Dedications able to be taken at 1st level?


Second Edition

1 to 50 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I know none of the dedications in the playtest core rulebook can be taken until at least 2nd level, as they're marked as such. Though I was wondering if anyone has seen or heard (or wants to leak) anything about whether or not there will be dedications that can be taken at first level.

Cavalier is a good one that could have been taken at first level, but it was made for second+. I know there are some kinda core class features that people get at first level that might leave a class hamstrung if they don't have it. At least that's how it is in the playtest rules.

I'm working on some things for some of my players and it would be nice if they could take a dedication at first level and not horribly unbalance everything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Owen did mention in his character reveal stream that he would maybe get a dedication, but not at level 1. Some of us wondered if that implied that this would be something possible if he wanted to. However, this is pure speculation based on his wording and there is a good chance that people are just overanalyzing. As far as I know, we do not have any concrete news on the subject.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
dmerceless wrote:
Owen did mention in his character reveal stream that he would maybe get a dedication, but not at level 1. Some of us wondered if that implied that this would be something possible if he wanted to. However, this is pure speculation based on his wording and there is a good chance that people are just overanalyzing. As far as I know, we do not have any concrete news on the subject.

I believe one of the reasons in the playtest they chose to make Dedications require second level was that not all classes got Class Feats at first level.

I absolutely wish Dedications could be available at first level, and incidentally also wish all the classes had a class feat available to them at first level. I guessed there might have been a concern that a multiclass dedication feat might give too much for a first level feat. That might also be part of the reasoning for making them require being 2nd level.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a STRONG suspicion that ALL Classes are going to get another starting Class Feat at level 1 and that ALL Multiclass Dedication Feats are going to get moved down to level 1 in order to help facilitate the huge number of hybrid classes from PF1 that DON'T have to wait until level 2 to "come online."

At least, I'd like to hope it turns out that way.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It depends on what role in the game these dedications are intended to serve. Since they were intended as multiclass replacements, coming online at 2nd level made a certain amount of sense. But now multiclassing is going to fill the role of multiclassing, high would push these towards the hybridizations of core classes. And that really should come into play at 1st.

The problem might be that they're too strong; it's going to be tough for a fighter or rogue class feat to compete against a couple of cantrips, but that's going to be true at 2nd level as well I suppose. It'll be interesting to see how the needle gets threaded.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I have a STRONG suspicion that ALL Classes are going to get another starting Class Feat at level 1 and that ALL Multiclass Dedication Feats are going to get moved down to level 1 in order to help facilitate the huge number of hybrid classes from PF1 that DON'T have to wait until level 2 to "come online."

At least, I'd like to hope it turns out that way.

I hope that everyone get a free floating feat like the fighter that can be up to half your level rounded up, most feats that seem bad tend to have one or two good uses but are so overshadowed by others that letting a floating feat happen can help a lot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Since they were intended as multiclass replacements, coming online at 2nd level made a certain amount of sense. But now multiclassing is going to fill the role of multiclassing, high would push these towards the hybridizations of core classes.

I'm sorry, could you elaborate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Since they were intended as multiclass replacements, coming online at 2nd level made a certain amount of sense. But now multiclassing is going to fill the role of multiclassing, high would push these towards the hybridizations of core classes.
I'm sorry, could you elaborate?

Pretty sure they are just under wrong impression there. It has been confirmed multiclass archetypes are still a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

I have a STRONG suspicion that ALL Classes are going to get another starting Class Feat at level 1 and that ALL Multiclass Dedication Feats are going to get moved down to level 1 in order to help facilitate the huge number of hybrid classes from PF1 that DON'T have to wait until level 2 to "come online."

At least, I'd like to hope it turns out that way.

That seems unlikely to me. You're already picking an ancestry feat, a skill feat via background, and possibly a class feat. Four feats seems like a bit much to throw together all at once for new players. I could be wrong about that, but if so, I really doubt they'd add the rather dizzying possibilities of every multiclass feat in on top of that.


Themetricsystem wrote:

I have a STRONG suspicion that ALL Classes are going to get another starting Class Feat at level 1 and that ALL Multiclass Dedication Feats are going to get moved down to level 1 in order to help facilitate the huge number of hybrid classes from PF1 that DON'T have to wait until level 2 to "come online."

At least, I'd like to hope it turns out that way.

I don't think there will be an additional class feat at level 1.

