Starfinder Archetypes

Milo v3 wrote:

I for one really dislike the subclass style of archetype system for the same reason I dislike it in 5e... It's directly losing one of the greatest benefits of archetypes.

In PF, if I make an alchemist where it doesn't make sense for them to have bombs, I can trade that away. Not all mechanics are going to want an exocortex or a drone... but now they have to if they want to be the tech-guy, and there never will be an archetype which removes that because that's not one of the abilities which get traded by archetypes.

But that is what i am trying to say in my post just above yours, at release there are only two options for the mechanic to pursue. it is easy for them to release an option in a later book that is something else, vehicle savant or something, where instead of drone or exocortex the mechanic gets bonus ship points and can customize a hover bike like a mount class feature. but by making it an option for any mechanic they dont have to trade away some other class ability that maybe they really wanted.

Also consider another class. Mechanic aren't the only tech guys, they're (so far, but Torbyne makes a good point) the robotics guys. Technomancers, operatives, and soldiers all also make heavy use of technology. As does, I assume, everyone with the Ace Pilot theme.

I hope more options get added down the line, of course, including ones that blend other classes abilities. What if every class got a drone? What abilities would that require? It's going to be annoying right out the gate, but hopefully something will be there that lets you tell the story you want, even if its not immediately obvious.

What many people may be missing, I think, is that PF archetypes are NOT the same thing as SF archetypes. Honestly, I'm surprised Paizo didn't call them something else entirely.

In Pathfinder, archetypes replace the major features of a single class to change how that class operates. In Starfinder, this is accomplished with subclasses, which are baked into the class right from the start, and there's quite a few - of the five classes previewed so far, four of them offer subclasses:

• Mechanic: combat drone, flight drone, stealth drone, exocortex
  
• Mystic: akashic, empath, healer, mindbreaker, overlord, star shaman
  
• Operative: daredevil, detective, explorer, ghost, hacker, spy, thief
  
• Soldier: arcane assailant, armor storm, blitz, bombard, guard, hit-and-run, sharpshoot
  

There's your PF-style archetypes. Pathfinder had an extremely limited selection of core subclasses; effectively, we're getting a core rulebook plus half of an advanced player's guide.

Starfinder archetypes do something completely different (and completely new). They replace minor features of a class (ANY class) with unique abilities tied to an entirely different concept. It's new, different, and should massively open up customization options for players (as a side bonus, you don't need to commit to an archetype until 2nd class level, giving players time to feel out a class before deciding if they want to modify it). The SF archetype system is in no way a replacement for the PF archetype system.

In short: in Starfinder, subclasses are useful for modifying a class's major features, and archetypes are useful for modifying a class's minor features.

P.S. - as Owen mentioned above, there's no reason to expect that archetypes will get more love in future volumes than subclasses. PF is full of supplementary class features, and there's no reason to expect SF to be any different.

There's your PF-style archetypes.

You have a very different definition to archetype than PF... What your talking about is more like the Bloodlines, Disciplines, Orders, Schools, etc. in Pathfinder, not archetypes.

You have a very different definition to archetype than PF... What your talking about is more like the Bloodlines, Disciplines, Orders, Schools, etc. in Pathfinder, not archetypes.

You could be right about that. It remains to be seen if the subclasses in the CRB will look more like a wizard's schools or more like a fighter's archetypes (in the PF-APG, they were called "martial themes").

Jimbles the Mediocre wrote:

There's your PF-style archetypes.

You have a very different definition to archetype than PF... What your talking about is more like the Bloodlines, Disciplines, Orders, Schools, etc. in Pathfinder, not archetypes.

They are all different approaches to the same end goal though, arent they? You are looking to customize your class abilities to pull off a specific specialization, to be the pistol user or the DR behemoth or Zorro, something like that. A fighter in Pathfinder could take the Archer Archetype whereas the Soldier in Starfinder is a sharpshooter or bombard, in the end they should both end up being a character with specific abilities to pull off their theme and they did it at the expense of other possible class options, i like that so far at least, you dont seem to have to trade away more than just the parts you want too though.

Jimbles the Mediocre wrote:

There's your PF-style archetypes.

