Multi-classing: what would we like, what can we expect and what do we know?


Prerelease Discussion

451 to 500 of 501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RafaelBraga wrote:

They dont need to be on par, to be on par with what you would get from multiclass, thats why my point from the very beginning dude :P

Because you have to play around with 4 basic spell lists, they need to be broad enough to do exactly what youre pointing out is the "main" of some classes (like Cleric healing, wich need to extend somehow to druids and bard). When you get all this together, becomes very difficult to shut down access to healing spell by a wizard. They maybe do not get THE BEST healing, but may get some good options here and there (and i LIKE it)

FIY It has been stated that Bards get a different healing spell (that will likely be available to clerics as well), which is notably weaker but has a side use. Ursus ninja'd me to it.

RafaelBraga wrote:

Then after all those 20 levels being behind here and there, you got a grand total of 3 or so spells, maybe not that powerful, that you couldnt get as just a single class.

Thats what multiclass do, it make funny combinations and promote diversity, but most of time you dont get a stronger character and get to play a weaker character for a good part of your carreer.

The primary thing I was trying to get at was that I don't think we have any reason yet to believe that the new system is likely to lead to bad trade offs, which this comment seemed to imply. In PF2 stronger seems to be a more nebulous term, thanks to the highly bounded maths. And it seems to be best thought of IMO as "most competent at chosen playstyle", where said playstyle choices are very pick and mix.

RafaelBraga wrote:

Could be wrong, for sure, but i doubt.

Flufflywise the names may change, but in the end will be a healing spell, a damage spell, a debuff, and so on...

See, the thing I was trying to get at was that you made it sound in this quote like the spells were close enough to be borderline copy and paste. I doubt it. If you weren't trying to get at that, I apologise, but that's what your wording implied.

RafaelBraga wrote:


Just saying youre not doing a "power option" by multiclassing and getting some progressions halted to get some healing, or access to a new spell list (with much lower levels spells) if they allow old multiclass system to work.
To clarify, you were talking about the NEW multiclass system when you said
RafaelBraga wrote:
20 levels being behind here and there, you got a grand total of 3 or so spells, maybe not that powerful, that you couldnt get as just a single class.

right?

Because we know that you can get up to 8 levels, which would imply at least 8 spells, 16 if 2/level, and 18-20 if cantrips on top of that. Which is a vast difference.

As a minor quibble, I'd prefer not to be casually referred to as dude.

Dire Ursus wrote:
I doubt wizards will get any healing. Why would they? The occult list seems to have a little bit of healing but that healing seems to also do other stuff like remove negative mind affecting magic, and the Druids we haven't heard much of anything besides they can heal. I'm guessing they will likely have out of combat healing effects like goodberry. There has been no evidence that Wizards get ANY kind of healing.

Wizards might get some health sapping effects from Necromancy, I think that might be within reason. But Clerics can probably do it too.

Druids are Primal, so Material/Vital. They should have access to all the best healing spells Clerics have to offer. They just also pack physical defense spells in as well, and blasty spells. Goodberry is order specific and so is probably pretty darn good in context as a side bonus.


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


Got some examples cause I can't think of anything I can't do now. Unless it something that takes two archetypes that replace the same things on 1 class.

Want to be sword and spell? Well Fighter Sorcerer there you go. Though Magus would probably be better.

That's a really bad example. because if you try to make a fighter sorcerer in 1e you're in for a REALLY bad time. First of all you need to take a bunch of feats that you won't be able to get until higher levels to be able to spend your swift action to use armor with your spells (which is gone from 2e). Second of all you will be massively behind in BAB compared to other fighters. Third of all you will be massively behind in spells known, spells per day, spell levels, bloodline compared to other Sorcerers.

The only reason someone would want to be both a Sorcerer and a Fighter in 1e, is for a 1 level dip in fighter just for martial proficiencies and extra feat and stuff. And at that point are you really a Fighter Sorcerer?

This should work way better in 2e. You can pick which class you want to advance in the most, let's say fighter. And then you still get your legendary proficiencies at the same level as a normal fighter, but instead of spending feats to give you versatility in combat, you're giving yourself up to 8th level casting. Which in this case I would say is worth the cost if you wanted to make a self buffing fighter.

If you instead wanted to focus on your sorcerer bloodline and stuff. You start as sorcerer, and multiclass into Fighter. Your spells are bloodline will still progress the same as a normal sorcerer, but you will spend your feats on gaining weapon proficiency (maybe even legendary but at a higher level) and armor proficiency. You will be able to get stuff like Power Attack or other fighter feats to give you versatility in combat. This sounds perfect for a melee bloodline (like the one they showed in the sorcerer blog that gives you a scaling bite attack). but you're still gaining full spells at the soonest possible level so you aren't falling behind anywhere.

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we could do that. I must have missed the fine print on those classes that say "You are legally not allowed to do this". I'm sorry.

