What is the worst archetype?

[Cavall]

Any archetype that replaces something you can get with a feat anyways is a strict upgrade on most occasions.

Losing scribe scroll means you can just get scribe scroll when you want to. But the ability given that replaces it is something you can never take a feat to choose.

An archetype that loses bonus feats for something no class can do otherwise and are pretty incredible abilities? Yeah it's a clear upgrade.

[doomman47]

Dasrak wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

Spell research

You can't use spell research to learn spells that do not normally appear on your list. The rules are amenable to using spell research to design homebrew spells, but those rules explicitly state that the spell should be in line with existing spells. Giving a spell that duplicates something that was explicitly not given to your class is completely inappropriate.

yes you can,"The standard rules allow you to perform spell research, either to create a new spell or learn an existing spell from another source"(another source means a different spell list btw). "In the downtime system, the steps for spell research each day are as follows.

Pay 100 gp × the spell’s level for research costs and rare ingredients. You may spend Goods or Magic toward this cost.
Determine the total days of progress required to complete the research, which is 7 × the spell level.
Determine the spell research DC, which is 10 + twice the spell’s level.
Attempt a Spellcraft check and a Knowledge check (arcana for an arcane spell, religion for a divine spell) against the spell research DC. You can’t take 10 on these checks. You may spend Magic to modify a check result, with 1 point of Magic adding 2 to your total (maximum +10). If both checks succeed, you make 1 day’s progress toward completing the spell. When your days of progress equal the total number of days needed, the spell is completed and added to your spellbook or list of spells known.
If either or both spell research checks fail by 4 or less, you make no progress. For each check that fails by 5 or more, your research has led to poor results and you lose a day of progress toward completing the spell.
If you’re an alchemist, you can use this downtime option to research a new extract formula. Instead of a Spellcraft check, attempt a Craft (alchemy) check. For Knowledge (arcana) checks, you may attempt a Knowledge (nature) check instead."

doomman47 wrote:

if you aren't playing a mesmerist/oracle its not even worth relying on color spray

I specifically said 1st level for that example. It's a tremendously effective spell at 1st. Without the HD cap expansion it goes obsolete, but by that point you'll have higher level spells.

So adding a little bit of flexibility at level 1 to a class who only gets at most 3 spells at that level is a bad thing?

doomman47 wrote:

Scribe scroll is an amazing feat and losing it 1st level and thus having to take it at a later level is a pretty big blow

Dasrak wrote:

Well, good news, you get a feat at 1st level (two if you're human) and can buy it right back if you like.

yes you could but then you would then have to give up another feat that you would have normally taken at 1st level which also rules out the character taking one of the "can only be taken at 1st level" feats that can be quite potent so a loss is still a loss and has to be made up for somehow.

doomman47 wrote:

And especially based on what these boards say how many people actually make it past 10th level, how many people make it past 15th, not many and for those that do they deserve cool abilities.

Dasrak wrote:

The fact that your table might not reach these levels (at my table we do play 10+ often enough, but virtually never play 15+) doesn't change the fact that the benefits are quite over the top for anyone who is playing at those levels. It's the same deal with the Spell Perfection feat; very few tables will ever go high enough to see it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's basically mandatory on any serious caster build. The ability to pick one spammable spell and get free quickens on it is huge.

And seriously, the Wizard does get cool abilities at high levels. In fact, Wizards are quite literally the last class that needs cool abilities at high levels. Wizards are the only class that doesn't even need a capstone class feature, because they're just that good at high levels. Seriously, they don't need handouts at high levels by any stretch of the imagination.

oh we do reach those levels but based on all the comments I have seen only about 2-5% of groups ever do and ya wizards should be able to have some neat abilities too, spells per day only go so far.

[PossibleCabbage]

It should be pretty clear that Pact Wizard (either of them) is not the "worst archetype", however.

[Dasrak]

doomman47 wrote:

yes you can,"The standard rules allow you to perform spell research, either to create a new spell or learn an existing spell from another source"(another source means a different spell list btw).

It most certainly does not. You're in full-blown munchkin territory right now, arguing from a stance that requires not only a GM that allows players to design their own homebrew spells, but to do so with basically no restrictions. Virtually no one plays like that.

If you're giving one of the primary advantages of this archetype to your players for free, then I can see how it'd be less impressive at your table. For most of us, though, this is a huge benefit that is largely impossible to replicate by other means.

doomman47 wrote:

So adding a little bit of flexibility at level 1 to a class who only gets at most 3 spells at that level is a bad thing?

3 spells would be about the minimum you'd ever see from a 1st level Wizard; the maximum is 5: 1 base + 1 specialist + 2 intelligence + 1 bonded object. Compared to other spellcasting classes the Wizard can have far more spells prepared at a time, and giving the option of spontaneous conversion lets them have their cake and eat it too. Not having to worry about running out of combat spells lets you freely prep 5 different utility spells, then convert them to combat spells on demand. Again, this isn't necessarily overpowered and you could create a balanced archetype that grants such a bonus, but trading away Scribe Scroll is not even close to making a balanced trade for that.

doomman47 wrote:

yes you could but then you would then have to give up another feat that you would have normally taken at 1st level which also rules out the character taking one of the "can only be taken at 1st level" feats that can be quite potent so a loss is still a loss and has to be made up for somehow.

