To be an archer you can be anyone and take an archer archetype. To be able to use and have access to heavy weapons you can take Mauler.
But there's no "No ties attached" arquetypes for casters.
If I want to be an illusionist I need to be from Maganbya or be a multiclass arquetype guy. Should we get something like that? I just noticed it and now I really want those types of arquetypes. And they can be really simple, access to a few metamagics, spellcaster progression and a limited list by Scholl's instead of tradition(maybe limited so that there's no free buffet there) Maybe adding them to your regular list for a caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see a major benefit to such a thing, in all honesty. You could just strip out flavor from a multiclass archetype, or Runescarred if the stat requirement is a bother (and you have access to it).
But even with flavor intact, you can boil down the multiclass caster archetypes to "Learned to perform really good", "Committed to serving divinity", "Committed to serving nature", "Learned things you shouldn't have", "Learned the magic was in you all along", "Struck a deal", or just "Studied magic", and many of those are fairly generic anyway.
That said, smaller-scale archetypes for casters or those who want specialized magic could be cool. It's a matter of page space, opportunity, and what holes they'd fill that normal caster archetypes couldn't.
I don't really see a major benefit to such a thing, in all honesty. You could just strip out flavor from a multiclass archetype, or Runescarred if the stat requirement is a bother. But even with flavor intact, you can boil down the multiclass caster archetypes to "Learned to perform really good", "Committed to serving divinity", "Committed to serving nature", "Learned things you shouldn't have", "Learned the magic was in you all along", "Struck a deal", or just "Studied magic", and many of those are fairly generic anyway.
Agreed you can and in my tables we do that a lot. I guess I just like when there's an "free" option without that extra stuff by default even when it's an bad arquetype overall.
On page space... Yeah can see that. How would you split so much to smaller things is also quite hard... And most times you are already served with other arquetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eldritch Archer provides precedent for a "no ties attached" caster archetype.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eldritch Archer provides precedent for a "no ties attached" caster archetype.
Arguably it's a bow strings attached caster archetype
Désign this far is getting away to specific spells lists tailored for a class.
Secret of Magic might change that, but I think we are stuck with the 4 traditions (which IMO is a good thing)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could foresee some school specialists. Like the martial archetypes you mentioned, they would probably be more narrowly focused.
Eldritch Archer provides precedent for a "no ties attached" caster archetype.
Right! Yeah i forgot he existed but yeah he provides a utility and a 'specific' way to cast the spells for sure.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, you can't really get much more generic than the spellcasting archetypes - all they really do is give you spellcasting of a specific tradition/method combination, training in the relevant skill (and all spellcasters have to have those things specified) and give you access to that classes feats and one of their special features.
You can make a generic illusionist just by taking all of the wizard multiclass feats except basic arcana and advanced arcana - those are the only feats other than arcane school spell (which you probably want for a generic illusionist) that do anything beyond giving you generic arcane prepared spellcasting.
So I'm not sure what generic spellcaster archetypes would offer that the multiclass archetypes can't, except having a more generic name?
Archer is different because a fighting style is a lot more class agnostic than spellcasting, while the things that you have to have defined about your spellcasting make up most of the identity of a class.
I mean, you can't really get much more generic than the spellcasting archetypes - all they really do is give you spellcasting of a specific tradition/method combination, training in the relevant skill (and all spellcasters have to have those things specified) and give you access to that classes feats and one of their special features.
You can make a generic illusionist just by taking all of the wizard multiclass feats except basic arcana and advanced arcana - those are the only feats other than arcane school spell (which you probably want for a generic illusionist) that do anything beyond giving you generic arcane prepared spellcasting.
So I'm not sure what generic spellcaster archetypes would offer that the multiclass archetypes can't, except having a more generic name?
Archer is different because a fighting style is a lot more class agnostic than spellcasting, while the things that you have to have defined about your spellcasting make up most of the identity of a class.
They could have metamagic feat access sooner than multiclassing for ones that fit different styles of spellcasting. Like, giving Silent Spell at 10 instead of 16 for a sneakier caster archetype because the ability to cast spells silently can be huge for enchanters or illusionists, but isn't that big a deal for evokers. I think there would need to be a batch of metamagic feats geared towards the more generic spellcaster archetypes to really support this idea, but I could see value in doing so if it fit with a book's theme down the line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Silent Spell itself is available at Lv 8 via Wizard Dedication, but I'm guessing that was a theory example or misnamed. It would still work to have a Metamagician archetype offering it at Lv 6.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Silent Spell itself is available at Lv 8 via Wizard Dedication, but I'm guessing that was a theory example or misnamed. It would still work to have a Metamagician archetype offering it at Lv 6.
Oops! I thought Silent Spell was a level 8 wizard feat for some reason, but that's the idea. You pick up the Illusions archetype and get Silent Spell at level 6 instead of having to multiclass wizard to get it at level 8 in the same way an Archer gets Double Shot faster than a multiclass fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm not sure what generic spellcaster archetypes would offer that the multiclass archetypes can't, except having a more generic name?
The ability to pick up a casting style with different abilities scores, as notice the fighting style archetypes have no ability score requirements. You can also do a mix of different classes feats that reinforce a particular traditions themes, plus new feats that don’t necessarily fit into a particular class but do fit for a style/tradition combination.
They’ve said before they don’t really want to fill in a matrix of mechanical concepts, because they prefer to design classes starting with a narrative concept and deciding on mechanics later. But it seems to me that archetypes could be about enabling mechanics, which means they can insert spontaneous arcane and primal casters and a prepared occult caster without dedicating an entire class to it, just 1 page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'd really appreciate something along the lines of the Enchanting Courtesan prestige class as an archetype. Reliably subtle casting, espcially if it gets some perk for removing ranged delivery.