A Ninja Errant's page

Hmmm, yeah they should probably make that a little clearer. Your proficiency modifier for trained level 1 is +1 (1+0). However, you don't then add level in again.
Herolab's math is correct, they're just stating it in a different way, by making the +0 trained and +1 level as separate modifiers, instead of rolled into one modifier as the book actually indicates.

Check out page 290-291 for a more in-depth explanation.

I like it. I think I'd put untrained back to -2, which would give a nice even +/-10 spread between characters at the same level. -2 is a pretty major penalty, -4 feels a bit overwhelming, to my thinking anyway. Probably would still make Assurance a separate feat, even for the 10.

I definitely find it awkward that monks start as expert at level 1 in unarmored, then don't get a boost again til 13th. Fighter gets Weapon Mastery at 3rd, Specialization at 13th. 10-13 level gap between increasing major core class features? That just seems very odd to me.

And the fact is, they didn't really put anything reality breaking in as Legendary Skill feats, so there's not actually any good reason that the number gap should be so small. For proficiencies there's literally nothing. +1 AC is the only reason to care about Legendary Unarmored. That's...just kind of boring. I was okay with the small spread, but I wanted to be able to do cool stuff with it.

Damage die matters a lot in PF2. I'd thus expect to see plenty of Longswords (along with Battle Axes, Warhammers, and Tridents), and maybe more Guisarmes, Halberds, and Ranseurs than Glaives (though Glaive has very good properties, I'll grant).

I'll be interested to see if there's enough instances of Piercing being better than Slashing to make the versatile ability better than the battle axe's Sweep. In PF1 I feel like it rarely came up past early levels. I haven't really looked at the bestiary at all, anybody noticed if there's many monsters with Weakness to Piercing/Resistance overcome by Piercing?

I always liked the style of the halberd, but it was rare to find a build/idea that was workable with it. It'd be nifty if it does become a more solid option.

As for the Glaive, I wonder how Forceful and Deadly stack up against a pure damage bonus. From my reading, Forceful would equal the average damage of a higher die weapon, if you full attack and hit every time. It pulls ahead if you have some way of getting extra attacks, ie haste. So by itself, it's pretty clearly inferior to pure damage, but stuff like Furious Focus might help bring it up. Plus you've got Deadly for that extra crit bonus damage. I wonder how it interacts with Swipe?

Side note, I was very surprised that they didn't give the katana some level of Deadly or Fatal. I feel like that would be a perfect match for the traits people usually attribute to it.

I'm more confused that both of them seem somewhat...meh. I feel like the Longsword might move from ubiquitous to uncommon in play. Then again, maybe a d8 damage is worth giving up on special abilities for. Hard to say just yet I suppose.
On the flip side, since Reach no longer limits your close quarters ability, I think we'll be seeing a surge in the popularity of polearms, especially among Fighters and anybody else who picks up AoO. The Glaive in particular is looking rather nice to me. Might try making a Polearm AoO Fighter soon.

I have perused weapons a bit. It appears the dev's worked hard to find a niche for each weapon. As far as the elven curve blade goes it seems it is only 1 of 2 weapons that are finesse that deals d8. The other is the spiked chain. I'm not sure of all the areas where that may be an advantage but I am guessing its providing the rogue with a higher damage option. Very niche but it's an option nonetheless.

Finesse Striker only works with one-handed weapons. You can still Sneak Attack with a 2-handed finesse or agile weapon, but you don't get Dex to damage. So I'm not sure who the curve blade is for, but probably not Rogues. Maybe Dex based Elf Fighters, or Fighter/Rogues?

Spiked chain is for...I dunno, it's an odd option. It's an Uncommon Martial weapon that requires 2 hands, is in the flail category, and has all the exact abilities of a war flail...except it trades Sweep for Finesse and a lower damage die. Maybe a Fighter/Rogue who likes using combat maneuvers a lot could get some mileage out of it?

Hmmm looking at it, Whip is actually a pretty good off-hand weapon if you like combat maneuvers. Disarm, Finesse, Nonlethal, Reach, Trip. Nonlethal doesn't matter if you only ever use it for combat maneuvers. Also it's one handed, so Rogues get Dex to damage, and can sneak attack with it.
EDIT: Also allows you to flank with reach.

Dwarf Paladin of Irori (Scholar background):
Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8
AF: Hardy. PF: Hospice Knight (as per what PossibleCabbage said, planning to MC to Cleric so it can key off Wis. Extra bonus: Medicine skill for survival til then.)
Irori's weapon is the Fist, so his unarmed strikes are 1d6, but still non-lethal. Nice in a bar fight, not much good otherwise. Instead, he'll be using a War Flail. Go big or go home, right?
Skills: Trained in Acrobatics, Athletics, Lore (Academia), Medicine, Religion, Society.

Final Stats: Dwarf (Dwarf, Humanoid, Angel, Celestial)
Str 22(24), Dex 14, Con 20, Int 16, Wis 20(22), Cha 10

I'm okay with the whole level adds to everything dynamic, assuming that:

A. Set DCs are set, which they are. The inclusion of a table with suggested DCs by level doesn't change that, though it apparently confuses a lot of people. They probably need to rework that, because it isn't 100% clear that they do not mean "every skill roll DC should be precisely leveled with the PCs."

B. The proficiency gating is functional, and doesn't lock out basic tasks that anyone could do untrained, just for balance purposes. Not sure if they've succeeded on this one. Kinda meh, really.

C. Skill feats let you do really cool things once you start getting high level proficiencies. They...kinda struck out on this part. A feat that requires Legendary Athletics and level 15 should do more than give you a swim speed equal to your move. Though that's still better than the Legendary Acrobatics feat which...allows you to squeeze through tight spaces at your full movement speed. A thing which has literally never come up in any game I've ever played, ever. Not to say the squeezing rules haven't come up, but I've never seen a situation where the ability to do it at full speed would have radically changed the situation.

D. There are enough Skill Feats to keep me from having to take unrelated or weak options just because there's nothing else left. Definitely not feeling that part yet. 10th level Rogue makes that list look tiny. Granted that part will be fixed when more splats start coming out I'm sure.

So overall I'm kind of ambivalent. Although I don't think they should drop the +level mechanic in core, they should probably include basic instructions on how to cut it out, because I feel like a lot of people want to. And the framework supporting the mechanic is going to have to be a whole lot better if they want people to be okay with it.

I used that Fighter Archetype to Gray Maiden Archetype path to build an all in Strength monk, using Maiden Plate and Shield. Works out okay (top-tier AC with 10-12 dex), except for having a lot less neat special moves to throw around. And also being slow as molasses for a monk.

While we are on the subject of Double Slice, what are our thoughts in comparing it to Flurry of Blows?

I haven't actually run the numbers yet, but even considering the better action economy of FoB, it seems like Double Slice is just hands-down better. If a character is using all three actions in a round for straight-damage attacking, then two Strikes at full bonus plus one at -8 just seems a whole lot better than one at full, one at -4, and two at -8.

