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
1,051 to 1,100 of 1,191 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

A Ninja Errant wrote:
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.

Maybe. Runes is another fantasy term that when someone says it, you can probably get each person to picture how it would work differently.

Though hmm, I guess I could write up a homebrew archetype. I was going to base it off Magus with more crafting feats myself. Hmm, get back to you on it.


MerlinCross wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:
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.
Maybe. Runes is another fantasy term that when someone says it, you can probably get each person to picture how it would work differently.

Very true. It's been used a ton in various fantasy settings, but pretty much differently every time.

MerlinCross wrote:
Though hmm, I guess I could write up a homebrew archetype. I was going to base it off Magus with more crafting feats myself. Hmm, get back to you on it.

Sounds cool to me. I never actually liked the flavor of alchemist in PF1, but a Runecasting variant sounds like fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

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.

This isn't' really equivalent as we're talking a multiclass fighter/bard.

SO in both games the player would get bard spells and in both you get the combined BAB as the new game had EVERYONE as full BAB. So no new ground there. A difference in magnitude of some features isn't really a new concept.

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".

Both are possible in both: As MerlinCross pointed out, maneuvers can manage control and healing was possible with a single multiclass level into druid for druidic herbalism. If you're bring in multiclass as THE thing that makes everything new, you have to look at what it could already do.

Secondly, as we've heard that our barbarian healer used both multiclass and skills to heal, it's hard to count it as something new yet until we see if skill alone is enough for it to be viable.


MerlinCross wrote:


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.

Sounds like a more portable and slightly differently focused blood alchemist.

Not an exact 1 to 1 trade but a similar concept. Also sounds a bit more like an artificer type character than a caster.


graystone wrote:
Secondly, as we've heard that our barbarian healer used both multiclass and skills to heal, it's hard to count it as something new yet until we see if skill alone is enough for it to be viable.

Not to mention items it seems.

So "Barbarian that can craft healing items" is probably something you could do in PF1 to a degree.

willuwontu wrote:


Sounds like a more portable and slightly differently focused blood alchemist.

Not an exact 1 to 1 trade but a similar concept. Also sounds a bit more like an artificer type character than a caster.

I like Alchemist. It's my favorite class and I look for a lot of stuff about it.

How the heck did I miss this? Also I'll say part of my idea was somewhat inspired by the Runes they showed for equipment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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. ^_^

Will commit to memory in my internal SRD! (At least until Thursday :P )


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's probably worth noting that some of the non-core classes that will be 'lost' in the new edition only really existed because of a failing/weakness of the 3.x/PF1 system. The fact that certain things can now be achieved a particular way is not necessarily a bad thing and is probably more an indicator of the strength of the new system.

Maybe there won't be the same set of options you had 10+ years into the old edition, but there seems to be a hell of a lot more achievable than the when CRB dropped back in August 2009.


Felinus wrote:

It's probably worth noting that some of the non-core classes that will be 'lost' in the new edition only really existed because of a failing/weakness of the 3.x/PF1 system. The fact that certain things can now be achieved a particular way is not necessarily a bad thing and is probably more an indicator of the strength of the new system.

Maybe there won't be the same set of options you had 10+ years into the old edition, but there seems to be a hell of a lot more achieveable than the when CRB dropped back in August 2009.

The biggest failure of PF2E is that it doesn't have an Unchained Summoner.

Unchained Summoner was fantastic and balanced, why isn't it there one in the CRB?!


Tangent101 wrote:
So is this the final Blog prior to the Playtest Launch?

Quite probably. Its GenCon week, and that tends to eat everything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally can't wait for the first race supplement.

Hobgoblin Ranger/Alchemist, here I come


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Felinus wrote:

It's probably worth noting that some of the non-core classes that will be 'lost' in the new edition only really existed because of a failing/weakness of the 3.x/PF1 system. The fact that certain things can now be achieved a particular way is not necessarily a bad thing and is probably more an indicator of the strength of the new system.

Maybe there won't be the same set of options you had 10+ years into the old edition, but there seems to be a hell of a lot more achievable than the when CRB dropped back in August 2009.

The problem is, as I see it, is that the classes that were made due to the failings/weakness...., are dead when it comes to the new system.

Not worked into, not lessons learned, no "Hey this was really popular maybe we should do it again". Just dead.

I can't as of right now look at any of the classes in PF2 and say "Yup, they learned this from Brawler" or "Oh they took this from Oracle".

