Since in almost all cases an archetype exhanges one class feature for another, what if a character simply didn't wish to make that swap? What is a Sea Singer didn't want to trade well-versed for a monkey familiar but liked everything else about the archetype? What if a Lore Warden liked everything about the archetype except he wanted to keep his armor and shield profeciences instead of gaining the extra skill points?
Now I understand that in some cases, these swaps aren't really 1 for 1, that the relative power level of the entire archetype is being taken into account, and what might seem like a bad trade with one set of class features could be made up for by a good trade in another... but let's bench for the moment the never-ending obsession with acheiving perfect balance in a game where characters are incredibly diverse and circumstances so extraordinary, so variable and so unpredictable.
In fact, let's take it one step further - what would be your thoughts about a cafe-style approach to the classes, meaning that all of the features offered up in all of the archetypes were available as 'customizing options' to the base class at the listed swap-out cost. If a Bard gives up Well-Versed for one thing, they obviously can't give it up for another, but with that understanding, doesn't it really open up a world of options for character-building, allowing players to get closer and closer to the unique gaming experiences they want?
I'd be interested in hearing some thoughts on that as an approach to Pathfinder and character-building. The first thought that comes to mind is that it seems martials would benefit most, and isn't that something people have been clamoring for for a while?
Some archetype abilities don't replace anything. Would you just allow people to take them or not as they see fit?
Super Genius Games is doing that with their line of "Talented" classes.
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8xoo?The-Genius-Guide-to-the-Talented-Fighter
I'd suggest starting with a structure that avoids the swaps which aren't 1 = 1. Just to get your basic idea down. I've been considering doing something similar as a GM/Homebrew tool, but I am terribly lazy.
There's a similar table drawn up for 3.5 in existence and it makes for a very handy tool to developing new classes based on existing frameworks.
It could be an interesting system in character generation, but the amount of checks and balances to avoid any sort of exploitation would be mind-numbing.
I'd be interested in hearing some thoughts on that as an approach to Pathfinder and character-building. The first thought that comes to mind is that it seems martials would benefit most, and isn't that something people have been clamoring for for a while?
I'd be cool with it! I'm not a big fan of the wholesale gig archetypes try to sell me. Something I can customize myself sounds pretty awesome for meeting character concepts. Less looking at charts too.
Downside to anything mechanical though is that people tend to weed out the lesser things and go for the awesome ones. In a world with perfect balance it sounds great!
I'm usually pretty relaxed about allowing players to customize the class a little, as long as it feels like an even trade-off. Perfect balance is something that I feel will never be in the game to start with, and simply isn't worth the bother of pursuing.
I find it tends to work best when the player says what they want, and the GM then decides what they have to lose to get it (which could be anything from losing a class feature or some attribute points to having some kind of flaw or disability added to their character, for example poor eyesight or a limp that prevents them from running)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP, what you seem to be looking for are Alternate Class Features. They're something 3E did a lot of, and PF has avoided like the plague, much to my dismay. While the ACF's weren't always balanced trades, they at least tried to be 1-for-1 and were supposed to be. Sometimes all you want is to get one specific ability, or to get rid of a specific class feature you don't like or doesn't fit your theme. ACF's let you do that. Archetypes largely...do not.
It's especially frustrating because it seems like a lot of times, paizo tacks on additional little swaps gaining and/or losing little insignificant crap you don't care about, just so it DOESN'T end up being a single major swap and effectively becoming an ACF. And then of course, tons of archetypes will use the same little class features to fill out their word count, and then you can't combine them because they both give up your 18th level +2 to will saves or whatever. I mean, a lot of archetypes could easily be pared down into the ACF's they yearn to be. Look at Wild Rager and Urban Barbarian. They both get rage variants, both seem roughly balanced swaps (well, the uncontrolled rage is godawfulhorrible for Barb 20 but excellent for Barb dippers)...why can't they just be ACF's for any barbarian to choose from if he wants a differently flavored rage? Does anyone seriously give a s**t about having +1 AC when fighting in a crowd? It's such blatant filler.
And it's just bad design. So many archetpyes are so blatantly not fair trades early on, either too good or too awful (some -- like various alchemist archetypes that remove low level class features and reduce bomb damage -- may make you give up stuff early and not even provide any benefit at all until level 5 or so!), because they figure "we'll make up for it later." Guess what, geniuses? A lot of players may never get to play in the campaign long enough to reach that "later on!" Others will start at high levels and get the cool possibly overly sweet higher level toys without having to suffer the disproportionate loss at lower levels. It's just...it's infuriating.
OP, what you seem to be looking for are Alternate Class Features. They're something 3E did a lot of, and PF has avoided like the plague, much to my dismay. While the ACF's weren't always balanced trades, they at least tried to be 1-for-1 and were supposed to be. Sometimes all you want is to get one specific ability, or to get rid of a specific class feature you don't like or doesn't fit your theme. ACF's let you do that. Archetypes largely...do not.
It's especially frustrating because it seems like a lot of times, paizo tacks on additional little swaps gaining and/or losing little insignificant crap you don't care about, just so it DOESN'T end up being a single major swap and effectively becoming an ACF. And then of course, tons of archetypes will use the same little class features to fill out their word count, and then you can't combine them because they both give up your 18th level +2 to will saves or whatever. I mean, a lot of archetypes could easily be pared down into the ACF's they yearn to be. Look at Wild Rager and Urban Barbarian. They both get rage variants, both seem roughly balanced swaps (well, the uncontrolled rage is godawfulhorrible for Barb 20 but excellent for Barb dippers)...why can't they just be ACF's for any barbarian to choose from if he wants a differently flavored rage? Does anyone seriously give a s**t about having +1 AC when fighting in a crowd? It's such blatant filler.
