So how well does this work? I'm going to be introducing my pf1 group to pf2 soon. (Pandemic slowed us down) and I know I'm a big fan of the archetype rule. And I want to introduce it from go with my group so that's our normal way to play, partly because of the options it provides, partly because I hope that when I play with our main dm running that he'll use it too, but mostly because we're starting with Extinction Curse and them having acrobat and such fro. Go would be cool.
Is it too much to introduce right off the bat? And how much stronger do they make players?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely a good rule for thematic campaigns like EC. We started PF2 without using that variant rule, and now we don't want to play without it. The only question I think would be if you have any at the table that get "choice paralysis", we have one at ours with it and that was the major hurdle for even trying the ruleset out in the first place.
Still wonder how that player even survived in PF1....
As far as complexity, I personally don't find it too complex, but probably because I made an excel sheet for tracking my character build choices and having it set up in a visual, color-coded manner helps me understand things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My first group started before the APG, and there were a few players that were worried about using the free variant rule at that time. For one thing, there wasn't a lot of variety outside of multiclass archetypes, and they were a bit overwhelmed. They worried they would have to essentially learn their own class, plus an entirely different one. To cut down on the content they had to learn, I just started using a rule of everyone gets double class feats, and if you don't normally get a feat at first level (casters) then you got one free feat at first level.
So far it's been a complete success! Most people have still taken archetypes, but it's also given them the freedom to double down on their own class. My wife wanted to play a ranger for the animal companion, but she was also interested in archery and snares. Adding double class feats let her more comfortably stretch outside of just getting animal companion stuff. After the APG it doesn't matter as much because you can probably find an archetype that will do anything your class would already do (she could literally take a specific archetype for any of those 3 aspects) but I think it's still nice for players that don't want to learn a lot of extra information.
So how well does this work? I'm going to be introducing my pf1 group to pf2 soon. (Pandemic slowed us down) and I know I'm a big fan of the archetype rule. And I want to introduce it from go with my group so that's our normal way to play, partly because of the options it provides, partly because I hope that when I play with our main dm running that he'll use it too, but mostly because we're starting with Extinction Curse and them having acrobat and such fro. Go would be cool.
Is it too much to introduce right off the bat? And how much stronger do they make players?
I'm using this option for my Age of Ashes campaign. Three of the five players were completely brand new to PF2, and in some cases with very limited table top RPG experience.
The free archetype option has worked wonderfully, the players picked it up very quickly. It also has allowed players to build their characters as the want, without the danger of losing class feats to a potentially underwhelming Archetype (and there are some underwhelming archetype options out of the APG).
All in all, it has worked great in my campaign.
Free archetype rules have a couple problems similar to 3.5 gestalt. Often times the best thing to do is going to be take a multiclass from the other side of the aisle (especially a martial picking up a caster multiclass for true strike), which is compounded by the fact that many of the non-multiclass archetypes lack feats to take every level.
I don't think these issues are damning or anything, but they're worth considering. A more conservative approach might be to just give a free dedication feat at first level; this allows hybrid concepts to come online early but means there's still an opportunity cost to your martials gishing up.
Free Archetype rules are very resilient, it is hard to come up with a character ahead of the curve.
Sadly, it is posible. Luckily, the ammount of power an optimized free archetype character can get is manageable.
I would say an extremely optimized Free Archetype Character would be as strong as 1.3 or 1.4 regular characters. Normally they will be equivalent to 1 or 1.1 normal characters.
Unless you have a whole party of min maxers doing their best you will not need any extra adjustment on your part. In the rare case this happens, consider them like a party with 1 more PC and that should take care of it.
Last, I wouldn't recommend it for your first game on the system. Play some regular games first.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it will absolutely add power to the characters. Whether it's so much power that you consider it a bad thing is a second question though - if you feel PF2 is a bit on the mean and hard side, this extra power might be just the thing needed to make it more fun.
Some examples:
* Champion and Rogue archetypes give complete/light armor proficiency, which makes a world of difference for sorcerers/wizards/witches/cloistered clerics.
* Various caster archetypes let you get to Longstrider L2 by level 6, which will give you a +10ft status bonus to speed for 8 hours. That turns a slow fullplate martial tank into a blitz machine.
* Rogue archetype gives two skill trainings and a skill feat - that can turn a skill-poor class into a skill-rich class.
