It's a popular variant rule but I personally don't like it.
As I GM for a variety of players, like you some would love unrestricted free archetype and I also have some that already choice paralysis with only the feats of their own class.
What I did to try to appeal both sides (and my own bias against the variant rule admittedly) was give a single extra level 2 class feat, so the person can pick an archetype with it if they want, or just another feat of their own class.
Personally, I like Free Archtype as a GM, but prefer to provide a "curated list" of archetypes that are available to players rather than allowing them to choose any they like. Because of the issue you highlight, some players want to choose an archetype to enhance their characters backstory. Some players don't even have access to any archetypes that would really enhance their combat capabilities. And some benefit greatly from being able to choose any archetype they like.
I would talk to each player about what they might like to have available, and make a list for players to choose from. I would avoid including archetypes that have big obvious damage increasing capabilities. Profession and Faction archetypes are generally pretty safe. If you have a theme to your story like the players are all sailors on a boat, then pirate archetype can be a great one to give for free.
You should also probably just tell your players you're not looking to give them free archetype as a means to increase the power of their characters, but simply to make a more well rounded character with a wider more interesting background. Tell them explicitly that archetypes which are clearly power boosters simply aren't going to be allowed.
Something else you might consider is simply giving "double" the class feats. Basically every class gets a class feat on even levels (many classes also get a class feat at level 1). What I'm suggesting is you give a class feat at every odd level as well. This helps your kineticist by being able to choose things that will help them. It can allow everyone to archetype if they like too. However, you still have the issue of people potentially choosing flavorful vs impactful choices, and choice paralysis.
Personally, I would go with tell players they can get a free archetype to expand their background and not as combat focused power adders.
|
I love free archetype. Of course, there are some that are stronger than others, but that is something a player has to decide.
Maybe you can offer other challenges than combat to engage (and reward) your players that take more flavorful choices?
For certain campaigns it can make sense to have a list of possible archetypes, like Strength of Thousands requiring a caster archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what's your opinions on Free Archetypes so far?
I'm going to run a game where the kineticist won't have any combat benefits from the rule, since it barely ties in with anything. Two new players feel it's choice paralysis.
As for the barb he's going the decay route with dual weapon warrior with necksplitters which basically lets him go nuts on damage. (2 actions, if they hit it's a 12 flat damage anyhow from rage, not counting the weapon damage itself) with No Escape at Level 3 which also grants movement as a reaction.
This was an issue in my previous games as well where the barb (who used more or less this same combo but with Vicious Strike) and fighter was the only one doing crazy numbers in damage while the others took flavorful archetypes and felt left behind in combat at least, which let's be honest, is a big aspect.
It's the most accepted variant,, but would limiting it be a good idea? Would saying something like limiting the archetypes available be a good idea.... Any experienced GMs please help me!
I don't know how they are getting a class feat at level 3, because they only get a general feat, which can only get them a level 1 class feat if they are human ancestry via Natural Ambition, of which No Escape does not qualify. Free Archetype only gives you additional dedication/archetype feats at the same levels you would normally gain class feats (besides 1st level of course), so I'm confused how they are getting this option by 3rd level.
As for limiting it, our group only allows the free 2nd level dedication feat, which means players can either just take it for a free benefit (Acrobat dedication comes to mind; free scaling Acrobatics as a 2nd level class feat is pretty bonkers), or they can take an option and pick class feats/skill feats for levels where they feel like their original options are garbage. You can restrict it further and have it be based off of a profession (like Herbalist, or the aforementioned Acrobat), or limit it specifically to character classes, but I personally felt like it wasn't necessary to do so.
So what's your opinions on Free Archetypes so far?
I'm going to run a game where the kineticist won't have any combat benefits from the rule, since it barely ties in with anything. Two new players feel it's choice paralysis.
As for the barb he's going the decay route with dual weapon warrior with necksplitters which basically lets him go nuts on damage. (2 actions, if they hit it's a 12 flat damage anyhow from rage, not counting the weapon damage itself) with No Escape at Level 3 which also grants movement as a reaction.
This was an issue in my previous games as well where the barb (who used more or less this same combo but with Vicious Strike) and fighter was the only one doing crazy numbers in damage while the others took flavorful archetypes and felt left behind in combat at least, which let's be honest, is a big aspect.
It's the most accepted variant,, but would limiting it be a good idea? Would saying something like limiting the archetypes available be a good idea.... Any experienced GMs please help me!I don't know how they are getting a class feat at level 3, because they only get a general feat, which can only get them a level 1 class feat if they are human ancestry via Natural Ambition, of which No Escape does not qualify. Free Archetype only gives you additional dedication/archetype feats at the same levels you would normally gain class feats (besides 1st level of course), so I'm confused how they are getting this option by 3rd level.
As for limiting it, our group only allows the free 2nd level dedication feat, which means players can either just take it for a free benefit (Acrobat dedication comes to mind; free scaling Acrobatics as a 2nd level class feat is pretty bonkers), or they can take an option and pick class feats/skill feats for levels where they feel like their original options are garbage. You can restrict it further and have it be based off of a profession (like Herbalist, or the aforementioned Acrobat), or limit it specifically to character...
Interesting, I don't know that I've heard about group that only gives the archetype dedication feat for free, but it does help to mitigate any concerns about free archetype being a huge power level boost. I mean while Acrobatic dedication is really goof as a free feat, it would help address issues like the OP described about a barbarian taking dual weapon warrior and getting lots of big combat benefit for free. I kind of like it from the aspect of "if none of your class feats are attractive to you, this lowers the barrier of entry for getting other archetype feats". I definitely built some characters where like every few level ups there's not a class feat that really calls to me, but spending the feat on an archetype which in a lot of cases doesn't give a big benefit (I'm thinking martial characters taking martial archetypes) doesn't appeal either.
|
|
I personally love Free Archetypes, it provides an additional layer of depth and character building that I really miss when I have to go without.
