ALL Multiclass Archetypes

[Quandary]

Paul Watson wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Or does having Wild Order from the Multiclass Dedication actually give it the bonus (something I believe was not true in the playtest)? I'm curious now.

It did in the playtest. You count as a memberof the order. The feat gives enhanced benefits to members of the order, so you get them.

Well that was one of questions raised up-thread, namely additional ability benefit for being member of Order seems contradicted by "You don't gain any other abilities from your choice of order." But seeing the full (final) Druid rules seems just as important to making conclusive assessment as the Multiclass text itself.

[graystone]

Edge93 wrote:

Clerics and Wizards didn't in the Playtest, though, nor did Sorcerers.

Wizards that didn't specialize DID get a 1st level class feat.

[Edge93]

graystone wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

Clerics and Wizards didn't in the Playtest, though, nor did Sorcerers.

Wizards that didn't specialize DID get a 1st level class feat.

Right, forgot about that. And in turn they DIDN'T automatically get a Spell Power. I would say the spell powers seem analogous to feats in that those who get them don't get a level 1 feat, but that's not true as Druids and Paladins get both in the Playtest.

TL;DR 1st level feats kinda wavered around on handling from class to class and we don't have a clue how it goes now. XD

[graystone]

Edge93 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

Clerics and Wizards didn't in the Playtest, though, nor did Sorcerers.

Wizards that didn't specialize DID get a 1st level class feat.

Right, forgot about that. And in turn they DIDN'T automatically get a Spell Power. I would say the spell powers seem analogous to feats in that those who get them don't get a level 1 feat, but that's not true as Druids and Paladins get both in the Playtest.

TL;DR 1st level feats kinda wavered around on handling from class to class and we don't have a clue how it goes now. XD

I remember because that was the wizard I tried out because it could drain focus 1/level: That and Focus Conservation made for for interesting tactics.

[Edge93]

graystone wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

Clerics and Wizards didn't in the Playtest, though, nor did Sorcerers.

Wizards that didn't specialize DID get a 1st level class feat.

Right, forgot about that. And in turn they DIDN'T automatically get a Spell Power. I would say the spell powers seem analogous to feats in that those who get them don't get a level 1 feat, but that's not true as Druids and Paladins get both in the Playtest.

TL;DR 1st level feats kinda wavered around on handling from class to class and we don't have a clue how it goes now. XD

I remember because that was the wizard I tried out because it could drain focus 1/level: That and Focus Conservation made for for interesting tactics.

I remember the Wizard in my Heroes of Undarin party used that to good effect.

[Doktor Weasel]

Charon Onozuka wrote:

Thanks for this!

Happy to see multiclass stat requirements get lowered to 14 rather than 16.
Also love that the stupid 1/day class abilities seem to have been removed.

That being said, the Alchemist multiclass in particular brings up something I was kinda worried about with some classes having class pools in addition to spell point pools, being what happens with the multiclass dedication. Something like a Cleric/Alchemist can easily have 3 pools to worry about (channel, focus, reagents) and I was rather hoping that spell points/focus was going to get rid of things like that by consolidating these pools into one feature. [Especially as a Roll20 player who only has 3 bars per token to track these pools, along tracking HP and possibly things like hero points]

The problem with consolidating these pools is that you need different numbers for them. Focus is apparently going to be a relatively small pool, but can be regained during the day. Channels need to be a larger pool, because the focus pool is too small for the expected amount of channeling a cleric does. And the Reagent pool needs to be bigger than both of these, it's used for many if not most of the alchemist's class features. And there is the point that by combining them, you have to share points between uses, which effectively gives you fewer of each. And if you give a larger combined pool, then the more powerful focus powers will be able to be used much more often in a fight.

I think the current number of pools is about as small as it can go without dramatically strengthening or weakening various classes.

[ChibiNyan]

Somehow these don't seem as exciting as in the playtest. Will think twice before MCing now.

[Deadmanwalking]

ChibiNyan wrote:

Somehow these don't seem as exciting as in the playtest. Will think twice before MCing now.

