So I asked some relevant questions about extra feats and got some answers that were pretty consistent with what most of have predicted: giving your players increased versatility shouldn't require tinkering with monster math. The feats in second edition don't improve your math so much as they give you new options and actions. But since you only get 3 actions in a turn, you can't necessarily do more with a given turn.
Mark and Liz's suggestion was to instead make the monsters more versatile, too. Give them extra special actions, feats like Recognize Spell, or even spellcasting to creatures that lack it.
Even full blown gestalt (officially called Dual Classing) doesn't cause problems if you are doing something like Ranger/Druid or Fighter/Wizard. It is only when you do something like Fighter/Barbarian that you run into issues, because you get the accuracy of a fighter and the raw damage of a barbarian which were not meant to mix. That requires dialing up the monster math to compensate and thus should probably be avoided.
They also said you should work with your players to avoid creating busted combinations like the fighter/barbarian example regardless of the variant you use, or have every go busted to play a high powered game. So I think doubling class feats actually feels pretty safe if folks are open and honest about dangerous combos like that.
I think the biggest issue, from where I'm sitting, is just added complexity. Characters will take a little longer to build. More importantly, they will have more actions competing for they spend their turn, so if you're particularly prone to decision paralysis this won't help.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then take the Incredible Initiative General feat. It's identical to the bonus Fighters get.Let me rephrase my question: In PF1 a ranger could use a great sword, a longbow, a companion, and spells at the same time well enough to keep up with everyone else.
If I try to diversify characters in PF2 will I just end up with a character that is awful at two or three things? Can I get away with spending 50% of my feats in one area or does it require 80-100% to be viable."Perhaps you're referring to the fighter 7th-level feature that gives them +2 circumstance to Perception for initiative only? Fighters being as fast or faster than rangers to react to combat seems right to me; they still won't notice the details on their opponents' clothing any better."
Being able to be just as good as a ranger, but better is being better.
I'd also point out that Rangers are better at using Perception to actually find creatures thanks to Hunt Prey. Rangers being better at tracking and spotting creatures while fighters are better at charging in immediately feels like a pretty good narrative balance point to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think right now double feats would make most classes kind of samey at least if you didn't want to multi-class but once we get some more splat books it shouldn't be a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I might be wrong, but I thought that presenting scenarios in which certain characters can really shine every now and then was common wisdom for good story telling, especially if you have less confident or less experienced players.
And yeah if they've specifically set things up as an awesome teamwork moment, fantastic. But when its just the bow rangers time to shine against those harpies, but due to double feats the greatsword fighter who has been dominating melee is also just as good if not better than the ranger due to having the spare feats for all the bow stuff too then that isn't highlighting awesome teamwork, thats just the ranger not getting their cool moment at the table/in the narrative.
Don't forget that in that scenario the Ranger would also have double feats and be able to get good at something else. The Fighter also spent the feats to be good at sword and bow, as opposed to something else.
In my experience, my players aren't satisfied with being good in just one situation. Also, I always shoot for at least two players being able to "shine" at the same time in any situation.
With double feats there are still many combinations of different focus areas available. It doesn't work great if you want to only play a shooty ranger with no other areas of focus. In that case, default rules work for you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes absolutely it can be right for a group. Just wanted to offer a counter point to whether it is advisable or not. I don't feel it would be, as I'm of the strong opinion that correct amounts of restriction make choices flourish.Yeah, I'm genuinely happy to get counter points and different perspectives. You're always one to contribute in a positive way!
There are a lot of things I'm struggling with, so it helps a lot to get different viewpoints.
Among the things to navigate:
1. Personal preference.
Obviously some people prefer heavy limitations, others like more freedom. I think some posters are of the opinion that everyone should like it their way, so they provide unnecessarily harsh criticism of house rules designed for people of a different mentality.
Another preference is level availability. Some people are fine with having to wait until mid-to-high levels to have somewhat mundane character build features come online, while I find that to be far to late for too many things.
If double feats could let people who want more freedom to have it, and solve "late bloomer" build problems, all without significantly impacting game balance, it'd be fantastic.
So it's important that I filter feedback based on the target audience for the house rule.
2. Actual power differences.
Based on my initial results, you almost can't tell the difference between a double feat character and a normal character until 3+ combats in a day. It's aggravating that I can't gather more data about this until more people try it out, but I have a sneaking suspicion that double feat characters will require little if any adjustments to encounter difficulty. Everything is capped by actions and feat situationality. These characters can effectively respond to a larger variety of situations, but is that a problem in most games?
