Well as the title says, I feel Paizo has confused themselves on just what these are. In the APG it was clear, an archetypes was a few switches and all worked the same way. An Alt class was a near total rework of the class that seems to leave no Ability unchanged.
It wasn't based on word count or size of the write up but how much was changed. What was an archetype was clear and well defined as what was an Alt class.Then we get UM and UC.
In Um we get the Qinggong Monk. An archetype that does not use the rules for archetypes. It seems to be a total monk rework, which to my mind and going off the APG is not an archetype but an alt class. Or be honest and call it a reworked and new Monk.
In UC it gets worse. we have a new "class" which is clearly a fighter with replacement features. He gets things at the very same level a fighter does but swaps every feature. This is an Alt class on par with the Anti-paladin. So one of em are being called the wrong thing.
Then the new "Alt classes" which are clearly archetypes. The Samurai simply swaps items and adds two new Orders. It is in line with the current Archetypes and smaller then some. The Ninja has the same issue, its a archetype that swaps 4 abilities and ads one and the only thing that even makes it large is calling the Rogue talents "Ninja tricks"
It just seems to me they have lost the way on what is what. It seems of late if something is a class/alt class or archetype depends totally on what name they call it. And this just makes me a bit sad.
But they are not or the Anti-paladin is not. Look at it, then look at the samurai. One changes every single class ability, the other is smaller then half the archtypes.
Alt classes started out as massive reworks of classes. The Anti-paladin and Gunslinger both do this, yet one is a class and one is an alt class. If alt classes are just large Archtypes then where is the wall? what makes one an alt class or an archetype.
Right now it seems it is not size or type of changes made, but the name used.
Alternate classes are essentially archetypes on steroids. They go a step further towards being a rebuild of the original class. Another slightly less extreme example would be wizard specialists. You can't multi-class between them either.
we have 3 Alt class, one is huge, the other two are smaller then many archetypes. So no they are not just big archetypes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they are not or the Anti-paladin is not. Look at it, then look at the samurai. One changes every single class ability, the other is smaller then half the archtypes.
Alt classes started out as massive reworks of classes. The Anti-paladin and Gunslinger both do this, yet one is a class and one is an alt class. If alt classes are just large Archtypes then where is the wall? what makes one an alt class or an archetype.
Right now it seems it is not size or type of changes made, but the name used.
Seeker, there's not difference between Alt Class and Archetype. Both do exactly the same - you can't stack them with levels in the base class. I can't be a Cavalier/Samurai like I can't be a Rogue/Bandit.
As to why are they named differently, who cares? That doesn't change anything.
Yes it does change things. If they are no different then call them all archetypes. You can not stack archetypes if they do the same thing nor can you take a class twice.
Ok, let me try this why is the anti-paladin and alt class and the gunslinger a class? Why is the Qinggong Monk an archetype yet the Samurai an alt class?
Look back at the APG alt class and archetypes are not the same thing, one is minor changes the other is total rebuild.
So the name is what makes something a class, alt class or archetype. Silly me though mechanics and and what it did, how much it changed and such had something to do with it.
But no, just the name.
|
|
Yes it does change things. If they are no different then call them all archetypes. You can not stack archetypes if they do the same thing nor can you take a class twice.
Ok, let me try this why is the anti-paladin and alt class and the gunslinger a class? Why is the Qinggong Monk an archetype yet the Samurai an alt class?
Look back at the APG alt class and archetypes are not the same thing, one is minor changes the other is total rebuild.
OMG, you're arguing about names?
Then why are Paladin are Cleric different classes?
Seeker, you're arguing for sake of arguing, and this will end with your famous "OK kthnxbai guys you will never convince me *puff*", and I'm not wasting my time on that.
|
Yes it does change things. If they are no different then call them all archetypes. You can not stack archetypes if they do the same thing nor can you take a class twice.
Ok, let me try this why is the anti-paladin and alt class and the gunslinger a class? Why is the Qinggong Monk an archetype yet the Samurai an alt class?
