Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
Based on previous posts by SKR and co. my understanding is that you are correct.Just to clarify, it seems to me that none of the extant material listed under "Archetypes" for the Wizard would have qualified for Round 2, as those are all new schools, not archetypes.
Right?
Same goes for sorcerer bloodlines, oracle mysteries and curses, and cleric subdomains, none of which are archtypes. But that doesn't mean you can't come up with an archtype. The 3.5 Unearthed Arcana is a good place to go for ideas.
The "fiddle with x (challenge level)" spoilers bring up an interesting point for me. The rules pretty clearly call for an archetype, but specifically forbid a new sub-class. Where is that line drawn?
Back in 3.5 there was a scholar cleric, which changed BAB, skills and granted an extra domain, losing some basic gear proficiencies along the way. Since I don't think its a horribly novel idea (though certainly one many of us are pining to see again), I'll use it as an example. The core game mechanic of clerics is their spellcasting, which remained untouched, but almost everything else was turned on end. Was that an archetype or a sub-class? What if the exact opposite had occurred? Would a cleric who is exactly like a normal cleric, but instead casts spontaneously (also offered in UA) be an archetype or sub-class? And finally, what if we do both (under 450 words?!?! maybe not, but pretend) at the same time?
Maybe there is something to be said about the heart of the class concept and how that gets subverted in the making of a sub-class, as the anti-paladin is similar, but meaningfully conceptually different from a paladin.
So I rambled a bit, but I'm hoping I made sense, and someone has thoughts on how this line is defined. If you can clearly define the difference, please read my mind and tell me which side of the line my awesome ideas fall on.
Although there are to be no twists, maybe those details will be revealed in the official rules at Round 2 commencement.
Well, a subclass requires you to re-present all of the class' info in its writeup, including the headers, the big table with the BAB/saves/special, and so on. You can't do that in just 450 words*, so that rules out submitting a subclass for R2.
Well, a subclass requires you to re-present all of the class' info in its writeup, including the headers, the big table with the BAB/saves/special, and so on. You can't do that in just 450 words*, so that rules out submitting a subclass for R2.
So it might be easier for me to think of this as a 'you can't fit a sub-class in so don't try' rather than a 'sub-classes get you kicked to the curb' ruling?
So it might be easier for me to think of this as a 'you can't fit a sub-class in so don't try' rather than a 'sub-classes get you kicked to the curb' ruling?
If that helps you, then yes. :)
I think people were/are worried about what "Y" might be. I was worried about clicking on Thomas' spoilers above and seeing one of my ideas there. Even though they were my ideas it would be hard to later convince someone I did not yoink them from Thomas.I dont't think my spoilers would affect the contest.
Aye, agreed. But I dinnae know that until I looked, hence the worry. :)
That'll teach you to be so... cavalier.
That'll teach you to be so... cavalier.
Yeeeaaaaahhhhh.
I've always thought that Shadow Weave Magic should be a Variant (Archetype) rather than a feat.
I've already got my archetype and it's not that... but you should do that Paizo!
how the heck would you do a cavalier archetype without comming out with a new order? its nearly synonymous.
I still havent come up with an archetype, theyve all already been done or have existed in 3.5.
anyone have suggestions?? lol.
What character class is really lacking an archetype, druids, rangers, rogues, bards, all over done.... I hate all the pally ones, it's just comming up with one good one that isnt partly in one of the already existing ones...
arg, this is something i never do,,,archetypes (its largely something i don't care about either)
how the heck would you do a cavalier archetype without comming out with a new order? its nearly synonymous.
That's the problem with creating Sorcerer, Wizard, and Cleric archetypes. Especially within the word limit.
|
|
I still havent come up with an archetype, theyve all already been done or have existed in 3.5.
I wouldn't worry too much about what's been done in 3.5. I hope I don't touch off a "backwards compatibility" flame war, but this contest is for Pathfinder RPG so if Paizo hasn't published a version of it (and assuming it's not someone else's intellectual property, like Harpers or Purple Dragon Knights) then it is fair game.
