Multi-classing. Is it good and if so why? I just don't see the advantage.

[larsenex]

Greetings. I have read a bit about how Pf2e does multi-classing. I get the dedication feats. I just do not see any advantage for taking them.

Can some folks here with better understanding please post some examples of very good multi-classing and why and how?

Thanks for your help.

[WatersLethe]

Whoo boy, it certainly is.

Multiclassing into a caster can get you access to quite a few spells, and, importantly, staves, wands, and scrolls. Access to spells alone can be worth multiclassing.

Then there are abilities you can only get by multiclassing. A wildshaping druid can make fantastic use of an AoO or champion reaction.

Wizards multiclass frequently because so many of their class feats are optional. They can get a great deal of spells from multiclassing, or pick up tons of utility from single action things like Inspire Courage or hexes from Witch.

Gish characters can often find use from other class's feats.

Now that there are a bunch of non-multiclass archetypes multiclassing isn't as important, but it's still very good.

Then there are other rules like Free Archetype or Double Class Feats that let you multiclass to your heart's content, and build out very fun characters.

[Ubertron_X]

In general multi-classing is considered quite good to existential for many characters, be it for role-playing or powergaming reasons. Multi-classing allows you to customize your character to your liking and to aquire feats that your base class does not have access to.

Especially classes that tend to have rather uninteresting class feats can get a lot out of multiclassing.

Your Cloistered Cleric is to quishy and does not have a proper reaction? Pick up Champion dedication for that sweet armor proficiencies which also enables feats like Healing Hands (healing via focus spell) and even the dreaded Champions reaction?

Your Warpriest has trouble serving as an off-tank and utilising his shield properly due to action economy? Pick up Bastion dedication in order to raise your shield as an reaction and Quick Shield block to utilize it fully. You might even mix in Sentinel dedication for heavy armour, armour specialisation and improved bulwark (reflex saves).

Just two typical examples for the Cleric.

[larsenex]

Thank you for the reply. Can you give an example which has been a favorite of players here?

[Thebazilly]

Multiclassing is very good. (As is taking any Archetype, now that the APG is out.)

There are some classes that have poor feat options at certain levels. The early levels for Champions or Leaf Druids are good examples. You can gain a lot of benefit and flavor by dipping into an archetype to gain something that better fleshes out your build, like one of the weapon styles, some spellcasting, or even unique abilities from another class.

Multiclassing is currently the best way to build a character that can use weapons and magic. Multiclassing can get you a respectable number of spells from 2 or even 3 traditions. Multiclassing can get you Inspire Courage, Sneak Attack, or Rage.

It's not mandatory by any means, but it is a very good option, and can be useful to nearly any character.

[WatersLethe]

I see LOTS of wizards multiclassing for a variety of reasons. One of the most promising right now is Wizard/Witch.

You get to pick up a bunch more low level slots for utility, and access to 1 action hexes that can nicely slot into a typical casting round. They have the same stat and can both have Arcane proficiency.

I personally would consider that my default wizard build.

[NielsenE]

In many cases the dedication feats _are_ a bit closer to feat taxes in order to get to the follow-on feats. They still normally give you something, but yes a couple of combos might look weak until you invest deeper into the archteype.

My favorite two combos I've been playing with are Fighter/MC Wizard -- splitting feats about 50/50 between fighter and wizard choices. Very aggressive fighter with a couple of fun tricks to help with battlefield mobility and control. And a Sorcerer/MC Champion -- front rank blasty caster with good armor, shield ally, & champions reaction.

I haven't played with combining martials yet, but I've seen people with anything + rogue appear to have a lot of fun. The weak sneak attack is often why they picked it, but they've'd ended up really liking the skills.

[pauljathome]

My personal favourite is my PFS cleric multiclassing into druid. Getting the ability to wild shape has been both lots of fun AND mechanically quite useful. On the average of once a session if has been useful for my 8 str character to suddenly get a Swim speed or a climb speed or scent. Or even just preserve spells by wild shaping and killing some mooks. Wild shape is extremely versatile.

The extra skills and the extra spells are icing and the cherry on that already delicious cake :-). But, for example, being able to use a level 2 longstrider wand removed the largest issue with my wandering around in armor (reduced speed) that I don't have the STR for. Being able to fireball is useful even when my primal fireballs are less effective than my divine lightning bolts since sometimes fire is better and sometimes the area is better.

