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


Prerelease Discussion

201 to 250 of 501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brock Landers wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
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.
I know every +1 matters due to the 4-tiers of success system, but in the end it's only a +3 difference, so you don't exactly suck; I think the most impressive part of Master and Legendary proficiency will be what they unlock, not the +2 or +3 bonus.

A +3 bonus to hit tends to add about +50% DPR assuming about a 50% chance to hit without it. That's a pretty hefty bonus to the Fighter's effectiveness.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brock Landers wrote:
Yeah, one of the designers posted that, how does that work out, exactly (+15% = +50% damage)?

Let's say you hit on a 10+ for 100 damage (to keep this simple). That makes your DPR 50 (for your 50% chance of a normal hit) plus 5% of 200 (for your 5% chance of a crit). So your DPR is 60.

With a +3 to hit, you still have a 50% chance of a normal hit (for 50 DPR) but a 20% chance for a critical. 20% of 200 is 40. This makes your DPR 90 instead of 60 (ie: 50% more damage).

Now, those numbers are way higher than one attack would ever be in PF1, but the math remains true whatever number you substitute in for 100.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If I am correct about the dedication style multiclassing I'm actually excited for just the sheer amount of options there will be. Wizard dedicating into Fighter should be quite different from a Fighter dedicating into Wizard.


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

In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
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.
In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.

No. You don't get 1st level spells, you don't get a specialized school. But you are still leveling up as a fighter. You aren't losing out on your proficiency progression as a fighter. And if you were a spellcaster taking a dedication, you aren't losing out on your spell progression or your spell proficiencies. It's basically a balanced version of VMC. Which would be amazing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
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.
In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.
No. You don't get 1st level spells, you don't get a specialized school. But you are still leveling up as a fighter. You aren't losing out on your proficiency progression as a fighter. And if you were a spellcaster taking a dedication, you aren't losing out on your spell progression or your spell proficiencies. It's basically a balanced version of VMC. Which would be amazing.

If I were a fighter multi-classing into wizard, I would expect to get spells - otherwise what's the point? and If I'm a wizard multi-classing into Fighter, what do I lose compared to a pure Wizard? Seems to me I only gain.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
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.
In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.
No. You don't get 1st level spells, you don't get a specialized school. But you are still leveling up as a fighter. You aren't losing out on your proficiency progression as a fighter. And if you were a spellcaster taking a dedication, you aren't losing out on your spell progression or your spell proficiencies. It's basically a balanced version of VMC. Which would be amazing.
If I were a fighter multi-classing into wizard, I would expect to get spells - otherwise what's the point? and If I'm a wizard multi-classing into Fighter, what do I lose compared to a pure Wizard? Seems to me I only gain.

For a fighter you would gain spells, but much slower than a pure wizard. For Wizards you would gain armor and weapon proficiencies but much slower than a pure fighter. In both cases you are losing out on class feats. Which we don't know how significant those will be exactly until we see the full playtest book. But from the Wizard preview they have metamagic feats that seem pretty powerful since they no longer raise the spells level, they simply use up more actions.

edit: By the way here is the PRD link for VMC if you still don't know what I'm talking about. The system I'm thinking of is very similar to this.

VMC


Dire Ursus wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
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.
In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.
No. You don't get 1st level spells, you don't get a specialized school. But you are still leveling up as a fighter. You aren't losing out on your proficiency progression as a fighter. And if you were a spellcaster taking a dedication, you aren't losing out on your spell progression or your spell proficiencies. It's basically a balanced version of VMC. Which would be amazing.
If I were a fighter multi-classing into wizard, I would expect to get spells - otherwise what's the point? and If I'm a wizard multi-classing into Fighter, what do I lose compared to a pure Wizard? Seems to me I only gain.

For a fighter you would gain spells, but much slower than a pure wizard. For Wizards you would gain armor and weapon proficiencies but much slower than a pure fighter. In both cases you are losing out on class feats. Which we don't know how significant those will be exactly until we see the full playtest book. But from the Wizard preview they have metamagic feats that seem pretty powerful since they no longer raise the spells level, they simply use up more actions.

edit: By the way here is the PRD link for VMC if you still don't know what I'm talking about. The system I'm thinking of is very similar to this....

You seem to be the only one here who realizes this. From all they've said multi classing is clearly feat based not level based, but there's still a lot if different possibilities for what the feats are.

You can multi class into wizard to get school powers, that was in a video.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
citricking wrote:


You seem to be the only one here who realizes this. From all they've said multi classing is clearly feat based not level based, but there's still a lot if different possibilities for what the feats are.

You can multi class into wizard to get school powers, that was in a video.

Ok I have another thought then as to a martial class mutliclassing into a caster. You probably will only gain their "spell power" abilities. So sorcerer bloodline powers, Wizard school powers, and the bards performance powers. Maybe some cantrips down the line. That would make sense, and that's sort of how it works in 1e VMCing.


