lol- i'm refusing to write anything down (because i'm in denial) but i have archetypes completely done for wizard and alchemist and a few more started in my head.

i will not make 22...
i will not make 22...
i will not make 22...

Make 22 archetypes?

Challenge: ACCEPTED!!!

It's going to be Legen-wait-for-it--I hope you're not lactose intolerant--dairy!!!!

Yeah I've already put work into a summoner archetype.

I might do one for each of the major class types (martial, divine, arcane and skill) just so I have the practice for the inevitable tweeest in round 2.

Well, we got more than 20 days, so that should be enough time for 20+ archetypes.....

Well, we got more than 20 days, so that should be enough time for 20+ archetypes.....

Not everyone is used to doing a full class every 2 days!

Paizo has created archetypes for:

• All the Core Classes
  
• All the APG, UM, & UC Base Classes
  
• Several Race/Class combos in the ARG
  
• A couple Golarion Country/Class combos

What are some things that could use archetypes:

• Alternate Classes
  
• Prestige Classes
  
• Feat Trees
  
• Deity specific

What are some ideas you can come up with for things to apply an archetype too?

Dan Jones wrote:

Well, we got more than 20 days, so that should be enough time for 20+ archetypes.....

Not everyone is used to doing a full class every 2 days!

I would think you should be able to so by now Cheapy. I have already bore witness to the fact Dan spit out alot of classes/archetypes quickly...

Alternates to specific bloodlines, domains, school specializations, revelations, patrons, orders, combat styles, mutagens, etc.

I have a question that Kinda involves advice number 9.
How would be received an archetype that Replace a make a choice ability with a different make a choice ability? Like a whole new set of rage powers that replace the original one?
And assuming we go down that road... we would have to copy basically the whole description of rage powers or we could use a formula like "this works like barbarian's rage power"?

Also a question on number 8.
Are there any iconics for alternate classes? if yes where could I find them?

I have a question that Kinda involves advice number 9.

How would be received an archetype that Replace a make a choice ability with a different make a choice ability? Like a whole new set of rage powers that replace the original one?
And assuming we go down that road... we would have to copy basically the whole description of rage powers or we could use a formula like "this works like barbarian's rage power"?

Unless you have really brilliant and revolutionary idea that will throw judges to their knees in awe I think it should be avoided.

Also a question on number 8.

Are there any iconics for alternate classes? if yes where could I find them?

I don't think so. Alternate classes probably use the same gender as the original class.

Quote:

Also a question on number 8.

Are there any iconics for alternate classes? if yes where could I find them?

I don't think so. Alternate classes probably use the same gender as the original class.

I don't know that that's a rule. It happens to work for the iconic samurai and ninja. edit: The iconic antipaladin is male.

Drejk wrote:

Quote:

Also a question on number 8.

Are there any iconics for alternate classes? if yes where could I find them?

I don't think so. Alternate classes probably use the same gender as the original class.

I don't know that that's a rule. It happens to work for the iconic samurai and ninja. edit: The iconic antipaladin is male.

I missed them somehow. Ignore my earlier comment.

Scarletrose wrote:

I have a question that Kinda involves advice number 9.

How would be received an archetype that Replace a make a choice ability with a different make a choice ability? Like a whole new set of rage powers that replace the original one?
And assuming we go down that road... we would have to copy basically the whole description of rage powers or we could use a formula like "this works like barbarian's rage power"?

Unless you have really brilliant and revolutionary idea that will throw judges to their knees in awe I think it should be avoided.

Quote:

Also a question on number 8.

Are there any iconics for alternate classes? if yes where could I find them?

I don't think so. Alternate classes probably use the same gender as the original class.

well, I think I have a pretty good Idea but still, I have to evaluate pro and cons ... and most of all, re-explaining the basic mechanic with the original phrasing alone will take more than the whole word count permitted by the rules.

