The Rondelero Swashbuckler is another one I wish were better, especially since the class feature:
Rondelero Flexibility (Ex): At 6th level, as a full-attack action, a rondelero swashbuckler wielding a falcata in one hand and a buckler in the other can alternate between using his falcata and his buckler for each attack.appears to do nothing at all (any character with a thing they can attack with in either hand can do this). Sure, there's a clause later than doing this doesn't cause you to lose your shield bonus, but a Swashbuckler doesn't really want to be attacking with 2 different weapons anyway since this shuts off Precise Strike and Slashing Grace (which are almost certainly adding more damage than buckler bashes.)
It's not that the archetype needs to be amazing but devoting several lines of rules text to saying "you can do a thing any character can do by default" is weird.
Technically it does... something? You would take penalties for TWF doing this normally. It doesn't grant extra attacks but you don't take penalties. If bucklers count as having a free hand than you could use this with Precise Strike/Slashing Grace. It's still pretty useless, but at least it has some mechanical effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And some DMs just HATE long term Flight.
I get that if we're talking about a Halfling Druid 1 mounted on a Dire Bat. Flight can be pretty cheesy if you can get it substantially before the 5th level, and this sort of thing can throw a wrench into the GM's plans by giving a very versatile ability to the party. Very few classes have any access to flight at these levels, and so the presence of flight can be both unexpected and disruptive. However, past about the 5th level this doesn't really hold. Abilities that grant some measure of flight become incredibly common, and it becomes a standard part of the game.
With the addition of the Flight Mastery feat, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Rogue and Swashbuckler are now the only classes in the game without a reliable means of getting some form of flight on a daily basis by 10th level. Even the Cavalier can use this feat to get a 1/day fly SLA on his mount by the 9th level. This exemplifies just how absurd it is to restrict flying mounts past the 10th level. Flight has near-universal availability by this point. While permanent flight is significantly less common, this is exactly the kind of ability I'd expect the Cavalier to have; his whole shtick is being the mounted combat class, so why shouldn't flying mounts be one of those options? All you'd need to do to keep it balanced is make those mounts slightly weaker in terms of combat stats than the ground-born ones.
Technically it does... something? You would take penalties for TWF doing this normally. It doesn't grant extra attacks but you don't take penalties. If bucklers count as having a free hand than you could use this with Precise Strike/Slashing Grace. It's still pretty useless, but at least it has some mechanical effect.The Rondelero Swashbuckler is another one I wish were better, especially since the class feature:
Rondelero Flexibility (Ex): At 6th level, as a full-attack action, a rondelero swashbuckler wielding a falcata in one hand and a buckler in the other can alternate between using his falcata and his buckler for each attack.appears to do nothing at all (any character with a thing they can attack with in either hand can do this). Sure, there's a clause later than doing this doesn't cause you to lose your shield bonus, but a Swashbuckler doesn't really want to be attacking with 2 different weapons anyway since this shuts off Precise Strike and Slashing Grace (which are almost certainly adding more damage than buckler bashes.)
It's not that the archetype needs to be amazing but devoting several lines of rules text to saying "you can do a thing any character can do by default" is weird.
Would you though? You're not getting any additional attack's you're just changing what weapon you're attacking with each time you strike but not gaining the bonus offhand attack.
|
Would you though? You're not getting any additional attack's you're just changing what weapon you're attacking with each time you strike but not gaining the bonus offhand attack.Technically it does... something? You would take penalties for TWF doing this normally. It doesn't grant extra attacks but you don't take penalties. If bucklers count as having a free hand than you could use this with Precise Strike/Slashing Grace. It's still pretty useless, but at least it has some mechanical effect.The Rondelero Swashbuckler is another one I wish were better, especially since the class feature:
Rondelero Flexibility (Ex): At 6th level, as a full-attack action, a rondelero swashbuckler wielding a falcata in one hand and a buckler in the other can alternate between using his falcata and his buckler for each attack.appears to do nothing at all (any character with a thing they can attack with in either hand can do this). Sure, there's a clause later than doing this doesn't cause you to lose your shield bonus, but a Swashbuckler doesn't really want to be attacking with 2 different weapons anyway since this shuts off Precise Strike and Slashing Grace (which are almost certainly adding more damage than buckler bashes.)
It's not that the archetype needs to be amazing but devoting several lines of rules text to saying "you can do a thing any character can do by default" is weird.