I haven't been keeping up with all the info, so HOW do you get your level 8 casting? I would assume being a certain level of Sorcerer. Unless it only takes a dip and then we're back to the problem we have of things being too front loaded hmmmmm? So cool, you get the same proficiency at the same level as a normal fighter...., err. What level is your Fighter? I mean you had to put levels into Sorcerer right to get that spell casting level 8 right?

Also, if you aren't falling behind anywhere; so this means you are taking penalties to playing 1 class?


MerlinCross wrote:

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we could do that. I must have missed the fine print on those classes that say "You are legally not allowed to do this". I'm sorry.

I haven't been keeping up with all the info, so HOW do you get your level 8 casting? I would assume being a certain level of Sorcerer. Unless it only takes a dip and then we're back to the problem we have of things being too front loaded hmmmmm? So cool, you get the same proficiency at the same level as a normal fighter...., err. What level is your Fighter? I mean you had to put levels into Sorcerer right to get that spell casting level 8 right?

Also, if you aren't falling behind anywhere; so this means you are taking penalties to playing 1 class?

Someone mentioned swapping out up to four class feats (not fixed points I think). Starting with I think cantrip access and ending with 8th level spell progression (I think Mark gave it as an example with a rogue?). Even a starting dip could be worth it for a rogue for ghost sounds and daze,

The fighter is the level they would be normally, they just burned their class feats on getting spellcasting to gish with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we could do that. I must have missed the fine print on those classes that say "You are legally not allowed to do this". I'm sorry.

I haven't been keeping up with all the info, so HOW do you get your level 8 casting? I would assume being a certain level of Sorcerer. Unless it only takes a dip and then we're back to the problem we have of things being too front loaded hmmmmm? So cool, you get the same proficiency at the same level as a normal fighter...., err. What level is your Fighter? I mean you had to put levels into Sorcerer right to get that spell casting level 8 right?

Also, if you aren't falling behind anywhere; so this means you are taking penalties to playing 1 class?

Someone mentioned swapping out up to four class feats (not fixed points I think). Starting with I think cantrip access and ending with 8th level spell progression (I think Mark gave it as an example with a rogue?). Even a starting dip could be worth it for a rogue for ghost sounds and daze,

The fighter is the level they would be normally, they just burned their class feats on getting spellcasting to gish with.

Then I see a lot of fighter Gishes then because how can you compete with Spells that also don't seem to be behind on anything.

Better have some really good Fighter Feats to compete with that.


MerlinCross wrote:

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we could do that. I must have missed the fine print on those classes that say "You are legally not allowed to do this". I'm sorry.

I haven't been keeping up with all the info, so HOW do you get your level 8 casting? I would assume being a certain level of Sorcerer. Unless it only takes a dip and then we're back to the problem we have of things being too front loaded hmmmmm? So cool, you get the same proficiency at the same level as a normal fighter...., err. What level is your Fighter? I mean you had to put levels into Sorcerer right to get that spell casting level 8 right?

Also, if you aren't falling behind anywhere; so this means you are taking penalties to playing 1 class?

The new multiclass system is essentially just archetype feats for a given class. So you can never be Fight X/Sorcerer Y, you will always be Fighter (X+Y) but you have spent feats at certain levels on the Sorcerer archetype.

As for falling behind, the key thing is that you don't fall behind on the core combat capabilities of your class. In 1e taking a level in Sorcerer meant you were always a step behind in terms of pure mathematical power from a non-multi-classing Fighter (because of stuff like BAB). The new multiclass system seems to avoid this by trading versatility (instead of power) for versatility. You will be less broad as a fighter, with fewer fighter options, but you make up for that with new sorcerer options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheGamingWyvern wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we could do that. I must have missed the fine print on those classes that say "You are legally not allowed to do this". I'm sorry.

I haven't been keeping up with all the info, so HOW do you get your level 8 casting? I would assume being a certain level of Sorcerer. Unless it only takes a dip and then we're back to the problem we have of things being too front loaded hmmmmm? So cool, you get the same proficiency at the same level as a normal fighter...., err. What level is your Fighter? I mean you had to put levels into Sorcerer right to get that spell casting level 8 right?

Also, if you aren't falling behind anywhere; so this means you are taking penalties to playing 1 class?

The new multiclass system is essentially just archetype feats for a given class. So you can never be Fight X/Sorcerer Y, you will always be Fighter (X+Y) but you have spent feats at certain levels on the Sorcerer archetype.

As for falling behind, the key thing is that you don't fall behind on the core combat capabilities of your class. In 1e taking a level in Sorcerer meant you were always a step behind in terms of pure mathematical power from a non-multi-classing Fighter (because of stuff like BAB). The new multiclass system seems to avoid this by trading versatility (instead of power) for versatility. You will be less broad as a fighter, with fewer fighter options, but you make up for that with new sorcerer options.

And surpass the core Fighter because you have those sorcerers options.

Why do Martials exist again? Just play fighter till you can get over the hump that is early game and Archetype into the Wizard you were meant to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
TheGamingWyvern wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we could do that. I must have missed the fine print on those classes that say "You are legally not allowed to do this". I'm sorry.

