| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Sure it will get use it's just that Fighter Dedication is a feat tax in the sense of a feat you don't want that is a prerequisite for the feat you do want. At least the skill training means it's better than Combat Expertise.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that many people are concerned that everyone will multiclass, but I'm not sure. Is a handful of fighter feats worth being a less effective cleric? Is ONE 8th level spell per day worth giving up some really powerful late level Barbarian abilities?
I really don't know.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This assumes acquiring all martial weapons is only one Feat in the final version. But yes, Fighter is a bit more weak looking in isolation than most of the others.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that many people are concerned that everyone will multiclass, but I'm not sure. Is a handful of fighter feats worth being a less effective cleric? Is ONE 8th level spell per day worth giving up some really powerful late level Barbarian abilities?
I really don't know.
And even with the new action system, you still have only so much you can do in a round. For example the barbarian with spells, you might be able to do a simple attack and cast a spell, but that spell will prevent you from doing your more powerful 2 action attacks that come from your barbarian feats. Also, you might still be more effective just attacking twice with your weapon. The spells do give a nice bit of versatility, but it's not quite a no-brainer that you'll always want to use them instead of focusing on what you're good at. We'll have to see how the feats stack up in the final version, but I think there are likely to be pros and cons of both single and multi-classing. Which is as it should be.
I do like how multiclassing doesn't tank your base competence though. No more losing bab for multiclassing out of a martial or losing spells for multiclassing out of a caster. One player I play with regularly loves playing clerics, and he's mentioned that for the most part, it's a bad idea to multiclass a cleric because even the prestige classes and such that give you spell levels, usually don't improve your channel. And channel is one of the best tools a cleric has. With this style of multiclassing, you don't have to give that up, which makes it more of an option to get some other options for your cleric to be unique. Archetypes have some potential to recreate some of the interesting ideas from prestige classes, but not require so much sacrifice to get (or being quite so unbalancing as many 3.5 ones were).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, at least day one typos aren't too rule-affecting :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.This assumes acquiring all martial weapons is only one Feat in the final version. But yes, Fighter is a bit more weak looking in isolation than most of the others.
I wonder if that is deliberate because "you can make AoOs" appears to be considerably stronger than the level 4 options which aren't "gain a level 1 or 2 feat" for the other dedications (those should all naturally be about as good as each other.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm playing Ranger/Barbarian and want to get AOO, 2 feats seems really rough. One is pretty useless. Even if I wanted other fighter feats, it doens't look worth it to ever take that MC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember something about Monks and Fighters not having paths to choose (like Druid orders, bloodlines and so on), so you can customize them the way you want, so my guess is that these two are the ones with more class feats to choose from, so while the dedication of these two don't give much I think they open a lot more options.
If I'm playing Ranger/Barbarian and want to get AOO, 2 feats seems really rough. One is pretty useless. Even if I wanted other fighter feats, it doens't look worth it to ever take that MC.
I mean, I don't like it but I'm absolutely going to do it on my giant barbarian who uses a polearm. I feel like even if all I get from the first feat is "a single skill training", two feats for that and AoOs is better than 2 feats for the dedication and the +6 HP feat, even if I'm not getting anything in the dedication feat from my class.
Hopefully there are other ways to qualify for AoOs other than multiclassing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember something about Monks and Fighters not having paths to choose (like Druid orders, bloodlines and so on), so you can customize them the way you want, so my guess is that these two are the ones with more class feats to choose from, so while the dedication of these two don't give much I think they open a lot more options.
This could turn them into one off shots for swiping specific feats to complete builds, which was something I didn’t hate that was common in 3.5/3.0 due to Fighter bonus feats.
While it was pretty unhealthy in the old system, given how organic this would be in the new multi class system, it serves to allow a lot of concepts.
It can become unbalanced quickly if Class Feats for those classes aren’t in line though, then dips will become extremely common.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that many people are concerned that everyone will multiclass, but I'm not sure. Is a handful of fighter feats worth being a less effective cleric? Is ONE 8th level spell per day worth giving up some really powerful late level Barbarian abilities?
I really don't know.
