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


Prerelease Discussion

301 to 350 of 501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Hmm. So on the downsides, I'd probably have to take sneak attack on an alchemist rogue, buuuuut, the skill feat progression might work out pretty good.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also it looks like Finesse Striker is locked to Classed-Rogues only. Which if true is unlikely to survive my first pass of house-ruling. I've already waited one decade for Paizo to make the ability reasonably available (or else remove it entirely as being just as stupid as still using Str mod for accuracy in melee); I'm not waiting another.


I'm curious about Spell Points, it was emphasized how this was "universal" pool for many class' magical abilities.

Some classes need certain Class Feats to gain Spell Point pool at all, and advance them with more powers/points, but others automatically get them at least at baseline level. But if you already have Spell Point pool from your base class (whether automatically, or "buying" the Feat granting the Point Pool), I wonder if you would be "exempt" from the normal Introductory Spell Point Feat of the Class Archetype, and could just start picking from it's follow on Spell Point Power Feats? (adding points to pool as normal for Point Power Feats, limited by apparent 1/2 character level qualification for Archetype Class Feats)

In other words, is the pre-req for follow-on Spell Point Power Feats simply "have Spell Point Pool" or "have XYZ Class Spell Point Pool-Granting intro Feat"? Strictly speaking, it doesn't have to be one consistent rule for all classes (after all, some classes get this pool automatically, and others have to spend a Feat), but I expect it would be barring specific reason to contrary.

EDIT: Obviously if you take an Archetype of Class that gets Spell Point Pool automatically, there is no normal Class Feat to gain Point Pool for that class, and it's Power Feats wouldn't have that as a Pre-Req. If you already have Point Pool from your base class (automatic/Feat) that probably is enough for this case (although the class' Point Powers could have class ability as Pre-Req), but if you didn't already have one it would seem the Point Pool needs to be part of Class Archetype Dedication Feat or special Feat in Archetype chain exactly to gain a Pool.


I suspect Spell Points will be like Grit/Panache, such that you can use them for any Power, but it will be impossible to acquire multiple pools of it or apply multiple stats to its total.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
I suspect Spell Points will be like Grit/Panache, such that you can use them for any Power, but it will be impossible to acquire multiple pools of it or apply multiple stats to its total.

We know that a lot of feats that give new uses of spell points also grant bonus spell points so I'd guess that a multiclass ability will read something like gain a spell pool or if you have one increase the pool by X.


Well, I am a bit disappointed that I can't give up one class completely to get another class completely, but I can work with this. It doesn't seem too overpowered if it costs 4 feats to get 8th level spells (though for that I would like to have gotten as many spells/level as a pure caster; I'm already giving up a spell level and 4 feats, I should get more out of it). I hope that I can get access to (at least some) of the class feats, too.


Cantriped wrote:
... just as stupid as still using Str mod for accuracy in melee...

I'm sorry, but as a real world user of many different weapons, str is no less important to hitting a target than dex.

With low str, your attacks are slower, giving the enemy more chance to dodge/deflect/block, and you also get drawn out of position more as it is harder to stop/redirect a weapon's momentum, making it slower between attacks and giving an enemy more chance to reposition themself to deflect/counter your next strike.

Quite honestly, dex as imagined in d20 as agility, is more like a combo of str and precision and flexibility. Which ends up making anything related to dex as being odd. Acrobatics for example, requires a great deal of strength, flexibility, and precision.

Thus, str makes sense for to-hit modifiers, but so does dex.

Dex would even make sense as a stat derived from str (and other things).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate the multiclassing. The only value is balance, and as I've said before, if balance makes a difference at your table, then I'm not particularly interested in being at your table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh, VMC style what a bunch of sh!t snacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm very skeptical of this at first glance... it feels a lot like 4e "multiclassing." It does look like it'll make combining multiple caster classes somewhat viable, though, and I find that intriguing. I will have to encourage my players to try it out during the playtest.


