| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for explaining your position more clearly NA Palm and JL106.
I concede the eyeroll was unwarranted and apologize.
I still stand by my point that 1E lore is a valid fallback when the relevant 2E lore is not available. Though I agree ideally it doesn't have to be. And I didn't initially appreciate how non-intuitive it could feel to new players - from my perspective I was looking it up constantly when running or playing PF1 games and so it's seamless for me to continue doing it in PF2.
I hope it’s limited entirely to the Lost Omens series so I can avoid it
I think it's likely to be true because these are the PrC replacements tied to Golarion lore, other settings wouldn't necessarily have Hellknights at all. I think you mentioned in other threads that you've decided to switch to Eberron? In which case this series would naturally be lower priority anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if an archetype said "you need some feats" as a requirement you'd be fine with that? Dude...I guess because i don't see it as a mechanic. We have the mechanics, the feats, the proficiency, and the weapons. It's only the flavor not immediately apparent.
Which to me feels the same if they soon come out with Planar Achetypes, or a Blackjacket one.
Thanks for responding.
Not even in the vicinity of the same situation.
The archetype explicitly tells what it needs, and what it needs, exists.
But does not exist in the Core rules that were just published, nor in the book in question. If I picked up the book, along with the core books up in a bookstore with dice, I'd be annoyed if I read that and found myself wondering where to find the details.
I myself am quite used to going to get information from the internet. If this were an ebook you had to get by downloading from a site, I'd be more willing to consider it a given to look something up in a Wiki. But Pazio is a book publisher. The PDFs are considered/marketed as an extra thing/option they provide (save for the society scenarios)
With that in mind, having a rules element depending on a different book coming later, or from a book published for a prior edition, or doing an internet search for the information is a choice they should have probably avoided. A single example (such as one tied to fall of ashes) should have placated most. Alternately, simply moving it to the next book which was going to have the rest of the Hellknight Archetypes also would have seemed viable option.
It almost seems like the choice was to include the introductory Hellknight dedication in the first book, so that to get it and the rest of them you had to get both books, you couldn't get it all in one book. Including just one, such as the order of the nails would have made the archetype viable with accurate information without having to rely on first edition sources or wiki sources. Perhaps, I haven't checked, but Hellknight Hill might have the information as a second edition source of information, especially since we know originally they hoped to have all of them out at the same time.
I say it isn't ideal requiring an out of book (and not otherwise from core) element to use a given rule element in cannon, but it is certainly forgivable given Pazio's rather open stance on most of their information and availability of such information.
Can someone look up the information on the web from first edition sources? Yes, one certainly could. Should that be a requirement to play an archetype from a newly published edition, when archetypes are basically a featured element of that book? Honestly, no, it shouldn't. It wouldn't stop me from getting this book, nor will it stop me from buying the next. But it was one of their poorer choices from a customer's standpoint, at least in my opinion. But also in my opinion a forgivable one, but I'm not going to say the decision could have been handled better.
It would be like if they published the core book with clerics, with their abilities determined by domains and such. But they didn't include a list of deities and their domains, and what those domains granted, because they liked the idea of having all that in a second book, Demigods and Deities. That would have clearly have reflected poorly on the core book, and undoubtedly impacted its reception. They obviously knew better than to do that. A single archetype representing 1 of 10 regions in a book, being dependent on such legacy information isn't nearly as bad, but it is an example of why it wasn't the best of choices.
We all know, we don't want to pay again for material that we already bought, just to be reprinted, with little to no new value to it. But on the other hand, new players don't want to find out they need to buy some old book that might even be out of print to use an element in a new book they just bought. Is that feat not going to be available to PFS players unless they have the book listing the order?
|
It would be like if they published the core book with clerics, with their abilities determined by domains and such. But they didn't include a list of deities and their domains, and what those domains granted,Except it's not the same, since the Domains and what they granted have completely changed from editions. Hellknight Orders haven't.
But on the other hand, new players don't want to find out they need to buy some old book that might even be out of print to use an element in a new book they just bought.
With the Pathfinderwiki and Archives of Nethys they don't have to.
Pathfinder has a LOT of lore to go through.
|
|
But it doesn't exist in this edition. For all we know those have changed like domains.
And there can be multiple problems with a book. Hellknights and Alchemists are different books anyhow.
Domains were a metagame construct, they weren't something grounded in Lore. Hellknight Orders and their weapons are grounded in lore and narrative.
