You can't do new wizard schools or sorcerer bloodlines or cleric domains. But, what about the Oracle? Would you be allowed to do a new Mystery?
Read the FAQ
|
You can't do new wizard schools or sorcerer bloodlines or cleric domains. But, what about the Oracle? Would you be allowed to do a new Mystery?
In before somebody asks "what about Revelations ?":
Submission is not an archetype. Note that the Advanced Player's Guide includes new rules that are not archetypes and therefore are not valid submissions for Round 2 of RPG Superstar. Examples of these invalid rules are barbarian rage powers, cleric subdomains, alternate classes like the anti-paladin, ranger combat styles, rogue talents, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, alchemist discoveries, cavalier orders, oracle mysteries or revelations, summoner evolutions, or witch hexes or patrons. Your submission must be an archetype.
|
You can't do new wizard schools or sorcerer bloodlines or cleric domains. But, what about the Oracle? Would you be allowed to do a new Mystery?
Examples of these invalid rules are barbarian rage powers, cleric subdomains, alternate classes like the anti-paladin, ranger combat styles, rogue talents, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, alchemist discoveries, cavalier orders, oracle mysteries or revelations, summoner evolutions, or witch hexes or patrons.
EDIT: curse my leisurely typing (and rule quote up-looking)... ninja'd not once but twice!
|
You can't do new wizard schools or sorcerer bloodlines or cleric domains. But, what about the Oracle? Would you be allowed to do a new Mystery?Examples of these invalid rules are barbarian rage powers, cleric subdomains, alternate classes like the anti-paladin, ranger combat styles, rogue talents, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, alchemist discoveries, cavalier orders, oracle mysteries or revelations, summoner evolutions, or witch hexes or patrons.
Sorry. I totally glanced over that. Stupid me. :P
EDIT: Well, that's just silly. I thought if I deleted my question it would go away. rofl I was just glancing at the rules at work and I was going off the previous Blog that showed what wasn't allowed and Oracle mysteries weren't listed then. So, my bad.
What if the new archetype required new talents/powers/whatever to work?
Like, if a rogue archetype replaced the sneak attack power - that would gimp a lot of their rogue talents. Would it be allowable to include new talents based on the new replacement ability?
I suppose it boils down to: Is using those exclusively the issue, or is including them at all a disqualification?
I think you archetype needs to be as self contained as possible.
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
What if the new archetype required new talents/powers/whatever to work?
Like, if a rogue archetype replaced the sneak attack power - that would gimp a lot of their rogue talents. Would it be allowable to include new talents based on the new replacement ability?
I suppose it boils down to: Is using those exclusively the issue, or is including them at all a disqualification?
I don't think whether you can or cannot add new talents or rage powers or whatever is the issue.
The issue is, can you write up your archetype AND include new talents, rage powers, et. al. and stay under the 450 word limit?
I doubt that would be easy if at all possible.
What if the new archetype required new talents/powers/whatever to work?
Like, if a rogue archetype replaced the sneak attack power - that would gimp a lot of their rogue talents. Would it be allowable to include new talents based on the new replacement ability?
I suppose it boils down to: Is using those exclusively the issue, or is including them at all a disqualification?
I don't think whether you can or cannot add new talents or rage powers or whatever is the issue.
The issue is, can you write up your archetype AND include new talents, rage powers, et. al. and stay under the 450 word limit?
I doubt that would be easy if at all possible.
Well that depends. I've come up with a couple possible ideas that would be best realized by swapping a single class ability and then adding new talents (tricks, discoveries, whatever) that benefit the new ability.
The question is: is that even a legal entry? Even if it is, would, I be better served tossing it and coming up with one that didn't use new talents? Could I dance around the issue and do this:
Sweet Ninja Moves
Whenever a rogue could choose a new trick, she may instead choose one of the following Sweet Ninja Moves.
Puff of Smoke
(Awesome Description goes here)
etc...?
I hate even asking the question, because it feels nitpicky, but it makes a big difference in what Archetype I would choose to make.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
I think it would just be a safe bet to stay away from those classes, period. There are plenty of other classes to archtype. I know people want to stand out, but when you walk that thin line, there is a good chance you may fall off the wrong side.
