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.Here are some examples of something like that.
That is, in fact, exactly what I was talking about. Clear, concise, and easy to comprehend, unlike a certain couple archetypes I can think of...
Considering there were (IIRC) 2000 official WotC PrCs, we're far away from even getting remotely close to that number.
There were in fact "only" 700 prestige classes in official 3.0/3.5 rulebooks, and a few of those were reprints (PrCs updated from the 3.0 class books to the 3.5 Complete line of books).
Personally, I think there were too many PrCs in 3.5, but also that there are far too many archetypes in Pathfinder. I haven't counted them, but I think there's around 400 archetypes by now. IMO, Paizo simply replaced one type of "bloat" with another, and I don't think one is better than the other.
By the way, I also agree that archetypes would benefit greatly from altering the template to match Serisans or Meepos suggestions. It would make them more easily digested.
Here is the official list of EVERY base class of v3.0 and v3.5. All 175 of them!
And here is their official list for prestige classes. 782 to be exact.
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).
Heh, Hurler Barbarian ....
I had a friend in a 14th level game who took ALL the hurling Rage Powers but not the Archetype. When I asked why, he said that the trade for the archetype was a poor one.
Go figure! The hurling powers are awesome, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AS much as I love the idea of archetypes, I agree that right now, they are starting to get annoying, mostly due to 3 reasons.
- There are way too many of them.
- As someone said before, many (if not most) of them could simply be a feat or feat chain. cough... rogue... cough...
- Many are so much worse than the base class that their inclusion is pointless, while other are probably too good. I don't mind an archetype being slightly weaker/stronger than the base class, but the gap is often too big.
e.g.: Mysterious Stranger. Or any other Gunslinger archetypes that loses Gun Training. It becomes useless compared to the vanilla gunslinger.
I'd rather have only a few archetypes, but mostly well-balanced and interesting ones.
But honestly... I'm much more worried about feat/spell bloat than archetype... Why in Iomedae's name do we have feats like Blundgeoner? Do we really have to spend a feat for that? And can't the Improved/Greater version of all feats be simply a single scaling feat? Instead of the dozens of "+2 to two skills, then +4" can't we have a single feat that allows the player to choose 2 skills to add those bonus? Maybe even be an optional use of Skill Focus!
Spells... Let just say casters do not need that many options.
But I digress... Yes, there are too many archetypes. Just like there way too many feats and spells. And way too long feat chains.
|
I CBA to count 'em all, but there are circa 260 archetypes in APG (80)+UM(40)+UC(70)+ARG(70), and if you're into Golarion, you can likely add 30 more or so scattered across setting-specific books.
That's not even half of WotC number. Also, due to picking an Archetype from 20 or so available to your class, you aren't faced with the somewhat daunting prospect of combing through 30 hardcover books looking for archetypes that you *might* possibly qualify for (remember kids, WotC never provided a fully legal way to make a database of those, and the one at Crystal Keep was recently shut down on WotC's request).
Given that, from what we hear, there will be no more big books full of archetypes, I think there's no bloat problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo through the baby out with the bathwater on this one. Prestige classes are mechanically a good idea. The problem is that they were poorly executed in 3.5, as printing prestige classes became an obvious money grab. Throw about 10-20 new prestige classes into a book and you could cover a lot of page space and make people feel like they were getting a lot of content. The truth was only about 1 out of those 20 were ever worth anything (and I don't just mean mechanically, as many prestige classes were of questionable fluff as well).
Most of the "problems" with prestige classes such as front-loading them with awesome abilities, having to wait until 6th level to do anything with them, and so forth aren't actually tied to the prestige class mechanics. Paizo showed that while something might be built in a questionable fashion, such as say the 3.5 Paladin, you can keep the good and replace the bad.
Personally I think there should be more prestige classes, and I think we should experiment with exactly what we want from a prestige class. In D20 Modern, you had only six base classes which were very generic. The system then included prestige classes (different name but same mechanics) that allowed you to specialize in a certain field if desired.
At the moment, I have to agree that most archtypes are uninspired. Many more still have poor balance. A few don't even work as they say they do. And all stifle creativity. They obviously have not stopped power creep, and just as easily add to it. Most could be summed up as feats.