I'm somewhat concerned that Multiclassing will be so easy and not remotely punitive that every character will end up multiclassed and that deliberately single classing is a clearly suboptimal choice.

Sort of like how in Mythic Adventures "Dual Pathing" was so good and so cheap (a tier 1 mythic feat, when the real attractions are the path abilities), that it's kind of silly not to take it.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm somewhat concerned that Multiclassing will be so easy and not remotely punitive that every character will end up multiclassed and that deliberately single classing is a clearly suboptimal choice.

Assuming we still have 3rd Edition style Multi-classing:

I think it will vary by class, with Fighter and Rogue being the classes most often dipped into for their proficiencies. Usually by spell-casters who I expect will take up to three levels of their sub-class, but no more.
Doing so will slow their casting progression to about that of a second-tier caster, but should boost their martial proficiencies into the second-tier as well. Leaving them just behind both martial and casting classes (just like all the Gish prestige classes aimed for and usually fell short of due to losing too many features in addition to CL)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I greatly disliked "dipping" in PF1 and hope it's not back, FWIW.

With how proficiencies work in how classes grant them, I could see a lot of six class characters who are masters of a bunch of things if there's not some limit.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I greatly disliked "dipping" in PF1 and hope it's not back, FWIW.

With how proficiencies work in how classes grant them, I could see a lot of six class characters who are masters of a bunch of things if there's not some limit.

A Six-Class character would probably be Expert at everything, but never hit Master or Legendary in anything (unless the majority of the levels went into Fighter with five dips into other classes).

I don't like dips, but I liked the previous editions versions of multi-classing even less. And I don't think it would feel right to have "multi-class archetypes" as feat chains. Never mind that in order to function they'd have to be much better than the Archetype feats we've already seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I rather like dipping in PF1. The abilities to abuse dipping for early access to things, or accelerated feat grabbing, were a major issue, but should be manageable in PF2 through the new dedication feat mechanic. The problems should be solved by locking you into one dedication till you buy off that first major benefit. I expect to hear complaints about reverse feat taxes, or feat debts, but it's better than flat feat value.

PF1 had some balance issues that could be solved through dipping, so I didn't bother limiting it at all. If PF2 is better balanced, I won't worry about it. And if it isn't better balanced, then granting bonus feats to suffering classes should emulate dipping fairly well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
thflame wrote:
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.

Bet you 1 Australian dollar that the reason archetypes got dedication feats was because of how multiclassing works and to bring them to parity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
thflame wrote:
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.
Bet you 1 Australian dollar that the reason archetypes got dedication feats was because of how multiclassing works and to bring them to parity.

Yeah, I'm not expecting much from PF2 anymore. Maybe there will be some cool ideas to cannibalize for my custom system?


Can I be the person to remind everyone the benefits of this being a playtest?

It’s like Chrom says. Anything can change.

They’re going to be collecting feedback, and probably already are. We’re going to see what works best collectively. There might be 2 different methods of multiclassing for all we know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Variant Multiclassing in Unchained was, in my opinion, horrible, especially for casters. It was so worthless I only ever saw one person take it in our group (brawler/ranger), and even then all they got was an animal companion and some trick feats. They made it work with their build, but most every thing I could see offered me nothing I wanted. I do hope it’s better than VMC, even if it follows VMC’s basic format.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While anything can change, we've seen a very vocal group on the forums about how great the system is currently being previewed. Ultimately if they turn out to be representative (and we have no idea if they are) then it's unlikely we will get substantial changes.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
While anything can change, we've seen a very vocal group on the forums about how great the system is currently being previewed. Ultimately if they turn out to be representative (and we have no idea if they are) then it's unlikely we will get substantial changes.

As part of the 'enthusiastic' group, I actually disagree with this. If people really like the majority of it, the majority of it will stay, but I'm personally pretty strongly against several things we've seen thus far (and look to be in the majority on most of these from what I can tell). Just off the top of my head:

-Resonance in its current form. I'm fine with it conceptually and don't think it breaks the game, but I am very unhappy with how fiddly it gets combined with charges and X/day abilities. This seems close to the minimum level of dissatisfaction with Resonance, so I think it'll see some changes. Very possibly drastic ones.

-Number of Skills and possibly Signature Skills. Fighters and Barbarians have too few, full stop, and others may as well. Signature Skills are also a huge issue if they aren't easy to get more of. This, again, seems to be a point of general agreement.

-The terminology of some actions is abominable. 'Operate Activation Actions' is a phrase that needs to die in a fire. The folks at Paizo have already expressed a willingness to do this, and it seems a very widespread opinion that they should.

-I'm seriously concerned about ranged weapon damage. Slings are a specific worry, but bows concern me as well. Attacking three times a round is worth a lot less and damage does, at the moment, seem to have risen to compensate.

-It looks like characters have too few Ancestry Feats at 1st level. I'm a strong advocate for upping the number to two. This also seems pretty popular.

