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


Prerelease Discussion

401 to 450 of 501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:

Yah traditional multi-classing has this problem where for a lot of character concepts it is bad except for a few if you have system mastery you can pick out the best combos and make it overpowered. The archetype based multi-classing solves both of those issues.

It doesn't let you completely change course though which is a bit unfortunate. Some of that could be addressed through the retraining rules though.

It would be cool if the retraining rules discounted the cost of swapping your main and archetype classes.

Liberty's Edge

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

I dislike the new multiclassing and I dislike how we got the info. Ain't life great ?

In PF1 and earlier my main uses for multiclassing was to create a character that none of the classes available could fit on its own, or to mirror the career change that a character underwent for RP reasons

My best example for the latter was a Ranger becoming a Paladin at 8th level for ... reasons

This required negotiating some rebuilding with the GM because my original build pretty much dumped CHA. I was hoping for an easier time of it in PF2 but what was unveiled seems pretty much the opposite

We shall see


The Raven Black wrote:
I dislike the new multiclassing and I dislike how we got the info. Ain't life great ?

Did it not sound like multiclassing can be reached via feats or actual level dipping?


The Raven Black wrote:

I dislike the new multiclassing and I dislike how we got the info. Ain't life great ?

In PF1 and earlier my main uses for multiclassing was to create a character that none of the classes available could fit on its own, or to mirror the career change that a character underwent for RP reasons

My best example for the latter was a Ranger becoming a Paladin at 8th level for ... reasons

This required negotiating some rebuilding with the GM because my original build pretty much dumped CHA. I was hoping for an easier time of it in PF2 but what was unveiled seems pretty much the opposite

We shall see

On the bright side, if retraining covers classes, I'm going to love the excuse to stage a situation where, in cooperation with the player, the sorcerer gets their powers drained in a freak (arcane) lab accident, and they step up their martial talent to keep up or something.


That's a problem with leaks this is more limited and out of context then a multiclass blog would be. (will be?)

Maybe a new general feat that lets you enter a new class? level plus general feat might be enough to balance it. I actually think the VMC style multi-classing from what little is known will work better for a lot of concepts but I agree it is sad to not be able to have a complete career change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
It would be cool if the retraining rules discounted the cost of swapping your main and archetype classes.

It's my understanding that retraining is completely free, except for the opportunity cost of "time spent retraining is time spent not working a job, crafting an item, etc."


5 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).
For example, the GM is running a skulls & shackles campaign, and he "strongly recommends" picking up the pirate archetype . I want to play a gish pirate - sounds like a cool concept, right? In pf 1 this was easy; pick a fighter archetype with pirate flavour at 1st and wizard at 2nd.
In pf2, it appears we have to wait until 2nd before getting an
archetype, then we have to take 2 more class feats (4th, 6th) before we can pick up the next archetype at 8th. This means if I pirate at 2nd, I can't gish until 8th, or if I gish at 2nd, I can't pirate until 8th. When I do, I think I will only be getting 2nd level spells, hardly a gish character!


Gavmania wrote:

To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).

For example, the GM is running a skulls & shackles campaign, and he "strongly recommends" picking up the pirate archetype . I want to play a gish pirate - sounds like a cool concept, right? In pf 1 this was easy; pick a fighter archetype with pirate flavour at 1st and wizard at 2nd.
In pf2, it appears we have to wait until 2nd before getting an
archetype, then we have to take 2 more class feats (4th, 6th) before we can pick up the next archetype at 8th. This means if I pirate at 2nd, I can't gish until 8th, or if I gish at 2nd, I can't pirate until 8th. When I do, I think I will only be getting 2nd level spells, hardly a gish character!

There are a lot of classes which can gish just fine out the box though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If GMs have a specific thing they want the campaign to be about, it's fine to just give bonus stuff to PCs so they have the tools for the specific thing. A lot of APs do stuff like this- Reign of Winter gives you bonus stats in book 1, and Hell's Rebels gives you like five extra feats over the course of the AP. We do this a lot in home games too, I was recently in an all-Changelings game where the GM gave us all both changeling specific feats for free in response to plot developments.

So if I'm running a pirate game, I might just give everybody the pirate dedication for free.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Gavmania wrote:

To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).

