APG Archetypes


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

With the Paizocon online it was shown the name of all the 42 Archetypes that will be in the book.

Being these the following.

Spoiler:

Acrobat, Archaeologist, Archer, Assassin, Bastion, Beastmaster, Blessed one, Bounty Hunter, Cavalier, Celebrity, Dandy, Dragon disciple, Dual weapon warrior, Duelist, Eldritch archer, Familiar Master, Gladiator, Herbalist, Horizon walker, Linguist, Loremaster, Marshal, Martial artist, Mauler, Medic, Pirate, Poisoner, Ritualist, Scout, Scroll trickster, Scrounger, Sentinel, Shadowdancer, Snarecrafter, Taslisman dabbler, Vigilante, Viking, Weapon improviser.

Plus the Multiclassing ones.

Investigator, Oracle, Swashbuckler, Witch

Confirmed no Class Archetype in the book.

More spoiled information about the APG book here (Credits to VestOfHolding on Discord and Reddit).

Any theories about what a certain archetype might do? Any build that you would like to try with it?

I personally would like to try some kind of Transmutation Wizard with Beastmaster, and reflavor the animal companion as some kindo of beast that the character family made generations ago and is now is stuck with the character.


It will be interesting to see how the archetypes interact with the different class features now that most are not tied to specific classes. If Beastmaster and Familiar Master require animal companion or familiar as prereqs, fine. But they'd be really interesting if the archetype actually grants some form of the companion or familiar features. For instance, a rogue taking Familiar Master to get a pet monkey to help with heists.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Beavois wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the archetypes interact with the different class features now that most are not tied to specific classes. If Beastmaster and Familiar Master require animal companion or familiar as prereqs, fine. But they'd be really interesting if the archetype actually grants some form of the companion or familiar features. For instance, a rogue taking Familiar Master to get a pet monkey to help with heists.

I think they will be granting the abilities otherwise they would be very limited and miss what I believe is the point of the APG archetypes . I think they will have aimed for as many of them as possible (if not all) to be possible to select with every class

I think they will differ from the lost omens one in this way

The real question will be will classes that already get familiars or companions get any benefit from them?


Quote:
The real question will be will classes that already get familiars or companions get any benefit from them?

I would assume that they get less mileage but possible either earlier or additional upgrade options (the druid can have 3 animal companion specialisations while ranger can have one, maybe beastmaster can have one or two additional)


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Looking at the list (and this may be an unfair thing to say as we still have little information) I wish there was more spellcasting archetypes. There's a ton of martial ones, lots of skill ones, crafting, pets... but I'm not sure if any have to do with spells? Blessed one grants something similar to lay on hands, so that counts for something.


Beavois wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the archetypes interact with the different class features now that most are not tied to specific classes. If Beastmaster and Familiar Master require animal companion or familiar as prereqs, fine. But they'd be really interesting if the archetype actually grants some form of the companion or familiar features. For instance, a rogue taking Familiar Master to get a pet monkey to help with heists.

The familiar one grants a familiar (and my maybe enhanced familiar feat for who already have?) and the Beastmaster the Animal Companion.

The Dual Weapon Master per example gives the fighter Double Slice in the dedication by itself.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What kind of spellcasting archetypes do you think are needed that the multiclass dedications for casting classes can't fill? Do you have any kind of gap in mind?


Gaulin wrote:
Looking at the list (and this may be an unfair thing to say as we still have little information) I wish there was more spellcasting archetypes. There's a ton of martial ones, lots of skill ones, crafting, pets... but I'm not sure if any have to do with spells? Blessed one grants something similar to lay on hands, so that counts for something.

It would seem like the point is for archetypes to ones every class can take which makes spellcasting ones out of line

Although I assume the two eldritch ones need casting


Kyrone wrote:
Beavois wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the archetypes interact with the different class features now that most are not tied to specific classes. If Beastmaster and Familiar Master require animal companion or familiar as prereqs, fine. But they'd be really interesting if the archetype actually grants some form of the companion or familiar features. For instance, a rogue taking Familiar Master to get a pet monkey to help with heists.

The familiar one grants a familiar and the Beastmaster the Animal Companion.

The Dual Weapon Master per example gives fighter Double Slice in the dedication by itself.

The dual weapon thing confirmed? Or an assumption?

Liberty's Edge

I see spellcasting archetypes on par with martial archetypes that grant higher weapon proficiencies. Few and far between is best for those IMO.

