| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna do exactly what I saw someone else do with another thread get some very negative thoughts out of my head. My biggest concern with the new system is the way that the Multiclassing works, as I saw someone mention in another thread that's been locked now, "the new system makes it so that you can have the features of another class without losing the features of your original class."
Well my question is, what if I didn't want some of those features from my first class at all? What if I am Purposefully trying to opt out of those features? Do I not need a way to do that? What if the things I wanted were the Feats from the two classes more than anything else? What if I wanted to Multiclass just because I liked the Feats from the 2 classes I wanted to combine, and didn't necessarily care about the Baseline Features?
Well then I guess that I am quite out of luck because I can't replace those baseline features just the Class Feats. Then there's the question of when the Class Specific Archetypes come out, will they be able to be Multiclassed into? I'm honestly having a hard time believing they will.... And these, THESE are my biggest gripes with the new system. I'm honestly not the kind of person who min maxed and munchkinized. Heck quite a few of my builds were far from it, But they were FUN to play regardless. Nerfing Multiclassing like this takes away a Lot of why I was having fun.
Now! I agree that there were people who were abusing multiclassing, I agree that the classes are looking pretty good in comparison to the classes in 1E, carrying over a Lot of the flavor and even cannibalizing from the Hybrid Classes (looking at you Fighter & Ranger). But I don't Like playing Straight up classes, I never have. Now I know they shouldn't have to cater to one lone voice in the crowd like mine, but I'm sad and scared for the future, my future.
I don't like 5E because of the lack of any Real support for it, and the classes kinda turn me off in comparison to 1E's and even 2E's (I like them I really do), and sticking around on a sinking ship isn't a real option, because there will be no support once 2E is out. Then there's PFS (which I do want to join, just not right now while in this Transition Period) which will Definitely be moving on to 2E once it's out. So I'm feeling really lost with no path forward...
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get your argument. In 1e you can't just get rid of your class features from your first class either... And honestly if you really don't want class features from the class you chose at the beginning why don't you just retire your character and roll a new one? That's a much better solution in BOTH editions.
Say you're playing a fighter in 1e and you aren't feeling it, you would rather be a wizard. You're gonna be completely gimped trying to multiclass into wizard because all you'll have is 1st level s!&!ty spells. Funnily enough in this situation the 2e system is actually better. Because you can retrain your class feats, and spend them on wizard multiclassing which at a certain level does actually scale with your fighter levels. But again if you're actually completely put off by the fighter and want to play a completely different class in both edition the best move is to just retire your character and roll a wizard.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
my personal dislike is how late you get to actually interact with it, since if you want to play some odd variant of say, ranger, or a combo-class with multiclassing (something that pathfinder as a brand prided itself on allowing), you're not actually playing anything different than the generic base class (and therefore the unique character you thought up and sat down to play) until level 2-4 which can be a hefty real-life time investment.
i've discussed the topic at length before, so i'll avoid just dumping a repeat here on the topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that there are quite a few character concepts with no real use for any of the required class abilities, and that there should be a way to get rid of them. The inability to exchange the first level caster abilities for the feat they displace is an easy enough fix, but it's also simple enough to imagine martial characters with no desire for the starting kit for martial classes and those starting kits are harder to replace.
Honestly, you'll get a bunch of things at mid to late levels that aren't worth writing down on your character sheet, so may as well get used to ignoring unwanted abilities now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna do exactly what I saw someone else do with another thread get some very negative thoughts out of my head. My biggest concern with the new system is the way that the Multiclassing works, as I saw someone mention in another thread that's been locked now, "the new system makes it so that you can have the features of another class without losing the features of your original class."
Well my question is, what if I didn't want some of those features from my first class at all? What if I am Purposefully trying to opt out of those features? Do I not need a way to do that? What if the things I wanted were the Feats from the two classes more than anything else? What if I wanted to Multiclass just because I liked the Feats from the 2 classes I wanted to combine, and didn't necessarily care about the Baseline Features?
Well then I guess that I am quite out of luck because I can't replace those baseline features just the Class Feats. Then there's the question of when the Class Specific Archetypes come out, will they be able to be Multiclassed into? I'm honestly having a hard time believing they will.... And these, THESE are my biggest gripes with the new system. I'm honestly not the kind of person who min maxed and munchkinized. Heck quite a few of my builds were far from it, But they were FUN to play regardless. Nerfing Multiclassing like this takes away a Lot of why I was having fun.
Now! I agree that there were people who were abusing multiclassing, I agree that the classes are looking pretty good in comparison to the classes in 1E, carrying over a Lot of the flavor and even cannibalizing from the Hybrid Classes (looking at you Fighter & Ranger). But I don't Like playing Straight up classes, I never have. Now I know they shouldn't have to cater to one lone voice in the crowd like mine, but I'm sad and scared for the future, my future.
I don't like 5E because of the lack of any Real support for it, and the classes kinda turn me off in comparison to 1E's and even 2E's (I like them I really do), and...
Wait, so you select a class because you want the feats from it, but you don't want anything else from the class? Sounds like an argument to be made by a person who wants Paladin goodies without adhering to a Code of Conduct, in which case those sorts of things are hard-baked into the class, and removing those things creates a severe identity crisis.
