Is Paizo producing too many archetypes for its own good? Pathfinder prestige classes are almost unheard of in comparison. The new Advanced Race Guide alone has 71 new archetypes. By itself that book may have more archetypes than there are prestige classes!
How many archetypes will it take before you start feeling the "bloat" like many did with v3.5's prestige classes? Have we already surpassed it?
I don't like archetypes, so I'm going to say yes. I prefer prestige classes myself.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love archetypes. Prestige classes in 3.5 were almost universally taken just for 1-2 abilities the class had anyways. At least this way archetypes let you alter your character from the get go so you don't have to level dip in classes you may not like for abilities you do.
Note: Paths of Prestige is in the pipeline for release this summer.
There are a lot of archetypes. My main problem with them is that anything that gives me something I thematically would like takes away something iconic to the base class, hurting my chances of pursuing it. I like PrCs when done well and even a number of archetypes (I'm looking at you, Beastrider). UC seemed particularly bad for it given that the Wizard got 3 archetypes in it.
Ultimate Combat. 3 Wizard archetypes. Really...
Anywho, I definitely think there's some pruning to be done in the archetype department.
No they aren't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I felt like there was archetype bloat in the APG. More and more I'm feeling like the archetype mechanic itself is flawed.
Ultimate Combat. 3 Wizard archetypes. Really...
At least those were all about Wizards learning a non-Spellcasting combat option.
Ultimate Magic had Antagonize.If you want to play a highly effective 100% non-magical Intimidation-based Melee Fighter, you need to buy Ultimate MAGIC, even though that book has very little else that such a character could use. (marketing feature?)
I really like the archetypes, puts me in mind of the character kits from 2nd edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I felt like there was archetype bloat in the APG. More and more I'm feeling like the archetype mechanic itself is flawed.
I don't know that the mechanic itself is flawed. The problem I find most often is that there are some pretty unimaginative writers working on archetypes. Specifically, there is no good reason for every Fighter archetype to target Bravery, Armor Training, and Weapon Training exclusively. You could just as easily replace bonus feats (which a select few do, such as the Unbreakable, but as a supplement to the aforementioned rather than a replacement). Similarly, Rogues have more abilities than Uncanny Dodge, Imp UD, Trapfinding, and Trap Sense. Replace some SA dice or RTs. Totally legit. Whip out Diminished Casting on the full casters for some archetypes (I'm still waiting for my Wild Shape archetype and I'm very close to writing it myself).
Ultimately, the question comes down in the writing process as to whether the archetype creates a fair trade. We've seen things like the Sanctified Rogue, which is an obvious no (augury and +1 Fort/Will is not worth the cost in this case). Valiant effort, but this archetype completely lacked zazz. Augury is not that big a draw and UD is not a feat-equivalent ability. If it was, UD would be a feat.
Some of the designs are great. I've been very impressed with a certain subset of archetypes. There are others, however, that have moved us back towards the 3.5 Dip mentality (Crossblooded, for example) and others that are just head-scratchers (Holy Gun). Worse yet, every time I look at the Gunslinger, I can't help but think that it is significantly improved by taking either Musket Master or Pistolero, meaning the base class itself is lacking something and the archetype is the fix. That's a problem.
I like the spirit of the Archetypes and I think the mechanics are sound, but the specific implementation lacks a certain bravery in the writing at times, which is the core of my disappointment.
I like the archetypes in theory, but in practice I do think they are getting rather bloaty. Too many have uninspired concepts and mechanics, to the point they feel like book filler. Then again, I feel that way about lots of the feats, spells, and items too. Games tend to bloat, and I don't think there is much to be done outside of a new edition or a sudden shot of inspiration.
My main problem with archetypes is that they aren't something a character can naturally evolve into over time, through that character's story and adventure. If you're an archetype, you're in it from the start. You don't have a choice about it.
Ultimate Combat. 3 Wizard archetypes. Really...At least those were all about Wizards learning a non-Spellcasting combat option.
Ultimate Magic had Antagonize.
If you want to play a highly effective 100% non-magical Intimidation-based Melee Fighter, you need to buy Ultimate MAGIC, even though that book has very little else that such a character could use. (marketing feature?)
Fair to point out that Antagonize is creeptastic. I would say, though, that there is value in owning a major release book for reasons besides one specific character.
My main problem with archetypes is that they aren't something a character can naturally evolve into over time, through that character's story and adventure. If you're an archetype, you're in it from the start. You don't have a choice about it.