Yeah, I'm curious to see how it actually plays out as well. Each of these options is competing with not only class feats, but also the archetypes in the world guide. And that's just day 1.
One thing I'm almost certain we're going to find is that the idea of "builds" in P2 is going to be much more fluid. Breaking up class features and archetypes into feats means that you can slot in all sorts of little combos and partial "builds" without planning twenty levels of progression.
And I'm excited to see that. It makes session zero planning a bit less relevant, but opens up choices for all the sessions after that.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm excited to see that. It makes session zero planning a bit less relevant, but opens up choices for all the sessions after that.
Particularly with retraining rules in core, the generous ability score increases, and the skeleton of your class progressing no matter what you do with your feats (in contrast to PF1 where a bad combo of multiclassing could leave a character fairly non-functional), I think PF2 will do quite well in being a forgiving, accessible system while still allowing all kinds of tinkering with build options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter dedication would be nice if it was "Simple and martialweapon prof. OR 1st level Fighter feat". So other martial classes could get something out of it.
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.
The reasons I can think of are that MC should never step on the toes of the main class and that with that rule you can only thake the highest MC class feat every 4 levels, which would encourage you to take some main class feats, too.
Otherwise, yey it goes a bit against their general rule to not have a growing level disparity| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
Ah! I got it, that makes sense now. I was trying to figure out things from the wrong angle.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that many people are concerned that everyone will multiclass, but I'm not sure. Is a handful of fighter feats worth being a less effective cleric? Is ONE 8th level spell per day worth giving up some really powerful late level Barbarian abilities?
I really don't know.
And even with the new action system, you still have only so much you can do in a round. For example the barbarian with spells, you might be able to do a simple attack and cast a spell, but that spell will prevent you from doing your more powerful 2 action attacks that come from your barbarian feats. Also, you might still be more effective just attacking twice with your weapon. The spells do give a nice bit of versatility, but it's not quite a no-brainer that you'll always want to use them instead of focusing on what you're good at. We'll have to see how the feats stack up in the final version, but I think there are likely to be pros and cons of both single and multi-classing. Which is as it should be.
I do like how multiclassing doesn't tank your base competence though. No more losing bab for multiclassing out of a martial or losing spells for multiclassing out of a caster. One player I play with regularly loves playing clerics, and he's mentioned that for the most part, it's a bad idea to multiclass a cleric because even the prestige classes and such that give you spell levels, usually don't improve your channel. And channel is one of the best tools a cleric has. With this style of multiclassing, you don't have to give that up, which makes it more of an option to get some other options for your cleric to be unique. Archetypes have some potential to recreate some of the interesting ideas from prestige classes, but not require so much sacrifice to get (or being quite so unbalancing as many 3.5 ones were).
I agree 100%. In P1 there was a lot of pressure to stuck with one class b/c you really wanted your class ability to advance. I would expect that to be the same in P2. I don't expect multiclassing to pop up in a lot of optimization builds, instead it's going to be something like was mentioned above, I "dip" to get a specific ability like AoO or something like that. I see MCing as a way to get to a specific character concept despite not being optimized not because of it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Just citing Feat level doesn't mean much. Something like Attack of Opportunity can be low level Feat, yet it still is just as effective at high level. If you have a problem with full-level access to a Class' Feats, then you should probably consider using that as base class instead, and Multiclassing in the opposite direction.
I'm just not sure where the expectation comes from that finds this rule to be constraining. 3.x/1E multiclassing by definition meant giving up class levels shutting your off from highest class abilities and feats. 2E allows full-level Feat access to main class and 1/2 level Feat access to any others, which is stronger than 1E. Trying to boost it further doesn't seem like trying to play with paradigm of the system, in which case I ask why play this system with so many available?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, lowish level feats are supposed to be the build defining ones (no point in making people wait for high levels to define their builds). Something like (the playtest version of) whirling throw for a free hand fighter is a legitimately powerful option at 12th level.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just not sure where the expectation comes from that finds this rule to be constraining. 3.x/1E multiclassing by definition meant giving up class levels shutting your off from highest class abilities and feats. 2E allows full-level Feat access to main class and 1/2 level Feat access to any others, which is stronger than 1E. Trying to boost it further doesn't seem like trying to play with paradigm of the system, in which case I ask why play this system with so many available?
