Archetypes for All

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Link Please? I've seen them say they will make class specific archetypes, but that is vastly different to classic archetypes. Replacing class feats for 1 class vs any class is hardly the same thing as classic archetypes.

Sure, Mark says it here.

Thanks. I genuinely hadn't seen it (thread was already 4 page and didn't have time to read every post).

1) So your view is that even if the mechanics are neat, that because I'm not playing in Paizo's setting my group shouldn't be allowed to use the archetype?

Not without houserules. Nothing wrong with that, I use more than my fair share of houserules in PF1.

I think this mechanic looks neat, but I'm a little confused by the pirate archetype. All of its baseline abilities look like they're skill based. Shouldn't this be a skill feat? Or am I missing the distinction between the two?

(All of the class feats we've seen so far are these big, flashy powers that do cool stuff, and the pirate archetype's like, "Here are some skills guys!" It just feels really off for that reason.)

The point of the pirate archetype IMO is to have a category of feats that only a very specific type of character or specific campaign would use, and then have them all grouped together rather than cluttering up any feat list that would be relevant more often.

These feats would be a waste if you aren't going to be super nautical, so they would be trap options in the skill feats. And if you are playing a nautical campaign, it gives you quick access to this whole category of relevant feats.

Now, as pointed out, some of them may still not be strong enough in their specific context Boarding Action for example, seems like it won't come up that often and if it did the prerequisites seem kinda steep.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Link Please? I've seen them say they will make class specific archetypes, but that is vastly different to classic archetypes. Replacing class feats for 1 class vs any class is hardly the same thing as classic archetypes.

Sure, Mark says it here.

Thanks. I genuinely hadn't seen it (thread was already 4 page and didn't have time to read every post).

No problem, I probably should've realized that, thinking about it.

I'm not won over by claims this adds to modularity.

A feat tax or elite feat chain or whatever has been described is not an archetype as was presented in PF1e. Describing these as archetypes is disingenuous. The developers outlined the constraints in the first paragraph, but the solution does not bear out the name.

Very disappointed in this direction.

If multiclassing is VMC by another name I'll be twice as disappointed.

Feats are for modularity and choice outside the class choice, and baking these two integral choices into feats taxes those regardless of how many we now get. PF2 classes appear so bland that Featfinder becomes a thing with nothing to compel meaningful choices outside of feats beyond ABCD. Which some might say is more open than PF1.

Personally, many archetypes in PF1e didn't quite deliver, in fact I am constantly disappointed by the lack of facility they offer. But the great ones shine. If the first Dedication feat is full of power and flavor, in essence, worth more than a feat, then fine. Otherwise you are just locking lacklustre chains behind an initial feat tax.

And if they only start at level 2 then the system is broken. From my point of view. I like to start at 1st level, and be what I am. I do like prestige classes and evolving some characters but not every time I want to choose a meaningful option.

1) Yes, but with some asterisks. If the mechanics are just straight up more powerful versions of things you can already do? Yeah, I'm cool with that getting setting locked. According to the above, Unbreakable gives you the benefits of two general feats, and you get less general feats than class feats so many of us have assumed they are more precious/powerful.

I don't think such things should exist. That would mean the devs would be purposefully creating in imbalance between people who take prestige archetypes and those that don't, and I can't really see paizo intending to do that.

Although, thinking more about boarding action, that could be better based on some movement rules we don't really have yet. I sort of got the impression from the GCP playtest and how the Unchained actio economy works that terrain shifts cost more actions. So for example, running up to a rope, swinging on it, and then running some more might be 3 separate actions. (I'm not crazy about this idea, but it could be the case.)

If that is the case, then the feat gives you some distinct options for enhancing your mobility while swashbuckling on any sort of ropes, and the attack is just kind of niche. Still seems a little underwhelming though. I'm inclined to agree with whoever suggested it should basically be Sudden Charge with a rope anywhere, not just on or off a boat.

Basically, the feat requirements (both in their prerequisites and actual use) are the biggest red flags for me. Like, Sea Legs isn't a bad feat per se, but 2/3rds of it's effects only do anything if you are in the water, but it is the prereq for a feat that only works on a ship. That don't seem right.

Concept is A+. Just got to make sure we land the execution.

graystone wrote:

What stops you from making a group named that in a non-Golarion game? Nothing stops me from joining the Grey Maiden quilting club... :P

Sure, but aren't you the person who always points out to me that you can't count on your GM to cooperate with/make exceptions for you? :)

You're taking me a bit out of context here. ;)

I was replying to "You could never meet the prereq membership in a non-Golarian game without introducing houserules, so it's a non-issue.". In the context of "introducing houserules", the inference is that you already HAVE the DM's acceptance as you are already in the 'make houserule' phase.

I WOULD like to see some guidance for using these kind of things in a non-Golarion game to avoid issues in the final book. I'm also curious on how they define Golarion aspects in the playtest/final game. For instance, will Grey Maiden have more than a blurb or two to explain the prestige class feat.