You have a very different definition to archetype than PF... What your talking about is more like the Bloodlines, Disciplines, Orders, Schools, etc. in Pathfinder, not archetypes.

Well, sorcerer bloodlines & arcane schools were basically archetypes before the idea of archetypes were introduced, so...

They are all different approaches to the same end goal though, arent they?

From my point of view, the goal of archetypes includes "you don't have to have abilities which don't fit your character anymore", and the new archetype system will be severely limited in that regard.

Well, sorcerer bloodlines & arcane schools were basically archetypes before the idea of archetypes were introduced, so...

*Tries to find any class feature that gets traded away by bloodlines or arcane schools*

Ventnor wrote:

Well, sorcerer bloodlines & arcane schools were basically archetypes before the idea of archetypes were introduced, so...

*Tries to find any class feature that gets traded away by bloodlines or arcane schools*

Well, there's the Subschools (as well as Subdomains for Clerics), but I think those were probably introduced after Archetypes.

That said, I do hope subsystem support will be a thing, customization is one of my favorite things in Pathfinder.

Ventnor wrote:

Well, sorcerer bloodlines & arcane schools were basically archetypes before the idea of archetypes were introduced, so...

*Tries to find any class feature that gets traded away by bloodlines or arcane schools*

Blood Arcanist and School Savant.

Those are Archetypes, not the base class features Ventnor is talking about.

Torbyne wrote:

They are all different approaches to the same end goal though, arent they?

From my point of view, the goal of archetypes includes "you don't have to have abilities which don't fit your character anymore", and the new archetype system will be severely limited in that regard.

Ventnor wrote:

Well, sorcerer bloodlines & arcane schools were basically archetypes before the idea of archetypes were introduced, so...

*Tries to find any class feature that gets traded away by bloodlines or arcane schools*

i am not seeing how you get to that conclusion? Archetypes still replace class abilities... is it that they dont change proficincies now? and the subclass system seems to be much the same in that you just choose the options you want. so far the only things that seem un-tradable are basic class proficincies and skill points. though Theme might actually affect class skills and points... Overall with Theme, Subclass and Archetypes classes look a lot more customizable than they were in Pathfinder.

Torbyne wrote:

They are all different approaches to the same end goal though, arent they?

From my point of view, the goal of archetypes includes "you don't have to have abilities which don't fit your character anymore", and the new archetype system will be severely limited in that regard.

Ventnor wrote:

Well, sorcerer bloodlines & arcane schools were basically archetypes before the idea of archetypes were introduced, so...

*Tries to find any class feature that gets traded away by bloodlines or arcane schools*

Bloodlines & Arcane Schools respectively.

Milo v3 wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

They are all different approaches to the same end goal though, arent they?

From my point of view, the goal of archetypes includes "you don't have to have abilities which don't fit your character anymore", and the new archetype system will be severely limited in that regard.

Ventnor wrote:

Well, sorcerer bloodlines & arcane schools were basically archetypes before the idea of archetypes were introduced, so...

*Tries to find any class feature that gets traded away by bloodlines or arcane schools*

i am not seeing how you get to that conclusion? Archetypes still replace class abilities... is it that they dont change proficincies now? and the subclass system seems to be much the same in that you just choose the options you want. so far the only things that seem un-tradable are basic class proficincies and skill points. though Theme might actually affect class skills and points... Overall with Theme, Subclass and Archetypes classes look a lot more customizable than they were in Pathfinder.

Think for a moment any ability so core, that you will likely get it at 1st level, rather than being one of the tradable abilities like at level 2... Now consider that some people might rather something else be the core ability of such a class, and it only shows up at a different level, and they want to capitalize on that instead.

... One example would be someone wanting to make a completely unaugmented Mechanic build, who doesn't want to use drones either.

Or... Not wanting to ever use the heavier armours on the Soldier, and want something more useful for that kind of build in place of Heavy proficiencies to compensate.

No idea about the other ones. But same argument.

Torbyne wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

They are all different approaches to the same end goal though, arent they?

From my point of view, the goal of archetypes includes "you don't have to have abilities which don't fit your character anymore", and the new archetype system will be severely limited in that regard.

