So I recall from the playtest that Cavalier was a variant multi-class archetype that any class could take.
I do not recall if it had its own special name or was simply another form of multiclass
The impression I get is that it was just for playtest and hasn’t made it into the core book (presumably it will come out later)
I haven’t been following actively. How was it received? I wonder if it was dropped due to space or people not liking it. Or potentially hardly anyone play tested it ...
The general answers feed my next point - assuming the concept stays, what other classes (old or new) might get similar treatment of a multiclass archetype that any class can take? And what could?
I was thinking on it and it seems like it would come down to whether there is something unique enough that multiple classes might want to have it but not enough to warrant its own class.
I was thinking of inquisitor and swashbuckler for example. The line required to cross between whether it should be a whole class could be quite fine
But perhaps the idea has been scrapped and will only apply to “prestige” things like Hell Knight...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A note about terminology: in the PF2 final rules we have 3 kinds of archetypes:
(1) Archetype: a bundle of feats bought into with a dedication feat.
(2) Multiclass Archetype: as #1, but based on a class and its feats give you access to some of that class's feats and features.
(3) Class Archetype: as #1, but also modifies some of your fixed class features (these are similar to PF1-style feature-swapping archetypes in that respect, although you can only have 1 Class Archetype, unlike PF1). While the Core Rulebook contains the enabling language defining Class Archetypes, none of the launch products contain an instance of a Class Archetype.
Here is the Class Archetype definition, for reference:
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.
The term "prestige archetype" has been dropped for the final rules, since there is no need for a special term—the concept can be achieved with a standard archetype, all you need to do is give the dedication feat more demanding prerequisites.
*****
As for how the Cavalier-as-archetype was received, see this post from Mark:
And I could see the reason for there inclusion in the playtest, other then being a class, both as another way to test the new animal companion/minion mechanic, and to see the results of allowing traditionally non-animal companion class to have access to a animal companion. {ie what would be the affect both mechanically and RP, if the foe saw a half bull man <barbarian rage, animal totem> riding on top of a horse into battle, ect :p >
You have caught two of the reasons I wanted to test cavalier and pushed to add it to the playtest. Another one I really wanted to know was "what do people think about the cavalier toolkit being a broadly available option for all characters rather than a class?"
(the answer is, people were in favor overwhelmingly for cavalier, and also in favor of this treatment for some other concepts that were classes in PF1 but not as overwhelmingly as for cavalier)
Cavalier is not in the core book because they wanted only the core multiclass archetypes there.
Cavalier will most likely appear later as an archetype, it was said in Paizocon that Cavalier didn't had enough unique features to be considered a class on their own.
War Priest and Hunter looks like they were merged with Cleric and Ranger respectively in the final version.
Now in the speculation territory, I personally think that hybrid classes will come back as class archetypes or just merge with one of the parent classes
Now in the speculation territory, I personally think that hybrid classes will come back as class archetypes or just merge with one of the parent classes
Unless they really want to rework them into something new, this is possibly the way they’ll go. I feel a couple of them might make it out into full classes hopefully; Investigator has the potential IMO.
I wonder what other concepts people favoured the cavalier treatment for. And this must have been anecdotal I assume as only cavalier was in the playtest
Despite the comment above investigator seems like one that could work
It is an interesting discussion regarding which existing classes might either :
1. make it as a new class
2. be an archetype/subset for an existing class like warpriest
3. be a “class archetype”
4. be made by the new multiclass format (plus maybe some new feats)
I am assuming there will not be a 5th option of “does not make the transition” but you never know
1.
Witch, Oracle
2.
War Priest , Hunter (mentioned already), Arcanist? Shifter? Swashbuckler?
3.
Cavalier. Investigator ? Swashbuckler?
4.
Bloodrager, Magus, Arcanist
Inquisitor could potentially be in any of the above
Now in the speculation territory, I personally think that hybrid classes will come back as class archetypes or just merge with one of the parent classesUnless they really want to rework them into something new, this is possibly the way they’ll go. I feel a couple of them might make it out into full classes hopefully; Investigator has the potential IMO.
