Is this good advice or not?
Our group doesnt switch character classes very often so there are several base classes we've never played. I would have thought learning the rules for a base class only so I could 'unlearn' some of them later when I played an archetype would be less efficient than just learning how the archetype worked from the get-go.
The quote above seemed to meet with approval from people who know the game well though, so I wondered if there was something I'm missing.
|
It depends on how strong the base class is and how many complex mechanics it has. For instance, playing a fighter isn't that different then playing a tower shield fighter, but playing a Sohei or a Zen Archer is vastly different than playing a monk. Likewise, playing a Paladin isn't that different than playing an Oath of Vengeance Paladin, but playing a Skulking Slayer or a Knife Master is very different than playing a rogue. If the base class is very simple and strong (fighter, paladin), then the archetypes won't change it a whole lot (with exceptions, of course), but if the base class is relatively weak (monk, rogue, other) then the archetypes will be incredibly different.
So in which case do you feel they should play the base/core first? You seem to have made a case, depending on how you look at it, for it not mattering either way.
It depends on your game. If you play with one group and you keep the same characters for years at a time then the advice is junk. If you are playing with 2 or 3 groups and mostly one-shot or changes characters often then maybe the advice is ok, but it is probably still junk. Play what you want to play.
I don’t think it is necessary to play the base class before playing an archetype. Many archetypes represent common variations of the base class. This is particularly true with fighter archetypes. If my character concept is an archer why would I not use an archetype designed to make me a better archer?
Also many archetypes radically change the base class which means having played the base class is not really an advantage. The Archeologist Bard and the Zen Archer are perfect examples of this. A Zen Archer is plays completely different than the base monk.
The purposes of the archetypes are to allow you to play exactly the character you want. While the sheer amount of choices can overwhelm a new player denying them the use of an archetype may mean that they are not playing the character they want. This can lead to frustration and losing interest in the game. A better way would be for the more experienced player to help the new player build their characters.
I can see a case being made for understanding the base character thoroughly before you start discarding features you don't understand by virtue of applying an archetype, but I think it's going to be more important to a min/max approach to character design than it is to someone that simply wants to play the game.
Not everyone gets a lot of opportunities to play, so they are better playing what strikes their fancy and going with it. Even, or especially, if it is a suboptimal choice. Do what you want to do, play what you want to play. Within the limits set by Rule 0, of course.
I haven't seen anything so complicated or difficult to understand about any of the archetypes I've read/built characters from, that would lead me to think they were any more trying on a new player than the standard of that class. Either way, you're applying an abstract concept to an imaginary character.
The only possible complication I see, is having to go back-and-forth between two rulebooks to clarify what your character can do. Easily solved by cutting-and-pasting the info into a single document.
Maybe this advice comes from somebody who fears that you will somehow get the idea that ALL characters of that basic class have the abilities provided by the archetype?
And I'm sorry: I don't buy the terrible archetype-versus-good one argument. Who is going to tell you what is terrible or what is not? As a matter of personal taste, you are just asking some nosy GM to tell you how to think and play.
Is this good advice or not?
Our group doesnt switch character classes very often so there are several base classes we've never played. I would have thought learning the rules for a base class only so I could 'unlearn' some of them later when I played an archetype would be less efficient than just learning how the archetype worked from the get-go.
The quote above seemed to meet with approval from people who know the game well though, so I wondered if there was something I'm missing.
I think it depends on how well you know the game.
It depends on how strong the base class is and how many complex mechanics it has. For instance, playing a fighter isn't that different then playing a tower shield fighter, but playing a Sohei or a Zen Archer is vastly different than playing a monk. Likewise, playing a Paladin isn't that different than playing an Oath of Vengeance Paladin, but playing a Skulking Slayer or a Knife Master is very different than playing a rogue. If the base class is very simple and strong (fighter, paladin), then the archetypes won't change it a whole lot (with exceptions, of course), but if the base class is relatively weak (monk, rogue, other) then the archetypes will be incredibly different.
So suppose someone in our (very low system mastery) group wanted to play a monk for the first time and liked the sound of the Zen Archer. Do you think they should play a 'default monk' first? That seemed to be the advice given whereas from my perspective I think it would be more hindrance than help.
If you're getting this from the guy who complained about optimizers it's specific to the context.
The suggestion was made by a PFS GM to a first time PFS player wanting to play a class that is very solid and versatile, but has absolutely terrible archetypes.
