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
101 to 150 of 1,191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So the one concern I have is how multiclassing interacts with archetypes via the dedication system. So I definitely like the idea of universal archetypes as "things you buy with feats" so we don't have to print a dozen different nautical archetypes, and I love the idea of prestige classes as archetype pools, so it makes sense that multiclassing works similarly (no reason to print a mystic theurge, when people can just multiclass as wizard clerics or cleric wizards).

But I hope when we get traditional style archetypes which change or reflavor a class, they don't get in the way of dedication based archetypes.

This is also my concern. There appears to also be some issue with the half-elf/orc heritage feats presumably not allowing you to take the heritage feat for Ulfen and be a Half-Elf/Half-Ulfen. You'd just always be a generic half-elf.

I really hope that there is some construct in the mechanics that allows you to realize both a prestige class, archetype, and multiclass at the same time without being locked out of one or the other because its all based on whether you have a feat to spend.


MerlinCross wrote:
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Unfortunately, multiclassing in PF1 often lead to characters that could not stack up to single class characters in terms of relative power compared to the APL, just like Prestige classes weakened a character. Hopefully, the archetype system in PF2 allows for abilities that are in line with single class options in terms of usefulness at their given levels. At least I think that's what the designers are looking for.

And does anyone else now have "Leeloo Dallas Multi Class" stuck in their heads now?

--Vrock & Load

More importantly, however, was the multiclass abominations that broke the game are now no longer possible.
Amazing that a system that leads to 'trash' characters also lets you break the game.

I think that they only "broke" the game for a few levels. You could get a power boost by taking some strong dips but over the course of a lot of levels you would end up behind. I think the new system works better mechanically though maybe not narratively .


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

One thing this will do is lessen the number of classes in future books. I mean, this almost decimates the Hybrid Class system - I think the only class you can't replicate in that is Swashbuckler (and even then you can come close).

So, we'll have a second book with the following: Witch, Oracle, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Cavalier (maybe? Did anyone ever play one?), Inquisitor, and Summoner. And maybe the Vigilante.

Shifters can probably be handled with a Druid multiclass and focusing on shapeshifting instead of spell use.

To be honest, the Vigilante probably could be handled through Archetypes... though multiclassing with Vigilante would allow most of the interesting Vigilante Archetypes they had (I rather liked the concept of the Magical Girl even if the class didn't work that well).

This also raises the question: will Base Classes and those from the inevitable Occult Classes have their own Multiclass templates? Or will Multiclassing remain only for the Core classes? (I mean, it doesn't make sense that someone can't multiclass Gunslinger to have access to guns but... after a while it risks getting messy and broken.)

Paizo Employee Designer

27 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Unfortunately, multiclassing in PF1 often lead to characters that could not stack up to single class characters in terms of relative power compared to the APL, just like Prestige classes weakened a character. Hopefully, the archetype system in PF2 allows for abilities that are in line with single class options in terms of usefulness at their given levels. At least I think that's what the designers are looking for.

And does anyone else now have "Leeloo Dallas Multi Class" stuck in their heads now?

--Vrock & Load

More importantly, however, was the multiclass abominations that broke the game are now no longer possible.

I don't think that's more important; people will always find a way to optimize a powerful character that the system allows, but more plentiful overall (if not on the Paizo boards) were newer players earnestly multiclassing Fighter6/Wizard6 because it sounded cool and being punished for it.


Very interesting.
Seems like a more evolved version of VMC.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Unfortunately, multiclassing in PF1 often lead to characters that could not stack up to single class characters in terms of relative power compared to the APL, just like Prestige classes weakened a character. Hopefully, the archetype system in PF2 allows for abilities that are in line with single class options in terms of usefulness at their given levels. At least I think that's what the designers are looking for.

And does anyone else now have "Leeloo Dallas Multi Class" stuck in their heads now?