Ventnor wrote:

Well, sorcerer bloodlines & arcane schools were basically archetypes before the idea of archetypes were introduced, so...

*Tries to find any class feature that gets traded away by bloodlines or arcane schools*

i am not seeing how you get to that conclusion? Archetypes still replace class abilities... is it that they dont change proficincies now? and the subclass system seems to be much the same in that you just choose the options you want. so far the only things that seem un-tradable are basic class proficincies and skill points. though Theme might actually affect class skills and points... Overall with Theme, Subclass and Archetypes classes look a lot more customizable than they were in Pathfinder.

Think for a moment any ability so core, that you will likely get it at 1st level, rather than being one of the tradable abilities like at level 2... Now consider that some people might rather something else be the core ability of such a class, and it only shows up at a different level, and they want to capitalize on that instead.

... One example would be someone wanting to make a completely unaugmented Mechanic build, who doesn't want to use drones either.

Or... Not wanting to ever use the heavier armours on the Soldier, and want something more useful for that kind of build in place of Heavy proficiencies to compensate.

No idea about the other ones. But same argument.

That still doesnt work for me, they can make equipment tricks for Soldiers that use light armor that dont work with heavy, they can make enough selectable options for a soldier that they never want to use heavy armors because so much of their character's abilities are invested elsewhere, you dont have to trade away heavy armor proficincy to make that work. Just like with Mechanic, there are only two ways to express that now but they can easily continue to publish new material with options other than a drone or exocortex. i suppose my thought is that there are already so many parts that you can select that it seems very easy to keep producing smaller pieces instead of a full up archetype to let players customize as they like. retaining proficincies isnt much of a draw back, there was a pathfinder thread once with talk about archetypes and what they trade. giving up heavy armor proficincy on a light armor archetype isnt really a cost since the character was never going to use it anyways. letting the soldier keep heavy armor even if all they choose are light armor tricks isnt a freebie, its a remnant.

Think for a moment any ability so core, that you will likely get it at 1st level, rather than being one of the tradable abilities like at level 2... Now consider that some people might rather something else be the core ability of such a class, and it only shows up at a different level, and they want to capitalize on that instead.

Two options, IMO.

(1) Pick a different subclass. Fundamental, 1st level abilities can be modified by subclasses.

(2) Are you sure you want to play this class? If you really want to play an unaugmented mechanic w/o a drone, for example, I think you might prefer playing an envoy.

i am not seeing how you get to that conclusion? Archetypes still replace class abilities... is it that they dont change proficincies now? and the subclass system seems to be much the same in that you just choose the options you want. so far the only things that seem un-tradable are basic class proficincies and skill points. though Theme might actually affect class skills and points... Overall with Theme, Subclass and Archetypes classes look a lot more customizable than they were in Pathfinder.

That's not how archetypes work in Starfinder, each class has specific features which are the only things which can be traded by archetypes, not all class features are allowed to be traded (and I'm not meaning proficiencies/skill point style stuff I mean class features).

For example if Alchemist was a class in Starfinder, the bombs class feature might not be on the list of "tradable class features", so I'd never play an alchemist since I don't like bombs. But thankfully pathfinder's archetype system allows developers to trade any class feature, so there are archetypes like Vivisectionist.

Based on what they've previewed so far, the Alchemist might not be the best comparison class between PF and SF. Instead, take a look at the vigilante. Almost every aspect of that class is customizable and selectable from a range of options, and the only class features you're locked into (so far, but I live in hope) are mostly RP related. And if you really dislike having a vigilante identity, this might not be the class to tell the story you want to tell anyways.

I'm curious if they'll hold true to their stance on archetypes anyways. Because Milo is right, this is pretty limiting. I hope that, maybe three or four years down the road, we start getting "subclasses" (for lack of a better term) that work like vigilante caster archetypes: offering a new suite of options at the price of locking in several of your other choices down the road. Can't call them archetypes, since that term is taken, but I would be surprised if we didn't see something like that offered at some point.

Torbyne wrote:

For example if Alchemist was a class in Starfinder, the bombs class feature might not be on the list of "tradable class features", so I'd never play an alchemist since I don't like bombs. But thankfully pathfinder's archetype system allows developers to trade any class feature, so there are archetypes like Vivisectionist.