Basically, the feat requirements (both in their prerequisites and actual use) are the biggest red flags for me. Like, Sea Legs isn't a bad feat per se, but 2/3rds of it's effects only do anything if you are in the water, but it is the prereq for a feat that only works on a ship. That don't seem right.

Concept is A+. Just got to make sure we land the execution.

Sea Legs and Rope Runner aren't the same feat. Just putting that out there. (I'd presume that Rope Runner probably lets you swing on a rope safely for AA.)

As many others have pointed out this isn't really Archetypes as we know them from PF1, it's feat chains with some extra exclusivity rules on them.

Archetypes were what made Pathfinder great, what made it stand out on it's own from 3.5. And Archetypes were great as much from what you gave up as what you got from them. This system is not only lacking that in it's entirety, it's also eating into the already limited-seeming class feats that you want to spend on getting the basic things your class should do (like Smite Evil).

I like the idea of Archetypes giving you access to new Class Feats, and I don't inherently dislike the system. Pirate looks to be kinda meh design-wise though, if it's a campaign where it's good enough to take then everyone should probably have it, and if everyone should have it everyone should have it for free. That's an ok design if that's highlighted and suggested in the rules, but if it's something the GM has to come up with on their own and something that those kinds of campaign-centric archetypes aren't designed around then it's just kinda messy.

The Gray Maiden looks pretty neat, I'm a huge fan of Prestige Classes and I'm glad to see they're making it in though I hope we'll still get proper multiclassing support. I also wish we'd get to see some more classic and setting-agnostic ones like the Arcane Trickster or Shadowdancer. It'll be especially important to see how hybrid/multiclassing based prestige options like the Arcane Trickster or the Mystic Theurge are gonna work to evaluate whether the system ends up fulfilling the function of letting your character branch out into more advanced and unique stuff.

I'll be missing the option for variant class features for the times when you don't want things like sneak attack though. It can be alleviated by offering alternatives for stuff (like the various Divine Bond archetype-enabled alternatives for armour and shield being baked into the ability now). I'd love to see every class get a bit more variety in static abilities without turning everything into interchangeable feats, either through a PF1-style archetype system, or through Barbarian-style totem options or just pick one and only one (and maybe one more as a feat later) options.

I'm very interested in this subsystem as a whole. But Class Feats feel rather limited to me already, so while in the past picking up an archetype was a question of finding the one you wanted, now it might be a question of budget and campaign duration more than anything.

Rules aside, I do like the Grey Maiden illustration. Nice one Wayne - though I think you missed some straps, ties, belts etc. Especially on the legs. ;)

Captain Morgan wrote:

Basically, the feat requirements (both in their prerequisites and actual use) are the biggest red flags for me. Like, Sea Legs isn't a bad feat per se, but 2/3rds of it's effects only do anything if you are in the water, but it is the prereq for a feat that only works on a ship. That don't seem right.

Concept is A+. Just got to make sure we land the execution.

Sea Legs and Rope Runner aren't the same feat. Just putting that out there. (I'd presume that Rope Runner probably lets you swing on a rope safely for AA.)

No, I was referencing Sea Legs being a prerequisite for Roll with the Ship. Roll with the Ship sounds quite powerful in the right setting, but I don't see why it should have a prerequisite that only works outside of that setting.

I'm really excited about this.

As someone who likes to design to suit a concept rather than use a set of standard mechanics — resulting in some rather complicated, but fun, PCs at times — I am seriously liking the "Build Your Own" vibe with the class feats and archetype feats. For both players and GMs, it opens up a huge amount of customization options for when we want to tinker or work to a certain theme, while still providing core options for those days when we just want to use something more like the PF1 baseline.

You know, not even being a fan of VMC, I'd probably be cool with the idea if you could pick up Multiclassing Feats that give you a neat, class-themed bonus and then can pick certain class feats from that chosen class. It's not my preferred method of multiclassing, but I can see how it could work.

I was going to theorize on how and why multiclassing might be implemented as feat options, like archetypes, but that's probably getting off-topic for this thread ;)

All in all, I'm probably less sold on the prestige archetypes, but that's because I was never a fan of prestige classes based on organizations (like the Hellknights or the Gray Maidens) as I felt it came with the expectation that one had to have the prestige class to be part of the organization. At least the prestige archetypes have less restrictions, so that not every card-carrying member of that organization has almost the same build. That does make me happy.

[EDIT] I do want to note that quite a lot archetypes didn't kick in until level 2, level 3, or even higher in core PF1. They might not be the most optimal archetypes ever, but if they were the flavor of character you wanted, you still played like a regular fighter/ranger/rogue etc until that point. So the fact that you might not get access to archetype feat abilities until later levels doesn't really change too much about how they worked to begin with.

