Archetypes for All

Friday, June 22, 2018

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Over the years, we have added a wide variety of new rules to Pathfinder First Edition, but none has been so well received as archetypes. It's no surprise that archetypes found such universal appeal. Allowing you to play a more specialized character, they let you play the character you want to play in a way that a single class often cannot support.

When the time came for us to look at archetypes for the Pathfinder Playtest, we knew that we wanted to make them a more integral part of the game, built to be an option from the very beginning. We also wanted to open them up a bit, so we could build archetypes allowing more than one class to access their features and feats, as opposed to having to recreate a concept for every applicable class with an entirely new archetype. This doesn't prevent us from creating more specific archetypes as well, but it opens up the design space further. In opening archetypes up, we realized that they might be easily abused if a player dipped into a variety of archetypes just to grab the best rules bits to make an overpowered character. It was a tough set of challenges, but fortunately for us, the answer was already built into the game.

Archetypes in the Pathfinder Playtest consist of a series of feats you can choose in place of your class feats. Every class gets its feats at roughly every other level, making them a perfect cost for archetypes. So if an archetype appeals to you—say, the pirate archetype—the only thing you need to do to gain access to it is take the appropriate dedication feat. Each dedication feat gives you some basic abilities and adds all the rest of that archetype's feats to your list of available class feats. The only catch is that you cannot take another dedication feat until after you have taken a specified number of archetype feats from the first one. So you can dip into a single archetype without too much trouble, but if you want more than one, you really have to put a fair amount of your character into the concept. For example, let's take a look at the pirate archetype.

Pirate Dedication Feat 2

Archetype, Dedication

Prerequisites Dexterity 12, trained in Acrobatics and Sailing Lore

When you Balance aboard a ship, treat a success as a critical success. You also ignore any difficult terrain, uneven ground, or incline caused by the ship's movement. You are trained with the hatchet, scimitar, and spear. In addition, Acrobatics is a signature skill for you.

Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the pirate archetype.

As you can see, this first feat gives you a fair number of advantages while on a boat, certainly helping should combat break out, but you need to take more pirate feats before you can pick up another dedication feat. Let's take a look at two that you might choose.

Sea Legs Feat 4

Archetype

Prerequisites Pirate Dedication, trained in Athletics

Athletics is a signature skill for you. Whenever you succeed at an Athletics check to Swim, treat your result as a critical success. Additionally, you can always hold your breath for a number of actions equal to double your Constitution score when in water (this is not increased by using the Breathe Deep action).

Sea Legs really helps when you are in the water, letting you swim faster and hold your breath longer. It's also a prerequisite for Roll with the Ship, a feat that lets you reroll your Reflex saves when you are on your ship!

[[AA]] Boarding Action Feat 6

Archetype

Prerequisites Rope Runner

Swing on a rope or Stride up to twice your Speed. As long as you either boarded or disembarked a boat during this movement, make a Strike and deal an extra die of damage if you hit.

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! 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! It's a bit more limited than the fighter's Sudden Charge, but you deal bonus damage as a benefit if you pull it off.

The pirate archetype has six feats to choose from (in addition to the dedication feat), which gives you plenty of variety if you are looking to explore the archetype before heading to the next one. The great part is that these pirate feats are part of your options list for the rest of your character's career, so you can always go back to pick up a feat that you missed.

Lastly, I want to take a look at prestige archetypes. These are archetypes whose dedication feats come with some pretty hefty prerequisites you have to meet before you can select them. In the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, we included only one such archetype as an example for you to play around with in your campaign: the Gray Maiden. Take a look at this dedication feat.

Gray Maiden Dedication Feat 6

Archetype, Dedication, Prestige

Prerequisites Strength 16, expert in Fortitude saves, trained in heavy armor and all martial weapons, member of the Gray Maidens

Your Gray Maiden training has steeled you against harsh physical conditions. You become a master at Fortitude saves. When you succeed at a Fortitude save, treat it as a critical success. You also gain access to special armor: Gray Maiden plate. Gray Maiden plate is a level 3 item that costs 600 sp, grants +7 AC and +3 TAC, and has a Dexterity modifier cap of +0; otherwise, it uses the same stats as full plate.

Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the Gray Maiden archetype.

