|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m guessing that Playtest Archetypes make a lot out of the fact that (afaik) the Playtest rules put every character on a standard progression: Class Talents (aka Features) at these levels; Class Feats at these levels; Skill Advancements at these levels; Skill Feats at these levels; Ancestry Feats at these levels; etc.
By having that standardized baseline, any Archetype can plug into any character regardless of ancestry/background/class: you lose the features gained at levels XYZ and in their place you gain 123. And then the designers can just add prerequisites to the Archetypes that they want to be more restricted.
One wild possibility is that this kind of Archetype could also cover multiclassing in a semi-VMC kind of way. I’m speculating here because of Logan’s comment that Playtest Archetypes are “more experimental” and cover “a few different concepts that were kind of all pointing at the same type of character customization.” And the comment that multiclassing will refer to a single character advancement table.
Thoughts?
=====
For reference, here are the bits I’ve seen so far regarding Archetypes. The fullest discussion is in the Erik + Logan Know Direction interview. The specific segments that discuss Archetypes run from 24:20–25:23 and 29:10–31:22.
Erik comments that Archetypes are part of “what made Pathfinder Pathfinder” and complaining that because they were added on and the Core classes weren’t built with Archetypes in mind, the PF1 Cleric wasn’t Archetype-compatible—it had nothing to swap out, so just couldn’t really take Archetypes. He says that making sure no PF2 class is denied Archetype access by mistake is a main goal of building Archetypes into the PF2 core.
Logan says:
It’s not that much like Starfinder and it’s not that much like first edition. It’s kind of one of the more experimental parts of the rules ... I will say we’ve taken a few different concepts that were kind of all pointing at the same type of character customization and kind of said, that’s all under the archetype umbrella. So we’re interested to see how people react to that, for sure.
When asked whether it would be “class-specific” or “a broad concept that multiple classes can qualify for,” Logan answers:
It’s going to be a broad concept but we can also do whatever prerequisites we need. We’re sticking with pretty broad ones in the playtest book just because we only have a small number of them. But if we wanted to do a Wizard-specific one there’s nothing stopping it.
Also, Jason mentions Archetypes over here, teasing:
Characters in the new edition have MORE options in most cases than they did in the previous edition . . .
Beyond skills, every class now has its own list of feats to choose from, making them all pretty different from one another and allowing for a lot of flexibility in how you play. And just wait until you see what Archetypes can do...
Possibly also relevant is the Leveling Up Blog, which says:
[When you level up, you] get to make the choices for your new level. What choices? Those are all covered on your class’s class advancement table . . .
(Wait... what if I multiclass? We’ll cover that in a future blog, but let’s just say you’ll still be referencing only one advancement table.)
One thing we knew we wanted to include in the new edition was a good number of choices for all characters. In first edition, this could be pretty unequal. Even though over time, the game incorporated more ways to customize any type of character, we wanted to build in more robust customization into the structure of every class. That’s why every class gets specific class talents (which include spells for spellcasters) at 1st level and every other level thereafter, increases to skills every other level, and feats at every level!
So, everyone uses same chart for stuff like Saves/feat/bab (since it is now by level).
What you get each level will be different for different classes but same chart. So I assume a Fighter 1/Wizard 3 gets
1st level Fighter stuff
2nd till 4th Wizard stuff.
Does this mean you won't get cantrips since those are only in 1st wizard's level?
Although, you'd have all your major spells (1st and 2nd level).
Granted only an assumption based on line about same "Advancement table"
Some more out-there archetype possibilities:
- Return of animal companion and familiar archetypes.
- Prestige classes as archetypes now.
- Things like lycanthropy as archetypes for your ancestry.
Well, I'm really not very good at speculation. All I can say is that the edition that makes archetypes core should probably have more than one and a half of them in the first book.
Logan says:It’s not that much like Starfinder and it’s not that much like first edition. It’s kind of one of the more experimental parts of the rules ... I will say we’ve taken a few different concepts that were kind of all pointing at the same type of character customization and kind of said, that’s all under the archetype umbrella. So we’re interested to see how people react to that, for sure.
This one, specifically, hurts my head like some sort of eldritch knowledge. It means too many things all at the same time for me understand it, and it means them pretty darn intensely. So uh, I'll guess I'll just have to wait until I have something more defined in front of me before I can give them any interesting reactions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Logan says:This one, specifically, hurts my head like some sort of eldritch knowledge. It means too many things all at the same time for me understand it, and it means them pretty darn intensely. So uh, I'll guess I'll just have to wait until I have something more defined in front of me before I can give them any interesting reactions.It’s not that much like Starfinder and it’s not that much like first edition. It’s kind of one of the more experimental parts of the rules ... I will say we’ve taken a few different concepts that were kind of all pointing at the same type of character customization and kind of said, that’s all under the archetype umbrella. So we’re interested to see how people react to that, for sure.
