| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For reference, this is what the CRB defines as a class archetype:
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.
We don't have any examples yet, and it's unknown if we'll get any in Secrets of Magic. What sorts of things are you hoping for?
While I loved PF1 class archetypes, I am having a hard time seeing them introduced in PF2 without destabilizing the game a fair bit. It feels like things like rackets, orders, Hunter's edges, doctrines, theses, etc. have pretty well covered the design space that class archetypes would play in, and general archetypes are just so flexible and well designed in PF2 that they can cover 99% of what class archetypes did to the base classes of PF1.
With how even the sorcerer, witch and the now apparently the summoner is getting flexible magic traditions, there is just so much flexibility built into the classes it is hard to see what class specific archetypes would add that wouldn't just be pretty much the same as making the game fully class-less. I guess I could see some hyper focused AP specific or world specific class variants, but thus far, general archetypes have managed to cover anything I'd have thought would fall in that category really well.
Well, the designers did mention in the post-Playtest blog post for SoM that the Synthesist Summoner is very likely coming as a class archetype in a future book, so this is the one example we have.
As long as they don't do something like Starfinder's Alternative Class features, I'll be pleased.
But I agree with Unicore. The current PF2e design cornered the concept of Class Archetypes from PF1e. But I can definitely some of them making significant changes to each core features of the class
Right now, I can only think of Controlled Rage from Urban Barbarian, which could make the Rage action work vastly differently like it did in PF1e and change the base skill (Society instead of Athletics)and the amount of extra skills. I could also see some archetypes making Feats that are normally optional becoming Class Features either earlier, like Eldritch Tricksters do for rogue (except that instead of making it only available as a choice earlier, it gave it as a feature).
Of course, only a handful of archetypes from PF1e would be eligible, since most of them were ways of making the class playing differently (Holy Gun Paladin, Zen Archer, etc.) rather than concepts that had flavor and deeply changed the class (Watersinger, Warrior Poet, Urban Barbarian, etc).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I loved PF1 class archetypes, I am having a hard time seeing them introduced in PF2 without destabilizing the game a fair bit. It feels like things like rackets, orders, Hunter's edges, doctrines, theses, etc. have pretty well covered the design space that class archetypes would play in, and general archetypes are just so flexible and well designed in PF2 that they can cover 99% of what class archetypes did to the base classes of PF1.
With how even the sorcerer, witch and the now apparently the summoner is getting flexible magic traditions, there is just so much flexibility built into the classes it is hard to see what class specific archetypes would add that wouldn't just be pretty much the same as making the game fully class-less. I guess I could see some hyper focused AP specific or world specific class variants, but thus far, general archetypes have managed to cover anything I'd have thought would fall in that category really well.
I disagree. While all these mechanics do cover a lot of bases, there is still a lot of design space in Class Archetypes from when a class needs to have something removed before a certain other thing can make sense. As I mentioned, Synthesist Summoner is the one real example we have of that, but it's not that hard to think of others. For example:
Currently, there is no way to make an "impassable bulwark", defensively-focused, armored character without being tied to a deity. The only two classes with improved AC proficiency are Champion, which is tied to divine powers and deities, and Monk, which is a completely different fantasy. A Class Archetype for Fighter that switches Legendary Weapons for Legendary Armor and adds a couple extra thingies would go a long way. (Remember, a Class Archetype is still an Archetype, so the Dedication Feat still gives you stuff, it's not power-null)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see a few like:
- Fighter trading legendary weapons for legendary armor.
- Casters trading their spellcasting slots progression for the Magus/Summoner one for more martial prowess.
- Also Ranger and Champion trading Hunter Edge and Legendary Armor for the Magus slots.
- Ranger trading Hunter Edge for Sneak Attack for a "Slayer".
- Barbarian trading a big part of Rage damage for some spellcasting like the Magus slots for a "Bloodrager".
- Wizard trading Thesis + Schools for Domains and be able to prepare Divine + Arcane spells for a "Theurge".
- Magus changing the prepared casting for a spontaneous one.
I kind of did this already in some homebrew (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HfyjiaPDvpBATdm1BfbzHTBThYqxdqMn/view?usp =drivesdk) , but an easy archetype is to make variants of casters that are martial driven like the war priest is for the cleric.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think these will ever be common, but I do see a very real place for them in terms of replacing or heavily modifying core abilities of a Class (ie: Rogue with something other than Sneak Attack), or shuffling Proficiencies around (ie: the aforementioned Master attack/Legendary AC Fighter, or a Legendary Attack/Master AC Monk, and so on).
