Hi,
I'm sorry if my search-fu was weak and I missed this elsewhere.
Has there been any discussion about loosening the restrictions to multiclassing?
I love the way it's been designed, to add flavour of another class to your base class, without losing out on the "core values" of your class (for balance, etc), at the cost of optional choices in your class.
Great!
SO many character options open up.
Even things like "Am I a Cleric with Rogue or a Rogue with Cleric?" - makes a difference and makes for different characters.
BUT
Why do I have to be (for example) an excellent partial wizard?
What if I just want to be a crappy partial wizard? Why Int 16??
Seems like the Class Feats (is that the right term?) inside the archetype could have varying degrees of [main stat] requirements if you really want to do that -- but what if I just want 1 or 2 things?
Thanks,
Balance reasons is my guess. Multiclass archetypes are much more powerful than 1st level class feats, meaning that the only thing keeping them from being ubiquitous choices for your 2nd level class feat is the inconvenient ability score investment required to access them. I'm actually kinda afraid once we get Sorcerer dedication, which will be way too easy for Bards, Paladins, and Clerics to snap up and could be completely overpowered as a result.
Keep in mind that most multiclass wizards don't have any need for intelligence, period. If you aren't picking up spell point abilities, and aren't using spells with DC's, you really don't need intelligence at all. As a result, there's no practical lower-bound and a formal prerequisite needs to be set if there's to be any intelligence requirement at all.
I'm not sure I see how making a high stat requirement limit you from taking dedication feats at 2nd level.
You could have a 16 Int at 2nd level as whatever class you want be primarily be.
If balance was the issue, they'd make level pre-reqs for dedication feats, not stat one, since you can get them whenever.
I'm not sure I see how making a high stat requirement limit you from taking dedication feats at 2nd level.
You could have a 16 Int at 2nd level as whatever class you want be primarily be.
You only get a limited number of ability scores at 16 or higher. While I don't think Fighter or Rogue dedications have much in the way of a prerequisite (since there's pretty much no such thing as a character who lacks a 16 in either Str or Dex) the Wizard and Cleric are much harder to qualify for. A lot of builds rely on Int and Wis dumps to function, and thus have to make steep sacrifices to qualify for these multiclass combos.
No, I get that - I just mean if "balance" was really the reasoning for that, meaning they don't want you multiclassing until you are higher level - there are better ways than stat pre-reqs.
And could still gate the other feats (and technically the 1st feat too) by what your Int is (still need certain amount to cast certain spells, etc)
I still think the "but I want to be just a little bit good" at this other class is a valid character concept. Rather than being "just slightly less than the best".
No, I get that - I just mean if "balance" was really the reasoning for that, meaning they don't want you multiclassing until you are higher level - there are better ways than stat pre-reqs.
It's not so much that it's supposed to be impossible, just that it's a sacrifice at lower levels. Hitting 16 Int or 16 Wis is pretty hard if it's not a key ability score of your class.
I still think the "but I want to be just a little bit good" at this other class is a valid character concept. Rather than being "just slightly less than the best".
Problem is that classes don't have very many class features anymore, so being a "little bit" of a cleric basically gives you all of the good stuff. Emblazon Symbol on its own is one of the most important class features a cleric has that distinguishes themselves from other casters (being able to sword-and-board or two-hand without interfering with somatic spells), so just getting that one class feat gives you most of the benefits of going MC cleric right then and there.
I would agree that multiclassing needs a good second look. Right now we sort of have the worst of both worlds where some class features are hard class-locked because the dedication archetypes don't offer them (and this will get even worse once we get PF1-style archetypes, since we won't be able to multiclass for those), but 'dipping' is more rampant than ever where you multiclass in just for that one class feat that synergizes with your build. I'd much rather a return to PF1-style multiclassing than this; with caster level and BAB gone, the biggest issues with classic multiclassing simply don't exist in PF2 to begin with.
Personally, I like the 16 ability score requirement for two reasons:
(1) To make a multiclass an actual dedication, to require you to focus a lot of your initial resources on it if you want to make that choice.
(2) It also causes classes with the same key ability scores to synergize well. If you play a barbarian, it should be natural for a lot of your natural aptitude and skills learned to translate easily to a fighter, for example.
There was one loosening of restriction with the most recent 1.2 errata: The "trained in skill x" has been dropped from most all of the archetypes, meaning the only requirement is now the ability score.
I'd much rather a return to PF1-style multiclassing than this; with caster level and BAB gone, the biggest issues with classic multiclassing simply don't exist in PF2 to begin with.
In my opinion, those were not the only issues with multiclassing; front-loaded features and cherry-picking were to me the biggest issues, which this mitigates strongly.
Then again, I haven't been a fan of "build your own class from an a la carte of classes" for a long time, after seeing people with fighters who could drink a mutagen, rage and sneak attack with their dual-wielded weapons after buffing up with shield spells, mage armor, vanishing with their ninja tricks, and using their monk AC bonus to destroy creatures four CRs above them. (I'm being a bit facetious, but not by much.) Truth be told, there are non-class-based systems that do this very well, even in the d20 vein (such as mutants and masterminds and d20 modern), and don't cause the system strain that 3.x multiclassing has caused for me in the past with Pathfinder. I almost preferred the old 3e rule where you lost XP for each multiclass that was separated by more than two class levels, to reduce the abuse this caused among martial classes.
(2) It also causes classes with the same key ability scores to synergize well. If you play a barbarian, it should be natural for a lot of your natural aptitude and skills learned to translate easily to a fighter, for example.
The one caution I would raise here is that 16 Str and 16 Dex are kinda ubiquitous currently. Like, you have an 18 in your key ability score, and then your 16 is overwhelmingly likely to go into one of those two, at very minimum because you need either dexterity or heavy armor to get decent AC.
In my opinion, those were not the only issues with multiclassing; front-loaded features and cherry-picking were to me the biggest issues, which this mitigates strongly.
The current setup is even worse for cherry-picking, since you aren't even delaying your primary class's advancement to do it. I think the fact that spell point pools don't stack deals with the front-loading issue, too, since your abilities from your two classes are sharing the same pool.
(2) It also causes classes with the same key ability scores to synergize well. If you play a barbarian, it should be natural for a lot of your natural aptitude and skills learned to translate easily to a fighter, for example.The one caution I would raise here is that 16 Str and 16 Dex are kinda ubiquitous currently. Like, you have an 18 in your key ability score, and then your 16 is overwhelmingly likely to go into one of those two, at very minimum because you need either dexterity or heavy armor to get decent AC.
In my opinion, those were not the only issues with multiclassing; front-loaded features and cherry-picking were to me the biggest issues, which this mitigates strongly.The current setup is even worse for cherry-picking, since you aren't even delaying your primary class's advancement to do it. I think the fact that spell point pools don't stack deals with the front-loading issue, too, since your abilities from your two classes are sharing the same pool.
They totally spread the class features across levels so I'm not seeing the abuse with classic multiclass. I'm kinda meh about multiclass archetypes, still not sure are they better or worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be pro for the high requirement to multiclass. But now I have realized the multiclass archetypes are the greatest avenue for customizing your character and really getting "outside the box". So it could do being a bit more accessible.