*blinks* With the exception of Fighter Dedication, these are uniformly more powerful than the playtest (okay, some Dedications are only as powerful, trading one thing for another, like Champion giving two Skills instead of a Skill and a Weapon, or Rogue giving two Skills and Light Armor instead of three skills).

I'm thus a bit confused by this post.

[WatersLethe]

Not only am I generally happy about these multiclassing feats (neglecting the still awful ability score requirements, especially the dual ones) I'm also happy that you can get multiple pools for different features. I freakin LOVE getting lots of options and mechanics in PF1e and I was afraid that might not be an option anymore.

I played an inquisitor warpriest multiclass and a shaman/dragon disciple in PF1e

[Vallarthis]

The caster dedications have lost the line, "you can use wands, scrolls and staves, but only of a level you can cast", and I don't see it reappear elsewhere.
Do you suppose that means your use of those items is no longer restricted, or that you can't use them at all, and need to rely on the Trick Magic Item skill feat?

[WatersLethe]

Vallarthis wrote:

The caster dedications have lost the line, "you can use wands, scrolls and staves, but only of a level you can cast", and I don't see it reappear elsewhere.

Do you suppose that means your use of those items is no longer restricted, or that you can't use them at all, and need to rely on the Trick Magic Item skill feat?

My guess is that it was consolidated into the spellcasting general info.

[graystone]

WatersLethe wrote:

neglecting the still awful ability score requirements, especially the dual ones

This is the biggest turn off IMO and one that I don't really understand "especially the dual ones".

[The Raven Black]

Quandary wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Or does having Wild Order from the Multiclass Dedication actually give it the bonus (something I believe was not true in the playtest)? I'm curious now.

It did in the playtest. You count as a memberof the order. The feat gives enhanced benefits to members of the order, so you get them.

Well that was one of questions raised up-thread, namely additional ability benefit for being member of Order seems contradicted by "You don't gain any other abilities from your choice of order." But seeing the full (final) Druid rules seems just as important to making conclusive assessment as the Multiclass text itself.

My guess is that when a Druid chooses an order, they get more 1st-level benefits from that choice than those listed in the dedication.

[NielsenE]

I've been mainly focused on martial/caster combos (rather than martial/martial or caster/caster). And I'm seeing a few things that feel a little concerning.

Martial w/ a caster dedication feels like they're almost locked in to spending all their feats in the caster dedication -- you don't get enough from the dedication. You're going to want the basic spell caster at least. You'll probably want Breadth as soon as you can, and expert/master if your campaign is going long enough.

Caster w/ a martial dedication feels like they can like skip most of the rest of the dedication and still get most of what they want, or pick _interesting_ MC feats, rather than playing keep up.

And while caster MCs eventually over Master in their spellcaster, the martial ones typically appear to cap out at Expert. Unless the unlisted normal non-MC feats grant it and you grab it via the 'Choose a feat' feat.

[Kyrone]

I think that Martials will get Caster MC more for the focus spells than the spell slots one, because you get them back every 10 minutes instead of some bullets.

[tqomins]

The Raven Black wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Or does having Wild Order from the Multiclass Dedication actually give it the bonus (something I believe was not true in the playtest)? I'm curious now.

It did in the playtest. You count as a memberof the order. The feat gives enhanced benefits to members of the order, so you get them.

Well that was one of questions raised up-thread, namely additional ability benefit for being member of Order seems contradicted by "You don't gain any other abilities from your choice of order." But seeing the full (final) Druid rules seems just as important to making conclusive assessment as the Multiclass text itself.

My guess is that when a Druid chooses an order, they get more 1st-level benefits from that choice than those listed in the dedication.

Spolier #49 wrote:

Wild Druid Order

The savage, uncontrollable call of the natural world infuses you, granting you the ability to change your shape and take on the ferocious form of a wild creature. You are trained in Intimidation. You also gain the Wild Shape druid feat. You gain the wild morph order spell.

