I Am by no means a negative Nelly who criticizes other peoples builds
I play a monk for heavens sake!
but looking through the UC i see some archetypes that I just don't get.
am I the only one? Or do people foam at the mouth for the pirate rogue
or the barbarian wild rager
i don't get the point of either of these. the wild rager makes you save a will save? or attack your party?
the pirate gets sea legs?
these are just 2 that stand out if i am in error pleas fill me i. i love the ape shaman for the druid but some of those i would never pick in a million years. I dont think it is just my style either?
any thoughts?
Some of the abilities do make you wonder what they were thinking, but I know a guy who actually does foam at the mouth for the pirate.
Some of the abilities do make you wonder what they were thinking, but I know a guy who actually does foam at the mouth for the pirate.
may I ask why? what about the pirate sets his spine a shivering?
Somewhere, somebody looks at it and says, "This is just what I want to play!"
I imagine some GMs really like flavoring NPCs with the less-exciting options, too. Pirate rogues would be great as seagoing enemies, etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see folks mention archtypes that are not considered useful like these and others (*cough* cloistered cleric) and I think they actually make for great NPC archtypes :-)
For instance, I would never (probably) play a Vow of Poverty monk but I would definitly send them against my PCs and smile as I don't have to worry about the treasure.
Or use I can use a Cloistered Cleric against my PCs if I want a less powerful cleric to stand in back or maybe go down easier.
I think the two you mentioned make great, flavorful options for DMs to use. How funny would it be to see a Wild Rager Troll start smacking around it's orc buddies? I know that would make for a pretty memorable encounter for me :-)
Somewhere, somebody looks at it and says, "This is just what I want to play!"
I imagine some GMs really like flavoring NPCs with the less-exciting options, too. Pirate rogues would be great as seagoing enemies, etc.
I am not a munchkin by any shape, but I like my pc's to be special good not special bad
i don t know i dont want to judge i always play a luchador......still waiting 4 that one
|
Wild Rager: seeing how confusion work it is a lesser problem than you can think. It can be a useful archetype if you are the kind of guy that always charge in the middle of the enemy while the rest of the party say back.
Remember that when confused you always attack back against people attacking you and getting extra rounds of rage is useful at low level.
The pirate trade away trapfinding. It all depend on how common are traps in your game world.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The pirate rogue will probably get picked for a lot for the new Skull and Shackles AP, but I definitely see your point.
It strikes me that Paizo has gone with a much, much more simulationist take on mechanics. Rather than ask "what's a balanced ability" they say "what's an interesting ability" and then use the game mechanics to model that ability.
The gunslinger ability that lets them shoot a bullet and then use the superheated barrel to stop bleeding is a really good example. It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.
I'm sure this will cause someone to chime in and say this is terrible game design, blah, blah, blah, but it seems to be the way Paizo works.
Some of the abilities do make you wonder what they were thinking, but I know a guy who actually does foam at the mouth for the pirate.may I ask why? what about the pirate sets his spine a shivering?
He is obsessed with playing a CN ship captain and his favorite fantasy character is Barbosa (I think thats the spelling) from pirates of the Carribean. He had already played two swashbucklers and a gunslinger as pirates before he saw the new pirate archetype and nearly drooled
The pirate rogue will probably get picked for a lot for the new Skull and Shackles AP, but I definitely see your point.
It strikes me that Paizo has gone with a much, much more simulationist take on mechanics. Rather than ask "what's a balanced ability" they say "what's an interesting ability" and then use the game mechanics to model that ability.
The gunslinger ability that lets them shoot a bullet and then use the superheated barrel to stop bleeding is a really good example. It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.
I'm sure this will cause someone to chime in and say this is terrible game design, blah, blah, blah, but it seems to be the way Paizo works.
thanks for all of your thoughtful responses it changes mind and let me think about it. and i would take that gunslinger feat in a minute
The pirate rogue will probably get picked for a lot for the new Skull and Shackles AP, but I definitely see your point.
It strikes me that Paizo has gone with a much, much more simulationist take on mechanics. Rather than ask "what's a balanced ability" they say "what's an interesting ability" and then use the game mechanics to model that ability.
The gunslinger ability that lets them shoot a bullet and then use the superheated barrel to stop bleeding is a really good example. It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.