I haven't been keeping up with all the info, so HOW do you get your level 8 casting? I would assume being a certain level of Sorcerer. Unless it only takes a dip and then we're back to the problem we have of things being too front loaded hmmmmm? So cool, you get the same proficiency at the same level as a normal fighter...., err. What level is your Fighter? I mean you had to put levels into Sorcerer right to get that spell casting level 8 right?

Also, if you aren't falling behind anywhere; so this means you are taking penalties to playing 1 class?

The new multiclass system is essentially just archetype feats for a given class. So you can never be Fight X/Sorcerer Y, you will always be Fighter (X+Y) but you have spent feats at certain levels on the Sorcerer archetype.

As for falling behind, the key thing is that you don't fall behind on the core combat capabilities of your class. In 1e taking a level in Sorcerer meant you were always a step behind in terms of pure mathematical power from a non-multi-classing Fighter (because of stuff like BAB). The new multiclass system seems to avoid this by trading versatility (instead of power) for versatility. You will be less broad as a fighter, with fewer fighter options, but you make up for that with new sorcerer options.

And surpass the core Fighter because you have those sorcerers options.

Why do Martials exist again? Just play fighter till you can get over the hump that is early game and Archetype into the Wizard you were meant to be.

This is what many people fear, and might end up being the case if martials are not given powerful options of their own, on par with appropriate level spells, to make the trade off something other than a no-brainer.

Silver Crusade

Moro wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
TheGamingWyvern wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we could do that. I must have missed the fine print on those classes that say "You are legally not allowed to do this". I'm sorry.

I haven't been keeping up with all the info, so HOW do you get your level 8 casting? I would assume being a certain level of Sorcerer. Unless it only takes a dip and then we're back to the problem we have of things being too front loaded hmmmmm? So cool, you get the same proficiency at the same level as a normal fighter...., err. What level is your Fighter? I mean you had to put levels into Sorcerer right to get that spell casting level 8 right?

Also, if you aren't falling behind anywhere; so this means you are taking penalties to playing 1 class?

The new multiclass system is essentially just archetype feats for a given class. So you can never be Fight X/Sorcerer Y, you will always be Fighter (X+Y) but you have spent feats at certain levels on the Sorcerer archetype.

As for falling behind, the key thing is that you don't fall behind on the core combat capabilities of your class. In 1e taking a level in Sorcerer meant you were always a step behind in terms of pure mathematical power from a non-multi-classing Fighter (because of stuff like BAB). The new multiclass system seems to avoid this by trading versatility (instead of power) for versatility. You will be less broad as a fighter, with fewer fighter options, but you make up for that with new sorcerer options.

And surpass the core Fighter because you have those sorcerers options.

Why do Martials exist again? Just play fighter till you can get over the hump that is early game and Archetype into the Wizard you were meant to be.

This is what many people fear, and might end up being the case if martials are not given powerful options of their own, on par with appropriate level spells, to make the trade off something other than a no-brainer.

I heard that Rogues get the ability to turn invisible non-magically at twentieth level. If fighters are accomplishing similar nonsense, I imagine it'll be fine.

Edit: Nor will Mr. Fight-Wizard get the highest two levels of spells, so a pure wizard has major advantages on him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Moro wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


And surpass the core Fighter because you have those sorcerers options.

Why do Martials exist again? Just play fighter till you can get over the hump that is early game and Archetype into the Wizard you were meant to be.

This is what many people fear, and might end up being the case if martials are not given powerful options of their own, on par with appropriate level spells, to make the trade off something other than a no-brainer.

I heard that Rogues get the ability to turn invisible non-magically at twentieth level. If fighters are accomplishing similar nonsense, I imagine it'll be fine.

Edit: Nor will Mr. Fight-Wizard get the highest two levels of spells, so a pure wizard has major advantages on him.

I think the fear isn't a comparison of Figher-Wizard vs Wizard, but rather Fighter vs Fighter-Wizard. The Fighter gives up 4 feats to gain access to 8th level spells. It can be hard to imagine what the contents of 4 feats could be that are suitably powerful to compete with that.

Personally, I'm holding out until we actually get more solid information on this than a couple of offhand comments and a reddit post, but I can certainly see how this could go horribly, horribly wrong.

Silver Crusade

TheGamingWyvern wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Moro wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


And surpass the core Fighter because you have those sorcerers options.

Why do Martials exist again? Just play fighter till you can get over the hump that is early game and Archetype into the Wizard you were meant to be.

This is what many people fear, and might end up being the case if martials are not given powerful options of their own, on par with appropriate level spells, to make the trade off something other than a no-brainer.

I heard that Rogues get the ability to turn invisible non-magically at twentieth level. If fighters are accomplishing similar nonsense, I imagine it'll be fine.

Edit: Nor will Mr. Fight-Wizard get the highest two levels of spells, so a pure wizard has major advantages on him.

