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
1,001 to 1,050 of 1,191 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

3 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?

Taking 2 move actions and then making a flurry of blows.

Edit: have another

Having a animal companion that has a level equal to your level as a ranger from level 1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I fully expect a fighter who takes the paladin devotion feat and then doesn't take any further paladin feats to have made a bad choice. Do you agree with that assumption?

Given that we know pretty-much nothing about what the Paladin Dedication feat does, why are you assuming that?

_
glass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If a single paladin dedication feat gets a fighter Retributive Strike it will be a feat well spent, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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 wrote an edit to the last post. Maybe take a look at that as I realize it was unfair to simply write it out like that.

But the problem is, what I want either won't get ported or the system falls back on the "Well you Can do it this way".

I don't think I'll get Brawler. Because the system says I can because of Fighter/Monk. Or Monk/Fighter. Same with the others.

Now I might not get the same 'feeling'(at least to me) as playing as that class. I mean even moving away from Hybrid; the system could say "Oh you CAN build a Cavalier, you just start as X first and take this, this and this".

That doesn't sound like picking a Cavalier. That sounds like having to unlock the class. Or worse case, Subclass because you'll still be a Fighter just with Cavalier options.

So I'm a bit miffed and worried about that. How many classes will we need if everything can be bolted on as a Multiclass or Archetype? Why yes, you can make your Wizard/Rogue all you want and not fall behind. Me, well that doesn't sound like a stealth Magus. It sounds like Wizard/Rogue. And it's Magus I want to play.

I mean I HATE to play this card; but it's the same problem people have with Paladins. You expect certain things when playing as a Paladin. Yes the features, yes the powers but you have a mental image going into that.

And the reaction if it was explained "Oh you CAN build a Paladin. Pick fighter and at these levels take X, Y, and Z. Maybe Multiclass into Cleric for some Divine spell casting".

No matter which side most people fall on the whole Paladin thing, I would guess most of us would look at that and go "No that's not how it works".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
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 wrote an edit to the last post. Maybe take a look at that as I realize it was unfair to simply write it out like that.

But the problem is, what I want either won't get ported or the system falls back on the "Well you Can do it this way".

I don't think I'll get Brawler. Because the system says I can because of Fighter/Monk. Or Monk/Fighter. Same with the others.

Now I might not get the same 'feeling'(at least to me) as playing as that class. I mean even moving away from Hybrid; the system could say "Oh you CAN build a Cavalier, you just start as X first and take this, this and this".

That doesn't sound like picking a Cavalier. That sounds like having to unlock the class. Or worse case, Subclass because you'll still be a Fighter just with Cavalier options.

So I'm a bit miffed and worried about that. How many classes will we need if everything can be bolted on as a Multiclass or Archetype? Why yes, you can make your Wizard/Rogue all you want and not fall behind. Me, well that doesn't sound like a stealth Magus. It sounds like Wizard/Rogue. And it's Magus I want to play.

Yep, it already seems assured Magus and Swashbuckler and Slayer, and potentially Oracle are all in the "never publish" pile because "You can just be Fighter and take Wizard" or "You can just be Fighter and take Rogue". . .


Friendlyfish wrote:

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.

At higher levels these extra spells aren't going to help you in combat. Your secondary spellcasting stat is going to lag (unless you're Bard/Sorcerer or Druid/Cleric) for DCs and after level 12/16/19 you're falling behind on proficiency boosts to your DC compared to your main spellcasting class. It can provide slots for utility and buffing, though, if you don't mind the opportunity cost in missed metamagic or other boosts that make your primary spellcasting more effective.

Friendlyfish wrote:


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.

A generalist Wizard who takes the feats from the Wizard preview blog to (1) have an extra use of Arcane Focus and (2) cast successive spells from the Arcane Focus that are two levels below the previous theoretically can cast an extra ten slots off those feats at level 17. Recast a 9/7/5/3/1 level spell (in that order with no breaks, all spells have to have been cast previously in the day), twice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's talk about something we gain from the new system. Say I'm primarily a Fighter and I have decent Intelligence. At level 11, I decide to take a dip into Wizard, defined as the minimum amount of resources put towards the multiclass. What do I gain in each edition.

In PF1, I would lose out on gaining a BAB, delaying the access to that extra attack I need. I also delay access to all my other class features. What I gain would be level one wizard spells that probably never progress again, offering little benefit to me unless I use a specific few spells. Even then, those spells would be limited by your casting level of 1.

In PF2, I would lose access to a class feat, having spent it on the Wizard Dedication. You don't delay any of your regular class progression, though. What you gain is some Cantrips that scale to your level, even if you are just fresh into the multiclassing. These will continue to scale, even with no further investment.

PF2 offers far more appealing an option. PF1 is pretty much just screwing over your fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:

Let's talk about something we gain from the new system. Say I'm primarily a Fighter and I have decent Intelligence. At level 11, I decide to take a dip into Wizard, defined as the minimum amount of resources put towards the multiclass. What do I gain in each edition.