When the thing we liked to do can't be achieved in the system, why should we view it as a strength? I mean I don't see it as a weakness, you all can go play what you want. However I'm not going to to cheer and be happy when all the classes/archetypes I liked are either deleted or pushed back for years to come.

I'll just play what I want now in PF1.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I would not be highly surprised if all the specific abilities of PF1 classes appeared in a book soon after the CRB will be released, likely as feats

Maybe some of them could even be directly in the CRB

PF2 CRB tries to get as many concepts on board as possible, but it is still a CRB based on a legacy. Asking it, and even worse asking the playtest CRB, to include completely new character concepts seems highly unfair to me because it is not their goal

The devs are creating a whole new system and they want us to test it hard so they can make it the best they can design. Simple as that


with the whole rune caster idea. what if in PF2E you go Ranger/MC wizard maybe you could mix your spellcasting with your snares. item creation is one thing i want to read up on when the playtest drops.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I would not be highly surprised if all the specific abilities of PF1 classes appeared in a book soon after the CRB will be released, likely as feats

Maybe some of them could even be directly in the CRB

PF2 CRB tries to get as many concepts on board as possible, but it is still a CRB based on a legacy. Asking it, and even worse asking the playtest CRB, to include completely new character concepts seems highly unfair to me because it is not their goal

The devs are creating a whole new system and they want us to test it hard so they can make it the best they can design. Simple as that

I will admit I don't expect them to do so. I also think it's incredibly rude to think they could try to playtest ALL the things. I might be complaining about some things but as an example, I think they did the right thing with pushing back Guns to a later date(Another thing that seems highly polarized both in mechanics and fluff).

I just dislike the idea of some classes being left behind because "Oh well we don't have those problems now", or "you can do it this way with X and Y as your classes" or just boiled down to a Feat or archetype.

In 5 years they could have Stand alone Brawler, Shaman, heck they could even have made Alchemist look closer to PF1 Alchemist.

But that's in 5 years and a guess at that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean my group is probably going to continue to play PF1 until a few books come out. I'll buy as they come at some point we will just move forward when we think we have a good base. Its full on crazy to expect a new edition to immediately have everything with their first book that was in the last 10 years of the previous edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean my group is probably going to continue to play PF1 until a few books come out. I'll buy as they come at some point we will just move forward when we think we have a good base. Its full on crazy to expect a new edition to immediately have everything with their first book that was in the last 10 years of the previous edition.

I think it's crazy too!

But I don't think it's crazy to be worried about if the frame work we are going to be testing will allow for concepts from PF1 to be brought over as is. Or at least closer to how they feel.

At worst they don't come over and the excuse is "Fighter/Monk is what you want". "Cleric Paladin.... no wait Cleric Fighter. Yeah that's it" or any other combo/feat build that can be tossed out because "It's just like it right?"

When they go to make the Gun Splatbook, and Gunslinger is just an archetype, well I'll probably have my answer then.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean my group is probably going to continue to play PF1 until a few books come out. I'll buy as they come at some point we will just move forward when we think we have a good base. Its full on crazy to expect a new edition to immediately have everything with their first book that was in the last 10 years of the previous edition.

I mean, the last two APs for PF1 seem to be humdingers for people who have been following the plot and want epic adventures. A lot of folks won't have gotten through those, let alone the other APs they want to play, before the CRB hits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean my group is probably going to continue to play PF1 until a few books come out. I'll buy as they come at some point we will just move forward when we think we have a good base. Its full on crazy to expect a new edition to immediately have everything with their first book that was in the last 10 years of the previous edition.

I think it's crazy too!

But I don't think it's crazy to be worried about if the frame work we are going to be testing will allow for concepts from PF1 to be brought over as is. Or at least closer to how they feel.

At worst they don't come over and the excuse is "Fighter/Monk is what you want". "Cleric Paladin.... no wait Cleric Fighter. Yeah that's it" or any other combo/feat build that can be tossed out because "It's just like it right?"

When they go to make the Gun Splatbook, and Gunslinger is just an archetype, well I'll probably have my answer then.

Wait why is your concept literally just class + class = concept? Thats not a concept that's how you build a concept. A concept is I want to play a guy that excels in punching people. Or I want to play a OCD Wizard who like illusions etc. etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean my group is probably going to continue to play PF1 until a few books come out. I'll buy as they come at some point we will just move forward when we think we have a good base. Its full on crazy to expect a new edition to immediately have everything with their first book that was in the last 10 years of the previous edition.

I think it's crazy too!

