Can we start getting some more support for existing classes?

Now dont get me wrong here, I love the archetypes and new classes coming out in each new book we get, but I can't help but be disappointed that we haven't gotten many new feats for already existing classes since the APG. While archetypes do help to an extent, it makes it harder for older classes to engage with some of the newer content.

I feel this issue is especially noticable with guns and gears. Thematically, fighters and rangers especially feel like they should have gotten some gun related feats, and gun magus really suffers compared to bow magi due to the action economy of reloading; especially since the starlit span conflux spell relies on striking (a simple Recharging Reload that recharged spellstrike and reloads for an action would have probably been all that was needed).

Additionally, firework technician having poor synergy with the actual alchemist class and the alchemist being passed over for being able to use Alchemical Shot (a feat which seems to be the spiritual successor to Explosive Missile) is a massive flavor fail.

I do like seeing more classes, but I would also very much like to see existing ones get more love and support as well

We do know that at least Oracle, Champion, (maybe Cleric?), and the Marshal archetype will be getting stuff in Knights of Lastwall.

G&G was probably never going to be able to have anything for magus simply because both books would have been in development too close to get anything; a future book adding more gun support would be good, though I feel like the Gunslinger archetype (and all the other gun archetypes) do fine enough for the other dedicated martials.

The weird archetype reagents not stacking with alchemist reagents rule is extremely weird and doesn't seem to exist for any reason except to make alchemist arbitrarily worse at things it should be good at, like the fireworks or herbalism archetypes.

We do know that at least Oracle, Champion, (maybe Cleric?), and the Marshal archetype will be getting stuff in Knights of Lastwall.

G&G was probably never going to be able to have anything for magus simply because both books would have been in development too close to get anything; a future book adding more gun support would be good, though I feel like the Gunslinger archetype (and all the other gun archetypes) do fine enough for the other dedicated martials.

The weird archetype reagents not stacking with alchemist reagents rule is extremely weird and doesn't seem to exist for any reason except to make alchemist arbitrarily worse at things it should be good at, like the fireworks or herbalism archetypes.

Yeah, the basic alchemy benefits thing is weird to me; it's not like caster dedications have to use their base slots.

It's not like they couldn't just make you use the advanced alchemy level of the archetype for the archetype's reagents. I find it very frustrating that if I want to use these archetypes and still have elixirs, I'm better off using alchemical science Investigator, since I actually get more resources instead of having to double dip them (not to mention alchemical science gives me enough versatile vials that when I add the archetype reagent pool, I actually get more alchemy than the alchemist)

On that note: what the heck is with Investigator getting zero firearm support? A one handed gun is like the film noir Investigator weapon

Investigator can use reload weapons just fine (as fine as anyone can, I guess). I've been GMing for one using a gun since the playtest guns came out (and now he has a real jezail!). It can get a little repetitive but at least it's a low-combat game anyway (shoutout to Alex Augunas' investigator buff booklet on PF Infinite). They're already better with ranged weapons than not, and I can't really think of any specific things investigator could get with the weapons, whether a methodology or even a gun-specific feat.

I feel if we give all the classes gun reload mechanic feats it kinda leeches from the gunslinger. Gun users are crit fishing for the occasional beefy ranged hit in exchange for smaller average damage by way of dice size and reload. At least I think that's the niche. Gunslinger gets to have that cake AND eat it with action economy hacks that ease the burden of reload. Anybody with proficiency can use guns as well as they can use any other weapon they have access to. Gunslinger should be the one to flex with it though, and if you want some of that pie just get the gunslinger archetype like the character probably calls for at that point.

Investigator can use reload weapons just fine (as fine as anyone can, I guess). I've been GMing for one using a gun since the playtest guns came out (and now he has a real jezail!). It can get a little repetitive but at least it's a low-combat game anyway (shoutout to Alex Augunas' investigator buff booklet on PF Infinite). They're already better with ranged weapons than not, and I can't really think of any specific things investigator could get with the weapons, whether a methodology or even a gun-specific feat.

Not entirely true. Classes who's action economy is are pretty heavily loaded, like magus (Recharging spellstrike), ranger (hunt prey), and investgator (devise a strategem) are punished pretty hard for using a reload weapon vs using a non reload weapon.

Most of these classes work around the action economy issues by having feats that give you a "two for the price of one" feat, like, say, running reload, conflux spells, known weakness, monster hunter, etc.

