|
I'm making a Kensai for an upcoming campaign and it got me thinking: how many archetypes would be designed differently today using lessons learned on balance, fun factor, and flavor over the years?
How would you go about retooling some of the archetypes to make them more desirable or viable? In the case of the Kensai, I feel like diminished spellcasting is a huge flaw, and the canny defense feature is weak. But you still see these uneven trades in more recent archetypes, such as Jistkan Artificer. Both archetypes have a lot of story potential but you sacrifice for that and I don't feel like that should be the design intent.
What do others think?
IIRC, one of the design goals of archetypes was for an archetype to be a more specific but not as good version as the original class in order to avoid overshadowing the original class. I have bap-all for references for this hazy memory, but it explains a lot.
Should that have been a design goal? Our goals as players are often quite different than Paizo's goals as game designers. For example, doing it the way they did certainly keeps the lot of us talking about it for well over a decade. : D I'm not saying that they deliberately crafted controversial rules elements in order to cause controversy, but I am saying that the naturally-occurring proportion of controversial rules elements keeps people talking.
...Oh, and I'd fix the various fighter archetypes so they don't get completely shut out of advanced weapon training. And be more lenient on when a class feature counts as a class feature.
how many archetypes would be designed differently today using lessons learned on balance, fun factor, and flavor over the years?
Considering how crappy a lot of the newer archetypes are (especially in UW), I'd say it's more whether the writer really understands class- and archetype design or not. In any case, the real issue is often the base class - plenty of those are just atrociously designed.
The basic concept is something I've talked about in past, something I call "Character Shaping Choices™". A big problem with lots of archetypes is that they don't do what archetypes are intended to do, but work more as fixes to the badly written original class (or that they have to make fixes to the base class in order to make the archetype work). Seeing how PF2 addresses exactly that, it's foremost the classes that would be different if we went back in time, which would in term mandate changes with probably a majority of all archetypes.
Such character shaping choices come in three forms:
1) Daily: Mostly spell preparation, Shaman's Wandering Spirit/Hexes, and the Medium's spirit.
2) On levelup: Spells known, rage powers, etc., doesn't have to be every level up
3) One time: Domains, bloodline etc., mostly done at first level
I don't count feats, skills, and equipment because it should be obvious that options that literally every class can take have to be relatively weak (otherwise almost every character would take them, cf. Leadership for what happens when this rule is broken). I also don't count choices that don't affect playstyle and only grant minor numeric bonuses, such as a Fighter's weapon training.
Archetypes are technically one time choices as well, if these are included depends on what we want to compare.
Naturally, the more choices you can make, the more you can (in general) shape your character. Also, the more often you can make choices, the more flexibility the character can have. Daily choices don't add power over on levelup choices, but they add a lot of flexibility.
The following classes are generally accepted to be the weakest ones in Pathfinder: Fighter, Brawler, Rogue, Cavalier, Samurai, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Monk.
Apart from the Rogue *, you'll notice that none of these classes have a daily or on levelup choice **. Cavalier and Samurai have a one time choice at first level, while the others don't get to make any character shaping choices at all. It's also noteworthy that there are no classes lacking daily or on-levelup choices that are generally considered good.
Now, choices don't automatically contain strong options (few rogue talents are better than feats), some fixed class features are fairly powerful as well (like rage), and there are options that offer choices to make on the fly, like wildshape or a Summoner's SLA (not character shaping by definition, but can be very powerful). But if you look at both power level and flexibility, there's almost no getting around having class features that allow character shaping choices fairly often.
*) Whoever thought that a pure martial with medium BAB, no accuracy increasing abilities, d8 HD, and the worst possible saves a PC class can have was a good idea?
**) Fighter got on levelup choices with AAT and AWT, while Monk got on levelup choices with UnMonk's Ki Powers and Style Strikes.
All the archetypes that specialize a choice that a standard class could take but rename the ability don't rename the ability. IE: Spear training, gun training, etc become weapon training.
Alternate channel energies become channel energy
This allows feats and prc and the like to be chosen despite an archetype.