The classes that now already get one would then get two class feats at level 1? Or they would have to get another fixed class ability.

The classes that don't get one now are mostly casters that have their spells as level 1 choices.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think we will be seeing multiclass dedications at first level. That kinda defeats the idea of them being "multiclass" IMO.

As far as dedications in general, we know that eventually there will be 1st level archetypes, but no idea if they will follow the current dedication format.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ediwir wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Since they were intended as multiclass replacements, coming online at 2nd level made a certain amount of sense. But now multiclassing is going to fill the role of multiclassing, high would push these towards the hybridizations of core classes.
I'm sorry, could you elaborate?

I think that their intent was to say that if Multiclass dedications are supposed to no only take the place of traditional multi-class character concepts, but also provide a means of replicating some of the Hybrid class character concepts.

To give the feel of a hybrid, at first level would require allowing multiclass dedications at first level. And honestly speaking, it seems like a worthwhile addition.

The potential complication I could see is like you said, it might be hard for a first level class feat to compare with many of the dedication feats.

One potential solution, with a slight tweaking of the rules could be to make a multi-class dedication provide a certain benefit the level it is taken, and subsequent additional benefit after they level up after that. Or tie the second half/additional portions of the benefit of to when they purchase their next feat working towards the the requirements of fulfilling the dedication.

For instance, instead of the paladin dedication providing training in Light, Medium, and Heavy Armors, Shield, and your deity's favored weapon. It might grant your training in your Deity's favored weapon, and training in either shield training or one one tier of armor of your choice [this in an exception to the rule you must learn the lower type of armor to gain skill in a heavier one]. If they are already trained in their deities weapon, they can instead select training in either Shield or an armor category no more than one one step away from one they already are proficient in. You choose your deity and are bound by its anathema.
Special: Include the wording about needing to get 2 dedication feats before being able to take another dedication. Also include a mention that either the first level after purchasing the feat, they get to choose 2 of either training in either shield proficiency, or a remaining armor proficiency no more than one step away from an armor category they currently are trained in. (or this additional bonus could be tied to when they get the next feat opened up by that dedication.

Or even simpler, a part of it might simply be opened up at a predetermined level. (so perhaps choice of 2 as described above, and at 2nd level they choose one more proficiency they didn't have yet, and third level they would get to choose a fourth. That would mean if someone bought the paladin archetype at 10th level, they would get the full benefit immediately, it would only really impact someone if they bought the feat at 1st level.

And yes, I gave Paladins/Champions the ability to choose Heavy Armor at first level, without having skill in light or medium. I did this because it seems to expect them to be likely wearing heavy armor, but I didn't want to necessarily give them more than one armor proficiency, and I didn't want to mandate that armor choice be heavy, but wanted it to be available from the very start. Although it is odd, just like with a deity's favored weapon choice, I felt like it would be reasonable for a Champion to be trained outside typical channels, potentially allowing for someone to be comfortable wearing the heaviest of armors without having that same comfort with others that are lighter.

Anyway, if multi-class dedications weren't moved down to 1st level, I'm going to be really tempted to house rule some sort of option like above. Unless there is some other mechanic to allow for those types of concepts to feel like they can be started from 1st level effectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
I don't think we will be seeing multiclass dedications at first level. That kinda defeats the idea of them being "multiclass" IMO.

Why? It's not as though you're taking your 1st level in one class and your 2nd level in another class. Some character concepts require having abilities from two classes right from the start. Of course, game balance requires that the initial dedication feat not give you all of a class's 1st level abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

I have a STRONG suspicion that ALL Classes are going to get another starting Class Feat at level 1 and that ALL Multiclass Dedication Feats are going to get moved down to level 1 in order to help facilitate the huge number of hybrid classes from PF1 that DON'T have to wait until level 2 to "come online."

At least, I'd like to hope it turns out that way.

That seems unlikely to me. You're already picking an ancestry feat, a skill feat via background, and possibly a class feat. Four feats seems like a bit much to throw together all at once for new players. I could be wrong about that, but if so, I really doubt they'd add the rather dizzying possibilities of every multiclass feat in on top of that.

Since players choose a heritage at first level anyways, they could change the ancestry feat choice for a class feat choice at the first level, swapping it for the class feat choice at second level.

That said, it's probably a bit more complex than that, and selecting two class feats at first level would feel weird. Giving each class a class feat at the first level and having additional features for the ones that already have one seems more elegant.

