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
251 to 300 of 1,191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
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?
All right. Should we talk about how this system massively favors casters who want to steal martial stuff over martials who want to steal caster stuff (or worse, martials who don't want to cast spells at all)? The Wizard/Fighter gets full plate and the martial weapon of his choice out of a single feat while the Fighter/Wizard gets... a few cantrips.

I have the same concern. It does seem like those dedications are a little imbalanced.

It is difficult to say without having a better idea of how much power these classes will be getting from their class feats. counting only half ones character level for qualifying significantly slows access to the other's class feats and eliminates access to any feats with a level requirement of 11 or higher. Not to mention the HP that the Wizard/Fighter looses compared to the Fighter/Wizard.

I suppose the counter argument to the above is that, if a class derives much of its power from feats, that makes crossclassing to take those feats more valuable as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Douena Trestleben wrote:

So the real question is, is Douena a cleric with rogue dedication or a rogue with cleric dedication?

I guess I'm going to have to build her both ways to find out.

Well, consider this: do you want Doeuna to have access to first level spells at level 1 or level 4? And do you want more than 1/day?

The thing is, in the party she was running with, Douena was the primary skillmonkey and the primary healer. Clearly, by level seven, the concept was starting to strain.

Unchained VMC didn't fix my problem. Seeing whether the playtest can produce a recognizable Douena who could conceivably have done the things the P1e version did will determine my opinion of playtest multiclassing.


Well to give my two cents in here, I think the new mutliclassing sounds great. It really makes it something I would actually want to use rather that something I would never touch in a million years like in PE1. It will hopeful allow a variety of classes without it going into, mutliclassing is jsut straight up better then a single class. The only real issue I see is those stat requirments, persoanlly I think 16 is a bit high. Perosanlly I like to see it maybe a 14 or even 12 if we are going to be using attributes at all. That would even make sense as it sort goes down the line of you arent quite brainey enough to be a full wizard but you sort of do it as a hobby type of thing

Also for those who think that the wizard decidcation is a feat tax, it really is not. We know cantrips are going to be way better in PF2 and I could think of a rogue who likes having that weapon always up his sleave so to speak.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:


Wow, um. You made me feel worse about that.
I hadn't caught that retconning was in the game. 'You were a Multiclass wizard all along' makes me even less happy.

I get that some people really like retraining as a protection from trap feats and bad decisions, but it's the kind of video game feature that really aggravates me. Doesn't connect to the world or make any kind of sense. 'Because I went to chainsaw training, I've now completely forgotten C# programming!'

I personally don't mind retconning under certain circumstances.

If you grabbed an ability and realized that it doesn't work the way you thought it did or never used it and want a new ability, then I have no qualms with that.

If you just want to trade away something that has lost it's usefulness for something else, then I have a problem.

The retraining in core has been explicitly stated to allow your character to grab feats/abilities that they want just for a certain "mission" and retrain them away after the mission.

In the archetypes blog, the example was given of a party retraining into the pirate archetype before going to sea, then retraining out of it once they are back on land.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a deal breaker for me (screw my group, I won't be happy with this). One of the things I came to hate about 4e and love about Pathfinder was how multiclassing worked. I am going to give this system an honest try, but if I find it as lacklustre as 4th ed's "multiclassing" and if it stays in the final rules as this system, I will not play PF2e. I've been advocating many issues my group will have with the new rules, but for me this is my line in the sand regardless of how my group feels. I really hope I'm wrong and that these rules work much better than I expect them to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So long, dipping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
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.

Getting some really sick damage is cool and all, but the character would most likely be more powerful overall as a straight Wizard 18.

Damage does not really make a broken abomination in the same way as virtually unlimited cosmic power does.

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 Subscriber
Voss wrote:

Wow, um. You made me feel worse about that.

I hadn't caught that retconning was in the game. 'You were a Multiclass wizard all along' makes me even less happy.

I get that some people really like retraining as a protection from trap feats and bad decisions, but it's the kind of video game feature that really aggravates me. Doesn't connect to the world or make any kind of sense. 'Because I went to chainsaw training, I've now completely forgotten C# programming!'

