There were some very good archetypes in this round.
There were some mediocre archetypes.
And there were some boring and/or broken archetypes.
The judges were pretty blunt about all of them. The judges didn't necessarily agree on all of them (but we're often looking at them from different perspective).
So, when you read the judge comments on your archetypes, brace yourself. In many cases, our response was "this ability is too good for what you're giving up." That's not a good thing.
Archetypes aren't easy. One, they're new, so everyone (including us at Paizo) are still feeling out the boundaries of what you should be able to do with them. Two, you're often swapping one class ability for a very different class ability and hoping it's balanced not only against that one class ability, but with the class (and even with multiclassing) as a whole. It's not unusual to drop in an ability that seems balanced but has a big exploit lurking in the shadows.
My advice to the voters: Don't let the judge comments influence you too negatively in your voting this round. This was a new task, a more difficult task than R1, and some people stumbled... but you get 8 votes this round and you should consider using some of them on people whose ideas you liked (in R1 and R2) even if their archetype had problems.
My advice to the competitors: Don't let the judge comments get you down. I recently finished developing about 50 pages of archetypes for Ultimate Magic, and even the professionals are botching parts of this sort of design. You're new. It's new. Learn from this. Keep your chin up!
I repeat: Competitors, don't let this round get you down. This was a tough challenge.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some advice to people planning to design archetypes (it's too late to affect this round, it's really just an FYI):
1) Just because the math is the same doesn't mean it has the same value.
Not all skills have the same value. Appraise is a much weaker skill in the game than Perception. Handle Animal is weaker than Stealth. And so on.
A bonus on sunder checks is less useful than a bonus on grapple checks because grapple comes up far more often than sunder.
So when you take away bardic knowledge (+1/2 level to all Knowledge checks) and giving them +1/2 level to combat-useful skills like Bluff, Perception, and/or Stealth, it isn't an even trade. Even taking a rogue's trapfinding (+1/2 level to Perc and DD against traps) and applying it to all Perc checks is a significant powerup because you use generic-Perception far, far more than you use trap-Perception.
2) An offensive bonus is more valuable than a defensive bonus of the same number.
The game favors offense over defense. Attack bonuses increase faster than AC bonuses, and that's intentional so higher-level fights don't become stale (you hit more often at higher levels, and your iteratives are at least somewhat viable). So if you take away a class ability that gives +X to AC or saving throws and replace it with an ability that gives +X to attack rolls or DCs, that is a powerup.
3) It is safer and easier to trade abilities one-for-one.
Until you really know what you're doing, don't try to swap two weak abilities for a stronger one, and don't try to add another penalty/limitation ability to compensate for a swapped ability that's stronger than what it's replacing. Just focus on class abilities one at a time and balance what you're swapping in against what you're swapping out.
So if you're doing a rogue archetype and want to swap evasion for something, try to balance what you're bringing in against *just* evasion. If your ability is too powerful, don't think, "oh, I'll just say the archetype also loses trapfinding, that'll compensate for this new ability"... instead, tone down the ability so it's balanced against evasion.
(This also means the archetype is open to more characters who want to experiment with multiple archetypes, because you're swapping fewer abilities.)
4) Limiting an existing class ability to one already-available choice isn't cool, nor is it a limitation.
A rogue archetype that says "you have to take this rogue talent at level 4" isn't cool.
A fighter archetype that says "you have to take this weapon category at level 5" isn't cool.
And, assuming that choice is especially appropriate for that character, it's not really a limitation because the character would probably want that thing anyway. A character with a dagger-fighter archetype wants to take "light blades" for weapon training, so forcing him to do it isn't a limitation to the character at all, and you shouldn't treat it like it's a penalty or weakness to justify making another new class ability better (as in, "oh, the daggermaster has to take "light blades," so to compensate for that limitation I'll give the archetype this other cool thing...").
5) Giving away too much at low-levels encourages multiclass dipping.
If your class gives away a lot of cool stuff at low levels (particularly 1st or 2nd, and especially if it compensates for that by cutting higher-level abilities), you've just given minmaxers a good reason to take a level in that class just for those goodies that augment their main class.
6) Don't swap in a new ability that's simply better than the original.
