I can't see them denying spellcasting if you multi-class. What would be the point in multi-classing into a cleric, druid, bard, sorcerer or wizard if you can't get spells? It's the main class feature, not to mention the source of too many tropes.
The most appealing variant multiclassing options were spellcaster based, magus, oracle and sorcerer; barbarian was the only appealing martial. If spell point based powers are as significant as they sound, then that style of multiclassing should work well with spellcasting.
I'm not sure what you mean by the source of tropes.
Traditional multiclassing would require different progression tables for each class, something we're told won't exist.
...
You think if someone can't create 15 kobold or goblin encounters making them all different they need practice? Huh. A bit condescending perhaps? Just spitballing here.
Not intended that way. Doesn't sound like it to me, but I'm autistic. What people think of certain word choices is a complete mystery, even after getting a minor in psychology.
And I most certainly can't use myself as a judge. Not only is it very difficult to offend me, my perspective is abnormal enough that people getting offended at things usually makes no sense to me all. That makes it really really hard to talk about stuff without someone taking issue with something I said even disregarding the actual topic of discussion.
They're kobolds by the way, not kobalds. Sorry, I apologize,
No need. I tend to miss that one a lot.
can I ask if you're on a mobile or if you perhaps have a writing condition? Absolutely meaning no offense.
Yes. Usually I am on a 3.5" cell phone screen. Terrible for writing.
I get one or two days a week to use a laptop instead though.
And I pretty much don't take offense unless it seems like someone's intent is purely to offend.
Uhm, also, I can assure you D&D 5e is much more than "a combat game". It's much more roleplaying-intensive than what most PF1 rules deign themselves to simulate, considering a lot of feats and class features are all about beating enemies into submission.
I have seen lots of players playing d20 or other systems, all claiming that it is not a pure combat game, and yet their entire thought process and their choices all are exactly that of playing a combat game.
It is not a bad thing. I even enjoy doing that upon occasion myself.
What I think is bad, is the inability or refusal to acknowledge what they are actually doing.
It is like the Halo video games. There is a story mode, but your choices are not about the story and do not impact the story. The story itself is not the game at all. The game is shooting aliens. The story provides a backdrop, and ties the matches together, and inspires the creators in making each combat session different and entertaining. Yet in the end, Every moment spent playing Halo is spent either in passive consumption of someone else's story, or in shooting aliens.
Thus Halo is a combat game, despite having a clear and amazing story.
This exact same style of play is what I see at 90% of rpg tables that use a system.
Most players see the rules the same way they look at the rules of Halo. They make choices the same way they make choices in Halo.
It even affects their strategies on a level they themselves don't see. They don't ask about the narrative world traits, except for the rules. They don't look for ideas based on anything that does not explicitly fall within the rules.
If an enemy is standing on a table, the rules do not say anything about knocking the table over, so most players do not consider it.
The rules become their box (you know, the one everyone says to think outside of, precisely because everyone is bad at thinking outside it).
When really, the rules should not be central to strategy. The narrative world should be the box, not the rules. Only then will strategies like knocking the table over become the easy and obvious strategies, and only then will the field for more advanced and interesting strategies become available. Not to mention the stuff everyone remembers years later becoming more likely and frequent.
Grammer? Shoukd? Are you sure you know English all that well?...
Cell phone. No spellcheck. Tiny on-screen keyboard, made smaller still so I can have the control key for keyboard shortcuts.
And again with the GM as an artist. A bit of a hipster "artist" in some cases. This is getting intellectually stifling, and at the same time intriguing and on some levels fascinating, like a horrible car crash.
What is more interesting,
A +1 goblin-bane longsword, or Orchrist, a famous blade forged in Gondolin by the elves of the west in ages past.What makes that +1 longsword into Orchrist is the GM.
Sure, the player could make up some story, but that is never the same. There is no sense of discovery if you define yourself what you found. There is no awe when you decide it all for yourself.
And it is far better as a GM, to see the player's face light up as you spin some tale of unexpected mystery as the unexpected result of their own choice.
We don't need more +1 longswords. We need more swords of intrigue and interest, that are each unique and that feel full of mystery and untold stories. The Gm is what makes that happen. The GM turns bland mechanics into epic awesome sauce.
Yet, the needed inclusion of "for your category" is still just more evidence of being subjective instead of objective.If it is objective, I can compare results between the master and the legend. I can't do that with subjective results because the results don't scale between the two.
In game terms the master and the legend have different + bonuses on their attack rolls and can be enchanted to different degrees. This has been explicitly covered. The legend sword is flat out better than the master sword.
Except, that is a problem. If the legend rolls really low, and the master rolls really high, then they definitely need to be comparable. The real world, and most narrative worlds, have a smooth scale there. There are no lines between what is or is not a legendary smith. And more importantly, a smith being a legend does not at all mean that they can't have a bad day and make something that can be surpised by someone with nominally less skill.
In fact, when it comes to highly skilled folks, it gets ever more difficult to properly rank them in terms of who is better or more skilled. It can only be done in rpgs, precisely because rpgs identify everything with numbers.
But for 3.x/pf1, if you hide those numbers from the players, they will need lots of trial and error (and statistic knowledge) to determine who is actually better, especially at higher levels.
If you can't produce 15 sufficiently different encounters for goblins (kobalds woukd be tok easy), thdn you need some serious practice.
But that wasn't my point anyway. My point was the issue of looking at mechanics, of looking at story.
I think past a point with some in setting logic, a lot of goblin encounters in certain areas will play out the same. In those cases there is no advantage to playing them out and you should glaze over them IMO. If they are planning traps or whatever experienced PCs are going to be aware of it most of the time in advance and so you can summarise it in a few lines of dialogue.
Sorry, I can't quite understand what you're trying to say there so I'm not going to respond to that second point.
Whether a fight should be glazed over or not, to me should not be a factor of how easy it is.
In the old days, it was quite normal. Only after 3.0 did the concept of "every encounter must be almost equal CR" actual become a significant idea (and I suspect it is probably due to MMOs).
Before then, it was the standard that low cr encounters were the common stuff, with higher cr encounters being increasingly more rare.
