Should archtypes start at level 1?

[GM Thrawn]

Right now, all archtype dedication feats start at level 2. For most characters, this seems very appropriate. However, I would suggest lowering the level requirements to 1.

Why? Humans have the ability to use their heritage feat for a class feat at level 1. This is the only time I see where it would be possible to include the archtypes before level 2, but I see no reason not to allow this early entry.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think current archetypes are for a "I am a [Foo] who also does [Bar]". I think a future splatbooks will include archetypes which start at level 1 for "I am a different kind of [foo]" (e.g. a lightly armored archer paladin, a rogue without sneak attack, a spontaneous casting druid) which alter class features and are available for only one class.

[sadie]

I can see arguments both ways depending on what sort of character you want to play - which is why our should be up to the player and the GM to decide.

Some archetypes have more stringent entry requirements, of course, but if your character concept is for a hybrid class then there's no reason to delay starting down that path.

[Zwordsman]

Hmm personally.
I think every class should get a general feat at level 1.
and I think the Dedication feats should be able to be taken by general feats or classfeats, instead of just class feats.

Because the game specifically lists you ~can~ take multiple dedication feats after you go far enough down the line, I do think it should start at 1.

Just because, there are many concepts right now that kind of require dipping. particularly fighter.

My alchemist for instance, has shield, dart throwing, knife (stab/throwetc) and kicks. and wants to be supportive. that sounds like a lot but it actually isn't that much. Really only need the figher lv 2 class feat to pull it off, the rest is just gold.
Fighter dedication + range assist (then any extras I want for the 2 shield feats at lv 1/2 fighter). But. the shield feats are highly useful, and can combo with the actual concept. So. I do wish I could fit them in more readily.

BUT in order to be the type of character who throws, at all, you honestly have to get quick draw from Rogue archetype, which is another 2 class feats.

all of which allows for quick drawing darts, and throwing them for ranged "assist action" for the main hitters or supporting someone in a bad situation. WHile allowing myself the defense of a shield in a reasonable method.

To get some basic idea to work, you really have to dip. Otherwise every class really ends up "feeling the exact same" when you build them.
Because of the need for variety and uniqueness in characters I do think that the dedication feats need to be opened up more. Taken via general or class feats, and allowing at one . (and just in general every class getting a level 1 general feat for individualism.. and to make human not "required" for a lot of base concepts, cause waiting till 3 otherwise sucks for something basic like adopted, or shield profiency, quick repair, being able to try to be a medic and such. that are base character concepts)

Ah, also i'm pretty sure not every class gets as many class feats as my Alchemist does. which makes the idea of opening up access even more valuable.

Though. i actually don't know how "fast" this game is suppose to level up, since I haven't read certain GM spots as much due to potential spoilers and will be reading them thoroughly after the games.

[BretI]

I agree that allowing them to start at level 1 makes sense for a number of character concepts, especially for the multi-class options.

[Stack]

I agree with starting them at 1. I also think level 1 should get an extra general and ancestry feat (adjusting human as needed on that part).

[Luceon]

You could never multi class at level 1 before. Why all the sudden are you saying it should start now? You all say you want it at level 1, but never explain a logical reason why someone should start with two classes.
Personally I don't care when it starts, I do think you are all barking up the wrong tree. There will be supplement material with classes. Those books will have other classes that essentially do what you are asking for, hybrid classes, like Magus, Inquisitor, Arcane Trickster, ad infinitum. It just looks like you guys are seeking more power creep.

[GM Thrawn]

Archtypes aren't just about multiclass. It's also about class alternatives. Lets take the cavalier as an example. By lowering the level for affinity feats to level 1, you could create a human cavalier starting at level 1. Other races still have to wait to level 2, but since humans can take natural ambition, I'm not sure why it makes sense to wait on the archtype taking effect in that case.

I also believe it makes sense for most of those other "classes" to instead be archtypes. I'm more for reducing classes than adding them under this system.

[William Werminster]

OP// I see the concern, but I don't share it. Usually lvl 1 is the quickest to be left behind.

How about this idea. The lvl requirement stays as it is, but let some backgrounds reduce it to lvl 1. That will kind of show commitment from both character and player side to the archetype.