3. Edge cases
Certain characters might want to play a single class, and find nothing compelling to spend their extra class feats on. I have yet to come...
One quick thought is that this doesn't have to be a binary either, you guys are doubling it, but adding an extra feat or two somewhere in the progression instead is a much more conservative route that could do well for people who find the current number a little too restrictive, but want high character differentiation, *especially* if your purpose is to encourage dedications, as 2 feats can easily cover a dedication and the primary benefit, or two dedications for the archetypes that build from a prior one. You could even go 1.5x, and introduce 5 extra feats into the progression.
One thing I've considered is just giving out the dedication feat for organizations when the player character joins the equivalent in universe organization, that would be a good way of saving players feats in the scenario where they're most desperately seeking them.
The modularity of class feats actually makes seasoning to taste for a table very easy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those are good points, and taking a lighter touch to bonus feats also plays well into using feats as story rewards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "bottlenecking" is a term that frames the discussion rather heftily. How many feats do you need to be a viable archer ranger? 1-2.
The "bottleneck" I think is a push to actually make it harder for all archer rangers to be duplicates.
I thought I had made my question clear in the first two posts, but it appears I failed.
In PF1 I commonly split feats between a couple different areas without spreading myself too thin. Many people online complained about not having enough feats.
In the PF2 playtest my players felt so underpowered that they didn't dare spend feats on anything other than their core specialization. This was something that other people mid to high level play testers also mentioned commonly.
I was asking if that was still a problem since it's been fully released, but it appears to have been fixed. I didn't mean to the topic to only be about rangers, that was just the first example off the top of my head that everyone fixated on.
How about feat rubber necking? Drive on you've looked long enough!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spellcasting dedication is a matter that's closely linked to the discussion of whether Wizards (or casters) were nerf and/or if this is the martial edition. Remember that a martial with spellcasting dedication gets 8th lv spell and half (or 2/3) the spell slots if fully invested at master level. The spellcaster with martial dedication can only reach expert and doesnt really get much from the dedication (there might be some useful feats, maybe).
2/3 spells doesn't quite feel like the right description. Even half really only happens at 20th, and when compared to a bard for example, as opposed to a wizard or sorcerer. And that is assuming all spell slots are equally valuable. In terms of spell levels (i.e. # of slots times the level of those slots, all summed) its more like 28% to 39% at 20th, and much less at lower levels.
1st-3rd: Full casters have 3-7 spell slots (3 to 10 spell levels). Dedication character has 0, but has access to scrolls/wands no. Trained vs trained.
4th: Full casters will have 6-8 spell slots (9-12 spell levels), dedication character will have a single 1st level slot. Trained vs trained.
8th: Full casters will have 12-16 spell slots (30-40 spell levels). Dedication character will have 4 spells (2 1st, 1 2nd, 1 3rd - worth 7 spell levels). Expert vs trained.
12th: Full casters will have 18-24 spell slots (63-84 spell levels). Dedication character will have 6 spell slots (13 spell levels). Expert vs expert.
18th: Full casters will have 27-36 spell slots (135-180 spell levels). Dedication character will have 12 spell slots (43 spell levels). Legendary vs master
20th: Full casters will have 28-38 spell slots (145-200 spell levels). Dedication character will have 14 spell slots (57 spell levels).
So at 20th level, your spending roughly half your total class feats to get about 1/3 to 1/4 of the "spell power".
|
I think "bottlenecking" is a term that frames the discussion rather heftily. How many feats do you need to be a viable archer ranger? 1-2.
The "bottleneck" I think is a push to actually make it harder for all archer rangers to be duplicates.
I thought I had made my question clear in the first two posts, but it appears I failed.
In PF1 I commonly split feats between a couple different areas without spreading myself too thin. Many people online complained about not having enough feats.
In the PF2 playtest my players felt so underpowered that they didn't dare spend feats on anything other than their core specialization. This was something that other people mid to high level play testers also mentioned commonly.
I was asking if that was still a problem since it's been fully released, but it appears to have been fixed. I didn't mean to the topic to only be about rangers, that was just the first example off the top of my head that everyone fixated on.
I think I also didn't explain myself well.