NorthernDruid hit on what I think is at the heart of this - Archetypes probably seem okay if you're assuming the average character is getting to adventure all the way to level 15 and that all things are equal.

For those of us used to our character really coming together by level 5 or so this is just one more setback. I don't really want to return to the days of 3.5 where everyone pretty much agrees the game is pointless to play at level 1-4 and level 5 is where you start feeling like you're actually playing the game.

Cyouni wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Basically, the feat requirements (both in their prerequisites and actual use) are the biggest red flags for me. Like, Sea Legs isn't a bad feat per se, but 2/3rds of it's effects only do anything if you are in the water, but it is the prereq for a feat that only works on a ship. That don't seem right.

Concept is A+. Just got to make sure we land the execution.

Sea Legs and Rope Runner aren't the same feat. Just putting that out there. (I'd presume that Rope Runner probably lets you swing on a rope safely for AA.)

No, I was referencing Sea Legs being a prerequisite for Roll with the Ship. Roll with the Ship sounds quite powerful in the right setting, but I don't see why it should have a prerequisite that only works outside of that setting.

Huh, I missed that one noted in there. That one really stands out given that one design concept that was specifically noted earlier was that feat prerequisites basically only included level and whatever was required for the feat to function (like how Abundant Step would require a feat that gives you a Ki Pool). This example seems like neither, which is really odd.

I'm not sure having to keep picking up feats to get further Dedication feats is going to be popular either, unless each Dedication feat comes with a suite of powers.

Nor do I understand why it would be a design decision to make it harder for players to choose more than one archetype. I seem to come across a number of PF1e Magus characters that have expertly woven three or four compatible archetypes into a whole concept - some might find that is going through a lot of hoops to get what you want, but then there are many nuances and choices allowing one to end up at different places. All without losing the combat/teamwork/social/etc feats that make those class-based choices more meaningful and giving players more agency.

I know at this stage this is all crying over milk as yet unspillled, but I can see the lid is off and the bottle tipped. I'll playtest it and then report. That is all we can do that is useful then. Now we can let the developers know how we feel and thus expose our biases so as to be categorised in the surveys.

Some of these things are not subject to change.

The biggest problem with replacing prcs this way is the lack of dual advancement classes (Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge ect.). Unless multiclassing is really divorced from d20 standards that's going to be a problem with remaining competent in either.

I found those a little problematic. Retaining full BAB and spell casting or full dual class casting for the cost of a few feats at best stemmed a little too much for me.

Count me as someone whose also unhappy that archetypes have restrictions on combining them together. Some of my favourite characters had 0 archetypes, other favourites had 3 or 4. Losing that customisation is not a good thing. But perhaps it's unnecessary with how PF2e classes are designed. I will wait and see.

Tallow wrote:

I'm not a fan of Sea Legs being the name of the feat for holding your breath and swimming well. Sea Legs, to me, more refers to exactly the abilities that the Pirate Dedication feat grants.

Maybe something like salt strider as a name

I like Salty Sea Dog for the swimming one. Sea Legs is definitely the Pirate Dedication ability.

Delnoro82 wrote:

Tallow wrote:

I'm not a fan of Sea Legs being the name of the feat for holding your breath and swimming well. Sea Legs, to me, more refers to exactly the abilities that the Pirate Dedication feat grants.

Maybe something like salt strider as a name

I like Salty Sea Dog for the swimming one. Sea Legs is definitely the Pirate Dedication ability.

You could also call it Shellback, it's a bit of an old term for a sailor who'd crossed the equator or something like that.

Sky... pirates...

Paizo? Please. Please create a Pathfinder 2 Adventure Path in which the players get to be Sky Pirates. You can consider it a spiritual descendant of the Skulls and Shackles AP. It would just... be entirely too much fun! Please!

My feedback is… that’s a lot of feats that are only related to skills. Typically in PF1, PCs don’t have many feats invested in skills like Athletics (Climb, Swim, etc).

It doesn’t seem like we’re getting more feats in PF2 (or are these skill feats, which we will get on even levels?), so hopefully we’re not trying to change the game away too much away from a combat focus. I like skills, but I don’t want the entire game to revolve around them.

In the end, people will mostly pick combat feats, because if you can't succeed at combat, nothing else matters. These skill feats will never be used (except maybe in a pirate AP, which is exactly where this archetype should be, not in core!).

I would like if some archetypes were only available to a single class. Basically I'm saying that these new archetypes are OK, but I think the way they were done in PF1 was better. It meant we didn't need to make new classes, we could use the class as the base and then switch things out. I would have thought that would have been desirable, with class features like reactions, etc.

The Pirate Dedication Feat is only about half a skill thing. The ability to ignore difficult terrain and several weapon proficiencies don't exactly scream 'skill'. Sea Legs (in addition to being renamed, because I agree that name makes no sense) should maybe be a Skill Feat.