If you get out of practice, you can certainly forget some of the little tricks and handy features of a programming language.

That is represented well by replacing class feats instead of class levels with retraining. You are still a fighter/programmer, you just got out of practice with certain cool moves/programming shortcuts while you hit the books/ juggled chainsaws.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Mark says it upthread. "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!"

That's a Bard, who already have some Armor Proficiency natively. Whether Wizards (who seem to have none) will go all the way to Heavy is unknown.

Bardarok wrote:
It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.

They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I may have misunderstood something that was said earlier, but I thought it was confirmed that that's what the dedication feat is.

That's not quite what was said. It could be true, but we don't know for sure one way or the other.

Arachnofiend wrote:
...Yes? That's what my point was. Not being able to do a hybrid concept from level one was my personal biggest complaint with PF1 multiclassing and this change does nothing to help with that issue.

Ah, gotcha. I'm not sure it's entirely true, though. Anyone with Arcana can do some rituals, so your Fighter 1 (planning on grabbing Wizard Dedication) already has a bit of spellcasting in a sense, and your Wizard (planning on going Fighter) almost certainly has Str 16 and Athletics, making his tendency to hit things quite a bit higher than that of most Wizards.


5 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.

I am quite disappointed to hear that. When you said a barbarian was functioning as the primary healer, I expected it to be an actual barbarian and not a Barbarian/Cleric multiclassed character. Casters are still required to be the healer, it's just you get the "cleric feat" version of mutliclassing instead of 3.5e style multiclassing.

Sovereign Court

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

I'll also say, those ability score prerequisites could stand to be a lot lower - 12, 14 at the absolute highest. With ability score generation as it stands, you can't multiclass unless you built specifically for the class you're multiclassing into, and probably sacrificing a lot of your functionality to take any multiclass that you're not already perfectly suited to. No multiclassing based on in-game development, etc. :/

I'd hoped PF2 would be a little less "you have to plan out your build from level 1 if you want to be functional" than 3rd Edition/Pathfinder, and a bit more friendly to characters that grow organically. On the plus side, it shouldn't be too hard to make that happen. ^_^

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:


If the "every +1 matters" meme is true then you'll never want to start with less than an 18 in your to-hit attribute. I'm pretty sure you can still get a 16 in your secondary attribute in that case, though.

I've actually been looking at tons of viable builds that drop your class's primary attribute really low and make up for it in other ways. The math is much tighter, but that actually gives you far more freedom within the system to move away from obvious optimization paths without shooting yourself in the foot. A fighter who doesn't max out Strength and decides to boost his Int instead could grab Alchemical Crafting and learn a few poisons to weaken enemies, using his greater skills and higher INT-based checks to make up for a lower to-hit value with buffs, debuffs, and skill feat options that boost his mobility. A sorceress (or wizard) who dumped her CHA (or INT) down as low as she can take it could still focus on buff spells, non-spell-point-based feats, and fighting with a weapon and still be suitably impressive. A cleric who dumps her WIS down in favor of STR is basically a warpriest.

Since you don't have as much deviation between specialists and non-specialists (which can stretch to 40 point differences surprisingly quickly in PF1) each number matters more, but it's also easier to compensate for that number being lower than would be standard for your build by taking options that improve your combat positioning or expand your capabilities in other ways.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
thflame wrote:
Voss wrote:


Wow, um. You made me feel worse about that.
I hadn't caught that retconning was in the game. 'You were a Multiclass wizard all along' makes me even less happy.

I get that some people really like retraining as a protection from trap feats and bad decisions, but it's the kind of video game feature that really aggravates me. Doesn't connect to the world or make any kind of sense. 'Because I went to chainsaw training, I've now completely forgotten C# programming!'

I personally don't mind retconning under certain circumstances.

If you grabbed an ability and realized that it doesn't work the way you thought it did or never used it and want a new ability, then I have no qualms with that.

If you just want to trade away something that has lost it's usefulness for something else, then I have a problem.

The retraining in core has been explicitly stated to allow your character to grab feats/abilities that they want just for a certain "mission" and retrain them away after the mission.