Becoming fully domesticated by the temptations of civilization is anathema to your order. (This doesn’t prevent you from buying and using processed goods or staying in a city for an adventure, but you can never come to rely on these conveniences or truly call such a place your permanent home.)

[Captain Morgan]

NielsenE wrote:

I've been mainly focused on martial/caster combos (rather than martial/martial or caster/caster). And I'm seeing a few things that feel a little concerning.

Martial w/ a caster dedication feels like they're almost locked in to spending all their feats in the caster dedication -- You're going to want the basic spell caster at least. You'll probably want Breadth as soon as you can, and expert/master if your campaign is going long enough.

They are spending 5 of 11 class feats if they go all in on spellcasting. That is less than half and it is spread over the course of the whole game. In exchange you get 8th level spells. That seems like a preeeetty good trade.

Also, not all characters will want to go that high. Getting Haste alone is a pretty solid addition to a martial.

Quote:

you don't get enough from the dedication.

You get more from the dedication than casters get from spending a class feat on Cantrip Expansion. Cantrips can be very good indeed to have.

Quote:

Caster w/ a martial dedication feels like they can like skip most of the rest of the dedication and still get most of what they want, or pick _interesting_ MC feats, rather than playing keep up.

And while caster MCs eventually over Master in their spellcaster, the martial ones typically appear to cap out at Expert. Unless the unlisted normal non-MC feats grant it and you grab it via the 'Choose a feat' feat.

First off, the MCs do indeed get master casting. They don't get to legendary, if that's what you meant.

Secondly, many of martial MC feats are indeed for "playing keep up." They up your proficiency in weapons, armor, a save, or perception. And in the cases of weapons and armor they don't seem to go above expert.

Edit: I think I may have misunderstood the point you were making, because you may have been aware of this stuff already. But then I'm not exactly sure what your complaint is? Like, this seems at odd with the rest of your complaints about martials getting less dipping caster than casters getting dipping martials. There are are trade offs for both sides.

[HidaOWin]

One very cool thing about this system is you can run a pseudo gestalt home game by going “Everyone gets a bonus dedication feat every second level”

I think the main thing casters lose out on when multiclassing into martial will be the bonus accuracy and damage that a primary martial get with higher proficiencies. Given the new crit system I think accuracy cannot be underestimated in this edition.

[Captain Morgan]

One thing I'm a little concerned with is how armor proficiency will work. Alchemists and Barbarians both get upgraded to master in at armor 19th, but only in armors they were initially trained in for their class. I am curious how that works out for the alchemist or babarian who spent feats to get full plate. Nor do we know when most characters get that expert bump, but we do know MC Champions can't get it until 14th.

I was pretty OK with how heavy armor operated in the playtest, but that was largely based on how much more accessible it was. We know it has gotten some improvements, but it also looks like it has become harder to get it and keep it competitive.

HidaOWin wrote:

One very cool thing about this system is you can run a pseudo gestalt home game by going “Everyone gets a bonus dedication feat every second level”

You can also use free archetypes to further the story. Giving everyone the pirate archetype in a pirate campaign, for example. Or granting players a "pretige" dedication based on in story actions without charging them the class feat.

Quote:

I think the main thing casters lose out on when multiclassing into martial will be the bonus accuracy and damage that a primary martial get with higher proficiencies. Given the new crit system I think accuracy cannot be underestimated in this edition.

Indeed. They also may need to spend other resources to get up to par with martials, now that a single dedication doesn't net them weapons and armor and other things too.

[Lady Wrath]

HidaOWin wrote:

One very cool thing about this system is you can run a pseudo gestalt home game by going “Everyone gets a bonus dedication feat every second level”

What adjustment would you make to the level or difficulty of an encounter for a change like that or do you think it would be unnecessary

and also do you think and kind of adjustment would be needed if I gave a player a free archtype feat for roleplay ie A player starts getting taught tricks by a sailor NPC while traveling so I give them the Pirate (though I think it should just be called Sailor) dedication feat as a reward for the roleplay

[Captain Morgan]

Lady Wrath wrote:

HidaOWin wrote:

