So you can take multiple archetypes as long as they don't replace the same core class ability, hmm. That could make for some interesting characters.
So you can take multiple archetypes as long as they don't replace the same core class ability, hmm. That could make for some interesting characters.
Are you certain that is the case? I don't think the preview indicates that. Or I might have overlooked something.
So you can take multiple archetypes as long as they don't replace the same core class ability, hmm. That could make for some interesting characters.Are you certain that is the case? I don't think the preview indicates that. Or I might have overlooked something.
Yeah it says so on the page they showed.
Yeah it says so on the page they showed.So you can take multiple archetypes as long as they don't replace the same core class ability, hmm. That could make for some interesting characters.Are you certain that is the case? I don't think the preview indicates that. Or I might have overlooked something.
Oh, I didn't read all that. Hm, there goes my plan to implement archetypes as subclasses in PCGen.
So you can take multiple archetypes as long as they don't replace the same core class ability, hmm. That could make for some interesting characters.
Now I want to see if I can make a Burglar Acrobat Sniper Thug ;)
I get the feeling this is just going to be confusing.
I get the feeling this is just going to be confusing.
Less confusing than a multiclass character in my opinion. If you're using a base class with two archetypes, you just say so. I'd write it like in the class line of the the character sheet: Monk (Ki Mystic, Monk of the Empty Hand). At least, I should be able to fit that in since I fill in my character sheets via computer, other people might need to abreviate.
It shouldn't be confusing since you can't have Archetypes with overlaping abilities getting swapped out.
I can read it on my iPod touch
+1 - it's a finite state machine all over again!It looks like you can use more than one archetype at a time. As long as they don't replace or alter the same abilities you could have as many as you want. That's unexpected and pretty cool.As a GM, I would probably allow 'substituting substitutions' on a case by case basis. For example, BlahKit 1 replaces Rogue Sneak Attack with a Skirmish like ability, and replaces the rogue tricks with enhanced movement. BlahKit 2 replaces Sneak Attack with the ability to cast limited spells. I'd allow BlahKit 1 to be applied, and then BlahKit 2 applied to replace the Skirmish with casting limited spells. That would get you a sneaky, stealthy, high skill rogue with rapid movement and some spell ability (kind of a hyperactive beguiler). ;)
LOL
... an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light...
An Undead Scourge Paladin Warrior of the Holy Light also sounds nice! Maybe heavy but nice!
I get the feeling this is just going to be confusing.Less confusing than a multiclass character in my opinion. If you're using a base class with two archetypes, you just say so. I'd write it like in the class line of the the character sheet: Monk (Ki Mystic, Monk of the Empty Hand). At least, I should be able to fit that in since I fill in my character sheets via computer, other people might need to abreviate.
It shouldn't be confusing since you can't have Archetypes with overlaping abilities getting swapped out.
The big advantage is you get to have a customized character who still gets a capstone ability. You can't get that with multiclassing.
The big advantage is you get to have a customized character who still gets a capstone ability. You can't get that with multiclassing.
Ooo, good point.
Hmm, I hope that the feats section of the Advanced Players Guide will have feats which will make multiclassing easier like the Ascetic Mage and Ascetic Rogue feats in 3.5. Otherwise, people are going to become even less inclined to multiclass now that we have Archetypes, lol.
Thanks for the note Jason. It's an inelegant solution, but it could work. I know the possibilities for using it on yourself or your own friends is a good option, but can you see how the DM might benefit more, in that he always sees PCs rolls, and can have NPC clerics with this take advantage on any roll, on either side of the screen.Hey there Everybody,
Just a quick note on the reroll mechanic. It does require your GM to be a little more open with his or her rolls. If this is truly a problem, it should be pretty easy to ask your GM to let you know when the bad guys have rolled a 15+ (or so) in combat or you can always be proactive about it and ask for the roll on particularly critical moments.
Honestly, I see this being used on the player's side of the screen far more often.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Last time I checked the DM / player bit it wasn't an adversarial situation. Anyway, do you think the DM realy needs help messing with the players? If he's that much of a jerk it's a done deal anyway...
I get the feeling this is just going to be confusing.Less confusing than a multiclass character in my opinion. If you're using a base class with two archetypes, you just say so. I'd write it like in the class line of the the character sheet: Monk (Ki Mystic, Monk of the Empty Hand). At least, I should be able to fit that in since I fill in my character sheets via computer, other people might need to abbreviate.
