| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Becomes problematic when the nomenclature you're using, Franz, doesn't correspond to the official one (which of course is still partially obscure, arguably at least).
True. But from what we saw in the video from UKGE, there isn't much of a nomeclature:
Here you see there are Archetypes and special Class Archetypes and Multiclass Archetypes (with Spellcasting Archetypes being below MC-archetypes). This page also seems to be the last page in the Classes chapter of the rulebook, which I find very strange. The screenshots could be out of order though.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like latter day PF1 design sort of showed that archetype stacking was on the way out, since it got increasingly difficult to find mutually compatible archetypes for latter day classes (and was kind of a massive headache to figure out.) Only PF1 class that really needed archetype stacking was the core monk, after all.So sounds like no more combining class archetypes the way we could in Pathfinder 1st Edition if they didn't alter the same things.
The tables on Pfd20srd.com was useful for that. They listed the various class features and had an X for each one removed by that archetype and a C for ones changed. So if two archetypes didn't have a mark in the same box, you're good. But yeah, it was tricky because so many archetypes swapped out the same things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tables on Pfd20srd.com was useful for that. They listed the various class features and had an X for each one removed by that archetype and a C for ones changed. So if two archetypes didn't have a mark in the same box, you're good.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the d20pfsrd archetype tables were a gold mine of character concepts.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I will miss Monk of the Four Archetypes, I kinda feel like Paizo is trying to build that flexibility straight into the core Monk with no need for archetypes.
Assuming they succeed, I think that's a good direction to go.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I will miss Monk of the Four Archetypes
+1^!!!
The tables on Pfd20srd.com was useful for that. They listed the various class features and had an X for each one removed by that archetype and a C for ones changed. So if two archetypes didn't have a mark in the same box, you're good. But yeah, it was tricky because so many archetypes swapped out the same things.I feel like latter day PF1 design sort of showed that archetype stacking was on the way out, since it got increasingly difficult to find mutually compatible archetypes for latter day classes (and was kind of a massive headache to figure out.) Only PF1 class that really needed archetype stacking was the core monk, after all.So sounds like no more combining class archetypes the way we could in Pathfinder 1st Edition if they didn't alter the same things.
And because the text about what was being replaced was unclear or easily misread, some of those charts missed substitutions that would make an archetype incompatible with many others. Both d20pfsrd and aonprd have errors of that sort.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tables on Pfd20srd.com was useful for that. They listed the various class features and had an X for each one removed by that archetype and a C for ones changed. So if two archetypes didn't have a mark in the same box, you're good. But yeah, it was tricky because so many archetypes swapped out the same things.I feel like latter day PF1 design sort of showed that archetype stacking was on the way out, since it got increasingly difficult to find mutually compatible archetypes for latter day classes (and was kind of a massive headache to figure out.) Only PF1 class that really needed archetype stacking was the core monk, after all.So sounds like no more combining class archetypes the way we could in Pathfinder 1st Edition if they didn't alter the same things.
And because the text about what was being replaced was unclear or easily misread, some of those charts missed substitutions that would make an archetype incompatible with many others. Both d20pfsrd and aonprd have errors of that sort.
AoN is official and can publish all content, included the delicious Golarion-specific fare I enjoy. So it helps a lot in finding info when I don't remember which pdf it should be in. Just sayin'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Found this in the ‘MASSIVE SPOILER DUMP FROM UK GAMES EXPO‘ thread. So it seems like there will be no 1st level archetypes.I just noticed that these images include the definition text for Class Archetypes. So here's my best transcription of that text:
All in all, this seems like a promising setup to implement class archetypes within the class design framework of PF2.CLASS ARCHETYPES
Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class's specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class's static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class's initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.
It also provides a precedent for allowing someone to pay for potential application of an archetype at first level with the firm commitment of their second level class feat.
I'm not super into the idea of feat debt as a system. We'll see how it ends up shaking out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was a little iffy at first, but you keep your first level feat if you’ve got it, and this guarantees feat support for every class archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only PF1 class that really needed archetype stacking was the core monk, after all.
Needed and wanted are different thing: for me some classes have multiple abilities i disliked or rarely used so if a single archetype didn't get rid of those, sometimes a combo did. If possible, i like the character to have only abilities I want and will use all the time.
With greatly fewer set class abilities, there will be less need for that I hope.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, don't want every interesting idea for a class in archetypes. With the class feat design, we can just have tons of interesting class feats. Considering what classes have without class feats, I'm sure most of the old archetype concepts can be ported into the class's feats.
I, for one, don't want every interesting idea for a class in archetypes. With the class feat design, we can just have tons of interesting class feats. Considering what classes have without class feats, I'm sure most of the old archetype concepts can be ported into the class's feats.