Becoming a master at Fortitude saves is not something you can easily do in most classes; in fact, level 6 is sooner than even a barbarian can manage, and that armor is some of the best you can find. Of course, joining the Gray Maiden organization is no simple feat either. Once you are in, this prestige archetype includes a variety of powerful feats that you can add to your character. Here is just a taste.

Unbreakable Feat 8

Archetype

Prerequisites Gray Maiden Dedication

You can endure a staggering amount of punishment. Increase your maximum HP by your level, increasing as you gain additional levels. You die at dying 5, or dying 6 if you also have Diehard.

This grants many of the benefits of the Toughness and Diehard general feats combined, and it stacks with both to make an incredibly resilient character.

That wraps up our look at archetypes. You'll find a number of them in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, and we can't wait for you to give them a try. And come back on Monday for a massive blog that I am sure will resonate with many of you!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
301 to 350 of 573 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Captain Morgan

There are things worth devoting actual book space for and real Archetypes are ABSOLUTELY one of them.

Sure, archetypes took up just a single page in the Starfinder rulebook. They also were complete trash that no one used.

This is not a sufficiently good reason to murder off the most successful concept in 1st ed.


While I am actually positive on the basic concept of these PF2 "Archetypes," since they are being handled way better than in Starfinder, I do agree that calling them "Themes" would probably go over way better. Save the actual name Archetype for the old style that actually give up class abilities, and let us combine both an Archetype and a Theme.

Liberty's Edge

Dragonborn3 wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
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.

Items absolutely have levels, and we've actually known this for some time.

Mundane items tend to peak around level 3 (as this item does), and all Item Level seems to actually do mechanically is restrict people from Crafting it if they're below that level.

They do also serve as a good GM barometer for when a PC getting that item is expected, but there are seemingly no rules actually enforcing that (well, except for WBL guidelines).


Captain Morgan wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
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.

Well there's this video that I mentioned:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/276396157

Logan mentions that martials get an extra class feat off the cuff there. And I don't remember where else I heard it, but I do remember hearing it elsewhere...
Kyra had Athletics Assurance and Toughness as a Background and a Ancestry feat respectively. I don't remember seeing anything else for her. And Ezren had Widen spell as a bonus feat for being a Universalist. I mention them because I'm not sure if their extra goodies is worth 2 class feats at level 1. If the casters had class feats at level 1, I would be of a differing opinion on the martials. But since the casters don't, then...

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
This is not a sufficiently good reason to murder off the most successful concept in 1st ed.

They've specifically said that PF1 style archetypes will almost certainly exist, they just won't be in the platytest because they know how those work, and that they work fine. There's no need to playtest the concept and they'd eat up a huge amount of space.

While the new, Class-agnostic, Archetypes do in fact need some testing and are thus included.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
If the casters had class feats at level 1, I would be of a differing opinion on the martials. But since the casters don't, then...

The Cleric Blog and Wizard Blog both specifically note that they get Class Feats at level 1. Evidence also strongly suggests that Merisiel got two Class Feats.

I think the evidence that Casters get one Class Feat at 1st and most Martials get two is pretty strong right now.

Now, I'm personally also all for getting 2 Ancestry Feats at 1st, at least at the moment, but I'll need to see the list of Ancestry Feats available to each Ancestry before saying for sure that doing that is the correct thing for the game.

Dark Archive

I think a big consideration with this form of Archetype vs previous edition is the balance of capstone/mainline class features vs feats. Given the sheer number of class feats that are offered (every even level approximately) I would expect that we will see fewer capstone/mainline class features that every class X gets and more of those features moved into feats, many of these quite possibly covering the various features which archetypes once replaced, except this now gives you the choice of which features you're going to forgo in favor of an archetype feature, which archetype features you'll pick up and at what levels you make each of these exchanges, even including the ability to later retrain to modify those choices. All in all, that is a far more flexible form of archetype.

