| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel the hate for archetypes is overblown. Yes, they are weaker than traditional multiclassing, but what people isn't taking into account here is that you are still a full member of your class (more so with FA). A figther with the wizard archetype isn't going to be better than a wizard, but it still is a full fighter that works like a 1/2 wizard. That's insane when you think about it.
The concept of a class that teleports really doesn't have enough for it to be a full class, and could be easily implemented by having the dedication grant you an action that allows you teleport X distance, then have more archetype feats that either improve that teleport or compress actions into that teleport. I recall a line of feats in PF1e that was about using the dimension door spell to make full attacks. A similar concept could be implemented in PF2e by having a later feat allowing you to teleport and attack as part of the same action. Then have a later feat that allows you cast the actual teleport spell as a focus spell, etc.
|
I was thinking a similar thing. I don't see "teleporter" being a concept that could be a class on its own. An archetype or class archetype is more fitting.
I disagree. I can see a lot of things going on with the teleportation and how it is used. Tons of characters in media are based around teleportation.
BUT that's an opinion, and it's likely too overpowerd because of the unlimited teleporting to be viable.
|
|
I could imagine feat chains for the Portal subclass that allow you to use the Portal as a weapon, forcing those it passes through while being moved to make a save against your class DC or take some force damage. Or a Feat Chain to manipulate velocity going through it, by putting it at odd angles.
The Hopper subclass would have chains to Make rapid attacks (with high level allowing more than once per turn to get the Precision damage, or Port more than once per turn to confuse multiple Enemies.
The Mover would get feat chains to apply various conditions via teleportation, and to imbue the teleortation energy into her ammunition to make a ranged attack and cause both damage and teleportation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the only real "feals bad" part of archetypes is that the initial dedication feat generally feels like a tax, because it's likely weaker than the other level 2 feat you would take.
The later feats in whatever archetype are just about as powerful as regular class feats (maybe not the very best class feats, but you don't get one of those at every level), which is about right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're talking about anything other than the pre-remaster class archetypes, I really don't understand how you describe them as "are so bad".
The Rules Lawyer rants about the Book of the Dead archetypes. The undead (character) archetypes aren't great either, though the Vampire one is really bad, with no upsides but massive downsides (they should at least fix the Daywalker feat).
Yes, archetypes are mostly bad. They have big opportunity costs (class feats), often require significant investment (master in a skill, feats) and offer little in return.
You rarely have an archetype that facilitates new builds/ways of playing. The Wrestler or Dandy are rare good ones, as they allows for more varied playstyles (e.g. my divine Sorcerer uses Tut-Tut with Spiritual Weapon to frighten enemies).
Here's a list of ~150 archetypes. But how many have you seen being used effectively?
The only archetypes worth taking are those with good skill feats (skill feats are usually "weaker/cheaper" to spend than class feats) or those with a good dedication feat, so you go in, snatch it, and go back out. Grabbing the Acrobat dedication at level 10+ is worth it, just to get legendary Acrobatics, though I doubt that's what the archetype was intended for. That so few archetypes are worth investing in leads to archetypes being taken just for a single feat: Elf Wizards grab Twilight Speaker & World-Wise Vigilance just for the best initiative in the game, not because the archetype offers anything interesting/new to them. But that's not what is supposed to make archetypes good, is it?
{teleport-based class} likely too overpowerd because of the unlimited teleporting to be viable.That is my initial thought too. For early levels you'd need to stringently limit range AND usage (maybe...a focus point power? Or like magus, require an action tax before use?) to keep it balanced. Then ramp up usage, range, and flexibility with class feats.
Another good way to approach low level abilities would be to use 'teleport' as simply the flavor behind some more moderate feat power. For example, a 'teleport blink' feat gives a reaction which grants +2 to AC. Okay that's kinda like raising a shield, so mechanically it's probably fine for a low level feat, and 'teleport magic' is simply the thematic explanation for why this class has a reaction which makes them harder to hit.