Certainly, one could argue that Monks aren't supposed to be DPS monsters, but one would think that they should be able to hit reliably, even if their individual attacks don't result in quite as much damage.

I think they're expecting low level monks to hit and run, especially Str builds. being able to move in, double attack, and move back out is a pretty good deal, tactically speaking. I'd prefer it to be at no penalty myself, but 0,-4 is better than -2/-2, especially at low levels. At least you have good odds with the first one, and the second one is a freebie that might help you out.

I found the explanation, though I had to read it a couple times. On page 296 to 297 under Dependent Abilities it says (emphasis mine)

An action, activity, free action, or reaction might call on you to use a simpler ability—usually one of the actions under Basic Actions on page 307—in a different circumstance or with different effects. The dependent ability still has its normal traits and is modified in any ways listed in the more complex ability. For example,

an activity that tells you to Stride up to double your Speed modifies the Stride action by changing how far you can move. The dependent ability doesn’t gain any of the main ability’s traits unless specified. As noted under Activities, the ability that allows you to use the dependent action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to use it; the cost is already figured in.

So basically, that means unless there's a specific exception, both of the strikes you make as part of Flurry of Blows still count as Strikes for every purpose except actions spent. They definitely need to make this clearer though.

TLDR: it's 0,-4,-8,-8 If you flurry as part of a full attack.

Also, according to the last paragraph of Activities, also on page 296:

An activity doesn’t count as any of its dependent actions or other abilities. For example, the quick condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you took an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.

So you also can't substitute other kinds of actions that just use strikes for Flurry of Blows Strikes, so you can't for example, do a Flurry of Combat Maneuvers, or use a Fighter Attack feat with it.

Old multiclassing is a trap in this edition.

If you still want to do it, houserule it away. But no reason why new adopters should be burdened with the extra pages to describe a very subpar mechanic that will cripple their characters unless they have a way to exploit the class budgets.

It is true that they've turned it into a trap in this new edition. But, that's only because they've specifically written it that way, by rolling everything into the class advancement charts, etc. They're specifically setting it up to work only with their new vision of multiclassing. They've also set it up specifically so nothing stacks. No ability says "you improve your proficiency level by one step." They all say "You gain Expert level proficiency in X." And most of those are loaded towards the second half of the classes. Monk's proficiency in unarmored doesn't improve from 1st level until 13th level. If they weren't building the class advancement that way, it wouldn't be a trap. Still would be fidgety, PF1 multiclassing certainly is that, but not a trap.

Also, in PF1 the multiclass rules took up about half a page. How many pages is it going to be when they have to build a new archetype feat tree for every class? And let's be honest here, if they want to actually make these usable, they're gonna need a lot more feats in each tree. The Fighter and Rogue archetypes are wholly unsatisfying, because there's a ton of stuff that's just arbitrarily off-limits to multi-classers. Here's an example: Fighters are trained in all armors and shields. If you take the Fighter Dedication, you get all armor, but no option for shields. There's nothing in the feat tree for shields at all. Okay, you may say, but not all fighters use shields. Sure, but you know what all single classed fighters do learn automatically? Master level shield proficiency. So why, as a multiclassed, let's say for the sake of argument, Barbarian/Fighter do I only get heavy armor training from picking up Fighter dedication?

Right now, out of all the rules I've seen, my biggest apprehension is multiclassing. I tend to multiclass... a LOT, but the current archetype-based multiclassing rules just leave me scratching my head.

For example, how am I supposed to multiclass a character with a bard or monk? How can I start with 1 or 2 levels in Rogue before fully switching to Cleric or Monk for that character's remaining progression? Mind you, I'm not just pulling hypotheticals out of thin air; these are all examples from characters I played in 3.5 & P1. I'm genuinely confused as to how I'd recreate them via the P2 rules.

To be clear, I'm happy for those for whom the archetype rules will work well. Having multiclass spellcasters who aren't left behind is a worthy goal! Yet given the dichotomy of people's responses, I'm clearly not the only one needing more robust options.

What we've been given for multiclassing so far reminds me of the difference between how we might quickly apply a monster template vs. having the tools and info needed to perform a rebuild. I wouldn't begrudge someone being happy with the quick n' easy method, but that's no reason to discount those of us hoping for a more organic approach.

The multiclass options in the playtest are just a sample. If they decide to go this route in final release, they'll put multiclass options in for each base class.

I think what you're saying is pretty much exactly my issue as well though. I don't disagree with their point that having easy options for people that don't have the system mastery to avoid pitfalls is a good thing, but I like messing around with stuff to see what works and what doesn't. I like building weird characters that don't fit into established ideas. If I can't build outside pre-established roles, it's a turn off for me.
I also hate it when I arbitrarily just can't get a particular class feature. For example, multiclassing to Fighter will never give you a fighter's bonus to saves vs fear, or their access to critical specializations. If you multiclass to Rogue, you can't get dex to damage. You can get Sneak Attack, but only a crippled version. It just seems very arbitrary, what you can and can't get, and it's very frustrating when you're trying to create something specific, and the option you want for it is locked out for no real reason. And then other options are locked in, like making Thievery a signature skill when you multiclass Rogue. Rogues aren't defined by the Thievery skill. It's a signature skill for Rogue, but so are a lot of things. An actual Rogue doesn't have to take Thievery. Why is it that someone who multiclasses to it does? Granted it only adds it as a signature skill, but it's pretty hard to get additional signature skills, and a lot of classes only get a couple of them.

Alright, before we go any further can someone please spell out what VMC means? Neither Google nor Urban Dictionary can help with this one. :-\

VMC is an acronym for Variant Multi Classing. It was an optional rule introduced in Pathfinder Unchained. I know there were some people into it, but it was pretty bad. If you wanted to multiclass to Wizard, it cost almost all your feats, and then you couldn't even cast any spells. At 10th or 11th level you got a cantrip, but not as a spell, as a spell-like ability.

The new style uses a similar mechanic (trading feats for other classes' class abilites) but does so in a more useful way. I'm still not a fan, but at it is an improvement over VMC.

I thought classes were straigth jacked in this system and there was no customization possible.

It's a lot more restrictive than PF1, partly because there just isn't that much support material for multiclassing in the playtest, partially because they're trying to avoid abusive builds, and partially because the non-spellcasting multiclass feats are kind of lackluster.

That said, it's not like there's no customization. I mean, I just built a level 20 monk that uses heavy armor and shields and matches the Tank Paladin's AC. I don't really know how the rest of its numbers/abilities match up though, that was my first 20 level build for the playtest. Probably won't even get to start playing the playtest for like a month because my group is all busy pretty much all of August. :(

Shinigami02 wrote:

Well, Paladins increase their Light and Medium armor proficiencies together 1 step behind their Heavy. No one but the Lawful Good can be...

I did eventually run across that, it feels like some of the other martial classes were supposed to advance lighter armor proficiencies too... and somehow they just overlooked that when writing the barbarian, ranger, and rogue.

