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.
That is currently the best houserule workaround.
The mechanics of retraining a character's class is effectively to rebuild the character from level 1 up to your current level in the new class - taking the appropriate multiclass dedication feat at a reasonable point during the process. Then leveling up the character to the next level that they just qualified for. It doesn't feel much like a simple retraining like any of the stuff we can officially retrain.
|
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.That is currently the best houserule workaround.
The mechanics of retraining a character's class is effectively to rebuild the character from level 1 up to your current level in the new class - taking the appropriate multiclass dedication feat at a reasonable point during the process. Then leveling up the character to the next level that they just qualified for. It doesn't feel much like a simple retraining like any of the stuff we can officially retrain.
Actually the best suggestion I've seen for this was to get dedication for your other class, then switch base class and dedication, then retrain dedication feats if you so wish
That still leaves the matter of the ability requirements of Dedications since you cannot retrain ability boosts
We now have a human-only workaround for this. I would propose a similar feat, say Ancestry Paragon, that makes the abilities scores where your Ancestry gives fixed bonuses to count as 2 higher for the purpose of meeting prerequisites
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the need for ability score prerequisites for dedications? Multiclassing in PF1e didn't have it. It severely steps on a huge source of character customization. It doesn't even make sense for a lot of classes. A buffing cleric might have 12 or 14 in their "primary stat".
The whole concept of "primary stat" is a bit phooey anyway.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often multiclass in pursuit of a character concept and I've been making multiclass characters as part of the playtest.
Thus far, I've not been very happy with multiclassing in 2e. Its hard for me to say it is the archetype feat approach as the class implementations are disappointing. I think I would be unhappy with the results even with the old form of multiclassing because we're being asked to build on a feeble foundation.
It may be true to say that 2e offers more choices, but I wouldn't say that it offers more meaningful choices. I feel my favorite class, the Ranger, went from a customizable package of abilities to where I pick one shtick from a list of four.
One part of the multiclass archtype feats that I find frustrating is the requirement to have a 16 in the primary stat. I wasn't required to have a 16 in my primary stat of my main class. In fact, depending on your eventual goal with the 2e character, it makes sense to short the primary stat of your chosen class and put an 18 in your multiclass archtype's primary stat. One example was that I made a Cleric with a 12 Wisdom, then an 18 Dex and 16 Str and went for the rogue archtype. I basically made a rogue, but got the cleric channel ability. If I would have made the rogue my base class, I would have needed a 16 Wis to support the cleric archtype.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often multiclass in pursuit of a character concept and I've been making multiclass characters as part of the playtest.
Thus far, I've not been very happy with multiclassing in 2e. Its hard for me to say it is the archetype feat approach as the class implementations are disappointing. I think I would be unhappy with the results even with the old form of multiclassing because we're being asked to build on a feeble foundation.
It may be true to say that 2e offers more choices, but I wouldn't say that it offers more meaningful choices. I feel my favorite class, the Ranger, went from a customizable package of abilities to where I pick one shtick from a list of four.
One part of the multiclass archtype feats that I find frustrating is the requirement to have a 16 in the primary stat. I wasn't required to have a 16 in my primary stat of my main class. In fact, depending on your eventual goal with the 2e character, it makes sense to short the primary stat of your chosen class and put an 18 in your multiclass archtype's primary stat. One example was that I made a Cleric with a 12 Wisdom, then an 18 Dex and 16 Str and went for the rogue archtype. I basically made a rogue, but got the cleric channel ability. If I would have made the rogue my base class, I would have needed a 16 Wis to support the cleric archtype.
Well let's be honest, were you comparing the character concepts of the playtest to the 1e Core rulebook? for example you mention how Ranger was super customizable. Which I disagree with if you're talking about just the 1e core rulebook.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole idea that you have to have a specific score in your "primary ability" to progress in a class or multiclass strikes me as a bad hangover from D&D 1st Edition. It's not needed, and creates misleading impressions.
This is particularly notable with Clerics, who really don't need Wisdom as much as the rules assume they do. Yes, it governs your spell save DCs, but it's reasonable to simply assume that the monsters will make all their saves anyway, and focus on healing and buffing spells. You might well be better off with Strength or Charisma or Dexterity. In fact I wish I'd gone that way with my current cleric.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well let's be honest, were you comparing the character concepts of the playtest to the 1e Core rulebook? for example you mention how Ranger was super customizable. Which I disagree with if you're talking about just the 1e core rulebook.I often multiclass in pursuit of a character concept and I've been making multiclass characters as part of the playtest.
Thus far, I've not been very happy with multiclassing in 2e. Its hard for me to say it is the archetype feat approach as the class implementations are disappointing. I think I would be unhappy with the results even with the old form of multiclassing because we're being asked to build on a feeble foundation.
It may be true to say that 2e offers more choices, but I wouldn't say that it offers more meaningful choices. I feel my favorite class, the Ranger, went from a customizable package of abilities to where I pick one shtick from a list of four.
One part of the multiclass archtype feats that I find frustrating is the requirement to have a 16 in the primary stat. I wasn't required to have a 16 in my primary stat of my main class. In fact, depending on your eventual goal with the 2e character, it makes sense to short the primary stat of your chosen class and put an 18 in your multiclass archtype's primary stat. One example was that I made a Cleric with a 12 Wisdom, then an 18 Dex and 16 Str and went for the rogue archtype. I basically made a rogue, but got the cleric channel ability. If I would have made the rogue my base class, I would have needed a 16 Wis to support the cleric archtype.
