When I hear "free archetype isn't broken" all I can think of is the sorcerer player that MC'd into Swashbuckler (of all things) and used One for All in conjunction with Cooperative Soul to automatically grant the rest of the party what essentially amounted to +3 to everything, every round (or cast a spell and gave one person a +3 bonus).
They also used Nimble Dodge and Charmed Life to great effect to essentially tank like a champion AND a monk.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I hear "free archetype isn't broken" all I can think of is the sorcerer player that MC'd into Swashbuckler (of all things) and used One for All in conjunction with Cooperative Soul to automatically grant the rest of the party what essentially amounted to +3 to everything, every round (or cast a spell and gave one person a +3 bonus).
The thing is, you can do that easily without Free Archetype anyway, and absolutely should if you're optimizing hard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I hear "free archetype isn't broken" all I can think of is the sorcerer player that MC'd into Swashbuckler (of all things) and used One for All in conjunction with Cooperative Soul to automatically grant the rest of the party what essentially amounted to +3 to everything, every round (or cast a spell and gave one person a +3 bonus).
They also used Nimble Dodge and Charmed Life to great effect to essentially tank like a champion AND a monk.
I'm not seeing how this is free archetype abuse or even a broken use of those feats. Spending an action (and a reaction) on a turn to give a +1 circumstance bonus (+2 - +4 scaling on crit) seems to be pretty baseline for action usage.
EDIT: Especially since you don't need free archetype at all for this. A no-frills swashbuckler could be doing much the same tricks, and an 18 CHA class could easily dip into swashbuckler for the feats with no impact on the rest of their character (just to have that +1 over the swashbuckler).
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I hear "free archetype isn't broken" all I can think of is the sorcerer player that MC'd into Swashbuckler (of all things) and used One for All in conjunction with Cooperative Soul to automatically grant the rest of the party what essentially amounted to +3 to everything, every round (or cast a spell and gave one person a +3 bonus).
They also used Nimble Dodge and Charmed Life to great effect to essentially tank like a champion AND a monk.
I think you might be playing One for All wrong. Aid applies to attack rolls and skill checks, only becomes an automatic +3 at high levels, can only be used once per round, and eats up the reaction for that round, so no Charmed Life or Nimble Dodge. Also, a swashbuckler can't tank like a Champion even with Dueling Dance (I know since I play a swashbuckler with a champion in the party)
FA isn't the problem here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Aid uses a reaction and only applies to a single roll, so I have no idea what is happening there.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're saying CHA casters don't really have reactions, and they have a third action. So if they don't need to move using them for Aid is optimal and using One For All is also optimal since they use CHA anyway. Adding up to +4 to attack rolls using CHA is really strong.
It only applies to one thing though, yes.
No, I get it. But the rules aren't being followed if it applies multiple times, and the combo only requires two early feats spent on the Archetype, which is not a big investment for a caster even without FCB. The early class feat options are pretty niche.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're saying CHA casters don't really have reactions, and they have a third action. So if they don't need to move using them for Aid is optimal and using One For All is also optimal since they use CHA anyway. Adding up to +4 to attack rolls using CHA is really strong.
It only applies to one thing though, yes.
One for All requires just two class feats, so casters don't need FA to get it quickly. And swashbuckler may not be the best choice for FA if you want just those two feats.
The bonus from the critical success is smaller, and harder to achieve, at lower levels.
One for All isn't broken and doesn't break Free Archetype.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is also a thing a bard can basically do at level 2 without multiclassing. One For All isn't especially different from Inspire Competence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah a better argument would be saying FA makes this even better by, for exemple, sprinkling in some Bellflower tiller in there for free.
Yeah, Aid uses a reaction and only applies to a single roll, so I have no idea what is happening there.
I got it in my head that it was the recipient who used the reaction and the aider who used the single action.
That would allow three aid attempts a round and allow for the aider to keep their reaction, which I now realize is wrong.
I still think it an incredibly powerful combo since it can grant a +3 bonus to any attack or skill check as early as 7th-level (which I don't consider high level). That means such a character can cast a devastating spell (perhaps a debuff) and follow up by giving the fighter a +3 to attack, practically guaranteeing a critical. At 9th-level, you can'tever fail to Aid. At any level, you can use one skill for ANY attack or skill check, even if you're untrained in said check. Furthermore, insofar as I can tell, it works out to 30 foot range within earshot, unlike regular Aid, which is potentially more limited. For example, to help someone climbing, you can simply shout encouragement from the ground, rather than being on the wall yourself helping with the ropes.
Even when using the corrected mechanics, that's a huge mathematical swing by any measure.
And although it's true that this can be done without Free Archetypes, I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't do this in such a game. It's that good.
Edit: I understand you need a critical success, or else it's a +1, but the base DC is usually only 20 (30 for the crit success). A 7th-level Charisma-based character could have a +23 Diplomacy modifier to Aid pretty easily.
7 level
6 master
4 Charisma mod
4 Cooperative Nature
2 Cooperative Blade
=
23
And that still leaves room for a status bonus.
Edit 2: A halfling raised by humans could be granting a +4 with Helpful Halfling rather than a +3, though it would come online a little later. (Though this, I admit, is getting a fair ways out into the reeds of optimizing at that point.)