In fact, in PF1, necessarily, a multiclass character could only pick up an option requiring over 10 class levels from at most one class and usually very late in their career (possibly never).
In addition to the options that are just super good at any level but placed low level so you get them early, which you mentioned, there are some things that actually are drastically stronger for another class. For instance, Certain Strike (fighter 10) is legitimately a possibility a level 20 barbarian might want since barbarian's have huge amounts of damage by that point that they would include on Certain Strike's failure effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the way these look, it appears I can remake my Witcher with a little more accuracy to the heart of the kit set. This makes me VERY happy (my main DD guy was a Witcher, he was Ranger -> Alc -> Wiz, it worked..... okay)
It looks like Occult Breadth (Bard MC) only gives extra spell slots now and not spells known (as it did in the Playtest update). If that's actually the case, it's something of a let down. It seems like Multiclass Bards have a very limited repetoire for their spell slots, and lose out massively to MC prepared casters. Hopefully they get access to spontaneous heightening of some sort to even things out a bit...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like Occult Breadth (Bard MC) only gives extra spell slots now and not spells known (as it did in the Playtest update). If that's actually the case, it's something of a let down. It seems like Multiclass Bards have a very limited repetoire for their spell slots, and lose out massively to MC prepared casters. Hopefully they get access to spontaneous heightening of some sort to even things out a bit...
That's an error on my part. The repertoire does expand, I promise!
(What happened: I copied the Bard entry from my earlier, hastily done transcription based on the PaizoCon Banquet images. For that post, I tried to just pull out the rules elements rather than copy every word. But I see now that in my haste, I left out the repertoire bit—and, unfortunately, I failed to catch the error when I copied that work over for this comprehensive thread based on the UK Games images. Oops!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's an error on my part. The repertoire does expand, I promise!
No worries! Thanks for the quick update!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still a bit confused to the logic behind Sneak Attack. Like, let's assume that +d4 is good at level 4 and +d6 is good at level 6 (and it needed the boost to a d6 at level six to keep being good).
Why does this not scale at all past level 6?
Nearly everything else involving damage scales in the game, especially since you don't really attack more times as you level and HP is quite a bit higher. Even if a conditional +d6 is worth considering as a feat at level 6, how is it going to be relevant at level 14, or 20? If it needed to scale up at level 6, why couldn't it continue to scale up to keep it just as useful once you've got magical weapons involved? If having any +damage passive at all was too much of an issue if it's not built into the class, why those numbers? Would increasing it to 2d6 at 12th and 3d6 at 18th really have been too much given the inflation in damage and health by that point? 2d4 and 3d4?
The dual stat requirements are similarly hard to understand. Why only martials? What are these requirements preventing that would be a balance issue?
The Fighter dedication feat seems to grant really nothing to other martial classes which is really annoying, because then it's just a dead level where you didn't get anything from your class feat while you wait until level 4 to then sacrifice yet another class feat to finally get a level 2 Fighter feat.
Like if we're wanting to make a Fighter/Rogue multiclass that uses Combat Grab and/or other dirty fighting tricks to make an opponent flat-footed for Sneak Attack, it seems like that concept is going to have a lot of trouble working past level 6 due to the lack of scaling. If you instead go Rogue/Fighter, you get... basically jack shit until fourth level? It's not nearly as bad in the long term because you do get that scaling Sneak Attack and the Fighter does at least have good combat options, but the 1/2 level restriction and the difficulty of getting AoO makes you pay a pretty steep price for something more situational, all the while sacrificing your own class feats which are generally going to be pretty damn good.
I can sorta see the desire to make the dedication feat lopsided towards casters if the worry was that Fighter feats are way more valuable to other martials than to casters, but because of the 1/2 level restriction it seems like it can get difficult to really get decent use out of that unless you *really* have a very particular combination in mind that synergizes with your base class. A lot of the base martial classes already have their own versions of fighter feats and you still only have three actions per round. I don't know if that's really worth just kind of having a dead level where you just get an extra skill proficiency.
