So I had previously posted these in a thread designing archetypes that didn't suck. I have since tweaked the archetypes somewhat and put them all into a Google doc and to I thought I would share them in their new updated form. They are still a work in progress and I would LOVE feedback and thoughts, particularly on balancing these.
A couple of things I should note upfront:
- I believe the current archetypes we have are too weak. For most classes you give up a lot of important class features for not much gain. My archetypes are more powerful and that is intended.
- The soldier gives up by far the least when taking an archetype. I recognise that any archetype that I create will make soldiers more powerful. I feel that the alternate class features for the soldier need to be balanced better as currently they are the only class that really can justify an archetype. I have tried to balance the power of these archetypes around the other classes until I have found a way to address this.
- Some people hate the idea of multiclasses in general. They want every class to feel like it's the only one that can do a certain thing and dislike anything that could be seen as stepping on the toes of another class. I am not one of those people. I come from a background of games built on D&D 2e where multiclassing was a choice made and you could do both roles effectively if not at the same level of ability for each one. However it did a allow for some things that no single classed character could accomplish. These archetypes are intended to create a similar feel. If you disagree with this philosophy in general you are welcome to, but please keep in mind one of MY goals with these is to allow you to feel like you ARE in fact a partial version of the class each archetype is tied to. Yes there will be times when you can do something in particular nearly as well as a single classed character. I just don't want it to make a single classed character obsolete.
Again thank you for looking :D
When I saw the post title I thought you meant archetypes that you needed levels in multiple classes to take. What you've got here is actually a Starfinder take on variant multiclassing using the archetype structure (which, to be honest, I really like). I'll need to play around with these a bit before making any opinions on 'em, but I'm glad to see someone's put them together.
It is a lot like the varialent multiclassing. But to be fair all starfinder archetypes are really variant multiclasses, thiy're just prestige classes instead of base classes. Please do try them out. I would love to hear your experiances with them.
I'm looking over them, and I didn't see any glaring problems on a first read. I really like the idea of this. I hated that they didn't have any 'combo' PRC's or Archetypes in the CRB. I'll see if there is any interest from my players when my game starts and let you know if any of them find anything.
It might be too much (I haven't done the damage math), but I would be really interested in a Trick Attack based archetype. 1st level Trick attack at 2, 3rd at 6, 5th at 9, 7th at 12, and 9th (or 11th) at 18. My favorite non spellcasting class builds were always fighter/rogue and ranger/scout hybrids. I'd love to play something like a soldier with Trick Attack.
I'd also like a couple that added Mystic Spells or Technomancer spellcasting. Something that sort of works like Mystic Theurge or Eldritch Knight, but thinner, obviously.
|
In general, I like them, though personally I would make all of them use every ability slot for consistency, but that is just my personal preference. Also a note on soldier that about how to treat class level for the fighting style would be good.
Feel free to add my technomancer to your list (just a blurb of credit please ;)
Mystic Archetype:
Your mystic level is 3/4 your level in the class this archetype is associated
2nd: Choose a connection. Select 2 0th level spells known. You can cast those at will. You also learn the 1st level connection spell. You can cast 1st level spells once per day per 3 levels (minimum 1). Wisdom is the key attribute for these spells.
4th: Gain the first level Connection power for your chosen connection.
6th: Learn a second first level spell from the mystic list. You also learn the second level connection spell from your Connection. You can cast it once per day per 5 levels.
9th: Gain the 3rd level connection power of your chosen connection.
12th: Learn an additional 2nd level spell from the mystic spell list. Learn the 3rd level spell connection you can cast third level spells once per day once per 8 levels.
18th: Gain wither the 6th or 9th level connection power
---
Technomancer Archetype:
Your technomancer level is 3/4 your level in the class this archetype is associated
2nd Level: Gain Technomantic Dabbler as a bonus feat, even if you don't meet the prereqs.
4th Level: Gain a 2nd level magic hack
6th level: Learn an additional first level spell with technomantic dabbler. learn a single second level spell. You can cast it once per day per 5 levels.
9th Level: Gain a magic hack of 5th level or lower
12th level: Learn an additional 1st and 2nd level spell. Learn a 3rd level spell you can cast third level spells once per day once per 8 levels.
18th level: Gain an 8th level magic hack.
Thanks for the feedback guys. I didn't add trick attack to the operative archtype because I didn't feel like a reduced version of trick attack would be very good, (the dpr Peter in the game just isn't great) and a full version would take too much away from the pure operarives. That being said I haven't run the numbers either, so maybe that"s just my perception.
As for why I don't have the archetypes take abailities at every level, my reasoning is this, the archetypes that we have do this and it ends up meaning you don't get key class abilities of your base class until level 8 in some cases. I just don't feel like that is a good trade, I want there to be a mix. That being said that's also a preference thing and maybe I'm wrong.
Cyber mage I like your caster class archetypes, but I think I'm going to make some changes when I make mine. They are definitely the hardest classes to make a good archetype for I think. One thing I think I should point out it that the dabbled fears say that your caster level is equal to your character level, so your 3/4 caster level is a bit contradicted. It makes sense, but you may want to add some extra verbage to prevent confusion.
Ahh, very good that sounds solid.
Thanks for the feedback guys. I didn't add trick attack to the operative archtype because I didn't feel like a reduced version of trick attack would be very good, (the dpr Peter in the game just isn't great) and a full version would take too much away from the pure operarives. That being said I haven't run the numbers either, so maybe that"s just my perception.
Even if it costs DPR, I know at least one player that would consider playing it. At 2, 6, 9, 12 and 18, it would mostly only cost a soldier combat feats, which they have plenty of, and would give them something to do with the rounds they can't full attack. It's probably still bad because of the math on small arms/operative weapons, but I expect we may (eventually) get a soldier style around small arms that would pair well with it.
Anyway, it was just an idea, I like what you did with the operative and the way the skill bonuses were set up. I'm just wistfully pondering.
It is a good idea, and I think there may be a way to build an archetype where that was the only real thing gained, but I wanted as much of the flavor of the operative as I could get, so I opted the way I did. We should try to make a trick attack focused archetype. How would such an archetype behave with an operative for a base class? Would they stack damages? Hmmm, it could be something like an assassin archetype. I could see it being a way for an operative to stay more competitive on in the DPR Olympics while reducing their versatility.
I honestly didn't even think about that. While I think it would be cool to be a super trick attack operative, my understanding on the math on Trick Attack is that from level 1-7, it's really high (like soldier+ high) but should only go off about half the time. Then from 7-11 or so, it's still really high and goes off basically all the time. After 11 or so, it drops down low enough (compared to soldiers) that it going off all the time isn't a big deal. Since most campaigns are likely to be in the 1-15 range, adding more fuel to the 'Operatives are super OP' fire probably isn't a good idea.
Damn. This is why we need PRC's, or at least pre-reqs on archetypes (well, some of them).
Your understanding is correct on the math, but I think a carefully crafted archetype might be able to mitigate the issues. That being said, it only takes one new option that has a synergy that wasn't expected to turn something into an OP mess.