|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thus far, according to my count PF2, generally looks like this.
-----------------------------
Twenty-two Classes
-----------------------------------------------
ONE
HUNDRED
FIFTY
FOUR
...
Misc Archetypes.
-----------------------------------------------
F - I - V - E Class Archetypes... WHY? The Class Archetype has been more or less ignored despite how promising it is as a mechanic to allow even further tweaks on a given Class. Since day one the described Class Archetype system seemed, to me at least, to be the area where the coolest stuff could and would eventually come from as they're a PF2 spin on how Pathfinder 1st edition handled Archetypes (which as we all know is where most of the cool and actual interesting stuff came from). There are THIRTY Archetypes for every Class Archetype and it.. just doesn't make any sense. Perhaps there are plans on one big crunchy book where there will be 25+ Class Archetypes will be published as a kind of "Expanded Class Guide" or something?
I get the idea that it is good to be sure that certain tropes can be used by any PC regardless of class but... we are talking about options that have the ability to dramatically change/morph a Class to fit a whole new schtick and in do so in a manner that doesn't drain them of most of their Class Feats along the way.
Is there some kind of like... memo that was sent out to the developers that told them to avoid making Class Archetypes at all costs? Is this something that's being "reserved' exclusively for development toward the end of the PF2 publishing life-cycle? Maybe Paizo is intentionally not making these in an effort to ensure that the PF2 Pathfinder Infinite program has bountiful room to play within and stuff to publish?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there some kind of like... memo that was sent out to the developers that told them to avoid making Class Archetypes at all costs?
Probably this. Though it is better worded as "don't make a class archetype when a regular archetype will work. Because a class archetype is limited to either a specific class or at the most a small set of classes."
The PF1 archetypes did that because other than general feats, all of the class choices were made in-class. With the PF2 class feat design, a lot of the power of PF1 archetypes are moved into PF2 regular archetypes. So there is less need for the more limiting class archetypes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably this. Though it is better worded as "don't make a class archetype when a regular archetype will work. Because a class archetype is limited to either a specific class or at the most a small set of classes."
I mean, the two of them occupy different design spaces. Class Archetypes are about modifying a class' chassis or core features, regular archetypes are just classless feats with extra restrictions. Pretty different.
I sort of get the impression that Paizo just isn't sure what to do with them. Like, Spellshot sort of feels like it's only a class archetype for the sake of being able to say they printed another class archetype, it could easily just have been another Way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the two of them occupy different design spaces. Class Archetypes are about modifying a class' chassis or core features, regular archetypes are just classless feats with extra restrictions. Pretty different.
Yes. In PF2 the regular archetypes and class archetypes are quite different. But both are derived from the archetypes of PF1. So I don't think that the developers are ignoring class archetypes just because there are more regular archetypes. They do indeed have different purposes.
I sort of get the impression that Paizo just isn't sure what to do with them. Like, Spellshot sort of feels like it's only a class archetype for the sake of being able to say they printed another class archetype, it could easily just have been another Way.
And as you point out, class archetypes compete in design space more with subclass options such as Gunslinger Ways, Rogue Rackets, Ranger Edge, and Druid Orders. There is less need for class archetypes when the classes themselves are this configurable.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
From everything we know, it essentially comes down to opportunity cost. Any page space dedicated to a class archetype, especially one limited to a single class, is competing for space with options that are much more widely usable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of get the impression that Paizo just isn't sure what to do with them. Like, Spellshot sort of feels like it's only a class archetype for the sake of being able to say they printed another class archetype, it could easily just have been another Way.
Which I still find odd. It would make more sense to me if class archetypes were inherently slightly stronger than the base class paths, as you are able to factor in the cost of the archetype feat (and being locked into a dedication) into the path's budget, but it just doesn't seem to be the case.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From everything we know, it essentially comes down to opportunity cost. Any page space dedicated to a class archetype, especially one limited to a single class, is competing for space with options that are much more widely usable.
I get that premise and it makes sense.
On the other hand, I have to wonder if "Sleepwalker Dedication" is really that much more widely applicable than like, a monk with a new combat gimmick or a synthesist summoner or whatever other ideas have been suggested.
Which I still find odd. It would make more sense to me if class archetypes were inherently slightly stronger than the base class paths, as you are able to factor in the cost of the archetype feat (and being locked into a dedication) into the path's budget, but it just doesn't seem to be the case.
I remember that being talked about early in the game's life cycle, that making class archetypes cost a feat/count as a dedication would give them a bigger power budget.
But so far it seems like most class archetypes are designed to be slight downgrades and the feats are often filler (like flex prep just taking away cantrips and then giving them back to you with a feat).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is simply that there isn't much design space left in the core classes that wouldn't remove the entire identity of the class.