Look back at the APG alt class and archetypes are not the same thing, one is minor changes the other is total rebuild.
And they are the same damn thing. Paizo may have screwed up by calling them alt classes (which I'd be willing to agree with), but that's it. It doesn't justify you masking the same damn thread fifty times over (number may be sligtly exagerrated to make the point). They function in exactly the same way as archetypes (i,.e. swap set of abiltiy x for set of ability y). You can stack them with archetypes, in theory. At the moment, all of them replace the same abilities as existing archetypes and so can no more be stacked than you can stack a Chiurgeon and a Grenadier. Are you complaining about either one of those archetypes being unable to stack as well? If you get an archetype that replaces Challenge and Mount and nothing else, your Samurai can take that archetype just as easily as any other cavalier.
Look, I know for some reason thast I don't really understand this is a point of centention with you, but you keep on repeating exactly the same thing, getting the same points in reponse and going 'nuh uh' to all of them. It's getting embarassing. I mean, seriously, is what the class called really that important vs what it can do?
They're called Alt Classes because Paizo wants them to be Alt Classes. Call them Archetypes (as I will be) and treat them accordingly or call them Fred for all I care but this campaign of yours is not doing you any favours. And yes, it probably is a marketting thing as Ninjas, Samurai and Anti-Paladins are extremely popular and so they are boosting their sales by letting the players of those characters think they're doing something special. They're not. They're just playing archetypes. But why does this matter so much to you? It's not as if it has any effect whatsoever.
|
I agree that the distinction between archtypes and alternate classes is pretty hazy. Were I in charge, I would have virtually all the archtypes be substantially smaller, basically one-for-one tradeouts of a single class ability. And I think that a few of the existing alternate classes are based more on the logic of X is really cool, we have to make it something more than just an archetype. Plus we can then make them Iconics. Not all of the "alternate classes"...just the ones we want to.
]
OMG, you're arguing about names?
Then why are Paladin are Cleric different classes?
Seeker, you're arguing for sake of arguing, and this will end with your famous "OK kthnxbai guys you will never convince me *puff*", and I'm not wasting my time on that.
I want to know the difference, I have been told it is names( see above post) UC seems to say it is just names, Ninja/samurai are just archetypes going by the APG, while if we go by the APG the gunslinger is an alt class.
My point is if Alt class are just archetypes then call them that. If however they are ment to be more massive changes like the APG, then do so.
The cleric and the paladin have different, skills, armor/weapons, totally different class feature diffing BAB?HD spell levels and spell lists. Which make them different class.
On the other hand lets take the gunslinger, put him next to a fighter and he is more or less the same, he swaps ablites but gains them at the very same level as a fighter. He is on par with the anti-paladin. He has nothing that is not just a changed fighter feature, not even level swaps. It was a one for one swap just like the anti-paladin.
So if the Anti-paladin is not a class how is the gunslinger? What makes one a class and the other not? What makes one an archetype and not an alt class as alt class clearly can be very minor changes now?
That is what I am asking.
And they are the same damn thing. Paizo may have screwed up by calling them alt classes (which I'd be willing to agree with), but that's it. It doesn't justify you masking the same damn thread fifty times over (number may be sligtly exagerrated to make the point).
I have not made a thread like this before. I have brought this up In other threads, mostly the playtest but this is the first thread on this subject I have made.
|
|
I want to know the difference, I have been told it is names( see above post) UC seems to say it is just names, Ninja/samurai are just archetypes going by the APG, while if we go by the APG the gunslinger is an alt class.
My point is if Alt class are just archetypes then call them that. If however they are ment to be more massive changes like the APG, then do so.
The cleric and the paladin have different, skills, armor/weapons, totally different class feature diffing BAB?HD spell levels and spell lists. Which make them different class.