But I don't think it's crazy to be worried about if the frame work we are going to be testing will allow for concepts from PF1 to be brought over as is. Or at least closer to how they feel.

At worst they don't come over and the excuse is "Fighter/Monk is what you want". "Cleric Paladin.... no wait Cleric Fighter. Yeah that's it" or any other combo/feat build that can be tossed out because "It's just like it right?"

When they go to make the Gun Splatbook, and Gunslinger is just an archetype, well I'll probably have my answer then.

Wait why is your concept literally just class + class = concept? Thats not a concept that's how you build a concept. A concept is I want to play a guy that excels in punching people. Or I want to play a OCD Wizard who like illusions etc. etc.

Totally agreed. I think that people are loving labels more than the characters themselves.

Of course, a rather simple character concept shouldn't be too complicated to build: if there is a class dedicated to it like in PF1, that's the easiest I can get. But making a class for everything is not viable, either.

I'd also like to remember to some people here that this is just the playtest, not even the CRB. We will get all the options we want, eventually: it's in the best interest of Paizo to release more books.


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

I get that. For you, you will have to wait until they bring out some more options in an expansion book before it makes it worth your while to transfer, which will probably mean a few years from now. In the mean time, I hope you continue to enjoy playing pf1. Good luck, and see you in a few years!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say, I disagree with those who say that many of the concepts from pf1 can be reduced to a multi-class in pf2 CRB.
Take for example, Magus. Magus is just a Fighter/Wizard or Wizard/Fighter, right? (or Sorcerer/Fighter, etc.)
Wrong. While those are interesting concepts, and I have played such multi-classes in Pf1, they play very differently to Magus. The Multi-class concentrates on Buffs (well, mine do) because attack spells get in the way of melee attacks.
The Magus is specifically designed to combine attack spells with melee, so has no such limitation.
I gather there is a wizard class feat that emulates spell combat (it has been alluded to, but we haven't seen it, so I could be misreading the cues).
There is, as yet, no known equivalent of spellstrike. In Pf2 it would allow you to make one roll with your melee attack to get a hit with your spell; a crit would resolve as normal for a spell. This is still more powerful than using spell dcs as combat proficiency rises faster for a Fighter than spell proficiency for a Caster. (Legendary at 8th pretty much guarantees a crit).
There is nothing which even approximates a Magus' ability to enhance their weapon.
Then there is spell recall, and Magus arcana. The latter alone would represent an entire class worth of class feats.
All in all, claiming that Fighter/Wizard is a good substitute for magus is nonsense. Fighter/Wizard is a good choice, and something I would use (or more specifically, Fighter/Sorcerer when it's available), but it is not the same as a Magus.

I could go on, suffice to say that just about every other class in Pf1 has enough options that would make it difficult to boil down to an archetype or a multi-class. While the multi-class option is interesting and powerful, it is no substitute for these many brilliant innovations from Pf1, so please stop saying they can be recreated/reduced to an Archetype. Maybe some will be reduced to an archetype; maybe some can be recreated, but the fact remains that most of them use unique abilities that make them irreducible/irreplaceable.


Gavmania wrote:

I have to say, I disagree with those who say that many of the concepts from pf1 can be reduced to a multi-class in pf2 CRB.

Take for example, Magus. Magus is just a Fighter/Wizard or Wizard/Fighter, right? (or Sorcerer/Fighter, etc.)
Wrong. While those are interesting concepts, and I have played such multi-classes in Pf1, they play very differently to Magus. The Multi-class concentrates on Buffs (well, mine do) because attack spells get in the way of melee attacks.
The Magus is specifically designed to combine attack spells with melee, so has no such limitation.
I gather there is a wizard class feat that emulates spell combat (it has been alluded to, but we haven't seen it, so I could be misreading the cues).
There is, as yet, no known equivalent of spellstrike. In Pf2 it would allow you to make one roll with your melee attack to get a hit with your spell; a crit would resolve as normal for a spell. This is still more powerful than using spell dcs as combat proficiency rises faster for a Fighter than spell proficiency for a Caster. (Legendary at 8th pretty much guarantees a crit).
There is nothing which even approximates a Magus' ability to enhance their weapon.
Then there is spell recall, and Magus arcana. The latter alone would represent an entire class worth of class feats.
All in all, claiming that Fighter/Wizard is a good substitute for magus is nonsense. Fighter/Wizard is a good choice, and something I would use (or more specifically, Fighter/Sorcerer when it's available), but it is not the same as a Magus.

