Multiclass ability score prerequisites should be lowered, and level advancement should raise all ability scores


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

At Wizard Camp '87 you had 3 years worth of classes to learn cantrips, and they'll just keep making you practice til it eventually sticks. As long as you can oay tuition, who cares if you're an idiot.

Out in the field, you've got a book that looks like greek (or maybe a helpful party member) and a few hours a night to study. You have to have some 'talent' and motivation to learn anything like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....
Gotta stop the dip!

But only some of them.

The pregens and multiclassing is a pretty amusing combination. Fumbus has multiple options just for existing, Seelah can grab fighter, most of the other humans can jump something at 5 and Merisiel is just... out of luck. Check back at level 10, I guess.


I think that is is odd that you can only begin a multiclass if you have a high stat, but you can continue in that class as long as you want just as well as anyone else who has multiclassed. It seems very inorganic.

I'd much rather have a 12 or 14 to take the dedication feat, but ti take successive feats have increased requirements. Since you are boosting stats as you level it would make sense that you have to continue dedicating efforts to the attribute important to the class if you want to progress further in it, but if you didn't care much you could pick up a few thing with your meager abilities before deciding it's not for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I might agree that some kind of scalable prerequisite makes sense. For instance, if you need an INT of 10 + Spell Level to learn a spell then it limits some aspect of multiclassing into Wizard.

A 16 INT to pick up two cantrips? Naa, something is wrong.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....

It’s not as strange as playing a Wizard who dumps Int, though.

Still: if somebody isn’t very bright, they can be a Wizard with enough hard work. You have to be brilliant at a minimum to be learn wizardry on the side, though. Somebody who is focused entirely on being a Fighter can overcome weakness, but if you expect to wear any armor with a little work, you better be pretty strong. And so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....

It’s not as strange as playing a Wizard who dumps Int, though.

Still: if somebody isn’t very bright, they can be a Wizard with enough hard work. You have to be brilliant at a minimum to be learn wizardry on the side, though. Somebody who is focused entirely on being a Fighter can overcome weakness, but if you expect to wear any armor with a little work, you better be pretty strong. And so on.

But the current setup does nothing to account for the increasing difficulty of more specialized training vs the reasonably low difficulty of entry level abilities.


baggageboy wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....

It’s not as strange as playing a Wizard who dumps Int, though.

Still: if somebody isn’t very bright, they can be a Wizard with enough hard work. You have to be brilliant at a minimum to be learn wizardry on the side, though. Somebody who is focused entirely on being a Fighter can overcome weakness, but if you expect to wear any armor with a little work, you better be pretty strong. And so on.

But the current setup does nothing to account for the increasing difficulty of more specialized training vs the reasonably low difficulty of entry level abilities.

Well, I guess that you have to wait no less than 2 levels to take the next step. Though those 2 levels can happen in a week in some adventures.


I feel like if you wanted to play a low Int Wizard, the way to justify it is as someone who found their way into wizarding for reasons other than their natural talents (e.g. they came from a wizarding family and it was expected of them).

But once you've already found something you're good at, and have specialized in it, it's not really clear why you'd want to branch out into a thing you're not particularly well equipped for, instead of focusing on what you can do well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have you never heard of a dabbler or dilettante? Picking up the rudimentary aspects of something is not usually very difficult. It's usually much more difficult to achieve higher levels of understanding and excellence at something, even if you have a natural inclination.

As an example, a person can learn to do arithmetic fairly easily, even people with a low aptitude for math can learn that. But differential calculus may beyond most people without rigorous study and a reasonable aptitude.

The current system works like this:

I can't learn math on e the side at all unless I have a reasonable aptitude.

If I can learn math on the side I can learn as much as anyone else who can do it on the side. I don't need to increase my aptitude at all.

I can chose to learn a bunch of math all at once once I've trained up my aptitude if I have time and money, but I need to forget a few other things I already knew. Oh, and if I chose to I can the undo the aptitude I needed to get into math and instead make myself better at lifting weights, all the while still getting better at math (Retraining feats and ability scores.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
baggageboy wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....

It’s not as strange as playing a Wizard who dumps Int, though.

Still: if somebody isn’t very bright, they can be a Wizard with enough hard work. You have to be brilliant at a minimum to be learn wizardry on the side, though. Somebody who is focused entirely on being a Fighter can overcome weakness, but if you expect to wear any armor with a little work, you better be pretty strong. And so on.

But the current setup does nothing to account for the increasing difficulty of more specialized training vs the reasonably low difficulty of entry level abilities.

I think it does something to account for that: feat level requirements.

