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
951 to 1,000 of 1,191 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
This thread is complaining about being unable to make subpar choices to roleplay, while you can just roleplay without hampering your class build by, yannow, roleplaying.

This is just reductive and wrong.

There are many multiclassed builds that aren't subpar even if they aren't broken power game choices.

Consider my Paladin (Tempered Champion) 13/Witch (Havackor) build-- effectively trading out Paladin spells for Witch spells and an infinitely repeatable blast for a ranged attack.

It might be slightly less powerful at certain levels- but I don't think you can make an argument that it is a strictly "subpar" choice that should be written out of the game as 100% never possible.

If your issue is optimization or personal expression in builds, nothing in this system forbids a build like that other than lack of enough bloat for you to scalp those options.

The structure is perfectly solid, and that's what you should be judging, not your ability to replicate 1E builds.

So, all the options I like are just "bloat" and the fact that structurally I would never be able to build ANYTHING resembling a character with that level of customization I should just accept and move on because what?

So in this system I will be able to build a class with options from two classes and two archetypes, or no?

No, I can't. So a vast swath of character concepts and ideas are out the window and will never be able to be played.

But hey- the approved 12 classes and the approved 12 multiclass archetypes are going to be potentially slightly more powerful, so the fact that there are now going to be an incredibly narrow band of possible characters, and that those will be the exact same narrow band of characters that have been available in EVERY edition from 2nd ed AD&D on should make me happy?

Those character concepts and ideas were surely brought to life with PF1's system of multiclassing - and maybe no other system would have been able to bring them to life. Maybe some of them can no longer work with this new system, but surely even more concepts and ideas will eventually come about with the new multiclassing system - concepts and ideas that wouldn't have been possible with PF1's system.

You can't change a system without losing something. Instead of focusing on what you're losing, try imagining what could be gained.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

Brawler.

In 2E, if I want to build a Brawler type, I only need to go Monk and focus on physical attributes (least restrictive).
In 1E, I need a specific class to be made for it, or a good archetype, plus good item support (restrictive, but workable).
In D&D 5E, I can't – Monks are DEX-based by design and there's no tool to fix it. I'd need the release of several specific materials to get this to be a thing, as the system doesn't support this.

If you think that I think your concepts and ideas and desires are trash, that's what should make you like PF2E – because in this system, it doesn't matter if the designers are attempting to specifically cater to your concept. The system is made in such a way that your concept will be VIABLE and ACHIEVABLE due to modularity, without the NEED for designer intent, which was important in 1E (and due to option bloat, you had a pick for options) and NECESSARY in D&D 5E (due to how hard the class system is there).

*Cough*

I don't need the Devs to cater to my concept. But I need the devs to remake Brawler which is my concept.

Wat?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
The irony of people on these boards now saying, "Hell yeah it's like 4th edition- and that's why it's Grrrreat!" is really messing with my mind.

I mean, everybody who played more Pathfinder than 4e has different reasons for doing that. For me what kept me away from 4e was mostly inconsistent publisher support, the difficulty I personally had GMing it, and the almost perverse focus on grid-based combat (with all the pushing, pulling, sliding, etc.)

I didn't really have an issue with healing surges or 4e style multiclassing, or rituals for everything, or paragon paths. I honestly liked most of that stuff. It's just that Paizo published books every month, Pathfinder worked worlds better in a whiteboard or theater of the mind style game, and I already had a good feel for how to run this kind of game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Brawler.

In 2E, if I want to build a Brawler type, I only need to go Monk and focus on physical attributes (least restrictive).
In 1E, I need a specific class to be made for it, or a good archetype, plus good item support (restrictive, but workable).
In D&D 5E, I can't – Monks are DEX-based by design and there's no tool to fix it. I'd need the release of several specific materials to get this to be a thing, as the system doesn't support this.

If you think that I think your concepts and ideas and desires are trash, that's what should make you like PF2E – because in this system, it doesn't matter if the designers are attempting to specifically cater to your concept. The system is made in such a way that your concept will be VIABLE and ACHIEVABLE due to modularity, without the NEED for designer intent, which was important in 1E (and due to option bloat, you had a pick for options) and NECESSARY in D&D 5E (due to how hard the class system is there).

*Cough*

I don't need the Devs to cater to my concept. But I need the devs to remake Brawler which is my concept.

Wat?

I don't understand this post.

By "brawler", I meant the concept of a high STR, some DEX/CON unarmed/close combat type of character.

In 5E, I need specific character options to be printed for my concept in particular.

In PF1, I need supporting structures (magic items, feats), and scaling power level options.

In PF2, the systems are so tight I just need a window.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Brawler.

In 2E, if I want to build a Brawler type, I only need to go Monk and focus on physical attributes (least restrictive).
In 1E, I need a specific class to be made for it, or a good archetype, plus good item support (restrictive, but workable).
In D&D 5E, I can't – Monks are DEX-based by design and there's no tool to fix it. I'd need the release of several specific materials to get this to be a thing, as the system doesn't support this.

If you think that I think your concepts and ideas and desires are trash, that's what should make you like PF2E – because in this system, it doesn't matter if the designers are attempting to specifically cater to your concept. The system is made in such a way that your concept will be VIABLE and ACHIEVABLE due to modularity, without the NEED for designer intent, which was important in 1E (and due to option bloat, you had a pick for options) and NECESSARY in D&D 5E (due to how hard the class system is there).

*Cough*

I don't need the Devs to cater to my concept. But I need the devs to remake Brawler which is my concept.

Wat?

I don't understand this post.

By "brawler", I meant the concept of a high STR, some DEX/CON unarmed/close combat type of character.

In 5E, I need specific character options to be printed for my concept in particular.

In PF1, I need supporting structures (magic items, feats), and scaling power level options.