Thebazilly wrote:
It does look like it'll make combining multiple caster classes somewhat viable

Caster/Caster was my thought as well, with new stat advancement system helping when they use different casting stats. Of course, spell slots are no more powerful than spell point powers, and the point pool doesn't get any larger, so the total spell slots gained isn't overwhelming... We could even gather that single-class focus builds could gain similar extra slots in own casting style by same measure of balance. (multiclassers could pick up the lower level versions of these too, but at that point they would miss out on much besides slots)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

3.5 multiclassing was the biggest thing I liked about Pathfinder and once I got accustomed to it I hated 4e's method as shallow and uninspiring. I of course saw this coming a mile away largely because if you want to predict a mechanic in PF2e you'll be right more often then wrong if you go with the way 4e did something.

Not surprised to see such positive reactions to the reveal though. I expect my playtestkng is going to be quite limited due to a high dislike for the rules from my group which unfortunately means my contributions will be limited. Probably going to bow out until August now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

3.5 multiclassing was the biggest thing I liked about Pathfinder and once I got accustomed to it I hated 4e's method as shallow and uninspiring. I of course saw this coming a mile away largely because if you want to predict a mechanic in PF2e you'll be right more often then wrong if you go with the way 4e did something.

Not surprised to see such positive reactions to the reveal though. I expect my playtestkng is going to be quite limited due to a high dislike for the rules from my group which unfortunately means my contributions will be limited. Probably going to bow out until August now.

Well. See ya if so.

Have fun if applicable while testing, else have fun playing other games.


I'm happy about this. I hoped that Multiclassing would become more like VMC. So, cool.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
... just as stupid as still using Str mod for accuracy in melee...
I'm sorry, but as a real world user of many different weapons, str is no less important to hitting a target than dex.

As a fellow real-world, trained, weapons-user, I disagree. However realism is irrelevent here as the underlying mechanics aren't realistic to start with. In reality there isn't much distinquishing what D&D calls Strength and Dexterity. A real person's Str and Dex are generally within 2 points of one another; close enough the average person cannot tell which stat is affecting which of his statistics without a copy of their own sheet to reference; ergo why two 'Fighters' (you and I) can disagree on something so 'obvious' to us. Similarly almost every skill attributed to either Strength or Dexterity realistically requires some of both statistics (pkus is affected by Constitution) in the real world.

Climbing for example; requires enough Strength to lift yourself, enough constitution to do it over and over, and enough Dexterity to balance yourself in unusual positions to find hand/foot holds.

Attacking with a sword for example; requires enough strength to lift the weapon, and strike with enough force to penetrate the enemy's armor (as opposed to being deflected), enough constitution to do it over and over, as well as enough Dexterity (swiftness and hand-eye-coordination) to hit despite the enemy dodging every blow they can.

As an design note;
Rolemaster has rules for using the average of two modifiers for skills. For example, melee attacks use somethimg like [(Str+Str+Dex)/3] to calculate their modifiers (so strength has the most weight, but dex applies too). They are finicky and it would always have been better to use one-stat instead (because of lost bonuses due to usually averaging an exceptional stat with a less exceptional one).
Hero System has always used Dexterity for determining accuracy and evasion (with/from all attacks), Strength only affects Damage/Effect and Lift capacity (also used to maintain a Grab/Grapple). However to be fair, the system also handles Armor very differently. Armor in Hero generally only provides Damage Reduction, not Armor Class (aka deflection). While shields only provide Deflection and bonuses to Block; which is a standard combat maneuver that basically works like Opportune Parry, sans Reposte). So in that system, none 0f the justifications for Strength affecting accuracy apply.


Weapons and Armor should have min str, not to the point where youre useless without the min, but to the point where heavier weapons and armor are far better when used by strong people.

The chaining rule of armor giving AC is probably the weakest point of all systems and should have been banned since 3.0 release.


Endurance, doing something over and over, is easily distinguishable.

You would not be trying to penetrate armor though. You'd be try to get around it.

Once full plate became a thing, a fight was more about knocking your enemy over and pinning them so you could slide a dagger up between the plates and from there either gain their submission or kill them.

Strength is also essential to maintaining swiftness when needing to apply more and more force.

This is actually what makes a katana superior to longswords. The katana's sharpness allows it to be effective with less force and thus less strength needs to be applied. This allows shorter strokes making it faster while being just as deadly and also without opening your guard as much.


But that difficult of really penetrating armor is what makes armor better against chaotic battles (war) where sometimes you receive blows from unexpected directions and made most of the fencing world abandon it when personal combat, close quartes, controled urban enviroment, battles became the norm (renaiscence). On the eastern part, why samurai uses armor only in battles, never in duels.