I agree with the old school on this, even for combat games, having a wide variety of difficulties among the encounters is far far better in mind than the rather bland idea of all encounters being +-X from player level.
This is fair enough and your opinion, you can enjoy whatever sorts of games you like. I do however still take issue with your earlier comment of "shun all the gamist nonsense" as, whether you intended it or not, it comes across as denigrating to anyone who actually enjoys the game elements. I'm not all about combat for instance (best moments when running have been when my players have circumvented combat or used a bunch of lore and setting logic I gave them to pull off ridiculous things) but plenty of my players enjoy it and so I owe it to them to give them some of the stuff they enjoy.
I'm not about shunning it. But I find it a problem for everyone, even if most don't see the problem, when folks don't call things as they actually are.
Most players say they play a story game, but what they actually do is play a combat game.
I like combat games. But I love narrative games. I hate joining a group that claims they will be playing a narrative game, and then actually play a combat game instead.
I think they don't call these things correctly because they don't understand the difference themselves, which is a bad thing, because it means they not only miss out on those other things, but they also have to do more searching through the chaff to find the wheat of whatever they actually want to play.
If everyone understood better, and called things what they were, then it would be easier to find games that are truly closer to what one is looking for, but also, it shows just how vast the options truly are and how many other things exist that they could try out and see if they like. This latter is important, because if you are expecting one thing, and get something else, the very fact of getting something other than what was expected can sour the experience, making into something you do not like, even if you would have loved it if you lacked the expectations.
Sure, on a personal level you want skill. Hell, I even like gloating. But in most cases your only audience as a DM are your players, and if your players enjoy it enough they tell their friends. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fair to strive for "objective DMing skill" if you have a big audience, like if you stream. But if you only run games for your friends your first priority is that they have a good time. Basically the difference between DMing and most other artforms is that you're explicitly performing for the pleasure of a small select group of people.
And yet, people still pay to go to concerts and plays. And listening to a live orchestra is vastly different than even the highest quality recording.
Having an amateur neighbor play the fiddle for you can be enjoyable, but it will never be a replacement for seeing a professional play with all the bells and whistles. And there is a whole scale between the two.
Having an amateur friend is not, and never will be an excuse for claiming the art is not an art.
Yes. Giving your friends a good time is important, even the most important for an amateur, but understanding the art of it better, makes it easier to make it even more enjoyable.
Understanding the difference in what is actually being played is likewise important. Claiming that Pathfinder is always the same game, because the rules are always the same, is actual ignorance.
But my point is not so much about the amateurs, it is about what the devs should be considering. If the devs don't understand the craft, how can they expect to produce anything worthwhile except by accident?
And frankly, I don't want an instrument made rough by a novice, I want an instrument made well by a master, whether I am a touring pro, or just an amateur in my garage.
This is a problem in many industries. Take a look at movies. Right now, movies rely on being flashy. The flashy gets people into theaters early on, but 5 years down the road the movie is forgotten.
What made the classics so good was that they had more than just the flashy stuff. They had real substance to them, and that substance keeps people going back time and time again long after the flashy has ceased to be appealing.
Note, flashy just means the stuff that is awesome and cool when you first see it, but quickly loses appeal as one becomes familiar and used to it's presence.
There are two strategies in use today, make something flashy, sell lots of copies quickly, then make the next flashy version. Or make something flashy that extensible, and keep adding new flashy content to it to keep people hanging around.
I do not want to see paizo go with either strategy. I want substance.
3.x has some substance to it. That is why so many still play it even today. Pathfinder 1 built on it, but took a few bits away from that substance.
Pathfinder 2, by all accounts so far, seems to be trying to leave behind all the actual substance that made 3.x great, hoping to succeed with just flashy stuff and a few gimmicks.
The GM is everything. The GM makes or breaks the game. The GM makes things interesting or dull. The GM sets the tone and theme. The GM does all these, not the dice, not the mechanics.
I'm not saying system doesn't matter, rather system is like choosing between crayons, colored pencils, watercolor, or oil paint.
No matter which you choose, it isn't the medium that makes a picture good or bad, it is the artist.
When it comes to rpg, the gm is the artist. Sometimes one system or another might be better, but regardless, the gm is more important to the result, just like the artist makes or breaks a picture and not the crayons vs paints.
Art, be it performance, visual or otherwise, is entirely subjective to the audience/viewers.
TTRPGs, in the context of 2-dimensional visual art - watercolors, crayons, oil-based paint or pencil-and/or-ink to use your examples - are collaborative art projects that are improvised and ongoing from a starting point until the project (the story/campaign) is completed. They are a combination of canvas (setting), medium (game system) and the collaborative artists themselves (GM and players).
Picasso is widely considered one of the best artists to have ever existed.
Picasso's art elicits no emotional response from me other than mild revulsion and for the most part doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Eyes pointed every which way, deformed heads and bodies and monochromatic color palettes are not something I find appealing. For me Picasso's art is barely a notch above the kind of art one sees out of elementary school art class.
Give me one of the Renaissance-era artists any day of the week over Picasso.
Show me a Picasso campaign/GM, I'll take a pass instantaneously.
Just like you like some artists but not others because of their style, so too do I like some GMs but not others because of their style.
The idea of being a collaboration presumes a final work for an audience.
But in some styles of playing a rpg, the players are the audience. The GM is creating everything for the sake of the players, not some other random people decades later.
The game generally does not get saved nor written down. Therefore, generally not a collaborative effort to make art. There are exceptions of course, just like there is a wide range of different games played with the same rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the philosophy around tastes in RPGs and the objectively correct way to play might be better discussed in a different thread?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cant see spellpoints being the answer to multiclassing. If this were the case id always start as a spellcaster to get actual spells and p the martial abilities via feats. The other side: martial, then pick up my spellcasting as spell points falls a little flatter by comparison.