Question Sean:

For the purpose of the contest, do things like Oracle Mysteries and Sorcerer Bloodlines count as archetypes? Granted I'd have to look into whether or not it is feasible to write a bloodline / mystery with the word count limitation, but I have a few ideas swimming around my head for such a concept.

He may not specifically say it, but a new bloodline or a new mystery is an aspect of a class, and writing up a new one is not an archetype but just a new one of those things.

Look at the part above where he talks about making new rage powers or rogue talents...

I'm curious what the thought process (Sean's and/or anyone else's) about Rule #10 as regards the Witch class. Most of the existing archetypes swap out specific instances of the hex ability rather than the entire gamut from level 1-20.

On the one hand, since each hex is sort of its own not necessarily related effect (like a Rogue's Tricks), it would seem okay to swap out a hex at certain levels (and frankly, there isn't that much else in the class to swap out).

On the other hand, hexes are pretty much the most distinctly "witchy" portions of the class, so completely swapping them out doesn't seem right, either. (Although at least one archetype does so, and retains the cultural 'witch' context on which- ha!- it is based.)

He may not specifically say it, but a new bloodline or a new mystery is an aspect of a class, and writing up a new one is not an archetype but just a new one of those things.

Look at the part above where he talks about making new rage powers or rogue talents...

I was curious because the general justification that the designers give for the low number of Sorcerer archetypes is that "bloodlines are like the prototypes of bloodlines," or something like that. I'll have to see if I can adapt my idea to a different format, then.

A new mystery is not a new archetype.
A new bloodline is not a new archetype.
A new domain is not a new archetype.

And so on.

I had a doubt reading the archetype template from 2011: its acceptable to write an alternate spell list for an archetype? If so, how should I write it?

Thanks a lot.

Stay cool B)

Edit: sorry for the messed up English, it's not my native tongue.

I think there are some examples in Ultimate Magic where an archetype adds spells to the class's spell list. If I recall correctly, it's just listed as a new ability.

I think there are some examples in Ultimate Magic where an archetype adds spells to the class's spell list. If I recall correctly, it's just listed as a new ability.

Don't have to look far, most of the Alchemist archetypes add formulae. You can start with the Chirurgeon (Power Over Death) and go down the page from there. The Preservationist should give you an idea of how unwieldy it can get.

I think I might be falling foul of #4 in my current design and then I think my case is valid.

So trying to be as vague as possible and hopefully get the subtlety across...

Rogue talents - would it fall foul of #4 if you say that talents a,b,c cannot be chosen - and you are saying this because you feel that those talents are totally anti the theme of the archetype you are creating and simply should not be available to a character with that archetype?

AA: I don't know what the official ruling is, but if you make a flavorful enough archetype, PCs are either going to not pick those talents, or they will blow your mind and find a super awesome way to make those talents fit the archetype in a way you never imagined.

It's one of the reasons I try not to ban any races or classes when I GM. I may have designed a campaign world based on the myths of Ancient Greece, and maybe I can't imagine a way an alchemist or paladin or ninja or gunslinger would fit in a Bronze Age campaign, but either the players will be psyched enough to make "appropriate" PCs so they can mesh well in the shared world experience, or they will come up with something extraordinary that it will be overwhelmingly great.

Sometimes you just have to trust your PCs.

As scary as that can be sometimes!

What do people think of the Suli Elemental Knight from the ARG as an example of adding new class options that are specific to an archetype? Would that be an acceptable way to write this kind of thing up?

I can't imagine a way an alchemist... would fit in a Bronze Age campaign...

There's a reason it's called Greek fire IRL. :)

Archetypes that restrict your character's choices are sad.

For example, wizards aren't prohibited from taking Combat Reflexes... there's no need to do so because it's not a good feat for most wizards.

Thanks everyone - backspace x a few = more spare words!

I have an entry possibility in mind, but I'm not sure if it would be more appropriate as an Archetype, or as an Alternate Class.

Are there any hard and fast rules as to when a redesign should be one or the other?

How, for example, do you, the developers, make such a distinction?

