Yea. The more options the better. The fact that it is an option does not mean it has to be used of course, but having it available should not be an issue.
How is "getting on with the game" an issue, unless you all sit down make your characters and start playing right then. I normally have at least a week's notice before a new game so even if I dont have the time to make a character in one sitting I can split it up over several days.
I have also noticed that indecisive players are going to be indecisive anyway.
I think you should ask the players. It may not be the burden on them that you think it will be.
+1
I love the concept of archetypes. Echoing some other posters, they're easy to adapt to most any style of play. 3.0 really helped pave the way for the "my fighter IS different from your fighter" way of thinking with feats. In 1e and 2e it was just largely "my fighter uses a pointy stick. That makes me different from yours who uses a frying pan". It was difficult to really customize characters. The advent of 2e's kits was a good idea, though often poorly executed. I see archetypes as refined and more playable kits.
Hells yea! Love the idea of archetypes! Way better than PRCs, IMO!
Forum ate my edit.
To clarify: I like archetypes as ideas and most of them as they are (not everyone) but maybe they can be limiting.
I decided this when I discovered that a rogue should be good either in trapfinding or in poison use (hence my example above).
Nevertheless, I prefer them to multiclassing, PrCs and similar previous stuff.
That's another thing I like about modular talents, they don't interfere with one another.
In Saga I could make any character I wanted within the confines of a single class (and even then multiclassing gave some leeway in breaking out of those confines), but in Pathfinder, I can't even make a Trapsmith/Burglar rogue, two concepts that should be synergistic. Why on earth can't I have a safe cracker?
|
Forum ate my edit.
To clarify: I like archetypes as ideas and most of them as they are (not everyone) but maybe they can be limiting.
I decided this when I discovered that a rogue should be good either in trapfinding or in poison use (hence my example above).
Nevertheless, I prefer them to multiclassing, PrCs and similar previous stuff.
That's another thing I like about modular talents, they don't interfere with one another.
In Saga I could make any character I wanted within the confines of a single class (and even then multiclassing gave some leeway in breaking out of those confines), but in Pathfinder, I can't even make a Trapsmith/Burglar rogue, two concepts that should be synergistic. Why on earth can't I have a safe cracker?
Because 3.5 was never designed with modularity of any sort in mind, and what we see is reverse engineering of that. Reverse engineering has it's limits.
Because 3.5 was never designed with modularity of any sort in mind, and what we see is reverse engineering of that. Reverse engineering has it's limits.Forum ate my edit.
To clarify: I like archetypes as ideas and most of them as they are (not everyone) but maybe they can be limiting.
I decided this when I discovered that a rogue should be good either in trapfinding or in poison use (hence my example above).
Nevertheless, I prefer them to multiclassing, PrCs and similar previous stuff.
That's another thing I like about modular talents, they don't interfere with one another.
In Saga I could make any character I wanted within the confines of a single class (and even then multiclassing gave some leeway in breaking out of those confines), but in Pathfinder, I can't even make a Trapsmith/Burglar rogue, two concepts that should be synergistic. Why on earth can't I have a safe cracker?
Consider that I'm taking it without any nerdrage ;).
Paizo did a big job, this version of the game is my favourite, I never refrain from yelling it.
This does not mean that if I see flaws in a weapon, feat, spell i do not point it out. Even if they don't errata it, could be a "warning" or at least a base for a constructive discussion.
the same, I wish to point it out this stuff here because sometimes paizo put out strange, avoidable little errors mixed with the awesome stuff, IMHO.
Just think to cockatrice strike (even post errata). a little bit of more care means an awesome product insted of a very good one.
the gama, as everything, evolves, so discussion like this could be good seeds for future generations.
[druid inside]
@ravingdork: I think that we should go BEYOND modular talents. Divide in attacks, defense, utilities. In this way you customize without having each field stealing effectiveness to another.
then, the class fluff will dictate how much utility/defense/attack/iconic feature per level, and what is the list of choices foe each department for the class.
|
|
Yeah for archtypes.
While I am sure it has been said elsewhere, I think the arch type, in addition to adding options and flavor and focus to a character class, will also stop the gross proliferation of the prestige class. While a few are good, there is nothing prestigious about a prestige class if there are as many different prestige classes as they’re different kinds of mushrooms.
