While it's a ways out I'm starting to make plans for the next campaign, and one member of the group requested free archetype, an idea I'm quite keen on, I did play with one group that used free archetype and I liked it; however I wasn't so keen on the complete lack of restrictions on free archetype they used and I'm thinking that, especially since this will be the first time using FA for this group, I want to restrict the list of available archetypes available via FA.
The campaign is going to be one invented from each PC's backstories and focused on their individual goals, so right now there isn't a whole lot nailed down about it I'm sorry to say; what are some sensible general limitations on FA to give them options, but keep the list trimmed down so it's not out of hand?
|
I don't really know what to suggest as I'm not sure what kind of game it will be but if you're looking for more interesting and varied gameplay versus players simply trying to poach features from other proper/full Classes I'd suggest limiting it to nonmulticlass Archetypes. If they DO want to go multiclass as part of their core concept though I'd consider removing the one archetype at a time limitation on the FA choice so they can spend their normal Class Feats on MCA feats should they wish to do that which would certainly end up giving you more interesting and varied characters for the story.
Maybe it's just me but I feel like characters with NON-Class Archetypes end up being more interesting and flavorful than someone simply picking up Sorcerer/Psychic/Champion to grab easy "power enhancer" options.
One thing I advise in general though, something I suggest for every game really, is to NOT permit any options from any Adventure Paths unless you are specifically playing that AP for your game, options published in APs are generally pretty specific to what the campaign is about, the equipment/spells/feats/options from it also tend to be a bit rougher around the edges with less polish and often have square peg-round hole issues with other "mainline rulebook" content and occasionally are just flat out unbalanced for the level they're provided at.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm a fan of the "no-multiclass, no medic/sentinel/marshall/beastmaster" for the free archetype.
I do allow players to pick those up with their class feats, effectively saying that the "class feat" track and the "free archetype" tracks don't see each other for the purpose of "can I start another archetype". Within each track, they must obey the usual rules about not tacking another archetype until they've taken enough feats.
I don't really know what to suggest as I'm not sure what kind of game it will be but if you're looking for more interesting and varied gameplay versus players simply trying to poach features from other proper/full Classes I'd suggest limiting it to nonmulticlass Archetypes. If they DO want to go multiclass as part of their core concept though I'd consider removing the one archetype at a time limitation on the FA choice so they can spend their normal Class Feats on MCA feats should they wish to do that which would certainly end up giving you more interesting and varied characters for the story.
Maybe it's just me but I feel like characters with NON-Class Archetypes end up being more interesting and flavorful than someone simply picking up Sorcerer/Psychic/Champion to grab easy "power enhancer" options.
One thing I advise in general though, something I suggest for every game really, is to NOT permit any options from any Adventure Paths unless you are specifically playing that AP for your game, options published in APs are generally pretty specific to what the campaign is about, the equipment/spells/feats/options from it also tend to be a bit rougher around the edges with less polish and often have square peg-round hole issues with other "mainline rulebook" content and occasionally are just flat out unbalanced for the level they're provided at.
No worries on the AP specific stuff, I realized how unbalanced that could get when I saw the Blood Feast spell, lol. I appreciate the warning though.
I admit my first thought before coming to ask for advice was restricting it to only multi-class archetypes, but between you and NielsenE, it suggests that this is a bad idea? Too prone to power-gaming would you say?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not in favor of restricting archetype choice in a blanket ban manner. It doesn't actually work for what you are trying to do.
The intent is, as Themetricsystem mentions, to prevent Free Archetype from just being a power grab. But any set of restrictions ends up failing at doing that when you really look into it.
Sure, banning multiclass archetypes will prevent the Fighter from picking up Monk archetype to get those nice stance unarmed attacks, or Champion archetype to get Lay on Hands. So instead they will grab Martial Artist or Blessed One. Which is still the same power grab. But then it also prevents the Sorcerer from picking up Rogue archetype for more skills, or gunslinger archetype for interesting things to do with firearms - which really isn't much of a power grab.
A better option would be to just have a buy-in agreement from the players to not double-down on archetypes that replicate features that they could get from their base class. And reserve the right to question and maybe redirect their choice of archetype if you feel like it is going into a powergaming realm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are enough strong archetypes out that you'll be at it forever if you try to hammer down all the ones that could be strong by themselves or in combination.
Even aside from multiclassing and the medic, beastmaster, etc, you have, as breithauptclan mentioned, blessed one or martial artist, to start. There's also non-multiclass magic archetypes like captivator or cathartic mage, alternate beastmaster cavalier, free legendary skill and kip up acrobat, snarecrafter for lategame control, assassin or butterfly blade for discount rogue, student of perfection/jalmeri heavenseeker, the list goes on and on really.
Unless you're willing to set aside an afternoon and go through each archetype to evaluate and ban any that might be mechanically good, perhaps you'd be better off locking it entirely to two or three you consider thematically appropriate, forgoing it entirely, or accepting the inevitable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, since it seems to come up every time Free Archetype and game balance are mentioned together: remember that the baseline for characters is to have Archetypes available. So all of those broken powergaming Archetype feat combos are generally already available in just the base game rules. What Free Archetype adds is giving the ability to have those feat combos and still get your second choice class feats too.
