I think Free Archetype is a method to increase the power and breadth of 2E that creates a situation where you wonder how many people are using Free Archetype to shore up the weaknesses and holes of the PF2 classes. I see a lot of posters in this thread who make it sound like they commonly use Free Archetype as their standard and are yet arguing that classes like the Witch and Wizard are fine as is.
It seems to me they don't think many classes much less PF2 is fine as is if they are adding an extremely powerful Free Archetype and all the associated feats.
Now that I see how common Free Archetypes are from posters making arguments about class viability and disregarding the complaints of those of us who play these classes straight, starts to make one wonder what would happen if these fame folk were forced to play PF2 with all the classes with only their available options and class feats.
This thread is interesting and an eye opener to say the least as to why opinions may differ so greatly on some classes. Free Archetype completely allows the elimination of any weaknesses in design, feats, and abilities of any class. And will thus provide a completely different gameplay experience from someone playing that class "clean" BaronofBread puts it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To folks bringing up this comment of mine: "In my opinion, free archetype is a crutch. People like it because they like more power. There may be a few who actually use it to take things like Archaeologist to fulfill a character concept better, but I have yet to see it." I should clarify some.
Do you ever take Archaeologist/Linguist/Celebrity without free archetype? If not, why not? Is it because you see them as weak options? Assuming that is true, since a couple of folks have already called them such in this thread, you don't take them when you don't have free archetype because you want a more powerful character. If you play with free archetype so people take these archetypes, you are doing so because you/they do not want to give up the power of other feats so you/they can fill out your/their character concept. You don't need free archetype to do that, you just need to accept that you are specializing into a niche and will have less general power.
That said, it is fine to want stronger characters. I do too, but I want to earn it and I feel like free archetype cheapens that. Yeah, maybe I am a bit of an elitist in this regard, but that is my answer to the "why/why not" of using free archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that I have seen no evidence that certain classes benefit more from free archetype than others. Since free archetype rules are applied to everyone, it is entirely possible and likely that relative differences between classes are unaffected.
If anyone wants to point to Free Archetype as invalidating opinions about classes, they first have to show how Free Archetype would do that.
I'm not saying it can't significantly alter opinions about classes, but I haven't seen evidence of that. For example, a popular Free Archetype strategy for martials is to pick up a casting multiclass. In the recent "Transformation spells please" thread, martials getting casting through multiclassing was repeatedly pointed to as a reason casters were weak. Yet here it's being implied that Free Archetype somehow favors casters.
Please back up such conclusions with some sound reasoning before relying on it in your arguments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1- Party Homogeneity: In each free archetype party at least one person had Lay on Hands.With Blessed One being a thing, meaning it only takes a single feat to get Lay on Hands, it's not uncommon for me to see parties NOT using the optional rule have someone with it so I'm no sure that's a very good example.
...
2- Power Increase: ...Well you picked 3 things that aren't very hard to get in the first place so earlier is relative. A good 3rd action is usually 1 skill away and a focus spell or reaction are 2 though you'll most likely get one from your class easier.
You will note all of those things take feats (sometimes ancestry, but that is still a resource being used) unless your base class grants them. Those are feats you now have a bunch more of from free archetype, making things come on line earlier and granting you more of them. That is a power increase, and makes it so people have more resources to divert to the generically good options that lead to the party homogeneity I mentioned.
3- No Gaps: ...You have a normal party with skill gaps? I can make a rogue or investigator with almost every skill herself. IMO, if you're making parties with gaps, you are opting to do so. Pretty much the same with abilities: you can usually make a party that covers all the basics if you want.
You can fill all gaps without free archetype if your party works to make sure you do. That said, I see skill gaps and strategy/role gaps in games I run. I do not see this in free archetype games and I suspect it is because it is incredibly easy to fill gaps when you have twice as many feats.
4- Punishes Clean Characters*shrug* You do you. I'll instead say 'it rewards those that have a concept and go with it, by letting it come together easier/quicker.'
My characters do have character concepts. People who play without free archetype have character concepts. You aren't rewarding having a character concept. You might be enabling concepts that have too many identities to be properly made without the extra feats, but that is different.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you ever take Archaeologist/Linguist/Celebrity without free archetype?
Yep, I sure have.
If not, why not? Is it because you see them as weak options?
Weak? I don't see it.
