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
He is right though, this thread reads partially like people want to misunderstand what mark stated.

I disagree. As fast moving as the thread was, I had a page go by between starting and finishing a post. As such, it seems a bit much to think people were railing against what Mark said when you can't be sure that they in fact DID. You can't claim "clarified over and over" when you don't know if the person saw those clarifications. You don't get the full picture of you just use the hindsight view of the thread after the fact instead of taking the situation at the time of posting into account.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Personally, I hope the addition of Cleric Devotion allows people to make Pseudo Paladins to fill the slot for those who wanted Holy Warriors, but couldn't do LG.

Why would it? Paladins aren't spellcasters, so faking a paladin certainly won't work by taking the cleric dedication (which probably mirrors the wizard one and grants cantrips, then later feats get more spellcasting and a seperate feat grants channel rather than school powers.

It isn't any more or less paladiny than taking an Abyssal Sorcerer Paladin and chowing down on people for temp HP. Still get divine spells, after all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Personally, I hope the addition of Cleric Devotion allows people to make Pseudo Paladins to fill the slot for those who wanted Holy Warriors, but couldn't do LG.

Why would it? Paladins aren't spellcasters, so faking a paladin certainly won't work by taking the cleric dedication (which probably mirrors the wizard one and grants cantrips, then later feats get more spellcasting and a seperate feat grants channel rather than school powers.

It isn't any more or less paladiny than taking an Abyssal Sorcerer Paladin and chowing down on people for temp HP. Still get divine spells, after all.

Paladins get spell points to heal and smite so it's kind of spell casting. If your fighter multiclased cleric and focused on domain feats which are power point based instead of spell slots it would be pretty paladin esk.


Bardarok wrote:
Voss wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Personally, I hope the addition of Cleric Devotion allows people to make Pseudo Paladins to fill the slot for those who wanted Holy Warriors, but couldn't do LG.

Why would it? Paladins aren't spellcasters, so faking a paladin certainly won't work by taking the cleric dedication (which probably mirrors the wizard one and grants cantrips, then later feats get more spellcasting and a seperate feat grants channel rather than school powers.

It isn't any more or less paladiny than taking an Abyssal Sorcerer Paladin and chowing down on people for temp HP. Still get divine spells, after all.

Paladins get spell points to heal and smite so it's kind of spell casting. If your fighter multiclased cleric and focused on domain feats which are power point based instead of spell slots it would be pretty paladin esk.

Yep. If the only real difference is spell points vs spell slots, that's darn close. Heck, for some people that WANT a paladin with actual casting, it's more like what they think of as a paladin than the actual one.


Paladins aren't wisdom-based.


Well yah it's a pseudo paladin not a paladin. Of course if we start discussing what is and isn't a paladin this will turn into a paladin thread.

So lets say if you want a warrior who gets some magical powers from their god but is really primarily focused on the martial combat A fighter multi classed into cleric sounds like it might be a good way to accomplish that goal. Also if you are more interested in spell points than spell slots you can do that by taking the dedication (for cantrips but no slots) and then taking the cleric feats that give extra domains and advanced domain powers instead of the multiclass archetype feats that grant spell slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Paladins aren't wisdom-based.

I don't know that that matters much since we've been told a 10 casting stat was workable. It seems workable as a kludge until the sorcerer multiclass comes out that does have a Cha spell list.


graystone wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Voss wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Personally, I hope the addition of Cleric Devotion allows people to make Pseudo Paladins to fill the slot for those who wanted Holy Warriors, but couldn't do LG.

Why would it? Paladins aren't spellcasters, so faking a paladin certainly won't work by taking the cleric dedication (which probably mirrors the wizard one and grants cantrips, then later feats get more spellcasting and a seperate feat grants channel rather than school powers.

It isn't any more or less paladiny than taking an Abyssal Sorcerer Paladin and chowing down on people for temp HP. Still get divine spells, after all.

