Uugh, so apparently the first day back to work after being out for a week due to an injury is NOT conducive to delving into the intricacies of new RPG whilst on-the-clock. ^_^;
Since I've not had time to build more than a single low-level character, I honestly can't ascertain if this will work for me or not. One of my major concerns is skills: maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like if you don't go with the rules-optimal correct class at 1st level then you're forever out-of-luck where signature skills are concerned lest (if Thievery/Rogue Dedication is any indicator) spend a minimum of 3 feats for each new signature skill you want (Dedication feat + 2 others to satisfy the Special condition before you open up another Dedication).
Also, if a character was to start as a Rogue and later find religion (Cleric Dedication), I don't see how it's possible to ever be a viable caster without sacrificing what seems like an unreasonable number of feat slots. Unfortunately, I don't have time to theory craft since I still need to prepare a dungeon for my Wednesday night P1E game.
So I'm on the fence at the moment. This new MC method seems more versatile for trying to gestalt multiple classes together, but less viable for when a character decides to totally switch focus without retraining away all of their past decisions.
Please don't bring back the old style of PF multiclassing. Or if you do, don't remove the current style. For the issue of not being able to completely switch focus, I propose changing the rules on retraining to being more detailed, and then allowing a character to retrain class if they have the multiclass dedication feat (switching multiclass dedication feats around as well so they go from Fighter (wizard) to Wizard (fighter))
I'm not 100% happy with the current multiclassing, but I think it's a good system, as it's used in this game. I will wait until I see it in play to give my full thoughts, but just at a glance, I think it does better in about 80% of cases than 3.x multiclassing did. My main issues with the system come down to the fact that non-caster multiclassing seems a bit off (or maybe it's caster MCs that are off; waiting to see how it plays in game), and the fact that I think Retraining is too broadly permissible that they have to restrict retraining classes, even in the cases where it might make sense for the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I heard there was a call for multiclass characters that have problems with the new system:
First up: Wizard 5/fighter 1/Hellknight Signifer 5. This would work except for the dedication requirements (using grey maidens as a substitute, of course). After using Fighter dedication to get heavy armour, I need to blow two more feats before I can prestige to be the fully armoured mage I want to be (using general feats on a wizard chassis means it takes until level 11 taking nothing but armour proficiency, and then I still need weapon proficiency). Of course, The other issue is that plate is awful, but that's less relevant to multiclassing
cavalier 4/bard 1/battle herald 5, focused on non-spell buffs. The cavalier archetype focuses on the less important (to this character) mount, I want to avoid as much spellcasting as possible so full Bard is out, and the bard multiclass doesn't currently exist.
This is ignoring several characters invalidated due to a lack of options at all, such as alchemist 2/gunslinger 5/ranger X with vestigial arm, constructed pugilist brawler 1/tinkerer investigator X or white-haired witch 1/ fighter X.
Bonus: a Beginner Box character, dwarf fighter with heavy armour and Cleave (and great cleave, goblin cleaver, orc hewer...). Not multiclassed in PF1. Cleave and heavy armour are literally mutually exclusive in the playtest, with the feat being locked to rage which is impossible in heavy armour.
|
I heard there was a call for multiclass characters that have problems with the new system:
First up: Wizard 5/fighter 1/Hellknight Signifer 5. This would work except for the dedication requirements (using grey maidens as a substitute, of course). After using Fighter dedication to get heavy armour, I need to blow two more feats before I can prestige to be the fully armoured mage I want to be (using general feats on a wizard chassis means it takes until level 11 taking nothing but armour proficiency, and then I still need weapon proficiency). Of course, The other issue is that plate is awful, but that's less relevant to multiclassing
cavalier 4/bard 1/battle herald 5, focused on non-spell buffs. The cavalier archetype focuses on the less important (to this character) mount, I want to avoid as much spellcasting as possible so full Bard is out, and the bard multiclass doesn't currently exist.
This is ignoring several characters invalidated due to a lack of options at all, such as alchemist 2/gunslinger 5/ranger X with vestigial arm, constructed pugilist brawler 1/tinkerer investigator X or white-haired witch 1/ fighter X.
Regarding your first few build offers, please state some of their tactics more than just what the class composition is; otherwise it's pretty difficult to even begin the process of recreation.