But if we want to do that in Starfinder, we'll just create an alternate class feature for Star-Alchemists that replaces Star-Bombs.

Like inquisitions replace domains for inquisitors. No archetype needed.

Milo v3 wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

For example if Alchemist was a class in Starfinder, the bombs class feature might not be on the list of "tradable class features", so I'd never play an alchemist since I don't like bombs. But thankfully pathfinder's archetype system allows developers to trade any class feature, so there are archetypes like Vivisectionist.

But if we want to do that in Starfinder, we'll just create an alternate class feature for Star-Alchemists that replaces Star-Bombs.

Like inquisitions replace domains for inquisitors. No archetype needed.

I <3 that response.

Torbyne wrote:

They are all different approaches to the same end goal though, arent they?

From my point of view, the goal of archetypes includes "you don't have to have abilities which don't fit your character anymore", and the new archetype system will be severely limited in that regard.

Ventnor wrote:

Well, sorcerer bloodlines & arcane schools were basically archetypes before the idea of archetypes were introduced, so...

*Tries to find any class feature that gets traded away by bloodlines or arcane schools*

They are sort of like archetypes that have no corresponding vanilla/non-archetyped option (unless you count Universalist Wizard as vanilla/non-archetyped like 1st Edition AD&D seemed to be planning to do but never did), so you always choose one of them. I wouldn't call them archetypes, though, because of that particular difference and the fact that at least some of them (even most of them) are in the class from the start. On the other hand, they do a great service by massively reducing the need for actual archetypes.

But if we want to do that in Starfinder, we'll just create an alternate class feature for Star-Alchemists that replaces Star-Bombs.

Doesn't that mean you may as well just have archetypes which can trade abilities that aren't on the predecided list?

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

But if we want to do that in Starfinder, we'll just create an alternate class feature for Star-Alchemists that replaces Star-Bombs.

Doesn't that mean you may as well just have archetypes which can trade abilities that aren't on the predecided list?

Bluntly, no, since that would limit what they're trying to do with archetypes in SF.

I really do think that simply adding alternate class features is going to address the problem you're proposing. You want the ability to trade out a class ability that doesn't fit your character concept; you're getting that. If you don't like the options available at launch, and with a system this young I'm sure we're all going to be in that bind somewhere, hopefully new options down the road will be more appealing.

Is there something else you're looking at? Perhaps from a designer perspective, you find the specific method they're using to make archetypes broadly applicable across classes too confining?

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

But if we want to do that in Starfinder, we'll just create an alternate class feature for Star-Alchemists that replaces Star-Bombs.

Doesn't that mean you may as well just have archetypes which can trade abilities that aren't on the predecided list?

Well, first, that's an if. We may not wish to do that with any abilities. Most of the things we didn't make selectable options we consider core to the classes, and didn't include them as archetype options for a reason.

But the advantage of having archetypes set up the way they are is that we can release a single archetype, and have it be an option, with a single set of rules, for every class in the game.

To release an archetype option for every class in pathfinder currently requires 35 different archetypes, and that's not counting alternate classes (such as the ninja) or Unchained version of classes.

At one page per, in a 64 page book, we couldn't even do two new options per class for pathfinder. We could do 64 new options for every class in Starfinder, and no matter how many classes we add (if we add any), that remains true.

That's a useful design option, and it opens up *more* options for every class.

Meanwhile if we DO want to give an alternate power for a specific class option, why tie that to even more options that a player might NOT want?

For example, you mention the alchemist and bombs, and that the vivsectionist gives those away. Which is true... and over the seven years since the alchemist was released, the vivisectionist is the only archetype to totally get rid of bombs. And if you don't want bombs and don't want sneak attack, you still have no choices. Whereas if we decide a class mechanic should have other options, we can just create however many of those we want, and allow players to pick whatever makes sense for their character.

By divorcing class-specific features we might want to offer alternatives from archetypes (which are normally used to cover some new mechanic, flavor, or concept that often makes sense for a wide range of characters -- there's nothing about being a trapsmith, thug, sapper, sniper, or swashbuckler that is rogue-specific, but they are the one that get those archetypes, and other classes can't access them), we can support new organizations, mechanical options, and character concepts for all classes and focus on class-specific options where thematically and mechanically appropriate without tying those concepts down to a whole host of other rules.