In PF1, I would lose out on gaining a BAB, delaying the access to that extra attack I need. I also delay access to all my other class features. What I gain would be level one wizard spells that probably never progress again, offering little benefit to me unless I use a specific few spells. Even then, those spells would be limited by your casting level of 1.

In PF2, I would lose access to a class feat, having spent it on the Wizard Dedication. You don't delay any of your regular class progression, though. What you gain is some Cantrips that scale to your level, even if you are just fresh into the multiclassing. These will continue to scale, even with no further investment.

PF2 offers far more appealing an option. PF1 is pretty much just screwing over your fighter.

Is this just not a Dip then and don't we hate that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

so what i am getting from recent posts some one is mad cause you can pull off magus, slayer, brawler, warpriest, white mage, bloodrager, ect just using the core rule book.

I understand the worry they won't do those classes now. but i have a feeling some of them they will. simply cause class features are still a thing.

Silver Crusade

Secret Wizard wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
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 wrote an edit to the last post. Maybe take a look at that as I realize it was unfair to simply write it out like that.

But the problem is, what I want either won't get ported or the system falls back on the "Well you Can do it this way".

I don't think I'll get Brawler. Because the system says I can because of Fighter/Monk. Or Monk/Fighter. Same with the others.

Now I might not get the same 'feeling'(at least to me) as playing as that class. I mean even moving away from Hybrid; the system could say "Oh you CAN build a Cavalier, you just start as X first and take this, this and this".

That doesn't sound like picking a Cavalier. That sounds like having to unlock the class. Or worse case, Subclass because you'll still be a Fighter just with Cavalier options.

So I'm a bit miffed and worried about that. How many classes will we need if everything can be bolted on as a Multiclass or Archetype? Why yes, you can make your Wizard/Rogue all you want and not fall behind. Me, well that doesn't sound like a stealth Magus. It sounds like Wizard/Rogue. And it's Magus I want to play.

I mean I HATE to play this card; but it's the same problem people have with Paladins. You expect certain things when playing as a Paladin. Yes the features, yes the powers but you have a mental image going into that.

And the

...

I'd say that, fundamentally, a Cavalier is a swordy guy who gets to have a horse animal companion so that he doesn't have to mess with buying horses and having them die instantly to area of effect at higher levels.

Definitely, "get a horse animal companion" is an option that should exist for everyone who could reasonably be a knight. Perhaps one feat for a horse animal companion would be too much, so perhaps the first could grant a first level horse and the second cause it to advance.


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

Let's talk about something we gain from the new system. Say I'm primarily a Fighter and I have decent Intelligence. At level 11, I decide to take a dip into Wizard, defined as the minimum amount of resources put towards the multiclass. What do I gain in each edition.

In PF1, I would lose out on gaining a BAB, delaying the access to that extra attack I need. I also delay access to all my other class features. What I gain would be level one wizard spells that probably never progress again, offering little benefit to me unless I use a specific few spells. Even then, those spells would be limited by your casting level of 1.

In PF2, I would lose access to a class feat, having spent it on the Wizard Dedication. You don't delay any of your regular class progression, though. What you gain is some Cantrips that scale to your level, even if you are just fresh into the multiclassing. These will continue to scale, even with no further investment.

PF2 offers far more appealing an option. PF1 is pretty much just screwing over your fighter.

In PF1 you also get the ability to use wands of shield & enlarge person, plus either the ability to always act in a suprise round and a +1 Initiative or a +1 to round off your secondary physical attribute to an even number.

In PF2, you can't use wands because it eats your resonance to do so. . .


8 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

They weren't in the CRB (though at least some will be in pf2 CRB, plus many will be replaced by class feats.

Quote:
Original Multiclassing (replaced by having ONLY a suped up variant multiclassing)

I think the system presented is actually better, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Quote:
All the Occult Classes

Weren't in the CRB

Quote:


Magus

Wasn't in the CRB

Quote:

Gunslingers (and guns in general)

Wasn't in the CRB

Quote:

Cavalier, Witch, Summoner

Weren't in the CRB

Quote:

Ninja, Antipaladin, Samurai

Weren't in the CRB

Quote:

Cavalier, Oracle

Weren't in the CRB

Quote:

SWASHBUCKLER

Wasn't in the CRB

Quote:

The rest of the Hybrid classes

Weren't in the CRB

Quote:

Vigilante

Weren't in the CRB

Quote:

All but 7 races

Weren't in the CRB (except Goblin)

Quote:

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.

If none of those things were in the CRB first time around why would you expect them to be in it this time round? Do you have any conception of how huge such a monstrosity would be?


Now that I have finally read every single comment, I can finally give my thoughts (yay). (This will be long btw, so buckle down).

When I first heard about this system from the leak, I hated it. Now I think it'll be one of, if not the best, part of PF2 for me... with a few fixes (we'll get to those).

