I thought it might be fun to discuss the differences between Base Classes, Sub Classes, and Archetypes.
What are the key differences of these, what makes a Sub Class different from a Base Class and an Archetype?
What is the point of making a Sub Class rather than just call it a new Base Class?
As far as I've understood:
An archetype is a small class variant that only changes class features and skills (not BAB, saves or the like). It's generally quite short and simple, and most of the class theme is kept.
An alternate class is more like... well, an alternate class than just a thematic change of a class. It's still based on a class and shares some or a lot of abilities with it, but it stands on it own to a higher degree than an archetype does.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
A Core class is a class found in the Core Rules Book, these are the iconic classes that cover the most popular types of characters in high fantasy games. Also, all of them have been in most if not all of the versions D&D.
A Base class is like a core class, in that it has 20 levels and covers a character type not found in the Core classes. These classes are optional, and found in books outside of the Core Rules Book.
An archetype is a slight variation on one of the Base/Core classes. They are very close to the base class they represent, and so they share much of the same class features while providing some unique abilities. You cannot try to multi-class in archetypes of the same base class.
A Sub class is like an archetype but has enough differences to warrant a printing of the Sub class as if it was it's own class. Like an archetype, if you take levels in a sub class, you cannot take levels in the normal version of the base class or in any of the archetypes of that class.
|
So let me see if i understand this.
Core class: 20 level class that is in the Core rule book
Base class: 20 level class that is in an additional book say the APG
Archtype: a slight veriation of a base class, a change in class features. most everything is the same.
Alternate class: a 20 level variant of another class. IE : Paladin- Anti Palaidn
Prestige class: a specialized 10 level class with entry requirements that usually require the character to be 6th or 7th level before entering.
Sub class? where are we getting sub classes?
Thanks
|
What is the point of making a Sub Class rather than just call it a new Base Class?
I think the main reason to call something an Alternate Class, instead of a new Base Class, is to prevent people from picking up levels in both.
In 3.X or PF, that's not as big an issue as it was in 1st & 2nd edition (when you could be a dual-classed Wizard/Illusionist one caster level lower than the single classed Wizard in the group), but it's still true that some classes are a *bit* front-loaded, and if there were six different base classes that started out with the same basic goodies as the first two levels of Fighter, it would be a pretty good way to rack up bonus Feats by the buttload, and keep full BAB, *and* have a Fort save through the stratosphere, to be a 2nd level Fighter / 2nd level 'Armsman' / 2nd level 'Warmaster' / 2nd level 'Sword Saint' / 2nd level 'Battlemain'
Similarly, if one could take the 1st level in five different Rogue 'base classes,' one could stack up +5d6 in Sneak Attack twice as fast as a straight class Rogue.
I have heard the Antipaladin, Samurai, and Ninja referred to as Sub-classes so that's what i was referencing.
Elyas, you are right. Altough keeping prestige classes to 10 lvls is not fixed. There might be less (or more) in the future, altough Paizo tries not to make any at all.
The difference between archetype and Alternate is only that Paizo took time to rewrite all the changes into the base class. For Archetypes they just give the changes.
For the difference between Core and Base class, I hope that Paizo makes a point of treating both types equally when bringing out new material. They have hinted that it won't be like in 3.5 times, and together with their class-bloat stance I think it is reasonable to assume that there is not much difference between core and base.
for northbrb
I'm not sure, but I think that "sub-classes" is a less used synomim for alternate.
Creative Director
|
Subclass was used in earlier editions of the game to denote classes that were closely associated to other, more common classes. An illusionist was a subclass of wizard, while the thief-acrobat was a subclass of the thief.
At Paizo, when we were trying to wrap our own heads around this thread's admittedly and unfortunately confusing topic, we started using the word "subclass" to denote any base class variant of an existing class—such as the antipaladin. Technically, ALL of the archetypes are subclasses. We just don't bother to reprint them in the 20-level format because that'd use up way too much space.
Not long before we finally put the Ultimate Combat playtest up, we decided to ditch the word "subclass" and go with "alternate class," since that's the phrase we'd already used in print for the antipaladin.
SO: It breaks down like this.
Core Class: One of the 11 20-level classes presented in the core book.
Base Class: A 20-level class. The core classes are all base classes. So are the six new classes presented in the Advanced Player's Guide and the upcoming Magus from Ultimate Magic. It's looking increasingly like we're going to be making the gunslinger a base class as well.
