| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my relatively short time playing PF I have noticed that quite a few of the archetypes IMO lack depth - there are plenty of archetypes for each class but a lot of them are just... "Take away this, put in that".
With a system like PF that is seemingly not that keen on prestige classes, archetypes are one of the few ways to really coming up with a defining character idea.
I personally would soooooooo much prefer if there were 40-50% the number of archetypes but that each one was fleshed out properly into its niche, with a real interesting set of abilities that reflect advantages and disadvantages. I just feel that Pazio has a tendency to churn them out rather than sit down and "give life and identity to it."
I would love to get some ideas and thoughts on this.... if only to tell me that I'm barking mad! ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I view Archetypes more like alterations to be applied, and not really the means of identifying or characterizing my PC. I usually reimagine the fluff attached to the crunch, to fit elusive character concepts.
One idea would be Synthesist Summoner for creating an Iron Man-like power armor. Still dismissal, why? Cause its spends more time in a pocket dimension, so its extraplanar. It has a "voice" and can be split into two later? Duplication and AI. etc
Makes for fun
|
Issac pretty much hit it on the head Harlee. I will add that their are two type of mods that you can do for a character class:
1) Archetypes - basic tweaks in the class to allow for a builds closer to the type a character wants to run. These can be small to larger switch outs in feats and feat like class features.
2) Prestige class - There are quite a few of these that allow a major retrofit of a class type. Paths of Prestige, Inner Sea World Guide, Inner Sea Gods, and a few other books highlight these prestige classes.
What class are you looking to modify? Maybe we can begin there and help you to get to where you are looking to be.
Issac pretty much hit it on the head Harlee. I will add that their are two type of mods that you can do for a character class:
1) Archetypes - basic tweaks in the class to allow for a builds closer to the type a character wants to run. These can be small to larger switch outs in feats and feat like class features.
2) Prestige class - There are quite a few of these that allow a major retrofit of a class type. Paths of Prestige, Inner Sea World Guide, Inner Sea Gods, and a few other books highlight these prestige classes.What class are you looking to modify? Maybe we can begin there and help you to get to where you are looking to be.
I think theres been a misunderstanding?!.... I know completely how archetypes and prestige classes work. I'm not looking at any class specifically.
My point was that in general I feel that I would prefer fewer archetypes but instead ones with more depth to them and to see what other people thought.
Hence.... Breadth vs Depth
Not sure what you mean by depth here. More crunch, more fluff, or both? Or just archetypes with significant changes, like the Amnesiac Psychic, Animist Shaman, and Insinuator Antipaladin?
The problem with putting too much depth in archetypes is that they are available to first level characters. Something with a lot of depth doesn't play well with the idea of somebody who is barely off of the farm.
there's also the fact that Pathfinder is two games. One game is specifically to tell stories on the world of Golarion. The other is to tell stories in any fantasy world. They separate their books into Golarion-specific books and generic books. So many archetypes won't have a specific game world to go deep into.
Also if they just change out a few of the abilities then it potentially can stack with other archetypes give even more possible options.
I'm admittedly unknowledgeable about archetypes--I'm still running straight rogues, which from what I gather around here is apparently an exercise in futility, going by the numbers--but I guess I don't understand how to make an archetype "deep." Like said above, aren't they basically just "take away this, put in that" by design? Archetypes allow the player to change the mechanics of the character to better represent the character concept, right? The concept, or the fluff, to again echo above, is where I think of creating "depth."
I agree with the OP, to an extent. When I create homebrew classes, I'm always inclined to make the archetypes for them far more in-depth than the Paizo standards, essentially somewhere halfway between a "standard" archetype and a full-blown alternate class. As Chess Pwn rightly points out, this makes it far more likely the archetype won't stack with any or only with very few other ones, since it'll end up trading out and changing a whole bunch of class features.
I think there's merit to having both "small" archetypes that only tweak a few class features or even just one, kind of like the D&D 3.5 alternate class feature system (if I've understood correctly how that worked), as well as expansive archetypes that change a class as thoroughly as the ninja "changed" the rogue. There's definitely a shortage of the latter kind.
Cheers,
- Gears
I'd actually like more archetypes with less depth to them. Too many archetypes I like end up having something really cool in it and then a bunch of other things that change the character too much or make them too incompatible with other archetypes.
More modularity would be amazing.
Hopefully it's not a zero-sum game though. I do agree that truly tiny archetypes are almost as rare as the kind of borderline-alternate class stuff I'm jonesin' for, at least when it comes to 1st-party stuff. I like both kinds of archetypes, personally, as well as the more traditional "middle of the road" stuff, and would like to see more of either.