But one issue is rather insignificant to the the other. One requires to look up what Hellknight Orders are, the other actually does not give the Alchemist anything at the moment, presenting a major hazard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, realistically you can qualify for the "proficient" part of the hellknight armiger dedication without knowing what weapon it is. None of them are advanced weapons (to date; there are very few advanced weapons anyway) and lots of people get martial proficiency (most of the people who would want to be Hellknights, rather than Signifers). The Armiger dedication isn't going to be required, anyway, for the actual 6th level Hellknight/Hellknight Sigifer Dedication almost certainly. It's just there if you want to build someone who has been in the Hellknights from the beginning and has worked their way up.
If you don't already know who the Hellknights are or what they do, I'm not sure why you'd want to play that character in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But how exactly would someone know from the books that there aren't any advanced weapons in the favored weapon lists for the orders?
I'm really not sure how "including archetypes that we can't know if we qualify for or not using information from the current edition is a bad idea" is such a controversial statement.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just figure the basic way this works is -
A player reads something in a book, but has questions about it. So they ask their GM about it a la "I want to play one of these, but I'm not sure about x,y, and z". At which point the GM either makes something up, or looks something up in a different source.
So like "I want to be a Hellknight, it says I need proficiency in their weapon, I have that with martial proficiency right?" and "It says I have to be a member of the order, how do I go about doing that? Which order can I join and what are they about?"
But then why should a beginner GM have to look up sources outside the new books?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just figure the basic way this works is -
A player reads something in a book, but has questions about it. So they ask their GM about it a la "I want to play one of these, but I'm not sure about x,y, and z". At which point the GM either makes something up, or looks something up in a different source.
So like "I want to be a Hellknight, it says I need proficiency in their weapon, I have that with martial proficiency right?" and "It says I have to be a member of the order, how do I go about doing that? Which order can I join and what are they about?"
Yea that's how it works in my experience as well.
But we're also on a forum where people rage and whine that "ask your DM" is an answer to some questions and argue about the minutiae of comma placement in certain abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To PossibleCabbage's point: As a player, deciding I want to be a part of X hellknight order, because I like the mechanical build of the weapon and armor is wildly problematic for a GM that was planning on using that Order in a specifically non-PC friendly manner. Since no first level character will have been a member of the order, achieved Knighthood and then left the order, it probably is better for the opening Archetype not to put it into your head that you will be able to be a hellknight of the X order without talking to your GM. If you are..(don't say hellbent)...wanting to join a specific order because of their weapon, it is probably better to talk to the GM about what kind of Orders might be possible in your game and if it doesn't include what you want to build towards, you probably should talk to the GM about whether a sub order or counter order would be appropriate or not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then why should a beginner GM have to look up sources outside the new books?
They don't. The GM can just say "Well, I don't know. So let's make up a Hellknight order, what is your character interested in?" So they work together to flesh out the Order of the Flag that opposes mail fraud and blackmailers, and has a ranseur as a favored weapon or whatever.
Hellknights are pretty simple- they are mercenary groups with a heavy armor focus that are extremely lawful and they are committed to forging, maintaining, preserving, etc. the chains that bind an ordered society. Pretty much any way society can break down, you can have a Hellknight order committed to preventing that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yea that's how it works in my experience as well.
But we're also on a forum where people rage and whine that "ask your DM" is an answer to some questions and argue about the minutiae of comma placement in certain abilities.
Except I'm asking from the perspective of a GM: Why should the GM have to make anything up or look at outside sources to learn how to make an archetype in the book useable.
In all honesty why is "Don't put archetypes in the book without enough information to actually know if anyone qualifies for the archetype" such a controversial statement?
But then why should a beginner GM have to look up sources outside the new books?They don't. The GM can just say "Well, I don't know. So let's make up a Hellknight order, what is your character interested in?" So they work together to flesh out the Order of the Flag that opposes mail fraud and blackmailers, and has a ranseur as a favored weapon or whatever.
If that was the intended use of it, then they should have stated that was the intention.
As I said further upthread. Putting the requirement of being proficient in the favored weapon of the order, while putting no information about what those are, makes it look like something is missing from the book. A footnote saying to work with your GM to describe an Order works perfectly fine to clear this confusion. As does just listing the orders and their favored weapons.
Both are valid approaches.
Not putting ANYTHING in to explain the proficiency in the favored weapon of the order other than requiring it is odd.