* Alchemist archetype works very nicely for precision rangers and investigators. Those classes can deliver bombs more accurately and get bonus damage on their one big hit per round.
* Wizard archetype works very nicely for alchemist or investigator, giving them another Intelligence-based way to attack enemies. In the case of the investigator, you can offset a poor Devise Stratagem roll with a spell because spell attacks aren't Strikes and therefore won't use the poor strategy roll. Alchemists benefit from Electric Arc, Telekinetic Projectile or Ray of Frost to deal with enemies with good AC, elemental resistances or that are just too damn far for bombs.
Multiclassing is good. It's not going to raise your power that much when you're already performing at peak, but the extra options can make you a lot better at a Plan B when your normal Plan A isn't working well.
So how well does this work? I'm going to be introducing my pf1 group to pf2 soon. (Pandemic slowed us down) and I know I'm a big fan of the archetype rule. And I want to introduce it from go with my group so that's our normal way to play, partly because of the options it provides, partly because I hope that when I play with our main dm running that he'll use it too, but mostly because we're starting with Extinction Curse and them having acrobat and such fro. Go would be cool.
Is it too much to introduce right off the bat? And how much stronger do they make players?
I would think that it is a bit much to introduce in a player's first foray into the game. I'd rather have players get a look at the baseline game first and then tell me what things they'd like to implement later down the line. I'd rather not introduce optional rules as a baseline and have players assume that the game automatically grants this, even if I do make it clear that it's just an optional rule, and not every game will have it.
As for whether it will make them more powerful, it's difficult to say, as it depends on the combination. As a couple examples, a Sniper Gunslinger we did a playtest with was able to make solid use of a free Ranger dedication by picking up a couple class feats from there, most notably Gravity Weapon and Far Shot, so they could stack up the damage for their first shot in a round, as well as have more range to play with without suffering range increment penalties. Plus a couple more trained skills doesn't hurt. Powerful, yes, but not gamebreaking IMO. I myself, as a Champion of Shelyn wielding a Glaive, without a free archetype, have Fighter dedication, taking the Lunge feat for free reach on my attacks while forcing non-reach enemies to trigger AoOs from the Opportunist feat. I could have taken the base Attack of Opportunity feat from my class, but taking the one provided from the dedication, which operates identically to my class option, I can now take Acrobat dedication, giving me a full scaling of the Acrobatics skill, making powerful feats like Kip Up available, and making feats like Cat Fall much more appealing choices to take. Being that Champions have trash in skill utility, a dedication like Acrobat is quite appealing to get a few of the things I want in my character, and Kip Up and Cat Fall are solid feats, but by no means extremely powerful except in fringe case situations.
Our Druid, with a free Mauler dedication combined with Beastmaster, is able to utilize a Bastard Sword with multiple support benefits from both companions he possesses for solid melee damage, while being in range of healing and utilizing Battle Medicine on others to great effect, thanks to later taking Medic dedication. (And no, he doesn't really have any actual class feats. A problem of the Druid class feats in general, in my opinion.) Heck, a Cleric in another one of our games has taken Champion dedication for a powerful reaction that reduces damage on allies while giving him full access to Heavy Armor, and my Wizard in that same game has taken Rogue dedication for feats like Mobility, letting me move to safe places in the battlefield without triggering reactions, and having additional skill feats and an extra Master skill thanks to the Skill Mastery feat, as well as Master in Reflex Saves thanks to Evasiveness (but no Evasion effect, which makes me a bit sad, but +2 is still nice).
While these seem powerful, in my opinion all they do is grant versatile options. Non-Occult Sorcerers could take Bard dedication feats for additional spellcasting from a separate casting tradition, adding versatile spell and buff options, or even if they are Occult, so they have two pools of Legendary DC spellcasting by 19th level. Druids could take Cleric dedication for Divine and Primal spellcasting using the same attribute, and vice-versa. What keeps these combinations in check is the action economy, though. A Sorcerer with Bard dedication might be able to both cast a spell and apply a composition cantrip like Inspire Courage in the same round, but they couldn't cast two spells, one from each tradition, in the same round (aside from Quicken, but that's atypical and limited in scope). And often times, this lets players pick other options that are more appealing to them in case their current feat choices are just...bad.
So yes, it adds power. But that is more of a horizontal kind of power instead of a vertical kind of power, more often than not. Any vertical power probably isn't going to be anything extreme that the rules probably haven't already accounted for.
