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.
Since I've been keeping a document tabulating suggestions, I can save you some time and copy and paste it here. Two notes about the list: (1) I haven't included suggestions regarding prestige slasses, just base classes. (2) I've restricted my attention to archetypes that are arguably better_1 than the base class in the sense mentioned above. I.e., I've only been keeping track of archetypes that arguably better fit the idea behind the class, in the sense that it makes you inclined to think "this is what the default class should have been like" (or even just "they could have reasonably made this the default class instead").
Suggestions with question marks after them are ones which are either contentious, or are broad enough to arguably be good replacements for the default class, but which still leave out some salient ideas associated with the class.
Barbarian
- Invulnerable Rager(?)
- Scarred Rager(?)
- Divine Paragon(?)
- Wandering Exorcist(?)
- Maverick(?)
- Throne Warden(?)
- Qinggong Monk
- Maneuver Master(?)
- Master of Many Styles(?)
- Guide
- Sanctified Slayer(?)
- Empiricist
- Master Summoner(?)
- Daring Champion(?)
- Noble Fencer
- Virtuoso Bravo(?)
- Teisatsu
- Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain(?)
- Exploiter(?)
- Thassilonian Sin Specialist(?)
I'd love to hear any further suggestions about what should/shouldn't be on the list, or what should/shouldn't have a question mark!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One word: Pistolero.
Nice to finally see some gunslinger action!
I definitely agree that the Pistolero is probably stronger (and so better_2) than the basic gunslinger. I'm less confident that it fits the idea behind the gunslinger better than the basic class (though it's still pretty faithful to most gunslinger tropes). Hrmm...
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. ... Ultimately, I think that means the Gunslinger doesn't have an archetype that does the job better than the original. ... Mechanics certainly push One handed guns, but that just makes the Pistolero powerful...not more versatile.
I hadn't seen the Throne Warden archetype before, and I'd forgotten about the Maverick; thanks for pointing those out! I think I'm even more enthusiastic about these as replacements for the basic class than you are. So I find myself in the odd position of trying to sell you on your own suggestions!
The Maverick is a great archetype that oozes flavor -- a great fit with the popular gambling, bluffing, low-life western cowboy type. It doesn't fit every gun-using trope (e.g., soldiers during World War I, which would better fit something like the Trench fighter). But then again, a lot of the base gunslinger's feats don't really fit that trope either; e.g., you don't think of military soldiers using deeds like Utility Shot, Starling Shot, or Slinger's Luck. So the basic gunslinger seems like it was aiming at capturing something like the cowboy conception of a gunslinger, and the Maverick seems to do an even better job!
The Throne Warden is also a great fit with a lot gunslinger tropes, with things like Hair-Trigger Reflexes and Eye for Trouble being a good fit with pretty much every gun-using trope. (Well, maybe not the soldier-in-the-trenches trope.) I agree that the Throne Warden is a nice fit with the western sheriff/officer trope. But I think it's an equally nice fit with the outlaw cowboy trope -- the Hair-Trigger Reflexes and Eye for Trouble abilities are also natural things for an outlaw to have. (Mechanically, the Throne Warden does give up Nimble, which is a little painful given the lack of defenses the gunslinger has. But still, a decent archetype.) So I think the Throne Warden has a good shot at being a better_1 gunslinger than the basic gunslinger. Nice!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Throne Warden is also a great fit with a lot gunslinger tropes, with things like Hair-Trigger Reflexes and Eye for Trouble being a good fit with pretty much every gun-using trope. (Well, maybe not the soldier-in-the-trenches trope.) I agree that the Throne Warden is a nice fit with the western sheriff/officer trope. But I think it's an equally nice fit with the outlaw cowboy trope -- the Hair-Trigger Reflexes and Eye for Trouble abilities are also natural things for an outlaw to have. (Mechanically, the Throne Warden does give up Nimble, which is a little painful given the lack of defenses the gunslinger has. But still, a decent archetype.) So I think the Throne Warden has a good shot at being a better_1 gunslinger than the basic gunslinger. Nice!
The thing that made me reconsider giving the +1 to Thronewarden was giving up Nimble, which is not only painful mechanically but also flavor wise it goes against the grain of the dexterous dodger that we tend to think of as Gunslingers. It made me think really more of a backline, rally the troops, Officer like character. However, I think you have a decent point on pointing out that those same qualities could just as easily apply to a sheriff or an outlaw. In the same vein however, I'd like to point out that the Maverick archetype also works for a sheriff just as easily as it works for a Gambler or Cowboy archetype.
While the Maverick doesn't quite reach officer material unless we are thinking more along the Black Sheep style officer, drinking and playing poker with the boys (or even a Commander Riker from Star Trek Next Generation)...actually lets just go with Riker. Riker drinks and gambles with his fellow officers, is quite skilled at fisticuffs, bluffing, and intimidating people into backing down with his phazer(handgun). You might see the same from a local sheriff, willing to wade into a brawl with his fists to break up a fight but not above playing poker with those same boys.
The two classes each represent the Gunslinger being more defined around a specific idea but at odds about how to define the Gunslinger. Thus I'm really conflicted, as calling either one Gunslinger +1 pushes the other into "just another archetype" territory.
I'm gonna go over cleric archetypes later tonight.
It's the pagely definition reminder!
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.
Also, this well-written thing. XD
I'd love to hear any further suggestions about what should/shouldn't be on the list, or what should/shouldn't have a question mark!
Monster Tactician Inquisitor definitely.... played in groups with them on a couple of occasions.... OOOUCH!!
Doesnt out do the Inquisitor thematically but does most definitely power wise.
Oh and BTW its PFS banned (although Mr Occam would no doubt state that was a coincedence! ;))
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitor:
Sanctified Slayer
Sacred Huntmaster
Ravener Hunter
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that made me reconsider giving the +1 to Thronewarden was giving up Nimble, which is not only painful mechanically but also flavor wise it goes against the grain of the dexterous dodger that we tend to think of as Gunslingers. It made me think really more of a backline, rally the troops, Officer like character.
Yeah, losing Nimble is pretty painful... :/
However, I think you have a decent point on pointing out that those same qualities could just as easily apply to a sheriff or an outlaw. In the same vein however, I'd like to point out that the Maverick archetype also works for a sheriff just as easily as it works for a Gambler or Cowboy archetype.
While the Maverick doesn't quite reach officer material unless we are thinking more along the Black Sheep style officer, drinking and playing poker with the boys (or even a Commander Riker from Star Trek Next Generation)...actually lets just go with Riker. Riker drinks and gambles with his fellow officers, is quite skilled at fisticuffs, bluffing, and intimidating people into backing down with his phazer(handgun). You might see the same from a local sheriff, willing to wade into a brawl with his fists to break up a fight but not above playing poker with those same boys.
The two classes each represent the Gunslinger being more defined around a specific idea but at odds about how to define the Gunslinger. Thus I'm really conflicted, as calling either one Gunslinger +1 pushes the other into "just another archetype" territory.
Yeah, good points. I think you're right that the Maverick does a pretty good job of fitting most gunslinger tropes for which deeds like Utility Shot (shoot unattended object) or Slinger's Luck, which suggest a kind of freewheeling lucky daredevil type character that the Maverick fits nicely. Nice!
