| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll start with a few points.
1. Even 5e has proper multiclassing. PF2 should have more customisation than 5e.
2. Some people want to be a proper 50/50 even split between two classes. Like a Double Degree in university, not a Major with a Minor. The current pseudo-VMC system is more like a 70/30 split at the most generous.
3. PF2 should not have less meaningful character options than core PF1.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, bring back dual-classing! (Joke)
This system gives a lot more customization that 5e does, it just doesn't look that way right now. In 5e I can't play a favorite character of mine(a thief that learns magic) because multiclassing makes him too weak and Arcane Trickster doesn't give him the spells that fit his story.
PF2 lets that happen easily and, later on, he can even start getting magic from a diety.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather it got tested first, rather than see demands for change on day 2.
Apart from FAQ/errata errors, like unarmored proficiency training.
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint: don’t bring it back.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
multiclassing seems pretty terrible in this edition to me. I would like to see AD&D 2e multiclassing back. I dont have a problem with splitting XP. there was so really no need get rid of it in 3.0.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I rather like this system of multiclassing. It's just a feat cost.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, too, want the option of dual classing / true multiclassing.
Not instead of the current system, which is good. Just in addition to, due to a couple niches (both RP and mechanical) that this can fill.
Namely, old multiclassing trades advancement in a class for keeping the feats. Feat-intensive builds might like that down the line.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have to say, I'm pretty disappointed in the new multiclassing rules. It's cool that you can now multiclass as a caster without getting screwed, I can appreciate that. But what you can't do is actually be a member of the class you're multiclassing to. You don't get their actual class abilities, just analogs. Look at the Rogue multiclass. It's just kind of...sad. Why would anyone ever take it, except for skills and evasion? Granted those aren't nothing, and Skill Mastery actually looks kind of good, but I almost can't imagine ever being so hard up for class feats at level 4+ that I felt the need to use one on a non-scaling die of sneak attack.
And there's so many Rogue class features that you just can't get with the multiclass feats. No Finesse Striker, no Deny Advantage, no Debilitating Strike... and anything past 10th level is right out.
The Fighter Feats are similarly lackluster. The Dedication feat is awesome for wizards, but anybody who already gets armor/weapon proficiency/athletics skill gets pretty much nothing for the feat. Fighter Resiliency is an okay(?) boost if you're planning to drop a lot of feats on this tree, but you can only get it if you're a low HP class. Opportunist is excellent of course, but you can't get it until level 6 when Fighters get it at level 1 for free. Weapon Expert is kind of nice, but the fact that then there's no follow up to get you past expert seems weak to me. Someone who multiclasses to Wizard can get 8th level spells, shouldn't Master be the analog to that, rather than Expert? Scratch that, Fighters start out at Expert at level 1. A multiclass Fighter can't get it til 12, and even then only in a limited weapon group. What?
Not gonna say the system can't work, but it needs a lot of tuning and for a lot more feats to be available for each multiclass. Honestly, I'd prefer PF1 multiclassing. I'm open to new ideas as long as they work, but I really don't see this as being there yet.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you like it doesn't meant that it should be the ONLY choice. This game is about customisation, not cookie-cutter builds.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like this kind much better than the 3.5 kind of multiclassing, but there's no reason there can't be multiple kinds of multiclassing.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget this is not EVERYTHING that will be in the final product. This is a sampling to be tested and see if the mechanics work. And let's be clear, this approach to multiclassing is superior and streamlined. It gives you everything the old version did without the crazy power bumps or exploitations from certain combinations. this is an amazing system that has actually been around even in 1E, though just not an official part.
Multiclassing archetypes are a home run and I'm glad the designers found that 3pp material and adopted it.
Everything the old version did...except most of it. It is streamlined. It may be superior in some ways. Mostly in being streamlined. It's also less open to abuse certainly. And it's nice that spellcasters can multiclass without getting screwed. It also is extremely restrictive, and there's a ton of things you can't do with it (disregarding the lack of all classes, I'm just talking about the ones that exist currently.) Want to multiclass to a Rogue? Cool! You just don't get most of the Rogue's abilities, just these couple, and we'll nerf some of them for you, so you don't accidentally hurt anybody. So far I'm very displeased with it. I'm sure it can be fixed, but I'd prefer PF1 style. Getting all these feat trees right is going to be very hard.
Incidentally, if you're talking about VMC from PF1 Unchained...amazing is not a word I'd use to describe it.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest gripe with it (in addition to the "can get some shiny toys, but not others" that the ninja mentioned above) is that if you play a character that actually starts in what will end up his minor class, which is just fine and dandy in PF1, it is merely impossible in PF2.
So, no in-game change of heart and no "starting in a class and finding your true way in another" background.
For example, a character that begins his story as a Fighter but discovers an interest for Wizardry and switch careers completely.
This would end up in a "Strong Wizard with some Fighter abilities" build.
Which in PF2 is actually Wizard taking the Fighter multiclass dedication.
So, the character needs to begin his story casting spells rather than swinging steel. Which is pretty much opposed to the story that was being told.
And this does not even take into account the in-game change of heart for a character that was not built and advanced for a specific multiclassing. No retraining ability boosts might even bar you from multiclassing and follow your new interest if it happens late in your character's career.
Finally, I find it awkward that a character that started as a Wizard and then goes his entire life practicing swordplay on the battlefield ends up a better Wizard and lesser Fighter than the one who started as a Fighter and then spends his entire life poring over dusty tomes of arcana in some cloistered tower.
