|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like there is a very concerted effort to avoid gendered creatures, particularly ones that are more humanoid or that have problematic histories attached to the gendering (usually female, see: harpies).Yeah, I didn't like retcons in general. Specially since the previous lore was internally consistent.
Now you have to do extra paperwork when referencing old lore.
Yawar,
Not really.
“Changelings are the offsprings of Hags” remains the same.
|
I'm going to guess retconned out of the setting.Kinda makes me confused about what calibans are now thenAt roughly the same time in their lives, many changelings— women in particular—begin to hear the Call, a psychic urging from their hag mother luring them away from the communities that raised them. If followed, the Call eventually leads the changeling to the hag’s coven, where they are subjected to terrible rituals that twist them into hags themselves. Some changelings, especially those who have strong social bonds or embrace druidic traditions, are able to resist this Call and continue on with their mortal lives. The fact that the Call disproportionately targets female changelings has led to a widespread misunderstanding that all changelings are female, while in fact male changelings are simply assumed to be members of their paternal ancestry.
I'm honestly kinda surprised if they completely retconned them out of setting since they never really done that for monsters :/
I mean, with skinwalkers I understand it because they really are just "wereanimals nerfed for pc use" and not really much different from natural lycanthropes flavor wise so retconning it with "replace them with natural lycanthropes" IS pretty natural direction to go to.
|
|
“I’m a werewolf” and “I have wolf ears” are two very different aesthetics.
Change the name obviously for main Heritage, but I’d hate to see Witchwolves and the others gone.
Umm, but wolf skinwalkers didn't have wolf ears anymore than werewolves did. Like both skinwalkers and natural lycanthropes have "facial features similar to their animal" thing going on and both are capable of turning into hybrid form.
|
|
Umm, but wolf skinwalkers didn't have wolf ears anymore than werewolves did. Like both skinwalkers and natural lycanthropes have "facial features similar to their animal" thing going on and both are capable of turning into hybrid form.“I’m a werewolf” and “I have wolf ears” are two very different aesthetics.
Change the name obviously for main Heritage, but I’d hate to see Witchwolves and the others gone.
Uh, not really?
Skinwalkers could shift certain parts, gaining 1 to 4 abilities (and could spend feats to have all 4 at once), and the art reflected this, they never could get a hybrid form.
|
|
Well checking it again you are right about that:
"Physical Description: Outwardly human, skinwalkers are virtually indistinguishable from others of the ethnic group into which they are born. Those rare skinwalkers who have bred true for generations tend to have dark eyes, straight dark hair, and richly colored skin. Skinwalkers’ features vary greatly when they shapechange. They gain a bestial visage evoking the creatures they emulate; the snout elongates, teeth become more prominent, claws emerge from fingertips, and skin toughens into hide. Despite their shapechanging abilities, they are not immune to infection from full lycanthropes."
Either way, they are still essentially "lycanthropes who do partial shifting". If full lycanthropes were available as pcs, they kinda lose their niche.
|
|
And to me they have a different Niche.
Lycanthropes are cursed shapeshifters that have a hybrid form, not bits and pieces.
Skinwalkers could shift certain parts of themselves, so you could have claws, wolf ears and tail, etc.
Those are two very different aesthetics. Just like the Rougarou (always an anthromorphic Wolf) is a third distinct aesthetic.
|
|
Hmm, actually not honestly sure why lycanthropes couldn't do as PCs do partial shifting besides that being Shifter class' gimmick, but I might be used to how many anime or anime style games do them xP I definitely would be okay if they could do with better control different combinations of shifting.
Either way on side note, I have to say that I've always seen witchwolves being more like classic universal movie werewolf in term of being just really hairy people with sharp teeth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well for afflicted Lycanthropes, the uncontrollable shift into a hybrid beast is part of the charm/horror.
As for Natural Lycanthropes that’s a possibility, they just haven’t shown the ability to do so previously, which granted is not a solid defense all things considered XD
And yeah, that’s one way to look at Witchwolves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I enjoy this new cover, though that might be for obvious reasons XD
Man, I enjoy this new cover, though that might be for obvious reasons XD
I clicked on the image to get a better look. It is literally a 2x3 inch image.
