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
301 to 350 of 1,191 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of this for a few reasons:

1. It actually hearkens back to the old multi-classing days (when modern multi-classing was actually dual classing). In other words, these let you advance in both classes at the same time, but not stop progression in one to pick up another. I'm not a fan of that. First level choice of class is essentially, now, fixed for the remainder of the game.

2. It's a *lot* of overhead to recast each class as a multiclass option. Even if you do keep this as-is, it would seem more elegant to use the feats/abilties of the other class, rather than making a whole new set of them to mimic another class.

Mind you, I don't necessarily think the notion of "entry feat to get access, then you advance by taking feats" is bad. But I'd like to see this opened up a bit. Perhaps each time you get a class ability, you can choose which class it comes from. Gaining a new level of spellcasting *should* be considered a class ability. Essentially that would solve #1 a bit, you could stop gaining *anything* from one class to gain things from a second.

Beyond this, I could also imagine the following: Change ability boosts so they are evenly spaced: 1, 5, 9, 13, 17. Each time you get an ability boost, you may sacrifice one to swap classes to a new class and start progressing in that class. In this approach, you'd still need to solve caster level advancement, but you could easily have special rules for that (perhaps those advance at half their normal rate when swapped out).

I think there are lots of approaches here, I just don't love this one, which, I mean, come on, this is pretty much *exactly* what 4e did...

EDIT: For reference: http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Multiclassing
EDIT EDIT: Multiclassing is extremely important to me, and honestly, if this system does make it in as is, it might actually be a dealbreaker for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me test these archetypes by seeing whether I can recreate character concepts that needed multiclassing.

In my Jade Regent campaign, I sidelined the escorted NPC Ameiko Kaijitsu for her half sister Amaya of Westcrown. The source material for Amaya, The Bastards of Erebus, gave her 1st level as Expert, specializing in glassblowing. I made her 2nd level Fighter(lore warden), because the party needed more martial characters. Her third level became Oracle (time mystery) after she encountered the mystic Amatatsu Seal and the party cleric left, so the party needed a healer. At 4th level, I applied a homebrew archetype to give Oracle an Expert's skills instead of its own and swapped out the level of Expert for another level of Oracle.

In the PF2 system, Amaya would still start as Expert, or the closest equivalent in PF2. At 2nd level, she would take Fighter Dedication. So far so good, unless the Fighter Dedication requires Strenght 16. At 3rd level, after encountering the Amatatsu Seal, Amaya would not have the right kind of feat available to take another dedication feat, even if I ignored the rule about needing to have more multiclass feats before taking a dedication feat. I would have to dump the Expert class immediately, swap in Oracle (or its closest equivalent in PF2), and change her feats to give her the Expert glassblowing skills. Her transformation would be more drastic, but I could justify it because the Amatatsu Seal was a major artifact. This works.

In my Iron Gods campaign, I had aged Val Baine, barmaid daughter of the lost wizard, to 17 years old, to accommodate changes created by two PCs writing themselves into the Baine family's backstory via the Local Ties trait. Then the party surprised me by recruiting Val as their 4th party member (Iron Gods among Scientists). They wanted her 1st level to be Barbarian with Savage Technologist archetype, to fit her Numerian Kellid background and because they needed a heavy hitter. But I had already roleplayed Val as a wizardry student who knew one cantrip, Jolt. I compromised by making Val a bloodrager with a homebrew Savage Spellslinger archetype that gave her cantrips and a few Savage Technologist abilities. She also gained Bluff as a class skill through the Unpredictable trait, because she was masterminding the cover story to keep the Technic League from noticing the party's activities. Bluff skill meshed well with the Charisma 16 I gave her as a bloodrager. She thought she was a wizard and studied her spellbook every morning until she learned that truth at 4th level.

In the PF2 system, Val would start as a Barbarian, Human Kellid ancestry if available and Barkeep background. I would give her one cantrip from Wizard Dedication early at 1st level, and then the full feat at 2nd level. This would change the emphasis of the character from Charisma to Intelligence, which would fit the conditions but would change the character. Or I could use Sorcerer Dedication instead, with arcane spells for the sorcery, and go with Charisma as I did. This works.

My wife's character Boffin in the same Iron Gods campaign was a strange build, unique and successful. She wanted to play a dwarf gadgeteer. Pathfinder lacks a Gadgeteer class, so we started with the Gunslinger class, because it is built around a firearm, a gadget. We added the Experimental Gunsmith archetype to add even more emphasis on experimenting with gadgets. Boffin also put a lot of ranks into Craft(Alchemy) since alchemical items were another gadget. She ended up in the rogue role in the rogueless party, because her Local Ties campaign trait gave her Disable Device and her high Wisdom gave her excellent Perception. She dipped two levels of Unchained Rogue at 6th and 7th level in order to better fit that role. No, she did not abandon Gunslinger levels after gaining Gun Training for Dex to damage. The Experimental Gunsmith archetype gives up Gun Training. Instead, she used the grapple gun from Experimental Gunsmith and later the technological autograpnel to develop a form of battlefield control by shooting a grappling hook around the battlefield. That was the first time I ever saw a non-spellcaster character provide excellent battlefield control. When she gained more levels of Gunslinger at 8th level, she used the Gunslinger Targetting deed to shoot weapons out of people's hands for more battlefield control.

