Archetypes for All

I quite like this. Very similar to Starfinder.

The only concern I would have would be with classes that are heavily reliant on class feats for their class flavour. In Starfinder the Envoy for example relies completely on their 'Improvisations' for their class abilities and an Envoy character taking Starfinder archetype makes it barely an Envoy. I can see a similar problem happening here if some classes are more reliant on their class feats than others.

A Starfinder homebrew that I think might be good for Pathfinder core is to make it a choice whether to give up Class feats or some other kind of feat in order to choose the Archetype Feat. It messes with the progression by a level though... so it might just be a table rule for any game I might run.

One big difference here is that in Starfinder, you definitely lost specific envoy improvs that might prevent you from hitting your core envoy combo for a long time. Here, you pick when you take the archetype feats, so in a hypothetical "envoyesque" situation, you can make sure you have what you feel you need first, then grab the archetype next.

One cool part is that if someone wants a "gestalt" style game with more archetypes on every character (perhaps to make up for fewer PCs), they could always double up on class feats starting at 2nd and say that one always has to be for an archetype.

After the really cool feats we've already seen, this seems like a massive step backwards.

Is a critical success for balancing on a moving ship or swimming going to matter compared to a normal success most of the time? I think a pirate would care more about not failing, turning a normal failure into a success.

Holding your breath for a few minutes is fine but taking a feat for that is a huge investment when you're going to want to use waterbreathing magic 95% of the time anyways.

Boarding Action is just absolutely awful. You have a slightly upgraded version of the charge feat...that only works once in an encounter...and it has to be on a boat...and you have to be the one boarding the other ship. It's near prone shooter levels of bad design.

"It lets you close the distance to your foes, and if you move from one ship to another during this move, you can make a strike that deals extra damage!" Yeah, being able to Stride twice is good for closing the distance...but you could also spend those two actions it costs to...Stride twice. Or one action to swing on a rope!

EDIT: Nevermind, was ninja asked and answered.

Will there still be archetypes that remove or limit core class features and alter/replace them with other features?

These archetypes (e.g. Wyrmwitch) are some of my favorites (and I believe Archeologist is the highest rated archetype for Bard). Limitations create a framework for creativity (e.g. poetic form) and I find that archetypes with limitations are some of the most fun archetypes to play. I'd hate to see them go.

So the one thing I really hope is not gone from Pathfinder 2nd Edition is Archetypes which interact with, replace, or change class features which are not feats.

A lot of the time I might want to pick an archetype because I wanted to get rid of some class feature which did not fit my concept for my character. For example, a gentleman rogue who would not stoop to stabbing someone in the back (phantom thief), or a lady with an blade of pure energy who does not just blast people at range (kinetic knight.) Sometimes just changing the key stat of a character is really helpful for a concept- like if I imagine my Magus is charming but impulsive not very thoughtful the Eldritch Scion archetype does nicely.

So I hope upon hope, though they may not be in core, that we get some archetypes which fundamentally change a specific class and not just occupy feat slots; though I admit printing a universal "pirate" archetype or "gun" archetype is vastly superior to a dozen different "Uses boats/guns" archetypes.

I think we're going to see things like that in the form of stuff like Druid orders or Barbarian Totems. Stuff you choose at first level that define aspects of the class. That way, they can have the freedom to add more later that trade out the aspects specific to Druid orders or Barbarian Totems, ect, which, given that we know Druid orders will amount to stuff like animal companions and wild shape, will feel much like 1e archetypes, I suspect

The only thing I disliked about this was Sea Legs being a prerequisite for Roll With The Ship, I mean unless I can trade a skill feat for Sea Legs it would be hard for me to take it instead of a class feat unless I really want Roll With The Ship

Considering that most class features are now class feats, I'm not sure you are going to get what you want.

Rogues still have sneak attack, I'd like to play a rogue without sneak attack.

I love the Boarding Action feat. But why does the action have to be embarking or disembarking a boat? I get the theme of it. But what this is saying is that I can swing on a rope better from a boat, than anywhere else. When swinging on a rope should be pretty ubiquitous.

