Orthos |
Haladir wrote:
Rynjin wrote:The idea there is to get an idea of what the vanilla version of the class is like before you start monkeying with it.Haladir wrote:I have a problem with this one, since there's a few classes I don't want to play without a certain archetype (I don't like regular Warpriests, but Sacred Fist is cool, I much prefer MoMS Monks to regular, etc.).
Archetypes considered on a case-by-case basis. Check with GM before proceeding. You may not take an archetype if it's the first time you've played that class in a regular campaign.
Unfortunately, I think the main result you'd get more often than not is some people just never playing certain classes.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Rynjin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haladir wrote:
Rynjin wrote:Haladir wrote:I have a problem with this one, since there's a few classes I don't want to play without a certain archetype (I don't like regular Warpriests, but Sacred Fist is cool, I much prefer MoMS Monks to regular, etc.).
Archetypes considered on a case-by-case basis. Check with GM before proceeding. You may not take an archetype if it's the first time you've played that class in a regular campaign.
The idea there is to get an idea of what the vanilla version of the class is like before you start monkeying with it.
The archetypes (the good ones, anyway) can often end up drastically changing the class however. Meaning someone who is not at all interested in the basic class might be interested in an archetype.
Cavalier vs Daring Champion Cavalier.
Monk vs MoMS or Martial Artist Monk.
Warpriest vs Sacred Fist Warpriest.
Inquisitor vs Sacred Huntmaster or Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor.
Alchemist vs Vivisectionist Alchemist.
You get the idea.