I'm wondering what people believe the sacred cows of classes are. What sort of thing should an archetype NOT modify?
For example, a bard archetype that makes bardic magic divine. Is that kosher?
What about changing BAB?
Why or why not for either of these examples?
|
This crossed my mind when I read that the Archaeologist archetype for the Bard gives up Bardic Performance. I was sure I read somewhere that in order to be considered an archetype, and not an alternate class, that the core class features needed to be maintained in some way, shape, or form. Now, I'm not so sure that still applies. In either case, I was never sure it was that important anyway.
Still, it'd be nice to read other people's musings on the matter.
Yep, I am interested in such musings as well.
Particularly what people have noticed in Paizo archetypes (hence the forum choice).
So let's find the main schtick of classes. Personally, I find spellcasting one of the main parts of a bard.
in my opinion BAB, saves and hitpoints should stay the same.
all the rest can be replaced, perhaps not from full spellcasting to no spellcasting, but still the ranger without spells is okay, a bard with divine spells or even no spells at all could still be awesome.
For alternative classes, they should be the ones that get their main stuff changed out, for example sneak attack from rogue, or all the spells from medium spellcaster like bard.
Diminished spellcasting is already seen in archetypes, so why not have diminished BAB? Why not trade one for the other?
I would also like to see a 1/2 BAB cleric, as well as a druid who gives up Wild Shape for better spellcasting or spell-like abilities. Wild Shape seems to be the only thing people think druids are good for, though, or at least the only thing that makes them useful.
I would also like to see a ninja without Sneak Attack as a class feature, but an option (ninja trick).
Sacred Cows? Well, you can't take Rage (and later improvements) away from the barbarian, because then Rage Powers mean nothing. That leaves you with Trap Sense, Fast Movement, Damage Reduction, [Improved] Uncanny Dodge, and Indomitable Will (which is dependent on Rage). That sounds like a rogue variant, actually - Fast Movement, DR, and a bonus to Will saves.
I tried to think of one for the ranger, but all of the ranger's features sort of sum up to BE the ranger. Favored Enemy is iconic, but not untouchable. Combat Style, I guess? I don't think I've seen an archetype yet that takes that one out, but it's kind of a lame thing to consider "sacred."
Witch: Hexes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some classes have two or three things that are basic to them, and I think you can get rid of ANY of these, but not ALL of them, and still have the base class.
A bard can give up bardic performance OR bard spells, but giving up BOTH would make it no longer a bard archetype. Similar for a ranger -- any one feature can be given up / replaced by each archetype, and it's still a ranger in total.
For me... Bards ARE about performance... but they are Equally about the Bardic Knowledge. Knowing a little about everything... Any archtype must have at lEAST one of these.
Personally, I'm not fond of 'perfomance' type things ANYWAY... so my one bard Detective will not focus much on hiss perfomances... but the KNOWLEDGE and the 'jack of all trades' aspect...
For the monk, I consider teh Flurry of Blows to be their MAIN thing. I couldn't imagine playing a martial artist/hand to hand fighter WITHOUT that ability...
I can't find it, but there was a 'Build your own Cleric' thread here a while back the allowed tailoring a god's Clerics to the deity. It worked incredibly well.
My Elf Fighter class in 3.5 gained several of the Rogue's schticks (Fort to Reflex save, evasion, etc.), but dropped to a 3/4 BAB. Both players loved it over 12 and 8 or 9 levels.
Modifying Classes should be done carefully, to tailor them to a campaign's needs. The new Magus has eliminated all pressure to create a Fighter-mage, at least for me. Now I can modify it for my 'Elf' class.
|
|
Since UC has Bards without Bardic Performance, and Cavaliers without Mounts, I'd suggest that, at the very least, the line between an 'archetype' and an 'alternate class' is blurring to indistinction. To me the Samurai (alternate Cavalier class) seems a lot closer to the vanilla Cavalier than the Musketeer (Cavalier archetype), for example.