One very cool thing about this system is you can run a pseudo gestalt home game by going “Everyone gets a bonus dedication feat every second level”

What adjustment would you make to the level or difficulty of an encounter for a change like that or do you think it would be unnecessary

I'm sure we will get some guidance on this subject eventually, but I'd say you don't need a huge adjustment since feats have moved away from "adding more +1s" and into new options. It will certainly up versatility and give you new things you can do but you still only have 3 actions in a turn. You are much less likely to break the math.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Lady Wrath wrote:

HidaOWin wrote:

One very cool thing about this system is you can run a pseudo gestalt home game by going “Everyone gets a bonus dedication feat every second level”

What adjustment would you make to the level or difficulty of an encounter for a change like that or do you think it would be unnecessary

I'm sure we will get some guidance on this subject eventually, but I'd say you don't need a huge adjustment since feats have moved away from "adding more +1s" and into new options. It will certainly up versatility and give you new things you can do but you still only have 3 actions in a turn. You are much less likely to break the math.

With the feats also Level locked there becomes a definite peak to how powerful any one character can get. It could be fun for One Shots to give every player a free extra feat, and i’ll Be interested to hear from players that try giving extra feats how it works out.

[Lady Wrath]

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

With the feats also Level locked there becomes a definite peak to how powerful any one character can get. It could be fun for One Shots to give every player a free extra feat, and i’ll Be interested to hear from players that try giving extra feats how it works out.

I'm actually thinking about running a game like that now, I made a thread about it if you wanna check it out https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42l91?Free-dedication-feat-campaign-Idea#1

[WatersLethe]

I'm planning on giving out loads of extra feats. Probably double. I'll be reporting my findings as it happens.

I found that the whole class feat paradigm had too much important stuff locked up behind the feat bottleneck. I'd like to let people pick class features as well as combat/weapon/character customizing options.

I'll probably also be giving everyone the option of raiding any class's list for prerequisiteless feats.

[Feros]

Lady Wrath wrote:

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

With the feats also Level locked there becomes a definite peak to how powerful any one character can get. It could be fun for One Shots to give every player a free extra feat, and i’ll Be interested to hear from players that try giving extra feats how it works out.

I'm actually thinking about running a game like that now, I made a thread about it if you wanna check it out https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42l91?Free-dedication-feat-campaign-Idea

Linkified.

:)

[Doktor Weasel]

WatersLethe wrote:

I'm planning on giving out loads of extra feats. Probably double. I'll be reporting my findings as it happens.

I found that the whole class feat paradigm had too much important stuff locked up behind the feat bottleneck. I'd like to let people pick class features as well as combat/weapon/character customizing options.

I'll probably also be giving everyone the option of raiding any class's list for prerequisiteless feats.

I also felt like the feats weren't quite enough. It felt like there were a lot of illusory choices. Many options felt bad and therefore weren't going to taken, but others were practically mandatory for a concept to work, which again is no real choice. Multiclassing was something I wanted to try in the playtest, but ended up not doing, because it felt like every feat was needed just to stay functional. and I couldn't spare any. It does feel weird to say 11 feats feels like too few, but it does, at least for my tastes. Getting a class feat ever level might be helpful in that regard, but I'm worried about it being too much. It risks having one character be the do-all be-all for that class, or have a lot of multi-class power, or maybe both. And any other distribution of feats would lack the elegance of one at every level or one a 1st and every even level. Maybe just add one to levels 5, 9, 13 and 17 or something. It's said that the lack of +1 style feats will make adding feats more balanced, but I'm not so sure I buy that. There is plenty of power to be gained without a straight numerical boost.

So I'll be very interested in hearing how the extra feats balance out for you. Perhaps the GMG will have some guidelines on this as well. Maybe with some modifications to compensate for the increased feats without breaking APs and the like. I am looking forward to the optional rules and houseruling guidelines in that book.

[Dekalinder]

No multiclass gives armor proficiency aside from champion. No multiclass gives weapon proficiency aside from fighter. No multiclass at all gives higher proficiency than what you get in your primary class.
Means, multiclassing fighter does not makes you any better at hitting that what your primary class allows.

