If enough people Aid each other, we might be able to beat the DC required to make Paizo release the aforementioned already!
Jokes aside, honestly though — where are they! We've had four released new classes, two playtests for four classes to be released, and the Ancestry Guide right around the corner. Okay, it's not like the Ancestry Guide affects class archetypes too much but I mean, I would have assumed that they would be higher on the priority list?
I can't help but feel that by each new class that we get, it gets a tiny little harder or more complicated for class archetypes to not only be implemented, but to catch up to the current width of content. Does that make sense? As we get more classes, there's, well, more of them to cover.
Now! To be totally clear, I'm not against more classes being released! I really like them. This is pure curiosity and speculation. Now, getting back to it:
Like, yeah, obviously Paizo doesn't need to release class archetypes for all the classes at once, but I dunno. I guess I imagined them to be a pretty important part or facet of the current system, like ancestries, classes, items or well, the rest of the archetypes themselves. Though I guess class archetypes are technically a part of the archetype system, but hopefully you all get what I'm trying to say here. Maybe I'm afraid that class archetypes end up being just this tiny extra instead of something more important. Like optional rules.
I mean, we don't even know what they can look like! Will they completely change how a class is played? Shake things up? Or just make a tiny difference? We — Well, we don't know!
How would YOU like to see class archetypes be implemented? What do you think Paizo should avoid, what should they invest in, etc? Is there even a clear space for class archetypes, or do you think they will inevitably end up stepping on other mechanics's toes?
Would you rather have them be introduced in a single book, maybe mechanically almost exclusively for them, or are you okay with them being sporadically released in different books from the get go? Do you think that playtesting different ways or levels of their implementation would be a cool idea? What's your take?
If enough people Aid each other, we might be able to beat the DC required to make Paizo release the aforementioned already!
Oops, just remembered that Aid gives a circumstance bonus and they don't stack... Guess the ball's on the GM court now. Will they have pity on us and lower the DC so we might have a change to beat it? =D
My guess is that it is difficult to balance or adjudicate them.
A simple Armor Master Fighter would be getting better Armor proficiency scaling than a base Champion at the cost of a reduced Weapon progression. Like, Warpriest levels of bad. I don't think the rules intend for that kind of differential scaling, and without completely re-writing the scaling, which is a lot of work, testing, and word count, it's not very easily done.
But other than that, my other guess is that retreading old ground isn't good for business. It's the reason why things like Errata are done as backburner projects when content releases are being play tested, vetted, updated, and then sent to the printer for publishing. They don't make any money from reprints and Errata, even if it's all good Errata. Same thing here, since this content would feel more like "optional" Errata.
After all, I'm sure players would rather have Magus and Gunslinger classes being released over a variant Fighter progression that alters Armor greatly in favor of Weaponry, and the former is good for new content books, their #1 way of making money (besides PFS fees and stuff).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If enough people Aid each other, we might be able to beat the DC required to make Paizo release the aforementioned already!Oops, just remembered that Aid gives a circumstance bonus and they don't stack... Guess the ball's on the GM court now. Will they have pity on us and lower the DC so we might have a change to beat it? =D
With any luck, a Legendary Critical Success might just be enough to push the value over the edge. A +4 makes a huge difference in this edition, after all...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that each time Paizo considers a new Class-like concept, they assess how to best implement it : a new Class, new feats, a new archetype dedication (ie, open to all Classes) or a Class archetype.
Up til now, all these innovations have been better designed and released as something other than Class archetypes. Usually because the devs prefer a design that can benefit as many builds as possible.
This does not mean we will never see Class archetypes, but they (rightfully IMO) favor other, more open, types of implementation.
What examples of Class archetypes would you want to see ?
They've mentioned before on the forums (can't for the life of me remember where) that they included the rules for Class Archetypes that way the foundation is there, but aren't in a rush/see a reason to make any at this moment. A Class Archetype fills a very specific role of "This class, but this ability instead of this ability".
We will eventually get them, but who knows when. If a concept comes to paizo's mind, they probably would rather release it as an Archetype that every class could take, rather than restrict it to a single class. An class archetype specifically for Ranger that alters them to be more focused on Archery, vs an Archer archetype all classes could take. Etc.
That being said, yeah, some concepts are better on a single class. In the Summoner Playtest Blog, Mark (I think it was Mark) mentions the Synthesis feat changing in name, because it doesn't really capture the idea/flavor of the 1e Synthesis. And that a 1e version of Synthesis Summoner being better served as a Class Archetype in a future book.
Me personally, I'd rather more Archetypes and class paths (Sorc bloodlines, druid orders, cleric doctrines, etc.) than class specific archetypes. But would not be against seeing them eventually. I just like new content :3
My guess is that it is difficult to balance or adjudicate them.(...)
Yeah, I can see that. Another way of seeing it is that making an interesting and balanced class archetype might just require too much work for what they may envision the class archetypes being like. Just extrapolating though.
