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.
To be honest, that's how things seemed to be for me when I started playing PF1, even though archetypes had to be chosen at level 1 (I don't think I've ever played a non-archetyped character). On a thematic side, archetypes feel like an expansion of your character concept. On a mechanical side, PF1 archetypes got optimized to hell of which trades made the strongest result - and even if PF2 ends up making archetypes really common I see far less potential for abuse when you have to decide between class feats vs. archetype dedications/feats vs. possibilities of other archetypes. Especially since I foresee both classes and archetypes getting more and more potential options as time goes by.
And yet the Fighter who started with DS 1 is punished with a 1 week retrain for exemplifying his character concept sooner.
This is very hypothetical considering we haven't seen the APG yet and I'd consider it highly likely that the archetype would have wording for what to do if you already had the feat. Also assuming the rest of the archtype is desirable to Fighters when it may be more for classes that don't already have access to similar options.
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.
-Rogues that want their 2nd level feat for something else class related.
-Rogues that are more concerned with being able to set up sneak attack.-Rogues that want to use two weapons while getting a different archetype.
-If Rogues ever get a feat with Twin Feint as a prerequisite & want that feat.
-If the archetype has requirements the Rogue doesn't meet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is very hypothetical considering we haven't seen the APG yet and I'd consider it highly likely that the archetype would have wording for what to do if you already had the feat. Also assuming the rest of the archtype is desirable to Fighters when it may be more for classes that don't already have access to similar options.
As others have pointed out, Last Wall Sentry currently works this way and provides no such alleviation.
But I think this conversation is probably getting out of hand.
I'm not even upset about it, ultimately, this is pretty much what I wanted from the beginning.
But it does enforce a certain kind of meta where everyone generally wants to Archetype
I hope they grandfather in Last Wall Sentry and make the decree "If a Dedication Feat grants you a feat you already have, you may retrain that Feat as part of taking the Dedication" for all Archetype feats.
TL;DR I'm fine with all of it, these are simply observations.
I thought the battle between balancing in-class feats and archetype entry feats was lost in the CRB when we had spellcaster MC dedication vs. the in-class Extra Cantrips feats.
I thought the battle between balancing in-class feats and archetype entry feats was lost in the CRB when we had spellcaster MC dedication vs. the in-class Extra Cantrips feats.
At least in the case of Dedications there's a cost ratio of variable equivalents.
Is it worth it to get Two Cantrips but lock myself out of other archetypes?
For some, the answer is simple, for others, not so much.
You also can't take an Archetype of a Class you already are, so in the case of an MCD, you can't just be a Sorcerer and pick Sorcerer.
This means you have to pick another Class, which means that other Class proficiency, ability score dependency, etc.
In this case, we're talking a non-ability score dependent ability that works when you have a weapon in each hand, and the Class that the Dedication Feat belongs to is still a Class that can take the Archetype (as well as other Classes that could potentially have wanted it before that got granted something else).
Even in the case of say, the Rogue's Minor Magic vs. Sorcerer Dedication, there's ways to foster the choice in Class by having that feat as a requirement. Extra Cantrips could be a requirement for another Feat down the line that makes it stand out.
When I heard "archetypes for Fighting styles", I had assumed that each Fighting style would be getting it's own unique set of Feats that differentiate the style, not granting Feats that other Classes already get (though I'll admit it saves space and is probably more efficient).
The downside of that though is the overlap issue I mention. Probably fine, just again, observations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't having the feat for one level to do the thing you want versus some meta gamer who suffers not having their build defining style for a level be the perk of going in early? What if it took you a month to hit second level, would that make the week retraining feel less punishing?
Not sure how I feel about it all, I hope there are rules for those that already have these archetype basics to get a lot out of them and not be so clumsy about getting in.
Wouldn't having the feat for one level to do the thing you want versus some meta gamer who suffers not having their build defining style for a level be the perk of going in early? What if it took you a month to hit second level, would that make the week retraining feel less punishing?
Not sure how I feel about it all, I hope there are rules for those that already have these archetype basics to get a lot out of them and not be so clumsy about getting in.
To me it's not "You get a whole level to do your thing", because both Fighters in the scenario of taking the Archetype got to do that.
They both got all of the benefits of their 1st level Feat for all of first level.