Now, some of this stuff, the playtest might easily convince me I'm wrong on. But I doubt I'm gonna wind up entirely complaint free.

A lot of other stuff does, as mentioned above, seem relatively popular and probably won't change if that's true...but it's not everything by any means. And I'd be shocked if there were no changes whatsoever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

As part of the 'enthusiastic' group, I actually disagree with this. If people really like the majority of it, the majority of it will stay, but I'm personally pretty strongly against several things we've seen thus far (and look to be in the majority on most of these from what I can tell). Just off the top of my head:

-Resonance in its current form.

Sorry. I keep forgetting resonance exists (if only because I don't expect it to survive the playtest).

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Number of Skills and possibly Signature Skills. Fighters and Barbarians have too few, full stop, and others may as well. Signature Skills are also a huge issue if they aren't easy to get more of. This, again, seems to be a point of general agreement.

-The terminology of some actions is abominable. 'Operate Activation Actions' is a phrase that needs to die in a fire. The folks at Paizo have already expressed a willingness to do this, and it seems a very widespread opinion that they should.

-I'm seriously concerned about ranged weapon damage. Slings are a specific worry, but bows concern me as well. Attacking three times a round is worth a lot less and damage does, at the moment, seem to have risen to compensate.

-It looks like characters have too few Ancestry Feats at 1st level. I'm a strong advocate for upping the number to two. This also seems pretty popular.

To be honest I consider all of this to be window dressing (with the exception of ranged weapons). It's a tweak here, a tweak there. It's something that anyone could houserule with a page or two at most and ultimately has no bearing on whether or not I play PF2e.

The issues I have are much more fundamental such as whether or not true multiclassing will exist, whether there's design space for 6th level casters and whether or not we can choose which skills we improve in. These are core basics of the infrastructure of the game and (with the possible exception of multiclassing, although even then there's still more than a few already championing multiclassing via feats only) these things don't seem to be getting any real resistance from the vocally happy people (there will be specific exceptions, but most seem pleased with almost everything).


Brock Landers wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I greatly disliked "dipping" in PF1 and hope it's not back, FWIW.
From the Bard blog, looks like it is built in and expected for some concepts.

We were also assured (by Jason from memory) that skill ranks would still and get to be assigned. Some of us took that to mean PF1e skill ranks would be carried over. We were woefully wrong. I wouldn't be so sure you're interpreting Mark's post correctly.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
While anything can change, we've seen a very vocal group on the forums about how great the system is currently being previewed. Ultimately if they turn out to be representative (and we have no idea if they are) then it's unlikely we will get substantial changes.

As part of the 'enthusiastic' group, I actually disagree with this. If people really like the majority of it, the majority of it will stay, but I'm personally pretty strongly against several things we've seen thus far (and look to be in the majority on most of these from what I can tell). Just off the top of my head:

-Resonance in its current form. I'm fine with it conceptually and don't think it breaks the game, but I am very unhappy with how fiddly it gets combined with charges and X/day abilities. This seems close to the minimum level of dissatisfaction with Resonance, so I think it'll see some changes. Very possibly drastic ones.

-Number of Skills and possibly Signature Skills. Fighters and Barbarians have too few, full stop, and others may as well. Signature Skills are also a huge issue if they aren't easy to get more of. This, again, seems to be a point of general agreement.

-The terminology of some actions is abominable. 'Operate Activation Actions' is a phrase that needs to die in a fire. The folks at Paizo have already expressed a willingness to do this, and it seems a very widespread opinion that they should.

-I'm seriously concerned about ranged weapon damage. Slings are a specific worry, but bows concern me as well. Attacking three times a round is worth a lot less and damage does, at the moment, seem to have risen to compensate.

-It looks like characters have too few Ancestry Feats at 1st level. I'm a strong advocate for upping the number to two. This also seems pretty popular.

Now, some of this stuff, the playtest might easily convince me I'm wrong on. But I doubt I'm gonna wind up entirely complaint free.

A lot of other stuff does, as mentioned above, seem relatively...

I share a lot of these concerns, for what it is worth. I haven't felt any anxiety over ranged combat yet, but I feel like I still don't know much about it. The terminology largely doesn't bother me, though I agree the specific Operate example needs to go.

To add a few other things, I am skeptical of heritage feats right now. IIRC the gnome only had 1 in the playtest. Why bother having it only be available at level 1 then? I'd suggest adding more heritage feats to choose from, and making it so at level 1 you get 1 basic ancestry feat and 1 heritage feat.