I'd put Arcanist, Slayer, and Shaman in those categories, along side the original hybrid class, the Magus. There is enough design space there for a unique class each.
The others, I think, will most likely end up like Kyrone suggests.
I don't think there should be any reason to be in a hurry to turn a class into an archetype. If you're not sure whether something works better as a class or an archetype, it's best to wait until you're sure. After all, it's likely that there are people who loved that class in PF1 who would be saddened to see it relegated to a "lesser" status.
Putting the Cavalier in the playtest as an archetype was a bit of an experiment because:
- Lots of PF1 classes had archetypes for "this one is mounted"
- Cavalier was somewhat less popular than classes which came later.
- Mounted characters are sometimes just inappropriate for a given campaign, and Cavaliers don't otherwise have a unifying theme that defines them as distinct from other classes (and like "belongs to an order" and "can make a challenge" are things that should describe lots of people.)
But generally it's best to make something a class than an archetype, I feel. Classes are top level choices, so they are immune to "bloat"- you can't possibly have too many of them. Plus, classes draw people's attention to books in ways other things don't. Like people's opinion of "Ultimate Wilderness" was disproportionately affected by the class in that book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any insight somewhere about popularity of classes?
For example I know it was discussed when they were picking the 12th and I recall alchemist, oracle and witch being up there as the choice due to popularity. And that alchemist may have not even been the most popular but was picked because making alchemy rules part of the core made sense
I also wonder whether the top 11 most played classes are the core rulebook ones? Or whether some are overtaken by APG ones
I think the stats used for the point on alchemists and oracles were from PFS ?
I'd put Arcanist, Slayer, and Shaman in those categories, along side the original hybrid class, the Magus. There is enough design space there for a unique class each.Now in the speculation territory, I personally think that hybrid classes will come back as class archetypes or just merge with one of the parent classesUnless they really want to rework them into something new, this is possibly the way they’ll go. I feel a couple of them might make it out into full classes hopefully; Investigator has the potential IMO.
I agree with Magus, and just don’t know enough about the other classes you mentioned to make an informed opinion. Mostly i feel this discussion crops up from Warpriest being rolled into Cleric. When looking at Warpriest i feel the decision was because it had too little identity on its own; same as they mention with Cavalier. Warpriest was basically a fusion of Cleric spells and better BAB, Paladin Abilities, and with Monk damage scaling on their weapon. Divvy up the spells back to Cleric; Paladin abilities to Champion and also give ‘Sacred Weapon’ identity to Champion via Spirit Ally and Warpriest seems like an empty husk to me. Possible i’m Missing more to the picture of the class though.
Arcanist seemed like a rip of Wizard and Sorc, but to its credit the core of its identity lies in arcane exploits and a spell pool, so what happens with it is up in the air to me.
I’ve been thinking about each class like this and some just really fall short on unique design and mechanics; like Skald IMO. Though some have some unique potential if worked with a little; but unless they want to completely redesign classes like the Brawler or Skald, i can see quite a few getting the chopping block.
...
I’ve been thinking about each class like this and some just really fall short on unique design and mechanics; like Skald IMO. Though some have some unique potential if worked with a little; but unless they want to completely redesign classes like the Brawler or Skald, i can see quite a few getting the chopping block.
Yeah, Skald and Brawler would DEFINITELY be better as archetypes and paths, IMHO.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, the hybrid classes are the weakest links, in a sense of making them classes in PF2. In PF1, they make perfect sense, and fill some interesting themes. However, the main reason they exist is because it was very difficult to effectively make a combination of two or more classes into a mechanically viable character. Even with a dozen or more archetypes per class and the option of multiclassing, the system just didn't support those kind of hybrid concepts intuitively.
In PF2, with how much more open and flexible archetypes, multiclassing, and even just classes in general are, the old hybrid classes are much more viable to build simply with those existing options.
IMO, a class needs only be a class if it can justify itself both mechanically AND thematically. For example, "Sherlock Holmes" is an iconic character with a very specific and rich theme. Investigator was an exceptional way to facilitate such a concept effectively by simply combining Alchemist and Rogue with slight tweaks to the features of each. It is a great class in PF1 due to this, but moving it to PF2 makes it somewhat vestigial. It is great thematically, but does not differentiate itself from its parent classes enough mechanically to warrant consideration with the increased flexibility of PF2.