There is nothing new under the sun, especially since we are talking about archetypes which are by definition established and familar. The key is grab one of those old ideas and "Pathfinderize" it... make it fresh, make it cool, make it awesome. Take some old 3.5 idea and do for it what Burnt Offerings did for goblins.
Anyway, hopefully that comes off like a pep talk (it is) and not a lecture (it isn't). I know the APG covered a lot of archetypes already, but there is still room for injecting new life into old concepts. Good luck! :)
There is nothing new under the sun, especially since we are talking about archetypes which are by definition established and familar. The key is grab one of those old ideas and "Pathfinderize" it... make it fresh, make it cool, make it awesome. Take some old 3.5 idea and do for it what Burnt Offerings did for goblins.
Very well said.
It's a bit of a gamble; a "paladin of freedom" which was little more than a rehash of the 3e Liberator (or the Unearthed Arcana variant) would be one of the most drab and uninspiring archetypes I could think of. On the other hand, if the mechanics really did something fresh and inspiring it would rock, and the fact that it was riffing on an old (iconic) idea would make it BETTER rather than worse.
Therein lies the challenge of navigating the minefield of choices for each submission you will make over the course of the contest. What will play well with the judges? What will win over the voting public? What will showcase what you're capable of? What will most help you survive and advance to the next round? That's the game within the game. You figure out how to do that, while also being awesome in the course of your open "job interview," and you'll be well on your path to becoming an RPG Superstar.
Here's a thought on how I came up with one of my favorite potential archtype submissions so far.
Think back on the most flavorful characters that you (or someone at your table) has played. Perhaps the GM houseruled something for them to make it work, or perhaps they just took rather sub-optimal skills or feats to arrive at that flavor. How would you re-build that particular class to make that character's progression tighter and more natural?
Here's a thought on how I came up with one of my favorite potential archtype submissions so far.
Think back on the most flavorful characters that you (or someone at your table) has played. Perhaps the GM houseruled something for them to make it work, or perhaps they just took rather sub-optimal skills or feats to arrive at that flavor. How would you re-build that particular class to make that character's progression tighter and more natural?
I think that's a really great place to start. In fact I might try it myself.
how the heck would you do a cavalier archetype without comming out with a new order? its nearly synonymous.
I still havent come up with an archetype, theyve all already been done or have existed in 3.5.
anyone have suggestions?? lol.
What character class is really lacking an archetype, druids, rangers, rogues, bards, all over done.... I hate all the pally ones, it's just comming up with one good one that isnt partly in one of the already existing ones...
arg, this is something i never do,,,archetypes (its largely something i don't care about either)
Simple. Orders have Edicts. They are fashioned around the idea that you have Order abilities based on a personality that everyone in that order has. An Archetype would be more based around a design concept, not necessarily requiring any particular personality (though that may be the case).
Ask yourself this, can the character be a member of the order and have this Archetype? If so, it's probably an Archeytpe.
These are "rediculus" examples, hence I don't feel you should do them. They are the "you get the idea" examples:
Ostrich Rider: Able to do all of the Cavalier abilies, while on the back an Ostrich.
The Coconut Cavalier: Doesn't actually own a horse, but has a page run behind him knocking two halves of a coconut together to make horse sounds. BUT, still has many Cavalier abilities.
The Cowardly Cavalier: Loses Challenge, gains Expeditious Retreat. "Brave Sir Robin ran away..."
The Leaper: This Cavalier doesn't get Charge abilities, but instead can use Leap, Great Leap, Supreme Leap, and Holy Toads Batman that was One Heck of a Leap.
Get it? :)
I'm not writing up a Cavalier, so feel free to use ANY of those ideas that you want ;)
Ken
<edit, fixed some typos>
The Coconut Cavalier: Doesn't actually own a horse, but has a page run behind him knocking two halves of a coconut together to make horse sounds. BUT, still has many Cavalier abilities.