Bonus: a Beginner Box character, dwarf fighter with heavy armour and Cleave (and great cleave, goblin cleaver, orc hewer...). Not multiclassed in PF1. Cleave and heavy armour are literally mutually exclusive in the playtest, with the feat being locked to rage which is impossible in heavy armour.
Let's tackle this one because you gave me the most direction here. You want a dwarf in heavy armour that uses area of effect swings. The good news is that fighters have an ability that does this called Swipe!
Background: Warrior
Ancestry: Dwarf (Weapon Familiarity)
Str 18, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
Trained skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Craft, Lore (warfare)
1 Quick Repair, Sudden Charge, Weapon Familiarity (dwarf)
2 Assurance (Acrobatics), Brutish Shove
3 Expert Athletics, Fleet
4 One-handed Climber, Swipe
5 Expert Acrobatics, Hardy, +2 Dex/Con/Wis, +1 Str
At level 5 with a +1 expert weapon you can attack with a dwarven waraxe for +12/+7/+2 (2d8+4 one-handed, 2d12+4 two-handed). We've gone with half plate until full plate gets buffed, so your AC is 22 without a shield, or 24 if you ready a heavy one (TAC 19, 21 with shield). That said, we don't usually use a shield because we want to take advantage of Brutish Shove. You can bully your way around the battlefield, and if you can shove someone into good position, you can follow up with Swipe on the next turn, also taking advantage of the waraxe's Sweep property, making the second target a bit easier to hit. One thing to note is that Brutish Shove is a Press attack, meaning you can't open with it.
If you want to make the 'cleaves' happen more often, I would opt for a reach weapon like a halberd or guisarme. If you do that, take Stonecunning at first level instead of Weapon Familiarity to make use of your excellent Perception.
Let me know if you see any mistakes. I'm still getting the hang of character creation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mention as much of the tactics for the other two since they rely on options that are not around. The Hellknight focuses on battlefield control spells first, with damage as a secondary, and their arcane school is Elemental (wood). The battle herald is built around tactician first, banner second, inspire courage third. Arcane Int-based Entangle and granting a set of feats that don't exist seemed like they were pushing towards "these don't exist regardless of how the multiclassing is"
|
|
Question re: Hellknight. Why is Grey Maidens important as a substitute? Just to improve heavy armour? I feel as though you could accomplish a lot of this without the prestige dedication. A wizard that takes fighter dedication and simply wears heavy armour with hellknight motifs is just as much as hellknight. The benefit of signifer was continuing your caster level progression, which 2E does automatically.
You're right that tactician feats don't exist at this moment, so I'm not sure I currently see the point in trying to recreate your herald. Once bard dedication comes out it may be more possible to have a fighter/paladin that uses bard dedication to gain some of the inspire cantrips.
| 1 person 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 think I like the idea of the new edition’s multiclassing, but I think it might also use some tweaking, particularly for characters built around the former 6/9 spellcasting classes.
Now, I admit that I’m a terrible, wicked munchkin: my home group tends to be indulgent, and many of our characters would probably be overpowered if we had the system mastery and inclination to use them to their full capacity. All of which is to say that I’m aware that my group’s normal is probably rather far from Pathfinder’s assumed baseline.
Also, in practice I only play elves and spellcasters – though I will dip fairly extensively for a splash here and there of this and that.
I haven’t worked out the details quite yet, but the concept I wanted to test for PF2 is as follows: a Calistrian warpriest combining something like the shadowdancer’s “hide in plain sight” ability and sneak attack in conjunction with Whirlwind Attack. Something about how I imagine that would look just appealed to me.
Even in the current edition, I could only get it to work as I wanted it to with a kludge of gestalt and a couple of dips in other classes. Ideally, though, I would have been happy with something close to the cult leader warpriest archetype, with the following modifications: retaining channel energy instead of enthrall, and having the option to keep the bonus feats at 9th and 15th level at the expense of a proportionally reduced scaling of sneak attack. A lot of this, admittedly, is purely theorycrafting: I haven’t yet had a chance to play the character much at all.