That's not to say Investigator should not be a class in PF2 -- it simply needs significant retooling. If there is a way to make it mechanically distinct from other classes, it can fill an iconic theme with power and ease.
The same goes for all the PF1 classes. A PF1 class does not necessarily warrant being its own class again in PF2 simply because it was a class before. If it does not offer something very distinct both mechanically and thematically, it can result in bloat the same way feats did in 3.X by offering an abundance of options that are entirely vestigial.
One of the biggest strengths of PF2 appears to be the way its modularity will make customizing much easier, theoretically making the need for an ever-expanding suite of classes less necessary.
Is there any insight somewhere about popularity of classes?
I believe d20pfsrd has run polls on that, but I personally wouldn't ascribe much importance to them, as they are entirely self-selected audience skewed to d20pfsrd's audience probably focusing alot more on "power" than the typical roleplaying audience. (not to imply that entire d20pfsrd audience solely cares about minmaxing or that it is even mutually exclusive with roleplaying flavor)
Paizo did ask for feedback during playtest on people's Top 5 favorite ARCHETYPES (in 1E), and they explicitly asked people to focus on "flavor" not specific implementation given that would change from 1E->2E regardless (although comments suggests mechanics was still consideration). Anyhow, here is link to the last tabulation of that, with Top 10 over-all AND sorted specific to Class. (everybody got 5 votes, even if a few people didn't use all of theirs, and if some people couldn't narrow it down to just 5 - which was really hard - their vote weight was reduced to equal 5 total, yielding .1 decimals)
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzme&page=9?Your-Top-5-Archetypes#405
Finding that thread made me smile at this comment I noticed in it:
Cloistered Cleric, but I would like the base cleric to be cloistered and an archetype to throw on some armor. (I know this will never happen, but that's what I want.)
Well, that's actually pretty much what happened, with base Cleric not offering as much armor/weapon proficiencies but instead pushing those to specific class path, while a 'caster cleric' goes further that route. I'm very happy with that outcome myself.
For anyone curious, there's an entire thread on what people felt should be new classes vs archetypes vs subclasses:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42i37?New-Class-or-New-Archetype
Not trying to thread police, just offering up other viewpoints on this specific topic. Although I'm sure some of us have changed our minds since posting to that; I know I have. But a lot fo the discussion was really cool, IMO.
Three classes I'd like to see added into the game in a similar being to cavalier was in the playtest would be pirate, ninja and samurai
Three classes I'd like to see added into the game in a similar being to cavalier was in the playtest would be pirate, ninja and samurai
So if they are archetypes, are you saying I could be a pirate ninja? Now we NEED to have an android 'race' so I can be a pirate, ninja, robot. ;)
Three classes I'd like to see added into the game in a similar being to cavalier was in the playtest would be pirate, ninja and samuraiSo if they are archetypes, are you saying I could be a pirate ninja? Now we NEED to have an android 'race' so I can be a pirate, ninja, robot. ;)
Make a Barbarian and add Viking to the list
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I liked about the Cavalier was that it had a number of kind of defining components and you could split them apart or recombine them with various archetypes.
Knightly Orders were cool and potentially pretty flavorful. Challenge provided a really nice non-aligned sort of alternative to smite-esque mechanics and Banner and Tactician weren't fleshed out as much as I like but were pretty much one of the only forms of non-magical combat support in the game.
My worry I suppose is that if the Cavalier is a class archetype you might not get the same level of flexibility Cavalier archetypes gave you in customizing this kit, but that if it's a dedication you're potentially spending a ton of feats just to get back to where the Cavalier was baseline.
That said it definitely feels a lot like a variant fighter and I can see why some people wouldn't be into seeing it come back, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make a Barbarian and add Viking to the listThree classes I'd like to see added into the game in a similar being to cavalier was in the playtest would be pirate, ninja and samuraiSo if they are archetypes, are you saying I could be a pirate ninja? Now we NEED to have an android 'race' so I can be a pirate, ninja, robot. ;)
I can just call my barbarian a viking for that: pirate + barbarian pretty much equals a viking IMO.
pirate + barbarian = viking? Hmm yeah I guess that does sort of work... huh....