The multiclassing does NOT make my character more directly powerful but it makes him a LOT more versatile. Which, of course, both is fun AND has a sort of power all of its own.

One of the GREAT things about this version of multiclassing is that it is balanced and comes at a cost. All those advantages I've listed have made my cleric not as good a healer as he could be. There is a trade off.

[HumbleGamer]

larsenex wrote:

Greetings. I have read a bit about how Pf2e does multi-classing. I get the dedication feats. I just do not see any advantage for taking them.

Can some folks here with better understanding please post some examples of very good multi-classing and why and how?

Thanks for your help.

Talking only from a strictly mechanical point of view ( leaving apart Role Play stuff ), sometimes the dedication feat could seem a "tax" in order to get feats from another class or archetype.

You have to consider if the investement is reasonable or not.

A dedication ( whether it is archetype or multiclass ) might require different things your character doesn't have:

- Stats ( For example, a champion could consider using a full plate in order to entirely dump its dexterity score to 10, but then he wouldn't be able to take the rogue or fighter dedication, since they require 14 dex ).

- Skills ( An archetype could require you to be trained in one or more skills. If you have few skills you might not like to have to expend one of them just to unlock the dedication ).

- 2 feats requirement to unlock another Dedication/Archetype ( once you have your dedication, you can't take another one unless you take 2 dedication feat from the one you have. This could mean that you have to "sacrifice" a class feat because you'd like to have more dedications, even if the feat you decide to take isn't really interesting for you ).

A little example

Quote:

By lvl 2 you will take your Dedication/Archetype.
By lvl 8 you also want to take another one dedication.

This means that you are forced to take 2 dedication feats at lvl 4 and 6, even if they are useless for your class.

Remember that better feats mostly come at higher level, so you would probably like to save some slots for class feats instead.

___

As for me, I like the customization given by dedications and archetypes ( Sometimes I feel that lvl 2 may be more or less worthless, but I deal with it ).

I am currently playing a Human Tiefling "Daredevil" Liberator Champion of Cayden Cailean.

Acrobat Background and Both Staff acrobat and Acrobat Dedication.

I really like it and I feel myself comfortable:

- I Jump and leap instead of striding.
- I Have many possibilities with my weapon staff, for either offense and defense.
- My reaction is used almost all rounds, to either protect, free allies or let them step.
- I have a decent amount of Flourish Maneuvers ( 3 ) depends the situation I am into.
- I managed to have more 1 more skill to increase ( because of acrobat dedication ), so I can have better performances even into social encounters.

I am pretty sure that you could get used to dedications/Archetypes by using the Pathbuilder 2e APP for mobile. It takes a few clicks to master, and allows you to see how your character changes depends your modifies ( and tell you what you can or can't do ).

[Claxon]

If you have a concept that the core class doesn't really enable, you're almost certainly only going to be able to fulfill via multiclass/dedications.

They can add a lot of versatility to a character.

Adding a spell casting dedication to any martial character can add a lot of versatility, and often the abilities offered by martial characters are more about broadening your options in combat rather than really allowing you to special overly much into one thing.

Spells can allow a martial character to self buff and do things that they would otherwise be restricted from doing, like teleport.

And, if you're a fighter who really wants to make that attack land, you can always slap on a True Strike.

Oh, and if you're thinking about playing a martial character who has a moderate amount of Charisma, the Marshall is amazing.

[Kyrone]

One of my favorites MCs is Rogue/Ranger, mainly Mastermind Rogue, pick the Monster Hunter Feat and then your choice of either Twin Takedown or Hunted Shot, fill your skills increases in nature and survival and be a "Ranger" but using Rogue base.

Without being an MC dedication per se, the Marshal one is amazing on Warpriest, combine Cast Down and Topple Foe and the enemy don't get up, and you have some nice auras.

[Captain Morgan]

Worth noting that archetypes and dedications sometimes offer options which are strictly better than in class options, with their only downside being they lock you out from other archetypes. Consider extra cantrips. Depending on the specific cantrips and traditions, a caster dedication nets you those same two cantrips plus some skill training.

Being locked out of other archetypes is a real cost, but not if you weren't interested in anything else in the first place.

[Watery Soup]

larsenex wrote:

Can you give an example which has been a favorite of players here?

This is the wrong attitude to take, IMO.

