Any written wizard where? PF wizard have roughly the same flavor as the AD&D Magic User, and that's what they were built for. (beside the odious nerfing that took place between 1st and 3.75 ed)
Limitations are not necessarily deisrable, if you want a wizard with liitation, why don't you go play Mage the Ascension? or for old style flavor, say Dragon Quest or Chivalry and Sorcery? those had flavor and specialisation and limitations...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's perfectly fine to say that Wizards would be better with some more stringent limitations. They certainly have room to take a nerf in stride. However, the Thassilonian Wizard fails at this due to locking you into specific opposition schools, leaving only a handful of specialization options viable. Even if it didn't come with this lock-in, the schools of magic are simply not well balanced enough to create an interesting trade-off. Conjuration and Transmutation together are better than the other six schools of magic combined. Forcing eliminated access to less important schools only increases the prominence of the two "god" schools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are kind of formless blobs of lame at high levels, but Thassilons don't really change that because the issues with Wizards stem from their spells. Instead you just exacerbate the problems with certain schools based on what they ban.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that it does and can. You can almost entirely ignore the Summoning aspect of the Archetype as extra icing on the cake in order to build a Battle Cleric almost exactly as you would a "Battle Cleric" without the Archetype, that trades out a bit of AC for more Skill Points, (which is pretty much the major issue with the Battle Cleric). Furthermore, a dip into Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/etc. . . can get you most of the things you give up if you want to view it that way. (Not sure I would consider that power gaming or gaming the system as a Battle Cleric is likely to do this already, you would just get a slightly better benefit for it for slightly less drawbacks in the end).With respect to the Herald Caller: A neat archetype. I'll definitely grant that it's a better_2 cleric than the cleric, especially if you want to go the summoning-cleric route.
Less confident it better fits the idea behind the cleric than the cleric; i.e., that it's a better_1 cleric than the cleric. It seems you have to play a summoning-type given this archetype, but there are a number of cleric tropes that don't fit that kind of character, no?...
First, I pretty much agree with everything of substance you say here.
Second, I think we're thinking of "better_1" in slightly different ways. (And this is my fault, not yours; I haven't been clear enough about what I had in mind.)
I think you're thinking of an archetype as a "better_1" than a class to the extent that it allows you to better build many of the characters the class naturally suggests. So the reason the Herald Caller is a better_1 cleric than the cleric (in this sense) is that you could better build summoner characters using it, and build other characters pretty much just as well even if you ignore the summoning stuff. I agree with that.
But I was thinking of an archetype as being "better_1" than a class to the extent that, when I look at the archetype, I'm inclined to think "this is what the default class should have been like" (or perhaps just "huh, this archetype does a nice job of capturing the idea behind the class; they could have reasonably made this the default class instead"). So the reason the Herald Caller archetype doesn't strike me as being a better_1 cleric than the cleric (in this sense) is because the focus on summoning built into the archetype seems too specialized, in a manner that seems detached from the idea of the cleric, for it to have been the default class. I.e., it would seem weird to me if the Herald Caller was the default class because the focus on summoning seems a bit idiosyncratic given the idea behind the cleric.
Third, I've been making periodic comments about how plausible some suggestions are with respect to the particular notion of "betterness" I originally had in mind, but that's just because this was the question I started with. But I find the question "what archetypes do a class better than the class" to be interesting for all of these different notions of betterness. So there's no particular reason for anyone to restrict their discussion to my understanding of the question, and given the interesting debate that's ensured, I'm glad people haven't!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thassilonian Sin Specialist does wizard better than wizard in my opinion. A scholar deeply focused on ancient and arcane rituals learning magic to fulfill his/her deepest desires fits better thematically when the drawback for focus is actually a drawback. And mechanically, the bonus spell/level makes early levels easier, and helps with popular roles like blasting or summoning. Plus removing tools from a wizard's toolkit can help to balance most levels. As a GM, I would personally allow and even advocate letting players choose forbidden schools and have divination as an option.
That's a cool suggestion. I also find the core wizard a bit boring and homogeneous. And, as you note, the Sin specialist makes the different kinds of wizard much more varied and interesting, makes the early levels easier, and helps balance the power-level of the wizard a bit. In light of that, I wouldn't mind (and in fact, might prefer) playing in game where something like this was the default wizard. Nice! I like it!
The problem with the Thassilonian specialist is that you completely lose access to your opposition schools and those opposition schools are locked in by your specialist choice. This pretty much makes the Evocation, Illusion, and Enchantment specialist schools unviable. You lose access to completely critical spells. Necromancy also suffers from its Abjuration opposition; normally an Abjuration opposition can be handled, but completely losing access to the school is crippling at high levels. Abjuration has great opposition schools, but due to the very long duration typical of Abjuration spells gains very little from the duplicate spell slot. That leaves Conjuration and Transmutation as the only really viable options for Sin Specialist. This isn't displacing a regular Wizard, not at all.
...the Thassilonian Wizard fails at this due to locking you into specific opposition schools, leaving only a handful of specialization options viable. Even if it didn't come with this lock-in, the schools of magic are simply not well balanced enough to create an interesting trade-off. Conjuration and Transmutation together are better than the other six schools of magic combined. ...
...but these points are well taken. This dampens some (but not all!) of my initial enthusiasm for the suggestion. In particular, the points about the lack of balance between the different schools (and in particular Conjuration and Transmutation versus the rest), and the inability of some schools (and in particular the Abjuration school) to make use of the duplicate slot effectively, are pretty damning.
(Especially the second point. I could kinda come to terms with the idea deal with the fact that some specialities are significantly better than others (though I wouldn't be happy about it), if all of the specialities were at least fun to play. But I have a hard time seeing how the Abjuration speciality would be fun to play when every day you're forced to choose a bunch of duplicate Abjuration spells which no one would voluntarily take twice.)
For home games, the natural move is to start tweaking the archetype in various ways to try to get around some of these problems, but that's venturing into homebrew territory...
Despite all that, I still like the suggestion. And while this might not be to everyone's taste, I still might prefer the Sin specialist (warts and all) over the core wizard as the default wizard...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd debate that, I'd say it depends on the quality of the base class, as having to chain one's self to poor design due to previously made poor design isn't great like the swashbuckler.Yes absolutely.... but then logic and common sense dictates that the solution is to sort out the base class.... and this can be done in a miriad of ways. Even if it means slotting in an slightly OP class specific feat or similar to balance the equation.