I came out from hiding just to say that a multiclass system that doesn't allow you to trade spell proficiency for more weapon proficiency or weapon proficiency for armor proficiency is not an actual multiclass system for me.

Yes multiclassing is a very dear argument for me.

I'll go back to my cave now, bye.

[Vidmaster7]

I think we should end up with some feats that can give us some proficiency. I hope so anyways. Maybe not get us to where multi-classing gets us too but they could help a little and be less of an investment. Right now My primary worry is that everyone is going to be multi-classing.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I think we should end up with some feats that can give us some proficiency. I hope so anyways. Maybe not get us to where multi-classing gets us too but they could help a little and be less of an investment. Right now My primary worry is that everyone is going to be multi-classing.

I think this is a valid point, though where you are worried others may not be. I think we will see almost every character “dipping” via this system. The rewards are just too great not to.

My problem, that I have stated before, is that this pokes great holes in the “class” system, and creates a “talent” based system where you just pick the talents you want to fulfil the concept to create your character. Which is fine, but then why have the classes. I for one really value the class system, and the multiclass system of PF1. But as I have said, you can’t have a multiclass if you only have one class and then some ersatz class-feature-poaching feats labelled “multiclass feats”. That is one class + some badly nominatively-challenged feats.

I do find it unfortunate that feats are being utilised this way. I’m sure I will eventually get used to it. It does remind me of some grognardy hero-characters/demigods as statted up in the old Rogues Gallery and Deities and Demigods. And anyway, it is this way. No sense crying over lost multiclassing.

[HidaOWin]

Dekalinder wrote:

No multiclass gives armor proficiency aside from champion. No multiclass gives weapon proficiency aside from fighter. No multiclass at all gives higher proficiency than what you get in your primary class.

Means, multiclassing fighter does not makes you any better at hitting that what your primary class allows.

I came out from hiding just to say that a multiclass system that doesn't allow you to trade spell proficiency for more weapon proficiency or weapon proficiency for armor proficiency is not an actual multiclass system for me.

Yes multiclassing is a very dear argument for me.

I'll go back to my cave now, bye.

a) As you first acknowledged and then oddly ignored, you do get an improvement in proficiency from the 12th level Fighter multiclass feat.

b) It's not inconceivable that there are class feats to improve proficiency that you can take with multiclass dedications.
c) If you want to be a Wizard that gives up significant amounts of casting to be more like a Fighter, I'd suggest instead being a Fighter and multiclass as a Wizard.
d) You are undervaluing weapon and armour proficiency as a class feature. These aren't small bonuses, they are the largest and most applicable bonuses in the game for their respective class and incredibly important. Legendary proficiency in your gear of choice is probably equivalent to 9th level spells in power during play, hell we aren't even sure if all classes get legendary proficiency in a single relevant weapon, Monks might top out in Master in unarmed.

We will have a fuller picture when the game is actually out. ATM we are missing some key pieces of information.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Additionally, Champion is not the only multiclass to grant Armor Proficiency. Rogue grants Light Armor Proficiency, which is quite relevant for, say, a Wizard.

[Unicore]

One of the design decisions that many folks find frustrating is that, by and large, proficiency advancement, especially higher than trained, is something that is supposed to be controlled more by class and level in PF2 than by feat or character design focus. It is one of the biggest scales of customization removed between PF1 and 2. The multi-class rules are deliberately restrictive about this because the system is designed around level and class increasing power, while feats are for flexibility and adding new things, rather than more powerful things, to characters.

Compared to PF1, this is a big change that will always feel restrictive to some people that enjoyed playing the game of finding the fastest path to the most powerful character. But it should work well enough for enabling concepts.

Proficiency with a weapon in PF1 was only really significant for character concept for a short period of time as far as level went. A pure rogue in PF1 essentially ends up with something far less than PF2's expert proficiency in their weapons by level 20, while a level 20 wizard is barely less likely to be hitting with a weapon they are proficient with than one they are not. The magical power of the weapon is probably more significant than the proficiency by that level.

