2 archetypes 1 core class


Rules Questions


Wanted to make a poisoner/scout rogue for a new campaign I am playing, and ran the idea by a senior dm. He told me it was ludicrous to think someone would allow two archetypes without atleast multiclassing or being heavily penalized. He stated that having two archetypes was overpowered, and that he could make ridiciously strong characters exploiting this.

I linked him Paizo's Class Archetypes section, telling him the rules would allow it. He said a pre-requisite for scouts was trapfinding, and that I would be breaking the rules. I did not totally get his arguments, and my representation of it here is not fair at all. Bringing up the argument is not fruitful in any way as I would be biased, so let me get to my question.

Am I according to RAW allowed to make a poisoner/scout rogue, where the core abilities simply are replaced with the new ones? If yes/no why?

ALSO, even if it's allowed through RAW, is it generally considered Overpowered or at least quite strong to make a character with two archetypes, and how easy is it to exploit?

Would you as a DM allow or disallow it for unfairness/exploiting?

Would love citations on this if you got them from reliable sources


If I understand the rules right, yes it is legal. I do not consider it OP, HOWEVER I will say this, there is potential of OP with two archtypes, but it is not easy to HAVE 2 archtypes, as certain abilities seem to be "Targeted" for changing out quicker than others (ie Weapon Training 1, Arcane Bond, etc...(


From the PRD
Alternate Class Features
Most of the options presented on the following pages include a host of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must choose to use the standard class features found in the Core Rulebook or those listed in one of the archetypes presented here. Each alternate class feature replaces a specific class feature from its parent class. For example, the elemental fist class feature of the monk of the four winds replaces the stunning fist class feature of the monk. When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain familiar class features, but replacing them with equally powerful options. All of the other class features found in the core class and not mentioned among the alternate class features remain unchanged and are acquired normally when the character reaches the appropriate level (unless noted otherwise). A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.

A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.

-bolding mine
--So yeah, official rule from the Paizo-run reference site


As for how OP it is, it depends on the archetypes in question and what kind of campaign you're in. Most archetypes make you more specialized in certain areas, which is good in campaigns with themes that match your specialization. But in general archetypes are considered weaker than their original class.

But all that aside, remember that the GM has the final call. If you find your GM being too unreasonable, then excuse yourself from the campaign.


I cant really get behind the concept of it being OP, generally the only classes that can pull it off are martials to begin with, and even at their most powerful they aren't going to have the same impact as a well played archetypeless level 9 caster.

OP in comparison to base book non archetyped versions of the class? Maybe...OP in a low powered party, quite possibly...OP in the face of core primary casters played decently, not a chance.


Prior to Unchained, pretty much the only viable way to make a viable monk was to take *at least* two archetypes (and sometimes four at a time for less straightforward builds) so there's nothing remotely "overpowered" to stack archetypes within the rules. You're always giving up something for what you get, you're just trading something you care less about like for something you like more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They stack just fine. Scout replaces Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge, while Poisoner replaces Trapfinding and Trap Sense. Since they change entirely different features, both can be taken together.

And your GM was actually worried that your Rogue would be overpowered? Your Rogue?


As already explained combining archetypes is allowed by the rules, as long as you don't replace any of your class features twice. Most of the time this should be the reason why it isn't overpowered, as by chosing two archetypes you also give up more core features. The overall power doesn't really change most of the time.

Of course there are some archetypes that are considered very good and there may be ways to combine two of those, but it's not something that caused problems in the past as far as I am aware.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stokkem wrote:
ALSO, even if it's allowed through RAW, is it generally considered Overpowered or at least quite strong to make a character with two archetypes, and how easy is it to exploit?

It is allowed. If your DM doesn't allow it, it's a house rule.

It is not generally considered overpowered. At all. Archetypes rarely grant something that is universally more powerful than what it replaces in the base class. There are a few exceptions, but they are only marginally better and they almost never stack with any other good archetypes.
The Scout archetype is one of those who are considered better than the base class (which doesn't mean a whole lot, since the base class is the Rogue). The Poisoner is about as useless as the base class. - You really shouldn't be penalized for playing this. An basic Alchemist is way stronger than this.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I believe there is even some Archtypes that were meant to be used with others or have very little they replace that it works with a lot of others.

A lot of the problem is that Archtypes for a Rogue usually replace the same things like Trapfinding and Uncanny Dodge. Not very many are able to be used together like these, and usually the odd taken with the other is a lesser Archtype that doesn't add much when combined with the other.

Scarab Sages

One thing to keep in mind when modifying classes with archetypes and such, is that players often assume certain classes are able to do certain things. Not an issue for a homebrewed game since you have more time to explore your options with the party, but in PFS where the party is assembled for that session only, it can be unpleasently unexpected for other players when your character can't do core things that your class should be able to do.

I did a Trapper Ranger once, which is a nice set of options, but one of the big drawbacks is that you don't have a spell list, so you need UMD checks to use Wands. I didn't take UMD as a trained skill, so our healerless party was very disappointed that I couldn't use wands (A common PFS practice for players that can't use wands, to buy them anyway, so other party members can use them to heal the party).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If somebody wants to guarantee accessibility of healing in a pick-up game, they should play a character that gets access to healing. Being disappointed because someone else also isn't playing the type of character you're not seems silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

TWO ARCHETYPES ENTER! ONE CLASS LEAVES!

Scarab Sages

fretgod99 wrote:
If somebody wants to guarantee accessibility of healing in a pick-up game, they should play a character that gets access to healing. Being disappointed because someone else also isn't playing the type of character you're not seems silly.

We were all pretty disappointed that game. It wasn't just directed at me. Not having a healer was a big mistake. The few characters with UMD kept rolling really badly. I think I even got blinded, as the curse, at some point in that session. We just all rolled really badly all game.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If somebody wants to guarantee accessibility of healing in a pick-up game, they should play a character that gets access to healing. Being disappointed because someone else also isn't playing the type of character you're not seems silly.
We were all pretty disappointed that game. It wasn't just directed at me. Not having a healer was a big mistake. The few characters with UMD kept rolling really badly. I think I even got blinded, as the curse, at some point in that session. We just all rolled really badly all game.

Oh I've been there. That always sucks when it feels like the dice gods have it out for you.

I just wanted to comment on the expectations part. People shouldn't ever have to feel like they get stuck playing Healbot 2.0. If someone want to play a dedicated healer, go for it! There's definitely a role to fill and there are some interesting builds and character ideas to that end. But just because the other party members decided they want to play something different shouldn't obligate a person to fill a role nobody else did (I'm not trying to suggest this is what you were arguing for, by the way).

And even if you play a class traditionally associated with one particular role doesn't mean you have to excel at filling that role, either. It's up to the party to find creative ways to fill the void, if one exists.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / 2 archetypes 1 core class All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.