In PF1, you could stack a lot of feats with each other. To take archery as a running example (but this applies to nearly any character build), you can take Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, and the whole Snap Shot feat line, and all of these feats basically stack to make you better at a single thing.
At some point there are so many books with archery feats that nobody can get all of them anymore. But you'll take as many of them as you can.
PF2 works differently. Most archery feats don't directly work with each other. They work besides each other; one lets you do one thing, another lets you do another thing. But they don't work together. Like shooting very rapidly as an action, OR doing a trick shot.
There's still some use in taking multiple archery feats of course, since you'll end up in a variety of situations where the different feats are useful. But you really don't need to get as many of them as possible anymore, to be a good archer. If you have a couple of good archery feats, you're good. Taking five more will give you more versatility but not a lot of extra firepower.
So I don't think there's really a "bottleneck". The setup of the system encourages you to diversity - take multiple ranger feat paths, or multiclass into something. Multiclassing in PF2 isn't "dirty" like the way PF1 seemed to frown on it.
The spellcasting dedication is a matter that's closely linked to the discussion of whether Wizards (or casters) were nerf and/or if this is the martial edition. Remember that a martial with spellcasting dedication gets 8th lv spell and half (or 2/3) the spell slots if fully invested at master level. The spellcaster with martial dedication can only reach expert and doesnt really get much from the dedication (there might be some useful feats, maybe).2/3 spells doesn't quite feel like the right description. Even half really only happens at 20th, and when compared to a bard for example, as opposed to a wizard or sorcerer. And that is assuming all spell slots are equally valuable. In terms of spell levels (i.e. # of slots times the level of those slots, all summed) its more like 28% to 39% at 20th, and much less at lower levels.
1st-3rd: Full casters have 3-7 spell slots (3 to 10 spell levels). Dedication character has 0, but has access to scrolls/wands no. Trained vs trained.
4th: Full casters will have 6-8 spell slots (9-12 spell levels), dedication character will have a single 1st level slot. Trained vs trained.
8th: Full casters will have 12-16 spell slots (30-40 spell levels). Dedication character will have 4 spells (2 1st, 1 2nd, 1 3rd - worth 7 spell levels). Expert vs trained.
12th: Full casters will have 18-24 spell slots (63-84 spell levels). Dedication character will have 6 spell slots (13 spell levels). Expert vs expert.
18th: Full casters will have 27-36 spell slots (135-180 spell levels). Dedication character will have 12 spell slots (43 spell levels). Legendary vs master
20th: Full casters will have 28-38 spell slots (145-200 spell levels). Dedication character will have 14 spell slots (57 spell levels).
So at 20th level, your spending roughly half your total class feats to get about 1/3 to 1/4 of the "spell power".
I've found that rings of wizardry and spell staves go a long way towards expanding the spell options of characters with spellcasting dedication feats.
|
In fact it was the opposite, PF1 encouraged multiclassing so much that people would complain about how its "munchiky", "too anime", etc.
That wasn't encouraging "multiclassing" though, it was encouraging taking a single level of a class and moving on. You weren't playing a Fighter/Rogue, you were playing a Fighter who took a single level of Rogue to get Sneak Attack, or a Sorcerer with one level of Oracle for Cha to AC. Sure it was called multiclassing, but people rarely used it to represent your character trying to bring two disparate ideas together.
The "bottleneck" in PF2 isnt combat options due to the better base. It the part where can get a combat option, but then you delay getting an animal companion, and if you pick a dedication you have to wait a lot to get another. Unlike PF1 where you could get multiple of those simultaneously. Ex: Animal companions are now a feat tree.
And the trade off is that now you don't have to spend the same Feats for being good with a Bow to be good with Medicine or Thievery. You can make a fully competent healer or party face without diminishing your combat effectiveness in any way.
It seems like you are cherry picking certain mechanics (like Animal Companions) and ignoring the ones that benefit from the change. And Animal Companions are an especially strange choice for this, since they required a Feat (Boon Companion) to be viable for most builds anyway, and generally couldn't be acquired by Rangers at level 1, unlike now.
A caster multi-classing into a martial class does not feel underwhelming because martial classes have a better chassis. It feels underwhelming because their chassis is already so close. A spell caster that has access to decent weapon proficiencies like a cleric, a druid, or an elf anything is already only one tier behind most martial classes. They do not have much to gain because if they gain anything they would match most martial classes. There is no room to grow without becoming on par with a variety of single class martial characters.