In PF2, the systems are so tight I just need a window.

And for me by "Brawler" I mean my current character;

Ex-Bouncer who has high STR and okay stats, unarmed combatant that can pull off combat tricks by recalling how people fought in bar fights.
Bouncer: Right that fancy looking fella..., he stood like this and brought arm around like this...

However, I can't do that in PF2. There is no "Brawler" class just yet. More to the point, I don't think there's Martial Flexibility. Am I dependent on the Devs or not for the concept here?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The monk class should have you covered. It might require a fighter multiclass to pick up the variable class feat, but possibly not. I could see the use for it on a monk.

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
MerlinCross wrote:
However, I can't do that in PF2. There is no "Brawler" class just yet. More to the point, I don't think there's Martial Flexibility. Am I dependent on the Devs or...

Can't fighters change up some of their bonus class feats? I thought that was specifically calling back to Martial Flexibility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Can't fighters change up some of their bonus class feats? I thought that was specifically calling back to Martial Flexibility.

I believe at 9th and 15th (though these may be wrong) fighters pick up an extra floating feat spot they can choose something different to fill.

I do feel like the extent to which a PF1 brawler can immediately master a bunch of different combat styles depending on the situation at hand is something that I'm not sad to be gone, since a player who really did their homework and planned can do some silly things with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Secret Wizard

You can easily make a good blaster Paladin in 5th edition, if that is your desire. I do think you are also purposely making an unusual combo, can't say I heard a lot of this desire.

In 5th edition a paladin / Warlock multiclass is actually good and synergistic. Not sure why you think it would dilute your class. I also have a lot more freedom in what alignment and god I could use.

No idea about the Brawler. Never played that far in Pathfinder. Is that a wrestling character or just a monk subtype?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
This thread is complaining about being unable to make subpar choices to roleplay, while you can just roleplay without hampering your class build by, yannow, roleplaying.

This is just reductive and wrong.

There are many multiclassed builds that aren't subpar even if they aren't broken power game choices.

Consider my Paladin (Tempered Champion) 13/Witch (Havackor) build-- effectively trading out Paladin spells for Witch spells and an infinitely repeatable blast for a ranged attack.

It might be slightly less powerful at certain levels- but I don't think you can make an argument that it is a strictly "subpar" choice that should be written out of the game as 100% never possible.

If your issue is optimization or personal expression in builds, nothing in this system forbids a build like that other than lack of enough bloat for you to scalp those options.

The structure is perfectly solid, and that's what you should be judging, not your ability to replicate 1E builds.

So, all the options I like are just "bloat" and the fact that structurally I would never be able to build ANYTHING resembling a character with that level of customization I should just accept and move on because what?

So in this system I will be able to build a class with options from two classes and two archetypes, or no?

No, I can't. So a vast swath of character concepts and ideas are out the window and will never be able to be played.

But hey- the approved 12 classes and the approved 12 multiclass archetypes are going to be potentially slightly more powerful, so the fact that there are now going to be an incredibly narrow band of possible characters, and that those will be the exact same narrow band of characters that have been available in EVERY edition from 2nd ed AD&D on should make me happy?

Druid/wizard heirophants, cleric/barbarian Rage healers and EVERY combination of 144...

The fact that structurally I am only allowed to ever choose 2 until after 8th level and the fact that they are all competing for a single resource (class feats) and the Dedication requirement.

I can't take a multi class AND an archetype at all, much less a multi class and two archetypes. . .


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cuup wrote:
You can't change a system without losing something. Instead of focusing on what you're losing, try imagining what could be gained.

I'll focus on what I am gaining as soon as I see a single idea from 2nd edition that feels like gaining something.

So far it's been 100% taking options away and resetting back to nothing.

I haven't seen a single new idea yet, except more ways to restrict what we can do.


Secret Wizard wrote:


In 2E, I can just pick up an archetype that grants me a blasting cantrip and then spend the rest of my archetype feats to improve that cantrip blast. Since the Paladin doesn't cast spells (and instead gets spell points to spend on general utility), I can fulfil my concept quite handily without needing a specific set of archetypes being released.

While it isn't actually spell-less, I do find it fun that most of this example is possible in PF2 playtest via a cleric MC. With the level 4 feat spent on fire domain or something.

Paizo Employee

6 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
However, I can't do that in PF2. There is no "Brawler" class just yet. More to the point, I don't think there's Martial Flexibility. Am I dependent on the Devs or...
Can't fighters change up some of their bonus class feats? I thought that was specifically calling back to Martial Flexibility.

Fighters get Combat Flexibility and Improved Flexibility, which grants them two extra fighter feats they can swap out each day. Something like PF1 martial flexibility isn't really needed in PF2; you don't have massive feat chains for combat maneuvers, they're all baked into Athletics (except feint, which wasn't technically a combat maneuver in PF1), so if you want to play a martial artist who swaps up combat styles on the fly, a monk with good Athletics can utilize whatever combat maneuvers seem best for the situation, and even swap between any styles they know as well. Since you don't have as many feat prereqs to keep track of, you can actually try out a lot more combat styles and techniques to play a skilled and reactive martial artist without needing a hyper-specific set of abilities. That's true a lot throughout the playtest; you won't be able to map the same build as a PF1 character, but you'll very likely have a much more efficient path to the concept for a very significant number of the Paizo classes, much more than you can cover with the PF1 CRB.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
I can't take a multi class AND an archetype at all, much less a multi class and two archetypes. . .