Alternate Class: A variant version of an existing 20-level class. This can be a relatively similar class (in the case of most archetypes) or something that's got a LOT of changes (such as the samurai, ninja, or antipaladin). You can't multiclass between alternate classes. No Paladin/Antipaladin, Cavalier/Samurai, or Rogue/Ninja, in other words.
Prestige Class: A 10 level class that you HAVE to multiclass into after you qualify by meeting several prerequisites. We're increasingly going to be skewing toward 10 levels for prestige classes. If a class needs more it should be a base class. If a class doesn't have enough goodies to fill 10 levels, it should instead be an archetype/alternate class.
Another small difference between archetypes and a full-blown alternate class is that you can, in some cases, apply more than one archetype to your base class. The rogue archetypes from the APG, for example, can be divided into two groups, and one can easily take one archetype each from both groups.
Another small difference between archetypes and a full-blown alternate class is that you can, in some cases, apply more than one archetype to your base class. The rogue archetypes from the APG, for example, can be divided into two groups, and one can easily take one archetype each from both groups.
Considering that James said in the post above you that archetypes are technically subclasses/alternate classes, it would not work by RAW. That said, I would personally certainly permit a combination of two or even more archetypes of the same class as long as none of the abilities replaced by new abilities overlapped.
In many ways, the restriction on multiclassing between subclasses/alternate classes is illogical. After all, it should be easier to pick up abilities similar to one's own than entirely unrelated ones. I understand that this restriction is based on balance reasons, but flavor-wise it is a bit silly. Alas, that is the way the multiclassing system works, so unless it is changed...
|
|
Thank you Set, NorthBRB, Richard Leonhart, Mr. Jaobs, Zaister, and Roman for your answers,
this has cleared up some of my confusion.
I guess to answer NorthBRB's question, why make an Alternate class, or "Sub class" and not a New Base class? Well at least in case of the Paladin/ Anti Paladin, I think it makes sense to separate the two. They are close enough i think not to require an entirely new base class, but there is too much difference to make the anti paladin an arch type of the paladin. I suppose one could argue where that line is. In the past (3.5) i have played a Samurai, and simply re flavored the "Barbarian class" (changing rage to ki). Personally i think the Samurai could very easily be an "arch" type of the Cavalier class, but the developers have decided to make it an alternate class. I assume that they have good reasons for doing this, (players love new new crunch which people like me can't wait to devour in a new book being a very legitimate reason). I suppose with the example of the gunslinger and the fighter, in which the gunslinger began as an alternate class for the fighter It became appearent over the course of play testing, that the gunslinger had enough difference to the fighter to make sense to make a new base class instead of an alternate class.
I think as Mr. Jacobs has posted somewhere else on this site, that the people at Paizo are aware of "class bloat" and want to strike the balance between producing new materiel, and flooding the game with too much new and poorly thought out materiel.
So where is the dividing line? it is hard to say. I do think the play testing that Paizo has been doing has been a great way to knock the kinks out of new materiel.
anyways thank you all for taking the time to answer my question.
Another small difference between archetypes and a full-blown alternate class is that you can, in some cases, apply more than one archetype to your base class. The rogue archetypes from the APG, for example, can be divided into two groups, and one can easily take one archetype each from both groups.Considering that James said in the post above you that archetypes are technically subclasses/alternate classes, it would not work by RAW. That said, I would personally certainly permit a combination of two or even more archetypes of the same class as long as none of the abilities replaced by new abilities overlapped.
In many ways, the restriction on multiclassing between subclasses/alternate classes is illogical. After all, it should be easier to pick up abilities similar to one's own than entirely unrelated ones. I understand that this restriction is based on balance reasons, but flavor-wise it is a bit silly. Alas, that is the way the multiclassing system works, so unless it is changed...
except it does work by raw. you can take multiple archetypes as long as they dont swap out the same abilities. a drunken monk monk og the four winds stone mountain i 10 is possible.
what you cant be is rogue 3 ninja 4.
Considering that James said in the post above you that archetypes are technically subclasses/alternate classes, it would not work by RAW.
It works perfectly by RAW, because it is explicitly stated in the APG:
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.
I thought it might be fun to discuss the differences between Base Classes, Sub Classes, and Archetypes.
What are the key differences of these, what makes a Sub Class different from a Base Class and an Archetype?
What is the point of making a Sub Class rather than just call it a new Base Class?
Semantics!
Edit - as far as I'm concerned, the more base classes the better... keep going paizo!