Edit: ninja'd
|
I think for me, the White-Haired Witch is one such archetype. My very first time looking through the witch's hexes, I saw Prehensile Hair and thought, "I'd love to have this be permanent..." And lo, from on high came the White-Haired Witch... except it has a number of problems that make it a lackluster archetype. Since their attacks still rely on Strength/Dexterity and their 1/2 BAB progression to hit, but require Intellect to deal damage and make successful grapples, it makes them somewhat MAD, and they completely lose out on hexes, many of which would prove useful to allow them to hit more competently.I'm with you 100% on the White-Haired Witch. I want it to work so badly! I spent a couple hours once trying to come up with a build that made sense, but I couldn't make it work. Too bad . . . so flavorful!
There ARE a couple of ways to make White Haired Witch work somewhat. I'm playing a tripper WHW in PFS right now and when it works, it's cool as all heck. You really have to focus on maneuvers to make it work well. But it's a TON of work to pull it off well--and it's honestly so much easier to do the same thing with base classes and a reach weapon.
Reliquarian Occultist: you change your casting to divine, base focus and domains off of wisdom, still an INT based spellcaster.
Brute Vigilante: "Being the Hulk" is a great concept, but "taking control away from the player" is a line too far.
Every fighter archetype that replaces weapon training with pseudo-weapon training with a specific weapon that doesn't include the language that would allow them to qualify for things that require weapon training: this one's self explanatory.
+1 on each of these.
For Brute, this really shouldn't have been a Vigilante archetype, including having full Alchemy (but trade out Bombs). For Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, alchemist is better, and this should have been an Alchemist-Vigilante hybrid. For the Hulk, in addition to all the problems everybody else listed, having d8 hit dice and 3/4 BAB is adding inexecusable insult to injury, and this should have been a Barbarian-Vigilante hybrid, including having d12 hit dice, full BAB, and real Barbarian (or Unchained Barbarian) Rage.
For the Fighter archetypes, do what you said, and then in addition, for the Two-Weapon Fighter, give them a Weapon Training replacement that is sort of in between Weapon Master Weapon Training and regular Fighter Weapon Training (and still qualifies for things that require Weapon Training), but working with your choice of two weapons rather than just one weapon or a whole weapon group.
Continuing with Fighters, Child of Acavna and Amaznen would have filled a missing niche (prepared 4/9 arcane spellcasting martial) . . . except that it's absolutely TERRIBLE, trading off way more than what it gets. You are better off playing a Myrmidarch Magus -- you actually get to have Weapon Training, which means that your accuracy is only slightly behind the Child of Acavna and Amaznen (which trades it all out), and you get to keep your Swift Actions, and your spellcasting is better even with Diminnished Spellcasting, and given how many feats Child of Acavna and Amaznen trades out, Myrmidarch is only slightly behind in that department as well, while being better nearly everywhere else.
Also agree with whoever posted above about Underwhelming Soul Kineticst.
And here's another one: Eldritch Scrapper Sorcerer shotgun blasts itself in the foot by trading out the 9th level Bloodline Power that you need to have a shot at being actually decent in melee (Bloodlines Abyssal/Orc/etc.). It trades out too many Bloodline Powers anyway.
And here's another one -- actually not a bad archetype, but one where Errata lead to (presumably) unintended consequences: The Scarred Witch Doctor Errata nerfed some interesting Strength-Constitution Orc builds into the ground, but made otherwise conventional Half-Orc Witches super-powerful -- did they forget that Half-Orcs can put that +2 anywhere?
Prestige classes: Blackfire Adept, from the prerequisites, looks like it was designed for Summoners to be able to enter, but then it forgets to progress any of their class abilities (especially Summon Monster) in exchange for progressing the 6/9 spellcasting that they have instead of a 9/9 spellcaster's casting. Hellknight Signifer is not bad for a core Cleric or Wizard, but really hoses 6/9 casters by having its spellcasting progression not give them a boost to compensate for continuing the progression of their 6/9 spellcasting unchanged while giving the same class features it would give to someone who will be progressing their 9/9 spellcasting; also, arcane spellcasters are forced to take Arcane Armor Training even if they have some other ability that lets them cast while in armor, and the feat is a trap for many of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
questioner investigator, because he is proficient with light armors and is arcane caster (same spells as bard) but has to apply arcane spell failure. If he takes arcane armor training he will have to use swift action which are really needed to use quick study. So at least give him talent which negates 10 % of failure without spending swift action.
Part three:
Cloistered Cleric. Scroll Scholar. Merciful Healer. Undead Lord. Clerics get the short stick when it comes to archetypes, it seems...
