Kind of some random thoughts on archetypes:
Dedication feats are more powerful than normal feats.
Does this make characters with archetypes more powerful than characters without them? I think once we have more archetypes this may be the case.
To help balance this should classes come with built in archetypes? E.G. specialist wizard is a "build in" archetype with a correspondingly more powerful dedication feat? Barbarian totems are "built in" barbarian archetypes and so on?
Thoughts? Am I worried about nothing? Is this too much like 5e's sub-classes? Would that be a bad thing?
Overall, I don't know that dedication feats make characters with them more powerful, since, at least in theory, going into an archetype means spending your feats, not on improving the things your class is already designed around, but on expanding into an area your class is not designed around. But I think it does have a number of places where archetypes really do increase power level. I think it would be unsurprising to hear the percentage of sorcerers and wizards who picked up the fighter dedication feat, and likely the percentage of those who picked magical striker, and likely as well the percentage of those who took true strike.
I am unsure what you mean, though, about built in archetypes. Do you mean that more classes should have things like arcane schools and totems? Or that Totems, ect, would be a thing that any class could pick with a dedication feat, that Barbarians get for free? I think either of those could be reasonable, although I might worry about the latter potentially watering down class identity, but I don't think it's too much like 5e's subclasses, mostly because I think the main issue with subclasses in 5e is that they're one of the very few points of mechanical differentiation, but they involve only 1 choice across 20 levels, often between only 3 options. In PF2e, similar things, like totems, can be supported by feats, as to allow for greater freedom.
I believe dedication multiclassing archetypes for all classes are coming in the next update. So you'll be able to multiclass monk, or barbarian, or sorcerer soon.
One thing I'm really interested to see is the prestige archetypes, since the gray maiden one isn't super appealing (this is mostly a problem with heavy armor, tbh.)
It depends on what you want from the archetype, but overall archetypes seem to be a simultaneous amalgamation of feat trees, variant multiclassing, hybrid classes, and prestige classes all at once.
Apparently in a thread I didn't read Mark chimed in on the possibility of combat archetypes, "Deadeye" for archery being a named idea. I don't hate this approach but I think more of them should be available to certain classes, most likely gated by proficiency.
Archetypes are a very 5e thing when they are baked into the class, and personally I hate the idea that my character builds are lumped into a small selection of concepts gated at early levels closing off my progression in other concepts later on. I'd want more classes that function like the 'talent' classes in PF1 like the rogue, arcanist, oracle, barbarian, etc.
Overall, I don't know that dedication feats make characters with them more powerful, since, at least in theory, going into an archetype means spending your feats, not on improving the things your class is already designed around
That's a good point on focus vs bredth. If dedication feats doen't directly make characters more powerful than taking a class feat than this isn't really an issue. Currently I am unconvinced either way so this is more musing than anything concrete.
I am unsure what you mean, though, about built in archetypes. Do you mean that more classes should have things like arcane schools and totems? Or that Totems, ect, would be a thing that any class could pick with a dedication feat, that Barbarians get for free?
My first thought was essentially that dedication feats are powerful so if all characters are going to want dedication feats anyways than there should be an option to take a dedication feat for your own class. (in whatever form that takes)
My second thought was that the built in customization points could be built as archetypes since a lot of them are one up front ability and then a bunch of class feats to advance it later on (sounds like dedication + class feats of a archetype to me)
So each totem would represent a barbarian dedication feat and each barbarian gets a free totem at first level. It would just be more in line with the modular structure. Right now in future books they will introduce new barbarian totems with a set of class feats that is like an archetype as in it has a feat tree you can advance in but isn't quite an archetype. It makes more sense to me to just call everything that functions like a archetype an archetype but I know other folks don't like that (I am also a big fan of just calling everything that works like a feat a feat as well and I know that isn't super popular)
It's more a language and a structural change than a mechanical one but I think it would allow easier modularity of class features.
Kind of some random thoughts on archetypes:
Dedication feats are more powerful than normal feats.
Does this make characters with archetypes more powerful than characters without them? I think once we have more archetypes this may be the case.
I'm also concerned about this. This is most acute with wizard and sorcerer right now. I feel fighter dedication is mandatory on any serious build. This should be ringing alarm bells, as it demonstrates that when there's the synergy there to make for a good marriage it makes the dedication all but mandatory. As we get more dedication options, I'm very concerned that will become true of many more classes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be unsurprising to hear the percentage of sorcerers and wizards who picked up the fighter dedication feat, and likely the percentage of those who picked magical striker, and likely as well the percentage of those who took true strike.
I think that the Wizards etc taking fighter dedication is more a result that Wizards are a little too fragile AND spells got over nerfed.
Combined with the fact that currently the action economy makes cast spell + shoot how a very attractive combination.
I think it would be unsurprising to hear the percentage of sorcerers and wizards who picked up the fighter dedication feat, and likely the percentage of those who picked magical striker, and likely as well the percentage of those who took true strike.
I think that the Wizards etc taking fighter dedication is more a result that Wizards are a little too fragile AND spells got over nerfed.
Combined with the fact that currently the action economy makes cast spell + shoot how a very attractive combination.
I'm not doubting that, but I think, if they're picking fighter dedication anyway, and then the next class-feat level they also get something that rewards them for going fighter dedication, I think you'll wind up seeing gishes a lot, rather than casters who decide to pick up some armor to help keep them alive, though those also will be around.
Perhaps this could be avoided if Mage Armor were buffed, such that its benefits were a little better, and Bracers of Armor wound up being competitive with actual armor, thus making going full mage preferable to spending a class feat on going fighter dedication (assuming you didn't want to multiclass fighter, in your character concept).
I think that the Wizards etc taking fighter dedication is more a result that Wizards are a little too fragile AND spells got over nerfed.
It's not just that those things are weaker, it's also that there's almost zero downside to adding competency with martial weapons and armor to your build. A couple low-level feats isn't going to have a noticeable effect on your spellcasting ability, so you essentially get to have your cake and eat it too.
I think that the Wizards etc taking fighter dedication is more a result that Wizards are a little too fragile AND spells got over nerfed.It's not just that those things are weaker, it's also that there's almost zero downside to adding competency with martial weapons and armor to your build. A couple low-level feats isn't going to have a noticeable effect on your spellcasting ability, so you essentially get to have your cake and eat it too.
The leaning towards Sword & Sorcery in the description of the game leads me to believe it is the intent of the game to facilitate this kind of play as well.
For this reason I'm leaning toward the caster classes all getting some sort of combat role to play with weapons and/or armor and stealing the best abilities from the hybrid classes of old (including the magus) to add into the game's seeming trajectory towards this being normal.
Spellstrike would be a very interesting feat for wizards, for example.
To help balance this should classes come with built in archetypes? E.G. specialist wizard is a "build in" archetype with a correspondingly more powerful dedication feat? Barbarian totems are "built in" barbarian archetypes and so on?Thoughts? Am I worried about nothing? Is this too much like 5e's sub-classes? Would that be a bad thing?
It seems to be that class “feats” (I like to call them options) achieve the differentiation you get out of P1E Archetypes. You can be a TWF, Power Attacker, Sword +Board, some combination of the prior, and so on. There could probably be more choices/tracking but overall it seems to me that you wind up with more flavors in 2e because it is individualized.