Universal archetypes you'd like to have.

[QuidEst]

The new style of archetypes (not necessarily mutually exclusive with traditional archetypes) lets anybody trade out class feats for archetype feats. Every archetype starts with an intro feat that grants access to other feats. What would you like to see available as an option for any class?

[Bardarok]

I hope propper multiclassing is a thing but I would like a VMC style archetype set to make pseudo hybrid classes.

Warrior archetype offers a way for any class to pick up a few equipment proficiencies up to maybe expert and offers some martial feats. Good for a rogue who wants to be more a Slayer, a Cleric who wants to be a warpriest, and a wizard who wants to be a Magus.

A magician/priest/shaman archetype that offers cantrips and/or some power pool options for someone who wants to have picked up a little magic. Combined with rituals it could make for a good arcane trickster or arcane archer.

[Shiroi]

Honestly the vmc bit is the main thing for universal archetypes for me. I'd say fighter archetype, rogue archetype, cleric archetype... Basically every class (core, non, splat, 3pp even to keep the standard) should have an archetype associated with it so other classes can dabble in cross class features. I think it should, from the very beginning, be listed as a part of the class entry itself for clarity and convenience.

[KingOfAnything]

I'd like to see a technology archetype. There are just a few different archetypes for using tech.

[Artificial 20]

An archetype for using firearms well.

An archetype for good mounted combat.

An archetype for dabbling with magic.

[Meophist]

Samurai and Ninja might make for good universal-ish archetypes.

Would also like archetypes for certain playstyles, like archery, unarmed combat, going into magic for martial classes, maybe stuff like crossbow specialization?

Also, Scout might make a good universal archetype.

[Shiroi]

Beyond the core mechanics, let's see fluff...

Egyptian, Greco-Roman, asguardian, passifist, one for every in-game god (desna, pharasma, asmodeus), assassin, spy, Oriental, time-lost (forwards and backwards), bomber, scientist, Daredevil, demon hunter, dragon tamer, dragon Slayer, toxicologist, crafter, diplomat, skill focus...

I also realize a lot of this can be general or skill feats, don't get me wrong I don't think you should have to take an archetype chain to get access to all of these things, however I do feel that we can gate some more powerful than average options behind the requirement of multi-feat investment to prohibit dipping into a given area to 'minor options for a feat you can take solo' and 'better stuff that you have to seriously work at'.

[Charlie Brooks]

I'd like to see the assassin turned into an archetype that plays well with fighters, rogues, and alchemists.

[Iron_Matt17]

I like the idea of having a Divine Champion that can be fit for each Deity.

[GM Rednal]

I want a Downtime archetype that any character can take to improve their performance with that phase of the game - regardless of class. Good for games that use that phase a lot, without being too big of an investment, and not muscling aside other options for games where downtime isn't a big deal.

[QuidEst]

Personally, I think an archetype to get and improve a familiar would be pretty cool. It'd be nice if the intro feat gave you something else if you already have a familiar.

It'd also be cool to have some long-term projects. Stuff like slowly building out a line of archetypes dealing with each type of outsider, and then eventually maybe covering the native outsiders as well.

[Shiroi]

QuidEst wrote:

Personally, I think an archetype to get and improve a familiar would be pretty cool. It'd be nice if the intro feat gave you something else if you already have a familiar.

It'd also be cool to have some long-term projects. Stuff like slowly building out a line of archetypes dealing with each type of outsider, and then eventually maybe covering the native outsiders as well.

That kind of puts me in mind of a prestige archetype requiring certain other archetypes. I can see a Planeswalker prestige archetype which requires the dedication feats of an elemental archetype and a survival or dimensional rift archetype, and builds off those skills more than normal class feats. The result is a character suited to traveling to the plane of X and fighting things found there.