Ah, but in this example, you are taking away an advantage without a balancing advantage being added. For example, Missile attractor: any ranged weapon targeted at the cavalier must first first roll to hit the page (AC 10). If the roll indicates a hit, the page is hit instead. Only works while the page is still conscious.
|
|
Ah, but in this example, you are taking away an advantage without a balancing advantage being added. For example, Missile attractor: any ranged weapon targeted at the cavalier must first first roll to hit the page (AC 10). If the roll indicates a hit, the page is hit instead. Only works while the page is still conscious.
The Coconut Cavalier: Doesn't actually own a horse, but has a page run behind him knocking two halves of a coconut together to make horse sounds. BUT, still has many Cavalier abilities.
No no. If you watch the movie, the special ability is to add +10 to Bluff. lol
Ah, but in this example, you are taking away an advantage without a balancing advantage being added. For example, Missile attractor: any ranged weapon targeted at the cavalier must first first roll to hit the page (AC 10). If the roll indicates a hit, the page is hit instead. Only works while the page is still conscious.
The Coconut Cavalier: Doesn't actually own a horse, but has a page run behind him knocking two halves of a coconut together to make horse sounds. BUT, still has many Cavalier abilities.
No no. If you watch the movie, the special ability is to add +10 to Bluff. lol
Very good! And, has anyone noticed that the Alchemist severly lacks a Holy Handgernaid. I mean, come on!!
how the heck would you do a cavalier archetype without comming out with a new order? its nearly synonymous.
I still havent come up with an archetype, theyve all already been done or have existed in 3.5.
anyone have suggestions?? lol...
It might help to look at history or mythology texts to gather some ideas. Then select what interests you most.
In general, if you are a fan of what you are creating, you'll be more interested in creating it. Follow that with some input from some friends to see if it's balanced. I've thrown ideas out to friends who have been pointedly critical to help me develop something worthwhile.
This is somewhere where being critical and opinionated is a big plus. If you've ever looked at an existing class and said, "The way D&D does this is dumb, it would be better if X", well, that's not a bad place to start.
My bad. :)
I think it's that thinking about that sort of thing brings me back to when I first stared playing (only seven or eight years ago). After you've been playing for a while the conventions of the game can start to shape your expectations for it, I think, and good variants are hard to come up with when you're thinking like that. But that may just be me.
Has anyone here seen the Black Knight? Why yes sir I have, he is down the road to your right, you can't miss him for he is the guy they all call "Stumpy". Why do they call him "Stumpy"? Trust me fine sir, once you see him you will understand...
Bard archetype "Funk Soul Brother", checkitout!
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7
aka Draconas
|
Archetypes for the APG are going to be fun, but so hard to make. Oracles and witches for example don't have much to swap out save what makes them their class. So it'll be interesting to see how things work out.
Oracles and Witches will fall under the same category as Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards in difficulty of making an archetype.
|
|
Well, the sorcerer, wizard, cleric, witch and oracle pretty much fall into the same category. Their class surround subtle changes in their magic. So coming up with Archetypes for them will be challenging. If they even allow it. They gave us a peak at the rules for round 2, but not all of them. They may disallow those classes all together. I'm anxious to see what happens. Even if I don't make the top 32, it will be very interesting to see that the 32 come up with!
::looks up what an archetype is::
Nice. This means I've been making archetypes for the monk for four months now. I've got about a dozen in varying degrees of done-ness. Playesting two of them in my Serpent's Skull game, they work about as well as standard monks but more flavorful.
And here I was worried I wouldn't know what to do if I make it.
Funk Soul Brother is a Monk archetype... IMHO.
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
how the heck would you do a cavalier archetype without comming out with a new order? its nearly synonymous.
I still havent come up with an archetype, theyve all already been done or have existed in 3.5.
anyone have suggestions?? lol.