Putting in OP archetypes does nothing but screw over the whole class.
Agreed, and IMHO this is why the Advanced Training options "fulfill" the Fighter Class.
Who was supposed to not only be about Bonus Feats alone, but access to "Fighter Only" Feats and benefits to Weapons and Armor.Only problem being there wasn't enough Fighter Only Feats that were good enough to matter for the longest time,
and the Specific Weapon and Armor benefits were similarly limited so as to not be compelling vs other class options.
Had the Advanced Training options been there from the beginning,
Fighter Archetypes could have focused on doing their own thing, rather than trying to fix what the base class failed to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion the Invulnerable Rager Barbarian fits my concept of the barbarian better than the base class. IMO the things the archetype gives up, uncanny dodge / imp uncanny dodge and TRAP SENSE, are more rogue like abilities. The barbarian class write up mentions that they have a sixth sense, but I still find it odd that the core barbarian has trap sense.
But at a basic level, they do reflect that the Barbarian is as much about defense as offense, and reflect an 'uncivilized' approach to achieving thing. IMHO the problem is as much that there isn't really any Archetypes or Rage Powers that expands upon those features, i.e. follow up, which is strange if UD and TS are truly considered expressions of a core trope.
In specifics, Invulnerable Rager's increased DR doesn't really differ from Vanilla in terms of the core theme or trope in regards to, it just does so with bigger numbers, i.e. power level not trope expression per se. The Endure Elements/Elemental Resistance does express trope of 'barbarian acclimatized to (some) harsh lands' but I'm not sure if that is core to the Barbarian trope, after all Barbarian can live in temperate plains and forests or swamps just as well as they can live in deserts/jungle/tundra. Although it does parallel their DR as tolerance to damage in general.
Personally I find Scarred Rager to more strongly engage the core Barbarian trope via new means: Intimidate/Diplo dichotomy harkening back to Illiteracy (dropped for gameplay reasons), Tolerance immunity/reduction reflecting Rage's inherent Fort/Will bonuses, Scarrification Bleed Resistance reflecting DR.
Thassilonian Sin Specialist does wizard better than wizard in my opinion. A scholar deeply focused on ancient and arcane rituals learning magic to fulfill his/her deepest desires fits better thematically when the drawback for focus is actually a drawback.That's a cool suggestion. I also find the core wizard a bit boring and homogeneous. And, as you note, the Sin specialist makes the different kinds of wizard much more varied and interesting, makes the early levels easier, and helps balance the power-level of the wizard a bit.
The problem with the Thassilonian specialist is that you completely lose access to your opposition schools and those opposition schools are locked in by your specialist choice... That leaves Conjuration and Transmutation as the only really viable options for Sin Specialist. This isn't displacing a regular Wizard, not at all.Despite all that, I still like the suggestion. And while this might not be to everyone's taste, I still might prefer the Sin specialist (warts and all) over the core wizard as the default wizard...
Agreed. I think Paizo went over-board in reducing drawbacks of specialization. Certainly there is issues with balance and composition of schools, but that still exists with current Wizard. As is, the main reason NOT to choose a Specialist Wizard is because you want the Universalist school benefits more, NOT because of the drawbacks of Specialization, which don't apply to Scroll usage or affect the power of opposition school spells you cast with slots.
I think while advocating for Thassilonian being a better Specialist Wizard, it is equally valid to recognize the place that a non-Specialist Wizard has. Not accepting either the benefits or drawbacks of Specialization is a valid choice within the core trope, but specialization should be a more substantive commitment. Perhaps a better compromise would be adding penalties to Paizo's Specialist which affected power of spells cast via spell slots (CL/DC penalty?) and impeded scroll usage? (perhaps requiring Spellcraft check with penalty to use scroll or memorize spell for day, failure at latter meaning you can't memorize that specific spell that day?) But regardless of nuances of power balance, the idea of School Specialization being more fundamental choice involving compromise and limitations IS a core theme that Thassilonian does express more fully IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As is, the main reason NOT to choose a Specialist Wizard is because you want the Universalist school benefits more, NOT because of the drawbacks of Specialization, which don't apply to Scroll usage or affect the power of opposition school spells you cast with slots.
Given that the Universalist school was arguably the worst of the eight schools in the CRB, it was a rare day that anyone ever recommended it as an option. In many respects, the Exploiter was our first truly appealing non-specialist wizard option. It may be narrow, but as far as non-specialized Wizards go I'd say the Exploiter does it better than the vanilla class by giving a mechanically attractive option that actually counter-balances the advantages of a specialist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where you say 'flavour', I smell impotence.If you look at any written wizard, they are nothing like a spellcaster in pathfinder. Usually they have very stringent limitations, must make sacrifices, etc.
They also almost always use swords.
This is largely why I see the Divine Paragon as a fairly poor Archetype. It is largely based on focusing on flavor, but realistically it is a rather small portion of flavor, (and sort of seems like an individual trying to tell everyone the "right way" to play a Cleric, so that other styles are "wrong").
It trades out mostly mechanics to get mostly "flavor" options until much higher level, so basically it makes promises and insinuations that it doesn't generally keep, and works just as poorly for some deities as it does mediocre for others. It's bad design, although overall, viewed from the better and worse possible extremes, it's not overall terrible. It's just not great either.
Agreed....
The sad thing was it wasn't far off becoming quite solid
1) Give it the ability to choose which of Sentinel/Exalted/Evangelist it took each boon from (ie free Diverse Obedience)
2) Instead of 5/11/14 for boons..... 5/9/12
Some boons are quite good but some are pretty limp and so free Diverse Obedience isnt that much of a big deal
It does come across very preachy...... part of me really does think that the whole cleric class needs deleting and with something else replacing it. The D8 HD, 3/4 BAB, divine casting area is very crowded as it is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They also almost always use swords.Where you say 'flavour', I smell impotence.If you look at any written wizard, they are nothing like a spellcaster in pathfinder. Usually they have very stringent limitations, must make sacrifices, etc.
Occultist does a much better job of representing a wizard from fiction. Harry Dresden is much easier to make as an occultist than a wizard.
I think you could actually make a compelling argument for the opposite.
