• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

log in or register to remove this ad


"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
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.


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.


5e Freelancer
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

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.


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.

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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.

Remove ads