Are there really only TWO archetypes?? Or am I missing something?
I like the concept here, that any class can take an archetype as on overlay for whatever class they chose. I think in combination with themes and the inherent options provided in each class, this really lets any character feel truly unique. But, they only gave us two??
Does anyone know if/when more will be released? Or perhaps a system for creating our own?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have confirmed that more are going to be released, I would expect at least one or two in Pact Worlds
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, this is only the Core Rulebook. Compare the number of archetypes in SF Core to the number of archetypes in PF Core.
I still find it mind of odd they didn't just move archetypes completely into the a Pact Worlds book and foot something else in, but that's just me
You make a solid point Lost in Limbo. It is a Core Rulebook. I guess I am just super eager, and I have never been involved in the release of a Core before so I take for granted all the material available for something like PF.
Thanks for that info jack ferencz.
So, from what I can tell, Pact Worlds won't be released for another year. I guess its the two archetypes they gave us, or homebrew until then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still find it mind of odd they didn't just move archetypes completely into the a Pact Worlds book and foot something else in, but that's just me
Well, not necessarily a pact worlds book but some expansion material. This does feel like a waste of space, and an area that needed more time/work. The classes give up very different things (mystics, especially, seem to pay an escalating price rather than a fixed price), and often don't seem to be in line with each other.
and the two archetypes are... uh. Yeah. They exist, certainly.
But given how specific all the SF classes are so far I don't know that this archetype iteration works. They seem to tread too hard on the dividing lines between classes, class specializations, themes and feats. Phrenic adept particularly should be a class rather than a bad feat chain and a bad archetype. And the Starfinder Whatever should just be a theme.
Not a year, more like six months (September through March). Pact Worlds is due in late March, so it's not that long, we got a LOT to plow through for the next six months!
if you are not really going to flesh it out (ie at least one per class or race)
Considering the goal is archetypes that can be taken by any race and class combination, having "at least one per class or race" doesn't really make much sense. I agree that it is a bit limited (both in number and strength) but those exact criteria don't fit the goal at all.
I like the pheneric one ok actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There could easily be archetypes in the back of the AP. Part of the plan with Starfinder was to experiment somewhat with how material was delivered. Not sure how much that is still true, but it's worth remembering that they won't necessarily be doing Starfinder in the same way they do Pathfinder.
I was also kind of disappointed by this. I thought a couple more Archetypes would have shown off the system a little better. I am not really impressed by either Archetype considering what you have to give up.
I'd rather have more themes, archetypes are outdated.
Whereas I find the themes kind of bland mechanically. +1 to a stat which has been shown to be mostly a throw-away with the way stats increase. And then a bonus to a knowledge-type skill.
I do like them for flavor reasons and would like to see a few more.
Although Xenoseeker-Quick pidgin is very cool.
I'd rather have more themes, archetypes are outdated.
I'd rather have more themes, archetypes are outdated.
They don't even really fulfill the same niche though.