why attribute prereqs on Multiclass Dedication feats?


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

D&D 5e has the same issue (but even worse)...

Why can I play a Fighter with a Str and Dex of 10 each but I can't take Fighter Dedication with the same attributes? It makes no sense.

Why do Fighter and Barbarian Dedication have two attribute prereqs when every other martial has only 1? Champion and Monk at least make sense historically as they've always been attribute-heavy. The Fighter in particular makes no sense - it's trivial to build a Str-based or Dex-based fighter with no use for the other attribute (either single or multiclass).


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Your base class is what you have trained extensively to do in your pre-adventuring days. Whether or not you have any actual acumen for it, you were nonetheless trained for that job. The dedication feat is something you pick up along the way, largely self-directed. You have to have some kind of acumen to start casting wizard spells with minimal training, but if you came up through wizard school they're not going to kick you out for having an Int of 10 as long as you can keep covering tuition.

Sovereign Court

You could just house rule it for your game so that 2 stats means "Str OR Dex" instead of Str AND Dex". But I agree, you should only need 1, like most every other dedication feat.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The intent was to somewhat enforce some of the flavor associated with the class archetypes. It's entirely feasible to ignore them in your own games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's the logic I don't get. If enforcing flavor for the dedication feats, why not for the class itself?

I plan on ignoring (or at least reducing to 1 attribute) in any games I run and I expect most GMs will be willing (if I'm a player).

I guess I was wondering if anyone knew the "logic" behind having dedication prereqs that differ from the key attributes for the class (or having prereq attributes at all).

Given that the multiclass archetypes are VERY paired down versions of the classes, I fail to understand the need to add attribute prereqs...


I mean if your concept is "a really unintelligent wizard" what is a better way to go about it- a low INT wizard, or a low INT character who is not a wizard who takes the wizard dedication?

Like what sorts of character concepts would we actually enable by eliminating the stat requirements on multiclass dedications? Keep in mind that, barring a stat flaw from your ancestry (which most people will cancel out with a floating bonus) you start with at least 12 in your class's primary stat anyway, and that's assuming you pass up on three different opportunities to increase it.

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Twilight2k wrote:

That's the logic I don't get. If enforcing flavor for the dedication feats, why not for the class itself? [...]

It is enforced for the class itself. You absolutely cannot play a fighter without gaining either a Strength or Dex boost. You can make a character who is "unsuited" for the job but relies on extensive training to make up for a lack of natural talent, but a multiclassing character is by definition not devoting all of their time and energy to the secondary class.

The difference, as PossibleCabbage notes, is that someone multiclassing fighter needs to have some natural acumen for it since being a fighter is not their primary focus. For example, a cleric who multiclasses fighter never stops being a cleric and continually becomes a better cleric with every level they gain, so they need to have some natural talent towards being a fighter if they want to also take that training. Since it's an additional training field on top of their main one, someone with a 10 STR and 10 DEX is both not naturally suited to being a fighter and isn't giving it the focus it would call for to overcome their natural deficiencies, so they just can't master those other techniques.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the logic of ability prereqs for Dedications generally.

However, can anyone explain to me why an 18 Dex, 10 Str character can't take Fighter Dedication? They would make an excellent ranged fighter or decent melee fighter (excellent if Thief). Or an 18 Str, 10 Dex (who would make an excellent melee fighter)?

Fighter and Ranger have the same primary attributes (Str or Dex) but the Dedication feats are 14 Dex AND Str for Fighter but only 14 Dex for Ranger. Honestly, I don't understand why both aren't "Str or Dex" but I really don't understand why Fighter needs both but Ranger only needs one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly think the dedications should be harder to get into. They seem way better then the standard class feats to me.


I absolutely agree that having Fighter/Barbarian have two stats required is unnecessary and I would 100% recommend changing that 'And' to an 'Or' when it comes to the ability prerequisites.

But as for having ability prerequisites to multiclass while the class itself has none, I think this makes absolute sense for two reasons that others have already noted.