Aldori Swordlord Fighter. One of the only ways (some say THE only way) to actually be good in the prestige class of the same name, it's still kind of lacking for a supposedly unbeatable fighting school. Dragoon fighters try to be a cavalier, but the mount... is lacking.
Oh, the Titan Mauler for Barbarian. It just wants to be so cool....
It seems to me that what would really fix the Aldori Swordlord archetype is to just move it over from fighter to swashbuckler, since that seems to be the obvious class for 'dex-based 1-handed fighter', and it's patently clear that if the archetype had been released after the ACG, that's what would have happened.
questioner investigator, because he is proficient with light armors and is arcane caster (same spells as bard) but has to apply arcane spell failure. If he takes arcane armor training he will have to use swift action which are really needed to use quick study. So at least give him talent which negates 10 % of failure without spending swift action.
Good catch -- I missed that problem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say Cloistered Cleric. You lose medium armor and shields AND suffer diminished spellcasting. For benefits, you basically are only gaining bardic knowledge and a bump from 2 + Int skills into 4 + Int skills.
It should really get 6 + Int skills and retain full casting [maybe in exchange for drop to a d6 hit die and 1/2 BAB].
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ragechemist.
Not to be "meme-y", but literally unplayable.
Reanimated Medium is one of my favorite archetypes out there that mechanically doesn't work as-written, but is easy enough to ret-con what they *meant*, as summarized in this excellent post.
TL;DR, RAW, you fall into a coma the day after acquiring the archetype and can never come out of it. Also, the mechanics don't make sense or match basic abilities described by the archetype.
But by far, the archetype I wish was better is the Harrowed Medium, which could be vastly improved by being made available for purchase.
|
Back on topic: Spell Dancer. Elf-only magus archetype with a lightly armoured mobility theme. Cool, if you like that sort of thing, and being a massive elf fangirl I do. The problem is that you swap the ability to enhance weapons, which is a really flexible and swanky offensive buff, for a bit of mobility. I do like extra movement, but in a game where 20' move characters have to be viable it's not that important, and Dodge bonuses vs AoOs just don't seem like a big deal either. Result: a distinct "meh".
Well you also get a swift action to cast some useful spell once per spell dance, that is not bad in my opinion.
On topic: I'd like to see the Skirnir magus get and upgrade, it's quite lackluster if you ask me. Spell combat comes to late and you can't use most shields for spell casting without sacrificing AC.
The Gerndarme cavalier really need to clarify whatever he trades his option to pick bonus feats at the normal cavalier levels or only at the new levelrange.
Currently to me it sounds like he only swaps the normal feats to choose between rather then those feats in 6-12-18th level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
questioner investigator, because he is proficient with light armors and is arcane caster (same spells as bard) but has to apply arcane spell failure. If he takes arcane armor training he will have to use swift action which are really needed to use quick study. So at least give him talent which negates 10 % of failure without spending swift action.Good catch -- I missed that problem.
Really the easiest solution is to just say it gets the same ability to cast in light armour as a bard does.
I have to say Cloistered Cleric. You lose medium armor and shields AND suffer diminished spellcasting. For benefits, you basically are only gaining bardic knowledge and a bump from 2 + Int skills into 4 + Int skills.
It should really get 6 + Int skills and retain full casting [maybe in exchange for drop to a d6 hit die and 1/2 BAB].
Indeed. There is also a no-armor cleric in the advance class guide but it is also lackluster (unless they fixed it since its release). FOr this role I like a 3pp class, the Priest.
Esoteric magus. Unarmed Spellstrike should (IMO) be changed to a version of Spellstrike that can be used with unarmed strikes and any weapon with the "monk" quality; don't change the weapon proficiencies, though. Then it becomes decent, instead of poor.
Actually, why not give them proficiency with Monk weapons?
i agree the player would literally just be better off taking like 5 levels gunslinger then paladin x or 3-5 levels trench fighter and paladin x
I helped a player in the Shattered Star campaign do this. She took 5 levels of Mysterious Stranger/Musket Master Gunslinger (which, while they don't stack, I allowed and let her have Musket Master's level 5 ability) and the rest Divine Hunter Paladin. I believe it was like Gunslinger 1/Paladin 2/Gunslinger 5/ Paladin x.
I personally really wish the Scrollmaster archetype for wizards was better. Being able to use scrolls as swords and shields seems so cool! But, the wizard is 1/2 BAB and d6 HD class, along with the fact that they can't wear armor AND the scrolls break after only a few hits. Really terrible.