In first edition, I have near all the feats in the rule book to potentially take. In second edition, I only have the siloed feats to choose from. I have far more customization in 1e.
And how many of those feats are actually useful? It's not really a choice when one feat line is basically necessary to take to be useful in combat. Archer Ranger for instance. There's not much choice there. Either take point-blank shot -> precise shot -> rapid shot. Or you are useless with a bow. Nice customization!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or more like: want to make a trip build for Ranger in 2e? Just do it! You don't have feat taxes that you need to take to actually use trip. Just keep boosting your athletics and you can trip people. Much better than 1e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The stat requirements are sort of weird. With how stifling the class specific feats are, and how frequently you're handed useless feats, it seems expected that you'd have at least one multiclass feat as you level. Making them feel more distinct via the requirement seems pretty odd.
The forced ability score bump for your main class is weird too though, if they've presented classes that can do without their primary stat, then they've missed the mark on the primary stat choice.
The trip build of nothing for no benefit isn't inspiring, but it's also a bit outside of the multiclass problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or more like: want to make a trip build for Ranger in 2e? Just do it! You don't have feat taxes that you need to take to actually use trip. Just keep boosting your athletics and you can trip people. Much better than 1e.Not really, that's just an utter lack of support for a trip based fighting style at all. You can only be as good as everybody else.
You do a trip build by spending your skill increases in athletics and keeping a high dex/str. Using a trip weapon helps since you get to add your item bonus to trip attacks. Just because there aren't trip based feats yet doesn't mean you can't do a "trip based fighting style". In fact it's way easier to make a trip based fighting style in this edition than in 1e where you needed a decent int and a few feats.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like that feat taxes have been largely reduced, allowing a non-invested form of attack to stand a hope in heck of landing. I think that's a very good thing.
I don't like that it can be hard to differentiate yourself from others with the same level of baseline capability.
A "trip build" is not necessarily the best example, because it's more or less an artifact of the previous systems where tripping happened to be effective and so people like to make builds focused on it. That is, no actual characters set out to be the best trippers in the world, and seek tripping guidance from the Trip Masters at Tripping Monastery.
I think the goal should be to have a baseline effectiveness, where making the attempt to use a bow, or bash with a shield, or, indeed, trip someone should not generally be a wasted action. Then, to distinguish yourself as someone focused on a particular fighting style, there should be permanent choices that let you mechanically show your superiority. That could be neat tricks or bonus damage or accuracy. This also prevents it from being to easy to totally abandon you character concept when you find a shiny new piece of loot, just because it would be mechanically superior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yay, my plus is higher, let my enthusiasm gush over this poorly designed feat/"multiclass" system. At the end of this playtest, if this is what we end up with and its complete lack of character customization, it will ultimately be a subscription stopper.You do a trip build by spending your skill increases in athletics and keeping a high dex/str. Using a trip weapon helps since you get to add your item bonus to trip attacks. Just because there aren't trip based feats yet doesn't mean you can't do a "trip based fighting style". In fact it's way easier to make a trip based fighting style in this edition than in 1e where you needed a decent int and a few feats.Or more like: want to make a trip build for Ranger in 2e? Just do it! You don't have feat taxes that you need to take to actually use trip. Just keep boosting your athletics and you can trip people. Much better than 1e.Not really, that's just an utter lack of support for a trip based fighting style at all. You can only be as good as everybody else.
What's stopping them from making trip based skill feats or general feats in the future? I mean the only trip based stuff that's in the core rulebook is the feats that let you actually trip without provoking. And then greater trip that lets you do an Attack of opportunity... You're basically spending feats to even open up a play style, when 2e let's you just play a trip build without having to spend feats.
the playtest has better character customization than 1e core. Name me a viable build in 1e core rulebook and I'll give you 2 more in the playtest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay, my plus is higher, let my enthusiasm gush over this poorly designed feat/"multiclass" system. At the end of this playtest, if this is what we end up with and its complete lack of character customization, it will ultimately be a subscription stopper.You do a trip build by spending your skill increases in athletics and keeping a high dex/str. Using a trip weapon helps since you get to add your item bonus to trip attacks. Just because there aren't trip based feats yet doesn't mean you can't do a "trip based fighting style". In fact it's way easier to make a trip based fighting style in this edition than in 1e where you needed a decent int and a few feats.Or more like: want to make a trip build for Ranger in 2e? Just do it! You don't have feat taxes that you need to take to actually use trip. Just keep boosting your athletics and you can trip people. Much better than 1e.Not really, that's just an utter lack of support for a trip based fighting style at all. You can only be as good as everybody else.What's stopping them from making trip based skill feats or general feats in the future? I mean the only trip based stuff that's in the core rulebook is the feats that let you actually trip without provoking. And then greater trip that lets you do an Attack of opportunity... You're basically spending feats to even open up a play style, when 2e let's you just play a trip build without having to spend feats.
the playtest has better character customization than 1e core. Name me a viable build in 1e core rulebook and I'll give you 2 more in the playtest.