Don't swap out wild shape for an ability that's wild shape + rage. Don't swap out Weapon Spec for an ability that's Weapon Spec + Improved Disarm. And so on. (See also #3, as that and this often go hand in hand.)
7) Keep in mind the character level where comparable abilities become available.
If another class gains a certain ability or spell at level X, don't award that spell or ability to this class before level X. Especially if that's a key ability of that class. Frex, you shouldn't give an ability like fireball or fly before character level 5 (when a wizard could get those spells), nor should you give teleport effects before character level 7 (when a wizard would have access to dimension door).
I don't feel comfortable recommending any of the archetypes for advancement - they either have issues with style, balance, or are conversions of 3.5 PrCs (didn't Complete Divine have a similar Evangelist?)
However, I think that's more the fault of the round choice than the contestants - the APG covers archetypes quite thoroughly, and there isn't much design space out there that's worth covering (and isn't an already-existing 3.5 PrC).
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
Frankly, I'm pretty shocked by the number of "I do NOT recommend" comments from the judges in the Top 32 entries. I guess it was a lot tougher challenge than anyone expected.
Anyway, I want to thank the judges for their comments on my "alt" archetype. I suppose I'll post my design (along with the judges' comments, if that's ok) for everyone to see AFTER round 2 is over.
I disagree with you, Matt. I came up with two original archetypes with no problems.
Combat Veteran (Intelligence style fighter)
Spinning Monk (Basically a breakdancing style monk)
... and there are alot I like from those still in this years competition. So... I think archetype does exactly what the competition wants it to do.
Separates those who won't make it to the 3rd round from those who will go on.
However, I think that's more the fault of the round choice than the contestants - the APG covers archetypes quite thoroughly, and there isn't much design space out there that's worth covering (and isn't an already-existing 3.5 PrC).
I don't think we are out of design space yet. I am curious to see if this is a round next year though, as I have the feeling Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat might do a pretty thorough job of filling out the space. I mean, Sean just said above he's got about 50 pages worth of them in for review for Ultimate Magic and many of the APG archetypes fit 2 on a page.
I'm not claiming that the design space is utterly exhausted, merely that we're clearly in the area of diminishing returns already. Most of the "archetypes" we're seeing are either incredibly niche or just not that doable mechanically.
I'll confess, I thought this round was hard.
The judges were brutal but necessarily so. The last thing you want is weak reviewers; it cheapens contests and the overall gaming results.
It was a lot of fun though, and I'd gladly do it again.
|
There seems to be a huge disconnect between round 1 and round 2.
Most round 1 items were incredibly creative and the contestants were rewarded for this, but many of these items had balance issues or small mistakes that were forgiven due to the item coolness.
this round while the archetypes are creative and most are cool i feel like there are some seriously major game balance issues or other moderate mistakes and the judges are really pointing these out.
I think there are still a lot of undiscovered archetypes out there. i think this simply wasn't the best round for the types of contestants that were selected.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
There seems to be a huge disconnect between round 1 and round 2.
Most round 1 items were incredibly creative and the contestants were rewarded for this, but many of these items had balance issues or small mistakes that were forgiven due to the item coolness.
this round while the archetypes are creative and most are cool i feel like there are some seriously major game balance issues or other moderate mistakes and the judges are really pointing these out.
One distinction to remember is that out of the hundreds and hundreds of round one competitors we were looking for 32 (and 4 alternates) who we thought had the spark to be more. With this round we're testing those we selected to see which can turn that spark into a real career as a freelance game designer. Tryouts for the football team aren't as hard as the first round of practices to determine who's a starter and who's a bench-warmer. So while we're harsh with our criticism this round (and will continue to be) it's also to use each round as a teaching opportunity. The top 4 competitors are all guaranteed at least one writing assignment from Paizo, and as the person who will inevitably develop both the winner's module and the three scenarios designed by the runners-up, it's in my best interest to shape those designers into the best authors they can be.
|
|
One distinction to remember is that out of the hundreds and hundreds of round one competitors we were looking for 32 (and 4 alternates) who we thought had the spark to be more. With this round we're testing those we selected to see which can turn that spark into a real career as a freelance game designer. Tryouts for the football team aren't as hard as the first round of practices to determine who's a starter and who's a bench-warmer. So while we're harsh with our criticism this round (and will continue to be) it's also to use each round as a teaching opportunity. The top 4 competitors are all guaranteed at least one writing assignment from Paizo, and as the person who will inevitably develop both the winner's module and the three scenarios designed by the runners-up, it's in my best interest to shape those designers into the best authors they can be.
