Multiclassing had to DIE for characters to THRIVE in Pathfinder 2e (Rules Lawyer)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2024
- My coverage of Pathfinder 2e's character creation continues! Here I analyze why Pathfinder 2e's approach to characters is great and what other systems can learn from it. I go over the historical problems in D&D/PF1 that I think PF2 addresses. And I say that abandoning 3e/PF1 multiclassing was necessary and a good thing!
PATHFINDER LAW SCHOOL playlist: • Pathfinder Law School
0:00 Intro
1:11 Problems PF2 tries to solve
3:29 What D&D 5e does
7:32 What PF2 does
8:17 Many things, with ceilings
14:41 Choice buckets
16:58 Math is decided for you
24:48 Level gating, quality control
30:13 No multiclassing!
43:13 Closing statement
44:40 Problems multiclassing is giving D&D 6E
Pathfinder 2e's rules are FREE! Check them out at Archives of Nethys: 2e.aonprd.com/
=============================
LIKE & SUBSCRIBE! I'm a lawyer who teaches and runs tabletop RPGs (Pathfinder, D&D, Starfinder) for kids, teens, and adults, and making videos related to TTRPGs and board games.
JOIN MY DISCORD to chat with our community and/or try the Pathfinder Beginner Box or our drop-in PF2e play system! / discord
SUPPORT MY PATREON for early access to many of my videos and access to exclusive content, and to support me! I do unpaid public-interest legal work and rely on the Patreon and private GMing.
/ theruleslawyer
For PF2E actual plays, SUBSCRIBE to my other channel, "RULES LAWYER DISCORD COMMUNITY CHANNEL":
/ @theruleslawyerliveplay
Follow me on TWITTER at: / theruleslawyer1
Pick up your Pathfinder 2e book on Amazon using my affiliate links below. As an Amazon Affiliate, I earn from qualifying purchases which helps me continue doing what I love!
Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook: amzn.to/3BiFCSj
Pathfinder 2e Beginner Box: amzn.to/3eVsUBB - เกม
ADDITIONS/ERRATA:
-I neglected to mention that PF2E has "Dual-Class PCs" - a variant rule where characters get all the benefits from 2 classes. It is a significant power boost and the table should be careful about certain combinations, as described in the variant rule. I don't recommend it to new groups, however.
-I forget to mention one other thing 5E did to address problems in 3E: removing "dead levels." PF1 addressed this issue from 3E as well. "Dead levels" referred to levels where you gain nothing when you level up. This usually became the occasion to switch to or take levels from another class. In 5E, every level gives you *something,* which was supposed to discourage multiclassing.
-Someone in the comments mentioned the divide between Class Feats and Skill Feats. This frees you up to take feats that are less about increasing your sheer combat power (Skill Feats). 5e's infamous Chef feat would be a skill feat here. But since you gain feats that can ONLY be used on Skill Feats, you can take one without losing out on a Class Feat. Granted, not all Skill Feats are created equal, but the abundance of feats and the divide gives you more freedom.
-I should have mentioned that Retraining is a core default rule in PF2. You can replace any character choice, given enough downtime. This lessens the pressure to "get it right" when you make your character. Related to that is that PF2 still retains "feat trees." (Feats that require another feat as a prerequisite.) This means some planning making character creation/advancement perhaps not as easy. However, they are very shallow (usually 1 feat) compared to 3e/PF1 feat trees that were several feats deep. And Retraining lets you change your previous choice(s) if you have to.
-I think I give the impression that there is a "treadmill" when you level up in PF2e, where all you do is keep up with the math of the monsters and there is no meaningful change . My experience is yes - levels where you don't gain an increase in proficiency (Trained to Expert, etc.) mean there is a gradual (so as to be imperceptible!) "drag" on your success rates, versus AT-LEVEL creatures. Meanwhile you are annihilating things that were once a challenge two levels ago. And when you get those proficiency bumps (when Droog becomes an Master in a skill, for example) it's like an adrenaline hit and now you're above the curve, not only against at-level monsters but more importantly beyond your partymates (giving you a feeling of "I've gotten really good at this"). PF2 has to do a balancing act between letting you get "better" at X and preserving the functionality of the Encounter Balancing system, which requires that Level be meaningful.
you spelt 'suck' wrong, and 'destroys your ability to follow concepts' , you just take the incredibly niche feats, realise you will always have a character that feels pathetic, fighting fights that take around 3 rounds, forever, lvl 2 or lvl 20, combat takes roughly the same amount of time, numbers go up, but you never feel stronger...
Retraining cannot change "anything given enough time" as there are those few heritage feats that must be taken at 1st level and the rare fear which cannot be restrained.
Great series.
Appreciate this comment to address points.
Enjoy an extra 🧇 waffle 🧇 on your next stack of 'em.
@@CooperativeWaffles Dual-Class PCs sound exactly as balanced as Gestalt characters were in 3.5/PF1 - not as good as having two characters, but still extremely good and a completely different balance
thats what i hate about pf2e. leveling up feels useless in a way. even with dual-class you only really get more options, rather than more power. @@justicar5
Dual Classing variant rule I believe should only be used if you only have 2-3 players in a group and have experience with the system.
"The fighter, who wants to hit things hard, be hard to hit, and have a lot of hit points, can boost charisma..."
To be good at hitting on people was right there!
I'm actually quite disappointed in myself! =D
Multiclass Dedication Archetypes blow traditional multiclassing out the window. It's honestly been my favourite part of the system to interact with. Getting a similar amount of abilities from your second class (Or third even.) as traditional Multiclassing while also not locking you out of high-level abilities from your main class is such a huge QOL thing, and I love that your main class remains relevant. A Monk/Rogue and a Rogue/Monk are tangibly different choices.
I recently learned that apparently it was already in 4E.
But for some reason, I never heard of it. Only about Hybrid classes.
Dude. You get two different sources of spell slots if you are two different casters.
You'll never run out of spells and can learn up to 8th level spells, it's insane.
I think Paizo was a little too wary with what multiclass archetypes give, though. Some of them are super impactful and others you barely notice.
I don't really like that you are basically locked in your starting class, some cool flavor is lost when you can't fully dedicate yourself to some other class because it fits the story. So if you started as a fighter, you can't really stop training being a fighter even if it makes sense for your character.
@@webuser-webloser Nothing stops you from Spending your class feats on Archetype stuff. You just will never be as powerful as someone that started as the 2nd class
If that is an issue, ask your GM if you can rebuild your character with the other class as primary.
This reminds me of something Treantmonk said: when developers introduce overpowered character options, your choices become fewer, not more.
One thing running through my head with this video is that there are a lot of parts of PF2E which feel like D&D 4e done right. The core structure of mostly siloed classes without 5e/3e style multiclassing was there, but PF offers tonne of improvements in scaling and class design, as well as much more distinct core identity.
In particular, I feel that the successes of PF2e show us that 4e, maligned as it was, had a lot of great ideas at heart.
It's kind of a meme at this point of people asking for something to be changed in 5e and someone going, "4e actually had that." I think the system made too much of a change at once for the ingrained players to ever really want to make the jump
@@ianaldridge7136 the things it did well do not make up for the things it did very poorly
@@ianaldridge7136 The system had other problems. Like for example to much obvious copy/paste powers with just slightly diffrent flavor text.
@@ianaldridge7136 It wasn't just the amount of changes that made 4e disliked by the existing playerbase. For all that they had good ideas, most of those were half-baked and it also had plenty of bad ideas. Of particular note was simplifying everything combat-relevant down to those "At-Will", "Encounter" and "Daily" ability cards, while shunting noncombat magic into rituals that couldn't really be done during combat. Sure, it kinda solved 3.5's linear fighter/quadratic wizard (or druid) problem, but it not only made casters less fun to play due to a sharply reduced range of spell options in combat (even if we're just comparing the PHB content of 3.5e vs 4e, not all sourcebooks across the edition's lifespan), it also kinda made martials into casters with good AC who had various powerful melee techniques as their "spells". It also tried but ultimately failed to fix the old problem that past a certain level, it wasn't really viable for a martial party member to facetank increasingly many level appropriate monsters for long enough to kill them without considerable support from the spellcasters.
@@ianaldridge7136 I do think a lot of the PF2/DD4 differences are illuminating. DD4 still had a lot of flat bonus feats, as well as flat bonus Paragon classes. Meanwhile, Pathfinder puts the scaling in the base class features and weapon runes, as opposed to higher level versions of encounter/daily powers. That last one is big, IMHO, for two reasons.
Sometimes in 4e there isn't really a good equivalent. The same status debuffs and riders or triggers aren't always available on higher level abilities, but the lower level ones do far less damage.
The second effect of nearly all scaling being on abilities is class identity felt pretty lackluster in 4e. Classes felt significantly more same-ey.
With Pathfinder, the best martial example is the difference between Rogue and Swashbuckler, who are both finesse weapon + skills classes who might look similar in-world but play fairly differently in game.
