Novem's page

Since it wasn't addressed here, I also feel the need to point out that the Mystic never gets expert in Perception. That's not intended is it?

Lots of really cool stuff, especially the clean up of Warden Spell progression. I'm still really disappointed by the lack of Outwit buffs though. All it really needs is to apply its bonus to Athletics Checks against the target and it'd be excellent at frontline support.

So Paizo charging for books and PDFs they sell is a “scam” as well?

No, because you can use that content outside of the context of their website, and they also aren't charging you to put the character options from those books onto your character sheet if you don't own them. This is like me not owning Guns & Gears but making an Inventor only to have Paizo send an agent to my house to demand 20 bucks or they start crossing things out on my character sheet.

As long as they are selling the ability to use rules content that is available online for free, this is disgustingly anti-consumer and I refuse to support it. This is a cool looking tool and I'd be happy to pay for it if it wasn't inherently a scam. This is genuinely gross to me and I expect better from Paizo and their partners than this.

I think something that would be cool is a character who uses their body as a sort of container for mystical or divine power, drawing on artifacts and a connection to powerful entities to access abilities beyond their ken at the cost of their body and spirit.

I'd also really love a Spontaneous Caster who gets to learn as many spells and have as many spell slots per level as a Wizard, but the trade-off is that all of their spells are like a deck of cards you have to draw from. Like you roll a die and the number that comes up is the spell you have access to that turn. Feats could let you cheat the system a bit, but overall you basically have to come up with creative ways to use the spells you roll. It'd be especially cool if one of the boons to this trade-off is base-class access to metamagic and maybe even extra actions to apply them to your spells, so that you can adapt the spells you roll into whatever situation you happen to be in. I think something like that could be really fun and interesting and give off that sort of fun wild mage feel.

I don't think we need more playtests, I think we need Paizo to take the errata process a lot more seriously as a platform to make changes that support the overall health of this game. Granted, I think the reason they don't do this has a lot to do with their kind of behind the times business model. We live in a digital age where digital is the primary form of interaction with the game even at the physical table and yet their entire business is still built around physical products. They bind errata to reprints and they limit the scale of their changes because they don't consider books as living products that contribute to the game's overall ecosystem. Luckily they seem to have noticed at least a little bit that they've fallen behind or they wouldn't have started making premium modules for Foundry with fully remade maps (since they create their PDFs with the assumption that they'll be used only by GMs who reference them to draw onto a battlemap and not with the assumption that they'll be used as backgrounds for VTT), but I'm still hoping they recognize that that isn't far enough yet. That they should take a holistic approach to supporting their products and consider all of the game's content to be important instead of simply abandoning it. Yes there's no immediate financial return for doing that, but the health of a game is important to its perception and bringing new people in to buy those products is itself a way to make money. Every MMO ever can attest to that. And the fact that every rule and character option is freely available online means that visibility and use for all of it is pretty high, making it even more important for all of that content to be well-maintained.

Novem wrote:

Of course, I'm not asking for them to change the timing on their Errata drops (though again I wouldn't argue against it) and I get their reasoning, what I want most is just for them to take these opportunities to rework old content more seriously. Particularly for such a big thing like an entire Class (The Witch) to be so weak is really bad for the health of the game. It just pushes players into stronger classes with similar thematics and that's super lame. Leaving stuff to languish like this makes the game less versatile to what players want to play. So if there's going to be so few opportunities to make changes, I think Paizo needs to be more conscious of the problems the game has and put more effort as well as resources into make changes that address those problems. I know it doesn't directly make them money, but like any modern live service game will tell you, it's important to the long-term success of your game that its fundamentals are up to snuff. That Paizo doesn't seem to understand or acknowledge that is very frustrating to me.

Around me, Witch has a lot of success, more success than some more efficient classes.

But more importantly, if you increase the power level of the Witch, what will be the next bad class in need of improvement? Balancing is a never ending process (and I've worked in the video game industry, so I'm sure about that).

Right now, the Witch it playable, it fills its intended purpose. If you prefer the Bard, then fine play a Bard. But there's nothing like an unplayable Witch. So I don't think the Witch needs an "errata". An Unchained version, why not. But it's a very different process, it's a complete class overhaul.