I'm guessing those things are:
Class archetypes.Prestige classes.
Multiclassing/VMC.
|
|
Logan says:This one, specifically, hurts my head like some sort of eldritch knowledge. It means too many things all at the same time for me understand it, and it means them pretty darn intensely. So uh, I'll guess I'll just have to wait until I have something more defined in front of me before I can give them any interesting reactions.It’s not that much like Starfinder and it’s not that much like first edition. It’s kind of one of the more experimental parts of the rules ... I will say we’ve taken a few different concepts that were kind of all pointing at the same type of character customization and kind of said, that’s all under the archetype umbrella. So we’re interested to see how people react to that, for sure.I'm guessing those things are:
Class archetypes.
Prestige classes.
Multiclassing/VMC.
Yeah, that's about what I figured. Can anyone think of anything else Logan might have been referring to?
Yeah, that's about what I figured. Can anyone think of anything else Logan might have been referring to?
There are also some minor possibilities…
Companion archetypes.Templates.
Corruptions.
I was also thinking of animal companions and familiars as archetypes. I think most classes in PF1 have a companion archetype, so it only makes sense to have this as a universal archetype.
As for specific classes relating to companions, I could see that as a good space for class feats as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was also thinking of animal companions and familiars as archetypes. I think most classes in PF1 have a companion archetype, so it only makes sense to have this as a universal archetype.
As for specific classes relating to companions, I could see that as a good space for class feats as well.
I hear alchemist is getting a class feat for a familiar.
Alchemist’s get class feats every even level and a few examples of them are:
Delay Bombs (put a fuse on that bomb)
Precise Bombs (don’t do splash damage to allies)
Debilitating Bombs (bombs apply debuffs to enemies)
Combine Elixirs (toss those potions together!)
Efficient Alchemy (craft more alchemy during downtime)
Poison Touch (deliver Poisons via a touch)
Alchemical Familiar (build your own mini-alchemical golem familiar)
Feral Mutagen (grow claws and teeth when drinking this mutagen)
I was also thinking of animal companions and familiars as archetypes. I think most classes in PF1 have a companion archetype, so it only makes sense to have this as a universal archetype.
As for specific classes relating to companions, I could see that as a good space for class feats as well.
I meant archetypes that animal companions and familiars can take, not archetypes granting those class features.
I'm hoping for VMC style archeypes. Specifically a few that can do 1/3 casting (or maybe 1/2 casting? whatever paladin/ranger style casting whatever that ends up being). So an Arcane Archetype that gives a some wizard spells that could be tacked on to a fighter to make an eldritch knight a rogue to make an arcane trickster a Cleric to get a mini mystic theurge. I think that would open up a lot of design space.
What about:
• Knight/cavalier replaces Paladin as the “armor focus” core class
• Paladin becomes a LG-only archetype
What about:
• Knight/cavalier replaces Paladin as the “armor focus” core class
• Paladin becomes a LG-only archetype
Well, we know what the core classes are. It's the old core classes plus Alchemist.
So far I think they have held back quite a bit on some of the major surprises for PF2E, especially archetypes. Whether that is good or bad? who knows.
I think things like familiar and companion archetypes might show up, as well as corruptions, etc. BUT...those things seem niche enough that they might be better work in a future RPG line book.
Maybe hybrid classes will be archetypes now. Some of them probably need their own class, but I could easily see Warpriest working as an archetype of cleric, Swashbuckler archetype for fighters and rogues, Slayer archetype for rogues and rangers, etc. Gunslinger could just be an archetype tacked on to any class instead of giving every class guns with an archetype or similar features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rather hope that multiclassing won't be covered by archetypes, but otherwise I'm target interested in how they end up.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the Know Direction podcast this evening, Jason said: "I think that the way that Archetypes work is going to be familiar to everybody." A blog is scheduled "but I don't think it's for a little bit."
He repeats that there is a limited selection of Archetypes in the Playtest book: "Not the full suite." "More of a test and proof of concept."
He says he just did an interview with one outlet (I didn't catch the name) where he talked about Archetypes and leaked some spoilers, says to wait for that to come out for now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really, really hope Archetypes are more PF1-like than SF-like. The generalist/omni-class archetypes from SF felt underwhelming compared to the richness of PF1's. The pact world ones are better than core, but still not the direction I'd like to see PF2 go.