“Limiting you from going tall so there’s little to no opportunity cost to going wide” is such a good summary and really succinctly puts why the pf2e system feels good from a character building perspective.
edit: I already forget if you addressed this in the vid, but playing BG3 and putting ability improvements in direction competition as a choice with feats (including feats that grant saving throw proficiency) really ups the stakes of making the “right” choice. So yeah, getting ability improvements and many saving throws for “free” in pf2e is a good example of tight, bounded math being really liberating.
Multiclassing is a large part of what killed my interest in level-based games, and Archetypes are a large part of what drew me back into Pathfinder. It's a very elegant solution.
Still not as good as not having levels though.
@@davidbowles7281 Yup. Once you go BRP it's difficult to go back to a D20 system
BRP, GURPS and a few others. I don't want a choice of sandwiches. Give me the ingredients and let me make it the way I like. @@Drago5899
@@Drago5899 BRP?
@@redrum47 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Role-Playing
While I do think the Dedication and Archetype system needs a bit of love to bring certain dedications up to par (for which I hope they do given the remaster changes), I much prefer that system over 5e’s multi-class system.
Watching players make interesting multi class combinations can be absolutely fun, but when you recognize the same builds across 5 different games so that the player doesn’t feel as though he’s lagging behind, it gets very boring very fast.
This video really sold me out of the few I've watched of yours.
I started D&D last year and was really shocked at how often each level up had no choices at all, and at how dull multiclassing is. Everyone just wants to dip, it feels like every character sheet has "fighter 2" plopped onto the end of it.
5e multi-classing complaints are overblown. The majority of it stems from the poor/non-existent scaling of non fighter martials, and the entire warlock class being a basket case in general. Casters pay a huge cost for dips due to spells scaling exponentially in strength as spells levels move up. Its also not helped by games being primarily played in the 5 to 10 lvl range.
@@rotm4447100%
Nice video. A few remarks from me on the various topics:
19:55 I would say that Attributes are of _relative_ importance.
A 10th Level Rogue with maxed DEX will have relatively higher Reflex (+5) then a 10th Level Rogue with dumped DEX (+0; like a Ruffian that went STR and heavy armor).
That means that only with the same proficiency and level, Attributes mater.
24:14 "In DnD, you win encounters during character creation. In PF2, you win it during combat."
24:30 I think the proper/common term is "Feat Tax". If you want to be a good archer, you have to pay that Feat Slot as "Tax".
32:05 Well, they did that at first. _Then_ they made the Hexblade Warlock and Life Cleric. The poster children of "why Multiclassing is a design nightmare".
I would not put the Fighters Action Surge into the same "broken" category. Simply because it is 2 Feats. That will be a whole Spell Rank you are missing out on, while your number of Spells does not increase.
36:25 I think the perfect example for this Balance is Rogue Sneak Attack.
A _lot_ of builds would be instantly broken, if they could add full, scaling Rogue Sneak Attack damage every time they Off-Guard a enemy. Which is why "Sneak Attacker" only gives you 1D4, 1D6 at 6th Level. No Scaling.
45:25 That is just how broken Hexblade CHA substition is - they made the CHA substitution a Invocation, just so CHA substituion would not overshadow the other _Warlock Subclasses_
Not even trying to balance it agaisnt other classes for dipping - just balancing it against other Warlock options! And it is still broken AF against all other classes on a CHA build.
48:02 "Let the modders fix it" - unofficial Bethesda Motto
On that Hexblade Argument, I actually pissed a DM off doing a playtest of some homebrew book by building that. Thing is, I asked him first if I could go build something potent and he said sure. It was a playtest, not something he built. It was something I imagined the designers wanted serious feedback on. I built the monster Hexblade Paladin Halberd build (if ya know, ya know) and I was a tanky, damaging monster. He never told me directly, but he hated my guts for that, where as my goal was to put this creature (we were not told what creature we were fighting, so I wasn't built to counter it, per say) that we were testing to the test. If that's the reaction I get for playing a 'strong' (aka overpowered combo) for a *playtest*, that just makes me feel there is something fundamentally wrong with something in that playtest, and I'm very willing to bet it was that dip into warlock.
@@gacrazy65 That CHA swap was a mind bogglingly stupid idea.
And _then_ they put it in level 1.
I don't want to know who is smoking the drugs and keeping it as a thing.
Someone in a server of mine was endlessly ranting about how the "rogue multiclass dedication is useless cause you don't get as much sneak attack damage" for PF2
like buddy, if you want full sneak attack damage, play a rogue lol. You have your own tools, you don't need to cop another class's wholesale. One of PF2's biggest strengths is how everyone has their own tools that they're best at; not necessarily that they're the sole users of them (though sometimes they are), but just that everyone has a chance to shine in their niche. (To the point where when an option comes along that seems like it does a certain niche better, it's a point of contention, but it's rare when that happens.)
@@Zedrinbot The counter to that is that people other than "rogues" can sneak attack. PF2E buckets feel super artificial to many players because.. they are.
@@christopherg2347 OH, I know. That's why I did the dip. That's why I asked!
Put a gun to my head and I'd put it on hexblade. Worst subclass design decision they ever made for 5e.
This was sort of mentioned, but more specifically, I like the split of "class feats" and "skill feats." There are a lot of feats in Pathfinder first edition that are really cool and flavorful, and in the right situations might create amazing moments, but since they don't help you end most combats (by either killing things or surviving) you never feel like you can take them. Now, most of them have been broken into skill feats, and while there are some that do help in combat (like battle medicine) you get enough that you are basically forced to take some mostly for the flavor eventually.
Granted, I will say, when I first came into P2E, having 5 different types of feats was a bit intimidating. Once you see how they are broken down it makes a lot more sense, but I have wondered if they could have named some of them differently to avoid confusion/overload.
If you don't take one of the two "skill classes" -- Investigators or Rogues -- you hardly get any slots for non-combat skill feats if you specifically want to go for combat skill feats. (Granted, the OOC feats are often quite good and might help you more than Combat feats)
For instance, just the Medicine tree has Battle Medicine, Continued Recovery, Ward Medic, Unusual Treatment, Godless Healing. This is 5 feats which takes you all the way to level 10.
Athletics and Acrobatics being the other two classes with notable combat feats, specifically if you spec flying with Acrobatics, or jumping with Athletics.
This is probably the best explanation of the core differences between editions that I've seen. Kudos!
Yup pf2 is laser focused on punishment of badwrongfun.
In dnd 5e multiclassing is a tool for powerbuilding and often disregards roleplaying. In pf2e from what i've seen archetypes are a tool for pure roleplaying, because more often than not it is more optimal to take full main class feats.
I don't think it ignores roleplaying so much as it changes roleplaying. People that multiclass cease being a regimented "class" and become something in-between their classes. My Barbarian became a Barbarian/Fighter who was part of the rank and file of the Order of the Gauntlet, but had a bit of a wild, anti-authority streak to him (like Patton or MacArthur, for instance). My bard/cleric more fully embodied a holy agent of Eilistraee than either bard or cleric would have alone. Sure, a lot of people *do* multiclass with no effort to roleplay what they've become when they picked up their additional class, but their lack of roleplaying is not an effect of multiclassing, it's an effect of the player not placing a premium on roleplaying.
@@cassiecaradoc2070 often it does, a lot of hexblade paladins with aberrant mind sorcerer and a level in bard with the most absurd backstories out there. But yeah, it can be done well, but often it isn't.
I think the problem is more so that some people tend to focus on powerbuilding than roleplaying when multiclassing. I'm not saying that multiclassing doesn't allow for powerbuilding though.
The additional (non-class) archetypes are basically D&D's prestige classes. This becomes evident when looking at Assassin or Shadowdancer archetypes, which used to be prestige classes. Honestly a great way of implementing them in PF2e.
"The desire for more customization." I love WoTC's approach to that. Instead of adding a new class or some interesting features that the players can utilize, they just keep adding new races, subraces, and half baked systems that are nowhere near as good as i hoped them to be.I'm just sick of that.
Nailed it
But hey, if you want Rangers to be good, just take this subclass. That's all the customization our players with their miniscule minds can handle. - WotC
The problem is, custimization is still lacking in DnD no matter how many options they will add, because the only one that gets to make choices when they level up are Casters.
As a fighter or rogue, you make 2-3 choices, compunded into the first three levels throughout your entire character progression.
@@xolotltolox7626 of course, I'm not disagreeing. The progression feels like a train track with a junction at level 3 (or 1 or 2) that decides where you go from there and that's really it. I was just saying in my original post is that the owners of D&D think that new "options" means more ancestries that have middling to no impact.
@@cozmiccorruption not to mention subclasses barely have any impact, unless you're arcane trickster or eldritch knight that gets spells every level, you only get 2-4 subclass features spread out extremely thinly over your remaining 17 levels
I would add, regarding Archetypes, that there are a few that are simply not that great for players to even really take, as we've encountered at our table, and there are occasionally just not any to choose from with a given concept. I just hope the Remaster will visit some of these "dead or dead-end" Archetypes and assist them some for us.