It does make it more difficult to get multiple archetypes or even an archetype and a prestige class, and I can see why that is concerning to some. As an example if one chooses to be a 'pirate gray maiden'.. as unlikely as that might be but we have samples for these to work off of.. you are looking at picking up pirate dedication and feats at 2, 4, and 6.. which means you've delayed your entrance to Gray Maidens to level 8. Similarly for any other archetype mixing.. you'll be level 8 before you can even dip into the dedication for the second archetype, 14 if you want to dip into a third. All the while getting no class specific feats. At the same time, I see where the worry of people just picking a handful of archetypes to stack on their class to get the most optimized rules benefits possible would be a concern as well and it's hard to balance those two concerns.

Most of all, I personally am extremely pleased with this modification to Prestige Classes. This comes mostly from having played a summoner for an extended period of time which likely will not make an appearance at this stage.. but it was just exceedingly difficult to find a good Prestige Class for a summoner, one that gave enough benefits to outweigh loosing several advances to your Eidolon, or even halting your progression of power in your summon monster ability. With this method, you would continue to advance those abilities.. or in the case of say Wizard or Sorcerer you don't stall the scaling of your cantrips for example. Those will still go up as if you had leveled normally but you've opened access to new options as well. This has me pretty interested to see what other prestige archetypes they introduce with the full release.


Yay!! I'm wrong! Oh, happy day! <Dances a jig>

That frees up a lot more room for the martials. Phew! I never noticed the level 1 feat mentions in both of those blogs. Thanks DMW!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
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....

Sure. I'm not sure what your point is at this stage. I'm okay with replacing class feats. I'm okay with replacing class features. It's been confirmed we're getting both so.... ???

Captain Morgan wrote:
And I can see why, psychologically, one wouldn't be thrilled to give up so many feats.

What I dislike is "you must advance in X feats worth of feats before you can branch into archetype Y". Waiting until I reach a certain point in the feat chain (which is what universal archetypes are at this point) before I can start advancing into a second feat chain is underwhelming.

Captain Morgan wrote:
But they are objectively more flexible than most PF1 archetypes
I won't disagree with that. In fact....
John Lynch 106 wrote:
perhaps it's unnecessary with how PF2e classes are designed. I will wait and see.
Captain Morgan wrote:
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 actually quite sceptical of that point. I expect a lot of people would prefer 1 archetype for 1 class and only have 2 or 3 classes get an archetype then having 5 or 6 feat chains that anyone can take. Time will tell.


Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Yay!! I'm wrong! Oh, happy day! <Dances a jig>

That frees up a lot more room for the martials. Phew! I never noticed the level 1 feat mentions in both of those blogs. Thanks DMW!

Dance little man Dance!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
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.

Items absolutely have levels, and we've actually known this for some time.

Mundane items tend to peak around level 3 (as this item does), and all Item Level seems to actually do mechanically is restrict people from Crafting it if they're below that level.

They do also serve as a good GM barometer for when a PC getting that item is expected, but there are seemingly no rules actually enforcing that (well, except for WBL guidelines).

Starfinder also restricted purchasing gear much above your level by default. I'm not sure if that was a hard rule.

Item levels also play into the, to me at least, unappealing method of progression laid out in Starfinder that involves buying the next weapon/armor up the dice list whenever you can, rather than making any real decisions about where you should be spending your money next. It made equipment boring enough that the dice progression would have been better if it had been baked into class progression. It would have saved book space and dispensed with the illusion of choice that could only really serve to slow down play.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Yay!! I'm wrong! Oh, happy day! <Dances a jig>

That frees up a lot more room for the martials. Phew! I never noticed the level 1 feat mentions in both of those blogs. Thanks DMW!

Dance little man Dance!

I've never been called little before... I'm 6'2 ;-P

Though I'm still curious as to why Logan said on the Twitch stream: "...some classes get one (feat) at first level." Emphasis on the word SOME. What I'm getting from here is that all the classes get one at first level (as far as we know) and martials get a bonus as well.

Liberty's Edge

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Yay!! I'm wrong! Oh, happy day! <Dances a jig>

That frees up a lot more room for the martials. Phew! I never noticed the level 1 feat mentions in both of those blogs. Thanks DMW!

You're quite welcome. Always happy to be of assistance. :)

ErichAD wrote:
Starfinder also restricted purchasing gear much above your level by default. I'm not sure if that was a hard rule.

Starfinder has this rule, yes. There are currently zero indications that PF2 has anything resembling it (and several that it does not).

