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
751 to 800 of 1,191 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

With archetypes being what they are, it looks really easy never to put another class feat into your starting class, since that is where the vast majority of where the new systems class power comes from, I think there is going to be a lot of room for exploring different options. It is probably best not to burn the barn just yet because the terminology has changed and things may look a little different.

The Rogue with the wizard MC and a sailor background is going to be a much more powerful character in this system than the PF1 Rogue (pirate) x / wizard y combo.

The real issue that multi-class archetypes expose about the class-less archetype feats, is that those feats don't have any scaling abilities, and are going to be vastly inferior options to multi-classing if you can afford the attribute requirements.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
A Ninja Errant wrote:

Everybody is getting hung up on Pirate. Pirate just gets used as an example because it's the one basic archetype they previewed. Being able to do basic pirate-y stuff without having to take pirate archetype doesn't change the argument, it just obscures it.

Quite frankly, I could probably make a hundred characters and never actually feel the need to take the pirate archetype, even if I was making an actual literal pirate. That's mostly because the pirate archetype looks pretty weak though. That doesn't change the fact that not having the capability to have an archetype and a multiclass simultaneously is a problem that needs to be addressed.
EDIT: Or that not being able to have an archetype from level 1 is also an issue that should be addressed.

Why do you believe it is a problem? Archetypes (Multiclass included) represent a character dedicating themselves to some area of expertise they didn’t have before. It is a growth option, not a background/level 1 starting option.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I applaud the attempt at something different, but multiclassing and archetypes are not the same thing. They may look similar, the difference is thematic as much as mechanical.
Archetypes should work with multiclassing, thats what makes PF1 work so well, but don't start limiting one or the other.

I just want the playtest book to get here already, I'm tired of the mixed reaction I'm having to these blogs.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:

Everybody is getting hung up on Pirate. Pirate just gets used as an example because it's the one basic archetype they previewed. Being able to do basic pirate-y stuff without having to take pirate archetype doesn't change the argument, it just obscures it.

Quite frankly, I could probably make a hundred characters and never actually feel the need to take the pirate archetype, even if I was making an actual literal pirate. That's mostly because the pirate archetype looks pretty weak though. That doesn't change the fact that not having the capability to have an archetype and a multiclass simultaneously is a problem that needs to be addressed.
EDIT: Or that not being able to have an archetype from level 1 is also an issue that should be addressed.
Why do you believe it is a problem? Archetypes (Multiclass included) represent a character dedicating themselves to some area of expertise they didn’t have before. It is a growth option, not a background/level 1 starting option.

So what has changed that we've gone from prestige classes being terrible design that Paizo refused to publish more than a handful of them over 10 years and focused on Archetypes with the stated goal of "You can be your character from level 1" that now "it is a growth option!" and not being able to get there until level 8 or later is genuis design?

Which is it-- is PF2 poorly designed, or were the PF1 designers awful and we've been playing a terrible game for 10 years because we were allowed to be what we wanted to be from level 1?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
This still amounts to "No- you are not allowed to play a Rogue (pirate)/Wizard".

Some rhetorical questions:

Can you multiclass three ways (Rogue/'Pirate'/Wizard) at 2nd level in PF1? No.
Could you combine PF1 Archetypes that both traded your 2nd level Rogue Talent? No.
Didn't Inner Sea Pirate require you be like... 6th level (like every other prestige class)? Dunno, too lazy to check myself.
Regardless, why are you suprised you can't do those things in PF2 either?

As a Rogue, the earlest we can archetype is 2nd level (as pirate or wizard), and I don't think a Human's Natural Ambition can be used to accelerate it so the next opportunity is 8th.

On the other hand, a Human Sailor Rogue (+Wizard) is doable at 2nd level, and would be pretty darn piratey, as well as dabble in magic. Likewise a Human Sailor* Wizard (+Pirate), would make for an execellent ship's magister who could still sail, get around the boat, and defend it physically if necessary.
*I am assuming the wizard would also need the background benefits of Sailor to qualify for Pirate ASAP.

Edit: Perhaps the problem is expecting 1st level characters to be competent. I reserve 1st level for teenagers and the comedically inept, and typically start my campaigns at 2nd level.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

What I don’t understand is why it’s so important to so many folks to have an archetype, seemingly just to have it. In my view, the point of Archetypes is to allow you to further customize your character by trading in base class abilities for some other abilities. But, like, you can just do that without an Archetype now. Every class has that modularity already built in, and Archetype is now ultimately just a keyword meaning “Class Feat any Class can take.” Whether the example is Pirate, or Samurai, or Gladiator, or whatever else, you don’t need the Archetype of the same name to express that concept. The only reason to dedicate Class Feats to an Archetype is if that Archetype’s Feats better suit the character you want to play than your base Class Feats.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:

Everybody is getting hung up on Pirate. Pirate just gets used as an example because it's the one basic archetype they previewed. Being able to do basic pirate-y stuff without having to take pirate archetype doesn't change the argument, it just obscures it.

Quite frankly, I could probably make a hundred characters and never actually feel the need to take the pirate archetype, even if I was making an actual literal pirate. That's mostly because the pirate archetype looks pretty weak though. That doesn't change the fact that not having the capability to have an archetype and a multiclass simultaneously is a problem that needs to be addressed.
EDIT: Or that not being able to have an archetype from level 1 is also an issue that should be addressed.
Why do you believe it is a problem? Archetypes (Multiclass included) represent a character dedicating themselves to some area of expertise they didn’t have before. It is a growth option, not a background/level 1 starting option.

