Archetypes we would still like to see after UC

[Grey Lensman]

A sorcerer archetype that features lots of nice things that no wizard can have, ever.

[Revan]

northbrb wrote:

Revan wrote:

Zaister wrote:

"Jason Nelson wrote:

Ah, then perhaps you mean like the unarmed fighter archetype on p. 48 of Ultimate Combat. Which is a fighter with fighter BAB and fighter saves and no wuxia-like jumping skills and no supernatural abilities like quivering palm.

He does get one bonus style feat at 1st level (which is a true bonus, since he gets 2 feats (IpvUnStrike + whatever style feat) for the price of 1 (replaces 1st level bonus feat)). He is not, however, forced to invest any discretionary resources (i.e., other feats) in "styles," whether Eastern or supernatural.

Sounds like exactly what you are looking for!

I know about that archetype, but it bugs me that it uses the style feats at all, not a single one of which fits what I'd expect of an archetype named like it is. I don't want a martial artist, and the styles nothing if not martial arts, I just want a guy who punches his opponents.

Yes, I know, the style feat's a bonus, and I could take just about any one and then ignore it, but that still feels silly to me.

Generally, guys who punch their opponents either A) have formal martial arts training or experience (yes, boxing counts), or B) are just big guys getting into an undisciplined brawl. Which might do OK down at the bar, but isn't going to match up against the guys from category A, let alone against a dragon.

honestly i cant disagree more with this concept. i feel very strongly about having an unarmed fighter out there who can hold his own against a martial artist (monk/style user) of equal level in an unarmed fight. i hate the fact that if you want an increasing unarmed damage you have to be a monk, always have always will.

My point is not that such a fighter should not be able to stand up to the monk. My point is that such a fighter is a martial artist In fact, the fighter is a martial artist in the first place; formal specialized training in how to use a greatsword is martial arts training as surely as anything offered in a mountain dojo.

[Mikaze]

Deadlogic wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Holy Barbarian!

rage prophet prestige class

This is about archetypes we want, not a series of hoops to jump through to play a compromised-flavor version of the character we really want to play.

So, Holy Barbarian! :)

(or at least give us the Celestial Totems....)

[Shisumo]

Finesse fighter.

Because seriously.

[Joes Pizza]

I'd like to see a remake of the um, i think it was called a shiter for the druid.
Also the master of many forms.
Grove Druid.
PrC's for druids and whatnot.
Just getting tired of druids that focus on either a terrain or an animal totem.

[Jason Nelson]

Joes Pizza wrote:

I'd like to see a remake of the um, i think it was called a s%@@er for the druid.

Also the master of many forms.
Grove Druid.
PrC's for druids and whatnot.
Just getting tired of druids that focus on either a terrain or an animal totem.

There are some interesting ones in UM that are neither (Menhir Savant, Mooncaller, Pack Lord, Reincarnated Druid, Storm Druid).

[Dilvias]

Avatar Summoner - Give up the ability to summon monsters to summon multiple avatars (basically pre-created eidolans).

[SunsetPsychosis]

leo1925 wrote:

SunsetPsychosis wrote:

I'd personally like to see a sorcerer archetype along the lines of the old 3.5 Warmage. And I mean an actual archetype, not just a bloodline. Limited evocation-centric spell list, armored casting, bonus damage, stuff like that. Because sometimes when I play an arcane character I just want to nuke the hell out of everything.

Might i interest you to the magus?

Think about it for a second:
Limited evocation spell list: check
armored casting: check
bonus damage: check
can nova: check

Oh and on top of that it's a prepared caster and not a spontaneous one.

The thing with the magus is it's melee-oriented. I want to see something that is completely oriented towards the oft-maligned blaster caster archetype. The Magus is much more the 3.x Duskblade than it is the Warmage.

[Joes Pizza]

Jason Nelson wrote:

Joes Pizza wrote:

I'd like to see a remake of the um, i think it was called a s%@@er for the druid.

Also the master of many forms.
Grove Druid.
PrC's for druids and whatnot.
Just getting tired of druids that focus on either a terrain or an animal totem.