Overall though, we agree with your Archetypes coverage here and, for our table, we never play without Free Archetype Variant....it greatly encourages choices and fun! Thnx again! 👍
Imo, free archetype is a great optional rule. People like pf2e's ewuivalent of multiclassing and free archetype gives a ton of benefits.
What i kinda wanna see is more uses of free archetype for extra powerful ancestries, such as battlezoo dragon ancestry.
Multiclassing based systems work quite well for making monstrous creatures playable ig.
I would go as far as saying: "Free Archetype is the most commonly used optional rule."
Once you get to experienced DM and/or players, it is almost a guarantee.
I skipped around a bit, but one thing I didn't see you mention in what 5E did was to discourage dips was Feats/ASIs work. You have to take four consecutive levels in the same class to get an ASI/Feat, so one or two level dips can put you behind the curve if you're using Point Buy or Standard Array.
As a DnD player mostly, I agree. Multiclassing works against the game because that's where most of the unbalanced design comes from. Trying to make fun and distinct classes is severely handcuffed when you have to look for every possible exploit.
The real fix is to not use classes at all :)
@@davidbowles7281 Nah, that degenerates even harder into optimal combos.
@@kryptonianguest1903How so?
@@davidbowles7281 When there is no framework, choice becomes about optimization. I've played several classless games and every one of them emphasizes that it is super easy to break the system by only taking certain things and ignoring others... so don't do that.
You can either have frameworks so people can just drop in and play a wizard or you can build a wizard from scratch using points/feats/slots/etc but if you let people build it takes a lot more self control from everyone involved.
@@davidbowles7281 If everyone has access to everything, you can't block combos by splitting the components between classes and everyone can take the best things.
I forget the system, but I remember a party that was a PI who used to be a cop, a bartender who used to be a cop, a trapeze artist who used to be a cop and a stage magician that used to be a cop. Because the ex-police officer background was the best by far.
That PF1e Archer feat tax shot me right through the heart since that's how I build a lot of my archers too (though I'd prioritize Clustered Shots before Manyshot.).
Also PF2e makes Lv1 palettable since you get HP from your race, HP from your class AND HP from your CON.
It's not unheard of that your Wizard will have DOUBLE DIGITS HP at Lv1! Also you know, just getting a static amount of HP per level is just great.
Very clear and straightforward rundown of the core design / philosophy differences between P1, P2, and 5e!
A thing you forgot to mention about 5e when you were talking about items, is that 5e is balanced around not having magical items, but the point of an adventure is a lot worse if you don't get cool items along the way, so now the games is more unbalanced….
Where'd the fun in that be? Seems nobody bothered to think about how the game actually gets played.
@@Llortnerof it is a bit of a catch 22. If you make magic items mandatory there is no fun in them because they are an expected and necessary part of level progression. If you don't make them mandatory then they tend to either never turn up, or break the game if they do. Neither system has solved this as yet (and I have no idea to either)
@@danrimo826 I still think magic items can be fun. You just have to bring good items in that are fun. A +1 whatever isn't fun. It doesn't do anything. That's why just dropping the rune is good enough for martials to feel like they are getting better. But drop em a weapon with an action it can do, and you've made something interesting. Like... A dagger of shadows which casts darkness centered on your position. There's something that could be interesting and it could be considered an upgrade, but it must be used wisely and that's fun to me.
@@danrimo826 There isn't really an option. You pretty much have to accept they will be there, and thus build your system around it. 5E shows what happens when you don't.
A system without any kind of progression, even when that progression is ultimately just superficial, is going to feel worse.
ADnD and ODnD had players roll stats typically and most times these numbers were all over even with 4D6 drop the lowest. Your stats would also remain at these scores with out supernatural assistance. Magic items found could increase stats beyond racial limitations (usually 18 but some had caps of 16 on Str) and sometimes these were permanent increases (which felt amazing when it did happen). These items would shore up weak points of PC's or push them to heroic levels, and some would bestow abilities with limited charges that didnt recharge everyday. I never understood how 5E developed with the concept of basically having no magic items but yet here is the wizard with reality bending spells. lol
Shoutout to our rouge that heals better with his healing tools than a literal Angel does with the Heal spell.
Great videos and I love this series so far. I've played a variety of games but I never looked at Pathfinder since I thought it was worse 5e so I never touched it. Having now watched your videos I've seen that this game is incredibly good and I'm definitely looking forward to playing it with my group. Thank you!
I've been looking forward to this one as I've had a lot of thoughts about multiclassing through the history of D&D/Pathfinder's history. Will have more to say once the video is finished.
Excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing!
One if the best video of the serie so far inmho.
You seem to be really getting comfortable with the various ramifications of your arguments.
Although as a regular viewer some might look repetitive, they instead shine through another light in each specific part of your demonstrations.
Anywyay I like the content, and don't regret my (modest) patronage
_Pathfinder Unchained_ was perhaps my favourite book for PF1e and honestly so much of it was just testing out different variant rules for 2e. Fractional bonus progression meant that you no longer got that huge boost on multiclassing; variant multiclassing is basically the exact way that PF2 handles it; it had the three-action economy.
Having GMed PF2e almost exclusively since it came out, I can only imagine going back to PF1e with some of the rules introduced in _Unchained_ because they change the game in such positive ways.
My next PF2 campaign is going to be done with the "proficiency without level" variant rule from the Gamemastery Guide, because while I do like the advancement that makes players very powerful very quickly, I also don't like how quickly monsters just get thrown in the bin and replaced with better monsters. It works for a world in which a large number of kobolds is still a threat to even a seasoned adventurer, rather than having the monsters and NPCs doing level grinding off-screen to keep up with the PCs.
Kobold Troops
that opportunity cost for "spreading wide" is probably my biggest frustration with D&D5e
i *like* polishing up a character's weak-points, and i rarely can without giving up something either more important or more pressing
Medic expert - Medic Dedication.
Athletic expert - Lucha Libra Dedication
I have been playing in my first long running 5e campaign and the tension of multi classing is real. In general, I don't look to multi class when playing characters, partially because I learned to play in 3.0 and pathfinder where it could be so risky , but also because unless there is a specific mix you are going for you can end up with weird class-mutts with muddy flavor or concepting which I don't find appealing. However, n this campaign I am a level 4 Paladin. Except for choosing some new spells to prepare, I realized I have already made the majority of the choices that are left for me up to level 20 (although this campaign is likely only going to around 6). It is basically Feat or Ability Score Improvement (and I've taken the main feat relevant to my build) and that is it.
Despite its issues, 5e needs multi-classing because it is the only way to make choices past the first 3 to 5 levels for many classes. Of the 4 of us in the party each of us is at least considering a few levels in another class, and while power is certainly part of it, I feel there is also an element of control and customization that people who play RPG's often look for.
This is a good point. If they eliminate multiclassing, they will need to account mid- and higher-levels and make them actually more interesting and "something to look forward to" for many classes. But they don't seem willing to do that.
I really like Pathfinder 2e, to me it is the best system for this kind of fantasy roleplaying. However, the design choices when it comes to multiclass and archetypes are not well balanced. Some multiclass archetypes give lots of tangible benefits, like a great selection of new proficiencies, and some non-class archetypes, give you "expert" in a skill at level 2. However, others give you strange empty abilities, like choosing a muse, patrons or orders that provide no benefit until later. Also, they create some strange loops where a core element is impossible to unlock. For example, it is impossible to gain access to the basic hexes even if you have the correct patron. It feels like some are taxes for a feature, meaning that unless you reach de desired level you made the wrong choice.
The other main issue is power level, Whenever you pick an archetype the choice should be comparable to a class feat, but some Non-class archetypes are incredibly niche and give non-discernible benefits until later on. While others, like Beastmaster, give you all the benefits of having an animal companion right on level 2. This gives the feeling that many archetypes are a waste, especially for certain classes and others are like a weird joke, like the juggler, that allows you to... juggle several objects.
I think the popularity of the alternative rule "Free archetype" is because having the feat for free irons out the feeling of making poor choices. Now you can choose to be a juggler and still be a competent fighter or you become a monk mage and you know that you are performing as a monk and just enjoying the flavour of a few spells for your character concept.
free archetype is so much fun. You can freely customize your character for the msot part. I am addicted to creating different builds in pathbuilder
Such as ranger archetypes' Hunt Prey not ever getting an Edge, essentially making it useless to hunt prey in combat. Or Magus archetype never giving an option to get arcane cascade
@@42ndguardian Oh my. Fighters getting an Edge would be crazy OP.
Free archetype does nothing to actually solve that problem tho. It just adds another vectors for munchkins to do crazy optimization with.
That chart showing the progressions of different classes math... that would be a cool resource to have for showing new players but it would take more time than I have to make. ... AKA hey Ronald do you have a publically obtainable version of that.
