| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In online or home games, how often do you guys feel it's common?
Is it worth planning out a character with free archetype ruleset to broaden the concepts, or do too few people use it these days?
Personally I'd wish it was core rule, maybe limited to non-multiclass archetypes to open up things even more, but I understand some people might not like it. What's your experience with it so far?
|
Haven't run this specific variant but before the GMG released I instead offered my last group one free Class, Ancestry, or General/Skill Feat to select at level one to help them round off their Character.
I'm looking at spinning up a new game now that we are done with our latest campaign for AoE when it drops with the free Archetype I may give them a choice to do this instead although it does kick in one level later, still on the ropes about it at this point.
Edit for clarification: This is in regard to my local in-person game with only three players and then myself as a GM. Sadly we lost our consistent 4th and 5th members in the last year to do life/scheduling differences and career changes. I offered these free Feats as a way to help negate the need to have an NPC cohort helper Character to help fill out a role no PCs chose. If I had four or five players I doubt I'd offer this at all, similarly, I gave each of my three players "Access" to one free, no questions asked Uncommon Option for their Character so they have more leverage on their build and desired PC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a rule I would ever assume will be in play, especially not at its highest level (archetype feats every other level, instead of some reduced rate), because it does make every PC significantly stronger than normal and has to be balanced around.
Then again, I would also day that the best practice is to plan characters in the context of the game they're being made for . That's doubly true where Free Archetype is concerned, since it's a much more appealing rule to use as a way to give PCs rule to expand into choices that will be useful for cam pain concepts, not just for standard building (like throwing a free Pirate archetype in a Skull and Shackles conversion, or giving extra room in Extinction Curse to take options to represent the circus misfit theme, instead of just building adventurers and trying to squeeze a circus role out of them after the fact, to use Paizo APs for examples).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a fan of the variant rule in the "everyone pick the archetype that they want", but I would use for thematic campaign of something like everyone gets the Pirate archetype or everyone gets Vigilante and so on.
I don’t think it’s seeing a lot of use that I’ve noticed so far. That said I think it’ll be a lot more appealing in a week when all the archtypes in the APG are available. Too few choices for many concepts just yet. I also agree with others that it’s best used in a restricted fashion, where everyone gets one or one from a list to better fit theme than just letting everyone have one for free.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Variant rules should probably never be assumed in hypothetical character planning. All of them put together are less common than games that use none of them.
Now, if you have a concept that only works with a variant, that's another matter, work that out in your head as much as you like...but don't expect Random Game #12875 to let you use it.
I would say in general, the variant rules as a whole are not that common, though probably some gaming groups run every single game with a set because they like them.
But for hypothetical planning I wouldn't ever include it, unless I knew I was in a group that always did so.
However, I do think playing certain campaigns (like a Skull and Shackles converted to 2E) would be greatly enhanced by giving everyone the pirate archetype for free.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't assume it, but from what I've seen it's probably one of the most popular variant rules.
I think the Free archetype will be popular for things as mentioned, free pirates Archetype for a Skull and Shackles type AP, or a free spell-casting archetype for a Magic School AP, for instance, to help create a common theme among the characters. I think it will be common for the variant to have potential limitations on what archetype you get for free. I also however expect to see some variations on it, for instance including granting the archetype dedication at 1st level rather than 2nd.
I think you may also see it get used as an easy way of doing a slightly subdued gestalt players, to potentially give a group that only has three PCs being better able to keep up with some of the flexibility that having an extra PC or two would give them.
I think the Racial Paragon, and/or granting bonus Class feats as you level to be something considered in cases where people are converting a campaign from 1st edition to 2nd edition. There were things that were just built in to races, or classes and are now choices you have to invest in, so I can see people trying to convert their characters potentially feeling the need for those extra feats/choices to recreate an already existing character. I'd go so far as encouraging it for conversion campaigns. But I'd also encourage people starting a new campaign with new characters (even if in same setting) I'd encourage them try it with the regular progression, unless there was a need for a theme such as mentioned above.