Paladins get spell points to heal and smite so it's kind of spell casting. If your fighter multiclased cleric and focused on domain feats which are power point based instead of spell slots it would be pretty paladin esk.
Yep. If the only real difference is spell points vs spell slots, that's darn close. Heck, for some people that WANT a paladin with actual casting, it's more like what they think of as a paladin than the actual one.

Or... you know... just going cleric. And maybe taking some fighter feats.

The domain powers we've seen so far aren't really conducive to being a paladin: gamble with saves, make alcohol, make art more better for a few minutes, limited use fire sling. Sharing saves sort of is, but 1 for 5 isn't a great record.

Quote:
I don't know that that matters much since we've been told a 10 casting stat was workable. It seems workable as a kludge until the sorcerer multiclass comes out that does have a Cha spell list.

We've seen a few indications it does. As a buffer it probably doesn't, but we can see it in Kyra, and Sae-Ray-Rae's Fire Ray power. Dex to hit and Wis to damage bonus.

So it definitely does for 'fake a smiting paladin through cleric domains' build.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes both ways would work one would have more spell options one would be better in melee. As to domain powers that's a fair point but Id expect the life, protection, glory and war domains to be a lot more paladiny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

• Wizards do not get as many spell now. They only get 3 spell of each level.
• You do not have to take more than the one feat unless you want another dedication feat.
• You only need to take three feats before moving to the next dedication feat.
• You do need four feats to get up to 8th level spells. That averages out to be two levels of spell per a feat.
• If you want more spells you can go with wizard and multi-class into the other class.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
There is no Core 4 in Pathfinder. There is a Core 4 in D&D, which Paizo owes nothing to.

The idea of the core four is present in many different media. It's not specific to D&D; it's not even specific to the tabletop.

It's a concept that is also present for a reason, as they together create a very simple balanced party that can cover most every important role.

It also allows Paizo to playtest several key areas of gameplay as they pertain specifically to archetypes. Martial Combat, Caster Combat, Skills and Healing. It helps that the Divine and Arcane spell lists together likely run the gamut of general spell interactions.

I'm addition, everyone is very familiar with those four classes in one form or another. Like it or not, they are the classic party and most people know how they generally interact in an rpg-like setting.

I'm not saying it's the best possible set of four they could have gone with, but it certainly is one of the best in my opinion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Paladins aren't wisdom-based.
I don't know that that matters much since we've been told a 10 casting stat was workable. It seems workable as a kludge until the sorcerer multiclass comes out that does have a Cha spell list.

The 10 casting stat isn't workable for the multi-class idea we're discussing. You're going to need 16 wisdom to take the cleric feats, remember?


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

Personally, I hope the addition of Cleric Devotion allows people to make Pseudo Paladins to fill the slot for those who wanted Holy Warriors, but couldn't do LG.

Nah, I'll just play a CG Paladin. The alignment system is meaningless as a mechanic anyways, no one will know the "LG" at the top of my sheet is a lie if I don't tell them.

It's funny, I hadn't yet decided what my fifth character class would be for doomsday dawn, but this post settled it.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Personally, I hope the addition of Cleric Devotion allows people to make Pseudo Paladins to fill the slot for those who wanted Holy Warriors, but couldn't do LG.

Why would it? Paladins aren't spellcasters, so faking a paladin certainly won't work by taking the cleric dedication (which probably mirrors the wizard one and grants cantrips, then later feats get more spellcasting and a seperate feat grants channel rather than school powers.

It isn't any more or less paladiny than taking an Abyssal Sorcerer Paladin and chowing down on people for temp HP. Still get divine spells, after all.

Abyssal Sorcerer/Paladin is probably a really flavorful combination to be honest will make after release.