You still don't seem to understand that people like myself want specialize a combat style while not marrying themselves to a class. I am not talking viable, I am talking specialized (which means better than the rest in my chosen style). And those two tripping feats made me specialized in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You still don't seem to understand that people like myself want specialize a combat style while not marrying themselves to a class. I am not talking viable, I am talking specialized (which means better than the rest in my chosen style). And those two tripping feats made me specialized in PF1.Yay, my plus is higher, let my enthusiasm gush over this poorly designed feat/"multiclass" system. At the end of this playtest, if this is what we end up with and its complete lack of character customization, it will ultimately be a subscription stopper.You do a trip build by spending your skill increases in athletics and keeping a high dex/str. Using a trip weapon helps since you get to add your item bonus to trip attacks. Just because there aren't trip based feats yet doesn't mean you can't do a "trip based fighting style". In fact it's way easier to make a trip based fighting style in this edition than in 1e where you needed a decent int and a few feats.Or more like: want to make a trip build for Ranger in 2e? Just do it! You don't have feat taxes that you need to take to actually use trip. Just keep boosting your athletics and you can trip people. Much better than 1e.Not really, that's just an utter lack of support for a trip based fighting style at all. You can only be as good as everybody else.What's stopping them from making trip based skill feats or general feats in the future? I mean the only trip based stuff that's in the core rulebook is the feats that let you actually trip without provoking. And then greater trip that lets you do an Attack of opportunity... You're basically spending feats to even open up a play style, when 2e let's you just play a trip build without having to spend feats.
the playtest has better character customization than 1e core. Name me a viable build in 1e core rulebook and I'll give you 2 more in the playtest.
You can still specialize though... It just doesn't cost feats.... Get a trip weapon and spend money to upgrade it, and use your skill increases on athletics. In the most extreme example you'll be like +10 higher than someone untrained in athletics without a trip weapon.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can still specialize though... It just doesn't cost feats.... Get a trip weapon and spend money to upgrade it, and use your skill increases on athletics. In the most extreme example you'll be like +10 higher than someone untrained in athletics without a trip weapon.
Switch weapons with someone who has a Disarm weapon and suddenly you're a Disarm Focused character (or just transfer the enchantments). That's not the kind of enduring build choice I want to have to distinguish my character.
It doesn't take much. There just need to be lasting, meaningful mechanical choices that distinguish a character from another in their fighting style.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often multiclass in pursuit of a character concept and I've been making multiclass characters as part of the playtest.
Thus far, I've not been very happy with multiclassing in 2e. Its hard for me to say it is the archetype feat approach as the class implementations are disappointing. I think I would be unhappy with the results even with the old form of multiclassing because we're being asked to build on a feeble foundation.
It may be true to say that 2e offers more choices, but I wouldn't say that it offers more meaningful choices. I feel my favorite class, the Ranger, went from a customizable package of abilities to where I pick one shtick from a list of four.
One part of the multiclass archtype feats that I find frustrating is the requirement to have a 16 in the primary stat. I wasn't required to have a 16 in my primary stat of my main class. In fact, depending on your eventual goal with the 2e character, it makes sense to short the primary stat of your chosen class and put an 18 in your multiclass archtype's primary stat. One example was that I made a Cleric with a 12 Wisdom, then an 18 Dex and 16 Str and went for the rogue archtype. I basically made a rogue, but got the cleric channel ability. If I would have made the rogue my base class, I would have needed a 16 Wis to support the cleric archtype.
The primary stat requirement is odd and annoying, but the argument that the original class does not have the primary stat 16 requirement is weak. Remember, the ability score boost gives the character a +2 boost to that primary stat. Given that one of the four free stat boosts ought to go to that primary stat, I don't see anything less than a 14 there. Only in some fringe cases with other demands on the background ability score boosts would anyone have the primary stat less than 16.
My elder daughter claimed that I am addicted to multiclassing. She remembered my cleric/wizard/arcane archer and my cleric/rogue/ranger and my ranger/monk and my fighter/oracle.
"But my current NPC bloodrager Val Baine has stuck to one class for 14 levels!" I replied. (Val kept to bloodrager for all 17 levels.)
She asked, "And how many archetypes?"
"Two," I answered, "One of which is homebrew." I was multiclassing hybrid-style rather than by level.
There are many ways to multiclass. We might find one that fits our goals in PF2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to create a bad character is infinitely better than not being able to create a character at all. Want to create a trip build Ranger in 1e, there's never been any Ranger-specific support for it, but you can totally create it. Want to create a trip build Ranger in 2e, your SOL, Paizo hasn't made that yet and is giving no signalling that its on the road-map.And how many of those feats are actually useful? It's not really a choice when one feat line is basically necessary to take to be useful in combat. Archer Ranger for instance. There's not much choice there. Either take point-blank shot -> precise shot -> rapid shot. Or you are useless with a bow. Nice customization!Well let's be honest, were you comparing the character concepts of the playtest to the 1e Core rulebook? for example you mention how Ranger was super customizable. Which I disagree with if you're talking about just the 1e core rulebook.In first edition, I have near all the feats in the rule book to potentially take. In second edition, I only have the siloed feats to choose from. I have far more customization in 1e.
The classic Treantmonks' Guide to the Ranger (updated to Core Rulebook Pathfinder, but the illustrations are in the wrong places) identified three fundamental builds for the ranger class.
1) The two-weapon combat style ranger barely gets a mention in the updated guide. The original guide spent a page pointing out that two-weapon fighting did the same damage as a two-handed weapon but cost more feats.2) The archer ranger is the iconic archer, the best possible with the Core Rulebook alone.
3) The switch-hitter ranger took the archery combat style but used it only half the time. This ranger would not shoot into melee, so he did not need Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot. Instead, he shot first and swung his sword second. A ranger does not need the usual prerequisites to gain Rapid Shot.
Thus, Dire Ursus's main point about the ranger needing a feat chain are contradicted by the best-known build guide to the ranger.
