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.
Yep, it does have over 100. It has more of you count 3.5 archetypes (alternate class features: you trade one ability for another. Like Ranger trades combat styles for weaker version of wild shape)
The pathfinder version of archetypes is more frequent (3.5 had them scattered throughout books).
Prc are dipped because they suck at one level or another, if all Prc were fun, great, interesting throughout, they wouldn't need to be dipped.
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...
The problem is they either rewrite early feats or reintroduce 3.5 feats (ala Cleaving Finish is 3.5 Cleave feat).
Worse they make PF version required to 3.5 feat.Archeytpes have no preqs, feats do: so archetypes seems better.
If they stop making archetypes that trade unfairly, it would better. Tongues isn't worth cha to saves.
There is not an archetype bloat. Why, do you ask? Because NOBODY makes you even use them. Archetypes allow you to assign a different flavor of a given class to an area/race/culture. I do believe it is a massive mistake on a GM's part to try & allow all of them in the game to any player that wants them. If the premier bowman of the world are all elves, then do not allow anybody but the elves to take the archer archetype for the fighter. All other archers are fighters that specialize in the bow through traditional feats. Archetypes should never be allowed into play "just because" they are in the rule books.
The closest I see to bloat is when you see 3 different archetypes for the same class that basically do the same thing.
There is not an archetype bloat. Why, do you ask? Because NOBODY makes you even use them. Archetypes allow you to assign a different flavor of a given class to an area/race/culture. I do believe it is a massive mistake on a GM's part to try & allow all of them in the game to any player that wants them. If the premier bowman of the world are all elves, then do not allow anybody but the elves to take the archer archetype for the fighter. All other archers are fighters that specialize in the bow through traditional feats. Archetypes should never be allowed into play "just because" they are in the rule books.
The closest I see to bloat is when you see 3 different archetypes for the same class that basically do the same thing.
By that argument there was never base class or prestige class bloat in 3.5. So if someone is going to claim archtypes are a solution vs prestige classes (as Paizo seems to be pushing), you have to accept that sometimes a pile of useless options is as annoying as few options to begin with.
Sorry but I don't exactly want to pay 20-30 bucks for a book that is comparable to a mine field for the number of traps and worthless stuff, when the good stuff could have been published in a pamphlet or 32 page or less sourcebook for a few $s. That was one of the biggest problems I had with most of the 3.x splatbooks. Well over a hundred pages, with only about 20 pages of meaningful content.
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'.
That is also how Mongoose's Conan rpg used to handle "archetypes" as well.
Mainly based off pure archetype specific content which I did not count alternate/archetype classes such as anti-paladin/ninja/samurai (although I technically could), subdomains, arcane schools, or other general class specific abilities as part of these numbers. Options like oaths and traps were included as they are integral to the archetypes located in UM in this case.
APG: There are around 43 pages. That is roughly 13% of the book.
UM: Around 39 pages. That is roughly 15% of the book.
UC: Around 44 pages. That is roughly 17% of the book.
ARG: Around 50 pages, condensing across races as many are not even a full column in length. That is roughly 20%.
I could give examples of complete sections in each of those books that I might find personally "useless". The issue there is that such specific preferences as to what is worthy to include is subjective and thus baseless to depend on when deciding value of a product. Luckily no one forces anyone to buy products, unless you fail your will save every time you see a new product that is.
Mainly based off pure archetype specific content which I did not count alternate/archetype classes such as anti-paladin/ninja/samurai (although I technically could), subdomains, arcane schools, or other general class specific abilities as part of these numbers. Options like oaths and traps were included as they are integral to the archetypes located in UM in this case.
APG: There are around 43 pages. That is roughly 13% of the book.
UM: Around 39 pages. That is roughly 15% of the book.
UC: Around 44 pages. That is roughly 17% of the book.
ARG: Around 50 pages, condensing across races as many are not even a full column in length. That is roughly 20%.
I could give examples of complete sections in each of those books that I might find personally "useless". The issue there is that such specific preferences as to what is worthy to include is subjective and thus baseless to depend on when deciding value of a product. Luckily no one forces anyone to buy products, unless you fail your will save every time you see a new product that is.