There are some interesting ones in UM that are neither (Menhir Savant, Mooncaller, Pack Lord, Reincarnated Druid, Storm Druid).

I guess i was looking for more martial druids is all..

Would love to see a shapeshifter variant of a druid/monk.
That kind of stuff

[Bardess]

A channeling inquisitor.
A shapeshifter barbarian.

[Lobolusk]

here is my bone to pick with the unarmed fighter 1d3 damage is terrible, and in order to make the character do any sort of damage i have to spend a bunch of feats on weapon focus, specialization ect..

the other option i have is to take 3 levels in monk so i can use the monastic training and have my unarmed slowly go up.and it may be worth it as if i take style master byt the time i hit level 4 i cna have a whole stlye feat mastered, and i can focus on feats that make my character fun and fit my idea of a unarmed fighter dodge, mobility grapple ect..

a good example of a non martial artist type fighter is El Santo he is a unarmed fighter that can go toe to toe with werewolves , dracula, mummy, frankenstien,ghosts and the mob.

[Fozbek]

northbrb wrote:

honestly i cant disagree more with this concept. i feel very strongly about having an unarmed fighter out there who can hold his own against a martial artist (monk/style user) of equal level in an unarmed fight. i hate the fact that if you want an increasing unarmed damage you have to be a monk, always have always will.

Fact: The base, Core Rulebook Fighter does more damage per punch, on average, than a Monk. 2d10 averages to 11 damage. Fighters get 1d3+8 (Greater/Weapon Specialization, and Weapon Training +4) which averages to 10 damage, hit far more often (higher BAB, Greater Weapon Focus, and +4 to hit from weapon training), ignore more DR (via Greater/Penetrating Strike), and have more Strength (since Monks need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, and Fighters really only need Str and Con).

Baseline Fighters are actually better at hitting things with their fists than Monks are.

[Fozbek]

Lobolusk wrote:

here is my bone to pick with the unarmed fighter 1d3 damage is terrible, and in order to make the character do any sort of damage i have to spend a bunch of feats on weapon focus, specialization ect..

You realize that the difference between 1d3 and 1d12 is only 4.5 damage on average, right? You want to invest in those feats regardless of the weapon you use, because they're good feats for the only thing Fighters can do anyway.

[Lobolusk]

Fozbek wrote:

Lobolusk wrote:

here is my bone to pick with the unarmed fighter 1d3 damage is terrible, and in order to make the character do any sort of damage i have to spend a bunch of feats on weapon focus, specialization ect..

You realize that the difference between 1d3 and 1d12 is only 4.5 damage on average, right? You want to invest in those feats regardless of the weapon you use, because they're good feats for the only thing Fighters can do anyway.

MATH ATTACK!

[Jason Nelson]

Fozbek wrote:

northbrb wrote:

honestly i cant disagree more with this concept. i feel very strongly about having an unarmed fighter out there who can hold his own against a martial artist (monk/style user) of equal level in an unarmed fight. i hate the fact that if you want an increasing unarmed damage you have to be a monk, always have always will.

Fact: The base, Core Rulebook Fighter does more damage per punch, on average, than a Monk. 2d10 averages to 11 damage. Fighters get 1d3+8 (Greater/Weapon Specialization, and Weapon Training +4) which averages to 10 damage, hit far more often (higher BAB, Greater Weapon Focus, and +4 to hit from weapon training), ignore more DR (via Greater/Penetrating Strike), and have more Strength (since Monks need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, and Fighters really only need Str and Con).

Baseline Fighters are actually better at hitting things with their fists than Monks are.

If you want, you could also MC 2 levels of barbarian and take the brawler rage power, which increases your base unarmed damage to 1d6. Plus you get rage, fast movement, and uncanny dodge, which are flatly awesome for what is thematically likely to be a light armor build. (also, a few extra skill points and hit points, plus better class skills like Acrobatics and Perception)

The benefits of the brutal pugilist barbarian archetype are superfluous if you're going with the unarmed fighter archetype; that is more if you want to be a single-classed barbarian puncher.