Of course, even if every archetype keeps one of several 'iconic' options for a class... you're not limited to only the one archetype. In fact it's only the cases where two archetypes swap out the same (potentially iconic) class feature where you can't take both. It's probably possible now to create a character of class 'X' with the right combination of archetypes which actually results in it having none of the original class abilities... or at least, getting close to that. If not now, then the more archetypes get churned out, the more chance you can do that.
But is that necessarily a bad thing? If the character is still balanced and playable, even with all the 'iconic' features swapped out, then I for one wouldn't see a problem with that.
|
I think, at least to Paizo, BAB, HD and Saves are the line. To me, that was the big change on the Gunslinger. It was originally a Fighter alternate class and, granted, alot of the abilities were vastly different, but it still gets bonus feats (at large level increments) and it still gets weapon training (but only for guns), but the good Reflex Save just made it feel wrong.
Personally, I love archetypes and hate "alternate classes". When someone says alternate class I hear "a new base class, but we know people don't like more and more base classes so we'll change it's name".
I'm wondering what people believe the sacred cows of classes are. What sort of thing should an archetype NOT modify?
For example, a bard archetype that makes bardic magic divine. Is that kosher?
What about changing BAB?
Why or why not for either of these examples?
In my opinion, an Archetype should never change the base class's Base Attack Bonus progression or their saving throw progression. Mostly because that is impossibly to word without referencing another class, "You gain a Medium Attack Bonus Progression, as a Bard" looks and sounds REALLY clunky to me, personally.
|
I am doing an analysis of which features are replaced/modified by each Archetype in the APG, UM and UC for all base classes. The results highlight which class features are often replaced and which are never or almost never changed.
For the Barbarian, out of 16 Archetypes (9 in APG and 7 in UC), the most commonly replaced features are Fast Movement and Trap Sense (10 archetypes). Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge follow close behind (8 archetypes). Damage Reduction was replaced 3 times, but only in Archetypes from the APG. Rage itself was modified in 2 Archetypes, both from UC, and Indomitable Will only once (in UC).
The class features that were left untouched are the Rage Powers, Greater Rage, Tireless Rage and Mighty Rage.
I will post the results for each class as I tackle it.
I'm wondering what people believe the sacred cows of classes are. What sort of thing should an archetype NOT modify?
For example, a bard archetype that makes bardic magic divine. Is that kosher?
What about changing BAB?
Why or why not for either of these examples?
BAB, and maybe base saves. All class features are game to an extent.
Paladin - Smite
Ranger - Favored Enemy
Whenever I see an archetype that changes one of these things, I don't read further. For example - Wild Stalker. I really can't see how can he be described as Ranger anymore. If I wanted to play a raging Ranger, I'd take a few levels of Barbarian. Wild Stalker is to Barbarian what Warrior is to Fighter.
Paladin - Smite
Ranger - Favored EnemyWhenever I see an archetype that changes one of these things, I don't read further. For example - Wild Stalker. I really can't see how can he be described as Ranger anymore. If I wanted to play a raging Ranger, I'd take a few levels of Barbarian. Wild Stalker is to Barbarian what Warrior is to Fighter.
Really? You don't like the Guide archetype? The Wild Stalker seems fine to me. Trade some circumstantial bonuses for some good options in combat?
The Ranger is a tricky one to define what the "core ability" is. They are more of an "outdoorsy" guy than being defined by any one feature.
Once you hit lvl 5, you have two favored enemies... Depending on the AP the numbers vary, but usually that should cover half of the enemies. In some APs (Carrion Crown, Council of Thieves), even more. And +4 to attack and damage for you and your animal companion can hardly be called 'some bonuses'. Losing that seriously reduces Ranger's ability to do damage. All they get from Wild Stalker is +4 str and con, which only equals the first favored enemy bonuses. And being a feat starved class that they are, losing a combat style feat hurts. And that feat is even more important since it ignores the prerequisites (hello, Improved Precise Shot at lvl 6). And then you lose animal companion. I mean, seriously, what else is there for the ranger? Wild Empathy, Track and Favored Terrains. Can't really call that a Ranger...
Conceptually, I like the idea. Problem is, the archetype is losing way, way more than it's getting.