--Vrock & Load

More importantly, however, was the multiclass abominations that broke the game are now no longer possible.
Amazing that a system that leads to 'trash' characters also lets you break the game.

yep, dipping led to broken characters, where as true multiclassing meant you couldn't do enough.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
rooneg wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
It would be cool to get a non-casting healing archetype at some point as a way to do something similar without relying on spells and a deity.
Yeah, having your Barbarian serve as the healer by multiclassing into Cleric is not exactly what I had in mind when you mentioned a Barbarian healer. I mean sure, if you're willing to multiclass into Cleric I sure hope you can serve as the healer, but I was sort of assuming you meant it was possible to serve as the healer just via Skill Feats or something.

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

Okay then.

We'll have to wait to see if Barbarian gets ANYTHING in their OWN kit to help with healing.

Because that's what some of us assumed was the actual case. Grabbing healing from another class wasn't part of that when it was talked about. Maybe if it was said "The Barbarian had to multiclass to help cover" some of us wouldn't be so hyped to see "Primary Healer Barbarian" when that doesn't seem to be the full case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Unfortunately, multiclassing in PF1 often lead to characters that could not stack up to single class characters in terms of relative power compared to the APL, just like Prestige classes weakened a character. Hopefully, the archetype system in PF2 allows for abilities that are in line with single class options in terms of usefulness at their given levels. At least I think that's what the designers are looking for.

And does anyone else now have "Leeloo Dallas Multi Class" stuck in their heads now?

--Vrock & Load

More importantly, however, was the multiclass abominations that broke the game are now no longer possible.
Amazing that a system that leads to 'trash' characters also lets you break the game.

Most multiclass combinations were trash. Like every full spell caster. Any class that starts with an ability that stacks with class level.

However some were pretty broken. 1 level of Fighter for instance is an optimal choice in a lot of builds BAB, proficiencies a bonus feat. 1 level of barbarian was pretty stupid if you made your adventuring days short, and just maxed out your damage so encounters would last 1 or 2 rounds. A level in rogue if you're lacking on skills was pretty good, + the extra sneak attack damage. Only thing you're lacking was BAB. But with unchained rogue, a 3 level dip for dex to damage was pretty worth it if you're build hinged on it.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Unfortunately, multiclassing in PF1 often lead to characters that could not stack up to single class characters in terms of relative power compared to the APL, just like Prestige classes weakened a character. Hopefully, the archetype system in PF2 allows for abilities that are in line with single class options in terms of usefulness at their given levels. At least I think that's what the designers are looking for.

And does anyone else now have "Leeloo Dallas Multi Class" stuck in their heads now?

--Vrock & Load

More importantly, however, was the multiclass abominations that broke the game are now no longer possible.
Amazing that a system that leads to 'trash' characters also lets you break the game.
I think that they only "broke" the game for a few levels. You could get a power boost by taking some strong dips but over the course of a lot of levels you would end up behind. I think the new system works better mechanically though maybe not narratively .

Certainly, some multiclassing options would only be a momentary boost. But the monstrosities I've seen have been infinitely more powerful at level 19, than a straight wizard would have been. They just keep getting more and more powerful because of unintended interactions between abilities. This is largely due to archetypes and not just straight multiclassing, but still. Multiclassing, when done right, was extremely powerful in PF1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

But the cleric feats were the "piece of the puzzle" that allows her to do more than just heal HP prior to Legendary levels, I would guess.

Be clear, Mark: Can a party with zero spellcasting resolve healing situations as dire as (for example) Mummy Rot on curve without having to visit a Cleric?

Paizo Employee Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
rooneg wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
It would be cool to get a non-casting healing archetype at some point as a way to do something similar without relying on spells and a deity.
Yeah, having your Barbarian serve as the healer by multiclassing into Cleric is not exactly what I had in mind when you mentioned a Barbarian healer. I mean sure, if you're willing to multiclass into Cleric I sure hope you can serve as the healer, but I was sort of assuming you meant it was possible to serve as the healer just via Skill Feats or something.

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

Okay then.

We'll have to wait to see if Barbarian gets ANYTHING in their OWN kit to help with healing.

