Help! Comparing the Archetype creation rules to some of the Classes, it seems that many are not well-suited for this contest.
For example the Witch, having virtually no Abilities, has very few things you're actually allowed to change and those allowable things are minor in comparison (e.g. Skills, Proficiencies, etc.).
The centerpieces of the Witch is her Hexes and her Patron, but they are off limits. This makes most changes superficial and probably boring.
Clearly am I missing something. Anyone willing to set me straight?
You're not missing something, it's just that some classes are better suited to this round than others. We're all hitting the same wall here, so don't feel like you're missing out on something we all see
Best advice I can give for this round is try thinking outside of the box, you may find something not obvious to others that you can use. I know I came up with a few ideas including oracle, cleric, and wizard. So I know it can be done.
Hope this helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best advice I can give for this round is try thinking outside of the box, you may find something not obvious to others that you can use. I know I came up with a few ideas including oracle, cleric, and wizard. So I know it can be done.
Hope this helps.
I'd actually recommend exactly the opposite.
Archetypes are unknown territory. Most of us don't have a ton of experience with them. Wordcount is reasonable, but there's not anywhere near enough for a sandman or a shapeshifter - most of the APG archetypes that do come in under wordcount are, shall we say, "good enough for a book of archetpyes". Balance is going to be excruciating. With all these obstacles in play, why deliberately take on a challenge that will be particularly difficult to succeed at?
Consider, also, that even if you do succeed in archetyping an oracle, a witch, or a cleric - that doesn't mean your archetype is particularly interesting or excited; only that it was difficult to do. If you've got a great concept, then by all means, try to make it work, but doing something hard just because it's hard isn't more praiseworthy than doing something awesome without going through pits and brambles.
Remember also that an archetype doesn't need to have half a dozen cool abilities. One single ability swap is enough to define an archetype, and there's no shame in that if the single ability gives the character the flavor your archetype aims for.
In other words: restrain yourself to what you can realistically accomplish; prefer to accomplish something really really well than to fail at something really, really hard. Again, simply designing a solid, enticing archetype - even for a rogue or a bard, seemingly so ripe for the picking - is hard enough, and I think we'll see a fair share of contestants falling under on round 2 because they don't manage to do that. Writing a solid entry - any solid entry, by which I mean, readable and absent of gaping flaws - will do wonders for your chances of sticking around for the top 16. Know your limits. Swing for the fences if you must, but for heavens sakes, make sure you keep a good, firm grip on the bat.
Superficial and probably boring? Man if this wasn't the round 2 challenge I'd take up the gauntlet right here in this tread and go after a witch archetype. I can think of at least one clear cut and sigifigent flavor change to witch by replacing one ability, and it's a stereotype. I'll however wait until after the 2nd of February.
Advice, watch out for dangling and dependent class abilities, :P Sable Company Ranger.
Superficial and probably boring? Man if this wasn't the round 2 challenge I'd take up the gauntlet right here in this tread and go after a witch archetype.
Well then, it's a good thing Azmahel opened this thread up, isn't it?
Write it! Write it!
Thanks to everyone that took the time to answer, it's greatly appreciated. You have all given me food for thought and spurred me on to a better understanding of what is required/allowed in this next round.
If I make it to round 3 I'll be happy to share the credit! ;)