In the PF2 system, she would also start with a Gunslinger, presumably I would wait until PF2 Gunslinger was available before running Iron Gods. At 2nd level she takes a gadget-oriented dedication, Alchemist if nothing else were available. By 6th level she would take the Rogue dedication--would she qualify for it by then? I am unsure about whether she could take enough multiclass rogue feats by then to qualify for another dedication, especially because she was also learning several Technologist feats to be able to craft Technological items. Okay, she would probably not have enough feats to become a gunslinger/rogue who crafts technological items. I would have to homebrew her losing some gunslinger abilities (she never regained grit points due to knockouts, because she was not dealing damage with her firearms) for rogue abilities instead. This does not quite work.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkorin wrote:

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.

I mean, we haven't seen any indication that being Legendary with swords does anything other than make you more accurate. I keep expecting a post that indicates what kind of Cool Stuff being legendary with a weapon grants you but there's been nothing to show that legendary weapon proficiency operates under the same paradigm as skill proficiency.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
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).

1) Because true multiclassing/3.5e style multiclassing doesn't exist (sorry to say this isn't true multiclassing, but it really isn't what I have come to consider multiclassing). Feat chains is as good as it gets for the playtest and potentially for the new edition. So "multiclassing" into cleric isn't being a barbarian, it's being a Barbarian/Cleric.

2) From an in universe explanation my healing isn't coming from me being such a skilled person in the medicine feat, it's now coming because I am an ordained priest. Fluff matters and I do not want to say "just reflavour your caster into being a 4e style Warlord". If I wanted to play a game where the fluff behind the mechanics didn't matter, I'd play 4th ed. I'm not playing 4th ed. I'm playing Pathfinder.

Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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).

Aye, something like that for sure. And a two-hander can definitely make use of shield for some AC, if not a physical shield. I recommend bastard sword for the "two-hand Fighter that MCs into Wizard." It's martial, so you have it no problem, it does d12 when two-handing it, and you can pull your hand off real quick if you ever need somatic casting.


5 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...

Nope

Mundane character concepts are dead. Which is good. Being non-magical is not a character concept that is level appropiate after lvl 5

Silver Crusade

deuxhero 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.

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...

When I was GMing shattered star, we briefly had a character who, at level eight, had levels in four different classes and roughly a +30 on the majority of skill checks as a result.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the high stat entry requirements, at least once we get the full class options. (It's a little hard on charisma-based characters and the four represented classes to start with.) You'll be able to grab classes with the same stat with no sweat, but it means that a Wizard who wants to be tanky will need to make a sizable investment in strength, while a Fighter who wants to be casty can choose to go with a Wisdom-based class and shore up their will saves at the same time.

It's at a level where you can get it with your secondary stat in most cases. If not, fifth level is very manageable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate the way half-races were implemented, but I love this implementation for half-classes. It's like VMC but actually good and more customizable to boot. I'm totally going to try to make a monk/wizard "Muscle Wizard" at least once, just to see how viable it turns out to be. I CAST FIST!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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).
Aye, something like that for sure. And a two-hander can definitely make use of shield. I recommend bastard sword for the "two-hand Fighter that MCs into Wizard." It's martial, so you have it no problem, it does d12 when two-handing it, and you can pull your hand off real quick if you ever need somatic casting.

Doesn't it now take an action to change your grip on your weapon?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Blueskier wrote:
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...

Nope

Mundane character concepts are dead. Which is good. Being non-magical is not a character concept that is level appropiate after lvl 5

In YOUR opinion. Enforcing such rules is called BADWRONGFUN and should always be avoided.

Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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).
Aye, something like that for sure. And a two-hander can definitely make use of shield. I recommend bastard sword for the "two-hand Fighter that MCs into Wizard." It's martial, so you have it no problem, it does d12 when two-handing it, and you can pull your hand off real quick if you ever need somatic casting.
Doesn't it now take an action to change your grip on your weapon?

To add a hand, yes, but not to drop the weapon out of one or both hands. That's why the bastard sword is great here. If you could switch hands around willy-nilly, being a switch-handed weapon doesn't matter because you always just freely take a hand off, do the hand thing, freely put the hand back.


I'm excited to see multiclassing being shaken up, but I'll have to see it in action in the playtest before I know whether or not this is an improvement.

I do like that the whole VMC concept is being iterated on. It was a nice idea that was painfully underpowered aside from like 4 very strong options, and even those usually had at least one level that was incredibly "meh." By working in the new archetype system where you can stop and start as you please, it's eliminated the "man, I really want the level 7 ability, but the level 3 and 11 ones are absolutely not worth a feat" problem.

