| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist would work as a Wizard Class Archetype, since it would require a replacement of the base spell casting feature, and likely the subtraction of something else. I don't think its uniquely flavored enough to really be a class on its own.
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?
Bringing things back to this original post, I hope we might see at least a few class archetypes in Secrets of Magic. Given their elevator pitch, that the book is designed to drop into a campaign and turn up the dial on magic use, archetypes, class feats, and subclasses that do that seem like natural additions. I don't think there will be very many of them; everyone is quite correct that they can mostly make use of other tools without resorting to a class archetype, but there might be one or two.
One that just occurred to me, an elementalist monk. There's a couple archetypes already, but it annoys me that they cast divine or occult focus spells, not arcane or primal. I would be interested in something that modifies that, and the SoM description they released this week does say they'll have a section on elementalism.
Arcanist would work as a Wizard Class Archetype, since it would require a replacement of the base spell casting feature, and likely the subtraction of something else. I don't think its uniquely flavored enough to really be a class on its own.
It could also work as a first level class feat for a generalist wizard. When the wizard prepares his spells, he gets the choice of using the Vancian or the Arcanist method.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist would work as a Wizard Class Archetype, since it would require a replacement of the base spell casting feature, and likely the subtraction of something else. I don't think its uniquely flavored enough to really be a class on its own.It could also work as a first level class feat for a generalist wizard. When the wizard prepares his spells, he gets the choice of using the Vancian or the Arcanist method.
I think its too powerful for a first level feat, we need to lose something else-- it literally spits on spell substitution as an option, so it needs a higher opportunity cost. Losing Arcane Bond completely (your school selection really) would cut your effective spell slots down for the flexibility it offers, and leave generalists still useful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since there's so much baggage in the Wizard having an "arcane school" and a "thesis" there's definitely a space for an Autodidact Wizard archetype that replaces both of those things.
I mean, a lot of class features are things someone might want to replace not because they're bad or mechanically irrelevant, but because they mean things that contradict a character concept. If I'm a self-taught wizard I didn't go to school or pen a thesis, if I'm a gentle(man/woman/etc.) thief I might not want to fight dishonorably via sneak attacks and debilitating strikes.
I think its too powerful for a first level feat, we need to lose something else-- it literally spits on spell substitution as an option, so it needs a higher opportunity cost. Losing Arcane Bond completely (your school selection really) would cut your effective spell slots down for the flexibility it offers, and leave generalists still useful.Arcanist would work as a Wizard Class Archetype, since it would require a replacement of the base spell casting feature, and likely the subtraction of something else. I don't think its uniquely flavored enough to really be a class on its own.It could also work as a first level class feat for a generalist wizard. When the wizard prepares his spells, he gets the choice of using the Vancian or the Arcanist method.
I'd be curious how they'll do this. It seems like it would be easier to just give an alternate casting system entirely, but they might challenge themselves to make it a separate option that can be played alongside what we have now, much as the arcanist could be played alongside a sorcerer and a wizard.
If so, then yeah, taking out thesis or school along with modifying how casting works seems logical.
| 5 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...
Those don't actually replace anything though. A big part of PF1 archetypes are getting rid of one idea to enhance another. Just taking a feat doesn't do that.
For another, if we rely exclusively on feats for almost every avenue of customization, they start to really become a significant bottleneck in the long run. PF2 already kinda struggles with this, which is why I think it'd be nice to see some alternatives opened up.
Since there's so much baggage in the Wizard having an "arcane school" and a "thesis" there's definitely a space for an Autodidact Wizard archetype that replaces both of those things.
A wizard who loses School becomes a 3/slot/level caster which seems like it has the potential to open up some interesting variations depending on what you substitute it with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a bet going about Thassilonian Sin Wizards showing up in the next magic book (I know it's a spicy bet, but I like going for the long shot). So that I guess?
|
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.
