Looking ahead a little...

[Nick Bolhuis]

Does anyone out there have any idea what round two means by archetype? To me an archetype is a story device that has been around for centuries, and is represented and interpreted multiple times. Seems very unlikely that the top 16 will be able to find archetypes that modern literature have not yet identified. What are you other hopefuls expecting from this round?

[Zurai]

Someone hasn't bought their Advanced Player's Guide yet, I see ;)

An archetype, in Pathfinder RPG, is a set of alternate class features for one of the existing 20-level base classes. For example, the Mounted Fury archetype for Barbarians sacrifices the Barbarian fast movement ability to instead grant the extra movement speed to the Barbarian's mount, and trades Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge for a horse, camel, wolf, boar, or dog animal companion at -4 effective level.

[Noteleks]

Nick Bolhuis wrote:

Does anyone out there have any idea what round two means by archetype? To me an archetype is a story device that has been around for centuries, and is represented and interpreted multiple times. Seems very unlikely that the top 16 will be able to find archetypes that modern literature have not yet identified. What are you other hopefuls expecting from this round?

I believe they are talking about class archetypes like in the Advanced Player's Handbook page 72-73. Hope this helps.

I think what they will be looking for is alternates to existing classes like in the APG that they did for the core classes. Guess they will tell us when we get closer to doing round 2.

[Sean K Reynolds]

You need to look at the Advanced Player's Guide.

[Nick Bolhuis]

This does help greatly, and also helps me decide what order to buy my books in. Thanks guys!

[Zurai]

For the record, as with all their other RPG line books, you can get the PDF version of the Advanced Player's Guide for $9.99. Of course, if you were planning to buy the hard copy anyway, go for that, but it's really hard to beat the value of a 320 page rulebook for $10.

[Curaigh]

I brainstormed a list of what I thought would make cool archetypes.

Then I looked at the APG to see how it would work or which would be the best one.

Then I cried myself into a panic because every idea I had was already there.

Then I got turned into a newt.

Then I got better.

Still nervous about finding something 'new' should round one go as well as I thought it would :)

Spoiler:

I am still a newt.

[Noteleks]

Curaigh wrote:

I brainstormed a list of what I thought would make cool archetypes.

Then I looked at the APG to see how it would work or which would be the best one.

Then I cried myself into a panic because every idea I had was already there.

Then I got turned into a newt.

Then I got better.

Still nervous about finding something 'new' should round one go as well as I thought it would :)
** spoiler omitted **

And a talking newt none the less. I wonder what something like that would go for on the black market? Be back in a bit.....

[Neil Spicer]

So what you're saying is you've decided to do a newt archetype? ;-)

[Nick Bolhuis]

Zurai wrote:

For the record, as with all their other RPG line books, you can get the PDF version of the Advanced Player's Guide for $9.99. Of course, if you were planning to buy the hard copy anyway, go for that, but it's really hard to beat the value of a 320 page rulebook for $10.

I have a bit of a fetish for paper and binding (yes i said "fetish for binding", go ahead you children). I only use PDF when i have no other option, and since my 3.5 core and FR collections are 99% complete there is rarely the need, I'll buy the APG

[Sean K Reynolds]

Ross has stated that the rules text from the APG will be part of the PRD in time for that round of the competition, so even if you don't want to get the PDF, you'll have access to the necessary content.

[Curaigh]

Neil Spicer wrote:

So what you're saying is you've decided to do a newt archetype? ;-)

Newt archetype? hmmm... ideas are forming: variation for alchemist? adders fork? or is it witch... woolly bats, tongueless dogs,

Wait a minute: for fear of breaking the anonymity rule, I can neither confirm nor de... eww I got frog toe on my eye! :P

[Steven Helt]

My archetype thus far is pretty cool, and not remotely like anything else. However, I'd like to ave a few chocies to choose from, and I am struggling to come up with other good ones.