The only difference is Fighter #1 (who had DS) has to spend a Week to do the effectively exact same thing as Fighter #2 (take advantage of the Archetype) despite the fact that if anything it should be the opposite.
The issue isn't with the level 1 Feat, it's that if a Fighter who wants the whole Archetype (which could include other such Feats related to TWF) chooses to be a TWF sooner than he takes the Archetype he's sort of punished for it.
Someone shouldn't be punished for pursuing their character concept early. If anything they should be rewarded for it, but I would at least expect them not to be punished.
I'm not even arguing that it shouldn't cost them a level 2 Feat to get a level 1 Class Feat, because presumably the Archetype is going to have incentives that make taking the Archetype worth it, I'm pointing out that the person who was MORE TRAINED to be a TWF has to do more retraining than a person that doesn't, which makes no sense.
It was said that the combat archetypes would not be of much interest for the fighter, just like the Ranger would not go after the Archer one and gave the example that classes like Rogues and Wizards would be after them.
It was said that the combat archetypes would not be of much interest for the fighter, just like the Ranger would not go after the Archer one and gave the example that classes like Rogues and Wizards would be after them.
That means most Barbarians are going to be mandatory archetypes then (mandatory is a strong word here, but it's certainly more optimal).
I fail to see how Archer and Ranger are going to closely align unless Hunt Prey is part of that Archetype, since all of Ranger's abilities are kinda contingent on that (honestly, Fighter has more stand-alone bow feats than Ranger by my count).
These sound like Multiclassing shortcuts effectively, which again can be fine, but I guess it depends on which Class they use for the model of the Archetype itself.
Some archetypes allow other feats beyond those in their entry. These are typically class feats, such as fighter feats that represent certain combat styles. The list of additional feats includes the feat's name, it's level, and the page number where it appears. You can take the feat as an archetype feat of that level, meaning it counts toward the number of feats required by the archetype's dedication feat. When selected this way, a feat that normally has a class trait doesn't have that class trait.
Yeah it looks that the combat styles are indeed or mostly multiclass shortcuts for some feats with some unique feats to them.
I believe that they commented about the Ranger because the class already have their own archery feats.
|
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...
That's an assumption. My assumption is they created Twin Feint as a way to allow Rogues to always Sneak Attack if needed. And if a Rogue really wanted to focus on Two-Weapon Fighting, I don't see why they would be unhappy having both options, and perhaps retraining later when the Party are better able to set up their Sneak Attacks.
But it does enforce a certain kind of meta where everyone generally wants to Archetype
That was true when the Core Rulebook was printed. Across all the Classes, very few have 2nd level Feats worth taking, and often those that are any good are just "gain access to the other Class tree you didn't pick at first". Barbarians, Rangers and Rogue 2nd level Feats tend to be hyper-situational to the point of uselessness, and the 2nd level Sorcerer options are "more Cantrips" and "I hope you already have a Familiar".
Everyone wanting an Archetype is not only fine, it's awesome. As long as people don't all want the same Archetype (which would represent a significant and unlikely failure in Design), it allows players to better realise the character concept they're playing- the Class choice is just the framework, not the finish line.
I'm not even arguing that it shouldn't cost them a level 2 Feat to get a level 1 Class Feat, because presumably the Archetype is going to have incentives that make taking the Archetype worth it, I'm pointing out that the person who was MORE TRAINED to be a TWF has to do more retraining than a person that doesn't, which makes no sense.
Honestly unless you're playing with a comedically strict GM I don't see this being an issue- even PFS lets you retrain your 1st level Feat before your first game at 2nd level. The rules are designed to allow for flexibility and GM fiat because there are edge cases like this very specific scenario where a character took a Feat and wants to take it again a different way that rules written for the more common and general scenarios just won't cover. If a GM won't let me change my 1st level Feat even though I'd still have it anyway, then I genuinely would question whether I want to play with them, because they're putting the letter of the law about the spirit of it. Basically this situation is a bug, but it's a minor one that is easily fixed with a mature conversation.
Ranger in general probably doesn’t even want other feats either because it needs the action economy feats for Hunt Prey.
I mean maybe you could swing both, but Twin takedown into Double Strike isn’t the greatest value IMO.
Now I’m wondering what the Fighter is going to have to differentiate them if the plan was to auction off all their feats to archetypes (assuming martial artist is monk though).