There is no advantage of giving up the broad applicability of Starfinder archetypes, which give us something Pathfinder lacks -- a way to give an alternate suite of powers accessible to all classes -- without losing any flexibility, since we can STILL do alternate class features, which Pathfinder uses as well.

Which is true... and over the seven years since the alchemist was released, the vivisectionist is the only archetype to totally get rid of bombs.

Purely for posterity sake: this is not actually entirely true. Metamorph (from Ultimate Intrigue) also gives up bombs, out of the archetypes that I remember, via this line:

Is there something else you're looking at? Perhaps from a designer perspective, you find the specific method they're using to make archetypes broadly applicable across classes too confining?

It is mainly that because it has to fit for Every class and it's always the same "sets" of options which get traded. It means you cannot have a different version of a class, it ends up being "there is the class and here are the less important features which can be traded away for some abilities which don't necessarily tie into the others". Meaning all of those sort of things probably need to end up being talents which means they'd have to be "relatively" limited.

In the end, archetypes end up having to be things which don't tie into the class and likely wont be able to give as much customization available to PF-style archetypes.

Well, first, that's an if. We may not wish to do that with any abilities. Most of the things we didn't make selectable options we consider core to the classes, and didn't include them as archetype options for a reason.

But the advantage of having archetypes set up the way they are is that we can release a single archetype, and have it be an option, with a single set of rules, for every class in the game.

To release an archetype option for every class in pathfinder currently requires 35 different archetypes, and that's not counting alternate classes (such as the ninja) or Unchained version of classes.

At one page per, in a 64 page book, we couldn't even do two new options per class for pathfinder. We could do 64 new options for every class in Starfinder, and no matter how many classes we add (if we add any), that remains true.

That's a useful design option, and it opens up *more* options for every class.

Meanwhile if we DO want to give an alternate power for a specific class option, why tie that to even more options that a player might NOT want?

For example, you mention the alchemist and bombs, and that the vivsectionist gives those away. Which is true... and over the seven years since the alchemist was released, the vivisectionist is the only archetype to totally get rid of bombs. And if you don't want bombs and don't want sneak attack, you still have no choices. Whereas if we decide a class mechanic should have other options, we can just create however many of those we want, and allow players to pick whatever makes sense for their character.

By divorcing class-specific features we might want to offer alternatives from archetypes (which are normally used to cover some new...

It's definitely more "custom options" per class, but I don't really see how having every archetype be generic is actually customising the class since the abilities innately don't have any link to the rest of the classes mechanics. It seems more like "Trade some of your class features for an extra theme" rather than anything really related to the old archetype system.

And yes, ACF's can change only one class feature and not have to be a full package.... but PF archetypes can do that as well (they developers just decide not to).

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Is there something else you're looking at? Perhaps from a designer perspective, you find the specific method they're using to make archetypes broadly applicable across classes too confining?

It is mainly that because it has to fit for Every class and it's always the same "sets" of options which get traded. It means you cannot have a different version of a class, it ends up being "there is the class and here are the less important features which can be traded away for some abilities which don't necessarily tie into the others". Meaning all of those sort of things probably need to end up being talents which means they'd have to be "relatively" limited.

In the end, archetypes end up having to be things which don't tie into the class and likely wont be able to give as much customization available to PF-style archetypes.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Well, first, that's an if. We may not wish to do that with any abilities. Most of the things we didn't make selectable options we consider core to the classes, and didn't include them as archetype options for a reason.

But the advantage of having archetypes set up the way they are is that we can release a single archetype, and have it be an option, with a single set of rules, for every class in the game.

To release an archetype option for every class in pathfinder currently requires 35 different archetypes, and that's not counting alternate classes (such as the ninja) or Unchained version of classes.

At one page per, in a 64 page book, we couldn't even do two new options per class for pathfinder. We could do 64 new options for every class in Starfinder, and no matter how many classes we add (if we add any), that remains true.

That's a useful design option, and it opens up *more* options for every class.