Because that's what some of us assumed was the actual case. Grabbing healing from another class wasn't part of that when it was talked about. Maybe if it was said "The Barbarian had to multiclass to help cover" some of us wouldn't be so hyped to see "Primary Healer Barbarian" when that doesn't seem to be the full case.

I said every single time that she didn't get anything to heal from the barbarian class. She heals primarily through skill feats and items available to all characters, with her cleric more often used for offensive and defensive battle buffs than healing. I also said she is the group's main healer, and they got by and fought a good number of encounters like that (because I know people started using the phrase "primary healer" which to them could mean a character who has tons of heals).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tangent101 wrote:

This also raises the question: will Base Classes and those from the inevitable Occult Classes have their own Multiclass templates? Or will Multiclassing remain only for the Core classes? (I mean, it doesn't make sense that someone can't multiclass Gunslinger to have access to guns but... after a while it risks getting messy and broken.)

New classes will get their own dedications, assuming the system works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Unfortunately, multiclassing in PF1 often lead to characters that could not stack up to single class characters in terms of relative power compared to the APL, just like Prestige classes weakened a character. Hopefully, the archetype system in PF2 allows for abilities that are in line with single class options in terms of usefulness at their given levels. At least I think that's what the designers are looking for.

And does anyone else now have "Leeloo Dallas Multi Class" stuck in their heads now?

--Vrock & Load

More importantly, however, was the multiclass abominations that broke the game are now no longer possible.
Amazing that a system that leads to 'trash' characters also lets you break the game.
yep, dipping led to broken characters, where as true multiclassing meant you couldn't do enough.

How much is a dip and just how much meant you couldn't do anything?

I mean level 1 is a dip, I'll give you that. But I've seen people say that upwards of level 4-5 is also a Dip.

I also don't think this is going to stop people from breaking the game. Under the new system you lose.... what? What do you lose now? What is the down side to multiclassing?

That's great for people that want to play what they want and not get punished(Hahahahah, the community will fix that later). But this also means people that look to break the game don't seem to have a big down side anymore either. Which just encourages them to do it even more.


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

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

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

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

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

I hope there is some sort of weapon boosting cantrip that can be a poor mans arcane arrow and spell strike. Something like a one or two action spell that makes your next weapon attack deal an extra Xd6 fire, frost, or electricity damage.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Unfortunately, multiclassing in PF1 often lead to characters that could not stack up to single class characters in terms of relative power compared to the APL, just like Prestige classes weakened a character. Hopefully, the archetype system in PF2 allows for abilities that are in line with single class options in terms of usefulness at their given levels. At least I think that's what the designers are looking for.

And does anyone else now have "Leeloo Dallas Multi Class" stuck in their heads now?

--Vrock & Load

More importantly, however, was the multiclass abominations that broke the game are now no longer possible.
I don't think that's more important; people will always find a way to optimize a powerful character that the system allows, but more plentiful overall (if not on the Paizo boards) were newer players earnestly multiclassing Fighter6/Wizard6 because it sounded cool and being punished for it.

I suppose this is a matter of perspective really. From the perspective of trying to make this game as approachable and easy to learn for new players, you are absolutely correct.

From the perspective of a burnt out 5-star PFS GM with almost 350 GM credits, its much more important to me personally, that legal builds that break the game can't dominate PFS anymore.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

So how do we do "Change of Heart" type multiclassings, like Paladins who fell, or Clerics who lost faith in their deity, or Druids who stopped revering nature. Just "Retrain those class levels"?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I am interested to see the long, heated arguments about how fighter/wizards compare to wizard/fighters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

But the cleric feats were the "piece of the puzzle" that allows her to do more than just heal HP prior to Legendary levels, I would guess.

Be clear, Mark: Can a party with zero spellcasting resolve healing situations as dire as (for example) Mummy Rot on curve without having to visit a Cleric?