Now, ranger doesn't have it as bad since your hunted prey stays hunted, so you do tend to have some flexibility in your turn to do other actions, and having access to running reload means you get to do more than just be a turret with basic strikes

At least slide pistol exists and I can pretend its a revolver

I feel if we give all the classes gun reload mechanic feats it kinda leeches from the gunslinger. Gun users are crit fishing for the occasional beefy ranged hit in exchange for smaller average damage by way of dice size and reload. At least I think that's the niche. Gunslinger gets to have that cake AND eat it with action economy hacks that ease the burden of reload. Anybody with proficiency can use guns as well as they can use any other weapon they have access to. Gunslinger should be the one to flex with it though, and if you want some of that pie just get the gunslinger archetype like the character probably calls for at that point.

See thats the thing, I'm not asking for all the gunslinger stuff on everyone; I'm asking for a couple of thematic supporting feats where appropriate, and just more new things for existing classes in general.

Like, alchemical shot for alchemist just makes sense flavor wise, but spending an 8th level feat for it is terrible

A simple reload+recharge for magus is really all you'd need to make gun magi not be super constrained by action economy

A flying blade type feat for swashbucklers for one handed weapons so you can play a battledancer pistol phenom

I've seen a few people ask for a "generic rifleman", and fighter would be a great place to slot in a more "rank and file musketman" feeling gun style. Bonua that they'd also be good with bayonet fighting, which is perfect for a well rounded feel

Gun compatability aside, it's also just cool to have new stuff

Investigator, especially ranged one, is a 1 Strike per round beast. DAS, Strike, Reload is actually a good use of your 3 actions.

Agreed.
Right from the Core book, I pointed out the fact that there was nearly no Injury Alchemical Poison at level 10+. Just one has been released with common rarity (in the APB).
I was expecting Grand Bazaar to bring some, but nope, not a single one. But we got 2 bombs that bring absolutely nothing to the game...

A few classes were supposed to expand with released content. Thanks to Secrets of Magic, casters got their cake. But Alchemist is still waiting for a bite.
Inventor's Gadgets are right in the same ballpark than Alchemical items. Giving access to Gadgets to Alchemist (with a higher level feat than Inventors, of course) would have been great.

Agreed.

Right from the Core book, I pointed out the fact that there was nearly no Injury Alchemical Poison at level 10+. Just one has been released with common rarity (in the APB).
I was expecting Grand Bazaar to bring some, but nope, not a single one. But we got 2 bombs that bring absolutely nothing to the game...

A few classes were supposed to expand with released content. Thanks to Secrets of Magic, casters got their cake. But Alchemist is still waiting for a bite.
Inventor's Gadgets are right in the same ballpark than Alchemical items. Giving access to Gadgets to Alchemist (with a higher level feat than Inventors, of course) would have been great.

Yeah, I would have liked to see a delayed progression gadget pool for alchemist (probably at a 2 level delay).

More poison support is also VERY much wanted. On my toxicologist, I've straight up considered asking if I can pick alcohol for my second 1st level or lower poison just for the memes due to how sparse the options are.

The bombs are interesting, I kinda like the sulphur one, but I'm never gonna see the crit effect, and the mental one is just a downgrade from peshpine bomb

At least my table plays free archetype; inventor dedication meshes nicely with alchemist

I think the devs said no apg2 and the level of existing class overlap in SoM and G&G makes me think continual development of classes isn't a design goal. That may not be the case but if it is then I take solace in knowing new archetypes and multiclass dedications ARE pretty much new class feats for the existing classes.

I think the devs said no apg2 and the level of existing class overlap in SoM and G&G makes me think continual development of classes isn't a design goal. That may not be the case but if it is then I take solace in knowing new archetypes and multiclass dedications ARE pretty much new class feats for the existing classes.

I get that, and I do think archetypes are far better for concepts that really want 3 or more feats, but like...

Is it really necessary to make a magus waste a level 2 feat on a dedication that literally only nets them a skill training or maybe also an activity that might help with tracking and an 8th or level feat so you can move around a little bit while you reload, when a 1st level conflux spell feat that summons a piece of ammo into your gun and recharges spellstrike, maybe with a heighten effect that adds on material types is literally all you'd need to play a gun magus without hella action economy struggles?

I guess the consideration is, if there's a desire for "I want to use [foo]" is it better to release class feats for a number of different classes that enable [foo] or just to release an archetype that enables [foo] that lots of people can take.

Of course, the answer isn't always cut and dry; I'm not sure that Bullet Dancer shouldn't have just been monk feats (since the dedication straight up calls out "monk abilities").

It makes some sense, since archetypes have a much broader base... but the dedication rules make them a bit of a pain to juggle and hard to slot into existing characters or ideas.

There are already a handful of feats multiple classes can pick up. Maybe we could see more feats like that. Slap five or six different class traits on a feat and you get some of that broad usage that dedications have without the limitations of dedications.

I think the devs said no apg2 and the level of existing class overlap in SoM and G&G makes me think continual development of classes isn't a design goal.

