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.
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?
I'll give you the Urban/Fury Barbarian (even if Fury Barbarian is terrible but that's a different issue). For the other two though, yes, there is a big difference. Investigator has the whole tactical mastermind thing, completely different from an urban Ranger's "tracking assassin" vibe. And it's expressed on a lot of their mechanics, so you can't just pretend it's not there.
For the Fighter, a character with Legendary Weapons, Master Armor and a shield is a bruiser. A character kind of half-split between doing damage and tanking. A lot of people (including myself) would like to play an actual tank character that focuses their resources and power budget on being a stalwart defender, and isn't tied to a deity or magic like a Champion is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
We've gotten into this before, but there are multiple groups here:
1. People who attached concepts to certain mechanical implementations of them.
2. People who look for mechanics to enable certain thematic concepts.
And these are different groups. Recall the complaints about the Warpriest doctrine not being a faithful mechanical port of the PF1 class, while at the same time a solid attempt at at least enabling the broader thematic concept.
So yes, names can be important, but even more important would be that some people want to play a certain exact mechanical concept, not just a thematic one.
As to your question, An Urban Ranger would have Hunt Prey and a Hunter's Edge that aren't keyed to constant recall knowledge checks, and so provide a distinct, less inquisitive feel. I'll acknowledge that it is possible to build a ranger that is fairly close to an investigator; my own preferred Outwit build has a lot of mechanical overlap with a baseline Investigator, but both classes have their own strengths and specialties that make them feel mechanically different to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah 'concepts that require modifying base class features to properly capture but aren't different enough for a whole class to base itself around' seems to be the happy medium everyone can agree with, its just a matter of whether such concepts exist and what concepts do so.
To me, Arcanist qualifies because its basically just a wizard with a different spellcasting feature, but maybe someone else thinks that there's room in the game for a full arcanist class or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I don't want to oversell my own point. I genuinely agree that it is not going to be a very frequent need, and to Darksol's point it is almost always going to be something better addressed by a different tool.
But like you said, Arcanist is one. Waterslethe's idea of a hex-happy witch is another, an would require a reworking of the base class to have properly balanced.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most important use of class archetypes is to divorce a class from some of the thematic baggage of its class mechanics. Like a Wizard has a School and a Thesis; so if you wanted something like a self-taught Wizard (whose magic nonetheless comes from study) you can have like "Autodidact Wizard", which replaces School and Thesis and a 2nd level feat for something commensurate.
If you wanted a Rogue who is an honorable combatant because they are a gentleperson, things like "Sneak Attack" and "Debilitating Strike" bring up thematic baggage you might not want. This character might definitely be a rogue not an investigator, since they are more interested in "larceny" than "investigation" but they'd still prefer to look someone in the eye when they stab them in the heart.
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 :3Hmm... 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.
Haha understandable! I do find the concept of class archetypes interesting and obviously untapped, but I'm not really bothered by the lack of. There are so many potential ways to re-introduce 1e content, I feel Paizo will look at every other method before considering class archetypes.
I don't think they are necessarily against them, just that a class archetype becomes the most specific and limited application. Archetypes can be taken by everyone from every class usually, class feats can be taken by everyone from every class (assuming lvl 10 or lower. 12+ limited to members of that class. Class paths like Druid Orders and alchemist fields are limited to members of the class who select them, with some having the option to dabble in others. (Some Multiclass allow access with some limitations usually). Then we come to class archetypes who are 100% limited to people who select them only. A 1 page archetype available to 20 classes vs 20 pages of 1 page class archetypes available only to that class. Somewhat limited, but not out of the question. I imagine the conversation going something like:
Can this 1e class archetype be done as a standard archetype? "No, it's to focused around the core classes mechanics".
How about a class feats? Any feat 10th level or lower can also be used by another class who multiclasses! "Hmm, I think the bulk of this archetype is to much to define with just class feats".
Fair point, what about a class path? Can we define this druid archetype and alchemist archetype as a druid order and alchemist research field? We could sprinkle a couple feats that work for these orders/fields as well! "Maybe. Problem is it would gain this from the class, and the flavor/theme of this archetype wouldn't make sense if it kept this."
Well I guess class archetype it is! Remove this for this and alter this to this!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a strawman.Balanced, in this case refers to class niche protection, not just balance for the game as a whole.
???
Why specifically bring up game balance then if you don't mean game balance.