While I do appreciate the method, it’s definitely not balanced. Trading out alchemical alacrity (which is a useless feature, even with the errata) for master prof is a trade I’d do every day. Trading out field discovery for earlier martial prof and greater weapon spec hurts early, but now you have martial weapons to carry you in combat don’t need to rely on reagents anymore. Losing double brew hurts for bombers, but getting better proficiency is so much better than double brew. I’d say that, as written, would end up as an automatic take for any alchemist.
I imagine, if it was written by Paizo, you’d probably get the ability to key str or dex, master prof at 13, Expert at 5 in return for losing half your reagents and your research field is locked to a specific one (probably mutagenist).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond the scope of this thread but I feel like master prof might be something the Alchemist just needs in general. 3/4 research fields are expected to make weapon attacks if they intend on using their own gimmick and the fourth has no natural fallback activity like cantrips. They and Warpriests are the only ones that don't get either master+ in weapons or legendary in spellcasting and they're the only ones who never get master in any offensive proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond the scope of this thread but I feel like master prof might be something the Alchemist just needs in general. 3/4 research fields are expected to make weapon attacks if they intend on using their own gimmick and the fourth has no natural fallback activity like cantrips. They and Warpriests are the only ones that don't get either master+ in weapons or legendary in spellcasting and they're the only ones who never get master in any offensive proficiency.
Yeah, its hurts even worse because their primary stat isn't their stat for throwing bombs or using weapons, so regardless of if they have master or expert, they're at another -1 on top of that, even if optimized, being halfway between expert and trained, functionally, hurts them way too much. If no other adjustment was made to them, but they got master in weapons/bombs, they'd still be at -1 relative to their martial peers.
Archetypes don't take away anything directly but indirectly they do. Since when you take an archetype you arent gaining something else. PF1 plenty of archetypes added/took away animal companions for example.
I feel the APG really showed how much they are willing to make fun/powerful archetypes and could see even non class archetypes take away things. Like an archetype that makes casters lose a casting proficiency but gain some martial prowess. Basically Warpriest for Wizard/Witch/Sorcerer would be cool.
Personally I would like caster only archetypes that let classes specialize more in summoning or even specific schools. They could also make archetypes that switch traditions.
Mystic Theurge would also be cool if it made a caster good at 2 traditions but they had to have a 50/50 split of each tradition.
I really hope they add some super interesting archetypes in secret of magic either class archetype or just general archetypes.
Overall just really excited for the for of PF2E.
I feel the APG really showed how much they are willing to make fun/powerful archetypes and could see even non class archetypes take away things. Like an archetype that makes casters lose a casting proficiency but gain some martial prowess. Basically Warpriest for Wizard/Witch/Sorcerer would be cool.
Again, no. That wouldn't be balanced if it could be applied to any class, and if it is class locked it's already a class archetype, so you might as well call it that.
It'd be somewhat difficult to even do an archetype that has a prerequisite of casting ability, because of how multiclass archetypes would interact with it, and because Champions, Monks, Clerics, Magus, and Summoners are all going to have proficiency levels that are different from most casters. Dropping a Monk's casting ability from Master to Expert isn't going to bother them any if they pick the right feats, and they'd be happy to get even a temporary boost to their martial abilities in trade. Even if their own class abilities eventually catch up, they can always retrain out of it once they no longer benefit from it.
At best, I can see an archetype that adds an anathema against using your armor or weapon proficiency, or against using cantrips or non-archetype focus spells, but that doesn't actually take anything away from you.
Well I was just giving examples and I dont think naming a "class" archetype really changes much. The only issue I see with making archetypes work for specific classes is that they would be if they add classes they would have to add them to the archetype.
Dragon Disciple is probably the most limiting one if your GM only allows common things. I wonder if they will add other dragon theme classes to it.