That said(the second time), it's likely better for newer players to not front-load so many choices at the beginning as allowing archetypes at the first level would do. Another possibility is to just have some "training wheels" levels with the choices more spread apart that could be skipped for more experienced players.

A number of competing priorities does feel like it can make this part of game design challenging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tbh even some skill feats could be seen as part of core concept.
First level is first level. You have a background, that doesn’t make you an expert. It makes you a first level character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is just my opinion, and I know that I am in the extreme minority, but I wouldn’t mind getting rid of multi classing all together. I know that this will most likely never happen and people enjoy that sort of thing but I don’t. To each their own.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It'd be interesting if you shared the reasons for your preference, though. It is indeed an unconventional leaning and it piqued my curiosity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Telebuddy wrote:
This is just my opinion, and I know that I am in the extreme minority, but I wouldn’t mind getting rid of multi classing all together. I know that this will most likely never happen and people enjoy that sort of thing but I don’t. To each their own.

It is worth noting (repeat of someone above) that multiclass archetypes in PF2 are kind of a build-your-own-class system. You never leave your original class, but can pick up features from others.

Example: In PF2, the Paladin (mechanically speaking) is the LG Champion. BUT, with multiclass archetypes, you can be a Fighter who picks up Cleric Dedication and then call yourself Paladin. Two ways to get to the same concept, with slight differences.

As an aside, this is also a useful way to get to the Anti-Paladin concept.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:

It is worth noting (repeat of someone above) that multiclass archetypes in PF2 are kind of a build-your-own-class system. You never leave your original class, but can pick up features from others.

Example: In PF2, the Paladin (mechanically speaking) is the LG Champion. BUT, with multiclass archetypes, you can be a Fighter who picks up Cleric Dedication and then call yourself Paladin. Two ways to get to the same concept, with slight differences.

As an aside, this is also a useful way to get to the Anti-Paladin concept.

Fighter with cleric dedication to an evil (demi-/quasi-) god? Sign me up.

(Still looking forward to LN, CN and E champions though!).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Saedar wrote:

It is worth noting (repeat of someone above) that multiclass archetypes in PF2 are kind of a build-your-own-class system. You never leave your original class, but can pick up features from others.

Example: In PF2, the Paladin (mechanically speaking) is the LG Champion. BUT, with multiclass archetypes, you can be a Fighter who picks up Cleric Dedication and then call yourself Paladin. Two ways to get to the same concept, with slight differences.

As an aside, this is also a useful way to get to the Anti-Paladin concept.

Fighter with cleric dedication to an evil (demi-/quasi-) god? Sign me up.

(Still looking forward to LN, CN and E champions though!).

It's definitely a good stop gap. Fills the concept moderately well even if it doesn't do the mechanics quite right.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Tbh a lot of hybrid mechanics aren’t quite necessary. People love to bring up spell strike, but it’s spell combat that made the magus usable... and now everyone has it. Warpriests were able to more effectively self-buff during combat... but now you don’t need to. Bloodragers could cast spells during rage... but now that limitation only applies to concentration spells. And so on.

It’s a review from the ground up - a lot of things that were born as fixers aren’t needed anymore, and the little things that built on them are more likely to show up as feats rather than classes.

This is kind of the thing that gave me trouble as a GM a while ago: here’s a rule. Here’s a list of classes that ignore that rule.
I’m seeing a lot more development and a lot less “feat: ignore rule X” in P2. I’m ok with that.


Malk_Content wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Saedar wrote:

It is worth noting (repeat of someone above) that multiclass archetypes in PF2 are kind of a build-your-own-class system. You never leave your original class, but can pick up features from others.

Example: In PF2, the Paladin (mechanically speaking) is the LG Champion. BUT, with multiclass archetypes, you can be a Fighter who picks up Cleric Dedication and then call yourself Paladin. Two ways to get to the same concept, with slight differences.

As an aside, this is also a useful way to get to the Anti-Paladin concept.

Fighter with cleric dedication to an evil (demi-/quasi-) god? Sign me up.

(Still looking forward to LN, CN and E champions though!).

It's definitely a good stop gap. Fills the concept moderately well even if it doesn't do the mechanics quite right.

Homebrewing an Anti-Paladin seems pretty easy, FWIW. We have one as a NPC in Doomsday Dawn, and the basic class chassis is easily extrapolated from that. You mostly just need to figure out how to modify the Paladin/Champion feats for evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I don't think we will be seeing multiclass dedications at first level. That kinda defeats the idea of them being "multiclass" IMO.