Meanwhile if we DO want to give an alternate power for a specific class option, why tie that to even more options that a player might NOT want?

For example, you mention the alchemist and bombs, and that

...

I don't think they have said that EVERY single archetype they make its going to be for EVERY single class...

And yes, ACF's can change only one class feature and not have to be a full package.... but PF archetypes can do that as well (they developers just decide not to).

There actually are a few narrow archetypes. For example, Primalist Bloodrager alters only one class feature. Or Wildblooded Sorcerer is technically a new archetype, but realistically merely slightly altered bloodlines. Or the Heretic Inquisitor only replaces one class feature (but adds a bit of free stuff on top).

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Is there something else you're looking at? Perhaps from a designer perspective, you find the specific method they're using to make archetypes broadly applicable across classes too confining?

It is mainly that because it has to fit for Every class and it's always the same "sets" of options which get traded. It means you cannot have a different version of a class, it ends up being "there is the class and here are the less important features which can be traded away for some abilities which don't necessarily tie into the others". Meaning all of those sort of things probably need to end up being talents which means they'd have to be "relatively" limited.

In the end, archetypes end up having to be things which don't tie into the class and likely wont be able to give as much customization available to PF-style archetypes.

There I sort of agree with you, but I see it as more of a feature than a bug. Yes, this design choice means that the options that get traded out aren't going to be "core" to the character class, but that doesn't mean they have to be unimportant. Consider again the vigilante class. When it comes to actual class defining feature, the vigilante talents aren't on the list. They're powerful, deliberately so, but they don't actually let the vigilante player tell a story they couldn't (often better) do with another class. The Social talents, on the other hand, while ranging from inferior to meaningless in combat, actually give the player RP and character options that make a Zealot markedly different play experience than an Inquisitor, assuming you're allowed to use them.

I don't think they have said that EVERY single archetype they make its going to be for EVERY single class...

They may change their minds, or misspoke, but they say that on this page in fact.

Unlike Pathfinder archetypes, which must be designed for a single specific character class it can be added to, Starfinder archetypes are designed to be applicable to any character class.

But like I said, take that with a grain of salt. I seem to recall something mentioned of a caster class only archetype proposed, for example.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Which is true... and over the seven years since the alchemist was released, the vivisectionist is the only archetype to totally get rid of bombs.

Purely for posterity sake: this is not actually entirely true. Metamorph (from Ultimate Intrigue) also gives up bombs, out of the archetypes that I remember, via this line:

"This ability replaces alchemy (which also includes bombs, extracts, and mutagen) and Throw Anything."

Fair enough. I happily update that the example being offered as a thing we 'couldn't" do in Starfinder has happened twice in seven years, rather than once.

The rest of my explanation why this won't be an issue stands. :)

I don't know read every designer post on here and none say they will Never make an archetype that isn't for every class. They don't say that they will make some for single classes true but I don't see where they are ruling out the possibility.

Oh, it might happen. It's much more likely we'd do an archetype that only classes that meet some prerequisite could take. For example, we might make an archetype that only spellcasters take, because it alters how you cast spells.

They'll be in the minority.

If we want to alter a specific class by giving it new options, we'll just give it new options.

Mashallah wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Which is true... and over the seven years since the alchemist was released, the vivisectionist is the only archetype to totally get rid of bombs.

Purely for posterity sake: this is not actually entirely true. Metamorph (from Ultimate Intrigue) also gives up bombs, out of the archetypes that I remember, via this line:

"This ability replaces alchemy (which also includes bombs, extracts, and mutagen) and Throw Anything."

Fair enough. I happily update that the example being offered as a thing we 'couldn't" do in Starfinder has happened twice in seven years, rather than once.

The rest of my explanation why this won't be an issue stands. :)

I wasn't raising a counter-argument.

Milo v3 wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

For example if Alchemist was a class in Starfinder, the bombs class feature might not be on the list of "tradable class features", so I'd never play an alchemist since I don't like bombs. But thankfully pathfinder's archetype system allows developers to trade any class feature, so there are archetypes like Vivisectionist.

But if we want to do that in Starfinder, we'll just create an alternate class feature for Star-Alchemists that replaces Star-Bombs.