There's also the fact that archtypes are mechanically flawed. Archtypes by their nature put the designer in a strait jacket because you cannot add something without taking something else away, and the problem is that while that sounds like it prevents power creep, it only encourages it. The alchemist archtype that trades bonuses vs poison for the ability to pop summons is a great example. The superstitious barbarian is another example. You can't place abilities based on their own merits, and you have to trade it with something else. So often good abilities end up swapped for side-abilities; because who's really going to play a Barbarian who swaps Rage for something that is merely "flavor"?
With prestige classes you can put hard limits on what you want, and grant abilities based on their own merits. You can make it so abilities scale appropriately (such as scaling based on level). You could begin or end your prestige class more or less anywhere. For example, if you want to emphasize a minor theme for a character such as a natural evolutionary path for a class, then you might make the prestige class where you enter it at 2nd or 3rd level and have it only go 5 levels or so, just providing the niche benefits. Grander themes could go on a full 10 or more levels.
You also get more creativity with prestige classes. If they are well written, power creep is a non-issue in the same way that power creep from multiclassing is mostly a non-issue. I mean, not putting the "capstone" powers in the first 2 levels would be a good start. In addition, you have options as to which direction you go into the class from. Taking the assassin prestige class for example. You could go into from Rogue, Ranger, or even Bard quite easily. With a little dedication, you could enter it from other directions as well.
Ultimately, the d20 system provides us the tools to need neither class bloat nor archtype bloat. Because of the beauty that is multiclassing plus prestige classing, you can build almost any concept that you want without getting pidgeon holed into a single class, race, and so forth. You get a solid amount of control over your development. It appeals both to planners and to those who prefer "organic" development.
For example, I built a friend a "Rurouni Kenshin" styled samurai using Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue. Each class added something that contributed to the theme. I didn't need some special base class modeled specifically after Kenshin. I just used the tools already available. I wouldn't have been able to do it with any currently available archtype, and building an archtype that functioned without also making it better or worse than the existing version would have been a huge hassle.
Perhaps I'll take some time and write some prestige classes and compile them for people on the forums. Pathfinder is in serious need of some prestige classes, and while I began somewhat enthusiastic with archtypes, I have become disenchanted (borderlining on disgusted) with them amazingly quickly. Far faster than prestige classes. Sure, I facepalmed at the sheer quantity of poor prestige classes that WotC was pumping out left and right with little nod towards quality or balance, but I never stopped seeing prestige classes as a useful tool. Archtypes, however, are a failure in my eyes.
It can, if they wish, be the task of the dm to determine what classes are common, what prestige classes exist, and what archetypes there are. They absolutely do not have to allow everything, and can cut it based on what is, what simply isn't and what wouldn not fit (or only be confined to a certain area).
It is a bit of a head-ache, but it can help you to craft the setting and give it its feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there are a lot of archtypes, most of which would be awesome flavor wise(Superstitious and True Primitive, I'm looking at you) but don't stack. At this point, I think are are a bit to many...
I think Paizo through the baby out with the bathwater on this one. Prestige classes are mechanically a good idea. The problem is that they were poorly executed in 3.5, as printing prestige classes became an obvious money grab. Throw about 10-20 new prestige classes into a book and you could cover a lot of page space and make people feel like they were getting a lot of content. The truth was only about 1 out of those 20 were ever worth anything (and I don't just mean mechanically, as many prestige classes were of questionable fluff as well).
Most of the "problems" with prestige classes such as front-loading them with awesome abilities, having to wait until 6th level to do anything with them, and so forth aren't actually tied to the prestige class mechanics. Paizo showed that while something might be built in a questionable fashion, such as say the 3.5 Paladin, you can keep the good and replace the bad.
Personally I think there should be more prestige classes, and I think we should experiment with exactly what we want from a prestige class. In D20 Modern, you had only six base classes which were very generic. The system then included prestige classes (different name but same mechanics) that allowed you to specialize in a certain field if desired.
At the moment, I have to agree that most archtypes are uninspired. Many more still have poor balance. A few don't even work as they say they do. And all stifle creativity. They obviously have not stopped power creep, and just as easily add to it. Most could be summed up as feats.