Those are really the only two niches that leap to mind (Synthesist would fall into the first category, fundamentally changing part of how Eidolons work), but they're useful ones to fill.
I don't think these will ever be common, but I do see a very real place for them in terms of replacing or heavily modifying core abilities of a Class (ie: Rogue with something other than Sneak Attack), or shuffling Proficiencies around (ie: the aforementioned Master attack/Legendary AC Fighter, or a Legendary Attack/Master AC Monk, and so on).
Those are really the only two niches that leap to mind (Synthesist would fall into the first category, fundamentally changing part of how Eidolons work), but they're useful ones to fill.
This is probably accurate, given how few important class features classes have in 2e compared to 1e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bard trading spellcasting for martial progression becoming a skald maybe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they don't do something like Starfinder's Alternative Class features, I'll be pleased.
I think that's exactly what they'll do. Given the feat system, swapping out either proficiencies or class features is about all there is that you can trade out that isn't already covered by dedication archetypes.
I think there are better ways to do this than class archetypes though. Like a "Defender" archetype with a prerequisite of weapon expertise that drops your weapon proficiencies one rank and raises your armor proficiencies one rank. One archetype applicable to all classes.
- Fighter trading legendary weapons for legendary armor.
I don't think that would work very well at all. Given the various levels different classes gain their proficiency increases, and some classes not gaining some proficiencies at all, anything that messes with those is probably best handled on a class by class basis. Otherwise, it would be too easily unbalanced.
And what happens if a Champion or Monk picks this up?
Further, I am philosophically opposed to feats that cause you to lose abilities instead of gain them. There may already be some in system, but I would greatly prefer that to not be very common.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that comes to my mind would be a way to introduce Eldritch Scion (Magus swapping prepared casting for spontaneous plus appropriate feats).
I think eventually we're going to get a different paradigm for spellcasting (I, for one, liked Words of Power) so a class archetype that changes what kind of spellcasting you do would make a lot of sense.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have to disagree with Unicore. Class paths are neat and all, but they're still a relatively narrow design space and there seems plenty of room for things that like, replace a rogue's sneak attack or the nature-facing mechanics in the ranger's kit or change a spellcaster's casting attribute or casting style. Or even replacing class paths themselves with an alternate progression system.
Mostly I'd just like to see them exist at all, because the modularity they'd provide have the potential to cover some of the biggest holes and customization hurdles in PF2. PF2 design is very fenced off and very harsh about telling you what a class is allowed to do and what isn't, class archetypes are a perfect chance to break those barriers down a little.
|
I don't think the intention is to ever break these barriers in the base system. And really, the only class archetype we have confirmed to be something they want to do is not that, as it's only "making the synthesis summoner more focused into synthesis than the feat option in the base class".
I wouldn't be surprised if "shifting focus" is the main way they use the class archetypes when they will end up doing it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also some class features that have some thematic baggage (e.g. "sneak attack") that people might want to jettison just because they don't fit their conception of their character the way the rest of the class chassis does.
The blessed one archtype does some of this, but I still want non-devout champions, animist champions, rivethun champions, sangpotshi champions, etc.
If the point is jettisoning class abilities, why not just make/hope for a classless variant or new classes/make your own classes. The core system is a pretty tightly balanced ship, it probably wouldn't be hard to set class ability pools and just assign values to different abilities and features. If you really want customization that seems a lot easier for paizo than making splatbooks with a million variant class archetypes.
I had not heard about the synthesis summoner being released as a class archetype. I know it was pushed down the road for some point, but I suppose that if they are planning on making that as a class archetype, and are not just going to release it in an appropriate AP GM toolbox, then we might see a future variant book with class archetypes in it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it isn't provided for in SoM, some form of Arcanist casting for the prepared casters.
For those that don't know, arcanist casting is similar to 5e's system, where you prepare a number of spells each day but can cast them freely from slots.
It is REALLY hard to talk people who play 5e casters into 2e, sigh. No one wants to go back to the old prepared casting system.
Yeah, I'd say spellcasting is the big weak point of 2E.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the point is jettisoning class abilities, why not just make/hope for a classless variant or new classes/make your own classes.
Because we already know that they plan for class archetypes to exist and that they are supposed to be used for this purpose?
While they could technically go back on the idea, having not actually published any yet, it's not like this is some wild idea the community dreamed up for this system - paizo intentionally baked it directly into the core rulebook.