(Disclaimer: I fully plan on playtesting the game, as is, without ANY houserules. HOWEVER, I do plan on theorycrafting some with the proprosed changes, to see what would work better or worse and give additional feedback off that if possible)

On the issue of everything being feats vs. calling them talents/feats/skill unlocks/ancestry traits, I prefer the latter but as is, they should name them as the former. My reasoning for this is that if everything gets the name "Feat", they need to be exchangeable with a defined equivalence (in PF1 2 traits=1 Feat). If they want to keep each "bucket" separate, they need to use separate terms to enforce that.

(First Fix) I proprose that the Universal Law of Feat Equivalence be "1 HF = 1 GF = 2AF = 2CF = 1 SF = 2 Prof increases = 2 Signature Skills" (For added context, 1 GF should be build defining since you get 5 total (one at 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19) and should roughly be equivalent to 3 Feats from PF1).

examples:

(Heritage [Elf]) Scholar: Gain the Wizard Dedication and one Wizard MC Feat. Special: If picking up Scholar after 1st level, only gain the Wizard Dedication or
Special: A Wizard that picks this Feat gets 2 extra class feats or 1 extra if gained after 1st level.

(General) Toughness: Each level gain 2 extra hitpoints. At level 1 you are trained in Fortitude Saves. At level 3, you are an expert in Fortitudes saves. And at level 9, you are a Master at Fortitude Saves

(General) Class Focus: gain any two class feats you qualify for. (cannot be taken more than once)

(Class) Wizard Dedication: (everything the same, but cantrips scale half as fast as a wizard) (each spellcasting feat adds 2 spell levels) (Full scaling cantrips are a part of the 2nd feat) (5 feats for 8th level casting instead of 4)

(Class) Fighter Dedication: Pre-reqs 16 Str, Effect: Trained in all simple weapons, Trained in a martial weapons from a fighter weapon group, trained in light and medium armor or medium and heavy if already trained in light armor.

(Skill) Mount: Pre-Req: Expert in Ride. Effect: You gain an animal companion as a druid of your level, but it can only be a horse (or pony if small)

Also, while I think PF1 Archetypes are now almost all subsumed into the class feats, I think if either two dedications or 1 multiclass/prestige and 1 archetype dedication are allowed at the same time, most classes can be removed/moved to archetypes or general feats. In particular, combining Magus, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, and other "Eldritch/Arcane" archetypes into one PF2 Archetype as an example. The Archetype would look something like this:

Magus Archetype:

Magus Dedication (Feat 1):
Pre-reqs: 16 in a mental and physical stat. The Spell Casting Activity
Effect: Gain the Spellstrike Action (you can substitute an attack action for a somatic action), an Arcane Pool (add twice your highest mental state to resonance), and the Enchant Weapon action (one action and one resonance point/rune to add the maximum amount of weapon potency runes your weapon can allow)

Improved Magus (Feat 6):
Pre-reqs: Magus Dedication
Effect: Enchant Weapon now costs 1RP/2 runes and can be used for runes other than weapon potency runes. Also, can spend 1RP/spell level to recall a spell you know/prepared.

Greater Magus (Feat 10):
Pre-reqs: Improved Magus
Effect: Enchant Weapon now costs 1RP/3 runes and can be used for runes other than weapon potency runes. Also, can spend 1RP/2 spell levels to recall a spell you know/prepared.

Spell Critical (Feat 4):
Pre-reqs: Magus Dedication
Effect: When you crit with a Spellstrike, you can spend a reaction to get another regular action

Ranged Hand Legerdemain (feat 2):
Pre-reqs: Magus Dedication, mage hand, Sneak attack 1d6
Effect: Can make thievery checks from close range (25ft+5ft/2lvls). The Magus can also automatically add his sneak attack damage to a Spellstrike even if the enemy is not flat-footed once per day.
Special: Can be gained more than once. Each additional time it is taken, add 10 feat to the range at which you can use thievery and gain an additional use of improptu sneak attack each day.

Imbue Arrow (Feat 4):
Pre-reqs: Magus Dedication, ranged touch attack, trained in a bow or crossbow.
Effect: When making a Spellstrike from range (>15ft), the spell effect is centered on the Arrow, not the caster.


(Second Fix: either two dedications or 1 multiclass/prestige and 1 archetype dedication are allowed at the same time)

Sovereign Court

6 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
MerlinCross wrote:
Enjoy not having your favorite class be put into the game then. "Here's your Fighter/Monk, it's like brawler. It's just what you wanted right?" You're happy you don't need Martial Flexibility. I'm unhappy that I won't have it. Or at least not have it to the same level as before.

The Brawler exists as a solution to PF1's problems. If PF2 avoids the problems, it doesn't really need that solution. If what you love about the Brawler is more than its function as a solution to a problem, then PF2 can help you recreate that. Let's look for what awesome combat styles we can achieve with the Playtest rulebook.


Xenocrat wrote:


At higher levels these extra spells aren't going to help you in combat. Your secondary spellcasting stat is going to lag (unless you're Bard/Sorcerer or Druid/Cleric) for DCs and after level 12/16/19 you're falling behind on proficiency boosts to your DC compared to your main spellcasting class. It can provide slots for utility and buffing, though, if you don't mind the opportunity cost in missed metamagic or other boosts that make your primary spellcasting more effective.