Granting focus spells is another matter entirely though.

Blessed one, Dragon disciple, Eldritch archer, Herbalist, Horizon walker, Loremaster, Medic, Ritualist, Shadowdancer, Talisman dabbler all sound suitably mystic for providing spells. Even Marshal and Poisoner might get something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Beavois wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the archetypes interact with the different class features now that most are not tied to specific classes. If Beastmaster and Familiar Master require animal companion or familiar as prereqs, fine. But they'd be really interesting if the archetype actually grants some form of the companion or familiar features. For instance, a rogue taking Familiar Master to get a pet monkey to help with heists.

The familiar one grants a familiar and the Beastmaster the Animal Companion.

The Dual Weapon Master per example gives fighter Double Slice in the dedication by itself.

The dual weapon thing confirmed? Or an assumption?

Confirmed, they have a feat called Double Reload as well, but was not given details, but said that it made possible to reload even with a hand full.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Were any of the new core class options shown off? I haven't seen a thread about it and don't have time to watch the streams vods atm.

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.

EEEE GAWDS, I cannot take it anymore......please release the book...its feeling worse than being 5 on Christmas Eve. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicolas Paradise wrote:
Were any of the new core class options shown off? I haven't seen a thread about it and don't have time to watch the streams vods atm.

Here most if not all the information of the panel(thanks VestofHolding)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

To be honest, though, Sentinel makes me a little nervous.

On the one hand, to gain armor proficiencies not normally used by your class currently requires the use of an archetype with heavy, character-defining, implications (Champion. Hellknight.) That's a real problem and sentinel seems like a solution. This is good.

On the other hand, at level 1, for, say, an alchemist to wear medium armor at trained proficiency instead of wearing light armor at trained proficiency is valued at 1 General Feat. If Sentinel is THE solution to continuing to use medium instead of light armor after their light armor proficiency has become expert, the cost for the same benefit would suddenly be 1 general feat, at least 1 class feat and being locked into an aechetype. And that would be a terrible decision.


Why would it cost a general feat? Unless you think the armor boost general feat will be a prereq for entry, which... I doubt it? That'd be weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It wouldn't be that weird to have a certain level of armor proficiency as a prereq, considering the hellknight armiger. But if not, going from 1 general feat to probably 2 class feats and an archetype to get identical benefit, instead of just needing to take a followup general feat is still a mistake I've been fearing they would make and hoping they haven't.

Grand Lodge

Excellent work Kyrone! Thank you so much for this!! It is greatly appreciated.


So uh... When are we getting class archetypes? Wasn't that one of the promises for this book long ago? They're back in limbo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
So uh... When are we getting class archetypes? Wasn't that one of the promises for this book long ago? They're back in limbo.

Yup before i was thinking the monk archer would be a class feat before Jason said it wasn't. I am hopping they can fix some concept and help to make new ones.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not the most creative but there's a ton you could do with archetypes that are more to do with magic. And yes some of these very well could be more magic related.

Off the top of my head an archetype that grants more metamagic, one that improves cantrips, summoning magic, shape shifting, tons of stuff. The dedication could grant a baseline focus spell/cantrip/spell for those that didn't have any casting at all, and further feats could improve upon it. Casters would benefit more as they would also have their own spell repertoire, but martials benefit more from martial archetypes so it evens out.

Again I'm far from a designer, but I can at least see there's a lot of design space for casting archetypes, even if my ideas are hot garbage.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
So uh... When are we getting class archetypes? Wasn't that one of the promises for this book long ago? They're back in limbo.

I don't believe they ever promised it for this book specifically, just that it would happen eventually. I always thought the APG was the most likely place, but I don't think anyone at Paizo made a firm commitment, we all just kind of assumed.

Additionally, I'm not at all sure one or two of the listed Archetypes aren't Class Archetypes...Mark Seifter, who is always careful with phrasing, has repeatedly said that such Archetypes haven't been confirmed rather than flatly denying their presence. That could be for other reasons, obviously, or it could be that one or two are, in fact, Class Archetypes.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
So uh... When are we getting class archetypes? Wasn't that one of the promises for this book long ago? They're back in limbo.

I don't believe they ever promised it for this book specifically, just that it would happen eventually. I always thought the APG was the most likely place, but I don't think anyone at Paizo made a firm commitment, we all just kind of assumed.