It kind of feels this way sometimes and I find it a little worrying. Yeah, spells, archetypes, weapons and etc. are technically options open to the appropriate classes and therefore kind of an expansion.

But if direct class options like feats and paths are intended to just be trickled in via APs and not much else that's kind of a shame. Feats and class options are cool and something I see a lot of people talk about looking forward to seeing more of.

I guess the consideration is, if there's a desire for "I want to use [foo]" is it better to release class feats for a number of different classes that enable [foo] or just to release an archetype that enables [foo] that lots of people can take.

Of course, the answer isn't always cut and dry; I'm not sure that Bullet Dancer shouldn't have just been monk feats (since the dedication straight up calls out "monk abilities").

The lack of support for existing classes is not just "I want to use foo". I agree that having Fighter with a gun, Ranger with a gun, Rogue with a gun, Gunslinger with a gun and so on would be pretty boring.

And Archetypes are not the same as class options. They ask for more dedication, they have to be balanced around the fact that every classes can take them and they can't be mixed with specific class features without providing these very same class features.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I think the devs said no apg2 and the level of existing class overlap in SoM and G&G makes me think continual development of classes isn't a design goal. That may not be the case but if it is then I take solace in knowing new archetypes and multiclass dedications ARE pretty much new class feats for the existing classes.

I get that, and I do think archetypes are far better for concepts that really want 3 or more feats, but like...

Is it really necessary to make a magus waste a level 2 feat on a dedication that literally only nets them a skill training or maybe also an activity that might help with tracking and an 8th or level feat so you can move around a little bit while you reload, when a 1st level conflux spell feat that summons a piece of ammo into your gun and recharges spellstrike, maybe with a heighten effect that adds on material types is literally all you'd need to play a gun magus without hella action economy struggles?

There's definitely corner cases that could use the attention. Im just not stressing it too much because the development optics appear to be forging ahead over backtracking to previous work (the knights of the lastwall book being a welcome exception). I'd love lots of class feats but I'll reiterate just for the sake of it, the level of existing class overlap in SoM and G&G was illuminating for me. The general direction seems to be broadly applicable content by way of archetypes over new class feats. In the end I agree that does the most good for the most people and allows for the most creativity..... I'm just sad the prospect of new witch feats/content is slim.

Bullet dancer for sure needed to be it's own archetype, but there's a lot more to thre bullet dancer tham just the stance. It packs a number of feats that allow you to shoot and stab better, gives you some trick shooting abilities, and even has a couple unique feats iirc. It's a pretty in depth concept.

Something to let the gun using starlit span magus not tank their effiency compared to their bow using contemporary that can spellstrike and regular strike every turn no issue so long as they have focus points, all for the terrible crime of "wanting to use a martial gun" is something that can be patched with a single economy boosting feat. Besides the presence of a gun instead of a bow, theres also not even anything fundamentally different about the fighting style; something that the aforementioned bullet dancer definately has over regular monk play

I think the devs said no apg2 and the level of existing class overlap in SoM and G&G makes me think continual development of classes isn't a design goal. That may not be the case but if it is then I take solace in knowing new archetypes and multiclass dedications ARE pretty much new class feats for the existing classes.

I highly doubt that, I think its just that prior to these last two, the last player rulebook we got was the APG which devoted a massive section of the book to class feats, it feels like a break rather than "not a design goal."

I do think we'll get them in smaller doses when we get them (as they've said before, class specific takes up a lot of room as opposed to archetype) but I'm sure we'll get them, ESPECIALLY for the APG G&G and SoM classes. SoM's elemental options stand out, for instance, as an example of how it might be. What they have mentioned is that general archetypes are more space efficient because anyone can use them, its just a better value proposition to add the wrestler archetype than 'a bunch of separate grapple feats for barbarians, fighters, strength rogues, monks, etc'

At the same time, the system is just built in such a way that class feats are an obvious way to expand it on an ongoing basis. Another option is moving to focus on class feat support for the classes once they feel saturated on classes as a new 'killer app' for books. This gets important as we get into less archetypal classes and the market for each book would get smaller because its more niche, in that situation 'new feats for your fighter/rogue/wizard' suddenly could let them tap more of that core market that drops off for the weird stuff.

As a side note, even if Archetypes take less book space, I have no hype for them. I haven't read half of the archetypes, and will certainly never read Bullet Dancer. But if there was a new Barbarian Instinct, I'd definitely read it and see if I want to play one. Actually, I'd read it even if I was not planning to play a Barbarian.