It shouldn't be confusing since you can't have Archetypes with overlapping abilities getting swapped out.
Less confusing? Combine it WITH multiclassing and it's an absolute total mess!
Can you just imagine a pickpocketing acrobatic trapsmith undead slaying vengeful paladin of holy light?
The big advantage is you get to have a customized character who still gets a capstone ability. You can't get that with multiclassing.
Ooo, good point.
Hmm, I hope that the feats section of the Advanced Players Guide will have feats which will make multiclassing easier like the Ascetic Mage and Ascetic Rogue feats in 3.5. Otherwise, people are going to become even less inclined to multiclass now that we have Archetypes, lol.
Not seeing that as a bad thing, however I also don't dislike multi-classing. People should build their characters as they wish to.
However, I think the awesome alternate favored class bonuses will be much more of an disincentive for multi-classing.
The big advantage is you get to have a customized character who still gets a capstone ability. You can't get that with multiclassing.
Ooo, good point.
Hmm, I hope that the feats section of the Advanced Players Guide will have feats which will make multiclassing easier like the Ascetic Mage and Ascetic Rogue feats in 3.5. Otherwise, people are going to become even less inclined to multiclass now that we have Archetypes, lol.
Not seeing that as a bad thing, however I also don't dislike multi-classing. People should build their characters as they wish to.
However, I think the awesome alternate favored class bonuses will be much more of an disincentive for multi-classing.
I get the feeling this is just going to be confusing.Less confusing than a multiclass character in my opinion. If you're using a base class with two archetypes, you just say so. I'd write it like in the class line of the the character sheet: Monk (Ki Mystic, Monk of the Empty Hand). At least, I should be able to fit that in since I fill in my character sheets via computer, other people might need to abbreviate.
It shouldn't be confusing since you can't have Archetypes with overlapping abilities getting swapped out.
Less confusing? Combine it WITH multiclassing and it's an absolute total mess!
Can you just imagine a pickpocketing acrobatic trapsmith undead slaying vengeful paladin of holy light?
And that's different how from a Duskblade Wizard Eldritch Knight Abjurant Champion? ^^
Oh boy! Savage Skald may be exactly what I want for my Kingmaker Bard. Looking forward to this so much.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
One thing to be wary of, for those who intend to house-rule for cherry-picking purposes, is to note that some of these archetypes and their ability swaps are not 1:1 propositions. The system was more intended to go with picking packages, so if you want to mix and match, you're going to find things get a bit sticky.
So....
1. Let's say base class X has class ability (Cool) at 2nd level and (Really Cool) at 4th level.
2. Archetype AWESOMEGUY swaps out the (Cool) class ability for the (Hot) class ability. On looking at it, you'll notice that (Hot) is clearly a stronger ability than (Cool).
However, the AWESOMEGUY archetype still gets he still gets the (Really Cool) ability; however, he gets it at 6th level instead of 4th level.
Obviously, the two shifts are connected - Awesomeguys get a better 2nd level ability than people who take the base class, and to "pay" for that privilege another base class ability that would normally come at 4th they don't get until 6th.
The trade for (Hot) = (Cool) + (2-level delay in getting Really Cool)
3. On the other hand, the PARTYGIRL archetype swaps in the (Rad) ability for (Cool) at 2nd level, and it's pretty similar in power, while the (Gnarly) ability at 4th level is again pretty similar to the base class power. Her powers are already scaled pretty closely to the base class, so they don't require any level bumps.
For her:
(Rad) = (Cool)
(Gnarly) = (Really Cool)
So what does it all mean?
If you are planning to let people mix and match, look at the whole of the archetype and see if there are logical connections like this within each archetype (assuming you would take it as an integral whole) before you try to break apart each piece and treat it as atomically separate. The "taking THIS power bumps THAT power slot back by N levels" should be applied to whatever alternate power you would take in its place.
If you wanted to let someone mix-and-match, they could go aheadand swap for the Awesomeguy's (Hot) power at 2nd level, but then they would have to wait until 6th before they got the (Really Cool) ability *OR* the Partygirl's (Gnarly) ability... even though a straight-up Partygirl could be (Gnarly) at 4th level.