You can see where this would go in PF2: some combination of cleric, fighter, and rogue multiclassing, conveniently all available in the playtest document. My first thought was to start with a cleric, go to rogue dedication, then fighter to wrap up with Whirlwind Strike at level 14, by means of Advanced Maneuver. If I’m reading things correctly, it would take all of my class feats up to that point, and my sneak attack would only ever be 1d6, but that would be fine by me. The problem here is that one only counts as half one’s level for fighter prerequisites for Advanced Maneuver, and there’s a lot more cleric spellcasting going on than a warpriest really needs.
Alright, what about starting with a fighter, going to cleric dedication, then rogue? Eyeballing it, I think that would work, up to Expert Cleric Spellcasting, with Domain, and again, spending all my class feats on multiclassing and Whirlwind Strike by level 14. The problem here is that it doesn’t feel priest-y enough to me: Divine Breadth and Master Cleric Spellcasting at levels 16 and 18 would round it off, but that’s pushing the endgame, and, as someone who overwhelmingly favours spellcasters, starting off as a non-spellcasting class at first level just rankles.
Still, the new system comes very close. For entirely self-serving purposes and this character in particular (though I wonder what the effects would be, generally), I wonder if it would be disastrous to loosen some of the restrictions on multiclassing. Just spitballing some half-baked ideas (one or more of the following):
1) For the purposes of all the “Advanced [Class X]” multiclassing feats, you just use your character level for the prerequisites of the class feat gained. I think as written this is already the case for Advanced Dogma (for multiclassing into cleric), but that might be an error.
2) Remove the Level: 2 prerequisite for the “[Class X] Dedication” feats. If I haven’t skimmed too quickly, that benefits martial classes more than spellcasting, I think, most of the latter of which only get their first class feat at second level anyway.
3) Not directly related to building the character in question, but I wonder if the number of feats required before one can take another dedication feat can be adjusted, for character concepts that are most easily achieved by a level in a class here or there. Completely arbitrarily, perhaps one could take as many different dedication feats as the number of feats one’s taken in one class’ path. (E.g.: One could take [A] Dedication, [B] Dedication, [C] Dedication, but only if one had two other [Class A] multiclass feats.) Or perhaps one could take as many dedication feats as one might wish, so long as one never has more than one more in a particular class’ path than all the other classes’? Possibly with the additional requirement that one not skip feat levels (I.e., in the set of [Class X] feats with the prerequisite of level 2, 4, 6 etc.)?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always considered D&D3-style level-based multiclassing to be one of D20's greatest strengths. Classes make a character feel like they are part of something larger than themselves; multiclassing makes them feel like stand-out heroes. I think the great strength of the d20 feat system is that it helps make a character unique. It's a one-time choice that maybe grants a little additional power but more importantly grows your character laterally.
My problem with multiclassing feats is the same as my problem with feat chains and trees. Locking characters into another advancement track is just not what feats were meant to do. Multiclassing's great strength is also that it helps make a character unique, but sacrificing one path to customization for another is a bad trade and one I'm not keen to make.
On the other hand, I feel the opposite about classes and races. Belonging to a class or race is supposed to feel like you're conforming to something larger than yourself. It helps a character feel like they belong in a setting. I don't feel as strongly about this as I do about multiclassing, but I do acknowledge with some sadness that Paizo is simultaneously dismantling that sense of belonging by making both class and race mix-and-match buffets.
In short, I want to be able to build an elven fighter-mage who is recognizably an elf, a fighter, and a mage, but who is also recognizable as different than other elven fighter-mages. D&D5 does this with ease. What it looks like I'll be getting in PF2 is an elf-like, fighter-like, mage-like character with nothing else to differentiate them.
It's admittedly a fine bone to pick, but it's stuck fast.
I regret that I do not have a solution for PF2 multiclassing that I consider "constructive." I hated feat-based "multiclassing" in D&D4 and I still hate it today. It was a major reason for me abandoning D&D for Pathfinder back in 2009. I've never been happy with Paizo's long-time efforts to deprecate multiclassing, but it's always still /been/ there. The unfortunate reality is that this implementation is the hardest of hard passes for me -- I won't be investing any further time and energy into PF2 if it isn't reverted.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, I want to be able to build an elven fighter-mage who is recognizably an elf, a fighter, and a mage, but who is also recognizable as different than other elven fighter-mages. D&D5 does this with ease. What it looks like I'll be getting in PF2 is an elf-like, fighter-like, mage-like character with nothing else to differentiate them.