There's also the fact that archtypes are mechanically flawed. Archtypes by their nature put the designer in a strait jacket because you cannot add something without taking something else away, and the problem is that while that sounds like it prevents power creep, it only encourages it. The alchemist archtype that trades bonuses vs poison for the ability to pop summons is a great example. The superstitious barbarian is another example. You can't place abilities based on their own...
Prestige classes can be great fun, but for a long time I've found variants more interesting. Sucker for the quintessential books.
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.
Pretty much this. Though it does differ greatly from class to class. For some classes, I'd never dream of picking an archetype (despite some really cool ones) because they all replace something I consider fundamental to that class, while others replace stuff I don't really care about.
Also, I think a good archetype should introduce something significant that sets it apart from the base class before level 5ish. Archetypes that replace something at 7 and again at 19 (slightly exaggerated example)? How could you ever tell you were on that archetype?
I do, overall, like archetypes. But I don't think they are a replacement for prestige classes. They each serve different purposes, so sacrificing one for the other is a bit of a shame.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel's post ignores one important downer of PrCs - late entry, game-time-wise. Nobody in my groups is even remotely interested in PrCs, because they'll get the first level of them after roughly half a year of gaming. As we are all adult job-wife-husband-kids gamers, life tends to blow up gaming groups before they get to high levels. Therefore, archetypes are much more attractive economy-wise.
And no, "this is your gaming group Gorbacz, please think of mine too" argument never works with me because I, on a very fundamental level, don't give a damn about gaming groups other than mine :)
If you want to play a highly effective 100% non-magical Intimidation-based Melee Fighter, you need to buy Ultimate MAGIC
Why? It's available free on PFSRD.
|
Ashiel's post ignores one important downer of PrCs - late entry, game-time-wise. Nobody in my groups is even remotely interested in PrCs, because they'll get the first level of them after roughly half a year of gaming. As we are all adult job-wife-husband-kids gamers, life tends to blow up gaming groups before they get to high levels. Therefore, archetypes are much more attractive economy-wise.
And no, "this is your gaming group Gorbacz, please think of mine too" argument never works with me because I, on a very fundamental level, don't give a damn about gaming groups other than mine :)
Exacly, and i don't want to wait half of the characters career to finally be what i wanted from the get go. Feats MIGHT be able to bridge that gap but then we need more of them......
I haven't read all the thread, but I am still waiting for that perfect archetype that fits my concept. I have never heard of Archetypes until PAizo were they in 3.0 or 3.5?
I have never heard of Archetypes until PAizo were they in 3.0 or 3.5?
Not by that name, but there were very similar ideas. E.g. the class variants from Unearthed Arcana and the racial class levels from the Races of XYZ books.
Ashiel's post ignores one important downer of PrCs - late entry, game-time-wise. Nobody in my groups is even remotely interested in PrCs, because they'll get the first level of them after roughly half a year of gaming. As we are all adult job-wife-husband-kids gamers, life tends to blow up gaming groups before they get to high levels. Therefore, archetypes are much more attractive economy-wise.
Same here.
Level based systems are restrictive enough. I don't want to wait five levels or more to play the powers I want, especially not when they're not really all that much better than base classes.
|
I like archetypes but feel they suffer from holes as well as bloat. Some classes, like Bard and Barbarian probably have enough or perhaps too many. Witch and a few other classes could do with a few more.
3.5 had Prestige classes out the wazoo for everything short of sewer cleaner. Among the things I point out people who say 3.5=Pathfinder is the lack of prestige classes and the lack of a need/requirement to prestige. Personally, I think they prestige classes be limited. Pathfinder could use a few more. But only a few.
We like the new class options that seem to be available to every class in the Era of Paizo. Combat feats, grit feats, ranger combat styles, rogue talents, arcane discoveries, domains, bloodlines, rage powers, evolutions, witch hexes, and so on. We're a fan of archetypes, but we're a fan of well-designed class options, even more.
We like archetypes just fine, but we think that PrCs could use some love, though. We're excited to hear more about the upcoming "Paths of Prestige" product.
Just because we would be remiss if we didn't mention it, there are some brand new, really-good, $0.99 third-party class options right here that have nothing to do with archetypes.