I could go on, suffice to say that just about every other class in Pf1 has enough options that would make it difficult to boil down to an archetype or a multi-class. While the multi-class option is interesting and powerful, it is no substitute for these many brilliant innovations from Pf1, so please stop saying they can be recreated/reduced to an Archetype. Maybe some will be reduced to an archetype; maybe some can be recreated, but the fact remains that most of them use unique...

Further to this point; without the Magus class, it is much harder for another non-martial class (such as bard, alchemist or cleric) to multi-class into Magus, as they would then have to multi-class into two classes (Martial and Arcane caster) to try and get a similar effect, rather than just taking the Magus dedication feat.

Or heck, they could even build it as a Magus multi-classing into bard/alchemist/cleric if they wanted.

Yes we can build pseudo-hybrid classes without the hybrid classes, but them being added to PF2 would still open up a lot of flexibility for character building.


Gavmania wrote:


There is, as yet, no known equivalent of spellstrike. In Pf2 it would allow you to make one roll with your melee attack to get a hit with your spell; a crit would resolve as normal for a spell. This is still more powerful than using spell dcs as combat proficiency rises faster for a Fighter than spell proficiency for a Caster. (Legendary at 8th pretty much guarantees a crit).
There is nothing which even approximates a Magus' ability to enhance their weapon.
Then there is spell recall, and Magus arcana. The latter alone would represent an entire class worth of class feats.
All in all, claiming that Fighter/Wizard is a good substitute for magus is nonsense. Fighter/Wizard is a good choice, and something I would use (or more specifically, Fighter/Sorcerer when it's available), but it is not the same as a Magus.

Is it possible that spellstrike is TOO good? All the examples I read for spellstrike involve a magus casting a spell, and then striking with their weapon for boatloads of dice plus boatloads of more dice for the spell at fairly low levels (below 10th level, usually involving intensified shocking grasp.) a held charge spell staying with a weapon until you hit with it is a pretty beefy bonus - it’s not like the spell is wasted on a miss, meaning that wallop-charge carries no real risk, it’s just there until you hit.

The other abilities mention sound like they could easily be worked into either a prestige class’ class feats, or may well have features that are similar (for example, the arcane pool spell recall ability being similar to the arcane focus right now.)

If designers go down the road of just designing classes for the sake of their own existence, rather than being there to fulfill a needed niche in the game, you’re back where you were in PF1 with 30-odd classes, 19 separate spell lists, on the way to scores of classes, each one designed just to fill a small niche - and very few designers want to be in the business of supporting scores of classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did one-shot a fair amount of enemies with my magus... at least till I ran out of spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlaquin wrote:
A system that reduces trap options will necessarily reduce your ability to play bad-but-fun characters on purpose. I think that’s a worthwhile trade off for reducing the risk of non-expert players creating bad unfun characters by accident.

We haven't just seen trap options removed. That would get full support from me. We're seeing good and viable options removed from the game as collateral damage to removing the trap options. I'd rather have some trap options then lose good and great options.

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

If you want a ki wielding rogue I'm pretty sure Ninja can scratch that itch.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I actually really disliked 4E by the time I'd looked at it enough and played an abortive game or three......only objected to the scaling skill bonus because of the lack of other skill options

Well that explains it. PF2e's skill feats are direct analog of 4th ed's skill powers. However skill powers didn't come out until PHB3, which you wouldn't have seen if you stopped playing shortly after the game released.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
multiclassing wasn't what drove most people away from 4E. It's certainly not what drove me away from it.

Pathfinder is actually what drove me away from 4th ed. I went kicking and screaming but eventually I came to enjoy Pathfinder far more than 4th ed. One of the things I loved about Pathfinder was how mutliclassing existed where you stopped gaining levels in one class and gained levels in an alternative class isntead.

Nathanael Love wrote:

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

In PF1e I wanted to make a colonial/Avistani (white man) who went native and became a witch doctor in Serpent's Skull (think Heart of Darkness apparently. Never read the book myself).

I couldn't achieve it in Pathfinder 1e. I really, really tried. I wanted to start as a martial character (fighter, rogue, barbarian, whatever) who would go on to become a spellcaster (witch, necromancer, I didn't really care). I couldn't get it to work and actually be a feasible build (no, eldritch knight would not have conveyed the flavour I was looking for). I expect such a build will be viable in PF2e and it is one of the characters I plan to make to demonstrate what can (or can't) be achieved in PF2e compared with PF1e.