I’m cool with dabbling in every type of armor and martial weapon requiring a pretty good strength score so that it doesn’t take as much effort, or grasping the fundamentals of magic without a year of potentially lethal study requiring you to be really smart. Cantrips are a big deal in PF2!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
baggageboy wrote:

Have you never heard of a dabbler or dilettante? Picking up the rudimentary aspects of something is not usually very difficult. It's usually much more difficult to achieve higher levels of understanding and excellence at something, even if you have a natural inclination.

I feel like the level of expertise such feats give you is way beyond "dabbling." Like we don't even have a frame of reference for how much it would take to dabble at being a Wizard, as none of us can actually do magic. But if I was to take a punt the level of dilettante for wizardry and the like is having put skill ranks into Arcana, Occult etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with dilettante in a role-playing game is that game balance requires one of two stances be taken:
A) The dilettante can perform any given role well; thus obviating every other member of the party.
B) The dilettante cannot perform any given role well; thus they are obviated by every other member of the party.
In order for a role to have meaning, there has to be an opportunity cost for filling it.

Liberty's Edge

Mathmuse wrote:
I tend to compare the PF2 rules to the adventure paths I've run. I wonder about the Scrapwall Fanatics, a CR 1 foe from the Iron Gods adventure path, Half-orc fighter 1/rogue 1, with Str 17, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8.

CR 1 foes (well, the equivalent, since CR doesn't exist as a measure of individual creatures in PF2), especially those fought in numbers, will pretty much never be made with the PC rules in PF2 (instead being made via the monster building rules). NPCs can be made that way, but it's reserved for relevant and important ones. People like Karzoug in RotRL, GMPC types who adventure with you, or the leaders of entire countries, not random thugs.

If they were built as PCs they'd be built exactly like them with the same Ability distribution, meaning they'd probably have Str 18, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 10.

Which is enough that they can go either Class and multiclass to the other with relative ease.

Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....

Wizards are minimum Int 12 if human, and Int 10 even if an Int-penalty Ancestry (of which there are currently none), since taking wizard as your Class gives +2 Int.

Just for clarity.


Given you can get three whole stats at 16 at level one, I don't think it's too hard to multiclass in PF2E.

Of course, if your class needs multiple stats, that can get iffy, but given you get four +2 at 5th level and every five after that, it's not too bad.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
baggageboy wrote:

Have you never heard of a dabbler or dilettante? Picking up the rudimentary aspects of something is not usually very difficult. It's usually much more difficult to achieve higher levels of understanding and excellence at something, even if you have a natural inclination.

I feel like the level of expertise such feats give you is way beyond "dabbling." Like we don't even have a frame of reference for how much it would take to dabble at being a Wizard, as none of us can actually do magic. But if I was to take a punt the level of dilettante for wizardry and the like is having put skill ranks into Arcana, Occult etc.

Don't forget skill feats! The rogue might be the most functional dilettante with their emphasis on skills.

Paizo Employee

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....

You actually can't play as an 8 INT wizard unless you choose to just dump your stats without any benefit. Wizard gives you a +2 INT, so the lowest you could get is 10 with a race that has INT as a flaw (which is none of the ones in the playtest). So functionally you'll never see a wizard with lower than 12 INT following the character creation guidelines. Which is obviously still less than 16, but there's probably some argument to be made that someone who goes to college for several years and successfully passes a rigorous training regimen is going to be able to tackle processes and procedures that would be harder to intuit and work out during a more chaotic environment where half your rest time is spent recovering from throwing down with territorial orc tribes or slaying primeval monsters that view anything with two arms, two legs, and the ability to speak as a delicacy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like if you wanted to play a low Int Wizard, the way to justify it is as someone who found their way into wizarding for reasons other than their natural talents (e.g. they came from a wizarding family and it was expected of them).

But once you've already found something you're good at, and have specialized in it, it's not really clear why you'd want to branch out into a thing you're not particularly well equipped for, instead of focusing on what you can do well.

Insatiable curiosity? Drive to learn the ways of your enemies? A new outlook on life? Your god told you to?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

I think the requirement to have a high stat is multi-functional.

One, it is supposed to reflect a reason the person would have a natural affinity to pick up the necessary skills rapidly, to potentially help with the 'story' aspect of it.

It also, I believe is intended to help with character balance some, imagining classes with similar stats would be more similar, while ones with vastly different stat requirements, the minimum entry aspects of the class may end up granting a whole lot more, meaning by requiring higher stats, you require more investment.

Really, I don't think that 16 is that hard to get, especially by 5th level, for instance. It might take a little focus at second level, but even there should frequently be viable choice, even if in some cases it might require some intent.