I do not want to lose the new multiclass and go back to PF1-style. I want for the new system to be a bit more open. Being able to retrain things that currently cannot be (such as Class or ability boosts) would go a great way in that direction.
And I like the idea of using already existing blocks by building your character organically, for example as a Fighter who then takes a dedication to Wizard and starts switching his main class by becoming a Wizard with a dedication to Fighter. I just wish for that last part to be explicitly covered by the PF2 rules
|
Archetype multiclassing thought of the day ...
Each class is broken down into three archetype streams. E.g., Ranger might have "Combat Style", "Animal Companion", and "Hunter". Each stream is equal weight in terms of character abilities. If a character wants to multiclass they choose an archetype stream from another class and forfeit a stream in their current class.
Debatably, an archetype stream is equal to the bonus feats all characters get (3rd and every 4th level beyond) and could be exchanged for a 4th stream.
Full casting is more than one stream, so probably should be split and/or require additional investment such as feats to balance. In theory a mystic theurge could be created this way but they would probably lose a spell per spell level they can cast each day for each class. Still, they'd have more spells per day than anyone else and unpenalised casting progression in two types of magic ... just not much else for class abilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the new multiclassing. Well to be honest, I really think I like the new multiclassing rules. I havent actually used them yet.
I absolutely hated the 3.x and PF version of My character is a 1 fighter/1 rogue/2 paladin/1 monk/1 gladiator/1 super ninja/1 ....... etc etc.
Get away from me with that.
I however dont have any problem with a player who honestly wants to be a 10 fighter/10 monk or what ever. To me, unlike the mess I just listed above a 10/10 character is a valid character concept. The min/max Frankenstein monstrosity is just someone with too many splat books.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the problem I always had with traditional multiclassing: You train as a wizard from a young age, whisked off to a wizard tower to serve some nasty master day and night having your brain broken and remade to understand even the simplest of spells. After a decade of this your master deemed you adequate and gifted you your first spellbook with a smattering of first level spells.
Gropfitz the Barbarian smashes things. He does this every day for ten levels. Then one day he trips over a big wizard tome and starts reading. Next level, bampf. He's a wizard, same as you. No wizard tower. No nasty master.
Full multiclassing feels like it jumps a crucial bit of story--you go from one thing to fully proficient other thing. It's always felt like a cheat that my rogue could suddenly become a full druid or monk, seemingly overnight with no real justification. But the way the classes are conceptually structured, there really aren't any (except fighter maybe?) that you could just jump into as a self taught amateur.
4e fixed this in almost the same exact way P2 is, and I really like the base concept. You start as a barbarian, you get a feat that unlocks a fork in the road. You get some wizard stuff, but you're still obviously self taught. I like this.
Problem is, with both systems, at this point they start making you buy a whole chain of feats that makes the whole thing not worth it anymore. The way we houseruled it, and what I would suggest, is to hybridize the way the system is set up now with a traditional multiclass. Once you get the feat, you can choose level by level, what you want to take a level in each time you advance. You are also qualified for the rest of the multiclass feat chains for both classes, so if you feel like you're falling behind the curve you have the option to take a feat to help catch up.
It's a simple fix. It gives multiclass fans a true multiclass. It gives characters access to mechanics that players are free to choose if they start to feel their viability slipping. It also gives people like me who were annoyed by the way traditional multiclassing felt in play a nice bridge from one class into another with a feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, with both systems, at this point they start making you buy a whole chain of feats that makes the whole thing not worth it anymore. The way we houseruled it, and what I would suggest, is to hybridize the way the system is set up now with a traditional multiclass. Once you get the feat, you can choose level by level, what you want to take a level in each time you advance. You are also qualified for the rest of the multiclass feat chains for both classes, so if you feel like you're falling behind the curve you have the option to take a feat to help catch up.
It's a simple fix. It gives multiclass fans a true multiclass. It gives characters access to mechanics that players are free to choose if they start to feel their viability slipping. It also gives people like me who were annoyed by the way traditional multiclassing felt in play a nice bridge from one class into another with a feat.
That...actually sounds like it has potential. I know people keep saying don't houserule stuff in the playtest, it will dilute your data or whatever, but I am interested in how that works out for you.
As a summary, if you want to multiclass you would (this is a combo of what I'm getting from you and my own suggestions):1: Take the dedication feat. This grants you all the proficiencies that you will be getting from your second class, so you don't have to worry about that part getting unbalanced.
2: Starting at the next level, you can freely choose which class to level in, gaining everything on the level advancement chart from whichever class you choose, as well as HP, based on the class you choose.
3: If you feel something is lagging, you can still take a feat from the archetype to boost it, for example if you multiclassed to Wizard, you could take the feat to give you spells, preventing your spellcasting from being super crippled.
Presumably your level for purposes of picking class feats would be based on class level, but your level for picking the multiclass archetype feats would still be based on character level?
The only real downside I'm seeing is that for it to really work properly, you would need to pull general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats off the class advancement tables and put them in their own table. I know that's something they were trying to avoid, but I don't see it as being a big deal, personally.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right now, out of all the rules I've seen, my biggest apprehension is multiclassing. I tend to multiclass... a LOT, but the current archetype-based multiclassing rules just leave me scratching my head.
For example, how am I supposed to multiclass a character with a bard or monk? How can I start with 1 or 2 levels in Rogue before fully switching to Cleric or Monk for that character's remaining progression? Mind you, I'm not just pulling hypotheticals out of thin air; these are all examples from characters I played in 3.5 & P1. I'm genuinely confused as to how I'd recreate them via the P2 rules.
