Why do people make duplicate archetypes, often setting specific, only slightly better than an already existing archetype?
I mean, I get the whole. "I wanna make X, but the option for making X isn't quite as good as I'd want it to be, so I'll make my own." but the fact of the matter is that having say, Dawnflower Dervish, makes every other Dervish Dancer player feel like a fool for picking his archetype.
Especially since it comes from a setting specific book and references a setting specific deity, effectively making it off limits.
I just don't really understand why people don't either upgrade the existing archetype to be closer to par, or settle for it as is, instead of making a 'in this particular setting, this particular type of character is slightly better' type of archetype.
Dawnflower Dervish and Dervish Dancer are both for Bard, aren't they?
I just kinda don't like the 'our dervishes are special' vibe I get from the dawnflower one. Especially since it's slightly more powerful.
Also, in general, making duplicates just makes for a less streamlined, less intuitive system.
A bloating of prestige classes is part of what annoyed me in 3.5, I'd hate to think Pathfinder was going the same way
The only thing similar about them is their name and initial ability. The Dervish Dancer is obviously meant to be more of a mobile combatant and loses much of its bardic abilities. The Dawnflower Dervish is more focussed on battle casting and retains several bardic abilities that the Dancer loses.
One is setting-specific, and the other is not.
Creative Director
|
My only complaint about archetypes is that they're too limiting. And when you take a relatively wide-reaching concept, such as a pirate, or a swashbuckler, or in this case a dervish, there's several classes that would excel at the role. When you make an archetype though, you can really only do that archetype for one of those classes. (We experimented a little with archetypes that can be taken by multiple classes in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide but I think that experiment proved that it's not a good idea to do that.)
As a result, for some types of archetypes, there are multiple options that are similar in name or theme, but apply to different classes. Often these archetypes are designed by different writers and developed by different developers—and that's okay with me, since in the long run, they SHOULD end up pretty close in power. But some will certainly end up perceived better than others. That is, to a large extent, an unavoidable result of the type of game Pathfinder is, and whether or not any one archetype IS better is kind of subjective.
After all, if everything WERE truly equal, there wouldn't be as many options needed. And options are one of the "killer apps" for Pathfinder.
|
(We experimented a little with archetypes that can be taken by multiple classes in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide but I think that experiment proved that it's not a good idea to do that.)
Really? What went badly? I mean, at least getting the ability to be an all-level "Trap-Person" as a caster was really cool. I could see where using the idea a LOT would be bad, though...