....in any event, the current 'least homebrew' way to do a teleport focused PC would be as a wizard's Arcane School. 'More homebrew' would be archetype - conceptually, it seems to me about equivalent to chronomancer. 'Most homebrew' would be class.
I was thinking about this too. If you make the dedication grant you a teleport ability that isn't a focus spell it has to be worse than the magus' dimensional assault, which the only thing I can think of would be making it a sort of step action that only allows you to teleport 5 feet, which honestly wouldn't be much different than a regular step action. Probably have every feat from the archetype increase your teleport distance by 5 feet up to your speed? It sounds a little too powerful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, archetypes are mostly bad.
Feats are mostly bad too. Any kind of feat.
Typically 1 in 3 is good, 1 is situational, and 1 is not but hopefully has some fun role playing merit.
Not sure why this is a surprise?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see a Conjuror-type class that does the summoning of weak-but-plentiful creatures that I wish the Summoner class could do better. What I mean is something more akin to summoning Troop-type monsters that players could command as a unit and be themed around subclasses like Necromancer, Diabolist, Old Ones Cultist, Fey Caller/Za-Lord, Celestial Messenger, Construct Crafter, and/or others like whatever a culturally-authentic Sha’ir would look like (if such a thing actually exists).
Their summons could also take the form of momentary incarnate spells that expire after a round or two (I think a lot more can be done in this space - like giving them spells that get class-unique spellshapes that make the spell effects themselves into physical creatures doing the manual labor of making the spell work, like a dragon head that pokes out of a portal to breathe a fireball on your enemies, but takes longer to cast and can be countered by martial enemies attacking the head in exchange for the head getting a free bite attack while casting the spell before it breathes fire. Or instead of a dragon, it could be fire elementals that break up the area and damage of the fireball spell evenly across the battlefield like a pie cut into slices.
The Conjuror could also get abilities to use magic circles and sigils, and would be a little bit Summoner, little bit Commander of his summoned creatures, and a little bit Medium/Occultist/Spiritualist from 1E in inspiration.
I think there is room for a Shifter class, but more broadly applicable to other types of creatures besides beasts and animals. For example, they could have options to take on the form of other types of monsters like aberrations, dragons, fey, demons, celestial, etc.
I would also like to see if there is something that could be done with making a tanky Gish class… maybe as a class archetype/subclass of whatever the final version of the Guardian looks like. I like playing both gishes and tanks, so getting 2 in 1 would be awesome. Something like the 4E Warden class or Battlemind would be great in this system.
I wish the magus could have gotten options for being both spontaneous casters and for being from the other magic traditions.
So as far as a Teleporter goes both 3.x and 4e D&D had options. Pathfinder 1e might have as well but I am not sure off hand. In 3.x there was a class, or prestige class, that could teleport before making a full attack. Might have been the Shadowdancer, though I could be getting multiple prestige classes mixed up it has been awhile. Looking it up Shadowdancer did get a teleport through shadows, I believe there might have been other options for the teleport and attack style but it has been awhile. In 4e there was a Knight subclass that had a stance they could take that let them teleport before making their opportunity attack against someone inside their aura that tried to attack one of their allies. This was situational but at will. For those unfamiliar with 4e the Knight was an Essentials, late 4e, variant class of the Fighter who had a Defender Aura instead of the Fighter's Mark class feature. There were also Paragon Paths that could teleport at will in certain situations. And at least one Epic Destiny that got a teleport speed. There were other ways in 4e to get an at will teleport, though many were not very far. Then again there were magic items one could get that increased the distance of these teleports. I believe some of the Swordmage options also teleported to either block an enemy's attack or attack an enemy violating their mark.
During the 5e Playtest, called Next back then, the Monk got a teleport speed at 12th level. In the final version of 5e a 6th level Monk could teleport 60 ft as a bonus action.
So it isn't impossible for a Class, Archetype or subclass option for Rogue, Monk, Fighter, Guardian or Champion to possibly get at will teleport. Perhaps fairly limited in scope at early levels with further distances or more broad uses as they level.