For example, the GM is running a skulls & shackles campaign, and he "strongly recommends" picking up the pirate archetype . I want to play a gish pirate - sounds like a cool concept, right? In pf 1 this was easy; pick a fighter archetype with pirate flavour at 1st and wizard at 2nd.
In pf2, it appears we have to wait until 2nd before getting an
archetype, then we have to take 2 more class feats (4th, 6th) before we can pick up the next archetype at 8th. This means if I pirate at 2nd, I can't gish until 8th, or if I gish at 2nd, I can't pirate until 8th. When I do, I think I will only be getting 2nd level spells, hardly a gish character!
There are a lot of classes which can gish just fine out the box though.

I'm curious, which would those be?


Moro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Gavmania wrote:

To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).

For example, the GM is running a skulls & shackles campaign, and he "strongly recommends" picking up the pirate archetype . I want to play a gish pirate - sounds like a cool concept, right? In pf 1 this was easy; pick a fighter archetype with pirate flavour at 1st and wizard at 2nd.
In pf2, it appears we have to wait until 2nd before getting an
archetype, then we have to take 2 more class feats (4th, 6th) before we can pick up the next archetype at 8th. This means if I pirate at 2nd, I can't gish until 8th, or if I gish at 2nd, I can't pirate until 8th. When I do, I think I will only be getting 2nd level spells, hardly a gish character!
There are a lot of classes which can gish just fine out the box though.
I'm curious, which would those be?

Druid and Cleric are the classic ones, so I would guess those. The removal of BAB might open up a few more depending on proficiencies...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Moro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Gavmania wrote:

To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).

For example, the GM is running a skulls & shackles campaign, and he "strongly recommends" picking up the pirate archetype . I want to play a gish pirate - sounds like a cool concept, right? In pf 1 this was easy; pick a fighter archetype with pirate flavour at 1st and wizard at 2nd.
In pf2, it appears we have to wait until 2nd before getting an
archetype, then we have to take 2 more class feats (4th, 6th) before we can pick up the next archetype at 8th. This means if I pirate at 2nd, I can't gish until 8th, or if I gish at 2nd, I can't pirate until 8th. When I do, I think I will only be getting 2nd level spells, hardly a gish character!
There are a lot of classes which can gish just fine out the box though.
I'm curious, which would those be?
Druid and Cleric are the classic ones, so I would guess those. The removal of BAB might open up a few more depending on proficiencies...

Ah, I wasn't considering divine gish, I was wracking my brain trying to think of what arcane gish was meant.

So none, like the early days of 3.75.


Moro wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Moro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Gavmania wrote:

To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).

For example, the GM is running a skulls & shackles campaign, and he "strongly recommends" picking up the pirate archetype . I want to play a gish pirate - sounds like a cool concept, right? In pf 1 this was easy; pick a fighter archetype with pirate flavour at 1st and wizard at 2nd.
In pf2, it appears we have to wait until 2nd before getting an
archetype, then we have to take 2 more class feats (4th, 6th) before we can pick up the next archetype at 8th. This means if I pirate at 2nd, I can't gish until 8th, or if I gish at 2nd, I can't pirate until 8th. When I do, I think I will only be getting 2nd level spells, hardly a gish character!
There are a lot of classes which can gish just fine out the box though.
I'm curious, which would those be?
Druid and Cleric are the classic ones, so I would guess those. The removal of BAB might open up a few more depending on proficiencies...

Ah, I wasn't considering divine gish, I was wracking my brain trying to think of what arcane gish was meant.

So none, like the early days of 3.75.

This is next to useless, but I'm pretty sure one of the devs at one point said there is a Feat that a Sorcerer or Wizard who wanted to get in the thick of it would be interested in taking.

This is next to useless, because it is literally all I remember about it.


It's probably the Fighter multiclass feat, which probably gives you some some armor/weapon proficiencies. Presumably later feats expand that to broader weapon/armor proficiencies and probably expert and maybe master proficiency in some armor/weapons.


Cleric is Divine. Druid is Primal. But also, Bard, the Occult caster, can probably fish pretty well too. I don’t see what’s stopping Wizard and Sorcerer from gishing. Proficiencies? Eh. Just get those too. You probably don’t even have to archetype out for those.


Mbertorch wrote:
Moro wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Moro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Gavmania wrote:

To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).