1) Since the class in question has an ability score that it automatically raises for being that class, you actually are forced to have basically the same minimum score as the multiclass pre-requisite anyways. Yes, in specific niche scenarios you can have a race that gives you a negative and drop that number down to 10, but in 99% of cases, you MUST have at least a 12 in that core ability.

And 2), and I feel that this is a much more important reason, everything that PossibleCabbage said.

To extrapolate on this a bit more, in real life there are two different things that contribute towards being able to learn a new skill. Dedication/sheer hours put into the skill, and raw talent/natural affinity.

If a weak and clumsy man desires to be a fighter, he must put hour after hour into honing his skill, until he will be able to control his weapon through sheer technique and form.

He won't be able to swing his sword very hard and his footwork will be sluggish, but he will have the skills to be your Str and Dex 10 Fighter.

If a Druid adventurer wants to pick up that sword and learn to do what the Fighters do, he doesn't have the time or resources to go about training and dedicating himself to what a main Class Fighter can do in full. So instead he has to rely more on natural affinity. He NEEDS to be strong or nimble in order to use the sword with any degree of capability because he doesn't have time to learn the form. Those physicals let him compensate for poor footwork and structure.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:


It is enforced for the class itself. You absolutely cannot play a fighter without gaining either a Strength or Dex boost.

While I get that, the 'or' is an important qualifier there. Notably both Monks have Fighters have in-class tools that allow high strength characters to largely ignore Dexterity.

Then even further removed, Barbarians don't really have anything that directly corresponds to Constitution (arguably their innately high HP and Fort saves make them one of the best classes at avoiding Con entirely, though Con's a really valuable stat in general so that's moot) and Champions really only get nominal value from Charisma innately.

And while I'm not complaining about the lack of extra prerequisites, Rogues and Rangers are both classes that have a strength or dexterity split just like Fighters and Monks, yet these classes only have the one stat requirement.

Again, that's not a bad thing, but it does make the choice to tie Fighters/Monks to both of their primary stats and Barbarians/Champions to their primary stat + a flavor stat feel a little odd juxtaposed next to everyone else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter can get AoO, Barbarian can get AoO, Champion can get AoO, Monk can get AoO. All of those need 2 stats to multiclass, you notice a pattern here?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is one simple reason to gate multiclass archetypes behind ability score prerequisites: in this edition you lose less from your starting class by multiclassing than in the first edition. Potentially falling behind in spellcasting or reducing your sneak attack damage or anything of the sort makes you think twice before multiclassing, but in a case where multiclassing amounts to swapping some class feats (some may not interest you in the first place) with abilities and feats from another class without reducing your base class's overall power or renouncing to a capstone class feature, there needs to be a small obstacle to it in the form of ability score prerequisites.

I experimented with the system to have an idea of the possibilities in terms of character creation, and having several secondary ability scores at 14 at level 1 doesn't require any big sacrifices. Heck, having 4 ability scores at 14 is ridiculously easy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I assume it's a similar sort of logic that D&D 5e uses.

5e PHB, pg. 163 wrote:


Without the full training that a beginning character receives, you must be a quick study in your new class, having a natural aptitude that is reflected by higher-than-average ability scores.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Fighter can get AoO, Barbarian can get AoO, Champion can get AoO, Monk can get AoO. All of those need 2 stats to multiclass, you notice a pattern here?

Rangers have a reaction strike too. So no.


Mechanically, its indeed to create a small obstacle to be able to provide class feats from another class.

Flavor wise, its indeed the view that multiclassing requires more talent and fitness for the class.

* P.S. at least it's better than the playtest where the requirements were 16 instead of 14.