Additionally, I'm not at all sure one or two of the listed Archetypes aren't Class Archetypes...Mark Seifter, who is always careful with phrasing, has repeatedly said that such Archetypes haven't been confirmed rather than flatly denying their presence. That could be for other reasons, obviously, or it could be that one or two are, in fact, Class Archetypes.

Confirmed that Class Archetypes are not in the book and that any class can take the archetypes that are in the archetype session the APG.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Opens the door for the next summer release to be an Advanced Class Guide with:

- 4+ new classes
- class archetypes
- more “standard” archetypes
- more class options/pathways for each class

It would make the most sense given the Ancestry book next winter


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Opens the door for the next summer release to be an Advanced Class Guide with:

- 4+ new classes
- class archetypes
- more “standard” archetypes
- more class options/pathways for each class

It would make the most sense given the Ancestry book next winter

I personally don't think we'll be getting 4 classes next year, I figure they'll slow down after the APG. They consider the APG to be one of the core books everyone who wants to play PF2 should own, it makes sense for them to pack it with more content than future books might.

Horizon Hunters

I have heard that the class archetypes are just there as an option if there is something they want to do with a class that they can't do with current options of sub-class + feats, but that the base class builds are generally loose enough that most things can fit in.

Class archetypes I am looking forward to are the Beastmaster (Pokemon Master!), Marshall (Meant to be a Warlord-esque class, which is sweet!) and Martial Artist (excited to see what it gives and how it differentiates itself from the Monk dedication)


Salamileg wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Opens the door for the next summer release to be an Advanced Class Guide with:

- 4+ new classes
- class archetypes
- more “standard” archetypes
- more class options/pathways for each class

It would make the most sense given the Ancestry book next winter

I personally don't think we'll be getting 4 classes next year, I figure they'll slow down after the APG. They consider the APG to be one of the core books everyone who wants to play PF2 should own, it makes sense for them to pack it with more content than future books might.

What we know from the panel is that they will move away from themeless rule books in the style of APG, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat. Instead they want to do more stuff like Occult Adventures - something half way between the Core Rule books and the Lost Omens World Guides.

They've also often talked about having to rush to catch up with PF1, and that classes drive book sales more than anything else. I think we can be confident in expecting a class playtest towards the end of this year.
In fact I would not be particularly surprised to see more than four classes slated for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I hope that whatever class book they have coming up next has more classes. The APG had to have a bit of everything, including a huge focus on archetypes and expanding classes. The next might be able to focus only on classes. Faster they can get all the old classes in (in one way or another), the easier old players will be able to make the transition and the faster original classes can start appearing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We'll get class archetypes once we're far enough in for there to be a need for certain features to be removed for a concept. For now, we're still dealing with stuff that was handled as a class archetype, but doesn't need to be anymore. If you told us that we were getting an archery monk class archetype, I don't think we would have been surprised. But that's covered by a collection of feats.

As far as the familiar archetype goes, they confirmed a few things. The dedication gives you a familiar if you don't have one, and the archetype is still useful for characters who have a familiar already. (I presume this include a non-useless dedication.) The archetype includes some things that are outside of what even a Witch can normally do with a familiar.

Dark Archive

I saw someone on Reddit repost something from The Magic Sword saying the assassin will have an ability to get deadly and backstabber against an opponent. Also, Jason played a rogue/assassin in the Sunday game for Paizocon; did anyone pick up any other information about assassin from watching that game?


Kyrone wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Beavois wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the archetypes interact with the different class features now that most are not tied to specific classes. If Beastmaster and Familiar Master require animal companion or familiar as prereqs, fine. But they'd be really interesting if the archetype actually grants some form of the companion or familiar features. For instance, a rogue taking Familiar Master to get a pet monkey to help with heists.

The familiar one grants a familiar and the Beastmaster the Animal Companion.

The Dual Weapon Master per example gives fighter Double Slice in the dedication by itself.

The dual weapon thing confirmed? Or an assumption?
Confirmed, they have a feat called Double Reload as well, but was not given details, but said that it made possible to reload even with a hand full.

I have to say I am a bit disappointed to see archetypes for fighter fighting styles. :/ The fighter has Dual-weapon feats so fighter MC should have been enough for that.