I agree with the others, people shouldn't assume that any of those variants will be used. But, there are several that I think any group of players could get together and the GM could easily toss in that rule if the majority of the players want it and none are dead-set against it for some reason. The free archetype one is one that seems relatively easy to add in easily if players are interested.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my current game I've gone a step further, and I'm just doing double class feats. When we started there weren't a lot of archetypes available, and some of the players were new to RPGs as a whole, so they didn't want to have to learn new classes or archetypes. So far I haven't noticed much of a strength increase, just an increase in options. So far:
Our Undead sorc has been able to take some extra feats to get a flavor tweaked Animal Tamer archetype (for a permanent "undead" minion that isn't just off of the summon monster list)
The Swashbuckler has felt pretty meh on the situation. There aren't a lot of playtest swashbuckler feats, so he could already take most of what he wanted.
The Ranger has been able to focus on her animal companion and take some snare feats (so far snares are pretty underwhelming, so I think she'd be disappointed if they were the only thing she could do)
The Cleric has had a few extra tools for his healing abilities, but he hasn't had a ton of benefit from it just yet. He was the main one that was worried about learning a new class, but with the APG coming out he's really interested in a few of the archetypes.
The Fighter has been the player that got the most use out of it. He multiclassed into giant Barbarian, and he's honestly pretty scary. He still goes down pretty regularly, but as expected he hits like a truck.
A lot of their characters could probably be minmaxed, but so far it's had surprisingly little impact. Most fights in EC book 2 have ended with at least one person on the floor, and they still have plenty of challenges outside of combat. I'm a bit hesitant to just give everyone a free archetype of their choice, because I feel like all archetypes aren't equal. There's some that only have 3 choices, and some that ( I hear in the APG) have dozens. Not to mention multiclass archetypes.
I'd strongly consider this rule for any game I run in the future, though I'm also in love with the idea of giving a specific archetype to better theme an AP. Ripping out the Guard stuff and replacing it with everyone getting the Vigilante archetype in Agents of Edgewatch sounds like a lot of fun.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "Free archetype" variant is one that's going to get more popular with more archetypes. If everybody in the game has an archetype that they're interested in, I see no reason not to do "the free archetype" variant.
I'm inclined to run it as "free archetype that's not a multiclass archetype" though.
I like seeing all these different viewpoints.
I was mostly curious because it reminded me of 3.5 gestalt but more balanced perhaps. I could be wrong, but the idea appealed to me to let people define their characters a little more with non-mc archetypes.
I know two rogues can be already very different, but it can be interesting to see combination that might not have been possible, such as someone using their class feat for Monk Dedication and the free archetype for Student of Perfection. A friend of mine wants to dip his ranger into druid and living monolith for an avatar of nature sort of vibe, and it's just fun to see what people come up with.
Unlike 3.5 gestalt, a wizard/fighter won't gain massive stat gains now, which makes it feel like a more horizontal branching for options and themes than a vertical power gain where a physically weak class can become high bab/HD/saves with the right combinations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well as a single data point, my group (I'm the GM) plans to use it for every game going forward, it's a really great thing to have, players can use it to multiclass, or prestige class, it doesn't up the power level too grossly even with maximum freedom, from what the book states.
Personally, I like the option of the Free Archetype variant based on a single/small selection of archetype(s) that is the focus of the campaign and/or as a way to tie the PCs together as part of the same origin/organization: Aldori duelist for a campaign in Rostland, pirates for a sea-faring campaign, etc. As a straight up "pick what you want (including multiclass archetypes) and get additional class feats to power up your PC" it may also be worth consideration for certain campaigns that don't want to go full on Dual-Class; given the tighter math in PF 2e, it allows a bit more leeway to experiment and PCs are a bit more capable individually, without changing the class-based proficiency progression much.
For all campaigns? Probably not.
I had plans on using this with an undersized party for the purpose of diversifying their skill set and a slight boost to their power. As it was we managed to pick up another player so it wasn't needed.