I just don't understand the thought processes behind this stuff. I get we need to wait until we get the whole book and play around with it, but it would be nice to know so I can set my expectations more in line with what PF2's trying to do here. Is it because Sneak Attack happens to be good even at level 20 and the reason it's so frontloaded is because to get it that early requires major sacrifices? Are martials classing into other martials too strong otherwise? Is there some sort of math that makes the dual stat requirements prevent a particular kind of cheese?
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still a bit confused to the logic behind Sneak Attack. Like, let's assume that +d4 is good at level 4 and +d6 is good at level 6 (and it needed the boost to a d6 at level six to keep being good).
Why does this not scale at all past level 6?
Nearly everything else involving damage scales in the game, especially since you don't really attack more times as you level and HP is quite a bit higher. Even if a conditional +d6 is worth considering as a feat at level 6, how is it going to be relevant at level 14, or 20? If it needed to scale up at level 6, why couldn't it continue to scale up to keep it just as useful once you've got magical weapons involved? If having any +damage passive at all was too much of an issue if it's not built into the class, why those numbers? Would increasing it to 2d6 at 12th and 3d6 at 18th really have been too much given the inflation in damage and health by that point? 2d4 and 3d4?
I can see a couple things. You're getting a +damage passive not built into the class as a feat. Feats don't normally hand out +damage. Whatever your class was doing was a reasonably balanced point to start with, and this is adding +1d6 on top of that.
Consider what damage actually scales. You might be thinking of Power Attack. Well, Power Attack scales because it doesn't just cost a feat, it costs a feat and an extra action. Its scaling is because of the increasing value of that extra action, not because of the feat. Or, you might be thinking about Sneak Attack on Rogue. That's scaling to provide additional features and give Rogue its baseline power. Your sixth level feat provides a sixth level benefit- +1d6 damage on any attacks you make that qualify, and +2d6 on any qualifying crits.
There's another way to look at it, too. The class that most wants this is Monk, since they make the most agile/finesse attacks with the best agile/finesse weapons. If you scaled the sneak damage to Rogue's +3d6, they would be better than a Rogue at the Rogue's job. But what about Rogue being able to take Flurry of Blows for themselves? They can, but they don't get Monk's legendary unarmed proficiency, nor do they get the high-level improvements to unarmed strikes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Good commentary)
Those are some good points I actually hadn't thought about when I first complained about the weak multiclass sneak attack damage waaaay back.
Another reason non-scaling sneak attack is okay is that it acts as a delivery vehicle for certain debuffs. For example, Twist the Knife. I imagine there will be more things like that that you suddenly have access to when you acquire even baby sneak attack damage. Heck, there could be feats that let you drop the damage and do something amazing, in which case the damage is irrelevant.
There are also potentially magic items that could boost sneak attack damage. I could easily see a weapon enchantment that grants extra sneak attack dice, or even a legendary weapon specifically for the one-hit-one-kill assassin playstyle.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still a bit confused to the logic behind Sneak Attack. Like, let's assume that +d4 is good at level 4 and +d6 is good at level 6 (and it needed the boost to a d6 at level six to keep being good).
Why does this not scale at all past level 6?
Nearly everything else involving damage scales in the game, especially since you don't really attack more times as you level and HP is quite a bit higher. Even if a conditional +d6 is worth considering as a feat at level 6, how is it going to be relevant at level 14, or 20? If it needed to scale up at level 6, why couldn't it continue to scale up to keep it just as useful once you've got magical weapons involved? If having any +damage passive at all was too much of an issue if it's not built into the class, why those numbers? Would increasing it to 2d6 at 12th and 3d6 at 18th really have been too much given the inflation in damage and health by that point? 2d4 and 3d4?
I can see a couple things. You're getting a +damage passive not built into the class as a feat. Feats don't normally hand out +damage. Whatever your class was doing was a reasonably balanced point to start with, and this is adding +1d6 on top of that.
Consider what damage actually scales. You might be thinking of Power Attack. Well, Power Attack scales because it doesn't just cost a feat, it costs a feat and an extra action. Its scaling is because of the increasing value of that extra action, not because of the feat. Or, you might be thinking about Sneak Attack on Rogue. That's scaling to provide additional features and give Rogue its baseline power. Your sixth level feat provides a sixth level benefit- +1d6 damage on any attacks you make that qualify, and +2d6 on any qualifying crits.
