| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big defect of pathfinder 2e is the absence of the main feature that distinguishes it with other RPGs including the 3.5 ... "The Archetypes".
I'm not talking about that crap pseudo-prestige class, who want to file it with the same name, but I talk about what made Pathfinder 1e really nice and easy to customize.
I'm talking about Feral Shifter, Weapon Master, Viking, Gladiator, Wild Rager, Sniper, Beastmaster, Evangelist, Witchguard, Archaeologist, Bolt Ace, Scrollmaster, Herb Witch ... etc ...
One can also overlook the construction of monsters or modifiers completely dependent on levels, it is a matter of taste, but the archetypes are what make pathfinder a good game and it is absurd that in the 2nd they are eliminated.
Then I think we all know that the pseudo-archetype taken by starfinder will never work. Everyone who tried them was unhappy and nobody I know spoke about it in a positive way.
Am I the only one to think so? For you Pathfinder without archetypes does it make sense to exist? Is it still to be considered "Pathfinder"?
Do you believe it is possible to take a step back and return to the old archetypes?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um. Im pretty sure they're putting archetypes in, they just havent been previewed/spoiled yet.
In fact the framework theyve shown for pf2.0 is even MORE archetype friendly, as "class feats" are likely gained at the same levels across classes, archetypes an be created that may be applied generally to multiple base classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We got archetypes, but they are neither SF or PF1 ones. They're kinda weird and even more customizable than before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What’s this about Starfinder archetypes? We’re not getting those. You can spend whatever class feats you want on archetype feats, which is much better.
Now, I’d like to eventually get options that let you trade out fixed features. A Rogue with no sneak attack would be nice, for instance. There’s not as much rush on that, though, because I’ll at least be able to play a scroll-focused or herbalist Rogue or whatever archetypes they include. But doing that won’t mean having to wait six levels to get my first Rogue feat- I just fit scrolls or herbs or whatever in where there’s room in my build.
There’s something like... fifty-odd Rogue archetypes in PF1(?), only about four of which I find interesting, and another three I’d consider just to help mitigate bad saves or accuracy. If archetypes let me get Rogue talent options for alchemy or summoning rat swarms or something, though? That would’ve been great.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um. Im pretty sure they're putting archetypes in, they just havent been previewed/spoiled yet.
In fact the framework theyve shown for pf2.0 is even MORE archetype friendly, as "class feats" are likely gained at the same levels across classes, archetypes an be created that may be applied generally to multiple base classes.
Yes, this is correct. Jason's Game Informer interview discusses archetypes in a decent amount of detail. The OP is misinformed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They however will be very different from what we know as archetypes in PF, since they seem to be basically "buckets" of feats.
Whether that is a good thing or not is too early to tell.
The issue with SF archetypes was that they replaced abilities at specific levels across all classes, which was a problem because some class features were more valuable than others. Allowing players to choose them in place of class feats removes that issue and gives PCs more flexibility in how their archetype manifests. It's pretty great imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, this is correct. Jason's Game Informer interview discusses archetypes in a decent amount of detail. The OP is misinformed.Um. Im pretty sure they're putting archetypes in, they just havent been previewed/spoiled yet.
In fact the framework theyve shown for pf2.0 is even MORE archetype friendly, as "class feats" are likely gained at the same levels across classes, archetypes an be created that may be applied generally to multiple base classes.
Sorry maybe I did not explain well.
The name is not so important, but to clarify, the archetypes of pf1 are not the archetypes of pf2, despite having the same name.In pathfinder 1e, they are true specializations that can completely change the functioning of a class. They are a kind of sub-classes.
In pathfinder 2e are just an add-on package or "buckets" of feats to choose from together with the feat normally granted. They are not extra feats. They are applicable to all classes precisely because they are not specializations of the individual classes. Some have compared them to prestige classes as they can be used to replace these.
We will never see cool archeype like an Unsworn Shaman or a Sin Eater ç_ç.
I definitely prefer the pathfinder 1e archetypes.