The baseline for martial characters is Master level proficiency. Some classes get Legendary proficiency in areas where they are stronger than other martial classes, but the baseline is Master level proficiency.
Getting "only" Expert level proficiency in martial weapons or heavy armor puts a caster one tier behind most martial classes. Just like master level spell casting puts a martial character one tier behind spell casters that are not warpriests. They do so with much less investment. It's just that one tier behind is exactly where they are already at in their existing armor and weapon proficiencies while most martial characters start untrained in spell casting so there's a lot more room to grow.
I am not discounting that it feels like less structural growth, but that is because the gap is already so close.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I meant with multiclassing being treated as "dirty":
- As a caster multiclassing was in most cases very painful because you lost spell progression.
- The vast majority of other multiclassing was actually dipping one or two levels into a class to get some front-loaded level 1 benefits that accelerate your main class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But nobody really cares because other spellcasters will have lvl 7 spells, and they will be close to lvl 8.Unfortunately this whold system tend to works only for supportive/healing and maybe disabling spells.
Because your dc will be laughable ( leaving apart spell damage ).
Want to go, as a martial, with some aoe?
Wizard
lvl 1: 18 INT Trained = +7 (martial has +6 if they have an ancestry feat granting a cantrip)Expert level 7 = +15 (+2 vs MC)
INT 20 level 10 = +19 (+1)
Master casting 15 = +26 (+2)
Legendary 19 = +32 (+2)
INT 22 20 = +34 (+2)
MC wizard
16 INT
Lvl 2 - cantrips = +7 (-1 full caster)
Lvl 5 - INT 18 = +11 (Same)
Lvl 12 - Expert = +20 (-1)
Lvl 15 - INT 20 = +24 (-2)
Lvl 18 - Master = +29 ( same)
Lvl 20 = +32 (-2)
Worse? Yes, some times, by -1 or -2. But Laughable? That seems hyperbolic. A Martial with a caster MC will be fine using AoE against equal or lower level enemies, but probably not using their spells against bosses.
Seeing as they lose nothing from their core proficiencies, being 1 or 2 points behind is far better than the reverse position of the wizard/fighter being 5 points behind on attacks by level 20.
Also, if you take the Breadth feat, you quite nearly have half the spell slots of a full caster.
MC wizard
16 INT
Lvl 2 - cantrips = +7 (-1 full caster)
Lvl 5 - INT 18 = +11 (Same)
Lvl 12 - Expert = +20 (-1)
Lvl 15 - INT 20 = +24 (-2)
Lvl 18 - Master = +29 ( same)
Lvl 20 = +32 (-2)Worse? Yes, some times, by -1 or -2. But Laughable? That seems hyperbolic. A Martial with a caster MC will be fine using AoE against equal or lower level enemies, but probably not using their spells against bosses.
Seeing as they lose nothing from their core proficiencies, being 1 or 2 points behind is far better than the reverse position of the wizard/fighter being 5 points behind on attacks by level 20.
For a level 20 MC fighter starting at 16 Int, ending at 20 Int, no apex items, I get:
20 (level) + 6 (Master) + 5 (Int) = 31Is there something that provides an extra +1 some where I should know about?
At 20, I see the fighter/wizard being 3 behind (assuming 18 Str/16 Int) in terms of spell attack/save DCs (assuming 18 starting casting stat).
At 20 I see the casters (no dedication, assuming 16 Str/18 casting stat) being 3 behind martials in terms of to-hit, and 5 behind the fighter. Or 1 behind in athletics checks for trip, disarm, shove, etc.
That seems pretty symmetrical to me in terms of just to-hit. Probably should make the same kind of chart for attacks and not just the spell side of things:
Caster
1st: 1 + 2 (trained) +3 (str) = 6 (-1 relative to martials)
5th: 5 + 2 (trained) + 4 (str) = 11 (-2)
11th: 11 + 4 (expert) + 4 (str) = 19 (-1)
15th: 15 + 4 (expert) + 5 (str) = 24 (-2)
20th: 20 + 4 (Expert) + 5 (Str) = 29 (-3)
Champion/Ranger/Monk/Rogue
1st: 1 + 2 (trained) +4 (str/dex) = 7
5th: 5 + 4 (expert) + 4 (str/dex) = 13
11th: 11 + 4 (expert) + 5 (str/dex) = 20
15th: 15 + 6 (master) + 5 (str/dex) = 26
20th: 20 + 6 (Master) + 6 (Str) = 32
Fighter
1st: 1 +4 (expert) + 4 (str) = 9
5th: 5 + 6 (master) + 4 (str) = 15
11th: 11 + 6 (master) + 5 (str) = 22
15th: 15 + 8 (legendary) + 5 (str) = 28
20th: 20 + 8 (legendary) + 6 (Str) = 34
Being 3 behind the martial classes without a dedication feat doesn't seem so bad if the martials have to spend 4 feats just to have a spell attack roll 3 points behind at 20.
