What do you tthink about the Multiclass Archetypes?


Advice

101 to 150 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Vidmaster7 wrote:

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.

Even if you take a Weapon profiency feat (or feats, if you're a Wizard), you still wouldn't get past Trained with weapons or armour gained that way. Ever.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Understand I have lots and lots and lots of bias about this. MC'ing was the thing I was waiting to see how it worked in the playtest spoiler announcments. Basically, I think they're pretty bad for the following reasons:
1. You effectively can't do 50/50 class splits, and essentially can *only* dip into other classes. I realize this is what a lot of people did in 1e, but for those who weren't min/maxing and actually want to play a mixed character, that option is no longer available.
2. Access to feats is great, but there's 0 access to class abilities. Given you can only go up to level 10 feats, this means that you have access to around 25% of the things as options from the class you dip into (0% abilities, 50% feats).
3. Many of the *feats* are not accessible because they have prerequisites that involve the class abilities that aren't available (see healing/harming font, no Fighters with Channel Smite).
4. There's no way to halt your progression in a class. Want to be a rogue who halfway through the campaign decides to reform and become a paladin? Too bad, unless your GM is willing to let you entirely rebuild the character.
5. (new) The prerequisites into the multiclassing archetypes are *worse* than the playtest, now requiring 4 ability boosts rather than 3, and oftentimes requiring you to boost into an ability score you weren't planning to (no more Rogue/Fighters, for example).
6. (new) The dedication feats for the multiclasses are essentially feat taxes, as they are significantly weaker than regular class feats, effectively giving you a few trained proficiencies and nothing more. This hurts a bit at low levels, and makes multiclassing significantly worse with your higher level feats.


Calm down guys, you are derailing the conversation x)

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?

Yup. Had to make an elf to make a wizard/ranger with a bow.

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

Well, Fighter could give something else too. For exemple, the fighter is the only one making you more than trained right now. That would be a good enough edge if your aim is to become a master of weapons - what the fighter is.

One could easily argue that Ranger dedication is useless/pretty weak too since it only gives you Hunt Prey, which is useless unless you can wield a ranged weapon (which the dedication feat does not give you) or use some of your feats in Hunt Prey's feat tree.

I agree with tivadar that it seems pretty hard now to make a 50/50 characters... Has someone tried to make a theurge ?

Edit : The one good thing about those new multiclass options is that now you don't fall behind on spellcasting if you start as a spellcaster.

Edit edit : funny how the Ranger multiclass iconic using a bow is an alchemist/ranger, but alchemists don't get bows...

The Exchange

Seems like the entry feats are not equal. A class feat for a skill seems fine to me, as you might not qualify for gaining skills another way. Two skills and cantrips is an amazing feat.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

What's odd to me about most complaints about multiclassing is that they want things they couldn't do (via MC) in PF1, either.

From a pure numbers perspective PF2 MC is much more effective at blending disparate classes - you can have the very best chassis of armor/weapons/damage (martial classes) plus good spell/alchemy utility and support. Or you can have the best offensive casting and give yourself some better weapons (Fighter) or armor (Champion) to improve your melee damage or survivability (Champion expert armor gives you +1 via the best unarmed options, plus unique enchantment options and the option to underinvest in dex, Fighter expert weapons gives you bigger damage die and traits even if your to-hit is the same as your class weapons).

Where PF2 does fail compared to PF1 multiclassing is in dumspter diving a bunch of martial dips together to cherry pick low level/mid level abilities without hurting your BAB. That's gone, and good riddance. MCing won't boost your attack proficiency, and you have to invest a bit to start mixing and matching siloed combat abilities. I'm ok with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

Well, here are a couple thoughts:

Porridge wrote:

--1. Take a Giant Barbarian. Dual-wield. (Because your static boosts to damage are so high, you don't care about the slight loss in damage that comes from having a smaller weapon die.) Fighter multiclass to get Double Slice at lvl 4, and possibly Twin Parry or Quick Reversal later on.

Double Slice is amazing here, giving you two attacks with your enormous damage bonus with virtually no MAP penalty -- a huge boost to your DPR. And if you take Twin Parry you can spend your third action boosting your AC, or you can go the demoralizing route and spend your action on that.

Quick Reversal is likewise amazing. You have to put yourself into flanked positions, but given the Barbarian's mobility that's pretty easy. And it gives you two attacks with no MAP that only counts as one attack for latter attacks, and it only takes one action(!). So if you're between two enemies, you can do a Quick Reversal and a Double Slice and get four attacks at -0/-0/-5/-7 with your enormous damage boost instead of just -0/-5/-10.