ErichAD wrote:
Item levels also play into the, to me at least, unappealing method of progression laid out in Starfinder that involves buying the next weapon/armor up the dice list whenever you can, rather than making any real decisions about where you should be spending your money next. It made equipment boring enough that the dice progression would have been better if it had been baked into class progression. It would have saved book space and dispensed with the illusion of choice that could only really serve to slow down play.

Well, in PF2 there's no non-magical basic gear above a certain level, so this role is taken up by gradually magically enhancing your existing gear (ie: instead of buying a Dimensional Slice Longsword, you just up your Longsword to +5).

If you object to gradually upping your Longsword all the way to +5, you're not gonna be happy, but honestly, that was true in PF1 as well.


Seems like the Pirate archetype stuff would be equally useful for legitimate navy sailors (and to a somewhat lesser extent for legitimate civilian sailors), so it seems kind of odd to name this stuff as pirate-specific.

Liberty's Edge

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Though I'm still curious as to why Logan said on the Twitch stream: "...some classes get one (feat) at first level." Emphasis on the word SOME. What I'm getting from here is that all the classes get one at first level (as far as we know) and martials get a bonus as well.

Wasn't that pretty early on? Like, early enough they could've changed the book? I could easily see it being as simple as them giving everyone an extra Feat at 1st level because they decided things were a little anemic otherwise.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Though I'm still curious as to why Logan said on the Twitch stream: "...some classes get one (feat) at first level." Emphasis on the word SOME. What I'm getting from here is that all the classes get one at first level (as far as we know) and martials get a bonus as well.
Wasn't that pretty early on? Like, early enough they could've changed the book? I could easily see it being as simple as them giving everyone an extra Feat at 1st level because they decided things were a little anemic otherwise.

Nope, that was todays stream. The context of the quote is Logan speaking about archetypes...

Liberty's Edge

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Nope, that was todays stream. The context of the quote is Logan speaking about archetypes...

Ah. No idea then. I mean, if some get one and some get two it's true that some get one (if a bit misleading)...

Another possibility is that one Class (thus far unrevealed) doesn't get any Class Feat at 1st (or has their Class Feat pre-decided at 1st...Druid may fall into that category), making it inaccurate to say that everyone gets at least one.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Nope, that was todays stream. The context of the quote is Logan speaking about archetypes...

Ah. No idea then. I mean, if some get one and some get two it's true that some get one (if a bit misleading)...

Another possibility is that one Class (thus far unrevealed) doesn't get any Class Feat at 1st (or has their Class Feat pre-decided at 1st...Druid may fall into that category), making it inaccurate to say that everyone gets at least one.

That's what I was thinking. Perhaps there is a class that does not get the feat at level 1. But then again Logan would have probably used the word "most" instead of "some". Does Druid not get it because of some sweet perk from their order?... Dunno. I'd like some clarification on this seeming contradiction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

{. . .}

Since archetypes are no longer "get the entire package" but "get as much of the package as you want" I can see some people taking the pirate dedication feat and no other pirate feats explaining that they spent some time press-ganged on a pirate skip or whatever and picked up some things.

Problem is that the Dedication feats prevent you from taking another one unless you take 2 more Pirate archetype feats. So if you get press-ganged and then later escape, you can't just keep the abilities you learned while press-ganged and then get an archetype you want -- you HAVE to either retrain out of it (including losing any benefits you got for your trouble), or you have to double down on it 2 times. Ick.


My thought was that the classes that didn't get spell casting at first level would get a second feat but IDK.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
One quibble, Sea Legs would be a better name for the mechanic covered under Pirate Dedication. The original term refers to getting used to the rolling of the deck.

I see your quibble and find I am in full agreement with it. The term has been pirated out of context here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Slightly mollified by the the assertion made a few times by Deadmanwalking that "Original" archetypes will almost certainly arrive, just not in the playtest. Seems bass-ackwards to me, but there you go. I get that this is for "testing" stuff, but not including what to me was the seminal introduction of PF1 is ludicrous.

And Captain Morgan raises a good point that PF2 "concepts-currently-called-archetypes-which-really-aren't-but-let's-not-spl it-hairs" can be taken at any appropriate level*, which really does enhance mechanical and narrative potential. Something actual archetypes from PF1 could not allow, regardless of table variation.

