What do you tthink about the Multiclass Archetypes?

[K1]

Gratz wrote:

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) Indeed out of combat you can have upgrades, but it just enhance by little your game play. That's my point.

2) Check my example in the post above yours ( I answered another user ). The example I made shows what I meant.

3) If you multiclass in order to get armor proficiencies it is your choice. The fact that armors require str is a fact, weather you multiclass or not.

It's not a point.
You want to study in order to being a mage?

You do it, and depends your skill you will be more or less good at it.

It's like being legendary in a skill where you have a -1 from stat.

The whole point here is that it should be up to the player decide if something is worth or not for him.

[Gratz]

Squiggit wrote:

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.

The point about spellcasting was a reference to PF1 on my part, as the previous answer was about being able to do something PF1 and not in PF2.

I'm rather agnostic to having one of the mainstats as a prerequisite. I can see the upside to reducing it to only one of them but I also see the downside in making it too easy to access the martial Dedications. I'm only opposed to eliminating all prerequisites because then multiclassing feels cheap.

[Hiruma Kai]

K1 wrote:

Gratz wrote:

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?

2) Check my example in the post above yours ( I answered another user ). The example I made shows what I meant.

K1 wrote:

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.

The comparison I would do is:

Non-Fighter multi-class
a) I decided not to take feats A and B, and instead go for multiclass feats Y and Z. I also get class abilities O and P which let me do cool things.

Fighter multi-class
b) I went for multiclass feats Y and Z, but I use class abilities O and P to get feats A and B. And if the situation requires different talents, I can use O and P to swap both of them to become more efficient, or simply to change my gameplay.

Compare also to the single class fighter.

Fighter single class
c) I went for fighter feats C and D, but I use class abilities O and P to get feats A and B. And if the situation requires different talents, I can use O and P to swap both of them to become more efficient, or simply to change my gameplay.

Are you saying that the fighter class in general is nonsense, since every single 15th level fighter gets to pick 2 fighter feats to use each daily preparation?

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about 15th level wizards who can change around at least 28 abilities (i.e. spell choices) per day?

I guess my point is, you're trying to compare feats and class ability (i.e. combat flexibility) against just feats of another class, when you should really be comparing to that other classes' feats and class abilities.

A 15th level multiclass fighter who spends all their feats but 1st on archetype feats has 1 fighter feat, 7 archetype feats, and 2 floating fighter feats (plus 2 general feats in the form of shield block and attack of opportunity).

But lets compare to a 15th level multiclass champion, who has 1 champion feat, 7 archetype feats, 1 general feat (shield block), champion's reaction, divine ally, divine smite, and exalt.

They might not be as flexible, but those champion abilities are really good and likely to be used most fights.

I mean what is the fighter's equivalent to Champion's Reaction, Divine Ally, Divine Smite, and Exalt that the Champion doesn't get? Fighter is going to have +2 higher weapon proficiency, but the Champion gets +2 higher armor training so I call that a wash. What they get is combat flexibility.

So if all you're doing is looking at feats, then yes, the fighter looks better because that is the only thing they get. If you look at the whole class, then things look a lot more fair when multi-classing. Also if you value feats more than class abilities (which is subjective or dependent on circumstances), then fighters will also tend to look better.

[Asurasan]

I think the above post begins to hit on this concept slightly, but there is one stand out element that is in relation to how the action economy and the decision to multi-class or not interact.

Pathfinder 2E is not a system of nesting stacking bonuses in the same way you dealt with in 1E. In general any thing your feat selection does is add options on to the chassis of your class of choice. This means multiclassing 'poorly' or 'optimally' has little to do with dealing the most damage possible, or hitting the bad guy. It simply gives you choices of how you want to proceed.

From my perspective, in combat, higher level class feats vs lower level multiclass feats aren't as much of an issue as people seem to make them out to be. These are(from a combat perspective) simply the way you want to spend your actions. Ultimately there is very little interaction beyond that. The core 'chassis' of your class will continue to function even if you never purchase a single class feat from it.

Things that improve proficiency are the rare exception I can find that I think alter the 'core' mechanics of the system. So if your choice is between taking Power Attack on your sorcerer/fighter or Advanced Bloodline is simply just expressing how you want to do things with your actions. Neither of those choices determine how 'well' you do those things, simply just give you the option to do one or the other.

This is a large improvement from 1E where to successfully multiclass characters often required a high degree of system mastery to pull off depending on what you are going after. 2E Multi-classing allows you to dash in some options to enable you to possibly stretch your abilities in a different direction.