We know because we made them.
Also, we have to ask, because our curiosity has been piqued: Lobolusk, what would "the perfect archetype to fit your concept" be?
I can say that I personally feel overwhelmed by the number of archetypes.
I can also say that personally, I would prefer it if we had far fewer archetypes but that all of them had been open playtested (with a liaison between Jason and the board members if we drive him too crazy directly).
Because I can also say that, personally, I do like the idea of archetypes. But I feel like most of them vary too wildly in power, balance, versatility, usability, and fun-to-play factors, MUCH LIKE the way PrCs became in 3.x. And I do find it a little frustrating that Paizo sidestepped the too-much-too-fast issue with PrCs but then repeated a very similar pattern with archetypes--even if, no, I definitely don't think we've surpassed 3.x in terms of "bloat."
I wish Paizo at least limits the number of Archetypes they put in each book. And that the next archetypes be better balanced that the ones we got so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far my group has gotten a real kick out of Archetypes and put them to good use. The only thing I wish I had was a consolidated listing of them by name and which source they came from.
Have you tried d20pfsrd.com?
Ashiel's post ignores one important downer of PrCs - late entry, game-time-wise. Nobody in my groups is even remotely interested in PrCs, because they'll get the first level of them after roughly half a year of gaming. As we are all adult job-wife-husband-kids gamers, life tends to blow up gaming groups before they get to high levels. Therefore, archetypes are much more attractive economy-wise.
And no, "this is your gaming group Gorbacz, please think of mine too" argument never works with me because I, on a very fundamental level, don't give a damn about gaming groups other than mine :)
Actually, I didn't ignore it at all. I talked about there is no universal law declaring that you must have late entry into a prestige class. For example, it would be entirely possible to build a Pirate prestige class that you enter at 2nd or 3rd level for example. Archtype fans couldn't complain about such things because there are a ton of archtypes that don't even begin until 2nd level or later.
With prestige classes you can put hard limits on what you want, and grant abilities based on their own merits. You can make it so abilities scale appropriately (such as scaling based on level). You could begin or end your prestige class more or less anywhere. For example, if you want to emphasize a minor theme for a character such as a natural evolutionary path for a class, then you might make the prestige class where you enter it at 2nd or 3rd level and have it only go 5 levels or so, just providing the niche benefits. Grander themes could go on a full 10 or more levels.
^ See?
It's not even unheard of. There was at least one (very popular) prestige class in 3.5 that you entered into at 2nd or 3rd level as a wizard. The focused specialist I believe it was. You took another banned school and got themed/flavorful abilities that were associated with your specialist school. This is an example of a prestige class that represents an "evolutionary path" of an existing design theme.
For example, one could say that the "Assassin" class is an evolution of the rogue's natural abilities (rogues + sneak attack are already on that track). It could also be a natural evolution of a Ranger or Bard.
I also like the fact that prestige classes offer more variety. If you want an Arcane Archer, you're not limited to playing Fighter variant X or Wizard variant X. You could go into as a Fighter/Wizard, a Bard, a Magus, or even a 12th level elven sorcerer (who grabbed point blank and precise shot for use with rays early, then grabbed weapon focus (longbow) at 11th level).
I'm actually very low on the totem pole of pushing prestige class as organizational mechanics, but if you're going to have an organizational mechanic prestige class then they work well for that too.
/TLDR
Nope, I love archetypes. I think that there should never be any additional base classes and the archetypes should be used to define variance. Heck, I think Ranger and Paladin should be archetypes of the Fighter base class.
/TLDR
Nope, I love archetypes. I think that there should never be any additional base classes and the archetypes should be used to define variance. Heck, I think Ranger and Paladin should be archetypes of the Fighter base class.
I don't see that happening any time soon.
I could perhaps see the Paladin and/or Ranger being reskinned into PrCs (Hellknight is a great example of what a Paladin reskin could look like), but not as archetypes that share virtually zero common class abilities. The Barbarian has more in common with the Fighter than either the Ranger or Paladin.
I think Ashiel is dead on with this. Realistically, there are a number of archetypes that are virtually indistinguishable from PrCs, save that they prevent you from taking other archetypes. That's weird, to say the least.
