2E's Archetype System

[Derry L. Zimeye]

Third thread in a row, but man is there a lot I wanna see discussed. Archetypes are, hands down, one of my favourite part of the game! Seeing them advertised as being much more important in 2e, however, could be either a good or a bad thing. If they go from being optional to required, it could have major impact on the game, and who knows how that'd go. Will they be run similarly to, and pardon the trillionth comparison to 5e already, the way specializations work in 5e (i.e at level 3, you choose the equivalent of an archetpe. For bards, it's choose between lore and valor, for Clerics it's domain... Etc, etc)?
Will they still be an optional add-on?
Will they (god forbid) be the way they worked in Starfinder?

I always felt that Archetypes were the best way to really customize your character and get them feeling the way that you want them to. However, making them mandatory might end up with a limited as to how many may exist for a class,which limits creativity with concepts. I'm all for Gunslinger being a Fighter Archetype, but what about super specific ones, like Brawler's Constructed Pugilist?

I have a feeling that the team has a system in mind already, and we'll find out soon, but for the sake of argument- how would you like to see it work?

[Brew Bird]

Since archetypes as they exist in 1E are so popular, I doubt they'll go the Starfinder route. In fact, I'd bet they'll probably be pretty much the same as they are now, since there's really nothing broken with them.

[Derry L. Zimeye]

Brew Bird wrote:

Since archetypes as they exist in 1E are so popular, I doubt they'll go the Starfinder route. In fact, I'd bet they'll probably be pretty much the same as they are now, since there's really nothing broken with them.

That's my ideal solution, but then why call out Archetypes and Multiclassing specifically? It should go without saying that Multiclassing still exists, so bringing it up makes me think they're changing it (an updated VMC system would be super choice, so no arguments there)- and having it side by side with Archetypes makes the paranoid in me come out. Even then, unless they adapt every single Archetype, there's bound to be changes to mix well with the new class updates. Hopefully they can keep the system working well, but either way, I'm curious to see how people would tackle the Archetype concept in a new system.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

we NEED old multiclassing, I hate that my character cannot change class mid-game

I have been a rogue for 8 levels now I want to learn magic but wait I can't, even if I study magic I keep progressing as a rogue

That is crap and should be avoided, at all costs

[spinningdice]

Heh, I remember when archetypes were called kits, and were just as all over the place as they are now.

[Hythlodeus]

Brew Bird wrote:

Since archetypes as they exist in 1E are so popular, I doubt they'll go the Starfinder route.

Thing is, they were popular before SF, so there was no need to go the Starfinder route with Starfinder itself. But they went there.

[Vagabond?]

Honestly, I know this will never happen, but I want to see Archetypes go the way of Oracle Mysteries and Oracle Curses: You split a class into 3 or so parts, and then select what you like from them. Note, however, I say three. I really do mean it when I say three options, because one option doesn't leave enough open to fill in much besides flavor.

[Paladinosaur]

I believe we'll have "starfinder" archetypes, that'll replace some of your class feats (since all classes gain them at same levels), some that are more specific (you must be a full spellcaster to select this archetype) and class-specific ones.

[PossibleCabbage]

Sense I've gotten is that archetypes will be a core part of PF2, and that there will be a bunch of different kinds of archetypes- Archetypes for your class, archetypes for your ancestry, archetypes like the aforementioned that are compatible with any class or ancestry, etc.

Which is to say if you've got a standard progression shared between classes (say named class features on odd levels and "class feats" (new name for hexes, rogue talents, etc.) on even levels) you could easily make an archetype that a fighter and a wizard could both take (if it replaces only opportunities to take "class feats" at certain levels) or an archetype that only fighters can take (because it replaces armor training, say).

Alternative racial traits will be rephrased in terms of "ancestral archetypes" I believe, so it's slightly less granular (no more half-orcs who were raised in big human cities who also got sacred tatoos as part of their apprenticeship to orc shamans).

[kyrt-ryder]

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

we NEED old multiclassing, I hate that my character cannot change class mid-game

I have been a rogue for 8 levels now I want to learn magic but wait I can't, even if I study magic I keep progressing as a rogue

That is crap and should be avoided, at all costs

I hate classes.

You've been evolving in a roguish manner for 8 levels, but there's no good reason that you should be incapable of diverting the focus of your cultivation to magical pursuits. (It might be an inefficient choice, but the choice remains yours to make.)

Edit: to clarify, its not the existence of classes that I hate. There's nothing wrong with giving a character a general sense of direction.

I do prefer far more flexible classes that can easily shift focus during the character's progression.

[Milo v3]

Vagabond? wrote:

Honestly, I know this will never happen, but I want to see Archetypes go the way of Oracle Mysteries and Oracle Curses: You split a class into 3 or so parts, and then select what you like from them. Note, however, I say three. I really do mean it when I say three options, because one option doesn't leave enough open to fill in much besides flavor.

That's how you end up with stupid stuff like every Starfinder Mystic needing to be telepathic regardless of fluff, and every 5e rogue needing to be able to speak a magical thief language that only they can possibly know regardless of fluff.

[Felinus]

Hythlodeus wrote:

Brew Bird wrote:

Since archetypes as they exist in 1E are so popular, I doubt they'll go the Starfinder route.

Thing is, they were popular before SF, so there was no need to go the Starfinder route with Starfinder itself. But they went there.

I think that they were using Starfinder as a playtest on alternate archetype models.

Vagabond? wrote:

Honestly, I know this will never happen, but I want to see Archetypes go the way of Oracle Mysteries and Oracle Curses: You split a class into 3 or so parts, and then select what you like from them. Note, however, I say three. I really do mean it when I say three options, because one option doesn't leave enough open to fill in much besides flavor.