It does kinda scare me that they reference Starfinder and archetypes. Particularly with the emphasis on broad application. I love Starfinder, but the archetypes are just kinda... meh. The powers lost can't really be equal assured to equal the powers gained. Pathfinder 2 actually has an answer to this built in already, Class Feats... it that just scares me more.
I love Class Feats, they offer a level of customization to characters that are potentially as powerful weaker Archetypes... and to see Archetypes become "loose X amount of class feats and gain this ability at Y level" is something I can see far too likely and it just feels like a white wash.
Archetypes are their most fun when they fiddle with Class Talents. Stuff like changing primary spell casting ability scores, or replacing a core class ability to be something different. If we can't do that at all, the Archetypes will just feel hollow.
So I forget where I heard this, but I recall some designer citing Shadow of the Demon Lord as an influence on the new system. Looking at the Gnomes/Halflings race entry it already seems like the game's attribute generation system is already going to draw on that system.
That game does not have archetypes, but what it DOES have is the path system. Essentially every character in SotDL "multiclasses" at certain levels. Each character is going to choose 3 "paths" over 10 levels with your novice path (your starting class) giving the character's class abilities at levels 1, 2, 5, and 8; the expert path gives abilities at levels 3, 6, and 9; the master path gives abilities at 7 and 10. For the curious, the character's level 4 abilities come from the player's race alone.
Here is what I am getting at: I suspect every character you build in 2E will get a specific class, archetype, and ancestry and each of the pieces will give you options at different levels.
For instance:
At level 1, you could get features determined by your class and ancestry plus one general purpose feat
At level 2, you could get features based just on your archetype plus one general purpose feat
At level 3, you could get features just from your class
At level 4, you could get features from your archetype and your race plus one bonus feat
etc. etc.
If you look at the "backgrounds" mechanic of Starfinder, we can already see Paizo adopting a system like this.
I for one welcome our new Archetype overlords, but I do wonder if a system like that could satisfy people who want to multiclass in a traditional sense. This is all conjecture, however~
It would be cool if they made it that way. D&D/pathfinder always had tiers of power you were essentially supposed to move through as you level so I think its a good idea to formalize it.(especially if it means the problems that are below the importance of an adventure was controlled by something other than what spells you can cast)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
NEW INFORMATION from Jason's Game Informer interview:
The new version is built upon the idea of classes that have all these feats that they give you. When it comes to archetypes, it makes sense that they have additional feats you can choose. In the new game, they work similarly to how they did before, but instead of telling you what you’ll lose, you’ll get a package of feats you can choose instead of the feats from your class. They work just like an add-on package for you to choose from. It allows them to be more open and it’s not tied to specific features of classes. This kind of speaks to whatever character wants that to be a bigger part of their character concept. The rogue might want to be a pirate, but so might a wizard. It might have a feat or two that’s better at casting spells that burn sails or knocking holes in boats with lightning bolts. There could be a wide variety of abilities that speak to how the class works and you choose the ones that are appropriate to you. In this case, the archetypes allow us to expand the character types that we have. We’re not just at 12 classes, but we have dozens of different character concepts to explore from that decision alone, not to mention all the choices you have within skills and feats. It’s about giving you as many tools as possible to make the character you want to play as. Archetypes are a big tool that allow us to do that. They’re a box of toys that we can let people play with to customize their character. The playtest will have a number of archetypes in it, but we’re not putting them into the final version until we have time to test it out.
. . .
With the way we redesigned them, they can connect to a specific class, but they don’t have to. We can design an archetype that speaks directly to what sorcerers are supposed to be and exclusive to them, but for something like ‘pirate’, there’s nothing that says that anyone can’t decide to be part-pirate. That’s a concept that you can apply to almost any character. It doesn’t make sense to recreate the archetype for each class when we can create a suite of feats that speak to what the pirate is, and then pick the ones that you want as needed.
so they're half archetypes half prestige classes?
Vigilante should be made this style of archetype. It would have saved so much word count if they'd been able to make a general archetype that everyone could buy into, or even just had a separate path entirely like mythic.
There's very few classes I think would benefit from being converted in that manner, but vigilante heads the list.
Huh, that's really interesting!
It does seem like there's no more trading out of a class's fixed features, but I'm generally okay with that.
|
I hope that the Class Specific Archetypes that do still exist can trade out Class Features. I specifically hope this because of the Alchemist, who currently has a Class Feature that increases Bomb Damage, and playing a pure melee alchemist should be an option.
I'm sure I'll come up with other examples that require Class Feature changes as well.
That said, I'm also quite pleased with this news on Class Neutral Archetypes and how they work. I'm definitely on board with such Archetypes being around, I just don't want them to be all there is.