[John Lynch 106]

Luceon wrote:

You could never multi class at level 1 before. Why all the sudden are you saying it should start now? You all say you want it at level 1, but never explain a logical reason why someone should start with two classes.

Plenty of archetypes start at level 1 and it has nothing to do with multiclassing.

[BretI]

Luceon wrote:

You could never multi class at level 1 before.

Actually, you could in 1st edition AD&D. I can't remember if second edition allowed it, but I think it was AD&D 3.0 that stopped allowing it.

Luceon wrote:

Why all the sudden are you saying it should start now? You all say you want it at level 1, but never explain a logical reason why someone should start with two classes.

Personally I don't care when it starts, I do think you are all barking up the wrong tree. There will be supplement material with classes. Those books will have other classes that essentially do what you are asking for, hybrid classes, like Magus, Inquisitor, Arcane Trickster, ad infinitum. It just looks like you guys are seeking more power creep.

The reason they should start with two classes is that they split their study between the two fields. Instead of having this represented by cramming on the second class in order to learn it during 2nd level, you allow them to start closer to what the person was probably imagining -- someone who learned skills from both disciplines.

[graystone]

Should archtypes start at level 1?: Yes. We also need to get those mythical archetypes that can alter those set class abilities that are set and not a feat.

[ErichAD]

Second edition also had 1st level multiclassing, but was only available to demi-humans. Dual classing required advancing in one class first, but that was human only and I only saw it done once.

Starting multiclassing at first level means you don't suddenly need to buy a spell book, better armor, different weapons and so on. There's also no concern about a character who comes online at level 2. Limping along for one level before your defense or support strategy appears is short enough that it's probably better to just smooth it over.

[Dasrak]

It can't really be done as-is because many classes don't get feats at 1st. However, as other people have mentioned this should probably be changed, and every class should get at least one class feat or a general feat at 1st. That would certainly alleviate a lot of the problems some classes have.

BretI wrote:

Actually, you could in 1st edition AD&D. I can't remember if second edition allowed it, but I think it was AD&D 3.0 that stopped allowing it.

It was stopped because it was overpowered. You would essentially be one level behind single-class characters, but would have all the class features of two classes. It'd be like being a gestalt Fighter 7//Wizard 7 while the rest of the party is 8th level.

[BretI]

Dasrak wrote:

BretI wrote:

Actually, you could in 1st edition AD&D. I can't remember if second edition allowed it, but I think it was AD&D 3.0 that stopped allowing it.

It was stopped because it was overpowered. You would essentially be one level behind single-class characters, but would have all the class features of two classes. It'd be like being a gestalt Fighter 7//Wizard 7 while the rest of the party is 8th level.

It wasn’t quite gestalt. You got half hit points from each class and the progress tended to be a little more than one level behind. Going triple class was a bad deal, you were far behind everyone else after they got to 2nd level.

I do agree it wasn’t balanced, but neither was a lot of the other things in A D & D.

We will hopefully see if the playtest version of multiclassing is balanced or not. I don’t think that allowing it to start at level one would create new balance problems though.

[Zwordsman]

Luceon wrote:

You could never multi class at level 1 before. Why all the sudden are you saying it should start now? You all say you want it at level 1, but never explain a logical reason why someone should start with two classes.

Personally I don't care when it starts, I do think you are all barking up the wrong tree. There will be supplement material with classes. Those books will have other classes that essentially do what you are asking for, hybrid classes, like Magus, Inquisitor, Arcane Trickster, ad infinitum. It just looks like you guys are seeking more power creep.

I can't speak for anyone else. but.

for me? the way the whole thing is set up, as class feats and really just as dedication feats in general--representing a character's active choice of life study. I think it just absolute fits this system. More so because you can do several feats, and in fact can just barely take a bit of it if one wished.

Do i think it fit P1? no, not at all. but P2 is its own system. and for me, and others, that system feels like it should allow it.

but of course MMV by your perspective.

[Dasrak]

Bretl wrote:

It wasn’t quite gestalt. You got half hit points from each class and the progress tended to be a little more than one level behind.

It was close enough that it's an apt comparison. The XP charts for AD&D are more than a little weird, so you wouldn't stay exactly one level behind.

Bretl wrote:

We will hopefully see if the playtest version of multiclassing is balanced or not.