--2. Take a Rogue. Snagging Strike gives you a nice way to make your opponent flat-footed until the start of your next turn, working for both your second and third attacks *and* all of your other party members (unlike the Rogue's Twin Feint which only gets you one attack against flat-footed). And Exacting Strike gives you a nice way to make your third attack worthwhile (turning your 0/-4/-8 into a 0/-4/-4).

--3. Take a ranged Rogue or Champion build. Point-Blank Shot and Double Shot are both extremely attractive, and probably well-worth exchanging some feats for.

None of these are mechanically mandatory, and there are lots of attractive feats within your class to take instead. But I think these options are certainly good enough to justify multiclassing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

1. You effectively can't do 50/50 class splits, and essentially can *only* dip into other classes. I realize this is what a lot of people did in 1e, but for those who weren't min/maxing and actually want to play a mixed character, that option is no longer available.

2. Access to feats is great, but there's 0 access to class abilities. Given you can only go up to level 10 feats, this means that you have access to around 25% of the things as options from the class you dip into (0% abilities, 50% feats).

I think you actually CAN do 50/50 class splits, including class abilities, but people are thinking of it the wrong way.

Class abilities (unlocked just by leveling up) determine the baseline power of your class in gameplay. They allow your class to fill its role. For example, Monks get stronger unarmed attacks, higher speed, and better saves just by leveling up.

On the other hand, class feats are just perks that give you more ways to fulfill your class role. I don't NEED more than 2 or 3 class feats as a Monk to be effective in combat.

Instead, I can spend those class feats multiclassing and unlocking the class abilities of another class. I can MC Rogue, get Surprise Attack immediately, and then get Sneak Attack with one more feat.

By level 4, I already have the near-full sets of class abilities from two classes. In exchange, I lost class feats that would have instead allowed me to specialize in my main class.

And, past level 4, I can now spend the rest of my class feats on either class, as I please. I'm as much a Monk-Rogue or Rogue-Monk as I want to be, but I have the main features of both (though the secondary class is watered down, as it should be...otherwise why ever play that class as a primary?).

This seems like a balanced trade-off to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SweetBro wrote:

Looks incredibly disappointing. It seems like only a few are at all practical and require a decent chunk of investment.

Like the only that's worth the single feat is Barb for martials and I guess alchemist. Ranger seems moot since you don't get the Hunter Edge abilities.

You can make an argument for a two feat investment for any class that gives you a focus option. Especially if your base class has a way of increasing your focus pool.

But like for most spellcasting effects progressions, it doesn't seem worth it. Unless I misunderstood the text, you only at most get 1 spell-slot per spell level. There seem to be few spells that beneficial for a non-caster to have, which are all seemingly pretty low level. Like practically speaking what outside of Shield/Rando-damage-cantrip and True Strike would a non-caster pickup? It feels like you would only do this if you really hate your level 2/4 class feat options, which is honestly an entirely different issue, to begin with.

And honestly, I can't really justify going past three feats unless you're picking up an 15th level ability because you for some reason hate all your options from your base class.

Multiclass Archetypes are like the La Croix of multiclassing. At some point, they were in a building where someone on a different floor made a multiclass system.

I was hoping something akin to the Hybrid Class system that was introduced in 4E. For all the issues people had with that game, I still think it was one of the best mechanical implementations of multiclassing, and 2E's featification of everything would have worked wonders under a system like that.

I would argue that the base ranger dedication appears pretty solid one feat investment for anybody who ever uses a ranged weapon that is not already a ranger. For bards/alchemists possibly throwing star monks and even some spell casters if their class concept makes more use out of ranged weapons. One feat that gives you a one action option to basically double the base range at which you have no penalties to hit your target with some added perception benefits on top of it seems useful. After looking at it I think any bomber alchemist probably picks this up at some point in their career. Debuffing people at long range to start a fight is really solid. One action to fire up the ranger buff and a bomb and a move is a pretty good opener.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
What's odd to me about most complaints about multiclassing is that they want things they couldn't do (via MC) in PF1, either.