So what has changed that we've gone from prestige classes being terrible design that Paizo refused to publish more than a handful of them over 10 years and focused on Archetypes with the stated goal of "You can be your character from level 1" that now "it is a growth option!" and not being able to get there until level 8 or later is genuis design?

Which is it-- is PF2 poorly designed, or were the PF1 designers awful and we've been playing a terrible game for 10 years because we were allowed to be what we wanted to be from level 1?

You can play your character from level 2, same as any other Multiclass concept.


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


Keep following the logic-- do I need an archetype to be a Hellknight or does it just make me a better Hellknight?

I used Pirate as the example because Pirate is the example we have, but there are going to be plenty of times where...

Different goalposts. A pirate is generic, while a Hellknight a specific in world faction.

You don't need a Knight archetype to be a knight. Be a fighter, Put on some heavy armor, wield a sword and slay dragons. The Knight Archetype may or may not help you be better, but you could make one as a vanilla fighter.


Some archetypes from PF1 don't make sense except as something built into your backstory, but some archetypes don't really make sense as something you *can* be at level 1. Like a level 1 monk is not a Drunken Master- they're not a master of anything!

Regarding the pirate dedication requiring you to wait to level 2, I'm reminded of Skull and Shackles where you start out press-ganged with minimal sailing skills and aren't in a meaningful sense "pirates" until close to the end of book 1. I think this sort of thing works, so I'm curious to see how it plays out.


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

Everybody is getting hung up on Pirate. Pirate just gets used as an example because it's the one basic archetype they previewed. Being able to do basic pirate-y stuff without having to take pirate archetype doesn't change the argument, it just obscures it.

Quite frankly, I could probably make a hundred characters and never actually feel the need to take the pirate archetype, even if I was making an actual literal pirate. That's mostly because the pirate archetype looks pretty weak though. That doesn't change the fact that not having the capability to have an archetype and a multiclass simultaneously is a problem that needs to be addressed.
EDIT: Or that not being able to have an archetype from level 1 is also an issue that should be addressed.
Why do you believe it is a problem? Archetypes (Multiclass included) represent a character dedicating themselves to some area of expertise they didn’t have before. It is a growth option, not a background/level 1 starting option.

I disagree with that definition. Sure that's how they're trying to re-define them in PF2, but in PF1 archetypes were background as well as growth. They often helped define where your character came from as a member of his class. They reshaped his abilities from the ground up. That was why I liked them, because they let you play the character concept you wanted, right out of the gate.

The PF2 version just feels very lackluster, because it doesn't do any of those things. And now we find out that in addition to all the stuff they no longer do, they have to compete directly with multi-classing? Yeah, that's a problem for me. Because now if I want to play a specific concept I could very easily have to wait til level 14 for my character to be able to be what I envision him as, that would have been attainable at level 2 in PF1. That's a downgrade, not an upgrade.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
This still amounts to "No- you are not allowed to play a Rogue (pirate)/Wizard".

Some rhetorical questions:

Can you multiclass three ways (Rogue/'Pirate'/Wizard) at 2nd level in PF1? No.
Could you combine PF1 Archetypes that both traded your 2nd level Rogue Talent? No.
Didn't Inner Sea Pirate require you be like... 6th level (like every other prestige class)? Dunno, too lazy to check myself.
Regardless, why are you suprised you can't do those things in PF2 either?

As a Rogue, the earlest we can archetype is 2nd level (as pirate or wizard), and I don't think a Human's Natural Ambition can be used to accelerate it so the next opportunity is 8th.

On the other hand, a Human Sailor Rogue (+Wizard) is doable at 2nd level, and would be pretty darn piratey, as well as dabble in magic. Likewise a Human Sailor* Wizard (+Pirate), would make for an execellent ship's magister who could still sail, get around the boat, and defend it physically if necessary.
*I am assuming the wizard would also need the background benefits of Sailor to qualify for Pirate ASAP.

Edit: Perhaps the problem is expecting 1st level characters to be competent. I reserve 1st level for teenagers and the comedically inept, and typically start my campaigns at 2nd level.

In PF 1 the Pirate archetype gave Sea Legs as a bonus feat at 1st level (otherwise required 5 ranks in Profession sailor), and at level 2 gave Swinging Reposition which is an ability that isn't particularly duplicated elsewhere to my knowledge.

So, yes, you could take Level 1 Rogue (Pirate), level 2 Wizard and be that 3 part combination right away, then level 3 in Rogue (2nd level Rogue- Pirate) and have the core ability that the Pirate wants to get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:

Everybody is getting hung up on Pirate. Pirate just gets used as an example because it's the one basic archetype they previewed. Being able to do basic pirate-y stuff without having to take pirate archetype doesn't change the argument, it just obscures it.

Quite frankly, I could probably make a hundred characters and never actually feel the need to take the pirate archetype, even if I was making an actual literal pirate. That's mostly because the pirate archetype looks pretty weak though. That doesn't change the fact that not having the capability to have an archetype and a multiclass simultaneously is a problem that needs to be addressed.
EDIT: Or that not being able to have an archetype from level 1 is also an issue that should be addressed.
Why do you believe it is a problem? Archetypes (Multiclass included) represent a character dedicating themselves to some area of expertise they didn’t have before. It is a growth option, not a background/level 1 starting option.

I disagree with that definition. Sure that's how they're trying to re-define them in PF2, but in PF1 archetypes were background as well as growth. They often helped define where your character came from as a member of his class. They reshaped his abilities from the ground up. That was why I liked them, because they let you play the character concept you wanted, right out of the gate.

The PF2 version just feels very lackluster, because it doesn't do any of those things. And now we find out that in addition to all the stuff they no longer do, they have to compete directly with multi-classing? Yeah, that's a problem for me. Because now if I want to play a specific concept I could very easily have to wait til level 14 for my character to be able to be what I envision him as, that would have been attainable at level 2 in PF1. That's a downgrade, not an upgrade.