Second, feats are not the heart of customization. Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition had a different mindset about customization. It gave feats only at 1st level, 3rd level, and every 3rd level after that, 7 feats from character levels. Feats were too infrequent to rely on them for customization; instead, the class features added customization, such as a choice of favored enemy and animal companion. Pathfinder changed that to every odd level instead, 10 feats from character levels. Their new material also added feats better for customization than D&D's feats.
Third, I already did a comparison of the customization of PF1 Core Rulebook rangers and PF2 rangers. I had played a PF1 Core Rulebook ranger and tried to create a similar ranger under the playtest rules. This attempt was before Rules Update 1.3, so the PF2 ranger has Double Slice rather than Twin Takedown. My conclusion is that the PF2 ranger was better at general fighting but worse at class and background elements. He was farther from my character concept than the PF1 ranger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The primary stat requirement is odd and annoying, but the argument that the original class does not have the primary stat 16 requirement is weak. Remember, the ability score boost gives the character a +2 boost to that primary stat. Given that one of the four free stat boosts ought to go to that primary stat, I don't see anything less than a 14 there. Only in some fringe cases with other demands on the background ability score boosts would anyone have the primary stat less than 16.
A cleric doesn't really need wisdom if they don't care about spell points or offensive spells. Healing can take a hit, but it opens up a lot of options.
A race with a penalty to wisdom could add up to a 10 Wis combat focused cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The primary stat requirement is odd and annoying, but the argument that the original class does not have the primary stat 16 requirement is weak. Remember, the ability score boost gives the character a +2 boost to that primary stat. Given that one of the four free stat boosts ought to go to that primary stat, I don't see anything less than a 14 there. Only in some fringe cases with other demands on the background ability score boosts would anyone have the primary stat less than 16.
A cleric doesn't really need wisdom if they don't care about spell points or offensive spells. Healing can take a hit, but it opens up a lot of options.
A race with a penalty to wisdom could add up to a 10 Wis combat focused cleric.
Adding in Mary Yamato 's comment #57 from 4 and a half hours ago, that sounds like an argument that the cleric class has no true primary stat and that requiring a 16 in the Wisdom secondary stat to qualify for Cleric multiclass archetype makes little sense. I can buy that viewpoint.
I tend to play support with my spellcasters in Pathfinder 1st Edition, so my main concern about the spellcasting stat was the bonus spells not the DC. Does Pathfinder 2nd Edition offer bonus spells based on the spellcasting stat?
I tend to play support with my spellcasters in Pathfinder 1st Edition, so my main concern about the spellcasting stat was the bonus spells not the DC. Does Pathfinder 2nd Edition offer bonus spells based on the spellcasting stat?
No. Spellcasters get three of each level base, plus one more if they're a wizard with a school or a sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Third, I already did a comparison of the customization of PF1 Core Rulebook rangers and PF2 rangers
I'm sorry but this comparison wasn't great. You state that he's worse at skills but you don't actually tell us what feats/abilities he got in 1e that made him any better at skills...
For example: "At 2nd level, Abu Two gains a skill feat. By this time, the original Abu had proven himself as the detective and diplomat in the party, due to his skills. Can the playtest's feats complement this?"
The original Abu has "proven himself"? What does that mean? He succeeded at some skills checks? How does the playtest rules not support this? You literally just give no examples of how the 1e rules make Abu a better "detective and diplomat" and just say that he's better at it. Did he take feats that give him diplomatic and detective abilties at level 2? I'm guessing no.
No. Spellcasters get three of each level base, plus one more if they're a wizard with a school or a sorcerer.
You know I just realized.... You're right. That seems kind of well... Dumb, why are Bards, Clerics, and Druids outdone in number of spells by the Sorcerer, when the Wizard isn't? That seems a bit... Inane?
How I'd fix it is giving Bonus Spells to Domains, Orders, & Muses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that feat taxes have been largely reduced, allowing a non-invested form of attack to stand a hope in heck of landing. I think that's a very good thing.
I don't like that it can be hard to differentiate yourself from others with the same level of baseline capability.
A "trip build" is not necessarily the best example, because it's more or less an artifact of the previous systems where tripping happened to be effective and so people like to make builds focused on it. That is, no actual characters set out to be the best trippers in the world, and seek tripping guidance from the Trip Masters at Tripping Monastery.
I think the goal should be to have a baseline effectiveness, where making the attempt to use a bow, or bash with a shield, or, indeed, trip someone should not generally be a wasted action. Then, to distinguish yourself as someone focused on a particular fighting style, there should be permanent choices that let you mechanically show your superiority. That could be neat tricks or bonus damage or accuracy. This also prevents it from being to easy to totally abandon you character concept when you find a shiny new piece of loot, just because it would be mechanically superior.
That does sound like a pretty good goal, it's a shame we're nowhere near it. As is, the baseline isn't much higher than it was previously, the top end is equal to the baseline in many cases, In most cases the only way to improve on a tactic is to play a specific class, and the "feat tax" has gone from feats to multiclass archetypes. It's a mess.
Well let's be honest, were you comparing the character concepts of the playtest to the 1e Core rulebook? for example you mention how Ranger was super customizable. Which I disagree with if you're talking about just the 1e core rulebook.
I don't think it terms of rules when forming a concept. Rules come into play when trying to realize the concept. So no, I did not start by thinking in terms of PF1e.