I think what you might be thinking of from 3.x was the elocator. 4e also had a decent bit of swordmage teleportation, and warlocks could get at-will teleportation as a move action starting at level 10 (of 30). It was only 5 feet, but it was a lot cheaper to boost your teleport speed than it was to boost your move speed.
Actually, one of the most damaging builds in 4e was based around turning all of your actions into teleports, getting some sort of shenanigans that let you split every one of your teleports in two, and then getting other shenanigans that caused you to autodamage everyone around you on teleport - thus letting you just apply a blender template made of huge stacks of chip damage. to wherever you wanted on the board without ever having to roll for anything. 4e was kind of like that. It did well at bringing up the floor, but not so great at capping the ceiling.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, archetypes are mostly bad. They have big opportunity costs (class feats), often require significant investment (master in a skill, feats) and offer little in return.
You rarely have an archetype that facilitates new builds/ways of playing. The Wrestler or Dandy are rare good ones, as they allows for more varied playstyles (e.g. my divine Sorcerer uses Tut-Tut with Spiritual Weapon to frighten enemies).
Here's a list of ~150 archetypes. But how many have you seen being used effectively?
The only archetypes worth taking are those with good skill feats (skill feats are usually "weaker/cheaper" to spend than class feats) or those with a good dedication feat, so you go in, snatch it, and go back out. Grabbing the Acrobat dedication at level 10+ is worth it, just to get legendary Acrobatics, though I doubt that's what the archetype was intended for. That so few archetypes are worth investing in leads to archetypes being taken just for a single feat: Elf Wizards grab Twilight Speaker & World-Wise Vigilance just for the best initiative in the game, not because the archetype offers anything interesting/new to them. But that's not what is supposed to make archetypes good, is it?
I blame this on the popularity of the Free Archetype rule.
Without it, I think that the power level of archtypes would have been stepped up a bit as it became clear how underwhelming they generally are. But with Free Archetype, these feats are additive, so the power level is about right, and improving the Archetype Feats to the point where they can legitimately compete with the base Class Feats would lead to Free Archetype builds being overpowered.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, archetypes are mostly bad. They have big opportunity costs (class feats), often require significant investment (master in a skill, feats) and offer little in return.
You rarely have an archetype that facilitates new builds/ways of playing. The Wrestler or Dandy are rare good ones, as they allows for more varied playstyles (e.g. my divine Sorcerer uses Tut-Tut with Spiritual Weapon to frighten enemies).
Here's a list of ~150 archetypes. But how many have you seen being used effectively?
The only archetypes worth taking are those with good skill feats (skill feats are usually "weaker/cheaper" to spend than class feats) or those with a good dedication feat, so you go in, snatch it, and go back out. Grabbing the Acrobat dedication at level 10+ is worth it, just to get legendary Acrobatics, though I doubt that's what the archetype was intended for. That so few archetypes are worth investing in leads to archetypes being taken just for a single feat: Elf Wizards grab Twilight Speaker & World-Wise Vigilance just for the best initiative in the game, not because the archetype offers anything interesting/new to them. But that's not what is supposed to make archetypes good, is it?
I blame this on the popularity of the Free Archetype rule.
Without it, I think that the power level of archtypes would have been stepped up a bit as it became clear how underwhelming they generally are. But with Free Archetype, these feats are additive, so the power level is about right, and improving the Archetype Feats to the point where they can legitimately compete with the base Class Feats would lead to Free Archetype builds being overpowered.
I disagree. Free Archetype is popular because of the power level of archetypes. When I was introduced to PF2e I literally didn't saw a reason to take archetypes because most of the time I was getting feats that weren't great in exchange for my class feats that were miles better, though sometimes there was some characters that kinda needed to take some archetypes because it fitted with the fantasy of that character. Free Archetype became popular because it allowed you to fullfil that fantasy without having to sacrifice class feats, but if archetypes happened to be fantastic all along it would have been like with archetypes in PF1e that nobody argued that you had to lose class features to gain others because it was usually worth it, while in PF2e most of the time it isn't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the big differences with archetypes from PF1 is that class feats already offer flexibility. Like, in PF1, the stuff you were trading away was class features that were usually pretty locked-in and specific. If you didn't care about what that class feature had to offer, then having a way to trade it in for a thing that you did care about was great. Even if the thing you were trading away was somewhat flexible, the thing that you were getting was almost by definition very different in some fashion.