Even if you aren't making that kind of argument, I'm not understanding why you're going against something that doesn't cost you anything to begin with. This is like being a Fighter and complaining that you're getting Attacks of Opportunity as a feature, something which doesn't cost you anything, and you get for free at first level. Not only does this make no sense, but it's also like complaining about getting free raisin cookies. Just because you dislike the raisins, but still want the cookie, doesn't mean you can't just pick the raisins off (i.e. not use the feature) and still eat the cookie. It's baffling.
At that point, you're better off selecting a different class and taking Dedication feats for the other class you want instead. Oh, but you want that super awesome Spell Sunder feature that Barbarians get at 12th level? Too bad, not all class feats are meant to be shared amongst others, and that's by design. If I see Clerics or Wizards doing Spell Sunder shenanigans, then this multiclassing stuff fails at its job, and needs to be re-done.
I also wouldn't expect Archetypes (not to be confused with Archetypes that are already included in the playtest document already, because using the same word twice to mean two completely different things doesn't cause confusion anywhere!) to be as impactful or helpful for some or all classes available, or even to be available whatsoever. Can you think of some crazy Archetype (again, not to be confused with the other form of Archetype, making this a redundant and silly choice of wording) that could properly replace, for example, Cleric's Channel Energy? I doubt that.
Some other features, on the other hand, can be easily replacable, as evidenced by Paladins and Antipaladins, as well as proficiency swapping. Fighters being Legendary in Armor and a Master in Weapons instead would be an Armor Master or Defender Archetype (again, not to be confused with the other already existing Archetype language! Can we just use Subclass, like they did in AD&D 2E, or even Baldur's Gate? Makes more sense this way, and avoids me having to do this addendum crap).
And if you want a solution like "Well, why can't I just take a level of X after I've taken a level of Y and get some of X features?" Problem is frontloaded brokenness. Let's take a Sorcerer with Arcane spells, because Draconic Bloodline is cool. He decides to take a level of Cleric with his 18 Charisma and 16 Wisdom. Congratulations, now he can heal upwards of 7 times per day at his highest spell level (of either class, as it doesn't specify; fixable, but adds page space), and he has access to the strongest spell list (and damage amplifying features) in the game, meaning he can deal and heal the most damage possible.
In truth, it might actually make up for the fact that a Cleric outshines them in HP, proficiencies, skills, and so on, but that's more of a balance issue than anything, and not the point. The point is that a lot of class features for these classes are front-loaded simply because they were designed with the intent of not being acquired so easily (an issue that actually plagued a lot of "dipping" in PF1), and with how Dedication feats provide only a certain benefit (that's also limited in scope unless you burn another feat to make it usable wholesale), instead of granting you all the features of being 1st level in that class, means that the idea of true multiclassing, like PF1, is likely not to happen either (at least without completely major revisions of the game, and probably done for the worse).
You also even go on as if you don't know what to do with how PF2 is progressing. If I were you, I'd consider other options of games to play. I'm not saying don't give PF2 a chance, all I'm saying is that if PF2 is not looking like a fun game for you to play at this time or upon release after giving it a try, you might be better off finding a game you enjoy playing that has these options you're looking for. I imagine there is a company out there who is making (or has made) a game that have these options and rules you're looking for; you just need to put your feelers out and see if those games exist (and what they are if they do).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the things I wanted were the Feats from the two classes more than anything else? What if I wanted to Multiclass just because I liked the Feats from the 2 classes I wanted to combine, and didn't necessarily care about the Baseline Features?
Well, it sounds like the designers are specifically trying to make class feats very class-specific (twin strike options for Rangers, Rogues, and Fighters that trigger and are enhanced by core class features). I think the designers are trying to avoid putting enticing options in one class that other classes can benefit from multi-classing into.
But I don't Like playing Straight up classes, I never have. Now I know they shouldn't have to cater to one lone voice in the crowd like mine, but I'm sad and scared for the future, my future.
I mean, each ancestry has four different base abilities with a dozen feats to choose from, you can choose any skills you want, each class has at least 4 different feats to choose from, and you can replace any class feat with an archetype feat. From my experience with 3.5 D&D, that's a large range of choice than what you got back then, when multi-classing into a martial class gave you a set amount of options you couldn't opt out of if you just wanted one thing.
If you want more options and customization, PF2 has it.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely love the new multiclassing. It opens up a massive amount of build options and gives players the freedom to choose how heavily to invest in their options. It gets rid of lots of the problems of PF1 multiclassing (hindering class frontloading, overly punishing to casters, weird math from saves) whilst avoiding the 'all or nothing' issue VMC had.
Even if you aren't making that kind of argument, I'm not understanding why you're going against something that doesn't cost you anything to begin with. This is like being a Fighter and complaining that you're getting Attacks of Opportunity as a feature, something which doesn't cost you anything, and you get for free at first level. Not only does this make no sense, but it's also like complaining about getting free raisin cookies. Just because you dislike the raisins, but still want the cookie, doesn't mean you can't just pick the raisins off (i.e. not use the feature) and still eat the cookie. It's baffling.