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:

I'll also say, those ability score prerequisites could stand to be a lot lower - 12, 14 at the absolute highest. With ability score generation as it stands, you can't multiclass unless you built specifically for the class you're multiclassing into, and probably sacrificing a lot of your functionality to take any multiclass that you're not already perfectly suited to. No multiclassing based on in-game development, etc. :/

I'd hoped PF2 would be a little less "you have to plan out your build from level 1 if you want to be functional" than 3rd Edition/Pathfinder, and a bit more friendly to characters that grow organically. On the plus side, it shouldn't be too hard to make that happen. ^_^

Sudden follow-up thought. With ability score generation being entirely dependent on the ABCs, how many concepts are completely unattainable?

Let's take a gnome blacksmith fighter - gnomes love to dabble in many different interests. How many of her discretionary ability score bonuses have to be put in Intelligence for her to multiclass into wizard, or Wisdom for cleric? Not least the ancestral bonus that has to go into Strength to make her competent at fighting. And she had to make all of those choices just right at 1st level, or wait for an ability boost that comes every five levels and hope it's enough.

The more I look at this, the more constraining it gets. Pathfinder Second Edition was supposed to be all about flexibility and diversity of concept, with a overarching feats system that we were told would allow for greater character customization. Hopefully that same aim towards diversity of concept will be extended to include the multiclassing system in the final version... this version doesn't quite fit that vision.


Kalindlara wrote:


Let's take a gnome blacksmith fighter - gnomes love to dabble in many different interests. How many of her discretionary ability score bonuses have to be put in Intelligence for her to multiclass into wizard, or Wisdom for cleric? Not least the ancestral bonus that has to go into Strength to make her competent at fighting. And she had to make all of those choices just right at 1st level, or wait for an ability boost that comes every five levels and hope it's enough.

Let's actually do the test and find out.

Ancestry - -2 Str/+2 Str, +2 Con, +2 Cha
Background - +2 Str, +2 {Int/Wis}
Class - +2 Str (assumed)

So after ABC, we have 14 Str, 10 Dex, 12 Con, 12 Int or Wis, 12 Cha. The concept is available at level 5.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

While I like the system overall, I do hope that the multiclassing requirements are relaxed a bit. The dedication feat requirements make it so that dipping into more than a single class is impossible, either way, which I think is probably restriction enough.

As it stands here, if you want a fighter that happens to have buffing cleric spells, it might be more economical to go 10 Wisdom Cleric and dump all feats into Fighter MC than it is to go Fighter and be forced to meet these ability score requirements.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Moro wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Well I think this kills doing BOTH at the same time.

True. I don't see being able to build a classic Half-Elven Fighter/Mage/Thief or Fighter/Mage/Cleric with this, at least not easily or being able to function as this across the level spectrum.

But I am willing to try the system as a whole and see how it works out.

Really interested to see how I could build some sort of Arcane Archer with this, especially with the new casting and action economy mechanics.

I... I... I hadn't even thought of Arcane Archer yet. Oh. Boy. I have my second character concept now. Thank you very much. :)

I mean you can build an Archer that uses spells or a Wizard that's good with a bow.

But as of right now, I don't see how you can make an Actual Arcane Archer.

It may be a very simple matter of a feat that adds a spellstrike type ability. This would work with a Fighter + Wizard-archetype to essentially make a magus, or arcane archer. For all we know, this 'spellstrike' feat may very well be in the playtest document we get in a few days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:

While I like the system overall, I do hope that the multiclassing requirements are relaxed a bit. The dedication feat requirements make it so that dipping into more than a single class is impossible, either way, which I think is probably restriction enough.

As it stands here, if you want a fighter that happens to have buffing cleric spells, it might be more economical to go 10 Wisdom Cleric and dump all feats into Fighter MC than it is to go Fighter and be forced to meet these ability score requirements.