In PF2, there are enough class feats that I can usually find one or two per level that I'm glad to get. That makes the bar for archetypes a lot higher.
At the same time, there are a lot of folks out there who aren't me. I've had plenty of discussions with people who were unimpressed with the feat offerings for summoners/champions/fighters/whatever and were only too happy to spend a large chunk of their available class feats in one archetype or another. I've also had times where something that was available via archetype was so shiny that I was willing to burn the class feats to get it, even though i liked them.
That said... I think that the real thing that limits the power of archetypes is that there's a deliberate ceiling on them. Paizo doesn't want a character built via archetypes by an expert with an encyclopedic understanding of the available options to be significantly stronger than a character that was just assembled from the feats of their own class.
In 4e CharOp, the two (largely identical) backgrounds that were consistently considered the most powerful, to the point that they were seen as cheese and people would acknowledge that builds that used them were cheesier than builds that did not were the ones that let you take two different multiclass feats. Opening up access to another toolbox was simply that strong... and CharOp builds that were limited to a single class were basically unheard-of. PF2 archetypes aren't like that, and that's because they've been kept "not like that" by dint of nontrivial effort on the part of the designers. They're for the most part weaker than staying inside your class because the other option was to make them for the most part stronger than staying inside your class, and that would be worse.
...but that doesn't mean that they aren't ever worth taking, or that taking them is crippling yourself, or that they're awful. It means that for any given archetype, if the thing you want is maximum power, then taking that archetype probably isn't worth it. If there's a teleporter archetype, then rogues that take it are likely to be somewhat less optimal, overall, than those that do not, by whatever metric you choose to use. That's pretty faint damnation, though. Better than the world where people who are interested in building rogues in general discover that they're all taking the teleporter archetype because it's clearly superior to the class feats that are otherwise available.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, archetypes are mostly bad.Feats are mostly bad too. Any kind of feat.
Typically 1 in 3 is good, 1 is situational, and 1 is not but hopefully has some fun role playing merit.
Not sure why this is a surprise?
Nobody is surprised. But it's a waste of time & space in books to print useless stuff that nobody will ever touch.
And unlike feats, 2e archetypes are also replacements for 1e archetypes & prestige classes; they're meant to enable things that aren't possible on the base class chassis (including class feats). For example, you can't play an ice-themed caster with cool Rime Spell effects (e.g. the famous 1e Winter Witch Winter Witch) without the Geomancer archetype (or maybe Gelid Shard), so expectations are higher to have functional archetypes that provide options to realize these ideas.
Who cares about a bad class/skill/general feat among the big pile of useful ones? But if you want to build around an idea, and find an archetype with lengthy flavor text that supports that idea thematically, but then completely fails to deliver mechanically? Now that's a huge disappointment. Your Winter Witch casting a 10th-level Polar Ray gets the special ice effect of imposing... "a –5-foot status penalty to Speed." That's not just a let-down, that is cruel & cold-hearted (pun intended).
You want to play a Vampire in Pathfinder 2e? Yes, you can do that, absolutely! We have an archetype for that! Make sure you take the Daywalker feat, so you can... well... not walk during the day... as you are permanently stunned... but others can cart you around in a wheelchair! And... well... oh, you can become Wheel-Blade! (though not mechanically, since you have no actions to make any Strikes...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say archetypes are most often sidegrades rather than upgrades or downgrades. For classes with a lot of powerful class feats (such as fighter or rogue), taking an archetype "just to take an archetype" or for flavor reasons rarely results in an increase of the character's "power" (usually defined as "better numbers at what they are already good at"). However, even then there might be a few "boosts" that might be desirable: the autoscaling proficiency from Acrobat Dedication and the Tumbling Strike feat can be attractive for a rogue, a fighter specializing in archery might want to look at the Archer archetype (even though the dedication itself is a "feat tax") for Quick Shot and possibly Archer's Aim, or a Str-based ranger might find the mauler archetype useful (instead of thinking they "have" to focus on fighting with two weapons in melee).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An archetype is intended to only be a sidegrade, as otherwise it becomes mandatory. However, this makes it difficult to design them when classes all have their own synergy structures. This is also impacted by Pathfinder still using ability scores for accuracy.