The issue is whatever they do i suspect they will be hammered simply because multiclassing always requires some degree of sacrifice. You cant possibly maintain full access to both (three, four) class features if you multiclass, it doesnt make sense to do so, otherwise multiclassing becomes the default. Why play a wizard when a wizard/fighter is just as good at spellcasting and gains the martial combat benefits as well?
if scaling is indeed by level not class then that will reduce some of the current issues, if i multiclass i will most likely lose access to higher levels spells but my fireballs (for want of an example) will be just as good as those of a pure spellcaster-the non multiclass wizard will have more variety and access to higher level spells. The reverse is true as well, the multiclass fighter will have access to a greater number of class feats and abilities by virtue of level in the class, the multi will have less but the benefits of the other class(es).
My 2 largest concers in 2e are still long drawn out combats and homogeneity in classes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the philosophy around tastes in RPGs and the objectively correct way to play might be better discussed in a different thread?
Or not at all.
Maybe the philosophy around tastes in RPGs and the objectively correct way to play might be better discussed in a different thread?Or not at all.
Seconded.
Hitomi, I disagree with you, but if that's how you feel, more power to you, and good gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cant see spellpoints being the answer to multiclassing. If this were the case id always start as a spellcaster to get actual spells and p the martial abilities via feats. The other side: martial, then pick up my spellcasting as spell points falls a little flatter by comparison.
The issue is whatever they do i suspect they will be hammered simply because multiclassing always requires some degree of sacrifice. You cant possibly maintain full access to both (three, four) class features if you multiclass, it doesnt make sense to do so, otherwise multiclassing becomes the default. Why play a wizard when a wizard/fighter is just as good at spellcasting and gains the martial combat benefits as well?
if scaling is indeed by level not class then that will reduce some of the current issues, if i multiclass i will most likely lose access to higher levels spells but my fireballs (for want of an example) will be just as good as those of a pure spellcaster-the non multiclass wizard will have more variety and access to higher level spells. The reverse is true as well, the multiclass fighter will have access to a greater number of class feats and abilities by virtue of level in the class, the multi will have less but the benefits of the other class(es).
My 2 largest concers in 2e are still long drawn out combats and homogeneity in classes.
I would also go spellcaster, then martial; but really i don't want to have to choose between spellcaster with a flavour of martial and martial with a flavour of spellcaster.
The way I see it, we know that everyone gets class feats at the same time, skill feats at the same time, ancestry feats and general feats at the same time, it's no great leap to assume it's all tied to one table that you refer to even for multi-classing. Spells would be a class feature gained at first level that scales with class level.
He does have a distinctive writing style that's for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it is possible that every class gets a feature (spells of abilities) on odd levels and a class feat on even levels. This could remain the same if you multi-class, meaning you can multi-class at any level
I would really love to see muticlassing done the way that the (pretty much unknown) Stargate d20 RPG did it. At first level in a class, you got a cluster of abilities that you only got if that was your first class level. So, a fighter might get heavy armor, martial weapon proficiency, and +2 Fort save as the 1st level only bundle. If you dip into it, you don't get those abilities, but you get the rest of what the class has to offer. That way, you don't have a ton of one level dips that can break characters. Also, it makes more sense that, if somebody has been training to get abilities for years and years prior to level one, a fight with a few goblins doesn't suddenly grant the same abilities as years of prior training.
In case anyone is interested: https://www.amazon.com/Stargate-SG-1-Role-Playing-Game/dp/1887953957
I would really love to see muticlassing done the way that the (pretty much unknown) Stargate d20 RPG did it. At first level in a class, you got a cluster of abilities that you only got if that was your first class level. So, a fighter might get heavy armor, martial weapon proficiency, and +2 Fort save as the 1st level only bundle. If you dip into it, you don't get those abilities, but you get the rest of what the class has to offer. That way, you don't have a ton of one level dips that can break characters. Also, it makes more sense that, if somebody has been training to get abilities for years and years prior to level one, a fight with a few goblins doesn't suddenly grant the same abilities as years of prior training.
In case anyone is interested: https://www.amazon.com/Stargate-SG-1-Role-Playing-Game/dp/1887953957
I'm not interested in the game per se, but I'm very interested in that way of multiclassing. Can you tell me something? If you multiclass, and become 1st level [insert class here], what do you actually get? Nothing at all and wait to get to 2nd level? At least spells, one would think. How does it work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would really love to see muticlassing done the way that the (pretty much unknown) Stargate d20 RPG did it. At first level in a class, you got a cluster of abilities that you only got if that was your first class level. So, a fighter might get heavy armor, martial weapon proficiency, and +2 Fort save as the 1st level only bundle. If you dip into it, you don't get those abilities, but you get the rest of what the class has to offer. That way, you don't have a ton of one level dips that can break characters. Also, it makes more sense that, if somebody has been training to get abilities for years and years prior to level one, a fight with a few goblins doesn't suddenly grant the same abilities as years of prior training.
In case anyone is interested: https://www.amazon.com/Stargate-SG-1-Role-Playing-Game/dp/1887953957
This sounds kind of like how 5e did it, which was alright, but gave you some objectively better starting points for particular build combos.
I'm not interested in the game per se, but I'm very interested in that way of multiclassing. Can you tell me something? If you multiclass, and become 1st level [insert class here], what do you actually get? Nothing at all and wait to get to 2nd level? At least spells, one would think. How does it work?I would really love to see muticlassing done the way that the (pretty much unknown) Stargate d20 RPG did it. At first level in a class, you got a cluster of abilities that you only got if that was your first class level. So, a fighter might get heavy armor, martial weapon proficiency, and +2 Fort save as the 1st level only bundle. If you dip into it, you don't get those abilities, but you get the rest of what the class has to offer. That way, you don't have a ton of one level dips that can break characters. Also, it makes more sense that, if somebody has been training to get abilities for years and years prior to level one, a fight with a few goblins doesn't suddenly grant the same abilities as years of prior training.