There's another way to look at it, too. The class that most wants this is Monk, since they make the most agile/finesse attacks with the best agile/finesse weapons. If you scaled the sneak damage to Rogue's +3d6, they would be better than a Rogue at the Rogue's job. But what about...
QuidEst nailed it in one!
Part of the reason that you're going to be able to customize your own feat progressions for your group pretty fluidly in PF2, increasing or decreasing to suit, is that feats (usually) give you something cool and different and do not just stack up various bonuses. But multiclassing barbarian wouldn't feel right without Rage, so it does give it (none of the increases though, so it's a smaller damage boost) and multiclassing rogue wouldn't feel right without sneak attack, so it does give it (just like rage, it has none of the increases, and I would have preferred avoiding having it change at all to acknowledge that fact, but waiting until 6th and just being 1d6 all the time wasn't an option, and at 4th it would be the same sneak attack as a rogue, so it starts lower).
Or to think of it as a progression from PF1: PF1 sneak attack progression was an attempt to help deal with the rogue being untenably behind other martial style characters (9 behind fighters in the core alone) but it wasn't enough. PF2 sneak attack progression is a bonus making the rogue powerful and accounting for its much lower (to most martials, basically nonexistent) accuracy gap. PF2 multiclass rogue sneak attack is sort of just there because it wouldn't make sense for that character not to have that option, and whatever its size might be, it's completely on top of your class's accuracy, damage, and other benefits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like Occult Breadth (Bard MC) only gives extra spell slots now and not spells known (as it did in the Playtest update). If that's actually the case, it's something of a let down. It seems like Multiclass Bards have a very limited repetoire for their spell slots, and lose out massively to MC prepared casters. Hopefully they get access to spontaneous heightening of some sort to even things out a bit...That's an error on my part. The repertoire does expand, I promise!
(What happened: I copied the Bard entry from my earlier, hastily done transcription based on the PaizoCon Banquet images. For that post, I tried to just pull out the rules elements rather than copy every word. But I see now that in my haste, I left out the repertoire bit—and, unfortunately, I failed to catch the error when I copied that work over for this comprehensive thread based on the UK Games images. Oops!)
I never spotted the text explaining "basic" spellcasting. What did it say exactly? I'm curious how the wording affects spell completion items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never spotted the text explaining "basic" spellcasting. What did it say exactly? I'm curious how the wording affects spell completion items.
First post of the tread. And they did take out the text regarding spell completion items; presumably it's a general rule now and didn't need to be a part of the multiclass rules, let alone every single caster dedication feat.
I never spotted the text explaining "basic" spellcasting. What did it say exactly? I'm curious how the wording affects spell completion items.First post of the tread. And they did take out the text regarding spell completion items; presumably it's a general rule now and didn't need to be a part of the multiclass rules, let alone every single caster dedication feat.
I had to piece those together from video & could barely make out the specific benefits listed for basic/expert/master, thanks to significant glare. I couldn't really read the long block of text that preceded that breakdown. So I'm guessing any discussion of spell items is in that text I couldn't see. I'll double check later in case I can spot anything.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had to piece those together from video & could barely make out the specific benefits listed for basic/expert/master, thanks to significant glare. I couldn't really read the long block of text that preceded that breakdown. So I'm guessing any discussion of spell items is in that text I couldn't see. I'll double check later in case I can spot anything.I never spotted the text explaining "basic" spellcasting. What did it say exactly? I'm curious how the wording affects spell completion items.First post of the tread. And they did take out the text regarding spell completion items; presumably it's a general rule now and didn't need to be a part of the multiclass rules, let alone every single caster dedication feat.
Oh, never mind. That paragraph is actually pretty clear. I must have been overly focused on deciphering the basic/expert/master. Here you go:
Some archetypes grant you a substantial degree of spellcasting, albeit delayed compared to a character from a spellcasting class. In this book, the spellcasting archetypes are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard, the multiclass archetypes for the five main spellcasting classes, but future books might include spellcasting archetypes that aren't multiclass archetypes. A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can.