Armor was a horse of a different color because the penalties were so massive for everyone untrained, and Arcane spell failure made proficiency alone not that appealing to many multi-class builds.

The idea that any character should have a path to legendary or even master proficiency in something is just not a part of PF2. For some people that is balance and for some that seems incredibly frustrating.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

Thank you for sharing this!

[Mark Seifter]

Unicore wrote:

A pure rogue in PF1 essentially ends up with something far less than PF2's expert proficiency in their weapons by level 20, while a level 20 wizard is barely less likely to be hitting with a weapon they are proficient with than one they are not.

To put this a different way, a multiclass character in PF1 multiclassing between, let's say fighter and wizard for a gentler example because the PrC has lower prereqs, had no possible route to full BAB (let alone full BAB + weapon training for extra accuracy from lots of levels in fighter). You could go mostly fighter and take the eldritch knight patch and keep a fair amount of the BAB, but not full. They also had no route to full spellcasting. You could go mostly wizard with eldritch knight and still be a spell level behind but eventually have (fewer but some) top level spells if your game managed to reach the highest levels (most did not, though).

In PF2 you are going to get the "full BAB + weapon training" equivalent or full spellcasting (your choice) no matter what, depending on if you start as fighter or wizard. Not only that, you can manage up to 8th level casting with the fightier version. What it's not going to do is give "full BAB" to the castier version; that would just mean you could get everything if you went caster first. If the equivalent to "full BAB" is what you're after, and you care about it more than maxed spell progression, a martial class as your first class is probably the right choice.

[Malk_Content]

I don't see the class siloing philosophy of PF2E to be fundamentally different from PF1. Merely far clearer. There have always been a best X. Its just in PF1 the best X comes from a very specific set of character choices that aren't always entirely obvious.

[WatersLethe]

If you think of the multiclass being a step down in power from the full class, you can expect someone to ask "why can't I have both classes evenly progressed so that each is a half-step down from their full class versions?"

I'd like to point out some of the reasons I think it's a good thing that they didn't try to do that:

1. Balancing a step down versus the full class is difficult. Managing a "half-step" of every class would be next to impossible.

2. There is a nonlinearity involved in coming close to fulfilling a class' niche. The closer you are to being a full X, the more likely it is that the difference between a non-multiclassed and a multiclassed version of X is going to disappear in the chaos of the game.

3. You couldn't evenly progress anything in PF1 and come even close to being a half step one way or another. The best multiclass builds were almost all heavily lopsided, so it's not like we're losing design space.

4. If you do want a character that is almost a full X and Y, then hey, Gestalt is going to be pretty heckin easy in this game.

5. You can finely tune your concept if you can select which side is emphasized, unlike certain hybrid type classes in PF1 where it was predetermined.

6. Compelling multiclass rules need trade-offs, and significant ones.

[Draco18s]

Bartram wrote:

tqomins wrote:

• Monk fighters are great at combining unusual weapon styles. For instance, a monks isn't hindered by a restriction to keep one hand free, because they want to punch you with that hand anyway.

This is my favorite part.

It raised my eyebrow, but I don't see what rule from which class means that that is true. Nothing in either the monk or fighter archetypes say anything about a free hand, and it wouldn't be in the fighter base class, so....what does the monk say about free hands?

[Mark Seifter]

Draco18s wrote:

Bartram wrote:

tqomins wrote:

• Monk fighters are great at combining unusual weapon styles. For instance, a monks isn't hindered by a restriction to keep one hand free, because they want to punch you with that hand anyway.

This is my favorite part.

It raised my eyebrow, but I don't see what rule from which class means that that is true. Nothing in either the monk or fighter archetypes say anything about a free hand, and it wouldn't be in the fighter base class, so....what does the monk say about free hands?

The point is that the monk/fighter can use free-hand fighter goodies without the opportunity cost paid for those goodies by a typical fighter (who is giving up a two-handed weapon or a shield).