You could maybe make one a bit more nuanced but I'm not sure how.
Is there any insight somewhere about popularity of classes?
For example I know it was discussed when they were picking the 12th and I recall alchemist, oracle and witch being up there as the choice due to popularity. And that alchemist may have not even been the most popular but was picked because making alchemy rules part of the core made sense
I also wonder whether the top 11 most played classes are the core rulebook ones? Or whether some are overtaken by APG ones
I think the stats used for the point on alchemists and oracles were from PFS ?
Alchemist beat out at least one core class.Is there any insight somewhere about popularity of classes?
For example I know it was discussed when they were picking the 12th and I recall alchemist, oracle and witch being up there as the choice due to popularity. And that alchemist may have not even been the most popular but was picked because making alchemy rules part of the core made sense
I also wonder whether the top 11 most played classes are the core rulebook ones? Or whether some are overtaken by APG ones
I think the stats used for the point on alchemists and oracles were from PFS ?
That is interesting. It implied cleric was the most popular which is surprising but I perhaps in PFS lots of people play one as they know it will be well received at any table
I am really fascinated which class(es) from Core the alchemist beat
Alchemist beat out at least one core class.Is there any insight somewhere about popularity of classes?
For example I know it was discussed when they were picking the 12th and I recall alchemist, oracle and witch being up there as the choice due to popularity. And that alchemist may have not even been the most popular but was picked because making alchemy rules part of the core made sense
I also wonder whether the top 11 most played classes are the core rulebook ones? Or whether some are overtaken by APG ones
I think the stats used for the point on alchemists and oracles were from PFS ?
That is interesting. It implied cleric was the most popular which is surprising but I perhaps in PFS lots of people play one as they know it will be well received at any table
I am really fascinated which class(es) from Core the alchemist beat
I wouldn't be surprised by ranger, monk, or paladin. All of which would have been better served by the archetype treatment (or a fighting style in the case of monk)
Of course, in boxed D&D (basic, expert, companion, master), paladin was effectively a fighter 'archetype' equivalent.
The sad thing is the playtest alchemist felt like a bait and switch, not the class people had voted for.
Paladin was an add on in the Warcraft 3.5 variant as well.
Ranger could be popular in PFS as I would think favoured enemy human goes a very long way
But my guesses would have been monk (I don’t like them but didn’t want to underestimate martial art fans) or paladin (due to restrictions)
What made the playtest alchemist so much different to the current one? I didnt play it
It seemed like it was less versatile because it couldn’t get both mutagen and bombs early-ish
(Perhaps this isn’t the place for this)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist beat out at least one core class.Is there any insight somewhere about popularity of classes?
For example I know it was discussed when they were picking the 12th and I recall alchemist, oracle and witch being up there as the choice due to popularity. And that alchemist may have not even been the most popular but was picked because making alchemy rules part of the core made sense
I also wonder whether the top 11 most played classes are the core rulebook ones? Or whether some are overtaken by APG ones
I think the stats used for the point on alchemists and oracles were from PFS ?
That is interesting. It implied cleric was the most popular which is surprising but I perhaps in PFS lots of people play one as they know it will be well received at any table
I am really fascinated which class(es) from Core the alchemist beat
Druid. In the d20pfsrd survey, Druid was the only core class to lose out to anything outside core- Alchemist, Oracle, and Magus.
(I would strongly assume that anything which beat a core class will be represented as a full class.)
