Kaiyanwang's page

Kudos to Paizo for the decision.
I am positive one can design a new edition and keep what made 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder 1st edition marvelous and interesting while trimming the superfluous.
And for superfluous I mean anything that needlessly complicates character and encounter building while being frustrating and adding nothing of interest.
Is very premature for any comment, I will monitor the news!
Good luck!

Wild Hunt. Fey, CR 18-20 range. Made as a multiple entry.

With spectral hounds, spectral stags to ride and 2-3 types of co-hunters of lesser CR (or just 1, then we will advance it by class levels).

Alternatively to stags and hounds, just create a cool fey template for spirit animals, and then say to use such template in the Wild Hunt Entry.

But the master of the hunt must be awesome. To scary or at least worry an high level fiend.

EDIT: possible variation is an undead wild hunt. But please, some love for high CR fey.

.. or whatever it is that things that weren't born have instead of navels

My wild guess: is a matter of evolution points spent.

All this Jazz, and the Monk here still has 4 skill /level.

Meh.

My personal opinion is they need to do sweet things that are beyond mortal understanding without actually casting spells. As much as a lot of people would hate to hear it, Warriors from World of Warcraft would be an excellent example of the types of things that high level martial characters should be able to do. High level warriors do crazy stuff like...

Dive into swarms of enemies while swinging their 2-handed weapon around violently in a tornado motion for massive area of effect damage (and I do NOT mean Whirlwind Attack).

Deflect magic with a shield. In WoW, if a magician attempts to cast a targeted spell on a high level warrior, they can literally reflect the spell back at the caster, similar to a spell-turning (doesn't work for AoEs of course, but stuff like scorching ray, disintegrate, or hold person would be fair game).

Preform an unstoppable charge over a great distance. High level warriors in World of Warcraft can actually break out of snare effects such as entangle, being frozen, and across terrible terrain to get right to their foes. This would be like acting as if under the effects of freedom of movement when you preform a charge.

Damage over time effects. A fairly simple but effective option for warrior types should be the ability to pour on some heavy bleed damage or similar. If you can wound a foe so that they suffer 1d6/4 levels plus your strength modifier bleed damage, it at least gives them a way to force a foe to go on the defensive (ok, so now the mage is taking an average of damage every turn until they spend actions to use a cure light wounds potion or something, and casting a spell is DC 26 + spell level vs ongoing damage).

Delayed damage and conditions. Give them the option to delay the effects of a condition or even death for a round, which could give them a second chance versus such conditions. You get turned to stone? It takes longer to transmute your body. Stunned? You grin and bear being kicked in the cajones for six more seconds. Take a sword through the heart? You...

In my homebrew, I'm working essentially at this, plus reworking domains and schools, and dividing class features in a way combat does not steal to non-combat.

Every class has something magic, but the more mundane ones only have a bigger control over equipment and are the best weapon and armor crafters (fighters) or have old abilities merged and reworked (rogues steals things froms PrCs).

I too am surprised by how people can conjure up energy to post 1-star bash reviews while praising, say, APG which they never bothered to review in the first place.

Oh well, guess that negativity comes naturally to some, while being positive is just too bothersome.

Myself, at times, I just waited for the errata because I wanted to avoid my usual negativity and say again that APG is a great book but several abilities are just in the "does the designer of this know the rules" field.

After UC, I just gave up with the RPG line.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Since you don't go there, fine.

What do you mean for "you cannot sneak"?

(more OT, I like the idea of the TH bruiser -do you remember the gosht-faced Killer from Complete Adventurer?)

Because see invisibility negates the only thing that allows you to sneak 99% of the time. The rest of the time, you have to have your Wizard buddy cast something that grants concealment or cover.

Yes, there are Bluff checks to distract, but good luck with that on a regular basis.

There are things like flanking and such. I admit that the more you level up, the more is difficult beacuse of fly, true seeing and stuff - but say it's 99% of times is just ridiculous.

Anyway, the OP said low level, so...

Since you don't go there, fine.

What do you mean for "you cannot sneak"?

(more OT, I like the idea of the TH bruiser -do you remember the gosht-faced Killer from Complete Adventurer?)

I dont need a super high stealth score because hey, i'm invisible!