Not really.... you're making the age old error of viewing PF in a very linear way
PF has an inbuilt disparity that youre forgetting.... the CASTER-MARTIAL disparity.
You can take the best pure martial class and min-max the absolute hell out of it and apply every bit of knowledge that you have...... and it still wont be near even the weakest 9th level caster.
Hence the reason why an OP Fighter archetype causes fewer problems.
The Wizard with a bit of thought can mess up games.... an OP Wizard acrhetype can mess up games without even thinking about it.
If you really want a real life analogy... golf is probably more suitable.....
There is very little, if any difference in skill between someone with a 25 handicap vs someone with a 24 handicap.
However, there is a very real difference in skill between someone who plays off a 1 handicap vs a scratch golfer.
Both cases only involve an improvement of 1 in handicap and both have to go through the same process....but they are no way near equivalent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where you say 'flavour', I smell impotence.If you look at any written wizard, they are nothing like a spellcaster in pathfinder. Usually they have very stringent limitations, must make sacrifices, etc.
Right now pathfinder wizards have zero flavor, as they can become essentially gods by the last 1/3rd of the game. Because they have zero limitations and can do anything and everything, it sort of condenses all wizards into a formless blob
Its part of the reason why IMO Wizards should have stayed as D4 classes..... or perhaps transition to D4 after 9th level.
An old crinkly but powerful wizard should absolutely be horrificaly vulnerable to getting stabbed in the guts!
Alternatively if they lose 50% of their HP they incur a 25% spell failure....75% and it goes to 50%
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion the Invulnerable Rager Barbarian fits my concept of the barbarian better than the base class. IMO the things the archetype gives up, uncanny dodge / imp uncanny dodge and TRAP SENSE, are more rogue like abilities. The barbarian class write up mentions that they have a sixth sense, but I still find it odd that the core barbarian has trap sense.
Yeah, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge also seem at odds with my default concept of a barbarian (which I guess is something like a viking berserker). I guess I can see some mechanical reasons for giving them Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge -- the designers may have wanted to encourage barbarian PCs to charge into crowds of grunts without worrying about flanking and the like. But thematically these abilities seem like a stretch. And the heightened DR and endure elements abilities seems a much better fit -- shrugging off blows and extreme conditions because they're tough and crazy seems much more in character. So the Invulnerable Rager does seem to fit the idea of the barbarian better than the barbarian does. Nice!
If your idea for a barbarian is Conan, then the original barbarian class features fit. ...
Again as I stated in multiple threads, Conan fights with ferocity and cat-like reflexes, a scoffs at people who are better-trained, and nothing in his thievery uses rogue-skill set as his thievery is mostly acrobatics athletics, superior reflexes and strength checks. And rogue like features are emulated with uncanny dodge and trap sense.
...interesting. I guess I should read some of Howard's Conan stories too!
(Though I still join ChaiGuy in feeling that the heightened DR and endure elements abilities feel like a better fit with (my non-Howard informed!) concept of the barbarian.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO the problem is as much that there isn't really any Archetypes or Rage Powers that expands upon those features, i.e. follow up, which is strange if UD and TS are truly considered expressions of a core trope.
Yeah, good. The fact that there aren't any archetypes or rage powers that expand on those features seems to be some evidence that these don't seem to be really important features of the barbarian ideal.
Personally I find Scarred Rager to more strongly engage the core Barbarian trope via new means: Intimidate/Diplo dichotomy harkening back to Illiteracy (dropped for gameplay reasons), Tolerance immunity/reduction reflecting Rage's inherent Fort/Will bonuses, Scarrification Bleed Resistance reflecting DR.
Oh! Another nice suggestion. Let's see, the Scarred Rager drops Fast Movement, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge. In their place, they get a hefty bonus on intimidate checks against pretty much everyone (i.e., non-barbarian tribesman, and a diplomacy benefit with barbarian tribesman). They get to re-roll failed saves against various nasty effects, like nauseated, sickened, fatigued, exhausted, dazed, frightened, shaken and stunned. And they get to ignore increasing amounts of bleed damage. All of these abilities seem a much better fit with the stereotypical idea of the barbarian as a "super tough and scary raging SOB" than abilities like Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge. Nice!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. I expected more love for the Divine Paragon than I'm seeing.
This is largely why I see the Divine Paragon as a fairly poor Archetype. ... It trades out mostly mechanics to get mostly "flavor" options until much higher level, so basically it makes promises and insinuations that it doesn't generally keep, and works just as poorly for some deities as it does mediocre for others.
I agree that it's generally not stronger than the basic cleric, but the cleric is a powerhouse, so a slight weakening doesn't bother me. And I agree that spacing out of the boons makes things a little weird, but I don't know that the Divine Paragon is that far behind.
--Levels 1-4: 1st level domain power VS basic obedience bonus.
The best 1st level domain powers are pretty nice, though the majority of them are mediocre. Pretty much all of the basic obedience bonuses are mediocre (with a couple exceptions, like Irori). Advantage: basic cleric.
--Levels 5-6: 1st level domain power VS basic obedience bonus and 1st boon.
The majority of 1st boons are decent, and some of them are pretty nice. A lot depends on one's choices, of course, but I think the Divine Paragon catches up, and perhaps edges, the basic cleric here. Advantage: even, or slight advantage for the Divine Paragon.
--Levels 7-10: 1st and 7th level domain powers VS basic obedience bonus and 1st boon.
The majority of 7th level domain powers are mediocre, though (again) some of them are great. Hard to compare, but I think the basic cleric pulls again here. Advantage: basic cleric.
--Levels 11-13: 1st and 7th level domain powers VS basic obedience bonus and 1st boon and 2nd boon.
A lot of variation in the quality of 2nd boons here. Some of them are fantastic -- Lymneirs, Shei and Ylimancha, for example, all have amazing 2nd boons. And if you take the Diverse Obedience feat (which most Divine Paragons will) you to choose the boon of your choice, odds are you'll probably be getting a 2nd boon that's pretty good -- e.g., there are a lot of "summon some decent outsider with a ton of useful SLAs" 2nd boons, and these abilities are better than most (though not all) 7th level domain powers. Add that to all the other stuff the Divine Paragon gets, I think the Divine Paragon pulls ahead again. Advantage: Divine Paragon.