After all, I'm sure players would rather have Magus and Gunslinger classes being released over a variant Fighter progression that alters Armor greatly in favor of Weaponry, and the former is good for new content books, their #1 way of making money
Well, they certainly make for more exciting content, I think. At least more attention-grabbing.
But! Realistically, class archetypes can be more than a fighter with variant proficiency. Or they may not! It's unexplored grounds, really. Though yeah, I agree with your general assessment. Still, I just... I don't know. I'm just really curious with what they can do in that design space.
With any luck, a Legendary Critical Success might just be enough to push the value over the edge. A +4 makes a huge difference in this edition, after all...
That's very true! An oddly optimistic observation for someone whose nickname is the Painbringer.
I believe that each time Paizo considers a new Class-like concept, they assess how to best implement it : a new Class, new feats, a new archetype dedication (ie, open to all Classes) or a Class archetype.
That makes a lot of sense. But at the same time, I dunno, I feel like almost every concept might be better off as any of the other tried methods? Especially because they tend to lean towards that more flexible design that you've mentioned a little below the quoted paragraph. Maybe especially because they haven't explored them yet. Though yeah,
What examples of Class archetypes would you want to see ?
Oh, me? I don't know! I have something of a hard time imagining ceonceptual class archetypes, to be honest. Almost anything that comes up in my mind can already be done in a different way with the usual archetype system or sometimes as a subclass(rogue racket, etc). I guess we'd need to work with concepts that mess too much with the skeleton of a class. If I try really hard to think of something...
Well... I'm not sure what they could be called, but wizards overly specialized in their chosen schools? Specialists, I guess So they can access more focus spells based on their chosen schools, at the cost of... I dunno, something. Or gain some sort of advancement for their school benefits as they level up. Ideally, there could be a single archetype for each school — Conjurer, Transmuter, etc — but one for all could work as well too. Probably gaining access to a few extra feats as well.
Or, hmm... What about the Gloomblade? Maybe delayed proficiency progression in weapons or some saves for some gloomy powers? Or, I dunnno, worse proficiency I guess.
I feel like the Shifter could be a good class archetype for the druid. Maybe give her the Magus/Summoner spellcasting or something like that, lock her out of certain orders, and give her some feats and focus powers and an instrinsic, deeper wildshaping.
I mean, okay, maybe all of these can work already at least in the narrative side, but they are good enough examples right?
They've mentioned before on the forums (can't for the life of me remember where) that they included the rules for Class Archetypes that way the foundation is there, but aren't in a rush/see a reason to make any at this moment. A Class Archetype fills a very specific role of "This class, but this ability instead of this ability"
I feel like I remember that, yeah! I guess that makes lots of sense, but asdasdasda y know?
Me personally, I'd rather more Archetypes and class paths (Sorc bloodlines, druid orders, cleric doctrines, etc.) than class specific archetypes. But would not be against seeing them eventually. I just like new content :3
Hmm... I'm a little divided. I feel like a lot of concepts can be done either as class archetypes or class paths. So honestly, I'd rather see the concept done in the way that makes it look and feel better. Does that make sense?
But like, totally, I love new content as well! I just, I see the class archetype description with not examples, all lonely and stuff... I'm really just fighting for the little guy here.
I expect that Class Archetypes will always be a fairly empty category, because of the generally modular class design. I'd only expect it to come up in a casevwhere you need to remove a core feature (a rogue that loses sneak attack entirely for some other gimmick, but such that the new gimmick is still intended to function with all the rackets, even as they assume sneak attack).
It's a good design place to stake out as existing,, but not one that I think they need to rush to fill (instead of slowly trickling in edge cases as they come up).
I also have a sneaking suspicion that class archetypes might be leveraged to fill very specific class fantasies, much the way Prestige Classes tried to do. I somehow doubt they'd go through the trouble of printing a whole class archetype that boils down to swapping one ability for another; that's already well within the capabilities of homebrew GMs anyway.
It seems like a very Paizo thing to print class archetypes with actual meat and lore, potentially requiring certain backgrounds, alignments, or anathema.
I defiantly want to see some class archetypes or more play-style archetypes.
Class archetypes could be a nice way to make a more martial alchemist for people who miss the 1e Style Mad Bomber/ grenadier and Hyde/ vivisectionist.
A lot of what 1E archetypes did could mostly be done with class feats or MCD(although in this case some MCD's need buffs like ranger) this ceases to be the case when it involves proficiency.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that each time Paizo considers a new Class-like concept, they assess how to best implement it : a new Class, new feats, a new archetype dedication (ie, open to all Classes) or a Class archetype.
Up til now, all these innovations have been better designed and released as something other than Class archetypes. Usually because the devs prefer a design that can benefit as many builds as possible.
This does not mean we will never see Class archetypes, but they (rightfully IMO) favor other, more open, types of implementation.
This is all pretty insightful and accurate. A class archetype is one of the narrowest possible options to include in a book: it's only useful to one specific class, and even then only to players who are willing to make whatever trades the archetype is set up to make. Meanwhile, archetypes like those in the APG are much more versatile and valuable. Something like the sentinel has the impact of at least (X-1) class archetypes, where X is the total number of classes currently available in the game (and -1 because champion doesn't get a lot of use out of taking sentinel, though there is some stuff there if you want to pay the price for it).
