Archetypes for All

I'm concerned about the longevity of this approach.

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

Not true. This doesn't get rid of design space, because they can still make PF1 style archetypes. It just opens up new, additional space. This was explicitly pointed in the blog (second paragraph) and by the devs multiple times and by posters multiple times.

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.

Also not true, unless by build your own options you mean homebrew original content, at which point all bets are off. PF1 archetypes couldn't replace the same feature, which meant many couldn't be combined. They also can't be taken beyond a certain level (which is quite often 1.)

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

No, you're trading out open slots on a staic spine. You can trade your second level feat to become a pirate, or your 14th.

This is, unquestionably, a step back from the freeform of options available now in 1E.

Literally the exact opposite is true.

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.

The problem there is that it's not a real confirmation, it's a "yes, we COULD make the archetypes". Just like "yes, we COULD print the Harrow Medium". Really the only thing it confirms is that real archetypes won't be in the playtest.

Also, I feel like a lot of the complaints about feat taxes could be solved by not calling everything feats because all it does is make things confusing. We get it, Pathfinder prints a lot of feats.
When people talk about that in comparison to other games it's not a compliment. Currently there's:

General feats

Class feats

Skill feats

Racial feats

Archetype feats

Prestige class feats

Feats tied to specific class features which may be class feats but might also be general feats

10th level spell feats which might be class feats but might also be their own variety of specific general feat

Really all that's missing now is feats to make one kind of feat another kind of feat to make this a real mess to keep track of.

I spy...with me one good eye...the...Best. Arr-chetype. Ever.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

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.

The problem there is that it's not a real confirmation, it's a "yes, we COULD make the archetypes". Just like "yes, we COULD print the Harrow Medium". Really the only thing it confirms is that real archetypes won't be in the playtest.

Also, I feel like a lot of the complaints about feat taxes could be solved by not calling everything feats because all it does is make things confusing. We get it, Pathfinder prints a lot of feats.
When people talk about that in comparison to other games it's not a compliment. Currently there's:

General feats

Class feats

Skill feats

Racial feats

Archetype feats

Prestige class feats

Feats tied to specific class features which may be class feats but might also be general feats

10th level spell feats which might be class feats but might also be their own variety of specific general feat

Really all that's missing now is feats to make one kind of feat another kind of feat to make this a real mess to keep track of.

It's all just names to learn, so not sure that it matters over much but for me if they act the same way I'd prefer a unified naming convention.

I mean calling class feats 'talents', or skill feats 'fortes' (for example) just gives me more stuff to memorise for no good purpose.

'x-feat' means I know how it works (it's a feat) and I know what it relates to (x). It seems much simpler and easier to remember.

Pirate is so underwhelming its sort of undercutting the jazz of this blog. I think universal themes like this should be the realm of backgrounds and skill feats, not class. ymmv

I do like this for prestige classing, because it seems like a good mix of theme and class abilities. I dont even mind dedication for prestige, which I loathe the idea of for archetypes in general.

When the devs early on said they wanted to discourage dipping, I was hoping that meant they put more thought into early level design and not simple restriction. I think dedication is a sign of stepping backwards from PF1. Ill wait and see once the playtest drops, but this is probably the worst blog in clarity regard so far. It bodes ill for multi-classing for sure.

Not true. This doesn't get rid of design space, because they can still make PF1 style archetypes. It just opens up new, additional space. This was explicitly pointed in the blog (second paragraph) and by the devs multiple times and by posters multiple times.

I said I'll stay open minded. But the proof will bear out.

Also not true, unless by build your own options you mean homebrew original content, at which point all bets are off. PF1 archetypes couldn't replace the same feature, which meant many couldn't be combined. They also can't be taken beyond a certain level (which is quite often 1.)

I'm not limiting to PF1 archetypes and it seems clear that archetypes are going to be the default. You have spoken toward this in the point directly above, but again, the truth will bear out.

Under this approach I'm trading out fixed slots on a static spine. No, you're trading out open slots on a staic spine. You can trade your second level feat to become a pirate, or your 14th.

Being able to pick which static slot I use doesn't make them any less static.

This is, unquestionably, a step back from the freeform of options available now in 1E. Literally the exact opposite is true.

I don't think you quite get the definition of "literally".

Neither of us truly know yet. The implications appear to strongly suggest so to me.

And, frankly, I've been around this block a few times now.
Really good designers built 4E and a lot of see-no-evil fans told me I didn't know what I was talking about with regard to how I would or would not enjoy their game. Their certainty was for naught.

Really good designers built 5E and the longevity in the diversity was less than I hoped.

Again, the deal isn't set here. I'm not closed minded. But knee-jerk and blind faith denials are not the answer.

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).

We shall see.

And, yet again, it isn't a done deal here. I said in my very first post that there is room between 1E and still way diverse enough. I'll confess to being gun-shy here. But I have seen it before. And until the game has been out for a year or more, nobody can really say.

Okay having slept on it somewhat, I have two prevailing thoughts:

1 - This is a much, much better system for prestige classes. It is dangerously close to the old style feats, however, which I found to be the single biggest disappointment in 1E.

The current system doesn't allow for anything as brilliant as the Heritor Knight but it much better fits nearly every other prestige class's chassis.

2 - I am really concerned about the scarcity of feats. As I understand it, we're going to get then at a slightly better pace than class talents but they also take the place of many existing class features.

We also have very few general feats, and class feats are also taking the role of those general level-up feats. The quality of skill feats sound better than the ones in 1e at least, but it sounds like we'll be burning quite a few of them just keeping the skills ranked up for the proficiency treadmill.