Why? It's not as though you're taking your 1st level in one class and your 2nd level in another class. Some character concepts require having abilities from two classes right from the start. Of course, game balance requires that the initial dedication feat not give you all of a class's 1st level abilities.

If a concept has to kick in from level one and can't be replicated, it's honestly better to just do a new class. I don't think the MC archetypes were created with the assumption that they will render every hybrid pointless. Certainly some existing PF1E classes will be easy to replicate, but others won't be, or at least not without a lot of work.


One concept I'm hoping to try is barbarian who takes sorcerer, as that one turn of fatigue may be a good time to cast a spell. Possibly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
One concept I'm hoping to try is barbarian who takes sorcerer, as that one turn of fatigue may be a good time to cast a spell. Possibly.

Fatigue will stack up quickly with spellcasting, so be careful about when and where you do that and maybe save that third action for another time. During rage, try casting silent spells, they can be used freely.

Unfortunately most naturally silent offensive spells are illusions (Hallucination, House of Imaginary Walls, Scintillating Pattern and such). While there’s some outliers (Harm, Heal, Jump and such), spells that are not focus powers tend to require you to not foam off your mouth in murderous rage.
Perhaps an occult, tribal-inspired sorcerer dip with a tendency to cast Harm on people?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
One concept I'm hoping to try is barbarian who takes sorcerer, as that one turn of fatigue may be a good time to cast a spell. Possibly.

Fatigue will stack up quickly with spellcasting, so be careful about when and where you do that and maybe save that third action for another time. During rage, try casting silent spells, they can be used freely.

Unfortunately most naturally silent offensive spells are illusions (Hallucination, House of Imaginary Walls, Scintillating Pattern and such). While there’s some outliers (Harm, Heal, Jump and such), spells that are not focus powers tend to require you to not foam off your mouth in murderous rage.
Perhaps an occult, tribal-inspired sorcerer dip with a tendency to cast Harm on people?

Now I want to do a Barbarian/Divine Bloodline Sorcerer that angrily administers the forces of life and death. XD

This is one healer you REALLY don't want to piss off by doing something stupid, he might just be cranky enough that he "accidentally" uses the wrong spell on your wounded backside. XD


Saedar wrote:
Telebuddy wrote:
This is just my opinion, and I know that I am in the extreme minority, but I wouldn’t mind getting rid of multi classing all together. I know that this will most likely never happen and people enjoy that sort of thing but I don’t. To each their own.

It is worth noting (repeat of someone above) that multiclass archetypes in PF2 are kind of a build-your-own-class system. You never leave your original class, but can pick up features from others.

Example: In PF2, the Paladin (mechanically speaking) is the LG Champion. BUT, with multiclass archetypes, you can be a Fighter who picks up Cleric Dedication and then call yourself Paladin. Two ways to get to the same concept, with slight differences.

As an aside, this is also a useful way to get to the Anti-Paladin concept.

Interesting, definitely something to think about. Though I am not a fan of multi classing, when a player comes to me with a concept and it fits the campaign we are playing I have gotten on board with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say level 1 dedications is something that should be part of the game, not necessarily for multiclass archetypes, but if something like pirate is meant to be archetype material with a dedication that lets you use pirate-weapons, then you can't make it so that you're not allowed to play a pirate until x level.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
I'd say level 1 dedications is something that should be part of the game, not necessarily for multiclass archetypes, but if something like pirate is meant to be archetype material with a dedication that lets you use pirate-weapons, then you can't make it so that you're not allowed to play a pirate until x level.

I don't think Pirate the archetype being level restricted means Pirate the concept is, so for me this isn't a problem. If Pirate the archetype didn't exist and someone made a perfectly good pirate anyway, its sudden existence wouldn't invalidate that character, just present them with more specialized options for growth later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I'd say level 1 dedications is something that should be part of the game, not necessarily for multiclass archetypes, but if something like pirate is meant to be archetype material with a dedication that lets you use pirate-weapons, then you can't make it so that you're not allowed to play a pirate until x level.
I don't think Pirate the archetype being level restricted means Pirate the concept is, so for me this isn't a problem. If Pirate the archetype didn't exist and someone made a perfectly good pirate anyway, its sudden existence wouldn't invalidate that character, just present them with more specialized options for growth later.