Can you give us an idea of a "Concept" that you really want to play? It may be the case that that concept isn't possible from the playtest, since we will have limited options here, but it is also possible that a lot of our character narrative concepts are more possible in this system then they were in PF1 but we are too accustom to thinking they need to be class/class/class to fit that concept, rather than needing X,Y and Z ability.

Afterall, any multi-classing concept that included casting spells well, probably didn't work out as well in practice as it did in concept either. (Due to low DCs, limited caster level and lack of access to powerful spells.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Some archetypes from PF1 don't make sense except as something built into your backstory, but some archetypes don't really make sense as something you *can* be at level 1. Like a level 1 monk is not a Drunken Master- they're not a master of anything!

Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Some archetypes from PF1 don't make sense except as something built into your backstory, but some archetypes don't really make sense as something you *can* be at level 1. Like a level 1 monk is not a Drunken Master- they're not a master of anything!
Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?

And a drunken style feat for every level of monk that gets class feats could represent this entire character concept without requiring an archetype.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Some archetypes from PF1 don't make sense except as something built into your backstory, but some archetypes don't really make sense as something you *can* be at level 1. Like a level 1 monk is not a Drunken Master- they're not a master of anything!
Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?
And a drunken style feat for every level of monk that gets class feats could represent this entire character concept without requiring an archetype.

But since something as bland as "pirate" is now an archetype, I cannot imagine that they print a "drunken style" feat that doesn't require "Drunken Master Dedication" as an archetype.


Unicore wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:


I disagree with that definition. Sure that's how they're trying to re-define them in PF2, but in PF1 archetypes were background as well as growth. They often helped define where your character came from as a member of his class. They reshaped his abilities from the ground up. That was why I liked them, because they let you play the character concept you wanted, right out of the gate.
The PF2 version just feels very lackluster, because it doesn't do any of those things. And now we find out that in addition to all the stuff they no longer do, they have to compete directly with multi-classing? Yeah, that's a problem for me. Because now if I want to play a specific concept I could very easily have to wait til level 14 for my character to be able to be what I envision him as, that would have been attainable at level 2 in PF1. That's a downgrade, not an upgrade.

Can you give us an idea of a "Concept" that you really want to play? It may be the case that that concept isn't possible from the playtest, since we will have limited options here, but it is also possible that a lot of our character narrative concepts are more possible in this system then they were in PF1 but we are too accustom to thinking they need to be class/class/class to fit that concept, rather than needing X,Y and Z ability.

Afterall, any multi-classing concept that included casting spells well, probably didn't work out as well in practice as it did in concept either. (Due to low DCs, limited caster level and lack of access to powerful spells.)

I'll certainly grant that power-wise PF1 multi-classing had serious issues when it came to spellcasting. And as I said in my original post, I am willing to give this a fair chance in playtest. That said, how about my earlier example of a Zen Archer Monk/Sniper Rogue? Even if we assume sniper is unnecessary, that's still a concept that can't even get going until level 8, and you don't even get any archery proficiency (assuming you primary Monk) until 2nd level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I called the developers out on posting "pirate" as an archetype example, because it felt like we were being trolled. They admitted it was not the best choice for the sake of getting a lot of play test data, but they did it because they felt like it was a very contained idea that could easily be examined for fufilling its niche. Remember this is a playtest not the final product. They are trying to get a sense of how this stuff works and how it could work better.

Maybe pushing a lot of archetypes that don't really need 3-5 feats to pull off should be just class feat options instead of full archetypes.

Maybe the class-less archetype is a poor excuse for the multi-classing archetypes, and we push for more "alternative-class" concepts instead of general archetypes?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:
Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?

I feel like it's fine if a level 1 monk hasn't necessarily learned anything from the styles you don't traditionally teach initiates, their training mostly being in terms of "how to breathe correctly" and then mastering more things as they level.

Or for another PF1 example of a monk archetype that doesn't make sense as a level 1 option- how much good advice does a level 1 sensei really have to give, really?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:
Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?

I feel like it's fine if a level 1 monk hasn't necessarily learned anything from the styles you don't traditionally teach initiates, their training mostly being in terms of "how to breathe correctly" and then mastering more things as they level.

Or for another PF1 example of a monk archetype that doesn't make sense as a level 1 option- how much good advice does a level 1 sensei really have to give, really?

lol, I'll grant that one. That always felt like an odd duck of an archetype really.

But also bear in mind a PF1 level 1 monk is pretty much above black belt level by real world standards. His fists are already lethal weapons after all, and he has no problems going to toe to toe unarmed against somebody with a sword.


Nathanael Love wrote:

In PF 1 the Pirate archetype gave Sea Legs as a bonus feat at 1st level (otherwise required 5 ranks in Profession sailor), and at level 2 gave Swinging Reposition which is an ability that isn't particularly duplicated elsewhere to my knowledge.

So, yes, you could take Level 1 Rogue (Pirate), level 2 Wizard and be that 3 part combination right away, then level 3 in Rogue (2nd level Rogue- Pirate) and have the core ability that the Pirate wants to get.

You misunderstand the point, and responded with a non-sequiter.

To rephrase: You cannot 'tri-class' Rogue/Expert/Wizard at 2nd level. This is equivalent to that.

Taking "Pirate Dedication" or any other archetype is functionally equivalent to taking class-levels in a non-prestige, non-base class in PF1... except without all the horrible, character-destroying penalties.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

In PF 1 the Pirate archetype gave Sea Legs as a bonus feat at 1st level (otherwise required 5 ranks in Profession sailor), and at level 2 gave Swinging Reposition which is an ability that isn't particularly duplicated elsewhere to my knowledge.