I am still using prestige classes in my new campaign. Like in the old campaign, however, prestige classes are reserved for concepts that 1) need prestige, and 2) can not be adequately done with the existing classes.
(For cases where a concept needed prestige but could be adequately done with existing classes, I came up with a concept I called "Certification". For example, if you wanted to be a Champion of Audor, you could be "certified" by passing an exam to show that you mastered all the martial weapons and could meet certain standards for martial prowess, and you would be declared a Champion of Audor. You could go into a town and say "I am a Champion of Audor!" And that would get people's attention because they'd know what a Champion of Audor could do.)
What got me hooked on the concept of prestige classes in 3rd Edition, was trying to write up my concept of a "Judge" in the Audor setting. What I imagined was people who went from town to town, administering justice. This is not a job for a 1st level character! Judges are often required to track down their quarry and bring it, screaming and kicking, or perhaps dead, back to civilization. Originally I had thought of making them an order of Bards, but the concept is one that a number of classes could apply for. Making it a prestige class tied all my ideas into one neat package that I could present.
The most recent prestige class I designed was a sort of "Jungle Woman" prestige class. (I had translated this as Pumanaka for the prestige class name.) The idea was that after years of service and devotion to the rain goddess, a woman could sever her ties with her tribe, and go out into the wilderness to serve the goddess. The "years of service" implies a mature character, a "Jungle Woman" rather than a "Jungle Girl". If a chick is THAT impatient to start serving the goddess and wants to sever her ties to the tribe right away, I suppose she can run off as a "Jungle Girl" and take levels in Druid or Barbarian until she gains enough experience to actually become a "Jungle Woman".
I did sharply limit the prestige classes allowed, and every prestige class had to have a reason for existence in the setting.
For archetypes, I can think of a few concepts that might lend themselves to this mechanic. The "Jungle Girl" concept above is one that, as the name suggests, should be open to ingenues. It might make sense to define a "Jungle Girl" archetype so that girls can just run out to the jungle and start being Jungle Girls.
What I don't like is the way that they are so closely tied to classes. Another concept that would seem to make a good archetype is "Pugalist". but is a Pugalist a Fighter? A Barbarian? Can a Paladin be a Pugalist? If I had a Pugalist PrC, I could just say "Requirement: +5 BAB" and any class could apply, although Sorcerers and Wizards would have to wait until 10th level.
How can I define a "Pugalist" archetype and make it open to various classes? It seems that I need to make it a prestige class, perhaps "Master Pugalist" and just make PCs hit things with weapons until they can hit the PrC requirements.
I should probably emphasize though, that not everything needs to be defined as a game mechanic.
I am currently playing a sort of "jungle girl" character who, now that she is 10th level and engaged to a paladin, is more like a "jungle woman". There is no jungle girl PrC or archetype that I am aware of, it's just what she does.
"Pugalist" though is a concept that needs something, because current class do not really support it. You can become a Monk, but then you have to be Lawful, get all this metaphysical stuff, and only have a 3/4th BAB. Or you can be some sort of fighter with full BAB, but not very effective at actually pugalizing.
Count me as a Yea for archetypes. Unless you want to go with a "build your own class" system (such as Generic Classes), which have their own problems with balance and complexity, they are a welcome option for tweaking class features to more closely match a specific concept.
"Pugalist" though is a concept that needs something, because current class do not really support it... Or you can be some sort of fighter with full BAB, but not very effective at actually pugalizing.
Human Fighter (Two-Weapon Warrior)
14 Str, 16 Dex (+2 race), 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; 15-Point Buy1st- Double Slice, Improved Unarmed Strike, Two-Weapon Fighting
2nd- Power Attack
3rd- Weapon Focus (Brass Knuckles, Cestus, Gauntlet, Spiked Gauntlet, or Unarmed Strike)
4th- +1 Dex; Weapon Specialization
5th- Step Up
6th- Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
7th- Following Step
8th- +1 Wis; Stunning Fist
9th- Greater Weapon Focus
10th- Step Up and Strike
11th- Two-Weapon Rend
12th- +1 Str; Dazing Assault
13th- Strike Back
14th- Greater Weapon Specialization
15th- Penetrating Strike
...