Anyone else disappointed at the introduction of four more classes already? I feel like they have already decided to stop innovating and just go back to the old way of throwing more stuff on the page, and people will buy it. The new system was supposed to bring about new ways to create different characters from similar blocks. There should be no need for 'middle-of-the-road' or 'hybrid' classes like investigator or swashbuckler with the more modular class options and multiclass archetypes. The 'Witch' should be built with as a wizard with different focus spells (hexes) and the occult tradition - no need for a separate class.
Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else disappointed at the introduction of four more classes already? I feel like they have already decided to stop innovating and just go back to the old way of throwing more stuff on the page, and people will buy it. The new system was supposed to bring about new ways to create different characters from similar blocks. There should be no need for 'middle-of-the-road' or 'hybrid' classes like investigator or swashbuckler with the more modular class options and multiclass archetypes. The 'Witch' should be built with as a wizard with different focus spells (hexes) and the occult tradition - no need for a separate class.
Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.
No.
Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.
If you're suggesting that Paizo will invent time travel, then I'm all for it!
:p
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else disappointed at the introduction of four more classes already? I feel like they have already decided to stop innovating and just go back to the old way of throwing more stuff on the page, and people will buy it. The new system was supposed to bring about new ways to create different characters from similar blocks. There should be no need for 'middle-of-the-road' or 'hybrid' classes like investigator or swashbuckler with the more modular class options and multiclass archetypes. The 'Witch' should be built with as a wizard with different focus spells (hexes) and the occult tradition - no need for a separate class.
Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.
The Witch is a bit up in the air from the playtest, but for example a Swashbuckler brings an entirely new class mechanic to the mix that can be used as a great base for any number of multiclass or other archetypical branches!
Bloat isn't ideal but I think this will go very well and add a lot to the base of the game. Paizo stated since day one that they see the core rulebook, gamemastery guide, first bestiary, and advanced player's guide here as the four-book base for the entire game. More will come down the road but this is them establishing their definite baseline right here.
Now if next year we have half a dozen new classes thrown scattershot at us through a couple of different books, I might have a quibble with it. But this is calculated, playtested, and very much a desired addition. :)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else disappointed at the introduction of four more classes already? I feel like they have already decided to stop innovating and just go back to the old way of throwing more stuff on the page, and people will buy it. The new system was supposed to bring about new ways to create different characters from similar blocks. There should be no need for 'middle-of-the-road' or 'hybrid' classes like investigator or swashbuckler with the more modular class options and multiclass archetypes. The 'Witch' should be built with as a wizard with different focus spells (hexes) and the occult tradition - no need for a separate class.
Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.
Your proposal would shorten the edition further than 'bloating it' would, since you'd be pulling the 5e thing where every new option is reduced to "Just reflavor X!" and they wouldn't be able to create options for books.
Beyond that, you also have the issue that 'just make it a wizard' takes away from our ability to have unique mechanics-- take the Swashbuckler for instance, it's built around a robust panache mechanic, an archetype can't really do that very well, and the alternative swashbucklers-- e.g. duelist fighters and scoundrel rogues can function differently for those that don't love panache.
Compare to 5e where Swashbuckler is a single monotone thing. Other than reflavoring something else completely, there's only a very narrow way of building them. In PF 2e, we're going to be able to have lots of swashbucklers, ways to build the swashbuckler, class archetypes for other kinds of swashbucklers.
No thank you, and besides, they are looking at classes that make more sense as options and archetypes-- Eldritch trickster Rogues with the Divine List are meant to convey inquisitors, vigilante are an archetype you can use to give anyone a secret identity, cavalier is an archetype presumably for mounted combat stuff, warpriest already became a class option for clerics, champions have their evil (and presumably neutral options in house.
I think we can take for granted that they considered those paths for the classes we're getting, and were able to reject them due to the conceptual space each class can cover. Take Witch for instance, your Witch would be a singular arcane caster instead of the multi-tradition affair we're getting.