Archaeologist: expert in 2 skills, +1 Recall Knowledge on ancient stuff
* Magical Scholastics: THREE cantrips
* Trap Finder
* Archaeologist's Luck reroll 1/hour on failed trap check
Linguist: bump skill to expert, gain multilingual x2
* has FOUR skill feats, meaning this archetype only requires 1 class feat
Celebrity: the reaction is surprisingly good on a skill monkey.
* Mesmerizing Gaze and Command Attention can be a good distraction
That said, it is fine to want stronger characters.
I like more interesting characters, which free archetype allows.
I do too, but I want to earn it and I feel like free archetype cheapens that.
I mean you can voluntarily drop your stats down from start too if that makes to feel like your earning more. :P
My characters do have character concepts.
Never said you didn't: it's just that free archetype allows for more concepts.
You might be enabling concepts that have too many identities to be properly made without the extra feats, but that is different.
Or some of us might say that the standard way doesn't allow the breadth of character identity to fulfill the concepts we want to play in a timely manner.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Free Archetype is a method to increase the power and breadth of 2E that creates a situation where you wonder how many people are using Free Archetype to shore up the weaknesses and holes of the PF2 classes. I see a lot of posters in this thread who make it sound like they commonly use Free Archetype as their standard and are yet arguing that classes like the Witch and Wizard are fine as is.
It seems to me they don't think many classes much less PF2 is fine as is if they are adding an extremely powerful Free Archetype and all the associated feats.
Now that I see how common Free Archetypes are from posters making arguments about class viability and disregarding the complaints of those of us who play these classes straight, starts to make one wonder what would happen if these fame folk were forced to play PF2 with all the classes with only their available options and class feats.
This thread is interesting and an eye opener to say the least as to why opinions may differ so greatly on some classes. Free Archetype completely allows the elimination of any weaknesses in design, feats, and abilities of any class. And will thus provide a completely different gameplay experience from someone playing that class "clean" BaronofBread puts it.
That feels like a bit of an ad hominem in some ways, and its a bit lacking when some of the people who insist the classes are weak have never played PF2e in the first place.
We've been playing since the day the CRB came out, we switched to Free Archetype a full year later when the APG came out because while we liked the idea of it, there weren't enough archetypes with just the world guide to justify it. We were around level 10 at the time when we made the jump, and prior to that had already run a multi level test game, and a few high level tests without it.
When I say the Wizard is good, I'm referring to my own experience in the campaign that came after that where I play Emrys Damallyn: https://pathbuilder2e.com/launch.html?build=71749.
He is dual classed, but as you can see from my actual choices, he has vanishingly little Investigator combat ability, and my GM (who is normally a player, I'm our group's main GM) doesn't really use exploration mode or like to call for social checks, so my investigator side is vestigial, I don't even really pursue leads at this point unless I really just see an opportunity to get +1 to a skill check, I never even really have one designated in combat.
So in practice, my combat resources are entirely Wizard with the exception of my defenses and HP, so when I talk about how I use my Spellblending Wizard to upcast Magic Missiles to be my parties backbone against bosses, I know for a fact that applies to a single class, no FA Wizard, and about how well it would work-- I have identical action economy, and the exact same number of slots, hell in practice I have the exact same number of class feats effecting my combat ability. Especially after watching our table meta slowly form for the full year of play before we even switched to FA, and knowing what the 2 Sorcerers, Bard, Cleric, Druid, who all got played during that time can do in the same situations. Hell, you can see my build above, I don't even have toughness on it, which would be a normal take for me on a regular Wizard, so even my HP isn't actually that far from what it would be, I just didn't feel the need with the dual class HP.
There are no hidden variables, and we're not idiots, we can see what effects extra feats have on our builds. So when we talk about class balance, it isn't from some distorted perspective of FA, it comes from our experience with the RAW game, and our knowledge of what benefits we're getting and what benefits we're not getting when we do play with other styles. My party was handling extreme encounters reliably long before we switched to FA.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the long and short of it is that ever since 3.0 it's been the case that more feats is more fun. The downside to letting the players have more fun by letting them have more feats is that the game can quickly get out of control when they choose specific combinations of feats.
But PF2 very carefully reigns in that sort of thing by removing cordoning off "math enhancers" from feats and largely contextualizing feats as "you have more options." So the most powerful things you'd get from free archetype are things like "useful spellcasting at very low cost" or "The Sentinel Archetype lets me completely ignore dex at low cost if I'm okay being somewhat vulnerable for 10 levels."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you ever take Archaeologist/Linguist/Celebrity without free archetype?Yep, I sure have.