PF2 is supposed to do things better than PF1, so yeah. It feels bad when PF2 falls short of its own standards, or in some cases even manages to do things worse than PF1. So people are going to complain about that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I'll need to get to high level play to be sure, but it seems to me that expert proficiency with weapons (and a +3 weapon) is the 'baseline' for hitting enemies. Master is above average and legendary is of course a fighter class feature.

But spell progression is different because it lacks those +X items giving a boost, which is why the MC spellcasters hit master instead of expert.

I haven't made a bestiary table, but save DCs should be roughly on par with AC right, at least for low saves? If so, all MC master spellcasting proficiency is doing is making spell attacks have a similar hit rate as MC expert proficiency weapon attacks right?

Either way, your multiclass abilities are your secondary abilities. If you want to be better with weapons than spells, start as a martial, if you want to be better with spells than weapons, start as a caster.

To me, it sounds like something that only looks like an issue, but isn't really. However, I admit, I'd need to play at higher levels to be sure.


This thread and others like it sort of make me chuckle. I feel like there has been a general trend for certain folks to make the leap that MC archetypes and the class feat system would somehow mean that very few new classes would be needed post core. That never sat well with me, given that Paizo makes money off of options, and I think it's very evident that certain thematic and mechanical niches are just not obviously going to be filled by Multiclassing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
What's odd to me about most complaints about multiclassing is that they want things they couldn't do (via MC) in PF1, either.

So far I've been mentally comparing them to multiclass archetypes from 1e, rather than multiclassing and still I'm disappointed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
What's odd to me about most complaints about multiclassing is that they want things they couldn't do (via MC) in PF1, either.
So far I've been mentally comparing them to multiclass archetypes from 1e, rather than multiclassing and still I'm disappointed.

That's a good point. I'm pretty sure a Vivisectionist Alchemist does a better job of being an "Alchemist with Rogue things" than an Alchemist/Rogue in FP2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I would have preferred something like if you take a dedication you get a feat from a list of options (e.g., for a fighter): [Probably unnecessary to mention Unarmed Training, Unarmored Training, and Simple Weapon Training], Light Armor Training, Shield Block, Martial Weapon Training. You might even make it an ordered list that eventually gets you everything a fighter gets at 1st level (or a partially ordered list, where you have at least one of Light Armor Training, Shield Block, or Martial Weapon Training before you can choose from a next set in the list). At the end of the list you start adding in class feats with level caps (e.g., maximum class feat of dedication feat level/2). You could also incentivize baseline options by giving the option of take 2 of Light Armor Training, Medium Armor Training, Heavy Armor Training, Shield Block, or Martial Weapon Training OR choose a fighter class feat of dedication level/2.

Presumably, as part of the game design, each class was built on the same number of "points" that you can divvy up into dedication feats in a reasonable way. A wizard with essentially no fighter feats might need four "points" worth of dedications to gain the abilities of a first level fighter, which means four dedication feats to get to the baseline. A champion might only need one "point," reach fighter abilities after a single dedication, but you have to save the one special thing about the fighter to ensure MC champions don't match it. For example, the fighter's thing is expertise with weapons, so fighter dedications should keep that out of reach until a same-level fighter would gain mastery (and mastery out of reach until a same-level fighter would gain legendary).


There seems to have been a lot of emphasis put into having players choose between feats as opposed to providing choice within feats. That is helpful for class feats, but it feels like a detriment to MC dedication feats. I would prefer a little more flexibility to build on the feats of the character taking the dedication, even if that works against the design goals a bit.

Customer Service Representative

I have removed several posts. Lets keep this thread on topic please.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know I think I may have figured out why the Fighter dedication is so underwhelming; martial weapon proficiency's benefit is being grossly over exaggerated. I suspect that, if instead of "proficiency in all martial weapons" the Fighter dedication gave "proficiency in a single martial weapon" then the archetype would give more stuff baseline because proficiency in a single weapon would be seen as too weak for such an important feat.

Except... that's basically already what it does. Very few characters are building for a plurality of weapon types, especially since many weapon-based combat styles involve feats that lock you in to specific weapon types (Power Attack needs a chunky damage dice to be worth it and such). If your character wields a glaive she does not particularly care that she could also wield a greataxe or main-gauche if she wanted to; that's even more true when striking runes become a thing.

It's impossible for the Fighter dedication to be as attractive as the wizard dedication because the Wizard dedication only gives you bonuses that are immediately relevant to all characters that would be interested in the feat; the Fighter dedication pays for character power you don't care about.


tivadar27 wrote:
2. Access to feats is great, but there's 0 access to class abilities. Given you can only go up to level 10 feats, this means that you have access to around 25% of the things as options from the class you dip into (0% abilities, 50% feats).