makes sense. i agree.
|
By their comments I think I could detect the strain the judges are under. It can't be easy to review 36 entries for archetypes when, as Sean said in the "archetypes aren't easy" section above, even the judges haven't gotten archetypes completely figured out. I imagine they didn't really take a lot of time to reflect on the math of each ability and were, to an extent, going with their gut and playing it more, "better safe than sorry" than in the previous round. So far I've seen a lot more hesitation and apprehension than outright dislike.
I'm cool with what the judges said about my archetype. As harsh as they were I didn't get totally panned, which is better than I thought I might get. And, because I'm an alternate, I didn't need to get flogged in public, which is sweeter still.
I'll stop crying...eventually.
It was interesting to read through the Submissions and Judges' comments in comparison with the Round 1 reviews and the previous years' entries (mostly encounters and monsters).
Villains, monsters, and encounters need to bring the Awesome right away. When the players encounter them, they shoudl be interested, scared, and curious with only some imagery. The rules for these can be one-offs in a way that Classes (and archetypes) cannot be.
Which I think we saw allot of here. Many of these classes were dinged for not being Exciting or Awesome. But truthfully, I think many were more intriguing (in concept at least) than those in the APG.
I think the designers for the most part, and especially those that were recommended for advancement (again mostly) were aware that PCs often will have less "WIZ-BANG" elements than monsters and villains. These are rules that will impact every session. By necessity these archetypes need to be restrained.
While not all of the designers were able to produce balanced archetypes; they did, for the most part, attempt to keep the crazy down and produce archetypes that were designed for long term play.
jl
|
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
I got a "I do NOT recommend" from Neil, 5/5 from Ryan, "I RECOMMEND" from Mark, and no comments from SKR. So I guess I did pretty well considering that overall, the judges were being really rather harsh this round with their reviews. Sadly, though, that won't matter much unless someone decides bow out or do something DQ-worthy.
I got a "I do NOT recommend" from Neil, 5/5 from Ryan, "I RECOMMEND" from Mark, and no comments from SKR. So I guess I did pretty well considering that overall, the judges were being really rather harsh this round with their reviews. Sadly, though, that won't matter much unless someone decides bow out or do something DQ-worthy.
That's weird. Did you forget to get Neil his jewelery?
|
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
That's weird. Did you forget to get Neil his jewelery?
It must have been that, or the flowers I forgot. :D
I designed a summoner archetype. As there's still a Diminutive (or Fine?) chance for me to advance, that's all I'm going to say about my archetype at this stage.
Heres a quick question, would the judges comment on the archetypes that might get posted in the "Here is what I would have submitted if I made the top 32" thread?
Just curious to know.
"Signs point to no."
Now Neil...
... that's just lazy.
Not really something I'm accused of all that often. ;-)
|
I don't feel comfortable recommending any of the archetypes for advancement - they either have issues with style, balance, or are conversions of 3.5 PrCs (didn't Complete Divine have a similar Evangelist?)
However, I think that's more the fault of the round choice than the contestants - the APG covers archetypes quite thoroughly, and there isn't much design space out there that's worth covering (and isn't an already-existing 3.5 PrC).
Isn't that a problem of 3.5 PrC bloat?
Given that at last count, someone counted there were literally hundreds if not thousands of prestige classes splodged out (official and 3PP) over the last ten years, I'd be more surprised if a specific idea hadn't been covered. By 2008, I started to expect to open a splatbook and find I was a prestige class, a figment of someone's imagination.
Many of those PrCs would have worked just fine as archtypes. Often providing very little change to the class they jumped from, besides a few thematic abilities. I much prefer the idea of starting out your character with the flavor you want, compared to switching to it 5 levels in.
I don't feel comfortable recommending any of the archetypes for advancement - they either have issues with style, balance, or are conversions of 3.5 PrCs (didn't Complete Divine have a similar Evangelist?)
However, I think that's more the fault of the round choice than the contestants - the APG covers archetypes quite thoroughly, and there isn't much design space out there that's worth covering (and isn't an already-existing 3.5 PrC).