So, yes, you could take Level 1 Rogue (Pirate), level 2 Wizard and be that 3 part combination right away, then level 3 in Rogue (2nd level Rogue- Pirate) and have the core ability that the Pirate wants to get.

You misunderstand the point, and responded with a non-sequiter.

To rephrase: You cannot 'tri-class' Rogue/Expert/Wizard at 2nd level. This is equivalent to that.

Taking "Pirate Dedication" or any other archetype is functionally equivalent to taking class-levels in a non-prestige, non-base class in PF1... except without all the horrible, character-destroying penalties.

PF1 archetypes seem largely implemented in PF2 class options. PF2 archetypes seem more like multclassing into Expert(pirate). And really, thinking about it that way makes me feel a bit better about PF2 archetypes.


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

In PF 1 the Pirate archetype gave Sea Legs as a bonus feat at 1st level (otherwise required 5 ranks in Profession sailor), and at level 2 gave Swinging Reposition which is an ability that isn't particularly duplicated elsewhere to my knowledge.

So, yes, you could take Level 1 Rogue (Pirate), level 2 Wizard and be that 3 part combination right away, then level 3 in Rogue (2nd level Rogue- Pirate) and have the core ability that the Pirate wants to get.

You misunderstand the point, and responded with a non-sequiter.

To rephrase: You cannot 'tri-class' Rogue/Expert/Wizard at 2nd level. This is equivalent to that.

No, but you can at level 3. This system raises that bar to 8.

Cantriped wrote:
Taking "Pirate Dedication" or any other archetype is functionally equivalent to taking class-levels in a non-prestige, non-base class in PF1... except without all the horrible, character-destroying penalties.

You mean other than losing out on class feats and being locked out of multiclassing for the next 6 levels?

KingOfAnything wrote:
PF1 archetypes seem largely implemented in PF2 class options. PF2 archetypes seem more like multclassing into Expert(pirate). And really, thinking about it that way makes me feel a bit better about PF2 archetypes.

Really? Because any choice where the best comparison is that you're multiclassing to an NPC class, and locked into it for 6 levels, sounds like a bad option to me...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

In PF 1 the Pirate archetype gave Sea Legs as a bonus feat at 1st level (otherwise required 5 ranks in Profession sailor), and at level 2 gave Swinging Reposition which is an ability that isn't particularly duplicated elsewhere to my knowledge.

So, yes, you could take Level 1 Rogue (Pirate), level 2 Wizard and be that 3 part combination right away, then level 3 in Rogue (2nd level Rogue- Pirate) and have the core ability that the Pirate wants to get.

You misunderstand the point, and responded with a non-sequiter.

To rephrase: You cannot 'tri-class' Rogue/Expert/Wizard at 2nd level. This is equivalent to that.

Taking "Pirate Dedication" or any other archetype is functionally equivalent to taking class-levels in a non-prestige, non-base class in PF1... except without all the horrible, character-destroying penalties.

So, we don't really have "classless archetypes"- we have "multiclassing into classes that don't exist"?

Or is it that we don't have multiclassing at all?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They've said that the reason they didn't include class specific archetypes in the playtest is they already know how they work (from PF1, so presumably they'll only replace class features and nit eat class feats.), where as the archetypes in the playtest will only be general ones that anyone can take.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

In PF 1 the Pirate archetype gave Sea Legs as a bonus feat at 1st level (otherwise required 5 ranks in Profession sailor), and at level 2 gave Swinging Reposition which is an ability that isn't particularly duplicated elsewhere to my knowledge.

So, yes, you could take Level 1 Rogue (Pirate), level 2 Wizard and be that 3 part combination right away, then level 3 in Rogue (2nd level Rogue- Pirate) and have the core ability that the Pirate wants to get.

You misunderstand the point, and responded with a non-sequiter.

To rephrase: You cannot 'tri-class' Rogue/Expert/Wizard at 2nd level. This is equivalent to that.

Taking "Pirate Dedication" or any other archetype is functionally equivalent to taking class-levels in a non-prestige, non-base class in PF1... except without all the horrible, character-destroying penalties.

So, we don't really have "classless archetypes"- we have "multiclassing into classes that don't exist"?

Or is it that we don't have multiclassing at all?

By strict definitions we don't have multiclassing at all, since taking the feats doesn't actually make you the class, it just gives you some of its abilities. Which is one of the things I dislike about feat based multiclassing. But I can live with that if the feats are flexible enough that there's no class features you absolutely can't get through them.


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

So, we don't really have "classless archetypes"- we have "multiclassing into classes that don't exist"?

Or is it that we don't have multiclassing at all?

The latter. There is no multiclassing really, because an alternative system subsumed all of its legitimate roles. However the alternative looks far better at doing its job than multiclassing ever was... unless you were just doing it to powergame.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

So, we don't really have "classless archetypes"- we have "multiclassing into classes that don't exist"?

Or is it that we don't have multiclassing at all?

The latter. There is no multiclassing really, because an alternative system subsumed all of its legitimate roles. However the alternative looks far better at doing its job than multiclassing ever was... unless you were just doing it to powergame.

Right, so I guess I've just been having BADWRONGFUN all along and didn't realize there were only a thin sliver of "legitimate" uses for multiclassing.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
rooneg wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Also it seems to pigeonhole the role of stats for classes : want to be a part-Fighter, get high STR. But what about a DEX-based character then ? Why restrict them from gaining Fighter goodies that apparently do not depend on high STR ?
Has anything explicitly said the Fighter Dedication feat will require 16 STR? I sort of assume that Fighters would be picking either STR or DEX.