Or more like: want to make a trip build for Ranger in 2e? Just do it! You don't have feat taxes that you need to take to actually use trip. Just keep boosting your athletics and you can trip people. Much better than 1e.
So this would not what I think of as a character concept. That is, I wouldn't focus on one combat maneuver. I would be thinking more about a mixture of character motivations, background details, and a package of roleplay, exploration, and combat abilities. An example might be: an outdoorsman (primarily forest) since his youth who trained with the local militia along with his father, the local blacksmith. He found a wounded owl and nursed it back to health. He's an expert tracker, harvests herbs and alchemical ingredients for extra money, and has taken some interest in being a bowyer/fletcher. He's frequently employed as a guide and has learned to navigate via the stars. As a hunter he carries a bow. As a guide or tracker, he carries a short sword and hand axe. As a soldier he equips shield and spear and stands in the line.
So when I look at a Ranger-like concept, in 2e to get a nice collection of abilities to round out the character, it feels like I have to be something like 12th level and have bought a variety of low level feats before the character feels right. In 1e, by contrast, I feel like I got a wider collection of abilities earlier though I would often have to multiclass to break free of class constraints that weren't part of the concept.
A 2e Ranger feels like I have to choose between four concepts... Two-Weapon Fighter, Crossbowman, Beast Master, and something that I can't recall as I type this. I can spread out among those concepts, but I cannot make something like... well... a Ranger. That is, a specialist in a familiar environment. Unless the skill system is the key to realizing all non-combat abilities. In which case, there's no need for classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Third, I already did a comparison of the customization of PF1 Core Rulebook rangers and PF2 rangersI'm sorry but this comparison wasn't great. You state that he's worse at skills but you don't actually tell us what feats/abilities he got in 1e that made him any better at skills...
For example: "At 2nd level, Abu Two gains a skill feat. By this time, the original Abu had proven himself as the detective and diplomat in the party, due to his skills. Can the playtest's feats complement this?"
"Due to his skills" meant due to the bonuses from his skill ranks. In addition, a class feature called Tracking was handy in some detective work.
The PF1 Abu's stats at 1st level were Str 13 Dex 14 Con 11 Int 15 Wis 15 Cha 14. That is pretty good, because I rolled three 15s via the method of roll 4d6 and toss out the lowest. The Int 15 meant that he gained 8 skill ranks per level. I gave him maximum skill ranks in Diplomacy (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Perception (Wis), and Survival (Wis), while the other four skill points were spread out to other skills, such as Knowledge(nature) (Int) and Sense Motive (Wis). All skills mentioned except Diplomacy and Sense Motive were class skills, so he received a +3 class bonus.
The original Abu has "proven himself"? What does that mean? He succeeded at some skills checks? How does the playtest rules not support this? You literally just give no examples of how the 1e rules make Abu a better "detective and diplomat" and just say that he's better at it. Did he take feats that give him diplomatic and detective abilties at level 2? I'm guessing no.
No, that comparison was not great. It was only one character of one race and one class and one character concept, hardly a representive sample. Yet, why demand that I prove my conclusion with detailed analysis? That post was already pretty long. No, my goal was to do a comparison and state my results in a concise manner that let people know what I was comparing. Anyone who wants more details could construct their own comparable PF1 and PF2 characters.
Nonetheless, let's generate a few details for 3rd level. PF1 Abu had Diplomacy +5, Handle Animal +8, Knowledge(nature) +6, Perception +8, Sense Motive +3, and Survival +8 (+9 tracking). Proving himself as a detective and diplomat meant that he had been roleplaying those roles in the Burnt Offerings module and succeeded at it. That module requires dealing with townsfolk regularly and solving a few mysteries. For example, there was a kidnapping that led to a secret tunnel and the tunnel branched in several directions. Tracking was useful there.
PF2 Abu had STR 14, DEX 16, CON 12, INT 12, WIS 12, CHA 12 and, as of Rules update 1.3, would have trained proficiency in Diplomacy, Nature, and Survival and four other skills. At 3rd level, he would have improved his Survival to expert. PF2 Abu would have Diplomacy +1, Nature +1, Perception +2, and Survival +2. I said I was tempted to raise PF2 Abu's Intelligence, but saw no benefit. If he had STR 14 and INT 14, his bonuses to those particular skills would still be the same. If he had WIS 14, they would be increased by 1.
Maybe the DCs in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition playtest are reduced by 4 to make lower skill bonuses relatively better. Given that the medium DC at 3rd level in table 10-2, page 7 of Rules Update 1.5, is 15, I doubt that. Glancing at the end of Burnt Offerings, most of the DCs there are 15, too, with a few DC 20s for difficult tasks.
Wait why aren't you adding his level to his skill bonuses? His Diplomacy would be +4, Nature +4, Perception + 5, Survival + 5. And skill DCs generally will be lowered at lower levels to accommodate the fact you don't get a +4 for ranking up a class skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait why aren't you adding his level to his skill bonuses? His Diplomacy would be +4, Nature +4, Perception + 5, Survival + 5. And skill DCs generally will be lowered at lower levels to accommodate the fact you don't get a +4 for ranking up a class skill.
Because I forgot to add the level to proficiency. Sorry about the mistake, and thank Dire Ursus for catching it. The problem with details is I have to look up a lot of references to make them meaningful. Given a dozen steps, sometimes I miss one.
However, I did look up the PF2 skill DC in Table 10-2 and I said so. Pathfinder 2nd Edition did not lower the skill DCs. The bonuses to skills in PF1 and PF2 are measured against similar DCs.