The whole point of archetypes is versatility. This isn't a game to figure out which build gives the highest DPR, and then have 6 of the "best" characters on a team to murder everything.

The whole point is that from 10 classes and 10 archetypes, you can make 110 different characters (each class x each archetype, plus each class without an archetype). As the number of classes and number of archetypes expands, the combinations grow with the squares (15 classes x 15 archetypes = 240 combinations, etc.).

The "popular" class-archetype combinations are exactly that - popular. A lot of people play them, and unless you really want to have a wizard/sorcerer in every single party, you should shy away from whatever's popular.

To be fair, I mostly play Society, which means that every session, my teammates change. So I agree there's some value to saying, "I'm going to take the most popular build from the Internet and bring it to my Adventure Path." But in general, my advice would be to look at a character, decide what they are missing, and try to find an archetype that will fill that gap.

Martials picking up a spellcasting dedication are popular combinations. They will never be good at spellcasting, but it can substitute as something to do if you can't behead an enemy with a sword. Spellcasters picking up a martial dedication for weapon or armor proficiencies are popular as well. Picking up a dedication just to get a feat is expensive - you're using two higher level class feats to get one lower level class feat. But if you really want it, it's a way to go. Sometimes all the class feats of a specific level suck, and it's better to pick up a dedication to get two weak cantrips than to choose the class feat.

I've made an alchemist with a wizard dedication (because all the 2nd level alchemist feats sucked), a champion with a bard dedication (because he was a champion of Shelyn and wanted to rave), and a sorcerer with a wild druid dedication (so she could spy on her political enemies as a rat). None of these combinations are particularly mechanically powerful (remember that spellcasting dedications don't automatically increase in proficiency), but I am pretty happy with all of them from a character standpoint.

[thejeff]

Watery Soup wrote:

larsenex wrote:

Can you give an example which has been a favorite of players here?

This is the wrong attitude to take, IMO.

The whole point of archetypes is versatility. This isn't a game to figure out which build gives the highest DPR, and then have 6 of the "best" characters on a team to murder everything.

The whole point is that from 10 classes and 10 archetypes, you can make 110 different characters (each class x each archetype, plus each class without an archetype). As the number of classes and number of archetypes expands, the combinations grow with the squares (15 classes x 15 archetypes = 240 combinations, etc.).

The "popular" class-archetype combinations are exactly that - popular. A lot of people play them, and unless you really want to have a wizard/sorcerer in every single party, you should shy away from whatever's popular.

Though if someone's unsure of the use of multiclass archetypes at all, pointing out popular ones might be a good way to help them see the advantages.

[Staffan Johansson]

My character is a primal sorcerer multi-classed into rogue. Our group didn't have a rogue, and there were quite a few levels where I didn't think there were any sorcerer feats that fit, so I multi-classed instead in order to pick up some more skills. So far, I've actually taken more multi-class feats than sorcerer feats (at 8th level, I have Widen Spell, Rogue Dedication, Basic Trickery: Trapfinding, and Skill Mastery). I'll probably take Skill Mastery a few more times - the only Sorcerer feats in the core book that really appeal to me are Greater Bloodline and Bloodline Focus. So I'll be stocking up on Skill Mastery a few times in order to cover for the lack of higher-level skills everyone who isn't a rogue or investigator suffers from.

[ExOichoThrow]

Watery Soup wrote:

larsenex wrote:

Can you give an example which has been a favorite of players here?

This is the wrong attitude to take, IMO.

The whole point of archetypes is versatility. This isn't a game to figure out which build gives the highest DPR, and then have 6 of the "best" characters on a team to murder everything.

The whole point is that from 10 classes and 10 archetypes, you can make 110 different characters (each class x each archetype, plus each class without an archetype). As the number of classes and number of archetypes expands, the combinations grow with the squares (15 classes x 15 archetypes = 240 combinations, etc.).

The "popular" class-archetype combinations are exactly that - popular. A lot of people play them, and unless you really want to have a wizard/sorcerer in every single party, you should shy away from whatever's popular.

To be fair, I mostly play Society, which means that every session, my teammates change. So I agree there's some value to saying, "I'm going to take the most popular build from the Internet and bring it to my Adventure Path." But in general, my advice would be to look at a character, decide what they are missing, and try to find an archetype that will fill that gap.