Consider Ranger:
PF1 Ranger got things like Favored Enemy, Combat Style, Hunter's Bond, Woodland Stride, Track and Swift Tracker, Camoflage, Hide in Plain Sight, and Quarry.
There is a lot in there that can be swapped out without making you wonder if you are even still playing a Ranger.
In PF2, most of that is moved into either class feats or skill feats. All that is left is Hunt Prey, Trackless Step, Nature's Edge, Wild Stride, and maybe Masterful Hunter and Second Skin. The rest of everything given in the list of class abilities is just proficiency boosts with cool names.
So if a Ranger doesn't have Hunt Prey, are they actually going to play and feel like a Ranger?
And how much do you think is going to be the trade value of Trackless Step, Nature's Edge, Wild Stride, Masterful Hunter, and Second Skin? Those don't seem all that powerful.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A class archetype has three uses:
1) You want to take something away from a class because it doesn't fit your conception of them (e.g. a Witch without a familiar, a Monk without flurry of blows).
2) To fit the flavor of a version of the class you need to be able to start as one at level 1.
3) You want to give the class something that's larger than a single class feat, and you need to trade something commensurate (e.g. shuffling proficiencies.)
Other than that, there's basically no reason for them because page space is better used for archetypes that could apply to a great number of classes than one that applies to only one class.
So class archetypes happen when they have a good idea for something that can only be done as a class archetype, but if you can do it a different way then you do. Like Bullet Dancer could have been a Monk archetype, but isn't it better since anybody *could* take it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, I have to wonder if "Sleepwalker Dedication" is really that much more widely applicable than like, a monk with a new combat gimmick or a synthesist summoner or whatever other ideas have been suggested.That depends on what you mean by "more widely applicable." A Synthesist Summoner feat is only applicable to a summoner, while Sleepwalker Dedication is available to anyone who picked up the requisite skill because one is a class archetype and the other isn't, which makes the latter more widely applicable by definition.
Widely desirable might be a better way to express what I think Squiggit is getting at. A lot of characters COULD technically take Sleepwalker, there aren't many in players in practice actually interested in it.
That said, I agree with the sentiments expressed up thread that I don't see many niches where a class archetype is the best way to fill it. A lot of PF1 archetypes basically let you get pieces of one class onto another, like getting hunter features on an inquisitor or the million gun based archetypes. With the PF2 multiclass system we don't need that. Not do I want thing like a wizard class archetype that gets better weapon and armor proficiency for reduced spell casting when I could just play a magus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With how underwhelming the Spellshot and Elementalist turned out, I’m not in any real hurry for more Class Archetypes. I hope the eventual Synthesist Summoner can afford the fate of the CAs we’ve seen so far.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still kind of confused as to why the Spellshot is a class archetype and not a way. I guess there's no other way to change the stat keyed to your stat DC, but keying on Intelligence instead of Dex for a Gunslinger is a downgrade!
Is it just that they wanted to give more feat support to the Spellshot than to the other Ways? I don't really see a downside in "every subclass has a bunch of options."
With how underwhelming the Spellshot and Elementalist turned out, I’m not in any real hurry for more Class Archetypes. I hope the eventual Synthesist Summoner can afford the fate of the CAs we’ve seen so far.
Ack, embarrassing typo - should be "avoid," not "afford." The Synthesist can't afford to be bad! Too many people are excited for it, and one that flops guarantees I never play a Summoner in PF2.
I have to hope that they've just been extra conservative with CAs so far, and that we'll start to see more interesting, powerful ones in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I first saw Class Archetypes in SoM released I was thinking how would be more interesting if this was used in APG in place of Investigator, Oracle, Swashbuckler and Witch.
Imagine if Investigator as Class Archetype was used to do changes in Alchemist and/or Rogue in order to change their mechanics to something similar to currently Investigator, an Oracle Archetype could be an Class Archetype for spontaneous spell casters like sorcerer and bard in change to receive Mysteries and it's curses, Swashbuckler could be an Class Archetype for classes with precision damage like Rogues and Rangers trading it's precision damage in favor to Finishers and Witch could be an Class Archetype that could add hexes for prepared spellscasters like Wizards, Clerics and Druids.
That's my vision of how could this kind of archetype could be used. Not as an alternative to subclasses or competing with normal archetypes but a way to add variants to current classes without the need to create new ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first saw Class Archetypes in SoM released I was thinking how would be more interesting if this was used in APG in place of Investigator, Oracle, Swashbuckler and Witch.