Yes, this is correct. Jason's Game Informer interview discusses archetypes in a decent amount of detail. The OP is misinformed.Um. Im pretty sure they're putting archetypes in, they just havent been previewed/spoiled yet.
In fact the framework theyve shown for pf2.0 is even MORE archetype friendly, as "class feats" are likely gained at the same levels across classes, archetypes an be created that may be applied generally to multiple base classes.
Sorry maybe I did not explain well.
The name is not so important, but to clarify, the archetypes of pf1 are not the archetypes of pf2, despite having the same name.In pathfinder 1e, they are true specializations that can completely change the functioning of a class. They are a kind of sub-classes.
In pathfinder 2e are just an add-on package or "buckets" of feats to choose from together with the feat normally granted. They are not extra feats. They are applicable to all classes precisely because they are not specializations of the individual classes. Some have compared them to prestige classes as they can be used to replace these.We will never see cool archeype like an Unsworn Shaman or a Sin Eater ç_ç.
I definitely prefer the pathfinder 1e archetypes.
The existence of "bucket of feats" archetypes is not mutually exclusive with the existence of "subclass" archetypes, and the devs have stated that such things could exist in this system. They certainly haven't said they wouldn't be coming back. My bet is they'll stick to the "bag of feats" options for the playtest and CRB since that would take less book space than dedicated archetypes for each class but I wouldn't discount the possibility of old archetypes making a comeback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't they also alluded that they will probably do class specific archetypes at some point? Like, if they aren't in the playtest they will be be out eventually.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, they're naturally going to look like buckets of feats given that archetypes were just alternate class abilities and now those are feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the fact that every class is pretty much a choose your own features buffet kind of make 1e style archetypes obsolete since they are built into the system, but even more customizable?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Brondy, you’d rather have a bunch of mandatory abilities to be replaced by another bunch of mandatory abilities, rather than a subset of choices replaced by another subset of choices?
The funny thing for me is how similar D&D5’s subclasses are to PF1’s Archetypes - it’s a very similar model, except that the key levels where the subclass abilities kick in don’t have a “default” choice, they’re just open for the subclass chosen to fill in the blanks, whereas PF1 archetypes just had to shoehorn in the changes wherever they could.
I don’t know about anyone else but given the extremely open nature of class abilities in PF2, is there even a need for archetypes still? I can’t wait to see what they actually look like, to see how they’ve made them relevant in such a choice-rich system.
So Brondy, you’d rather have a bunch of mandatory abilities to be replaced by another bunch of mandatory abilities, rather than a subset of choices replaced by another subset of choices?
The funny thing for me is how similar D&D5’s subclasses are to PF1’s Archetypes - it’s a very similar model, except that the key levels where the subclass abilities kick in don’t have a “default” choice, they’re just open for the subclass chosen to fill in the blanks, whereas PF1 archetypes just had to shoehorn in the changes wherever they could.
I don’t know about anyone else but given the extremely open nature of class abilities in PF2, is there even a need for archetypes still? I can’t wait to see what they actually look like, to see how they’ve made them relevant in such a choice-rich system.
Yes, even if they're just buckets of feats one must assume they have level reqs on their feats as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about you wait with this kind of condemnation until we actually know how archetypes are going to work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AFAICT, the OP just wants archetypes with cool names like Sin Eater and Witchguard, rather than the archetype abilities themselves. Because the core classes in PF2 are so customisable, those names become redundant. Though I expect they'll be back in a splatbook at some time in the future, either because the core rules can't cope without an addition, or just to fill the printing schedule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Brondy, you’d rather have a bunch of mandatory abilities to be replaced by another bunch of mandatory abilities, rather than a subset of choices replaced by another subset of choices?
The thing is, new pathfinder has BOTH "mandatory abilities" and "a subset of choices". For instance EVERY rogue gets sneak attack: It's nice if you can swap out set abilities you don't like for something else. Getting more and/or different options iws nice but it doesn't touch set abilities.
Eh, they're naturally going to look like buckets of feats given that archetypes were just alternate class abilities and now those are feats.
No, now they are not just feats.