I did some googling for it but it's actually from the PF2e playtest era. So it's not accurate and I just took it for the general idea it conveys. I don't think such a line graph exists. There are color coded charts (not line graphs) that I've found
yeah, my 5e lore bard took 1 level in life cleric to add bonuses to all his healing and shield proficency. His AC was quite high for a bard and he healed really well, as well as being able to hypnotize a room, lol. 5e broke its own "bounded acuracy" so many times its a joke. By allowing magic shields, shield proficency can give you as much as +5AC over not ahving a shield. +5 in a supposed boundless accuracy game is game breaking
Expertise also breaks it...
The main takeaway I have from this is by putting in slowly raising power ceilings and giving you a higher budget of character options than it takes to hit the ceiling, the game effetively guarantees you are always good at what your class is most meant to do, and so most of the choices instead come from choosing which additonal areas to branch out to, unlike other systems it si most comparable to that require you to sacrifice hitting one ceiling to go wide.
i like how level advancement better simulates character growth and feels more natural opposed by sudden boosts to many things at one level or even a lack of any abilities or other improvements. 5E has a lot of dud levels in most classes which can compound with level abilities that are garbage or is only a small increase of an already acquired ability.
In 5e multiclassing. Permitting players to choose a different class at 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th, and 20th levels. A player sticks with this choosen class, until they reach the next level that permits them to change it again. Which also includes returning back to their initial class.
It should help alleviate what causes taking a multiclass to break the system. Those that multiclass will in many cases be suboptimal.
I've played in several 5e games where the DM had a hate on for anything flagged as "optional" - feats, multiclassing - and so were banned. It just kinda sucks that about the only way to make anything interesting in 5e is multiclassing. It gets even worse when you take out feats. Multiclassing I understand having a distaste for, but I never figured out why he hated feats so much
mostly because there were a few broken feats and the rest were either "meh" or just horrible (not worth forgoing ability increases for). So you ended up with people always taking the same broken feats which gets old fast. 5e is such an awful, not well thought through system.
@@andrewdemarco3512 Be careful, people will get mad if you express your opinion on 5E.
It's because they're a DM. In 5E, 'fun' is a limited resource that the DM and players compete over. Feats and multiclassing gives more 'fun' to the players while taking it away from the DM.
The thing that miss from 5e, and would help to actually help balance multiclass is to actually make higher levels in noncaster class to give powerful features,a lot of them have oretty dud festures at level 6-10 and gets basically fluff from level 11-20.
📝 On the flip side.
Multi-classing is also the reason why wizards of the Coast does not create new classes.
An make very few sub-classes.
As creating a new classes would create new over powered combos that would result in amplifying balance problems with Dungeons and dragons 5th edition.
19:00
I think this is a very important point, and also, the pruning of a lot of stat boosting items (and limiting them by the keyword) means that outliers are more limited. sometimes predictability is a good thing. That said, this comment is mostly for algorithm related reasons.
Very well put-together presentation.
Regarding the multiclassing issue, the first time I saw this sort of implementation of "multiclass feats" was in Dungeon World. Each class had a multiclass feat as an option whenever they advanced in level, with some classes allowing for more iterations of multiclass feats than others. It's definitely an elegant solution to the multiclass issues you presented in this video.
Fabula Ultima handles multiclassing beautifully by having the player first decide what their character's identity is and then gaining 5 levels from between 2-3 classes. Whenever the 1st-level of new class is gain, you acquire their 1st-level passive benefits, which are either increased HP, MP, inventory points, and/or martial proficiencies. Classes in this game are simply a collection of themed abilities and each time you gain a class level, one of the benefits you gain is a skill point to spend on either acquiring or improving a class ability.
The nifty thing here is that classes cap out at level 10, and it's impossible to max out in every class ability, so one PC's version of, say, a 10th-level weapon master may be built differently than another PC's version of a 10th-level weapon master. Maxing out character levels is also important for two more reasons:
1) You get to choose from one of two unique capstone abilities from that class (or a generic capstone ability available to all classes).
2) You cannot have more than three unmaxed classes at a time.
I honestly wouldn't mind giving Pathfinder 2e a shot, especially since it occupies pretty much the same space as D&D 5e but is much more deliberately designed to offer many meaningful choices rather than just one META and a lot of inferior choices. The tension of creating a character to concept vs. min-maxing, as Ronald presented here.
Excellent, Ronald! Thnx!! 👍
Dungeons & Dragons is such a sadly potent example of how market leadership begets stagnation.
They also have a lot of defenders amongst the playerbase that supports every decision they do. Multiclassing, racial-class stereotyping, and caster dominance.
My main contentions with archetypes has been not in the concept itself, but in the execution of particular details; for example, ability score restrictions being seemingly arbitrarily stricter for some multiclass dedications than others. Some archetypes are frontloaded with goodies or offer many of the defining features of the class concepts they represent, while other archetypes demand investment over many levels before much of consequence is offered; and the barriers for entry often do not bear much relationship, if any, with this difference. Given the dedication restrictions which prevent "dipping" into a bunch of archetypes without any subsequent investment, it's sensible to weigh "choice buckets" over not merely the initial dedication feats, but features gained over many levels, yet still the bevy of choice buckets out there have some truly standout options for just about any character, and some dubious options as well. And, if one only ever plans on taking just one dedication feat, therefore doing a "1 level dip", they certainly can, and there's some exceptional choices for that. Whether that is good or poor design is up to interpretation, but it does lead to a bit of powergaming homogeneity.
I am altogether far more pleased by archetypes than multiclassing, and I think it solves far more problems than it creates. The good news about my problem with archetype feats is that these particular details are workable, negotiable, open to house rulings, without overhauling an entire system. The system itself is quite sound.
If I were to go to a crunchy system, PF2e would be my go-to
I've yet to get to actually play PF2E but even then I find character creation an engaging hobby. I used to do it with 5e too but it lost its luster after a bit. But in Pathfinder I still find that just coming up with a concept (or more often trying to adapt the protagonist from my hyperfixation of the week) and building it out in Pathbuilder is fun in and of itself. I have at least half a dozen close to complete sheets sitting around, and some of them I'd even consider actually playing!
I distinctly remember one evening when I got the idea to adapt some of my favorite NPCs from a campaign I run into full PF characters. They're a troupe of singers with all of them having some additional gimmick or skill or act. Out of the five of them, I only ended up with a single Bard. I obviously put in special effort to try and make them different from each other but even then I had quite an easy time of it. Really skill feats were my biggest bottleneck, almost all of them I wanted to deck out with Fascinating Performance...
I like the multiclass archetype options. Are you aware of any balance issues with the extra class feats? Because some builds do boost character power significantly. Thanks for your videos.
Fighter with the Druid Dedication and taking the Wild Druid Order could exploit the text of the Wild Shape Focus Spell.
They could a plus 2 status bonus for their attack whilue using Wild Shape, consistly boosting their already powerful accuracy.
@@DGenHero This is a valid plan, but with one dowside: Scaling.
While a lot of Wildform stats scale with your level, Temp HP and damage only scale with Spell Rank. And the MC Druid lacks the access to higher level forms, that scale to higher Ranks.
A Animal Form can never deal as much damage as a Dragon Form.
The main balance change I noticed during character building is some archetypes double down on a certain class feature (beastmaster with ranger for example) this allows you to have your cake and eat it by allowing you to focus your ranger feats on weapon attacks and/or warden spells while the archetype takes care of the feast related to your animal companion(s).
As for multiclass archetypes, combing the ranger and rogue thrown weapon feats together can give you a range on par with conventional ranged weapons which seams a little busted.
The monk multiclass archetype gives non stance martials access to the monk stances which can get interesting, though its +2 Strength +2 Dexterity requirement can make it a bit tricky to take as a 2nd level free archetype (The martial artist archetype seems to have been made to make this more accessible).
The elephant in the room though is the exponential boost the Wizard and Witch archetypes give to Magus's, especially in the "back half" of their levels. Combined spell proficiency's in the remaster will potentially make spellcaster mixing even more potent than it already is.
There is a tangible power boost for the party. On the other hand, the encounter balancing works so it's possible for the GM to adjust if they feel it's necessary.
I am hoping the Remaster changes the Multiclass Archetypes feats that let you take a class feat allows you to take a class feat closer to the level of feat you are spending. Something closer to what the Archetype "additional feats" allow. AKA the example he used of Bless One can take some of the champion feats at a lower level then a Multiclass Archetype Champion. What I am thinking is that right now Multiclass borrow feats is half the level where an Archetype additional feat is usually 2 levels above the base class, so I was thinking 4 levels above for multiclass.
18:26 "The different numbers you have to meet and beat in this game have a set of base mathematical assumptions of where the characters numbers are based on their level" So D&D 5e has global bounded accuracy, whereas PF 2e has local (level-dependant) bounded accuracy?