Imo, the 5e route seemed really innovative at first, but then was revealed to suck all the depth out of concepts that deserve to be more fleshed out. Different characters just aren't allowed to feel very different in games that do what you're suggesting, and it almost views a love of options and customization with contempt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else disappointed at the introduction of four more classes already? I feel like they have already decided to stop innovating and just go back to the old way of throwing more stuff on the page, and people will buy it. The new system was supposed to bring about new ways to create different characters from similar blocks. There should be no need for 'middle-of-the-road' or 'hybrid' classes like investigator or swashbuckler with the more modular class options and multiclass archetypes. The 'Witch' should be built with as a wizard with different focus spells (hexes) and the occult tradition - no need for a separate class.
Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.
To me, pathfinder's appeal has always been the good amount of options we had to create our characters, our campaigns, our settings...
I think that's the actual reason many people here are still supporting Paizo and Pathfinder even after the edition change, for they haven't forgotten how we love to have lots of options to create unique games.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot wait for this book. I’m so excited for all these classes but I’m most excited for the witch. The witch was one of the 1E classes where Paizo really found its own voice and brought something we’d never really had before to the game. I’m really happy to hear that the witch will be the prepared ANY tradition counterpoint to the sorcerer. I’m really curious to see how patrons were handled. I didn’t like how vague they were in the playtest. I argued for something closer to the 1E version with the possibility for specific patrons like those that came later in 1E. I wanted the choice of patron to carry more weight and be an important part of the class but not be straitjacket. I really like the idea of the patron determining the tradition the witch used but I want various patrons that grant the same tradition to play very differently.
I personally want to see 2E versions of quite a few more of the old 1E classes.
I’m going to spoiler it so I don’t take up too much space here.
Arcanist as the spontaneous arcane caster that really digs into the "hacker of magic" part of the 1E class. I'd like to see them retain their exploits and reservoir abilities while becoming masters of meta magic as they bend magic to their will on the fly.
Psychic as the prepared occult caster. The 1E psychic was one of the classes that were iconic to Paizo. It brought something to the game that wasn’t there before and it filled that niche with it’s own feel. I no longer cared about psionics in PF because the flavor of the psychic just fit the game better.
Shaman as the spontaneous primal class. I’d like to see their roles as envoys to the spirit world and mediators for their communities explored. Shamanic traditions are also rich with tales of shamans vision quests which gives them a niche that no other class has. I’d like them to become THE shapeshifting class as opposed to the druids optional shapeshifting.
The kineticist is just too unique to not get it’s own space unless it becomes another flavor of monk which would a bit of a let down but understandable.
The magus is another unique niche that isn’t served by archetypes. A class that blends martial and magic into one. I don’t really see them as full 10 level casters though. I’d like to see them expanded to be closer to the psychic warrior and soulknife of 3E psionics but with magic. There’s just so much room to explore here.
The gunslinger is one of my favorite classes from 1E but I never liked how the only reason for their existence was to make firearms not suck. Their future really depends on how Paizo handles firearms in 2e. If firearms are functional weapons out of the gate then the gunslinger could be an archetype but I’d like to see them become a class that makes functional firearms better.
I would argue that the medium and summoner are also iconic Paizo classes whose class abilities are unique and it seems like it would be hard to do them justice with archetypes or fold them into bard and wizard, respectively.
Those are the 1E classes whose niche and/or class abilities seem like they’d make for better classes than to try to shoehorn them into another class or make them archetypes.
I suppose you could reconfigure the mesmerist, skald and spiritualist as bard “muses” if you expanded the concept of what a “muse” can be. The skald especially is just a bard from a specific ethnicity so call the “muse” Saga or something and give them a “raging song” feat chain. The mesmerist’s stare and trick become bard only feats while the spiritualist works similar to the familiar feat but with phantoms.
The inquisitor could be a cleric doctrine for the part of the church that hunts the monsters that prey on the faithful, often by coming really, really close to becoming monsters themselves.
The slayer would be an awesome level 1 archetype so ANY class could be a *COUGH*bounty hunter*COUGH*.
The bloodrager becomes a barbarian instinct that gives the barbarian minor spellpowers or supernatural abilities based on a bloodline. They were only 4th level casters in 1e so making them a full blown caster archetype seems to be a little much.