There are very few feats that can only be taken at 1st level, and virtually none of them are make-and-break. If anything, I find it's the opposite with Wizards: there just aren't that many great feats for them to take at 1st level and they end up taking filler like Spell Focus or Improved Initiative.

doomman47 wrote:

oh we do reach those levels but based on all the comments I have seen only about 2-5% of groups ever do and ya wizards should be able to have some neat abilities too, spells per day only go so far.

A 15+ Wizard has around 50 spell slots. That may be a finite number, but it is incredibly difficult to wear that down. As I said, the Wizard is literally the last class in the game in need of cool things at high levels. They're tripping over so many cool things that they can't even appreciate all of them as it stands.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It should be pretty clear that Pact Wizard (either of them) is not the "worst archetype", however.

Agreed. The Familiar Folio Pact Wizard is a pretty bad archetype, but it's not the worst by any measure.

[doomman47]

Dasrak wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

yes you can,"The standard rules allow you to perform spell research, either to create a new spell or learn an existing spell from another source"(another source means a different spell list btw).

It most certainly does not. You're in full-blown munchkin territory right now, arguing from a stance that requires not only a GM that allows players to design their own homebrew spells, but to do so with basically no restrictions. Virtually no one plays like that.

That's because most gms like yourself house rule spell research to not do what it is suppose to do. By RAW spell research allows you to add spells onto your spell list that are not normally there weather it be a custom spell(which needs gm approval but is not inherently against the rules) and pulling from other spell lists.

doomman47 wrote:

So adding a little bit of flexibility at level 1 to a class who only gets at most 3 spells at that level is a bad thing?

Dasrak wrote:

3 spells would be about the minimum you'd ever see from a 1st level Wizard; the maximum is 5: 1 base + 1 specialist + 2 intelligence + 1 bonded object. Compared to other spellcasting classes the Wizard can have far more spells prepared at a time, and giving the option of spontaneous conversion lets them have their cake and eat it too. Not having to worry about running out of combat spells lets you freely prep 5 different utility spells, then convert them to combat spells on demand. Again, this isn't necessarily overpowered and you could create a balanced archetype that grants such a bonus, but trading away Scribe Scroll is not even close to making a balanced trade for that.

Technically the minimum is 1 but 3 would be the most fair number to call out, not all characters start out with a 20 in int, meaning that for high ability score they are only given +1 spell slot, having a familiar is a lot more common than a bonded object so that's another spell slot gone, and while some people(everyone in my group due to the removal of opposed schools) may specialize, universalists are just as common and don't get that slot either.

doomman47 wrote:

yes you could but then you would then have to give up another feat that you would have normally taken at 1st level which also rules out the character taking one of the "can only be taken at 1st level" feats that can be quite potent so a loss is still a loss and has to be made up for somehow.

Dasrak wrote:

There are very few feats that can only be taken at 1st level, and virtually none of them are make-and-break. If anything, I find it's the opposite with Wizards: there just aren't that many great feats for them to take at 1st level and they end up taking filler like Spell Focus or Improved Initiative.

That all depends on character build and party make up, I still stand by losing the ability to have hundreds of spells at your disposal at any given time is a huge drawback, and while you can still take it later on that means a feat not spent on other magic item creation or meta magic that helps put your build together.

doomman47 wrote:

oh we do reach those levels but based on all the comments I have seen only about 2-5% of groups ever do and ya wizards should be able to have some neat abilities too, spells per day only go so far.

Dasrak wrote:

A 15+ Wizard has around 50 spell slots. That may be a finite number, but it is incredibly difficult to wear that down. As I said, the Wizard is literally the last class in the game in need of cool things at high levels. They're tripping over so many cool things that they can't even appreciate all of them as it stands.

And how many of those slots are actually still of use? How long will those last? Will they have enough castings to use in combat, buff pre combat and still have utility outside of combat? At that level pre combat buffs take up 4-7 slots from both of our casters, combats are generally 5-8 rounds each if each of the casters throw out a spell a turn not even worrying about the potential for quicken spell and they still require spells for out of combat utility, with only 50 slots you get 2 maybe 3 combats a day.

[Melkiador]

“Another source” means another rules source, like a splat book or even 3rd party sources. That wording is from 3.0, so very old.

[blahpers]

doomman47 wrote:

That's because most gms like yourself house rule spell research to not do what it is suppose to do. By RAW spell research allows you to add spells onto your spell list that are not normally there weather it be a custom spell(which needs gm approval but is not inherently against the rules) and pulling from other spell lists.

All independent spell research requires GM approval. There aren't separate tiers of houseruliness with custom spells on one tier and cross-class spells on another tier--it's entirely up to the GM whether to allow any researched spell, and it's entirely up to the GM what the parameters of such a spell must be. There's an large amount of text on the subject in the GameMastery Guide, including principles of spell design that basically boil down to "try not to break the theme of the class's spell list". If you're researching a spell that isn't on your spell list and said spell goes against the spell list's design principles, either that spell will be unavailable or it'll be subject to restrictions or side effects that a more on-theme class would not be subject to. Wizards aren't normally supposed to be good at healing, so a wizard's researched healing spells will generally be either less effective or riskier or have unwanted side effects compared to a cleric's healing spells of the same spell level; or they'll simply be higher level than a cleric would need for a similar spell; or they simply won't be researchable at all.

It's fine to look for what's theoretically possible with an infinitely-permissive GM, but that doesn't mean that a GM who adheres more strictly to the game's existing design principles is being a jerk or removing options that you should have by rights.