Ideally any given character can do, say, 5 things well, and an archetype just replaces 1-2 of those things with different things, instead of compounding so that they only do 3 things but do those too well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally any given character can do, say, 5 things well, and an archetype just replaces 1-2 of those things with different things, instead of compounding so that they only do 3 things but do those too well.
I believe this is an important point: it seems that the design philosophy for archetypes is mostly to expand the options of what any particular class can do, rather than focusing a class even more narrowly on getting "better" at a given "role." Which is a different paradigm than 3.x (and PF1 as well, although not to quite the same extent).
I want a Mesmerist, someone who can deal *okay* damage but also debuff the enemy at the same time. The only class that can really do that niche is the Rogue with their Debilitating Strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time someone says "I want this class" and someone else replies "That should just be an archetype" I laugh. It's like "What about the current archetypes gives you hope that future ones won't suck?". I mean, they're mostly terrible. Not sidegrades, but straight downgrades for the most part. Not all, there are a few good ones, but those are few and far between. Every time I get excited about an upcoming archetype I always end up disappointed by the final product. It's inevitable.
The latest archetype to break my heart is Swarmkeeper. What a waste of space. Why even bother creating that thing when the only purpose it seems to have is making your character worse?
No, I'll continue asking for full classes, thank you. They're mostly far better than archetypes with a few exceptions (Alchemist, Oracle).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, most archetypes are more mediocre than bad (even some of the ones being singled out in this thread aren't really bad). The issue with "make it an archetype" is more just the general power level of the game.
A dedication is a level 2 class feat, and the rest of the archetype is going to have a handful of feats past that.
It's impossible, even for the best archetypes in the game, to come anywhere close to replicating the full value of what some people want. The systems are just not even remotely compatible.
A class might have three or four pieces of identity to them, not to mention proficiencies and other things. Archetypes might let you pick up part of one feature for two feats.
... So like, by the numbers "turn it into an archetype" means spending like 4-5 feats minimum to do what you'd expect to happen at level 1.
The numbers don't add up. Either the archetype won't have enough power or it'll take half a campaign to even get to an acceptable starting point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This talk about Archetypes vs Class reminds me of Swarmkeeper, and that leads to the Swarm that Walks Mythic Path from Wrath of the Righteous, and the hope for a similar Mythic path/Destiny in the upcoming Mythic rules.
So one thing I would like is a class that turns you into a Swarm ala the Swarm that Walks. In Wrath I have wished a Kineticist Swarm that Walks could convert their blasts into their swarms.
So maybe a class that becomes a Swarm, possibly taking on a humanoid form of compressed swarm if they want/need, with possibly Kineticist like attacks abilities that use their swarm in place of the elemental energy/matter of a Kineticist.
Also in addition to a Shifter like class, martial with at will shifting, maybe variants or subclasses, or just similar classes for things like Oozemorph and things like becoming a Golem like being.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time someone says "I want this class" and someone else replies "That should just be an archetype" I laugh. It's like "What about the current archetypes gives you hope that future ones won't suck?". I mean, they're mostly terrible. Not sidegrades, but straight downgrades for the most part. Not all, there are a few good ones, but those are few and far between. Every time I get excited about an upcoming archetype I always end up disappointed by the final product. It's inevitable.
The latest archetype to break my heart is Swarmkeeper. What a waste of space. Why even bother creating that thing when the only purpose it seems to have is making your character worse?
No, I'll continue asking for full classes, thank you. They're mostly far better than archetypes with a few exceptions (Alchemist, Oracle).
