Thank you Paizo for the character Archetypes
+1
I honestly think it was one of the greatest changes pathfinder made to 3.5.
+2 to you DragonBelow...which I think this bonus stacks....
+1. Clever and elegant, and a lot of fun to play.
Thank you Paizo for the character Archetypes+1
I honestly think it was one of the greatest changes pathfinder made to 3.5.
I think they're awesome, too, but they're substantially similar to the class variants from Unearthed Arcana. So I wouldn't really call them a "change", per se.
I like the Archetype system, but I also like Prestige Classes representing multiclassing or character concepts that don't fit well into any singular class. As of the Advanced Player's Guide, I'm fine with the role that Prestige Classes have in Pathfinder; they're actually prestigious, for one.
One of my favorite things about 2e was character kits, I know many people didn't like them, but archetypes remind me of them (in a good way), and I strongly prefer them to PrC, even if I know they are not mutually exclusive.
Thank you Paizo for the character Archetypes
+1
|
I agree that the arch-types are a lot more useful then another hundred prestige classes and base classes. Love them Paizo!
(I think a lot of people disliked the old kits because they didn't seem to have any sense of balance. There was a huge power difference between a lot of them, some worthless and others insanely powerful.)
Archtypes were around for 3.5, most of the time they were just referred to as alt-builds. Paizo has done a good job of creating some interesting new ones, but have left out others that I enjoyed playing. Most of the time I just want to swap out one ability, not a chain of abilities. I'd also like to see a gestalt version of the system that doesn't require swapping out anything. Choose a base class. Now choose an archtype. You gain abilities from both. Now play.
I wish they had done it with all the core classes in the APG. The classes there could just have easily been archtypes.
I really like the archetypes too. Similar feel to the old kits, but BETTER!!! They could even extend the archetype ability swapping to something like my following suggetsion.
They need to find a way to combine classes, swapping class features to create a single class with multi-class flavor. Eg. Instead of multiclassing a rogue/wizard, use a swapping system where the character can cast spells as a wizard, has the rogue sneak attack and some of their class features, and a skill list of both, but gets 6 ranks per level instead of 8 to offset some of the swapping of features/spellcasting, and balance it out.
Perhaps a system where each class feature is designated as least, lesser, greater, etc., (or a point equivalence for each feature?) and those of the equal desigantion in one class can be swapped out from other features from another class. Such a thing would allow a player to have a character that is mostly rogue with some wizard spellcasting, or the other way, a wizard with some minor roguish abilites.
We could call it Dual-Classing. Pick a primary class (Rogue), then a secondary class you swap features with (Wizard)= Rogue/Wizard dual-class. I will need to posder this.
I'm not a big fan. I like variant class abilities, but there are many archetypes where I feel like I'm losing out on what I like about the class just to gain one thing that fits my character better. They're also a bit of an obfuscation that people like to throw around - I was a fan of a large variety of the classes in 3.5, many of which really did benefit from their unique mechanics and set-ups, and far, far too many posters just throw the "make an archetype" argument out there for a class concept that really could stand on its own too feet as a base class. Granted, not all base classes wind up functioning in a way that really justifies their existence, but a fair many do, and I also enjoy the diversity of builds and concepts that free multiclassing between classes, even similar classes like Rogue and Scout in 3.5, yielded.
There are some nice things in the archetypes section, but I certainly don't feel that they're a magnificent innovation. I would have preferred them as alternate class features that didn't require throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
[QUOTE...I would have preferred them as alternate class features that didn't require throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
What's to keep you from doing that? If all you want is one or two features from an archetype, swap them out with the original class features, and go. Sometimes I think players/DMs are too scared to tweak the rules or systems presented to their type of play.
For example, if a player only wanted the Shattering Strike and Overhand Chop features from the Two-Handed Fighter archetype in the APG, let his take them, swapping out Bravery, and his Armor Training 1. He'd still get his armor training 1, but it would be posponed until level 7 when he'd normally get his armor trainign 2, but because he chose to take Overhand Chop, he can ever obtain armor training 5. That would be the sacrifice of taking it.
At least that's what I'd do. It allow for even more specific builds, and keep the balance based on sacrificing something to obtain smething else.
I'm particularly excited about them because I fully intend to just do E5 Pathfinder (once the basic set is out) and PrCs start too late for that, making Archetypes perfect!
I think they're awesome, too, but they're substantially similar to the class variants from Unearthed Arcana. So I wouldn't really call them a "change", per se.Thank you Paizo for the character Archetypes+1
I honestly think it was one of the greatest changes pathfinder made to 3.5.