To be clear, I'm happy for those for whom the archetype rules will work well. Having multiclass spellcasters who aren't left behind is a worthy goal! Yet given the dichotomy of people's responses, I'm clearly not the only one needing more robust options.
What we've been given for multiclassing so far reminds me of the difference between how we might quickly apply a monster template vs. having the tools and info needed to perform a rebuild. I wouldn't begrudge someone being happy with the quick n' easy method, but that's no reason to discount those of us hoping for a more organic approach.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a friend who played a half-orc barbarian who was full of rage and anger until level 3. He had a pivotal character defining moment where he found a deep peace within nature and dedicated himself to defending it. Over the next couple levels, he jumped back and forth between the two as his character struggled between his old upbringing and this new peace before finally and fully embracing his druidic, heh, nature. At level 14, he had five levels of barbarian and 9 levels of druid. This sort of rich character journey just doesn't seem possible in PF2 and that makes me sad.
In the same party, there was an elf wizard, who started following the goddess of magic and did a 50/50 split of between wizard and cleric. They finally took theurge as a prestige class with a character goal of finding the gap between the arcane and the divine and bridging it. This also doesn't really seem possible.
This new way really only suits the wizard that found himself defenseless in melee once and after nearly dying, swore never to be that helpless again and ended up taking a few levels in fighter and running around with a battleaxe, before prestiging into Storm Lord. Keeping wizard with the fighter archetype would work well for him.
Unrelated: I played a pure paladin in that party. I was simple. But at least I was immune to mummy rot and fear and I COULD SMITE EVIL. OH, AND MY HOLY MOUNT KILLED A WHITE DRAGON because he was a good horse and smart and not just a lame animal companion like that druid's stupid cat. Oh, what's that? Your cat can do tricks? Did its tricks save it getting stuck in a pit? No. I mean, my horse got stuck too, but then I just summoned him back to me. My horse was as smart as the old barbarian that died from mummy rot. Dang it, why doesn't Paizo like Paladins?
Sorry, just had to, uh, get that out of my system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've seen so far I don't see that either of those stories can't be told. The barbarian finds peace and begins to follow the way of a nature faith and picks up the clerical multiclass feat. For the most part they use those abilities in lieu of raging, but sometimes the situation requires them to dip back into the old way they used to do things, but eventually after several feats they are now effectively a druid--or at least a nature oriented cleric.
Likewise the wizard begins to follow a goddess of magic, picks up the clerical multiclass feat and gains some cleric. Getting a 50/50 split ends up taking a while because they started out so fully in the arcane camp but eventually they get there. Prestige classes as such aren't a thing yet, but I can't see why they couldn't get some special campaign specific blessing from the goddess of magic that makes them effectively a theurge.
I don't see how either of those don't work...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OntosChalmer (and everyone else who wants 3.x multiclassing): Can you demonstrate what character you can't recreate with the current VMC-esque multiclassing?
I was pretty vocally against VMC-esque multiclassing because that's how 4th ed worked. I have to say having played around with it I can't say it feels like 4th ed multiclassing at all. 4th ed was very shallow unless you did the Paragon Path mutliclassing which was 99.999% of the time a bad choice to make. It also epitomised "dipping" as the dedication feats were often better than general feats which had similar benefits. I remember one player collected all 4 power sources with 1 character. It was ridiculous.
PF2e multiclassing however forces you to stick with it. My Halfling Bard (Fighter) feels different to a straight bard, but I didn't have to dip into 3 other classes to get him to be viable. Simply taking Bard and fighter multiclass feats was enough to get me into a more martial power structure while still keeping my full spell progression. He also has enough feats that he could multiclass into a Steel Falcon archetype once it gets published.
My Halfling "Bard" was my stress test of the multiclassing rules and it passed superbly. I'll also be converting over my Eldritch Knight (unfortunately I don't think I kept the character sheet so I'll just redo it from general principles) in a few days time to see how well it works out. But if it results in a completely viable character then I'll be converted to the PF2e multiclass style.
Alright, before we go any further can someone please spell out what VMC means? Neither Google nor Urban Dictionary can help with this one. :-\
Alright, before we go any further can someone please spell out what VMC means? Neither Google nor Urban Dictionary can help with this one. :-\
VMC is an acronym for Variant Multi Classing. It was an optional rule introduced in Pathfinder Unchained. I know there were some people into it, but it was pretty bad. If you wanted to multiclass to Wizard, it cost almost all your feats, and then you couldn't even cast any spells. At 10th or 11th level you got a cantrip, but not as a spell, as a spell-like ability.
The new style uses a similar mechanic (trading feats for other classes' class abilites) but does so in a more useful way. I'm still not a fan, but at it is an improvement over VMC.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right now, out of all the rules I've seen, my biggest apprehension is multiclassing. I tend to multiclass... a LOT, but the current archetype-based multiclassing rules just leave me scratching my head.
For example, how am I supposed to multiclass a character with a bard or monk? How can I start with 1 or 2 levels in Rogue before fully switching to Cleric or Monk for that character's remaining progression? Mind you, I'm not just pulling hypotheticals out of thin air; these are all examples from characters I played in 3.5 & P1. I'm genuinely confused as to how I'd recreate them via the P2 rules.
To be clear, I'm happy for those for whom the archetype rules will work well. Having multiclass spellcasters who aren't left behind is a worthy goal! Yet given the dichotomy of people's responses, I'm clearly not the only one needing more robust options.