I like that this can produce better rounded characters. The thinner but wider spread of feats should work when designed around it (no must-have feats like power attack, rapid shot and precise shot - we are already seeing a few, like monk weapon proficiency). These 'archetypes' here are bulky feat chains, which are really dangerous when you have a lot of different, restricted feat categories.

Alchemaic wrote:

It's all just names to learn, so not sure that it matters over much but for me if they act the same way I'd prefer a unified naming convention.

I mean calling class feats 'talents', or skill feats 'fortes' (for example) just gives me more stuff to memorise for no good purpose.

'x-feat' means I know how it works (it's a feat) and I know what it...

Except they don't act the same. At all. General feats act like normal feats, class feats are class-locked and aren't interchangeable with general feats, skill feats are locked to specific levels unless you're a Rogue, and archetype and prestige class feats are class feats that replace other class feats but might also be general feats under certain circumstances?

Plus consider this from the perspective of a new player. Instead of a Rogue getting FEATS every odd level and TALENTS every even level (which is easy to keep distinct), they get FEATS every single level, except they have to alternate between two completely separate lists of feats.

Seriously, let's try to have some perspective here. It only takes like 5-6 pages in PF1 to print an entire class. An archetype seems to take up half to three quarters of a page on average, and the APG devoted about 6 pages to for its archetypes for any given class.

To have anything other than a token amount of archetypes you'd need to devote space that could be taken up by an actual class. If they removed the alchemist they would still only have room for 1 archetype per remaining class. And ironically, the alchemist seems to be the only class thus far that really NEEDS classic archetypes to get back to the flexibility it had in PF1.

If the core rulebook was just 6 pages longer, I'd rather get the Oracle than a bunch of one off archetypes.

Especially when the role PF1 archetypes has already been subsumed into so many other parts of the game. Totems and Oaths were archetypes in PF1, now they are built in and feats respectively. Clerics went from having 2 domains they picked at level 1 and 10 feats over the course of their life to one domain at level 1 and 30ish feats over the course of their career. That's a huge bump in customization.

The rogue used to get trap sense by default and most archetypes traded it out for some new thing. Now you don't get trap sense by default but can get it or many of those things you used to get from archetypes.

Tree Singer used to be a specific archetype limited to elves. Now it seems to be a built in option available to all druids.

Qing Qong is now the norm, which it basically was before anyway.

The only thing we are losing here is a decade of splat book content which will get restored as time goes on. The base system for both archetypes and the classes themselves is much more flexible than what we had before.

The quality of skill feats sound better than the ones in 1e at least, but it sounds like we'll be burning quite a few of them just keeping the skills ranked up for the proficiency treadmill.

Just to address this one point. You don’t spend feats to upgrade your skill proficiency. You can spend feats to get more trained skills, but you get regular skill upgrades (I.e. ranks) every other level,

The problem there is that it's not a real confirmation, it's a "yes, we COULD make the archetypes". Just like "yes, we COULD print the Harrow Medium". Really the only thing it confirms is that real archetypes won't be in the playtest.

It's a bit more than 'we could'. It's not a binding promise or anything, but the people at Paizo also aren't stupid and there's clearly a lot of people who want PF1-style class-specific Archetypes. Given that fact I'd be honestly shocked if we don't get them, and probably fairly early on at that.

We shall see.

The exact same argument can be made for 5E.
And yet after playing for around 18 months (I suppose that should be subtracted from my 10 years comment re: PF 1E) the common fundamentals underlying the differences start to show through.

5E has this problem where there's almost no customization of characters after around 3rd level (maybe 5th if you have a specific Feat you want), and thus about two or three real builds per Class at most. PF2 does not have a 'lack of customization' problem. At all.

And, yet again, it isn't a done deal here. I said in my very first post that there is room between 1E and still way diverse enough. I'll confess to being gun-shy here. But I have seen it before. And until the game has been out for a year or more, nobody can really say.

I mean, technically, no, we aren't precognitive. But it's got none of the warning signs of this D&D5E had.

Heck, the Classes are actually more different from each other in many ways than in PF1 (they call their 'talent' type stuff Class Feats, and all have them, but the name is superficial and almost all Classes in PF1 had Talents or Bonus Feats anyway).

dragonhunterq wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

It's all just names to learn, so not sure that it matters over much but for me if they act the same way I'd prefer a unified naming convention.

I mean calling class feats 'talents', or skill feats 'fortes' (for example) just gives me more stuff to memorise for no good purpose.

'x-feat' means I know how it works (it's a feat) and I know what it...

Except they don't act the same. At all. General feats act like normal feats, class feats are class-locked and aren't interchangeable with general feats, skill feats are locked to specific levels unless you're a Rogue, and archetype and prestige class feats are class feats that replace other class feats but might also be general feats under certain circumstances?

Plus consider this from the perspective of a new player. Instead of a Rogue getting FEATS every odd level and TALENTS every even level (which is easy to keep distinct), they get FEATS every single level, except they have to alternate between two completely separate lists of feats.

Except they don't act the same. At all.

They come from different lists but as a matter of fact they do act the same on a mechanical level. Saying they don't act the same is like saying Wizard and Cleric spells don't act the same. It's technically true in that they do different things, but misleading as spells interact with the rest of the rules in the same way whether a Cleric Spell or a Wizard Spell.

General feats act like normal feats, class feats are class-locked and aren't interchangeable with general feats, skill feats are locked to specific levels unless you're a Rogue, and archetype and prestige class feats are class feats that replace other class feats but might also be general feats under certain circumstances?