(Hot) = (Cool) + (2-level delay in Really Cool or its equivalent)
Therefore, since (Gnarly) = (Really Cool), then:
(Hot) = (Cool) + (2-level delay in Gnarly)
Syllogism! Clear as water or clear as mud?
3. On the other hand, the PARTYGIRL archetype swaps in the (Rad) ability for (Cool) at 2nd level, and it's pretty similar in power, while the (Gnarly) ability at 4th level is again pretty similar to the base class power. Her powers are already scaled pretty closely to the base class, so they don't require any level bumps.
For her:
(Rad) = (Cool)
(Gnarly) = (Really Cool)
yeah, yeah whatever man, just tell us some more about this Gnarly Rad PARTYGIRL ;) and is she looking for a game!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
yeah, yeah whatever man, just tell us some more about this Gnarly Rad PARTYGIRL ;) and is she looking for a game!
3. On the other hand, the PARTYGIRL archetype swaps in the (Rad) ability for (Cool) at 2nd level, and it's pretty similar in power, while the (Gnarly) ability at 4th level is again pretty similar to the base class power. Her powers are already scaled pretty closely to the base class, so they don't require any level bumps.
For her:
(Rad) = (Cool)
(Gnarly) = (Really Cool)
She definitely has game and she is *ALWAYS* ready to play! :)
|
Bard: SandmanI can hear this one already.....
I think more like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMCNmUaGko
|
Bard: SandmanI can hear this one already.....
I think more like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMCNmUaGko
And I have this.Bard: SandmanI can hear this one already.....
I think more like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMCNmUaGko
You win.
You win.And I have this.Bard: SandmanI can hear this one already.....
I think more like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMCNmUaGko
No he does not : this is the winner.
Well....um...er...tie?No he does not : this is the winner.
Ok for a tie, but I really want to play a kazooist (?) bard now...
[
I feat this system is going to make another GM backlash because it'll make characters sound like they have seven different dips into prestige classes. If it was label free then it would just be nice discreet Lego parts that would just be in the background and not give offense to those players who insist that the classes have an in-game meaning, rather than a purely meta-game meaning.
I think that the system you're advocating is what would be like seven different dips into prestige classes, with a purely meta-game meaning. The idea of the packages appears to be the opposite in just about every way. In short, I'm afraid I'm not seeing the logic of your argument.
Mok, what you want is a classless system. I would look into mutants and master minds it works pretty well for that honestly.
Mok, what you want is a classless system. I would look into mutants and master minds it works pretty well for that honestly.
Or the HERO System. Good for toolkitting if you don't mind a bit of math.
Mok, what you want is a classless system. I would look into mutants and master minds it works pretty well for that honestly.Or the HERO System. Good for toolkitting if you don't mind a bit of math.
Never fooled with hero at all, but M&M is a pretty damned good system.
If you used Mutants and Masterminds for a D&D Style fantasy game, you are going to have to have a LOT of DM Veto anyways. The game allows for things like laser beams and shrinking down into the atomic world, etc.
It can be done though. Spellcasting using the variable arrays can be really fun. I was statting up how a Necromancer would look, with undead summoning and ghoul touch spells, etc. Fun mental exercise, and would have been a blast to get a chance to play.
Get a decent dictionary, then.
souerrtitious: covertly having a low opinion of something. Portmanteau of sourpuss ans surreptitious.
DICTIONARY.COM knows all! And it says that, that word does not exist!
:P
dictionary.com is so riddled with holes it should be classified as a hazard!
If you look for the common term Mary Sue, it tells you that it's the mother of Jesus taking someone to court. You just can't take that site seriously.
Humm my monitor is not small,Old yes but not sure when a 19 inch monitor became labeled as small
Yes, smaller is better. I have a 2 inch monitor and it's perfectly clear - I don't even have to click on the image to see the details it is so clear.
At the time I hooked up 2 26"ers to my computer :P
1. Let's say base class X has class ability (Cool) at 2nd level and (Really Cool) at 4th level.2. Archetype AWESOMEGUY swaps out the (Cool) class ability for the (Hot) class ability. On looking at it, you'll notice that (Hot) is clearly a stronger ability than (Cool).
However, the AWESOMEGUY archetype still gets he still gets the (Really Cool) ability; however, he gets it at 6th level instead of 4th level.
Obviously, the two shifts are connected - Awesomeguys get a better 2nd level ability than people who take the base class, and to "pay" for that privilege another base class ability that would normally come at 4th they don't get until 6th.