Makes sense. There are reasons why the spellcasting progression for the secondary class lags the primary class. That being said, extra spells per day are still a very strong option, since they are a limited resource in a resource management class. Even when balanced against spellcasting modication feats and metamagic. I was wondering whether the option to get more spells instead of metamagic, or what have you, would be available within your own primary spellcasting class, rather than only available by taking a secondary class archetype.

Xenocrat wrote:


A generalist Wizard who takes the feats from the Wizard preview blog to (1) have an extra use of Arcane Focus and (2) cast successive spells from the Arcane Focus that are two levels below the previous theoretically can cast an extra ten slots off those feats at level 17. Recast a 9/7/5/3/1 level spell (in that order with no breaks, all spells have to have been cast previously in the day), twice.

Agreed, although the trick you quote lacks a lot of flexibility, it can be used to give you access to more spells per day.


KingOfAnything wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Enjoy not having your favorite class be put into the game then. "Here's your Fighter/Monk, it's like brawler. It's just what you wanted right?" You're happy you don't need Martial Flexibility. I'm unhappy that I won't have it. Or at least not have it to the same level as before.
The Brawler exists as a solution to PF1's problems. If PF2 avoids the problems, it doesn't really need that solution. If what you love about the Brawler is more than its function as a solution to a problem, then PF2 can help you recreate that. Let's look for what awesome combat styles we can achieve with the Playtest rulebook.

Okay so..., I'm derping here.

By combat style what do you mean? If only because as part of Brawler I've been looking into Style Feats.

I will say however I don't think I'll have the option of just sliding into a couple feats for the problem at hand. I mean it's interesting, but I think Ghostslayer is prime for Flexibility.

More to the point, lets you do some dumb things without going to the DM after every X levels and saying "Can I retrain these feats?"

These are things that I think will still exist in PF2. So I would like to see brawler again.

But that's just one class. I like Shaman but that also seems to be something you can just wave away as "Oh this is Druid/Cleric. Do that and fluff it".


Friendlyfish wrote:


Xenocrat wrote:


A generalist Wizard who takes the feats from the Wizard preview blog to (1) have an extra use of Arcane Focus and (2) cast successive spells from the Arcane Focus that are two levels below the previous theoretically can cast an extra ten slots off those feats at level 17. Recast a 9/7/5/3/1 level spell (in that order with no breaks, all spells have to have been cast previously in the day), twice.
Agreed, although the trick you quote lacks a lot of flexibility, it can be used to give you access to more spells per day.

On second thought, I forgot that the generalist can use his basic Arcane Focus once at each level, so there's a lot of theoretical potential for this stacking trick even before you take the extra use. I assume the extra use is only usable once, not per level as with the basic Arcane Focus of the generalist.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I actually wish we could get a monstrous tome with two-dozen classes and races and a million feats and spells, but I assume they're not f&!*ing with us when they say they can't do that.

I think the issue is shipping costs and binding it.

Unlike dictionaries they can't print on super thin paper because they have to (rather want to and we want it) print pictures that look nice and are in color.

Granted I would totally want it if that ever was made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I actually wish we could get a monstrous tome with two-dozen classes and races and a million feats and spells, but I assume they're not f&!*ing with us when they say they can't do that.

I think the issue is shipping costs and binding it.

Unlike dictionaries they can't print on super thin paper because they have to (rather want to and we want it) print pictures that look nice and are in color.

Granted I would totally want it if that ever was made.

I would assume such a document could maybe work as a PDF.

Though your Crtl+F might get some work.


Expanding on my last post, if those "fixes" were to make it into the game a lot of design space dedicated to different classes could be put to work on simply expanding the awesome general feats and making new archetypes that will change the game in the way hybrids did last edition. I've made a list of what I think (and hope) will happen to each of the classes.

Also given the way casters have shown up, I expect either 10 or 14 caster classes over the entirety of PF2, (one prepared and one spontaneous caster of each of the four traditions plus one prep and one spon Caster (Sorcerer)

Core classes- we know what's up with them

Base classes
Alchemist--> Core
Cavalier--> General and Skill feats (orders as an archetype possibly)
Gunslinger-->General Feats
Inquisitor--> Real Class with Spell Points, not a caster
Magus--> Archetype
Oracle--> Spontaneous Divine Caster
Shifter--> Martial Class
Summoner--> Spell Point Class
Vigilante--> ???
Witch--> Prepared Full Caster with Patron determining Casting Tradition

Hybrid Classes:
Arcanist--> Multiclass
Bloodrager--> Multiclass
Brawler--> Base Monk but could also multiclass
Hunter--> Multiclass
Investigator--> Archetype
Shaman--> Prepared Occult Caster
Skald--> Multiclass
Slayer--> Multiclass
Swashbuckler--> subsumed into Fighter
Warpriest--> Multiclass

Alternate Classes
Antipaladin--> Hopefully just part of Paladin
Ninja--> Multiclass and/or a legacy archetype down the road (really just rogue/Monk with some different proficiencies)
Samurai--> General or Fighter Feats

Occult:
Kineticist--> Spontaneous Primal Caster
Medium--> Nothing, never a point
Mesmerist--> ???
Occultist--> Spontaneous Arcane Caster
Psychic--> Sorcerer Bloodline
Spiritualist--> Subsumed into Summoner

(note: Mark has said that Psychic casting is different from the Occult casting tradition, so pychic arcane casters are possible and non psychic Occult casters are possible)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

By this logic paladin should be flaged:

Paladin -> Multiclass.