Given that these archetypes were written in about 3 to 5 days by prospective Superstars I would say that they did a damn fine job. Especially since I consider many of them better than the published material (Archetypes).
If their Archetypes are not up to code, that is not too surprising. These are very polished first or second drafts. I think a number of the submitters provided fantastic evidence that they understand the rules of the game, understand how to Write, and how to think about what is missing from the game.
In many ways since high Fantasy games like Pathfinder/D&D are so tight in concept it is almost impossible to come up with something that some did not do before (in some fashion, be it a class, prestige class, kit, etc.) When you step outside of those previously done things you get swiftly told that your outside the bounds of the setting.
Not to say there are no new ideas left! just that since we are working in a setting/style that is a direct decedent of something that has been worked on for 40 years you got to give credit where due.
"Signs point to no."
I figured as much....:)
Now Neil...
... that's just lazy.
No its not, he had to still exert energy to shake the ball didnt he....lol
One thing that really jumped out at me as I was reading judges comments was not so much the amount of harsh criticism (most of which I felt was well placed) as the amount of inaccurate criticism.
Without naming names, I saw a judge criticizing a Cavalier archetype for having an animal companion at full druid level (something that regular Cavaliers get), more than one Fighter archetype being criticized for giving an untyped bonus to attack and damage in their weapon training-replacement abilities (otherwise known as exactly how weapon training works in the first place), a Druid archetype dinged for giving Wildshape at Druid level - 2 (something quite a few existing Druid archetypes do), and one case where an archetype was criticized for "wasting word count" due to following the template.
I am extremely familiar with the core rules, so things like this instantly jump out at me. I worry, however, about voters who are less secure in their knowledge of the rules and looking to the judges to help them decide how to vote. If the job of the judges is to offer critique and make suggestions about whether a given archetype should be voted for advancement or not, isn't it their responsibility to be completely familiar with at least the base class the archetype is for?
Perhaps I am worked up over something that really isn't that big a deal; it just bugs me when I see the judges - the people that the voters should be looking to as rules experts and a guiding light - giving what could be considered "bad advice".
I'm not claiming that the design space is utterly exhausted, merely that we're clearly in the area of diminishing returns already. Most of the "archetypes" we're seeing are either incredibly niche or just not that doable mechanically.
I cannot disagree more. Like creating a wondrous item, an archetype is a creative process and there is truly no limit to the potential. A very "niche" archetype is not inherently a problem, and nor is taking an existing archetype as concept and make it better - but that aside, there are mountains of untapped ideas available to contestants.
The way round 2 has been going I definitely want/hope to see it again next year and afterward. It might be the biggest crowd puller of all the rounds and it definitely shows the biggest mechanical impact that contestants have on the game as a whole.
That said, I think Round 2 was hard on everybody - judges, contestants and spectators alike. It's new with many unknowns still on the table. I know I've learned a lot in this Round 2 - my potential submission for it is being heavily edited and re-balanced in response to the comments I've seen. These are good things.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
I'm not claiming that the design space is utterly exhausted, merely that we're clearly in the area of diminishing returns already. Most of the "archetypes" we're seeing are either incredibly niche or just not that doable mechanically.
This is why I'm more forgiving of archetypes that retread some ground that WotC may have partly covered with a PrC or a feat. To use your Evangelist example: while I thought the Evangelist should have picked a better name that didn't draw such obvious parallels to the WotC evangelist Prc, I think the archetype was approached with a very different spin, and therefore very unique. It was a bard instead of a cleric, and it ends up being an entirely different character.
For the Hound Master archetype, some people compared a couple abilities to WoW abilities. I think it's a HUGE mistake for us to sit around and say that any idea that's ever been used by any other company is now off limits for Pathfinder, or even for RPG Superstar. Sure innovation and originality are important, but there is also a lot that can be done by reinterpreting an idea in a new way.
Even those archetypes that are in no way unique, like the knife fighter concept, are still archetypal. And as such they are useful for Pathfinder. Sure I found some of the entries more inspired than others, but I'd never say there aren't a lot of good ideas here. And there are several archetypes that I'd like to include in my game in the future.
Like I said, I don't fault the contestants for this round. You play the hand you're dealt and that's that. I'm just not convinced archetypes were a good choice for an early round.