It's my hope that when traditional archetypes come back, they can avoid interacting with the dedication system. So we can combine archetypes which alter or replace class features with multiclassing easily. I think that will resolve a lot of the concern.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I can understand the frustration that some character concepts won't be doable until later level. But that has always been the case. Meanwhile other character concepts that you could never achieve in PF1 have become possible with the new mechanics. Zeroing in on a specific thing you can't do isn't very productive, because you are ignoring all the specific things you can now do instead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

I can understand the frustration that some character concepts won't be doable until later level. But that has always been the case. Meanwhile other character concepts that you could never achieve in PF1 have become possible with the new mechanics. Zeroing in on a specific thing you can't do isn't very productive, because you are ignoring all the specific things you can now do instead.

I am genuinely happy that Monk Rogues are now sort of effortlessly achievable instead of "pretty darn awful" like they were in PF1.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Can't fighters change up some of their bonus class feats? I thought that was specifically calling back to Martial Flexibility.

I believe at 9th and 15th (though these may be wrong) fighters pick up an extra floating feat spot they can choose something different to fill.

I do feel like the extent to which a PF1 brawler can immediately master a bunch of different combat styles depending on the situation at hand is something that I'm not sad to be gone, since a player who really did their homework and planned can do some silly things with it.

As opposed to a Wizard that did their homework and planned could completely break a game?

Shrug. I will say I am biased. Currently playing a Brawler and it feels like just what I wanted in a class. Same with Alchemist. Flexible and varied.

Which should make me like the new feats/multiclass system but I think it goes a tad to far to the point of everyone is going to be some sort of cross class archetyping hybrid that builds to cover everything. At least in PFS. In homegames I just think at least for me there's WAY to many choices to the point I'm once again confused and parazlyed by what to do. Less so than in a classless system but I personally like the more set in stone starting point of PF1.

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
Malk_Content wrote:

I can understand the frustration that some character concepts won't be doable until later level. But that has always been the case. Meanwhile other character concepts that you could never achieve in PF1 have become possible with the new mechanics. Zeroing in on a specific thing you can't do isn't very productive, because you are ignoring all the specific things you can now do instead.

It's really easy to focus on specific builds we can't do in PF2, because we know what they are from PF1. It's really hard to think about what we can now do in PF2, because they weren't even options in PF1.

I think it will be important to consciously address this inherent bias we all share when we playtesting. Recreating previous well-loved characters is a great way to feel out the rules, but we should also keep an eye out for options they may not have had before.


OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Please tell my Warforged Fighter (currently running through Book 1 of RotR here in PbP) who multiclassed into Warpriest with a Wisdom of 8 and so can't cast any spells; because he's a former slave from Magnimar and loves freedom and life and the new weird half-elf Alchemist who joined the party kept going on about this god, and so dedicated himself to an obscure "nature" "god" called Robori (at least as far as he understands it) that his choice was not "meaningful", and that his blessings of making his Ratfolk friend gain a poweful bite or allowing himself or his allies to add +4 instead of +2 on a successful Aid Another check is not...viable.

Okay, it's an another completely anecdotal build, but the wholesale removal of of choices whereby a deluge of options are sacrificed on the subjective altar of "viability" and "meaningful-ness" kinda tastes like corporate adspeak sandwiches mushed into ashes in my mouth. I'm being told that the corporate body has decided my choices are sub-optimal, and that if I just shove my yearnings for choice into the grey coloured cubicle and submit myself to blurgification I'll learn to love feats and any thoughts of beloved archetypes or class combinations were just the fervid dreamaginations of a malevolent demon please pass through the archway to be flavor reassigned.

I'll see if I have anough feats to multiclass the tester options in the PT, but really, given the flexibility of choice and the construction of interesting characters we had, the new system as currently designed is not living up to the promise of options, which as Paizo have said was a beloved and popular cornerstone of what made the system great. Without that, is the system great? Maybe, if other things make up for this great loss.

I think Harness's character concept can be transferred approximately. This is different than being told the concept is wrong.

First we'd have to homebrew the Warforged Ancestry. Let's say they get +2 ST, +2 CON, -2 CHA, and floating +2 (to a mental stat).

ST 12
DX 10
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 12
CHA 8

Then we add class (Fighter) and background (Something +ST or +WIS):

ST 16
DX 10
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 8

Finally, we add 1st-level boosts:

ST 18
DX 12
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 16
CHA 8

You can now be a multi-class Fighter-Cleric as early as 2nd level. Or, if you swap your CON and WIS scores (likely by instead choosing a +ST or +CON background), you can multi-class as early as 5th level (by putting a boost in WIS).

You get spells, but are free to re-fluff them as Blessings, Sacred Weapons, Ferver, etc...

...

Alternatively, you can keep your WIS at 10, and start your career as a Cleric, and multi-class into Fighter by meeting the ST 16 pre-requisite.

Doing so would allow you to bring up your choice between INT and CHA.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I can understand the frustration that some character concepts won't be doable until later level. But that has always been the case. Meanwhile other character concepts that you could never achieve in PF1 have become possible with the new mechanics. Zeroing in on a specific thing you can't do isn't very productive, because you are ignoring all the specific things you can now do instead.

I mean that's great! I have all the possible things to do!

Err... why would I want to play Fighter/Wizard? Why would I want to play Monk/Rogue? Why would I want to play Druid/Cleric that archetyped Pirate?

I mean those are all options now. But I can't see why I would want to play them. What I want to play is "Insert concept here" and I'm worried that I can't do the thing I actually want to.

More to the point, some of us are probably looking to port our characters into PF2. Which are very specific things we've made in PF1 that aren't going to work as well or work very differently in PF2. My alchemist is either gutted or a new character, my brawlers are dead or limited, One of my Rogues lives the other needs crossbow now if that even works, My Shaman is hybrid of Druid/Cleric which I didn't want, etc etc.

So yeah. There are reasons why some of us are zeroing in on specfici things. Because all those options don't all appeal to us. It's great that you can play Rogue/Wizard. But if you're not at my table, no one's doing it at my table, and I have no interest in running it, why should I focus on being glad it's an option?

