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
151 to 200 of 1,191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Pathfinder Rechained, featuring Static Multiclassing, Reverted Action Economy, and Foreground Skills.

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
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).

Barbarian allows it. You could make a great bloodrager if we had a sorcerer multiclass archetype right now (I've mentioned about bloodragers before and always very carefully said "If nothing changes during the playtest, you will be able to make a great bloodrager in the final CRB." The specificity was for this reason)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
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.

Yes I'll take "How to Brew" for 500.

"This Hex allows a Witch to make potions, at a +4 to Craft Alchemy bonus"

BING! What is Cauldron?

Seriously, I would KILL for that as an Alchemist in PF1 but not to the point I would multiclass for it.

Though Alchemist/Herb Witch sounds interesting.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
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.

I'd prefer 14 for the first dedication feat, 16 for the next one.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think we’ll need some multiclass feats of course, to support mystic theurges converting arcane to arcane to divine and vise versa, stuff like that, but yeah it makes a fair amount of sense.

Seeing future developments for the vigilante would be good


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
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?

That’s mostly due to a handful of really powerful spells, which have hopefully been toned way down for PF2. Full spellcasting was only so OP, because the spells available were OP, not the classes themselves.

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:

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.

As mentioned above, it was majority mundane skills options because she prepped buffs. But in a pinch she could prep cleric spells during downtime.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

If I can spend general feats to pick up the multi-class feats, I can get behind this. Pick up some off-class abilities without sacrificing my main class stuff, sweet.

My guess is however, that the dedication feats cost class feats, which diminishes my main class to pick up those off-class abilities, which sucks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was pretty sure this is the way PFe2 was going to approach multi-classing.

Given how class feats work, I think it is sensible. Multi-classing is very hard to balance in PFe1. This way of doing it does reduce options a bit, but it is far cleaner and easier to balance.

I am expecting this to be very controversial. I think it is a compromise situations, but I think it really will allow people to build the characters they imagine, reduce the amount of rules overhead, and reduce broken combinations.

This definitely gets a thumbs up from me. Great work!

Sovereign Court

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


If you guys are finding these as flexible and effective as our playtesters so far, you can expect all twelve to appear in the CRB, yeah. The bard in my playtest game is loving spending only on feat on fighter dedication to get proficiency in martial weapons and all three categories of armor. Handy!

I really like the new system, but I'm kind of afraid about a few things... That fighter dedication that grant proficiency in martial weapons + all three categories of armor seems really powerful!

What is making me afraid right now is that classes that want to focus on martial competence might gain too much from multi-classing with fighters and we'll end up with lots of barbarian-fighters and ranger-fighters, as well as fighters-barbarian (I suppose that multi classing into barbarian will give access to rage and potentially to totem powers).

Basic Wizard Spellcasting also seems really powerful as a feat (it scales with you), and I sure hope that we'll have scaling combat feats that are interesting.

Right now, it seems to me that the most powerful part of multiclassing will be with accessing powers/cantrips that scale normally, and it might get too interesting to gain a spell point pool with a power, or to learn an additional power to be used with your spell point pool.

Multi-classing to gain access to an attack cantrip is also a huge bonus, since you will never be defenseless ever again, specially if you are a rogue which might be able to sneak with a range attack spell...

If they are too interesting/powerful, it might be a good thing to limit the power/cantrip scaling by the max spell level you have access for that class via multi-class feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

That or spend cash. Oh and Resonance too on those items probably.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like it, as it is reminiscent of D&D4's multiclassing, where spending feats got you a "lateral" sliver of power rather than a "vertical" one, as PF1's multiclassing does. Now, you can exercise powers commensurate with a character of a different class within one or two levels of you, but still not be powerful enough to obviate the need for someone who is fully into that second class. If it works as well as I think it will, I want to see more of it.

On the down side, it does crimp the style of those who wanted to roleplay "ex-fighters turned mages" but if retraining is designed to handle that, I think that this is not too terrible a loss. (If it does not, maybe that's an idea for expansion?) I know it doesn't affect my local group, as we have never had anyone go down that path.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Moro 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.

What?