So when you're looking at what gets to go in a book and what doesn't, there's always more ideas that are appropriate for a given concept than there is room for those ideas. Making one archetype that takes 1 or 2 pages and will grow more valuable over time as more classes are added is pretty much always going to be a better investment than using the same amount of space to create a class archetype that will only become more niche as the game grows around it.
If you're going to do a class archetype, it has to be a concept that only makes sense for that one specific class and which is so iconic or necessary that it's a better investment using the page space for that concept than for a different concept that more people will want to engage with. Those concepts certainly exist, but so do a lot of other, broader concepts that will appeal to more people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class Archetypes are for two things:
1) Being able to play a version of a class without a class feature inherent to the class.
2) Being able to play a version of a class that gets a new class feature that is too large for a feat and awkward to split across multiple feats.
An example of 1 is "a rogue without sneak attack" and an example of 2 is "the synthesist summoner" (I believe the devs just came out and said that they plan on doing the synthesist as a class archetype for the summoner, since "it's just a level 1 feat" didn't work well in the playtest, but you need to be able to start out as a synthesist if you're going to play one.)
You could also make a case for a 3rd option of "shuffles class proficiencies" which is not something you could normally do with feats, but there just doesn't seem to be a lot of need for that kind of thing yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's a ton of concepts that need them to be honest. I'd say:
-A ranger minus some nature stuff. Hunt Prey works fine as a mechanic but things like Wild Stride make less sense in urban games.
-Champions could use some finesse support, but this could also be done with feats.
What class features are people looking to get rid of beyond that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A thing I'm interested in is how they remove the "God" part of the Champion for Champions of things like the Green Faith, the Laws of Mortality, the Prophecies of Kalistrade or any other cause one might champion that is orthogonal or opposed to "worshiping a deity."
As long as Champions are "the armor class" there has to be a way to do this eventually.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's a ton of concepts that need them to be honest. I'd say:
-A ranger minus some nature stuff. Hunt Prey works fine as a mechanic but things like Wild Stride make less sense in urban games.
-Champions could use some finesse support, but this could also be done with feats.
What class features are people looking to get rid of beyond that?
Here's a few I could see being removed or tinkered with:
Witch familiar
Witch patron
Monk unarmed proficiency
Wizard schools
Investigator's whole taking the case schtick
Oracle's curses
Sorcerer bloodlines
Actually there are a lot
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a class archetype that removes Deities from clerics, and perhaps switches out the tradition, would be an obvious one.
A lot of people expected the summoner to have a summoning font type ability (which may yet happen, don't get me wrong), but I could see a modified cleric class filling that need pretty well.
Also I theorized an alchemist that does more than alchemy consumables. Give me a scroll-eater, a talisman trader, a feather-token master. A specific class archetype that swaps out alchemical crafting for magical or snare crafting, and then research fields for all of these, would work pretty well and use much of what is already released.
The problem I have with Class Archetypes, after reading it over, is that they actually already exist and aren't called Class Archetypes. In fact, they have their own name for each class.
Take a Rogue. They can be an Eldritch Trickster, a Thief, a Scoundrel, a Ruffian, or a Mastermind. They are called Rackets, but much like the previously described Class Archetypes, change how your fundamental abilities already work.
Let's go with a Druid next, with their Orders. Storm, Leaf, Wild, and Animal. These determine a Druid's fundamental abilities, each one being exclusive to another in a certain way.
Clerics? They can be either Cloistered or Warpriest. While binary, it still creates an archetypical choice.
Barbarians have Instincts, which are Giant, Animal, Dragon, Spirit, Superstition, and Fury. Over half of these suck, and at least one requires a specific group composition and theme in mind, but it works, as these change both your feat options available, as well as what your main abilities actually do.
Witches have Patrons and Familiars. Wizards have Theses and Schools. Sorcerers have Bloodlines. Bards have Muses. Champions have Causes. Alchemists have Research Fields. Oracles have Mysteries. Rangers have Hunter's Edge. Swashbucklers have Styles. Literally the only classes that don't have them are Monks and Fighters, but they have so many limiting feats that their build choice literally is their Class Archetype.
Can Paizo just errata the Class Archetype rules to reflect this obvious intention that Styles, Bloodlines, etc. are all Class Archetypes for their respective classes and not get our hopes up?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can Paizo just errata the Class Archetype rules to reflect this obvious intention that Styles, Bloodlines, etc. are all Class Archetypes for their respective classes and not get our hopes up?
Removing a design space because it isn't used yet and won't be used frequently would make no sense. Why would you make errata that provides no benefit?
Can Paizo just errata the Class Archetype rules to reflect this obvious intention that Styles, Bloodlines, etc. are all Class Archetypes for their respective classes and not get our hopes up?Removing a design space because it isn't used yet and won't be used frequently would make no sense. Why would you make errata that provides no benefit?