Will the character be able to cause as much damage as a typical greatsword/falchion two-handed fighter? No. Will the character be effective as a pugilist? Yes.
Meh...
Good that they exist, but as Evil Lincoln said, the presentation leaves much to be desired (though I understand for page count why they are so).
The big problem I've had with them is that far too many of them just aren't that compelling. What you give up isn't worth the tweak. There are limits to how much time and effort can go into development with a tight publishing schedule, and with Paizo's slant away from power creep, the end result is that there are just too many archetypes that are underpowered, or so highly specialized as to make them one-trick ponies.
If they could be designed in such a way... well, the whole game really, to be designed with mathematical precision so that everything you trade out ends up equaling optimized builds then I'd be in heaven.
I also have to give a shout out to a talent system. Kolokotroni gave an interesting critique but I'm not swayed. The problems with an ocean of talents can be solved with presentation and organization, something that was lacking in Star Wars Saga, particularly when more books were released.
It would be easy enough to assemble sets of talents to pull off various concepts.
My idea game would be built with an overt leveled system that allows a lot of customization, but that overt system is just a shell of "templates" that hides a very precise internal system which players and GMs have access to so that they can tweak everything down to minute decimal values. For the people that don't want to be bothered with a GURPS like point system, they just see the facade, but for the hard core players they have a fully realized system that they can delve into, and which is so wonderfully designed that they can't break the game.
+1
|
I more or less like Archtypes, but I do want more Prestige Classes as well. A lot more, in comparrison to what we have. All in all, I like the concept. It isn't new at all, but I think it is better implemented in PF than it was in 3.5. Some are very good, (for a build type), so just really don't work as they should, and some are not so good. But, they offer someting new all around.
In both cases, for Clerics primarily. The class is very lacking in both areas, and I personally feel they are the most deserving of both just tohelp break away from the generic mold, but have always gotten the least since 3.0.
Especially as they got nothing unique from the APG, I honestly hope they get twice as many as anyone else in UM, but I seriously doubt it after the previews.
I'm not a fan of archetypes at all really, though they're better than singular alternate class features, or entirely new classes/prestige classes.
I'd suggest picking at most one archetype per class that fits the campaign better than the standard class (if there is one).
Meh...
Good that they exist, but as Evil Lincoln said, the presentation leaves much to be desired (though I understand for page count why they are so).
The big problem I've had with them is that far too many of them just aren't that compelling. What you give up isn't worth the tweak. There are limits to how much time and effort can go into development with a tight publishing schedule, and with Paizo's slant away from power creep, the end result is that there are just too many archetypes that are underpowered, or so highly specialized as to make them one-trick ponies.
If they could be designed in such a way... well, the whole game really, to be designed with mathematical precision so that everything you trade out ends up equaling optimized builds then I'd be in heaven.
I also have to give a shout out to a talent system. Kolokotroni gave an interesting critique but I'm not swayed. The problems with an ocean of talents can be solved with presentation and organization, something that was lacking in Star Wars Saga, particularly when more books were released.
It would be easy enough to assemble sets of talents to pull off various concepts.
My idea game would be built with an overt leveled system that allows a lot of customization, but that overt system is just a shell of "templates" that hides a very precise internal system which players and GMs have access to so that they can tweak everything down to minute decimal values. For the people that don't want to be bothered with a GURPS like point system, they just see the facade, but for the hard core players they have a fully realized system that they can delve into, and which is so wonderfully designed that they can't break the game.
I'm on the tail end of the dev cycle on a different RPG system right now and, I have to say, the archetype model is something that we had designed into our character creation, as well. What you find in developing the content is that certain combinations are overtly imbalanced. By setting the standards as a package and making those packages exclusive in design, you prevent excessive power creep.
In our particular system, we found that weapon selection was one of the biggest unbalancing factors, so we eliminated the ability to pick up additional weapon types on each of the classes, which allowed us to balance abilities up in power, in turn giving more variety to each of the classes. I'm sure much the same was considered when creating the archetypes.
I am not sure if I like the class archetypes introduced in the advanced players guide, or if I want to use them for the campaign I am contemplating. I am interested in thoughts that other people have regarding these.
I say Yea.
A Bard is a super 5th player...not a 1-4th. The Arcane Dualist fixes that problem by giving the Bard a little more staying (combat) power. He can help balance out a 4 PC party better than before without spending a ton of feats and having to wait until 10 level to get there.
