Character planning: Default vs Free Archetype, which do you prefer?

[WatersLethe]

When planning out characters, I tend to make a few different versions for different optional rules. Who else has done this, and what are your thoughts about how they feel?

I can't shake the feeling that the default rules put a straight jacket on my concepts. I can only helplessly watch in dismay as key components of my character get stretched out further and further into higher levels, leaving the majority of my play experience with those characters incomplete.

I've long been a proponent of double class feats, which worked out well for the first PF2 game I ran. Now that the Free Archetype variant has been out for a while, I was wondering if other people are liking it as much as I do.

My character planning approach has been to make variants for:

1. Default rules with any ancestry, background, or class allowed
2. Default rules with some built in GM permissions (rare or uncommon options allowed)
3. Free archetype (with free choice, essentially bonus class feats for archetyping)
4. Free archetype with some built in GM permissions
5. Custom house rules: Bonus class feat every odd level, archetype feats can be taken one level earlier than listed

It really feels like my personal minimum satisfying GM permissiveness is #3. You can keep your class's key flavor feats while delving into archetypes for additional abilities and flavor.

I'm talking specifically about the feel of planning the character, not about relative power.

Example:
Under the default rules, a Dragon Disciple archetype is *very* hard to justify. Even if you're allowed to go into it without one of the access points, with only the base number of class feats it's pretty hollow. If you just want the Dragon Arcana, you're still waiting until level 6 to get any of your own class's feats. If you wait to get it later, you're spending more levels without the flavor you envisioned for the character. If you just want the high level abilities, you either lock yourself into the archetype so you can't do any other archetypes for many levels, or you wait until high level to retrain, which might not happen if you're, for example, in a multi-level dungeon.

With free archetype variant you can get your class flavor feats alongside your DD feats and it feels amazing. You can even get multiple archetypes before level 10, like my Druid/Cleric/DD. You feel more free to pick up weaker archetype feats to close out the archetype, so you can go somewhere else for different flavor without needing to resort to high level retraining cheese.

With free archetype and no lockouts, you're able to more efficiently pack your archetypes, allowing you to get abilities that are good at lower levels when you could actually use them, like multiclass casting. You can spend more time with more satisfying mechanical options.

My personal favorite option, though, is getting a class feat at every level, and dropping the level requirements of all archetype feats by 1 (under GM discretion) to bring multiclassing and archetyping to even lower levels. Not only does getting a nice juicy class feat every level feel great, it also lets you double down on your class feats if you want. There are so many features that get left in the dust under the default rules, but you can pick up with extra feats. It just feels so much better, and so freeing.

[Deadmanwalking]

It depends on what games you're likely to wind up in which you should do, IMO.

You should generally plan for games that might someday happen, for me that's probably the official rules, but if you have access to a GM other than yourself who uses, say, the free Archetype Variant, then you should obviously plan around that.

In terms of how they feel, I honestly mostly feel fine with the default rules, but it is constraining to some specific concepts that free archetypes help with. There are lots that still work fine with the default rules, but not all of them.

[Kyrone]

I like to struggle between choices and then having to compromise on what one I like more or fit the concept better, and the free stuff just feel to me like that I cheated and just got both options.

So I am a fan of the default, but that is probably because of how I approach the game, seeing the classes like a simple chassis. If I want to play a "Ranger", I might not even use the class but use something like Eldritch Trickster into Druid and use survival skill feats for the Ranger flavor.

I would use for thematic purposes though, of everyone the same archetype, like pirates for skull and shackles or Martial Artist on a tournament.

[Reticent]

There's no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun.

But as far as my preference goes- it's more interesting to have to make tough choices, and the game is generally balanced around the idea that your feat resources are pretty limited.

[manbearscientist]

I've been happiest with free archetype rules. As a GM, an early shared archetype is a good way to connect a party. As a player, it makes a lot more build concepts possible especially early.

[Salamileg]

I really like free archetype in theory, but I've yet to make a character that I feel really needs it. For the game I'll be playing in that does have free archetype, I really struggled to pick one that I felt fit my wizard, who I wasn't planning on taking any archetypes (at least early on) before we decided to use the variant. Ended up just going witch for more intelligence-based arcane goodies.

[Malk_Content]

My players tend to develop characters organically as they level rather than plan things out, so default works out fine there. There is no character concept past level 1 they need to adhere to, because doing that is basically saying "the events of the game will not sway my decisions" and thus there is also no "oh no my character concept doesn't come online until level x." Taking the game as it comes always yield more gratifying results.

[oholoko]

Free archetype paragon, pf2 giving more options tends to not elevate the power level a lot.