Both as a player and as a GM, I've implemented and have implemented FA in a couple of different ways, and all of them are solid.
I've done:
- Full, no additional restrictions (Most common)
- No Multiclassing
- Like for Like Multiclassing only (Martial to Martial, Caster to Caster, etc)
- Different Multiclassing only (Martial to Caster, Caster to Martial, etc)
Of the above, Full has been the perference of both myself and the 3 groups I most common play with.
The one I think people found the most annoying was the Different Multiclassing only. Martial archetypes for casters tend to be meh, but we didn't restrict anything beyond the MC options.
These days, I find it hard to build a Wizard without FA to help me fill in the several holes in the class (but this a Wizard speific thing)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started using Free Archetype in my third campaign (of six so far) and my players love being able to build for versatility. I think that it has enhanced our enjoyment of the game.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be very, very wary of giving out unlimited Free Archetype to new players. Option paralysis is a VERY real risk.
If you want to dip your toes in, then use a very tight bounded set of thematically appropriate archetypes that are allowable.
If you allow an open choice of Free Archetype be aware that it will affect the power of your PCs to significantly different amounts depending on base class and archetype choice. Some players/characters will just round out their characters a bit, others will take powerful in combat combinations that will raise their power quite a bit.
To me, it fits some groups and some campaigns much more than others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love unrestricted free archetype. It makes building characters so much more liberating. Builds come online faster, you get greater level of fidelity in character customization, and you don't really get that much power out of it.
I highly recommend it for anyone coming from PF1 who really liked tweaking characters every which way to get them just right.
It's by no means necessary to play the game, and some groups would be better off without it if only to streamline character gen and level ups.
Basically, if you group doesn't think about the game outside of the game, it's unlikely to be worth it.
Interesting, I don't know that I've heard about group that only gives the archetype dedication feat for free, but it does help to mitigate any concerns about free archetype being a huge power level boost. I mean while Acrobatic dedication is really goof as a free feat, it would help address issues like the OP described about a barbarian taking dual weapon warrior and getting lots of big combat benefit for free. I kind of like it from the aspect of "if none of your class feats are attractive to you, this lowers the barrier of entry for getting other archetype feats". I definitely built some characters where like every few level ups there's not a class feat that really calls to me, but spending the feat on an archetype which in a lot of cases doesn't give a big benefit (I'm thinking martial characters taking martial archetypes) doesn't appeal either.
It's definitely helpful in cutting down feat cost for later options to pick from (such as Reactive Striker from Fighter dedication, for example), but it's definitely a case of giving players more options at each level to weigh in, especially at levels where it feels like you have "dead" class feats.
I personally would absolutely love a proper Free Archetype group for a class that is wholly dependent on their class feats (like Summoner and Sorcerer), but there are other classes where it's a little overkill (like Champion and Druid), and I have pushed for it in the past with my groups, but they've shot it down.
Interesting, I don't know that I've heard about group that only gives the archetype dedication feat for free, but it does help to mitigate any concerns about free archetype being a huge power level boost. I mean while Acrobatic dedication is really goof as a free feat, it would help address issues like the OP described about a barbarian taking dual weapon warrior and getting lots of big combat benefit for free. I kind of like it from the aspect of "if none of your class feats are attractive to you, this lowers the barrier of entry for getting other archetype feats". I definitely built some characters where like every few level ups there's not a class feat that really calls to me, but spending the feat on an archetype which in a lot of cases doesn't give a big benefit (I'm thinking martial characters taking martial archetypes) doesn't appeal either.It's definitely helpful in cutting down feat cost for later options to pick from (such as Reactive Striker from Fighter dedication, for example), but it's definitely a case of giving players more options at each level to weigh in, especially at levels where it feels like you have "dead" class feats.
I personally would absolutely love a proper Free Archetype group for a class that is wholly dependent on their class feats (like Summoner and Sorcerer), but there are other classes where it's a little overkill (like Champion and Druid), and I have pushed for it in the past with my groups, but they've shot it down.
I basically reached the same conclusion, I used to do a free dedication feat as well, but a Kineticist player was not interested on any of them, so I changed for an extra level 2 class feat at that point.
|
I first implemented Free Archetype when I ran Strength of Thousands, and we started with a requirement of Druid or Wizard, but I opened it up after the PCs had "completed" their compulsory archetype at 6th level.
I've just thrown the doors open to unrestricted in every campaign I've run since Strength of Thousands. It boosts power a bit, but I've not found that its overwhelming, and it almost always makes for more interesting characters.
I've also played in two unrestricted Free Archetype games. In one, giving my Bard the Rogue Archetype has allowed me to cover that party's lack of a Rogue when we've encountered locks and traps, but I don't think it's made ANY difference in combat because I am almost exclusively a support character.
In the other instance Rogue / Martial Artist is the closest I've been able to come to recreating my Brawler-with-social skills character from 1E and even that didn't quite get me there, but without Free Archetype, that character concept would probably be totally closed to me.
|
I would be wary of opening it up to new players, for the reason you noted, and kineticist does get a bit limited because of how it doesn't interact with much else in the system. You have to pick stuff like Medic that essentially work on their lonesome.
However, for experienced players, I find it really opens up the game. When it works, it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free archetype doesn't provide a huge boost in a character's power. What it normally does is add to a character's breadth of options and it can sometimes allow some progressions to "come online" quicker.
Depending on the campaign, it can often be useful to restrict the available archetypes. This usually helps the characters become more closely tied to the campaign themes and can give the GM a sneaky way to provide the PCs' access to abilities they know can be useful before the players are aware. The Strength of Thousands AP was mentioned; requiring the druid or wizard multiclassed archetype makes for strong thematic ties (and the GM can also allow other Magaambyan-connected archetypes: Halcyon Speaker, Magaambyan Attendant, Magic Warrior). Another appropriate example could be Blood Lords: all of the PCs can take one of the undead archetypes or the Reanimator archetype from Book of the Dead.
