What do you tthink about the Multiclass Archetypes?


Advice

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Champion, Barbarian or Ranger MCing into the fighter gets... one skill. For a level 2 class feat that requires 14 strength and 14 dex. That is really rough.

Yeah, the 2 stat requirement for fighter/monk is a real sticking point for me: What reason do they have for twice the required stats when casting multiclasses more often actually grant you a benefit you can use?


I really liked them in the Playtest. They were incredibly good and people used them to make all sorts of amazing builds. Had functional gishes and crazy Fighter/Rogue slayers.

Some may say they were OP and that they had dumb stat requirements... But they were a real option and it really sparked creativity back then.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if we couldn't have multiple points of entry for the multiclass dedication.

Like for example an advanced fighter dedication could require: "Str or Dex 16, trained proficiency in Martial Weapons" and offer a benefit that is more useful than "training in one skill".


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder if we couldn't have multiple points of entry for the multiclass dedication.

Like for example an advanced fighter dedication could require: "Str or Dex 16, trained proficiency in Martial Weapons" and offer a benefit that is more useful than "training in one skill".

For me at least, I'd love to see those 2 stat feats go to 'or' instead of 'and' even if that meant the bump to a 16 needed.

As for as "trained proficiency in Martial Weapons", I'd rather see an added benefit if you have that: so more like 'You become trained in simple weapons and martial weapons. If you already are trained in all martial weapons instead gain [insert ability here].


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The main problem with dedication, for what I see, is that whatever armor or weapon proficiency they give you doesn't scale with your own proficiency.
In first edition, if you take a proficiency with a weapon, it automatically scales according to your bab. I don't ger why they wouldn't in this edition.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:

I agree with some other posters that the main issue with them is that their benefits are broad and weak. It will often times feel like you get nothing at level 2 if you pick a dedication.

One that annoys me in particular is the Bard dedication; I feel it being standardized with the other spellcasting archetypes means that it's completely unattractive to anyone who'd want to multiclass with Bard. I'd be far more interested in it if the initial feat gave Inspire Courage and nothing else, as it stands you have to wait until level eight to get the one ability you care about.

Yes. The gap between its availability to Bard (level 1) and MC (level 8) is jarring.

It greatly reduces the diversity of builds because if you want to Inspire Courage before level 8, surely you have to be a master of Occult casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dracala wrote:
rooneg wrote:
Note that the weapon proficiency feat currently gives you no way the bump that martial prof up to expert. The ability to do that is part of what fighter dedication gives you.
Actually, that's a Completely different Fighter Archetype Feat you need to take at lvl 12 at the earliest... SOOO... No, the Fighter Dedication Feat itself is Still lackluster...

Yes, but fighter dedication unlocks the option to take that later feat, and there is no similar option for the weapon proficiency general feat. You may not think that benefit is significant, but it is a benefit.

Liberty's Edge

Everyone can get wildshape with two feats, so that is interesting. Not for everyone, obviously.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some fixes that should make a little better and will apply in my homegame

---> Martial Archetypes (those that don't give spellcasting)

- In addition to it's benefits, you automatically gain a lvl 1 or 2 feat from that class.

- Basic X do not exist

- Advanced X: Don't have a Prerequisite

---> Dedications

- If the dedication have 2 Abilities requiriment (Ex. Fighter Str 14, Dex 14), change the following:

- Put "or" between the abilities

- Increase the requirements in +2

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Stack wrote:
Everyone can get wildshape with two feats, so that is interesting. Not for everyone, obviously.

Also a Leshy!


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The design purpose of the multiclass archetypes is clear:

1. Don't encourage dipping. The first feat is pretty underwhelming for all of them, and you can't move on to the next one after your second feat.

Generally plan to do two feats if you want it to be worth it, and do three if you plan to mix in another MC. Barbarian: tiny damage boost without further investment, the temp HP is a wash with the extra damage you'll take from the AC and reflex hit. Ranger: the first feat is pretty useless unless you like trading an action for that second ranged increment, you need a second feat for action economy benefits to make it worth it. Fighter: useless to martials, not much good to others after 11 unless you invest a second feat. Spellcasters: existing casters just get +1 skill over their own cantrip feat, martials get some minor utility or a bad backup weapon.