I tend to agree with this, but Malk has a point about weapons. If your character concept relies on an exotic weapon that your archetype grants, then it does kinda suck to be Untrained with that weapon until level 2.

I don't think that means all archetypes should be available at 1, though. I think "some specific character concepts will have one awkward level" is acceptable, and still a big improvement over PF1e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I'd say level 1 dedications is something that should be part of the game, not necessarily for multiclass archetypes, but if something like pirate is meant to be archetype material with a dedication that lets you use pirate-weapons, then you can't make it so that you're not allowed to play a pirate until x level.
I don't think Pirate the archetype being level restricted means Pirate the concept is, so for me this isn't a problem. If Pirate the archetype didn't exist and someone made a perfectly good pirate anyway, its sudden existence wouldn't invalidate that character, just present them with more specialized options for growth later.

I tend to agree with this, but Malk has a point about weapons. If your character concept relies on an exotic weapon that your archetype grants, then it does kinda suck to be Untrained with that weapon until level 2.

I don't think that means all archetypes should be available at 1, though. I think "some specific character concepts will have one awkward level" is acceptable, and still a big improvement over PF1e.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I'd say level 1 dedications is something that should be part of the game, not necessarily for multiclass archetypes, but if something like pirate is meant to be archetype material with a dedication that lets you use pirate-weapons, then you can't make it so that you're not allowed to play a pirate until x level.
I don't think Pirate the archetype being level restricted means Pirate the concept is, so for me this isn't a problem. If Pirate the archetype didn't exist and someone made a perfectly good pirate anyway, its sudden existence wouldn't invalidate that character, just present them with more specialized options for growth later.

I tend to agree with this, but Malk has a point about weapons. If your character concept relies on an exotic weapon that your archetype grants, then it does kinda suck to be Untrained with that weapon until level 2.

I don't think that means all archetypes should be available at 1, though. I think "some specific character concepts will have one awkward level" is acceptable, and still a big improvement over PF1e.

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.

YES, very much this. I think that some too easily get caught up on the idea that realizing a character concept at 1st level and having your entire equipment layout and schtick fully set at 1st level are the same thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The weakness of the new multi-classing system is fundamentally, that it does not truly allow for the 'I changed My path' form of character development.

It does a far better job of helping to keep a structure to maintain some game balance in character development.

The reality of the situation is that I think the biggest part of why the archetypes were requiring being second level, was because in the old method of multiclassing, it required it.

That limitation caused the need for creating different hybrid classes, to help people who wanted to play a character somewhere between the starting classes. [granted, the limitation, gave them an excuse to come out with another book to fix the limitation, so there was a fiscal benefit to the business interest for this, but that is a different note]

The simple fact is that as long as they weren't made overpowering, there is very little good about restricting multiclass concepts until level 2. If multiclass dedications are too powerful... that is simply still a problem, if they are level 1 or level 2. If you can't play a fighter who isn't as invested in fighting as his comrade in arms, but has instead dabbled in some magic and might know a cantrip or two at first level it is a sad limitation for little reason.

Saying someone has to fully invest in being a entirely 1st level of a singular class first before they can start to branch out is simply an unnecessary limitation. If that should be the case, then why do we have Champions... make them start out as fighters and pick a archetype at level 2 where they can dedicate themselves and gain anathema and divine abilities? It is because other concepts are important and should be encouraged, and facilitate, as long as they don't destroy balance.

If archetypes as a structure are intended to reduce the need for as many classes, then I strongly feel they need to be available in the end, at 1st level. If we have to wait for the equivalent of a Hybrid classes book, that's fine. Maybe instead of multiclass dedication, they get called hybrid dedications, but in my view, the current multiclass ones could be balanced and fit the need from the gate.

Wanting to give up a choice for your primary class, and instead getting a foot in the door for the most fundamental basic flavor of another class at first level isn't asking for your class paragon abilities at the start of the game. It is asking for a touch of the other classes abilities at the start so your character sheet reflects you concept a little bit, and it can grow naturally to the next step, rather than making it appear like your story elements are a smooth expected development isn't having to be reflected a right angle turn in the mechanics.

I'm all for prestige classes that have requirements that you can't reach at first or even 10th level perhaps. But some concepts are completely believable for a first level character that should not requires 100% investment in a single class from the start. You should be able to have a 1st level Gish if you want, either based off a wizard or fighter base class, and investing some initial class investment in being able to get a touch of the other class starting at first level. It offers way more concepts out of the gate. Saying those concepts should only be achievable at 2nd level is just a sad choice in my view.