Nathanael Love wrote:

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

If you're not going to accept alchemist or goblins then you shouldn't accept dragonborn and warlords. Warlords were published in late 3.5e as Marshalls (from memory. I never actually played 3.5e) while dragonborn were printed in some late 3.5e book as well.

I honestly think you're better off not playing PF2e for a year or 3 based on what you've said. I myself am not exactly looking forward to the new edition. But if you're going to pretend to hold the new edition to the same standard as other editions, you should probably actually do so.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Warlords were published in late 3.5e as Marshalls (from memory. I never actually played 3.5e)

The Marshal actually came out during late 3.0/early 3.5 (October 2003), in the Miniatures Handbook (very appropriate book for the class to have debuted in), designed by Rob Heinsoo, and then it became the Warlord in 4th Ed, obviously Rob's pet class.


MerlinCross wrote:
Felinus wrote:

It's probably worth noting that some of the non-core classes that will be 'lost' in the new edition only really existed because of a failing/weakness of the 3.x/PF1 system. The fact that certain things can now be achieved a particular way is not necessarily a bad thing and is probably more an indicator of the strength of the new system.

Maybe there won't be the same set of options you had 10+ years into the old edition, but there seems to be a hell of a lot more achievable than the when CRB dropped back in August 2009.

The problem is, as I see it, is that the classes that were made due to the failings/weakness...., are dead when it comes to the new system.

Not worked into, not lessons learned, no "Hey this was really popular maybe we should do it again". Just dead.

I can't as of right now look at any of the classes in PF2 and say "Yup, they learned this from Brawler" or "Oh they took this from Oracle".

When the thing we liked to do can't be achieved in the system, why should we view it as a strength? I mean I don't see it as a weakness, you all can go play what you want. However I'm not going to to cheer and be happy when all the classes/archetypes I liked are either deleted or pushed back for years to come.

I'll just play what I want now in PF1.

Might take a while, but I suspect some things will be coming back in a revamped form. Oracle in particular has been noted to be unique in a way that it isn't simply a sorcerer bloodline.

I think some of these delays are going to be inevitable. I personally don't mind as, while I like PF, I have no strong attachments to PF1 while the playtest looks like it's catering to the sort of play style I've been looking for.

At any rate, each to their own, have fun!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I think there's a flaw with this overall design as a whole, particularly for spellcasters. Granted, please read the following as supposition based on the assumptions of rules that we don't yet know in full.

The big problem here is the following:
** Multiclassing enforces stat requirements on your "subclass" but not on your primary class ***

Why is this a problem? Well, PF2, in what I think was a good direction, tried to do away with "requiring" any class from focusing on its primary stats. I jokingly indicated I was going to focus on a Goblin Cleric with a Wisdom of 8. Granted, we've, I believe, since learned that their Wisdom will need to be at least 10, but consider the following build:
Str: 16, Dex: 14, Con: 12, Int: 10, Wis: 10, Cha 16.

Given this stat array, I can immediately multiclass into either sorcerer or Fighter, and at level 6, I likely have the option of opening that up further. Given that my "primary" class is cleric, this feels like a loophole. I should need to be a solid *cleric* to multiclass into another class, not be good at the other class. Honestly, I think a better requirement for multiclassing feats would be:
** A 16 in your primary class stat and any other multiclassing archetypes you have. **

This solves two problems, the first which I described, and the second which a lot of people have been worried about: Cross stat multiclassing being hard. Essentially, this makes the first one "free" if you've gone heavy into your main class, but diversifying beyond that gets more tricky.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Not really, it's basically story and mechanics integration working together. You have higher stats in your non-Class A preferred stats because you're not a 100% focused Class A, you're Class A who has done an indeterminate amount of dabbling in Class B.

Also with the way stat generation works in the Playtest asking for a 16 in your Class A stat before you can multiclass may as well not be a prerequisite at all, save the word count.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Not really, it's basically story and mechanics integration working together. You have higher stats in your non-Class A preferred stats because you're not a 100% focused Class A, you're Class A who has done an indeterminate amount of dabbling in Class B.

It's kinda the opposite of this. It's insisting that you're better at the class that you subclass into than your main class. That's the effect that the requirements, as stated, have.

Rysky wrote:
Also with the way stat generation works in the Playtest asking for a 16 in your Class A stat before you can multiclass may as well not be a prerequisite at all, save the word count.