Fun factoid though, it isn't just paladins who can hit legendary in an armor category. Almost anyone can meet the hard prerequisites for Grey Maiden by 8th level (including wizards) via the Fighter Archetype + Great Fortitude; a few classes can get in at 6th with more or less investment. Grey Maiden advances Shields and one specific suit of Heavy Armor to legendary (which is fine armor if you dumped your Dexterity).

This at least sets the precedent that Archetypes are at least one acceptable method of expanding or improving your combat-proficiencies.

Anybody interested in a Gray Maiden Monk build?

So if the problem is everybody uses longbow, and nobody uses shortbow unless they only get proficiency in shortbow, a la Rogue, why not just give shortbows something neat? Like, for example, Agile? Sure, that sounds nonsensical, but that's only because of the term Agile. All it really means is, you have to worry less about recoil and draw time, and can fire quickly pretty easily. If you removed the volley penalty from Longbow, gave Shortbow Agile, and called it a day, at least it would be a question as to which is better.

Incidentally, I think with Volley they were thinking of indirect fire, the way Longbowmen in warfare would fire up at an angle, so the shots would come down on the enemy. I don't see how that translates to a penalty at close range, but I think that's what they were thinking of.

Also, why don't Crossbows get Deadly? I would think it's a perfect fit for them, much more than for bows. Any thoughts on how Fatal compares to Deadly? Crossbows should get whichever of the two is better, and bows get the lesser one.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, mods please feel free to move it if it's wrong. I figured classes is the closest, because I'm trying to push the limits of the Monk class, as well as multiclassing and archetypes.

I'm going to try to do this with no retraining, because that feels like cheating to me.

Please feel free to point out the stuff I've screwed up, I'm sure there's at least a few things. Probably quite a few really. Comments and suggestions are also welcome. The concept is a heavily armored weapon using Monk.

Here's where the build starts to work. With her level 2 Monk feat, she can pick up the Fighter Dedication feat, and she should be able to find herself a suit of Plate. Unfortunately, the fighter dedication doesn't add Shield Proficiency, which means it becomes a liability. She doesn't lose out on offense though, since now she can just use her off-hand for punching. She also picks up Assurance in Acrobatics, because the Assurance auto 10 also discounts ACP.

Third level gets her a Skill increase, which I'll put in Acrobatics, meaning she now can take an auto 15 in Acrobatics, despite her -2 skill modifier after ACP. She also gains Magic Strikes, which will be nice for a while. A 10 foot movement boost that she'll never get to use, and a General Feat. I'll take Fleet, to help make up for her abysmal movement rate.

Fourth level sees her taking Basic Maneuver, and grabbing the Fighter's Double Slice. She also picks up Steady Balance as a Skill Feat.

Fifth level she grabs a skill increase to Expert in athletics as well, which goes nicely with the Athletics Assurance feat Farmhand gave her. Stat boosts go to everything except Dex and Int.

Sixth level gets her more movement she can't use, a Monk Feat, which will complete her Fighter dedication by grabbing Opportunist, and a skill feat, which will go into Powerful Leap.

Seventh nets her a Skill Increase to Master in Acrobatics, The Toughness General Feat, and an improvement of Reflexes to Master.

Eighth level is when things start to get crazy. She's now able to pick up the Gray Maiden Dedication, which gets her master of fortitude, plus some nice extras, like Gray Maiden Plate. She also picks up the Kip Up Skill Feat.

Ninth nets her yet more movement she can't use, a skill boost to Master for Athletics, a nice boost to Flurry of Blows, and a largely useless at this point Ancestry Feat, which I'll blow on Clever Improviser I guess.

Tenth gets her more ability boosts, arrayed same as at level 5, Maiden Armor Expertise as her Monk Feat, meaning she can finally use shields again, and the Wall Jump skill feat, just because it seems fun.

Eleventh gets her the ability to turn all her Fortitude and Reflex save successes into critical successes. She already had that for Fort from Gray Maiden, but still nifty. She gets a skill increase, but Acrobatics and Athletics are stalled til 15th, so I'll put that in Religion. It's about time she learned something thinky. For her General Feat I'll give her One-handed Climber, since she uses a shield now.

Twelfth gets her more speed, the Underwater Marauder skill feat, since why not have a character in full heavy duty plate able to fight effortlessly underwater? :P I'll also take Dancing Leaf as her Monk feat. There's strictly better feats available, but it seems fun.

Thirteenth gets her another General Feat, thanks to Human ancestry being tapped on useful feat, and she'll put that in Powerful Leap, which seriously confuses how her jumps actually work.

She also gains unarmored and monk weapon proficiency to master finally, and a skill increase, which will go to Medicine.

Fourteenth gets her a Monk feat, which will go to Maiden Armor Mastery. And a Skill Feat, which will go into Robust Recovery.

Fifteenth gets the same spread of Ability boosts, a skill increase, so she can go Legendary in acrobatics, another general feat, might as well take Legendary Contortionist. It's garbage, but might as well at this point. Another save increase, Reflex to Legendary.

Incidentally, there's no entry in the Sturdy Shield magic item description for a Master Light Steel Shield, or any Legendary Light Shields. Is that intentional? Why? Makes no sense.

Sixteenth: Shattering Strike, Quick Climb

Seventeenth: Adamantine Strikes (Does Monastic Weaponry let you use this with melee monk weapons? By RAW it does, I think. If so, that's pretty rocking), Skill Increase Athletics to Legendary, Ancestry Feat once again gets traded for general feat: Diehard. Graceful Legend gives another unarmored proficiency she doesn't need.

Eighteenth: More movement, Maiden Armor Legend, Legendary Climber

Nineteenth: Quick Swim as a general feat (there's not enough general feats at all), raise Religion to Master, Perfected Form is pretty sweet, once again assuming it counts for Monk weapons.

Twentieth: Boost Int instead of Wisdom, Dex instead of Con. No need to get an odd number on our last boost. Enduring Quickness feat is nice. Legendary Swimmer for final skill feat. (the gated skill feats suck. I was expecting a lot from legendary skill feats, swim at my normal land speed? not what I would call legendary, sorry. In PF1 it was pretty easy to get that at level 1 or 2, depending on your race. Hardly seems like a worthwhile 15th level feat.

This build should have relatively high damage(not highest, would probably have to go 2-handed Fighter or Barbarian for that.) Assuming she hits every attack for average damage, she can manage to put out 69 (Flurry) followed by 29.5+19.5 = 49 (Double Slice (at -5/4 to hit), and 29.5 (at -10 to hit) So, a total of 147.5 DPR. Of course that assumes no misses, but it also assumes no crits. It also assumes she's not using her shield that round. With the shield activation action, her actions go to: Shield, Flurry for 69, Attack twice with Temple Sword at -5/-10 for another potential, but less likely, 59. Which is 128 DPR, but again, the odds of landing that last one are probably less than great. She could up her DPR by switching to an Agile offhand weapon with a better damage die, but the main point was to see where I could get her defense wise, while still having excellent Str damage.