I'm sure this will cause someone to chime in and say this is terrible game design, blah, blah, blah, but it seems to be the way Paizo works.
thanks for all of your thoughtful responses it changes mind and let me think about it. and i would take that gunslinger feat in a minute
The pirate rogue will probably get picked for a lot for the new Skull and Shackles AP, but I definitely see your point.
It strikes me that Paizo has gone with a much, much more simulationist take on mechanics. Rather than ask "what's a balanced ability" they say "what's an interesting ability" and then use the game mechanics to model that ability.
The gunslinger ability that lets them shoot a bullet and then use the superheated barrel to stop bleeding is a really good example. It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.
I'm sure this will cause someone to chime in and say this is terrible game design, blah, blah, blah, but it seems to be the way Paizo works.
thanks for all of your thoughtful responses it changes mind and let me think about it. and i would take that gunslinger feat in a minute
It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.
The ability to make an attack and then also stop bleed with out a skill check is a bad ability? Really? Bleeding is bad, not bleeding is good... if you don't have magic healing and your cleric has better things to do in combat (and he should) then stopping it yourself is good times.
It doesn't add to damage... but it lets you keep damaging a little while you stop some bleeding.
I will admit though that if I can scar my friends face with my gun barrel and then get a hearty thank you, that is a cool RP situation.
Sean
I see folks mention archtypes that are not considered useful like these and others (*cough* cloistered cleric) and I think they actually make for great NPC archtypes :-)
For instance, I would never (probably) play a Vow of Poverty monk but I would definitly send them against my PCs and smile as I don't have to worry about the treasure.
I've definitely seen some archetypes that seem to have "NPC" written all over them. Like the mountain druid (and the various other terrain druids) from the APG -- they're fine if they're on their home turf, but otherwise they're just like a druid, but worse. And PCs don't always get a choice about being on home turf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure this will cause someone to chime in and say this is terrible game design, blah, blah, blah, but it seems to be the way Paizo works.
The two are not mutually exclusive ;).
The big thing about archetypes and variant rules, 3.5's ToB, Incarnum and such is that it encourages me to set up my world where certain archetypes are the only options for certain geographical/ political regions. IE in the Pirate Isles the only rogue archetypes available are Pirate and Swashbuckler. Fighters are limited to Free Hand Fighter and Mobility Fighter, and so on.
I can set a society where sorcerers don't exist or another where all sorcerers are wordcasters.
But as I play mostly homebrew and tend to use the real world globe for my geography it is easier to set up variations such as that
I have found lately that relooking at the archetypes for assessing their usefulness means needing to step back from idea you have for characters and assess them on their own. Then throw all that out again and ask yourself if you were just dipping a level or two into the class with that archtype what type of build would it be good for.
A LOT more archtypes popped off the page as good for me when I started looking at them as a good dip rather than just as something I am going to use for the entire concept of my character and take it up to 20.
Basically... archtypes, even what would be bad ones if single classed, make dipping worth while. Sure you loose favored class, and the APG made that even more of a hit with great choices... but getting some specific and tailored abilities for what you are wanting to do can outweigh things... especially if just for a level or two.
Sean
I have found lately that relooking at the archetypes for assessing their usefulness means needing to step back from idea you have for characters and assess them on their own. Then throw all that out again and ask yourself if you were just dipping a level or two into the class with that archtype what type of build would it be good for.
A LOT more archtypes popped off the page as good for me when I started looking at them as a good dip rather than just as something I am going to use for the entire concept of my character and take it up to 20.
Basically... archtypes, even what would be bad ones if single classed, make dipping worth while. Sure you loose favored class, and the APG made that even more of a hit with great choices... but getting some specific and tailored abilities for what you are wanting to do can outweigh things... especially if just for a level or two.
Sean
I like this perspective sean, tell me more please
I have found lately that relooking at the archetypes for assessing their usefulness means needing to step back from idea you have for characters and assess them on their own. Then throw all that out again and ask yourself if you were just dipping a level or two into the class with that archtype what type of build would it be good for.
A LOT more archtypes popped off the page as good for me when I started looking at them as a good dip rather than just as something I am going to use for the entire concept of my character and take it up to 20.