Hopefully fighter isn’t the only class these shortcuts are coming from.
And Evil Gm on the “everyone taking archetypes is a good thing” I think it depends.
If the base class feats can’t compete against archetype feats then I think that could lead to balance issues similar to 3.5, where it was pretty much mandatory you grabbed a prestige class at level 6 or you’d be behind. As long as there is a reasonable amount of incentive to keep taking feats within your class I think it’s fine for sure, but forcing people to pick up archetypes IMO is something that leads to imbalance in terms of players with knowledge and new players at a table. A new player may never wander outside their class for feats because they don’t understand what archetype to pick, nothing sound right, or maybe they just don’t want to. Those players should feel as strong as non archetype players IMO.
Edit: on the note of bugs, that’s exactly what I’m thinking and it’s because I’m thinking about players and gms the same way I think about users for software. “How could someone ‘do this wrong’?”. In the software world someone will inevitably do it the wrong way, it’s basically a certainty.
There will always be bugs.
Paizo has done an amazing job. My favorite TTRPG Ive played, not an exaggeration.
Even in this case it might not even be a bug. Maybe the Archetypes have a means of addressing it or maybe it just won’t matter.
I’m really excited to be able to play a dual fighter on more characters. That’s awesome. No more chicken littling for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far, the balance at second level has seemed very fair. A caster dedication gives you two cantrips, same as a second level caster feat. The TWF dedication gives you a first level Fighter feat. The Familiar Master dedication gives you a familiar, same as a first level caster feat. If a class doesn't have any first or second level feats worth taking compared to a dedication, sure, that should be improved, but the power that archetypes are handing out seems to be on point with what other classes get from feats for the level.
Barbarians, Rangers and Rogue 2nd level Feats tend to be hyper-situational to the point of uselessness, and the 2nd level Sorcerer options are "more Cantrips" and "I hope you already have a Familiar".
I do feel it's unfair to only look at their second-level feats, when the archetypes are giving out first-level options that you're considering. After all, if you don't already have a familiar on your Sorc, you can take that first level feat. (Which is what you're usually expected to do.) That's of the same power an archetype would give you.
|
|
I do feel it's unfair to only look at their second-level feats, when the archetypes are giving out first-level options that you're considering. After all, if you don't already have a familiar on your Sorc, you can take that first level feat. (Which is what you're usually expected to do.) That's of the same power an archetype would give you.
So far Dedications have usually been better than just a 1st level Feat, as they include a skill training. The later ones even allow a non-Rogue to get to Expert in time to pick up a relevant Skill Feat, which can be a big bonus for certain builds. This is sort of balanced by the restriction on going into more than one early, but that's only a restriction if there's another one you'd also like to go into. Assuming Familiar Master just gives the "Familiar" feat identical to the Sorcerer one, based on how Dedications have worked so far, you would be better off with the Archetype than the Sorcerer Feat, as you would get another Skill. This does, of course, assume they come with a Skill, which admittedly not every Dedication has.
There's also Natural Ambition, a Feat I wish didn't exist- if you really want to get two 1st level Feats from a class, you're generally best off just going Human or a variant. With 2 free stat options AND access to several good Heritages, Humans are rarely a sub-optimal choice. Obviously this is entirely from a Mechanical point of view, not factoring in the Roleplay element.
So far Dedications have usually been better than just a 1st level Feat, as they include a skill training. The later ones even allow a non-Rogue to get to Expert in time to pick up a relevant Skill Feat, which can be a big bonus for certain builds. This is sort of balanced by the restriction on going into more than one early, but that's only a restriction if there's another one you'd also like to go into. Assuming Familiar Master just gives the "Familiar" feat identical to the Sorcerer one, based on how Dedications have worked so far, you would be better off with the Archetype than the Sorcerer Feat, as you would get another Skill. This does, of course, assume they come with a Skill, which admittedly not every Dedication has.
That's fair! Missing out on a trained skill or two as the cost for characters sticking with class feats is an optimization reward range I'm chill with. I'm already grabbing Perform on non-Bards, after all.
There's also Natural Ambition, a Feat I wish didn't exist- if you really want to get two 1st level Feats from a class, you're generally best off just going Human or a variant. With 2 free stat options AND access to several good Heritages, Humans are rarely a sub-optimal choice. Obviously this is entirely from a Mechanical point of view, not factoring in the Roleplay element.