I'm usually like this with sneak attack. Though, funnily enough I don't actually dislike sneak attack this time around, as it has been scaled down to fit a potential three attack action economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well my question is, what if I didn't want some of those features from my first class at all? What if I am Purposefully trying to opt out of those features? Do I not need a way to do that? What if the things I wanted were the Feats from the two classes more than anything else? What if I wanted to Multiclass just because I liked the Feats from the 2 classes I wanted to combine, and didn't necessarily care about the Baseline Features?
...
But I don't Like playing Straight up classes, I never have.
If I'm understanding this correctly... You don't like that, say, if you were a Barbarian and then took Cleric Dedication (Going back to the Goldmoon example) that you'd continue gaining Barbarian Class features as you leveled even if every selected Class Feat was Cleric (or something else)*? Is that it?
*It's a shame TeeEl never finished his Generic Class Variant for 3.5. Sounds like it would have be right up your alley.
In that case...maybe a compromise would be a new Base Class specifically for Multiclass characters? Something with no base abilities but which could bypass some Dedication requirements? I'm imagining something a bit like 3.5's Chameleon class.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with the OP here and I will illustrate what I am speaking about below.
The trope I am experimenting with is a Ranger/Rogue, an "archetype" that I have played for decades over several editions and a class combination that I am very familiar with and that I use to test new systems..
Mainly the idea is a Bow Ranger with Sneak Attack capabilities, with the ability to sneak, and give the group utility by disabling traps. All of the while I willingly trade off attack bonus, some resilience, and waiting longer for ranger spells.
So I take:
1st: Hunted Shot
2nd: Rogue Dedication (class), Skill Feat, Skill Feat
3rd: General Feat
4th: Sneak Attacker (class)
With the current rules update I have to wait until 4th level to get the ability I am building for and when I am finally able to get Sneak attacker I spend two class feats to get a nerfed version (1d4 instead of 1d6) and it doesn't even advance as I gain levels. But hey, I get 3 more trained skills that I arguably don't really need, but guess it's a nice addition. When all is said and done the Rogue Dedication is not really worth it and really ends up being 2 class feats = half of the time my enemies are flat-footed in the surprise round (which I don't get to take advantage of for 2 levels) and 3 skills which could be better spent elsewhere.
That said, I love a lot of what the playtest has to offer, especially the action economy (this is a game changer) and I am trying other multi-class combinations and most of the others fair only slightly better than the example above.
I am hopeful that Paizo is just trying to get test data for the core classes and will, in time, completely overhaul the multi-classing in its current form while mitigating the 3.5/PF 1st edition multi-class build abuse and allowing for reasonable customization.
Happy Playtesting!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with the OP here and I will illustrate what I am speaking about below.
The trope I am experimenting with is a Ranger/Rogue, an "archetype" that I have played for decades over several editions and a class combination that I am very familiar with and that I use to test new systems..
Mainly the idea is a Bow Ranger with Sneak Attack capabilities, with the ability to sneak, and give the group utility by disabling traps. All of the while I willingly trade off attack bonus, some resilience, and waiting longer for ranger spells.
So I take:
1st: Hunted Shot
2nd: Rogue Dedication (class), Skill Feat, Skill Feat
3rd: General Feat
4th: Sneak Attacker (class)With the current rules update I have to wait until 4th level to get the ability I am building for and when I am finally able to get Sneak attacker I spend two class feats to get a nerfed version (1d4 instead of 1d6) and it doesn't even advance as I gain levels. But hey, I get 3 more trained skills that I arguably don't really need, but guess it's a nice addition. When all is said and done the Rogue Dedication is not really worth it and really ends up being 2 class feats = half of the time my enemies are flat-footed in the surprise round (which I don't get to take advantage of for 2 levels) and 3 skills which could be better spent elsewhere.
That said, I love a lot of what the playtest has to offer, especially the action economy (this is a game changer) and I am trying other multi-class combinations and most of the others fair only slightly better than the example above.
I am hopeful that Paizo is just trying to get test data for the core classes and will, in time, completely overhaul the multi-classing in its current form while mitigating the 3.5/PF 1st edition multi-class build abuse and allowing for reasonable customization.
Happy Playtesting!
You might be better off going Rogue with Ranger dedication instead.
More base skill ranks, more skill feats, equal proficiencies, and actual scaling sneak attack dice. Sure, the Hunt Target isn't as great, but it's not like a typical Rogue round will involve multiple strikes. At best, you get Move (or in this case, Study Target), Feint, Strike, or Feint, Strike, Strike (or Feint, Strike, Whatever if you don't critically feint an enemy). You will really only get the dreaded Triple Strike if you're flanking (not possible with ranged weapons) or if you really get the jump on people.
Honestly, the only things I would be disappointed with as a main-class Rogue compared to a Ranger are the lack of Proficiency boosts (most importantly, Perception and Weapons), but if I'm much more skill-oriented as a result (and that's one of my most important facets and impacts on the group), then I'm not missing too much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "purposefully opting out of unwanted class features" is what the inevitable "class archetypes" (i.e. traditional archetypes) are going to be for. I feel like those won't be in core, but will be in something like the APG2.0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think they should change the terminology of "class archetypes," when we already have that in a form of multiclassing that's different from what this is expected to do.
Sub-classes, make it happen Paizo!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As others mentioned before, why did you choose your first class anyways when you don't want to play it in first place?
I did that myself because I was the GM.
