|
I love Archetypes. I really do. In my opinion they are far superior to prestige classes.
But...some of them need more.
Complex archetypes that replace primary features need more. They are "Advanced" archetypes, and therefore should be treated as such to avoid confusion and corrections.
The Vivisectionist, the Synthesist, The Archeologist...all of these need more meat to work out than a half page can provide. They are great ideas, but given how fundamentally they change a class, they can't be confined to the half page.
Yes, page space is precious. But if you are going to do something, I would rather it not be done than to be rushed or crammed.
Archetypes are a huge opportunity for expansion. Advanced archetypes is a book I would buy. But when you rush great concepts into poor designed, you waste the concept. All three of the above are great ideas that are hard to play since so much of what they replace is fundamental to the class, making the spell lists problematic at a minimum.
I could envision a whole family of archetypes for some concepts across multiple classes. A ninja fighter/ranger/rogue variation for example. An archaeologist bard/rogue/wizard. Each a separate archetype working toward a similar concept from a different chassis.
Most archetypes don't need this. Most archetypes work fine as is.
But some...if it matters, make room to do it right.
I think the vivisectionist extracts work fine as is. Disguise self works great for things like kidnapping bodies to tourture enlarge person to stab or slash people better and these are just 1st level extracts.
The vivisectionist works fine.
The archaeologist works fine.
The synthesist works too fine.
If those really are the basis for your argument, you need to rethink it.
|
|
The vivisectionist works fine.
The archaeologist works fine.
The synthesist works too fine.
If those really are the basis for your argument, you need to rethink it.
"Fine" is a low standard of expectation.
They are very good concepts, they deserve quality execution.
The vivisectionist discoveries are limited considering that bombs have been removed.
The archeologist spell list makes no sense for the class concept, and integration of the bardic performance feats are unclear to awkward.
I don't even know where to begin with the issues between the concept of a "powersuit" class and the synthesist.
What I am saying is that if a concept is worth doing, it's worth doing well.
"Fine" is what I expect from a 3PP, not the primary development staff of a product line. "Fine" should not suffice when with a page more you can have "good" to "great"
YMMV.
|
Vivisectionist: That's the price you pay for picking Vivisectionist.
Archaeologist: Maybe it doesn't make sense for you, but I happen to really like it. If I wanted to play a knowledgeable archaeologist, I'd pick the bard archetype any day. Otherwise, I'd go with Rogue, because I can easily build one.
Synthesist: What's the issue?
Overall, I haven't a problem with most of the Paizo archetypes. Lots of them are fun and flavorful.
YMMV.
He's saying that he wants an alternate class.
I don't disagree that Sythesist and Vivisectionist - especially the former - open up new horizons in terms of material that could be produced to support them. I don't think they need it, but I can see where you're coming from. There's nothing wrong with them, but they're sort of fertile ground. Could they have tossed in some alchemist options that modify your sneak attack? They went there a little bit by allowing you to take Bleeding Attack (the rogue talent) as a discovery. I don't think there's any particular reason they couldn't have given you a half-dozen choices there instead of just the one, but perhaps it was to keep the rogue at least a little special.
I've also noticed that the archaeologist archetype makes you an archaeologist with an unusually music-themed spell list, but I think that that's largely an unrelated issue.
The synthesist works too fine.If those really are the basis for your argument, you need to rethink it.
Did you really say the Synthegist is fine? The one they had to do hundreds of FAQ questions for before it was viable?
Just because they fixed it after the fact doesn't mean it wasn't broken.
|
|
I would say there are three primary changes I would like to see.
1. Some concepts are too complicated to fit into a half page format. If the FAQ for the Archetype is almost as long as the Archetype itself, it probably should have been given more space in the book to flesh it out. The three concepts I have listed have thread after thread of questions for adjudication that aren’t clear, I believe, because the archetype was limited to half a page. Some archetypes can fit in that space, some can’t.
2. Some concepts would fit across multiple base classes. You could give a Rogue Bardic knowledge in exchange for Rogue talents and call it an archeologist. You could give an Urban Ranger Bardic Knowledge in exchange for favored enemies and call it an archeologist. In other words, there are many ways to create a “concept” without making it “The” way to make the concept.
3. Shoehorning complicated concepts into half page layouts with direct replacement creates unintended consequences. The archetypes that are basically a variation of the theme of the class are fine for half a page. I think most archetypes fit this framework perfectly, as most of them don’t remove and replace any primary class features. A bard who doesn’t perform is a large departure from the concept of the class. A summoner who functionally has no eidelon is a large departure from the concept of the class. An Alchemist who has no Bombs large departure from the concept of the class.
This is not to say we should not have these, I think we should. It is to say if you are going to radically alter what the base class is, you probably need to take more than a half page to do it. My suggestion is to have “Advanced” archetypes for more complex Archetypes, which would fall somewhere between an archetype and a base class.
