I'm struggling to understand why Archetype Subclasses exist mechanically the way they do. I was looking at Way of the Spellshot Gunslinger for a character, and previously I was looking at Flexible Caster.
Spellshot doesn't seem like it's drastically more powerful than a regular gunslinger, it gains the same number of features as a regular Way, the only thing it gains is access to additional Feats as if it were an archetype.
Flexible Caster is similar, it affects your casting, but in no way does it seem like it should require additional buy in. It lets you prepare a (small) pool of spells, but cuts your daily slots per level down to 2.
It feels like equivalent exchange BEFORE the feat, and the forced feat spend feels like punishment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are basically four reasons to make something a class archetypes.
-To carry forward the PF1 concept of archetypes as "what if I want a character without this part of the class chassis".
- To enable a character to have something that is difficult to subdivide into individual feats.
- To enable a specific concept to work from level 1.
- To provide a space for more additional feats to build on the concept than is standard (Spellshot has four feats that require the dedication as a prerequisite, the other Ways have only two related feats.)
So the Way of the Spellshot gives everything a normal Way does: a special reload, three deeds, and a related skill. But because of the nature of "where do magic guns come from on Golarion and who uses them" being motivated by people who live in places where black powder is hard to come by coming up with a different option for ammunition, the "conjure bullet" action being available from level 1 is essential to play like "an aspiring Beast Gunner from Arcadia who can't get their hands on black powder" so it's granted at level 1 and you pay for it with your level 2 feat.
You can see that the Way of the Spellshot is supposed to tie into the Beast Gunner archetype because of the specific carve-out to the "you can't take another dedication" clause in the Spellshot dedication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand what they're trying to do, but why is it necessarily linked to an Archetype? It could have been a standard Way with its Feats added to the Gunslinger pool with the caveat that they require Spellcasting or something.
Instead I'm trapped in an archetype that is so thinly defined that I'm trapped in it until level 6 because I cannot possibly gain 2 feats in the archetype before then.
It feels like a really janky way to design something like this, and it plays hilariously poorly with the GMG's 'free archetype' rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslinger's Way of the Spellshot specifically does seem a bit strange.
The other class archetypes fit the balance and design better. So if you are complaining specifically about Spellshot, do us all a favor and specify that rather than presenting the complaints as being against all class archetypes generally.
Gunslinger's Way of the Spellshot specifically does seem a bit strange.
The other class archetypes fit the balance and design better. So if you are complaining specifically about Spellshot, do us all a favor and specify that rather than presenting the complaints as being against all class archetypes generally.
Spellshot is the current target of my ire, and I was replying to PossibleCabbage who only expounded on Spellshot, but I explicitly mentioned Flexible Caster as well, which has a similar issue where the 'rewards' for burning a feat (going from 4 cantrips to 6) feel like they could have been a caster feat instead of an explicit archetype.
I SUPPOSE Flexible Caster has the benefit of not being locked to one prepared caster, but with it costing A FEAT, I would expect not to lose such a substantial amount of my spellcasting power as well.
Cool.
I'm just wanting to get that all clarified up front. A lot of miscommunication can happen otherwise on these text-based forums. No point arguing past each other.
Cool.
I'm just wanting to get that all clarified up front. A lot of miscommunication can happen otherwise on these text-based forums. No point arguing past each other.
Are there any other Class Archetypes that you feel are more justified and feel more rewarding? My sample size is only the two I've run into while trying to figure out characters.
I hear good things about Wellspring Mage, though I haven't tried it out myself. It is a bit too chaotic for my taste.
There are also people who like Flexible Spellcaster despite its hefty cost. There is no other way (besides houserules) to get the Arcanist style of casting that blends both Repertoire and prepared casting. It is probably too costly for a class like pre-Remaster Witch that really needs its level 2 feat in order to be effective. But for Cleric or Wizard that have feats and spell slots to spare, it can be quite good.
Edit: Also, the outcry at the fact that Runelord Archetype doesn't work with Remastered rules changes was loud enough that the game devs actually answered that and promised that it would be making a comeback once they get some spare time.
I understand what they're trying to do, but why is it necessarily linked to an Archetype? It could have been a standard Way with its Feats added to the Gunslinger pool with the caveat that they require Spellcasting or something.
Instead I'm trapped in an archetype that is so thinly defined that I'm trapped in it until level 6 because I cannot possibly gain 2 feats in the archetype before then.
It feels like a really janky way to design something like this, and it plays hilariously poorly with the GMG's 'free archetype' rule.
From what one can see, even if the execution varies in degree, is that class Archetypes alter a fundamental way the class work. This is clearer, and more extreme, with the Flexible Spellcasting Archetype.
Personally, I think Paizo created them back then more to appease the fanbase, because they pretty much dropped the concept after those first few releases.
I think we can summarize them as "an archetype that alters a core basic mechanic of the class", like they usually did in PF1e.
I low-key wish to see some more of them now that Paizo has found their groove with PF2e's class design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand what they're trying to do, but why is it necessarily linked to an Archetype? It could have been a standard Way with its Feats added to the Gunslinger pool with the caveat that they require Spellcasting or something.