Paladin - Smite
Ranger - Favored EnemyWhenever I see an archetype that changes one of these things, I don't read further. For example - Wild Stalker. I really can't see how can he be described as Ranger anymore. If I wanted to play a raging Ranger, I'd take a few levels of Barbarian. Wild Stalker is to Barbarian what Warrior is to Fighter.
What about the hospitalier paladin? They get half the smiting that normal paladins do, but become much better healers. That certainly feels very paladinish to me, even if they are smiting less.
Personally, I don't find many examples of true sacred cows among the classes. Without having actually tried to build them, I can picture a Rogue without Sneak Attack that still feels like a Rogue to me. The Barbarian without Rage at all I think is one of the few that feels wrong, but I remain open to it working and still feeling like a Barbarian, it'd just be tough.
The closest they get I think are
Rage - Barbarian
Hexes - Witch
Eidolon - Summoner
And that would have to be stock elimination of the feature, mods would still seem fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The entire idea behind archetypes in my mind is an attempt to enhance "modularity" (if this isn't a real word it's being used as one anyway) and allow players more flexibility in building the specific character they desire regardless. I applaud any changes to the game that increase player choices and the ability to pick and choose abilities and be rid of extraneous or uninteresting ones.
So I guess what I'm saying is I don't think there are/should be any sacred cows. In the end I think archetypes are simply easier to develop and publish (less space used) than entirely new classes. It allows people to develop their characters in a modular way and I think that sacred cows should all be put in the slaughter house. :)
Soapbox: If Paizo does put out a Pathfinder 2.0 I'd love if they'd do away with the 3.5 class system altogether and implement a completely modular system!
What about the hospitalier paladin? They get half the smiting that normal paladins do, but become much better healers. That certainly feels very paladinish to me, even if they are smiting less.Paladin - Smite
Ranger - Favored EnemyWhenever I see an archetype that changes one of these things, I don't read further. For example - Wild Stalker. I really can't see how can he be described as Ranger anymore. If I wanted to play a raging Ranger, I'd take a few levels of Barbarian. Wild Stalker is to Barbarian what Warrior is to Fighter.
When I said change, I meant replace. :P Slightly alter the ability is fine, if it fits your character. Hospitalier Paladin is ok if you want to play a Paladin of Shelyn or Desna or something like that, but for Iomedae not so much. But I'd rather not change the main combat ability of a combat class.
I wouldn't agree that an eidolon is required for a Summoner - in fact, a lot of the time, they kick more booty without the eidolon around (using their hyped-up Summon Monster SLAs).
No question that the Summoner doesn't need the eidolon, however, to remove it as a class feature altogether would seem very non-Summoner to me. It'd be more of a crazy modded Wizard (conjurer) build spamming Summon Monster everywhere than a Summoner build. I feel kinda the same about the Barbarian without Rage, although that one is a little more flexible in my mind, but without it, it's kind of like a Fighter archetype instead of a Barbarian one.
Now, that's not to say that either of those wouldn't be awesome or kick some monsters around, but I think the archetype needs to still feel like it wouldn't be more of a different classes gig.
|
|
Now, that's not to say that either of those wouldn't be awesome or kick some monsters around, but I think the archetype needs to still feel like it wouldn't be more of a different classes gig.
Which kind of brings us full-circle back to the original question / discussion point. :)
I guess what makes a class that class in particular varies from person to person. Me, I don't see the eidolon as being that central to the Summoner class (it just has more pages devoted to it)... but then again, I could also happily see a Barbarian without rage (the vanilla Barbarian in particular has a lot going for him besides rage). Or, at least, I guess I could see those sorts of variants as still closer to the vanilla classes than a Bard without Bardic Performance, or a Cavalier without a Mount.
In the end I don't really think there are any 'sacred cows' for the classes - change too much and I guess you drift from archetype to alternate class to new class... but that choice really has more to do with whether you want to allow people to mutliclass the new variant with the old one or not, and little else.
Right, BAB, HP, Saves are fixed. Also Spellcasting from a full spellcasting class will probabaly never be changed.
