Free Archetype Variant Rule - if you DON'T use it, why, and how did your players react?

[The Gleeful Grognard]

I am not going to bother giving character builds but when you get to level 12 and onward those free archetype feats start really paying dividends, especially for builds that have class feats to spare and can double up on dedications so they can unlock multiple at once and then spend later level feats on the better feats when they are available.

It also means often times there isn't a choice at certain levels, every melee martial can easily justify attack of opportunity and whatever feat they want fro. Their own class. Heck grab a caster dedication at some point for free wand/scroll use in high level play since trick magic item requires so much investment.

Even the HP boosts from easy access to the hp per archetype feat and armor specialization granting feats is good enough for a nice ribbon if you can't think of anything else (hey why not have everyone take blessed one, get three focus points and just really up healing for tense moments... everyone can grab the ability to see through concealment so the whole party can have perma mistform/obscuring mist up with even less concern :p)

Now this is comparing free archetype to no free archetype, and I know waterslethe has made it explicit that they are not making that comparison but the "minor impact" comment comes up frequently so I want to justify my position in advance.

Some archetypes are just broadly better than others. Others are very flavourful but just not as universally as useful to a party like medic/blessed one is. I can see why people who really like a more balanced game AND who want more options / choices would lean into a unrestricted free archetype lite approach.

Beastmaster is another very good dedication, especially for someone who was going animal druid anyway.

(Also, on the topic if free archetype, generally the concern is inter party balance where those who just know the game better or have a better sense for powergaming and builds come out notably ahead. This is what I have witnessed when I used unrestricted free archetype and it had a negative impact on some of my players experiences)

[PossibleCabbage]

I've run a game that wasn't free archetype but was "double class feats" which seems objectively stronger and I didn't honestly notice a huge leap in power.

[Ched Greyfell]

WatersLethe wrote:

I really just don't understand the whole policing free archetype thing. It feels weird and controlling, and the mechanical impact isn't even worth the fuss.

If the impact isn't worth the fuss to allow it, then it isn't worth fussing when it isn't allowed.

[Gortle]

SuperBidi wrote:

I'll return the question: What's the point of free archetype without a curated list?

People want more toys, more combinations, more options.

[Temperans]

Unfethered free archetype and to an extent double class feats has two issues:
1) For all the "balance" that Paizo added in the math, they threw it away when deciding what classes got what features or feats. Seriously, nobody can sit there and tell me that Inspire Courage or Fighter's accelerated proficiency is anywhere near the same ballpark as Devise a Stratagem or metamagic thesis.

2) The GMs not wanting players to be self sufficient because "the party suffers" or "they beat the encounter too easily". Its that logic that led to familiars being useless and "summoner" not being able to actually be good at summoning.

Both of those issues have nothing to do with free archetype and entirely with the type of game the GM wants to play. For example a GM that likes running gritty campaigns will dislike free archetype more than a GM that like super heroic games.

********************

Having said all that, all that free archetype (or doble class feat) does is accelerate when players are able to get what they want at early level: Then at high level actually make use of the high level feats for the class. The extra power is entirely from added versatility, which is why Fighter who has the best base stats is super prominent with that rule.

A fighter MC alchemist will be a better alchemist at no real cost. But an alchemist will never ever be a good fighter. It also doesn't help that most martial archetypes that work with fighter's abilities better than any other class.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I've run a game that wasn't free archetype but was "double class feats" which seems objectively stronger and I didn't honestly notice a huge leap in power.

That or:

- the group didn't or couldn't powergame to that level
- the group all had roughly the same about of game knowledge
- the group was fine with power discrepancies
- you just didn't notice (possibly because it doesn't matter to you)

As previous mentioned, there are other factors that can be in play.

Because pf2e doesn't allow as many raw math increasers it really comes down to how effectively the party uses their tools, but having better tools for the moment is a big boost in power if they do know how to use them.

It also matters when and for how long you ran that game for, at launch with the crb and lost omens world and character guide it was a minor power boost for many classes and harder to make use of. But post APG with more class feats, archetypes and classes in general, it is a different landscape.

And hey to be clear here, not saying that everyone has to have people who powergame in their groups. Free archetype is a fine rule to have as an optional one in the game and healthy for encouraging different groups to play pf2e. But when talking potential impact it is a big enough subsection of players that it shouldn't be disregarded out of hand.

It would be like disregarding the power of consumables in pf2e because there is a large group of people who never use consumables. Dust of disappearance was simply strong and cheap past a certain point back when it was common, people not knowing how to utilize consumables didn't change that.

Or people who never buy scrolls because wands exist, even when it is super sub optimal to do so in many cases.

Another good example would be a feat like gangup, someone who has some knowledge about the system and rogues can see it is a useful feat for rogues and appealing.
Someone with more system knowledge knows it is quite niche in actual use case scenarios and will end up simply not needing to come into play often for many groups. Especially when factoring in stuff like dust of disappearance, tumble behind, feint and the sheet multitude of other flat-footed sources in the game by the point you can select gangup... heck even the humble delay.

[Zero the Nothing]

Ezekieru wrote:

Hey, head's up! Thurston Hillman on a podcast confirmed that Starfinder Enhanced will have some variant rules in there, including Free Archetype! They noted how popular it was in PF2E, and so decided to include it as a new variant rule for SF.

I ran my last Starfinder game with free archetypes. With the swingyness of SF archetypes, it didn't really turn out like I'd hoped it would. The Double Themes did add a lot.

[Henro]

I don't use it and I don't especially miss it. Opportunity cost is something I value when it comes to character creation, and none of my players have ever really been too fussed about it. What I often do (and would highly recommend others who don't use Free Archetype try) is sometimes giving out Archetype Feats as quest rewards. Usually these free feats are tied to personal quests and ambitions the PCs have (I'd say I usually give out a feat this way to every PC every 5-6 levels), and it has worked out extremely well in the past for me.

[Leon Aquilla]

arcady wrote:

It seems like everyone uses this variant rule.

To the point that it's maybe more common than even allowing the human ancestry. ;)

So I'm kind of wondering if there is anyone out there that doesn't use it.

Players can't react to missing out on variant options they don't know exist. The very online crowd here/on Reddit should not be construed as representative of the greater PF2e community.