I guess that the "level 6 PrC entry" was part of "backwards compatibility" package. Something to consider for Pathfinder 2.0 certainly!
Yes & No. If you look at the Original 3.x archetypes, they all had requirements that could not be met before Character Level 5 or 6. The Designers repeatedly said in interviews that the Prestige Classes were intended to be something you worked towards. It was the later PrC's, during the aforementioned 'PrC Bloat' where a lot of those requirements started going away & the PrC could be reached at significantly lower levels.
|
Yes, there are too many.
I find the label "archetype" to be poorly chosen. The Fighter is the archetypal fighter, everything else is just a derivation.
I understand the need to package options, it makes things easier. If Pathfinder really wanted to do something about archetypes, it should be something that transcends class. If you want to be a "swashbuckler" it should be a bunch of features that apply to a character of any class and/or race.
Now you're talking about 4e/5e "character themes," Jal Dorak. One of the better ideas to come out of the phenomenon that was 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons.
I like archetypes, though. I do feel that some of them are so minor, however, that they could have been wrapped up into a couple of rage powers / hexes / arcane discoveries / rogue talents, etc. An archetype takes up a lot of space, but a single class option does not. More class options and fewer archetypes means more pages of content.
I don't understand why people kvetch about having more choices, i.e. "bloat". That really doesn't make sense to me. There's a simple solution; you don't like 'em, you don't use 'em.
And personally, I MUCH prefer archetypes to prestige classes.
*puts 2 cents down on the counter and leaves*
|
|
I don't understand why people kvetch about having more choices, i.e. "bloat". That really doesn't make sense to me. There's a simple solution; you don't like 'em, you don't use 'em.
And personally, I MUCH prefer archetypes to prestige classes.
*puts 2 cents down on the counter and leaves*
The main reason "bloat" is a bad thing is because the more the bloat increases the easier it is for the designers to start making mistakes. When you create something for the future you always need to look back to the past material to make sure you aren't making something that's going to make some game breaking combo. The material you have, the easier it is to make these mistakes.
There might be a bloat, but at least archetypes are far more versatile than prestige classes. I see a LOT of problems with prestige classes:
- They usually don't level up your base class's abilities.
- They have requirements that are available only at mid-level.
- They something require stuff that aren't used in the prestige class, like having ranks in Perform (Dance) when a Shadowdancer doesn't even USE that skill for the abilities.
- They something require mutilclassing, further diminishing the base classes' abilities when entering a prestige class.
- They could easily be archetypes themselves. For instance, the assassin and the Red Mantis Assassin could be rogue archetypes, the battle herald and shadowdancer could be bard archetypes, the rage prophet could be a cleric archetype and so on.
Prestige classes tend to halt your base class's ability progression, but archetypes simply replace some and leave the others alone.
To be perfectly honest, I don't always use Archtypes with the intention of making my PC "better", just "different".
The problem is that they don't make PCs just different. They usually do make them either better or worse. Sometimes obviously so. There's not really much wiggle room with classes to actually make something that is specific enough or meaningful enough to justify the archtype without messing stuff up.
|
|
The main reason "bloat" is a bad thing is because the more the bloat increases the easier it is for the designers to start making mistakes. When you create something for the future you always need to look back to the past material to make sure you aren't making something that's going to make some game breaking combo. The material you have, the easier it is to make these mistakes.I don't understand why people kvetch about having more choices, i.e. "bloat". That really doesn't make sense to me. There's a simple solution; you don't like 'em, you don't use 'em.
And personally, I MUCH prefer archetypes to prestige classes.
*puts 2 cents down on the counter and leaves*
It also makes DMing more difficult, for similar reasons when things are implemented in-game.
To be perfectly honest, I don't always use Archtypes with the intention of making my PC "better", just "different".The problem is that they don't make PCs just different. They usually do make them either better or worse. Sometimes obviously so. There's not really much wiggle room with classes to actually make something that is specific enough or meaningful enough to justify the archtype without messing stuff up.
The best example of this that I can think of is the Tengue Rogue Archetype that trades Trap Sense (and nothing else) for super-mega rage-like trance.