True, you'd lose the theoretical 19th and 20th level fighter class goodies, but chances are most campaigns would end before getting there anyway.

[Necromancer]

Ellington wrote:

Alchemical Gunner.

+1

[HappyDaze]

Battle Druid: Uses metal armor and perhaps a few martial weapons along with a touch of bonus combat feats and an armored animal companion in exchange for the expected reduction in wild shape and/or spellcasting capabilities.

A druid archetype that allows wild shape to take on the shapes of magical beasts (and possibly dragon forms) at higher levels instead of plants (and drops elementals too if dragon shapes are included).

[Arazyr]

What I've been wanting to see since the APG came out is a good lightly-armored fighter archetype. Not necessarily a finesse fighter, just someone who can get by without being swathed in metal plates.

(Let me know if there is one and I just missed it...)

[Mok]

Arazyr wrote:

What I've been wanting to see since the APG came out is a good lightly-armored fighter archetype. Not necessarily a finesse fighter, just someone who can get by without being swathed in metal plates.

(Let me know if there is one and I just missed it...)

In the Pathfinder Society Field Guide there is the Lore Warden which I find actually does a pretty good job of doing the whole lightly-armored "intelligent" fighter. You might not win any DPR challenges, but the stuff you get for losing armor training looks to be fun and flavorful.

I have to say "intelligent" in quotes because you don't actually have to have a high intelligence. You get Combat Expertise for free, and you get +2 to CMB and CMD. So you avoid the feat tax by tossing Bravery and then you get a bonus to ALL maneuver checks. Just pick up a few of the Improved X feats and you'll be able to do some fun stuff without losing any of the key elements you need to do well.

[golem101]

A Summoner without the SM class ability and with the SM I-IX removed from the spell list. That is, focused on its eidolon only.

[Arazyr]

Mok wrote:

In the Pathfinder Society Field Guide there is the Lore Warden which I find actually does a pretty good job of doing the whole lightly-armored "intelligent" fighter. You might not win any DPR challenges, but the stuff you get for losing armor training looks to be fun and flavorful.

I have to say "intelligent" in quotes because you don't actually have to have a high intelligence. You get Combat Expertise for free, and you get +2 to CMB and CMD. So you avoid the feat tax by tossing Bravery and then you get a bonus to ALL maneuver checks. Just pick up a few of the Improved X feats and you'll be able to do some fun stuff without losing any of the key elements you need to do well.

Thanks. I had not seen that. Still not quite what I was looking for. I'm hoping to see something that removes heavier armors and gives something like a Defense bonus (or the AC bonus from the Beta rules). Maybe I'll just go write one... 8^)

[Bardess]

Summoners with animals, magical beasts and aberrations as their eidolons, like the First-Worlder with his fey eidolon.

[Lord Fyre]

Okay, having introduced the Samurai (Cavalier) and Ninja (Rogue) ...

How about 'Asian'-themed Archetypes for the rest of the classes?

[Grey Lensman]

I want to play a celestial summoner whose eidolon looks and acts like a lantern archon.

Rules for making a small eidolon that fills a familiar-like role for a master summoner archetype.

And I'll mention another one again. The sorcerer archetype that gets cool and useful stuff that no wizard can ever have. Not through feats, not through magic items, not through any method other than the GM allowing the player to break the rules.

[LazarX]

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

And I'll mention another one again. The sorcerer archetype that gets cool and useful stuff that no wizard can ever have. Not through feats, not through magic items, not through any method other than the GM allowing the player to break the rules.

None Arcane bloodline sorcererers already have that. Wizards and others might dip into eldritch bloodline after making some major attribute, feat, and skill investment, but they never get the full fruits of it. They have full and flexible use of metamagic, something that wizards can only dream of.

[Ryu_Hitome]

I know it's potentially a legal snafu, but I'd love to see a summoner with healing powers and unique summons, much like the FFX summoner and their aeons.