2. Don't let a MC threaten the core class. Fighter gives nothing to martials because its hard to imagine what it could give them that wouldn't seriously erode the Fighter's whole distinction from those classes. Spellcaster MCs have slow spell progression that requires a decent investment. Inspire Competence (which is a spell, not an inspirational technique, thank you) comes online for MC at the same level Bards can get Inspire Heroics and still be better at buffing. Everyone can only take half level feats so that the best class options will never be available via MC.

You may disagree with these design goals, but that's what they are. Most of the solutions suggested in this thread seem to undermine them, which is why they weren't chosen by Paizo.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

The design purpose of the multiclass archetypes is clear:

1. Don't encourage dipping. The first feat is pretty underwhelming for all of them, and you can't move on to the next one after your second feat.

Generally plan to do two feats if you want it to be worth it, and do three if you plan to mix in another MC. Barbarian: tiny damage boost without further investment, the temp HP is a wash with the extra damage you'll take from the AC and reflex hit. Ranger: the first feat is pretty useless unless you like trading an action for that second ranged increment, you need a second feat for action economy benefits to make it worth it. Fighter: useless to martials, not much good to others after 11 unless you invest a second feat. Spellcasters: existing casters just get +1 skill over their own cantrip feat, martials get some minor utility or a bad backup weapon.

2. Don't let a MC threaten the core class. Fighter gives nothing to martials because its hard to imagine what it could give them that wouldn't seriously erode the Fighter's whole distinction from those classes. Spellcaster MCs have slow spell progression that requires a decent investment. Inspire Competence (which is a spell, not an inspirational technique, thank you) comes online for MC at the same level Bards can get Inspire Heroics and still be better at buffing.

You may disagree with these design goals, but that's what they are. Most of the solutions suggested in this thread seem to undermine them, which is why they weren't chosen by Paizo.

i think getting a general feat or even an extra trained skill if you already have the proficiencies that the archetype gives does not undermine those goal, nor does it makes them super powerful for dipping and etc.

it just makes you feel much less worse for picking a class feat that ends up doing nothing except allowing you to pick what you actually want in a later level (aka pure feat tax)

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of the MC dedications are just plain useless feat taxes.

For example, Monk dedication gives trained in unarmed (which EVERY other class already has), powerful fist (which is an insignificant boost of +1 dmg over the 2 sp gauntlet), and a trained skill.

Other MC dedications are more useful

For example, Champion dedication gives trained in ALL armors and TWO trained skills. Cleric dedication gives 2 cantrips and TWo trained skills

Even if I am correct in assuming the "or" for acrobatics and athletics in the Monk dedication was a typo and should read "and" this is still underwhelming


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hsui wrote:

Some of the MC dedications are just plain useless feat taxes.

For example, Monk dedication gives trained in unarmed (which EVERY other class already has), powerful fist (which is an insignificant boost of +1 dmg over the 2 sp gauntlet), and a trained skill.

Other MC dedications are more useful

For example, Champion dedication gives trained in ALL armors and TWO trained skills. Cleric dedication gives 2 cantrips and TWo trained skills

Even if I am correct in assuming the "or" for acrobatics and athletics in the Monk dedication was a typo and should read "and" this is still underwhelming

i actually like powerful fist.

for starters it's not "+1 damage" it's +1 damage/weapon die

and secondary, you canj use any part of your body for the hit, meaning that you can use the unarmed attack even when you're holding something in both your hands, wielding another weapon, carrying stuff, etc

gauntlet has the free-hand trait which while it does mean you can use the hand for other things, it also says that you can't use it to attack with it if you're using/wielding other things in the hand with the gauntlet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Leotamer wrote:

Based on the advanced player guide announcement, I think it is safe to assume we are getting very specialized archetypes, considering we are getting 60 of them in one book. (4 will presumably be for multi-classing)

Not super important but they clarified at the "Design Philosophy of 2e Panel" that it was 60 PAGES of archetypes, so close to, but less than, 60 actual archetypes.


Dekalinder wrote:

The main problem with dedication, for what I see, is that whatever armor or weapon proficiency they give you doesn't scale with your own proficiency.