The Rivethun Spirit Channeler archetype works much like the Spirit Dancer but does not replace or even alter Shared Séance.
But I am not sure what the issue is with the Spirit Dancer's Spirit Aura, as it basically trades in the unlimited range for the ability to affect allies who didn't make that morning's séance.
@Milkshaketeer: on the same principle as this, you probably have your wish with regard to the Prowler at World's End getting bloodrager counting as effective levels in medium. Not the others, true.
Actually I think having the guidelines for archetypes wide open is a good idea. We'll get the odd brute vigilante or pact wizard, but those can be ignored except in PFS. More important to me is a design space which allows some invention and imagination, and things like the fix to the base shifter - the adaptive shifter. That last would be ruled out if all archetypes had to be no stronger than the base class.
As a GM I rarely worry about options that are "weak". I will work with a player to create the flavor they want.
For tings that are "too strong" I approach them on a case by case basis. Usually I start with asking the player to hold back so the other players can feel accomplished.
In any event, I rarely will outrage change the rules for classes/archetypes, and a community effort to do so would be little more than house rules. Paizo has basically discontinued FAQ/Errata support for PF1.
Regarding the specific question in the OP, unfortunately I don't think much positive. Perhaps even moreso in recent books Paizo seems to be very conservative when it comes to archetype design.
If anything I think a lot of old, decent archetypes would be even worse if made today. Just look at what happened to the Lore Warden reprint.
That said it seems weird to single out Kensai, because that's a pretty good archetype overall.
Wishlist would be really long, but one that kind of stands out to me is the Mooncursed Barbarian. The archetype itself is pretty neat but when you take it you have to pick an animal and the choices are really skewed. Tigers get everything bears get plus bigger dice on their natural attacks and rake, for instance.
I think that highlights are more general problem where Paizo will create an option with several flavorful choices and then not really spend much time looking at the mechanical ramifications of those choices and so your best bet is just picking one option and seeing if your GM will let you refluff.
The Medium has the reverse issue: Tons of decent options made daily with none of them being that great in the hands of the 2/3 BAB, d8 HD, more-MAD-than-core-monk, <1/2 caster that becomes the GM's NPC when they want to be competent more than a few times a day.
Those aren't really 'character shaping' in the way Derklord describes them since you can change them freely from day to day. The problem with the Medium is more that it's at odds with that idea. Your general investment in items, feats and stats wants you to specialize but your core class feature is all about switching gears from day to day.
So consequently it seems like most Mediums I see It doesn't help that a lot of the Medium's options are needlessly weak, either.
... The following classes are generally accepted to be the weakest ones in Pathfinder: Fighter, Brawler, Rogue, Cavalier, Samurai, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Monk...
Who generally accepts this? People who've never had a musketmaster gunslinger in their party? I really don't get why people think gunslinger is weak, but honestly that seems to be a popular inclination on the boards. Is this just theorycrafting or am I missing something? Has anyone had a gunslinger who felt useless after 5th level or so (in actual play)? I'm not being sarcastic or anything. I genuinely want to know. My musketmaster basically shreds encounters...
Just like fighters, gunslingers can do plenty of damage in battle but little else. It's fairly easy to turn gunslingers off too and they usually have no plan B.
Who generally accepts this? People who've never had a musketmaster gunslinger in their party? I really don't get why people think gunslinger is weak, but honestly that seems to be a popular inclination on the boards.
It's "popular inclination" because it's true - the class itself is very weak.
First, some groundwork:
1) Just because a class is weak, does not mean it's unplayable or that it can't be fun to play!
2) A class's (or archetype's) strength is usually evaluated by looking at the combination of versatility and power, because a good class should be able to contribute meaningful in different combat situations, and also in non-combat situations. Sometime, an abundance of one can help lessen shortcomings in the other, but only to a certain extend. Of course, weaknesses that you can't overcome with class features are also included. *
3) We're only looking at well build characters. Sure a Wizard who only writes spells startign with the letter "J" in his spellbook is weaker than proper characters of the mentioned classes, but that's not the fault of the Wizard class.