It's possible I don't understand what you mean here, but I'm confused by the distinction. What exactly makes someone a fighter? A mage? Are people in Golarion able to look at one another and identify what classes and archetypes each has at a glance in Pathfinder 1? In Pathfinder 2?
I suppose I just feel that class is really just a handy way of giving a group of abilities to a character. It makes it easier to build to a concept, but once that concept is active, I don't understand how someone could look at an elf fighter with wizard dedication and an elf wizard with fighter dedication and tell them apart at a glance. It's absolutely possible that through watching them closely and seeing which tactics they favour that you would be able to make a guess.
In short, I want to be able to build an elven fighter-mage who is recognizably an elf, a fighter, and a mage, but who is also recognizable as different than other elven fighter-mages. D&D5 does this with ease. What it looks like I'll be getting in PF2 is an elf-like, fighter-like, mage-like character with nothing else to differentiate them.It's possible I don't understand what you mean here, but I'm confused by the distinction. What exactly makes someone a fighter? A mage? Are people in Golarion able to look at one another and identify what classes and archetypes each has at a glance in Pathfinder 1?
You can attempt a skill check to identify a feat or class feature when you observe it in use, similar to how Spellcraft can be used to identify a spell. The feat or class feature must have some observable effect in order for you to attempt the Knowledge check. For example, you can’t see the internal determination of Iron Will, so this ability can’t identify that feat. In general, if a feat or class feature creates a noticeable effect (such as the extra attack from using Cleave) or has a variable modifier a character must choose to use (such as Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, or Enlarge Spell), it can be identified. If it creates a static bonus (such as Dodge or Lightning Reflexes), there’s no telltale sign to give it away.
[table]
The Knowledge skill required to identify a feat or class feature varies depending on the type of feat or class feature to be identified and is outlined in the Recall Intrigues (Knowledge) table above, along with the DCs of such skill checks.
I don't feel like checking every archetype, but you could reasonably expect to identify alchemists, barbarians, bards, bloodragers, brawlers, cavaliers, wild-shaping druids, AWT-using fighters, gunslingers, hunters, inquisitors, investigators, kineticists, magi, media, mesmerists (provided you notice the stare, of course), monks, occultists, oracles, paladins, unchained rogues, shamans, shifters, skalds, slayers, spiritualists, summoners, swashbucklers, warpirests and witches after a quick look at their combat style and the other spellcasters with some effort directed at figuring out how they cast. (low-level) Rangers and chained rogues seem like they would be the hardest to identify.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A brief thought: Fallen. As in, Barbarian that violates totem, Cleric or Paladin against that violates the tenets of the faith, etc.
How does the new system rightly account for those characters?
While I like PF2s approach to multiclassing as in making it work via class feats, I don't like the special mc archetypes.
For what it's worth I wrote some ideas on getting rid of those there: LINK
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please keep the current multiclassing system. It both allows customization while limiting the sort of munchkinny homogenization that plagues so many games.
Paizo, you have a homerun with this system, please stick to it.
On the other hand it is needlessly restrictive and prevent people from achieving the concepts they had at early levels in PF1.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short, I want to be able to build an elven fighter-mage who is recognizably an elf, a fighter, and a mage, but who is also recognizable as different than other elven fighter-mages. D&D5 does this with ease. What it looks like I'll be getting in PF2 is an elf-like, fighter-like, mage-like character with nothing else to differentiate them.It's possible I don't understand what you mean here, but I'm confused by the distinction. What exactly makes someone a fighter? A mage? Are people in Golarion able to look at one another and identify what classes and archetypes each has at a glance in Pathfinder 1?I don't feel like checking every archetype, but you could reasonably expect to identify alchemists, barbarians, bards, bloodragers, brawlers, cavaliers, wild-shaping druids, AWT-using fighters, gunslingers, hunters, inquisitors, investigators, kineticists, magi, media, mesmerists (provided you notice the stare, of course), monks, occultists, oracles,...You can attempt a skill check to identify a feat or class feature when you observe it in use, similar to how Spellcraft can be used to identify a spell. The feat or class feature must have some observable effect in order for you to attempt the Knowledge check. For example, you can’t see the internal determination of Iron Will, so this ability can’t identify that feat. In general, if a feat or class feature creates a noticeable effect (such as the extra attack from using Cleave) or has a variable modifier a character must choose to use (such as Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, or Enlarge Spell), it can be identified. If it creates a static bonus (such as Dodge or Lightning Reflexes), there’s no telltale sign to give it away.