You already know that answer. You just need to be Legendary in the Medicine Skill Feats. They included Mummy Rot as an example of things that could be cured with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really, really like this. I'm very excited to be able to create "dabbler" characters.

Now if we could somehow make this work with a polymorphing fighter...

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

But the cleric feats were the "piece of the puzzle" that allows her to do more than just heal HP prior to Legendary levels, I would guess.

Be clear, Mark: Can a party with zero spellcasting resolve healing situations as dire as (for example) Mummy Rot on curve without having to visit a Cleric?

So things like recovering from ghoul fever instantly without any spellcaster in the party and without spending money on items? Technically yes, they can. But that's because of the alchemist. A party of fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter with no items to help, with no archetype allowed to help, and that don't have Legendary Medic can't instantly remove a disease (which since Legendary Medic does that, it would be odd if the answer was otherwise).

Sovereign Court

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I really don't know how I feel about this. I'll definitely give it a try - I don't really think it feels enough like real multiclassing, but it isn't nearly as bad as what happened to half-elves. I do definitely share others' concern about one's feats being pulled in too many directions... the system looks like it's going to be very tough for multiclass and/or feat-archetyped characters to keep up or have access to enough options.

I will say, I've been pretty rough on "comparisons to 4th Edition" thus far, but here I think the comparison holds water. I didn't mind most of 4th Edition, and that includes that system's multiclass feats... but they were never an adequate replacement for real multiclassing. I don't really think these will be either, but we'll see how they feel in play. I'm personally a little hindered by lack of access to the one I need most - bard - but I understand. I know the terrors of wordcount all too well. ^_^

All that said: we knew something had to be done. 3.x multiclassing was versatile and effective, but was wildly inconsistent in function and distorted class design with its presence. I'd like something that preserves that feeling without its not-inconsiderable mechanical issues, but maybe that's just not plausible. We'll see, I suppose.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

What's the reasoning for requiring 16 in the primary stat? I remember it being stated a cleric with next to no wisdom would be viable. Strange that a rogue who spends one feat on clericdom has to be wiser than a pure cleric.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

But the cleric feats were the "piece of the puzzle" that allows her to do more than just heal HP prior to Legendary levels, I would guess.

Be clear, Mark: Can a party with zero spellcasting resolve healing situations as dire as (for example) Mummy Rot on curve without having to visit a Cleric?

You already know that answer. You just need to be Legendary in the Medicine Skill Feats. They included Mummy Rot as an example of things that could be cured with it.

Needing to be level 14 to solve a problem caused by a CR 5 creature is not "on curve".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
I am interested to see the long, heated arguments about how fighter/wizards compare to wizard/fighters.

I'm looking forward about the first thread about the C/M//M/C/D

The Exchange

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not wild about this honestly.

It feels more strait jackety than I would like compared to the free wheeling multiclassing of PF1.

It 'fixes' MCing for spellcaster but completely ruins it for martials.

Mostly it just doesn't feel like multiclassing. It does sort of feel like archetypes I guess.

I hate having to basically choose between multi classing and archetyping. I love being able to do it all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
rooneg wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
It would be cool to get a non-casting healing archetype at some point as a way to do something similar without relying on spells and a deity.
Yeah, having your Barbarian serve as the healer by multiclassing into Cleric is not exactly what I had in mind when you mentioned a Barbarian healer. I mean sure, if you're willing to multiclass into Cleric I sure hope you can serve as the healer, but I was sort of assuming you meant it was possible to serve as the healer just via Skill Feats or something.

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

Okay then.

We'll have to wait to see if Barbarian gets ANYTHING in their OWN kit to help with healing.

Because that's what some of us assumed was the actual case. Grabbing healing from another class wasn't part of that when it was talked about. Maybe if it was said "The Barbarian had to multiclass to help cover" some of us wouldn't be so hyped to see "Primary Healer Barbarian" when that doesn't seem to be the full case.

I said every single time that she didn't get anything to heal from the barbarian class. She heals primarily through skill feats and items available to all characters, with her cleric more often used for offensive and defensive battle buffs than healing.