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

No, no they really weren't. A Sorcerer (cross-blooded/Dragon/Orc) 1 / Wizard 17 could get some really sick damage and only lose 1 level of spell casting progression.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

Or a paladin with affliction mercy. But they are a power-based caster.


Love this concept, I hope Monk multiclass allows me to make the unarmored Ranger of my dreams.

Melkiador wrote:
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.

They aren't, you get +2 to FOUR ability scores, not one. So it's even easier.

Sovereign Court

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

Why is an alchemist necessary? Or is it just necessary to "win"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I'd like to chime in and ask whether the Rogue Dedication Feat (or any other Rogue feat) grants Dex to Damage...

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

Or use consumables. Which is totally a valid solution for things like Disease and Poison that don't come up all that frequently.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Is this the only way to multiclass or can we still do it old way?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not a fan of this system.

Not only does it have the same issues I have for the archetype system, but also it feels clunky with all the awkward feat taxes (why does Basic Arcana need to exist? Why can't there just be a feat that gives you a wizard feat with a level restriction?). It stinks of how 4th Edition D&D handled multiclassing with its awkward multiclass feats.

I don't understand why this needs to be implemented as archetypes. Given that the math has changed and classes are less front-loaded, why can't multiclassing work as it did in 1.0?

With what we know of the system so far, I feel you should have many better tools than this at your disposal to implement multiclassing.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
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...

Depends on the class, single level of monk seems to be a fairly common dip. +3 to all saves, Wis to AC, unarmed strike, bonus feat, etc. I would say for Wizards single level dips can be nastier. Bigger dips usually work better for Martials currently.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

This... is really disappointing. Even having read the justifications and clarifications through the thread, it still feels like it's cheating to know that the "Healer Barbarian" was still at least part Cleric. Oh well, just that much more reason to try my own hand at a non-Cleric Healer build. Probably Sorc or Alchemist.

Scarab Sages

Disk Elemental wrote:
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?

This is not true.

A level 1 sorcerer / level x Wizard was always stronger than a level x wizard.


Archefeatestigeclassing?
Artigeclafeats?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.
Why is an alchemist necessary? Or is it just necessary to "win"?

The Alchemist is necessary because if the first encounter of the day is a mummy and one of your characters fails their save without some way of dealing with mummy rot your adventuring day is completely over.

So the Alchemist is necessary to play the game at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are a lot of things to consider with this.

1 feat for all martial weapon proficiencies and armor proficiencies is powerful, but it does require a 16 STR. The Rogue feat is going to have a pretty tough time stacking up to that, except a 16 in DEX is probably going to be more common.

I am curious about how these will work together with archetypes because right now fighter multi-class looks about 100 times better than the pirate archetype. I guess the big difference is that stat requirement?

When it gets to classes like ranger and monk, will the stat requirement be flexible?

Am I wrong in thinking that the Wizard with a 16 STR and an INT of 12 or 14 is going to be the much better buff caster/fighter than the Fighter that probably has to shoot for having a STR and INT of at least 16?

If multi-classing into rogue doesn't give you access to Dex to Damage, what does it give you? Does it give you more skills? It has to right?

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 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.
This... is really disappointing. Even having read the justifications and clarifications through the thread, it still feels like it's cheating to know that the "Healer Barbarian" was still at least part Cleric. Oh well, just that much more reason to try my own hand at a non-Cleric Healer build. Probably Sorc or Alchemist.

It's also important to note that the barbarian came in a post with a list of all the classes I had seen do some healing, in addition to the specification that she was very weird compared to the others; she became popular on that thread due to people being interested in the barbarian that healed. It's not like I posted in the thread about healers and made it just about barbarians.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.
Why is an alchemist necessary? Or is it just necessary to "win"?

The Alchemist is necessary because if the first encounter of the day is a mummy and one of your characters fails their save without some way of dealing with mummy rot your adventuring day is completely over.

So the Alchemist is necessary to play the game at all.

Or you know, a potion of Cure that can handle diseases or poisons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's hopinh that they make some of these archetype and multiclass feats work off skill feats to relieve the pressure on the limited amount of class feats there are to go around. That or giving bonus ones at level 1 for a headstart in character build. BUt that will require testing, I suppose.