Basically... archtypes, even what would be bad ones if single classed, make dipping worth while. Sure you loose favored class, and the APG made that even more of a hit with great choices... but getting some specific and tailored abilities for what you are wanting to do can outweigh things... especially if just for a level or two.
Sean
Ah, so you're suggesting treating them the way many PrCs were treated in 3.5 then?
Ah, so you're suggesting treating them the way many PrCs were treated in 3.5 then?
If by that you mean treating them in such a way that you can build the character that you want to play and that can do what you want to do more specifically to your idea... then absolutely.
I am of the opinion that the purposeful reduction of prestige classes to create options for the characters is a bad thing. Archtypes CAN be looked at as a way to replace that.
As for telling you more... I am going to be recording a podcast tonight about this very topic. We have recorded one podcast on firearms in Pathfinder which is in the editing process. As soon as I get some in the cans I will let you guys know so you can pick them apart and give feedback!
Sean
It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.The ability to make an attack and then also stop bleed with out a skill check is a bad ability? Really? Bleeding is bad, not bleeding is good... if you don't have magic healing and your cleric has better things to do in combat (and he should) then stopping it yourself is good times.
It doesn't add to damage... but it lets you keep damaging a little while you stop some bleeding.
I will admit though that if I can scar my friends face with my gun barrel and then get a hearty thank you, that is a cool RP situation.
Sean
If they could actually make an attack with the ability, you'd probably be right. But the way the ability is worded, it looks to me that the Gunslinger has to fire into thin air to use the Deed.
Ah, so you're suggesting treating them the way many PrCs were treated in 3.5 then?If by that you mean treating them in such a way that you can build the character that you want to play and that can do what you want to do more specifically to your idea... then absolutely.
I am of the opinion that the purposeful reduction of prestige classes to create options for the characters is a bad thing. Archtypes CAN be looked at as a way to replace that.
As for telling you more... I am going to be recording a podcast tonight about this very topic. We have recorded one podcast on firearms in Pathfinder which is in the editing process. As soon as I get some in the cans I will let you guys know so you can pick them apart and give feedback!
Sean
I am all for whatever is required to build the character I want to play, especially at low levels. I do recall that one complaint I heard about in 3.5, however, is that many characters took 3, 4, 5, or more classes, of which 1 or more were PrCs, to build their characters. Now, sometimes, that's what they needed to make their interesting PCs; other times, it was rampant powergaming with the intent to break the game.
Personally, I'd rather need fewer classes to get where I want to go, if I have that option. If that means multiclassing into an archetype, so be it. I'd just prefer not to need a ton of classes.
SNIP the wild rager makes you save a will save? or attack your party? SNIP
This is kind of a tip of the hat to the old Berserker classes that came out in older editions. When you went Berserk the party had to be careful around you and it led to a lot of fun sessions AKA BA Baracus from the A Team as we have to deal with the crazy guy again.
Not for everyone but berserker's are not the same thing as raging barbarians... and this lets someone have mechanics around the concept.
If they could actually make an attack with the ability, you'd probably be right. But the way the ability is worded, it looks to me that the Gunslinger has to fire into thin air to use the Deed.
No, it's definitely an attack. Here's the wording:
The gunslinger makes a firearm attack and then presses the hot barrel against herself or an adjacent creature to staunch a bleeding wound. Instead of dealing damage, the shot ends a single bleed condition affecting the creature. The gunslinger does not have to make an attack roll when performing the deed in this way; she can instead shoot the firearm into the air, but that shot still uses up ammunition normally.
The rule actually assumes that you will be making an attack, but goes on to specify that if you don't want to make an attack (say because there are no enemies still alive) you can just fire into the air instead.
The pirate's Trap Sense replacement (it also replaces trapfinding, which is clearly a mistake) is just plain better than Trap Sense, though their trapfinding replacement is weak. The 2nd level talent you're forced to take could be good (use a reach weapon, 5 ft step after your charge, and now they have to provoke an AoO from you to attack and don't even get a full attack for their troubles) if your DM lets you use it for similar structures in environments other than a ship, which I suspect many DMs will allow. Overall a slightly poor trade, but not by a large margin, I could see it being mechanically appealing to some.