Out of curiosity have they mentioned class archetypes other than synthesis summoner? I am of course not opposed to them but most classes really just have 1-3 defining things. Then players choose the rest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calling it a class archetype grants you the ability to pick up the archetype at level 1, instead of level 2 when you'd select your first class feat (for casters). If you're swapping out your casting style to, say, Arcanist/Neo-vancian, or from prepared to spontaneous, that is an important mechanical distinction between an archetype and a class archetype.
I don't believe they've mentioned any other probable class archetypes. I doubt there will be many in the long run, as using other tools is easier for most concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes don't take away anything directly but indirectly they do. Since when you take an archetype you arent gaining something else. PF1 plenty of archetypes added/took away animal companions for example.
I feel the APG really showed how much they are willing to make fun/powerful archetypes and could see even non class archetypes take away things. Like an archetype that makes casters lose a casting proficiency but gain some martial prowess. Basically Warpriest for Wizard/Witch/Sorcerer would be cool.
Personally I would like caster only archetypes that let classes specialize more in summoning or even specific schools. They could also make archetypes that switch traditions.
Mystic Theurge would also be cool if it made a caster good at 2 traditions but they had to have a 50/50 split of each tradition.
I really hope they add some super interesting archetypes in secret of magic either class archetype or just general archetypes.
Overall just really excited for the for of PF2E.
Please, no. Nothing worse than class archetypes that are made to fit all classes. In Starfinder, where they only have these, the system is great as a whole, but I never been less inclined into step outside of my class as I am in that system. It's freaking awful, because most feats aren't mechanically interesting (because they need to fit with everything) even though they have a solid flavor behind them.
If they're ever in the game, I want only Class-specific archetypes that are perfectly tailored for a single class. We already have the current archetypes that fit any class in the game.
Archetypes don't take away anything directly but indirectly they do. Since when you take an archetype you arent gaining something else. PF1 plenty of archetypes added/took away animal companions for example.
I feel the APG really showed how much they are willing to make fun/powerful archetypes and could see even non class archetypes take away things. Like an archetype that makes casters lose a casting proficiency but gain some martial prowess. Basically Warpriest for Wizard/Witch/Sorcerer would be cool.
Personally I would like caster only archetypes that let classes specialize more in summoning or even specific schools. They could also make archetypes that switch traditions.
Mystic Theurge would also be cool if it made a caster good at 2 traditions but they had to have a 50/50 split of each tradition.
I really hope they add some super interesting archetypes in secret of magic either class archetype or just general archetypes.
Overall just really excited for the for of PF2E.
Please, no. Nothing worse than class archetypes that are made to fit all classes. In Starfinder, where they only have these, the system is great as a whole, but I never been less inclined into step outside of my class as I am in that system. It's freaking awful, because most feats aren't mechanically interesting (because they need to fit with everything) even though they have a solid flavor behind them.
If they're ever in the game, I want only Class-specific archetypes that are perfectly tailored for a single class. We already have the current archetypes that fit any class in the game.
Isn't this what we already have in archetypes in PF2? Most archetypes can be picked up by any character.
If class archetypes do come in the secrets of magic book though, it is unlikely we'll see ones for the magus and the summoner as they made it sound the synthesis summoner is something they are holding on to for a future book. My guess is that will mean either that there are no class archetypes in Secrets of Magic, or class archetypes are going to be for things like introducing entirely new variant systems of magic into the game (which we have been told will be happening with Secrets of Magic). I can see that being a necessary design space for class archetypes for sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the ones akin to PF1e that alter specific class features, rather than offering optional feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Starfinder archetypes are a mess. Really sad too, since their concepts are mostly pretty cool.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class archetypes could also potentially change how feats work too.
Like say, an Urban Ranger might give you skill bonuses, modify stuff like trackless step, but also potentially add a new valid terrain type to favored terrain or change how camouflage works.
Yeah, Starfinder archetypes are a mess. Really sad too, since their concepts are mostly pretty cool.
Starfinder archetypes are a mess, starfinder ACFs on the other hand do pretty much exactly what I'm hoping some class archetypes allow.