Skill Feats are no more level locked than any other Feat (all Feats are technically level locked, it seems). And I see no evidence that Archetype Feats are anything but a specific type of Class Feat.

Plus consider this from the perspective of a new player. Instead of a Rogue getting FEATS every odd level and TALENTS every even level (which is easy to keep distinct), they get FEATS every single level, except they have to alternate between two completely separate lists of feats.

Honestly, I think a new player is more likely to be confused by 'What's the difference between a Talent and a Feat? Why are they called different things when they work the same?' than by the clearly labeled differences between, say, General Feats, Skill Feats, and Class Feats.

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).

I no longer think the RAE is an improvement. 3 actions of any type is, theoretically, easier than old system, but with individual actions now having a more variable cost and the fact that there exist a number of different classes of action (attack, manipulate, etc) it looks like a lateral move at best.

Before, most spells for example cost a standard action. Now they cost 2 actions except when they cost 1 or 3 and those individual actions are defined as being somatic or verbal so presumably there's some distinction between the two. The same appears to be true of other abilities too like how Sudden Charge grants effectively 4 actions.

Levelling still appears to be a matter of meeting the XP threshold so I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here. BABs, and Saves were already standardized in a sense (as were Skills if you always put them into the same slots) so I don't really see that as any improvement at all.

Feats: First, I don't really think the mode of organization will help as the divisions seem fairly arbitrary. Secondly, characters will be taking more Feats under the new system so it's more complicated.

I won't comment on the math as no specific examples have been given. In any case, I feel I've laid out my position fairly well.

I personally believe the 2e system of everything being feats is going to be easier on new players especially when they start comparing classes.

In 1e they'd be looking at rogue talents, then alchemist discoveries and then they'd look at what clerics get (clerics get nothing). In 2e they'll just look at the respective class lists.

Anyway none of us are new players and I'm pretty sure paizo has done a lot of play tests with newbies. Maybe Mark can confirm?

jimthegray wrote:

Unicore wrote:

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

PIRATE DEDICATION

Prerequisites Dexterity 12, trained in Acrobatics and Sailing Lore

this should be easy enough at level 1

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

I really wish that this was clarified. I can see it as one of two ways:

A): The 'Feat 2' signifies that it is Feat 2 of 6 (the Pirate archetype has 6 different feats).

or

B): The 'Feat 2' signifies an additional prerequisite, in that it cannot be taken before 2nd level.

Personally, I am really hoping that it is option A (with as niche and specific as the archetype is, there are some Pirate feats that I would probably want sooner than others, and wouldn't want to wait 4 or six levels to gain).

Alchemaic wrote:

Except they don't act the same. At all.

They come from different lists but as a matter of fact they do act the same on a mechanical level. Saying they don't act the same is like saying Wizard and Cleric spells don't act the same. It's technically true in that they do different things, but misleading as spells interact with the rest of the rules in the same way whether a Cleric Spell or a Wizard Spell.

Cleric and Wizard spells interact with the rules the same way, sure, but you can't have a Wizard casting Bless or a Cleric casting Magic Missile.

Alchemaic wrote:

General feats act like normal feats, class feats are class-locked and aren't interchangeable with general feats, skill feats are locked to specific levels unless you're a Rogue, and archetype and prestige class feats are class feats that replace other class feats but might also be general feats under certain circumstances?

Skill Feats are no more level locked than any other Feat (all Feats are technically level locked, it seems). And I see no evidence that Archetype Feats are anything but a specific type of Class Feat.

They aren't? Then what am I thinking of related to skills that you can only take once every like 5 levels and Rogues get more of? Like I honestly don't remember off the top of my head.

Alchemaic wrote:

Plus consider this from the perspective of a new player. Instead of a Rogue getting FEATS every odd level and TALENTS every even level (which is easy to keep distinct), they get FEATS every single level, except they have to alternate between two completely separate lists of feats.

Honestly, I think a new player is more likely to be confused by 'What's the difference between a Talent and a Feat? Why are they called different things when they work the same?' than by the clearly labeled differences between, say, General Feats, Skill Feats, and Class Feats.

As in the above example with the distinction between Wizard and Cleric spells. You haven't had to spend 30 minutes trying to explain to a new player that, no, they can't get access to every spell in the spell list. And the important distinction is that they aren't called the same thing because they aren't 1-to-1 comparable due to what level you can access them or what sources you get them from. Doesn't matter what they're called, talents, discoveries, oranges, zibblezabbles, as long as they're not called FEATS. Unless 2e is going to allow players to take any kind of feat at any level, it's just going to make new players wonder why the GM is getting a migrane an hour into explaining why they can't have completed their entire archetype dedication at level 3.

Have you often gotten a migraine under PF1 explaining to the new Fighter player that they can only take Combat feats as their bonus feats, not any feat in the list?

TheFinish wrote:

jimthegray wrote:

Unicore wrote:

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

PIRATE DEDICATION

Prerequisites Dexterity 12, trained in Acrobatics and Sailing Lore

this should be easy enough at level 1

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

I really wish that this was clarified. I can see it as one of two ways:

A): The 'Feat 2' signifies that it is Feat 2 of 6 (the Pirate archetype has 6 different feats).

or

B): The 'Feat 2' signifies an additional prerequisite, in that it cannot be taken before 2nd level.

Personally, I am really hoping that it is option A (with as niche and specific as the archetype is, there are some Pirate feats that I would probably want sooner than others, and wouldn't want to wait 4 or six levels to gain).