What we've been given for multiclassing so far reminds me of the difference between how we might quickly apply a monster template vs. having the tools and info needed to perform a rebuild. I wouldn't begrudge someone being happy with the quick n' easy method, but that's no reason to discount those of us hoping for a more organic approach.
The multiclass options in the playtest are just a sample. If they decide to go this route in final release, they'll put multiclass options in for each base class.
I think what you're saying is pretty much exactly my issue as well though. I don't disagree with their point that having easy options for people that don't have the system mastery to avoid pitfalls is a good thing, but I like messing around with stuff to see what works and what doesn't. I like building weird characters that don't fit into established ideas. If I can't build outside pre-established roles, it's a turn off for me.I also hate it when I arbitrarily just can't get a particular class feature. For example, multiclassing to Fighter will never give you a fighter's bonus to saves vs fear, or their access to critical specializations. If you multiclass to Rogue, you can't get dex to damage. You can get Sneak Attack, but only a crippled version. It just seems very arbitrary, what you can and can't get, and it's very frustrating when you're trying to create something specific, and the option you want for it is locked out for no real reason. And then other options are locked in, like making Thievery a signature skill when you multiclass Rogue. Rogues aren't defined by the Thievery skill. It's a signature skill for Rogue, but so are a lot of things. An actual Rogue doesn't have to take Thievery. Why is it that someone who multiclasses to it does? Granted it only adds it as a signature skill, but it's pretty hard to get additional signature skills, and a lot of classes only get a couple of them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Old multiclassing is a trap in this edition.
If you still want to do it, houserule it away. But no reason why new adopters should be burdened with the extra pages to describe a very subpar mechanic that will cripple their characters unless they have a way to exploit the class budgets.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Errant: Ah ok, thanks for the clarification!
OntosChalmer (and everyone else who wants 3.x multiclassing): Can you demonstrate what character you can't recreate with the current VMC-esque multiclassing?
Quite a time-consuming request, but fair I suppose. Not sure if I have time to write-up more than 1 or 2 of these though...
Sindariel Lammontari
Female Wood Elf
Unchained Rogue 3, Occultist (Secret Broker) 10
Setting: Waterdeep, Forgotten Realms
Full Pre-Game Backstory: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gzjfq2w8sg0sv2/Background%20-%20GM%20only.docx?d l=0
Synopsis: Young elf girl from a noble wood elf family is intelligent and good at lots of things but has no real passions. She's not good with animals, has little interest in woodsy pursuits, but likes high fashion and is intrigued by arcane magic. Since wood elves disdain the arcane, they try hard to dissuade her. (rogue 1, lots of physical skills)
Ultimately, father decides maybe immersing daughter dearest in city-life will break her fascination. She's enrolled at the arcane university "Lady's College" in Silverymoon, where she soon discovered she doesn't have the same knacks as everyone else and becomes discouraged. (secret broker occultist 1)
When the Time of Troubles hits and magic goes wonky, she began to better appreciate her own unique abilities, and takes a position as a clerk at the school so she has better access to secrets and relics. (secret broker occultist 2, and lots of background skills)
After some traumatic family events wherein she gets disowned, she makes her way to Waterdeep and tries to make a living for herself as a government clerk, often aiding as a police sketch artist for the guard. In her free time, she frequents "The Drag 'n Queen Tavern" where she befriends many of the drag queen performers and loves that she has an audience for her fashion creations. It's also comforting being around others who value the ability to keep secrets. (secret broker occultist 3, adds a couple more skills)
Self-confidence and ambition growing, she befriends a scribe from work (inquisitor) and one of the minstrels from the tavern (bard). Since there are lots of odd jobs around Waterdeep, and city rent is expensive, they decide to team up as a party to sleuth out secrets, solve mysteries, etc. When they realize that they all perform different instruments, it occurs to them that being a band would be a great cover for their activities. (secret broker 4)
Over the course of their adventures, the unlikely composition of their small team means that each member has to fulfill some of the roles of a more standard party composition. For her part, Sin still has a knack for getting into places where she ought not to from her adolescence. (unchained rogue 2)
From there out, Sindariel does about 1 rogue level for every 3 occultist levels. In time, after each has gone their separate way, she finds herself in an elven colony far from Waterdeep where she sets up shop as a fashion designer while secretly serving as spymaster to the colony's governor.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you still want to do it, houserule it away. But no reason why new adopters should be burdened with the extra pages to describe a very subpar mechanic that will cripple their characters unless they have a way to exploit the class budgets.
Well that comes across as a very rude and condescending suggestion. We're here trying to help make the next edition the best it can be and you just want to shut discussion down by being dismissive and telling people to houserule?
To be clear, for some of us, the single most important gateway for an RPG is whether or not it allows us to accurately represent the character we have in mind. If it can't do that, then it won't matter whether or not the combat mechanics are perfect or the magical system sublime.
In my case, the whole reason I stuck with Paizo instead of switching to 4E way-back-when, and why I chafe at having to roll-up a 5E character is because their character creation options sacrifice too much of the story aspects of a character in favor of the game aspects. That's all well and good for people who like that, but people have a pretty big range of reasons for wanting to play RPGs (rather than write novels), and the story vs game spectrum has players and GMs all over it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the new multiclassing. Well to be honest, I really think I like the new multiclassing rules. I havent actually used them yet.
I absolutely hated the 3.x and PF version of My character is a 1 fighter/1 rogue/2 paladin/1 monk/1 gladiator/1 super ninja/1 ....... etc etc.Get away from me with that.