Please, no. Nothing worse than class archetypes that are made to fit all classes. In Starfinder, where they only have these, the system is great as a whole, but I never been less inclined into step outside of my class as I am in that system. It's freaking awful, because most feats aren't mechanically interesting (because they need to fit with everything) even though they have a solid flavor behind them.
If they're ever in the game, I want only Class-specific archetypes that are perfectly tailored for a single class. We already have the current archetypes that fit any class in the game.
Isn't this what we already have in archetypes in PF2? Most archetypes can be picked up by any character.
If class archetypes do come in the secrets of magic book though, it is unlikely we'll see ones for the magus and the summoner as they made it sound the synthesis summoner is something they are holding on to for a future book.
The class feat system makes a huge difference in how well the archetype system functions. Since they're additive instead of substitutive, and the rules are as fully contained inside that addition as they can make them, it is a lot easier to make functional archetypes that aren't over or underpowered. As much as I would rather they had made Starfinder an add-on to Pathfinder instead of a spin-off (something along the lines of Occult Adventures, with the sourcebook mostly just the new classes and starship rules, and the new weapon system), they clearly learned a lot and applied those lessons well. And hey, perhaps they'll make something like that for Pathfinder 2, who knows?
I think you're correct about the chances of a Magus class archetype, I also think the main reason we're not seeing a Synthecist archetype is because they didn't budget the space and don't want to cut something else out to put it in. So if they had already allocated, say, a Divine version of the Magus, that might still be coming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please, no. Nothing worse than class archetypes that are made to fit all classes. In Starfinder, where they only have these, the system is great as a whole, but I never been less inclined into step outside of my class as I am in that system. It's freaking awful, because most feats aren't mechanically interesting (because they need to fit with everything) even though they have a solid flavor behind them.
If they're ever in the game, I want only Class-specific archetypes that are perfectly tailored for a single class. We already have the current archetypes that fit any class in the game.
Isn't this what we already have in archetypes in PF2? Most archetypes can be picked up by any character.
If class archetypes do come in the secrets of magic book though, it is unlikely we'll see ones for the magus and the summoner as they made it sound the synthesis summoner is something they are holding on to for a future book.
The class feat system makes a huge difference in how well the archetype system functions. Since they're additive instead of substitutive, and the rules are as fully contained inside that addition as they can make them, it is a lot easier to make functional archetypes that aren't over or underpowered. As much as I would rather they had made Starfinder an add-on to Pathfinder instead of a spin-off (something along the lines of Occult Adventures, with the sourcebook mostly just the new classes and starship rules, and the new weapon system), they clearly learned a lot and applied those lessons well. And hey, perhaps they'll make something like that for Pathfinder 2, who knows?
I think you're correct about the chances of a Magus class archetype, I also think the main reason we're not seeing a Synthecist archetype is because they didn't budget the space and don't want to cut something else out to put it in. So if they had already allocated, say, a Divine version of the Magus, that might still be coming.
In retrospect, revisiting the previews of Secrets of Magic and how it sounds like a lot of new magical systems are going to be introduced, I could definitely see how class archetypes might be necessary to make those systems available as level one magic systems rather than rare/obscure forms of magic that might only be accessible through more traditional archetype feats. I don't know if we'll get those in the book or not, but i do see how they could be valuable for integrating those systems into the architecture of your game as a GM, rather than having them be add ons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing I wonder about is if/when they print something like "a different paradigm of spellcasting" that is compatible with spontaneous and prepared casters of all four traditions, is there a way to structure a class archetype to work for any class that gets spellcasting?
"Different kinds of spellcasting" seems like a thing we want to do eventually, and we don't really need 10+ different class archetypes for like "psychic sorcerer", "psychic witch", "psychic bard", etc.
Probably, though I'm not certain on how to phrase it. Luckily people much smarter than me are the ones with that task in front of them.