I think it was not mentioned either way. I guess the DEX to damage debate is getting under my skin.

Also I would see a nice symmetry in having the requirements be

INT 16 for Wizard MC
WIS 16 for Cleric MC
DEX 16 for Rogue MC
STR 16 for Fighter MC

Given that you can't actually change class and thus things like number of hit points per level, I would actually argue that the requirements for the multiclass dedication feats should not have that sort of symmetry. A fighter taking wizard MC is far more durable than a wizard taking fighter MC, for example, so the latter should be far easier to qualify for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
The latter. There is no multiclassing really, because an alternative system subsumed all of its legitimate roles. However the alternative looks far better at doing its job than multiclassing ever was... unless you were just doing it to powergame.

Indeed, I had a number of build ideas in PF1 where I was left to consider "okay, what's the best 1-level dip for proficiencies and/or an extra BAB" and subsequently took a step back and realized "this isn't really the point of multiclassing, really, it's sort of exploitative" and scrapped the build entirely.

Only time I did actual take a 2-level detour in another class was to make a clearly suboptimal character concept actually function (2 levels of unarmed fighter let you have all the blind-fighting feats and the entire blinded blade style if you take the "you are blind" trait, but Unarmed Fighter is very weak on its own.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

So, we don't really have "classless archetypes"- we have "multiclassing into classes that don't exist"?

Or is it that we don't have multiclassing at all?

The latter. There is no multiclassing really, because an alternative system subsumed all of its legitimate roles. However the alternative looks far better at doing its job than multiclassing ever was... unless you were just doing it to powergame.

Or unless you have character ideas that require more than 1 multiclass and/or archetype. In which case this system pretty much fails immediately. Yeah, you can do it, but not until high level. Also I don't appreciate the argument that PF1 multiclassing is only useful for powergamers. Sometimes it's simply necessary to make an unusual concept work.

Oh, and do you really think a Sorcerer who spent all his class feats on multiclassing level 8 casting of both Wizard and Cleric spells isn't going to be an auto pick for any caster-type power gamers? It's pretty high on my list of things to try when I get to roll a higher level character.

Once they release the full version, you could even go Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard or Druid/Cleric/Bard to cut down on the MAD.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Unicore wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Some archetypes from PF1 don't make sense except as something built into your backstory, but some archetypes don't really make sense as something you *can* be at level 1. Like a level 1 monk is not a Drunken Master- they're not a master of anything!
Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?
And a drunken style feat for every level of monk that gets class feats could represent this entire character concept without requiring an archetype.
But since something as bland as "pirate" is now an archetype, I cannot imagine that they print a "drunken style" feat that doesn't require "Drunken Master Dedication" as an archetype.

I disagree. We’ve seen things as specific as Crane Stance expresses as Monk Feats in the previews, so I don’t think a drunken fighting style is too specific for a Class Feat by any means. I do think it might be too specific for an Archetype though.

I think people are getting hung up on the word “Archetype,” thinking of them as replacement class features, often highly specific in concept and tied to a specific class. But in PF2, name for the thing that occupies that design space is “Class Feat.” The word “Archetype” is now reserved for replacement features that are broad enough in concept to be applicable to any Class.

EDIT: Actually, this is a much better way to phrase what I was trying to articulate here:

KingOfAnything wrote:
PF1 archetypes seem largely implemented in PF2 class options. PF2 archetypes seem more like multclassing into Expert(pirate). And really, thinking about it that way makes me feel a bit better about PF2 archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

N. Love: "Or is that we don't have multiclassing at all?"

Correct.
The Dedication Feats (DFs) expand your pool of class feats. Essentially you're building a new hybrid class.
I like this because it keeps spellcasting levels high both for the base & the new classes.

Most PF1 archetypes are now possible via the modular system of PF2, and PCs can choose to what degree to go down certain paths. This is definitely a plus to me, as long as the mix of class feats is rich.

The PF1 archetypes that had unique or rare abilities plus multiclassing plus Prestige Classes are now rolled into one sub-system. Because of the power of dabbling, DFs were created to help balance this (so I'm thinking).
I'm excited to try this out. (And I don't see my PCs using the mechanical labels to label themselves because they seldom did so before.)

The ramifications of these changes are widespread, as a class's feats (and many other abilities too) become available to all classes via DFs (at least once the CRB hits). This amount of choices, and the degree to which one may shift emphasis in a build, are far more open than before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlaquin wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Unicore wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Some archetypes from PF1 don't make sense except as something built into your backstory, but some archetypes don't really make sense as something you *can* be at level 1. Like a level 1 monk is not a Drunken Master- they're not a master of anything!
Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?
And a drunken style feat for every level of monk that gets class feats could represent this entire character concept without requiring an archetype.
But since something as bland as "pirate" is now an archetype, I cannot imagine that they print a "drunken style" feat that doesn't require "Drunken Master Dedication" as an archetype.

I disagree. We’ve seen things as specific as Crane Stance expresses as Monk Feats in the previews, so I don’t think a drunken fighting style is too specific for a Class Feat by any means. I do think it might be too specific for an Archetype though.

I think people are getting hung up on the word “Archetype,” thinking of them as replacement class features, often highly specific in concept and tied to a specific class. But in PF2, name for the thing that occupies that design space is “Class Feat.” The word “Archetype” is now reserved for replacement features that are broad enough in concept to be applicable to any Class.

Except archetypes use class feats? So effectively they're just a type of class feat. Certainly Drunken Boxing Style could be a series of style feats a la Crane style. Which would mean the only difference between it and an archetype is not having to take a dedication feat.