Thats why i love system that uses armor as damage reduction. It gives the developers much more space to diversify weapons, making some better against armor, some better against bare skin.


RafaelBraga wrote:

Weapons and Armor should have min str, not to the point where youre useless without the min, but to the point where heavier weapons and armor are far better when used by strong people.

The chaining rule of armor giving AC is probably the weakest point of all systems and should have been banned since 3.0 release.

Ninja'd

Min str should not be a thing, especially not for armor.

I have a really low str in the real world. I can not even bench press 45 lbs for a full set of 10 presses. Full plate is still quite easy for me to move around in.

Further, having a low strength makes you less effective with larger weapons, but it isn't like weapons are ever heavy enough to be unusable by a weakling.

Technique can also make a difference. I can't benchpress 45lbs, yet I used a 53lb busterblade in mock combat 1 against 3 (me being the 1) and won the battle (taking the last two opponants literally with a hand tied behind my back).

So strength is a massive help, but lack of strength can be overcome.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

ugh..... So not only is archetypes in 2e unable to do the primary purpose of archetypes, I can't even have a character change from being one class to another anymore, you're locked into your advancing your first level class regardless of how illogical that is for some characters.....


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
So, once a rogue always a rogue? And there it dies all my hype.

I guess we could extend the new, extremely generous, retraining rules to include "class levels"...

But generally I feel like you sign up to play a class at level 1 because you wanted to play that class, and not a different class. So even if you want to become a magic rogue, you still wanted to be a rogue to begin with. So if you simply do not want to be a rogue anymore, why couldn't we handle this with "make a different character"?

Since "I decided I don't want to play that character anymore" was never a problem for multiclassing to solve.


RafaelBraga wrote:

But that difficult of really penetrating armor is what makes armor better against chaotic battles (war) where sometimes you receive blows from unexpected directions and made most of the fencing world abandon it when personal combat, close quartes, controled urban enviroment, battles became the norm (renaiscence). On the eastern part, why samurai uses armor only in battles, never in duels.

Thats why i love system that uses armor as damage reduction. It gives the developers much more space to diversify weapons, making some better against armor, some better against bare skin.

Actually, this is not entirely correct.

Armor is just a shield weilded without hands.

Armor is hot, and heat has a massive impact on endurance. This is why some cultures actually did not use armor at all, even fighting naked, as that allowed them to outlast their armored opponants.

So, people did not normally go around wearing armor, and duels were usually not fought with armor, but weight and penetration were not the issues.

As for samurai, the advantages of the katana meant that flexibility was more important than it was in european combat, and flexibility is something that really is hindered by armor (though not as much as people seem to believe in common culture).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
So, once a rogue always a rogue? And there it dies all my hype.

I guess we could extend the new, extremely generous, retraining rules to include "class levels"...

But generally I feel like you sign up to play a class at level 1 because you wanted to play that class, and not a different class. So even if you want to become a magic rogue, you still wanted to be a rogue to begin with. So if you simply do not want to be a rogue anymore, why couldn't we handle this with "make a different character"?

They'll probably be able to retrain secondary classes though, I guess?

As an aside, magic rogue actually sounds like a really good multiclass IMO?
Rogues are mostly riding on their bonus skills and skill feats anyway, so a Rogue/Wizard with things like Knock could probably be pretty cool.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
So, once a rogue always a rogue? And there it dies all my hype.

I guess we could extend the new, extremely generous, retraining rules to include "class levels"...

But generally I feel like you sign up to play a class at level 1 because you wanted to play that class, and not a different class. So even if you want to become a magic rogue, you still wanted to be a rogue to begin with. So if you simply do not want to be a rogue anymore, why couldn't we handle this with "make a different character"?

The one situation where I see a valid complaint here is if the reason you left a prior class was ideological. For instance, if your rogue abandons his life of crime to become a paladin or monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
So, once a rogue always a rogue? And there it dies all my hype.

I guess we could extend the new, extremely generous, retraining rules to include "class levels"...

But generally I feel like you sign up to play a class at level 1 because you wanted to play that class, and not a different class. So even if you want to become a magic rogue, you still wanted to be a rogue to begin with. So if you simply do not want to be a rogue anymore, why couldn't we handle this with "make a different character"?