EDIT: Additionally, while I like brevity, the brevity of how this feat is written is actually jarring. I'm not sure, off the top of my head, a better way to be both brief and get your point across. But be aware, that this sort of brevity is going to cause confusion and cause people to read the rules wrong.

Agreed that pirate seems a little niche, but I think it's also fairly powerful if you are in an aquatic campaign. Just hopefully most will be designed to be a bit more broad than that.

Also, if Grey Maiden is an indication, anyone else think the Prestige Archetypes might be a little too powerful? I guess without comparing it to other level 6 or 8 feats we won't know, but it does feel a bit stronger than some of the things we've seen so far.

I have my eye on it; when I designed the Gray Maiden prestige archetype, I was worried it had potential to be slightly too powerful while being subtly so, since much of its power is in things like proficiencies and endurance numbers rather than in more wahoo or obvious things. But I did want a chance to test a pretty high edge (without being obviously problematic) version of what a prestige archetype could do and see what happens. If it gets to be a must-take for characters across the spectrum of classes that want things like master Fortitude and legendary armor proficiency, we'll take note accordingly, whereas if it wasn't enticing, we might not get good data on how to improve it.

I don't really feel like these should be called "archetypes" though, because of how drastically different they are to the archetypes that the Pathfinder audience has had for so long. I'm afraid it will just lead to bad press and misunderstandings.

Going with the name, I'd just call it a "feat path". Same number of characters as "archetype", without the confusion or bad feels.

Tallow wrote:

Considering that most class features are now class feats, I'm not sure you are going to get what you want.

Rogues still have sneak attack, I'd like to play a rogue without sneak attack.

I get that, which is why the second half of my sentence was, "...I'm not sure you are going to get what you want."

Unicore wrote:

IT seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

Nothing is stopping you from taking pirate dedication with your first level class feat, by the looks of it. It will probably depend on the archetype.

The fact it's Feat 2 probably does, unless that doesn't indicate a level pre-requisite.

Honestly I'm not particularly enthralled by PF2 turning everything, its mother and its pets into feats and feat chains. Especially if Prestige Archetypes are going to be Prestige Classes, which would be just sad.

The feats look alright though, even if Pirate's are incredibly situational and basically worthless unless you're doing a nautical campaign. Grey Maiden is cool though, and it's nice to finally see stats for a set of Heavy armor.

IT seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

PIRATE DEDICATION

Prerequisites Dexterity 12, trained in Acrobatics and Sailing Lore

this should be easy enough at level 1

I like the idea, and it seems fun. But I really do hope they actually release more narrow archetypes after core rulebook. I get why for space they can't here, but in the future I hope we do get archetypes limited to types of magic, or classes or specific religions.

I am very excited about these possibilities moving forward. But first let's find out all the cool concepts you guys can build with these archetypes in the playtest! That might uncover even more interesting ideas of ways to grow the design space.

I have my eye on it; when I designed the Gray Maiden prestige archetype, I was worried it had potential to be slightly too powerful while being subtly so, since much of its power is in things like proficiencies and endurance numbers rather than in more wahoo or obvious things. But I did want a chance to test a pretty high edge (without being obviously problematic) version of what a prestige archetype could do and see what happens. If it gets to be a must-take for characters across the spectrum of classes that want things like master Fortitude and legendary armor proficiency, we'll take note accordingly, whereas if it wasn't enticing, we might not get good data on how to improve it.

I can definitely see people complaining on the internet about how getting the best armor and fortitude saves requires them to play a woman and how they are afraid they might get cooties from this or some equally well-grounded concern.

Totally called it!

Class Feats to pick up Archetypes, AMAZING!

The fact that I can advance an Archetype without advancing a specific Class is just great! Multiclass Archetype support is GREATLY advanced with this approach!

Now instead of players feeling like they are "taxed" certain class abilities to get access to an Archetype, they have AGENCY to choose to focus their Class Abilities in this way.

Very well done, I love it!

That's the hope: that archetypes open up more and more options to build characters with nuanced and deep concepts that combine more than just the class alone can provide.

It just adds them to your class feat pool, it doesn't preclude taking regular class feats.