In the archetypes blog, the example was given of a party retraining into the pirate archetype before going to sea, then retraining out of it once they are back on land.

It's not retconning either. It's retraining. This is something that people do in real life, including in athletics. Heck, you do it when you cram for an exam.

So rather than "you were a multiclass wizard all along" it's "you spend a month of time in constant study working on something you dabbled in as a youth and have a breakthrough which allows you to start casting spells."

Of course it's easy to word things in a way that is very negative... and also fairly easy to reword them so something sounds good. It might be a matter of mindset. It's something you can retrain yourself on in bringing about personal change and growth in the real world. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thinking about the wording/layout improvement:

For what I saw so far, ALL dedication feats have the same special where You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from this archetype, so why not just make this a common rule and eliminate the need of writing this same special in each dedication feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Mark says it upthread. "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!"

That's a Bard, who already have some Armor Proficiency natively. Whether Wizards (who seem to have none) will go all the way to Heavy is unknown.

Bardarok wrote:
It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.

They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I may have misunderstood something that was said earlier, but I thought it was confirmed that that's what the dedication feat is.

That's not quite what was said. It could be true, but we don't know for sure one way or the other.

Arachnofiend wrote:
...Yes? That's what my point was. Not being able to do a hybrid concept from level one was my personal biggest complaint with PF1 multiclassing and this change does nothing to help with that issue.
Ah, gotcha. I'm not sure it's entirely true, though. Anyone with Arcana can do some rituals, so your Fighter 1 (planning on grabbing Wizard Dedication) already has a bit of spellcasting in a sense, and your Wizard (planning on going Fighter) almost certainly has Str 16 and Athletics, making his tendency to hit things quite a bit higher than that of most Wizards.

Mark also said the fighter multi-class would count as 5 feats for a wizard so it seems like the feats do flat granting of proficiency for the most part.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 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.
I am quite disappointed to hear that. When you said a barbarian was functioning as the primary healer, I expected it to be an actual barbarian and not a Barbarian/Cleric multiclassed character. Casters are still required to be the healer, it's just you get the "cleric feat" version of mutliclassing instead of 3.5e style multiclassing.

Wouldn't you have assumed that the ability came from her taking some feat, though? Why does it make a difference if the feat is called Cleric Dedication rather than, frex, Barbarian Healing? The cost is still a feat (or chain thereof).

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


If the "every +1 matters" meme is true then you'll never want to start with less than an 18 in your to-hit attribute. I'm pretty sure you can still get a 16 in your secondary attribute in that case, though.

I've actually been looking at tons of viable builds that drop your class's primary attribute really low and make up for it in other ways. The math is much tighter, but that actually gives you far more freedom within the system to move away from obvious optimization paths without shooting yourself in the foot. A fighter who doesn't max out Strength and decides to boost his Int instead could grab Alchemical Crafting and learn a few poisons to weaken enemies, using his greater skills and higher INT-based checks to make up for a lower to-hit value with buffs, debuffs, and skill feat options that boost his mobility. A sorceress (or wizard) who dumped her CHA (or INT) down as low as she can take it could still focus on buff spells, non-spell-point-based feats, and fighting with a weapon and still be suitably impressive. A cleric who dumps her WIS down in favor of STR is basically a warpriest.

Since you don't have as much deviation between specialists and non-specialists (which can stretch to 40 point differences surprisingly quickly in PF1) each number matters more, but it's also easier to compensate for that number being lower than would be standard for your build by taking options that improve your combat positioning or expand your capabilities in other ways.

I really, really hope this bears out. Systems like this make me really anxious because of the feeling that they're built only for characters who follow the optimal path, which makes it hard for me to build characters or enjoy the game. So... I really hope we share your experiences. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


If the "every +1 matters" meme is true then you'll never want to start with less than an 18 in your to-hit attribute. I'm pretty sure you can still get a 16 in your secondary attribute in that case, though.