Thus, correcting my mistake, 3rd-level PF2 Abu would have Diplomacy +4, Nature +4, Perception +5, and Survival +5, as Dire Ursus said. 3rd-level PF1 Abu had Diplomacy +5, Handle Animal +8, Knowledge(nature) +6, Perception +8, Sense Motive +3, and Survival +8 (+9 tracking), the equivalent of Diplomacy +5, Nature +7, Perception +8, and Survival +8.
I built PF1 Abu for high skills and it shows. I wanted to build PF2 Abu for high skills, and I could have had Diplomacy +5, Nature +5, Perception +6, and Survival +6 with WIS 14, but at the cost of nerfing his combat for little gain. The numbers would match in Diplomacy, which is not a class skill for PF1 Abu, but has a -2 in the other skills.
Paizo had given PF2 a signature skill system that they removed from the playtest. I suspect that was intended to replace the class skills but did not work properly at low levels. I believe they will eventually redesign the signature skill system to work as intended.
Ranger customization is a side issue, but let me related it back to multiclassing and Paizo design goals. Multiclassing was important in Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, especially multiclassing into a Prestige Class. Unfortunately, balancing abilities with easy multiclassing was difficult. When Paizo created Pathfinder based on D&D 3.5 and built on the d20 open game system, they sought to reduce the reliance on multiclassing. They improved the core classes so that they were as good as the prestige classes. They also improved the customizablity of the core classes. For example, they introduced more bloodlines for the sorcerer class.
More customizablity means less reason to multiclass. When I created Abu Gorgoni for my first Pathfinder campaign, Rise of the Runelords, I made him a gnome because Pathfinder had a new vision of gnomes and I made him a ranger because versatility seemed appropriate for a gnome. And the one class did provide enough versatility. I multiclassed to monk at 6th level for storyline reasons. The PF2 version of multiclassing would have worked fine for Abu at 6th level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, in real life, people change directions in their life... at one point they may have dreamed of being a professional athlete through their childhood but eventually take a skilled job working at a desk and seldom play sports or work out afterwards. While I think the new method with dedication feats has some merits and offers some definite options for some different kinds of characters it is extremely limiting in the sense that you will only truly Excel in the thing you started out in.
I'll say, I almost always have played multi-classed characters, as I like to dabble a bit with concepts and mix things up a little bit for the enjoyment of the concept. frequently, it is a bit more of a dabble than a straight split of levels. The concepts are normally multi-class by second level because it is generally, pretty core to the concept.
After reading the new method in P2, I quickly came up with the option of starting one class and taking the dedication to another class, and then swapping the base class and dedication feat, as an option to explain a life change. It is about the only option that can come close to reflecting such a (in my case common) story. It is very cumbersome, probably not technically legal, and requires progressing really far into your first class to get there, meaning your switch causes a massive switch of abilities when you get there. (basically in many cases probably bringing your first class far higher than you may have ever intended to get there.
As mentioned has been brought up, on of the biggest issues I have with the current methods of multi-classing is how high a level you have to get started into the multi-class.
Honestly, if every class started with a class feet at 1st level, and the class based archetype dedications all had a 1st level requirement instead of higher, it would be much easier to take. (allow someone to start out a rogue, and take the paladin archetype at first level) Then they can develop their story, and retrain the next level, becoming a 2nd level paladin with a rogue archetype. Suddenly you have a more believable story line, than a higher level rogue switching their life meaning to be a paladin.
Also, it could open up an option to allow a more traditional multi-classing, as an optional rule. As a prerequisite, to take a level of another class, you must already have the archetype dedication for this class. I would also say taking this first level of that class would also consume the first level class feat for this first level. (one of the reasons to require every class to get a feat at first level) This helps to alleviate some of the appearance of front loading of the classes (although I felt 2nd edition did a bit better to reduce some of the font loading).
This would allow a first level fighter to potentially, if they chose not to take a fighter feat, they could take the rogue archetype at first level. (without being a human) Then you could continue on as a fighter with rogue multi-class, or you can for story reasons retrain from fighter to rogue, with fighter multi-class, or on second level you might switch to being fighter 1/rogue 1.
How to deal with the traditional multi-class would take some work however, obviously. in its most basic form, You could treat proficiency advancements sort of like gestalt, only getting the better of either class. (meaning they would almost certainly lag behind) One of the easiest reasons to allow for the traditional method, would probably include a low leveled starting class, so falling behind on advancements based on level may not be too bad a limitation (plus loss of an original class's feet). If after examination that there ore more uses of this form of advancement, and it is too limiting, one might be able to allow the classes to use 1/2 the other classes level to boost their classes/effective level (round down) for purposes of proficiency advances.
I think the big thing is open up multi-classing to 1st level, and give every class a class feat at first level, and you might deal with many people's issues. Some people might house-rule away the ability requirements or reduce them, some people might open up traditional multi-classing based on it, but opening up the multi-classing to first level would actually make 2nd edition more flexible in that regard than 1st edition. That, I would even say would be a big plus.
Oh... one other quick thought. The Paladin Archetype grants all armor proficiency up to heavy armor and shield, while the fighter only grants one higher category. This seems way unbalanced. I also have to say it highlights missing the mark for me personally on the Paladin, since my favorite paladin character was a swashbuckling soul who never wore heavier defenses than light armor and a pure heart. The whole idea that a paladin should be pigeon-holed into heavy armor is severely disappointing for me, personally.