Spellcasting archetypes always grant the ability to cast cantrips in their dedication, and they have a basic spellcasting feat, an expert spellcasting feat, and a master spellcasting feat ...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hol' up a minute.
Some archetypes grant you a substantial degree of spellcasting, albeit delayed compared to a character from a spellcasting class. In this book, the spellcasting archetypes are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard, the multiclass archetypes for the five main spellcasting classes, but future books might include spellcasting archetypes that aren't multiclass archetypes. A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can.
Just noticed this, and oh boy is THAT interesting. Now I'm wondering what kind of non-multiclass archetype might grant spellcasting. Prestige archetypes, maybe? Like Blackfire Adept might grant Wizard spellcasting access... That's really interesting.
In any case, it makes it highly likely there will eventually be ways for martial characters to get spellcasting without multiclassing, which is pretty neat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see some nicely packaged 4th or 6th level casting conversions for PF2 using that paradigm. Could even be a way to create custom, short, spell lists for really specific purposes.
Awesome, thanks folks. There was some ambiguity in the playtest language on how casting spells from staffs interacted with using multiclassing spell slots. For example, if I have a cleric who multiclassed druid and has a staff of fire, can he use his staff to convert cleric spell slots to fireball? Stuff like that. I'm hoping it is a little clearer, but that's probably going to require seeing the staff description.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, it makes it highly likely there will eventually be ways for martial characters to get spellcasting without multiclassing, which is pretty neat.
That seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Either way, you are taking an archetype (just not necessarily a "multiclass" archetype) and paying class feats for spellcasting. I guess for story reasons you could feel like it's more of a "prestige" opportunity, even though they've gone away from that specific terminology. Presumably it will still be a dedication, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hol' up a minute.
Some archetypes grant you a substantial degree of spellcasting, albeit delayed compared to a character from a spellcasting class. In this book, the spellcasting archetypes are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard, the multiclass archetypes for the five main spellcasting classes, but future books might include spellcasting archetypes that aren't multiclass archetypes. A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can.Just noticed this, and oh boy is THAT interesting. Now I'm wondering what kind of non-multiclass archetype might grant spellcasting. Prestige archetypes, maybe? Like Blackfire Adept might grant Wizard spellcasting access... That's really interesting.
In any case, it makes it highly likely there will eventually be ways for martial characters to get spellcasting without multiclassing, which is pretty neat.
Eldritch Scoundrel confirmed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eldritch Scoundrel confirmed?Hol' up a minute.
Some archetypes grant you a substantial degree of spellcasting, albeit delayed compared to a character from a spellcasting class. In this book, the spellcasting archetypes are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard, the multiclass archetypes for the five main spellcasting classes, but future books might include spellcasting archetypes that aren't multiclass archetypes. A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can.Just noticed this, and oh boy is THAT interesting. Now I'm wondering what kind of non-multiclass archetype might grant spellcasting. Prestige archetypes, maybe? Like Blackfire Adept might grant Wizard spellcasting access... That's really interesting.
In any case, it makes it highly likely there will eventually be ways for martial characters to get spellcasting without multiclassing, which is pretty neat.
Spells for a ranger?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, it makes it highly likely there will eventually be ways for martial characters to get spellcasting without multiclassing, which is pretty neat.That seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Either way, you are taking an archetype (just not necessarily a "multiclass" archetype) and paying class feats for spellcasting. I guess for story reasons you could feel like it's more of a "prestige" opportunity, even though they've gone away from that specific terminology. Presumably it will still be a dedication, though.
Right, this just means you'll get access to a spell list without getting access to a spellcasting class's abilities or feats; you'll instead get access to some other feats. Yay?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that it just means that instead of getting spellcasting with an Wizard multiclass archetype you just get it from an archetype like "Archmage of x place" that will have Basic "Archmage of x place" spellcasting feat.
Depending of the spell I can see casters that get an archetype like that avoiding the Basic/Expert/Master spellcasting and just getting the other archetype feats that affect magic in general.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's definitely very similar to multiclassing, but the design space allowing for archetypes that grant spellcasting without having to be based on base classes is cool.