This feels like something easy to fix with homebrewing. The archetype as written is intended to accommodate an Arcadian gunslinger which is the place on Golarion that has had guns the longest but the quintessential Arcadian guns were "handheld metal tubes powered by magic that shot pellets of concentrated arcane energy". If you want to play a character in that tradition from level 1, you kind of want to have "conjure bullet" from the get-go. If you don't care about that you can just house rule that it's a regular way and the feats are just regular feats.
However there's a real possibility that Spellshot is a class archetype specifically to prevent other classes from poaching "thoughtful reload" through multiclassing. Since that ability would be potentially incredible on a class that gets more mileage out of recall knowledge than the gunslinger does. By making it a class archetypes ability, you can't access it with Practiced Reloads.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theoretically, archetype subclasses allow you to create a subclass that's slightly more powerful than normal (because it costs a feat) or changes some aspect of the class that is normally beyond the purivew of a subclass.
In practice, Spellshot is just kind of terrible, and fails to live up to any of its potential. It doesn't really serve any purpose as a class archetype and would still be kind of bad even if it wasn't.
It almost feels like it's an archetype just for the sake of having a class archetype.
IMO the idea of class archetypes is to meet a concept similar to the archetypes but instead of add more options like an normal or MC archetype does it changes the current class mechanics like a subclass but in a way that can affect many different classes at once. A good example of this is the Wellspring Mage and Elementalist.
The first one gives you a pretty high chance (75%) to get a top level spell slot every encounter at cost of 1 spell slot per rank and 1 cantrip but you have a risk of cause a Wellspring Surge if you fail in the flat check. This effectively alters how your spontaneous spellcasting works a bit and can be taken by any spontaneous casters.
The second one changes your tradition list and depending from your class gives you a new set of focus spell options to use. Works with any arcane of primal caster.
The dedication cost IMO is just a default to all archetypes. There's no archetype without a dedication feat. IMO complain about it it's not too different than complain about anyother archetype needs to pay dedication feat as a tax.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider subclass archetypes more of a holdover from 1E than anything else. 1E classes had more stuff baked in that you'd switch out with archetypes because you were trying to specialize in something else.
It took a long time between them writing rules for subclass archetypes, and actually publishing a subclass archetype that uses those rules. Because as it turns out they weren't really that necessary in 2E.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider subclass archetypes more of a holdover from 1E than anything else. 1E classes had more stuff baked in that you'd switch out with archetypes because you were trying to specialize in something else.
It took a long time between them writing rules for subclass archetypes, and actually publishing a subclass archetype that uses those rules. Because as it turns out they weren't really that necessary in 2E.
I don't really agree. There's plenty of room to do things with subclass archetypes. Paizo just hasn't wanted to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really agree. There's plenty of room to do things with subclass archetypes. Paizo just hasn't wanted to.I consider subclass archetypes more of a holdover from 1E than anything else. 1E classes had more stuff baked in that you'd switch out with archetypes because you were trying to specialize in something else.
It took a long time between them writing rules for subclass archetypes, and actually publishing a subclass archetype that uses those rules. Because as it turns out they weren't really that necessary in 2E.
Still in the Synthesist Summoner waiting room...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still in the Synthesist Summoner waiting room...I don't really agree. There's plenty of room to do things with subclass archetypes. Paizo just hasn't wanted to.I consider subclass archetypes more of a holdover from 1E than anything else. 1E classes had more stuff baked in that you'd switch out with archetypes because you were trying to specialize in something else.
It took a long time between them writing rules for subclass archetypes, and actually publishing a subclass archetype that uses those rules. Because as it turns out they weren't really that necessary in 2E.
I hear it is coming through these parts same time as the railroad.
/huffs-copium
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really agree. There's plenty of room to do things with subclass archetypes. Paizo just hasn't wanted to.I consider subclass archetypes more of a holdover from 1E than anything else. 1E classes had more stuff baked in that you'd switch out with archetypes because you were trying to specialize in something else.
It took a long time between them writing rules for subclass archetypes, and actually publishing a subclass archetype that uses those rules. Because as it turns out they weren't really that necessary in 2E.
There's room to do those things, it's a tool they could use. Runelord is a good example of something that's supposed to be really specifically wizard and school focused. Going in directly and changing the wizard class chassis makes sense there.
But for a lot of other things, it turned out they could achieve them with more generic archetypes, so strict subclass archetypes weren't needed. For example the Magaambya archetypes - those work for much more than just wizards or druids.
That wasn't something they could easily do in 1E; 1E prestige classes were very hard to make workable in a way that kept your original class a bit on track. In 2E that works better because archetypes don't replace your main class chassis.
So subclass archetypes are a bit heavy-handed tool that is only needed in a few cases. Much of the time, generic archetypes will be sufficient, and those are usable for more classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it hadn't been an Archetype, ... they could have "conjure bullet" a first level feat instead (still requiring Way of the Spellshot as its prerequisite).
And I would probably still take Munitions Crafter instead since the action cost is the same whether reloading a conjured bullet or a crafted one.
Most of the class archetypes are at least actual class archetypes - they change the fundamental core of at least some aspects of the base class. The only debate is if the cost is worth the change.
I'm not sure why Spellshot is a class archetype. As far as I can tell, it changes nothing. It just gives a different Way. And forces the level 2 feat choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellshot definitely seems like it was intended to be something way different in development and ended up scuttled at some point; I recall early talk of "a way to blend magic and guns" when G&G was first announced. Most other class archetypes are at least interesting or good; Spellshot is neither.