For example, the GM is running a skulls & shackles campaign, and he "strongly recommends" picking up the pirate archetype . I want to play a gish pirate - sounds like a cool concept, right? In pf 1 this was easy; pick a fighter archetype with pirate flavour at 1st and wizard at 2nd.
In pf2, it appears we have to wait until 2nd before getting an
archetype, then we have to take 2 more class feats (4th, 6th) before we can pick up the next archetype at 8th. This means if I pirate at 2nd, I can't gish until 8th, or if I gish at 2nd, I can't pirate until 8th. When I do, I think I will only be getting 2nd level spells, hardly a gish character!
There are a lot of classes which can gish just fine out the box though.
I'm curious, which would those be?
Druid and Cleric are the classic ones, so I would guess those. The removal of BAB might open up a few more depending on proficiencies...

Ah, I wasn't considering divine gish, I was wracking my brain trying to think of what arcane gish was meant.

So none, like the early days of 3.75.

This is next to useless, but I'm pretty sure one of the devs at one point said there is a Feat that a Sorcerer or Wizard who wanted to get in the thick of it would be interested in taking.

This is next to useless, because it is literally all I remember about it.

Now that you mention it, I seem to recall something similar. Can't wait to see it, if that is the case.


Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
Cleric is Divine. Druid is Primal. But also, Bard, the Occult caster, can probably fish pretty well too. I don’t see what’s stopping Wizard and Sorcerer from gishing. Proficiencies? Eh. Just get those too. You probably don’t even have to archetype out for those.

And now I want to see the magical take on explosives fishing.


Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
Cleric is Divine. Druid is Primal. But also, Bard, the Occult caster, can probably fish pretty well too. I don’t see what’s stopping Wizard and Sorcerer from gishing. Proficiencies? Eh. Just get those too. You probably don’t even have to archetype out for those.

(Emphasis mine)

This. This made me laugh so much.

Thank you. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
Cleric is Divine. Druid is Primal. But also, Bard, the Occult caster, can probably fish pretty well too. I don’t see what’s stopping Wizard and Sorcerer from gishing. Proficiencies? Eh. Just get those too. You probably don’t even have to archetype out for those.

The original complaint is that if you are taking multiclass archetype for fighter (or whatever martial) to get gishing on your wizard/sorcerer you are locked out of taking the pirate archetype for a few levels. You can have the sailor background and put your skill ups and skill feats into acrobatics, athletics, and intimidate to have the proper skills to be a pirate but you cannot take the archetype called pirate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Armor spell failure is no longer a thing.

Proficiency in weapons and armor can be gained through a large variety of sources, including archetypes, ancestries, and general feat. And presumably through multiclassing as well.

BAB gaps have been reduced.

Finesse doesn't cost a feat anymore.

Sorcerers bloodline melee powers have gotten MUCH stronger than they used to be.

Heightened Mage Armor provides AC competitive with Bracers of Armor, so you can spend gold elsewhere if you want.

New Action Economy makes it easier for everyone to cast and attack in the same turn.

No AoO by default means it is safer to cast in melee.

Offensively relevant cantrips mean you never need to drop your sword and pull out a bow.

This is all without touching multiclassing.

All that stuff combines to make it look a lot easier to mix up spell casting and melee as a sorcerer, wizard, bard, cleric, or druid. The biggest barrier to the first 2 seems to be hit points, but there are almost certainly going to be powers and spells to help offset this.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:
Yah traditional multi-classing has this problem where for a lot of character concepts it is bad except for a few if you have system mastery you can pick out the best combos and make it overpowered.

This has been repeated over and over again, but it's just not true. There's no great proliferation of broken multiclass characters in PF1, nor do they outshine singleclass characters of a similar caliber of optimization. Overpowered singleclass builds are themselves a dime-a-dozen, so the mere fact that some overpowered multiclass builds exist doesn't mean anything. There was only a single class that was always suboptimal if it stayed single-class (Gunslinger) but that was an issue of the class simply being barren after 5th.

The problem with all the trap options was definitely an issue. Multiclassing was easy to screw up if you didn't have a degree of system mastery (and if you do have system mastery... well, of course your characters are going to be awesome. People who know what they're doing will make better characters, multiclass or not). The primary culprits revolved around action economy, specifically actions that were specific to the class and only progressed by levels in that class. Every spellcasting class had its own caster level; multiclass and it stops progression. Classes like Kineticists revolved around their own class abilities that required their own kind of actions; multiclass and they stagnate. Most martial classes, however, used some variation of an attack and had class features that improved attacks. This meant that even if you multiclassed and your class features didn't progress, you were still advancing your attack action, so the value of your actions in combat continued to improve.