I really want crafted quality to be what determines accuracy bonuses while potency runes just add to damage. It looks like until legendary +4 weapons, the potency runes don't even do anything anyway because you need a weapon with item quality high enough to provide the same bonus as that many potency runes. So it already feels like we are most of the way there.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
general character progression

This was in the Ranger thread

I feel it has a strong impact on how multiclassing will work in PF2 but I am not sure how

I see classes in PF2 as giving us the ability to play a character that is familiar and choose whether it will be focused on a class theme/ability or spread across several of those without becoming either OP nor irrelevant

I think multiclassing in PF2 should help us build characters that do the same but with themes/abilities that are spread across several classes

A way of blending classes built in the core system rather than through feats or prestige classes as we witnessed in the past


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
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.
In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.
No. You don't get 1st level spells, you don't get a specialized school. But you are still leveling up as a fighter. You aren't losing out on your proficiency progression as a fighter. And if you were a spellcaster taking a dedication, you aren't losing out on your spell progression or your spell proficiencies. It's basically a balanced version of VMC. Which would be amazing.

I hate VMC. Never gives me what I actually want, and the only resource to purchase with is feats, when I'd rather trade class abilities instead.

I don't care how "balanced" it may be, I will not go for VMC or anything like it.

The entire concept burned alive with the ashes getting tossed into a black hole on the other side of the universe.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I really want crafted quality to be what determines accuracy bonuses while potency runes just add to damage. It looks like until legendary +4 weapons, the potency runes don't even do anything anyway because you need a weapon with item quality high enough to provide the same bonus as that many potency runes. So it already feels like we are most of the way there.

I just want to add to this because it applies to a secondary complaint for me. If the "roll" bonus of ANY item was purely based on its quality (magic items then doing cool other things, like a Lockpick that remembers locks it has already picked) that would limit its range to +3 instead of +5. This gives us back two points of modifier that can be applied elsewhere while keeping within their acceptable range of modifiers (-2 to +18ish.) With these spare points we could get rid of attribute advancement getting screwy above 18 and rid ourselves of Odd Number ability scores entirely (whose purpose is entirely punitive.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
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.
In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.
No. You don't get 1st level spells, you don't get a specialized school. But you are still leveling up as a fighter. You aren't losing out on your proficiency progression as a fighter. And if you were a spellcaster taking a dedication, you aren't losing out on your spell progression or your spell proficiencies. It's basically a balanced version of VMC. Which would be amazing.

I hate VMC. Never gives me what I actually want, and the only resource to purchase with is feats, when I'd rather trade class abilities instead.

I don't care how "balanced" it may be, I will not go for VMC or anything like it.

The entire concept burned alive with the ashes getting tossed into a black hole on the other side of the universe.

One thing to note is in PF2 by and large Class Features are the Class Feats so it could work better in PF2's context.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, what are the problems with multi-classing in pf1 that need to be addressed in pf2?

a) spellcasters. In pf1, spellcasters, lose out dcs, meaning they fall too far behind the curve versus their pure brethren. If only dcs didn't scale so fast, then we could have spellcaster multi-classing. Well, now they don't.

b) dipping. Because class features were front loaded, dipping a class could get you a load of class features. You lost out on the capstone, but since people hardly ever got to level 20, that didn't matter. You could also repeatedly dip, getting loads of front loaded abilities.
Now, there are fewer front loaded class features and going to 20 is supposedly more common. I wonder if there might also be other restrictions, as there are with archetypes, but it seems they fixed this, too.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Hurting your BAB when you dipped in non-full BAB classes was also a problem in PF1

And getting higher saves through multiclassing was another one

What Unchained tried to tackle with fractional advancement actually


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Hurting your BAB when you dipped in non-full BAB classes was also a problem in PF1

And getting higher saves through multiclassing was another one

What Unchained tried to tackle with fractional advancement actually

This is true, but pf2 seems to have fixed all this with the proficiency system.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Sorry. I keep forgetting resonance exists (if only because I don't expect it to survive the playtest).

I suspect it will change, yeah. Which was kinda my point.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
To be honest I consider all of this to be window dressing (with the exception of ranged weapons). It's a tweak here, a tweak there. It's something that anyone could houserule with a page or two at most and ultimately has no bearing on whether or not I play PF2e.

That's reasonable enough for the most part, I'm just noting that I very much doubt there will be no changes and several of the things I list don't seem like window dressing to me.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
The issues I have are much more fundamental such as whether or not true multiclassing will exist, whether there's design space for 6th level casters and whether or not we can choose which skills we improve in.

I think it's pretty clear that 6-level casters won't exist.

As for skills...I'm actually a bit confused. You do get to choose what skills you meaningfully advance in over the course of the game, and doing so is one of the big improvements I feel the game has over 4E and 5E. There's the 'adding level to everything', I suppose, but with sharply restricted untrained uses I don't think that'll be too big a problem.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
These are core basics of the infrastructure of the game and (with the possible exception of multiclassing, although even then there's still more than a few already championing multiclassing via feats only) these things don't seem to be getting any real resistance from the vocally happy people (there will be specific exceptions, but most seem pleased with almost everything).