With 4+int skill ranks and only one mediocre class feature (Utility Deed), Gunslinger is severely lacking in the utility regard, so it's up to raw power. A Gunslinger feels deceptively powerful but it's not the class itself where the power comes from - firearms are broken and if you invest enough in them they're very good, but the class doesn't actually help that much there. It's the firearm ability to target touch AC (and still profit from Deadly Aim) that makes the character. The class helps mitigate the downsides of firearms, until magic weapon enchantments can do the job.
Yes a mid-level Gunslinger can "shred encounters", but so could a similar character without Gunslinger levels (using e.g. Shadowshooting, a shadowcraft weapon, or Spell Cartridges to reload the musket), while also being able to do other stuff.
Gunslinger is a weak class because you get pretty little from it. Indeed, you get almost nothing for staying in the class after 5th level. The 7th level deeds are worse than simply full attacking, the 11th level ones just don't do much at that point, and while the 15th and 19th level deeds aren't bad per se but just too little too late (i.e. not good enough to waste 10+ levels on). A dip into Gunslinger is actually often pretty nice for a firearm user, but does that make the class as a whole good? Not in my book.
Has anyone had a gunslinger who felt useless after 5th level or so (in actual play)?
I had one in a party, yes. The party had plenty of other damage dealers (Blaster Sorcerer, Shocking Grasp Magus, Wildshape Druid, and my Summoner), and everyone except the Gunslinger had stuff to offer beyond doing damage. Air Walk from the Druid, Invisibility from the Sorcerer, even pretty simple stuff like Grease. When the player dropped from the game for personal reasons, the party lost nothing.
*) This is also the basis of the tier list. Tier 1 is the classes with large amounts of both power and versatility (prepared full casters). Tier 2 are the classes with the same huge amount of power, but lacking versatility (spontaneous full casters and Summoner). They are as powerful, maybe even more powerful, than tier 1 classes, but can't solve just about every situation. Tier 3 are the classes that can solve lots of problems, but don't have the raw power to dominate most encounters (6/9 casters and Medium). Many of these have more flexibility than tier 2 classes, but just aren't as dominating. Tier 4 are the classes notably lacking in one of the two aspects (the 4/9 casters, Kineticist, and the better martial classes). The powerful ones may even out-power tier 3 classes, but can do so in too narrow circumstances only. Tier 5 are the classes that don't have much to show in either power or versatility (the martial classes mentioned).
Those aren't really 'character shaping' in the way Derklord describes them since you can change them freely from day to day.
Oh, I do include daily choices. They can have their own problems, but daily spell/spirit selection does shape your character (for that day). When you channel say archmage spirit, your Medium plays fundamentally different from when you select champion spirit, thus your character is shaped by your choices (for the day). For comparison, when you select a specific weapon enhancement with Warrior Spirit, you go into the fight the same, and you go out of the fight the same (you did shape your character by selecting Warrior Spirit in the first place, of course).
The downside of daily choices is that they can lead to characters with identical permanent choices. Also, important for this thread, such a class design often screws up archetype design, because it's hart to replace parts of a daily choice class feature. Daily choices usually grant a huge amount of versatility, replacing such versatility is almost guaranteed to lead to a downgrade (like most of the "diminished spellcasting" archetypes do). As you would need lots of power to adequately replace them, the power of the new feature can be so big that the character is extremely powerful in that regard. Metamorph is a prime example of that (way weaker than Alchemist due to forsaking almost all versatility, but has a crazy high full attack damage coupled with fly and pounce).
The whole issue of replacing versatility granting class features is a very relevant topic here anyway. Replacing a broad class feature with a more narrow archetype one is extremely common, and a source of many a weak archetype. Archetypes doign the opposite, i.e. granting more versatility (Qinggong Monk, Warrior Poet Samurai, Adaptive Shifter just to name a few) are usually well recieved, and might be something we would see more of nowadays. I also feel we would see more archetype with "creative" replacements/alterations, as more writers become aware of the real cost of stuff like diminished spellcasting.
The problem with the Medium is more that it's at odds with that idea. Your general investment in items, feats and stats wants you to specialize but your core class feature is all about switching gears from day to day.