It's more like a bad bundle. Thankfully I don't play PFS, but last I heard you had to own the resource you're drawing stuff from. Likewise, if something out of the book is good, then you're going to end up paying for that something along with the stuff that is useless. And while useless is subjective, many of us here (even those who really like archtypes) will admit that a lot of the prestige classes could be summed up that way. Either they are poorly thought out, cripple a character, are strait out broken (IE - do not work), or are redundant.
This was my biggest complaint with 3.5 splatbooks. Tons upon tons of options and really only a few of them were good. The entire reason we look at 3.5 and think "prestige class bloat" is because, as with many archtypes, WotC didn't seem to be trying for quality over quantity. It was pretty clearly quantity. You could go around and scoop up all the "Completes" and probably compile all the worthwhile stuff that wasn't A) a trap, B) redundant, C) grossly nonfunctional (unplayably bad, or game destroyingly amazing), and compile all of it in a single book. In fact, that would probably be a truly amazing book. You'd be able to consolidate your whole 3.5 library into...
Rules Compendium
"The Complete Complete"
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Tome of Battle
Tome of Magic.
/3.5
i want to see a dex/int based rogue archtype that focuses less on traps and sneak attack but gets full BAB, decent fortitude, and focuses on unarmed combat and daggers. like a pseudo monk that deals nasty damage.
i want to see a dex/int based rogue archtype that focuses less on traps and sneak attack but gets full BAB, decent fortitude, and focuses on unarmed combat and daggers. like a pseudo monk that deals nasty damage.
Sounds like a prestige class to me.
...or a Ranger/Fighter.
There is not an archetype bloat. Why, do you ask? Because NOBODY makes you even use them. Archetypes allow you to assign a different flavor of a given class to an area/race/culture. I do believe it is a massive mistake on a GM's part to try & allow all of them in the game to any player that wants them. If the premier bowman of the world are all elves, then do not allow anybody but the elves to take the archer archetype for the fighter. All other archers are fighters that specialize in the bow through traditional feats. Archetypes should never be allowed into play "just because" they are in the rule books.
The closest I see to bloat is when you see 3 different archetypes for the same class that basically do the same thing.
By that argument there was never base class or prestige class bloat in 3.5. So if someone is going to claim archtypes are a solution vs prestige classes (as Paizo seems to be pushing), you have to accept that sometimes a pile of useless options is as annoying as few options to begin with.
Sorry but I don't exactly want to pay 20-30 bucks for a book that is comparable to a mine field for the number of traps and worthless stuff, when the good stuff could have been published in a pamphlet or 32 page or less sourcebook for a few $s. That was one of the biggest problems I had with most of the 3.x splatbooks. Well over a hundred pages, with only about 20 pages of meaningful content.
Actually, that was how I saw it. There wasn't a bloat, unless you felt compelled to use everything. I had all the books & never allowed things that didn't fit my game. My definition of bloat came from all of the blatant crap put out just for word count. With Paizo, you don't usually pay a lot for crap. If it is a $20-$30 book, you may not like all of it, but it is good. Also, if it has questionable need in your campaign, then you could just buy the PDF, which are reasonably priced.
Also, if Paizo just wanted archetypes, they wouldn't have a Prestige Class book coming out for those that prefer them. I like both approaches. Some things are better as an archetype, some as a new class, and some as a PrC. I prefer the Magus over the Eldritch Knight, but I see a place for both in the game. I even see the Eld Knight as viable for the Magus that wants to be a better warrior.
I think most of it comes down to the needs of your game. You may not like all of the archetypes, or prestige classes, or base classes. Please be mindful others do like those options. Paizo puts products out for all of the gamers of Pathfinder. Not just your group.
i want to see a dex/int based rogue archtype that focuses less on traps and sneak attack but gets full BAB, decent fortitude, and focuses on unarmed combat and daggers. like a pseudo monk that deals nasty damage.Sounds like a prestige class to me.
No way to do that as a prestige class as it would have to give more than 1 BAB per level to compensate for BAB lost on Rogue levels you had to take before entering that PrC.
What Shuriken Nekogami asks would be a decent archetype for a Ranger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see archetype bloat. I see options for those that want them. One person may not have a use for something, but someone out there will.
If they stopped doing archetypes because people claimed there were too many, then some of the ones I am interested in in ARG would not be there.