My point is that it's already being used, and in a frequent manner, but just isn't being called Class Archetypes because "reasons."
Considering that 14 of 16 classes currently published have some sort of exclusive build choice baked into their features that limits and exchanges features they have access to, not unlike what Class Archetypes are described to do, it supports the theory that they already exist and are just labeled differently for each class to signify that only that class gets that Archetype choice.
But the benefit is word count that could be used for other errata clarifications on other ambiguous rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not every class has an analog to rackets, though, so they can't completely remove the future-proofing value of keeping class archetypes in place. I saw what you're saying... it just doesn't actually work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can Paizo just errata the Class Archetype rules to reflect this obvious intention that Styles, Bloodlines, etc. are all Class Archetypes for their respective classes and not get our hopes up?Removing a design space because it isn't used yet and won't be used frequently would make no sense. Why would you make errata that provides no benefit?My point is that it's already being used, and in a frequent manner, but just isn't being called Class Archetypes because "reasons."
Considering that 14 of 16 classes currently published have some sort of exclusive build choice baked into their features that limits and exchanges features they have access to, not unlike what Class Archetypes are described to do, it supports the theory that they already exist and are just labeled differently for each class to signify that only that class gets that Archetype choice.
But the benefit is word count that could be used for other errata clarifications on other ambiguous rules.
Those are not the same thing. Class Paths (Rackets, Edges, Causes, etc.) have a very specific set of things that they give to you. They have a base structure they follow. Also, making an Edge that removes Hunt Prey or a Racket that removes Sneak Attack would go pretty much against what those things are. That's when Class Archetypes come in. For your Sneak Attack-less Rogues, Armor Master Fighters, Clerics that sacrifice casting for more martial power, Alchemists that have more limited alchemy but can fight better and other concepts that require removing non-Path-related features to work thematically and/or be balanced.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These seem really low on Paizo's priority list and I'm cool with that. Class archetypes sound pretty cool in theory but they actually appear to me to be the opposite of how PF2 works regarding classes and structures (as in, removing options to double down on specialties). Maybe they'll be a part of the plan going forward eventually, but as currently I am really enjoying expansion instead of focus.
Frankly I'd rather they focus on the aspects that they would use as class archetypes, set them aside, and see if they put them into a full class or universal archetype what else they could be bringing to the game. And if they don't have enough stick to provide either one of those, perhaps it would be time to experiment with class archetypes.
I think a class archetype that removes Deities from clerics
This one really doesn't make sense to me. Remove deities from champions? Sure, since you can devote yourself to literally any cause. But Clerics are literally the "god" class. I think a "different prepared divine class" would make more sense than "godless clerics". It's like "druids who have nothing to do with nature" or "wizards who have nothing to do with studying" or "bards who have nothing to do with art."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a class archetype that removes Deities from clericsThis one really doesn't make sense to me. Remove deities from champions? Sure, since you can devote yourself to literally any cause. But Clerics are literally the "god" class. I think a "different prepared divine class" would make more sense than "godless clerics". It's like "druids who have nothing to do with nature" or "wizards who have nothing to do with studying" or "bards who have nothing to do with art."
They wouldn't be clerics once you were done. They'd be a class able to channel positive and negative energy and have access to the divine spell list (unless you also changed that, of course). You'd want to offer something in place of the deity's favored weapon as part of the class archetype.
You're not making a spin-off cleric, you are reusing a set of mechanics that almost works for the concept you want, removing the associated flavor, and creating a new class using the archetype that can reuse a significant portion of the old class's feats and mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can Paizo just errata the Class Archetype rules to reflect this obvious intention that Styles, Bloodlines, etc. are all Class Archetypes for their respective classes and not get our hopes up?Removing a design space because it isn't used yet and won't be used frequently would make no sense. Why would you make errata that provides no benefit?My point is that it's already being used, and in a frequent manner, but just isn't being called Class Archetypes because "reasons."
Considering that 14 of 16 classes currently published have some sort of exclusive build choice baked into their features that limits and exchanges features they have access to, not unlike what Class Archetypes are described to do, it supports the theory that they already exist and are just labeled differently for each class to signify that only that class gets that Archetype choice.
But the benefit is word count that could be used for other errata clarifications on other ambiguous rules.
Those do not remove any aspect of a class's chassis, they only add onto what's there. Everything in PF2 works like that; it always adds onto the base without taking anything away form that base, except by opportunity cost. Class Archetypes would, uniquely, allow you to modify the base.
For instance, a quick class archetype would be something like "Gnome Paragon" that removes all of your class's skill feats and instead gave you bonus gnome ancestral feats. Even though this could be class agnostic, it would indeed need to be a class archetype, because archetypes don't work like that and class archetypes do.
In this case, it would just be a "class archetype" that isn't exclusive to a specific class.
