| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Pirate the archetype being level restricted means Pirate the concept is, so for me this isn't a problem.
I didn't suggest it was....
I'll be honest I never really accepted "guy who uses this specific exotic one handed weapon" to be a character concept. "Blademaster" is a better concept idea, and one the has growth inherent to it if it takes at least one level to unlock the true capabilities of the katana.For weapon proficiency, getting that awesome exotic weapon can help cement a concept and I put that under the expanding specialization options to represent character growth.
That Also wasn't the argument being presented....
If you're playing a swashbuckling mage who can't act like a swashbuckler.... then you're not a swashbuckling mage, you're just a mage with a dagger and a lot of confidence and then you latter need to get the dedication to actually allow you to add the weapon proficiency to your character.
It's not a matter of "one-specific exotic weapon", it's that certain character concepts do have certain styles of equipment in mind and that not all classes will already allow you to have access to those styles.
The idea of the argument being based on getting x specific rare weapon is very odd to me since the example I used was Pirate which gets you proficiency with Hatchet, Scimitar, and Spear, basic core weapons that you get from the dedication because it's a core aesthetic of playing a pirate is to fight how people imagine pirates.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your base class already gives you an ability boost to your key stat, making the absolute minimum of your key ability 12For the record, I think the ability score requirement for multiclass dedications is absolute hogwash and will be never see the light of day at my table.I was not a fan of them either, especially with the decreased NEED for the stats to make the character work: for instance, you can make a caster in the playtest with a negligible 'main' stat and have it be completely viable character so why require a higher stat to dabble and only use the 'feats'-powers? If anything was required, I'd say it'd be your main class requires a better stat as you still keep 100% of that classes abilities while adding on limited abilities from the second that should require much less ability to use: IE a 15 in your starting class IMO makes a MUCH better requirement for multiclass feats for it to make sense. I assume it's more for balance than sense though but with a required number of feats to take another classes multiclass starter feat I not sure why it'd be needed.
I think if you have a race with an ability score penalty in that stat, you can start with a 10.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding multiclass ability score requirements, my impression was that those are something of a balance factor rather than a realism factor; the idea is that dedication feats are, on the whole, quite strong, and the higher prereqs help discourage people from scooping them up just because.
For the record, I think the ability score requirement for multiclass dedications is absolute hogwash and will be never see the light of day at my table.
I suspect that their origin is somewhat tied to the same reason that they arbitrarily limited the feats to second level. I think they feared the Dedication feats were too powerful, so they attempted to mitigate the power by giving them a higher prerequisite.
If the benefits of a dedication feat were tiered, and you only by default got the first tier when you take the feat. You could for instance grant a 'bonus' tier if your relevant stat/stats are high enough, reflecting your aptitude in your new studies. Remaining tiers would be unlocked either via advancing levels or buying additional class feats in the dedication, perhaps. It would also mean that you could have a person dabble in another class even if their stat wouldn't make them a savant in it, it would just slow their progress.
As to retraining a class, it is absolutely a way you could end up resolving it, although playtest had extensive retraining rules allowing you to retrain tons of things, notably excluding class. It makes perfect sense that a potential prerequisite to shifting to another class would be picking up the multi-class in the new class. Then next time they earn a class feat, instead of taking a second multi-class feat in the transition, you could let them switch class, and have them start with 2 multi-class feat in the original class. However, that leaves you at minimum of 4th level, so they jump seems really big. If you could start at 1st level it would make such a transition significantly more believable in my view, opening a potential transition at a lower level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do tell, I'm genuinely quite curious how you managed a PF2 character with a key ability mod of +1. I tried that in my group and it turned out quite poorly unfortunately...So no, you can't have a "negligible main stat" and still be a "completely viable character" because the under-the-hood math says no.My 12 Wis, buff-focused Warpriest Cleric would like a word.
As someone else has mentioned, a buff focused caster doesn't need high Class DCs. Having a high Wis doesn't grant more spells anymore, either. So what does a head bashing cleric need to pump Wisdom for?