[leo1925]

LazarX wrote:

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

And I'll mention another one again. The sorcerer archetype that gets cool and useful stuff that no wizard can ever have. Not through feats, not through magic items, not through any method other than the GM allowing the player to break the rules.

None Arcane bloodline sorcererers already have that. Wizards and others might dip into eldritch bloodline after making some major attribute, feat, and skill investment, but they never get the full fruits of it. They have full and flexible use of metamagic, something that wizards can only dream of.

What flexible use of metamagic are you talking about here? Yes sure sorcerers can use metamagic feats better than the wizard but wizards can use metamagic rods much better than the sorcerers.

[leo1925]

HappyDaze wrote:

Battle Druid: Uses metal armor and perhaps a few martial weapons along with a touch of bonus combat feats and an armored animal companion in exchange for the expected reduction in wild shape and/or spellcasting capabilities.

About the metal armor you might want the "battle druids" of gorum mentioned in the kingmaker #5, about the touch of bonus combat feats you might want to check the "shaman" archetypes, all animal companions can wear armor.

HappyDaze wrote:

A druid archetype that allows wild shape to take on the shapes of magical beasts (and possibly dragon forms) at higher levels instead of plants (and drops elementals too if dragon shapes are included).

Careful there, i have run some rough numbers when the (otherwise) bad dragon shaman druid came out and tried to correct it, and let me tell you wildshape+dragon form makes some very powerfull druids.

[Dragon78]

Archtypes for Ninja and Samurai.

"Jester" archtype for the Bard.

Well I don't care about Sorcerer archtypes since there bloodlines are there archtypes and I want more bloodlines.

Same for the Oracle as the Sorcerer

A "Priest" archtype for Clerics that give them more domains but loose combat ability.

A archtype for druids that allow them to shapeshift into monsters instead of animals, plants, and elementals.

Archtypes for Paladins and Rangers that increse there spellcasting power.

[Grey Lensman]

I'd prefer a full class for a shapeshifter myself. Something where the shapeshifting is the primary focus of the class. An archetype might help with something like that (and druid is the best place to start, IMO) but might not pull it of as well as a full class would. I also think that a shapeshifter might be the last fantasy trope worthy of a full class as opposed to archetypes.

[dartnet]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Okay, having introduced the Samurai (Cavalier) and Ninja (Rogue) ...

How about 'Asian'-themed Archetypes for the rest of the classes?

Ask and you know the rest...

There are several all ready.

In Ultimate Combat we have
Magus: KENSAI

The Monk is an Asian themed class. But you may like SENSEI, SOHEI, & TETORI

Ultimate Magic we have

Alchemist: Internal alchemist

Bard: Geisha

Monk: Qinggong Monk

APG

All the Monk Archetypes

and Coming soon is the Pathfinder Player Companion: Dragon Empires Primer.
Form the Description,
"Enter the mystical land of Tian Xia—the Dragon Empires—a new realm for players to explore. Player-friendly descriptions of more than two-dozen nations, new traits for each, details on five new character races (the birdlike tengu, the shapechanging foxlike kitsune, the shadow-wreathed wayang, the reptilian nagaji, and the spirit-bound samsaran), notes on local religions, new Asia-inspired archetypes, feats and martial arts styles, magic items, spells, and a system to track honor and dishonor provide numerous exciting character options.Enter the mystical land of Tian Xia—the Dragon Empires—a new realm for players to explore. Player-friendly descriptions of more than two-dozen nations, new traits for each, details on five new character races (the birdlike tengu, the shapechanging foxlike kitsune, the shadow-wreathed wayang, the reptilian nagaji, and the spirit-bound samsaran), notes on local religions, new Asia-inspired archetypes, feats and martial arts styles, magic items, spells, and a system to track honor and dishonor provide numerous exciting character options."

Pules allot of other Archetypes work in a Asian style game. A bandit is a bandit no matter where he or she is.

Hope this helps.

[stankelbenet]

I would like to see a wizard archetype, which can write ANY spell into his spellbook. Not only those from the wizard/sorcerer spell list but also those from the cleric and druid spell lists for an example.