As others have said, it looks like a great option for themed adventures/parties. I suspect the upcoming Agents of Edgewatch could be a prime candidate for this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm unlikely to ever play a PF2 game that doesn't have at least one of the following: free archetypes, dual classing, or not increasing the rate of class feats given out.
Well as a single data point, my group (I'm the GM) plans to use it for every game going forward, it's a really great thing to have, players can use it to multiclass, or prestige class, it doesn't up the power level too grossly even with maximum freedom, from what the book states.
As a DM, what makes the rule being a core feature for your games more interesting/fun for you?
Has it changed how your players design the character's concept than before?
One thing that I often was curious about was using the free archetype rule wirh your own class. So classes would get more of their low level feats. That also helps casters get more spells so that might help them out.
Has anyone used that type of free archetype?
Never thought of it, and the first thing that pops to mind is that A. It's hella odd to dip into what you're already practicing, B. is pretty bland compared to what the rule gives by default and C. is just reskinning "extra class feats" more or less.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tbh after experiencing it
2e is far less interesting to me without this variant to the point where I'd rather just not play that play without it.
I've experienced both versions. I can't go back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than relying upon a variant rule, i would hope Paizo would look at existing mechanics and examples, and use resources other than class feats for archetypes.
Let's look at the Pathfinder Agent archetype. Some of the feats actually have the skill feat tag. From my understanding, this would allow you to grab those feats with skill feat slots.
It is a simple solution- add the skill and/or general tag to a lot more archetypes. The beauty of the tag system- you can put in a whole new design paradigm by just adding one highlighted word at the top of the entry.
Class feats are the primary character progression of this edition, and things are usually extremely tight for that area. And to be honest, many dedications have 'some' good options, but they rarely have a really good feat chains that I would pick over default class ones. So while new archetypes can be shiny and fun to read about, they might be too pricy to accept.
Skill feats though? They are dirt cheap, and it isn't hard to justify a feat in that category (ie- intimidation abilities, any combat maneuver that uses athletics, etc). General feat could take up some of the other slack when you can't justify it.
Well as a single data point, my group (I'm the GM) plans to use it for every game going forward, it's a really great thing to have, players can use it to multiclass, or prestige class, it doesn't up the power level too grossly even with maximum freedom, from what the book states.As a DM, what makes the rule being a core feature for your games more interesting/fun for you?
Has it changed how your players design the character's concept than before?
Basically it's just that it adds another dimension of choice and customization, it's super easy to pick up some capability that isn't normally a part of your class, or really emphasize a certain element. So in other words, it can make concepts more elastic- it's also worth mentioning a lot of archetype feats are hard to justify in a normal spread of like 10 class feats over 20 levels, are just much easier to pick up.
We did our rebuilding today, since we were waiting on the APG to make the switch, so it'll be interesting to see how it really plays out.
But full disclosure, I really liked theme/paragon paths/ epic destiny in 4e, so allowing players to layer over their normal build in that way just already felt appealing to me.
I've also got some power gamers who appreciate the extra juice, and 2e seems to be doing a good job of keeping things from getting out of hand, even just naturally. So I can make them happy without having to stray from the guidelines, I think.
I'm doing it in my games atm. One of them is brand new players and we're playing Age of Ashes so I'll tell them about it when the APG comes out. But my other group is already doing it and may change some things when the APG releases. It's too cool a concept for me to leave out. I don't want someone to not be a Beast Master if it means being less of a Rogue in their eyes or something like that. If everyone is doing it and I plan for it then it doesn't really change much. It doesn't give you the same power a Gish class and lets you really make the character your own. I see it as a win win.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’d give it for a game that required everyone be a certain thing - e.g. free archetype in War for the Crown would go well, regarding stealthy and diplo archetypes.
But, I have tried it with limitation and from what I’ve seen it’s fairly unbalanced. You have a lot of archetypes which don’t do... anything... competing with archetypes that add a lot of mechanical power to your character. It would lead to power disparity amongst PCs if not strictly controlled by the GM.