True I guess I should have said, I liked how they've geared class variety toward Archetypes rather than prestige classes.
I'm going to have to say some negative things about Archetypes. Not that I don't use them, but first off, I tweak them.
I don't like how an Archetype shoehorns you into a "Take It or Leave It" kind of deal. Where you pick an Archetype and you're stuck with everything in it, instead of picking and choosing what you want. I like how WotC did "Alternate Class Abilities", where you got to mix and match abilities. So, in my games, I allow PCs to pick and choose what alternate abilities they want from whatever archetype they're allowed to pick from.
The other thing I dislike is simply their outshining the Prestige Classes. While some Archetypes are fine as is, some could've made great Prestige Classes and I also feel that there is a lack of Prestige Classes because of the Archetype-hype.
I still love my Prestige Classes. There are just some themes you cannot do by either multiclassing or picking an Archetype. When a "specialty" requires something beyond what an Archetype can do, then it needs to be written up.
I just hope Ultimate Magic has some prestige classes. If not, Paizo will slowly start to fail for me as a D&D replacement. Give us some prestige class love, too, Paizo!
I prefer prestige classes for a couple of reasons:
1. Prestige classes allow for greater flexibility after the character has been generated and put into play. Maybe after a PC was made, the perfect archetype for that character was introduced. Too bad.
My current PC is in a position like that, where the Detective archetype would be perfect for her, but she's already established as a non-Detective Bard. Even though the GM has given me permission to recreate her as a Detective, there were just too many choices made with regard to the standard Bard, so she can never be a Detective.
If Detective was a Prestige Class, though, then she could become a Detective just by making the Prerequisites. She'd have to give up some of the future bardic abilities that she hasn't qualified for yet, but would not lose anything that she's already established having. Character advancement would go forward.
2. Prestige classes have less pressure at character generation. Now when I create my next Bard, I have to worry about what type of Bard best fits what I want to do. If these were prestige classes, I could make a Bard for now, and decide later on which, if any, prestige classes I want to take.
I might decide that archetypes have a place in my game, especially if it appears that archetypes are the only way to do something, like perhaps make a "pugalist" type character. I'll probably try to convert some of them to PrCs.
|
I prefer prestige classes for a couple of reasons:
1. Prestige classes allow for greater flexibility after the character has been generated and put into play. Maybe after a PC was made, the perfect archetype for that character was introduced. Too bad.
My current PC is in a position like that, where the Detective archetype would be perfect for her, but she's already established as a non-Detective Bard. Even though the GM has given me permission to recreate her as a Detective, there were just too many choices made with regard to the standard Bard, so she can never be a Detective.
If Detective was a Prestige Class, though, then she could become a Detective just by making the Prerequisites. She'd have to give up some of the future bardic abilities that she hasn't qualified for yet, but would not lose anything that she's already established having. Character advancement would go forward.
2. Prestige classes have less pressure at character generation. Now when I create my next Bard, I have to worry about what type of Bard best fits what I want to do. If these were prestige classes, I could make a Bard for now, and decide later on which, if any, prestige classes I want to take.
I might decide that archetypes have a place in my game, especially if it appears that archetypes are the only way to do something, like perhaps make a "pugalist" type character. I'll probably try to convert some of them to PrCs.
1. That's not much different from "oh, a new PrC, it's cool! Oh, I don't qualify, I never took Endurance and Skill Focus (basketweaving)."
2. PrCs actually put more pressure at character generation, because you have to plan your character ahead. And heavens forbid if you forget the requirements of the PrCs while leveling, take the wrong feat/class/whatever, and then when you realize your mistake the DM says "no backtracking, sorry".
3. PrCs force you to wait 5 levels until you get the good stuff. 5 levels is quite long.
I thought the basic changes to the classes and customization were good enough, until I read over the archetypes. My players love them; now they know they don't have to know the full intricacies of feats and character design to make a fighter who will be decent at, say, archery, or two-weapon fighting.
I'm going to have to say some negative things about Archetypes. Not that I don't use them, but first off, I tweak them.
I don't like how an Archetype shoehorns you into a "Take It or Leave It" kind of deal. Where you pick an Archetype and you're stuck with everything in it, instead of picking and choosing what you want. I like how WotC did "Alternate Class Abilities", where you got to mix and match abilities. So, in my games, I allow PCs to pick and choose what alternate abilities they want from whatever archetype they're allowed to pick from.
The other thing I dislike is simply their outshining the Prestige Classes. While some Archetypes are fine as is, some could've made great Prestige Classes and I also feel that there is a lack of Prestige Classes because of the Archetype-hype.