Trying to stay focused on magic items, but I have two I like pretty well..so I might review and polish them until near the deadline and work on furutre entries. Hmm.

[Charles Evans 25]

<does double-take>
Good grief. They have actually announced in advance broadly what Round 2 will be. The 2011 contestants have it amazingly easy compared to last the 2010 contest.

Umm, although actually, given that contestants will have to avoid violating Intellectual Property, and given that Paizo have already done many of the most obvious and best archetypes already, the 2011 contestants don't have it so easy after all...

Hmm. I wonder if racially dependent archetypes for classes would be a niche to look at, or if that wouldn't fit the PFRPG philosophy? (It was pretty awful in third edition to see presented as entirely different prestige classes what were essentially racial variations of something like the Dwarven Defender.)

[michael patrick]

I just picked up the Advanced Player's Guide today and I am looking at it as we speak. Maybe my quick skim missed something, but it seems like Archetypes are only available for some classes. I will go back and read it more thoroughly, but can we (for instance) create a new Sorcerer Bloodline in place of an archetype or are the two things completely separate?

[michael patrick]

Ok. I see where under Cleric it says that the different subdomains are in lieu of Cleric archetypes. Am I safe in assuming, then, that creating a subdomain for clerics or a bloodline for sorcerers is ok for round 2? Or do I just have to wait until round 2 starts to find out?

In any case I am actually thinking of an archetype for fighter so I guess it is moot...

I am just wondering on the off chance that I even make it through round one so that I am prepared if and when the time comes.

[Neil Spicer]

michaeljpatrick wrote:

Or do I just have to wait until round 2 starts to find out?

This.

Also, I'd recommend spending your energy on making your wondrous item the best it can be before worrying overly much about the rules for Round 2. Clearing the first hurdle to grab a spot in the Top 32 is much harder than a lot of people realize. The competition will be fiercest in Round 1. So do your best on that one, and then take it one step at a time after that. All will be revealed in time. And everyone will have the same level playing field.

My two-cents,
--Neil

[Matthew Morris]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

<does double-take>

Good grief. They have actually announced in advance broadly what Round 2 will be. The 2011 contestants have it amazingly easy compared to last the 2010 contest.

Umm, although actually, given that contestants will have to avoid violating Intellectual Property, and given that Paizo have already done many of the most obvious and best archetypes already, the 2011 contestants don't have it so easy after all...

Hmm. I wonder if racially dependent archetypes for classes would be a niche to look at, or if that wouldn't fit the PFRPG philosophy? (It was pretty awful in third edition to see presented as entirely different prestige classes what were essentially racial variations of something like the Dwarven Defender.)

I actually had a shower induced bard archetype I'll have to stat up after the round closes. It *will* be challenging for the round 2 folks though.

[Sean K Reynolds]

I'll say it: by "archetypes" we mean "archetypes," not the "rules-in-place-of-archetypes" we did for some classes in the APG.

Archetypes are hard for some classes because they don't have many class abilities to swap other than the designed-to-be-swappable stuff (domains, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools). But it is doable.

[Eric Morton]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Archetypes are hard for some classes because they don't have many class abilities to swap other than the designed-to-be-swappable stuff (domains, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools). But it is doable.

Of course, the core classes that don't get archetypes are also the ones that don't really need them. The cleric, sorcerer, and wizard are already the most versatile classes in the game (along with the oracle and, to a lesser extent, the witch). You can build those classes to do most anything, even without archetypes.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Eric Morton wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Archetypes are hard for some classes because they don't have many class abilities to swap other than the designed-to-be-swappable stuff (domains, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools). But it is doable.

Of course, the core classes that don't get archetypes are also the ones that don't really need them. The cleric, sorcerer, and wizard are already the most versatile classes in the game (along with the oracle and, to a lesser extent, the witch). You can build those classes to do most anything, even without archetypes.

