I really love the concept but I will not play before next week. I was considering a Multiclass Character for my first campaign, but I am afraid that they don't scale well with the proficiency. The maths are so tight that I wonder what a multiclassed wizard for example could do while being only trained in his arcane spells at high level.
What do you think people? Some of you might have the chance to play a few games already?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They felt a lot better in the Playtest. Now it feels like you have to invest 3 feats (6 levels) before you get anything.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the initial feats for the martial archetypes are pretty weak, since they generally offer little more than a skill training or two since the proficiencies are often redundant on other martials. Like if I want to take the rogue dedication on a monk or fighter all I'm getting is "training in 2 skills" since you either have or don't want light armor training.
Ranger and Barbarian are more appealing since hunt target and rage are attractive but some of the martial ones seem like bad feats on other martials. It's kind of surprising there's something for redundant skill training but not something or redundant proficiency training. Like fighter could stand to give another skill if you're already trained with martial weapons.
Thanks for the inisght guys. I will have to be cautious with multiclassing. Probably jusy going for a few buff/support spells will be enough for my concept.
Right now I don't think multiclassing is that bad, as for a lot of classes (for me anyway) the feat choices for some levels are things I have no interest in. So why not get some spells or the like.
That being said as more content comes out and we get more feat choices, that might change or might not. Might make other classes even more attractive, might make it so every level of every class has something too cool to pass up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are a pretty good base class to start with. They’re great with weapons and good with armor even without their class feats, AND they basically get “extra” feats with their flexibility class feature. So you get back a little bit of what you give up for multiclassing. I had fun making a human fighter who multiclassed sorcerer in levels 2, 4, 6, 8, then took the human ancestry feat to start a second multi class in cleric. By level 20, he was almost as good as a pure fighter with weapons AND had access to level 1-8 arcane and divine spells.
|
While I don’t think multi-class options were purposely hamstrung, I can agree that the process makes it look far less appealing than playing a straight class. I will more interested in this balance when they produce a Advanced Class Guide further down the line. The “Gish” classes like Magus, Warpriest and Hunter will still have to stay balanced against Fighter/Wizard, Cleric/Fighter, or Ranger/Druid to make game play fair... unless they find all NEW roles for those classes to play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I expect multiclassing and archetypes are intended to replace the various classes that mixed competencies. Fighter with wizard dedication and wizard with fighter dedication in place of magus, maybe prestige and archetype support down the line.
I haven't dug into all the class feats, but I recall thinking in the playtest that grabbing a few spells seemed a lot better than most of what martial characters could get otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the comments above outline why multiclassing is so restricted. They are trying to get out ahead of shenanigans before all that extra content drops and to allow multiclassing to be an option for diversity but not THE option someone chooses.
It does mean it isn't always going to work out how you would like it to be, and I hate the 1/2 level element too. But there are always compromises to be made.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the archetype that is multiclass is an awesome new feature of the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For people recommending Ranger, please note you only only get Hunt Prey, which only gives perception, tracking, and the range increment bonus. You don't get Hunter's Edge with the good combat stuff.
I also think Barbarian is overrated. The temp HP are nice, but that's offset by the -1 to AC and you only ever get +2 to damage unless you invest another feat in appropriate instinct ability. You never get the specialization ability damage boost.
I was considering a Multiclass Character for my first campaign, but I am afraid that they don't scale well with the proficiency.
Spellcasting class multiclass options are pretty good: plenty of spells don't care about your proficiency bonus and even a low stat isn't an impediment. Now if you multiclass from a casting class to another casting class and take the same type of spell type, you can use your main classes proficiencies [bard to sorcerer [occult] for instance].
IMO you get usefulness right off the bat with the cantrips.
Martials aren't too exciting to start but feats are fairly universal. So 4th level+ they are workable but depending on the specific feat you're looking for it might be a while.
Alchemist... just, no. Who can afford to carry 3 extra bulk to use your 2nd level feat? Maybe once you have a bag of holding?
For people recommending Ranger, please note you only only get Hunt Prey, which only gives perception, tracking, and the range increment bonus. You don't get Hunter's Edge with the good combat stuff.
Getting that extra range increment is pretty good if you're using a thrown weapon: Bombs [alchemists] and Shuriken [monks] are good examples. Also not bad for snipping long distance with a crossbow: 240' and take the crossbow ace for 1d10+2 damage.
So it IS important to know you aren't getting Hunter's Edge, I'll disagree that Hunt Prey isn't good.
I also think Barbarian is overrated. The temp HP are nice, but that's offset by the -1 to AC and you only ever get +2 to damage unless you invest another feat in appropriate instinct ability. You never get the specialization ability damage boost.
*shrug* seems like a solid combat buff. Barbarian Resiliency isn't a bad followup for every current class.
Range increment penalty ignoring can be pretty great depending on what youre building.
** spoiler omitted **
I think Ranger's one of the better designed dedications. Its very open ended useful .Its great for anyone using ranged--weapon or caster.
How does it help a caster? Is there some weird spell with range increments rather than a flat range I missed?