* P.S.S. if they didnt add some pre-req it would probably end more like Variant Multiclassing, where the abilities where mostly meh and severely delayed (more than they already are).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know the reason, but one clue is that the playtest multiclass document had higher prerequisites.
ALCHEMIST DEDICATION Prerequisites Intelligence 16
BARBARIAN DEDICATION Prerequisites Strength 16
BARD DEDICATION Prerequisites Charisma 16
CLERIC DEDICATION Prerequisites Wisdom 16
DRUID DEDICATION Prerequisites Wisdom 16
FIGHTER DEDICATION Prerequisites Strength or Dexterity 16
MONK DEDICATION Prerequisites Strength or Dexterity 16
PALADIN DEDICATION Prerequisites Strength or Charisma 16
RANGER DEDICATION Prerequisites Strength or Dexterity 16
ROGUE DEDICATION Prerequisites Dexterity 16
SORCERER DEDICATION Prerequisites Charisma 16
WIZARD DEDICATION Prerequisites Intelligence 16, trained in Arcana

One of the design goals of Pathfinder 2nd Edition was to avoid ineffective characters created by inexperienced players. For example, choosing Wizard as a class gives an automatic +2 ability score boost to Intelligence and trains the wizard in Arcana. Unless a wizard has an ancestry that has a -2 ability score flaw in Intelligence, the wizard will have a 12 or higher in Intelligence and probably would have a 14 or higher unless the player is deliberately avoiding Intelligence.

The designers could not give an ability score boost as part of a Dedication feat, but they could add a prerequisite for the relevant ability score.


That's a good point Mathmuse. If you're a sorcerer who wants to multiclass fighter so you can fight with a sword, but your strength and dex are both 10, then you're just not going to feel very satisfied when you try to swing your sword and miss basically every time. If you wanted to swing a sword, you'd want your strength or dex to be high enough that you had a reasonable chance of succeeding.

It's a little bit different with spellcaster dedications, since primarily your Int/Cha/Wis is going to be for setting spell DCs and you could always choose to learn spells that don't have DCs, but anyway 14 is not a big ask.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the record, I waived the ability score requirement in my games, and everyone has multiclassed, but in every case they've had the requisite 14s anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
For the record, I waived the ability score requirement in my games, and everyone has multiclassed, but in every case they've had the requisite 14s anyway.

I waived the "When retraining, you generally can’t make choices you couldn’t make when you selected the original option" rule. Since things like "your stat isn't high enough at level 2, but is at level 5" or "you weren't proficient in the thing at level 2, but were later" strike me as appropriate uses of retraining and spending a level 6 feat on a feat others can take at level 2 is unsatisfying.

You still can't take a level 4 feat in a level 2 slot, but any feat that could be taken by someone at level 2 can be taken as a level 2 feat by you on retraining.


It really probably in their for the mechanics to work. like cabbage was implying. It's to keep someone from making a bad character I imagine. Getting options that wouldn't help them. that and maybe also making is so you can't do the dip thing for a single ability.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
For the record, I waived the ability score requirement in my games, and everyone has multiclassed, but in every case they've had the requisite 14s anyway.

Isnt that more likely due to your doubling of class feats?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
It really probably in their for the mechanics to work. like cabbage was implying. It's to keep someone from making a bad character I imagine. Getting options that wouldn't help them. that and maybe also making is so you can't do the dip thing for a single ability.

Dipping is (somewhat) restricted by requiring 3 feats (dedication + 2 others) before you can take another dedication. If I read it right, there's a few non-multiclass dedications that require 4 feats (dedication + 3 others). If you only want to dip into a single dedication, that still works (just take the dedication plus one other feat).

To me, the dedication is usually the barrier to getting the useful abilities (though there are some exceptions like Lastwall Sentry and some other dedications are good for some characters).

I tend to prefer classless systems so one thing I dislike with PF2 is that you MUST be a Cleric to be good at magical healing (Font of Healing is not available via archetype feat at any level), you MUST be a ranger to be the best possible at two-weapon fighting (their class feature for really low MAP isn't available at any level as archetype feat either). I thought the Monk was done well where you CAN get Flurry of Blows but not until level 10 (9 levels after a Monk).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Even in classless systems there are musts if you want to be "the best" at something. At least until we get down to the very barest narrative driven games.