A similar one that removes general feats but gives you a cantrip at 1st, 3rd, and every 4th level after 3rd could be what we get in Strength of Thousands. I don't think they're going to do that, but it would fit what they're trying for and be within the system.
|
|
Well... I'm not sure what they could be called, but wizards overly specialized in their chosen schools? Specialists, I guess So they can access more focus spells based on their chosen schools, at the cost of... I dunno, something. Or gain some sort of advancement for their school benefits as they level up. Ideally, there could be a single archetype for each school — Conjurer, Transmuter, etc — but one for all could work as well too. Probably gaining access to a few extra feats as well.
Indeed I remember identifying some posters' need for the school hyperspecialist in one of the Wizards threads and I agree that it seems best supported as a Wizard archetype. Including poaching school spells from other traditions IMO .
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
-A ranger minus some nature stuff. Hunt Prey works fine as a mechanic but things like Wild Stride make less sense in urban games.
This is one I'm personally really interested in. Urban ranger is a fun concept but right now the class is kinda stuck by an overreliance on "natural" features and an alternative that lets you pivot in another direction could be really fun.
Not every class has an analog to rackets, though, so they can't completely remove the future-proofing value of keeping class archetypes in place. I saw what you're saying... it just doesn't actually work.
They don't have to, though. Monks have plenty of archetypical avenues with styles and ki abilities, Fighters have plenty of archetypical avenues with weapon choices and their class feats which trigger from their choice of weapon, not to mention their Weapon Mastery/Legend choices locking them into being good at that particular type of weapon until 19th level. Because of this, they don't need archetype labeling like Rackets or Bloodlines, the Feats and mechanics of the game already do this for them, and it's varied and simple enough that they don't need it spelled out for them.
Also because of this, it works that way. You can't reasonably alter class features without completely destroying the intended balance of the game. Nobody but Fighters are meant to have Legendary weapons. Nobody but pure spellcasters are meant to have Legendary Spell DCs. And so on. Armor Master Fighters getting better proficiency progression than Champions is obviously not intended, nor is Avenger Champions, nor are School Clerics or Font Wizards.
There really isn't much that Paizo can do that the existing rules don't already cover or would just outright destroy game/class chassis balance. The Class Archetype entry is dead space that is better suited for errata clarifications at this point, since with how set in stone the game's balance is, Class Archetypes feel more like Paizo's nuclear option when they want to start PF3.
Those are not the same thing. Class Paths (Rackets, Edges, Causes, etc.) have a very specific set of things that they give to you. They have a base structure they follow. Also, making an Edge that removes Hunt Prey or a Racket that removes Sneak Attack would go pretty much against what those things are. That's when Class Archetypes come in. For your Sneak Attack-less Rogues, Armor Master Fighters, Clerics that sacrifice casting for more martial power, Alchemists that have more limited alchemy but can fight better and other concepts that require removing non-Path-related features to work thematically and/or be balanced.Can Paizo just errata the Class Archetype rules to reflect this obvious intention that Styles, Bloodlines, etc. are all Class Archetypes for their respective classes and not get our hopes up?Removing a design space because it isn't used yet and won't be used frequently would make no sense. Why would you make errata that provides no benefit?My point is that it's already being used, and in a frequent manner, but just isn't being called Class Archetypes because "reasons."
Considering that 14 of 16 classes currently published have some sort of exclusive build choice baked into their features that limits and exchanges features they have access to, not unlike what Class Archetypes are described to do, it supports the theory that they already exist and are just labeled differently for each class to signify that only that class gets that Archetype choice.
But the benefit is word count that could be used for other errata clarifications on other ambiguous rules.
I really don't see what makes them any different, conceptually speaking. So let me break it down.
A Druid gets a Focus Spell of some sort and some other mechanic associated with that choice. That's the base structure. What changes is which Order, AKA Class Archetype, you pick. Storm? You get Tempest Surge Focus Spell and the ability to see/target through mist and fog without problems. Wild? You get a Battle Form Focus Spell with benefits that apply while you are in any Battle Form spell. Leaf? You get a specialty Plant familiar with a Goodberry Focus Spell that heals. Animal? You get an Animal Companion with a Heal Animal Focus Spell. Each choice also comes with their own set of exclusive feats.
That is the niche Paizo has set out for Druids to accomplish with their apparent paths, they are different, but still hold the same identical concept of getting a focus spell and some other benefit with exclusive feat access. What are Class Archetypes meant to do that this doesn't already cover? Are they really meant to trade off their focus spells, miscellaneous benefits, and exclusive feat choices for something that they don't have support for? And would it not just break game balance for those classes to have access to things they shouldn't otherwise get access to? Imagine a Wizard getting a Domain instead of a School, or a Sorcerer getting a Font instead of a Bloodline. Or Fighters getting a Hunter's Edge straight out of the gate. Are those things okay for the game to permit? Probably not. With class/game balance being so important for this game, there is no way I can see this being a meaningful thing to implement whatsoever. It's essentially playing God with balance, and I remember that things like Thief Racket being available to other classes was a big no-no held over from PF1 with its extremely rampant and frowned upon Dex-to-Damage options. An extreme example, to be sure, but one that can both exist and be a problem in this edition as well, among other ones.