I have a non-player character whose story fits Dracala's concerns fairly well, Amaya of Westcrown (warning: Jade Regent spoilers). She met the party at 2nd level, when she was an expert 1/fighter 1. The source material suggested expert 1/bard 1, but the party was heavy in spellcasters and a Dexterity-based fighter (lore warden archetype) served party needs better and fit her backstory as an amateur revolutionary in Westcrown. And her half-sister Ameiko was already a bard.
Her next level was oracle 1, because the party cleric's player left the game for the adventure of being a dad to a newborn baby. Switching the NPC to healer was the simple solution, and it still fit her story. At 4th level I rebuild her as fighter 1/oracle 3, and she finished the campaign as fighter 1/oracle 16.
If Amaya had been a Pathfinder 2nd Edition character, she would have joined the party as Fighter 2 with Glassblower background (homebrew variant of Blacksmith background). That is an improvement over PF1, which used Expert to represent her pre-revolutionary background. At 3rd level, she would have retrained her 2nd level class feat to Oracle Dedication, because PF2 has the awkwardness of not allowing multiclassing at odd levels. Oracle Dedication is not yet available, so let's use Cleric Dedication as a substitute. At 4th level she would take Domain, a 4th-level archetype feat. Since she would be entirely dedicated to her new class, the other class feats would be Basic Dogma at 6th level, Divine Breath at 8th level, Advanced Dogma at 10th level, Expert Cleric Spellcasting at 12th level, and then she would be out of oracle archetype feats for 14th and 16th level, just like I am out of cleric archetype feats, so I guess she picks fighter feats.
And what happens with PF2 Amaya's Fighter levels? She gains hit points like a fighter, making her tough. She gains fighter class features: Weapon Mastery at 3rd level, Bravery at 5th level, Battlefield Surveyor at 7th level, Combat Flexibility at 9th level, Heavy Armor Expertise at 11th level, Weapon Specialization at 13th level, Improved Flexibility at 15th level, and Armor Mastery at 17th level.
Weapon Mastery can fit her story, for she inherited a family weapon. Bravery and Battlefield Surveyor can be viewed as part of her personality. Combat Flexibility and Improved Flexibility are implausible. She spent several levels passing up fighter feats and now she has flexibility with fighter feats. Heavy Armor Expertise is even less likely--the PF1 Amaya had the Lore Warden fighter archetype that gave up heavy armor, but as far as we know, archetypes in PF2 not only cannot give up heavy armor training but they keep getting better with the heavy armor that they don't use. The fighter vein in PF2 Amaya would be too strong.
Or, I could rebuild the character as an Oracle and give her Fighter Dedication to maintain some fighter feats for consistency. I was unsure whether PF1 Amaya would ever take another level in fighter, but PF1 made that a decision that I could ignore until some future level. I probably would keep PF2 Amaya as a Fighter with Oracle archetype until 7th level, and then decide that the Fighter levels were too much for character concept I had been playing for the last 4 levels and rebuild her as an Oracle with Fighter Dedication. The PF2 rules don't allow rebuilding a character from the ground up, but I was the GM and could use GM fiat.
Or I could use GM powers all along and ignore the PF2 multiclass rules because Amaya is not a PC. She could follow monster rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah my only worry about multi-classing so far is the multi-classing feats seem better then the regular ones so everyone is going to end up as a multi-class and be better for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think my meaning got across, Its not about wanting None of the features its about Cut Off Level. Like not wanting some of the later abilities.
Take my Unchained Rogue Alchemist for example, I didn't want the Skill Unlocks but did want to try out the Debilitating Injury, and left the class before lvl 5. I however did want full access to the Alchemist Discoveries & the 2 Rogue Talents I could get (something I honestly can't fully replicate with 2E's Alchemist Class Feats, because some of the more esoteric options aren't there like multiple arms, or insectile wings, or tentacles, or mummification, etc. x.x) But I wanted a couple of the Rogue Talents, and the option to go back into it if I wanted.... I also however didn't care much for having extracts and played my character as a full on skill monkey martial with my Int and Dex in the 20's.
Or how about my Brawler/Master of Many Styles Monk, I got Master of Many Styles so I could use multiple styles at once (used Turtle, Monkey, and sure Dragon) but I also wanted to be able to use the Shield Champion Archetype, Shield Champion Does Nothing for Monk, in fact it cuts off a number of its powers, but when I threw the shield I had full access to them and my Shield was spiked and could ricochet.
Or how about my Barbarian/Shaman specifically Built to get a Mammoth Mount (thank you Half-Orc Racials), and the Mammoth Spirit, with pretty good use of my Mount and my Mauler Spirit Animal.
My Problem is that I'm forced to take levels that maybe I don't want to take x.x
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the new multiclassing rules.
However, I also see the loss that people are posting about here. The option to have a character have a complete change of career.
For example a Wizard who, after a few levels, decides that wizarding isn't what they want - for whatever story-based reason. No matter what that player chooses during the advancement process, their ex-wizard will always have to gain spellcasting powers as they level up. Because it is part of the core class, not a feat that can be chosen or avoided or replaced via multiclassing.
There is some actual loss in the mechanics of the game here.