And removed from the core.

There are class that i dont think need to be separeted class, for example the Gunslinger and the Oracle (to me Oracle could be a archetype of the sorceror VERY well, bringinging curses to the table)

But a Magus is more of its own class than, for example, a Paladin.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The inherent problem with lines of argument such as "oh why create a P2e Brawler class when you can Fighter/Monk multiclass" or "fighters being able to multiclass as either cleric or wizard combined with the new action economy completely makes the Magus obsolete" is that, with only a few exceptions like the Slayer, pretty much every single class has unique class features that allow them to stand out from other classes, like the Investigator's Studied Combat/Strike, or the Oracle's Mysteries.

While, mechanically, the new multiclassing and class options open the door to being able to play as a close approximation to the Warpriest, or the Magus, or the Investigator right out of the bat, that ignores the possibility of, when they're reintroduced to P2e, they'll be changed and updated to better fit the environment of P2e, such as the Magus getting access to unique cantrips and class feats that allow them to put a lot of special qualities on their weapons.

Instead of thinking of it as "why would you need to bring this class into P2e?", try to think of it as "how could they change and update this class to help solidify their place in P2e?"


RafaelBraga wrote:

By this logic paladin should be flaged:

Paladin -> Multiclass.

And removed from the core.

There are class that i dont think need to be separeted class, for example the Gunslinger and the Oracle (to me Oracle could be a archetype of the sorceror VERY well, bringinging curses to the table)

But a Magus is more of its own class than, for example, a Paladin.

I'm going to disagree because on two bases. First my personal viewpoint: To me a Paladin gets their power simply from their alignment, rather than their God directly like a cleric. I flagged Warpriest as a Multiclass because they do get there powers from their God and got modified domain powers. And fervor could be replicated or moved to the Magus Archetype (I would use Gish instead to remove the baggage of the Magus name, but it seemed to gamey).

Second, from what we've seen, Paladin is pretty distinct from either fighter and cleric with their litanies and spell points rather than full casting. Also they focus around Auras and other spell-like abilities that would be weird for just anyone to get without the focus on Alignment. Their Auras could be put inymto an archetype, but that would seem a little wierd or hamfisted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Charlaquin wrote:
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.

That is more or less how I’ve been thinking as well with this system.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I actually wish we could get a monstrous tome with two-dozen classes and races and a million feats and spells, but I assume they're not f!*~ing with us when they say they can't do that.

You should see the corebook for Arduin Eternal. It's 822 pages and retails for 75 bucks. Also, feels like if you dropped it it might literally explode lol.

@Nathanael Love: The new action system is probably one of the best parts of PF2. I loved it when they came out with the idea in Unchained, and this seems to have refined a lot (or hopefully all) of the issues where it didn't play nice with specific class abilities. From what I see, the new action system will add a tremendous amount of tactical depth to the game, and allow combatants to be much more mobile. Just the fact that Spring Attack is now a core thing that anyone can do is a fantastic improvement in my book.

I'm not onboard with everything about PF2, but a lot of things are direct improvements from a system perspective. As much as I hated VMC and 4e style MC, I'm willing to admit that this version of MC at least has potential. If we actually can get Pf1 style archetypes with it, I may even end up liking it. I just don't foresee anything good coming of making multiclassing and archetyping mutually exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

I would assume such a document could maybe work as a PDF.

Though your Crtl+F might get some work.

I must say, though, that the day we give up on physical books or at least "Print on Demand" options is the day I give up on a game.

I mean, I don't mind carrying 30 books to game night, I just want good indices in them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

Blasting Paladin. I want to be a spell-less Paladin, a chosen champion from a specific deity, with the ability to blow up stuff from range too.

In 1E, I NEED archetype + multiclass combinations that allow me to pull it off, and then I'd still have a crappy 1d6 blast for the whole game.

Not necessarily, at least depending on your choice of deity. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What a gross waste of a lay-on-hands charge. Very flavorful though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:

Let's talk about something we gain from the new system. Say I'm primarily a Fighter and I have decent Intelligence. At level 11, I decide to take a dip into Wizard, defined as the minimum amount of resources put towards the multiclass. What do I gain in each edition.

In PF1, I would lose out on gaining a BAB, delaying the access to that extra attack I need. I also delay access to all my other class features. What I gain would be level one wizard spells that probably never progress again, offering little benefit to me unless I use a specific few spells. Even then, those spells would be limited by your casting level of 1.

In PF2, I would lose access to a class feat, having spent it on the Wizard Dedication. You don't delay any of your regular class progression, though. What you gain is some Cantrips that scale to your level, even if you are just fresh into the multiclassing. These will continue to scale, even with no further investment.