There's a PDF by Rite Publishing called 101 Simple Archetypes that provides some interesting "change out only a single class feature" options for various base classes. I like it myself.
In a sense, the situation with archetypes does kind of mirrors Paizo's approach to base classes. There aren't that many super-generic base classes (fighter, rogue, brawler, etc.), nor are there really any truly super-specific classes. Like, there's no "shadow magic" class, there's no "dragon warrior" class, et cetera. There's nature mages, but no exclusive plant magic class, and so on.
Also if they just change out a few of the abilities then it potentially can stack with other archetypes give even more possible options.
Something that I really dont like either!
An archetype for me represents a specialist niche, combining them seems counter intuitive.
I'm also still a little bit confused by what you mean as 'depth'
Classes are mechanically defined by a few things, HD Bab progression, and class features etc.
Most Archetypes just effect the class features, leaving other mechanical aspects (BAB, Saves and stuff like that are unchanged.) Given that, all an archetype is going to do is "Take away this, put in that."
What would be 'depth' in your opinion?
Also if they just change out a few of the abilities then it potentially can stack with other archetypes give even more possible options.Something that I really dont like either!
An archetype for me represents a specialist niche, combining them seems counter intuitive.
I feel like the opposite. Archetypes are customization tools. Being able to mix and match them to better create the character you want to play is awesome and one of the worst things is how so many archetypes are incompatible because of frivolous class features.
I would kill for a variant psychic detective that didn't replace poison and swift alchemy. Because almost every investigator archetype does and it's so frustrating! A psychic empiricist or a psychic lamplight or a psychic steel hound would all be really fun and open interesting concepts.
Also if they just change out a few of the abilities then it potentially can stack with other archetypes give even more possible options.Something that I really dont like either!
An archetype for me represents a specialist niche, combining them seems counter intuitive.
By definition in Pathfinder, an archetype is a more specialized version of the base class. A base class is designed to be a system mechanics framework for a (somewhat) "broad" type of character concept (some types of concepts being more broad than others, of course). Archetypes are attempts at providing alterations to that system mechanics framework to better suit a more specific concept within that type (rather than "just" being flavor*).
Combining archetypes, when possible, represents an even more specialized version: i.e., a monk of the four winds is an "elemental monk;" adding the monk of the sacred mountain archetype, as well, makes that particular monk more focused on the earth element without restricting access to air (electricity), fire, or water (cold).
*- or by selecting from a list of class ability options and feat choices
Unless I am completely misunderstanding things here, I do believe that by depth is meant the degree to which the archetype changes the baseline class. A "deep" archetype would mean an archetype that tweaks and changes out quite a lot of class features, all towards a distinctive niche, essentially approaching (but not quite reaching) the point where the archetype is more akin to an alternate class (a la antipaladin, ninja and samurai) than the typical Paizo archetype.
|
There are a few "Archtypes" that actually were called "Alternate Classes" in earlier books, like the Ninja and Samurai. I asked in a recent thread if there was going to be other Alternate Classes introduced in future projects, as it has been discussed lately that they were "Complicated Archtypes" in the earlier books of this product.
There is also some Archtypes that had their name used for later classes, such as Investigator, Swashbuckler and a lot of others.
I like the Paths of Prestige product a lot, one of my PFS characters is a Sleepless Detective, having been a Rogue (Investigator) before going into the PrC.
Unless I am completely misunderstanding things here, I do believe that by depth is meant the degree to which the archetype changes the baseline class. A "deep" archetype would mean an archetype that tweaks and changes out quite a lot of class features, all towards a distinctive niche, essentially approaching (but not quite reaching) the point where the archetype is more akin to an alternate class (a la antipaladin, ninja and samurai) than the typical Paizo archetype.
Exactly! I could not put it better :)
More archetypes that could be seen to approach the Alternate Classes in terms of changes.
My other issue with some of the current archetypes is that if they are improperly designed/balanced they can cause problems by creating precedents for any future archetypes, in terms of what certain class abilities are "worth".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some archetypes need to make a lot of changes to the class features in order to properly fulfill the concept. Others don't.
Zen Archer is a really different concept from the more melee-focused monk class, so it makes sense that it would also involve a large number of mechanical changes.
Monk of the Sacred Mountain is just a monk that's less focused on mobility, so once you trade away the mobility features in exchange for more toughness/stability, you are good.