I must have missed those later posts and I don't recall you saying she didn't get them from Barbarian early. Just that "She could cover it".

What's the point now? Everyone needs to splice Cleric on their character to cover healing? Cause that's what I see when I recall "everyone can cover healing".

The idea of "Everyone can cover healing" shouldn't mean "Everyone can pick up Cleric at no down side".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

But the cleric feats were the "piece of the puzzle" that allows her to do more than just heal HP prior to Legendary levels, I would guess.

Be clear, Mark: Can a party with zero spellcasting resolve healing situations as dire as (for example) Mummy Rot on curve without having to visit a Cleric?

So things like recovering from ghoul fever instantly without any spellcaster in the party and without spending money on items? Technically yes, they can. But that's because of the alchemist. A party of fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter with no items to help, with no archetype allowed to help, and that don't have Legendary Medic can't instantly remove a disease (which since Legendary Medic does that, it would be odd if the answer was otherwise).

So you need to be an Alchemist to be a non-magical healer? That's a step up from PF1, I guess. I assume that skill feats in Craft (Alchemy) don't fill the gap for other non-magical classes.

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
GM Andrew wrote:

WHOA WHOA. I can be a mystic theurge rather quickly? Like a Cleric of Nethys and then take Wizard Dedication? Awesome!!!!

I like.

Yes, mystic theurge, eldritch knight, and the like are super easy to do and you keep full progression! You could also make some kind of hierophant nature priest that's Druid/Cleric combo (double Wisdom dependency!)

Indeed; the example I spoke to Logan about at Paizocon UK was the Arcane Trickster, and this system allows for both the castery rogue and the roguey caster styles!

However, still unanswered is the question of prestige’s, like the Shadowdancer, but I assume the principle is the same


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ooh. Alchemist grabbing Wizard content fits one of my characters very well for the playtest. Then, later on, I can get Witch grabbing Alchemist content!


Just now realized that this is a viable alternative to hybrid classes (the less creative ones, anyway).

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This certainly sounds interesting. I didn't like the way the VMC stuff in PF1 worked, but I think that was mostly because you had no control over which class abilities from your secondary class you got. This approach might give ways to solve that problem. What I'm wondering is whether you'll be able to effectively simulate an effective character that is equally split between 2 classes. The wizard examples make it sound like the best you'll get is a caster level that's about 1/2 of your character level. Does that mean you'll always feel like you're a pathetic spellcaster?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Ooh. Alchemist grabbing Wizard content fits one of my characters very well for the playtest. Then, later on, I can get Witch grabbing Alchemist content!

Oh s+$#, a viable witch that can brew potions like an alchemist. :O that's amazing.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dean HS Jones wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
GM Andrew wrote:

WHOA WHOA. I can be a mystic theurge rather quickly? Like a Cleric of Nethys and then take Wizard Dedication? Awesome!!!!

I like.

Yes, mystic theurge, eldritch knight, and the like are super easy to do and you keep full progression! You could also make some kind of hierophant nature priest that's Druid/Cleric combo (double Wisdom dependency!)

Indeed; the example I spoke to Logan about at Paizocon UK was the Arcane Trickster, and this system allows for both the castery rogue and the roguey caster styles!

However, still unanswered is the question of prestige’s, like the Shadowdancer, but I assume the principle is the same

Not shadow dancers specifically, but prestige classes were addressed in the Archetype blog.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Sean R wrote:

I like the flexibility. Not a fan of the feat-tax. Again, feat-tax to become multiclass. There seems to be a lot of feat tax for wanting to play concepts that are hybrids of others, something you could do in 1e easily without costing you other class or concept abilities.

This has been my biggest concern when everything was "Feat"ed up, was that feat taxes would tacked on for any character that wants to push outside the mold a bit.

Granted these are great abilities, and come in addition to your core class, but I've seen this used in other popular games to their detriment. At least, in this case, it allows for a broader selection that may or may not work.