So how does this stack up against other builds all of you have put together? I gather from Deadmanwalking that 45-47 is the theoretical maximum for a Paladin, and 46 is where an unarmored max dex Monk would max out unless using crane style. She could get to 47 if she switches to a heavy shield. I kept her with light for the agile property, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be better to go heavy for extra point of AC and the bigger damage die. So the AC is pretty comparable to best in class , but do you think the damage output and other abilities are up to par after blowing most of her feats on multiclass/archetype? It also sucks that she can't use any of the styles, because they all require unarmored.
By the by, does anyone know if anything specifies that shields count as armor for purposes of monk abilities? It isn't relevant for this build, but I could see it potentially coming up. If you just take shield proficiency as a general feat, then it would be useful AC wise up until you get to Master Unarmored at level 13 (still beneficial for the Shield Reaction though), and only a hindrance to AC after you get Legendary at 17.

I get that that's the purpose of it, I just don't get why you'd say (paraphrasing) "You can use this list of weapons as if you were unarmed" and then turn around and say "except this. this otherwise kind of generic ability only works with your actual unarmed strikes, and a couple weapons you aren't even proficient in." I mean, you can even use Quivering Palm with a monk weapon. Flying Kick doesn't specify that it has to actually be a kick, or even an unarmed strike, so you can use flying kick to strike with a weapon too. But you can't get the ability to get critical specialization effects unless you do the actual unarmed thing. (or multiclass)

I was under the impression from the blog post that it was supposed to be Full, -4, -8, -8. It sure doesn't look like that's what it says though.

Here's my question: Monastic Weaponry says:"...and you can use melee monk weapons with any of your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks..."
Brawling Focus says: "You gain access to the critical specialization effects of weapons of the brawling group."

The brawling group includes: Fist, Gauntlet, Spiked Gauntlet. Now gauntlet and spiked gauntlet aren't unarmed, so monk isn't proficient with them, even if takes Monastic Weaponry. He also can't Flurry with them, that specifies unarmed.

So I guess my question is, did they specifically (and kind of obtusely) write that feat in such a way that you pretty much can only use it with unarmed strikes, even if you have Monastic Weaponry? Because if so, that makes me sad. The first character I'm trying to build is a Str Monk that uses weapons, and doesn't use any of the styles or Ki (I'm gonna multiclass him to fighter, probably.)

Problem is, with both systems, at this point they start making you buy a whole chain of feats that makes the whole thing not worth it anymore. The way we houseruled it, and what I would suggest, is to hybridize the way the system is set up now with a traditional multiclass. Once you get the feat, you can choose level by level, what you want to take a level in each time you advance. You are also qualified for the rest of the multiclass feat chains for both classes, so if you feel like you're falling behind the curve you have the option to take a feat to help catch up.

It's a simple fix. It gives multiclass fans a true multiclass. It gives characters access to mechanics that players are free to choose if they start to feel their viability slipping. It also gives people like me who were annoyed by the way traditional multiclassing felt in play a nice bridge from one class into another with a feat.

That...actually sounds like it has potential. I know people keep saying don't houserule stuff in the playtest, it will dilute your data or whatever, but I am interested in how that works out for you.

As a summary, if you want to multiclass you would (this is a combo of what I'm getting from you and my own suggestions):

1: Take the dedication feat. This grants you all the proficiencies that you will be getting from your second class, so you don't have to worry about that part getting unbalanced.
2: Starting at the next level, you can freely choose which class to level in, gaining everything on the level advancement chart from whichever class you choose, as well as HP, based on the class you choose.
3: If you feel something is lagging, you can still take a feat from the archetype to boost it, for example if you multiclassed to Wizard, you could take the feat to give you spells, preventing your spellcasting from being super crippled.

Presumably your level for purposes of picking class feats would be based on class level, but your level for picking the multiclass archetype feats would still be based on character level?

The only real downside I'm seeing is that for it to really work properly, you would need to pull general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats off the class advancement tables and put them in their own table. I know that's something they were trying to avoid, but I don't see it as being a big deal, personally.

True. I'm not saying to be able to increase all the way though, just get an increase. Fighters don't get legendary armor by default, but they can feat into it. Why couldn't rogues feat into expert in armor?

A Ninja Errant wrote:

What about the fact that he starts out with a max AC of 15, (16 with Crane) and every other melee class can get 16+ easily, most of them without having to go max dex and sacrifice damage? I'll grant it's not a huge difference, but

A. small differences matter more, and
B. that's a monk specifically optimized for AC (probably sacrificing some damage), vs everybody else who gets their AC just by picking the right option for the dex they wanted.

Actually, a Monk can start with AC 16 pretty readily (Dex 18, +1 Level, +1 Expert), and can be up to 18 at 2nd level (with those shiny new Bracers). It's not quite on par with heavy armor wearers at low levels, but it's not bad at all.

Dunno how I messed that up. Guess I forgot the level bonus? Good catch though, that does close the gap quite a bit.

But yes, I'm concerned with Str Monk AC if they don't also have a serious secondary Dex focus. I'm hopeful for a Class Feat to use Wis instead of Dex for this purpose, that'd be cool and thematic without being broken.

That sounds like a legit idea. I'd kind of like to see some kind of ironskin abilities to go with a Str build Monk.

A Ninja Errant wrote:

Rogue has to max dex as well, but the way they stacked Rogue doesn't really sacrifice anything for an 18 dex, since it applies to his damage with most of his weapons.

Rogue AC never really goes up except via level. A Monk can equal them by 2nd level and exceed them over time, and their damage actually winds up much better than a Rogue in the long run unless going Crane (in which case their AC is better real quick), just because the Rogue is stuck with 1d6 weapons, while the Monk can get 1d8 ones easily. Which makes a big difference this edition.

True. I do feel like there needs to be some better way to upgrade proficiency. The fact Rogues wind up stuck with pretty much no way to boost their AC is a little sad.

Don't forget this is not EVERYTHING that will be in the final product. This is a sampling to be tested and see if the mechanics work. And let's be clear, this approach to multiclassing is superior and streamlined. It gives you everything the old version did without the crazy power bumps or exploitations from certain combinations. this is an amazing system that has actually been around even in 1E, though just not an official part.

Multiclassing archetypes are a home run and I'm glad the designers found that 3pp material and adopted it.

Everything the old version did...except most of it. It is streamlined. It may be superior in some ways. Mostly in being streamlined. It's also less open to abuse certainly. And it's nice that spellcasters can multiclass without getting screwed. It also is extremely restrictive, and there's a ton of things you can't do with it (disregarding the lack of all classes, I'm just talking about the ones that exist currently.) Want to multiclass to a Rogue? Cool! You just don't get most of the Rogue's abilities, just these couple, and we'll nerf some of them for you, so you don't accidentally hurt anybody. So far I'm very displeased with it. I'm sure it can be fixed, but I'd prefer PF1 style. Getting all these feat trees right is going to be very hard.