(I will note it did take me a read and a half to get that, though. Could be more clearly worded in the article.)

Oh yeah I get that. It's just the opportunity cost of taking a archetype feat instead of a class feat might be higher for some classes than others is what I'm trying to get at.

This being more flexible than Starfinder is significantly better though as it gives a character flexibility to say choose a class feat for a few levels before dipping back into pirate for example. Maybe that's enough.

Edit: Ahahah, that was a slow double post. thanks Mark. And I agree that just granting extra class feats to be used for archetypes is a super easy homebrew for a somewhat higher powered game!

Heck I can see it being really easy to give say three bonus pirate archetype feats to everyone and there you go. Pirate campaign!

Interesting concept.
I'd have to read more about it or play test to see how I feel of such a change. But I definitely don't hate it.
Promising!

I don't know if i like it yet, I think that maybe you should be able to use general feats, not just class feats, to buy archetype feats. Otherwise you'll have to sacrifice you main class all the time.

I also really don't like that the Gray Maiden is the only prestige archetype on the playtest book. Not just because it's only one prestige archetype, but also because i applauded when it was announced that the Pathfinder Hopeful would be in the Doomsday Dawn book instead of the playtest book. Putting in the Gray Maiden, the only prestige archetype in the book, seems more to me than just "Golarion infused". Also, I was hoping they were finally gonna make Loremaster an interesting wizard option, something akin to Arcane Savant. Not that they aren't going to, but I wanted to see the classic 3.X prestige classes that are included in 1st ed's Core Rulebook.

Really like that 2nd edition's archetypes aren't like Starfinder, it's a relief after boring Stamina (Spell Points) made it in.

Unicore wrote:

IT seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

PIRATE DEDICATION

Prerequisites Dexterity 12, trained in Acrobatics and Sailing Lore

this should be easy enough at level 1

Yeah but, again, it also says Feat 2 in the header, which to me means it's a 2nd level (and onwards) Feat. So not doable level 1, unless Feat 2 means something different than what I think it does.

kwiqsilver wrote:

So are the archetypes that remove some abilities in exchange for others gone?

...

I suspect that the PF1 class specific archetypes can be replicated by a simple collection of class feats (or a class feat tree) - or the Dedication feat could have a class as a prerequisite if the archetype feats change a core part of the class

But that's not quite the same. For example:

One way to fix that might be to give the fighter N combat feats to choose at first level, and turn class abilities like armor training and weapon training into class feats. Actually...that sounds pretty cool. A fighter class that is just a blank slate with "class feat" as the only abilities gained. Consider that my first playtest feedback. :)

I'm pretty sure I would never take the Pirate archetype, even in a nautical campaign. Class feats are a pretty massive opportunity cost, and even in situations where these archetype feats would come up I don't see myself ever wanting them over the more reliable class feats that I could have taken instead. It's pretty much the exact same issue that the various pirate-themed archetypes in PF1 had, really.

The Grey Maiden archetype is much better, though. I could genuinely see myself giving up class feats for those benefits.

So are the archetypes that remove some abilities in exchange for others gone?

It looks like they will, though the exact trade is less "you lose X and gain Y" and more "You HAVE to take Y, meaning you can't choose X at these levels".

I'm going to be perfectly frank, I dislike this a lot. I'm like 50/50 on the prestige class thing, since that makes them way less cumbersome to enter (since most prestige classes were only like 2-3 level dips for some obscure ability anyway), but at the same time it'll make the more interesting ones turn into just another set of class features for a base class.

Archetypes though I don't like the change for. The big selling point for archetypes has always been that they can drastically change the way your character plays. Alchemists have their discoveries, but you can also be a pseudo-cleric, or a guy who sets traps, or a gunslinger, or a ghost ooze person, or even a plant by giving up abilities in such a way that you function significantly differently from other Alchemists.

Now it seems like the only difference between any given Alchemist is what level they decide to pick up whichever class feature they took a feat to get access to. Assuming those are Alchemist-specific archetypes, and not just general purpose ones.

I don't really feel like these should be called "archetypes" though, because of how drastically different they are to the archetypes that the Pathfinder audience has had for so long. I'm afraid it will just lead to bad press and misunderstandings.