Class ability are very different from feats ... they replace spells, domains, sneak attacks and other mechanics and replace them with others.The classes change so much that they seem like separate classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if there are class specific archetypes, they will still mostly be a bucket of feats. Saga Edition had a similar concept with their feat and talent system. Even the core classes felt like little more than a way to divide up talents.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new archetype system is more restrictive than PF1e in some ways, though not as bad as Starfinder's archetype system.
The new archetype system makes it so that you cannot have an alchemist who isn't obsessed with bombs, because all alchemists get empower bomb at third level. Because empower bomb isn't a class feat, you can't not get it. Archetypes can't ever trade away a lot of the class, because every two levels of a PF2e class your getting class features instead of class feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new archetype system is more restrictive than PF1e in some ways, though not as bad as Starfinder's archetype system.
The new archetype system makes it so that you cannot have an alchemist who isn't obsessed with bombs, because all alchemists get empower bomb at third level. Because empower bomb isn't a class feat, you can't not get it. Archetypes can't ever trade away a lot of the class, because every two levels of a PF2e class your getting class features instead of class feats.
Good for you that you already have access to the Playtest Rulebook, or how else would you know all this stuff about what archetypes can or can‘t ever do!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good for you that you already have access to the Playtest Rulebook, or how else would you know all this stuff about what archetypes can or can‘t ever do!
.... No I'm going of what the devs told us about Archetypes in the Game Informer interview and from the panels of Paizocon. Archetypes in 2e don't remove/replace things, they are sets of themed feats that can be taken with your class feats.
This means they serve a similar role to what they did in 1e, except instead of replacing X ability, you just go "This fits with my character so I'll take it." without it having the issue of replacing things on completely different power levels like Starfinder has.
But because they "no longer remove things", they "no longer remove things".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... No I'm going of what the devs told us about Archetypes in the Game Informer interview and from the panels of Paizocon. Archetypes in 2e don't remove/replace things, they are sets of themed feats that can be taken with your class feats.
We know that Class-Agnostic Archetypes work this way. There have been a few indications that Class-Specific Archetypes might follow the old pattern (and just not been what was being discussed in those interviews and panels).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree OP. Customizable Archetypes are a balance nightmare.
In PF1, you could substitute archetype abilities for class abilities of equivalent power.
If you can pick and choose, people will always sub out their weakest class ability, which really limits the archetype.
Uh...they replace Class Feats with new Feats from an Archetype List (both of which are restricted by level). That's...not actually that hard to balance, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EH not enough information. Plus things can change. Also I suspect this would warrant the following stock developer response something like:
As of right now we do not have any archetypes the alter core class mechanics however this does not mean in the future we will not.
I kind of hope they do create something that will swap out the "locked" abilities. I jokingly said they could call them "prestige classes" in some thread, but it actually kind of works.
Will PF2 archetypes be as exciting as backgrounds?
Will PF2 archetypes be as exciting as backgrounds?
I don't think we can hope for that kind of thrilling development... :P
On the plus side, archetypes as just buckets of feats might be useful for niche games. A general pirate archetype that gives some nautical/pirate themed abilities would probably be more efficient than having to create relevant archetypes for each class. Same with archetypes that grant gun rules and so on.
On the other hand, I think if archetypes lack built in abilities, its going to limit them severly compared to the current system, as far as exploring new rules interactions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think if they make a archetype for a specific class and It deems it necessary to alter something I feel most likely they will just go ahead and alter it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if they included both styles of archetype in the Playtest. If they just go with the feat buckets, there are going to be folks who will probably be annoyed. Promises that "we might implement these in future books" seem to not really work well in dissuading annoyed fans (cough Paladins of other alignments cough)
|
|
I remember seeing archetypes for 2 classes in a 3pp that specified which features were swapped or altered in both classes
I think the example of archetypes we are given here and in SFRPG aim at making this easier
But I agree that it should not restrict the sheer diversity that the original archetypes brought to Pathfinder
It will be interesting to see what we get for the playtest and how it performs
It would be nice if they included both styles of archetype in the Playtest. If they just go with the feat buckets, there are going to be folks who will probably be annoyed. Promises that "we might implement these in future books" seem to not really work well in dissuading annoyed fans (cough Paladins of other alignments cough)
Eh you can't please all the people all the time.