That last one is a loaded question the more I look at it but I don't know how to word it better without coming off as a jerk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cuup wrote:
You can't change a system without losing something. Instead of focusing on what you're losing, try imagining what could be gained.

I'll focus on what I am gaining as soon as I see a single idea from 2nd edition that feels like gaining something.

So far it's been 100% taking options away and resetting back to nothing.

I haven't seen a single new idea yet, except more ways to restrict what we can do.

So you're telling me you haven't found one single thing to be excited about in PF2? I'm sorry, I find that pretty incredible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuup wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cuup wrote:
You can't change a system without losing something. Instead of focusing on what you're losing, try imagining what could be gained.

I'll focus on what I am gaining as soon as I see a single idea from 2nd edition that feels like gaining something.

So far it's been 100% taking options away and resetting back to nothing.

I haven't seen a single new idea yet, except more ways to restrict what we can do.

So you're telling me you haven't found one single thing to be excited about in PF2? I'm sorry, I find that pretty incredible.

I'm not him but I also haven't seen anything that makes me go "well time to jump to PF2".

The few things I have seen that do seem interesting to me(Trinkets, possible Runes, some feats), look to be easily translated back to PF1. I don't need to jump systems for those.

So yeah, couple things have me interested or would like to play with. Not enough to pay for and make that jump, but we'll see.


Ssalarn wrote:
...you don't have massive feat chains for combat maneuvers, they're all baked into Athletics (except feint, which wasn't technically a combat maneuver in PF1)...

Is Feint a function of Acrobatics, Thievery, or something else?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cuup wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cuup wrote:
You can't change a system without losing something. Instead of focusing on what you're losing, try imagining what could be gained.

I'll focus on what I am gaining as soon as I see a single idea from 2nd edition that feels like gaining something.

So far it's been 100% taking options away and resetting back to nothing.

I haven't seen a single new idea yet, except more ways to restrict what we can do.

So you're telling me you haven't found one single thing to be excited about in PF2? I'm sorry, I find that pretty incredible.

What's the new thing I can make in PF2 that I couldn't make before?

So far we've seen:

Most of the core classes (already had)
Pirate & Grey Maiden (already had)
Multiclassing (already had)

What's the NEW thing I can do?

I'm not excited by Resonance (new limits!), everything being feats (have yet to see one that gave us a NEW option), the Skill system (limiting- very few levels of differentiation!), the action system (super limiting!).

So what new exciting thing is there?

By comparison we are losing:

Probably most archetypes for most classes
Original Multiclassing (replaced by having ONLY a suped up variant multiclassing)
All the Occult Classes
Magus
Gunslingers (and guns in general)
Cavalier, Witch, Summoner
Ninja, Antipaladin, Samurai
Cavalier, Oracle
SWASHBUCKLER
The rest of the Hybrid classes
Vigilante
All but 7 races

I never remember an edition that offered so little new on release (other than 3.5 which was sold as a pure rules patch update).

3.0- Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer, Half-orcs, prestige classes
4.0- Dragonborn & Warlords

Pathfinder-- all the stuff from 3.5, but wait- each of them got extra class features added and nothing taken away!

PF2- Here's Alchemist that you've been playing with for 8 years, but this time it's in the CRB instead of the second release.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing this system made me notice is that no cool ability for any class that is POWERFUL will be ever produced below level 10.

My reasoning:

One main complain (not by the Devs as far as i know, but in this forum by many people) is the concept of power gaming "dipping".

One thing that is amusing me is the fact that no one noticed that in some ways this system created another MONSTER way of dipping. You cannot dip in exclusive class abilities, unless the multiclass feat strait gives it to you... but you can have access to ALL class feats up to level 10.

With the "plus" side of being able to ignore all other feats.

So if many abilities are in fact class feats, you will have the most powerful dipps ever imagined in a tabletop RPG. Cause eventually you can get any class feat until level 10, not having to chose prior class feats (just some multiclass ones)

To me that creates too much of a zero-100 situation: or you will not want anything cause class feats are totally tied to class abilities no one has acces to if not of that class, or the game, specially at levels higher than 10, will all be about cherrypicking the best here and there to create the most mechanical monsters you can envision.

I can be completely wrong, but i cant figure out a way to make the class feats below level 10 complete useless or totally broken to cherrypick.

Sovereign Court

4 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
rainzax wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
...you don't have massive feat chains for combat maneuvers, they're all baked into Athletics (except feint, which wasn't technically a combat maneuver in PF1)...
Is Feint a function of Acrobatics, Thievery, or something else?

I'd suspect Deception, much like PF1.


KingOfAnything wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
...you don't have massive feat chains for combat maneuvers, they're all baked into Athletics (except feint, which wasn't technically a combat maneuver in PF1)...
Is Feint a function of Acrobatics, Thievery, or something else?
I'd suspect Deception, much like PF1.

Ah yes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am slightly worried that dedications will prevent some concepts that were possible in PF1 from being created in PF2, even though this portability of concepts seems important to the devs

Though I understand that most PF1 archetypes will not need the dedication system, except sometimes multiclassing


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

By comparison we are losing:

Probably most archetypes for most classes
Original Multiclassing (replaced by having ONLY a suped up variant multiclassing)
All the Occult Classes
Magus
Gunslingers (and guns in general)
Cavalier, Witch, Summoner
Ninja, Antipaladin, Samurai
Cavalier, Oracle
SWASHBUCKLER
The rest of the Hybrid classes
Vigilante
All but 7 races

Except for "original multi-classing", NONE of those were in the PF1 CRB either. It's ludicrously unrealistic to expect the PF2 CRB to cover everything that took ten years of splatbooks to do before. Further, since we've just seen the previews and not the actual book which hasn't been written yet, some of those things may well exist as new class feats or archetypes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cuup wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cuup wrote:
You can't change a system without losing something. Instead of focusing on what you're losing, try imagining what could be gained.