Of course, this analysis is looking purely at to-hit/spell attack bonuses and nothing else. There's a whole host of other considerations one should be looking at (including the spell levels and slots available, saves throws, armor proficiency, built in abilities like bonus precision damage or champion reactions, etc). The reason fighter have +2 more hit than the other martials is because they don't get those other things.
We probably shouldn't just look at just level 20 as well, given any campaign that reaches 20 will spend as much time playing at level 20 as any given lower level, but that analysis takes more time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess you are kiddin by bringing up that feat.
Why would I be kidding?
Most spellcasters end with a 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 progression to their spell slots. Someone investing heavily in Dedication spellcasting can have 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 before augmenting with things like rings of wizardry, staves, scrolls, wands and the like.
That's quite nearly half.
So you spend half your feats to be roughly half as good as a full caster. The other half of your feats make you half as good at your base class as a full member of that base class (assuming you didn't continue branching out).
Makes total sense to me, and seems like a pretty fair deal what's more.
MC wizard
16 INT
Lvl 2 - cantrips = +7 (-1 full caster)
Lvl 5 - INT 18 = +11 (Same)
Lvl 12 - Expert = +20 (-1)
Lvl 15 - INT 20 = +24 (-2)
Lvl 18 - Master = +29 ( same)
Lvl 20 = +32 (-2)Worse? Yes, some times, by -1 or -2. But Laughable? That seems hyperbolic. A Martial with a caster MC will be fine using AoE against equal or lower level enemies, but probably not using their spells against bosses.
Seeing as they lose nothing from their core proficiencies, being 1 or 2 points behind is far better than the reverse position of the wizard/fighter being 5 points behind on attacks by level 20.For a level 20 MC fighter starting at 16 Int, ending at 20 Int, no apex items, I get:
20 (level) + 6 (Master) + 5 (Int) = 31Is there something that provides an extra +1 some where I should know about?
At 20, I see the fighter/wizard being 3 behind (assuming 18 Str/16 Int) in terms of spell attack/save DCs (assuming 18 starting casting stat).
At 20 I see the casters (no dedication, assuming 16 Str/18 casting stat) being 3 behind martials in terms of to-hit, and 5 behind the fighter. Or 1 behind in athletics checks for trip, disarm, shove, etc.
That seems pretty symmetrical to me in terms of just to-hit. Probably should make the same kind of chart for attacks and not just the spell side of things:
Caster
1st: 1 + 2 (trained) +3 (str) = 6 (-1 relative to martials)
5th: 5 + 2 (trained) + 4 (str) = 11 (-2)
11th: 11 + 4 (expert) + 4 (str) = 19 (-1)
15th: 15 + 4 (expert) + 5 (str) = 24 (-2)
20th: 20 + 4 (Expert) + 5 (Str) = 29 (-3)
Champion/Ranger/Monk/Rogue
1st: 1 + 2 (trained) +4 (str/dex) = 7
5th: 5 + 4 (expert) + 4 (str/dex) = 13
11th: 11 + 4 (expert) + 5 (str/dex) = 20
15th: 15 + 6 (master) + 5 (str/dex) = 26
20th: 20 + 6 (Master) + 6 (Str) = 32
Fighter
1st: 1 +4 (expert) + 4 (str) = 9
5th: 5 + 6 (master) + 4 (str) = 15
11th: 11 + 6 (master) + 5 (str) = 22
15th: 15 + 8 (legendary) + 5 (str) = 28
20th: 20 + 8 (legendary) + 6 (Str) = 34Being 3...
You are right about the math. I'm an English professor. +3 does seem fair to me as well at level 20 and for most levels below that it will be in the +1 to +2 range.
The Scoundrel rogue actually can have an 18 starting charisma so end up only 2 behind at level 20, and be pretty close to equal most of the time up until then, plus gain sneak attack on spell attack rolls by level 4.