Yes!
it took me a solid 5 sessions and dabbling in between each to finally read up enough to understand the fundamentals of the pathfinder changes from 5e to even begin grasping the effect of swapping out multiclassing for these dedications/archetypes
i gotta say though, now that i know enough to really start experimenting with character planning i'm really loving it
hopefully someday we'll see a video game similar to the scope of bg3 that implements a system like this, cuz it's honestly beautifully made
I wish I could understand Pathfinder well enough to have this kind of fun with it! I’m a numbers-heavy gamer introduced to d&d via Neverwinter Nights, and after years of trying, I couldn’t find a way to scratch that itch like NWN did.
have you tried the video game "pathfinder wrath of the righteous" ?
@@bobyhappy2992 I haven’t, but I did complete Pathfinder Kingmaker on Steam, and I played the endless dungeon mode, and sadly I didn’t like it. I don’t know why.
I tried so hard to love it Neverwinter
@@FromAgonyToLight if I'm being honest, I think Pathfinder needs its "BG3 moment" now
@@bobyhappy2992 I heavily agree. My main problem with 5e is that it doesn’t allow me to build a unique character mechanically like Pathfinder does.
There are other reasons why I don’t get involved with Pathfinder groups anymore, and I mostly play solo with random number generators.
@@FromAgonyToLight Pathfinder have a lot of classes/archetypes that I want to try
The witch was the class that made me want to try pathfinder wotr in the first place...well I was very disappointed by it BUT STILL
I do love the flavor
and I still love the game
but it needs to be more accessible for new players
Coming from Starfinder I really like the ability score system here. SF has the similar 'buff four ability scores every 5 levels' thing but the way you spend your points at character creation seems to incentivize min maxing more so than the ancestry, background and free boosts at character creation do in PF2.
I loved my Barbarian princess who served as the Party Face. She was good at Diplomacy, though her customs were sometimes seen as strange to the 'more civilized' people.
She would always try and deescalate a situation first.... but definitely knew how to bring the pain when Diplomacy failed.
I wish that the pathfinder cprgs had used PF2E. A lot of the metagaming in selecting your build involves dipping into several classes. And as it revolves around a specific campaign, they tend to be one and the same no matter what base class you pick. I still play without doing so, but I am also aware that I am gimping myself this way.
I do like PF2e archetypes. One of my player is alway complaining he can't get other classes abilities through multiclassing (ranger's flurry edge on a fighter or champion)
yeah, because those are things are too broken to give for multiclassing. Imagine a fighter having flurry rager ability in addition to ledgendary attack bonus. That would be insane
Funny that you bring up that rogues can be better at athletics than the barbarian, because I swear I'm the only player I know of who actually used expertise that way.
All my friends and other players I have experience with always go for the same skills with their expertise. Stealth, Thievery, a face skill or two. Rogues are better than any other class at particular skills, but they are still constrained within the trope of a 'rogue', so it ultimately became meaningless. Maybe if they were named 'Skill Expert' or something things might have been different, but rogue is such a staple in fantasy roleplay that this might not have stuck well.
Other classes should have gotten one core skill to have double proficiency in. I don't think it'd have broken the game to let the barbarian have double proficiency in athletics, the wizard in Arcana, etc.
But, I've moved on from 5e, been GMing PF2E for over two years now. Hard to imagine myself going back. The skill system is great and lets anyone be good at any skill they want.
Yeah what you propose would seem to be a better solution. But alas they have not recognized it as an issue in any of their UAs
Thanks for all your work
Hey, been poking around your videos for a while and I like what I see. I usually feel informed or validated by your videos, but I do occasionally disagree now and then.
I found one such disagreement here.
You make the case in your video that when taking a feat, one has a limited list to choose from at each level, thus reducing a players homework.
This is technically true but another feature of the feat system, I believe, undermines this feature. And that is that some later feats require to have taken previous feats to unlock them.
Lets use the feats Swift Sneak, and Legendary Sneak, as an example.
Maybe I read Swift Sneak and think speed isn't a priority to my character concept and so don't take it. But later I see Legendary Sneak and it has features I consider must haves, but it requires that I have already taken Swift Sneak, and legendary proficiency in my sneak skill.
Now I know i could look up all stealth feats, but that does not address my core point.
My core point is the existance of such feats can and does create scenarios where if I want to unlock specific abilities later, I do have to take apropriate feats at earlier levels to stay on curve. And the existance of this reality makes it much harder to focus on only the feats you already have access to
This is a valid point. (I did mention the planning required to take Archetypes in the vid, but should have mentioned this also.)
This is mitigated by the generous Retraining rules. And in this example, there were 7 chances to get skill feats before hitting Level 15, so hopefully the player will have found out by then.
I DO think there is a good design reason to have some shallow feat trees, because it allows some more powerful abilities to exist and requiring a little investment beforehand. (Much like the logic of this video about multiclassing.) But yes it can lead to points of frustration. It at the very least isn't as bad as the feat chains 3e/PF1! (Spring Attack's requirements come to mind!) Generally nearly all "feat trees" in PF2 are only 2 feats deep.
If you're running a paizo AP or most decent homebrew settings people are going to let you retrain, it's not a big deal
Yeh retraining should let you organize your feats and set up prerequisites. At least, until attribute requirements come into play; no retraining those!
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG
Ah I have been researching for a while now but had somehow missed that retraining was so generous. That is a big help in this case.
2:54 Honestly, saying everyone took them is an understatement. The usual measure of how good a class is at *being* an archer is how rapidly you can get them. For example, I think Arrowsong Minstrel (bard archetype) is severely underrated, because it gets a limited form of Improved Precise Shot at level *TWO,* which is four levels earlier than even the Ranger can manage
3:05 as for broken pc in pf1 (this maybe an artifact of when Pathfinder broke of from dnd 3.5 and the supposed ease of 4th edition campaigns) even with a broken character rise of the runelords has consistently been face rolling us (we almost tpkd to a freaking bridge and then i died to a freaking bunyip) and we just finished thistletop and i am already on my second character and nearly fell to nualia and her boy toy tsuto
So does this remove the reliance on attributes entirely? I had to play characters that were consistently net negative in attribute bonus due to poor roll results. A character that starts the game with 1 +0 and 1 +1 modifier and the rest negative does not seem to work with their assumptions of +4. I am unfortunately referring back to D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1. I have not played in a while.
I mean the answer to this is don't roll for ability scores.
But yes PF2 fixes this in a more elegant way. By linking ability scores to other choices you make.
Actually, the better feat to compare to Great Weapon Master would be Deadly Aim, imo
Both don't change the cost of an attack per ce. Well... DA allows you to make one Strike for one action, with doesn't cost you an additional action, but it disallows you to use it simultaneously with stuff like Hunted Shot. And if we compare both, Hunted Shot does the same thing with argualby better results (+8 damage for -2 attack), but it's not a "no-brainer-spam-it-every-turn" type of action. First, only one DA per turn because of Open trait. Secondly, like I said, it disallows some other option like Hunted Shot or Hunter's Aim. Thirdly, there are other interesting level 8 feats like Enlarge Companion, Powerful Snares or Warden's Boon. There's competition. Basically, it's a nice option to have, but it doesn't eclipse everything else (both in "what I use this turn?" and "what should I take at level 8" regards)
Looking to play pathfinder and learning the rules. Question: With free Archetype, could you select one archetype as the free archetype and select another archetype for your class feats? Thank you
There is no hard rule. Some tables allow it, others do not. Even the ones that do not, however, can let you obtain the three feats you need to switch to a new archetype faster. Provided the archetype has enough feat options at low levels.
While I do concur that 5e has a big issue with multiclassing, I have one particular issue with Pathfinder 2e. The ceiling is good for disabling overpowered dips, but sometimes your character concept lies on a very mix of two classes, and with this system, you will be locked out of the core features of one of the classes. I know Dual-Class PCs exist but you won't be the only one in your party to have this feature because you would be a lot more powerful than the rest. One example I had was the concept of an esoteric witch hunter who practices the occult to fight his enemies on equal terms (hexes, curses, etc). A mixture of a Thaumaturge and a Witch. I had to forego significant core features of the other class I did not choose. For example, I couldn't get hexes at all if I chose to be a Thaumaturge, and couldn't get anything more than the initial implement benefit if I chose to be a witch. That was quite frustrating. I don't know why there aren't high-level feats to get such core features in PF2E dedications system.
saw this in my recommended next to all the remaster change videos and it scared me
For the Dual Class variant rule that was briefly mentioned, it's probably worth noting that your math is _still_ bounded. Even though you have two classes, you're still only adding your level once. In other words if you're a level 1 Rogue and a level 1 Sorcerer, you're still only level 1 and only add +1 to your level-based math. Also you don't add your class proficiencies together, you only take the better. This is still pretty powerful, but it's a "wide" increase that leaves those ceilings in place. So for example at 1st level you might be Expert in more saving throws, but you'll still only be Expert.
the gutting of multiclass is one of my favorite things about Pathfinder. In 5e it generally did feel kind of bad how exponentially more powerful a character can become, and seeing that people in their builds talk about "do a 2 level fighter dip" or "1 level dip into hexblade" or something. I've never found multiclassing fun, it's just one of the pressures I generally felt as a 5e player to do otherwise I wasn't going to be able to feel like I contribute to the party.
