| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Source Core Rulebook pg. 219
Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class’s specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class’s static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class’s initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype’s dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like Kyrone said, the rules for them exist. We just don't have any yet, and we don't know when we will (it's been confirmed that none are in the APG).
As mentioned above, class archetypes aren't gone - they're just waiting to get content since all we have at the moment are the CRB and a few misc archetypes from side books.
The upcoming APG looks like it'll be our primary source of archetypes in the near future - and I'm personally happy that our current standard allows for archtypes that can easily be picked up by many classes rather than how PF1 required an archetype concept to be printed half-a-dozen times if you wanted different classes to have access to that concept (& left you out of luck if your fav class didn't happen to get a variation).
Overall, I really don't mind waiting for that content to show up - especially since it seems like something a bit more narrow/specific when the system is still playing a bit of catch-up on overall content concepts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just an aside, I have found that often when someone is thinking pf1 class + archetype There is already a path in 2e to do that. It may just mean that you have to think a little differently and really focus on the core end goal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first one that came to mind was the AntiPaladin which would of course come back as an evil Champion archetype (or you could use one of the alternate alignment rules)
We will have Evil Champions in the APG. It's not an Archetype, just a different Tennet. (Tennets of Evil, instead of Tennets of Good, obviously).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To note: Antipaladins are already coming back in APG without needing an archetype - as the Champion class was written to allow such as a class path without needing an archetype.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure the Cavalier was already confirmed to be a regular archetype in APG
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, if you want to do something like "the fighter who is really good at fighting underwater" you don't need to do an archetype anymore, you can just print fighter feats that make you good at fighting underwater.
The point of class archetypes now is so that you can have a version of a class that lacks something that's part of the base chassis (e.g. a rogue without sneak attack) and give them something commensurate in return.
I for one love the new direction of class archetypes and archetypes.
if i want to play classes with class options and feats PF is always there. Still a great game as well!
Also topical is how many PF1 class archetypes needed to be recreated for each similar class, i.e. gun archetypes.
PF2 can simply drop a single archetype which works for several classes, perhaps all (except the lonely Alchemist) if you pepper it with feats both for martials & casters.
And as mentioned, new Tenets, Edges, Doctrines (pseudo-archetypes already), etc. can be introduced too without disturbing the core of the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still hoping we get archetypes soon that kind of flip some assumptions about classes on their head.
People are right about a lot of ideas being implementable as class paths or feats, but I still think there's room for stuff like an SA-free rogue, or an urban ranger that allows you to flip natural- based mechanics ones or have things run of Society instead of Nature.
The thing is, if you want to do something like "the fighter who is really good at fighting underwater" you don't need to do an archetype anymore, you can just print fighter feats that make you good at fighting underwater.
That's what I was trying to say :)
I'm still hoping we get archetypes soon that kind of flip some assumptions about classes on their head.
People are right about a lot of ideas being implementable as class paths or feats, but I still think there's room for stuff like an SA-free rogue, or an urban ranger that allows you to flip natural- based mechanics ones or have things run of Society instead of Nature.
The Monster Hunter line and Outwit Edge gets you most of the way already for the second. The investigator will have feats to poach that will close the rest of the gap. I'd be surprised if they didn't give them to the ranger as well, as Urban tracking seems like an obvious thing they'd want, but if not MC would work.
SA-less rogue would require a class archetype though, agreed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really liked PF1 archetypes and how you could mix and match to fit your character.
Sadly, I think that there isn't much room for class archetypes with how few actual features classes have. Also the fact you must take an Archetype feat at level 2 makes me question what that would even look like.
Mix and match is even easier now with Class feats. Multiclassing will get you more, except for the reserved class features.
And you will be able to get Class archetypes at level 1.
Class archetypes will really only be needed for specific cases where you need the Class base chassis without some of the class features.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer the new style of archetypes, the modularity of the class chassis, and the ability to have any class become excellent at any given skill over time. I am seriously looking forward to expanded options from the APG for the core classes as much if not more than the new classes.
Not to mention the ton of Archetypes coming- then number of characters you will be able to create with the books up to APG is AMAZING.
I really liked PF1 archetypes and how you could mix and match to fit your character.
Sadly, I think that there isn't much room for class archetypes with how few actual features classes have. Also the fact you must take an Archetype feat at level 2 makes me question what that would even look like.
Mix and match is even easier now with Class feats. Multiclassing will get you more, except for the reserved class features.
And you will be able to get Class archetypes at level 1.
Class archetypes will really only be needed for specific cases where you need the Class base chassis without some of the class features.
I'm fairly certain they said that those Class Archetypes that would replace a class feature from level 1 would be available to be started at first level, you wouldn't need to wait til second level for them, however they would effectively take/use up their second level feat before they even get it, where they sort of go in debt for that feat in second level. I'm sure the archetype dedication would be designed so it didn't grant a 1st level character anything more powerful than they lost from their primary class chassis, so there wouldn't be a balance issue in making it an option. Presumably then when they get to second level they probably get some more, similar to as if they come into their own for their archetype.
I think that in many respects the fact that many things that might have been packaged in as a class feature became class feats make a lot of the mix and match far easier to complete now in second edition. The one thing you lose was many classes had more features, so level by level, second edition may have less feats to buy back the features. Also in some cases features were just numeric boosters, so some of them might not be as missed, but others like animal companions/vs. domains, vs minor spellcasting, those might be features that now have to be bought, while in first edition you could have traded the one you didn't want for something else you did.