I actually think a lot of the reason people feel like the fighter/caster is so "useless" for spell attacks is the fact that they are overly good at attacking with weapons. For other martial the difference between their spell attack roll and their weapon attack will stay pretty close.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess you are kiddin by bringing up that feat.Why would I be kidding?
Most spellcasters end with a 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 progression to their spell slots. Someone investing heavily in Dedication spellcasting can have 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 before augmenting with things like rings of wizardry, staves, scrolls, wands and the like.
That's quite nearly half.
So you spend half your feats to be roughly half as good as a full caster. The other half of your feats make you half as good at your base class as a full member of that base class (assuming you didn't continue branching out).
Makes total sense to me, and seems like a pretty fair deal what's more.
No,sorry.
You won't be using lvl 1 spells at lvl 8, or lvl 2 spells at lvl 12.
What you gain is useless.
If you look at the whole spell it makes sense but guess what, you will get extra spells not when they are need.
So breath is useless.
True strike is pretty useful at all levels of play. Your spells change over play in PF2. You don’t use the same ones from 1 to 20
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to think these fighters have infinite funds. You can't just buy those wands and armor enchants like you could in past editions, not unless you have a really generous GM who gives out gold like parade candy.
If you're keeping up with your weapons and armor, and your GM is adhering to the wealth guidelines, you're not going to have a whole lot left--certainly not enough to cover the versatility of a half caster.
That being said, I do agree the level at which you obtain the spellcasting benefits could have been lowered a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True strike is the only exeption, as you can see i wrote it 10 posts before.
Want long stride rank 2?
Wand.The end.
All of these 1st level arcane spells are still as worthwhile at higher levels.
Alarm
Ant haul
Feather Fall
Fleet Step
Floating disk
goblin pox
grease
illusory disguise
illusory object
jump
longstrider
negate aroma
pest form
ray of enfeeblement
summon animal
true strike
unseen servant
ventriloquism (also good as a second level spell)
Yes some of the combat ones might be less usefully than using your actions for attacking, as a fighter in particular, but that is not a failure of the system, because the point of being a fighter is to be best at attacking with your weapons, so it wouldn't make any sense for you to be able to be a fighter and be able to cast 1st level attack spells that are a better use of your action economy.
Level 2 includes invisibility and see invisibility.
Your blanket statement against lower level spells for multi-class characters is not an opinion that is going to be widely shared. But if you don't like it, then you are probably better off not multi-classing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally find it refreshing that the multi-class feat which nearly doubles your total amount of spells per day is not an obvious must have feat for all, but one that will fit some build ideas an not others. That is a pretty impressive accomplishment on the part of the developers.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the list, apart from true strike, is something which could be removed, just because casters will do it for you.
The new Schroedinger's wizard, who is simultaneously useless compared to the martial but also always available and willing to throw every buff on the martial, and somehow get them all there first round of combat.
In fact it was the opposite, PF1 encouraged multiclassing so much that people would complain about how its "munchiky", "too anime", etc.That wasn't encouraging "multiclassing" though, it was encouraging taking a single level of a class and moving on. You weren't playing a Fighter/Rogue, you were playing a Fighter who took a single level of Rogue to get Sneak Attack, or a Sorcerer with one level of Oracle for Cha to AC. Sure it was called multiclassing, but people rarely used it to represent your character trying to bring two disparate ideas together.
I don't know about the tables you've been at, and yes I've heard that was a problem in PFS, but for me, personally, I always started a character with an idea of 2 classes to put together. I would preplan my progression and find a balancing point for what I wanted/needed out of both classes (and no not doing this will not give me more fun, that is a large part of my fun, so are surprises where I May change course and rebuild the Entire 1-20 midgame aka the journey). PF2 has made this a heck of a lot harder, not in no small part thanks to the new multiclassing system. Right now I'm honestly waiting to get into 2nd edition till a lot of the older classes are in the game but am trying to buy up the pdfs along the way... Because I want to enjoy the game, I do... but right now I just *shrugs* don't.
|
|
My friend showed off how well a sorcerer MCing champion can rip people up in melee and just keep going at the highest AC in the party.
I'm planning to testdrive my fighter MCing wizard for some electric and true strike goodness soon.
We're doing multiclassing easily that would have sucked intensely in PF1.