In case anyone is interested: https://www.amazon.com/Stargate-SG-1-Role-Playing-Game/dp/1887953957
At first level in every class, you get both class features and a class feat (the only time you get both), so the first time you pick up a new class, you will get the class features of a first level (whatever you multi-class into), and if it's an even level, a class feat for the new class. This will maintain the same number of total class feats while ensuring you have minimum class features. Every odd level after you get the next class feature of the new class
I'm not interested in the game per se, but I'm very interested in that way of multiclassing. Can you tell me something? If you multiclass, and become 1st level [insert class here], what do you actually get? Nothing at all and wait to get to 2nd level? At least spells, one would think. How does it work?I would really love to see muticlassing done the way that the (pretty much unknown) Stargate d20 RPG did it. At first level in a class, you got a cluster of abilities that you only got if that was your first class level. So, a fighter might get heavy armor, martial weapon proficiency, and +2 Fort save as the 1st level only bundle. If you dip into it, you don't get those abilities, but you get the rest of what the class has to offer. That way, you don't have a ton of one level dips that can break characters. Also, it makes more sense that, if somebody has been training to get abilities for years and years prior to level one, a fight with a few goblins doesn't suddenly grant the same abilities as years of prior training.
In case anyone is interested: https://www.amazon.com/Stargate-SG-1-Role-Playing-Game/dp/1887953957
For Stargate SG-1, they used action dice (a pool of dice that you can use to boost rolls) and all of these Core abilities (the ability that you only get if you take the class as your first class) typically effected how your character interacted with the action pool.
For instance, when the Soldier spent one action die from her pool to modify an attack roll or Str or Con-based check, she got 2 dice instead. For the Scout class, you can spend one action die to grant one terrain feat you possess to the rest of your party for the duration of one scene. The Scientist class can spend one action die to grant one skill feat that he possesses to the rest of his party for one scene.
Clearly, Pathfinder doesn't have action dice, but you could do something with Hero Points or give each class some ability that they each only get if you are taking that class as your 1st level class. For instance, maybe we do that with Domains for a Cleric, or Wild Shape for a Druid, or Inspire Courage for a Bard, or Weapon Training for a Fighter.
There are a load of ways to make this work so that you could give each class some cool ability that represents their years of training without tanking the class for people who want to multi-class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, most of the things one would dip a class for do not really fit with being only that class. So why not shift those types of things into Backgrounds or similar? Then make the classes not have a bunch of frontloaded stuff?
Or you could just go better and make a classless system, but with packages of preselected stuff at each level. That way, you get all the flexibility of classless, no multiclassing problems at all, and yet still gain the advantages of having "classes" to inspire concepts and build characters more quickly (since you could for example, take the wizard package, but swap out X for Y).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, most of the things one would dip a class for do not really fit with being only that class. So why not shift those types of things into Backgrounds or similar? Then make the classes not have a bunch of frontloaded stuff?
Or you could just go better and make a classless system, but with packages of preselected stuff at each level. That way, you get all the flexibility of classless, no multiclassing problems at all, and yet still gain the advantages of having "classes" to inspire concepts and build characters more quickly (since you could for example, take the wizard package, but swap out X for Y).
There are a couple of reasons why we have classes:
(1) tradition. While this is not a good reason per se, there is a large fan base that would be upset if they went, and that would mean loss of sales.(2) direction. If I take fighter, I know I'm going to be a martial character. If I take wizard, I know I'm going to be a spellcaster. It's easy to underestimate how helpful that is to new players (and some experienced ones). There are already a lot of choices, they don't need more.
Honestly, most of the things one would dip a class for do not really fit with being only that class. So why not shift those types of things into Backgrounds or similar? Then make the classes not have a bunch of frontloaded stuff?
Or you could just go better and make a classless system, but with packages of preselected stuff at each level. That way, you get all the flexibility of classless, no multiclassing problems at all, and yet still gain the advantages of having "classes" to inspire concepts and build characters more quickly (since you could for example, take the wizard package, but swap out X for Y).
There are a couple of reasons why we have classes:
(1) tradition. While this is not a good reason per se, there is a large fan base that would be upset if they went, and that would mean loss of sales.
(2) direction. If I take fighter, I know I'm going to be a martial character. If I take wizard, I know I'm going to be a spellcaster. It's easy to underestimate how helpful that is to new players (and some experienced ones). There are already a lot of choices, they don't need more.
Two things about number 2,
A) new players. The prepackaged "classes" work here for that perfectly. It gives all the direction a newbie needs, and even works for when someone just needs a bit of inspiration, whether new or old. But for newbs it it actually better to do the packages idea, because it makes it easy to slowly get into customizing things, and provides great groundwork for how to mix things.
For example, a new player might play a straight up package first, then for their second character, they swap out just a few smaller details like weapon proficiencies, and then they might for their third or fourth character look at two packages and experiment with bringing the major elements of each together.
All of which is way better as it keeps the character designing process something new and interesting far longer, and while in that intermediate stage of being ready for more customization but not yet really experienced, they have guidelines for achieving a variety of things, and yet are still free and open to try concepts that the designers may not have thought of.
B) I seriously hate martial vs caster. The idea that a world of magic usable with mere study would have people rely only on mundane combat is utterly ridiculous.
Now, having the ability to support pure mundanes is still an important feature for supporting low magic settings, or settings where some or even most people are literally incapable of using magic (like the Harry Potter novels for example).
But saying that a world where anyone with enough study could cast magic would have mundane soldiers is wrong.
Having forced classes however is problematic because people see a mundane soldier class and think it should stand equally with magic. But with a packages system, that is far less true precisely because you have more plausible choice scope and there are no distinct choices that are held to compare to all other distinct choices (i.e. fighter and wizard).
Thus, with classless, if you say that only special folks with the right bloodline can use magic, then it is easy to create characters with and without magic for all walks of life, and yet also if magic is usable by anyone who studies could still see players make characters from all walks of life that incorporate magic into their professions.
Honestly, most of the things one would dip a class for do not really fit with being only that class. So why not shift those types of things into Backgrounds or similar? Then make the classes not have a bunch of frontloaded stuff?
Or you could just go better and make a classless system, but with packages of preselected stuff at each level. That way, you get all the flexibility of classless, no multiclassing problems at all, and yet still gain the advantages of having "classes" to inspire concepts and build characters more quickly (since you could for example, take the wizard package, but swap out X for Y).
There are a couple of reasons why we have classes:
(1) tradition. While this is not a good reason per se, there is a large fan base that would be upset if they went, and that would mean loss of sales.