I have an entry possibility in mind, but I'm not sure if it would be more appropriate as an Archetype, or as an Alternate Class.

Are there any hard and fast rules as to when a redesign should be one or the other?

How, for example, do you, the developers, make such a distinction?

If I recall correctly, it was mentioned in Ultimate Combat that the alternate classes were essentially archetypes which replaced so many features they only half-resembled the original class.

So, a rogue that gets poison use? Poisoner archetype.

Rogue that gets poison use, ki tricks, no trace and light steps? Ninja alternate class.

That said, I don't think anyone will come near to approaching a full alternate class while staying within the 450 word count limit. There just isn't enough space without using a ton of shorthand, and that gets messy.

Khaladon wrote:

I have an entry possibility in mind, but I'm not sure if it would be more appropriate as an Archetype, or as an Alternate Class.

Are there any hard and fast rules as to when a redesign should be one or the other?

How, for example, do you, the developers, make such a distinction?

If I recall correctly, it was mentioned in Ultimate Combat that the alternate classes were essentially archetypes which replaced so many features they only half-resembled the original class.

So, a rogue that gets poison use? Poisoner archetype.

Rogue that gets poison use, ki tricks, no trace and light steps? Ninja alternate class.

That said, I don't think anyone will come near to approaching a full alternate class while staying within the 450 word count limit. There just isn't enough space without using a ton of shorthand, and that gets messy.

Ah yes, the word limit. Hadn't been taking that into account as yet. Excellent answer. Thanks Sean!

I have a question. For an archetype of a class that does have variable abilities (like alchemist discoveries, barbarian rage powers, rogue talents, etc.), is it OK to add a little list at the end stating "The following discoveries/rage powers/talents complement the ZZZ archetype: blah blah blah"? Or should we just leave that well enough alone?

I have a question. For an archetype of a class that does have variable abilities (like alchemist discoveries, barbarian rage powers, rogue talents, etc.), is it OK to add a little list at the end stating "The following discoveries/rage powers/talents complement the ZZZ archetype: blah blah blah"? Or should we just leave that well enough alone?

Someone in 2011 got props for doing just that on their archetype, as a matter of good presentation. So if you have the extra words, it certainly couldn't hurt.

Dan Jones wrote:

I have a question. For an archetype of a class that does have variable abilities (like alchemist discoveries, barbarian rage powers, rogue talents, etc.), is it OK to add a little list at the end stating "The following discoveries/rage powers/talents complement the ZZZ archetype: blah blah blah"? Or should we just leave that well enough alone?

Someone in 2011 got props for doing just that on their archetype, as a matter of good presentation. So if you have the extra words, it certainly couldn't hurt.

I'd go further and say it's practically required. For example, I don't remember seeing an Oracle archetype in a core book that didn't recommend mysteries.

Cool! :-)

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Dan Jones wrote:

I have a question. For an archetype of a class that does have variable abilities (like alchemist discoveries, barbarian rage powers, rogue talents, etc.), is it OK to add a little list at the end stating "The following discoveries/rage powers/talents complement the ZZZ archetype: blah blah blah"? Or should we just leave that well enough alone?

Someone in 2011 got props for doing just that on their archetype, as a matter of good presentation. So if you have the extra words, it certainly couldn't hurt.

I'd go further and say it's practically required. For example, I don't remember seeing an Oracle archetype in a core book that didn't recommend mysteries.

I wouldn't go that far. The contest is for designing, not writing guides. I'm sure everyone would rather see another cool class feature than recommendations of existing content.

I agree with Garrett. Part of your role as a designer is knowing and following established formats. You have plenty of room for creativity within that format.

Every published Alchemist archetype includes recommendations for Discoveries. Every published Barbarian archetype includes recommendations for Rage Powers. Every published Rogue archetype includes recommendations for Talents and Advanced Talents.

Those aren't "guides," they are a well-established format for how you lay out an archetype for those classes. Omit those sections at your own risk.

There's a precedent for listing examples of pick-me abilities, and it's fine if your archetype has such a thing.