Edit 3: WTS! (What the smurf)
A bard really does do it a whole lot better (though only with skills). Is there anything they can't do?
|
|
Yes, One for All is good for CHA casters, especially halflings. You have to sink a lot of feats, skill increases, and gold to make it so, but by level 10 you can have a +27 to the roll, all but guaranteeing a +4 to the One for All check, assuming your GM is on board (and they should be).
The downsides to any One for All user, not just halfling bards, are it takes an action and a reaction and the 30ft. range, which isn't feasible in all cases. Casters may not want to be that close, especially against monsters with reach.
My concern with the One for All halfling bard is that if they go the inspire courage route, or use a similar cantrip, then they have 2 actions per round spoken for and can't cast their best spells. Best to leave it to another party member, especially with a CHA caster.
Yes, One for All is good for CHA casters, especially halflings. You have to sink a lot of feats, skill increases, and gold to make it so, but by level 10 you can have a +27 to the roll, all but guaranteeing a +4 to the One for All check, assuming your GM is on board (and they should be).
The downsides to any One for All user, not just halfling bards, are it takes an action and a reaction and the 30ft. range, which isn't feasible in all cases. Casters may not want to be that close, especially against monsters with reach.
My concern with the One for All halfling bard is that if they go the inspire courage route, or use a similar cantrip, then they have 2 actions per round spoken for and can't cast their best spells. Best to leave it to another party member, especially with a CHA caster.
Bellflower tiller allows you to aid your crop without using an action, just reaction.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how FA is the problem when you could just spend 2 class feats on the thing that produces the "problem".
Particularly since "I buff the party real good" is something that's going to be appreciated by the other players (so it's not disruptive) and it's very easy for the GM to account for (also buff the opposition sometimes).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Particularly since "I buff the party real good" is something that's going to be appreciated by the other players (so it's not disruptive) and it's very easy for the GM to account for (also buff the opposition sometimes).
And that the bard is a thing that already does "I buff the party real good" for free. ;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, I'm speaking from experience, with my actual group that includes some pretty heavy optimizers, and what they could handle before and after.Also none of this matters, because the accuracy of the encounter building rules under free archetype and without free archetype is the same, so even if it did add power, that power is essentially negligible.
It makes it easier to optimize, but it doesn't actually raise the ceiling on the actual game any.
That's what the raw says but, unfortunately,far from being true.
Consider that even without free archetype, a moderate use of companions would easily affect the combat.
And this could also be said about the "rules" For additional players, which doesn't work very well when it comes to offer a balanced encounter ( it becomes more of a stomp fiesta).
Then your optimizers aren't particularly good.
I've been going over Free Archetype optimizing possibilities and every group could have the following:
1. Inspire Courage, Inspire Heroics, and synesthesia as you can add on a bard MC to every group.
2. Every group could have multiple healers adding huge healing power to the group so that anyone could heal another class with some kind of healing power added on.
3. Every class weakness could be eliminated by adding focus options and actions not normally available.
If you take Free Archetype with a focus on optimization absent concepts and you can add massive casting power to the group, buffing, debuffing, focus powers, and the like.
Already started looking at it from a pure optimization standpoint where you make something like a group of fighters, every single one with some kind of caster archetype tacked on.
You'll never be without Champion's Reaction if you optimize. Everyone could find some way to tack on Champion's Reaction with a Free Archetype.
People who truly know how to optimize can focus on taking the very best...
Most of these aren't particularly great from an optimization standpoint, and most of them also fit just fine on regular old character builds, or are held back by action economy. This reminds me of a "good stuffs" team in pokemon, where novice teambuilders just throw a bunch of stuff they know by reputation is good onto a team without really thinking very carefully of how any of it really fits together, leading to action economy conflicts, limited coverage, and other problems that hold them back.
1. Inspire Courage and other status bonuses to attacks obviously don't stack, so you really only want one, they can also be harder to use for a lot of characters who have better things to do with their action economy-- like if they need to move into range to attack or something, heck if you're trying to do more than one composition it starts to devour your economy completely. Not only is trying to make that work with lingering composition and harmonize feat intensive, you have to wait longer than an actual bard would to get them.
1.5. Synethesia is not something you want to get through MC, because you want to maximize your proficiency when you cast it, which in turn means that you need the occult tradition natively or through crossblood or something. You also want more spell slots for it and for the stat you cast it with to be your primary stat.
2. This is less of an optimization tactic, and more of a requirement if no one wants to play a dedicated healer, but either way a dedicated healer build is generally more efficient because you can take heal riders-- whether that's something like Halo, or something like the extra slots of Divine Font, with one person stocking an emergency heal or two to pick up the healer if they go down, we're pretty sure the dedicated healer in tandem with well tuned offense and defense and set up is why we can punch at the weight class we do.
3. Most of the class weaknesses are either patchable through general feats (Toughness, Canny Acumen) patchable through ancestry feats (weapon familiarity tying scaling for a different weapon off to your class progression) or not patchable (such as low weapon to hit on casters) in the first place.
4. Champion's Reaction is fine, but yours doesn't really scale with the benefits actual Champions get, so for the most part, its not that worthwhile due to other options like AOO being way more feat intensive and not eating three of your feats for the benefit.