I think the fear isn't a comparison of Figher-Wizard vs Wizard, but rather Fighter vs Fighter-Wizard. The Fighter gives up 4 feats to gain access to 8th level spells. It can be hard to imagine what the contents of 4 feats could be that are suitably powerful to compete with that.

Personally, I'm holding out until we actually get more solid information on this than a couple of offhand comments and a reddit post, but I can certainly see how this could go horribly, horribly wrong.

I agree that it could. This might be where it's worthwhile to re-introduce Arcane Spell Failure... though that'd just be 1/4 of casters. Really this is just an extension of the Caster-Martial disparity.

(Which is how we know it'll be fine, because as we all know, the CMD is just a myth spread by people with agendas.)


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I heard that Rogues get the ability to turn invisible non-magically at twentieth level.

LOL I know for myself, what people can do at 20th will have little to do with me or the games I play in. ;)


Ok dudes and dudettes, we will see in a week.

My bet is still this system will be VERY lackluster. It will promote power combos much more than ever, but it is a bet.


TheGamingWyvern wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Moro wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


And surpass the core Fighter because you have those sorcerers options.

Why do Martials exist again? Just play fighter till you can get over the hump that is early game and Archetype into the Wizard you were meant to be.

This is what many people fear, and might end up being the case if martials are not given powerful options of their own, on par with appropriate level spells, to make the trade off something other than a no-brainer.

I heard that Rogues get the ability to turn invisible non-magically at twentieth level. If fighters are accomplishing similar nonsense, I imagine it'll be fine.

Edit: Nor will Mr. Fight-Wizard get the highest two levels of spells, so a pure wizard has major advantages on him.

I think the fear isn't a comparison of Figher-Wizard vs Wizard, but rather Fighter vs Fighter-Wizard. The Fighter gives up 4 feats to gain access to 8th level spells. It can be hard to imagine what the contents of 4 feats could be that are suitably powerful to compete with that.

Personally, I'm holding out until we actually get more solid information on this than a couple of offhand comments and a reddit post, but I can certainly see how this could go horribly, horribly wrong.

Yes, properly balancing multiclassing is difficult. I personally haven't like many of the ways it has been done since 2nd edition, where taking 2 classes generally put you about 1.5 to 2 levels behind a single classes character of either class most of the way through the leveling curve. It's been a weird struggle in 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e, with some iterations being wildly underpowered and others massively overpowered.

Pathfinder 1e specifically had terrible options for arcane gish at release, intentionally I believe. There were many discussions before the Magus was released, and I think they did an ok job, but even that still felt lacking in many areas.

I can't wait to read through the official docs and see how their new solutions pan out.


RafaelBraga wrote:

Ok dudes and dudettes, we will see in a week.

My bet is still this system will be VERY lackluster. It will promote power combos much more than ever, but it is a bet.

Yah, we'll see.

I think it'll be lackluster in a lot of ways, but will make certain ideas way more possible.

I'll probably dislike it a bit at first and slowly decide I like it. Probably. This is my bet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RafaelBraga wrote:
My bet is still this system will be VERY lackluster. It will promote power combos much more than ever, but it is a bet.

I wouldn't say lackluster per se. Even the parts I don't like seem interesting: I just don't know if it'll be a game I'll enjoy playing as it seems to be designed outside my prefered game style.


graystone wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:
My bet is still this system will be VERY lackluster. It will promote power combos much more than ever, but it is a bet.
I wouldn't say lackluster per se. Even the parts I don't like seem interesting: I just don't know if it'll be a game I'll enjoy playing as it seems to be designed outside my prefered game style.

To clarify on my part.

I meant the multiclassing might feel lackluster at first, then I'll like it.
Not the system. I'm really excited about the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are MANY parts of the system (not the multiclass part) that i have really high hopes and am liking a lot of things. Just some parts are not of my liking and multiclass is one of them, but there are lot of good in the new system.


I do imagine the best that can be hoped for regarding Fighter vs. Fighter-Spellcaster is an equivalence to Fighter vs. [6th Level Spellcaster].

6th level casters are pretty flatly better than normal Fighters and such, but weren't so massively above that no one ever used them. I mean I'd sooner eat the book and spend a night in the emergency room than play a Pathfinder Fighter, but I've been told other people still enjoyed playing them and they had advantages in damage or killing or something.

If a Fighter that doesn't do multi-classing gets [Super Cool Sword Technique] or [Totally Boss 'I Do The Thing Because I'm So Cool.' Ability] then I can imagine its not going to be horribly rare to see straight Fighters. And if Fighters do not have anything cool like that to tempt away from using the multi-classing, then I think that's an issue with Fighters.