PF2 offers far more appealing an option. PF1 is pretty much just screwing over your fighter.

I suppose an 11th-level fighter would have had enough ability score increases to be able to multiclass into wizard. At lower levels, I'd be very impressed with their dedication to an otherwise unhelpful stat (and wondering how their physical stats looked because of it).


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


Weren't in the CRB...

But we don't have a choice between PF2 and PF1 with only the CRB.

PF2 has to show me something to make me give up all those options I listed and the rest of the options I didn't take the time to list.

I understand that there can't be literally every option, but is it too much to ask that they give us SOMETHING?

Some one shiny toy to make me want to play the game?

I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Sorry, I don't buy it; at this rate I won't be buying it.

"That wasn't in the CRB, so it doesn't matter that we took it away" isn't an answer to the problem of going from many options to few options--

And NO for the last time, NO feats aren't options. That does NOT make up for losing more than 20 classes and hundreds of archetypes and forty odd races.

Isabelle Lee wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Blasting Paladin. I want to be a spell-less Paladin, a chosen champion from a specific deity, with the ability to blow up stuff from range too.

In 1E, I NEED archetype + multiclass combinations that allow me to pull it off, and then I'd still have a crappy 1d6 blast for the whole game.
Not necessarily, at least depending on your choice of deity. ^_^

The build I referenced got to 2d6+2, not "amazing" damage, but much better than "just 1d6" and better than the typical melee build's just in case ranged weapon.

The build also upgraded from the Paladin spell list to the Witch list gaining stuff like Lightning Bolt. . .


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I must say, though, that the day we give up on physical books or at least "Print on Demand" options is the day I give up on a game.

For me, that day is already here. While I do enjoy reading a physical book, that is so impractical for a game book that gets regularly updated like these ones do. A 1st printing of Advanced Class Guide, for instance, has more wrong than right in it making it more functional as a doorstop than a useful gaming tool. This has led me to stop buying physical books.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, I don't mind carrying 30 books to game night, I just want good indices in them.

I didn't mind this when I was younger, but now 50 pounds of books is asking quite a lot to lug around. It's the second reason I've full PDF for gaming books.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

I'd say that, fundamentally, a Cavalier is a swordy guy who gets to have a horse animal companion so that he doesn't have to mess with buying horses and having them die instantly to area of effect at higher levels.

Definitely, "get a horse animal companion" is an option that should exist for everyone who could reasonably be a knight. Perhaps one feat for a horse animal companion would be too much, so perhaps the first could grant a first level horse and the second cause it to advance.

Based on what I use Cavalier for, it's a class that allows you to grant teamwork feats to the party and has options for other support (including battle herald) while keeping up offensive presence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
What a gross waste of a lay-on-hands charge. Very flavorful though.

I'm thinking of getting it.

At level 12 Gwyn of Nybor (Paladin level 12) has:

Paladin (effective level 16 Paladin) (8/day) (bracers)
Charisma +6 (+6/day)
Extra Lay on Hands (+2/day)

16/Day

By level 15, when I could get Sunblade (for the feat tax) that number will be:

Paladin (effective level 19 Paladin) (9/day)
Charisma +7 (+7/day)
Extra Lay on Hands (+2/day)

Or 18/day

I heal at that point 8d6 base
9d6 with Greater Mercy
8d6+16 and 9d6+18 respectively...

Average of 50 HP per LoH use... Between 27-72?

If I used all 18 of them it would be 950 HP worth of healing on average? If I am using that much healing then *something* is wrong. So it is not a waste. It just depends on the build.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Dozens of examples were provided of characters that couldn't be played, or significantly underperformed* when using a la carte class-leveling to represent simple character concepts* (like a temple-apothecary as an Alchemist 3/Cleric 2). You've just continued to ignore us, 'discredit' us, or shift the goal-post further and further back.

*So much so that we ended up with forty base classes and hundreds of sometimes-mutually exclusive alternate classes... because navigating through that was actually an easier way to build a flavorful hybrid character than having your core statistics retarded by the arbritrary multiclassing rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Dozens of examples were provided of characters that couldn't be played, or significantly underperformed* when using a la carte class-leveling to represent simple character concepts* (like a temple-apothecary as an Alchemist 3/Cleric 2). You've just continued to ignore us, 'discredit' us, or shift the goal-post further and further back.

*So much so that we ended up with forty base classes and hundreds of sometimes-mutually exclusive alternate classes... because navigating through that was actually an easier way to build a flavorful hybrid character than having your core statistics retarded by the arbritrary multiclassing rules.

I can't imagine any rule more arbitrary than "You only get one archetype or multiclass" which is what the new rules effectively are.


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

But we don't have a choice between PF2 and PF1 with only the CRB.

PF2 has to show me something to make me give up all those options I listed and the rest of the options I didn't take the time to list.

I understand that there can't be literally every option, but is it too much to ask that they give us SOMETHING?

Some one shiny toy to make me want to play the game?