I had not heard about the synthesis summoner being released as a class archetype. I know it was pushed down the road for some point, but I suppose that if they are planning on making that as a class archetype, and are not just going to release it in an appropriate AP GM toolbox, then we might see a future variant book with class archetypes in it.
It was in the playtest aftermath blog post.
Synthesis: There was a lot of feedback on the Synthesis feat that allowed you to merge with your eidolon; it was popular but many folks said that being an option you choose each time you Manifest rather than mandatory didn’t fulfill the fantasy and that the ability to use both options caused it to have quite a few restrictions it might not need otherwise. Right now we are leaning towards changing the feat’s name and flavor to be clear that it is meant for an optional ability, and then make the synthesist a class archetype in a later book, with trade-offs based around having only the option to merge with the eidolon, not to Manifest it normally.
If the point is jettisoning class abilities, why not just make/hope for a classless variant or new classes/make your own classes.Because we already know that they plan for class archetypes to exist and that they are supposed to be used for this purpose?
Exactly. Why introduce an entirely new system that would be harder to balance when we could just use what already exists?
I'm less interested in what homebrew people will come up with than seeing what Paizo will make with the tools they made for themselves.
I feel archetypes/subclasses are pretty amazing and for the most part. With how the current system is I feel it would just be easier to make a whole new class than give a class archetype.
For example shifter could get Druid casting + martial attack proficiencies then their feats could just he some combination of Wildshape Feats / Other Martial Feats.
It is tough me to imagine a class archetype that wouldnt be better as just a new class or isnt already is a game. Currently there is really one thing each class has and then you kind of just build your own class with feats.
For me, what really jumps out as an obvious class archetype would be a cleric that removes any references to having a deity, and leaves you with a caster that channels positive and negative energy. To make good use of the class archetype, you'd need to leave enough of the class's feature intact that you can still make heavy use of the existing feats, or you'd be better off making a new class (as the feats are the hard part anyways). Cutting out the deity would have a lighter impact on the mechanics of the class than cutting out divine font, but would vastly change the flavor, enough to make the addition interesting.
The other suggestions of changing out the class key ability, or swapping in a different spellcasting tradition, also seem like good additions, though I'm not certain its worth the page space. I'd want to see the follow-up feats the the archetype before judging.
I would really like a cleric archetype that was spontaneous casting
I would really like a cleric archetype that was spontaneous casting
Honestly this would be quite cool for every class could switch from prepared > spontaneous and vice versa.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class Archetypes are for three things, IMO:
1) Jettisoning class features that are unwanted and giving you something commensurately useful in return.
2) Reshuffling proficiency bonuses.
3) Giving a class feature that is too large to fit in a feat, or would be unwieldy to divide into several feats, paying for this out of the class budget (like the Synthesist fundamentally changing how the Eidolon works.)
I mean, it would have been nice if the optional class options were packaged a little more clearly, but it seems silly for there to be cleric class archetypes when the doctrine system exists and does all the proficiency reshuffling already. I guess there are some classes like the fighter that don't have that built in, so maybe class archetypes are necessary for some of that, but having classes have variable proficiencies, key attributes, traditions of magic, and skills is already baked into a lot of classes.
Maybe my resistance to class archetypes is it feels like it is going to pull at the strings that already feel a little hodgepodge about the system already, instead of relying on the aspects of the system that feel most coherent and eloquent. Like for the synthesis summoner, I'd rather they just add some fundamental first level choice that a summoner gets to make (similar to how the wizard has school and thesis), about how they manifest their eidolon, leaving the synthesis option out of SoM, but shifting some of the design space so that you could choose at level 1 to either have a slightly more flexible and powerful pet or more summoning spell casting. Then that choice would be replaced by the synthesis option when they figure that out.
It seems entirely reasonable that a racket choice could do the same with sneak attack already. All of the other spell casters already have their flex option that feels like it could be used to shift anything a class archetype would, and most of the martial classes do to.
Yes I know and respect that they left design space for class archetypes from the beginning, but it is hard for me to see what they will add to the game that is already not there. When they were first being considered in the playtest, we didn't have the flexible options built into the class like we do now.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with offloading things to "subclasses" is that not all classes get them (monk and fighter do not) and that they are differently sized across classes.
Subclasses should not subtract something from the class chassis, IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bard trading spellcasting for martial progression becoming a skald maybe.
Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with offloading things to "subclasses" is that not all classes get them (monk and fighter do not) and that they are differently sized across classes.
Subclasses should not subtract something from the class chassis, IMO.
Exactly how I feel. Class Archetypes are, and should remain, unique in that they subtract class features as well as add them on. Subclasses and class feats should be fully additive, if for no other reason than that it is easier to balance that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are so many things Class Archetypes can do and I am so excited for them to start rolling in.
Synthesist, Smiting Champion, Patron-less Witch, Familiar-less Witch, Extra Cantrip Hex Witch, Sneak Attacking Ranger, Sneak Attacking Fighter, Stronger Warpriest, Witcher Alchemist, Less Cursed Oracle, Casting Capable Barbarian
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are so many things Class Archetypes can do and I am so excited for them to start rolling in.
Synthesist, Smiting Champion, Patron-less Witch, Familiar-less Witch, Extra Cantrip Hex Witch, Sneak Attacking Ranger, Sneak Attacking Fighter, Stronger Warpriest, Witcher Alchemist, Less Cursed Oracle, Casting Capable Barbarian
Smiting Champion: I assume we'd be trading off a Champion's defensive reactions for a generally available Smite Enemy ability? That's definitely something that people would get behind: a lot of people miss how aggressive Paladins were in earlier additions.
Sneak Attacking Ranger: This mostly seems like it could serve as a variation on the existing Hunter's Edge options. You could probably just have a weaker Sneak Attack (d4s) as an Edge option and it'd be fine.
Stronger Warpriest: GIMME. A Warpriest with proper martial proficiency scaling which trades off slots into the Magus/Summoner model would be dope. Keeping their Divine Font would be fine.
Witcher Alchemist: Admittedly, I'm not quite sure what this would look like. A more martial Alchemist would certainly be cool, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witcher Alchemist: Admittedly, I'm not quite sure what this would look like. A more martial Alchemist would certainly be cool, though.
*Cracks knuckles*
Alrighty, so we need, at minimum, master weapons and greater weapon specialization. Master Armor and Master DC the chassis already has, as well as a very late chiming in of Weapon specialization. Which means, to keep things in line, we'd ideally want to swap out a class feature for the extra proficiency at levels 5 and 15, and get Master Weapon proficiency at level 13 in trade for Weapon Specialization, get THAT at 7 in trade for Expert Weapon Proficiency.
Simplest modification sounds like a level 1 or 2 class archetype that grants trained with all martial weapons, moving to expert at level 5, master at level 13. You also get Weapon Specialization at level 7 and Greater at level 15. You give up Field Discovery at level 5 and Alchemical Alacrity at level 15 on top of the proficiency shifting. You can continue trading if you need more features, but those can probably just be new class feats that the archetype grants access to.
Edit: I forgot critical weapon specialization. Give at level 9 in trade for Double Brew, separate from Weapon Expertise. That brings things more in line balance-wise, I think.
I don't play alchemists, so I'll leave to others if this is balanced or not (sounds a bit on the strong side to me), but this is the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a class archetype. This touches both the subclass and the regular class features, but does so in a way that still allows the majority of the class to function and all current class feats to still be valid (as none reference Alchemical Alacrity so far). The initial feat grants an immediate benefit that is also no stronger than a normal feat of its level, though the benefits continue to scale, and also no weaker. I think that's important as well; we see in multiclass and archetype dedication feats that they usually grant a benefit equivalent to a feat in addition to access to the rest of the archetype's feats. Class archetypes should work the same, giving the benefit of a feat as well as whatever it swaps in and out, so of course the feat can be used to "pay" for a stronger swap.
Like if there was a class archetype that traded out arcane casting and granted divine casting to a wizard, I'd expect the archetype feat to also grant at least a focus spell as well. The Invoker-cleric I proposed upthread loses the bonus spells, weapon proficiency, and bonus skill of their deity, so giving back a sorcerer's bloodline feature is not out of line powerwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feats and subclasses are standardised, because they must be able to slide in and out of a build with little power change, and never interact because they need to avoid unwanted combinations.
Class archetypes, by change your features as a whole, do not have to follow these limitations and can give things that follow a different power measure (within a range).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see a Rogue dumping sneak attack to get bonus to even more skills like you could get with Phantom Thief.
I can see someone wanting it, but is it actually good for it to be an option?
Rogues already heavily outclass other classes in the skills game. I think bad things could happen if they got even more:
- They push the players of other classes to stop bothering to have skills because the rogue is better anyway.