NorthernDruid hit on what I think is at the heart of this - Archetypes probably seem okay if you're assuming the average character is getting to adventure all the way to level 15 and that all things are equal.

For those of us used to our character really coming together by level 5 or so this is just one more setback. I don't really want to return to the days of 3.5 where everyone pretty much agrees the game is pointless to play at level 1-4 and level 5 is where you start feeling like you're actually playing the game.

This!

I know we are trying to make it easier to introduce new players to the game, but right now it seems like I need a level 5 PF2 character to have the same abilities as my level 1 PF1 character has!

Players want to do fun things at level 1. This is why some of new classes that Paizo has created, like shapechanger, hunter, and kineticist, are popular, because you don't have to wait until level 7-10 to play the character you want to play.

I found those a little problematic. Retaining full BAB and spell casting or full dual class casting for the cost of a few feats at best stemmed a little too much for me.

It's balanced by the cost of entry requiring you enter another class first. The mixing of full BAB, low BAB and the full BAB bonus of Eldritch Knight works out to the same as a cleric, with worse spellcasting. -3 levels of growth on one side is a pretty heavy penalty in a game where your power grows expoentially. If it really was "a little too much" people would actually take them outside of 100% dedicated builds.

Even Arcane Trickster, which has really low requirements that can now be achieved in a 1 level dip and a feat, isn't taken by normal wizards.

Count me as someone whose also unhappy that archetypes have restrictions on combining them together. Some of my favourite characters had 0 archetypes, other favourites had 3 or 4. Losing that customisation is not a good thing. But perhaps it's unnecessary with how PF2e classes are designed. I will wait and see.

PF1 Archetypes had restrictions on combining them together too, though. Only certain archetypes could combine. In fact, the only edge PF1 seems to have in this regards is that you could take all of those archetypes at level 1. (Assuming they were all on the same class, 4 archetypes on one class seems hard to pull off.) The trade off was that you technically could ONLY take them at level 1.

Meanwhile, any PF2 archetype can be combined with any other archetype just by taking a few more feats. That's a steep cost, and I have a hard time imagining wanting to buy more than 2. But then again, if you tried to squeeze 4 archetypes onto a single character in PF1 you were going to gut whatever base class features you had.

And the PF2 archetypes can be added over the course of the character's lifespan, which offers both a large amount of mechanical freedom and narrative potential. I've seen characters multiclass for purely story based reasons before-- taking levels in Inquisitor or Cleric as the character grows more in touch with their faith, for example. Evolutions like that now seem like they might be handled through archetypes now.

eddv wrote:

NorthernDruid hit on what I think is at the heart of this - Archetypes probably seem okay if you're assuming the average character is getting to adventure all the way to level 15 and that all things are equal.

For those of us used to our character really coming together by level 5 or so this is just one more setback. I don't really want to return to the days of 3.5 where everyone pretty much agrees the game is pointless to play at level 1-4 and level 5 is where you start feeling like you're actually playing the game.

This!

I know we are trying to make it easier to introduce new players to the game, but right now it seems like I need a level 5 PF2 character to have the same abilities as my level 1 PF1 character has!

Players want to do fun things at level 1. This is why some of new classes that Paizo has created, like shapechanger, hunter, and kineticist, are popular, because you don't have to wait until level 7-10 to play the character you want to play.

But it also is a Boon to lik you said both new players and I have seen quite a few players that like that low level gritty rp feel whihc is generally been supported by low level characters. Its why that whole E6 things or whatever is around. I would suggest if you prefer the higher level feel just start your characters at a higher level. I think its a little selfish to compleltly leave out one style of play because someone is not willing to make a compromise of starting ones character at a higher level.

It doesn’t seem like we’re getting more feats in PF2 (or are these skill feats, which we will get on even levels?), so hopefully we’re not trying to change the game away too much away from a combat focus. I like skills, but I don’t want the entire game to revolve around them.

Most classes seem to get about 11 class feats, 11 skill feats, 5 ancestry feat, and 5 general feats. That's 32 feats, which is indeed more than you got in PF1.

There will be at least some feats in all of those categories that are relevant in combat. General feats can boost your HP, get you armor proficiency, or make it harder for you to bleed out. Ancestry feats can net you weapon proficiency, add extra damage, or give you new magic. Skills are now used for combat maneuvers, and skill feats can let you heal mid-combat, quickly identify magical threats, and ignore fall damage.

It seems reasonable to assume that if you wanted every feat you ever get to be related to combat, you could probably make it happen.

eddv wrote:

NorthernDruid hit on what I think is at the heart of this - Archetypes probably seem okay if you're assuming the average character is getting to adventure all the way to level 15 and that all things are equal.

For those of us used to our character really coming together by level 5 or so this is just one more setback. I don't really want to return to the days of 3.5 where everyone pretty much agrees the game is pointless to play at level 1-4 and level 5 is where you start feeling like you're actually playing the game.