--Levels 14+: 1st and 7th level domain powers VS basic obedience bonus and 1st boon and 2nd boon and 3rd boon.
Again, a lot of variation in the quality of the 3rd boons, but a lot of them are very nice, especially if you're choosing the boon of your choice (via Diverse Obedience). At this point, the Divine Paragon is generally substantially better off the basic cleric (though again the exactly choices matter). Advantage: Divine Paragon.
So... I guess this more or less lines up with what you said, actually. The basic cleric is generally better off for a lot of the early levels (1-4, 7-10), and the Divine Paragon only clearly pulls ahead at high levels (11+) which is beyond what many parties play to.
But I guess this is largely independent of my main reasons for liking the Divine Paragon, which are that the unique abilities and obediences you get really appeal to me, and my feeling that clerics of different deities should have substantial mechanical differences. (I also like that they keep on giving you something to look forward to at higher and higher levels, whereas after 7th level domain powers just stop.)
Or perhaps we're just evaluating the Divine Paragon archetype by different standards. You're evaluating it as not a great archetype because for most of your career (given what levels are typically played) you're less powerful than the basic cleric. I'm evaluating according to how well it fits the default conception of a priest who's a personal servant of a particular power, and gets their power from that power in return for working tirelessly to advance their interests.
Maybe this is a matter of taste...
The sad thing was it wasn't far off becoming quite solid
1) Give it the ability to choose which of Sentinel/Exalted/Evangelist it took each boon from (ie free Diverse Obedience)
2) Instead of 5/11/14 for boons..... 5/9/12
Some boons are quite good but some are pretty limp and so free Diverse Obedience isnt that much of a big deal
Yeah, it would have been nicer if it gave you Diverse Obedience for free. Since most Divine Paragons are going to want to take it, it seems like a feat tax. And it's always nice to avoid those.
(On second thought, maybe this is the explanation(?): there's only one set of boons (instead of the Sentinel/Exalted/Evangelist spread) given for the empyreal lords in Chronicles of the Righteous. Since Diverse Obedience would be useless for them, maybe the designers thought it was better to not include it, and make worshipers of the empyreal lords feel like they were just wasting the ability?...)
And, of course, it would have been nice to have the boons kick in earlier... but 5/11/14 isn't that different from (say) 5/9/12...
(Though here's a potential explanation for why they chose the levels they did: perhaps the designers wanted to give players something to still look forward to as they leveled up, instead of having their deity-tied powers more or less plateau at level 7. So they intentionally pushed the highest level boons up to the level where you'd get them at (say) the tail end of an AP, and so had something to look forward to before then, and still had a little time to enjoy them at the end.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion the Invulnerable Rager Barbarian fits my concept of the barbarian better than the base class. IMO the things the archetype gives up, uncanny dodge / imp uncanny dodge and TRAP SENSE, are more rogue like abilities. The barbarian class write up mentions that they have a sixth sense, but I still find it odd that the core barbarian has trap sense.But at a basic level, they do reflect that the Barbarian is as much about defense as offense, and reflect an 'uncivilized' approach to achieving thing. IMHO the problem is as much that there isn't really any Archetypes or Rage Powers that expands upon those features, i.e. follow up, which is strange if UD and TS are truly considered expressions of a core trope.
In specifics, Invulnerable Rager's increased DR doesn't really differ from Vanilla in terms of the core theme or trope in regards to, it just does so with bigger numbers, i.e. power level not trope expression per se. The Endure Elements/Elemental Resistance does express trope of 'barbarian acclimatized to (some) harsh lands' but I'm not sure if that is core to the Barbarian trope, after all Barbarian can live in temperate plains and forests or swamps just as well as they can live in deserts/jungle/tundra. Although it does parallel their DR as tolerance to damage in general.
Personally I find Scarred Rager to more strongly engage the core Barbarian trope via new means: Intimidate/Diplo dichotomy harkening back to Illiteracy (dropped for gameplay reasons), Tolerance immunity/reduction reflecting Rage's inherent Fort/Will bonuses, Scarrification Bleed Resistance reflecting DR.
It's interesting to see how many forms of inspiration there are to the concept of barbarian. Everything from cartoon/anime (the Hulk, Kenpachi), literature (Conan), historical (vikings), Pathfinder/D&D elements (illiteracy, although I'm not 100% sure how illiterate = intimidate, although I'd agree that the barbarian concept would probably be intimidate more than diplomacy), and perhaps even mythical/legendary influences, like Chu Chulainn.
I like the Scarred Rager archetype upon closer examination, although I generally dislike giving up fast movement, which is hard to say if it fits the barbarian concept. I'd probably play the archetype the next chance I have at playing a barbarian, it'd be interesting to see it paired with intimidate options like cornugon smash and/or dreadful carnage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really.... you're making the age old error of viewing PF in a very linear way
PF has an inbuilt disparity that youre forgetting.... the CASTER-MARTIAL disparity.
DrDeths Corollary to Godwin's law: "Any thread on the PF Message board will sooner or later devolve into the caster/martial disparity debate. "
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you could actually make a compelling argument for the opposite.
Not really.... you're making the age old error of viewing PF in a very linear way
PF has an inbuilt disparity that youre forgetting.... the CASTER-MARTIAL disparity.
You... are wrong. Squigget explicitly addressed the disparity and pointed out why, because the disparity exists, it is less important whether or not the wizard gains an OP archetype.
In fact...
You can take the best pure martial class and min-max the absolute hell out of it and apply every bit of knowledge that you have...... and it still wont be near even the weakest 9th level caster.
Hence the reason why an OP Fighter archetype causes fewer problems.
The Wizard with a bit of thought can mess up games.... an OP Wizard acrhetype can mess up games without even thinking about it.
... is a perfect example, because you're almost correct. The problem is a normal non-OP wizard archetype can also mess up games without even thinking about it.
As Squigget noted, it's the difference between a thousand elephants and a thousand and one.
If you really want a real life analogy... golf is probably more suitable.....
Yeah, no. The difference between Squigget's analogy and yours is only a matter of specifics.
Fighters get an apple. Really OP fighters might get plus two or even plus twelve of them.
Wizards get a thousand elephants. Really OP wizards might get a thousand plus twelve of them.