In the end I think this is a better foundation to build on. I still feel like if you were trying to rebuild a 1st edition character while not losing any notable features you came to feel were a part of them, you might want to consider using the increased number of racial feats, potentially increase the number of class feats, or potentially grant a free archetype to each character.
All that said, having gotten to DM some encounters, frequently having an NPC that I sort of have had some control over, or have gotten to help my kids make characters, I've gotten to where I don't feel like brand new characters generally have a reasonable number of abilities to make them fun. I still would enjoy the idea of a pirate campaign with a free choice of a pirate or perhaps some select few other appropriate archetypes. I could see that providing a lot of fun and flavor for a campaign. I also have contemplated using an extra multi-class archetype free option to deal a little with being short players, since I normally only have two or three other players.
It might be cool if the Dev's could toss out in a blog an example of a class archetype so people have a better idea of what their plans are. But perhaps they haven't decided exactly how to word and balance the class archetypes, so maybe that is why we haven't seen one just yet. They may want to playtest their first one to make sure they have it they way they want. I know the Devs said part of why they didn't do them in the first playtest was that they already knew how 1st edition archetypes worked, so they didn't need to playtest them.
One thing with this framework is any archetype will need to be worth not just the feature being replaced, but it plus the value of a second level feat. Some of the archetypes were pretty minor, and as a result were easily mixed with other archetypes in first edition. That will be less doable in second edition. However, most of those probably should have been implemented as class feats instead of class features, so hopefully that shouldn't be an issue.
I very much enjoy class archetypes. Being able to fine tune a class without needing to multiclass is sweet as heck, and given I feel there are vastly fewer class feats to go around than I would like, class archetypes are right up my alley.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One nice thing is how many former class archetypes can be made into feats, class paths, and regular archetypes now. Now, the only time they need to make a class-specific archetype is when you dislike a class feature and need a way to trade it.
|
|
It might be cool if the Dev's could toss out in a blog an example of a class archetype so people have a better idea of what their plans are. But perhaps they haven't decided exactly how to word and balance the class archetypes, so maybe that is why we haven't seen one just yet. They may want to playtest their first one to make sure they have it they way they want. I know the Devs said part of why they didn't do them in the first playtest was that they already knew how 1st edition archetypes worked, so they didn't need to playtest them.
IIRC one of the devs wrote that they had not yet found a concept that worked better as a Class Archetype rather than one of the other options they now have (not-Class Archetype, Class feats, new Class,...).
Hence why none had been published yet and none would be in the APG.
It might be cool if the Dev's could toss out in a blog an example of a class archetype so people have a better idea of what their plans are. But perhaps they haven't decided exactly how to word and balance the class archetypes, so maybe that is why we haven't seen one just yet. They may want to playtest their first one to make sure they have it they way they want. I know the Devs said part of why they didn't do them in the first playtest was that they already knew how 1st edition archetypes worked, so they didn't need to playtest them.IIRC one of the devs wrote that they had not yet found a concept that worked better as a Class Archetype rather than one of the other options they now have (not-Class Archetype, Class feats, new Class,...).
Hence why none had been published yet and none would be in the APG.
We've been effective told of some examples of this, with Zen Archer and Drunken Fist being confirmed to be turned into feat lines for the Monk. Now any Monk can pick them up!
Some people seem to be overlooking in PF1 you had to accept the whole archetype, warts & all. And whether you could mix two archetypes was a matter of coincidence rather than a player option.
Not to mention all the mutt-builds which made a mockery of game balance (especially saving throws!) Yes, I'm guilty. :)
It's hard to imagine a PF1 class archetype that couldn't be replicated as an MC or "Other/feat" archetype in PF2. As QuidEst noted, a class archetype leans more toward what you don't want than what you do want (which feats/tenets/rackets/etc. can often pull off).
And if as Paizo's said the APG doesn't have class archetypes and maybe does have Zen Archer & Drunken Fist, then those aren't class archetypes (even if they sync best with/appeal most to Monks).
The Monster Hunter line and Outwit Edge gets you most of the way already for the second.
I mean, one of the things I imagine such an archetype doing is providing adjustments to things like Monster Hunter and Camoflauge and class features like Nature's Edge as options to make them fit the theme better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Proficiency increases are absolutely a thing we're going to need class archetypes to play with. Something like a monk archetype that changes their legendary proficiency in unarmed defense to a legendary proficiency in unarmed attacks, for example.
I'd like to see something like the Fey-touched Hexer class archetype for the Witch. Turns them into Charisma Spontaneous Casters and replaces a single Hex you get (probably the first one now, but it was like your level 5 one in PF1) with a set of fey wings.
Something that changes the Barbarian's rage feature so that instead of being a rage you go into a state of emotional hyper-focus, totally changing the bonuses that it gives you.
A Fighter that gets Legendary in Armor instead of Weapons and a Champion that gets Legendary in Weapons instead of Armor. I could see a Monk that replaces something that he gets with Legendary in Unarmed Strikes as well.
For something more extreme...lets say a Sorcerer that has 12 HP per level, higher saves, and the ability to always get one degree of success better on saves for their own spells (eventually getting to auto-critical successes on their own spell saves), but in return they loose all spell slots other than their two highest levels (so at Level 10 you'd have 4 level 5 spell slots and 4 level 4 spell slots, and that's it). No Cantrips either, except for maybe a special feat given as an option for this archetype that gives you 2 Cantrips at level 8 or something.