On the other hand lets take the gunslinger, put him next to a fighter and he is more or less the same, he swaps ablites but gains them at the very same level as a fighter. He is on par with the anti-paladin. He has nothing that is not just a changed fighter feature, not even level swaps. It was a one for one swap just like the anti-paladin.
So if the Anti-paladin is not a class how is the gunslinger? What makes one a class and the other not? What makes one an archetype and not an alt class as alt class clearly can be very minor changes now?
That is what I am asking.
Grit is a unique mechanic whereaqs the anti-paldin is a paladin with every instance of good and evil swapped. The Gunslinger is far more different from, well, which class would you say it was the base of, exactly? Fighter? Ranger? Rogue? The Anti-Paladin changes the decal of pretty much everything about the Paladin class, but the chasis underneath is identical. The gunslinger, really not so much. I don't like the fact that it's a base class, but it has enough different to any other calss that I can see why it is. The Anti-Paladin really isn't, even down to the name.
|
|
And they are the same damn thing. Paizo may have screwed up by calling them alt classes (which I'd be willing to agree with), but that's it. It doesn't justify you masking the same damn thread fifty times over (number may be sligtly exagerrated to make the point).
I have not made a thread like this before. I have brought this up In other threads, mostly the playtest but this is the first thread on this subject I have made.
Replace the word 'thread' with post then. The point is the same. You're repeating yourself a lot and making yourself look a fool. As this is the only subject you post like this on and are sane elsewhere, possibly taking a break from it will work better on your blood pressure?
Grit is a unique mechanic whereaqs the anti-paldin is a paladin with every instance of good and evil swapped. The Gunslinger is far more different from, well, which class would you say it was the base of, exactly? Fighter? Ranger? Rogue? The Anti-Paladin changes the decal of pretty much everything about the Paladin class, but the chasis underneath is identical. The gunslinger, really not so much. I don't like the fact that it's a base class, but it has enough different to any other calss that I can see why it is. The Anti-Paladin really isn't, even down to the name.
Yes grit is new, but the chassie is the same as the fighter. It changes all the ablites but the chassie is the same, just like the anti-paladin. Hell its the only one of the three that even gets near the anti-paladin level of change. I fill it muddies the water more then it does anything. If it was to be its own class then it should not have been a clear one for one swap with the fighter chassie.
|
|
Yes grit is new, but the chassie is the same as the fighter. It changes all the ablites but the chassie is the same, just like the anti-paladin. Hell its the only one of the three that even gets near the anti-paladin level of change. I fill it muddies the water more then it does anything. If it was to be its own class then it should not have been a clear one for one swap with the fighter chassie.
Grit is a unique mechanic whereaqs the anti-paldin is a paladin with every instance of good and evil swapped. The Gunslinger is far more different from, well, which class would you say it was the base of, exactly? Fighter? Ranger? Rogue? The Anti-Paladin changes the decal of pretty much everything about the Paladin class, but the chasis underneath is identical. The gunslinger, really not so much. I don't like the fact that it's a base class, but it has enough different to any other calss that I can see why it is. The Anti-Paladin really isn't, even down to the name.
Different saves, different skills, different number of skill points (!!!!), differnt armour, different proficiencies. Yeah, apart from that, it's identical. And clearly the Barbarian and Ranger are also Fighter variants by this defninition. There's a difference between not liking something and misrepresenting it. At the moment, I think your dislike of the gunslinger in general and alt classes has actually made you minimise the quite substantial differences between the Fighter and the Gunslinger
Replace the word 'thread' with post then. The point is the same. You're repeating yourself a lot and making yourself look a fool. As this is the only subject you post like this on and are sane elsewhere, possibly taking a break from it will work better on your blood pressure?
Ya know the wonderful thing about meaasge boards is no one makes you reply to a subject if you do not want to. I made a thread because yes, the subject bugs the living hell out of me.