Other campaigns can either have "unrestricted" access to the free archetype or even no free archetype.
For a kineticist, there are very few archetypes that are compatible. The multiclassed barbarian archetype (Elemental instinct) might be a decent option, especially after taking Instinct Ability at 6th level.
My wife was overjoyed when I announced that our next (now current) campaign would be Strength of Thousands, which recommended giving every PC a free archetype of either Druid Multiclass or Wizard Multiclass. Strength of Thousands is set at the Magaambya Academy, which teaches arcane and primal magic.
Our first PF2 campaign was a converted Ironfang Invasion adventure path, begun in 2019 before the Free Archetype option had been published. So we did not have free archetypes. My wife created a Scoundrel-racket rogue who took the Sorcerer Multiclass archeytpe at 2nd level to become a magical trickster. (Eldritch Trickster racket was not yet available, either.) She was annoyed that the two sides of her characters--rogue versus sorcerer--competed for the class feats. She wanted more.
In Strength of Thousands, she created Jinx Funn, a tengu bard with enigma muse who took the Druid Multiclass free archetype. Thus, she took the bard feats for better composition cantrips, such as Triple Time, while using her druid archetype to gain a great heron as a bird animal companion. We have been roleplaying service projects and boat races since gaining the heron, so I have not yet seen whether it aids combat. Actions to command a companion will be scarce when also maintaining a bard song. Triple Time helped her boat win in the race that allowed magical assistance.
My elder daughter was the player who asked for Strength of Thousands, though selling me on that adventure path was easy. She had looked over the Gelid Shard artifact-based archetype and decided to make a workable Gelid Shard character. However, her plan called for TWO archetypes. The fleshwarp ifrit-heritage rogue has a fire elemental bloodline from Sorcerer Multiclass via Eldritch Trickster racket and Gelid Shard elemental spells from the Gelid Shard free archetype. With two secondary sources of spells my daughter figures that she can play a rogue as a spellcaster. Starting as a primary spellcaster would have overshadowed the few spells from Gelid Shard.
As you might have noticed in the previous paragraph, I allowed a wider range of free archetypes than just Druid and Wizard Multiclass archetypes. I said that the players could pick any archetype that granted arcane or primal spell slots. Or Magaamby Attendant or Magic Warrior, since those are Magaambya archetypes. I also allowed both pre-Remaster and Remasterd options. The party is:
Cara'sseth Ti'kali, a catfolk fire kineticist with wizard free archetype
Idris, an anadi divination wizard with Magaambyan attendant free archetype
Jinx Fuun, a tengu enigma bard with druid free archetype
Roshan Azar, a fleshwarp eldritch trickster (elemental sorcerer) rogue with Gelid Shard free archetype
Stargazer, a ghoran enigma bard with druid free archetype
Wilfred Eugenus Rosehill-Aglag, a dromaar redeemer champion with magus free archetype
Zandre, an elf starlit-span magus with dragon disciple free archetype
At 4th level I have seen no sign of the free archetype abilities making the characters more powerful. Jinx Fuun is essentially a bard with two primal cantrips and a not-yet-useful animal companion. Roshan functions as an atheltic grappler rogue with elemental cantrips. The free archetypes on other characters are even less noticeable. Nevertheless, some players enjoy the variety.
i meant it as by this level they have all these feats, my mistake, not that specific feat at that level.
Oh, okay.
That does remind me that I need to also add Barbarian to the list of classes that need better class feats, especially in the lower levels. Like, level 1-6 class feats are pretty weaksauce on a lot of Barbarians for the most part. There is maybe one or two builds that I know would actually make proper use of those class feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
FA is great for experienced groups that want to be able to do more stuff. You can make some characters that are very hard or impossible to make otherwise.
I've found it awful for new players as it's just more things to pick and require more system mastery to get anything out of, especially since those class feats follow different rules than normal class feats (and tripping over archetypes like Medic that have gaps in the feat options unless you also use skill feats is confusing). New players have more than enough going on already in this system to throw more stuff at them.
Ditto for more "casual" players that don't want to invest a ton in system mastery. They just get less out of it.
It also absolutely increases character power. People who say otherwise are wrong. Medic flat out gives you more healing, more often. That's power. Rogue/Investigator give you far more skill boosts. In any type of skill challenge (and there's a lot of subsystems that are skill challenges), having bigger numbers and more skills you can use is power. Getting good reactions like Retributive Strike or Amp Guidance on classes that normally don't have good reactions is power.
You're not doing things like adding flat numerical bonuses, but the power boost is real unless your players ignore that and take things that are just fun instead.
The GM can adjust for that power boost, and players that find the game too hard baseline will probably appreciate the boost, but its important to acknowledge that it exists. It's also more pronounced at high level: FA at 18 is giving you a LOT more power than FA at 2 is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, something that is important to remember in PF2 is power isn't (mostly) found in the form of number adders/enhancers as it was in PF1. In PF2 it's having more options for more situations, being able to contribute in ways you couldn't otherwise and do things you wouldn't otherwise be able to do that adds to character power.
A character that gets free archetype, chooses Acrobat, and picks up Dodge Away reaction is getting a huge power boost as they get a reaction to increase their AC and move for free, as well as progression a skill that has some generally pretty awesome feats in it. Unless your character is wearing heavy armor you're bound to get quite a bit out of it (and only then because you probably have low Dex if you're wearing heavy armor).
I'm all for it. I did 2 APs with a restriction on not taking any multi class feats with FA and that cuts a lot of the potential power boosting out of it.