Sure- but sometimes you have something like, “What about a Cleric who does X instead of channeling?”
With the baked-in flexibility of feats and class paths, there’s a lot fewer situations like that. Cleric now chooses how much to invest in domains, which was something archetypes in PF1 dealt with. And a more martial Cleric is a class path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, don't want every interesting idea for a class in archetypes. With the class feat design, we can just have tons of interesting class feats. Considering what classes have without class feats, I'm sure most of the old archetype concepts can be ported into the class's feats.Sure- but sometimes you have something like, “What about a Cleric who does X instead of channeling?”
With the baked-in flexibility of feats and class paths, there’s a lot fewer situations like that. Cleric now chooses how much to invest in domains, which was something archetypes in PF1 dealt with. And a more martial Cleric is a class path.
Aren't you two guys saying the same thing? Class feats help customize classes in a way that before was often possible only with archetypes (and QuidEst does add "sometimes we need a class archetype", but then basically agrees with Alb).
Am I wrong? I don't wanna put words you didn't mean into your mouth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. I’m just adding the sometimes we need a class archetype part, and mentioning how I’m happy about the reduced need.
I, for one, don't want every interesting idea for a class in archetypes. With the class feat design, we can just have tons of interesting class feats. Considering what classes have without class feats, I'm sure most of the old archetype concepts can be ported into the class's feats.
Well with the Class specific Archetype will come with the feats related to it, and they said that if an archetype gets popular they can continue to add content to it with this method. I would imagine that if ‘interesting ideas’ can fall into an already present archetype they’ll probably just put them in with the appropriate archetype rather than make a whole new one.
I hope we get archetype feats that can be chosen by different dedications.
Like a hypothetical "Iron Fists"-Feat (idk, 2 gauntlet attacks for one action) that can be taken as either Monk or Fighter multiclass-dedication. So a Rogue MC-Monk could take it, as well as a Sorcerer MC-Fighter.
Problem would be, where to put it, organisation wise. It would be a new category of "dedication-bridging feats"? Also, does it count only for the dedication you already have, or for both?... Would that open up a way to finish off the dedication-requirement early, similar, but different to HK armiger?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope we get archetype feats that can be chosen by different dedications.
Like a hypothetical "Iron Fists"-Feat (idk, 2 gauntlet attacks for one action) that can be taken as either Monk or Fighter multiclass-dedication. So a Rogue MC-Monk could take it, as well as a Sorcerer MC-Fighter.
Problem would be, where to put it, organisation wise. It would be a new category of "dedication-bridging feats"?
Couldn't that just be built as a feat available to the Fighter and Monk classes which you could then take as a MC-Monk or MC-Fighter via the corresponding class-feat-granting archetype feat?
Or am I reading too much into your example?
Well, yeah, that would be possible as well.
But then you'd have two class feats with the same effect but different tags? Or one class feat with two class tags?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didnt they have that in the playtest, were they had effectively the same feat 3 times but slightly different text/tags? I think it was power attack or something.
Nope. The closest was the basic TWF Feat, but that was actually identical except for the different Class Tag, only two Classes had it, and they ditched and replaced it on Ranger so as not to have this sort of thing.
They could totally do this if they wanted, but one goal seems to be making classes mechanically distinct.
Right, I didn't remember that.
I think it (not to have two feats have the same effect with two names) was a good Idea for the core rulebook, but I can see, and hope for it to happen in thematic niches, especially if the niche doesn't have enough beef to merrit a whole dedication tree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Ahem* Sudden Charge would like a word with the both of you :P but yeah, Sudden Charge was in 2 classes and had exact same wording, exact same function, literally just copy/pasted
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Ahem* Sudden Charge would like a word with the both of you :P but yeah, Sudden Charge was in 2 classes and had exact same wording, exact same function, literally just copy/pasted
Ah! Right. So two total examples at the beginning of the playtest going down to one by the end.
Meaning this is possible, but not gonna be very common.
Well, the spellcasting classes shared a bunch. Cantrip expansion, familiar, steady spellcasting, most metamagic...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope that PF2 decides to keep its organizational structure and system design focused around print media and book format. I mean, I'd also love an RPG designed and built around a digital database framework, but I dislike how much PF1 was dependent upon digital resources, to manage play (such as having to cross reference monsters in APs that had class levels and spells from 3 or 4 different resources), without the company taking a digital first mentality to the design of its products. Complicated mixes of archetype dedications, class feats and spells have the potential to go this same direction, but it is my hope that the new PF2 stat blocking for these things will allow for less space needed in APs to list abilities related to the monsters used.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike how much PF1 was dependent upon digital resources, to manage play
After a few books in, I can't imagine PF2 isn't going to be as dependent on it either. JUST the fact that future errata will make any print book obsolete makes digital a must for that format.