I however dont have any problem with a player who honestly wants to be a 10 fighter/10 monk or what ever. To me, unlike the mess I just listed above a 10/10 character is a valid character concept. The min/max Frankenstein monstrosity is just someone with too many splat books.
As someone who liked making characters like this (done mostly when making leveled monsters to use against the PC"s) I think you need to step off.
You never played characters like this, but you judge them and the people who play them. My fun has nothing to do with yours'. If my style of character "offends" you then maybe you're the problem, not me or the system.
In the current system, you can't stop learning magic, or developing combat abilities, or stop being a thief. It isn't unfair to call that ridiculous. It isn't unreasonable to suggest fixes that improve the system.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Old multiclassing is a trap in this edition.
If you still want to do it, houserule it away. But no reason why new adopters should be burdened with the extra pages to describe a very subpar mechanic that will cripple their characters unless they have a way to exploit the class budgets.
It is true that they've turned it into a trap in this new edition. But, that's only because they've specifically written it that way, by rolling everything into the class advancement charts, etc. They're specifically setting it up to work only with their new vision of multiclassing. They've also set it up specifically so nothing stacks. No ability says "you improve your proficiency level by one step." They all say "You gain Expert level proficiency in X." And most of those are loaded towards the second half of the classes. Monk's proficiency in unarmored doesn't improve from 1st level until 13th level. If they weren't building the class advancement that way, it wouldn't be a trap. Still would be fidgety, PF1 multiclassing certainly is that, but not a trap.
Also, in PF1 the multiclass rules took up about half a page. How many pages is it going to be when they have to build a new archetype feat tree for every class? And let's be honest here, if they want to actually make these usable, they're gonna need a lot more feats in each tree. The Fighter and Rogue archetypes are wholly unsatisfying, because there's a ton of stuff that's just arbitrarily off-limits to multi-classers. Here's an example: Fighters are trained in all armors and shields. If you take the Fighter Dedication, you get all armor, but no option for shields. There's nothing in the feat tree for shields at all. Okay, you may say, but not all fighters use shields. Sure, but you know what all single classed fighters do learn automatically? Master level shield proficiency. So why, as a multiclassed, let's say for the sake of argument, Barbarian/Fighter do I only get heavy armor training from picking up Fighter dedication?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OntosChalmer (and everyone else who wants 3.x multiclassing): Can you demonstrate what character you can't recreate with the current VMC-esque multiclassing?
OK, this is gonna be it I think. While it gives me a warm feeling recollecting all of this, it takes forever to recap! Hopefully these two examples help to illustrate where some of us are coming from. :)
Alis Kirmoon
Female Half-Elf
Cleric 1, Rogue 1, Sorcerer 1, Monk 5, Bard 9
Setting: Homebrew
Been playing Alis in different incarnations for about 25 years. Some early ones (D&D 2E) were straight bard, others were Gestalts. However, the one that rings the truest to my vision for her is as follows...
Twin sisters of elven and human royalty, Alis and Alexis were often mistaken as identical twins. However, where Alexis was ever the diligent and serious student of the arcane, Alis was more inclined towards curiosity and seeing what made people tick.
Initially, her parents thought to have her schooled in the wizardly arts alongside Alexis, but it soon became apparent that he magical talents were essentially improvised (sorcerer 1).
While the sisters' parents were across the Boundless Ocean establishing a new colony where even half-breeds like their daughters might know acceptance, they were left in the case of their elven uncle, a closet bigot and a secret invoker of diabolic arts. While the uncle deemed Alexis might make a compliant puppet someday, Alis' force of personality and meddling nature made her a liability. He sent her away to a temple for the controversial goddess of passion (think Calistria) in the hopes of making her into a useful bride for a political marriage that might remove a wrench from his machinations.
While Alis did learn a great many skills at the temple, she was resentful of the order that was foisted upon her and constantly found ways to follow her own path (rogue 1). Even still, by the time her parents returned and she was reclaimed by her mortified father, she had at least managed to retain a good measure of the priestess' ways, including their self-defense teachings (cleric 1, monk 1).
While her father was well-meaning in his indignation towards Alis' evil uncle. The shame she felt over his reaction to what she had been taught stayed with Alis for many years, and she kept such talents secret even from Alexis.
With only questionable skill in magic, the girls' mother suggested Alis focus instead on other talents. She was perceptive (particularly where people's emotions were concerned), athletic, and had a lovely singing voice. The path of a diplomat, or a role in the opera, were both plausible (bard 1).
[Note: That we used a form of multiclass casting (possibly from 3.5 Arcana Unearthed) that allowed her bard levels to improve her Sorcerer casting.]
It was no long after that tragedy struck. The girls' parents were seemingly lost at sea, and their uncle made his play to usurp their birthright. He staged a kidnapping to get Alis out of the way while receiving financial enrichment from a powerful crime lord who fancied a royal concubine. Thankfully, the unarmed training she had received years before now served Alis well. She fought her way to freedom in a foreign port (monk 2) only to end up press-ganged onto a pirate ship!