That isn't wholly true. You don't get access to all class abilities, but you do get access to some, depending on class. They just cost feats. You can get sneak attack, inspire courage, fast movement, flurry, attack of opportunity, counter performance, deny advantage, and boosts to perception or saves, all things that are granted as class features, through multicast feats. Sometimes they are nerfed (Sneak Attack, Monk Moves) or you have to wait quite a while to get them (Inspire Courage, Flurry) but you can pick them up.


SteelGuts wrote:

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?

I have to say that the whole "I haven't played yet and won't till next week." kind of clashes with "The math is super mega tight."

Most proficiencies don't rise till 7th and 13th, and I don't recommend jumping into those levels on first games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like a lot of them come online far too late to replicate the hybrid and 6th level casting classes. It's no fun waiting until level 8 to finally start playing your character concept.


Arachnofiend wrote:

You know I think I may have figured out why the Fighter dedication is so underwhelming; martial weapon proficiency's benefit is being grossly over exaggerated. I suspect that, if instead of "proficiency in all martial weapons" the Fighter dedication gave "proficiency in a single martial weapon" then the archetype would give more stuff baseline because proficiency in a single weapon would be seen as too weak for such an important feat.

Except... that's basically already what it does. Very few characters are building for a plurality of weapon types, especially since many weapon-based combat styles involve feats that lock you in to specific weapon types (Power Attack needs a chunky damage dice to be worth it and such). If your character wields a glaive she does not particularly care that she could also wield a greataxe or main-gauche if she wanted to; that's even more true when striking runes become a thing.

It's impossible for the Fighter dedication to be as attractive as the wizard dedication because the Wizard dedication only gives you bonuses that are immediately relevant to all characters that would be interested in the feat; the Fighter dedication pays for character power you don't care about.

Agreed.

Plus you can pick up martial weapons through ancestry feats and class proficiencies (e.g., bard, druid, and rogue). That makes the additional martial weapon proficiencies even less important for a relatively large number of characters than the one feat it "costs." Martial weapons are strictly better than simple weapons, but half a dozen martial weapon proficiencies after you already have half a dozen is not much of an improvement.

Heavy armor proficiency, on the other hand, is worth it because it is strictly better than medium armor for at least some builds and you have to pay for it unless you are a fighter or champion. So while I would put martial weapons and heavy armor on the same type of scale (as being strictly better than what comes before), it is the heavy armor proficiency that is worth more for most characters who might want it because it doesn't dribble out from a dozen different sources. The fighter dedication should give heavy armor instead of a skill training (except for Champions, who already have it, so you could give them training in Athletics).


Corrik wrote:
I feel like a lot of them come online far too late to replicate the hybrid and 6th level casting classes. It's no fun waiting until level 8 to finally start playing your character concept.

I am toying with the idea of a free dedication at 1st level. You can either take Dedication 2 at 1st level or a dedication to your current class, the latter of which I have not settled upon, but might come from me taking away some things (and then giving them back if you single-class). For example, the fighter and champion might lose heavy armor proficiency; barbarians and rangers might lose medium armor proficiency and only get one martial weapon group; and bards, druids, rogues, and monks might lose their martial weapon training and one skill unless they choose the single-class dedication. You can then make a dedication 4 into a dedication 2.

Not sure what to take away from sorcerer or wizard. I need to get my house rules finalized by this weekend though!


Thank you. I am following this discussion with interest.


Hmm removing the highest possible proficiency for every class but allowing them to take the dedication to their own class to increase them makes a lot of sense with an extra dedication at level 1. Specially since it would let you grab a dedication feat from another class at lv 2.

Btw it also makes a lot of sense with regular multiclassing. If you multiclass a different class, the max proficiency goes down by 1. Then also have it so that proficiency increases dont stack (unless they say they do Ex: dedications) to prevent multiple dipping to get to max dedication. There is still the problem of classes that start at expert being amaizing dips, so that needs to be fixed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's worth noting for anybody coming into this thread now that it's a little bit of a necro from very soon after the game released, and that many of the takes early in the thread are based on first impressions. They're not uniformly actually reflected in how the game actually plays. Multiclassing turns out to be really good for most characters, and basically every class is a reasonable multiclass option for at least some character. It's true that the initial dedication feat is a bit of a tax for many characters, but many of the suggested "fixes" in this thread are overkill that would make multiclassing go from being a great option for nearly every character to totally bonkers.