[MaxAstro]

..Huh. Suddenly I want to make a monk/fighter multiclass who fights with fist and shield, specializing in shield bashes and unarmed strikes.

I feel like I've seen that concept somewhere before, but I can't put my finger on it...

[PossibleCabbage]

Presumably a monk/fighter could have both hands full and still make dragon tail attacks, right?

I sort of wanted to make a monk/bard who kicks people while juggling.

[Kyrone]

If Whirlwind Throw and Combat Grab are still in I could see myself playing a Monk with Fighter dedication in with the entire purpose is to toss creatures around, preferably with Spellcasters teammates that like to put spells like Wall of Fire on the field.

[Zwordsman]

Neat shiny preview. I am slightly sad that the progression feats are still a bit painful. (I was just hoping there would be slightly more benefit to the initial dedication feats)
But comparing some of them you seem to get a lot more out of some than others. but that might come down to what you get.
EDIT: Not that they're really weak or anything. But because it locks out pretty hard, I do wish the dedication one had a little more oopmh. just slightly.

Hm.. on Ranger's dedication. Can other classes actually benefit from Hunt Prey? I remember on the playtest there was issues with it.
or am I just misremembering something weird?

I am excited. ALchemist with Rogue dedication feels the most likely. Though that also depends on wht the Alchemist feats are now. I remember in the playtest they were very.... sparse on the good choices and the alchmist absolutely needed something to help in combat due to the limited nature (amounts and their effectiveness) of the alchemist's free items per day.

alot of my viewpoint is from the alch first in the playtest as opposed to other classes. so that colours my viewpoint. My rogue was far more effective than my alchemist throughout the day.

[tqomins]

MaxAstro wrote:

..Huh. Suddenly I want to make a monk/fighter multiclass who fights with fist and shield, specializing in shield bashes and unarmed strikes.

I feel like I've seen that concept somewhere before, but I can't put my finger on it...

I've said elsewhere that this is my first character when we get the full rules. I'll put up a thread on August 1st so we can all brainstorm the build together

[lordcirth]

Dekalinder wrote:

No multiclass gives armor proficiency aside from champion. No multiclass gives weapon proficiency aside from fighter. No multiclass at all gives higher proficiency than what you get in your primary class.

Means, multiclassing fighter does not makes you any better at hitting that what your primary class allows.

I came out from hiding just to say that a multiclass system that doesn't allow you to trade spell proficiency for more weapon proficiency or weapon proficiency for armor proficiency is not an actual multiclass system for me.

Yes multiclassing is a very dear argument for me.

I'll go back to my cave now, bye.

Assuming this hasn't changed, you can just take the Armor Proficiency General feat to get a tier of armor proficiency. So if you start as a human sorcerer and want to MC fighter ASAP, you use your ancestry feat to get a general feat, take Armor Proficiency (Light armor) at level 1. At level 2 you take the Fighter Dedication, and at level 3 you take Armor proficiency again. Now you're a level 3 sorcerer who has a longsword and a breastplate, and is trained in them. That seems pretty reasonable to me. You won't get Expert in weaponry until level 12, but that's a fair price considering you're still a full caster.

[lordcirth]

Zwordsman wrote:

Neat shiny preview. I am slightly sad that the progression feats are still a bit painful. (I was just hoping there would be slightly more benefit to the initial dedication feats)

But comparing some of them you seem to get a lot more out of some than others. but that might come down to what you get.

Hm.. on Ranger's dedication. Can other classes actually benefit from Hunt Prey? I remember on the playtest there was issues with it.
or am I just misremembering something weird?

I am excited. ALchemist with Rogue dedication feels the most likely. Though that also depends on wht the Alchemist feats are now. I remember in the playtest they were very.... sparse on the good choices and the alchmist absolutely needed something to help in combat due to the limited nature (amounts and their effectiveness) of the alchemist's free items per day.

I think the dedication feats are generally plenty strong. Some could be weak if they overlap with what you have, though. Which do you think is the weakest?