What character class is really lacking an archetype, druids, rangers, rogues, bards, all over done.... I hate all the pally ones, it's just comming up with one good one that isnt partly in one of the already existing ones...
arg, this is something i never do,,,archetypes (its largely something i don't care about either)
I had a friend hem and haw about whether to enter Superstar. He said he jsut had no clue about an archetype. I said "Sure you do" and rattled off half a dozen. I don't even remember them. I am not saying I rule archetypes, I am saying there could be this mental block of "What do I do?" Get passed that and realize that any character you've heard of that is really focused on one part of his class, or who wanted to do things just a bit differently, might be suitable for an archetype. THink very conceptually, and then fit a class to the features you want, rather than wondering how you could possibly make fighters any better.
The advanced base classes, wizard, sorcerer, and cleric. Are lacking actual archetypes. That's where I had to go to start generating ideas for archetypes. The ones lacking them.
The other classes have an average of 10 archetypes a piece, and it becomes difficult to pick an idea that seems unique and not just like said other archetype of said class.
I've already started work on this mess as well, in the hopes that I see my item posted by not me on te 18th. And a few issues have hit already:
The already archetyped classes feel like well explored territory. Not that the only option for a Rogue archetype is to trade out either Uncanny doge or trapfinding and its improvement, but the APG gives a pretty formulaic method of doing that. If I follow that model, I've done nothing new and I have to make it really really sexy or it will look like just another hack at the same old stump.
Caster classes don't have a lot to poke at, which means that an unfortunately high amount of work there is going to play out like open heart surgery. Daunting and intimidating to say the absolute least.
So in the end its a question of how big a bite am I or anyone else willing to take? I have a few really wicked good concepts for the 'harder' classes, but the execution is not easy, and I've already tossed a couple aside due to the breadth of change and the complexity of writing such changes.
So what do you think the masses want is the real question. Do they want a sleek, tight, but by the book barbarian archetype, or are they willing to take the leap and sign on for a caster archetype that turns our expectations on end? Its a little intimidating, figuring out whether a safe design is actually a safe bet or not... I need to wander back to my pages of maddened scribbles now and rethink it all (again).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
That's the problem with creating Sorcerer, Wizard, and Cleric archetypes. Especially within the word limit.
I did a few cavalier orders for my initial archetypes, but on the chance they don't count as archetypes, I started some dabbling in the wiz, cleric and sorc. I came up with one for both the wiz and sorc I think are interesting, but that is just my opinion. The cleric is a bit harder...
|
So I don't overwhelm the thread:I've already started work on this mess as well, in the hopes that I see my item posted by not me on te 18th. And a few issues have hit already:The already archetyped classes feel like well explored territory. Not that the only option for a Rogue archetype is to trade out either Uncanny doge or trapfinding and its improvement, but the APG gives a pretty formulaic method of doing that. If I follow that model, I've done nothing new and I have to make it really really sexy or it will look like just another hack at the same old stump.
Caster classes don't have a lot to poke at, which means that an unfortunately high amount of work there is going to play out like open heart surgery. Daunting and intimidating to say the absolute least.
So in the end its a question of how big a bite am I or anyone else willing to take? I have a few really wicked good concepts for the 'harder' classes, but the execution is not easy, and I've already tossed a couple aside due to the breadth of change and the complexity of writing such changes.
So what do you think the masses want is the real question. Do they want a sleek, tight, but by the book barbarian archetype, or are they willing to take the leap and sign on for a caster archetype that turns our expectations on end? Its a little intimidating, figuring out whether a safe design is actually a safe bet or not... I need to wander back to my pages of maddened scribbles now and rethink it all (again).
I've been thinking about what archetype I'll go with since before I even submitted my magic item. The one thing that struck me was exactly the type of worries you've posted which brings me to one conclusion. The designers must often feel the same way.
Thank you +2 DRaino for summing up my thoughts for me. I think we all have gotten a small look at what its like to be "in the hotseat" as it were. And a hearty thank you to the staff at Paizo for staying in that hotseat for all this time. Sorry to steal the thread a bit. The normal thread will continue after this post.
Funk Soul Brother is a Monk archetype... IMHO.
Agreed - though the tough question is: how can you mechanically reduce the overpowerd 'Fro of the Funk Soul Brother to a balanced ability?