*Except level 1. If this is true then I'm still against it. Which will do nothing. Oh well.


OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Slightly mollified by the the assertion made a few times by Deadmanwalking that "Original" archetypes will almost certainly arrive, just not in the playtest. Seems bass-ackwards to me, but there you go. I get that this is for "testing" stuff, but not including what to me was the seminal introduction of PF1 is ludicrous.

And Captain Morgan raises a good point that PF2 "concepts-currently-called-archetypes-which-really-aren't-but-let's-not-spl it-hairs" can be taken at any appropriate level*, which really does enhance mechanical and narrative potential. Something actual archetypes from PF1 could not allow, regardless of table variation.

*Except level 1. If this is true then I'm still against it. Which will do nothing. Oh well.

What? There wasn't any archetypes in the PF1 core.


Honestly, aside from whatever this Archetype Dedication Feat Chain stuff is, I want to see Class-specific Skill and General Feats as well. Not just Class Feats. I think that will focus the concept of what Class Feats are/do, which will help balance them, and their "replacements" like Archetype Feats that count as Class Feats. But Class-thematic abilities that pertain to Skills seem like they can and should be able to count as Skill Feats... As well as General Feats, although I'm less clear on Paizo's intended scope for those. I can see something like Scarred Rager's Diplomacy to "tribals" / Intimidate to "civilized (weaklings)" dichotonomy being a Barbarian only Skill Feat, for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Slightly mollified by the the assertion made a few times by Deadmanwalking that "Original" archetypes will almost certainly arrive, just not in the playtest. Seems bass-ackwards to me, but there you go. I get that this is for "testing" stuff, but not including what to me was the seminal introduction of PF1 is ludicrous.

And Captain Morgan raises a good point that PF2 "concepts-currently-called-archetypes-which-really-aren't-but-let's-not-spl it-hairs" can be taken at any appropriate level*, which really does enhance mechanical and narrative potential. Something actual archetypes from PF1 could not allow, regardless of table variation.

*Except level 1. If this is true then I'm still against it. Which will do nothing. Oh well.

What? There wasn't any archetypes in the PF1 core.

There weren't alchemists either. If you were to ask PF1 players which addition defined their Pathfinder experience more, I can pretty much guarantee you that most people are going to say archetypes.

Exo-Guardians

Arachnofiend wrote:


There weren't alchemists either. If you were to ask PF1 players which addition defined their Pathfinder experience more, I can pretty much guarantee you that most people are going to say archetypes.

I can say that they defined it for the negative for my general pathfinder experience, though I'm sure that's just because my experience with them has almost always been on the receiving end of some munchkin shenanigans. Though it's also because of that experience that I can see why Paizo is enforcing a two feat gate on Archtype dipping, especially given how flexible things are, it's conceivable, actually I should say inevitable, that someone will find a break somewhere, I think that's what the two feat gate is intended to stop, Archetype dips for a single feat or power as part of a super build.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Slightly mollified by the the assertion made a few times by Deadmanwalking that "Original" archetypes will almost certainly arrive, just not in the playtest. Seems bass-ackwards to me, but there you go. I get that this is for "testing" stuff, but not including what to me was the seminal introduction of PF1 is ludicrous.

And Captain Morgan raises a good point that PF2 "concepts-currently-called-archetypes-which-really-aren't-but-let's-not-spl it-hairs" can be taken at any appropriate level*, which really does enhance mechanical and narrative potential. Something actual archetypes from PF1 could not allow, regardless of table variation.

*Except level 1. If this is true then I'm still against it. Which will do nothing. Oh well.

What? There wasn't any archetypes in the PF1 core.
There weren't alchemists either. If you were to ask PF1 players which addition defined their Pathfinder experience more, I can pretty much guarantee you that most people are going to say archetypes.

So then why would someone not want the archetypes in the book then?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So then why would someone not want the archetypes in the book then?

They probably would. Feat chains != archetypes.


Ah so its a philosophical issue. Meh I think the as you called it "feat chain" option will function just fine. In fact it should be easier to use this way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ah so its a philosophical issue.