Cheers. That is where I heard it, though I wondered if it was still relevant as a more general piece of advice.
New players should not use archetypes of classes that have mostly terrible archetypes. At least not if they're building their own characters. There's a lot of risk of missing the few good choices among the dross or landing on something that could be good if you really knew what you were doing but is otherwise pretty terrible.
Since you're not a new player you presumably have the experience to tell a usable archetype from a useless waste of ink and paper and how to make a difficult archetype work.
Nah - we're pretty terrible at building characters (although that's not such a big deal at our table). However, I was more interested in the general consensus (hah!) rather than specific advice for our situation.
Is this good advice or not?
Varies, some archetypes change a class entirely, others don't do much of anything, and others just add to the class. I think its just fine to start with an archetype, but its always important to understand the base class so you understand what your trading out and what you can already do. Besides, always helps to know what everyone else at the table is doing I thought.
I think it depends on how well you know the game.Is this good advice or not?
Our group doesnt switch character classes very often so there are several base classes we've never played. I would have thought learning the rules for a base class only so I could 'unlearn' some of them later when I played an archetype would be less efficient than just learning how the archetype worked from the get-go.
The quote above seemed to meet with approval from people who know the game well though, so I wondered if there was something I'm missing.
You see my thought was that if you dont know the game very well that you'd be better off not learning the base class. Rather than struggling through some new mechanics or strategies only to disregard them later. Why not just learn the archetype as your own personal view of how monks/bards/whatever work?
.I think if you know the system well, it's probably a moot point. Even building a class you've never played before - your character is likely to be superior to my favorite character class, archetype or not.
I find it helps to have a good idea and experience playing a class before fudging with it.
This applies more to newer players than ones who have been playing a while and have a good grasp of mechanics. It's easy to make a mistake stacking archetypes or not reading it clearly and ruining a character. In my mind it's easier to play a character for a while at it's base and then talk to the gm about adding an archetype you were interested in.
Older players wiht a solid grasp of mechanics can sometimes get away with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it helps to have a good idea and experience playing a class before fudging with it.
I agree with this when it comes to customized rules builds and to homebrewing stuff. Or Gestalt. Or anything similar.
But archetypes are not that. They are clearly spelled-out rules play tested by the developers, the same way the basic classes are. As I said earlier, there is no difference between applying abstract rules to your fantasy character from a basic class, or applying abstract rules to your fantasy character from an archetype.
The idea that either proves a greater challenge to a new player than the other is silly. Either way, he is learning for the first time about abstract rules being applied to an imaginary character.
Life is too short to limit your character options.
What he said! Agree completely. Why should I limit my character concept from a perfect archetype because I haven't tried it before?
|
It depends how much research a person wants to do. Playing the base class means that a new player can rely on other people's knowledge of the rules to help them fill the gaps. On an archetype that may not be the case so the person will have to rely on their own knowledge. Especially if something in the archetype conflicts with what other players expect of the base class. For a new player this can be intimidating. If they misunderstand something during the design phase they can also make mistakes that will be demoralizing down the road. That's true of any character of course, but again it's easier to get advice about a base class.
That said, I always customize my characters very heavily. But then, I get a kick out of learning rulesets and that allows me to do it effectively.
Life is too short to limit your character options.What he said! Agree completely. Why should I limit my character concept from a perfect archetype because I haven't tried it before?
I dont think the advice was that such choices should be banned - merely that they would be unwise. I didnt really understand why, although it seems that's more a function of the differences between most tables and our table.
It depends how much research a person wants to do. Playing the base class means that a new player can rely on other people's knowledge of the rules to help them fill the gaps. On an archetype that may not be the case so the person will have to rely on their own knowledge. Especially if something in the archetype conflicts with what other players expect of the base class. For a new player this can be intimidating. If they misunderstand something during the design phase they can also make mistakes that will be demoralizing down the road. That's true of any character of course, but again it's easier to get advice about a base class.
That said, I always customize my characters very heavily. But then, I get a kick out of learning rulesets and that allows me to do it effectively.
Cheers. I think I wasnt fully comprehending what it's like to play with lots of different groups/players. We havent had a 'new' player for twenty years and we'd have no problem letting someone rebuild their character if they screwed up some early choices. We dont really have a strong view about what specific classes should do either, so the expectation issue isnt really there.
They are clearly spelled-out rules play tested by the developers, the same way the basic classes are. As I said earlier, there is no difference between applying abstract rules to your fantasy character from a basic class, or applying abstract rules to your fantasy character from an archetype.