If not, why not? Is it because you see them as weak options?Weak? I don't see it.
...
Good to see I am not the only one who likes these non-combat archetypes (one of my favorite characters was an Archaeologist). That said, others cited thinking that kind of archetype is weak and not normally worth taking as a reason to have free archetypes. If you disagree with them about those archetypes, that's great.
That said, it is fine to want stronger characters.I like more interesting characters, which free archetype allows.
Here we have perhaps the core disagreement. I do not think adding more things to a character makes them more interesting by default. Having flaws and weaknesses makes a character interesting, giving them more stuff takes away weaknesses and makes them less interesting in my eyes. Problem solving is the same way for me: the fewer tools I have, the more interesting the solution I need to come up with.
You might be enabling concepts that have too many identities to be properly made without the extra feats, but that is different.Or some of us might say that the standard way doesn't allow the breadth of character identity to fulfill the concepts we want to play in a timely manner.
Accelerated advancement is increased power, no matter what name you give it. And if you want that, that's just fine. But I don't want it, which is why I don't like free archetype.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think adding more things to a character makes them more interesting by default.
By default? No. However it does expand your options, which can be very interesting when you've already explored all the base options a few times.
Having flaws and weaknesses makes a character interesting, giving them more stuff takes away weaknesses and makes them less interesting in my eyes. Problem solving is the same way for me: the fewer tools I have, the more interesting the solution I need to come up with.
Myself, I think THIS is where we diverge: nothing about this optional rule gets rid of flaws and weaknesses. My wizard doesn't get better proficiency limits for weapons/armor [it caps at expert], it doesn't change my saves, it doesn't alter my stats, and while it might add skills those skills mostly need your base classes Skill increases to bump up so the inherent limitation is still there. My 8 str wizard is still an 8 str wizard if you add a free archetype: I still take the Check Penalty even if I manage to get heavy armor proficiency and at most that proficiency is going to get is expert [same if I figure out simple/martial weapons], adding some trained skills doesn't increase my higher level skills, I still have wizard saves, ect.
Accelerated advancement is increased power, no matter what name you give it. And if you want that, that's just fine. But I don't want it, which is why I don't like free archetype.
*shrug* I wouldn't say it's a substantial power increase: it's an increase in versatility but you still have same limitations every character has. As such, it's a lateral move in power for the most part. This too is a place where we disagree, as for most people In know, it's that versatility they want and not a grab for more power and I think that's why you're seeing pushback when you say "That said, it is fine to want stronger characters" because that's not the reason they want to use the rule. I often use it so I can take feats [class or archetype] that are mostly niche and/or flavor that I normally wouldn't take because they are not that universally useful and make the character less useful to the party if taken instead of a 'normal' feat: in essence it's to keep the power I'd normally have while trying out fun stuff that normally wouldn't make the cut in a normal game. We've all seen a feat and thought 'I'd never take THAT feat over the other feats I could take at this level' and I don't think 'oh, that'll make me more powerful' when giving it a second look because the free archetype rule gives me the flexibility to do so. Worst case t ends up completely sucking and I retrain it later but I could try it out without impacting the party/character performance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think adding more things to a character makes them more interesting by default.By default? No. However it does expand your options, which can be very interesting when you've already explored all the base options a few times.
It does not expand your options; you still have the same selection, you just get to take more at a time. Could you please explain what you mean by "base options"? I am having a hard time figuring out what you mean by that.
Having flaws and weaknesses ... come up with.Myself, I think THIS is where we diverge: nothing about this optional rule gets rid of flaws and weaknesses. My wizard doesn't get better proficiency limits for weapons/armor [it caps at expert], it doesn't change my saves, it doesn't alter my stats, and while it might add skills those skills mostly need your base classes Skill increases to bump up so the inherent limitation is still there...
When I say weaknesses, I do not mean just what proficiencies you are low in. I include holes in your kit. A wizard doesn't heal in combat, unless he takes Battle Medicine (and he won't be that good at it) or he archetypes. Free archetype makes that easy to get. A champion in full plate tends to not have a good range option and tends to be immobile. Free archetype makes it easy to get a long range cantrip and the Jump spell to get around. A barbarian lacks action economy feats, fighter dedication clears that up and makes it so you don't need to debate getting AoO or your 6th level instinct feat.