I'll focus on what I am gaining as soon as I see a single idea from 2nd edition that feels like gaining something.

So far it's been 100% taking options away and resetting back to nothing.

I haven't seen a single new idea yet, except more ways to restrict what we can do.

So you're telling me you haven't found one single thing to be excited about in PF2? I'm sorry, I find that pretty incredible.

What's the new thing I can make in PF2 that I couldn't make before?

So far we've seen:

Most of the core classes (already had)
Pirate & Grey Maiden (already had)
Multiclassing (already had)

What's the NEW thing I can do?

I'm not excited by Resonance (new limits!), everything being feats (have yet to see one that gave us a NEW option), the Skill system (limiting- very few levels of differentiation!), the action system (super limiting!).

So what new exciting thing is there?

By comparison we are losing:

Probably most archetypes for most classes
Original Multiclassing (replaced by having ONLY a suped up variant multiclassing)
All the Occult Classes
Magus
Gunslingers (and guns in general)
Cavalier, Witch, Summoner
Ninja, Antipaladin, Samurai
Cavalier, Oracle
SWASHBUCKLER
The rest of the Hybrid classes
Vigilante
All but 7 races

What were you expecting in a play test? All 10 years of supplemental material?

What are we getting that is new?
A brand new action economy.
Class flexibility that looks like it will already surpass that of 4e, without the straight jacket of making every class feel like it is just giving you different flavors of the same abilities and tactics (spam your encounter powers first, unless you know you are in a boss fight and then lead with with your daily, for every class).
The promise of functional high-level gaming. (we'll have to wait to see it in action).
A rogue that is playable past 4 levels.
Skill tricks that make skills interesting that are not going to be coming at the cost of combat utility (the problem with feats being general feats only).
Reigning in the spells that were developed before the D20 system was developed and thus made skills that had barely existed yet irrelevant to play (like knock, invisibility, spider climb).
The ability to play straight forward hybrid characters without intense system mastery. (wizard with a fighter dedication is going to be a lot easier to make viable for new players wanting to gish, than trying to figure out whether to alternate levels of wizard and fighter, or buy X supplement in order for a basic concept to be viable.)
A completely revised system of alchemical items, poisons and traps that gives them a chance to be usable past level 3.

I am not all aboard the new Multi-class train yet. I think that it has a lot of potential, but I am not sure that many gamers are ready to move away from character identity = class identity. It failed miserably to gain traction in 4e, largely because the mechanics of class were so regimented, and it required constant feat commitment because it didn't scale, and that has left a nasty taint for a lot of folks.

BUt it is not fair to say PF2, it its playtest is not going to offer the options of PF1 after 10 years of material. We have to look for how this material can be integrated, because more than likely, the vast majority of previous options will come back with time.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cuup wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cuup wrote:
You can't change a system without losing something. Instead of focusing on what you're losing, try imagining what could be gained.

I'll focus on what I am gaining as soon as I see a single idea from 2nd edition that feels like gaining something.

So far it's been 100% taking options away and resetting back to nothing.

I haven't seen a single new idea yet, except more ways to restrict what we can do.

So you're telling me you haven't found one single thing to be excited about in PF2? I'm sorry, I find that pretty incredible.

What's the new thing I can make in PF2 that I couldn't make before?

So far we've seen:

Most of the core classes (already had)
Pirate & Grey Maiden (already had)
Multiclassing (already had)

What's the NEW thing I can do?

I'm not excited by Resonance (new limits!), everything being feats (have yet to see one that gave us a NEW option), the Skill system (limiting- very few levels of differentiation!), the action system (super limiting!).

So what new exciting thing is there?

By comparison we are losing:

Probably most archetypes for most classes
Original Multiclassing (replaced by having ONLY a suped up variant multiclassing)
All the Occult Classes
Magus
Gunslingers (and guns in general)
Cavalier, Witch, Summoner
Ninja, Antipaladin, Samurai
Cavalier, Oracle
SWASHBUCKLER
The rest of the Hybrid classes
Vigilante
All but 7 races

Multiclass casters that stay relevant in the game were mostly not possible in PF1

Even some Prestige class characters such as a Mystic Theurge or Arcane Trickster could not be built efficiently AFAIK

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the 4E tangent:

I actually really disliked 4E by the time I'd looked at it enough and played an abortive game or three.

I disliked it for several reasons, including enemies no longer having out-of-combat abilities much at all, all the Classes feeling and working exactly the same (Daily martial powers make no sense...none), extending out to 30 levels for no particular reason and some other aesthetic stuff, the fact that their were some perverse incentives in the stat system (no Rogue should ever have Int above 10 in that system), some of the world lore changes for absolutely no reason, and including the fact that you never got to pick how you advanced in skills, and rarely even got any skills after 1st level.

I never cared about the multiclassing in 4E one way or the other (I barely remember it), and only objected to the scaling skill bonus because of the lack of other skill options and the recommended treadmill effect of Skill Challenges.

So yeah, there are some 4E similarities (though I think they're fewer than John Lynch 106 see,s to think they are by quite a bit), and multiclassing appears to be one of them. But multiclassing wasn't what drove most people away from 4E. It's certainly not what drove me away from it.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
BUt it is not fair to say PF2, it its playtest is not going to offer the options of PF1 after 10 years of material. We have to look for how this material can be integrated, because more than likely, the vast majority of previous options will come back with time.

Is it fair to ask for ONE singular new thing?

Just one!