Sure, but that's bringing part of an ancestry's power into the class feat balance consideration. It's like saying non-multiclass dedications are weaker because elves are already going to have a multiclass dedication feat from their heritage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we have to wait another year now for this book to come out? I have characters suffering now because I can't make them the way I want them to be.
? The APG will be out in 1-2 months in some capacity. We don’t have to wait a year.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a lot is being made out of not much. Archetypes being good at letting you do things your core class doesn't do on its own and compelling options for anyone who wants to branch out seems... like a really good thing.
So I'm not sure why there's so much hand wringing going on over it.
|
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.
I'd just say if an archetype duplicates a feat you already have, you can retrain that feat for free in my home games. (IE just choose another feat instead)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did they say these would all be available at level 2? It seems to be stated as a fact, so I’m wondering if this was in the AMAs or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did they say these would all be available at level 2? It seems to be stated as a fact, so I’m wondering if this was in the AMAs or something.
Every single archetype released so far, multiclass or otherwise, has their Dedication starting feat at at least Level 2. So it's probably safe to say most future archetypes will be the same.
Doesn't mean you can't do something like the optional free archetype variant rule in the GMG.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did they say these would all be available at level 2? It seems to be stated as a fact, so I’m wondering if this was in the AMAs or something.Every single archetype released so far, multiclass or otherwise, has their Dedication starting feat at at least Level 2. So it's probably safe to say most future archetypes will be the same.
They have previously said that some 'prestige class' style Archetypes might have a higher level minimum, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if we get some of those in the APG, but I very much doubt that ones dealing with fundamental fighting style like these will be among them and I do agree that most will continue to be level 2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did they say these would all be available at level 2? It seems to be stated as a fact, so I’m wondering if this was in the AMAs or something.Every single archetype released so far, multiclass or otherwise, has their Dedication starting feat at at least Level 2. So it's probably safe to say most future archetypes will be the same.
Doesn't mean you can't do something like the optional free archetype variant rule in the GMG.
The Golem Grafter archetype from Extinction Curse has it's dedication feat at level 8, and its prereq's can't be met by nonrogues until level 7. It's definitely not a guaranteed thing that they will be at level 2, and if they were it would be somewhat limiting in terms of what prereqs could be.
The Golem Grafter archetype from Extinction Curse has it's dedication feat at level 8, and its prereq's can't be met by nonrogues until level 7. It's definitely not a guaranteed thing that they will be at level 2, and if they were it would be somewhat limiting in terms of what prereqs could be.Did they say these would all be available at level 2? It seems to be stated as a fact, so I’m wondering if this was in the AMAs or something.Every single archetype released so far, multiclass or otherwise, has their Dedication starting feat at at least Level 2. So it's probably safe to say most future archetypes will be the same.
Doesn't mean you can't do something like the optional free archetype variant rule in the GMG.
That was what I meant. I assumed they would be at least 2, but the assumption that you’d be able to get the Two Weapon archetype at level 2, as a for instance, and not level 4 or 6 or whatever, was one I found curious.
Edit: The reason I bring this up is that, currently, if you wanted Double Slice as a non-fighter, you have to pick up both the fighter dedication AND basic maneuver, which would make the Two Weapon dedication more efficient than the fighter dedication if you did not need or want martial weapons training. But starting the Two Weapon at 4 gives you at least an equal trade between the two options, and starting at 6 protects Double Slice as a fighter only choice for several levels.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking, most Multiclass archtypes have a feat that lets you pick any feat of the class - but your level is effectively halved.
Multiclass archetypes probably exchange a narrower selection for a better level ratio so you don't need to be lvl 8 for a lvl 4 feat.
I'm just spitballing here but that would be a nice exchange
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any speculation / confirmation these Archetypes have similar "loyalty" that multiclass archetypes do?
(Ya know, the verbiage about "must choose 3 feats before leaving this archetype...)
That's standard on all Archetypes, and I strongly doubt we'll ever see on that doesn't have it.
Now, some Archetypes have Skill Feats as part of them, which do count towards this, making the number effectively lower in some ways. I very much doubt the weapon style archetypes fall under that category, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vigilante is possible to take the archetype at lvl 1, but you have to spend your lvl 2 feat on it.