On the really small end of things, Preacher is just "hey, maybe some people don't want to do this solo tactics thing - let's give them a different option." Which was just the thing for my character.
I don't think archetypes should be limited only to concepts that involve large changes to the mechanics, or to concepts that involve a small amount of tweaking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I am completely misunderstanding things here, I do believe that by depth is meant the degree to which the archetype changes the baseline class. A "deep" archetype would mean an archetype that tweaks and changes out quite a lot of class features, all towards a distinctive niche, essentially approaching (but not quite reaching) the point where the archetype is more akin to an alternate class (a la antipaladin, ninja and samurai) than the typical Paizo archetype.
At that point, why even pretend they're archetypes rather than new classes that happens to share a feature or two?
@Milo: It's not about pretending or about labels. There's no set limit on how much about a class, or what class features, an archetype is allowed to change. I personally never understood the need for the "alternate class" category, though I don't mind it. I just see them as especially in-depth archetypes. Basically, it's a question of making a judgment. Clearly there's a gradient between "this is exactly like the rogue, except it gains poison use instead of trapfinding" to "this is exactly like the wizard, except it's a spontaneous spellcaster, has different class skills, uses Charisma instead of Int, and also it gains this new class feature called bloodlines instead of bonus feats, and also it gains bonus feats but different ones called bloodline feats, and it gains Eschew Materials instead of Scribe Scroll and..." et cetera. The former is clearly an archetype, while the latter is clearly a completely new class. A lot of design ideas for archetypes fall somewhere in the middle.
I just happen to think it would be neat if Paizo created more archetypes that were closer to the difference between the ninja and the rogue than the difference between, say, between the vanilla rogue and the trapsmith rogue. This is not to say I don't also like "small" archetypes. I just like all kinds and feel like there's a bit of a dearth of the truly deep ones. I would also probably like to see more alternate classes, if that's the label that needs to be applied when an archetype becomes too deep, because I love both the antipaladin (RP issues aside) and the ninja.
@Milo: It's not about pretending or about labels.
I was more just saying that at that level of changes between base class and normal class, there is no benefit to having an archetype system. Since you have just made a set of new classes.
Hmm. I seem not to be expressing myself clearly enough. Apologies.
My only point is that there is a scale between creating something that is essentially "a rogue with one class feature changed out" and "a rogue with all class features except one changed" out. The former, at one extreme of the spectrum, we would call a minimal archetype or an alternate class feature. The latter, we would say, is really no longer a rogue and is, indeed, a wholly new class. When looking at Paizo's archetypes, I tend to feel that too many of them veer towards the "alternate class feature" end of this spectrum, rather than the "wholly new class" end. I would like to see more archetypes that change out more class features. Not so many class features that it would be more logical to simply classify them as wholly new classes, but more class features than is the Paizo average.
Does that make sense?
Hmm. I seem not to be expressing myself clearly enough. Apologies.
No I got all that.
Oh. In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "at that level of changes between base class and normal class, there is no benefit to having an archetype system"?
I am talking about a level of changes that is below the point where it would make a more sense to just create a whole new class, but above the level where I think the majority of the currently existing archetype are at.
Sorry. I'm probably totally missing some major point here. It happens quite a lot, sadly. :/
Two things:
1) Archetypes are basically just oldschool AD&D 2e kits.
2) I actually like archetypes being the way they are due to organizing aspects. Don't have to stop and read an entire new class entry to wrap my head around the concept when its an archetype. I can just go "Oh, its a monk that flurries with a bow. Gotcha."
Yeah, no, I love really tiny and medium-size archetypes as well. They can be very neat and practical and, indeed, a lot of the time you don't really need to change all that much to make a unique niche come to life. I just wish there were a few more truly big ones. Also, it's not solely about the number of class features you change out, but also which ones and for what. I definitely think the eldritch scoundrel qualifies as a "deep" archetype. The only thing it lacks, in my view, would be a handful more unique rogue talents to choose from.
Oh. In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "at that level of changes between base class and normal class, there is no benefit to having an archetype system"?
I am talking about a level of changes that is below the point where it would make a more sense to just create a whole new class, but above the level where I think the majority of the currently existing archetype are at.
Sorry. I'm probably totally missing some major point here. It happens quite a lot, sadly. :/
Basically, if most archetypes were the big sort, and the differences between the class and the archetype would be so great and basically every archetype is incompatible with nothing but the original base class, you may as well just make them as new classes and just handle it like 3.5e did where alternate class features are always tiny only change a single mechanic. Since, well there is no benefit to doing medium and small archetypes by that point.