Since "I decided I don't want to play that character anymore" was never a problem for multiclassing to solve.

I don't plan characters out, and I have literally had characters change direction mid-campaign.

For example, I had a religious halfling that was monk/sorcerer (more half and half at this point). Events happened and she switched to being a cleric as part of reaffirming her faith and seeking to be strong for others.

Edit, to me class is more about representing character, not being a thing I want to play.


Elleth wrote:


They'll probably be able to retrain secondary classes though, I guess?
As an aside, magic rogue actually sounds like a really good multiclass IMO?

Actually, just to expand on this.

Daze, Shield, Mage Armour, Knock are all things I'd absolutely love to play a PF2 rogue with. Maybe round it all out with a couple of illusions.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
So, once a rogue always a rogue? And there it dies all my hype.

I guess we could extend the new, extremely generous, retraining rules to include "class levels"...

But generally I feel like you sign up to play a class at level 1 because you wanted to play that class, and not a different class. So even if you want to become a magic rogue, you still wanted to be a rogue to begin with. So if you simply do not want to be a rogue anymore, why couldn't we handle this with "make a different character"?

The one situation where I see a valid complaint here is if the reason you left a prior class was ideological. For instance, if your rogue abandons his life of crime to become a paladin or monk.

I imagine we'll do an archetype for ex-paladins, ex-druids, and ex-clerics like in that one Player Companion. I feel like the other way around is kind of different though, since even if you're a Paladin now, it's not like you forgot how how to shiv someone in the kidneys or pick locks or creep around- you're just oathbound not to do those things without good reasons.

I feel like "[x-class] in service to a deity" multiclassing as clerics makes a lot of in-universe sense, since it was always weird when books had things like "Torag's worshippers include s cavaliers, fighters, gunslingers, hunters, monks, occultists, paladins, rangers, shamans, skalds, and spiritualists" as though Torag wouldn't have any use for a Wizard, or a Samurai, or a Geokineticist or something. In particular deities which have large organizations are going to need a diverse set of skills in their flock. Like "Alchemists" aren't limited as worshippers of Iomedae, but assuredly she can find a use for someone who can mix a potion.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
So, once a rogue always a rogue? And there it dies all my hype.

I guess we could extend the new, extremely generous, retraining rules to include "class levels"...

But generally I feel like you sign up to play a class at level 1 because you wanted to play that class, and not a different class. So even if you want to become a magic rogue, you still wanted to be a rogue to begin with. So if you simply do not want to be a rogue anymore, why couldn't we handle this with "make a different character"?

The one situation where I see a valid complaint here is if the reason you left a prior class was ideological. For instance, if your rogue abandons his life of crime to become a paladin or monk.

I imagine we'll do an archetype for ex-paladins, ex-druids, and ex-clerics like in that one Player Companion. I feel like the other way around is kind of different though, since even if you're a Paladin now, it's not like you forgot how how to shiv someone in the kidneys or pick locks or creep around- you're just oathbound not to do those things without good reasons.

I feel like "[x-class] in service to a deity" multiclassing as clerics makes a lot of in-universe sense, since it was always weird when books had things like "Torag's worshippers include s cavaliers, fighters, gunslingers, hunters, monks, occultists, paladins, rangers, shamans, skalds, and spiritualists" as though Torag wouldn't have any use for a Wizard, or a Samurai, or a Geokineticist or something. In particular deities which have large organizations are going to need a diverse set of skills in their flock. Like "Alchemists" aren't limited as worshippers of Iomedae, but assuredly she can find a use for someone who can mix a potion.

I don't disagree that this is a great option, but how much sense does it make that Sir Rey Pentence is continuing to improve in his ability to shiv people, at the expense of his religious training? It could make sense for some characters to act that way, but not all will.

This is a minor nit-pick with the new system. Overall, it's an improvement in my view. I'll put it this way: I never, ever multi-classes in PF1, and now I'm interested in trying it out in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Try flipping it. How much practice does the cleric get shivving people, now that he spends his time running a church?

Think Bishop from Firefly/Serenity.


I feel like mostly despite your new holy life, you nonethless acquire perspective and training that, on reflection, you realize could be really helpful when shivving someone.

Like as a Paladin you learn a lot about armor, and learning where the weak points in armor are (so you can defend yourself) is also pretty handy when it comes to wanting to exploit those weak spots in others.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:


Actually, this is not entirely correct.