Like inquisitions replace domains for inquisitors. No archetype needed.

I thought we were using Space-Noun in all of our comparisons, not Star-Noun...

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

For example if Alchemist was a class in Starfinder, the bombs class feature might not be on the list of "tradable class features", so I'd never play an alchemist since I don't like bombs. But thankfully pathfinder's archetype system allows developers to trade any class feature, so there are archetypes like Vivisectionist.

But if we want to do that in Starfinder, we'll just create an alternate class feature for Star-Alchemists that replaces Star-Bombs.

Like inquisitions replace domains for inquisitors. No archetype needed.

I thought we were using Space-Noun in all of our comparisons, not Star-Noun...

Ten foot laser pole...

Torbyne wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

For example if Alchemist was a class in Starfinder, the bombs class feature might not be on the list of "tradable class features", so I'd never play an alchemist since I don't like bombs. But thankfully pathfinder's archetype system allows developers to trade any class feature, so there are archetypes like Vivisectionist.

But if we want to do that in Starfinder, we'll just create an alternate class feature for Star-Alchemists that replaces Star-Bombs.

Like inquisitions replace domains for inquisitors. No archetype needed.

I thought we were using Space-Noun in all of our comparisons, not Star-Noun...

Ten foot laser pole...

Ten foot space laser space pole

Ten foot star laser space pole!

dang, does this means the stars seen outside the station are now Space-Stars floating out in the void of star-space?

Torbyne wrote:

i am not seeing how you get to that conclusion? Archetypes still replace class abilities... is it that they dont change proficincies now? and the subclass system seems to be much the same in that you just choose the options you want. so far the only things that seem un-tradable are basic class proficincies and skill points. though Theme might actually affect class skills and points... Overall with Theme, Subclass and Archetypes classes look a lot more customizable than they were in Pathfinder.

For example if Alchemist was a class in Starfinder, the bombs class feature might not be on the list of "tradable class features", so I'd never play an alchemist since I don't like bombs. But thankfully pathfinder's archetype system allows developers to trade any class feature, so there are archetypes like Vivisectionist.

Just as a note on this though, I think Alchemists actually have the perfect example of how to make a Subclass work. Personally at least, I have never seen someone try to use both Mutagen and Bombs in the same build, so if I were to theoretically convert it to Starfinder, well, there's the Subclass. Maybe add a third focused on Poison. Build in a scaling to them (like boosting Mutagen strength, bomb strength, and giving poison... something nice) and develop/convert some talents to further boost (Bomb already has several, Mutagen could incorporate some stuff like the aforementioned Metamorph, etc.) This would then lead to further expansions down the line, like Vivisection (Scaling damage boosts, possibly situational).

Honestly, thinking in these terms has assuaged much of my concerns at least, though there's still some concern until it goes from Theory to Practice, but that'll take time of course.

I actually think Alchemist is a great example of another point. Granted, this has only been true for under half of the Alchemist's life as a class, but it is currently true. If you want to play a class that uses Alchemy without Bombs, a key Alchemist class feature, you can also play as an Investigator.

What I think is that now most classes have very few class features that aren't talents, and if you don't like one of the class features, then the class may not be correct for you.

If you want an Operative that gives up Trick Attack, some skillfullness, and some sneakiness for a higher BAB and more combat abilities, you may actually want to just play a Soldier.

If you want to play an Envoy that gives up buffing their allies for Trick Attack, just play an Operative instead.

A Mystic that uses a different spell list and also blends Technology with Magic? Technomancer.

It looks like the defining abilities are few and far between for the most part, and that there will likely be ways to do what you want without resorting to Pathfinder archetypes.

On another note. What's also exciting about say, archetypes that alter how spells are cast is that some people don't have to worry about there being no prepared spellcasting if you just make it an archetype.

Edit: I'll also take this space to mention that Archetypes might list ways that their abilities affect your core class abilities. For example, an Archetype for harnessing your inherent draconic bloodline might give you a small list of bonus spells known if you're a spellcaster, but a higher BAB class without spells might gain more powerful claws than normal. And yes, I'm insinuating that you guys should definitely turn Bloodlines into Archetypes.