Overall, you're running into the same problem repeatedly, which is that you're getting beneficial things from your free archetype, but they're pretty consistently things that have to replace other options in your action economy such that the net benefit is much lower than it looks like it is, you're also looking at some benefits (like Champion's Reaction not giving you the smite or exalt benefits) that don't actually scale.
In practice, this means that your tradeoffs are minor net benefits over other more feat efficient options. Alternatively, if you do party optimize the way you're talking about... congratulations, that's the teamwork succeeding in the game is already built on, its easier to accomplish, but you're essentially making all the same things happen-- you're still removing actions from foes, increasing your parties odds of hitting through buffs and debuffs and exploiting different bonus types, an optimizing party was already forcing that to happen. Its not suddenly happening more, unless your party was already making a lot of sacrifices to flavor and uses FA to have their cake and eat it too in that direction-- but if that's the case, you already know this because you were already avoiding the upper end of the encounter guidelines with them, and barely go to +3, much less +4 with their monsters.
You also specifically want these to be on different characters because then the characters that aren't boosting or debuffing can actually exploit high action economy costed maneuvers and tactics to deliver the payoffs these other things are setting up for, and also so you don't end up in a situation where healing is cutting in on your buff uptime, or buffs aren't cutting in on your number of attacks or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how FA is the problem when you could just spend 2 class feats on the thing that produces the "problem".
Particularly since "I buff the party real good" is something that's going to be appreciated by the other players (so it's not disruptive) and it's very easy for the GM to account for (also buff the opposition sometimes).
Yup, and action economy means having both that and thing you traded for it is superfluous.
Since you cannot become Legendary until level 15, a Level 10 character can not guarantee the +4 (cannot even achieve it).
A human-adopted halfling could achieve +4 well before level 15.
|
|
Since you cannot become Legendary until level 15, a Level 10 character can not guarantee the +4 (cannot even achieve it).
Helpful Halfling. It's why halflings are great for this build. Also, halfilngs can pick up Cooperative Nature by taking Cultural Adaptablity (Human).
Bellflower tiller allows you to aid your crop without using an action, just reaction.
True, but your spending either all of your class feats to get out of the Swashbuckler dedication, or your using FA on something that is best for boosting your teammates. As a GM, both are fine with me. YMMV.
1. Inspire Courage and other status bonuses to attacks obviously don't stack, so you really only want one, they can also be harder to use for a lot of characters who have better things to do with their action economy-- like if they need to move into range to attack or something, heck if you're trying to do more than one composition it starts to devour your economy completely. Not only is trying to make that work with lingering composition and harmonize feat intensive, you have to wait longer than an actual bard would to get them.
It is the best of the lot overall. With 10 extra feats, easy to pick up with Free Archetype. Normally you have to sacrifice other feat choices, but not with Free Archetype.
1.5. Synethesia is not something you want to get through MC, because you want to maximize your proficiency when you cast it, which in turn means that you need the occult tradition natively or through crossblood or something. You also want more spell slots for it and for the stat you cast it with to be your primary stat.
Not true. Synesthesia is one of the few spells picking up with a MC is good because even on a success, you get one 1 round of Synesthesia which is usually enough do the job. That's why Synesthesia is so good because even on a success, one round for your allies to go off on the creature with a -3 AC stacked with an Inspire Courage for a 4 AC shift in your allies favor for 3 actions.
2. This is less of an optimization tactic, and more of a requirement if no one wants to play a dedicated healer, but either way a dedicated healer build is generally more efficient because you can take heal riders-- whether that's something like Halo, or something like the extra slots of Divine Font, with one person stocking an emergency heal or two to pick up the healer if they go down, we're pretty sure the dedicated healer in tandem with well tuned offense and defense and set up is why we can punch at the weight class we do.
With Free Archetype it's free healing for no investment cost.
3. Most of the class weaknesses are either patchable through general feats (Toughness, Canny Acumen) patchable through ancestry feats (weapon familiarity tying scaling for a different weapon off to your class progression) or not patchable (such as low weapon to hit on casters) in the first place.
With an opportunity cost that Free Archetype obviates.
4. Champion's Reaction is fine, but yours doesn't really scale with the benefits actual Champions get, so for the most part, its not that worthwhile due to other options like AOO being way more feat intensive and not eating three of your feats for the benefit.
I have run a champion. Best part of their reaction is the base reaction.
I don't know why some of you are attempting to paint 10 extra feats as something that doesn't increase power substantially. It does. And it's intended to. Free Archetype makes power gamers extremely happy. Be able to bolt on some of the best Archetype opportunities for free with 10 extra feats to play with is an immense power increase.
If you played with a Free Archetype player with a non-Free Archetype player with optimizers, the non-Free Archetype players would definitely feel the lack of power.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why some of you are attempting to paint 10 extra feats as something that doesn't increase power substantially.
Because the game has limits to what you can do: having a dozen super cool options doesn't dramatically make you stronger as you only have 3 actions. 6 super cool reactions doesn't increase the number of reactions you get. Saves and weapon/armor prof are linked back to your base class as are max level skills. If you tape 15 guns to your AK-47 and you can only fire 1 at a time, you haven't increased your power 15 times.