I don't understand choice paralysis because I've never had it and I think PF2 really cuts it out of the game. Let them retrain the FA feats when ever they are in a safe place.
I don't believe that Free Archetype adds a noticeable amount of actual power. It can add flexibility, and flexibility can be useful or powerful.
I think the mistake many people make is in comparing a Free Archetype build with a build that uses no archetypes at all. That is not the comparison that is needed. The comparison should be between a Free Archetype build and a build using the standard archetype rules. Most of the combinations that add notable power to a build can be done without Free Archetype feat slots. You just have to give up a bunch of secondary things for the loss of those slots.
For example:
A character that gets free archetype, chooses Acrobat, and picks up Dodge Away reaction is getting a huge power boost as they get a reaction to increase their AC and move for free, as well as progression a skill that has some generally pretty awesome feats in it.
With Free Archetype, that build comes available at level 6 - the level of Dodge Away.
Without Free Archetype, that same combination is still available at level 6. You can absolutely have both Acrobat dedication and Dodge Away at that level under the standard archetyping rules. So be sure that in talking about a 'power boost' of Free Archetype, you aren't just talking about the power of the archetypes themselves.
I do agree with the idea that adding Free Archetype can be more complexity than some players want to deal with.
I also agree with the idea that some players don't want a particular character to have an archetype. Forcing one with Free Archetype would be a problem.
I also believe that the value of Free Archetype is highest with fewer numbers of player characters. If you are playing a table with 6 characters, Free Archetype may be a bit too much. It may be better to have the characters more narrowly defined in order to allow them to specialize and get screen time of their own.
I can understand the idea of having a campaign that gives Free Archetype with a particular list of archetypes available in order to have the characters follow a theme - such as Strength of Thousands. Or the undead/monster themed campaign that I am currently joining.
But there is nothing wrong with allowing unrestricted Free Archetype. It isn't going to cause pretty much any problems. The published APs don't need adjustments for it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe that Free Archetype adds a noticeable amount of actual power. It can add flexibility, and flexibility can be useful or powerful.
I think the mistake many people make is in comparing a Free Archetype build with a build that uses no archetypes at all. That is not the comparison that is needed. The comparison should be between a Free Archetype build and a build using the standard archetype rules. Most of the combinations that add notable power to a build can be done without Free Archetype feat slots. You just have to give up a bunch of secondary things for the loss of those slots.
For example:
A character that gets free archetype, chooses Acrobat, and picks up Dodge Away reaction is getting a huge power boost as they get a reaction to increase their AC and move for free, as well as progression a skill that has some generally pretty awesome feats in it.With Free Archetype, that build comes available at level 6 - the level of Dodge Away.
Without Free Archetype, that same combination is still available at level 6. You can absolutely have both Acrobat dedication and Dodge Away at that level under the standard archetyping rules. So be sure that in talking about a 'power boost' of Free Archetype, you aren't just talking about the power of the archetypes themselves.
The difference of course is that in one of these cases, the PC is giving up 2 class feats to do it, which for some classes is a pretty big trade (less so for others).
In FA, you're not making that trade. This is by definition giving power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference of course is that in one of these cases, the PC is giving up 2 class feats to do it, which for some classes is a pretty big trade (less so for others).
In FA, you're not making that trade. This is by definition giving power.
That's what I am calling giving flexibility and options. Not power.
Yes, with Free Archetype you are getting more abilities. But none of the abilities that you can get are more powerful than normal.
You get more options of what to spend your actions on. You don't get more powerful actions to use.
And yes, as I said initially, the flexibility is useful and can be considered power as well. Especially in PF2 where combats often feel more like a puzzle to be solved. It is power of a different form though.
The difference of course is that in one of these cases, the PC is giving up 2 class feats to do it, which for some classes is a pretty big trade (less so for others).
In FA, you're not making that trade. This is by definition giving power.
That depends on the definition of "power."
I agree with Dragonchess Player, who said:
Free archetype doesn't provide a huge boost in a character's power. What it normally does is add to a character's breadth of options ...
When power means the ability to deal damage or make progress in a single style of combat, then an extra level-appropriate archetype feat could add only little power, around 2% to 4% stronger. (The difference between levels is 41%, so no need to adjust encounters for such as small increase.) On the other hand, when power means the ability to switch to a new style of combat that is much better against a particular foe, then an extra level-appropriate archetype feat can add valuable options that lead to victory.
Consider Jinx Fuun in my Strength of Thousands campaign. Jinx's class feats (in addition to her Bardic Lore from Enigma Muse) are Reach Spell and Triple Time. Her free archetype feats are Druid Dedication and Basic Wildling for Animal Companion. A bard's standard powerful combat style is to cast a one-action composition and a two-action occult spell. That leaves no actions to command the animal companion to add the power of the animal to the combat style. Instead, it opens up two other styles in which Jinx could cast a two-action occult spell and command her companion, or cast a bard composition, command her companion, and have a third action available for something else, such as Stride or Strike.
My wife knows the tactical power of versatility. She chose a bird companion rather than a strong melee animal, because flight on the companion allows more unusual missions for the companion. On the other hand, she also chose a bird companion because Jinx Fuun has the Sponsored by Teacher Ot background that led to a backstory that Jinx and Ot are both birdwatchers.
An easier example is that Druid Multiclass Dedication provides two prepared primal cantrips per day. But Jinx already had five spontaneous occult cantrips per day, so she could cover a lot of the uses for cantrips already. Being able to add Gale Blast and Tangle Vine to Bullhorn, Guidance, Needle Darts, Prestidigitation, and Telekinetic Projectile barely boosts combat power because Jinx can cast only one cantrip per turn (besides the one-action Guidance).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference of course is that in one of these cases, the PC is giving up 2 class feats to do it, which for some classes is a pretty big trade (less so for others).