I do use third party martial character stuff, like Path of War and Spheres of Might, because then martial characters can do stuff that's really cool. Spells are still better, my 6th level caster characters have out performed my straight martial Path of War characters frequently, but those characters are still really cool and contribute fine so I don't care. For a straight Fighter to not be overshadowed by Fighter-Spellcaster, it has to actually have cool stuff to do. Not even specifically something that makes it narratively amazing, just something that's really cool. If a straight Fighter can let someone play Kenshin or a Monk lets someone play a family man like Guile, and it actually feels cool and interesting to do it, then I think its okay if the spellcasting is mechanically superior. Fighter just needs to be fun to play.

Speaking soley for myself, my experience with the 3.5/PF Fighter left a barren wasteland where my hope should have been, and I will probably Gish all the things and claim characters without magic are foul witchcraft elves descending from the moon to steal my eyes. The probability that I am correct in this is too high to risk otherwise.


A 20th level Fighter with 8th level casting is going to be really bad at offensive casting in combat, you'll only want them for utility or a first round buff.

You're behind on DCs 4-6 points (3 for proficiency I'm sure you don't get, 1-3 depending on how many points you put into your spellcasting stat and whether you got a +2 item for it) which is abysmal. You don't have the best spell level(s) for the strongest effects. You don't have many spells per spell level. Terribad.

So spells aren't going to do much for you in combat, and those four class feats probably could have bought you some pretty sweet enhancements to your combos, stances, or two action power moves.


Xenocrat wrote:

A 20th level Fighter with 8th level casting is going to be really bad at offensive casting in combat, you'll only want them for utility or a first round buff.

You're behind on DCs 4-6 points (3 for proficiency I'm sure you don't get, 1-3 depending on how many points you put into your spellcasting stat and whether you got a +2 item for it) which is abysmal. You don't have the best spell level(s) for the strongest effects. You don't have many spells per spell level. Terribad.

So spells aren't going to do much for you in combat, and those four class feats probably could have bought you some pretty sweet enhancements to your combos, stances, or two action power moves.

I might be wrong, but I dont think they meant 8th level casting, but rather casting up to 8th level spells.

If not, this multiclassing will be near useless, I think.


Moro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

A 20th level Fighter with 8th level casting is going to be really bad at offensive casting in combat, you'll only want them for utility or a first round buff.

You're behind on DCs 4-6 points (3 for proficiency I'm sure you don't get, 1-3 depending on how many points you put into your spellcasting stat and whether you got a +2 item for it) which is abysmal. You don't have the best spell level(s) for the strongest effects. You don't have many spells per spell level. Terribad.

So spells aren't going to do much for you in combat, and those four class feats probably could have bought you some pretty sweet enhancements to your combos, stances, or two action power moves.

I might be wrong, but I dont think they meant 8th level casting, but rather casting up to 8th level spells.

If not, this multiclassing will be near useless, I think.

I also mean 8th level spells. It's not that great! It's certainly not very powerful in combat compared to a specialist option. Your big balancing limitation in combat now seems to be action economy, you just can't stack enough actions in one round even if you have access to every power in the game, so you're better off specializing and being really strong at the actions you do perform.

Silver Crusade

Xenocrat wrote:
Moro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

A 20th level Fighter with 8th level casting is going to be really bad at offensive casting in combat, you'll only want them for utility or a first round buff.

You're behind on DCs 4-6 points (3 for proficiency I'm sure you don't get, 1-3 depending on how many points you put into your spellcasting stat and whether you got a +2 item for it) which is abysmal. You don't have the best spell level(s) for the strongest effects. You don't have many spells per spell level. Terribad.

So spells aren't going to do much for you in combat, and those four class feats probably could have bought you some pretty sweet enhancements to your combos, stances, or two action power moves.

I might be wrong, but I dont think they meant 8th level casting, but rather casting up to 8th level spells.

If not, this multiclassing will be near useless, I think.

I also mean 8th level spells. It's not that great! It's certainly not very powerful in combat compared to a specialist option. Your big balancing limitation in combat now seems to be action economy, you just can't stack enough actions in one round even if you have access to every power in the game, so you're better off specializing and being really strong at the actions you do perform.

As I said upthread, I'm planning to play a Barbarian who multis into cleric. I think the most useful spell for me will probably be the one action heal spell, as I can drop one on myself and only forgo my -10 attack. (Even if I'm raging, I can spend two actions to do this with moment of clarity and still get an attack in.)

I think that 1 action heal will be the signature maneuver of many gishes, which makes me think clerical fighter will potentially be better than wizardy fighter.


Moro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

A 20th level Fighter with 8th level casting is going to be really bad at offensive casting in combat, you'll only want them for utility or a first round buff.

You're behind on DCs 4-6 points (3 for proficiency I'm sure you don't get, 1-3 depending on how many points you put into your spellcasting stat and whether you got a +2 item for it) which is abysmal. You don't have the best spell level(s) for the strongest effects. You don't have many spells per spell level. Terribad.

So spells aren't going to do much for you in combat, and those four class feats probably could have bought you some pretty sweet enhancements to your combos, stances, or two action power moves.

I might be wrong, but I dont think they meant 8th level casting, but rather casting up to 8th level spells.