We sort of misevaluated the value of multiclassing before anybody had actually played the game much by focusing on things that it could have offered but doesn't, rather than looking at what it does offer.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Joyd wrote:

Multiclassing turns out to be really good for most characters, and basically every class is a reasonable multiclass option for at least some character. It's true that the initial dedication feat is a bit of a tax for many characters, but many of the suggested "fixes" in this thread are overkill that would make multiclassing go from being a great option for nearly every character to totally bonkers.

We sort of misevaluated the value of multiclassing before anybody had actually played the game much by focusing on things that it could have offered but doesn't, rather than looking at what it does offer.

Seems odd to try to make a generalized, definitive statement like this on behalf of everyone.

I feel like a lot of the issues people brought up with multiclassing in this thread are still completely relevant and disagree with your assertion that it's a great option for everyone or that the issues are only niche ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My biggest concern for MC is still that it is too good and will result with every character under the sun and moon multi classing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
My biggest concern for MC is still that it is too good and will result with every character under the sun and moon multi classing.

Well, all archetypes are competing for the same class feats. So the development of other, non-multiclass, archetypes which people want to use is going to reduce the number of multiclass characters. Particularly since the archetypes in the LOWG with steeper requirements give way more up front from the dedication than some of the dedication feats do.


ChibiNyan wrote:
They felt a lot better in the Playtest. Now it feels like you have to invest 3 feats (6 levels) before you get anything.

Even just the dedication feats often give you a couple skills and a class ability, so not sure how you're seeing it that way. Many dedication feats are much better than any other options for 2nd level in-class feats


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That isnt always true, Ex Champion/Ranger/Barbarian into Fighter will effectively give you nothing (maybe slightly faster weapon?)


totoro wrote:
Corrik wrote:
I feel like a lot of them come online far too late to replicate the hybrid and 6th level casting classes. It's no fun waiting until level 8 to finally start playing your character concept.

I am toying with the idea of a free dedication at 1st level. You can either take Dedication 2 at 1st level or a dedication to your current class, the latter of which I have not settled upon, but might come from me taking away some things (and then giving them back if you single-class). For example, the fighter and champion might lose heavy armor proficiency; barbarians and rangers might lose medium armor proficiency and only get one martial weapon group; and bards, druids, rogues, and monks might lose their martial weapon training and one skill unless they choose the single-class dedication. You can then make a dedication 4 into a dedication 2.

Not sure what to take away from sorcerer or wizard. I need to get my house rules finalized by this weekend though!

Be cautious of drawbacks that aren't drawbacks. Being "trapped" in light armor is no concern to an archer ranger who was going to wear leather anyways, and a full caster bard cares not that she is not proficient with the rapier (also druids+monks don't have martial weapon proficiency).


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
My biggest concern for MC is still that it is too good and will result with every character under the sun and moon multi classing.

Certainly, there are many multiclass options that feel very competitive. At 2nd level, do you take a regular class feat? Or do you take a multiclass dedication that will give you a pile of cool stuff that you couldn't get otherwise?

For example, a rogue, or a fighter, or an alchemist could hardly go wrong picking up a multiclass wizard or sorcerer dedication. And that's even if it's the only MC feat they ever take.

We just had our second game session of PF2 and at the end, players reached 2nd level. Two of the three are looking hard at MC dedication.

Personally, I like it. You can opt in, or opt out. It's just more options, but in a simple, straightforward way.

There is just one thing bothering me. Why does a wizard multiclass dedication require a 16 INT, but a straight wizard could have a 10 INT and get all the same spells and powers?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really like P2E multiclassing. I am starting to wonder if I'm relying on it too much to meet my various character concepts though.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
My biggest concern for MC is still that it is too good and will result with every character under the sun and moon multi classing.

Certainly, there are many multiclass options that feel very competitive. At 2nd level, do you take a regular class feat? Or do you take a multiclass dedication that will give you a pile of cool stuff that you couldn't get otherwise?

For example, a rogue, or a fighter, or an alchemist could hardly go wrong picking up a multiclass wizard or sorcerer dedication. And that's even if it's the only MC feat they ever take.

We just had our second game session of PF2 and at the end, players reached 2nd level. Two of the three are looking hard at MC dedication.