I've actually been looking at tons of viable builds that drop your class's primary attribute really low and make up for it in other ways. The math is much tighter, but that actually gives you far more freedom within the system to move away from obvious optimization paths without shooting yourself in the foot. A fighter who doesn't max out Strength and decides to boost his Int instead could grab Alchemical Crafting and learn a few poisons to weaken enemies, using his greater skills and higher INT-based checks to make up for a lower to-hit value with buffs, debuffs, and skill feat options that boost his mobility. A sorceress (or wizard) who dumped her CHA (or INT) down as low as she can take it could still focus on buff spells, non-spell-point-based feats, and fighting with a weapon and still be suitably impressive. A cleric who dumps her WIS down in favor of STR is basically a warpriest.

Since you don't have as much deviation between specialists and non-specialists (which can stretch to 40 point differences surprisingly quickly in PF1) each number matters more, but it's also easier to compensate for that number being lower than would be standard for your build by taking options that improve your combat positioning or expand your capabilities in other ways.

That casters can potentially keep their main stat lower isn't a surprise to me, they don't necessarily use their main stat to ensure their stuff goes off at all (I was already planning on testing a Cleric of Gorum that prioritizes STR>CHA>WIS to pretend to be a Paladin with self-healing channels). On the other hand presumably the Fighter still needs to be able to hit people for his poisons to take effect, which means either his STR or DEX needs to be high enough to be accurate.

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:


You can't use wands/scrolls/etc without being the appropriate type of caster or having a dedication feat. This is a step back from PF1.

There being a way to get full access to them does not in any way imply there aren't other ways to fake out the item, just like in PF1.

Quote:
In terms of the Basic Arcana and Advance Arcana feats, why does our level only count as half? These class feats were designed to be balanced for the levels a class can take them, no? If I burn a class feat at level 12 to get a different class' level 6 class feat, aren't I trading a level 12 ability for a level 6 ability? Won't that make my character weaker than other characters?

Typically it won't make you weaker than other characters because you'll take feats in things that were the second class's specialty that are probably things your class could never do; you wouldn't take feats that your own class also has. Compared to PF1, suppose your PF1 character has two or more classes, and one class had the "most" levels in it. The maximum number of levels you could have in any of the other classes would be an equal amount (if it's a 2-way even split at an even level). So in PF1, a 12th level Barbarian/Rogue could take 6th-level rogue talents and 6th-level rage powers. Here, if barbarian is your first class, you get 12th level barbarian feats and 6th-level rogue feats (and in fact, it is impossible to combine barbarian and rogue in PF1 in such a way that you get a better or even an equal deal than this, but even so some barbarian rage powers of lower level might be worth taking for a rogue).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At least it will be an easy fix to hand out a few feats early for multiclassing purposes. I don't know if it will be enough to remove the need to start at level 3 in PF1, but it could work well.

I generally like this arrangement, though I agree with those who feel like the choices are being spread rather thin. A character concept that comes online at 10th level isn't going to satisfy most people. Half caster level also seems a little extreme.

I'm also a little disappointed I won't be able to just jump in with a Rogue(bard, sorcerer), but I'll give Rogue(cleric) a go. I did always want a divine trickster, even if druid would have been preferable.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:

This is not true.

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

That's not remotely true, outside of the Crossblooded Orc-Draconic Evoker you already mentioned... which really only exists to allow a borderline useless type of character be boosted up to playable.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


If the "every +1 matters" meme is true then you'll never want to start with less than an 18 in your to-hit attribute. I'm pretty sure you can still get a 16 in your secondary attribute in that case, though.

I've actually been looking at tons of viable builds that drop your class's primary attribute really low and make up for it in other ways. The math is much tighter, but that actually gives you far more freedom within the system to move away from obvious optimization paths without shooting yourself in the foot. A fighter who doesn't max out Strength and decides to boost his Int instead could grab Alchemical Crafting and learn a few poisons to weaken enemies, using his greater skills and higher INT-based checks to make up for a lower to-hit value with buffs, debuffs, and skill feat options that boost his mobility. A sorceress (or wizard) who dumped her CHA (or INT) down as low as she can take it could still focus on buff spells, non-spell-point-based feats, and fighting with a weapon and still be suitably impressive. A cleric who dumps her WIS down in favor of STR is basically a warpriest.