[Kyrone]

Malk_Content wrote:

My players tend to develop characters organically as they level rather than plan things out, so default works out fine there. There is no character concept past level 1 they need to adhere to, because doing that is basically saying "the events of the game will not sway my decisions" and thus there is also no "oh no my character concept doesn't come online until level x." Taking the game as it comes always yield more gratifying results.

I really should think more like this to be honest.

[WatersLethe]

Malk_Content wrote:

My players tend to develop characters organically as they level rather than plan things out, so default works out fine there. There is no character concept past level 1 they need to adhere to, because doing that is basically saying "the events of the game will not sway my decisions" and thus there is also no "oh no my character concept doesn't come online until level x." Taking the game as it comes always yield more gratifying results.

That's a really good point. I'm just severely addicted to planning out characters from PF1 days I guess.

I've planned out far more characters than I'll ever get to play!

[WatersLethe]

Kyrone wrote:

I like to struggle between choices and then having to compromise on what one I like more or fit the concept better, and the free stuff just feel to me like that I cheated and just got both options.

I guess I don't feel like I'm not struggling between choices, even with bonus feats. There's always something else I want, some other feature that could really complement my build.

With the addition of all the archetypes in the APG, that's even more the case.

I've been fighting with myself over whether my Druid/Cleric/DD should also go Champion for a good reaction, or pick up a couple more druid feats to smooth out the focus point economy. If I got both of those, then I'd start wondering how to fit in an AoO or a focus spell from Cleric.

Obviously these things are increasing the power and versatility of the character, but I've far from reached the bottom of what my character would want to have.

[Vallarthis]

The default system works fine if you pick a class, then imagine your character based on that class identity. Where you run into problems is if you design a character first, and then try to fit that design into a class's silo. I enjoy the latter sort of character very much more, but there is always something that doesn't fit into any class's defined boundaries. I don't really want a double helping of class feats; I see the benefit of a tight budget. Just a free dedication, though, would help by extending the available possibility space in the direction I'm trying to go without the speedbump of buying access.

[Ramanujan]

#4 is how I usually run games.
Though I do feel what you call 'some built in GM permissions' is what the game assumes is standard - one of my first players was from the Mwangi, but a member of the Pathfinder lodge there - not giving them access to the Pathfinder Agent Dedication would in my opinion, be an odd choice (despite that not giving access strictly speaking).
When a player comes to me with a concept/background they get 'permission' for anything uncommon that fit that theme particularly well. Rare stuff might require a discussion/active pursuit in game, but I still don't like being stingy.

#5 is a bit beyond my comfort level right now. Maybe in the future.

[Martialmasters]

i find myself repeatedly dissatisfied with the concepts i want to realize with the default feat system. Sometimes my concept is barely realized with free archetype.

if i had wasn't able to play with free archetype, id probably just choose to not play at this point. Even with free archetype i feel i constantly have to make tough choices for feats, this will only become more true as time goes on.

[graystone]

Martialmasters wrote:

i find myself repeatedly dissatisfied with the concepts i want to realize with the default feat system. Sometimes my concept is barely realized with free archetype.

I find myself on both sides: for some classes I don't have space for the class feats I want, let alone archetype feats while some classes feats are so bland I don't mind if I spend every class feat on archetypes.

Martialmasters wrote:

if i had wasn't able to play with free archetype, id probably just choose to not play at this point. Even with free archetype i feel i constantly have to make tough choices for feats, this will only become more true as time goes on.

Yeah, I'm not playing much so it takes something like dual class, free archetypes and/or ancestry paragon to tempt me into a PF2 game.

WatersLethe: To answer your question, I've preferred dual-classing in PF1 [a fairly common option where I game] and that continues into PF2, followed by the bonus feat options.

On GM permissions (rare or uncommon options allowed), I prefer uncommon to be just allowed options with rare and unique options requiring DM approval [of course with a possible list house-rules and/or allow/disallow list up front].

[Lucas Yew]

I'd like my first real PF2 campaign (if it's ever available) to be #1, both as a player and a GM. However, both after experiencing the base assumption and for personal worldbuilding purposes, I'd stack Dual Class + Free Archetype + Ancestry Paragon for all the heroes and main villains and go wild...

[RPGnoremac]

I have only played with the core rules. I actually really like the core rules because you have a lot of decisions to make and they feel important.

I feel the free archetype rule makes these decisions less impactful and just gives way too much for free.

I do admit I might like to try it sometimes and might actually prefer it for shorter campaigns. Since I do feel classes start a little slow.

Also side note... it really hurts players who like playing pure characters. Since they are forced to take archetypes.

Main thing I would worry about was balance. Just imagine every player taking beastmaster archetype.