As for proficiencies, you can help AC with Sentinel as you mentioned, several class archetypes can boost a save to master, and rogue and investigator are there for your skill problems.Not everyone does this, I am sure. I just always see it when free archetype is allowed.
Accelerated advancement ...*shrug* I wouldn't say it's a substantial power increase: it's an increase in versatility but you still have same limitations every character has. As such, it's a lateral move in power for the most part. This too is a place where we disagree, as for most people In know, it's that versatility they want and not a grab for more power...
Versatility is power.
I often use it so I can take feats [class or archetype] that are mostly niche and/or flavor that I normally wouldn't take because they are not that universally useful ... try it out without impacting the party/character performance.
Do you ever take Archaeologist/Linguist/Celebrity without free archetype? If not, why not? Is it because you see them as weak options? Assuming that is true, since a couple of folks have already called them such in this thread, you don't take them when you don't have free archetype because you want a more powerful character. If you play with free archetype so people take these archetypes, you are doing so because you/they do not want to give up the power of other feats so you/they can fill out your/their character concept. You don't need free archetype to do that, you just need to accept that you are specializing into a niche and will have less general power.
Seems we do agree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the hill you have chosen to die on. Free archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... looks like the thing here is that Free Archetype is fine in casual, standard, or "fun-oriented" play; if the group isn't trying to eke every possible iota of performance out of the system and mechanics, but is more interested in using it as a way to put more meat on their characters' bones, then it's a relatively balanced option that allows for broader concepts (and/or mechanical representation of concept components that would've been otherwise limited to RP only because you have to choose between them and combat feats, depending on the player), yet doesn't significantly increase the party's power level. There'll be a slight boost in power, and they'll probably be a bit more well-rounded, but the potential for abuse will be mitigated by players focusing on character identity instead. Most abusive choices will probably be along the lines of "moar healers plz" or adding gishiness (e.g., dancer bard picking up Swashbuckler Dedication, Martial Artist, and/or Provocateur or Gladiator for combat dancing; or everyone in the known universe attending Sentinel Bob's School of Armour Competence, which is admittedly a good way to get the group together or subtly railroad them if necessary), and mainly interested in grabbing a few pieces to help out here or there; at most, they'll minmax for their character concept specifically, putting emphasis on the playstyle and "feel" rather than the raw math.
But on the other hand, if the group is optimisers whose fun comes from optimising the game so much they can trivialise a horde of CR 20 bosses at Lv.2 (disclaimer: exaggeration for emphasis), then Free Archetype is going to be horribly, horribly broken. Expect dips perfectly calculated for optimal mechanical performance, to shore up every weakness and multiply every strength. You'll probably see people doubling up on base class feats by choosing synergistic archetypes, casters hopping into a ton of other archetypes by spending both base and free feats on whatever the numbers dictate, making Witch a viable class, +9001 bonuses on everyone's worst save, and all kinds of malarkey to contort the game into a pretzel they can chew on while they force it to obey their every whim. The mightiest of Sentinel Bob's students will seem quaint to these people, squandering their potential on things that don't profit the Almighty Numbers™.
Personally, I'd say that the first case is fine. You won't see a sizable increase in combat power for most of the characters, and you'll have a party better suited for exploration or social encounters than you otherwise would. Characters will be a bit wider without losing much depth, or have a shared identity knitting them together. They'll be a bit above average, but not enough to force you to bring out the big guns. But the second case? Well, they're probably the ones Baron and Deriven based their opinions on, and those opinions are wholly accurate. "More options" will always be a significant leap in power if you hand it to the right optimiser, no matter the limits on how those options can be used; it's just that in this case, the limits are sufficient to keep the non-optimisers in check most of the time, barring a few exceptions that concerned GMs could say are off-limits.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does not expand your options
It does as you don't feel constrained to pick the best option to keep up with your party or the DM's creatures: it lets you pick options you normally wouldn't.
Could you please explain what you mean by "base options"?
There are always feats that are just better than the rest or are just plain needed for your class to work [looking at you alchemist], so you pretty much always take them for that class/subclass. That's what I mean by basics. For instance, I don't really see Quick Bomber as an option for a Bomber alchemist [or any alchemist that ever expects to throw a bomb] but a feat tax you have to pay because you wanted to play a bomber.
