which could have very easily been class archetypes (for Fighter and Wizard respectively most likely), are going to be put into their own classes
A class archetype is not "for" a base class in any way that makes your phrasing work. There is only one Fighter class archetype; it's the one named Fighter, by definition. Are you perhaps talking about subclasses---wizard theses, cleric doctrines, rogue rackets, etc---some/all of the time that you say "class archetype"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
which could have very easily been class archetypes (for Fighter and Wizard respectively most likely), are going to be put into their own classesA class archetype is not "for" a base class in any way that makes your phrasing work. There is only one Fighter class archetype; it's the one named Fighter, by definition. Are you perhaps talking about subclasses---wizard theses, cleric doctrines, rogue rackets, etc---some/all of the time that you say "class archetype"?
Class archetypes are archetypes that are taken at level 1 (but take up your 2nd level feat) that replace class features, like if you want to play a rogue without sneak attack. We have rules for them, but no examples yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class Archetypes are for if you want to play a version of a character who lacks (or has a fundamentally different version of) a class feature. Like if you wanted a rogue without sneak attack, a druid without spellcasting, an autodidact wizard without a school or thesis, a monk which doesn't get legendary unarmed defense, etc.
They're not for "a way you can build this class" since that's just feats.
Oh, a thing that doesn't exist yet. That makes sense, then. Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, a thing that doesn't exist yet. That makes sense, then. Thanks!
While they don't exist yet, they were described in the CRB So they are already a part of the design space for PF2. I seem to recall someone from Paizo (Mark Seifter?) saying that they were trying to see what could be made without them first. So I think they are a 'break glass in case of emergency' option.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the idea that Class Archetypes don't add anything. I think they can add something very valuable that is not covered by either generic Archetypes or new Classes:
Specifically, changing one big thing about a Class. For some examples, let's look at Monk and Rogue.
An offensive Archetype for Monk replacing their eventual Master in attacks and Legendary in AC with Legendary attacks and Master AC seems very doable, and could be combined with, say, Light Armor Proficiency to recreate a Brawler feel from PF1. That's so much easier than building a new Class that just does the same thing but with a slight change of focus it's not even funny, and is outside the scope of non-Class Archetypes.
Similarly, an Archetype to remove Sneak Attack from Rogues, replacing it with some other damage mechanic that works with weapons like greatsword is a good thing and would allow people to play some specific concepts they currently can't do very well (Greatsword + Full Plate + Skill Mastery, for example), while still being a lot simpler than a new Class and eating a lot less word count.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't much to go on, but I know I wouldn't be spending a valuable feat slot to swap something for an equivalent feature, as opposed to adding something to my character, which is what feats currently do. If the swap-out was an improvement, or didn't actually take a feat, that would be different.
But it's all moot at the moment, isn't it?
Well, my assumption, given that it costs a Feat, would be that it does the swap and provides a Feat equivalent bonus to boot. That's really not too hard (my above example of a Monk Archetype that swaps attack and armor Proficiencies and provides scaling Light Armor Proficiency and maybe the ability to use it with some Style Feats would be a good example of this).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That new Magic book is going to have a new kind of casting right? I imagine that will include several class archetypes (or one that works for multiple classes.)
Since if you want "a bard with a different kind of casting" the way you do that is with a bard class archetype.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that arcarnist style casting would be ideal as class archetypes.
Swapping core mechanics out so there is a downside to the mechanical flexibility. But not having to make a new class for every prepared spellcaster that gets it.
I look forwards to seeing what Paizo does, I am glad they didn't rush it out the door and especially glad that they planned so far ahead option expansion wise.
(gutted to hear that they have no immediate or long term plans for an Ultimate Equipment style book though, it is probably my favourite PF1e book and while I didn't expect it for a few years, it not being looked at at all makes me sad)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with Deadmanwalking. Class archetypes seem like the perfect design space to explore "I like everything about this class but..." ideas.
In particular, stuff like CAs for martials with strict weapon restrictions that replace their combat mechanics to enable a different style seems like something with a lot of potential.
Or Archetypes that take an idea in a completely different direction, like replacing a Wizard's school choice with some entirely unrelated benefit.
I'm not sure how adventurous Paizo wants to be with them, but it seems like there are a handful of good ideas at the very least.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a good example could be a Shifter.
Shifter could be a Druid, but no spell casting, and instead has better weapon/armor proficiencies and some fun extra feats to beef up shifting that only they can access.
A Warpriest is pretty dang close to a class archetype as it is, since it modifies several proficiencies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly there is so much potential room to explore with class archetypes that the thing that surprises me most is that we haven't seen any yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly there is so much potential room to explore with class archetypes that the thing that surprises me most is that we haven't seen any yet.
Well, we've seen basically two kinds of archetypes thus far:
1) This person is a member of an organization.2) Represents a particular area of expertise not intrinsically tied to a class.
I feel like those are the kinds of archetypes you need to get out of the way first.
How would that work though?
Mechanically speaking, I'm not sure how you would make, for example, a generic Arcane casting archetype that has as much to offer as just taking Wizard multiclass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that arcarnist style casting would be ideal as class archetypes.
Swapping core mechanics out so there is a downside to the mechanical flexibility. But not having to make a new class for every prepared spellcaster that gets it.
I look forwards to seeing what Paizo does, I am glad they didn't rush it out the door and especially glad that they planned so far ahead option expansion wise.
(gutted to hear that they have no immediate or long term plans for an Ultimate Equipment style book though, it is probably my favourite PF1e book and while I didn't expect it for a few years, it not being looked at at all makes me sad)
This was my thought as well, make Arcanist a Neo-Vancian Wizard Class Archetype. Maybe do something similar for other casting classes, would be a good solution for people who aren't content with prepared or spontaneous.
I also thought about a street fighting / brawler monk that replaces flurry of blows with a Haymaker attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing that class archetypes are for is if you want to give a character an ability that is a great flavor for the class, but is also extremely strong. Something like that doesn't really work as a feat (since everyone just takes it) but "trading away major features and a class feat" can potentially justify something too good to make a normal class feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly there is so much potential room to explore with class archetypes that the thing that surprises me most is that we haven't seen any yet.
It is a little weird.
Especially since this is a mechanic from the CRB and the game's a year old now.
|
|
I think that the philosophy behind this MIGHT just be that Paizo wants to get all of the various classes that they're sure they want to eventually publish in print before they release any Class Archetypes, that way they can carefully consider how well they all stack up against one another and avoid a bunch of Future-Proofing nightmares like they dealt with in 1st Ed or have "unbalanced" support for the Core Classes in that they would have more Class Archetypes available.
True. On the one hand PF2 is a year old, but on the other hand, Paizo is still very much playing catch up with the ten years of PF1 content that people want to see as fast as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. On the one hand PF2 is a year old, but on the other hand, Paizo is still very much playing catch up with the ten years of PF1 content that people want to see as fast as possible.
And on another hand, it is only one year old and has only had one major player facing expansion book so far.
Rushed content leads to big mistakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rushed content leads to big mistakes.
You're upsetting the poor Oozemorph with that kind of talk.