I don’t know the answer with any real certainty as I do not believe it has been expressed by the designers. However, it is a core feat and all archetypes that are not MC came in later books. It is possible it was written with the foresight of other archetypes and only ever meant to be for MC, or maybe not. I would assume, though, it was intended as is for lore reasons and less for balance.
I don't think it is a big ask to request taking the Dandy archetype instead of Rogue or Sorcerer archetype.
There are other non-multiclass archetypes that are more powerful though - so you should ask.
But you should ask. I don't expect it to unbalance anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never played PF. I guess knowing this I'd ask the same question; why exclude prestige classes from the feature?
Pathfinder 2nd Edition lacks prestige classes. It uses an archetype-based sytems for multiclass that does not mesh with prestige classes as designed in Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition and Pathfinder 1st Edition. Multitalented cannot give what does not exist.
The developers could have invented prestige archetypes that would mimic prestige classes. However, the prestige concept does not fit their tight math for carefully balancing encounters. A prestige class is a slightly stronger but more restricted class earned by having the right ability scores and feats. Pathfinder 2nd Edition does not want any slightly stronger classes. It tries for equal power.
Flavorful adventuring professions that would be prestige classes in Pathfinder 1st Edition, such as Pathfinder Agent, are just non-multiclass archetypes, perhaps with an access restriction.
|
I think it was for future proofing. The way the feat works, designers only have to take it into account when creating MC Class archetypes. Which gives more freedom when designing the other archetypes.
You can compare the number of Classes and the number of Archetypes in the game to assess the additional workload it would be.
So is it possible that there is a balance intent in keeping the restriction for multitalented at lvl 9, specifically to prevent combining Other dedications at lower levels?
IMO, it's to keep the free feat a 2nd level one: if it just said an archetype dedication feat for free, you could take Time Mage Dedication[6th level feat], Swordmaster Dedication [6th level feat], Shadowdancer Dedication [8th level feat], Lich Dedication [12th level feat], ect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never played PF. I guess knowing this I'd ask the same question; why exclude prestige classes from the feature?Pathfinder 2nd Edition lacks prestige classes. It uses an archetype-based sytems for multiclass that does not mesh with prestige classes as designed in Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition and Pathfinder 1st Edition. Multitalented cannot give what does not exist.
The developers could have invented prestige archetypes that would mimic prestige classes. However, the prestige concept does not fit their tight math for carefully balancing encounters. A prestige class is a slightly stronger but more restricted class earned by having the right ability scores and feats. Pathfinder 2nd Edition does not want any slightly stronger classes. It tries for equal power.
Flavorful adventuring professions that would be prestige classes in Pathfinder 1st Edition, such as Pathfinder Agent, are just non-multiclass archetypes, perhaps with an access restriction.
To be fair, a prestige class back in 3.X functioned that way, but in PF1, it was far more niche depending on your build purpose. It might have given you things that simply sticking to your main class wouldn't have, but that's the case even with basic multiclass archetypes. And 9 times out of 10, it wasn't really overpowered to permit it, since in every other case sticking to your main class was better.
That being said, your argument for why it shouldn't work with the feature goes both ways: If the idea is that "prestige class" archetypes are more powerful and/or offer unique benefits, them having an access line or a special requirement is the "cost" associated with the increased power and benefit. Just as well, Multitalented is a 9th level Ancestry feat, meaning a good amount of archetype "prestige class" dedications should be available based on level alone.
Really, the only major concern would be simply automatically acquiring dedication feats that you otherwise wouldn't have access to if we expanded it to any archetype, but the GM can literally sit there and veto that decision based on access or inability to fulfill other relevant requirements, since Multitalented only lets you ignore the "2 archetype feats" rule, as well as the ability score restriction rule for Half-Elves in particular. Not to mention your design goal stated between all the different archetypes: They try for equal power. So the idea that having access to a non-MCD is more raw power than if they didn't doesn't hold water there, either.
I don't know if this is the reason but there are some fundamental differences in balance of MC and non-MC archetypes.