I would also like to see some archetypes which lose some of their power(like armor proficiencies, HD or BaB) and instead get extra skill ranks. I hate playing classes with only 2+int skill ranks per lvl and most of the classes have exactly that.

[Umbral Reaver]

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

A sorcerer archetype that features lots of nice things that no wizard can have, ever.

How dare you suggest such a thing! Sorcerers must stay in the basement where they belong! The true masters of arcane magic can't let those charismatic buffoons outside where they might hurt themselves.

Meanwhile, the wizards need more unnecessary buffs to things that are already the most powerful in the game. Why should other arcane casters have any fun?

[D'arandriel]

Kensai for Fighter and/or Monk. Why on earth is it a magus archetype!

[Zaister]

Revan wrote:

My point is not that such a fighter should not be able to stand up to the monk. My point is that such a fighter is a martial artist In fact, the fighter is a martial artist in the first place; formal specialized training in how to use a greatsword is martial arts...

I have no problem with a boxer/pugilist being considered a martial artist, it's just that there are no style feats to take for the unarmed fighter archetype that fit that kind of character. All the styles in Ultimate Combat either evoke "Eastern" martial arts or some kind outer plane supernatural flavor.

[Golden-Esque]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Okay, having introduced the Samurai (Cavalier) and Ninja (Rogue) ...

How about 'Asian'-themed Archetypes for the rest of the classes?

Don't look now, but I think the Monk class is planning on using Flurry of Blows on you for forgetting that the Monk and virtually every archetype it possesses is technically Asian inspired.

[Sam McLean]

Mikaze wrote:

Deadlogic wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Holy Barbarian!

rage prophet prestige class

This is about archetypes we want, not a series of hoops to jump through to play a compromised-flavor version of the character we really want to play.

So, Holy Barbarian! :)

(or at least give us the Celestial Totems....)

Gotta agree with you here, I have been craving some Friendly Berserker archetype since the Champion of Gwyharwyf PrC from 3.5s BoED.

As it stands, I've gestalted the FrB archetype (Kain posted on the Homebrew thread) with Cavalier of the Griffon (SGG Cavalier Orders), Paladin of Freedom (3.5 Unearthed Arcana) and Holy Vindicator PrC (APG) to get what I want out of it.

As the only player in my game, of course, balance isn't an issue, but even I feel like this is a high-degree of powergaming for one concept.

And while were at it, altruistic, freedom fighting CG paladins!

[mdt]

Black Bow Magus : Black Blade magus that uses a Bow instead, a bit of a cross between Zen Archer and Arcane Archer.

Gun Fu Master : Zen Archer that uses firearms (John Wu!).

Pit Fighter : Barbarian archetype that specializes in exotic weapons, has less rage per day, but loses alignment restrictions. (Yes, there was a similar class from a 3E 3rd party).

Staff Master : Monk archetype specializing in quarterstaff combat (but without alignment restrictions, similar to the Martial Artist), trading out all the Su abilities for Ex abilities revolving around using a staff (bonuses to hit, increased threatening ability, balance, etc). (Yes, there was a similar class from a 3E 3rd party).

Eidelonist : Summoner archetype that gives up SLA for an Eidelon that stays out 24/7, doesn't share item slots, etc. Basically pet/master similar to Druid/animal companion.

Eidelon Collector : Summoner who can't have an eidelon out at any time by ritual. Can only summon eidelon with the Summon Eidelon spell. He gains N number of uses of that spell for free, starting at 1st level. He can build 1 Eidelon at 1st level, +1 Eidelon for every 3 or 4 levels of summoner, and summon any he chooses with the spell (but only one at a time). Basically, your average Pokemon Master.

[GroovyTaxi]

LazarX wrote:

GroovyTaxi wrote:

Hound master. Everyone wanted it and it seems we won't be getting it.

Who's this "Everyone" paleface? It's okay to speak for yourself and it's a valid wish. But the five or so people who might have posted on this don't represent "everyone" any more than the twenty who posted on psionics. Some of us may feel that a ranger and dog companion were good enough and so didn't bother posting for another archetype.