I made a low Wis archer cleric in the Playtest, and I plan on making plenty of buff focused casters as gishes in the final system, unless they arbitrarily add some new mechanic that requires a high primary stat. If they do add such a mechanic, however, I'll probably consider dropping the system, mind you. I love being able to make a character of a class without a guarantee of having a certain attribute maxed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding multiclass ability score requirements, my impression was that those are something of a balance factor rather than a realism factor; the idea is that dedication feats are, on the whole, quite strong, and the higher prereqs help discourage people from scooping them up just because.
That's certainly the attempt.
However, that doesn't mean it's good. It was the exact same logic that went into making PA/CE/Dodge/TWF etc. Ability Score requirement based.
The real way to fix the problem is to not make the initial Dedication Feat so strong that it dwarfs all other Feats by comparison.
It would also make a fair bit more sense to make further selected Feats in the path have the Ability Score requirements (particularly the casting ones), since those are the ones that realistically have the higher threshold of learning.
For instance, in the case of the Casting Dedications, Ability Score 16 is super unnecessary for the initial dedication, it would make far more sense for the first to require nothing at all, and the latter choices require higher ability scores (such as 13 for first casting set, 16 for second, and then 19 for the third that grants up to 9 level spells).
Regardless, balancing around ability score requirements hasn't been proven to be a "feel good" implementation and ultimately doesn't help balance all that much, because the real problem (the strength of the feat) is never addressed and often exceptions to get past requirements rears its head at some point (such as Ranger and TWF in Pathfinder or Piranha Strike)
Do tell, I'm genuinely quite curious how you managed a PF2 character with a key ability mod of +1. I tried that in my group and it turned out quite poorly unfortunately...
I've seen casters not need their main stat. When you buff and use dex/str to hit with spells and avoid save spells they seemed fine. In fact, a cleric seems much stronger maxing cha for that sweet, sweet free healing. Magical Striker also helps to gish as a weapon attack doesn't get a penalty for multiple attacks if your other action is a buff/heal/ect.
Your base class already gives you an ability boost to your key stat, making the absolute minimum of your key ability 12
Not true as pointed out by others, if your main stat is your races -2 stat you end up with a 10... And that's my point: a int 10 wizard can learn everything wizard so picking individual abilities from them would seem to require less than that and not 5 higher.
Regarding multiclass ability score requirements, my impression was that those are something of a balance factor rather than a realism factor; the idea is that dedication feats are, on the whole, quite strong, and the higher prereqs help discourage people from scooping them up just because.
Oh, I've sure it for some balance fears but it already has [IMO] enough other requirements built in so they can't be picked up willy-nilly: they have to come from a certain set of 'feats, you have to take multiple follow up one before taking another one and you're almost certain to be able to qualify for one [or more] even if you put a stat requirement. What goes off the rails if you allow someone to pick one they like as opposed to one that happens to match their stats? I'm not seeing it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't hate the multiclass dedication stat reqs but I do think they should be 14 and not 16 (or else there should be another floating bonus at chargen.)
Since as it stands it's not possible to be a Dwarf Fighter/Bard or Bard/Fighter until after level 5, since you can at most manage a Charisma of 16 (with bard as your class) which leaves you with only 2 floating bonuses to put into Strength/Dex, else you have a Str/Dex of 16 but only a 14 Cha.
If we're really going to use multiclassing to replace certain hybrid concepts, we should not eliminate ancestries with a poorly positioned attribute flaw from participating in those concepts from the get go.
So, assuming things are as they are in the playtest I'm going to either drop the requirements to 14 or put another floating boost in the class step.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[...]
I've seen casters not need their main stat. When you buff and use dex/str to hit with spells and avoid save spells they seemed fine. In fact, a cleric seems much stronger maxing cha for that sweet, sweet free healing. Magical Striker also helps to gish as a weapon attack doesn't get a penalty for multiple attacks if your other action is a buff/heal/ect.
[...]