I like this idea, gives you multiple roots for customisation. It does should like they are moving towards a model with more options baked into the classes. These feat trees for instance sound like a specialisation, where as archetypes are as much thematic as they are about the granted abilities.

Interchangeability would make multiclassing less silly like Milo v3 notes.

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

Really, I wish they would go with classes being mostly blank with a few set abilities and the bulk of its features coming from archetypes.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

we NEED old multiclassing, I hate that my character cannot change class mid-game

I have been a rogue for 8 levels now I want to learn magic but wait I can't, even if I study magic I keep progressing as a rogue

That is crap and should be avoided, at all costs

SO much this. It never makes sense that I can't switch my focus after a certain period of time.

[RumpinRufus]

I'm also guessing that archetypes work by replacing your class feats.

[thflame]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

we NEED old multiclassing, I hate that my character cannot change class mid-game

I have been a rogue for 8 levels now I want to learn magic but wait I can't, even if I study magic I keep progressing as a rogue

That is crap and should be avoided, at all costs

I hate classes.

You've been evolving in a roguish manner for 8 levels, but there's no good reason that you should be incapable of diverting the focus of your cultivation to magical pursuits. (It might be an inefficient choice, but the choice remains yours to make.)

Edit: to clarify, its not the existence of classes that I hate. There's nothing wrong with giving a character a general sense of direction.

I do prefer far more flexible classes that can easily shift focus during the character's progression.

I'm confused. You ARE allowed to take a level in a new class when you level up.

"Instead of gaining the abilities granted by the next level in your character’s current class, he can instead gain the 1st-level abilities of a new class, adding all of those abilities to his existing ones. This is known as “multiclassing.”"

Am I missing something?

I'd personally like to have a classless system where you just pick and choose "class features" you like as you level up. This way, you don't end up with filler abilities you don't care about and you can build exactly what you want. There would obviously need to be some balancing done here so we don't end up with characters literally having everything.

[kyrt-ryder]

Yes, I prefer something closer to a classless system. Where for example the Rogue that wants to learn Magic doesn't have to step outside of the rogue class to do it.

Say for example, instead of 'Minor Magic' and 'Major Magic' the Rogue could take 'Magic Studies' grant him the spellcasting [no specialization, no class features, nothing but the pure spellcasting] of a first level wizard with one cantrip and one spell in his new spellbook. If he wants to write more he'll have to take Scribe Scroll.

If he wants to continue his Magical Studies, he can keep taking it up to a maximum equal to his rogue level, each time gaining one 'Spellcasting level' and gaining one spell for the spellbook each time he gains a new spell level [IE the third time he takes Magical Studies, the fifth, etc etc etc.]

This is just off the top of my head and not intended for gameplay but as an example.

[Kerrilyn]

RumpinRufus wrote:

I'm also guessing that archetypes work by replacing your class feats.

I think the idea is that your class' feats are it's archetypes...

[thflame]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yes, I prefer something closer to a classless system. Where for example the Rogue that wants to learn Magic doesn't have to step outside of the rogue class to do it.

Say for example, instead of 'Minor Magic' and 'Major Magic' the Rogue could take 'Magic Studies' grant him the spellcasting [no specialization, no class features, nothing but the pure spellcasting] of a first level wizard with one cantrip and one spell in his new spellbook. If he wants to write more he'll have to take Scribe Scroll.

If he wants to continue his Magical Studies, he can keep taking it up to a maximum equal to his rogue level, each time gaining one 'Spellcasting level' and gaining one spell for the spellbook each time he gains a new spell level [IE the third time he takes Magical Studies, the fifth, etc etc etc.]

This is just off the top of my head and not intended for gameplay but as an example.

So you want to be able to continue getting Rogue class features, like Sneak attack, but you also want to get access to a Wizards spells? Would you be trading out Rogue class features to do this? If so, this seems fine assuming you are giving up something big enough to compensate. It just doesn't make sense that you could be a full time rogue and learn some magic on the side without giving something else up. (Otherwise, everyone would do it.)

As for right now, you could take 3 levels of rogue followed by 3 levels of Wizard and Prestige into Arcane Trickster and get pretty close to what you want plus more. Your "rogue" would have to take a break from practicing his Rogue features to learn how to cast like a full Wizard, but after he got a basic level of mastery, he becomes an Arcane Trickster and get's to level in both sneak attack and spells simultaneously along with a couple extra features.

[kyrt-ryder]

Those talents [and the feats to be taking the talents in the off-levels] is a massive part of the Rogue's features. He's burning them to study magic, which causes him to miss out on a great deal of Rogue Things, while also missing out on Wizard Things [Misses out on Specialization, Bonus Feats, Bonded Object/Familiar, etc]

All he's really still got is Sneak Attack, his BAB/HD/Skill Points and Evasion/Uncanny Dodge.

Maybe it's decently balanced, maybe it's not, I threw that example together off the top of my head, but that's the basic principle I'm talking about.

[thflame]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Those talents [and the feats to be taking the talents in the off-levels] is a massive part of the Rogue's features. He's burning them to study magic, which causes him to miss out on a great deal of Rogue Things, while also missing out on Wizard Things [Misses out on Specialization, Bonus Feats, Bonded Object/Familiar, etc]

All he's really still got is Sneak Attack, his BAB/HD/Skill Points and Evasion/Uncanny Dodge.

Maybe it's decently balanced, maybe it's not, I threw that example together off the top of my head, but that's the basic principle I'm talking about.

Look up the Arcane Trickster. It's pretty much what you're describing.

[kyrt-ryder]

Except that's multiclassing, which is a totally ok way to realize a character concept... but it's not what I'm talking about.