If not, this multiclassing will be near useless, I think.

I also think 8th level spells will be a LEVEL 20 feat. Was said multiclass chars are always at least 1 spell level behind, so the very earliest is level 18, but might be 20 while we're at it.

Would be more interested in seeing how the low level ones come online, since those will actually be used.


Xenocrat wrote:
Moro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

A 20th level Fighter with 8th level casting is going to be really bad at offensive casting in combat, you'll only want them for utility or a first round buff.

You're behind on DCs 4-6 points (3 for proficiency I'm sure you don't get, 1-3 depending on how many points you put into your spellcasting stat and whether you got a +2 item for it) which is abysmal. You don't have the best spell level(s) for the strongest effects. You don't have many spells per spell level. Terribad.

So spells aren't going to do much for you in combat, and those four class feats probably could have bought you some pretty sweet enhancements to your combos, stances, or two action power moves.

I might be wrong, but I dont think they meant 8th level casting, but rather casting up to 8th level spells.

If not, this multiclassing will be near useless, I think.

I also mean 8th level spells. It's not that great! It's certainly not very powerful in combat compared to a specialist option. Your big balancing limitation in combat now seems to be action economy, you just can't stack enough actions in one round even if you have access to every power in the game, so you're better off specializing and being really strong at the actions you do perform.

Ah, I understand now. I suppose the real answers will lie in how powerful spells from 1 though 8 are, in comparison to 9 and 10, as well as other class features vs both the spells allowed and missed out on.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think Multiclass spells are gonna be a huge advantage in potential utility, healing, and stuff like that. Not so much a great idea as direct offense.

ChibiNyan wrote:
I also think 8th level spells will be a LEVEL 20 feat. Was said multiclass chars are always at least 1 spell level behind, so the very earliest is level 18, but might be 20 while we're at it.

I'd bet it's at 18th rather than 20th, personally. But yeah, it's high level.

ChibiNyan wrote:
Would be more interested in seeing how the low level ones come online, since those will actually be used.

My bet is Cantrips as early as 1st, Spells as 4th level Feat (starting at 1st level and scaling for a while to 3rd level spells at 8th) then another Feat at 10th, scaling up to 6th level spells at 14th, then a final Feat at 16th, scaling up to 8th level spells at 18th level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

A 20th level Fighter with 8th level casting is going to be really bad at offensive casting in combat, you'll only want them for utility or a first round buff.

You're behind on DCs 4-6 points (3 for proficiency I'm sure you don't get, 1-3 depending on how many points you put into your spellcasting stat and whether you got a +2 item for it) which is abysmal. You don't have the best spell level(s) for the strongest effects. You don't have many spells per spell level. Terribad.

So spells aren't going to do much for you in combat, and those four class feats probably could have bought you some pretty sweet enhancements to your combos, stances, or two action power moves.

That's all on the assumption that casting spells with DCs is the go to power focus of casters. Being a fighter with clone, polymorph any object, greater planar binding, and so on, would probably edge out your feat combos by a more than a bit.

I'm expecting to find that grabbing a broader spell list and a greater amount of spells at each level through multiclassing will end up being more potent than taking DC boosters even for casters.

Liberty's Edge

ErichAD wrote:
Being a fighter with clone, polymorph any object, greater planar binding, and so on, would probably edge out your feat combos by a more than a bit.

Planar Binding is a Ritual now (probably an Arcana or Occultism one), and other similar stuff might be as well (though Polymorph Any Object seems like it'll still be a spell). And getting Rituals is pretty much completely independent of Multiclassing, since it's just based on getting the skill in question (there's some synchronicity inasmuch as you need the Arcana Skill to become a multiclassed Wizard, but the reverse is not true).


Fair enough. I was mostly just grabbing non-DC spells that should be more than competitive with a few feats. Is there a list somewhere of known PF2 rituals? I doubt they went so far as to remove all the major non-DC spells to use them as rituals, but it could be closer than I think.

Liberty's Edge

ErichAD wrote:
Fair enough. I was mostly just grabbing non-DC spells that should be more than competitive with a few feats. Is there a list somewhere of known PF2 rituals? I doubt they went so far as to remove all the major non-DC spells to use them as rituals, but it could be closer than I think.

So far I think all we know are Planar Binding, Resurrection, and Control Weather. There have been stated to be lots more, though.


I still maintain that the most pressure will be on class feat choices. With many class features being turned into class feats, it becomes a question of do I get special action economy or cantrips. Cantrips are better this time around, but attack - wise, I don't think they will be better than weapons. There will be some useful ones (shield is now a cantrip), but no substitute for a normal class feat, so you really have to invest 2 feats to get something out of it.
That said, if you want the spell goodness, that's what you'll do.
Personally, I'm wondering if enlarge has been turned into a heightened spell (culminating in giant form) and whether it's worth using to make a reach build.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Personally, I think Multiclass spells are gonna be a huge advantage in potential utility, healing, and stuff like that. Not so much a great idea as direct offense.