I can see Snarecrafter and Ritualist being higher lvl and the later even uncommon, because was confirmed that while most of the archetypes are common a few of them are not.
Edit: The reason I bring this up is that, currently, if you wanted Double Slice as a non-fighter, you have to pick up both the fighter dedication AND basic maneuver, which would make the Two Weapon dedication more efficient than the fighter dedication if you did not need or want martial weapons training. But starting the Two Weapon at 4 gives you at least an equal trade between the two options, and starting at 6 protects Double Slice as a fighter only choice for several levels.
I suspect that is intentional. The value proposition to take Fighter multiclass for a character already happy with their weapon proficiencies just isn’t there. I understand niche protection, but presumably that has been expanded to this Archetype. There is no need for an equal trade between the two options. If there was, why bother making a separate dedication? Just have people go Fighter MC. And lets say you want Double Slice AND attack of opportunity? Looks like you will take the Fighter Dedication regardless.
Has there been anything explicitly stated for what Fighters are getting in this book?
I really love the new Fighter and I'm hoping they have some new rules to shine in this book in way that doesn't mean they have to stop being only Fighters.
Then again maybe that was the point? Perhaps that's the reasoning on Monks/Fighters not getting paths, because they are intended to be the "archetype" classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has there been anything explicitly stated for what Fighters are getting in this book?
I really love the new Fighter and I'm hoping they have some new rules to shine in this book in way that doesn't mean they have to stop being only Fighters.
Then again maybe that was the point? Perhaps that's the reasoning on Monks/Fighters not getting paths, because they are intended to be the "archetype" classes.
Fighters are getting lots of new feats that are flourishes, presses, and reactions, plus a new stance. I don't think any specifics have been said, but I'm sure there's at least a few feats that aren't any of those things.
Edit: The reason I bring this up is that, currently, if you wanted Double Slice as a non-fighter, you have to pick up both the fighter dedication AND basic maneuver, which would make the Two Weapon dedication more efficient than the fighter dedication if you did not need or want martial weapons training. But starting the Two Weapon at 4 gives you at least an equal trade between the two options, and starting at 6 protects Double Slice as a fighter only choice for several levels.I suspect that is intentional. The value proposition to take Fighter multiclass for a character already happy with their weapon proficiencies just isn’t there. I understand niche protection, but presumably that has been expanded to this Archetype. There is no need for an equal trade between the two options. If there was, why bother making a separate dedication? Just have people go Fighter MC. And lets say you want Double Slice AND attack of opportunity? Looks like you will take the Fighter Dedication regardless.
But that’s all a guess. I was asking originally because everyone was taking it as an absolute given, and wringing their hands over it when it seems like no one actually knows for sure.
And the reason for making a separate dedication for it seems obvious to me: fighters don’t have a monopoly on two weapon fighting styles. They don’t even necessarily have the best. There’s two ways to go about it in game right now: 2 strikes with combined damage, and the feat saves either an action (1 action for 2 strikes) or MAP (both strikes at the same MAP) (And then there’s rogues, but whatever). Fighters do get both, eventually, but the former option is heavily restricted by tags. An archetype that gives both options, a way to combine them, and probably even new ways of using them would be pretty valuable to spend page space on. Even without that, even if the archetype simply gives access to the same two weapon flurry at the same levels as a fighter after the initial dedication, that’s still worth printing, because you can’t actually get that from the fighter dedication. Level +2 is still good, still faster than you could get from the MC, but would leave fighters as having earlier access as a reason to pick that class over a dedication.
Edit: I suppose I've talked myself into hoping that's exactly what gets implemented: fighting style archetypes that are mostly just access to fighter feats become level 4 archetypes. The exception being martial artist; THAT needs to be level 2, unless part of what this book has is broader access to "unarmed strike" feats at level 1 for all martial classes the way most have access to different flavors of TWF and THW feats. Ideally, the APG also has TWF and THW feats for the classes that don't currently have them, like the Barbarian or Rogue respectively.
In the same way that the Dual Weapon Master will have unique feats for the Archetype, I believe that they will only have a few dual weapon feats of the fighter and not all of them.
If I would to guess the Archetype would have the Twin Parry + Riposte as well.