This!

I know we are trying to make it easier to introduce new players to the game, but right now it seems like I need a level 5 PF2 character to have the same abilities as my level 1 PF1 character has!

Players want to do fun things at level 1. This is why some of new classes that Paizo has created, like shapechanger, hunter, and kineticist, are popular, because you don't have to wait until level 7-10 to play the character you want to play.

Can you give an example of a level 1 PF1 character that you feel has lost abilities? I feel like most of the possibilities I plot out feel like they've grown in PF2 in comparison.

(Barring alchemist, where mutagen has literally moved.)

eddv wrote:

NorthernDruid hit on what I think is at the heart of this - Archetypes probably seem okay if you're assuming the average character is getting to adventure all the way to level 15 and that all things are equal.

For those of us used to our character really coming together by level 5 or so this is just one more setback. I don't really want to return to the days of 3.5 where everyone pretty much agrees the game is pointless to play at level 1-4 and level 5 is where you start feeling like you're actually playing the game.

This!

I know we are trying to make it easier to introduce new players to the game, but right now it seems like I need a level 5 PF2 character to have the same abilities as my level 1 PF1 character has!

Players want to do fun things at level 1. This is why some of new classes that Paizo has created, like shapechanger, hunter, and kineticist, are popular, because you don't have to wait until level 7-10 to play the character you want to play.

I do agree that based on what we've seen overall, lower level play seems to need more oomph. Only getting one Ancestry feat, in particular, is infuriating. Non-prestige archetype dedications should be level 1, not level 2, with the subsidiary feats then being moved down 2 levels so that you can start building on the archetype.

HOWEVER. From what I've seen, the core design of the ancestries, classes, archetypes etc isn't the problem here. This is a case where each individual component actually generally looks pretty great overall. I generally have qualms about individual specific things, like getting stuck with bombs as an alchemist when you wanted to be Dr Jekyll, but overall what has been revealed I tend to like a lot.

Where it seems to be failing to gel, at least at low levels, is just the numbers. Specifically, since everything is feat-locked, just not being given a large enough number of feats to make a character that can feel competent or can do what they could do at low levels in PF1.

Give at least two ancestry feats, so people can have both a biological heritage feat and a culture feat. Give two class feats, so someone can either emphasize their class abilities or do both class and an archetype dedication. Give two skill feats, so people have some stuff to do out of combat even with really low bonuses.

This would also kind of solve the worry about front-loading the first level or two of a class for multiclassing purposes. What gets front loaded is not any individual class but the character him or herself. The class they spent the most time training for in their background, years in most cases, is the one that gets the bonus feats at 1st level - 1st CHARACTER level, not 1st class level. You can then spread out class progression so each level up has a satisfying rhythm, knowing you've solved the dipping problem without hamstringing low level play.

1) Yes, but with some asterisks. If the mechanics are just straight up more powerful versions of things you can already do? Yeah, I'm cool with that getting setting locked. According to the above, Unbreakable gives you the benefits of two general feats, and you get less general feats than class feats so many of us have assumed they are more precious/powerful.

There's another consideration here though. Unbreakable is an 8th level feat, that requires another feat, that itself has a lot of prerequisites. And we already know that prerequisites aside, higher level locked feats in PF2 can just be flat out better than lower level feats. So an 8th level massively multiprerequisite feat that combines Toughness and Diehard, which are undoubtedly low level feats and Toughness of which in particular has always been a trap except in Starfinder, does not feel broken at all.

...

I think the thing to watch out for to is then depending on how multi-classing is suppose to works. (I don't know) Is making sure classes are so front loaded that if you take 1st level in a dozen different classes your not significantly more powerful then if you solo classed. I suppose you could do that exception thing where only the true first level give you the bonus stuff. I'm going to have to see the full play test document to really tell I think.

PF1 Archetypes had restrictions on combining them together too, though.

Sure. But the restriction wasn't "you must advance in X worth of feats in archetype Y before you can go into archetype Z".

In fact, the only edge PF1 seems to have in this regards is that you could take all of those archetypes at level 1. (Assuming they were all on the same class, 4 archetypes on one class seems hard to pull off.)

You're right. 4 archetypes at level 1 isn't possible. But not all archetypes came online at level 4. However for a monk you could combine without much difficulty: Qi Gong Jing, Drunken Master and Weapon Adept (okay, so 3 archetypes. I did say 3 or 1. Although i haven't checked to see if Ultimate Combat has any compatible archetypes. I'm instead just using an example of a character I actually played).

The trade off was that you technically could ONLY take them at level 1.

Are you sure? We always ruled that you could take the archetype once you reached the level it came online

Meanwhile, any PF2 archetype can be combined with any other archetype just by taking a few more feats.

Yeah. I find feat chains dressed up as archetypes with restrictions on taking other feat chains to be completely underwhelming. Highlighting that doesn't make it a selling point.