Just give me one thing I can do in PF2 that I couldn't do in PF1- and I have yet to see a feat that fits this description in any way.

Just one thing that makes me think "Yeah, I want to play in a PF2 game so I can make X"?

I mean- almost every single Player's Companion over the past 10 years has managed to have at least one thing- some of them a ton (looking at you, Weaponmaster's Handbook), but the entire new edition can't put in a single one?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Unicore wrote:
BUt it is not fair to say PF2, it its playtest is not going to offer the options of PF1 after 10 years of material. We have to look for how this material can be integrated, because more than likely, the vast majority of previous options will come back with time.

Is it fair to ask for ONE singular new thing?

Just one!

Just give me one thing I can do in PF2 that I couldn't do in PF1- and I have yet to see a feat that fits this description in any way.

Just one thing that makes me think "Yeah, I want to play in a PF2 game so I can make X"?

I mean- almost every single Player's Companion over the past 10 years has managed to have at least one thing- some of them a ton (looking at you, Weaponmaster's Handbook), but the entire new edition can't put in a single one?

Edit: See my post above for things that are new.

You are conflating new with the names of things rather than how they actually work. I think that is a mistake for a playtest, because they are trying to figure out how it all works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Unicore wrote:
BUt it is not fair to say PF2, it its playtest is not going to offer the options of PF1 after 10 years of material. We have to look for how this material can be integrated, because more than likely, the vast majority of previous options will come back with time.

Is it fair to ask for ONE singular new thing?

Just one!

Just give me one thing I can do in PF2 that I couldn't do in PF1- and I have yet to see a feat that fits this description in any way.

Just one thing that makes me think "Yeah, I want to play in a PF2 game so I can make X"?

I mean- almost every single Player's Companion over the past 10 years has managed to have at least one thing- some of them a ton (looking at you, Weaponmaster's Handbook), but the entire new edition can't put in a single one?

I know you will hate me for the answer but I got two new things:

Goblins and Alchemists becoming core.
They are themselves not new, but its new that they are core :P

And I really don't see the worry about the action system, I think it will loosen up the combat a lot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can play a temple-apothecary who is more 'brewer-of-potions' and 'talented doctor' than divine spellcaster. That wasn't viable in 1st edition even with both the CRB and APG. But can be done in the Pathfinder Playtest from 2nd level.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

None of those things are new.

At best they are "better functional" versions of things we already had.

Some of them are straight up regressions that I am convinced will work worse than what we have (the new action system is atrocious and seems that the only way it will work is by requiring a feat for every single action that you used to just be able to do).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

What are we getting that is new?
A brand new action economy.
Class flexibility that looks like it will already surpass that of 4e, without the straight jacket of making every class feel like it is just giving you different flavors of the same abilities and tactics (spam your encounter powers first, unless you know you are in a boss fight and then lead with with your daily, for every class).
The promise of functional high-level gaming. (we'll have to wait to see it in action).
A rogue that is playable past 4 levels.
Skill tricks that make skills interesting that are not going to be coming at the cost of combat utility (the problem with feats being general feats only).
Reigning in the spells that were developed before the D20 system was developed and thus made skills that had barely existed yet irrelevant to play (like knock, invisibility, spider climb).
The ability to play straight forward hybrid characters without intense system mastery. (wizard with a fighter dedication is going to be a lot easier to make viable for new players wanting to gish, than trying to figure out whether to alternate levels of wizard and fighter, or buy X supplement in order for a basic concept to be viable.)
A completely revised system of alchemical items, poisons and traps that gives them a chance to be usable past level 3.

Action needs testing.

Classes will be elevated or ditched due to community
Unsure how many people played high level games due to it being a supposed pain. Unsure how many games will last to high levels in new system.
Rogue is possibly playable, Spells still exist and it can be argued that Anything/Rogue can be better. Testing needed.
Spells still exist. I have seen no reference that those spells are being removed.
Hybrids are playable, and will they be the norm now? And will any hybrid from PF1 be gutted/changed/left behind because they "Don't need to exist now"?
And finally, going to need some testing on the Alchemical items and more to the point, support. Any book that sees print that gives out feats, skill feats, spells, etc but not Alchemical items sees a power loss for Alchemist.

Oh you know. Just multiclass if you're weak. Have a problem with your build? Just mutliclass, it will solve everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Seisho wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Unicore wrote:
BUt it is not fair to say PF2, it its playtest is not going to offer the options of PF1 after 10 years of material. We have to look for how this material can be integrated, because more than likely, the vast majority of previous options will come back with time.

Is it fair to ask for ONE singular new thing?

Just one!

Just give me one thing I can do in PF2 that I couldn't do in PF1- and I have yet to see a feat that fits this description in any way.

Just one thing that makes me think "Yeah, I want to play in a PF2 game so I can make X"?

I mean- almost every single Player's Companion over the past 10 years has managed to have at least one thing- some of them a ton (looking at you, Weaponmaster's Handbook), but the entire new edition can't put in a single one?

I know you will hate me for the answer but I got two new things:

Goblins and Alchemists becoming core.
They are themselves not new, but its new that they are core :P

And I really don't see the worry about the action system, I think it will loosen up the combat a lot.

If the selling point for PF2 is a class I've had available for play since the second book published, and goblins which I've been able to play in PF1, 3.5, 3.0, and 2nd Ed then my answer is gonna end up being "hard pass".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I can understand the frustration that some character concepts won't be doable until later level. But that has always been the case. Meanwhile other character concepts that you could never achieve in PF1 have become possible with the new mechanics. Zeroing in on a specific thing you can't do isn't very productive, because you are ignoring all the specific things you can now do instead.

I mean that's great! I have all the possible things to do!

Err... why would I want to play Fighter/Wizard? Why would I want to play Monk/Rogue? Why would I want to play Druid/Cleric that archetyped Pirate?