Multiclassing is definitely a heavily debated subject when it occurs, and we know absolutely nothing about how it works, so I think saying people are happy with the 'current version' is pretty premature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
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.
In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.
No. You don't get 1st level spells, you don't get a specialized school. But you are still leveling up as a fighter. You aren't losing out on your proficiency progression as a fighter. And if you were a spellcaster taking a dedication, you aren't losing out on your spell progression or your spell proficiencies. It's basically a balanced version of VMC. Which would be amazing.

I hate VMC. Never gives me what I actually want, and the only resource to purchase with is feats, when I'd rather trade class abilities instead.

I don't care how "balanced" it may be, I will not go for VMC or anything like it.

The entire concept burned alive with the ashes getting tossed into a black hole on the other side of the universe.

Well good thing the "Class Feats" are now class features. So the VMC rewards should be much higher, and you'll be giving up class features for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:


Well good thing the "Class Feats" are now class features. So the VMC rewards should be much higher, and you'll be giving up class features for it.

Not all class features are now class feats - spellcastng, and attack/armour proficiencies, for example. Since these are one of the main reasons people multiclass, they would have to be converted to feats. As well as making things complex (much against the stated aim of the devs), it would mean spending class feats to get what pure gets for free. While they are spending class feats to improve their features, you are spending class feats just to get them!

I for one would be very disappointed in this. If I multi-class out of a class, it's because I no longer want anything out of it. I don't want to be locked in to that classes proficiency progression while I pick up some of the basic features of another class. What I really want is to be able to pick up some of the class feats of the new class, but without the basic features, that's not going to be possible.

Besides, they have fixed pretty much all the problems with multi-classing in the new system (as far as we can tell). Everyone knows how it works, and it's very flexible. Why opt for a clunky system that was pretty much universally hated in unchained when the existing system has been fixed?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gavmania wrote:


I for one would be very disappointed in this. If I multi-class out of a class, it's because I no longer want anything out of it. I don't want to be locked in to that classes proficiency progression while I pick up some of the basic features of another class. What I really want is to be able to pick up some of the class feats of the new class, but without the basic features, that's not going to be possible.

I really think most players do not agree with this. Isn't multiclassing more about trying to mix and match and find the coolest combination? I never thought of it as just dropping my last class and then using another class.

The biggest complaint and problem with multiclassing is when you lose out on spell progression or BAB. The dipping style of multiclassing makes designing classes much harder because you can never give classes something really strong at level 1 or else everyone would want to dip into it. I think a good solution for you who wants to mix and match abilities from every different class would be just to pick a fighter who essentially don't have class features instead gaining more class feats. And then dip those class feats into other dedications.

Multiclassing should have a cost to make it balanced. Or else what even would be the point of having different classes? If you have to spend an extra feat to get a class feat you want from a different class, I think that's a fair trade off, and will make multiclass less of: "oh i have to dip into these 5 different classes to make this build work" which I hated about 1e.

And now full spellcasters will be able to multiclass! Woohoo. Multiclassing for everyone!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I suspect it will change, yeah. Which was kinda my point.

My point is that resonance isn't taking any brainspace or on my radar because I see it as a foregone conclusion that it won't survive the playtest. I do acknoweldge that will change and it will probably be the biggest change we see. But when I discuss changes (or the lack thereof) I'm excluding that from my statements.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's reasonable enough for the most part....several of the things I list don't seem like window dressing to me.

Either it's reasonable to call them window dressing or it's not. Either way, with the exception of resonance which I think it's quite clear will not make it into PF2e in anything resembling it's current form, I do not see any meaningful changes coming to PF2e as a result of the playtest if the vocal happy people end up being representative of the wider population.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that 6-level casters won't exist.

Yup. Which I consider a bad thing. Homogenising casters to all have the exact same spell progression isn't an improvement towards customisation or wider options. And yet it's exactly what we're going to get in PF2e which is making my enthusiasm for PF2e drop quite a bit.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
As for skills...I'm actually a bit confused.

I'm confused by your confusion. You know how skills work in PF1e. You know I'm a fan of PF1e. You know skills won't work like that in PF2e. Why is it so confusing that I might not like how skills work in PF2e?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
You do get to choose what skills you meaningfully advance in over the course of the game

By adding in a keyword there you get to redefine the argument to make it sound like I'm advocating for something that's already being done. You might see assigning skill ranks each level as not meaningful. I respectfully disagree.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
and doing so is one of the big improvements I feel the game has over 4E and 5E.

SUre. But my standard isn't set at 4e or 5e. If it was, I'd be playing those games. My standard is set at PF1e and this is a substantial step backwards.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Multiclassing is definitely a heavily debated subject when it occurs

And yet we still have people cheerleading VMC-only multiclassing. I expect once the full multiclassing rules are revealed and it's revealed to largely be multiclassing via feats we'll see an even larger group of people jump on board and call it the best thing since sliced bread.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
and we know absolutely nothing about how it works, so I think saying people are happy with the 'current version' is pretty premature.

I'm not saying people are happy with the current version. I'm saying they're advocating for multiclassing via feats only. You've spent much more time than in me on these forums, I'm sure you've seen the posts I'm referring to.