[breithauptclan]

As far as the number of class and archetype feats, I generally run default. The houserule that I use is to drop the ability score requirements of the multiclass archetypes by 2. That frees up your ability score distributions quite a bit since a lot of multiclass builds are rather MAD.

I could be talked into allowing a free archetype feat. Especially if it is needed for the character concept the player is going for.

[thenobledrake]

I like variant rules that simplify the game-play experience for me without dramatically altering the balance point.

So I don't like things like adding a free archetype, or more feats, or higher possible ability scores. (But I do like rules like Automatic Bonus Progression, since that saves me work as a GM since I then don't have to make sure I include enough bonus-granting items as treasure, then also make sure players actually use them or have downtime to swap them out for ones they will, and/or buy the upgrades they need instead of just going "meh, I don't feel like shopping")

And I don't feel like there's not already enough room to craft the concept of a character in the default rules.

[Martialmasters]

thenobledrake wrote:

And I don't feel like there's not already enough room to craft the concept of a character in the default rules.

I disagree. Default rules I can at most focus on one theme and the moment I branch away from that my concept starts to fall apart.

So I can only build one dimensional characters thematically without just being mediocre at doing multiple things.

Heck monk if I want to be ki focused at high level I have to replace my capstone with either ki form or meditative wellspring. No dedications can fix that.

Free Archetype gives minimal power boost (unlike dual class) with more options and customization.

It's the difference between me using multitalented to just take flurry of blow's at ten and nothing else and me actually taking a style feat or ki spells with my barbarian. Way more complex and fleshed out.

[Malk_Content]

I also not that while I will likely never use Free Archetypes as a GM except for themed games (where giving everyone an appropriate archetype for free means my GM vision for the game isn't impinging their resources to build a character) I am not beyond giving out bespoke additional feats as rewards for in story events.

I.e I may give out the Pirate archetype for free if the players go about doing Piratey things of their own volition for several sessions.

[HumbleGamer]

I tried playing with the 2e app enabling the free archetype feat option and it was definitely good ( especially if you consider not to push your campaign till lvl 20 ).

I am definitely going to use it on the second chapter of EC ( eventually, giving extra credit to those who take circus dedications ).

Unfortunately, apart from the flavour, the lore and personal interpretation, there's no much room for differentiate a character from another ( apart from level 1 characters ).

In AoA we are currently lvl 6, and the way any of us play is the same as lvl 1 ( apart maybe for the fighter, who could have taken different attacks ), and this is a little disappointing.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Concept is being used pretty nebulously here. If we use a scale of concepts, from Broad to Niche, then 2e seems to land closely in the middle, and struggle towards the extremes of either end of the scale.

The only struggle I’ve personally come across with builds has been trying to fit three Archetypes into a single character that had zero synergy with each other; still possible, just really awkward. Or when trying to cover too many roles with little if any synergy between them. Though our Champion, in an AoA game, on the other hand has mentioned the same issues being expressed here; mostly too many good choices for their concept and not enough opportunities to grab them.

In some instances 2e actually makes certain concepts flesh out even faster and better than in 1e. A TWF Titan Mauler for example needs a ton of support to make it work with 1e; in 2e you can make it work as early as level 2 with Giant Totem Barb and Double Slice from Dual Weapon Warrior Archetype.

I’m not a fan of classes giving the player clutter abilities; because weather it’s a part of your character concept or not, you [i][totally/i] need these half-dozen abilities you may never use even once! 1e Archetypes were a good solution to the problem, but even then a number of concepts just can’t be fleshed out at early levels; without maybe actually making them one-dimensional or Mary Sue-ish.

There are still gaps with the content in more niche areas; such as martial based Gish struggling to get access to non-cantrip offensive magic til level 4.

[Valantrix1]

I can play it either way, but I do like the extra feats. My characters seem to fulfill their concept better with the extra umpf. As a GM I tend to run with the free archetype as well.

[VestOfHolding]

WatersLethe wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

My players tend to develop characters organically as they level rather than plan things out, so default works out fine there. There is no character concept past level 1 they need to adhere to, because doing that is basically saying "the events of the game will not sway my decisions" and thus there is also no "oh no my character concept doesn't come online until level x." Taking the game as it comes always yield more gratifying results.

That's a really good point. I'm just severely addicted to planning out characters from PF1 days I guess.

I've planned out far more characters than I'll ever get to play!

Same! Though I'm finding I'm almost being forced to change that habit (in a good way!) in 2E. Multiple times I've come to a table with a character that I had super planned out up to level 8-10-ish, but then over the course of the campaign I allowed for choosing different feats because it made more sense where the character was going organically over time, and it's been really fun!

This has led to my archive of planned characters being way more nebulous as far as specific feats, and more like general character arcs and themes.