Armor is just a shield weilded without hands.

Armor is hot, and heat has a massive impact on endurance. This is why some cultures actually did not use armor at all, even fighting naked, as that allowed them to outlast their armored opponants.

So, people did not normally go around wearing armor, and duels were usually not fought with armor, but weight and penetration were not the issues.

As for samurai, the advantages of the katana meant that flexibility was more important than it was in european combat, and flexibility is something that really is hindered by armor (though not as much as people seem to believe in common culture).

I know dude, you have some valid points, the thing is "GAMERING" those aspects.

Your bench press example. I recently came from a bad health condition, prior to this i for sure had an above "average internet nerd" physical conditioning. After recoverying i though i was going to lose lots of my strength and after some training it seems i lost most endurance, and very few actual strength. "Endurance" is a very hard thing to rule in tabletop and far easier on a computer game where the cpu take note for you. That said, back on armor:

Almost everyone can wear a 45lbs armor, specially if it is custom made for the user to fit the body well. Most of the people will give 3 steps and collapse from lack of oxygenation. Thats where training and physical atributes (be strength or constitution) comes into play.

Weapons i disagree a little more. I've had the chance to do a little training both with a Katana and a spanish longsword. The katana for sure in more "user friendly" on the weight aspect, requering more training than strength to proper use, but the longsword, despite being awesome in its own right, is a lot heavier and put much more strain on your hand and wrist ligaments. Of course training will offset it by a LOT (i had much more training with the Katana than with the Longsword) but you will naturally develop strength by training with it. A skilled 2 handed sword fighter uses a lot of leverage from the body movement to swing the sword better and faster, but for sure that movement in very athletic and he will develop some level of strength by practicing it.

Thats why, for rules and simplicity sake, both weapon and armor should have a minimun strength where when met offset the penalties (or gives the least possible penalty)... and maybe the fighter weapon and armor training class feature is added to the character stat for purpose of reaching this minimuns.

Exact numbers? That would be a world of brainstorming, thinkering and testing to reach numbers there are "fair", balanced and even if not perfect, close enough to give the feel of heavy weapons and armors :)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First glance looks like casters will be the popular dips in PF2 that fighter and rogue were in PF1.


@RafaelBraga

I thought at first you meant to disallow those below the minimum.

But if just penalties, don't make them penalties.

For an example why, look at WoW and when they first started the rest xp bonus thing.

At first, they started with a penalty. Everyone hated it. Then they flipped it, keeping the math and outcome the same, they simply switched to having a bonus instead, by setting the norm to be what the penalty would have resulted in, then adding a bonus equal to the original penalty that applied whenever the penalty would not apply.

Everyone loved it and yet the result is the same.

The same effect was found in the medical field.
Present a patientwith two options,
A) 3% chance of dying
B) 97% chance of surviving

Overwhelmingly people chose B over A even though they have the same result.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Since "I decided I don't want to play that character anymore" was never a problem for multiclassing to solve.

What it did do was allow you to have part of one class and part of another in whatever percentage you wished. We know classes have abilities that aren't feats so the new multiclass doesn't give those out so if those things are what you want, you're out of luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

DEX-to-damage should be a general feat.

Also, it should have major downsides so not every Monk goes DEX-to-damage.


Pan wrote:
First glance looks like casters will be the popular dips in PF2 that fighter and rogue were in PF1.

I feel like the issue is going to be the "need to have a 16" for a lot of these. Since qualifying to be a caster as your 2nd class at level 6 is going to require Wis, Int, or Cha to be your at worst your 3rd highest attribute score. So it's going to be tricky to be a fighter who goes into wizardry, but a monk+druid or a paladin+bard/sorcerer seem doable.

graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Since "I decided I don't want to play that character anymore" was never a problem for multiclassing to solve.
What it did do was allow you to have part of one class and part of another in whatever percentage you wished. We know classes have abilities that aren't feats so the new multiclass doesn't give those out so if those things are what you want, you're out of luck.

But it always felt really gamey to me to have someone who started as a fighter (for proficiencies, or an extra BAB) to just decide to stop practicing their fighter stuff and completely giving up on that part of their life and that training because they became a Magus or something.