Personally, I like it. You can opt in, or opt out. It's just more options, but in a simple, straightforward way.

There is just one thing bothering me. Why does a wizard multiclass dedication require a 16 INT, but a straight wizard could have a 10 INT and get all the same spells and powers?

It is now 14, not 16. But the idea is that it takes more natural aptitude to pick up a secondary role while still maintiaing full training in your full path than it does to simply dedicate yourself to a single path and make that your only focus.


I like multiclassing.

However, there are a few issues in this system:

1) Too many skill talents, which does not enhance enough the gameplay ( while a class feat does ). They could allow us to swap them for general/ancestry feats, for example. Or giving us the possibility to chose an extra rank for skills ( 3 legendary ranks per class but rogue is silly. It also "forces" you not to lvl different tiers to expert/master instead. ).

2) Fighter "flexibility" needs to be totally reworked. Having a talent boost is simply broken in terms of multiclasses. There shouldn't be a class better than others in multiclassing ( leaving apart the fact that, if it would exist, it shouldn't be the fighter ).

3) Stupid requirements. A warrior shouldn't necessarily be both str and agi, to make an example. Requirements should be imo removed, to allow players to create whatever character they want.

That said, there's a nice customization, but you have to deal and limit it because those "unclear" reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:

I like multiclassing.

However, there are a few issues in this system:

1) Too many skill talents, which does not enhance enough the gameplay ( while a class feat does ). They could allow us to swap them for general/ancestry feats, for example. Or giving us the possibility to chose an extra rank for skills ( 3 legendary ranks per class but rogue is silly. It also "forces" you not to lvl different tiers to expert/master instead. ).

2) Fighter "flexibility" needs to be totally reworked. Having a talent boost is simply broken in terms of multiclasses. There shouldn't be a class better than others in multiclassing ( leaving apart the fact that, if it would exist, it shouldn't be the fighter ).

3) Stupid requirements. A warrior shouldn't necessarily be both str and agi, to make an example. Requirements should be imo removed, to allow players to create whatever character they want.

That said, there's a nice customization, but you have to deal and limit it because those "unclear" reasons.

1) I don't see how any of this point ties into multiclassing, but I guess Skill Feats are less potent than most General and Ancestry Feats by design, so being able to swap them out for these other options would downgrade them to the lesser choices. Same rationale goes for skill upgrades and "Legendary" would become much to common.

2) I'm a bit at a loss here. Do you mean "Combat Flexibility"? If so, I don't see how that feat would be too powerful when multiclassing, especially since you don't even get access to that ability when taking the Fighter Dedication.

3) I think the requirements are fine because it isn't all that difficult to get 14s in many different stats, especially if you don't specialise too hard in one stat. I disagree strongly with removing the requirements all together because that encourages and makes dipping into the dedications to get quite a few features (skill trainings plus additional abilities or proficiencies) way too easy and accessible. But not only from a balance standpoint do I find it a bad idea but also in terms of flavour because the flavour then clashes with the functionality of a dedication.


Gratz wrote:
K1 wrote:

I like multiclassing.

However, there are a few issues in this system:

1) Too many skill talents, which does not enhance enough the gameplay ( while a class feat does ). They could allow us to swap them for general/ancestry feats, for example. Or giving us the possibility to chose an extra rank for skills ( 3 legendary ranks per class but rogue is silly. It also "forces" you not to lvl different tiers to expert/master instead. ).

2) Fighter "flexibility" needs to be totally reworked. Having a talent boost is simply broken in terms of multiclasses. There shouldn't be a class better than others in multiclassing ( leaving apart the fact that, if it would exist, it shouldn't be the fighter ).

3) Stupid requirements. A warrior shouldn't necessarily be both str and agi, to make an example. Requirements should be imo removed, to allow players to create whatever character they want.

That said, there's a nice customization, but you have to deal and limit it because those "unclear" reasons.

1) I don't see how any of this point ties into multiclassing, but I guess Skill Feats are less potent than most General and Ancestry Feats by design, so being able to swap them out for these other options would downgrade them to the lesser choices. Same rationale goes for skill upgrades and "Legendary" would become much to common.

2) I'm a bit at a loss here. Do you mean "Combat Flexibility"? If so, I don't see how that feat would be too powerful when multiclassing, especially since you don't even get access to that ability when taking the Fighter Dedication.