[First World Bard]

As a player and GM, I will tend to stick to the base rules. That said, if I ever do run Fall of Plaguestone, I may consider free archetype or some other variant rule that boosts PCs, since that is a brutal module.

[lemeres]

When I look at free archetype, I often struggle to find myself using the abilities on a routine basis.

I tend to build with a bread and butter moveset in mind. Like a monk that focus on trip+flurry as their default option when they engage an enemy.

The thing with this edition is that many feats give options. This can often provide useful tools for different situations... but when you have both a class an an archetype, it feels hard to NOT take feats tht just give you an extra option that I won't use.

As such, I fear that with free archetypes, I would just default to caster class archetypes and just fill up on utility spells. If I am grabbing niche options for rare situations, then spells often fill that better.

[The-Magic-Sword]

While I'm a forever GM, I have the good fortune that any of the players who might take up GMing really like the 'free archetype as default' thing I plan to do for all of my games going forward or would be GMing in an overarching game-style with pre-determined rules (like a West Marches with multiple GMs), so I can pretty reasonably leave that on when I plan my characters.

[Salamileg]

A bit tangential, but what do y'all do in a case where everyone's in a free archetype game but a player runs out of feats to take? For instance, the Dandy archetype only has two class feats in it.

[WatersLethe]

Salamileg wrote:

A bit tangential, but what do y'all do in a case where everyone's in a free archetype game but a player runs out of feats to take? For instance, the Dandy archetype only has two class feats in it.

I don't lock people into one archetype for those feats. I rule them as essentially bonus class feats that can only be used for archetype feats.

The rulea for Free Archetype can basically be read that way anyway.

[PossibleCabbage]

Salamileg wrote:

A bit tangential, but what do y'all do in a case where everyone's in a free archetype game but a player runs out of feats to take? For instance, the Dandy archetype only has two class feats in it.

The rule is that you get an archetype feat every time you get a class feat, so if you run out of Dandy feats to take then you can become a Celebrity or a Lion Blade or whatever other archetype makes sense for the character.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Salamileg wrote:

A bit tangential, but what do y'all do in a case where everyone's in a free archetype game but a player runs out of feats to take? For instance, the Dandy archetype only has two class feats in it.

As the others mentioned, you'd just move on to another archetype (which you could do at any point anyway, assuming you complete the exit requirement)

[WatersLethe]

It's also why I prefer double class feats, because a player might want to double down inside their class rather than go for another archetype. Not such a big deal now that the APG is out.

[The-Magic-Sword]

WatersLethe wrote:

It's also why I prefer double class feats, because a player might want to double down inside their class rather than go for another archetype. Not such a big deal now that the APG is out.

We did deliberately wait for the APG for this reason-- but also I like the fact that they have to go for another archetype because I view Free Archetype as being a deliberate "other layer" for multiclassing and prestige classing.

For me, its supposed to be like 4e had Theme/Paragon Path/Epic Destiny, so its a whole separate resource.

[ArenCordial]

So far my group has done double class feats and its worked great. To be honest a lot of us were initially down on second edition because it felt like it was difficult for any build to have any sense of wiggle room.

Once we implemented this change though everyone's enjoyment went up.

Since in P2e not much power is located in feats it hasn't lead to any sense of being overpowered but has done wonders for being able to more quickly realize a character concept.

[Perpdepog]

VestOfHolding wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

My players tend to develop characters organically as they level rather than plan things out, so default works out fine there. There is no character concept past level 1 they need to adhere to, because doing that is basically saying "the events of the game will not sway my decisions" and thus there is also no "oh no my character concept doesn't come online until level x." Taking the game as it comes always yield more gratifying results.

That's a really good point. I'm just severely addicted to planning out characters from PF1 days I guess.

I've planned out far more characters than I'll ever get to play!

Same! Though I'm finding I'm almost being forced to change that habit (in a good way!) in 2E. Multiple times I've come to a table with a character that I had super planned out up to level 8-10-ish, but then over the course of the campaign I allowed for choosing different feats because it made more sense where the character was going organically over time, and it's been really fun!

This has led to my archive of planned characters being way more nebulous as far as specific feats, and more like general character arcs and themes.

This is how I tend to make my characters so I've noticed less of a hiccup. I know kind of what I want them to do, but if the campaign changes the direction for my character then I will deviate from what I'd originally planned.

I think it's for that reason that I've never really had a huge problem with the limited number of feats in PF2E. Also, it keeps me from trying to pack my toolkit with everything under the Sun, which saves me stress and headaches, or rather, it swaps out that stress and headache with the, to me, lesser stress and headache of picking the feats that fit my character's story to that point.
When I eventually run a game I will likely go with Option 1, and I probably prefer that as a player as well, but I'd also not be at all upset if a group used free archetype rules or the like.