When I say weaknesses, I do not mean just what proficiencies you are low in. I include holes in your kit.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense as what you describe gets filed WITHOUT the free archetype rule so... it's kind of moot.
A wizard doesn't heal in combat, unless he takes Battle Medicine (and he won't be that good at it) or he archetypes.
He spends a total of ONE feat to gain healing, something that's fairly easy to do even in feat starved builds.
Free archetype makes that easy to get.
No, PF2 made it easy to get with the base rules: you can get Battle Medicine at 1st level or blessed one at 2nd, things you don't need the optional rule to get.
A champion in full plate tends to not have a good range option and tends to be immobile. Free archetype makes it easy to get a long range cantrip and the Jump spell to get around.
No, PF2 made it easy to get with the base rules: you can get cantrips at 1st level from race or 2 at 2nd for a class feat, things you don't need the optional rule to get. You can take jump with a 5th level ancestry feat. So... Yeah, has nothing to do with the optional rule.
A barbarian lacks action economy feats, fighter dedication clears that up and makes it so you don't need to debate getting AoO or your 6th level instinct feat.
Still not something you need the optional rule for.
As for proficiencies, you can help AC with Sentinel as you mentioned, several class archetypes can boost a save to master, and rogue and investigator are there for your skill problems.
There isn't anything to "solve". Your proficiency is still bound and your dex limited so plate isn't much a huge boon most times, and yet again, it's not something the optional rules enables [it's JUST 1 feat]. As for rogue and investigator for skill problems.. What? ways to gain skills aren't uncommon. Ancestry, skill, general, background, heritages...
Not everyone does this, I am sure. I just always see it when free archetype is allowed.
I'm surprised you don't see it in every game then as it's quite simple to spend a feat or 2 to fix the things you see as weaknesses. Secondly, you might want to play with different people if you don't enjoy how they play.
Versatility is power.
In the most technical way, sure. .000000000002 is more powerful than .000000000001 but I wouldn't quibble over the difference in the vast number of cases.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
But on the other hand, if the group is optimisers whose fun comes from optimising the game so much they can trivialise a horde of CR 20 bosses at Lv.2 (disclaimer: exaggeration for emphasis), then Free Archetype is going to be horribly, horribly broken.
This really isn't possible with PF2's bound numbers/bonuses and there is only so much synergy because of that. Growth is mainly lateral. for instance, if everyone has healing focus spells, it just you heal up after combat quicker: the DM can still interrupt you if they wish. Anything actually broken would likely be a corner case with ambiguous misused and would likely be possible without the rule anyway.
This is the hill you have chosen to die on. Free archetype.
LOL Most likely. Myself I'm going to wander off for a bit: it's been interesting but I don't think I can add anymore at this time.
That one was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that Free Archetype is overpowered in groups that use everything they have access to to optimise their characters' performance beyond what the game could possibly expect, because "more options" can always be turned into "more mechanically best options" when you're minmaxing. And that it being overpowered in these groups is less an issue with Free Archetype specifically, and more an issue with giving optimisers more space for minmaxing in general.
Realistically, I'd expect most synergies to be focused on doubling up to get their relevant class feats twice as quickly (e.g. Fighter/Mauler), propping up weak saves, everyone optimising their healing to minimise downtime, things like that, but it just doesn't paint as visceral an image of optimisation for me as the good ol' "hey, we broke the numbers" does. ;P
That one was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that Free Archetype is overpowered in groups that use everything they have access to to optimise their characters' performance beyond what the game could possibly expect, because "more options" can always be turned into "more mechanically best options" when you're minmaxing. And that it being overpowered in these groups is less an issue with Free Archetype specifically, and more an issue with giving optimisers more space for minmaxing in general.
Okie dokie, that seems right. ;)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That one was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that Free Archetype is overpowered in groups that use everything they have access to to optimise their characters' performance beyond what the game could possibly expect, because "more options" can always be turned into "more mechanically best options" when you're minmaxing. And that it being overpowered in these groups is less an issue with Free Archetype specifically, and more an issue with giving optimisers more space for minmaxing in general.