Here's the thing: even giving the Fighter an extra thousand apples - while impressive - won't equal out to a thousand elephants. I mean, sure, apples aren't elephants, and there are times that apples will be more directly applicable, but the elephants are always more powerful.
Going by golf, a fighter is (maybe) a master put-put golfer.
A wizard is pro who regularly wins the Masters.
There is a vast disparity in the skill and income of these two. Sure, the wizard won't beat a fighter in their particular arena, but they'll be "better" by almost every standard - whether in the game of golf, or in the game of who has more money and fame - every time.
Same analogy, only a matter of specifics.
You both agree that wizards are more powerful than fighters, and by such a margin that wizards may easily (and accidentally) devastate campaigns, and fighters rarely do (though they can devastate specific encounters).
Neither of you disagree with that.
The place where you disagree is whether or not "more power" matters when granted to the wizard.
You are attempting to claim that it is better to give the Fighter OP options, because that will close the gap, but your actual examples tend to show that, even when given strong options, the "gap" isn't closed. Squigget's contention is that, because of the way your examples suss themselves out, it doesn't really matter if the wizard gets "more" OP.
Of course, none of this matters, because it's off-topic.
If you wish to continue to debate the merits or weaknesses of "OP" archetypes, I would suggest it be moved to its own thread; so that others can follow the different topic of whether or not specific archetypes (and other classes) do _1 or _2 "better" than the original printed archetype. Thanks!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or perhaps we're just evaluating the Divine Paragon archetype by different standards. You're evaluating it as not a great archetype because for most of your career (given what levels are typically played) you're less powerful than the basic cleric. I'm evaluating according to how well it fits the default conception of a priest who's a personal servant of a particular power, and gets their power from that power in return for working tirelessly to advance their interests.
Maybe this is a matter of taste...
It is largely a matter of tastes, and there is nothing wrong with that. But, I am not really suggesting that I dislike the Archetype because it's "less powerful" than the basic Cleric as much as that I just don't feel it does the "Cleric better than the Cleric". Rather, I think it does one small aspect of the Cleric better than the Cleric, but that's really it.
I dislike the archetype (in a general sense) as it suffers from one of the issues that many archetypes for the class do, but that the class itself does to a degree, in that some deity options, just have better overall options than others.
Iomedae gets: bless weapon 3/day, bull’s strength 2/day, or magic vestment 1/day, all of which <most> Clerics of Iomedae can already cast.
vs
Shelyn gets: animate rope 3/day, cat’s grace 2/day, or haste 1/day, none of which a normal Cleric would have.
Gorum gets: magic stone 3/day, spiritual weapon 2/day, or deadly juggernaut 1/day, which again is nothing new for a Cleric.
vs
Desna gets: sleep 3/day, silence 2/day, or deep slumber 1/day which adds to new spells that most (any?) Clerics wouldn't normally get.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason why you maybe haven't seen many Pact Wizards played is simple. They are banned in PFS! I guarantee you, if they weren't banned in PFS you would see a lot more of them..... its common sense.
When I hear someone say "it's common sense" I know I'm listening to someone who simply can't imagine other people might not think like they do.
My very first Pathfinder character was a wizard. Sounded awesome to me. By 8th level I was beginning to really see the power potential in the class, and I was so bored I couldn't stand it. I dumped the wizard and made a bard. I was happy with the bard.
Power isn't flavor and flavor is interesting, to me at least. I don't think I'm alone at all either. I play PbP almost exclusively if that means anything one way or another, and wizards are rare. I'm active in nine campaigns and there are a total of 4 wizards total among them all. In two of the those cases they were also the only 9 level arcane caster to apply for the campaign. So, a bit of advice there, if you want to get into a PbP campaign apply with a level 9 caster, nobody wants to play them.
I see more sorcerers, witches, and even arcanists than wizards. Those classes are also more interesting.
My point is this. I am in a couple of campaigns that could desperately use a full arcane caster. If Paizo wants to create crazy powerful wizard archetypes that will interest anyone enough to actually roll up a wizard, I'm all for it. I won't play one myself because they are boring. But they are useful and I'm willing to play a five apple owning slayer groveling in the dazzling shadow of their 10,000 elephant owning distilled awesomeness to have one in the party when we need it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power isn't flavor and flavor is interesting, to me at least. I don't think I'm alone at all either.
You are not alone. If I can't find some interesting flavour for my character, I dump it before even starting the game. The relative power of a class means nothing to me.
I've played a wizard all the way until level 20. Just one. But I have a Legion of Bards(tm). I think that means something, at least to me.
When I hear someone say "it's common sense" I know I'm listening to someone who simply can't imagine other people might not think like they do.
Sooo.... according to that logic, there is no such thing as common sense?
It is largely a matter of tastes, and there is nothing wrong with that. But, I am not really suggesting that I dislike the Archetype because it's "less powerful" than the basic Cleric as much as that I just don't feel it does the "Cleric better than the Cleric". Rather, I think it does one small aspect of the Cleric better than the Cleric, but that's really it.
I dislike the archetype (in a general sense) as it suffers from one of the issues that many archetypes for the class do, but that the class itself does to a degree, in that some deity options, just have better overall options than others.
Iomedae gets: bless weapon 3/day, bull’s strength 2/day, or magic vestment 1/day, all of which <most> Clerics of Iomedae can already cast.
vs
Shelyn gets: animate rope 3/day, cat’s grace 2/day, or haste 1/day, none of which a normal Cleric would have.
Gorum gets: magic stone 3/day, spiritual weapon 2/day, or deadly juggernaut 1/day, which again is nothing new for a Cleric.
vs
Desna gets: sleep 3/day, silence 2/day, or deep slumber 1/day which adds to new spells that most (any?) Clerics wouldn't normally get.
And actually when you think about it the fact they dont get the 2nd and 3rd boons till 11th and 14th really hurts it. Especially as for some deities theyre not even equivalent to an 8th level domain power!
Free Diverse Obedience really is a must have to make it work.... otherwise its a feat spent which is a BIG deal
You... are wrong. .
No well the thing is....Paizo itself agrees with me! Pact Wizard is banned for PFS use!
Someone took one look at it and just said..."NO I THINK NOT!"
If having OP Wizard archetypes was so harmless and benign, it would have passed the archetype test. It didnt pass because it is capable of invalidating encounters without blinking an eyelid.