In FA, you're not making that trade. This is by definition giving power.
That's what I am calling giving flexibility and options. Not power.
Yes, with Free Archetype you are getting more abilities. But none of the abilities that you can get are more powerful than normal.
You get more options of what to spend your actions on. You don't get more powerful actions to use.
And yes, as I said initially, the flexibility is useful and can be considered power as well. Especially in PF2 where combats often feel more like a puzzle to be solved. It is power of a different form though.
Flexibility is power. You're having to make fewer tradeoffs by having to use a worse option, because you have more good options for any situation. Especially if you wind up with a solution for a problem that you wouldn't have had at all before. That's literally power in a game.
And of course, it's ignoring all the options that people use FA for that literally add raw power. Like Medic, where you do more healing, more often, in fewer actions. None of that is "flexibility".
Rogue giving you a pile of skill boosts is not flexibility, its literally "bigger numbers on skill checks".
Having reactions like Retributive Strike or Amp Guidance are straight up powerful options. Picking up spells on a class that wouldn't have them is power (those spells are presumably being used for something). A normal character has to make trade offs on other things to go pick one (or two) of those up, while a FA character can simply go stack it on top of whatever they're doing with their class feats.
I don't know what prompts people to try to make this kind of distinction with FA. It's like there is just this assumption that any option that adds power is bad and thus we have to pretend it's not doing that. That's just misleading.
There's nothing wrong with FA. GMs should just have a truthful picture of how it actually impacts the game before deciding to use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference of course is that in one of these cases, the PC is giving up 2 class feats to do it, which for some classes is a pretty big trade (less so for others).
In FA, you're not making that trade. This is by definition giving power.
That depends on the definition of "power."
I agree with Dragonchess Player, who said:
Free archetype doesn't provide a huge boost in a character's power. What it normally does is add to a character's breadth of options ...When power means the ability to deal damage or make progress in a single style of combat, then an extra level-appropriate archetype feat could add only little power, around 2% to 4% stronger. (The difference between levels is 41%, so no need to adjust encounters for such as small increase.) On the other hand, when power means the ability to switch to a new style of combat that is much better against a particular foe, then an extra level-appropriate archetype feat can add valuable options that lead to victory.
You're having to ignore a lot of things to make this definition work, including any case where you an option you now have that you didn't have before is better, because as soon as that happens you've gained a more powerful solution for a problem.
Trying to redefine "power" to exclude every case that isn't "my attack roll numbers are bigger" is not being honest about how FA impacts the game, especially in a campaign like SoT where non-combat encounters are far more common than other APs (and even in combat the goal is often to not kill anyone). Alternative options and skill boosts in that campaign are hugely impactful.
This is a lot of dancing around semantics and trying to redefine terms just to avoid saying "yeah it makes stronger characters, but that's perfectly fine."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not Free Archetype gives power or not (it does) is academic. It's whether it's enough to make the GM have to account for it by balancing things differently (they don't).
The juice (extra player options and customization) is often very much worth the squeeze (chargen complexity).
Whether or not Free Archetype gives power or not (it does) is academic. It's whether it's enough to make the GM have to account for it by balancing things differently (they don't).
The juice (extra player options and customization) is often very much worth the squeeze (chargen complexity).
I disagree that Free Archetype doesn't give power. Even if it doesn't do things like improve existing capabilities, versatility is still a form of power. The only thing that might be questionable is its relevance, but the odds of players picking irrelevant archetypes are pretty slim.
While it is true that it is often worthwhile to play a Free Archetype game, since the important thing is that Free Archetype (for the most part) doesn't break the game's math, to suggest that it doesn't change the power dynamic of the group is absurd, since you can have multiple party healers, multiple "tanks", multiple damage-dealers, etc. or even just have more/better tools to further encapsulate the role(s) your character is already performing.
You're having to ignore a lot of things to make this definition work, including any case where you an option you now have that you didn't have before is better, because as soon as that happens you've gained a more powerful solution for a problem.
Trying to redefine "power" to exclude every case that isn't "my attack roll numbers are bigger" is not being honest about how FA impacts the game, especially in a campaign like SoT where non-combat encounters are far more common than other APs (and even in combat the goal is often to not kill anyone). Alternative options and skill boosts in that campaign are hugely impactful.
Power as bigger attack rolls is the definition I had to understand in 2019 and 2020 when people moved from Pathfinder 1st Edition to Pathfinder 2nd Edition. I read several thread about Moderate-Threat combat encounters being too tough and their characters being too weak. A recent example of such a thread is My Monk Player is Disappointed with Grapple, in which a player is disappointed that a single tactic cannot be made all-powerful in PF2.
My own players love winning through flexibility. They analyze enemy tactics and adjust their own tactics on the fly to nullify the enemy tactics. Given that creatures are built with only two to four viable tactics, the creatures cannot adjust their tactics with the same flexibility, so they lose.
But my players don't need extra flexibility from a free archetype to win that way. They did it in campaigns without free archetypes. Characters without free archetypes already have the winning power of flexibility.
This is a lot of dancing around semantics and trying to redefine terms just to avoid saying "yeah it makes stronger characters, but that's perfectly fine."
To my players the challenge of combat is not the same as the probability of losing. No, their challenge is how much they have to use teamwork and tactics to win. So opening up another tactic via a free archetype feat does not reduce the challenge to them.