[PossibleCabbage]

Only universal archetypes I *want* to see are the Prestige Class ones. Being one of the Magaambya, or a Hellknight, or a Sleepless Investigator, or a Steel Falcon, or a Bellflower Operative is neat and this new way of doing prestige classes appeals to me more than the old way.

Universal archetypes for basic things like "you are a pirate" are less interesting- they basically take the place of a bunch of different class archetypes for "this version of the class does boats" which I was never that interested in to begin with.

[Malk_Content]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Universal archetypes for basic things like "you are a pirate" are less interesting- they basically take the place of a bunch of different class archetypes for "this version of the class does boats" which I was never that interested in to begin with.

You should be pro them then! If you didn't like those archetypes having to be printed for every single class (same with the gun ones etc) then the fact they only need to be printed once is a boon.

[PossibleCabbage]

But I mean, for example, "A gun-using investigator" is not as interesting as a Cryptid Scholar or a Reckless Epicurean or a Psychic Detective, just in concept.

So if you printed a "uses guns" universal archetype to replace Steel Gun, Holy Gun, etc. I would just neglect to take that universal archetype the same way I wasn't about to take those archetypes.

So I guess I'd like every broad category of things I'm uninterested in to be wrapped up in small boxes as universal archetypes so there's more room for other stuff?

[Tholomyes]

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

I like the idea of having a Divine Champion that can be fit for each Deity.

I like this idea too. I enjoy toying around with martial characters who are nevertheless very tied to their deities in ways that aren't just afterthoughts, but there's usually only a couple feats that are applicable, and they run the risk of being the obvious choice (such as Dervish Dance, for Magi, prior to slashing/fencing grace coming out). With archetypes, you can have interesting things for every deity, and the archetype system makes it so there's less incentive to worship a god just for a feat.

[PossibleCabbage]

An issue with making "Deity Specific Archetypes" instead of just feats which are deity specific is that this means it's harder for a Pirate to be a devoted follower of Besmara, which is weird and backwards. Archetypes are a lot harder to stack now because of the whole "must take 2 more feats in the chain to get the next devotion."

[KingOfAnything]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So I guess I'd like every broad category of things I'm uninterested in to be wrapped up in small boxes as universal archetypes so there's more room for other stuff?

Exactly. Theme archetypes make more room for the off-the-wall class changing archetypes.

[Joe Wells]

How about ancestry archetypes, as a different way of doing plane-touched or elemental-touched characters?

[Malk_Content]

There are a lot of things I'm not going to use either. I'm chuffed they'll take up less space but glad they are still there for others to use.

[Fuzzypaws]

Prestige classes are really the best and most promising application of this style of archetypes themes. Also VMC style multiclass archetypes themes, but only as an option IN ADDITION TO traditional 3.x multiclassing, not IN PLACE OF it.

As has been noted though, "gets guns" and other stuff like that definitely works better as a universal theme than as infinite archetype spam for every single class.

[necromental]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Prestige classes are really the best and most promising application of this style of archetypes themes. Also VMC style multiclass archetypes themes, but only as an option IN ADDITION TO traditional 3.x multiclassing, not IN PLACE OF it.

As has been noted though, "gets guns" and other stuff like that definitely works better as a universal theme than as infinite archetype spam for every single class.

Agreed on all points.

[Shiroi]

I will say, these universal archetypes need to be sure they are martial/caster/other inclusive. There should be a few class feats in the Pirate archetype that grant extra damage to ships with your fire spells, negate caster penalties from being in water/on rigging/in rough seas, and give cool options for water spells (add control water to your list of spells known, if you already have or later gain control water increase your caster level by 2 to determine the volume affected). Similarly, a few alchemist friendly options (when you make a craft check to produce gunpowder you gain +2 to the check, black powder you produce has no misfire chance in pistols or cannons and can be used underwater).