No guts, no glory. :-)
|
What if the new archetype required new talents/powers/whatever to work?
Wouldn't that be a prestige class then?
Like an "X needs 5 ranks of Y to qualify for Z power" and such. Maybe I misread so please feel free to correct me.
IMO, archetype creation is much more about equivalent exchange of abilities than qualification for abilities.
Archetypes are choices made at Level 1 of a class so they should work without needing to qualify for them. Now, I will qualify one thing - this post is my opinion and I am not a judge. Hopefully, I will be your competition, so take my opinion only for what it is... my opinion.
The general impression I've gotten is that previous competitors have gone far by being bold and innovative. Now there's a point where that crosses into "what was s/he thinking?" And I think it's up to us to figure out where that line is and come close without going over (like The Price is Right).
It's my opinion that we should approach the contest in an exciting and creative manner. I know nitpicking over the rules minutiae is what we do as gamers, but I don't think hinging your submission around convincing people that you've technically fulfilled the requisite criteria is going to be a terribly successful strategy. Be adventurous! We slay dragons here.
I want to be bold, problem is, I also want to avoid a DQ. And "not submitting an archetype" is grounds for DQ.
I have a very important question to ask, as it is core to my submission, but I'm afraid of "tipping my hand." Is there a way to ask questions in private? (Likely not.)
So, can we have clarity on how strict the judges are going to be about DQing for "not being an archetype"? Sure, the voters might cry foul, and that's fine with me, but I want to know what will cut me cut out of the competition before they see me.
Even saying "we'll be liberal" or "we'll be strict" would satisfy me.
Thanks a bunch!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between
Swappatype (Rogue)
I'm so cool, blah blah blah, vote for me, blah blah blah.
Swappy McSwapperson: I'm a cool new ability! This replaces the rogue talent gained at 2nd level.
and
Swappatype (Rogue)
I'm so cool, blah blah blah, vote for me, blah blah blah.
Swappy McSwapperson: Swappatypes gain access to the following rogue talent.
Swappatootie Bless My Soul: I really love that rock and roll.
The first one is a new archetype.
The second is a new archetype plus a new rogue talent. This would be disqualified.
Even if the Swappy Mcswapperson power from the first archetype is exactly the same as the new rogue talent associated with the second archetype.
I'll interpret that to mean "we'll be strict." Oh well.
FWIW my idea was to swap/change a class feature that was possessed by multiple classes, then say this archetype could be applied to either of them. I'm guessing that's out-of-bounds.
Thanks for the clarification SKR.
FWIW my idea was to swap/change a class feature that was possessed by multiple classes, then say this archetype could be applied to either of them. I'm guessing that's out-of-bounds.
Archetypes apply to a single class.
You can have very similar archetypes for two different classes (and even use the same name), but an individual archetype's writeup always focuses on one class.So, frex, if your "Magey VonMagerson" archetype swaps out the "familiar" class feature and you'd want sorcerers and wizards to be able to take it, if you were writing it for a book, you'd have to write it up as a sorcerer archetype and then as a wizard archetype--two separate entries.
There is a difference between
Swappatype (Rogue)
I'm so cool, blah blah blah, vote for me, blah blah blah.
Swappy McSwapperson: I'm a cool new ability! This replaces the rogue talent gained at 2nd level.and
Swappatype (Rogue)
I'm so cool, blah blah blah, vote for me, blah blah blah.
Swappy McSwapperson: Swappatypes gain access to the following rogue talent.
Swappatootie Bless My Soul: I really love that rock and roll.The first one is a new archetype.
The second is a new archetype plus a new rogue talent. This would be disqualified.Even if the Swappy Mcswapperson power from the first archetype is exactly the same as the new rogue talent associated with the second archetype.
This helps a lot, thanks.
The first one is a new archetype.
The second is a new archetype plus a new rogue talent. This would be disqualified.Even if the Swappy Mcswapperson power from the first archetype is exactly the same as the new rogue talent associated with the second archetype.
Thanks - this is very helpful. I was wondering about the same thing, and you've given a very clear answer.