Not sure I'm a fan of the stat requirements? Brings me back to the earliest editions, and not in a great way.

Really wish we could get MCs for all the classes in the core, but oh well.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
thflame wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Aye, something like that for sure. And a two-hander can definitely make use of shield. I recommend bastard sword for the "two-hand Fighter that MCs into Wizard." It's martial, so you have it no problem, it does d12 when two-handing it, and you can pull your hand off real quick if you ever need somatic casting.
Doesn't it now take an action to change your grip on your weapon?

Only to add a hand. You can drop and cast, then attack one-handed. Next turn, regrip and attack twice.


Mark Seifter wrote:
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.

Which is exactly the same as half, unless you're specifically using non standard rules for rounding. It wasn't particularly the point or important, though.

The wording simply suggested that spell level = half was less than what casters get. You've since it explained it isn't, but what's in (and not in) the preview itself is what gave people that impression, not 'forgetting.'

Quote:
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.

OK? Still didn't know any of that, which made it non-obvious that spell level = half wasn't making them worse with cantrips than a full class caster, because nothing in the preview explained how cantrip progression worked normally.

But, question then. I'm under the impression that 10th level spells aren't automatic and need to be picked up with a feat or class feature. This suggests that full casters are locked to '9th level' cantrips at 18th-20th level unless they pick that up, while non-casters who multiclass pick up 10th level cantrips automatically at 19th.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
deuxhero 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.

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

...

Definitely impressive at level 8, when skills still matter. Not such a big deal as level creeps toward cap and the casters get spells that invalidate many skills altogether, or can craft items that make them nearly as skilled when necessary, and still full casters when unnecessary.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Let me test these archetypes by seeing whether I can recreate character concepts that needed multiclassing.

In terms of examples, I think you're trying to convert too directly. What you need to do is not convert a character precisely, but instead create a character who does the same thing.

In Amaya's case, there don't appear to be NPC Classes at all, so you'd probably just convert her to a Fighter when making her a 'PC equivalent' character rather than adding levels, which would work fine.

And in the final case, she never took levels in Alchemist and wouldn't need Alchemist Dedication, therefore, just the Alchemical Crafter Feat which is a Skill Feat and could be readily accommodated.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I mean, we haven't seen any indication that being Legendary with swords does anything other than make you more accurate. I keep expecting a post that indicates what kind of Cool Stuff being legendary with a weapon grants you but there's been nothing to show that legendary weapon proficiency operates under the same paradigm as skill proficiency.

Actually it looks like the critical special effects may be tied to Proficiency (at least, unless you have the Barbarian ability to ignore that or an Ancestry Weapon Training Feat).

John Lynch 106 wrote:

1) Because true multiclassing/3.5e style multiclassing doesn't exist (sorry to say this isn't true multiclassing, but it really isn't what I have come to consider multiclassing). Feat chains is as good as it gets for the playtest and potentially for the new edition. So "multiclassing" into cleric isn't being a barbarian, it's being a Barbarian/Cleric.

2) From an in universe explanation my healing isn't coming from me being such a skilled person in the medicine feat, it's now coming because I am an ordained priest. Fluff matters and I do not want to say "just reflavour your caster into being a 4e style Warlord". If I wanted to play a game where the fluff behind the mechanics didn't matter, I'd play 4th ed. I'm not playing 4th ed. I'm playing Pathfinder.

What I think is being neglected here is that according to Mark, she used like one healing spell per day from Cleric. Meaning that doing most of the healing without Cleric is still viable.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Aye, something like that for sure. And a two-hander can definitely make use of shield for some AC, if not a physical shield. I recommend bastard sword for the "two-hand Fighter that MCs into Wizard." It's martial, so you have it no problem, it does d12 when two-handing it, and you can pull your hand off real quick if you ever need somatic casting.

Excellent.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Blueskier wrote:
Mundane character concepts are dead. Which is good. Being non-magical is not a character concept that is level appropiate after lvl 5

I always thought it was funny that people insisted a character who was wielding a magic sword, wearing magic armor, 2 magic rings, a magic amulet, a magic hat, a magic headband, magic goggles, a magic cloak, a magic shirt, magic robes, magic gloves, a magic belt; who chugs magic potions en masse so they can grow enormous and fly, was in any sense a "Mundane" person.

Like it makes a ton of sense that a smarty pants fighter might just pick up a pair of cantrips (shield is a good choice) and no other wizard stuff to leverage their intelligence. It makes sense in this world where magic is a thing you can learn, and has minimal risks or downsides, that people of all vocations would pick up useful magic for whatever it is they are doing, provided they have the acumen.


Meh. So far my least favorite post, but that's mainly because I've never multiclassed in my relatively small amount of roleplaying time I've had.


So, tiny nitpick here. "You gain access to the Cast a Spell activity."
I get that a some light legalese is necessary to avoid misunderstandings. Hell, it even helps text searches in pdfs.