Incidentally, if you're talking about VMC from PF1 Unchained...amazing is not a word I'd use to describe it.

A Ninja Errant wrote:

Sorry, with what? Looks like you got cut off there? I know Bracers of Armor work, but that only goes to one point better than magic armor bonuses.

What I meant to say, and have edited in for future readers, was:

"Their unarmored Proficiency stacks with Bracers of Armor and Dex, which makes for a solid combination."

And +7 Dex combined with +6 from Bracers and a +3 Proficiency bonus you have a total of AC 46 at 20th.

A Paladin maxes out at +7 from Armor plus Dex, +5 from Magic Armor, and +3 Proficiency. That's AC 45 at 20th.

Now, the Paladin can get a shield and hit AC 47...but a Monk can use Crane Style and manage AC 47 as well.

Now, a more typical Monk might have more like Dex 18-20, but that's still on par with everyone but the Fighter in AC, and maybe even on par with the Fighter (the Fighter caps at 44, the same as a Dex 20 Monk).

Okay, so it works itself out in high level, but Monk doesn't get Master Unarmored until level 13, and Legendary until 17th. What about the fact that he starts out with a max AC of 15, (16 with Crane) and every other melee class can get 16+ easily, most of them without having to go max dex and sacrifice damage? I'll grant it's not a huge difference, but

A. small differences matter more, and
B. that's a monk specifically optimized for AC (probably sacrificing some damage), vs everybody else who gets their AC just by picking the right option for the dex they wanted.

Rogue has to max dex as well, but the way they stacked Rogue doesn't really sacrifice anything for an 18 dex, since it applies to his damage with most of his weapons.

A Ninja Errant wrote:

Not exactly a deal breaker, except it leaves the monk pretty screwed. Legendary in unarmored is no better than nonproficient in Full Plate for AC purposes. And given you don't even get Legendary until 17th level, seems like monks are gonna have real bad defenses. I was kind of assuming there would be feats based off it that would give them some cool flavorful defensive abilities, so I'm very disappointed on that front.

With high Dex (which a Monk should have), a Monk can wind up with around the highest AC in the game. Their unarmored Proficiency stacks with

Sorry, with what? Looks like you got cut off there? I know Bracers of Armor work, but that only goes to one point better than magic armor bonuses.

Also one of the devs (I think, not sure which one) had commented that a mid-low Dex Str based Monk was working out just fine in their playtest game. Not really seeing how that's possible, unless I'm missing something, or the monsters attacking him had really bad luck.

brad2411 wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

Jesikah Morning's Dew wrote:

Argh. I want my Monk and/or Elf characters to be able to become legendary in Perception! I want my Legolaaaaas!

Since an Elf can be a Ranger or a Rogue, no problem there.

I can't help your Monk, unfortunately.

But an elven ranger without any bow options?

Rangers can multiclass into Fighter for bow feats.

Sure, but that's super backwards, and the dedication feat gives them literally nothing....except training in heavy armor, which they won't use because they're an archer and thus a high dex character.

The Ki-strike monk feat is required by all the other ki-powers. It seems like this breaks the idea that feat trees should only exist for feats that build on the previous feat. I think it would be better if those down-stream powers only required a ki-pool. That way we could add alternative entry points for ki users.

That seems like good thinking to me.

That being said, all the ki powers already increase your ki pool, why not just ditch the requirement all together? That way Ki-strike will be an option if you want a slightly larger ki pool (Adding Wis instead of a flat +2.)

Hmmm, yeah maybe. I kind of got the impression that wasn't the way they wanted to go about things, the first SP ability you take is supposed to grant the Attribute based pool. I do like the idea of not requiring Ki Strike to get abilities that are only related insofar as they use Ki though.

Have to say, I'm pretty disappointed in the new multiclassing rules. It's cool that you can now multiclass as a caster without getting screwed, I can appreciate that. But what you can't do is actually be a member of the class you're multiclassing to. You don't get their actual class abilities, just analogs. Look at the Rogue multiclass. It's just kind of...sad. Why would anyone ever take it, except for skills and evasion? Granted those aren't nothing, and Skill Mastery actually looks kind of good, but I almost can't imagine ever being so hard up for class feats at level 4+ that I felt the need to use one on a non-scaling die of sneak attack.
And there's so many Rogue class features that you just can't get with the multiclass feats. No Finesse Striker, no Deny Advantage, no Debilitating Strike... and anything past 10th level is right out.

The Fighter Feats are similarly lackluster. The Dedication feat is awesome for wizards, but anybody who already gets armor/weapon proficiency/athletics skill gets pretty much nothing for the feat. Fighter Resiliency is an okay(?) boost if you're planning to drop a lot of feats on this tree, but you can only get it if you're a low HP class. Opportunist is excellent of course, but you can't get it until level 6 when Fighters get it at level 1 for free. Weapon Expert is kind of nice, but the fact that then there's no follow up to get you past expert seems weak to me. Someone who multiclasses to Wizard can get 8th level spells, shouldn't Master be the analog to that, rather than Expert? Scratch that, Fighters start out at Expert at level 1. A multiclass Fighter can't get it til 12, and even then only in a limited weapon group. What?

Not gonna say the system can't work, but it needs a lot of tuning and for a lot more feats to be available for each multiclass. Honestly, I'd prefer PF1 multiclassing. I'm open to new ideas as long as they work, but I really don't see this as being there yet.

I also appreciate the tone of the thread, and it's very informative to read through too. I hadn't really realized there wasn't any way to add signature skills. Agree that that's lame and needs some fixing. Also Halflings need love too. Goblins are hardcore stealing their spotlight.

I haven't finished reading everything yet. Here's a question though, is there anything making the high level weapon and armor proficiencies worthwhile other than the pure numbers? There's skill feats that require higher proficiency, but I haven't seen anything for weapons and armor. Not exactly a deal breaker, except it leaves the monk pretty screwed. Legendary in unarmored is no better than nonproficient in Full Plate for AC purposes. And given you don't even get Legendary until 17th level, seems like monks are gonna have real bad defenses. I was kind of assuming there would be feats based off it that would give them some cool flavorful defensive abilities, so I'm very disappointed on that front.

And am I the only one super disappointed with the multiclass feats? I was very tentatively optimistic about them after the blog post, but they just seem very lackluster, especially the Rogue. I mean, you can get 8th level spells through the Cleric/Wizard feats, but the best you can do as a multiclassed Rogue is 1d6 sneak attack at 6th level? And you can't even get the Dex to damage ability that's core to Rogues? Or really anything except evasion and some skills? I can't see anyone taking a Rogue multiclass unless they desperately want a new signature skill (that also happens to be signature for Rogue.) Actually the Skill Mastery feat is pretty good. Almost worth taking the rest of the multiclass for.