On the plus side, archetypes as just buckets of feats might be useful for niche games. A general pirate archetype that gives some nautical/pirate themed abilities would probably be more efficient than having to create relevant archetypes for each class. Same with archetypes that grant gun rules and so on.
On the other hand, I think if archetypes lack built in abilities, its going to limit them severly compared to the current system, as far as exploring new rules interactions.
In a pirate themed campaign, everyone is going to want a pirate archetype.
If everyone is just taking the same archetype, that will be pretty boring.
Unless I am confused (which is an all too common phenomena on this website), the archetypes swap out class feats, so presumably you would still have the underlying class, so a wizard with a pirate archetype is going to be very different than a fighter with the same archetype.
Of course, I have no idea how flexible all of these will be. Either the archetypes are going to have to have a LOT of class feats to pick from, or the assumption is that folks will be only taking a level or two to pick up some option they want for there build. It's kind of hard for me to imagine a small set of class feats having optimal choices for all of the classes, outside of very specific niche circumstances.
On the plus side, archetypes as just buckets of feats might be useful for niche games. A general pirate archetype that gives some nautical/pirate themed abilities would probably be more efficient than having to create relevant archetypes for each class. Same with archetypes that grant gun rules and so on.
On the other hand, I think if archetypes lack built in abilities, its going to limit them severly compared to the current system, as far as exploring new rules interactions.
In a pirate themed campaign, everyone is going to want a pirate archetype.
If everyone is just taking the same archetype, that will be pretty boring.
Hmm, I'm curious. Let's assume the prototypical party of Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue. After ten years, this is what we end up with for PF1.
Wizard: No piratical or nautical archetypes. We'll go ahead and take the water school instead (APG).
Fighter: Aquanaut (Aquatic Adventures) is nautical, and Corsair (Pirates of the Inner Sea) is piratical. They both hurt a bit on giving up training, but Corsair gives you no-penalty Cleave, and Aquanaut gives you a swim speed and forces the GM to either run really complicated buoyancy-based underwater combat or give you some consolation for those abilities instead.
Cleric: Surprisingly, has an archetype. Crashing Wave (Blood of the Sea). Only works if you're passing up worshipping the pirate deity in the pirate game, though, so that could be a solid no-go depending.
Rogue: Literally has Pirate as an archetype (Ultimate Combat), and it provides a bonus vs. mind-affecting effects. There's also Swashbuckler (APG) and Tidal Trickster (Aquatic Combat) to pick from.
That worked out better in PF1 than I expected.
Holding PF2 to the same standard, I think you'd need to wait until you get both a pirate and an aquatic archetype to do as well. I'm not too worried about it being boring at that point, because players also pick which feats they want. I'm guessing the Aquatic Combat archetypes will be functionally replaced with skill proficiencies/feats making getting a swim speed less of an ordeal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If pirate archetype it's just to get feats with nautical/aquatic theme(that is not sure yet), what's the point of creating archetypes in pf2? It would be enough to grant everyone the possibility to choose these particular feats as normal feats.
Then it would be enough for the PC to define itself as a pirate, leaving space for the creation of real specializations (the archetypes of pf1).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If pirate archetype it's just to get feats with nautical/aquatic theme(that is not sure yet), what's the point of creating archetypes in pf2? It would be enough to grant everyone the possibility to choose these particular feats as normal feats.
Then it would be enough for the PC to define itself as a pirate, leaving space for the creation of real specializations (the archetypes of pf1).
I can think of a couple reasons.
- General feats should be general. The examples we have so far for sure are weapon and armor proficiencies. Those are things that come up very regularly, and are applicable to any character in any game. If you put all the nautical feats in general, and all the commerce feats in general, and the wilderness exploration feats in general, then most general feats don't apply to most games. Grouping them in archetypes keeps things streamlined and easier for players to find things.- General feats seem pretty strong. Increasing your AC is a big deal now, after all. I don't want to trade out something that'll help me almost every round of combat for something that, while flavorful, will only apply when I'm in water. Trading out a metamagic option or an attack style is a little more fair.