My impression from your post is "more feats please." Not a judgment, just an observation. Take from that what you will.
That's not what I meant at all. I'm more in favour of prestige classes.
In fact, I wouldn't mind a game where base classes stopped progressing at maybe levels 6-10 and prestige classes were required, and that the game was balanced around that requirement.
That's not what I meant at all. I'm more in favour of prestige classes.
In fact, I wouldn't mind a game where base classes stopped progressing at maybe levels 6-10 and prestige classes were required, and that the game was balanced around that requirement.
Given the info available on the Paths of Prestige book, I think there is certainly a place for PrCs in Pathfinder. They will simply require actual prestige.
On that front, I agree with the design decision being made. PrCs should not be immediately dippable once you get a certain set of feats, skill ranks, or class features. In fact, I consider the bulk of 3.5 PrCs to be terrible for this very reason, as are a number of the existing PrCs in Pathfinder. The Shadowdancer remains a PrC that you consider dipping into for HiPS, Evasion, and Uncanny Dodge. If you go further, it's because you think shadows are awesome and you want to be able to Dim Door yourself.
I would much rather see something like the Hellknight, or even the Pathfinder Chronicler (there's a PrC with some silly potential). Make me invest some RP time into my choice. Give me something that's worth sticking around for, like Smite Chaos. Immerse me in the world for my specific choices rather than have me ride the mechanical dice tower to level 20 Fighter. This isn't to say that a level 20 Fighter is devoid of RP, but the world is much more able to react to a Hellknight, a Red Mantis, or a Harrower than it is to a Fighter, a Lore Keeper, or a Shadowdancer.
I think as long as stuff like crossblooded is avoided, the number isn't really what people should complain about. By their nature, you can't combine that many of them, so each archetype can really just be judged on how good it is by itself. The context of other archetypes only rarely matters, so the bloat doesn't seem as important to me. If the increase in number means less individual quality though, then there might be a problem.
I do have issues with front-loaded archetypes, or better than the original archetypes, as those disrupt the mechanics of the game. A whole horde of underpowered or well balanced archetypes doesn't really seem to me like something I should fuss over though.
Prestige classes seem like a different beast. Prestige classes by necessity need to be useful to multiclass into, and if you create multiple good multiclass options like that, you end up with chimera characters who are benefiting from each additional prestige class more than they would from sticking with one class. I don't feel like I'm getting a bunch of chimeras with archetypes, as long as they replace enough class abilities to remain largely individual from each other.
Also the goal with archetypes seems different than that of prestige classes. Prestige classes seem to aim at making certain abilities or combinations of abilities better, or to provide powerful abilities at a specific requirement, with the fluff sometimes seemingly shaped by the rules rather than vice-versa. Archetypes seem to aim at providing slightly different options to represent a certain flavor of character, usually fluff defined.
So actually I'm sort of glad that most archetypes replace the same ability. If they started replacing different abilities, then combinability would make the number of them disagreeably relevant. The likelihood of an unforeseen combination being too powerful would be too high with a large number of combinable options.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't had too much problem with archetype bloat in the games I've played in. A lot of them are fun to try out of certainly fit different campaigns. I also like how a lot of them trade in something for a lesser ability rather then something better or comparable. That was the main issue with the secondary classes in the 3rd edition D&D's.
There were just classes you could take that were very literally Better Wizard and Better Cleric++. Archetypes give things a much better nudge and for the most part aren't better then the base class except perhaps their focus. The same idea as the secondary classes (customizing your character's abilities) without making all the base classes useless past level 2/3/5/etc. Of course fixing a lot of the base classes helped a lot too. Never have to complain that my sorcerer doesn't have class abilities besides familiar progression anymore!
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering there were (IIRC) 2000 official WotC PrCs, we're far away from even getting remotely close to that number.
Archetypes rock. The look on the face of one gamer girl I run games for when I said that YES, she can be a halfling cavalier from Order of the Paw and YES, she can be one right away without having to wait half a year of real life gaming time to qualify for a PrC was priceless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an awesome point too, didn't even think of that until you mentioned it. Starting off working towards what you want immediately and getting some bang out of it (well, usually) instead of puzzling out how to get there in the end is often a lot more interesting then the secondary classes were.
I don't think multiclassing is a bad thing if you look at the characters that result from them for what they are, not as a list of classes and level numbers.
From an in-character perspective, what does a multiclassed person look like? Can you even tell? (discounting obvious ones like multiclassing disparate casting)
I was particularly fond of the archetypes when the APG came out. Now, there is simply too much rules bloat (and I haven't looked at the ARG yet...).