I’d give it for a game that required everyone be a certain thing - e.g. free archetype in War for the Crown would go well, regarding stealthy and diplo archetypes.
But, I have tried it with limitation and from what I’ve seen it’s fairly unbalanced. You have a lot of archetypes which don’t do... anything... competing with archetypes that add a lot of mechanical power to your character. It would lead to power disparity amongst PCs if not strictly controlled by the GM.
Got any examples that you're extra wary of? And while I understand the concern, it's one I've learned to sort of dismiss because there will always be someone better at optimizing and leaning towards power gaming while someone might give up a lot of power for theme and aesthetic, and from my experience, they tend to be uninterested in the other aspects they are often missing out on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like some others have mentioned, I'm likely to end up using it for some thematic campaigns with "everyone gets free archetype X," but wouldn't use it normally. Especially because using it normally would then make those thematic campaigns a downgrade afterward by restricting a normal boost instead of adding a special boost.
Otherwise, the only variant rule I consider essential would be Automatic Bonus Progression, because I can't stand getting money as a character only to be required to purchase a stat boost item in order to keep my numbers from sucking & I hate having to keep track of players as a GM to see if they have all their mandatory boost items at the appropriate levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the APG having more general archetypes that aren't associated with a specific organization or anything is going to make "free archetype" a lot more appealing.
Since it's kind of weird for a Hellknight, a Living Monolith, a Halcyon Speaker, and a Student of Perfection to go on an adventure together but a lot less weird for an Eldritch Archer, a Scout, a Medic, and a Bastion to be adventuring together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got any examples that you're extra wary of? And while I understand the concern, it's one I've learned to sort of dismiss because there will always be someone better at optimizing and leaning towards power gaming while someone might give up a lot of power for theme and aesthetic, and from my experience, they tend to be uninterested in the other aspects they are often missing out on.I’d give it for a game that required everyone be a certain thing - e.g. free archetype in War for the Crown would go well, regarding stealthy and diplo archetypes.
But, I have tried it with limitation and from what I’ve seen it’s fairly unbalanced. You have a lot of archetypes which don’t do... anything... competing with archetypes that add a lot of mechanical power to your character. It would lead to power disparity amongst PCs if not strictly controlled by the GM.
I would disallow Magaambyan Attendant/Halcyon Speaker. It gives far more than the rest of the current (Non-APG) archetypes (except multiclass) do. I would also generally disallow multiclass archetypes unless everyone is taking a multiclass archetype.
From the rest of the archetypes... bellflower tiller and lion blade clearly stand out above the rest, but not so far above as to warrant a disallow IMO.
My main group's campaign was before the GMG came out, so we can't exactly use it. But once the APG is out, and I get more one-shots planned and groups together, I really want to make sure of it. Especially for the Pirate and Vigilante archetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running games with Double Class Feats as my default. I would strongly encourage any GM I play with to use that rule as well, or at least use free archetype.
Having concepts pushed out to level 12+ that should be achievable by level 4 makes my skin crawl.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very much in favour, especially for the more RP archetypes.
Class feats and non-multiclass archetype feats are vastly different in power, to the extent you have to keep the vital clas feats.
Free archetypes for flavour however are just cool and seldom boost power too much, aside from full MC or Halcyon Speaker.
I don't know the rules in the APG yet, but tagging Viking or Gladiator or Zephyr Guard on to your Fighter can't hurt, can it? It just adds more RP and skills.
A good example is Crystal Keeper. It's super niche and weird and you never want to give up a class feat for it. But is it interesting, good RP? Yes:
"You can use Arcana, Occultism, Religion, or Society to Decipher Writing by meditating before a crystal, regardless of the type of writing. When you Decipher Writing and roll a critical failure, you get a failure instead, and when you Decipher Writing and roll a success, you get a critical success instead.
Additionally, you gain resistance 10 to damage from hazards associated with crystals."
Other feats let you create a magic lock as a focus spell. Kinda cool, but you're never giving up a Wizard feat for it.