All that is to say: I hope people truly get the game they want when it comes to PF2e. I'm just concerned the game I want won't be compatible with the game the wider population wants. And saying "it's just a playtest, don't worry about it" isn't exactly reassuring when we don't know what the wider playerbase actually wants.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
All that is to say: I hope people truly get the game they want when it comes to PF2e. I'm just concerned the game I want won't be compatible with the game the wider population wants. And saying "it's just a playtest, don't worry about it" isn't exactly reassuring when we don't know what the wider playerbase actually wants.

Sounds like you just really love 1e. What exactly is the problem with that? Personally I've gotten pretty bored of the 3.5 system in general, and have started picking apart and house ruling a lot of the problems with it in my own games. 2e is a breath of fresh air, and I would hate for it to be so similar to 3.5 that I'm still feeling the same way about it.

1e has enough content to last a life time. So many adventure paths, so many builds, and I'm sure there will probably still be 3rd party content coming out even into 2e's lifespan. If you are in love with 1e, then have fun with it man. Why would you want a second version of 1e if you love the first one?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
My point is that resonance isn't taking any brainspace or on my radar because I see it as a foregone conclusion that it won't survive the playtest. I do acknoweldge that will change and it will probably be the biggest change we see. But when I discuss changes (or the lack thereof) I'm excluding that from my statements.

Okay. Just clarifying my own point.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Either it's reasonable to call them window dressing or it's not.

I can consider it a reasonable position to hold without agreeing with it. I disagree that my issues are window dressing, but consider the idea that they are a reasonable position for you to hold given your different priorities.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Either way, with the exception of resonance which I think it's quite clear will not make it into PF2e in anything resembling it's current form, I do not see any meaningful changes coming to PF2e as a result of the playtest if the vocal happy people end up being representative of the wider population.

This is probably true, at least in regards to the changes you seem to desire.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Yup. Which I consider a bad thing. Homogenising casters to all have the exact same spell progression isn't an improvement towards customisation or wider options. And yet it's exactly what we're going to get in PF2e which is making my enthusiasm for PF2e drop quite a bit.

I'm not sure I agree. Spell Point casting is pretty flexible and the varying numbers of spells per level and spells known they're playing with, as well as the varying cantrip stuff (there's a minimum 14th level Bard Cantrip), allow a lot of versatility. It doesn't really add customization, but it simplifies things, and I'm not sure it removes much in the way of customization either. The options are definitely different, but I'm not at all sure there are less of them.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'm confused by your confusion. You know how skills work in PF1e. You know I'm a fan of PF1e. You know skills won't work like that in PF2e. Why is it so confusing that I might not like how skills work in PF2e?

Because you didn't say 'I want skills to work like PF1'? You said you want to choose which ones advance. Which is a thing that does exist in PF2.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
By adding in a keyword there you get to redefine the argument to make it sound like I'm advocating for something that's already being done. You might see assigning skill ranks each level as not meaningful. I respectfully disagree.

Um...you said you wanted to pick which skills to advance, which is in fact a thing PF2 allows. The fact that you clearly want the ability to completely ditch a skill to the point of uselessness ala PF1 (which, for the record, I feel is a totally reasonable thing to want in a game) is now clear, but it wasn't inherently obvious from your original post.

So I wasn't redefining anything. I was responding to what you actually said rather than what you meant. I'm not a mind reader and if we've discussed the skills thing before I'm honestly not recalling details. We've talked about a lot of stuff, but I don't recall a Skill discussion specifically, which might well just be because someone else was more memorable in said discussion, but remains true.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
SUre. But my standard isn't set at 4e or 5e. If it was, I'd be playing those games. My standard is set at PF1e and this is a substantial step backwards.

For me, there's a minimum level of skill customization I require to be happy. 4E and 5E do not meet it, but PF2 does. If it doesn't meet yours, that's unfortunate, but it's not nonexistent, which is what you seemed to be saying.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
And yet we still have people cheerleading VMC-only multiclassing. I expect once the full multiclassing rules are revealed and it's revealed to largely be multiclassing via feats we'll see an even larger group of people jump on board and call it the best thing since sliced bread.

If that happens, I agree many people will support it. I might even do so, depending on how it works. I was just saying we don't know that this is how things will work out.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'm not saying people are happy with the current version. I'm saying they're advocating for multiclassing via feats only. You've spent much more time than in me on these forums, I'm sure you've seen the posts I'm referring to.

Sure, but I'm in no way convinced that they're correct that this is how it's gonna work. Indeed, I have absolutely no clue how multiclassing will work in PF2.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
All that is to say: I hope people truly get the game they want when it comes to PF2e. I'm just concerned the game I want won't be compatible with the game the wider population wants. And saying "it's just a playtest, don't worry about it" isn't exactly reassuring when we don't know what the wider playerbase actually wants.