Furthermore, the players in my Strength of Thousands campaign want to roleplay their characters as students whose background makes them better at adventures than the other students rather than as professional adventurers studying at the Magaambya Academy to become more powerful. The free archetypes tied to the two primary subjects--arcane magic and primal magic--represent their majors in the school. As I explained, half the reason my wife multiclassed Jinx Fuun to druid with animal companion is because Jinx loves birds and this multiclass option gave her a bird companion. The wizard Idris deeply embraces studying, so he took the Magaambya Attendant free archetype for stronger ties to the Magaambya Academy. The kineticist Cara'sseth was partially trained in elemental magic by a traveling wizard passing through her home village, developed her magic into the elemental gate of a kineticist rather than into arcane spells, but now can properly study wizard's magic at the Magaambya Academy. The magus Zandre does want to become more powerful. After a dragon attacked her home village, Zandre went to the Magaambya to study how to defeat dragons. Her Dragon Disciple free archetype reflects a plan to use draconic abilities against dragons.
And when thrown into combat (for a non-spoiler example, see River into Darkness Revisited) they used the abilities of their class rather than the abilities of the archetypes.
... especially in a campaign like SoT where non-combat encounters are far more common than other APs (and even in combat the goal is often to not kill anyone).
Those non-combat encounters were solved with skill checks, and the free archetype seldom grants extra skill feats. As for the no-kill battles, the spellcasters decided to pick up simple nonlethal weapons rather than cast their lethal spells. Their extra spells from their free archetypes did not help. Later they did use their lethal spells and cast Soothe on their downed enemies to keep them alive. And Soothe was from Jinx's bard class not her druid archetype. She does not yet have 1st-level druidic spells for Heal.
This might change in later modules, but we have just started the 2nd module, Spoken on the Song Wind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power as bigger attack rolls is the definition I had to understand in 2019 and 2020 when people moved from Pathfinder 1st Edition to Pathfinder 2nd Edition. I read several thread about Moderate-Threat combat encounters being too tough and their characters being too weak. A recent example of such a thread is My Monk Player is Disappointed with Grapple, in which a player is disappointed that a single tactic cannot be made all-powerful in PF2.
Bigger number is one form of power. Another is flexiblity: having a tool for the job. FA characters are generally better at this than non-FA characters because they get a bigger toolbox. You're obviously better at solving a problem if you have the best tool available than if you have to use a worse one, or don't have anything you can use at all.
That's also power, since those are still challenges to be overcome in the campaign just like combat is.
My own players love winning through flexibility. They analyze enemy tactics and adjust their own tactics on the fly to nullify the enemy tactics. Given that creatures are built with only two to four viable tactics, the creatures cannot adjust their tactics with the same flexibility, so they lose.
But my players don't need extra flexibility from a free archetype to win that way. They did it in campaigns without free archetypes. Characters without free archetypes already have the winning power of flexibility.
It's always been doable without FA. FA just makes it easier since you get more stuff to work with.
Those non-combat encounters were solved with skill checks, and the free archetype seldom grants extra skill feats. As for the no-kill battles, the spellcasters decided to pick up simple nonlethal weapons rather than cast their lethal spells. Their extra spells from their free archetypes did not help. Later they did use their lethal spells and cast Soothe on their downed enemies to keep them alive. And Soothe was from Jinx's bard class not her druid archetype. She does not yet have 1st-level druidic spells for Heal.
This might change in later modules, but we have just started the 2nd module, Spoken on the Song Wind.
Many archetypes give more trained skills (obviously relevant to skill challenges), and several give skill boosts (very relevant to skill challenges). Rogue and Investigator in particular give "gain 2 skill boosts and a skill feat", which is hugely powerful in a campaign like SoT because having more skills at Master will make a huge difference when those skill challenges come up. You're just flat out better at it than you would be otherwise.
And all of that is fine. I'm GMing SoT right now and I gave my players FA. It hasn't been a problem. But it absolutely did make them stronger. (Not enough to make the rituals doable, though.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to try explaining this one more time.
Because I think this is just a terminology difference, not even a difference of opinion.
Power is how high you can get a number.
Flexibility is how many high numbers you can get.
So a standard character will have some A-tier powerful numbers, a few more B-tier numbers, and some C-tier or lower numbers.
A Free Archetype character will have more A-tier numbers. But they still won't have any S-tier or SS-tier numbers.
So by my terminology, Free Archetype is adding flexibility - more A-tier numbers. It is not adding power - S-tier or SS-tier numbers.
And I think you can even agree with that.
I'm GMing SoT right now and I gave my players FA. It hasn't been a problem. But it absolutely did make them stronger. (Not enough to make the rituals doable, though.)
They would need more power (higher numbers) in order to succeed at Rituals. The Flexibility of Free Archetype doesn't give that.
-----
Another meaning of Power would be abilities that have a larger effect or impact. For example, Whirlwind Strike is a more powerful effect than Swipe.
Free Archetype doesn't add more power in this way either. Because any combination of abilities that you can find and piece together using archetypes is generally available without the extra feats from Free Archetype.
And Free Archetype doesn't give more actions in a round. A Fighter with a spellcasting archetype still has to choose whether to spend their actions on spellcasting or on weapon attacks. They don't get to do both at the same time by having an additional pool of Archetype actions to use during their turn.
-----
Yes, it can also be called Power to increase those B-tier or C-tier abilities up to A-tier.
The reason that I am trying to make that distinction is because this meaning of Power isn't something that the GM or AP writers really need to adjust for. It isn't causing characters to be able to do things that exceed expectations of the adventure preparations.
-----
So what I find misleading to me is to say that Free Archetype 'adds power to the characters' if it doesn't mean changing A-tier numbers and abilities up to S-tier.
Increasing C-tier abilities up to A-tier is not going to break anything and doesn't exceed the power cap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to run without it. The games balance doesn't hold up well with it in the long run, and breaks down in the worst way where party members have disparate power levels and quickly encroach on each other.
If the group is roughly the same level of system mastery and has the same level of mechanical focus... it can be okay (although some classes just benefit more than others)
Ultimately I and my group ended up enjoying giving/getting free feats/dedications as a response to events occuring in the game vs a restricted free archetype. And a more enjoyable mid and late level experience because the best gamers of the group didn't relegate the others to supporting character roles or invalidate their fields as often.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to try explaining this one more time.