For some time, she was forced to keep her heritage secret as she built up alliances and esteem amongst her crew mates (bard 3), until she finally led a successful mutiny to seize command as Captain Wardove. With the help of her crew and allies sent by Alexis to search for her, Alis and company severely disrupted pirate operations in the area, acting as self-appointed privateers. They ultimately foiled not only her uncle's diabolic plans, but also the ambitions of the crime lord to which she had originally been promised. (bard 5)
Upon her return to civilization, the sisters organized a mission across the ocean to look for their parents. In the process, they uncovered many strange truths about the nature of their world, of magic, and of the gods themselves. (bard 7)
While the sisters' mission proved successful, upon their return home, they found their kingdom in ruins. A great red wyrm had laid waste to the elven capital, the king was dead, and their royal elven cousins were doing their best to hold the country together against diabolic forces their uncle had set in motion year before in his own bid to seize the crown. Fixing that took some work, but at least there was a time of peace afterwards. (bard 9)
Years later, a crisis developed in a state under the elven kingdom's protection. During civil unrest, the elven governor was brutally assassinated, and it seemed that civil war could erupt there at any time. Known by now for her competence, Alis was dispatched, yet echoes of her late uncle's allies were afoot. She and her retinue were forced to travel by circuitous means to avoid detection, only to be shipwrecked without supplies or gear on a lost island with an occult legacy. Once again, she had to rely upon her priestly training to persevere (monk 4).
Following their escape from the island, one of Alis' closest friends was able to help heal her heart over the shame of her religious training. She began to embrace it, and trained daily with her priestesses from the temple in the protectorate city that now served as the seat of her governorship. (monk 5) In fact, as the true demonic source of the unrest civil made itself manifest, she and her companions were even ordained by the goddess of passion herself to serve as her chosen in the coming battle for the fate of the world! (mythic dual-path archmage/trickster 1)
Aaand that brings us to the present!
(Oh, and yes... for those who are observant, the character I posted earlier, Sindariel, is Alis' spymaster.)
They need to front load classes a little heavier, I think this will actually solve some problems people are having with customization on low levels. Give every class more stuff at level 1, your are finally free from level dip shackles there is seriously no need to hold back. 2-3 more features/feats(especially choices that can be expanded as more content comes out) right off the bat to customize your class would be a strong selling point.
Not to change topics, but this is how I feel about Ancestries as well. It simply feels like ancestries and classes don't provide enough at the get-go to allow for parity with the "lore continuum" (if you will), or with existing characters we might want to reprise in the new edition.
Sindariel Lammontari
Female Wood Elf
Unchained Rogue 3, Occultist (Secret Broker) 10
Setting: Waterdeep, Forgotten Realms
Full Pre-Game Backstory: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gzjfq2w8sg0sv2/Background%20-%20GM%20only.docx?d l=0....From there out, Sindariel does about 1 rogue level for every 3 occultist levels
So that sounds like it's more of a conceptual background then a "unfolded during the campaign" situation. But let's say it was actually in game (with your first level in Occultist?), here's what a PF1e Rogue 3 gets: Sneak Attack +2d6, trapfinding, evasion, rogue talent, trap sense.
In PF2e evasion is also a 7th level ability (these sort of changes are inevitable across editions). Using Wizard as a stand-in for Occultist (I think that's closer than a Bard)...
Wizard 13
Class and General Feats
Wizard 2: Counterspell
General 3: Weapon Proficiency (simple weapons)
Wizard 4: Rogue Dedication (Dex 16, Thievery, both possible to have at level 1 for a wizard)
Wizard 6: Basic Trickery (Trapfinding)
General 7: Armor Proficiency
Wizard 8: Spell Penetration
Wizard 10: Sneak Attacker (1d6)
------
The differences are: Your sneak attack doesn't increase (this is a failing of the rogue archetype IMO and not archetype multiclassing). In PF1e you would have to spend a feat to cast in light armor anyway. Trapfinding is the equivalent of Trap Sense. You also won't be able to get legendary proficiency in thievery which again (IMO) is a failing of signature skills and not archetype multiclasses. On the other hand your multiclassed "Occultist" gets full "Occultist" spell progression.
Personally I think the above multiclassing is viable and workable in translating your PF1e concept into archetype multiclassing.
So that sounds like it's more of a conceptual background then a "unfolded during the campaign" situation.
Correct, Sindariel is a character that I'll get to start playing (using P1 rules) in about 2 weeks. The GM is having us start above 1st level, so I'm taking the opportunity to finally delve into a major NPC from my other character's (Alis Kirmoon's) actual play experience.
As for your suggested progression, Wizard is probably a better fit for a standard Occultist, but Bard would probably be closer for a Secret Broker and more thematically appropriate for a character who is a "Renaissance Woman". Still, as you say, some differences are to be expected between editions.
Now granted this doesn't seem too bad, but Sin' is a relatively simple example compared to Alis. How would you propose restatting her into P2E (if you don't mind)?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OntosChalmer (and everyone else who wants 3.x multiclassing): Can you demonstrate what character you can't recreate with the current VMC-esque multiclassing?
I was going to list a few, but then I realized that even WITH 3.x multiclassing I couldn't rebuild the majority of these characters because of how the majority of feats are locked into classes now (and that's ignoring the portion that simply can't exist at all with the current offerings). That's probably a different thread though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct, Sindariel is a character that I'll get to start playing (using P1 rules) in about 2 weeks. The GM is having us start above 1st level, so I'm taking the opportunity to finally delve into a major NPC from my other character's (Alis Kirmoon's) actual play experience.
Fair enough. I think the archetype multiclassing rules works particularly well in this case then (because you've got sufficient levels to get multiple multiclass feats).
As for your suggested progression, Wizard is probably a better fit for a standard Occultist, but Bard would probably be closer for a Secret Broker and more thematically appropriate for a character who is a "Renaissance Woman". Still, as you say, some differences are to be expected between editions.