I like rules, I like playing around with interesting combination, but while that entertains me, when the time comes to actually play the game, I find that the increased focus on mechanics is harmful.
The idea behind archetypes is nice enough, but the implementation isn't. Most of the time we don't like archetypes that are worse than the parent class. Especially not when other archetypes are superior. This turns to a problem, when archetypes are constantly produced, with each batch adding power creep here and there.
Ultimately we got so many mechanics in place to support flavor, that mechanics start to take control.
If the argument against PrCs are level dipping, archetypes come along way in achieving the same thing.
- Playing a blaster: Why not take a cross-blooded sorcerer dip, for those sweet arcana.
- Playing any caster: While lvl dips aren't necessarily a good choice, one of the best ones are the Synthesist, so you can dump-stat all your physicals.
- Playing a Melee Synthesist: That one level of monk can be nice to gain wisdom on AC, but a lvl of MoMS will give you crane wing as well.
I really like archetypes though I agree on many issues raised above, like always replacing the same abilities on some classes.
Another problem I have with them as that many are too similar to each other, only swapping minor traits.
Other, smaller archetypes could have functioned better in another form. Take for instance the Poisoner Rogue archetype. All it gains is Poison Use and Master Poisoner. Personally I'd think those two would be better off as Rogue Talents, with the latter requiring the former. Then again, I do think that both Trapfinding and Trap Sense should have Rogue Talent versions.
When 3.0 was introduced idea of prestige classes was looking interesting but I found their actual design problematic at best and the situation worsened with time - they would be working much better if the base classes were designed from start to branch into prestige classes (like in d20 modern with base classes, advanced classes and real prestige classes). Everquest 2 RPG tried something similar but I can't say how well it actually worked in game instead of on paper.
I prefer PF archetypes to prestige classes but I agree there are still problems with them - especially the bloat of meh-archetypes that show no appeal mechanically and/or fluff-wise.
A lot of archetypes just aren't well thought out.
All the druids except Menhir Savant and maybe Urban Druid weaken one of the Druid's key abilities without doing anything to bolster the other or otherwise replace the lost versatility, making them pretty much unused. Almost all the wizard archetypes are terrible. Quite a few bard archetypes are deadwood because they discard the MVP of performance without providing anything of similar value in return. Individual archetypes of other classes have similar problems.
Lots of wasted paper. Paizo should be looking out for useless trap archetypes as diligently as they look out for power creep.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm solidly in the "we need more prestige classes" camp. I am excited for Paths of Prestige, but I also don't think it was enough. I also think it was silly to leave Prestige Classes out of "the definitive guides to combat and magic" and I think racial prestige classes make more sense then a lot of the racial archetypes, because prestige classes represent specific groups, ideas, and training, which is why they make a lot more sense being race-specific.
Anyway, with this in mind not all archetypes are necessarily intended for PC use. There are plenty that one might look at and say, "Why would I take that? I trade something good for a situational ability!" When you're an NPC, there's no such thing as a situational ability, because the GM forever controls the situations that said NPC finds itself in. If I take the relatively underwhelming Pirate Archetype on a rogue, as GM I can assure that said NPC is always in a scenario where his powers benefit him and thus make sense.
Also, when you take Prestige Class levels, you're inevitably "Trading" ability as well for new one; you just continue to have the option of getting them back at later levels.
In the long run, I wonder if the game would be better if all the classes had their powers set up like the qinggong monk's; a list you pick what you want from that grows bigger every few levels.
I'm not really sure what bloat means to some folks, but I personally don't have a problem with the large number of archetypes. First of all, it's not like I'm thumbing through six rulebooks when I'm making a character - if I have a concept that is better suited by an archetype, I'll go right to that source. If not, I'll just stick with the standard class.
Secondly, I think the big problem with kits from 2nd edition and prestige classes from 3rd edition was that they were plainly better than most of the core options, which hamstrung people who didn't want to buy up every new rulebook. I don't think the archetypes in Pathfinder present many scenarios where folks who don't want to use archetypes are screwed over in a typical game.
"Bloat" in my mind would mean that it becomes a necessity to have all these books to stay relevant in a game. From where I'm sitting, it looks like the current rulebook lineup allows for some cool new options to those who want them, but still leave room for people who don't want to use them to play using just the Core Rulebook and have just as much fun.
|
Considering there were (IIRC) 2000 official WotC PrCs, we're far away from even getting remotely close to that number.