Since you don't have as much deviation between specialists and non-specialists (which can stretch to 40 point differences surprisingly quickly in PF1) each number matters more, but it's also easier to compensate for that number being lower than would be standard for your build by taking options that improve your combat positioning or expand your capabilities in other ways.

With all due respect, 5e did this too with the same explanation and ultimately, we were lied to.

Forgive me if I am highly skeptical and unwilling to take your word for it.

Bounded accuracy just forces everyone into the same straight jacket in the long run.

These multiclassing archetypes just feel like trap options at this point.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
On the other hand presumably the Fighter still needs to be able to hit people for his poisons to take effect, which means either his STR or DEX needs to be high enough to be accurate.

My suspicion, based on everything we've seen, is that even a subprime fighter won't have trouble hitting. What you'll be losing out on are more frequent critical successes on attacks (and the various advantages thereof), which your expertise in poisons and other deleterious substances will hopefully make up for. ^_^


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:


It's not retconning either. It's retraining. This is something that people do in real life, including in athletics. Heck, you do it when you cram for an exam.

So rather than "you were a multiclass wizard all along" it's "you spend a month of time in constant study working on something you dabbled in as a youth and have a breakthrough which allows you to start casting spells."

Of course it's easy to word things in a way that is very negative... and also fairly easy to reword them so something sounds good. It might be a matter of mindset. It's something you can retrain yourself on in bringing about personal change and growth in the real world. ;)

Uh... I've done a lot of training in a lot of different subjects. I don't forget other things because of it, which is what this so called 'retraining' explicitly does. It absolutely is a retcon- you trade out '+1 with greatswords' (or whatever) for 'am sorta a wizard now, and was whenever I originally took that greatsword feat.'

Personal growth is additive. Not replacement.
And what you're referring to in your examples is practice. And if you've suddenly at 5th level spent the last month dabbling, that is a retcon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:

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.

I was a huge fan of the idea of 4E multiclassing, but not the actual multiclassing in practice. It unfortunately didn't work, effectively giving a minor taste of the 2nd class, even with the scaling feats. On top of that, you needed to burn feats to even get access to the second class's feat options. In practice, the implementation of it was so bad, it's likely why they didn't bother to even include it in the D&D Essentials soft reboot of the system, and they reverted to a variation on 3E/Star Wars Saga Edition style multiclassing for 5E. Given that these multiclass feats attempt a very similar model, down to multiclass feats that act as gates to class feats, I worry that PF2 is about to make the same mistake that 4E had.


I think one of the useful things to test will be how well a class can function spending its level 2+ feats on options from an external class. The fact that casters get a couple fewer feats seems even more relevant now.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People seems to forget that fighters-wizard might have less spellcasting, but they will have tons of feats, and will attain legendary status with their weapon group, which won't be the case with a wizard/fighter.

It might be a little bit too early to say that wizard/fighter will be better than the other one.

Paizo Employee Designer

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Bardarok wrote:
It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.
They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.

Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).


1 person 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.

Yeah, I'd love to know what the dips that supposedly broke the game were. The anti-dip view seems heavily steeped in 3.5, which was largely vulnerable to dipping because there were a ton of classes, both base and prestige. In PF the only common dips are

1: Fighter 2, for proficiencies and feats
2: Monk 2, for feats
3: Paladin 2, for proficiencies and Divine Grace
4: Oracle 1, for immunity to fatigue. Oracle 2 for a revelation

Paladin 2 was only used as a dip for Oracle (It's hardly a dip if you're going into a dual advancement class, so Sorcadin doesn't count for the same reason Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster doesn't). Oracle dips were a problem due to how rage worked, not how mutliclassing worked, or unexpected combinations (Getting charisma to AC and reflex saves doesn't justify dumping dex if you don't pick an otherwise obscure feat to get cha to initiative as well.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Mark, I don't suppose you could give us a taste of some other Multiclass Feats, like for the Rogue or Fighter? Or for that matter what might be in the works for the Druid or other classes?

Sovereign Court

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


Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).

Is it possible to use the Shield cantrip as a substitute to a real shield for fighters feat?


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


Bardarok wrote:
It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.
They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.
Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).