No. It's a functional issue. If you're trying to understand why there's people unhappy about the archetypes that we're getting in the playtest then that is a succinct explanation. If you want to pick a fight and try to bully people into shutting up or changing their mind then you can keep going on.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Meh I think the as you called it "feat chain" option will function just fine.

Of course they will. They worked fine in D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e. No reason they shouldn't work well in PF2e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ah so its a philosophical issue.

No. It's a functional issue. If you're trying to understand why there's people unhappy about the archetypes that we're getting in the playtest then that is a succinct explanation. If you want to pick a fight and try to bully people into shutting up or changing their mind then you can keep going on.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Meh I think the as you called it "feat chain" option will function just fine.
Of course they will. They worked fine in D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e. No reason they shouldn't work well in PF2e.

You mean like what you do on every thread I've ever seen you on?

Yelp exactly worked just fine.

Exo-Guardians

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ah so its a philosophical issue.

No. It's a functional issue. If you're trying to understand why there's people unhappy about the archetypes that we're getting in the playtest then that is a succinct explanation. If you want to pick a fight and try to bully people into shutting up or changing their mind then you can keep going on.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Meh I think the as you called it "feat chain" option will function just fine.
Of course they will. They worked fine in D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e. No reason they shouldn't work well in PF2e.

It's a purely philosophical issue, both feat exchange style archetypes and class feature based archetypes fulfill the same end goal, provide a toll to create a specific or well defined concept not normally available to a class, the target different resources to achieve this, but they result in the same end goal.

Which brings me to the second point. Why can't we just have both in PF2 Playtest? Because we don't have the space or desire to invest the extra resources for another 20+ pages of something that is a known quantity. If the goat of a beta test is to examine interactions between new systems, you don't include the old implantation as a fallback, that only results in poor data from the beta test as everyone just defaults to what they understand.

Another way to look at it is from a programming standpoint.
Everything in Pathfinder is an object with a level attribute, Feat extend Object and add Prerequisites, Actions, and Benefits, Class, Skill, General, and Ancestry Feats Inherit from Feat and extend it with their given attributes, The individual Feats Inherit and extend their respective Feat Subclass.

Classes are also and Object with Level, but they also have Class Feature. In PF1 Archetypes could been seen as an Interface, rather than an inherited class, They were in Interface becasue they were an implementation of Object Class with specific attributes being required.
PF2 Changes this by making Object Class more like an Array of Object Feats, with some fixed Attributes. What that means is that both the Interface type Archetypes, and the Object Feat type archetypes, which target different systems can exist with no changes to the interface type archetypes
.


On multi-classing: I kinda hope it does work like VMC. I thought that was a cool system, but with a poor execution. It always felt like they had this neat idea, but due to time constraints/lack of playtesting/whatever, the implementation fell short. 2nd edition, gives them the opportunity to fix that.

Another thing I want to say is that (as evidenced by my pessimistic remarks in most of the playtest blog threads) even 'tho overall I don't like how 2nd edition is shaping up, one thing I do appreciate is the fact that Paizo seems to be trying to take high level play into consideration and make it an integral part of the new game from the ground up. Given how high level play was basically ignored in 1st edition, this is a welcome change for those of us who like to play (or hell, sometimes even start games) at level 11+.


I like that Archetypes are going to be feats and that they can be retrained, allowing campaigns where the players can learn about what they are going to need to be able to do, deliberately train to do it and then start retraining when that part of the campaign is done and not likely coming back. This will allow players to try things on that they might not want to commit too and that is great.

What has me concerned is that it seems probably that some archetypes are going to match abilities of some classes pretty closely and then offer an amazing option at a higher level, but be a nearly useless feat until then. This was the bad part of feat chains in PF1, and is also present in PF1 Archetypes, so it is not a new issue with the design, but one that I would like to see countered if possible.

For instance, For now there is no class that completely overlaps the Pirate, but it seems like most of the pirate dedication feat and many of the later feats would be granted to, or at least options for, the swashbuckler for instance.

This happened quite often in PF1 as old options got made redundant and inferior by future options, but because they saw print in a previous, hung around and created a lot of bloat in the game. Archetype feats, available to any class as class feats is going to create a lot of bloat relatively quickly.