I don't want to understate the difficulty of building a comprehensive multiclassing system that addresses these problems gracefully, but I do think it's possible. I look at the wealth of possibilities it has afforded me over the years and all the interesting ways I've used it, and I see something that is an integral part of the game. It wouldn't be Pathfinder without multiclassing, and this VMC feat-based archetype stuff isn't multiclassing.


Dasrak wrote:
I don't want to understate the difficulty of building a comprehensive multiclassing system that addresses these problems gracefully, but I do think it's possible. I look at the wealth of possibilities it has afforded me over the years and all thhe interesting ways I've used it, and I see something that is an integral part of the game. It wouldn't be Pathfinder without multiclassing, and this VMC feat-based archetype stuff isn't multiclassing.

Why isn't this VMC stuff multiclassing? It's different from the way it was in PF1 but it does allow you to progress in multiple classes. Also it prevents the issue of trap options with classes that are very dependent upon primary class levels such as spellcasters, kineticist, etc.

Is not having the ability to stop progressing in your fist class the issue for narrative reasons or is it about dabbling in a bunch of different classes? I think you would be limited two three classes in the new system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
This has been repeated over and over again, but it's just not true. There's no great proliferation of broken multiclass characters in PF1, nor do they outshine singleclass characters of a similar caliber of optimization. Overpowered singleclass builds are themselves a dime-a-dozen, so the mere fact that some overpowered multiclass builds exist doesn't mean anything. There was only a single class that was always suboptimal if it stayed single-class (Gunslinger) but that was an issue of the class simply being barren after 5th.

You deserve a medal just for this sentence!

The problem of perceived reality X reality.

In all this 10 years, i've come across a LOT of broken abilities in Pathfinder, not just cause they are strong, but cause they mess with very unclear rules and creates problems in the table.

In NO STANCE EVER it was cause of a multiclass choice.

Serious, 5 stars to your phrase :)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

VMC is too restrictive for my tastes. I think it would be a lot easier to take the new system if dedication straight jacketing wasnt part of the deal. Universal progression solves a lot of the problems of PF1 MC. This is just one of those things that only the playtest will make sense of. Good thing its around the corner I guess.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:
Why isn't this VMC stuff multiclassing?

Because it only gives me access to a limited selection of the class features. Others remain barred, based solely on the whims of the author who decided what should and shouldn't be available for multiclassing. The entire point of multiclassing is that I can combine two or more abilities that are not normally available to a single class, and the VMC-style system restricts you to only the specific abilities that the author decided were the iconic ones. If those weren't the abilities you were interested in, you're out of luck.

As an aside, I'm concerned that PF2 won't have any mechanics to trade away unwanted class features. That's what archetypes were for in PF1, but in PF2 they work differently and now trade away feats instead of class features. That leaves a big hole where archetypes used to be as well.


Bardarok wrote:
Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
Cleric is Divine. Druid is Primal. But also, Bard, the Occult caster, can probably fish pretty well too. I don’t see what’s stopping Wizard and Sorcerer from gishing. Proficiencies? Eh. Just get those too. You probably don’t even have to archetype out for those.
The original complaint is that if you are taking multiclass archetype for fighter (or whatever martial) to get gishing on your wizard/sorcerer you are locked out of taking the pirate archetype for a few levels. You can have the sailor background and put your skill ups and skill feats into acrobatics, athletics, and intimidate to have the proper skills to be a pirate but you cannot take the archetype called pirate.

You're making a very big presumption that the multiclass archetypes have a Special requirement of more than 0. Given how they're spaced out, I can't see that being the case - for example, you can't get 8th level spells with your 3rd class feat - and wouldn't expect a "dedication requirement" on any multiclass one.

Silver Crusade

Cyouni wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
Cleric is Divine. Druid is Primal. But also, Bard, the Occult caster, can probably fish pretty well too. I don’t see what’s stopping Wizard and Sorcerer from gishing. Proficiencies? Eh. Just get those too. You probably don’t even have to archetype out for those.
The original complaint is that if you are taking multiclass archetype for fighter (or whatever martial) to get gishing on your wizard/sorcerer you are locked out of taking the pirate archetype for a few levels. You can have the sailor background and put your skill ups and skill feats into acrobatics, athletics, and intimidate to have the proper skills to be a pirate but you cannot take the archetype called pirate.
You're making a very big presumption that the multiclass archetypes have a Special requirement of more than 0. Given how they're spaced out, I can't see that being the case - for example, you can't get 8th level spells with your 3rd class feat - and wouldn't expect a "dedication requirement" on any multiclass one.