It leads to confusion. People flipping back and forth trying to figure it out, and eventually coming to the forums to ask because it is just that: confusing.
Why do you think there is nothing wrong with a clearly confusing design decision that makes people feel like they are missing something in the book that just isn't there?
|
|
Yea that's how it works in my experience as well.
But we're also on a forum where people rage and whine that "ask your DM" is an answer to some questions and argue about the minutiae of comma placement in certain abilities.
Except I'm asking from the perspective of a GM: Why should the GM have to make anything up or look at outside sources to learn how to make an archetype in the book useable.
In all honesty why is "Don't put archetypes in the book without enough information to actually know if anyone qualifies for the archetype" such a controversial statement?
Because the missing info is such a non issue is why, said missing info that in no way makes the archetype unusable. GMs are encouraged to make things up and create.
If you're playing in an established setting it’s kinda expected you read up on it somewhat. This is the Second Edition of Pathfinder, that doesn’t make the previous setting books published under the 1st Edition rules or 3.5 rules not exist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The book isn’t going to tell the GM to make stuff up when setting stuff isn’t laid out, that’s intentional. The GM is encouraged to make stuff up, it’s a perk.If that was the intended use of it, then they should have stated that was the intention.But then why should a beginner GM have to look up sources outside the new books?They don't. The GM can just say "Well, I don't know. So let's make up a Hellknight order, what is your character interested in?" So they work together to flesh out the Order of the Flag that opposes mail fraud and blackmailers, and has a ranseur as a favored weapon or whatever.
Why do you think there is nothing wrong with a clearly confusing design decision that makes people feel like they are missing something in the book that just isn't there?
Because it’s not that confusing nor insurmountable. You can’t find since you don't have any previous info as a GM/player new to the setting, so you search the internet (leading here or to the Wiki or AoN) or come here and ask, and get answers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know.. the mechanics of the weapons themselves aren't detailed in the book either. You have to look those up elsewhere.
I think the complaint has been very reasonable and can be succinctly summarised as "Don't produce an archetype that has prerequisites which are not fully detailed in the book that the archetype appears in."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except I'm asking from the perspective of a GM: Why should the GM have to make anything up or look at outside sources to learn how to make an archetype in the book useable.Yea that's how it works in my experience as well.
But we're also on a forum where people rage and whine that "ask your DM" is an answer to some questions and argue about the minutiae of comma placement in certain abilities.
If you don’t want to, you don’t have to. Red Mantis, and I’m sure Magic Warrior as well, have lore outside of the book. If as a GM you don’t feel you have the desired knowledge before hand and/or don’t want to worry about making too much up as you go then you don’t have to allow them. Some GM’s will do this with certain classes they don’t want to deal with as a regular practice.
In all honesty why is "Don't put archetypes in the book without enough information to actually know if anyone qualifies for the archetype" such a controversial statement?
It doesn’t seem to have been a controversial statement. A couple people just don’t agree with the statement is all. The controversy seems to stem from the side that sees it as an issue though. In the end we should at least be able to agree to disagree.
|
|
Except I'm asking from the perspective of a GM: Why should the GM have to make anything up or look at outside sources to learn how to make an archetype in the book useable.Yea that's how it works in my experience as well.
But we're also on a forum where people rage and whine that "ask your DM" is an answer to some questions and argue about the minutiae of comma placement in certain abilities.
If you don’t want to, you don’t have to. Red Mantis, and I’m sure Magic Warrior as well, have lore outside of the book. If as a GM you don’t feel you have the desired knowledge before hand and/or don’t want to worry about making too much up as you go then you don’t have to allow them. Some GM’s will do this with certain classes they don’t want to deal with as a regular practice.
In all honesty why is "Don't put archetypes in the book without enough information to actually know if anyone qualifies for the archetype" such a controversial statement?It doesn’t seem to have been a controversial statement. A couple people just don’t agree with the statement is all. The controversy seems to stem from the side that sees it as an issue though. In the end we should at least be able to agree to disagree.
*nods*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People keep bashing the head against the wall repeating that since a solution is available the problems is non-existant. That's not how it work folks. Having solution for a problem is a fallback. Ideally, the problem should not present itself.
All that refusing to acknowledge the problem does is paving the way to having it happen again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no problem. I guarantee when I get the book that I will be able to play a Hellknight Armiger.
People keep bashing the head against the wall repeating that since a solution is available the problems is non-existant. That's not how it work folks. Having solution for a problem is a fallback. Ideally, the problem should not present itself.