Shadow Lodge

Has anyone else noticed that if you take the Gray Maiden dedication you get a 1,440 gp discount on full plate... So I take it that in this new edition the overall gold economy is getting a revamp?

Exo-Guardians

That Porter Kid wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that if you take the Gray Maiden dedication you get a 1,440 gp discount on full plate... So I take it that in this new edition the overall gold economy is getting a revamp?

The world economy is going to a Silver Piece based economy so it's probably not that massive of a discount.

Liberty's Edge

That Porter Kid wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that if you take the Gray Maiden dedication you get a 1,440 gp discount on full plate... So I take it that in this new edition the overall gold economy is getting a revamp?

The economy is getting a minor revamp, yes. Specifically, a Silver Piece in PF2 is worth about what a Gold Piece is in PF1. So all prices you see listed are basically 10 times as high as you think they are, so Grey Maiden Plate is the equivalent of 600 GP in PF1.

Some item prices may have also changed more than that, so we have no idea what the price is on normal Full Plate. It could be either higher or lower than that.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I very much like the system I am seeing here, modular but not too generic--indeed, some of the archetype feats are not generic at all. Not much to say on the archetypes themselves, I like what I see.

Random gleanings on other things...
So "Balance" and "Breathe Deep" and "Strike" are all actions, and it looks like actions are capitalized like feats and skills are. I wonder if a) it will be confusing to newbies to see the differentiation (compare to say, feats being capitalized vs spells being italicized), and b) given all the actions I've seen, if half the core rulebook is just going to be a list of actions you can take and what they mean. How easy will it be to remember it all?

Liberty's Edge

I think Balance might be a skill use of Acrobatics rather than an action in its own right.

And I suspect we can get through the actions in just a few pages. I bet you can get through 10 of them in a page.


Is there any chance for the Hellknights to have a prestige archetype in the playtest? or will the playtest archetypes be more allignment agnostic?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm concerned about the longevity of this approach.
It trades a lot of design space on the alter of design simplicity.

Right now when I build my own options, I can do pretty much anything and it just falls to me to keep the trade-offs balanced with the realm where everyone is having fun.

Under this approach I'm trading out fixed slots on a static spine.

The content for the slots as presented here looks fine. I've no complaints with any of it. Maybe some is underpowered and some is over. I don't think I can say yet.

I certainly don't think there is anything that will impact enjoyment the first session, month, or months. But 5E certainly started off great and then the commonality of characters started showing through too much for me to be drawn to the game relative to other options which were available.
Now clearly, an immediate response to that would that if they can hit 5E popularity and lose me then good on them (and I totally support that). But 5E also "benefits" from being part of WotC and being able to survive on a minimized product release pace.

I see some of the same excess consistencies potentially present in 2E (homogenized bonuses against a more narrow range of DC resulting in nearly identical mechanics for wildly differing classes do different things) and now I'm seeing more of the character build core being bolted in with just slots allowing customization.

Now, there are a lot of slots. Maybe it stays below the horizon of perception here. This is, unquestionably, a step back from the freeform of options available now in 1E. But whether it stays close enough to not make a difference will have to see. It certainly won't emerge in time to start playing in August and compensate in a game released 12 months later.

So, I'll continue to have an open mind. We will see.
But, FWIW, please keep looking down the road. I want to explore wildly different characters three years from now. And wildly different characters should FEEL different in how they interact with the system mechanically. That is working ten years in under the current system. That is a high bar to hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Boo, the Starfinder archetypes suck.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Ugh, I hate how archetypes are done in Starfinder.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, I feel like this has the potential to be pretty dramatically better than Starfinder, if only because you can choose when you take the archetype feats. Much of the problem with Starfinder archetypes is that you're tied in to taking them at a particular level and once you do it you're locked in to trading away particular levels worth of class features. Being able to pick and choose is WAY better.

Also, nothing we've seen prevents them from including class specific archetypes that start at level 1 and trade away specific class features. It's just that doing so implies doing a number of them for each class, which translates to a LOT of pages. I'd expect such a thing to show up in a follow on book, not in the core. Instead core gets class agnostic archetypes, because they're far more page efficient.