According to the leaks

leaks:
They each require a certain ability score and to be trained in a specific skill.
Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
As an aside, I'm concerned that PF2 won't have any mechanics to trade away unwanted class features. That's what archetypes were for in PF1, but in PF2 they work differently and now trade away feats instead of class features. That leaves a big hole where archetypes used to be as well.

Mark Seifter said that Archetypes that did this were very possible. He specifically said that the reason they aren't in the playtest is that they already know that such Archetypes will work (well, and space issues since they have to be Class specific), but aren't sure about the new style ones.

Given those two statements, I'd be deeply shocked if we didn't get old style Archetypes real rapidly.


Dasrak wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Why isn't this VMC stuff multiclassing?

Because it only gives me access to a limited selection of the class features. Others remain barred, based solely on the whims of the author who decided what should and shouldn't be available for multiclassing. The entire point of multiclassing is that I can combine two or more abilities that are not normally available to a single class, and the VMC-style system restricts you to only the specific abilities that the author decided were the iconic ones. If those weren't the abilities you were interested in, you're out of luck.

As an aside, I'm concerned that PF2 won't have any mechanics to trade away unwanted class features. That's what archetypes were for in PF1, but in PF2 they work differently and now trade away feats instead of class features. That leaves a big hole where archetypes used to be as well.

That's a good point though I assumed most abilities would be available via the VMC multi classing depending on how many feats you wanted to invest in it. I guess I don't know that.

On the second point I think they will probably include archetypes that change out base abilities in future books but wanted to try out archetypes that function off of the class feat system only the play test since that was the new thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
As an aside, I'm concerned that PF2 won't have any mechanics to trade away unwanted class features. That's what archetypes were for in PF1, but in PF2 they work differently and now trade away feats instead of class features. That leaves a big hole where archetypes used to be as well.

Mark Seifter said that Archetypes that did this were very possible. He specifically said that the reason they aren't in the playtest is that they already know that such Archetypes will work (well, and space issues since they have to be Class epcific), but aren't sure about the new style ones.

Given those two statements, I'd be deeply shocked if we didn't get old style Archetypes real rapidly.

Oh that's fine that they know it's supposed to work.

We have to wait to see how it works out ourselves and have to play with this new odd system of archetypes till then. And then have to see if both systems work well together.

Yeah okay. If they put out both systems, Old Archetypes would be picked up most the time over the new system and that would probably mess up the playtest data. But it feels weird to say "OH this will work, we know it will so no testing".


Dasrak wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Why isn't this VMC stuff multiclassing?

Because it only gives me access to a limited selection of the class features. Others remain barred, based solely on the whims of the author who decided what should and shouldn't be available for multiclassing. The entire point of multiclassing is that I can combine two or more abilities that are not normally available to a single class, and the VMC-style system restricts you to only the specific abilities that the author decided were the iconic ones. If those weren't the abilities you were interested in, you're out of luck.

I think this might be a little overstated. Classes in PF2 don't seem to get THAT many features, so you're probably gonna wind up seeing most (if not all) of them represented in the multi-class archetype. Assuming they follow a similar level progression as the classes themselves, this effectively gates the class features the same way they would be if you had the traditional multiclass.

Much of what were features in PF1 are now feats in PF2. I am pretty sure the multiclass archetype also provides access to that classes's feats. So in effect you'll still be able to pick and chose what you get.

Quote:
As an aside, I'm concerned that PF2 won't have any mechanics to trade away unwanted class features. That's what archetypes were for in PF1, but in PF2 they work differently and now trade away feats instead of class features. That leaves a big hole where archetypes used to be as well.