No arguing with the truth I'm afraid.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You... are wrong. .
No well the thing is....Paizo itself agrees with me! Pact Wizard is banned for PFS use!
Someone took one look at it and just said..."NO I THINK NOT!"
If having OP Wizard archetypes was so harmless and benign, it would have passed the archetype test. It didnt pass because it is capable of invalidating encounters without blinking an eyelid.
No arguing with the truth I'm afraid.
It's banned in PFS, that only applies to PFS. They haven't published an errata for it, they haven't stated that it's too powerful, it's just banned in PFS, a long with a whole slew of other options. PFS does not speak for all of Pathfinder nor Paizo. It's Tonya and John (and if someone else is also making decisions there my apologies for forgetting you) making decisions for the PFS campaign, not the PDT making decisions for every table.
So no, Paizo is not agreeing with you.
It's banned in PFS, that only applies to PFS. They haven't published an errata for it, they haven't stated that it's too powerful, it's just banned in PFS, a long with a whole slew of other options. PFS does not speak for all of Pathfinder nor Paizo.
No but PFS serves as a benchmark for what is applicable in terms of basic power levels.... always has always will.
The fact that in home sessions you can use it, in itself proves absolutely nothing.
And like I said.... if it had been appropriate, it would have got in. END OF.
Its not like its an archetype like Undead Master or Lord that violate basic concepts of PFS play.
So yes... in essence Paizo is in agreement... (albeit indirectly :) )
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love archetypes. I'd rather have a thousand archetypes then a hundred prestige classes (although I'm pretty sure they've probably surpassed both those numbers by now).
I'm not anti archetypes..... I'm anti poorly designed ones and ones that don't even seem to have a justifiable niche.
Quality over quantity and all that.....
I remember when 3.5 was getting into serious option overload territory..
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could have been banned for flavor reasons. Pact Wizard from horror has a pretty sinister slant. Granted, the flavor isn't much worse than the witch, but it could be enough for it to be banned for the flavor instead of the mechanics. PFS prefers when the power-hungry character making pacts with evil outsiders are the antongionist, not the PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not anti archetypes..... I'm anti poorly designed ones and ones that don't even seem to have a justifiable niche.
Quality over quantity and all that.....
I remember when 3.5 was getting into serious option overload territory..
Oh contraire good sir, the 3.5 books were just getting good when they stopped. It's the earlier books that were way more inconsistent. :-)
It could have been banned for flavor reasons. Pact Wizard from horror has a pretty sinister slant. Granted, the flavor isn't much worse than the witch, but it could be enough for it to be banned for the flavor instead of the mechanics. PFS prefers when the power-hungry character making pacts with evil outsiders are the antongionist, not the PCs.
Possible.... but when you look through the archetypes that are PFS legal from Horror Adventures and other similar releases...
Pact Wizard is not remotely 'sinister'!
Its possible..... but then from the evidence it would be the biggest coincedence in recent Paizo history!
In all fairness its pretty obvious why....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You... are wrong. .
No well the thing is....Paizo itself agrees with me! Pact Wizard is banned for PFS use!
Someone took one look at it and just said..."NO I THINK NOT!"
If having OP Wizard archetypes was so harmless and benign, it would have passed the archetype test. It didnt pass because it is capable of invalidating encounters without blinking an eyelid.
No arguing with the truth I'm afraid.
There may be no arguing with the truth, but you're giving it your best go.
You are wrong.
Not because you're claiming it's over-powered, but because you're ignoring what I'm saying, ignoring what Squigget is saying, and ignoring what others are saying, in an apparent effort to prove yourself "correct" when the entire point you're attempting to prove should really go in a different thread.
You claimed Squigget was ignoring C/M-D.
This is fundamentally untrue.
Note that this is what I quoted, and this is what I responded to, when I said you were wrong. Squigget addressed the C/M-D. His example (that you also dismissed) explicitly relied on the C/M-D to function. My follow-up examples also relied on the C/M-D.
If you're going to bother making your various parts of your posts bold, and stating explicitly that people are wrong, I'd suggest actually reading the posts to which you are referring, and trying to understand the context with which those statements are given.
Right now, you're not proving your point - you're making yourself look less capable than you actually are (I would presume, at any rate, that you're more capable than you're arguments construe you as) by misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting the statements of others, and arguing against those incorrect interpretations of things.
EDIT: You know what, no. This post was over the line.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that in home sessions you can use it, in itself proves absolutely nothing.
Of course it doesn't.
The fact that Paizo explicitly published it for use by players in home games, however, does; especially when combined with the fact that they have not changed, altered, or otherwise negated its current status.
PFS play is the benchmark for appropriate power... in PFS play.
By your logic, scribe scroll is also OP, because it's prohibited from PFS.
This fails basic common sense, as you've been using the term.
I am not arguing whether or not it's OP, incidentally. I'm pointing out that your arguments against it, so far, have failed.
In any event, this is now fully off-topic. Any future posts on this topic can and should be flagged as OT. If you wish to continue to debate whether or not specific archetypes are OP, by all means, start a new thread. It could be an interesting discussion!
Just... please... keep the ego to a minimum, yeah? It will make discussions go easier. Thanks! I will work on doing so, as well - an admittedly hard task, as I'm a windbag. :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's banned in PFS, that only applies to PFS. They haven't published an errata for it, they haven't stated that it's too powerful, it's just banned in PFS, a long with a whole slew of other options. PFS does not speak for all of Pathfinder nor Paizo.No but PFS serves as a benchmark for what is applicable in terms of basic power levels.... always has always will.
The fact that in home sessions you can use it, in itself proves absolutely nothing.
And like I said.... if it had been appropriate, it would have got in. END OF.
Its not like its an archetype like Undead Master or Lord that violate basic concepts of PFS play.
So yes... in essence Paizo is in agreement... (albeit indirectly :) )
This is absolutely untrue. PFS is a modified version of Pathfinder with it's own set of rules for the sake of allowing players to operate with an ever differing DM and bring characters to any PFS event and ensure their character is legal. This does not speak at all about Paizo's stance, nor is a benchmark for anything other than it's function for PFS. Frankly, it might be banned simply because it shares a name with another archetype. There are a slew of reasons for why some content is allowed and some content is banned.