ChibiNyan wrote:
I also think 8th level spells will be a LEVEL 20 feat. Was said multiclass chars are always at least 1 spell level behind, so the very earliest is level 18, but might be 20 while we're at it.
I'd bet it's at 18th rather than 20th, personally. But yeah, it's high level.

Ditto on all this. Compared to Fighter powers, spells seem to have terrible action economy, but they do have some great utility and options.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Would be more interested in seeing how the low level ones come online, since those will actually be used.
My bet is Cantrips as early as 1st, Spells as 4th level Feat (starting at 1st level and scaling for a while to 3rd level spells at 8th) then another Feat at 10th, scaling up to 6th level spells at 14th, then a final Feat at 16th, scaling up to 8th level spells at 18th level.

I think that this could be quite nice actually? Though I guess we'll have to see how 3 levels late might play.

If this is the case, it should at least scratch some of that itch some people have for half casters.

Gavmania wrote:

I still maintain that the most pressure will be on class feat choices. With many class features being turned into class feats, it becomes a question of do I get special action economy or cantrips. Cantrips are better this time around, but attack - wise, I don't think they will be better than weapons. There will be some useful ones (shield is now a cantrip), but no substitute for a normal class feat, so you really have to invest 2 feats to get something out of it.

That said, if you want the spell goodness, that's what you'll do.
Personally, I'm wondering if enlarge has been turned into a heightened spell (culminating in giant form) and whether it's worth using to make a reach build.

Depending on how easy it is to get bonus reactions, I'm sort of interested to see how a shield+Shield setup works.

Personally I'm still thinking the caster MC seems like a great idea on a less-fighty rogue (ghost sounds, reduce, knock, invisibility...), while I think it might be a bit more situational on a Fighter.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also you have to wonder if you are getting 8th level casting you probably aren't getting the same spells per day, spells known, or spell DCs as a full caster. It could be halved, maybe more. Maybe you only get one spell per day of each spell level. There's a lot of factors to take into account before we can say how balanced it will be.


I think they would stick to the +level to everything - but you probably won't get the mastery as high as full casters
And while I think the ammount of spells will be reduced, it will probably still be enough to do some really wicked stuff (and I think more then one of each level per day)


Iirc it was 2 spells/spell level for wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid. Not sure about bard - depending on whether you get other bard stuff it may or may not be 2/spell level.
I don't know if we will get other class features (spontaneous heightening, school spells, bloodline powers, etc.). Maybe if we pay another feat?


If I was making a fighter with a few spells, I'd take once/combat defensive buffs: Mirror Image, Greater Invisibility, Fire Shield, Stoneskin ...

It depends on how easily PF2 will let fighters match that with magic items, like PF1 fighters can do to Fly.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still waiting for the multiclass blog that was promised back in the fighter blog The window is closing, folks! Give us a blog talking through this thing!

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
I'm still waiting for the multiclass blog that was promised back in the fighter blog The window is closing, folks! Give us a blog talking through this thing!

It's gotta happen on Monday, right? What better way to lead into the playtest release than a blog that unpacks the mother of all controversies?

Silver Crusade

Charlie Brooks wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
I'm still waiting for the multiclass blog that was promised back in the fighter blog The window is closing, folks! Give us a blog talking through this thing!
It's gotta happen on Monday, right? What better way to lead into the playtest release than a blog that unpacks the mother of all controversies?

I'm sort of hoping for today. We had the half-elf/half-orc blog on Tuesday, and putting the biggest controversy since the Paladin out earlier rather than later seems smart, to let off some steam before release date. But the most likely result, I guess, is either Monday or no blog at all and just slip into release without talking about it.


Charlie Brooks wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
I'm still waiting for the multiclass blog that was promised back in the fighter blog The window is closing, folks! Give us a blog talking through this thing!
It's gotta happen on Monday, right? What better way to lead into the playtest release than a blog that unpacks the mother of all controversies?

They did a Tuesday blog this week so who knows what they will be doing. I expect the reason they have been doing controversial blogs on Monday is so that they have staff on hand to moderate. With Gen con coming up they might have more free time to moderate today or Friday than they will on Monday.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
HOLY S#%# I JUST REALIZED THAT I CAN GIVE MY BARBARIAN WORSHIPER OF GORUM CLERIC STUFF WHILE KEEPING HIS BARBARIAN STUFF I AM DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY!
I kinda suspect this is what Mark is talking about when he mentions the party barbarian being the group healer. I think he mentioned that the barbarian had "a borderline unhealthy relationship with Gorum", or somesuch.

If the healer Barbarian Mark was referring to is just somebody who spent all of his class feats to be a Cleric instead then I've officially lost all faith that PF2 solves any of PF1's problems.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
If the healer Barbarian Mark was referring to is just somebody who spent all of his class feats to be a Cleric instead then I've officially lost all faith that PF2 solves any of PF1's problems.