This, however, seems to be the case, at least for the playtest. I'm not worried about it because as they have pointed out nothing prevents them from making the familiar class specific archetypes later; they just weren't worth including in the playtest.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
Cleric is Divine. Druid is Primal. But also, Bard, the Occult caster, can probably fish pretty well too. I don’t see what’s stopping Wizard and Sorcerer from gishing. Proficiencies? Eh. Just get those too. You probably don’t even have to archetype out for those.
The original complaint is that if you are taking multiclass archetype for fighter (or whatever martial) to get gishing on your wizard/sorcerer you are locked out of taking the pirate archetype for a few levels. You can have the sailor background and put your skill ups and skill feats into acrobatics, athletics, and intimidate to have the proper skills to be a pirate but you cannot take the archetype called pirate.
You're making a very big presumption that the multiclass archetypes have a Special requirement of more than 0. Given how they're spaced out, I can't see that being the case - for example, you can't get 8th level spells with your 3rd class feat - and wouldn't expect a "dedication requirement" on any multiclass one.
According to the leaks ** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, I saw that, but I'm referring to this section:

Quote:
Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the pirate archetype.

This isn't really a requirement, and is something that's currently being assumed to gate multiclassing. My argument is that given how spaced out we know the multiclass feats are, that would be extremely unlikely to have as a restriction on the multiclass archetype.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Elleth wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I dislike the new multiclassing and I dislike how we got the info. Ain't life great ?

In PF1 and earlier my main uses for multiclassing was to create a character that none of the classes available could fit on its own, or to mirror the career change that a character underwent for RP reasons

My best example for the latter was a Ranger becoming a Paladin at 8th level for ... reasons

This required negotiating some rebuilding with the GM because my original build pretty much dumped CHA. I was hoping for an easier time of it in PF2 but what was unveiled seems pretty much the opposite

We shall see

On the bright side, if retraining covers classes, I'm going to love the excuse to stage a situation where, in cooperation with the player, the sorcerer gets their powers drained in a freak (arcane) lab accident, and they step up their martial talent to keep up or something.

Do we know whether retraining covers classes ? Can we retrain ability scores ?

Sometimes you need to deeply alter your character's build without losing all the history you have with him


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Given those two statements, I'd be deeply shocked if we didn't get old style Archetypes real rapidly.

Very good point. I wasn't aware of that comment, but it definitely sets me at ease on that issue. It seems to all but confirm that PF1-style archetypes will be returning. I don't have a problem if they're missing from the playtest; PF1-style archetypes are a known commodity and I can understand that Paizo doesn't feel the need to playtest them.

Bardarok wrote:
That's a good point though I assumed most abilities would be available via the VMC multi classing depending on how many feats you wanted to invest in it. I guess I don't know that.

Feat starvation could be another issue, but I'll wait until the playtest itself to see how that played out. There are many types of builds in PF1 that were incredibly feat hungry (ranged combat, two-weapon fighting, and blasting spells all come to mind) and VMC was just a non-option for them because you literally couldn't afford it without crippling your build. PF2 may or may not have that same sort of feat starvation issue, so I don't want to jump to conclusions on that one.


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

I dislike the new multiclassing and I dislike how we got the info. Ain't life great ?

In PF1 and earlier my main uses for multiclassing was to create a character that none of the classes available could fit on its own, or to mirror the career change that a character underwent for RP reasons

My best example for the latter was a Ranger becoming a Paladin at 8th level for ... reasons

This required negotiating some rebuilding with the GM because my original build pretty much dumped CHA. I was hoping for an easier time of it in PF2 but what was unveiled seems pretty much the opposite

We shall see

On the bright side, if retraining covers classes, I'm going to love the excuse to stage a situation where, in cooperation with the player, the sorcerer gets their powers drained in a freak (arcane) lab accident, and they step up their martial talent to keep up or something.

Do we know whether retraining covers classes ? Can we retrain ability scores ?

Sometimes you need to deeply alter your character's build without losing all the history you have with him

Not sure if classes can, I know its been stated that the main thing you can't without an absurdly good excuse is a heritage feat. I'd tend towards assuming you probably can't, but if you can then I'd advocate swapping primary class and keeping the original as multiclassing feats for the purpose of keeping the link (unless you wanted to fully trash the link I guess). Basically switching the bulk of your playstyle and such without actually removing the story behind it, as you're simply devoting the bulk of your effort elsewhere now.

Edit: E.g. you're a wizard who decides to swap to fighter. You'd probably need a fair bit of downtime if allowed, but lets say you come back to your character years later. They're a good warrior now but have let their wizardry slip (so primary class fighter). They still know a fair few tricks though (so wizard multiclass feats)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the only requirements for multi-classing are a stat at 16 and a skill, and they don't require a dedication feat, I could live with that. I could multi-class at 1st, then get an archetype at 2nd. It would mean that I would be 4th level before I had any meaningful choice (unless I was human - they can convert an ancestry feat into a class feat), which would hurt, but it's a whole lot better than waiting until 8th to get a choice.