Did you know you can't choose magic item crafting feats in PFS? But yet Paizo keeps supporting magic item creation. I wonder why..
By your logic, scribe scroll is also OP, because it's prohibited from PFS.
And then I got done saying that and look, Tacticslion already on the ball. Damn straight, my dude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that the Universalist school was arguably the worst of the eight schools in the CRB, it was a rare day that anyone ever recommended it as an option. In many respects, the Exploiter was our first truly appealing non-specialist wizard option. It may be narrow, but as far as non-specialized Wizards go I'd say the Exploiter does it better than the vanilla class by giving a mechanically attractive option that actually counter-balances the advantages of a specialist.
That's an interesting thought... The Exploiter does give you more options than the basic (non-specialized) wizard, and so is more interesting to play with. Also, I think, better_2 than the basic wizard (whether specialist or not), if only because the Quick Study exploit allows the wizard to patch up the one big weakness the wizard has. (Which may be a plus or a minus, depending on what one thinks the default wizard should be like...) Hrmm.
I'd be curious to hear what other people think about this. Does the Exploiter do the wizard better_1 than the wizard does? Is the Exploiter what the default wizard class should have been?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's banned in PFS, that only applies to PFS. They haven't published an errata for it, they haven't stated that it's too powerful, it's just banned in PFS, a long with a whole slew of other options. PFS does not speak for all of Pathfinder nor Paizo. It's Tonya and John (and if someone else is also making decisions there my apologies for forgetting you) making decisions for the PFS campaign, not the PDT making decisions for every table.
So no, Paizo is not agreeing with you.
It seems like "it's banned in PFS" doesn't even necessarily correlate to "it's too powerful" since isn't the Deep Marshal Magus banned in PFS, even though it's at best a sidegrade to the Vanilla Magus?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike the archetype (in a general sense) as it suffers from one of the issues that many archetypes for the class do, but that the class itself does to a degree, in that some deity options, just have better overall options than others.
Iomedae gets: bless weapon 3/day, bull’s strength 2/day, or magic vestment 1/day, all of which <most> Clerics of Iomedae can already cast.
vs
Shelyn gets: animate rope 3/day, cat’s grace 2/day, or haste 1/day, none of which a normal Cleric would have.
Gorum gets: magic stone 3/day, spiritual weapon 2/day, or deadly juggernaut 1/day, which again is nothing new for a Cleric.
vs
Desna gets: sleep 3/day, silence 2/day, or deep slumber 1/day which adds to new spells that most (any?) Clerics wouldn't normally get.
Yeah, it's true that, as with domain powers, there's a lot of variation with respect to how good the different boons are. And I agree it would have been nice to have the boons better balanced in this respect (though I'm more inclined to fault the boons rather than the archetype for this).
(I think you were actually pretty restrained in your choice of boons of different power. The divergence between some of the 2nd boons gets really crazy. For example, compare the 2nd boon given by Winlas:
Liturgy (Su) Three times per day, you can ask for Winlas's favor whenever you are observing a religious ceremony within 300 feet. When you do this, you and up to one additional creature per 2HD you possess assume the appearance of the congregation you are observing with perfect accuracy, and you all gain complete knowledge of the sacred rites being performed (granting you a +10 sacred bonus on Bluff checks to perform the rites). This ability is otherwise like a seeming spell, except you gain a +20 bonus on your Disguise check.
and the 2nd boon given by Lymnieris:
Rite of Passage (Sp) You gain the power to usher others into a new state of being. Once per day, you can cast greater polymorph on a willing creature. The duration of this effect is permanent until you or the target dismiss the effect or you use this ability again.
The former boon won't come up in 99% of campaigns (and is only mildly useful when it does come up), while the latter boon is strong enough to plan your entire character around.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can think of at least three adventure paths where the first one would come in handy, actually.
But I completely agree with your point. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Greater Polymorph 2 levels earlier. But only 1/day. Not bad for what you give up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greater Polymorph with a permanent duration. Not min/level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's been a whole page(+)...
... let's refresh me er, ah, I mean, "ourselves" - yes, that is what I mean - on which one was which.
*cough*
I'm totally doing this for everyone else, you guys, and not because I'm dyslexic, I swear!
>.>
<.<
(I think they bought it!)
Lots of good suggestions here, though it makes it clear to me that my initial question was ambiguous.
--Question 1: what archetypes "do_1" a class better than the class does (by better fitting the idea behind the class than the original class)?
--Question 2: what archetypes "do_2" a class better than the class does (by being strictly stronger than the original class)?
So examples of good answers to the second question people have offered: the Pact Wizard does_2 the wizard better, the Razmiran Priest does_2 the sorcerer better, the Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain does_2 the warpriest better, the Qinggong Monk does the chained monk better, the Primalist does_2 the Bloodrager better.
And (earlier this page) ...
I think you're thinking of an archetype as a "better_1" than a class to the extent that it allows you to better build many of the characters the class naturally suggests. So the reason the Herald Caller is a better_1 cleric than the cleric (in this sense) is that you could better build summoner characters using it, and build other characters pretty much just as well even if you ignore the summoning stuff. I agree with that.
But I was thinking of an archetype as being "better_1" than a class to the extent that, when I look at the archetype, I'm inclined to think "this is what the default class should have been like" (or perhaps just "huh, this archetype does a nice job of capturing the idea behind the class; they could have reasonably made this the default class instead"). So the reason the Herald Caller archetype doesn't strike me as being a better_1 cleric than the cleric (in this sense) is because the focus on summoning built into the archetype seems too specialized, in a manner that seems detached from the idea of the cleric, for it to have been the default class. I.e., it would seem weird to me if the Herald Caller was the default class because the focus on summoning seems a bit idiosyncratic given the idea behind the cleric.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sooo.... according to that logic, there is no such thing as common sense?
The term has been so frequently and grossly misused in common parlance that it is effectively meaningless these days. Politicians are especially notorious for describing complex policies as "common sense", even if the policy has far-reaching impacts that even experts struggle to fully analyze. Describing something as common sense in this context is used as a backhanded way of insulting an opponent, as if to imply that any counter-argument is so weak that even a layman who knows nothing of the subject matter could reject it out of hand. As a result, I feel people are right to call out the misuse of the term as poor form in any debate.