Or like WatersLethe suggests, it could allow for archetypes that have something like "you gain basic spellcasting chosen from the following list of spells: [spells thematic to the archetype]"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the real reason to do "mystic theurge" as an archetype rather than a bespoke thing you do by multiclassing is that it allows you to print mystic theurge feats which are not wizard feats or cleric feats, which has a lot of potential.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's definitely very similar to multiclassing, but the design space allowing for archetypes that grant spellcasting without having to be based on base classes is cool.
Or like WatersLethe suggests, it could allow for archetypes that have something like "you gain basic spellcasting chosen from the following list of spells: [spells thematic to the archetype]"
Now I can make a Hex-blade anything? Dope.
This, and I hate to beat the dead horse, mean we don’t need a bunch of different champion paths if non alignment center classes can grab the flavor.
Magus becomes very unnecessary if the above is done well.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, welcome the change in PF2 in how archetypes work and incorporate the additional class features. It's a refreshing difference from PF1.
I'm a bit confused about the ranger MC...
...
BASIC HUNTER'S TRICK (Feat 4)
[Archetype]
Prerequisites Ranger Dedication
Ranger Dedication, class granting no more Hit Points per level than 8 + your Constitution modifier
¶ You gain 3 additional Hit Points for each ranger archetype class feat you have. As you continue selecting ranger archetype class feats, you continue to gain additional Hit Points in this way.ADVANCED HUNTER'S TRICK (Feat 6)
[Archetype]
Prerequisites Basic Hunter's Trick
¶ You gain one ranger feat. For the purpose of meeting its prerequisites, your ranger level is equal to half your character level.
¶ Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time you select it, you gain another ranger feat.
So... you need Basic Hunter's Trick to take Advanced Hunter's Trick, and you need your original class to grant no more than 8+CON HP/level to get Basic Hunter's Trick... So you're just locked out of ranger feats forever if you multiclass barbarian with ranger? That doesn't seem right...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit confused about the ranger MC...
Yeah, that's got to be a typo. Basic Hunter's trick will give a 1st or 2nd level Ranger class feat, just like all the other Basic X feats. Presumably there is a different feat that gives extra HP to low hit point classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit confused about the ranger MC...
So... you need Basic Hunter's Trick to take Advanced Hunter's Trick, and you need your original class to grant no more than 8+CON HP/level to get Basic Hunter's Trick... So you're just locked out of ranger feats forever if you multiclass barbarian with ranger? That doesn't seem right...
Yes, that's a mistake, as rooneg pointed out right after I posted.
I combined the text for Ranger Resiliency (the hp feat) with the header for Basic Hunter's Trick (which is the standard "take a level 1 or level 2 feat"). So the correct version would be:
BASIC HUNTER'S TRICK (Feat 4)
[Archetype]
Prerequisites Ranger Dedication
¶ You gain a 1st- or 2nd-level Ranger feat.
Ranger Resiliency (Feat 4)
[Archetype]
Prerequisites Ranger Dedication, class granting no more Hit Points per level than 8 + your Constitution modifier
¶ You gain 3 additional Hit Points for each ranger archetype class feat you have. As you continue selecting ranger archetype class feats, you continue to gain additional Hit Points in this way.
ADVANCED HUNTER'S TRICK (Feat 6)
[Archetype]
Prerequisites Basic Hunter's Trick
¶ You gain one ranger feat. For the purpose of meeting its prerequisites, your ranger level is equal to half your character level.
¶ Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time you select it, you gain another ranger feat.
In any case, it makes it highly likely there will eventually be ways for martial characters to get spellcasting without multiclassing, which is pretty neat.That seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Either way, you are taking an archetype (just not necessarily a "multiclass" archetype) and paying class feats for spellcasting. I guess for story reasons you could feel like it's more of a "prestige" opportunity, even though they've gone away from that specific terminology. Presumably it will still be a dedication, though.
Doesn't necessarily have to be a dedication archetype. What if there was a cleric "Mystic Theurge" class archetype that did away with your domain and diety and gave you basic-expert-master spellcasting appropriate levels?