But, and this is just a little but, statements like that were some of the more confounding ones that stumped me when I was getting into D&D as a kid. They're worded in such a way that I just overthought them, you know?
The answer's right there in front of you, ten year old brain. Quit trying decode a sentance just because the phrasing is awkward and jarring.

Wait, this thread is about multiclassing, not prose critiques.
Uhhh… Ummm… Ah, familiars! They're a wizard feat, right? Funny little animals, now available for the low low price of two or three feats! With cantrips! I mean, gnomes can just do that by being gnomes, but at least I can still Bob Ross it up as a bard with a squirrel friend even when I'm not feeling small.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Blueskier wrote:
Mundane character concepts are dead. Which is good. Being non-magical is not a character concept that is level appropiate after lvl 5
I always thought it was funny that people who were wielding a magic sword, wearing magic armor, 2 magic rings, a magic amulet, a magic hat, a magic headband, magic goggles, a magic cloak, a magic shirt, magic robes, magic gloves, a magic belt; who chugs magic potions en masse so they can grow enormous and fly, was in any sense a "Mundane" person.

Why? It isn't like a tank driver is actually a tank.

Trinkets don't define a character. They just make the character matter less than their stuff.


Mark Seifter wrote:
(Fighter Dedication would take 5 feats to replicate for a wizard, and an average of around 3 feats for most other characters)

Hopefully this is hypothetical feats and not actual feats? I would hate for the list of feats to get so large in 2nd that someone who's new to the system would pick their feats, only to have another player more experienced make the same exact character but using the 'more powerful' feats and having a better character only because they knew which feats provided more/better benefits than others.

I just don't the amount of feats cause problems for players. Say for example you wanted a wizard who has Armor proficiency, so you take the Armor proficiency feat.. but wait, they could have just multi-classed into Fighter as you said and get that and then some. Why would a Wizard (Who didn't intend to multiclass into other classes) ever take any weapon or armor Prof. feats? They should always take Fighter Multiclass? and if you pick the weapon/Armor feats then you're making a bad/wrong choice. I hope I'm conveying this right


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

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

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

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

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

--Vrock & Load

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

I find this response troubling. It comes across as if Paizo is willing to concede to builds which trivialize other classes, so long as F6/W6 is alway viable? What's more, you're equating the troubles of "newer players" with multi-class builds as deficiency in multi-classing as opposed to the lack of system mastery or the fact that the rules make it exceedingly hard for players to figure out how useful some feats might be. The maxim that correlation does not equal causation comes to mind.

I agree with Tallow. As a GM I can easily compensate for PCs that fall short. More importantly, other PCs can often carry them along. What's much harder to deal with is PCs that can solo the appropriate CR encounters and IME with PFS, these are always multi-classed builds (and some full casters).

A bad build can be retrained and improved, PF2 seems to allow that right out of the gate as compared with P1. A new player can get advice and gain experience on how to improve their F6/W6. Not much a GM can do about a game-breaking build. Wouldn't it make far more sense to be on guard against builds ruining the game for everyone else at the table than builds that require the rest of the table to carry more of the load?

I thought you claimed in the Races blog that people were more concerned with concept than mechanics (please correct me if I misunderstood). If that's true, then why isn't the same true for multi-classing?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Moro wrote:
Definitely impressive at level 8, when skills still matter. Not such a big deal as level creeps toward cap and the casters get spells that invalidate many skills altogether, or can craft items that make them nearly as skilled when necessary, and still full casters when unnecessary.

The Developers have been explicit that the "I'm now better at this skill than the guy who invested everything in that skill" spells either no longer exist or are pulled back HARD. Discern lies just gives a +4 to Perception vs. lies instead of "I auto win" in P1. This issue no longer exists.


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


Doesn't it now take an action to change your grip on your weapon?

To add a hand, yes, but not to drop the weapon out of one or both hands. That's why the bastard sword is great here. If you could switch hands around willy-nilly, being a switch-handed weapon doesn't matter because you always just freely take a hand off, do the hand thing, freely put the hand back.

Sure it matters. What if I need to carry something in my off hand? Drag a downed ally? Hold onto a ladder while fighting off a harpy? What if I like to swap between sword and board and 2 handing a weapon? There are plenty of situations where a switch-handed weapon would be beneficial over a two handed weapon without requiring an action to grab the weapon with my free hand.

More importantly, it makes in universe sense to be able to attach your free hand to a weapon you are already holding without monopolizing 1/3rd of your turn to do so. If it takes next to no tie to do IRL or it can be done simultaneously with something else, it shouldn't cost an action.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if I like this overall or don't like it overall. I see many of the benefits it brings, but playtest will have to determine how it works in practice. Part of me feels that it's a great system if you want to multiclass what's essentially an even level split, or a single level dip, but it's not as flexible necessarily to allow different degrees of how much to multiclass. Sure you can choose how many and which feats to pick, but not sure if going the middle road is actually a useful viable choice, compared to a dedication only dip or a full embrace of the multi-class.