I also wish the classes that let you have more than one animal companion or eidolon. Broodmaster Summoner, Beast Master Ranger, and the Pack Lord Druid, specifically. If there was just a decreased rate of growth these archetypes could be much better! But, they force you to split feats, HD, and pretty much everything else between your multiple companions, making them all significantly weaker.
I want all of the ones that make a character a gun user to be better. Well mostly the pally and the wizard ones.
I've played a scroll master before it wasn't terrible. I used the shield a lot more then the sword. I went with kirin style. I was out of spells and made an attack once and hit and did some damage so that was nice. I think the big thing for that one is the level 10 ability where you can use scrolls like you cast the spell.
Id rather see it as a magus thing and go full on ROD
Oh I have not heard about nerfs what nerfs did they do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. There is also a no-armor cleric in the advance class guide but it is also lackluster (unless they fixed it since its release). FOr this role I like a 3pp class, the Priest.
Cleric archetypes are dreadful in general....and for some bizarre reason when Paizo does a 'Clothy Cleric' one, they end even worse than normal!!
Most of the vigilante archetypes in general are bad but the magical child was very disappointing. But then again I think the class itself has a lot of issues.
I don't like any of the kineticist archetypes but then I would have preferred they used that space for more wild talents.
The cleric isn't designed for archetypes in mind really.
I didn't hear about this, when did this happen?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say Cloistered Cleric. You lose medium armor and shields AND suffer diminished spellcasting. For benefits, you basically are only gaining bardic knowledge and a bump from 2 + Int skills into 4 + Int skills.
It should really get 6 + Int skills and retain full casting [maybe in exchange for drop to a d6 hit die and 1/2 BAB].
Despite having less hit points, less BAB, etc. I actually preferred the 3.5 Cloistered Cleric.
I have to say Cloistered Cleric. You lose medium armor and shields AND suffer diminished spellcasting. For benefits, you basically are only gaining bardic knowledge and a bump from 2 + Int skills into 4 + Int skills.
It should really get 6 + Int skills and retain full casting [maybe in exchange for drop to a d6 hit die and 1/2 BAB].
Despite having less hit points, less BAB, etc. I actually preferred the 3.5 Cloistered Cleric.
As do I. I was hoping for a nearly-direct port when the archetype was created. Boy was I disappointed :(
^Yeah, why did the Pathfinder Cloistered Cleric have to be a bad joke on the D&D 3.5 version?
|
|
Ditto on Cloistered Cleric.
Though I actually like Ecclesitheurge. And the Crusader, Evangelist, and Herald Caller seem generally popular.
Classes with relatively few features aside from full casting seem to be difficult to write archetypes for, if you look at the cleric and wizard. Oracles and sorcerers also seem to get a lot more mysteries/bloodlines than archetypes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Oracles (and to a lesser extent Sorcerers) getting their variety through Mysteries (and Bloodlines) is not a bad thing. Reducing the need for archetypes is a sign of good class design (although unfortunately good class design didn't hold up in the case of many Sorcerer Bloodlines -- we need not so much a Sorcerer Unchained(*), but Sorcerer Bloodlines Unchained).
(*)The Sorcerer chassis itself could use some tweaks, such as getting 4 + IntMod skill ranks per level and maybe shifting the Bloodline Spells 1 class level earlier like Mystery Spells are on the Oracle, but these are less critical than cleaning up the Bloodlines.
Vigilante had a good start on this with Vigilante Specialization, but unfortunately instead of extending this to cover other Vigilante roles, largely threw it out with the immediate profusion of Vigilante archetypes. While these archetypes are not all bad, they largely defeat the purpose of having Vigilante Specialization in the first place.
^Oracles (and to a lesser extent Sorcerers) getting their variety through Mysteries (and Bloodlines) is not a bad thing. Reducing the need for archetypes is a sign of good class design (although unfortunately good class design didn't hold up in the case of many Sorcerer Bloodlines -- we need not so much a Sorcerer Unchained(*), but Sorcerer Bloodlines Unchained).
(*)The Sorcerer chassis itself could use some tweaks, such as getting 4 + IntMod skill ranks per level and maybe shifting the Bloodline Spells 1 class level earlier like Mystery Spells are on the Oracle, but these are less critical than cleaning up the Bloodlines.
Vigilante had a good start on this with Vigilante Specialization, but unfortunately instead of extending this to cover other Vigilante roles, largely threw it out with the immediate profusion of Vigilante archetypes. While these archetypes are not all bad, they largely defeat the purpose of having Vigilante Specialization in the first place.
