What do you tthink about the Multiclass Archetypes?


Advice

1 to 50 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they're fine for the most part. Your Proficiency with spells does lag a tad, but not a whole lot until the very highest levels, and that doesn't effect support or buff spells at all.


11 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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the idea. But they truly take tooo long to come online considering how little you functionally get from them.

I think Dedication Feat should have been an open feat. Taken with General, Ancestral or Class Feats. Also should've been an option at lv 1.
None of hte deication feats (AFAIK) truly cause anything inherently umbalanced. 2 cantrips, or skills, or martial/armour proficiencies basically no? Those are all basics inherent in a character concept but not remotely powerful on their own. Hunt Target for ranged characters is probably the most inherently powerful. or rage maybe but i haven't read Rage yet.

Then the later multiclass feats were class feat only. The 1/2 your lv feat is probably my mosted hated aspect. Instead of having the 1/2lv and the "1st and 2nd level" multiclass feats. It should have only been 1/2lv feat option. Basically remove the "1st or 2nd lv mutliclass feat" one that is a prereq for the 1/2lv. This would be functionally of little difference at lvs 4 (when you could pick up the feat). Or instead of 1/2lv lv. It should have been Class Lv -2 feat only. And you can only take this feat once per 5 class levels. So it would retain the same progression as the current set up. But allow folks who don't have any options at lv 1-2 but absolutely need something for a character concept at that is lv 4 to not sink in 1 useless feat.
Because there are some basic lv 4 class feats (in all classes) that are relatively strong character concept choices that functioanllly can't be obtained until lv 8--where it now competes with the next tier of feats. Where as if you could take lv 4 stuff at 6 it would be a relatively okay choice for the concept.

My favorite (personal) example is Alchemist. This is probably (almost certainly) my bias from viewing things as an Alchemist only though. But.
Alchemist who wants to use poisons will most likely want to get Poison Weapon Rogue feat. That is rogue 4. Meaning to pick this up the alchemist must spend 3 feats. Dedication. the lv 1/2 feat (OF WHICH there are not any terribly "alchemist" choices some decent ones though) and then lv 8 for the 1/2lv feat to pick up Rogue 4's Poison weapon (or the battle analysis).

That is more or less dedicating 75% of your Alchemist's choices in order to use one aspect of the alchemist with basic efficiency (poisoning weapons in battle for 1 action instead of 2+). You could of course just prepoison and then never repoison in battle. Or poison arrows and be a ranged one (and deal with misses = lost daily resource)


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.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Liberty's Edge

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

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.


Range increment penalty ignoring can be pretty great depending on what youre building.

For an alchemist? :
Your Ranger dip + Hunter's Aim and maybe Far Shot later (depending) means you can get a lot of good range on your Alch Bombs, and higher increased chances of hitting and Critting. up to 40ft with no penalties for a bomb. Or up to 80 if you get Far shot later. Depending on your level. Quicksilver mutagen combos nicely with Hunter's aim and the range as well. (watch item bonus overlap though)
Sure not gonna need that much range all the time.. But that is some far distance debuffing. Using debilittaing + tanglefoot to basically destroy a big heavy's movement speed while theyr away lets you do some fun things.
Throw in an Aklys for range tripping at the same range? You've got a really amusing distance debuffer going on. Though pretty heavy cost to get Aklys profiency. I think the only way to get advanced weapon profiency is figher dedication or 2 general feats. (i dont think its also a skill feat)

I think Ranger's one of the better designed dedications. Its very open ended useful .Its great for anyone using ranged--weapon or caster. Then the lv 1 and 2 Ranger feats all feature what I call
"Concept build feats"
These feats are the ones at lv 1 and 2 that help dictate what line you'll go down in feats. For Ranger thats animal/twintake down or hunted shot and maybe xbow ace. Lv2 Hunter's Aim is one of my favorites. Fighter its the shield oens or the rush damages. Rogue is weird Maybe the feint feats and "avoid damage posistioning". (feels like Poison WEapon should've been a lv 1 or 2)

Ranger is my favorite dedication because its so well designed in comparison to say Rogues's whose dedication feels lacking. You get surprise attack but that ability doesn't really make much comparison to other dedications (1/fight and not reliable). I feel like it should've given you the D4 sneak attack feat instead. That wouldve felt "rogue" like with it.