My biggest issue with multiclassing is the resiliency feats. It's worse than toughness unless you take a grand total of 7+ multiclass feats over the course of 20 levels.
Personally I'd probably change them to be 5hp per multiclass feat taken (maximum 20hp). At 20hp, you're effectively at the next level of hp progression, so that's probably a decent cutoff point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest issue with multiclassing is the resiliency feats. It's worse than toughness unless you take a grand total of 7+ multiclass feats over the course of 20 levels.
Personally I'd probably change them to be 5hp per multiclass feat taken (maximum 20hp). At 20hp, you're effectively at the next level of hp progression, so that's probably a decent cutoff point.
Nothing stops you from taking both toughness AND resiliency so it really doesn't have to be better/worse.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of multiclassing, but feats are such a bottleneck they're a little frustrating.
My main gripe is that they're very slow. If I want to do some sort of fighter/wizard thing I'm not getting my first spell slot until level 4, which can be a really long wait depending on the campaign. If you want to multiclass more than once it's even more of a headache.
The half level rule on feats also slows things way down too.
Less major, but another gripe for me is that the way dedication feats stack.
Caster dedications are always going to give you their full benefit, even if two cantrips are going to be a little sketchy. On the other hand, for a martial character fighter dedication is literally a class feat for one skill, which hurts.
Nothing stops you from taking both toughness AND resiliency so it really doesn't have to be better/worse.My biggest issue with multiclassing is the resiliency feats. It's worse than toughness unless you take a grand total of 7+ multiclass feats over the course of 20 levels.
Personally I'd probably change them to be 5hp per multiclass feat taken (maximum 20hp). At 20hp, you're effectively at the next level of hp progression, so that's probably a decent cutoff point.
Even disregarding toughness, I'd say the hp provided by resiliency is pretty bad.
Even disregarding toughness, I'd say the hp provided by resiliency is pretty bad.Nothing stops you from taking both toughness AND resiliency so it really doesn't have to be better/worse.My biggest issue with multiclassing is the resiliency feats. It's worse than toughness unless you take a grand total of 7+ multiclass feats over the course of 20 levels.
Personally I'd probably change them to be 5hp per multiclass feat taken (maximum 20hp). At 20hp, you're effectively at the next level of hp progression, so that's probably a decent cutoff point.
How? you can take a multiclass feat every even level: that's 3 hp every 2 levels and that's more that toughness. You take Resiliency at 4th and it gives you 6 hp [Resiliency + Dedication]. Toughness gives you 4 at 4th. That means at 6th, toughness and Dedication give the same benefit if you didn't take a 3rd feat. The ONLY time it gets worse is if you stop taking multiclass feats AND you wait several levels...
It's passable if you're taking a multiclass feat every single possible level, but that's the best case scenario. At that point I'd wonder why you wouldn't just make that your main class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For perspective on proficiencies, check out my proficiency comparison chart
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind: if you’re complaining about multiclass dedications being weaker than the class they’re from, well, that’s sort of the point. A fighter who dips into wizard dedication should not be doing the same stuff the actual wizard just got access to, that’s stealing the wizard’s toys. Dipping into another class should get you some of the stuff the real person who took that class was doing a few levels ago, not the stuff they’re doing now and not their class’s core cool thing they can do. That’s why you don’t get expert weapon prof when you take fighter dedication or why you don’t get the awesome combat stuff for hunt target when you take ranger dedication or why you don’t get DEX to damage when you take rogue dedication. This is all by design.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't really like MC archetypes, but I think that's because they have built-in obsolescence.
They say "yeah, it's cool for class X to have some of the toys than class Y, but never be better than class Y at it's main thing."
But that misses the point of archetyping.
People archetype to enable character concepts. This can be mechanical like "I want to do A, B and C at efficiency Z" (e.g., the classical gish who looks for casting + martial prowess in a way that is a harmonious and synergistic). It can be flavor-related reasons too, "I want to be class X to have this baseline, but I'd rather grow towards direction Y" (e.g. a tavern-brawling bard.)
The failure of multiclass archetypes, then, is their versatility. Because they allow to delve into the feat pool of other classes, they lose the focus of why players choose them. Players don't come in looking for archetypes to access a breadth of options, they come in looking for a specific set.
As more focused archetypes appear ("Swordmage", "Pugilist", "Sniper", etc.), MC archetypes will fall on the wayside.
But that's a task for future bloat.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big problem is how the Wizard gets much more from the Fighter or Rogue dedications (simple and martial weapons plus one skill, light armor plus two skills) than a Barbarian, Champion, or Ranger gets (one skill, or two skills.)
However, a caster multiclassing as a different caster still get the full benefit of 2 cantrips and 1 or 2 skills. Even if you pick the same list, you still get 2 extra cantrips equivalent to the "cantrip expansion" level 2 feat.
I am troubled by this asymmetry.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the fighter dedication topic.
It feels a tad odd all you get (off hand remember) is the martial weapon profiency. When that is just 1 general feat for a lot of characters. Most? (Idk about sorc/wiz/cleric off hand) have simple weapons.