I have tried crafting houserules that would allow for this style of character, but it is incredibly difficult. Stopping the progression and gain of abilities from the core class is easy enough, but gaining the core powers of the secondary class is really hard to make work. Many times they end up being duplicates of the class feats that the character could take anyway through the standard PF2 multiclassing. But sometimes not. So any houserule that I have tried has ended up being very lopsided in power - with some classes being much more powerful as this career change target than others.
I love the new multiclassing rules.
However, I also see the loss that people are posting about here. The option to have a character have a complete change of career.
For example a Wizard who, after a few levels, decides that wizarding isn't what they want - for whatever story-based reason. No matter what that player chooses during the advancement process, their ex-wizard will always have to gain spellcasting powers as they level up. Because it is part of the core class, not a feat that can be chosen or avoided or replaced via multiclassing.
There is some actual loss in the mechanics of the game here.
I have tried crafting houserules that would allow for this style of character, but it is incredibly difficult. Stopping the progression and gain of abilities from the core class is easy enough, but gaining the core powers of the secondary class is really hard to make work. Many times they end up being duplicates of the class feats that the character could take anyway through the standard PF2 multiclassing. But sometimes not. So any houserule that I have tried has ended up being very lopsided in power - with some classes being much more powerful as this career change target than others.
Hmm how does it go if you try to do it just like old style multi-classing. now that BAB and Saves are all linear you would just gain the class feats and abilities right? have you tried doing it that way? what issues did you have is yes?
I actually hadn't thought about doing that.... I was considering it from the Official Ruleset... Maybe all my problems would be fixed just by multiclassing my way as a houserule... Why I never actually thought of that is beyond me x.x
I actually hadn't thought about doing that.... I was considering it from the Official Ruleset... Maybe all my problems would be fixed just by multiclassing my way as a houserule... Why I never actually thought of that is beyond me x.x
LOL. I keep thinking that it might work. especially since casters spells aren't as tied to caster level as they once were. (saves will be the same you just on't have the bumps from prof. you won't gain more spells but the ones you have should remain realavent depending.)
Really don't care about Casters except for abilities that I like, I really don't gel well with using spells myself, like I say above (I tend to edit my posts when I think of new stuff to add) I only got Shaman for my Barbarian for the Mammoth Spirit, and I didn't really use Extracts for my Rogue/Alchemist despite being mostly Alchemist x3
Anywho, I'm gonna go try to make some chars using this multi-classing houserule, to make it like it was before, gonna start with remaking my Alchemist/Rogue using a Goblin ^-^
Also, the way I'd design my characters was by taking the 2 classes I wanted to combine, then figuring out if I wanted the abilities past 10. Then I'd wiggle them around and compare which abilities I'd want more, then I'd figure out the build process from lvl 1. With my Rogue & Alchemist for example, I moved leveling into 2 lvl Blocks, so I could switch after each Discovery/Talent. At least that was how I designed her Before Actually Playing with her, after I played her, she leaned far more heavily into Alchemist. After thinking about it if I ever go back to play her now, I think I might go to at least lvl 6 of Rogue and get a Skill unlock for Stealth....
There is no hope there is only DOOM. Accept defeat for DOOM will triumph. (and so far almost every suggestion I've made has seen its way into so very happy about that.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK I rolled up characters for Multiclassed and as I'm calling it Featclassed version of my Rogue/Alchemist. Only really got to lvl 10 so far before becoming tired(physically, its late here), and I haven't bothered to actually grab Formulae or gear for either(didn't want to look through them for the former, and didn't want to use up my time on currency calcs on the latter)...
I of course decoupled Ancestry(1st lvl)/Heritage, & Initial Proficiencies because they're 1st level only(and we don't need doubling on them). I also decoupled Ability Bonuses, & Ancestry/General Feat progression, because everyone gets them at the same level, and it would honestly feel kinda bad to lag behind in Ancestry Feats or Ability Bonuses, so I wanted to keep those separate.
What I learned is, that the Trading out of Class Feats does limit them quite a bit even tried to just do them every other level with the Rogue Archetype. Really wish you could trade out General Feats instead, that would be awesome since I was really trying to find a reason for them(unless you can just straight up take Skill Feats with them, Then they'd be more useful).
The Multiclassed came ahead in Skill Feats(obviously being part Rogue), as well as Rogue Feats & Alchemist Feats overall. What the FeatClassed gave me however was Far More Formulae (obviously, and which I should have looked through I admit it). I was however able to make a pretty decent Trap/Bomb Build with the Featclassed version, but the Multiclassed version was a Skirmisher, with Enhanced Bombs that had Splash based on Int, and more freedom in his feats.
Now I do have to admit that starting off with 2 Lvls of Rogue and then 2 Lvls of Alchemist gave me 4 Class Feats up front, but as for the Abilities, since I had taken the Alchemical Crafting Feat first level (which was a Rogue lvl) as my Skill Feat, Advanced Alchemy became partly Redundant.
Also in the long run my Bombs and Sneak Attack (since I was keeping them Even in leveling) would have each ended up only half that of a Max lvl Rogue or Alchemist at lvl 20, now give me 1 or 2 more Rogue levels instead of Alchemist levels(so 12/8), and I'd just be one Sneak Attack Short & Still 1/2 on the Enhanced Bombs.... I'd be left in the Dust for Formulae or Skills, and I'd Never be able to touch the Higher Lvl Feats(though I never expected to anyways), But I would still be having fun.