I was really only using Wizard as a placeholder class. My version doesn't work well in capturing an Occultist, because Occultists don't exist yet in PF2e. That's a limitation on a new edition rather than multiclassing itself. I'm specifically trying to see how the archetype multiclassing fails rather than failures because of a lack of content.
Now granted this doesn't seem too bad, but Sin' is a relatively simple example compared to Alis. How would you propose restatting her into P2E (if you don't mind)?
Definitely! That's a GREAT example to show how limited the new multiclassing rules are (or aren't. My halfling bard was similarly classed and ended up working pretty well as a straight bard multiclassed into fighter). I may not get to it until Wednesday evening. But I'll definitely post up the results when I do it.
To help put me in perspective, I was 100% against archetype multiclassing. I've been won over for now because I've had success in using the system. If anyone thinks they have a genuine PF1e character that can't be recreated because of the multiclassing rules (and not because feats are gated behind classes or the content simply doesn't exist yet) feel free to post them up. I want to explore what limitations exist in archetype multiclassing so we can tell Paizo what changes they need or whether they need 3.x multiclassing as well as archetype multiclassing.
Fair enough. I think the archetype multiclassing rules works particularly well in this case then (because you've got sufficient levels to get multiple multiclass feats).
Yeah,
I was really only using Wizard as a placeholder class. My version doesn't work well in capturing an Occultist, because Occultists don't exist yet in PF2e. That's a limitation on a new edition rather than multiclassing itself. I'm specifically trying to see how the archetype multiclassing fails rather than failures because of a lack of content.
Yep, that's definitely fair, and a legit part of the reason I've haven't flipped any too many tables. ;)
[Alis stuff] that's a GREAT example to show how limited the new multiclassing rules are (or aren't.
Ya know, I didn't even realize there was a hyperlink there until I clicked reply. I'll definitely be checking that out when I should be productive at work tomorrow! :D
I may not get to it until Wednesday evening. But I'll definitely post up the results when I do it.
To help put me in perspective, I was 100% against archetype multiclassing. I've been won over for now because I've had success in using the system.
I appreciate the that actually. I stopped my anxiety meds about 2 weeks ago, so the reassurance is definitely appreciated! :)
I want to explore what limitations exist in archetype multiclassing so we can tell Paizo what changes they need or whether they need 3.x multiclassing as well as archetype multiclassing.
For sure, better to address as much as possible now so that we don't have to either houserule everything or endure another 4E-style schism in the community.
Cleric 1, Rogue 1, Sorcerer 1, Monk 5, Bard 9
Setting: Homebrew
To try to get a feel for this character, how does she play at the table? Is she a primary spellcaster? Because currently she's a caster level 10 (sorcerer), BAB +9 character whose 18th level. So she doesn't really seem viable as either a spellcaster or a weapon fighter.
I can take the flavour and create a new character for it. But I was wanting to take a character from a mechanical aspect and transfer it over.
So I believe we were using these rules from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana for spellcasting:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm
As such, she cast spells as a Sorcerer (Arcane bloodline) but with Bard spells added to the list at the higher of the two class levels (if a spell common to both was higher level for one than the other). As a result, her effective caster level was a bit better than if she was strictly P1 RAW. However, that does introduce a bit of an apples to oranges problem I guess, huh? :-\
In terms of spell selection, most of her spells were based around breaking or bending rules moreso than flashy outward displays. So I don't think she had any evocation or conjuration spells beyond perhaps Spark or Grease. Instead most were based around Divination, Enchantment, and personal utility such as fly, invisibility, beast shape, air bubble... stuff that let her defy people's expectations of her, manipulate social encounters, and gather info or converse at long-distance. As such, she didn't use spells in combat too much save to buff allies (good hope, etc).
In terms of combat, she had her bard songs, and a domain ability called "Bit of Luck" that allowed allies to reroll all d20s and take the better results for that turn. So combined with a focus on improved feint, the crane wing style, combat reflexes, and her whip, she would concentrate on battlefield control, making enemies waste their attacks, and aiding allies to improve their efficacy.
Basically, she owned infiltration and social encounters and helped everyone else to shine in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I went ahead and did it straight away. Took a fair bit of time. With the above clarification I'm still only counting caster level 10 on an 18th level character. That still isn't great, but that's okay if it works for your group.
What you need to translate over to PF2e are the following class features: Ki Pool, Flurry of Blows, Stunning Fist, Evasion, Fast Movement, Slow Fall, High Jump, Purity of Body, Unarmed Damage 1d8, 4th level arcane sorcerer spells, 1st level divine cleric spells, Channel Divinity (1d6), Domain, Bardic Knowledge, Countersong, Distraction, Fascinate, Inspire Courage, Inspire Competence, Suggestion, Dirge of Doom, Inspire Greatness, Well-Versed, Loremaster, Sneak Attack +1d6, Trapfinding
NOTE: Due to a lack of bard multiclassing, I will be using the rogue as my baseline to invent my own bard multiclassing feats. Also I just saw a Mythic addition at the end. I'm going to ask to not include that simply because I don't know the Mythic rules and we don't have a PF2e version.