I literally provided an example in the post you're responding to that shows this to be false.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Given this stat array, I can immediately multiclass into either sorcerer or Fighter, and at level 6, I likely have the option of opening that up further. Given that my "primary" class is cleric, this feels like a loophole.

Nah. They way it is right now allows for characters that weren't quite a good fit for how they were trained. That goblin wasn't cut out to be a cleric, can barely cast spells, and yet managed to enter the church. Clearly, she'd much rather be fighting or discovering her early "miracles" were due to tainted blood. The stats (and requirements) reflect that.


KingOfAnything wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Given this stat array, I can immediately multiclass into either sorcerer or Fighter, and at level 6, I likely have the option of opening that up further. Given that my "primary" class is cleric, this feels like a loophole.
Nah. They way it is right now allows for characters that weren't quite a good fit for how they were trained. That goblin wasn't cut out to be a cleric, can barely cast spells, and yet managed to enter the church. Clearly, she'd much rather be fighting or discovering her early "miracles" were due to tainted blood. The stats (and requirements) reflect that.

I'd be okay with that interpretation of things, but the thing of it is, that Fighter continues to become a better and better Cleric throughout their career. They don't stop progressing as a Cleric, given the ways the rules currently work for multiclassing (you still get spells and class abilities).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
A Ninja Errant wrote:


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.

Or, stay with me here- maybe the people who are asking for us to pay them money for a whole new round of books not compatible with the previous books we paid them for could come up with them?

I'm not kidding when I say that I found an interesting set of options in nearly every player companion- last one I got was Blood of the Ancients and the Justkin Artificer Magus Archetype is a new idea that grabbed a lot of people attention as an example.

As for things utterly missing from PF1 that are fantasy tropes, Artificers are one major one that comes to mind off the top of my head. But I'm not the one asking for another 50 bucks for a new set of core rules, or for continuing investments for more splat books.

The process of rebuying the same content parceled out in slightly different format is the WORST aspect of a new edition. No, I just really want to wait for Ultimater Magic and Advanceder Player's Guide just to get back a few of the things we already have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't classes specifically give bonuses in your key stat(s), specifically to enforce how important those stats are?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Given this stat array, I can immediately multiclass into either sorcerer or Fighter, and at level 6, I likely have the option of opening that up further. Given that my "primary" class is cleric, this feels like a loophole.
Nah. They way it is right now allows for characters that weren't quite a good fit for how they were trained. That goblin wasn't cut out to be a cleric, can barely cast spells, and yet managed to enter the church. Clearly, she'd much rather be fighting or discovering her early "miracles" were due to tainted blood. The stats (and requirements) reflect that.
I'd be okay with that interpretation of things, but the thing of it is, that Fighter continues to become a better and better Cleric throughout their career. They don't stop progressing as a Cleric, given the ways the rules currently work for multiclassing (you still get spells and class abilities).

So, normally my answer to this sort of thing (the "I want to actually stop progressing as a cleric" part) is retraining. Instead of multiclassing into Fighter from Cleric you retrain into a Fighter who's multiclassed into Cleric. Now RAW this doesn't actually work for the "I dumped my primary stat HARD in my old base class". This is kind of an edge case IMO (since usually people don't heavily dump their initial class's core stat), but I could see a GM allowing it the retraining in this kind of situation even though you don't actually meet the attribute reqs.

I'm not sure what the long term answer is. I feel like the attribute requirements are the for at least two reasons. First they (combined with the minimum number of feats before taking another devotion) limit the amount of dipping you can do, which is something of a power check on multiclassing. Second, they represent the fact that you can't easily pick up some random thing during your adventuring life if you're not pretty darn good at it. I feel like both of those are useful, but I would like a good way to represent the "I just stopped doing that thing" even if you don't meet the multiclass attribute requirements.

Like I said though, it's a weird edge case. Maybe just "GM fiat" is enough to handle it (other than in organized play).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Not really, it's basically story and mechanics integration working together. You have higher stats in your non-Class A preferred stats because you're not a 100% focused Class A, you're Class A who has done an indeterminate amount of dabbling in Class B.

It's kinda the opposite of this. It's insisting that you're better at the class that you subclass into than your main class. That's the effect that the requirements, as stated, have.

Rysky wrote:
Also with the way stat generation works in the Playtest asking for a 16 in your Class A stat before you can multiclass may as well not be a prerequisite at all, save the word count.

I literally provided an example in the post you're responding to that shows this to be false.