Playing a level 5 character right now with Swarmkeeper, and it actually turned out to be much better in practice than I thought. I've got it on my melee Thaumaturge, and it's a solid option for situations where he can't get into the mix (narrow spaces), doesn't want to wade into things (lots of weaker enemies to get surrounded by), or can't get to (fifteen foot climb speed beats critting a climb for 10 feet). Those conditions have come up every session. Additionally, slowing enemies down with the webbing is good for dealing with brutes, and being able to use the swarm attack three times if you don't sustain that round helps soften the action economy penalty. It's definitely no Beastmaster, but its held up just fine compared to my previous use of free archetype on the character, "having a wide variety of cantrips".
I'd love to have more swarm options at the class level. (Swarm animal companion or eidolon, for instance.) But after playing Swarmkeeper, I wouldn't call it a "waste of space".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is cool that your experience with Swarmkeeper was so nice, I am not sure how, but that is good for you.
I am not sure I would ever use the Swarm attack three times in one round, as that would end the swarm and there would be no way to get it back in the same encounter. Also that also means your very small area attack cannot be moved at all that round.
I definitely like the concept of the archetype but it seems to be too hard to really use, especially with how action heavy it is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one way to think about archetypes is sometimes they are puzzles, like "this is a neat idea, how do I make a character where this works well?" Like yeah, the issue with the Swarmkeeper is that it asks for so many actions but that's what you have to figure out. Like if the Animist has the same level 2 feat to sustain and step or leap, that's available early and will save you an action in a lot of cases. This might be fun on a Summoner too, since you can't have a Swarm and an Animal Companion but the archetype doesn't say anything about Eidolons.
If the only problem with an archetype is "it costs feats that I don't want to spend on this" then that's a good part of why Free Archetype is so popular.
Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a PFS person, archetypes are much more costly for me than for those playing with the Free Archetype variant rules. And yet... I have a number of characters with archetypes who have been defined by those archetypes. My gnomish bard, Pip, is a linguist, and I've gotten a lot of joy out of that archetype. My investigator, Zendel, lives and breathes his dandy archetype. I put a witch archetype on my Ancestry Oracle to give her a spider familar for roleplay and backstory reasons, but also to give her some decent attack cantrips and to open up primal scrolls. My rogue, Bitty, loves the dinosaur that she got from Beastmaster.
In many cases, I chose the archetype and then chose what class I wanted to work with the archetype. I think that archetypes are awesome, as they allow people to customize their characters in interesting ways. There are some classes where the class feats are too necessary to the functioning of the class to forgo: (kineticist and summoner come to mind immediately.) But for a lot of classes, there are some levels where you might not be excited by your class feats, and an archetype can offer some interesting choices.
For absolutely NO reason whatsoever, half of the characters I have ever played in a free archetype setting have been dandies. It is definitely one of my favs. 2 out of 3 of the PFS characters I made it to level 2 or higher with picked up archetypes because the flavor defined the character. Kende Das was always going to be a magic warrior, at least as much as they were ever just a wizard. And Gondra Ulkani always intended to be a wizard, before the training shattered her mind and almost her life. That it would take absolute devotion to Nethys, and an oath to first work to help restore and redeem others who let the pursuit of magic almost destroy them before she could begin the painfully slow process of returning to wizardry has been a necessarily humble journey.
I very much look forward to seeing new archetypes now that the dialing in process has gotten so good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we have a class that is a good non eidolon summoner yet?
I'd like the Synthesis Summoner to be finished.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is cool that your experience with Swarmkeeper was so nice, I am not sure how, but that is good for you.
I am not sure I would ever use the Swarm attack three times in one round, as that would end the swarm and there would be no way to get it back in the same encounter. Also that also means your very small area attack cannot be moved at all that round.
I definitely like the concept of the archetype but it seems to be too hard to really use, especially with how action heavy it is.