As for the people complaining that you need high ability scores to multiclass, that was explained in the older D&D Books where you neededed very high stats to explain how you were able to pick up Spellcasting in such a short amount of time when it took years for the party Wizard. If you're gonna do it without the full training course, you better be a prodigy.

Also, it probably prevents characters from easily gaining access to some powerful combos, probably.

However, I don't think the "Need 2 feats before another dedication" is that necessary considering having to take Dedication is already kind of an obstacle to amassing super variety super fast, not to mention the difficult ability score requirements are also there as a barrier.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.
Why is an alchemist necessary? Or is it just necessary to "win"?

The Alchemist is necessary because if the first encounter of the day is a mummy and one of your characters fails their save without some way of dealing with mummy rot your adventuring day is completely over.

So the Alchemist is necessary to play the game at all.

Or you know, a potion of Cure that can handle diseases or poisons.

Which we've already seen are prohibitively expensive gp wise and expend your resonance, two things that the caster party doesn't have to deal with at all. At least with the Alchemist you only have to worry about running out of resonance.

That's ignoring the fact that a potion of remove disease doesn't actually cure mummy rot. You need remove disease AND remove curse, the latter of which the Alchemist notably did not have in PF1.

Paizo Employee Designer

24 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.
Why is an alchemist necessary? Or is it just necessary to "win"?

The Alchemist is necessary because if the first encounter of the day is a mummy and one of your characters fails their save without some way of dealing with mummy rot your adventuring day is completely over.

So the Alchemist is necessary to play the game at all.

I mean, you eventually want to not have mummy rot, sure. But stopping the adventuring day right away whenever someone has a long-term day-by-day debuff on them they can't yet remove has not been something I think I've ever seen, across a wide variety of tables and playstyles. Also, the cleric probably didn't prepare that spell either, so you'd probably have to stop for the day with a cleric too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
Depends on the class, single level of monk seems to be a fairly common dip. +3 to all saves, Wis to AC, unarmed strike, bonus feat, etc. I would say for Wizards single level dips can be nastier. Bigger dips usually work better for Martials currently.

Really the only thing, at least to me, that looks strong from Monk is the +2 saves because of how those work in the old system along with a Bonus Feat so that doesn't feel like you lose much when you dip(something might have worked out a bit more if bonus feat at 1 was removed). AC bonus only helped if you were unarmored which usually meant caster.

I'm not saying PF1 Monk was a bad dip but I just see it as average at level 1 and not worth it past that unless you have a character/build idea. And if you need to hit level 3-4 for said idea I wouldn't count it as a Dip.

I mean, is just picking up X Dedication the new dip?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Shinigami02 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.
This... is really disappointing. Even having read the justifications and clarifications through the thread, it still feels like it's cheating to know that the "Healer Barbarian" was still at least part Cleric. Oh well, just that much more reason to try my own hand at a non-Cleric Healer build. Probably Sorc or Alchemist.
It's also important to note that the barbarian came in a post with a list of all the classes I had seen do some healing, in addition to the specification that she was very weird compared to the others; she became popular on that thread due to people being interested in the barbarian that healed. It's not like I posted in the thread about healers and made it just about barbarians.

What's unfortunate is we didn't have the complete picture, so people got the idea that there were viable non-magical options for healing.

Not "a barbarian/cleric" can heal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.
Why is an alchemist necessary? Or is it just necessary to "win"?

The Alchemist is necessary because if the first encounter of the day is a mummy and one of your characters fails their save without some way of dealing with mummy rot your adventuring day is completely over.

So the Alchemist is necessary to play the game at all.

I mean, you eventually want to not have mummy rot, sure. But stopping the adventuring day right away whenever someone has a long-term day-by-day debuff on them they can't yet remove has not been something I think I've ever seen, across a wide variety of tables and playstyles.

I've seen it debated when more than one person has a disease, and have seen a skip day when we couldn't easily recover(Hello Strange Aeons, nice to see you *Gets punched by the book*).

Mind you I have never seen a "Okay DM we'll skip today" and the DM just fades to black it's now the next day. No DM usually still has something set up like talking to characters, skill checks/crafting, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.
Why is an alchemist necessary? Or is it just necessary to "win"?