Going with the name, I'd just call it a "feat path". Same number of characters as "archetype", without the confusion or bad feels.

I feel that, with class features largely existing in the form of "Class Feats", archetypes are fulfilling the same role as archetypes in PF1, only more flexibly and expansively.

This is gonna be the thing going forward. Things sharing the same name in PF2 are often going to be mechanically quite different, but they are probably filling the same purpose and design space.

@kwiqsilver It actually does seem incredibly easy homebrew to turn all class abilities into 'bonus class feats' that can be swapped out for other class feats if you wish. Maximum flexibility right from the get go. Don't think it should be core though as you'd need really careful GM fiat and too hard to balance in core.

Mark, if I go Pirate and then repent of it, can I retrain those feats into normal class feats (keeping the Dedication until last of course)?

I do like that it is both simpler to figure out what you would sacrifice than what starfinder is doing but also making it so everybody basically has to sacrifice the same kind of resource to do an archetype.

kwiqsilver wrote:

So are the archetypes that remove some abilities in exchange for others gone?

It looks like they will, though the exact trade is less "you lose X and gain Y" and more "You HAVE to take Y, meaning you can't choose X at these levels".

I'm going to be perfectly frank, I dislike this a lot. I'm like 50/50 on the prestige class thing, since that makes them way less cumbersome to enter (since most prestige classes were only like 2-3 level dips for some obscure ability anyway), but at the same time it'll make the more interesting ones turn into just another set of class features for a base class.

Archetypes though I don't like the change for. The big selling point for archetypes has always been that they can drastically change the way your character plays. Alchemists have their discoveries, but you can also be a pseudo-cleric, or a guy who sets traps, or a gunslinger, or a ghost ooze person, or even a plant by giving up abilities in such a way that you function significantly differently from other Alchemists.

Now it seems like the only difference between any given Alchemist is what level they decide to pick up whichever class feature they took a feat to get access to. Assuming those are Alchemist-specific archetypes, and not just general purpose ones.

I'm gonna disagree with this evaluation. In effect, classes out of the gate are more flexible than in PF1. Archetypes functioned the way they did because classes had way more features granted automatically.

Now in PF2, they have a more piecemeal approach that changes the need for such archetypes. Class features being turned into individual class options removes much of the need of largely mechanical archetypes, and these new archetype feats seem more like flavor and theme archetypes.

Heck I can see it being really easy to give say three bonus pirate archetype feats to everyone and there you go. Pirate campaign!

Yep, I can imagine spotting everybody the same archetype like that could be one way to increase the power level and tighten the campaign theming at the same time.

I really like the way that archetypes will work in 2e and also how the prestige classes will be baked into the system.

Now, will every dedication feat require 2 other feats to allow another feat or will it vary? If its always 2, it might be better to put it into a general rule of the system so it don't occupy so much space on each feat.

Mark, if I go Pirate and then repent of it, can I retrain those feats into normal class feats (keeping the Dedication until last of course)?

Absolutely!

I am very curious to see if multi-classing is going to be feat dependent as well now.

Boarding Action is one of those feats that nearly every pirate can be expected to have, since setting yourself up to board and pillage the enemy ship is going to be vital!

Really? Because it kinda looks like you need three feats (Pirate Dedication, Rope Runner, Boarding Action) in order to actually be able to do so, which is a serious investment for a character. Considering these have to compete with class feats, I'd imagine that most pirates wouldn't be able to pick up Boarding Action for some time into their build.

Overall, don't really like the idea of more feat chains (which I thought we were getting away from). I'd say that having 1 feat to access the archetype is fine - but both of the pirate archetype feats shown seem to be part of feat chains beyond the initial dedication, which really diminish the value for me. Other than that, I think these archetypes look great, but please don't make all archetype feats be parts of feat chains.

jimthegray wrote:

Unicore wrote:

IT seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

PIRATE DEDICATION

Prerequisites Dexterity 12, trained in Acrobatics and Sailing Lore

this should be easy enough at level 1

Yeah but, again, it also says Feat 2 in the header, which to me means it's a 2nd level (and onwards) Feat. So not doable level 1, unless Feat 2 means something different than what I think it does.

good point , i had thought not thought of that

Looks very cool!