[table]
The Knowledge skill required to identify a feat or class feature varies depending on the type of feat or class feature to be identified and is outlined in the Recall Intrigues (Knowledge) table above, along with the DCs of such skill checks.
I don't feel as though it's entirely valid to cite a 1E splatbook as justification for being able to identify someone else's class.
In 2E, two characters cast shocking grasp. They both modify their spell with a somatic action to cast it at range. Which one is a wizard, and which one is a sorcerer?
Actually, it might be a trick: one could be a rogue and one could be a monk, both having used Wizard Dedication. Class isn't anything more than a set of rules to define a character's abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of old PF1 character builds were fairly punishing for characters who multi-classed for narrative reasons instead of just trying to synthesize a new class out of optimal abilities of existing classes.
Narrative Multi-classing is pretty much gone from PF2, but that might be ok if the rules for retraining can be expanded to help make it clear how to let a character disinvest from one class and switch their abilities over to another. In PF1 that didn't really work out well because you could end up stuck with some levels in a class that really doesn't scale up well and you have powers that are completely unusable that you would want to train out of anyway. PF2 looks modular enough to make that easier to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this version of multiclassing could work well if it had more flexibility and depth. Right now it looks like 'multiclassing' into another class replicates 1-2 levels of dipping (or Paths from 5e) and thus maxes out around 1/3 of another class. I think that is a great solution for dipping to get a mechanic from another class. But this system falls flat for concepts that are more 50/50 split or even a change of career concept.
If the classes had more feats and could MC at 1st level to give a 50/50 split or even 70/30, then I think it could work. Otherwise, it feels needlessly restrictive for a system that prides itself on options. However, I think that Paizo will quickly add a ton of new classes, which might solve some of this, but that will introduce other issues, such as power creep. I would rather have a building block style of system. Give me Legos and Archetypes. Take off the restrictions.
I'd suggest making the abilities of other classes much easier to get and the classes more of an archetype- more open ended with less flavor. A paladin is a holy warrior, yes, but that can come in many forms- a knight in shining armor, a rogue like inquisitor, or a battle cleric. Find the core of the Paladin (or whatever class) and strip away everything else. Let the player decide what kind of character they want. I would also like to see skills uncoupled from class. Let any class be a skill monkey. Rogue and Bard should be able to stand on their own without extra skills.
I remade some of my characters from 5e as a kind of litmus test. Some worked fine (battle master fighter/assassin rogue), some worked better (wolf totem barbarian/beast master ranger), and some didn't work very well (shadow sorcerer/lore bard). In general I feel restricted with PF2's MC system- the combination of abilities I want always just out of reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the new system is better than the old, but just needs more choice within the dedication feat to allow you to select the additional class features that meet your concept.
I’d also like to see the option to use general (or skill) feats to buy these and archetype feat trees up. Or give more abilities outside of feat choices..
5E multiclassing is a cheesefest filled with Sorlocks and other OP nonsense. Its a good thing its an optional rule since its easier for me to ban it in all of my games (along with its badly designed feats).
PF2 multiclassing is head and shoulders a far better system.
I know this doesn't address every single point raised here, but one point that was brought up was "What about characters that start as the class that will end up being their secondary class?".
In these situations Pathfinder has a great option for you. Retraining. You can retrain your class choices to change over to the class that you want to use as your primary, and then pick up the Multiclass Dedication feats for your secondary class as desired. You would just need to convince your DM to allow you to do it, and it should be for story reasons.
Once you start that it should take time to switch your focus but it is definitely more than possible to do, and in the long run can result in much better results than trying to mimic this by simple multiclassing!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I wanted to give the new version of multiclassing a lot of time before I weighed in on it, and at this point I've pretty much concluded that the new system is just inferior to the old one. It gives fewer options, it has no future-proofing built in, it's legitimately OP compared to other options, it has the same front-loading and dipping problems, and many of the issues that PF1 multiclassing faced simply don't exist in PF2 because BAB and caster level aren't a thing anymore.