[doomman47]

blahpers wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

That's because most gms like yourself house rule spell research to not do what it is suppose to do. By RAW spell research allows you to add spells onto your spell list that are not normally there weather it be a custom spell(which needs gm approval but is not inherently against the rules) and pulling from other spell lists.

All independent spell research requires GM approval. There aren't separate tiers of houseruliness with custom spells on one tier and cross-class spells on another tier--it's entirely up to the GM whether to allow any researched spell, and it's entirely up to the GM what the parameters of such a spell must be. There's an large amount of text on the subject in the GameMastery Guide, including principles of spell design that basically boil down to "try not to break the theme of the class's spell list". If you're researching a spell that isn't on your spell list and said spell goes against the spell list's design principles, either that spell will be unavailable or it'll be subject to restrictions or side effects that a more on-theme class would not be subject to. Wizards aren't normally supposed to be good at healing, so a wizard's researched healing spells will generally be either less effective or riskier or have unwanted side effects compared to a cleric's healing spells of the same spell level; or they'll simply be higher level than a cleric would need for a similar spell; or they simply won't be researchable at all.

It's fine to look for what's theoretically possible with an infinitely-permissive GM, but that doesn't mean that a GM who adheres more strictly to the game's existing design principles is being a jerk or removing options that you should have by rights.

The whole point of spell research is to give you spells not on your list since you can get literally every spell on your spell list already if it didn't do this it would be a pointless rule. A gm would also be with in their rights to deny a player bab or base saving throw bonuses to but doing so generally labels you as a bad gm.

[Slyme]

The entire point of spell research is two-fold...first it allows you the ability to create entirely new spells which do not otherwise exist in any rules book...second it allows you to research rare spells which you cannot find via other methods (spellbooks, scrolls, etc)

It is not, and never has been meant to allow wizards to straight up copy spells from the cleric and druid spells lists.

[deuxhero]

Spell Research (at least the downtime version) does however let you bypass spells known limits.

Speaking of which: Is there a single archetype with the Diminished Spellcasting "feature" that's worth it beyond dipping? Cloistered Cleric is easily the worst since it's based on a 3.5 ACF that didn't need a nerf of its own since the only things that made it OP, divine power setting BAB to full and Knowledge Devotion, didn't exist in PF.

[PossibleCabbage]

I would not allow a character to get a spell from a different spell list via spell research, that sort of thing is rife for abuse. I have never been asked to do this, nor would I expect anyone I play with to even ask.

I mean, why not learn all the early access spells this way? Surely every Wizard with time and money would want to learn Haste as a 2nd level spell and Plane Shift as a 4th level spell.

[Dasrak]

deuxhero wrote:

Speaking of which: Is there a single archetype with the Diminished Spellcasting "feature" that's worth it beyond dipping?

In a loose sense, the Exploiter Wizard might be considered to have diminished casting, in that losing the specialist spell slots means they get 1 fewer spell per level. It's definitely a good benchmark for just how much you need to give to make up for that kind of loss.

[PossibleCabbage]

deuxhero wrote:

Speaking of which: Is there a single archetype with the Diminished Spellcasting "feature" that's worth it beyond dipping? Cloistered Cleric is easily the worst since it's based on a 3.5 ACF that didn't need a nerf of its own since the only things that made it OP, divine power setting BAB to full and Knowledge Devotion, didn't exist in PF.

Kensai and Skirnir Magus are both perfectly playable, albeit much better later on (like level 8+). It doesn't work as well as the standard "Dervish dancing, summered in Minkai to perfect my shocking grasp" magus, but for a different style it works fine. If you have to roll up an 8th level replacement character, a Dwarf Skirnir Magus who one-hands a Dorn-Dergar is kind of awesome.

[Slim Jim]

Extra Channel wrote:

Prerequisites: Channel energy class feature.

Benefit: You can channel energy two additional times per day.
Special: If a paladin with the ability to channel positive energy takes this feat, she can use lay on hands four additional times per day, but only to channel positive energy.

(snip)

Revan wrote:

Paladins have a specific class feature called Channel [Positive] Energy. This is shared with Clerics, with the exception that while clerics get a set (but scaling) number of usages per day, Paladins sacrifice two uses of Lay on Hands to use theirs--but while Lay on Hands fuels Channel Energy, they are still distinct abilities, with only Channel Energy referred to as 'channeling positive energy'. The stated purpose of Extra Channel is to allow the Channel Energy feature to be used more often in a day.

Yes, in addition to anything else the feat might grant, however incompetently worded it may be.

Quote:

You can't give a Paladin two extra uses of Channel Energy, because they don't technically *have* uses of Channel Energy.

Any addlepated GM out there who'd rule that "Channel Positive Energy" (paladin class feature at 4th) is not a subset of "Channel Energy" would also rule that paladins couldn't take Extra Channel in the first place because they're not meeting its "Channel energy class feature" prerequisites based upon the same twisted rationale.

Quote:

You can't give them four extra uses of Lay on Hands, because that would be extraordinarily powerful,

Healing a hundred or two extra hitpoints daily in tweaked build is "extraordinarily powerful"? ...What words you would choose to describe the feat at the ground-floor of every uber build capable of dishing out in some cases thousands of points of damage per round in DPR contest challenges? (That feat is Combat Reflexes -- routinely ignored by many martials despite monstrous potential -- but there's never been any urgency to nerf it because it requires a layercake of other synergies to amplify into insanity. Quite the opposite, in fact, as PF1 AoO-granting gimmicks have proliferated right up until the end.)