Lets face facts, if you're optimizing you'll ALREADY be taking all the best options with your 'normal' feats so adding more would by definition not be the most optimized options or they would have taken them. You're quibbling over what icing there is cake IMO: the optimizer just has a bigger cake. If anything, free archetype lets the casual player catch up as they can take interesting feats along with the 'keep up with the optimizers' feats.
If you played with a Free Archetype player with a non-Free Archetype player with optimizers, the non-Free Archetype players would definitely feel the lack of power.
You can feel that way no matter the set up. Or you could play with an optimizer and you both play with it and feel better, or worse or competitive... Or you could even play without and still feel better than one with free archetype. It's quite hard to feel underpowered with just the base bard for instance vs, say a super optimized alchemist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why some of you are attempting to paint 10 extra feats as something that doesn't increase power substantially.Because the game has limits to what you can do: having a dozen super cool options doesn't dramatically make you stronger as you only have 3 actions. 6 super cool reactions doesn't increase the number of reactions you get. Saves and weapon/armor prof are linked back to your base class as are max level skills. If you tape 15 guns to your AK-47 and you can only fire 1 at a time, you haven't increased your power 15 times.
Lets face facts, if you're optimizing you'll ALREADY be taking all the best options with your 'normal' feats so adding more would by definition not be the most optimized options or they would have taken them. You're quibbling over what icing there is cake IMO: the optimizer just has a bigger cake. If anything, free archetype lets the casual player catch up as they can take interesting feats along with the 'keep up with the optimizers' feats.
If you played with a Free Archetype player with a non-Free Archetype player with optimizers, the non-Free Archetype players would definitely feel the lack of power.You can feel that way no matter the set up. Or you could play with an optimizer and you both play with it and feel better, or worse or competitive... Or you could even play without and still feel better than one with free archetype. It's quite hard to feel underpowered with just the base bard for instance vs, say a super optimized alchemist.
This is simply not true. If you have 10 feats and have to make hard choices, then you don't get to pick the best of each option. If you have 20 feats, then you get to pick the optimal options for each.
If you compare an alchemist to an alchemist with Free Archetype, the alchemist with Free Archetype will perform much better because he can take all optimal Alchemist Feats while bolting on an additive class like a Wizard to gain full MC wizard casting which normally costs 5 feats that would prevent him from taking 5 alchemist feats.
This idea you only have 3 actions being a limiter is rubbish. What you can do with your actions is of immense importance. A free additional 10 feats is a huge bonus, immense.
Normally any spellcaster archetype is 5 total feats. Base Archetype, 3 spellcasting levels, and the Breadth feat. This is very hard to fit in for most classes as it takes up about half their feat total forcing them to make hard choices at certain levels.
The Free Archetype eliminates this problem.
I would love to put a group with and without Free Alchemist, exactly the same class choices with both optimized except one using Free Archetype and see who is able to be more effective.
I would bet you would see a substantial boost to damage, defense, and nearly every game aspect from the Free Archetype group all using the same base classes. It would greatly increase the options available and combinations possible.
There is a near zero chance that 10 extra feats has this negligible effect you are claiming.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is simply not true.
It is from my perspective.
If you have 10 feats and have to make hard choices, then you don't get to pick the best of each option.
Not true, as an optimizer WILL take the best 10 options by definition or they aren't am optimizer are they?
If you compare an alchemist to an alchemist with Free Archetype, the alchemist with Free Archetype will perform much better because he can take all optimal Alchemist Feats while bolting on an additive class like a Wizard
No he will not... You only have so many actions. Add 200 spells per day to an alchemist and 20 rounds of combat per day and they are only going to get 20 spells cast and that pretty much means they didn't get any benefit out of alchemist. Again, there are only so many rounds and actions in an adventuring day so when you have the most viable options from your class, adding the most viable options from another doesn't mean much because to use those, you eat into your main options.
This idea you only have 3 actions being a limiter is rubbish. What you can do with your actions is of immense importance.
Exactly, and how did those extra feats matter when you only have 3 actions to use them? Did you get more actions? More reactions? Cuz, as an optimizer, you'd have already picked up all the good stuff to start with so where is this new stuff going to fit into the 3 actions per round?
Normally any spellcaster archetype is 5 total feats. Base Archetype, 3 spellcasting levels, and the Breadth feat. This is very hard to fit in for most classes as it takes up about half their feat total forcing them to make hard choices at certain levels.
The Free Archetype eliminates this problem.
*shrug* So? I've played dual class games and it's not an issue so tacking on an archetype is a pale comparison. Your barking up the wrong tree if you think this is convincing. If you get access to your pet spell, like Synesthesia, then you can cast it with all your main spell slots... So what power-up did you get from the other slots? More of the most optimal spell? Again, you only have so many rounds/actions to use what you have. Or if it's a non-caster class, then what class abilities are you using if most rounds are eaten up with your spells that you think moves the power bar so much?
I would love to put a group with and without Free Alchemist, exactly the same class choices with both optimized except one using Free Archetype and see who is able to be more effective.
WOW, that goalpost moved a lot: "increase power substantially" to "more effective". ;)
Sure, he's more effective but that wasn't in question as I already agreed in an increase in lateral power [more options] but what I disagreed with was saying it "increase power substantially".