If we're to call them universal options, they need to be inclusive of more than just one concept for the base class. Even just one or two feats that could be useful for everyone would be better than giving all martial abilities for one archetype and all caster abilities for another. I also expect that there should be fully 10+ class feats for each of these, so you can go all out and be almost entirely pirate while your friend the other fighter in the campaign only dips a few pirate abilities and stays mostly fighter.

[Gavmania]

Gish
Archer
Bolt ace
Maneuver specialist
Polearm master
Detective/investigator
Archaeologist
warpriest
Mr. Hyde
Arcane trickster
Shapeshifter
Kensai
Swashbuckler

[PossibleCabbage]

Well, a Wizard gets proficiency in three weapons and signature skill in acrobatics from becoming a pirate just like everybody else, and can take other feats for getting around on ships better. But the Gray Maiden archetype probably does not have a lot for the Wizard because a lot of it is about "using heavy armor".

So the Archetypes are Universal in the sense that anyone can take them (e.g. you don't need to be a specific class), but they certainly won't be useful to everyone. I imagine quite a few of these non-class-specific archetypes are going to require some kind of spellcasting, so fighters need not apply to be Hellknight Signifers.

[necromental]

That's why Gray Maiden is a Prestige Archetype rather than a regular one. Not disagreeing with you, just making it clear there's a distinction.

[Meophist]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, a Wizard gets proficiency in three weapons and signature skill in acrobatics from becoming a pirate just like everybody else, and can take other feats for getting around on ships better. But the Gray Maiden archetype probably does not have a lot for the Wizard because a lot of it is about "using heavy armor".

So the Archetypes are Universal in the sense that anyone can take them (e.g. you don't need to be a specific class), but they certainly won't be useful to everyone. I imagine quite a few of these non-class-specific archetypes are going to require some kind of spellcasting, so fighters need not apply to be Hellknight Signifers.

I feel Wizard will have a difficult time qualifying as a Gray Maiden even if they wanted it.

[doc roc]

I'm not that keen on the universal archetype concept TBH.... class archetypes are one of the big plus points of PF1, although I do realise that these can still exist in PF2

TBH I see the field as quite limited otherwise things start to get ridiculous thematically.

I actually like the idea of a 'Pirate' archetype..... in essence it just means a PC that spends a lot of time at sea.

I see universal archetypes as being more setting specific:

Pirate (water), Tunneller (expert at underground stuff), Outdoorsman (very good survival skills), Urbanite (does really well in city surroundings).. etc

You could also have something a bit more role specific:

Spy, sabouteur, crafter, diplomat, athlete, thief... etc

These could be viewed as 'jobs' that in theory any class should be capable of performing. These would be very much in the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay mould

I would still want the archetype emphasis to be on classes though

[Deadmanwalking]

I really want a Vigilante Archetype that gives you another identity and some stuff to go along with that.

I'm also a big fan of a Gun Archetype, as people have been suggesting.

A 'let's get magic' archetype would be interesting, but probably not mechanically workable.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like a "this is the spooky psychic version of this class" could work too, but perhaps things like psychic skill unlocks should just be skill feats?

But basically most of the recent hardcover books could have a universal archetype devoted to its theme: Intrigue, Horror, the Occult, the Wilderness, Planar stuff, etc.

[Shiroi]

Proficiency in a weapon doesn't really help a wizard be a better pirate though, they'll probably never use it even if they have it. Getting around on ships absolutely, but I'm saying each archetype should have a few options that specifically help out all forms of people. Let's try divine.

An archetype that would be associated with Cayden Cailean would likely be common with clerics and fighters alike. Let's go perhaps with something less ambiguous, an archetype for Pharasma. Her usual worshippers are morticians, clerics, necromancers who don't raise undead... Nothing martial really in here. If I was to make this archetype myself, I'd have some abilities like the following (mind that I'm ignoring numbers and attempting this even before the alpha playtest package).

Dedication Pharasma:
Gain proficiency with knives, gain +1 to attack and damage rolls against undead with knives, and gain one rank up to expert in Lore: Pharasma or Lore: Undead.