What I'm not a fan of is that multi-classing seem to strongly interfere with archetypes. I don't see why being a pirate rogue should make it harder to be a pirate rogue-wizard, but currently, that seems to be the case.

One possible solution is to not have multiclass feats start with a dedication feat. Let multi-class feats be their own thing, and have their own rules for needing 2 other feats from the archetype, before taking another multiclass archetype, and not prevent you from doing the same with a "regular" archetype.

Also, multiclassing seems to solidify my impression that PF2 has borrowed a lot from the Pillars of Eternity games - class feats and general feats, multiclassing handled through feat choices, etc.


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

Does the Rouge multi-class give consistent skill proficiencies or skill feats? I am having a really difficult time seeing it keep up with the others.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

I find this response troubling. It comes across as if Paizo is willing to concede to builds which trivialize other classes, so long as F6/W6 is alway viable? What's more, you're equating the troubles of "newer players" with multi-class builds as deficiency in multi-classing as opposed to the lack of system mastery or the fact that the rules make it exceedingly had for players to figure out how useful some feats might be. The maxim that correlation does not equal causation comes to mind.

I agree with Tallow. As a GM I can easily compensate for PCs that fall short. More importantly, other PCs can often carry them along. What's much harder to deal with is PCs that can solo the appropriate CR encounters and IME with PFS, these are always multi-classed builds (and some full casters).

A bad build can be retrained and improved, PF2 seems to allow that right out of the gate as compared with P1. A new player can get advice and gain experience on how to improve their F6/W6. Not much a GM can do about a game-breaking build. Wouldn't it make far more sense to be on guard against builds ruining the game for everyone else at the table than builds that require the rest of the table to carry more of the load?

I thought you claimed in the Races blog that people were more concerned with concept than mechanics (please correct me if I misunderstood). If that's true, then why isn't the same true for multi-classing?

What he's saying is that it eliminates a trap for inexperienced players while also eliminating min/max power gaming by players with system mastery. And since you often had these two AT THE SAME TABLE it was even more obvious. Keeping the new player is so much more important than making the dedicated gamer feel super awesome instead of just awesome.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Does the Rouge multi-class give consistent skill proficiencies or skill feats? I am having a really difficult time seeing it keep up with the others.

I think it mostly has to do with paints and pigments, but I agree with you that it seems a little monochromatic. If they don't keep up they could dye.


JoelF847 wrote:
I don't see why being a pirate rogue should make it harder to be a pirate rogue-wizard, but currently, that seems to be the case.

Hunh. To the extent that this is true and the fact that you seemingly have stat requirement to multi-class are the things I like.

It should be exceedingly hard to be a doctor/lawyer and then be firefighter as well. I think the dedication feat requirement is something that adds at least an iota of realism, if not balance, to the concept.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
What I think is being neglected here is that according to Mark, she used like one healing spell per day from Cleric. Meaning that doing most of the healing without Cleric is still viable.

Yup. Saw that post after posting my initial reaction. We'll just have to wait and see what the "healer" role looks like in the new edition and how competent non-spellcasters can be in that role (Mark says you'll need items. Now does that mean you need wands of healing? Potions and scrolls of remove disease? We really don't know).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark,

After many pages one question I haven't seen asked...

What happens if you multiclass classes that are very similar?

Like: (Specifically)

Palader (Paladin - Fighter devotion)

What happens with the doubled feats?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thflame wrote:

I see a lot of question dodging happening about how dedication feats are feat taxes. I'd really appreciate one of the devs explaining why:

1) 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.

2) Why you have to take a dedication feat to get access to the feats you want in the first place.

3) Why you have to take 2 feats in your dedication feat tree before you can take another dedication feat.

4) 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?

I think these are good questions that keep getting asked in various forms about both regular archetypes and multiclassing, so let me take a stab at them even though I'm not a developer.

1) Mark already answered this, but it's not different from PF1. Classes in PF1 were locked out of these kinds of magic items without Use Magic Device. We don't know what replaces Use Magic Device, exactly, but I'm guessing it's the relevant spellcasting skill (Arcana, Occultism, etc.)

2) The dedication feats are basically just the first feat you'd take for that archetype anyway. It's just the name of the start of the feat group, and gives you the main prereqs they would have applied to all the other feats for that archetype if you didn't have to start here. I haven't seen any bad dedication feats for the concepts, so they never look like a "feat tax" as opposed to just "start of the archetype." As Mark mentioned but DMW missed somehow, the Fighter dedication feat gave his bard trained in martial weapons and all the armor, and pointed out it would have been five feats for a wizard.

3) The obvious answer is that dedication feats are potentially super powerful, much like the first level in a class that grants all those proficiencies in PF1. This requirement is to prevent someone from taking 3 dedications in a row to get disproportionate value from them, much like someone dipping into three different classes to collect front-loaded class abilities in PF1. Everyone cheering about dipping being dead mostly have this restriction to thank.