Just to note that in the final rules, hitting with a ranged spell attack will use your casting ability mod, as it's now a Spell proficiency roll. (And there's no more melee touch attack either, they have been changed to saves)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to note that in the final rules, hitting with a ranged spell attack will use your casting ability mod, as it's now a Spell proficiency roll. (And there's no more melee touch attack either, they have been changed to saves)
Most likely one of the reasons for this is that in the playtest charisma was more valuable to clerics than wisdom, so long as you avoided spells which asked for saves.
Like our playtest games had a 16 Dex, 16 Cha, 12 Wis archer cleric in it - it worked out great.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to note that in the final rules, hitting with a ranged spell attack will use your casting ability mod, as it's now a Spell proficiency roll. (And there's no more melee touch attack either, they have been changed to saves)Most likely one of the reasons for this is that in the playtest charisma was more valuable to clerics than wisdom, so long as you avoided spells which asked for saves.
Like our playtest games had a 16 Dex, 16 Cha, 12 Wis archer cleric in it - it worked out great.
It also let them remove the Touch AC that was... sometimes problematic.
Just to note that in the final rules, hitting with a ranged spell attack will use your casting ability mod, as it's now a Spell proficiency roll. (And there's no more melee touch attack either, they have been changed to saves)[...]
I've seen casters not need their main stat. When you buff and use dex/str to hit with spells and avoid save spells they seemed fine. In fact, a cleric seems much stronger maxing cha for that sweet, sweet free healing. Magical Striker also helps to gish as a weapon attack doesn't get a penalty for multiple attacks if your other action is a buff/heal/ect.
[...]
Cool, to know. IMO, that's just push the low stat caster more into gish type spells that buff the caster and/or their weapons if that wish to use spells to 'attack'.
PossibleCabbage: I'm not really seeing this change really making a dent in the cha based cleric as long as their cha based healing is as strong as before. They can easily shift to physical attacks and a feat like Magical Striker instead of attack spells and shift those spells to buffs/heals/utility.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since as it stands it's not possible to be a Dwarf Fighter/Bard or Bard/Fighter until after level 5, since you can at most manage a Charisma of 16 (with bard as your class) which leaves you with only 2 floating bonuses to put into Strength/Dex, else you have a Str/Dex of 16 but only a 14 Cha.
You're right about not being able to be a fighter and multiclass into a Cha-based class until 5th level, but you can absolutely start as a bard and multiclass into fighter at 2nd. Ancestry Str +2, Con +2, Wis +2, Cha -2; Background Str +2, Cha +2; general bonus +2 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Con, +2 Cha; class Cha +2. Final stats Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 14.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't hate the multiclass dedication stat reqs but I do think they should be 14 and not 16 (or else there should be another floating bonus at chargen.)
Since as it stands it's not possible to be a Dwarf Fighter/Bard or Bard/Fighter until after level 5, since you can at most manage a Charisma of 16 (with bard as your class) which leaves you with only 2 floating bonuses to put into Strength/Dex, else you have a Str/Dex of 16 but only a 14 Cha.
If we're really going to use multiclassing to replace certain hybrid concepts, we should not eliminate ancestries with a poorly positioned attribute flaw from participating in those concepts from the get go.
So, assuming things are as they are in the playtest I'm going to either drop the requirements to 14 or put another floating boost in the class step.
If you or anyone else hasn't caught this yet—we're in luck! The multiclass prereq has indeed been lowered to 14. See here:
One thing I'm very happy to see: multiclassing stat prereq dropped to 14. That's a lot nicer than the 16 required in the playtest. A *ton* more builds will now be able to multiclass with their lvl2 feat, which makes the core game just *so* much more flexible for players. I love it.
One thing I'm laughing at: look at the future-proofing on this Champion archetype feat:
Healing Touch (Feat 4). You gain the appropriate devotion spell for your cause (lay on hands for the paladin, redeemer, and liberator). If you don’t already have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point, which you can Refocus by praying or serving your deity.
(1) I like how you can see here the wide-open design space for different Champion causes beyond the strict alignment ones.
