log in or register to remove this ad

 

UA UA feats, are they trying to allow people to not have to multiclass to get class abilities?

I like to have both options.
My favorite however in a possible 6th edition would be having base classes and subclasses more equal and that yoi can forgo your subclass to get a second main class. Both without subclasses then.
And when that is done I would like to have a feat now and then to pick up a few features you have missed.

So you might be a Wizard/Invoker
Or a Fighter/Warlord
Or you migh just be an ordinary Fighter/Wizard.
Then you might pick up a feat that gives the Wizard/Invoker some fighter abilities.
A feat that allows the Fighter Warlord to do some magical tricks. Or a feat, that allows the Fighter/Wizard to have some Invokation or warlordy fighting style... Or pick up the basics of thievery on top.
That would be very flexible.
If you put it on the 5e chassis,
You could have following progression:

1: Class ability
2: Subclass ability/second class
3: feat/ability score increase
4: proficiency bonus increase + learn a noncombat feat
Repeat!

The level 1,5,9,13,17 features are basic class features. Problems may arise with 9 spell levels on 5 increases. A possibility might be the use of feats to increase spell levels at that point. Maybe with a +1 increase in a stat. Probably you might always increase stats by 1 as a general rule. If you take ASI maybe you can increase a single stat by one, second one by 2 points.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
I think there are 3 things working at play.

  1. Most groups start at low levels. Multiclassing is bad at low levels. There is a intended jump in power planned in the game at level 5. Casters get 3rd level spells. Warriors get extra attack. MC causes you to miss that bump. Feats do not. The same thing happens at level 11 to a lesser extent.
  2. Feats are easier for players and DMs to understand. The interaction of concept, roleplay, and power are written right on the feats. With multiclassing,its not as clear.
  3. You can't really do anything else more with multiclassing. There's the rules for it and...that's it.
But I don't think they are discouraging MCing, they're just not doing more with it.
 
Last edited:


Honestly with Capstones and the fact 5E made single class progression more worthwhile, outside of certain combos I really think that MCing like feats are a better route to go.

If ya multi class outside of that, keep it like 2E or introduce five level prestige classes to cap ya off once ya hit the level 15-20 range.
 


jsaving

Adventurer
PF2 does have multiclassing. It just works differently than PF1 multiclassing,
PF2 abolishes flexible 3e-style multiclassing and replaces it with 4e-style feats. The ruleset does call those feats "multiclassing" but I don't know many players who would agree it should be considered as such, though that's admittedly a judgment call.
 

jmartkdr2

Adventurer
PF2 abolishes flexible 3e-style multiclassing and replaces it with 4e-style feats. The ruleset does call those feats "multiclassing" but I don't know many players who would agree, though that's admittedly a judgment call.
I have a feeling that something closer to PF1 multiclassing will appear in the next couple of books.

It won't work as well as the current system PF2 is using, but it'll be there.
 

Undrave

Hero
Giving out Fighting Styles as feats is however the worst offender from a balance point of view rather than concept. A Fighting Style is typically really powerful because it gets used potentially every single round in every single combat. Once you choose yours, you're supposed to stick with that weapon configuration as much as possible, that's why a second Style is significantly less valuable than the first. But Styles are one of the most important things to make martial classes still be better in combat than others, especially Fighters.
A Fighting style is worth 2 cantrips. That's what Divine Warrior and Druidic Warrior tell us. That means a single Fighting Style is worth less than Magic Initiate.

It's true that few fighting styles stack very well, aside from Defense and the one that gives out Battlemaster Maneuvers, but I still think it's better for the martial classes.

I don't know why adding Fighting Style to a Magic User is any worse than adding Magic Initiate to a Martial class.

I think there are 3 things working at play.

  1. Most groups start at low levels. Multiclassing is bad at low levels. There is a intended jump in power planned in the game at level 5. Casters get 3rd level spells. Warriors get extra attack. MC causes you to miss that bump. Feats do not. The same thing happens at level 11 to a lesser extent.
  2. Feats are easier for players and DMs to understand. The interaction of concept, roleplay, and power are written right on the feats. With multiclassing,its not as clear.
  3. You can't really do anything else more with multiclassing. There's the rules for it and...that's it.
But I don't think they are discouraging MCing, they're just not doing more with it.
MCing is just too risky. If you don't know what you're doing you can cripple your character, but spending a feat to add a dash of flavour from another class is way easier and simple and you know it's about on par with your ASI. You're less likely to mess it up.

PF2 abolishes flexible 3e-style multiclassing and replaces it with 4e-style feats. The ruleset does call those feats "multiclassing" but I don't know many players who would agree it should be considered as such, though that's admittedly a judgment call.
Yeah but everything you can do in PF2 is called 'feat' isn't it? So the multi classing feats are more closer to hybridizing or cherry picking features?
 

Or as I call it just plain human (Seriously, default human is a bland bundle of numbers that just gets in the way of making characters the way I want). When Vhuman is not allowed, I make a half elf and call her a human. It worked for Aragorn, it works for me.
I mean, you do you, I actually feel the same way, but I have a couple of players in my groups who somewhat regularly play non-V Humans, so it's still the exception to me - in fact no-one has played a Vhuman yet in any IRL D&D table I've been at.