Imagine if Investigator as Class Archetype was used to do changes in Alchemist and/or Rogue in order to change their mechanics to something similar to currently Investigator, an Oracle Archetype could be an Class Archetype for spontaneous spell casters like sorcerer and bard in change to receive Mysteries and it's curses, Swashbuckler could be an Class Archetype for classes with precision damage like Rogues and Rangers trading it's precision damage in favor to Finishers and Witch could be an Class Archetype that could add hexes for prepared spellscasters like Wizards, Clerics and Druids.
That's my vision of how could this kind of archetype could be used. Not as an alternative to subclasses or competing with normal archetypes but a way to add variants to current classes without the need to create new ones.
I would've been bummed with an Investigator who was a modified Alchemist, personally. There's nothing in the final class I'd want to give up, and there's not much from the Alchemist I'd want to gain.
It would be hard for these to not feel like demotions for fans of the 1e classes, y'know? Part of the reason I'm so adamant about Inquisitor not winding up as a Doctrine or Class Archetype for Cleric is because I want its distinct identity to carry through - I want an Inquisitor, not a funny Cleric.
The only one I'd really welcome in that format is a Shifter that tossed out the Druid's spellcasting for better polymorphing, but even that might bum out the old Shifter fans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would've been bummed with an Investigator who was a modified Alchemist, personally. There's nothing in the final class I'd want to give up, and there's not much from the Alchemist I'd want to gain.
Yeah, that is my thought too. There is enough in Investigator that is unique and powerful enough that it would require pulling out pretty much all of the core features of the Alchemist or Rogue in order to pay for it. At that point, the only differences would be the minor differences in proficiencies. And there would be a lot of feats that would still be in the core class feat list, but wouldn't be applicable to the Investigator since they don't have the class features that they depend on.
Elementalist lacking any lightning spells is a shame. It basically makes it a worse primal list.
Yep almost all the good stuff in primal that rounded out the list to make it balanced and flexible has been removed. I really like primal, I really don't like elementalist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark's Draconic Diehard class archetype is exactly the type of thing I'd like to see more of.
Elementalist lacking any lightning spells is a shame. It basically makes it a worse primal list.Yep almost all the good stuff in primal that rounded out the list to make it balanced and flexible has been removed. I really like primal, I really don't like elementalist.
Isn't that sort of the point of elementalist though? You give up a bunch of flexibility to get more powerful at the elemental stuff. Burning Spell is one of the few ways to enhancr blasting damage, and the Elemental Focus spells are sizable upgrades over what wizards and many sorcerers get.
I wouldn't personally be tempted by them, but people critique PF2 casters as not having strong enough damage, which is because they also get flexibility. The elementalist feels like them trying to make a better blast through sacrificing that flexibility. (It does feel pretty conservative, though.)
At the price of Slow, Haste, Heal, Fear? No thanks.
It is also persistant damage which is slow.
I much prefer Geomancer
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You give up a bunch of flexibility to get more powerful at the elemental stuff.
Yeah but you don't really... do that.
The list is mostly defined by the things you lose rather than the things you gain. As a supposed elementalist, you have no access to electrical damage and limited access to Cold damage, and many of the new options you pick up just aren't that great. Burning Spell is kind of interesting, but it's also pretty much a lone standout, imo.
The focus spells are cool, but as if to add insult to injury, a sizable chunk of the classes that could pick Elementalist can't actually gain the new focus spells at all.
Ironically, I feel like Elementalist would be more interesting if it was available to non-arcane/primal casters instead, because being able to completely change your spell list would at least have some interesting potential as a way to create new character concepts. For arcanists and primalists it's more like... you get to trash your own spell list and then spend more feats for some minor benefits, which just sort of feels bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You give up a bunch of flexibility to get more powerful at the elemental stuff.Yeah but you don't really... do that.
The list is mostly defined by the things you lose rather than the things you gain. As a supposed elementalist, you have no access to electrical damage and limited access to Cold damage, and many of the new options you pick up just aren't that great. Burning Spell is kind of interesting, but it's also pretty much a lone standout, imo.
The focus spells are cool, but as if to add insult to injury, a sizable chunk of the classes that could pick Elementalist can't actually gain the new focus spells at all.
Ironically, I feel like Elementalist would be more interesting if it was available to non-arcane/primal casters instead, because being able to completely change your spell list would at least have some interesting potential as a way to create new character concepts. For arcanists and primalists it's more like... you get to trash your own spell list and then spend more feats for some minor benefits, which just sort of feels bad.
This angle on a pyromancer Psychic could be a lot of fun.
I'm thinking of a cleric to one of the nature or destruction gods. Would probably need a note saying you still have access to heal or harm, but you can only prepare those in your font.