The occultist would be an awesome way to make a bonded item specialist wizard that forgos traditional schools for the occultist’s implements and focus powers.
The hunter is already a background and the only thing it really has going for it is the animal companion. So maybe a “pets for everyone” archetype?
The brawler seems like it should be a fighter feat chain but I could also see it being an archetype that gives any class skill with unarmed combat.
The shifter would be a great 1st level archetype that gives any classes shapeshifting abilities.
I think that covers all of 1E. Once the legacy classes are done then Paizo can move on to making 2E its own thing without having to worry about 1E being baggage that always weighs them down. Instead of years of “when are we going to get the 2E version of x” just get it done and out of the way. Then let go and move on towards other horizons.
Quick Clarification: I misunderstood the comment regarding the divine eldritch trickster rogue, the inquisitor wasn't mentioned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot wait for this book. I’m so excited for all these classes but I’m most excited for the witch. The witch was one of the 1E classes where Paizo really found its own voice and brought something we’d never really had before to the game. I’m really happy to hear that the witch will be the prepared ANY tradition counterpoint to the sorcerer. I’m really curious to see how patrons were handled. I didn’t like how vague they were in the playtest. I argued for something closer to the 1E version with the possibility for specific patrons like those that came later in 1E. I wanted the choice of patron to carry more weight and be an important part of the class but not be straitjacket. I really like the idea of the patron determining the tradition the witch used but I want various patrons that grant the same tradition to play very differently.
I personally want to see 2E versions of quite a few more of the old 1E classes.
I’m going to spoiler it so I don’t take up too much space here.
** spoiler omitted **...
I personally agree with this, the witch is my favorite class and during the playtest I too stated that I wanted to see them as the Prepared Caster for all traditions and that the Patrons resembled the Unique Patrons from Blood of the Coven. And for those that wanted to have a free/open Patron you could simply do a Mystery/Enigma Patron that doesn't follow a specific theme and lets you just pick like it was in the Playtest..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed the Dhampire preview, but I wish they had shown an archetype or two. I’d love to see the new Dragon Disciple or the Beastmaster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed the Dhampire preview, but I wish they had shown an archetype or two. I’d love to see the new Dragon Disciple or the Beastmaster.
Then I suggest being around for the APG stream on Friday on Twitch, as that's the most likely place to be showing off all kinds of previews for the book!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else disappointed at the introduction of four more classes already? I feel like they have already decided to stop innovating and just go back to the old way of throwing more stuff on the page, and people will buy it. The new system was supposed to bring about new ways to create different characters from similar blocks. There should be no need for 'middle-of-the-road' or 'hybrid' classes like investigator or swashbuckler with the more modular class options and multiclass archetypes. The 'Witch' should be built with as a wizard with different focus spells (hexes) and the occult tradition - no need for a separate class.
Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.
You'd think the rather lopsided response to your slew of "Why is [this] a class?" threads back during the playtest would have answered this question pretty thoroughly already.
I mean, why would you expect a different response here, on this thread, of all places on the internet?
Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.
If you're suggesting that Paizo will invent time travel, then I'm all for it!
:p
Heh... phone keyboards suck it seems - but I'm guessing you got my point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I generally don't answer loaded questions that insult the company hosting the forum.
But if you really MUST have an answer: no. And also in my eyes there is no bloat yet in terms of classes, so I reject your last sentence entirely.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else disappointed at the introduction of four more classes already?
Hell, no! I am ecstatic!
In fact, I want to see more as soon as they can handle the work load - like the Magus, Summoner, Gunslinger, Occultist, Shaman, Kineticist, and the rest. I am also very anxious to see more original ideas for classes, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m honestly more excited for the racial options, looking forward to what ever ethnicities they might have cooked up for some of the races if they added them, and seeing how the dhampirs and the like work.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Today there was a little APG information from the Q and A session, here's a record of something i was typing to discord people during it.
Stuff from today's Pathfinder Q&A stream, since they talked about the APG a little:
"Fantastic Facade" Ritual, Giant Illusion you can put over a whole settlement to change how it looks
[1:37 PM]
Archetype list on friday apparently?