Extra Channel, under my interpretation, is about as good as a cleric's Heal once per day for a paladin, but a Heal split up into four chunks, no more than one chunk per round -- and this isn't "extraordinary" IMO even if you are that tweaked halfling chaladin who's all about the LoH.

Quote:

...especially in light of another feat which exists to grant two uses of Lay on Hands.

And meditation crystals that cost 100gp apiece exist in the same game with Ki Mats that cost 10,000gp and which suck.

Quote:

Giving them four uses of Lay on Hands *which can only be used to fuel their Channel Energy feature* gives them the same benefit as a Cleric--two extra uses of the Channel Energy class feature.

Which is what Extra Channel would do anyway, so why bother mentioning LoH at all, then? What's the "special" thing? --If a paladin is only to gain +2 channels and that's it, then there's no need for the "Special" line. Referencing LoH in that case would be as nonsensical as a hypothetical "Special: If a cleric with the ability to channel energy takes this feat, she may treat her Charisma score as four points higher, but only to channel energy." It makes no sense.

~ ~ ~

Multiple-choice, and more than one answer may be correct:

* Some feats are better than others in a game with thousands of them.
* Some Paizo writers just enjoy effing with you because they're lawful-evil.
* The proofreaders are chimpanzees for whom English is a second language.
* No, wait; they're trolls. Yes, that's it: trolls. Or devils, probably, because LE.
* Everybody was drunk and snorting lines!

[Cavall]

I wouldn't allow paladins to take extra channel until they gained the ability channel positive energy, yes that is correct.

Because it allows them to channel positive energy extra times a day and has the pre req of needing to channel positive energy which they dont get until 4th level.

It mentions lay on hands because it costs 2 lay on hands to channel energy.

Which, conveniently, the ability takes 2 to use and then gives the exact amount that a cleric would also receive.

You're forgetting the last option in your multiple choice.

*Slim Jim is reading it wrong.

I mean... dont you think it's a little odd it gives the exact amount that a cleric would receive to do the exact same thing by activating an ability with the exact same name? Don't you feel that all 3 of these things line up to say "hey. You don't get extra lay on hands to use however you like. That's what extra lay on hands is for."

There is literally a feat that does what you want but you are ignoring because its "old". But it's from the EXACT SAME BOOK as extra channel?

The core book?

There is, again, no evidence you're reading is correct.

In fact, in order to read it like you do, one would have to IGNORE an ability called channel energy and ADD IN extra words to lay on hands so that it "channels" anything. It heals. Using positive energy. It doesnt channel until 4th level and then clearly states a paladin gains the ability to channel positive energy. Like a cleric. Which then allows them to qualify for extra channel.

You have to ignore add in and twist the wording of something that is very clear.

At 4th level paladins can channel. It costs them 2 lay on hands. They do not qualify for extra channel until then. Once qualified they gain extra channels by gaining lay on hands specifically used to channel.

You're reading is just demonstrably incorrect.

[Kalindlara]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would not allow a character to get a spell from a different spell list via spell research, that sort of thing is rife for abuse. I have never been asked to do this, nor would I expect anyone I play with to even ask.

I'll admit, I've asked before on occasion and had it work out, in particular for sorcerers and highly thematic spells. "Hey GM, can my verdant-bloodline sorcerer learn entangle please?" That sort of thing.

[Slim Jim]

Cavall wrote:

I wouldn't allow paladins to take extra channel until they gained the ability channel positive energy, yes that is correct.

Which is right in the prerequisite of Extra Channel. (I don't think anyone anywhere is confused by that.)

Quote:

It mentions lay on hands because it costs 2 lay on hands to channel energy.

Your "because" is an assumption; the truth is that you don't know what crack the writer was smoking to write it so obtusely.

Logically, it is not necessary to mention how a particular class gains its channeling ability, or how it is parceled out to them daily (e.g., clerics going off their charisma bonus, as I relayed above, or warpriests cashiering Fervor, etc).

Quote:

Which, conveniently, the ability takes 2 to use and then gives the exact amount that a cleric would also receive.

If that was the intent, why would the writer obfuscate? The entire "Special" section of the Benefit is completely, totally, 100% unnecessary if what paladins get out of the feat is exactly no worse and no better than what clerics (et al) receive.

Quote:

You're forgetting the last option in your multiple choice: Slim Jim is reading it wrong.

Your argument is, essentially, that I'm reading something wrong because (following your train of thought here to its inexorable conclusion) that the "Special" section shouldn't be there in the first place, but whoops, I saw it anyway because it wasn't invisible.

[Cavall]

It isn't invisible and yet what you're implying seems to be, as I can not see how lay on hands is channeling positive energy until 4th level.

Even you agree that it requires they have channel energy the ability and yet somehow the feat COMPLETELY disconnects from this ability once you take the feat?

Then why require the ability? Why is it called extra channel? What invisible ink is in your book that blots these out?

[MrCharisma]

Slim Jim, i get that you're fighting a 1-vs-many fight here which is probably frustrating, but I feel like you haven't entertained the notion that the other side COULD be right.

In this scenario we have 2 possibilities:

1. The feat gives you 4 extra LoH's to use as you please. In this scenario this feat is twice as good as another feat that was published in the same book - this is something the devs have said they reeaally try not to do. The text at the end of the feat is apparently redundant (since Paladins can't channel negative energy anyway).