It is a bit odd. I think the only thing I can think of that lets you upgrade proficiency for NotBaseProfiency weapons is with human hertiage. For one specific weapon. In an extremely limited fashion.

Unconventional Experteise (lv 13) "Whenever you gain a class feature that grants you expert or greater proficiency in certain weapons, you also gain that proficiency in the weapon you chose for Unconventional Weaponry. "

(Which I am taking advantage of with my Alchemist to use the Aklys ranged tripping fun.
Human heritage for the general feat to get Weapon Prof for Martial weapons. and then Ancestry feat for unconvential for prof in Aklys)


So if I played a half elf rogue (thief) and maxed out dex and left str at 10, then at level nine took multitalented as a racial feat and got the champion dedication, and then on all subsequent even levels took champion feats and abilities (somewhat weaker than a full champion would have) instead of rogue feats, but did not bother with the versatile armour one since my dex was so high, would the resulting character be crippled and a drag on the party or would it still be as viable as a champion without any multiclass archetype or as a rogue without a multi-class archetype?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another specific gripe I have is that the Sorcerer dedication feels off.

For me one of the main mechanical concepts behind Sorcerer vs Wizard is that the former is more flexible from moment to moment by being able to pick spells on the fly and the latter is more flexible from day to day by having a broader selection of spells to pick from.

Multiclass sorcerers get one spell known and one spell per day and never gain signature spells. So that whole notion of versatility that the sorcerers are supposed to be defined by kind of just goes out the window.

The fact that you can never heighten spells really sucks too.

Obviously there are other reasons to go Sorcerer, like bloodline stuff, but in terms of just plain spells, MC Sorc's casting progression is just purely worse than MC Wizard's.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the Sorcerer is another victim of the spellcaster archetype standardization similar to the Bard; it'd be much more fun and interesting if you could choose not to get vancian spells from it and instead get the initial focus power from your chosen bloodline.

To be honest the only spellcasting classes where I can say with certainty that I'd want their spellcasting in any concept that involves them would be the Wizard and the Cleric.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The weirdest thing to me about multiclassing and the proficiency advances is that multiclassing into a spellcaster lets you get up to master proficiency in that spellcaster; but multiclassing into a martial doesn't give you weapon proficiency - except fighter to expert (with the level 12 feat as all classes get expert proficiency in at least 1 weapon); and monk to trained (for whatever that is worth). This feels like it will be easier to "add casting" to a non-caster class than to "add weapon fighting" to a non-weapon-fighter class.

I assume there is a reason for the asymmetry, but I don't understand it yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
oconnor0 wrote:

The weirdest thing to me about multiclassing and the proficiency advances is that multiclassing into a spellcaster lets you get up to master proficiency in that spellcaster; but multiclassing into a martial doesn't give you weapon proficiency - except fighter to expert (with the level 12 feat as all classes get expert proficiency in at least 1 weapon); and monk to trained (for whatever that is worth). This feels like it will be easier to "add casting" to a non-caster class than to "add weapon fighting" to a non-weapon-fighter class.

I assume there is a reason for the asymmetry, but I don't understand it yet.

Well, the "master spellcasting" feat is an 18th level feat and the fighter dedication doesn't have feats past 12th level. Presumably they are aware that they could add a "master with a weapon" feat at 18th level for the fighter dedication but want to see how things shake out without it.

Like I'm hard preassed to imagine an 18th level class which does not get mastery with a weapon (so wizard, sorcerer, bard, druid, cleric, alchemist) thinking "+2 to hit with a weapon" is worth their level 18 feat compared to other options. Whereas it's less hard to imagine an 18th level barbarian thinking "yeah, 2 7th and 2 8th level spell slots is better than Brutal Critical, Vicious Evisceration, or Perfect Clarity; assuming they had already spent 4 feats getting this far.


There seem to be two general premises Paizo is running on there. First, that characters should never be able to improve their overall weapon proficiency and second that it should be expensive or impossible for characters to use weapons outside their class' default weapons.

General weapon proficiency caps at trained. Fighter multiclass can get you expert in martial and trained in advanced. Unarmed caps at trained.