Rogues without Sneak Attack or their Skills means it ceases to be a Rogue and becomes a whole different class (or one of the other existing classes). Heck, this is technically Investigator already, since they don't have Sneak Attack and instead have Int-based Attack mechanics with full martial weapon proficiency and Evasion. Why wasn't Investigator a Class Archetype of Rogue? Or hell, even dedicated to the Intelligence racket instead of Mastermind. Because really, outside of the Investigator shenanigans and the Devise a Stratagem ability, they aren't much different.
Armor Master Fighters will have better armor progression than Champions, but worse weapon progression than every other martial. Is that fair and balanced with both the concept and the toes it steps on with the fingers it loses? Based on Paizo's current design choices, I'd say no.
Clerics that sacrifice casting for more martial power already exist in the form of Warpriest doctrine, as well as whatever multiclass dedication feats they want. Imagine if Warpriests actually had appropriate martial power for what is balanced against the single-most staying power ability in the game besides being able to swing at full power between 1 HP and 1000 HP. I don't anticipate Paizo letting that one go, simply because they easily could have upon release, and decided that losing Legendary Spellcasting wasn't worth Master proficiency in Weapons and/or Armor considering they already still have their Fonts.
Alchemists were purposefully given reduced proficiencies because they had so much versatility to compensate for the fact that they aren't meant to just make things go boom like a Wizard with bombs or mutate into a giant killing machine like a Barbarian through mutagens, or heal things back to life like a Cleric with elixirs, or incapacitate enemies efficiently like a Monk or Rogue with poisons. And even with this, we have threads of players saying that Alchemists suck, or that players constantly underestimate the existence of Schrodinger's Alchemist that can decimate entire encounters compared to power houses like Fighters in PF2, just like its big brother Schrodinger's Wizard in PF1 that was rampant everywhere in the world. The fact Alchemist got errata'd with Medium Armor proficiency alone was amazing, to hell with the fact that they don't inherently get Legendary in anything related to their class, such as Legendary Crafting skill, or Legendary Class DCs for their bombs, and so on; anything that would make them actually fit their class identity on a level that the other classes were given. They can just throw bombs of each damage type for weakness exploitation that doesn't exist in most every encounter, use dubiously effective poisons on allies whom aren't very comfortable with their use, apply mutagens that hurt you more than help you, and use sub-par elixirs when potions do the same stuff except on a much better level. And that's assuming they get access to every Research Field benefit!
Class Archetypes are a bad idea and should just be nixed now before players outrage at the horror stories of crazy PF1 builds creeping back in to ruin the game balance.
The only thing I truly fear is having the class archetypes being implemented like Starfinder. I rather have none at all than having them like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's a ton of concepts that need them to be honest. I'd say:
-A ranger minus some nature stuff. Hunt Prey works fine as a mechanic but things like Wild Stride make less sense in urban games.
-Champions could use some finesse support, but this could also be done with feats.
What class features are people looking to get rid of beyond that?
Here's a few I could see being removed or tinkered with:
Witch familiar
Witch patron
Monk unarmed proficiency
Wizard schools
Investigator's whole taking the case schtick
Oracle's curses
Sorcerer bloodlines
Actually there are a lot
It feels like removing some of those mechanics leaves you without a class identity though. If you can remove bloodlines and curses, what separates an oracle from a divine sorcerer? I can get wanting to play a monk who doesn't punch things, but you can already do that with the existing feats.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, saying it would pivot the class in a new direction feels less like a criticism and more like the whole point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, saying it would pivot the class in a new direction feels less like a criticism and more like the whole point.
But it then beckons the question of whether it's acceptable for game balance or not, and if it's not balanced, then what's the point?
A lot of players want Fighter proficiency in weapons, but it's also the whole point of Fighters (besides their feats, and bonus flexible feats included). With how much of a defining niche Paizo puts on that, would it really be acceptable to have Class Archetypes which provide that for existing martial characters without giving up another identically defining niche ability, like Rage/Instinct for Barbarians, Sneak Attack for Rogues, etc.? What about Wizards? Do they have to give up a School or Thesis for the ability to know how to shoot a gun or wield a spikey metal club without looking like a feeble peasant?
It feels like Class Archetypes are a solution in search of a problem that Paizo has been adamant of keeping from existing in the first place, which is lack or failure of class identity. Paizo hasn't been perfect, as Alchemist demonstrates, but it's not like Fighters or Bards are hurting from identity crises because Paizo didn't give them one that's appropriate for the theme and balanced for the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, my own design sensibility is telling me that Arcanist would be one for the Wizard. They have a very heavily overlapping thematic space, so I can't see it as a class without that class basically just being a Wizard. It would have to actually replace the spellcasting feature of whatever its attached to, which isn't something regular archetypes can normally do, and it would be potentially very messy for it's casting style to not appear in a controlled context anyway.