Martials picking up a spellcasting dedication are popular combinations. They will never be good at spellcasting, but it can substitute as something to do if you can't behead an enemy with a sword. Spellcasters picking up a martial dedication for weapon or armor proficiencies are popular as well. Picking up a dedication just to get a feat is expensive - you're using two higher level class feats to get one lower level class feat. But if you really want it, it's a way to go. Sometimes all the class feats of a specific level suck, and it's better to pick up a dedication to get two weak cantrips than to choose the class feat.

I've made an alchemist with a wizard dedication (because all the 2nd level alchemist feats sucked), a champion with a bard dedication (because he was a...

I completely disagree with what you're saying.

Sure, you shouldn't do something just because it's popular. But it's extremely useful to see what's popular and analyze why it is--and either use it for those reasons, or find ways to incorporate the reason it's popular into something else.

[Watery Soup]

thejeff wrote:

Though if someone's unsure of the use of multiclass archetypes at all, pointing out popular ones might be a good way to help them see the advantages.

ExOichoThrow wrote:

it's extremely useful to see what's popular and analyze why it is--and either use it for those reasons, or find ways to incorporate the reason it's popular into something else.

You're confusing popularity with good.

People in general are pack animals, and what's popular at any one point is often the result of one person making a cool build and then other emulating it (either because of build guides or playing at a table with one). And in those times that people aren't being pack animals, popularity doesn't matter, because what happens is that you get 1 example each of 30-40 different builds.

I think there are a lot of good examples of builds in this thread; none are "popular" in the sense that a lot of them are going to be mentioned only once. And that's good - but if anyone uses "popular" as a metric for anything other than popularity, then they will (a) ignore all the good one-off builds, and (b) overvalue all the builds that are mentioned more than once, whether they're good or not.

Put a different way, a year from now, the most popular class-archetype combinations will be different than it is now. But the criterion for what makes a good class-archetype combo will pretty much be the same.

Yes, you can argue that a popular build can be dissected to find out what makes it popular. But the more direct approach is to post a good build to know what makes it good.

[lemeres]

Generally, you find one particular feat or ability you want to grab from another class, and you try to find out if you can get it with a couple of feats without having to go to a high level. Especially when that option would fit well with your class's existing routines for every round or every battle.

For example- you can grab inspire courage from a bard with 2 feats- the dedication and a level 8 feat. A nice, simple, single action buff to the party.

This could be useful on a monk, which has good action efficiency with flurry. Getting the whole party a +1 seems more useful than a third attack, and arguably more useful than inflicting a -1 to a single enemy with intimidation. This could lead a stumbling stance monk (who has the cha anyway due to feint) to hit at an effective +3 on attack rolls.

[Nocte ex Mortis]

Another fun one is the Monk/Rogue MCD. Monks have phenomenal action efficiency, but extra skills always are nice, and picking up, say, Sneak Attacker for an effective extra 2d6 on your Flurry, or Deny Advantage, or(my personal favorite) Evasiveness to bump up your Reflex saving throws to Master, combined with Canny Acumen, giving you L/M/M saves, AND Master Perception.

[Temperans]

IF its about Wizard/X generally the reason is because a lot of the Wizard feats are boring.

IF its about Fighter/X generally its because Fighter is the most accurate while also having bonus feats. So they are able to make almost any archetype work with minimal problem.

For others combinations its a lot more difficult as they have different needs.

[Captain Morgan]

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Another fun one is the Monk/Rogue MCD. Monks have phenomenal action efficiency, but extra skills always are nice, and picking up, say, Sneak Attacker for an effective extra 2d6 on your Flurry, or Deny Advantage, or(my personal favorite) Evasiveness to bump up your Reflex saving throws to Master, combined with Canny Acumen, giving you L/M/M saves, AND Master Perception.

The other way around can be fun, too. Monk stances have some of the best traits and damage dice on finesse attacks, though they don't benefit from the Thief Racket.

[ExOichoThrow]

Watery Soup wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Though if someone's unsure of the use of multiclass archetypes at all, pointing out popular ones might be a good way to help them see the advantages.

ExOichoThrow wrote:

it's extremely useful to see what's popular and analyze why it is--and either use it for those reasons, or find ways to incorporate the reason it's popular into something else.

You're confusing popularity with good.