Well yes, the PrC bloat was a huge problem in 3rd edition. We're not there yet with archetypes.
I'd say 90% of PrCs were a waste of space, especially ones designed for full casters. If you played a wizard, I don't think there was a single PrC that was worth giving up 3-4 caster levels. Others were almost designed to be broken. I'm looking at you, Shining Light of Pelor.
I've never been a huge fan of PrCs. Many were designed to force characters to level-dip. 3rd edition was designed to encourage multi-classing. Pathfinder is not. Characters are rewarded for sticking with a single class. With that in mind, I question whether PrCs truly have a place in Pathfinder and aren't just a relic that should be dropped. Archetypes allow you to build a character theme from level one, rather than having to play a few levels in a class you may not want to play just to pick up a required feat or class ability.
Of course, your mileage may very.
Archetype bloat? No way. First, they're pretty optional and can be easily ignored by players and GMs. Second, they prevent base class bloat to cover niche cases while simultaneously demonstrating the flexibility inherent in the existing classes. Third, they allow for greater differentiation amongst characters of the same class - a very good thing, IMO.
I do like Prestige Classes as well, however, I hated what they ultimately evolved into during the 3.x days. Prestige Classes were always cited as existing to flesh out campaign setting particulars and I'm thrilled that Paizo is restoring them to role. If a concept is broad/generic enough to be RPG-line fodder like say, Loremaster & Assassin, I'm all for it. However, I think the bulk of prestige classes should be tied directly to the setting like Hellknights, Red Mantis, & Harrowers.
I am eagerly awaiting the Paths of Prestige sourcebook.
Can never have too many archetypes. I hated prestige classes about halfway through 3.0, and don't even allow them anymore.
Considering there were (IIRC) 2000 official WotC PrCs, we're far away from even getting remotely close to that number.
Archetypes rock. The look on the face of one gamer girl I run games for when I said that YES, she can be a halfling cavalier from Order of the Paw and YES, she can be one right away without having to wait half a year of real life gaming time to qualify for a PrC was priceless.
This. :D
Archetypes exist so that someone can play what they want at the start of a game, and have fun with it. PrCs are a more narrow path that combine different aspects of diseparte concepts (wizard, rogue), or are focused on developing within an organization.
They can both have bloat. Archetypes answer a specific need that PrCs did not, is all.
One of the overlooked benefits of archetypes existing is their existance allows PrCs to fulfill their purpose more effectively. That is, PrCs don't have to cover as much ground.
Remember all the screaming about pre-reqs for PrCs? Or, "that's awful! I want to play a xyz, and I can't really do that from the base class...but I /know/ that's what I want to be! And I have to wait until Level 6? And I have to take all these feats that don't fit the story I'm wanting to tell?"
We can argue that a well-written PrC is more flexible than that, but they're still pre-reqs. It's still "waiting to do what you want, but playing something you don't want to in the mean time."
Archetypes and PrCs may also work together. That is, a concept that exists from the get-go via an archetype can develop and evolve through a PrC.
There's no reason to have them at odds. They're often compliments, and just another tool in your arsenal as a GM telling a story...and a Player doing the same.
There can still be bloat, just like there were for PrCs. No one's arguing that this cannot exist, or that either-or can be written badly.
I don't think that there are too many Archetypes, I as both a Player and a GM love having a variety of choices, so far none of the archetypes I have seen made the vanilla version of the class obsolete so I think they have been well made.
I don't have a problem with archetypes per se; the problem I have is with the (often stated) position of the Paizo development staff that rules development is strongly pro archetypes and somewhat anti prestige classes.
This was a flawed attempt to address the real problem, namely that 3.5e prestige classes were too often front-loaded, resulting in a very common problem with level dipping into prestige classes. They consciously chose to make level-dipping impossible - since you can't multiclass within a single class, there is absolutely no way to level dip for archetype abilities (within the same class).
But, as a result they've somewhat straitjacketed character progression, even going so far as to create what appear to be completely different classes (like the ninja and rogue) but declaring them to actually be archetypes and thus non-multi-classable. Furthermore, any character who is not first level has no options; it's not like a 6th-level figher (archer) can decide to focus on crossbows for a while - he's stuck in the Archer archetype forever more.
This path has resulted in an explosion of archetypes and a dearth of prestige classes. The balance is now slowly, ponderously tipping the other way, but it will be a while before something like parity is achieved.