A Bard is a super 5th player...not a 1-4th. The Arcane Dualist fixes that problem by giving the Bard a little more staying (combat) power. He can help balance out a 4 PC party better than before without spending a ton of feats and having to wait until 10 level to get there.
Your statement is presented as a fact, not opinion, which of course it is your opinion.
A Bard's utility depends mostly on your play style and what you envision a Bard is supposed to do.
IMO the archtypes have way too much overlap. How many ranged archtypes are there now? My answer would be too many. Especially when the spirit of most can be achieved with saavy feat choices. My opinion is the archtypes are a good way to boost an already flawed feat/class system to give players more choices, problem is this...it makes classes too specialized and much less useful than the core class alone. Great if you have a 7 player party but what about the 4 player parties?
I run into this issue all the time at PFS events. Everyone brings their fresh-off-the-forums-super wham-o-dyne build and this is what happens.
GM: "Ok what classes do we have?"
Player 1: "I'm playing a cleric."
Player 2: "Oh good, since I don't have to heal then I'll play my fighter intead of my cleric."
Player 1: "Wait a minute, I'm not a healing cleric, I'm neutral and channel negative energy and don't memorize any healing spells."
Table: (groans)
That actually happened at a PFS event and is indicative of getting too specialized. It's just an example, I'm sure many of you understand what I'm conveying here.
I guess I'm a bit of a purist, I realize this and accept it. I like the core and APG classes and that's about it. I'm not a big fan of prestige classes for the same basic reasons but they, collectively, don't seem nearly as specialized as archtypes.
That said, more choices are always better than less but don't expect every GM to accept your character concept. Lends even more credence to house rules.
IMO the archtypes have way too much overlap. How many ranged archtypes are there now? My answer would be too many. Especially when the spirit of most can be achieved with saavy feat choices. My opinion is the archtypes are a good way to boost an already flawed feat/class system to give players more choices, problem is this...it makes classes too specialized and much less useful than the core class alone. Great if you have a 7 player party but what about the 4 player parties?
I run into this issue all the time at PFS events. Everyone brings their fresh-off-the-forums-super wham-o-dyne build and this is what happens.
GM: "Ok what classes do we have?"
Player 1: "I'm playing a cleric."
Player 2: "Oh good, since I don't have to heal then I'll play my fighter intead of my cleric."
Player 1: "Wait a minute, I'm not a healing cleric, I'm neutral and channel negative energy and don't memorize any healing spells."
Table: (groans)
The lack of a healing cleric is only an issue when 1) the other players feel they "need" to have a dedicated healer and 2) fail to realize all of the options available. The first is a perception issue caused by the second. Many approach creating a character with a preset/exclusive "class role" mindset: barbarians are nothing but melee brutes, bards are (semi-annoying) cheerleaders for the "real" adventurers, clerics are "heal-bots," etc. This is driven, in part, by a hardcore CharOps mentality of "if you're not the absolute best (in whatever), you're crap." Healing in particular is a very easy role to cover: alchemists, bards, druids, inquisitors, oracles, paladins, rangers, and witches can all use wands of cure light wounds and/or spells/other means of healing; any other character willing to invest in Use Magical Device (and possibly Skill Focus) can make use of wands, as well. If anything, speading healing duties around is more efficient and helps prevent TPKs because the dedicated healer cleric got taken out (and no one else can heal).
I guess I'm a bit of a purist, I realize this and accept it. I like the core and APG classes and that's about it. I'm not a big fan of prestige classes for the same basic reasons but they, collectively, don't seem nearly as specialized as archtypes.
That said, more choices are always better than less but don't expect every GM to accept your character concept. Lends even more credence to house rules.
So far, Paizo has been fairly restrained about the options they publish and have put a good amount of thought into controlling power creep and duplication. Granted, there is some overlap among some of the archetypes for different classes, but think of how boring (not to mention restrictive) it would be if there was only "one way" to fulfill any given concept.
|
Exactly! I love the abundance of overlapping archetypes actually. Now I can have an Urban Druid, and Urban Ranger, a Spy Rogue, and a Detective Bard, all of whom are tied together by a common theme, but who still fill different roles in a group. That to me is what the archetypes are all about: Providing flavorful nuances to the various classes while still allowing a class to stay true to its core function in a group.