Since mostly casters will be interested in this archetype, I'll open with a bulk of the class feats biased towards the common style.

Blessed Rebuke: Treat your caster level as two higher for all purposes when using positive energy to turn or damage undead.

Blessed Light: Spend two resonance to channel positive energy as a cleric of your level -4 for the purposes of damaging undead. If you already channel energy as a cleric, use your full cleric level instead if higher.

Scourge of the Undead: You may spend a resonance to cast a spell you know up to third level, which may only be used to damage an undead creature or someone you have witnessed controlling or creating undead.

Bastion of Life: You may cast Circle of Protection from Evil as a full round action, expending a spell of the same level instead. If this spell is not on your spell list, it additionally costs 1 resonance. In either case, it functions only against undead creatures.

Renewed Life: When you cast a spell which brings a target back to life, you may spend a resonance to highten that spell up to the highest spell level you can cast, and recover 50% more hit points and ability damage up to the maximum available to the target.

These 5 abilities are clearly caster oriented, though the channel energy -4 one is also excellent for all other classes. They sometimes have notes with distinction between spell lists, but help everyone who has a spell list. It even allows 2 resonance from a fighter to be worth a channel against undead at a -2 if he takes both of those, or similar for a wizard.

Here, however, we branch out a bit and ask what we can do for non-typical builds, martials and alchemists and rangers...

Track the Scourge: Treat your (tracking skill) as one rank higher to a maximum of legendary when locating undead or those you know have recently created or controlled undead. If your tracking is already legendary, you Know Location of all undead within a mile of you with five minutes of concentration.

Crypt Sighted: You see undead as if no lighting or ranged penalties applied, regardless of your normal vision type. (The idea being they're basically always brightly lit, you're never blinded against them, et cetera).

Vanquish the Scourge: Undead targets never benefit from resistance to your weapon damage type, and if they have a weakness you gain half that weakness damage if you are not using a weapon which would be resisted.

Potion of Rebirth: When you craft a potion, elixer, or tincture which reatores hit points, you may use it to bring a dead creature back to life within a number of rounds of death equal to the spell level the consumable replicates.

We now have very attractive options for ranged, melee, crafting, skills, and plenty of general stuff that's useful to most classes regardless.

[Dragonborn3]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I really want a Vigilante Archetype that gives you another identity and some stuff to go along with that.

Why the need for another identity though? It can be completely ignored in PF1 and if they changed it makes no sense. "I'm not wearing my mask so I don't have Lethal Grace anymore" seems quite silly.

Now if a masked identity was just a Disguise based skill feat...

[AnimatedPaper]

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I really want a Vigilante Archetype that gives you another identity and some stuff to go along with that.

Why the need for another identity though? It can be completely ignored in PF1 and if they changed it makes no sense. "I'm not wearing my mask so I don't have Lethal Grace anymore" seems quite silly.

Now if a masked identity was just a Disguise based skill feat...

Disagree. I see the vigilante as the first iteration of a PF2 style class, in that almost everything is a feat talent of various kinds, so I'd really want to see what they could come up with if they can apply one vigilante archetype to every class, rather than an archetypes vigilante that has a whiff of every other class.

The bummer is that most of their social talents would be better off as skill feats, so I'd really rather they rework archetypes so that you can pick up the archetype feats with skill feats or even general feats, if the power and scope of the feat is appropriate to that type of feat. It would make it easier to stack archetypes too. Like the entire Many guises-Everyman-Any Guise line could become one class feat that scales with proficiency, or it can be better represented as a skill feat that modifies disguise, but is exclusive to players with the vigilante dedication. Heck throw the immediate change-quick change talents in there too.

[AnimatedPaper]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

A 'let's get magic' archetype would be interesting, but probably not mechanically workable.