I'd content that focusing on being the best (from a player perspective) is going to yield constrained and unsatisfactory results in all systems. You use the word good instead of best for magical healing but then say the best example of it is the only one when that simply isnt true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I'd content that focusing on being the best (from a player perspective) is going to yield constrained and unsatisfactory results in all systems.

I'd disagree. In terms of being 'the best' at something, it's not that hard in PF2. The way PF2's math works makes it fairly easy and not too punishing to specialize in one type of task, provided you pick an appropriate class. You can generally pull off your one trick and even have some choices left over to personalize your character or add a bit of flexibility.

Where PF2 has trouble is with people who don't want to be the best, but who want to dabble. If you want to do several things reasonably well, you're going to struggle to do so at a reasonable level because you have to buy into each new ability separately using the same pool of resources.

Kinda beyond the scope of this thread though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'd content that focusing on being the best (from a player perspective) is going to yield constrained and unsatisfactory results in all systems.

I'd disagree. In terms of being 'the best' at something, it's not that hard in PF2. The way PF2's math works makes it fairly easy and not too punishing to specialize in one type of task, provided you pick an appropriate class. You can generally pull off your one trick and even have some choices left over to personalize your character or add a bit of flexibility.

Where PF2 has trouble is with people who don't want to be the best, but who want to dabble. If you want to do several things reasonably well, you're going to struggle to do so at a reasonable level because you have to buy into each new ability separately using the same pool of resources.

Kinda beyond the scope of this thread though.

I dont think that's true. There are four scales of twf use for example.

1. Incompetent, using weapons that offer you no or negative value.

2. Competent, using appropriate weapons for damage and trait advantage (available to everyone).

3. Good. Fighter or rogue, or mcd fighter/rogue/ranger.

4. The best. Ranger.

2 and 3 are perfectly fine. If you focus on only going for 4 in everything or even the majority of things your character does, in every system I've ever played, you are going to find it either impossible or exceptionally restricted.

The same goes for healing. Ge categorized the level 4 rank ad the level 2 rank, when actually there are a bunch of ways to provide decent magical healing without being a cleric. He skipped right over competent and good.


In 1st edition, many feats had ability score prerequisites.

This is the same thing.

They are just called MCD now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, the reason is very simple: Without attribute needs, Dedication feats would be just another feat. There would be too many people taking a dedication feat because "that's the best feat I can take at that level".
For me, a Dedication should be harder to get than a normal feat, as it represents a particular training and a specific character flavor. So, I understand the prerequisites to force players to invest a bit to get a Dedication.
And asking for 14 Strength or 14 Dexterity to get Fighter Dedication is equivalent to removing all prerequisites, as most characters will have these stats by level 1.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
For the record, I waived the ability score requirement in my games, and everyone has multiclassed, but in every case they've had the requisite 14s anyway.
Isnt that more likely due to your doubling of class feats?

Yes, multiclassing is more likely in my game, I'm just saying so far the waived ability score requirement house rule hasn't come into effect yet for 5 characters.


Twilight2k wrote:

D&D 5e has the same issue (but even worse)...

Why can I play a Fighter with a Str and Dex of 10 each but I can't take Fighter Dedication with the same attributes? It makes no sense.

Why do Fighter and Barbarian Dedication have two attribute prereqs when every other martial has only 1? Champion and Monk at least make sense historically as they've always been attribute-heavy. The Fighter in particular makes no sense - it's trivial to build a Str-based or Dex-based fighter with no use for the other attribute (either single or multiclass).

Please ignore the various attempts at providing in-game rationales.

It is entirely an gameplay balance issue. The system is carefully calibrated to make every choice have a benefit and a cost.

The cost of getting the benefit of multiclass dedications (i.e abilities of other classes) is that you must place ability scores in certain ways. To be blunt, in order to enjoy multiclass advantages you must pay the cost of spending your ability boosts in certain ways.