That's a steep cost, and I have a hard time imagining wanting to buy more than 2.

You're right. Feat chains are expensive and it was rare to invest in more than one or two. Archetypes on the other hand enabled all sorts of character concepts that weren't easily made with just the class's base class features.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

...

I think the thing to watch out for to is then depending on how multi-classing is suppose to works. (I don't know) Is making sure classes are so front loaded that if you take 1st level in a dozen different classes your not significantly more powerful then if you solo classed. I suppose you could do that exception thing where only the true first level give you the bonus stuff. I'm going to have to see the full play test document to really tell I think.

That's exactly what I was saying, yeah. Give the bonus feats to the CHARACTER at 1st level, don't actually have each class having a bunch of bonus feats at 1st level on its class table.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

...

I think the thing to watch out for to is then depending on how multi-classing is suppose to works. (I don't know) Is making sure classes are so front loaded that if you take 1st level in a dozen different classes your not significantly more powerful then if you solo classed. I suppose you could do that exception thing where only the true first level give you the bonus stuff. I'm going to have to see the full play test document to really tell I think.

That's exactly what I was saying, yeah. Give the bonus feats to the CHARACTER at 1st level, don't actually have each class having a bunch of bonus feats at 1st level on its class table.

Ah ok then that could work. I don't know if it is necessary until I see the full document but I'm not opposed to it.

That's exactly what I was saying, yeah. Give the bonus feats to the CHARACTER at 1st level, don't actually have each class having a bunch of bonus feats at 1st level on its class table.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, light and medium armor, bucklers and shields (except tower shields).

Bonus Fighter Feats: Fighters get 2 bonus level 1 fighter feats of their choice.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Paladins are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, all armor and shields (except tower shields).

Paladins get locked into heavy armor because that's an iconic part of their class. Fighters on the other hand get a little bit more flexibility that lets them either choose to invest in heavy armor or invest in something else relevant to their build.

I do agree that based on what we've seen overall, lower level play seems to need more oomph. Only getting one Ancestry feat, in particular, is infuriating. Non-prestige archetype dedications should be level 1, not level 2, with the subsidiary feats then being moved down 2 levels so that you can start building on the archetype.

HOWEVER. From what I've seen, the core design of the ancestries, classes, archetypes etc isn't the problem here. This is a case where each individual component actually generally looks pretty great overall. I generally have qualms about individual specific things, like getting stuck with bombs as an alchemist when you wanted to be Dr Jekyll, but overall what has been revealed I tend to like a lot.

Where it seems to be failing to gel, at least at low levels, is just the numbers. Specifically, since everything is feat-locked, just not being given a large enough number of feats to make a character that can feel competent or can do what they could do at low levels in PF2.

Give at least two ancestry feats, so people can have both a biological heritage feat and a culture feat. Give two class feats, so someone can either emphasize their class abilities or do both class and an archetype dedication. Give two skill feats, so people have some stuff to do out of combat even with really low bonuses.

This would also kind of solve the worry about front-loading the first level or two of a class for multiclassing purposes. What gets front loaded is not any individual class but the character him or herself. The class they spent the most time training for in their background, years in most cases, is the one that gets the bonus feats at 1st level - 1st CHARACTER level, not 1st class level. You can then spread out class progression so each level up has a satisfying rhythm, knowing you've solved the dipping problem without hamstringing low level play.

I share some of these sentiments-- it does seem like we aren't getting as many things out the gate, especially related to Ancestries. However, the individual things we are getting seem better than the individual things we got before. Gnomes can get a gosh darn familiar at level 1, and familiars are now way more flexible than they were in PF1. That is easily more interesting than any gnome racial feature in PF1, and I'd trade more than one of them in PF1 to get a familiar.

Or take Monastic Weapons. I know we are all kind of miffed monks lost weapon proficiency, but let's compare that feat to what it would take to get that effect in PF1:

At least 1 weapon Proficiency
Weapon Focus in a particular weapon.
Ascetic Style
BAB +5 or Monk Level 5
Ascetic Form

And all that lets you use your unarmed strike tricks with ONE weapon. One 1st level PF2 feat provides a greater benefit than a 5tht level monk could get out of 3 feats (minus the +1 to hit from weapon focus, of course.)

Then there's just stuff inherent to the system that gives character more to do or more ways to have their concept come alive early. Cantrips mean a 1st level caster never has to resort to use crossbows, and can cast a spell every round of every combat. We have something akin to parry just built into shields now.

There's another consideration here though. Unbreakable is an 8th level feat, that requires another feat, that itself has a lot of prerequisites. And we already know that prerequisites aside, higher level locked feats in PF2 can just be flat out better than lower level feats. So an 8th level massively multiprerequisite feat that combines Toughness and Diehard, which are undoubtedly low level feats and Toughness of which in particular has always been a trap except in Starfinder, does not feel broken at all.