As far as conflicts over which of the Maverick or the Throne Warden is better as the default Gunslinger, I think it's OK to have ties. (Which is not to say that we should take these two archetypes to be tied; just that we should be open to the possibility of ties.) After all, there could be multiple archetypes which do a better (thought no perfect) job of capturing the idea behind the class than the original class does, each expanding, enriching or improving upon the original class in different ways. (Of course, it's especially cool if there's a single best contender, though, so it's worth pushing for that too if it's available!)
I'm gonna go over cleric archetypes later tonight.
Yeah, I'd love to see anything else you come up with!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo ate my post on Clerics, well technically my spotty wifi connection did. Fortunately I didn't have anything all that much to say on Clerics.
Clerics have a special place in tabletop games, and that alters our view of them somewhat. Still, the base cleric isn't all that exciting to play since Domains are kind of meh. I like the Divine Paragon, except for home games where Divine Obedience's don't exist. I am currently running a home game and let me tell you setting up a pantheon of 20 odd gods is enough work without devising 3 boons for each of them with a corresponding ritual attached. The ritual, the variety, and the flavor behind the class is probably better suited for the Cleric than the base.
The roaming Exorcist is much more like a Priest than a cleric, in my mind, and in more the monotheistic perception of a Priest rather than the Polytheistic clerics we are used to seeing. More over, the Exorcist lacks channel negative energy so it doesn't fit the evil priest archetype that is fairly common in a fantasy setting. Heck, even neutral priests who want to lay the smack down on their living opponents.
My biggest beef with Clerics is honestly that the Ecclesitheurge sucks. I wish this archetype was better because I would be jumping up and down calling this the Priest +1. Not necessarily the cleric mind you, but this class had the potential to functionally be a divine wizard. Then it turns out that instead of taking ASF penalties, instead wearing armor just screws them out of casting. They have no mechanic for recovering that lost AC, and while they have roaming domains they only get 1 use of those domain spells. If they could only prepare those secondary domain spells in any slot, the class would be good enough to ignore the lack of AC.
Unfortunately the archetype sucks, so I have to put my vote towards Divine Paragon as being the quintessential cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monster Tactician Inquisitor definitely.... played in groups with them on a couple of occasions.... OOOUCH!!
Doesnt out do the Inquisitor thematically but does most definitely power wise.
Inquisitor:
Sanctified Slayer
Sacred Huntmaster
Ravener Hunter
A slew of powerhouse archetypes here! I think all four of these suggestions are plausibly better_2 (i.e., more powerful) inquisitors than the base inquisitor.
What about better_1?
I've been convinced from the discussion above that the Sanctified Slayer is at least arguably a better_1 inquisitor (i.e., better fits the idea behind the inquisitor) than the base inquisitor. The Sanctified Slayer loses Judgment, which does fit the inquisitor idea. But it replaces it with Sneak Attack (meh, flavor-wise), Slayer Talents, which seem to offer a number of ways of fleshing out the "religious monster-hunter/investigator" idea that the standard inquisitor doesn't offer, and Studied Target, which effectively adds substantial benefits to a number of thematic inquisitor skills, and can be used at will. Overall, this makes it plausible that, as Imbicatus suggested, the Sanctified Slayer does "a better job of fitting the Van Helsing inspiration for the class".
The Sacred Huntsman is a very powerful archetype, but I'm not sure that it's a better_1 inquisitor than the base inquisitor. The animal companion focus doesn't seem to fit most of the Van Helsing or "religious monster-hunter/investigator" tropes that the inquisitor class seems to be aiming at.
Likewise, while the Monster Tactician is a very powerful archetype, I'm not sure that it's a better_1 inquisitor than the base inquisitor. It trades judgments for powerful summon monster SLAs with shared teamwork feats, which is a great deal, but not a great fit for most of the "religious monster-hunter/investigator" tropes. (If anything, it might be in contention for being a better_1 summoner than the base summoner, though the spell list is a little odd for a summoner...)
The Ravener Hunter is an interesting suggestion, though. It delays access to Solo Tactics for some bonuses against demons and demon worshipers, gets some extra spell choices of the good descriptor, and trades the domain for an oracle mystery from a restricted list. Hrmm. The bonuses against demons and demon worshipers is fitting, though a bit specialized for a default class. The extra good descriptor spells are a pretty good fit for good inquisitor, though again that may be a bit specialized for a default class. And the oracle mysteries don't seem to be any more or less thematic than the domain (though they're definitely more powerful than most domains), so thematically, that seems to be a wash. So I guess I'm left thinking the Ravener Hunter, although a powerhouse of an archetype, isn't clearly a better fit with the idea behind the inquisitor than the base inquisitor is. Cool suggestion, though!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo ate my post on Clerics, well technically my spotty wifi connection did. Fortunately I didn't have anything all that much to say on Clerics.
Ah! It kills me every time I hear of this happening. Sorry to hear it!
Public Service Announcement: For your own sakes, write out your posts in a text document! Your time and your thoughts are valuable! Don't let the electric demons of the interwebs steal them!
Clerics have a special place in tabletop games, and that alters our view of them somewhat. Still, the base cleric isn't all that exciting to play since Domains are kind of meh. I like the Divine Paragon, except for home games where Divine Obedience's don't exist. I am currently running a home game and let me tell you setting up a pantheon of 20 odd gods is enough work without devising 3 boons for each of them with a corresponding ritual attached. The ritual, the variety, and the flavor behind the class is probably better suited for the Cleric than the base.
Yeah, that is one big drawback of the Divine Paragon I hadn't considered. :/ In some cases you might be able to crib the boons offered by similar deities, but in cases in which there isn't an easy match, it requires a lot of work.
The roaming Exorcist is much more like a Priest than a cleric, in my mind, and in more the monotheistic perception of a Priest rather than the Polytheistic clerics we are used to seeing. ...
Nicely put. Yeah, that's exactly what the Roaming Exorcist seems like -- a canonical priest (which may not encompass all of the cleric tropes, but certainly seems to fall within the purview of the cleric, as the only 9th level divine caster that's deity-specific).
My biggest beef with Clerics is honestly that the Ecclesitheurge sucks. I wish this archetype was better because I would be jumping up and down calling this the Priest +1. Not necessarily the cleric mind you, but this class had the potential to functionally be a divine wizard. Then it turns out that instead of taking ASF penalties, instead wearing armor just screws them out of casting. They have no mechanic for recovering that lost AC, and while they have roaming domains they only get 1 use of those domain spells. If they could only prepare those secondary domain spells in any slot, the class would be good enough to ignore the lack of AC.
Unfortunately the archetype sucks, so I have to put my vote towards Divine Paragon as being the quintessential cleric.
Thanks for pointing out the Ecclesitheurge to me! ...and I agree that it sucks. Oh well.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one backing the Divine Paragon, though!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The two classes each represent the Gunslinger being more defined around a specific idea but at odds about how to define the Gunslinger. Thus I'm really conflicted, as calling either one Gunslinger +1 pushes the other into "just another archetype" territory.I'd be wary of assuming that every non-archetyped class has a specific concept. Gunslinger may ultimately exist around "use guns", and when you can't point to one concept of "gunslinger" it just means you're trying to narrow down something that isn't narrow.