All that refusing to acknowledge the problem does is paving the way to having it happen again.
People keep bashing the head against the wall repeating that since a solution is available the problems is non-existant. That's not how it work folks. Having solution for a problem is a fallback. Ideally, the problem should not present itself.
All that refusing to acknowledge the problem does is paving the way to having it happen again.
Exactly.
I'm seriously done with this thread now.
I cannot fathom how anyone thinks that putting in a requirement that requires further information, then making no further comment on that information, is not confusing to people reading the book.
That confusion could be easily alleviated. Even saying the information wasn't in the book would have been not an ideal solution, but would at least make people not flip back and forth trying to find the information.
Yes, books don't need to tell GMs they can make things up, but they should probably point out when they HAVE to make things up unless they use material outside of the 2e books.
Also, again with strawmen, things like "Oh well the rules for the weapons aren't in the book". Cool, their in the CRB, something required to play the game anyway. Also I've been stressing repeatedly that I'm referring to "not in published 2e books". Or "Red Mantis require things that are not stated" No they do not. None of the mechanics of qualifying for the archetype are not in the book.
You can keep on pretending that I'm saying things I'm not saying, but it seriously doesn't come off as genuine conversation or debate.
Also, the definition of controversial: "giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement." Saying "It isn't controversial, people just disagree" is mindboggling. That is literally saying It isn't X, it is just the literal definition of X.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People keep bashing the head against the wall repeating that since a solution is available the problems is non-existant. That's not how it work folks. Having solution for a problem is a fallback. Ideally, the problem should not present itself.
All that refusing to acknowledge the problem does is paving the way to having it happen again.Exactly.
I'm seriously done with this thread now.
I cannot fathom how anyone thinks that putting in a requirement that requires further information, then making no further comment on that information, is not confusing to people reading the book.
That confusion could be easily alleviated. Even saying the information wasn't in the book would have been not an ideal solution, but would at least make people not flip back and forth trying to find the information.
Yes, books don't need to tell GMs they can make things up, but they should probably point out when they HAVE to make things up unless they use material outside of the 2e books.
Also, again with strawmen, things like "Oh well the rules for the weapons aren't in the book". Cool, their in the CRB, something required to play the game anyway. Also I've been stressing repeatedly that I'm referring to "not in published 2e books". Or "Red Mantis require things that are not stated" No they do not. None of the mechanics of qualifying for the archetype are not in the book.
You can keep on pretending that I'm saying things I'm not saying, but it seriously doesn't come off as genuine conversation or debate.
Also, the definition of controversial: "giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement." Saying "It isn't controversial, people just disagree" is mindboggling. That is literally saying It isn't X, it is just the literal definition of X.
Okay, sorry it came out sounding redundant; i’ll rephrase it. In all honesty why is “having an opposing viewpoint” such a controversial stance? No one has said you have to agree with the viewpoint, and we’re on the Paizo forums so it’s reasonable that they’ll take the issue you and a number of others have into consideration moving forward. Honestly people haven’t been strawmanning you as much as you let on, but more answering your questions with answers that you just happen to either not like or not agree with; and fair enough, you don’t have to.
The part with the Red Mantis and Magic Warrior that you call ’a straw man’ was to show Armiger isn’t being singled out in this instance of lack of information. It’s not meant to skew your point in the slightest.
It hasn’t helped that some people have come in just to dogpile and add fuel to the fire on either side. Feel free to disengage from the thread and take some time to unwind. It’s obviously bothering you more than it should for some reason.
|
|
Path of the Hellknight (Blue means it's a link)
Order of the Torrent and Order of the Pike are both good for more Good aligned Hellknight orders :3
Thanks, I just ordered it.
This will give me a better understanding of them.... I have read everything I found in wiki a few months ago. However, I have been looking at them as a lawful paladins (kinda). No one has noted that Cha would be a required stat. I don't think I have a grasp of what a Hellknight truly is. I think I need to read more data and understand them much better than I do.
They're basically Judge Dredd, if you know anything about that character.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just created a functional Hellknight Armiger.
I just created a functional Hellknight Armiger.I guess functional is the key word. I am going to wait for the book that adds all the info required. I have enjoyed reading the (PF1) Path of the Hellknight but they are much more powerful than I think Paizo wants them to be in PF2. I build a character from an idea in my head and than pick something close to that thought. Without knowing what abilities each order will be given I see no clear path ahead for me. If the Orders have no core abilities and feats I think Hellknights are subpar. You give 4 feats min if you want move up in Hellknight ranks, that is a lot of class feats to give up unless there is a strong motivation to do so.