Yet, now I'm totally confused.
Is it disqualified because it's a new rogue talent, or because it's a new ability?
When I swap X and replace with Y, is Y not allowed to be original content?
Sorry, if I'm being obtuse.
Yet, now I'm totally confused.
Is it disqualified because it's a new rogue talent, or because it's a new ability?
When I swap X and replace with Y, is Y not allowed to be original content?
Sorry, if I'm being obtuse.
Y should be original content. The second example is disqualified because it includes a new rogue talent, which is not supposed to be in an archetype.
Essentially, Archetypes are about replacing X with Y, adding a new rogue talent simply adds a new option to X.
At least, that's how I understand it.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
Yet, now I'm totally confused.
Is it disqualified because it's a new rogue talent, or because it's a new ability?
When I swap X and replace with Y, is Y not allowed to be original content?
Sorry, if I'm being obtuse.
If I understand the advice correctly, the only rules change in the second example is the new rogue talent. The second example would be disqualified because it doesn't actually present any archetype mechanics, even though it's superficially dressed up like an archetype.
Chief Technical Officer
|
... following the template is a very good idea, to reduce the chance of being disqualified for reason #4, but it's not actually a rule of Round 2.
Technically true, but misleading out of context. You don't have to cut-and-paste the template, but you *do* have to get the format right. Improperly formatted entries may be disqualified.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
... following the template is a very good idea, to reduce the chance of being disqualified for reason #4, but it's not actually a rule of Round 2.Technically true, but misleading out of context. You don't have to cut-and-paste the template, but you *do* have to get the format right. Improperly formatted entries may be disqualified.
Right, I'll cut that until I at least figure out how to rephrase what I intended.
I have an interesting question.
When referring to the fighter weapon training would one call it a feat such as the rangers combat styles like in the description of the Horse Lord?
i.e. from the APG
Combat Style Feat (Ex): At 2nd level, a horse lord must
choose the mounted combat style.
No you should most likely phrase it as such.. _________ replaces the fighter weapon training 1.
If I recall they have several weapon trainings and several armor trainings but don't quote me on that.
Hope this helps.
no not replacing, referring like they did with the rangers combat style.
Basically saying a fighter must take axe style at 5th lvl.
Ok, got it. You should just refer to it as is. So if your referring to weapon training 1 then state it as such.
But be careful with that for if you remember they don't want one class to be able to do something another class usually does. Now if this is a fighter class then disregard this little tip.
no not replacing, referring like they did with the rangers combat style.
Basically saying a fighter must take axe style at 5th lvl.
based on existing examples I think it would be a new name like.
master of axes, the axe lord gets +1 to hit and damage with all axes, this ability increases by +1 for every 4 levels. this ability replaces weapon training 1.
this seems to be how existing archetypes approach it.
OK still not understanding my question.
I am not changing the Weapon training, I am not adding to it as in creating a new type.
Basically all I am doing is referring to it so I would like to know which would be proper out of the 2 examples below.....
Weapon Training Feat (Ex): X must take Y at 5th level.
or
Weapon Training (Ex): X may only take Y or Z at 5th level.
I would like to know if the word "Feat" needs to be there or not, thats it.
|
|
OK still not understanding my question.
I am not changing the Weapon training, I am not adding to it as in creating a new type.
Basically all I am doing is referring to it so I would like to know which would be proper out of the 2 examples below.....Weapon Training Feat (Ex): X must take Y at 5th level.
or
Weapon Training (Ex): X may only take Y or Z at 5th level.I would like to know if the word "Feat" needs to be there or not, thats it.
Typically the word feat is used. For example, the Ranger ability Endurance says "A ranger gains Endurance as a bonus feat at 3rd level.". So you wouldn't say "X must take Y Feat at 5th level". Instead you'd say "X gains Y as a bonus feat at 6th level. This replaces the 6th-level combat style feat." As per the Ranger Archtype Beastmaster Improved Empathic Link ability in the APG.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
OK still not understanding my question.
I am not changing the Weapon training, I am not adding to it as in creating a new type.