(2) direction. If I take fighter, I know I'm going to be a martial character. If I take wizard, I know I'm going to be a spellcaster. It's easy to underestimate how helpful that is to new players (and some experienced ones). There are already a lot of choices, they don't need more.Two things about number 2,
A) new players. The prepackaged "classes" work here for that perfectly. It gives all the direction a newbie needs, and even works for when someone just needs a bit of inspiration, whether new or old. But for newbs it it actually better to do the packages idea, because it makes it easy to slowly get into customizing things, and provides great groundwork for how to mix things.
For example, a new player might play a straight up package first, then for their second character, they swap out just a few smaller details like weapon proficiencies, and then they might for their third or fourth character look at two packages and experiment with bringing the major elements of each together.
All of which is way better as it keeps the character designing process something new and interesting far longer, and while in that intermediate stage of being ready for more customization but not yet really experienced, they have guidelines for achieving a variety of things, and yet are still free and open to try concepts that the designers may not have thought of.
B) I seriously hate martial vs caster. The idea that a world of magic usable with mere study would have people rely only on mundane combat is utterly ridiculous.
Now, having the ability to support pure mundanes is still an important feature for supporting low magic settings, or settings where some or even most people are literally incapable of using magic (like the Harry Potter novels for example).
But saying that a world where anyone with enough study could cast magic would have mundane soldiers is flocking bluejays wrong.
Having forced classes however is problematic because people see a mundane soldier class and think it should stand equally with magic. But with a packages system, that is far less true precisely because you have more plausible choice scope and there are no distinct choices that are held to compare to all other distinct choices (i.e. fighter and wizard).
Thus, with classless, if you say that only special folks with the right bloodline can use magic, then it is easy to create characters with and without magic for all walks of life, and yet also if magic is usable by anyone who studies could still see players make characters from all walks of life that incorporate magic into their professions.
I don't entirely disagree with you on a), I have had players who need direction move to a classless system fairly successfully. While they did need some help, it was no more really than in D&D (this was before pathfinder).
That said, if you are going to have fighter "bundles" and wizard "bundles", you might as well have classes and multiclassing, each level being a "bundle".The current incarnation is not what you are looking for, but it is, I think, closer to it than pf1
For b), I like to compare it to Military and Science. Why would anyone be a soldier when with a bit of study you could be a scientist? the reason is twofold: 1) because science is not apt for fighting, and 2) because not everyone has the ability to understand science. That doesn't mean that Soldiers cannot use the products of science.
If that's your complaint (that fighters don't use a bit of magic), then I'm with you. I have in the past considered homebrewing a world where the dominant civilization blend fighting and Magic (Basically a Bard equipped with wands) in their army. I also like Gish builds, which is my refection on that.
A) Packages differ from classes in that with classes, your only option is to take a bundle as is.
But in classless with packages, everything is built around the ability to cherry pick tiny pieces, then bundles of those choices are collected, but because of the building around cherry-picking, you can take that bundle and drop some of the choices and pick other options instead, or even just skip the bundles all together and make your choices flat out from the full allowed list.
It is like how in the Advanced Race Guide, you can drop some abilities to gain race points to spend on other abilities to customize the race.
B) On the contrary, soldiers are commonly both rifleman and engineers/scientists/programmers/technitions/doctors/etc.
Real soldiers have some actual profession.
Granted, for us, much of the rifleman sort of things do use precreated items, like grenades, but we don't have the option of mumbling a few words to get an explosion. However, in a world with learnable magic, it is more efficient for the soldiers to learn to cast fireball than to make wands of fireball, not to mention more flexible and they are carrying less which means they can carry more of other stuff, like food.
Interesting as this is, we are getting off topic again.
A) Packages differ from classes in that with classes, your only option is to take a bundle as is.
But in classless with packages, everything is built around the ability to cherry pick tiny pieces, then bundles of those choices are collected, but because of the building around cherry-picking, you can take that bundle and drop some of the choices and pick other options instead, or even just skip the bundles all together and make your choices flat out from the full allowed list.
It is like how in the Advanced Race Guide, you can drop some abilities to gain race points to spend on other abilities to customize the race.
True, and it would be the perfect customization, I agree. But that was evidently too radical a change for a typically class/level game as PF or any edition of D&D. They're still allowing for much more customization in this edition thanks to the number of feats you can choose, but classless of course is the epitome of customization.
That said, I find classes provide a certain flavor you often don't find in point-based. Might be just an impression, but classes tend to tell you something about the setting you're gonna explore. It's pretty cool all in all.
Of course one great thing in PF1 was archetypes, and I really hope that even with their current feat-based implementation they'll still provide a significant amount of customization.
B) On the contrary, soldiers are commonly both rifleman and engineers/scientists/programmers/technitions/doctors/etc.
Real soldiers have some actual profession.
Granted, for us, much of the rifleman sort of things do use precreated items, like grenades, but we don't have the option of mumbling a few words to get an explosion. However, in a world with learnable magic, it is more efficient for the soldiers to learn to cast fireball than to make wands of fireball, not to mention more flexible and they are carrying less which means they can carry more of other stuff, like food.
Okay, fighters, rogues, rangers and other purely non-magical classes in my opinion have a place. Not everyone will want to tangle with magic. It's not science, it's a more mysterious power, often with strings attached. I either have to devote years to learn it from books (and I must have a high enough int to understand it!), some magical heritage, complete devotion towards a deity or concept... Say I wanna be just a soldier. Or I was born in a hunter's cabin and hunting is what I've learned. Or I was an urchin and I never had access to magical books. Narratively I think that people who just don't care much for magic have their place.
Of course that still allows them to use magical items. They don't need to study them, or be blessed with magical potential, or believe in something - they can just pick them up, invest if necessary, and use them.
But if I like Aldori dueling why should I study magic? That's obviously not my aspiration. My vocation is wielding a sword like it were an extension of my body, and become the best swordswoman I can.
People don't make decisions based only on what's most logical - culture, aptitudes, interests, quirks of character, they all contribute to what they end up learning, and what they just let pass them by.