I agree and I find myself enjoying making Characters being whatever. I have a pfs cleric of groetus, who has profession:begger and a holy symbol flavored as a wooden plank that says "the end is near".
Someone else could make a cleric or whatever totally different. You don't need an archetype (though it may help mecanically), what makes your character is your ability to play the character, period.
Archetypes that flavor in a way that fit a specific version of the class may be useful, but they don't make them representative of all the possibilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo ate my post on Clerics, well technically my spotty wifi connection did. Fortunately I didn't have anything all that much to say on Clerics.Ah! It kills me every time I hear of this happening. Sorry to hear it!
Public Service Announcement: For your own sakes, write out your posts in a text document! Your time and your thoughts are valuable! Don't let the electric demons of the interwebs steal them!
{. . .}
Or at least get them into your clipboard before hitting Submit. I routinely do this with all web posting sites to avoid having stuff eaten. If trouble persists, then I paste into a text file so that I can try again later.
{. . .}
Thanks for pointing out the Ecclesitheurge to me! ...and I agree that it sucks. Oh well.
{. . .}
Others have pointed out on these messageboards that Ecclesitheurge has a niche in Scribe Scroll builds that seek to make a divine Wizard substitute. Requires some really specific choices and situations, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since people posted about Razmiran Priest Sorcerer earlier, I decided that I should look it up again, and . . . found a minor but weird bug in this archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be wary of assuming that every non-archetyped class has a specific concept.
Yeah, I definitely agree that in general the basic classes aren't trying to capture one specific concept. Rather, they seem intended to cover a broad range of concepts that have certain kinds of similarities. (And then the question is whether there are any archetypes that fit the same range (or strictly broader range) of concepts just as well or better than the base class. Which, in the case of the gunslinger, there may not be!)
Gunslinger may ultimately exist around "use guns", and when you can't point to one concept of "gunslinger" it just means you're trying to narrow down something that isn't narrow.
The point is well taken. But, FWIW, I think the base gunslinger is plausibly aimed at something narrower than "uses guns". E.g., Nimble and Gun Training suggest that the class is also aimed at the idea of a lightly armored and dextrous gun user (as opposed to, say, heavily armored gun users). Gunslinger's Initiative suggests a lightning-fast quickdraw kind of warrior, who might win a gunslinger duel (as opposed to, say, trench fighting world war I-type soldiers). Deeds like Slinger's Luck, Startling Shot and Scoot Unattended Object suggest a kind of lucky, flashy daredevil type who can perform various trick shots (again, as opposed to, say, the kind of trench fighting world war I-type soldiers).
Now, there's still a broad range of specific concepts compatible with all of that. But one might argue that some archetypes fit all of concepts just as well or better. That may or may not be true in the case of the gunslinger, of course, but that's the thought that's being explored...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll contend that basic arcanist is a better universalist than exploiter. The unique casting style just fits for being good at all magic better than if the wizard forgets how to cast haste on the 3rd fight of the day at level 15.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did anyone mention the Brute Vigilante.
Sure, sucks, but it totally changes the class into another personally. Unlike the fake change a normal Vigilante can (just for powers).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree and I find myself enjoying making Characters being whatever. I have a pfs cleric of groetus, who has profession:begger and a holy symbol flavored as a wooden plank that says "the end is near".
Someone else could make a cleric or whatever totally different. You don't need an archetype (though it may help mecanically), what makes your character is your ability to play the character, period.
Yeah, good. So I certainly agree that one can play pretty much any class any way one likes. But I take it (and I take it from your remarks that you agree) that particular concepts are better supported by the mechanics of a class than others.
(I.e., one can use the wizard class to create a two handed weapon-using front liner, or use the fighter class to create a scrawny and studious "spell casting" (using UMD and scrolls, say) character. But these ideas are generally pretty hard to implement, and usually turn out poorly, since one is trying to build a character concept that lies outside the comfort zone of the class. Not impossible, of course. But plausibly not what the designers of the class had in mind when they were deciding what class abilities to give these classes.)
So I take the question being focused on in this discussion is this. Take the range of concepts that the base class seems to suggest. Are there archetypes that do at least as good, if not better, job at capturing these concept? I.e., are there archetypes that seem like they should have been the base class? (Or which would do just as good a job at capturing the intended range of concepts if they were the base class?)
Archetypes that flavor in a way that fit a specific version of the class may be useful, but they don't make them representative of all the possibilities.
Yeah, good. So I agree that most archetypes -- indeed, almost all archetypes -- are of the kind you're talking about here. I.e., most archetypes focus in on some particular concept that one might naturally apply the base class to, and "zoom in" by adding some specialized mechanical tweaks to make it even a better fit to that particular concept. So, as you say, most archetypes won't be representative of all of the possibilities that the base class seems to cover.
My motivation for creating this thread, though, was noticing that there seem to be a few archetypes that don't seem to fit the above model. One exception to this model are archetypes which radically change the class to fit a concept the original class couldn't (e.g., the Dandy ranger archetype). Another exception -- and the one being focused on here -- are archetypes which don't "zoom in" on some more specific concept, but rather tweak the mechanics of the base class so that it does a better job of capturing the concepts the original class was intended to capture.
The clearest example of this is, I think, is the Qinggong monk archetype. Since it just adds options, and takes nothing away, it can encompass strictly more character concepts than the base (chained) monk, and allows you to build a number of these concepts in a better way than the base class does.
Another (less trivial) example of this is, I think, the Noble Fencer swashbuckler archetype. I think the Noble Fencer seems to do a strictly better job at fitting pretty much every character concept the base swashbuckler was intended to fit, and it fits a number of these concepts better than the base class does.
And my question was: what other archetypes are plausibly like this?
That was the thought, anyway!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, FWIW, I think the base gunslinger is plausibly aimed at something narrower than "uses guns".
While this may have been the intent, the practical reality is that the gunslinger exists to facilitate firearm use and nothing else. It might have been the original author intent to emphasize a nimble gun user, but these other abilities are almost inconsequential. The fact is that the firearm rules in Pathfinder are broken and do not function out of the box, so any character who wants to use them must take levels if gunslinger. In a sense, it never really mattered what other class features they put in there; if you want to use guns you must take levels in gunslinger along with whatever baggage it entails, and if you don't want to use guns then there's no reason to use the class to begin with.
In recent years I've come to the conclusion that the gunslinger should have never existed. The relevant gunslinger deeds and gun training should have been feats (like gunsmithing already is), and every other class feature of consequence should have been worked in as archetypes of other classes. The Gunslinger's flavor and concept is completely subsumed by the fact that (mechanically speaking) it exists solely to make a specific combat style viable. Take away that niche, and it really has nothing left to define itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The two classes each represent the Gunslinger being more defined around a specific idea but at odds about how to define the Gunslinger. Thus I'm really conflicted, as calling either one Gunslinger +1 pushes the other into "just another archetype" territory.I'd be wary of assuming that every non-archetyped class has a specific concept. Gunslinger may ultimately exist around "use guns", and when you can't point to one concept of "gunslinger" it just means you're trying to narrow down something that isn't narrow.I agree and I find myself enjoying making Characters being whatever. I have a pfs cleric of groetus, who has profession:begger and a holy symbol flavored as a wooden plank that says "the end is near".