One thing I've also considered is using the Fee Archetype rule but just not letting you pick up multiclass archetypes with the 'free' feats. Players could still use their regular Class Feats for those if they'd like, but the extra options are limited to more flavorful or niche options
You're going to get a variety of opinions from people on this, both players and pundits on the internet. Some will think it's too overwhelming and some will think it's extremely obvious or even necessary.
In any case, I made a little breakdown of options like these, way back here. In general, I think Free Archetype with no 3 Feats to Leave rule and the ability to instead take a feat from your class as if you were half of your level is going to be fine for most people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can make you a little stronger, but the system natively does a lot to keep even optimized characters relatively balanced. Most builds hit a wall where they can't directly optimize their 'one thing' after a certain point, so their other resources go to either versatility, shoring up weaknesses, or flavor, depending on the player's 'standards' for how optimized they have to be and how that intersects with their perception of their own power level in the greater context of the game and what they value.
I've noticed that the builds that seemingly break the curve the most (in damage, because what else would we even be talking about) are much less useful in a variety of other situations, require annoying action setups that make achieving their supposed peak impractical in most situations.
I'm thinking of a Goblin Fighter, dual wielding Light Picks with the Assassin Archetype, my player experimented with this along the playtest classes recently, it required the three action Marked for Death set up, for the character to be avoiding the enemies notice, and be flat footed (which admittedly tends to go with the previous one) for the small sneak attack component, and for the fighter to have two actions remaining to double slice with (with weapons already out of course) to reach it's real potential.
Meanwhile I've got another player who keeps complaining they can't find anything 'useful' to take for their characters using free archetype because they can't find ways of making their character do more damage after a certain point on a martial, or they play casters and can't find archetypes that directly make their spells stronger. They've got this twitchy perfectionism going on where the system is actively thwarting their attempts to go too far past the curve, and they get into their own head about it because spending those feats in ways that aren't direct high octane increases to moment-to-moment effectiveness is making them feel unoptimized, even though they're already functionally top tier.
So in short, the system is immaculately balanced, even with Free Archetype on, expect the characters to be more versatile, but for the encounter math itself to hold up without meaningful alteration (though, if they weren't the types to sacrifice power for flavor in the first place, they will likely be further up on the power curve for not having had to make the tradeoff-- just not much relative to how high up they could have been before, and not so much that a severe encounter is no longer dangerous in tis own right.)
The Variation of the Free Archetype rule that interests me most is the "you are all a part of the same organization" variant. For example, free archetype but everyone needs to take feats from Cavalier because you are all a part of the same knightly order, or free archetype but everyone needs to take feats from Dragon Disciple because you all grew up on Hermea and were thus changed by Mengkare. Stuff like that.
Free Archetype worked well for me with a group of brand new to 2e players.
They didn't plan through a build start to finish just had an idea what they want to do and chose an archetype that fit that.
|
Balance is a bit squiffy. It can be anywhere from pretty much no combat benefit (picking an archetype like celebrity) or about +0.3-0.5 levels (picking an archetype like champion, bard or other high power archetypes).
In general I’d recommend the GM control FA such that all the players end up with roughly the same type of archetype. If most are picking a combat archetype, then you should encourage the rest to also pick a combat archetype. If most are picking a non combat or flavour archetype (even something like Pirate might go here because the combat benefit is basically nil), then you shouldn’t allow the rest to pick combat archetypes.
I run a variant of free archetype where you get an extra archetype feat or a class feat from your own list that's half level. From my experience, it doesn't actually significantly improve the power of most classes in any given instant; it just lets you do more stuff. The only class that really does get an actual like buff to combat power is alchemist, but that's because you can stack the alchemist's math fixer feats and stuff like Gravity Weapon, though in effect, it doesn't make them OP, just a bit better at combat.
The main consequence is the more people will be able to contribute to more problems. Like, for example, a fighter might not be able to help much in social situations, but a fighter/bard or fighter/rogue might actually be working side by side with the main cha using classes in social events. Chances are, most martials will see more non combat utility, while support classes and casters will either see even more support options or pick up a little extra durability or weapon tricks. YMMV, but you might also see an uptick in flavor feats being picked; an example at my table is a ranger picking up pirate as her free archetype. Under normal conditions, she wouldn't have because she wouldn't have the available feats, but because of the extra feats, she did take them because they meshed well with her background
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have experience GMing for PF1, PF2 Free Archetype is going to be a non-issue for you. The intra-party power variation that Free Archetype can introduce is absolutely NOTHING compared to what PF1 could see without any optional rules.