Sorry, two different feats presented in the blog have the «feat 6» thing. I think it's a hint in favor of option B.

Have you often gotten a migraine under PF1 explaining to the new Fighter player that they can only take Combat feats as their bonus feats, not any feat in the list?

Actually no, because the only time someone played Fighter they exclusively chose Combat feats.

Though I did have to explain to them that they COULD take other feats too.

The Dandy Lion wrote:

The quality of skill feats sound better than the ones in 1e at least, but it sounds like we'll be burning quite a few of them just keeping the skills ranked up for the proficiency treadmill.

Just to address this one point. You don’t spend feats to upgrade your skill proficiency. You can spend feats to get more trained skills, but you get regular skill upgrades (I.e. ranks) every other level,

This is welcome to hear. I really do like skill feats as a concept, it's just the missing into/spread of info in lots of different places that is making it very difficult to visualise progression.

"Here's the Cleric spell list, and here's the Wizard spell list" vs " Here's the class feats, and here's the skill feats"

"Here's a chart, you can only cast a 3rd level spell when you reach this level" vs "all feats have a level you have to be before you can take them"

I'm afraid I really can't agree anyone asserting that "x feats" is more confusing. I strongly believe that calling them "talents, discoveries, oranges, zibblezabbles" is at least as confusing, and appears to me to add a level of complexity that is unnecessary.

I am liking the level requirement being in the headline - reading to the end of a cool and relevant ability and finding "you must be 19th level to take this zibblezabble*" was really disheartening.

*I do like this word though :)

Grovestrider wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

jimthegray wrote:

Unicore wrote:

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

PIRATE DEDICATION

Prerequisites Dexterity 12, trained in Acrobatics and Sailing Lore

this should be easy enough at level 1

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

I really wish that this was clarified. I can see it as one of two ways:

A): The 'Feat 2' signifies that it is Feat 2 of 6 (the Pirate archetype has 6 different feats).

or

B): The 'Feat 2' signifies an additional prerequisite, in that it cannot be taken before 2nd level.

Personally, I am really hoping that it is option A (with as niche and specific as the archetype is, there are some Pirate feats that I would probably want sooner than others, and wouldn't want to wait 4 or six levels to gain).

Sorry, two different feats presented in the blog have the «feat 6» thing. I think it's a hint in favor of option B.

Only one of the 'Feat 6' is for the Pirate archetype, the other one is for the Grey Maiden Prestige Class

To have anything other than a token amount of archetypes

I would be 100% okay with having a token number of archetypes to introduce the concept and then have later supplements have many more archetypes. If page space is truly THAT much of a concern, excuse the Pirate feat chain and other feat chains like it to free up the space. I doubt I'm the only one who shares this sentiment.

Rogues get FEATS at every odd level and TALENTS at every even level.

Barbarians get FEATS at every odd level and RAGE POWERS at every even level. Of course, they can also spend FEATS to get extra RAGE POWERS, and many do. They get gradually increasing DR/- every three levels, starting at seventh level.

Fighters get FEATS at every odd level, and a FIGHTER BONUS FEATS or COMBAT FEATS at every even level.

Paladins get FEATS at every odd level, and MERCIES at every third level. MERCIES modify the class ability LAY ON HANDS, which Paladins get a second level.

Wizards get FEATS at every odd level, and WIZARD BONUS FEATS (METAMAGIC FEATS, ITEM CREATION FEATS, or SPELL MASTERY FEATS) at every fifth level.

Rangers get FEATS at every odd level, and COMBAT STYLE FEATS at second level, and then after every additional four levels.

Bard gets FEATS at every odd level, VERSATILE PERFORMANCE starting at second level, and...

Are you being sarcarstic? You spent 8 bullet points to describe the process in PF1 (for only the CRB classes) and then one line to describe the process in PF2 (for all classes forever) and then think the former is easier to pick up?

It is harder for you because you are used to bullet points 1-8. But that you need a description for how each individual class shows it is more complex than a similair description you only need to learn once.

I said I'll stay open minded. But the proof will bear out.

They have made vague statements, and those are vaguely reassuring.
I'm reacting to the actual examples presented here.

The actual examples presented here are a small sample of the play test content and eventually the core rulebook, which is a small part of the over all content of 2e.

And whatever you are reacting to, you are still saying "this trades away design space" which is categorically false. The design space you claim as lost still exists, and this doesn't preclude it. To actually lose design space, you need to create a framework that prevents options from being implemented. If only Barbarians can get rage, that is a limit on the design space. If there is no way to gain spellcasting by multiclassing into wizard or cleric, that is a limit on the design space.

What you are saying is akin to saying that because the Alchemist is in core, we are losing the design space of having an Oracle. You can get the alchemist now and the oracle later. The alchemist doesn't preclude the oracle.

I'm not limiting to PF1 archetypes and it seems clear that archetypes are going to be the default. You have spoken toward this in the point directly above, but again, the truth will bear out.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you including content you create yourself? Because you can make homebrew content for PF2 as well. What are you talking about other than PF1 archetypes with that statement?

Nor do I see what you mean by "archetypes are going to be the default." You opt into archetypes, you don't get them by default.

Being able to pick which static slot I use doesn't make them any less static.

By comparison, PF1 archetypes didn't even let you pick which slots you traded away. An archetype would for example replace your bonus feats at levels 2, 8, and 12. Or it was even more locked in than that by replacing specific static features. All Invulnerable Ragers had to give up Uncanny Dodge (and Improved UD) plus trap sense. A PF1 Barbarian who takes an archetype can choose what they want to give up with far more flexibility.