In pathfinder, I feel like I have a lot more control over my character and I don't have to focus on "what level should I do this multiclass" or "Let me make sure my hit points are calculated right" or "What do I get proficiency wise from this?"
I always HATED doing multiclassing on a spellcaster because I knew I'd be gutting my slot progression to an extent, and the fact that some builds come "online" at a level you may not ever get to makes it feel even worse. It never felt right to me either that a 1 level dip gives the same as a main class of that same level, so I'm glad multiclass archetypes don't give you certain abilities.
Archetypes, especially with Free Archetype has let me really focus on what kind of interesting choices I can make as a player. I've been playing Abomination Vaults for a year now and while currently my feat choices are more on the pragmatic side, I don't feel like I'm not contributing to the party even if I didn't build my character "optimally" (I just realized recently the importance of the type of armor I wear.)
you forgot an important thing, compulsory investing 3 feats from archetype before moving on to another archetype also prevents people from abusing multiclassing to dip into everything
He actually said that. Not necessarily at the most expected part, but he did mention it.
During recording yes, I put it up on screen. (Tho apparently I mention it somewhere? I don't remember when lol) But yes a very important point!
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG 33:33
Yeah 5E rogues are kind of crazy. Expertise starts out with giving you an extra +2. But with how it scales combined with 5E's bounded accuracy keeping numbers from inflating as much, plus reliable talent at 11, at a certain point rolling for their best skills more or less becomes a formality.
Yeah, the two level fighter dip drives me insane, because people are taking levels of fighter purely to improve their _spellcasting_ ability. The thing they gave fighters to make them feel special is being stolen by other classes. And then everyone turns around and calls the fighter a boring class.
I personally have never multi-classed a 5e character because the rules obviously don't support it.
One DND is eliminating the ability to cast spells with action surge. One of many improvements along with getting rid of great weapon master and sharpshooter fears.
(Every +1 matters sound)
('nam flashbacks)
Have heard that so many times...lol
RE the conclusion around "just talk to your players"
Always found this justification for design funny. I buy and play a game expecting that game to be well made. D&D is a game, and when video games come out and are broken, people are rightfully frustrated. For whatever reason people think "you can fix it yourself" is an acceptable justification for (tabletop RPGs specifically.)
Weird how that works!
"If you don't like a bethesda game, you can just mod it bro"
To be fair a large portion of this is just saying no as a dm. Sure wotc sucks at balancing dnd but if you let the wizard multiclass fighter for 0 lore reasons its kinda on you.
I see multiclassing more as a special opportunity a character can take after something happens in the story.
@@luminous3558 multiclassing in 5th editon is unfortunately not that though, if you do not multiclass in 5th editon there is very little in the way of character customization that allows for a player to express their character concept in a way that is conducive to the mechanical function of the game. Classes are-and this is even the case for spellcasters-rife with linear design that leaves little to express the character through the mechanics of the game.
The point isn't that it is up to the DM to say no, to your original statement, the point is that the game sucks at retaining a semblance of balance *to begin with*, thus requiring the DM to make those calls.
The game does not work well out of the box, and it should.
@@caradine898 But this is how TTRPGs worked for 30 years. It was the GM's job to make the game work.
@@davidbowles7281 that is not an excuse for bad design.
I feel like if D&D just put in the rules that all characters start at level 3, a lot of their problems would be solved. Or heck, start at level 5 or something idk
I love free archetype. Just keep them and we good:)
As someone who has strictly played with D&D and Pathfinder (2E through 5th edition) via video-games, I MUCH prefer this system of "multi-classing" (via archetype feats and the like) compared to how 3rd/3.5 Edition of D&D and 1st Edition of Pathfinder handle the idea. This is coming from someone who has played everything from Baldur's Gate 1, 2 and 3 through Icewind Dale 1/2 and Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, Pathfinder Kingmaker, Wrath of the Righteous and even The Temple of Evil.
I've always played on the "as close to the real rules" difficulty in these games, yet I will make characters nowhere near as optimal, even though the video-games heavily encourage min-maxing your build. I find it to be much more enjoyable to express my character and find a solution to a difficult encounter my way. Currently, I've been enjoying a Warlock (9) and Rogue (3) setup in Baldur's Gate 3 that, while not doing anything too powerful, best fits my current character. The extra thief skill-proficiencies could easily be replaced by a Skilled Feat and the extra bonus action per turn is nice, but I am enjoying the experience purely from a role-playing aspect (which is helped by dialogue options for both Warlock and Rogue.)
Based on my experience, it sounds like Pathfinder has found a happy middle-ground for people like me. Also, on an unrelated note, I've always wanted D&D to handle the issue of multiclassing to bring back the idea of Prestige classes similar to how Pathfinder 1E handled it. Warlocks, to me, make the most sense to be a prestige class; something added on top of a base-class and not available from the start, and it could even have some interesting player-DM mechanics in that the more Warlock level dips you make the more power you grant your entity (which could be controlled by the DM.) This could create some fun situations where getting more levels in Warlock could be harmful because you're giving more power to the DM rather than growing your own base-class.
Multi-class archetypes is a system that does 2 things I love:
-It creates a more modular system. In d&d, if my rogue wants to be better in straightforward combat and multiclasses into fighter, I have to go through 5 levels of fighter and sacrifice 5 levels of rogue to get extra attack. In Pathfinder, you can just pick and choose the feats that will enhance your build, but you can still get the high level rogue feats (if you qualify for them) without watering down your build with things that aren't important.
-It corals off possible game-breakers. In d&d, ANY character with 13 or higher charisma can access the Hex Warrior ability from warlocks, which grants them proficiency with all martial weapons and medium armour (the same as fighter multiclass) and gives the benefits from warlock mutliclass in general. In pathfinder, NO amount of multiclassing will ever give you the Hunter's Edge: Flurry, for example. It not only prevents blatant game-breaking, but it also means that classes can't be easily invalidated. Every class has something you worth multying into, but every class also has unique abilities you can't get anywhere else (barring the alchemist, which is a GREAT class to multi-into, but a primary alchemist kinda feels underwelming).
Objection! You were comparing the thousands of feats in pf1 to more restricted options in pf2, but then talking about only options from the core book! :p
I'm guessing you're being facetious! But to be clear to others... I said I was limiting myself to the Core Rulebook. And even the class with the most feats, the Fighter class, has about 10 feats to look through from all sourcebooks (easily accessible on Archives of Nethys). This is much less than hundreds/thousands!
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Okay, that's obviously fewer, but I'm a little sore from the leveling session I just had where my players had an overwhelming number of skill feats to look through, (at level 2) and one of my players took Alchemical Crafting, then took an even longer time looking through a hundred level 1 Alchemical items to pick their formulas.
@@MichaelNermanAlchemy is notoriously complex in pf2e.
I wonder if you've considered or expounded on the "Proficiency without Level" variant. I am considering running a horror or horror-adjacent campaign, and I think that having low-level enemies always be a viable threat enhances the idea that instead of being Big Damn Heroes, they are ordinary mortals that are just clever enough and just skilled enough to survive.
Awesome breakdown of the framework that makes PF2E better than 5E!
I used to be a 1e junkie until I gave 2e a try. Honestly I like it way more I thought it would lose a lot of its charm but it didn't at all.
It's up to the GM to "balance" their game. It is NOT the rules that should do that.
That I can't run an unbalanced table if that's what I'm being asked for or it's the story I want to tell is a bad thing. That min/maxers cannot break the game is bad. Opportunity cost for doing things is a core need. I shouldn't be able to go wide and be effective at the level of someone who specializes. But I should still be able to pay that cost and do either. These games aren't Monopoly or an MMO. They are skeletons for collaborative play largely using a shared imagination to create their own unique and specific game at each table. The game shouldn't "know" anything. The designers shouldn't be able to predict whether I've got a +13 or +37 in a skill. Or when I'm going to be getting the results of other choices or advancement.
Unless it's a game like Living Greyhawk there is zero reason for any external balancing or reducing choice. Reduce false choice. The comment about archers goes here. That's a bad design. They need more paths.
I think this is really the right outlook. A good or even decent gm should adjust their game to the player character to give them good challenges. pf2e feels like its giving the gm training wheels and does this in part by not letting the players do anything. Theres also a clear difference from broken and unbalanced. like a 1e wizard might be very good at evocation but bad at other magic, whilst being a complete glass cannon. this isnt bad for the game, it just means the player decided to focus heavily on one aspect of their character.
My problem isn't that it restricts, as (as seen in this video) it might be argued. My problem is how it creates a "superhero" world, where your level is really what determines almost every aspect of your character (in terms of difficulties). The problem is making a believable world, it was there in the earlier editions with attack boni and ac flying through the roof while only having a d20, this edition added to that.
Proficiency without level optional rule?