It bugs me as it went from a clear cut subject matter to something from the murkiest depths. And for the life of me I want to find something other then the name used to see why something is deemed a Alt class/class/archetype as it was a clear subject. But it simply no longer is. I feel as Paizo has been a bit unsure on what is what and feel as they need a more solid feel for which is which.
If you are gonna use three names for three different things, they should be well defined. As it now stands which one is which and what makes it an archetype/alt class or class is vague and murky and seems based mostly on the name being used.
|
|
Replace the word 'thread' with post then. The point is the same. You're repeating yourself a lot and making yourself look a fool. As this is the only subject you post like this on and are sane elsewhere, possibly taking a break from it will work better on your blood pressure?
Ya know the wonderful thing about meaasge boards is no one makes you reply to a subject if you do not want to. I made a thread because yes, the subject bugs the living hell out of me.
It bugs me as it went from a clear cut subject matter to something from the murkiest depths. And for the life of me I want to find something other then the name used to see why something is deemed a Alt class/class/archetype as it was a clear subject. But it simply no longer is. I feel as Paizo has been a bit unsure on what is what and feel as they need a more solid feel for which is which.
If you are gonna use three names for three different things, they should be well defined. As it now stands which one is which and what makes it an archetype/alt class or class is vague and murky and seems based mostly on the name being used.
Makes me curious why you don't argue that Sorcerer should be a Wizard archetype ;)
I think your dislike of the gunslinger in general and alt classes has actually made you minimise the quite substantialdifferences between the Fighter and the Gunslinger
No, I liked it a bit other then issues with 11 gp shots and 5000 gp rifles. Which can all be house ruled, may suck for PFS slingers though.
|
|
No, I liked it a bit other then issues with 11 gp shots and 5000 gp rifles. Which can all be house ruled, may suck for PFS slingers though.
I think your dislike of the gunslinger in general and alt classes has actually made you minimise the quite substantialdifferences between the Fighter and the Gunslinger
In which case, you may need to work on your tone. Or I need to work on my reading skills. Both could be possible.
It changes the saves and the number of class skills. That's a substantial change and something no Archetype or Alternate Class does. Like you, I'd much prefer it to be an archetype, but it really doesn't fit into anything other than a base class right now.
EDIT: I think I actually agrtee with your main point: Alt Classes and Archetypes are really the same thing amndm the additional names is an extra layer of confusion. It's just that the way you're saying that really annoys me for precisely the same non-rartional reasons that Alt Classes seem to annoy you. Sorry, but you are my nemesis on this matter. It shall not end till one of us is dead. ;-)
|
|
As far as I can tell, an Alt Class is just an Archetype that they decided to do a full Class-style writeup for. Functionally, they're pretty much the same thing. We can probably only speculate why they decided that certain variants warrented a full Alt Class writeup when others didn't.
EXACTLY! This is EXACTLY the case. I've heard James and Jason say this many times.
An Alternate Class is simply an Archetype - they just decided to do a full Class-style writeup.
I think pretty much everyone agrees that the distinction is a bit hazy, but it really is only semantics. It's just not that big of a deal.
An alternate class is an alternate class when the guys at Paizo says it is one. They make the game, not us.
Problem solved, crisis averted. You're welcome.
Also, the three new classes got awesome artwork, although I must admit the I liked the Hippie Gunslinger in the spell section of UC better than Lirianne. ^^
You mean it isn't?
Makes me curious why you don't argue that Sorcerer should be a Wizard archetype ;)
Pffft, clearly it is the other way around. Sorcerers are awesome and delicious, while Wizards are dusty and boring. :p
In all honesty I had forgotten they changed the saves and number of skills(which I always change to 4 anyhow so didn't notice). I agree, it should not be a new class, I myself would have made the grit mechanic into a new rule and anyone class could have used.
Anyhow the issue to me is looking at the class features, they are just one on one fighter features, which makes it kinda a lasy cut and paste fighter alt class on a new save chassie.