True, but my point is that you can still do archetypes for them. A "cloistered cleric," for example, is a scholar-cleric who's more about knowledge and lore and not so much about channeling energy, casting spells, wearing armor, and using a martial weapon. So, perhaps that archetype sacrifices a domain, some armor and weapon proficiency, and instead gets 4 skill points per level and more class skills as a benefit--something you couldn't model by taking the Knowledge domain... especially if your deity doesn't have that domain.

[Eric Morton]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

True, but my point is that you can still do archetypes for them. A "cloistered cleric," for example...

Well played, Mr. Reynolds. Well played.

[Herremann the Wise]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

True, but my point is that you can still do archetypes for them. A "cloistered cleric," for example, is a scholar-cleric who's more about knowledge and lore and not so much about channeling energy, casting spells, wearing armor, and using a martial weapon. So, perhaps that archetype sacrifices a domain, some armor and weapon proficiency, and instead gets 4 skill points per level and more class skills as a benefit--something you couldn't model by taking the Knowledge domain... especially if your deity doesn't have that domain.

I was wondering how much you could sacrifice in crafting an archetype. In particular you mention weapon and armor proficiencies which I thought might be a no-no. For example, does a fighter archetype without medium or heavy armor proficiency stop really being a fighter? Could you even sacrifice a fighter's bonus feats? Effectively, is there anything sacrosanct that cannot be touched when crafting an archetype?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Sean K Reynolds]

I'd say that when an archetyped member of a class no longer really looks like it's part of that class, you've gone too far. Frex, if you take away armor & weapon profs from a fighter, but give him Improved Unarmed Strike and limit his bonus feats to things relating to unarmed combat, is the character really a fighter, or should he instead be an archetyped monk that loses mystical abilities and focuses on the physical combat?

Likewise, a wizard that can't cast spells isn't a wizard, a druid that doesn't have nature powers isn't a druid, and so on.

[Starglim]

Sean explained better what I was thinking. Is an archetype X still a fighter - in fact, does the archetype add to the essence of the fighter and express it in a new and interesting way - or is he closer to the concept of another class, say, the ranger, rogue or barbarian? Earlier editions of the game presented the pugilist, for example, as a modification of the fighter, but Paizo considers this a barbarian archetype. This says something about archetypes, fighters and barbarians.

Or is the idea big and broad enough to justify a new base class? The summoner casts arcane spells, but is further from the wizard class than a specialist or an archetype.

This could hinge on what the archetype adds, as well as what it takes away.

[Gwenn Reece]

Could an archtype alter the spell list slightly? For example, witches and druids can cast healing spells, but get the higher level ones later than clerics. Could an archtype put the progression of healing spells for druids or witches back in line with clerics?

[Sean K Reynolds]

Yes.

[James Jacobs]

Eric Morton wrote:

Of course, the core classes that don't get archetypes are also the ones that don't really need them. The cleric, sorcerer, and wizard are already the most versatile classes in the game (along with the oracle and, to a lesser extent, the witch). You can build those classes to do most anything, even without archetypes.

Being a fan of clerics, and having just recently built a cleric and having been pretty disappointed that there were no archetypes in the APG for me to look through... I would say that the claim that clerics (and sorcerers and wizards) don't need archetypes is incorrect. ;-)

[Curaigh]

James Jacobs wrote:

Eric Morton wrote:

Of course, the core classes that don't get archetypes are also the ones that don't really need them. The cleric, sorcerer, and wizard are already the most versatile classes in the game (along with the oracle and, to a lesser extent, the witch). You can build those classes to do most anything, even without archetypes.

Being a fan of clerics, and having just recently built a cleric and having been pretty disappointed that there were no archetypes in the APG for me to look through... I would say that the claim that clerics (and sorcerers and wizards) don't need archetypes is incorrect. ;-)

Mental note: work on jurassic cleric archetype

[ciretose]

James Jacobs wrote:

Eric Morton wrote:

Of course, the core classes that don't get archetypes are also the ones that don't really need them. The cleric, sorcerer, and wizard are already the most versatile classes in the game (along with the oracle and, to a lesser extent, the witch). You can build those classes to do most anything, even without archetypes.