Well no because the assumption would be that you boost your Class A stats, because that's your main class. You don't have to, as your example where you intentionally got the stat as low as possible shows, but it's not recommended. So the claim that this paradigm "insists that you be better at your subclass rather than your domclass main class" doesn't hold up.

You don't have to be "better" than your main class, you have to have a set proficiency. So it's saying you have to be on par, in a way, with the class your subbing into.


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


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.

Or, stay with me here- maybe the people who are asking for us to pay them money for a whole new round of books not compatible with the previous books we paid them for could come up with them?

I'm not kidding when I say that I found an interesting set of options in nearly every player companion- last one I got was Blood of the Ancients and the Justkin Artificer Magus Archetype is a new idea that grabbed a lot of people attention as an example.

As for things utterly missing from PF1 that are fantasy tropes, Artificers are one major one that comes to mind off the top of my head. But I'm not the one asking for another 50 bucks for a new set of core rules, or for continuing investments for more splat books.

The process of rebuying the same content parceled out in slightly different format is the WORST aspect of a new edition. No, I just really want to wait for Ultimater Magic and Advanceder Player's Guide just to get back a few of the things we already have.

That's cool, and I hope you can accept you are the minority here.

The influx D&D 5E received is not just because it's a better entry-level game, it's, rules-wise, cleaner and more scalable than Pathfinder, which has a lot of dead ends.

I'm glad you enjoy the game as is, but there's no point in maintaining it this way if Pathfinder intends to survive.


Nathanael Love wrote:


Or, stay with me here- maybe the people who are asking for us to pay them money for a whole new round of books not compatible with the previous books we paid them for could come up with them?

I'm not kidding when I say that I found an interesting set of options in nearly every player companion- last one I got was Blood of the Ancients and the Justkin Artificer Magus Archetype is a new idea that grabbed a lot of people attention as an example.

As for things utterly missing from PF1 that are fantasy tropes, Artificers are one major one that comes to mind off the top of my head. But I'm not the one asking for another 50 bucks for a new set of core rules, or for continuing investments for more splat books.

The process of rebuying the same content parceled out in slightly different format is the WORST aspect of a new edition. No, I just really want to wait for Ultimater Magic and Advanceder Player's Guide just to get back a few of the things we already have.

Sounds like your mind's made up. But think of it this way - its as if when TV only had 4 stations, a person were to say, "Bah! They only have 4 choices? I'll be sticking with radio, thanks."

But both radio and TV are great.

The beauty of it is that both PF1 and PF2 still exist. I can have fun with 2nd edition, you can have fun with 1st edition. There's no need to crap on each other's preference.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ngai M'katu wrote:

Sounds like your mind's made up. But think of it this way - its as if when TV only had 4 stations, a person were to say, "Bah! They only have 4 choices? I'll be sticking with radio, thanks."

But both radio and TV are great.

The beauty of it is that both PF1 and PF2 still exist. I can have fun with 2nd edition, you can have fun with 1st edition. There's no need to crap on each other's preference.

Except I keep trying to be open and persuadable here if Paizo would just put in a new idea that makes me want to play it.

Apparently that's asking too much.

And we all know that in Practice the second PF2 exists PF1 ceases to exist and I won't be able to get a table at a Con to play all my PF1 characters.

To be honest-- there's a much greater chance I will just go to 5th ed instead than go to PF2 as it looks now because of the lack of any new/interesting idea other than "everything's a feat and you get a buttload of them".


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
Ngai M'katu wrote:

Sounds like your mind's made up. But think of it this way - its as if when TV only had 4 stations, a person were to say, "Bah! They only have 4 choices? I'll be sticking with radio, thanks."

But both radio and TV are great.

The beauty of it is that both PF1 and PF2 still exist. I can have fun with 2nd edition, you can have fun with 1st edition. There's no need to crap on each other's preference.

Except I keep trying to be open and persuadable here if Paizo would just put in a new idea that makes me want to play it.

Apparently that's asking too much.

And we all know that in Practice the second PF2 exists PF1 ceases to exist and I won't be able to get a table at a Con to play all my PF1 characters.

To be honest-- there's a much greater chance I will just go to 5th ed instead than go to PF2 as it looks now because of the lack of any new/interesting idea other than "everything's a feat and you get a buttload of them".

Alchemist being able to make and distribute alchemical items for free seems pretty legit new to me. For a lot of the other stuff, they need to capture as much of old Pathfinder as possible.

When it comes out, though, I’ll be playing a Rogue with unlimited Bard song.