[Brew Bird]

Asurasan wrote:

From my perspective, in combat, higher level class feats vs lower level multiclass feats aren't as much of an issue as people seem to make them out to be. These are(from a combat perspective) simply the way you want to spend your actions. Ultimately there is very little interaction beyond that. The core 'chassis' of your class will continue to function even if you never purchase a single class feat from it.

While this is true in general, there are a few cases where a class's functioning depends a bit on feat selection. The Alchemist is the worst offender, requiring some feats just to make their class features actually work/scale, but there are certain fighting styles for the other classes that depend on feats that act a little more as "fixes" than additional options.

[K1]

Hiruma Kai wrote:

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about 15th level wizards who can change around at least 28 abilities (i.e. spell choices) per day?

I guess my point is, you're trying to compare feats and class ability (i.e. combat flexibility) against just feats of another class, when you should really be comparing to that other classes' feats and class abilities.

A 15th level multiclass fighter who spends all their feats but 1st on archetype feats has 1 fighter feat, 7 archetype feats, and 2 floating fighter feats (plus 2 general feats in the form of shield block and attack of opportunity).

But lets compare to a 15th level multiclass champion, who has 1 champion feat, 7 archetype feats, 1 general feat (shield block), champion's reaction, divine ally, divine smite, and exalt.

They might not be as flexible, but those champion abilities are really good and likely to be used most fights.

I mean what is the fighter's equivalent to Champion's Reaction, Divine Ally, Divine Smite, and Exalt that the Champion doesn't get? Fighter is going to have +2 higher weapon proficiency, but the Champion gets +2 higher armor training so I call that a wash. What they get is combat flexibility.

So if all you're doing is looking at feats, then yes, the fighter looks better because that is the only thing they get. If you look at the whole class, then things look a lot more fair when multi-classing. Also if you value feats more than class abilities (which is subjective or dependent on circumstances), then fighters will also tend to look better.

A 15lvl caster has his spells, as a melee/ranged has his attacks and actions.

This because he needs 2/3 action per spell ( though 1 action spells exist ).

A caster then, non a spontaneous one, can decide to change his spells.

Don't forget also basic non attack actions, which are mostly not used by a caster, or athletics/deception/acrobatics/ checks:

Actions
Athletics
Acrobatics
Deception
Intimidation
Stealth

Not saying that a caster will forgo all of em during the whole fight, but it's obvious that a melee/ranged class will use them way more, because of more actions/reactions/synergies.

This set complete their wait to interact with enemies ( while a caster will chose what spells to prepare for a fight ).

Remember also that, the more you lvl up, the more low lvl spells will be worse, if compared to higher lvl ( while combat feats will always have their meaning ).

ps: a warrior can get divine ally, divine reaction and divine smite. He won't be able to get exalt, but since it is something which requires you X allies and the trigger enemy, using an aoe attack, within 15 feet. You know better than me that the situation is slightly impossible. Eventually a paladin could provide an opportunity attack with -5 on a roll. which is let's say it, not a joke but definitely not good either.

Asurasan wrote:

Things that improve proficiency are the rare exception I can find that I think alter the 'core' mechanics of the system. So if your choice is between taking Power Attack on your sorcerer/fighter or Advanced Bloodline is simply just expressing how you want to do things with your actions. Neither of those choices determine how 'well' you do those things, simply just give you the option to do one or the other.

That's the point of customization.

You can go "deeper" what you want to specialize in.

Let's continue

Asurasan wrote:

2E Multi-classing allows you to dash in some options to enable you to possibly stretch your abilities in a different direction.

And this works well.

The difference between fighter and other classes is that you can moderately adjust your build depends your needs or simply because you want to change it.

Shortly, let's say you are going to fight a dragon, you could forgo damage talents to improve your shield abilities. Or maybe your vanguard dies, and for some time you will be useful as a frontline "tank" ( or vice versa, a dps dies and you have to swap from tank to dps ).

[Asurasan]

Brew Bird wrote:

While this is true in general, there are a few cases where a class's functioning depends a bit on feat selection. The Alchemist is the worst offender, requiring some feats just to make their class features actually work/scale, but there are certain fighting styles for the other classes that depend on feats that act a little more as "fixes" than additional options.

Yeah, I agree alchemist is the oddest duck in the core classes. I'd probably lay this primarily at the feet of the 'Powerful Alchemy' feat which feels like it should just be baked in to your infused items(simply to cut down on the book work that a player has to keep up with). Which would keep it 'scaling' similarly to the spell DC's.