So a class archetype named "Arcanist" that eats your level 2 feat, gives you a unique variant of the spellcasting/spellbook features, and maybe directs you not to choose a school (thereby keeping you from getting the extra slots / castings) would be perfect. One could technically imagine similar class archetypes for other classes, that similarly make the necessary alterations to balance neovancian casting, but then we get into questions about the desirability of symmetry.
I could also imagine one like a 'Pugilist' that functions as a monk exclusive archetype, it would drop their unarmored defense progression to Master, but give them legendary unarmed attacks, and maybe replace flurry of blows with some kind of 'Haymaker' feature.
As you can see, the consistent theme here is 'I want to do something that more or less involves taking the core concept of a class in a different direction' the feats for these class archetypes then, would interact specifically with the altered feature set.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it then beckons the question of whether it's acceptable for game balance or not, and if it's not balanced, then what's the point?
Yeah sure, but you need to ask that question about anything Paizo publishes. It doesn't really make sense as a specific argument against class archetypes.
Yeah sure, but you need to ask that question about anything Paizo publishes. It doesn't really make sense as a specific argument against class archetypes.
But it then beckons the question of whether it's acceptable for game balance or not, and if it's not balanced, then what's the point?
That's a strawman.
Balanced, in this case refers to class niche protection, not just balance for the game as a whole. Sorcerers with Fonts and Champions with Legendary Weapons goes directly against what Paizo has already established as being niche and identity for Clerics and Fighters respectively. Those are defining reasons to play those classes, as well as defining identities for said classes. You change those out, they cease to be those classes Once a Sorcerer loses its Bloodline powers for a Font, is it still a Sorcerer? What about Barbarians without Instincts or Rage for Legendary Weapons, are they still Barbarians?
I still stand by my statement. Class Archetypes are solutions in search of a problem already solved by existing pieces of the game and by existing protections in place. It's a nuclear option, as well as a waste of space for important errata text, but that's it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, saying it would pivot the class in a new direction feels less like a criticism and more like the whole point.But it then beckons the question of whether it's acceptable for game balance or not, and if it's not balanced, then what's the point?
A lot of players want Fighter proficiency in weapons, but it's also the whole point of Fighters (besides their feats, and bonus flexible feats included). With how much of a defining niche Paizo puts on that, would it really be acceptable to have Class Archetypes which provide that for existing martial characters without giving up another identically defining niche ability, like Rage/Instinct for Barbarians, Sneak Attack for Rogues, etc.? What about Wizards? Do they have to give up a School or Thesis for the ability to know how to shoot a gun or wield a spikey metal club without looking like a feeble peasant?
It feels like Class Archetypes are a solution in search of a problem that Paizo has been adamant of keeping from existing in the first place, which is lack or failure of class identity. Paizo hasn't been perfect, as Alchemist demonstrates, but it's not like Fighters or Bards are hurting from identity crises because Paizo didn't give them one that's appropriate for the theme and balanced for the game.
I really think you're overthinking this, and yet at the same time ignoring some of the implications of what you're saying. A class archetype is a way to archetype the class the same way we can archetype our individual character. It's because they've so tightly balanced everything that they can make these kind of modifications. They have not felt the need to do so, but the option is there for them to use if they ever want to make a "new" class that uses of 50-75% of a current class's mechanics.
And yeah, you can do small, minor swaps like you've been talking about, but the real benefit would be to create an entirely new ability that swaps into place. Like instead of...what was one that you mentioned, a Wizard getting a Domain instead of a school? How about instead swap out Arcane School and gain the Wild Empathy ability, and an additional ability to gain the benefits of the Scout and Search activities simultaneously by calling on temporary animal allies or minor nature spirits, rolling a Nature check to see how well you do. And then also gain a free cast of Summon Animal at each level you have access to 1/day.
That is, believe it or not, actually balanced, as Arcane School gives you essentially a focus spell and a spell at each level, so class archetype that replaces it would need to give those (or the equivalent) PLUS something about worth a class feat. Using that as your point of balance, I don't think it would be difficult to create a wizard class archetype that emphasizes any skill, including Perception (free True Strike casts, perhaps?). And so we now have a Journeyman class that can utilize the majority of a wizard's class feats and abilities, but whose theme has been altered a bit and perhaps has a slew of new abilities to choose from.
Or, for a simpler stating of my point:
You change those out, they cease to be those classes Once a Sorcerer loses its Bloodline powers for a Font, is it still a Sorcerer? What about Barbarians without Instincts or Rage for Legendary Weapons, are they still Barbarians?
No. They'd merely use most of the previous class's feats. That would be the main benefit of doing this.
Edit: As an aside:
Balanced, in this case refers to class niche protection, not just balance for the game as a whole.
If I've ever seen anyone refer to niche protection as "balance", then I don't remember it. If anything, niche protection is the antithesis of balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd agree that class archetypes shouldn't remove the core theme of the class & should probably be used sparingly - but I still see room for them modifying certain abilities. For example:
Cleric: While deities are central to their theme, is Divine Font really necessary? Nothing forces you into a niche of 'healbot' like saying every cleric has extra healing prepared every day (unless evil). Replacing this with something else thematic to their deity could make for an interesting class archetype.