I still love my Prestige Classes. There are just some themes you cannot do by either multiclassing or picking an Archetype. When a "specialty" requires something beyond what an Archetype can do, then it needs to be written up.
I just hope Ultimate Magic has some prestige classes. If not, Paizo will slowly start to fail for me as a D&D replacement. Give us some prestige class love, too, Paizo!
Personally I like there to be a little shoehorning, the substitution levels enabled powerplay customization of characters without any particular theme, as such I think the archetypes are a better guideline.
In your particular game you can do whatever you want, it is kind of obvious and nobody at paizo would say you can not do that, the game thrives on the easy modifications you can make to the game in my opinion.
Archetypes are extremely simple to implement and need little support in future products, essentialy they are minor adjustments to make obvious class choices flow naturally into a specific role.
I am sure paizo will drop the occasional PrC in sometimes, but they are very careful not to make them abundant, I rather see alot of useful stuff in a book and a few PrC than the other way around. Personally I see enough PrC, there are a fair number in the DMG and APG and if there is another 2 or 3 in UC and UM each I think that is pretty decent.
I'm going to have to say some negative things about Archetypes. Not that I don't use them, but first off, I tweak them.
I don't like how an Archetype shoehorns you into a "Take It or Leave It" kind of deal. Where you pick an Archetype and you're stuck with everything in it, instead of picking and choosing what you want. I like how WotC did "Alternate Class Abilities", where you got to mix and match abilities. So, in my games, I allow PCs to pick and choose what alternate abilities they want from whatever archetype they're allowed to pick from.
The other thing I dislike is simply their outshining the Prestige Classes. While some Archetypes are fine as is, some could've made great Prestige Classes and I also feel that there is a lack of Prestige Classes because of the Archetype-hype.
I still love my Prestige Classes. There are just some themes you cannot do by either multiclassing or picking an Archetype. When a "specialty" requires something beyond what an Archetype can do, then it needs to be written up.
I just hope Ultimate Magic has some prestige classes. If not, Paizo will slowly start to fail for me as a D&D replacement. Give us some prestige class love, too, Paizo!
You know you can switch out archetype abilities as long as the same replacement ability isn't being replaced right?
For instance, I am a barbarian. my Archetype A takes away uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge. As long as another archetype has nothing to do with uncanny dodge, you can take it too.
I'm going to have to say some negative things about Archetypes. Not that I don't use them, but first off, I tweak them.
I don't like how an Archetype shoehorns you into a "Take It or Leave It" kind of deal. Where you pick an Archetype and you're stuck with everything in it, instead of picking and choosing what you want. I like how WotC did "Alternate Class Abilities", where you got to mix and match abilities. So, in my games, I allow PCs to pick and choose what alternate abilities they want from whatever archetype they're allowed to pick from.
The other thing I dislike is simply their outshining the Prestige Classes. While some Archetypes are fine as is, some could've made great Prestige Classes and I also feel that there is a lack of Prestige Classes because of the Archetype-hype.
I still love my Prestige Classes. There are just some themes you cannot do by either multiclassing or picking an Archetype. When a "specialty" requires something beyond what an Archetype can do, then it needs to be written up.
I just hope Ultimate Magic has some prestige classes. If not, Paizo will slowly start to fail for me as a D&D replacement. Give us some prestige class love, too, Paizo!
You know you can switch out archetype abilities as long as the same replacement ability isn't being replaced right?
For instance, I am a barbarian. my Archetype A takes away uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge. As long as another archetype has nothing to do with uncanny dodge, you can take it too.
That is pretty restrictive actually, most archetypes do not mix because they swap the same abilities, in general it can also lead to non-sensical combinations.
I do not have a problem making an archetype to fit a particular player, but it needs to fit a certain theme, not just be a collection of powers.
I'm a big fan of modular game design, kind of like how d20 modern and Star Wars Saga used the talent system.
No need for archetypes. Just add new talents (class abilities in a bottle essentially).
With all the new content being released in every new book, modular game design MAKE SENSE.
Archetypes don't. They are basically just new classes that have been condensed. This just gives us bloat.
I like archetypes, just wish they could be a little bit different to allow a better ability to stack.
For example, I really like sandman and detective for bard and combining both together a bit would have made my character a "perfect" blackmailer. Cept that they don't stack.
PrCs needing things like inspire courage, and then most bard PRCs replacing that... Also bad.
So basically if they improve the ability to stack, and qualify for PrCs then archtypes would be much better.
That said, I don't like PrCs that should be archtypes (Master Chemist) just sucks when the base class is gutted for a crappy PrC unless you are wanting to play a magic wielding barbarian.