Thank you for the input. While the intent on limiting the list of available free archetypes for this campaign isn't explicitly meant to prevent power-gaming, if trying to prevent that is going to fail anyways I can just nix it as a factor entirely.
With that in mind, that leaves trimming it down so that any archetypes chosen don't clash with the party or setting; which is going to be next to impossible to figure out specifics right now since said setting hasn't been built yet as I'm waiting on submissions from the group.
Are there any general considerations to make when deciding what should and should not be available for FA?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest ones that I can think of would be the ones that reference undead - either the Undead archetypes themselves (Ghost, Ghoul, etc), or the undead hunting archetypes like Exorcist or Ghost Hunter. One Undead character in the group (or even Negative Healing characters like Dhampir or Revenant) can be difficult to play with to the rest of the party. And the undead hunting archetypes will have unexpectedly good or unexpectedly bad power levels depending on how much undead enemies feature in the campaign.
Most anything else could at least be reflavored or would be so obviously not a good match that the players wouldn't want it for their character. For example, Turpin Rowe Lumberjack could be reflavored, and Vehicle Mechanic is an obvious non-option in a campaign setting that doesn't involve vehicles.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you should just trust your players.
After all, PF2 is designed so that optimized PCs and fun PCs can adventure side by side.
Playing optimized PCs is NOT badwrongfun.
Just tell your players about the theme of your game so that they create characters that fit and check the result with them.
FA by itself is nothing to worry about.
I think you should just trust your players.
After all, PF2 is designed so that optimized PCs and fun PCs can adventure side by side.
Playing optimized PCs is NOT badwrongfun.
Just tell your players about the theme of your game so that they create characters that fit and check the result with them.
FA by itself is nothing to worry about.
Trust? This was never about whether I trust them or not, I absolutely do. This is about my first time running a game with Free Archetype, and my seeking advice to learn about the potential pitfalls before we start this game blind.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recommend allowing people to just choose what they want, with the understanding that if things get out of hand (you hit any pitfalls or combat is trivialized) then you may ask them to stop.
You could also limit your players to a single archetype.
I limit PCs to a single archetype to start with, chosen from a pre-approved list of archetypes selected for matching the themes of the campaign. I also tie some of them to Backgrounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, the "best" way to limit the free archetype is to pre-select a list of archetypes that are appropriate thematically to the campaign's background, location, and/or plot arc. Other restrictions start to seem "arbitrary" or "mechanics-focused" which can make buy-in more difficult.
This doesn't necessarily need to prevent use multi-classed archetypes with the free archetype optional rules: the Strength of Thousands AP, being set in the Magaambya, had every PC receiving free archetype feats in either the multiclassed druid or wizard archetype to help emphasize the feel of being at a university about arcane and primal magic. Another example could be running the Blood Lords AP with every PC using free undead or Reanimator archetype feats from Book of the Dead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, the "best" way to limit the free archetype is to pre-select a list of archetypes that are appropriate thematically to the campaign's background, location, and/or plot arc. Other restrictions start to seem "arbitrary" or "mechanics-focused" which can make buy-in more difficult.
This doesn't necessarily need to prevent use multi-classed archetypes with the free archetype optional rules: the Strength of Thousands AP, being set in the Magaambya, had every PC receiving free archetype feats in either the multiclassed druid or wizard archetype to help emphasize the feel of being at a university about arcane and primal magic. Another example could be running the Blood Lords AP with every PC using free undead or Reanimator archetype feats from Book of the Dead.
This is what I came here to say.
Establish a premise for your campaign.
You're all pirates. Or you're members of a traveling circus.
And the free archetype selected needs to be in line with that.
There are ways to justify ones that might be a stretch too, like someone might take an archetype around infiltration stuff in the pirate campaign because they're trying to work their way into the pirate hierarchy to take it down.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I want to play a Thaumaturge with Cannoneer background and Marshal archetype. I plan to be a pirate captain someday. That would be fine, right? It is on-theme."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't sweat it, there's really nothing to worry about with Free Archetype. In my experience there's been no issue just letting players go hog wild.
Even when players choose things that overlap, that just gives those characters opportunities to roleplay share scenes together.
The only issue might be if they're new players and relying on you to know their characters for them. If that's the case, I would tell them that they have to know their own stuff, and if they get stuck because they went more complex than they're ready for you reserve the right to ask them to respec.
"I want to play a Thaumaturge with Cannoneer background and Marshal archetype. I plan to be a pirate captain someday. That would be fine, right? It is on-theme."
I would say yes, though some people might think Marshall is "too good" of a free archetype.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The power of free archtype is 10 more class feats.
Just give your players fewer class feats to restrict the power creep.
I would start with only a 2 level, a 6th level, a 10th level feat. If the players want more archtype feats, they can give up their class feats as normal.
This sounds deeply unpleasant to play.
I have been playing a lot with free archetype lately and so my answer is rooted in the experiences I have had. You are starting a new campaign from level 1?