2. The feat gives you 4 extra LoH's but you can only use them to channel energy (at the cost if 2 LoH each). In this scenario there is no design-space overlap with any other feats, and the feat gives the same benefit to any class who takes it (both at the time of writing and continuing forward to the present day). The text at the end is there to clarify how a Paladin would end up with the same benefit as other classes despite using different mechanics for Channel energy.

.

EDIT: Logically - and from a game-design perspective - which do you think is more likely to be the intent of the feat?

Forget that question, it's not productive. Instead: Can you see that we COULD be right? Rather than just dismissing us and finding reasons why we're wrong, try thinking about what it would look like if we're right.

(And as an exercise, everyone else could try looking at the other side as well.)

[MrCharisma]

Slim Jim wrote:

Cavall wrote:

I wouldn't allow paladins to take extra channel until they gained the ability channel positive energy, yes that is correct.

Which is right in the prerequisite of Extra Channel. (I don't think anyone anywhere is confused by that.)

Sorry, I think the confusion here was caused by a typo I made further up-thread.

Nobody thinks you can take Extra Channel before you get Channel. We all seem to be in agreement on this, so let's leave that out since it just seems to be adding to the confusion.

[doomman47]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would not allow a character to get a spell from a different spell list via spell research, that sort of thing is rife for abuse. I have never been asked to do this, nor would I expect anyone I play with to even ask.

I mean, why not learn all the early access spells this way? Surely every Wizard with time and money would want to learn Haste as a 2nd level spell and Plane Shift as a 4th level spell.

Because paizo has a rule in place where if you have a spell on your spell list and that same spell is gotten earlier by another class and you try and take it you use the higher of the two spell levels. So ya as a wizard you could grab some early access spells so long as they were not on the wizard spell list.

[doomman47]

MrCharisma wrote:

Slim Jim, i get that you're fighting a 1-vs-many fight here which is probably frustrating, but I feel like you haven't entertained the notion that the other side COULD be right.

In this scenario we have 2 possibilities:

1. The feat gives you 4 extra LoH's to use as you please. In this scenario this feat is twice as good as another feat that was published in the same book - this is something the devs have said they reeaally try not to do. The text at the end of the feat is apparently redundant (since Paladins can't channel negative energy anyway).

2. The feat gives you 4 extra LoH's but you can only use them to channel energy (at the cost if 2 LoH each). In this scenario there is no design-space overlap with any other feats, and the feat gives the same benefit to any class who takes it (both at the time of writing and continuing forward to the present day). The text at the end is there to clarify how a Paladin would end up with the same benefit as other classes despite using different mechanics for Channel energy.

.

EDIT: Logically - and from a game-design perspective - which do you think is more likely to be the intent of the feat?

Forget that question, it's not productive. Instead: Can you see that we COULD be right? Rather than just dismissing us and finding reasons why we're wrong, try thinking about what it would look like if we're right.

(And as an exercise, everyone else could try looking at the other side as well.)

You forgot 3.you gain 4 uses of lay on hands that you cannot use for lay on hands.

[JiaYou]

Guys, stop hijacking the thread please and make a new one for this debate.

[Revan]

Slim Jim wrote:

Any addlepated GM out there who'd rule that "Channel Positive Energy" (paladin class feature at 4th) is not a subset of "Channel Energy" would also rule that paladins couldn't take Extra Channel in the first place because they're not meeting its "Channel energy class feature" prerequisites based upon the same twisted rationale.

Good thing I didn't say either of those things, then. I rather specifically said that the paladin ability is a subset of Channel Energy, which makes it rather presumptuous in the first place to think that it's giving them special bonuses it's not giving to other people who have the same feature. What Paladins do not have is *discrete uses* of Channel Energy in the same way Clerics do. A Cleric gets a certain number of Channels per day, while a Paladin must expend two of the discrete uses of their seperate Lay on Hands ability to use Channel. So a Paladin has the Channel Energy class feature to qualify for the feat, but the benefit that it gains must be written in terms of its Lay on Hands ability, because it cannot use Channel Energy without the Lay on Hands ability.

Also, until you pointed it out, I had thought the Paladin ability was just Channel Energy. Observing now that you are correct that the Paladin feature is specifically called Channel Positive Energy, your reading becomes even more indefensible:

"Special: If a paladin with the ability to channel positive energy takes this feat, she can use lay on hands four additional times per day, but only to channel positive energy."

With Channel Positive Energy being the *literal name* of the paladin ability, you'd have to resort to nitpicking about capitalization to think that sentence is not very specifically referring to that precise Paladin ability--and even that wouldn't hold up, since the cleric ability Channel Energy is *also* not capitalized.

[SorrySleeping]

Staying on topic and on-paladin notes.

Iroran Paladin/Enlightened Paladin. You get Charisma to AC and a Ki Pool. In return, you lose immunity to fear, detect evil, smite evil, channel energy, and the ability to Smite Evil with your party.

Oh, and you get to use Unarmed, at half monk progression, without Flurry of Blows.

[Melkiador]

SorrySleeping wrote:

Staying on topic and on-paladin notes.

Iroran Paladin/Enlightened Paladin. You get Charisma to AC and a Ki Pool. In return, you lose immunity to fear, detect evil, smite evil, channel energy, and the ability to Smite Evil with your party.

Oh, and you get to use Unarmed, at half monk progression, without Flurry of Blows.