I would bet you would see a substantial boost to damage, defense, and nearly every game aspect from the Free Archetype group all using the same base classes. It would greatly increase the options available and combinations possible.
As I said, I've played in dual class games and even there you'd lose that bet in your 1st sentence. As to your second sentence, sure it does but that doesn't correlate to the first: ie a substantial boost. Sure you could get spells from every Tradition or special actions from 5 different classes but... you STILL only have those 3 actions to use them with so you are right back to where you started and using those first optimized spells or actions that where the best picks anyway. :P
There is a near zero chance that 10 extra feats has this negligible effect you are claiming.
Never claimed a negligible effect: I disagreed with a substantial one. Here is a quote from earlier in the thread:
*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.
The main effect it has is an increase in my interest in the character and the fun in building it as it makes character possible that you can't make, can make with difficulty or have it take FAR to long to come together. I mean after a while, character start to look identical with the same options picked up, especially with optimizers: the optional rules add back in some variety, at least for me, without throwing off the PF2 numbers/expectations substantially.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Pathfinder 2e is structured to be balanced if you gave everybody every single feat in the game they were eligible for (excepting skill feats). Like that doesn't break the game. Try it for an experiment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is simply not true.It is from my perspective.
If you have 10 feats and have to make hard choices, then you don't get to pick the best of each option.Not true, as an optimizer WILL take the best 10 options by definition or they aren't am optimizer are they?
Do you really think there are only 10 good options, one at each level, for each class that includes archetyping? No wonder you find characters look the same in the early levels. The real wonder is that you think that somehow they differentiate at high levels despite you claiming the "one good option" problem is still there.
If you compare an alchemist to an alchemist with Free Archetype, the alchemist with Free Archetype will perform much better because he can take all optimal Alchemist Feats while bolting on an additive class like a WizardNo he will not... You only have so many actions. Add 200 spells per day to an alchemist and 20 rounds of combat per day and they are only going to get 20 spells cast and that pretty much means they didn't get any benefit out of alchemist. Again, there are only so many rounds and actions in an adventuring day so when you have the most viable options from your class, adding the most viable options from another doesn't mean much because to use those, you eat into your main options.
Do you always perform the same three-action rotation each round in encounters? Do you never find yourself in situations where that rotation wouldn't be the best option if you had some kind of spell or alternative strike-based feat available that was also fully powered by your build?
As for the specific alchemist example, I hope you are aware that most spells don't take three actions. So the alchemist can cast a spell and throw a bomb (quick bomber would be worth it here for sure), or cast and have his familiar use a tool or elixir, or cast a one action spell like magic missile and move and bomb. I am sure there is more they could do, and just adding 20 Thoughtful Gifts is pretty good.I am beginning to suspect that the reason there are disagreements here is because of a difference in what is considered optimization.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree with the school of thought that the brunt of optimization comes from party composition and covering the biggest and most synergistic things that way. When you're talking as a group about how your group will demolish everything, I'd imagine you'd think about which 30-50 feats you're going to take, not which 10 feats you're going to take 3-5 times. On a single character, sure, there's going to be more than 10 great options you wished you had, and Free Archetype will let you access more or all of those options in build (if not necessarily in play). As a group, though, at some point you'd probably hit redundancies. You could pretty easily cover all of the core things you want among the team's feats with or without Free Archetype.
In short, I reckon there are only so many Things in the game that are a cut above the rest, the best in their field for all of the fields you want to cover, and heavy optimizers are probably going to get all of those Things either way.
Free Archetype, then, would just let casual people dip closer to this level of play without it being as dumb from a flavor perspective, or let the optimizers get more lateral benefits like longevity or redundancy, or let anyone get more flavor stuff. It's not even a question that extra class feats add more power, it's extra class feats, and "power" is an extremely broad term. But if it doesn't result in a felt need to change encounter balancing or other prep, it doesn't actually matter, besides for perceptions. Where that lands is going to be different for different groups and players because no one will ever agree on all of their preferences or interpretations of things.
(My small beef with FA is not the extra power, but that the rules don't provide enough suggestions for singular players who don't really want archetypes or singular archetypes which don't offer consistent feats. Thankfully, these are pretty simple to pick group-specific answers to.)
Anyway, a small PBP campaign that's starting will use FA because we're a small group and wanna grab more cool stuff. Imperious sort of Ranger with Marshal, ecoterrorist Mutagenist Alchemist with Monk or Martial Artist (later angling for Scrounger), and sneaky scoundrel of a Diviner Wizard I'm still picking between Dandy, Rogue or Scroll Trickster for. ~w~
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, there'll be a sometimes-noticeable increase in overall power due to greater versatility, but no substantial increase in single-turn power level. The boost comes from having different options available, allowing any given character to have more strategies and counters ready for whatever they run into. The bottom line rises, but the top line doesn't change all that much, basically.
How much of a benefit this is will be heavily dependent on the players involved, and what they want to do. If they're using FA to flesh out a character that can't be fully realised with 10 class feats, and either don't optimise or focus their optimisation on that character's concept specifically, there probably won't be much difference with FA than without it (apart from player satisfaction). If they're optimising, then the party will start to fuse together as more and more overlap is created, until they're essentially just specialists with the same shared basic training; you'll see their versatility increase and required downtime decrease, as observed over multiple turns (but their single-turn performance will remain stable, since their objectively best feats will still remain the same).