As I said above: Paizo choice is conservative, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

I disagree. One of the most important parts of this game and the reason I play it and try to bring new people into it is that it's a game that rarely forces you to compromise your mechanical power in order to live up to your roleplaying fantasy. If a player wants to play Witch, it shouldn't simply be a bad choice like the Witch is currently because Paizo vastly overvalues the strength of familiars. And it wouldn't take much to put them into a healthier spot, which is also why your concern about the never-ending process of balancing is kind of irrelevant in this case. Because no one thinks the Bard as it exists is weak, they wouldn't stop playing it just because the Witch was powerful. And it doesn't take a huge overhaul to fix the Witches problems, they just need a bone. Refusing to throw it isn't just conservative, it is bad for the game to refuse to maintain languishing content.

Long-term success first needs long-term survival.

How do you want Paizo to get the money they won't make because they would be doing big patches on existing products for free instead of creating new content that they actually sell for money ?

Not sure online ads would work.

Ensuring the health of your product is important to the sustainability of your product's ability to generate profit. Or do you think game companies focus so much on patches because they're just that nice? No, they want their game to have a positive reputation so that it keeps selling to new people, bringing in customers to purchase future content and invest big on collecting older content. Just because patches like this aren't a direct form of profit generation doesn't mean they don't generate revenue. Hell, hearing there was errata coming out is what got me to even buy the PDF for the APG, whereas I'd been relying on the physical I bought when it came out. A unique situation of course and not one that's probably very common, but the point is that patches themselves drive sales of existing products for a variety of reasons.

Novem wrote:

By the way, as far as that Bandolier example, that's really less of a rules concern or a concern with errata than it is your GM being a little anal about the details. I have never played in a game where Bandoliers are required and it doesn't really matter if they're required by RAW or not. It's such a little thing that it's not worth being particularly obsessed over regardless of what the rules on it are.

This right here is kind of the point. It isn't as important to release patches in the same way because there are humans at the table who can just decide to do something different.

Aside from that, you are comparing apples to the Titanic. Major game studios have dozens to hundreds of full-time employees they can dedicate to that kind of work. The scale that Paizo operates on just isn't the same.

Don't work yourself up just because the thing you want is wildly unrealistic and out of scale.

Maintenance of existing content is a form of long-term profit generation regardless of what industry you're in. It's important for the health of the overall game. I'm not being unrealistic, there are indie studios much smaller than Paizo who do much more regular maintenance on their products. What I want is neither "wildly unrealistic" nor "out of scale", and it's ridiculous of you to pretend that it is. If anyone is "comparing apples to the Titanic" here, it's you comparing bandolier changes to the functionality of an entire class.

Not to mention, you're also making the Titanic out of apples, by pretending that changing a few words to make something more playable is that far beyond the scope of their existing process for errata. Like it doesn't take a giant hit to wordcount to remove the temporary immunity from Witch Hex cantrips and give them a free basic lesson at first level. It's not a huge investment to slap Divine Access onto Oracles as a 1st level class feature. It's not a crazy change to make it so Martial Performance says that the Bard gains a higher circumstance bonus to their attacks from their own Inspire Courage than their allies do. There are many ways to quickly and easily solve the problems with these pieces of content so they remain competitive, Paizo just chose not to focus on implementing these types of easy but very effective solutions. Which is particularly frustrating when they have such easy access to the community to workshop these types of ideas.

Ultimately, I would argue that the problem with the errata process isn't even particularly with funding, just the philosophy Paizo approaches it with.

Novem wrote:

Gortle wrote:

A list of errata on reddit

I guess I should've expected it but I'm shocked with how light a touch Paizo approached this with and even more shocked that most of the changes are nerfs. To me, this screams that Paizo seriously needs to change their errata process. Binding changes to physical reprints means this is a once in years opportunity to make substantial changes and there are so many character options in this book that could've used buffs. In a modern era where I'm so used to the games I play getting constant changes, I get a bit of it is just me having the wrong expectations. But those games getting constant changes also makes them better, more polished and well-rounded. I can't help but wish that if Paizo weren't going to approach this with that modern video game patching mindset that they would at least take their reprint changes much more seriously. The game would be much better if they did.

I'm not sure the constant patching process you see in video games would be desirable in a pen & paper game. In video games, you don't have to learn the rules. If every year a new version of the rules is released, it means that a lot of people will have to be in touch, especially those who use books (as books can't be patched). It would be a complete mess for them.