I really don't see an archetype the way I see a class option. I find that a new class option brings way more stories and characters than a new archetype.
Actually, I find that Archetypes fail at achieving their goal: Allowing you to play this character. For example, the Shadowdancer doesn't have Hide in Shadow. Certainly because it would be too strong if put on this class or that class. As a result, the Shadowdancer archetype doesn't have the Shadowdancer vibe to me. Same for a lot of those archetype. Ultimately, the archetypes that everyone takes are the ones without any vibe: Bastion, Sentinel, Dual Weapon Warrior, Beastmaster, none of them bring any vibe, they are mechanical archetypes.

Well, I don't like archetype much and don't care if there are new ones released. I do care about class options and will be happy if some are released. I think it's as important as book space.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I think the devs said no apg2 and the level of existing class overlap in SoM and G&G makes me think continual development of classes isn't a design goal. That may not be the case but if it is then I take solace in knowing new archetypes and multiclass dedications ARE pretty much new class feats for the existing classes.

I highly doubt that, I think its just that prior to these last two, the last player rulebook we got was the APG which devoted a massive section of the book to class feats, it feels like a break rather than "not a design goal."

I do think we'll get them in smaller doses when we get them (as they've said before, class specific takes up a lot of room as opposed to archetype) but I'm sure we'll get them, ESPECIALLY for the APG G&G and SoM classes. SoM's elemental options stand out, for instance, as an example of how it might be. What they have mentioned is that general archetypes are more space efficient because anyone can use them, its just a better value proposition to add the wrestler archetype than 'a bunch of separate grapple feats for barbarians, fighters, strength rogues, monks, etc'

At the same time, the system is just built in such a way that class feats are an obvious way to expand it on an ongoing basis. Another option is moving to focus on class feat support for the classes once they feel saturated on classes as a new 'killer app' for books. This gets important as we get into less archetypal classes and the market for each book would get smaller because its more niche, in that situation 'new feats for your fighter/rogue/wizard' suddenly could let them tap more of that core market that drops off for the weird stuff.

I can dig it. If that's the case, I can be patient for more existing class expansions.

As a side note, even if Archetypes take less book space, I have no hype for them. I haven't read half of the archetypes, and will certainly never read Bullet Dancer. But if there was a new Barbarian Instinct, I'd definitely read it and see if I want to play one. Actually, I'd read it even if I was not planning to play a Barbarian.

I really don't see an archetype the way I see a class option. I find that a new class option brings way more stories and characters than a new archetype.
Actually, I find that Archetypes fail at achieving their goal: Allowing you to play this character. For example, the Shadowdancer doesn't have Hide in Shadow. Certainly because it would be too strong if put on this class or that class. As a result, the Shadowdancer archetype doesn't have the Shadowdancer vibe to me. Same for a lot of those archetype. Ultimately, the archetypes that everyone takes are the ones without any vibe: Bastion, Sentinel, Dual Weapon Warrior, Beastmaster, none of them bring any vibe, they are mechanical archetypes.

Well, I don't like archetype much and don't care if there are new ones released. I do care about class options and will be happy if some are released. I think it's as important as book space.

Takes all kinds I guess, while I'd like a balance in general, Archetypes do tend to do it for me, they're often really strong and in conjunction with the right class chassis tend to enable builds.

They're also fun because you don't need specific class support-- as soon as Duelist released, I could make a Duelist Champion or whatever without the designers having to 'give me permission' by marking it specifically for champions.

My group loves our archetypes, but we do also use them with FA, just to help us make room for the fun exploration/social/utility ones. I see a bunch get taken, even just for mechanical reasons: Wrestler, Sterling Dynamo, Sniper Duo, Cathartic Mage, Wellspring Mage, Familiar Master, Dandy, Blessed One, Marshal, Assassin, Martial Artist, Runescarred, Eldritch Archer, have all been taken at my tables, even just off the top of my head.

Also, what's Hide in Shadows again, it didn't come up in my search?

Guns and Gears is also designed to be a standalone product. The whole book is marked uncommon so it is easy to ban or add to your table. And personally I don't really like uncommon class feats-- they complicate the selection process and rarely seem worth that hassle. So I don't think that particular book was ever gonna provide much support for other classes.

More generally, it is harder than it used to be to justify making class specific feats. The gunslinger is actually one of the most often pointed to examples: instead of making dozen options to let a dozen different classes do the same thing, you can make an archetype that lets any class use guns.

I think best reason to make a class specific feat is when it interacts with class specific features. Barbarian feats are the only ones that interact with rage, for example. Which leaves your fighter-- the most generic class in the game-- in a tight spot, I'll admit.

Personally, I think a bigger wasted opportunity was class specific skill feats. Lots of ranger, rogue, monk, investigator, alchemist, and a few barbarian feats interact purely with skills. Letting people use skill feats to pay for them would have been nice, especially for tables without free archetypes or double class feats.

They're also fun because you don't need specific class support-- as soon as Duelist released, I could make a Duelist Champion or whatever without the designers having to 'give me permission' by marking it specifically for champions.