Alis Kirkmoon - Half-Elf (Acolyte) Sorcerer 17 (Bard/Rogue)
STR 18 = 10 + 2 (1st) + 2 (5th) + 2 (10th) + 2 (15th)
DEX 19 = 10 + 2 (half-elf) + 2 (1st) + 2 (5th) + 2 (10th) + 1 (15th)
CON 16 = 10 + 2 (background) + 2 (1st) + 2 (10th)
INT 14 = 10 + 2 (5th) + 2 (15th)
WIS 10 = 10
CHA 21 = 10 + 2 (half-elf) + 2 (background) + 2 (Bard) + 2 (1st) + 1 (5th) + 1
(10th) + 1 (15th)
FEATS
Ancestry 1: Half-Elf (gifted speaker, low-light vision)
Skill 1: Student of the Canon
Sorcerer 2: Bardic dedication
Skill 2: Cat-Fall (slow fall replacement)
General 3: Fleet (fast movement replacement)
Sorcerer 4: Bard Muse (Bardic Lore)
Skill 4: Fascinating Performance
Ancestry 5: Natural Ambition (Versatile Performance)
Skill 6: Powerful Leap (high jump replacement)
General 7: Fast Recovery (purity of body themed replacement)
Sorcerer 8: Rogue Dedication
Skill 8: Wall Jump (flavourful high jump/slowfall synergy)
Skill 8: Robust Recovery (purity of body themed replacement)
Ancestry 9: Unwavering Mien
Skill 10:
General 11:
Skill 12:
Ancestry 13: Nimble
Sorcerer 14: Evasiveness
Skill 14:
General 15:
Skill 16:
Ancestry 17: Keen Hearing
SKILLS
Trained: Lore (Calistria equivalent), Arcana, Religion, Occultism, Nature, Performance, Medicine
Expert: Medicine
Master: Athletics
Spells
Arcane spells
----------
The above is just a skeleton to demonstrate how the multiclassing. You could then take Deception or Stealth and pick up some flavourful feats with the left over ones I've included above.
Here are the class features I managed to capture: Evasion, Fast Movement, Slow Fall, High Jump, Purity of Body, 4th level arcane sorcerer spells, Bardic Knowledge, Fascinate, Well-Versed (kinda), Trapfinding
Here is what doesn't exist in PF2e: Distraction, Countersong, Suggestion
Here's what I failed to bring over: Ki Pool, Flurry of Blows, Stunning Fist, Unarmed Damage 1d8, 1st level divine cleric spells, Channel Divinity (1d6), Domain, Dirge of Doom, Inspire Greatness, Loremaster
As noted, the original character can't actually be created in RAW PF1e. If you're willing to accept the occult spell list instead of the arcane spell list and just play a bard, you no longer need to be a bard/sorcerer multiclass and could get the following class features (as cantrips or bard feats): Inspire Courage, Inspire Competence, Dirge of Doom, Inspire Greatness, Loremaster, Sneak Attack +1d6 (rogue multiclass).
Even with this compromise, I've still failed to bring over Ki Pool, Flurry of Blows, Stunning Fist, Unarmed Damage 1d8, 1st level divine cleric spells, Channel Divinity (1d6), Domain
So this is definitely a limitation of the multiclass system. I do feel that the acolyte background captures the flavour of cleric, but it doesn't capture the mechanics of monk and bard together. You can either get Bard class features or multiclass into monk and get monk class features. Or you can get bard and monk and lose sneak attack +1d6 and trapfinding. There just aren't enough feats to get all 3.
To be honest, this was such a bizarre build with BAB +9 at 18th level I think most players wouldn't try to use a weapon with her. So I'm not sure if most people would be upset about not getting to play this specific array of classes in PF2e.
Wow, that was fast! Thanks for taking such an active part in helping me comprehend this new method!
That said, it's going to take me a while to get thru all this, but there's a couple things that jump out at me...
- She was actually 17th level, not 18th — mythic is... weird.
- Substituting Rogue for Bard for the experiment sounds like a reasonable choice, though leveling her primarily as a Sorcerer isn't something I could see myself doing, she's too much of a skill monkey.
- The Acolyte background sounds like a logical substitute for the Cleric level, though I'd be inclined to stick with Noble since it's more story-accurate even if sub-par mechanically. (As may be obvious, mechanical optimization was not my first priority with her.)
- The BAB of +9 looks off. Using fractional base bonuses, I'm showing +12.5, which is only 0.5 behind a straight-classed bard.
- As we've both acknowledged, her casting isn't RAW even by P1 rules, so the main interest is in seeing how close we can get her P2 casting to what would have been P1 RAW: Bard 9.
Oof, just realized I'm about 2 hours late for bed when I've got work in the morning! I promise I'll examine this further tomorrow! :o
Thanks again!
Substituting Rogue for Bard for the experiment sounds like a reasonable choice, though leveling her primarily as a Sorcerer isn't something I could see myself doing, she's too much of a skill monkey.
I originally went bard but couldn't make the arcane spell list work. Then I saw you didn't want evocation but had already deleted my previous work. The only difference is some extra cantrips and class feats if you're willing to ditch sorcerer and stay with the occult spell list.
The BAB of +9 looks off. Using fractional base bonuses, I'm showing +12.5, which is only 0.5 behind a straight-classed bard.
Yup. Using Unchained Rules will get you vastly different results. Either way I'd say the PF2e version is a viable weapon user.
That works out better. Either way, she's caster level 17 in PF2e.
Oof, just realized I'm about 2 hours late for bed when I've got work in the morning! I promise I'll examine this further tomorrow! :o
No worries at all. Look at my notes at the bottom as to what class features you can recover if you go bard instead of sorcerer. If you're willing to ditch sneak attack +1d6 and trapfinding, you could multiclass into monk and tick off even more class features. Or you can say the PF2e multiclass rules are just not good enough for what you want (although honestly neither are the PF1e rules either, especially not before Unchained was published).