Because I think this is just a terminology difference, not even a difference of opinion.
Power is how high you can get a number.
Flexibility is how many high numbers you can get.
So a standard character will have some A-tier powerful numbers, a few more B-tier numbers, and some C-tier or lower numbers.
A Free Archetype character will have more A-tier numbers. But they still won't have any S-tier or SS-tier numbers.
So by my terminology, Free Archetype is adding flexibility - more A-tier numbers. It is not adding power - S-tier or SS-tier numbers.
And I think you can even agree with that.
My agreement would be rooted in complacency, because there are archetypes that exist which can indeed increase the tiers of their character/class rankings. Does it require serious system mastery to achieve? Probably. Does that mean we can disregard them because they aren't really commonly shown in play? Again, not really, since we are posing a question of what the system can permit, and not what is typically chosen as players, and let me tell you, most players will not make characters that will absolutely body the system because the amount of players that are power-gamers or min-maxers are many times less than those who are casual or RP-gamers.
I will disagree that an archetype cannot grant S-tier capabilities, especially in regards to certain roles. There are numerous examples of these tier-increasing archetypes. One is Medic dedication, and in actual play, on a Forensic Medicine Investigator; this amplifies their non-magical healing capacity from A-tier to S-tier by nature of improving its Battle Medicine healing, as well as increasing its frequency in-combat as well as throughout the adventuring day. Without it, the in-combat healing would be A-tier at the most, or more accurately, B-tier compared to Chirurgeon Alchemist (who could probably reach SS-tier with it). Another is Psychic dedication on a Magus with the likes of Imaginary Weaponry, boosting their burst capacity to SS-tier (ranged or melee, it matters not), and as of recently, the Exemplar dedication on any given martial (and even Alchemist with Horn of Plenty, but thankfully that is rarity locked). There are more if you dig deep enough in the forums or in the system, but these are the ones that instantly come to mind.
If I were to rank two different characters/classes, with the only difference being that one has more overall higher rankings than the other, I would still rank one over the other. Ergo, even without the claim of archetypes bumping character roles to S-tier, your argument of "adding more A-tiers to a class doesn't make it stronger" is debunked by proxy of the ranking system previously implemented. Again, at best you would say that it doesn't add more game-breaking power to the class. However, power, whether it breaks the game or not, is still power. A character starting with a free healing potion at the start of the game isn't overpowered, but it's definitely more powerful than that same character that isn't starting with a free healing potion.
I prefer to run without it. The games balance doesn't hold up well with it in the long run, and breaks down in the worst way where party members have disparate power levels and quickly encroach on each other.
If the group is roughly the same level of system mastery and has the same level of mechanical focus... it can be okay (although some classes just benefit more than others)
Ultimately I and my group ended up enjoying giving/getting free feats/dedications as a response to events occuring in the game vs a restricted free archetype. And a more enjoyable mid and late level experience because the best gamers of the group didn't relegate the others to supporting character roles or invalidate their fields as often.
I do agree that several classes benefit more than others. It also depends on what archetype you pick; some archetypes don't even give you any class feats to pick from until like 6th level (Sentinel, I'm looking at you), so some of them have trap options. Also, some classes are absolutely unable to archetype out of their class without completely hindering their own capacities (Summoner and Sorcerer come to mind), other classes either can already basically go into mostly archetype feats because their class feats are mostly trash (low level Barbarians, low level Champions, as well as Druids).
Incidentally, I did this (rewarded class/archetype feats to the players) recently, since the reward at the end of the AP chapter we just did hardly gave a valuable reward to the party, nor was the reward relevant to the adventure (Ritual spells are worse than consumables).
If your players are feeling choice paralysis for an unlimited free archetype game, you either want to limit the free archetypes or just talk to them about what they want their characters to be able to do and suggest some fun archetypes that work with that sort of thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One is Medic dedication, and in actual play, on a Forensic Medicine Investigator; this amplifies their non-magical healing capacity from A-tier to S-tier by nature of improving its Battle Medicine healing, as well as increasing its frequency in-combat as well as throughout the adventuring day.Without it, the in-combat healing would be A-tier at the most, or more accurately, B-tier compared to Chirurgeon Alchemist (who could probably reach SS-tier with it).
That is still available without Free Archetype. Like I said way back here, "I think the mistake many people make is in comparing a Free Archetype build with a build that uses no archetypes at all. That is not the comparison that is needed. The comparison should be between a Free Archetype build and a build using the standard archetype rules."
That may be an S-tier ability. But it is an S-tier ability that is available with the default rules. Free Archetype didn't add it.
All Free Archetype is adding to the build is giving back the Class feat slots so that they can used for other things instead of having to spend those Class feat slots on the Medic archetype feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One is Medic dedication, and in actual play, on a Forensic Medicine Investigator; this amplifies their non-magical healing capacity from A-tier to S-tier by nature of improving its Battle Medicine healing, as well as increasing its frequency in-combat as well as throughout the adventuring day.Without it, the in-combat healing would be A-tier at the most, or more accurately, B-tier compared to Chirurgeon Alchemist (who could probably reach SS-tier with it).That is still available without Free Archetype. Like I said way back here, "I think the mistake many people make is in comparing a Free Archetype build with a build that uses no archetypes at all. That is not the comparison that is needed. The comparison should be between a Free Archetype build and a build using the standard archetype rules."
That may be an S-tier ability. But it is an S-tier ability that is available with the default rules. Free Archetype didn't add it.
All Free Archetype is adding to the build is giving back the Class feat slots so that they can used for other things instead of having to spend those Class feat slots on the Medic archetype feats.