I agree with like everything you just said.
..Vigilante had a good start on this with Vigilante Specialization, but unfortunately instead of extending this to cover other Vigilante roles, largely threw it out with the immediate profusion of Vigilante archetypes. While these archetypes are not all bad, they largely defeat the purpose of having Vigilante Specialization in the first place.
Agreeing with your other points, but aren't vigilante specializations basically archetypes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreeing with your other points, but aren't vigilante specializations basically archetypes?..Vigilante had a good start on this with Vigilante Specialization, but unfortunately instead of extending this to cover other Vigilante roles, largely threw it out with the immediate profusion of Vigilante archetypes. While these archetypes are not all bad, they largely defeat the purpose of having Vigilante Specialization in the first place.
Or put another way, aren't vigilante archetypes basically just alternate specializations?
Or put another way, aren't vigilante archetypes basically just alternate specializations?Agreeing with your other points, but aren't vigilante specializations basically archetypes?..Vigilante had a good start on this with Vigilante Specialization, but unfortunately instead of extending this to cover other Vigilante roles, largely threw it out with the immediate profusion of Vigilante archetypes. While these archetypes are not all bad, they largely defeat the purpose of having Vigilante Specialization in the first place.
Almost. The psychometrist archetype still allows for a specialization; as do the agathiel and faceless enforcer archetypes.
If the Archetypes were basically just "alternate vigilante specializations" that probably would have been fine.
That some archetypes replace the specialization and some do not is unnecessarily confusing. Like sure it makes sense that the Teiatsu is forced to be a Stalker Vigilante, but there's nothing the Brute gets that would make it unfair if they got full BAB from being an Avenger (heh).
Or put another way, aren't vigilante archetypes basically just alternate specializations?Agreeing with your other points, but aren't vigilante specializations basically archetypes?..Vigilante had a good start on this with Vigilante Specialization, but unfortunately instead of extending this to cover other Vigilante roles, largely threw it out with the immediate profusion of Vigilante archetypes. While these archetypes are not all bad, they largely defeat the purpose of having Vigilante Specialization in the first place.
Vigilante Specializations are elegant. The great profusion of Vigilante archetypes (most of which replace Vigilante Specialization, and a very few that don't) to make effectively several different classes are kludgy, even when they work. If it was not possible to fit the the archetypes into Vigilante Specializations, why not release them as separate classes? This would have made them easier to read (and the page count could have been kept down by having a section before the classes to describe the common features).
Or put another way, aren't vigilante archetypes basically just alternate specializations?Agreeing with your other points, but aren't vigilante specializations basically archetypes?..Vigilante had a good start on this with Vigilante Specialization, but unfortunately instead of extending this to cover other Vigilante roles, largely threw it out with the immediate profusion of Vigilante archetypes. While these archetypes are not all bad, they largely defeat the purpose of having Vigilante Specialization in the first place.
Vigilante Specializations are elegant. The great profusion of Vigilante archetypes (most of which replace Vigilante Specialization, and a very few that don't) to make effectively several different classes are kludgy, even when they work. If it was not possible to fit the the archetypes into Vigilante Specializations, why not release them as separate classes? This would have made them easier to read (and the page count could have been kept down by having a section before the classes to describe the common features).
Yeah I see what your saying I feel they could of had kind of a blank slate chaise and have all the archetypes give flavor or have no archetypes and it be choose a type. The merger of the two seems to make it more confusing. The ones i'm building for the book i'm writing are very modular and would have no need for archetypes... Maybe some sort of talent theme however...hmm... but yeah one way or the other would of been better.
|
|
Vigilante Specializations are elegant. The great profusion of Vigilante archetypes (most of which replace Vigilante Specialization, and a very few that don't) to make effectively several different classes are kludgy, even when they work. If it was not possible to fit the the archetypes into Vigilante Specializations, why not release them as separate classes? This would have made them easier to read (and the page count could have been kept down by having a section before the classes to describe the common features).
I feel like, with a modular class like the Vigilante, or even, to a lesser degree, the Barbarian (with their rage powers) or the Rogue (with their talents), an Archetype is less useful than some sort of 'framework' to showcase what sort of talents to take level by level to achieve a specific 'build.' There are a few Archetypes that I feel would be completely obsoleted by just making a specific talent (or rage power, whatever) available as a general option and saying, 'Take this at level X, if you want to be good at Y.'