----------
I know I say all this and what I wrote before.
but I really do love this system idea. Its just a heavy opportunity cost since you can only get them with Class Feats (unless you're a lv 9+ human/half )


SteelGuts wrote:
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?

Xenocrat wrote:
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.

Xenocrat wrote:
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.


Zwordsman wrote:

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?


graystone wrote:


Xenocrat wrote:
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.

Yeah, Resiliency is actually fairly strong if you're a squishy class, like say a draconic sorcerer who wants to grow claws and rage.

A sorcerer with the required 14 Con is getting 8 HP per level; getting an extra 3 per feat is sigificant.

... I'mma go build this now.


Xenocrat wrote:

How does it help a caster? Is there some weird spell with range increments rather than a flat range I missed?

Yeah, I had a mind blip there. Ignore that, I dont think anything interacted there for casters. I confused Hunter's aim feat's " ignore your prey’s concealed condition." with Hunt Prey. So. nope not useful Unless they're building a rangeed weapon caster. Which can be fun with some of the spells they have.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.
Mechalibur wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

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.

On the other hand, caster/martial multiclass can make you more MAD, whereas martial/martial uses your existing stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

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.

i'd hae to agree that fighter dedication, and to an extend paladin dedication, is pretty lackluster compared to the rest of them:

barbarian and ranger you get (part of) their unique ability
rogue you get a terrible ability but at least you also get a skill feat which can be nice
casters you get the cantrips that autoscale
monk gives you their fist attack

it's only fighter and paladin that don't grant something "unique and class based" but just generic proficiencies that you may not even use.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:

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.

Even disregarding toughness, I'd say the hp provided by resiliency is pretty bad.


Mechalibur wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:

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.
Even disregarding toughness, I'd say the hp provided by resiliency is pretty bad.

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...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.

Well if you want to be a wizard for example with full spell progression and DCs but want all your feats to be fighter feats. I think that’s a valid build.

One thing I probably will do for champion/fighter multiclassing is that if the class already has all the weapon or armor proficiencies (say champion multiclassing into fighter) that they instead get a 1st level feat of their choice from the class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

For perspective on proficiencies, check out my proficiency comparison chart


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rooneg wrote:
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.

I think the fighter dedication should actually grant expert automatically at a later level, rather than requiring another feat. Currently there is a weird gap where a full caster who has been using a martial weapon is suddenly more effective with a staff, and then back again after taking the extra feat.


1 person 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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zwordsman wrote:

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.

Secret Wizard wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

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.

Secret Wizard wrote:
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.


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...


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I certainly agree that. I like that it gives "flavor" so to speak and its an accent to the base class.

but taking Rogue MC. You actually do't get sneak attack. Unless you spend an extra feat for that. As opposed to Barb's innate rage's extra damage.
Rogue MC would've been super neat to me, if it wasn't that it got surprise attack instead of sneak attack (d4). Or if, at least, that the sneak attack feat counted as the lv 1 or 2 feat for the purposes of taking the 1/2lv feat. Part of this is, of course, my own perception that Rogue = Sneak attack flank surprise attacker. So while getting Surprise Attack (flat foot IF you role better than the enemy once a fight. baring AOE spells, only getting the effect on one target basically) (adendum. If you roll into stealth, and play cover and attacking correctly. You could maintain flat footed fairly decently) isn't bad. Its not "rogue" to me.

Some I love , some I think just have too high of an opportunity cost for returns. (Fighter, Rogue dedication come to mind. Its not like their feats are significantly better than the other classes's with more "in class character" than those two)


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.

Liberty's Edge

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Good if you just want to dabble in another class.

Not that good if you want to have an actual blended class type character.

And completely doesn't allow for "I was a rogue but am now dedicating my life to God-of-choice as a cleric". This is a bit of an edge case but I've seen it happen a few times over the years and have used it myself for NPCs.


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.


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.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.
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.


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.

1 to 50 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.