The only pro Hellknight background makes you loyal to House Thrune (THRUNE LOYALIST) not just to the order of law. According to what I read hellknight fear that House Thrune will turn on them so why would your only pro hellknight make you a Thrune loyalist?
The archetype feats... seem limited use to my way of thinking. I could be wrong as I am new to this game and there may be synergy I do not see.
Just my thoughts.
The most well-known one, the Order of the Rack, is very much a Thrune loyalist. There are probably quite a few other loyalists scattered among the other orders, given most of them are centered in Cheliax.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are likely some Hellknight orders who are currently Thrune loyalists that if given a legal basis for doing so (such as violation of the Kintargo Compact, and the subsequent dissolution of House Thrune) would turn on Thrune.
Like some are primarily Thrune loyalists because she is literally the legitimate legal authority in Cheliax.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two of the Hell Knight Feats require you to know information that isn't in the book.
Ardent Armiger requires you to know what your orders tenets
and
Mortification requires you to know what their Reckoning is.
This is kinda ridiculous that this information isn't in the book when it's clearly required to have to even use the feats. Sure I can look it up, but I shouldn't have to. The information I need to use the Hellknight Armiger should be in the book I purchased to use it. Paizo you're better than this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think "Hellknight" does not sound like a thing that is very attractive to people who don't already know what a Hellknight is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its back to another thread that I done, consolidated info.
In this case make stickies to guide new players for these pieces of information. I know its just a simple google it, but lets face it there is old fellas playing Pathfinder and they are not so computer savy as us from 1980+
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"To figure out how to use something"
You're not looking up mechanics, you're looking up what weapon this order likes.
If I pay for a book, pay for it to be shipped out to me from a different country so I can sit down at a game table and use it, especially in the context of a new edition, I shouldn't need to use google to use the content in that book. Except I think I have to do so if I want to play an Armiger, since the only Hellknight Order that's been remotely fleshed out in 2e is the Order of the Nail, and that was in the Age of Ashes adventure path.
Maybe you already know all this. Maybe you already have books that answer this question from 1e. Maybe you don't mind using computers to look up something to answer a question.
But I've sat down at tables that explicitly ban the use of phones and computers during the session. I've had DM's that refuse to use anything beyond what's in the book for the edition. So I think if I've paid 60 USD for a gamebook that claims you don't need material from the previous edition to use it, I shouldn't need anything from the previous edition to use it.
I think the point is that your GM can make up any Hellknight order they want to fit in their campaign. As a player, deciding "I want to be an order of the X Hellknight" is probably pretty problematic for a GM, especially if it is because you just want to use a specific weapon. This Hellknight archetype doesn't give you any additional abilities with that weapon, so being proficient in a specific martial weapon is pretty much something that you can plan in advance and then talk to your GM about. If you are wanting to join this archetype from a class with extremely limited weapon proficiencies, it might be a problem if you wanted to use one martial weapon but it is not the official weapon of the permissible order, but that feels like a very niche case and one that your GM will work with you on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No other class or archetype requires homebrew content to use. Clerics? Which gods got which domains and flavoured weapons could have totally been left for homebrew. But it wasn't. The "Paizo wants you to homebrew it" excuse wears a little thin in that context.
|
|
“I've had DM's that refuse to use anything beyond what's in the book for the edition.”
That doesn’t make the previous edition not exist.
“So I think if I've paid 60 USD for a gamebook that claims you don't need material from the previous edition to use it, I shouldn't need anything from the previous edition to use it.”
Does it state this?
“If I pay for a book, pay for it to be shipped out to me from a different country so I can sit down at a game table and use it, especially in the context of a new edition...”
The rules are new, the setting is not.
Do you think when later books come that every setting detail imaginably pertinent to the material will be reprinted every time? No, you will you have to use previous books.
|
|
“It might as well not exist for me.”
That’s your choosing then, since it does indeed exist.
“Before release the devs said you won't need the Inner Sea World Guide if you have the Lost Omens World Guide. Silly me for assuming that applied to other Inner Sea books.”
You don’t need the ISWG.
“The setting is different though - the Inner Sea World Guide doesn't mention any nation called New Thassilon or Raovunel,”
The setting has changed somewhat, but Golarion is still Golarion.
