What's the reasoning behind making a new character choice an archetype vs a prestige class vs a base class?
I see that there is an archetype for an Urban Druid. I remember that some years ago there was a base class Urban Druid in Dragon Magazine. It seems like the archetype doesn't provide as much flavor for the concept as a prestige or base class does.
Is the archetype concept just used because it allows the character choices to be briefly described as opposed to devoting more page space to a prestige or base class?
I'd say it's an archetype if it's something you could be from level 1 on and works pretty well as a variant of an existing class. That is to say, it can keep most of an existing base class's class features and skills/saves/hit dice/etc. set up and just swap out some of those features for different ones.
The whole archetype thing is to save having to re-write an entire class for what is essentially a variation. It does however allow the player to create a character far truer to any concept that they come up with from first level.
Prestige classes are more for a more radical divergence or specialised idea.
|
As the others have said, the archetypes are a codified way to rework the base classes to more succinctly fit particular character concepts.
An Urban Druid is still a Druid, just has a couple modifications to better fit the concept of a Druid who looks after foliage and fauna in an urban setting.
The flavor doesn't really need to be there, as these are more modifications on existing classes instead of classes that stand on their own. The flavor is essentially in the changes made by the archetype itself.
I would normally think of a prestige class as a goal a character wishes to attain but not everyone sees them that way some think of them as refinements of thier characters and others see them asa options for neat abilities they can get later.
Archtypes are iconic versions of classes that already exist given a few different abilities to add definition and variation.
Base classes I personaly feel are unique additions normally with a new mechanic or set of abilities not currently covered by core classes.
My humble opinion:
Archetypes are small variations on the class, you keep most of the same features but gets some new abilities to fit a theme or flavor.
PrCs serve to A) refine some character abilities in expense of others (Lose caster levels for better draconic bloodline powers: Dragon Disciple), B)different magic styles or specialized martial styles, aka nift high level abilities that normal classes don't get (Stalwart Defender, Duelist, Shadowdancer), C)improve multiclassing by allowing class abilities to improve at the same time, be used together or affect each other(Eldritch Knight, Hierophant) or D)represent an organization that the PC has joined and the power he can pull or get from this organization, usually this ones are more setting specific.
Base class should cover large and/or unique niches and have new mechanics or abilities. What consists a niche needing a new class though will cause endless debate (Was there a niche for a summoner class, or just a really cool mechanic? Samurai and Swashbuckler pratically have their own genres, could they be new classes or should they be Fighter archetypes?)
Mechanically, prestige classes are different from base classes and archetypes in that they have prerequisites that must be met before you can take a level in them. In this way they are goals characters strive to attain.
Archetypes are the same as variant classes from D&D 3.5 suppliments. For instance, paladins and rangers had variants that replaced the ability to cast spells with other abilities (Complete warrior p. 13), very remenicent of archetypes, and several class variants existed in Unearthed Arcana.
As such archetpes are just ways for you to better refine your character. Base classes are the original way of doing this. "Back in the day" new character concepts were introduced as new classes. That's how we ended up with the 11 core base classes we have today. In my opinion it was and is a very inefficient way of going about things and several of the base classes could be better served as archetypes or prestige classes.
In fact, it could be argued that Bard was the first prestige class, given that in 1st edition D&D you had to have several prerquisite levels in Fighter, Ranger(?), and Druid to become one.
A lot of new base classes could probably be rewritten as archetypes and vice-versa. It's just a matter of which is more efficient. For instance, you COULD present the oracle as a cleric archetype (with minor changes to when certain abilities are gained), but the entry would be so long that it might as well just be its own class.
There's no concrete difference that I'm aware of, it's just a judgment call on the designer's part, as to which approach makes best use of the reader's time.
I will have to agree with Hydro. A full treatment of Oracle as an archetype of Cleric would be too lengthy. But, maybe it could be done in the same way that Scout was made into an archetype of Rogue.
Scout was a new class from D&D 3.5 Complete Adventurer (p. 10) that had one really defining ability called "skirmish". I like Paizo's treatment of the Scout as an archetype. It's much more efficient and simplified.
And that's a good thing because we are all paying for these books by the page.
I can see how a lot of variants can be done through archetypes and give a new choice that is sufficiently distinct from the base class to give the player a different feel to his character.
However, I think some of the archetypes don't go far enough in producting the separation between the archetype and its base class. I can't remember the differences between the Urban Druid that appeared in Dragon magazine and the base 3.5 Druid class, but it seems like there is a lot more that could and perhaps should be done to set the Urban Druid apart from the Druid than an archetype can do.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
... but it seems like there is a lot more that could and perhaps should be done to set the Urban Druid apart from the Druid than an archetype can do.
That is why the books are a guideline and not stone cold must follow instructions. Have whomever that wants to play an urban druid create some flavor for it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Maybe I'm not understanding the prd, though aren't some of the archetypes combinable? As long as they don't replace identical abilities, they can be combined right?
This make the archetypes more like templates ihmo. Which is different form a pure class.
Sure, you could do the same with a base class, though you'd need a base class for each of the combination, making it a mess.
You are pretty much spot on. I wanted to use the beastmaster and shapeshifter archetypes on my gnome ranger. But dual form from shapeshifter and the strong bond from beastmaster replaced the camouflage from the base class, so I couldn't. But shapeshifter and skirmisher can be both used since they don't both have any duplicate abilites that must be replaced.
In fact, it could be argued that Bard was the first prestige class, given that in 1st edition D&D you had to have several prerquisite levels in Fighter, Ranger(?), and Druid to become one.
<nods>
The 1st Ed AD&D bard was probably the first "prestige class." It required the character to take 5-8 levels of fighter, then 5-9 levels of thief, and then qualify to switch to druid under the "dual-class" rules (which were somewhat similar to 3.x multi-classing, but had a lot more restrictions). Effectively, you needed 15+ Str, 17+ Dex, 15+ Wis, and 15+ Cha (plus 12+ Int and 10+ Con) as a human or half-elf and spend a lot of time as a fighter and thief before you could take your first bard level.
However, BECMI D&D also had what could be considered "prestige classes." In the Companion boxed set, there were rules for clerics becoming druids and fighters becoming paladins and avengers.
|
The 1st Ed AD&D bard was probably the first "prestige class." It required the character to take 5-8 levels of fighter, then 5-9 levels of thief, and then qualify to switch to druid under the "dual-class" rules (which were somewhat similar to 3.x multi-classing, but had a lot more restrictions).
I sort of miss dual-classing.