Three attacks is the "cash out" option. In my case, there was the opportunity to hit a troop that moved in for vulnerability three times and also avoid possible AoE retaliation. It also already had the melee brute enemy locked down in webs, which means it accomplished its goal. Two turns for 6d4 against two enemies and an immobilize, all on class DC. At the end, the swarm disappeared, and my character remained hidden.
Sure, those are good circumstances, but "times when that wouldn't be good" are conveniently also usually "times when I should just go hit things in melee".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For absolutely NO reason whatsoever, half of the characters I have ever played in a free archetype setting have been dandies.
But that just proves the point that most archetypes are weak with only a few strong ones. And Dandy is one of those few strong archetypes out there, because
A) it mechanically enables a different play style, i.e. has functional feats,B) it has good early feats, which makes it easy to pick up 2 non-dedication feats, and
C) it has skill feats, which reduces the opportunity cost of this archetype by not having to spend class feats.
For example, Intimidation is an awesome skill for combat encounters due to Demoralize, so many characters (especially CHA-based) invest a lot in it. However, it is bad in social encounters because Coerce makes people hate you even on a crit success. But the Dandy's Cutting Flattery removes that downside of Coerce (and even adds an upside to it). This means your heavily invested Intimidation skill can now replicate a part of the Diplomacy skill, namely Request.
Since Face characters are usually expected to pick up the other Charisma skills as well, Diplomacy & Deception (or Performance), in addition to Intimidation, this Dandy feat removes Diplomacy from your list of necessity skills. It's similar to the Acrobat dedication, the Bard's Versatile Performance or Half-Truths, in being a way to free up one of your three "skill slots", enabling you to pursue a different skill than what you are "supposed" to take. The only other way to cover all necessities AND do your own thing is to have 5 or more characters in a party.
And that's just one feat! Almost every single Dandy feat is absolutely worth it on many characters: Statement Strut is a 1-action Stride that gives enemies "stunned 0". Feeling your Oats replaces a Will save with a Deception check once per encounter. Tut-Tut turns a successful Strike into a 30 ft AoE Demoralize. And Gossip Lore gets you Bardic Lore. There's a lot to like for any character with investment in at least one of Intimidation, Deception, or Society. You basically get to replicate some Bard abilities without having to go for a Bard dedication and avoiding the dysfunctional state of spellcasting archetypes (for offensive purposes).
That's why Dandy is so popular. It wouldn't be so frequently encountered if other archetypes would be worth it as well. Even a single "skill expertise" feat that works like Additional Lore for your chosen skill (e.g. Acrobat dedication) or a feat that allows one skill to replicate (an important part of) another skill would reduce the frequency of encountering Dandies.
For example, if Natural Medicine would work with Battle Medicine, then many Druids and other primal casters would invest in Nature (which is virtually useless at the moment). You could leave First Aid, Treat Poison, Treat Disease, and Resuscitate to the Medicine skill, but still get some worth out of going for Nature and/or the Medic archetype. In that case your Elf Psychic (any occult caster buddy) might pick up Crystal Healing to cover the other side. The latter might also happen if the Crystal Keeper archetype weren't such complete and utter trash.
We can only hope that Paizo publishes some skill feats & good archetypes to make use of low/trash tier skills (Nature, Religion, Survival, Thievery, Performance).
Like there's no musicians/artists out there since Performance is such a worthless skill (unless you're a Bard), but it would be cool to bring music/song/dance/art to your character without having to be a Bard, e.g. a melee offensive/defensive "Dancer" (we have Claw Dancer but it doesn't "dance"), an Artist with Alchemist-like abilities ("throw color bombs"), or a Musician with a functional Fascinate condition (it's sad to have a completely useless condition like fascinate).
There could be a Reliquarian archetype that makes use of the Religion skill (for old times sake), maybe to use it for specific actions/checks on Crafting (divine items), Intimidate/Diplomacy/Society/Performance to hold Litanies, Sermons, Orations, and so forth. This could even be a means to rebuild (parts of) an Inquisitor.