The vivisectionist has a enough discoveries. Flavorwise I would think you would want things like preserve organs, infusion, tumor familiar, bottled ooze, maybe vestigial arms. Crippling strike is awesome so you will want that. Wings will be useful. Feral mutagen is another useful one at low levels. We could take preserve organs up to two more times and then have lots of protectoin agianst crits. None of these are all that useless.
|
|
The vivisectionist has a enough discoveries. Flavorwise I would think you would want things like preserve organs, infusion, tumor familiar, bottled ooze, maybe vestigial arms. Crippling strike is awesome so you will want that. Wings will be useful. Feral mutagen is another useful one at low levels. We could take preserve organs up to two more times and then have lots of protectoin agianst crits. None of these are all that useless.
No one is saying useless.
I am saying that if you are going to replace the primary ability of a class, which these three do, it is going to take more that a half a page to deal with that replacement if you want to avoid confusion and unintended consequences.
Comparing the vivisectionist to the standard Alchemist, the standard alchemists goes from a ranged attacker to a melee combatant in play, while also going from a “Chemist” concept to a “Doctor” concept.
Of the 29 discoveries in the APG, 16 are related to bombs. More than half. As you pointed out, this is for me is ok because you have some options that would fit “flavor” and they added more in Ultimate Magic. The poison and mutagen discoveries are reflected and fit well here with the concept.
The big complaint I have read is that this class overshadows the rogue, as it gets the primary rogue feature, 6 levels of spells, has the ability to self buff ability scores, and comparable skills since the alchemist gets 4 skill points and is an intelligence class. MAD issues are negated by mutagens, as with an hour of prep For 10 minutes a level a vivisectionist can boost his Dex by 4 at a cost of 2 wisdom. Your TWF weapon finesse build just got a +2 to hit. Or you can at 2 hit points a level and a +2 to your low fort save for a -2 to charisma. And add to that the natural synergy of the Alchemists poison use abilities, and 6 levels of spellcasting…
If the argument is that sneak attack and bomb are directly equal (I don’t believe they are and I will say why below) you still get a number of additional spells and abilities over a regular Alchemist without trade off. Torturer’s Eye, Cruel Anatomist, Torturous Transformation, Bleeding Attack, and Crippling Strike are all bonuses without corresponding trade offs. They didn’t even make you trade off throw anything, even though it seems to be there specifically to serve the use of bombs.
Comparing sneak attack to bombs, as to advantages the bombs do more damage each (add intelligence, discoveries) are ranged, and are not situational (don’t need to flank or surprise). That they are splash attacks is both good and bad as it can be problematic in close quarters. But the reason I think bombs are inferior to sneak attack comes from the limited uses per day. An 1st level alchemist with an 18 int would have 5 bombs. If you consider a 4 encounter day average, that means 1.25 bombs per encounter. You get one more bomb per level, but as you get multiple attacks you are still very likely to run out of bombs if they are your primary offense, as opposed to sneak attack, which doesn’t run out. And this is before considering the synergies that sneak attack has with the alchemists poison and self buffing abilities that bombs largely don’t benefit from.
For less than half a page more, you could have a spell list that fits the concept and acts to better balance the archetype. A half a page is more than the size of the entire Alchemists spell list in the APG. Instead they added more spells, without taking any away.
I love the vivisectionist concept. I just wanted them to take the time and space to fully flesh out the concept as a concept, rather than tacking it onto the alchemist frame.
Of the 3, it is the least problematic. But I do think if they made that particular archetype a full page rather than a half page, they could have improved it dramatically and avoided most of the complaints about the class.
You can make the argument that the problem isn’t with the vivisectionist, but with the rogue. And that is a very fair argument. What I am saying, and I want to be very clear about this, is that for a half a page more this class could be much, much better at being what it is described as.
And if you are going to replace a primary class feature as part of an archetype, which considering the majority of the discoveries for the class are bomb related I think you can say is what is happening with the vivisectionist, you should use a full page to do so in order to make sure you address the changes fully.
For half a page more, the archetype can stand on it’s own, rather than being an add on. I don’t think most archetypes need a full page. I do think if you are changing a primary feature of the class, it does.
As someone who is playing a bard (Archaeologist), I would say that it is far from "fine".
Don't get me wrong, I love the concept and what it can do , but how Archaeologists Luck interacts and stacks with Bardic abilities is far from clear. For example, If I were to take the Pathfinder Chronicler Prestige Class, would I get an improved Archaeologists Luck or a separate Bardic performance. Does Archeologhists Luck qualify for Epic Tales? would I get e.g. Whispering campaign, Inspire action and Call down the legends? Do they qualify for Epic Tales (actually that last one is not about Bard (Archaeologist}).
RAW, it could be interpreted many different ways. It needs more clarity.
Also, I don't like that the detective is a bard Archetype with bardic performance. Are they expecting all detectives to be the singing detective? When was the last time you saw Poirot do a pirouette? or Morse do a mime? Should have been a Rogue Archetype, or should have replaced bardic performance as per Archaologist.
Wait, something I dont understand: Doesnt the archeologist get the same spells as all bards? Or is it that you find the spell list doesnt work?
Uhh oratory doesn't mean sing at all.
Wouldn't these just be alternate classes? Alternate classes are just archetypes that change so much of the class that they have been printed in the format of a class.
Thing is neither the vivisectionist or the archeologist is reall all that complex neither is anything close to a an alternate class.though synthesist probably could have been done better.
I would definitely buy an Advanced Archetypes book.