While the Fighter would still have exclusive access to Agile Grace, Two Weapon Flurry, Twinned Defense and Graceful Poise
In the same way that the Dual Weapon Master will have unique feats for the Archetype, I believe that they will only have a few dual weapon feats of the fighter and not all of them.
If I would to guess the Archetype would have the Twin Parry + Riposte as well.
While the Fighter would still have exclusive access to Agile Grace, Two Weapon Flurry, Twinned Defense and Graceful Poise
I would actually be pretty surprised if Two Weapon Flurry wasn't in the Archetype
Riposte/Twin Parry sound like nuanced ways of Fighting with two weapons to me, where as Flurry/Double Slice are generic "I swing with two weapons" abilities.
Or are you saying that's confirmed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the same way that the Dual Weapon Master will have unique feats for the Archetype, I believe that they will only have a few dual weapon feats of the fighter and not all of them.
If I would to guess the Archetype would have the Twin Parry + Riposte as well.
While the Fighter would still have exclusive access to Agile Grace, Two Weapon Flurry, Twinned Defense and Graceful Poise
I would actually be pretty surprised if Two Weapon Flurry wasn't in the Archetype
Riposte/Twin Parry sound like nuanced ways of Fighting with two weapons to me, where as Flurry/Double Slice are generic "I swing with two weapons" abilities.
Or are you saying that's confirmed?
Only gut feeling, Ranger have the Riposte and Twin Parry as well, so it kinda lead me to believe that the designers think that being able to parry and counter with two weapons is a big part of the style.
I actually kind of agree with Midnight's guess, along with Graceful Poise winding up part of it. But you may well be correct. That Dwarves get a similar ability with their clan knives is suggestive as well. Though that one specifically doesn't require 2 weapons, it is worded similarly enough that I look at it for inspiration.
Edit: I should note my own prejudices are at work here. In game, I almost never choose to defend when I can attack, leading me to undervalue defensive options, or at best see them as an extra.
I actually kind of agree with Midnight's guess, along with Graceful Poise winding up part of it. But you may well be correct. That Dwarves get a similar ability with their clan knives is suggestive as well. Though that one specifically doesn't require 2 weapons, it is worded similarly enough that I look at it for inspiration.
Edit: I should note my own prejudices are at work here. In game, I almost never choose to defend when I can attack, leading me to undervalue defensive options, or at best see them as an extra.
And that's a fair point, I think I am biased for aggressive action as well.
The Twin parry and Riposte is also on Swashbuckler's I believe, so that does lead credence to Kyrone's guess.
I would still be surprised if Flurry didn't make the cut, but I kinda agree those would be in there now.
Do we have any indication as to the number of Feats allocated per archetype? I would imagine there's like a consistent number for the most part (minimum 4 I would suppose).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Archetype is only one page (page 170), so most likely between 5-7 feats counting the dedication like the lost omens ones, and archetypes kinda try to have more options at the lower levels of it so people can get the 2 feats to get out of the archetype if they wish.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are getting lots of new feats that are flourishes, presses, and reactions, plus a new stance. I don't think any specifics have been said, but I'm sure there's at least a few feats that aren't any of those things.Has there been anything explicitly stated for what Fighters are getting in this book?
I really love the new Fighter and I'm hoping they have some new rules to shine in this book in way that doesn't mean they have to stop being only Fighters.
Then again maybe that was the point? Perhaps that's the reasoning on Monks/Fighters not getting paths, because they are intended to be the "archetype" classes.
Logan Bonner mentioned a specific thing Fighters will be able to do is drag their enemies. So who knows how that'll play out.
Logan Bonner mentioned a specific thing Fighters will be able to do is drag their enemies. So who knows how that'll play out.Fighters are getting lots of new feats that are flourishes, presses, and reactions, plus a new stance. I don't think any specifics have been said, but I'm sure there's at least a few feats that aren't any of those things.Has there been anything explicitly stated for what Fighters are getting in this book?
I really love the new Fighter and I'm hoping they have some new rules to shine in this book in way that doesn't mean they have to stop being only Fighters.
Then again maybe that was the point? Perhaps that's the reasoning on Monks/Fighters not getting paths, because they are intended to be the "archetype" classes.