Or it would be great to have a "Survivalist" archetype that
A) can use Survival for specific checks/actions instead of other skills, e.g. Acrobatics (Balance) & Athletics (Climb, Swim, Leap, Grapple) & Nature (Recall Knowledge, Command Animal) & Thievery (Disable Traps) & Medicine (on self & animals only),
B) comes with defensive feats like a "Feel your Oats" for Fortitude/Reflex saves, heat/cold resistance, or reactions
C) bonuses to Perception in certain terrain, and other buffs for having low Wisdom
D) some other fitting stuff, e.g. scaling proficiency in a ranged weapon
would make viable a nature-themed build for other classes than just Rangers & Druids, like a hermit Oracle, a mad Inventor/Wizard, or a wanted Rogue hiding in the woods.
Adding functional archetypes that broaden the functionality of skills lowers the necessity of introducing more base classes. But we don't need more bad archetypes.
I mean, I keep choosing Dandy because my characters need to look as fabulous as they are, and yes, Dandy is an excellent archetype for enabling a vision of a character concept work mechanically. Giving away expert skill proficiency is something we might see a lot more of with remastered archetypes as it really doesn't break anything except certain character building assumptions about "only having 3 skills your character can actually use."
And my dandies tend to be classes like Druids and especially wizards, who secretly can do amazing things with face skills but rarely get built that way.
I want a Mesmerist, someone who can deal *okay* damage but also debuff the enemy at the same time. The only class that can really do that niche is the Rogue with their Debilitating Strikes.
Have you tried a Laughing Shadow magus with Distracting Spellstrike, possibly with the Rogue Dedication and some rogue feats? Spellstrike can be used for debuffs (tangle vine) with an attack roll or spells that both damage and debuff (snowball), after all...
Mesmerist was one of those classes I thought they would never port over to PF2e because the bard in a sense stole its niche (since it became an occult caster in PF2e) but if the mesmerist would be re-imagined for PF2e I could certainly see it as the occult bounded caster of PF2e.
I think if we did an "Occult version of the Magus" (i.e. martial with bounded casting) the natural thematic niche for that is "misdirection and mind games" to differentiate from how the Magus wants to stab you with a bunch of different energy types.
Mesmerist was one of those classes I thought they would never port over to PF2e because the bard in a sense stole its niche (since it became an occult caster in PF2e) but if the mesmerist would be re-imagined for PF2e I could certainly see it as the occult bounded caster of PF2e.
While I also don't expect the Mesmerist to show up, I would wanna point out on the other hand that the Mesmerist is fairly psseudo-martial in the way some of its mechanics work, and the Bard lost a lot of that coming into PF2, so there's a pretty clear opening that could be exploited, imo.
Though I think the Mesmerist could end up with slightly different themes and a different name similar to how the Occulist is the spiritual antecedent of the Thaumaturge.
|
I do like the idea of the mesmerist. Can't really talk to the mechanics given how little "actual" PF1e I've played, but misdirections, hypnotism and so on sound like a fun thing to base a character on. Even if much like occultist, we don't see a "mesmerist", I'd love to see a character option that's drawn from the themes of a mesmerist somehow.
Yeah, I'd think a Mesmerist would probably be a occult wave-caster.
Maybe, they could rework the bold stares & tricks as focus spells? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is room for a Shifter class, but more broadly applicable to other types of creatures besides beasts and animals. For example, they could have options to take on the form of other types of monsters like aberrations, dragons, fey, demons, celestial, etc.Isn't that just Untamed druid?
Sure, the game would need a wider range of summon spells to get all the types you list...but then again, 'wider range of summoning spells' would be the sort of add that would also support the summoner concept above. :)...
There are several gaps in monster-centric concepts:
* Martial-first versions in general. Barbarians are the closest non-caster but you're still a barbarian first, monster second.
* Make-your-own. Closest is Summoner's Eidolon if you ride it like a mech suit. A class for playing a two-headed winged medusa with dual flails, etc.
* Shift into a variety of monsters. Basically like a druid but with monsters and replace spells with access to monster powers.
* Grow monster parts as needed
* Polymorph specialist who can do some of the above to allies.
* Golem/Clockwork versions of the same.