If Amaya had been a Pathfinder 2nd Edition character, she would have joined the party as Fighter 2 with Glassblower background (homebrew variant of Blacksmith background). That is an improvement over PF1, which used Expert to represent her pre-revolutionary background. At 3rd level, she would have retrained her 2nd level class feat to Oracle Dedication, because PF2 has the awkwardness of not allowing multiclassing at odd levels. Oracle Dedication is not yet available, so let's use Cleric Dedication as a substitute. At 4th level she would take Domain, a 4th-level archetype feat. Since she would be entirely dedicated to her new class, the other class feats would be Basic Dogma at 6th level, Divine Breath at 8th level, Advanced Dogma at 10th level, Expert Cleric Spellcasting at 12th level, and then she would be out of oracle archetype feats for 14th and 16th level, just like I am out of cleric archetype feats, so I guess she picks fighter feats.And what happens with PF2...
She could also pick more advanced dogmas if she wanted but i need to agree on one point. Multiclassing is not something in the system anymore. I love dedication, it's a much better way to gain features from a different niche. It opens up a lot of space and gives you tons of choices and tons of options, it gives you the flavor of another class while progressing on your main class.
But it's not multiclass and sadly multiclass does not exist in this system, but well i just love that. They can make archetypes for several different things. Just imagine that in the future there will be many more archetypes some that aren't even for classes, but that are chassis of new mechanics. Well i would love a class that didn't depend on magic weapons... Well they can make that into a archetype instead something like a kensai dedication, multiclass to me was always a cool thing, but dedication does not fit into that slot to me it's a much much better mecanic that makes multiclass obsolete in every way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2e multiclassing is a concern of mine, but like tmncx0 says, my problems with it stem from problems with lack of low level customization in general, and some easily changed limitations.
In PF1e, pretty much no one did a full 50/50 split between two classes. Very, very frequently one class dominated, and the others added some useful abilities and flavor. The way the PF2e system is set up, I don't see why this dynamic can't be achieved. Even class changes with roleplay can often be covered if you allow the character to switch which is the "base" class and which is the one they're multiclassing into.
My problems are:
1. 16 ability score requirement for multiclass dedications, when a fully fledged member of that class might not even have that (Cleric, for example).
2. Level limits. In PF1e, multiclassing couldn't happen until level 2 by the nature of the system. I don't think that's required for this system. Having to wait until 4th level or higher to start getting the interesting stuff is just plain insulting.
3. Lack of access to key class features. Sneak attack is a big reason to dip into rogue and gives a lot of flavor. Unfortunately the PF2e multiclass sneak attack is a steaming pile.
If PF2e had either a) more class feats and more baseline class features as feats or b) multiclass feats that grant more access to baseline features multiclassing will be more satisfying. I see this being solved over time.
The ability score requirement just flat out needs to be removed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm understanding this correctly... You don't like that, say, if you were a Barbarian and then took Cleric Dedication (Going back to the Goldmoon example) that you'd continue gaining Barbarian Class features as you leveled even if every selected Class Feat was Cleric (or something else)*? Is that it?
For example a Wizard who, after a few levels, decides that wizarding isn't what they want - for whatever story-based reason. No matter what that player chooses during the advancement process, their ex-wizard will always have to gain spellcasting powers as they level up. Because it is part of the core class, not a feat that can be chosen or avoided or replaced via multiclassing.
There is some actual loss in the mechanics of the game here.
This is my main issue with the PF2 VMC-is-mainline-now method. It's also quite immersion-breaking that someone who started as class X but then dedicates the rest of their life to being class Y is still only going up in levels of class X.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm how does it go if you try to do it just like old style multi-classing. now that BAB and Saves are all linear you would just gain the class feats and abilities right? have you tried doing it that way? what issues did you have is yes?I love the new multiclassing rules.
However, I also see the loss that people are posting about here. The option to have a character have a complete change of career.
For example a Wizard who, after a few levels, decides that wizarding isn't what they want - for whatever story-based reason. No matter what that player chooses during the advancement process, their ex-wizard will always have to gain spellcasting powers as they level up. Because it is part of the core class, not a feat that can be chosen or avoided or replaced via multiclassing.
There is some actual loss in the mechanics of the game here.
I have tried crafting houserules that would allow for this style of character, but it is incredibly difficult. Stopping the progression and gain of abilities from the core class is easy enough, but gaining the core powers of the secondary class is really hard to make work. Many times they end up being duplicates of the class feats that the character could take anyway through the standard PF2 multiclassing. But sometimes not. So any houserule that I have tried has ended up being very lopsided in power - with some classes being much more powerful as this career change target than others.
So now Wizards or Sorcerers take a level of Cleric and have access to anywhere from 2-7 Heal spells per day, and that only goes up as the game progresses. Classes being frontloaded is a problem that would require careful rebalancing in order to make them work. It's the reason why certain dips in PF1 were so powerful and popular *cough*Divine Grace Paladin*cough*, and I'd rather not see more of that in this edition.