Another thing I haven't been able to find, if you are already trained in something, like armor proficiency, and gain a feat that also gives you trained, is the extra training just wasted? I'm guessing it is, which means that as near as I can tell it's almost impossible for a fighter to get an exotic weapon up to equal with his martial weapons. Granted the list of exotic weapons is almost nil, but still, it sucks for using an exotic weapon to always be at -1 compared to martials with no option I've seen to improve it.

A Ninja Errant wrote:

That actually sounds like a an easy archetype to make for PF1 Alchemist when you put it that way. For PF2...honestly maybe just a different application of the magic item crafting feat.

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

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

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

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

willuwontu wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Personally though, and I'm not the poster you asked, but I'd like to see some sort of "Rune Caster".

That might exist under the archtypes for PF1 though.

Clarify, cause right now I'm thinking of wordcasting from that.

Oh okay...

Instead of a spell book or even scrolls, the caster users Runes; drawings or symbols to cast spells. Maybe a prepared caster but closer to Alchemist. Actually makes his spells out of metal or carves them into equipment like swords or armor. Maybe shields.

Sure you don't get as much casting as a full caster but I would picture being able to cast them faster, give them to allies ahead of time to use when they need it, or even set them up as traps(Carve a rune into a bridge, hello Fireball when chasers walk over it).

Balance wise, I'm unsure. I can easily see this being completely busted. But the idea of "You can place a spell on a thing for use later" seems like a good idea for a caster.

That actually sounds like a an easy archetype to make for PF1 Alchemist when you put it that way. For PF2...honestly maybe just a different application of the magic item crafting feat.

I think the 3.x version was limited to Divine casters, not sure there's any particular reason to limit it to any one specific type of casting class though. It does make better sense for prepared casters.

Interesting or Viable? Both would be nice.

Personally though, and I'm not the poster you asked, but I'd like to see some sort of "Rune Caster".

That might exist under the archtypes for PF1 though.

True, it should really be both, since that's what Paizo would be expected to put out.

There's a Rune domain in PF1, though it's pretty unsatisfying. There's also magic items called Sin Runes apparently. Not exactly the same thing though, so I'll give you that one, though I think that would be easy to archetype or feat into on any standard caster. They had a item crafting feat for runecasting in 3.x. Think there was a PrC to go along with it too. It was basically a variant on Scribe Scroll, but you could set the Rune to have different triggers so non-casters could use them.

EDIT: The sin runes were Paizo, but pre-pathfinder.

Cantriped wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Dozens of examples were provided of characters that couldn't be played, or significantly underperformed* when using a la carte class-leveling to represent simple character concepts* (like a temple-apothecary as an Alchemist 3/Cleric 2). You've just continued to ignore us, 'discredit' us, or shift the goal-post further and further back.

*So much so that we ended up with forty base classes and hundreds of sometimes-mutually exclusive alternate classes... because navigating through that was actually an easier way to build a flavorful hybrid character than having your core statistics retarded by the arbritrary multiclassing rules.

There weren't dozens of examples- you've got maaaaaaybe one- but I'm pretty sure I could build a Cleric/Alchemist in PF1.

And then people saying "I like the new action rules better" which is not a new character concept.

And people saying, "See! Rogue/Wizard works super awesome now, so before was utter garbage nonfunctional BADWRONGFUN so we will count Rogue/Wizard an Fighter/Wizard which haven't been new since the 1980s as being new!"

No, I'm sorry, the same 12 classes aren't magically new because the mechanics underneath them changed.

That was me, saying that about the action rules, and it was intended to be in response to you saying they were bad, not suggesting them as a new character concept. I don't remember your exact words, and I'm not going back for them.

More relevantly, how about you put your money where your mouth is, and give us a concept for something totally new? Something that doesn't already exist in PF1 and can't be replicated in PF2 without creating an entirely new class? And that still fits the flavor of the setting? And that a large subset of players might actually find interesting? I'll wait.

But we don't have a choice between PF2 and PF1 with only the CRB.

PF2 has to show me something to make me give up all those options I listed and the rest of the options I didn't take the time to list.

I understand that there can't be literally every option, but is it too much to ask that they give us SOMETHING?

Some one shiny toy to make me want to play the game?

I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Sorry, I don't buy it; at this rate I won't be buying it.

I think the only major "new" concept for characters that PF1 introduced in Core that 3.5 didn't have was sorcerers having bloodlines other than draconic...

How distinct does a thing have to be to be considered new? I mean, the new Rogue is still a Rogue thematically, even though it does a lot of mechanical stuff differently. Alchemist was in PF1, but the new one looks significantly different from the original. I don't know if that opens them up more to new concepts or not, at least not until I see the whole thing. Goblins are totally different then they were in PF1, which is a downside for me, but a lot of people seem to be into it. A lot of multiclasses that weren't mechanically viable in PF1 are viable now. Not technically new, but still a nice thing to have.

But if you're that upset by losing all the PF1 non-core stuff, don't think of that as a reason to totally write the new system off, just give it some time to amass its own stock of add-ons. Maybe play PF1 for a couple years after PF2 release, then come back to PF2 once they've had a chance to really expand on it. It doesn't have to be an immediate all or nothing choice.

I actually wish we could get a monstrous tome with two-dozen classes and races and a million feats and spells, but I assume they're not f!*~ing with us when they say they can't do that.

You should see the corebook for Arduin Eternal. It's 822 pages and retails for 75 bucks. Also, feels like if you dropped it it might literally explode lol.

@Nathanael Love: The new action system is probably one of the best parts of PF2. I loved it when they came out with the idea in Unchained, and this seems to have refined a lot (or hopefully all) of the issues where it didn't play nice with specific class abilities. From what I see, the new action system will add a tremendous amount of tactical depth to the game, and allow combatants to be much more mobile. Just the fact that Spring Attack is now a core thing that anyone can do is a fantastic improvement in my book.

I'm not onboard with everything about PF2, but a lot of things are direct improvements from a system perspective. As much as I hated VMC and 4e style MC, I'm willing to admit that this version of MC at least has potential. If we actually can get Pf1 style archetypes with it, I may even end up liking it. I just don't foresee anything good coming of making multiclassing and archetyping mutually exclusive.

We know that there's a General Feat that gives you one 1st level Ancestry Feat (I suspect it's not one you can take an unlimited number of times). And that Skill Feats are technically a variety of General Feat (though your ten free Skill Feats have to be Skill Feats). So there's those options.

It has, however, been made very clear that General Feats and Class Feats don't cross over with each other.

Good to know, thanks!

John Lynch 106 wrote:

What you can't do is multiclass or even spend general feats on these feats. I'm still not seeing the flexibility.

General feats will have their own, hopefully build defining uses.

Is that confirmed? Do we know whether General feats are locked to being used only for General-type feats, or can they be re-purposed to some degree? For that matter, has anyone given any examples of what counts as a general feat? Sorry for going off-topic, just curious.

As for the speculation class archetypes will work with multiclassing: we have nothing to base that on. We do know that one of the guiding principles is to learn a rule once and apply it lots of times. The rule here is you have to progress X far into an archetype before you get a second archetype. The safer assumption is archetypes will always work like that. But we don't actually know for sure.