I'm more than comfortable allowing one character to choose non-combat, utility archetypes and another focusing on increasing their combat potential because I have experience adjusting encounters as necessary. Also, my party is not prone to comparing numbers and getting bent out of shape if one is out performing another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've done "Free Archetype, but not multiclass archetypes" and had it work out pretty well. There's enough archetypes now that this isn't a huge impediment.
The biggest thing I wanted to avoid is "you shouldn't feel pressured to take an archetype other than staff acrobat on your bo staff using monk, just because getting spellcasting from a multiclass archetype is better."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing you need to be aware of, if you're using one of the software builders instead of the books, is that Adventure Path archetypes are notably more powerful in many cases than their rulebook counterparts. These are marked as either Uncommon or Rare in the builders and AoN, and you should really think before letting them into your campaign.
I would be interested in hearing more about this.
Are you thinking of any archetype(s) in particular you believe is "notably more powerful"?
I'm asking because I didn't find the Extinction Curse archetypes to stand out. Admittedly, I haven't more than glanced at them, but if anything, they appeared so quaintly specific I would have guessed there were more on the underpowered side than overpowered...
Jalmeri Heavenseeker has a feat that adds your level to damage as sonic and electricity (technically it adds half your level twice). That kind of damage boost is ridiculous for a feat.
|
|
+Level to damage is insane. Think about a dual-class fighter-barbarian, giant instinct, then realise that the bonus from heavenseeker is actually better than the barbarian can ever get (+18 vs +20). And it also works with agile weapon. A double slice fighter with heavenseeker would be nuts.
Another broken AP archetype is provocatour, for the "Pin to the Spot" feat, which is again, absolutely insane.
That being said, both provocatour and heavenseeker are fine if the broken feats aren't allowed.
Thanks.
First off, hopefully we won't have to go down the route of "this archetype is fine if we just ban feature X". The whole point of having balanced and controlled rules (as PF2 has) is that you don't have to go through new content with a fine comb. Either it's fine to allow your players to access uncommon content or it isn't.
So I don't think these feats were published with a mindset of "sure they're broken but at least they're Uncommon". I think that if they indeed are broken, Paizo would agree publishing them would be a mistake.
So, then. Are they broken?
Heaven's Thunder is a feat that (in simplified terms) turns a three-action Monk into a two-action Monk with +level damage during those turns you feel you don't need that third action.
Assuming you hit on average with every other attack, that's +10 damage at level 10. The questions then, are:
1) is ten damage really a big deal on level 10?
2) can't a Monk's Third Action™ be used to gain advantages similar to 10 damage a round?
3) how often will you actually use this? (If you use it on average every other combat round, the benefit lowers to +5 DPR, again at L10)It might well be "absolutely insane". I just don't see it, though.
It lasts until the end of your next turn. If you can't see why level to damage is insane, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pin to the Spot is more obviously great. It allows strategies where you use True Strike to continuously disable a big foe; trading three of your actions for at least one of the monster's.
If there's existing discussion about this feat elsewhere, I'm going to have a look.
Edit: searched the forums for "pin to the spot" and "provocator". Zero results. Guess the feat isn't that controversial after all...?
The whole provocator archetype has some glaring issues that make me wonder if the writer was really familiar with PF2 rules:
- At level 10 your apparently melee-centric character gains Trained proficiency in simple, martial and one advanced weapon. Excuse me, Trained? All martial classes are already Expert since level 5. Is this dedication for wizards who hold a grudge that they don't know simple weapons? For martials who wanted an advanced weapon but didn't want to spend a general or level 1 ancestry feat?
- At level 16 you can become Expert in those weapons; but Martial classes are already Master at most of them.
- Pin to the Spot works on a simple hit with a Strike within reach. It doesn't require any particular weapon. And then it gives the effect of a critical success on a grapple. Without requiring a free hand or weapon with the grapple trait, by the way. You can just greatsword or polearm pin someone to the spot. And it doesn't increase MAP either. Restrained causes flat-footed, immobilized and prevents manipulate actions and attacks other than to Escape. This feat is pretty bonkers. Just imagine this in the hands of a polearm fighter who at that level already has Legendary attacks.