Never cared much for prestige classes and I have gotten sick of archetypes over the years.

Rope Runner might be a General, or even a Skill feat, which might take some of the sting out of the feat chain.

I'm pretty sure I would never take the Pirate archetype, even in a nautical campaign. Class feats are a pretty massive opportunity cost, and even in situations where these archetype feats would come up I don't see myself ever wanting them over the more reliable class feats that I could have taken instead. It's pretty much the exact same issue that the various pirate-themed archetypes in PF1 had, really.

Seems like this is going to make it tricky to playtest things like the pirate archetype, since if the PCs aren't expecting a nautical theme, nobody is going to take the pirate archetype. I wonder if there's a heavy sailing component for Doomsday Dawn just to get data on this.

Like if people avoid taking an option because it "looks weak" that's not actually *play*testing.

Having most non Prestige Dedications being Feat 1 does seem to be important though. Some Skulls and Shackles campaign traits in 1E really should be pirates right from level 1 while the more fish out of water ones should become more piratey as the character evolves as the character concept demands. I think everyone gets class feats at Level 1 so it would be an easy change for greater flexibility and strengthen a character's backstory.

John Ryan 783 wrote:

I like the idea, and it seems fun. But I really do hope they actually release more narrow archetypes after core rulebook. I get why for space they can't here, but in the future I hope we do get archetypes limited to types of magic, or classes or specific religions.

I am very excited about these possibilities moving forward. But first let's find out all the cool concepts you guys can build with these archetypes in the playtest! That might uncover even more interesting ideas of ways to grow the design space.

But how will the terminology around that work in the future. If we have these feat-based-archetypes and then add on class-based-archetypes later, will they still both be called archetypes? Because they will be using fairly different mechanics and that could get confusing to talk about.

I actually like this approach a lot. Archetypes as class feats feels like a natural evolution from PF1, and the solution to Prestige Classes is honestly something I'm kind of surprised didn't happen in the first edition.

This also opens up some great design space. Vigilante can now be a very big archetype, no need to have a new specialization to make the super-hero version of every class. I could even see things like Lycanthropy or Lichdom becoming archetype options (taking a cue from Horror Adventure's corruptions).

Though we're probably not getting it in core (though I'm still secretly hoping), can I put in the request now for PF2 Master Chymist sooner rather than later?

Melkiador: I'm pretty sure any 'class archetypes' will be just like these general 2E archetypes but with a prerequisite that the character must have X number of levels in a class or the class feat being replaced must be a class feat for class Y.

I think I'm going to enjoy how modular the new system is. My players and I were talking about the switch from 2e to 3.0 and how it took us a minute to understand what feats were and how they worked. Now everything is a feat it seems. Interesting how the game changes over time.

--Vrock, Paper, Scissors

Unicore wrote:

IT seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

PIRATE DEDICATION

Prerequisites Dexterity 12, trained in Acrobatics and Sailing Lore

this should be easy enough at level 1

Then you see the feat 2 at the top that indicates it can't be taken till level 2

Never cared much for prestige classes and I have gotten sick of archetypes over the years.

Good news for you, because the mechanic described in the blog post is completely unlike both prestige classes and PF1 archetypes. Only thing it shares is a name, really.

A whole hell of a lot of room to grow, but so far restricted by the concept of "feat." I'm more interested in what these more specific archetypes have in store.

This seems pretty promising, but I'm curious if that means all Alchemists are permanently stuck with bombs, for example.

On specific details, I'm not sure if I like how that pirate one (Sea Legs) is essentially a skill feat that is going into your class feat slot. That generally seems like it'd be weaker and limit you quite a bit, but I'm going to have to see the comparisons that can be made.

Class-agnostic archetypes are a pretty nice idea, though.

And come back on Monday for a massive blog that I am sure will resonate with many of you!

I am looking forward to actually being able to conduct a decent analysis of resonance.

kwiqsilver wrote:

So are the archetypes that remove some abilities in exchange for others gone?