This is a concern of mine as well.

Also, since the new form of multiclassing is not, strictly speaking, multiclassing, there is no easy way to allow multiclassing in to an archetyped class. Not saying it can't be done, but it could be awkward/game breaking if not handled very carefully.

willuwontu wrote:

Essentially 2e classes are fighters, and the archetypes swap out the fighters bonus feats (class feats) for features (archetype feats), but not the class features. These archetypes are also more flexible in that they let you choose what bonus feats to replace with the restriction that you have to have x of them at minimum and if you don't have x of them by level y you can't take another archetype yet.

Not really?

The way these archetypes are written you essentially HAVE to swap out your class feats at 2nd/4th/6th level to get through the dedication for them.

You COULD not do so, but it seems that the system is very clear-- 2/4/6 is the RIGHT answer and doing anything else is a trap option and your character will be worse for doing it.

That's not 100% accurate. You really have 3 "optimal" options:

-Take an archetype/multiclass feat everytime you can to get to the next archetype/multiclass,
-Only ever take one archetype or multiclass, and grab feats from it at your leisure (or ignore it if you want, as long as you never want a second one it doesn't matter. They did say Pirate has 6 potential feats in it though, so you could play around with each archetype for a while),
-Don't take any at all. Theoretically, class feats should be pretty good, so using them all up on archetypes/multi-classing may not be the best strategy.

I think you're going to see a lot of one or two feat dips on otherwise single class builds though. The dedication feats seem to offer a lot so if you can grab them and avoid paying the feat tax for them down the road it would be crazy not to.

There is a lot of flexibility within the new archetypes themselves, since aside from the dedication you can basically take as many or as few archetype feats as you want, and you get to pick which ones you take and when. But the rules around them seem very restrictive. Basically they've added some flexibility with one hand, and taken some away with the other.

One thing to consider about PF1 archetypes is whether many of these options will even need to be an "archetype" in the PF2 sense. Take the "Sniper", which was brought up earlier. In PF1, it was necessary because the Rogue didn't have many class features that meshed well with the concept. In PF2, there are less class features per class and instead they have flexible class feats. Stuff like "Sniper" can now be down with individual feats without needed to replace class features. Archetypes seem to be reserved more for thematic elements this time around.

Of course, there is still room to debate on the point of mixing archetypes with multiclassing, but I don't think a lot of the mechanically focused archetypes would be hard to do outside of class feats.

The sniper would probably be easy to subsume into class feats, it's only major feature really was getting improved distance for Sneak Attack. Which does help with the build I brought up, but still doesn't change the fact that you can't replicate the concept of Zen Archer/Sniper (a concept achievable at lvl 2 in PF1) until around 8th level (would be 14th if you do need Sniper archetype), and probably won't even be able to get proficiency in a bow til 2nd. Unless of course Zen Archer is a PF1 style archetype. Which would negate the problem, by not using the new style of archetype. Which is...really what I'm arguing for in the first place I guess?

A Ninja Errant wrote:

Or unless you have character ideas that require more than 1 multiclass and/or archetype.

You still misunderstand the premise. The developers have told us they already know that variant class features work well, and that the mechanics for alternate classes (often called archetypes in PF1) will be returning eventually.

So when that happens you'll be able to play a variant-base class at lvl 1, and aechetype at lvl 2. Regardless, you'll never be 'tri-classed' at level 2. Trying to use semantics to make it sound like you could do so in PF1 is misinformative.

I didn't say you could tri-class at level 2. I specifically said level 3 in an earlier post actually. Archetypes in PF1 weren't classes or feats, and they worked much better for that. If they do bring the PF1 archetype back, so much the better, but that's a maybe and eventually, not a certainty. Also, if they are bringing PF1 archetypes back, then they should probably call the new thing something else, and reserve the name for what people actually know it from. Because an archetype you can't take at level 1, shouldn't be an archetype. Maybe call all of the level 2+ required archetypes Prestige Archetypes?

A Ninja Errant wrote:

Also I don't appreciate the argument that PF1 multiclassing is only useful for powergamers. Sometimes it's simply necessary to make an unusual concept work.

Never said it was, nor do I appreciate having my words twisted. Read what I actually wrote. This system will serve all of multiclassing's legitimate roles better. The things it doesn't do better than the old system are either outright exploitive or already obviated by other new mechanics.

You said: "However the alternative looks far better at doing its job than multiclassing ever was... unless you were just doing it to powergame." I may have taken that a bit wrong. However, it came off as very accusatory.

Personally, I love the PF1 MC system for it's ability to make very unusual builds. Granted some of those may not actually work well, but I appreciate the ability to have them. The system being put forth here is significantly less flexible in many ways. That may be necessary for the good of the game, I don't know, but it's something that I will miss a lot from PF1.

Nathanael Love wrote:

Unicore wrote:

A Ninja Errant wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Some archetypes from PF1 don't make sense except as something built into your backstory, but some archetypes don't really make sense as something you *can* be at level 1. Like a level 1 monk is not a Drunken Master- they're not a master of anything!

Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?

And a drunken style feat for every level of monk that gets class feats could represent this entire character concept without requiring an archetype.

But since something as bland as "pirate" is now an archetype, I cannot imagine that they print a "drunken style" feat that doesn't require "Drunken Master Dedication" as an archetype.

I disagree. We’ve seen things as specific as Crane Stance expresses as Monk Feats in the previews, so I don’t think a drunken fighting style is too specific for a Class Feat by any means. I do think it might be too specific for an Archetype though.

I think people are getting hung up on the word “Archetype,” thinking of them as replacement class features, often highly specific in concept and tied to a specific class. But in PF2, name for the thing that occupies that design space is “Class Feat.” The word “Archetype” is now reserved for replacement features that are broad enough in concept to be applicable to any Class.

Except archetypes use class feats? So effectively they're just a type of class feat. Certainly Drunken Boxing Style could be a series of style feats a la Crane style. Which would mean the only difference between it and an archetype is not having to take a dedication feat.

My issue is that I really liked what archetypes were in PF1, and the PF2 version doesn't do any of the things that made PF1 archetypes so good. Plus they're in direct competition with multiclassing, which makes them almost a non-option, much like multiclassing to Expert would have been in PF1.

Nathanael Love wrote:

So, we don't really have "classless archetypes"- we have "multiclassing into classes that don't exist"?

Or is it that we don't have multiclassing at all?

The latter. There is no multiclassing really, because an alternative system subsumed all of its legitimate roles. However the alternative looks far better at doing its job than multiclassing ever was... unless you were just doing it to powergame.

Or unless you have character ideas that require more than 1 multiclass and/or archetype. In which case this system pretty much fails immediately. Yeah, you can do it, but not until high level. Also I don't appreciate the argument that PF1 multiclassing is only useful for powergamers. Sometimes it's simply necessary to make an unusual concept work.