My issue is that I really liked what archetypes were in PF1, and the PF2 version doesn't do any of the things that made PF1 archetypes so good. Plus they're in direct competition with multiclassing, which makes them almost a non-option, much like multiclassing to Expert would have been in PF1.


David knott 242 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I think it was not mentioned either way. I guess the DEX to damage debate is getting under my skin.

Also I would see a nice symmetry in having the requirements be

INT 16 for Wizard MC
WIS 16 for Cleric MC
DEX 16 for Rogue MC
STR 16 for Fighter MC

Given that you can't actually change class and thus things like number of hit points per level, I would actually argue that the requirements for the multiclass dedication feats should not have that sort of symmetry. A fighter taking wizard MC is far more durable than a wizard taking fighter MC, for example, so the latter should be far easier to qualify for.

A wizard taking fighter MC has far more magical power than a fighter taking wizard MC, for example, so the latter should be far easier to qualify for.


A Ninja Errant wrote:
Or unless you have character ideas that require more than 1 multiclass and/or archetype.

You still misunderstand the premise. The developers have told us they already know that variant class features work well, and that the mechanics for alternate classes (often called archetypes in PF1) will be returning eventually.

So when that happens you'll be able to play a variant-base class at lvl 1, and aechetype at lvl 2. Regardless, you'll never be 'tri-classed' at level 2. Trying to use semantics to make it sound like you could do so in PF1 is misinformative.

Quote:
Also I don't appreciate the argument that PF1 multiclassing is only useful for powergamers. Sometimes it's simply necessary to make an unusual concept work.

Never said it was, nor do I appreciate having my words twisted. Read what I actually wrote. This system will serve all of multiclassing's legitimate roles better. The things it doesn't do better than the old system are either outright exploitive or already obviated by other new mechanics.


Cantriped wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:
Or unless you have character ideas that require more than 1 multiclass and/or archetype.

You still misunderstand the premise. The developers have told us they already know that variant class features work well, and that the mechanics for alternate classes (often called archetypes in PF1) will be returning eventually.

So when that happens you'll be able to play a variant-base class at lvl 1, and aechetype at lvl 2. Regardless, you'll never be 'tri-classed' at level 2. Trying to use semantics to make it sound like you could do so in PF1 is misinformative.

Quote:
Also I don't appreciate the argument that PF1 multiclassing is only useful for powergamers. Sometimes it's simply necessary to make an unusual concept work.
Never said it was, nor do I appreciate having my words twisted. Read what I actually wrote. This system will serve all of multiclassing's legitimate roles better. The things it doesn't do better than the old system are either outright exploitive or already obviated by other new mechanics.

Yet.

We don't have the full info in front of us. And you can be sure if there's any busted combo or exploits with the new system those are going to be found and abused.

If they can be found and fixed in playtest cool. If not? Well here's your Barbarian with Alchemist dedication for Mutagen and this little feat of some kind that hepls break that combo wide open.


OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

So at 2nd level, instead of being a first level x and 1st level wizard, you are now a 2nd level x with a feat that doesn't give you a 1st level wizard's abilities, and then you can spend three feats at 4th level to closer resemble the wizard concept you couldn't reach at 1st level, in between 2nd and 4th (so 3rd and 4th) to be a 3rd level wizard. Do you even have three feats to spend at 4th level? If you do, wow, pity you couldn't just be a 1 x/3 wizard and use all those feats for...anything else!?! (i get one of those Feat 4s is essentially a gateway to Wizard feats, but still...

More feats. Or as rainzax wants me to call them: "choices". But my main choice, to choose to be two or more classes is not possible in this [playtest] system.

This is not multiclassing. It's ersatz cherrypicking with feats, and disappointing in the extreme.

So, given the books are likely almost here, this is my tally:

Pros: action economy, weapon dice/special abilities, criticals, sorcerors

Cons: backgrounds, resonance, "archetypes", "multiclassing", druid orders

I'll go back though my posts and see if I can find some more Pros, because they aren't weighing nearly as much as the Cons.

Now I know this is but a playtest, but it feels a lot like Feat-test of PF2, and it really feels crap to me. Luckily the group I'll playtest with are mostly novices, so the only one annoyed will be me. So the real playtest will be of they find anything grating or counter intuitive - free from my bias and edition carryover nonsense. I'll report their feedback faithfully and present mine with observed bias.

But personally, I'm pretty unhappy with this direction.

To be fair, I cringe too every time I see the word "feat" - but then I remember that it basically boils down to a "character choice", which is a good thing. Also, I can't think of a better name. Abilities? Powers? Features?

If I had to guess, your playgroup, especially as they are reportedly composed of novices, will find the system easy to use in terms of character creation. ABC base stats. Then choose 4 more. If your concept is multi-classy, save a 16. Then ABC feats from small lists. Add equipment. Choose an alignment. Make up a name. And play. Of course, your own experience will confirm or deny that guess.

Though I will not personally get involved with the playtest, I am excited to, perhaps in a year and a half from now, use the final rules to run a one-off with some of my friends who moved on from the hobby over a decade ago. Because of the easy entry to character-making without sacrificing diversity of concept, and because of the streamlining of gameplay from the perspective from a PC without sacrificing complexity of situation, and because of the reduced load on the DM at both the preparation and running stages of play.

If the system doesn't do those three things, and/or if the playtesters don't iron out the wrinkles, then I won't purchase the Core Rulebook when it eventually comes out.

Either way though, I know that I could never teach them 1E Pathfinder, because I love/hate the system, in that I use it and heavily house rule it at the same time. Too crunchy for the audience mentioned above. Hopefully this edition will split the difference between itself and Hasbro. That is my hope. And I believe the passion of the playtesters on this board, fueled by the innovations of the designers who are willing to listen, is the best recipe for moving forward.