I think this is where Deriven & graystone are clashing, really: They're looking at different timescales. graystone is looking at a single turn, and from that perspective is correct: If synesthesia is the absolute best thing you can do in a single turn, you'll be spending feats or spell slots to be able to do it even without FA. Conversely, Deriven is looking at the longer term, and is from that perspective correct: The absolute best thing you can do can easily change from one turn to the next, and having more strong options available means you're more likely to be prepared for any given situation (and to have your weaknesses covered). The issue is that both of these measures are highly subjective, as well as being dependent on what both the players and the GM have in store.
Personally, I'm of the belief that FA isn't overpowered in and of itself, and exists to solve a significant problem in both PF1 and PF2: Feat starvation. If you feel like taking the staples needed to be Not Garbage™ doesn't leave you with enough feat space to bring your actual concept to life, then it's the answer for you. But if you're just going to exploit it as "10 free class feats," then it'll be a noticeable hike in power. It's my opinion that the issue here is less FA itself, though, and more the attitude that some people approach it from.
It's also worthwhile to note that the GMG considers unrestricted FA to lead to higher-powered games (albeit not enough to require balance adjustments), and suggests using it for thematic reasons, hinting that the intent is for FA to be used for flavour rather than optimisation. If used in this manner, it shouldn't cause any to substantial difficulties.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you really think there are only 10 good options, one at each level, for each class that includes archetyping?
I think the optimizer will have rated the best 10 and as such will pick them. Now are there more than 10 that are good? sure, but it doesn't matter as the optimizer is going to use the BEST option not a mere "good" option with their very limited 3 actions and 1 reaction. And for the record, I'm not a rabid optimizer like Deriven Firelion seems to play with.
No wonder you find characters look the same in the early levels. The real wonder is that you think that somehow they differentiate at high levels despite you claiming the "one good option" problem is still there.
No, it's once you've seen 30 wizards, you've pretty much seen every 'normal' build with the great good and even average options. I'm not claiming there is a "one good option", but that a true optimizer looking for the best build will have one.
Do you always perform the same three-action rotation each round in encounters?
No. However, you tend to use your best options 1st, then use the others less often which means adding more has diminishing returns. Again, if you are a bard, how often are you using a 6th focus cantrip: even if it's good, if the other options are better it's not doing you much good outside of a niche use.
Do you never find yourself in situations where that rotation wouldn't be the best option if you had some kind of spell or alternative strike-based feat available that was also fully powered by your build?
Sure, BUT they are things that I can pick up with my normal feats: I could easily have 3 or 4 "alternative strike-based feat" so how much added power would changing that to 6 or 7 have?
As for the specific alchemist example, I hope you are aware that most spells don't take three actions. So the alchemist can cast a spell and throw a bomb (quick bomber would be worth it here for sure), or cast and have his familiar use a tool or elixir, or cast a one action spell like magic missile and move and bomb. I am sure there is more they could do, and just adding 20 Thoughtful Gifts is pretty good.
#1 cast a spell and throw a bomb: sure, nothing hard there with normal feats. However, if you double or triple the number of spells you had, would it change which spell you used 1st? 2nd? 3rd? ect? Most likely not, so unless the number of spells is greater than the opportunities to use them it's kind of moot.
#2 familiar: this is a big can of worms with them being great or nigh unusable depending on your DM.#3 20 Thoughtful Gifts: meh... still takes a free hand and actions from your target so this is often not very exciting.
#4 cast a one action spell like magic missile and move and bomb: Never claimed it wasn't possible, just that if we're looking at what is increasing power [as I was to refute a 'substantial' power boost'] this isn't the type of round that going to move the needle as far as power. To remind you, I've already pointed out, the free archetype increases options.
I am beginning to suspect that the reason there are disagreements here is because of a difference in what is considered optimization.
I don't think so. I've seen Deriven Firelion examples here in this thread and it's optimization = power increase. To follow what Omega Metroid mentioned, increasing your overall options doesn't do much to increase your in combat power in your 3 action combat round: it can give you more strategic options but it's not increasing your power in the moment. It's why I haven't seen/heard of much alterations needed for those running free archetypes. IE, more options doesn't correlate to an increase threat level IMO, but a more stable threat level as you have more options to fall back on.
It's also worthwhile to note that the GMG considers unrestricted FA to lead to higher-powered games (albeit not enough to require balance adjustments), and suggests using it for thematic reasons, hinting that the intent is for FA to be used for flavour rather than optimisation. If used in this manner, it shouldn't cause any to substantial difficulties.
The only issue with "thematic reasons" is the inconsistent number of feats between archetypes if you aren't limited to a single archetype. For instance, Pirate only has 4 feats in it while Vigilante has 11 [and class ones easily fill out your slots]: so if you allow everyone a theme archetype, some may run out well before others.
Graystone,
Not true, as an optimizer WILL take the best 10 options by definition or they aren't am optimizer are they?
I don't have to take the 10 best options, I get to take the 20 best options with Free Archetype.
Now you are trying to downplay this as just "more effective"? More effective is a substantial increase in power. You're trying to pretend that is not the case by literally doubling the character options with class feats.