This is, unquestionably, a step back from the freeform of options available now in 1E. Literally the exact opposite is true.

I don't think you quite get the definition of "literally".

.

That's a funny comment, given you presented your idea as being "unquestionably" true. Let's examine this idea for a moment-- that PF2 archetypes are less flexible than PF2 archetypes. How about we compare the same archetype with the same name?

PF1 Pirate Archetype

-Has to be taken at level 1.
-Only used by rogue.
-Replaces trapfinding, trap sense, and the 2nd level rogue talent, meaning you can never take another archetype that replaces trapfinding.
-Can be combined with any arhcetype that doesn't replace those 3 things. This means technically you could have more than one archetype at level 1, though you have very little left to trade at level 1. I don't think there's a second archetype that actually kicks in this level.
-I have 46 archetypes for rogue on my hero lab. Pirate only has 10 it can be combined with.
-Forces you to take the Sea Legs feat at 1st level.
-Forces you to take Swinging Reposition instead of your 2nd level rogue talent.
-Forces you to take Unflinching Mind at 3rd level.

PF2 Pirate

-Can be used by any character.
-Can be entered at any level when you get a class feat (possibly only starting at 2.)
-Can be combined with any other archetype, with the only limitation being how many feats you spend. If they all take 3 feats for their dedication cost like pirate, than any class can combine at least any 3 archeypes.
-Allows you to take Sea Legs if you want to.
-Allows you to take various other special abilities rather than just limiting you to the listed 3 at the listed levels.
-Still allows you to get the equivalent of trapsense and trapfinding if you want it on your rogue.
-You can choose not only which pirate abilities you get, but which levels you get them.

Please illustrate for me how the PF1 Pirate is more flexible than the PF2 Pirate.

Cheburn wrote:

Rogues get FEATS at every odd level and TALENTS at every even level.

Barbarians get FEATS at every odd level and RAGE POWERS at every even level. Of course, they can also spend FEATS to get extra RAGE POWERS, and many do. They get gradually increasing DR/- every three levels, starting at seventh level.

Fighters get FEATS at every odd level, and a FIGHTER BONUS FEATS or COMBAT FEATS at every even level.

Paladins get FEATS at every odd level, and MERCIES at every third level. MERCIES modify the class ability LAY ON HANDS, which Paladins get a second level.

Wizards get FEATS at every odd level, and WIZARD BONUS FEATS (METAMAGIC FEATS, ITEM CREATION FEATS, or SPELL MASTERY FEATS) at every fifth level.

Rangers get FEATS at every odd level, and COMBAT STYLE FEATS at second level, and then after every additional four levels.

Bard gets FEATS at every odd level, VERSATILE PERFORMANCE starting at second level, and...

Are you being sarcarstic? You spent 8 bullet points to describe the process in PF1 (for only the CRB classes) and then one line to describe the process in PF2 (for all classes forever) and then think the former is easier to pick up?

It is harder for you because you are used to bullet points 1-8. But that you need a description for how each individual class shows it is more complex than a similair description you only need to learn once.

They were being sarcastic. Though if you were to now translate that into 2e verbage, it would be "Rogues get FEATS at every level, but half the time they're FEATS and the other half of the time they're CLASS FEATS (which are legally distinct from FEATS but some FEATS can give you CLASS FEATS, but CLASS FEATS can't give you FEATS except for the CLASS FEATS that do)."

Captain Morgan wrote:

To have anything other than a token amount of archetypes

I would be 100% okay with having a token number of archetypes to introduce the concept and then have later supplements have many more archetypes. If page space is truly THAT much of a concern, excuse the Pirate feat chain and other feat chains like it to free up the space. I doubt I'm the only one who shares this sentiment.

Why would they introduce a concept they have already introduced? Just to reassure folks they exist? The biggest selling point for PF1 archetypes is that there are a lot of them. If I have never seen archetypes and only get 1 in the core rulebook, I'd question why it couldn't just be a choice in the vanilla class. And I feel like there's going to be more people clamoring for their witches, oracles, kineticists, etc than there will be the old archetypes when we actually get the system.

It makes more sense to use the core rulebook for broadly applicable additions, and then create more specific archetypes later on. You can create a big book of PF1 style archetypes, or you can create class specific expansion books. A big Alchemist feats and Alchemist archetypes, for example. This is also easier to parse for a new player, IMO, then simply grafting the PF1 archetype system onto the PF2 core rulebook.

Malk_Content wrote:

Cheburn wrote:

Rogues get FEATS at every odd level and TALENTS at every even level.

Barbarians get FEATS at every odd level and RAGE POWERS at every even level. Of course, they can also spend FEATS to get extra RAGE POWERS, and many do. They get gradually increasing DR/- every three levels, starting at seventh level.

Fighters get FEATS at every odd level, and a FIGHTER BONUS FEATS or COMBAT FEATS at every even level.

Paladins get FEATS at every odd level, and MERCIES at every third level. MERCIES modify the class ability LAY ON HANDS, which Paladins get a second level.

Wizards get FEATS at every odd level, and WIZARD BONUS FEATS (METAMAGIC FEATS, ITEM CREATION FEATS, or SPELL MASTERY FEATS) at every fifth level.

Rangers get FEATS at every odd level, and COMBAT STYLE FEATS at second level, and then after every additional four levels.

Bard gets FEATS at every odd level, VERSATILE PERFORMANCE starting at second level, and...