It feels like if you're an A who becomes a B, there's no reason to neglect your training in either, provided it's useful to you (and all class abilities *should* be useful at least some of the time.)

Sovereign Court

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Pan wrote:
First glance looks like casters will be the popular dips in PF2 that fighter and rogue were in PF1.
I feel like the issue is going to be the "need to have a 16" for a lot of these. Since qualifying to be a caster as your 2nd class at level 6 is going to require Wis, Int, or Cha to be your at worst your 3rd highest attribute score. So it's going to be tricky to be a fighter who goes into wizardry, but a monk+druid or a paladin+bard/sorcerer seem doable.

Not as tricky as you think with additional stat bumps. Probably a lot of MC going on at level 5.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I expect my playtestkng is going to be quite limited due to a high dislike for the rules from my group which unfortunately means my contributions will be limited. Probably going to bow out until August now.

With all due respect, i’m sure it won’t have anything to do with your own preconceived notions.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

@RafaelBraga

I thought at first you meant to disallow those below the minimum.

But if just penalties, don't make them penalties.

For an example why, look at WoW and when they first started the rest xp bonus thing.

At first, they started with a penalty. Everyone hated it. Then they flipped it, keeping the math and outcome the same, they simply switched to having a bonus instead, by setting the norm to be what the penalty would have resulted in, then adding a bonus equal to the original penalty that applied whenever the penalty would not apply.

Everyone loved it and yet the result is the same.

The same effect was found in the medical field.
Present a patientwith two options,
A) 3% chance of dying
B) 97% chance of surviving

Overwhelmingly people chose B over A even though they have the same result.

Maybe its just me, cause i understand very well the principle youre using and its impact in psychology, but i prefer game system where classes, traits, perks, and so on, lessen a penalty instead of giving a bonus, cause lessing a penalty to me sounds like you still can do the other action and that action maybe better sometimes, then when you give a bonus, seems like youre better doing this "everytime".

A practical example:

Lets say youre playing a x-com like game and you have a soldier armer with assault rifle. The soldier isnt very trained and have the options of shotting a single shot, o fire 2 shot in automatic mode at -20.

You may design a feat and say that you have +10 to hit when firing in automatic mode, i am very ok with that, cause it is the same as designing a feat saying that you have only -10 when firing in automatic mode.

Now lets say that untrained you can only fire single shots, and a feat allows you to fire automatic mode for 2 shots without penalty. Ammunitions problem aside, you will ALWYAS want to fire automatic mode, and youre plain better in everyway to someone that doesnt have that feat. Thats a bad system design.

In the armor situation, the only problem i foresee with your "bonus" approach is limiting the bonus to reduce the penalty to "+0", that could create a very clunky grammar just to try to take profit of this psycological thing.

On a side note, that also means ways to give less incentive to use giant-made weapons. A fire-giant will have the bulk, size and strength to wield his greatsword properly, maybe a medium sized barbarian can swing it, but will never be as good as him swinging it without penalty cause of the simple problem of having one less dimension to swing the weapon, no matter how strong you are.


Secret Wizard wrote:

DEX-to-damage should be a general feat.

Also, it should have major downsides so not every Monk goes DEX-to-damage.

What a can of worms I'm sure this will be, but... What about "Half Dex" to damage with a Feat? At least at first. Maybe full Dex could be unlocked automatically at a later level, or with a second feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm responding because I hate "I'm going to have the last word and then run away" tactics. This is the only thread I'm continuing to read at this point and respond to only direct points towards me.

Strachan Fireblade wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I expect my playtestkng is going to be quite limited due to a high dislike for the rules from my group which unfortunately means my contributions will be limited. Probably going to bow out until August now.
With all due respect, i’m sure it won’t have anything to do with your own preconceived notions.

You're welcome to think I'm going to bias my players towards PF2e. I've been very careful not to voice my own thoughts to them and none of them have mentioned reading my posts.

I do want PF2e to be a game that I enjoy. I just know how my group reacts to the rules that have been revealed thus far, because we've already played with them. I want to be able to give as much valued feedback as I can, to do my best to influence the final product in a positive way (for my group).

One exercise I will be doing is recreating as many of my PF1e characters as possible, one of whom is heavily reliant on multiclassing to see how close I can get in an effort to demonstrate how well the new rules will work in allowing the same types of characters to be made.