Not forgetting. We didn't know, because the preview neglected to tell us. It called out spell level = half as if that were something different (and less) than the norm.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Bardarok wrote:
It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.
They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.
Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).

Okay! Sorry, that was confusing the first time. It sounded like the Cantrips would be half the power of a Wizard's or Cleric's cantrips.

Instead what you're saying is your Cantrip is level 1 for a 1st and 2nd level character, level 2 for 3rd and 4th, level 3 for 5th and 6th, and so forth. (And this is why we need to use something OTHER than "level" for "spell level" as it gets bloody confusing quite quickly.)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I suppose I'll just never understand the rabid determination to nerf the heck out of multiclassing, level dips in particular, because certain combinations are more effective than say, 20th level Fighter or Rogue.

Especially when, in PF1e a 16th level straight caster is probably more powerful than either, leaving the other 4 levels tied behind his back.

But to jump to crazy conclusions now about the new multiclassing is kind of silly, because we currently have no idea how powerful any given level character is. Nobody has a clue whether these multiclassing archetypes will result in an overpowered monstrosity or a barely functional encounter paperweight.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Disappointing.
If I want to play an arhetype and a muticlass, I have to wait for level 8. In pf1 I could have both by level 2. That makes it a step backwards as far as I am concerned.

Also, no sorcerer. Guess I'll have to wait for CRB for that.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I gotta say, I find it a little off-putting that I can start out as a Wizard with a 10 Intelligence and have full access to all class features, but if I want to dabble just the tiniest bit without having started out as a Wizard, suddenly I have to have a 16 Intelligence.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Mark also said the fighter multi-class would count as 5 feats for a wizard so it seems like the feats do flat granting of proficiency for the most part.

Must've missed that one. If true, that probably means it gives you all of them, yeah.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Bardarok wrote:
It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.
They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.
Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).

Ah, still getting used to the new wording, I guess. That's much better and a much better comparison to all the Proficiencies you can grab from Fighter. I mean, since one unchanging cantrip is shown as worth a Feat elsewhere, this looks like it's worth about 4 (2 for cantrips, one for being able to change them, and a fourth for being able to use wands, scrolls, and so on).

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkorin wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).
Is it possible to use the Shield cantrip as a substitute to a real shield for fighters feat?

I think the shield cantrip makes for a better emergency backup than a true substitute. Regular shields can take a few dents, the cantrip can only take one.


The lack of Sorcerer in the playtest saddens me but other than that it looks good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

this is kinda what i wanted I am going to make a Druid/rogue. animal order. flanking strikes with my animal companion :D

Liberty's Edge

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


Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).
Is it possible to use the Shield cantrip as a substitute to a real shield for fighters feat?
I think the shield cantrip makes for a better emergency backup than a true substitute. Regular shields can take a few dents, the cantrip can only take one.

The cantrip can be used with a two handed weapon, though. That's no small advantage.


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

For the folk complaining about Archetypes and Multiclasses not working together, you do realize if an Adventure Path requires an Archetype then it is likely it will provide the Archetype Feats for free when the characters reach certain levels, so to avoid the "Archetype Feat Tax" folk are complaining about.

This sort of thing has happened in the past - for instance, bonus Feats provided in the Hell's Rebels AP.

Also, Mark, once more I kindly request that we have an Airship Pirate Adventure Path. It would be absolutely awesome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems interesting. A muscle rogue might be viable as a barbarian or fighter multiclass out the box.

Finding out about the barbarian healer really just being a cleric is a kick to the face. There's no point to the medicine skill if a specialist can't deal with level appropriate challenges.


Bardarok wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All right. Should we talk about how this system massively favors casters who want to steal martial stuff over martials who want to steal caster stuff (or worse, martials who don't want to cast spells at all)? The Wizard/Fighter gets full plate and the martial weapon of his choice out of a single feat while the Fighter/Wizard gets... a few cantrips.
Uh...what indications do we have that a single Fighter Dedication Feat gets you all that? It's all something you can get, sure, but one Feat? Nothing says that anywhere.

Mark says it upthread. "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!"

It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.