Are you being sarcarstic? You spent 8 bullet points to describe the process in PF1 (for only the CRB classes) and then one line to describe the process in PF2 (for all classes forever) and then think the former is easier to pick up?

It is harder for you because you are used to bullet points 1-8. But that you need a description for how each individual class shows it is more complex than a similair description you only need to learn once.

They were being sarcastic. Though if you were to now translate that into 2e verbage, it would be "Rogues get FEATS at every level, but half the time they're FEATS and the other half of the time they're CLASS FEATS (which are legally distinct from FEATS but some FEATS can give you CLASS FEATS, but CLASS FEATS can't give you FEATS except for the CLASS FEATS that do)."

By stating Rogue you make it seem like you have to do one of those for each class. But you don't. So its

"Characters get feats at every level. You are told what type of Feat it is. Look at the relevant section of the book for that list of Feats." Done, for every class EVER.

EDIT: Removed some antagonistic text. Sorry

Are you being sarcarstic? You spent 8 bullet points to describe the process in PF1 (for only the CRB classes) and then one line to describe the process in PF2 (for all classes forever) and then think the former is easier to pick up?

It is harder for you because you are used to bullet points 1-8. But that you need a description for how each individual class shows it is more complex than a similair description you only need to learn once.

Ah, sorry. I thought the juxtaposition between eight bullet points for CRB classes in PF1e and a single sentence for every class in PF2e would make my position clear. I should have used [sarcasm] tags.

The new class system for PF2e is way easier for a newbie, and I greatly prefer it to the class system from PF1e. I feel it is much more simple and versatile at the same time.

They were being sarcastic. Though if you were to now translate that into 2e verbage, it would be "Rogues get FEATS at every level, but half the time they're FEATS and the other half of the time they're CLASS FEATS (which are legally distinct from FEATS but some FEATS can give you CLASS FEATS, but CLASS FEATS can't give you FEATS except for the CLASS FEATS that do)."

You're welcome to call me "he" in the future, as it matches both my forum avatar and my actual sex, though if you continue to call me "they," that won't really offend me.

<CLASS> get FEATS at every level. Odd levels give GENERAL FEATS (see list) or SKILL FEATS, while even levels give CLASS FEATS (see class-specific list) and SKILL FEATS (see list). Rogues in particular get an additional SKILL FEAT at every odd level. See? That just replaced the mess of bullet points I gave above.

Have you often gotten a migraine under PF1 explaining to the new Fighter player that they can only take Combat feats as their bonus feats, not any feat in the list?

Yeah, the distinction in PF1 was hard to parse. I’m glad that PF2 is reducing that confusion by making the categories of feats clear and normal for every class.

Malk_Content wrote:

Are you being sarcarstic? You spent 8 bullet points to describe the process in PF1 (for only the CRB classes) and then one line to describe the process in PF2 (for all classes forever) and then think the former is easier to pick up?

It is harder for you because you are used to bullet points 1-8. But that you need a description for how each individual class shows it is more complex than a similair description you only need to learn once.

Ah, sorry. I thought the juxtaposition between eight bullet points for CRB classes in PF1e and a single sentence for every class in PF2e would make my position clear. I should have used [sarcasm] tags.

Well others have said basically the same thing in claiming it is harder so it is hard to tell!

It makes more sense to use the core rulebook for broadly applicable additions

Here it is a bit more simply for you then: feat chains are one of the least popular concepts in PF1e. Taking the name of a popular mechanic and putting it on an unpopular mechanic isn't going to change the dislike of the mechanic for many people. I'd rather have an extra class, more class feats, more magic items, or hell, more GMing advice then waste pages on rebranded feat chains. So no. I wouldn't want broadly applicable "archetypes" in place of class specific ones, even if that means only a couple of classes get archetypes.

I no longer think the RAE is an improvement. 3 actions of any type is, theoretically, easier than old system, but with individual actions now having a more variable cost and the fact that there exist a number of different classes of action (attack, manipulate, etc) it looks like a lateral move at best.

It's a lateral move for those used to the old system. It's vastly simpler for new people.

Before, most spells for example cost a standard action. Now they cost 2 actions except when they cost 1 or 3 and those individual actions are defined as being somatic or verbal so presumably there's some distinction between the two. The same appears to be true of other abilities too like how Sudden Charge grants effectively 4 actions.

Adding or subtracting from a starting number of 3 is a lot simpler than keeping track of 6 different action types.

Levelling still appears to be a matter of meeting the XP threshold so I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here. BABs, and Saves were already standardized in a sense (as were Skills if you always put them into the same slots) so I don't really see that as any improvement at all.

BAB and Saves were a mess. As were skills if you did anything but the most boring possible thing with them (and even then you had to remember to grab extra when you raised Int and the like). You almost universally had to consult the chart for what saves raised at what level, and BAB was almost as bad if you were mid-BAB.

In PF2, you just add one to everything whenever you level, and sometimes add one rank in a single Skill. No worrying about which things go up this level or other weirdness. Simple.

Feats: First, I don't really think the mode of organization will help as the divisions seem fairly arbitrary. Secondly, characters will be taking more Feats under the new system so it's more complicated.

A choice from 10-20 options, or even 50 options, is actually vastly easier than a choice from thousands. And the latter is what you get with PF1 'all Feats are in a big pool'. Making it a set of lists each individually shorter is great as a simplifier.

Cleric and Wizard spells interact with the rules the same way, sure, but you can't have a Wizard casting Bless or a Cleric casting Magic Missile.

Sure, but once you know how spells work you can read spells in general and understand them. They also interact with other rules in a consistent fashion. The same is true of Feats in PF2.