Being a fan of clerics, and having just recently built a cleric and having been pretty disappointed that there were no archetypes in the APG for me to look through... I would say that the claim that clerics (and sorcerers and wizards) don't need archetypes is incorrect. ;-)

This makes me very happy.

Each of the Major Gods could easily have templates for their Clerics for flavor without effecting balance. Not to mention Inquisitors and Paladins.

+1 for Divine Templates.

[Eric Morton]

James Jacobs wrote:

Eric Morton wrote:

Of course, the core classes that don't get archetypes are also the ones that don't really need them. The cleric, sorcerer, and wizard are already the most versatile classes in the game (along with the oracle and, to a lesser extent, the witch). You can build those classes to do most anything, even without archetypes.

Being a fan of clerics, and having just recently built a cleric and having been pretty disappointed that there were no archetypes in the APG for me to look through... I would say that the claim that clerics (and sorcerers and wizards) don't need archetypes is incorrect. ;-)

Cleric archetypes will make clerics more interesting. But clerics don't need them in the sense that, say, monks need them. Before archetypes, the monk was very much a straight-jacket on character design. The cleric, not so much.

In other words, archetypes for classes like the monk are allowing customization of classes that, until then, had few tasty options to choose from. Archetypes for clerics, meanwhile, will just be icing on an already tasty cake. Nice, but not essential to keep the class from becoming a creative dead-end as the game moves forward.

[Pyrrhic Victory]

I understand the discussion about what archetypes are and what the other thread says about using them in conjunction with prestige classes (or not) but...

Is there some sort of invisible design line that marks the difference between archetype and prestige class? Such as the designers look at it and say this idea "unknown idea for archetype" really should have been done as a prestige class. For example the "duelist" prestige class verses the swashbuckler or mobile fighter archetypes.

[Pyrrhic Victory]

And... Everything I have seen from this contest over the last few years states that creativity is a big part of being superstar. However, archetypes are by definition related to widely known and understood literary themes: cat burglar, swashbuckler, etc. Is the contest going to be looking for creativity in the archetype itself (something no one else has thought of) or in mechanichs or both. Or is this really more of a use of rules challange?

For instance, I am sure that the first archetype that many think of will be "ninja" (don't boo or hate me for stating the obvious). If the contest gets 15 ninja submissions out of 32 will they all be thrown out for being un-original, or will the contest be looking at how well the ninja are done? (Are ninja like buffalo? One ninja...many ninja??)

[Sean K Reynolds]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

Is there some sort of invisible design line that marks the difference between archetype and prestige class?

It's quite visible: you can't take levels in a prestige class until you meet the requirements, which always must be so that you can't take your first prestige class level until character level 6. An archetype has no such limitation.

I can see some cases where a base class and an existing prestige class will overlap.

[Vic Wertz]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

And... Everything I have seen from this contest over the last few years states that creativity is a big part of being superstar. However, archetypes are by definition related to widely known and understood literary themes: cat burglar, swashbuckler, etc. Is the contest going to be looking for creativity in the archetype itself (something no one else has thought of) or in mechanichs or both. Or is this really more of a use of rules challange?

For instance, I am sure that the first archetype that many think of will be "ninja" (don't boo or hate me for stating the obvious). If the contest gets 15 ninja submissions out of 32 will they all be thrown out for being un-original, or will the contest be looking at how well the ninja are done? (Are ninja like buffalo? One ninja...many ninja??)

There will never be any round in which creativity is not a factor.

As for your specific example, remember that starting with round 2, the judges become commentators, and the audience will be voting for their favorites. The only way anybody gets thrown out is if they fail to follow the rules... so if some of those theoretical ninjas are among the top vote-getters, they're moving on to the next round.