Balance is definitely something to look at, but I'm actually a bit more concerned about future-proofing. Multiclassing in PF2 isn't actually a subsystem, but rather just content. In PF1 because multiclassing was a subsystem proper, it could make use of new content. So if the Fighter got a new archetype, multiclass fighters got access to it. In PF2 there's no easy way to update the dedication paths, which could be a huge problem for multiclassing a few years down the line if multiclass combos are locked out of some of the best content. There's really no way we can playtest for that, either, which is why I'm worried that this could fall between the cracks.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Luceon, you're being obnoxious. Cease.

[Vidmaster7]

I mean yes that was a obnoxious way of putting it but Their is a part of me that sees people that way when you tell them they can't have everything right off the bat and then they complain about it.

Like what do you give up that makes it equal to someone that doesn't want to multi-class at that point.

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Like what do you give up that makes it equal to someone that doesn't want to multi-class at that point.

feats? What makes the multiclass feats balanced and 100% fine at 2nd but horribly unbalanced and munchkin at 1st?

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Like what do you give up that makes it equal to someone that doesn't want to multi-class at that point.

feats? What makes the multiclass feats balanced and 100% fine at 2nd but horribly unbalanced and munchkin at 1st?

Uh the only feat a 1st level wizard has to give up is his ancestry feat? does trading out his ancestry feat makes sense to you?

[Enlight_Bystand]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Like what do you give up that makes it equal to someone that doesn't want to multi-class at that point.

feats? What makes the multiclass feats balanced and 100% fine at 2nd but horribly unbalanced and munchkin at 1st?

Uh the only feat a 1st level wizard has to give up is his ancestry feat? does trading out his ancestry feat makes sense to you?

I don't think the intent behind the first level people here is to let you take it for free, it's to allow characters who have a first level Class feat (Martials and Humans who take the appropriate ancestry feat) to use that feat for archetypes/multi class

[Vidmaster7]

Seems unfair to let half of the classes (or a human) multi-class at first level and not the other half. It would mean humans would be your must play race for multi-classing too. Why not just move it to when everyone gets a feat available for it?

[Vic Ferrari]

Yeah, they are spreading things out more, like 5th Ed, some subclasses don't come online until 3rd level, levels 1 and 2 are meant to be like apprentice levels (get familiar with your class) or something. I often start 3rd Ed/PF1 campaigns at 3rd level. Some still have nightmares from 1st AD&D, where a gnome can throw a carrot at your 1st-level wizard and they d!e!

[Big Lemon]

Luceon wrote:

You could never multi class at level 1 before. Why all the sudden are you saying it should start now? You all say you want it at level 1, but never explain a logical reason why someone should start with two classes.

Personally I don't care when it starts, I do think you are all barking up the wrong tree. There will be supplement material with classes. Those books will have other classes that essentially do what you are asking for, hybrid classes, like Magus, Inquisitor, Arcane Trickster, ad infinitum. It just looks like you guys are seeking more power creep.

You could never multiclass at 1st level in pathfinder before... but you could play as a magus, warpriest, swashbuckler, hunter, shaman, skald, investigator... see where I'm going?

[Vidmaster7]

You could do the multi-class thing n 1st edition but it was a mess you started out strong and ended up unplayable.

[Big Lemon]

I havent plumbed the list of general feats extensively enough to say, but one concern I have with the idea of taking dedicatiin feats in their place is that the game will become every character only taking dedication feats because they may be more powerful, and are definitely more combat focused.

[Vic Ferrari]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

You could do the multi-class thing n 1st edition but it was a mess you started out strong and ended up unplayable.

Some were better that others, my brother had quite a successful Half-Elf Cleric/Magic-User, plenty powerful, fantastic support character.

1st Ed, especially before UA (that really helped nonhumans, home of the drow ranger!), was very human-centric, characters of real power are human, elves and what-not are more like an exception, one-off characters. I believe it wasn't even Gygax that included them in the first PHB. He was very on the Lieber/Howard tip.

[sadie]

The new archetype system is a combination of several different PF1e and D&D3.5 mechanisms:

• Archetypes
  
• Hybrid classes (and other classes in general)
  
• Multiclassing
  
• Prestige classes
  

Some of those make sense to start at 1st level and others don't, which is why I'm advocating to let the basic mechanism start at 1. Dedication feats can state their level requirements if they need them.