People in general are pack animals, and what's popular at any one point is often the result of one person making a cool build and then other emulating it (either because of build guides or playing at a table with one). And in those times that people aren't being pack animals, popularity doesn't matter, because what happens is that you get 1 example each of 30-40 different builds.

I think there are a lot of good examples of builds in this thread; none are "popular" in the sense that a lot of them are going to be mentioned only once. And that's good - but if anyone uses "popular" as a metric for anything other than popularity, then they will (a) ignore all the good one-off builds, and (b) overvalue all the builds that are mentioned more than once, whether they're good or not.

Put a different way, a year from now, the most popular class-archetype combinations will be different than it is now. But the criterion for what makes a good class-archetype combo will pretty much be the same.

Yes, you can argue that a popular build can be dissected to find out what makes it popular. But the more direct approach is to post a good build to know what makes it good.

I'm not confused at all. Popularity doesnt equal good, but things dont become popular without any merit to them. Honestly you sound like a condescending hipster.

Things dont become popular for no reason. Even if they're popular because they're overrated theres some merit to why they became popular in the first place.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

ExOichoThrow wrote:

I'm not confused at all. Popularity doesnt equal good, but things dont become popular without any merit to them. Honestly you sound like a condescending hipster.

Things dont become popular for no reason. Even if they're popular because they're overrated theres some merit to why they became popular in the first place.

You just said "Popularity doesn't equal good, but things don't become popular without being particularly good or worthy"

I am assuming you meant a word other than merit?
Definition

Popularity always exists for a reason, but things don't always become popular because they have merit to them. Human history has shown this time and time again with damaging medical treatments (zero merit), cults and even fad tools/hardware.

[Nik Gervae]

Let's not get into one of those side debates on the meanings of various words, one of the many ways of Going Off Topic.

[PossibleCabbage]

The fencer swashbuckler who spends 4 feats on the monk dedication for both stumbling feats and flurry of blows is pretty rad, since you can gain panache and strike twice with a single action.

[ExOichoThrow]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

ExOichoThrow wrote:

I'm not confused at all. Popularity doesnt equal good, but things dont become popular without any merit to them. Honestly you sound like a condescending hipster.

Things dont become popular for no reason. Even if they're popular because they're overrated theres some merit to why they became popular in the first place.

You just said "Popularity doesn't equal good, but things don't become popular without being particularly good or worthy"

I am assuming you meant a word other than merit?
Definition

Popularity always exists for a reason, but things don't always become popular because they have merit to them. Human history has shown this time and time again with damaging medical treatments (zero merit), cults and even fad tools/hardware.

You actually just reworded my sentence to mean something else. Having some merits doesnt necessarily mean something is good. It means it has SOME good things about it. I feel like you're going out of your way to misinterpret what I'm saying.

By the way, cults as one of the examples you used they get popular because they DO have merits to them. They usually have strong communities, bonding etc. That doesnt mean they're overall good, either. The world isnt black and white.

I wont bother replying again because this feels disingenuous and focused on semantic.

[Gisher]

WatersLethe wrote:

I see LOTS of wizards multiclassing for a variety of reasons. One of the most promising right now is Wizard/Witch.

You get to pick up a bunch more low level slots for utility, and access to 1 action hexes that can nicely slot into a typical casting round. They have the same stat and can both have Arcane proficiency.

I personally would consider that my default wizard build.

For Wizards, going into Alchemist MC is also really good. You almost certainly already meet the prerequisite, you only really need three feats get most of the benefits, and it shores up a lot of your weaknesses: antidote and antiplague to help with the poor fortitude proficiency, drakeheart mutagen for better AC, elixir of life for self-healing, etc. I'll leave my Alchemist MC tables here.

• Alchemist Multiclass Archetype

[WatersLethe]

Gisher wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I see LOTS of wizards multiclassing for a variety of reasons. One of the most promising right now is Wizard/Witch.

You get to pick up a bunch more low level slots for utility, and access to 1 action hexes that can nicely slot into a typical casting round. They have the same stat and can both have Arcane proficiency.

I personally would consider that my default wizard build.

For Wizards, going into Alchemist MC is also really good. You almost certainly already meet the prerequisite, you only really need three feats get most of the benefits, and it shores up a lot of your weaknesses: antidote and antiplague to help with the poor fortitude proficiency, drakeheart mutagen for better AC, elixir of life for self-healing, etc. I'll leave my Alchemist MC tables here.