I actually spent 5 minutes trying to explain why maybe they should be a Vhuman to one of them, and he was unmoved.
 




TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
PF2 abolishes flexible 3e-style multiclassing and replaces it with 4e-style feats. The ruleset does call those feats "multiclassing" but I don't know many players who would agree it should be considered as such, though that's admittedly a judgment call.
Class feats and dedication feats in PF2 are functionally modular subclasses. It allows for "dip" multiclassing and PrC style multiclassing, but not the feel of AD&D multiclassing, 3.5 gestalt multiclassing or 4e hybrid multiclassing. To be fair, getting all of those styles of multiclassing in one edition would be pretty difficult.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
When you couple these feats with the Variant Class Features UA... you basically are building a system that allows players and DMs to mix and match abilities to create whatever kind of classes they wish. Which I don't really have a problem with because I actually have learned the baselines of how the classes and their features are built and thus am pretty good at eyeballing equivalencies and the like. So if a player wants to create a combined singular class that is made up of Barbarian and Monk abilities, I can do it without causing real issue-- especially due to me being a much less mechanically-focused DM.

The only real problem is going to be those tables where the players (or more importantly, the DM) either have no clue what are "proper" selections and replacements to create relatively balanced creations... or their combats and mechanics are so balanced on a razor-thin edge that any deviance is going to plunge their game into the abyss. This is what these types of adaptations for a potential "Xanathar's 2" is going to cause, and is what will result in Ye Olde Dreaded Power Creep that people are going to be kvetching about here on the boards for the next five years.
 

As long as they are ADDITIONAL options, rather than replacements for current options, I'm all for that.
They seem to be exactly that. They're not getting rid of multiclassing, as quite a few people like it, but they're adding this for people who don't mind giving an ASI to be a bit like multiclassing.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
A Fighting style is worth 2 cantrips. That's what Divine Warrior and Druidic Warrior tell us. That means a single Fighting Style is worth less than Magic Initiate.

...

I don't know why adding Fighting Style to a Magic User is any worse than adding Magic Initiate to a Martial class.
Well, you cannot weight Fighting Style like that. First of all, Divine/Druidic Warrior alternate features aren't confirmed yet. Second, it is possible for competitive options in the game to have an asymmetric cost, in the sense that giving up something in exchange for something else might be costly in both directions i.e. you give up more that you get in exchange, so just because giving up a Fighting Style might end up granting 2 cantrips, it doesn't mean it is fair from someone else to give up 2 cantrips and get a Fighting Style.

That said, I have probably overreacted in worrying about balance of granting a Fighting Style with a feat. Generally speaking, there are feats which grant bigger average bonuses than Fighting Styles. In addition, spellcasters aren't going to get the benefits from a Fighting Style as often as a Fighter would, because typically they're going to spend many rounds casting spells instead of attacking; defense is the only Style which they will benefit from all the time, but +1 AC ain't gonna break the game. So basically only Rogues are really going to get a weapon Style benefit on all rounds, but again +2 damage/turn from Archery or Duelist is not gamebreaking.

That leaves a Rogue taking the 2WF Style the only possible combination that is a bit too good. The Dual Wielder feat gives +1 (average) or +2 (max) damage per turn (by upgrading your off-hand weapon from d6 to d8) and an extra +1 AC. The 2WF Style grants potentially +5 damage per turn, when you max your Dex, it's definitely better although I can still see the appeal of that AC bonus for rogues.

So it's really just one case that leaves me skeptic, but the others will be fine.

There is still the issue with diminishing the uniqueness of classes, particularly the Fighter (a trend that always surfaces at some point in every edition), but I understand that few people besides me still care about this.
 


SkidAce

Hero
Supporter
Yeah, and it makes sense, because MC'ing always means losing something in 5E, at least in theory, because it's 3E-style MC'ing. It's also not something you can do from the beginning of the game - you can't start MC'd, unlike with Feats, where plenty of people still do stuff like give out a free Feat at L1 or the like (or you could be a Vhuman).

I think we want to see MC'ing stick around longer-term, the only way is with 2E-style re-implemented somehow (I think it's doable), where you pick your classes and are MC'd from the get-go.
I had a campaign several years ago, and started everyone at 2nd level explicitly so they could do some MC concepts they were discussing.

Worked out okay.
 

SkidAce

Hero
Supporter
Or as I call it just plain human (Seriously, default human is a bland bundle of numbers that just gets in the way of making characters the way I want). When Vhuman is not allowed, I make a half elf and call her a human. It worked for Aragorn, it works for me.
All this time I thought people were mis typing human.

Sigh, sometimes I am slow.
 

I must have missed an update on the statistics of the player experience.

Can you link the source for those percentages? Last I saw, feats were much lower than 80%.
In all my games since 3e, I've never played or run a group that didn't want feats. In my experience, most players think they're cool, and don't mind the extra power.
 

NOW LIVE! 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top