Someone else could make a cleric or whatever totally different. You don't need an archetype (though it may help mecanically), what makes your character is your ability to play the character, period.
Archetypes that flavor in a way that fit a specific version of the class may be useful, but they don't make them representative of all the possibilities.
I think you're misunderstanding my point here guys and gals, Porridge did a decent job explaining things but I'll try to add to that. Every class chassis (I prefer to use Chassis to refer to the base class since there is a whole group of classes that are also called base classes, this helps remove confusion) has a broad range of fantasies that it tries to fulfill. This is done through making abilities either variable (Ex: Rage Powers, Rogue Talents, Bloodlines, Curses, and etc) or through making the effect broad enough to apply regardless of the fantasy you are pursuing (Studied Target, Smite Good/Evil, Judgement, Mutagen, most passive skills, etc).
When you look at a class, like the gunslinger, the concept is never just use gun. Yes, that is the core area of the Gunslinger but guns are everywhere in fiction. Is this character a spy, a sheriff, an officer, a scout, and etc. The design team's goal when building the chassis for the Gunslinger was to add all those ideas together into a blender and set it to frappe. The Gunslinger as a chassis should appeal to everyone and allow them to build the gunslinger they want to play. Now, the best designed archetypes exist either to focus in on a specific point of interest within the class or to cover odd-fantasies that the designer's couldn't fulfill while blending everything together. The Gunslinger has several of these archetypes, for instance the Gun Tank is an archetype that fulfills a fantasy that the chassis of the Gunslinger cannot achieve on its own. Meanwhile the Pistolero, Siege Gunner, and the Musket Master each focus on making one specific aspect of the class the sole focus. Each of these archetypes give up something critical to the central fantasy of the Gunslinger, in exchange for furthering or achieving a different fantasy. No one here would argue that the Gun Tank or the Siege Gunner would be a better Chassis for the Gunslinger than the original, because they give up design space and limit the number of fantasies available to players looking to play the class.
What this thread is about; however, are Archetypes that are designed in such a way that they functionally improve upon the base class without sacrificing the class's core fantasy. These archetypes essentially provide either more flavor or more variety than their chassis, and can almost replace the chassis by becoming the default option. These are the classes that Porridge refers to as Better_1. Alternatively, some archetypes not only achieve more variety or flavor but also substantially add to the power of the class. These are the archetypes that Porridge refers to as Better_2. In regards to the Gunslinger, the Throne Warden and the Maverick both have more flavor than the default Gunslinger without sacrificing anything significant. The Maverick replaces some of the Gunslinger's worst deeds, while the Throne Warden replaces the generic Nimble ability and a few less important deeds. In return, they give the Gunslinger substantial flavor and at least equivalent abilities without sacrificing the Gunslinger's core range of fantasies. The Maverick can be a sheriff, an outlaw, an officer, or a cowboy just the same as the Throne Warden. You could functionally remove the Gunslinger Chassis and replace it entirely with either of those archetypes, and nothing important to the class would be lost. This makes them Better_1 than the Gunslinger. Basically, this thread is looking for archetypes that expand your options without restricting them in return.
Now, into all of this I would like to throw in a contentious one. Rogue, either Core or Unchained. I'll talk a bit about this later on when I have my thoughts reorganized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Swarm Monger fits if we are looking for archetypes that expand your options without restricting them in return.
It makes you better with vermin (expands Wild empathy with Vermin heart bonus feat)
Grants a familiar instead of a companion that can choose to turn into a swarm.
You do lose Woodland Stride but there are Druid spells to make that back. you get bonuses versus Disease/poison (universaly better), for losing half that bonus vs fey (interesting that the fey one was +2 while Poison is +4); in addition, eating spoiled food without issue for temp hp.
You lose ability to turn into Huge Elemental or Plant for ability to turn into a Swarm when Wild shaping.
Granted, this means a 6th level spell (which is what you are becoming) as a 12th level ability. But more times a day than you can cast 6th level spells.
You are still basically a Druid, but more focused if wish. Nothing makes it play different mostly, but you can totally be different (after all, you can actually eat disgusting stuff in character and not be hurt).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid I have to disagree Starbuck, the Swarm Monger prevents you from selecting most Animal Companions or Domains. This is a restriction, which defeats a number of Druid fantasies. So the Archetype is a focused version of the Druid rather than simply a Better_1 Druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one has gone for Knife Master rogue yet? That is the most Rogue a Rogue can be D8's for sneak attack damage but you have to use knifes and daggers. Meaning small and sneaky and damage is reliant upon sneak attack damage.
The worst Monk is the one without an Archetype, so pretty much all Monk archetypes.
Paizo ate my post on Clerics, well technically my spotty wifi connection did. Fortunately I didn't have anything all that much to say on Clerics.
Clerics have a special place in tabletop games, and that alters our view of them somewhat. Still, the base cleric isn't all that exciting to play since Domains are kind of meh. I like the Divine Paragon, except for home games where Divine Obedience's don't exist. I am currently running a home game and let me tell you setting up a pantheon of 20 odd gods is enough work without devising 3 boons for each of them with a corresponding ritual attached. The ritual, the variety, and the flavor behind the class is probably better suited for the Cleric than the base.
The roaming Exorcist is much more like a Priest than a cleric, in my mind, and in more the monotheistic perception of a Priest rather than the Polytheistic clerics we are used to seeing. More over, the Exorcist lacks channel negative energy so it doesn't fit the evil priest archetype that is fairly common in a fantasy setting. Heck, even neutral priests who want to lay the smack down on their living opponents.
My biggest beef with Clerics is honestly that the Ecclesitheurge sucks. I wish this archetype was better because I would be jumping up and down calling this the Priest +1. Not necessarily the cleric mind you, but this class had the potential to functionally be a divine wizard. Then it turns out that instead of taking ASF penalties, instead wearing armor just screws them out of casting. They have no mechanic for recovering that lost AC, and while they have roaming domains they only get 1 use of those domain spells. If they could only prepare those secondary domain spells in any slot, the class would be good enough to ignore the lack of AC.
Unfortunately the archetype sucks, so I have to put my vote towards Divine Paragon as being the quintessential cleric.
Ecclesitheruge really is fairly terrible and is made even worse when you consider a bog standard cleric getting an Icon as Aspects which enables you to swap out domain abilities, and thus emualtes that particular ability of the Ecclesitheurge.
Ironically though much like the Divine Paragon, its only a couple of tweaks away from being a really solid archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll contend that basic arcanist is a better universalist than exploiter. The unique casting style just fits for being good at all magic better than if the wizard forgets how to cast haste on the 3rd fight of the day at level 15.
(BTW, in my caveats in the list I provided above, I forgot to mention above that it didn't include suggestions regarding possible classes (instead of archetypes) that did a class better_1 than the original class. But that wasn't for any particular reason.)