MaxAstro, I"ll second your comment about inaccurate criticism. If I remember my New Argonauts sourcebook correctly, SKR removed heavy armor from fighters, and balanced it by giving them free Combat Expertise...in other words, the same thing he dinged one of the Fighter archetypes for. Now, it's possible I'm remembering that wrong, as it's been a while since I read NA, but that was my impression.
The judges are human, like most of the rest of us. :-)
They had 3-5 ish days to write 32 times at least 100-150 words for each the contestants. That is a fair amount of words to get down in that time. If you notice something, make a comment about it in the thread. I don't expect anyone to know all of the rules and I hope voters use their own judgment at voting time.
I personally don't mind if people politely correct me, I'll learn something from it.
|
On topic: Harsh criticism is what people need in this type of contest! I for one love it. Granted I don't take it well intially, but I cool down and digest it all later. The bluntness of the comments I believe helps us all learn, understand, and progress past that 'bump' we may have hit in the design process.
Now as for some of the other comments here, mainly about the rules confusion...if you see something that you know is wrong then post about it, but do so in a respectful manner as well as site your reference. For example the page number and an exert of the text. That way everyone else seeing your comment can see what you are saying and where you are getting the information from.
I agree that I wasn't too pleased with some of the archetypes created but as someone else already stated before, give credit where credit is due. The contestents have entered new territory here, even the judges have commented to that, they are attempting something new with creating archetypes. I think they all deserve a round of applause and congratulations for what they attempted to do!
I for one am continuing to read all the comments on the archetypes to better understand them so that I can be a better contender next year in hopes this type of round stays.
I've recieved my feed back for my Wondrous Item, thank you again Neil for all your hard work, and will definitely put more 'flash' into my submission next year!
MaxAstro, I"ll second your comment about inaccurate criticism. If I remember my New Argonauts sourcebook correctly, SKR removed heavy armor from fighters, and balanced it by giving them free Combat Expertise...in other words, the same thing he dinged one of the Fighter archetypes for. Now, it's possible I'm remembering that wrong, as it's been a while since I read NA, but that was my impression.
To be fair to me, though, TNA is intended to model a specific (Ancient Greece) style of gameplay where there was no heavy armor, yet uses the standard CR system that assumes a fighter of level X is going to have an AC of approximately Y. If TNA took away heavy armor and didn't give fighters something to compensate for it (especially without any magical healing available), PC ACs would be much lower than expected, attacks on PCs would be successful more often than expected, damage against PCs would be more frequent than expected, and you'd end up with a lot more dead PCs--which isn't fun.
An archetype for RPG Superstar, on the other hand, is intended to work in an existing, standard Pathfinder campaign (where heavy armor is available, and taking away heavy armor prof is not an appropriate balance for giving a character an extra feat.
Maybe I'm just showing my ignorance, but I can't understand why everyone thinks archetypes are so difficult.
I mean, class variants have been around for a long, long time. It seems to me that archetypes are just variants by another name. Perhaps slightly more standardized, but variants nonetheless. What exactly makes them any more difficult than writing a new magic item or spell? They all need to be interesting and all need to be play balanced.
|
|
An archetype for RPG Superstar, on the other hand, is intended to work in an existing, standard Pathfinder campaign (where heavy armor is available, and taking away heavy armor prof is not an appropriate balance for giving a character an extra feat.
Especially when the PC can trade out all his armor proficiency feats, then promptly multiclass at the next level-up.
"Ooh, look, Armor Proficiency feats! How fortunate!"
Sorry for my short absence from the boards, computer troubles.
Now on topic, I finally read all the archetypes and want to say way to go, to the contestants for even accepting this challenge. I know it was not an easy one.
I also must say I was a bit surprised by the number of contestants who jumped head first into this round. I must say congratulations to those brave enough to take on the new classes presented in the APG or that attempted to take on cleric or wizard from the core book.
I found a few archetypes that I liked but I must say I was a bit disappointed in the fact I didn't find one that motivated me to try a specific class. What I mean by that is I didn't find any of the archetypes with that "WOW" factor that made me want to go out and try it, which surprised me in a way.
But with that said, I did find several that had good flavor or that I thought were balanced. I also found some that made me think, do they know what they are doing.
All in all though I must say most were very solid attempts and all should be applauded for just attempting round 2. Good luck to you all.