Thanks.
First off, hopefully we won't have to go down the route of "this archetype is fine if we just ban feature X". The whole point of having balanced and controlled rules (as PF2 has) is that you don't have to go through new content with a fine comb. Either it's fine to allow your players to access uncommon content or it isn't.
So I don't think these feats were published with a mindset of "sure they're broken but at least they're Uncommon". I think that if they indeed are broken, Paizo would agree publishing them would be a mistake.
Paizo peeps have said multiple times that uncommon and rarer stuff from adventure paths aren't really meant to be used outside of those APs. You certainly can, but you sort of have to accept the risk that AP player options recieve less testing than stuff from core books.
This discussion really interest me because I am very tempted to play with the free archetype for our next campaign. In general I think it is clear that there are powerful archetypes.
The real question is does allowing free archetypes break the game when a player picks one of these archetypes as a free archetype?
For example wouldn't Jalmeri Heavenseeker be just as big of a problem with a player picking it up in a regular game for balance?
The only difference I see is a player can take Jalmeri Heavenseeker + class feats with the free archetypes.
Has anyone played with the free archetype variant and had these players taking powerful archetypes really unbalancing the game?
I mainly look at the variant rule as a way to just have players have more choices and experiment with the archetypes. I found new players almost just ignore archetypes without the rules.
The real question when deciding to use the free archetype rule is what to do about the restrictions about "Special You can't select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the Jalmeri heavenseeker archetype." I found out a lot of people have different opinions on this part.
Personally I feel that the "free" archetype shouldn't have these restrictions since there are a lot of classes I don't even want class feats for sometimes :(
I don't think anyone would pick Jalmeri Heavenseeker w/o knowledge of the strong feat and which point that's just powergaming.
Most archetypes are general purpose and help fulfill a fantasy that's not covered in a class chassis. That's what makes free archetype so great imo. It helps flesh out character concepts.
I like the 2 feat restriction even with free archetype because of the extra feats being available but I would make exceptions for ancient elves, the eldritch rogue racket and if someone wants to go into an archetype that isn't available at lvl 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that the GM has the final say on Uncommon+ rarity options being available to the players unless there is an access that they fulfill, and even then a GM might impose other restrictions (though this must be communicated with the players beforehand).
If a player wants an option that is either game breaking or doesn't fit the flavor of your campaign or they haven't done enough to get access to the option, you as GM can say no and give those reasons for your refusal, and tell them to pick something else, or make a list of acceptable choices for them to take.
As I will be running a Free Archetype campaign soon enough, this is relatively important for me to keep an eye on for ideas and potential pit-falls.
- Pin to the Spot works on a simple hit with a Strike within reach. It doesn't require any particular weapon. And then it gives the effect of a critical success on a grapple. Without requiring a free hand or weapon with the grapple trait, by the way. You can just greatsword or polearm pin someone to the spot. And it doesn't increase MAP either. Restrained causes flat-footed, immobilized and prevents manipulate actions and attacks other than to Escape. This feat is pretty bonkers. Just imagine this in the hands of a polearm fighter who at that level already has Legendary attacks.
Pin to the Spot is an activity that requires a strike, so MAP would still apply to that? Similar activities like Sudden Charge don't have the attack trait either.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not having to face an overpowered PC at your table is a very good reason for a GM to say NO.
Now, if the player is in for interesting not unbalancing bits, they and the GM can work together on removing the OP parts so that both player and GM are happy playing the game.
Not to mention the rest of the crew.
|
|
Pin to the Spot is an activity that requires a strike, so MAP would still apply to that? Similar activities like Sudden Charge don't have the attack trait either.
- Pin to the Spot works on a simple hit with a Strike within reach. It doesn't require any particular weapon. And then it gives the effect of a critical success on a grapple. Without requiring a free hand or weapon with the grapple trait, by the way. You can just greatsword or polearm pin someone to the spot. And it doesn't increase MAP either. Restrained causes flat-footed, immobilized and prevents manipulate actions and attacks other than to Escape. This feat is pretty bonkers. Just imagine this in the hands of a polearm fighter who at that level already has Legendary attacks.
Yeah, but it accomplishes the effect of two attacks - a Strike and a critical grapple, without increasing MAP twice.