Battlefield Control on a Fighter? Yes, please.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting fact, these archetypes have more pages than the others, having 2 pages each:
Beastmaster
Cavalier
Dragon Disciple
Eldritch Archer
Marshal
Shadow Dancer
Vigilante
Maybe because they have more feats, focus spells in the page or even mechanics that needs some explanation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: The reason I bring this up is that, currently, if you wanted Double Slice as a non-fighter, you have to pick up both the fighter dedication AND basic maneuver, which would make the Two Weapon dedication more efficient than the fighter dedication if you did not need or want martial weapons training. But starting the Two Weapon at 4 gives you at least an equal trade between the two options, and starting at 6 protects Double Slice as a fighter only choice for several levels.I suspect that is intentional. The value proposition to take Fighter multiclass for a character already happy with their weapon proficiencies just isn’t there. I understand niche protection, but presumably that has been expanded to this Archetype. There is no need for an equal trade between the two options. If there was, why bother making a separate dedication? Just have people go Fighter MC. And lets say you want Double Slice AND attack of opportunity? Looks like you will take the Fighter Dedication regardless.
Exactly this. I find the weapon style archetypes interesting because one of my characters was a TWF Barbarian. Barbarian has absolutely no support for TWF, so I ended up multiclassing Fighter to get Double Slice. Fighter dedication, and even other Fighter feats, generally gives you nothing as a Barbarian.
Any speculation / confirmation these Archetypes have similar "loyalty" that multiclass archetypes do?
(Ya know, the verbiage about "must choose 3 feats before leaving this archetype...)
That's standard on all Archetypes, and I strongly doubt we'll ever see on that doesn't have it.
...
There is the interesting case of the Magaambyan Attendant which makes an exception for the Halcyon Speaker Dedication.
You cannot select another dedication feat other than Halcyon Speaker Dedication until you have gained two other feats from the Magaambyan Attendant or halcyon speaker archetype.
We might see more "Archetype Chains" like this one. Possibly when they introduce some of the "Prestige Archetypes." I'm thinking of how, in PF1, the Magaambyan Initiate Arcanist archetype was created to allow Arcanists to meet the prerequisites for the Magaambyan Arcanist prestige class.
Interesting fact, these archetypes have more pages than the others, having 2 pages each:
Beastmaster
Cavalier
Dragon Disciple
Eldritch Archer
Marshal
Shadow Dancer
VigilanteMaybe because they have more feats, focus spells in the page or even mechanics that needs some explanation.
It's also possible that some of them just have larger pieces of artwork on their pages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also possible that some of them just have larger pieces of artwork on their pages.Interesting fact, these archetypes have more pages than the others, having 2 pages each:
Beastmaster
Cavalier
Dragon Disciple
Eldritch Archer
Marshal
Shadow Dancer
VigilanteMaybe because they have more feats, focus spells in the page or even mechanics that needs some explanation.
Considering some of these (Dragon Disciple, Shadow Dancer, Eldritch Archer) were previously Prestige Classes, it wouldn't surprise me if they were in fact Prestige Archetypes, but the I would have expected Assassin and Loremaster as well (though loremaster is probably being moved to a Skill Archetype if I had to guess).
I also wouldn't be surprised if the vigilante had some sidebars about ways they can fit into campaigns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any speculation / confirmation these Archetypes have similar "loyalty" that multiclass archetypes do?
(Ya know, the verbiage about "must choose 3 feats before leaving this archetype...)
That's standard on all Archetypes, and I strongly doubt we'll ever see on that doesn't have it.
...
There is the interesting case of the Magaambyan Attendant which makes an exception for the Halcyon Speaker Dedication.
You cannot select another dedication feat other than Halcyon Speaker Dedication until you have gained two other feats from the Magaambyan Attendant or halcyon speaker archetype.We might see more "Archetype Chains" like this one. Possibly when they introduce some of the "Prestige Archetypes." I'm thinking of how, in PF1, the Magaambyan Initiate Arcanist archetype was created to allow Arcanists to meet the prerequisites for the Magaambyan Arcanist prestige class.
Hellknight Armiger works this way with Hellknight and Hellknight Signifier, and I believe Pathfinder Adept works this way with Scrollmaster/Swordmaster/Spellmaster. So it seems highly likely we will see more of that.
Student of Perfection gives Ki strike at second level.
Student of Perfection gives Ki strike at second level.
And it also gives two trained skills, and bumps them up to expert if you have them. Which shows that a level 1 feat is considered a fairly standard part of a level 2 dedication.