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of complaints about the specific archetype they've shown here (see my previous posts in the thread), but I don't see anything wrong with the framework they're presenting, it seems fundamentally more flexible than both PF1's Archetypes and SF's Archetypes.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFlyingPhoton wrote:
Boo, the Starfinder archetypes suck.
captain yesterday wrote:
Ugh, I hate how archetypes are done in Starfinder.

Then you two should be happy to see archetypes in 2e don't work like Starfinder archetypes?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
rooneg wrote:
Also, nothing we've seen prevents them from including class specific archetypes that start at level 1 and trade away specific class features. It's just that doing so implies doing a number of them for each class, which translates to a LOT of pages. I'd expect such a thing to show up in a follow on book, not in the core. Instead core gets class agnostic archetypes, because they're far more page efficient.

In fact, Mark Seifter has pretty much confirmed almost exactly this as the official plan. So that's a thing.


I am a little curious why they bothered with the Dedication Feats as they seem sort of tacked on...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
But 5E certainly started off great and then the commonality of characters started showing through too much for me to be drawn to the game relative to other options which were available.

Pretty much the experience I had with 4th ed.

Crayon wrote:
I am a little curious why they bothered with the Dedication Feats as they seem sort of tacked on...

Gotta have a feat tax to open up the feat chain ;)

No. That's not actually a serious response. For a serious response: I completely expect that the "multiclass" feat system will open up with a feat that is remarkably like the dedication feat which will then open up more feats that either give class features and/or let you take class feats of the other class. I suspect once they built the multiclass feat system they found that archetypes had a very similar design space but were slightly better than multiclassing because they didn't have the opening feat. Thus dedication feats were born.

This is complete speculation of course (based on how such systems have worked for other game systems that some here are familiar with). But I will not be surprised in the least if multiclassing is shown off and we see something remarkably similar to the dedication feat presented in this blog post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:

I'm concerned about the longevity of this approach.

It trades a lot of design space on the alter of design simplicity.

Right now when I build my own options, I can do pretty much anything and it just falls to me to keep the trade-offs balanced with the realm where everyone is having fun.

Under this approach I'm trading out fixed slots on a static spine.

The content for the slots as presented here looks fine. I've no complaints with any of it. Maybe some is underpowered and some is over. I don't think I can say yet.

I certainly don't think there is anything that will impact enjoyment the first session, month, or months. But 5E certainly started off great and then the commonality of characters started showing through too much for me to be drawn to the game relative to other options which were available.
Now clearly, an immediate response to that would that if they can hit 5E popularity and lose me then good on them (and I totally support that). But 5E also "benefits" from being part of WotC and being able to survive on a minimized product release pace.

I see some of the same excess consistencies potentially present in 2E (homogenized bonuses against a more narrow range of DC resulting in nearly identical mechanics for wildly differing classes do different things) and now I'm seeing more of the character build core being bolted in with just slots allowing customization.

Now, there are a lot of slots. Maybe it stays below the horizon of perception here. This is, unquestionably, a step back from the freeform of options available now in 1E. But whether it stays close enough to not make a difference will have to see. It certainly won't emerge in time to start playing in August and compensate in a game released 12 months later.

So, I'll continue to have an open mind. We will see.
But, FWIW, please keep looking down the road. I want to explore wildly different characters three years from now. And wildly different characters should FEEL different in how they interact with...

I'm legitimately curious: In what sense do you think PF2 is simpler than its predecessor? To me, it looks more complicated in pretty much every way...

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
I'm legitimately curious: In what sense do you think PF2 is simpler than its predecessor? To me, it looks more complicated in pretty much every way...

The core rules (action system, leveling, the standardization of Saves, Attack, AC, and Skill bonuses in relation to each other, etc.) is actually vastly simpler. As is the math. Making an individual character is also made simpler by the Feats being divided up a lot more (no more needing to look through 1000s of Feats all on the same list).

I strongly disagree with BryonD that this makes characters too much the same, though. The differences between things like Barbarian Rage, Monk Stances and Flurry, Alchemist Resonance tricks, spellcasting, and the Rogue's Sneak Attack + Skill Feats, make it pretty clear that different classes can be pretty profoundly different mechanically as well as thematically, but a lot of the fiddly math bits have indeed been standardized (which is good).

301 to 350 of 573 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Archetypes for All All Messageboards