3) I think the requirements are fine because it isn't all that difficult to get 14s in many different stats, especially if you don't specialise too hard in one stat. I disagree strongly with removing the requirements all together because that encourages and makes dipping into the dedications to get quite a few features (skill trainings plus additional abilities or proficiencies) way too easy and accessible. But not only from a balance...

1) There are plenty of skill feats which gives only a slight customization if compared to general/ancestry/Class ( consider also that the skills one are the lower tier, followed by ancestry/general and at last class ). Class Feats customize your gameplay, while ancestry/general/skill just ( from slightly to noticeable ) enhance your gameplay. More class feats would be good ( which could simply mean not wasting the first multiclass lvl for nothing ).

The problem about ranks is that Everybody will go for legendary, but that' a skill issue not necessarily related to the multiclassing itelsf. Guess we don't even have to argue that everybody will go +8, with maybe lvl 15 skill feat. This only because will be stupid do the opposite ( even if you are allowed to do it ).

2) Not multiclassing to warrior, but starting as warrior. Definitely too convenient.

3) If you can start a character, let's say mage, with 12 int, then you can be a mage with 12 int. That's why ( not only pathfinder ofc, but the previous versions too ) it's stupid to lock a choice behind a stat wall.


Fighter flexibility (and the improved version) explicitly only lets you choose fighter feats. It doesn't interact with multiclassing at all, except in the very loose sense that having an extra combat feat means that you might be more likely to use one of your normal class feats on a multiclass feat. It doesn't make fighters meaningfully better at multiclassing.


It allows them to avoid the problem of "choose between a class talent or another class talent".

In terms of multiclassing is everything.

a) I decided not to take feats A and B, and instead go for multiclass feats Y and Z.

b) I went for multiclass feats Y and Z, but I also took the 2 talents i wanted. And if the situation requires different talents, i can swap both of em to become more efficient, or simply to change my gameplay.

I don't know how you cannot see its potential.

2 extra feats, from your fighter class, per day.
Nonsense.


K1 wrote:

1) There are plenty of skill feats which gives only a slight customization if compared to general/ancestry/Class ( consider also that the skills one are the lower tier, followed by ancestry/general and at last class ). Class Feats customize your gameplay, while ancestry/general/skill just ( from slightly to noticeable ) enhance your gameplay. More class feats would be good ( which could simply mean not wasting the first multiclass lvl for nothing ).

The problem about ranks is that Everybody will go for legendary, but that' a skill issue not necessarily related to the multiclassing itelsf. Guess we don't even have to argue that everybody will go +8, with maybe lvl 15 skill feat. This only because will be stupid do the opposite ( even if you are allowed to do it ).

2) Not multiclassing to warrior, but starting as warrior. Definitely too convenient.

3) If you can start a character, let's say mage, with 12 int, then you can be a mage with 12 int. That's why ( not only pathfinder ofc, but the previous versions too ) it's stupid to lock a choice behind a stat wall.

1) I kinda disagree with your fundamental assessment here that skill feats offer less impactful customisation than other feats. In combat? Sure. But outside of encounter mode, these are more often rather impressive.

2) I'm sorry but I still don't see how combat flexibility interacts with multiclassing, so maybe you could give an example of how you think this would play out?

3) I find this argument a bit far-fetched honestly. Yes, you could play a bad wizard in PF1 but I wouldn't hold that up as a positive. Being barely able to cast your spells is not a plus and I bet a vast majority of players want to play characters who are good at their speciality, hence the requirement. Multi-classing into a champion to get heavy armour proficiency, just to find out later that it's too heavy for you isn't good design in my book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
Being barely able to cast your spells is not a plus and I bet a vast majority of players want to play characters who are good at their speciality, hence the requirement.

There's no casting requirement for spells in PF2 and given how proficiency works, your attack spells are gonna kinda suck anyways.

A wizard interested in primarily using buffs and utility honestly doesn't need int at all.

Though I don't think the mainstat requirement is necessarily problematic. For me the frustration is more from the dual stat ones that certain classes have.

Quote:
Multi-classing into a champion to get heavy armour proficiency, just to find out later that it's too heavy for you isn't good design in my book.

All well and good, but Multiclass Champion doesn't give you anything that runs off Charisma, so the 14 you're investing in there isn't doing anything for you.

Monk has specific stances that are designed to work with low dex builds, which makes that minimum dexterity requirement feel pretty bad if that's the build you're going for.

It's not the end of the world but the dual stat requirements don't feel really necessary.

101 to 150 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.