Are you oversimplifying for effect? It’s not a great archetype, but I’d put it far from bad. Most of the things you lose are replaced with similar abilities. For instance, instead of smite you gain a slightly weaker version that also has the benefit of working on creatures of any alignment. The only really bad trade in my opinion is losing detect evil for detect ki pool. I mean almost no one even has a ki pool, and if they do there’s almost never a reason for that to be secret.

[SorrySleeping]

I don't think losing out aura of courage and justice is worth the reroll stuff. Yes, your smite evil works versus anyone, but considering the game, Smite Evil is more useful when you are actually going to use this limited resource.

Also it seems weird that the archetype doesn't replace Aura of Faith and Aura of Righteousness with Law/Chaos focused stuff over the Good/Evil stuff of a normal paladin.

[blahpers]

This thread has quickly turned into "what archetypes are weaker in the general case than their vanilla class", which is expected by design for the majority of archetypes. Maybe a useful question is, "what criteria do you use to decide whether an archetype is good or bad?"

[pauljathome]

blahpers wrote:

This thread has quickly turned into "what archetypes are weaker in the general case than their vanilla class", which is expected by design for the majority of archetypes. Maybe a useful question is, "what criteria do you use to decide whether an archetype is good or bad?"

To me, a good archetype satisfies ALL of the following

1) It has an interesting flavour that changes the original class flavour AND makes sense as an archetype for that class (ie, it doesn't change the flavour TOO much)
2) The mechanics actually work to provide the stated flavour in a decent fashion
3) The archetype ends up being balanced power wise. For MOST classes that means that it is a sidestep in power. For some under powered classes (Chained Monk) it may be an upgrade. For some overpowered classes, it may even be a slight downgrade (druid). Even for the overpowered classes, it can't be TOO much of a downgrade or nobody would ever take it. An archetype that significantly depowers a druid, for example, may end up with a still viable class but the tradeoff would be bad enough that very few people would take it. While many would be willing to take a small downgrade for really "cool" flavour and abilities.

A bad archetype is one that EITHER weakens a class too much, empowers it too much, is just a power swap without flavour, or one where the mechanics do an awful job of implementing the flavour

A really bad archetype combines several of the problems of a bad archetype.

A Combat Healer Squire is an example, to me, of a really bad archetype. Its woefully underpowered, the mechanics do a poor job of replicating the flavour (which would be better done by giving it some extra healing magics) and because, to me at least, the end result feels a lot better handled by a cleric than by a paladin.

Edit: And, for completeness, a very good archetype is the Warrior Poet Archetype for the Samurai. Great flavour, mechanics implement that flavour (especially when combined with the Order of the Songbird) and the end result is a reasonably balanced character. I still think PFS was wrong in banning this.

[PossibleCabbage]

blahpers wrote:

This thread has quickly turned into "what archetypes are weaker in the general case than their vanilla class", which is expected by design for the majority of archetypes. Maybe a useful question is, "what criteria do you use to decide whether an archetype is good or bad?"

I feel like since it's hard to top things like the brute and the oozemorph for sheer weakness, it does probably make sense to recontextualize "worst" to be something like "worst designed". Like something that is not unplayable, but does constitute a missed opportunity.

[Wonderstell]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like since it's hard to top things like the brute and the oozemorph for sheer weakness, it does probably make sense to recontextualize "worst" to be something like "worst designed". Like something that is not unplayable, but does constitute a missed opportunity.

Picaroon Swashbuckler.

It's meant to give you that Sword-n-Pistol playstyle, but completely fails to tackle even the most basic problems you encounter.

You can avoid provoking AoOs with your first ranged attack each turn, by spending one panache point as a swift action.
And how are you supposed to reload your gun when both your hands are occupied? Well you get the ability to reload your firearm once per turn by spending Panache. At level 11.

Both abilities require spending Panache, and neither of them helps you fire more than once during your turn. What makes this archetype frustrating is that the designer apparently completely forgot about the rest of the Swashbuckler class. So your Precise Strike doesn't work because you're holding a firearm in your other hand, and all the dex-to-damage feats are unavailable for the same reason.

It is possible to make the archetype playable, like by using a Shadowshooting Buckler Gun and an Agile melee weapon, but the abilities given are so weak that you're better off going vanilla Swashbuckler by then.

[doomman47]

SorrySleeping wrote:

Staying on topic and on-paladin notes.

Iroran Paladin/Enlightened Paladin. You get Charisma to AC and a Ki Pool. In return, you lose immunity to fear, detect evil, smite evil, channel energy, and the ability to Smite Evil with your party.

Oh, and you get to use Unarmed, at half monk progression, without Flurry of Blows.

That's one of the best ones, keep lay on hands and divine grace, gain immunity to rolling multiple times and taking the lower and swapping your code of conduct for something that is not absolutely terrible its a win all around.

[doomman47]

pauljathome wrote:

blahpers wrote:

This thread has quickly turned into "what archetypes are weaker in the general case than their vanilla class", which is expected by design for the majority of archetypes. Maybe a useful question is, "what criteria do you use to decide whether an archetype is good or bad?"

To me, a good archetype satisfies ALL of the following

1) It has an interesting flavour that changes the original class flavour AND makes sense as an archetype for that class (ie, it doesn't change the flavour TOO much)
2) The mechanics actually work to provide the stated flavour in a decent fashion
3) The archetype ends up being balanced power wise. For MOST classes that means that it is a sidestep in power. For some under powered classes (Chained Monk) it may be an upgrade. For some overpowered classes, it may even be a slight downgrade (druid). Even for the overpowered classes, it can't be TOO much of a downgrade or nobody would ever take it. An archetype that significantly depowers a druid, for example, may end up with a still viable class but the tradeoff would be bad enough that very few people would take it. While many would be willing to take a small downgrade for really "cool" flavour and abilities.