I was going to do double class feats (1 a level), but then got concerned about possibly making some characters *too* focused, so I decided to switch to Free Archetype for my upcoming games. Anyone happen to have some pros and cons for either? Definitely taking some of what's been said here to heart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to do double class feats (1 a level), but then got concerned about possibly making some characters *too* focused, so I decided to switch to Free Archetype for my upcoming games. Anyone happen to have some pros and cons for either? Definitely taking some of what's been said here to heart.
I'm not sure what you mean by too focused. When I ran double class feats everyone ran out and multiclassed for things that their characters could do in 1E. Ranger multiclassed druid for some spells. Fighter multiclassed rogue to get some Slayer vibes going.
It was a lot of fun, with mildly increased power but greatly increased versatility, which I tend to very much enjoy.
I've been strongly considering this variant rule for when I run Kingmaker later this year, or at least a reduced version of it, to give my players more flexibility for their characters.
Out of all the GMG houserules, I think it's the only one that interests me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*) I talked to redrazors, the guy behind Pathbuilder. He was planning to support proficiency without level, but all the other variants he basically dismissed as obscure house rules.
FYI, support for the free archetype variant is in the most recent release of Pathbuilder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't used it, or planned on using it... but thinking about it, it is an option that's rather appealing to me as a player and GM. The only things I'd probably disallow are the 'direct upgrade' ones, like Fighter/Barbarian. They could take them with class feats, but not for free.
I'd have to think on it further, though.
Yeah, that Fighter/Barbarian combo is one that even the developers have acknowledged as being a bit 'overpowered'...
I haven't used it, or planned on using it... but thinking about it, it is an option that's rather appealing to me as a player and GM. The only things I'd probably disallow are the 'direct upgrade' ones, like Fighter/Barbarian. They could take them with class feats, but not for free.
So this is a thing I've been thinking about. Generally it seems that "an extra feat for archetypes" every even level is potentially problematic with multiclass archetypes, but less so with other archetypes. This is why I'm wary of dual classed characters- because of things like Druid/Clerics or Bard/Sorcerers having legendary casting in two different lists based on the same stat, or Fighter/Monks having the best numbers across the board (L/L weapons,armor, L/M/M saves, M perception.)
So I'm inclined to run "free archetype" with only non-multiclass archetypes. The problem is that the only archetypes that have enough feats in them to support a 20 level campaign are the multiclass ones since the "gain a feat from the other class" feats are repeatable. So I guess you start out as a Lion Blade and after 12 levels you pick up something else? Switching tracks like this is going to become less of an issue with more general APG archetypes (e.g.you are a Lion Blade who is also a Dandy) but stuff like "You are a Living Monolith who becomes a Hellknight" or "You are a Student of Perfection who becomes a Firebrand" are a really specific flavor that people probably shouldn't just mine for mechanics.
Actually I think thats more dual classing than free archetype- the way the APG stacks the kinds of feats the classes want from one another into the non multiclass archetypes makes me think Barbarians with double slice and such aren't really a big deal (which, incidentally, is in the dual weapon warrior dedication)
I've been watching a fighter with the barbarian dedication in a game (I'm another player), and I'm basing my opinion entirely on the interaction I've seen there. Some of it is tactics, but a relatively minor amount, as his dice hate him (last session, of 153 player-facing rolls, we got 15 nat 1s, and he rolled about 8 of them, with five players.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Barbarian Dedication on Fighter is much more powerful than the reverse, or to be frank most other Multiclass options, and indeed results in the highest DPR in the game, because it takes one of the highest DPR Classes in the game, the Fighter, and then just adds more flat damage on top of that.
A fighter with a flurry ranger would also be really strong.
Basically, slap any martial with a good trick onto fighter (which has the best accuracy) and watch it sky rocket above everything else in terms of damage.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A fighter with a flurry ranger would also be really strong.
Basically, slap any martial with a good trick onto fighter (which has the best accuracy) and watch it sky rocket above everything else in terms of damage.
Entirely true, and this is why Dual Classing has a specific warning about exactly this.