The trade for (Hot) = (Cool) + (2-level delay in getting Really Cool)
Nothing a decent soup thermos couldn't solve!
For her:(Rad) = (Cool)
(Gnarly) = (Really Cool)So what does it all mean?
(In) = (Out)
(Hip) = (Hip)(Be Square) = (Be Hip)
(Less) = (More)
(Pink) = (New Black)
You mean like that, right?
(Hot) = (Cool) + (2-level delay in Really Cool or its equivalent)Therefore, since (Gnarly) = (Really Cool), then:
(Hot) = (Cool) + (2-level delay in Gnarly)
Wai, I think I get it:
We know girls require time and money.
(Girls) = (Time) x (Money)
Time is money, of course.
(Time) = (Money)
Thus, we can infer
(Girls) = (Money) x (Money) = (Money)²
Money is the root of all evil, we can all agree.
(Money) = sqrt(Evil)
Therefore
(Girls) = sqrt(Evil)²
And
(Girls) = (Evil)
Though I'm not sure how we can integrate that into the (Partygirl) equation. (Party) x (Evil)?
I know! You want to infer that the best way to have an evil party for D&D is with Partygirls, rigth?
Syllogism! Clear as water or clear as mud?
Naughty words aren't allowed here I'll have you know!
Bard: SandmanI can hear this one already.....
I think more like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMCNmUaGko
I've always been partial to THIS
|
I think that the system you're advocating is what would be like seven different dips into prestige classes, with a purely meta-game meaning. The idea of the packages appears to be the opposite in just about every way. In short, I'm afraid I'm not seeing the logic of your argument.I guess I didn't write it clearly enough. I disagree with people who look at classes as packages. I prefer to see the system as total meta-game, parts to be assembled to make up a particular concept. I have no problem with people dipping into seven different classes to get various class abilities. The problem though is that a lot of people just hear the long string of classes, assume that it must be cheese, and immediately want to limit multiclassing.
So people will end up hearing that I have a fighter 2 (Archer, Weapon Master)/Rogue 4 (Scout, Sniper)/Ranger 2 (Skirmisher) and scream "cheese!," when all I'm trying to do is be the best sniper the system can yield.
If you're looking for point-based/classless D&D, FantasyCraft or True20 might be better for you than PF RPG.
You win.And I have this.Bard: SandmanI can hear this one already.....
I think more like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMCNmUaGkoNo he does not : this is the winner.
That is the special merit award: Best Gnome
I've always been partial to THISBard: SandmanI can hear this one already.....
I think more like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMCNmUaGko
Aaaaah make IT disappear !
More or less back on topic, as a M&M GM I would say that this is one of the system the more prone to abuse I have ever seen, it is great to make your own superhero, but IMHO it is really harder to make it work than DnD.
They are not the same game, and I wouldn't like PF to become the fantasy M&M.
I've always been partial to THISBard: SandmanI can hear this one already.....
I think more like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMCNmUaGko
Can't sleep clowns will eat me.
Can't sleep clowns will eat me.Can't sleep clowns will eat me.
Can't sleep clowns will eat me.
Can't sleep clowns will eat me.
Can't sleep clowns will ...
If you're looking for point-based/classless D&D, Fantasy Craft or True20 might be better for you than PF RPG.
I have both of these- they're good. True20 is M&M made into a generic system. It's no longer point based- there are three very broad classes (warrior, expert, adept) that really only determine things like saves and base attack bonus. Instead, all of the traditional class abilities are feats. It's pretty slick, but the system is kind of bland, doesn't really get one jumping up and down. I give it a B.
Fantasy Craft, on the other hand, is awesome. They took the d20 engine, took it apart and rebuilt it. They made each aspect more or less self balanced, so you can remove elements at will. No magic? thats fine. Not using magic items? Can do. And the character creation system is crazy, it is class based, but the elements that you would define a class by aren't usually class features, they are usually feats or backgrounds (think traits, but more fleshed out and a much bigger effect) so a basic character concept isn't tied to a class. Want an unarmed combatant? The martial artist is perfect, but you could easily use a soldier, burglar or assassin for it. (improving unarmed attacks is done by feats, not class features, so even a mage can make a passable pugilist). I love Fantasy Craft- but it's not D&D anymore, it's really it's own game now, so it doesn't supersede pathfinder.