Or there could even be different archetypes that have the same overall feel to them. Maybe a Draconic Archetype for Casters and another for Non-Casters.

If you want an Operative that gives up Trick Attack, some skillfullness, and some sneakiness for a higher BAB and more combat abilities, you may actually want to just play a Soldier.

Funny this is one of your examples, and how many things you're suggesting trading away in this example.

For some reason, I really liked the idea of the Phantom Thief Archetype in Pathfinder, and while it gave up quite a few things, including sneak attack, one thing it absolutely capitalized on was Skillfullness. Something very few classes besides Rogues specialize in.

On the other hand, I do get the feeling that the different Operative specializations have better ways to deal with trying to max out certain skills like that.

That said, if you're in a campaign where the general idea is being so good at infiltration that NOBODY knows you were even there... Then the Trick Attack isn't going to do jack all for you.

Of course... Its not like that's going to be a common scenario.

Well and, of course, you make make Stealth your primary trick attack skill. So trick attack may not do anything for your infiltration skills, but your infiltrations skills work well with your trick attack.

I'm curious what the Spellslinger archetype (Ultimate Combat, a Wizard archetype) from Pathfinder would look like when shifted to Starfinder. The concept is certainly appropriate to Starfinder and the Technomancer has some ability to enhance weapons.

Given that in general Starfinder archetypes are supposed to apply to any class, Starfinder archetypes may not be the correct solution. I'm just not sure what would be.

I'm curious what the Spellslinger archetype (Ultimate Combat, a Wizard archetype) from Pathfinder would look like when shifted to Starfinder. The concept is certainly appropriate to Starfinder and the Technomancer has some ability to enhance weapons.

Given that in general Starfinder archetypes are supposed to apply to any class, Starfinder archetypes may not be the correct solution. I'm just not sure what would be.

The spellslinger's thing was being able to cast spells, use a gun and use the gun to cast spells better. i think we have already seen the Technomancer do just that at only level 2. That spell which added 3D6 to a gun's next shot and the Technomancer being able to use small arms basically makes them a spellslinger right out of the start, doesnt it?

To take the Spellslinger a step further, we don't know what their subclasses are like, or if they even have them, but if they do spellslinger could be one. Don't know entirely how it would work since we don't know all the rules yet, but basically channel their spell through their gun, and that would enhance their spell somehow. Like, say, adding part of the weapon level to some aspect of it or some
thing? If nothing else, use it for any offensive spells to add things like weapon focus to the attack roll.

As I see it, SF archetypes are more akin to PRCs, while the archetypes we know from PF are represented by built-in class feature choices.

As I see it, SF archetypes are more akin to PRCs, while the archetypes we know from PF are represented by built-in class feature choices.

Variant Multiclassing seems to be a more apt comparison. 3 minor changes are all the differences: Switch trading feats at set levels for trading what are basically feat equivalent class features at set levels. Allow for the VMC options to not fill all the set levels. Tie Progression to a single class rather than character level. This gets you from VMC to SF archetypes.

A single class phrenic soldier for example looks awfully like a fighter vmc psychic concept.

I actually want to introduce Multiclass Archetypes in my game. How they'll work exactly will probably be based on how each class' abilities work.

I actually want to introduce Multiclass Archetypes in my game. How they'll work exactly will probably be based on how each class' abilities work.

Could you elaborate? Do you mean an Archetype that works regardless of the fact you're multi-classing? Or an Archetype designed to facilitate Multi-Classing? Or an Archetype designed to work as a replacement for Multi-classing in the vein of variant Multi-Classing?

Like... From context (that the person above you mentioned it) it sounds like that last one... But it doesn't hurt to ask since its unclear.

I actually want to introduce Multiclass Archetypes in my game. How they'll work exactly will probably be based on how each class' abilities work.

I'm guessing that it'll be pretty easy- every class trades out stuff at the same levels, so you could just get what another class gives up. (If that's spellcasting, grant an SLA of appropriate level, for instance.) It'd be more powerful overall, but sounds like fun!

I actually want to introduce Multiclass Archetypes in my game. How they'll work exactly will probably be based on how each class' abilities work.

By multiclass archetypes do you mean something like these?