At the point that "magic" can be learned by anyone intelligent enough to do so, in whatever amount of time it takes to gain a level (a week), it really IS science. One of my biggest pet peeves about DnD and Pathfinder is how "rare" the game implies magic is, yet how low the requirements are to becomes a caster. They should be teaching basic cantrips in schools and Magic 101 should be an elective in college. (AKA, a feat.) As much as I don't care for the Ebberon setting, it's pretty darn realistic given how easy it is to learn magic.
Regardless, just because you can imagine characters that don't understand/use magic, doesn't mean that half the classes have to be gated from learning magic without going through a multiclassing system that has historically led to under powered characters.
Granted, non-magical characters should still exist, but I don't think anyone is saying that they shouldn't.
Either that, or we can make learning magic MUCH harder. I wouldn't be terribly upset if casters had to devote a ton of character resources to learn how to bend the fabric of reality to their whims. It would at least make sense that there aren't mages on every street corner of Golarion.
Multiclassing is the exception, most wizards take years to learn magic... fluff-wise at least.
Well, the requirements to become a caster are actually non-existent, but without a very high intelligence you'll just suck at many spells.
Basic cantrips as a feat sounds totally feasible though. I wouldn't dislike that.
Half the classes being gated from learning magic is more of a players' preference - a lot of people just don't want spells, and prefer different tropes for their characters - the errant swordsman, the demon hunter, the sly assassin... others want to play full casters, like wizards and clerics, and others still would prefer a mix, like a shadowdancer or magus.
Multiclassing... players of casters often see it as a great way to hamper their spell progression, with reason. Hopefully this edition will fix that. Hopefully.
There's obviously some kind of segregation between the rules of the game and the fluff and setting - anyone can choose the wizard class, but you don't find all that many wizards around. Also to be considered wizards are trained in a miniscule amount of weapons, no armors and few skills, so in a sense they do sacrifice something to learn their trade, and it's not like every other npc would like to do so at the first occasion given.
Multiclassing into a level of wizard has always struck me too as weird, considering how it's always emphasized that to master arcane magic one needs many years and a brilliant mind (unless you're a sorcerer... or a bard, whose spells come from some undetermined artistic inspiration? Perhaps?).
But pcs are exceptional, they have great potential, no npc can level up as fast as they do, they apparently can multiclass into wizard in a week if convenient... I mean, it's not like all the rest of the game makes all that sense. It's a game. Sure, we all try to create a narrative around it, and some are real good, but it still remains a game.
(Leaning towards gamism, not simulationism).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a simulationism perspective, going by the evidence, only 1 in 20 people is a PC Class at all. And that seems to be because becoming a PC Class is harder (PC Class characters have better stats, indicating they were more impressive to start with). Evidence thus suggests that becoming a Wizard is like getting an advanced degree in a hard science in real life. It's doable, but not necessarily by most people most of the time. PCs multiclassing are very much the exception to the rule.
Indeed, PCs clearly gain levels at all at a speed that is anomalous in the world as a whole. It's not impossible, but people gaining more than one or two levels a year is vanishingly rare, and even one or two a year is a very impressive speed. Most people gain more like one level every 5 to 10 years.
That somewhat limits the ability of ubiquitous Wizards to even exist.
Taking a wizard dedication feat to gain spell casting just doesn't seem out of line in a world with resonance. It makes increasingly less sense gating magic use behind something as strict as class levels with the use of some sort of mystical force becoming the default. Taking that small extra step to a purely classless system would be simple. I doubt they'd launch classless. But, assuming you can gain casting through feats, I'd expect a classless optional rule set appearing in the first Advanced Player's Guide type book.
That said, I'm still expecting that only those who start as casters will have access to spell casting, which would make a classless option very labor intensive and likely non-existent.
Say I wanna be just a soldier.
No such thing. A soldier is going to study the best way to kill the enemy, using whatever tricks they can get their hands on. They stidy and practice even harder than scientists, cause their very lives depend on it.
Evdn the soldiers today who focus entirely on being riflemen, practice and study till they can take a single glance and lob a grenade precisely where they want it. You don't become a soldier by doing less than a wizard.
Or I was born in a hunter's cabin and hunting is what I've learned.
You'd likely still learn at least a few cantrips, much like how real hunters had learned lots of things to be self-sufficient.
Or I was an urchin and I never had access to magical books. Narratively I think that people who just don't care much for magic have their place.
I never said mundane people didn't have a place, I only said that professionals with magic will almost always be better than those without, and therefore such folks would learn magic as part and parcel of learning nearly any trade. I would even expect a few cantrips to be known to serfs farming the land, passed down through generations.
Of course that still allows them to use magical items. They don't need to study them, or be blessed with magical potential, or believe in something - they can just pick them up, invest if necessary, and use them.
It might not be represented in the system well, but picking up magic items doesn't make you good at using them, and they are expensive to practice with, and you'd need to practice. You need to practice a lot.
But if I like Aldori dueling why should I study magic? That's obviously not my aspiration. My vocation is wielding a sword like it were an extension of my body, and become the best swordswoman I can.
Except it wouldn't be a vocation, it'd be a hobby. Just like the swordsmen of today do it for enjoyment, not because they need it for their job.
People don't make decisions based only on what's most logical - culture, aptitudes, interests, quirks of character, they all contribute to what they end up learning, and what they just let pass them by.
True, but learning any trade would come with learning magic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Say I wanna be just a soldier.No such thing. A soldier is going to study the best way to kill the enemy, using whatever tricks they can get their hands on. They stidy and practice even harder than scientists, cause their very lives depend on it.
Evdn the soldiers today who focus entirely on being riflemen, practice and study till they can take a single glance and lob a grenade precisely where they want it. You don't become a soldier by doing less than a wizard.
Or I was born in a hunter's cabin and hunting is what I've learned.You'd likely still learn at least a few cantrips, much like how real hunters had learned lots of things to be self-sufficient.
Or I was an urchin and I never had access to magical books. Narratively I think that people who just don't care much for magic have their place.I never said mundane people didn't have a place, I only said that professionals with magic will almost always be better than those without, and therefore such folks would learn magic as part and parcel of learning nearly any trade. I would even expect a few cantrips to be known to serfs farming the land, passed down through generations.