But beyond that choice, for balance reasons, I'd suggest having the paladin feat be more like the fighter one. Perhaps allow each time you get another archetype feat of that dedication, allow them to pick an additional proficiency. (light then medium then heavy or at any of those tier, choose shield instead) Or since the fighter gets a reaction in its dedication, perhaps allow the paladin to get trained in either 2 tiers of armor, or 1 tier and shield training. if they prefer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if every class started with a class feet at 1st level, and the class based archetype dedications all had a 1st level requirement instead of higher, it would be much easier to take. (allow someone to start out a rogue, and take the paladin archetype at first level) Then they can develop their story, and retrain the next level, becoming a 2nd level paladin with a rogue archetype. Suddenly you have a more believable story line, than a higher level rogue switching their life meaning to be a paladin.
Yesterday, I mentioned my NPC Val Baine. She was from my Iron Gods campaign, the adopted daughter of the missing wizard. The module had her as an unstatted 13-year-old girl who would encourage the PCs to find her father. However, some adjustments due to the Local Ties campaign trait aged her to 17. And the three-member party invited her along to find her father. They suggested that I stat Val out as a barbarian, due to her Kellid ancestry and because they needed a heavy hitter. But I had already roleplayed her as a student wizard. Hence, I wanted to compromise on a wizard/barbarian. But regular PF1 multiclassing allows only one class at 1st level.
Loreguard's suggestion would have allowed me to create Val as a barbarian with a 1st-level wizard archetype, a simple solution to enable my compromise.
Instead, Pathfinder 1st Edition allows two other forms of multiclassing: archetypes and hybrid classes. I used both. Val became a bloodrager, a barbarian that could learn to cast 1st-level sorcerer/wizard spells at 4th level. And I gave her an archetype that gave her cantrips at 1st level.
The story of Val Baine, adopted Kellid daughter of wizard Khonnir Baine, is that she had been studying wizardry under her father and had learned to cast one cantrip. When her father's expedition failed to return, she joined with her local friends (Local Ties trait made them local) to find him. The challenges of their mission advanced her spellcasting in an unexpected way, for she tapped into her unknown sorcerous powers rather than learning new spells through arcane study. Since she was casting cantrips, and thus not using spell slots, she did not notice the difference between spontaneous spells and prepared spells. She continued to prepare cantrips from her spellbook every morning, not realizing that that was unnecessary. It was not until 4th level, where she started casting 1st-level spontaneous spells, that she learned the difference.
She had also been taught fighting by a barbarian caravan guard, and had learned rage-style combat. Her father thought she had been taking Hallit language lessons from the guard, and she did learn Hallit, too. I also gave Val the Unpredictable trait (make Bluff a class skill) to justify her teenaged deceptions.
Thus, I used Pathfinder 1st Edition's tremendous customizability, but Loreguard's suggestion would have been more straightforward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the dev team have stated they can easily still make PF1 style archetypes work with the system alongside the new multiclassing. And Bloodrager is a class that wasn't introduced in PF1 for a few years. So yeah the new multiclassing system doesn't stop those two options from being available in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In many significant ways, I'm a huge fan of the dedication feat concept and the PF2 style multi-class system. I don't get to play much (Constant GM), but when I do I'm a compulsive multi-classer. I have 7 memorable characters over my years of playing Pathfinder (most of them before I started to GM), of which 5 of them are multi-classed (and with prestige classes to boot).
Of those multi-class characters, many of them (the Mystic Theurge, Holy Vindicator and Arcane Trickster) strongly prefer the PF 2 method that lets you continue progressing your first class as though you never left it. The others (the Eldritch Knight and the Battle Herald) approached multi-classing more like a sudden career change, and not only appreciated that they stopped progressing their original class, but actively didn't want some of the features (The Battle Herald in particular wanted out of Cavalier before the Standard Bearer archetype game him the mount).
So, while I very much like the style of PF2 multi-classing with dedication feats and so on, I do also wish there was a parallel but separate option to "traditionally multi-class" where you simply stop gaining class features from your first class (permanently treating your level in that class as whatever you reached and no better, unless you later return to it) and started gaining class features from another (starting as though you were level 1). Is such a thing balanced or optimized? Probably not, but I didn't play a Battle Herald because I wanted to dominate the table.
As posters before above me mentioned, this traditional style of multiclass has weird, potentially laggy interactions with the proficiency system. It works just fine if you treat any given proficiency bump as "increase to this rank," meaning that if you're already at that rank it does nothing for you, but you're going to get the better ones much later than many others in your group might. If the concept is important to you, you might not care so much (I'm a weirdo who actually enjoyed playing a pre-Mystic Theurge cleric/wizard), but it can be frustrating if your concept relies on good proficiency to work (like a replication of my Battle Herald might).
But both systems work equally well if the proficiency system were to be changed such that it was more of an a-la cart improvement after your initial proficiencies. For my comprehensive house rules, I've been implementing the system discussed in another thread where, following your initial proficiencies, every so often you get a free proficiency increase that you can choose to spend on one of the esoteric aspects of your character (armor category, weapon group, saving throw, spellcasting tradition, perception), with some classes that used to grant faster proficiency tracks instead having a class feature that reduces the minimum level required to select master and legendary proficiency (so Fighter/Paladin can become a master of [weapon group]/[armor category] respectively at level 3 instead of 7 (if they want to) and a rogue can become a master in a skill at level 5 (skills are still their own thing for skill boosts in this system, I'm just explaining for thoroughness).