I see these as the three big issues right now:
1) Multiclassing is straight up better than 2nd level feats
Right now this isn't at critical levels, since we don't have many dedication options available. Many classes simply don't have any dedication options that work for them. However, for classes that do have "natural fits" so to speak, dedication is all but mandatory on any serious build. This is most obvious for Wizard and Sorcerer, and is so acute in their case that it actually makes most Wizards and Sorcerers play almost the same. If you aren't multiclassing fighter, you're seriously gimping your character. Right now people are kinda sleeping on wizard dedication because 16 int is an onerous prerequisite, but I think once sorcerer dedication comes around (16 cha is very doable for many classes) people are going to wake up to just how crazy multiclassing for Magical Striker really is.
2) It leaves little flexibility
The amount of feat investment required of multiclassing means it makes most multiclass builds play very similarly. It takes you three feats typically to grab one choice feat from another class list, but there are a number of low-level "low-lying fruit" feats that are worth multiclassing just for that one thing. Magical Striker, Emblazon Symbol, and Point Blank Shot are three prominent examples that are pretty much must-haves on certain play-styles. This takes up a huge amount of your build to pull off. In many ways, this is worse than the dipping problem it was trying to avoid.
3) We're at the whims of the dedication path author
Want to multiclass Cleric for their awesome ability to channel and keep the party up? Want to multiclass Rogue for Dex to damage? Too bad, that's not on the menu. This is only going to get worse once PF1-style archetypes show up, because it's pretty much guaranteed they won't be multiclass friendly. There's a reason that VMC in PF1 was DOA; even the good options just didn't have the support to access archetypes. PF2 has the same problems.
4) Many of the problems with PF1 multiclassing aren't issues in PF2
BAB and caster level are gone, and with them one of the biggest obstacles towards multiclass combos. The spell point system also greatly alleviates the front-loading problem, since spell points don't stack and your class features will end up sharing the same resource pool. Many of the criticisms of classic multiclassing just wouldn't be true under PF2's rule systems.
In these situations Pathfinder has a great option for you. Retraining
I've noticed a lot of people have missed it, so here's an important PSA:
You cannot retain your class in PF2
Ability scores are also off limits to retraining (which I think is just terrible design, since that's the easiest place for a beginner to screw up). I think a lot of people just saw that retraining was in the game and didn't bother reading it.
I would bring back "dual-class" in a certain way.
I.E.
When dual classing pick 2 classes that you will level up one-by-one level, fighter wizard would level up as;
fighter1->wizard1->fighter2->wizard2
but on CHaRACTER LEVELS 3,8,11,14,17 and 20 you would get both fighter and wizard levels. With average HPs on that level(round down)
So, 5th level fighter/wizard dual-class would have 3rd level class features from both fighter and wizard and 5th level HPs(2,5 levels worth of both fighter and wizard)
Ancestry and general feats would still be tied to character level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played around a bit with the PF 2 multi-classing system, mainly trying to see if a particular character concept (played in PF 1) would work.
Concept: a warrior from a religious sect dedicated to a warrior goddess (currently Fighter 12/Oracle 2 with Metal mystery). His main gimmick was that if allowed one round to buff, he could cast Lead Blades (APG), otherwise he was just a fast-moving meat-shield in heavy armour who could do a lot of damage with the Vital Strike feat chain. Not optimised, but both effective and useful to the party. Being a spontaneous caster was part of the concept - easier to run without a huge spell selection.
First problem:
No Oracle.
Okay, then let's look at a divine Sorcerer. Not an inspiring option, but we'll try it. Oops, no multi-class version of that.
Cleric? Truly not my cup of tea, and I have no interest in producing a 50/50 multi-class character. The Oracle-dip had been for a small handfull of improvements on the Fighter chassis, not gunning for a higher level spellcaster. (If that had been my original goal, I'd have gone for Warpriest.)
Second problem (assuming that a Sorcerer multi-class option eventually turns up):
Charisma 16 before one can multi-class?!? That really smacks of 1e/2e dual-classing. Way too high a pre-requisite. If it had been 14, I might have forgiven that, but my humble warrior only has Charisma 12. He's a cult warrior, not a full-blown high priest.