I'm curious how doubling up on caster would look. Say a rogue going bard and sorcerer multiclass. It would take awhile and all that, but what happens to casting progression?


I imagine Occult/Primal and Arcane/Divine will be popular multiclasses. Particularly Bard and Primal Sorcerer, since Charisma. Get you that Mystic Theurge. 10th level casting in one list, 8th in the other, all 4 essences. Of course you can just go for any 2 casters. Even with the same list. But I’d imagine all 4 essences would be neat.


Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
I imagine Occult/Primal and Arcane/Divine will be popular multiclasses. Particularly Bard and Primal Sorcerer, since Charisma. Get you that Mystic Theurge. 10th level casting in one list, 8th in the other, all 4 essences. Of course you can just go for any 2 casters. Even with the same list. But I’d imagine all 4 essences would be neat.

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

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


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
I imagine Occult/Primal and Arcane/Divine will be popular multiclasses. Particularly Bard and Primal Sorcerer, since Charisma. Get you that Mystic Theurge. 10th level casting in one list, 8th in the other, all 4 essences. Of course you can just go for any 2 casters. Even with the same list. But I’d imagine all 4 essences would be neat.

I think it would be 9th and 8th, with 8th level secondary casting as a capstone (which is what grants that 10th level slot).


RafaelBraga wrote:
Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
I imagine Occult/Primal and Arcane/Divine will be popular multiclasses. Particularly Bard and Primal Sorcerer, since Charisma. Get you that Mystic Theurge. 10th level casting in one list, 8th in the other, all 4 essences. Of course you can just go for any 2 casters. Even with the same list. But I’d imagine all 4 essences would be neat.

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

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

Well, much would depend on which was the main class, but sorcerer can get 5/level from 2nd level spells (including spontaneous heightening) and would get probably 2/level from secondary bard, making 7 spells per level for spell levels 2 to 8, with 5 for 1st and 5 for 9th. I'd say that's a pretty strong caster.

Edit: I wonder if a multiclass sorcerer can use spontaneous heightening on a secondary classes spells?


I was refering to the fact it wont give if accesso to THAT many options you "couldnt get" as a single class. Specially considering we have 4 spells lists that probably will share a lot of spells beteween them and when not sharing a exact spell, are sharing similar working spell: cure spell, direct damage, crownd control...

I love the game having this options, but in the end is a lot less strong than most people think :)


RafaelBraga wrote:

I was refering to the fact it wont give if accesso to THAT many options you "couldnt get" as a single class. Specially considering we have 4 spells lists that probably will share a lot of spells beteween them and when not sharing a exact spell, are sharing similar working spell: cure spell, direct damage, crownd control...

I love the game having this options, but in the end is a lot less strong than most people think :)

What was being suggested was picking a pair of spell lists with absolutely minimal overlap.

E.g. Bard (spiritual+mental: buffs, debuffs, illusions, mind control) with druid (vital+material: blasting, defence, transformation, high grade healing)

IIRC the only stuff so far confirmed to be universally present is the detect magic cantrip.

Especially if you're a spontaneous caster, even only being able to cherry pick 2 new spells per spell level up to 8th is pretty damn good. Hell. Primal list gives you access to Heal, Fireball, Summon Nature's Ally. All of which can round out a nice subtle, manipulative, bard list.


I doubt very much the spells will be that much appart.

Could be wrong, for sure, but i doubt.

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


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the new type of multiclassing.

It allows me to play so many more types of concepts, effectively.

Way better than something like we have now, where multiclassing only means you get to dip out of your class budget in terms of power, or spend your class power to try and give out some flavor to your guy.

This seems to take the best of both worlds.

Great job, Paizo, keep it up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

I love the new type of multiclassing.

It allows me to play so many more types of concepts, effectively.

Way better than something like we have now, where multiclassing only means you get to dip out of your class budget in terms of power, or spend your class power to try and give out some flavor to your guy.

This seems to take the best of both worlds.

Great job, Paizo, keep it up.

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

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

I just don't see how this opens up more concepts but that's also due to the fact we are getting LESS options and don't have all of them in front of us. And the less options is only due to the fact they aren't bringing all the classes over just yet.