I already had a discussion around a table because people were using pre and post patch material, and it gets really messy (the GM told me I was unable to Battle Medicine because I needed a Bandolier to put my tools in...).
So I understand why Paizo only intervenes to correct issues and not to patch classes outside of very big patches like the Unchained books were. I don't say it's the "best" solution, as I'm unable to determine what is the best course of action in this case, but they have good reasons to process like that.

I'd understand this take if we weren't talking about character options. I'm not asking Paizo to change fundamental parts of the game here (though I wouldn't argue with a complete overhaul of the Crafting system), but making changes that are only likely to affect one player and putting those changes into highly visible areas of the game isn't likely to cause all that much confusion.

Of course, I'm not asking for them to change the timing on their Errata drops (though again I wouldn't argue against it) and I get their reasoning, what I want most is just for them to take these opportunities to rework old content more seriously. Particularly for such a big thing like an entire Class (The Witch) to be so weak is really bad for the health of the game. It just pushes players into stronger classes with similar thematics and that's super lame. Leaving stuff to languish like this makes the game less versatile to what players want to play. So if there's going to be so few opportunities to make changes, I think Paizo needs to be more conscious of the problems the game has and put more effort as well as resources into make changes that address those problems. I know it doesn't directly make them money, but like any modern live service game will tell you, it's important to the long-term success of your game that its fundamentals are up to snuff. That Paizo doesn't seem to understand or acknowledge that is very frustrating to me.

By the way, as far as that Bandolier example, that's really less of a rules concern or a concern with errata than it is your GM being a little anal about the details. I have never played in a game where Bandoliers are required and it doesn't really matter if they're required by RAW or not. It's such a little thing that it's not worth being particularly obsessed over regardless of what the rules on it are.

That would be best as part of a new book, à la PF1 Unchained, or even a new edition, than an errata though.

I disagree. Games like this are better when the maximum number of character options are viable and competitive, and people shouldn't be required to purchase entire new books just for the content they already bought to receive the support to bring it up to that standard. Especially because doing something like that would splinter the community between different versions of the same game, which isn't necessary because none of the content in the APG which could use changes (like Witches and Warrior Bard) needs such enormous changes that it requires an entire new book to do.

Moreover, so much of the game is played through interaction with digital these days, either through VTTs or character sheet apps like Pathbuilder. When I'm looking up a rule or a character option it's almost always easier to do an AoN search than it is to actually try and flip through the book. Considering the games increasing dependence on digital, binding the book's capability to receive updates to physical reprints is already kind of silly (but hey gotta make sure those people who bought physical books don't get left out, I get it). The fact that they don't take advantage of the reprints to make bigger changes despite having much greater access to the community and an easier way of distributing said changes though is ridiculous and IMO bad for the game.

A list of errata on reddit

I guess I should've expected it but I'm shocked with how light a touch Paizo approached this with and even more shocked that most of the changes are nerfs. To me, this screams that Paizo seriously needs to change their errata process. Binding changes to physical reprints means this is a once in years opportunity to make substantial changes and there are so many character options in this book that could've used buffs. In a modern era where I'm so used to the games I play getting constant changes, I get a bit of it is just me having the wrong expectations. But those games getting constant changes also makes them better, more polished and well-rounded. I can't help but wish that if Paizo weren't going to approach this with that modern video game patching mindset that they would at least take their reprint changes much more seriously. The game would be much better if they did.

The lack of information on the various locations in the Magaambya is such a pain! I guess it's better to make something up and change the story later than just not allow the players to explore though.

I use it and every group I've ever played with has used it, even my IRL group which feels like it's probably the only real 2E group that even exists in my area. Personally, I think it's for good reason. I consider it an integral part of the game and it's the only reason the game can mechanically support essentially any of the character ideas I have. If I encountered a table which wasn't using it, I wouldn't play. But, I mean, even if I am biased it's not like I've gone out of my way to play with people using it. I rarely pay attention to whether or not they actually are, it's just something I've assumed and so far I've made no mistakes. And hell, sometimes I've even forgot to include it as a variant rule when promoting my own games and people don't seem shocked when they find out it's in there either. I'm glad to see it, 2E is a much better game with it than it is without it.

I really don't think the proficiency bonus is much of a concern power-wise, but not because the bonus doesn't matter. It's because people discount the effectiveness of things that aren't so easily represented on damage charts. The versatility, RP effectiveness, support capabilities, etc of classes like Warpriest and Alchemist more than make up for their individual ineffectiveness with weapons. It's bizarre how undervalued is adaptability is to people who play this game, considering the variety of threats that it's possible to come up against.