Everything else is open to discussion.
However for the "divine bard" example I would rather use the Oracle (Gnome Oracle of Entertainment named "Wobby Rilliams" ftw) and give it a form of bardic performance.
Paladin - Smite
Whenever I see an archetype that changes one of these things, I don't read further.
I would add :
Paladin - Divine graceBut that's only my opinion ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believ in sacred cows regarding individual mechanics. I only believe in sacred themes.
The archetypes are 'like' their own class, it seems to me. A musketeer doesn't run around calling himself a Musketeer Cavalier, he just says, "I'm a muskateer" if he even says anything at all. He might call himself a knight, bandit, hero, adventurer, pirate, highwayman, gunslinger, soldier, etc. It just so happens that the Cavalier class makes a good vehicle to carry Paizo's idea of what a Pathfinder Musketeer ought to be. Same for the Archaeologist archetype of a bard. The archaeologist is just that, a magic using rogue-like explorer. The bard class makes a good vehicle to carry the archaeologist archetype. The devs wanted a magic using dungeon delver that relies on a bit of luck to get him through the day.
Thematically, the base class might have nothing to do with the archetype, but it is a convenient template that already has mechanics that would work for said archetype. The archetype doesn't have to feel like the base class at all. The base class mechanics just 'worked' for the theme.
I wouldn't agree that rage is an iconic barbarian ability. Barbarians didn't even get rage until 3rd edition. Before then, barbarians were defined by superior speed, endurance, and reflexes.That's not true. Barbarians in 1e had rage.
Bet you $1,000 you're wrong.
(By the way, I have a copy of 1e Unearthed Arcana open to pages 18-19 in front of me right now.)
No bet.
Awww. Paizo could really use me buying $1000 of product with your money.
I think I was confusing the UA Barbarian with the White Dwarf Barbarian (a PC that was published in White Dwarf magazine that we used to play with).
Yeah, the "First-attack Ferocity" ability of that barbarian (White Dwarf #4, page 17) is reasonably similar to rage.
(EDIT: Or, alternatively, the thing where hitting them with a fear effect has a 50% chance of making them battle-rage like a berserker.)
BAB, saves, and HD. Out of that the sky is the limit. Of course dropping rage or smite and not giving something very similar would make people laugh at you and say "This isn't an archetype, it's an entirely new class. You silly.".
I dont think any specific ability is a sacred cow for any class. I think a barbarian can be a barbarian without rage, and a bard can be a bard without performance. Its just a matter of replacing the abilities with something similarly flavorful for the class. Though I agree that once you start altering bab/save/hd its time to start looking at an alternate class or a whole new class.
For me if you are replacing less then 1/3 the class abilities then its an archetype so long as sensible 1 for 1 trades can be made. If more then that is being traded out, or if you cant trade out one for one in a reasonable manner, then I think its no longer an archetype.
The "Sage" bloodline remains in the same part of my brain I reserve for Highlander 2.One thing that I'm not aware of having been done yet, but which has a lot of potential to be done is changing the prime attribute.This actually has been done. There are Sorcerer bloodlines that change their casting stat from Cha to Int (sage) or Wis (empyreal?), I believe. There's also the Mysterious Stranger, which changes the Gunslinger's Grit from Wisdom to Charisma, although Dex is still probably their primary stat either way.
The problem is what if someone wants to play a spontaneous caster but sucks at playing characters with high charisma. Is that not a reason to take the sage bloodline?
The problem is what if someone wants to play a spontaneous caster but sucks at playing characters with high charisma. Is that not a reason to take the sage bloodline?Oracles are, also, spontaneous casters. Seriously, a mid level Sage has about a 24 or higher Int. That's no easier to play than a character with a 24 or higher Cha. In both cases, the GM helps the player along.
Maybe for you but not for everyone. For me high Int is a lot easier to roleplay and understand than high charisma which I know I suck at. Oracles still need high cha but not quite as high but still high enough in general. The only spontaneous caster that does not use cha is inquisitor and the two previously mentioned bloodlines.
Hmm int based oracle archtype would be interesting.