Now, I do agree with James Jacobs that prestige classes ought to have a reason, but I don't necessarily believe that it has to be an organizational reason (like the Hellknights, for example). The existence of prestige classes like the Pirate of the Shackles (from Pirates of the Inner Sea) makes a lot of sense to me, just like a Ranged Master prestige class would make more sense to me than creating a scattering of archetypes for the fighter, ranger, rogue, etc. so they can specialize in ranged combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Archetypes are a good thing.
Archetypes have grown on me. I feel like they certainly add to the game. I do feel like they need to add more prestige class though. I miss them.
The problem with Prestige classes in Pathfinder however, is the design choices made when Pathfinder was released.
It rewards sticking to a base class, and punishes you far too much for leaving. Almost every class has abilities or class features that progress over the course of 20 levels.
While 3.5 had the opposite issue. There was almost no reason to stick to a base class past the first few levels.
For Pathfinder prestige classes to be at all attractive they would have to progress the classes features (Bloodlines, Domain powers, Rage powers, Rogue abilities, Oracle curses, ect)
Otherwise it doesn't matter if they release prestige classes. No one will take them.
Two things I prefer about archetypes over prestige classes:
1) I no longer have players coming up with contrived and contorted rationales for a specific combination of classes (that may or may not make any sense in the game).
2) The player gets to focus on playing something a little customized from the get-go, rather than having to wait at least five and maybe more levels.
There are many archetypes that are under- or over-designed. Many contain what could be cool variants, but get hobbled by rules sprawl. It is my sincere hope that one of the things a far-future "2nd Edition" will accomplish is to correct and balance the archetypes, and put them into a format that requires less "ability algebra" to parse.
But, the answer to the OP's critique is the same as all "bloat" critique: Unless it is organized play, you can just ignore all this stuff. In organized play, you had better learn to deal with it — that's the nature of that particular beast.
How could you not love Archetypes???
Archetype bloat is preferable to class bloat.
Yeah, I remember v3.5 had over 100 base classes at one point.
How could you not love Archetypes???
Mind you, only a handful of people have actually said that, and most of them explained their reasoning.
This thread is meant to be something of a cautionary tale, not to bash archetypes.
Two things I prefer about archetypes over prestige classes:
1) I no longer have players coming up with contrived and contorted rationales for a specific combination of classes (that may or may not make any sense in the game).
2) The player gets to focus on playing something a little customized from the get-go, rather than having to wait at least five and maybe more levels.
I think this is the part that everyone agrees on. Archetypes definitely fill a versatile and useful niche in character design. That is commendable.
There are many archetypes that are under- or over-designed. Many contain what could be cool variants, but get hobbled by rules sprawl. It is my sincere hope that one of the things a far-future "2nd Edition" will accomplish is to correct and balance the archetypes, and put them into a format that requires less "ability algebra" to parse.
My proposed fix on part of that is to address the template used for the archetypes, separating the "This ability replaces (x)" bit from each ability and combining them into a "This archetype replaces (x,y,z)" immediately underneath the archetype fluff text. This will greatly improve a number of existing archetypes.
I like archetypes, but I agree that:
Some of them could easily be replaced by a single feat/rogue talent/alchemist discovery/etc. (Practically all of the rogue archetypes in Ultimate Combat fall into this category, for instance.)
That is SO true (I'm looking at you Barbarian Hurler).
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Some of them could easily be replaced by a single feat/rogue talent/alchemist discovery/etc. (Practically all of the rogue archetypes in Ultimate Combat fall into this category, for instance.)That is SO true (I'm looking at you Barbarian Hurler).
Yeah I agree wholeheartedly here. Some of the archetypes should have been feats, some should have been bloodlines or mysteries, some should not exist at all (I love the white-haired witch's zaniness and plan to play one, but when looked at objectively it's a horrible archetype and doesn't make any sense at all). The nice thing about archetypes, though, is you can just say, as the GM, "that archetype doesn't exist in my campaign, because that type of character wouldn't exist in this world". Prestige classes are harder to say that to, since the player has to invest time and class levels to qualify, so that's like a wizard training for years to perfect shooting lasers out of his eyes and then one of the gods saying "nope, can't do it, eyes can't be laser-shooters".
|
My main problem with archetypes is that they aren't something a character can naturally evolve into over time, through that character's story and adventure. If you're an archetype, you're in it from the start. You don't have a choice about it.
Thats what i LOVE about them, i do not need to play 5-7 levels to earn a PrC to finally fit the theme i had intended for the character from the start