- You only get five general feats, but in the ballpark of eleven class feats.
I'd be happiest getting both eventually, of course. Alchemist having a way to focus on weapons instead of bombs, for instance.
Wizard: No piratical or nautical archetypes. We'll go ahead and take the water school instead (APG).
Since ship cannons are technically siege weaponry, another option is Siege Weapon Wizard. Of course, eventually you have to get off your ship and then you're screwed, but for NPCs it might be cool to have a pirate first mate that can fire a cannon by herself.
If pirate archetype it's just to get feats with nautical/aquatic theme(that is not sure yet), what's the point of creating archetypes in pf2? It would be enough to grant everyone the possibility to choose these particular feats as normal feats.
Then it would be enough for the PC to define itself as a pirate, leaving space for the creation of real specializations (the archetypes of pf1).
I can think of a couple reasons.
- General feats should be general. The examples we have so far for sure are weapon and armor proficiencies. Those are things that come up very regularly, and are applicable to any character in any game. If you put all the nautical feats in general, and all the commerce feats in general, and the wilderness exploration feats in general, then most general feats don't apply to most games. Grouping them in archetypes keeps things streamlined and easier for players to find things.
- General feats seem pretty strong. Increasing your AC is a big deal now, after all. I don't want to trade out something that'll help me almost every round of combat for something that, while flavorful, will only apply when I'm in water. Trading out a metamagic option or an attack style is a little more fair.
- You only get five general feats, but in the ballpark of eleven class feats.I'd be happiest getting both eventually, of course. Alchemist having a way to focus on weapons instead of bombs, for instance.
If these are really the reasons then things are worse than I thought.
In practice, are you saying that the pf2 archetypes are a cool way to avoid creating subcategories of general feats and passing them as class feats?The class feats that are weaker than general feats has been confirmed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly is the concern there? That class feats and skill feats are doled out more frequently than general feats? That thematic feat clusters are sorted into neat little categories that keep them from clogging up the general feat list?
Too many feats is one of the biggest barriers of entry in PF1. While PF2 doesn't look like they are aiming to have less feats per se, they are going to be easier to parse by being broken up into different sections of the book. Class Agnostic Archetypes are one way that can happen.
Which isn't to say class specific archetypes shouldn't be a thing. I think they will be, although they might not be in the playtest or even the core rulebook. But with the new vanilla classes being so modular to begin with I don't think we will feel that sting right away. Plenty of things to try until we they have put the current stuff through the ringer.
If these are really the reasons then things are worse than I thought.
These aren't the reasons they're making PF2 archetypes the way they are. They're just problems that I think would happen if you took PF2 archetypes and turned their content into general feats. I was under the impression that's what you thought they should do based on, "It would be enough to grant everyone the possibility to choose these particular feats as normal feats." I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.
In practice, are you saying that the pf2 archetypes are a cool way to avoid creating subcategories of general feats and passing them as class feats?
No. I'm saying that the archetype feats are probably much closer to class feats than to general feats. But if you were to make it so that archetype feats were instead general feats, then you would have a bunch of clutter because the feats are not actually very general. Only characters in pirate and nautical games will want the feats from a pirate archetype.
The class feats that are weaker than general feats has been confirmed?
We have very few details on general feats so far. But which is better, armor proficiency on a Wizard, or getting a reaction counterspell ability? Well, the first one provides you with a 20% chance of reducing the damage from each decent attack. (+2 AC decreases the change of being hit and of being crit.) The second one can completely ruin a caster's turn pretty solidly and is a lot more interesting, but it's not going to come up every round of combat. I'm guessing that archetype feats will be interesting and circumstantial, while general feats will handle the more dry number improvement feats. You only have five general feats, so they're certainly rarer.
I'd like take with archetypes as done with Rogue Genius - Talented Classes - all special class features put together as list of free talents for martial classess to customise from it.
No strictly bound to archetypes.