The Alchemist is necessary because if the first encounter of the day is a mummy and one of your characters fails their save without some way of dealing with mummy rot your adventuring day is completely over.

So the Alchemist is necessary to play the game at all.

I mean, you eventually want to not have mummy rot, sure. But stopping the adventuring day right away whenever someone has a long-term day-by-day debuff on them they can't yet remove has not been something I think I've ever seen, across a wide variety of tables and playstyles. Also, the cleric probably didn't prepare that spell either, so you'd probably have to stop for the day with a cleric too.

I use Mummy Rot as an example because in PF1 it's an extreme and immediate threat: it has an on-set of 1 minute and can potentially drop your constitution by 6 points. If that happens to your Barbarian you're done, any further attempts at adventuring will get her killed.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
That or giving bonus ones at level 1 for a headstart in character build.

I mentioned in archetypes that I think a popular "gestaltish" build would probably be to grant freebie archetype feats. The secret is, you can actually do something very much like gestalt by making those be multiclass archetypes!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gwaihir Scout wrote:
It'll be interesting to see the difference between, say, a wizard taking rogue and a rogue taking wizard.

From the way the MC wizard feats work, I'd say staight up the former is better. Full spell allotment and full casting level rather than a three spell slots total by 8th level (and none until 4th) and half casting level. It seems a lot more useful to dip what you want out of rogue (or fighter) than give up so many spells and delay them until 3 levels too late.

The martial numbers will still be level appropriate. The Spellcaster bits flat out are not.

And that assumes you build for multiclassing at level 1. If you don't, you can't start the dedication until 6th level at the earliest, and probably won't gain spells until 8th
(5th level stat ups, 6th level class feat and 8th level class feat respectively)


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

Seems okay to me, but I do wonder about balance issues. If MC archetypes are too "front-loaded" than they will be easy picks, which might increase the power level of some classes over others. Also, wondering how this will interact with the Fighter and all of his feats. Seems like its going to be a lot easier for that class to multiclasss than other classes.


Mark Seifter wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
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).
Barbarian allows it. You could make a great bloodrager if we had a sorcerer multiclass archetype right now (I've mentioned about bloodragers before and always very carefully said "If nothing changes during the playtest, you will be able to make a great bloodrager in the final CRB." The specificity was for this reason)

Even better. I don't have to wait until that 4th round to shoot off a bolt.


Tallow wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:
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?

This is not true.

A level 1 sorcerer / level x Wizard was always stronger than a level x wizard.

Would you care to explain this, as I am fairly certain that your sorcerer spells/slots are completely separate from your wizard spells/slots. The only thing you would gain is a bloodline power from the sorcerer (which is usually a garbage melee based ability), eschew materials (which is covered with a spell component pouch), and a bloodline arcana, which is kinda meh and situational.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there really a point to the Basic Arcana and Advanced Arcana feats, if all they do is allow you to pick another feat? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just add a clause to Wizard Dedication
"At level 4 and above, you may take Wizard feats (as a Wizard of half your level) instead of your base class's."
Otherwise, you end up with every class requiring two feats that all follow the same template.

Also, not really a fan of the Int 16 requirement for Wizard Dedication. 5E is bad enough with requiring 13 in the stat; 16 means you need some exceptional stats (how many characters do you have with two or more 16+ attributes?) or you're limited to only classes that share the same focus. RE: needing to be a "prodigy" to pick up a new class so quickly, two things:
1) Leveling up during a time skip. High stat requirement makes no such allowances.
2) Who's to say the character didn't have the basic training earlier, and is only now progressed to the point of being able to use it effectively? "My master wielded sword and spell together, and taught me to do the same. What is this 'multiclassing' you speak of?"

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How many feats do we get for archetypes, multi-class and prestige? From what I understand they're general feats right? while I like it for prestige classes (as most the good one continue to grant the abilities on your starting class) it seems to me that by also having multiclass and archetypes use the same system it limits the tool kit we have to work with.

I had a druid(Menhir Savant), ninja multi-class in 1ed by lvl 2 I was sneak attacking with produce flame, lvl 3 CL boosting it (alongside other CL boosts) and lvl 5 I upgrade to flame-blade. From there I stuck with ninja.