One good point I've seen made about archetypes over talents, is that it is easier for game developers to keep balance with archetypes.
Exactly! I love the abundance of overlapping archetypes actually. Now I can have an Urban Druid, and Urban Ranger, a Spy Rogue, and a Detective Bard, all of whom are tied together by a common theme, but who still fill different roles in a group. That to me is what the archetypes are all about: Providing flavorful nuances to the various classes while still allowing a class to stay true to its core function in a group.
+1
A Bard is a super 5th player...not a 1-4th. The Arcane Dualist fixes that problem by giving the Bard a little more staying (combat) power. He can help balance out a 4 PC party better than before without spending a ton of feats and having to wait until 10 level to get there.Your statement is presented as a fact, not opinion, which of course it is your opinion.
I implied no such thing.....you inferred my statement incorrectly.
Yea -- I love mixing and matching class features.
That doesn't mean that I like every archetype that Paizo has published so far (remember Sturgeon's Law), but the idea is great. The APG and 3.5's Unearthed Arcana are very useful supplements, IMO.
Big fan of both the Archetypes AND D20 Modern/SW talents. Both allow players to create the character they want more accurately.
I think the people who are concerned with there being too many options and the players getting confused are probably running the game for relatively new players. In the case of any new player, I'd always recommend one of the more classic types and use standard options. But for the player who's been doing D20 for years and wants to make his two-weapon fighting themed fighter, I say go for it and hand him the archetype. Good all around.
I like the archetypes, though not much different than the alternate class abilities in 3.5, in my opinion a combination of more options and restrictions works best to prevent powercreep.
Personally I do not mind mixing and matching abilities as I see fit, but I hate to give players free reign over a 'pick me' list of abilities.
While I do not think all archetypes are great, I think at the very least they are great examples to allow you to make your own archetypes. While I did on occasion already substitute abilites it gave me some extra tools and premade bases to work with.
When I spend money I want content and lots of it. I don’t have to use what I don’t want nor do my players……but I still want the choice to use it or not since it’s my money.
When I spend money I want content and lots of it. I don’t have to use what I don’t want nor do my players……but I still want the choice to use it or not since it’s my money.
So you're happy with bad content as long as you get lots of it? I'm sure that isn't what you meant but no matter how many times I read your post, that's how it comes across.
When I spend my money I want value; quantity is meaningless if there is no value (and quantity alone has no intrisic value).
SJ
Archetypes, it's a good thing...
But seriously, even though I felt pretty meh about the vast majority of the archetypes in the APG, I did end up using the Phalanx Soldier archetype for the Fighter I'm currently playing.
I feel having different ways to define your character is always good. This avoids the "cookie-cutter" class approach that previous editions of D&D were famous for, i.e. all Fighters were exactly the same.
With caster classes it's less of a problem since each player that plays a Wizard or Cleric can choose different spells. For melee types however, the cookie-cutter approach to class design is very boring.
Two thumbs up for archetypes! I wouldn't mind seeing more of them, either.
When I spend money I want content and lots of it. I don’t have to use what I don’t want nor do my players……but I still want the choice to use it or not since it’s my money.So you're happy with bad content as long as you get lots of it? I'm sure that isn't what you meant but no matter how many times I read your post, that's how it comes across.
When I spend my money I want value; quantity is meaningless if there is no value (and quantity alone has no intrisic value).
SJ
Ehhhhh... I'm ALMOST prepared to agree with the 'bad content is fine as long as there's lots of it...'
ALMOST...
Even if they give us 30 Archtypes and there's only one or 4-5 good ones... I'd still be happy. between the powers they've listed and the ideas they sparked, I can work with my DMs to remake them into something cool...
However, if the whole book is garbage... then that's not cool at all. the 2nd edition Complete Thief's and Priests handbooks flat out sucked.
not a single useful kit in there. The only thing the rogues book had was 'guild stuff' for the DM, and equiptment for the players...
everything else was garbage and a massive disappointment. Priest book was too generic and of no use for us at all...
Granted i haven't seen ANYTHIGN that Paizo has put out that I would lump into THOSE catagories... So as long as their stuff is SOMEWHAT useful.... the more the merrier!!! :)