I mean, yes and no. This works nice for classes with pretty broad mechanics (champion, for example, can use any weapon just fine), not so much for classes that are pretty limited in the weapons they can use. The bullet dancer archetype, for example, essentially is giving you permission to use guns on your monk; admittedly, I'm a little confused as to why bullet dancer isn't just a monk class archetype; feels weird to go from level 1 fists only to level 2 being a gun and bayonet master

While I see the value in archetypes, I think they do one thing well - add variety to your character. And that's great; if I played a druid but also wanted that druid to have a second pet or be a martial artist, etc, then archetypes let me do that.

The problem is they usually don't expand on the core of your class. Say I wanted to be a druid that focuses on wild shape - there's basically nothing that's been added since release (save a couple minor feats in apg or capstones from aps) that expand on that. And that's why I picked the class on the first place.

Takes all kinds I guess, while I'd like a balance in general, Archetypes do tend to do it for me, they're often really strong and in conjunction with the right class chassis tend to enable builds.

I obviously haven't said that archetypes need to be removed. But currently, there are roughly twice more archetypes than main class features (Rackets, Instincts and such). In my opinion, the balance isn't there.

They're also fun because you don't need specific class support-- as soon as Duelist released, I could make a Duelist Champion or whatever without the designers having to 'give me permission' by marking it specifically for champions.

That's not really true. Most archetypes are only functional for a limited number of classes. Either because they give you feature that some classes already have or because they are improving aspects that other classes don't care about.

My group loves our archetypes, but we do also use them with FA

I'm fine with Paizo releasing more options for a popular optional rule, but it stays an optional rule.

Also, what's Hide in Shadows again, it didn't come up in my search?

First level ability for Shadowdancers in 3.0/PF2: the ability to Hide in Plain sight when you are close to shadows (I realize I got the name wrong, it's called Hide in Plain Sight even if it's limited to areas of dim light/darkness). But this is a power level you can't find in an archetype, you need a class archetype or a Racket/Instinct type feature to give such abilities.

While I see the value in archetypes, I think they do one thing well - add variety to your character. And that's great; if I played a druid but also wanted that druid to have a second pet or be a martial artist, etc, then archetypes let me do that.

The problem is they usually don't expand on the core of your class. Say I wanted to be a druid that focuses on wild shape - there's basically nothing that's been added since release (save a couple minor feats in apg or capstones from aps) that expand on that. And that's why I picked the class on the first place.

Druids are already the best at shape shifting though. You shouldn't need to take an archetype to be better at the thing you're already the best in. The best place to draw from should be druid feats.

Archetypes should diversify your character, not be necessary to play something optimally. That's a major PF1 problem.

And in fact there are already enough wild shape feats go let you spend every class feat above second on them, so it seems pretty low priority to add more that would compete with each other?

I would not say no to some more subclasses and feats

I agree with the OP. While getting new classes, mechanics and thematic expansions is nice, I feel there is still potential to expand the existing classes with new feats, subclasses and class archetypes.

Would love if we got a new barbarian instinct (bloodrager?), cleric doctrine and a dual wielding magus hybrid study in the future.

With new classes (e.g. Inventor) getting automatic skill progression, it'd be nice to seem some of the previous classes updated with some automatic skill progression as well.

I agree with the OP. While getting new classes, mechanics and thematic expansions is nice, I feel there is still potential to expand the existing classes with new feats, subclasses and class archetypes.

Would love if we got a new barbarian instinct (bloodrager?), cleric doctrine and a dual wielding magus hybrid study in the future.

I'd personally love to see orcale mysteries for dreams and nature, as well as some updated spell access; flame mystery being unable to take scorching ray, blazing dive, and blazing fissure, or storm being unable to get draw the lightning is a massive flavor fail. Perhaps a feat for clerics and oracles that lets you pick three spells that match a trait with one of your domain or mystery spells ir something.

New cleric doctrines would be really cool, although admittedly, I'm not sure what they would be.

I feel summoner wants a lot more eidolon types, and probably more evolution options, not to mention the synthesist class archetype.

I feel all of you suggestions too would be nice to have.

I really hope something good is being planned for the Cleric.

Harm Font is underwheling. Healing Font is good, but there is now several archetypes giving alternative to healing. The Font feats are nice, but there is no synergy there.

Domains are all over the place, but on top of that are also available to2 other classes, and are being used for new archetypes as well, like Runelord.

That would be nice if Clerics could get their own Focus spells or something.

Gaulin wrote:

While I see the value in archetypes, I think they do one thing well - add variety to your character. And that's great; if I played a druid but also wanted that druid to have a second pet or be a martial artist, etc, then archetypes let me do that.