In my experience, at high level this is a road to death, expecially with demons and similar monsters.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Slashing and keen weapons have greater threat. Piercing, devastating blow weapons high multipliers. Heavier weapons TEND to have greater damage dice (which is useless after level 6 and it's one of the things I hoped the book could try to address, but anyway).

What is useless after 6th? <confused>

The weapon damage dice compared to multipliers and threat, due the inflation of flat bonuses to damage.

.

I guess we will see a "Falscythe" (19-20/x4) in one of the splatbooks soon enough and then everything starts anew.

Up until the "Scimifalcascythe, 18-20/x4. I will open another thread and people will say me once again:

1) "lol the only weapon worthy of EWP look at bastard" - as if something in the middle could not be viable

2) "lol consider those things is for min-maxers" - as if all players don't use numbers for combat or skill cheks or whatever

3) "lol you can houserule it" - as if the rules are not there to help people, otherwise why buy the book

I don't seriously think I can stand another thing like this. I'm really done with this game. Heavy houserule time, goodnight, Paizo.

Light Ray (Ex) A lantern archon can fire beams of light to damage foes. These light rays have a maximum range of 30 feet. This attack overcomes damage reduction of any type.

Is (Ex)? Ah, never noticed. Lazors are now (Ex)?

I find surprising that people find UM good in flavour. Mind affecting for undeads death effects for undeath, druids summoning aberrations...

Good translation of concept---> mechanic?
Like Flaring Spells?

I can see this: people asked for not too much caster content in UC.

Eh.

I wish to point out one thing: I am quite disappointed from what I've seen until now of the book.

Said this, most of the "Wuxia" stuff can be refluffed. Look in any source, wikipedia included - you can rename oriental weapons in any way suitable.

The same with classes. In my setting, Ninjas are sort of a Rogue-Monk fantasy version of the Warhammer 40k Dark Eldar Mandrakes.

Samurai are deathsworn bodyguards of the Emperor. If one is badass and has resolve, you can just say is a special order of Knights.

On a more side note, something similar to firearms. A lot of people think to Doom2 (BTW, that could be a great one shot campaing: fighters and gunslingers vs fiends with lazors - double loot in weapons and ammunitions).

I just think to this.

I never stop being amused at folks who argue about realistic portrayal of sharpened pieces of metal (complete with youtube and wikipedia links) but have absolutely no problem with the fact that falling from 500 ft. is something that a mid-level Barbarian or Fighters sneezes at, because it causes him at average 70 points of damage.

Please.

The system tried to simulate weapons.

Slashing and keen weapons have greater threat. Piercing, devastating blow weapons high multipliers. Heavier weapons TEND to have greater damage dice (which is useless after level 6 and it's one of the things I hoped the book could try to address, but anyway).

Weapons with hooks, or which are chains have the trip ability. Weapons with special shape the disarm one.

Is not 100% accurate, but enough to grant immersion. You know, roleplaying game.

If you depict, by rules, a weapon in a way I cannot reconnect mechanics with fluff, you break my suspension of disbelief.

The fact that a barbarian jumps and almost ignores the fall damage is because is just that awesome at that level. That's a matter of adjusting your expectations.
Funny thing, this little, but precious part of simulationism is one of the reasons for which some people stay with Pathfinder.

leo1925 wrote:

In the world walker druid archetype (p.43):

The favored terrain ability says that it replaces "replaces trackless step and reduce nature’s lore.", i guess that the second part should say resist nature's lure.

I refuse to learn anything!

Technically, it says "reduce", so RAW you should UNlearns stuff, not just refuse to learn.

But a good GM can houserule it.

Th eproblem here is not only te mere DPR calculation (which nevertheless shows how the more you go up in levels, the more falcata becomes powerful), but the fact that for a single attack there is a very, very high chance of a big damage burst.

Seriously people, I've seen it with a CaGM barbarian and was annoying.

Great idea. And with all those extra spells out, spellcasters need more spells/day and spells known. Rogues need more rogue talents, barbarians more rage powers. Everyone should get everything.

What are you, five? Didn't you learn that you can't have everything? :P

You are right and wrong IMHO. PCs could be more complicated to run, and maybe more powerful, but IMHO a consilidation and/or a scaling with levels could be an awesome idea as an alternate rule.

Good grief, why nerf the only weapon worth blowing EWP on?