Totally. You may well not get the game you want. But I was just clarifying that, while that's true, I don't feel that it means the game isn't gonna change quite a bit. It just might not be in ways that you in particular want.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Because you didn't say 'I want skills to work like PF1'? You said you want to choose which ones advance. Which is a thing that does exist in PF2.

That's not really true. All skills advance no matter what you want. Now you can advance the skills modifier, but that's not the same thing: it's like saying you advanced your diplomacy in pathfinder classic by taking a trait that gives a +1 bonus; you've improved the numbers but the skill hasn't been advanced.

Dire Ursus wrote:
Sounds like you just really love 1e. What exactly is the problem with that?

Some acknowledge that pathfinder had issues that could have used a rework: as such, a much more satisfying outcome for them is fixing the problems instead of throwing out the bad AND good and starting from scratch.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Because you didn't say 'I want skills to work like PF1'? You said you want to choose which ones advance. Which is a thing that does exist in PF2.
That's not really true. All skills advance no matter what you want. Now you can advance the skills modifier, but that's not the same thing: it's like saying you advanced your diplomacy in pathfinder classic by taking a trait that gives a +1 bonus; you've improved the numbers but the skill hasn't been advanced.

I'd invert that. The level up bonus is like raising an ability in PF1, it raises skills but only incidentally. Meanwhile, raising your Proficiency is a direct investment of a skill point which cannot be used for anything else.

graystone wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Sounds like you just really love 1e. What exactly is the problem with that?
Some acknowledge that pathfinder had issues that could have used a rework: as such, a much more satisfying outcome for them is fixing the problems instead of throwing out the bad AND good and starting from scratch.

'Some?' I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that PF1 has serious issues. The disagreements are in how well PF2 solves each person's particular problems.

But yeah, PF2 not being to your specific tastes sucks. It's inevitable that it will happen to somebody because people have very different tastes in games, but it still really sucks.


Dire Ursus wrote:
Gavmania wrote:


I for one would be very disappointed in this. If I multi-class out of a class, it's because I no longer want anything out of it. I don't want to be locked in to that classes proficiency progression while I pick up some of the basic features of another class. What I really want is to be able to pick up some of the class feats of the new class, but without the basic features, that's not going to be possible.
I really think most players do not agree with this. Isn't multiclassing more about trying to mix and match and find the coolest combination? I never thought of it as just dropping my last class and then using another class.

Well, I would argue that dropping one class to pursue another is mixing and matching.

Quote:
The biggest complaint and problem with multiclassing is when you lose out on spell progression or BAB. The dipping style of multiclassing makes designing classes much harder because you can never give classes something really strong at level 1 or else everyone would want to dip into it. I think a good solution for you who wants to mix and match abilities from every different class would be just to pick a fighter who essentially don't have class features instead gaining more class feats. And then dip those class feats into other dedications.

What makes you think I want to mix and match abilities from every different class? I don't think I have ever played a multiclass with more than 2 classes (except maybe AD&D, and gestalt games). In fact, I am pretty much against the idea of such shenanigans (though I recognise that it might be quite fun in a game organised that way - but I wouldn't even know where I would begin to pull together the fluff for such an eclectic mix).

Granted losing out on spell progression is a pain, and I did originally hope that spell slots would scale with level, not class; but the wizard (and the cleric) getting auto-heightening, and the sorcerer getting spontaneous heightening, made me think it would be too powerful and then I started looking closely at what it would mean if they didn't get extra spell slots after switching. Because the DCs remain competitive, it would largely be ok. Sure certain spells wouldn't scale (e.g. Fireball), but most likely you wouldn't be using them unless you were making a blaster build (i.e. a pure caster). Most spells would be scaleable to the point where you can get some utility out of them, and cantrips would still be pretty nifty.

Quote:

Multiclassing should have a cost to make it balanced. Or else what even would be the point of having different classes? If you have to spend an extra feat to get a class feat you want from a different class, I think that's a fair trade off, and will make multiclass less of: "oh i have to dip into these 5 different classes to make this build work" which I hated about 1e.

And now full spellcasters will be able to multiclass! Woohoo. Multiclassing for everyone!

We agree that Multiclassing should have a cost, but to me the idea of spending a feat to get a class feat from another class is nonsense; those class feats almost certainly reference a class feature that you don't have; so first I would have to spend a feat to get a class feature, then (two levels later) I could get that class feat. In other words, it would take me 2 class feats and 3 levels to get what the other class gets at first level. that's (nearly) 20% of my class feats tied up to get one class feat. That's too high a cost, IMHO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Sounds like you just really love 1e. What exactly is the problem with that?

It's great, it really allows customised characters with flavour defining mechanics. But it's also imbalanced and annoyingly requires the Big Six to function. There are ways to fix it without going nuclear. I feel that PF2e (much like 4e before it) is going with the nuclear option.

Dire Ursus wrote:
1e has enough content to last a life time. So many adventure paths

Alas that is not true.

Dire Ursus wrote:
Why would you want a second version of 1e if you love the first one?