But if we're talking Multiclass Archetypes, none but Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue actually grant even a lesser version of their main attack trick as part of the multiclass, and Rogue and Monk have inherent and very specific restrictions with theirs to offset the advantages in many ways for a Fighter grabbing said Archetype.
So a Fighter multiclassing into Ranger is less of an issue than one multiclassing into Barbarian because Flurry is not part of the Ranger Multiclass...but Rage is, in fact, part of the Barbarian Multiclass.
A fighter with a flurry ranger would also be really strong.
Basically, slap any martial with a good trick onto fighter (which has the best accuracy) and watch it sky rocket above everything else in terms of damage.
Entirely true, and this is why Dual Classing has a specific warning about exactly this.
But if we're talking Multiclass Archetypes, none but Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue actually grant even a lesser version of their main attack trick as part of the multiclass, and Rogue and Monk have inherent and very specific restrictions with theirs to offset the advantages in many ways for a Fighter grabbing said Archetype.
So a Fighter multiclassing into Ranger is less of an issue than one multiclassing into Barbarian because Flurry is not part of the Ranger Multiclass...but Rage is, in fact, part of the Barbarian Multiclass.
If I'm not mistaken, multiclass rage is less beneficial? specifically you never get the instinct damage bonus, even if you invest in the 'instinct ability' so your rage is way more limited than a proper barbarian's is.
If I'm not mistaken, multiclass rage is less beneficial? specifically you never get the instinct damage bonus, even if you invest in the 'instinct ability' so your rage is way more limited than a proper barbarian's is.
The 6th level archetype feat gets you the Instinct Ability, which gets Dragon Rage up to 4 damage and Giant Barbarian up to 6 damage (and Spirit to 3).
For Animal barbarian multiclasses, you need that feat to unlock the transformations.
You can't ever get the specialization increases, though.
A fighter with a flurry ranger would also be really strong.
Basically, slap any martial with a good trick onto fighter (which has the best accuracy) and watch it sky rocket above everything else in terms of damage.
Entirely true, and this is why Dual Classing has a specific warning about exactly this.
But if we're talking Multiclass Archetypes, none but Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue actually grant even a lesser version of their main attack trick as part of the multiclass, and Rogue and Monk have inherent and very specific restrictions with theirs to offset the advantages in many ways for a Fighter grabbing said Archetype.
So a Fighter multiclassing into Ranger is less of an issue than one multiclassing into Barbarian because Flurry is not part of the Ranger Multiclass...but Rage is, in fact, part of the Barbarian Multiclass.
That's a good point. I forgot that under the normal rules for ranger dedication you wouldn't get flurry, I'm not sure about under the other rules that have been proposed in this thread if you would or would not gain that.
And in regards to everyone else talking about Fighter Barbarian, it doesn't matter that the fighter isn't get the full damage bonus of the barbarian, because they have a higher chance to hit and suddenly getting up to 6 additional damage per attack they're still the most damaging martial. That's true of even the not multiclass-ed fighter, because accuracy (and crits) are very powerful, there is a break even point but the barbarians damage bonus does not equalize it against the fighter's attack bonus in terms of DPR.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm not mistaken, multiclass rage is less beneficial? specifically you never get the instinct damage bonus, even if you invest in the 'instinct ability' so your rage is way more limited than a proper barbarian's is.
Oh, it is, but as Claxon notes adding it on a Fighter is much more absurd than adding it on another, less accurate, chassis. The higher accuracy is, the more each +1 to damage matters, since higher accuracy equals more hits and more crits.
The way the math works out, most melee martials have very similar DPR...but stacking the +4 or +6 damage per attack that Barbarian Multiclass can grant on top of Fighter's accuracy advantage is just so much more effective than just about any other equivalent option when it comes to DPR, that it's definitely something to watch out for.
Now, it does cost resources to invest in and have defensive downsides (-1 AC is nothing to sneeze at), but it does its own very specific trick well enough that it should be watched out for, and could potentially cause problems in an environment where it has fewer opportunity costs, like one with extra Class Feats or where you get it as a free Archetype.