[1:37 PM]
42 archetypes including the multiclass archetypes
[1:38 PM]
Assassin archetype confirmed
[1:38 PM]
you set a target and all your weapons gain backstabber and deadly against that target? jason is playing it in a stream on sunday, so wwe'll know some of it's actual mechanics
[1:39 PM]
he mentioned this was on a rogue... but didn't say if it was a class archetype or a general one
[1:40 PM]
"New Rules for Familiars and Animal Companions" which includes both new familiar/master abilities, and new special familiars and animal companions, in addition to riding drake, you can also get an arboreal as an animal companion
[1:41 PM]
They tried to squeeze dinosaur fort in, couldn't, but Jason was almost like "OH WE COULD PUT IT IN..." for the new product
[1:41 PM]
so uh
[1:41 PM]
that'll have spells?
[2:09 PM]
APG has backgrounds that go beyond the 'normal' that give more stuff but require group buy in
Second Major Errata for CRB is confirmed to still be coming, no more glaring errors to correct after this
New Classes and Such are balanced against returning material from pf1e, right now priority is on returning content for pf1e players who might want to convert
This year they've been focused on the "core" of the game, but going forward they're looking to make stuff more story focused, products "between what we consider the Lost Omens stuff and the APG" APG is 'packed' because they want to do stronger themed products in the future. 'Higher level of Integration of setting than in pf1e for golarion'
"Considered Gunslinger for APG" but it would've been a whole chapter on guns and stuff, when they do it, it'll have full robust support, they're conscious there's huge demand(edited)
[2:10 PM]
Just a matter of finding the right product
[2:14 PM]
"We don't like putting out classes without playtesting them, they're way more robust when we do, the surveys we've been doing gives us great data" "We found the pathfinder playtest people don't expect us to change as much as we did/do"
[2:15 PM]
"we are ready and willing to do big overhauls if feedback demands it"
[2:17 PM]
Lyz said "Witch was a partially flexible caster in the playtest, people HATED IT, super contentious, they came to the decision witches should have all four" Jason makes a joke about fifth list called the 'cauldron list' that required the witch to carry around an 8 bulk cauldron at all times.
I thought between here and the AMAs and elsewhere they've basically confirmed there are no class archetypes coming at this time?
I thought between here and the AMAs and elsewhere they've basically confirmed there are no class archetypes coming at this time?
I've been following all of them, and I haven't had that impression at all, in fact my impression was that they were definitely in for APG, but if you can find where it was stated, I'd love to see it.
[1:38 PM]
Assassin archetype confirmed
Hell YEAH!!!
I thought between here and the AMAs and elsewhere they've basically confirmed there are no class archetypes coming at this time?I've been following all of them, and I haven't had that impression at all, in fact my impression was that they were definitely in for APG, but if you can find where it was stated, I'd love to see it.
There was a discussion about if any class archetypes were ever going to appear in Mark's AMA, to which he responded:
11:22 AM] Mark Seifter: @Sevren_Loreat (he/him) The more that we can make new options available to more characters from a class, rather than only those who take a class archetype, the better the situation is for people who want to customize and build unique characters, so in that sense, it's better if innovative new content can become available without the need for a class archetype. That said, sometimes if there's a class feature that is truly out of place in the concept, we'll need a class archetype in order to remove and replace it.
That doesn't mean none for sure, but it's sounding a lot like they really came to love the idea of universal archetypes too much to tie a bunch of them down to one class only. At this stage.
EDIT: out of context, yeah, that quote doesn't seem to say much. Perhaps my read of it was strongly colored by the discussion around it...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class archetypes have not been confirmed for APG (some folks assumed the monk archery / drunken stance options would be class archetypes and that's how people started thinking that). That said, I'd also be surprised if we never did them. Eventually, a concept for a class is going to be specific enough that it's going to need to remove a class feature and it'll need a class archetype to do that.
Class archetypes have not been confirmed for APG (some folks assumed the monk archery / drunken stance options would be class archetypes and that's how people started thinking that). That said, I'd also be surprised if we never did them. Eventually, a concept for a class is going to be specific enough that it's going to need to remove a class feature and it'll need a class archetype to do that.