Where in Tian Xia do folks want to see in an AP? One about war between the three main Successor States would look very different from one about trying to liberate Wanshou, and both would look super different from one where you help Tianjing with an invasion of qlippoth.

I wouldn't want it to be anywhere specific. Rather, I want an island tour where the players are in charge of a boat and have to command a voyage from one end of Minata to the other. It could even have a hexploration focus similar to the one in Quest for the Frozen Flame, with each book being split into an exploration of different bits of the island chain that the players could visit it whatever their desired order. The adventure path could then have its climax when you reach Minkai. I'm not sure what it would be about or what would bring it all together, but Minata is such a diverse region that you could tell any number of different stories. And that'd be the cool part, on your voyage you'd stumble across all different sorts of people and challenges! It could be a bit like The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by CS Lewis, where you have some type of goal that drives you through the island chain to some ultimate goal and having all sorts of little adventures along the way.

I'd also love something that focused primarily on the areas where the Kitsune live. Their lore is actually incredibly fascinating and rich with possibility, I'd love to visit locations like Kihime or the Chang Lio Jungle. Exploring the long-term consequences of the fall of the Lung Wa Empire. The ideas Ly'ualadre had sound amazing!

Long story short, I think Tian Xia has a rich variety of storytelling potential to mine and I don't necessarily mind which one they go for. I think all of them sound super interesting and fun.

Novem wrote:

2) Tian Xia - Age of Lost Omens: A Tian Xia sourcebook that goes over all the different nations and cultures of Tian Xia, with a dive into the territory as thorough as the one for the Mwangi Expanse.

3) A(nother) Tian Xia Adventure Path: Preferably something mystical and that actually takes place entirely with Tian Xia, maybe with some traveling too. Like the players could get a boat and go between a bunch of islands in a battle against some type of ancient curse.

2) Yeah, better with with Minkaian related Archetype or Minkai green tea.

3) Ruby Phenix AP is also Tian Xia Adventure Path.

I want to love Ruby Phoenix, I'm just not big on tournaments. I want a more lore and mystery-driven storyline, something more spiritual or mystical. I'd even love something more political and emotional, a bit like the Stormblood Expansion from FF14. Those are the parts of asian fantasy that most captures my imagination as a player and a GM.

Novem wrote:

- A Nature-based Investigator Methodology that leverages the senses of an an animal companion or familiar along with a connection to animals and plants to solve cases.

Then a Technology-based Investigator Methodology that supports "Crafting can use Magic skill feats and technology-related skill" and "Stratagem to Location and Ready Action".

Yeah that sounds cool!

Novem wrote:

- A Swashbuckler Style that focuses on Ranged Weapons. There are a lot of iconic fictional Swashbuckler-style characters that you can't play because there is no ranged support, like The Green Arrow.

- A Summoner Class Archetype that doesn't have a set Eidolon, but actually actively switches between weaker Eidolons depending on current circumstances.

- A Nature-based Investigator Methodology that leverages the senses of an an animal companion or familiar along with a connection to animals and plants to solve cases.

- A Hybrid Study for Magus that focuses on conjuring weapons.

A magus hybrid study focusing on conjuring weapons would be so great!

I KNOW RIGHT!?

I'm really sad how little support there is for weapon conjuration in 2E right now. It's one reason I'm really excited for the Psychic, since in the post-playtest analysis thread they said the iconic psychic actually uses a mind that's focused on weapon conjuring! That's so cool!

- A Swashbuckler Style that focuses on Ranged Weapons. There are a lot of iconic fictional Swashbuckler-style characters that you can't play because there is no ranged support, like The Green Arrow.

- A Summoner Class Archetype that doesn't have a set Eidolon, but actually actively switches between weaker Eidolons depending on current circumstances.

- A Nature-based Investigator Methodology that leverages the senses of an an animal companion or familiar along with a connection to animals and plants to solve cases.

- A Hybrid Study for Magus that focuses on conjuring weapons.

1) Advanced Player's Guide 2: Containing 4 new classes preferably including Brawler (because the system is seriously missing an unarmed combat style that doesn't focus on martial arts), and a whole slew of new class feats/subclasses for existing classes along with a ton of new archetypes and class archetypes.