Is not a nerf. Still is awesome 1H, and still makes even more awesome (in comparison) the TW Warrior Fighter archetype. It is simply a way to avoid a no-brainer.

You think that Pathfinder weapons are supposed to represent real life? Look at the dire flail, two-bladed sword, orc double axe, scythe....

If you wish, you could use the crunch for the scythe to represent a Pollaxe. Piercing? Yes. Slashing? Yes. Hook for tripping, vicious blows.

I can not help for the other weapons :p

Kaiyanwang wrote:

@seekerofshadowlight: very imaginative your player ;)

The same guy put skills into Knowledge (all) and claimed he had them all as the book listed it as Knowledge (all). He was...creative.

Skill consolidation! If he did it in 3.5, he anticipated the times. Pure genius!

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Shame on HiPS*, awesome on the rest.

Thank you.

*unless you can select shadows - you know what I mean

If regular Rogues could take full HiPS, a certain famous Core PrC could go and cry in the corner...

Nothing bad in my opinion. Certain classes already share spells or class features.

I agree that some PrC is awesome to have for specific combos (one poster pointed out Paladin + Shadowdancer for the Goshdarn Batman).

But core classes shoud have priority.

@seekerofshadowlight: very imaginative your player ;)

Shame on HiPS*, awesome on the rest.

Thank you.

*unless you can select shadows - you know what I mean

ENworld is loads of fun when is a matter of edition warring.

And when is a matter of justifying every thing WotC does, included hypotetical puppies shooting ("in this case, shooting puppies whas the only thing reasonable to do for WotC..").

Thank you Gorbacz for the post. i will print it in a 10x10 feet poster for the sad moments.

is intriguing to see that Ari Marmell is nevertheless better as a diviner than as a Game Designer (Tome of Magic Shadowcaster, as an example).

HeHateMe wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Logically, if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie.

That's logically. Realistically, if two people are pointing at a pastry and arguing about whether it's cake or pie, a third person will come along and eat the pastry, then say "Who the F--k cares? It was delicious!".

" if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie" is the golden mean fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Whether it is cake or pie is determined by whether it is cake, mostly cake, cake pie, mostly pie, or pie (or some gradation in the middle)

It could in fact, be a muffin, a tarantula, or even non existent.

Wise words. Thank you.

I have not the book yet, but (confirm) there should be an Hide in Plain Sight talent, swif action feints, more Sneak Attack damage with sap, and more action during surprise rounds.

Please, confirm this and heal my broken heart <3 :P

Rules exist to model concepts (and solve conflict).

If designers choose to change a little bit more, or a little bit less to obtain what they want, is better than having them restricted, expecially in a job wich requires creativity.

Seriously, there are several things that can be worthy of complain, but this is just pointless.

I've seen both overpowered options and trap options cause problems in games

Me too. Overpowered, if the difference among party members is not that big, can be dealt with just increasing challenges. Buffing up most times became "DM mercy", and the player just rolled/choosed something else.

If an option is bad, is bad. There is nothing you can do, because houseruling it means be a developer or something. Since I do not receive money for that, I just don't do it if I buy a book.

And a thing more about "your DM can fix it". Yeah, he/she can. If is experienced. Now I can fix thing (again, I start to bother now because I just decided to stop buy RPG books).

Then when I was a noob DM, I just made up things and they never worked as expected. I pay books to avoid those troubles. If I have to buy books for other people suggestions and houserules, internet is plenty.

@Balance: perfect balance is impossible and would be horribly boring. What one should aim at is interesting, comparable options with situational advantages/disdvantages. This makes a game interesting.

And this is not obtained when there are feats so bad you cannot take them (ERRATED cockatrice strike), so good you can avoid taking them (persistent spells + FtS), exotic weapons all crappy barring few "WTF" ones, and so on. And paizo seems to just ignore this, or just apply fixes that are not fixes (Cockatrice Strike, antagonize). With a surprising celerity in fixing nonbroken things like the Monk INA feat.

These last two things make you wonder if you are just playing the same game.

Ravingdork wrote:

Lots of minor typos, but I've seen few things that look terribly serious.

The nodachi is a two-handed martial heavy blade that deals 1d10 damage, has an 18-20/x2 crit, and brace.

Shouldn't this be an exoitc weapon like it's smaller brothers the katana (one-handed, 1d8/18-20/x2) and the wakizashi (light, 1d6/18-20/x2)?