A bad archetype is one that EITHER weakens a class too much, empowers it too much, is just a power swap without flavour, or one where the mechanics do an awful job of implementing the flavour

A really bad archetype combines several of the problems of a bad archetype.

A Combat Healer Squire is an example, to me, of a really bad archetype. Its woefully underpowered, the mechanics do a poor job of replicating the flavour (which would be better done by giving it some extra healing magics) and because, to me at least, the end result feels a lot better handled by a cleric than by a paladin.

Edit: And, for completeness, a very good archetype is the Warrior Poet Archetype for the Samurai. Great flavour, mechanics implement that flavour (especially when combined with the Order of the Songbird) and the...

Archetypes just like classes should have nothing to do with flavor and all about the mechanics they give your character, flavor is something that should be decided on by the gm and their players.

[Arachnofiend]

Mechanics shouldn't be intrinsically tied to flavor, but mechanics and flavor should inform each other. It's nice for a class/archetype intended to do one thing to be able to do a number of other things, but if a mechanic is bad at doing the thing it's intended to do then you've got a problem.

Like, this isn't an archetype, but y'all remember when the Swashbuckler came out and it was better to dump charisma and TWF because the benefits of high charisma and going sword+buckler were so small? Stuff like that is pretty unacceptable.

[ErichAD]

The mnemostiller is one of the worst examples of failure to fulfill the proposed flavor. The attempt to use existing spells to emulate memnostill doesn't really do the fiction justice, and then they pile a gimped bomb and a useless mutagen on top of that.

[deuxhero]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

blahpers wrote:

This thread has quickly turned into "what archetypes are weaker in the general case than their vanilla class", which is expected by design for the majority of archetypes. Maybe a useful question is, "what criteria do you use to decide whether an archetype is good or bad?"

I feel like since it's hard to top things like the brute and the oozemorph for sheer weakness, it does probably make sense to recontextualize "worst" to be something like "worst designed". Like something that is not unplayable, but does constitute a missed opportunity.

Magical Child is a good candidate for bad design. It has no idea what it wants to be. Frankly Vigilante had a lot of badly designed archetypes. In addition to the already mentioned Brute, while Warlock is actually good and completely playable it is still "badly designed" since it has zero ability to make its main unique ability (Mystic Bolt) work and past low levels you're forced to ignore it or use third party content. Should have skipped adding Cabalist (it wasn't in the playtest) and used the space to print support items/feat.

[Temperans]

What do you mean Warlock doesn't make the ability work/you have to ignore it? Starting at 5th lv you can TWF and Rapid Shot with touch attacks which is huge considering the penalties that this would normally take. At lv12 and lv16, every time you Arcane Strike, you get can choose a different enchantment so you aren't stuck if something is immune.

So I wouldn't say its "badly designed", just different from the normal.

Cabalist is weird because it relies on bleed which isn't the best mechanic given how easy it is to remove. But it does do great to support the mechanic and at least attempt to make it more useful.

[doomman47]

Temperans wrote:

What do you mean Warlock doesn't make the ability work/you have to ignore it? Starting at 5th lv you can TWF and Rapid Shot with touch attacks which is huge considering the penalties that this would normally take. At lv12 and lv16, every time you Arcane Strike, you get can choose a different enchantment so you aren't stuck if something is immune.

So I wouldn't say its "badly designed", just different from the normal.

Cabalist is weird because it relies on bleed which isn't the best mechanic given how easy it is to remove. But it does do great to support the mechanic and at least attempt to make it more useful.

Its main class feature is utterly destroyed if the target has energy resistance of 5 or higher which is quite common.

[avr]

Mystic bolts aren't useful for anything but damage, and they don't do a useful amount of damage. Yes you can hit fairly easily but that alone isn't enough. The things that make the warlock vigilante good are the full sorc/wiz spell list (albeit as a 6-level caster) with 6-level caster basic class stats, vigilante talents and social talents.

[Sam Phelan]

No posts were removed, but I suggest that participants not insult the individuals who work on the content being discussed. This is a personal attack, and is entirely unnecessary and unproductive for any discussion and an inappropriate way to refer to any member of the community.

[Cavall]

Wonderstell wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like since it's hard to top things like the brute and the oozemorph for sheer weakness, it does probably make sense to recontextualize "worst" to be something like "worst designed". Like something that is not unplayable, but does constitute a missed opportunity.

Picaroon Swashbuckler.

It's meant to give you that Sword-n-Pistol playstyle, but completely fails to tackle even the most basic problems you encounter.

You can avoid provoking AoOs with your first ranged attack each turn, by spending one panache point as a swift action.
And how are you supposed to reload your gun when both your hands are occupied? Well you get the ability to reload your firearm once per turn by spending Panache. At level 11.

Both abilities require spending Panache, and neither of them helps you fire more than once during your turn. What makes this archetype frustrating is that the designer apparently completely forgot about the rest of the Swashbuckler class. So your Precise Strike doesn't work because you're holding a firearm in your other hand, and all the dex-to-damage feats are unavailable for the same reason.