The one exception to number two is ancestral weapons, which anyone can grab full (as in up to your class' cap) proficiency for 2/3 feats.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
oconnor0 wrote:

The weirdest thing to me about multiclassing and the proficiency advances is that multiclassing into a spellcaster lets you get up to master proficiency in that spellcaster; but multiclassing into a martial doesn't give you weapon proficiency - except fighter to expert (with the level 12 feat as all classes get expert proficiency in at least 1 weapon); and monk to trained (for whatever that is worth). This feels like it will be easier to "add casting" to a non-caster class than to "add weapon fighting" to a non-weapon-fighter class.

I assume there is a reason for the asymmetry, but I don't understand it yet.

Well, the "master spellcasting" feat is an 18th level feat and the fighter dedication doesn't have feats past 12th level. Presumably they are aware that they could add a "master with a weapon" feat at 18th level for the fighter dedication but want to see how things shake out without it.

Like I'm hard preassed to imagine an 18th level class which does not get mastery with a weapon (so wizard, sorcerer, bard, druid, cleric, alchemist) thinking "+2 to hit with a weapon" is worth their level 18 feat compared to other options. Whereas it's less hard to imagine an 18th level barbarian thinking "yeah, 2 7th and 2 8th level spell slots is better than Brutal Critical, Vicious Evisceration, or Perfect Clarity; assuming they had already spent 4 feats getting this far.

Correction, that 18th level MC feat gets you one 7th and master proficiency, plus one 8th level spell at 20th. The breadth feat only gives you extra spells two levels below your max.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That suggests that the Armor Proficiency and Weapon Proficiency feats are trap options in the long run, as there is usually no way to apply your global improvements to your class granted armor and weapon proficiencies to them. Maybe the Advanced Player's Guide will have new feats to rectify that situation?


Xenocrat wrote:
Correction, that 18th level MC feat gets you one 7th and master proficiency, plus one 8th level spell at 20th. The breadth feat only gives you extra spells three levels below your max.

Indeed, that changed from the playtest and I didn't catch it. Nonetheless the 18th level feat gets the aforementioned Barbarian master proficiency, 1 7th level slot, and 1 extra 5th level slot, plus 1 8th level slot plus 1 extra 6th level slot at level 20.

So it's 4 spell slots and +2 to rolls for spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

That suggests that the Armor Proficiency and Weapon Proficiency feats are trap options in the long run, as there is usually no way to apply your global improvements to your class granted armor and weapon proficiencies to them. Maybe the Advanced Player's Guide will have new feats to rectify that situation?

With retraining there are no trap options, just side trails that eventually veer back onto your classes' main path.


+2 on all your attacks is worth a feat slot even at 20th level. Only thing better than a +1 is a blanket +2. Nothing in the game will give you more mileage than a prof. increase in something to you use frequently. It's probably better than 7th level spell slot tbh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

That suggests that the Armor Proficiency and Weapon Proficiency feats are trap options in the long run, as there is usually no way to apply your global improvements to your class granted armor and weapon proficiencies to them. Maybe the Advanced Player's Guide will have new feats to rectify that situation?

With retraining there are no trap options, just side trails that eventually veer back onto your classes' main path.

Sure, you can retrain them -- but then there would be all of that money that you sank into enchanting your unorthodox weapon or armor until it was no longer practical to keep wielding or wearing it.

This is yet another case where knowing what level the game might reach could be important. The first one I came across was ability score improvements -- You don't want to increase an ability score of 18+ if your campaign is within 5 levels of ending.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
+2 on all your attacks is worth a feat slot even at 20th level. Only thing better than a +1 is a blanket +2. Nothing in the game will give you more mileage than a prof. increase in something to you use frequently. It's probably better than 7th level spell slot tbh.

Unless you're a spellcaster who has 9th level spells then, who will presumably use most of their actions in combat casting spells as they have 27-36 spell slots then and 9th level cantrips.

Like an 18th level wizard casting telekinetic projectile rolls +31 to hit for 9d6+5, and you can do it from 30 feet away from a thing trying to hurt you. When is "swinging a weapon" going to be a better choice than that? How much does that weapon cost in gold pieces?