(2) LOL at the idea of someone multiclassing into an evil Champion (when we get those), and getting some eeeeeevil devotion spell via a feat called "Healing Touch."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope we can now retrain from one Class to another. Maybe through multiclass dedications as as temporary state. Else some stories just cannot be told.
Retraining ability boosts would be quite helpful too.
If they don't have rules for it my personal houserule will likely be a better worded version of this: "If you have equal or more class/dedication feats than your base class you may retrain into the class you have the most/equal feats in, rebuild your character with this new class, replacing any of your original class feats with their dedication feats, you may then retrain those feats as normal."
That way you can't just flip flop between classes and there is a catch up period where you aren't as good as the wizard from the start until you've put some training in (don't feel bad about this because the new multiclass system means you should still be a viable character while this transition happens.)
I'd probably do something WAY simpler. Like, 1 month of downtime to retrain completely from one class to the other. Or a couple of weeks. Depends on what the other retraining rules looks like. (Obviously, with that much time, I wouldn't ask it to be all in one shot..)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was more thinking, if you come from a culture, and everyone from this culture had the ability to get some cool thing. Now, because you left home to go adventuring, you don't necessarily have the chance to go back home to get the cool thing when you reach 2nd level. Especially if it is a *thing* you need to physically acquire.
The cavalier is a good example, as you get a mount. What if you're like a drider riding drow or something crazy. If you're in the middle of slaughtering halflings on the surface, how are you to get your cool drider mount when you reach second level? Why couldn't you get it at first? (Assuming everything is level-scaled) This way you could have your band of drider riding drow go up to the surface in their first adventure slinging spells, singing songs, stabbing swords, and stealthily shanking all in their path, all at first level.
At the moment, I'm making it a general ancestry feat & class feat... But that's just me abusing the system as a system abusing GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the answer to issues like that is always going to be "work with your GM"; a decent GM is going to help you come up with an explanation for where you found a drider in the middle of the Shire. :P
I also think that's a bit of an edge case; at the very least, it's a case we have no existing examples of, since it seems unlikely rules for exotic cavalier mounts will be in core and horses are available pretty much everywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the answer to issues like that is always going to be "work with your GM"; a decent GM is going to help you come up with an explanation for where you found a drider in the middle of the Shire. :P
I also think that's a bit of an edge case; at the very least, it's a case we have no existing examples of, since it seems unlikely rules for exotic cavalier mounts will be in core and horses are available pretty much everywhere.
Well, in RotR I wanted to roll a Shoanti barbarian guided to Sandpoint by an omen, and meant to have him be a Mounted Fury archetype with a special trait giving him a Shoanti horse.
Without that trait, in 2e, you can't have a mount at 1st level unless you're a druid (and maybe ranger?) or mounts cost very little all of a sudden.
The point is, I wanted my barb to be very Shoanti-traditional, with Shoanti gear, a Shoanti mount, etc, but if you don't have those things available at 1st level you need to climb back up to the Storval Plateau again and again... narratively, not necessarily all that cool (although, thinking about it, could be handled like "going back home to visit the family", so not necessarily bad...). That, or you're buying stuff from the tshamek, and that just won't do for a "true Shoanti"...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
The cavalier is a good example, as you get a mount. What if you're like a drider riding drow or something crazy. If you're in the middle of slaughtering halflings on the surface, how are you to get your cool drider mount when you reach second level?
{. . .}
This reminds me of Paladins in AD&D 1st Edition: Your Warhorse didn't just appear when you got to the required level -- you had to go on a quest for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can just buy the horse in your character creation phase before you start, meaning it was something you came to Sandpoint with not bought there. You might not be very good at riding it (you get no action economy enhancement for it) but that is fine.I feel like the answer to issues like that is always going to be "work with your GM"; a decent GM is going to help you come up with an explanation for where you found a drider in the middle of the Shire. :P
I also think that's a bit of an edge case; at the very least, it's a case we have no existing examples of, since it seems unlikely rules for exotic cavalier mounts will be in core and horses are available pretty much everywhere.