If I was to do it, I'd allow the dedication to grant a cantrip or prison and also a basic Power that allowed you as a reaction to spend a spell point to reroll a damage die when casting a spell, with each odd level past 1st allowing an additonal die to be rerolled. Or something else equally widely applicable and easy to understand that a caster might find appealing, but not game breaking. Probably also let them have the spell-list appropriate skill as a signature skill. Then I'd allow the dabblers to pick up the power granting feats of the same class that they dabbled in.

Of course, if we get class emulating dedications, my proposal could be pretty redundant.

[ChibiNyan]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Prestige classes are really the best and most promising application of this style of archetypes themes. Also VMC style multiclass archetypes themes, but only as an option IN ADDITION TO traditional 3.x multiclassing, not IN PLACE OF it.

As has been noted though, "gets guns" and other stuff like that definitely works better as a universal theme than as infinite archetype spam for every single class.

Yes and No. A lot of those archetypes were really reundant, but not all of them. For example, the Gun Wizard/Magus could fire spells from the gun and the Rogue one had some gimmicks with concealing small arms and sneak attacks. So there were some that actually manage to combine their class abilities with the gun in unique ways! This could still be done by printing class-specific archetype feats down the line, with just the Dedication giving the gun and needing the other ones to get the combos.

Anyways, hope we don't lose that design space by making everything too broad.

[Quandary]

I don't see many people making clear distinction on what justifies "Archetype" vs. just some Feats.
As if Paizo simply uttering words "Archetype" makes it all exciting and awesome. Why?
Pretty sure "Pirate" or many of themes people envision for Archetypes were previously imagined as... just some Feats.

Also interesting to me is why Dedication mechanic (which seems the entirety of Archetype mechanic vs. 'just some Feats')
is assumed justified here, yet not considered to apply to Class Feats themself, neither the group of vanilla Class Feats for chosen class as a whole (i.e. impeding multiclassing and taking of Archetypes), or Dedication to some subset of Class Feats, which would essentially be single-class Archetypes.

I know Paizo is hyped about "Universal" archetypes (without addressing elephant in room, namely how given set of Feats will actually be universally attractive to wide range of melee/ranged/caster characters) but if the Dedication mechanic was so great, I don't understand why it shouldn't also be used for Class Feats themselves. We don't know about multi-classing yet, but given what we know so far there ISN'T "Dedication" to a class that impedes it, which leaves weird situation where "Archetypes" are more strict than grabbing a mishmash of unrelated classes (i.e. Fighter/Alchemist/Bard).

Part of justification for "Universal Archetypes" was simplicity vs re-implementing theme in minorly different ways across different classes. But if the solution is giving people of different classes THE EXACT SAME FEATS via Archetype, why not just give relevant classes some Class Feats that reference one mechanic, like P1E had Shatter Spell functioning like Spell Sunder? (which didn't need Dedication somehow) I thought it was "already a thing" that some Classes would get access to same Feats as others, possibly just at different class level, so what actually new is being achieved? If they want to print them only once in a consolidated location, just have section for "Univeral Class Feats" which can give differing class/level requirements (not necessarily fully Universal, for example requiring martial class levels).

[Deadmanwalking]

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Why the need for another identity though? It can be completely ignored in PF1 and if they changed it makes no sense. "I'm not wearing my mask so I don't have Lethal Grace anymore" seems quite silly.

Who says any such restrictions would be part of the Archetype? I was mostly just thinking 'two identities who can't be magically revealed to be the same person', possibly with separate Alignments.

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Now if a masked identity was just a Disguise based skill feat...

I'd be fine with such a Skill Feat, but being a Vigilante isn't only that ability. I mean, that'd be what the Dedication Feat did, but I can think of several other options that could make for a good and interesting Archetype.

[Quandary]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Now if a masked identity was just a Disguise based skill feat...

I'd be fine with such a Skill Feat, but being a Vigilante isn't only that ability. I mean, that'd be what the Dedication Feat did, but I can think of several other options that could make for a good and interesting Archetype.