The only mechanical change needed to make this viable is for every class to get a 1st level class feat. Since the new system is all about symmetry, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch. The opportunity cost of taking a dedication feat is how you make it balanced.

[John Lynch 106]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Like what do you give up that makes it equal to someone that doesn't want to multi-class at that point.

Here's a wacky idea: Why not make class feats and class features so good that they are equal to what you get from multiclassing?

That could just be me talking crazy though.

[LukeM]

So one of the things I liked about PF 1e was that
thanks to the depth of class options and archetypes I could
create a starting character that was special.

A magus, or an investigator focusing more on mysteries, etc.

I never liked the 3.x model of 'level until you get to a prestige class', and having come from point buy systems it bugged me I couldn't build an approximate character from 1st.

Now I'm fine with multiclassing being post level 1 as it's a full opening of the class features, but for archetypes (like Cavalier) I agree those should be available out of the gate.

[Saedar]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Like what do you give up that makes it equal to someone that doesn't want to multi-class at that point.

Here's a wacky idea: Why not make class feats and class features so good that they are equal to what you get from multiclassing?

That could just be me talking crazy though.

Agreed. If class feats are used for dedications, there should be rough power parity between things available at the same level using the same resource. More situational? Give it a little more oomph. Constantly available? Scale it back the tiniest bit.

[Milo v3]

There is more to PF 2e archetypes than just multiclassing. It's weird if you try to play something like a pirate but can't even use standard pirate weaponry till level 2 when the rest of the party is actually allowed to play their concept from 1st level.

[David knott 242]

I can easily imagine (make that remember, since PF1 is loaded with such things) archetypes that alter your primary class in a way that would have been with a character for his entire pre-adventuring life. How would such archetypes work if there is no hint of that archetype in the character's stats before 2nd level?

For example, that Brawler archetype for a character who was raised by wild animals and who starts out with an animal companion would definitely need to be an archetype of this sort.

For another example, a spellcaster archetype that alters which ability score you use for spellcasting should definitely be in place at 1st level.

[Ckorik]

Ignoring the balance/munching debate.

Archetypes at level 1 because otherwise they feel like a prestige class - and they were the best (well.. one of the best) thing about PF1 that Paizo came up with.

I didn't like alot of them - but that was OK because they fit a niche. That's my only input - level 1 feels right - level 2 makes it feel like the old prestige system.

[tivadar27]

I'd assume it was done this way on purpose so you couldn't access them via racial human feats. That being said, I'd be fine with the multiclass archetype feat itself being level 1, but all of the additional feats beyond that should definitely be 2 or beyond. Level 1 shouldn't have access to level 1 and 2 Fighter feats... or spellcasting.

[Gavmania]

What are we talking a out here?
We have multi-class archetypes, which wouldn't have been available at lvl1 in pf1.
The cavalier archetype, which is like multi-classing.
The grey maiden, which is a prestige class and isn't available at lvl1
And pirate. So really, we are talking about pirate.
Personally, I don't care if it's available at lvl1 or 2; it's so weak i wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
But I can't see the need for a rule change over 1 archetype. It's just not worth it.

[David knott 242]

Also, I thought I remembered somebody at Paizo saying that they were not retesting the parts of the archetype system that they knew already worked, so anything that was already done in PF1 and could still work in PF2 is in theory available for future development.

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Like what do you give up that makes it equal to someone that doesn't want to multi-class at that point.

feats? What makes the multiclass feats balanced and 100% fine at 2nd but horribly unbalanced and munchkin at 1st?

Uh the only feat a 1st level wizard has to give up is his ancestry feat? does trading out his ancestry feat makes sense to you?

Not true. Look at the universal school wizard once. "You also gain an extra wizard class feat."

But I understand your point but it's not really an issue. If a class doesn't have a class feat at first, they then can't take one. I'd prefer every class had access to a class feat at first just from a 'more option/less cookie cutter' point of view but I'm not going to worry too much on this point. There are SO many other things that I find worse that this is pretty low on the list.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Why not just move it to when everyone gets a feat available for it?

Or, here is a radical idea, allow everyone a class feat choice at 1st...

[David knott 242]

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Like what do you give up that makes it equal to someone that doesn't want to multi-class at that point.

feats? What makes the multiclass feats balanced and 100% fine at 2nd but horribly unbalanced and munchkin at 1st?