Niche protection sucks anyways (although I'd argue most of the things you're calling niches aren't niches to begin with, they're just class features). You're also stuck on this idea of taking class features directly from another class, which isn't necessary at all.
The idea of a class archetype goes just as far as PossibleCabbage described, a way of divorcing a class from some mechanical baggage while keeping the rest of the chassis intact. Which obviously has a lot of appeal to people who enjoy most aspects of a certain class but don't like one particular thing, creating a fertile design space for options that are slightly more robust than class paths, but wouldn't make sense as new classes entirely.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is important though to remember that class archetypes were one of the key contributors to one character concept being so much more powerful than another in PF1.
If trading out major class features is going to become a thing in PF2, it is going to be important that you are not getting to trade out non-combat features for combat features, or for situational features to suddenly be replaced by universal bonuses.
If something replaces surprise attack for a rogue, for example, it can't be something that is going to just be flatly better than getting to apply sneak attack easily 1x per combat. That is also why a "Hex caster" witch that doesn't have a familiar, but gets an extra hex cantrip, seems unlikely to me, because balancing something like that would be pretty difficult with how powerful having flexible hex cantrips can be. I am not saying it would be impossible, but if class archetypes become a way of giving some players abilities that they will use all the time in every encounter, instead of somewhat situational class features, the doors on character optimization are going to get blown open into a massive difference in character power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other main goal of class archetypes is if we want to give a class something that is too large for a single feat or archetype, and is awkward to split across multiple feats (i.e. levels), then this gives you a way to "fund" that with the class budget.
The synthesist summoner is probably the cleanest example of this, since "you fuse with your eidolon" wasn't helpful (at least in the "it's a one level feat" sense it was in the playtest) but it's still a thing you want to enable people to build. If you wanted to play a synthesist, you probably don't want to wait several levels for the basic concept to work, it should be functional from level 1. You can easily pay for the "being a synthesist is helpful" by trading away all the act together and share your senses, saves, etc. stuff that is irrelevant when you're sharing a body.
That's a strawman.Balanced, in this case refers to class niche protection, not just balance for the game as a whole.
???
Why specifically bring up game balance then if you don't mean game balance.
Niche protection sucks anyways (although I'd argue most of the things you're calling niches aren't niches to begin with, they're just class features). You're also stuck on this idea of taking class features directly from another class, which isn't necessary at all.
The idea of a class archetype goes just as far as PossibleCabbage described, a way of divorcing a class from some mechanical baggage while keeping the rest of the chassis intact. Which obviously has a lot of appeal to people who enjoy most aspects of a certain class but don't like one particular thing, creating a fertile design space for options that are slightly more robust than class paths, but wouldn't make sense as new classes entirely.
Because class balance is the thing that class archetypes mess with, which indirectly affects game balance as a whole. Adjustments to, say, a Red Dragon's HP, or a Dhampir's negative energy affinity, affects game balance, but does not affect class balance, because both elements have nothing to do with a class' function. All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs, if you know what I mean.
Paizo and many other players would disagree about that. In a thread where I posited that getting Legendary in Weapons as a 20th level martial feat was reasonable, people claimed infringed on Fighter identity to the point that it defeated the entire identity of a Fighter. And considering no other class besides Fighter has Legendary Weapons, the idea that Paizo wouldn't care if anyone or anything gave it away would be ridiculous.
You could slightly adjust how existing mechanics work, but why not just make it an option of an existing choice granted if it's meant to be? Or invent a completely new mechanic not attached to any class, and it might be so enveloping that it should just become it's own class. The fact that there are already existing things that already adjudicate these things for us just proves how much of a dead space nuclear option the Class Archetype entry is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could slightly adjust how existing mechanics work, but why not just make it an option of an existing choice granted if it's meant to be? Or invent a completely new mechanic not attached to any class, and it might be so enveloping that it should just become it's own class. The fact that there are already existing things that already adjudicate these things for us just proves how much of a dead space nuclear option the Class Archetype entry is.
You keep saying that, but neither of your examples cover the same design space nor accomplish the same goals as class archetypes. So, y'know, it'd be ideal to have all of the above. "Dead design space" is not a synonym for "thing I'm not very interested in personally."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a variable class archetype doesn't really feel that different from a normal archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a variable class archetype doesn't really feel that different from a normal archetype.
2 differences:
1, class archetypes can be selected at 1st level. They can even be selected before you have a class feat slot to spend on them.