Well, in RotR I wanted to roll a Shoanti barbarian guided to Sandpoint by an omen, and meant to have him be a Mounted Fury archetype with a special trait giving him a Shoanti horse.
Without that trait, in 2e, you can't have a mount at 1st level unless you're a druid (and maybe ranger?) or mounts cost very little all of a sudden.
The point is, I wanted my barb to be very Shoanti-traditional, with Shoanti gear, a Shoanti mount, etc, but if you don't have those things available at 1st level you need to climb back up to the Storval Plateau again and again... narratively, not necessarily all that cool (although, thinking about it, could be handled like "going back home to visit the family", so not necessarily bad...). That, or you're buying stuff from the tshamek, and that just won't do for a "true Shoanti"...
Yes this is a good way of going about it.
I’m playing in a game of 5e where I’m lvl5 archer and at lvl6 I’m picking up the crossbow expert feat (which makes you so good at reloading a hand crossbow you can fire it more frequently then a bow somehow). So I already have the hand crossbow on me and I describe myself practicing reloading it whenever we have short rests. At level 7 I’ll probably multi-class into Bard so I think once I’m at level 6 she’ll start playing her instrument I picked up from my background.
Point being that you can introduce these elements into your character even if it’s not a mechanic you can use yet. Backgrounds provide a lot of opportunity for that. If I can do that in 5e then there’s got to be more options for PF2 with all the options it offers. If you need represented on your sheet maybe take the background that suits your multi-class more then your actual class and at lvl1 you would have both represented.
Good advice, folks, thank you!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A friend of mine is running Emerald Spire and one of our players is a gnome paladin/gunslinger/cavalier. He wanted to eventually have a riding dog, but with his build he was going to be 7th or 8th level before he could actually get one. So what he did was start play with a pet dog that adventured with him all the time but stayed out of combat, and then when he finally got the appropriate class feature made a big deal in character about how he'd finally finished properly training his dog.
...Then we ended up giving the dog a magical cape we found that allowed it to turn into a lion, which was especially funny because the dog's name was Courage and it started the game running away from combat all the time, but that's a whole other story. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A friend of mine is running Emerald Spire and one of our players is a gnome paladin/gunslinger/cavalier. He wanted to eventually have a riding dog, but with his build he was going to be 7th or 8th level before he could actually get one. So what he did was start play with a pet dog that adventured with him all the time but stayed out of combat, and then when he finally got the appropriate class feature made a big deal in character about how he'd finally finished properly training his dog.
...Then we ended up giving the dog a magical cape we found that allowed it to turn into a lion, which was especially funny because the dog's name was Courage and it started the game running away from combat all the time, but that's a whole other story. :P
So his riding mount was Courage, the cowardly dog?
Edit: Also, a thought came up with some of the info revealed during PaizoCon. They mentioned about getting access to the HellKnight MC features and all the HK MC feats counting as the same class for things like Dedication Feat requirements, which had me thinking; i don’t much care for level 1 MC dedication feats, but i could see them making Backgrounds that give you a Dedication Feat and a stat boost in the key stat, and restricting access from the same class.
Example: Wizard (Background)
Gain two ability boosts. One must be to Intelligence, and one is a free ability boost.
You gain the Wizard Dedication feat, and you’re trained in the Arcane Lore skill.
Special: You cannot select the Wizard class with this Background.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That feels too strong. You're trading a skill feat and trained skill for an early-access class feat- one that gives you a trained skill. I don't think people would take other backgrounds if these were available.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That feels too strong. You're trading a skill feat and trained skill for an early-access class feat- one that gives you a trained skill. I don't think people would take other backgrounds if these were available.
I mean, they could, but it's still too strong.
Btw, iirc at PaizoCon they announced the Hellknight Armiger archetype. Not the Hellknight archetype. Small but important difference.
Armigers are the guys and gals training to become a full-fledged HK.