Wild Rager is horrific as a full barbarian. But, as a dip for a level or two, it's possibly amazing. The save DC is based on class level and charisma mod. If you're say...a dwarf with only 5 charisma and 1 level in the class, that's a will DC of 8. More likely, you'll face an imposing DC of like...12. You get a chance at the end of each turn to end the confusion if you want, meaning you have a pretty good control over when you go into confusion and when you don't. And since confusion rounds are "free" it can be a GREAT way for a dip to pad out his uses of rage per day -- as long as an enemy attacked you last round, there isn't even randomness involved. You just plain maul the people htat tried to hurt you.
So again, Wild Rager: Awful for normal Barbs, potentially amazing for a dip.
The REALLY bad archetype in that book is Ragechemist. My god is that awful. And since there's no known way to end a mutagen early, certainly once you're unconscious, you're not just spending one hour out cold. You're potentially spending several hours out. And with a will save (your worst save!) each round you take damage, and a cumulative -2 each time you fail...you will be out cold very, very quickly.
There is only one archetype I discourage players from taking. Arcane Bomber in UC. Perhaps I just have not figured out the niche it fulfills, but it seems to be terrible at bombs AND being a wizard.
I do agree with the opinions of taking most archetypes as dip classes. The Spellslinger seems a great dip class for a Gunslinger.
I mean ragechemist
sorry
after reading that archetype i am impressed i love it basically how i read it every time you get hit you get +6 str bonus that stacks right? you get angriet stronger and dumber till you passout
that is the best power ever!
|
|
The pirate rogue will probably get picked for a lot for the new Skull and Shackles AP, but I definitely see your point.
It strikes me that Paizo has gone with a much, much more simulationist take on mechanics. Rather than ask "what's a balanced ability" they say "what's an interesting ability" and then use the game mechanics to model that ability.
The gunslinger ability that lets them shoot a bullet and then use the superheated barrel to stop bleeding is a really good example. It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.
I'm sure this will cause someone to chime in and say this is terrible game design, blah, blah, blah, but it seems to be the way Paizo works.
+1. Tastes, preferences and playing styles vary from group to group. And the more I play and run the game, the more I want to try new, flavorful things; the same with my players. We've had many moments when someone has said something like "You know, I'm gonna go with feat x/archetype y because I think it suits my guy best."
What I really love in Pathfinder is that there are flavorful, less optimal choices; even though every feat or class feature may not be 100% balanced against each other. If you're using every supplement, it may easily lead to "option paralysis", but even then I see that as good game design. What's even better is that they're often several ways to achieve certain abilities (for example, via a feat or an archetype or a power/ability choice).
I realize some builds are better optimized (for combat) than others, but it really comes down to one thing; does it matter in your group, in that particular campaign? I mean, if I'm running a campaign focusing on stealth and intrigue, a min-maxed barbarian or paladin might be a boring character to play most of the time. Likewise, even though I had originally planned a combat-focused campaign, I'm fine with someone wanting to create a less optimized, say, a bard or rogue (I'm usually pretty open with what sort of campaign I want to run, but even then it's not set in stone). Every character gets to shine, regardless of whether he's min-maxed or not.
I see folks mention archtypes that are not considered useful like these and others (*cough* cloistered cleric) and I think they actually make for great NPC archtypes :-)
For instance, I would never (probably) play a Vow of Poverty monk but I would definitly send them against my PCs and smile as I don't have to worry about the treasure.
Or use I can use a Cloistered Cleric against my PCs if I want a less powerful cleric to stand in back or maybe go down easier.
I think the two you mentioned make great, flavorful options for DMs to use. How funny would it be to see a Wild Rager Troll start smacking around it's orc buddies? I know that would make for a pretty memorable encounter for me :-)
And you really needed to pay money for those things? If you wanted a weaker NPC couldn't you just do it?
I don't say that all options should be equal that's just can't be done, and i can understand shooting a little low when creating something new so that they don't accidentally hit something high but i don't like when they present in a book choices that make you shoot yourself in the foot (cloistered cleric) or are just suicide to use (vow of poverty monk).
I bought both the UM and UC .pdf files and while i liked both books (and would have bought them even if i knew about those kind of thing before clicking "buy") i feel that the pages that went to such things could be used for something else.
but looking through the UC i see some archetypes that I just don't get.
am I the only one? Or do people foam at the mouth for the pirate rogue
or the barbarian wild rager
There's a pirate rogue? Aaaw, I'm even more excited about Ultimate Combat now!
the pirate gets sea legs?