2) Tian Xia - Age of Lost Omens: A Tian Xia sourcebook that goes over all the different nations and cultures of Tian Xia, with a dive into the territory as thorough as the one for the Mwangi Expanse.

3) A Tian Xia Adventure Path: Preferably something mystical and that actually takes place entirely with Tian Xia, maybe with some traveling too. Like the players could get a boat and go between a bunch of islands in a battle against some type of ancient curse.

Rather than new classes, I want to see a huge expansion on existing options. There are a lot of holes existing classes don't cover that they otherwise would very easily be able too. One of the characters I wanted to play recently was heavily inspired by the Green Arrow but was all but completely shut down by the lack of a ranged style for Swashbucklers. There are plenty of cool ideas for reinterpreting or reflavoring classes with new class archetypes and sub-classes, like an Inventor that deploys turrets or a Summoner that actually - you know - summons. It just feels like the existing space of classes is pretty comprehensive and the only problem are the lack of character options exploring more specific niches.

I'd say Inquisitor didn't have a focus on Teamwork feats at all, since they got them them but their core ability related to them, Solo Tactics, made it so they could use them without other people having to have them, as opposed to the Cavalier who gave their teammates the feats for free. A lone wolf aesthetic fit the Inquisitor narratively.

I honestly forgot they got Teamwork feats, their other abilities were much more interesting.

Then you'd be... wrong? They cover a very significant portion of the class's power budget. Solo Tactics may allow benefits without teammates having the feats, but it still requires them to have teammates and some of the teamwork feats in 1E were extremely overpowered, like Seize the Moment or Outflank. I'm not saying Teamwork Feats were the Inquisitor's most interesting feature, but it was the most important to its mechanical strength given its lacking divine spell progression and limited use of Judgement until the later levels. Though, some of the class's other features weren't that synergistic with its theme either. Like, I to this day don't understand why they were a skill monkey or what that had to do with the themes of the Inqusitor as a class. Inquisitor's seem the type to push people away in their relentless pursuit of their goal/target, it's weird for the class to be so focused on working with others instead of accomplishing their own objectives at any cost. Maybe that's just me having a bad perception of the class though, I dunno, but that idea was always what made the class interesting to me.

The Inquisitor is super interesting thematically but never one I thought was all that fun to play in 1E. The focus on Teamwork Feats in particular was incredibly odd for a class essentially all about hunting people and information down for your deity whatever the cost. All I want from a 2E Inquisitor is a class that is more resonant with the class's themes mechanically. No Teamwork feats, but a focus on identifying those have committed acts against your divine patron's wishes and punishing them accordingly.

I'm playing a Wellspring Mage actually, it's very fun! One problem I do have with it though is that the way the feat's are laid out prevents you from escaping from the Archetype until 6th level. I don't know if this is an argument for or against FA, but I just thought I'd point out it's very uncomfortable in a FA build, haha

You don't get to say this:

Novem wrote:

It's easy to forget because even being the type of person who posts online puts you into a very insular group, but the vast majority of people playing these games aren't going to abuse mechanics like Free Archetype in an attempt to break the game. Most people playing TTRPGs aren't min-maxers or people with a bent towards optimization.

Then immediately say this:

Novem wrote:

Class feats have a very narrow focus and on classes that aren't focused on support (IE, most of the classes in the game) you have little flexibility to make choices in the service of your party instead of the optimization of your own playstyle.

And call it a cohesive message.

Besides that, you don't need FA to build a character with high group synergy/support. You just have to think about it and perhaps make a sacrifice of some other option you wanted. As you should have to do if you want to play a game where builds matter.

Novem wrote:

Peak of which for me is the capability to more fully embody my character fantasy, instead of hewing only to Paizo's interpretation of what my character can be. My nature-based herbalist doctor only exists and only works because Free Archetype can build off...

This is the only reason to want FA that holds any water with me (other than for everyone to be Pirates, which is great because YARRRR). Even then, I am of the opinion that your concept is probably cluttered, bloated, or should just be a higher level character.

Sorry if you felt there was a contradiction here, but let me clarify. There's a difference between straightforward mechanical optimization (IE, trying to break the system by creating a powerful character) and optimization of your character's playstyle. Obviously, most players want to be very good at what they've decided they want their character to be good at. Part of embodying a character's fantasy is having defined strengths and weaknesses. Players naturally want to excel at what they perceive as their strengths and want to feel like their decisions meaningfully allow them to do that. However, specialization is usually contradictory to optimization, because specialized characters are very good in certain scenarios and perform poorly in others. This is especially the case because players most often choose a rather narrow focus. I may build a character that is excellent at healing, and maybe even decent at other supportive capabilities, but I'm going to lag behind in damage and defense. This character is optimized for a narrow task but they are not overall an optimized character.