If such were the case we wouldn't have so much faq and errata.
In fact there's quite a bit of debate on whether or not certain archetypes stack whether or not you retain some abilities etc. etc.
And then there's a system mastery portion of it. What value is there if I trade one ability for another? Do they even out? Get a little better? Does it accomplish my goals? If I trade out my inspire courage for archaeologists luck will my group suffer?
For me playing the class first gives a solid grasp of interactions how the class plays level by level. Once I know that I can apply the archtype smartly being aware of what's being changed on an actual gameplay level rather than flat mechanics.
I see no reason for this advice at all.
I think it depends on how well you know the game.You see my thought was that if you dont know the game very well that you'd be better off not learning the base class. Rather than struggling through some new mechanics or strategies only to disregard them later. Why not just learn the archetype as your own personal view of how monks/bards/whatever work?Because the base classes are mostly well designed while the archetypes are mostly shovelware.
If you pick an archetype without knowing the base class chances are you're going to give up something important. Often the archetype is actually worse at what it claims to be good at than the base class (eg. all the shaman archetypes, any dex based fighter that loses armor training, the maneuver master monk, and the magician bard) Other archetypes are just overspecialized into uselessness (eg. about half of all bards, all wizards, the crossblooded sorcerer, and any multi-pet archetype) You have to know what the good abilities of a base class are before you can know if trading them away is worth it.
You don't have to have played a class to evaluate its abilities if you've played enough to know how commonly the situations where they apply come up and how significant a bonus of a given magnitude actually is.
I've never played an inquisitor or alongside an inquisitor, but I can easily say that Stern Gaze is a decent ability if and only if on a character built to demoralize in a party with someone who can take advantage of the shaken condition. I can know trading it out is very cheap in a party that doesn't care about condition stacking or unacceptably expensive in a party built for saving throw penalty stacking. Similarly I can know that an archetype that was otherwise nice but traded Slayer for a pie to the face is fine because I'm not likely to play to that level.
That makes sense.
I think better advice is don't let newbies use archetypes. Same goes for multiclassing. If they don't have a firm grasp on how the game and most classes work, archetypes just complicate it.
I think better advice is don't let newbies use archetypes. Same goes for multiclassing. If they don't have a firm grasp on how the game and most classes work, archetypes just complicate it.
Sort of, some archetypes don't change a thing and might make the experience better, and some people really need to immerse themselves in more than just simplicity to gain an understanding of things.
"Don't play a Qinggong monk until you've played a monk."
NO U
DONE. NAO U.
|
I suppose everyone is going to have their opinion on this.
When I first saw Archtypes in the APG, I thought they were a great idea to add a bit of variation to a class. I still think they are a good idea.
I tend not to use Archtypes with my characters unless I have a very specific character concept in mind.
When I play in PFS, I find the majority of players I play with have characters with archtypes. They often have two archtypes on the same character.
I find sometimes Archtypes over specialize a character. Anyways, I think encouraging a new player to start with the basics, like character classes with no archtypes seems like a good idea.
I'll toss in another voice behind the idea that it's good to know the base class before you start looking at archetypes if you care about your character's mechanics. If a player doesn't know the base class' mechanics, how will they know if a particular archetype is offering a good trade?
As for playing the base class first, I think it depends on the player in question. Some people can just look at the class' write-up and get a pretty good feel for how it all comes together, and some people learn best by doing. It can be very easy to underestimate or overestimate how valuable an ability is, especially when a player still learning the system.
That not to mention that sometimes the archetype replacement rules can get a bit complicated too.
Is this good advice or not?
Our group doesnt switch character classes very often so there are several base classes we've never played. I would have thought learning the rules for a base class only so I could 'unlearn' some of them later when I played an archetype would be less efficient than just learning how the archetype worked from the get-go.
The quote above seemed to meet with approval from people who know the game well though, so I wondered if there was something I'm missing.
Neckbeard grognard nonsense.
while i wouldnt limit someone, i do find it's easier to grasp an AT's concepts if you've played the base class(es) that comprise it's parts--for example, after having played a bard and a rogue, the player's knowledge of how to play/build the sandman and archeologist bard ATs is greatly improved.
I think it is a matter of gamer experience. If you have only a little game experience (of any kind), then stick with the base classes until you are confident.
I have played all sorts of games over many years and my first character had a couple of Archetypes, 4 winds and drunken master.