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Dan Jones wrote:

I have a question. For an archetype of a class that does have variable abilities (like alchemist discoveries, barbarian rage powers, rogue talents, etc.), is it OK to add a little list at the end stating "The following discoveries/rage powers/talents complement the ZZZ archetype: blah blah blah"? Or should we just leave that well enough alone?

Someone in 2011 got props for doing just that on their archetype, as a matter of good presentation. So if you have the extra words, it certainly couldn't hurt.

I'd go further and say it's practically required. For example, I don't remember seeing an Oracle archetype in a core book that didn't recommend mysteries.

Required? Hardly. Useful? Depends. With only 450 words, there are certainly better ways to use up your words.

Required? Hardly. Useful? Depends. With only 450 words, there are certainly better ways to use up your words.

Required? Hardly. Necessary if you want to secure my vote? Probably.

For certain classes, the "recommended [stuff]" section is included in every single archetype I've ever seen Paizo publish for that class. If you don't include that section in your archetype for that class, I'm going to ding you for it, the same way I would ding you if you omitted the "construction" section of a wondrous item.

Unless the judges explicitly state that our votes shouldn't be influenced by the presence or absence of a "recommended [stuff]" section in an archetype that would normally have one, I plan on using it as part of my voting criteria for Round 2.

Also, on an unrelated note, I will not vote for any archetype that says "Riverlands" instead of "River Kingdoms." I just want to be on record as saying that, in my eyes, "Riverlands" is the absolute, unforgivable kiss of death for any Round 2 archetype.

Great. My archetype comes under 450 words with the recommended choices bit, so that's cool! :-)

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Required? Hardly. Useful? Depends. With only 450 words, there are certainly better ways to use up your words.

Required? Hardly. Necessary if you want to secure my vote? Probably.

For certain classes, the "recommended [stuff]" section is included in every single archetype I've ever seen Paizo publish for that class. If you don't include that section in your archetype for that class, I'm going to ding you for it, the same way I would ding you if you omitted the "construction" section of a wondrous item.

Unless the judges explicitly state that our votes shouldn't be influenced by the presence or absence of a "recommended [stuff]" section in an archetype that would normally have one, I plan on using it as part of my voting criteria for Round 2.

Well yes, and for certain classes it's never included. For the same reason you stated above, I'd ding, say, a monk archetype that does have that section. (My guess is that because monks already get a list of bonus feats, it would not make sense to recommend anything else.) So, as I said, depends.

Also, on an unrelated note, I will not vote for any archetype that says "Riverlands" instead of "River Kingdoms." I just want to be on record as saying that, in my eyes, "Riverlands" is the absolute, unforgivable kiss of death for any Round 2 archetype.

Hahah, yes that would be awful. :D

Now that we have that one settled... ;-)

...here's a thornier one to debate. When archetypes were initially introduced in the APG, they all included a statement at the end of the introductory copy that read:

"A [insert archetype name here] has the following class features."

The statement also appeared in Inner Sea Magic, but not in Ultimate Magic, the Inner Sea Primer, Ultimate Combat, or the Dragon Empires Primer. Then lo and behold, it reappears in all of the archetypes introduced in the Advanced Race Guide.

This one I am tempted to leave out because I find it to be redundant with the way we are required to write up abilities. But, I am conflicted. What to do?

Now that we have that one settled... ;-)

...here's a thornier one to debate. When archetypes were initially introduced in the APG, they all included a statement at the end of the introductory copy that read:

"A [insert archetype name here] has the following class features."

The statement also appeared in Inner Sea Magic, but not in Ultimate Magic, the Inner Sea Primer, Ultimate Combat, or the Dragon Empires Primer. Then lo and behold, it reappears in all of the archetypes introduced in the Advanced Race Guide.

This one I am tempted to leave out because I find it to be redundant with the way we are required to write up abilities. But, I am conflicted. What to do?