The game embraces the high fantasy world. There is already an extremely high level of magic. Having level determine difficulty doesn’t feel out of place for that, and having level determine difficulty so closely is what allows for an encounter building tool that actually works and is reliable.
I would suggest just playing an OSR game/older dnd edition (AD&D2 and prior) if you want a bit more believability/verisimilitude/low fantasy.
@@Jermbot15 Sounds like an interesting approach, but not sure how I feel about it yet.
@@Melidus53 I'm hoping it is not the only way to make something feel high fantasy. I like the high fantasy element and the epic/heroic storytelling as well, but I feel like here it is more of an engine failure. Won't deny, that many people like it! It feels a bit "computer-gamey" for me, with level locked regions so to speak. I love worldbuilding and feel like this is a harsh hurdle sometimes (not insurmountable) . Also aware, that this video is about multiclassing, so gonna let this matter lie here a bit I guess.
I like PF2. Don't like archetypes that much (didn't care for them in 4e, either) or the weirdness of suddenly gaining ancestry abilities after gaining levels. It allows more customization. But it really lacks a basis for why your npc buddies already have them when at a lower level. People like different things in their games, which is great. Especially since there are so many games to play.
I do enjoy the choices pathfinder gives, but I honestly hate that so many times feats it offers are things that seem like they shouldn't even be a feat (Things like Group impression for example). Archetypes in my experience multiclassing wise just simply don't give the parts of the class you want sometimes, or they water it down so much that its no longer what you want.
Balance is valuable yes, but fun is more so. Pathfinder is too obsessed with the balance in my opinion and refuses to let you leave the balance.
For a better example of something I find really messed up. Pathfinders familiars. The familiars power system was a really great concept... the need to use one of your VERY FEW power selections on the basic things an animal can do like flight for a bird? (My solution to this would have been to make powers you select be only the supernatural abilities or things that are unusual to the avg creature)
I understand they don't want you to step on other classes toes with some of the options they give and restrict. But I think they forget that you might not HAVE those other classes at the table. We also have the rogue who seems DEDICATED to stepping on other peoples toes by being trained in everything. I played a rogue to about level 5 or 6 and had to take half a dozen lore skills just to try and avoid overlapping with my party members too much skill wise so that they could have their things they were good at.
If balance isn't inherently fun for your group, PF2E is not necessarily the best choice.
having some redundancy in skills is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, some skills, like stealth, are best if the entire party is at least trained in it. Skills are a rogues thing, they are going to end up at least trained in almsot everything, and master in more things than any other class, and honestly that's fine.
Some class abilites are locked or watered down so they are not broken. For isntance, if ranger flurry was availble through dedications, every fighter would take it. Lowering your MAP that much while also having ledgendary on attack rolls would be busted. Same with full sneak attack, there are classes that would be busted if they could access that.
Overlaping skills is good practice, actually, so long as you let your teammates use their skills so they aren't left out. And... you rank up the most important skills for your character first.
Skills which should be doubled (depending on class): Acrobatics, Athletics, Medicine, and Stealth
Acrobatics is huge when you're in situation when you need to make balance checks. Athletics is huge when you need to do physical exertions like climbing and swimming. Medicine is huge as it's free healing. Stealth is huge as it lowers the likelihood of your party getting spotted.
As for recall knowledge checks... you can also act as a "double check" to make sure the information you teammate is recalling is accurate.
As for skills... yes... it's possible for a Rogue to be trained in every named skill and still be trained in multiple Lore categories, I've made those types of Rogues myself[1]. That's part of their niche. However, they won't be equally as good as their party due to the ability score modifiers... _and_ as they increase in level they will need to start to specialize in skills (Expert, Master, and Legendary proficiency)... you can pick the skills to specialize in based on how often your character/party needs them.
"For a better example of something I find really messed up. Pathfinders familiars. The familiars power system was a really great concept... the need to use one of your VERY FEW power selections on the basic things an animal can do like flight for a bird?"
This is for balancing purposes. There are familiars in PF1e/D&D3.5e in which were never picked or were considered must-haves... due to the abilities they had. _Flight_ is one of the more powerful abilities a familiar can have. Let me ask you a question...
Would you pick a snake, toad or an owl for your familiar which you intend to use as a scout for your party (Share Senses Master Ability)?
[1]
Ancestry Lore Ancestry Feat (Or Skilled Human Heritage and Natural Skill Ancestry Feat) [up to 3 skills]
Mastermand Rogue [Stealth, Society, and Arcana, Nature Occultism, or Religion, +8 skills for a total of 11]
+4 Intelligence [4 Skills]
Ustalavic Academic Background [Crafting, Academia Lore, and Skill Training Feat for a total of 3 skills]
Maximum Number of Skills: 21
@@aralornwolf3140Toad or the snake. They're much smaller. Sneakier too. An owl flapping about in a cave is not hard to spot. But unfortunately, in Pathfinder, I'd probably not take these. They don't really get a bonus to stealth, so a DC reduction is entirely DM fiat.
One thing I really hate about the system, and this might just be a pet peeve of mine, is that fairies can't fly. It's just... The thought actually disgusts me a bit. Maybe it's because my longest running D&D game has me playing a haughty fairy who uses her flight to literally look down on everybody else despite her size, but the thought of _fairies_ of all things being unable to fly? Ew.
And yes, I know Evanescent Wings exists. That isn't flight. That's a big hop. You fall at the end of your movement if you aren't on solid ground. The only benefit this has over a big hop is that you can... turn a corner? It's barely any distance either. If it was just 15ft of speed and had you fall tme next turn if you didn't fly again, I would've been fine with it. But it's just pathetic as it is. You get to fly proper at 5th level though! Once per hour! And you still fall if you don't get on solid ground at the end of the movement!
You finally get proper flight at _17th level._ It's actually insulting. I don't know how anybody would play a winged fairy with this. It's just tragic. Tragic enough to make a story out of, yes. But tragic.
If everything is balanced, if your characters increase in lock step with the potential challenges they'll face, then there's no true benefit from leveling. I see that linear progression in the chart (just past the 20 minute mark), and I see the same flawed assumption that underlies the concept (if not the reality) of bounded accuracy in 5E. Balanced encounters and level gating are uninteresting, so we've generally stuck with PF1e...
Also curious why it's a bad thing to reward people that actually learn/study the rules, take the time to build mastery in the game. That's just as valid playstyle as hardcore roleplayers. See the recent Seth Skorkowski video about powergamers...
Subclasses were a thing in 4E as well tho? They weren't new to 5E.
Is spreading your Ability Scores really true though? I've been playing Paizo adventure paths for 10 months now and granted I've only started GMing PF2e on January this year, but Paizo's APs are brutal and punishing. Players that didnt built their characters 'properly' were noticeably weaker than ones that did. I think spreading is only true if it's your DM's Homebrew game that also depends on your DM's taste. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's been my experience so far.
You have to uses the 4 boosts on different ability scores, that's what was meant by spreading ability scores.
In both 5e and PF1e, you would focus on 1-3 ability scores instead.
@@andrejbosiakov5726 But you do still focus on your main stat is what I am getting at. That hasnt been really removed. I've dmed 5e for a long time. You dont focus on 1-3 ability scores. You build your character with probably those 3 scores in mind and boost your 1 or 2 important scores, rest is gravy.
@@kelvinl2214 You absolutely want a +3 or +4* for your classes' primary attribute starting out, much like 5th edition characters without a 16 in their primary score are in for a rough time. And you will probably still put an attribute boost into that score every time you level up. But you do end up having a lot more freedom with your secondary and tertiary attributes, especially as you reach levels 5 and 10 where your secondaries may be hitting "soft caps" like 1/2 strength bonus to damage of composite bows or the maximum dexterity modifer for your armor.