It's a total of 4 Feats max for casting. Less at lower levels. So, maybe half their Class Feats. Quite possibly less. And they still get all the other Barbarian stuff (ie: Class Features).

He also specified that she had the Battlefield Healer Medicine Skill Feat, so it was more than just going Multiclass Cleric, even if some of that was involved. Which, for the record, we have no proof of at the moment. It's possible, but by no means certain.

Also, even if that was how that specific Barbarian pulled it off I don't care. What I care about is whether you can do it without spells, not whether one character in particular did so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If Paizo's Big Cool Example of a martial healer is one who did it by sneaking 8th level spellcasting into their build then there's no way you can do it without spells.

How many class feats are spent on the feature are frankly irrelevant, it could be one class feat for all I care; my worry is that a martial who archetypes into spellcasting is always going to be better than one that doesn't, in which case martial classes have essentially ceased to exist.


I'm wondering how many feats one would need to spend in order to get a Cleric's Cha based channel pool in maximized heals. If it's not a huge investment, I could see that being appealing to a bunch of classes who can afford putting bonuses into Wis and Cha.

Like it's almost surely better than the sorcerer feat which gives you one use of channel per day.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm wondering how many feats one would need to spend in order to get a Cleric's Cha based channel pool in maximized heals. If it's not a huge investment, I could see that being appealing to a bunch of classes who can afford putting bonuses into Wis and Cha.

Like it's almost surely better than the sorcerer feat which gives you one use of channel per day.

Even if it's only one or two two feats to get the pool Id assume you need to invest more to get higher spell slots to keep it useful. I guess it depends on if it's maximized to lvl/2 or to the maximum spell level you can cast.


Sounds like creating a therge will be as easy as starting with a cleric of Nethys and adding the archetype for wizard. Or the reverse.

I like the new multi class system.

Liberty's Edge

Saint Bernard wrote:

Sounds like creating a therge will be as easy as starting with a cleric of Nethys and adding the archetype for wizard. Or the reverse.

I like the new multi class system.

Yup. I also expect the Fey-blooded Bard to be popular (ie: Bard with Multiclass Archetype: Fey Bloodline Sorcerer).

Both have solid thematic grounding, so I have no issues seeing them be popular.

Silver Crusade

Saint Bernard wrote:

Sounds like creating a therge will be as easy as starting with a cleric of Nethys and adding the archetype for wizard. Or the reverse.

I like the new multi class system.

It was mentioned in a stream that there's some big thing related to which spells Nethys grants. It made me wonder if his clerics can get the arcane list, or a lot of arcane spells or something.

Or maybe they just meant he grants mage armor idk.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Saint Bernard wrote:

Sounds like creating a therge will be as easy as starting with a cleric of Nethys and adding the archetype for wizard. Or the reverse.

I like the new multi class system.

It was mentioned in a stream that there's some big thing related to which spells Nethys grants. It made me wonder if his clerics can get the arcane list, or a lot of arcane spells or something.

Or maybe they just meant he grants mage armor idk.

I’m thinking they get to learn spells from other lists in place of the deity specific spells. If it were only 1 list, Arcane. Or maybe there’s a Feat for Nethys worshippers. But that seems oddly specific, and like there’s not enough room. An INT based ability maybe? It’s always bothered me that there wasn’t an INT based Cleric Archetype for Nethys, so maybe this does that somehow.


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

If Paizo's Big Cool Example of a martial healer is one who did it by sneaking 8th level spellcasting into their build then there's no way you can do it without spells.

How many class feats are spent on the feature are frankly irrelevant, it could be one class feat for all I care; my worry is that a martial who archetypes into spellcasting is always going to be better than one that doesn't, in which case martial classes have essentially ceased to exist.

How do you go from: Barb that can heal to All martial classes are now garbage? The barbarian is giving up other barbarian abilities to gain a limited use of the healing spells. What if the opposite was true as well? A healer that can get barbarian abilities. Do casters suddenly cease to exist?


Dire Ursus wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

If Paizo's Big Cool Example of a martial healer is one who did it by sneaking 8th level spellcasting into their build then there's no way you can do it without spells.

How many class feats are spent on the feature are frankly irrelevant, it could be one class feat for all I care; my worry is that a martial who archetypes into spellcasting is always going to be better than one that doesn't, in which case martial classes have essentially ceased to exist.

How do you go from: Barb that can heal to All martial classes are now garbage? The barbarian is giving up other barbarian abilities to gain a limited use of the healing spells. What if the opposite was true as well? A healer that can get barbarian abilities. Do casters suddenly cease to exist?

Evilspider was under the impression that the Healerbarb used skill feat or general feat combos in order to become Healerbarb. Evilspider's favourite class is barb, with a long standing dislike of Caster-Martial disparity. They were excited for the idea of being able to utility shenanigan as a martial, and are now worried that the best way to do so is to simply dip caster, hence the foul taste for them.

451 to 500 of 501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Multi-classing: what would we like, what can we expect and what do we know? All Messageboards