So it makes perfect sense, you just must view Pathfinder 2 as a game to see it. You should not remove these restrictions lightly, it would make multiclass dedications less expensive to take, making them stronger than the devs intended.

Liberty's Edge

It seems to me that there are three possible functions that the ability score prerequisites can serve:

1) Flavor — multiclassing requires raw talent because it doesn’t reflect long years of training;

2) Stop Against Ineffective Builds — multiclassing without the ability scores to back it up will make for weak PCs; and

3) Balance — ability score prereqs mean PCs must either limit themselves to dedications related to their original class or devote extra resources in the form of ability boosts that don’t directly impact their initial class.

Some combination of two, or even all three, is also possible. So the question two questions a GM must ask are which of the three functions are in play and to what degree do you value them.

Flavor is, if you’ll pardon the pun, a matter of taste, so if the flavor doesn’t appeal to you, rate the value of that function low. You know whether your players need to be guided away from poor build choices, so if they don’t or if you’re willing and able to serve that function yourself, value this function as low, too. I don’t feel like I have sufficient experience with 2E at this point to make a strong call on this balance issue, but the Alchemist class as a whole makes me wonder if the devs do, either. So I don’t know that you should be too reticent to dump the prerequisites to preserve balance, but you may want to keep and eye on the impact if you DO drop the prerequisites and let that guide you in the future.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Isthisnametaken? wrote:
Why go through such a lengthy playtest period only to make final game changes without player vetting?

Because that's how game design in general and this type of playtest in particular work? It is literally impossible for the people making the game in the first place to not be the ones making the final changes to the game. Nobody else can possibly do that for them.

And boy are you in for a rough decade or so if you don't think they can be trusted to make any design decisions without supervision, because the majority of PF2 content is in all likelihood 100% in-house, just like PF1 and basically every other game in existence.


Twilight2k wrote:
Dipping is (somewhat) restricted by requiring 3 feats (dedication + 2 others) before you can take another dedication.

I would venture that few characters are going to want to take multiple dedications (short of something like Multitalented). The worst feat in any archetype is the entry level feat after all. I can put up with one of those, but I'm not in a hurry for a second.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Twilight2k wrote:
Dipping is (somewhat) restricted by requiring 3 feats (dedication + 2 others) before you can take another dedication.
I would venture that few characters are going to want to take multiple dedications (short of something like Multitalented). The worst feat in any archetype is the entry level feat after all. I can put up with one of those, but I'm not in a hurry for a second.

Maybe it's just me then. Of the 6 characters I"ve come up with so far, 4 will likely have 2 dedications (one will probably end up with 3 dedications eventually). Probably shouldn't be a surprise - I don't think I have a single 5e character that isn't multiclass (many triple-class and one four-class).


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Twilight2k wrote:
Dipping is (somewhat) restricted by requiring 3 feats (dedication + 2 others) before you can take another dedication.
I would venture that few characters are going to want to take multiple dedications (short of something like Multitalented). The worst feat in any archetype is the entry level feat after all. I can put up with one of those, but I'm not in a hurry for a second.

Getting training in all armors or in simple/martial weapons can easily be better than, say, Point-Blank Shot.

As to multiple dedications, myself I made an oracle with bard and sorcerer multiclasses. Basing everything off of Cha based occult casting made things easier and IMO wasn't a lose as I loathed the curse mechanic in the playtest so all the oracle class feats were worthless to me so might as well multiclass...


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I find it odd that someone coming from 5e likes to multiclass so much and is finding pf2 restrictive in that regard. You needed precise ratios of levels or else your character has objectively worse stats/feats and most special features are mutually exclusive (cant sneak attack and flurry for example)


I personally think it would be easy to house rule the old multi-classing style into PF2 I just don't know how effective it would be but couldn't be worse then how it worked in pf1.


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

I also want to think about whether multiclassing is needed to yield a concept or whether it's just that because there is a possible mechanic it feels required when it actually isnt.