[Pyrrhic Victory]

Thanks Sean, I was thinking there might be some sort of unwritten rule about what ideas were appropriately archetypes and what were presitge classes beyond prerequisites and such.

and

Thanks Vic, I had forgotten that the voting begins round 2 (my bad). That pretty much solves that issue.

edit: both issues really

[Cody Coffelt]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

For instance, I am sure that the first archetype that many think of will be "ninja" (don't boo or hate me for stating the obvious). If the contest gets 15 ninja submissions out of 32 will they all be thrown out for being un-original, or will the contest be looking at how well the ninja are done? (Are ninja like buffalo? One ninja...many ninja??)

When I mentioned to my friends that round 2 was for archtypes one immediately blurts out, "You should make a druid with no spell casting and vastly improved shape changing!"

I had to give him the Not Another Master-of-Many Forms Glare

[Steven Helt]

Committed to NOT submitting a ninja if I get there. Havr three solid archetype ideas, and beginning work on them this weekend after I examine my wondrous item, which is cooling nicely in its little .rtf.

[ulgulanoth]

well i don't have 3 solid archetypes, just 1 solid one, though it still needs a bit of tweeking...

[Matthew Morris]

I've a cool idea for an archtype! It's a...

Never mind :-(

[Tom Phillips]

Matthew Morris wrote:

I've a cool idea for an archtype! It's a...

Never mind :-(

Ooooh! A Redacted!? That's an excellent archetype idea. ;-)

[That Old Guy]

Matthew Morris wrote:

I've a cool idea for an archtype! It's a...

Never mind :-(

Can't wait to see it... of course, yours gets shared in a slightly different forum than our own, yes?

[Matthew Morris]

That Old Guy wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

I've a cool idea for an archtype! It's a...

Never mind :-(

Can't wait to see it... of course, yours gets shared in a slightly different forum than our own, yes?

Assuming that you make it into the top 16, yes :P

[Sean Huguenard]

So, my question is, will there be a character limit on the archetype? The idea that I have in mind (assuming, of course, I actually make it to the next round) might get a bit lengthy.

[Matthew Morris]

Sect wrote:

So, my question is, will there be a character limit on the archetype? The idea that I have in mind (assuming, of course, I actually make it to the next round) might get a bit lengthy.

Shakes d20 of destiny.

"Answer hazy, but count on it."

[gbonehead]

Frankly I'm not worrying overly much about the archetype yet.

(A) I'm mainly thinking about January 18th.
(B) I suspect that without knowing what the round 2 twist is, designing an archetype, while a useful thing to do, isn't a relevant thing to do.

[Neil Spicer]

Sect wrote:

So, my question is, will there be a character limit on the archetype? The idea that I have in mind (assuming, of course, I actually make it to the next round) might get a bit lengthy.

Take a look at the rules for every round of every prior year of these competitions and their inherent word count limitations...and I believe you'll have your answer.

[Seth White]

And I have a feeling that if you look at the published archetypes as examples you just might get a rough guideline on about how many words it should be. But I very well may be 100% wrong.

Pre-design later rounds with the anticipation that you'll have to come back and rework them if you make it thru the first round.

[Curaigh]

Following previous years, round 2 will be text heavy/fluff, while a later round will be to stat someone else's round 2. If this year follows, your 'wordy' entry will not have many mechanics (which are always harder to shave words from imho :).

If you make something overly complicated the other top 16 may avoid statting it. While that does not hurt you, the most favorable entry will see lots of later statting and in a vote-driven contests 'favorable entry' is a good thing. (It is like getting your name out there twice :).

Spoiler:

Unless they follow Neil's plan and choose the most difficult option just to show he can. Or as Sean said, here comes Neil carrying a 50 pound backpack AND still keeping up. :)

[Neil Spicer]

Curaigh wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Sometimes great risk brings great reward. You just have to develop a discerning enough eye to know when it might and how you can influence things so it will...versus when it probably won't regardless of how hard you work to ensure it does.