Oh, and do you really think a Sorcerer who spent all his class feats on multiclassing level 8 casting of both Wizard and Cleric spells isn't going to be an auto pick for any caster-type power gamers? It's pretty high on my list of things to try when I get to roll a higher level character.

Once they release the full version, you could even go Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard or Druid/Cleric/Bard to cut down on the MAD.

Cantriped wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

In PF 1 the Pirate archetype gave Sea Legs as a bonus feat at 1st level (otherwise required 5 ranks in Profession sailor), and at level 2 gave Swinging Reposition which is an ability that isn't particularly duplicated elsewhere to my knowledge.

So, yes, you could take Level 1 Rogue (Pirate), level 2 Wizard and be that 3 part combination right away, then level 3 in Rogue (2nd level Rogue- Pirate) and have the core ability that the Pirate wants to get.

You misunderstand the point, and responded with a non-sequiter.

To rephrase: You cannot 'tri-class' Rogue/Expert/Wizard at 2nd level. This is equivalent to that.

Taking "Pirate Dedication" or any other archetype is functionally equivalent to taking class-levels in a non-prestige, non-base class in PF1... except without all the horrible, character-destroying penalties.

So, we don't really have "classless archetypes"- we have "multiclassing into classes that don't exist"?

Or is it that we don't have multiclassing at all?

By strict definitions we don't have multiclassing at all, since taking the feats doesn't actually make you the class, it just gives you some of its abilities. Which is one of the things I dislike about feat based multiclassing. But I can live with that if the feats are flexible enough that there's no class features you absolutely can't get through them.

Nathanael Love wrote:

In PF 1 the Pirate archetype gave Sea Legs as a bonus feat at 1st level (otherwise required 5 ranks in Profession sailor), and at level 2 gave Swinging Reposition which is an ability that isn't particularly duplicated elsewhere to my knowledge.

So, yes, you could take Level 1 Rogue (Pirate), level 2 Wizard and be that 3 part combination right away, then level 3 in Rogue (2nd level Rogue- Pirate) and have the core ability that the Pirate wants to get.

You misunderstand the point, and responded with a non-sequiter.

To rephrase: You cannot 'tri-class' Rogue/Expert/Wizard at 2nd level. This is equivalent to that.

No, but you can at level 3. This system raises that bar to 8.

Taking "Pirate Dedication" or any other archetype is functionally equivalent to taking class-levels in a non-prestige, non-base class in PF1... except without all the horrible, character-destroying penalties.

You mean other than losing out on class feats and being locked out of multiclassing for the next 6 levels?

PF1 archetypes seem largely implemented in PF2 class options. PF2 archetypes seem more like multclassing into Expert(pirate). And really, thinking about it that way makes me feel a bit better about PF2 archetypes.

Really? Because any choice where the best comparison is that you're multiclassing to an NPC class, and locked into it for 6 levels, sounds like a bad option to me...

A Ninja Errant wrote:

Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?

I feel like it's fine if a level 1 monk hasn't necessarily learned anything from the styles you don't traditionally teach initiates, their training mostly being in terms of "how to breathe correctly" and then mastering more things as they level.

Or for another PF1 example of a monk archetype that doesn't make sense as a level 1 option- how much good advice does a level 1 sensei really have to give, really?

lol, I'll grant that one. That always felt like an odd duck of an archetype really.

But also bear in mind a PF1 level 1 monk is pretty much above black belt level by real world standards. His fists are already lethal weapons after all, and he has no problems going to toe to toe unarmed against somebody with a sword.

A Ninja Errant wrote:

I disagree with that definition. Sure that's how they're trying to re-define them in PF2, but in PF1 archetypes were background as well as growth. They often helped define where your character came from as a member of his class. They reshaped his abilities from the ground up. That was why I liked them, because they let you play the character concept you wanted, right out of the gate.
The PF2 version just feels very lackluster, because it doesn't do any of those things. And now we find out that in addition to all the stuff they no longer do, they have to compete directly with multi-classing? Yeah, that's a problem for me. Because now if I want to play a specific concept I could very easily have to wait til level 14 for my character to be able to be what I envision him as, that would have been attainable at level 2 in PF1. That's a downgrade, not an upgrade.

Can you give us an idea of a "Concept" that you really want to play? It may be the case that that concept isn't possible from the playtest, since we will have limited options here, but it is also possible that a lot of our character narrative concepts are more possible in this system then they were in PF1 but we are too accustom to thinking they need to be class/class/class to fit that concept, rather than needing X,Y and Z ability.

Afterall, any multi-classing concept that included casting spells well, probably didn't work out as well in practice as it did in concept either. (Due to low DCs, limited caster level and lack of access to powerful spells.)

I'll certainly grant that power-wise PF1 multi-classing had serious issues when it came to spellcasting. And as I said in my original post, I am willing to give this a fair chance in playtest. That said, how about my earlier example of a Zen Archer Monk/Sniper Rogue? Even if we assume sniper is unnecessary, that's still a concept that can't even get going until level 8, and you don't even get any archery proficiency (assuming you primary Monk) until 2nd level.

Some archetypes from PF1 don't make sense except as something built into your backstory, but some archetypes don't really make sense as something you *can* be at level 1. Like a level 1 monk is not a Drunken Master- they're not a master of anything!

Drunken Boxing is a style of Kung Fu. Sure you're not a master at first level, but you most likely started out training in one of the drunken styles of Kung Fu. The drunken boxing style is built around a totally different style of movement than most other styles have. Your master was a Drunken Master, why would he have taught you something other than his own style?

A Ninja Errant wrote:

Everybody is getting hung up on Pirate. Pirate just gets used as an example because it's the one basic archetype they previewed. Being able to do basic pirate-y stuff without having to take pirate archetype doesn't change the argument, it just obscures it.

Quite frankly, I could probably make a hundred characters and never actually feel the need to take the pirate archetype, even if I was making an actual literal pirate. That's mostly because the pirate archetype looks pretty weak though. That doesn't change the fact that not having the capability to have an archetype and a multiclass simultaneously is a problem that needs to be addressed.
EDIT: Or that not being able to have an archetype from level 1 is also an issue that should be addressed.

Why do you believe it is a problem? Archetypes (Multiclass included) represent a character dedicating themselves to some area of expertise they didn’t have before. It is a growth option, not a background/level 1 starting option.

I disagree with that definition. Sure that's how they're trying to re-define them in PF2, but in PF1 archetypes were background as well as growth. They often helped define where your character came from as a member of his class. They reshaped his abilities from the ground up. That was why I liked them, because they let you play the character concept you wanted, right out of the gate.

The PF2 version just feels very lackluster, because it doesn't do any of those things. And now we find out that in addition to all the stuff they no longer do, they have to compete directly with multi-classing? Yeah, that's a problem for me. Because now if I want to play a specific concept I could very easily have to wait til level 14 for my character to be able to be what I envision him as, that would have been attainable at level 2 in PF1. That's a downgrade, not an upgrade.