I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Sorry, I don't buy it; at this rate I won't be buying it.

I think the only major "new" concept for characters that PF1 introduced in Core that 3.5 didn't have was sorcerers having bloodlines other than draconic...

How distinct does a thing have to be to be considered new? I mean, the new Rogue is still a Rogue thematically, even though it does a lot of mechanical stuff differently. Alchemist was in PF1, but the new one looks significantly different from the original. I don't know if that opens them up more to new concepts or not, at least not until I see the whole thing. Goblins are totally different then they were in PF1, which is a downside for me, but a lot of people seem to be into it. A lot of multiclasses that weren't mechanically viable in PF1 are viable now. Not technically new, but still a nice thing to have.

But if you're that upset by losing all the PF1 non-core stuff, don't think of that as a reason to totally write the new system off, just give it some time to amass its own stock of add-ons. Maybe play PF1 for a couple years after PF2 release, then come back to PF2 once they've had a chance to really expand on it. It doesn't have to be an immediate all or nothing choice.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Dozens of examples were provided of characters that couldn't be played, or significantly underperformed* when using a la carte class-leveling to represent simple character concepts* (like a temple-apothecary as an Alchemist 3/Cleric 2). You've just continued to ignore us, 'discredit' us, or shift the goal-post further and further back.

*So much so that we ended up with forty base classes and hundreds of sometimes-mutually exclusive alternate classes... because navigating through that was actually an easier way to build a flavorful hybrid character than having your core statistics retarded by the arbritrary multiclassing rules.

There weren't dozens of examples- you've got maaaaaaybe one- but I'm pretty sure I could build a Cleric/Alchemist in PF1.

And then people saying "I like the new action rules better" which is not a new character concept.

And people saying, "See! Rogue/Wizard works super awesome now, so before was utter garbage nonfunctional BADWRONGFUN so we will count Rogue/Wizard an Fighter/Wizard which haven't been new since the 1980s as being new!"

No, I'm sorry, the same 12 classes aren't magically new because the mechanics underneath them changed.


HWalsh wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
What a gross waste of a lay-on-hands charge. Very flavorful though.

I'm thinking of getting it.

...

So it is not a waste. It just depends on the build.

It does depend, look at it as a 5th level Paladin that got it as quick as they could, it'll only do 1d6+3 (to 5).


Nathanael Love wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Dozens of examples were provided of characters that couldn't be played, or significantly underperformed* when using a la carte class-leveling to represent simple character concepts* (like a temple-apothecary as an Alchemist 3/Cleric 2). You've just continued to ignore us, 'discredit' us, or shift the goal-post further and further back.

*So much so that we ended up with forty base classes and hundreds of sometimes-mutually exclusive alternate classes... because navigating through that was actually an easier way to build a flavorful hybrid character than having your core statistics retarded by the arbritrary multiclassing rules.

There weren't dozens of examples- you've got maaaaaaybe one- but I'm pretty sure I could build a Cleric/Alchemist in PF1.

And then people saying "I like the new action rules better" which is not a new character concept.

And people saying, "See! Rogue/Wizard works super awesome now, so before was utter garbage nonfunctional BADWRONGFUN so we will count Rogue/Wizard an Fighter/Wizard which haven't been new since the 1980s as being new!"

No, I'm sorry, the same 12 classes aren't magically new because the mechanics underneath them changed.

That was me, saying that about the action rules, and it was intended to be in response to you saying they were bad, not suggesting them as a new character concept. I don't remember your exact words, and I'm not going back for them.

More relevantly, how about you put your money where your mouth is, and give us a concept for something totally new? Something that doesn't already exist in PF1 and can't be replicated in PF2 without creating an entirely new class? And that still fits the flavor of the setting? And that a large subset of players might actually find interesting? I'll wait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Dozens of examples were provided of characters that couldn't be played, or significantly underperformed* when using a la carte class-leveling to represent simple character concepts* (like a temple-apothecary as an Alchemist 3/Cleric 2). You've just continued to ignore us, 'discredit' us, or shift the goal-post further and further back.

*So much so that we ended up with forty base classes and hundreds of sometimes-mutually exclusive alternate classes... because navigating through that was actually an easier way to build a flavorful hybrid character than having your core statistics retarded by the arbritrary multiclassing rules.

There weren't dozens of examples- you've got maaaaaaybe one- but I'm pretty sure I could build a Cleric/Alchemist in PF1.

And then people saying "I like the new action rules better" which is not a new character concept.

And people saying, "See! Rogue/Wizard works super awesome now, so before was utter garbage nonfunctional BADWRONGFUN so we will count Rogue/Wizard an Fighter/Wizard which haven't been new since the 1980s as being new!"

No, I'm sorry, the same 12 classes aren't magically new because the mechanics underneath them changed.

That was me, saying that about the action rules, and it was intended to be in response to you saying they were bad, not suggesting them as a new character concept. I don't remember your exact words, and I'm not going back for them.

More relevantly, how about you put your money where your mouth is, and give us a concept for something totally new? Something that doesn't already exist in PF1 and can't be replicated in PF2 without creating an entirely new class? And that still fits the flavor of the setting? And that a large subset of players might actually find interesting? I'll wait.