Now what follows is mostly guess work on my part on how things translate so correct me if I'm wrong but if the archetype existed in 2e play-test to make a similar char I would start as rogue at
lvl 2 take the druid multi-class feat
lvl 4 Menhir Savant Spirit Sense ability feat then
lvl 6 Place Magic (which I'd imagine would have a lvl scaling to also grant Walk the Lines)
Lvl 8 the 2nd druid feat to get second level spells

So by lvl 8 I have the abilities I had at lvl 5 in 1ed (admittedly with more rogue class features in the 2ed version) but I've used all my general feats to do so where as in 1ed I spent them getting crane style. As an additional point the character in question stared as a druid but doing that in 2ed would force me to build a full caster where as in 1ed despite starting as a druid (for backstory) I was able to focus on my ninja abilities.

Edit: Never-mind I forgot you can't progress down 2 dedication feats trees at the same time so based on the wizard version I'd have to take 3 druid feats before taking feats in Menhir Savant archetype. I would also have to have 16 wisdom which is more than I had in 1ed but maybe we get more points in 2ed so not sure if that matters.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerer 1/Wizard X was superior only if your measure for what is or isn't good is damage numbers. The sorc dip could turn blasting from one of the weakest options available to arcane casters to something mindlessly spammable in all situations; if you played a God Wizard playing pure Wizard was certainly the superior option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.
That or spend cash. Oh and Resonance too on those items probably.

Aside from resonance, how is this any different for an all fighter party than it was in pf1?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend 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.
Cool, so martial classes are dead then. If you don't have spells, you can borrow them from a class who does. Sigh...

To be fair, I've been having that feeling since they announced that you need a whole action to not just stupidly let your shield hang to your side, like a complete amateur.

"Heroic" indeed.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:
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?

This is not true.

A level 1 sorcerer / level x Wizard was always stronger than a level x wizard.

Would you care to explain this, as I am fairly certain that your sorcerer spells/slots are completely separate from your wizard spells/slots. The only thing you would gain is a bloodline power from the sorcerer (which is usually a garbage melee based ability), eschew materials (which is covered with a spell component pouch), and a bloodline arcana, which is kinda meh and situational.

Sorcerer, Crossblooded archetype, with Orc & Red Dragon bloodlines. You basically get to add 2 points of damage per damage die on every fire spell, and 1 point of damage per damage die on all damaging spells. There are other feats/traits/archetypes that I'm not super familiar with that can increase that to 4 points per damage die on fire spells. So a level 6 wizard would get 6d6+24 damage on a fireball.

There is an FAQ that indicates the extra damage applies to all spells that character knows, not just sorcerer spells.

FAQ

FAQ wrote:

The Bloodline Arcana powers apply to all of the spells cast by characters of that bloodline, not just those cast using the sorcerer's spell slots.

General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

Paizo Employee Designer

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey everyone, it seems like the discussion on healing is a sharp tangent from a multiclassing blog (especially since many of the posts have moved on to explicitly not count multiclassing) and is also laser-focused on the mummy rot affliction (which incidentally doesn't do anything resembling 6 Constitution damage in this playtest anyway). Maybe move to the healing thread from before that already had a big mummy rot discussion or make a new thread?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Any chance in a couple months you might want to test another class or two? I think we would really be willing to help if one showed up in a blog post. ;)


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Depends on the class, single level of monk seems to be a fairly common dip. +3 to all saves, Wis to AC, unarmed strike, bonus feat, etc. I would say for Wizards single level dips can be nastier. Bigger dips usually work better for Martials currently.

Really the only thing, at least to me, that looks strong from Monk is the +2 saves because of how those work in the old system along with a Bonus Feat so that doesn't feel like you lose much when you dip(something might have worked out a bit more if bonus feat at 1 was removed). AC bonus only helped if you were unarmored which usually meant caster.

I'm not saying PF1 Monk was a bad dip but I just see it as average at level 1 and not worth it past that unless you have a character/build idea. And if you need to hit level 3-4 for said idea I wouldn't count it as a Dip.

I mean, is just picking up X Dedication the new dip?

I said that poorly monk is almost always a single level dip. That is good for say a Wizard or Magius. Martial classes on the other hand tend to need to dip farther into classes to get what they need.

151 to 200 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