Would the Fighter dedication give a lvl1 fighter feat instead of being useless for other martials those fighting style archetypes could have been swapped for more interesting ones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Beavois wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the archetypes interact with the different class features now that most are not tied to specific classes. If Beastmaster and Familiar Master require animal companion or familiar as prereqs, fine. But they'd be really interesting if the archetype actually grants some form of the companion or familiar features. For instance, a rogue taking Familiar Master to get a pet monkey to help with heists.

The familiar one grants a familiar and the Beastmaster the Animal Companion.

The Dual Weapon Master per example gives fighter Double Slice in the dedication by itself.

The dual weapon thing confirmed? Or an assumption?
Confirmed, they have a feat called Double Reload as well, but was not given details, but said that it made possible to reload even with a hand full.

I have to say I am a bit disappointed to see archetypes for fighter fighting styles. :/ The fighter has Dual-weapon feats so fighter MC should have been enough for that.

Would the Fighter dedication give a lvl1 fighter feat instead of being useless for other martials those fighting style archetypes could have been swapped for more interesting ones.

The thing is, if you take the Fighter dedication, you can just take any style feat they have when level appropriate, and keep doing this as new styles come to mind of what you wish to do. But these archetypes are fixed in what style they support, and they offer support to all classes who really wanna go ham in that given style. So, if you only ever wanna 2h waraxe someone, you don't need to take Fighter/Barbarian dedications and get some otherwise useless junk, you just take the Mauler feats and then you're done, but if you wish to waraxe & twin dagger someone, you take the Fighter dedication.


So wait, the initial Archetype Dedication Feat grants Double Strike (as the Fighter)?

I mean it's one way to go, but I honestly find that a little surprising.

Is there any differences or is it straight up just "You get Double Strike"?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

So wait, the initial Archetype Dedication Feat grants Double Strike (as the Fighter)?

I mean it's one way to go, but I honestly find that a little surprising.

Is there any differences or is it straight up just "You get Double Strike"?

I don’t believe we know, but I suspect it’s “you get Double Strike”. I think that’s pretty reasonable, and similar to how the Playtest Cavalier Dedication straight up gave a Young animal Companion; no need to go through Druid or Ranger dedication to get an Animal Companion.


Midnightoker wrote:

So wait, the initial Archetype Dedication Feat grants Double Strike (as the Fighter)?

I mean it's one way to go, but I honestly find that a little surprising.

Is there any differences or is it straight up just "You get Double Strike"?

Probably similar to Last Wall Sentry, but with prerequisites being something like trained in martial weapons or something like that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kyrone wrote:
Probably similar to Last Wall Sentry, but with prerequisites being something like trained in martial weapons or something like that.

I’d be surprised if you needed to be trained in all martial weapons to use this. I’d imagine this would be a good feat for characters that get their weapon proficiencies from their Ancestry feats. There is also dual-wielding Rogues, though applying precision damage only once is not great for them. That said, even in that case it would be useful against e.g. enemies with Resistance or Hardness,


First World Bard wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

So wait, the initial Archetype Dedication Feat grants Double Strike (as the Fighter)?

I mean it's one way to go, but I honestly find that a little surprising.

Is there any differences or is it straight up just "You get Double Strike"?

I don’t believe we know, but I suspect it’s “you get Double Strike”. I think that’s pretty reasonable, and similar to how the Playtest Cavalier Dedication straight up gave a Young animal Companion; no need to go through Druid or Ranger dedication to get an Animal Companion.

I guess the reason I find it surprising is because it conflicts with design principles that I had heard argued many times about how "removing combat feats" was a good idea, when this just means the pool's name changed, but it's the same kinda pool.

If these abilities directly compete in the Class Feat space, and they are expansive enough to include classes, that means things like "Woodland Stride" and "Trapfinder" are now competing with "Double Strike".

Like, even on the Rogue, Twin Feint is now kinda competing against Double Strike (both in actions and in terms of selection).

Now I know Twin Feint is a level 1 Class Feat, but that just means at level 2 a Rogue wants to retrain their Level 1 Twin Feint into Double Strike (heck, most Rogues I see can get reliable Sneak Attacks off for other reasons).

It could be fine, and I'm being a little too chicken little without seeing the actual feats, but that's the fear.

It also makes me wonder if the "Dual Fighter" archetype is going to have abilities that Fighters don't get that means the Fighter now has to retrain Double Strike (and effectively get a -1 level feat selection they already qualified for).