Maybe I'm old school and prefer games to always start at 1st level. I know many others often like to start from second or higher, and so those people won't care, but for those of us gamers who almost always start at first, why place the arbitrary limitation?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tbh if a character concept relies on holding one specific weapon for the entirety of the campaign, then it deserves enemies with Improved Disarm.
It's why I was very happy to see weapon groups and wide-range proficiencies (and very disappointed in potency).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I too think it would be really nice to be able to "multiclass" right out of the gate. If a multiclass archetype would be a problem at 1st level, it'll probably still be one at 2nd, I think.

I do realize a 1st level pc doesn't need to be the full manifestation of their final "build" and flavor (or leveling up would be much less interesting), but the impossibility of taking a dedication feat at 1st level seems a little arbitrary and limiting, while if that were feasible the character concepts you could implement would immediately multiply.

Perhaps that's too many choices for a new player, though. That's a reasoning I think I could get behind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hybrid classes took a couple years in PF1. Even Magus wasn’t available for a while. We’re substantially further along than PF1 started, and it’ll improve from there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The problem with having them as level 1 feat options is that you then either have to give EVERY class an extra feat at level 1 or have the bizzare situation in which Martial/Any other class can happen but Non-Martial/Any other class can't, or have to be a human to do any multiclass you like at 1st.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, giving out more feats is a win-win. I'm eyeballing doubling the number of feats in my games right out of the gate.

It always seemed to me that going feat based multiclassing but limiting it to second level is a huge waste of one of the major benefits of the system. Like making a car that goes too fast so you leave the parking brake on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
The problem with having them as level 1 feat options is that you then either have to give EVERY class an extra feat at level 1 or have the bizzare situation in which Martial/Any other class can happen but Non-Martial/Any other class can't, or have to be a human to do any multiclass you like at 1st.

I think giving everyone a feat line dedicated (pun intended) for multiclass, archetype purposes solves a lot of problems at once. As Waterslethe said, more Feats to deal with the class feat bottleneck would be appreciated.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
The weakness of the new multi-classing system is fundamentally, that it does not truly allow for the 'I changed My path' form of character development.

How often did this happen in first edition that wasn't something like a pretext for a character to have both monk and barbarian levels? It feels like if you really have something dramatic happen that fundamentally changes who you are and what you care about, letting people retrain as another class after significant downtime is a better option.

After all, if your wizard forswears the use of magic ever again after being party to some bit of magic gone horribly wrong, letting that person retrain as a barbarian, rogue, or fighter makes more sense than "vestigal wizard levels."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Loreguard wrote:
The weakness of the new multi-classing system is fundamentally, that it does not truly allow for the 'I changed My path' form of character development.

How often did this happen in first edition that wasn't something like a pretext for a character to have both monk and barbarian levels? It feels like if you really have something dramatic happen that fundamentally changes who you are and what you care about, letting people retrain as another class after significant downtime is a better option.

After all, if your wizard forswears the use of magic ever again after being party to some bit of magic gone horribly wrong, letting that person retrain as a barbarian, rogue, or fighter makes more sense than "vestigal wizard levels."

In PF1, you usually needed to talk to the GM if you wanted to abandon a class and still have a workable character. Now you need to talk to the GM if you want to abandon a class. And, the tradeoff is things like "my Wizard can devote themselves to Nethys (Cleric casting) without needing to learn less wizardry", which I think is a good deal.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
In PF1, you usually needed to talk to the GM if you wanted to abandon a class and still have a workable character.

I've seen 'abandoned' classes before work out quite well in the past without the need for things like retraining. For instance, take a character that was forced by his family to train in wizardry but that only have an 11 int. Once free from them and doing some adventuring, he finds out he's much better at fighting and switches to fighter once he figures out he's hit the limit [no 2nd level spells].

So he has 2 levels of wizard and what does he lose really? 1 BAB and a few hp for a better will save, a few infernal healing spells + useful cantrips [out of combat of course] and the ability to use scrolls/wands and such.

For PF2, I can see Loreguard's point: some people want their game to model how they see them as closely as possible. You can't have someone stop training a class at all: you MUST continue with it to the end with the only option being the option to train other classes along with your enforced first class training. For you and PossibleCabbage it might not matter but some don't want the enforced part.


graystone wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
In PF1, you usually needed to talk to the GM if you wanted to abandon a class and still have a workable character.