E.g my character concept is an archer scout who performs recon and guerilla strikes for nirmathas. I start fighter or ranger because I feel they have the best options. Now obviously I need a rogue mcd to really lean into stealth and scouting. But you dont really, that's all achievable via skill feats instead. Now going rogue might still be a good idea, and can yield some fun features but it isnt a requirement of bringing the stealthy scout concept to life, despite Sneak Atrack being a named and thus appealing feature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

I also want to think about whether multiclassing is needed to yield a concept or whether it's just that because there is a possible mechanic it feels required when it actually isnt.

E.g my character concept is an archer scout who performs recon and guerilla strikes for nirmathas. I start fighter or ranger because I feel they have the best options. Now obviously I need a rogue mcd to really lean into stealth and scouting. But you dont really, that's all achievable via skill feats instead. Now going rogue might still be a good idea, and can yield some fun features but it isnt a requirement of bringing the stealthy scout concept to life, despite Sneak Atrack being a named and thus appealing feature.

That's a good point. IF your concept is a multi-class wizard,fighter,rogue . as opposed to say a jack of all trades then by defining the concept by class instead of like what you are wanting to accomplish your limiting your own ways of doing thing.


There were talks, and I have been trying to wrap my head around, importing PF1 multiclassing. But the biggest problem is proficiency increases outside of skills are not consistent. Each type of proficiency scales differently and every class has a slightly different rate of getting proficiency so it ends up being difficult to just add levels without staying at expert proficiency in everything.

The ways I have come up with are to:

* Make a table with fractional proficiency and add the fractions as needed.
* Or, remake proficiency to fit the full (Legendary), 3/4 (Master), and 1/2 (Expert) BAB. Obviously this would need to introduce Legendary saves to the PF1 list.

*****************
* P.S. I just realized items can in theory be untrained (a brick vs reflex) or legendary (a squishy ball vs reflex) in saves.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FowlJ wrote:
Isthisnametaken? wrote:
Why go through such a lengthy playtest period only to make final game changes without player vetting?

Because that's how game design in general and this type of playtest in particular work? It is literally impossible for the people making the game in the first place to not be the ones making the final changes to the game. Nobody else can possibly do that for them.

And boy are you in for a rough decade or so if you don't think they can be trusted to make any design decisions without supervision, because the majority of PF2 content is in all likelihood 100% in-house, just like PF1 and basically every other game in existence.

Just my opinion, but I got the feeling that Paizo really, REALLY wanted the Core rulebook and Bestiary (and at least a module or 2) printed and ready for sale at Gen-con. That seems to have been their hard deadline. As a lifelong west coast gamer that has never been to Gen-con, I agree the final game would have been much better served by a bit more time to work on it, finalize things like the Alchemist class and multiclass feats, etc. But, in the end, Paizo is a company and needs to do what it has to in order to make money. (And despite my feelings, I do understand that.) "We've already been writing and testing it for more than a year, we'll fix anything we or the fans find in errata and later printings, but we can't miss the deadline we gave to the fans and the sales opportunity of Gen-con!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If y'all don't see how much care and balance has gone into the multiclass ability score prereqs, that's on you.

You will simply have to accept that your theory "sloppy and quick" likely isn't true.

Like it or not, the answer to this thread's question "why attribute prereqs on Multiclass Dedication feats?" is to balance multiclassing against other options, and that the restrictions serve a purpose, and that they are good for the game.

My players are very impressed with how precisely these restrictions force you to make hard decisions. How this makes multiclassing tortuously balanced, by how you must accept lower scores in your prime abilities in order to multiclass into classes with useful abilities.

The likely scenario is that people complaining just want things for free. Don't listen to them - that would just make multiclassing the obvious powerful choice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No one has asked for free stuff in this thread. No one questions that Paizo took the time to balance, although there are questions as to wether they spend enough time in each thing (looks at Alchemist).