Also, the latter two get bonuses on coup de graces, but the nodachi does not, despite it having a similar creating process. Shouldn't all 3 get that ability?

I really think the no-dachi has the wrong crit range..comparing it to other martial weapons, as written, its superior to the falchion, elven curve blade and greatsword. Even if it was exotic, its still better than the curve blade..who really finessea a 2H weapon?

I think it should be 1d10, P, S, brace, 19-20x2

Point being that te weapon is a larger version of Katana and Wakizashi (more or less). So it makes sense is 18-20. I'd bet there is something wrong with the category.

People, you are SERIOUSLY overestimating the Ninja. Is a rogue with few tricks more. Seriously.

Said this, I think is sad there are not mountless archetype for Cavaliers, Westerns or Easterns. People asked vocally for them and in my opinion could have expanded a lot more the class (just call it Knight, marshal or whatever).

I wait to see the book to see more, anyway. The previews intrigued me more than the UM ones.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Big Norse Wolf, when did I quoted Shield Focus or Dodge?

I was talking about using the feat along with a piece of equipent.

Again, what is related with this the stunned condition?

I don't understand your line of reasoning.

you said use combat expertise with a piece of equipment.

i said use [shield focus or dodge or whatever] instead of combat expertise with the equipment and get the same result.

You said combat expertise was better.

I showed you math that said it wasn't.

O_o whan I said was better? I said that was one use. And can be stacked with shield dodge or whatever, if needed, even if is VERY stats and feats intensive.

Big Norse Wolf, when did I quoted Shield Focus or Dodge?

I was talking about using the feat along with a piece of equipent.

Again, what is related with this the stunned condition?

I don't understand your line of reasoning.

My point was that raising it a little all the time is the same as raising it a lot some of the time.

My point was that is not. In a quite swing-y game like pathifinder, an all-or nothing round MAKES the difference.

It works for specific Fights, and to get a comparison. Its a bad feat if you use it for 1 round out of 3. In my experience it is used far less.

If you use it 1 round in 3, is a good feat. Now, I can agree with you that is bad feat, because most times the PF version is taken only for improved trip for the old concept that you cannot have a good feat immediately, you just have to take a sucky one before, and for how has been changed. Can be used, but is sub-par definitively.

No, lets hear it.

I have zero chicken, you have two chicken. "Statistically" we have one chicken each, but actually I am hungry and you are a satiated big wolf ;)

Now, is not a matematically correct joke, but it's useful for me now to point out my opinion: DPR is an useful tool but not to adjudicate short term damage output.

If I have to stack up AC, and I succeed, is not the same of increasing my AC by 3, expacially with people with greataxes around. If they hit with a 12 instead of a 8 is one thing, but if they hit with a 20 instead of a 12, things change, expecially since everybody barring, IIRC, 20th level fighters must confirm criticals.

Now I see that you pointed out the DPR and said the other way around, but there are other factors involved - HPs of the fighter. The DPR could be the same, but is the x3 greataxe critical killing him. not going to happen if you play it defensively one round AND the party plays in your favour (see example)

Otherwise, yeah, better avoid defense and hope to drop everybody fast&furious.

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks...

Man.

If you raise a little bit the AC, can not worth that much. BUT different sources raising the AC can significantly decrease the chance of being hurt. If done well, even of being if by the first attack, charge or iterative.

This was my point, and I was not even trying to show that CE is a good feat because I think is not.

If you get this, well. Otherwise, good luck with your games. DPR means nothing in this case.

It's useful for long time calculation, not for specific rounds.

Dear god, ever heard of the chicken joke about statistics?

Something like that requires the exact situation you denied, or the foes can look for easier meat elsewhere.

My situation is just an example. And I'm not saying that CE is the "bestest feat EVARR", see my previous posts. I just brought examples.

And no, gaining 3 AC for un round is different, if you cap AC en oug to make yourself not hittable. And again, I talked about synergies with defending weapons, so the net increase is far bigger.

My player did this in 3.5. I already said you need more work for a less gain in PF.

I don't understand what you say about combat reflexes.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

You assume the players were always in the optimal situation. But I didn't put them in the optimal situation.