I agree. Some are literally asking to "legally" abuse the...So now Wizards or Sorcerers take a level of Cleric and have access to anywhere from 2-7 Heal spells per day, and that only goes up as the game progresses. Classes being frontloaded is a problem that would require careful rebalancing in order to make them work. It's the reason why certain dips in PF1 were so powerful and popular *cough*Divine Grace Paladin*cough*, and I'd rather not see more of that in this edition.Hmm how does it go if you try to do it just like old style multi-classing. now that BAB and Saves are all linear you would just gain the class feats and abilities right? have you tried doing it that way? what issues did you have is yes?I love the new multiclassing rules.
However, I also see the loss that people are posting about here. The option to have a character have a complete change of career.
For example a Wizard who, after a few levels, decides that wizarding isn't what they want - for whatever story-based reason. No matter what that player chooses during the advancement process, their ex-wizard will always have to gain spellcasting powers as they level up. Because it is part of the core class, not a feat that can be chosen or avoided or replaced via multiclassing.
There is some actual loss in the mechanics of the game here.
I have tried crafting houserules that would allow for this style of character, but it is incredibly difficult. Stopping the progression and gain of abilities from the core class is easy enough, but gaining the core powers of the secondary class is really hard to make work. Many times they end up being duplicates of the class feats that the character could take anyway through the standard PF2 multiclassing. But sometimes not. So any houserule that I have tried has ended up being very lopsided in power - with some classes being much more powerful as this career change target than others.
To be fair, a lot of that can have to do with class balance.
Let's take a Divine Sorcerer example. He's 8th level, and LG, with a stipulation of being a pacifist healer. At this level, he has access to 4th level healing spells (among other things). However, he looks at the Cleric, realizes his mistake of class choice (technically, this was noticed way before, but let's roll with it), and thinks the class cannot function as a primary healer due to their feat and feature selections.
However, if said character devotes all of their class feats into the Paladin Dedication line (Paladin Dedication, Lay On Hands, Paladin Benediction [whatever], Advanced Paladin Benediction [Channel Life]), they now have access to their Spell Points to use as Channel Energy, just like a Cleric could. Sure, it takes 8 levels and all of their class feats, and it's not as strong as going straight Cleric, but at least the class can function as being a comparable healer now.
And this is one example that I would have done for Part 4, certain circumstances not withstanding, simply because the point of that character was to determine whether a Divine Sorcerer could be a suitable replacement for Cleric healing (which it falls very short of until 8th level with that combination).
Feel free to house rule this, to me this approach does not sound appealing at all, I prefer the dedication/archetype feats over this every time.
I agree with the devs that multiclass should always come at a cost. With your approach and the "frontloading" of class feats you can kiss game balance good bye.
Now see, here I agree it should come at a cost, and it does in the long run, it really does. Multiclassed doesn't have nearly the same amount of formulae and doesn't touch the over lvl 10 Alchemist Feats like the FeatClassed version does. And maybe it does frontload the Feats a bit, but 2E isn't a game made for early levels alone, its built for people to Want to get to the higher levels of the game.
Besides that I feel that a lot of the problems that people were seeing in PFS could be solved by making Multiclassing a 2 Class Maximum, basically you start off with 1 class, and then you can start another class if you want it, and that's it. What was happening in PFS was insane with people taking 1 lvl dips in so many different classes x.x
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When someone complains that multiclassing isn't modular enough when it comes to class abilities, here's the example that comes to mind for me. Let's say I want to make a fighter/wizard, and I want the classes to be as equally balanced as possible. I can build this thing as a Fighter with Wizard dedications, or as a Wizard with Fighter dedications - can I build it in such a way so that I have the exact same PC either way, at, say, level 12? That's what I want out of multiclassing, not "splashing" a little bit into my main class, but a full-on hybrid.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
When someone complains that multiclassing isn't modular enough when it comes to class abilities, here's the example that comes to mind for me. Let's say I want to make a fighter/wizard, and I want the classes to be as equally balanced as possible. I can build this thing as a Fighter with Wizard dedications, or as a Wizard with Fighter dedications - can I build it in such a way so that I have the exact same PC either way, at, say, level 12? That's what I want out of multiclassing, not "splashing" a little bit into my main class, but a full-on hybrid.
I feel like the best solution for such characters will always be full on hybrid classes whenever they are released. being a Level 6 Fighter and a Level 6 Wizard doesn't make you a hybrid. It makes you more like a crappy wizard and a crappy fighter smooshed together.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the system to be honest, though I have to echo some of the other posters here:
Giving everyone an extra class feat at level 1 and allowing characters to take dedication feats at level 1, would make the experience of playing a level 1 character more enjoyable.
Mostly because your build will not feel unfinished when you start a new campaign or play your first PFS scenario.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I definitely don't think it's perfect. And I would be extremely happy if they also added the old archetype system that changes 1st level class features alongside the new system. I don't see why both systems can't work in tandem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm how does it go if you try to do it just like old style multi-classing. now that BAB and Saves are all linear you would just gain the class feats and abilities right? have you tried doing it that way? what issues did you have is yes?
I have tried crafting houserules that would allow for this style of character, but it is incredibly difficult. Stopping the progression and gain of abilities from the core class is easy enough, but gaining the core powers of the secondary class is really hard to make work. Many times they end up being duplicates of the class feats that the character could take anyway through the standard PF2 multiclassing. But sometimes not. So any houserule that I have tried has ended up being very lopsided in power - with some classes being much more powerful as this career change target than others.