I will do my best to view the system as positively as possible (and there've been parts I've liked and have praised. Common Grounds blog is the most recent). I'll also do my best to make sure my feedback highlights what works well as well as what works poorly. I just don't have high hopes unfortunately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
But it always felt really gamey to me to have someone who started as a fighter (for proficiencies, or an extra BAB) to just decide to stop practicing their fighter stuff and completely giving up on that part of their life and that training because they became a Magus or something.

For me, it didn't feel "gamey" in the least, especially if we're talking your first level. How hard it is to justify that as your training before you left home? Like some where apprenticed as a cobbler or a seamstress, maybe dad trained you as a fighter. Now that you've gotten out on your own, you get to spread your wings a bit and take on what interests you vs what your family wanted you to be.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
It feels like if you're an A who becomes a B, there's no reason to neglect your training in either, provided it's useful to you (and all class abilities *should* be useful at least some of the time.)

That's not how things work in real life though: if I switch jobs, I at best might keep my skills at the level they were at: they wouldn't advance/improve like the ones I use every day. If I was an aerospace engineer that becomes a car mechanic, it seems odd that working on cars would improve my ability to design rockets.

There is a difference between "neglect your training" and "keep from getting rusty and maintaining the status quo".

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

HOLY S+%! I JUST REALIZED THAT I CAN GIVE MY BARBARIAN WORSHIPER OF GORUM CLERIC STUFF WHILE KEEPING HIS BARBARIAN STUFF I AM DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

If I was an aerospace engineer that becomes a car mechanic, it seems odd that working on cars would improve my ability to design rockets.

There is a difference between "neglect your training" and "keep from getting rusty and maintaining the status quo".

Hey man! As a mechanical engineer myself i have to complain here :P

There is more in common beteween cars and rockets than you could imagine :P :P :P

I dont want to enter on your discussion since i am already participating in like 5 at the same time and i will be overbeared very soon :P

But your example was in fact something that demonstrate that increasing one skill can in fact have a benefitial increase across your overall knowledge, specially if your approach to that field is very open... for example, if you as a rocket scientist do finite-element analyses to the stress of the fuel tanks in the rockets, the knowledge is VERY similar to doing the same to a car chassis frame during a stress test (my "specialization" is hard mechanics, but i am only beginning). So you could be more related than another mechanic aerospace engineer who works on the pump problems of the rocked (which also has a very good similar role in a mechanic specialized in car pumps).

Just to defend my profession, we mechanic engineers are broad area generalists with some specializations here and there :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This just killed my interest in PF2, if it survives the playtest.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
This just killed my interest in PF2, if it survives the playtest.

I don't really understand this at all. One feature, no matter how much I dislike it, shouldn't be enough to completely kill my interest in the game. Like if Paizo were to devote a whole chapter in the CRB to personally insulting me in great detail and at length, that wouldn't kill my interest, though I would question why this is a valid use of space.

Like the number of multiclassed PF1 characters I've played can be counted on one hand. Multiclassing isn't *that* important.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
HOLY S#%# I JUST REALIZED THAT I CAN GIVE MY BARBARIAN WORSHIPER OF GORUM CLERIC STUFF WHILE KEEPING HIS BARBARIAN STUFF I AM DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY!

I kinda suspect this is what Mark is talking about when he mentions the party barbarian being the group healer. I think he mentioned that the barbarian had "a borderline unhealthy relationship with Gorum", or somesuch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand the appeal of level-by-level multi-classing. It allows character growth to be more fluid and dynamic. However, given the constraints of what Pathfinder is, it has a number of issues that I'm not convinced is entirely fixable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
necromental wrote:
This just killed my interest in PF2, if it survives the playtest.

I don't really understand this at all. One feature, no matter how much I dislike it, shouldn't be enough to completely kill my interest in the game. Like if Paizo were to devote a whole chapter in the CRB to personally insulting me in great detail and at length, that wouldn't kill my interest, though I would question why this is a valid use of space.

Like the number of multiclassed PF1 characters I've played can be counted on one hand. Multiclassing isn't *that* important.

To me multiclass is also a very important core aspect of the game.

Its on the level of bonded acuracy, or saving throws... a main aspect of the game.

301 to 350 of 501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Multi-classing: what would we like, what can we expect and what do we know? All Messageboards