2, the wording would allow you to completely replace the "Arcane Spellcasting" class feature, should that be necessary to make the neovancian casting work correctly.
Should both of those advantages be unnecessary, then a normal archetype is fine. If either are needed, then a class archetype is the way to go, even if they're only slightly different from each other.
Wouldn't be the first time we have a set of basically identical benefits that a bunch of feats reference instead of repeating the rules each time individually. That's how the MC spellcasting feats work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a variable class archetype doesn't really feel that different from a normal archetype.2 differences:
1, class archetypes can be selected at 1st level. They can even be selected before you have a class feat slot to spend on them.
2, the wording would allow you to completely replace the "Arcane Spellcasting" class feature, should that be necessary to make the neovancian casting work correctly.Should both of those advantages be unnecessary, then a normal archetype is fine. If either are needed, then a class archetype is the way to go, even if they're only slightly different from each other.
Wouldn't be the first time we have a set of basically identical benefits that a bunch of feats reference instead of repeating the rules each time individually. That's how the MC spellcasting feats work.
An arcanist archetype would have to work differently for a wizard than a witch or a druid or a cleric though. If the ability only replaced the prepared spell casting and none of the other class features, the balance of other elements would be way off. I think you are going to have a nightmare of a time trying to replace a feature like "spell casting" for multiple classes, since they have different numbers of spells per day and different ways of accessing their spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An arcanist archetype would have to work differently for a wizard than a witch or a druid or a cleric though. If the ability only replaced the prepared spell casting and none of the other class features, the balance of other elements would be way off. I think you are going to have a nightmare of a time trying to replace a feature like "spell casting" for multiple classes, since they have different numbers of spells per day and different ways of accessing their spells.Yeah, a variable class archetype doesn't really feel that different from a normal archetype.2 differences:
1, class archetypes can be selected at 1st level. They can even be selected before you have a class feat slot to spend on them.
2, the wording would allow you to completely replace the "Arcane Spellcasting" class feature, should that be necessary to make the neovancian casting work correctly.Should both of those advantages be unnecessary, then a normal archetype is fine. If either are needed, then a class archetype is the way to go, even if they're only slightly different from each other.
Wouldn't be the first time we have a set of basically identical benefits that a bunch of feats reference instead of repeating the rules each time individually. That's how the MC spellcasting feats work.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The "Witch Spellcasting", "Primal Spellcasting", and "Divine spellcasting" class features are almost word for word identical to one another, and "Arcane Spellcasting" only adds a couple sections for a wizard's spellbook.
Any class specific interaction, such as the wizard's spellbook or the additional spells from their arcane school, would be best addressed in the individual class archetype feat, assuming you went that route. You can still have that information for individual classes even if the "neovancian spellcasting" was a general description the feat referred to in a similar way that current MC feats refer to "basic spellcasting benefits".
A better example might be how basic alchemy benefits work; there's a generalized ability description, but the individual feat that grant that benefit have additional rules explaining how it works for you.
You could slightly adjust how existing mechanics work, but why not just make it an option of an existing choice granted if it's meant to be? Or invent a completely new mechanic not attached to any class, and it might be so enveloping that it should just become it's own class. The fact that there are already existing things that already adjudicate these things for us just proves how much of a dead space nuclear option the Class Archetype entry is.You keep saying that, but neither of your examples cover the same design space nor accomplish the same goals as class archetypes. So, y'know, it'd be ideal to have all of the above. "Dead design space" is not a synonym for "thing I'm not very interested in personally."
Because you know exactly what sort of design space they are meant to cover? No class archetypes exist, meaning any sort of suggestions for what they are is just that.
A general Arcanist equivalent for neo Vancian casting would have issues, namely that you aren't just replacing the casting and that's it-- Neovancian casting is stronger than prepared Vancian casting, Class Archetypes would be good because they can make the individual balance adjustments for each class the designer's want to be able to support it.
E.g. For the Wizard it can tell you not to choose a school/universalist, putting you a spell slot down in exchange for the inherent increase in flexibility.
Also, at least by the framework presented in the CRB, class archetypes specifically can alter base class features, whereas general archetypes don't seem intended to have that capacity. I assume that when that was written it had some internal logic as to why.
Finally, it would be weird if the 'Arcanist' wasn't focused on the 'Arcane' list, whereas other neovancian archetypes can have other names, and notably, they can each have unique flavorful features to further differentiate them.