“nor does it inply goblins can be adventurers with little drama.”
LOWG doesn’t either to my understanding.
“I expect if a mechanical feature requires a setting detail to be used, that setting detail will be reprinted. If an archetype is printed that requires you to be part of the Silver Crusade, that book should define what the Silver Crusade is and what the mechanical requirements are for joining it, if there are any.”
They aren’t going to do this. They didn’t in 1st.
“Like how the Aldori Duelist archetype is printed alongside the Aldori Dueling Sword, or the Red Mantis Assassin archetype is printed with the details on Mediogalti Island, making it clear that anyone raised on the island could have been recruited and it doesn't require anything more than proficiency in sawtooth sabres, a weapon that only gets a pass here because its in the core book.”
The Hellknights don’t quite have the same amount of information that Mediogalti does, but then they’re various groups spread throughout Cheliax and beyond while the Red Mantis are headquartered in that one specific island.
There is no point in debating Rysky. Rysky won’t change their mind so if you disagree with them simply move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No other class or archetype requires homebrew content to use. Clerics? Which gods got which domains and flavoured weapons could have totally been left for homebrew. But it wasn't. The "Paizo wants you to homebrew it" excuse wears a little thin in that context.
Clerics are mechanically defined by the choice of a deity, The Various Hellknight orders offer nothing mechanically specific to this archetype based upon their order. You only need to be proficient in the weapon of the order, you need never use it, and you get no abilities to help you do so. I am sure that when a book comes out where hellknights start to significantly diverge mechanically through their orders, you will have more thorough descriptions.
None of these Archetypes seem fully realized at the moment, as in all of them, except maybe the red mantis Assassin feel like there is one or more prestige class archetype on its way out that builds upon them. It feels a little early to burn the house down yet. If you want to say that you don’t like the choice to include archetypes this early in the addition that clearly require additional material to be playable, that is fine. It feels a little strange to me in trying to sort whether this book is a player resource or a GM resource and trying to be both to increase sales will probably lead to me losing interest in purchasing these books in the future.
Outside of the world lore, it feels like the mechanics of this book were crammed into very tight confines that didn’t give much space to allowing for doing something like filling out even one hellknight order. Including a list of orders and the weapons they used would have been a big mistake because it would have made all orders feel essentially the same, or worse, defined by weapon usage instead of by purpose and role in Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the archetypes all feel incomplete that’s even worse. 1 complete archetype is way better than 12 incomplete ones.
I’m quite thankful I’ve passed on this book. I’ll cannibalise what I can from the archetypes, but they sound quite skippable and I feel bad for those who like Golarion 2.0
|
|
Incomplete isn’t the word I would use.
In P1 Archetypes were pretty much done and ended when they were printed, which led to a bunch of instances of “this Archetype is like [other Archetype], but better”, especially when new thematic material came out.
In P2 with the way the Archetypes are set up they’re not ended, and can keep being builded on continuously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the archetypes all feel incomplete that’s even worse. 1 complete archetype is way better than 12 incomplete ones.
I’m quite thankful I’ve passed on this book. I’ll cannibalise what I can from the archetypes, but they sound quite skippable and I feel bad for those who like Golarion 2.0
To me the book is primarily a "here is all the ways Golarion 2.0 is different from 1.0, highlighting some regions that had not much attention previously and helping see how important they are to the overall setting.
The issue isn't that the archetypes are incomplete, so much as all of them feel like starter kits that only hint at how they will become playable once other books comes out that really surround each archetype in options related to the specific context they will be played. I don't see any 20th level character having dipped into any of these archetypes as a character defining choice, and not taken some future options that are not yet available. It feels like we are being slowly introduced to archetypes to see how they balance/unbalance the game at low levels before being thrown the full vision of them, and the capstone abilities are all still off the table. For instance, the Hellknight's only ability related to armor in the book is a speed booster in heavy armor, there is nothing that plays with increasing Heavy armor proficiency, meaning that the archetype is pretty much an awful choice for any character that doesn't naturally progress in Heavy armor proficiency on their own, all of which give martial weapon proficiency. If there is no path to higher heavy armor proficiency through Hellknight Archetypes, then I don't see it happening in any archetype. However, if that proficiency boost wouldn't happen until level 12 or later, then everything is still on track, because none of these archetypes offer any feat higher than 14th level, with most capping out in the 8 to 10th level range.