I'm a big fan of the arcanist's casting style -- I'm one of those people for whom the Vancian casting system has always seemed strange. So I share the sentiment that forgetting the spell after you cast it seems weird. And it does have all of the exploiter tricks available, which allows for a wide range of magic-using concepts. So I guess the question is just whether it's important to retain the Vancian casting magic-style the wizard in order to capture the concept the wizard is going for or not... Hrmm...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Swarm Monger fits if we are looking for archetypes that expand your options without restricting them in return.
It makes you better with vermin (expands Wild empathy with Vermin heart bonus feat)
Grants a familiar instead of a companion that can choose to turn into a swarm.
You do lose Woodland Stride but there are Druid spells to make that back. you get bonuses versus Disease/poison (universaly better), for losing half that bonus vs fey (interesting that the fey one was +2 while Poison is +4); in addition, eating spoiled food without issue for temp hp.You lose ability to turn into Huge Elemental or Plant for ability to turn into a Swarm when Wild shaping.
Granted, this means a 6th level spell (which is what you are becoming) as a 12th level ability. But more times a day than you can cast 6th level spells.You are still basically a Druid, but more focused if wish. Nothing makes it play different mostly, but you can totally be different (after all, you can actually eat disgusting stuff in character and not be hurt).
What a cool archetype! Animal companions with swarm forms?! That's amazing. Thanks for pointing that one out to me!
(Though I think I agree with ShroudedInLight that the heavy restrictions on animal companions and wild shape choices make it hard for the Swarm Monger to serve as a better_1 druid than the base druid.)
No one has gone for Knife Master rogue yet? That is the most Rogue a Rogue can be D8's for sneak attack damage but you have to use knifes and daggers. Meaning small and sneaky and damage is reliant upon sneak attack damage.
The worst Monk is the one without an Archetype, so pretty much all Monk archetypes.
Yeah, the Knife Master is probably a better_2 rogue than the base rogue. (And, as you say, pretty much every (chained) monk archetype is a better_2 monk than the base (chained) monk!)
Don't know if the Knife Master is a better_1 rogue than the base rogue though, since locking them into a particular kind of weapon seems to restrict the kinds of rogues one might to build a bit...
Every monk, as they say, is a Qinggong monk. Since you have 100% freedom on which class abilities to replace, the only reason not to be one is if 100% of the class features you want come from base form or other archetypes.
Yeah, definitely!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, into all of this I would like to throw in a contentious one. Rogue, either Core or Unchained. I'll talk a bit about this later on when I have my thoughts reorganized.
I not sure whether you're going to argue that there are rogue archetypes that do better_1 than the base rogue, or whether the are rogue archetypes that do better_1 than the base gunslinger. But either way, I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a gut feeling the new Chronomancer wizard archetype will be joining the list...
Looks like a perfectly balanced archetype to me.
For all his time manipulation ability, he can't really do all that much.
He gets a small bonuse on initiative and saves a few times a day.
He doesn't have to waste a spell slot when it fails to effect a target.
He can have two triggers for a contingency spell.
For his capstone, when he dies, he can fight on for a few extra rounds as though he didn't die, after which, he stays dead.
He has to give up arcane bond and his 10th, 15th, and 20th-level feats. It's certainly cool, but not necessarily more powerful. Those feats could have been some really potent metamagic, for example.
Honestly, I think some of the new time-themed spells in the book are much more powerful than the archetype. There's a 7th-level spell that you can cast as a swift action. When you do, it lets you cast two other spells and resolve them independently of one another. Once you've seen the individual results of both spells, you pick one, it's effects take place, and the other is treated as though it were never cast.
For example, after casting the spell, a wizard could cast temporal stasis on a demon and fireball on a group of orcs. Seeing that the demon succeeds at its saving throw against temporal stasis and that the fireball kills many orcs, the wizard chooses the fireball to take effect. The temporal stasis is treated as if it had not been cast, and its spell slot and costly material component are not expended.
What's all this time magic stuff from? It sounds incredibly powerful.
Usually the thing that worries me with new supplements is new spells. Inevitably there will be new spells that are exceedingly powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's all this time magic stuff from? It sounds incredibly powerful.
Usually the thing that worries me with new supplements is new spells. Inevitably there will be new spells that are exceedingly powerful.
Most of the time stuff can be found in Legacy of the First World, which was just released.
There are lots of other time theme spells and abilities even before that though.
The most powerful ones I've seen so far are temporal divergence, which I've described above, and temporal regression, which let's you set a personal "save point" and then if something bad happens, you can reset all your stats (including conditions) to that save point. Both these spells have some pretty steep drawbacks though. The latter spell hits you with a negative level every other round since you cast it. The former spell can only be used once per day, unless you like being confused for 24 hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if you have death ward on, does temporal regression have no drawback?
Sent you a PM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion The Psycho Kineticist[PsyKin] (Found in Horror Adventures) is a much better build for the Kin. The Base class is constitution based (which is a cool idea for a caster) however whenever they are put in a stressful situation the Burn they take to use some of their advanced abilities (making awesome blasts) can really damage them in a long run because of the temporary hit points they gain by accepting burn.
The PsyKin is more useful to a general player because it turns the class into a wisdom based caster, and that's about it. The burn turns from temporary hit points into a -2 penalty/ burn point to Wisdom Checks, Wisdom skills, and will saving throws. Which on the flip side sounds bad, but it opens up the door for the character if they choose to multi class into other casters, or use the Occult Skill Unlocks. The PsyKin also expands the Kin skill set by 1, and gives them Psych Sensitivity as a bonus feat. This is huge for the class because it practically opens up a feat slot for them.
(I hope pazio would release more fluff information for this class. They are very interesting and I would to see how they fit into the world overall, and or release a more angelic or demonic branch for the class to go down. (I know those are arguably wood and Void) however a pure positive energy/ pure negative energy would be a nice addition)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ecclesitheruge really is fairly terrible and is made even worse when you consider a bog standard cleric getting an Icon as Aspects which enables you to swap out domain abilities, and thus emualtes that particular ability of the Ecclesitheurge.
Ecclesitheurge's Domain Mastery does the opposite (and more) of what Icon of Aspects ("Icon as Aspects"?) does.
Domain Mastery lets you pick a different Domain's Domain Spells to replace those of your Secondary Domain, as long as your deity offers both -- it does not replace Domain Powers. It also lets you prepare your Primary Domain Spells in normal spell slots. Not too shabby, if you can put together the right Domains, including choice of deity that gets you the right Secondary Domains (trickier than just picking 1 or 2 Domains and calling it a day). (And if you do it right, Scribe Scroll becomes a very good pick.) The tricky part is finding a deity that offers a Primary Domain that has Domain Spells that you want to cast often as well as good Domain Powers, a Secondary Domain that has good Domain Spells for occasional use as well as good Domain Powers, and a few alternate Domains that have good Domain Spells for occasional use, regardless of whether their Domain Powers are any good.