A notable advantage I did not immediately see is it has expanded the magic items I can use. I had an Elemental Sorcerer with the Primal List, now I get Free Bard Archetype. That Staff of Abjuration with true strike and wand of magic missiles I couldn't use, well now I can use it along with every other occult magic item. All by lvl 7 easily.
It's already been a very nice power boost.
I may keep using it as I like powered up campaigns. We shall see.
I will admit it isn't numerically game breaking as far as attack rolls. The attack math is very set in stone.
But it has been a damage increase at a much lower level as it was easy to pick up Champion's Reaction Paladin along with Ranged Reprisal to give my monk an excellent reaction early on. It provides a lot more options at a much earlier level.
Another player playing a fighter Rogue Archetype is looking forward to picking up Opportune Backstab to give him another reaction ability. He can't pick it up until lvl 16.
It really has opened some nice build options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, there'll be a sometimes-noticeable increase in overall power due to greater versatility, but no substantial increase in single-turn power level. The boost comes from having different options available, allowing any given character to have more strategies and counters ready for whatever they run into. The bottom line rises, but the top line doesn't change all that much, basically.
How much of a benefit this is will be heavily dependent on the players involved, and what they want to do. If they're using FA to flesh out a character that can't be fully realised with 10 class feats, and either don't optimise or focus their optimisation on that character's concept specifically, there probably won't be much difference with FA than without it (apart from player satisfaction). If they're optimising, then the party will start to fuse together as more and more overlap is created, until they're essentially just specialists with the same shared basic training; you'll see their versatility increase and required downtime decrease, as observed over multiple turns (but their single-turn performance will remain stable, since their objectively best feats will still remain the same).
I think this is where Deriven & graystone are clashing, really: They're looking at different timescales. graystone is looking at a single turn, and from that perspective is correct: If synesthesia is the absolute best thing you can do in a single turn, you'll be spending feats or spell slots to be able to do it even without FA. Conversely, Deriven is looking at the longer term, and is from that perspective correct: The absolute best thing you can do can easily change from one turn to the next, and having more strong options available means you're more likely to be prepared for any given situation (and to have your weaknesses covered). The issue is that both of these measures are highly subjective, as well as being dependent on what both the players and the GM have in store.
Personally, I'm of the belief...
I will rate this. It's pretty easy to see how much of an increase it is.
I think the primary increase will be to damage. Attack math is pretty tight.
But if you as a fighter can easily pick up with Free Archetype the following:
1. Opportune Backstab
2. AoO
3. Champion's reaction by taking the archetype after you gain 2 archetype feats using Free Archetype.
Then you get to trigger reaction attacks in three different ways which will almost always occur. Reaction Attacks will increase your MAPless number of attacks which will increase your damage.
You also almost always have a bard Inspire Courage for a +1 attack and damage for your group as charisma is easy to come by and Inspire Courage easy to pick up at lvl 8.
You will expand the number of magic items you can use, which extends casting power possibly across two classes. Expanded casting power will boost spell slots allowing you to launch more spells per day leading to less reliance on cantrip damage and further denigrating the wizard's vaunted number of spells cast.
A free MC casting archetype adds 14 spells slots up to 8th level which an optimizer can easily use to on utility spells that don't require a high casting slot like haste, while preserving higher level slots from his main casting class for damaging spells which will lead to a higher damage output due to being able to cast more higher level damage spell slots.
There's a lot of ways to manipulate Free Archetype for boosting damage and the power of each round of actions. It's pretty easy to see for optimizers that the overall power increase will primarily apply to damage from Free Archetype in a variety of interesting ways.
Free Archetype is optional. If you want to power up your game using it, then it is there. My main issue is I don't want to hear a class is fine if you're using Free Archetype to eliminate all that classes weaknesses. A wizard using Free Archetype will be far better than a wizard not using it. That gap may not be as wide for a Bard using Free Archetype as they have such a focus round of actions with high value abilities. Free Archetype fixes a lot of issues with the base game for weak classes. It should not be used as a way to claim these classes are fine when you are combining Free Archetype with such a powerful optional rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Overall, there'll be a sometimes-noticeable increase in overall power due to greater versatility, but no substantial increase in single-turn power level. The boost comes from having different options available, allowing any given character to have more strategies and counters ready for whatever they run into. The bottom line rises, but the top line doesn't change all that much, basically.
How much of a benefit this is will be heavily dependent on the players involved, and what they want to do. If they're using FA to flesh out a character that can't be fully realised with 10 class feats, and either don't optimise or focus their optimisation on that character's concept specifically, there probably won't be much difference with FA than without it (apart from player satisfaction). If they're optimising, then the party will start to fuse together as more and more overlap is created, until they're essentially just specialists with the same shared basic training; you'll see their versatility increase and required downtime decrease, as observed over multiple turns (but their single-turn performance will remain stable, since their objectively best feats will still remain the same).
I think this is where Deriven & graystone are clashing, really: They're looking at different timescales. graystone is looking at a single turn, and from that perspective is correct: If synesthesia is the absolute best thing you can do in a single turn, you'll be spending feats or spell slots to be able to do it even without FA. Conversely, Deriven is looking at the longer term, and is from that perspective correct: The absolute best thing you can do can easily change from one turn to the next, and having more strong options available means you're more likely to be prepared for any given situation (and to have your weaknesses covered). The issue is that both of these measures are highly subjective, as well as being dependent on what both the players and the GM have in store.