The problem is they usually don't expand on the core of your class. Say I wanted to be a druid that focuses on wild shape - there's basically nothing that's been added since release (save a couple minor feats in apg or capstones from aps) that expand on that. And that's why I picked the class on the first place.

Druids are already the best at shape shifting though. You shouldn't need to take an archetype to be better at the thing you're already the best in. The best place to draw from should be druid feats.

Archetypes should diversify your character, not be necessary to play something optimally. That's a major PF1 problem.

And in fact there are already enough wild shape feats go let you spend every class feat above second on them, so it seems pretty low priority to add more that would compete with each other?

I think we're both on the same page, for the most part. But I would point out the last part of your post - just because there are enough feats to form a build doesnt mean there isn't more room to flesh out a concept. Keeping on with the example of a wild shape druid, there could be way more options. Maybe I want to be an animal form druid for the entire lifespan of my character, from 1 to 20. You can't really do that right now, you're almost forced into certain forms at certain levels (I hate dragons, but it would be silly not to pick dragon wild shape feats). And new forms, new options doesn't always mean a power boost.

richienvh wrote:

I agree with the OP. While getting new classes, mechanics and thematic expansions is nice, I feel there is still potential to expand the existing classes with new feats, subclasses and class archetypes.

Would love if we got a new barbarian instinct (bloodrager?), cleric doctrine and a dual wielding magus hybrid study in the future.

I'd personally love to see orcale mysteries for dreams and nature, as well as some updated spell access; flame mystery being unable to take scorching ray, blazing dive, and blazing fissure, or storm being unable to get draw the lightning is a massive flavor fail. Perhaps a feat for clerics and oracles that lets you pick three spells that match a trait with one of your domain or mystery spells ir something.

New cleric doctrines would be really cool, although admittedly, I'm not sure what they would be.

I feel summoner wants a lot more eidolon types, and probably more evolution options, not to mention the synthesist class archetype.

I feel all of you suggestions too would be nice to have.

We already have Divine Access doing pretty much exactly what you are asking for here. It is just tied to gods and no new gods have been published since SoM. I'd expect we will get more of them sooner, and maybe alternative domains or whatever they are called for the existing fire gods.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

While I see the value in archetypes, I think they do one thing well - add variety to your character. And that's great; if I played a druid but also wanted that druid to have a second pet or be a martial artist, etc, then archetypes let me do that.

The problem is they usually don't expand on the core of your class. Say I wanted to be a druid that focuses on wild shape - there's basically nothing that's been added since release (save a couple minor feats in apg or capstones from aps) that expand on that. And that's why I picked the class on the first place.

Druids are already the best at shape shifting though. You shouldn't need to take an archetype to be better at the thing you're already the best in. The best place to draw from should be druid feats.

Archetypes should diversify your character, not be necessary to play something optimally. That's a major PF1 problem.

And in fact there are already enough wild shape feats go let you spend every class feat above second on them, so it seems pretty low priority to add more that would compete with each other?

I think we're both on the same page, for the most part. But I would point out the last part of your post - just because there are enough feats to form a build doesnt mean there isn't more room to flesh out a concept. Keeping on with the example of a wild shape druid, there could be way more options. Maybe I want to be an animal form druid for the entire lifespan of my character, from 1 to 20. You can't really do that right now, you're almost forced into certain forms at certain levels (I hate dragons, but it would be silly not to pick dragon wild shape feats). And new forms, new options doesn't always mean a power boost.

That seems like a fair call for more class feats then. But I maintain they should be class feats and not archetypes. Druids shouldn't need to take an archetype for it, and fighters and barbarians shouldn't be able to take an archetype to be better than druids at it. (Heck, they might already be by the time they get the focus spell, I dunno.)

Well, maybe your specific example would be ok as an archetype-- raising animal form seems like an ok investment of class feats for any class-- but even then I'd say it should be a feat available to druids and people who take the archetype, not just the latter.

Man, I've been wanting more class support for a while. New stuff and archetypes are ok, mostly, but the classes themselves could use a little more spice. Basic feats, not just class archetypes or something, would go a long way to make things more interesting in the long run.

Heck, just the new stances for Monks have kept them at the top of my favourite classes list so far.

Based on what I have heard from the design team, the core of the Pathfinder game now established. They now create materials that explore new ground and deepen various optional areas.

That said, each product usually touches on the existing classes. Certainly Secrets of Magic supported existing classes, especially with those new spells. If you want rules only from our Design Team then look to Book of the Dead next, which will no new classes. It will surely have new archetypes.

We sow seeds everywhere. There is a designer assigned to every product we make, so new options appear in the Lost Omens Setting, Adventures and Adventure Paths.