Well put mentioning your "edition carryover nonsense" - that made me chuckle-spit out my coffee as I read it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to consider about PF1 archetypes is whether many of these options will even need to be an "archetype" in the PF2 sense. Take the "Sniper", which was brought up earlier. In PF1, it was necessary because the Rogue didn't have many class features that meshed well with the concept. In PF2, there are less class features per class and instead they have flexible class feats. Stuff like "Sniper" can now be down with individual feats without needed to replace class features. Archetypes seem to be reserved more for thematic elements this time around.

Of course, there is still room to debate on the point of mixing archetypes with multiclassing, but I don't think a lot of the mechanically focused archetypes would be hard to do outside of class feats.


David knott 242 wrote:


Given that you can't actually change class and thus things like number of hit points per level, I would actually argue that the requirements for the multiclass dedication feats should not have that sort of symmetry. A fighter taking wizard MC is far more durable than a wizard taking fighter MC, for example, so the latter should be far easier to qualify for.

No, no. 'X should be far easier to qualify for than Y' doesn't work at all.

For one thing, characters taking the mc fighter feats can get added hit points, per the blog post.

For a second thing, wizards in PF2 have more base HP than PF1 fighters of equal level. Whether you even need added durability is still up in the air, given we don't know the fate of spells that give Con bonuses, direct HP or DR.

Finally, it is way, way too early to start valuing 'durability' over at least 2 spells of every spell level to 8th, and all 9th and 10th level spells. That isn't a sincere claim you can make at this point (or probably ever).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:
Or unless you have character ideas that require more than 1 multiclass and/or archetype.

You still misunderstand the premise. The developers have told us they already know that variant class features work well, and that the mechanics for alternate classes (often called archetypes in PF1) will be returning eventually.

So when that happens you'll be able to play a variant-base class at lvl 1, and aechetype at lvl 2. Regardless, you'll never be 'tri-classed' at level 2. Trying to use semantics to make it sound like you could do so in PF1 is misinformative.

I didn't say you could tri-class at level 2. I specifically said level 3 in an earlier post actually. Archetypes in PF1 weren't classes or feats, and they worked much better for that. If they do bring the PF1 archetype back, so much the better, but that's a maybe and eventually, not a certainty. Also, if they are bringing PF1 archetypes back, then they should probably call the new thing something else, and reserve the name for what people actually know it from. Because an archetype you can't take at level 1, shouldn't be an archetype. Maybe call all of the level 2+ required archetypes Prestige Archetypes?

Cantriped wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:
Also I don't appreciate the argument that PF1 multiclassing is only useful for powergamers. Sometimes it's simply necessary to make an unusual concept work.
Never said it was, nor do I appreciate having my words twisted. Read what I actually wrote. This system will serve all of multiclassing's legitimate roles better. The things it doesn't do better than the old system are either outright exploitive or already obviated by other new mechanics.

You said: "However the alternative looks far better at doing its job than multiclassing ever was... unless you were just doing it to powergame." I may have taken that a bit wrong. However, it came off as very accusatory.

Personally, I love the PF1 MC system for it's ability to make very unusual builds. Granted some of those may not actually work well, but I appreciate the ability to have them. The system being put forth here is significantly less flexible in many ways. That may be necessary for the good of the game, I don't know, but it's something that I will miss a lot from PF1.


I think that a lot of people are missing that PF2 classes are fundamentally more flexible than most PF1 classes - essentially they're all structurally similar to PF1's rogue or Starfinder's Mechanic.

Take the Bard, for example. In PF1, they get a number of fixed class features - the only choices they have in character creation is spell selection and what Perform skills they'll take for Versatile Performance later. So if you want a Viking-type that can deal Inspiring Blows and Incite Rage instead of fascinating and Suggesting things to people, you need the Savage Skald archetype. In PF2, it is likely that Fascinate and Suggestion would be class feats, so the wannabe Skald would just pick different ones - no need for the archetype.


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


To be fair, I cringe too every time I see the word "feat" - but then I remember that it basically boils down to a "character choice", which is a good thing. Also, I can't think of a better name. Abilities? Powers? Features?

Someone in a thread proposed we could, at the very least, demarcate class feats, general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats a little better by calling each one a different thing.

-Class talents
-General feats (or just Feats)
-Skill unlocks
-Ancestry traits

The change would be pretty cosmetic, as they'd all amount to the same thing and all follow similar rules, but it might help with organization and help us all not be overwhelmed by feats.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
rainzax wrote:


To be fair, I cringe too every time I see the word "feat" - but then I remember that it basically boils down to a "character choice", which is a good thing. Also, I can't think of a better name. Abilities? Powers? Features?

Someone in a thread proposed we could, at the very least, demarcate class feats, general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats a little better by calling each one a different thing.

-Class talents
-General feats (or just Feats)
-Skill unlocks
-Ancestry traits

The change would be pretty cosmetic, as they'd all amount to the same thing and all follow similar rules, but it might help with organization and help us all not be overwhelmed by feats.

That seems like redundant demarcation to me. You are already have the adjective.


Albatoonoe wrote:

One thing to consider about PF1 archetypes is whether many of these options will even need to be an "archetype" in the PF2 sense. Take the "Sniper", which was brought up earlier. In PF1, it was necessary because the Rogue didn't have many class features that meshed well with the concept. In PF2, there are less class features per class and instead they have flexible class feats. Stuff like "Sniper" can now be down with individual feats without needed to replace class features. Archetypes seem to be reserved more for thematic elements this time around.