I can think of lots of Vigilante abilities that could be Feats, but few (the "... Appearance" line?) have much direct relation to the 'supernatural disguise' feature. I mean, you don't need that to have a Safehouse, for example. Or for Case the Joint. Or to have reknown in an area (in a single real identity). So why tie them together?

I do like the idea of inter-related Skill/General/Class Feats. "Combat Feats" in P1E already often had Skill Rank and Stat requirements, this would really just be building on that, given P2E is moving focus away from numeric modifiers to unique proficiencies and feat abilities in all areas. But that has little inherent relationship to Dedicated Archetypes.

[Shiroi]

Quandary wrote:

I don't see many people making clear distinction on what justifies "Archetype" vs. just some Feats.

As if Paizo simply uttering words "Archetype" makes it all exciting and awesome. Why?
Pretty sure "Pirate" or many of themes people envision for Archetypes were previously imagined as... just some Feats.

The difference to me is that general feats cost general feat slots, these are class feat slots and they take from the nature of what it is to be a rogue/wizard/barbarian to give you what it is to be a pirate/whatever. General feats are an 'in addition to being a fighter I also do X', this to me feels like it costs more for coming out of the class features themselves and as such I expect them to be more powerful and character defining than a general feat.

Edit:

For clarity, an example.

I want to be decent at poisons as a fighter, so I take a feat that gives me the ability to use poisons without risk of poisoning myself while applying them. Maybe I chain that into a feat that lets me apply them for one (A) instead of three.

I want to be a poisoner fighter, I instead give up several class features (new open/press stuff probably) to gain the poisoner dedication. Now I have lore: poison, I can apply them without risk of poisoning myself, and do so for 2 (A) instead of three. I then take the general feat and it goes down to not even being an action, or is an action but I attack while doing so. I now have the option to take more poisoner class feats instead of fighter, and get further away from the base concept of fighter to gain higher poison DCs, and the ability to spend resonance to make a 24h duration free poison that scales to my level.

It's a matter of degree of investment, feats or class features.

[Quandary]

Shiroi wrote:

The difference to me is that general feats cost general feat slots, these are class feat slots and they take from the nature of what it is to be a rogue/wizard/barbarian to give you what it is to be a pirate/whatever. General feats are an 'in addition to being a fighter I also do X', this to me feels like it costs more for coming out of the class features themselves and as such I expect them to be more powerful and character defining than a general feat.

Okay, I am coming at this noting that people are already asking "if the Archetype Feat is dealing with Skills, shouldn't it count as Skill Feat?", and honestly the idea we can't expect Skill Feats to do stuff like "better at balancing on ships" seems shambolic...

But like I commented previously "given what we know so far ... "Archetypes" are more strict than grabbing a mishmash of unrelated classes (i.e. Fighter/Alchemist/Bard)" which comes with own (different) Class Feats for free, so are we to believe Pirate Archetype is more powerful and character defining than normal Classes? So the only justification I could see would be if Pirate et al are on par with Prestige Classes/Archetypes, i.e. more powerful than the norm. Except I don't think anybody seriously expects that to be true, never mind if it were the problems that creates for balance if some low level Feats are just more powerful than others.

If they want to make the Feats higher up / deeper in the chain/tree more powerful, that is in line with how Feat chains/trees generally work without any Dedication/Archetype mechanic.

Anyhow, my critique is not really based on "you should be able to advance multiple Feat chains without Dedication limitation", although IMHO that is cludge-y approach to issue that can be solved by thematic pre-reqs making arbitrary combos similarly difficult if not impossible. It is that Archetype framing seems to justify an over-focus on Class Feat Archetype chains even when the themes themself suggest links to Skill or General Feat material. Nothing we've seen has suggested Skill/General Feats cannot also serve as pre-reqs for Archetype Feats, but it seems implied those can't count as Archetype Feats re: Dedication (which is ultimately not necessary mechanic IMHO), and IMHO the serious use of pre-req's is at odds with paradigm of Dedication.