Uh the only feat a 1st level wizard has to give up is his ancestry feat? does trading out his ancestry feat makes sense to you?

Not true. Look at the universal school wizard once. "You also gain an extra wizard class feat."

But I understand your point but it's not really an issue. If a class doesn't have a class feat at first, they then can't take one. I'd prefer every class had access to a class feat at first just from a 'more option/less cookie cutter' point of view but I'm not going to worry too much on this point. There are SO many other things that I find worse that this is pretty low on the list.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Why not just move it to when everyone gets a feat available for it?

Or, here is a radical idea, allow everyone a class feat choice at 1st...

The general pattern for class feats seems to be that only non-spellcasters get a class feat at 1st level, so the obvious swap at 1st level would be that 1st level class feat for a non-spellcaster or part of the initial spellcasting ability for a spellcaster.

[Lady Melo]

I also really feel like they should be available at level 1, because being able to start with more of your character concept out the gate is always better.

All the people snarking back with munchkin sarcasm, it's not like people want some crazy high level features, even the multiclass feats, your not blowing anyone away with the fact that your fighter lost 1 more fighter thing he can do for 2 cantrips, something accessible 95% of the time, just not on level 1.

For those those say it isn't required because in PF1 you couldn't MC till level 2. Exactly! this is PF2 you should be able to do more now, if it exceeds a limitation of PF1 then that is a good thing! (Also you always picked archetypes at level 1 in PF1, and under the new locked feat system this is likely what we will have instead of hybrid classes and flexible archetypes.)

There is strong enough reason to want to, character concepts of those who many years before the campaign started would have dabbled in more then 1 thing, that simply make more sense to begin with it, then pick it up in what is often in many campaigns (and official APs) literal days in game time from the start of the adventure till level 2.

If the biggest concern is some kind of (level 1 only) balance breaking issue, then counter balance it, provide equally strong level 1 options in class. Characters who trained/lived/experienced for years before adventuring most likely shouldn't see radical new abilities on level 2/3 anyway and should start off a little front loaded.

[Malk_Content]

graystone wrote:

Or, here is a radical idea, allow everyone a class feat choice at 1st...

I'd like this, but for it to be good classes will need at least 4 more first level feats to avoid running out of things to pick.

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Like what do you give up that makes it equal to someone that doesn't want to multi-class at that point.

feats? What makes the multiclass feats balanced and 100% fine at 2nd but horribly unbalanced and munchkin at 1st?

Uh the only feat a 1st level wizard has to give up is his ancestry feat? does trading out his ancestry feat makes sense to you?

Not true. Look at the universal school wizard once. "You also gain an extra wizard class feat."

But I understand your point but it's not really an issue. If a class doesn't have a class feat at first, they then can't take one. I'd prefer every class had access to a class feat at first just from a 'more option/less cookie cutter' point of view but I'm not going to worry too much on this point. There are SO many other things that I find worse that this is pretty low on the list.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Why not just move it to when everyone gets a feat available for it?

Or, here is a radical idea, allow everyone a class feat choice at 1st...

But then what about the people that want to do the old elf multiclass rogue warrior wizard so we better have 2 class feats at 1st level. Oh and then the thread where people want 2-5 extra ancestry feats at 1st level so we better get those in their too. Oh but now the people complaining about character creation taking 2 hours are real upset that they have to choose 7 more feats at 1st level. Isn't that interesting how every design decision has consequences?

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

But then what about the people that want to do the old elf multiclass rogue warrior wizard so we better have 2 class feats at 1st level.

People want to try to play classes that aren't in the new game yet: For instance, a magus. So it's not really trying to emulate multiclass characters.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Oh and then the thread where people want 2-5 extra ancestry feats at 1st level so we better get those in their too.

Sure, I'm up for it. Not seeing anything wrong with that.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Oh but now the people complaining about character creation taking 2 hours are real upset that they have to choose 7 more feats at 1st level.

Can you link me to a SINGLE person that complained about ancestry feats slowing down character creation? It's the ONE place where they did things right and had the feats RIGHT next to where you gain them.