Then you probably don't need to get in too over your head about what will be going on at levels 10+. PF2 is really easy to adjust on the fly so if Free Archetype starts making encounters too easy eventually, you can just adjust the difficult of your enounters up by adding some minions to encounters and it will be more fun for your party casters.
The bigger issue than power creep that I see with Free Archetype rules is decision paralysis from having more options of things to do and of players struggling to remember what abilities their characters have and how to use them. This is a bigger problem for characters starting at levels 5+ than characters starting at level 1 though, especially because Free archetype doesn't really do anything at level 1.
It sounds like you are willing to invest a little bit of time as a GM helping your players fit their characters into your game world and adventure?
My suggestion then, especially for starting at level 1, is to get your players to tell you what archetypes they are interested in, and mod those archetypes to fit into your game more holistically, even making some changes (perhaps even with slight power boosts to make it feel worth it to your players) for a feat tree for the free archetype that really fits their character idea.
If some player was thinking about picking up monk for a specific stance, for example, make it a stance that is meaningful in your game world either with a school or a master the character knows. Consider giving out a free extra weapon trait for the stance, or a benefit for being in the stance and call it something new for your world. For example, I had a monk in a game I was playing and he became friends with an Iruxi tribe that liked to host wrestling tournaments. I modified Gorilla stance into a Crocodile stance which also gave the character the ability to hold his breath for 2x as long (the whole campaign was on a river and there were lots of semi-aquatic encounters), threw in a couple of the wrestle archetype feats, and the player was very happy to have a free archetype build that fit the game world uniquely.
Power creep isn't really a table specific problem unless it is causing imbalances between player's characters or is making encounters un-fun. The bigger issue with the huge number of Archetype options is not really being able to anticipate what your players are going to choose and how to encourage collaborative choices that build a team rather than individual characters that might duplicate the same things and get in each other's way. Players really enjoy unique options that feel useful in the world they are playing in and connected to that world. It is much easier to help encourage that by "being on their team" and working with them to have an archetype where they are excited about picking options from it, and not like they are just having to dip here and there to get 1 feat, without concern for how that connects to their character story.
|
This sounds deeply unpleasant to play.The power of free archtype is 10 more class feats.
Just give your players fewer class feats to restrict the power creep.
I would start with only a 2 level, a 6th level, a 10th level feat. If the players want more archtype feats, they can give up their class feats as normal.
Well I play without free archtype and I find it fun, and I like making choices with my feats.
I find it weird when all the players are running around with 2-4 archtypes, at higher levels.But a few more feats could be fun and keeping the selection choices that I like.
Unless you're willing to set aside an afternoon and go through each archetype to evaluate and ban any that might be mechanically good, perhaps you'd be better off locking it entirely to two or three you consider thematically appropriate, forgoing it entirely, or accepting the inevitable.
This. The inevitable isn't THAT bad, though. PF2 is a hard game and player characters being stronger than default isn't necessarily a bad default.
This sounds deeply unpleasant to play.The power of free archtype is 10 more class feats.
Just give your players fewer class feats to restrict the power creep.
I would start with only a 2 level, a 6th level, a 10th level feat. If the players want more archtype feats, they can give up their class feats as normal.
I guess that you are reading the suggestion like I did at first. It's not about reducing the normal class feats, it's about giving less extra feats with free archetype than the 'normal' 10.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that you are reading the suggestion like I did at first. It's not about reducing the normal class feats, it's about giving less extra feats with free archetype than the 'normal' 10.This sounds deeply unpleasant to play.The power of free archtype is 10 more class feats.
Just give your players fewer class feats to restrict the power creep.
I would start with only a 2 level, a 6th level, a 10th level feat. If the players want more archtype feats, they can give up their class feats as normal.
Yeah I read it that way at first too.
Since it's gotten more attention, I might as well chime in that technically Free Archetype Feats are not equivalent to class feats, because when taking multiclass feats you're limited to half level options and not in your own class. I know on many, many builds I would vastly prefer to have double class feats than free archetype.
Calling Free Archetype feats bonus Class Feats is what makes their comment confusing, and isn't even correct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personally best-rated variants of Free Archetype are:
Free Archetype Lite: You only get the level 2, 4, and 6 Free Archetype slots. (Or 2, 6, 8 or a 4, 6, 8 if you pick an archetype that has those as their starting level feats)
Free Non-Archetype: For a Free Archetype game where some of the players want to stay single-class, allow the Free Archetype feat slots to get base class Class feats at half the character level as though you were getting them from a multiclass archetype.
|
|
My personally best-rated variants of Free Archetype are:
Free Archetype Lite: You only get the level 2, 4, and 6 Free Archetype slots. (Or 2, 6, 8 or a 4, 6, 8 if you pick an archetype that has those as their starting level feats)
Free Non-Archetype: For a Free Archetype game where some of the players want to stay single-class, allow the Free Archetype feat slots to get base class Class feats at half the character level as though you were getting them from a multiclass archetype.
I like that second part VERY MUCH.
I might require fulfilling the MC Dedication prerequisites though.