That feels too strong. You're trading a skill feat and trained skill for an early-access class feat- one that gives you a trained skill. I don't think people would take other backgrounds if these were available.I mean, they could, but it's still too strong.
Btw, iirc at PaizoCon they announced the Hellknight Armiger archetype. Not the Hellknight archetype. Small but important difference.
Armigers are the guys and gals training to become a full-fledged HK.
Yes, the Armiger, that’s the one i was thinking of. Most suggestions so far have been to make the dedication feats level one and to give every single class a bonus level 1 class feat, so this honestly sounds tame to me in comparison. I would like to model it similar to the Armiger feat, so have to wait to see how that works for something more balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the Armiger, that’s the one i was thinking of. Most suggestions so far have been to make the dedication feats level one and to give every single class a bonus level 1 class feat, so this honestly sounds tame to me in comparison. I would like to model it similar to the Armiger feat, so have to wait to see how that works for something more balanced.That feels too strong. You're trading a skill feat and trained skill for an early-access class feat- one that gives you a trained skill. I don't think people would take other backgrounds if these were available.I mean, they could, but it's still too strong.
Btw, iirc at PaizoCon they announced the Hellknight Armiger archetype. Not the Hellknight archetype. Small but important difference.
Armigers are the guys and gals training to become a full-fledged HK.
Oh, yes, in comparison it might be tame. Sorry - seeing no evidence for now that we'll have lvl 1 archetypes I had completely forgotten about the root concept for this thread. PaizoCon happened.
But... no, still no. Backgrounds and feats occupy two different conceptual spaces. I personally don't think you should use a background to allow multiclassing, or as QuidEst was saying, everyone and their pet corgi will soon do it =/
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We actually do know that level 1 archetypes are going to be a thing; rules for how they work are confirmed to be in the core rulebook. However, it's also confirmed that no actual level 1 archetypes will be in core.
And evidence suggests that level 1 archetypes are going to be in the style of PF1e archetypes - replacing the basic class features of a certain class, instead of being a dedication feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We actually do know that level 1 archetypes are going to be a thing; rules for how they work are confirmed to be in the core rulebook. However, it's also confirmed that no actual level 1 archetypes will be in core.
And evidence suggests that level 1 archetypes are going to be in the style of PF1e archetypes - replacing the basic class features of a certain class, instead of being a dedication feat.
Level 1 archetypes?!!
For real??
Link? I believe you, but I totally missed this!
Also, this is great news!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We actually do know that level 1 archetypes are going to be a thing; rules for how they work are confirmed to be in the core rulebook. However, it's also confirmed that no actual level 1 archetypes will be in core.
And evidence suggests that level 1 archetypes are going to be in the style of PF1e archetypes - replacing the basic class features of a certain class, instead of being a dedication feat.
Level 1 archetypes?!!
For real??
Link? I believe you, but I totally missed this!
Also, this is great news!!
+1 on wanting a link. I knew that rules for archetypes would be in the core, and that there wouldn't be any in the core unfortunately, but I didn't hear anything about them being available at level 1. If this is true, it's exactly what I'm looking for!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@R0b0tBadgr You heard a mix of different things. There in fact will be archetypes in core, but they will be of the "dedication feat" style. Level 1 archetypes will have rules in core, but there won't be any examples.
As far as links... I suck at that. Can someone more skilled than me dig up the relevant quotes? I believe they are from Mark Seifter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still makes me so happy...
... if it's true [Glances at Max with ice-cold fury in her eyes]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@R0b0tBadgr You heard a mix of different things. There in fact will be archetypes in core, but they will be of the "dedication feat" style. Level 1 archetypes will have rules in core, but there won't be any examples.
I'm still half awake and coming off of being very, very ill. What you said is mostly what I meant. Being able to take a pirate archetype or cavalier archetype or drider-riding drow archetype at level 1 is what i'm looking for; not fighter/wizard multiclassing dedication thingy at level 1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I found it!
From this thread: Pathfinder 1 Style Archetypes
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.