My whole quibble with Archetypes is that they are all or nothing. You want this one specific thing? You have to take these other four things you don't want, and they *all* take away features of the class that you chose to play in the first place...
I much preferred the 3.X idea of replacement levels, or whatever it was called, where you could swap out one specific class feature at one level for a different one, and there might be three thematically related 'swaps,' but you didn't have to choose all of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scarred Witch Docter used to be really, really cool but then got simultaneously nerfed(less hit points and less flavorful mechanic) and hugely buffed(22 starting INT with half-orcs!) and I'm still pretty sure it was because the Kineticist was coming out soon.
So the Scarred Witch Doctor was better and I wish it would be again.
Vigilante Specializations are elegant. The great profusion of Vigilante archetypes (most of which replace Vigilante Specialization, and a very few that don't) to make effectively several different classes are kludgy, even when they work. If it was not possible to fit the the archetypes into Vigilante Specializations, why not release them as separate classes? This would have made them easier to read (and the page count could have been kept down by having a section before the classes to describe the common features).I feel like, with a modular class like the Vigilante, or even, to a lesser degree, the Barbarian (with their rage powers) or the Rogue (with their talents), an Archetype is less useful than some sort of 'framework' to showcase what sort of talents to take level by level to achieve a specific 'build.' There are a few Archetypes that I feel would be completely obsoleted by just making a specific talent (or rage power, whatever) available as a general option and saying, 'Take this at level X, if you want to be good at Y.'
My whole quibble with Archetypes is that they are all or nothing. You want this one specific thing? You have to take these other four things you don't want, and they *all* take away features of the class that you chose to play in the first place...
I much preferred the 3.X idea of replacement levels, or whatever it was called, where you could swap out one specific class feature at one level for a different one, and there might be three thematically related 'swaps,' but you didn't have to choose all of them.
Only thing about that Is I think paizo idea is they will weaken some features to strengthen others. So they balance it will all ability's in mind. Now I think they could do it your way to. Just don't let someone pick and choose everything. Like I want barbarian rage and fighter weapon training and smite. So now I never miss and kill everything first round. would have to have them into categories like minor major something like that.
|
|
Only thing about that Is I think paizo idea is they will weaken some features to strengthen others. So they balance it will all ability's in mind. Now I think they could do it your way to. Just don't let someone pick and choose everything. Like I want barbarian rage and fighter weapon training and smite. So now I never miss and kill everything first round. would have to have them into categories like...
True. I've seen enough GURPS or Hero characters who've been min-maxed to within an inch of their lives and end up with some ridiculous cherry-picked combinations. That's a strength of a class-based system, like D&D or PF, over a freeform one like GURPS. It's, ironically, too easy to make a character that's overpowering in one situation, and utterly useless in another (yes, you have an unbeatable ability to trip people that's trivialized every encounter to this point, and *nothing else,* and, yes, this particular monster is untrippable, so suck it up, buttercup...), if the PC is given absolute freedom to pick and choose all of their class abilities, and so a class framework is useful to keep things balanced on both ends.
But if the level-swaps are *internally* balanced (so that whatever you are getting for that replacement level is countered by other stuff you are giving up at that level) it should be less of a problem.
The specialist variants from 3.X's Unearthed Arcana are a decent example of the sort of modular design I'd like to see.
Scarred Witch Docter used to be really, really cool but then got simultaneously nerfed(less hit points and less flavorful mechanic) and hugely buffed(22 starting INT with half-orcs!) and I'm still pretty sure it was because the Kineticist was coming out soon.
So the Scarred Witch Doctor was better and I wish it would be again.
The beauty of running home games ;)
Ditto on Cloistered Cleric.
Though I actually like Ecclesitheurge. And the Crusader, Evangelist, and Herald Caller seem generally popular.
Many of the cleric archetypes are a case of 'So near but yet so far.'
The Ecclesitheurge is a classic case of this. Acouple of minor tweaks and it would have been worthy IMO
Weapons - no change
Armour - no change but WIS to AC
Skills - no change
Channel- Ditch completely
BOF - Ditch completely
Bonded Holy Symbol - Cut all the jibber jabber = functions as Wizard's bonded but dont get till 3rd level.
Domain mastery - Pick 1 domain/subdomain spell list as prepared, 1 domain spell list as swapable and can select any 2 lower and any 2 higher domain powers from deity list.
And yes PF Cloistered Cleric is hilariously pointless!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eldritch Scion is definitely on my list.
I like Magus, I like spontaneous spellcasting, I like CHA thematically.
But that archetype is flat out terribly executed.