I think the word "feat tax" is something we've begun to use in such different and varied ways that it's in danger of losing its meaning. I know I'm guilty of using it broader than most (I consider a feat that increases your numbers in your main shtick to be a tax, compared to just giving you better numbers for free, though weirdly I discovered in the Starfinder early playtests that people like those kind of taxes as long as there are very few, rather than having none).

If you spend feats to get great abilities, is it a tax? In many cases, you're getting something beyond what you would receive for spending your feats in other ways (Fighter Dedication would take 5 feats to replicate for a wizard, and an average of around 3 feats for most other characters).

I do think I get what you're saying, which is wondering whether the currency of feats will work for this purpose. I'd contend that the currency of levels is usually more pricey a cost to pay to your overall character progression.

I personally liked the option of both VMC and taking different levels.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
So you need to be an Alchemist to be a non-magical healer? That's a step up from PF1, I guess. I assume that skill feats in Craft (Alchemy) don't fill the gap for other non-magical classes.

It does if you spend money and time during downtime. The difference between non-Alchemists with the right Feats and Alchemists is not what things they can craft, but the fact that Alchemists get free items every day by spending Resonance. Other people have to spend time and money.

Note that Mark specifically said that they'd have trouble without the right items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Unfortunately, multiclassing in PF1 often lead to characters that could not stack up to single class characters in terms of relative power compared to the APL, just like Prestige classes weakened a character. Hopefully, the archetype system in PF2 allows for abilities that are in line with single class options in terms of usefulness at their given levels. At least I think that's what the designers are looking for.

And does anyone else now have "Leeloo Dallas Multi Class" stuck in their heads now?

--Vrock & Load

More importantly, however, was the multiclass abominations that broke the game are now no longer possible.

What?

The most broken abominations that broke the game were straight casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Armenius wrote:
What's the reasoning for requiring 16 in the primary stat? I remember it being stated a cleric with next to no wisdom would be viable. Strange that a rogue who spends one feat on clericdom has to be wiser than a pure cleric.

From a roleplaying perspective? I can see this. You have someone who hasn't spent most of their adolescence (and possibly childhood) in prayer in a church and learning the ways of their God, or with their nose in spellbooks in the case of Wizard.

For Fighter or Rogue, it is more iffy, but we don't know if that is the prereq. For that matter, for Cleric it could be Wisdom and Charisma of 14 each. And getting that 16 in Intelligence even at 1st level isn't too difficult - just about any Ancestry (those without an Intelligence penalty at least) could use their Floating Bonus to Intelligence and then a couple other Background builds to help push their Intelligence to 16. They might not have an 18 for their main stat, but you're also striving for a multiclass character at level 1, so they're not going to be as strong as a traditional Fighter or dexterous as a traditional Rogue, but have other abilities that compensate for that - to an extent at least.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
yep, dipping led to broken characters, where as true multiclassing meant you couldn't do enough.

A bizzare stance to take, when the most hideously broken PCs have always been the Single-Classed fullcasters.

Now we're going to see these full-casters being able to take toys from other classes, at little loss to themselves. If a Wizard can get into Eldritch Knight without losing spell progression, why wouldn't they?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As with variant multiclassing from Unchained, I really like this approach, but only if it is one alternative to multiclassing, "classic" multiclassing still being available. If this though would be the only way to multiclass then I dislike it very much. I want it both ways, in my 1st edition games I allow both classic core multiclassing and Unchained's variant multiclassing, and that's what I want for 2nd edition PF.

Same goes to Prestige Archetypes, I liked the approach, but I still want to have classic prestige classes, because there are some changes that only a whole new level in a class could provide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, now if you want your Paladin or Ranger to cast spells, you can multiclass into cleric (or eventually Druid).

Fighter/Cleric will make pretty good pseudo Paladins for other alignments.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
So things like recovering from ghoul fever instantly without any spellcaster in the party and without spending money on items? Technically yes, they can. But that's because of the alchemist. A party of fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter with no items to help, with no archetype allowed to help, and that don't have Legendary Medic can't instantly remove a disease (which since Legendary Medic does that, it would be odd if the answer was otherwise).