Second, they designed multi-classing, with an attempt to balance out the abilities granted so branching out doesn't leave people behind, meaning they can learn several things all at once.

One option you could consider, allow someone who doesn't meet the prerequisite to take a watered down multi-class feat. Min INT 12 grants only one cantrip. The feat can be swapped for the full feat after reaching the minimum attribute requirement.

It would allow an NPC to dabble (But would obviously be less powerful than a normal full feat, for instance). You could water down future multi-class feats slightly, and potentially grant that when you get the next in the chain, it might boost the first one's effect to the full normal effect. (allowing a 12 INT multi-class wizard to get full cantrip abilities after getting their second feat committed) That would make progression for a less inclined student to be slower, but still possible.

Other options might be less powerful things that don't require dedication, but grant a multi-class like ability. Perhaps learning a single regular cantrip slot for instance from a given spell list. Not as powerful as a multi-class wizard feat, but requires no dedication completion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
I tend to compare the PF2 rules to the adventure paths I've run. I wonder about the Scrapwall Fanatics, a CR 1 foe from the Iron Gods adventure path, Half-orc fighter 1/rogue 1, with Str 17, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8.
CR 1 foes (well, the equivalent, since CR doesn't exist as a measure of individual creatures in PF2), especially those fought in numbers, will pretty much never be made with the PC rules in PF2 (instead being made via the monster building rules). NPCs can be made that way, but it's reserved for relevant and important ones. People like Karzoug in RotRL, GMPC types who adventure with you, or the leaders of entire countries, not random thugs.

Sorry about diverging from the main topic.

If CR no longer exists as a measure of creatures, then how do I balance my encounters? I could judge the creatures if I built them the same way as I build PCs, but if I use a different method, I will be less certain. And what is the new system for rewarding experience points?

The May 14 Paizo Blog: Building Monsters and the March 12 Paizo Blog: Leveling Up! did not mention any CR changes.


Mathmuse wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
I tend to compare the PF2 rules to the adventure paths I've run. I wonder about the Scrapwall Fanatics, a CR 1 foe from the Iron Gods adventure path, Half-orc fighter 1/rogue 1, with Str 17, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8.
CR 1 foes (well, the equivalent, since CR doesn't exist as a measure of individual creatures in PF2), especially those fought in numbers, will pretty much never be made with the PC rules in PF2 (instead being made via the monster building rules). NPCs can be made that way, but it's reserved for relevant and important ones. People like Karzoug in RotRL, GMPC types who adventure with you, or the leaders of entire countries, not random thugs.

Sorry about diverging from the main topic.

If CR no longer exists as a measure of creatures, then how do I balance my encounters? I could judge the creatures if I built them the same way as I build PCs, but if I use a different method, I will be less certain. And what is the new system for rewarding experience points?

The May 14 Paizo Blog: Building Monsters and the March 12 Paizo Blog: Leveling Up! did not mention any CR changes.

Monsters don't have cr anymore, they have levels as shown in Attack the stat block

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

Sorry about diverging from the main topic.

If CR no longer exists as a measure of creatures, then how do I balance my encounters? I could judge the creatures if I built them the same way as I build PCs, but if I use a different method, I will be less certain. And what is the new system for rewarding experience points?

They have a level, just like PCs do. An Ogre is a level 3 creature (and a zombie has been mentioned as a level 0 one, the same category as CR 1/2 oe 1/3 in PF1), for example. This is basically just a terminology change, but it's a relevant one, since now everything you might fight (whether PC Class characters or monsters) is measured by one things: Level.

CR may remain as a measure of an encounter (we don't know), but it's no longer used as a measure for individual creatures.

Mathmuse wrote:
The May 14 Paizo Blog: Building Monsters and the March 12 Paizo Blog: Leveling Up! did not mention any CR changes.

Check the Ogre or Redcap stat blocks, they list no CR anywhere. I believe it's officially mentioned somewhere in the thread there. It's also mentioned in several demo game videos.

Sovereign Court

baggageboy wrote:

Have you never heard of a dabbler or dilettante? Picking up the rudimentary aspects of something is not usually very difficult. It's usually much more difficult to achieve higher levels of understanding and excellence at something, even if you have a natural inclination.

As an example, a person can learn to do arithmetic fairly easily, even people with a low aptitude for math can learn that. But differential calculus may beyond most people without rigorous study and a reasonable aptitude.

The current system works like this:

I can't learn math on e the side at all unless I have a reasonable aptitude.

If I can learn math on the side I can learn as much as anyone else who can do it on the side. I don't need to increase my aptitude at all.