Now all of this could be handled with the structure:

"If you already possess the Double Strike Class Feat, you may select another Feat of equal level to Double Strike as part of taking this Dedication."

or

"Prerequisite trained martial weapons"

The way they were handling TWF styles across all the Classes before gave them nuanced takes on the style.

I liked that, but also thought it would delay a lot of essential styles from being realized sooner, since printing Class Feats takes up space and that means 16 (APG total classes) would have to be printed.

It's just surprising.

Waterslethe if you're listening, I'd love to hear your thoughts

EDIT: Just to clarify, I do not know if I like this or not. I was one of the original people arguing for Combat-related General Feats being able to occupy this space. I think this implementation could be interesting. I am slightly worried about balance in terms of Class Feat vs Class Feat in terms of values, but overall it's probably fine.

I guess I just think Double Strike is really strong, on pretty much anyone that wields melee weapons, so if a Class like Rogue/Investigator/Barbarian can pick it up as a level 2 Class Feat, that's a pretty solid get, almost more so than their other choices if you want to go purely Mechanical.

This will mean most people will pick Archetypes, and vanilla classes are less likely to happen.

But honestly, idk that that's a bad thing


Well, one thing that's likely help prevent too much direct competition is the standard Archetype rule that, "You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from this archetype."

So even if an archetype directly gives something like a combat feat as part of a dedication, you can't just pick and choose a bunch of combat-style feats from different archetypes due to the restriction. Plus you'll lock yourself out of any other archetypes you want to go into if you try to do a one feat dip for something like double strike.

So it might be an improvement if you want to do a one-feat dip on an otherwise vanilla class - but the more archetypes get released the more I imagine that there'll be plenty of tempting options you wouldn't want to lock yourself out of unless your first archetype is worth grabbing at least 3 feats from (dedication + 2 more) over other feat choices.


Charon Onozuka wrote:

Well, one thing that's likely help prevent too much direct competition is the standard Archetype rule that, "You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from this archetype."

So even if an archetype directly gives something like a combat feat as part of a dedication, you can't just pick and choose a bunch of combat-style feats from different archetypes due to the restriction. Plus you'll lock yourself out of any other archetypes you want to go into if you try to do a one feat dip for something like double strike.

So it might be an improvement if you want to do a one-feat dip on an otherwise vanilla class - but the more archetypes get released the more I imagine that there'll be plenty of tempting options you wouldn't want to lock yourself out of unless your first archetype is worth grabbing at least 3 feats from (dedication + 2 more) over other feat choices.

That's the thing, I'm concerned that it will feel near mandatory to take an Archetype simply because not doing it sounds like it's going to be less "optimal".

So far, PF2 and Paizo have nailed the balance. I don't know that this would upset it necessarily, but this does make me think "have you taken your Archetype yet?" is going to be a common question in an emerging meta.

Basically, a Class that does not take an Archetype, if this is how they go, is going to be a rarity.

And that's actually not a horrible thing necessarily, it's just a bit interesting to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

If these abilities directly compete in the Class Feat space, and they are expansive enough to include classes, that means things like "Woodland Stride" and "Trapfinder" are now competing with "Double Strike".

Like, even on the Rogue, Twin Feint is now kinda competing against Double Strike (both in actions and in terms of selection).

Now I know Twin Feint is a level 1 Class Feat, but that just means at level 2 a Rogue wants to retrain their Level 1 Twin Feint into Double Strike (heck, most Rogues I see can get reliable Sneak Attacks off for other reasons).

That wouldn’t work. The Dedication is presumably a 2nd level class feat. You can’t use a first level class feat to take it. So Double Strike is competing with 2nd level class feats.

In terms of the competition: Twin Feint was always competing with Trapfinder. In fact, I had a player at PaizoCon online realize the utility of Trapfinder at my table (basically, the ability to Avoid Notice while also Searching for traps). So that trade off was always there; I don’t see this as anything new.


First World Bard wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

If these abilities directly compete in the Class Feat space, and they are expansive enough to include classes, that means things like "Woodland Stride" and "Trapfinder" are now competing with "Double Strike".

Like, even on the Rogue, Twin Feint is now kinda competing against Double Strike (both in actions and in terms of selection).

Now I know Twin Feint is a level 1 Class Feat, but that just means at level 2 a Rogue wants to retrain their Level 1 Twin Feint into Double Strike (heck, most Rogues I see can get reliable Sneak Attacks off for other reasons).

That wouldn’t work. The Dedication is presumably a 2nd level class feat. You can’t use a first level class feat to take it.