Doing a traditional multiclassing is probably the best houserule I have seen. It doesn't suffer from the strangeness of the BAB and Saves that it did in PF1, so that is better. It does still suffer from the problem of ending up with two half power classes - the character ends up with twice as many low level class abilities and none of the higher ones (exact ratio depending on the exact levels of classes taken). This is fine for story telling gamers. But that type of character won't be as useful in a power gamer table.
The houserule that I utterly failed at creating was with a combination of archetype multiclassing and including the core abilities of the second class. I tried making a Wizard that career changes to a Bard. Starting with the multiclass dedication feat and at that level adding in the core features of a Bard. And found that all of the core class features of a Bard are regarding the spellcasting - which the character already gets from the multiclass feats.
So do they get both? The standard spell progression of a Bard for their Bard levels in addition to the Bard spellcasting multiclass feats? That doesn't make sense.
How about forbidding the multiclass feats - they can only take the standard class feats from Bard class for their Bard levels? So what was the point of the multiclass dedication feat? Why not just do the traditional multiclass instead?
And if I instead remove the spellcasting core class features from this multiclass Bard, that doesn't leave anything left. They are just doing the current archetype multiclassing. This is where it gets unbalanced. For career changing into a Rogue, you could get the sneak attack class feature since it doesn't duplicate in the Rogue multiclass feat list.
The trope I am experimenting with is a Ranger/Rogue
Rogue, to me, seems a class made to multiclass FROM not TO. Rogues get a lot of class features that can serve as a skeleton to hang the class feats of other classes on. Multiclassing as a rogue, on the other hand, seems quite lacklustre to me.
I feel like "purposefully opting out of unwanted class features" is what the inevitable "class archetypes" (i.e. traditional archetypes) are going to be for. I feel like those won't be in core, but will be in something like the APG2.0.
This looks pretty inevitable - the class skeletons (what you get besides class feats) is overly rigid now.
For example a Wizard who, after a few levels, decides that wizarding isn't what they want - for whatever story-based reason. No matter what that player chooses during the advancement process, their ex-wizard will always have to gain spellcasting powers as they level up. Because it is part of the core class, not a feat that can be chosen or avoided or replaced via multiclassing.
Best done by retraining as the new class with a bunch of wizard dedication feats. Not possible in Pathfinder Society, naturally, but in a home game the GM is king and can allow it if it fits the story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
personally i expected multiclassing with the current system to be more like 4e's (i mean we've got the level-striped sets of 'powers' to choose from), where it just wholesale trades out some class feats from the base class for some class feats from the multiclass/archetype (say, losing the animal companion ranger abilities but gaining some paladin mount ones instead), and perhaps swapping a core class feature for one from the other source.
by making hybrids/VMCs/archetypes more modular like that, you could just print one set and have multiple classes access that (the class simply listing what class feats/ability they trade when archetyping/multiclassing), and really double down on 2E's whole "build your own class" angle.
EDIT: which, thinking on it, is already the case really--just on a one-for-one basis rather than a package deal upfront. i just feels sort of... clunky? lackluster? presently.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, for the "I want to do a career change" crowd, wouldn't making it possible to "retrain" the class like you can retrain feats be a possible solution? TBH, multiclassing per levels have always felt weird for me. The dedication feats feel much more natural I think.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly the whole "I'm totally changing my life direction" multiclass is itself a relic from Second Edition, and even then was only there becasue there was arbitrary caps on how far into a class most races could go, the other thing they had was the true Dual Class, which was an XP split between two classes, there's a reason we haven't seen that since the 90's
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When someone complains that multiclassing isn't modular enough when it comes to class abilities, here's the example that comes to mind for me. Let's say I want to make a fighter/wizard, and I want the classes to be as equally balanced as possible. I can build this thing as a Fighter with Wizard dedications, or as a Wizard with Fighter dedications - can I build it in such a way so that I have the exact same PC either way, at, say, level 12? That's what I want out of multiclassing, not "splashing" a little bit into my main class, but a full-on hybrid.
I'm not sure what is the utility of a Wizard multi-classing into Fighter produce the same kind of PC as Fighter multi-classing into Wizard. IMO, there's more value of being able to produce a "Batman" PC by starting Fighter and going into Wizard for minor tricks; and being able to produce an "Elric" PC by starting Wizard and going into Fighter for offensive and defensive capabilities.
I see one reason why you might want that: no trap of people choosing one way when what they wanted was the other way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, for the "I want to do a career change" crowd, wouldn't making it possible to "retrain" the class like you can retrain feats be a possible solution? TBH, multiclassing per levels have always felt weird for me. The dedication feats feel much more natural I think.
See I always start out a build Wanting to combine the two classes, I've Never made a straight up 1 Class character. Hybrid classes like in the Advanced Class Guide, Are to me just regular classes that I want to multiclass with (Barbarian/Shaman, Slayer/Vigilante, and Brawler/Monk to name a few) so that's not really an answer for me, and Neither is retraining.
Also I think I've given ample reasoning as to why I don't like "FeatClassing", the main concern being the lack of freedom x.x