Pathfinder 2nd edition archetypes and prestige classes

[Verzen]

Starfinder came out with some archetypes for their classes. These archetypes are more so universally based. I think this is the 'wrong' direction for archetypes to go. I hope that in 2nd edition, each class gets 4-5 unique archetypes for the class that are focused on a unique take on the class. Starfinder did not do archetypes correctly. They made them very unoriginal and very very undesirable.

PLEASE still use the unique take that pathfinder has on archetypes. Save the "universal application" type that starfinder uses for prestige classes instead or just get rid of prestige classes alltogether and keep the unique archetype feature.

PLEASE do not emulate Starfinders system with Archetypes. That was the biggest disappointment of Starfinder.

Thank you for your time.

[Black Jimmy]

Got any archetypes you want to see carry over? Why those ones?

What about Prestige Classes?

[Verzen]

Personally, yes. I'd love for the Ragechemist to come back, but be more balanced. When (if) they redo the summoner, I'd love for Synthesis to come back, but in a far more balanced way than it was before.

Why ragechemist? I like alchemist to have a good melee option. In 1st Ed, there were no real good melee focused archetypes for alchemist. Synthesis is the same way. No real good melee focused archetypes for summoner.

I think archetypes should exist to give a player the ability to be nearly any role they want to with a specific class. Want to melee as a wizard? There's an archetype for that. Want to melee as a summoner or alchemist? There's an archetype for that, too. There should be archetypes for fighter or rogue that make them more magically gifted. Want to be a fighter? You lose a lot of your combat expertise, but you gain up to 4th level spellcasting and learn to be able to weave your combat with your spells. Want to be a melee wizard? Sure. You get far less spells and perhaps stunted spell growth, but you gain some of the fighter capabilities as well. Stuff like that.

I'm not a big fan of prestige classes, but if they must be in, then perhaps make prestige classes very story focused and fun. Options that people will definitely want to pursue. Some of the notable fun archetypes are things like Green Star Adept where you turn slowly into a golem from 3.5 or dragon disciple. Things like that.

Maybe some prestige classes that induct you into a cult or a militant religious order.

[gnoams]

I think it would be ok if prestige classes disappear. In the current edition of pf they feel like a throwback to dnd 3e that got included because they used to be, but then paizo came up with archetypes and prestige classes never got much love. I actually like a lot of the prestige classes there are, but they aren't necessary to be a separate mechanic, they could easily get folded in to archetypes.
I do hope they keep up their tradition of making tons of archetypes. I like the added layer of customization. I love that even after hundreds of pfs games, every PC I meet is unique.

[The NPC]

I just hope we get more properly transformational archetypes. We have too few, but I will admit that is my transhumanism popping up.

[Takhisis]

I also think that there should be archetypes that allow classes to make use of ability scores they normally don't, to allow character concepts that would normally be mechanically punished to be mechanically viable, such as a fiery, passionate evangelist cleric who casts off charisma instead of wisdom, a skad-style bard that favors strength and heavier armor/weapons over dex and more finnese-type weapons, or an intelligent barbarian that goes into a state of deep combat focus during which they apply their knowledge of anatomy and/or combat tactics to make deadly strikes. (as oppose to the traditional rage.)

If they truly want extensive but elegant and easy-to-understand customization for characters within classes instead of using systems outside of classes for that (which seems to be something they want to go for), then archetypes would be a GREAT way for them to allow players who want to have their characters take points in an ability score(s) their class typically has no use for not be mechanically punished for playing what they want to play.

[PossibleCabbage]

I would hope prestige classes are not a thing in the core rulebook, since they really are not "Core Rules". PrCs inclusion in the CRB to begin with seemed mostly an issue of "compatibility with 3.5" which is really no longer an issue.

If, in a later book we wanted to have PrCs which are actually prestigious, then you can do so. But honestly wouldn't it be preferable to not require people to take specific classes to be a member of the Hellknights or Lion Blades or the Eagle Knights or whoever? Presumably these organizations need all types.

[Dasrak]

I would be extremely disappointed if prestige classes were cut from PF2E core. They got a raw deal in PF1E, receiving few class features and becoming lackluster by comparison to the base classes. They didn't get the selection of class options that other PF classes got in the 3.5 conversion, and languished by the wayside as a result of that. It didn't have to be that way, and PF2E is the perfect chance to rectify that mistake.

I've written before about what I think the Pathfinder prestige classes should have looked like, and although the specifics would be different for PF2E my general sentiment is the same. The newer and more flexible action economy means the Eldritch Knight is more attractive than ever, and there will be a huge hole left in the game if it's not there.