Realistically, I'd expect most synergies to be focused on doubling up to get their relevant class feats twice as quickly (e.g. Fighter/Mauler), propping up weak saves, everyone optimising their healing to minimise downtime, things like that, but it just doesn't paint as visceral an image of optimisation for me as the good ol' "hey, we broke the numbers" does. ;P
What I've found especially nice about Free Archetype is that there is room for some optimization, like hunting for good reactions and focus spells, or planning out a routine that relies on certain spells. This satisfies PF1 players who missed scratching that itch.
But even with hard-core optimization, the GM doesn't need to adjust encounter difficulty at all. In-play strategic optimization and dumb luck make character optimization an extremely minor factor in encounter balance.
I've even run Double Class Feats with the encounter building rules as written and didn't have to change anything.
That's *huge*. Being able to optimize without forcing the GM to bend over backwards and wrack their brain to figure out how to challenge you.
No one true way to play. My table will use free archetype when I run fist of the ruby phoenix next month. Combats may become too easy, but I want my contestants to feel like heroes above and beyond rank and file PCs. Any table that doesn't use it, however, is just as correct in their decision. Rule #1, people.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That one was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that Free Archetype is overpowered in groups that use everything they have access to to optimise their characters' performance beyond what the game could possibly expect, because "more options" can always be turned into "more mechanically best options" when you're minmaxing. And that it being overpowered in these groups is less an issue with Free Archetype specifically, and more an issue with giving optimisers more space for minmaxing in general.
Realistically, I'd expect most synergies to be focused on doubling up to get their relevant class feats twice as quickly (e.g. Fighter/Mauler), propping up weak saves, everyone optimising their healing to minimise downtime, things like that, but it just doesn't paint as visceral an image of optimisation for me as the good ol' "hey, we broke the numbers" does. ;P
What I've found especially nice about Free Archetype is that there is room for some optimization, like hunting for good reactions and focus spells, or planning out a routine that relies on certain spells. This satisfies PF1 players who missed scratching that itch.
But even with hard-core optimization, the GM doesn't need to adjust encounter difficulty at all. In-play strategic optimization and dumb luck make character optimization an extremely minor factor in encounter balance.
I've even run Double Class Feats with the encounter building rules as written and didn't have to change anything.
That's *huge*. Being able to optimize without forcing the GM to bend over backwards and wrack their brain to figure out how to challenge you.
This is accurate, I have hardcore optimizer players and we've gone through days where they're genuinely annoyed because they can't find 'useful' feats to take, in reality all the tools they would normally use to trivialize the game are GONE. The person who generalized about optimizers finding a way was just wrong, even the very best builds they can make are reasonable to have in game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TRUTH ^
Just this last week my current group leveled up to two and both of the oldest and grognard-iest players and I spent three hours going over their Free Archetype options and what it meant for them down the road and both of them were rather ruffled that it didn't seem to offer many real options to significantly make them more powerful. After much review of their options and griping I finally broke it down to them saying that the Free Archetype function isn't there to make you more powerful so-to-speak, but instead was a way to inject a different kind of flavor, theming, NEW minor role support or to help reinforce a role they already have, they sorta got the picture but their experience with other RPGs just TRAINED them into looking for those numerical bonuses that PF2 did away with and that really threw them for a loop.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Truly I don't think Free Archetype really opens an "optimization" can of worms, since if there were a really powerful combination of archetype feats to append to your class chassis you could just take those with regular feats. All "Free Archetype" does is let you have your basic class stuff in addition to the archetype feats.
Like if you want to do an unarmed fencer swashbuckler, spending 4 feats on the monk dedication, stumbling stance, flurry of blows, and stumbling feint is not indefensible. But that character is more fun if you're not down your swashbuckler feats for levels 12, 10, and two from 2 to 8. There's, after all, nothing that unreasonable you can do with swashbuckler feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the hill you have chosen to die on. Free archetype.
Of old age apparently, since my opinion keeps being challenged with the same points reworded.
As for a response to graystone I have this:
You don't need free archetype to do that, you just need to accept that you are specializing into a niche and will have less general power.this:
You will note all of those things take feats (sometimes ancestry, but that is still a resource being used) unless your base class grants them. Those are feats you now have a bunch more of from free archetype, making things come on line earlier and granting you more of them.
and this:
If you don't think versatility is power, what makes those feats "that are just better", better? Is it not because they have the most use cases or allow you a useful tool in situations you otherwise would be without?Also, I disagree with saying there are required feats. For your example, I didn't take Quick Bomber on the bomber I played, I wanted the range of Far Lobber more. To each their own.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But on the other hand, if the group is optimisers whose fun comes from optimising the game so much they can trivialise a horde of CR 20 bosses at Lv.2 (disclaimer: exaggeration for emphasis), then Free Archetype is going to be horribly, horribly broken.