Free Archetype doesn't add tiers, but it makes otherwise available tiers far easier to access by not having to compete with class feats. If I had a class feat that boosts one role to A-tier, but an archetype that boosts another role to S-tier, Free Archetype eliminates having to make that choice. So now, instead of being simply S-tier in one role, versus A-tier in another role, I am both. No compromise. Compared to a character that had to make that choice, they are inferior to them when that addition is added.
Another way to look at it is that it practically doubles your available feats, and if you were going to make a build that was going to archetype anyway, well now you can archetype even more than before, and if you weren't before, then you aren't out anything if it's implemented. To suggest that's not a power boost, regardless of whether you were going to multiclass with the character or not, is absurd.
One is Medic dedication, and in actual play, on a Forensic Medicine Investigator; this amplifies their non-magical healing capacity from A-tier to S-tier by nature of improving its Battle Medicine healing, as well as increasing its frequency in-combat as well as throughout the adventuring day.Without it, the in-combat healing would be A-tier at the most, or more accurately, B-tier compared to Chirurgeon Alchemist (who could probably reach SS-tier with it).That is still available without Free Archetype. Like I said way back here, "I think the mistake many people make is in comparing a Free Archetype build with a build that uses no archetypes at all. That is not the comparison that is needed. The comparison should be between a Free Archetype build and a build using the standard archetype rules."
That may be an S-tier ability. But it is an S-tier ability that is available with the default rules. Free Archetype didn't add it.
All Free Archetype is adding to the build is giving back the Class feat slots so that they can used for other things instead of having to spend those Class feat slots on the Medic archetype feats.
It actually allows for way more than that, especially if the archetype let's you double up on things you want without sacrifice.
It doesn't necessarily improve the individual feat strength, but it let's people who want say reactive strike to get it as well as their level 5 feat option. Or people to pick up rogue archetype so they can boost more skills to legendary by spending both their class and free archetype feats.
Or how classes without spellcasting will almost always want free archetype to get a spellcasting dedication (ideally with a familiar) so they can get independent and cast from scrolls and wands freely, which opens up overall action economy for the party.
Heck even the simple endurance spellcaster where you burn feats to get multiple dedications going at once and overcome the 2 archetype feat restrictions quickly.
Options matter, flexibility matters a lot. But if you and your group don't optimise that way it is fine... just that s tier options don't exist in a vacuum and both options at once is generally better than just one.
A shifting druid with wildshape and a dedication to grab reactive strike is a good move, but the extra feat costs do impact progression in forms which is a problem if you don't have free archetype. Heck you can use a different archetype to start with so you can ditch dex early on, focus on strength, con and wisdom and then grab your reactive strike a little later while maintaining full progression and freeing up a general feat or two for things like toughness rather than armour training.
Is this the best option? No, it is a wildshape druid, just an easy example off the top of my head of how quickly internal limitations can be circumvented so a player who thinks about it can get a best of all worlds scenario.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference of course is that in one of these cases, the PC is giving up 2 class feats to do it, which for some classes is a pretty big trade (less so for others).
In FA, you're not making that trade. This is by definition giving power.
That's what I am calling giving flexibility and options. Not power.
Yes, with Free Archetype you are getting more abilities. But none of the abilities that you can get are more powerful than normal.
You get more options of what to spend your actions on. You don't get more powerful actions to use.
And yes, as I said initially, the flexibility is useful and can be considered power as well. Especially in PF2 where combats often feel more like a puzzle to be solved. It is power of a different form though.
In PF2, flexibility is power. Especially when that additional flexibility comes at no price (compared to standard archetype/multiclassing).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use unrestricted FA in all of my games. It is fine. Some experienced players struggle while others are fine. Some new players struggle while others are fine.
Ultimately: Just talk to the humans at your table and help them if they're struggling. This is going to be true for FA and any other point of confusion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'll use FA in the future, but for now we are just starting our first 2E campaign and our mechanics averse player is already struggling with the panache mechanic of the Swashbuckler. After everyone has learned the system in one or two campaigns, I'll ask around if people are interested.
I suspect that it would lead to a power differential in the party, though, since we got all kinds of players represented, from the OCD number cruncher to the guy who just wants to play with his friends and doesn't care much about numbers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that it would lead to a power differential in the party, though, since we got all kinds of players represented, from the OCD number cruncher to the guy who just wants to play with his friends and doesn't care much about numbers.
One of my players forgot they had a Free Archetype for several levels. Another tried to get the most juice out of it possible. No one noticed more of a difference in effectiveness than usual, because the "non-optimizer" was effective at the things their character cared about and the optimizer was already known for finding ways to solve problems, and having more flexibility than usual wasn't overly noticeable.
It's really not that big of a deal, one way or the other.
I would say if you are having plenty of fun without it, and no one is feeling constrained, don't bother picking up FA.
FA is great for people like me who feel that character customization is overly bottlenecked by class feat slots.
I didn't want to use Free Archetype (or any other optional rules) for my first PF2e campaign, but the potential fourth player backed out and I thought FA was a good way to compensate in part.
Because I think this is just a terminology difference, not even a difference of opinion.
Yes, it pretty much is a difference in definition of "power" vs "flexibility". There's generally pretty broad agreement in terms of how FA impacts a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'll use FA in the future, but for now we are just starting our first 2E campaign and our mechanics averse player is already struggling with the panache mechanic of the Swashbuckler. After everyone has learned the system in one or two campaigns, I'll ask around if people are interested.
I suspect that it would lead to a power differential in the party, though, since we got all kinds of players represented, from the OCD number cruncher to the guy who just wants to play with his friends and doesn't care much about numbers.
Im doing the same. This year has been my first time running a game with P2E rules. In my case my players were new to ttrpgs entirely.
I think if i introduce the free archtype rule it would be after this campaign and probably in a limited way like if everyone is a set number of specific archtypes that fit a campaign theme.