EDIT: @R0b0tBadgr Oh, yeah. I don't think I've seen anything to indicate that dedication feat-style archetypes will get "level 1 archetype" variants. They seem to be completely separate types of archetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
THIS
IS
AWESOME!!!!!
I also don't have a link but I remember reading that statement here. I THINK it was something like:
The level-1 archetypes will be more in the direction of PF1 archetypes (replacing class features) and will be described conceptually in Core but there won't be any concrete archetypes to choose. They just want to define that design space so that it doesn't need to be tacked on as in PF1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I've ever ninja'd someone before. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That feels too strong. You're trading a skill feat and trained skill for an early-access class feat- one that gives you a trained skill. I don't think people would take other backgrounds if these were available.I mean, they could, but it's still too strong.
Btw, iirc at PaizoCon they announced the Hellknight Armiger archetype. Not the Hellknight archetype. Small but important difference.
Armigers are the guys and gals training to become a full-fledged HK.
And one thing they mentioned about this Hellknight Armiger archetype is its compatibility with the higher level Hellknight archetypes. Do you remember that restriction that you must take a certain number of multiclassing feats before you can take another dedication feat? That restriction does not apply to a Hellknight Armiger who wants to take the dedication feat for a Hellknight path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far, all multiclass dedication feats we have heard about have been available only at 2nd level or higher. In the playtest, only the non-spellcasting classes got class feats at 1st level. So far, I don't think anyone has revealed whether that is still true in the official PF2 rules.
If that structure hasn't changed, then 1st level dedication feats would have to be set up with the idea that the most likely sort of character to take them would be a mundane, non-spellcaster type -- so, for example, such a feat could work for an eldritch knight but not for a mystic theurge. If, on the other hand, all characters get class feats at 1st level, then a mystic theurge dedication feat (or, more simply, a dedication feat for a spellcasting class) becomes possible.
One thing we really don't know is whether the fact that all known dedication feats have been at level 2+ is simply happenstance or an important design principle of PF2.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the gripping hand, since old-school multiclassing doesn't exist anymore, it's a little safer to front-load archetype features even for a class that doesn't have much to trade out early.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the fact that they were bringing PF1 style Archetypes over was more common knowledge. Generally this is why i don’t like the idea of making the Dedication Feats available at level 1.
I’m also happy to be able to make an Eldritch Scoundrel with the PT alone, via Wiz or Sorc MC, so i’m pretty content with where things currently stand.
I thought the fact that they were bringing PF1 style Archetypes over was more common knowledge. Generally this is why i don’t like the idea of making the Dedication Feats available at level 1.
If Multiclass Dedications were available at level 1, nothing would stop someone from taking an archetype at level 1 and a multiclass dedication at level 2...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the reason having multiclass dedications being available at level 2 seems reasonable to me, is that multiclassing always required 2 levels- one can't be a Rogue 1/Wizard 1 at first level.
Dedications like the pirate one or the hellknight one should be available at level 1 generally.
So I guess the question is- if someone wants to play a sort of "hybrid of two classes" is asking them to play one level as just one of those classes reasonable? Like if you're making a bespoke magus, arcane trickster, or mystic theurge just play level 1 as a wizard and go from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the reason having multiclass dedications being available at level 2 seems reasonable to me, is that multiclassing always required 2 levels- one can't be a Rogue 1/Wizard 1 at first level.
Dedications like the pirate one or the hellknight one should be available at level 1 generally.
So I guess the question is- if someone wants to play a sort of "hybrid of two classes" is asking them to play one level as just one of those classes reasonable? Like if you're making a bespoke magus, arcane trickster, or mystic theurge just play level 1 as a wizard and go from there.
Presumably, you start out with the full benefit of a single level in your primary class and give up your 1st level class feat to dabble in a second class. Even if you take every single possible multiclassing feat for a particular class, you should never be as good in your secondary class as you are in your primary one -- and your primary class will suffer from the fact that you took none of the expected class feats to improve your abilities in your primary class.