Lastly, there has always been three schools for multiclassing: Multiclassing should be free and used often to create unique and interesting characters; Multiclassimg should be used as needed to create some characters; Multiclassing should never be used.

Paizo chosed the given stats as a compromise between them. 14 is hard enough not everyone can get it immediately, but easy enough that most characters can get it quickly.

**********
It's not even that much lower on primary scores given the 4 stats increases every 5 levels.

Silver Crusade

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zapp wrote:

If y'all don't see how much care and balance has gone into the multiclass ability score prereqs, that's on you.

You will simply have to accept that your theory "sloppy and quick" likely isn't true.

Like it or not, the answer to this thread's question "why attribute prereqs on Multiclass Dedication feats?" is to balance multiclassing against other options, and that the restrictions serve a purpose, and that they are good for the game.

My players are very impressed with how precisely these restrictions force you to make hard decisions. How this makes multiclassing tortuously balanced, by how you must accept lower scores in your prime abilities in order to multiclass into classes with useful abilities.

The likely scenario is that people complaining just want things for free. Don't listen to them - that would just make multiclassing the obvious powerful choice.

Holy smokes, I fully agree with Zapp! *marks calendar*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

If y'all don't see how much care and balance has gone into the multiclass ability score prereqs, that's on you.

You will simply have to accept that your theory "sloppy and quick" likely isn't true.

Like it or not, the answer to this thread's question "why attribute prereqs on Multiclass Dedication feats?" is to balance multiclassing against other options, and that the restrictions serve a purpose, and that they are good for the game.

My players are very impressed with how precisely these restrictions force you to make hard decisions. How this makes multiclassing tortuously balanced, by how you must accept lower scores in your prime abilities in order to multiclass into classes with useful abilities.

The likely scenario is that people complaining just want things for free. Don't listen to them - that would just make multiclassing the obvious powerful choice.

So I think they tried to do a thing, and make these fair and balanced, but... I think they just messed up in some areas. I don't mind the stat requirements, but the fact is that Playtest Fighter was a ridiculously good MC, and Final Version Fighter is likely a pretty horrible MC. They added additional stat requirements *and* make the actual dedication feat much worse, particularly at higher levels.

I'm not against balancing against cost, but it seems like, at least in the case of fighter, they could have done "OR" and no harm would have come/it would have been more comparable with other MCs. It also generally feels off to have it be *easier* to get into Ranger, for example* than it is to MC into Fighter.

There are likely other tweaks. And honestly, I, personally, am not a fan of the MC system, but I do actually see its merits. I don't think it's fair to say "it's all horrible", but also, yeah, I do think they kinda messed up the balance in a couple spots.


I mean, the primary problem with the fighter MC is that it is literally useless save for the skill increase to some classes (anybody who already has martial proficiencies, like rangers, barbarians, or champions.) This feels like as much of a tax as anything in PF2 for those characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the primary problem with the fighter MC is that it is literally useless save for the skill increase to some classes (anybody who already has martial proficiencies, like rangers, barbarians, or champions.) This feels like as much of a tax as anything in PF2 for those characters.

As much as I dislike taxes, I think this one might be justified. Fighter feats are mainly fantastic efficiency amplifiers and while nice on non-martial characters can be super effective on characters with already strong martial capabilities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd just like an alternative entry point for the fighter dedication for people who already have martial weapon proficiencies (likewise champion and armor proficiencies.) They don't have to be especially strong options, but they should be stronger than "spend a class feat on a single skill training and get nothing else."

Just psychologically, a feat giving you something you already have isn't very satisfying.

Something like:
Advanced Fighter Dedication
Prerequisites: Trained in all martial weapons, Str 16 or Dex 16.

You become trained in acrobatics or athletics; if you are already trained in both of these skills you become trained in another skill instead. You are trained in fighter DC. Gain your choice of a level 1 skill feat that requires training in acrobatics or athletics.

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / why attribute prereqs on Multiclass Dedication feats? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.