Shadow Lodge

A wizard that, through geneaology or prayer, unlocks a well spring of magic they didn't have before while continue to advance their wizardly arts and be effective at both(or all three) aspects of their magic.

A common soldier that sings songs with his fellows while walking to keep up moral and finds out later those same songs can turn the tide of battle... but didn't sacrifice his advancing skill with a blade or shield.

A martial artist that takes so much inspiration for their fighting style from nature that they can become animals to fight.

Wizard + Cleric + Sorcerer
Fighter + Bard
Monk + Druid

You can't do that without becoming less effective at something to the point you'd be better off sticking as just one class. You couldn't dabble and have useful things from it except 'I can use a wand without UMD now' so yes, this is new.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Alchemist being able to make and distribute alchemical items for free seems pretty legit new to me. For a lot of the other stuff, they need to capture as much of old Pathfinder as possible.

Herbalism nature bond for Druids.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:


The process of rebuying the same content parceled out in slightly different format is the WORST aspect of a new edition. No, I just really want to wait for Ultimater Magic and Advanceder Player's Guide just to get back a few of the things we already have.

Erik Mona has implied that the production model for new splats is explicitly going to avoid the "Okay, here is a new version of APG, here is a new version of UM" Etc. Certainly we will got old classes/races/rule options in future releases, but that doesn't mean it won't come bundled together with completely new options.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


The process of rebuying the same content parceled out in slightly different format is the WORST aspect of a new edition. No, I just really want to wait for Ultimater Magic and Advanceder Player's Guide just to get back a few of the things we already have.

Erik Mona has implied that the production model for new splats is explicitly going to avoid the "Okay, here is a new version of APG, here is a new version of UM" Etc. Certainly we will got old classes/races/rule options in future releases, but that doesn't mean it won't come bundled together with completely new options.

Which could mean a book with 12 options, 6 of which are returning options and 6 of which are legit new.

Or it could be a book with 12 options, 3 from Ultimate Combat, 1 from APG, 2 from ACG, 5 from Player's companion's and only a single "new" option.

We won't know until they start printing them, but if it's the latter that's going to feel the same as if they were just literal reprints updated to the new rules.

And the fact that there doesn't appear to be a single new option in the core suggest to me that it will be much closer to the "1 new" instead of "half new" model.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


The process of rebuying the same content parceled out in slightly different format is the WORST aspect of a new edition. No, I just really want to wait for Ultimater Magic and Advanceder Player's Guide just to get back a few of the things we already have.

Erik Mona has implied that the production model for new splats is explicitly going to avoid the "Okay, here is a new version of APG, here is a new version of UM" Etc. Certainly we will got old classes/races/rule options in future releases, but that doesn't mean it won't come bundled together with completely new options.

Which could mean a book with 12 options, 6 of which are returning options and 6 of which are legit new.

Or it could be a book with 12 options, 3 from Ultimate Combat, 1 from APG, 2 from ACG, 5 from Player's companion's and only a single "new" option.

We won't know until they start printing them, but if it's the latter that's going to feel the same as if they were just literal reprints updated to the new rules.

And the fact that there doesn't appear to be a single new option in the core suggest to me that it will be much closer to the "1 new" instead of "half new" model.

Did you have this same complaint when PF1e came out? And if so, then you do remember when the advanced player's guide came out and introduced a TON of new original classes. Why wouldn't you expect the same thing to happen with 2e?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
To be honest-- there's a much greater chance I will just go to 5th ed instead than go to PF2 as it looks now because of the lack of any new/interesting idea other than "everything's a feat and you get a buttload of them".

Judging by what I've seen you write, I don't think you'll be very happy with 5E. The character building options are quite shallow. 5E is fun to play, but not so fun to think about away from the table like the 3.PF family of games are.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Azten wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Alchemist being able to make and distribute alchemical items for free seems pretty legit new to me. For a lot of the other stuff, they need to capture as much of old Pathfinder as possible.
Herbalism nature bond for Druids.

You can do potions and elixirs in PF1, and after many years, poisons, but not alchemical items like tanglefoot bags and so on.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
To be honest-- there's a much greater chance I will just go to 5th ed instead than go to PF2 as it looks now because of the lack of any new/interesting idea other than "everything's a feat and you get a buttload of them".

Pathfinder 2 doesn't have enough options so you're going to go to D&D 5e, with all the new options they had in D&D 5e? LOL

It sounds like unless they give something a different name, you aren't going to accept that it is new. I don't understand players that are more concerned with what name is on their sheet than what their character can actually do.

1,051 to 1,100 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