We've heard about a couple classes at this point: Fighter, Rogue, Alchemist, Cleric... All we've really heard though are a little dip into class feats and it has me thinking. What's the purpose of archtypes?
If there aren't really standard class features like in PF1, why do you need an archtype? I can pick and choose which feats I want to customize my class experience, I don't have the default functions for everything I have the feats I want as I level. Archtypes in PF1 altered or replaced class features while still keeping the relative framework of the base class. With the feat system it kind of feels like that's already happening.
So what are archtypes in PF2? They've been talked about, but what are they? Recommended builds suggesting feats X Y and Z to make a certain playstyle? Will they be more akin to the hybrid classes of PF1's Advanced Class Guide, letting you dip into other classes' feats? Or will they have their own unique feats, and if they do then why not just make those feats part of the base class?
I dunno... I guess I just fail to see where this is going, and we haven't heard much of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've heard about a couple classes at this point: Fighter, Rogue, Alchemist, Cleric... All we've really heard though are a little dip into class feats and it has me thinking. What's the purpose of archtypes?
If there aren't really standard class features like in PF1, why do you need an archtype? I can pick and choose which feats I want to customize my class experience, I don't have the default functions for everything I have the feats I want as I level. Archtypes in PF1 altered or replaced class features while still keeping the relative framework of the base class. With the feat system it kind of feels like that's already happening.
So what are archtypes in PF2? They've been talked about, but what are they? Recommended builds suggesting feats X Y and Z to make a certain playstyle? Will they be more akin to the hybrid classes of PF1's Advanced Class Guide, letting you dip into other classes' feats? Or will they have their own unique feats, and if they do then why not just make those feats part of the base class?
I dunno... I guess I just fail to see where this is going, and we haven't heard much of it.
I am guessing this is the closest guess. I think a lot of them will basically serve as a feat bundle to facilitate playing a type of thing. The specific example I saw was a class agnostic pirate archetype. Taking the archetype gives you access to a literal boatload of nautical or swashbuckly options. You won't HAVE to take them, but you can.
The reason to gate them behind an archetype is for keeping them distinct and easy to find, rather than just chucking them into the broader feat pools to be lost or labeled a trap option. It's easy to find the relevant feats if you holding the pirate's player companion in your hand, but it is harder to find them if you are scrolling through an online database or using hero lab. (Also, lumping these specialty feats in with the General or Skill feat pool serves to clutter up those lists and make it harder to parse the more generally useful feats.)
Making "pirate" an archetype also makes it real easy for everyone to get on board with building characters for a pirate campaign.
A lot of this is guess work, mind.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that an archetype will be a predetermined set of feats that you have to choose from (e.g. selecting Pirate would unlock 6 special Pirate feats, but if you want to be a Pirate you have to spend at least your next three feats in that pool, or something like that). This would make archetypes meaningful, desirable, flexible across multiple classes, and allow you to adopt them after level 1.
Tangent:
What I love about E1 archetypes wasn't the stuff you gained, but what you lost, especially if it was a big change. Monks without Ki pools, rogues without sneak attack, bards without performance. All of these were options with P1 archetypes. You could have a very different RP experience with the same class because of these radical differences. Also, RPers are generally more creative in the face of challenges and these archetypes were interesting because of the challenges they presented.
This looks unlikely to be the case with E2 archetypes, but I hold off until the announcement (and even then I'll hold off until the official release (and even then I probably won't complain because what good would it do at that point?)).
Archetypes appear to essentially be themes. Like VMC from Pathfinder Unchained you give up some feats (class feats in this case thanks to a universal progression of all class feats) for themed feats players can pick and choose from.
The reason to gate them behind an archetype is for keeping them distinct and easy to find, rather than just chucking them into the broader feat pools to be lost or labeled a trap option. It's easy to find the relevant feats if you holding the pirate's player companion in your hand, but it is harder to find them if you are scrolling through an online database or using hero lab. (Also, lumping these specialty feats in with the General or Skill feat pool serves to clutter up those lists and make it harder to parse the more...
While I agree with this reasoning, it also allows lets them make thematically focused feats that are still powerful. For example, you could make a feat for the pirate archetype that lets you treat a cutlass as an agile weapon. Assuming that the cutlass is a weapon with a higher damage output than most agile weapons or has something else going for it, then that would be fairly good feat that is designed to be used by pirates. If I want it, I have to be a pirate. This, along with dedicated class feats in general, solves the problem that we saw every so often with feats like Slashing Grace, which were intended for a specific class and thematic and ended up being co-opted by everyone because it was too good of a feat.
This archetypes as themes idea sounds awesome. Still some room for a few class specific archetypes that alter class abilities a little bit to I imagine.
This archetypes as themes idea sounds awesome. Still some room for a few class specific archetypes that alter class abilities a little bit to I imagine.
While they could do both I haven't read anything to indicate they plan to do both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This archetypes as themes idea sounds awesome. Still some room for a few class specific archetypes that alter class abilities a little bit to I imagine.While they could do both I haven't read anything to indicate they plan to do both.
Jason mentioned being able to do both in the game informer interview. I don't think he specifically promised both would be in the play test, but it seemed clear the intention was to have both eventually.
Jason mentioned being able to do both in the game informer interview. I don't think he specifically promised both would be in the play test, but it seemed clear the intention was to have both eventually.This archetypes as themes idea sounds awesome. Still some room for a few class specific archetypes that alter class abilities a little bit to I imagine.While they could do both I haven't read anything to indicate they plan to do both.
At some point he said something along the lines of: "Archetypes are pretty generic in the Playtest, but there's nothing stopping us from making ones that are more strict or detailed in the future."
So guessing they won't all be super codified to work the same.
I'm assuming it is going to be something like Starfinder where X standard abilities at predetermined levels are removed and replaced by Y archetype abilities.
Either that or archetypes will be hardbaked into the classes, like you need to choose one. Say level 5 you choose an archetype, it provides abilities at levels 5, 9, 13 and 17. The class abilities at those levels is just "archetype ability" Whether you are a sorcerer, fighter or alchemist, you all can take the River Kingdoms Pirate archetype, for example. This way you can still choose what you have with feats at even levels, still get class abilities at levels 1, 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19.
Feat prereqs sound like a great place to start. It's safe, easy to balance, and a little versatile. That said, I would get terribly bored if that's where archetypes stayed.
I'm assuming it is going to be something like Starfinder where X standard abilities at predetermined levels are removed and replaced by Y archetype abilities.
Either that or archetypes will be hardbaked into the classes, like you need to choose one. Say level 5 you choose an archetype, it provides abilities at levels 5, 9, 13 and 17. The class abilities at those levels is just "archetype ability" Whether you are a sorcerer, fighter or alchemist, you all can take the River Kingdoms Pirate archetype, for example. This way you can still choose what you have with feats at even levels, still get class abilities at levels 1, 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19.
Neither. At present (from what I can tell in the interview), archetypes will give you a second list of class feats to choose from.