(Note, the design team considers the chose of deity to be the optimal way to flavor a Cleric over doctrine. I'd like to see a more skills-focus doctrine, but that's my opinion.)

Finally, Pathfinder Infinite and Pathfinder Compatible products are often created by experienced Pathfinder freelancers.

Pathfinder 2 is just over 2 years old. Thanks for supporting its growth.

One thing I would like to see is more class feats in AP toolboxes in volumes that aren't the last one in a given campaign. I think both of the first two books of Ruby Phoenix did this, and that was great.

We already have Divine Access doing pretty much exactly what you are asking for here. It is just tied to gods and no new gods have been published since SoM. I'd expect we will get more of them sooner, and maybe alternative domains or whatever they are called for the existing fire gods.

Thats just the thing: we shouldn't need a new diety or pantheon just to be able to shoot a couple of fire rays from our hand insteas of shooting a big blast a fire from our hands.

Requiring a tight theme for the spells should avoid cherry picking, if that's a balance concern

I am starting to think that the best quality of life upgrade would be for paizo to make the FA rule a non optional one, but baseline.

I am starting to think that the best quality of life upgrade would be for paizo to make the FA rule a non optional one, but baseline.

I tend to disagree. Without control over what archetypes the PCs can take with free archetype, it ends up boring with everyone having always the same archetypes.

I tend to disagree. Without control over what archetypes the PCs can take with free archetype, it ends up boring with everyone having always the same archetypes.

Free archetype is very nice if the GM limits the available archetypes to ones that are not power increase (things like Linguist, Archeologist) or that are super thematic for the campaign. Otherwise, it's just a few more feats to increase your character power and that's not necessary at all.

I run FA unrestricted at my table, and we rarely have double picks on archetypes, except maybe investigator or rogue is there are multiple people in my 8 person table that want some extra skill boosts.

Most of the time, they just pick something that matches their character concept, but wouldn't otherwise take without FA due competing with important feats. I really only have one player that treats it as an optimization experiment, and even then, he tends to pick something thats in line with theme, and it doesn't end up boosting his power all that much; he tends towards spellcasters, so normally he just picks up another casting dedication with the same KAS as his base class to add a little gas to his tank. Imo, it's actually pretty welcome, since it extends the adventuring day

I am starting to think that the best quality of life upgrade would be for paizo to make the FA rule a non optional one, but baseline.

As much as I like the free archetype variant rule, it will never be the default, as it would most likely overwhelm new players trying out the game for the very first time. Imagine coming from DND5E, where you have basically 0 character customization, to now having not only your class customization but also like 100+ archetypes you have to go through to decide from.

HumbleGamer wrote:

I am starting to think that the best quality of life upgrade would be for paizo to make the FA rule a non optional one, but baseline.

As much as I like the free archetype variant rule, it will never be the default, as it would most likely overwhelm new players trying out the game for the very first time. Imagine coming from DND5E, where you have basically 0 character customization, to now having not only your class customization but also like 100+ archetypes you have to go through to decide from.

This is actually true. My FA had an option where you could spend the bonus feats on feats from your own class at half level since I had a player that was super overwhelmed, but felt fine just having a LOT of sorcerer feats

I would like more things like the Elementalist, being multi-class applicable Class Archetypes, those fill the weird niches that class feats fill, but can save page space on for stuff that can apply to multiple classes. That, or make a section of a book dedicated to class feats that apply to multiple classes like Sudden Charge or Running Reload so also save on page/design space.

HumbleGamer wrote:

I am starting to think that the best quality of life upgrade would be for paizo to make the FA rule a non optional one, but baseline.

I tend to disagree. Without control over what archetypes the PCs can take with free archetype, it ends up boring with everyone having always the same archetypes.

Free archetype is very nice if the GM limits the available archetypes to ones that are not power increase (things like Linguist, Archeologist) or that are super thematic for the campaign. Otherwise, it's just a few more feats to increase your character power and that's not necessary at all.

I can feel you, but consider it's mostly something a group of people may also handle themselves.

What I mean is that you know in advance whether you'd be playing with munchkins/pp or not, and because so what to expect.

But this regardless the FA variant rule.

Given a power cap of X with the standard rules, it would simply move to X+Y.

Knowing that your players will aim at X regardless flavor, lore, character concept, but everything only towards one single goal, which is to get powerful character, is something which could be ( as previously said, depends the people you play with ) expected anyway, regardless the cap is X or X+Y.

Anyway, going to try this out in about 1 month with the 3rd book of EC.

My players are going to create anything they want, or simply enhance their existing characters.