4) This seems fine; if I'm a 10th level fighter and count as a 5th level wizard for extra feats I can take, that's not worse than having split the classes 5/5 in PF1 multiclassing. From a full spellcaster's perspective (like a Druid or Bard or something) multiclassing into Wizard, that's almost strictly a pure upgrade over PF1. You won't be able to get Wizard feats as early as a pure wizard or gain any that require more than ten levels in wizard, but that seams fine. If you want to be more than 50% wizard, start as a wizard.


N N 959 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

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

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

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

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

--Vrock & Load

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

I find this response troubling. It comes across as if Paizo is willing to concede to builds which trivialize other classes, so long as F6/W6 is alway viable? What's more, you're equating the troubles of "newer players" with multi-class builds as deficiency in multi-classing as opposed to the lack of system mastery or the fact that the rules make it exceedingly hard for players to figure out how useful some feats might be. The maxim that correlation does not equal causation comes to mind.

I agree with Tallow. As a GM I can easily compensate for PCs...

Except Cleric or Wizard 20 exists, and until we know whether not those are as game-breaking as they could be in PF1e, and they were worse than any multiclass builds, for certain, we cant really know how well this version of multiclassing fixes any problems, or if it causes more issues.

Straight classed full casters are pretty much the reason organized play stops at level 12 in Pathfinder. Maybe Pathfinder Society can go all the way to level cap in 2nd edition. Maybe multiclass archetypes will be banned from PFS. At this point, no one knows.

Silver Crusade

HWalsh wrote:

Mark,

After many pages one question I haven't seen asked...

What happens if you multiclass classes that are very similar?

Like: (Specifically)

Palader (Paladin - Fighter devotion)

What happens with the doubled feats?

I mean what happens when you multiclass fighter/paladin in 1e? It's probably less beneficial than Paladin/Oracle or other pairs of classes that are dissimilar. The flip side of that is that fighter things probably synergize better with paladin things. Indeed, the most popular multi-classes and gestalts I can think of are classes with disparate abilities that happen to work together well, like the Palacle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
1of1 wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Does the Rouge multi-class give consistent skill proficiencies or skill feats? I am having a really difficult time seeing it keep up with the others.
I think it mostly has to do with paints and pigments, but I agree with you that it seems a little monochromatic. If they don't keep up they could dye.

whoops, I would have thought my phone autocorrect would have guessed I type the word rogue more than Rouge, but maybe I am only deceiving myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:
Moro wrote:
Definitely impressive at level 8, when skills still matter. Not such a big deal as level creeps toward cap and the casters get spells that invalidate many skills altogether, or can craft items that make them nearly as skilled when necessary, and still full casters when unnecessary.
The Developers have been explicit that the "I'm now better at this skill than the guy who invested everything in that skill" spells either no longer exist or are pulled back HARD. Discern lies just gives a +4 to Perception vs. lies instead of "I auto win" in P1. This issue no longer exists.

My point exactly. The new mechanics seem to make this weird focus on nerfing multiclassing level dips either redundant, or overkill, at first glance.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
What I think is being neglected here is that according to Mark, she used like one healing spell per day from Cleric. Meaning that doing most of the healing without Cleric is still viable.
Yup. Saw that post after posting my initial reaction. We'll just have to wait and see what the "healer" role looks like in the new edition and how competent non-spellcasters can be in that role (Mark says you'll need items. Now does that mean you need wands of healing? Potions and scrolls of remove disease? We really don't know).

Evidence suggests that you can probably manage HP healing without items but need items for a lot of condition removal until you pick up Legendary Medic at 15th level.

That's just a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof of anything, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaelizar wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
(Fighter Dedication would take 5 feats to replicate for a wizard, and an average of around 3 feats for most other characters)

Hopefully this is hypothetical feats and not actual feats? I would hate for the list of feats to get so large in 2nd that someone who's new to the system would pick their feats, only to have another player more experienced make the same exact character but using the 'more powerful' feats and having a better character only because they knew which feats provided more/better benefits than others.

I just don't the amount of feats cause problems for players. Say for example you wanted a wizard who has Armor proficiency, so you take the Armor proficiency feat.. but wait, they could have just multi-classed into Fighter as you said and get that and then some. Why would a Wizard (Who didn't intend to multiclass into other classes) ever take any weapon or armor Prof. feats? They should always take Fighter Multiclass? and if you pick the weapon/Armor feats then you're making a bad/wrong choice. I hope I'm conveying this right

That is actually a good point.

My first instinct is to say "A more experienced player or GM could point that out and help the new player," but I am a bit iffy on that as that feels a bit like saying "systematic flaws are ok as long as you help people avoid them."