EDIT: A friend suggests making it a level 20 ability "The Fro that Eclipsed the Sun"
Shave it and give him Darkvision Googles (so cool)... one of his possible feats, starting at level 2 is "Fro Anything" (creatures get a Fort Save).
And, I suggest Elemental Fist (Earth, Wind & Fire... no Water).
I hope no one thinks this is offensive, I love Earth Wind and Fire. And, the sun glasses on the likes of Lenny Kravitz, Stevie and Quincy.
Now, if we're talking about Fat Boy Slim, Reduce/Enlarge Person is in order.
========
Calavier is basically, a Fighter archetype... turned into a Class. So, you'd be making an archetype or an archetype. I'd stay away from that one, that's unsolicited advice. Take it as you will, or not.
Barbarian's are hard to do, but you could go for Conan. But, what is Conan? Can one capture his essence, will the voters be as intimately familiar? "Spot on, mate!"
Maybe a Gladiator, with some Dark Sun research for mechanics (what to do, or not to do).
I can think of a Paladin idea, but it will be tough... and Paladins often draw a black/white response. Either the reader will agree it's an awesome Paladin or vehemently oppose, "...and Paladin wouldn't do/use that!"
There was a treatment of Paladins in Dragon Magazine years ago, for each alignment.
Spell-casters are tougher, but I'm not saying don't do it... I might go spell-caster. It's the whole risk/reward thing. And, in 450... "Will they get it?"
Hope that helps someone.
I disagree that barbarians are hard to do - they have the advantage of a relatively large set of class abilities that can be traded for something else. Similar to monks (which have the proverbial kitchen sink approach to distinct abilities).
Going for somebody specific in an archetype (like "Conan", or if you aim higher "Cohen") is probably not a good idea. An archetype should capture, well, an archetype. It should cater for a whole gamut of fresh and cool new character concepts rather than attempt to mechanically recreate a particular hero of lore.
I think there are some nice untapped possibilities for paladins - but I would advise everybody to stay away from alignment-altering variations. Not only are they unoriginal, but they also diverge from the core of what a paladin is (yea, I'm with _that_ crowd ;p ). No paladin of liberty (CG) please - no matter how classy it sounds and how viable it fits a roleplaying concept: there are other classes that serve as a more appropriate frame for it.
I didn't mean create Conan, per se. But, if one were to play a "Conan" type... what archetype would you start with? It would work for Conan, Kull, etc...
And, I don't think any of the current ones are it. Although you can try to mix and match.
Maybe I mis-spoke. I didn't mean to indicate they are hard to create, Barbarian archetypes... just risky on the vote-side. I personally like them.
Now, with all these archetypes... I think multi-classing will decrease. Wonder if that's the Paizo/Pathfinder plan. Insidious... I love multi-classing!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
I think any of the classes are still open to cool archetypes. Now, whether it's better to make another rogue archetype or a witch archetype for round 2 really depends on the voters.
My biggest fear would be making an archetype too similar to another contestants', or similar to a prestige class or something I wasn't aware of. But that was my concern in the monster round too. It might be bad to end up as one of five who made a witch archetype, for instance.
I'd also worry about the lines that separate core class, base class, sub-class, archetype, prestige class, and class features. I think there are some gray areas that judges or voters think go too far. Having a 450 word limit helps though since you can't write a whole new base class accidentally in less than that.
I didn't mean create Conan, per se. But, if one were to play a "Conan" type... what archetype would you start with? It would work for Conan, Kull, etc...
And, I don't think any of the current ones are it. Although you can try to mix and match.
Maybe I mis-spoke. I didn't mean to indicate they are hard to create, Barbarian archetypes... just risky on the vote-side. I personally like them.
Now, with all these archetypes... I think multi-classing will decrease. Wonder if that's the Paizo/Pathfinder plan. Insidious... I love multi-classing!
Ah! I concur. Except for the bit about multi-classing. ...though my arguably coolest character has to rely on it to make the concept work.