And as far as class feats... Again, I haven't seen people unable to easily find class feats and/or archetypes. They are actually done fairly well. THESE are not the things that are slowing people down. It's the god awful spell/power/general-skill feat sections where they tossed everything in a pile.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Isn't that interesting how every design decision has consequences?

Sure... What consequences were those again? Cuz, it seems negligible when compared to the other parts that actually ARE a drag on character creation.

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

But then what about the people that want to do the old elf multiclass rogue warrior wizard so we better have 2 class feats at 1st level.

People want to try to play classes that aren't in the new game yet: For instance, a magus. So it's not really trying to emulate multiclass characters.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Oh and then the thread where people want 2-5 extra ancestry feats at 1st level so we better get those in their too.

Sure, I'm up for it. Not seeing anything wrong with that.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Oh but now the people complaining about character creation taking 2 hours are real upset that they have to choose 7 more feats at 1st level.

Can you link me to a SINGLE person that complained about ancestry feats slowing down character creation? It's the ONE place where they did things right and had the feats RIGHT next to where you gain them.

And as far as class feats... Again, I haven't seen people unable to easily find class feats and/or archetypes. They are actually done fairly well. THESE are not the things that are slowing people down. It's the god awful spell/power/general-skill feat sections where they tossed everything in a pile.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Isn't that interesting how every design decision has consequences?

Sure... What consequences were those again? Cuz, it seems negligible when compared to the other parts that actually ARE a drag on character creation.

if you don't think the selection of 7 feats is going to take more time and that people aren't going to complain about it you igther have unrealistic expectation of the paizo community or you are just saying that to try and make your point. I have already in the past seen threads complaining about TOO MANY feats and that it takes time to go through and select and that was for PF1.

Of course no one is complaining about them right now they only have to select one.

Also I already know what you want you want a front loaded character that has everything at 1st level and then igther very slow increases over time or maybe huge boons so that the ceiling on power is that much higher. Their is people out their that want low level play like 1st level to be very minimum where you are struggling to survive. Their is a whole world of design options and choices that everyone has a different opinion on.

Also with the exception of the janky multi-class system 1st edition had its been pretty standard for a character that wants to be 2 classes to have to wait till 2nd level.

AND no I'm not going to go and look it up for you That's not my job if you want the information you go look it up.

Also I still kind of want magus as its own class...

[Meophist]

I just want to say I currently agree with Vidmaster7 that level 1 archtypes probably isn't worth the increased complexity of the changes necessary, or at least proposed.

There could be a system where level 1 archtypes are possible without such an increase in complexity, but I don't see it here.

I want to be particularly against allowing (current) archtypes to be bought into via general feats. General feats don't really have the combat power to be a viable option over archtype feats at the moment.

[Vidmaster7]

The one thing I am actually worried about for the multi-class archetypes is that they are considerably better then the regular options. Pretty much everyone is going to be a multi-class.

[Asmodeus' Advocate]

My ideal system (and possible houserule? I’m going to avoid houserules until the playtest is over, though, kind of beats the point otherwise): everyone gets a general feat at level one, regardless of ancestry, we change archetype feats to level one feats, and archetypes can be either class feats or general feats.

This’d make humans less of an only choice for certain character concepts that shouldn’t be tied to ancestry (rogue with a shield, cleric of Nethys who uses an arming sword), and allows more character concepts right from level one, (though, those are very related issues) all without really increasing the complexity of the system.

[The Great Potato]

Simply put, I'd like archetypes to start at level 1 because most archetypes in PF1 replaced or altered first level abilities and I'm used to that. And the class feats I miss out on by archetyping at 2 all have a "1" next to them.

To put it less bluntly:

PF1 archetypes were meant to replace class features which don't quite match your character concept with abilities that do. In PF2, what if I want a particular chassis, but the level 1 feats don't fit my concept? For instance, this afternoon I built a alchemist/rogue that specialized in potions and poisons instead of bombs. I ended up being unsatisfied with my options at levels 1 and 6.

I don't see any harm in letting players dedicate a little earlier so they can have their character concept fully represented right out the gate. That is the main reason I've always preferred archetypes to multiclasses and prestige classes. In addition, most classes have super impactful level 1 feats which, in raw numerical terms, are more powerful than the level 2 dedications.

I agree that the options at creation should be pared down for new players, but I suspect that's the reason archetypes are sequestered in the "advancement" section.