Don't really agree with this take at all. I've found free archetype minimally disruptive even in high-op games. Actually, perhaps especially in high-op games is more accurate, because those players are the best at taking advantage of synergies and covering for weaknesses anyways.
The strongest optimization tools in PF2 come from slotting together your party appropriately to stack the deck in your favor. That mostly boils down to class selection and combat tactics. Once you have that figured out, giving someone a couple extra skills or low level spell slots is relatively trivial.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
but they can amount to a significant enough increase the party's overall power level such that a GM might decide to similarly increase the level of the opposition.
Comparing to PF1, it is *much* easier now for the GM to tune the danger of the opposition to make the game fun even for really powerful (or weak) party.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There exist a number of class feats in this game that directly increase your stats or grant more actions. Dangerous sorcery, spell penetration, champion's reaction, resiliency feats, save feats, fighter/monk action economy feats, and independent animal companion/familiar feats all directly increase power. These additional feats won't be enough to push a PF2e character to PF1e optimized character power levels, but they can amount to a significant enough increase the party's overall power level such that a GM might decide to similarly increase the level of the opposition.
yes, there are definitely some choices with a bit of oomph to them. However, those choices are also obtainable without Free Archetype. Optimizers would already be factoring the best of those options into their no-Free-Archetype build, so for them Free Archetype means either getting those a bit earlier or picking from what's left after already having the best.
And, like I said, I've run Double Class Feats and baseline, and I haven't had to adjust anything yet.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There exist a number of class feats in this game that directly increase your stats or grant more actions. Dangerous sorcery, spell penetration, champion's reaction, resiliency feats, save feats, fighter/monk action economy feats, and independent animal companion/familiar feats all directly increase power. These additional feats won't be enough to push a PF2e character to PF1e optimized character power levels, but they can amount to a significant enough increase the party's overall power level such that a GM might decide to similarly increase the level of the opposition.
So... those are all either situational benefits, they fit just fine into normal builds and can't be stacked into the same action economy, or free archetype calls them out as a 'don't allow this.'
- Spell Penetration only matters for creatures that have a special bonus against magic saves, which while nice, is not most of them.
- Dangerous Sorcery is nice, but it also fits onto regular builds as a level 1 feat, its also a status bonus so it doesn't stack with other status bonuses.
- fighter/monk feats like Double Slice do raise power, but they don't stack with each other so if you have one, you're pretty much done, having multiple is only useful situationally, so again, they're easy to fit on a normal build, especially since most martial classes have their own.
- Champion's reaction is a reaction, so while its good, it still competes with other reactions, so if you already have a different reaction its less valuable, which an optimizer DOES (usually AOO, on most Martials)
- Familiar and Animal Companion feats do increase power, but not by much, and you pay for it with a fair number of feats.
From experience, if you raise the exp budget to 'account' for FA, you will murder your players. I have hardcore optimizing players, their capacity for what they can handle hasn't gone up much from their pre-FA optimized builds.
No I do not, because my campaign started shortly after second edition was released and I wanted to try it mostly vanilla to start.
Optimization in PF2 with Free Archetype is less about breaking the numbers and more about eliminating all the inherent weaknesses or bad options in a given class. It shows a clear dissatisfaction with the options provided in the base game.
All I know for certain is if you're playing a wizard and calling it fine because you're using Free Archetype to eliminate all the bad options and weaknesses of the class, you're just hiding the need for improvement behind an alternate rule that shores up every weakness of every class by allowing access to options including a number of feats and focus options that aren't part of the base class.
It's like this alternate rule has suddenly allowed everyone to be everything and now the game "works fine" for them. If choosing Free Archetype is making a game work, then what's wrong with the base game that people are so dissatisfied with it that they need to nearly double the number of feats and add another line of options than what the base class provides? Not a great selling point in my opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that argument is that PF2 is, at its core, a game that is committed to be highly modular and transparent to enable GMs and players to play the game that they will enjoy most. That, more than anything else, defines PF2.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Deriven is correct - optimzing with FA is more about patching holes than raising the cap.