There is also the issue of, if it changes everything why is it an archetype at all and why didn't you make this a class?
Oh, I don't mean that most archetypes ought to be that big. I'm just saying that basically none (or at least extremely few) are right now. Just a handful more that are between the eldritch scoundrel and the ninja in terms of how much they alter the core class, that's all I ask. :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying that the eldritch scoundrel is less deep than the ninja? Because I think that removing armour proficiency and slowing down sneak attack and talent progression in exchange for 6-level casting is a much bigger change than swapping out trapfinding/trap sense and giving them a ki pool and some new tricks.
In general, I'm not sure it's fair to judge the depth of an archetype by the number of changes it makes. Sensei, for example, changes many fewer features than Zen Archer, but has at least as big an effect on how the class plays. Probably a bigger effect, since you go from a skirmisher to a support/control character.
And I wouldn't want the person who designed the Sensei to replace any extra features just for the sake of having a bigger archetype - especially since that might mean making it incompatible with things like Ki Mystic or Drunken Master, which can be fun combinations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I wouldn't want the person who designed the Sensei to replace any extra features just for the sake of having a bigger archetype - especially since that might mean making it incompatible with things like Ki Mystic or Drunken Master, which can be fun combinations.
Sensei/Ki Mystic/Monk of the Lotus all fit together because they're smaller archetypes and the resulting pacifist punch-Bard is awesome.
Credit to JAMRenaissance for the idea.
@Weirdo: It's a judgment call, I suppose. I could see an argument for either the eldritch scoundrel or the ninja being the "deeper" change of the two in this instance. That's not the point, though. I'm just saying I think it would be fun if Paizo created a few more archetypes that are along the lines of either the ninja or the eldritch scoundrel. In that general ballpark, I mean.
I'm certainly not advocating for changing any already existent archetypes by making them more different than they already are from the base class. I just like the antipaladin, the ninja, the eldritch scoundrel and the Child of Acavna and Amaznen and think it would be neat-o, going forward, to see more archetypes in that general mold. How about one for every five or six teeny-tiny or mid-size archetypes printed? :P
|
|
That's a few more big archetypes than I'd aim for, but not a bad ratio.
Are there any particular concepts you think would be good candidates for really big archetypes?
I know a lot of people would have been happy if the Shapeshifter Ranger archetype went a little deeper and gave actual Wild Shape, probably in exchange for Favoured Enemy.
I personally prefer "deeper" archetypes that truly change the playstyle of a class (Zen Archer and Master of Many Styles Monk, Shield Champion Brawler, Elemental Annihilator Kineticist, etc.), but there's a place for the smaller ones, particular one sthat can stack with other smaller ones to effect a deep change.
Mutagenic Mauler/Martial Master/Eldritch Guardian Fighter, for instance. Each fairly small on their own, but adding up to an entirely different class.
I still wish they'd do away with some of the more inane archetypes though like the various "Trade Trap Sense and Trapfinding for other piddly skill bonuses!" archetypes for Rogue.
@Weirdo: I actually think the shapeshifter is a great example of an archetype that didn't go far enough in my view. I could probably come up with a handful more pre-existing ones that I personally feel would be better off if deepened, but in general, as stated, it's not so much that I feel rehauling old archetypes is something that's direly needed.
I don't have a whole slew specific concepts in mind, I've just noticed a pattern where wacky archetypes that go really deep and almost (but not quite!) change the whole base assumption of the class tend to appeal to me very strongly. Not always, but a lot of the time. In addition to the ninja, Child of A&A, eldritch scoundrel and antipaladin, I'd definitely also add zen archer to my list of favorites, as well as the synthesist (although the execution has some balance issues), mutation mind psychic (could've gone even deeper, though!) and primal hunter (pre-soul-crushing, archetype-destroying nerf).
I don't think the homunculist went far enough in creating a proper "Frankesntein" archetype for the alchemist, which is why I went ahead and created the Theriurge. I think a divine version of the summoner is something that could potentially be cool if it went a bit deeper, as well as a plant-focused druid, possibly. I've probably thought of a lot more in the past but then forgotten them. :P
Great to hear all of your thoughts!
In my mind its the depth that really grabs the imagination and fuels the roleplay.
An archetype that is like "Instead of Feat A at 1st the 'x' gets Feat B' does absolutely nothing for me... there could be 100 different ones but it wouldnt matter one bit!