Icon of Aspects lets you pick a different Domain's Domain Powers to replace those of one of your Domains with those of another Domain, as long as your deity offers both (for the moment ignoring possible interaction with the Separatist archetype) -- it does not replace Domain Spells. (Scribe Scroll is no more helpful if you have this item that if you didn't.) The tricky part is finding a deity that has the widest selection of Domains with good Domain Powers, in most cases regardless of whether they have good Domain Spells, and 2 Domains (or 1 if you take an archetype that has just 1 Domain) that have good Domain Spells (these are the Domains you actually take, and you use Icon of Aspects to get the Domain Powers of the others).
Now, if you can find a deity that offers mainly Domains that have good Domain Spells AND good Domain Powers, then being an Ecclesitheurge that owns an Icon of Aspects (and of course picks up Scribe Scroll as soon as possible) becomes a good combination.
Of course, you still have to worry about not being able to wear Armor or use a Shields, and have lacklustre weapon choices (unless your race gives you something better), but if you're going to be the divine equivalent of a Wizard, that can be worked around, since you will be avoiding getting into physical combat for the most part (the big exception being if you need to deliver Bad Touches).
And Blessing of the Faithful and Bonded Holy Symbol are not too shabby . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion The Psycho Kineticist[PsyKin] (Found in Horror Adventures) is a much better build for the Kin. The Base class is constitution based (which is a cool idea for a caster) however whenever they are put in a stressful situation the Burn they take to use some of their advanced abilities (making awesome blasts) can really damage them in a long run because of the temporary hit points they gain by accepting burn.
The PsyKin is more useful to a general player because it turns the class into a wisdom based caster, and that's about it. The burn turns from temporary hit points into a -2 penalty/ burn point to Wisdom Checks, Wisdom skills, and will saving throws. Which on the flip side sounds bad, but it opens up the door for the character if they choose to multi class into other casters, or use the Occult Skill Unlocks. The PsyKin also expands the Kin skill set by 1, and gives them Psych Sensitivity as a bonus feat. This is huge for the class because it practically opens up a feat slot for them.
Huh. Interesting idea! So let's see... the Psychokineticist who accumulates burn gets lower will saves (and other wisdom-stuff) instead of lower HP, but that's offset by their being wisdom-based instead of constitution-based. OK, that's fair. Then the overflow they get when they take enough burn is also modified so that it boosts wisdom instead of constitution. Again, that seems OK. (Well, it also doesn't boost other physical stats, it boosts other mental stats, which means they don't get better at (say) hitting things when they take burn, and they don't get the resistance to crits; those are a bit of a minus.)
Finally, they can't use wild talents when they couldn't use an emotion component... wait what?! And with low will saves, it sounds like you'll be really vulnerable to the kinds of effects (e.g., fear) which completely shut you down... Actually, now I worry that I'm misreading something. That seems a bit too crazy, and doesn't reflect any corresponding weakness in the original kineticist. (I don't think there's anything that completely shuts down the original kineticist's powers.) What am I missing here?...
OK, put that aside. Even if it's a step down power-wise, how does it do thematically? Hrmm... that's a good question. I'm not as well acquainted with the kinds of tropes that the kineticist is trying to capture as I am with some classes. What do you guys think? Is the idea of the elemental user getting more physically fatigued and weak as they tax themselves with their abilities, or more mentally weak and pliable as they tax themselves and their abilities, more fitting with the elemental-user-concept?
In my opinion The Psycho Kineticist[PsyKin] (Found in Horror Adventures) is a much better build for the Kin. The Base class is constitution based (which is a cool idea for a caster) however whenever they are put in a stressful situation the Burn they take to use some of their advanced abilities (making awesome blasts) can really damage them in a long run because of the temporary hit points they gain by accepting burn.
The PsyKin is more useful to a general player because it turns the class into a wisdom based caster, and that's about it. The burn turns from temporary hit points into a -2 penalty/ burn point to Wisdom Checks, Wisdom skills, and will saving throws. Which on the flip side sounds bad, but it opens up the door for the character if they choose to multi class into other casters, or use the Occult Skill Unlocks. The PsyKin also expands the Kin skill set by 1, and gives them Psych Sensitivity as a bonus feat. This is huge for the class because it practically opens up a feat slot for them.
Huh. Interesting idea! So let's see... the Psychokineticist who accumulates burn gets lower will saves (and other wisdom-stuff) instead of lower HP, but that's offset by their being wisdom-based instead of constitution-based. OK, that's fair. Then the overflow they get when they take enough burn is also modified so that it boosts wisdom instead of constitution. Again, that seems OK. (Well, it also doesn't boost other physical stats, it boosts other mental stats, which means they don't get better at (say) hitting things when they take burn, and they don't get the resistance to crits; those are a bit of a minus.)
Finally, they can't use wild talents when they couldn't use an emotion component... wait what?! And with low will saves, it sounds like you'll be really vulnerable to the kinds of effects (e.g., fear) which completely shut you down... Actually, now I worry that I'm misreading something. That seems a bit too crazy, and doesn't reflect any corresponding weakness...
I agree there are some draw backs. However I feel the emotional component should not become a problem unless madness rules or other effects that directly affect them, simply because the Kin. Should not be in range to get the affect. I am currently running with this class of character and the only time I was in 50ft or closer in combat was last session I played in ([there have been about 45 sessions with this character] and it was by choice) So I feel like a Kin. with extended range should be out of the range of most low level fear effects.
Another important note is that a Kin. Should not be burning through their burn very quickly. Since it is such a small number and with numerous abilities to reduce or eliminate burn. The -2 penalty should not play to big of a influence on will saves ( I am not saying it has no effect. I just am saying it is not a bad as book value sounds) so taking feats like Iron Will can help boost and protect the Kin from the emotional effects. (yes the mental overflow ability would not be taken full advantage of, however its the same situation with the elemental overflow)
Thematically I believe this could make just as much sense as a physical taxation on the body. The Kin. power just come from different sources. Normal Kin. draw power from their inner self (kinda like a monks Ki). PsyKin. draws it from their mental abilities an focusing their power ( I think of this like Jinora from legend of Kora, she had some physical abilities with air bending but what made her stand out was her mental control and spiritual abilities). I feel like the PsyKin. could work really well if you play a very studious or outgoing character.
I still believe the burn trade off is better for the Kin overall. The loss in HP can be very detrimental at higher levels, especially since it can not be healed or removed without rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most kineticists are going to be within 30' of the things they're trying to hurt quite frequently. Aerokineticists get extra range from a utility talent, but anybody else who wants to use a form infusion other than extended/extreme range is going to have to hang out within charge range. Extended range is really low priority when you get to do fun things like put down walls.
I don't think the Psychokineticist does a class better than the class, personally I think it's a slight downgrade, but it's at least a viable archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No argument that the Rogue is a better Gunslinger, however you really only need a single level of Gunslinger to play as a Gun using character. As you want "Have Gun", Gunsmithing, and Quickclear. Everything else is technically extra, and you can swap over to any class with flat damage buffs and play just like a Crossbow user. While lacking attribute scaling is painful, targeting touch is so useful that it is ultimately ok in the end. Especially with Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, and all the other ranged combat abilities that make Ranged combat the best style in the game.