All good points.

The more I think about it, the more I'm not sure that the archetype model makes sense. Much of the "Pirate" archetype seems more suited to skill feats, and the aspects which aren't suited for skill feats seam to be worse than standard class feats. I don't mind less optimal options in some cases, but I feel that every option should have a reason for being, but I don't think the "pirate" archetype fits that mold, as it stands.

Give at least two ancestry feats, so people can have both a biological heritage feat and a culture feat. Give two class feats, so someone can either emphasize their class abilities or do both class and an archetype dedication. Give two skill feats, so people have some stuff to do out of combat even with really low bonuses.

I'm pretty sure at level 1 you get two class feats (as a martial, at least). I seem to recall all the sample characters having two, but what they were I can't remember off the top of my head. I think Paladin had one that removed the hand requirement for lay on hands and one that upped the lay on hands dice from 1d4 to 1d6.

I can't help but feel a more interesting Prestige Class could have been the one included. I'm partial to Mystic Theurge myself but Horizon Walker or Shadow Dancer or even one of the Pathfinder Society based prestige classes could have been picked.

More than one would also be used because while a lot of people might want to playtest Prestige Archetypes not all of them might want to be a Gray Maiden.

Of course that goes back to the time constraint of having the book in print in time for the street date, but I'm not gonna get into that. It's too late to change it. Here's hoping the errata policy changes to be useful though. :)

So one thing about stacking archetypes is that I suspect "class specific archetypes" (which don't exist yet but will) will not require a dedication so as to be easily compatible with "universal archetypes". After all, there's no reason that one monk couldn't combine a life of piracy with being a drunken master- these things shouldn't even get in the way of each other.

Another is that we're probably set for fewer archetypes than in PF1 just because of the inherent modularity of this system. Any time they create a new subsystem for a splatbook we don't need a dozen archetypes which interact with the subsystem,, we can just print new class feats which give ways classes can interact with the new rules. We can after all just add new Fighter feats, and cross-list them for Barbarians (e.g. Sudden Charge).

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Give at least two ancestry feats, so people can have both a biological heritage feat and a culture feat. Give two class feats, so someone can either emphasize their class abilities or do both class and an archetype dedication. Give two skill feats, so people have some stuff to do out of combat even with really low bonuses.

I'm pretty sure at level 1 you get two class feats (as a martial, at least). I seem to recall all the sample characters having two, but what they were I can't remember off the top of my head. I think Paladin had one that removed the hand requirement for lay on hands and one that upped the lay on hands dice from 1d4 to 1d6.

This is exactly what I found at the Delve tables. The Paladin had Warded Touch (LoH lost interact trait) and Hospice Knight. (LoH goes from d4 to d6) I also noticed that Fumbus, Merisiel, and Valeros had two class feats at 1st level as well.

Looking at the Gray Maiden plate stats, it seems like they're using the item level stuff from Starfinder. I guess that's old info that I hadn't noticed yet. I have to say that's a pretty disappointing decision.

So one thing about stacking archetypes is that I suspect "class specific archetypes" (which don't exist yet but will) will not require a dedication so as to be easily compatible with "universal archetypes". After all, there's no reason that one monk couldn't combine a life of piracy with being a drunken master- these things shouldn't even get in the way of each other.

Another is that we're probably set for fewer archetypes than in PF1 just because of the inherent modularity of this system. Any time they create a new subsystem for a splatbook we don't need a dozen archetypes which interact with the subsystem,, we can just print new class feats which give ways classes can interact with the new rules. We can after all just add new Fighter feats, and cross-list them for Barbarians (e.g. Sudden Charge).

I like the first part! To get the class specific archetype features you are most likely already losing some of your base stuff, so it would be very convenient if they didn't require a tax to use... Granted there used to be archetypes that gave you unique Magus Arcana to pick from and stuff like that too (not just replace feature).

Alright don't know if it's been said yet or not but let's clear the air on this taking archetypes at 1sr level or not? Thing.

The pirate one requires Trained in 2 skills. Trained is the base level for a skill for a character. As you create your character, your ancestry and background give you skill options to become trained in, this means you are trained in them before you even pick a class. This also means that the pirate archetype is easily attainable at 1st level. As it requires a class feat slot to take. so when you pick your class this means you can either become a pirate or add an ability to your class.

A potential issue though- if you wanted to critical path your way to a prestige class... er archetype, you will want to avoid all other archetypes like the plague. Since, unless you get extra class feats somehow, you won't have a the pirate dedication and two other pirate feats by 6th level to take the gray maiden dedication.

I get that certain kind of (a)vocations will make it harder to get into the special club, but just "having one" making it harder to get the prestige class seems unintentional. It feels like having spent some time as a Pirate should make it easier to become a Gray Corsair, not harder.

Captain Morgan wrote:

PF1 Archetypes had restrictions on combining them together too, though.