I didn't mean retrain Twin Feint into Double Strike, I meant retrain Twin Feint as soon as they acquire Double Strike because Double Strike is better than Twin Feint (it's semi-debatable, but again, most Rogue's I've seen have little issue with getting Sneak Attack).

Same concept applies to Fighter, which would then immediately want to retrain their level 1 Double Strike to some other Feat as soon as they jump into the Archetype.

It's fine because Retraining is there, but basically if someone wants to realize their concept early they are punished more than someone who waits to achieve that concept.

That seems unfair to me.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don’t see retraining as being that heavy a burden, but that certainly depends on the campaign. In PFS, the first level retrain makes it moot. In a home game: I guess talk to your GM and tell them how you want to advance, hopefully they will be accommodating. Also, note that this isn’t new to the APG: Lastwall Sentry did this by giving a Fighter 1 shield feat,


First World Bard wrote:
I don’t see retraining as being that heavy a burden, but that certainly depends on the campaign. In PFS, the first level retrain makes it moot. In a home game: I guess talk to your GM and tell them how you want to advance, hopefully they will be accommodating. Also, note that this isn’t new to the APG: Lastwall Sentry did this by giving a Fighter 1 shield feat,

It's new to the Core line, I am not familiar with every iteration in the game.

So you think that it feels good to be "taxed" retraining for a person that invested earlier than someone else?

I mean obviously any GM can make a judgement call, but Class Feats are "one week at least" in the retraining rules, and it seems REALLY backwards to me to say the person that had a Feat before they took the Dedication now has to spend 1 week to become the same character the person who just took it and didn't already have the Feat.

Player two spent 1 less level as a person with Double Strike than the first person, and somehow the first person is the one "struggling to adjust"? Pretty ridiculous tbh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


That's the thing, I'm concerned that it will feel near mandatory to take an Archetype simply because not doing it sounds like it's going to be less "optimal".

So far, PF2 and Paizo have nailed the balance. I don't know that this would upset it necessarily, but this does make me think "have you taken your Archetype yet?" is going to be a common question in an emerging meta.

Basically, a Class that does not take an Archetype, if this is how they go, is going to be a rarity.

And that's actually not a horrible thing necessarily, it's just a bit interesting to me.

When I saw Aldori Duelist in the Lost Omens book months ago, I immediately thought that the game would basically be "build your own class by using archetypes" and that basically everyone would be using be using at least one archetype, unless their character concept don't match.

Interesting enough I think that this is what will make some classes really strong like the Wizard, that have the strongest casting chassis (4 spell slots per spell level + bond + thesis), but don't have strong feats like the Druid, they can go all in the archetypes.


Midnightoker wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

If these abilities directly compete in the Class Feat space, and they are expansive enough to include classes, that means things like "Woodland Stride" and "Trapfinder" are now competing with "Double Strike".

Like, even on the Rogue, Twin Feint is now kinda competing against Double Strike (both in actions and in terms of selection).

Now I know Twin Feint is a level 1 Class Feat, but that just means at level 2 a Rogue wants to retrain their Level 1 Twin Feint into Double Strike (heck, most Rogues I see can get reliable Sneak Attacks off for other reasons).

That wouldn’t work. The Dedication is presumably a 2nd level class feat. You can’t use a first level class feat to take it.

I didn't mean retrain Twin Feint into Double Strike, I meant retrain Twin Feint as soon as they acquire Double Strike because Double Strike is better than Twin Feint (it's semi-debatable, but again, most Rogue's I've seen have little issue with getting Sneak Attack).

Same concept applies to Fighter, which would then immediately want to retrain their level 1 Double Strike to some other Feat as soon as they jump into the Archetype.

It's fine because Retraining is there, but basically if someone wants to realize their concept early they are punished more than someone who waits to achieve that concept.

That seems unfair to me.

Speaking personally, I would never plan on taking something I planned to retrain just one level later. If I wanted to play a dual wielding rogue, and I knew I could get Double Slice at 2nd level and wanted to do that, I just wouldn't pick Twin Feint at 1st.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
So you think that it feels good to be "taxed" retraining for a person that invested earlier than someone else?