Of course that still allows them to use magical items. They don't need to study them, or be blessed with magical potential, or believe in something - they can just pick them up, invest if necessary, and use them.It might not be represented in the system well, but picking up magic items doesn't make you good at using them, and they are expensive to practice with, and you'd need to practice. You need to practice a lot.
But if I like Aldori dueling why should I study magic? That's obviously not my aspiration. My vocation is wielding a sword like it were an extension of my body, and become the best swordswoman I can.Except it wouldn't be a vocation, it'd be a hobby. Just like the swordsmen of today do it for enjoyment, not because they need it for their job....
I feel like you're describing your setting, Hitomi. And it's rather fascinating, but it's just not the setting in which most of us play. Not even Eberron, with its emphasis on magitech, claims everyone should have wizard levels. After all pcs are special. In Eberron terms, most people are 1st level commoners. Most soldiers are 1st level warriors, or 2nd level if veterans. Most artisans and professionals are 1st-2nd level experts, and the ones who know a little practical magic are 1st-2nd level magewrights. That is, they're all npcs.
You're seeing classes as the ultimate expression of the setting. Which, hey, if you want a sort of super-heroic setting, sure. But classes are only for pcs and select npcs. Most people in 2e will be created with the monster manual rules and won't have classes, class feats, 18 ability scores, 20 pfs at 1st level, etc, etc, etc. Most people won't be able to even understand what the hell the spellbook is talking about. Or to experiment with instruments until they manage to create magical effects with it.
Essentially, the setting doesn't obey character classes and levels. PCs obey character classes and levels. Because they're heroes. Same holds true for many of their antagonists, because you don't have heroes fight common, everyday people - you give Holmes his Moriarty. Otherwise what's the point?
Also, why do you say "picking up magic items doesn't make you good at using them, and they are expensive to practice with, and you'd need to practice. You need to practice a lot"? It wasn't the case in PF, nor in 3.5, nor it will be in 2e in all likelihood. Sure, they do cost a lot, no objection! But practicing? Why? Who has ever needed practice for a belt of giants strength or a headband of intellect? How does a +2 sword require more practice than a normal one? I feel again as if you're talking about your setting.
I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.
I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.
It's a possibility, and I wouldn't be against it. But from that to saying it's obvious, I feel it's a bit of a stretch.
I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.It's a possibility, and I wouldn't be against it. But from that to saying it's obvious, I feel it's a bit of a stretch.
I guess obvious is probably the wrong word. I just don't really see how it could be anything else when you see what info has been released about multiclassing so far.
From a marketing perspective, I would prefer both dedication-multiclassing (which I agree, makes a certain amount of sense) and traditional be available. I would also prefer them to both be in the playtest, so we can directly compare them against one another and test the power level of both.
I would probably only use dedication multiclassing, but I'd want to see both for those that prefer the other method.
Either that, or we can make learning magic MUCH harder. I wouldn't be terribly upset if casters had to devote a ton of character resources to learn how to bend the fabric of reality to their whims. It would at least make sense that there aren't mages on every street corner of Golarion.
It's hard to tell for sure without the playtest, but it seems like casters are devoting a lot of class reassures to their spells. Rogues and fighters seem to get a ton of feats at the same levels casters get spells. Alchemists, Rangers, Paladins, and Monks aren't as overloaded, but what they do get are a slew of class abilities that bend the rules of reality and allow them to fight and defend in unique ways.
I'm curious to see the playtest document for druids. In PF1, they are full casters with a metric ton of class abilities (although most are fairly minor, in fairness). I wonder if they'll be pruned back a bit, with fewer but more narratively meaningful class abilities, so that they're more in line with the other casters.
Edit: I agree that cantrips should be widely available. At least PF1 cantrips. PF2 ones are a bit of a different beast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious to see the playtest document for druids. In PF1, they are full casters with a metric ton of class abilities (although most are fairly minor, in fairness). I wonder if they'll be pruned back a bit, with fewer but more narratively meaningful class abilities, so that they're more in line with the other casters.Edit: I agree that cantrips should be widely available. At least PF1 cantrips. PF2 ones are a bit of a different beast.
We see a bunch of druid stuff in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f_uhV_EQz8&t=4029s
If you have proper magic eyes and can read the feat section, the wild shape feats have some interesting information. First, wildshape allows you to cast polymorph spells from your wild shape pool which appears distinct from your spell point pool, and these polymorph spells appear to be heightened to max level. you can see the heightening effect in the spells page under dinosaur form. This may be an ability like monks ki pool where it isn't granted by the class automatically. Gaining additional form options for wildshape appears to be somewhat feat based as we see elemental shape and dragon shape as feats.
With wildshape competing with spell casting feats and combat feats, it should be a little more tame than it had previously been.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark just pointed us to some stuff he's mentioned in an inteview with Major Spoilers.
MS: Some things that have become class feats, like the fighter’s Power Attack, were once part of many different classes’ builds. Is there a concern about forcing each class into a specific role and eliminating options like a battle cleric?
Seifter: Your cleric can still get Power Attack by multiclass into fighter. We’ve not yet explained how multiclassing works, but I think that clerics will be more willing to do that than they would before. It’s not going to be as punitive to multiclass, where that next higher level class feature is so important whether it’s spell casting or the level of a summoner’s eidolon. What we’re doing is going to help a lot if you feel that multiclassing is making you fall behind where you’d like to be.
I feel like you're describing your setting, Hitomi. And it's rather fascinating, but it's just not the setting in which most of us play. Not even Eberron, with its emphasis on magitech, claims everyone should have wizard levels. After all pcs are special. In Eberron terms, most people are 1st level commoners. Most soldiers are 1st level warriors, or 2nd level if veterans. Most artisans and professionals are 1st-2nd level experts, and the ones who know a little practical magic are 1st-2nd level magewrights. That is, they're all npcs.
Incorrect. It is not my setting.
There are two categories of information being presented as default flavor, premesis and consequences of the premesis.
Basically, the setting includes X (the premesis) which results in Y (the consequences).