I in no way said, hinted, suggested, or in any way implied that the players needed an optimal situation. My argument does not require "optimal conditions"

In fact the opposite is true, the usefulness of combat expertise relies on the DM making situations where its useful: narrow bridges or corridors and monsters to hold off and a party of ranged people behind you AND some reason why the foes need to be held off rather than simply carved through AND the foes are targeting your armor class and not your fort saves, reflex saves, will saves etc. I dislike a feat for MY character that becomes useful when the DM thinks it should be useful.

If the fighter is taking huge penalties to attack, Its usually expedient to simply walk around him and attack someone else.

Except that I didn't suggest this kind of use. Example:

Round 1: the fighter full attacks in the usual bloody, gory manner. Enemies retaliate.

Round 2: fighter prepares a standard action attack. Enemies countinue to retaliate, but in the triggered attack goes first and the whole CE + defending is activated. AC raises, a lot of attacks miss. In a favorable situation, every attack misses barring 20.

Round 3: reinforcements arrive (along with a web, a fireball of whatelse, a poisoned arrow from the rogue, what you want), healed fighter eviscerates the enemies.

Something like that.

What's not OK is trying to base a character completely on the mechanic.

Could you please elaborate this?

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Is not intuitive but can work. As an example, you use mobility (:D great build) and move against the target, decreasing the chances of being hit by enemies around.

A fighter played by a player of mine had a good use of it switching from full DPR to defense in several rounds to make retaliatory enemy attacks wasted (but he used the superior, uncapped CE and a defending weapon in top of that).

It needs some imagination and a "gut" for the right tactic.

Of course you are talking about the 3.5 version, which I agree is acceptable. I personally put it to good use much of the time on my own fighter. However Pathfinder really gutted the feat. Having to be 20th level to be comparable to 5th in 3.5 is a pretty hefty nerf bat (and even then you aren't as good).

Yes as I said above, was 3.5, was uncapped because of complete warrior, and a defending weapon was used togheter. This allowed one turn of "can't touch me".

Not more than one, because of course enemies will adapt and as BNW said, the best thing is in generaly deal damage until every enemy stop moving.

I think that the feat can hae an use in PF too. Just needs more the synergies, like the +4 AC two handed weapons feat, defending weapons and such.

Yeah, took a little bit of nerfbat for sure.

Honestly I haven't ever *seen* Sword and Board in pathfinder, I included it because i was curious if it was a decent build. Having seen TWF, it's definitely a crappier way to build your character than THF. They're both supposed to be routes focused on attacking, and even if you're not taking into account the added money for TWF and the fact that you're going to get hit doubly by anything with Damage Reduction, your ability to make things hurt is still trailing FAR behind that of the THFer.

I have seen a S&B. Very feat intensive, but for level 12 was just scary. Flail + Improved Trip, and Shield + Bull Rush. Great control of the battlefield and decent DPR.

Quite awesome, more then one time I've seen him prepare an action, trip, and bash away the target with the AOO.

You assume the players were always in the optimal situation. But I didn't put them in the optimal situation.

Switch a single round - just to gain some time - to a defensive tactic has been proven as useful.

I do agree that generally "nuke" is the best option. But sometimes being hit by maybe the first iterative can keep you alive in the right moment.

It was highly situational in 3.5 I had it on several characters and can't remember ever using it. Why on earth, as the fighter, would i ever want to make it HARDER for me to do my primary job of hitting the other person? Will i get hit? Sure. Thats why i have lots of hit points and ranks in profession: masseuse so i can suck up to the cleric.

Is not intuitive but can work. As an example, you use mobility (:D great build) and move against the target, decreasing the chances of being hit by enemies around.

A fighter played by a player of mine had a good use of it switching from full DPR to defense in several rounds to make retaliatory enemy attacks wasted (but he used the superior, uncapped CE and a defending weapon in top of that).

It needs some imagination and a "gut" for the right tactic.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Fozbek wrote:

So damage is all that matters for exotic-ness?

NO, is one of the parameters. And it should not be, or at least not alone, if you ask me (at least the damage dice rolled) but is ONE of the reasons a weapon can be labeled as Exotic.

Right. Which, like I said, means that increasing the Scythe's damage from 2d4x4 to 1d10x4 made it exotic, then removing an "or" damage type and removing a valuable (arguably the most valuable) special ability dropped it right back down to martial. Especially when you consider than the difference in average damage between 2d4 (5) and 1d10 (5.5) is less than one full point, and the scythe produces more reliable results with both a higher minimum and a tighter cluster around the average result.