Basically all I am doing is referring to it so I would like to know which would be proper out of the 2 examples below.....Weapon Training Feat (Ex): X must take Y at 5th level.
or
Weapon Training (Ex): X may only take Y or Z at 5th level.I would like to know if the word "Feat" needs to be there or not, thats it.
Typically the word feat is used. For example, the Ranger ability Endurance says "A ranger gains Endurance as a bonus feat at 3rd level.". So you wouldn't say "X must take Y Feat at 5th level". Instead you'd say "X gains Y as a bonus feat at 6th level. This replaces the 6th-level combat style feat." As per the Ranger Archtype Beastmaster Improved Empathic Link ability in the APG.
If you look at the Fighter archetype and how they word the replacements of Weapon and Armor training, they say Weapon Training 1 or Armor Training 3 for examples.
So if you wanted to indicate that the archetype must take a particular type of weapon or armor training at a particular level, figure out which, 1 through 4, you are referring to.Then you’d say something along the lines of: When choosing a weapon group for Weapon Training 1, the Axe Master must choose the axe group.
Now whether this is a legitimate thing to even have in an archetype or not, I can’t say. I haven’t seen any other archetypes that dictate what the character must take.
Presumably, the player won’t choose Axe Master archetype and then choose blunt weapons (maces and hammers) as their weapon group. So you have to assume the player will create their character to actually be able to make full use of the archetype’s specialties.
That being said, look at the archetypes offered for the fighter in the Inner Sea Primer. They have a paragraph of Suggested Feats where they suggest taking weapon focus in the exotic weapons and such.
So, I'm about 90% sure my idea would be disqualified then. Damn.
Time to come up with something new then.
OK still not understanding my question.
I am not changing the Weapon training, I am not adding to it as in creating a new type.
Basically all I am doing is referring to it so I would like to know which would be proper out of the 2 examples below.....Weapon Training Feat (Ex): X must take Y at 5th level.
or
Weapon Training (Ex): X may only take Y or Z at 5th level.I would like to know if the word "Feat" needs to be there or not, thats it.
If you looks at several of the other "weapon specialist" fighter archetypes, many of them require that they select a specific type of weapon for weapon mastery at 20th, so i would think that you can simply say they must choose option X when selecting something with ability Y. It's not a feat when they get to choose, why should it be a feat when you choose for them.
OK, is "Weapon Training" considered a feat I guess is the real question Im asking or is it just considered a granted ability?
Oh and please forgive me if I seem to not understand the above posts to my question. I haven't slept sense 6:30am yesterday only napped for 2 or so hours some time last night am my brain is not functioning correctly...lol.
|
|
OK, is "Weapon Training" considered a feat I guess is the real question Im asking or is it just considered a granted ability?
Oh and please forgive me if I seem to not understand the above posts to my question. I haven't slept sense 6:30am yesterday only napped for 2 or so hours some time last night am my brain is not functioning correctly...lol.
Weapon Training is an Extraordinary Ability as per the core rulebook under the Fighter Description.
TY, So unlike the Rangers "Combat Style" it does not get referred to as a feat. Again, Thank you.
So the correct way to write it is ......
Weapon Training (Ex): X may only take Y or Z at 5th level.
|
|
TY, So unlike the Rangers "Combat Style" it does not get referred to as a feat. Again, Thank you.
So the correct way to write it is ......
Weapon Training (Ex): X may only take Y or Z at 5th level.
Well, really, from what I see in the AGP, the proper way to word it would be:
Dwarven Waraxe Training (Ex): At 5th level, a Dwarven Berserker must take Axes as his Weapon Training 1 choice.
EDIT:
And to make it Superstar and not just telling them what choice to make, I'd probably do something like this:
Dwarven Waraxe Training (Ex): At 5th level, a Dwarven Berserker must take Axes as his Weapon Training 1 choice. The Dwarven Berserker gets an additional +1 to attack and damage with Dwarven Waraxes on top of his bonus from Weapon Training.
(or something similar, just threw that together)
Again, Thank You Lachlan. Much appreciated.
Now for another question and to use your example.....
Should the ability name be in italics such as....