I actually started out on the playtest really, really happy that we were getting second edition. I reassured people that Paizo wouldn't throw everything out and start from scratch and we'd see an iterative approach to PF2e that mirrored the move from 3.5e to PF1e. It's quite clear I was wrong.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Because you didn't say 'I want skills to work like PF1'? You said you want to choose which ones advance. Which is a thing that does exist in PF2.

All skills advance in PF2e, some just advance more than others. So no, I don't get to choose which ones advance. You can play as many word games as you want (calling it ditching skills, your rephrasing the situation in your reply to graystone), however I don't agree with your redefinition of the situation.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Sure, but I'm in no way convinced that they're correct that this is how it's gonna work.

They won't be incorrect because they're not saying that's what we'll get, they're saying they HOPE that's what we get.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Meanwhile, raising your Proficiency is a direct investment of a skill point which cannot be used for anything else.

It's a matter of perspective on what you think advancing the skill means. If you think of it as raising it's rank, that's no longer a thing as they all are raised the same. If you think of it as total modifiers, then proficiency counts.

Myself, I don't really have a dog in this fight yet: I'm leaning towards not liking it but it's got enough moving parts that I want to see the whole thing first. I can just understand where John Lynch is coming from.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
'Some?' I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that PF1 has serious issues. The disagreements are in how well PF2 solves each person's particular problems.

I'm not going to talk in absolutes. There are always statistical anomalies and I'm sure I could find someone that had no major issues with pathfinder.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
But yeah, PF2 not being to your specific tastes sucks. It's inevitable that it will happen to somebody because people have very different tastes in games, but it still really sucks.

it's a little more complicated than that. Since they started from whole cloth, there is plenty of room for both aspects to match your preference and some that don't. Even when something isn't bad, it can be annoying when it seems like it's trying to reinvent the wheel and you think the old wheel worked fine: change for change sake, like 'emoji' instead of letters, numbers or words...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

Yeah, different characters at different experience levels and more importantly, power levels depending on if/when/how they multi-classed is a terrible idea. Thats a huge balancing act that is very difficult to manage, generally some will fall way behind or skip well ahead.

It's pretty much completely non-viable with the goal of keeping the math and bonuses in step.

You would've hated 1st edition DnD then. lol.

As to the OP's topic:
What I would like: I don't see a problem with the current multi-class system, so keep it as is. casters having to give up "precious" spell levels to get other stuff has never been a problem for me (as a DM or player).

What do I expect: since EVERYTHING in 2.0 seems to be based on/around feats, I expect multi-classing to work very similar to VMC from 1.0... only worse. I say worse because, you'll likely not be able to grab other class feats with your general feats, but will have to give up your limited class feats to do so, thus diluting your original class in the process. VMC in 1.0 is a pretty weak option, but at least you don't have to give up your original class features to do it.

What do I know: thusfar, nothing except that it exists in some form in 2.0. Like most of 2.0, I'm hoping for the best while expecting the worst.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
All skills advance in PF2e, some just advance more than others. So no, I don't get to choose which ones advance. You can play as many word games as you want (calling it ditching skills, your rephrasing the situation in your reply to graystone), however I don't agree with your redefinition of the situation.

I'd appreciate you not saying that I'm 'playing word games'. That implies intentional obfuscation, which is not what I'm doing at all.

Our definitions of 'choose what skills to advance' clearly don't agree, but I'm not trying to make the situation look different than it is, I was just unaware of your definition in my original response, and thus used my own. That was an error, clearly, but it was an honest one.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
They won't be incorrect because they're not saying that's what we'll get, they're saying they HOPE that's what we get.

True. But my point was that we are currently unclear what multiclassing will look like, so I don't think anyone should make assumptions in that regard.

graystone wrote:

It's a matter of perspective on what you think advancing the skill means. If you think of it as raising it's rank, that's no longer a thing as they all are raised the same. If you think of it as total modifiers, then proficiency counts.

Myself, I don't really have a dog in this fight yet: I'm leaning towards not liking it but it's got enough moving parts that I want to see the whole thing first. I can just understand where John Lynch is coming from.

Oh, so do I. I disagree but understand. I just wasn't clear on where he was coming from in his first post and things snowballed a bit...

graystone wrote:
I'm not going to talk in absolutes. There are always statistical anomalies and I'm sure I could find someone that had no major issues with pathfinder.

Fair enough. I suspect that people who feel it has issues are in the vast majority, though.

graystone wrote:
it's a little more complicated than that. Since they started from whole cloth, there is plenty of room for both aspects to match your preference and some that don't. Even when something isn't bad, it can be annoying when it seems like it's trying to reinvent the wheel and you think the old wheel worked fine: change for change sake, like 'emoji' instead of letters, numbers or words...

Sure, but for some people it clearly doesn't match their preferences at all, and they have my sympathy. Which was sort of my whole point.

201 to 250 of 501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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