Still, stretching for counter-arguments, that does come at the cost of locking the chatacter out of non-multiclass archetypes. Additionally, those sound like general feats the wizard could grab, vs having to spend a class feat to crossclass with fighter. Still, that does seem like quite a gap in power, especially between two CRB feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
I don't see why being a pirate rogue should make it harder to be a pirate rogue-wizard, but currently, that seems to be the case.

Hunh. To the extent that this is true and the fact that you seemingly have stat requirement to multi-class are the things I like.

It should be exceedingly hard to be a doctor/lawyer and then be firefighter as well. I think the dedication feat requirement is something that adds at least an iota of realism, if not balance, to the concept.

Firefighter is a bad example. You can get certified as a firefighter in a day, assuming you can pass the physical portion.

What doesn't make sense is that if I am a doctor, and I decide that I want to learn a bit about law as it applies to my medical field. I shouldn't have to take Law 101, then Medical Law.

After that, if I want to be a firefighter, I shouldn't have to take some other law class before I am physically capable to learning how to be a firefighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:
What he's saying is that it eliminates a trap for inexperienced players while also eliminating min/max power gaming by players with system mastery.

I read the former, but not the latter.

Let's go through his post again:

Quote:
I don't think that's more important;

Mark is making a value judgment on what's more important, and it's not min/maxers reeking havoc.

Quote:
people will always find a way to optimize a powerful character that the system allows

Translation: we can't stop min/maxing. When you combine that with the previous statement, it equates to Paizo putting the impact of min/maxers as less important than fixing the problem with weak multi-class builds.

Quote:
but more plentiful overall (if not on the Paizo boards) were newer players earnestly multiclassing Fighter6/Wizard6 because it sounded cool and being punished for it.

So here is the most troubling part. Mark appears to be basing the decision on people complaining about their multi-classed builds on forums. How do we know that this equates to a bigger problem for actual game play than overpowered mult-classed builds, because of forum posts?

Quote:

And since you often had these two AT THE SAME TABLE it was even more obvious. Keeping the new player is so much more important than making the dedicated gamer feel super awesome instead of just awesome.

Really? if you kept dedicated gamers from creating classes that were "super awesome" and made it so they could only create mult-classed builds that were just "great," wouldn't that go a LONG way in addressing the problems of the F6/W6? If the problem is a result of the gap, then stopping the peak value is a far better approach as it benefits the entire game system, including the GM.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
I don't see why being a pirate rogue should make it harder to be a pirate rogue-wizard, but currently, that seems to be the case.

Hunh. To the extent that this is true and the fact that you seemingly have stat requirement to multi-class are the things I like.

It should be exceedingly hard to be a doctor/lawyer and then be firefighter as well. I think the dedication feat requirement is something that adds at least an iota of realism, if not balance, to the concept.

The problem isn't that it takes a lot to be a pirate rogue wizard. Its that you can't start learning the basics of wizarding until you almost master pirating. If you ever see a pirate throw a dagger then use a spark can-trip to light a smoke you know they're a very high lvl but being able to stand on a boat, throw a dagger and cast spark are all low level things. I'm not saying you should be able to do all of them at lvl 1 but it shouldn't take until lvl 8 or so. Right now in 1ed I could be rouge 1 (Pirate archetype) + wiz 1 and be doing it a lvl 2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
I don't see why being a pirate rogue should make it harder to be a pirate rogue-wizard, but currently, that seems to be the case.

Hunh. To the extent that this is true and the fact that you seemingly have stat requirement to multi-class are the things I like.

It should be exceedingly hard to be a doctor/lawyer and then be firefighter as well. I think the dedication feat requirement is something that adds at least an iota of realism, if not balance, to the concept.

I don't think they're complaining that it's harder to be a doctor/lawyer/firefighter than it is to be a doctor/lawyer.

The complaint seems to be that being a doctor/patent lawyer is super difficult or impossible compared to being a doctor/lawyer.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thflame wrote:

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

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

I mean...this feels like it's just a different class. It's been a long time since I've played FF Tactics, and I don't know what other FFs red mages have been in, but I don't think multiclassing is the answer to emulate exactly what you're looking for because the game system just comes from completely different traditions. Trying to shoehorn in 2 different spell lists while also being a capable fighter feels like it's just past the limits of what multiclassing is designed to handle.

However, I'd suggest that maybe a primal-casting sorcerer going into Fighter multiclass would actually do a better job of fitting the "red mage" role of being a a fighter while casting both attack spells and healing spells. They'll possibly have more nature stuff than you want. There's probably some other bloodline that could help give that feeling as well.

If the final rules have easier ways to dip into the primal/occultism spell lists, starting with fighter, probably makes sense, too.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

First, concerning the renewed argument on adding a hand to a weapon being an Action. This makes sense if the players are in combat. Why? Because your blade is already moving around. We're not talking about just putting a second hand on the weapon. We're talking about slowing the weapon, putting your hand on the grip in a manner that allows you to make better use of your strength. That takes far more effort than just letting go of a weapon.