It is an interesting discussion regarding which existing classes might either :
1. make it as a new class
2. be an archetype/subset for an existing class like warpriest
3. be a “class archetype”
4. be made by the new multiclass format (plus maybe some new feats)I am assuming there will not be a 5th option of “does not make the transition” but you never know
1. Kineticist, Oracle, Psychic
2. Antipaladin (evil causes for a champion), Inquisitor, Shaman (clerical doctrines), Investigator (rogue racket)3. Arcanist, Brawler, Cavalier/Samurai, Medium, Mesmerist, Ninja, Occultist, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Witch
3.5 (Archetype for All Classes) Vigilante
4. Bloodrager, Magus, Hunter
5. Shifter, Summoner
|
It is an interesting discussion regarding which existing classes might either :
1. make it as a new class
2. be an archetype/subset for an existing class like warpriest
3. be a “class archetype”
4. be made by the new multiclass format (plus maybe some new feats)I am assuming there will not be a 5th option of “does not make the transition” but you never know
1. Kineticist, Oracle, Psychic
2. Antipaladin (evil causes for a champion), Inquisitor, Shaman (clerical doctrines), Investigator (rogue racket)
3. Arcanist, Brawler, Cavalier/Samurai, Medium, Mesmerist, Ninja, Occultist, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Witch
3.5 (Archetype for All Classes) Vigilante
4. Bloodrager, Magus, Hunter
5. Shifter, Summoner
I think that's a pretty good breakdown. I really want Oracle to be a standalone class, they're my favorite class from 1e.
I like the idea of certain 1e classes like Vigilante being an archetype available to all classes, similar to how Starfinder archetypes work. I imagine this would be a good way to convert prestige classes from 1e; and rather than just ability scores you can require certain general or skill feats or certain skill/weapon proficiency before being able to take prestige archetypes.
Now that I think about it, I like the idea of prestige archetypes a lot- any class can take them but must meet certain prerequisites first and are often more than just "have 14 in x ability score(s)." Dragon Disciples must have 14 Cha, trained in Arcane spell DCs and expert in Athletics or Arcana. Or something along those lines.
Dedication could make it so you count as a sorcerer with the draconic bloodline for feats, feats would allow you to obtain a bite unarmed attack or become expert/master in unarmed attacks (Claw or Bite) earlier than usual, a 1/day breath weapon, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I liked about the Cavalier was that it had a number of kind of defining components and you could split them apart or recombine them with various archetypes.
Knightly Orders were cool and potentially pretty flavorful. Challenge provided a really nice non-aligned sort of alternative to smite-esque mechanics and Banner and Tactician weren't fleshed out as much as I like but were pretty much one of the only forms of non-magical combat support in the game.
This is why I really liked Cavalier too. Too much of banter on forums is fixated on hating it's mounted charge focus, but ignores it actually had alot of things going on. The Orders as mundane "Code" and mundane "combat support" like you say is actually very important niche.
While I take it Paizo plans to move Mounted Combat specialization to specific Archetype, it isn't clear why the other aspects would be included in that "Cavalier" Archetype... If they want to throw that much into the archetype, at that point they should just make it all a standalone Class. But I tend to think the rest of abilities which generally revolve around mundane-combat support and teamwork tactics, could actually work as part of standalone Class that went all in on those aspects, and also bringing in "Marshal" (which Paizo itself never did) and the non-weapon-specific parts of Swashbuckler or Gunslinger (whose deep weapon abilities could likewise be Archetypes), or even intersecting Archaeologist or Investigator (in skills-y tricks-y aspect, maybe in Multiclass form with Rogue/Alchemist). Not all those abilities need be picked by every character, but they seem like a coherent milieu of skills-y social warrior with mundane buffing/combat support, although they could choose either group-buffing or self-buffing/trick focus (or try to blend them), and stuff like Orders could work well to give specific cohesive flavor.
I had been kicking around the name "Challenger", and other people had brought up "Maverick" (more re: Swashbuckler/Gunslinger), but just now I thought "Exemplar" might work although I think that name has been proposed for alot of unrelated concepts, it seems like it works here: mundane yet exceptional, leader of others or pulling of solo feats.
So, do you think cavalier gets published with the Advanced Players Guide?
So, do you think cavalier gets published with the Advanced Players Guide?
Paizo already used Cavalier as model for Archetypes (Mounted Combat part), and APG will have 60 pages of Archetypes.
gunslinger, pirate, vigilante, and (now that Syries mentions it) some prestige classes all make for good multiclass archetypes but not necessarily base classes.