Is that an elixir thing that anyone could craft for some gold and the right feat and formula?

Paizo Employee Designer

17 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
rooneg wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
It would be cool to get a non-casting healing archetype at some point as a way to do something similar without relying on spells and a deity.
Yeah, having your Barbarian serve as the healer by multiclassing into Cleric is not exactly what I had in mind when you mentioned a Barbarian healer. I mean sure, if you're willing to multiclass into Cleric I sure hope you can serve as the healer, but I was sort of assuming you meant it was possible to serve as the healer just via Skill Feats or something.

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

Okay then.

We'll have to wait to see if Barbarian gets ANYTHING in their OWN kit to help with healing.

Because that's what some of us assumed was the actual case. Grabbing healing from another class wasn't part of that when it was talked about. Maybe if it was said "The Barbarian had to multiclass to help cover" some of us wouldn't be so hyped to see "Primary Healer Barbarian" when that doesn't seem to be the full case.

I said every single time that she didn't get anything to heal from the barbarian class. She heals primarily through skill feats and items available to all characters, with her cleric more often used for offensive and defensive battle buffs than healing.
I must have missed those later posts and I don't recall you saying she didn't get them from Barbarian early....

My first post was "Barbarian: Surprisingly, when the barbarian was the group's main source of healing, they did fine. This was an unusual barbarian though with an unhealthy obsession with Gorum, and the ability to be main healer had little to do with the fact she was a barbarian." The next post in that thread was your post, in response to that post.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

The high attribute requirement to start the chain of feats without attribute requirements on successive feats feels odd...

I Think starting with a low attribute requirement, and then increasing it on successive feats, would be better. It would allow for a character to try something that they may not be very good at without having to invest a great deal, but as it is you can't have a meh student pick up a few wizard tricks because he never had enough intelligence.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

But the cleric feats were the "piece of the puzzle" that allows her to do more than just heal HP prior to Legendary levels, I would guess.

Be clear, Mark: Can a party with zero spellcasting resolve healing situations as dire as (for example) Mummy Rot on curve without having to visit a Cleric?

You already know that answer. You just need to be Legendary in the Medicine Skill Feats. They included Mummy Rot as an example of things that could be cured with it.
Needing to be level 14 to solve a problem caused by a CR 5 creature is not "on curve".

So, on one hand I don't disagree. On the other hand, I don't actually want every single ability to come online at the same level for every single type of character who can get that ability. If a 5th level non-magical character can deal with something and a 5th level magical character can also deal with it then what's so magical about the magic? A legendary healer who can cure magical diseases without any resource expenditure doesn't feel like a 5th level ability either.

That said, I do want parties without a cleric to be able to deal with this stuff. Sometimes that might be through non-cleric class abilities (alchemist?), sometimes through spending financial resources on magic items, sometimes through Legendary skills. I don't want the answer to just be "pick up that Cleric multiclass or you're all gonna die".


DFAnton wrote:
Just now realized that this is a viable alternative to hybrid classes (the less creative ones, anyway).

I wouldn't say that. Even if they are a straight mix, you still often need the main feature of the class to exist beforehand (e.g. a Barbarian/sorcerer cannot cast during rage, and unless the one of the classes allows this, you cannot model a Bloodrager).

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dammit, Paizo, this actually looks great. How dare you make me want to be optimistic about the playtest!

Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.

so it wasn't mundane/skill options? Disappointing.

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

But the cleric feats were the "piece of the puzzle" that allows her to do more than just heal HP prior to Legendary levels, I would guess.

Be clear, Mark: Can a party with zero spellcasting resolve healing situations as dire as (for example) Mummy Rot on curve without having to visit a Cleric?