So it just makes it a bit more murky for me as it looks like an alt class, but is that the only thing different, your saves? It still comes off like an alt class, it just mimics the fighter too much.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
EXACTLY! This is EXACTLY the case. I've heard James and Jason say this many times.
An Alternate Class is simply an Archetype - they just decided to do a full Class-style writeup.
I think pretty much everyone agrees that the distinction is a bit hazy, but it really is only semantics. It's just not that big of a deal.
Aside, this is why I wish Paizo had just called them 'advanced archtypes'
That and the Ninja and Samurai should have been 'normal' archtypes, IMNSHO.
I consider the Anti-paladin 'worthy' of an alternate class/advanved archtype, because of the confusion it would cause trying to mix it with a paladin archtype. (That and I consider anti-paladins an 'iconic' part of the institution Pathfinder is based on.)
I fail to see the downside.
Shhhhh don't tell Seeker, or he'll start massive threads calling for a rewrite of the Core Rulebook.
Hush you.
The only difference between the two is the alternate class gets a full write up and an iconic. So maybe it is an avenue to get more Prepainted Plastic minis [/paranoia]
|
|
Gunslinger seemed pretty different to a Fighter to me and made sense being a class. Different saves and skill points, different profciencies....at the core of it that is what seperates one class from another. Add in different style of play, and Grit...I'd say the Gunslinger was essentially as different to a Fighter as a Barb and Ranger.
Alt classes are essentially ones with enough differences to warrant a lot of writing. When a bunch of Archtypes are simply 3changes in an entire character career then it makes sense when somehting like the Ninja - which has a huge list of Ninja Tricks, different proficiencies, a Ki Pool, inherent Ki abilities etc. it makes sense to consider it an Alt class - same with Samurai with all its Orders.
Only thing I wish is that Swashbuckler had been an Alt class rather than just an Archtype with a tiny change
The only difference between the two is the alternate class gets a full write up and an iconic.[/paranoia]Well, 2 out of 3 of them do. Th anti-paladin doesn't rate one.
He didn't have the right name :)
Alt classes are essentially ones with enough differences to warrant a lot of writing. When a bunch of Archtypes are simply 3changes in an entire character career then it makes sense when somehting like the Ninja - which has a huge list of Ninja Tricks, different proficiencies, a Ki Pool, inherent Ki abilities etc. it makes sense to consider it an Alt class - same with Samurai with all its Orders.
Here I must disagree, without the Ninja tricks (which ARE Rogue talents) It is a small archetype and far from the only one to change skills or weapons. Its not big.
And Orders? Orders do not make an archetype, heck the book has what 3 or 4 new orders + the two sam orders ( which the same need not take ).
I like the ninja and I like the samurai but they are no where close to the level of change other archetypes have, much less the anti-paladin.
The only difference between the two is the alternate class gets a full write up and an iconic.[/paranoia]Well, 2 out of 3 of them do. Th anti-paladin doesn't rate one.
He has his own unique artwork so he could have one.
Nowhere, that I am aware of, does it say that an alternate class needs every single class feature changed. That is just how it happened with the anti-paladin and the gunslinger. An alternate class is just an archetype with a full write-up treatment.
Rules exist to model concepts (and solve conflict).
If designers choose to change a little bit more, or a little bit less to obtain what they want, is better than having them restricted, expecially in a job wich requires creativity.
Seriously, there are several things that can be worthy of complain, but this is just pointless.
I'm kinda surprised that Martial Artist isnt an alternate class. it changes most of a moks abilities
True. Page count, maybe? Maybe its too general of a concept, and the iconic would be to close to Sajan, don't know. Its definitely a cool archetype.
Maybe the main distinction is there to prevent archetype stacking on alternate classes, alternate classes seem to be more specific in theme than archetypes which are more general and cause less thematic issues to stack on top of eachother.
Seeker, I think this issue might be a chicken-or-egg situation... You seem to want the mechanical alterations to drive the determination of what a particular class option is called, whereas the developers have repeatedly commented to the effect that they intend for the designation of what a particular class option they publish is called to drive the determination of what other mechanics can be used with it.