If I want to be a Gunmage, I'm out of luck. I want to make a "Batman"(And there's very different readings of batman but bare with me), I can't go Monk+Investigator in PF2. Yet.

But what, 8-9 Class feats(abilities) you get to pick across 2 classes? I'd like to see how that works out. Also yes, I know we get maybe 10-11. Buuuuuuuuut, lets be honest just how many actually go to full 20? Most games I see end around 15-18 level wise and I don't think a new system is going to help push over that last hump.


RafaelBraga wrote:

I doubt very much the spells will be that much appart.

Could be wront, for sure, but i doubt.

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

Wizards aren't traditionally known for their healing, clerics aren't traditionally known for their blasting.

The four essences and four spell lists seem to have codified the reasons for those differences.

We know that Sorcerers and Clerics can, through choice of bloodline or deity choice respectively get a small number of fixed cross-list spells. It has IIRC been stated by Mark (I forget where rn, sorry) that most spells correspond to one-two essences and are thus on up two-three lists. I believe Bards might be able to possibly dabble as well but IDK. It would seem that while there are a lot of ways to get some increased variance in spells, getting a combination of your choosing from another list is, in a lot of cases, going to be impossible. Because the bonus spells seem to be heavily thematic, it's going to be hard to pick and mix without multiclassing -e.g. trying to get mage armor, color spray, fireball, and cone of cold when you're starting from the Divine spell list.

From the example deity of Shelyn in the Eminent Domains blog we can reconstruct spells (as there is zero reason to grant a prepared caster bonus spells known that aren't bonus spells known) flat out missing from the Divine (Cleric) spell list and therefore present on the Arcane (Wizard) spell list. There are as follows:

  • Color spray
  • Enthrall
  • Creation

    We also have access to the Demon Sorcerer in the Sorcerer Class Preview blog. Sorcerers have less of a need for these to be from another list, but there seem to be some that are. Some of these spells seem reasonably likely to be on the Divine (Cleric) spell list, so I'll stick a little ! after ones that seem pretty likely IMO (this is me guessing though, as I have little experience with PF spell lists prior to these discussions) to be Arcane (Wizard):

  • Detect Magic (all)
  • Fear ! (mental essence?)
  • Resist Energy
  • Slow ! (physical essence?)
  • Divine Wrath
  • Banishment
  • Disintegrate ! (physical essence?)
  • Divine Decree
  • Power Word Stun ! (mental essence?)
  • Meteor Swarm ! (pretty likely to be physical essence)

    From what we can tell at least, it seems like all the best healing is Vital Essence (Divine and Primal lists), all the good elemental damage is Material (Arcane and Primal lists), all the mind control of note is probably Mental (Arcane and Occult lists), and while Spiritual is a little unclear we know from Mark's comments that they seem to get some sonic damage. Personally I'm expecting Spiritual to be the good one for summoned Outsiders, but that's a guess.

    Different playstyles are going to shine with different lists, Bards aren't going to be regularly summoning up walls of fire, and Wizards are pretty unlikely to be fixing broken legs. Bards and Wizards are probably going to make better spies than Clerics.

    You can expect each spell list to have protective options, damage options, de/buffing options. But I think from what we know it would be a massive mistake to assume they're on par, in max power of, diversity of, or versatility of.

    To get back to point, while I'm personally expecting multiclassing between two casters to be below par, freely choosing from each list gives you the ability to cherry pick the top grade in each spell category.

    Edit: Also, personal note. I think it's safe to say that some spells like color spray and daze aren't going to have spells that do the same thing, either because they have such a specific and memorable effect, or because they do such a basic one (daze flat-foots someone). The playtest probably isn't going to waste space on duplicate dazes. A spell called sonicball with the exact same details as fireball but sonic damage probably isn't going to happen either. Waste of precious playtest rulebook space.


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

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

    Just saying youre not doing a "power option" by multiclassing and getting some progressions halted to get some healing, or access to a new spell list (with much lower levels spells) if they allow old multiclass system to work.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    MerlinCross wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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


    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    RafaelBraga wrote:

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

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

    Just saying youre not doing a "power option" by multiclassing and getting some progressions halted to get some healing, or access to a new spell list (with much lower levels spells) if they allow old multiclass system to work.

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

    401 to 450 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