What common sense should refer to are basic and widely shared understanding everyday situations. An example of common sense is that it's foolhardy to step out in front of a moving car. Pedestrian/Car interactions are a common part of our daily lives, and the adverse consequences of a collision are well known and demonstrated all too frequently. This makes it common sense not to put yourself in a situation where you could be hit.
What you did was make a logical inference. That's perfectly fine, and I think it's a fair argument that an archetype's PFS legality has an effect on its prominence and usage in the broader community even outside of PFS, but that doesn't make it a matter of common sense. Statistical analysis of class usage from Pathfinder products is not a common part of our daily lives, and it is completely inappropriate to describe your conclusion as common sense.
That's an interesting thought... The Exploiter does give you more options than the basic (non-specialized) wizard, and so is more interesting to play with. Also, I think, better_2 than the basic wizard (whether specialist or not), if only because the Quick Study exploit allows the wizard to patch up the one big weakness the wizard has. (Which may be a plus or a minus, depending on what one thinks the default wizard should be like...) Hrmm.
I would disagree that the Exploiter is better than the regular specialist Wizard; I feel it's a reasonably well-balanced option when compared to specialization. Losing 1 spell slot at every spell level is a big hit, and most schools get at least some attractive features. Arcane bond can't be dismissed either. You are giving up a lot to be an Exploiter, and what makes it noteworthy is that it actually gives enough back to make it worth your while.
The Quick Study exploit is very nice, but the Wizard can already come fairly close to it with the Fast Study feat. It's not quite as good as Quick Study in that it takes 1 minute rather than 1 round, and you need to keep the spell slot empty rather than being able to swap one prepared spell for another, but it doesn't use any of your arcane reservoir so you can use as often as you like throughout the day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the problem is defining what the core nature of a class is; and to explain lets bring up the barbarian once again. Some people view Barbarians as Vikings, some people view them as Highlanders, some people view them as Conan, some people view them as Guts, and some people view them as Kenpachi just to name a few examples. Each of these concepts works as a Barbarian, but all require a different set of skills. Paizo's goal is to make achieving all of these fantasies possible. Thus the goal for a class chassis is to make sure that chassis is either variable enough or blended enough that achieving a given fantasy is possible. Archetypes exist to expand the fantasies available. This thread is created to discuss what happens when an archetypes does a better job at representing the chassis than the chassis itself does. Thus the archetype needs to either be more versatile than the class it is based upon, or serve as a more blended view of that character.
In my mind, the Barbarian doesn't have an archetype that does its job better than the base Barbarian chassis. Barbarians are almost always fast moving, high damaging, characters with an uncanny knack for avoiding any kind of danger that they cannot just take as a blow on the chin. The barbarian can be further customized with rage powers to make them distinct. There is no single Barbarian archetype that does a better job of offering versatility and blending together various "barbarianisms" together.
Using this metric, I have to disagree with the opinion that the Exploiter Wizard is not functionally a Wizard+1. Or what the thread has been calling a better_1 Wizard. The Exploiter Wizard functions as a more varied Wizard, allowing for an even greater amount of Wizard Fantasies to be fulfilled. While limited to 3+(1/2 level) uses, the Exploiter Wizard is capable of mimicking everything the Wizard has given up at level 1 at the cost of a single feat. Familiar? Check. Or an Arcane Bonded Item through the Arcane Bloodline? Check. An Arcane School? Check. You do not even need to select an opposition school, so you never have to worry about spells taking double slots. From there onward the Exploiter Wizard is just a more varied and interesting core Wizard who actually has gained a resource they need to manage outside of spells. Now I'm not arguing that the Exploiter Wizard is more powerful than the base wizard chassis, simply that it is more varied and thus would serve as a better "base wizard" than the Wizard itself. After all, the Chassis should be varied and adaptable to fulfill player fantasies in a variety of ways, the archetypes are what should allow for new or further specialization. Not the other way around.
I'll go through some other classes in a bit, maybe we should throw together a google doc to keep track of all of these: including notes of dissension since otherwise nothing would ever be written down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One word: Pistolero.
At least, at close range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One word: Pistolero.
At least, at close range.
I'd really like to disagree with this, as I explained in my previous post the classes chassis should be as varied as possible. Limiting the gunslinger to pistols removes the fantasy of being a shotguneer or a musketeer. Except of course that gun mechanics, for everyone except the Musket Master, make using a two-handed guns non-functional. Still, I think that the Maverick or the Throne Warden make a better Gunslinger than the actual Gunslinger. The Maverick represents the Cowboy tropes of gunslingers while the Throne Warden represents the Officer tropes. Neither of them restrict access to weaponry, and flesh out the Gunslinger better than the original class.
However, even though both of those archetypes are more flavorful and more fun than the original: its hard to pin down either of them as the single "better_1" gunslinger. Some people won't want to play as a fist/gun cowboy while others won't want to play the ever-vigilant officer. Which leaves the same issue with the Pistolero, since the Musketmaster ends up as Equal and Opposite. Each of these four archetypes represents one kind of Gunslinger, but doesn't represent the class as a whole.
Ultimately, I think that means the Gunslinger doesn't have an archetype that does the job better than the original. There are certainly more focused archetypes, and more fun archetypes, but no single archetype encompasses the entirely of being a gunslinger better than the chassis. Which is a good thing. Mechanics certainly push One handed guns, but that just makes the Pistolero powerful...not more versatile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's goal is to make achieving all of these fantasies possible. Thus the goal for a class chassis is to make sure that chassis is either variable enough or blended enough that achieving a given fantasy is possible. Archetypes exist to expand the fantasies available. This thread is created to discuss what happens when an archetypes does a better job at representing the chassis than the chassis itself does. Thus the archetype needs to either be more versatile than the class it is based upon, or serve as a more blended view of that character.
Very nicely put!
I've been slightly more lax in the desiderata I've been appealing to in considering whether something would make a good "default" class, by also taking into account desiderata like being better balanced (EX: Noble Fencer), mechanically smoother (EX: Guide), mechanically richer in a way which it seems the class should be (EX: Divine Paragon, though I know this is contentious!), or more fun to play. (Obviously, some of these desiderata are somewhat subjective, but I think there's some broad agreement regarding them nonetheless.) But the main desiderata I've been pursuing are precisely what you just described. Thanks for putting it so clearly and crisply!