As far as clear definitions go, Archetypes provide new class features that can be chosen in place of the existing class options for the indicated class. So long as archetypes do not replace the same class feature, multiple archetypes may be selected without restriction.
Alternate classes are presented as very similar to archetypes, in that they present different class features. Unlike archetypes, alternate classes usually involve a more complete alteration of the source class, as well as a markedly different theme, as evidenced in the descriptive text for the antipaladin: "the details and tones of the paladin class are shifted in a completely opposite direction [b]and captures an entirely different fantasy theme[/i], without needlessly designing an entire new class." By elevating the changes made to the class to an alternate class writeup, the developers can more easily control and designate what archetypes can be used with them, and also perhaps allow for the creation of archetypes that work with the alternate class but not the base class. Of course, a full class writeup also allows for a more expansive development of the thematics that surrounds the alternate class, which can be extremely helpful to a player in selecting a class to play.
Finally, a Base Class is a standalone class definition that usually does not require substantial cross-references to another class, and also cannot take advantage of published material for other Classes, including alternate classes or archetypes.
The Gunslinger is substantially different from the Fighter. Saves, skills, proficiencies, Grit, Nimble-ness, Gun Training (it might sound similar to the Fighter's Weapon Training, but it's not), and the fact that the Gunslinger's bonus feats can be used to take either Combat feats *or* Grit feats - all of these things (that is, absolutely everything about the class) are different, usually very different, from the Fighter class features.
They are pretty well-defined. The Release version Gunslinger is a base class built from scratch. The Staff Magus is a partial tweak of the Magus. The Samurai is a more serious redo of the Cavalier made into an alt class in order to close off access to archetypes from the main Cavalier class. and vice versa.
Your problem is not the naming because what they are is clear. Your problem is that alt classes close off archetypes from the main class which is what Paizo deliberately chose to do in class design for whatever reasons they saw fit... which may very well include aesthetic ones.
I disagree, they are not clear at all. Someone even pointed out artwork as justification. Which those 3 being far from the only ones to have art work, so I am far from the only one unclear what what makes it an alt class or an archetype. Alt classes are no more closed off from archetype stacking then other class{ well the 2 new ones} The anti-paladin which is THE alt class is, because it changes them all. The samurai and ninja are no more limited then say the beast rider or swashbuckler in stacking.
The iconics for two alt classes make it even more fuzzy as up until now only full classes gained Iconics. We were told only full classes got them and not PRC's or archetypes. The ninja and the sam are far from the only Archetypes to have artwork so that does not wash.
The only thing some of you can agree one are No one knows why and it seems random and maybe its name based.
So yes it still seems to me that Paizo is not sure what they want to be what or what makes something an alt class or an archetype other then a dart board or the name it uses.
Anyhow the issue to me is looking at the class features, they are just one on one fighter features, which makes it kinda a lasy cut and paste fighter alt class on a new save chassie.
Grit is much closer to bardic music than anything a fighter gets. Gun Training has nothing at all to do with a Fighter's Weapon Training, aside from gaining them at the same levels. Nimble is far more useful than Bravery. They don't have anything equivalent to Armor Mastery. They get feats half as often and have a different range of choices for them. Their 20th level ability has nothing to do with a fighter's 20th level ability. I don't see the resemblance. At best, you can say they get abilities in the same general progressions as a fighter does. But a wizard and a cleric both get spells in the same progressions as well, and school abilities look a lot like domain abilities. Does that make a cleric a "lasy [sic] cut and paste wizard alt class"?
I disagree, they are not clear at all. Someone even pointed out artwork as justification.
I just want to point out that what I said was that an alternate class gets artwork, just like all class write ups. (and it is an alternate class because, and only because, it gets a full write up).
Basically an alternate class is an archetype that gets a full class write up, and has the full level progression. That is the difference.