I've seen 'abandoned' classes before work out quite well in the past without the need for things like retraining. For instance, take a character that was forced by his family to train in wizardry but that only have an 11 int. Once free from them and doing some adventuring, he finds out he's much better at fighting and switches to fighter once he figures out he's hit the limit [no 2nd level spells].

So he has 2 levels of wizard and what does he lose really? 1 BAB and a few hp for a better will save, a few infernal healing spells + useful cantrips [out of combat of course] and the ability to use scrolls/wands and such.

For PF2, I can see Loreguard's point: some people want their game to model how they see them as closely as possible. You can't have someone stop training a class at all: you MUST continue with it to the end with the only option being the option to train other classes along with your enforced first class training. For you and PossibleCabbage it might not matter but some don't want the enforced part.

You could easily reframe retraining conceptually as moving on with your skill set and forgetting the other as a consequence.

Sort of an intentional "I'm getting rusty" but mostly because you've decided to focus on another talent. I think some amount of translated experience can be expected.

In the scenario you mention, I could see the determination and self discipline a wizard with 11INT would take would amount to Fighter rather well, at least that's how I would imagine it could break down from a narrative perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
You could easily reframe retraining conceptually as moving on with your skill set and forgetting the other as a consequence.

*nods* It's totally possible that it might work to retrain from wizard to fighter with a wizard multiclass feat and it might even work well but it's not really going to scratch that itch for someone that's looking for the character to reflect the journey they have gone through. However with the wizard multiclass requiring a 15 int...

EDIT: as far as just taking all fighter multiclass feats with your wizard, for me you never get the fighter base abilities and still keep advancing your base wizard ones. It's not really what someone that wants to completely swap classes is looking for IMO but could work in a pinch I guess.

Myself, I'll reserve judgement until I see the non-playtest rules; I was mainly commenting that I could see why some want a clear cut barrier between classes vs one class with another taped on, even if it's only perception we're talking about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A major difference between the two editions seems to be that retraining is a fundamental part of the core rules for PF2, and is indeed an expected part of one's character's journey (it's just a thing you can do with downtime in lieu of crafting or working a day job.) By RAW, you can only retrain feats (which is a lot of things), skill training, and skill increases.

So a high level character with sufficient downtime can, without needing the GM to sign of go from Legendary proficiency in religion and untrained proficiency in craft to legendary in craft and untrained in religion. Which seems to be a pretty big shift- I no longer know anything about religion but I now know everything about cabinetry.

Rulebook even mentions something like a sorcerer retraining their bloodline under exceptional circumstances. So if the circumstances are that exceptional, I don't see any reason not to let people retrain their class itself. For me something like "I was forced to go to the academy for magic by my family, despite having no aptitude for it" is something that works better on the level of backgrounds rather than classes. After all, this is about the stuff that happened before you started playing the character; almost certainly none of the action of the campaign is going to be *about* struggling at wizard school.

I'm inclined to let people retrain all class levels with a *lot* of downtime in circumstances like "a cleric whose god dies" or "a wizard who swears to never again use magic after a magical ritual gone very wrong." Some of this seems like stories that hard to tell with stories where we follow characters from level 1, since they involve "more things going on before we meet this person than is usually appropriate for a level 1 character" and one generally only gets to tell stories unrelated to the campaign with the cooperation of the GM anyway. But I would totally play a superstition barbarian who is a replacement character mid-way through the campaign as someone who was a wizard but swore to never use magic after some traumatic event


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


WatersLethe wrote:
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 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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
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 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.

Your base class already gives you an ability boost to your key stat, making the absolute minimum of your key ability 12, and your base class already has a built in mechanic to incentivize you to keep your "key stat" up, Class DC, if you neglect your key stat, your Class DC goes down, which makes all of your abilities based off of it worse. 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. And from my PoV, having a prereq for a dedication just means you need a certain aptitude level in order to learn these skills, can't really pick up a spellbook and chuck fireballs with an int of 12, can't exactly fly into a rage and crush skulls with only 12 str (less than ideal example, but it does hold true that you need a certain amount of muscle mass to pull of some of the 'feats' that barbarians are known for)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nick1wasd wrote:
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.


WatersLethe wrote:
nick1wasd wrote:
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.

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...

1 to 50 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Dedications able to be taken at 1st level? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.