So things like recovering from ghoul fever instantly without any spellcaster in the party and without spending money on items? Technically yes, they can. But that's because of the alchemist. A party of fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter with no items to help, with no archetype allowed to help, and that don't have Legendary Medic can't instantly remove a disease (which since Legendary Medic does that, it would be odd if the answer was otherwise).
So you need to be an Alchemist to be a non-magical healer? That's a step up from PF1, I guess. I assume that skill feats in Craft (Alchemy) don't fill the gap for other non-magical classes.

They do great, but then you're spending money on it.


Armenius wrote:
What's the reasoning for requiring 16 in the primary stat? I remember it being stated a cleric with next to no wisdom would be viable. Strange that a rogue who spends one feat on clericdom has to be wiser than a pure cleric.

I don’t like it either, but if they are using Starfinder-like ability adjustments, it may be a pretty easy prerequisite.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Sean R wrote:

I like the flexibility. Not a fan of the feat-tax. Again, feat-tax to become multiclass. There seems to be a lot of feat tax for wanting to play concepts that are hybrids of others, something you could do in 1e easily without costing you other class or concept abilities.

This has been my biggest concern when everything was "Feat"ed up, was that feat taxes would tacked on for any character that wants to push outside the mold a bit.

Granted these are great abilities, and come in addition to your core class, but I've seen this used in other popular games to their detriment. At least, in this case, it allows for a broader selection that may or may not work.

I think the word "feat tax" is something we've begun to use in such different and varied ways that it's in danger of losing its meaning. I know I'm guilty of using it broader than most (I consider a feat that increases your numbers in your main shtick to be a tax, compared to just giving you better numbers for free, though weirdly I discovered in the Starfinder early playtests that people like those kind of taxes as long as there are very few, rather than having none).

If you spend feats to get great abilities, is it a tax? In many cases, you're getting something beyond what you would receive for spending your feats in other ways (Fighter Dedication would take 5 feats to replicate for a wizard, and an average of around 3 feats for most other characters).

I do think I get what you're saying, which is wondering whether the currency of feats will work for this purpose. I'd contend that the currency of levels is usually more pricey a cost to pay to your overall character progression.

A feat tax is any feat you take solely because it is a prerequisite for a feat you want to take. Dedication Feats are a tax. Nobody wants to JUST cast cantrips, and nobody wants to have to grab a feat just to do what UMD did in PF1. Making them the same feat doesn't help.

The requirement of having 2 feats in a dedication tree to get another dedication has the potential to also be a fat tax. Anyone who wants 2 abilities from 2 different dedication feat trees has to grab a feat they don't want just to get into the other tree.

Let me give you an example to a character build that would find these feats to be taxes.

The Red Mage from the Final Fantasy series is a fighter that can cast both Black (Arcane) and White (Divine) Magic, but only a bit of each. If I wanted to play a Red Mage, I would have to start fighter, grab the Wizard Dedication Feat at level 2, the Basic Wizard Spellcasting at level 4, some feat I don't want at level 6, the Cleric Dedication Feat at level 8, and then the Basic Cleric Spellcasting Feat at level 10. That's an awful lot of feats just to get to my basic character concept, and I haven't been able to get any fighter feats (except my first one) the whole time, and the campaign is half over at that point, if not more.

It would be a heck of a lot better to have cantrips to 3rd level spells be a feat at level 2 with no strings attached (except maybe an INT requirement) and also the ability to use scrolls without having to have a feat or a specific class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
So you need to be an Alchemist to be a non-magical healer? That's a step up from PF1, I guess. I assume that skill feats in Craft (Alchemy) don't fill the gap for other non-magical classes.

It does if you spend money and time during downtime. The difference between non-Alchemists with the right Feats and Alchemists is not what things they can craft, but the fact that Alchemists get free items every day by spending Resonance. Other people have to spend time and money.

Note that Mark specifically said that they'd have trouble without the right items.

Right. So the pure martial party absolutely has to have an Alchemist in it, where the pure caster party has the choice of a Cleric, or Druid, or Sorcerer, or maybe a Bard.

101 to 150 of 1,191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Multiclassing and Archetypes All Messageboards