[Matthias W]

Prestige classes languished by the wayside because archetypes were a better implementation of almost all of their conceptual space. I don't think it's a coincidence that 4e, 5e, and (in practice) Pathfinder all went to an implementation that was closer to AD&D's kits than prestige classes as such.

[Charlie Brooks]

I, too, would prefer to see class-specific archetypes.

I wouldn't cry if prestige classes disappeared from the Core Rulebook (provided that multiclassing works better - I gotta have my eldritch knight). I think they'd be something better suited to an optional book, but that's just me.

[Planpanther]

I love prestige classes and hope to see new versions of the lions blade and hellknights. I like prestige classes to be heavily influenced by settings. Id be ok if they were not in the core rule book and I had to wait for a supplement.

A lot of what I hear so far sounds like 5E. It wouldnt surprise me if archetypes eat a bunch of classes like the magus. Not saying I like that idea, but I can see it happening.

[Sadida]

What I really want to see is archetypes that could be applied to multiple classes. Like converting Arcane Trickster into a (Rogue/Wizard) archetype. Granting benefits based on which of the two classes took it, providing a little extra mileage if you multiclassed. That would be nice in my opinion.

[Athaleon]

What if Prestige Classes were turned into high-level archetypes? For example, a Fighter might have archetypes like Fencer/Marksman/Brawler/Etc. that alter his low-level class features, and others like Eldritch Knight/Holy Champion/Etc. that alter his high-level class features?

[Sadida]

Athaleon wrote:

What if Prestige Classes were turned into high-level archetypes? For example, a Fighter might have archetypes like Fencer/Marksman/Brawler/Etc. that alter his low-level class features, and others like Eldritch Knight/Holy Champion/Etc. that alter his high-level class features?

That would be great. Oh if I had a copper piece for every time a new archetype came out and it usually clashed with existing ones that would normally go nice with it.

[Lord_Franklin]

I would like to see Prestige Classes condensed into 3 or 5 levels that provide a new high level set of abilities that are worth dipping into for those that meet the relevant requirements. Prestige Classes as presented in the CRB are mostly just bad archetypes (or hybrid classes), and most of the others are NPC bloat. Athaleon's idea of separating high level archetypes with low level ones would effectively be very similar, and I would totally be on board there.

This is a great opportunity for an underused system to be revitalized, a way to strengthen the modular choices that we love from Pathfinder, and make our 10+ level characters feel distinguished from the bottom half.

[Kerrilyn]

I got the impression that "class-specific feats" might be taking the place of archetypes. Basically, instead of trading in/out class powers in a complicated way, you simply pick them as you level up.

[Rysky]

Kerrilyn wrote:

I got the impression that "class-specific feats" might be taking the place of archetypes. Basically, instead of trading in/out class powers in a complicated way, you simply pick them as you level up.

The Class Specific Feats (they really need to get a better phrase for that) is gonna be stuff like what Rage Powers, Rogue Talents, Hexes, etc were in 1st.

We're still getting Archetypes ^w^

[doc roc]

I like the concept of Prestige classes but I don't like a lot of Paizo archetypes because they lack relevance to their base class.

I hope 2ed sorts this out....

[Drewg]

In the Know Direction Podcast we learned that archetypes can be as "broad" or as "narrow" as needed, depending on the "prerequisites" for the archetype. So it sounds like archetypes are not locked into specific classes, but depending on the prerequisites, certain ones could be.

It sounds like archetypes will function like prestige classes, but rather than being a separate class to sink levels into, they will replace class features or give access to archetype-specific options in place of "class feats".

For a "broad" example, taking the archetype "Duelist" requires you to be at least "Expert" in both Martial Weapon Proficiency and Acrobatics proficiency. If you pick this archetype, then you gain access to "Opportune Parry and Riposte" in place of a "Class Feat". Easily achievable by many classes.

For a "narrow" example, taking the archetype "Antipaladin" requires you to have the Lay on Hands class feature as a prerequisite, and replaces that feature with Touch of Corruption, along with some other features to complete the transformation. Only achievable by having levels in Paladin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKRZ1yHiUDY

Know Direction's Podcast.

[UnArcaneElection]

Prestige classes are a good idea, but they need to have the prestige put back in them, rather than just being generic ways to get hybrids or modifications of classes (the latter should be archetypes and/or hybrid classes).

Examples of prestige classes that should stay as prestige classes: Hellknight (both types), Eagle Knight, Lion Blade.

Examples of prestige classes that should become archetypes or hybrid classes: Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, Rage Prophet, Stalwart Defender.

Examples of base classes that should become prestige classes: Inquisitor, Paladin, and maybe even Monk. (Unfortunately, it looks like at least the latter 2 of these stay as base classes in Pathfinder 2nd Edition.)

Examples of base classes that should stay base classes or become archetypes of other base classes: Most of the ones not listed above.