However, there are some cases in which the premesis given would not actually result in the consequences assumed. Magic being a really big offender here.
My arguement has been about the actual consequences of premesis given.
In this case, the premise is that magic can be learned through study easy enough that young adults of average intelligence can be professionals. Saying that the aforementioned premise would lead to only rare individuals using magic and that magic would be it's own profession rather than a tool used by most if not all other professions is just lazy thinking. It is certainly possible, but unlikely, as it would require a narrow range of other factors, such as a highly religious culture that fears all magic and takes significant steps to keep it limited. Any pragmatism at all would see such magic as a valuable tool, especially when another premise is that magic is a natural law of the universe, and that means that folks will figure out at least simple magics on their own even by accident.
Not to mention the presumed apprentice/mentor method of learning professions means a much better education for a profession, if far far more limited in scope than modern schools means it is even more likely for even common individuals to know a few minor magics as part of doing their profession. I.E. Smiths might use magic to forge metals at a higher melting point than otherwise available, opening the way to better metals/alloys than coukd be produced mundanely, or even just sparking a fire to ignite their forge.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.
That would be pretty terrible for multiclassing IMO. Means you wouldn't be able to stop progressing in your first class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.That would be pretty terrible for multiclassing IMO. Means you wouldn't be able to stop progressing in your first class.
I agree. It also means you won't really be progressing in the new class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. It also means you won't really be progressing in the new class.I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.That would be pretty terrible for multiclassing IMO. Means you wouldn't be able to stop progressing in your first class.
It also means you might not be able to get what you want from the second class, which might be important for hybrid concepts, like a soldier wizard that fights with sword and armor and uses utility spells for strategic advantage (like spider climb or invisiblity).
With the effectiveness of lower level spells tapering off as higher level spells give better effects, it really seems like just limiting access to higher level spells will be enough to limit the value of "dipping" into caster classes. Even if the DCs of your 1st level spells scale with level, you are not getting proficiency increases and will have a limited number of feats you can dump into making your spells more effective.
As long as Martial feats allow you to do amazing things, especially higher level feats, then it looks like the opportunity cost of spreading your proficiencies and feats too thinly will probably allow for a multi-classing system pretty similar to that of PF1.
However, this was what PF1 had in theory as well, but spells clearly out preformed feats for both utility and overall effectiveness.
It also means you might not be able to get what you want from the second class, which might be important for hybrid concepts, like a soldier wizard that fights with sword and armor and uses utility spells for strategic advantage (like spider climb or invisiblity).I agree. It also means you won't really be progressing in the new class.I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.That would be pretty terrible for multiclassing IMO. Means you wouldn't be able to stop progressing in your first class.
In this example I think archetype multiclassing would actually be really good. Go fighter and then spend your feats on wizard spellcasting levels. I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I heard that armour no longer impedes spell casting. The only thing really stopping you is the fact that the spellcasters don't have armour proficiencies.
In this example I think archetype multiclassing would actually be really good. Go fighter and then spend your feats on wizard spellcasting levels. I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I heard that armour no longer impedes spell casting. The only thing really stopping you is the fact that the spellcasters don't have armour proficiencies.It also means you might not be able to get what you want from the second class, which might be important for hybrid concepts, like a soldier wizard that fights with sword and armor and uses utility spells for strategic advantage (like spider climb or invisiblity).I agree. It also means you won't really be progressing in the new class.I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.That would be pretty terrible for multiclassing IMO. Means you wouldn't be able to stop progressing in your first class.
The problem here is proficiency. How does a fighter with Wizard Feats improve their spellcasting proficiency? If they can do it when a wizard can, they will have dcs that are too good and why would any make a pure caster; if they can't get them (because they are not a class feat), then they fall too far behind a pure caster.
To be fair, a pure caster doesn't get expert until 12th, master at 16th and legendary at 19th; so you won't be too far behind for most of your career, but how about a 3rd level wizard multi-classing into fighter? What you want is some martial proficiency, right? but a wizard is only trained in attacks; a 1st level fighter is an expert so you're behind a first level fighter. A third level fighter gets Master - but you're still stuck on Trained, and an 8th level Fighter gets Legendary attacks, while our 8th level wizard (with 5 levels of martial feats) is likely still stuck on trained.Proficiency levels being what they are, you would have a sucky wizard with sucky martial abilities, not a valid hybrid Wizard/Fighter Who is almost as good in combat and can throw a few good spells too.
Hopefully it won't be like Archetypes where you will have to grab an entry Feat before you can actually get the stuff you want.
I'd be surprised if you didn't have to take a dedication (entry) feat. Otherwise... how would it work? I can't see a character start taking class feats from another class just because.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this example I think archetype multiclassing would actually be really good. Go fighter and then spend your feats on wizard spellcasting levels. I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I heard that armour no longer impedes spell casting. The only thing really stopping you is the fact that the spellcasters don't have armour proficiencies.It also means you might not be able to get what you want from the second class, which might be important for hybrid concepts, like a soldier wizard that fights with sword and armor and uses utility spells for strategic advantage (like spider climb or invisiblity).I agree. It also means you won't really be progressing in the new class.I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.That would be pretty terrible for multiclassing IMO. Means you wouldn't be able to stop progressing in your first class.The problem here is proficiency. How does a fighter with Wizard Feats improve their spellcasting proficiency? If they can do it when a wizard can, they will have dcs that are too good and why would any make a pure caster; if they can't get them (because they are not a class feat), then they fall too far behind a pure caster.
To be fair, a pure caster doesn't get expert until 12th, master at 16th and legendary at 19th; so you won't be too far behind for most of your career, but how about a 3rd level wizard multi-classing into fighter? What you want is some martial proficiency, right? but a wizard is only trained in attacks; a 1st...
You gain proficiencies from the dedication feats. Not as fast as a full spellcaster I'm sure, but you can still get them. And they aren't just getting "wizard feats". These are specific dedication feats that give you abilities that the wizard has. Like spellcasting levels, and spellcasting proficiencies. The first dedication feat probably gives you something like this: You gain a spellbook and a few cantrips, and you are trained in spellcasting.