There's also one other thing that personally I think stands out as rather obvious, but I'll note it anyway just in-case. True gamebreaking min-maxing requires an extreme level of system mastery and knowledge. This level of optimization isn't just something most players won't even try to strive for, it's literally beyond what most players are even capable of.

Hopefully this helps you understand my post a bit better.

Also, just to address the later parts of your post, I think what your saying is quite a bit off-base.

First your take on the necessity of Free Archetype. You seem to have a very narrow view of what creates a game where builds matter (and even if you don't, you're inherently presuming that you don't have to make sacrifices in Free Archetype, which just isn't true). Also yes you don't "need" Free Archetype to create a character with high group synergy, but I would say you absolutely do if you want to do that and still excel at your character's own thing. In the vast majority of cases in vanilla, it's either or, you rarely get both. And doing both requires high system mastery and knowledge which most players don't have. This is what I was trying to say in my OP, vanilla progression encourages selfish buildcraft. Most players aren't going to sacrifice their own character for the sake of the group, and there's very little wiggle room to avoid it when you only have 10 feats to work with (and especially if you're playing a class who is heavily dependent on their class feats, meaning you are all but blocked from archetypes as a system). Forcing the players to choose between themselves and their teammates isn't a healthy thing for a game to have at such a fundamental level. This is a team game, and the game is thus healthier if the players have the versatility to specialize where they want to and still have room to account for the party's needs. This positions teammates as a source of aid, and not as an enemy competing for their exceedingly precious feat slots.

Second as far as it concerns my character, that's just like... your opinion, man. If my character's entire backstory is that they are an herbalist who grew up in the woods learning medicine, it probably shouldn't take half of my progression and totally obliterate any ability to build out my class's existing features to get them to a place where they mechanically live up to that backstory. And that's not even a particularly special or crazy backstory. Just imagine the struggle for a more radical or comprehensive concept. This is especially the case for concepts which are otherwise self-defeating. For instance one idea I've been toying around with is a Dhampir Cleric of Sarenrae... meaning I'm going to have a positive healing Cleric with an ancestry that can't receive positive healing until 13th level, and only then only in direct natural sunlight. It's a lot easier to build around and handle that restriction with Free Archetype, where I have the versatility to dip into extra spells and abilities to help heal myself while not compromising on my character being the greatest healer around who hurts themselves to help others. This concept isn't cluttered or bloated, and it shouldn't take until more than halfway through a campaign for it to be meaningfully effective (not to mention, if it was, that would hurt my whole team... and my team shouldn't have to deal with me being bad just for playing a character with an interesting story, that actively discourages players from engaging in meaningful RP because nobody wants to be the lead weight dragging the entire party down). If my character is complicated, it's because people are complicated and I like to create fleshed out characters who feel well-rounded, alive, and multi-dimensional. Maybe that's bloat to you, but it's the experience I play roleplaying games for and I'm not going to apologize for that.

I am squarely on the side that Free Archetype makes PF2 barely passable as a successor to PF1. Otherwise it would fall down to the same level as 5e (which I dislike for having little customization). As PossibleCabbage noted, all of the PF1 classes got a class thing every level outside of general feats (even Fighter), which PF2 doesn't quite do. So from my perspective Free Archetype is getting back to what the baseline should be.

As for no restrictions on free archetype. Well if I personally would allow even taking your own class as an archetype. Why you may ask? Because it allows martials to double down without having to wait multiple levels, while giving casters more spells slots. Which to me is a win-win.

I gotta ask, have you ever actually played 5E? Even just base class progression contains 5x the amount of choice and customization of any 5E character. Almost all of what your character does is decided at character creation and very little of any significant impact can be taken after that. Even the 2E classes with weaker feat sets have at least one or two playstyle defining feats to pick up during their progression. I get you were probably just doing hyperbole but it's way over the top.