MC archetypes give some minor class chassis features via archetype feats like for example Champion's Reaction in a bit higher level like lvl 6 feat to receive a normal feature from champion chassis or casters
Basic Spellcasting that gives access to spellcasting ability from a chassis but 4 levels later and in a small number also MC gives access only to feats of the referred class at half of your level and requires that you take a lvl 1 or 2 feat first to have access to stronger ones and even the stronger ones ends being limited to maximum level 10 due this half-level limit.
While non-MC archetypes are usually stronger. It gives more stronger features at lower levels (but more thematically specific). For example Blessed One archetype gives Lay on Hands at lvl 2 while Champions' archetype only get it in level 4 and after take the dedication feat, other class feats from non-MC are only 2 levels bellow than they are in the original class feat list but you are restricted to feat from the archetype list. Also non-MC archetypes usually don't have stronger prerequisites like MC that always have some minimum stats as prerequisites.
But I have no proof that's is the reason why Multitalented, Ancient Elf heritage and Eldritch Trickster have such MC restriction may be related to these differences maybe not. But there are differences between these archetype types.
... A prestige class is a slightly stronger but more restricted class earned by having the right ability scores and feats. Pathfinder 2nd Edition does not want any slightly stronger classes. It tries for equal power. ...To be fair, a prestige class back in 3.X functioned that way, but in PF1, it was far more niche depending on your build purpose. It might have given you things that simply sticking to your main class wouldn't have, but that's the case even with basic multiclass archetypes. And 9 times out of 10, it wasn't really overpowered to permit it, since in every other case sticking to your main class was better.
True, I was mostly describing how prestige classes functioned in Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition. This gives me an excuse to talk about the history of design in the different editions.
Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition had a lot of multiclassing, despite penalizing it. The earlier editions penalized multiclassing, too, with a rule that a multiclassed character received fewer experience points than a single-class character, because combining two classes could be abusive. An example I remember from Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition was the ranger/rogue, who could combine the ranger's extra attacks from Two-Weapon Fighting with the rogue's extra damage from Sneak Attack (or was it still called Backstab in those days?).
Third Edition made permitted some multiclassing without penalty. Each race had a favored class, that a character could take as a second class without an XP penalty. The favored class of elf was Wizard. The favored class of human was one class of their choice. And a player could dip into another class for two levels without penalty. Did your fighter want Evasion to avoid Fireball damage? Take two levels of rogue and then go back to fighter for more levels. Did your wizard want some healing magic? Take one level of cleric to be able to use Wands of Cure Light Wounds. But prestige classes were the primary method of multiclassing. They were free from the multiclass penalty and offered an interesting and powerful variant on the original class used to qualify for the prestige class.
In a long lasting D&D 3rd Edition game with 7 players, I made an elf archer cleric. I decided to not play my typical well-armored frontline cleric, because other players often complained about me risking their only healer. Instead, my elf stood back from combat and shot a longbow with proficiency granted by his elf race. I discovered that this elf with Dexterity 18 could accompany the stealthy bard and rogue in their scouting, which was fun. But the stealth skills, Hide and Move Silently, cost twice as many skill points for a cleric, so he could not match their stealth as they leveled up. Therefore, my elf multiclassed, but avoiding the multiclass penalty required a few convoluted steps. First, my elf took a level of wizard. That was his race's favored class, so no penalty. The arcane spells from wizard class let him qualify for the Arcane Archer prestige class (it required elf race, arcane spellcasting, and a few archery feats). And Arcane Archer had the stealth skills at regular price and said that the elf could increase his spellcasting level in one of his previous classes. He increased his cleric spellcasting rather than his wizard spellcasting.
That was what multiclassing was like in D&D 3rd Edition. And my elf cleric/wizard/arcane archer was not as extreme as my human cleric/ranger/rogue/exemplar in an Iron Kingdoms game.
Jason Bulmahn in designing Pathfinder 1st Edition dropped the multiclass penalty. Instead, his goal was to make each single class so appealing that few people would want to multiclass. However, Pathfinder 1st Edition was designed with a lot of backwards compatibility to D&D 3.5, so it copied the prestige classes, such as Arcane Archer. PF1 developers put almost no effect into promoting the prestige classes; they were purely legacy. They introduced archetypes in the Advanced Player's Guide and were more interested in expanding that aspect of design to fill out the regional flavor that had been the role of prestige classes.