I can chose to learn a bunch of math all at once once I've trained up my aptitude if I have time and money, but I need to forget a few other things I already knew. Oh, and if I chose to I can the undo the aptitude I needed to get into math and instead make myself better at lifting weights, all the while still getting better at math (Retraining feats and ability scores.)

The basis for spells are now in arcana. The skill enables you to cast rituals. Learning how to prepare and cast combat ready spell isn't possible without rigorous study.

It still works, and you can still make characters that can cast spells, it's just that these spells are limited to rituals.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

Sorry about diverging from the main topic.

If CR no longer exists as a measure of creatures, then how do I balance my encounters? I could judge the creatures if I built them the same way as I build PCs, but if I use a different method, I will be less certain. And what is the new system for rewarding experience points?

They have a level, just like PCs do. An Ogre is a level 3 creature (and a zombie has been mentioned as a level 0 one, the same category as CR 1/2 oe 1/3 in PF1), for example. This is basically just a terminology change, but it's a relevant one, since now everything you might fight (whether PC Class characters or monsters) is measured by one things: Level.

CR may remain as a measure of an encounter (we don't know), but it's no longer used as a measure for individual creatures.

Mathmuse wrote:
The May 14 Paizo Blog: Building Monsters and the March 12 Paizo Blog: Leveling Up! did not mention any CR changes.
Check the Ogre or Redcap stat blocks, they list no CR anywhere. I believe it's officially mentioned somewhere in the thread there. It's also mentioned in several demo game videos.

Thank you for the information. This is not a game changer. In fact, since I regularly constructed optimized NPCs as opponents, I was already thinking in terms of level-equivalent of the opponent rather than the CR of the opponent. This is business as usual.

A well-optimized four-person group of the same level is mirror match. In CR, it is APL+4. A two-person group of the same level half a match, CR = APL + 2. A single person of the same level is quarter match, CR = APL. Poor optimization (for example, the Scrapwall Fanatic) or NPC classes reduces the CR by 1. In the new system, that reduces the level-equivalent by 1.

Going back to the multiclass topic, the Scrapwall Fanatics were given two levels to give them sufficient hit points for battle, but deliberately unoptimized to keep the CR (or level-equivalent effectiveness) down. Fighter 1/rogue 1 was weaker than rogue 2 or fighter 2. They also had low quality gear. One of the goals of the multiclass system was to make constructing characters with clashing classes more difficult. But sometimes we GMs want sub-optimized opponents and clashing classes was an easy trick that sometimes let us surprise the players in battle.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Thank you for the information. This is not a game changer. In fact, since I regularly constructed optimized NPCs as opponents, I was already thinking in terms of level-equivalent of the opponent rather than the CR of the opponent. This is business as usual.

Oh, totally. That was a parenthetical aside on a different subject, not my main point.

Mathmuse wrote:
A well-optimized four-person group of the same level is mirror match. In CR, it is APL+4. A two-person group of the same level half a match, CR = APL + 2. A single person of the same level is quarter match, CR = APL. Poor optimization (for example, the Scrapwall Fanatic) or NPC classes reduces the CR by 1. In the new system, that reduces the level-equivalent by 1.

Not exactly. By the evidence, PC-Class NPCs, made by the PC rules, with level equivalent gear, will be fully leveled opponents. Those made with the Monster Creation system will be whatever level you make them as (level 1 for the Scrapwall Fanatic, probably).

Mathmuse wrote:
Going back to the multiclass topic, the Scrapwall Fanatics were given two levels to give them sufficient hit points for battle, but deliberately unoptimized to keep the CR (or level-equivalent effectiveness) down. Fighter 1/rogue 1 was weaker than rogue 2 or fighter 2. They also had low quality gear. One of the goals of the multiclass system was to make constructing characters with clashing classes more difficult. But sometimes we GMs want sub-optimized opponents and clashing classes was an easy trick that sometimes let us surprise the players in battle.

Right, but that's one of the great bits of using the monster creation system for opponents, you can customize them like this without jumping through so many hoops to do it.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....

A 1st level wizard with 10 Int spent years or decades studying magic and only have lvl1 spells for it. A multi-class Wizard has to be a genius to pick this stuff up on the fly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rek Rollington wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....
A 1st level wizard with 10 Int spent years or decades studying magic and only have lvl1 spells for it. A multi-class Wizard has to be a genius to pick this stuff up on the fly.

You're making an assumption of the backstory of the character that they decided to become a wizard after starting another career.

Many character conceptions that involve multiclassing envisioned their characters studying all of their classes from the beginning. The game system forces them to pick one class at a time, or with PF2, pick on class and then feats to get part of the other class.

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Multiclass ability score prerequisites should be lowered, and level advancement should raise all ability scores All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion