| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Secrets of Magic playtest forum is probably being retired soon, so I'm asking here. Theorycrafting character builds, I've noticed that not only do multiclass archetypes vary pretty heavily on how well they handle a class's unique traits, they've also never really been asked about on playtest questions (as far as I can recall), or included for playtesting when new classes are offered.
In the past, I've noted that PF2 playtest archetypes for martials used to give only 1/day usage of features like Attack of Opportunity, Rage and Hunt Prey in exchange for a fairly generous suite of weapon and armor proficiency. This was changed around to all-day versions of the less powerful features (cool and good), in exchange for removing the per-class proficiencies in favor of saddling Fighter with weapons and Champion with armor and both with a feat tax to advance them, a change I hate even more now that APG archetypes offer such things in more appropriately placed, sensible ways. (On a side note, remember when gishes were pretty simple to build in the playtest, to the point of probably popping up too often? Weird to think about in today's environment!)
Past the issues with CRB archetypes, mostly regarding the aforementioned slightly limp Fighter and Champion benefits (and Monk being a bit weirder after the unarmed errata), Witch has had a few discussions about the familiar their dedication grants and how many abilities they're intended to have, as well as their complete inability to give the one (1) Hex cantrip a full Witch has the way Bard eventually offers Inspire Courage. Oracle, meanwhile, explicitly has a First Revelation option...with a completely flavorless and mildly irritating Moderate curse instead of the cool tradeoff most Moderate curses give as reward for dealing with the Minor drawbacks. I've seen comparatively little discussion about this, but nothing positive.
So now the Summoner and Magus playtest came and went, continuing the decision of having no work-in-progress archetypes to try out and critique. I imagine Paizo holds back the archetypes because there are always experimental mechanics afoot, and they either don't design the stripped-down version until those mechanics have been finalized or don't want to draw attention away from discussing and playtesting the actual classes. (Especially sensitive for Magus given the occasional talk about how it'd be better off as an archetype-only, and encouraging more of that when it's pretty much set in stone as a class could feel a little bleh.) Even so, I don't see how the archetypes merit different treatment compared to the classes themselves, given that even a smaller mechanic can be unclear or misguided, and most of the ways an archetype can break bad also apply to the classes but moreso. If the archetypes just don't exist until later in the process, a question on the feedback surveys gauging opinions on different ways to handle the eventual archetype could be nice, at least.
Anything I'm missing?
Although the pandemic has prevented me from reading more than a little bit of 2nd Edition stuff, playtesting something as important as multiclass archetypes seems like just common sense.
On the one hand, the MC archetype will almost 100% change from Playtest to Release. Drastically. Nothing will survive the transition due to how volatile the mechanics are at that stage.
On the other hand, it would be additional information on what the designers consider to be class defining. With the Magus, would the MC have the Striking Synthesis? Just Striking Spell? Something else entirely? How about the summoner? Perhaps you only get the ability to cast a summon spell (appropriate to your tradition) as an innate or focus spell? Or, better, you can Manifest as a focus spell, not for free, and it only lasts 1 minute. Or something along those lines.
Basically, I can see value in adding the MC feats even as I acknowledge that they will be tossed and rewritten.
For myself, I think Multiclass Archetypes would only be valuable additions if we ever get multi-round playtests again: once they get a class set enough in earlier rounds, they can produce the multiclass in later rounds. For single round playtests though? I don't think it's bring alone much added value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For myself, I think Multiclass Archetypes would only be valuable additions if we ever get multi-round playtests again: once they get a class set enough in earlier rounds, they can produce the multiclass in later rounds. For single round playtests though? I don't think it's bring alone much added value.
Although I'd love to know how they might think they would do the multiclass archetype, I agree that in many cases, if the mechanics are up in the air already, committing to a particular implementation of the multiclass archetype might get view, as you said, the developers saying -this is key- to the class and might cause extra controversy or might upset people if that part of the mechanic doesn't survive the playtest, and something else becomes what you get in the archetype.
Granted: if the developers wanted feedback to help them know which of a few directions to go in making an archetype, it would make perfect sense to include them in the playtest. I'm just guessing that hasn't really come up. They've wanted to focus more on the core of the full class and its mechanics, and plan the thoughts for how to slim it being a later conversation for anything past speculation.
I.e. happy to see it if they show up. Will be careful to never consider them close to solid implementations if they do show up. But don't consider it very like we will see them generally.
Of course there are time constraints and it would be hard to playtest a dedication when you have no idea what a class will actually turn out.
If we had infinite time of course I would like it. I could be wrong but by the time they show full release classes isnt the book already published?
I feel the multiclass dedication playtest would have to come after the class is in the final version which sadly I think is impossible.
Multiclass dedications have strange power levels and what abilities they can get. For example Bard dedication gets the amazing cantrips while which cant grab their "ok" cantrips. Overall I love dedications but find them very inconsistent.
|
I think the devs already have their hands pretty full with just the Class playtest.
It is likely simpler to playtest the MC dedication with select players once the Class is stabilized after integrating the results of its open playtest.
Not every playtest needs to be done in the open. You need to assess the value vs effort and choose the optimal process to finalize your product.
And yes it is an unending learning process for Paizo. And I hope they keep this constructive view for a long long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I trust that if paizo feel that they need the data from playtesting multiclass options enough to justify diverting resources from other things then they will - they have to judge each thing they devote staff hours to not just on their own merits, but against all of the other things they could do with those staff hours.
As with most things, with gathering data and feedback there are diminishing returns past a certain point of how much you invest into the process.