I also feel like you're not really reckoning with how little choice there actually is in 1E buildcraft, especially once you have any degree of system mastery and realize that not taking the efficient choices can essentially gimp your character. And even in the places where you do have choices, very few of those choices will actually meaningfully impact the way your character plays (most feats are only there to make you numerically better at what you were already doing). 1E may be more complex but while it may have a bit more build agency than 5E, I'd argue even vanilla 2E has more actual meaningful choices to make during progression. Just getting a thing doesn't actually matter if that thing isn't actually having a meaningful impact on your character's playstyle. Nearly every choice you make in 2E actually matters and expands your character's capabilities in a way you're actually going to feel and notice during play, this is not the case in 1E. So it's... let's say weird to say that 1E classes get "more" during progression. Because in the end, it's a quantity over quality sort of thing. Would you rather the game constantly pretend you have options, or make sure each choice you make is actually important? I choose the latter.

And even that is giving that argument a bit too much credit for my taste, characters are at base capable of performing a greater versatility of actions than 1E characters are (you don't have to take feats for combat maneuvers, for example... and it's quite rare to see feats in 2E which just straight up upgrade an ability you already invested a choice into, and the ones that do exist are rarely straight numerical upgrades or necessary for the ability to even function mathematically). So there's an actual reason why characters in 2E making fewer choices, because they have a lot more baked in by default. 2E characters are also overall capable of more. They may make fewer choices during progression, but that's just because all of the functionally meaningless choices that 1E was infested with are gone. And also because a lot of the things certain types of characters otherwise wouldn't get or focus narrowly on have been removed.

That is to say, IMO you're making multiple very unfair comparisons here. One to a game that's manifestly more shallow (5E), and another one to a game that may have greater quantity of choices but also has arguably significantly less depth to those decisions.

The only thing I don't like about Free Archetype is that people have really wonky expectations of how people are actually going to use it. It's easy to forget because even being the type of person who posts online puts you into a very insular group, but the vast majority of people playing these games aren't going to abuse mechanics like Free Archetype in an attempt to break the game. Most people playing TTRPGs aren't min-maxers or people with a bent towards optimization. It can be hard accept that online when you're mostly exposed to a hardcore audience, but the vast majority of players at real tables (both online and offline) don't use Free Archetype as an opportunity to try and break or hyperoptimize their characters... only to try and pick up more stuff to help their party or to better mechanically reflect their character's story mechanically.

And by the way, while many other people have already gone over the many great things Free Archetype adds to the game, I'd like to highlight this. Class feats have a very narrow focus and on classes that aren't focused on support (IE, most of the classes in the game) you have little flexibility to make choices in the service of your party instead of the optimization of your own playstyle. This, I feel, encourages a rather selfish form of buildcraft. Free Archetype gives players the space they need to think about what the party as a whole can do, and opens them up to fill any empty niches. Since Second Edition is a team game, I don't care if this makes the game easier at all. I know that my players will be having more fun and be more engaged with each other as a result of their increased ability to coordinate and work together.

Though I do also of course appreciate Free Archetype for all the obvious reasons. Peak of which for me is the capability to more fully embody my character fantasy, instead of hewing only to Paizo's interpretation of what my character can be. My nature-based herbalist doctor only exists and only works because Free Archetype can build off of the Forensic Medicine Investigator. It wants you to feel like Sherlock Holmes but I want to feel like my character, and that's what Free Archetype allows for that the vanilla progression doesn't. As someone very passionate about my stories and my characters, this makes it into a core part of the game for me. I'd never play in nor run a game without its inclusion.

Novem wrote:

Rude_ wrote:

Yeah I've been checking daily to see if there is any update.

Daily? I'm checking hourly, basically. Send help, I'm going to go nutty if this doesn't hit soon...

I wrote a long update. It won't give you immediate relief but explains the status of errata overall.

Thanks so much! You're awesome! Don't worry by the way, I don't blame anyone or anything, I'm just excited! Even if I don't get all the changes I want even, but most of my favorite content in the game is in the APG and I'm just super hyped for the stuff that could use a little touchup (even if I only get some of them!). Like Witch hexes, Oracle's Divine Access, Bard Warrior Muse, etc.

Yeah I've been checking daily to see if there is any update.

Daily? I'm checking hourly, basically. Send help, I'm going to go nutty if this doesn't hit soon...

I'm so excited for the Errata, waiting for it is becoming physically painful... I really do wish we at least had some kind of timeline of when we can expect it to drop or what kind of changes we can expect to be in it, so I can stop torturing myself wondering when it's going to happen and over changes that might not actually happen, lol

Yeah I know I'm a crazy person but I can't help it!