Sure, Class Feats are the most powerful type of Feat, we could really call them Power Feats understanding that most of them are Class-specific... But isn't it clearer to just posit a "Universal" category of Class Feats (or Power Feats), even if those have pre-reqs limiting them to only some classes (e.g. Fighter 5 or Barbarian 8)? I'm not seeing how these Archetype theme Class Feats are strictly different than that in it's aims... Which I believe is already suggested to exist, re: AoO/Combat Feats with Fighter/Paladin (...DMW?), a confusing state of affairs if 'multi-class/universal class feats' are being enunciated in two disjointed manners. But IMHO it feels like the Archetype/Dedication framework is imposing itself too much as self-important thing, which detracts from simply allowing Universal Class and Skill and General Feats from being developed organically. There becomes automatic obligation to flesh out complete "Archetype Feat pool" of any concept which is deemed "Archetype" material. There becomes automatic obligation for Archetype Feats to be Class Feats, when perhaps just one Universal Class Feat is justified, tied into General and Skill Feats. Or even just a single, non-chain Universal Class Feat which may be justified on it's own, yet not be considered "Archetype" material and thus passed over.

I just see people swallowing it all without chewing, automatically thinking "What other Archetypes should we have" instead of approaching it from "What themes can develop from Class/Skill/General Feats possibly inter-related in some way (pre-req's/ feat interactions)". That doesn't particularly require framework of Archetypes, and doesn't require such themes be developed in equivalent manners, which IMHO the Archetype category (and Dedication mechanic) is pushing them towards...

[Shiroi]

Fair, absolutely fair way to look at it. My only thought there is that class feats should be on par with other class features, all of which should be more character defining (read: more powerful) than general and skill feats. As for pirate stuff being more or less powerful than rogue stuff, that to me is a matter of trying to get it close to the same power but still a different mechanic and fluff. It shouldn't be more powerful to archetype than to multiclass, but at the same time those WILL feel different. Not all fighter class features are fighter class feats, not all rogue features are rogue feats. So multiclassing rogue will stunt some of your fighter abilities and change your skills per level and your saves and hit die and Bab and give you sneak dice and all sorts of things that come with being a rogue.

To be more precise, I'd say the order of investment into a concept would be...

Skill feat: I take a skill feat like stealth and add a little tiny bit of rogue function to my barbarian.

General feat: I take a general feat that gives me a sneak die when I actually am sneaking, but not when flanking. General feats are more useful than skill feats, so this is a bigger investment.

Class feat: I take the rogue vmc dedication feat, giving up a rage power this level for a proper sneak attack die or a rogue talent. This is a major investment into rogue-like behavior and it cost me part of my barbarian-like abilities.

Multiclassing: I give up progressing as a barbarian at all this level and progress instead as a full blooded rogue.

That's kind of where I feel the relative costs, gains, investment, and feeling of this system should lie. I think we'll need more Dev info to really see how close or not I am to their intention, and then they'll need to watch playtest data to decide if I'm the only one who wants it that way or not. For now, it's mostly theory until we get better Intel, and then we can figure out which way makes the most people happy with it.

[PossibleCabbage]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Why the need for another identity though? It can be completely ignored in PF1 and if they changed it makes no sense. "I'm not wearing my mask so I don't have Lethal Grace anymore" seems quite silly.

Who says any such restrictions would be part of the Archetype? I was mostly just thinking 'two identities who can't be magically revealed to be the same person', possibly with separate Alignments.

What Dragonborn3 describes wasn't even how the Vigilante worked in PF1. If you had lethal grace, you have it in any identity you assume, it's just that if you used it in a social identity you temporarily give up your +20 disguise bonus you'd ordinarily get for passing off Bruce Wayne as an incompetent billionaire playboy.