And it's just bad design. So many archetpyes are so blatantly not fair trades early on, either too good or too awful (some -- like various alchemist archetypes that remove low level class features and reduce bomb damage -- may make you give up stuff early and not even provide any benefit at all until level 5 or so!), because they figure "we'll make up for it later." Guess what, geniuses? A lot of players may never get to play in the campaign long enough to reach that "later on!" Others will start at high levels and get the cool possibly overly sweet higher level toys without having to...
While I might not be quite as passionate about it (little experience with 3.5), I echo your sentiments. I understand what they were trying to get to with Archetypes, but in many cases it would be so much easier if they had just given us multiple legal 'swaps' for abilities. Your Rage examples are perfect.
What I'll probably do at some point is go through each archetype and annotate which abilities I'll allow as legal 'swaps' and then ditch the archetypes altogether. The problem is that, while obviously you can do as you please in homebrew games, making big changes like that often makes my players feel as if they aren't playing 'real' Pathfinder, aren't playing by the rules... they tend to want to work within the established frame they chafe at it from time to time.
What I'll probably do at some point is go through each archetype and annotate which abilities I'll allow as legal 'swaps' and then ditch the archetypes altogether. The problem is that, while obviously you can do as you please in homebrew games, making big changes like that often makes my players feel as if they aren't playing 'real' Pathfinder, aren't playing by the rules... they tend to want to work within the established frame they chafe at it from time to time.
Well, to be honest to me it would be like going back to 3.5 where instead of having to toss out my fast movement for a different kind of rage I could just nab whirling frenzy and throw out fast movement for something else.(Notably, pounce!)
It'd still largely be the same game imo, just with less tacked on trade offs to archetypes that take away from the player. In my experience even small changes for the better make it feel like a homebrew, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone plays with houserules, even PFS in its own way.
Super Genius Games is doing that with their line of "Talented" classes.
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8xoo?The-Genius-Guide-to-the-Talented-Fighter
this, people! Its already been done, in fact it takes it a step further by converting the classes into a modular setups.
this, people! Its already been done, in fact it takes it a step further by converting the classes into a modular setups.
I don't tend to spend money unless I have to, which is why I don't have any significant bills, as I've paid everything off early. Anytime I ask myself if something I want to buy is something I could do myself and the answer is yes, I do it myself and add the cash I would have spent to my daughter's college fund.
In essence, I'm cheap/frugal/thrifty/whatever - I prefer to think of it as financially savvy.
Many others on this board are young, in college, more bills than they can handle, or what have you, and that $5 might be a choice of eating or buying a PDF.
I'm not knocking you or the product, just saying there's no reason not to do it. By the way, my two year old would thank you and Calethos - I just had to add another bit of cash to her fund.=)
Class features, feats, talents, traits, etc. They should all be lumped together in the same grab bag. You should be able to pick anything so long as you qualify for it. Easier sad than done, though...
It's especially frustrating because it seems like a lot of times, paizo tacks on additional little swaps gaining and/or losing little insignificant crap you don't care about, just so it DOESN'T end up being a single major swap and effectively becoming an ACF.
Agreed, you can see perfect examples of this in several class archetypes, such as the rogue; most of them seem little more than an afterthought and should probably be feat-equivalent or just talents.
I have done some thing close to this. For example if fighter takes an Archetype give up armor training at some level then you spend feat to get that power back at one your next odd level feats. It give you the basic ability if it advance in level then would still advanced the same way.
Class features, feats, talents, traits, etc. They should all be lumped together in the same grab bag. You should be able to pick anything so long as you qualify for it. Easier sad than done, though...
Well, for me, to be honest, the ideal game syste, indeed lumps all of those things together along with skills and attributes and everything is assigned a relative point value. Characters don't level up, the recieve points they can spend on those many, many options to create their own unique characters. Its how the game system I designed worked, and worked well.
There is Kirthfinder as well, which also breaks down most archetype abilities into options as well.
|
Power-level issues aside, this definitely would cut down on bookkeeping.
With the current archetype system, if I choose an archetype from the APG, then every time I level up I have to check the CRB for what I'd normally get at level-up, then cross-reference it with the archetype in the APG to see if anything I would've gotten has been replaced by my archetype (and at most levels, it usually hasn't been, but I still need to check at every level unless I've memorized what features I'm going to trade out).
If, instead, each new book simply introduced alternate class features, then the only book I need when I level up is the book my class is in. If I find my new class feature disappointing, then I can poke through the other books and find something to swap it for, but I don't have to worry about it if I don't feel like it.
I'd definitely give it a try.
|
Regarding keeping track across multiple books when using one or more archetypes: what I do is go to the PRD for the base class and copy that text. I then paste the text into a Word doc and take a couple minutes to do whatever formatting I like so it looks nice. Then I go to the archetype(s) I will be using and copy each relpacement ability and paste it in my Word doc, replacing the text of the class feature it replaces.
Be sure to update the main class table by level as well.
The entire process takes less than a half hour (at most!) and you end up with evertything for your 'custom' class in one place, which makes going up in levels with a snap :)
The MCA multiclass archetype threads should also be mentioned here..
Also (some?) SGG Talented line archetype packages are in the PFSRD.
Wiggz, the game you are talking about has been invented, and not just by you. GURPS is a full-on point buy system that is as complex as you want through the use of optional rules. It's really superb.
My group basically does what you're talking about, pending GM approval. It doesn't break the game. As long as all the players are on the same power level, there's no issue.