| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've found it pretty easy to multiclass as a Wizard, there are some standout feats but there's a lot of not impressive stuff and the main reason you're playing one is for the four spell slots anyways. Though they also a really weak chassis for picking up archetypes, so you have to be careful.
I think part of it also depends on what you want to do. Like, say, if I wanted to build a two-handed weapon ranger, multiclassing would be a no brainer because the class has almost no internal support for that kind of build and I'd be looking at Mauler or Fighter dedication to make it work, whereas if I'm going to be an archer it's a lot more tempting to stay in class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter + Anything is almost always an improvement. Fighter's legendary to hit and good base stats allows them to make good use of almost any multiclass feat they grab.
However, the opposite is not always true, Fighter multiclass archetype is very meh.
Also because as a martial class, Fighter gets a feat at level 1, and then combat flexibility gives them up to two more. So they can still grab mainclass things even if they go 100% archetype.
Precision edge rangers probably have few problems with archetypes. For the most part, they have things that are 'nice' like animal companions, but not 'essential' for making their basic build work. You don't feel hollowed you, since you can still do your bread and butter of 'hunt' and 'get one big hit in'.
Compare that to a flurry ranger, where you have to ask 'what am I getting out of this?' if you don't go TWF or archery.
Sorcerer is very difference in perception
one of my players basically says 'I need alls those sorcerer feats' while the other one is more like 'they are not particulary interesting...show me options'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love that Paizo let's us shuffle our available options like this.
Sorcerer is very difference in perception
one of my players basically says 'I need alls those sorcerer feats' while the other one is more like 'they are not particulary interesting...show me options'
I think it depends on the bloodline. If I had a Primal bloodline, I would probably want all of the sorcerer feats I could get, but my undead-bloodline sorcerer simply has better options if he multiclasses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i really like ritualist for a wizard now even if it cant get rare stuff like clone at least it lets you get create undead if you are a necromancer
There are very few Cleric class feats that are even remotely exciting to me. Lots of "win more" stuff that provides extra healing to already potent heals, and that sort of thing.
Lots of room for archetypes there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn’t really respond specifically to the OP, but it does remind me that I don’t think any of the classes “need” archetypes. There are a ton of options/paths already embedded in classes. I find it more valuable to think of archetypes as adding a some extra flavoring to the base class.
Organized Play Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn’t really respond specifically to the OP, but it does remind me that I don’t think any of the classes “need” archetypes. There are a ton of options/paths already embedded in classes. I find it more valuable to think of archetypes as adding a some extra flavoring to the base class.
Anecdotally, I spend way more time thinking about what class to add to an archetype than I do thinking about what archetype to add to a class.
I think it depends on the bloodline. If I had a Primal bloodline, I would probably want all of the sorcerer feats I could get, but my undead-bloodline sorcerer simply has better options if he multiclasses.Sorcerer is very difference in perception
one of my players basically says 'I need alls those sorcerer feats' while the other one is more like 'they are not particulary interesting...show me options'
Could you clarify why specifically primal will need feats? I haven't looked in detail but one of my players is a primal sorcerer so it would be good to advise
Incidentally I was taking a look at potential archetypes for my group since I am probably going to offer the Free archetype variant (probably excluding multiclass ones because they *seem* stronger but I could be wrong). What ones are better for sorcerers because I seemed to be drawing a blank
I think it depends on the bloodline. If I had a Primal bloodline, I would probably want all of the sorcerer feats I could get, but my undead-bloodline sorcerer simply has better options if he multiclasses.Sorcerer is very difference in perception
one of my players basically says 'I need alls those sorcerer feats' while the other one is more like 'they are not particulary interesting...show me options'
Could you clarify why specifically primal will need feats? I haven't looked in detail but one of my players is a primal sorcerer so it would be good to advise
Probably he thinks the focus 3 and focus 6 powers and the focus reharge feats are good and worth buying on the primal bloodlines, but not on undead.
|
Personally, I have found Rogue to be horrible for archetypes: I took Cleric Dedication at level 2, but since then I've had a backlog of Rogue feats I'd rather take over any dedication feat, so right now it's just two extra trained skills and a couple of cantrips...
Our party's cloistered cleric, on the other hand, has two or three multiclass dedications at this point since his class feats are fairly lackluster...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I have found Rogue to be horrible for archetypes: I took Cleric Dedication at level 2, but since then I've had a backlog of Rogue feats I'd rather take over any dedication feat, so right now it's just two extra trained skills and a couple of cantrips...
And yet the Rogue chassis is perfect for so many archetypes.
Look at Shadowdancer. Look at Pathfinder Agent, Cha caster MCs, Scout, Vigilante...
The problem might be that in 2e, Rogue is one of the very best classes so almost every other option is a downgrade. Oh well, Rogues are really good, what can you do?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I have found Rogue to be horrible for archetypes: I took Cleric Dedication at level 2, but since then I've had a backlog of Rogue feats I'd rather take over any dedication feat, so right now it's just two extra trained skills and a couple of cantrips...
And yet the Rogue chassis is perfect for so many archetypes.
Look at Shadowdancer. Look at Pathfinder Agent, Cha caster MCs, Scout, Vigilante...
The problem might be that in 2e, Rogue is one of the very best classes so almost every other option is a downgrade. Oh well, Rogues are really good, what can you do?
They are the polar opposite of the Cleric as they have more good feats than feat slots: My Thief is about to hit 15 (provided we survive the upcoming boss fight) and I'm still a little annoyed I wasn't able to squeeze Light Step into my build.
Likewise, Preparation seems like a great new feat for my build, but I'm not certain where I could squeeze it in at this point...When your main issue is an abundance of good options, it's really hard to fit an archetype in beyond the dedication feat itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians function pretty well with a small number of Barbarian feats, so if you can get around the "some things don't work while raging" you have a bunch of feats slots you can devote to an archetype.
One of our playtest characters was a Spirit Instinct Barbarian with the cleric dedication who took all the spellcasting feats.
I like monks as a base class. They have good defense, speed and action economy.
So you could inspire courage, run up, and attack twice.
Or go shrunken / bow to shoot twice and still cast a spell. With divine or occult training so your DC is good.
There is the option to pick up a focus point to use as well. Wholeness of body and ascendant step work for anyone.