In regards to Rogue, the main problem with the Rogue is that other classes are Better_1 than the Rogue. The Slayer comes out as a better Sneaky-Fighter, the Investigator is a better skill monkey (w/ magic too), and Bards tend to be better Jack of All Trades. However, if I was limited to selecting Archetypes then I'd point over towards the following ones as all being Rogue +1.
1: Phantom Thief -> Giving up sneak attack is rough but it leaves the Phantom Thief with an incredible amount of options. This is pretty much the best Jack of All Trades, master of none, Rogue archetype. You become a powerful skill monkey with limited combat capabilities and limited magic to back up your skill use. Ultimately though, investigator does it better :(
2: Eldritch Scoundrel -> A rogue archetype so good its banned from PFS, the Scoundrel is a powerful magic rogue that basically ends up as worse Magus. No clue why its banned, but the class does function exceedingly well as a Rogue archetype to capture that magical thief feeling.
3: Knife Master/Scout -> As far as stabby rogues go this twin pair of archetypes is probably the closest thing to a Slayer that you can find. Unfortunately, it is still not a slayer.
This leads me to a point that has been made a lot on the forums but bears repeating...rogues kind of suck. Their main fantasy is not really fulfilled by their class chassis, partly because the main rogue fantasy isn't well defined. It basically boils down to "be skilled and stab people while they aren't looking" and that isn't a narrow enough fantasy to make a functional class. Which leaves the Guile Hero, a fantasy that is in every culture, in a bad place. Ultimately, other classes just achieve the fantasy of a hero who succeeds through trickery and wit much better. It leaves the Rogue, even the unchained rogue, in a sad place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought just the Eldritch Scoundrel Unchained Rogue was banned in PFS, and they still let you have an Eldritch Scoundrel pre-Unchained Rogue -- did they ban Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue completely in recent months?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought just the Eldritch Scoundrel Unchained Rogue was banned in PFS, and they still let you have an Eldritch Scoundrel pre-Unchained Rogue -- did they ban Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue completely in recent months?
No, it's still allowed.
Archetypes: All archetypes in this book are legal for play except the deep marshal. The eldritch scoundrel is not available for use with the unchained rogue
I thought just the Eldritch Scoundrel Unchained Rogue was banned in PFS, and they still let you have an Eldritch Scoundrel pre-Unchained Rogue -- did they ban Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue completely in recent months?
No, it's still allowed.
Archetypes: All archetypes in this book are legal for play except the deep marshal. The eldritch scoundrel is not available for use with the unchained rogue
That may as well constitute a ban. The Eldritch Scoundrel is really dependent on Unchained Rogue class features for its niche. There is no reason to take this archetype over a Bard or Arcane Trickster if you can't use the Unchained Rogue with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit to not knowing all that much about PFS, I just use Archive of Nethys to check whether or not something is legal. Sorry for misrepresenting the ES.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In recent years I've come to the conclusion that the gunslinger should have never existed. The relevant gunslinger deeds and gun training should have been feats (like gunsmithing already is), and every other class feature of consequence should have been worked in as archetypes of other classes. The Gunslinger's flavor and concept is completely subsumed by the fact that (mechanically speaking) it exists solely to make a specific combat style viable. Take away that niche, and it really has nothing left to define itself.
It's funny that you bring this up, because I recently ran across this bit of the Gunslinger guide by N. Jolly, on the Bolt Ace archetype:
Welcome to the non black powder gunslinger. If I’m being honest, I like this a lot more than the standard gunslinger or even other archetypes. Crossbows are generally easier to load (Crossbow Mastery lets you reload heavy bows), the range isn’t pathetic even for long range weapons. There’s no spread shots, the only real advantage guns have, but I’d personally consider this the default slinger in my games.
I thought this was interesting because Jolly makes the case for taking the Bolt Ace as the "default" gunslinger even though it clearly doesn't fit the standard gunslinger tropes (or even use guns!), which I thought was a funny contrast with the kind of "default" archetypes we've been talking about here.
In any case, the Bolt Ace strikes me as an archetype that if anything is even more wedded to the idea of making a specific combat style viable than the base gunslinger. I mean, there are other archetypes who can pull off guns (Tench Fighter, Steel Hound, Picaroon, Musketeer, ...). But I'm not sure there are other builds who can pull off a crossbow well! (The Crossbowman figher archetype is the only one that comes to mind as even coming close, and even there it looks like the base fighter might do better, all things considered...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Domain Mastery lets you pick a different Domain's Domain Spells to replace those of your Secondary Domain, as long as your deity offers both -- it does not replace Domain Powers. It also lets you prepare your Primary Domain Spells in normal spell slots. Not too shabby, if you can put together the right Domains, including choice of deity that gets you the right Secondary Domains (trickier than just picking 1 or 2 Domains and calling it a day). ... The tricky part is finding a deity that offers a Primary Domain that has Domain Spells that you want to cast often as well as good Domain Powers, a Secondary Domain that has good Domain Spells for occasional use as well as good Domain Powers, and a few alternate Domains that have good Domain Spells for occasional use, regardless of whether their Domain Powers are any good.
Icon of Aspects lets you pick a different Domain's Domain Powers to replace those of one of your Domains with those of another Domain, as long as your deity offers both (for the moment ignoring possible interaction with the Separatist archetype) -- it does not replace Domain Spells. (Scribe Scroll is no more helpful if you have this item that if you didn't.) The tricky part is finding a deity that has the widest selection of Domains with good Domain Powers, in most cases regardless of whether they have good Domain Spells, and 2 Domains (or 1 if you take an archetype that has just 1 Domain) that have good Domain Spells (these are the Domains you actually take, and you use Icon of Aspects to get the Domain Powers of the others).
Now, if you can find a deity that offers mainly Domains that have good Domain Spells AND good Domain Powers, then being an Ecclesitheurge that owns an Icon of Aspects (and of course picks up Scribe Scroll as soon as possible) becomes a good combination.
Of course, you still have to worry about not being able to wear Armor or use a Shields, and have lacklustre weapon choices (unless your race gives you something better), but if you're going to be the divine equivalent of a Wizard, that can be worked around, since you will be avoiding getting into physical combat for the most part (the big exception being if you need to deliver Bad Touches).
And Blessing of the Faithful and Bonded Holy Symbol are not too shabby . . . .
Huh, interesting. Your comments have made me go back and look at the class more carefully. And while I'm not sure you were suggesting that the Ecclesitheurge would make a better_1 cleric than the cleric, let me try to more carefully assess it from that perspective.
The Ecclesitheurge does better fit some of the ideas behind the cleric better than the standard cleric. For one, it makes the mechanics of the class the more deity-dependent, as it seems they should be, since all five of your deity's domains matter (mechanically) to your character, not just the two you chose. Likewise, the ability to memorize domain spells multiple times makes the domains you're using, and the domains your deity allows you access to, to be more (mechanically) important. Finally, the Blessing of the Faithful ability you get is... pretty weak, though thematically OK. And the Bonded Holy Symbol ability you get is both pretty nice and thematically fitting, too -- it gives you an emergency "save me [deity]!" moment once a day, where you can cast whatever spell you really need to save your bacon.