Now maybe there is a Fighter Feat later on that lets Fighters do this as a Free Action. We don't know yet. But from a stylistic viewpoint if you are whirling a blade around in one hand and then try to add a second hand, you're not going to have a good grip (especially not good enough to have it improve the power of your blows) unless you take a moment to secure your grip. That's the Action.

---------------

Next, this is to the folk threatening to Rage-Quit Pathfinder 2 because of a multitude of reasons. First, tl;dr - try out the Playtest first. You might find what you thought you'd hate actually works quite well when you see more than just a bare bones snippet in a blog.

And now... *puts on a storyteller hat* Back nearly 40 years ago, I was first introduced to a fun roleplaying game called Dungeons and Dragons. It was a lot of fun and when I tried to find it I found something called "Basic Dungeons and Dragons" and then "Expert Dungeons and Dragons." I asked for more D&D stuff for Christmas. My Uncle, not knowing there was a separate game system called "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons," picked up the rulebooks for that game instead and gave them to me.

I was quite disappointed. You see, I had heard that Elves didn't have magic in AD&D. I didn't know much about it, but I liked Elves being their own class (and Halflings and Dwarves) and didn't see a reason to mess with what worked. But after I started reading the rules all at once I got excited because I learned that elves had the option to become wizards and learn magic... or multiclass wizard with rogue or fighter (or both). My uncle was bemused when an hour after I was meh about the gift all at once I was really really grateful and thankful for it.

If all I had gone by was what I thought was for the best for the game, I'd never have gotten into AD&D. I'd probably have never really found a group to play and never would have gotten into Pathfinder. I would have missed out on a lot of fantastic content and excellent campaigns (and some not-so-great content as well, to be honest).

So as I said in the tl;dr - go through the Playtest and play the game without modifying it. Take the elements that you believe you hate and play them with a neutral mindset to see what works and what doesn't work. Provide suggestions on what you like and dislike and what works and what is clunky.

If there is more to Pathfinder 2 that you like than you dislike when it is released in its non-playtest form, then buy it. You'll likely enjoy it, much as I enjoyed AD&D after I realized it expanded on things that Basic and Expert D&D only touched upon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaelizar wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
(Fighter Dedication would take 5 feats to replicate for a wizard, and an average of around 3 feats for most other characters)

Hopefully this is hypothetical feats and not actual feats? I would hate for the list of feats to get so large in 2nd that someone who's new to the system would pick their feats, only to have another player more experienced make the same exact character but using the 'more powerful' feats and having a better character only because they knew which feats provided more/better benefits than others.

I just don't the amount of feats cause problems for players. Say for example you wanted a wizard who has Armor proficiency, so you take the Armor proficiency feat.. but wait, they could have just multi-classed into Fighter as you said and get that and then some. Why would a Wizard (Who didn't intend to multiclass into other classes) ever take any weapon or armor Prof. feats? They should always take Fighter Multiclass? and if you pick the weapon/Armor feats then you're making a bad/wrong choice. I hope I'm conveying this right

Because the character in question would need a Strength of 16. Your Wizard who has a low Strength but wants to wear heavy armor could likely take Feats piecemeal and despite having a low strength eventually have heavier armor.

There are times when you cannot go with Multiclassing. So you go with a different method that takes longer.


The half-level rounded up is a point of confusion that could be worded better in the final rulebook. It makes sense to me now, but it’s not very clear without it being explained. So, this means the gnome feat that gives you a cantrip is actually a full scaling cantrip, not a half-powered cantrip as I thought. Elf should have something similar I would imagine. That’s very cool.


thflame wrote:
Firefighter is a bad example. You can get certified as a firefighter in a day, assuming you can pass the physical portion.

I'm sorry, but you cannot go from sitting on the coach to putting riding a fire truck and out fires in a day (well, maybe in a one-horse town, but not in an major city). But you don't like firefighter? Okay, let's use electrician or policemen, or marine biologist.

Quote:
What doesn't make sense is that if I am a doctor, and I decide that I want to learn a bit about law as it applies to my medical field. I shouldn't have to take Law 101, then Medical Law.

That's a disanlogy. If you want to learn about the law then you invest in a skill. If you want to practice law, you have to go to law school for a three years and then pass the bar.

Quote:
After that, if I want to be a firefighter, I shouldn't have to take some other law class before I am physically capable to learning how to be a firefighter.

In real life, you won't have much of a legal practice or a medical practice if you decide to be a firefighter or a marine biologist. It can happen, and I can imagine there are some amazingly talented people in the world that might pull it off at high level...and that number might be about 10-20 in the US of 200 million people.

There absolutely should be a constraint on multi-classing. And honestly, it should be impossible to multi-class into full casting classes. Magic, either divine or arcane, should require such devotion and dedication that you don't do it between levels. But that ship has sailed since AD&D, so I won't harp on it.

***can someone link the OOTS strip where Belkar gets a Barbarian level?***

301 to 350 of 1,191 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Multiclassing and Archetypes All Messageboards