In this thread, I will be presenting one-hundred new archetypes (five archetypes per PC base class, presented in alphabetical order by class name, followed by an appendix of one archetype per NPC class). I encourage posters to let me know what they want to see as I move forward. I won't be taking specific requests for archetype concepts and mechanics, but I will be taking other poster's likes, dislikes, and critiques into consideration when choosing and designing future archetypes.
Given the fact that archetypes are drawn from popular fantasy tropes, and that large numbers of archetypes have already been published by numerous parties, I suspect that many of the archetype concepts I will post in this thread are ones that already exist in one form or another. I will, however, try my best to create archetypes that do things in new and interesting ways. I won't intentionally copy or take inspiration any existing archetype, aside from those in the PRD which I look to as examples.
Feel free to follow along and let me know what you think of my archetypes. My one request is that you please not post your own archetypes (or revisions of my archetypes) in this thread. Anything you can do to keep feedback in this thread short and succinct will help me track other posters comments and allow me to better tailor my archetypes to the needs of the community as a whole. Thanks.
Design work by Kirth Gersen.
Playtesting by myself, houstonderek, Andostre, Jess Door, and silverhair2008.
Proofreading and editing by Christopher Hauschild and too many others to list.
Thank you all for your feedback.
Kirth, I'm sorry for the horrible title. Not sorry enough to change it however. ;)
From a normal biology standpoint, Since Elves (and Orcs!) can breed and create fertile offspring, they are more or less the same species.
They can't breed with each other, only with humans.
Jeranimus Rex wrote:
Same goes for Good and Evil aligned outsiders.
Don't forget Dragons. Personally, I prefer the idea that Dragons-- like alignment or elemental subtyped Outsiders-- are physical embodiments of metaphysical forces, and thus they do not reproduce genetically; their magical energies stimulate their mortal mates into reproducing asexually, with the offspring being infused with that energy. That's why it doesn't matter what kind of Celestial or Fiend was involved, either for the Half-X templates or for the Sorcerer bloodlines.
Of course, I also prefer the idea that Human interfertility is simply a magical trait unique to humanity, which explains why all of the humanoid hybrids are half-human.
Well courtesan to me implies something more than just a person that sells their body for sex. Like Companions in Firefly/Serenity or Geshia. While sex may be part of what they do, they also listen, entertain, and get their clients to relax and unburden themselves. In such a case I think wis makes sense.
Do we really need to see something like this come up: "Oh noes, I am trying to weave a basket but the air is damp, what sort of bonuses/penalties should I get?"
No, but then trying to crawl through some extra narrow and twisty kobold tunnels with a longspear or mounted on a horse so the PC can make use of his monomaniacally selected lance-based feats tends to stretch verisimilitude. So I'll tell the PCs that they'll have trouble trying to do so when they try it and I won't care if they've put all their eggs in the one big-weapon basket and don't have a more suitable weapon to use. That's a challenge for them to figure out.
well i did try to search, but the DM by virtue of Fiat said that i failed, no matter what i rolled. and he threatened to Dock me XP (i mean docking levels by the bunches) if i continued "pestering him" when my "pestering" was rolling search and gather information checks.
i initially omitted those details to make him feel better.
Weekly William is one of those old school jerk DMs who looks for methodss to be controlling. one of these is Fiat. he makes you have to "earn" (in his eyes) the pieces you gain. and his definition of "earn" is shut up and submit to his will for a set period of time.
Sounds like a dick. I'm surprised you play with him. You've always seemed like a nice person who wouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap.
there are three seperate topics in the forum right now which show that it's possible to optimize beyond min-maxing
Those topics are
1.) Allowing characters to take Charisma as a dump stat, but not penalizing them for it - after they use it as a dump stat, they ought to be able to say that their character is attractive and, thereby, gain positive modifiers to social encounters
2.) Allowing a Wizard to collect a god-like spell book without having to worry about keeping it safe
3.) Allowing a character to optimize towards big weapons and never have to worry about the down side of when those weapons shouldn't be usable (due to space requirements)
In all three cases, rather than min-maxing, the character maxes and then demands that the GM sweep the min under the rug where it will never be seen.
Am I simply old school? Does all the passion with which these things are argued influence the game designers? Does it indicate the future direction of the game?
These aren't minmaxing, but funmaxing.
Is dealing with broken spellbooks fun? No. You never found it fun. Be honest. Unless you like being mean to others (you aren't wizard) but that messes with their fun.
And Cha never was just looks. The game never said it was looks even "back in the day", that was the comliness trait back in the day. So the current players are correct.
So the only claim you are correct is squeezing rules. And it depends on what you mean by "big weapons".
Quoting Lex Luthor: WROOOONNNGGGGG
The wizard is one of the most powerful classes in the game he needs a weak point. Of course just destroying the spellbook is a jerk move, but you should at least have something to threaten the wizard for some tension on the storyline. Think less "he burns your book" and more "He runs away with your book are guys going to chase him?"
Cha is not only about appearance, you're right. but doesn't matter how much good looking you are, if you have bad diction and whiny nasal voice or a funky smell and a perpetual creepy stare or a rotten, b++*@y personality, you're not going to win any over anyone (diplomacy), trick anyone (bluff) or even be really threatening(Your intimidate makes people want to hit you, not cower). You might be breautyful and get laid a lot but it's only one night stands and anyone with two brain cells to rub together will stay the frak away from you. So yeah, dump charisma and no matter how beautyful you are you still take the penalties.
And if you have huge sized two handed sword it's going to be kinda hard to swing that thing in a 10 foot corridor, don't you agree? It's the main reason samurai, for example, carried wakizashi (short swords), because it's really difficult to get a proper swing going with a larger weapon inside a small room.
I am glad that there are forum participants that take the time to post the errata for us. Hats off to all the errata posters on this thread. It does make me believe that the pathfinder players are all working together to make a great game!
I just don't understand why it makes you guys so mad maybe i am misreading the posts.
To be fair, as others have mentioned, the artwork in Paizo's material is something of a heated topic around here. One that's probably been beaten to death and resurrected a few too many times. Even so, let me state that it was another poster's comment that set me off, not your desire to raise your child the way you see fit.
With that said, I suspect it is a difference in outlooks as to why some of us get riled up over this topic. In the interest of fostering mutual understanding, here's my outlook...
Having known feminists of many different stripes, I've observed a growing mindset that seems to feel that it is healthier and more natural to embrace one's natural beauty (or lack thereof) and be comfortable with it. This stands in contrast to being made to feel like they either need to hide it away, be embarrassed by it, feel intimidated by others, or try to and emulate being a man. Essentially, my female friends who think this way (from 20-yo college students to 30-yo social workers to 45+yo satellite engineers) seem to have concluded that feminism to them means embracing their sexuality and what sets them apart from men rather than bemoaning it.
Posts