I mean those are all options now. But I can't see why I would want to play them. What I want to play is "Insert concept here" and I'm worried that I can't do the thing I actually want to.

More to the point, some of us are probably looking to port our characters into PF2. Which are very specific things we've made in PF1 that aren't going to work as well or work very differently in PF2. My alchemist is either gutted or a new character, my brawlers are dead or limited, One of my Rogues lives the other needs crossbow now if that even works, My Shaman is hybrid of Druid/Cleric which I didn't want, etc etc.

So yeah. There are reasons why some of us are zeroing in on specfici things. Because all those options don't all appeal to us. It's great that you can play Rogue/Wizard. But if you're not at my table, no one's doing it at my table, and I have no interest in running it, why should I focus on being glad it's an option?

That last one is a loaded question the more I look at it but I don't know how to word it better without coming off as a jerk.

The point isn't about any specific character concept. There are characters I wanted to play in PF1 that didn't work and sound like they will in PF2. There are the opposite too and I am admittedly sad about losing those concepts. But what I can't say is "I can't play x therefore the system stymies my creative options" because its possible there are way more playable options now overall.

No system is going to allow everyone to play exactly what they want (especially at level 1 or 2 which seems to be some folks problems, lots of concepts weren't playable at those levels in any edition of DnD.) So the question isn't whether any specific thing is doable, its whether more things overall are doable, and not just doable but GOOD (a lot of my favourite concepts are "technically" doable in Pathfinder 1 for example, but not actually really playable.)

In short you should be glad more stuff are options, because zeroing in on only what you want isn't a healthy way to improve the game as a whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
I can play a temple-apothecary who is more 'brewer-of-potions' and 'talented doctor' than divine spellcaster. That wasn't viable in 1st edition even with both the CRB and APG. But can be done in the Pathfinder Playtest from 2nd level.

Eh?

Brew Potion is now a level 2 feat you can pick up? Oh wait Potions are gone from crafting or at least replaced with Elixirs. I don't recall if you can actually make potions in PF2. Maybe but I don't recall anything from blogs or posts.

Otherwise just roll Alchemist and "Fluff" your extracts.

Because that totally solves everything we want like an earlier poster used. Just fluff things to suit what you want. It's totally the same.


Spells for feats seems like a very strong option.

If I play a wizard with a cleric archetype, for instance, and I take feats to get to 8th level spellcasting, as well as the feat giving me extra cleric spell slots, I get an extra 2 spells each for levels 1-6 and 1 spell each for level 7-8 for a total of 14 extra spells!

Typically, my PF2 wizard would get 4 spells per level for a total of 36 spells at lvl 20; but with cleric archetype on board, he can end up with 50. That's a 40% increase in spells per day! That seems like it would be a really strong use of feat space, if not flat out optimal. Obviously, without the playtest in hand, I'm not in a position to call anything optimal, but it seems like it would be really strong.

What I'm wondering is this: will there be equivalent feats allowing me to get an extra 14 spell slots purely in the wizard spell list, rather than making me feel like I need to go cleric or druid multiclass in order to maximize my spell loadout? I'd prefer not to feel sub-optimal if I'm not a mystic theurge.

(How strange, having been in the game since 3E, to wonder if mystic theurge just became optimal...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

The point isn't about any specific character concept. There are characters I wanted to play in PF1 that didn't work and sound like they will in PF2. There are the opposite too and I am admittedly sad about losing those concepts. But what I can't say is "I can't play x therefore the system stymies my creative options" because its possible there are way more playable options now overall.

No system is going to allow everyone to play exactly what they want (especially at level 1 or 2 which seems to be some folks problems, lots of concepts weren't playable at those levels in any edition of DnD.) So the question isn't whether any specific thing is doable, its whether more things overall are doable, and not just doable but GOOD (a lot of my favourite concepts are "technically" doable in Pathfinder 1 for example, but not actually really playable.)

In short you should be glad more stuff are options, because zeroing in on only what you want isn't a healthy way to improve the game as a whole.

Hmm hmm. Okay.

System doesn't want you to play the characters you actually want? Why should you play the system?

We both win. You can go to PF2, I can stay in PF1.

Edit: I should probably expand on this a bit.

I do relize it's not fair to PF2. PF1 has a lot of classes and combos that probably will not work or work out well. To me, that's fine. Every game has some clunks. But PF1 also has 10 years of product and 3rd party to go through. I'm pretty sure you could find something for basically any character concept in it.

PF2 however, is scaling back to Core. So it's really not fair to compare the two. PF2 will have more options and build paths than PF1, at core.

The problem is, at least to me, is that PF2's solution to building characters or concepts is to give you access to well basically everything. Not a problem..., but also feels more like "Do it yourself". Again it feels/sounds like they pushed it as far as it could go to "Classless" but kept the classes. All these options, all these builds, all these new things...

That Pazio seems to want you to figure out how to build. I'm a bit reminded of Lego in the sense of building from a box/bucket of lego while having other boxes on hand vs dumpping them all onto the ground and doing what you want with them.

This melting pot of everything doesn't set well for me nor do I think it will allow transfer of some classes easily if at all. Espically if the thinking on the Devs is "Well you can do it this way".

I don't think we'll get a Bloodrager. Because we 'CAN' build one with Barbarian/Sorcerer. I don't think we'll get Shaman because we 'CAN' build it with these two classes. But I'd much rather have the actual frame work of the class in PF1 than taking a frame work of Barbarian and sloting spells into it.

So yeah, PF2 will allow you to basically do anything you want. I however would like a tighter system than that, even if it allows concepts to be built but not work out as you thought them. Because to me, I find it easier to bring those concepts up to par than trying to fit a class into a system not built for it.