In return for all that, the Ecclesitheurge gives up armor and shields (and not just proficiencies; they lose their powers if they don armor or use shields), making them very squishy. They still have d8 HD and good Fort saves, so they're not *quite* as badly off as (say) a wizard or sorcerer. But they're definitely a different kind of character. Now, does this make them better fit the idea of the cleric than the cleric does? Now that I'm warming to the class a little, I'm inclined to say "maybe?". If you think of the cleric as a class that's supposed to encompass pretty much any kind of deity-worshiping class, then it seems this is a strictly more specialized concept. But if you think that with the advent of the warpriest, the remaining cleric concept should really be that of a priest, then I think the Eccleistheurge joins the Wandering Exorcist in plausibly doing a better job of capturing this idea than the cleric does.
Interesting! Thanks for pushing me to look at that archetype more carefully!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree there are some draw backs. However I feel the emotional component should not become a problem unless madness rules or other effects that directly affect them, simply because the Kin. Should not be in range to get the affect. I am currently running with this class of character and the only time I was in 50ft or closer in combat was last session I played in ([there have been about 45 sessions with this character] and it was by choice) So I feel like a Kin. with extended range should be out of the range of most low level fear effects.
Huh. I haven't actually seen one of these in play before, so you could be very well be right -- my initial impression regarding this drawback might be a bit overblown...
Out of curiousity, in your experience running this kind of long-distance character, how often have you felt you needed the extra HP this archetype gives you?
Most kineticists are going to be within 30' of the things they're trying to hurt quite frequently. Aerokineticists get extra range from a utility talent, but anybody else who wants to use a form infusion other than extended/extreme range is going to have to hang out within charge range. Extended range is really low priority when you get to do fun things like put down walls.
Yeah, this kind of thing worries me too -- and it would be nice not to be wedded to one particular element. (But again, I've never actually seen one of these played before...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That may as well constitute a ban. The Eldritch Scoundrel is really dependent on Unchained Rogue class features for its niche. There is no reason to take this archetype over a Bard or Arcane Trickster if you can't use the Unchained Rogue with it.I thought just the Eldritch Scoundrel Unchained Rogue was banned in PFS, and they still let you have an Eldritch Scoundrel pre-Unchained Rogue -- did they ban Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue completely in recent months?
No, it's still allowed.
Archetypes: All archetypes in this book are legal for play except the deep marshal. The eldritch scoundrel is not available for use with the unchained rogue
This is not an embellishment. The amount of things removed by Eldritch Scoundrel leaves an Eldritch Scoundrel Core rogue with literally only their magus spell slots and wizard spellcasting, trapfinding and evasion at 1st-2nd level. That is very, very little compared to similar spellcasters (Magus themselves have spell combat, bard has bardic performance, and warpriests have blessings and free feats). You even lose a lot of skill ranks, and while you have lots of wizard spells to play around with, you as a class don't really have anything going for it and similar in power to, say, an acolyte.
Unchained Rogue still keeps their Dex to Damage, Debilitating Strike and they keep Rogue's Edge, all of which makes the earlier levels easier and not let the rogue feel like they're a weaker magus or bard. The archetype has insane potential, but almost none on a Core Rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to Rogue, the main problem with the Rogue is that other classes are Better_1 than the Rogue. The Slayer comes out as a better Sneaky-Fighter, the Investigator is a better skill monkey (w/ magic too), and Bards tend to be better Jack of All Trades. However, if I was limited to selecting Archetypes then I'd point over towards the following ones as all being Rogue +1.
1: Phantom Thief -> Giving up sneak attack is rough but it leaves the Phantom Thief with an incredible amount of options. This is pretty much the best Jack of All Trades, master of none, Rogue archetype. You become a powerful skill monkey with limited combat capabilities and limited magic to back up your skill use. Ultimately though, investigator does it better :(
2: Eldritch Scoundrel -> A rogue archetype so good its banned from PFS, the Scoundrel is a powerful magic rogue that basically ends up as worse Magus. No clue why its banned, but the class does function exceedingly well as a Rogue archetype to capture that magical thief feeling.
3: Knife Master/Scout -> As far as stabby rogues go this twin pair of archetypes is probably the closest thing to a Slayer that you can find. Unfortunately, it is still not a slayer.
This leads me to a point that has been made a lot on the forums but bears repeating...rogues kind of suck. Their main fantasy is not really fulfilled by their class chassis, partly because the main rogue fantasy isn't well defined. It basically boils down to "be skilled and stab people while they aren't looking" and that isn't a narrow enough fantasy to make a functional class. Which leaves the Guile Hero, a fantasy that is in every culture, in a bad place. Ultimately, other classes just achieve the fantasy of a hero who succeeds through trickery and wit much better. It leaves the Rogue, even the unchained rogue, in a sad place.
OK, cool! I actually had one take on this, and then a completely different take on this...
Take I: Cool! So let me think about each of these archetypes...
--Phantom Thief: I like this archetype a lot, for just the reasons you describe: it puts the rogue back in position to be the go-to skill class. (Not *entirely* clear they succeed; as you note, it seems like the investigator can give them a run for their money... and the investigator has much better combat options, *and* 6th level casting...) Is it a better_1 rogue than the rogue? Would it be better to have this as the default class instead of the default rogue?... maybe, actually. It would make the rogue the default "skill" class, and so would give the rogue a clear niche.
Doesn't fit so well some common rogue tropes, like the assassin/back-stabbing/combat-style rogue. But maybe that role is better filled by something like the Slayer anyway... Hrmm...
--Eldritch Scoundrel: This is also something Garbage-Tier Waifu suggested. And definitely better at doing pretty much any rouge-like thing than any actual rogue. My only worry is that it doesn't fit the "generally sneaky, skillful, but mundane operative" idea that the basic rogue seems to be aiming at. I mean, it would seem a bit odd having the default rogue be a lvl 6 caster... (even if it ends up being better at all of the at pretty much all of the rogue stuff (spying, infiltrating, assassinating, finding and disarming traps, etc.) than any actual rogue!
--Knife Master/Scout: Knife Master was also something Davia D suggested, but I take it you're suggesting the stacked pair of the two. So Knife Master replaces trapfinding and trap sense stuff with sleight of hand bonuses to conceal a light blade, and a bonus to dodge AC against light blades, and a boost to light blade sneak attacks (at the cost of worse bonuses with other weapons). Scout replaces the uncanny dodge pair of abilities with the ability to make sneak attacks at the end of a charge, or as the first attack after moving at least 10' that round.
Is that package a better_1 rogue than the rogue? Would it be better to have this as the default class instead of the default rogue?... It might be. It would make the rogue the default "sneak attack (with light blades)" class, boosting the sneak attack to make this form of combat more viable, and giving it another way of delivering sneak attacks...
The downside is it can't fill the classic D&D trap-finder trope. I guess that's a substantial hit, because that's a classic trope in this context. But that trope doesn't seem to come up much in fantasy media, so this might not be so big a cost... hrmm...
(Of course, as you point out, the Investigator is arguably as good as the Phantom Thief at filling the skill role (and it's much better in other respects), and the Slayer is better than the Knife Master/Scout at the assassin trope...)