Me and the 11 people who marked the post as favorite seem to disagree with you. =P

[SunsetPsychosis]

I wouldn't mind an alchemist archetype based around firearms/siege engines/explosives. Essentially a high-tech weapons engineer.

[Fepriest]

stankelbenet wrote:

I would like to see a wizard archetype, which can write ANY spell into his spellbook. Not only those from the wizard/sorcerer spell list but also those from the cleric and druid spell lists for an example.

You already have that opportunity. It's all DM's discretion, but Page 219, "Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook," under the Independent Research section, it says you can make your own spells. Now, it'll be expensive, and you'll need to level with the DM on how you go about studying another spellcaster's spells (you could be studying under a Druid/Cleric/Witch, or however you wanna go about it), but you could just create copies of the desired spells in your spellbook after studying them and spending the necessary money to make them.

[JMecha]

Shisumo wrote:

Finesse fighter.

Because seriously.

He is right.

[vidmaster]

i thought the duelist prestige class made for a decent finesse fighter myself :P

[Lord Fyre]

Golden-Esque wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Okay, having introduced the Samurai (Cavalier) and Ninja (Rogue) ...

How about 'Asian'-themed Archetypes for the rest of the classes?

Don't look now, but I think the Monk class is planning on using Flurry of Blows on you for forgetting that the Monk and virtually every archetype it possesses is technically Asian inspired.

Actually no. I had not forgotten about the Monk.

What I mean is there are no Asian archetypes for Barbarians, Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, or Wizards (Alchemists, Inquisitors, Oracles, Summoners, Witches).

Now, I am not saying that ALL of these classes need Asian archetypes, but more of them should. Asian Magical traditions have barely been touched on.

[Grey Lensman]

vidmaster wrote:

i thought the duelist prestige class made for a decent finesse fighter myself :P

That means the concept isn't doable from level one if the Duelist is the answer. IMO, that is bad. Any archetypical character should be viable from level one.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Erm, I've played Finesse Fighters from level 1 with no trouble at all.

[Grey Lensman]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Erm, I've played Finesse Fighters from level 1 with no trouble at all.

I don't disagree with you, with the right feats and archetype they are much easier to pull off than before (although it takes a good build). My point was that a prestige class should never be considered as something that makes a staple concept viable. I am of the opinion that prestige classes are for other things than patches on single class character concepts.

[LazarX]

leo1925 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

And I'll mention another one again. The sorcerer archetype that gets cool and useful stuff that no wizard can ever have. Not through feats, not through magic items, not through any method other than the GM allowing the player to break the rules.

None Arcane bloodline sorcererers already have that. Wizards and others might dip into eldritch bloodline after making some major attribute, feat, and skill investment, but they never get the full fruits of it. They have full and flexible use of metamagic, something that wizards can only dream of.

What flexible use of metamagic are you talking about here? Yes sure sorcerers can use metamagic feats better than the wizard but wizards can use metamagic rods much better than the sorcerers.

Yes if you can have Rods To Order from MagicMart. I'm talking about using class abilities alone where magic, isn't dripping from tree branches.

[LazarX]

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

vidmaster wrote:

i thought the duelist prestige class made for a decent finesse fighter myself :P

That means the concept isn't doable from level one if the Duelist is the answer. IMO, that is bad. Any archetypical character should be viable from level one.

Viable is a wooly concept. No one should be expecting full functionality at level 1, it's part of a character's evolution. Duellists do make for finesse fighters and it's possible to be viable without PrCing. The Duellist is a specific refinement of fighting finesse, particuarlarly focusing on a light armor mobility build. That doesn't make the pure fighter on finesse "bad" it's a different emphasis.

[dungeonmaster heathy]

Just got UC; haven't read through it; first thing I noticed is gunslinger doesn't have stealth, which would make being a sniper kinda difficult,.....so.....maybe a "sniper" archetype?

Actually, sniper's kinduva "prestige class" in real life.....