Nevertheless, my first long-term PF1 character was a multiclassed gnome ranger/monk, whom I was considering multiclassing to paladin, too. Old habits die hard. My daughter accused me of being addicted to multiclassing. I pointed out that my GMPC Val Baine was a single-class bloodrager for well past 10th level. She pointed out that bloodrager was a hybrid of barbarian and sorcerer and asked, "How many archetypes?" Er, three.
That being said, your argument for why it shouldn't work with the feature goes both ways: If the idea is that "prestige class" archetypes are more powerful and/or offer unique benefits, them having an access line or a special requirement is the "cost" associated with the increased power and benefit. Just as well, Multitalented is a 9th level Ancestry feat, meaning a good amount of archetype "prestige class" dedications should be available based on level alone.
Prestige classes typically have the flavor of a special force that trained in a special way in one particular region, such as Red Mantis Assassins from Mediogalti Island. Regional and cultural features in Pathfinder typically have access controls, such as uncommon weapons having an access entry mentioning a region where the weapon is more common. For example, the uncommon katar in the Core Rulebook is associated with Vudra and Impossible Lands, because real-world katars came from India. The access requirement is more about worldbuilding than about power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at each of the three options you listed, there's explanations for everything.
Eldritch Trickster's restriction makes sense given that there aren't really any spellcasting-based archetypes outside of MCD, and it is intended to give you additional archetypical spellcasting, and not just a generic archetype dedication. The spellcasting restriction is proof that you can't just select any archetypes unless they also give spellcasting as a feature, and as far as I know, there isn't some Arcanist or Occultist or Primalist or Diviner archetypes to provide generic spellcasting for each of the 4 traditions, for example.
Ancient Elf also makes sense, since the intent is that you were merely a different class earlier in life and you basically "retired" from it, but still retained a good amount of basic training from it that you're considered an X-type character class (in the form of a MCD) in addition to what you are now. Since "Dandy" or "Two-Weapon Warrior," for example, aren't classes, they're archetypes, it would make sense why Ancient Elf wouldn't permit these as choices, because these aren't classes. Archetypes, yes, but not classes.
That being said, re-reading Multitalented, it's clear what the intent is:
You've learned to split your focus between multiple classes with ease. You gain a 2nd-level multiclass dedication feat, even if you normally couldn't take another dedication feat until you take more feats from your current archetype.
The idea is that you're splitting focus between classes to the point that you can select additional MCD without regard for whether you need more focus on an existing archetype (which may or may not be a class). The same argument behind Ancient Elf also applies here, because it calls out classes in particular, and not just archetypes in general except for ignoring the multiple feats restriction.
So it's clear that Multitalented doesn't work with non-MCDs, and the intent is that the feat only helps with classes, not archetypes. The question then becomes: Does the feat become much more powerful if we allow archetypes in addition to classes? To which I say, yes and no.
Yes, there is more power simply because there are more options to pick from, and there is power in versatility. Being able to focus on Lay On Hands in particular instead of just being a generic Champion with a Code of Conduct and an Anathema does have its benefits, for example. But no, if the archetypes are balanced correctly and don't really overshadow one or the other (or even other MCDs), the idea that you are more powerful because of it doesn't add up. You might be more specialized in a certain thing, depending on the archetype, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are more powerful than if it was another archetype, because losing access to other things means you are losing that amount of versatility as part of the choice. Some would find it acceptable, others not. It ultimately depends on the build's design goals.
And that's honestly how it should be: Maybe somebody wants to be a defender type (such as the Sentinel dedication), but doesn't want all the baggage of being a Champion that comes with it, including its focus spells and such. As a GM, I don't personally see an issue with somebody who takes Multitalented wanting to go for an archetype dedication instead, so long as A. It's a 2nd level dedication, and B. They fulfill all the other requirements and access to it. But if we're taking a RAW standpoint, the answer is clear that Multitalented is restricted to classes, and spells that out on multiple occasions within the text of the feat.