The deddication feat themselves are not 'losses'. As far as I can tell, the dedication feat alone adds quite a lot to a character. For starters, cantrips are incredibly useful in the new system with the way they scale. It was already mentioned that the fighter dedication grants martial proficiency and all three armor proficiencies. Each of those things are pretty impressive in a single feat, even if you never take any other 'archetype' feats beyond just the dedication. Assuming Cleric and Rogue are equally useful, I am really excited about the opportunities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, wasn't the Battle Oracle revelation in PF1 which granted proficiency in martial weapons and heavy armor considered a strong choice for oracles in PF1?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
graystone wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Paladins aren't wisdom-based.
I don't know that that matters much since we've been told a 10 casting stat was workable. It seems workable as a kludge until the sorcerer multiclass comes out that does have a Cha spell list.
The 10 casting stat isn't workable for the multi-class idea we're discussing. You're going to need 16 wisdom to take the cleric feats, remember?

Yep, I'd forgot: most likely because of how little sense it makes to me my mind wants to reject the notion entirely. I can be an 8 int wizard from 1 to 20 but to babble in it I need twice that... I failed my will save... Critically...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:

I am fully willing to admit that PF1/3.x MC is deeply flawed and frequently frustrating. I still love it though. I absolutely hated VMC and the original 4e style of MC (though I'll admit I never actually played 4e, just reading the core book was enough for me to abandon the edition.)

PF2 MC does look a lot like both VMC and 4e style, though with some significant improvements. Both of those systems felt largely meaningless to me. In the VMC's case, it was often more like a straight downgrade. This at least feels like your character actually somewhat becomes a member of the target class.

This looks to fix some of the problems of the PF1 style but it also adds a lot of new ones. I particularly dislike that it interferes with archetypes. Though in fairness, I think that moreso speaks to the new version of archetypes being a problem than the new version of MC. I really think that any version of archetypes that doesn't allow you to be your chosen archetype at lvl 1 is not succeeding at its job. That was one of the best parts of the PF1 version of archetypes after all. If you also can't simultaneously have an archetype and MC, that's also an issue to me.
Archetypes in PF1 were modifiers you put on a class. So you weren't for example, being a Pirate and a Rogue simultaneously, you were a Rogue whose chosen lifestyle had a significant impact on his style of being a Rogue. It made the Rogue class different, it didn't prevent the Rogue from choosing a new direction in his life later and becoming a Wizard. And for that matter if he happened upon the right wizard tutor, he might even have a Wizard archetype right out the gate as soon as he got his first level of Wizard. That was flavorful, thematic, and made sense. I don't get that feel at all from this version.

I'm willing to give it a chance, but MC is super important to me. A very large percentage of my characters multi-class. Less so in PF1 than in 3.5, since archetypes make it easier to attain thematic aspects without having to leave the original class,...

Frankly, i just don't think you will see as much archetype play as in pf1e. In 1e, archetypes were required to get the class to be custimized the way you want - that's not the case in pf2e. The class can already be tweaked quite a bit just with the class feat selection, so taking archetypes is not really necessary for a lot of concepts that used to depend on them. Because of this, I don't see it as a real 'conflict' problem between multiclass and general archetypes.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, wasn't the Battle Oracle revelation in PF1 which granted proficiency in martial weapons and heavy armor considered a strong choice for oracles in PF1?

It was nice but out of a dozen oracles I've made I can't recall ever taking it: It's really only amazing on a 1 level dip on a martial that doesn't care about Cha much.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:


Let's take a gnome blacksmith fighter - gnomes love to dabble in many different interests. How many of her discretionary ability score bonuses have to be put in Intelligence for her to multiclass into wizard, or Wisdom for cleric? Not least the ancestral bonus that has to go into Strength to make her competent at fighting. And she had to make all of those choices just right at 1st level, or wait for an ability boost that comes every five levels and hope it's enough.

Let's actually do the test and find out.

Ancestry - -2 Str/+2 Str, +2 Con, +2 Cha
Background - +2 Str, +2 {Int/Wis}
Class - +2 Str (assumed)

So after ABC, we have 14 Str, 10 Dex, 12 Con, 12 Int or Wis, 12 Cha. The concept is available at level 5.

Can you really get +4 to an ability score at 5th level? (16 is still the printed target number, after all.)