All of this though is built on the idea of PF1 having material. A truck load. I can be completely wrong but for that to happen, PF2 needs to get material built up first.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
Unicore wrote:
BUt it is not fair to say PF2, it its playtest is not going to offer the options of PF1 after 10 years of material. We have to look for how this material can be integrated, because more than likely, the vast majority of previous options will come back with time.

Is it fair to ask for ONE singular new thing?

Just one!

Just give me one thing I can do in PF2 that I couldn't do in PF1- and I have yet to see a feat that fits this description in any way.

Just one thing that makes me think "Yeah, I want to play in a PF2 game so I can make X"?

I mean- almost every single Player's Companion over the past 10 years has managed to have at least one thing- some of them a ton (looking at you, Weaponmaster's Handbook), but the entire new edition can't put in a single one?

Going with a standard of “would at least be a very significant archetype”:

- Somebody who makes free alchemical items for the group to use.
- Sword-and-board Paladin with a spirit for both.
- Spontaneous full casting for the Druid list.
- Some people will consider multiclassing options “new” because they were hard to do well before. For instance, a Rogue with divine casting would normally trade away a lot of sneak attack or get very low-level spells, making Norgorber sad. You might not count that, though.

I can definitely understand waiting for more options to come out, though. A lot of what I’m excited for isn’t even in the playtest (Bard multiclass archetype, for instance), and I’ll be impatient for ancestries.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Not everything is a confrontation Merlin. I want a system that allows as much as possible. Hopefully that includes what you want, and I'd seek for ways to make that easier so long as it doesn't lead to imbalances elsewhere.

For example I although I like Multiclassing being built like Archetypes, I dislike that they share the same dedication locking. It shifts concepts back later than I think they need be and causes the non-multiclass archetypes to compare incredibly poorly mechanically (at a first glance, multiclassing wizard makes for a ridiculously superior character over the benefits of picking up Pirate, for no more cost.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
No, in my analogy these feats represent an archetype which replaces your bonus feats. In pf1, you didn't get to choose which bonus feats it replaced, and what abilities you got in replacement, in pf2 you do.

Paizo has never created a fighter archetype that did nothing but replace bonus feats with.... specific combat feats. But sure. If you couch it that way then it makes perfect sense that this archetype is more flexible then an archetype which replaces bonus feats with specific combat feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
No system is going to allow everyone to play exactly what they want (especially at level 1 or 2 which seems to be some folks problems, lots of concepts weren't playable at those levels in any edition of DnD.) So the question isn't whether any specific thing is doable, its whether more things overall are doable, and not just doable but GOOD (a lot of my favourite concepts are "technically" doable in Pathfinder 1 for example, but not actually really playable.)

I keep asking this question (in reference to "from level 1 or 2") and no one has answered it yet:

In PF1 Prestige classes were ignored, decried, called terrible design because you had to wait till level 6-8 to "be your character concept".

It was used as the justification for essentially letting that entire option set whither on the vine and die, and Archetypes were introduced to answer it- because even if you hadn't gotten to the best part of the Bard Juggler or Wizard Chronomancer archetype yet, you "were" your character from level 1.

Why is it now acceptable and "good, great, amazing!" design to have to wait till 6th to 8th level to slog through 3 dedication feats and get to the second dedication so you can "be" your character concept?

What changed that Prestige classes were awful design during PF1, and effectively prestige classes are now great design- so great in fact that ALL multiclassing is now effectively a set of limited prestige class options?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
This thread is complaining about being unable to make subpar choices to roleplay, while you can just roleplay without hampering your class build by, yannow, roleplaying.

I've seen exactly one person say they want to build subpar choices (who then demonstrated how the character was continuing to contribute meaningfully to the party). But by rephrasing the old multiclassing system in this way it sure does sound like a steaming pile of crap that no-one would ever want to use. Fortunately there's been plenty of multiclassed builds that weren't subpar in PF1e.


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

Not everything is a confrontation Merlin. I want a system that allows as much as possible. Hopefully that includes what you want, and I'd seek for ways to make that easier so long as it doesn't lead to imbalances elsewhere.

For example I although I like Multiclassing being built like Archetypes, I dislike that they share the same dedication locking. It shifts concepts back later than I think they need be and causes the non-multiclass archetypes to compare incredibly poorly mechanically (at a first glance, multiclassing wizard makes for a ridiculously superior character over the benefits of picking up Pirate, for no more cost.)

I think it is a bit fair to say some archetypes don't need to be archetypes-- for instance you don't need a Titan Fighter Archetype if you just make a feat that duplicates the core ability (getting to use larger than your size 2 handed weapons).

But I highly doubt Paizo is going to be willing to give options that good to anyone/everyone. I doubt they will even make that kind of option a freely available class feat for the relevant class.

Most likely those options won't exist at all, or will be buried as the third feat in an Archetype.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Unicore wrote:
BUt it is not fair to say PF2, it its playtest is not going to offer the options of PF1 after 10 years of material. We have to look for how this material can be integrated, because more than likely, the vast majority of previous options will come back with time.

Is it fair to ask for ONE singular new thing?

Just one!

Just give me one thing I can do in PF2 that I couldn't do in PF1- and I have yet to see a feat that fits this description in any way.

Just one thing that makes me think "Yeah, I want to play in a PF2 game so I can make X"?

I mean- almost every single Player's Companion over the past 10 years has managed to have at least one thing- some of them a ton (looking at you, Weaponmaster's Handbook), but the entire new edition can't put in a single one?

Level 1 Spring Attack.

Level 1 iteratives.
Actual customizability on quite a few classes that have spells. Bard, Cleric, Wizard, looking at you.

951 to 1,000 of 1,191 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Multiclassing and Archetypes All Messageboards