I'm pretty sure the weapon profiency feat grants you all of martial if you know simple weapons.I was debating whether to take Fighter + general feat. or just two general feats in order to get an advance weapon on an Alch. two general feats just feel a bit easier and less opprotunity cost.
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally agree with Secret Wizard. MC Archetypes are kind of too generalized in a lot of ways. People look at other class options for specific things they want to do and the rest of the archetype just ends up being baggage.
As more focused archetypes appear ("Swordmage", "Pugilist", "Sniper", etc.), MC archetypes will fall on the wayside.
I'm not entirely sure about this though. PF2 core has a lot of walled gardens in its design philosophy and I'm not sure how willing Paizo is going to be to pivot away from that in the future.
Maybe they will, but a lot of it feels very deliberate too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally agree with Secret Wizard. MC Archetypes are kind of too generalized in a lot of ways. People look at other class options for specific things they want to do and the rest of the archetype just ends up being baggage.
As more focused archetypes appear ("Swordmage", "Pugilist", "Sniper", etc.), MC archetypes will fall on the wayside.I'm not entirely sure about this though. PF2 core has a lot of walled gardens in its design philosophy and I'm not sure how willing Paizo is going to be to pivot away from that in the future.
Maybe they will, but a lot of it feels very deliberate too.
As Leotamer said, I am basing this assertion on the APG archetypes. They seem awfully specialized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm finding them pretty lack luster, with a very high opportunity cost (except for very few classes whose own feat list is somewhat bland).
Caster multi-classing really wants 5+ feats invested- that's a high price, and its just a handful of 1/day abilities for the majority of the leveling process. That's...fine but not exciting.
The martial classes don't give much, beyond cherry-picking better feats for a concept. That might be sometimes useful, but it has a feat tax or two (dedication and maybe basic feat before advanced feat). The bonus HP can be useful for the classes that desperately need it (Wiz/Sor), but require a lot of commitment.
The big problem is you can't really get anything that isn't an expansion of your own base abilities. Even expert in weapons just gives you martial after you get expert in simple, and unarmed expertise just isn't available for whatever reason. You're basically multi-classing into martials knowing that you don't even get slow, delayed or limited growth into their signature abilities, except rage.
We'll see if the concept archetypes are any better.
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...
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to recall seeing somewhere one of the devs explaining why MC archetypes seem lackluster at first glance.
I don't have the exact quote, but the gist was that broadly speaking, class features give additional power and feats give additional options. Since an MC archetype is trading feats and not features, they are designed to give additional options but NOT additional power--since you still have full progression in your base class, you should always be on-curve in terms of raw DPR just from that.
This is why, for example, rogue MC sneak attack only goes up to a d6, Barb MC rage damage doesn't scale, etc.--its EXTRA damage on top of what your class already gives, not trading damage (or healing or whatever) from your class for damage from a different class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is that the initial dedication feat doesn't really give additional options other than "now you can spend your later feats on something different."
I'm okay with MCing Rogue giving a weak sneak attack progression. I'm less okay with the rogue dedication giving only "training in 2 skills" if you happen to have one of the eight other classes with light weapon proficiency. I'm thinking about rolling "gain a level 1 feat from new class" into the dedication.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The balancing of Rogue Multiclass is tricky.
Sneak Attack is designed specifically around the limitations of Rogue, giving it as a 2nd level Feat is unbalancing, so they went with Skills.
In the playtest, they had the multiclass Feat give three skills. This was too good. It led to almost literally everyone taking it in my experience, in particular I literally never saw a non-Rogue human character past 9th level who didn't have it (since they can get one Dedication as an Ancestry Feat). And that was before they made Trained skills more valuable by removing level from Untrained ones. So they scaled it back a tad, having it give two, but threw in Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus.
Whether they hit quite the right balance point is debatable, but it was a tricky point to achieve.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just feels like "gain training in a skill or two" is something that is more appropriate for a general or ancestry feat than a class feat.
Like I can see "adopted ancestry" plus "multitalented" as being a less painful way for classes to MC than "spend a single class feat on it."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just got done converting a PF1 sword and board slayer to PF2 as a Fighter/Rogue.
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that without my several house rules, this concept would be a snooze fest and I would be sorely disappointed.
My relevant house rules so far:
1. All characters get an additional class feat at every odd level including level 1.
2. Multiclass dedications can be taken at level 1.
3. All multiclass feats can be taken one level earlier than their listed level, pending GM approval.
4. Can sneak attack with non-finesse, non-agile weapons at d4 sneak attack dice.
I've got enough class feats that I can grab the fun fighter feats and not worry about the "minor trickery" feat tax. I'm hitting multiclass capabilties a bit earlier. I'm getting the important shield bashing stuff the concept had in PF1 without waiting til past level 10. The rogue dedication skills really help with reaching the feel of the slayer's better skill selection.
If I had the normal amount of feats I would need to be something like level 14 to feel like I've successfully copied the character.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the Champion, Fighter, and Rogue ones that are the problem since they can potentially give you nothing but skills. Monk is iffy because everyone is trained in unarmed attacks, but powerful fists is a thing you would want if "punching people" is in your job description.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.