I essentially agree with you, but I was showing how assignment of martial/exotic generally works.

And AGAIN, the scythe is slightly above a standard martial so, since we are going in circles, I just drop the discussion. Have fun.

So damage is all that matters for exotic-ness?

NO, is one of the parameters. And it should not be, or at least not alone, if you ask me (at least the damage dice rolled) but is ONE of the reasons a weapon can be labeled as Exotic.

Numerian wrote:

Ksorkrax wrote:

Bad fantasy literature like the ancient tale of Bellerophontes who rides Pegasos?

Oh and LotR/Hobbit, to some extent? (giant eagles and stuff, for the evil ones the flying nazgul mounts)

Exceptions to the rule

Also the hobbits did not fly the eagles, they were carried as baggage.

This explains Bellerophontes too I suppose. Carried as baggage.

If fear you want to defend something that can't be defended.

A third for combat expertise. It is very similar to power attack, yet significantly weaker.

I would find a way to change it to follow power attack very closely, i.e.:

1. Power Attack with light weapon, x1 bonus; Combat Expertise without shield used defensively or giving up off hand attacks, x1 bonus
2. Power Attack with one handed weapon, x2 bonus; Combat Expertise with a weapon in each hand or double weapon, but offhand attacks not used (essentially parrying only) x2 bonus
3. Power Attack with two handed weapon, x3 bonus; Combat Expertise with shield (used defensively, no attacks) x3 bonus

Options 2 and 3 give up more offensive power (i.e. possible attacks) than just their attack bonus to defend more heavily in a bad situation.

very good Jess. I will steal it.

It's not designed to be a primary attack. It's supposed to be used in bad situations where you can't charge (or don't want to charge) and can't take a full attack.

This is all fun and games until you realize that feats are a very limited resource (expecially for fighters, since it's more or less all they have).

Yeah one of the player's in my Kingmaker game is a S&B fighter. Sure he could be doing more damage as a THF or even a TWF but he does sick damage as is and also has an AC that makes most of the opposition need a '20' to hit him.

Last I looked his AC was mid to high 40's and his damage was around 1d10+1d6+thirty something.

How much DPR do people need anyway? He kills most mobs in one full attack action and pretty much nothing lives through two. It actually makes me sad at how much high level play breaks down.

If a fighter kills things and avoids to be killed he's just good in his job. A lot of things screw fighters, expecially at high levels (mind affecting, fly if unequipped..) so if your player is doing fine, why should you thin the game is broken?

Flying can be gamebreaking at low level - true.

But one could just expand the list at higher levels when flying in more common.

I can agree that you cannot play the aforementioned Bellerophon at level 1, but by level 12 you should :(

Even if comes up that S&B deals less damage, you have shown nothing.

Such fighter would have more AC and more control on the battlefield thanks to Bull Rush.

In case, the feat investmetn could be discussed. But DPR alone means nothing.

In my experience, the rogue is not SO bad to being unplayable. I found traps be quite deadly, if used correctly along with monsters.

Said this, IMHO the Rogues suffer of a very bad syndrome, sometimes suffered by the fighter, expecially in 3.5.

"This should be done by another class or by a prestige class".

So rogues cannot use flasks anymore - but alchemysts can use bombs. I said before UC a talent for Rogues able to make them use flask at least a limited number of uses/day could have been good. I wonder if they put in the book something similar.

The same, you cannot be the unavodiable infiltrator because there is a Master Spy. To be an Assassin, there is a PRC. The lord of shadows is the Shadowdancer.

Additionally, a lot of rogue talents could just have more uses per day or be more flexible.

Again, this is something suffered by the fighter too. A lot of people don't want to use Fighter Archetypes because they lose Armor Training. But the point is that if you want to create archetypes, you have to give away something. And if there are not so many class features, there is no choice.

The same, the Rogue to get iconic abilities like the poison use, have to lose other iconic ones like Trapfinding. This disappoints me, and when I see that the wizard is less and less limited at the level of opposition schools, I just scratch my head.

What's the direction of the design? Flexibility should be encouraged, or not? Or is good only for certain classes?