One could argue that this concept can be expressed as a Paladin ... but that's way off in alignment. My guy's CG. We don't need any stinking shining Paladins here, thank you very much.
Start as a divine Sorcerer, then multi-class into Fighter? Too much spellcasting, not enough warrior "oomph".
Conclusion: PF 2's multi-classing rules currently cannot support this character concept.
It would be entirely an different matter if I were going for an old school Fighter/Mage (yes, I'm dating myself back to 1e/2e). That sort of character is supposed to be 50/50, and it's great if PF 2 can support that concept.
However, PF 2's multi-classing is not helping those builds which just want a simple toe-dip into one other class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bellona:
Why should PF2 be beholden to replicate another system's builds? Also, how can it given that other system had a crazy number of splat books and the like.
I mean, come on, the oracle isn't even core to PF1.
If you took core PF1 and compared it to core PF2, I think you would find that some concepts PF1 did, PF2 couldn't do, sure. But the reverse is also true.
Moreover, PF2 multiclasses solves problems beyond just build variety. It addresses issues such as barriers to entry and balance far better than typical 3.X multiclassing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A rebuttal to that poster who thinks that 3.x's multi-classing was a horrible mess of (among other things) "class dips being used for prc re-reqs": that was the whole design purpose behing 3.x's multi-classing mechanics. How else would one become an Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight if one didn't multi-class?
I will grant that some totally over-powered munchkins did turn up, particularly later when more options became available. However, even in those cases, there were some extremely ... optimistic ... combinations that no sane GM would ever allow. For example, mixing in 3.0 non-errata-ed sourcebooks with 3.5 sourcebooks. Or - this I've seen in PF 1 - thinking that Cleric channelling automatically improved when Cleric spellcasting was improved by prestige class levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bellona:
Why should PF2 be beholden to replicate another system's builds? Also, how can it given that other system had a crazy number of splat books and the like.
I mean, come on, the oracle isn't even core to PF1.
If you took core PF1 and compared it to core PF2, I think you would find that some concepts PF1 did, PF2 couldn't do, sure. But the reverse is also true.
Moreover, PF2 multiclasses solves problems beyond just build variety. It addresses issues such as barriers to entry and balance far better than typical 3.X multiclassing.
The point was that the concept was not possible.
Classes, whatever, I was flexible in trying different options to make the concept work. In short, nothing worked to support the concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya, there were lots of PF1 multiclasses that weren't an OP mess. I am sure that 99.9% of all combinations were so underpowered that they were downright unplayable.
That being said, GiantITP is MinMax boards were filled to the brim is game breaking multiclass combinations for 3.5 (especially) and, to a lesser extent, PF1.
PF2's method is clean and effective. Can you currently replicate every build from PF1 with its dozens of splat book? No. So what, though?
Ya, there were lots of PF1 multiclasses that weren't an OP mess. I am sure that 99.9% of all combinations were so underpowered that they were downright unplayable.
That being said, GiantITP is MinMax boards were filled to the brim is game breaking multiclass combinations for 3.5 (especially) and, to a lesser extent, PF1.
PF2's method is clean and effective. Can you currently replicate every build from PF1 with its dozens of splat book? No. So what, though?
So, not having proper multiclassing as an option needlessly restricts us from many options when an easy alternative (which simultaneously keeps the current option) exists.
I love the new Archetype system. Being able to use feats to do what you had to spend levels to do previously is much cooler. Now I can play a wizard with all fighting feats and not miss out on my spell progression. So cool!
Archetypes and the new action economy alone have me excited to switch to PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skimming through this thread I'm getting the impression that the best course of cation for piazo is to keep multi-class archetypes (and maybe name them something else), and ALSO bring back a form of classic multi-classing.
Personally, I never liked the idea of having to multi-class in 1e because I felt that what I gained from the other class was never worth loosing access to the highest level class feature of my main class. But I can see how it can be a good story telling tool. Plus combined with retraining, it can show a character becoming unpracticed in their old class.
The old alternate multi-class rules also had too high a cost in loosing half your feats. That would make it impossible to learn more than one feat tree in 1e. The new multi-class archetypes are a way better idea than this.
Both systems have their benefits and uses. Having both options be core rules would keep the greatest number of customers happy.