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, I think the Dedication Feats generally either come to at least 4 or 5 General Feats worth of stuff at a minimum, or give an entirely unique Class ability as well as at least one or two General Feats worth of stuff.

Overlap reduces that significantly, but taken in isolation they seem quite potent.

[Bardarok]

Fighter Dedication looks like the worst in isolation. Only one skill and weapon profocies. That's only worth 3 general feats, less if you start out with simple or martial weapon profocincy.

[PossibleCabbage]

Fighter Dedication + Attack of Opportunity I think will show up on a lot of martial builds if there isn't an easier way to get AoOs on your barbarian, monk, etc. even if the first feat does very little for you.

[Zwordsman]

lordcirth wrote:

I think the dedication feats are generally plenty strong. Some could be weak if they overlap with what you have, though. Which do you think is the weakest?

edited slightly for more clarity there. but I can say I am biased because I'm viewing everything from the playtest Alchemists POV.

But its less so that the dedication feats are weak. Its more I wish they had slight more. Because they are competing with a lot of other things and taking just one locks you out of many other options. Additionally they (more or less) eat your first class feat. I.e. it competes with some of the reasons you took the original class.
So while they are not weak, I think they could've used slightly more to them than a lessened clas ability+ a skill.

I ramble a bit. but this talks about fighter's dedication and my experience with multiclass:

THough the Fighter's dedication is one I kind of dislike a litte martial weapon training is nice. But because (during the playtest anyway. IDK about now) some basic combat abilities are behind that dedication, it feels a little weak of a dedication because there are a lot of good things behind it. if that makes sense? In the preview here at least it looks like you no longer get the one AOO either that you did in the playtest. But the fighter's dedication feat really only helps if you want martial weapons. If you want the feats behind it but don't want a martial weapon.. well its not very useful.
I wanted a Dart + Gauntlet guy. recreating an old favorite RPG character(in concept this worked out effectiveness eeh so so)

Like in the playtest my alchemist more or less required soem Multiclassing because of the relative limited resource amount (even when it switched to batch) so it needed some plain combat boosters. EIther fighter or rogue for me.
I ended up building him twice. one as a fighter who picked up Point Blank Shot and Assiting shot (realized quickly that I couldn't manage multiple hits but I could make my allies Crit more). Then a rogue who built towards trap finding, the poison weapon (and ultimately improved poison) (cause I like poison. and it helped the "can't attack lot as an alchmist" situation).

The fighter's dedication feat was more or less functional pointless and a feat tax basically to get some basic combat profiency. (Granted in retrospect. using a Whip and Tripping would have been more effective in my plot to help others crit more. Even if it wasn't accurate to my character concept). Where as the Rogue's dedication feat did actually always give me a bonus at the starts of battle-Sure not exactly huge but it was always applicable. And actually let me set up some pretty great openers with my bombs.

For a more general example. if I was a crossbow user and didnt care about Bows (for flavor. or because I didn't like the volley or whatever) the fighter's got several Ranged combat feats. But the dedication's martial weapon and those two skills give me little to nothing. (I do know that Rangers are tyipcally seen as the "ranged" go to multiclass. But. fighters still have some specific ones)

....I rambled a bit. I could multiclass so much because the playtest alch's class feats weren't really very good.Hopefully got my point across using the example of how the fighter's dedication gates useful things behind a feature that isn't universally useful for all the potential builds that want the feats behind it.

In addition to the abilty score requirements. Despite some of the abilities that are potential choices.
EDIT: Also just in general how hard it is to get other feats later. 1/2 level is painful as it competes with higher. It should just be some sort of reduction so you cant get concurrently but still be useful enough. like 4 levels instead of 1/2 or something.

[AJ_Neuro]

Im still surprised that grabbing feats from other class lists must be done at half level, because this means every time you do so, you are making a huge sacrifice, specially at higher levels. For example I'm not sure the benefit of gaining a level 6 feat for your secondary class outweighs the cost of losing a level 12 feat for your main class. I'm probably going to houserule level-2 instead of half level, unless I can spot some overpowered shenanigans.