Dwarven Waraxe Training (Ex): At 5th level, a Dwarven Berserker must take Axes as his Weapon Training 1 choice. The Dwarven Berserker gets an additional +1 to attack and damage with Dwarven Waraxes on top of his bonus from Weapon Training.
or not, as in....
Dwarven Waraxe Training (Ex): At 5th level, a Dwarven Berserker must take Axes as his Weapon Training 1 choice. The Dwarven Berserker gets an additional +1 to attack and damage with Dwarven Waraxes on top of his bonus from Weapon Training.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Again, let me say this. Take it for whatever it is worth, because at the end of the day, you are the one designing your archetype.
I don’t think it necessary to dictate what a player must choose for their character.
If you set up all the special powers to work only with axes, then there is no need to tell them they must choose their level 5 weapon training (which in the APG is called Weapon Training 1) as axes. The player will automatically choose axes, because otherwise, it would be stupid and useless to take that archetype.
My opinion: Save yourself some word count and don’t tell them what they must do, if the must do is essential to using the other powers of the archetype.
|
|
Again, let me say this. Take it for whatever it is worth, because at the end of the day, you are the one designing your archetype.
I don’t think it necessary to dictate what a player must choose for their character.
If you set up all the special powers to work only with axes, then there is no need to tell them they must choose their level 5 weapon training (which in the APG is called Weapon Training 1) as axes. The player will automatically choose axes, because otherwise, it would be stupid and useless to take that archetype.
My opinion: Save yourself some word count and don’t tell them what they must do, if the must do is essential to using the other powers of the archetype.
That's too true. :)
|
|
Again, Thank You Lachlan. Much appreciated.
Now for another question and to use your example.....Should the ability name be in italics such as....
Dwarven Waraxe Training (Ex): At 5th level, a Dwarven Berserker must take Axes as his Weapon Training 1 choice. The Dwarven Berserker gets an additional +1 to attack and damage with Dwarven Waraxes on top of his bonus from Weapon Training.or not, as in....
Dwarven Waraxe Training (Ex): At 5th level, a Dwarven Berserker must take Axes as his Weapon Training 1 choice. The Dwarven Berserker gets an additional +1 to attack and damage with Dwarven Waraxes on top of his bonus from Weapon Training.
The word Axes is italicized in the core rule book. And most group names are italicized.
The problem is mine isn't an obvious choice, its more of a logical necessity.
The problem is mine isn't an obvious choice, its more of a logical necessity.
One I wrote up (mostly because I thought it'd be prohibitively long and I was curious to see how close it came) ran into a similar issue and in writing it I made the same choice you did.
As an aside, it turns out that you can get a lot more than I'd thought into 450 words.
Well here is to hoping I get into the top 32 or at least in the runner ups so I can show my Archetype off. Even if I dont make it in, I just may post it somewhere just to get some feedback and if needed, help in making it tight....:)
|
|
Well here is to hoping I get into the top 32 or at least in the runner ups so I can show my Archetype off. Even if I dont make it in, I just may post it somewhere just to get some feedback and if needed, help in making it tight....:)
Just remember (as was posted in another thread) that if you post it for feedback, don't submit it as an entry for next year's. The entries are supposed to be your own work and if someone sees your entry and goes "Oh yeah I remember discussing this last year", you'll probably be disqualified.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
The problem is mine isn't an obvious choice, its more of a logical necessity.
Fair enough. I'd just make sure it made sense within the theme of your archetype and that it isn't just extraneous tack-on.
I personally would shy away from telling them what they must take, but that is of course a design choice to make. Good Luck! Hopefully you'll get a chance to find out if it is a good design choice or not!
the existing examples don't so much tell you to take a specific group of weapos as create a new situation and give you a bonus for it.
so
swashbuckler training (ex) : the swashbuckler gets +1 to hut and damage with rapiers and bucklers. this bonus increases by + 1 for every 4 levels after 3rd and replaces weapon training 1.
so it creates a new weapon group of rapier and buckler and gives a bonus for it.
our dwarves axe master would have it worded similarly like a dwarves war axe and shooed set up. rather than being told he gets the axe group.