(Of course even if they don't, it wouldn't stop people from creating a house rule. Then you only have to contend with the rules-police types.)
You can put me in the camp that prefers 3.X multiclassing however I doubt this is an area that will change.
Simply as restraining players into more straight-jacked classes is easier to balance against and write modules for. That, and it would be much easier on organized play.
The statement that it is good if it is more versatile or powerful is also unlikely to happen due to the design space this idea exists in.
3.X made the naive assumption that 1 level of 1 class = 1 level in a different as far as power goes.
This system relies on 1 normal feat is = 1 multi-class feat.
So if you make multiclass feats better than normal then everyone becomes dual classed.
Conversely you can actually get away with multiclass feats being sub-par as people will still sort-of take them for role-play reasons.
So just by the way the game works I suspect multiclass feat characters will always feel a bit unsatisfying. But unless there is a big fuss I cant see it changing. There is for instance people whom like this system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see these as the three big issues right now:
1) Multiclassing is straight up better than 2nd level feats
Right now this isn't at critical levels, since we don't have many dedication options available. Many classes simply don't have any dedication options that work for them. However, for classes that do have "natural fits" so to speak, dedication is all but mandatory on any serious build. This is most obvious for Wizard and Sorcerer, and is so acute in their case that it actually makes most Wizards and Sorcerers play almost the same. If you aren't multiclassing fighter, you're seriously gimping your character. Right now people are kinda sleeping on wizard dedication because 16 int is an onerous prerequisite, but I think once sorcerer dedication comes around (16 cha is very doable for many classes) people are going to wake up to just how crazy multiclassing for Magical Striker really is.
Just to be clear, you're going to spend 3 class feats to get (up to) an extra d12 of damage. Now when you get it running at level 8 and only have a +1 weapon, thats a pretty sizable increase. But, you can't use it, because you can't cast anything beyond a cantrip (unless you're doing this as a bard / druid / cleric, but then you're only wielding a d8 weapon at best without further investment). So 4 feats so you can get up to 3 spells per day, which are probably all truestrike because truestrike magical striker is hillarious. 4 class feats for (up to) 3 empowered attacks per day (more with a wand or set of scrolls) just doesn't sound like great value to me, especially when it doesn't come online until level 8 at the earliest.
I'm also not sold on needing fighter dedication. Or rather, I expect it'd be less tempting if cantrips were more effective so that casters didnt feel like they were just a worse version of a shortbow. Without armor proficiency from the dedication or a general feat, you'd be lagging behind optimized ac by like 3 (-2 dex + armor and -1 shield). Which is not nothing, but it's basically a question of if it's worth a class feat for +2 ac. Maybe, but i think that's more I'm not a fan of most feats available to casters at the moment.
Just to be clear, you're going to spend 3 class feats to get (up to) an extra d12 of damage. Now when you get it running at level 8 and only have a +1 weapon, thats a pretty sizable increase. But, you can't use it, because you can't cast anything beyond a cantrip (unless you're doing this as a bard / druid / cleric, but then you're only wielding a d8 weapon at best without further investment).
The numbers are actually much better than you'd think. The extra damage dice along with the +1 to hit and the extra boost to crits that entails really do add up, and even with one-handed +5 weapons you're still looking at around a 25-35% increase in your damage output whenever magical striker activates.
If you can use a two-handed weapon with it (true strike is verbal only, so you can cast that with your hands full) then magical striker is even better. I'm particularly interested in trying a Paladin and a Cleric of Gorum multiclassed into Sorcerer, since both get plentiful abilities to trigger magical striker while being able to use two-handed weapons just fine.
I'm also not sold on needing fighter dedication. Or rather, I expect it'd be less tempting if cantrips were more effective so that casters didnt feel like they were just a worse version of a shortbow. Without armor proficiency from the dedication or a general feat, you'd be lagging behind optimized ac by like 3 (-2 dex + armor and -1 shield). Which is not nothing, but it's basically a question of if it's worth a class feat for +2 ac.
It's the combination of AC and damage that makes it invaluable. You're getting increased defense, a good at-will 1-action option that can be used to supplement cantrips, and a massive bonus to your burst damage whenever you cast and attack on the same turn. It's not any one of those things that makes fighter dedication a must-have, but the combined impact on your build and ability to contribute in combat.