Granted, as a player who absolutely hates the Trap Sense class feature, I'm not entirely against that ability, but I view it in the same light as the qinggong monk archetype; why NOT take it every time (at least, every time you play a tengu rogue).
Still though, 55 classes compared to Pathfinder's 22 is a massive difference...
We're up to 22 already? Bah-humbug!
Actually, we're on 20. Ninja and Samurai are archetypes.
Er...uh...
"Bah-hum...?"
:P
Actually, we're on 20. Ninja and Samurai are archetypes.
If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck... :P
Actually, we're on 20. Ninja and Samurai are archetypes.If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck... :PThen it's Barbra Streisand.
Ouch!!
Reading peoples arguments in favor of archetypes, I can't help think that idea of creating versatility / supporting flavor through archetypes is fundamentally wrong. It tries to adjust something that the level-based system does poorly, instead of adding to the strength of the system.
Customizing stats to a specific character concept is basically not what the class-based system is about. In the class-based system, you make your choices from the start, whether or not you have a distinct plan or just follow a gut feeling, those choices made will define around 90 % of how your character mechanically is going to look in the end. While multi-classing could take you in a new direction, it hardly needs mentioning since it is often so bad a choice.
A generic system, like Gurps or Savage Worlds, is a lot better at tailoring a character to the concept. Choosing every ability lets you be whoever you wanna be mechanically.
Trying to simulate this through archetypes is problematic, because it does not change the fundamentals of the system. There will always be stuff that doesn't quite fit my character concept, so the solution should be to create a new archetype.
The actual problem with archetypes arises from rules bloat. They have introduces some many new abilities, several of which are next to useless, some of which are powerwise only fit for optimized play, and a lot is simply feats-in-a-box.
The problem from rules bloat is the danger of power creep. Sadly experience shows that introducing new classes/archetypes raises the power bar. People are understandebly more interested in buying books with choices that make them go "Wow, I wanna try that" than "Meh, this is even worse than the standard monk".
In my opinion, at feat/talent solution is much better within the confines of the system. It allow players to expand their specific character from a core, instead of just adding a new number of boxes they can try to fit their character into. Feats and talents, also allow for the customizability and versatility of not being forced to make the choices at lvl 1. It goes a step further toward simulationist mechanics.
Ultimately this should been understood as an attack on the Pathfinder system. I've played Pathfinder quite a lot, and I still do, and I am likely to keep doing it. However, the introduction of 5 types of classes (core, base, alternate, archetypes, and prestige) on top of class-feature-package choices for several of them, haven't made my actual game experience better than when I used the play-test classes.
I would favor if the development of the system focused on the part that a lvl-based system does very well, instead of trying to gap the short comings.
For example, I built a friend a "Rurouni Kenshin" styled samurai using Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue. Each class added something that contributed to the theme. I didn't need some special base class modeled specifically after Kenshin. I just used the tools already available. I wouldn't have been able to do it with any currently available archtype, and building an archtype that functioned without also making it better or worse than the existing version would have been a huge hassle.
That's pretty much how revised d20 Star Wars handled their take on archetypes. They were basically a specific character concept, mapped over a number of classes across 20 levels. A few of them also replaced a class ability with something else, the way we see it in PF, but the main feature was the 'levelling path' through multiclassing.
It was very simple, but also quite elegant. And a great inspiration for constructing your own 'archetype'.
For example, I built a friend a "Rurouni Kenshin" styled samurai using Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue. Each class added something that contributed to the theme. I didn't need some special base class modeled specifically after Kenshin. I just used the tools already available. I wouldn't have been able to do it with any currently available archtype, and building an archtype that functioned without also making it better or worse than the existing version would have been a huge hassle.That's pretty much how revised d20 Star Wars handled their take on archetypes. They were basically a specific character concept, mapped over a number of classes across 20 levels. A few of them also replaced a class ability with something else, the way we see it in PF, but the main feature was the 'levelling path' through multiclassing.
It was very simple, but also quite elegant. And a great inspiration for constructing your own 'archetype'.
Agreed completely. I saw a few of those while I was running Star Wars. Very nice, very elegant, and helps the players understand the system. Star Wars took the strengths of the system and placed them out for all to see. Pathfinder spits in the face of the strengths of the system and tries to hide it from the world.