They aren't? Then what am I thinking of related to skills that you can only take once every like 5 levels and Rogues get more of? Like I honestly don't remember off the top of my head.

Uh...no? All Feats have level requirements. Skill Feats aren't special or more complex in this regard. Rogues get more of them, is all.

As in the above example with the distinction between Wizard and Cleric spells. You haven't had to spend 30 minutes trying to explain to a new player that, no, they can't get access to every spell in the spell list. And the important distinction is that they aren't called the same thing because they aren't 1-to-1 comparable due to what level you can access them or what sources you get them from. Doesn't matter what they're called, talents, discoveries, oranges, zibblezabbles, as long as they're not called FEATS. Unless 2e is going to allow players to take any kind of feat at any level, it's just going to make new players wonder why the GM is getting a migrane an hour into explaining why they can't have completed their entire archetype dedication at level 3.

This is not something I've ever experienced with any player in regards to spells. If you have, my sympathies, but someone that obtuse/looking for advantage will not be defeated by mere terminology, I assure you.

This is welcome to hear. I really do like skill feats as a concept, it's just the missing into/spread of info in lots of different places that is making it very difficult to visualise progression.

I made a progression chart for this:

Anyway, here's a chart:

1st: Background granted Skill Feat, Ancestry Feat, Class Feat, starting Skills.
2nd: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
3rd: Skill Rank, General Feat,
4th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
5th: Skill Rank, Ancestry Feat, Ability Scores Raise
6th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
7th: Skill Rank, General Feat,
8th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
9th: Skill Rank, Ancestry Feat,
10th: Skill Feat, Class Feat, Ability Scores Raise
11th: Skill Rank, General Feat,
12th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
13th: Skill Rank, Ancestry Feat,
14th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
15th: Skill Rank, General Feat, Ability Scores Raise
16th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
17th: Skill Rank, Ancestry Feat,
18th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
19th: Skill Rank, General Feat,
20th: Skill Feat, Class Feat, Ability Scores Raise

Some Classes mess with the Class Feat part of this a bit (Clerics don't get one at 12th or 16th), and most get Class Features at odd levels, but that's the chart, more or less.

KingOfAnything wrote:

The Dandy Lion wrote:

The quality of skill feats sound better than the ones in 1e at least, but it sounds like we'll be burning quite a few of them just keeping the skills ranked up for the proficiency treadmill.

Just to address this one point. You don’t spend feats to upgrade your skill proficiency. You can spend feats to get more trained skills, but you get regular skill upgrades (I.e. ranks) every other level,

This is welcome to hear. I really do like skill feats as a concept, it's just the missing into/spread of info in lots of different places that is making it very difficult to visualise progression.

For sure. It’s been awhile, but the Leveling Up and Are You Proficient blogs laid a lot of this groundwork. Everyone would do well to go back and read those now that we have a little more context!

So PF2 definitely had a problem with redundant archetypes so each class can use a gun, go on a boat, have a mount, etc. Doing these as universal archetypes is at the very least a good way to save space. But if you do this you can't really have them trading away fixed class features since there's no way that "What every class gets at level 5" is equivalent (3nd level spells, vs. 3d6 sneak attack, say). But a thing PF2 classes do get that's (at least on paper) equivalent whether we're talking about a bard or a barbarian are feats. Which is why this initial collection of archetypes touches only feats- there really isn't any other way to do it.

But since feats are pretty important to building your character I like very much that they don't make you buy the whole package, or any particular feat at any particular level. So while the Bard might want their 6th level feat very much, a Ranger might see nothing they particularly wanted at that level, for example.

Where I'm slightly concerned though is say at some point in the future PF2 is doing something like a Darklands AP, and because of this they print a bunch of different rules for radiation, which include ways characters can be resist it, gain power from it, etc. So we're going to need radiation feats now. So do we do those as a "Rad Child" archetype? Or do we just print some new feats and list them in the appropriate categories? Doing it as an archetype gets in the way of the Pirate who is prepared to sail the sightless sea to prove herself the greatest mariner...

Though if you were to now translate that into 2e verbage, it would be "Rogues get FEATS at every level, but half the time they're FEATS and the other half of the time they're CLASS FEATS (which are legally distinct from FEATS but some FEATS can give you CLASS FEATS, but CLASS FEATS can't give you FEATS except for the CLASS FEATS that do)."

I think you mean "Rogues get FEATS at every level, half the time they are GENERAL FEATS and the other half they are CLASS FEATS"

The 'General' bit seems to be important to know exactly what you can pick (be it 'General', 'Class' or 'Skill')

So I don't have to choose an archetype? That's a relief. I never liked pirates.

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.

It has been dealt with and to summarize : the Pirate Archetype is not attainable at Level 1 - the (entry) Dedication is marked as 'Feat 2', (i.e., it can be taken at minimum Level 2). People have missed it before on this and other blogs, perhaps Paizo needs to make it more noticeable? (The Level as a bracketed number alongside the Feat name?)

So if I want a character to be a pirate, I take the sailor background, and their backstory is all about being a cabin boy on a pirate ship, etc. but I can't take the pirate archetype at level 1, do I have to just be Guybrush Threepwood in that my pirate status is aspirational? Am I just not a very good pirate until level 2?

Does this sort of imply everybody on a pirate ship is pretty good at their job, or do a good number of them not qualify as pirates?

Thinking of letting people get an 1 archetype feat for free when I do playtest.

Why slow down ability to be who they want to be.

After all, it seems they gave an extra feat to everyone during official playtests.