As an 18th level wizard I am choosing "you can use all your spell slots of level 4 or lower twice" over "+2 to hit with a melee weapon" every time. For Bards I'd prefer the 18th level muse feat, and for the rest of the full casters "triple refocus" seems more powerful.


Xenocrat wrote:
The design purpose of the multiclass archetypes is clear:

Agreed, although I think an interesting nuances is that while 1/2 level is used for Pre-Reqs, full level is used for anything you have. Base class Weapon Spec looks like it works directly with MC Feats hinging on Weapon Spec. I don't have to try hard to imagine sounds of grinding teeth from responses here, but I think the system as such works, and when people normalize their expectations around it, will work fine. Of course, it's a brand new system and that won't happen at once, especially when the flavor and even terminology exactly with what they're used to. (same mechanical dynamics applied to distinctly unique genre/flavor probably wouldn't trigger such reactions, people would just approach it as blank slate)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Unless you're a spellcaster who has 9th level spells then, who will presumably use most of their actions in combat casting spells as they have 27-36 spell slots then and 9th level cantrips.

Well yeah, but a wizard who's investing heavily into feats to improve their martial capacity probably wants to be doing more than casting spells.

Beyond that, arguing that it's not a strong option doesn't feel like a very good argument for it to not be possible either.


And the entire action economy seems to promote "doing one thing and some other thing".
There is caster abilities to spend action to boost spell or use focus spell and so on,
but a gish able to weave spells and melee attacks is also reasonable effective use of system.
(2 action spell + 1 weapon attack, or 1 action focus power + 1 or 2 actions for weapon attack or movement etc)
I have been open about my disagreements but in terms of overall system I think it is huge success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

As an 18th level wizard I am choosing "you can use all your spell slots of level 4 or lower twice" over "+2 to hit with a melee weapon" every time.

It's actually infinitely (limited by 10 minute intervals) not twice.

Reprepare Spell wrote:

You’ve discovered how to reuse some of your spell slots over and over. You can spend 10 minutes to prepare a spell that you already cast today, regaining access to that spell slot. The

spell must be of 4th level or lower and one that does not have a duration. You can reprepare a spell in this way even if you’ve already reprepared that spell previously in the same day.

It's a lesser but equally infinite version of the capstone that lets Druids and Sorcerers cast 5th level or below spells every 1 minute without costing a slot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that I've finally read the Alchemist I actually quite like the multiclass. Three feats to have 2xlevel alchemical items per day at character level minus 5 item level is some pretty great party utility, buffing, and healing.


Xenocrat wrote:
Now that I've finally read the Alchemist I actually quite like the multiclass. Three feats to have 2xlevel alchemical items per day at character level minus 5 item level is some pretty great party utility, buffing, and healing.

2slv? Isn't it just LV reagents per day for the multiclas?

(and lv+int for alchemist)


Quandary wrote:

And the entire action economy seems to promote "doing one thing and some other thing".

There is caster abilities to spend action to boost spell or use focus spell and so on,
but a gish able to weave spells and melee attacks is also reasonable effective use of system.
(2 action spell + 1 weapon attack, or 1 action focus power + 1 or 2 actions for weapon attack or movement etc)
I have been open about my disagreements but in terms of overall system I think it is huge success.

Right, casting a spell and making a strike is what I'd hoped to do. But attacking with a trained or an expert weapon at high-level seems much worse than figuring out how to use those other actions to use master or legendary spells. Like enough worse that it makes me not want to try it. Which makes me sad. (Or maybe I just need to try it and see what happens.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Now that I've finally read the Alchemist I actually quite like the multiclass. Three feats to have 2xlevel alchemical items per day at character level minus 5 item level is some pretty great party utility, buffing, and healing.

2slv? Isn't it just LV reagents per day for the multiclas?

(and lv+int for alchemist)

ingredients per level is indeed 2*items /level since each ingredient is 2 items


Squiggit wrote:
Beyond that, arguing that it's not a strong option doesn't feel like a very good argument for it to not be possible either.

I think it's more "if there aren't builds who will actually spend that feat slot on that feat, is it even worth printing?

If there were an 18th level "master at weapons" feat in the fighter dedication, 5 levels after martials get it, on what character would you actually take the feat?