I never said that. I said I didn’t see retraining as a burden here, because either a) PFS, so moot, b) I talk with the GM and they allow a free retrain at level up, or C) I talk with a GM, the retrain takes a week but it’s all offscreen downtime between sessions and the marginal cost of that downtime is measured in silver pieces. If the GM is one that enforces a cost or requires me to find a trainer in this specific case, I wouldn’t be happy, but at that point I suspect said GM would not be a good fit for my playstyle anyway.

Radiant Oath

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I guess the reason I find it surprising is because it conflicts with design principles that I had heard argued many times about how "removing combat feats" was a good idea, when this just means the pool's name changed, but it's the same kinda pool.

I don't think I ever saw them say that combat feats were being removed, simply that the system was being changed so that you didn't feel like you should spend every feat on them. Class Feats are generally combat feats, and it makes perfect sense to me that Archetype Dedications start enabling the playstyle they support immediately, rather than just being an expensive Skill Training.

Double Strike isn't automatically better than Twin Feint, since the entire benefit of Twin Feint is enabling Sneak Attack, which Double Strike doesn't do. Taking the Dedication to get it is a choice, one that locks you out of a lot of other good options in return for helping you build the character you want, and that's exactly how I want PF2 to function, so I'm very happy.


Evilgm wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I guess the reason I find it surprising is because it conflicts with design principles that I had heard argued many times about how "removing combat feats" was a good idea, when this just means the pool's name changed, but it's the same kinda pool.

I don't think I ever saw them say that combat feats were being removed, simply that the system was being changed so that you didn't feel like you should spend every feat on them. Class Feats are generally combat feats, and it makes perfect sense to me that Archetype Dedications start enabling the playstyle they support immediately, rather than just being an expensive Skill Training.

This was the reasoning for why separating "ribbons" from non-ribbons in Skill Feats.

Quote:


Double Strike isn't automatically better than Twin Feint, since the entire benefit of Twin Feint is enabling Sneak Attack, which Double Strike doesn't do. Taking the Dedication to get it is a choice, one that locks you out of a lot of other good options in return for helping you build the character you want, and that's exactly how I want PF2 to function, so I'm very happy.

Double Strike at level 1 is undoubtedly better than Double Strike at level 2 and that's exactly what a Fighter would be doing.

And while obviously Twin Feint is not the same, my point was that Twin Feint is going to look way less appetizing to a Rogue if they are interested in TWF when compared to Double Strike.

Now if the Rogue doesn't qualify for the Dedication, then okay, but that's the idea.

What if there were a new Dedication that said "you gain Twin Feint", would it still make sense to punish the Rogue a week to retrain for a Feat he literally already had just because he wanted to pick up the Dedication's other feats?

I don't think it is.

The reasoning for creating Twin Feint was to allow the Rogue their own style of TWF. By giving everyone access to Double Strike, you've pretty much invalidated the need to ever go Twin Feint.

I realize that those two aren't mutually exclusive Feats, as someone might want (and can even potentially use) both.

In the case of Fighter, DS 1 is 100% weaker than DS 2. That's objectively true.

And yet the Fighter who started with DS 1 is punished with a 1 week retrain for exemplifying his character concept sooner.

Salamileg wrote:
Speaking personally, I would never plan on taking something I planned to retrain just one level later. If I wanted to play a dual wielding rogue, and I knew I could get Double Slice at 2nd level and wanted to do that, I just wouldn't pick Twin Feint at 1st.

That's what I would do too. Would all players? idk that they would.

I mean at my tables, it's a non-issue, because I'm just going to allow it a free retrain in the case of a Fighter.

That said, the rules tell a standard GM to punish the player who picked up their concept first a week of time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Midnighttoker, I get where you are coming from. I don’t agree with your specific examples, but I can see situations where they would apply, like my Knight of Lastwall example. It’s reasonable for a Fighter that wants to be a Lastwall Sentry but also the best shield user to take Reactive Shield at 1st level. In that case, I would not be opposed to a rule that stated that they can get a free retrain of their first level class feat, since the archetype gives them that for free.
In the Twin Strike case, the feats do different things, as you acknowledge. And in the fighter case, we don’t know enough to make a judgement. If all the archetype feats are already Fighter feats, then a Fighter has no reason to take the Dedication, and it really exists to support non-fighter martial characters, since the Fighter Dedication on its own just gives them a trained skill.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The plan was always to make fighting style chains into archetypes. I made a post referencing the idea in October of 2018, right during the middle of the playtest, taken from a Jason Bulmahn comment on another thread.

1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / APG Archetypes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.