*The classes that go for +3 are usually hybrid martials that don't have strength or dex as their primary score like Thaumaturge
@@kelvinl2214PF2 essentially says "have your cake and eat it, too." I venture to say a majority of players want to max out their key stat. At the same time they can BOTH do that and spread wide. It DOES hurt more to be even 1 point behind. But that's because of the +10/-10 crit system which I think is a net plus.
generally, my issue with the dedication feats is that your concept doesn't exist until level 4 at least, you don't get anything you want from that other class, and therefor any of the concept from that you want using that until then. the dedication feats not based on existing classes are all good, but the actual ones are downright useless, making it so you'll be going multiple sessions as just a generic rogue or generic druid, it's just not good for the idea that they are supposed to give a lot of the time, it just unlocks the ability to unlock the feats at a later point to begin with. I love playing suboptimal characters in all systems I play, my favorite system is pf1e, it gives me so many options and gives me the freedom to actually portray my concept, unlike pf2e, where I feel constrained to a couple options at every level, there's always something I am forced to take, always something I didn't wanna take, because it isn't in line with my character, but oops, there's nothing that fits that i'm allowed to take at this level
I also love playing characters which *are* useless sometimes, and is forced to rely on his allies, playing a caster who refuses to take damaging spells, out of principal, or taking a fighter, who has only ever known combat, and only as a result of the party, they begin to learn side things
there are so many things, which you portray as an inherent issue, but I view as one of the inherent benefits of those other systems, the ability to rarely fail in one specific thing, but need your allies to be involved when it isn't that thing, that's amazing, I love that about dnd5e rogue
When I wanna play a character who's a swashbuckler, who eventually picks up a tiny bit of bardic magic, as a result of his overwhelming charisma, I need to pick a feat a few levels before I actually wanna gain that ability, even if I wanna gain that ability the next level up after an event coming up, I've gotta pickup a dead level early on in order to pickup an ability that actually portrays my concept
also the fact you need to take 3 feats from your dedication before you can pickup another dedication is a pain as well, and only multiplies this issue. I love my jack of all trades, master of none characters, but in this case, the system is designed intentionally to shut down the ability to do that in so many ways, despite how you seem to claim it is designed for horizontal growth, it is designed to allow horizontal growth at early levels, but all your decisions are decided from mid levels to high levels, as you're going to end up behind on your core skills if you're picking all the skills you feel make sense to have
43:05 you cant just say that sentence out loud without the intent of making a "combat simulation" video about it
I like both. The difference is that the PF2 people put more effort into making their system balanced, and the dnd designers put pisspoor effort into designing their classes to fit with the system they play. Multiclassing in dnd could easily be fixed so that they could mix and match in a balanced or at least getting equivalent abilities that aren’t broken… but they choose to focus on simplicity instead so that they attract more players and make more money. That’s the difference
It really isnt that simple though. DnD has tons of really arbitrary nonsense littered throughout its rules and the phb in its pdf or physical version jumps all over the place explaining them in the worst way.
Multiclassing shouldnt be simple because i highly doubt a new player would even consider a multiclass.
If it really attracts more people then it's doing something right, or at the very least giving people something they want
@@PsyrenXY it’s giving people that don’t understand the system an easy in to understand it. But since it doesn’t take long to understand it, once you understand the system then you learn its limitations and what it’s lacking… and they refuse to fix it past that point. It’s superfluous and paper thin. No substance underneath. It’s pulling in new people but not satisfying the old. Then people stay bc they don’t wanna learn a new system or all the other systems are more complex. Hence all the complaints of its customers. Sunken cost fallacy. It works, but it’s just bad.
@@luminous3558 yea I agree. It’s so convoluted bc they refuse to fix the aspects that new people don’t interact with. It’s paper thin with no substance. It needs more substance if it wants to be done right. But it has the illusion of simple to draw in new players
I'm still waiting for 2e to bring Sacred Geometry back
Every major issue in D&D since 3rd edition, comes down to optional rules. And that being that the most broken/easy to exploit, are generally seen as the default rules to players. When they really shouldn't. Prestige classes, multi-classing, feats, being the big three, depending on the edition. Multi-classing is optional in 5th. It's not a standard rule. As are feats. And quite honestly, most DM's should not allow both at the table. Yes it will make some players rage, but there's a reason why they're optional and not the standard. Racial/class variants are another thing that can often ruin a game when added to other optional rules.
Honestly, if every new DM went through the rules, and simply said no optional rules for their first few games, things would go a lot better for them.
I see what you're saying, but there is also the concern from many players that not having Feats makes martials even less powerful compared to casters, and more repetitive/boring. So it brings its own issues to be aware of.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I don't think you need feats to solve that issue. Most optimization feats aren't choices and instead aggressively limit weapon selection.
Ban feats but implement alternative things to shore up the issues you'd fix by taking the feat.
You can easily houserule the -5 to hit +10 to damage onto weapon attack actions and suddenly nobody is forced into vuman or custom lineage for the DPR feat.
PAM could easily be replaced by giving slightly stronger magic weapons early and giving them an alternative use for bonus actions.
Feats don't allow customization because only some feats are good.
I think that, in 5e at least, feats and multiclassing are 100% necessary for the game to be any fun at all, in terms of building characters. Without them, there are literally zero meaningful choices to make post level 3 unless you are a caster.
I have not played 2e yet, but I think the problem of number of feats comes with subsequent supplements. That sort of bloat and power creep leads to more broken combinations.
I am not the biggest fan of forcing characters to go broad, because it does limit character concepts to some extent. I would rather make versatility more useful vs specialization.
My biggest dislike of PF2e is the "assumption" that you will max out your class attribute. We're basically not allowed to play generalists or have "backup" scores (basically, you can't make a 16 STR/16 DEX/16 WIS Ranger who uses both melee, ranged and WIS skills equally and have it work, your rangers HAVE to use Finesse Weapons to also up their skills to levels that matter).
Bingo. Assumptions are the cost of tight balance.
What is stopping you? A thaumaturge literally cannot start with higher than 16 in str or dex regardless of what they set their charisma to, they're still martial
+3 is not necessarily fatal to your efficacy. Some martials (like the Thaumaturge or Inventor) will have only a +3 in their main attack as well. You definitely GAIN something by not hyper-focusing on one stat: DEX is not a god stat in PF2. And thrown weapons want good Strength AND Dexterity and let you do melee damage at range. As for other builds, if your Wizard went +3 INT and +3 STR, yes they're a less effective wizard (when it comes to attack spells), but surely that player CHOSE to spread out and had other things in mind besides blasting I would assume. They're set to go gish and take a Magus or Fighter archetype. They can get to +4 INT at Level 5 regardless.
Also, PF2 is unique in that you can get to an ungodly +4 in two stats at Level 5, with a +3 in a third stat (+4 in three stats if you took the right Ancestry). You can get there; it's just delayed.
Living to level 5 is probably the hardest part of the game. I wish they'd change that.
Weird, in my experience, stats basically only matter at lower levels and become pointless at higher levels. You get so many passive increases to hit, that difference between a 10 main stat and a 20 main stat isn't really all that much at mid/high levels.
Wouldn't really say PF2 killed Multiclassing. With the new feat system, you're still gaining abilities from other classes instead of ones from yours, so it's still essentially multiclassing, just done differently.
Saying multiclassing was killed implies that no cross class abilities occur, which is simply not the case. And in theory, there really isn't much of any limitation that one would run into when creating more of these "feats" making this "no multiclassing" an "in name" only kind of thing and not really true.
"... to create broken combinations that the designers didn't plan for..."
Its 3.75 if they didn't think this wasn't going to happen if they didn't recognize the blatantly obvious this was going to happen they weren't D&D players. I don't buy this they didn't plan for it in the slightest because that list of archer feats, guess what thats straight from 3.5 going back to the very early two thousands. This is not unique to 3.75 because it is straight 3.5 mechanics being brought into Golarion.
EDIT: I'll be honest I prefer 1e over 2e Pathfinder but I honestly suspect getting rid of the multiclassing [as it was in 3rd] in 2E was either somewhat got upset at the table or Paizo felt the needed to move to a more distinct system from 3.5. Thats fine.
I love how easy it is to combine things with 5e multi-classing, I can easily make things like Barbarian-Sorcerer or Ranger-Paladin-Wizard. Gives lots of ideas for RPing and creating the character and lots of fun stuff to do while playing.
Also keeps the DM on her toes, like my Barbarian-Sorcerer who moved to the enemy forces, misty stepped behind them and bonked their leader and on their next turn raged only to drop the rage after couple turns to cast some spells when the DM least expected.
This was informative but a little condescending with the many "PF2e actually put in effort" comments haha
I never liked the multiclassing system. I don't think a single character I've played in any D&D system has multiclassed. For me, it felt like it gaming the system and make an already overcomplicated system even more complicated. It also felt like it sullied the class system a bit too, a very emotional response of course. To be fair, I always think character first, class second.
Heck, last campaign I played a Bard who was an outright coward and didn't want to fight. When a combat situation arose, I tried to talk my way out of it using Diplomancy. If that didn't work I just put people to Sleep and tied them up for the authorities to find. Of course, Bard comes pre-broken out of the box, as does the Sleep spell, but I didn't specifically go for that. I just had a character concept I thought would be fun to play.
The Pathfinder 2e system seems better in pretty much every way. It opens up dipping in other classes for roleplaying purposes. I've been playing for decades and while being powerful is fun, I don't necessarily need that from power gaming my character build. My experience and creativity helps overcome a lot of obstacles a broken character would be useful for. If it doesn't, that's part of the adventure too. If I die, I have five other character ideas I'd like to play.
My biggest hang up with pathfinder is that the numerous choices just feel extremely generic. And the base classes do not offer enough uniqueness for them to stand on their own (dnd has this issue as well which is why subclass spam is necessary).
The only class that really met my standard of uniqueness was the oracle. But only in concept as the execution was pretty poor. I’d much rather classes be designed around positioning, environment interaction, foresight, and diverse action economies. Rather than just gaining the same bonuses through slightly different ways (most of which being point click).
I also hate standardized spell lists, and I think they are the main reason why classes become so generic.
There’s my rant :)