I like this type of archetype, because it expresses specializing in a an aspect of that class (similar to a wizard selecting a school). Two examples that come to mind are the Armor Master and Polearm Master fighter archetypes from Pathfinder 1. In these, the fighter skips some training in weapons to focus on defense, or skips some training in weapon variety to focus on a type of weapon.

The old system allowed two fighters to be very different, almost as different as a fighter and a ranger, even at first level. The new system sounds like all fighters will have the same generic base abilities and then just advance separately. This doesn't seem much different than feat trees, like the Pathfinder 1 Critical Focus tree, Blindfight tree, or Feint tree.

There is still design space for archetypes that morph something specific in a class. However, putting out several of them for each class would take a pretty big footprint in the playtest book, and the thing we have less testing on is these types of archetypes anyone can take.

So will there be more archetypes that are class specific? Cause as of right now, I am not into the new archetype system. As of right now, they just add additional themed options to the core base class you are building as Kwik mentioned. There are archetypes that alter/change a Paladins Smite Evil, a Cleric's Channel, or a Magus' spell strike/spell combat that make them similar but totally different. Paladin's that smite evil with a gun only or against different creature types etc. Now it seems like you will get a base class but it can optionally do themed stuff.

I think my worry also stems from the fact that certain class features were "removed" but you have to "re-add" them. Like the recent Monk reveal. The unchained monk had access to monk weapons and stunning fist at level 1. Now the new monk has to focus on one or the other. Sure a monk in PF1 could focus on one facet of his features over the other but at least we had access to both. It never feels good to have less psychologically, especially when you use to have more before. I could be wrong. Now if you were to take an archetype for a monk, level 1 you would have to decide if you wanted your new themed thing vs your "normal" monk stuff. This is similar to how it was in PF1 where it replaced Monk Features but I don't know.

I almost feel like these blanket archetypes that anyone can take should be renamed. In my mind they aren't really archetypes but themed asset packages that classes can optionally choose from. But this sentiment can just be only me.

Alchemaic wrote:

I'm gonna disagree with this evaluation. In effect, classes out of the gate are more flexible than in PF1. Archetypes functioned the way they did because classes had way more features granted automatically.

Now in PF2, they have a more piecemeal approach that changes the need for such archetypes. Class features being turned into individual class options removes much of the need of largely mechanical archetypes, and these new archetype feats seem more like flavor and theme archetypes.

Maybe, but my gut reaction is still that this looks less like choosing between a motorcycle, a sedan, and an 18-wheeler when you choose archetypes, and more like choosing between a sedan with the internet radio or the bluetooth phone integration, with the assumption that you can get the other installed later.

I would be happy to be proved wrong though.

I agree that, superficially at least, the pirate feats look weaker/narrower than what I expect the class feats they're replacing offer. The only caveat is that they are granting signature skills and from what we've heard so far its possible, but semi-rare, so that might be a large bit of their value.

Yes, I would like some more attention not to make archetype feats so circumstantial/narrow. They should provide big circumstancial benefits and some more general benefits as well if they are going to replace class feats.

Tholomyes wrote:

Agreed that pirate seems a little niche, but I think it's also fairly powerful if you are in an aquatic campaign. Just hopefully most will be designed to be a bit more broad than that.

Also, if Grey Maiden is an indication, anyone else think the Prestige Archetypes might be a little too powerful? I guess without comparing it to other level 6 or 8 feats we won't know, but it does feel a bit stronger than some of the things we've seen so far.

I have my eye on it; when I designed the Gray Maiden prestige archetype, I was worried it had potential to be slightly too powerful while being subtly so, since much of its power is in things like proficiencies and endurance numbers rather than in more wahoo or obvious things. But I did want a chance to test a pretty high edge (without being obviously problematic) version of what a prestige archetype could do and see what happens. If it gets to be a must-take for characters across the spectrum of classes that want things like master Fortitude and legendary armor proficiency, we'll take note accordingly, whereas if it wasn't enticing, we might not get good data on how to improve it.

So is this the other way to get Legendary Amour Proficiency other than Paladin?