Also, I don't agree with the line of thinking that "people could take feat X anyway, you're not adding much more power giving it for free". Now they can take X and Y instead of having to choose. Pretty often there'll be more than one solid choice at a level.
And even about Reactions - yes, if you already have Attack of Opportunity, a Paladin retributive strike isn't quite as strong as when you don't have any reaction yet at all. But it's quite different for a ranger - much of the time your Disrupt Prey isn't working because it's not your Prey who's doing naughty things. And even for the fighter with AoO, having Retributive Strike can allow you to set up a situation where there's simply nothing an enemy can do that you won't punish. Hit me? Shield block. Hit my friend? Retributive Strike. Walk away? AoO. Yes, you can only do one of them, but you're almost guaranteed to actually get to do it because you cover all the situations.
Here we have perhaps the core disagreement. I do not think adding more things to a character makes them more interesting by default. Having flaws and weaknesses makes a character interesting, giving them more stuff takes away weaknesses and makes them less interesting in my eyes. Problem solving is the same way for me: the fewer tools I have, the more interesting the solution I need to come up with.
I confess that much of what's in this thread makes little sense to me, but this resonates. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optimization in PF2 with Free Archetype is less about breaking the numbers and more about eliminating all the inherent weaknesses or bad options in a given class. It shows a clear dissatisfaction with the options provided in the base game.
All I know for certain is if you're playing a wizard and calling it fine because you're using Free Archetype to eliminate all the bad options and weaknesses of the class, you're just hiding the need for improvement behind an alternate rule that shores up every weakness of every class by allowing access to options including a number of feats and focus options that aren't part of the base class.
It's like this alternate rule has suddenly allowed everyone to be everything and now the game "works fine" for them. If choosing Free Archetype is making a game work, then what's wrong with the base game that people are so dissatisfied with it that they need to nearly double the number of feats and add another line of options than what the base class provides? Not a great selling point in my opinion.
The only Wizard I've seen with Free Archetype took Familiar Master and Loremaster. Neither of which shored anything up, and they were fine.
Just because you play with a group that's going to use it for that doesn't mean everyone will, and just because you don't like Wizard doesn't mean people that play Wizards with Free Archetype can't comment on them being fine.
To be fair, if you want to assess an option or class' default balance, you have to assume default conditions. Which in this case, means disabling all optional or variant rules. Wizards and Witches in particular, and IIRC other casters to a lesser extent, tend to benefit immensely from Free Archetype on account of their class feat list being underwhelming enough that they can usually fully themself to the archetype.
Overall, Free Archetype isn't enough to break the game in and of itself, but it does skew things enough to fix certain flaws that would be more noticeable without it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I don't agree with the line of thinking that "people could take feat X anyway, you're not adding much more power giving it for free". Now they can take X and Y instead of having to choose. Pretty often there'll be more than one solid choice at a level.
And even about Reactions - yes, if you already have Attack of Opportunity, a Paladin retributive strike isn't quite as strong as when you don't have any reaction yet at all. But it's quite different for a ranger - much of the time your Disrupt Prey isn't working because it's not your Prey who's doing naughty things. And even for the fighter with AoO, having Retributive Strike can allow you to set up a situation where there's simply nothing an enemy can do that you won't punish. Hit me? Shield block. Hit my friend? Retributive Strike. Walk away? AoO. Yes, you can only do one of them, but you're almost guaranteed to actually get to do it because you cover all the situations.
OK, I want to test this claim. Let's take a highly optimized Fighter build - Exocist's Gnomish Flickmace + Spiked Gauntlet Reach Champion Fighter.
1: Double Slice (Retrain to Sudden Charge at 5, retrain back at 19 if you care by then)
2: Dueling Parry
4: Champion Dedication (Paladin)
6: Champion Reaction
8: Dueling Riposte
(9): Knockdown
10: Combat Reflexes
12: Dueling Dance
14: Improved Dueling Riposte
(15): Improved Knockdown
16: Determination / Stance Savant / Blind-Fight
18: Savage Critical
20: Boundless Reprisals
It already has all the reactions in the world, which are his main source of extra DPR, due to the huge amount of MAP-0 attacks he can make in a round with his reach and AoO + Dueling Riposte + Champion's Reactions. This is an example of a build that already has the best possible options for increasing DPR.
I claim that due to this, Free Archetype would not be able to push this build all that much in power level.
I would be curious to see someone show how Free Archetype suddenly makes this build meaningfully stronger.