It is possible to make the archetype playable, like by using a Shadowshooting Buckler Gun and an Agile melee weapon, but the abilities given are so weak that you're better off going vanilla Swashbuckler by then.

Beneficial bandolier solves the reload issue almost immediately. Its 1k. You can afford that by the time you afford a wand of cure light. I also dont think it's an issue you only fire once a turn, since the theme is shoot once and stab.

So really not so bad. On theme and cheap to fix.

[Melkiador]

Sam Phelan wrote:

No posts were removed, but I suggest that participants not insult the individuals who work on the content being discussed. This is a personal attack, and is entirely unnecessary and unproductive for any discussion and an inappropriate way to refer to any member of the community.

Great. Now, I'm trying to figure out what was an insult?

[born_of_fire]

Melkiador wrote:

Sam Phelan wrote:

No posts were removed, but I suggest that participants not insult the individuals who work on the content being discussed. This is a personal attack, and is entirely unnecessary and unproductive for any discussion and an inappropriate way to refer to any member of the community.

Great. Now, I'm trying to figure out what was an insult?

Just a WAG here, but I’m gonna bet it’s the stuff where Slim Jim insinuates authors and developers smoke crack and don’t understand English because he wants to use a feat to do something it explicitly disqualifies.

[Cavall]

I'm 100% sure that it is. Paizo takes a lot of flak on these sites for giving us 40 archetypes a class, some of which people like more than others. I really hate that.

[Wonderstell]

Cavall wrote:

Beneficial bandolier solves the reload issue almost immediately. Its 1k. You can afford that by the time you afford a wand of cure light. I also dont think it's an issue you only fire once a turn, since the theme is shoot once and stab.

So really not so bad. On theme and cheap to fix.

Isn't that kind of the point, though? The archetype as it is doesn't achieve what it set out to do. The player needs to buy certain items just to make it work.

Not to mention that you still don't get Dex-to-Damage or Precise Strike, and now you're using your belt slot which is "meant" for your stat enhancer.

[Dasrak]

Wonderstell wrote:

Isn't that kind of the point, though? The archetype as it is doesn't achieve what it set out to do. The player needs to buy certain items just to make it work.

In principle if an archetype's problems can be fixed with an inexpensive magical item then it's not really that big of a problem. The main problem the Picaroon has is that it doesn't actually solve the any of the main problems with sword-and-gun fighting style. It's a rather classic design mistake that most of Paizo's early firearm make: just because you can do something doesn't mean you're good at that thing. Nothing the Picaroon offers makes you good at sword-and-gun style fighting, and using magic items to fix some of its problems won't change that.

[ShroudedInLight]

To be fair, Sword and pistol TWF combat has a TON of issues.

0: Firearms require Exotic Weapon Proficiency
1: Firing a ranged weapon in melee provokes an AoO
2: Early firearms often only have 1 shot before reloading
3: Reloading a ranged weapon in melee provokes an AoO
4: Reloading a ranged weapon requires a free hand, currently taken by your sword
5: Pistols are not light weapons, limiting your swords to light weapons
6: Early firearms misfire frequently without specialization, a problem for a class that has decided to fire a pistol up to 4x a turn
7: Magic weapons are expensive, making the old pirate strat of drawing and discarding many pistols cost-prohibitive
8: Drawing a new pistol provokes an AoO
9: Sheathing a pistol is a move action that provokes an AoO
10: Pistols are 1000gp each, so they are expensive to risk dropping on the ground instead of sheathing
11: Pistols do not scale their damage to any stat
12: Two Weapon Fighting is feat intensive
13: The sheer quantity of feats/class features required to solve these problems is cost-prohibitive

Solving all of these issues with a single archetype is tricky

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Would a dagger pistol work for the picaroon?

[deuxhero]

One good critera for a bad archetype is one that is worse at its intended area than the unmodified class:

Crusader would be an unimpressive but useable archetype if it was exactly the same but without Diminished Spellcasting. With Diminished Spellcasting it is worse at its intended role than a base Cleric.

Many Druid archetypes stunt wildshape and get nothing in return. They're worse at theming around that animal than a normal druid that just favors that one animal.

Empyreal Knight gains the ability to summon allies, but only after trading out all the abilities that could support that for trash. Everything the archetype can do a standard Paladin with a not that expensive magic item can do better.

[Grailknight]

deuxhero wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

blahpers wrote:

This thread has quickly turned into "what archetypes are weaker in the general case than their vanilla class", which is expected by design for the majority of archetypes. Maybe a useful question is, "what criteria do you use to decide whether an archetype is good or bad?"

I feel like since it's hard to top things like the brute and the oozemorph for sheer weakness, it does probably make sense to recontextualize "worst" to be something like "worst designed". Like something that is not unplayable, but does constitute a missed opportunity.

Magical Child is a good candidate for bad design. It has no idea what it wants to be. Frankly Vigilante had a lot of badly designed archetypes. In addition to the already mentioned Brute, while Warlock is actually good and completely playable it is still "badly designed" since it has zero ability to make its main unique ability (Mystic Bolt) work and past low levels you're forced to ignore it or use third party content. Should have skipped adding Cabalist (it wasn't in the playtest) and used the space to print support items/feat.

Lethal Grace and Arcane Striker both support Mystic Bolts very well. You also get any buffs your party grants just like any other weapon and targeting touch ac means you'll hit more often with your second and third attacks and your offhand. You can't nova but you can do damage on par with any nonmartial all day withot using any resources.