In all seriousness when I make a character I come up with a theme, ignoring all mechanics. By doing this I've platyed an Elf Paladin (which just brought me lots of sighs and head shaking from my group). Recently I came up with a low strength fighter type. This is the first time I've come up with a mechanical idea, and I was concerned about being able to pull it off effectively.
With the dancing dervish feat from the Inner Sea World Guide I felt there was a chance I might actually be able to pull it off. But I wasn't 100% sure if it would be effective. So I built the character four times:
- Fighter (Weapon Master) 12
- Fighter 6 / Duelist 6
- Bard (Dawnflower Dervish) 12
- Bard (Dawnflower Dervish) 9 / Duelist 3
I would do the same thing for a Pirate Rogue build. I would come up with a character concept:
A character that is very mobile in combat, swings on ropes, climbs rigging, tumbles all over the place.
I would the consider various builds in order to create an effective character. I would consider the Pirate Rogue. But I would also consider other alternatives.
It could be the Pirate Rogue would be the best character to create in this scenario. Or it might be a different Rogue archetype, or a fighter, or a bard or some other class.
Just because I can do more damage if I take feats X, Y and Z, doesn't mean I want to deal the most damage. I want to play a character I'll enjoy, and if sacrificing damage to do cinematic and fun stunts is what is required for me to enjoy the character. Then I'll do it, damnit!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If they could actually make an attack with the ability, you'd probably be right. But the way the ability is worded, it looks to me that the Gunslinger has to fire into thin air to use the Deed.No, it's definitely an attack. Here's the wording:
The gunslinger makes a firearm attack and then presses the hot barrel against herself or an adjacent creature to staunch a bleeding wound. Instead of dealing damage, the shot ends a single bleed condition affecting the creature. The gunslinger does not have to make an attack roll when performing the deed in this way; she can instead shoot the firearm into the air, but that shot still uses up ammunition normally.The rule actually assumes that you will be making an attack, but goes on to specify that if you don't want to make an attack (say because there are no enemies still alive) you can just fire into the air instead.
It specifically states that the bleed cure comes in place of doing any damage with the firearm attack.
At a guess, that's meant to imply that the hot barrel does no damage when pressed against the bleeding wound, but as written, it precludes actually shooting somebody.
It specifically states that the bleed cure comes in place of doing any damage with the firearm attack.At a guess, that's meant to imply that the hot barrel does no damage when pressed against the bleeding wound, but as written, it precludes actually shooting somebody.
As written, it implies an unfortunate typo. I would have to assume that any player or GM who tried to enforce the interpretation you're suggesting during actual play was being disingenuously obtuse.
You do know these books weren't just for players, right? The material on these classes you dislike so much is a goldmine for a learning gamemaster.I see folks mention archtypes that are not considered useful like these and others (*cough* cloistered cleric) and I think they actually make for great NPC archtypes :-)
For instance, I would never (probably) play a Vow of Poverty monk but I would definitly send them against my PCs and smile as I don't have to worry about the treasure.
Or use I can use a Cloistered Cleric against my PCs if I want a less powerful cleric to stand in back or maybe go down easier.
I think the two you mentioned make great, flavorful options for DMs to use. How funny would it be to see a Wild Rager Troll start smacking around it's orc buddies? I know that would make for a pretty memorable encounter for me :-)
And you really needed to pay money for those things? If you wanted a weaker NPC couldn't you just do it?
I don't say that all options should be equal that's just can't be done, and i can understand shooting a little low when creating something new so that they don't accidentally hit something high but i don't like when they present in a book choices that make you shoot yourself in the foot (cloistered cleric) or are just suicide to use (vow of poverty monk).
I bought both the UM and UC .pdf files and while i liked both books (and would have bought them even if i knew about those kind of thing before clicking "buy") i feel that the pages that went to such things could be used for something else.
Goldmine? why?
does a DM wants to have clerics with lighter armor and less spellcasting? just use the vanilla cleric and don't give him a breastplate and have memorize one less spell per level.Does a DM wants the players to fight a monk with almost no magic items for virtually no benefit? he can do it just by using the vanilla monk and just not giving equipment.