Interesting or Viable? Both would be nice.

Personally though, and I'm not the poster you asked, but I'd like to see some sort of "Rune Caster".

That might exist under the archtypes for PF1 though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

So is this the final Blog prior to the Playtest Launch?


MerlinCross wrote:

Personally though, and I'm not the poster you asked, but I'd like to see some sort of "Rune Caster".

That might exist under the archtypes for PF1 though.

Clarify, cause right now I'm thinking of wordcasting from that.


MerlinCross wrote:

Interesting or Viable? Both would be nice.

Personally though, and I'm not the poster you asked, but I'd like to see some sort of "Rune Caster".

That might exist under the archtypes for PF1 though.

True, it should really be both, since that's what Paizo would be expected to put out.

There's a Rune domain in PF1, though it's pretty unsatisfying. There's also magic items called Sin Runes apparently. Not exactly the same thing though, so I'll give you that one, though I think that would be easy to archetype or feat into on any standard caster. They had a item crafting feat for runecasting in 3.x. Think there was a PrC to go along with it too. It was basically a variant on Scribe Scroll, but you could set the Rune to have different triggers so non-casters could use them.

EDIT: The sin runes were Paizo, but pre-pathfinder.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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?

Oh oh, I know!

You can cast a seventh level Bard spell... As a Fighter. :)

In all seriousness, though, if "full BaB front line fighter that can cast bardic magic up to eighth level" doesn't count as a "new" concept to you, then I think you have defined your question such as to preclude an answer.

Same for concepts like "pure fighter with no spellcasting that does effective battlefield control" or "barbarian that uses his skills to heal the party between battles". Those are both concepts that simply aren't possible in PF1, and complaining that there is nothing new only because the names of the classes haven't changed is incredibly pedantic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Personally though, and I'm not the poster you asked, but I'd like to see some sort of "Rune Caster".

That might exist under the archtypes for PF1 though.

Clarify, cause right now I'm thinking of wordcasting from that.

Oh okay...

Instead of a spell book or even scrolls, the caster users Runes; drawings or symbols to cast spells. Maybe a prepared caster but closer to Alchemist. Actually makes his spells out of metal or carves them into equipment like swords or armor. Maybe shields.

Sure you don't get as much casting as a full caster but I would picture being able to cast them faster, give them to allies ahead of time to use when they need it, or even set them up as traps(Carve a rune into a bridge, hello Fireball when chasers walk over it).

Balance wise, I'm unsure. I can easily see this being completely busted. But the idea of "You can place a spell on a thing for use later" seems like a good idea for a caster.

A Ninja Errant wrote:

True, it should really be both, since that's what Paizo would be expected to put out.

There's a Rune domain in PF1, though it's pretty unsatisfying. There's also magic items called Sin Runes apparently. Not exactly the same thing though, so I'll give you that one, though I think that would be easy to archetype or feat into on any standard caster. They had a item crafting feat for runecasting in 3.x. Think there was a PrC to go along with it too. It was basically a variant on Scribe Scroll, but you could set the Rune to have different triggers so non-casters could use them.

Yeah I saw something about Runecasting in another game. Someone either dug it up or dragged it out of third party. I didn't see too much about it but the idea stuck there.


MaxAstro wrote:
Same for concepts like "pure fighter with no spellcasting that does effective battlefield control" or "barbarian that uses his skills to heal the party between battles". Those are both concepts that simply aren't possible in PF1, and complaining that there is nothing new only because the names of the classes haven't changed is incredibly pedantic.

I built a fighter in PF1. Bullrush, Trip build. Just focused on tying up 1-2 people. Decent but not the "Effective Battlefield control" equal to casting Black Tentacles or Ice Wall you might be looking for.

And anyone can heal with skills now. Here it is

Entirely possible. How viable do you want them to be though?


MerlinCross wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Personally though, and I'm not the poster you asked, but I'd like to see some sort of "Rune Caster".

That might exist under the archtypes for PF1 though.

Clarify, cause right now I'm thinking of wordcasting from that.

Oh okay...

Instead of a spell book or even scrolls, the caster users Runes; drawings or symbols to cast spells. Maybe a prepared caster but closer to Alchemist. Actually makes his spells out of metal or carves them into equipment like swords or armor. Maybe shields.

Sure you don't get as much casting as a full caster but I would picture being able to cast them faster, give them to allies ahead of time to use when they need it, or even set them up as traps(Carve a rune into a bridge, hello Fireball when chasers walk over it).

Balance wise, I'm unsure. I can easily see this being completely busted. But the idea of "You can place a spell on a thing for use later" seems like a good idea for a caster.

That actually sounds like a an easy archetype to make for PF1 Alchemist when you put it that way. For PF2...honestly maybe just a different application of the magic item crafting feat.

I think the 3.x version was limited to Divine casters, not sure there's any particular reason to limit it to any one specific type of casting class though. It does make better sense for prepared casters.

1,001 to 1,050 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