I think they tried to combat that with Legendary Influence and the Improved version. In any case, Medium is actually fine if you mostly concentrate on one spirit, selecting other only when faced with special challenges. A champion Medium is a pretty good martial (hits well, pretty good defense, relatively good versatility for a martial), and if you need something against that Mummy Rot you have been infected with, you can help there come morning. A, say, Swashbuckler can't do that one.
For the MAD issues the Medium has, I think it wouldn't be that bad if they got more out of Charisma.
You mean there are Mediums who don't use Desna's Shooting Star? *le gasp*
I sort of wish Paizo would reasses how they handle archetypes for full casters in general. They have so few features that it ends up being really hard to make something work that doesn't feel underwhelming or like it gives up too much.
The Go to Cardinal cleric is one that stands out for me.
I was really looking forward to the idea of an unarmored cleric that doesn't fight with weapons very well.
Trading out BAB, spontaneous casting and one domain for 4 skill points just means we're left with something that's not only not good at fighting but not as good at casting spells either.
One thing I wish Paizo did more when designing archetypes would be to ask whether whatever an archetype is trading out what be good or balanced in reverse.
Another thing I wish they'd do is look at what an archetype's progression as a class looks like after you take it.
My example here is the Weretouched Shifter. Not the worst Shifter archetype out there but if you create a 20 level class block for what the archetype looks like it ends up with four levels where they receive absolutely nothing at all and a whopping twelve levels where they receive nothing but numeric bonuses to existing class features.
I feel like the archetype would have been a harder sell to publish if someone had built out the chart and realized that someone using the archetype got no new class features from level 5 to level 17 and that their capstone was very reminiscent of the 3.5 rogue problem.
A champion Medium is a pretty good martial
A champion medium is a fantastic martial. The problem is the Medium doesn't advertise itself as a fighter with spellcasting that can trade out its combat skills on its days-off from killing goblins. It advertises itself as this super versatile thing that can wholly change its role on a day to day basis and it doesn't do a very good job being that.
It lacks moment to moment versatility like the bard and wizard but the power of its individual skills is balanced like it does and it doesn't get cut many breaks in terms of long term investments either.
The problem is the Medium doesn't advertise itself as a fighter with spellcasting that can trade out its combat skills on its days-off from killing goblins. It advertises itself as this super versatile thing that can wholly change its role on a day to day basis and it doesn't do a very good job being that.
Does it, or is that merely the players' wishful thinking? The text in the book is very short, the only relevant part being "Role: Mediums are very versatile, filling whatever role the party needs at the moment by channeling the right spirit." That does fit well enough what I've said - you channel what you need, and if the party need the same thing two weeks in a row, you channel the same spirit two weeks in a row.
I feel like the archetype would have been a harder sell to publish if someone had built out the chart (...)
The archetype would have been a harder sell to publish if Paizo hadn't stopped content editing books by then.
I sort of wish Paizo would reasses how they handle archetypes for full casters in general. They have so few features that it ends up being really hard to make something work that doesn't feel underwhelming or like it gives up too much.
This (and the Shifter stuff) kinda brings us back to my topic of the problem laying with "atrociously designed" base classes, doesn't it?
You do make a valid point though, because it's not just the lack of class features (which is a problem), but what I suspect to be a large unwillingness to replace Channel Energy based on some bull s&~$ "Cleric must be a healer" thinking. When I looked up archetypes for this thread, I was quite frankly shocked how few archetypes actually replace Channel Energy. Without CE, what's left is either using diminished spellcasting (yeah, the balanced archetype that includes it has yet to be invented), or replacing one domain (you don't want to replace both because otherwise, the chosen deity becomes meaningless) and maybe spontaneous casting, and that just isn't much meat to work with for an archetype.
Weretouched gets class features at 5th level (Trackless Step, so that only your teammates can be tracked and not you) and 6th level (Shifter’s Fury, for weirdos that one to use a single natural attack). Also, technically, they get Chimeric Aspect and Greater CA, they just can't use them.
their capstone was very reminiscent of the 3.5 rogue problem.
What's that?