I want alternative choices from the books i buy for that purpose and not extremely weak choices. If i want a neutered NPC i can do it just fine with the material already at hand but if i want a slightly different NPC with (approximately) the same power as before... well that's when things begin to get difficult and i need/want to buy a book from Paizo for that.
Again i don't wish for all choices to be equally good ones, i understand that this can't happen, what i don't want is pitfall choices or crystal clear choices when they aren't needed (for example the qingong monk is a crystal clear choice and a no brainer pick for anyone but i am ok with it because the monk needed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These archetypes are great for RP=heavy or themed campaigns.They are not so great for munchkins,however.
Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These archetypes are great for RP=heavy or themed campaigns.They are not so great for munchkins,however.Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?
I personaly find coming up with concepts that are mechanicaly powerful and still flavorful are fun to develop.
I personaly find coming up with concepts that are mechanicaly powerful and still flavorful are fun to develop.These archetypes are great for RP=heavy or themed campaigns.They are not so great for munchkins,however.Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?
+100
I really appreciate everybody's opinions, i was honestly curious, i know i have certain things, styles or themes that interest me, and i have a hard time seeing why any body would play different . I can not imagine any body playing a druid they are basically dirty hippy with spells form "mother nature" cough cough pot smoke. but the more i have been on the boards and the more i have come to learn i have come to see that i can appreciate another players ideas. A ape shaping hippy with the strength to tear your arms off intrigues me........
besides here on these forums i can ask questions and get a bunch of different responses before it was the same 6 guys .who i gamed with every tuesday night.
I worry though because the internet is inherently respect free and jackass prone. that i may be taken as a something other than just a guy with a question who would like to see other peoples ideas. thanks to every body who posted keep it up. half of those archetypes i had never taken he time to read before. it has opened my mind to maybe a spell slinger.
any other archetypes you people like?or don't like and why?
I like many of the new archetypes. I believe many of them could enhance and make stronger a style of character a person wants to play. I actually took the rake variant for my rogue/magus toon.
|
|
Most of the archetypes are so lame I think they just threw them in to add pages. Most of them are something like -Here is a paladin thats like a cleric, here is a fighter that is like a rogue, blah blah. Whats worse is that in UC the Samurai and Ninja are really just asian archetypes of caviler and rogue. I think Pazio has hit its limit on fresh ideas and the ulitmate books are proof.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?
Not matter how hard you try to make it so, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is not actually a logical fallacy.
Not matter how hard you try to make it so, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is not actually a logical fallacy.
Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?
It is a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. Roleplaying and building an optimal character are not exclusive. Having a less than optimal character does not make you a better at roleplaying, no matter how you look at it.
Not matter how hard you try to make it so, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is not actually a logical fallacy.Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?
I like you Jake you are funny.
|
|
I see folks mention archtypes that are not considered useful like these and others (*cough* cloistered cleric) and I think they actually make for great NPC archtypes :-)
For instance, I would never (probably) play a Vow of Poverty monk but I would definitly send them against my PCs and smile as I don't have to worry about the treasure.
Or use I can use a Cloistered Cleric against my PCs if I want a less powerful cleric to stand in back or maybe go down easier.
I think the two you mentioned make great, flavorful options for DMs to use. How funny would it be to see a Wild Rager Troll start smacking around it's orc buddies? I know that would make for a pretty memorable encounter for me :-)
And you really needed to pay money for those things? If you wanted a weaker NPC couldn't you just do it?
I don't say that all options should be equal that's just can't be done, and i can understand shooting a little low when creating something new so that they don't accidentally hit something high but i don't like when they present in a book choices that make you shoot yourself in the foot (cloistered cleric) or are just suicide to use (vow of poverty monk).
Nope, I didn't need to pay money for them. I chose to. I've already gotten more hours of entertainment out of my gaming books than I've gotten out of any other form of entertainment. Breaking it down that way I think it's just silly to complain ravenously about what amounts too a very small section of the book. Discussing it and finding the best uses for the archetypes? Sure. But I figure I can spend my time complaining about things I don't like or finding ways to make them useful.
I bought both the UM and UC .pdf files and while i liked both books (and would have bought them even if i knew about those kind of thing before clicking "buy") i feel that the pages that went to such things could be used for something else.