And this still requires forethought and at-creation character design. Even if you're going in planning for it, it's something you can't do until 6th level at the earliest... for many campaigns, that's a huge chunk of time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:


Let's take a gnome blacksmith fighter - gnomes love to dabble in many different interests. How many of her discretionary ability score bonuses have to be put in Intelligence for her to multiclass into wizard, or Wisdom for cleric? Not least the ancestral bonus that has to go into Strength to make her competent at fighting. And she had to make all of those choices just right at 1st level, or wait for an ability boost that comes every five levels and hope it's enough.

Let's actually do the test and find out.

Ancestry - -2 Str/+2 Str, +2 Con, +2 Cha
Background - +2 Str, +2 {Int/Wis}
Class - +2 Str (assumed)

So after ABC, we have 14 Str, 10 Dex, 12 Con, 12 Int or Wis, 12 Cha. The concept is available at level 5.

Can you really get +4 to an ability score at 5th level? (16 is still the printed target number, after all.)

And this still requires forethought and at-creation character design. Even if you're going in planning for it, it's something you can't do until 6th level at the earliest... for many campaigns, that's a huge chunk of time.

The numbers Cyoni included didn't add the 4 attributes that get +2, so I think that's what they were getting at.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Hm. Do you get four discretionary +2s at first level? That'd definitely soften my feelings about lack of ability score customization.


I think that Fighter dipping into Wizard gets more out if it than Wizard dipping into Fighter would. The main reason for this is the untrained/trained/Expert/Master/Legend scaling system.

In other words, a fighter who picks up scaling cantrips is going to be better off than a wizard who gets weapon proficiency that doesn't scale. If the wizard wants to be as good at fighting in melee as the fighter, he will need to dump all his feats into weapon proficiency, which might leave him weak in armor. If he picks up armor too, then he's weak in spellcasting.

By contrast, the fighter gets a magical spell that is always on - level and doesn't expend resources to use. The most powerful cantrips for a fighter are probably going to be utility cantrips, since they are already pretty good at killing things. Scaling debuffs are probably also a good choice.

I'm imagining a rogue that's got Detect Magic and some form of invisibility... that sounds frightening.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Hm. Do you get four discretionary +2s at first level? That'd definitely soften my feelings about lack of ability score customization.

You do. It's been proven definitively and stated officially.

You need that fourth step in order to start with an 18, which you can (though only in your Class's primary stat).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
DFAnton wrote:

While I like the system overall, I do hope that the multiclassing requirements are relaxed a bit. The dedication feat requirements make it so that dipping into more than a single class is impossible, either way, which I think is probably restriction enough.

As it stands here, if you want a fighter that happens to have buffing cleric spells, it might be more economical to go 10 Wisdom Cleric and dump all feats into Fighter MC than it is to go Fighter and be forced to meet these ability score requirements.

The deddication feat themselves are not 'losses'. As far as I can tell, the dedication feat alone adds quite a lot to a character. For starters, cantrips are incredibly useful in the new system with the way they scale. It was already mentioned that the fighter dedication grants martial proficiency and all three armor proficiencies. Each of those things are pretty impressive in a single feat, even if you never take any other 'archetype' feats beyond just the dedication. Assuming Cleric and Rogue are equally useful, I am really excited about the opportunities.

I was referring to this:

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

You can only dip into a single class, because trying to dip into another class requires 3 feats in the first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Can you really get +4 to an ability score at 5th level? (16 is still the printed target number, after all.)

And this still requires forethought and at-creation character design. Even if you're going in planning for it, it's something you can't do until 6th level at the earliest... for many campaigns, that's a huge chunk of time.

As noted, I didn't cover the four free +2s that you get at 1st and every 5th level.

Though that is accurate, I think this is also one of the more difficult-to-achieve multiclass examples, only matched by one where you want to multiclass into, say, cleric as a goblin.

601 to 650 of 1,191 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Multiclassing and Archetypes All Messageboards