I had the same thought, but the cantrips scale with the maximum spell level you can cast rather than character level, so to achieve that scaling, the later caster multiclass archetype feats have to be taken.

EDIT: I am wrong and cannot read!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
JRutterbush wrote:
I gotta say, I find it a little off-putting that I can start out as a Wizard with a 10 Intelligence and have full access to all class features, but if I want to dabble just the tiniest bit without having started out as a Wizard, suddenly I have to have a 16 Intelligence.

As I said before, it's the difference between the barely adequate student spending all of his or her life in hard study to learn magic, compared to the dabbler who is really gifted but went a different path... but decided to learn a few things on the side.

Paizo Employee Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Bardarok wrote:
It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.
They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.
Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).
Not forgetting. We didn't know, because the preview neglected to tell us. It called out spell level = half as if that were something different (and less) than the norm.

It says "half your level rounded up," which is 9 at level 17, 3 at level 5, etc.

Now the real interesting questions is "Why did we only need to say this in the second feat? How is the 1st one OK without it?" That's interesting and not something we've said. Basically, the definition of cantrip scaling is akin to: Always heightened to the highest spell level you can cast, or if you have no spells, like an elf fighter or something, use half your level rounded up. But that second wizard feat makes you a spellcaster who casts at a slower rate than half level rounded up. So we need to specify that this doesn't weaken your cantrips compared to not having that feat.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Darkorin wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).
Is it possible to use the Shield cantrip as a substitute to a real shield for fighters feat?
I think the shield cantrip makes for a better emergency backup than a true substitute. Regular shields can take a few dents, the cantrip can only take one.
The cantrip can be used with a two handed weapon, though. That's no small advantage.

Unclear if the cantrip can be used for fighter feats that key off shield statistics or allow new uses (which I realize now was the original question).


The name "archetype" seems wrong for this form of multiclassing. The dictionary definitions for "archetype" I find are the Jungian collective concept, a prototype, a recurrent symbol, or a stock example. That does not fit adding a second vocation to a character.

The character classes are based on archetypical literary or mythological characters, such as the ranger based on Aragorn for Lord of the Rings, but generalized to have more flexibility in creating individual roleplaying characters. The archetypes introduced in the Advanced Player's Guide specialized those classes. Since the specialization made many resemble one particular archetypical character more, such as the bladebound magus resembling Elric of Melniboné, the name "archetype" was appropriate.

But adding abilities of a second class by an interrelated set of feats is not archetypical. In addition, 2nd edition archetypes are so different from 1st edition archetypes that we will now have to refer to the 1st edition archetypes as not "the archetypes from 1st edition Pathfinder" but "archetypes as they were done in 1st edition Pathfinder, which are a different thing."

When Advanced Player's Guide introduced archetypes, some people said they were reminded of Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition kits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternative_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_clas ses#2nd_edition_kits): "A character kit is a collection of minor modifications to the standard rules (generally involving bonus languages, changes to forbidden/permissible weapons, bonus non-weapon proficiencies, et cetera). They tended to reflect culture, race, social class, or vocation." That seems a better description of these multiclass archetypes.

I have no problem with calling these dedications multiclass. Thus, "multiclass kit" or "multiclass dedication" sound fine. "Multiclass archetype" sounds like an oxymoron.

P.S. For once, I have to post this without reading all the previous comments. I have another commitment and am out of time. I apologize if others said the same without me giving them credit.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazk wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All right. Should we talk about how this system massively favors casters who want to steal martial stuff over martials who want to steal caster stuff (or worse, martials who don't want to cast spells at all)? The Wizard/Fighter gets full plate and the martial weapon of his choice out of a single feat while the Fighter/Wizard gets... a few cantrips.
Uh...what indications do we have that a single Fighter Dedication Feat gets you all that? It's all something you can get, sure, but one Feat? Nothing says that anywhere.

Mark says it upthread. "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!"

It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.

I had the same thought, but the cantrips scale with the maximum spell level you can cast rather than character level, so to achieve that scaling, the later caster multiclass archetype feats have to be taken.

If you just take dedication, you get a fully scaling cantrip.

251 to 300 of 1,191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Multiclassing and Archetypes All Messageboards