In a system like this, your proficiency is never going to lag if you stop gaining class feats and features from your original class because, beyond level 1, your proficiency was never a function of your class, but of yourself. So if you started as a Wizard, but decided to give up on wizardry after a couple levels and then did a full stop and started over fresh as a full-fledged fighter, you wouldn't change your proficiency with weapons any (because you're well past your initial proficiencies) but you'd get the class feature that allows you to select master proficiency in a weapon group early. Getting that only helps if you first invest your training in improving to expert, so it avoids those sorts of sudden ability spikes that multi-classing in PF1 got a reputation for. It's simply a different advancement path than dedication multi-classing, one that caters to the career-changer as opposed to the hybridizer. I would like it very much if both paths were possible, but while I care enough to ramble on about it at length here, it's not one of those things that will make or break the system for me since I do like where it's already going - I just wish that it could go both ways without having to house rule it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2nd edition multiclassing is a terrible straitjacket. The developers obviously hate freedom.Sarcasm I hope? The new multiclassing system has way more viable freedom than 1e's multiclassing. Which yeah you can level in any class you want to, but why the hell would you want to unless you were leveling into fighter for 1 level for free feats, armor and weapon proficiency, and +1 BAB. You'd just be a crappier version of both classes.
Yes, sarcasm. I don't believe the devs hate freedom.
However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.
I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.
I was actually a big fan of the 2nd Edition D&D form of multiclassing, minus the race restrictions, though, so I readily admit that I may not be the typical audience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When coupled with proficiencies, PF1 multiclassing doesn't really work. The skill proficiencies are front loaded and proficiencies like attack, assuming they would stack, could make you jump ahead of the curve. If they don't stack, then we suffer from the same problem PF1. And Spells? Hoo boy, it would not be worth it.
I would like to have the old way as an option, but I just don't see it working with the system they built.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest issue is that certain fighting styles are locked behind certain classes. Suddenly, you're no longer a bow-wielding Paladin of Erastil, you're a Paladin/Fighter using your Fighter dedication to learn to use a bow.However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.
I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.
Hard disagree. They have actually made it so you don't need feats just to "learn to use a bow". You can effectively use a bow without any combat feats now. No more tax. Erastil paladin taking the Blade Ally and using Blade of Justice with their bow is perfectly viable in combat. No need to take the fighter archetype, although the option is there if you want to be a more combat oriented paladin and sacrifice some of your more "paladin-y" abilities.
Hard disagree. They have actually made it so you don't need feats just to "learn to use a bow". You can effectively use a bow without any combat feats now. No more tax. Erastil paladin taking the Blade Ally and using Blade of Justice with their bow is perfectly viable in combat. No need to take the fighter archetype, although the option is there if you want to be a more combat oriented paladin and sacrifice some of your more "paladin-y" abilities.I think the biggest issue is that certain fighting styles are locked behind certain classes. Suddenly, you're no longer a bow-wielding Paladin of Erastil, you're a Paladin/Fighter using your Fighter dedication to learn to use a bow.However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.
I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.
I do think it would be nice to have an alternative to ret strike here though.
Also less locking in to Heavy armour only, though that might require something like making armours less about raw numbers.
|
Yes, sarcasm. I don't believe the devs hate freedom.However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.
I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.
I was actually a big fan of the 2nd Edition D&D form of multiclassing, minus the race restrictions, though, so I readily admit that I may not be the typical audience.
I mean, AD&D 2e multiclassing pretty much was the definition of commitment, considering you literally could never take levels in your previous class. Though you may be thinking of Dual Classing, which was honestly a hot mess and with the tighter math of Pathfinder in any form a Dual CLass character could not survive due to leveling at half the rate of either class, and only got a slight bonus if they had god stats due to needing a 16 in all their prime requisite stats to get the 10% bonus XP.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, sarcasm. I don't believe the devs hate freedom.However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.
I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.
I was actually a big fan of the 2nd Edition D&D form of multiclassing, minus the race restrictions, though, so I readily admit that I may not be the typical audience.
I mean, AD&D 2e multiclassing pretty much was the definition of commitment, considering you literally could never take levels in your previous class. Though you may be thinking of Dual Classing, which was honestly a hot mess and with the tighter math of Pathfinder in any form a Dual CLass character could not survive due to leveling at half the rate of either class, and only got a slight bonus if they had god stats due to needing a 16 in all their prime requisite stats to get the 10% bonus XP.
You have it backwards. Multiclassing was the demi-human thing where you progressed in both classes at the same time. It is much closer to the modern gestalt builds. Dual classing was the human thing where you took one class at a time and then abandoned it for a new one. And you could not use your old class features until your level in you new class equaled that of your old class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.
I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.
I think the biggest issue is that certain fighting styles are locked behind certain classes. Suddenly, you're no longer a bow-wielding Paladin of Erastil, you're a Paladin/Fighter using your Fighter dedication to learn to use a bow.
Which is made worse by the lack of higher level archery feats available to you leaving you with a number of class feats that do nothing for you and your main class ability not functioning for your weapon of choice. With blade ally granting melee only rune options till 10th level, and retribution being melee only, you have pretty much nothing going on till 6th, 10th and 16th level, and then you're all out of archery feats. With 8 wasted feats, you could multiclass twice though, so a paladin, ranger, fighter or something could fill in those gaps.
You're better off being paladin in name only, choosing the ranger and multiclassing cleric or something. It's certainly less intuitive, but as long as you don't expect classes to support different play styles it makes its own sort of sense. However, it is very unwelcoming to new comers.