Ah woops I read alchemical items as reagents.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

If there were an 18th level "master at weapons" feat in the fighter dedication, 5 levels after martials get it, on what character would you actually take the feat?

I'm pretty sure Alchemists don't get Master in Alchemist Bombs (which are martial weapons). (or any weapon really). They get Master in the DC but not using.

I'd love Master in Bombs, more reliable hitting for debuff/damage, little bit extra damage for weapon spec (not sure if that applies to splash or not).

Unless I missed something (quite possible.) they're maxed on Expert for simple weapons and bombs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really think Alchemist should get master in what field they choose and monk get legendary in unarmed.


Zwordsman wrote:

Ah woops I read alchemical items as reagents.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

If there were an 18th level "master at weapons" feat in the fighter dedication, 5 levels after martials get it, on what character would you actually take the feat?

I'm pretty sure Alchemists don't get Master in Alchemist Bombs (which are martial weapons). (or any weapon really). They get Master in the DC but not using.

I'd love Master in Bombs, more reliable hitting for debuff/damage, little bit extra damage for weapon spec (not sure if that applies to splash or not).

Unless I missed something (quite possible.) they're maxed on Expert for simple weapons and bombs.

despite how much i would love a mutagenist to get master in unarmed, i don't think i'll ever trade their level 18 feat.

adding actual potions in your list is even better than all of their capstones regardless of your specialisation imo

you can pick up potion of invisibility, fly, haste, resistance 10, etc and even (coupled with their 16 feat) keep one of them permanetly up (permanet fly, permanent haste, etc)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that this method of multiclassing is an effective method of deterring multiclassing.


Squiggit wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
So they scaled it back a tad, having it give two, but threw in Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus.

The problem is there's no redundancy proofing for those types of proficiencies. Caster multiclass always gives you cantrips. Skills from multiclassing gives you other skills if you already take them. Proficiencies? You either get them or you don't.

It makes multiclassing into a class like that from another class with combat features feel really bad.

Champion, Barbarian or Ranger MCing into the fighter gets... one skill. For a level 2 class feat that requires 14 strength and 14 dex. That is really rough.

It's especially painful because one of Paizo's techniques for divesifying martials was walling off combat styles. Want an einhander champion? Enjoy spending a class feat on skill training.

Yeah, the missing redundancy-proofing for proficiencies is something that bugs me too. Especially since skills and cantrips have it.

I would like it if for Champion and Fighter, you could choose either the skill + the proficiencies OR a 1st level class feat. Or even only Shield Block so that other martials MCing into them get at least something.

But 1 Skill for the Fighter dedication for other martials is sad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
I think that this method of multiclassing is an effective method of deterring multiclassing.

I've been trying, but I cannot justify any multiclassing where I'm not specifically looking for the spellcasting class feature. Even my ideas for a wizard or sorcerer who mixes it up in melee are better served getting their proficiencies through ancestry; the dedications are so bad that if there's something you want out of the multiclass archetypes you have to decide if it's as good as having two feats from your base class, and that can be very hard to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a bit sad that some dedication feats don't give you the other classe's weapon/armor proficiencies. As a wizard, if I multiclass in Ranger, I still can't use a bow or a leather armor :(


Almarane wrote:
I'm a bit sad that some dedication feats don't give you the other classe's weapon/armor proficiencies. As a wizard, if I multiclass in Ranger, I still can't use a bow or a leather armor :(

Huh That's weird.

So I would have to take another feat to get bows eh?

The book is so big I haven't had a chance to thoroughly go through it yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Almarane wrote:
I'm a bit sad that some dedication feats don't give you the other classe's weapon/armor proficiencies. As a wizard, if I multiclass in Ranger, I still can't use a bow or a leather armor :(

Huh That's weird.

So I would have to take another feat to get bows eh?

The book is so big I haven't had a chance to thoroughly go through it yet.

If the classes gave their weapon prof then fighter dedication would be truly pointless since basically that's all it do.

I'm more triggered personally that if you want to have a "dual weapon" attack you can get it as early as 4th level via either fighter or ranger (each with it's own bonuses/effects)

But if you want the exact same thing but for unarmed, you need to wait till level 10...

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / What do you tthink about the Multiclass Archetypes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.