Witch: Still don't understand why they got turned into a familiar master class considering I struggle to think of a popular witch in fiction/myth whose familiar actually did much beyond just speak (which an ordinary familiar can do easily). So I'd be ecstatic for a class archetype that traded out the bonus familiar abilities for... anything really. That and possibly trading out the familiar entirely for some type of object, which PF1 had a number of archetypes for (Gravewalker, Cartomancer, Bonded Witch, etc.)
It feels like removing some of those mechanics leaves you without a class identity though. If you can remove bloodlines and curses, what separates an oracle from a divine sorcerer? I can get wanting to play a monk who doesn't punch things, but you can already do that with the existing feats.I don't think there's a ton of concepts that need them to be honest. I'd say:
-A ranger minus some nature stuff. Hunt Prey works fine as a mechanic but things like Wild Stride make less sense in urban games.
-Champions could use some finesse support, but this could also be done with feats.
What class features are people looking to get rid of beyond that?
Here's a few I could see being removed or tinkered with:
Witch familiar
Witch patron
Monk unarmed proficiency
Wizard schools
Investigator's whole taking the case schtick
Oracle's curses
Sorcerer bloodlines
Actually there are a lot
Yeah pretty much this, with the examples that they have given to us of class archetypes ( synthesis summoner and Bard prepared caster) it would still be stuff on theme for the class and still keeping their identity.
So Cleric with Primal spellcasting for nature deities.
Champion sacrificing Legendary Armor for Magus casting.
And stuff like that.
It's hard to pass a judgement when we haven't had a glimpse (outside of Synthesist Summoner, really) of what would classify as a Class Archetype; a Tower Shield specialist Fighter with Legendary Armor/Master Weapons? An urban Ranger/Barbarian that trades all of the naturey stuff for other thematic options? A Shifter Druid that sacrifices some casting to go full Wildshape? Qingong Monk with Legendary DC ki spells, specialized focus features and Master Unarmored def./Two Paths to Perfection? A Champion with no alignment restriction? It's hard to tell, and honestly simply shuffling proficiencies around sounds like the least interesting option, and something I hope they'll steer clear of. Some feat lines also show the groundwork for these alterations, such as "Analyze Weakness" having 2d6 Sneak Attack dice as a prereq, suggesting the possibility of a Rogue with slower S.A. progression or no Sneak Attack at all, but that could also simply be gating the feat for characters taking the Rogue dedication.
The implementation itself also sounds clunky as described on the CRB; some archetypes modify classes so drastically they can be taken at 1st level (in a way choosing a "variant class", almost) but you still need to lock your second level class feat to that archetype? If they're fundamental changes in line with the system's balance, then why tax it behind the archetype system anyway? Wouldn't that make them more inflexible than the core class since you'd need to invest in two more of the CA's feats before diving into a dedication? By which logic should a Tower Shield user be locked out of the Bastion dedication until level 8, when the regular fighter would already be 3 feats deep and ready to move into another and return for Shield Salvation at 12?
The problem with CA's as it stands is that the Archetype system we have is already functional and outside of some very specific scenarios, finely balanced to the point of Free Archetype being a widely accepted variant, and not a powergaming horror show; when such versatility is available and in line with the other options, it gets fuzzy to find where a CA would be ideal instead of a regular archetype that would offer choices to more classes and thus be useful to a wider audience/more character concepts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they will be useful for allowing certain fantasies that are too close to a class to justify making them a class of their own but too focused to work outside a certain class frame. Things like:
1- Urban Ranger/Slayer
2- Godless Cleric/Champion
3- Functional martial Warpriest with diminished spellcasting.
4- Martial, less supportive Alchemist
5- Bloodrager/Skald
6- The already mentioned Synthesist Summoner
I also hope they will allow to pick several class Archetypes as long as they are compatible (similar to 1st ED). In the same line I hope they retract a little bit and don't make them take up a class feat. At first level you either decide to be a regular Summoner or a Synthesist and that's it.
Besides that, I would also like to see a class archetype for gunslinger to have both expert-legendary crit fishing current gunslinger and a trained-master more reload focused and consistent class. It could work with playtest version of Magus too.
In what significant ways does an urban ranger play differently from an investigator though? Sometimes it seems like names get in the way of character concept.
Like, what about a fury barbarian can't fit the bill for even an urban barbarian?
And is a fighter with Master proficiency in Armor and a very strong sturdy shield that they have lots of feats for using really that massively different a character than one who has legendary proficiency in Armor and master proficiency in weapons?
In what significant ways does an urban ranger play differently from an investigator though?
Investigator feats don't give a hunting feel at all.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am personally EXTREMELY interested in a Witch archetype that de-emphasizes patrons and familiar, and goes hard for hex cantrips and the Occult spell list.
I staunchly opposed the Witch becoming "the familiar class", and I hoped Patrons would be a means of accessing more power, not the entire shebang.