- Or the players are frustrated because the rogue is better at "their" signature skills.
- Skill challenges are trivial for parties without rogues.
- If the difficulty of skill challenges is hiked to account for rogues, then parties without rogues get into trouble; rogue just became a mandatory class to have.
I think as a basic principle, class archetypes shouldn't allow you to improve in an aspect of the class that it's already very strong in. Compare some other gratuitous examples:
- Fighters who want to trade some skills for more hit points per level. Suddenly, other classes that don't get extra hit points start to look way too squishy in combats intended to be challenging for the fighter.
- Cloistered clerics who want to trade favored weapons & becoming expert in it for more Divine Font. A rapid series of encounters intended to challenge a party with a cleric becomes overwhelming for a party without that much spike healing. Conversely, encounters not built to challenge clerics become too easy if you have one.
Those sort of things nip at a key idea of class-based RPG systems: that you advance in a somewhat balanced fashion in multiple directions, instead of being able to spend all your "build points" to accelerate in a narrow category.
Also there's the classic conundrum that occurs in most point-buy games: a player invests heavily in an area while the other players neglect it. Anything that can challenge your super-tough vampire will probably turn the rest of the party to red mist in a few seconds. Any scene that challenges your uber-diplomancer shadowrunner is just so hard for the rest of the party that they can't really participate because their stats are orders of magnitude too low.
PF2 very, very strongly tried to avoid this. Far more than PF1. And I think that's something we should preserve when theorizing about class archetypes.
|
|
I mean I'm not against a class archetype for the rogue that trades in sneak attack for something else. But I don't think it should be getting more skills.
Basically, if the class is already defining the ceiling on something (rogues for skills, champions for armor) then they shouldn't be able to go even higher there.
But to borrow an idea from another thread, maybe you want to play a rapier-wielding noble who relies only on elegant fencing and has lots of skill. Could be done well with a Thief rogue, but you don't really like the sneak attack aspect. Trading that in for something more aristocratic could be an option. Maybe loosening up the weapon selection a bit to allow all finesse martial weapons? That's a nice trade because you stay mostly inside the same aspect so it's not such a big shakeup of the balancing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Phantom Thief could be able to pickpocket Incorporeal Creatures. That would be neat.
Phantom Thief could be able to pickpocket Incorporeal Creatures. That would be neat.
Ah yes, the literal approach
I am thinking about it more and still am not sure what they will do. Personally I feel PF1 class archetypes are pretty much in the game already.
Want to be an archer paladin? Pick up archer archetype.
Want to be an eldritch scoundrel? Pick up a caster archetype.
Want to be a defender fighter? Pick up all the shield feat.
I could go on...
Also for the most part martials are all based around 1 or 2 mechanics which imo are quite integral to the classes. So I dont see them getting rid of those mechanics.
Swapping around proficiencies I could see as a possibilities and maybe swapping spontaneous and prepared casting.
Also I hate familiars so it would be nice if a Witch got an alternative.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am thinking about it more and still am not sure what they will do. Personally I feel PF1 class archetypes are pretty much in the game already.
Want to be an archer paladin? Pick up archer archetype.
Want to be an eldritch scoundrel? Pick up a caster archetype.
Want to be a defender fighter? Pick up all the shield feat.
I could go on...
Also for the most part martials are all based around 1 or 2 mechanics which imo are quite integral to the classes. So I dont see them getting rid of those mechanics.
Swapping around proficiencies I could see as a possibilities and maybe swapping spontaneous and prepared casting.
Also I hate familiars so it would be nice if a Witch got an alternative.
That's because you're only remember the most boring ones. Their mechanical advantage may vary, but a lot of them are indeed covered by the current system... But the best archetypes, at least IMO, were the ones that offered meaningful changes to the class and had great flavor behind them.
Thins like Watersinger, Warrior Poet, Urban Barbarian, Mindblade Magus, etc, can still be added to the game keeping their vision intact, but adapting them to the new system.Sure, you can make them fit into the current paradigm, but I think most of the interesting archetypes will lose something on the process.
I looooved the Nature Fang druid. I'd like to see something like too!
RPGnoremac is not entirely wrong. If you want to add functionality to classes, you can always add more feats (including archetype feats) to let classes do that.
Class Archetypes are for when you want to take something away from a class (as there's literally no way to do that now) and to give classes things which are bigger than "a feat" and can't be easily portioned into feats (like the synthesist needs to be able to function as a synthesist from the get-go.)