Understood, thanks for the clarification Mark! In a way it's exciting to know it probably isn't one, since applying to multiple classes means the archetype has more flexibility and possible niches in the game.
Hell YEAH!!![1:38 PM]
Assassin archetype confirmed
I said this already on a different thread, but the description of this archetype makes me think we aren't getting a Slayer for a while, if at all. That said, there might be an interesting mechanic there to build a class around at that later time, if not necessarily called "Slayer."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class archetypes have not been confirmed for APG (some folks assumed the monk archery / drunken stance options would be class archetypes and that's how people started thinking that). That said, I'd also be surprised if we never did them. Eventually, a concept for a class is going to be specific enough that it's going to need to remove a class feature and it'll need a class archetype to do that.Understood, thanks for the clarification Mark! In a way it's exciting to know it probably isn't one, since applying to multiple classes means the archetype has more flexibility and possible niches in the game.
That's a good insight, and one of the main things that cause us to pick a flexible archetype if we can. In PF1, we might wind up with an 80 page archetype chapter in a book (roughly 1/3 of a usual PF1 book) completely on archetypes and yet you'd only get two pages for your character's class, so only a small number of archetypes your character could use. The same size section in PF2 is going to give you so many more archetypes your character can use, or the section could be smaller and give us more options in other places. It's a powerful benefit for versatility, as you suspected!
what's an AMA?
Thanks.
Class archetypes have not been confirmed for APG (some folks assumed the monk archery / drunken stance options would be class archetypes and that's how people started thinking that). That said, I'd also be surprised if we never did them. Eventually, a concept for a class is going to be specific enough that it's going to need to remove a class feature and it'll need a class archetype to do that.
HMMMMM now I'm wondering if Drunken Stance is going to be an exclusive Class Feat or not.
I could definitely see a Drunken Rager/Drunken Fighter/Drunken Scoundrel!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like - not. It sounds like another general archetype
Which means a free archetype game could have a “drunkards” theme and everyone can do a bar crawl
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a good insight, and one of the main things that cause us to pick a flexible archetype if we can. In PF1, we might wind up with an 80 page archetype chapter in a book (roughly 1/3 of a usual PF1 book) completely on archetypes and yet you'd only get two pages for your character's class, so only a small number of archetypes your character could use. The same size section in PF2 is going to give you so many more archetypes your character can use, or the section could be smaller and give us more options in other places. It's a powerful benefit for versatility, as you suspected!Class archetypes have not been confirmed for APG (some folks assumed the monk archery / drunken stance options would be class archetypes and that's how people started thinking that). That said, I'd also be surprised if we never did them. Eventually, a concept for a class is going to be specific enough that it's going to need to remove a class feature and it'll need a class archetype to do that.Understood, thanks for the clarification Mark! In a way it's exciting to know it probably isn't one, since applying to multiple classes means the archetype has more flexibility and possible niches in the game.
You asked in another thread about characters we're excited to build, I am now hoping to use the Assassin Archetype on a Fury Barbarian for a dark avenging swordsman determinator type.
|
|
You asked in another thread about characters we're excited to build, I am now hoping to use the Assassin Archetype on a Fury Barbarian for a dark avenging swordsman determinator type.That's a good insight, and one of the main things that cause us to pick a flexible archetype if we can. In PF1, we might wind up with an 80 page archetype chapter in a book (roughly 1/3 of a usual PF1 book) completely on archetypes and yet you'd only get two pages for your character's class, so only a small number of archetypes your character could use. The same size section in PF2 is going to give you so many more archetypes your character can use, or the section could be smaller and give us more options in other places. It's a powerful benefit for versatility, as you suspected!Class archetypes have not been confirmed for APG (some folks assumed the monk archery / drunken stance options would be class archetypes and that's how people started thinking that). That said, I'd also be surprised if we never did them. Eventually, a concept for a class is going to be specific enough that it's going to need to remove a class feature and it'll need a class archetype to do that.Understood, thanks for the clarification Mark! In a way it's exciting to know it probably isn't one, since applying to multiple classes means the archetype has more flexibility and possible niches in the game.
Honestly, same.