In terms of voting, I think there are quite a few things that will have a dramatically greater impact on whether you go from the top 32 to the top 16. In terms of dotting the i's and crossing the t's, including it while still prioritizing the rest shows good form. Aim to include it; delete it if it's pushing out more necessary content.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

michaelane wrote:

Now that we have that one settled... ;-)

...here's a thornier one to debate. When archetypes were initially introduced in the APG, they all included a statement at the end of the introductory copy that read:

"A [insert archetype name here] has the following class features."

The statement also appeared in Inner Sea Magic, but not in Ultimate Magic, the Inner Sea Primer, Ultimate Combat, or the Dragon Empires Primer. Then lo and behold, it reappears in all of the archetypes introduced in the Advanced Race Guide.

This one I am tempted to leave out because I find it to be redundant with the way we are required to write up abilities. But, I am conflicted. What to do?

In terms of voting, I think there are quite a few things that will have a dramatically greater impact on whether you go from the top 32 to the top 16. In terms of dotting the i's and crossing the t's, including it while still prioritizing the rest shows good form. Aim to include it; delete it if it's pushing out more necessary content.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

No, I actually wouldn't recommend adding that line. The most important rule is this: follow the official template. The round 2 template does not have that line. Nor does the Rustic Druid example. So, including it because some of the books have it would be much like using ALL CAPS in your round 1 submission. It's also a waste of precious words.

But Herremann is probably right about it not being one of the most important factors when voters decide whom to vote for.

For certain classes, the "recommended [stuff]" section is included in every single archetype I've ever seen Paizo publish for that class. If you don't include that section in your archetype for that class, I'm going to ding you for it...

I take it back. I just reread the Round 2 template, and the template explicitly states that the listed items are the only ones that need to be included. The "recommended [stuff]" section is not listed.

So I won't be dinging people for excluding that section after all. The rules explicitly say it's not required.

Eric Morton wrote:

For certain classes, the "recommended [stuff]" section is included in every single archetype I've ever seen Paizo publish for that class. If you don't include that section in your archetype for that class, I'm going to ding you for it...

I take it back. I just reread the Round 2 template, and the template explicitly states that the listed items are the only ones that need to be included. The "recommended [stuff]" section is not listed.

So I won't be dinging people for excluding that section after all. The rules explicitly say it's not required.

I think not requiring the 'recommended' stuff is a good idea, otherwise there will be a few classes that are inherently harder to write archetypes for if 75 words or so have to be dedicated to recommending rage powers, rogue talents, mysteries etc.

More like 25 words or so. And it shouldn't be required for all classes, just ones with variable options, like the alchemist, barbarian, magus, rogue, and witch.

In 2011, SKR said the "recommended [stuff]" is optional:

Standback wrote:

In a similar-but-opposite vein, there's a section in APG archetypes that isn't in the given template: a list of rage powers complementing a barbarian archetype; rogue talents, hexes and discoveries for rogues, witches and alchemists respectively.

The provided template doesn't have a listing for this; is providing such a list (for the relevant classes) considered mandatory/preferable/unnecessary/lamentable/illegal/[other]?

I'd consider such a list as an optional part of the archetype. Wouldn't hurt if you included it, but not required.

I can't guarantee that this is still the case this time, of course :)

I can't guarantee that this is still the case this time, of course :)

According to the template provided this year, it's still the case.

Now that we have that one settled... ;-)

...here's a thornier one to debate. When archetypes were initially introduced in the APG, they all included a statement at the end of the introductory copy that read:
"A [insert archetype name here] has the following class features."
The statement also appeared in Inner Sea Magic, but not in Ultimate Magic, the Inner Sea Primer, Ultimate Combat, or the Dragon Empires Primer. Then lo and behold, it reappears in all of the archetypes introduced in the Advanced Race Guide.
This one I am tempted to leave out because I find it to be redundant with the way we are required to write up abilities. But, I am conflicted. What to do?

You've been provided a template to use and an example.

The round 2 template does not have that line. Nor does the Rustic Druid example.

Exactly.