[Quandary]

Just to clarify something I mentioned, which I couldn't recall details of:
Fighter class feature Attack of Opportunity is already accessible via other Classes' Class Feats (explicitly Paladin at 6th level).
Barbarian Class Feats can get Sudden Charge at "low level" which is also Fighter Class Feat (1st level).

I see some discussion of Archetypes as means to enable "VMC" i.e. emulating other classes, suggestions of even explicitly locating Archetypes adjacent to class they emulate. In this regard, we already have Class Feat/ability sharing without using Archetype system. Just wanting to not overlook these closely related concepts (non-unique Class Feats) simply because they haven't been expressed within same language/framework so far.

[Deadmanwalking]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

What Dragonborn3 describes wasn't even how the Vigilante worked in PF1. If you had lethal grace, you have it in any identity you assume, it's just that if you used it in a social identity you temporarily give up your +20 disguise bonus you'd ordinarily get for passing off Bruce Wayne as an incompetent billionaire playboy.

I'm aware of how Vigilante worked in PF1, I was objecting to the assumption that an Archetype to do the same thing in PF2 must necessarily include that particular mechanical element.

It'd be like saying we don't need a PF2 Sorcerer because they got their Bloodline spells too late. It's an objection to a specific mechanical issue that need not be repeated rather than an objection to the concept.

[The Raven Black]

I like the concept of the Themes in Starfinder. I would like something like those done as universal archetypes

Also, a Noble universal archetype

And the Prestige Classes of course

[Gavmania]

ChibiNyan wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Prestige classes are really the best and most promising application of this style of archetypes themes. Also VMC style multiclass archetypes themes, but only as an option IN ADDITION TO traditional 3.x multiclassing, not IN PLACE OF it.

As has been noted though, "gets guns" and other stuff like that definitely works better as a universal theme than as infinite archetype spam for every single class.

Yes and No. A lot of those archetypes were really reundant, but not all of them. For example, the Gun Wizard/Magus could fire spells from the gun and the Rogue one had some gimmicks with concealing small arms and sneak attacks. So there were some that actually manage to combine their class abilities with the gun in unique ways! This could still be done by printing class-specific archetype feats down the line, with just the Dedication giving the gun and needing the other ones to get the combos.

Anyways, hope we don't lose that design space by making everything too broad.

That would be easy to do with one archetype. remember, the dedication feat is a gateway to a host of archetype feats which do not have to all be taken.

It would be no problem then to make an archetype feat that enables you to cast spells through your gun. Obviously it would be of no interest to non-spellcasters, but that's ok there is no rule saying they have to take it. There could be another feat that enables you to use thievery (or whatever) to conceal weapons; it would be of little interest to characters not trained in thievery. Same archetype, multiple possible character types. I suppose in theory you could have a multiclass wizard/Rogue with the "gets guns" archetype that does both. Now that would make for interesting character possibilities!

[sadie]

The Raven Black wrote:

I like the concept of the Themes in Starfinder. I would like something like those done as universal archetypes

Also, a Noble universal archetype

And the Prestige Classes of course

Themes really equate to Backgrounds more than Archetypes.

[The Raven Black]

sadie wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I like the concept of the Themes in Starfinder. I would like something like those done as universal archetypes

Also, a Noble universal archetype

And the Prestige Classes of course

Themes really equate to Backgrounds more than Archetypes.

I thought Themes were providing abilities after reaching higher levels. My bad, then :-)

Still wish for a Noble archetype though ;-D

Universal archetypes do feel tailor-made for settings' and adventure's genre : Horror, Intrigue, Post-apocalyptic, Nautical, Oriental ...

[Jinjifra]

In all honesty I'm looking forward to some of the old prestige classes getting reborn in a way where they don't completely wreck your progression of you main class. I feel like Horizon Walker, Shadow Dancer, Dragon Disciple, etc could be really new and interesting

[Dragon78]

None, I would like the game to be customizable enough not to need them.