No one is commenting on class balance, thinking of free archetype, so I guess we can just lay this to rest. I know Wizards are good sans FA.
The top end of power allowed by free archetype is a problem. I would never allow someone in my game to get the Bastion or Beastmaster feats for free alongside class feats unless all of the players wanted to play a very high power game. Those archetypes add action efficiency that makes those characters visibly stronger than characters that didn't take equivalent options.
Further, I don't want people taking free Dandy and those types of archetypes unless they are relevant to the story and have enough power to not need free archetype anyway. I like build choices being relevant to the story at hand, and I'll change the story of my game around the build choices that my player makes as long as they are making choices that fit anywhere close to the collaborative story we are building. Pathfinder 2 already gives enough choices to players so that it's hard to pay off every choice my players make. Adding more choices just for the hell of it diminishes all the choices around the way I play the game by making it less and less plausible I'll be able to warp the story around what my players are suggesting.
As a player, I hope my GM stays attuned to what I am choosing so that they can pay it off as well, so I don't like free archetype from that perspective as well.
In a collaborative storytelling game, I don't want the free archetype to get in the way of the story being told. I think there are games where free archetype would aid rather than diminish the story, but I think it's a pretty poor option for the standard way I play the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fair, Queaux. Most character concepts can be realised without it, although a few would require players to forego strong feats they want to take so they have enough room for all of the concept's pieces. It's most noticeable if the concept is gishy or highly detailed, or if the player's porting a character from a less rigid system, really; the biggest benefit there is that it makes it easier to flesh out the character's concept without having to sacrifice combat effectiveness, which can be pretty fun and makes sure players won't feel like they can't pull their own weight in a fight because they focused too much on other stuff. It's perfectly fine to lock certain archetypes out of FA, and say that players have to spend their standard class feats on them, if you're worried about potential power hikes or think it'll make the game more enjoyable for your GMing style.
(Personally, the character I've found to benefit most was one from a 5e game I was in, a Swords Bard/Swashbuckler Rogue dancer whose weapon of choice is advanced in PF2; long story short, trying to replicate the same feel in PF2 that she had in 5e's flexibility (or PF1's gish friendliness) consumed most of the standard 10 class feats, leaving her lacking in bardliness and still feeling only half done at best. Mainly because she took advantage of 5e's focus on width instead of depth in a way that left her essentially perpendicular to PF2's design.)
It's also worthwhile to note that the GMG considers unrestricted FA to lead to higher-powered games (albeit not enough to require balance adjustments), and suggests using it for thematic reasons, hinting that the intent is for FA to be used for flavour rather than optimisation. If used in this manner, it shouldn't cause any to substantial difficulties.The only issue with "thematic reasons" is the inconsistent number of feats between archetypes if you aren't limited to a single archetype. For instance, Pirate only has 4 feats in it while Vigilante has 11 [and class ones easily fill out your slots]: so if you allow everyone a theme archetype, some may run out well before others.
That's true. I'd personally say that even if it's restricted for thematic reasons, that either the restriction should only apply to the first archetype taken, or that subsequent archetypes should have to keep the same general theme (e.g., if your character's theme is "gladiator", then they start with Gladiator, but would also be able to go into Celebrity, Provocator, maybe Swashbuckler Dedication, etc., if they can justify how it fits the character), so they can be tied to the theme specifically rather than an individual archetype.
Sorry for the late reply. -.-
Looks like Strength of Thousands is going to be the first official Paizo adventure path that officially uses the Free Archetype system.
Looks like Strength of Thousands is going to be the first official Paizo adventure path that officially uses the Free Archetype system.
That makes sense given the Archetype support they've already published for the school and region.
I have just realized there is a scenario where I wouldn't run free archetype. For high level games, I don't really want players to have to struggle to find archetype options that fit their characters for that many levels.
Looks like Strength of Thousands is going to be the first official Paizo adventure path that officially uses the Free Archetype system.
That's one of the few situations you need it. Both of those archetypes are feat intensive.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone,
Not true, as an optimizer WILL take the best 10 options by definition or they aren't am optimizer are they?I don't have to take the 10 best options, I get to take the 20 best options with Free Archetype.
So? You still have the same number of actions. What you are doing is covering gaps and weakness. Providing more options.
Fundamentally yes its a power increase, but so is every extra book that Paizo releases.
Its not a 50% power increase. Its probably more like a 10% increase.
Yes its cumbersome if everyone adds Beastmaster. But they don't have any more actions to use their companion. Offensively its still the same power level. Personally I control the number of companions anyway to suit the size of the group. It is a fairly simple issue that should be disccused when you agree to the Free Archetype variant.
|
I don't think the wielding line of argument is really going to get you where you need to be. If you're wielding a thrown weapon in 0 hands after throwing it, all those other "you must be wielding a weapon" feats that are legitimately intended to work, also wouldn't work.
I think the other explanation is: Axe Thrower is a feat from the backmatter of an AP and the rest of the archetype is also notoriously odd. I think they just made a mistake, and made the two-handed throw legal.