I am going to adjust encounters regardless this FA because we are a group of 6 people ( 1 DM 5 players ), so I'd simply consider increasing the challenge and see how things will turn around, but I expect a lot of versatility and varied gameplay ( rather than strike x2, or similar, every single damned round )

I am going to adjust encounters regardless this FA because we are a group of 6 people ( 1 DM 5 players ), so I'd simply consider increasing the challenge and see how things will turn around, but I expect a lot of versatility and varied gameplay ( rather than strike x2, or similar, every single damned round )

Generally speaking, most players Ive met use FA so their character can do something their base class is bad at, but work with the character concept an actual play example, a fighter using FA to get skills and abilities that reflect them wanting to become a leader. She really wanted to be a fighter, since rogue didnt match the heavy armor with a polearm look, and champion was a poor fit since she wasn't religious. It gave her the ability to take stuff that allowed her to use her cha in a more interesting way.

I don't typically see much more varience in battle, but I do see a lot more engagements from my players in more modes of play. Martial character are less likely to sit out social and skill based encounters because they actually have the ability to take feats that allow them to donthose kinds of things without competing in their main roles, and downtime/exploartion character tend to take more battle tricks while still being able to spare feats to be really good at charming, sneaking, thieving, healing, etc. That said, most of my players mix it up a lot in battle; the only players who tend to stick with a rotation is my magus and to a much lesser extent, the bard and fighter

So I know beastmaster is mechanically strong but seeing it be called bland or flavorless is just mind boggling to Me. I mean sure if you only see your companion as a number cruncher sure. But it opens up do many potential avenues.

From the classic, "boy and their dog"

To the druid with a menagerie of companions.

The simple fact you are adding another creature into your group that you have to care for, that trusts you and in some cases depends on you just as much as you depend on it. Not to mention it can either remake travel and aocial encounters either harder or easier depending on the situations which adds to the dynamic as well.

As the classic holiday adverb go. They aren't a toy they are a commitment.

That being said, I am in favor of seeing more options for baseline classes, or class archetypes. That being said it's hard for me to upset at the current books as well, they are chock-full of fun new stuff between archetypes, items, and lore. The lore is amazing and I love it.

I think between guns and gears and grand bazaar I'll be okay with fewer items for awhile. Heck even secrets of magic gave us a bunch of stuff. ( we will probably still see a steady stream of items, but maybe not as such a large amount)

So maybe we will see some books with some more class options soon.

Based on what I have heard from the design team, the core of the Pathfinder game now established. They now create materials that explore new ground and deepen various optional areas.

That said, each product usually touches on the existing classes. Certainly Secrets of Magic supported existing classes, especially with those new spells. If you want rules only from our Design Team then look to Book of the Dead next, which will no new classes. It will surely have new archetypes.

Ideally, I'd like to see some new ground broken within existing classes. As an example: I don't need to see new feats that expand or improve a wild druid's shapeshifting because that's already done*, but I could definitely see a new druid order or two which would then require their own feat support.

* Though I guess that if there's a new primal polymorph spell added, it would be neat to have a wild order feat to access it via wild shape.

So I know beastmaster is mechanically strong but seeing it be called bland or flavorless is just mind boggling to Me. I mean sure if you only see your companion as a number cruncher sure. But it opens up do many potential avenues.

From the classic, "boy and their dog"

To the druid with a menagerie of companions.

I have an idea kicking around for a Beastmaster who befriends a pùca (like, legit irish mythology pùca), and the different animals are just new forms it learned to shapeshift into. Needs a little dm buy in, but the archetype is flavorful af

I think between guns and gears and grand bazaar I'll be okay with fewer items for awhile.

I kinda differ here. Items are also important character customizing points, and by definition of being items, are the most open ended option of them all.

Imo though, I'd favor a shift towards more consumables (especially alchemical items and gadgets), and fleshing out new categories (spellhearts, tattoos, etc), or just ones that are a little sparse (talismans, ammunition, etc)

Captain Morgan wrote:

We already have Divine Access doing pretty much exactly what you are asking for here. It is just tied to gods and no new gods have been published since SoM. I'd expect we will get more of them sooner, and maybe alternative domains or whatever they are called for the existing fire gods.

Thats just the thing: we shouldn't need a new diety or pantheon just to be able to shoot a couple of fire rays from our hand insteas of shooting a big blast a fire from our hands.

Requiring a tight theme for the spells should avoid cherry picking, if that's a balance concern

Well, you've already got fire ray as a the default focus spell for the fire domain. Is not being able to use a multi target version of that really a massive flavor fail? Personally, I think the gods granting a specific set of spells is more flavorul than anything that could loosely be connected to their domains.

That said, Divine Access allows you an awful lot of leeway for cherry picking as is, it just does it through a more complicated process. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they just cut out the middleman and let you pick what you want. And that's basically how you need to handle it in homebrew settings anyway. Either your GM has to do a lot of extra work picking spells for every god or the player has to propose a thematically appropriate package.