So if I want a character to be a pirate, I take the sailor background, and their backstory is all about being a cabin boy on a pirate ship, etc. but I can't take the pirate archetype at level 1, do I have to just be Guybrush Threepwood in that my pirate status is aspirational? Am I just not a very good pirate until level 2?

Does this sort of imply everybody on a pirate ship is pretty good at their job, or do a good number of them not qualify as pirates?

In PF1, was it impossible for a Swashbuckler to be a pirate because pirate was a Rogue archetype?

You're a pirate, you just lack dedication.

The universal pirate archetype does make me wonder what Paizo intends to fill out player companions with since they can't just reprint the same useless archetype for a different class in every book.

So if I want a character to be a pirate, I take the sailor background, and their backstory is all about being a cabin boy on a pirate ship, etc. but I can't take the pirate archetype at level 1, do I have to just be Guybrush Threepwood in that my pirate status is aspirational? Am I just not a very good pirate until level 2?

Does this sort of imply everybody on a pirate ship is pretty good at their job, or do a good number of them not qualify as pirates?

Ooh are we getting into the game mechanics equal in world terminology again?

Lets say hypothetically the Pirate archetype didn't exist. Would you be happy calling your level 1 character who does piratey things a Pirate? Does the existence of an archetype really change that?

And yeah, at level 1 you aren't a very good ANYTHING.

By stating Rogue you make it seem like you have to do one of those for each class. But you don't. So its

"Characters get feats at every level. You are told what type of Feat it is. Look at the relevant section of the book for that list of Feats." Done, for every class EVER.

EDIT: Removed some antagonistic text. Sorry

<CLASS> get FEATS at every level. Odd levels give GENERAL FEATS (see list) or SKILL FEATS, while even levels give CLASS FEATS (see class-specific list) and SKILL FEATS (see list). Rogues in particular get an additional SKILL FEAT at every odd level. See? That just replaced the mess of bullet points I gave above.

Maybe I'm not being clear. What I'm NOT saying is that in 2e Rogues should have talents, Clerics should have domain powers, Barbarians should have rage powers, and Alchemists should have discoveries. What I AM saying is that EVERY class should have Meringue Pies. Meringue Pies = needs a specific class, Feats = just needs prerequisites. For example, let's say Word of Healing gets reprinted. Does that become a Meringue Pie, requiring that whoever wants it is a Paladin, or does it become a Feat, allowing whoever happens to get Lay on Hands through another source (prestige classes, archetypes, or Believer's Hands) can use it?

The universal pirate archetype does make me wonder what Paizo intends to fill out player companions with since they can't just reprint the same useless archetype for a different class in every book.

My guess? We'll see more class feats and skill feats to take up that space. Which hopefully will lead to interesting options, though it does make me wonder about bloat. Maybe if they mostly do it by introducing stuff like new druid orders or monk styles, it won't feel as bloaty, since you can always default to the feats that tie into those orders or styles, if you don't want to have to worry about the a huge breadth of options.

feat chains

I do not think that term means what you think it means.

Feat chains are when Feat Z requires you to take Feat Y which requires Feat X which needs Feats W and V.

PF2's Archetypes are closer to unlockable Feats Pools. Taking Feat A allows you to take any combination of Feats B, C, D, E, and F in the future.

Where I'm slightly concerned though is say at some point in the future PF2 is doing something like a Darklands AP, and because of this they print a bunch of different rules for radiation, which include ways characters can be resist it, gain power from it, etc. So we're going to need radiation feats now. So do we do those as a "Rad Child" archetype? Or do we just print some new feats and list them in the appropriate categories? Doing it as an archetype gets in the way of the Pirate who is prepared to sail the sightless sea to prove herself the greatest mariner...

They could add a general Rad Child archetype but that specific AP would then give Rad Child Dedication to every character as a bonus feat and then say the special line does not apply. A Pirate AP could do the same for the Pirate archetype.

Malk_Content wrote:

By stating Rogue you make it seem like you have to do one of those for each class. But you don't. So its

"Characters get feats at every level. You are told what type of Feat it is. Look at the relevant section of the book for that list of Feats." Done, for every class EVER.

EDIT: Removed some antagonistic text. Sorry

Cheburn wrote:

<CLASS> get FEATS at every level. Odd levels give GENERAL FEATS (see list) or SKILL FEATS, while even levels give CLASS FEATS (see class-specific list) and SKILL FEATS (see list). Rogues in particular get an additional SKILL FEAT at every odd level. See? That just replaced the mess of bullet points I gave above.

Maybe I'm not being clear. What I'm NOT saying is that in 2e Rogues should have talents, Clerics should have domain powers, Barbarians should have rage powers, and Alchemists should have discoveries. What I AM saying is that EVERY class should have Meringue Pies. Meringue Pies = needs a specific class, Feats = just needs prerequisites. For example, let's say Word of Healing gets reprinted. Does that become a Meringue Pie, requiring that whoever wants it is a Paladin, or does it become a Feat, allowing whoever happens to get Lay on Hands through another source (prestige classes, archetypes, or Believer's Hands) can use it?

Simple. The feat can either exist on multiple lists (like we know Whirlwind Strike does) or whatever obscure source gives you Lay on Hands merely states "any Paladin Feat that alters or improves Lay on Hands is added to your class feat options" or even "x,y and z feats from the Paladin class list is added to your Class Feat options."

Still, I don't see the reason for coming up with a completely different name for something to protect it against edge cases, that will need to be explained anyway when they come up, whilst 99% of the rest of their functionality is shared by other things of the same name.