Of course, there is still room to debate on the point of mixing archetypes with multiclassing, but I don't think a lot of the mechanically focused archetypes would be hard to do outside of class feats.

The sniper would probably be easy to subsume into class feats, it's only major feature really was getting improved distance for Sneak Attack. Which does help with the build I brought up, but still doesn't change the fact that you can't replicate the concept of Zen Archer/Sniper (a concept achievable at lvl 2 in PF1) until around 8th level (would be 14th if you do need Sniper archetype), and probably won't even be able to get proficiency in a bow til 2nd. Unless of course Zen Archer is a PF1 style archetype. Which would negate the problem, by not using the new style of archetype. Which is...really what I'm arguing for in the first place I guess?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
rainzax wrote:


To be fair, I cringe too every time I see the word "feat" - but then I remember that it basically boils down to a "character choice", which is a good thing. Also, I can't think of a better name. Abilities? Powers? Features?

Someone in a thread proposed we could, at the very least, demarcate class feats, general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats a little better by calling each one a different thing.

-Class talents
-General feats (or just Feats)
-Skill unlocks
-Ancestry traits

The change would be pretty cosmetic, as they'd all amount to the same thing and all follow similar rules, but it might help with organization and help us all not be overwhelmed by feats.

That would be quite helpful. PF2 is a mess of terminology and clarification is desperately needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
rainzax wrote:


To be fair, I cringe too every time I see the word "feat" - but then I remember that it basically boils down to a "character choice", which is a good thing. Also, I can't think of a better name. Abilities? Powers? Features?

Someone in a thread proposed we could, at the very least, demarcate class feats, general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats a little better by calling each one a different thing.

-Class talents
-General feats (or just Feats)
-Skill unlocks
-Ancestry traits

The change would be pretty cosmetic, as they'd all amount to the same thing and all follow similar rules, but it might help with organization and help us all not be overwhelmed by feats.

That seems like redundant demarcation to me. You are already have the adjective.

I tend to agree, but there are many who would disagree. Just like I go cross-eyed when adding eight or nine different integers but plenty of people can do it instantly in their heads. Or our earlier disagreements on whether the little action symbols are as helpful as advertised (now that I have a full example of them, I can flat guarantee I will read a three action activity as two, at least at first, but I believe you that you won't make that mistake). Sometimes a little extra differentiation is all someone needs to make the concept easier to grasp, and different people will have that threshold at different places.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
rainzax wrote:


To be fair, I cringe too every time I see the word "feat" - but then I remember that it basically boils down to a "character choice", which is a good thing. Also, I can't think of a better name. Abilities? Powers? Features?

Someone in a thread proposed we could, at the very least, demarcate class feats, general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats a little better by calling each one a different thing.

-Class talents
-General feats (or just Feats)
-Skill unlocks
-Ancestry traits

The change would be pretty cosmetic, as they'd all amount to the same thing and all follow similar rules, but it might help with organization and help us all not be overwhelmed by feats.

That seems like redundant demarcation to me. You are already have the adjective.
I tend to agree, but there are many who would disagree. Just like I go cross-eyed when adding eight or nine different integers but plenty of people can do it instantly in their heads. Or our earlier disagreements on whether the little action symbols are as helpful as advertised (now that I have a full example of them, I can flat guarantee I will read a three action activity as two, at least at first, but I believe you that you won't make that mistake). Sometimes a little extra differentiation is all someone needs to make the concept easier to grasp, and different people will have that threshold at different places.

Agreed here. People tend to remember nouns and forget adjectives. "Ohh you can spend a feat on that" is something that could get very confusing depending on what bin that feat falls into. Naming these differently might help that, even if they do all have the same formatting. After all, we don't call them "casting feats", we call them "spells" for a reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the fact that the character table clearly spells out what you get at certain levels and each category of feats is going to be in a different part of the book then the way it is now is fine. We are just gonna have to get used to it.

Oh look I get a class feat at level 3 let’s go look at my class section. Oh now I get a general feat at level 4 let’s go look at the general feat section. Oh now I’m level 5 I get an ancestry feat I’ll go look at the human section since that’s what I am. This isn’t confusing at all

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand(don't agree it's needed but understand) that they want to limit power-gaming/prevent trap builds but would allowing us to take an archetype dedication and a multi-class dedication with out taking 3 in the 1st really be that open to power-gaming ? I just can't get over the situation it causes. I'm repeating myself somewhat but I felt I explained it poorly last time.

Lets say there is a baker archetype, its 1st feat gives you bake cake action you take it at lvl2, then at lvl4 you can't learn to be a ranger because you need to learn to bake cookies and bread before hand. Where as if you had taken any class feat at lvl2 I could learn it fine. Why would learning to bake instead of to hit harder stop me learning the basics of another class?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alric Rahl wrote:

I think the fact that the character table clearly spells out what you get at certain levels and each category of feats is going to be in a different part of the book then the way it is now is fine. We are just gonna have to get used to it.

Oh look I get a class feat at level 3 let’s go look at my class section. Oh now I get a general feat at level 4 let’s go look at the general feat section. Oh now I’m level 5 I get an ancestry feat I’ll go look at the human section since that’s what I am. This isn’t confusing at all

it really depends on how the feat section is organized...in 1e you had a giant chapter of feats organized alphabetically that you had to sift through to actually find feats you qualify for...if they do that here it will be a nightmare...if they are organized by class or ancestry or archetype and then by level and further in chains by prerequisite that will be much more useful...just a table at the beginning isn't good enough...it's too much to cross reference when the entire system is feat-based

751 to 800 of 1,191 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Multiclassing and Archetypes All Messageboards