Sure. But the restriction wasn't "you must advance in X worth of feats in archetype Y before you can go into archetype Z".

Captain Morgan wrote:

In fact, the only edge PF1 seems to have in this regards is that you could take all of those archetypes at level 1. (Assuming they were all on the same class, 4 archetypes on one class seems hard to pull off.)

You're right. 4 archetypes at level 1 isn't possible. But not all archetypes came online at level 4. However for a monk you could combine without much difficulty: Qi Gong Jing, Drunken Master and Weapon Adept (okay, so 3 archetypes. I did say 3 or 1. Although i haven't checked to see if Ultimate Combat has any compatible archetypes. I'm instead just using an example of a character I actually played).

Captain Morgan wrote:

The trade off was that you technically could ONLY take them at level 1.

Are you sure? We always ruled that you could take the archetype once you reached the level it came online

Captain Morgan wrote:

Meanwhile, any PF2 archetype can be combined with any other archetype just by taking a few more feats.

Yeah. I find feat chains dressed up as archetypes with restrictions on taking other feat chains to be completely underwhelming. Highlighting that doesn't make it a selling point.

Captain Morgan wrote:

That's a steep cost, and I have a hard time imagining wanting to buy more than 2.

You're right. Feat chains are expensive and it was rare to invest in more than one or two. Archetypes on the other hand enabled all sorts of character concepts that weren't easily made with just the class's base class features.

I mean, plenty of archetypes in PF1 cost you class feats too. Fighters giving up bonus feats, slayers giving up talents at certain levels, oracles giving up revelation, etc. And if you weren't giving up class feat equivalents, you were giving up class features. The big difference seems to be that PF2 has more feats and less features, so feats are the easier currency to use.

Qing Qong is actually a good illustration of this-- it let you swap out lots of random monk features that were sort of all over the place into something more tailored to your taste and likely more coherent. This was well received, so the monk's next iteration, the Unchained version, basically got Qing Qong built in with almost all of its mystical abilities being choices you selected. And the PF2 monk is going further down that road, with even needing to having mystic ki abilities at all being optional.

Yeah, there's a cost associated with taking PF2 archetypes, much like there was for PF1 archetypes. And I can see why, psychologically, one wouldn't be thrilled to give up so many feats. But they are objectively more flexible than most PF1 archetypes and can be combined in more ways.

Also, as mentioned, these archetypes aren't replacing the old ones forever. The intention seems to have both, but the new archetypes are waaaay more space efficient, which makes them a better choice for the core rulebook and playtest. I'm willing to bet each archetype takes up no more than a page, based on the Gnome ancestry page. Each page provides options for every class.

Meanwhile, the archetypes section of the APG was like 70 pages long. That's not a realistic amount of space to expect in a core rulebook, and that's just the first PF1 source of archetypes. I'm pretty sure Paizo will be pumping out all sorts of archetypes in short order.

Looking at the Gray Maiden plate stats, it seems like they're using the item level stuff from Starfinder. I guess that's old info that I hadn't noticed yet. I have to say that's a pretty disappointing decision.

This is seriously disappointing if true. Strange too, since I don't think the Holy Avenger that was previewed had such a bad idea pasted on it.

Cyouni wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Give at least two ancestry feats, so people can have both a biological heritage feat and a culture feat. Give two class feats, so someone can either emphasize their class abilities or do both class and an archetype dedication. Give two skill feats, so people have some stuff to do out of combat even with really low bonuses.

I'm pretty sure at level 1 you get two class feats (as a martial, at least). I seem to recall all the sample characters having two, but what they were I can't remember off the top of my head. I think Paladin had one that removed the hand requirement for lay on hands and one that upped the lay on hands dice from 1d4 to 1d6.

This is exactly what I found at the Delve tables. The Paladin had Warded Touch (LoH lost interact trait) and Hospice Knight. (LoH goes from d4 to d6) I also noticed that Fumbus, Merisiel, and Valeros had two class feats at 1st level as well.

But did they "fudge" the rules so that they could preview more feats? I'm unsure. From what I can gather from outside what I played, the answer is it's only one feat at level 1. Logan even mentioned one extra feat at level 1 for martials on the Paizo Friday twitch stream. So I am preparing for the "worst".
I mean, the feats they chose for the classes worked so well together. Fumbus had quick alchemy and the quick bomber feat. (this is just an example...) These feats worked so well together that it's sad that we have to wait two levels to get them together again. I would love to get two class feats at level 1, but I don't think we need two skill or two ancestry feats. That's a little much...

Have you got a source on the only 1 class feat thing? They have been kind of coy about this from what I can tell. The level up blog suspiciously didn't include a shot of what 1st level looked like, just 2nd and 3rd.

I've been kind of figuring martials probably get two feats while most casters only get 1. I mean, clerics don't seem like they need a second with their huge suite of 1st level goodies. Powers + spells + heal pool is dope.