• Alchemist Multiclass Archetype

Very good point and totally on brand. Being able to craft potions is cool just for the flavor, let alone the synergies you pointed out.

[Nitro~Nina]

Gisher wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I see LOTS of wizards multiclassing for a variety of reasons. One of the most promising right now is Wizard/Witch.

You get to pick up a bunch more low level slots for utility, and access to 1 action hexes that can nicely slot into a typical casting round. They have the same stat and can both have Arcane proficiency.

I personally would consider that my default wizard build.

For Wizards, going into Alchemist MC is also really good. You almost certainly already meet the prerequisite, you only really need three feats get most of the benefits, and it shores up a lot of your weaknesses: antidote and antiplague to help with the poor fortitude proficiency, drakeheart mutagen for better AC, elixir of life for self-healing, etc. I'll leave my Alchemist MC tables here.

• Alchemist Multiclass Archetype

It GREATLY amuses me that the Alchemist class itself complains about this tendency among "dabbling" Wizards. Always appreciate these handy dandy spreadsheets too!

[breithauptclan]

pauljathome wrote:

One of the GREAT things about this version of multiclassing is that it is balanced and comes at a cost. All those advantages I've listed have made my cleric not as good a healer as he could be. There is a trade off.

Agree.

And my favorite thing about this form of multiclassing is that the cost itself is balanced. Unlike PF1 level replacement multiclassing where you are always trading your high level abilities of your primary class for low level abilities of a second class. The dedication could be trading a high level feat for a low level feat depending on when it is taken. But most of the rest of them are going to be approximately on-par with what you get for what you give up. Especially with retraining being universally available.

I am also loving the new APG combat style archetypes. More focused than a full multiclass archetype, but give better rewards within that focus.

My pet combo currently is a spellcaster class with Duelist archetype. For two feats you get quick draw (mediocre, but situationally useful) and Dueling Parry - a replacement for raise shield while still keeping one hand free at all times for spellcasting. Good for casters that do have the Shield cantrip - Dueling Parry can be used after you have blocked an attack with the shield and it is on cooldown. Fantastic for casters that don't have access to Shield cantrip.

[Perpdepog]

I've gotten some pretty mixed mileage out of Quick Draw. In more traditional games where there is lots of dungeon delving and wilderness exploration it's not so useful, but in games that have lots of ambushes in urban settings or meetings breaking out into combat--two things one GM I know is very, very fond of--it's amazing.

And the super cool thing I love about multiclassing in this system is that, if said GM suddenly decides to change things up and instead goes for a more wilderness-y campaign, I can always swap out Quick Draw later with a minimum of pain.

[breithauptclan]

Perpdepog wrote:

if said GM suddenly decides to change things up and instead goes for a more wilderness-y campaign, I can always swap out Quick Draw later with a minimum of pain.

Well, I suppose it depends on how you got quick draw and what else you are using. Getting quick draw from the Duelist archetype means that you can't switch it out without changing out everything you have from the archetype. Quick draw is a bonus feat given by the dedication. So for my example, I would also have to exchange out the Dueling Parry feat too.

But yes, if I found that the GM play style and the other characters in the group means that my spellcaster character is practically never targeted for an attack, I could switch out the Duelist archetype entirely for something more meaningful to the game I find myself in.

[Tarondor]

Watery Soup wrote:

People in general are pack animals

That's where I stopped reading the thread.

Disrespect for the loss.

[Claxon]

Tarondor wrote:

Watery Soup wrote:

People in general are pack animals

That's where I stopped reading the thread.

Disrespect for the loss.

I'm not sure I understand your issue.

Watery Soup was trying to make the point of people often being followers, and though you may have felt the analogy was bad I'm not sure why this upset you.

I think a lot of people would agree that certain things become popular and then a large portion of the population do it regardless of whether it was good, bad, or other.

Remember when we had to tell teenagers to stop eating tide pods, and some kids were badly injured and I believe a few even died.

Because there were popular videos challenging them to do it.

People are impressionable and will do things without necessarily understanding or thinking for themselves.

[breithauptclan]

Heh. Yeah. Pack animals like a wolf pack. Not pack animals like donkeys or camels.

[Nitro~Nina]

We're pack hunters, for sure, and we work better in groups than is strictly reasonable.

citation: literally everything around me